AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Great Lakes and Ohio Valley => Topic started by: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM

Title: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM
A few notes from a daytrip around the state on Monday (2012-05-28):

-Weather was warm and humid and, much to my chagrin, I found out that my car's air conditioner had lost its cool.

:-o

I survived with the sunroof open and so forth and the car goes in for service in a couple of days.

-Nothing really new of note in the US 41 Construction Geek Zoneā„¢ in the Oshkosh area.

-Dodge County 'A' running southward from US 151 by the Walmart* distribution center on the northeast edge of Beaver Dam ('Beaver Darn'?) was massively rebuilt and concrete paved over the past couple of years and looks nicer than similarly-rebuilt state highways - it is a FANTASTIC road!  The southernmost part of County 'A' near WI 26 southwest of Juneau is closed for upgrades right now.  The WI 33/County 'A' intersection just east of Beaver Dam was not rebuilt and since its traffic control is a four-way STOP, I'm sensing that WisDOT may be wanting to redo that intersection as a roundabout.  Even though County 'A' is a great alternative to existing WI 26 between WI 16/60 and US 151 and could well be a worthy new routing for it, IMHO it is not in the ideal location to be a permanent WI 26, which should ultimately feed into US 151 on Beaver Dam's southeast corner.

-The southernmost part of the WI 26 Watertown bypass freeway is complete and open northwards to the first interchange for the city.  Local roads and streets in the area are now being reconfigured for the new bypass and the remainder of this bypass appears to be on-track for opening sometime this fall.  Roundabouts are present in abundance, too, at Watertown.

-The WI 26 bridge over the railroad immediately south of Johnson Creek is complete and open.  Its north end almost looks to align in a way that would have it seamlessly feeding into a potential eastside Johnson Creek bypass.

-The WI 26 Fort Atkinson bypass four lane upgrade (from a 'Super Two') is complete and looks very nice.

-Grading/earthworks for the WI 26 Milton, WI bypass is well under way and several bridges are in various stages of construction.  The north end of this bypass will feed into existing WI 26 at County 'NN' (a WI 26 'old road') and some signs of the wider ROW are visible along WI 26 from there to the Fort Atkinson bypass section.

-The Ice Age National Scenic Trail http://www.iceagetrail.org is marked on sidewalks along existing WI 26 in Milton.

-At least one interchange and additional crossroad overcrossing are under construction on the section of WI 26 from the Milton bypass into the City of Janesville.  The condition of the land and buildings, including an aging motel, on the east side of WI 26 running northwards from I-39/90 in Janesville almost makes me think that WisDOT may have plans for that area.

-It seems like nearly half of the interchanges along WI 26 from Watertown to I-39/90 are for 'BUSINESS WI 26'.  There are WI 26 business routes in Fort Atkinson, Jefferson and Watertown.

-Once four lanes on WI 26 are completed, it will make a great road for someone to videotape.

-Washington St (US 151) is being repaved from I-39/90/94 to Portage Rd in Madison.  Ditto University Ave from the Hill Farms area to the Madison city limits.

-When did all of the gas stations in the Madison area start requiring their cash customers to pay for their fuel before they pump it?  That's the only place in the state that I know of where that is generally the case.

-That new 345 KV power line that is under construction along the Madison Beltline is very impressive!

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 30, 2012, 10:03:57 AM
The WI-26 bridges just south of Johnson Creek fully opened for the first time just last Friday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 30, 2012, 01:13:54 PM
County A in Dodge Co is probably my fav back road way to get to my grandmother's house in Princeton from Chicago. I agree it should be a 3di state highway due to the traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 30, 2012, 03:31:37 PM
WI-26 and County A in Dodge Co. could easily be flip-flopped, and WI-49 brought south over the old WI-26 routing. It would make for a lot less new 4-lane highway when it's extended to US-151.

I was up that way on WI-26 a week ago. Still annoyed that the freeway stretches don't merit a 65mph speed limit yet - it's a bona-fide speed trap the entire way. I can understand 55mph coming into and heading north of Johnson Creek, at least until the Watertown bypass is completed. But there's no reason other than revenue enhancement for 55mph on a rural freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on May 30, 2012, 06:03:13 PM
is there anything buzzing around the WISDOT about extending a 4lane WI 26 all the way to any point along US 151? i would think they would at least have something in their plans and projects, but i havent been able to find anything. also im wondering if they have any plans for widening US41 along the north side of the Fox Valley to Green bay. does anyone have anything on either of these?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 30, 2012, 06:03:13 PM
is there anything buzzing around the WISDOT about extending a 4lane WI 26 all the way to any point along US 151? i would think they would at least have something in their plans and projects, but i havent been able to find anything. also im wondering if they have any plans for widening US41 along the north side of the Fox Valley to Green bay. does anyone have anything on either of these?

I recall hearing some chatter within the past year or so about WisDOT being in the earliest stages of starting to study WI 26 north of WI 60, the planned north end of the current four lane upgrade projects.  It's not like they're not aware of the situation on that part of WI 26, I've been prodding them on it :poke: since at least the early 1990s.

One thought about WI 26 between US 151 and I-39/90 that I had while driving it Monday that I have not had before is that it is starting to have a 'feel' to me that is a lot like US 10 between Appleton and Stevens Point.

Also, it is my expectation that WisDOT will begin studying the remaining four-lane section of US 41 (I-xx) between WI 15 at Appleton and Scheuring Rd in De Pere once the current six-lane upgrade projects are complete.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 31, 2012, 05:02:34 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM

-When did all of the gas stations in the Madison area start requiring their cash customers to pay for their fuel before they pump it?  That's the only place in the state that I know of where that is generally the case.

That's par for the course in Milwaukee.  I swipe the debit card at the pump and avoid that hassle.  I guess they had a spike in drive-offs in Mad Town or something.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on June 01, 2012, 10:48:11 AM
I did a trip on Tuesday to the Wausau / Stevens Point / Wis. Rapids area on Wednesday.  This is one of my favorite routes - and if I had more time, I would have gone out to Eau Claire.  A few things of note with construction:

-I-39 / 51 - resurfacing job around Stevens Point looks to be near completion

-Hwy 29 interchange - Wausau / Chippewa Falls - those in the Green Bay area can look to that interchange to see how 29-41 will be set up over the next few years. 

-In Green Bay - the 41-Mason St construction appears ahead of schedule
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on June 01, 2012, 10:49:13 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 31, 2012, 05:02:34 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM

-When did all of the gas stations in the Madison area start requiring their cash customers to pay for their fuel before they pump it?  That's the only place in the state that I know of where that is generally the case.

That's par for the course in Milwaukee.  I swipe the debit card at the pump and avoid that hassle.  I guess they had a spike in drive-offs in Mad Town or something.

Everywhere in Texas is prepay.  Hated working at the gas station in Minnesota & having to deal with driveoffs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 01, 2012, 11:31:27 AM
I always find it unusual if a gas pump is not prepay.  Most of the time, I pay with a credit card outside at the pump, but if there is no card reader, I walk in and am always surprised if they tell me to go ahead and pump and come back and pay.  I always expect them to take and run my card indoors first, before turning the pump on.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2012, 09:08:03 PM
I drove WI 26 from I-94 to US 18 last weekend and I'd agree the 55 MPH is a little frustrating.  If WisDOT hasn't posted it 65 with both Ft. Atkinson and Jefferson done, they're probably not going to until it's complete to Janesville if at all.  It's nice that WisDOT will have a better alternative for the next time the Rock River floods out I-94.

It's kind of fun driving a new highway with a GPS:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FWI%252026%2FIMG_1864.jpg%3Ft%3D1339202976&hash=883c4c8a89a3148cd2ff4f1bf6f2c53c665e324b)

Johnson Creek is going to become a tempting speed trap for the next couple decades.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 09, 2012, 02:27:05 PM
I was always a bit astounded at how low the Rock River bridges on I-94 are. The ones over the Rock on I-39/90 are at least 40 feet above the river.

The lack of height over the isthmus between Upper and Lower Nemahbin Lakes near Delafield surprised me too; somehow, i don't that one's as subject to flooding as the Rock River near Johnson Creek.

WI-26, once completed, will pull a lot of traffic away from using I-39/90 to US-151 (or I-43 to US-45 to US-41), moreso if it doesn't become known as a 60-mile long speed trap.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 09, 2012, 07:01:32 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 09, 2012, 02:27:05 PM
I was always a bit astounded at how low the Rock River bridges on I-94 are. The ones over the Rock on I-39/90 are at least 40 feet above the river.

IIRC, one of the two bridges was part of the original highway (Wis 30?).  When I-94 came through, they tacked on the bridge next to it.  I assume since that area doesn't see flooding on a regular basis, they decided to install the new bridge at roughly the same elevation to save a lot of earthwork/$$, (not to mention keep it from looking funny with bridges at two different heights).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on June 09, 2012, 09:30:21 PM
^^
The eastbound bridge is a few feet higher than the westbound bridge over both the Rock River and the Crawfish River. That is one reason why during the flooding of 2008, they had to close the westbound side and have bidirectional traffic in the eastbound lanes for those few miles over the bridges. This was done after deciding that this was a preferable alternative to the detour, which was to take I-39/90 to Beloit, then I-43 to Milwaukee, and vice versa to westbound. There was really no other way around the flooded Rock River, as all the other crossings along the river were pretty much flooded out as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 09, 2012, 11:29:02 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 09, 2012, 09:30:21 PM
^^
The eastbound bridge is a few feet higher than the westbound bridge over both the Rock River and the Crawfish River. That is one reason why during the flooding of 2008, they had to close the westbound side and have bidirectional traffic in the eastbound lanes for those few miles over the bridges. This was done after deciding that this was a preferable alternative to the detour, which was to take I-39/90 to Beloit, then I-43 to Milwaukee, and vice versa to westbound. There was really no other way around the flooded Rock River, as all the other crossings along the river were pretty much flooded out as well.

I remember that flooding quite well.  I remember it being a PITA to get from Madison to anywhere north or east in the state, as there were spotty closures along US 151 as well as other state routes east of Madison.  I remember the loaded highway trucks that they parked on the WB bridge to weigh it down any hopefully prevent the river current from washing it into the EB bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 18, 2012, 10:53:39 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM- Washington St East Washington Ave (US 151) is being repaved from I-39/90/94 to Portage Rd in Madison. 
fixed it for ya

A few cell phone pics from a quick road geek trip around Madtown:

The new US 14/ Lacy Rd interchange is finally taking shape after the original contractor went out of business:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Ff7a815e9.jpg&hash=bbae2d020531ac474c3a7da56232a86900bbe18d)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Ff268d072.jpg&hash=43c84b268eb7323cdd89cf029150855d7ce246b7)

The MUCH needed University Ave rebuild is well underway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F521336a0.jpg&hash=849957b04a6df65f3d84941a12c5cfea1ffff16e)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F629668bd.jpg&hash=670cbb2ac1cdb5877b907b6fc15f1457fae3b791)

Finally, these have been popping up like weeds around Downtown in the last few weeks:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fa9dcd18c.jpg&hash=1a75d84f8cc96563085073308ca3e784a4ecfabc)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: twinsfan87 on June 18, 2012, 10:56:52 PM
Oh man, it's really good that section of University Ave is being redone. I remember driving over that section from Old Middleton Rd to west of Whitney Way and wondering if my car would make it through in one piece!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 19, 2012, 09:31:24 AM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 18, 2012, 10:53:39 PM
The MUCH needed University Ave rebuild is well underway:

There's an understatement. I bet the Midas (or CarX I forget which one is there), probably won't like the downturn in business caused by damage from that road.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 18, 2012, 10:53:39 PM
Finally, these have been popping up like weeds around Downtown in the last few weeks:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fa9dcd18c.jpg&hash=1a75d84f8cc96563085073308ca3e784a4ecfabc)

If I heard correctly, those are part of the mayor's initiative to try to keep more taxis off of State St. The cab companies claim that driving that street is the only way to get the bar-time business, even though the ordinances state they can be on that street only for an active pick-up or drop-off and not the general roaming they have been accustomed to lately.

On a slightly different note--anyone notice how Madison seems to love to create their own symbols and arrows, often when FHWA or WisDOT has already done the work for them? (Not that the taxi is all that bad, nor could I find a pre-existing one in the SHSM book). I've just never quite understood their infatuation with always showing a helmet-wearing person on a bike instead of the standard bike symbol. Similarly, how they still use their own version of the trail crossing sign, even after FHWA created the W11-15.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milepost61 on June 19, 2012, 11:26:42 PM
Denver created its on trail crossing sign, too (back in the '90s I think). It had the person on top and bike on the bottom with a horizontal line all the way across the diamond.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 28, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.

It will have a 65 MPH speed limit compared to the 55 in Jefferson and Fort Atkinson.

Here are some photos I took today of the new bypass as well as a couple other photos.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3273379673206.2124981.1228843089&type=3&l=47da28b1ee
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 08:58:18 PM
Quote from: J-Wags on June 28, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.

It will have a 65 MPH speed limit compared to the 55 in Jefferson and Fort Atkinson.

Here are some photos I took today of the new bypass as well as a couple other photos.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3273379673206.2124981.1228843089&type=3&l=47da28b1ee


That annoys me to no end.  When this is all done, it should be 65 mph the entire stretch except for around Johnson Creek.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on June 28, 2012, 09:55:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 08:58:18 PM
Quote from: J-Wags on June 28, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.

It will have a 65 MPH speed limit compared to the 55 in Jefferson and Fort Atkinson.

Here are some photos I took today of the new bypass as well as a couple other photos.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3273379673206.2124981.1228843089&type=3&l=47da28b1ee


That annoys me to no end.  When this is all done, it should be 65 mph the entire stretch except for around Johnson Creek.
johnson creek should e bypassed too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 28, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 08:58:18 PM
Quote from: J-Wags on June 28, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.

It will have a 65 MPH speed limit compared to the 55 in Jefferson and Fort Atkinson.

Here are some photos I took today of the new bypass as well as a couple other photos.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3273379673206.2124981.1228843089&type=3&l=47da28b1ee


That annoys me to no end.  When this is all done, it should be 65 mph the entire stretch except for around Johnson Creek.

I agree but at what annoys me most is Watertown's other "bypass" is only 45!  That one should be at least 55, it is a super 2 bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 28, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 29, 2012, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: Master son on June 28, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights

I doubt it was because of the traffic lights at least not if WisDOT controls it.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) between the beltline and Cottage Grove Rd in Madison is posted at 55 with two traffic lights. That stretch also has a colorful crash history, yet the double nickel posting remains. My money would be on local politics.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 29, 2012, 12:59:07 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 29, 2012, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: Master son on June 28, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights

I doubt it was because of the traffic lights at least not if WisDOT controls it.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) between the beltline and Cottage Grove Rd in Madison is posted at 55 with two traffic lights. That stretch also has a colorful crash history, yet the double nickel posting remains. My money would be on local politics.

I believe the STH 16 bypass around Watertown is 45 because of the fact that part of it enters the city therefore making it a money maker.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 29, 2012, 11:43:30 AM
I think that the speed limit is that way on WI 16 around Watertown because it is very substandard and in need of modernization - with a reason to wonder why it wasn't built as a full freeway to begin with - and now functions more as a major city street instead of a full-fledged bypass highway.  Parts look like they are still stuck in the 1960s and the city just kind of grew up around it since.

Stoughton Rd, OTOH, is more highly engineered with relatively few intersections and with fairly minimal upgrades could function as a full freeway over much of its length.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2012, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 29, 2012, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: Master son on June 28, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights


I doubt it was because of the traffic lights at least not if WisDOT controls it.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) between the beltline and Cottage Grove Rd in Madison is posted at 55 with two traffic lights. That stretch also has a colorful crash history, yet the double nickel posting remains. My money would be on local politics.
Stoughton Road, with all the traffic and the lights, is posted at 55mph.  The same as the Jefferson and Fort Atkinson bypasses that rarely have enough traffic to even need to pass anyone.  Bizarre.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 30, 2012, 01:07:36 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 29, 2012, 11:43:30 AM
Stoughton Rd, OTOH, is more highly engineered with relatively few intersections and with fairly minimal upgrades could function as a full freeway over much of its length.

Mike

"Highly engineered" is debatable. I would agree for the stretch between Buckeye Rd and the Wis 30 intersection. The Beltline - Buckeye Rd and Wis 30 - Kinsman Blvd segments, however, not so much. A year or two ago, post a couple serious crashes along the Pflaum Rd - Buckeye Rd segment, there were a few articles floating around the capitol city newspapers, begging for something to be changed.

Interestingly, the Stoughton Rd (US 51)/E Washington Ave (US 151) intersection was originally planned as becoming a full-fledged interchange, rather than an at-grade signal. Unfortunately, commercial development occurred first, and effectively squashed any plans for an interchange conversion.

Post Merge: July 01, 2012, 08:53:29 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2012, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 29, 2012, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: Master son on June 28, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights


I doubt it was because of the traffic lights at least not if WisDOT controls it.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) between the beltline and Cottage Grove Rd in Madison is posted at 55 with two traffic lights. That stretch also has a colorful crash history, yet the double nickel posting remains. My money would be on local politics.
Stoughton Road, with all the traffic and the lights, is posted at 55mph.  The same as the Jefferson and Fort Atkinson bypasses that rarely have enough traffic to even need to pass anyone.  Bizarre.

Stoughton Rd is posted at 55 between the Beltline and the Milwaukee St interchange; posted 45 between Milwaukee St and E Washington Ave (US 151); posted 35 between E Washington Ave and Kinsman Blvd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 18, 2012, 01:28:31 PM
I checked out the latest version of the US 10 Marshfield Spur on Monday.  All but the Auburndale section is open, but the parts where it was a temporary two lanes are still one lane while crews were still busy erasing the old lines and applying the new ones.  The part by Marshfield is a full freeway from the roundabout at Center St (US 10 takes a 90 degree turn there) and County 'T' at Hewitt.  (Note, others may dispute me on this and I may not live long enough to see it happen, but I don't think that we've seen the end of this road here.)

The WI 13/Veterans Parkway interchange at the halfway point in that freeway section is numbered, but that caught me off-guard and I was unable to record what its number is.  I don't recall numbers on the other two interchanges on the Marshfield Spur and there are none on any of the other US 10 interchange east of I-39, including here in the Appleton area.

At the south end of the north-south surface section of US 10 south of Marshfield, the new roundabout by the wayside is 1/4 complete, the northwest quadrant is in place with a temporary lane setup for EB US 10 traffic.

Yes, I am still amazed at the pace of work on the Auburndale section and it being completed by mid-late August is well within reason.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 18, 2012, 04:12:37 PM
What I don't get is why do they keep WIS 34 to Rapids even though 13 follows it through.  That is a classic Wisconsin habit - terminate highways along a concurrency.

Oh and that road doesn't end there, it just turns left. :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes- US 12 upgrades (Madison Area)
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 31, 2012, 08:47:58 PM
QuoteDOT Plans To Study Converting US 12/18 To A Freeway

POSTED: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 --- 3:30 p.m.


A busy section of highway that's packed with commuters everyday could be making a major transformation. But for some living along the road, more interstate means more problems. We're talking about US 12/18 from where the Beltline ends at the Interstate 39/90 interchange all the way to Highway N near Cottage Grove. Louis Schowerer doesn't like the sound of what she's hearing. She and her husband have lived along US 12/18 for 38 years. She says, "We're not ready to go to town we want to stay here." They're worried they might lose their home. She says, "There has only been one or two accidents here and I don't think there is that much traffic that we need to redo everything right away."

12/18 is a busy highway and while it's already 4 lanes. The department of transportation is talking about doing more by turning it into an interstate. Changes to the highway would obviously affect anyone who drives it but some of the biggest changes, and at this point biggest concerns, come from those who don't have a lot of room between the highway and their place. John Dott's lives along the highway and has his business there as well." He says, "I just put a bunch of money in that building up there 2 years ago."

Nostalgia Auto Restoration sits right at a 12/18 intersection. Dott says, "I've tried to cling to this corner for 35 years because of the property value and if that's going to affect that drastically I'm not going to be too happy. " The possibility of widening the road, overpasses and frontage roads could mean big changes for these property owners even if it would be a few years down the road. Dott says, "Maybe that's worse. Now I have to worry about it for 8 to 10 years. What am I going to do? Do I want to sell this whole property, get out of the business? I don't know."

Schwoerer says, "If you speak up once in a while it helps, but if they have their mind already made up."

According to a DOT project manager the reasoning here is pretty simple. They're looking at the amount of traffic flow and safety. They expect quite a bit of future growth east of the interstate and want to be prepared with the proper infrastructure when that starts happening. They did recently make one change to the road for safety reasons at the AB intersection, but say that was only a temporary fix. There are still some dangerous intersections and as traffic increases things would only get worse. Tonight's meeting is just the first step and they're only in the study phase.

Any construction would be years down the road.

Tonight DOT staff say they just want to hear from the public about any concerns and suggestions.

_____________________________________________________

From the WisDOT:

A public information meeting will occur on Tuesday, July 31 to discuss the US 12/18 Freeway Conversion Study between I-39/90 and US 12/18 (Beltline interchange) and the County N interchange in Dane County. The meeting is scheduled from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Cottage Grove Town Hall, 4058 County N, Cottage Grove, WI 53527.

This meeting will introduce the study and its goals while obtaining information from area residents. Conversion of US 12/18 to a freeway would eliminate at-grade intersections within study limits and reduce access to interchanges. The study will evaluate additional interchanges, grade-separated overpasses, and frontage roads to connect local roadways without interruption to freeway traffic flow.

No construction activities are planned at this time.

The public is encouraged to attend the meeting, provide input and ask questions regarding this project. Maps of the area will be on display and attendees will be given the opportunity to provide written or verbal comments. WisDOT representatives will be available to discuss the study on an individual basis.

If you are unable to attend the meeting, or would like more information, contact Craig Pringle at (608) 242-8058. Written comments regarding the project can be mailed to Craig Pringle, WisDOT Project Manager, 2101 Wright Street, Madison, WI 53704. Citizens who are hearing-impaired and require an interpreter may request one by contacting Craig Pringle at least three working days prior to the meeting via the Wisconsin Telecommunications Relay System (dial 711).
http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/DOT-Plans-To-Study-Converting-US-1218-To-A-Freeway-164488196.html (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/DOT-Plans-To-Study-Converting-US-1218-To-A-Freeway-164488196.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 01, 2012, 12:27:10 AM
Link to the video from the above story: http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/DOT-Plans-To-Study-Converting-US-1218-To-A-Freeway-164488196.html (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/DOT-Plans-To-Study-Converting-US-1218-To-A-Freeway-164488196.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 01, 2012, 04:58:14 PM
Ah, look at the non-roadgeek interchangeably using the words 'freeway' and 'interstate'.  Silly journalists.

This is just me talking, but if my driveway dumped out onto a rural expressway with 70 mph traffic, I would welcome such access control.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2012, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 01, 2012, 04:58:14 PM


This is just me talking, but if my driveway dumped out onto a rural expressway with 70 mph traffic, I would welcome such access control.

US-290 west of Austin, TX comes to mind.  no access control, a moderate amount of driveways (residential, storefront, and ranch access) - and a speed limit of 70!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2012, 10:05:44 AM
US-12/18 needs to be four lanes between I-39/90 and Cambridge.  The amount of traffic on that highway has increased considerably over the past decade.  At least the entire intersection with WI-73 needs to be redesigned.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 03, 2012, 07:41:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2012, 10:05:44 AM
US-12/18 needs to be four lanes between I-39/90 and Cambridge.  The amount of traffic on that highway has increased considerably over the past decade.

I'll add on a 4-lane bypass of Cambridge for US-12, and extend it to Fort Atkinson. Cambridge gets an awful lot of traffic through it's narrow downtown.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2012, 10:05:44 AMAt least the entire intersection with WI-73 needs to be redesigned.

I saw something about that here: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/swregion/73/maps.htm  6 alternatives being considered, 3 of them overpasses. They'd be insane NOT to have one, at the very least to maintain throughput on US 12/18.


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 03, 2012, 08:45:31 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 03, 2012, 07:41:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2012, 10:05:44 AM
US-12/18 needs to be four lanes between I-39/90 and Cambridge.  The amount of traffic on that highway has increased considerably over the past decade.

I'll add on a 4-lane bypass of Cambridge for US-12, and extend it to Fort Atkinson. Cambridge gets an awful lot of traffic through it's narrow downtown.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2012, 10:05:44 AMAt least the entire intersection with WI-73 needs to be redesigned.

I saw something about that here: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/swregion/73/maps.htm  6 alternatives being considered, 3 of them overpasses. They'd be insane NOT to have one, at the very least to maintain throughput on US 12/18.

I think that WisDOT is insane to not be proposing at least one conventional diamond interchange option at US 12/18/WI 73....

:banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 03, 2012, 09:06:20 PM
In other news, WIS 26 between the north Jefferson business-loop exit and Fort Atkinson's south business loop exits is now posted for 65 mph. It's much, much nicer than having to putz along at 55 or scanning the roadside for cops nervously doing 64.

No idea if they're going to bump the speed limit between Johnson Creek and Watertown; the 55mph stretch north of Jefferson is similar, and hasn't been raised.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on August 05, 2012, 01:22:57 AM
Here's an email reply I recieved regarding the speed limit on STH 26.
QuoteOn Jul 11, 2012, at 8:56 AM, "Dramm, Dena - DOT" <dena.dramm@dot.wi.gov> wrote:

The ultimate goal for the speed limits on the new STH 26, from Janesville to Dodge County, is to establish 65mph zones on all the appropriate segments.  The existing 45mph speed zone through Johnson Creek will remain in place.  Transitional 55mph zones on the north and south ends of Johnson Creek will also be established.

When a sufficiently long segment of the new roadway is completed, we will establish a 65mph speed zone on it.  As you noted, the section of new STH 26 around Watertown has already been signed at 65mph.  As Mark noted, we are hoping to have the new section from Fort Atkinson to Jefferson, signed at 65mph by the end of next week.

From here forward we have included the 65mph signing in the those construction projects that will complete segments of roadway of sufficient length continuity with previously established 65mph zones to make the transition a smooth one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 05, 2012, 12:22:53 PM
These "transitional 55mph zones", at least as I've observed them thus far, are quite long.

On the north end, it starts at Ebenezer Dr south of Watertown, and continues as 55mph south to River Dr. in Johnson Creek. By Google Maps' reckoning, it's about 3 1/2 miles. If they extended the 65mph section farther south since my last visit, the logical transition point would be at either Spruce Dr or Baneck Ln.

On the south end, I'll charitably calculate it from County Y south to Jefferson Rd/Earl Ln, about 1 1/2 miles. The 45mph section might extend south of the new railroad overpass now; it was hard to tell the last time I went through there.

Much as I'm confounded with the strip of WIS 26 north of I-39/90 in Janesville, I'm confounded by the Johnson Creek section. WISDOT spent a boatload to upgrade and reroute the highway everywhere else, but then left this choke point without an obvious plan for remediation. The worst part is that WIS 26 through Johnson Creek can be upgraded to freeway right up to the I-94 interchange, but seems destined to be a traffic-choked commercial strip for at least the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on August 05, 2012, 12:37:53 PM
The 55 limit north if JC has been moved to just north of Emerald Drive now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on August 05, 2012, 12:40:25 PM
Wisconsin is notorious for putting 55 zones in odd places and not adding 65 zone where they are needed.  Though many 65 zone should be 70 instead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 05, 2012, 12:52:44 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 05, 2012, 12:22:53 PMMuch as I'm confounded with the strip of WIS 26 north of I-39/90 in Janesville, I'm confounded by the Johnson Creek section. WISDOT spent a boatload to upgrade and reroute the highway everywhere else, but then left this choke point without an obvious plan for remediation. The worst part is that WIS 26 through Johnson Creek can be upgraded to freeway right up to the I-94 interchange, but seems destined to be a traffic-choked commercial strip for at least the next 20 years.

Check my I-39/90/WI 26 (Janesville) musings that I posted in the 'Fictional Highways/Redesigning Interchanges' subforvm a few weeks ago: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg160354#msg160354

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 05, 2012, 09:01:50 PM
I don't foresee Johnson Creek and Janesville being more than a minor inconvenience (/speed trap) for the next couple decades.  Ostensibly, WI 26 is a corridor for the Fox Valley to points south of Chicagoland as the Janesville to Rockford corridor is an intermediate traffic draw from the Fox Valley at most.

Personally, I would've have built Jefferson, Watertown and Milton bypasses as super-2's on 4 lane r/w's at this time based on my experiences on WI 26.  It's slowness seemed only due to the density through the those towns, not from thru traffic.  Those 70 mph facilities that are opening now seem way overpowered for the traffic volumes I've observed on them.  I would have rather spent that money on urban freeway rebuilds and access control on existing rural expressways.  All that ongoing stuff in the Fox Valley should've been done a decade ago, for example; a much higher priority than the WI 26 corridor.

Then again, I am biased by my own travel patterns.  WI 26 is perpendicular to most of my road trips. I'm dismissive of WI 26 while dreaming of an interstate-compatible freeway between Oshkosh and Stevens Point. ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 05, 2012, 10:00:18 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 05, 2012, 09:01:50 PM


Then again, I am biased by my own travel patterns.  WI 26 is perpendicular to most of my road trips. I'm dismissive of WI 26 while dreaming of an interstate-compatible freeway between Oshkosh and Stevens Point. ;)
i like that dream.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 05, 2012, 10:39:06 PM
I suspect part of the rush to get a 4-lane WIS 26 put together is the upcoming I-39/90 widening work south of Madison. US 151 is hardly overloaded northeast of Sun Prairie, but anything WisDOT can do to pull traffic off I-39/90 will help (it's the reason WisDOT tried to pull forward the US 14 western bypass of Janesville). For Janesville-to-Milwaukee traffic, it's also a good alternative to I-43 while the stretch in Waukesha County is under construction.

I'm at least moderately surprised nothing significant has been discussed at WisDOT regarding the stretch of WIS 26 between Waupun and Oshkosh. That stretch has had heavy traffic every time I've traveled it, and you can tell traffic drops off considerably on US 151 headed into Fond du Lac past the northern WIS 26 exit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 05, 2012, 10:52:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 05, 2012, 09:01:50 PM
I don't foresee Johnson Creek and Janesville being more than a minor inconvenience (/speed trap) for the next couple decades.  Ostensibly, WI 26 is a corridor for the Fox Valley to points south of Chicagoland as the Janesville to Rockford corridor is an intermediate traffic draw from the Fox Valley at most.

Personally, I would've have built Jefferson, Watertown and Milton bypasses as super-2's on 4 lane r/w's at this time based on my experiences on WI 26.  It's slowness seemed only due to the density through the those towns, not from thru traffic.  Those 70 mph facilities that are opening now seem way overpowered for the traffic volumes I've observed on them.  I would have rather spent that money on urban freeway rebuilds and access control on existing rural expressways.  All that ongoing stuff in the Fox Valley should've been done a decade ago, for example; a much higher priority than the WI 26 corridor.

Then again, I am biased by my own travel patterns.  WI 26 is perpendicular to most of my road trips. I'm dismissive of WI 26 while dreaming of an interstate-compatible freeway between Oshkosh and Stevens Point. ;)


Honestly, I drive WI-26 all of the time, and I am amazed at how little traffic the Jefferson and Fort Atkinson bypasses have on them.  The three times I have been on the Watertown bypass have been similar.

And that is why I see no reason to worry about upgrading Johnson Creek.  It is a hassle, but a minor one considering the costs of the alternatives.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 11:44:26 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 05, 2012, 10:39:06 PM
I suspect part of the rush to get a 4-lane WIS 26 put together is the upcoming I-39/90 widening work south of Madison. US 151 is hardly overloaded northeast of Sun Prairie, but anything WisDOT can do to pull traffic off I-39/90 will help (it's the reason WisDOT tried to pull forward the US 14 western bypass of Janesville). For Janesville-to-Milwaukee traffic, it's also a good alternative to I-43 while the stretch in Waukesha County is under construction.

I'm at least moderately surprised nothing significant has been discussed at WisDOT regarding the stretch of WIS 26 between Waupun and Oshkosh. That stretch has had heavy traffic every time I've traveled it, and you can tell traffic drops off considerably on US 151 headed into Fond du Lac past the northern WIS 26 exit.
WI26 handles about the same, or a little more traffic from U151 to US41, than US151 does to Fond Du Lac.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/maps.htm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2012, 12:30:18 PM
Even though it is a few miles longer, US-151 to US-41 is about the same time wise as WI-26.  I think WIDOT simply wants to get traffic off that section.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 01:26:20 PM
i figure that is there position, but they should be building and upgrading routes that need it, and not build an alternate route and expect people to go to it, when it is 2 minutes longer, and people already use the WI26 route. WI26 from US151-US41 needs it, at least a super-2 bypass of rosendale with one grade seperation (diamond interchange at WI23 west of rosendale) at this point would be a good start in 5-7 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2012, 01:55:22 PM
WIDOT isn't going to spend money on duplicate routes when there is a perfectly good alternative available.  This is a good decision IMO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 02:27:18 PM
im not sure, i think increasing traffic levels in the near future may force their hand, this route is already covered in passing lanes, and could use many more. if you ever go through rosendale during a holiday rush, you may encounter a line of traffic (heavily traveled truck route) half a mile long from the stop light at WI23. people who live here probably dont want to wait an hour to get out of their driveways, and to do their local buisiness. at somepoint, having a major highway routed downtown (near downtown) can hurt a town more than it can help it. and as traffic increases, WISDOT will be forced to make some upgrades (adding more passing lanes, super-2 bypass of rosendale) and if traffic continues to use this route, the increasingly dangerous traffic levels will force heavier upgrades. Oshkosh is also becoming an increasingly more important tourist destination, and having a good network of highways leading to the tourist hub is important.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2012, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 02:27:18 PM
im not sure, i think increasing traffic levels in the near future may force their hand, this route is already covered in passing lanes, and could use many more. if you ever go through rosendale during a holiday rush, you may encounter a line of traffic (heavily traveled truck route) half a mile long from the stop light at WI23.


Then those people are idiots.  US-41 to US-151 avoids such lines of traffic.  Honestly, it would be a better use of money to build some sort of short cut from US-151 to US-41 further northeast of the WI-26 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 06, 2012, 09:54:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2012, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 02:27:18 PM
im not sure, i think increasing traffic levels in the near future may force their hand, this route is already covered in passing lanes, and could use many more. if you ever go through rosendale during a holiday rush, you may encounter a line of traffic (heavily traveled truck route) half a mile long from the stop light at WI23.


Then those people are idiots.  US-41 to US-151 avoids such lines of traffic.  Honestly, it would be a better use of money to build some sort of short cut from US-151 to US-41 further northeast of the WI-26 interchange.

This is starting to wander into the 'fantasy highways' realm, but many years ago (1980s/1990s) I was playing around with the idea of a new-ROW WI 26 that would diverge from US 41 around that big curve by County 'N', but pretty much any potential routing from there, especially a straight shot one from there to US 151 at that big curve by Lamartine, runs headlong into the Eldorado Marsh.  One would have to swing the roadway so far westward to avoid it (nearly all of the way to Rosendale) that there would be no advantage in building such a cutoff.

:-/

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2012, 06:35:50 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 01:26:20 PM
at least a super-2 bypass of rosendale with one grade seperation (diamond interchange at WI23 west of rosendale) at this point would be a good start in 5-7 years.

And rob Rosendale of half of its revenue generating operation?  They won't stand for that!  That's makes it a good idea.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 07, 2012, 10:07:45 PM
The traffic counts on WIS 26 are clearly in the range to warrant 4-laning, and in fact are HIGHER than US 151 to Fond du Lac, this despite being 4-laned and (presumably) stealing some of the Oshkosh-bound traffic already.

There's a reason: it's 9 miles farther via US 151 to Fond du Lac than via WIS 26. In practice, even with the higher speed limits on US 151 and US 41, that translates to about 5-10 minutes quicker travel via WIS 26 as long as it isn't congested.

It's going to be 4-laned eventually, even if it's not currently a WisDOT priority.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 08, 2012, 10:22:55 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2012, 06:35:50 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 01:26:20 PM
at least a super-2 bypass of rosendale with one grade seperation (diamond interchange at WI23 west of rosendale) at this point would be a good start in 5-7 years.

And rob Rosendale of half of its revenue generating operation?  They won't stand for that!  That's makes it a good idea.
at some point it hurts buisineses more than it help when you have traffic backed up for half a mile, and locals cant even get to the gas station. im not joking about the half mile traffic backups, i have seen northbound backed up to the cemetary, while traveling southbound. its also a major truck route. at this point, even if they built a *stupid* 4lanes on the cheap, like with a shared left turn lane or even just a double yellow line, and kept it as 55MPH, and bypassing rosendale with an interchange. rosendale would still likely be able to enforce the speed trap operation they currently run. much of the corridor is 3lanes already, why not build a passing lane in both directions the whole way?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 08, 2012, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 08, 2012, 10:22:55 AM
at some point it hurts buisineses more than it help when you have traffic backed up for half a mile, and locals cant even get to the gas station. im not joking about the half mile traffic backups, i have seen northbound backed up to the cemetary, while traveling southbound. its also a major truck route. at this point, even if they built a *stupid* 4lanes on the cheap, like with a shared left turn lane or even just a double yellow line, and kept it as 55MPH, and bypassing rosendale with an interchange. rosendale would still likely be able to enforce the speed trap operation they currently run. much of the corridor is 3lanes already, why not build a passing lane in both directions the whole way?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wvah.com%2Fprograms%2Fkingofthehill%2Fboomhauer.jpg&hash=ba0f7ac274a24a3a4cf80e8028e11672ac504c7a)

your writing reminds me of him.  :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Takumi on August 08, 2012, 12:13:03 PM
Dang ol' hurts dang ol' business, have traffic backin' up a dang ol' half mile
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:17:17 PM
In all seriousness guys, both Wis 26 and Wis 23 in Rosendale need a super 2 bypass of the town similar to the Wis 23 bypass of Green Lake, 20 miles west of there. 23 between I-39 and US 41 is a very heavily traveled road that gets worse during the summer months with tourists.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: qguy on August 08, 2012, 02:08:59 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:17:17 PM
In all seriousness guys...

Sounds a little extreme. Can't we just stay in some seriousness? I mean, why go overboard?
Title: WisDOT adding centerline and shoulder rumble strips in the northwoods
Post by: mgk920 on August 10, 2012, 11:30:28 AM
http://www.wjfw.com/stories.html?sku=20120809182615

Interesting.  I wonder how the shoulder ones will affect bicycles.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on August 11, 2012, 12:49:21 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 10, 2012, 11:30:28 AM
http://www.wjfw.com/stories.html?sku=20120809182615

Interesting.  I wonder how the shoulder ones will affect bicycles.

Mike

More details on this project were also posted on the WisDOT website this past week. If a highway with these rumble strips has heavy bicycle traffic, my hope is that they would install wider paved shoulders for bicyclists. I can remember When US 151 was still on its old alignment between Belmont and Platteville (now County XX), it had rumble strips on the shoulders. I remember seeing bicyclists alternate between riding in the traffic lanes and riding on the gravel shoulder, depending on when a car was coming, to avoid riding on the rumble strips. Not very safe if you ask me. County XX was repaved after the four-lane US 151 opened and no longer has the rumble strips, to go along with much less traffic.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_3493.html_786229440.html
Title: US 10 Marshfield Spur complete
Post by: mgk920 on August 23, 2012, 09:04:40 PM
The US 10 Marshfield Spur is now complete and fully open:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_3539.html_786229440.html

:cheers:

I'll have to check it out on my next day off.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 24, 2012, 05:28:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2012, 09:04:40 PM
The US 10 Marshfield Spur is now complete and fully open:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_3539.html_786229440.html

:cheers:

I'll have to check it out on my next day off.


I guess I know which route I'll be traveling to the Northwoods for Labor Day!  My GPS won't know what's going on.  "Why is he barreling through farm fields at 70 mph?"
Although that does mean driving through all those towns on WI 13 between Marshfield and Medford.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on August 27, 2012, 10:48:58 AM
My question is, is there something behind WisDOT's US-10 Freeway conversions? Realistically speaking, building a spur to Marshfield...doesn't exactly seem like something that would be top priority, unless WisDOT had other plans. You look at what they've done in the Oshkosh/Appleton area with US45 and US10, how there's now a triangle of freeway where it all used to be 2 lane...don't get me wrong, it's nice as hell, making a formerly 5-6 hour drive Up North now into 3-4. Just sparked some curiosity as to the motives behind it. It would almost seem as though they're thinking 'OK, so we're not going to upgrade Wis29 to interstate standards, but we can sure do that to 10 and run it all the way to I-94'. Were that true, I'd say they should rename US41 from Milwaukee to Oshkosh I-94 (or at least a concurrence) and reroute 94 onto that...in the distant future, I'll say. Granted, I'm saying that having only looked at a WI map for 5 min to look at the feasability of it and I'm at work and can't devote too much time to thought about it. So that is literally just off the top of my head. Comments obviously welcome, just bear previous statement in mind before you rip me to shreds ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 27, 2012, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: merrycilantro on August 27, 2012, 10:48:58 AM
My question is, is there something behind WisDOT's US-10 Freeway conversions? Realistically speaking, building a spur to Marshfield...doesn't exactly seem like something that would be top priority, unless WisDOT had other plans. You look at what they've done in the Oshkosh/Appleton area with US45 and US10, how there's now a triangle of freeway where it all used to be 2 lane...don't get me wrong, it's nice as hell, making a formerly 5-6 hour drive Up North now into 3-4. Just sparked some curiosity as to the motives behind it. It would almost seem as though they're thinking 'OK, so we're not going to upgrade Wis29 to interstate standards, but we can sure do that to 10 and run it all the way to I-94'. Were that true, I'd say they should rename US41 from Milwaukee to Oshkosh I-94 (or at least a concurrence) and reroute 94 onto that...in the distant future, I'll say. Granted, I'm saying that having only looked at a WI map for 5 min to look at the feasability of it and I'm at work and can't devote too much time to thought about it. So that is literally just off the top of my head. Comments obviously welcome, just bear previous statement in mind before you rip me to shreds ;)

You'd be surprised to see how busy US 10 is between US 41 and I-39, as well as the recently upgraded part of US 45 NW of Oshkosh.  In fact, I have a sense that I may well live long enough to see the concurrent US 10/45 section (between the Winchester and Dale interchanges) upgraded to six lanes - it is that busy.

:wow:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on August 27, 2012, 11:09:14 AM
Oh I don't doubt that for one second. I travel 41 to 45, to 10 to 39 every year I go up north. It's the quickest way to get to that portion of the state. My question was more so the 10 Spur from 39 Westward. I was moreso just wondering if WisDOT had aspirations or something of 10 being 4 lane-freeway'ed all the way to 94...because where do they go frome here, you know? I know it's a backbone route in their plans for the future, I'm just wondering what that all entails, I guess.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 27, 2012, 11:33:59 AM
he does bring up some points about the fact that this was all 2 lanes not long ago, US45 north of oshkosh caries only a little more traffic than some other 2lane highways in wisconsin (WIS26 south of oshkosh, WIS21 just west of oshkosh). i would put my money on some sort of diagonal freeway from marshfield to WIS 29 sortof along the WIS 13 corridor, but perhaps more diagonal than that, and an upgrade of that would-be concurent section of WIS29 all the way to I94. call it I96 mabey from I94 to the fox valley including all of WIS441, and US45 can be I396
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on August 29, 2012, 12:39:48 AM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 27, 2012, 11:33:59 AM
He does bring up some points about the fact that this was all 2 lanes not long ago, USĶœ  45 north of Oshkosh caries only a little more traffic than some other 2Ķœ  lane highways in Wisconsin (WISĶœ  26 south of Oshkosh, WISĶœ  21 just west of Oshkosh). I would put my money on some sort of diagonal freeway from Marshfield to WIS 29 sortĶœ  of along the WISĶœ  13 corridor, but perhaps more diagonal than that, and an upgrade of that would be concurrent section of WISĶœ  29 all the way to I-94. Call it I-96 maybe from I-94 to the Fox Valley including all of WISĶœ  441, and USĶœ  45 can be I-396.
Did some much needed minor copy-editing that had to be done...
I agree, WisDOT, should seriously study some sort of expressway west of Marshfield connecting US 10 and WIS 29 heading in the general direction of the Eau Claire/ Chippewa Valley area. Connecting to I-94 may have its advantages, but connecting the project to an important regional center is a much better use of (limited) funds. IMHO
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2012, 09:02:39 AM
I do think merrycilantro has a good point though.  I have mentioned this before, but I find it odd that WIDOT has upgraded all of these two lane roads, such as WI-26, and there is very little traffic on these roads...but at the same time we have interstates that are clogged at two lanes. 

Don't get me wrong.  I love getting up from Fort Atkinson to Johnson Creek at 70 mph and skipping downtown Jefferson, but there is so little traffic...and then I get on I-94 to Milwaukee and it is generally very full.  I wonder if resources would have been better placed increasing I-94 to three lanes in each direction.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2012, 11:34:01 AM
I think Wisconsin developed a lot of momentum for building rural expressways/freeways through the 90's and 00's connecting major cities and beefing up heavy tourism routes that all were wanting for more capacity.  Now that those are done, the bar for what needs expanding is lower.  So we get expansions on WI 26, WI 23 and US 10 to Marshfield where they seem like overkill.

I would have prioritized the US 41 expansions in the Fox Cities/Green Bay, metro Milwaukee freeway rebuilds & conversion of existing expressways to freeway over some of these lightly traveled expressways now opening.  I would have had WI 29 up to freeway standards between Shawano and Green Bay by now for sure, for example.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 29, 2012, 03:10:59 PM
With the most major impediments out of the way on US 10 between I-39 and I-94 - only one 'slow down' town (Neillsville) left along that way, and it is only a minor slowdown - we'll see if 'word of mouth' on the now faster nature of US 10 starts spreading.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 29, 2012, 05:24:23 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2012, 03:10:59 PM
With the most major impediments out of the way on US 10 between I-39 and I-94 - only one 'slow down' town (Neillsville) left along that way, and it is only a minor slowdown - we'll see if 'word of mouth' on the now faster nature of US 10 starts spreading.

Mike
unfortunatly, i doubt that word of mouth will travel very fast. the whole project began under my radar, and obviously i try to keep up with this stuff. i have never heard of anything relating to the project outside of this site, and my internet searches for information. unlike the US41 project and the I94 north-south project were there is a big dedicated site and brochures and stuff informing people about the changes, there is no big fanfare for this project. everyone is all caught up in their travel impediments moving north-south from illinois to green bay, and are compleatly unaware of the rural projects that are out of their way. i wish that there would be more news coverage, and that local papers would pint articles about state big shovel projects. it would increase awarness, and if people have to make mabey one trip a year to Eau Claire or the twin cities, they would know about these upgrades and would be inclined to use them. maps dont help much either. most paper maps up too the 2011 state map i have seen still dont even show US45 north of oshkosh as having been limited access for half of its length, and a 4lane expressway the rest of the way. hopefully that will change soon now that it is a full freeway (or about to be so, last i saw there were some driveways still on US45 because the new frontage roads werent paved yet)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 31, 2012, 12:16:27 PM
I detoured my route Up North through Marshfield yesterday to check out the new facility on US 10.  Certainly it's a faster trip to Marshfield.  There was actually some noticeable traffic leaving I-39 with me.  I still have to shake my head at the pointless WI 13/34 duplex to Rapids.  (34 should end, in my opinion.) Work crews were still removing the temporary connector roadway between the new expressway and the old alignment east of the short Marshfield freeway segment.

I took 10 all the way to the roundabout to drive through downtown.  It seemed to function fairly well.  No complaints here.  Bus 13 is long gone from Marshfield but Central Ave is certainly a nice enough roadway for a state highway.  Makes me want to extend WI 80 over WI 97.

It seems US 10 is now getting exit numbers.  I first noticed new gore signs around Waupaca and all interchanges west of there are now numbered.  Either I didn't notice or they haven't been signed east of Waupaca.  There is a good chance that I missed it though.  The BGS's don't have any exit number tabs yet; the numbers only appear at the gore.  About time a major corridor like US 10 got its exits numbered!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 31, 2012, 12:39:31 PM
^^
I'll be heading out that way, likely tomorrow (Saturday, 2012-09-01), and report back, with an attempt to record interchange numbers if any are up.  I did notice the exit number on the WI 13 west (Veterans Parkway) interchange when I drove that area a couple of months ago.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 01, 2012, 10:04:59 PM
^^

I made the Roadgeekā„¢ daytrip to the Marshfield area today and found some interesting stuff.

:nod:

Interchange numbers and MPs are posted on US 10 all the way eastward to, but not including, the interchange where US 10 hops off of the freeway.  No pre-existing BGSs east of the section of the US 10 Marshfield Spur that recently opened have been modified so far, though.

Interchange numbers:
(Note, US 10 uses I-39's interchange numbers and MPs on the combined section)
(Note, as of this posting, WI 441 MPs are still posted east of the Bridgeview Interchange, in addition to the new US 10 MPs.  WI 441 interchanges were never numbered.)
As of this posting, the remainder of the WI 441 freeway is not interchange numbered and 290 is the highest posted US 10 MP, located between WI 47 and Midway Rd.

If the WI 441 interchanges were to be numbered, they would be (WI 441 MPs):
Also, US 45 between US 10 (Winchester Interchange) and US 41(I-xx) (Algoma Interchange) is not (yet) MPed nor interchange numbered.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on September 03, 2012, 10:16:28 AM
I took a road trip to Wisconsin Dells. Had some thoughts about what to do about the traffic there. 1) I'd add a loop in the southeast quadrant of the south US 12/I-90 interchange. That would enable free movements between the interstate and the new US 12 freeway south of there. 2) What I call the "Bingo junction"- Highways 12,13,16, and 23 operates in split phase all directions. The heavy movements are between south and east, and south and west. It looks like there's room to squeeze another lane in the south and east segments, so those could be dual left turn lanes and the signal could be changed to protected. 3) In the downtown area I'd add a signal at Church Street, do what's necessary to provide left turn lanes at Church and Elms streets, and ban left turns at the remainder of the downtown intersections.

I also found it intersting the lights in the median of Wi Dells parkway are a mix of mercury and sodium, with one LED. Apparently they just replace fixtures as they go bad with the lastest technology.

Saw my first vertical WI traffic signal. And noticed some button copy signs are still there on I-94 between Eau Claire and Baldwin. I-94 east of Tomah, and particularly east of Eau Claire used to have some of the worst pavement in Wi I've encountered, but they're slowly fixing it, several places were head-to-head traffic while they were rebuilding the road in concrete, they maintained two lanes in each direction with Jersey barriers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on September 04, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
This is going to be a bit off topic, but...as I was driving I-39 up north this past weekend, I know that I-39 ends at Wis29. I think it's kind of weird for it to just randomly end in the middle of a state, and seeing as how I don't foresee any construction northward (rightfully so, the northwoods would be one area I would NOT touch), wouldn't it be feasable to run I-39 along Wis29 from Wausau to Green Bay, and at least give I-39 a decent endpoint? Just my opinion, take it for what it is. That opens up 51 for spur numbers, since it would really probably only be interstate grade up to Merrill or so. If ever WisDOT did anything with Wis29 from Wausau to Eau Claire to make it interstate grade, then it could be another spur of either 39 or 94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 04, 2012, 10:32:13 AM
Quote from: merrycilantro on September 04, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
This is going to be a bit off topic, but...as I was driving I-39 up north this past weekend, I know that I-39 ends at Wis29. I think it's kind of weird for it to just randomly end in the middle of a state, and seeing as how I don't foresee any construction northward (rightfully so, the northwoods would be one area I would NOT touch), wouldn't it be feasable to run I-39 along Wis29 from Wausau to Green Bay, and at least give I-39 a decent endpoint?


Not really.  I would be more feasible to somehow extend I-43 along WI-29...but even that's not very feasible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 04, 2012, 12:20:08 PM
The endpoint in Wausau is fine where it is. If they extend it northward to US-8 once the remaining side-road access is closed off on US-51, that's fine too.

Trying to force an endpoint at an Interstate in this situation is kind of silly, and would confuse more than help motorists.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 04, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
On my return trip, via the "normal" route, I noticed that in addition to the new exit numbers, US 10 appears to have new mile markers.   I don't think US 10 had any before.  So that seems to be new as well.
It occurred to me that WisDOT may have waited until this year to add these navigation aids when all the new expressway/freeway construction was completed since that would affect the actual length of US 10 in Wisconsin.

Despite the presence of orange barrels on the shoulders, US 45's freeway conversion between Winneconne and Winchester seems complete.  The overpasses are done, the frontage roads area paved and striped, signs are in, landscaping looks done; I assume all they need to do is collected the barrels and take down the orange signs.  I was confused on my northbound trip Thursday when the left lanes were closed for no apparent reason.

With the summer tourist season over, WisDOT is ready to replace the SB I-39 bridges over the Wisconsin River and Bus US 51.  A VMS indicated work starts next Monday.  Kronenwetter's Maple Ridge Road exit was 3/4ths open and I imagine they'll be dropping the old overpass any day now.  These two projects should fix the final sub-interstate grade features of I-39 in Wisconsin.  (Vertical clearance at Maple Ridge and shoulder width plus accel/decel space at Bus 51.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 04, 2012, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 04, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
On my return trip, via the "normal" route, I noticed that in addition to the new exit numbers, US 10 appears to have new mile markers.   I don't think US 10 had any before.  So that seems to be new as well.
It occurred to me that WisDOT may have waited until this year to add these navigation aids when all the new expressway/freeway construction was completed since that would affect the actual length of US 10 in Wisconsin.

Despite the presence of orange barrels on the shoulders, US 45's freeway conversion between Winneconne and Winchester seems complete.  The overpasses are done, the frontage roads area paved and striped, signs are in, landscaping looks done; I assume all they need to do is collected the barrels and take down the orange signs.  I was confused on my northbound trip Thursday when the left lanes were closed for no apparent reason.

With the summer tourist season over, WisDOT is ready to replace the SB I-39 bridges over the Wisconsin River and Bus US 51.  A VMS indicated work starts next Monday.  Kronenwetter's Maple Ridge Road exit was 3/4ths open and I imagine they'll be dropping the old overpass any day now.  These two projects should fix the final sub-interstate grade features of I-39 in Wisconsin.  (Vertical clearance at Maple Ridge and shoulder width plus accel/decel space at Bus 51.)

I noticed the same thing on US 45 when I drove it on Saturday, but I simply forgot to report it.

:meh:

As I also found, WisDOT has added US 10 MPs to the highway all the way to interchange 290 (WI 47/Appleton Rd/(Memorial Dr) on the Appleton/Menasha border.  They must have done that within the last couple of days last week, because I noticed nothing different when I drove it last Wednesday.

:wow:

As I type this, I am busy updating my Yellowstone Trail 'strip' maps to reflect these changes to US 10 and US 45, both of which ran close to, or on, one or more of the YT's various historic routings.

:thumbsup:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on September 04, 2012, 03:45:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 04, 2012, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 04, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
On my return trip, via the "normal" route, I noticed that in addition to the new exit numbers, US 10 appears to have new mile markers.   I don't think US 10 had any before.  So that seems to be new as well.
It occurred to me that WisDOT may have waited until this year to add these navigation aids when all the new expressway/freeway construction was completed since that would affect the actual length of US 10 in Wisconsin.

Despite the presence of orange barrels on the shoulders, US 45's freeway conversion between Winneconne and Winchester seems complete.  The overpasses are done, the frontage roads area paved and striped, signs are in, landscaping looks done; I assume all they need to do is collected the barrels and take down the orange signs.  I was confused on my northbound trip Thursday when the left lanes were closed for no apparent reason.

With the summer tourist season over, WisDOT is ready to replace the SB I-39 bridges over the Wisconsin River and Bus US 51.  A VMS indicated work starts next Monday.  Kronenwetter's Maple Ridge Road exit was 3/4ths open and I imagine they'll be dropping the old overpass any day now.  These two projects should fix the final sub-interstate grade features of I-39 in Wisconsin.  (Vertical clearance at Maple Ridge and shoulder width plus accel/decel space at Bus 51.)

I noticed the same thing on US 45 when I drove it on Saturday, but I simply forgot to report it.

:meh:

As I also found, WisDOT has added US 10 MPs to the highway all the way to interchange 290 (WI 47/Appleton Rd/(Memorial Dr) on the Appleton/Menasha border.  They must have done that within the last couple of days last week, because I noticed nothing different when I drove it last Wednesday.

:wow:

As I type this, I am busy updating my Yellowstone Trail 'strip' maps to reflect these changes to US 10 and US 45, both of which ran close to, or on, one or more of the YT's various historic routings.

:thumbsup:

Mike
cool, the last time i drove that, some of the frontage roads werent paved, and because of that some of the driveways were still on US45
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 06, 2012, 12:30:53 PM
When I was driving on US 41(I-xx) here in the Appleton-Neenah area yesterday (Wednesday, 2012-09-05), I noticed that WisDOT has removed the small green MP signs that were on the outside shoulders of the highway, leaving only the more recently installed 0.2 MP signs in the median for defining location.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 09, 2012, 11:27:24 PM
The wife and I took a trip to northern Wisconsin, and even snuck in a day trip to Duluth.

A few thoughts:
- US 10 from the I-39/US-51 exit west to Marshfield is 99% complete - there were crews closing off the old transitions to and from old US-10 when we came through. Traffic was lighter than I expected; I was doing my standard 10-over and never had to use the passing lane.

- I found WI-13 north of Marshfield to US-8 to be surprisingly busy. WisDOT has responded in kind by widening the stretch between Abbotsford and Colby to 4-lanes (still under construction), an alternating passing lane between Marshfield and Spencer, and a recent widening and rebuild through Medford.

It could use more passing lanes throughout; I could also see it justifying an expressway section from Marshfield north to at least Medford in the next 30 years. The County A intersection at Dorchester is particularly nasty. I suspect taking US-51 to US-8 and cutting over to WI-13 would be the less stressful choice next time.

- By comparison, north of Medford WI-13 feels like a typical Northwoods highway, with lots of trees, recreational vehicles, and hilly, rocky terrain. Park Falls had its stretch through downtown under construction, and they'll have to hustle to complete the road before the snow flies. Traffic was shuffled off on a side street, then at the north end controlled one-way traffic with flagmen.

- It's a little amazing WI-169 is a state highway; without Copper Falls State Park, it'd likely be a signed County highway at best. It's narrow with lots of tight corners, and woodlands interspersed with farmland. I'd be shocked if that road carried 500 vehicles per day; 200 is more likely. And yet, WI-169 merits a railroad overpass just north of Gurney (http://goo.gl/maps/4eRZG).

- US-2 east of WI-13 in Ashland was under construction for a widening and sewer replacement. The US-2/WI-13 roundabout west of Ashland is just about finished, with crews working to complete the eastbound roundabout bypass and the westbound-to-northbound movement. People seemed to have little trouble navigating the roundabout even with the continued construction work.

- Ashland has an impressive number of state highways for its population size. WI-112, WI-118, and WI-137 could easily be County highways. Apparently, US-2 along Chequamegon Bay has to be closed often enough that WisDOT installed a barrier at the US-2/WI-137 intersection to allow traffic to be diverted.

- Ashland is a beautiful small town with some awesome murals on downtown buildings. One example: http://goo.gl/maps/GE6Y7. It also has a lakeshore view most towns would kill to have. My wife used up a SD card or two on pictures of the area.

Ashland has clearly weathered the post-mining era better than a lot of others, namely Ironwood (which looks more and more run-down with age, particularly compared to next-door neighbor Hurley).

- US-2 is a heavily traveled 2-lane with numerous passing lanes sprinkled throughout. Sadly, I encountered more than my fair share of drivers who had no clue what a passing lane is for.

Traffic counts are not that far off the 4-lane US-53 south of the US-2/53 split; it wouldn't surprise me if WisDOT upgrades this road to expressway in the next 20 years.

Truck traffic is quite heavy, as well as recreational vehicle traffic. Bayfield County sheriff's deputies were very visible on their stretch; I saw at least 4 vehicles pulled over (and nearly became one myself).

- The wife and I spent an afternoon in Duluth's Canal Park, watching the freighters pass through the Aerial Bridge and exploring the Lakewalk. We could have easily spent a weekend there; we barely scratched the surface of things to do and see. No worries - Mother Nature ensured we experienced every season save Winter while we were there. ;-)

There's still a few reminders of the horrible flooding in June, but none too obvious to a casual tourist. Certainly, don't let that be a reason to not visit.

- The EBD side of the Blatnik Bridge was closed for deck reconstruction. This forced all cross-border traffic to the Bong bridge, which made traffic on SBD I-35 gridlocked at 5pm on Friday. Here's hoping Minnesota's DOT keeps up the maintenance; commuting from Superior will be miserable otherwise.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on September 10, 2012, 12:26:48 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 09, 2012, 11:27:24 PM
And yet, WI-169 merits a railroad overpass just north of Gurney (http://goo.gl/maps/4eRZG).
Probably because of terrain: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=46.47815,-90.50876&z=15&t=T
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 10, 2012, 09:18:05 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 09, 2012, 11:27:24 PM
It could use more passing lanes throughout; I could also see it justifying an expressway section from Marshfield north to at least Medford in the next 30 years. The County A intersection at Dorchester is particularly nasty. I suspect taking US-51 to US-8 and cutting over to WI-13 would be the less stressful choice next time.


I regularly travel to Park Falls and US-51 / US-8 / WI-13 is the fastest way to go.

For a really scenic way, I take I-94 to WI-58 at Mauston.  From there I go to WI-80 to WI-13.  There is very little traffic on WI-80 north of Necedah.  But you still get bogged down on WI-13 between Marshfield and Medford.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 10, 2012, 12:25:32 PM
Agreed - with 51 being 4-lane to US 8 you're better off.  The two-lane between M-field and M-ford ;) has too much traffic (even back in early 2000s when I lived in Wausau)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 10, 2012, 01:22:31 PM
I grew up in Phillips, so I know all too well that you go to 51/39 if you want to get somewhere fast.  It's even faster to use the interstate than WI 13 when going to Wisconsin Dells from there even though it's shorter.  Nice little town we got up there, eh?

I do like how WI 13 bypasses all the little burgs between Medford and Phillips.  The old road through Westboro in Taylor County is even called "Business Highway 13."

In Park Falls, a former four lane undvided segment on the city's south side is being rebuilt as a two lane divided with a continuous center left turn lane.  And the intersection at WI 182 is getting a better left turn lane SB.

WI 13 was already four lanes between Abbostford and Colby prior to the recent construction.

WI 112 & WI 118 serve as the "bypass" of Ashland for Twin Ports-bound traffic.

If you think Ashland was photogenic, you should've taken a side trip up to Washburn and Bayfield.
Title: Another Wisconsin Clearview sighting
Post by: mgk920 on September 13, 2012, 10:37:12 PM
As I was driving around today, I noticed that my home City of Appleton is now using Clearview on its street name 'blade' signs.

:-o

:-P

Also, it appears to me that the text on the Chamber of Commerce attraction directions signs posted throughout the Appleton/Fox Cities area is in Clearview.

Mike
Title: US 10 update
Post by: mgk920 on September 22, 2012, 11:57:11 AM
WisDOT has now installed interchange number tabs on most of the relevant BGSs on US 10 from Appleton to Marshfield.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 22, 2012, 09:27:14 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 10, 2012, 01:22:31 PM
If you think Ashland was photogenic, you should've taken a side trip up to Washburn and Bayfield.

We're saving that trip for next year - no worries. We've also been all over the UP, both along the Lake Superior shore and the Lake Michigan shore.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on September 23, 2012, 01:05:48 AM
I thought I saw something around here about it before, but since I can't find it this morning:

* On a recent drive I noticed the WI 794/Lake Speedtrap intersection with the connector ramp to  Oklahoma Avenue has been changed into a Continuous Green T with southbound traffic no longer having to stop.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 25, 2012, 06:03:26 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 22, 2012, 11:57:11 AM
WisDOT has now installed interchange number tabs on most of the relevant BGSs on US 10 from Appleton to Marshfield.

I too, saw this over the weekend.

Road crews were beginning to work on a median crossover for the project in Wausau-land to replace SB bridges of I-39 over the Wisconsin River and Bus US 51.
The Maple Ridge Road interchange is probably within 2 weeks of completion.

Quote from: Revive 755 on September 23, 2012, 01:05:48 AM
On a recent drive I noticed the WI 794/Lake Speedtrap intersection with the connector ramp to  Oklahoma Avenue has been changed into a Continuous Green T with southbound traffic no longer having to stop.

That modification was made last year.
Title: WisDOT studying an interchange for possile rebuild as a DDI
Post by: mgk920 on September 27, 2012, 11:27:42 PM
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20120927/APC0101/309270167

This is WI 441 at Calumet St in Appleton.

http://goo.gl/maps/PgtPC

My biggest worry here is the difficulty in synchronizing the signals of a DDI with those of the nearby cross street intersections and the proximity of those nearest intersections to this interchange.  I would likely opt for a series of roundabouts here.  Yes, it is a traffic zoo.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 28, 2012, 09:22:32 PM
Well, your DOT district seemed to be an early adopter of roundabouts in this state, so I wouldn't be surprised if they sprung for a DDI.  But our state did seem to pass on the SPUI fad.  If that project was down here in MKE-land, you'd probably be looking at "U-Ramp" interchange. ;)

The Post-Crescent could have supplemented their article with a DDI diagram.  While not all that complicated in practice, it is complicated to describe in words.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2012, 10:42:49 PM
Saw today that the WI-26 exit between Janesville and Milton has an exit number.  I believe it is Harmony Hill Road, and it has a #6 only on the exit signage.  (The BGS hasn't been erected.)

The other exits on the entire route don't have exit numbers so I guess this is something they will add later.  Surprised they didn't do this earlier.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on September 29, 2012, 10:13:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2012, 10:42:49 PM
Saw today that the WI-26 exit between Janesville and Milton has an exit number.  I believe it is Harmony Hill Road, and it has a #6 only on the exit signage.  (The BGS hasn't been erected.)

The other exits on the entire route don't have exit numbers so I guess this is something they will add later.  Surprised they didn't do this earlier.

The exits on the Watertown bypass are numbered.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2012, 03:27:39 PM
Ah thank you.  Hadn't noticed that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on September 30, 2012, 07:47:14 PM
The new interchange at US-14 and Lacy Road (on new alignment) in Fitchburg will be opening this week.  When that interchange opens, the two southern ramps at McCoy Road will be permanently closed.
Title: WI 15 Hortonville bypass routing selected
Post by: mgk920 on November 06, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20121106/APC0101/311060158

It will go around the north side of the village.  Construction is expected to begin in 2016, completion in 2019.

WI 15 is a very busy commuter route into and out of the Appleton area and yes, this bypass has been badly needed for many, many years.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 09, 2012, 09:43:15 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 01, 2012, 10:04:59 PM
^^

I made the Roadgeekā„¢ daytrip to the Marshfield area today and found some interesting stuff.

:nod:

Interchange numbers and MPs are posted on US 10 all the way eastward to, but not including, the interchange where US 10 hops off of the freeway.  No pre-existing BGSs east of the section of the US 10 Marshfield Spur that recently opened have been modified so far, though.

Interchange numbers:

  • 186 - WI 13 north/County 'A'/Veteran's Parkway
  • 204 - WI 13/34 south
  • 208 - WI 34 north
  • 213 - I-39 north (Marshfield Interchange)
(Note, US 10 uses I-39's interchange numbers and MPs on the combined section)
  • 230 - County 'J'
  • 237 - Lake Rd (EB-off/WB-on ONLY)
  • 238 - County 'B' west (Amherst west)
  • 240 - County 'A'/County 'B' east (Amherst east)
  • (246) - (unbuilt) County 'Q'
  • 250 - WI 49 north/WI 54 west (Waupaca west)
  • 252 - WI 22 south
  • 253 - Churchill St
  • 254 - WI 22 north/WI 54 east (Waupaca east)
  • 260A - WI 110 north/County 'X'
  • 260B - County 'F' (WB-off/EB-on ONLY)
  • 264 - WI 49 south/WI 110 east (Fremont west)
  • 267 - WI 96/WI 110/County 'II' (Fremont east)
  • 273 - US 45 north (Dale Interchange)
  • 276 - US 45 south (Winchester Interchange)
  • 284 - WI 76
  • 286 - County 'CB'
  • 287A-B - US 41(I-xx) (Bridgeview Interchange)
(Note, as of this posting, WI 441 MPs are still posted east of the Bridgeview Interchange, in addition to the new US 10 MPs.  WI 441 interchanges were never numbered.)
  • 289A - County 'P'/Racine St
  • 289B - County 'AP'/Midway Rd
  • 290 - WI 47/Appleton Rd (Memorial Dr)
As of this posting, the remainder of the WI 441 freeway is not interchange numbered and 290 is the highest posted US 10 MP, located between WI 47 and Midway Rd.

If the WI 441 interchanges were to be numbered, they would be (WI 441 MPs):

  • 0 - US 41(I-xx) (Bridgeview Interchange)
  • 1 - County 'P'/Racine St
  • 2 - County 'AP'/Midway Rd
  • 3 - WI 47/Appleton Rd (Memorial Dr)
  • 4 - US 10 east/Oneida St
  • 7 - County 'KK'/Calumet St
  • 8 - County 'CE'/College Ave
  • 10 - County 'OO'/Northland Ave
  • 11 - US 41(I-xx) (Northeast Interchange)
Also, US 45 between US 10 (Winchester Interchange) and US 41(I-xx) (Algoma Interchange) is not (yet) MPed nor interchange numbered.

Mike

WisDOT just added another interchange number on US 10 within the past couple of days:


This is where US 10 hops off of the WI 441 freeway on Appleton's south side.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 24, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 24, 2012, 10:16:49 PM
Quote from: Master son on November 24, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:

Gosh... I hope this doesn't cause problems :S ... at least not the darn zoo interchange. *is biased*
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 25, 2012, 12:15:38 AM
Quote from: colinstu on November 24, 2012, 10:16:49 PM
Quote from: Master son on November 24, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:

Gosh... I hope this doesn't cause problems :S ... at least not the darn zoo interchange. *is biased*

Ditto.

I have been more and more seriously wondering over the past few years if Wisconsin should convert to placing transportation infrastructure on the general fund, abolishing the transportation segregated fund and the fuel tax and instead imposing the regular state sales tax on fuel (fuel is now exempt from the regular retail sales tax in Wisconsin), this on the logic that the level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that he or she derives from the transport network.  IMHO, this would be much more long-term reliable than what we have now.

Yes, I do realize that one or more other state tax rates would have to be increased to make up for the fuel tax loss, perhaps increasing the regular retail sales tax from 5 to 6 percent.  As it stands now, the volume-based fuel tax will fail as a revenue source for funding roads and other transport as inflation charges along.  In fact, right now in some states, to replace their volume-based fuel taxes with their regular retail sales taxes (assuming that fuel is not sales taxed) will be tax rate INCREASES, their fuel tax rates are now so astonishingly low.

Right now in Wisconsin, the state fuel tax is about 10% of the pre-tax pump price.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 26, 2012, 12:29:54 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of tying sales taxes to road funding. It is NOT, as you suggest, a reliable funding source.

Michigan did something similar with school funding with Proposal A, the idea being to cut property taxes and replace that funding with the sales tax. That sales tax worked great in a good economy, and it helped moderate the differences between rich and poor school districts. However, when the economy went to hell, so did school funding. You'd get the same issue with tying a sales tax to fuel taxes.

What needs to happen is to reintroduce the inflation index that was previously in place.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 26, 2012, 12:52:39 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 26, 2012, 12:29:54 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of tying sales taxes to road funding. It is NOT, as you suggest, a reliable funding source.

Michigan did something similar with school funding with Proposal A, the idea being to cut property taxes and replace that funding with the sales tax. That sales tax worked great in a good economy, and it helped moderate the differences between rich and poor school districts. However, when the economy went to hell, so did school funding. You'd get the same issue with tying a sales tax to fuel taxes.

What needs to happen is to reintroduce the inflation index that was previously in place.

Unfortunately the same people who were constantly howling a few years back about the inflation indexing ("Tax increases that were NEVER voted on!" Etc.) will be back in full force should that be reintroduced.  Instead, my best compromise on that would be to convert to a percentage of the price based fuel tax, this short of putting roads on the general fund (as I was advocating above, NOT tying roads to the sales tax).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 26, 2012, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 25, 2012, 12:15:38 AM
Quote from: colinstu on November 24, 2012, 10:16:49 PM
Quote from: Master son on November 24, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:

Gosh... I hope this doesn't cause problems :S ... at least not the darn zoo interchange. *is biased*

Ditto.

I have been more and more seriously wondering over the past few years if Wisconsin should convert to placing transportation infrastructure on the general fund, abolishing the transportation segregated fund and the fuel tax and instead imposing the regular state sales tax on fuel (fuel is now exempt from the regular retail sales tax in Wisconsin), this on the logic that the level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that he or she derives from the transport network.  IMHO, this would be much more long-term reliable than what we have now.

Yes, I do realize that one or more other state tax rates would have to be increased to make up for the fuel tax loss, perhaps increasing the regular retail sales tax from 5 to 6 percent.  As it stands now, the volume-based fuel tax will fail as a revenue source for funding roads and other transport as inflation charges along.  In fact, right now in some states, to replace their volume-based fuel taxes with their regular retail sales taxes (assuming that fuel is not sales taxed) will be tax rate INCREASES, their fuel tax rates are now so astonishingly low.

Right now in Wisconsin, the state fuel tax is about 10% of the pre-tax pump price.

Mike


Can you clarify if I have the problem right?

That the issue is that that the fuel tax is "volume based," in that it is a tax placed on each gallon of gas sold.  And with rising prices, the volume of gas sold decreases, therefore the revenues earned shrinks.  This problem can be made even more harmful if people drive more fuel efficient cars.

Perhaps the best idea is to have a hybrid.  For instance, have fuel subject to sales tax and designate such taxes to the transportation fund, but then cut the volume based tax by some figure.  Maybe they could also do this and do away with the minimum markup law as a compromise of some sort.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 26, 2012, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 26, 2012, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 25, 2012, 12:15:38 AM
Quote from: colinstu on November 24, 2012, 10:16:49 PM
Quote from: Master son on November 24, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:

Gosh... I hope this doesn't cause problems :S ... at least not the darn zoo interchange. *is biased*

Ditto.

I have been more and more seriously wondering over the past few years if Wisconsin should convert to placing transportation infrastructure on the general fund, abolishing the transportation segregated fund and the fuel tax and instead imposing the regular state sales tax on fuel (fuel is now exempt from the regular retail sales tax in Wisconsin), this on the logic that the level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that he or she derives from the transport network.  IMHO, this would be much more long-term reliable than what we have now.

Yes, I do realize that one or more other state tax rates would have to be increased to make up for the fuel tax loss, perhaps increasing the regular retail sales tax from 5 to 6 percent.  As it stands now, the volume-based fuel tax will fail as a revenue source for funding roads and other transport as inflation charges along.  In fact, right now in some states, to replace their volume-based fuel taxes with their regular retail sales taxes (assuming that fuel is not sales taxed) will be tax rate INCREASES, their fuel tax rates are now so astonishingly low.

Right now in Wisconsin, the state fuel tax is about 10% of the pre-tax pump price.

Mike


Can you clarify if I have the problem right?

That the issue is that that the fuel tax is "volume based," in that it is a tax placed on each gallon of gas sold.  And with rising prices, the volume of gas sold decreases, therefore the revenues earned shrinks.  This problem can be made even more harmful if people drive more fuel efficient cars.

Perhaps the best idea is to have a hybrid.  For instance, have fuel subject to sales tax and designate such taxes to the transportation fund, but then cut the volume based tax by some figure.  Maybe they could also do this and do away with the minimum markup law as a compromise of some sort.

You're pretty close.  The 'volume-based' nature of the tax is that it is a fixed dollar amount on a fixed unit volume of fuel sold.  With inflation, real value of the revenue from the tax available to WisDOT shrinks in proportion to decreases in the real value of the dollar, assuming that the volume of fuel sold remains constant.  If it were percentage-based (like the regular sales tax is), the real value of the revenue would remain much more long-term constant with inflation, with the actual number of dollars available going up or down with changes in the market price of the fuel.

Adjusted for 'real' inflation, the price of fuel today is fairly close to what it was a couple of generations ago, although with the 'volume-based' fuel tax rates, the tax is a far, far lower percentage of the pump price today than it was back then and thus the real value of the money available to the DOTs to do their jobs is much less.

BTW, the volume-based federal fuel tax has not been adjusted in over a generation.

(Note, although I am very much a tax, spending and deficit *HAWK*, transportation infrastructure is one of the few places in government where there is a very strong positive correlation between tax rates and the quality of services rendered - and good transportation infrastructure is one of the top factors of all in having a healthy overall, and especially private-sector, economy.)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on November 27, 2012, 09:25:52 AM
The Zoo interchange isn't the only one which could be delayed under the proposed DOT budget:
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/fox_cities/highway-441-reconstruction-could-be-on-hold
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 27, 2012, 11:37:51 PM
Quote from: Fox 11 News on November 27, 2012, 09:25:52 AM
The Zoo interchange isn't the only one which could be delayed under the proposed DOT budget:
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/fox_cities/highway-441-reconstruction-could-be-on-hold

Not just 'completing' the Bridgeview Interchange and upgrading US 10/WI 441 from there eastward to Oneida St to six lanes, but also upgrading WI 15 between the Greenville Twp area and US 45 at New London and building its planned bypass of Hortonville.

(I hate it when the legislature starts playing knee-jerk politics with the transport fund....   :banghead: )

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 29, 2012, 12:17:39 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 26, 2012, 12:52:39 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 26, 2012, 12:29:54 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of tying sales taxes to road funding. It is NOT, as you suggest, a reliable funding source.

Michigan did something similar with school funding with Proposal A, the idea being to cut property taxes and replace that funding with the sales tax. That sales tax worked great in a good economy, and it helped moderate the differences between rich and poor school districts. However, when the economy went to hell, so did school funding. You'd get the same issue with tying a sales tax to fuel taxes.

What needs to happen is to reintroduce the inflation index that was previously in place.

Unfortunately the same people who were constantly howling a few years back about the inflation indexing ("Tax increases that were NEVER voted on!" Etc.) will be back in full force should that be reintroduced.

Morons.... Big Oil jerks gas prices around all the time for much more than 6 cents (current difference between current funding and a return to the indexed rate). Nobody ever got a vote on that one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 23, 2013, 01:03:55 AM
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2013, 12:25:09 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 23, 2013, 01:03:55 AM

  • For all the map collectors out there, the 2013-14 WisDOT Official Highway Map (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/maps/) has been released (see bottom of the linked website)


Kind of surprised they have both US-10 west of I-39 and WI-26 as "other multilane divided," and not "expressway."  Are there certain standards that WIDOT applies to differentiate between the two?[/list]
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 23, 2013, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2013, 12:25:09 PM
Kind of surprised they have both US-10 west of I-39 and WI-26 as "other multilane divided," and not "expressway."  Are there certain standards that WIDOT applies to differentiate between the two?

The only thing I can think of is that they reserve "expressway" for more urban/denser developed areas?  :hmmm:  Although, that wouldn't fit for Wis 23 between Sheboygan and Plymouth or US 151 between Columbus and Beaver Dam.

Maybe it's based on the spacing/type of at-grade intersections or other access points? Consistency of speed limits?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on January 23, 2013, 01:51:48 PM
ya, but why is US45 from US41 to US10 STILL not a solid red line, it is now a FULL FREEWAY it should get the double red line. also US10 from I39 to marshfield should also be a double red line. i can sortof understand WI26 being marked as it is, but it should at least be the single solid red line from south of fort atkinson to south of johnson creek, while being the seperate red lines through fort atkinson, and then resume the solid red line untill north of  watertown. possibly having a dashed 'under construction' line for its southern segment in the milton area. also, what is with the expressway line for US151 justnorth of the beltline, it is 100% freeway there, yet they constantly class it on the map as an expressway?

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 23, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
The WI 26 Watertown bypass is a full freeway.  Ditto US 12 from I-90/94 to Baraboo.  OTOH, US 18/151 is a surface four lanes from the Beltline to McKee Rd.

Also, about LED streetlights, the lights on two of the major Fox River bridges here in Appleton (Oneida St and Memorial Dr/WI 47) were just changed to LEDs within the past few weeks.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 23, 2013, 07:34:17 PM
My guess is the mapmaker in charge of editing the map used the wrong line type on the new sections (WI-26, US-10, US-45, et al).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on January 24, 2013, 04:54:48 PM
Here's a summary of the highways that aren't accurately depicted on the 2013 Official Highway Map:

US 10 (I-39 west to STH 13 south/34 should be shown as a freeway
US 10 (STH 13 south/34 to STH 80) should be shown as an expressway
US 151 (I-39 to County Trunk C/Main Street) should be shown as a freeway
STH 26 (Ft. Atkinson, Jefferson, Watertown bypasses should be shown as freeway, non-bypass sections should be expressways.)
STH 16 (County Trunk P to eastern interchange with STH 67/Oconomowoc Bypass) should be shown as a freeway, and certainly not as a two-lane road.
US 12 (Baraboo to Lake Delton) should be shown as a freeway.
US 45 (US 41 to US 10) should be shown as a freeway.
US 141 (north of Coleman) should be shown as an expressway, since access is partially controlled.

If they can show a short, orphan segment of STH 54 as an expressway between 'Rapids and Plover, they can show STH 26 as one too.

Some of these freeway segments have a stoplight at a terminus (e.g. 16 at 67, US 12 at I-90/94), however the precedent has been set with showing US 53 as freeway north of I-90 from Onalaska (with stoplights at the I-90 interchange)

Otherwise the official highway map does a a great job separating freeways and expressways accurately.  It just seems to take an edition or two to get new highways shown correctly.  (Wasn't that the case with STH 57 from Green Bay to STH 42 near Sturgeon Bay, where it was first shown as just being multilane divided instead of an expressway?)

Most of the updates shown on the map are 2010 and 2011 completions.  The only 2012 completion I could think of, that was depicted, was the Watertown bypass.  Any others?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 24, 2013, 06:06:01 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on January 24, 2013, 04:54:48 PM
US 151 (I-39 to County Trunk C/Main Street) should be shown as a freeway

CTH C is Reiner Rd (Exit 100). Main St is Exit 101 (http://goo.gl/maps/qw0UY) (not shown on the WisDOT map). While the Main St exit is not shown on the WisDOT map, that is a closer approximation of where the mapping error ends.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 26, 2013, 05:43:16 PM
And they still show US 2/53 as a freeway north of their southern junction even though an at-grade intersection completes the turning movements missing from the interchange.

A few years ago I recall there being an MTR thread started by someone affiliated with the WisDOT map looking for errors to correct.  And a lot of mistakes/corrections that were suggested were actually fixed on the next edition. It would be totally awesome for something like that to happen again.  I take personal responsibility for getting them to remove a fake peninsula into Lake Superior from the Duluth/Superior inset.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on January 26, 2013, 06:13:01 PM
I guess I'm surprised a new map came out. Last year I tried several places to get a current map and they were several years old and the people seemded to think tehe wouldn't be getting newer ones.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tdindy88 on January 26, 2013, 06:18:02 PM
That's odd. I got one last year from the visitors center in Ludington, Michigan (due to the car ferry across Lake Michigan no doubt.) It was the 2010 version though, but it was a newer map than the previous Wisconsin map I had (2008.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 28, 2013, 11:29:30 AM
In case anyone missed it, WisDOT began work on the 'Big Shovel' rebuild of the Zoo Interchange (I-(41)/94/894/US 45) in Milwaukee late last week with the closure and removal of the Greenfield Ave bridge over I-(41)/894/US 45.  The full freeway was closed during the overnight hours on Friday and Saturday nights to allow crews to remove the bridge.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/188147081.html

http://projects.511wi.gov/web/zoo-interchange-project

This is expected to be a six-year project. :hyper:

Enjoy!

:cheers:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 30, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
I added an update to the Milwaukee Freeways thread to that effect.

I see WisDOT is looking to officially designate WI 15 as an expressway between New London and Greenville.  I find that interesting considering the proposed intersection at the west end of the future Hortonville bypass.  Doesn't seem to fit the character of what we've come to expect from 'expressways' in Wisconsin.  I assume this means that WI 15 will be posted at 65 mph when that project is done.  So to have an intersection where the thru route has to make a turn in the middle of a 65 mph stretch seems like a poor idea.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 31, 2013, 01:54:19 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 30, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
I added an update to the Milwaukee Freeways thread to that effect.

I see WisDOT is looking to officially designate WI 15 as an expressway between New London and Greenville.  I find that interesting considering the proposed intersection at the west end of the future Hortonville bypass.  Doesn't seem to fit the character of what we've come to expect from 'expressways' in Wisconsin.  I assume this means that WI 15 will be posted at 65 mph when that project is done.  So to have an intersection where the thru route has to make a turn in the middle of a 65 mph stretch seems like a poor idea.

From what I am aware of, the current plan for both ends of the proposed Hortonville bypass are two-lane roundabouts.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 04, 2013, 05:44:53 PM
WisDOT recently held a PIM for reconstructing US 12 through The Dells area, one of the proposals is to make the existing highway one-way northbound and rebuilding a local street corridor as its southbound opposite.
See Alt 4C (pages 8-9): http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/12dells/docs/ho-alts.pdf
Personally, I think this is the best option as the other alternatives are really not much more then putting lip stick on pig. IMHO
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 04, 2013, 09:36:57 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on February 04, 2013, 05:44:53 PM
WisDOT recently held a PIM for reconstructing US 12 through The Dells area, one of the proposals is to make the existing highway one-way northbound and rebuilding a local street corridor as its southbound opposite.
See Alt 4C (pages 8-9): http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/12dells/docs/ho-alts.pdf
Personally, I think this is the best option as the other alternatives are really not much more then putting lip stick on pig. IMHO

There are a few ways of looking at the one-way couplet:
Being involved in the design process for this project, that's about all I can say about it for now. Keep in mind that the businesses along this corridor are the life-blood of the Dells.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2013, 09:39:31 AM
Are there a lot of problems along this stretch?  Because honestly my guess is 95% the traffic on this road is tourist traffic.  Unless there are an inordinate number of accidents, I am not sure why they would change anything.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 05, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
I'd kind of agree, it is a local traffic road and not a through route (wondering what life was like on it before I-90/94 was built...  :-o ).  From my experiences on it, four lanes with left turn lanes should be sufficient.  How expensive would it be to upgrade at least parts of it to six lanes for the local traffic?

If anything, I still wonder why US 12 wasn't downgraded to a county highway west of the Lake Delton interchange in Wisconsin back when the interstate was first built.

An aside thought, that Lake Delton interchange is, IMHO, going to end up being a long-term FUBAR - it should have had separate high-speed ramps for the freeway-to-freeway through traffic turns with the surface US 12 maintained much as it was for the local tourist crowd.

:banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 06, 2013, 06:21:10 PM
The one-way pair options are not particularly useful.  The water parks and stuff along that corridor are the destination.  This is not a place that needs better thru traffic.  It just needs better left turn capabilities.  Maybe throw in a couple more traffic signals to create gaps for left turns to happen.


Mike, I think your Lake Delton CF is still a ways in the future.  One simple upgrade that could stave off the need for a upgrade to full system interchange would be to have NB distributor ramp that allows NB->WB traffic to bypass the signal.  Really that's your heaviest system movement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on February 10, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
I'm not a fan of the one way pair. Granted it's a problem that "through traffic" from one end to the other mixes with "local traffic" going to Noah's or wherever, but the one way pair doesn't solve it. The real problem in the area are the crossroads of WI 13 and US 12, which just needs more turn lanes and the removal of the split phase arrangement, and banning left turns in the downtown area where there isn't a left turn bay provided.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on February 13, 2013, 06:56:47 AM
Quote from: Mdcastle on February 10, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
I'm not a fan of the one way pair. Granted it's a problem that "through traffic" from one end to the other mixes with "local traffic" going to Noah's or wherever, but the one way pair doesn't solve it. The real problem in the area are the crossroads of WI 13 and US 12, which just needs more turn lanes and the removal of the split phase arrangement, and banning left turns in the downtown area where there isn't a left turn bay provided.
I agree that the WI 13 and US 12 intersection is the cause of the backups in the Dells. South of there, Dells Pkwy is fine . I would be in favor of having the Pkwy having a reversible turn lane at least as far south as the 23-12 split in Lake Delton. As to what to do with the 13-12 intersection, I think you have to have a very long queue of a right turn lane for NB 12 to EB 13 and a double turn lane for NB 12 to WB 13. (Yes I know those are not the directions the state uses but those are the real directions as laid out.) They might also want to think about widening the bridge over the river to accommodate the 13 WB to 12 SB traffic. I don't think the current lane is long enough especially when the peak summer traffic is in town.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on March 17, 2013, 04:34:10 PM
Quote
State to propose innovative Stoughton Road interchange

9 hours ago  -  BARRY ADAMS | Wisconsin State Journal |

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com%2Fhost.madison.com%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2F1%2F3c%2F13cd6daa-8dae-11e2-a4e2-001a4bcf887a%2F5143830da4a30.preview-620.jpg&hash=0b8b1285c458d4d810af06ea11450f44a2408451)

The newest way to control traffic in the state won't have motorists doing circles in a roundabout. Instead, be prepared to drive on the left side of the road ā€“ on purpose.

When the state Department of Transportation holds a public information meeting on Tuesday about major changes to an 11-mile stretch of Stoughton Road/Highway 51, visitors will be introduced to what is called a diverging diamond interchange.

The design works like this: As drivers approach the interchange, those making a right turn merge on to an on-ramp; those going straight or making a left turn continue on to an intersection with traffic signals. The opposing lanes of traffic then lazily cross one another, continuing for a few hundred feet to the left of each other. Drivers turning left can then peel off, unimpeded, onto another ramp, while those continuing straight stay in their lanes, which cross back to the right side of the opposing lanes.

The DOT has proposed the design where Stoughton Road intersects the Beltline and at Highway 30 and is part of an improvement project for the busy corridor that could cost, depending on the final design for each project along the corridor, $215 million to $875 million.

At the Beltline, for example, the price could range from $26 million for a diverging diamond interchange to $280 million for a free-flowing interchange.

At the earliest, construction from Terminal Drive in McFarland to Highway 19 in DeForest wouldn't begin until 2020, would likely be built in phases and could take 10 years to complete.

Mike Hoelker, a planning supervisor for the DOT, said the goal is to reduce crashes, increase connectivity for neighborhoods and add routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.

"We want this to be a corridor that functions safely and efficiently but works within the communities so that it doesn't become a barrier," Hoelker said. "It has to fit into the community."
A crash a day

Stoughton Road, which is also Highway 51, is one of the county's most heavily traveled roadways. Peak-hour delays are increasing with long backups at Pflaum and Buckeye roads and East Washington Avenue, Hoelker said. From 2007 to 2011, the corridor experienced, on average, seven crashes per week, including more than two per week with injuries. During the five-year span, 10 people were killed.

The improvements would remove street-level crossings at Pflaum, Buckeye and East Washington Avenue, sinking Stoughton Road at those intersections below what is now ground level. Stoughton Road would be elevated over Anderson Street and Kinsman Boulevard. The project would also add overpass ramps at East Broadway.

Diverging diamond interchanges would be built under both the Beltline and Highway 30 bridges. In some spots the corridor would consist of six lanes of traffic, while six bicycle and pedestrian bridges would be built over Stoughton Road.

Tuesday's open house will feature foam and computer models, maps and videos portraying different types of intersections.

The meeting is part of a continuing planning process that will include more public hearings and informational meetings. Plans, which could change based on public comment, would not be finalized until next year.

"It's to help familiarize people with some of the concepts we're putting out there and giving them a good idea of what the corridor is going to look like," said Jeff Berens, a DOT traffic safety engineer. "We've had to look at some fairly innovative designs that probably a lot of people in Wisconsin haven't seen before or driven through."
'They move traffic'

Diverging diamond intersections are believed to have originated in France in the 1970s but were not introduced in the U.S. until 2009, when one was built at Interstate 44 and Highway 13 in Springfield, Mo. Motorists were skeptical at first when the new interchange was shown at public meetings, but the state has completed or is building more, said Bob Edwards, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Transportation.

"They work. They move traffic," Edwards said. "We get more complaints about roundabouts."

Other states with the interchanges include Tennessee, Utah and Minnesota, which is scheduled to open its first ā€“ in St. Cloud ā€“ this fall.

The diverging diamond interchanges proposed for Madison would be the first to be included in a state road project, but a number of locations around the state are being examined, said Michael Bie, a DOT spokesman.

The design lowers speeds, eliminates the chance of a T-bone crash and costs 10 times less than a free-flowing interchange like Interstate 39-90-94 and Highway 30, where traffic from any direction does not stop.

"It just guides you through," Hoelker said. "It's actually a very simple concept."

If you go

What: Public information meeting to discuss corridor planning for an 11-mile stretch of Stoughton Road/Highway 51, from Terminal Drive/Voges Road in McFarland to Highway 19 in DeForest.

When: 6 to 8 p.m. Tuesday with a formal presentation at 6:30 p.m.

Where: La Follette High School, 702 Pflaum Road
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/state-to-propose-innovative-stoughton-road-interchange/article_90572ba4-8dae-11e2-a5fc-001a4bcf887a.html
New depressed freeway and diverging diamond(s)... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fcheesy.gif&hash=a1e3a9801bd853b0d032e893e23d53b60cf7c49a)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fdrool.gif&hash=a40c8cfb86d68ef01eb656cf8109f84b3fc9fa47)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 17, 2013, 06:36:02 PM
Just saw that article as well...I must agree with the comments that a video or diagram of a DDI would have been helpful. Also, note that the artist has no concept of traffic signals in Wisconsin...all of the monotubes are depicted on the near-side.  :pan:

Quote from: on_wisconsin on March 17, 2013, 04:34:10 PM
New depressed freeway and diverging diamond(s)... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fcheesy.gif&hash=a1e3a9801bd853b0d032e893e23d53b60cf7c49a)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fdrool.gif&hash=a40c8cfb86d68ef01eb656cf8109f84b3fc9fa47)

If you like that, you might wet yourself with all the DDI concepts for the I-43 corridor: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/seregion/43/public.htm (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/seregion/43/public.htm)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 10:36:45 PM
I'm very open to the idea of DDIs at the crossroad interchanges while OTOH, I'd be more inclined to go with the idea of going big at the Beltline.  Farther north (WI 30 and beyond) will be, IMHO, the biggest question marks.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) is a major local thoroughfare, very unlike the nearby paralleling interstate, and with expected continuing metro growth will need upgrades that will last a few decades.

As I have mentioned in other forvms, my biggest worry with DDIs is how traffic is handled in the event of power failures.  Do they go with 'STOP' signs for the side entering the interchange stopping for the side leaving the interchange at the crossovers?  Both directions stopping?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on March 17, 2013, 10:51:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 10:36:45 PM

As I have mentioned in other forvms, my biggest worry with DDIs is how traffic is handled in the event of power failures.  Do they go with 'STOP' signs for the side entering the interchange stopping for the side leaving the interchange at the crossovers?  Both directions stopping?

Mike

According to this: http://www.divergingdiamond.com/FAQ.html  a power outage would operate as an all-way stop, such as any other signalized intersection with a power outage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on March 17, 2013, 10:55:36 PM
Curious how a SPUI would work during a power outage. Sounds like HELL! Huge intersection, big movements, sounds like it'd be real slow. Lots of wiggle room for sure and I bet most cars could crawl a ways into the intersection before completing their move.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 11:11:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on March 17, 2013, 10:51:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 10:36:45 PM

As I have mentioned in other forvms, my biggest worry with DDIs is how traffic is handled in the event of power failures.  Do they go with 'STOP' signs for the side entering the interchange stopping for the side leaving the interchange at the crossovers?  Both directions stopping?

Mike

According to this: http://www.divergingdiamond.com/FAQ.html  a power outage would operate as an all-way stop, such as any other signalized intersection with a power outage.

Whereas a roundabout would continue functioning normally (but I digress).

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 11:16:03 PM
I also remember from a number of years ago Stoughton Rd being referred to in some circles as the 'East Beltline' and functioning in much the same way as the existing south and west Beltline.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2013, 02:15:49 PM
WisDOT seems to be leaning heavily on basically a freeway conversion for Stoughton Rd. (minus the system connetions).  I have very little familiarity with that corridor's performance since as an out of towner, I'm always coming in from the interstate.  So I was kind of surprised at the flyover options at Stoughton & the Beltline when I first started looking at the stuff for this corridor a few years ago.  The price tag for the DDI is certainly more attractive, but I can only speculate as to how effective it would be.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tdindy88 on March 18, 2013, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 11:16:03 PM
I also remember from a number of years ago Stoughton Rd being referred to in some circles as the 'East Beltline' and functioning in much the same way as the existing south and west Beltline.

Mike

Is there any historical reason for this? I would have thought that 39/90 would have been viewed as the eastern Beltline. I'm not really familar with the history of Madison's highways, I just have a curiosity over them since I plan on visiting the city later on this year.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 18, 2013, 09:05:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2013, 02:15:49 PM
WisDOT seems to be leaning heavily on basically a freeway conversion for Stoughton Rd. (minus the system connetions).  I have very little familiarity with that corridor's performance since as an out of towner, I'm always coming in from the interstate.  So I was kind of surprised at the flyover options at Stoughton & the Beltline when I first started looking at the stuff for this corridor a few years ago.  The price tag for the DDI is certainly more attractive, but I can only speculate as to how effective it would be.

There are already parts of Stoughton Rd that act like a quasi expressway between Hwy 19 and the Belt Line. What I am most curious about is what WDOT will do with the US 51 interchange with I-39/90/94. As it currently is, it's fine. But if they are going to convert this part of Stoughton Rd to a freeway, the off ramps from I-39/90/94 need to get redone with the elimination of the traffic signals there too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 18, 2013, 10:34:11 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 18, 2013, 09:05:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2013, 02:15:49 PM
WisDOT seems to be leaning heavily on basically a freeway conversion for Stoughton Rd. (minus the system connetions).  I have very little familiarity with that corridor's performance since as an out of towner, I'm always coming in from the interstate.  So I was kind of surprised at the flyover options at Stoughton & the Beltline when I first started looking at the stuff for this corridor a few years ago.  The price tag for the DDI is certainly more attractive, but I can only speculate as to how effective it would be.

There are already parts of Stoughton Rd that act like a quasi expressway between Hwy 19 and the Belt Line. What I am most curious about is what WDOT will do with the US 51 interchange with I-39/90/94. As it currently is, it's fine. But if they are going to convert this part of Stoughton Rd to a freeway, the off ramps from I-39/90/94 need to get redone with the elimination of the traffic signals there too.

IMHO, the north end past the airport (MSN) to the interstate would need a local-access street alternate should it be upgraded to a full freeway.  North of the interstate, US 51 is a fairly high-standard highway to WI 60 that would fit in well with a freeway upgrade to the south.

Also, and somewhat interesting in the 'What if....?' sense is that to me, this is work that would have been done 40-50 years ago had the interstates not been built, although I do consider it to be very likely that had the interstates not come along, a cross-country ticket tollway would have been built in roughly the US 12 corridor from Chicagoland to the MStP area, by way of Madison.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 18, 2013, 10:41:57 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2013, 02:15:49 PM
WisDOT seems to be leaning heavily on basically a freeway conversion for Stoughton Rd. (minus the system connetions).  I have very little familiarity with that corridor's performance since as an out of towner, I'm always coming in from the interstate.  So I was kind of surprised at the flyover options at Stoughton & the Beltline when I first started looking at the stuff for this corridor a few years ago.  The price tag for the DDI is certainly more attractive, but I can only speculate as to how effective it would be.

During the rush hours, the Beltline interchange is quite overwhelmed, particularly the SBD Stoughton Rd to WBD Beltline movement. The Beltline regularly begins backing up here as traffic from Stoughton Rd struggles to merge before the Monona Dr exit. Traffic NBD on Stoughton Rd struggles too; it frequently takes two signal cycles to filter through. Outside of rush hours, it's busy but flows well enough.

The major issue with this area is the intersection at Broadway immediately north. It not only holds up traffic on Stoughton Rd, it makes movements between Broadway and the Beltline messy.

The DDI idea at the Beltline isn't going to perform much better than what's there now; the signal timing mimics a DDI style intersection. If they go with flyovers, they still need to get the SBD to WBD and EBD to NBD movements merge smoothly, which may spell the end of the Monona Dr. exit on the Beltline (or require additional ramps to separate Stoughton Rd and Monona Dr traffic).

Traffic backs up frequently at Buckeye Rd and Pflaum Rd as well, and have a high number of rear-end crashes. This stretch sorely needs grade separation, and its arrival is welcome.

The big issue I have with the non-free-flowing options at the Beltline and WI-30 is that the rest of Stoughton Rd drives similarly to a freeway. That means inattentive traffic will be more likely to miss the signals at the remaining locations, and rear-end accidents will be as bad if not worse than they are now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on March 19, 2013, 12:35:37 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 18, 2013, 10:34:11 PMNorth of the interstate, US 51 is a fairly high-standard highway to WI 60 that would fit in well with a freeway upgrade to the south.

Speaking of that, WisDOT is currently in process of converting US 51 from WIS 19 to just east of DeForest (CTH V/ North St) into a full freeway. Also the Interstate-US 51 interchange has been under heavy reconstruction for the last year or so with many long term ramp closures.
US 51 WisDOT page: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d1/us51/index.htm
DeForest extension: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d1/us51/docs/map-ts3.pdf

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 19, 2013, 09:22:51 AM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 18, 2013, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 11:16:03 PM
I also remember from a number of years ago Stoughton Rd being referred to in some circles as the 'East Beltline' and functioning in much the same way as the existing south and west Beltline.

Mike

Is there any historical reason for this? I would have thought that 39/90 would have been viewed as the eastern Beltline. I'm not really familar with the history of Madison's highways, I just have a curiosity over them since I plan on visiting the city later on this year.


Stoughton Road carries a ton of local traffic.  If you live in Monona, parts of Cottage Grove or the southeast side of Madison, and you work either downtown or on the west side, you pretty much need to take Stoughton Road and the Beltline to get there.  The root of all of Madison's traffic problems are it's geography, and in particular the lakes.  Most east to west traffic has to take the Beltline because of the lakes.  The isthmus and going north are options, but not particularly good ones.  The problem with the interstate is that there are no interchanges between WI-30 and the Beltline, which effectively means that it is used by through traffic and traffic from the Sun Prairie area and points east.  That means local traffic pretty much has to use Stoughton Road to get to the Beltline.

I think if they could resign the Beltline over, you wouldn't put an interchange at Monona Drive - Stoughton Road and South Towne Drive would serve the area just fine.  However I am not sure they will be able to get rid of it now.  I do think that they need to ramp up the Stoughton Road interchange even at the expense of Monona Drive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on March 21, 2013, 11:23:53 PM
The Governor proposes new WisDOT HQ
Quote
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com%2Fhost.madison.com%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2F9%2F72%2F972f286e-927c-11e2-be4c-0019bb2963f4%2F514b93b9b40ed.preview-620.jpg&hash=ec8ab77712d35d11d91a259b79abac94adb5eba2)
...
New Transportation building

The largest single project is the $196.6 million replacement of the 368,100-square-foot Department of Transportation headquarters on Sheboygan Avenue. The proposal calls for construction of a 600,000-square-foot building and a 1,500-space parking garage on the 21-acre site, much of which is taken up by large surface parking lots. Any excess land would be sold to help pay for the project, according to a Department of Administration summary.

The plan also calls for the state Department of Employee Trust Funds to move its 180 employees from the Badger Road State Office Building to the new facility. The old building and land at the corner of Badger Road and Park Street would likely be sold to lower the overall cost of the Hill Farms project, DOA spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said.

Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, admitted the project could generate "sticker shock" but said continuing to spend millions maintaining the 49-year-old hill Farms complex doesn't make sense. State officials estimate it needs $34 million in upgrades in the next few years to improve accessibility, air quality and heating and cooling systems. Complete renovation could run $142 million.

"Any future dollar spent on the existing building would be a dollar down the drain," Hintz said.
...
Wisconsin State Journal- http://bit.ly/15y73ji
:cool:

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 21, 2013, 11:56:42 PM
As one who has had the [displeasure] of working out of that place on quite a few occasions, a BIG standing  :clap: :clap: :clap: to this news. Can I bring a sledgehammer when it's demo time?? :biggrin:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 22, 2013, 09:40:56 AM
is that a photo of the current one, or a mockup of the new one?

in any case, that building looks very 1960s Eastern Europe.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 22, 2013, 10:30:50 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 22, 2013, 09:40:56 AM
is that a photo of the current one, or a mockup of the new one?

in any case, that building looks very 1960s Eastern Europe.


That's the current one.  Built in 1964!

http://www.doa.state.wi.us/subcategory.asp?linksubcatid=112&locid=4

My son lives pretty much right across the street from that building.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 23, 2013, 10:30:03 AM
I like the 'Commie block' reference to it!

:nod:

That thing towers over the nearby major intersection and yes, reminds one very much of some of the worst that the 20th century foisted upon the World.

BTW, that is what is referred to when the words 'Hill Farms' are mentioned in discussions regarding transport in Wisconsin.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 23, 2013, 11:41:50 AM
The problem with a lot of those buildings built in the 1960s is that they are ridiculously hard to renovate and retrofit.  Furthermore the State of Wisconsin built buildings back then that were supposed to have a usable life of 100 years, so they are solidly built, but very costly and no one back then had a clue how space needed to be utilized in 100 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 09, 2013, 07:12:56 PM
It's construction season in Wisconsin again.
The Wausau area enters it's 10th year of continuous freeway construction with two projects on I-39/US 51 and one west of town on WI 29.

All traffic is currently in the NB lanes over the Wisconsin River while the SB bridge is replaced.  Pretty straightforward.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/39/index.htm (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/39/index.htm)

The more interesting US 51 project is at the other end of BUS 51 where construction just started to reconfigure the current split diamond interchange into a diamond interchange at Bus 51/CTH K and a half diamond (facing south) at CTH U.  Just yesterday, the CTH U overpass was demolished, eliminating the last sub-standard vertical clearance on the corridor. :clap:
The ramp terminals at Bus 51 will be roundabouts but during construction, temporary traffic signals have been installed.  This is interesting because these junctions were previously unsignalized.
This project will also finally replace the last stretch of bone-jarring pavement on US 51 and/or I-39 in the area. (The original concrete c. 1963 is still in use currently.)
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/51uk/ (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/51uk/)

Finally, we've got the almost-freeway conversion of WI 29 out to Marathon City.  (WisDOT is leaving 1 RIRO on the WB lanes.)  While I drove the US 51 projects recently, I didn't get out on 29 to see how that was going, but they should be going at the new interchange for CTH O.  This stretch of expressway previously had a paved center left turn lane median and a 55 mph speed limit.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/29107o/index.htm (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/29107o/index.htm)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 11, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Hey, when did WisDOT do this?
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=46.21298,-91.79802&z=15&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=46.21298,-91.79802&z=15&t=S)

The SB carriageway on US 53 by Halfway Lake in southern Douglas County has been relocated to follow the NB carriageway further east of the lake.  You can see the obliterated r/w of the old, straight carriageway that was the original 2 lane US 53.
I did not know this was happening and I follow WisDOT projects pretty closely.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 12, 2013, 01:18:22 PM
Better question is why was it not done when the NB lanes were moved?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 12, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
I'm guessing it was money since there are several stretches where the old 2 lane highway was not rebuilt after construction of the new carriageway.  This was one of 'em.

Another 'stealth project' on US 53 seems to be construction of an interchange at Haugen.  Reading WisDOT's corridor preservation study for US 53, it is not obvious in any way that this interchange is being built right now.  There's just one sentence on the region's weekly construction update.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 12, 2013, 09:26:54 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 12, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
I'm guessing it was money since there are several stretches where the old 2 lane highway was not rebuilt after construction of the new carriageway.  This was one of 'em.

Another 'stealth project' on US 53 seems to be construction of an interchange at Haugen.  Reading WisDOT's corridor preservation study for US 53, it is not obvious in any way that this interchange is being built right now.  There's just one sentence on the region's weekly construction update.

I've been aware of that one since last year.  WisDOT is also seriously studying full freeway upgrades for US 53's Spooner bypass.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 16, 2013, 11:17:28 AM
I stopped in at the WisDOT PIM for upgrades to US 10 and WI 114 in the SE Appleton area, from WI 441 to just short of the WI 114 east split yesterday (Wed 2013-05-15) evening.

-The discussion was about simple upgrades to the existing roadways in response to the rapid urbanization of the far northwestern part of Calumet County - that area, especially the part of the county west of about County 'N', is fast filling in and will likely be built out (assuming current zoning) within the planning window for this project.  WisDOT says that that part of US 10 is now functioning just fine with its current design, but will be failing assuming that urban buildout.

-The preferred plan for this roadway is a rework as a more major urban-suburban style major street with a raised median and intersection upgrades (likely roundabouts) at several key intersections, especially at US 10's west split with WI 114 at the Calumet-Winnebago County line (this is the south end of Oneida St in Appleton).  An idea of how busy US 10 at that intersection is likely to become by about 2030-2035?  The signalized intersection option shown has THREE left turn lanes to handle the EB US 10 turn there.

:wow:

-A pedestrian-bicycle path is included along the south side of US 10/WI 114, an idea that I strongly support.  The existing Lake Winnebago north shore area is full of residences that are now only, in a practical sense, accessible via car from a series of mostly non-connecting private access roadways that branch off of that part of US 10/WI 114.  (These are called the 'Fire Lanes' - Fire Lane 2 through Fire Lane 13, with the numbers increasing as one travels eastward.  'Fire Lane 1' is the south end of Oneida St.)  This path MAY be built sooner than the US 10/WI 114 ugrades by local governments (I hope that it will be).

-I brought up the issue of 'US Bicycle Routes' that was recently discussed elsewhere and that (assuming that I read AASHTO's list correctly) IMHO, this would be a good link on the USBR 20 corridor.  This path would be an extension of an existing path on the Winnebago County side of WI 114 (called the 'Friendship Trail') that currently continues westward through Menasha, across Little Lake Butts des Morts on a very interesting abandoned railroad bridge, westward along the US 10 freeway to the Winchester area and is ultimately planned to continue on roughly along US 10 to Stevens Point.  A couple of the local planning officials who I mentioned that to were very interested in that point.

-Actual construction is many years away, likely not until well into the 2020s, but when funding becomes available and that happens, it will be truly 'shovel ready' as all of the EIS and other related red tape will already be out of the way by then.  The WisDOT guys were visibly happy when they were bringing up that point.

-I did pass along my thoughts for US 10 ultimately being relocated off of that current routing west of Forest Junction to instead be rerouted to go past Hollandtown and feed into and connect to WI 441 freeway via County 'CE' (E College Ave).  They seemed interested.

-Major 'big shovel' six-lane upgrades to the Winnebago County part of the US 10/WI 441 freeway (US(I)-41, interchange 134 to Oneida St) are still on track for the 2016-2019 timeframe, but could be moved up depending on funding.

-Q) Will WisDOT be applying to AASHTO for 'promotion' of the WI 441 freeway to a full 3DI once that work is done?  A) A definite . . . maybe.  WisDOT is still not 100% sure that US 41 itself will be promoted - if US 41's current heavier than interstate-standard truck weight limit is not grandfathered in (the decision is pending), its pending promotion to 'I-41' could very well be *CANCELLED* and, if so, there would be no reason to apply for the same for WI 441.  Ditto for any similar 'promotion' for WI 172 in the Green Bay area.

:wow:  :wow:

Stay tuned.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on May 16, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
What about a new alignment freeway for US 10 coming out of 441 at the curve just south of KK, running southeast towards the county N/US 10 roundabout. The US 10 freeway would continue along the current corridor for much of the way towards manitowoc.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 16, 2013, 04:44:03 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 16, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
What about a new alignment freeway for US 10 coming out of 441 at the curve just south of KK, running southeast towards the county N/US 10 roundabout. The US 10 freeway would continue along the current corridor for much of the way towards manitowoc.

That would have been quite appropriate - had it been laid out and finalized in the late 1970s or early 1980s, long before WI 441 was built in the early 1990s.  OTOH, in 2013, there are a Walmart*, Time-Warner Cable call center, industrial park and numerous residential neighborhoods in the way.

The only corridor left for a potential US 10 reroute is County 'CE'.

-----------------

One of the planning alternates in the 1970s and early 1980s for what became WI 441 was a southerly routing that would have headed slightly southeastward and then eastward from the Little Lake Butte des Morts bridge along 9th St and modern-day US 10/WI 114 to Lake Park Rd, where it would have split with a directional 'Y' interchange.  The north leg would have followed Lake Park Rd to where the freeway is now, feeding into its current routing with an 'S' curve where it now crosses Lake Park Rd.  The east leg would have continued eastward as modern-day US 10/WI 114.

IMHO, that option would have been far and away the best from a traffic flow and utility standpoint, but it was also far and away the most expensive option - it would have use the most concrete and had the most ROW-acquisition expense - among other things requiring taking a block-wide swath of houses across Menasha's north side.  The fact that much of the ROW for the existing freeway was already acquired by then was also a factor.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 23, 2013, 08:31:11 PM
The 25th St-70th St I-94 corridor project had some PIMs recently. I visited it, materials are available for viewing here: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/seregion/94stadiumint/public.htm

*E2 is the way to go IMO. Everyone can get to/from 27th st directly with no St Paul / 25th St BS. Also, 35th st on/off ramps are braided and aren't split-diamond like.
*S1 is my pick here too. Surprised there were only two designs here... but they're both good / interesting. S1 sure is huge looking... but it's only 2-3 levels it looks like vs. a more expensive 4+ level design.
*C2 or C1 are decent, better than C3 anyways. If I had to pick one, C2.
*W2 or W4 are the only acceptable ones in accordance to the idea that C3 isn't acceptable. W2 and W4 are both great, W4 would result in less residential impacts, but W2 would result in a tight diamond with 70th st instead of the split 68-70th st diamond... which I like better... screw it, 70th st only would be better, so W2 wins.

3.1MB Composition of my choices:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHRS5qUJ.jpg&hash=aba5ff91e8be5378be966f2d17e73c17ed38e406)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on May 23, 2013, 09:55:35 PM
 I though US 41 was getting rerouted/hidden as part of the interstate conversion; I would have expected WisDOT to show the new numbering.

The single point option is certainly interesting with the flyovers for EB to NB and WB to SB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 23, 2013, 10:26:35 PM
Hmmm.  341 becomes "unhidden" in these plans...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 23, 2013, 11:02:05 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 23, 2013, 09:55:35 PM
I though US 41 was getting rerouted/hidden as part of the interstate conversion; I would have expected WisDOT to show the new numbering.

Looked like those were just for the public information so they could reference what is there now.  Exit numbers were also blank.  Since the replacement numbering of 41 north is not known they went that way instead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 23, 2013, 11:10:36 PM
Interesting to think once US-41 is rerouted around I-894 that WI-341 will remain a relic/remembrance of the past.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on May 24, 2013, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2013, 04:44:03 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 16, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
What about a new alignment freeway for US 10 coming out of 441 at the curve just south of KK, running southeast towards the county N/US 10 roundabout. The US 10 freeway would continue along the current corridor for much of the way towards manitowoc.

That would have been quite appropriate - had it been laid out and finalized in the late 1970s or early 1980s, long before WI 441 was built in the early 1990s.  OTOH, in 2013, there are a Walmart*, Time-Warner Cable call center, industrial park and numerous residential neighborhoods in the way.

The only corridor left for a potential US 10 reroute is County 'CE'.

-----------------

One of the planning alternates in the 1970s and early 1980s for what became WI 441 was a southerly routing that would have headed slightly southeastward and then eastward from the Little Lake Butte des Morts bridge along 9th St and modern-day US 10/WI 114 to Lake Park Rd, where it would have split with a directional 'Y' interchange.  The north leg would have followed Lake Park Rd to where the freeway is now, feeding into its current routing with an 'S' curve where it now crosses Lake Park Rd.  The east leg would have continued eastward as modern-day US 10/WI 114.

IMHO, that option would have been far and away the best from a traffic flow and utility standpoint, but it was also far and away the most expensive option - it would have use the most concrete and had the most ROW-acquisition expense - among other things requiring taking a block-wide swath of houses across Menasha's north side.  The fact that much of the ROW for the existing freeway was already acquired by then was also a factor.

Mike
I think it can be done, avoiding the neighborhoods and the Wal-Mart, there would be few houses in fact that would need to come down. http://www.flickr.com/photos/90524991@N03/8803832435/
I also included something like a 4-lane/ shared left turn lane setup for WI114 going south, and bypassing Sherwood before narrowing back down to two lanes after a partial Y-interchange at WI55/WI114. this is just a thought I had while drawing this up, knowing how difficult it can be at times to travel around for WIAA games and stuff, and seeing the subdivisions there growing rapidly. few if any houses or businesses would need to be removed. the actual US10 corridor itself obviously is too wide, I did that more to illustrate the location rather than the logistics.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 24, 2013, 01:04:01 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 24, 2013, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2013, 04:44:03 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 16, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
What about a new alignment freeway for US 10 coming out of 441 at the curve just south of KK, running southeast towards the county N/US 10 roundabout. The US 10 freeway would continue along the current corridor for much of the way towards manitowoc.

That would have been quite appropriate - had it been laid out and finalized in the late 1970s or early 1980s, long before WI 441 was built in the early 1990s.  OTOH, in 2013, there are a Walmart*, Time-Warner Cable call center, industrial park and numerous residential neighborhoods in the way.

The only corridor left for a potential US 10 reroute is County 'CE'.

-----------------

One of the planning alternates in the 1970s and early 1980s for what became WI 441 was a southerly routing that would have headed slightly southeastward and then eastward from the Little Lake Butte des Morts bridge along 9th St and modern-day US 10/WI 114 to Lake Park Rd, where it would have split with a directional 'Y' interchange.  The north leg would have followed Lake Park Rd to where the freeway is now, feeding into its current routing with an 'S' curve where it now crosses Lake Park Rd.  The east leg would have continued eastward as modern-day US 10/WI 114.

IMHO, that option would have been far and away the best from a traffic flow and utility standpoint, but it was also far and away the most expensive option - it would have use the most concrete and had the most ROW-acquisition expense - among other things requiring taking a block-wide swath of houses across Menasha's north side.  The fact that much of the ROW for the existing freeway was already acquired by then was also a factor.

Mike
I think it can be done, avoiding the neighborhoods and the Wal-Mart, there would be few houses in fact that would need to come down. http://www.flickr.com/photos/90524991@N03/8803832435/
I also included something like a 4-lane/ shared left turn lane setup for WI114 going south, and bypassing Sherwood before narrowing back down to two lanes after a partial Y-interchange at WI55/WI114. this is just a thought I had while drawing this up, knowing how difficult it can be at times to travel around for WIAA games and stuff, and seeing the subdivisions there growing rapidly. few if any houses or businesses would need to be removed. the actual US10 corridor itself obviously is too wide, I did that more to illustrate the location rather than the logistics.

What you have drawn will also require taking the Rassmusson College Appleton school as well as Time-Warner's new call center.  Both are fairly substantial buildings that are located on the southeast side of WI 441 there, in addition to taking a corridor through a major portion of the City of Appleton's southeast Business Park.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on May 24, 2013, 02:41:08 PM
I put mine through so Rasmussen wasn't impacted, but im not an engineer, so I don't know what exactly would be required there in terms of space and angles. if your talking about a free-flow interchange at Cty CE, then how could you possibly fit that there with so many businesses there? if you built something similar to the WI 29 project in green bay, I count at least 10 businesses/buildings that would nee to go if the new college ave. would be routed on the north side of the new freeway on the current alignment, and that's just assuming you end with a intersection/roundabout at Eisenhower drive. there would be no room for any interchanges until the current one at Washington st. plus there would be many more buildings torn down near the interchange to make room for the new ramps. beyond that, the next possible location along CE for an interchange that would have minimal impacts on surrounding subdivisions would be at military road. all of this is irrelevant however if your NOT talking about a freeway, obviously CE would then be the clear choice if you are talking about 4-lanes to Manitowoc without limited access. so my above statements are in regards only to a full freeway to Manitowoc.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 24, 2013, 09:42:11 PM
This is starting to delve into the 'fantasy/fictional' highway realm, but I have played around with that area off and on over the past few years and found that it is likely possible to do a free-flow connection at WI 441/College Ave needing only some of the 'throwaway' retail and FF buildings in the SE quadrant closest to the interchange.  This would involve piggybacking the free-flow part of the interchange over most of the existing diamond, rerouting the College Ave street east of WI 441 to follow the south frontage/access road eastward to Railroad St, upgrading the existing County 'CE' eastward past Railroad St with grade separations at Eisenhower Dr and Railroad St and WB off/EB on feeder ramps on the east side of Railroad St.

From there eastward is would be a very straightforward upgrade of an existing four-lane controlled-access suburban arterial to a full freeway with SPUIs and/or 'dogbone' roundabouts at the needed narrow ROW interchanges.  A working example of what I am thinking about is Keystone Parkway in Carmel, IN.

East of Military Rd east of Kaukauna, I'm envisioning a 'Super Two' freeway/expressway to continue on past Hollandtown and on to the east side of Forest Junction (where it would rejoin existing US 10) on an upgradable new four-lane ROW.

The part to make the connections with WI 441 south of College Ave would be a tight fit within the current ROW, but I also consider it to be doable with minor, if any, ROW acquisition needed.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 26, 2013, 04:36:14 PM
Quote from: colinstu on May 23, 2013, 08:31:11 PM
The 25th St-70th St I-94 corridor project had some PIMs recently. I visited it, materials are available for viewing here: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/seregion/94stadiumint/public.htm

*E2 is the way to go IMO. Everyone can get to/from 27th st directly with no St Paul / 25th St BS. Also, 35th st on/off ramps are braided and aren't split-diamond like.
*S1 is my pick here too. Surprised there were only two designs here... but they're both good / interesting. S1 sure is huge looking... but it's only 2-3 levels it looks like vs. a more expensive 4+ level design.
*C2 or C1 are decent, better than C3 anyways. If I had to pick one, C2.
*W2 or W4 are the only acceptable ones in accordance to the idea that C3 isn't acceptable. W2 and W4 are both great, W4 would result in less residential impacts, but W2 would result in a tight diamond with 70th st instead of the split 68-70th st diamond... which I like better... screw it, 70th st only would be better, so W2 wins.

3.1MB Composition of my choices:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHRS5qUJ.jpg&hash=aba5ff91e8be5378be966f2d17e73c17ed38e406)

Refresh my memory. To get to the Casino from 94, don't you have to exit on to St Paul Ave? By doing it the way you show, you could not exit anymore at St Paul and 27th Ave would have no access to it either.  I think you might have a problem with the Casino traffic. Just saying.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 26, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 26, 2013, 04:36:14 PMRefresh my memory. To get to the Casino from 94, don't you have to exit on to St Paul Ave? By doing it the way you show, you could not exit anymore at St Paul and 27th Ave would have no access to it either.  I think you might have a problem with the Casino traffic. Just saying.

You're saying that like the Casino gets a buttload of traffic.

Regardless, 27th St exit -> Clybourn St -> 16th St -> Casino -OR- 27th St exit -> St Paul -> Emmber Lane -> Canal St -> Casino... it's barely harder and there's still access.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 26, 2013, 05:46:46 PM
It always seems to be crowded when I play at that one. The people aka traffic has to come from somewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 01, 2013, 11:12:51 PM
Geeky moment:
WisDOT has a neat new(?) tool for finding the AADT of state maintained and other roads, based on Google maps:

https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/roadrunner/

My only quibble is that there are not enough data points in suburban and rural areas. (esp. intersections)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 07, 2013, 12:15:32 PM
I was in Milwaukee yesterday evening (Thu - 2013-06-06) for the Phillies @ Brewers game (a lackluster loss for the Brewers, BTW  Grrrrr....) and, while walking along the main walkway from the east Miller Park parking lots to the stadium, took a glance to the left from the walkway and noticed a genuine, WisDOT-issue 'WI 341' sign alive in the wild.  It is by the stop-and-go lights at the intersection between a parking lot access roadway, a couple of Miller Park Way freeway ('secret' WI 341) access ramps and Canal St just east of where that main walkway crosses over the Miller Park Way freeway.  No, I didn't have a camera handy.   :-(

There are also a couple of mis-placed US 41 signs on the NB Miller Park Way freeway on the approach to I-94.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2013, 12:41:40 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 07, 2013, 12:15:32 PM
There are also a couple of mis-placed US 41 signs on the NB Miller Park Way freeway on the approach to I-94.


I know...same ones have been there since I can remember.  And I have been driving that stretch for over 20 years!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on June 18, 2013, 06:08:56 PM
The WI-26 bypass of Milton is being paved.  More info here: http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2013/jun/18/work-underway-new-highway-26-lanes/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 19, 2013, 12:04:13 AM
I recently found myself having a little vacation in the Kickapoo River area around La Farge and Ontario.  This afforded me the opportunity to see first hand the artifacts of the cancelled La Farge Dam project and it's associated highway changes.  Chris Bessert did a nice write up on the failed project's effects on WI 131.

[ur]http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/indepth/STH-131_kickapoo.html[/url]

The contrast between the relocated segment south of Rockton and the 2000's rebuild north of there is stark.  The high bridge at Rockton is also an interesting vestige.  I saw it from the river, too and it was impressive to imagine 40 or 50 feet of water above your head there.
The old alignment of WI 131 is a nice multi-use trail.  Because it's so wide, one 'lane' is paved for bikes and the other side is gravel for horses.

I hiked around the old dam site and stood at the base of the intake tower.  Cool stuff.  The history of the project is so interesting too.  It was an attempt to solve a man-made problem.  (Floods were made worse on the Kickapoo by poor farming practice and poorly sited communities.)  But doing so only created more problems.

In the end, we wound up with an awesome, large piece of public land in a part of the state where such things are small and scattered.  Nature has reclaimed all the old pastures and fields and one can get a sense of what that whole driftless region looked like prior to development by European settlers.  The only thing the Kickapoo Reserve needs now is bison.  That would be really cool.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on June 19, 2013, 12:15:25 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 19, 2013, 12:04:13 AM
Kickapoo is cool.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 20, 2013, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 19, 2013, 12:15:25 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 19, 2013, 12:04:13 AM
Kickapoo is cool.

Well played, sir. :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 02, 2013, 10:02:56 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 07, 2013, 12:15:32 PM
I was in Milwaukee yesterday evening (Thu - 2013-06-06) for the Phillies @ Brewers game (a lackluster loss for the Brewers, BTW  Grrrrr....) and, while walking along the main walkway from the east Miller Park parking lots to the stadium, took a glance to the left from the walkway and noticed a genuine, WisDOT-issue 'WI 341' sign alive in the wild.  It is by the stop-and-go lights at the intersection between a parking lot access roadway, a couple of Miller Park Way freeway ('secret' WI 341) access ramps and Canal St just east of where that main walkway crosses over the Miller Park Way freeway.  No, I didn't have a camera handy.   :-(

There are also a couple of mis-placed US 41 signs on the NB Miller Park Way freeway on the approach to I-94.

Mike

You're making me want to go on a scavenger hunt! lol

If I get there and see the sign, I'll snap a few pics to upload.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 27, 2013, 02:23:38 PM
When did WisDOT add 'driveyour94.com' as a domain URL?
i.e. http://driveyour94.com/statepatrol/index.htm or http://driveyour94.com/travel/air/aircraft-reg.htm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 27, 2013, 02:46:36 PM
^^ Seems very odd that WisDOT would do this on their own as I-94 is not unique to Wisconsin, plus the urls lead to WisDOT sections that have nothing to do with I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on July 27, 2013, 05:18:33 PM
Anyone know how many miles of highway are in Wisconsin's state highway system? Maybe it's 9400? :bigass:

EDIT: Never mind, it's 11,000. Maybe now one of the Dakotas will register the domain name http://mightyfineon29.com/ :bigass:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mahaasma on July 28, 2013, 09:57:51 PM
I have a two Fort Atkinson questions, should be quick so I decided to post them here.

1)  WisDOT was studying a US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson, but it seems like it abruptly stopped all of a sudden last year.  Does anyone know why?  Lack of funding?
Here's the message on the page: 
QuoteNote - WisDOT has stopped all work on the study of a future US 12 Bypass through the town of Koshkonong south of Fort Atkinson. The final disposition of the study will be determined at a future date by the Transportation Projects Commission. (May 3, 2012)

2) I noticed that US-12 and Business 26 actually operate on two different streets in town.  I've seen this before when streets are one-way, but never when streets are two way.  The traditional route takes US-12 on Madison Avenue to south on Main St, then following Whitewater Ave toward WW.  But now, US-12 E (and Bus-26 southbound) is signed Madison Ave to Robert St to 3rd St to Main (and Bus-26 Robert St to Janesville Ave).  But the westbound US-12 routing stays with its traditional route.  Same with the northbound Business 26.

Hope this description makes sense.  I don't know how recent this change was.  Anyone know why?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 28, 2013, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: mahaasma on July 28, 2013, 09:57:51 PM
I have a two Fort Atkinson questions, should be quick so I decided to post them here.

1)  WisDOT was studying a US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson, but it seems like it abruptly stopped all of a sudden last year.  Does anyone know why?  Lack of funding?
Here's the message on the page: 
QuoteNote - WisDOT has stopped all work on the study of a future US 12 Bypass through the town of Koshkonong south of Fort Atkinson. The final disposition of the study will be determined at a future date by the Transportation Projects Commission. (May 3, 2012)

2) I noticed that US-12 and Business 26 actually operate on two different streets in town.  I've seen this before when streets are one-way, but never when streets are two way.  The traditional route takes US-12 on Madison Avenue to south on Main St, then following Whitewater Ave toward WW.  But now, US-12 E (and Bus-26 southbound) is signed Madison Ave to Robert St to 3rd St to Main (and Bus-26 Robert St to Janesville Ave).  But the westbound US-12 routing stays with its traditional route.  Same with the northbound Business 26.

Hope this description makes sense.  I don't know how recent this change was.  Anyone know why?


1. The Governor stopped all work on the project for political reasons.  It will likely be picked up again, but they are far away from building it anyway.

2.  I have lived in Fort Atkinson since just after the bypass opened.  My understanding is that WI-26 was simply replaced by Bus. WI-26.  I have no idea the exact date the change was made, but I am pretty sure it is when they upgraded Robert Street and the Robert Street bridge over the Rock River in the mid 70s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 29, 2013, 10:23:33 AM
On a slightly different note, I have found a genuine, albeit Sun-faded, 'INTERSTATE/WISCONSIN 43' sign alive in the wild.  It is on westbound Dousman St (US 141) just as one comes off of its Fox River bridge in downtown Green Bay.

http://goo.gl/maps/n8IAm

That's the Titletown Brewery in the background.

:cool:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 29, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
^^ and the sign is older than 1998 when the road was reconstructed so that sign somehow survived that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 30, 2013, 10:29:27 PM
Speaking of US 12, I could've sworn I saw something in the Janesville Gazette or elsewhere about Walworth County trying to get a study done to push the Elkhorn-Whitewater 4-laning forward. Of course now I can't find it....

Update: yes, but the article's 2 years old - http://gazettextra.com/news/2011/nov/17/boards-urge-dot-hurry-hwy-12-study/

Update #2: Found it! (currently in Google's cache since gazettextra's being stupid)

DOT takes over Highway 12 expansion
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uyoCzfiwkHUJ:gazettextra.com/news/2013/jul/17/dot-takes-over-highway-12-expansion/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

And.....

Highway 12 expansion project underway
http://news.mywalworthcounty.com/?p=5793
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 31, 2013, 02:08:10 AM
^^
I would definitely do the 'Corner Cut' as proposed - except for the crossing of that small bit of the Kettle Moraine, which is easy to dig through random-mixed sand and gravel, the rest is entirely pool-table flat, wide-open countryside.

The existing US 12 would still remain a state highway, WI 67 and a westward extension of WI 20, and I would install a roundabout that the current US 12 turn intersection at WI 20/67, as well as study them at a couple of other intersections along the way.

And then, how long before the Whitewater-Fort Atkinson part is put back on the front burner???

:hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 01, 2013, 09:41:47 PM
I attended the PIM regarding the I-39/90 construction in Janesville tonight, and came back with some interesting information, including:

- Previously, WisDOT was going to expand into the median throughout Rock County, and maintain at least a 60-foot median width through Dane County. This apparently has changed; they are now designing for a 84-foot median throughout, with the possible exceptions of the section through Janesville, and the stretch north of the weigh station to the Beltline. The goal is to not need any kind of median barrier in the rural sections, at least until such time that another lane becomes necessary.

- They are proposing a number of intersection improvements to US-14 along the east and north sides of Janesville, and to US-51 north through Edgerton. There is no proposal to widen any section of US-14 or US-51 in conjunction with this project. They anticipate about 15% of traffic currently using I-39/90 would divert around construction via US-14 and US-51. More: http://projects.511wi.gov/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f0e13a89-c192-46fc-aaac-3fde1a368182&groupId=33947

- They are proposing either a signalized diamond interchange at Hwy 26, or a DDI (diverging-diamond interchange). When I posed a question about considerations for a SPUI instead, the engineer indicated the longer, wider bridges would have been cost-prohibitive, and a SPUI did not perform any better than a DDI.

- Lots of complaints about the roundabouts proposed for the Hwy 59 interchange, with many citing the roundabouts at Hwy 59 and (future) Hwy 26 in Milton as evidence they are unsafe. More than one commenter indicated it would ruin business in Newville (unlikely).

The WisDOT representatives pointed out that the fact that roundabouts force traffic to slow down as a good thing, and that they updated roundabout design standards since the design of the Hwy 59/26 interchange (and that said roundabouts have since been updated).

They also mentioned both truck drivers who rolled their rigs in Milton were driving too fast through the roundabouts (they did not mention both were ethanol tankers, which are particularly prone to rolling over).

- Further complaints about the changes to Hwy 59 just east of the I-39/90 interchange in Newville involve the raised median forcing traffic to RIRO from side streets and businesses. I asked about a possible roundabout at Ellendale Rd (just south of the Hwy 59 bridge); the response was that it was outside the project scope. Traffic for businesses south (west) of Hwy 59 have a rear access road that mitigates this access issue somewhat.

- Assuming owners along the stretch approve them, most of I-39/90 between US-14 and Racine St will have sound walls. The exceptions are the stretches bordering the schools and Palmer Park.

- Even at this late date, there is still considerable discussion about the redesign of the Beltline interchange and its implementation. They hinted it may be broken off as a separate project from the widening project. Ditto to the I-43 interchange in Beloit.

- One issue I raised during the presentation was that there was no attempt to lengthen the short SBD on-ramp to I-39/90 from Hwy 59. The new ramp is straighter, but it ends hard at the bridge over the Rock River just like the current design. This may come back to bite them later, though adding an additional lane to accomodate that flow would raise costs significantly.

- The Town of Milton asked WisDOT to consider a new interchange at County M just west of Milton, but no action has taken place to incorporate that into the design. The railroad immediately south of County M would complicate matters a bit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 08:27:52 AM
A County M interchange would be good since that is where a lot of the growth in that area is occurring.

By they way, I would guess that the WI-26 bypass of Milton is within a week or two of opening.  They are going to be opening the future NB lanes as a single lane bypass to work on the connection on the SB lanes on either side of the bypass.  The entire thing is supposed to open as a full four lane bypass this November.

They have been making steady progress on the section between Fort Atkinson and Milton.  They will have the new lanes cleared and graded by the close of the construction season.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on August 02, 2013, 11:06:45 AM
I could see an interchange at M in the future.  More direct access into Milton, especially from Madison.  And would probably tie into some sort of a west Janesville bypass.

What was the reception from those in attendance to the proposal at I-39/90 and 26?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 02, 2013, 01:21:34 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on August 02, 2013, 11:06:45 AM
I could see an interchange at M in the future.  More direct access into Milton, especially from Madison.  And would probably tie into some sort of a west Janesville bypass.

What was the reception from those in attendance to the proposal at I-39/90 and 26?

Not building an interchange is likely the best way of preventing what I call 'premature development' and that is, IMHO, the main reason for no interchange being there now.  That is why WisDOT purposely built no interchanges on the US 10 freeway between WI 76 ('old' US 45) and US 45 at Winchester here in the Appleton area - and in the ten years ( :wow: ) since that freeway opened, that tactic has worked out beautifully.

Also, I fail to see Milton Township's interest in pushing for an interchange there as IMHO, there is a near certainty that when the time comes to develop that area, it will have to be annexed into the City of Milton in order for sewer and water service to be extended to it.  As it stands right now, Milton and Janesville are only a couple of years away from bumping borders along WI 26, with the current strong development in that area and the need for one or the other city to provide those services.

That said, I'm going to have to make another daytrip into that area.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 01:32:28 PM
Interestingly, there are parts of the City of Janesville that lie within the Milton School District.

http://wisconsin.hometownlocator.com/schools/profiles,n,milton%20high,z,53563,t,pb,i,1125563.cfm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 02, 2013, 08:04:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 08:27:52 AM
By they way, I would guess that the WI-26 bypass of Milton is within a week or two of opening.  They are going to be opening the future NB lanes as a single lane bypass to work on the connection on the SB lanes on either side of the bypass.  The entire thing is supposed to open as a full four lane bypass this November.

It's really damn close. They've had the concrete pavement in place for at least a month or two, and the asphalt shoulders and transitions are in place. All the ramps at County N and Hwy 59 are in place. All it's missing are signs, really.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 08:27:52 AM
They have been making steady progress on the section between Fort Atkinson and Milton.  They will have the new lanes cleared and graded by the close of the construction season.

It's crazy how much cut and fill they've done v.s. the old road. I was out that way a week or so ago, after a heavy rainstorm, and the NBD lane on the current carriageway flooded out. There was a Jefferson County deputy directing traffic around it, as it didn't quite submerge the SBD lane.

Between the recent WI-26 expansion and the pending work on I-39/90, Janesville is going to be a major roadgeek draw for a while.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 10:28:50 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 02, 2013, 08:04:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 08:27:52 AM
By they way, I would guess that the WI-26 bypass of Milton is within a week or two of opening.  They are going to be opening the future NB lanes as a single lane bypass to work on the connection on the SB lanes on either side of the bypass.  The entire thing is supposed to open as a full four lane bypass this November.

It's really damn close. They've had the concrete pavement in place for at least a month or two, and the asphalt shoulders and transitions are in place. All the ramps at County N and Hwy 59 are in place. All it's missing are signs, really, and the transitions at each end.


Just found this....August 23 is the date the Milton bypass opens with just the one lane.  Three weeks from today.

http://www.hngnews.com/milton_courier/news/local/article_064795a6-f9ed-11e2-9f3e-001a4bcf6878.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on August 03, 2013, 10:55:23 PM
Is there some reason Wisconsin seems to hang new signal heads on the mast arms horizontally initially and then rotating the heads, or is Wisconsin going back and forth between vertical and horizontal signals?  Take these two signals on WI 100:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg707%2F5905%2F8gj7.jpg&hash=86fb9451111a16baebd8380c9ed90d8ae078bf91)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg443%2F7296%2F1o5k.jpg&hash=efdadd70aaa8fb5b4cade5c36077e0b9f239a8c5)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 03, 2013, 11:14:13 PM
^^ They leave them horizontal until they are ready to be activated then they become vertical.  Makes for less confusion so the motorist better understands to still follow the temporary signal.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on August 03, 2013, 11:14:58 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 03, 2013, 10:55:23 PM
Is there some reason Wisconsin seems to hang new signal heads on the mast arms horizontally initially and then rotating the heads, or is Wisconsin going back and forth between vertical and horizontal signals?  Take these two signals on WI 100:


Guess they're just waiting to fasten them into the right place. The new Greenfield Av. bridge was like that prior to being operational.

On a separate note, looks like you did quite a bit of driving today. Eastbound on Greenfield, then north on WI 100.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 04, 2013, 12:53:50 AM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on August 02, 2013, 11:06:45 AM
What was the reception from those in attendance to the proposal at I-39/90 and 26?

Mostly meh. A couple older gentleman asked questions about it, but nobody seemed all that excited one way or the other.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on August 04, 2013, 01:08:27 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on August 03, 2013, 11:14:58 PM
On a separate note, looks like you did quite a bit of driving today. Eastbound on Greenfield, then north on WI 100.

And a lovely tour of US 41 between US 45 and I-94, plus south on Miller Park Way to find out the hard way U-turns are prohibited at National Avenue.  Figured it was a good time to go exploring since gas is relatively cheap.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2013, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 10:28:50 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 02, 2013, 08:04:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 08:27:52 AM
By they way, I would guess that the WI-26 bypass of Milton is within a week or two of opening.  They are going to be opening the future NB lanes as a single lane bypass to work on the connection on the SB lanes on either side of the bypass.  The entire thing is supposed to open as a full four lane bypass this November.

It's really damn close. They've had the concrete pavement in place for at least a month or two, and the asphalt shoulders and transitions are in place. All the ramps at County N and Hwy 59 are in place. All it's missing are signs, really, and the transitions at each end.


Just found this....August 23 is the date the Milton bypass opens with just the one lane.  Three weeks from today.

http://www.hngnews.com/milton_courier/news/local/article_064795a6-f9ed-11e2-9f3e-001a4bcf6878.html


The August 23 date has now been confirmed by WIDOT at a PIM yesterday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on August 19, 2013, 12:45:39 PM
Saw on the news that Wisconsin may try to get the ball rolling on raising the speed limit to 70 now that Illinois has done so.  To keep in line with all the neighboring states.  I see that the Chicagoland area is staying at 65, not sure if there would be similar efforts for the Milwaukee area, Fox Valley, and/or Madison area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 19, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
The Milwaukee area and Madison area will for sure keep lower speed limits where they are already less than 65, as those places aren't designed to carry their traffic volumes faster. I could see the fox valley from breeze wood lane to kaukauna remaining at 65, mainly because of the curve north of Winchester ave, which is kind of hard over 70mph. Also, WI441, even after the new project will also likely remain at 65. I'm not so sure the efforts to remove the 's' curves will yield a 70mph highway, though, the rest of the hwy is pretty much straight. Green Bay, with some closely spaced interchanges could potentially stay at 65 for us41, though, after the Green Bay portion of the project is completed in 2017? There should be sufficient auxiliary lanes and whatnot. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 20, 2013, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on August 19, 2013, 12:45:39 PM
Saw on the news that Wisconsin may try to get the ball rolling on raising the speed limit to 70 now that Illinois has done so.  To keep in line with all the neighboring states.  I see that the Chicagoland area is staying at 65, not sure if there would be similar efforts for the Milwaukee area, Fox Valley, and/or Madison area.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 19, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
The Milwaukee area and Madison area will for sure keep lower speed limits where they are already less than 65, as those places aren't designed to carry their traffic volumes faster. I could see the fox valley from breeze wood lane to kaukauna remaining at 65, mainly because of the curve north of Winchester ave, which is kind of hard over 70mph. Also, WI441, even after the new project will also likely remain at 65. I'm not so sure the efforts to remove the 's' curves will yield a 70mph highway, though, the rest of the hwy is pretty much straight. Green Bay, with some closely spaced interchanges could potentially stay at 65 for us41, though, after the Green Bay portion of the project is completed in 2017? There should be sufficient auxiliary lanes and whatnot.

I'm pretty sure at least one factor that would keep Chicagoland speed limits lower are Clean Air Act considerations. Most of the suburban freeways/tollways have suitable design characteristics for 70+ mph travel (in fact, they generally free flow at that pace).

I certainly expect any Wisconsin highways currently posted for 65mph outside of the metros to go to 70mph; none of them have any serious design problems. If there's only one curve on Hwy 441 that's too fast for 70mph, they could simply post a lower advisory speed for that curve and leave the remainder posted higher.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 01:08:23 PM
A 70 mph limit will not change one bit how I drive in Wisconsin (70 frwy/expy, 60 rural 2 lane).  I think the same is true for the majority of highway users.  I am completely ambivalent about this proposal.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on August 20, 2013, 01:11:17 PM
I got my first 2 speeding tickets in Wisconsin.  Jerks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 20, 2013, 03:12:46 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 01:08:23 PM
A 70 mph limit will not change one bit how I drive in Wisconsin (70 frwy/expy, 60 rural 2 lane).  I think the same is true for the majority of highway users.  I am completely ambivalent about this proposal.

the difference is, when I'm going 75 down US(I) 41 between Oshkosh and FDL on my way to work (or home), and trooper Dave pulls me over for speeding, I won't be going ten over anymore, I will be going 5 over, and likely not pulled over. At least trooper Dave was good to me and gave me a warning for my first time being pulled over, he seen that I had just finished a long 12 hour shift and wanted to get home.
Additionally, I want to know if should this pass, how will it be structured? Will it be such that all non-metro interstates will be mandatory 70mph? Optional? Will full freeway US and state routes receive the same considerations? Also, would current 65 mph expressways like WI 57 north of Green Bay, US 41 and US 141 north of Green Bay, WI 29 and US 10 all get similar considerations for their 65mph expressway segments?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 20, 2013, 09:36:48 PM
i got a first glimpse of the bill.  It basically says that 70 MPH will be allowed, but WisDOT can lower it if it wants.  Not sure what highway classifications if any are specified in the bill.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 20, 2013, 10:35:24 PM
My expectation is that it won't apply to any non-freeways, and additionally, it will only apply to rural interstates, where not even full rural freeways that are only US highways or state routes (US 45, US10, WI441, US 53, WI16 and many other stretches) will remain at 65mph, such as in Ohio. The biggest one is US(I)41, though it won't be a problem if/when congress passes a bill to grandfather the weight limit. Ohio having only recently made the jump to 70 on only a limited basis is what is scaring me that Wisconsin may do this in the stupidest way possible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on August 21, 2013, 09:18:19 PM
make I-94 70 from IL line to milwaukee area
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 21, 2013, 09:29:10 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 21, 2013, 09:18:19 PM
make I-94 70 from IL line to milwaukee area


They'll keep that at 65...traffic goes near 80 already.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 22, 2013, 09:49:11 PM
I went out to Waukesha today for a job, and took a "scenic" route back. I followed Hwy 16 over to Watertown, then north to the Hwy 60 junction.

I'm sure I've ranted about this before, but the speed limits on the Hwy 16/67 bypass around Oconomowoc are ridiculously underposted. 45 mph north to County Z, then 55mph to the west end of the bypass. There's no side traffic except at Lisbon Rd and County Z. No driveways. Light traffic (even at rush hour). Plenty of cops lying in wait. Headed westbound from Waukesha, it's 65mph up until shortly before the bypass. The inconsistency is frustrating.

Crews are certainly working fast on the Hwy 16/26 stretch; they have most of the new roadbed carved out, and appear to be making steady progress on the temporary bypass around the existing interchange. It wasn't quite as obvious how much the old road followed the land until most of that land was graded away; it looks a lot like a roller-coaster ride now.

The Fort Atkinson to County N stretch of Hwy 26 is coming together quickly as well; they appear to be close to laying concrete on the NBD lanes from the county line north. It appears the goal is two-way traffic on the new NBD lanes in time for winter.

The Milton bypass is scheduled to open tomorrow. They have the lane striping and construction barrels set up to guide traffic onto the new stretch, ready to be switched over quickly. They even have all the signs installed to make a 4-way stop at County N on the soon-to-be-former Hwy 26 stretch. The construction equipment is out in force, ready to tear up the old road north of County N as soon as traffic gets moved onto the bypass.

News reports suggested the bypass would be just on the NBD lanes, but from what I was able to see, they appear to be using the new SBD lanes between County N and Hwy 59, merging back to two-way traffic on the NBD lanes to get around the short stretch of SBD not yet completed south of Milton. I'll be out again after work tomorrow to confirm this is the case.

They have the new bridge beams set on the Hwy 11/Racine St overpass over I-39/90, and are making solid progress on the roadway west of the interchange. The east side is mostly under a bunch of concrete rubble at this point; they'll have to hustle to complete it in time for winter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2013, 09:29:03 AM
I made a run past the new Milton bypass as well, and I think you are correct about the use of the four-lanes.

I also noticed that the County N interchange doesn't appear to be "BGS worthy" in the eyes of WIDOT with just one "SGS" with a half mile indication southbound.  I have no idea if that will change once the four lanes are in place all the way to Fort Atkinson.  I also don't know if there will be a different sign northbound.  I guess in thinking about it I have no idea what the appropriate control cities would be anyway.  Whitewater and Edgerton?  (No one would actually use that route to get to either city though.)

NB the control cities for the WI-59 BGS are Whitewater and Milton...makes sense.  I assume they will be the same SB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 23, 2013, 11:00:18 AM
Too bad they're not continuing the four lanes northward from WI 60 to US 151, preferably to connect at the curve at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

:no:

OTOH, County 'A' from WI 26 just north of WI 60 to US 151 at the northeast corner of Beaver Dam (by the Walmart* distribution center) was rebuilt over the past few years with some of the very BEST two-lane concrete that I've seen anywhere - except at its major intersections at WI 26, WI 33 and County 'E', this as of my most recent drive-by this past spring.  (Will the latter two be rebuilt as roundabouts?)  My current expectation is for it to become a reroute for WI 26, with the existing part of WI 26 north of there to be both reflagged as a different state highway (WI 28?) south of WI 33 and turned back to the county (north of WI 33 to US 151 on Waupun's NE side).

I'll have to explore this again in the next few days.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 23, 2013, 07:08:32 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2013, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 23, 2013, 07:08:32 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   


How many lanes are open?  I think Old 26 isn't supposed to be a county highway...just a street.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 24, 2013, 03:11:33 AM
All 4 lanes are open between County N and Hwy 59. They take it down to two lanes between Hwy 59 and Harmony Town Hall Rd, then back to 4 lanes to I-39/90.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 24, 2013, 03:30:05 PM
A couple of images of a little 'before' item that some in here may have missed, this was shot on NB County 'NN' (old WI 26) between County 'N' and WI 26 just a few weeks before it was obliterated by the Milton Bypass construction.

Enjoy!

:cool:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg856%2F1012%2Fu0r2.jpg&hash=a2340289e20672dd069f9ea4757d76512c4a2e13)

and a close-up:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg23%2F6379%2Fmdy9.jpg&hash=aa74aca1e4a19620d7f662025ffb8184d82005cf)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 24, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
^^ I have never seen a cutout sign that used the whole "WISCONSIN" word before (excluding pre 1960's era signs that were of a slightly different design).  The non-neutered signs always had the abbreviation "WIS"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 24, 2013, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 23, 2013, 07:08:32 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   


I drove it this afternoon.  I *really* had to work to keep my speed down.  Very smooth....and it was very busy.  Well done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 24, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 24, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
^^ I have never seen a cutout sign that used the whole "WISCONSIN" word before (excluding pre 1960's era signs that were of a slightly different design).  The non-neutered signs always had the abbreviation "WIS"

My guess is that it was a product of the county sign shop - statewide, they've all been known for some interesting stuff.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jim920 on August 24, 2013, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 24, 2013, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 23, 2013, 07:08:32 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   


I drove it this afternoon.  I *really* had to work to keep my speed down.  Very smooth....and it was very busy.  Well done.

I also drove it this afternoon, it's quite nice. I had to set the cruise control to 62 otherwise I would have been way over 55. I drove NB and the last SL sign I remember seeing was before the WI-59 exit, if you merged on at 59 you would have no clue the SL is only 55.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 24, 2013, 11:29:23 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 24, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 24, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
^^ I have never seen a cutout sign that used the whole "WISCONSIN" word before (excluding pre 1960's era signs that were of a slightly different design).  The non-neutered signs always had the abbreviation "WIS"

My guess is that it was a product of the county sign shop - statewide, they've all been known for some interesting stuff.

Mike
Could these be the same idiots who put up a dozen or so "alternate STATE 41" shields on WI 21 and US 45 in Oshkosh? They are all brand new, put up within the last month I'm guessing, I really haven't driven that route much this summer to have noticed them before.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on August 25, 2013, 02:08:02 AM
I've seen a couple signs down in Walworth/Racine/Kenosha counties (forgot which one, somewhere in the south of wisconsin, west of the Interstate) with State Highway signs with both "WIS" and pretty damn sure "WISCONSIN" too. I was thinking of stopping and taking pics but didn't have time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 25, 2013, 09:03:12 PM
Drove the new segment of WI 26 around Milton today.  Always cool to drive 'em when they're brand spanking new.  Obviously WisDOT is waiting until it's all done between Janesville and Ft. Atkinson before bumping up the SL.  Or at the very least, the work that still needs to be done on the SB carriageway south of Milton.

After driving the entire distance between Elkhorn and Whitewater on US 12 I think it would be very reasonable to get the ball rolling on a 2 lane version of a new alignment between the two towns.  It's not like there's a ton of traffic, but the SL is low and there are many, many driveways.  Even if Illinois never, ever gets a tollway up to the border at Genoa City, a two lane relocation would still be useful.

Do what was done around Whitewater and snatch up the r/w needed for a full freeway, but just build one carriageway.  There'd probably be a minor extension of the freeway to get ya through that interchange in Elkhorn with WI 67.  Whenever I look at how to route it, I like to return to the existing alignment in the area of CTH O to avoid blasting a new r/w through the Kettle Moraine (both the state forest and the geologic feature).  Seems pretty obvious to me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 25, 2013, 09:23:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 25, 2013, 09:03:12 PM
After driving the entire distance between Elkhorn and Whitewater on US 12 I think it would be very reasonable to get the ball rolling on a 2 lane version of a new alignment between the two towns.  It's not like there's a ton of traffic, but the SL is low and there are many, many driveways.  Even if Illinois never, ever gets a tollway up to the border at Genoa City, a two lane relocation would still be useful.



They are looking at it.

http://www.janesvillegazette.com/article/20130714/ARTICLES/130719901

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 25, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

I fully agree, too, a 'super-two' expressway on an upgradable four-lanes freeway ROW between Elkhorn and Whitewater, as well as between Whitewater and Fort Atkinson, is the best way to go.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 25, 2013, 10:17:20 PM
Can someone copy and paste that article or something?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on August 26, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Given that none of us will live to see the tollway extended, would it make sense to downgrade the freeway section of US 12 to a Super 2 the next time the pavement needs replacing?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 26, 2013, 01:16:33 AM
There's sufficient traffic (particularly in the summer) to justify leave the existing freeway section of US-12 as it is. It connects to 4-lane Hwy 50 at Lake Geneva, which connects you to I-94/US-41 at Kenosha, making it part of a vital connector to Chicago. If/when Illinois makes the proper connection to this stretch, that stretch will become a whole lot busier.

I agree that there's no pressing need to 4-lane a relocated US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater; much of the traffic on the existing stretch is local in nature and would remain after construction. Much like the Whitewater bypass, however, WisDOT would be smart to have the ROW in place to add an additional carriageway when it is needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 26, 2013, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 25, 2013, 10:17:20 PM
Can someone copy and paste that article or something?


Opened an incognito window and got it:

"The expansion of Highway 12 in Walworth County is now in the hands of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.

Last week, Gov. Scott Walker signed an environmental impact study conducted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, sending the project to the department of transportation for consideration.

The report, finished in 2011, indicates Highway 12 is almost at its capacity of 14,000 cars per day capacity. The planning commission projects by the year 2035 there will be 21,000 vehicles per day using the highway, causing significant traffic issues.

The two options the planning commission developed are widening the current route between Elkhorn and Whitewater to four lanes, estimated to cost $64.2 million, or creating a more direct route between Whitewater and Elkhorn that would pass through the town of Sugar Creek, estimated to cost $116.7 million.

The next step is for the department of transportation to conduct its own study. It may agree with the options the planning commission suggested, or it could come up with its own possible routes. There is no projected date for when the study will be finished, but Jefferey Knight, president of the Greater Whitewater Committee, said it could take years.

The first option, widening the current route, would cause significant disruption to homes and businesses and loss of land along the highway.

Whitewater City Manager Cameron Clapper said he personally would like the second option, allowing for a more direct route between Elkhorn and Whitewater, bringing more customers to local businesses.

"Long-term, having this highway expansion is going to be a huge benefit to the people in this community in terms of getting more commercial access in Whitewater,"  Clapper said. "Providing a larger number of cars is going to mean a larger number of customers, and that's going to improve our business community across the board."

Knight said Whitewater city officials have been trying to move the project forward for three years because it would be good for the local economy.

"This should be the beginning of conversations for companies to come to Whitewater, which means more jobs and money for the local economy,"  Knight said.

Another factor contributing to the need for the expansion is UW-Whitewater, which is the only University of Wisconsin System university that does not have direct access to a four-lane highway.

"It would help the university because it brings in over 1,000 students from Illinois, and it's not the easiest route to get back and forth, so those parents might come up here more and spend money in restaurants and other businesses,"  Knight said.

Both expansion options that the planning commission suggested go through the town of Sugar Creek. David Duwe, town chairman, said the town has not settled on a preferred option. Either way, people will lose land.

"Every time it comes up, it's a huge deal for Sugar Creek,"  Duwe said. "It's to the point where people in Sugar Creek want it to go one way or the other. Either they're going to do something or not instead of holding peoples' lands ransom."

Samuel Tapson, an administrator for Elkhorn, said the city has not taken a position on the options because city officials believe the expansion should be handled at the state level."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on August 26, 2013, 09:29:35 AM
The Milton Courier has some photos of the 26 bypass here:
http://www.hngnews.com/milton_courier/news/local/collection_27c43b88-0c14-11e3-976f-0019bb30f31a.html

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 26, 2013, 11:11:03 AM
Even if the 'Corner Cut' is the routing selection, as it should be, the entire existing routing will likely remain state highways as the north-south part will still be WI 67 (it is already duplexed with US 12 there) and the east-west part will do very well as a westward extension of WI 20.

Also, IMHO, that wacky intersection at WI 20 and WI 67 where US 12 now makes its turn is an ideal site for a roundabout.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on August 27, 2013, 08:03:57 AM
Does anybody by chance happen to have a map of that route through Sugar Creek? I tried checking the WisDOT website but there is nothing listed. Would be nice to visualize what the suggested route for the Corner Cut is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2013, 09:17:39 AM
Quote from: merrycilantro on August 27, 2013, 08:03:57 AM
Does anybody by chance happen to have a map of that route through Sugar Creek? I tried checking the WisDOT website but there is nothing listed. Would be nice to visualize what the suggested route for the Corner Cut is.


There are some maps in this document here:

http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Publications/pr/pr-015-2nd-ed-jurisdictional-highway-system-plan-walworth-county.pdf

I have also seen some more detailed maps, but I can't seem to find them anywhere.  It has been on the books by WIDOT since the late 60s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on August 27, 2013, 10:36:09 AM
Thanks SEWIGuy! That does make sense, I agree. Of course, my OCD can't stand to see a broken US 12 freeway from Genoa City to Elkhorn, when it should REALLY be a Chicago to Madison route. But I digress, don't want to get too fictional.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2013, 10:39:56 AM
Quote from: merrycilantro on August 27, 2013, 10:36:09 AM
Thanks SEWIGuy! That does make sense, I agree. Of course, my OCD can't stand to see a broken US 12 freeway from Genoa City to Elkhorn, when it should REALLY be a Chicago to Madison route. But I digress, don't want to get too fictional.


It makes even more sense if you have driven it.  From Whitewater east to the intersection with WI-20 and WI-67, it is fine with just a little slow down in LaGrange.

From that intersection south to Elkhorn it is a stretch with driveways, stop lights, etc.  Lots of local traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 27, 2013, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 25, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

Following the powerline through the moraine would be a mistake.  It passes over the headwaters of Bluff Creek; a nice coldwater trout stream.  It's a state natural area as well.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S)
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271 (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271)
The best path should be to use the existing alignment between CTH O and Sweno Road.  No need to slice a expensive, distruptive new hole through some nice public land.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM
I drove the new part of WI 26 today (Wednesday, 2013-08-28), too.  Yea, the two-lane part on the south end is simply there while crews connect the new bypass' end with the existing four lanes.

Other notes:
-I have little sympathy for the owner of that now-orphaned C-store/McDs along WI 26 on Milton's south side - he had several years to prepare to move it to a better 'after' location and knew (or should have known) that there would not be access to the new WI 26 by his property.  Major local access between Milton and Janesville is via County 'J', a major street and, IIRC, the original routing of WI 26 there, while the other major surface streets, including the now-bypassed old WI 26, in that developing area between Janesville and Milton are being formed into a useful grid for when that semi-rural land is annexed into one or the other of those two cities and developed.  The two are only a few short years from bumping borders.

-I noticed that much of the rebuilt WI 26 between I-39/90 and Watertown is flanked by bicycle paths on one side or the other.

-Why, oh WHY did WisDOT erase all vestiges of 'Oshkosh' as the northbound WI 26 control on US 151 in the Waupun area?  All that is there now is 'Rosendale', a tiny speck that nearly everyone who drives that road would rather not have to pass through - if they could help it - while on their respective ways to the much larger and infinitely more important Oshkosh and beyond.  The first mention of 'Oshkosh' on NB WI 26 is now on the distance sign that is just north of its major US 151 split northeast of Waupun.

:banghead:

-If WisDOT ever developed the desire and could find the funding, there is really not a lot in the way of them building a direct free-flow freeway-to-freeway connection between I-39/90 to the south and WI 26 to the north in Janesville - only a motel that has seen better days (the Ramada) and a tire dealer.  C'mon guys - you *CAN* do it!   :nod:

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.

-New interchange numbers, for those keeping track:

6 - Harmony Town Hall Rd
8 - WI 59/County 'M' - Milton
11 - County 'N' - Edgerton/Whitewater

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 10:58:46 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM
I drove the new part of WI 26 today (Wednesday, 2013-08-28), too.  Yea, the two-lane part on the south end is simply there while crews connect the new bypass' end with the existing four lanes.

Other notes:
-I have little sympathy for the owner of that now-orphaned C-store/McDs along WI 26 on Milton's south side - he had several years to prepare to move it to a better 'after' location and knew (or should have known) that there would not be access to the new WI 26 by his property. 


The state started planning in 1999, he bought it in 2002...and says that he went to the meetings before plans were finalized in 2005.  He didn't raise the issue until about a year ago.

I don't have much sympathy for him either.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.

Mike


But are they actually going ahead with that?  It looks as though WI-26 will be going on its current routing when all is said and done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 11:30:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.


But are they actually going ahead with that?  It looks as though WI-26 will be going on its current routing when all is said and done.

Looking over that drawing, to me it looks like the underpass will be dug out (it is very narrow passing under there!) and filled in to hold a new bridge *over* the railroad.  This will require Union Pacific to also build a temporary bypass track there while the work is being done.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 31, 2013, 11:04:22 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 27, 2013, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 25, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

Following the powerline through the moraine would be a mistake.  It passes over the headwaters of Bluff Creek; a nice coldwater trout stream.  It's a state natural area as well.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S)
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271 (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271)
The best path should be to use the existing alignment between CTH O and Sweno Road.  No need to slice a expensive, distruptive new hole through some nice public land.

I do note that there is a route 'tweak' shown in the maps in that above-linked latest SEWRPC/Walworth County planning document.  Perhaps that is to address that issue.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 08, 2013, 12:43:39 AM
Some recent items of interest about southern Wisconsin roads:

- In Madison, crews erected a new pedestrian bridge for the future Cannonball bike path just before the Labor Day weekend. This path crosses the Beltline near the Todd Dr. exit, following an old railroad right-of-way.

SLIDESHOW: Beltline bridge construction
http://www.wkow.com/story/23286925/2013/08/29/slideshow-beltline-bridge-construction


- A recent Janesville Gazette article on the reconstruction of the Racine St. exit @ I-39/90 (which is expected to be completed by November), and completion of work on River St. in downtown Janesville.

End of summer, end of construction (link is Google's cache of the site)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6mnW9JM-bAgJ:gazettextra.com/article/20130821/ARTICLES/130829926/1174+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


- I took a drive up to DeForest tonight, and found considerable progress on the 4-lane freeway upgrade to US-51. The grading and construction work is largely completed to Vinburn Rd, with only a bit of concrete paving and shoulder paving to be done on the SBD lanes. Access to Windsor Rd. is completed NBD, but blocked off until the SBD US-51 work is completed, and Windsor Rd is reopened later this fall.

- I-39/90/94 has a new coat of asphalt over the existing concrete between the WI-30/I-94 interchange and the US-51 north exit. The concrete road surface wasn't awful, but had been showing some wear.

- WI-11 between Spring Prairie and I-43 near Elkhorn got a repave this summer; it was much-needed, particularly at the I-43 exit. The stretch east of Spring Prairie to the (infamous) Burlington bypass got a repave last summer. I use this stretch to connect to WI-20 east to Racine at least once a month; all the recent work has made this stretch a very pleasant drive. Just remember - it's posted for 55 - and the Burlington cops are watching you like a hawk.

- US-51 between I-39/90 and Stoughton is having its asphalt pavement milled and repaved; it was certainly showing its age.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 08, 2013, 09:51:29 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 08, 2013, 12:43:39 AM
Some recent items of interest about southern Wisconsin roads:

- In Madison, crews erected a new pedestrian bridge for the future Cannonball bike path just before the Labor Day weekend. This path crosses the Beltline near the Todd Dr. exit, following an old railroad right-of-way.


When I was a kid, I took a school bus to school along the beltline and it had to stop and pull over to a special lane to cross this railroad track.  (Late 70s)  In retrospect, it is kind of funny and a little dangerous that cars and trucks could whiz right through this but the bus had to stop.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on September 09, 2013, 05:02:06 AM
Even more southern Wisconsin news:
1. The old Seminole Hwy bridge over the Beltline is out (no longer there) and the area looks odd without it:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1231446_626939100662487_568481674_n_zps3b159f4c.jpg&hash=eca5ae962c3656fad8ab08dab7f239a95b746287)
WisDOT/ Verona Rd Project Facebook

2a. WisDOT is finally getting going on a corridor wide improvement study for the entirety of the Beltline itself, which a final report is due around late 2015:
QuoteMeetings seek public input for potentially massive overhaul of Beltline
BARRY ADAMS | Wisconsin State Journal | Published on 9/8/2013

It was a year ago when a flock of helicopters was deployed above Madison to take time-lapse photography of Beltline traffic.

The state Department of Transportation also gathered information from motorists' Bluetooth devices and from electronic traffic counters to get a better idea of traffic flow and congestion points on Dane County's most-talked-about roadway.

Now, officials want your input as part of a multiyear study of the Beltline that could eventually lead to ļ»æhundreds of millions of dollars worth of improvements beginning in about 2025.

Five public meetings this month, beginning Monday in Fitchburg, have been scheduled for transportation officials to get feedback from motorists, residents, business owners and anyone else with an idea on how to ease congestion and frustrations. All suggestions are welcome, although a tunnel under Lake Mendota likely won't make the final cut.

"If we can provide improvements north or south or through the Isthmus that would pull some people off of the Beltline by making those routes more convenient, or faster, then that might be part of our total answer to the Beltline," said Larry Barta, a DOT project manager. "It's still all Beltline-focused but there are, we think, other ways of improving conditions that aren't just about adding lanes to the Beltline."

Those ideas could include the oft-discussed North Mendota Parkway, which would connect Interstate 39-90-94 with Highway 12 around the north side of Lake Mendota and a south Beltline that would link I-39-90 southeast of McFarland with Highway 18-151 near Verona. Improvements to the Isthmus corridor could include better bus and other transit options that could also divert traffic from the Beltline, Barta said.

The study, scheduled for completion in 2015, covers the stretch from Highway N in Cottage Grove to Highway 14/University Avenue in Middleton. The Beltline was built in the early 1950s as a two-lane roadway with at-grade crossings but over the decades has morphed into a multi-lane highway with interchanges.

According to DOT data, the highway averaged 470 crashes a year between 2008 and 2012 and carries an average of 123,000 vehicles a day. There are also 43 industrial parks within five miles of the Beltline, while trucks carried $14.2 billion in freight on it in 2011, the DOT said.

The study is intended to work with other studies already underway, including Highway 51 north and south of the Beltline and the conversion of Highway 12 into a freeway between Middleton and Highway 19.

Barta said the changes from a $175 million interchange project underway at Verona Road and other recent and upcoming improvements would also be taken into consideration in the study.

Costs of any improvements resulting from the study won't be calculated until options and strategies are narrowed, Barta said.

"We're so early in the process and there's such a wide range of what-ifs that we will look at that it's just impossible to try and put a number on it," Barta said. "It's not something that would help our process at this point."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Beltline public meetings
The state Department of Transportation is holding a series of meetings this month to gather feedback on how to improve the Beltline.

Monday: Savannah Oaks Middle School, 5890 Lacy Road, Fitchburg, from 5:30-8 p.m.

Tuesday: Monona Community Center, 1011 Nichols Road, Monona, from 5:30- 8 p.m.

Sept. 18: Boys & Girls Club, 4619 Jenewein Road, Madison, 6-8:30 p.m.

Sept. 19: Westport Kennedy Administration Building, 5387 Mary Lake Road, Waunakee, from 5:30- 8 p.m.

Sept. 23: Middleton City Hall, 7426 Hubbard Ave., Middleton, from 5:30- 8 p.m.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/meetings-seek-public-input-for-potentially-massive-overhaul-of-beltline/article_66c6e6df-53d1-5f26-ac03-206e3ceb66b6.html

2b. logo and announcement video from WisDOT:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.wi.gov%2Fprojects%2Fswregion%2Fmadisonbeltline%2Fimages%2Flogo-mbs.gif&hash=4cb9ef7d90f9c3e8aad48d891931fb7d1424ff75)


2c. New WisDOT (human friendly) project page link and Facebook link: www.madisonbeltline.dot.wi.gov (Note, this one of the most complete project pages I have seen in a long time, there is even a history section. Fun Fact, the original Beltline construction was approved before 1945!)
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WIMadisonBeltlineStudy

3. The new bike/ pedestrian bridge over the Beltline between Todd Dr and Fish Hatchery Rd:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F521f6365c947bpreview-620_zpscf44a4ac.jpg&hash=cca243a7dd10e7b07af1b99b5e853ae8d45cd483)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F521f633732d74preview-620_zpsd5b8a95d.jpg&hash=205df2dbef51bc3dc9b80d9ce36fe24cf9a493bd)
Both courtesy of The Capitol Times
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 09, 2013, 01:33:46 PM
North Mendota Parkway?  Howabout a full North Beltline?

Also, do at Verona Rd what WisDOT is now doing at US(I)-41/WI 29 in the Green Bay area.

Four lanes each way between Verona Rd and Stoughton Rd would be useful, too.

And, yes, look into major upgrades for the County 'M' corridor.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 09, 2013, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 09, 2013, 01:33:46 PM
North Mendota Parkway?  Howabout a full North Beltline?

We'll take what we can get in the Madison-area. Either way, it's long overdue. Getting between areas like Sun Prairie and Middleton suck, especially during harvest season and the back roads are full of farm implements.

Quote from: mgk920
Also, do at Verona Rd what WisDOT is now doing at US(I)-41/WI 29 in the Green Bay area.

Keep dreamin'. The day something that drastic happens there is the day Dane County votes Republican. A plan like that would never leave the Dane County courts. I agree that would be the right way to fix that mess, but it'll never happen. Similarly, the US 151/51 intersection should be a full interchange, but the closest we'll ever get is a modified SPUI.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 09, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
Eight lanes wouldn't solve the Beltline's problems anyway.  It's the interchange density that slows it down during rush hours.  I would concentrate on taking service ramps and braiding them and/or setting up c/d lanes between South Towne and Verona Rd.

A north beltline can be Wisconsin's first toll road if we want it that bad.  It would just be a sprawl generator.

A full system interchange at Verona Rd is not unreasonable to me.  Having the planned interchange built to accommodate those missing movements would be a good idea.

I'm looking towards the potential almost-freeway options for Stoughton Road with increasing agreement.  When I first browsed some of that stuff, I thought it was overkill, but having driven around Madison a lot more in recent months, I can see how important it is for local traffic and maybe keeping it off the interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 09, 2013, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 09, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
Eight lanes wouldn't solve the Beltline's problems anyway.  It's the interchange density that slows it down during rush hours.  I would concentrate on taking service ramps and braiding them and/or setting up c/d lanes between South Towne and Verona Rd.

Howabout doing the Texas/Detroit frontage road thing on that section, too?

Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 09, 2013, 08:56:53 PMA north beltline can be Wisconsin's first toll road if we want it that bad.  It would just be a sprawl generator.

Perhaps on tolling I can agree, but on the 'sprawl issue' it seems to me like Waunakee and so forth are already ably taking care of that one - that area is filling in FAST.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 09, 2013, 08:56:53 PMA full system interchange at Verona Rd is not unreasonable to me.  Having the planned interchange built to accommodate those missing movements would be a good idea.

And with what we know now about engineering and architecture v. 3-4 decades ago, it can be done such that it will fit right in despite allowing full speed on at least the major moves (US 18/151 through turns).  Howabout cut and cover tunneled 'fly-under' ramps for those, like was done at I-(41)/43/94/894 (Mitchell Interchange) in Milwaukee?

Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 09, 2013, 08:56:53 PMI'm looking towards the potential almost-freeway options for Stoughton Road with increasing agreement.  When I first browsed some of that stuff, I thought it was overkill, but having driven around Madison a lot more in recent months, I can see how important it is for local traffic and maybe keeping it off the interstate.

Stoughton Rd is one that kind of flew in under my radar, too, and I'm pretty familiar with how the area is wired together.  It is the routing that would have been the major eastside through highway had the interstates not been built and now it is getting those belated upgrades (see: US 51 north of I-39/90/94).

As for the rest of Stoughton Rd (US 51), I can see no way that a proposed three-lane roundabout at Washington Ave (US 151) will work, only a full diamond (Texas/Detroit frontage road style?) interchange favoring Stoughton Rd.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on September 09, 2013, 10:52:00 PM
If you've read the study and plans on the Verona Rd./Beltline interchange, you'd see it is in the plans for free-flowing movements for the two major movements (WB-SB and NB-EB). However, those improvements aren't planned to take place for 25-30 years, so we're stuck with what we're getting in the meantime.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 09, 2013, 10:55:21 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 09, 2013, 09:35:31 PM
As for the rest of Stoughton Rd (US 51), I can see no way that a proposed three-lane roundabout at Washington Ave (US 151) will work, only a full diamond (Texas/Detroit frontage road style?) interchange favoring Stoughton Rd.

Proposed three-lane roundabout?? Where have you seen that? :confused:   Regardless, I see a roundabout being one of the worst things they could do for that intersection. Madisonians have a hard enough time figuring out the two-lane roundabouts on the east (Lien Rd) and west sides (Mineral Point/Pleasant View) of the city. :spin:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 10, 2013, 12:48:41 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 09, 2013, 10:55:21 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 09, 2013, 09:35:31 PM
As for the rest of Stoughton Rd (US 51), I can see no way that a proposed three-lane roundabout at Washington Ave (US 151) will work, only a full diamond (Texas/Detroit frontage road style?) interchange favoring Stoughton Rd.

Proposed three-lane roundabout?? Where have you seen that? :confused:   Regardless, I see a roundabout being one of the worst things they could do for that intersection. Madisonians have a hard enough time figuring out the two-lane roundabouts on the east (Lien Rd) and west sides (Mineral Point/Pleasant View) of the city. :spin:

It was several years ago.  I'd have to go digging around to find the nitty-gritty on it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on September 10, 2013, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 09, 2013, 09:35:31 PMAs for the rest of Stoughton Rd (US 51), I can see no way that a proposed three-lane roundabout at Washington Ave (US 151) will work, only a full diamond (Texas/Detroit frontage road style?) interchange favoring Stoughton Rd.
Actually, they are favoring a SPUI at the moment for that intersection: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/51/docs/map-propalts.pdf (page 4)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I went to the Beltline PEL PIM in Fitchburg tonight (9/9) and here are a couple of notes.
The meeting was sparsely attended by the public and was mostly press and Fitchburg city officials. I asked before the presentation if MnPASS style HOV/ HOT lanes where a possibility and the guy (who later turned out to be the head of the WisDOT SW region office) said, it was something they will defiantly look into as part of the process but most likely won't make the cut because the majority of Beltline trips are not long distance in nature.
   
      The presentation itself was interesting, the state is not just considering improving the Beltline itself, but rather just about everything is on the table right now. North and south bypass options as well as major improvements to the Isthmus are currently being look at.
In the lobby after the meeting proper, I asked another WisDOT official if it was a possibility that the highway may become an Interstate after upgrades are complete and she said that is not something the state is considering at all, right now.  Also I asked if southern bypass along the County M corridor built to high quality boulevard type road was a possibility and her eyes lit up and said that is definitely something there are looking into as part of the PEL.

(This was the first PIM I have ever attended so sorry if this rundown is not that good.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on September 12, 2013, 03:47:48 AM
Shitty cellphone pano of the under construction jughandle at Junction Rd (CTH M) and Mineral Point Rd (CTH S) in Madison:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fjunction-rd-project_zps5f3e7818.png&hash=2cfaacf010a3c36ef1e0db7fc6eb1432c1441220)

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Right on Red on September 24, 2013, 06:27:55 PM
Aerial shot of 26/60 interchange work, looking north:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2F25ezqjk_th.jpg&hash=a87e4305443d6b14e066390de8cd95c3a0463168) (http://i40.tinypic.com/25ezqjk.jpg)
Looking south:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi44.tinypic.com%2Foizqfl_th.jpg&hash=e420152dc9675c05bdb7ac7c9936d9bc3007ad2c) (http://i44.tinypic.com/oizqfl.jpg)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.tinypic.com%2Fmjy6hk_th.jpg&hash=bec84677d6dd2f79ee889f86986a11d83d23c336) (http://i42.tinypic.com/mjy6hk.jpg)
US 51 north of Madison, looking south:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2Fnvwfo7_th.jpg&hash=217889117292a25d1f1223a441c02f4cde1300c2) (http://i40.tinypic.com/nvwfo7.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 25, 2013, 09:02:51 PM
The pictures don't do justice to the topography of that stretch of Hwy 16/26, and how deep some of the excavation work had to go to level out the new 4-lane stretch.

Awesome 1st post! Where did you source these images?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Right on Red on September 25, 2013, 10:16:21 PM
I took them myself while I was out for a flight with family recently. I really didn't expect to see 16/26/60 as far along as it is.
I have a few more pictures lying around (some of them not as good).

What's it like from the ground? Does anyone know how far north the new 26 is?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 25, 2013, 11:25:06 PM
Quote from: Right on Red on September 25, 2013, 10:16:21 PM
What's it like from the ground? Does anyone know how far north the new 26 is?

Well, the four lane currently ends just north of CTH Q north of Watertown.  The current expansion will end just south of the railroad crossing on the left edge of your first image.  You can see the temporary roadway under construction that will allow WI 26 to bypass that railroad crossing while it is switched from the highway going under to the highway going over.  When the project is all done, that stretch of WI 60 between WI 26 and the realignment of WI 60 will be obliterated (including that temporary curve currently under construction.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 26, 2013, 10:44:09 AM
On the south end, all the new concrete for the section of WI-26 between Fort Atkinson and the Milton bypasses has been laid.  I'm not sure what they specifically plan to do, but I would guess that they will lay down blacktop shoulders...shut down for the winter...and then switch traffic over in the spring so they can work on the current section of roadway.

Right now the current WI-26 will be the SB lanes of the new highway until just north of the Rock County line...where the current WI-26 becomes the new NB lanes until the Milton bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on September 28, 2013, 02:22:19 PM
Just happened to drive through the warzone known as the WIS 190 reconstruction (Capitol Dr.) in western Milwaukee County earlier. It is a massive rebuilding job that includes new concrete, widening, bike lanes, a new bridge over a creek and a massively reconfigured intersection with Lisbon Avenue and N. 100th St. The south side of the intersection has been closed for the past few months for this project, which it appears will consolidate everything into one big intersection, rather than three. Instead of three sets of lights, there will now be only one at N. 100th, which will ease congestion and chaos considerably.

Here are some before (taken from Google Street View) and after (taken by me this morning) shots:

This is the view westbound on Lisbon at 100th St., with Capitol Dr. farther to the right in the distance:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs24.postimg.org%2Fuf3fdt5qt%2Flisbon1.jpg&hash=b57f5f9380d5202ea56cfcf144c9493895837e67)

A rough view NB on 100th St. (the second one was taken on the SE corner):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs21.postimg.org%2F3nfut5vrr%2Flisbon2.jpg&hash=2e9042efe99c039b975802cc73a550b8acf61f14)

Finally, the view SB on 100th St.:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs23.postimg.org%2Fxkc4rppuj%2Flisbon3.jpg&hash=3d169589739ceca10278e7110b0fd57b665be5aa)

As part of the reconstruction, the old access from EB Capitol Dr. on to Lisbon Av. is no more. It is being converted into a short access street with a large turnaround. The area where the old EB lanes of Capitol Dr. and the Lisbon Av. intersection is being converted into green space with a garden display similar to the one that was in the median of Capitol Dr. just east of N. 100th St. Here is the satellite image of before, with a self-created mockup of what it will roughly look like when completed:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Fs099ahz3j%2Flisbonover.jpg&hash=d535650059a82ed4ad3cb2674c875577e7194688)

And for you nostalgic types, here's what the whole intersection looked like in 1958:

http://content.mpl.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/HstoricPho/id/1264/rec/1
http://content.mpl.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/HstoricPho/id/1274/rec/4

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Fighting...thank you so much for this.  I used to drive through this intersection (from EB Capitol to SB Lisbon) every day to work.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 28, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. A better configuration but a little sad to see the interesting configuration go. I wonder if they'll do something with the neat Capital Dr + Roosevelt Dr intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on October 08, 2013, 07:50:45 PM
Quote70 mph speed Limit bill clears committee

Press release | Posted: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:52 pm

MANITOWOC ā€” Today, the Assembly Committee on Transportation approved Assembly Bill 389 to raise the speed limit to 70 mph on Wisconsin freeways and expressways.

"I'm pleased the Transportation Committee approved this bill,"  said Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), author of the bill. "Most people tell me it's about time, he said.

"This bill isn't just about getting from one place to another more quickly. According to traffic safety experts, it could even help to make our highways safer,"  Tittl said.

The bill would raise the speed limit on nearly 800 miles of rural freeways and expressways that are part of the interstate highway system. It also requires the DOT to prepare a report regarding the suitability of a 70 mph speed limit on freeways and expressways that are not interstate highways.

The bill is expected to come before the Assembly next week and pass with bipartisan support.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_57ae311a-306c-11e3-9536-0019bb2963f4.html

Good, now get the bill to the governor's desk.  :coffee:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on October 08, 2013, 08:02:29 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on October 08, 2013, 07:50:45 PM
Quote70 mph speed Limit bill clears committee

Press release | Posted: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:52 pm
It also requires the DOT to prepare a report regarding the suitability of a 70 mph speed limit on freeways and expressways that are not interstate highways.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_57ae311a-306c-11e3-9536-0019bb2963f4.html
Good, because most of WI 29 and U.S. 151 are definitely 70-ready.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 08, 2013, 08:22:09 PM
He'll, WI 57 to sturgeon bay, US 45 and US 10 north of Oshkosh, and between Appleton and marsh field are easily 70mph ready as well. My fear(s) however, are A) 'rural interstates'-does this mean that US(I) 41 from Oshkosh to kaukauna, or perhaps all the way to I 43 in Green Bay will be stuck at 65? Same thing for other freeways through larger cities in Wisconsin, I39/90 through Beloit Janesville, I90 in lacrosse, ect. B) the committed can decide not to raise any non interstate speed limits, so all other highways, deserving or not, cold remain in the slow lane :/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 08, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
I recall a few years ago when WisDOT released the results of a study that showed that US(I)-41 between Kaukauna and De Pere was the fastest segment of highway (average actual measured traffic speeds) in the entire state.  I believe it - you can be going near autobahn speed (130 km/h - 80 MPH) on it and it does not seem to be that fast at all.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jim920 on October 09, 2013, 01:00:55 AM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on October 08, 2013, 08:22:09 PM
He'll, WI 57 to sturgeon bay, US 45 and US 10 north of Oshkosh, and between Appleton and marsh field are easily 70mph ready as well. My fear(s) however, are A) 'rural interstates'-does this mean that US(I) 41 from Oshkosh to kaukauna, or perhaps all the way to I 43 in Green Bay will be stuck at 65? Same thing for other freeways through larger cities in Wisconsin, I39/90 through Beloit Janesville, I90 in lacrosse, ect. B) the committed can decide not to raise any non interstate speed limits, so all other highways, deserving or not, cold remain in the slow lane :/

As a kid I used to live in Beloit from 1986-1992.  We occasionally traveled to Janesville and I remember when I-90 dropped from 65 or 55 through the Janesville area. By 1992 when we moved to Janesville the 55 limit was increased to 65.  The SL never dropped in the Beloit area that I can recall.

With the upcoming construction on I-39/90 from Madison to Illinois I can see the DOT not even bothering to sign this section 70 until after the construction is over.  Why bother replacing all the signs only to cover them up with 55's during construction or even replacing them again when construction is over.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 09, 2013, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 08, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
I recall a few years ago when WisDOT released the results of a study that showed that US(I)-41 between Kaukauna and De Pere was the fastest segment of highway (average actual measured traffic speeds) in the entire state.  I believe it - you can be going near autobahn speed (130 km/h - 80 MPH) on it and it does not seem to be that fast at all.


Milwaukee south to the IL border is pretty darn fast too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 09, 2013, 10:56:52 AM
I-(41)/94 in Racine and Kenosha Counties was much faster before the current sheriffs took over in their respective counties.  Both are looking at it as a departmental piggy-bank.

:rolleyes:

I recall roadtrips to Chicagoland in the 1980s and 1990s where I was cruising with traffic in the 140 km/h+ (85-90 MPH+) range on that highway.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 10, 2013, 05:36:33 PM
The only times I have ever cruised at 85-90mph are holiday weekends on US 45 heading up to da nort or back, and one morning when I had to drive to work from lacrosse, so I left at 3:00am, and cruised at 90 until I saw a state trooper out gunning the northbound lanes of I 90/94, so I slowed it down from there for the rest of my commute! 4:30AM!!! What kinda trooper is out ther at 4:30AM!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 10, 2013, 11:19:17 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on October 10, 2013, 05:36:33 PM
The only times I have ever cruised at 85-90mph are holiday weekends on US 45 heading up to da nort or back, and one morning when I had to drive to work from lacrosse, so I left at 3:00am, and cruised at 90 until I saw a state trooper out gunning the northbound lanes of I 90/94, so I slowed it down from there for the rest of my commute! 4:30AM!!! What kinda trooper is out ther at 4:30AM!!

You asked the question - there's your answer :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 10, 2013, 11:30:39 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on October 10, 2013, 05:36:33 PM
What kinda trooper is out ther at 4:30AM!!

One who's bored on the graveyard shift...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 15, 2013, 01:22:57 PM
WisDOT is mulling a Diverging Diamond Interchange at the Hwy 11/Avalon Rd interchange for the upcoming I-39/90 widening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pMopeJp1Uk&feature=youtu.be

I think this would go over considerably better with truckers & RV drivers than roundabouts.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on October 15, 2013, 01:33:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 09, 2013, 10:56:52 AM
I-(41)/94 in Racine and Kenosha Counties was much faster before the current sheriffs took over in their respective counties.  Both are looking at it as a departmental piggy-bank.

:rolleyes:

I recall roadtrips to Chicagoland in the 1980s and 1990s where I was cruising with traffic in the 140 km/h+ (85-90 MPH+) range on that highway.

Mike

They have a particularly nasty habit of singling out FIB plates along that stretch as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 15, 2013, 01:57:50 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 15, 2013, 01:22:57 PM
WisDOT is mulling a Diverging Diamond Interchange at the Hwy 11/Avalon Rd interchange for the upcoming I-39/90 widening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pMopeJp1Uk&feature=youtu.be

I think this would go over considerably better with truckers & RV drivers than roundabouts.

From what I've been told, it's much more than mulling.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on October 16, 2013, 05:36:47 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 15, 2013, 01:22:57 PM
WisDOT is mulling a Diverging Diamond Interchange at the Hwy 11/Avalon Rd interchange for the upcoming I-39/90 widening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pMopeJp1Uk&feature=youtu.be
Embedded:




QuoteHigher speed limit clears Assembly

Associated Press | Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:21 am


MADISON ā€” Republicans pushed a bill to raise the speed limit on Wisconsin's interstates to 70 mph through the state Assembly on Tuesday, brushing aside minority Democrats' fears that the change would lead to more serious crashes.

The measure goes next to the state Senate. A spokesman for Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said a vote could come in that house as early as next month. Gov. Scott Walker hasn't taken a public position on the proposal.

The bill would give the state Department of Transportation six months after the bill becomes law to change interstate speed limits from 65 mph to 70 mph. The agency would have to submit a study within a year on the feasibility of raising the limit to 70 on other four-lane highways to the Legislature.

The Assembly also approved an amendment on a voice vote that would allow the DOT to set a 65 mph limit for commercial vehicles if the agency determines it would improve highway safety. The bill's author, Rep. Paul Tittl, R-Manitowoc, introduced the amendment on the Assembly floor to address last-minute concerns from truckers that the new limit would increase their fuel consumption.

Democrats said the change to 70 mph could lead to serious injuries on the road.

"You want to make our roads safer, you want to reconsider this. Speed does kill, Mr. Speaker," Rep. Brett Hulsey, D-Madison, said.

Rep. Chris Danou, D-Trempealeau, a former police officer, said he knows firsthand higher speeds lead to more severe injuries. He questioned why no one from DOT or the State Patrol spoke at a public hearing on the bill earlier this month, leaving a dearth of information about the dangers of raising the limit.

"I realize this is a politically popular thing to do ... but we don't know the risks," Danou said. "This may be a good idea but the problem I have is relevant experts were not consulted."

Rep. Fred Clark, D-Baraboo, said Green Bay-based trucking company Schneider National sent lawmakers an email Tuesday opposing the increase. The email cited data from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program that showed a 35 percent increase in fatalities in states with a 70 mph limit and said increasing the speed limit to 70 mph would increase fuel consumption.

Tittl defended the measure, noting Wisconsin is the only Midwestern state without a 70 mph limit. He went on to say he didn't know why no one from DOT or the State Patrol spoke about the bill at the hearing but took the lack of comments as a sign neither agency opposes the measure.

In the end the Assemwbly passed the measure 63-32. A half-dozen Democrats joined majority Republicans in voting for the bill.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_8a4eb1cc-3633-11e3-b255-001a4bcf887a.html

:cool:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on October 16, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
^^ Wisconsin even sees the light.  Now, what about Oregon and much of the Northeast/Middle Atlantic?

Funny though, some of them are concerned about a 5 mph change being a major change in injuries?  Yeah, right.  People already go 70-75 in Wisconsin anyway.  Now they'll just be legal and less of a choice picking for the Racine and Kenosha County Tax Patrol..er..Sheriff's Departments.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 16, 2013, 07:47:05 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 16, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
^^ Wisconsin even sees the light.  Now, what about Oregon and much of the Northeast/Middle Atlantic?

Funny though, some of them are concerned about a 5 mph change being a major change in injuries?  Yeah, right.  People already go 70-75 in Wisconsin anyway.  Now they'll just be legal and less of a choice picking for the Racine and Kenosha County Tax Patrol..er..Sheriff's Departments.
The Assembly does.  The senate (and likely Walker) doesn't.  They're focused on "Creating jobs"  Since when do politicians create jobs?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on October 16, 2013, 07:53:36 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 16, 2013, 07:47:05 PM
Since when do politicians create jobs?
There was this thing called the WPA... not that Walker would support a socialist program like that...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 21, 2013, 01:17:39 AM
Today was a cold, grey day to be on the Merrimac ferry. The fall colors are maybe at 30-40% - it's going to be at least another week or two before the colors peak. Maybe by then the sun will come out.

Construction on the Hwy 16/26 expansion north of Watertown appears to be winding down for this year. Crews are working to put in place a relocated roadway (partially new alignment on the future NBD lanes, partially old alignment) in time for winter, and to allow the sections of old roadway crossing the new roadway's path to be obliterated.

Farther south on the Fort Atkinson to Milton stretch, crews are close to switching traffic to the future NBD lanes north of the Jefferson/Rock line, and on the future SBD lanes south of the line to County N. They have not yet set up the crossover needed to switch between the lanes, but that appears to be coming soon.

Between the Harmony Town Hall exit and the Hwy 59 exit, the SBD carriageway has been completed, and traffic is now one lane in each direction on their own carriageway. Lane closures remain while crews complete work in the median.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 21, 2013, 09:42:47 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 21, 2013, 01:17:39 AM
Today was a cold, grey day to be on the Merrimac ferry. The fall colors are maybe at 30-40% - it's going to be at least another week or two before the colors peak. Maybe by then the sun will come out.

Construction on the Hwy 16/26 expansion north of Watertown appears to be winding down for this year. Crews are working to put in place a relocated roadway (partially new alignment on the future NBD lanes, partially old alignment) in time for winter, and to allow the sections of old roadway crossing the new roadway's path to be obliterated.


So, if I read your post correctly, are they trying to get all four lanes done by the start of winter? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 21, 2013, 08:50:06 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 21, 2013, 09:42:47 AM
So, if I read your post correctly, are they trying to get all four lanes done by the start of winter? 

No. What they've done is completed a substantial portion of the future NBD carriageway. They will shift traffic onto it for the winter, and while the SBD carriageway is constructed next year. There's still a considerable amount of grading to be done where the future SBD carriageway will go, not to mention the temporary section bypassing the 16/26 interchange and the RR underpass.

There's a stretch of about 1-2 miles in the middle where the old highway would have to be obliterated to complete construction of the NBD carriageway; they're postponing completion of this section until the SBD carriageway is completed (and traffic can then be shifted to it). The temporary arrangement is thus a mix of the old roadway and the new NBD carriageway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 21, 2013, 09:01:07 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 21, 2013, 08:50:06 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 21, 2013, 09:42:47 AM
So, if I read your post correctly, are they trying to get all four lanes done by the start of winter? 

No. What they've done is completed a substantial portion of the future NBD carriageway. They will shift traffic onto it for the winter, and while the SBD carriageway is constructed next year. There's still a considerable amount of grading to be done where the future SBD carriageway will go, not to mention the temporary section bypassing the 16/26 interchange and the RR underpass.

There's a stretch of about 1-2 miles in the middle where the old highway would have to be obliterated to complete construction of the NBD carriageway; they're postponing completion of this section until the SBD carriageway is completed (and traffic can then be shifted to it). The temporary arrangement is thus a mix of the old roadway and the new NBD carriageway.


OK thanks.  That is what I thought they were doing but wasn't sure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 23, 2013, 09:03:33 PM
I noticed while driving around today (Wednesday, 2013-10-23) that WisDOT has begun to install yellow backboard outlines around the stop-and-go lights along College Ave (WI 125) on Appleton's west side.  They are an allowable option in the latest Federal MUTCD.  As of this typing, they are now on the heads facing the side streets at two intersections (College/Perkins and College/Lilas).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 23, 2013, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 23, 2013, 09:03:33 PM
I noticed while driving around today (Wednesday, 2013-10-23) that WisDOT has begun to install yellow backboard outlines around the stop-and-go lights along College Ave (WI 125) on Appleton's west side.  They are an allowable option in the latest Federal MUTCD.  As of this typing, they are now on the heads facing the side streets at two intersections (College/Perkins and College/Lilas).

Mike

WisDOT is, or is it the city of Appleton? I wouldn't put it past the NE Region to experiment, but I believe this stretch (especially intersecting with local roads) would fall in the Connecting Highways category of maintenance.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:01:00 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 23, 2013, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 23, 2013, 09:03:33 PM
I noticed while driving around today (Wednesday, 2013-10-23) that WisDOT has begun to install yellow backboard outlines around the stop-and-go lights along College Ave (WI 125) on Appleton's west side.  They are an allowable option in the latest Federal MUTCD.  As of this typing, they are now on the heads facing the side streets at two intersections (College/Perkins and College/Lilas).

Mike

WisDOT is, or is it the city of Appleton? I wouldn't put it past the NE Region to experiment, but I believe this stretch (especially intersecting with local roads) would fall in the Connecting Highways category of maintenance.

Well, a private contractor was doing the actual work, with a WisDOT truck parked right by it.  OTOH, the City of Appleton uses its own DPW-Electrical trucks for working on the city's signals and even has a contract with Grand Chute Township to maintain the township's signals in their westside/Fox River Mall area.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 24, 2013, 09:39:13 AM
WisDOT to study the possiblity of adding more lanes to IH90/94 in the Wisconsin Dells area: Portage Daily Register article (http://host.madison.com/news/local/more-lanes-for-i--in-portage-wisconsin-dells-corridor/article_4ae8d4ea-696f-50b3-a3f8-4f21a41fed1d.html).

Nothing posted on the WisDOT site yet...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:50:33 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 24, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:50:33 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike

You want 4 lanes? It's already 3 from CTH N (IH94 east of the Badger) north to the IH39 interchange near Portage. I could see adding one from the IH39 split to Tomah, but I've never had any non-construction problems south of there until I got south of Madison
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2013, 03:43:33 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 24, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:50:33 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike

You want 4 lanes? It's already 3 from CTH N (IH94 east of the Badger) north to the IH39 interchange near Portage. I could see adding one from the IH39 split to Tomah, but I've never had any non-construction problems south of there until I got south of Madison


Agreed.  Madison east to Milwaukee needs three lanes before north of Madison needs four. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on October 24, 2013, 03:49:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2013, 03:43:33 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 24, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:50:33 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike

You want 4 lanes? It's already 3 from CTH N (IH94 east of the Badger) north to the IH39 interchange near Portage. I could see adding one from the IH39 split to Tomah, but I've never had any non-construction problems south of there until I got south of Madison


Agreed.  Madison east to Milwaukee needs three lanes before north of Madison needs four. 

Agreed on that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:01:00 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 23, 2013, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 23, 2013, 09:03:33 PM
I noticed while driving around today (Wednesday, 2013-10-23) that WisDOT has begun to install yellow backboard outlines around the stop-and-go lights along College Ave (WI 125) on Appleton's west side.  They are an allowable option in the latest Federal MUTCD.  As of this typing, they are now on the heads facing the side streets at two intersections (College/Perkins and College/Lilas).

Mike

WisDOT is, or is it the city of Appleton? I wouldn't put it past the NE Region to experiment, but I believe this stretch (especially intersecting with local roads) would fall in the Connecting Highways category of maintenance.

Well, a private contractor was doing the actual work, with a WisDOT truck parked right by it.  OTOH, the City of Appleton uses its own DPW-Electrical trucks for working on the city's signals and even has a contract with Grand Chute Township to maintain the township's signals in their westside/Fox River Mall area.

More of them appeared today at intersections scattered all along that part of College Ave (WI 125), including at its interchange with US(I)-41.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 28, 2013, 09:41:54 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 24, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:50:33 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike

You want 4 lanes? It's already 3 from CTH N (IH94 east of the Badger) north to the IH39 interchange near Portage. I could see adding one from the IH39 split to Tomah, but I've never had any non-construction problems south of there until I got south of Madison

I suspect a freeway upgrade of Hwy 16 between Portage and I-94 near Waukesha would divert a sufficent amount of thru traffic on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee, and on I-39/90/94 between Madison and Portage, to make a widening of both highways completely unnecessary. That's certainly in "Fictional Highways" territory though.

I could certainly see 4 lanes each way on I-39/90/94 becoming a useful upgrade in about 20 years, but I don't think we're there quite yet. The 4-laning of US-12 between the Dells and Madison will divert some of this traffic, but this alternate route is not sufficiently developed to make a large impact. The congestion on the Beltline in Madison would also reduce the usefulness of US-12 as an alternate route.

6-laning of I-90/94 between Portage and Tomah? That should be a no-brainer - it's absolutely needed. But I-39/90 south of Madison warrants the upgrade first.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 02, 2013, 11:29:50 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 21, 2013, 01:17:39 AM
Construction on the Hwy 16/26 expansion north of Watertown appears to be winding down for this year. Crews are working to put in place a relocated roadway (partially new alignment on the future NBD lanes, partially old alignment) in time for winter, and to allow the sections of old roadway crossing the new roadway's path to be obliterated.

Farther south on the Fort Atkinson to Milton stretch, crews are close to switching traffic to the future NBD lanes north of the Jefferson/Rock line, and on the future SBD lanes south of the line to County N. They have not yet set up the crossover needed to switch between the lanes, but that appears to be coming soon.


The traffic switch south of Fort Atkinson to County N occurred yesterday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 03, 2013, 11:24:31 PM
New sign gantry and sign installed on I-43 for Green bay Ave / Capitol Dr exit.

Took a picture of the interesting (temporary) configuration... I suppose they're taking down the old gantry behind it?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPaG9AGB.jpg&hash=53e15a0a469231889fd9670c03d26007e0703420)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 04, 2013, 03:30:31 PM
My guess is that there was probably a pull-through sign (or an advance sign for Atkinson Ave.) in the center years ago.  No need for the gantry for just an exit sign.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 04, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 04, 2013, 03:30:31 PM
No need for the gantry for just an exit sign.
Calling Georgia.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on November 04, 2013, 11:39:57 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 04, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 04, 2013, 03:30:31 PM
No need for the gantry for just an exit sign.
Calling Georgia.
And Wyoming.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on November 05, 2013, 12:42:02 AM
WisDOT's got a few more of those on the beltline in Madison:

WB Beltline east of USH 51 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.047526,-89.290958&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&layer=c&cbll=43.047518,-89.290723&panoid=ZAjz1UdyNljeOmpggI_KcA&cbp=12,276.05,,0,9.75&z=18)
EB Beltline west of USH 51 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.045209,-89.312575&spn=0.000001,0.000817&t=h&layer=c&cbll=43.045209,-89.312575&panoid=l0NKGMFNKUPuxo3mTRIyNA&cbp=12,89.15,,0,11.52&z=21)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 05, 2013, 08:09:01 AM
I've noticed that Arizona had put up their gantries with no signs in construction zones around the emerging Gateway Interchange and Loop 303/I-10 Interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2013, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 05, 2013, 12:42:02 AM
WisDOT's got a few more of those on the beltline in Madison:

WB Beltline east of USH 51 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.047526,-89.290958&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&layer=c&cbll=43.047518,-89.290723&panoid=ZAjz1UdyNljeOmpggI_KcA&cbp=12,276.05,,0,9.75&z=18)
EB Beltline west of USH 51 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.045209,-89.312575&spn=0.000001,0.000817&t=h&layer=c&cbll=43.045209,-89.312575&panoid=l0NKGMFNKUPuxo3mTRIyNA&cbp=12,89.15,,0,11.52&z=21)


I do not recall what was on the WB one, but the EB one used to have a sign indicating that the far right lane was ending.  When this section of the Beltline first opened in 1988, for some reason they decided to go down to two lanes over the bridge to give traffic from US-51 a dedicated lane into which to enter.  It was a dumb idea that lasted only a few years though.  As you head east on Streetview, you can even see the pavement markings indicating a lane change prior to the bridge.

I believe that they also had a sign indicating the upcoming interchange with I-90 there too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 15, 2013, 01:00:44 AM
The Seminole Highway bridge over the Beltline in Madison is nearly completed.

Photos: Seminole Highway bridge ready to open
http://host.madison.com/gallery/news/local/photos-seminole-highway-bridge-ready-to-open/collection_2bbfeed4-4d83-11e3-b28b-0019bb2963f4.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 15, 2013, 08:00:21 AM
Update: As of this morning, the Seminole Highway bridge is open to traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on November 26, 2013, 02:39:16 PM
Public meeting scheduled for Stage 2 of Verona Road (US 18/151) Project

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_4357.html_786229440.html

Proposed improvements for stage 2 include:

- Constructing a single point interchange at Verona Road and County PD with Verona Road traffic traveling over County PD.
- Construct a diamond interchange at Williamsburg Way with Verona Road traffic traveling beneath Williamsburg Way.
- WisDOT is also reviewing intersection alternatives for County PD between Fitchrona Road and Verona Road.

The SPUI at 18/151 and PD/McKee is new I believe.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 26, 2013, 10:24:02 PM
I still believe that WisDOT should do the 'Texas frontage road thing' along Verona Rd out to County 'PD', designing it in such a way as to make future real improvements at the Beltline as easy as possible.

This will extend the US 18/151 freeway inward to just short of the Beltline, too, correct?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 26, 2013, 10:36:44 PM
Correct. There will still be stoplights at Raymond Rd. and A RIRO intersection at Summit Rd. (by Home Depot).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on November 28, 2013, 01:19:34 AM
Ugh... I don't understand why they don't just do it all at once and get it over with!! Screw they stupid SPUI at the belt line and just get the damned freeway->freeway connection done! It's badly needed and will increase safety on the road. In addition, if will save alot of money to do it all now, rather than to let the property values go up over the next 20 years and do it in the future... Simply another example of govt waste around here!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 28, 2013, 08:27:51 AM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on November 28, 2013, 01:19:34 AM
Ugh... I don't understand why they don't just do it all at once and get it over with!! Screw they stupid SPUI at the belt line and just get the damned freeway->freeway connection done! It's badly needed and will increase safety on the road. In addition, if will save alot of money to do it all now, rather than to let the property values go up over the next 20 years and do it in the future... Simply another example of govt waste around here!


Why issue one contract when you can issue two?

The wasteful and inefficient spending in Wisconsin isn't limited to road construction either, but pretty much all state facilities.  It is an absolute joke.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 01, 2013, 07:42:25 PM
WisDOT already owns some of the property it needs for the proposed system interchange at Verona Rd.  Compare the Google aerials to the more recent low-angle aerials on Google and watch some buildings disappear.

Elsewhere on US 51...
WisDOT completed a new overpass on US 51 north of Merrill thus extending the freeway by a couple miles to the next at grade intersection.  This is the one where the gas station was generating an unsafe amount of turning traffic.  I complained at length about this several times.  The gas station has a billboard on the side of it bitching about WisDOT costing people jobs and stuff.  But screw them for building at an unsafe location like that.

Work on the south end of Wausau finished recently and I-39's new SB exit to Bus 51 is so much safer because of it.

On the other end of Wausau, the reconstruction project at Bus 51/CTH K looks like it will get really fun next summer.  They are ready to divert all four lanes around the bridges via the NB exit and entrance ramps once the frost thaws.  Should be a Friday afternoon/evening bottle neck for a couple months.

Deforest's new freeway segment of US 51 is half complete.  South of Vinburn Road is open including the interchange at Windsor Rd. Construction at CTH V/North Street is still in the earlier stages and much earthwork is yet to be done north of there.  About 2 miles of the old alignment will function as a frontage road with the new freeway built just to the east.

Lastly, a shout out to the ballsy deer hunter I saw crossing the controlled access part of US 51 around Tomahawk today, the Sunday after Thanksgiving.  Those freeway fences are there for a reason, bro.  At least the blaze orange made him highly visible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jim920 on December 08, 2013, 12:37:34 AM
WisDOT has added 2 tenth mile markers along the median I-39/90 from just north of the County N interchange to Janesville (I assume all the way to the stateline as well.)  The new signs use both 39 & 90 shields however, they only use I-90's East/West directionals.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 08, 2013, 05:24:33 AM
Quote from: Jim920 on December 08, 2013, 12:37:34 AM
WisDOT has added 2 tenth mile markers along the median I-39/90 from just north of the County N interchange to Janesville (I assume all the way to the stateline as well.)  The new signs use both 39 & 90 shields however, they only use I-90's East/West directionals.
They should have only put I-90 on them.  I believe they are only using 39 to give the route # recognition.  Technically I-39 has no markers since it uses the freeway's (N of the Cascade) original #s, which correspond to US-51.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 08, 2013, 11:35:16 PM
Quote from: Jim920 on December 08, 2013, 12:37:34 AM
WisDOT has added 2 tenth mile markers along the median I-39/90 from just north of the County N interchange to Janesville (I assume all the way to the stateline as well.)  The new signs use both 39 & 90 shields however, they only use I-90's East/West directionals.

Just in time for the winter season and 40+ mile backups on I-39/90!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jim920 on December 10, 2013, 01:11:46 AM
Here is a video from a WisDOT traffic cam showing the pile up on SB US-41/45 @ Lannon Rd. just north of Menomonee Falls.  The freeway here is 3 lanes each direction, but only 2 lanes were able to be used. Obviously people were driving way to fast!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NW0Nne0zrw
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tkiller314 on December 10, 2013, 01:17:06 PM
Quote from: Jim920 on December 10, 2013, 01:11:46 AM
Here is a video from a WisDOT traffic cam showing the pile up on SB US-41/45 @ Lannon Rd. just north of Menomonee Falls.  The freeway here is 3 lanes each direction, but only 2 lanes were able to be used. Obviously people were driving way to fast!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NW0Nne0zrw

I can't say I am too surprised, having driven this stretch around this time of the year this seems like a common occurrence.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 10, 2013, 11:00:53 PM
There's a reason I stay the heck off the interstate in inclement weather, if possible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on December 16, 2013, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on November 26, 2013, 02:39:16 PM
Public meeting scheduled for Stage 2 of Verona Road (US 18/151) Project

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_4357.html_786229440.html

Proposed improvements for stage 2 include:

- Constructing a single point interchange at Verona Road and County PD with Verona Road traffic traveling over County PD.
- Construct a diamond interchange at Williamsburg Way with Verona Road traffic traveling beneath Williamsburg Way.
- WisDOT is also reviewing intersection alternatives for County PD between Fitchrona Road and Verona Road.

The SPUI at 18/151 and PD/McKee is new I believe.

Some updates:
http://projects.511wi.gov/documents/34048/1f79fc3c-26b1-4e0a-ac60-811d943dd3a4

Stage 2. http://projects.511wi.gov/web/veronaroad-18-151/exhibits
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 16, 2013, 09:58:46 PM
Interesting pseudo-Michigan Lefts being proposed on County PD.

I've never seen a SPUI (Beltline/Verona Rd) that had piers in the middle of the interchange before. It appears to be arranged in such a way that it'll work fine, but after all the other SPUIs I've seen, it looks strange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 22, 2013, 12:10:12 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 16, 2013, 09:58:46 PM
I've never seen a SPUI (Beltline/Verona Rd) that had piers in the middle of the interchange before. It appears to be arranged in such a way that it'll work fine, but after all the other SPUIs I've seen, it looks strange.
The proposed SPUI at US 18/151 and McKee Road also seems to have them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 27, 2013, 11:31:52 PM
Looks like the push to raise the speed limit on Wisconsin interstates is going nowhere...for now:

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Vos-supports-raising-Wis-speed-limits-to-70-mph-220072701.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 16, 2014, 12:27:48 AM
Hey, does anyone know how MnDOT and WisDOT decide who is responsible for each of the bridges between them (maintenance and replacement)?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 19, 2014, 07:30:26 PM
Annoyingly, the new Hwy 26 bypass of Milton is showing a lot of settling after this winter, at least in the NBD lanes. The pavement is not obviously damaged, but there's a noticeable roller-coaster effect north of the Hwy 59 interchange.

Elsewhere when there's (anticipated) settling of the travel lanes, it appears that WisDOT specifies the lanes are paved in asphalt. The fact this stretch is all concrete suggests WisDOT didn't anticipate this would be an issue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 19, 2014, 08:28:04 PM
Its called frost heaves.  This happens every year on every road in the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milepost61 on February 23, 2014, 09:41:24 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on February 16, 2014, 12:27:48 AM
Hey, does anyone know how MnDOT and WisDOT decide who is responsible for each of the bridges between them (maintenance and replacement)?

Depends partly on where the border actually is, and might also be case by case.

In the case of US 14-61 WisDOT did the high bridge project, but that's because it's wholly within Wisconsin, while the smaller bridges over the west channel were done by Mn/DOT.

MN 43 at Winona has Mn/DOT doing the high bridge because it's wholly within Minnesota. But Mn/DOT also has its snowplows handle WI 54 the two additional miles to WI 35 as part of a maintenance agreement.

The I-90 project is being done by Mn/DOT, maybe there's some cost sharing with WisDOT?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 04, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
WisDOT has released its recommended alternative (http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/51/altrec.htm) for the US 51/Stoughton Rd corridor. As some may have expected, it is a combination of the previous alternatives. Revised exhibits are posted on the study page, but here are a few of the highlights:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on March 04, 2014, 01:42:03 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 27, 2013, 11:31:52 PM
Looks like the push to raise the speed limit on Wisconsin interstates is going nowhere...for now:

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Vos-supports-raising-Wis-speed-limits-to-70-mph-220072701.html

Wisconsin: The Oregon of the Midwest.  X-(
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on March 15, 2014, 08:04:27 AM
I have a new job that has me going to Milwaukee and Chicago from Green Bay.  Taking I-43 from Sheboygan to Milwaukee is bumpy to say the least - especially between Port Washington and Glendale.  I'm hoping WIDOT has some resurfacing projects coming soon!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on April 07, 2014, 07:10:03 AM
Speaking of US 51, noticed while passing through yesterday that there's construction underway to widen it for a few miles further north, to near the Dane County line, with an interchange at CTH V West.  The current roadway along the east edge of De Forest looks like it will become a frontage road.  From what I saw of the construction and what's been completed further south (including an interchange at Windsor Rd), it looks like there will technically be a freeway section on US 51 from just south of WI 19 to just north of CTH V West.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Right on Red on April 08, 2014, 03:34:08 PM
We were in Milwaukee last weekend and went through the Zoo Interchange. US45N to I-94W is closed, and the detour is Blue Mound (US18). Traffic was backed up to about a mile before the I-94W to US45N ramp (and on US45 further south). I'd hate to see what it's like during rush hour.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on April 08, 2014, 03:44:28 PM
That closure is only during the night.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 08, 2014, 10:41:15 PM
Quote from: Right on Red on April 08, 2014, 03:34:08 PM
We were in Milwaukee last weekend and went through the Zoo Interchange. US45N to I-94W is closed, and the detour is Blue Mound (US18). Traffic was backed up to about a mile before the I-94W to US45N ramp (and on US45 further south). I'd hate to see what it's like during rush hour.

Yeah, that one was temporary for construction at Hwy 100.  They were probably bringing down the old overpasses.  They've also got a new railroad bridge going in there this year.
I'm pretty sure they're going to do this project without long term closures of system ramps.  Just temporary ones to rip out old bridges and to lift girders for new ones into place.


Froggie's got it exactly right; US 51 is becoming a freeway through DeForest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2014, 03:08:40 PM
I was heading back home from Milwaukee through Madison last week, and partly out of curiosity, and also partly because I had never gone that way before, I took the recommended alternate US 18-151 around the Verona Rd. construction. That route takes you east (south) on US 14 to the County MM exit, then west on County M, to County PB, back to US 18-151 buy Verona. Not a bad route, even if it is a few miles longer. It avoids all the stoplights on Verona Rd, and the way I would probably go if I was hitting rush hour. However, I noticed one peculiar thing with signing along US 14. After the Beltline, the first signing for an exit you see is for McCoy Rd, 1/2 Mile. Then maybe a couple hundred feet down the road, you see a sign for Lacy Rd., 1 Mile, before even getting to the McCoy Rd. exit. I thought this was rather odd and confusing. Lacy Rd. shouldn't be signed until after the McCoy Rd. exit. I tried to look it up on streetview, but unfortunately, it doesn't even have the Lacy Rd. exit as even existing. The wording on the sign at the McCoy Rd. exit was also poorly aligned, looking something like Mc  Coy Rd. Worst signing I'd seen in a while.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 21, 2014, 03:49:57 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2014, 03:08:40 PM
The wording on the sign at the McCoy Rd. exit was also poorly aligned, looking something like Mc  Coy Rd. Worst signing I'd seen in a while.

That ugly spacing has also shown up on a few signs for McFarland as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 21, 2014, 08:29:55 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2014, 03:08:40 PM
I thought this was rather odd and confusing. Lacy Rd. shouldn't be signed until after the McCoy Rd. exit. I tried to look it up on streetview, but unfortunately, it doesn't even have the Lacy Rd. exit as even existing.

That Lacy Rd. interchange is pretty new, so it doesn't surprise me that it's not on street view.  They did end up closing the EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp when they opened the interchange.  Also, Lacy road was actually routed over the bridge immediately South of the interchange, but they put in a roundabout to the SW and put Lacy Rd. on a new alignment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 21, 2014, 09:05:22 PM
The Lacy Road interchange is about 18 months old.  I thought the initial plan was to completely close McCoy Road, but that never happened.

Here is a summary of the project.  The Lacy Road exit was done by the City of Fitchburg.

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/d1/us14/completed.htm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2014, 10:30:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 21, 2014, 09:05:22 PM
The Lacy Road interchange is about 18 months old.  I thought the initial plan was to completely close McCoy Road, but that never happened.

Here is a summary of the project.  The Lacy Road exit was done by the City of Fitchburg.

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/d1/us14/completed.htm


I remember now reading about the project, but I didn't remember exactly what took place until I looked at it again. Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 11:33:53 PM
I also happened across a study of US 14 between Brooklyn and Janesville:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/us14projects/14/index.htm

The goal of the study is to "preserve" the existing route as long as possible, but with safety improvements as appropriate.

As I am a frequent traveler of this stretch of highway, I decided to put in a public comment before tomorrow's deadline. Here is my comment:

- - -

As a frequent traveler on US 14 between Janesville and Madison, I have had frequent opportunity to observe traffic behavior on various days and times. I have a few suggestions that should fit the goal of not widening or relocating US 14 to a significant degree.


1) US 14, I-90 to Kennedy Rd
With the exception of the intersection at Hwy 26 (a prime candidate for an "Echelon" intersection, by the way), the left turn lanes at each stoplight are poorly angled, making it difficult to see oncoming traffic before proceeding through the intersection. The median should be reconfigured to either eliminate traffic from side streets flowing straight through the intersection, or the left turn lanes on US 14 should be angled to provide better visibility to left-turning traffic.

2) US 14 at Newville Rd
It appears this intersection may soon warrant a stoplight due to the commercial construction immediately south of the intersection.

3) US 14 / US 51 intersection
The intersection would appear to be a prime candidate for a roundabout, given the large amount of left-turning traffic, the odd angle at which US 14 intersects US 51, and the desire to calm traffic entering and exiting the intersection. Traffic currently has to wait up to 2 minutes to make a left turn at this intersection as it waits through the remaining signal cycles. A roundabout would also limit the amount of additional land required to accommodate the intersection.

4) US 14, US 51 to County E
There is a significant amount of left-turning traffic entering and exiting the roadway all along this stretch. The intersection of County F at US 14 is particularly problematic; sightlines are very poor for southbound traffic on County F attempting to turn left to head eastbound on US 14.

The fix that would best fit the Study's goals would be to realign County F to meet at an intersection with US 51 north of US 14. This would eliminate a dangerous intersection without having to acquire and demolish buildings, or perform any widening of US 14.

If County F is not realigned, it is very difficult to improve the safety of this stretch without extending the 4-lane divided highway westward past the County F intersection and adding a stoplight or roundabout at County F. This would also add to congestion on this stretch of road. This seems to be at odds with the goals of the study.

In addition, additional turn lanes and passing flares would provide additional safety for turning traffic. 10-foot wide shoulders would provide safer travel by farm implements, bicyclists, and other slow-moving traffic. It would also provide additional safety for disabled vehicles.

5) US 14, County E to County H
More passing flares for left-turning traffic are needed, as well as turn lanes for right-turning traffic. Also, providing 10-foot paved shoulders on each side would better accommodate tractors, bicyclists, and other slow-moving traffic. It would also provide a safer place for vehicle breakdowns.

6) US 14 at County H
There is significant left-turning traffic at this intersection, and visibility for traffic northbound on County H is deficient due to the nearby buildings and the angle US 14 intersects it with. Turn lanes for left and right-turning traffic, and possibly a stoplight activated by traffic waiting on County H would provide safer travel through the intersection. Realigning County H so it is perpendicular to US 14 would also be helpful.

7) US 14, County H to County M
This stretch would also benefit from 10-foot paved shoulders, passing flares, and turn lanes.

It would also benefit from a set of passing lanes in each direction. This would cut down on traffic attempting unsafe passing maneuvers on this stretch of highway. For example, eastbound traffic could have a passing lane between Tuttle Rd and Cassidy Rd. Westbound traffic could have its passing lane between County H and Eagle Rd.

8) Territorial Rd/Bullard Rd "bypass" of Evansville
The utility of the "bypass" using Territorial Rd and Bullard Rd is obvious. It easily saves 5-10 minutes of travel time for through traffic. I don't see how you would encourage traffic to continue on US 14, short of introducing dead ends on Territorial Rd. The only reasonable response to improve safety while maintaining the route's utility would be to widen and realign the route to state highway standards, which goes against the goals of the study.

A logical US 14 bypass of Evansville would start immediately north of Union, intersecting Hwy 59 perpendicularly, then make a 90 degree turn south to intersect Union Rd perpendicularly. It would then continue south to meet Territorial Rd at Bullard Rd. It would then roughly follow the existing Territorial Rd south to meet the existing US 14. The existing US 14 alignment could be retained as a business route.

9) US 14, Hwy 59/213 intersection in Evansville to Hwy 59 just north of Union
Realign US 14/Hwy 59 to bypass Union to the south and west, with a realignment of Hwy 59 to meet at a new intersection with US 14 NW of Union. The existing US 14/Hwy 59 can terminate in a cul-de-sac at both the north and south ends.

Also, as noted previously, 10-foot shoulders, passing flares, turn lanes as appropriate.

If traffic absolutely must be maintained on the existing US 14/Hwy 59 stretch through Union, a roundabout at the Hwy 59 intersection would calm traffic sufficiently. I also suspect it would prove very unpopular with area residents.

10) US 14, Hwy 59 intersection @ Union to Hwy 92
As noted previously, 10-foot shoulders, passing flares, and turn lanes as appropriate.

The stretch just south of Holt Rd northerly to Hwy 92 would be an appropriate location for passing lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 22, 2014, 10:35:48 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.


Really?  This project includes a US-12/18 overpass?  That is the first I have heard of that.

I have been complaining about the WI-73/US12/18 intersection ever since they redid 12/18 between Madison and Cambridge.  It has been a problem since it opened about 15 years ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on April 22, 2014, 05:20:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.

I thought that stretch of US 12/US 18 was intended to be upgraded to a full freeway eventually?  Seems WisDOT should be going for at least a regular interchange for EB US 12/US 18 at WIS 73 instead of a right in-right out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 22, 2014, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 22, 2014, 05:20:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.

I thought that stretch of US 12/US 18 was intended to be upgraded to a full freeway eventually?

Only to County N. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/1218conv/index.htm

They have a separate study for the stretch between County N and US 12 that does not involve widening or bypasses: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/12nto26/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 23, 2014, 08:30:01 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 22, 2014, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 22, 2014, 05:20:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.

I thought that stretch of US 12/US 18 was intended to be upgraded to a full freeway eventually?

Only to County N. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/1218conv/index.htm

They have a separate study for the stretch between County N and US 12 that does not involve widening or bypasses: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/12nto26/


WIDOT upgrades WI-26 to four lanes based on traffic counts of about 8,000 per day.

But the stretch of US-12/18 between Cambridge and Madison gets about 11,500 per day...and no consideration of widening.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 24, 2014, 08:03:26 PM
The stretch between Milton and Watertown was in the 11,000-12,000 per day range.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/docs/jefferson/jefferson2009.pdf

It's also a safe bet that WI-26 gets more truck traffic (though for some reason I can't find that data).

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 25, 2014, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 24, 2014, 08:03:26 PM
The stretch between Milton and Watertown was in the 11,000-12,000 per day range.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/docs/jefferson/jefferson2009.pdf

It's also a safe bet that WI-26 gets more truck traffic (though for some reason I can't find that data).

WI 26 is a fairly popular route for big-rigs to get between the NE part of the state (Oshkosh, Appleton, Green Bay, etc) and points south (I-39 south corridor and beyond), avoiding Chicagoland.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 25, 2014, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 24, 2014, 08:03:26 PM
The stretch between Milton and Watertown was in the 11,000-12,000 per day range.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/docs/jefferson/jefferson2009.pdf

It's also a safe bet that WI-26 gets more truck traffic (though for some reason I can't find that data).




WIDOT's interactive traffic counts map does not reflect those figures.

Regardless, my point isn't about WI-26 as it is about the dismissal of widening and bypass options for US-12/18 when, even if I am wrong about traffic counts, that corridor is just as busy as WI-26 between Madison and Cambridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 25, 2014, 06:54:25 PM
There's definitely prioritization taking place. US-14 west of Madison and south to Darien is also purposely being delayed.

I heard somewhere Walker put the kibosh on the US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson, and it wouldn't surprise me if there's orders from above similarly holding off on the Whitewater-Elkhorn US-12 relocation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 25, 2014, 11:02:57 PM
^^
I expect those projects to be restarted in due time.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 27, 2014, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 25, 2014, 06:54:25 PM
There's definitely prioritization taking place. US-14 west of Madison and south to Darien is also purposely being delayed.

I heard somewhere Walker put the kibosh on the US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson, and it wouldn't surprise me if there's orders from above similarly holding off on the Whitewater-Elkhorn US-12 relocation.


He put the US-12 bypass around Fort Atkinson on hold for political reasons.  MGK is right...it will be restored eventually.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 30, 2014, 11:39:55 PM
Over-height loads are apparently not limited to trucks.

Union Pacific will pay for damage to Milwaukee bridges
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/255929101.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 18, 2014, 07:14:13 PM
Could Madison create its own Millennium Park?
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/could-madison-create-its-own-millennium-park/article_a3d82102-dae6-11e3-bcee-0019bb2963f4.html

"Should the city bury the messy intersection where John Nolen Drive, Blair Street and Willy Street converge to create a Madison version of Chicago's Millennium Park?

"It might prove difficult for a city this size. But a group of local architects and urban planners are urging people to give it some serious thought."


Link to report: http://host.madison.com/new-report-on-burying-john-nolen-drive/pdf_59677128-daea-11e3-aec5-0019bb2963f4.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 29, 2014, 02:24:02 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.


I just shared some emails with WIDOT over this.  The new overpass will be constructed in 2015...starting in May, ending in December.

Here is a .pdf of the preferred alternative.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/docs/map-prefalt.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on May 30, 2014, 04:20:10 AM
Back in April, WisDOT finally posted it's recommended alternative for the future rebuild of the I-94, US-12, WIS 29 interchange near Elk Mound:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fmap-alternativeElkMound_zps12496ca2.png&hash=d7a1216c6dc44e5befa4a50ca85c8a03cc507994)
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/map-alternative.pdf

That northern loop ramp looks awfully tight.

Somewhat interestingly, in the EA, the state mentions the possibility of WIS 29 becoming an Interstate at some point in the future: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/ea.pdf (page 6)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on May 30, 2014, 06:21:12 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on May 30, 2014, 04:20:10 AM
Somewhat interestingly, in the EA, the state mentions the possibility of WIS 29 becoming an Interstate at some point in the future: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/ea.pdf (page 6)

Which page?  Page 6/37 (6 of 144 using the pdf numbering) is completely blank.


Is there some reason I'm forgetting that this interchange can have the freeway/expressway connect to the minor road west of the interstate, yet for the I-39/I-90 interchange with I-43 the local road connection has to be via a completely separate interchange?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 01, 2014, 07:50:56 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 30, 2014, 06:21:12 PMWhich page?  Page 6/37 (6 of 144 using the pdf numbering) is completely blank.
Screenshot of info in question:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F5387bb00-68d7-4545-9d40-b2913ec31d5e_zps8b1f89e5.png&hash=ddc7a0814239dd1f13729a6b2c5afa2524eb217b)
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/ea.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 03, 2014, 01:09:12 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 30, 2014, 06:21:12 PM
Is there some reason I'm forgetting that this interchange can have the freeway/expressway connect to the minor road west of the interstate, yet for the I-39/I-90 interchange with I-43 the local road connection has to be via a completely separate interchange?

With this design, WisDOT is indeed bucking their recent trend of separating system and local movements in these types of places.  (Green Bay, Wausau, Beloit, Oshkosh)  I can only guess that there's less cost with a couple additional loop ramps rather than two separate interchanges built in close proximity.  Or perhaps since those other places are more urban, they want better local access whereas this one is much more rural with nothing but a small gas station close by?

I see a WB C/D lane for I-94.  The high speed ramps are so long, they had better be two lanes.  The small loops are low volume movements, so that's no big deal.

Making new system interchanges up to interstate standards just seems like good practice to me rather than anticipating an actual interstate in the works.  WisDOT has already drawn up freeway conversion plans for the entire important part of WI 29 to use as traffic warrants it (and prevent any more crossroads gas stations, etc. from popping up).  The construction between Marathon City and Wausau is that plan in action.  The stuff for the entire corridor is not online anymore, though, I noticed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 03:14:56 AM
My complaints WRT that option is the lack of legal non-motorized (pedestrian, bicycle, etc) access across I-94 in that vicinity, as well as for the left entrance/exit situation for US 12 to the west <-> WI 29 to the east - US 12 to the west connects to the major 'interstate-to-interstate' turns (EB to EB and WB to WB) on the left.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2014, 09:36:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 03:14:56 AM
My complaints WRT that option is the lack of legal non-motorized (pedestrian, bicycle, etc) access across I-94 in that vicinity,


It looks as though they are keeping the current US-12 over I-94 even though it will no longer have the designation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 10:29:41 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2014, 09:36:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 03:14:56 AM
My complaints WRT that option is the lack of legal non-motorized (pedestrian, bicycle, etc) access across I-94 in that vicinity,


It looks as though they are keeping the current US-12 over I-94 even though it will no longer have the designation.

Perhaps they could slip a pathway to connect US 12 to the west with that 'old' US 12 road to the east, along the south side of the EB to EB ramp under I-94 and then box-culverted under that WB to EB ramp.

As is sits now, 'US 12' follows WI 29 to the first interchange to the east of I-94 (WI 40), hops off of the freeway and then goes south across the railroad to feed into the previously existing road.  My guess is that that routing will be maintained.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 11:18:55 AM
-Quick daytrip report-

I had the day off on Tuesday, 2014-06-03, so once I got some stuff done here, I hopped into the car and went driving.

First leg, I drove from Appleton, WI to the Beloit, WI/South Beloit, IL area.

Observations:
-Why did WisDOT change the controls for WI 26 between US(I)-41 and US 151 from 'Oshkosh' and 'Waupun' to 'Rosendale' - the last place in the state where most of those who live here in eastern Wisconsin ever want to go???  IMHO, that will just get more people lost.

-Work is well under way to upgrade the section of WI 26 from Watertown to WI 60 to four lanes and there are intermittent stretches where traffic has been shifted to the new northbound concrete. Work appears to be on-track for completion in fall of 2015.  Some ROW clearance has been done for the railroad bridge reversal just north of the WI 26/WI 16/60 interchange (the new four-lane WI 26 will go over Union Pacific's Adams line there, it now goes under in a very narrow cut), the latter of which is well under construction with beam-setting for the new bridge well under way.

-Four lane upgrades to WI 26 between Fort Atkinson and County 'N', just north of Milton, is also well under way with two-way traffic now using the new southbound concrete over that entire section.  Several overcrossing bridges are under construction, but for now it will not be a fully interstate-compatible freeway, as there will be several 'RIRO' intersections with side and overcrossing connector roads.  This looks to be on-track for completion this fall, if not sooner.

-Yes, those signalized intersections near the interstates (I-94 in Johnson Creek and I-39/90 in Janesville) are a real annoyance and should be addressed like with WI 29 at US(I)-41 in the Green Bay area and will soon be with US 10 (east) in Stevens Point.

One note here - traffic loading on WI 26 (from County 'A' southeast of Beaver Dam to I-39/90) was on a par with that on the Beloit end of I-43 and that last missing link between WI 60 and US 151 will have to be addressed.  North of County 'A', traffic disburses between WI 26 and County 'A'.  For a while now, my preference has been for WisDOT to build a new-ROW WI 26 from the WI 60 area to run NNW and then NW to feed directly into US 151 with free-flow ramps at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

-Not a lot of six-lane upgrade work is apparent on I-39/90 south of WI 26 (yet), except that that new interchange with WI 11 on Janesville's east side looks *NICE*.  That prior cloverleaf was nasty, indeed!

-There is a lot of development going on in the southeast quadrant of the I-39/90/I-43 interchange in Beloit and the wisdom of restoring surface street access between that area and Milwaukee Rd (WI 81) in the city west of I-39/90 is very clear.  The most favored plans with WisDOT now appear to be similar in layout to what is being done at US(I)-41/WI 29 in the Green Bay area, with the street interchange being 'piggybacked' with the planned I-39/90/I-43 free-flow ramps.

-I stopped at the Illinois welcome center and picked up a couple of IDOT highway maps, dated 2013-2014.  Lots of interesting stuff in it, such as a new muni appearing ('Plattville') and the City of Joliet now extending over halfway from the Kendall-Will County line to IL 47.

Next leg, Beloit to Milwaukee:
-Not a lot new along I-43, but that former racetrack at Delevan looks truly sad.  The building sits half demolished with what appears to be no further work going on.

-All but one of the overcrossings where I-43 crosses over a side road between Mukwonago and the Milwaukee County line have been rebuilt to allow 'drop in' upgrading of the highway to six lanes.  Yes, I can anticipate that.

-The main Beloit city street in the rapidly developing SE quadrant of its interchange with I-39/90 was recently rebuilt.

Metro Milwaukee:
-The I-794 Hoan Bridge is being redecked, a big-shovel project in its own right.  Traffic is now using the northbound side of the bridge in a 1x2 arrangement with - a Zipper lane  :wow: .  There are several interesting lane shifts and detour routings at the bridge's north end, where I-794 makes the transition between east-west and north-south.

-New guardrails have been installed on the former boulevard street section of I-43 in the northshore suburbs.  How the FHWA accepted that part into the I-system as it sat, I'll never know.

-(I-41)/US 45 through the county grounds just north of the Zoo interchange is massively under construction and driving through, I couldn't figure out the layout of all of the new roadways and bridging.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2014, 11:51:08 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 11:18:55 AM
-Quick daytrip report-

I had the day off on Tuesday, 2014-06-03, so once I got some stuff done here, I hopped into the car and went driving.

First leg, I drove from Appleton, WI to the Beloit, WI/South Beloit, IL area.

Observations:
-Why did WisDOT change the controls for WI 26 between US(I)-41 and US 151 from 'Oshkosh' and 'Waupun' to 'Rosendale' - the last place in the state where most of those who live here in eastern Wisconsin ever want to go???  IMHO, that will just get more people lost.

(snip)

-Four lane upgrades to WI 26 between Fort Atkinson and County 'N', just north of Milton, is also well under way with two-way traffic now using the new southbound concrete over that entire section.  Several overcrossing bridges are under construction, but for now it will not be a fully interstate-compatible freeway, as there will be several 'RIRO' intersections with side and overcrossing connector roads.  This looks to be on-track for completion this fall, if not sooner.


My guess is that they are using "Rosendale" because they want traffic to use US-151/US-41 from Waupun to Oshkosh instead of WI-26. 

With regards to WI-26 south of Fort Atkinson, the current traffic is using the eventual northbound lanes until just north of the Rock County line where it switches over to the southbound.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 05, 2014, 01:50:05 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 11:18:55 AM-Not a lot of six-lane upgrade work is apparent on I-39/90 south of WI 26 (yet), except that that new interchange with WI 11 on Janesville's east side looks *NICE*.  That prior cloverleaf was nasty, indeed!

I was surprised, as well, that there wasn't much construction on that stretch of Interstate as well going through there on my recent trip to DC. Of course, I also get the feeling the state has been way over dramatizing how bad things will be when the ball really gets rolling later on. (Cough:"must upgrade US 14 and WIS 26 RIGHT NOW!" bullocks coming out of the SW office) IMHO




Back to the Elk Mound interchange, I went back over the original WisDOT drawing and covered up the old configuration in an quick attempt to make it easer to read:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fd73dced2-0b5f-4866-af29-a81a02accbd3_zpsd265fc06.png&hash=99d225286a026d3c0666d4a957f3944dfdb859ad)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 05, 2014, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2014, 11:51:08 AMWith regards to WI-26 south of Fort Atkinson, the current traffic is using the eventual northbound lanes until just north of the Rock County line where it switches over to the southbound.

I think you're right, I was going by memory and yes, I do recall seeing a lot of cut digging going on where the southbound side will go, including into that abandoned railroad grade.

I do note that even though it will not be fully interstate compatible through there, such upgrades should not be all that difficult nor expensive to do for when that time comes.  The 'old' highway on the west side of the abandoned railroad there is a natural local access roadway for that area and some of those accesses that are being built into WI 26, IMHO, are not really needed and should have been omitted from the start.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 05, 2014, 11:45:02 AM
The only issue with cutting off that access, is that because of Lake Koshkonong to the west, you would only have one easy way to enter that neighborhood, and that would require exiting at the south "Business WI-26" exit, and winding your way down from there.

You are correct though that the "jughandle" exits they are building would be easy to eliminate if they have to.  What they may have to do is provide some sort of easier access off the County Highway N exit to the south.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on June 26, 2014, 08:13:32 AM
I don't think this fits into the 41 conversion, so I will post here

Groundbreaking was yesterday for work on 441 "tri county" freeway. It includes fixing the 41/441/10 interchange, and a new bridge over Little Lake Butte des Morts:
http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/highway-441-project-underway-in-fox-valley/

We also explained a Diverging Diamond interchange
http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/hwy-441-expansion-plan-includes-diverging-diamond/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 26, 2014, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: Fox 11 News on June 26, 2014, 08:13:32 AM
I don't think this fits into the 41 conversion, so I will post here

Groundbreaking was yesterday for work on 441 "tri county" freeway. It includes fixing the 41/441/10 interchange, and a new bridge over Little Lake Butte des Morts:
http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/highway-441-project-underway-in-fox-valley/

We also explained a Diverging Diamond interchange
http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/hwy-441-expansion-plan-includes-diverging-diamond/

I didn't realize that they were that far along with the planning on this - I wasn't expecting actual construction to start for another couple of years.

There IS some work going on in the northeast quadrant of the US(I)-41/US 10/WI 441 (Bridgeview) interchange, it appears to me to be underground utility relocation work.

:nod:

I'll start a new thread for this truly BIG shovel project.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 26, 2014, 11:22:51 PM
Also, is WisDOT planning to seek 'promotion' of WI 441 to a full interstate (presumably as 'I-441') when this project is complete?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 06, 2014, 06:26:30 PM
Driving up to Waupun via WI-26 today...has WisDOT ever considered moving WI-26 over to CTH-A?  While it may not be more direct - it is definitely faster, especially with CTH-A being resurfaced and "smoothed out" a few years back.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 06, 2014, 11:03:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 06, 2014, 06:26:30 PM
Driving up to Waupun via WI-26 today...has WisDOT ever considered moving WI-26 over to CTH-A?  While it may not be more direct - it is definitely faster, especially with CTH-A being resurfaced and "smoothed out" a few years back.

From what I am aware of, I believe that that is the near to mid-term plan.  IMHO, County 'A' would not have been rebuilt as it was if it were to always be just another lowly county highway.

Deeper into the future, I can see it being replaced with a new-ROW WI 26 that would extend the four lanes to US 151 at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 07, 2014, 01:18:29 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 06, 2014, 11:03:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 06, 2014, 06:26:30 PM
Driving up to Waupun via WI-26 today...has WisDOT ever considered moving WI-26 over to CTH-A?  While it may not be more direct - it is definitely faster, especially with CTH-A being resurfaced and "smoothed out" a few years back.

From what I am aware of, I believe that that is the near to mid-term plan.  IMHO, County 'A' would not have been rebuilt as it was if it were to always be just another lowly county highway.

Deeper into the future, I can see it being replaced with a new-ROW WI 26 that would extend the four lanes to US 151 at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

Mike

It makes it all the more confounding that County A passes right through Oak Grove rather than bypassing it. The entire stretch of Hwy 26 north of Janesville (with the exception of Johnson Creek) bypasses every population center all the way to County A. That 30mph stretch is a nasty speed trap, and will be more so once the 4-laning of Hwy 16/26 to Hwy 16/60 is completed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on August 05, 2014, 10:59:39 AM
QuotePlan commission gives the go-ahead for new I-94 exit
Posted: Aug 04, 2014 9:53 PM CST
By Kristen Shill


Eau Claire (WQOW) - Plans for a new Eau Claire exit off of I-94 onto Cameron Street are moving forward.

The owner of land near the proposed interchange has asked the city to purchase the land, which is what the plan commission recommended Monday night. Members of the commission say the purchase is in line with the city's comprehensive plan. The proposal will now go before the Eau Claire City Council. At that time it's expected a dollar amount for the possible purchase will be made public.
http://www.wqow.com/story/26196007/2014/08/04/plan-commission-gives-the-go-ahead-for-new-i-94-exit
Location: http://goo.gl/maps/NfrDZ

If built I can easily see this becoming the preferred exit for downtown access.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 05, 2014, 05:44:08 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on August 05, 2014, 10:59:39 AM
QuotePlan commission gives the go-ahead for new I-94 exit
Posted: Aug 04, 2014 9:53 PM CST
By Kristen Shill


Eau Claire (WQOW) - Plans for a new Eau Claire exit off of I-94 onto Cameron Street are moving forward.

The owner of land near the proposed interchange has asked the city to purchase the land, which is what the plan commission recommended Monday night. Members of the commission say the purchase is in line with the city's comprehensive plan. The proposal will now go before the Eau Claire City Council. At that time it's expected a dollar amount for the possible purchase will be made public.
http://www.wqow.com/story/26196007/2014/08/04/plan-commission-gives-the-go-ahead-for-new-i-94-exit
Location: http://goo.gl/maps/NfrDZ

If built I can easily see this becoming the preferred exit for downtown access.

It's also the historic routing of the Yellowstone Trail.

Anyways, I wonder if the City has plans to reconnect Folsom St across I-94 when its development gets to that point.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 06, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
I've been adding an interchange at this location in my fictional sketches for years.  Good to hear!

Eau Claire really got short-changed on freeway access when I-94 was first built.  There wasn't even an interchange at WI 93 until much later, so that's just 3 exits for a fairly large city. (US 53, WI 37 & US 12/CTH EE)

I'm still waiting for a SB->EB flyover at US 53; then they will really have what is needed in Eau Claire.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on August 13, 2014, 09:53:35 AM
Update:
QuoteCouncil buys land for possible I-94 exit
Posted: Aug 12, 2014 10:41 PM CST
By Kristen Shill


Eau Claire (WQOW) ā€” The Eau Claire City Council voted in favor of purchasing a parcel of land near I-94 and Cameron Street for $29,000.

The city has discussed the possibility of building a new exit from I-94 that would funnel traffic into downtown Eau Claire. Council member Lewis is the only one who voted against it.
http://www.wqow.com/story/26265583/2014/08/12/council-buys-land-for-possible-i-94-exit

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on August 13, 2014, 10:21:25 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 06, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
I've been adding an interchange at this location in my fictional sketches for years.  Good to hear!

Eau Claire really got short-changed on freeway access when I-94 was first built.  There wasn't even an interchange at WI 93 until much later, so that's just 3 exits for a fairly large city. (US 53, WI 37 & US 12/CTH EE)

I'm still waiting for a SB->EB flyover at US 53; then they will really have what is needed in Eau Claire.

Why wasn't 94 built closer in?  It's like Eau Claire was an afterthought.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2014, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 13, 2014, 10:21:25 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 06, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
I've been adding an interchange at this location in my fictional sketches for years.  Good to hear!

Eau Claire really got short-changed on freeway access when I-94 was first built.  There wasn't even an interchange at WI 93 until much later, so that's just 3 exits for a fairly large city. (US 53, WI 37 & US 12/CTH EE)

I'm still waiting for a SB->EB flyover at US 53; then they will really have what is needed in Eau Claire.

Why wasn't 94 built closer in?  It's like Eau Claire was an afterthought.


I'm not sure it could have been.  It's located less than two miles south of US-12, and undoubtedly there was a good deal of development south of US-12 when they routed I-94 through the area.  It is about the same distance from the "city center" when compared to similar cities in Wisconsin. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2014, 10:46:22 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 07, 2014, 01:18:29 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 06, 2014, 11:03:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 06, 2014, 06:26:30 PM
Driving up to Waupun via WI-26 today...has WisDOT ever considered moving WI-26 over to CTH-A?  While it may not be more direct - it is definitely faster, especially with CTH-A being resurfaced and "smoothed out" a few years back.

From what I am aware of, I believe that that is the near to mid-term plan.  IMHO, County 'A' would not have been rebuilt as it was if it were to always be just another lowly county highway.

Deeper into the future, I can see it being replaced with a new-ROW WI 26 that would extend the four lanes to US 151 at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

Mike

It makes it all the more confounding that County A passes right through Oak Grove rather than bypassing it. The entire stretch of Hwy 26 north of Janesville (with the exception of Johnson Creek) bypasses every population center all the way to County A. That 30mph stretch is a nasty speed trap, and will be more so once the 4-laning of Hwy 16/26 to Hwy 16/60 is completed.


If they route WI-26 onto County A, they will undoubtedly have to bypass Oak Grove somehow.  They will also have to completely re-do the WI-26 / County A intersection.  I think they are just trying to figure out what the best options for WI-26 are at this point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 13, 2014, 07:55:19 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 13, 2014, 10:21:25 AM
Why wasn't 94 built closer in?  It's like Eau Claire was an afterthought.

They did well to build I-94 beyond the existing sprawl at the time.  Most of the predominantly residential area between US 12 and I-94 was already there when the interstate was built.  The priority was definitely thru traffic. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 13, 2014, 08:18:08 PM
I can't even begin to imagine how much it would have cost in money *and time* had the decision been made to upgrade existing US 12 through town instead of using that new-ROW for I-94, too.

:wow:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on August 13, 2014, 09:25:00 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 06, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
I've been adding an interchange at this location in my fictional sketches for years.  Good to hear!

Eau Claire really got short-changed on freeway access when I-94 was first built.  There wasn't even an interchange at WI 93 until much later, so that's just 3 exits for a fairly large city. (US 53, WI 37 & US 12/CTH EE)

Where they building off of old toll plans with limited exits?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on August 13, 2014, 10:19:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2014, 10:46:22 AM

If they route WI-26 onto County A, they will undoubtedly have to bypass Oak Grove somehow.  They will also have to completely re-do the WI-26 / County A intersection.  I think they are just trying to figure out what the best options for WI-26 are at this point.

Why would they need to completely re-do the intersection?  It looks like it could be easily converted to a curve with what's now WI-26 north of A bent in to a "T" intersection past the apex of the curve.  Done.

There's also probably no rush to bypass Oak Grove.  It's not any worse (in fact it's easier) than driving through Juneau.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 13, 2014, 10:37:11 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 13, 2014, 10:19:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2014, 10:46:22 AM

If they route WI-26 onto County A, they will undoubtedly have to bypass Oak Grove somehow.  They will also have to completely re-do the WI-26 / County A intersection.  I think they are just trying to figure out what the best options for WI-26 are at this point.

Why would they need to completely re-do the intersection?  It looks like it could be easily converted to a curve with what's now WI-26 north of A bent in to a "T" intersection past the apex of the curve.  Done.

There's also probably no rush to bypass Oak Grove.  It's not any worse (in fact it's easier) than driving through Juneau.

I can see what is now WI 26 from the north being curved to feed into that county highway (County 'KW') that is just north of County 'A', with the part of WI 26 from there through Juneau to WI 33 being renumbered as a western extension of 'WI 28'.  WI 26 from WI 33 northward to US 151 (middle interchange) could then be downgraded to a county highway.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2014, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 13, 2014, 10:19:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2014, 10:46:22 AM

If they route WI-26 onto County A, they will undoubtedly have to bypass Oak Grove somehow.  They will also have to completely re-do the WI-26 / County A intersection.  I think they are just trying to figure out what the best options for WI-26 are at this point.

Why would they need to completely re-do the intersection?  It looks like it could be easily converted to a curve with what's now WI-26 north of A bent in to a "T" intersection past the apex of the curve.  Done.


I agree, but that is what I meant by "complete redo."  We are just splitting hairs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jreuschl on August 15, 2014, 01:11:24 AM
Why does WisDOT only use the Clearview sign fonts on part of the Beltline in Madison?


iPad HD
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 15, 2014, 02:23:02 AM
Quote from: jreuschl on August 15, 2014, 01:11:24 AM
Why does WisDOT only use the Clearview sign fonts on part of the Beltline in Madison?


iPad HD

It was an experiment.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2014, 02:07:00 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 13, 2014, 07:55:19 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 13, 2014, 10:21:25 AM
Why wasn't 94 built closer in?  It's like Eau Claire was an afterthought.

They did well to build I-94 beyond the existing sprawl at the time.  Most of the predominantly residential area between US 12 and I-94 was already there when the interstate was built.  The priority was definitely thru traffic. 


I-43 near Sheboygan and Manitowoc...
I-90 near Beloit, Janesville and LaCrosse...
i-94 near Racine and Kenosha...

All were built with similar intentions.  None of them pass near the center of cities of similar size to Eau Claire.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
WI-26 expansion update for the section south of Fort Atkinson.

http://www.gazettextra.com/20140803/another_part_of_highway_26_project_nears_completion

What surprises me is the mid-October completion date.  I drove it this morning and all of the concrete work is done except for some crossovers.  The grading for the blacktop shoulders looks to be near completion as well.  It looks to me that they will be done earlier than that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 19, 2014, 08:02:29 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
WI-26 expansion update for the section south of Fort Atkinson.

http://www.gazettextra.com/20140803/another_part_of_highway_26_project_nears_completion

What surprises me is the mid-October completion date.  I drove it this morning and all of the concrete work is done except for some crossovers.  The grading for the blacktop shoulders looks to be near completion as well.  It looks to me that they will be done earlier than that.

Google cached link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-XGwLvkRAcIJ:www.gazettextra.com/20140803/another_part_of_highway_26_project_nears_completion+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I suspect they will have traffic in at least one lane on each carriageway just prior to or after Labor Day, with the remaining month or so devoted to work in the median. Much of that work will take place at the Rock/Jefferson county line, where a chunk of the old roadway has to come out and grading and drainage work needs to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 01, 2014, 10:06:56 PM
New Zoo interchange animations/drive thrus have been posted on the WisDOT YouTube channel: http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0 (http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0) -- there looks to be about 4 or 5 animations.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 18, 2014, 01:58:44 AM
The Mineral Point Road/Junction Road jug handle is now complete in Madison. Story from WKOW-Madison (http://www.wkow.com/story/26561093/2014/09/17/mineral-point-rd-project-completed).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mahaasma on October 12, 2014, 08:49:20 PM
The Viroqua and Westby bypasses (US-14/61) planned ten years ago are being cancelled.  They already four laned the road between the two communities.

This would have saved a little time traveling on 14/61 or WI-27, but it's kind of hard to believe someone actually proposed this as a priority project....

http://lacrossetribune.com/vernonbroadcaster/news/local/viroqua-westby-bypasses-will-not-be-constructed/article_349798a7-fb5f-527b-8672-f5c4bc75891c.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 12, 2014, 11:21:19 PM
^^

I wasn't at all happy with how they were laid out, anyways.  They should have been set up as part of a potentially larger, long-term 'system' through traffic highway for the US 61 corridor, like with all of the other corridor upgrades elsewhere in the state, rather than the piecemeal bypasses complete with 90 degree intersection turns at a couple of their ends that were proposed.

Not a huge loss, IMHO.  If you're gonna do it, do it right, and the way that they were proposed wasn't right.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 13, 2014, 10:49:47 AM
My recollection was that the Viroqua and Westby bypasses were fast-tracked the same time as the US-51 Wausau improvements were and some people suggested that it was done for political reasons more than anything.  The fact is that these are lightly traveled roads (about 4500 per day), in a sparsely populated portion of the state that isn't growing terribly fast.  Furthermore neither US-14 nor US-61 are heavily traveled corridors.  Better to invest that money elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 13, 2014, 11:45:36 AM
From the La Crosse Tribune article:
QuoteIn 2011, the DOT built a four-lane connecting highway between Viroqua and Westby. The stretch, coined as the "Uff-da-ban,"  took land away from adjacent farms, but made the trip between the two cities a seven-minute drive.

"Uff-da-ban"?   :-D :-D :clap:
We might have to explain that one for our non-upper Midwest members.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 13, 2014, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 13, 2014, 11:45:36 AM
From the La Crosse Tribune article:
QuoteIn 2011, the DOT built a four-lane connecting highway between Viroqua and Westby. The stretch, coined as the "Uff-da-ban,"  took land away from adjacent farms, but made the trip between the two cities a seven-minute drive.

"Uff-da-ban"?   :-D :-D :clap:
We might have to explain that one for our non-upper Midwest members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uff_da

uff-da_Bahn is probably what he wants to say.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jhuntin1 on October 14, 2014, 08:14:02 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 01, 2014, 10:06:56 PM
New Zoo interchange animations/drive thrus have been posted on the WisDOT YouTube channel: http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0 (http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0) -- there looks to be about 4 or 5 animations.

I'm surprised the signage in the videos still refers to US 41 rather than Interstate 41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 14, 2014, 09:25:01 PM
Because it's still US-41.  To do the animation with I-41 signage would be confusing.  Many people are still unaware of the impending change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 14, 2014, 09:26:53 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 13, 2014, 10:55:04 PM
uff-da_Bahn is probably what he wants to say.

We call WI-83 between Wales and Mukwonago the "Mukwonabahn".  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on October 14, 2014, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 01, 2014, 10:06:56 PM
New Zoo interchange animations/drive thrus have been posted on the WisDOT YouTube channel: http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0 (http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0) -- there looks to be about 4 or 5 animations.

Since when is the yellow left banner needed for ramps that initially split from the right side of the freeway?  The animation for NB to WB has one at 1:09, and the animation for SB to EB has one at 1:21
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on October 15, 2014, 06:00:27 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 14, 2014, 09:25:01 PM
Because it's still US-41.  To do the animation with I-41 signage would be confusing.  Many people are still unaware of the impending change.
The current US 41 does not go that way.  This is an area where US 41 will be relocated to coincide with I-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 17, 2014, 11:11:52 AM
A couple of Wisconsin political notes that are germane to this forvm.

I don't have an article link handy, but apparently the Scott Walker administration is seriously studying the idea of converting Wisconsin's volume-based retail fuel tax to a percentage of the price based tax (he's calling it a special 'sales' tax), at a rate to be set as being revenue-neutral on the day that such a conversion would be made.

This is an interesting idea that I've been positing a lot about in recent years and we'll see where it goes assuming that Walker wins re-election on 2014-11-04.

Another item on the Wisconsin ballot next month is a binding referendum that would amend the state's Constitution to place a legal 'firewall' around the transportation segregated fund.  During the 'double-aughts', former Governor James Doyle repeatedly raided that fund to cover parts of major general fund budget shortfalls.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 18, 2014, 01:51:38 PM
It would not pain me to see that "firewall" put up.  It was a mistake for Doyle to raid that fund - we had some of the best roads in the Midwest, and in a few short years we saw the brakes applied on several worthwhile projects.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what would a change in the fuel tax look like to consumers?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 18, 2014, 04:32:54 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 18, 2014, 01:51:38 PM
It would not pain me to see that "firewall" put up.  It was a mistake for Doyle to raid that fund - we had some of the best roads in the Midwest, and in a few short years we saw the brakes applied on several worthwhile projects.


Well it is inaccurate to say that Doyle raided the fund.  For the first six years that Doyle was governor, the Republicans controlled the state Assembly.  They were complicit in the raid of the funds from the beginning.

I have mixed thoughts and can see both sides of the issue.  On the one hand, it isn't written in stone that fuel taxes must be used for roads or other transportation.  On the other it does make it hard to plan long term without some sort of understanding of how much money is available in the future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on October 18, 2014, 07:33:30 PM
A "Yes" vote is to amend the state constitution to say that money collected for transportation can only be used for transportation. I'm not sure how I feel on this either. Part of me says that money collected for that purpose should only be used for that purpose. But part of me also says that if a need arises in some other part of the state budget, and the transportation fund has a surplus, then there should be no reason why we shouldn't be able to use that money somewhere else instead of making cuts or raising taxes elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on October 18, 2014, 08:38:50 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 17, 2014, 11:11:52 AM
A couple of Wisconsin political notes that are germane to this forvm.

I don't have an article link handy, but apparently the Scott Walker administration is seriously studying the idea of converting Wisconsin's volume-based retail fuel tax to a percentage of the price based tax (he's calling it a special 'sales' tax), at a rate to be set as being revenue-neutral on the day that such a conversion would be made.

I thought Wisconsin use to have a small percentage based tax on fuel that was repealed a few years ago?

Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 18, 2014, 07:33:30 PM
A "Yes" vote is to amend the state constitution to say that money collected for transportation can only be used for transportation. I'm not sure how I feel on this either. Part of me says that money collected for that purpose should only be used for that purpose. But part of me also says that if a need arises in some other part of the state budget, and the transportation fund has a surplus, then there should be no reason why we shouldn't be able to use that money somewhere else instead of making cuts or raising taxes elsewhere.

Has there ever been a time a transportation fund anywhere has had a surplus?  There's almost always a road or bridge that needs repairs or upgrading, and Wisconsin certainly has the corridors that could use upgrading - US 12 from Madison to I-43 for example.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on October 19, 2014, 11:48:49 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 18, 2014, 08:38:50 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 17, 2014, 11:11:52 AM
A couple of Wisconsin political notes that are germane to this forvm.

I don't have an article link handy, but apparently the Scott Walker administration is seriously studying the idea of converting Wisconsin's volume-based retail fuel tax to a percentage of the price based tax (he's calling it a special 'sales' tax), at a rate to be set as being revenue-neutral on the day that such a conversion would be made.

I thought Wisconsin use to have a small percentage based tax on fuel that was repealed a few years ago?

Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 18, 2014, 07:33:30 PM
A "Yes" vote is to amend the state constitution to say that money collected for transportation can only be used for transportation. I'm not sure how I feel on this either. Part of me says that money collected for that purpose should only be used for that purpose. But part of me also says that if a need arises in some other part of the state budget, and the transportation fund has a surplus, then there should be no reason why we shouldn't be able to use that money somewhere else instead of making cuts or raising taxes elsewhere.

Has there ever been a time a transportation fund anywhere has had a surplus?  There's almost always a road or bridge that needs repairs or upgrading, and Wisconsin certainly has the corridors that could use upgrading - US 12 from Madison to I-43 for example.

I realize having a surplus in the transportation fund is very unlikely, as there are always projects needing done, but if there ever was....
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 20, 2014, 09:56:18 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 18, 2014, 08:38:50 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 17, 2014, 11:11:52 AM
A couple of Wisconsin political notes that are germane to this forvm.

I don't have an article link handy, but apparently the Scott Walker administration is seriously studying the idea of converting Wisconsin's volume-based retail fuel tax to a percentage of the price based tax (he's calling it a special 'sales' tax), at a rate to be set as being revenue-neutral on the day that such a conversion would be made.

I thought Wisconsin use to have a small percentage based tax on fuel that was repealed a few years ago?

It's always been 'volume-based'.  What was repealed a few years ago was an annual administrative adjustment in the rate to keep it level with inflation.  "RAISING TAXES WITHOUT VOTING ON IT!!!!  :angry: :verymad:" was a common refrain from the discussion circles in the mid to late double-aughts.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2014, 01:42:12 PM
The referendum on the segregated transportation fund is too inflexible.  There should be a mechanism for diverting funds if it is in the best interest of the state budget.  Roads are nice but if push comes to shove, I do not have a problem delaying or cancelling a highway expansion.

The referendum is worded in absolute terms so it would require another referendum or the passage of a law to overrule it.  Government needs to be flexible to respond to changes and the referendum this year is a step away from that.  Especially in a state where a "balanced budget" is the law.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 21, 2014, 07:31:38 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2014, 01:42:12 PM
The referendum on the segregated transportation fund is too inflexible.  There should be a mechanism for diverting funds if it is in the best interest of the state budget.  Roads are nice but if push comes to shove, I do not have a problem delaying or cancelling a highway expansion.

The referendum is worded in absolute terms so it would require another referendum or the passage of a law to overrule it.  Government needs to be flexible to respond to changes and the referendum this year is a step away from that.  Especially in a state where a "balanced budget" is the law.

That is an amendment to the state's Constitution and if passed, any changes to it (as with any other amendment to the state Constitution in Wisconsin) will require the proposed amendment to pass two consecutive sessions of the legislature in identical form and then a binding statewide referendum election.  There is no citizen-initiative process for enacting statewide laws in Wisconsin.  (Note, the only places in Wisconsin where where binding citizen-initiative referenda are allowed is for municipal charter ordinance amendments and for a very limited set of other purposes, such as initiating or challenging municipal annexations.)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 31, 2014, 08:25:53 PM
Hwy 73 between I-39/90 and US-12/18 is now open to through traffic, and it is very nicely done. Travel lanes are considerably wider, as are the shoulders. All the sharp curves are straightened and the hills and dips flattened.

As anticipated with the pending I-39/90 construction, they have also installed scales and pulloffs for truck enforcement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 31, 2014, 08:45:58 PM
I was kind of intrigued by the US-2 alternate route in Ashland and why it was there.  Think hard - the main road is level with the bay and right along it and there are very few trees to protect against wind driven snow.  WisDOT installed gate beams at the road to Washburn and the connection to WIS 112 (which junctions with the alt route).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on November 05, 2014, 05:42:25 AM
Just an update:

The transportation fund amendment passed with 80% of voters saying yes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 05, 2014, 06:49:13 PM
Now if they just catch up with the neighbors and pass a 70 mph speed limit :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 07, 2014, 08:34:19 AM
^^AMEN!!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 05, 2014, 04:26:18 PM
Driving around the last few days, I've been noting that WisDOT is now installing a generous number of freeway cams on US 10, US(I)-41 and WI 441 here in the Appleton area, the last major metro in the state without a significant number of them (there already are a couple of them on US(I)-41 on the south edge of the Neenah area).

When they are turned on over the next month or so, they'll be available with all of the rest of them statewide at http://www.511wi.gov/web/traffic/cameras.aspx , then go to Outagamie and Winnebago Counties (with perhaps a couple under Calumet County).

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 05, 2014, 09:55:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2014, 04:26:18 PM
Driving around the last few days, I've been noting that WisDOT is now installing a generous number of freeway cams on US 10, US(I)-41 and WI 441 here in the Appleton area, the last major metro in the state without a significant number of them (there already are a couple of them on US(I)-41 on the south edge of the Neenah area).

When they are turned on over the next month or so, they'll be available with all of the rest of them statewide at http://www.511wi.gov/web/traffic/cameras.aspx , then go to Outagamie and Winnebago Counties (with perhaps a couple under Calumet County).

:nod:

Mike

Get ready to see many more installed now that the laws have changed. It used to be that cameras could only go in along with reconstruction projects. Now WisDOT has the freedom to install cams and other ITS projects pretty-much at-will.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 05, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
That's been that way for some time.  What's the body count up to now by the way? :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on December 05, 2014, 11:42:59 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 05, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
That's been that way for some time.  What's the body count up to now by the way? :P
Just under 300

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/cameras.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 06, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: davenh on December 08, 2014, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 06, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

Good grief. That's almost depressing. That information first really registered on my radar two weeks ago today, and it was 435. (In fact, I could swear I saw it earlier in the day and it said 427, but I can only say 435 for certain.) 32 traffic deaths in 14 days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 08, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
Quote from: davenh on December 08, 2014, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 06, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

Good grief. That's almost depressing. That information first really registered on my radar two weeks ago today, and it was 435. (In fact, I could swear I saw it earlier in the day and it said 427, but I can only say 435 for certain.) 32 traffic deaths in 14 days.
Yeah that's the last thing you want to put up in a VMS.  Police state anyone?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2014, 03:31:58 PM
What does posting the number of drunk driving deaths in Wisconsin have to do with being a police state? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on December 09, 2014, 03:50:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2014, 03:31:58 PM
What does posting the number of drunk driving deaths in Wisconsin have to do with being a police state? 
This.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US71 on December 11, 2014, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 06, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

MoDOT does those, too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jhuntin1 on December 11, 2014, 09:16:10 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 11, 2014, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 06, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

MoDOT does those, too.

As does IDOT and ISTA. The number of road fatalities is usually the first thing I see when I enter Illinois on 80-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2014, 04:01:18 AM
Why is Lombardi Avenue CTH "VK"? Vince's middle name was Thomas, so it's not that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on December 27, 2014, 07:27:55 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2014, 04:01:18 AM
Why is Lombardi Avenue CTH "VK"? Vince's middle name was Thomas, so it's not that.
I don't know, but Bessert says it happened in 1999. (But he also says pooing is uncool.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 18, 2015, 01:18:14 PM
Assembly Republicans are making another attempt at raising the speed limit to 70 mph, and they're hoping they can get their Senate colleagues to come along for the ride this time.

The Assembly in 2013 approved hiking the highway speed limit by 5 mph, but the measure died when the Senate declined to back it.

Both houses were controlled by Republicans at the time, as they are now. But the makeup of the Senate has changed significantly because of retirements, and supporters hope to pass it in the legislative session that began this month.


GOP lawmakers revive push for raising Wisconsin's speed limit to 70
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-lawmakers-revive-push-for-raising-wisconsins-speed-limit-to-70-b99427556z1-288963171.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-lawmakers-revive-push-for-raising-wisconsins-speed-limit-to-70-b99427556z1-288963171.html)

Speeds already average 70+ on Wisconsin freeways and expressways. It's time to make the change.  8-)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 18, 2015, 05:27:02 PM
we'll see how it goes.  It's a stronger majority, but there are still some skeptical republicans.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on January 24, 2015, 03:38:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 18, 2015, 05:27:02 PM
we'll see how it goes.  It's a stronger majority, but there are still some skeptical republicans.

I personally think there is a very good case for a 70MPH speed limit on rural freeways, especially since Illinois has one and even Pennsylvania has a few 70 zones. I also wonder if Walker would sign it or not.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on January 24, 2015, 11:31:04 PM
What's the political calculus for not raising the speed limit? They don't want to be seen to be decreasing safety? I think that argument is kind of weak sauce. I would think that a 5 mph increase should be pretty much noncontroversial.  Of course, in today's political environment anything can be twisted when it comes time for political ad silly season.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 25, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
One I heard from someone is that government car drivers will drive faster now = less fuel efficient = more gas usage = cost taxpayers more $

who CARES just increase the limit it's not like they already drive that fast if they can.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 25, 2015, 08:50:24 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on January 24, 2015, 11:31:04 PM
What's the political calculus for not raising the speed limit? They don't want to be seen to be decreasing safety? I think that argument is kind of weak sauce. I would think that a 5 mph increase should be pretty much noncontroversial.  Of course, in today's political environment anything can be twisted when it comes time for political ad silly season.


WIDOT doesn't really want it, and the general public has greeted it with a collective "meh."  There just isn't that much pressure to get it done. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on January 25, 2015, 03:15:59 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on January 24, 2015, 11:31:04 PM
What's the political calculus for not raising the speed limit? They don't want to be seen to be decreasing safety? I think that argument is kind of weak sauce. I would think that a 5 mph increase should be pretty much noncontroversial.  Of course, in today's political environment anything can be twisted when it comes time for political ad silly season.

Good point! When Illinois passed its 70 MPH speed limit bill in 2013 the votes were overwhelmingly for it and there was a long list of sponsors from both political parties. It's common sense IMO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 25, 2015, 05:51:30 PM
I thought it passed the two chambers last time and Walker vetoed it anyway. Would this time be different?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 25, 2015, 05:55:08 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 25, 2015, 05:51:30 PM
I thought it passed the two chambers last time and Walker vetoed it anyway. Would this time be different?
Actually passed the assembly but got nowhere in the state senate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 25, 2015, 09:36:12 PM
Not sure if anyone else has caught this, but I found this little gem while in Fond du Lac yesterday...

https://goo.gl/maps/PdPNa
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 26, 2015, 06:02:24 AM
oops somebody forgot to modify before saving :sombrero:

Thanks for the new avatar.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on January 26, 2015, 06:10:27 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 25, 2015, 09:36:12 PM
Not sure if anyone else has caught this, but I found this little gem while in Fond du Lac yesterday...

https://goo.gl/maps/PdPNa
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Femotibot.net%2Fpix%2F466.jpg&hash=c4ff52df40f0920c25eac299ca1cd3b72573b101)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 26, 2015, 08:19:30 AM
I don't get it... that road really is OOO... there are several more signs for it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on January 26, 2015, 08:31:48 AM
Took me a bit too. It's a boring shield error.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 26, 2015, 08:49:44 AM
Ahhhh, got it. State highway shield instead of County Trunk Highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on February 02, 2015, 03:12:45 PM
Does anyone else find it surprising that nobody has introduced the speed limit hike bill yet?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 02, 2015, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: dave069 on February 02, 2015, 03:12:45 PM
Does anyone else find it surprising that nobody has introduced the speed limit hike bill yet?

It has been mentioned in a devoted thread.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 11:39:54 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 02, 2015, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: dave069 on February 02, 2015, 03:12:45 PM
Does anyone else find it surprising that nobody has introduced the speed limit hike bill yet?

It has been mentioned in a devoted thread.


He means that no legislator has introduced it.  It's not surprising to me because most Wisconsinites are apathetic about it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on February 03, 2015, 03:34:49 PM
Basically.  I could live with the speed limit  on freeways/expressways outside of urban areas being moved to 70.  But would also love the police to have a heavy crackdown on people going 75 and above. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 03:43:57 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on February 03, 2015, 03:34:49 PM
Basically.  I could live with the speed limit  on freeways/expressways outside of urban areas being moved to 70.  But would also love the police to have a heavy crackdown on people going 75 and above. 


Which means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.

I just have never really understood the motivation that Wisconsin should do it because other states do.  If it is good for Wisconsin, then do it. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 03, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 03:43:57 PMWhich means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.
This. 100%. The reason why most Wisconsinites are so apathetic about the bill. Speeding enforcement is generally lax as long as your not unsafe or blatant about it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on February 03, 2015, 11:01:56 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on February 03, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 03:43:57 PMWhich means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.
This. 100%. The reason why most Wisconsinites are so apathetic about the bill. Speeding enforcement is generally lax as long as your not unsafe or blatant about it.
also on highways there is also the lax on roads with 55 / 65 as the roads where build for 70 and the OLD 55 law took the speed down.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 04, 2015, 03:58:41 AM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on February 03, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 03:43:57 PMWhich means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.
This. 100%. The reason why most Wisconsinites are so apathetic about the bill. Speeding enforcement is generally lax as long as your not unsafe or blatant about it.
oh any speed over the limit is "unsafe" </insert police union here> ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 04, 2015, 09:02:11 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on February 04, 2015, 03:58:41 AM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on February 03, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 03:43:57 PMWhich means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.
This. 100%. The reason why most Wisconsinites are so apathetic about the bill. Speeding enforcement is generally lax as long as your not unsafe or blatant about it.
oh any speed over the limit is "unsafe" </insert police union here> ;)
That's why you'll never, ever see a squad car going faster than the posted limit. :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 04, 2015, 03:56:42 PM
I am a new poster from Madison, WI but have been reading this message board for several years. Personally I don't care if the speed limit is bumped up from 65 to 70. Does it really make much of a difference?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on February 04, 2015, 05:14:33 PM
If everyone is so apathetic about it I don't see why they don't just pass it and get it over with so this topic doesn't need to come up again.

I'd welcome the speed increase.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jhuntin1 on February 05, 2015, 09:56:33 AM
When did the Wisconsin State Patrol get softer on speed enforcement? When I used to drive to from Indiana to Wisconsin or back for college in the mid-90s, I was always warned about I-94 between Milwaukee and the Illinois line because it was heavily patrolled and they pulled you over for going barely over the limit. I remember seeing a lot of officers on that stretch, almost always with someone pulled over.

I drive up that way once or twice a year now and still see a lot of patrol cars, but the traffic seems to be moving at 70 or so. I know I'd support a higher speed limit, especially on I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 05, 2015, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: jhuntin1 on February 05, 2015, 09:56:33 AM
When did the Wisconsin State Patrol get softer on speed enforcement? When I used to drive to from Indiana to Wisconsin or back for college in the mid-90s, I was always warned about I-94 between Milwaukee and the Illinois line because it was heavily patrolled and they pulled you over for going barely over the limit. I remember seeing a lot of officers on that stretch, almost always with someone pulled over.

They still do heavily enforce that stretch, with the help of the local sheriffs...or at least it seems that way whenever I travel that stretch. But it does seem to matter more which state's plate is on your car.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on February 05, 2015, 11:21:00 AM
Enforcement is heaviest between IL-WI border on I-94 to the Mitchell Interchange. It's also very heavy between north of Madison all the way up to the Dells (mostly that second half that's closer to the Dells). Gotta catch those fibs I guess!

I wouldn't do more than 5 over on those two stretches. Got caught doing 11 over once (and everyone else was doing 11 or WAY more over).

Sometimes there's some enforcement on 94 between Waukesha and the Zoo, but you need to be doing about 10+ over for them to start getting an itchy ticket finger. Once in awhile I see some enforcement on I-43 between FDL Ave all the way past Mequon Rd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 05, 2015, 12:40:51 PM
On the opposite end it hasn't been uncommon for me to see four or five turnarounds occupied by state troopers on 94 when I've driven between Minneapolis and Madison in the past, especially after Tomah and the I-90 traffic (which includes a lot more trucks) gets involved.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 05, 2015, 12:43:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 11:39:54 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 02, 2015, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: dave069 on February 02, 2015, 03:12:45 PM
Does anyone else find it surprising that nobody has introduced the speed limit hike bill yet?

It has been mentioned in a devoted thread.


He means that no legislator has introduced it.  It's not surprising to me because most Wisconsinites are apathetic about it.

Oops. I must have read that late at night or something.

Sorry! :(
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on February 05, 2015, 06:12:41 PM
Quote from: jhuntin1 on February 05, 2015, 09:56:33 AM
When did the Wisconsin State Patrol get softer on speed enforcement? When I used to drive to from Indiana to Wisconsin or back for college in the mid-90s, I was always warned about I-94 between Milwaukee and the Illinois line because it was heavily patrolled and they pulled you over for going barely over the limit. I remember seeing a lot of officers on that stretch, almost always with someone pulled over.

I drive up that way once or twice a year now and still see a lot of patrol cars, but the traffic seems to be moving at 70 or so. I know I'd support a higher speed limit, especially on I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay.

Yeah, the WSP getting softer on speed enforcement is news to me. Hopefully I won't get a ticket driving through there. I've managed to escape ticketing so far and I do 70 in the 65 zones.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2015, 07:07:46 PM
I drive thousands of miles on Wisconsin highways a year.  Usually about 7 or 8 over.  I have never been pulled over for speeding much less given a ticket.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 06, 2015, 12:27:55 AM
10 over is my typical pace on Wisconsin highways, and I never get looked at.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2015, 07:07:46 PM
I drive thousands of miles on Wisconsin highways a year.  Usually about 7 or 8 over.  I have never been pulled over for speeding much less given a ticket.
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 06, 2015, 12:27:55 AM
10 over is my typical pace on Wisconsin highways, and I never get looked at.

Do you have Wisconsin plates? If so, that would explain it.

As someone once told me, the State Patrol is Wisconsin's tollbooth for Illinois drivers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on February 06, 2015, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2015, 07:07:46 PM
I drive thousands of miles on Wisconsin highways a year.  Usually about 7 or 8 over.  I have never been pulled over for speeding much less given a ticket.
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 06, 2015, 12:27:55 AM
10 over is my typical pace on Wisconsin highways, and I never get looked at.

Do you have Wisconsin plates? If so, that would explain it.

As someone once told me, the State Patrol is Wisconsin's tollbooth for Illinois drivers.

The fact that they are form Illinois may not be the problem but typically drivers from Illinois drive faster than those from WI. During the summer I frequently drive up the 39/90/94 triplex at 8 over (73) and I'd have to say that about 75% of those that pass me have IL plates and almost 100% of the time there are drivers from IL that are traveling at a much faster speed than the other drivers (>85).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 06, 2015, 02:51:12 PM

also on highways there is also the lax on roads with 55 / 65 as the roads where build for 70 and the OLD 55 law took the speed down.
[/quote]

In the Pre-NMSL days, the Wisconsin speed limits on rural non-freeway roads were 65 mph day/55 night and 45 for trucks over a certain gross tonnage.  The interstate speed limit was 70 mph day/60 mph night.  So the current speed limit provides a faster freeway night time limit than pre-NMSL.  I sort of remember that a few non-interstate freeways may also have posted at 70 mph (US 41 around Appleton), but don't quote me on that.  However, design speeds may have been different than posted speed limits. 

I think that actual traveled speeds are fast enough now, and that the current system should be left as-is. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 06, 2015, 02:57:00 PM


As someone once told me, the State Patrol is Wisconsin's tollbooth for Illinois drivers.
[/quote]

The fact that they are form Illinois may not be the problem but typically drivers from Illinois drive faster than those from WI. During the summer I frequently drive up the 39/90/94 triplex at 8 over (73) and I'd have to say that about 75% of those that pass me have IL plates and almost 100% of the time there are drivers from IL that are traveling at a much faster speed than the other drivers (>85).
[/quote]

I remember how I'd leave Wisconsin and all the troopers behind at the Illinois state line in the old days.  Now I see more cops in IL than in southern WI.  My last speeding ticket was in Illinois 10 years ago, and I've never had a ticket in WI (where I lived). 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 08, 2015, 04:19:57 PM
Does anyone know if construction of the southern end of the U.S 12 bypass around Baraboo is still going to start for this summer? The website says "2015 or later"

Also, what is the status on the study continuing the U.S 12 freeway north of Middleton to Wis 19 west?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 08, 2015, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 04:19:57 PM
Does anyone know if construction of the southern end of the U.S 12 bypass around Baraboo is still going to start for this summer? The website says "2015 or later"

According to the proposal document that went out with the Dec 2014 letting for this project, it is scheduled for completion by September 30, 2016. So, given the scope of the work, I would say that a spring/summer 2015 start date is probable.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 08, 2015, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on February 08, 2015, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 04:19:57 PM
Does anyone know if construction of the southern end of the U.S 12 bypass around Baraboo is still going to start for this summer? The website says "2015 or later"

According to the proposal document that went out with the Dec 2014 letting for this project, it is scheduled for completion by September 30, 2016. So, given the scope of the work, I would say that a spring/summer 2015 start date is probable.

This was my understanding but the WisDOT project website's schedule page now says construction starting in 2015 or later with completion in 2017 or later. 
It can't happen soon enough.  However the alignment barely avoids a very scenic gorge and SNA and will have proximity impact to them. .   

It will be interesting to see how much traffic diverts from I90/94 once only Sauk City and the four stop lights southeast of there remain to impede traffic flow. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on February 08, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
This leaves the last 2 lane stretch between Leuders Road at the edge of Sauk City to County Road Z just south of the old ammunition plant.  Does anyone know if there are plans to expand this section to 4 lanes?

I'd bring up the whole Sauk City bypass discussion but I know at this point that is not going to happen.  I have heard politically this type of project is a no-go.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 09, 2015, 12:20:38 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on February 08, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
This leaves the last 2 lane stretch between Leuders Road at the edge of Sauk City to County Road Z just south of the old ammunition plant.  Does anyone know if there are plans to expand this section to 4 lanes?

There is a study/project idea being kicked around that involves redesigning the S-curve to the south of the old plant at the very least. How much further south the reconstruction would go is anyone's guess at this point. In any case, the pavement along that stretch of US 12 is in very poor shape.

QuoteI'd bring up the whole Sauk City bypass discussion but I know at this point that is not going to happen.  I have heard politically this type of project is a no-go.

Already discussed here:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25) (start around reply #30)

With the reconstruction that happened just the other year from Wis 60 to the west end of Sauk City, a lot of people would be pissed if the idea would be floated any time in the next decade...especially the Dairy Queen that closed because of the latest project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 09, 2015, 11:29:55 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on February 09, 2015, 12:20:38 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on February 08, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
This leaves the last 2 lane stretch between Leuders Road at the edge of Sauk City to County Road Z just south of the old ammunition plant.  Does anyone know if there are plans to expand this section to 4 lanes?

There is a study/project idea being kicked around that involves redesigning the S-curve to the south of the old plant at the very least. How much further south the reconstruction would go is anyone's guess at this point. In any case, the pavement along that stretch of US 12 is in very poor shape.

QuoteI'd bring up the whole Sauk City bypass discussion but I know at this point that is not going to happen.  I have heard politically this type of project is a no-go.

Already discussed here:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25) (start around reply #30)

With the reconstruction that happened just the other year from Wis 60 to the west end of Sauk City, a lot of people would be pissed if the idea would be floated any time in the next decade...especially the Dairy Queen that closed because of the latest project.

Frankly, I don't see the entire U.S 12 corridor becoming a freeway between Madison and Wisconsin Dells. While it perhaps may eliminate the need to further improve I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I don't see how they could build a Sauk City bypass without significant environmental impacts. Same goes for converting the segment between Sauk City and Baraboo (it goes through some forests around Devils Lake).

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it at this point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 10, 2015, 09:44:57 AM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 09, 2015, 11:29:55 AMSame goes for converting the segment between Sauk City and Baraboo (it goes through some forests around Devils Lake).

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it at this point.

The expressway portion south of the Baraboo will extend past The Point of Rocks to the current expressway. As for the freeway thing, this area of US 12 doesn't pass that close to Devils Lake SP/ SNA (and the part that does border it is already an expressway).

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/swregion/12/south/docs/map-details.pdf

https://goo.gl/maps/FmJQ9




I wonder if WisDOT where to propose, say a six lane surface arterial around Sauk City instead of a full freeway, there would be less push back from the locals? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 11, 2015, 11:03:50 PM
The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 12, 2015, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 11, 2015, 11:03:50 PM
The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.


And it simply isn't needed.  Too many road advocates want something to be completely non-stop no matter the cost, when current set ups are usually fine.  (See the WI-26 thread for a couple of examples.)  Adding a minute or two onto a journey isn't going to kill anyone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 12, 2015, 10:39:32 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 12, 2015, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 11, 2015, 11:03:50 PM
The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.


And it simply isn't needed.  Too many road advocates want something to be completely non-stop no matter the cost, when current set ups are usually fine.  (See the WI-26 thread for a couple of examples.)  Adding a minute or two onto a journey isn't going to kill anyone.

No, it will be needed, but only if U.S 12 is converted to freeway from Middleton to just shy of Sauk City (like they are studying) and the freeway is extended south from Baraboo. Not building a Sauk City bypass will create a bottleneck through the city.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 12, 2015, 05:05:19 PM
Sauk City engaged in some land use planning for the bypass, and has "mapped" a corridor.  I agree that some environmental issues will make it difficult to sell this project, even though I think future counts will warrant it someday.  I remember how badly US 12 would back up prior to the recent expansion.   Once I saw it backed up on the weekend to County Trunk Z from the stoplights in Sauk City. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 15, 2015, 07:00:16 PM
http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=28503#.VOEyEy4mlIM

From the trucking company perspective - seems that some trucking companies advocating a split speed limit were and are a thorn in the side of the effort to "align" the speed limit in WI with reality on the freeways and the neighboring states other than Chicago (oh wait... :bigass: )
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
My anecdotal experience is that split speed limits for trucks are less safe than one, uniform limit.  Nothing like a bunch of cars barreling down on a couple trucks going 5-10 mph slower.

I do have a question about something Tittl's says in his press release:

"It's also about making our highways safer,"  Tittl said in a news release. "Increasing the speed limit can reduce congestion that often contributes to unsafe driving and accidents."  

Is that true?  Can increasing the speed limit cause safer conditions by limiting congestion?  Or does it make the congestion just move faster?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 16, 2015, 10:51:51 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
My anecdotal experience is that split speed limits for trucks are less safe than one, uniform limit.  Nothing like a bunch of cars barreling down on a couple trucks going 5-10 mph slower.

Except even with that uniform limit there are several trucking companies utilizing speed governors to limit their trucks to max speed around 60 mph to conserve fuel. I kinda like the idea of the split limit since the faster a fully-loaded truck is going, the more carnage there will be if it crashes into someone else.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on February 16, 2015, 11:58:28 AM
Split limits are a waste / unsafe.

Differences in car speed are one of the biggest contributors/factors to collisions and accidents.

Not to mention all the extra signage needed to display both limits.

Keep the limit the same for both, or increase it for both, they shouldn't bother splitting it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 17, 2015, 01:15:09 PM
Europeans would beg to differ - nearly all big-rigs 'across the pond' are governed at 80 km/h(!), and yet they ply the same highways that everyone else, even the most powerful sports cars, do.  The only thing is that they strictly adhere to the 'slower traffic keep right' rule.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on February 17, 2015, 10:57:49 PM
UPDATE: Bill aimed at increasing speed limit gains traction

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Wisconsin-Republicans-hope-to-increase-speed-limit-to-70-289351221.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on February 17, 2015, 10:58:23 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 17, 2015, 10:57:49 PM
UPDATE: Bill aimed at increasing speed limit gains traction

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Wisconsin-Republicans-hope-to-increase-speed-limit-to-70-289351221.html

YES YES YES!!!!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on February 18, 2015, 11:11:45 PM
Quote from: jwags on February 17, 2015, 10:58:23 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 17, 2015, 10:57:49 PM
UPDATE: Bill aimed at increasing speed limit gains traction

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Wisconsin-Republicans-hope-to-increase-speed-limit-to-70-289351221.html

YES YES YES!!!!!

This is good news!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on March 17, 2015, 03:28:03 PM
   
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Wisconsin lawmakers have hit the gas pedal on a bill that would increase the maximum speed limit on some state highways and freeways.
   
The state Assembly approved the bill on a 76-22 vote Tuesday. The bill allows the Department of Transportation to increase speed limits to 70 mph in approved areas, up from the current 65 mph limit.
   
Opponents said increasing speed limits is too dangerous. Rep. Dana Wachs, an Eau Claire Democrat, said he would not support the bill because it could increase deaths on Wisconsin roadways. Rep. John Spiros, a Manitowoc Republican, warned commercial vehicles such as semi-trailers should have a lower speed limit. But their concerns fell on deaf ears.
   
The measure goes next to the state Senate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on March 23, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
A man with a drone posted video of the Hwy 96 new bridge construction in Wrightstown (south of Green Bay):

https://youtu.be/plKSTyCL1-g
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 23, 2015, 08:38:19 PM
^^
That is a LOT more elaborate and extensive than I was expecting for that crossing - a high-level crossing that connects significantly inland on the southeast side while eliminating that 'jog' at County 'DD' on the northwest side.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on March 23, 2015, 08:59:35 PM
I got pulled over there last summer.  The 2 lane highway is ridiculous and when it opens up, you go
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 28, 2015, 11:12:49 PM
Madisonā€“ Republicans in the Legislature have reached an agreement to raise Wisconsin's speed limit on some highways to 70 miles per hour, breaking a two-year legislative stalemate and likely ending the state's status as a lone island of 65 mph limits in the Midwest.

Under the deal, the state Department of Transportation would decide which major highways in the state would be bumped up to 70 mph but could not raise the limits on roads with at-grade crossings. Those are intersections in which other roads run directly across the highways without on or off-ramps, overpasses or underpasses.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Lawmakers agree to 70 mph limit on major roads
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 29, 2015, 03:17:33 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 28, 2015, 11:12:49 PM
Madisonā€“ Republicans in the Legislature have reached an agreement to raise Wisconsin's speed limit on some highways to 70 miles per hour, breaking a two-year legislative stalemate and likely ending the state's status as a lone island of 65 mph limits in the Midwest.

Under the deal, the state Department of Transportation would decide which major highways in the state would be bumped up to 70 mph but could not raise the limits on roads with at-grade crossings. Those are intersections in which other roads run directly across the highways without on or off-ramps, overpasses or underpasses.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Lawmakers agree to 70 mph limit on major roads
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html)

It's a start.

:-/

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 29, 2015, 07:52:01 AM
As much as I'd love to see a road like 151 between Sun Prairie and Fond du Lac open up to 70, I agree that the at-grade intersections make that unlikely. I'm surprised they allowed 65 on those stretches to be honest.

Not that I have an opinion either way, just that I know that Wisconsin tends to be conservative about that kind of thing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 29, 2015, 08:18:35 PM
I think it's a good compromise. Keep in mind the stretches with at-grades also allow farm traffic, which I wasn't expecting the first time I drove US 151.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 29, 2015, 10:19:34 PM
Glad to see this.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on April 29, 2015, 11:24:11 PM
I have no problem with 65 on expressways, but I do think 70 should be strictly reserved for full freeways. US 53 for example I think is not a 70 road after having driven between EC and Superior a number of times.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 30, 2015, 03:43:09 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 29, 2015, 11:24:11 PM
I have no problem with 65 on expressways, but I do think 70 should be strictly reserved for full freeways. US 53 for example I think is not a 70 road after having driven between EC and Superior a number of times.
US 53's stretch between Rice Lake and Chippewa Falls may qualify, as could US 51 between Merrill and Wausau.  However I am inclined to agree with you Patrick.  Like most other states, 70 will be reserved for the rural stretches that may be less traveled such as I-39 between the Cascade interchange and Stevens Point, I-43 between Green Bay and Port Washington I-90 between La Crosse and Tomah, and I-94 between Eau Claire and Tomah.  The remainder of the Interstate system has lots of traffic and WisDOT will find an excuse to keep them 65 because of the traffic load.  An excuse that - IMHO - is a lame one (just ask ISHTA!)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
As a lifelong Wisconsinite, I think the freeways and expressways are just fine with a speed limit of 65.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on May 02, 2015, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
As a lifelong Wisconsinite, I think the freeways and expressways are just fine with a speed limit of 65.

Glad I don't live there.  The freeway just outside of downtown Austin is now 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2015, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 02, 2015, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
As a lifelong Wisconsinite, I think the freeways and expressways are just fine with a speed limit of 65.

Glad I don't live there.  The freeway just outside of downtown Austin is now 70.


Yeah because I judge what is a great place to live by how fast I can drive on the freeways.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 02, 2015, 06:37:56 PM
Don't under the "just fine" mentality. They'll be "even better" at 70 so might as well do it. Look at our surrounding state's limits. Let's move forward and just get this done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2015, 07:06:56 PM
Really I don't care either way, but why should Wisconsin do it just because other state's do?  We are talking about 5 mph.  15 minutes difference (assuming a constant speed limit) if you make the entire trip from Beloit to Hudson.

Some of the reasoning for this is really...odd. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 02, 2015, 08:57:25 PM
I welcome the speed limit boost just to get more consistency in travel speeds. The design of Wisconsin's freeways is no worse (and frequently better) than neighboring states, and yet (for political reasons) the speed limits are slower.

I also welcome anything that pulls attention back to driving from the distraction-of-the-month gadget.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2015, 09:20:00 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 02, 2015, 08:57:25 PM
I welcome the speed limit boost just to get more consistency in travel speeds. The design of Wisconsin's freeways is no worse (and frequently better) than neighboring states, and yet (for political reasons) the speed limits are slower.

I also welcome anything that pulls attention back to driving from the distraction-of-the-month gadget.


What are the political reasons why it is slower?  It seems as though WIDOT isn't excited about it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 02, 2015, 09:35:37 PM
- Safety concerns
- Worse fuel economy
- Big insurance wanting to keep rates higher

All not atypical of other areas where 70+ mph speed lmits were enacted.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on May 02, 2015, 10:55:44 PM
yes I got pulled over on a long boring stretch of 65 just south of Mauston.  This road should have been a 75.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 03, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
I agree with the rural expressways being 70. You can add WI 57 in the Door Peninsula to that list. I'm fine doing 65 but half the FIB's are doing at least 75 anyways. It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 03, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
Actually, from Sun Prairie to Columbus, it is interstate grade with no cross traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on May 03, 2015, 08:14:14 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 29, 2015, 08:18:35 PM
I think it's a good compromise. Keep in mind the stretches with at-grades also allow farm traffic, which I wasn't expecting the first time I drove US 151.

I agree. 70 on the freeways is a no-brainer to me especially since even IL and OH are 70 now, but I don't mind slowing down a bit where there is cross-traffic. I'm pleasantly surprised by this.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on May 03, 2015, 08:42:41 PM
Well, you drive to the conditions of the road. I got pulled over behind someone from Montana who had been going 90.  I got caught at 79 but only got a warning.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 03, 2015, 11:02:13 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 03, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
Actually, from Sun Prairie to Columbus, it is interstate grade with no cross traffic.

Then it's not a rural expressway there, is it? If you read my post, I specifically mentioned rural expressways. It is an expressway for part of the way between Madison and Fondy. I didn't expect some pedant to be so into picking apart other people's posts that he doesn't care what the discussion was about in the first place.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 03, 2015, 11:24:35 PM
Quote from: skluth on May 03, 2015, 11:02:13 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 03, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
Actually, from Sun Prairie to Columbus, it is interstate grade with no cross traffic.

Then it's not a rural expressway there, is it? If you read my post, I specifically mentioned rural expressways. It is an expressway for part of the way between Madison and Fondy. I didn't expect some pedant to be so into picking apart other people's posts that he doesn't care what the discussion was about in the first place.

You must be new around here. :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 12:57:46 AM
Quote from: skluth on May 03, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
I agree with the rural expressways being 70. You can add WI 57 in the Door Peninsula to that list. I'm fine doing 65 but half the FIB's are doing at least 75 anyways. It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison.

I was 'keeping up with traffic' at 85-90 (140-150 km/h) on most of US 151 between Waupun and Sun Prairie while going to and from the Madison meet a couple of weeks ago.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 04, 2015, 06:41:24 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 12:57:46 AM
Quote from: skluth on May 03, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
I agree with the rural expressways being 70. You can add WI 57 in the Door Peninsula to that list. I'm fine doing 65 but half the FIB's are doing at least 75 anyways. It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison.

I was 'keeping up with traffic' at 85-90 (140-150 km/h) on most of US 151 between Waupun and Sun Prairie while going to and from the Madison meet a couple of weeks ago.

Mike
yea but i bet politically you were going to fast. :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 11:41:40 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 04, 2015, 06:41:24 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 12:57:46 AM
Quote from: skluth on May 03, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
I agree with the rural expressways being 70. You can add WI 57 in the Door Peninsula to that list. I'm fine doing 65 but half the FIB's are doing at least 75 anyways. It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison.

I was 'keeping up with traffic' at 85-90 (140-150 km/h) on most of US 151 between Waupun and Sun Prairie while going to and from the Madison meet a couple of weeks ago.

Mike
yea but i bet politically you were going to fast. :P

'To fast' or 'too fast'?

:hmmm:

:meh:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
An Appleton area traffic note, the NB-off and SB-on ramps at I-41/WI 125 (College Ave) went down this morning for about two weeks to allow crews to do 25 year maintenance related work on the I-41 bridges over adjacent Spencer St.  This is arguably the most important street interchange on the entire metro freeway network and these are the two 'major moves' ramps at that interchange.

With other freeway (especially with US 10/WI 441 at WI 47) and major street work that is going on around Appleton right now, the next two weeks will be very interesting for those wanting to get in and out of the city.

The part of I-41 in the Appleton-Neenah area that was upgraded to six lanes in the very early 1990s is getting a rehab and this ramp closure is part of that project.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 04, 2015, 06:55:07 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
An Appleton area traffic note, the NB-off and SB-on ramps at I-41/WI 125 (College Ave) went down this morning for about two weeks to allow crews to do 25 year maintenance related work on the I-41 bridges over adjacent Spencer St.

:-o

Yikes! I can only imagine what that mess is like.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 04, 2015, 08:14:39 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 04, 2015, 06:55:07 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
An Appleton area traffic note, the NB-off and SB-on ramps at I-41/WI 125 (College Ave) went down this morning for about two weeks to allow crews to do 25 year maintenance related work on the I-41 bridges over adjacent Spencer St.

:-o

Yikes! I can only imagine what that mess is like.
Exactly why there are only two seasons in WI.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on May 05, 2015, 11:39:05 AM
from the wires:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The state Senate is poised to vote on a bill that would clear the way for a 70 mph speed limit on at least some Wisconsin roads.
   
The bill would allow the state Department of Transportation to decide where to raise the limit from 65 mph to 70 mph. The measure would prohibit the DOT from raising the limit on four-lane roads with at-grade access, however.
   
The Senate is set to vote on the measure on Wednesday. It would then go to the state Assembly. That house passed the bill in March before legislators added the at-grade restriction. Both houses must pass an identical bill before it can go to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 05, 2015, 06:25:29 PM
Quote from: skluth on May 03, 2015, 11:02:13 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 03, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
Actually, from Sun Prairie to Columbus, it is interstate grade with no cross traffic.

Then it's not a rural expressway there, is it? If you read my post, I specifically mentioned rural expressways. It is an expressway for part of the way between Madison and Fondy. I didn't expect some pedant to be so into picking apart other people's posts that he doesn't care what the discussion was about in the first place.

It was my reply to your "It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison."

You specifically said "NORTHEAST of Madison" on 151. That to me means you were talking about the entire corridor to Fond du Lac. I was simply pointing out that up to and including the Columbus bypass, 151 is interstate grade. I was not belittling anything you said. I could if you really want but that's not my style. So next time before you get upset about someone making a statement on what you said, maybe you should make sure that what you said is accurate.

:pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on May 06, 2015, 03:16:02 PM
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The state Senate has approved a bill that would allow Wisconsin transportation officials to raise the speed limit on some roads to 70 mph.
   
The bill would permit the Department of Transportation officials to raise the limit to 70 mph on roads they deem fit. The proposal would prohibit DOT from going to 70 on four-lane roads with at-grade access, however.
   
The Senate passed the measure on a voice vote on Wednesday. It goes next to the state Assembly. That chamber passed the bill in March before legislators added the at-grade prohibition. Both houses must pass an identical bill before it can go to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature.
   
A Walker spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to an
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 07, 2015, 01:29:09 PM
From an article that gives a bit more detail...
QuoteMADISON (AP) ā€“ Wisconsin transportation officials would be allowed to raise the speed limit to 70 mph on some roads under a bill that the state Senate approved Wednesday.

The Republican-authored bill would permit the Department of Transportation to raise the limit to 70 mph on roads where they decide the limit would be safe. The measure would prohibit DOT from going to 70 mph on four-lane roads with at-grade access, however.

The GOP-controlled Assembly passed the measure overwhelmingly in March, but Senate Republicans were wary of the bill. Sen. Jerry Petrowski, R-Marahon, and Sen. Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, quelled concerns by drafting the at-grade prohibition as an amendment.

The Senate approved the amendment and the bill on voice votes Wednesday with no debate. Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, made the only comment about the bill on the Senate floor, saying it shows both parties can work together.

"Ėœ"ĖœI'm glad it happened,'' Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, told reporters after the vote. "Ėœ"Ėœ(There) seems to be a lot of support for the change.''

The measure now goes back to the Assembly; both houses must pass the same bill before it can go to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature. The proposal's Assembly author, Rep. Paul Tittl, R-Manitowoc, helped craft the at-grade amendment, so passage in that chamber appears all but certain.

A Walker spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to an email Wednesday inquiring about whether the governor supports the bill.

According to a fiscal estimate attached to the bill, DOT officials plan to raise the limit to 70 mph on freeway portions of the interstate system as well as portions of U.S. Highway 51, U.S. Highway 53 and U.S. Highway 141. The agency estimates it would spend about $238,000 to create and install 815 signs reflecting the change.

DOT also estimates it will spend another $126,000 to investigate raising the limit on other freeway and expressway segments.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 07, 2015, 10:46:14 PM
Does the author not realize there are no "non-freeway portions" of the Interstate system?

I'd imagine he meant rural (to leave Milwaukee area at 55 and possibly other urban areas at 65 (Hopefully not))
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 13, 2015, 07:25:15 PM
A section of WIS 13 collapsed near Red Cliff this morning. No one was injured as the road was already in the process of being closed at the the time; the road will probably be closed for a few days. The collapse was caused by a culvert failure.

http://www.fox21online.com/news/local-news/Part-of-Highway-13-Collapses-Near-Red-Cliff/33006342
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 13, 2015, 08:32:00 PM
Tha assembly passed the speed limit bill and is awaiting the govenor's signature.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dcharlie on May 20, 2015, 05:18:54 PM
70 MPH signed into law!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 21, 2015, 04:32:09 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:

- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

Personally I had always thought that the section of 94 between 494/694 and the WI border was posted 65 simply because it was tying into a 65 in Wisconsin. Given the mostly widely spaced-out nature of the interchanges and the largely rural feel of the section I figured there was nothing holding it back from a 70 other than cosmetic purposes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on May 21, 2015, 07:15:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 21, 2015, 04:32:09 AM
Personally I had always thought that the section of 94 between 494/694 and the WI border was posted 65 simply because it was tying into a 65 in Wisconsin. Given the mostly widely spaced-out nature of the interchanges and the largely rural feel of the section I figured there was nothing holding it back from a 70 other than cosmetic purposes.

Seeing that this section (Between 694/494 and the WI border) was done in 1985 (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/docs/projlog/county82/8282.pdf), it is designed for a 70 mph speed limit.  There are no substandard vertical or horizontal curves (hardly any horizontal curves at all and much of the vertical is rolling for drainage/bridge clearances).  I asked a guy from Mn/DOT why it was signed 65 and he said it was such a short stretch between 694/494 and WI's 65mph section, it was decided to leave it at 65mph instead of move it 70mph.

I can understand why WisDOT would not sign the section in Hudson 70mph, especially with the steep grade on the WI side into/out of the St. Croix River Valley. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on May 21, 2015, 07:29:49 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

Notice the one "urban area" missing from the list is I-41 in Oshkosh.  I know this was recently redone with the US 41 expansion but if the "urban area" rule where to apply, this is definitely a section (WI 44 to US 45) that would meet this criteria.

In my opinion the sections in Eau Claire, La Crosse (Although currently this is under construction at a temporary 55mph limit so they wouldn't change the speed limit right now anyways), Appleton, and Point are just going to become giant speed traps.  Very few drivers are going to slow down to meet the 65 mph speed limit (even 70mph going 5 over).  They would most likely operate fine with a 70 mph limit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on May 21, 2015, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

Racine and Kenosha are missing from this list.  I hope they never get added, and we can then give the county sheriffs there the finger and go 70 mph along that stretch.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 21, 2015, 10:28:44 AM
Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2015, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

Racine and Kenosha are missing from this list.  I hope they never get added, and we can then give the county sheriffs there the finger and go 70 mph along that stretch.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.yourepeat.com%2Fmedia%2Fgif%2F000%2F700%2F451%2F5ccfa67553f30b54e41f2e8fd658f8f5.gif&hash=29784531c0aaaabd573c848774a3a87bbafc14b5)

Sorry - I didn't know how this machine works.

about the speed trap thingy?  Yeah you could say that - it is Wisconsin you know - you have to make a profit somehow.

IL has a similar setup with Effingham and Mt Vernon.

Even Montana with Missoula.

California doesn't any 70 MPH on I-80.

Every state compensates its police somehow... :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 21, 2015, 04:15:58 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on May 21, 2015, 07:29:49 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

Notice the one "urban area" missing from the list is I-41 in Oshkosh.  I know this was recently redone with the US 41 expansion but if the "urban area" rule where to apply, this is definitely a section (WI 44 to US 45) that would meet this criteria.

In my opinion the sections in Eau Claire, La Crosse (Although currently this is under construction at a temporary 55mph limit so they wouldn't change the speed limit right now anyways), Appleton, and Point are just going to become giant speed traps.  Very few drivers are going to slow down to meet the 65 mph speed limit (even 70mph going 5 over).  They would most likely operate fine with a 70 mph limit.

I-41 in Oshkosh, the Lake Butte des Morts causeway part especially, drives like a German autobahn now.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on May 22, 2015, 11:30:15 AM
I really didn't think raising the speed limit to 70 mph was necessary, however, I also think that the 65 mph zones in the urban areas seemed a little capricious....i.e. Why wasn't Janesville included?  There's interchange spacing issues of more concern there than there are in Point.  I-90 in LaCrosse is borderline, but I-94 is so far outside much of the Eau Claire urbanized area with ample interchange spacing, that only 65 mph seems to be slow there too.  The north-south portion of I-41 on the west side of Appleton and Neenah/Menasha has a lot of traffic and no increase there seems warranted.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 22, 2015, 12:59:34 PM
Yay, now you can catch up to slow moving trucks 8 seconds sooner.

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2015, 04:59:51 PM
Personally, my reaction to the speed limit increase is "meh!"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on May 22, 2015, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 22, 2015, 11:30:15 AM
I really didn't think raising the speed limit to 70 mph was necessary, however, I also think that the 65 mph zones in the urban areas seemed a little capricious....i.e. Why wasn't Janesville included?  There's interchange spacing issues of more concern there than there are in Point.  I-90 in LaCrosse is borderline, but I-94 is so far outside much of the Eau Claire urbanized area with ample interchange spacing, that only 65 mph seems to be slow there too.  The north-south portion of I-41 on the west side of Appleton and Neenah/Menasha has a lot of traffic and no increase there seems warranted.
70 is needed to match IL-toll way (that needs to go full 70)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on May 22, 2015, 10:28:23 PM
Congratulations Wisconsin! No longer a sore thumb. This is way overdue but hey better late than never. I look forward to legally going 70 in that state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on May 23, 2015, 01:44:56 AM
Looks like it is only going to apply to interstates. So, it appears it will not be applied to any freeway sections of 51, 53, 151 or WI-29.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 23, 2015, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: mrose on May 23, 2015, 01:44:56 AM
Looks like it is only going to apply to interstates. So, it appears it will not be applied to any freeway sections of 51, 53, 151 or WI-29.

nothing committed.  They're running studies though but don't expect any on 151 or 29
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 23, 2015, 09:57:35 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 23, 2015, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: mrose on May 23, 2015, 01:44:56 AM
Looks like it is only going to apply to interstates. So, it appears it will not be applied to any freeway sections of 51, 53, 151 or WI-29.

nothing committed.  They're running studies though but don't expect any on 151 or 29

Even though US 151 between Sun Prairie and Waupun was flying along at autobahn speeds going to and from the Madison meet a few weeks ago.

:rolleyes:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on May 23, 2015, 10:00:55 AM
The freeway section of US 53 from Eau Claire to Rice like will most likely be 70, as well as the freeway section of US 51 north of Wausau. But the freeway sections of US 151 and WIS 29 are just short sections and would likely cause problems if just those sections are raised to 70 and the rest of the highway remains at 65.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 23, 2015, 11:09:37 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on May 22, 2015, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 22, 2015, 11:30:15 AM
I really didn't think raising the speed limit to 70 mph was necessary, however, I also think that the 65 mph zones in the urban areas seemed a little capricious....i.e. Why wasn't Janesville included?  There's interchange spacing issues of more concern there than there are in Point.  I-90 in LaCrosse is borderline, but I-94 is so far outside much of the Eau Claire urbanized area with ample interchange spacing, that only 65 mph seems to be slow there too.  The north-south portion of I-41 on the west side of Appleton and Neenah/Menasha has a lot of traffic and no increase there seems warranted.
70 is needed to match IL-toll way (that needs to go full 70)


Look I don't mind the increase at all, but the whole "we have to match what other states do" is the lamest reasoning behind the increase.

It really isn't hard to reduce your speed at one border...and increase it at the next. 

I wish people would just say "I want to drive faster."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on May 23, 2015, 06:26:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2015, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 02, 2015, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
As a lifelong Wisconsinite, I think the freeways and expressways are just fine with a speed limit of 65.

Glad I don't live there.  The freeway just outside of downtown Austin is now 70.


Yeah because I judge what is a great place to live by how fast I can drive on the freeways.   :rolleyes:

Nothing like horribly slow roads
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 24, 2015, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 23, 2015, 11:09:37 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on May 22, 2015, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 22, 2015, 11:30:15 AM
I really didn't think raising the speed limit to 70 mph was necessary, however, I also think that the 65 mph zones in the urban areas seemed a little capricious....i.e. Why wasn't Janesville included?  There's interchange spacing issues of more concern there than there are in Point.  I-90 in LaCrosse is borderline, but I-94 is so far outside much of the Eau Claire urbanized area with ample interchange spacing, that only 65 mph seems to be slow there too.  The north-south portion of I-41 on the west side of Appleton and Neenah/Menasha has a lot of traffic and no increase there seems warranted.
70 is needed to match IL-toll way (that needs to go full 70)


Look I don't mind the increase at all, but the whole "we have to match what other states do" is the lamest reasoning behind the increase.

It really isn't hard to reduce your speed at one border...and increase it at the next. 

I wish people would just say "I want to drive faster."

Agreed SW.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on May 27, 2015, 10:39:31 AM
US 53 should definitely be a 70 between Eau Claire and Rice Lake. People drive that fast and the road is built for it. I'd be annoyed if its still a 65 next time i drive it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 29, 2015, 01:21:35 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on June 02, 2015, 01:42:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 02, 2015, 08:39:58 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on June 02, 2015, 01:42:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 04, 2015, 03:44:31 PM
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?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 04, 2015, 04:21:07 PM
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
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 04, 2015, 06:31:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 04, 2015, 03:44:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 04, 2015, 09:00:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 04, 2015, 10:50:29 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 04, 2015, 04:21:07 PM
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
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 04, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 04, 2015, 09:00:52 PM
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.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 05, 2015, 07:09:04 AM
Quote from: Big John on June 04, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 05, 2015, 07:11:59 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 05, 2015, 01:59:28 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on June 04, 2015, 10:50:29 PM
**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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on June 05, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 04, 2015, 09:00:52 PM
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.

:nod:

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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 05, 2015, 11:38:59 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 05, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 04, 2015, 09:00:52 PM
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.

:nod:

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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 11:47:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 05, 2015, 11:38:59 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 05, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 04, 2015, 09:00:52 PM
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.

:nod:

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
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2015, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 11:47:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 06, 2015, 04:19:00 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2015, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 11:47:22 AM
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.

:nod:

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
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on June 06, 2015, 11:35:05 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2015, 10:25:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 05:36:18 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 04, 2015, 04:21:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 07, 2015, 07:05:19 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 05:36:18 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 04, 2015, 04:21:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 08:25:19 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
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.
Then why are you trying to play devil's advocate?

Think about this though. The "bottleneck" in Richmond would be Illinois' problem to deal with meaning they might actually get off their asses and do something about extending the US 12 freeway.

As to what to do with the Volo bog etc, I did that map about 3 months ago. Did you see it?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 08:25:19 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
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.
Then why are you trying to play devil's advocate?

Think about this though. The "bottleneck" in Richmond would be Illinois' problem to deal with meaning they might actually get off their asses and do something about extending the US 12 freeway.

As to what to do with the Volo bog etc, I did that map about 3 months ago. Did you see it?

Yes, I did, and it's a wonderful idea, but unrealistic because Illinois doesn't think outside the box........

I'm "playing devils advocate" because I know Illinois can't get ANYTHING done when it comes to highways (and infrastructure in general). So if you think finishing the freeway between Elkhorn and Madison will get Illinois to construct FAP 420, forget it. FAP 420 will never be constructed, they won't be willing to route it around environmentally sensitive areas. So why waste the money finishing the US 12 freeway when you have I-39/90 between the state line and Madison and I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee that needs reconstruction/widening? Those should be done first. Plus, the pavement on US 12 between Genoa City and Elkhorn is going to need reconstruction within the next decade, that will only add to the cost of any freeway extension.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2015, 09:42:33 PM
Cutting 20 minutes between Madison and Lake Geneva isn't really worth the $$$ because, really, how much traffic are we really talking about?  How many vehicle drive between the two cities on a daily basis?  Almost all of the traffic that uses US-12 is local.  It gets a little busier on summer weekends, but not significantly so.

Right now, US-12 could use an upgrade between Madison and Cambridge to a four lane expressway due to weekday commuting.

Eventually "cutting the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater will also be necessary, as well as upgrades such as a Fort Atkinson bypass, but really the current set up between Elkhorn and Cambridge is fine for the time being.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2015, 12:54:28 PM
Article on the 70 mph that includes a map of where it will be signed.  Only on interstates.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/traffic/coming-to-wisconsin-this-week-70-mph-speed-limit-signs-b99519839z1-307383871.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 15, 2015, 11:49:15 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2015, 12:54:28 PM
Article on the 70 mph that includes a map of where it will be signed.  Only on interstates.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/traffic/coming-to-wisconsin-this-week-70-mph-speed-limit-signs-b99519839z1-307383871.html

That map was the original plan, since that map was made the mileage of roads signed at 70 has gone up from 726 miles to 810 miles, an increase of 84 additional miles.  I see new posts along I-43 at the 172 and WIS 57 interchanges, which I'm assuming will be reduced speed ahead signs to 65 so a 70 mph zone may be extended north of where the DOT originally said they would end the 70 mph zone.  I'll post an update on what I find out this week. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 12:31:52 PM
Crews were posting Speed Limit 70 signs on I-43 at the Leo Frigo Bridge so the DOT must have reversed their decision to leave that section at 65.  Originally, the 70 zone was supposed to start south of Green Bay.  I saw an article that MNDOT is going to sign I-94 at 70 MPH east of the 494/694 Interchange so I'm assuming the stretch in Hudson will be 70 also.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2015, 02:50:09 PM
Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.  plus now Hudson being slowed down is moot since MnDOT's kicking its short part of I-94 between there and St Paul (see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6510.msg2071507#msg2071507 for detail and discussion of that).  Keep in mind though that this is the Journal Sentinel's interpretation of WisDOT's report.  It could be wrong.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:07:16 PM
Side note:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/371-co-exec.htm

beware - don't stop and photograph the signs ;) just shoot while driving :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 
Well then... if it's 70 to the Frigo - As you said - I can safely assume that the Tomah and Cascade Interchanges will be straight through 70.  They may have already loosened up.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 16, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 16, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: invincor on June 16, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 

MN isn't increasing the limit on I-94 until Wednesday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 09:00:26 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 16, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: invincor on June 16, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 

MN isn't increasing the limit on I-94 until Wednesday.
Yep - WisDOT did soften up :sombrero:  RE: Minnesota - still decent timing.  Tells me they communicated.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 09:08:31 PM
Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 17, 2015, 01:34:04 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 09:08:31 PM
Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well.

*No* speed limit sign changes on I-41 in the Appleton area as of Tuesday afternoon (2015-06-16).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 17, 2015, 07:29:50 AM
70 mpg signs have been posted on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 17, 2015, 12:43:16 PM
MPG??

Mike - They probably will be up today
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 17, 2015, 02:24:30 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 
Well then... if it's 70 to the Frigo - As you said - I can safely assume that the Tomah and Cascade Interchanges will be straight through 70.  They may have already loosened up.
Also the map had the 70 zone end at the Milwaukee/Racine Co Line. The article though said it would change at Rawson Ave which is 5 miles further north.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 17, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2015, 02:50:09 PM
Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.
You got to remember though that the same was said about any further expansion of the Wis 26 bypass of Ft Atkinson. That was a super 2 to start. It didn't take long for them to not only make it 4 lanes but to extend it to a 4 lane divided highway on both ends. If the area pop continues to grow and the traffic on 12 gets worse, don't be surprised if 10 years from now the Whitewater bypass is extended and widened to at least a divided highway if not a full freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 17, 2015, 07:00:32 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 17, 2015, 01:34:04 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 09:08:31 PM
Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well.

*No* speed limit sign changes on I-41 in the Appleton area as of Tuesday afternoon (2015-06-16).

As of about 16:30 Wednesday (2015-06-17), except for the construction zone from WI 15 south to US 10/WI 441 (southbound) and from Breezewood Ln-Bell St in Neenah to WI 15 (northbound), the new signs are all in place on I-41 through the Appleton area - including between the two WI 441 interchanges.  There is no drop in the limit.

One impression driving through it all is that there is no apparent change in driving behavior, other than for a perceptible slight DECREASE in average speed.  Traffic seemed a little more relaxed, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 07:45:53 PM
From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 07:50:49 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 17, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2015, 02:50:09 PM
Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.

You got to remember though that the same was said about any further expansion of the Wis 26 bypass of Ft Atkinson. That was a super 2 to start. It didn't take long for them to not only make it 4 lanes but to extend it to a 4 lane divided highway on both ends. If the area pop continues to grow and the traffic on 12 gets worse, don't be surprised if 10 years from now the Whitewater bypass is extended and widened to at least a divided highway if not a full freeway.

WI 26 and US 12 are two completely different animals. I drive both several times a week, and US 12 is a ghost road compared to 26. I would also think that there's not going to be a huge explosion in pop counts in Whitewater or Fort anytime soon. I don't see the bypass widened for more like 15-20 years. A lot of the originally predicted traffic will likely never materialize with the upgrades happening on I-90 and the speed limit increases. Basically removes the "appeal" of a US 12 routing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 17, 2015, 08:55:09 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 07:45:53 PM
From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
If Appleton and GB got 70s I need to check out Mad-town, Point and Wausau.  I have a feeling there's no drops there either.  La Crosse is a construction zone so it won't be getting a boost - hopefully yet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 17, 2015, 08:55:09 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 07:45:53 PM
From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
If Appleton and GB got 70s I need to check out Mad-town, Point and Wausau.  I have a feeling there's no drops there either.  La Crosse is a construction zone so it won't be getting a boost - hopefully yet.

I was in Madtown today. 94W is 70 to the Badger Interchange, and 39/90 is 70 through the area with no reduction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 17, 2015, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 17, 2015, 08:55:09 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 07:45:53 PM
From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
If Appleton and GB got 70s I need to check out Mad-town, Point and Wausau.  I have a feeling there's no drops there either.  La Crosse is a construction zone so it won't be getting a boost - hopefully yet.

I was in Madtown today. 94W is 70 to the Badger Interchange, and 39/90 is 70 through the area with no reduction.
Well that settles it - I'm pretty sure Point's 70 all the way too. Wausau's marred by construction still as they upgrade the freeway at both ends of Business 51.  WisDOT pretty much scrapped their plan of speed reductions - as you said.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 18, 2015, 02:22:57 PM
I also verified this morning that I-43 going north is 70 all the way to the Milwaukee County line instead of WI 164, which was the original plan. Kudos to WisDOT for making that change. It's much easier to understand "all Interstates that were 65 are now 70" instead of "they're 70 until here, then 65 until here." It's a pretty much common sense decision.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 19, 2015, 12:46:41 AM
Looks like right now the assembly and senate have agreed to a $800 million dollar reduction in bonding over the next 2 years for transportation. 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-leaders-in-legislature-squabble-about-budget-impasse-b99522269z1-308205131.html
It will be interesting to see how the people and politicians react when they actually get a list of projects across the state that would be postponed or even cut.  This amount is significant enough that current contracts under construction would be affected.  Because of this WisDOT would have to get contractors to agree through change order a delay in completion or claims would be submitted (Both will cost the state money).  It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out (A LOT of competing interests and priorities for many from the WTBA, Unions, residents, and legislators).

For others replying to this, I ask for this discussion to not to turn into a negative finger pointing politics discussion but rather let's focus on the potential effects (including listing projects you may think would get postponed or cut) due to this reduction in funding.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 19, 2015, 01:52:02 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on June 19, 2015, 12:46:41 AM
Looks like right now the assembly and senate have agreed to a $800 million dollar reduction in bonding over the next 2 years for transportation. 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-leaders-in-legislature-squabble-about-budget-impasse-b99522269z1-308205131.html
It will be interesting to see how the people and politicians react when they actually get a list of projects across the state that would be postponed or even cut.  This amount is significant enough that current contracts under construction would be affected.  Because of this WisDOT would have to get contractors to agree through change order a delay in completion or claims would be submitted (Both will cost the state money).  It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out (A LOT of competing interests and priorities for many from the WTBA, Unions, residents, and legislators).

For others replying to this, I ask for this discussion to not to turn into a negative finger pointing politics discussion but rather let's focus on the potential effects (including listing projects you may think would get postponed or cut) due to this reduction in funding.

A lot of us (myself included, in addition to the rest of my office and other colleagues with other firms) are watching all of this with great interest/nervousness. Many don't realize how big of an impact this will have across the state. It's not just postponing maintenance or other road projects...this trickles down much further, to the construction crews and design engineers. Cutting projects => less work to be done => less workers needed => layoffs.

One of the projects rumored to be ground to a halt is the I-39 expansion between Illinois and Madison. Supposedly, the Zoo Interchange would continue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on June 19, 2015, 09:43:36 AM
One project that might be low-hanging fruit to cut would be the expansion of STH 23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth.  As mentioned on the forum already, it may be undergoing further environmental review which would push back its construction schedule.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 19, 2015, 09:57:42 AM
Projects that are all but guaranteed not to get cut are any with HSIP funding.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 03:09:47 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 19, 2015, 09:57:42 AM
Projects that are all but guaranteed not to get cut are any with HSIP funding.

What's strange about that is that FHWA seems to be cracking down on the use of HSIP in terms of making certain projects meet their definition of safety projects.  At least in NY, using HSIP has actually been difficult historically, given the size of the apportionment and the size of the actual safety needs -- needed safety projects would be prohibitively expensive and so a more "puzzle piece" approach has traditionally been taken (a lot of HSIP projects also get supplemented by other fund sources).  I'm scratching my head over my perception of FHWA, since if NY's having trouble using it, why make it harder?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 10:26:09 PM
A standard Wisconsin "Speed Limit 70" sign on the original triple Interstate.

[/cue yawns]

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/18998360272_609bea6c4a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ)New speed limit approved in WI (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ) by Scott O (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 20, 2015, 10:29:13 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 10:26:09 PM
A standard Wisconsin "Speed Limit 70" sign on the original triple Interstate.

[/cue yawns]

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/18998360272_609bea6c4a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ)New speed limit approved in WI (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ) by Scott O (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/), on Flickr

Strange thing about this particular sign is this was part of an area that wasn't originally going to be signed at 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 20, 2015, 10:29:13 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 10:26:09 PM
A standard Wisconsin "Speed Limit 70" sign on the original triple Interstate.

[/cue yawns]

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/18998360272_609bea6c4a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ)New speed limit approved in WI (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ) by Scott O (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/), on Flickr

Strange thing about this particular sign is this was part of an area that wasn't originally going to be signed at 70.
Yea, WisDOT completely scrapped plans to keep any 65 zones on Interstates.  Even Milwaukee is 70 up to the original 55 zones. NOTE: Construction zones have not gotten new signs yet (Menomonee Falls (41), La Crosse (90), Wausau (39), Appleton/Neenah (41), Green Bay (41) to name a few. They should be getting the signs after the work zone limits are no longer needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 20, 2015, 10:34:23 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 20, 2015, 10:29:13 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 10:26:09 PM
A standard Wisconsin "Speed Limit 70" sign on the original triple Interstate.

[/cue yawns]

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/18998360272_609bea6c4a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ)New speed limit approved in WI (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ) by Scott O (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/), on Flickr

Strange thing about this particular sign is this was part of an area that wasn't originally going to be signed at 70.
Yea, WisDOT completely scrapped plans to keep any 65 zones on Interstates.  Even Milwaukee is 70 up to the original 55 zones. NOTE: Construction zones have not gotten new signs yet (Menomonee Falls (41), La Crosse (90), Wausau (39), Appleton/Neenah (41), Green Bay (41) to name a few. They should be getting the signs after the work zone limits are no longer needed.

Yeah. I noticed that the other day driving westbound towards Madison. Patiently waiting the slowdown to 65 which never happened. It finally hit me that 65 is gone when I got on 39/90 SB/EB and I saw a 70 sign. It makes perfect sense what they did.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 20, 2015, 11:34:03 PM
What's awesome is that the signs are consistent! Same exact sign everywhere, mounted the exact same way. The obsessive-compulsive side of me approves.

Minor complaint: the location of the lower mounting bolts is right in the black text of the 70 numerals. The fact that I notice it and it bugs me may say more about me than the signs themselves.

Driving I-39/90 seems considerably calmer the past few days; the slow drivers appear more willing to yield the fast lane than usual.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 11:51:24 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 20, 2015, 11:34:03 PM
What's awesome is that the signs are consistent! Same exact sign everywhere, mounted the exact same way. The obsessive-compulsive side of me approves.

Minor complaint: the location of the lower mounting bolts is right in the black text of the 70 numerals. The fact that I notice it and it bugs me may say more about me than the signs themselves.

Driving I-39/90 seems considerably calmer the past few days; the slow drivers appear more willing to yield the fast lane than usual.
I noticed the bolt placement as well.

To be honest, the majority of traffic was already traveling at 75 to 80 so kicking up the limit does relieve the stress and calm traffic, but not completely - I've ran into a few slow-pokes (I don't count semis due to their restrictions)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 21, 2015, 12:52:06 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 11:51:24 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 20, 2015, 11:34:03 PM
What's awesome is that the signs are consistent! Same exact sign everywhere, mounted the exact same way. The obsessive-compulsive side of me approves.

Minor complaint: the location of the lower mounting bolts is right in the black text of the 70 numerals. The fact that I notice it and it bugs me may say more about me than the signs themselves.

Driving I-39/90 seems considerably calmer the past few days; the slow drivers appear more willing to yield the fast lane than usual.
I noticed the bolt placement as well.

To be honest, the majority of traffic was already traveling at 75 to 80 so kicking up the limit does relieve the stress and calm traffic, but not completely - I've ran into a few slow-pokes (I don't count semis due to their restrictions)

I noticed the same thing on my way to Milwaukee from Madison earlier Saturday. However, that notion seemed to disappear the closer we got to Milwaukee County. The Zoo Interchange was certainly living up to its name.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 21, 2015, 11:27:08 PM
I drove on US 53 near Chippewa Falls on Saturday.  That's still signed at 65 mph.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 22, 2015, 08:21:29 AM
I'm pretty certain that at least for now, 70MPH zones will be Interstate-signed routes only.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2015, 03:09:44 PM
Does anyone think electronic tolling will ever come to Wisconsin? I'd support it for the most congested routes, but I may be in the minority.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 22, 2015, 03:27:58 PM
I see the Wis DOT website was redesigned over the weekend.  I like the older format better, it was simpler to view and the recent news items are gone.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 22, 2015, 04:32:16 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 22, 2015, 03:27:58 PM
I see the Wis DOT website was redesigned over the weekend.  I like the older format better, it was simpler to view and the recent news items are gone.  Thoughts?

I saw the warning last week about this happening... As of right now, it's a HUGE PITA for me, as over half of my links no longer work :banghead: :banghead:  Also doesn't help that their search function returns results that have old/dead links while things that should show up, don't.

On the plus side, you no longer need a login to access the standard sign plate designs...once you find them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 22, 2015, 04:53:19 PM
As with most redesigns, no one like them to start, but once you get used to it, it will be fine.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 22, 2015, 07:29:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2015, 03:09:44 PM
Does anyone think electronic tolling will ever come to Wisconsin? I'd support it for the most congested routes, but I may be in the minority.
Hard to tell, I don't think that the state well ever adopt tolls unless they were in dire straits with finances and a road had to be built between point A and point B - can you name a scenario? I can't.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on June 22, 2015, 10:30:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 22, 2015, 07:29:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2015, 03:09:44 PM
Does anyone think electronic tolling will ever come to Wisconsin? I'd support it for the most congested routes, but I may be in the minority.
Hard to tell, I don't think that the state well ever adopt tolls unless they were in dire straits with finances and a road had to be built between point A and point B - can you name a scenario? I can't.
I don't think toll roads are even legal in Wisconsin. That was what we were all told when I was growing up. I could see it for a south bypass of Madison from Verona to I-39/90. It would take traffic off the Beltline and possibly satisfy those locals who would otherwise be against it.  A toll is likely the only way one gets built. I'm not sure traffic counts could justify it though. Others here probably know more about that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on June 22, 2015, 11:12:18 PM
Everyone here seems opposed to tolling. See it as something that the "lower" people of Chicago do... corrupt and trying to earn every penny from drivers. Every time it's brought up, it's knocked down right away. I don't see it ever happening. Not any time soon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on June 23, 2015, 09:56:45 AM
I could see it for a south bypass of Madison from Verona to I-39/90. It would take traffic off the Beltline and possibly satisfy those locals who would otherwise be against it.  A toll is likely the only way one gets built. I'm not sure traffic counts could justify it though. Others here probably know more about that.
[/quote]

I don't think tolling a second southern beltline around Madison would help sell the concept.  The Town of Dunn will always try to stop any corridor whatsoever from traversing the township.  The township has a limited/controlled growth policy and would certainly be against any type of freeway crossing it, running the gauntlet between Lakes Waubesa and Kegonsa, and the associated pressure fof urbanization that would accompany it. 

I still am rooting for a North Beltline some day.  Spending a lot of time on the far west side of Madison, it would be a corridor that I would use frequently. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 23, 2015, 10:44:42 AM
I think a far southern bypass of Madison would be near useless.  If you look at a map, I-39/90 swings so far to the east just south of Madison, that it would be too long to be cost effective. 

As has been pointed out here, most of the traffic on the Beltline is local.  That means upgrading the current corridor is the best way to reduce traffic.  The northern Beltline would be the next best option.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 23, 2015, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: colinstu on June 22, 2015, 11:12:18 PM
Everyone here seems opposed to tolling. See it as something that the "lower" people of Chicago do... corrupt and trying to earn every penny from drivers. Every time it's brought up, it's knocked down right away. I don't see it ever happening. Not any time soon.
I never said I was opposed to tolling, but I sure will bet that there is a group of people who don't understand that you cannot get a road for free - hence they don't think when they squeal "don't raise our gas tax" or "keep tolls off our roads".

Well guess what...
They promised no tax raises.
They didn't toll any roads.
But they are watching your speed!!!!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on June 23, 2015, 05:57:02 PM
I could see the southern belt useful between US 14 and US 18/151, as one who frequently did the CTH-M shortcut back in the day. Not sure it would be really practical east of 14 though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 25, 2015, 02:27:40 PM
Speaking of speed limits, while driving around Appleton last night, I noticed that WisDOT has installed a pair of yellow graphic 'Reduced Speed Ahead/65' signs on opposite sides of SB WI 441 right after the ramp merge from its I-41 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 25, 2015, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 25, 2015, 02:27:40 PM
Speaking of speed limits, while driving around Appleton last night, I noticed that WisDOT has installed a pair of yellow graphic 'Reduced Speed Ahead/65' signs on opposite sides of SB WI 441 right after the ramp merge from its I-41 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton.

Mike
Makes sense, 441 should be 65 (55 intown)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 25, 2015, 10:39:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 25, 2015, 02:27:40 PM
Speaking of speed limits, while driving around Appleton last night, I noticed that WisDOT has installed a pair of yellow graphic 'Reduced Speed Ahead/65' signs on opposite sides of SB WI 441 right after the ramp merge from its I-41 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton.

Mike

Those same signs were also installed at the I-43/WIS 54-57 and the I-43/WIS 172 interchanges.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 26, 2015, 09:03:09 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 25, 2015, 10:39:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 25, 2015, 02:27:40 PM
Speaking of speed limits, while driving around Appleton last night, I noticed that WisDOT has installed a pair of yellow graphic 'Reduced Speed Ahead/65' signs on opposite sides of SB WI 441 right after the ramp merge from its I-41 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton.

Mike

Those same signs were also installed at the I-43/WIS 54-57 and the I-43/WIS 172 interchanges.

Signs like those have also been posted on southbound WIS 35 coming off the I-94 offramp heading towards River Falls.  I saw these had been posted the day before the Speed Limit 70 signs on I-94 were, which was the first clue the 65-in-Hudson-area plan had been scrapped. 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 26, 2015, 06:11:26 PM
Personally, I was indifferent to the 70 MPH speed limit proposal. It doesn't make much of a difference whether the speed limit is 65 or 70. I saw my first 70 MPH sign on Interstate 39/90 while being driven home from a doctor's appointment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 26, 2015, 08:59:27 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 26, 2015, 07:22:22 PM

I would think that a low speed limit anomaly would lead to more people who bypass/don't want to visit Wisconsin.


Are you serious? You think there's someone out there who has said "I'm not going to visit Wisconsin because their speed limit is only 65."? Or that someone will bypass the state completely because of it?

The longest freeway in the state is I-94 at 348 miles. If the speed limit was 65 instead of 70 through the entire route, it would cost you approximately 30 minutes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2015, 09:22:44 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 26, 2015, 09:06:03 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 26, 2015, 08:59:27 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 26, 2015, 07:22:22 PM

I would think that a low speed limit anomaly would lead to more people who bypass/don't want to visit Wisconsin.


Are you serious? You think there's someone out there who has said "I'm not going to visit Wisconsin because their speed limit is only 65."? Or that someone will bypass the state completely because of it?

The longest freeway in the state is I-94 at 348 miles. If the speed limit was 65 instead of 70 through the entire route, it would cost you approximately 30 minutes.
Well yes, I'm being serious. It might not make that much of a difference, but I know a ton of people who would modify plans to travel west just to avoid a speed limit anomaly. To go from say Chicago to Seattle you can avoid Wisconsin by taking I-80, I-84, and I-82.


iPhone


If you indeed know people that would add about 150 miles to their route from Chicago to Seattle, in order to avoid a 65 v. 70 mph speed limit, then the people you know aren't very bright.

If anyone was skipping going through Wisconsin because of this, it wasn't very many people.  Nowhere near enough to make a significant difference.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 26, 2015, 11:30:42 PM
Does it really matter anymore?  I suppose now drivers are going to skip North Dakota now that it has 75 mph limits as opposed to South Dakota's 80.

REALLY!!!????

80 is above the prevailing speed of most freeways anyway :sombrero:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on June 27, 2015, 12:32:46 AM
I love the speed increase. Before you mostly had drivers going 65, 70, and 75 (some 60 and some 80). Now however everyone is mostly going 70 or 75 (some 80. Really not that much 65, just people exiting or some trucks).

Less variety in speeds the better. This is definitely a change for the better.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2015, 10:37:23 AM
Quote from: colinstu on June 27, 2015, 12:32:46 AM
I love the speed increase. Before you mostly had drivers going 65, 70, and 75 (some 60 and some 80). Now however everyone is mostly going 70 or 75 (some 80. Really not that much 65, just people exiting or some trucks).

Less variety in speeds the better. This is definitely a change for the better.


I have actually noticed the opposite.  Some people driving no faster than they did before at about 65 mph.  Hopefully my experience will become more like yours.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 27, 2015, 12:11:00 PM
Those faster ones have Illinois plates on them?

There are always some that like to road surf.  These are the ones the cops should be looking for - not the random cruiser that flows with the pack and moves over when necessary
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2015, 12:48:26 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 27, 2015, 12:11:00 PM
Those faster ones have Illinois plates on them?

There are always some that like to road surf.  These are the ones the cops should be looking for - not the random cruiser that flows with the pack and moves over when necessary


No I am usually one of the faster ones at about 78 or so.  The slower ones are those I am more concerned about.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 27, 2015, 05:11:13 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 27, 2015, 05:24:34 PM
^^ And no front-side signals to boot.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 27, 2015, 05:11:13 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday

Argg...my eyes!   :poke::-o :wow:

Never thought I'd see the day, even though I knew it was a possibility. :no:  A permissive-only FYA doghouse no less.

Can't say I am shocked that Eau Claire did it, as it seems like they've taken over the cutting edge crown for traffic-related items in Wisconsin. One of the first to use Clearview for SNSs, first SPUI, one of the first multilane roundabouts (many of the sign plates from that one made it into the FDM), in the runnings for the first FYA installation (IIRC, Madison or Appleton barely edged them out), first to try the reflective yellow borders around signals, and first to have a dual left turn lane that doesn't operate as protected only.

Quote from: Big John on June 27, 2015, 05:24:34 PM
^^ And no front-side signals to boot.

Front-side? Are you referring to the second FYA signal face for the movement? If so, it's probably on the far-side left pole that's hidden by the trees from that camera angle.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 27, 2015, 07:17:28 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 06:25:32 PM


Front-side? Are you referring to the second FYA signal face for the movement? If so, it's probably on the far-side left pole that's hidden by the trees from that camera angle.
Can't see what is on the left pole behind the tree, but the 2 on the right side show no front side "stop bar" signal heads, something almost every signalized intersection in Wisconsin has.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 27, 2015, 10:15:46 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 27, 2015, 05:11:13 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday

Argg...my eyes!   :poke::-o :wow:

Never thought I'd see the day, even though I knew it was a possibility. :no:  A permissive-only FYA doghouse no less.

Can't say I am shocked that Eau Claire did it, as it seems like they've taken over the cutting edge crown for traffic-related items in Wisconsin. One of the first to use Clearview for SNSs, first SPUI, one of the first multilane roundabouts (many of the sign plates from that one made it into the FDM), in the runnings for the first FYA installation (IIRC, Madison or Appleton barely edged them out), first to try the reflective yellow borders around signals, and first to have a dual left turn lane that doesn't operate as protected only.

Quote from: Big John on June 27, 2015, 05:24:34 PM
^^ And no front-side signals to boot.

Front-side? Are you referring to the second FYA signal face for the movement? If so, it's probably on the far-side left pole that's hidden by the trees from that camera angle.

Well done Eau Claire! 

I think a lot of their concepts come from their engineers visiting twin cities.  I had heard the SPUI in Eau Claire was based off of the SPUI at 24th Ave and 494 near Mall of America in Bloomington.  Woodbury, an eastern suburb of the twin cities, has for the last few years been installing dual left FYAs.  Now Mn/DOT and many others have done so as well (even on 60 mph expressways like MN 55 and MN 65).  The doghouse signal with the FYA was first tested with approval from FHWA in Eden Prairie a few years back near Eden Prairie Center (The green arrow and FYA share an indication).

Addressing the stop bar (near right) signal head.  With the new monotubes (versus the old trombone arms with a 30' length max :pan:) and recommended signal per lane in the MUTCD , there is no need for a stop bar signal head.  There are already enough signal heads out there.  The only reason Wisconsin had the near right signal head was because if your overheard trombone arm got knocked down (your overhead signal head and far right signal head got knocked down), it only left the stop bar installation and far left signal head for many of the installations.  I have a feeling as time passes, the stop bar signal head will go away as engineers realize it is not needed anymore.

Plus the intersection in the news clip gives a perfect example of why not to have the stop bar signal head.  A stop bar signal head and yield sign at that intersection would only be a few feet from each other which could confuse drivers (especially those unfamiliar with Wi's stop bar signal head standard).  By removing the stop bar signal head, it is clear to drivers making a right turn that the yield sign controls that movement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 27, 2015, 10:34:49 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 27, 2015, 05:11:13 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday

Argg...my eyes!   :poke::-o :wow:

Never thought I'd see the day, even though I knew it was a possibility. :no:  A permissive-only FYA doghouse no less.

Can't say I am shocked that Eau Claire did it, as it seems like they've taken over the cutting edge crown for traffic-related items in Wisconsin. One of the first to use Clearview for SNSs, first SPUI, one of the first multilane roundabouts (many of the sign plates from that one made it into the FDM), in the runnings for the first FYA installation (IIRC, Madison or Appleton barely edged them out), first to try the reflective yellow borders around signals, and first to have a dual left turn lane that doesn't operate as protected only.

Appleton has been using Clearview blades since late 2012.

Appleton also had the first FYA in the state, at Midway Rd (Calumet County 'AP')/Telulah Ave on the City's southeast side.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 11:17:33 PM
Quote from: Big John on June 27, 2015, 07:17:28 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 06:25:32 PM


Front-side? Are you referring to the second FYA signal face for the movement? If so, it's probably on the far-side left pole that's hidden by the trees from that camera angle.
Can't see what is on the left pole behind the tree, but the 2 on the right side show no front side "stop bar" signal heads, something almost every signalized intersection in Wisconsin has.

Don't know how I missed that signal not being there.  :pan:  Based on a ITE conference I attended a few years back, it was announced that the near-side (stop-bar) signal would be optional. Apparently Eau Claire has decided to exercise that option (first ones in WI?).

Quote from: Roadguy on June 27, 2015, 10:15:46 PM
The only reason Wisconsin had the near right signal head was because if your overheard trombone arm got knocked down (your overhead signal head and far right signal head got knocked down), it only left the stop bar installation and far left signal head for many of the installations.

Not entirely true. WisDOT installations rarely had a signal mounted on the vertical pole of a trombone arm installation (at least facing in the same direction as the trombone arm signal. However, mounting a vertical signal on the trombone arm support has been a standard installation in many municipalities, Appleton  being one of them, IIRC. An older WisDOT installation would have included a stop-bar signal, one mounted on the far right on a trombone arm, and one mounted on the far left (mounted behind the stop-bar signal for the opposing direction), or in the median, if one was present.

I don't see the stop-bar signal going the way of the do-do anytime soon, as that pole is a convenient place to mount at least one of the pedestrian signals. As long as you got a pole there, you might as well include a vehicular signal as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 11:22:38 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 27, 2015, 10:34:49 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 27, 2015, 05:11:13 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday

Argg...my eyes!   :poke::-o :wow:

Never thought I'd see the day, even though I knew it was a possibility. :no:  A permissive-only FYA doghouse no less.

Can't say I am shocked that Eau Claire did it, as it seems like they've taken over the cutting edge crown for traffic-related items in Wisconsin. One of the first to use Clearview for SNSs, first SPUI, one of the first multilane roundabouts (many of the sign plates from that one made it into the FDM), in the runnings for the first FYA installation (IIRC, Madison or Appleton barely edged them out), first to try the reflective yellow borders around signals, and first to have a dual left turn lane that doesn't operate as protected only.

Appleton has been using Clearview blades since late 2012.

Appleton also had the first FYA in the state, at Midway Rd (Calumet County 'AP')/Telulah Ave on the City's southeast side.

Mike

I would have sworn someone said the one near MATC on Anderson St in Madison beat Appleton out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 11:30:33 PM
I do [hate to] have to admit that the doghouse looks like it makes for a "cleaner" installation than the 5-head tower. The doghouse probably has wind loading benefits as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 28, 2015, 12:35:13 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 11:17:33 PM
Not entirely true. WisDOT installations rarely had a signal mounted on the vertical pole of a trombone arm installation (at least facing in the same direction as the trombone arm signal. However, mounting a vertical signal on the trombone arm support has been a standard installation in many municipalities, Appleton  being one of them, IIRC. An older WisDOT installation would have included a stop-bar signal, one mounted on the far right on a trombone arm, and one mounted on the far left (mounted behind the stop-bar signal for the opposing direction), or in the median, if one was present.

I don't see the stop-bar signal going the way of the do-do anytime soon, as that pole is a convenient place to mount at least one of the pedestrian signals. As long as you got a pole there, you might as well include a vehicular signal as well.

Dang, I forgot the Far Right is not exercised everywhere.  When I use to reside in Wisconsin the couple intersections I remembered had them and just assumed they were everywhere.  Then I looked on google and realized the far right on most signals is not there.

Still think with the new monotubes there is no need for a near right (stop bar signal head) but WisDOT has always done things their own unique way.  A pedestrian push button pole would suffice just fine.  By not requiring the stop bar signal head, on the thousands of signals statewide would could save on installation and maintenance costs.  Sure on per signal cost it's minimal much but you add together all of the new/replacements done each year and the costs add up.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 28, 2015, 12:45:07 AM
A unique situation exists in Prairie du Chien with no stop bar signal - but this - I believe - is a locally maintained setup. It has the monotube with 2 signals and a left side.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 28, 2015, 01:29:21 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on June 28, 2015, 12:35:13 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 11:17:33 PM
Not entirely true. WisDOT installations rarely had a signal mounted on the vertical pole of a trombone arm installation (at least facing in the same direction as the trombone arm signal. However, mounting a vertical signal on the trombone arm support has been a standard installation in many municipalities, Appleton  being one of them, IIRC. An older WisDOT installation would have included a stop-bar signal, one mounted on the far right on a trombone arm, and one mounted on the far left (mounted behind the stop-bar signal for the opposing direction), or in the median, if one was present.

I don't see the stop-bar signal going the way of the do-do anytime soon, as that pole is a convenient place to mount at least one of the pedestrian signals. As long as you got a pole there, you might as well include a vehicular signal as well.
Dang, I forgot the Far Right is not exercised everywhere.  When I use to reside in Wisconsin the couple intersections I remembered had them and just assumed they were everywhere.  Then I looked on google and realized the far right on most signals is not there.

Still think with the new monotubes there is no need for a near right (stop bar signal head) but WisDOT has always done things their own unique way.  A pedestrian push button pole would suffice just fine.  By not requiring the stop bar signal head, on the thousands of signals statewide would could save on installation and maintenance costs.  Sure on per signal cost it's minimal much but you add together all of the new/replacements done each year and the costs add up.

As of right now, the near-right is still a shall condition in the WisDOT Signal Design Manual, however, that page/section has not officially been updated since July 2006. Of course, locals don't have to follow the WisDOT manual word-for-word.

As for knock-downs, the near-right isn't knocked nearly as often as median-mounted signals. That said, I'm not sure how I feel about the near-side signals. They've been around longer than I've been alive. I agree, they are redundant given WisDOT's monotube installations, however, WisDOT seems to be a fan of redundancies when signals are concerned. If/when they start disappearing, I'll just get used to them like I have the monotubes. With monotubes spreading across the state at a rapid pace, the once ubiquitous trombone arm installations are starting to look a little strange to me now. :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 28, 2015, 11:58:13 AM
The trombone arm is still being installed periodically.  At the U.S. 41/141 and County B interchange in Suamico, the DOT installed a new horizontal signal with a trombone arm, might have been because there's only one lane in each direction.  There were vertical flashing yellow left turn signals mounted on the ground.

In Ashwaubenon, there was also a new signal with a trombone arm installed at County G/Ridge Rd.  County G is 4 lanes, but no left turn signals were installed, which may be why the "traditional" setup was chosen.  But at County EB/Cormier Rd, they opted for a monotube with vertical signal heads.  The cost for both signals may have been split between Brown Co. and Ashwaubenon, but interesting how the same municipalities chose 2 different styles at 2 different intersections.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 28, 2015, 01:22:02 PM
I wish that Wisconsin would have kept the trombone. Also wish Illinois did as well. The monotube is just dull.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 28, 2015, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 28, 2015, 01:22:02 PM
I wish that Wisconsin would have kept the trombone. Also wish Illinois did as well. The monotube is just dull.

The trombone is still being used.  In a previous post I stated that 2 new intersections had signals installed with trombone arms, and one of them was by the DOT at the US 41-141/ County B interchange in Suamico.  If there's only one lane in each direction, I think they will probably use it since only one overhead signal is needed.  Roundabouts are more of a threat to trombone arms disappearing, in northeast Wisconsin there have been a lot of signals replaced with roundabouts. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 28, 2015, 09:57:46 PM
The exact policy for the state maintained roads is replace with monotubes on multi-lane road construction projects, trombones otherwise, locally maintained roads can do what they choose.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 29, 2015, 05:31:52 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 28, 2015, 09:57:46 PM
The exact policy for the state maintained roads is replace with monotubes on multi-lane road construction projects, trombones otherwise, locally maintained roads can do what they choose.
Well Green Lake replaced their trombone signal at 23/49/A with monotubes despite all directions having 1 thru lane and a left turn lane and left turn signals in the islands.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 29, 2015, 11:18:43 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 27, 2015, 10:34:49 PM
Appleton has been using Clearview blades since late 2012.

The City of Eau Claire has been using Clearview as it's default sign typeface since around 2009.

EDIT. Actually, the city uses it for pretty much everything sign related:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSp2RfHum.jpg&hash=621ddf87346e561fd35bf85e8c5470dddc1d397e)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fb330nDim.jpg&hash=a032bb99de13fb4e2e7e8d8de542c82b97f23042)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 29, 2015, 03:38:20 PM
That's clearview???

:eyebrow:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on June 29, 2015, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 29, 2015, 03:38:20 PM
That's clearview???

:eyebrow:

Yes, it appears to be so.  Of course, I'm used to seeing all-caps Clearview on freeways and tollways here in Illinois.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 29, 2015, 03:51:57 PM
/me thinks he should study up.... ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 02, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
I took a little trip down Lake Street in Eau Claire: (click to enlarge)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FG84Gl9N.jpg%3F1&hash=7e7221fc03d7cf786dda829bceabc1a72f111a22)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw2I2r6B.jpg%3F1&hash=ceed86bb54653d93f8cf5918ad75c07a4be1c90b)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuxLk5fk.jpg%3F2&hash=a45ddcedd0de800d5f6b9f95bfd585e1a371e9ea)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeDB0Zkj.jpg%3F1&hash=c34502f616377d1160e94607bf7e54edce6a0692)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fqbetaor.jpg%3F1&hash=b1d9a89176703ac4e7edc03d410a1ce6c98e686a)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKgdHt7f.jpg%3F1&hash=c67c55943c0f39c1592406eea181081d385d8c9d)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlQ0Zqj4.jpg%3F1&hash=d2cf5b6810b7d38d1f05134e1c5bdf1c7736b14f)
(Yes, they where taken with a phone, sorry there not the best.)

As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 02, 2015, 09:07:11 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on July 02, 2015, 09:42:38 AMAs long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.

I agree with you. I think they look cleaner than a five section tower. Especially when the tower is mounted so the bottom of the assembly aligns with the others (which the city of Milwaukee has done on a few monotubes on the west side).

I also wouldn't hate if if they tried the way Colorado and Wyoming used to do five section PPLTs which was a regular 3 section with the left arrows mounted next to the yellow and green. These could look a bit lopsided, but they worked well in terms of clarity. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on July 08, 2015, 10:14:29 AM
The two segments of US 10 in Michigan and Wisconsin are now "connected":

http://www.channel3000.com/money/route-taken-by-lake-michigan-ferry-getting-new-designation/34050764

Now I know it wasn't official before this, but wasn't the ferry always thought of as connecting the two segments? Now maybe the ferry can carry US 10 shields.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 08, 2015, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 08, 2015, 10:14:29 AM
Now maybe the ferry can carry US 10 shields.
Already has their homemade shield
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crainsdetroit.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcsi.dll%2Fstoryimage%2FCD%2F20120509%2FFREE%2F120509888%2FAR%2F0%2FAR-120509888.jpg%26amp%3BMaxW%3D1400%26amp%3BMaxH%3D1400&hash=121c85b3be767c4763217e955d2041d10b82d41b)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 08, 2015, 10:32:16 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 08, 2015, 10:14:29 AM
The two segments of US 10 in Michigan and Wisconsin are now "connected":

http://www.channel3000.com/money/route-taken-by-lake-michigan-ferry-getting-new-designation/34050764

Now I know it wasn't official before this, but wasn't the ferry always thought of as connecting the two segments? Now maybe the ferry can carry US 10 shields.


Previously, they were two segments.  The first one in Michigan, the second Wisconsin and westward.  Similar to US-2.

Now they are considered one segment with the ferry line being part of the route.  Similar to US-101 prior to the Golden Gate.

It is a distinction without a meaningful difference.  Basically a PR thing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 08, 2015, 02:53:06 PM
Personally, I've always considered US 10 in Michigan, and US 10 from Wisconsin westward to be one route. As for the two US 2's, they can be considered two routes. That also includes the two US 422s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on July 08, 2015, 04:58:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2015, 05:03:15 PM
At $66 a person plus $66 for your car, the cost has to be factor that comes into play as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 08, 2015, 07:24:37 PM
There was actually a period in the 90s where the ferry didn't run between the 2 cities and the ferry was actually used more for railways in the past, which is probably why the ferry didn't have the US 10 designation.  The Manitowoc Ferry has to compete with the Lake Express, which is a newer ferry service that revived the route that connected the sections of US 16 between Milwaukee and Muskegon.  The SS Badger probably sees the US 10 designation as a leg up on the competition. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 08, 2015, 09:50:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2015, 05:03:15 PM
At $66 a person plus $66 for your car, the cost has to be factor that comes into play as well.

F***, it's that cheap? That's not a terrible price at all! I remember it being more expensive before.

The competition is $86.50 or $99 per adult, plus $99 for your car.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 08, 2015, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 08, 2015, 04:58:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.

Does this include the time you sit in traffic through Chicago or assume you make it through there with only minor delays?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 09, 2015, 12:54:29 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on July 08, 2015, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 08, 2015, 04:58:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.

Does this include the time you sit in traffic through Chicago or assume you make it through there with only minor delays?

What about tolls? It's been years since I made the trip from WI to MI via IL and IN. How much does that trip cost these days? The value of being able to avoid Chicagoland traffic alone has got to be worth a decent amount of money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
Saves miles on the car also, plus fuel costs.  A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.  Distance on the Lake Express between Milwaukee and Muskegon is more up for debate on time and money saved.  That saves about 1.5 hrs of travel time if traffic is normal and that ferry is faster since the 2 cities are closer by car than Manitowoc and Ludington are.  That ferry is also more expensive and there isn't really a cost savings with that ferry.  That ferry is also smaller than the SS Badger and the interior is set up more like an airplane with seating that looks like coach and first class.  The Lake Express must have business if it's still running, but if you compare the 2 ships the SS Badger looks more enjoyable. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 09, 2015, 07:23:22 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 09, 2015, 07:23:22 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2015, 12:11:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 09, 2015, 07:23:22 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on July 09, 2015, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on July 08, 2015, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 08, 2015, 04:58:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.

Does this include the time you sit in traffic through Chicago or assume you make it through there with only minor delays?
Well, Chicago traffic is the wildcard.  Of course, you also have to time the ferry correctly, and factor in a wait time there.  Basically, the further away you start/finish from Manitowoc/Ludington the less time advantage you seem to have with the ferry.  But as others have pointed out, there are other considerations (gas/wear and tear/stress/leisure), too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on July 09, 2015, 02:37:11 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 09, 2015, 12:54:29 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on July 08, 2015, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 08, 2015, 04:58:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.

Does this include the time you sit in traffic through Chicago or assume you make it through there with only minor delays?

What about tolls? It's been years since I made the trip from WI to MI via IL and IN. How much does that trip cost these days? The value of being able to avoid Chicagoland traffic alone has got to be worth a decent amount of money.
It depends upon the exact route, of course, but I think the most you would have to pay, if you paid in cash, would be just under $15 for the most expensive route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 11, 2015, 06:01:09 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on July 02, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
I took a little trip down Lake Street in Eau Claire: (click to enlarge)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FG84Gl9N.jpg%3F1&hash=7e7221fc03d7cf786dda829bceabc1a72f111a22)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw2I2r6B.jpg%3F1&hash=ceed86bb54653d93f8cf5918ad75c07a4be1c90b)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuxLk5fk.jpg%3F2&hash=a45ddcedd0de800d5f6b9f95bfd585e1a371e9ea)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeDB0Zkj.jpg%3F1&hash=c34502f616377d1160e94607bf7e54edce6a0692)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fqbetaor.jpg%3F1&hash=b1d9a89176703ac4e7edc03d410a1ce6c98e686a)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKgdHt7f.jpg%3F1&hash=c67c55943c0f39c1592406eea181081d385d8c9d)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlQ0Zqj4.jpg%3F1&hash=d2cf5b6810b7d38d1f05134e1c5bdf1c7736b14f)
(Yes, they where taken with a phone, sorry there not the best.)

As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.
Wow I didn't know this was here. I will have to bike down there soon and check it out. This installation looks far better than the galloway/farwell one. That two monotubes for two different directions on one pole looks tacky.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on July 12, 2015, 01:35:36 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on June 27, 2015, 10:15:46 PM
I have a feeling as time passes, the stop bar signal head will go away as engineers realize it is not needed anymore.

Plus the intersection in the news clip gives a perfect example of why not to have the stop bar signal head.  A stop bar signal head and yield sign at that intersection would only be a few feet from each other which could confuse drivers (especially those unfamiliar with Wi's stop bar signal head standard).  By removing the stop bar signal head, it is clear to drivers making a right turn that the yield sign controls that movement.

But in cases where the right turn is signalized, the stop bar/near right signal head can be useful if one is following a semi or other large vehicle.  The far side right cannot always be placed far enough right to get the same visibility.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on July 02, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw2I2r6B.jpg%3F1&hash=ceed86bb54653d93f8cf5918ad75c07a4be1c90b)

I can't make out for sure what the far left heads on the legs with the doghouses are; are they standard FYA heads or four sections with a bimodal green arrow/FYA section?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 13, 2015, 12:03:10 AM
Trombone assembly not dead yet.  In Altoona a new traffic signal is being installed.  Interesting how the Eau Claire area is getting all of the new traffic signal installations.  Fast forward to :05 on the video link below.

http://www.wqow.com/story/29514249/2015/07/09/river-prairie-drive-closes-overnight-for-traffic-light-installation
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 14, 2015, 11:47:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 13, 2015, 12:03:10 AM
Trombone assembly not dead yet.  In Altoona a new traffic signal is being installed.  Interesting how the Eau Claire area is getting all of the new traffic signal installations.  Fast forward to :05 on the video link below.

http://www.wqow.com/story/29514249/2015/07/09/river-prairie-drive-closes-overnight-for-traffic-light-installation
Those are not new. Those have been here since the 53 bypass was constructed with the river prairie exit. New intersections on river prairie Dr. Show the new monotube style signals, with fya, so either they are taking down the trombone signals in the video and then replaced them, or have updated them with fya. I just know those trombones have been there as long as the exit. Check gsv.
BUT- Yes they still are being installed. Last fall the I94&WI37 Interchange facelift was complete with new monotone signals, but here's the catch- For the Eastbound I94 Entrance/Exit and the crowd that connects on the other side of the intersection, trombones with horizontal signals were used, even though 37 got new vertical monotone signals. The other WB entrance/exit intersection is all vertical monotone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 15, 2015, 01:31:56 AM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on July 14, 2015, 11:47:48 PM
BUT- Yes they still are being installed. Last fall the I94&WI37 Interchange facelift was complete with new monotone signals, but here's the catch- For the Eastbound I94 Entrance/Exit and the crowd that connects on the other side of the intersection, trombones with horizontal signals were used, even though 37 got new vertical monotone signals. The other WB entrance/exit intersection is all vertical monotone.

This is not specifically a remark for the WI 37 and I94 interchange but more of a general comment.  I am not a fan of intermixing the two styles.  Drivers have the expectation of looking for similar signal layouts at the same intersection (It should all be either horizontal or all be vertical).

Drivers get use to looking for one style and get accustomed to looking for signal heads in specific places.  An example is if you go through 3 intersections in a downtown and 2 have overhead mast arms but the 3rd only has signal heads on poles on either side, a driver may be looking for an overhead signal head at the 3rd intersection and because they don't see it, run the light.  I know it is the drivers fault if they run a red but still it is good to have consistency for this exact reason.

I'm being bold and am definitely going to get some feedback on this statement, in my opinion the horizontal layouts and trombone arms should be phased out (not mandatory by a certain date but when an intersection comes up for a rebuild).  I know many people love the trombones but in the future as the MUTCD and FHWA wind loading requirements get more stringent the trombones will not meet the standards.  I also believe connecting highway limits are a terrible idea (especially for signal maintenance and signal coordination), but that's another whole conversation.  Creating a specific signal layout at intersections across the state allows for drivers to expect signal heads to be located in a specific location as they go through intersections (Think about it, that is what we see today with the trombone set up, because it is the standard, drivers became accustomed to it looking for signal heads in specific locations).  It also creates a uniform construction specification for construction materials, construction practices, ease in estimating bid prices, etc for contractors and construction.  If a municipality comes up with their own pole style (Green Bay or Milwaukee are a perfect example) it has to mean the signal heads get placed in similar locations and vertical like the rest of the state.  The current policy of letting municipalities do what they want just will create a hodge podge mess of signal layouts and poles across the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 15, 2015, 04:40:39 AM
The trombone based assemblies meet the MUTCD signal per lane setups just fine.  WisDOT replaces the trombone with the monotube but adds more signal heads to the overall count - that's excessive..
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: noelbotevera on July 15, 2015, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2015, 12:11:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 09, 2015, 07:23:22 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience.
No, the ferry is used for people who want to shortcut from Chicago and jump into Michigan. It helps for people who live in the Twin Cities all the way to Wisconsin towns and cities if you want to head to Detroit and Grand Rapids (or Lansing).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:12:26 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 15, 2015, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2015, 12:11:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 09, 2015, 07:23:22 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience.
No, the ferry is used for people who want to shortcut from Chicago and jump into Michigan. It helps for people who live in the Twin Cities all the way to Wisconsin towns and cities if you want to head to Detroit and Grand Rapids (or Lansing).

What are you basing this statement on?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:21:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:12:26 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 15, 2015, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2015, 12:11:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 09, 2015, 07:23:22 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience.
No, the ferry is used for people who want to shortcut from Chicago and jump into Michigan. It helps for people who live in the Twin Cities all the way to Wisconsin towns and cities if you want to head to Detroit and Grand Rapids (or Lansing).

What are you basing this statement on?

The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:21:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:12:26 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 15, 2015, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2015, 12:11:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 09, 2015, 07:23:22 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience.
No, the ferry is used for people who want to shortcut from Chicago and jump into Michigan. It helps for people who live in the Twin Cities all the way to Wisconsin towns and cities if you want to head to Detroit and Grand Rapids (or Lansing).

What are you basing this statement on?

The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:27:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:21:18 PM
The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:

Sorry, I've had to do that at rush hour many, many times for the obvious reasons (see my location).  It really does suck, and I wish I could avoid it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:33:45 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:27:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:21:18 PM
The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:

Sorry, I've had to do that at rush hour many, many times for the obvious reasons (see my location). 

On the way to Michigan? :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:44:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:33:45 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:27:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:21:18 PM
The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:

Sorry, I've had to do that at rush hour many, many times for the obvious reasons (see my location). 

On the way to Michigan? :D

To Michigan, to Wisconsin, to the Loop, to almost any suburb.  :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:44:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:33:45 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:27:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:21:18 PM
The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:

Sorry, I've had to do that at rush hour many, many times for the obvious reasons (see my location). 

On the way to Michigan? :D

To Michigan, to Wisconsin, to the Loop, to almost any suburb.  :D

Well, obviously you should have taken the ferry!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on July 15, 2015, 01:42:56 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 12, 2015, 01:35:36 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on June 27, 2015, 10:15:46 PM
I have a feeling as time passes, the stop bar signal head will go away as engineers realize it is not needed anymore.

Plus the intersection in the news clip gives a perfect example of why not to have the stop bar signal head.  A stop bar signal head and yield sign at that intersection would only be a few feet from each other which could confuse drivers (especially those unfamiliar with Wi's stop bar signal head standard).  By removing the stop bar signal head, it is clear to drivers making a right turn that the yield sign controls that movement.

But in cases where the right turn is signalized, the stop bar/near right signal head can be useful if one is following a semi or other large vehicle.  The far side right cannot always be placed far enough right to get the same visibility.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on July 02, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw2I2r6B.jpg%3F1&hash=ceed86bb54653d93f8cf5918ad75c07a4be1c90b)

I can't make out for sure what the far left heads on the legs with the doghouses are; are they standard FYA heads or four sections with a bimodal green arrow/FYA section?

It's clearly a four section head, with the second from the bottom lit up with a yellow arrow. If it's a copy of the initial Minnesota FYA doghouse installation, which has the exact same configuration except for an additional four section head on the end of the mast in one direction, it operates in split phase during peak times and permissive only at other times. This was the original approved setup, Mn/DOT later modified the phasing to protected/permissive without FHWA approval, and these installations have a second doghouse on the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onyZQcgkMOw
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 15, 2015, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on July 15, 2015, 01:42:56 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 12, 2015, 01:35:36 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on June 27, 2015, 10:15:46 PM
I have a feeling as time passes, the stop bar signal head will go away as engineers realize it is not needed anymore.

Plus the intersection in the news clip gives a perfect example of why not to have the stop bar signal head.  A stop bar signal head and yield sign at that intersection would only be a few feet from each other which could confuse drivers (especially those unfamiliar with Wi's stop bar signal head standard).  By removing the stop bar signal head, it is clear to drivers making a right turn that the yield sign controls that movement.

But in cases where the right turn is signalized, the stop bar/near right signal head can be useful if one is following a semi or other large vehicle.  The far side right cannot always be placed far enough right to get the same visibility.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on July 02, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw2I2r6B.jpg%3F1&hash=ceed86bb54653d93f8cf5918ad75c07a4be1c90b)

I can't make out for sure what the far left heads on the legs with the doghouses are; are they standard FYA heads or four sections with a bimodal green arrow/FYA section?

It's clearly a four section head, with the second from the bottom lit up with a yellow arrow. If it's a copy of the initial Minnesota FYA doghouse installation, which has the exact same configuration except for an additional four section head on the end of the mast in one direction, it operates in split phase during peak times and permissive only at other times. This was the original approved setup, Mn/DOT later modified the phasing to protected/permissive without FHWA approval, and these installations have a second doghouse on the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onyZQcgkMOw
I do think this is correct. This intersection and the Farwell/Galloway intersection, the Road with the doghouse fya, there is no dedicated turn lane. It is a split left/thru lane, and since there are video detection cameras, I think when traffic turning left gets backed up yielding, they will get a protected.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 15, 2015, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 13, 2015, 12:03:10 AM
Trombone assembly not dead yet.  In Altoona a new traffic signal is being installed.  Interesting how the Eau Claire area is getting all of the new traffic signal installations.  Fast forward to :05 on the video link below.

http://www.wqow.com/story/29514249/2015/07/09/river-prairie-drive-closes-overnight-for-traffic-light-installation
Further Update: I went by to check this intersection out today, and most of the trombone masts have been removed and only pieces of the old setup remain. I may go get pictures of the whole Construction ordeal near there Friday as well as check out lake/1 st ave.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 16, 2015, 11:34:17 AM
Looks like Pewaukee may be the future recipient of an echelon intersection. This one would be at WIS 190 (Capitol Drive) and WIS 164.

http://www.lakecountrynow.com/news/lakecountryreporter/residents-react-to-capitol-drive-corridor-study-b99534458z1-315282371.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dcharlie on July 16, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Maybe one in Madison too...  https://vimeo.com/62373271

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on July 16, 2015, 03:06:07 PM
Madison has a hybrid echelon-jug handle at Mineral Point Rd (County Trunk S) and Junction Road (County Trunk M) just west of the Beltline on the far western edge of town. 

Some comments:  The jug handle creates two sets of stoplights for through movements on Mineral Point.  It could provide an opportunity for free flow turns to southbound Junction Road, but those are also controlled by stoplights.  The increased efficiency of the jug handle for southbound Junction Road is therefore lost.  I'm not sure if a pure echelon would have been better--any thoughts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on July 16, 2015, 07:54:17 PM
They need to raise the speed limit on the US 12 Baraboo bypass when the entire thing is finished. 55 mph is too low.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 16, 2015, 10:44:16 PM
I believe the 55MPH limit was a local requirement for WisDOT to build the bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 17, 2015, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: dcharlie on July 16, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Maybe one in Madison too...  https://vimeo.com/62373271

Glad you included the video, I'm not sure many people even in the engineering world have heard of the Echelon Interchange.  I understand substantial  benefits this interchange has operations wise but the costs of these are so substantial in terms of walls and bridge structures, it will be interesting to see if one ever gets built.  Especially with DOT entering a new era of tight fiscal constraints, where it will be difficult to find money for maintenance projects, I find it had to believe a region office would devote such a substantial sum of funding to one intersection out of their normal 3R budget.  The only way I ever see one getting built is if it is done out of majors funding.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 17, 2015, 09:17:33 AM
On a different note, I have a question regarding WisDOT/Traffic signal "Practices"
A common wisconsin setup is Protective only left turn signals, fya, or 5 stack in the median for left turns with Green Straight arrows,Yellow Ball, Red ball for the median thru signals, as well as the trombone vertically mounted left through lane signal. Here is where my question comes in. Today and over the last week ive noticed the thru signals have been changed from a green up arrow to a standard green ball. Why would this be? I will try to provide a flickr link. This is not the example i was looking for but it is on Clairemont, and is kind of similar to what im talking about. Type this into your browser: https://flic.kr/p/nSkWn2  This is a FYA/Thru signal. The aspect in question is the green straight arrow. Ive been noticing these being replaced with green balls. Anyone know why? Sorry for the long post.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on July 17, 2015, 09:46:30 AM
I don't know if this applies here, but before WI went crazy with arrows and different colors / flashing...
A green left arrow (or green ball with a sign below it that said "left turn signal")+ a green ball would be lit, then no arrow and just a green ball (basically equivalent to a flashing yellow arrow these days), and then a red ball (again no arrow).

I prefer these 4 light style setups. Much simpler to both setup & understand IMO.

I don't know why would they get rid of the green straight arrow. Did they remove the left turn arrows?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 17, 2015, 10:34:31 AM
^^
Isn't that spelled out in the MUTCD?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on July 17, 2015, 11:53:41 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 16, 2015, 10:44:16 PM
I believe the 55MPH limit was a local requirement for WisDOT to build the bypass.

I kind of like the idea of the reduced speed limit--one more thing to make US 12 less appealing as an alternative to 90/94 between the Dells and Madison (assuming some day that a Sauk City bypass is built, and the stoplights will be removed between there and Ashton Corners at County K north of Middleton)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 18, 2015, 11:20:45 PM
Quote from: colinstu on July 17, 2015, 09:46:30 AM
I don't know if this applies here, but before WI went crazy with arrows and different colors / flashing...

I don't know why would they get rid of the green straight arrow. Did they remove the left turn arrows?
No, the turn signals are still there. I wonder if it's has something to do with a lot of the already LED signalized intersections getting the new standard LED fixture/insert.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on July 18, 2015, 11:53:39 PM
Quote from: colinstu on July 17, 2015, 09:46:30 AM
I don't know why would they get rid of the green straight arrow. Did they remove the left turn arrows?

Wild guess:  For some reason green arrows do not seem to be as visible as red and yellow arrows are, much less a circular green, and Wisconsin is using this reason for preferring circular green indications over green arrows.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 21, 2015, 12:04:23 PM
Interesting article about the new speed limit. Of interest is the last paragraph:

"There are roadways built to freeway standards that were not automatically switched over from 65 to 70," state Southeast Region Communications Manager Michael Pyritz said. "There are areas out there that are at 65, but if the roadway is sufficient to meet freeway standards, the department is looking into changing those to 70, as well."

http://www.brookfieldnow.com/news/state-patrol-warns-that-higher-speed-limit-on-i-94-does-not-mean-go-faster-b99541242z1-317594491.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 21, 2015, 01:30:56 PM
Like WIS  16 Pewaukee to Oconomowoc, US-45 to West Bend, US 41/141 to the split, US-51 to Merrill and US-53 to Rice Lake.  US-10 and US-45 in Winnebago Co are questionable.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 22, 2015, 12:29:24 AM
U.S. 10/45 would have a continuous stretch of 70 mph from I-41 so I think they'd be great candidates to upgrade to 70.  U.S. 12 also in the Lake Geneva area.  Was in Wausau and the reduced speed signs were right at the I-39 terminus.  Will be interesting if the DOT plans to keep them those signs short or long term.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 22, 2015, 07:25:47 PM
They do...if they take I-94 to I-39.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 22, 2015, 07:53:40 PM
Politico has a nice, in-depth article discussing the hard budget choices the Wisconsin legislature encountered this session, and a discussion about how it ties into the larger national infrastructure funding crisis.

Politico: Overpasses: A love story
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/transportation-infrastructure-scott-walker-highways-000153?hp=t1_r#
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 22, 2015, 11:01:46 PM
Then the "no less than 70" isn't needed, at least on segments that aren't 100% freeway compatible (IE: limited access via interchanges)!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 23, 2015, 02:28:43 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 22, 2015, 07:53:40 PM
Politico has a nice, in-depth article discussing the hard budget choices the Wisconsin legislature encountered this session, and a discussion about how it ties into the larger national infrastructure funding crisis.

Politico: Overpasses: A love story
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/transportation-infrastructure-scott-walker-highways-000153?hp=t1_r#

Seems like the article focused a lot on not funding public transportation.  If enough people ride buses and trains, they would be self sufficient and wouldn't need to be subsidized.  Hardly anyone would use a commuter line to the suburbs or rail from Madison to Milwaukee since its way more convenient to drive, and the fares would probably be more expensive than driving.  Transit is needed for people that can't get around and the current bus system is adequate.  Trains would be a complete waste and the streetcar in Milwaukee will soon prove it.  As for Chicago to Minneapolis high speed rail, it would be a complete waste of money.  People already fly between the 2 cities and it's way more convenient and faster than s train.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on July 23, 2015, 04:49:27 AM
It's a double-edge sword. If public transit was more convenient, more people would use it - of course, that would mean putting much more money into it than we are right now. Trust me, when I went to Chicago on a day trip last year I was more than happy to drop my car at Rosemont Station and let buses and trains ferry me around for the day. I think more people dislike driving than we realize and would really rather other people do it for them, but that's just not possible for most people.

Unfortunately, public transit in the US still has the strong stigma attached that only poor people and hippies use it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 23, 2015, 06:05:12 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 23, 2015, 04:49:27 AM
It's a double-edge sword. If public transit was more convenient, more people would use it - of course, that would mean putting much more money into it than we are right now. Trust me, when I went to Chicago on a day trip last year I was more than happy to drop my car at Rosemont Station and let buses and trains ferry me around for the day. I think more people dislike driving than we realize and would really rather other people do it for them, but that's just not possible for most people.

Unfortunately, public transit in the US still has the strong stigma attached that only poor people and hippies use it.

In Chicago, public transit works great because they have a higher population and most places that people need to go are Downtown.  In a lot of other metro areas, everything is so spread out all over the city.  I do not understand why cities would want a street car.  They're slow and disrupt traffic.  It would be a lot cheaper and efficient to paint a dedicated bus lane and run a bus instead. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

Moland - enough with the NIMBY shit.  everyone has their views.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 23, 2015, 07:17:41 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 22, 2015, 11:38:59 PM
You stupid NIMBY. Time is money, and that's all I'm going to say about this subject.


What kind of response is that?  You really think people are going to care about your POV with that kind of crap?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 23, 2015, 10:41:05 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 23, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
I don't really care what GeekJedi thinks of my point of view. I'm sorry, I get defensive when people think that major freeways shouldn't be at least 70 mph. 65 mph feels like a crawl.

You are talking saving less than 5 minutes on a drive of about 65 miles.  Clearly important enough to flip out on a discussion board.    :crazy:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 11:41:40 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

You still forget the high probability of construction cost over-runs. These train projects have been notorious for being over-budget, and not by small amounts either. Don't get me wrong, I still like the idea of a train, but there has to be some incentive for me (and many others like me) to use it. It's still cheaper for me to drive between Milwaukee and Madison (and will be for a long time), plus I'm not bound by a train schedule. My cargo limit is much greater by driving, in addition to being able to make spur of the moment changes in travel - taking a side trip to Oconomowoc or Delafield without having to worry about said cargo or how to get around beyond the train. The biggest thing that kills it for me and probably many others is the fact that there is very little time benefit (referring to the Madison to Milwaukee route). Any time saved by the train is eaten up by ticketing, security, and transfer to other modes of transportation once I am off the train. Passenger trains are great for a dense corridor of commuters, but many of those going between Madison and Chicago are either going to catch a flight out of O'Hare or for a weekend getaway, not traveling for work. As for the I-94 corridor, once you get west of Waukesha/Delafield, congestion is next to non-existent the majority of the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 07:49:22 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 23, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
I don't really care what GeekJedi thinks of my point of view. I'm sorry, I get defensive when people think that major freeways shouldn't be at least 70 mph. 65 mph feels like a crawl.

You shouldn't care about what I think about your point of view. If this is what gets you mad in life, then maybe you need to rethink your priorities. Last I heard, a forum is a place where people with different points of view can have a discussion.

I'm not even sure what the hell being a NIMBY has to do with a speed limit...especially for a chunk of road that is definitely nowhere near my back yard! As SEWIGuy pointed out the time savings are negligible, and I believe there are still sections of road where 70 is not appropriate. As of right now, most major freeways are 70 MPH (some exceptions are US 45, US 151 from Madison to Columbus, the Fox valley sections of US 45 and US 10)- however roads with cross traffic are not "major freeways". That has nothing to do with being a NIMBY, and everything to do with being an adult who puts safety at a higher premium than saving 5 minutes on a drive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 24, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

The $700 million is not free money from the feds, everyone on this board including myself pay into that money VIA taxes.  If you wonder why our national debt is so high, money is being spent left and right on projects that state and local governments see as "free money," and the logic is that if it's given to us, why not spend it?  States have to balance their budgets while the federal government doesn't have to, which is why minimal scrutiny is given every time the federal government spends money.  If the federal government had to balance their books, money given away on projects wouldn't be seen as "free" and more careful consideration would be given before giving out grants like governments at the state and local level have to. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 24, 2015, 11:08:46 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 24, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

The $700 million is not free money from the feds, everyone on this board including myself pay into that money VIA taxes.  If you wonder why our national debt is so high, money is being spent left and right on projects that state and local governments see as "free money," and the logic is that if it's given to us, why not spend it?  States have to balance their budgets while the federal government doesn't have to, which is why minimal scrutiny is given every time the federal government spends money.  If the federal government had to balance their books, money given away on projects wouldn't be seen as "free" and more careful consideration would be given before giving out grants like governments at the state and local level have to. 

So what? The money got spent anyway. Except instead of benefiting Wisconsin's economy, it went elsewhere. You're still paying your infinitesimally small portion of it. Turning that money down was incredibly short sighted and the political equivalent of plugging ones ears and shouting "nuh uhh!"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 24, 2015, 11:15:34 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

Perhaps it's become a political football in Wisconsin but it is worth noting that the high-speed rail line in question was developed under Governor Thompson.  It seems like it only became a political kludge once the project was picked up by the Doyle administration and was funded by the Obama administration.  That's when talk radio grabbed it like an angry Rottweiler and made it the issue that it is today.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on July 24, 2015, 11:20:32 AM
It's easy to say "I don't use trains/buses, so funding them is a waste and I think it should be cut in favor of more road spending."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 24, 2015, 05:38:41 PM
How bad are the signs on the Burlington Bypass?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 25, 2015, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

They could have restored conventional (this proposal was *NOT* 'high speed') service to the FdL/Oshkosh/Appleton/Green Bay area for a quarter of the cost and it would have been much more successful.

AND - this forvm is not the place for childish partisan cheap shots, OK?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on July 25, 2015, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jreuschl on July 25, 2015, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 25, 2015, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 25, 2015, 11:29:50 PM
on a note about roads, I can now confirm I-39 through Point is 70 the entire way as I had suspected based on other observations.  The 70 zone ends 1/4 mile short of the I-39 terminus - as I would expect at this point. 

After resetting my cruise for non-I mode, I have noticed a good handful of cars flying right by me in the 65 zone north of Wausau.  WisDOT should relay info to the State Patrol.  Set up a car with radar - PROFIT! :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 26, 2015, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: jreuschl on July 25, 2015, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 25, 2015, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P

According to the traffic counts, the only stretch of the bypass that gets above 10,000 vpd is between Wis 11 East and Wis 83 south.  Interesting that the western end gets only 2500 vpd and is 4 lanes, then the count more than doubles to 5900 and narrows to 2 lanes.  The other design I don't understand with that project is why traffic lights are used instead of interchanges at the busiest junctions, and jug handles are used at the less busy junctions?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 26, 2015, 10:44:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 26, 2015, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: jreuschl on July 25, 2015, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 25, 2015, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P

According to the traffic counts, the only stretch of the bypass that gets above 10,000 vpd is between Wis 11 East and Wis 83 south.  Interesting that the western end gets only 2500 vpd and is 4 lanes, then the count more than doubles to 5900 and narrows to 2 lanes.  The other design I don't understand with that project is why traffic lights are used instead of interchanges at the busiest junctions, and jug handles are used at the less busy junctions?

In terms of the low speed ramps, why would drivers have to worry about getting up to speed if there is very little traffic?  :D
^Just a fun quirk, in my mind they would have been better off to avoid these all together or extend the acceleration lanes.

Old D2 (Now SE Region), really liked the quadrant interchange designs with a lack of acceleration lanes.  Works for areas with really low traffic volumes where you want grade separation.  Random note, now the state taxpayers are picking up the tab to replace this interchange style in Fond Du Lac (that bypass is a whole another story and a perfect example of how not to build a bypass).

Why the Burlington bypass was built as four lanes compared with whitewater as two lanes is a great question, if someone knows chime in.  Although with the volumes a "Super Two" would have worked fine.  My guess is it was political, many of these bypasses were enumerated into the majors program through the budget process to get support for other projects (and to get votes).  I also don't like that there is a mix of stoplights and interchanges, it messes with drivers expectations. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 28, 2015, 05:30:48 PM
Not anything we haven't already discussed, but in the news today...

http://www.lakecountrynow.com/opinion/why-doesnt-highway-16-have-a-70-mph-speed-limit-b99541751z1-318638001.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 10, 2015, 01:17:34 PM
While I-41 is being signed, I'm noticing that the Northeast Region is primarily using aluminum signs while the Southeast Region is using the traditional plywood for signs.  Are different regions deciding to use different materials for their signs?  I thought it might be because there are more routes signed together on the south end, but I saw some standalone I-41 signs that are plywood in Kenosha County where the new signs around Green Bay are aluminum, and the new I-41/US 41/US 141/Lake Michigan Circle Tour sign is one panel and is completely aluminum.  Along Wis 29, the plywood signs are also being replaced with aluminum.  Could the Northeast Region be experimenting to see which material holds up better or do different regions decide what type of signs to use? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 10, 2015, 02:00:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 10, 2015, 01:17:34 PM
While I-41 is being signed, I'm noticing that the Northeast Region is primarily using aluminum signs while the Southeast Region is using the traditional plywood for signs.  Are different regions deciding to use different materials for their signs?  I thought it might be because there are more routes signed together on the south end, but I saw some standalone I-41 signs that are plywood in Kenosha County where the new signs around Green Bay are aluminum, and the new I-41/US 41/US 141/Lake Michigan Circle Tour sign is one panel and is completely aluminum.  Along Wis 29, the plywood signs are also being replaced with aluminum.  Could the Northeast Region be experimenting to see which material holds up better or do different regions decide what type of signs to use?

I'm not aware of any experiments, but typically there's no rhyme or reason. IRRC, there are some small green/white guide signs on aluminum blanks at the I-41/Wis 33 interchange (SE Region) that would typically be on wood. Could be whatever's cheaper at the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mahaasma on August 15, 2015, 10:56:53 PM
Has anyone driven in Eau Claire lately?  I recently noticed a flurry of ALT 53 signs being posted, both at exits on the US-53 bypass,  and on portions of Business 53 through town.  I didn't have time to take a closer look,  but it even appeared that some Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT-53 signs.

Anyone have any insights on this?  Why would you need to resign a business route as an ALT route?  (other than to give road geeks something to geek about and discuss...)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 16, 2015, 02:47:11 AM
http://www.wqow.com/story/29643983/2015/07/27/southbound-ramps-to-highway-53-closed-due-to-highway-repairs

There was a construction project on US 53 to repair a section of road that had a big dip and some ramps had to close.  It probably had something to do with that. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 19, 2015, 08:47:44 PM
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/talgo-to-keep-trains-get-10-million-more-in-settlement-b99560687z1-322348321.html

So, no train, and we're out $50+ million (plus the losses from not having a train to Madison). Good going, chumps!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2015, 08:53:50 PM
Even if you don't support the Madison line, this payment is for replacement trains for the Hiawatha line that cost $42M plus a 20 year maintenance contract.  So they are out $50 million and have no replacement trains. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 19, 2015, 11:33:43 PM
That deal reeked to high heaven when it was first announced, too, IMHO, the first reason being that it was a no-bid contract.

:no:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 19, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
High speed rail isn't practical in most parts of the U.S.  It would work on the east coast because the cities are a lot closer together.  The 400 line between Chicago and Minneapolis was a high speed line, and it shut down due to lack of passengers in the mid 60s.  I don't understand why a line between those 2 cities is needed when they're an hour plane ride away.  Planes are way more convenient than trains are.  As for Madison to Milwaukee, it's a lot easier to drive and the passenger count would have been low to the point that the state would have to pickup the operation costs. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 20, 2015, 12:21:41 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 19, 2015, 11:33:43 PM
That deal reeked to high heaven when it was first announced, too, IMHO, the first reason being that it was a no-bid contract.

:no:

Mike

Agreed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2015, 08:30:29 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 19, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
High speed rail isn't practical in most parts of the U.S.  It would work on the east coast because the cities are a lot closer together.  The 400 line between Chicago and Minneapolis was a high speed line, and it shut down due to lack of passengers in the mid 60s.  I don't understand why a line between those 2 cities is needed when they're an hour plane ride away.  Planes are way more convenient than trains are.  As for Madison to Milwaukee, it's a lot easier to drive and the passenger count would have been low to the point that the state would have to pickup the operation costs. 


A train is by far the most convenient way to go from downtown Milwaukee to Chicago. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: HandsomeRob on August 20, 2015, 01:26:16 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 19, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
Planes are way more convenient than trains are.

If I'm going across the country, yes. Otherwise, I'd much rather have a high-speed train. I don't have to show up an hour ahead of time. 10 minutes should do it. It's way, way, way more comfortable. It takes me right into the city, instead of to an airport in the suburbs that's usually a half hour drive away. I don't have to check my luggage.

Yes, it's a faster trip on a plane. But when you factor in the time before takeoff and after landing that you need to invest when you fly, I'm not sure it's a faster trip at all.

In summary, "planes are way more convenient than trains are" is the kind of thing someone who's never used modern high-speed rail would say.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 20, 2015, 03:50:12 PM
If the cities are close together, such as New York and Philadelphia, then a high speed train would be more practical than flying.  The 400 line between Minneapolis and Chicago was just as fast as high speed rail lines would be now so why did that line close up in 1963?  Trains on that line reached 112 mph, and that line now is part of the Elroy-Sparta Trail.  If people wanted to use high speed rail, the 400 would still be in business today, and rail lines would have continued to be upgraded by private industry if they were profitable, but they weren't.  It would be great if prices on flights would be more balanced to make it more convenient for people in smaller towns to fly.  I just flew from Chicago to Dallas 2 weeks ago for $240, that same flight would have cost $500 if I flew out of Green Bay so I was willing to drive to Chicago for the cheaper flight.  Price differences like that should be looked at to make travel more convenient. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 20, 2015, 04:33:03 PM
A couple things, Peter. You have to understand that US high-speed rail is inferior to that of a number of Western European nations and Japan. If we could develop rail on par (both in terms of cost as well as efficiency) with those nations it would make high-speed rail much more attractive. I also think this is not 1963 anymore where more people are open to alternative methods of travel than cars and planes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 20, 2015, 09:58:31 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 20, 2015, 04:33:03 PM
A couple things, Peter. You have to understand that US high-speed rail is inferior to that of a number of Western European nations and Japan. If we could develop rail on par (both in terms of cost as well as efficiency) with those nations it would make high-speed rail much more attractive. I also think this is not 1963 anymore where more people are open to alternative methods of travel than cars and planes.

Those countries in Europe are so much smaller areawise also than the United States.  Japan's high speed rail network is only 1810 miles, that's barely enough to make a dent in the United States.  If rail transportation was profitable, the private sector market would have expanded rail.  Freight service is booming in the U.S. and freight companies are quietly making huge profits because there is high demand.  Those same companies don't offer passenger rail because it isn't economically viable.  If a government subsidy is required, it's because the demand isn't there in most instances.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 20, 2015, 10:30:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 19, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
High speed rail isn't practical in most parts of the U.S.  It would work on the east coast because the cities are a lot closer together.  The 400 line between Chicago and Minneapolis was a high speed line, and it shut down due to lack of passengers in the mid 60s.  I don't understand why a line between those 2 cities is needed when they're an hour plane ride away.  Planes are way more convenient than trains are.  As for Madison to Milwaukee, it's a lot easier to drive and the passenger count would have been low to the point that the state would have to pickup the operation costs.

Three letters here:

'T', 'S' and 'A'.

-----------------------

Anyways, had Doyle announced restoring enhanced conventional-speed service to the Fond du Lac/Oshkosh/Appleton/Green Bay corridor first (estimated cost $150M-175M - only about 20% of the cost of such a restoration on the Madison line), IMHO, it would be up and running now.  Remember that Amtrak wanted to take over the CNW's Green Bay (via Appleton) service on their start up back in 1971 - it was very popular and operating at a *PROFIT* 'above the rails'.

HOWEVER, CNW's track was starting to deteriorate and needed a chip-in from the state for the work that was needed in order for Amtrak to be able to take it over.  The legislature of the day (also remember that this was the time of the Apollo Moon landings), despite the line's popularity with the daytrip crowd, especially with businessguys, thinking that rail was 'quaint and old fashioned' in the age of air and space travel, balked.  Had they agreed, NE Wisconsin would likely now have very useful and popular service from eight-ten (or perhaps more) daily round trips of extended Hiawathas and this would be a non-issue.

NE Wisconsin is just the right distance and direction from Chicago for such a service to be hugely popular and today, track condition is virtually a non-issue.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on August 21, 2015, 09:48:30 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 20, 2015, 04:33:03 PM
A couple things, Peter. You have to understand that US high-speed rail is inferior to that of a number of Western European nations and Japan. If we could develop rail on par (both in terms of cost as well as efficiency) with those nations it would make high-speed rail much more attractive. I also think this is not 1963 anymore where more people are open to alternative methods of travel than cars and planes.

However, that said, those countries freight rail systems pale in comparison to ours.  Given a choice between having a superior freight rail system or a superior passenger rail system, I'll take the superior freight rail system.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 21, 2015, 11:31:59 AM
High speed rail works best within places of high population density.  In Europe it works great because you can get from one metro area to another very quickly without the hassle of flying.  However in the US I don't think it would work as well.  To use the aforementioned example, it is simply easier to fly between Chicago and Minneapolis - the 400 miles would take two hours (not including loading / unloading), etc., where it is an hour and 20 minute flight.  (And that includes from when you push off from the gate.)

Now there are certain places it would work.  But I think the US is simply too big and sparse to make it work nationally, or even regionally.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/World_population_density_1994.png
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 21, 2015, 10:33:14 PM
As I mentioned upthread, I'd likely find a restored service between NE Wisconsin and Chicago to be very useful - just the right distance and direction from DT Chicago to be perfect for the need.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on August 22, 2015, 06:01:47 PM
Quote from: mahaasma on August 15, 2015, 10:56:53 PM
Has anyone driven in Eau Claire lately?  I recently noticed a flurry of ALT 53 signs being posted, both at exits on the US-53 bypass,  and on portions of Business 53 through town.  I didn't have time to take a closer look,  but it even appeared that some Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT-53 signs.

Anyone have any insights on this?  Why would you need to resign a business route as an ALT route?  (other than to give road geeks something to geek about and discuss...)
I live in Eau Claire and see that once in a while. At the WI 93 Entrance, there is a set of beacons, and a sign reading "Use BUS 53 when flashing" and there are railroad crossing style ramp closed gates. I think these are for when accidents occur, so traffic easily knows what other roads to use.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2015, 11:12:37 AM
Small but interesting observation today.  Waukesha County has painted "Caution Turtle Crossing" onto County CI (former WI-106) just east of the Jefferson County at the part where it winds around a pond. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on August 27, 2015, 11:17:33 AM
Satellite imagery has been updated for Milwaukee (not sure how much of WI) under Google Map Maker (mapmaker.google.com)
Isn't the NEWEST but it's pretty darn new, gives a much better view of the progress of the Zoo interchange for those interested.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on August 27, 2015, 01:38:30 PM
Quote from: colinstu on August 27, 2015, 11:17:33 AM
Satellite imagery has been updated for Milwaukee (not sure how much of WI) under Google Map Maker (mapmaker.google.com)
Isn't the NEWEST but it's pretty darn new, gives a much better view of the progress of the Zoo interchange for those interested.
Looks to be from around June of this year or so. Also looks much nicer with the green tree canopy than the previous imagery from April 2014.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2015, 05:11:55 AM
As much as I despise summer aerials, it is nice to see the progress.
The temporary configuration at the Lake Interchange is interesting.  And check out the skyscraper construction downtown!  Two towers going up; both kitty-corner from the US Bank Center.  Northwestern Mutual's new building to the north and 833 E. Wisconsin to the south.

Seriously, summer is a bad time for aerials in this part of the world.  The deciduous trees block out a LOT of detail.  We have months and months with no leaves and no snow; that's when you take your shots, man.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 28, 2015, 10:14:19 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2015, 05:11:55 AM
As much as I despise summer aerials, it is nice to see the progress.
The temporary configuration at the Lake Interchange is interesting.  And check out the skyscraper construction downtown!  Two towers going up; both kitty-corner from the US Bank Center.  Northwestern Mutual's new building to the north and 833 E. Wisconsin to the south.

Seriously, summer is a bad time for aerials in this part of the world.  The deciduous trees block out a LOT of detail.  We have months and months with no leaves and no snow; that's when you take your shots, man.

AND, a couple of weeks ago, judge blessed a proposed 30+ floor residential building to go up by the Lake interchange.  The controversy centered on the site's status as filled former lake.

Like in many other cities, including nearby Chicago, there is a LOT of interest in downtown area residential.  The proposed new arena for the NBA Bucks should spark a similar interest in the area of the former Hillside interchange, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on August 29, 2015, 03:57:30 PM
*UPDATE*
Here is an update on the traffic signals on River Prairie Drive in Eau Claire/Altoona, now that woodmans is open, the new signals are activated.
Northbound US 53 & River Prairie Dr:
A new left turn lane was added to the off-ramp of NB US 53. The trombone signals mentioned in the news report that we thought were just being put up have been put back up, but are modified. All of the horizontal trombones remain except for the one for WB River Prairie Dr. A normal right hand and a backwards left hand median trombone arm has been put up, with vertical signals on each, 1 per lane. Here's the weird part. EB River Prairie Dr traffic turning left onto NB US 53 used to have a protected/Permissive 5 stack, but have been replaced with a protected-only 3 Section.
Southbound US 53 & R. P. Dr.:
All the horizontal trombones remain except the EB R.P.DR. traffic, which has the same dual trombone vertical setup as described above. WB R.P.Dr. traffic turning left onto SB US 53 has a protected/permissive FYA. It used to have a 5 stack.
Now these other two intersections west of US 53 I am not 100% sure of, but the one closest to US 53 is a strange intersection. The side street traffic can only turn right. But left turning traffic on R.P.DR. have 4 section FYA. You can see this intersection towards the end of the video in this report. http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Drivers-can-expect-delays-on-River-Prairie-Drive-as-road-construction-starts-309154421.html?device=tablet&c=y
*EDIT* The other intersection is a normal vertical mount monotube setup with Protected only signals for RPD, FYA for woodmans traffic, and either protected only or permissive only 3 Section for the not yet developed NW Quadrent. Also noted that this intersection has little (presumably) led lights next to the opticom sensors, just like the way Minnesota does them. I am not sure if the other 3 intersections got them. This will be the first intersection in eau Claire to have visual preemption confirmation. All signalized intersections in eau Claire have emergency vehicle preemption via opticom or whatever the other brand is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on August 29, 2015, 08:17:15 PM
Noticed a new addition to the freeways that are posted at 70MPH. WisDOT has now posted yellow "Exit 50MPH" advisory signs next to the BG exit signs (the sign before the exit gore). These have been popping up in the past few days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2015, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 29, 2015, 08:17:15 PM
Noticed a new addition to the freeways that are posted at 70MPH. WisDOT has now posted yellow "Exit 50MPH" advisory signs next to the BG exit signs (the sign before the exit gore). These have been popping up in the past few days.

I have noticed a lot less speed differentiation the last few weeks on the interstates.  People are picking up their speed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 29, 2015, 09:36:02 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 29, 2015, 08:17:15 PM
Noticed a new addition to the freeways that are posted at 70MPH. WisDOT has now posted yellow "Exit 50MPH" advisory signs next to the BG exit signs (the sign before the exit gore). These have been popping up in the past few days.

IIRC, I saw a 60 MPH advisory sign at the 41-45 interchange near Oshkosh last weekend. I've never seen an advisory speed sign that high.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 30, 2015, 08:16:46 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on August 29, 2015, 09:36:02 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 29, 2015, 08:17:15 PM
Noticed a new addition to the freeways that are posted at 70MPH. WisDOT has now posted yellow "Exit 50MPH" advisory signs next to the BG exit signs (the sign before the exit gore). These have been popping up in the past few days.

IIRC, I saw a 60 MPH advisory sign at the 41-45 interchange near Oshkosh last weekend. I've never seen an advisory speed sign that high.

The ramps from US 51 to Wis 29 have had the 60 MPH advisory signs for a few years now.  There are also a lot of Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs popping up at interchanges where a freeway/expressway continues away from an interstate, such as I-43 to Wis 54/57, I-43 to Wis 172, and I-41 to Wis 441 south.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on August 31, 2015, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 19, 2015, 01:52:02 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on June 19, 2015, 12:46:41 AM
Looks like right now the assembly and senate have agreed to a $800 million dollar reduction in bonding over the next 2 years for transportation. 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-leaders-in-legislature-squabble-about-budget-impasse-b99522269z1-308205131.html
It will be interesting to see how the people and politicians react when they actually get a list of projects across the state that would be postponed or even cut.  This amount is significant enough that current contracts under construction would be affected.  Because of this WisDOT would have to get contractors to agree through change order a delay in completion or claims would be submitted (Both will cost the state money).  It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out (A LOT of competing interests and priorities for many from the WTBA, Unions, residents, and legislators).

For others replying to this, I ask for this discussion to not to turn into a negative finger pointing politics discussion but rather let's focus on the potential effects (including listing projects you may think would get postponed or cut) due to this reduction in funding.

A lot of us (myself included, in addition to the rest of my office and other colleagues with other firms) are watching all of this with great interest/nervousness. Many don't realize how big of an impact this will have across the state. It's not just postponing maintenance or other road projects...this trickles down much further, to the construction crews and design engineers. Cutting projects => less work to be done => less workers needed => layoffs.

One of the projects rumored to be ground to a halt is the I-39 expansion between Illinois and Madison. Supposedly, the Zoo Interchange would continue.

Bringing back an old discussion about the next 2 year budget.  With the cut in transportation with this budget compared to the last 2 years ($800 million currently but can be dropped to $500 million with legislative approval for more bonding) there is a HUGE re-scope going on for projects.  With the current funding, even existing contracts may be affected (the goal is to avoid this situation).  Eventually lists will be released with project delays and possibly a few deletions.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 31, 2015, 12:17:23 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on August 31, 2015, 10:32:09 AMBringing back an old discussion about the next 2 year budget.  With the cut in transportation with this budget compared to the last 2 years ($800 million currently but can be dropped to $500 million with legislative approval for more bonding) there is a HUGE re-scope going on for projects.  With the current funding, even existing contracts may be affected (the goal is to avoid this situation).  Eventually lists will be released with project delays and possibly a few deletions.

I'm kind of expecting the east end of the US 10/WI 441 upgrade project to be delayed.

:no:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 01, 2015, 04:53:28 AM
The Zoo Interchange project north of Watertown Plank Rd is supposed to be delayed.  Will the I-94 project in Racine County be delayed even further?  It was delayed already so the Zoo Interchange could be completed.  Last year, the stretch in Racine County was resurfaced so the roadway could last beyond the 2021, the revised completion date.  At the time, I thought that project was a waste because why resurface a road that's going to get ripped up within 5 years?  If the project is delayed further, the resurfacing would be more justified. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: marcreichman on September 01, 2015, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 01, 2015, 04:53:28 AM
The Zoo Interchange project north of Watertown Plank Rd is supposed to be delayed. 

That's a shame, the North ave legwork looks like it's already being started a bit, and with Meijer, Mayfair Collection, and Whole Foods (and new hotels, Bartolotta Restaurants, etc.) opening at Burleigh, some TLC would be welcomed!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 01, 2015, 11:21:14 AM
Besides some road geometry being tweaked with the North Ave interchange there aren't any major changes with the actual configuration of the ramps. The delay sucks but it's not something huge. At least it's not cancelled.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.  On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.  The signals did not use doghouse style lights, probably because the street has left turn only lanes.  I noticed that the 2 intersections that use doghouse lights are on streets where the driver has the option to go straight or turn left.  That city has every possible signal combination available in the state.  U.S. 12/Clairemont Ave has had some trombone vertical signal mounts at some intersections for years before the DOT started installing them mainstream, and they're still up at some intersections.  That project was also one of the last projects where the DOT used horizontal signals on multi lane roads when it was reconstructed in 2008.  A year later when Hastings Way was reconstructed, mono tubes and vertical signals were used. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on September 13, 2015, 03:21:03 PM
Did you get to check out the vertical monotone/horizontal trombone combo at I94&WI37? Or the new signals on River Prairie Dr. In Altoona? Also, Claremont ave went through some slight changes recently. At Clairemont ave/North crossing, all but one approach has vertically mounted signals on trombone arms, on on the right for the right lane, and one backwards on the left for the left lane. Also, all of the green straight arrows were replaced with green balls. You are correct about the fact that we have almost every combo in the state. There are Right turn FYA's at the SPUI for Claremont ave/US53 for the southbound traffic coming off of 53 going w on Claremont, as well as right turn FYA's at 10th st & Claremont ave/US 12 going into Altoona for the 10th st turning traffic. Not sure what the purpose is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.

Source?

Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.

Omit is a better way of putting it. Though it hasn't been updated in a while, the signal design manual still requires it. I just rode through many of reconstructed signalized intersections around the Zoo interchange yesterday, and while there were a handful that had approaches without them, the majority had them.

I'll try to post a few photos from my trip later.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 13, 2015, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.

Source?

Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.

Omit is a better way of putting it. Though it hasn't been updated in a while, the signal design manual still requires it. I just rode through many of reconstructed signalized intersections around the Zoo interchange yesterday, and while there were a handful that had approaches without them, the majority had them.

I'll try to post a few photos from my trip later.

All of the new traffic signals installed this year do not have the stop bar signal.  I did check out the River Prairie Dr area, and the off ramps have the trombone arms, while the the new intersections into Woodmans have monotubes.  I did check out the I-94/Wis 37 interchange and all I saw were monotubes installed on Wis 37, and pole mounted signals for traffic coming off of I-94.  It's evident by all of the new signals installed by the city of Eau Claire that they are getting rid of stop bar traffic signals, and are using dog house signals for intersections that have a left turn and straight lane.  I also saw a new BGS in clearview at the Business 53/US 12 interchange southbound.  The city of Eau Claire also exclusively uses clearview font for all of their signs.  However, the old button copy BGS' northbound on Business 53 still stand at the US 12 interchange, and there is one that says "North 53," and that has not been modified to say Business 53.  Also, most of the Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT 53, but the road is still considered Bus 53.  On US 12, there were 2 giant signs that pointed to Business 53 and Alt 53 on ramp entrance.  Another interesting observation on US 53 is that a lot of the Route Marker signs on the BGS' are faded and already need to be replaced driving southbound.  The Old High C&NW Bridge is also open to bike and pedestrian traffic.  The views are great and can be accessed off of 1st Street and I recommend a walk across it if you're in the area.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 08:00:54 PM
Please pardon the quality...cell-phone photos from the passenger seat  :meh:

Wis 100 (Mayfair Rd) at Watertown Plank Rd
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi955.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae39%2Ferfrailing%2FAARoads%2Fgreater%2520Zoo%2520Interchange-I94%2520area_2015_09%2F20150912_144539_zpsyvnspqqs.jpg&hash=c9e95cd1aa171f7d22ad48c686b43d2c6d05a510) (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/media/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144539_zpsyvnspqqs.jpg.html)
No near right-side signal for Wis 100, but they did place them for Watertown Plank. The pattern on the corridor seemed to have them for side streets, but generally not for thru-traffic on Wis 100.

Wis 100 (Mayfair Rd) at Wisconsin Ave
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi955.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae39%2Ferfrailing%2FAARoads%2Fgreater%2520Zoo%2520Interchange-I94%2520area_2015_09%2F20150912_144650_zpscptqffdt.jpg&hash=08d59801125183fba2ed21adff7db4c2d5ba2932) (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/media/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144650_zpscptqffdt.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi955.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae39%2Ferfrailing%2FAARoads%2Fgreater%2520Zoo%2520Interchange-I94%2520area_2015_09%2F20150912_144708_zpsaldkffne.jpg&hash=6cac33497085e1221920f6438661bfe3c4852fd0) (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/media/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144708_zpsaldkffne.jpg.html)

Wis 100 (Mayfair Rd) at US 18 (Bluemound Rd)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi955.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae39%2Ferfrailing%2FAARoads%2Fgreater%2520Zoo%2520Interchange-I94%2520area_2015_09%2F20150912_144738_zpsg7ihid3x.jpg&hash=990f92db148198a42f412ba7cb26a68d59dd7757) (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/media/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144738_zpsg7ihid3x.jpg.html)
Note the atypical high-mount right-turn signal

Additional photos from my trip (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/slideshow/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 13, 2015, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.

Source?

Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.

Omit is a better way of putting it. Though it hasn't been updated in a while, the signal design manual still requires it. I just rode through many of reconstructed signalized intersections around the Zoo interchange yesterday, and while there were a handful that had approaches without them, the majority had them.

I'll try to post a few photos from my trip later.

All of the new traffic signals installed this year do not have the stop bar signal.  I did check out the River Prairie Dr area, and the off ramps have the trombone arms, while the the new intersections into Woodmans have monotubes.  I did check out the I-94/Wis 37 interchange and all I saw were monotubes installed on Wis 37, and pole mounted signals for traffic coming off of I-94.  It's evident by all of the new signals installed by the city of Eau Claire that they are getting rid of stop bar traffic signals, and are using dog house signals for intersections that have a left turn and straight lane.

You missed the point of my question. Your earlier post said that "they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal." I was wondering if you heard this officially from the city or if the statement observationally-based.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on September 13, 2015, 09:02:22 PM
All of the new traffic signals installed this year do not have the stop bar signal.  I did check out the River Prairie Dr area, and the off ramps have the trombone arms, while the the new intersections into Woodmans have monotubes.  I did check out the I-94/Wis 37 interchange and all I saw were monotubes installed on Wis 37, and pole mounted signals for traffic coming off of I-94.  It's evident by all of the new signals installed by the city of Eau Claire that they are getting rid of stop bar traffic signals, and are using dog house signals for intersections that have a left turn and straight lane.  I also saw a new BGS in clearview at the Business 53/US 12 interchange southbound.  The city of Eau Claire also exclusively uses clearview font for all of their signs.  However, the old button copy BGS' northbound on Business 53 still stand at the US 12 interchange, and there is one that says "North 53," and that has not been modified to say Business 53.  Also, most of the Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT 53, but the road is still considered Bus 53.  On US 12, there were 2 giant signs that pointed to Business 53 and Alt 53 on ramp entrance.  Another interesting observation on US 53 is that a lot of the Route Marker signs on the BGS' are faded and already need to be replaced driving southbound.  The Old High C&NW Bridge is also open to bike and pedestrian traffic.  The views are great and can be accessed off of 1st Street and I recommend a walk across it if you're in the area.
[/quote]
The Monotube/Trombone combo is actually on 37 and I94 for the eastbound onramp, eastbound offramp and the Road for the construction company has a horizontally mounted trombone. I did notice recently that the signs are faded, and thought that was weird. And yes I know very much about that high bridge, as I live less than a mile from it and am frequently checking the progress of the rest of the trail.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 14, 2015, 04:06:27 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 13, 2015, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.

Source?

Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.

Omit is a better way of putting it. Though it hasn't been updated in a while, the signal design manual still requires it. I just rode through many of reconstructed signalized intersections around the Zoo interchange yesterday, and while there were a handful that had approaches without them, the majority had them.

I'll try to post a few photos from my trip later.

All of the new traffic signals installed this year do not have the stop bar signal.  I did check out the River Prairie Dr area, and the off ramps have the trombone arms, while the the new intersections into Woodmans have monotubes.  I did check out the I-94/Wis 37 interchange and all I saw were monotubes installed on Wis 37, and pole mounted signals for traffic coming off of I-94.  It's evident by all of the new signals installed by the city of Eau Claire that they are getting rid of stop bar traffic signals, and are using dog house signals for intersections that have a left turn and straight lane.

You missed the point of my question. Your earlier post said that "they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal." I was wondering if you heard this officially from the city or if the statement observationally-based.

Observationally based.  They installed 6 new traffic signals and all 6 did not have a stop bar signal.  This only applies to the City of Eau Claire.  The signals in Altoona still have the stop bar signal.  There probably won't be any new signals installed until the Water Street Bridge is rebuilt next year (most main arteries are in great shape after Brackett Ave was reconstructed, could maybe reconstruct State St), guess the verdict will be out until the signals at Water Street and 1st Ave are replaced.  They probably will be since the signals at 1st Ave and Lake Street were replaced when that bridge went under a bridge rehab project (to prepare for extra traffic from the Water St. Bridge closure.)  I have no idea if any other municipality will follow suit, all other cities I've visited still have the stop bar signal.  Oneida St in Appleton is being reconstructed at the Skyline Bridge and the intersection with Prospect Ave will have the stop bar signal, but monotubes will replace the trombone overheads. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 04:14:47 PM
What do you guys mean by 'stop bar signal'?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on September 14, 2015, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 04:14:47 PM
What do you guys mean by 'stop bar signal'?
The pole mounted signal on the close right side of the intersection, right next to the stop line on the ground.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 14, 2015, 05:44:31 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on September 14, 2015, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 04:14:47 PM
What do you guys mean by 'stop bar signal'?
The pole mounted signal on the close right side of the intersection, right next to the stop line on the ground.

Signal is unique to Wisconsin for the most part and was required by the state, but must not be now if Eau Claire is opting not to put signals there.  The Mason St. and Ashland Ave Interchange doesn't have them at the 2nd ramp after crossing under Mason St, but I think the only reason that they weren't installed there is because the ramps are very close together.  Other new signal installations in Green Bay still include them.  Illinois uses them in a lot of their intersections, and have seen them in California and Arizona.  Otherwise, most states don't put a signal at the stop bar. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 05:53:31 PM
Where do other states put this signal? xD This all seems normal to me
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 14, 2015, 05:58:58 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 14, 2015, 05:44:31 PM

The Mason St. and Ashland Ave Interchange doesn't have them at the 2nd ramp after crossing under Mason St, but I think the only reason that they weren't installed there is because the ramps are very close together. 
Yes.  When the bridge was first opened in 1973, there were near-side stop bar signals at that interchange.  One was removed almost immediately (NB near right) and the others (including in the median) were removed in 1983.  Reason was they were causing confusion with the signals before them.

One other case in Green Bay was on Baird St. and Main St.  For a long time there was no right side stop-bar signal for NB traffic, though there was one in the median.  There is no close-by intersection so its omission was a mystery.  But they have since put in the stop-bar signal on the right side.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 14, 2015, 06:02:59 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 05:53:31 PM
Where do other states put this signal? xD This all seems normal to me
Most states have their typical signal installations on the rear side above the street or an overhead rear-side signal(s) and a pole-mounted rear-side signal, or on a diagonal wire over the intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 15, 2015, 02:46:53 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 14, 2015, 05:58:58 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 14, 2015, 05:44:31 PM

The Mason St. and Ashland Ave Interchange doesn't have them at the 2nd ramp after crossing under Mason St, but I think the only reason that they weren't installed there is because the ramps are very close together. 
Yes.  When the bridge was first opened in 1973, there were near-side stop bar signals at that interchange.  One was removed almost immediately (NB near right) and the others (including in the median) were removed in 1983.  Reason was they were causing confusion with the signals before them.

One other case in Green Bay was on Baird St. and Main St.  For a long time there was no right side stop-bar signal for NB traffic, though there was one in the median.  There is no close-by intersection so its omission was a mystery.  But they have since put in the stop-bar signal on the right side.

I didn't even notice that the stop bar signals were missing from that interchange until the signals were replaced recently.  I looked at streetview to look at the old configuration and you could tell that they were there at one point, but missing.  It's also surprising that there weren't any overhead signals for the offramps.  There are now with 3 overhead signals there.  Interesting that the interchange with Monroe St on the other side of the river has stop bar mounted signals.  For many years, the ramp from East Mason to Monroe St only merged north on Monroe (South Monroe Traffic exited off on Madison St and turned right on Chicago to meet with Monroe), and there wasn't a signal there.  Sometime in the late 90's, the ramp was reconfigured to allow the ramp to turn south on Monroe, signals were added, and they were placed closer than at the Ashland Interchange.  Signals were just replaced there and the stop bar signals were kept after the reconstruction.   The Main/Baird St intersection also has a unique overhead signal hanging right behind the westbound overhead signal for eastbound traffic because of a curve where the buildings limit the distance that the signals can be seen that are normally placed. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on September 16, 2015, 08:11:10 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 14, 2015, 06:02:59 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 05:53:31 PM
Where do other states put this signal? xD This all seems normal to me
Most states have their typical signal installations on the rear side above the street or an overhead rear-side signal(s) and a pole-mounted rear-side signal, or on a diagonal wire over the intersection.

The stop bar signal (near right) is a waste of installation and operating costs now that the state, counties, and cities are converting to monotubes for installations.  The monotubes with the multiple heads and better visibility along with the fact they are installed to not be knocked down makes the stop bar signal un-needed.  It made sense to have it back in the days of the trombone installations as knockdowns of the mast meant only the stop bar and median signal (or far left remained).  Also the trombones with the horizontal signal heads have less visibility.

As for span wires :banghead: I cannot believe states like Michigan use them for standard installations.  Every span wire signal we have put in we purposely have tried to take as as soon as possible because the extra maintenance required with them is a pain in the butt.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 03:41:38 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on September 16, 2015, 08:11:10 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 14, 2015, 06:02:59 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 05:53:31 PM
Where do other states put this signal? xD This all seems normal to me
Most states have their typical signal installations on the rear side above the street or an overhead rear-side signal(s) and a pole-mounted rear-side signal, or on a diagonal wire over the intersection.

The stop bar signal (near right) is a waste of installation and operating costs now that the state, counties, and cities are converting to monotubes for installations.  The monotubes with the multiple heads and better visibility along with the fact they are installed to not be knocked down makes the stop bar signal un-needed.  It made sense to have it back in the days of the trombone installations as knockdowns of the mast meant only the stop bar and median signal (or far left remained).  Also the trombones with the horizontal signal heads have less visibility.

As for span wires :banghead: I cannot believe states like Michigan use them for standard installations.  Every span wire signal we have put in we purposely have tried to take as as soon as possible because the extra maintenance required with them is a pain in the butt.

I have seen instances where knocked down signals in the median cause problems that the monotube installations fix.  In Green Bay, I was at an intersection that had 2 signals installed in the median along Mason St.  The one on the far side of the intersection was knocked down, and the only light that was up was the light at the stop bar in the median.  There was a green arrow, and the driver did not go.  With the light on the far side down, the driver couldn't see the green arrow because the signal was posted slightly behind the stop line, and the driver was ahead of the light.  I here's a picture of the intersection. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5241399,-88.08901,3a,90y,266.76h,71.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqthgFsKG9gliN5tZA44nkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 16, 2015, 04:58:00 PM
^^ Those signals were orignally installed by WisDOT in 1987.  Control of that section of road was transferred to the city around 1993.  Most of the signal heads except those on the trombone arms had been replaced since.  But with the city's early adaptation of monotube arms, I am a bit surprised that they had not converted these intersection to those.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 07:45:18 PM
A lot of intersections had signals replaced but I'm surprised also that the signals on Mason St west of I-41 haven't been replaced either.  The signals on Main St east of Mason St already had monotubes with horizontal overheads, now they were replaced with new monotubes and there are now 3 veritcal signalheads with flashing yellow lights.  Those intersections aren't nearly as busy as the ones on W Mason.  At the intersetions of Mason&Challenger, Mason&Webster, and Packerland&West Point, the horizontal overhead signals were remounted to be vertical on existing poles.  I think at Challenger, the remounts were done because the signals at I-43 and Ontario are vertical, and the signals were modified at Packerland&West Point because of the roads being used for alternates during I-41 construction.  Otherwise, it seems like the City of Green Bay is replacing and modifying signals at random.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TriCountyExpressway on September 17, 2015, 07:56:54 PM
I was driving on I-41 South & US 10 West today and noticed that the signs for Outagamie County Regional Airport (at the College Ave./County Road CA and County Road CB exits, respectively) have been replaced with "Appleton Int'l. Airport" markings.

The airport changed names last month, coinciding with its 50th anniversary, and these are the first road signs I've seen reflecting the change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 18, 2015, 01:02:16 AM
Quote from: TriCountyExpressway on September 17, 2015, 07:56:54 PM
I was driving on I-41 South & US 10 West today and noticed that the signs for Outagamie County Regional Airport (at the College Ave./County Road CA and County Road CB exits, respectively) have been replaced with "Appleton Int'l. Airport" markings.

The airport changed names last month, coinciding with its 50th anniversary, and these are the first road signs I've seen reflecting the change.

I noticed them, too, while driving around today, including WisDOT BGSes on I-41.  The airport's code remains the same - 'ATW'.

Have you seen the 'WI 41' sign on the EB approach to I-41 on Prospect Ave yet?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 18, 2015, 01:21:44 AM
Quote from: TriCountyExpressway on September 17, 2015, 07:56:54 PM
I was driving on I-41 South & US 10 West today and noticed that the signs for Outagamie County Regional Airport (at the College Ave./County Road CA and County Road CB exits, respectively) have been replaced with "Appleton Int'l. Airport" markings.

The airport changed names last month, coinciding with its 50th anniversary, and these are the first road signs I've seen reflecting the change.

So is this an international airport in name only, or is Appleton actually handling international flights? With Green Bay not that far away, I figured Appleton would remain a regional airport indefinitely. I figured Dane County Regional would go international before Appleton. [sarcasm]Especially with having an address of 4000 International Lane. :) [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 18, 2015, 07:36:40 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 18, 2015, 10:10:43 PM
Wow, "Appleton International Airport"? 
And some folks said promoting Highway 41 to an interstate was pointless.
:-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 01:18:15 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2015, 07:36:40 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/

I do see a lot of foreign-registered aircraft parked outside of the Gulfstream facilities on a regular basis.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 19, 2015, 02:54:59 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 01:18:15 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2015, 07:36:40 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/

I do see a lot of foreign-registered aircraft parked outside of the Gulfstream facilities on a regular basis.

Mike

Before the international airport designation, they had to stop at another airport before going to Appleton.  With the customs station opening, they can fly direct and Gulfstream was helping push for the international airport status.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 19, 2015, 02:54:59 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 01:18:15 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2015, 07:36:40 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/

I do see a lot of foreign-registered aircraft parked outside of the Gulfstream facilities on a regular basis.

Mike

Before the international airport designation, they had to stop at another airport before going to Appleton.  With the customs station opening, they can fly direct and Gulfstream was helping push for the international airport status.

Can I safely assume that that also means that, let's say, an average Canadian flying his little Cessna to EAA, can clear Customs there instead of somewhere else?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 20, 2015, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 19, 2015, 02:54:59 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 01:18:15 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2015, 07:36:40 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/

I do see a lot of foreign-registered aircraft parked outside of the Gulfstream facilities on a regular basis.

Mike

Before the international airport designation, they had to stop at another airport before going to Appleton.  With the customs station opening, they can fly direct and Gulfstream was helping push for the international airport status.

Can I safely assume that that also means that, let's say, an average Canadian flying his little Cessna to EAA, can clear Customs there instead of somewhere else?

Mike

It's perfect for those small planes.  Austin Straubel in Green Bay has been an international airport since 1988 and those small international planes may have flown in there before the EAA. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 29, 2015, 09:01:28 PM
WISDOT has announced the 5 projects that it will delay due to budget cuts.  They are: Verona Rd, I-39/90, WIS 15, WIS 23, and US 10/WIS 441.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/dot-puts-breaks-on-5-major-road-project-in-budget-crunch-b99586812z1-329959171.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 29, 2015, 09:34:50 PM
I'm not surprised that the projects around Milwaukee to Chicago survived.  The Racine County portion of that project had been delayed already so the Zoo could be expedited.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on September 30, 2015, 01:29:42 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 29, 2015, 09:01:28 PM
WISDOT has announced the 5 projects that it will delay due to budget cuts.  They are: Verona Rd, I-39/90, WIS 15, WIS 23, and US 10/WIS 441.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/dot-puts-breaks-on-5-major-road-project-in-budget-crunch-b99586812z1-329959171.html

The most significant note out of the article is the following acknowledgement: "The five projects will face two-year delays, said DOT spokeswoman Peg Schmitt. But that time frame assumes lawmakers will inject more money into roads in the future."

I find it doubtful in 2 years (the next budget) lawmakers will inject more money into transportation.  Seems like they should be laying out schedules based on the current funding levels and not be assuming more money will be allocated.  The reason for the assumption is definitely political.

What is amazing is that less than 2 years ago many of these projects were on the "advanceable list" with staff/consultants being told to be prepared for earlier than expected lettings and now they have made the delayed list.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 30, 2015, 02:04:52 AM
There are some major projects that will be completed soon that should help alleviate the budget crunch.  The Hoan Bridge is a $172 million project that should end this year, I-41 in Green Bay is supposed to end next year and that is a near $1 billion project.  The Zoo Interchange is also supposed to end in 2017.   Those are 3 very expensive projects that are supposed to end within 2 years, that may be why the delays are estimated to last 2 years, when those projects are finished.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 30, 2015, 07:42:30 AM
Zoo ending in 2017? Huh? I thought that wouldn't be done until 2019 or even later. Last I saw the plans, parts of the mainline will be the last part.. At 2018-19.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 30, 2015, 09:04:35 AM
Quote from: colinstu on September 30, 2015, 07:42:30 AM
Zoo ending in 2017? Huh? I thought that wouldn't be done until 2019 or even later. Last I saw the plans, parts of the mainline will be the last part.. At 2018-19.

Depends on when you last looked at the plans. A couple iterations ago, the DOT had originally planned to extend the project much further down each of the Zoo's approaches. Much of it got scaled back to save money before the project when under construction, then scaled back/delayed more to save additional money. Had it not been for the original cuts to the project by the previous administration, it would have been done by now, and we probably would have saved millions of dollars by not having to build emergency bridges.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 30, 2015, 09:18:08 AM
Where did it get scaled back? Each end of the legs looks like they're fully being worked on now (or will be). I think I heard the North Ave interchange reconstruction was being pushed back but not cancelled.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 30, 2015, 10:15:37 AM
The core of the interchange will be complete in 2017, and the vast majority of the spending should be complete on the project.  I have a PDF of the north leg, and according to the schedule the only parts of the project that will remain are the southbound lanes of I-41/US 45 between Burleigh St and Swan Blvd.  I'm assuming that the project will stay on schedule since there wasn't any announcement on the project being delayed.
http://projects.511wi.gov/zoo-interchange-project/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/Zoo_IC_north-leg.pdf

As for the US 10/Wis 441 project, it looks like the part of the project between Racine St and US 10 east is being delayed, and the I-41/US 10/Wis 441 interchange and Little Lake Butte Des Mortes bridge won't be delayed, since major work is already taking place that area is by far the biggest priority and the most vital part of the project.  An updated schedule is below:

http://projects.511wi.gov/wis441/wp-content/uploads/sites/107/New-WIS-441-timeline.jpg

Living in the Green Bay area, I will be relieved when the I-41 project is complete.  There has been non-stop construction since 2008 and it will be great to see everything finished!  Along with I-41, the 2 year project of rehabbing Wis 172 caused bigger traffic problems than I-41 since it's the busiest Fox River crossing, and there were very few alternate routes.  It would take 20 minutes to go from I-41 to the bridge in De Pere during rush hour when that project was being constructed.  As long as the Leo Frigo Bridge holds up and doesn't dip, the Green Bay Area won't need any major road work for a long, long time. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 30, 2015, 10:32:34 AM
I also looked at the 6 year highway improvement plans, and they are also updated as of 9-20-15.  There's parts of it that I do not understand at all.  I-43 is set to be resurfaced from US 10 to the South Manitowoc County Line next year, and the stretch from Wis 60 to the North County Line in Ozaukee County isn't supposed to be worked on until 2019-2021, despite the fact that I-43 in Ozaukee County is A LOT rougher!   I-43 in Manitowoc County was resurfaced in 2001 and the original pavement was placed in the early 80s, and the stretch in Ozaukee County still has the original pavement and it was placed in the 1970s (It has been diamond ground but was done many years ago).  I don't understand how a stretch of road that isn't that rough gets resurfaced twice in 15 years while a rougher stretch of road gets no attention in the same time frame, aside from shoulder repairs and bridge maintenance. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
It sucks that Wisconsin highway projects are being delayed, but then again, money doesn't grow on trees. What to do? What to do?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: noelbotevera on September 30, 2015, 04:23:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
It sucks that Wisconsin highway projects are being delayed, but then again, money doesn't grow on trees. What to do? What to do?
Call Texas. They blow their money to work on highway projects.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2015, 07:33:24 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 30, 2015, 04:23:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
It sucks that Wisconsin highway projects are being delayed, but then again, money doesn't grow on trees. What to do? What to do?
Call Texas. They blow their money to work on highway projects.


So you're saying Wisconsin should drill for oil???
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: noelbotevera on September 30, 2015, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2015, 07:33:24 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 30, 2015, 04:23:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
It sucks that Wisconsin highway projects are being delayed, but then again, money doesn't grow on trees. What to do? What to do?
Call Texas. They blow their money to work on highway projects.


So you're saying Wisconsin should drill for oil???
No, they drill for cheese (sorry for being a stereotype).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: discochris on October 05, 2015, 12:06:24 AM
So this was odd. We were on WI-13, northbound from Ashland to Bayfield, and one of the signs for 13 was on a US highway shield. Someone screwed that one up...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 05, 2015, 12:21:42 AM
Quote from: discochris on October 05, 2015, 12:06:24 AM
So this was odd. We were on WI-13, northbound from Ashland to Bayfield, and one of the signs for 13 was on a US highway shield. Someone screwed that one up...

Definitely not unheard of in Wisconsin. This "Wis" 33 trailblazer (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4215895,-88.1813725,3a,75y,15.75h,80.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqEsd6lACFn5Jg7BCpPELaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been hanging around West Bend for as long as I can remember. Construction contractors are notorious for screwing up the route shields and slapping a highway ID on anything that's usable in their inventory for temporary signage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 05, 2015, 01:14:16 PM
There are a few new "WI-45" trailblazers in the Milwaukee area. ;-)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 05, 2015, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 05, 2015, 01:14:16 PM
There are a few new "WI-45" trailblazers in the Milwaukee area. ;-)
Well, Someone needs to contact that contractor - and fire them. :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on October 06, 2015, 07:57:06 AM
There's a "Wis 28" sign on a US Shield in Sheboygan too. Easter Eggs, complements of WisDOT lol.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 06, 2015, 08:11:58 AM
My favorite WISDOT mistake is this Lake Michigan Circle Tour sign in Sheboygan that shows a picture of Lake Erie.  I have a screenshot from google maps below:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.71776,-87.7605487,3a,15y,306.25h,86.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2wIMXQG-eoewis2Ei3zyHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Also here is a fairly new US 16 sign in Lowell. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3393645,-88.8183573,3a,75y,279.05h,82.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdDWx5VKP7lzjFZlNrC_VMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

A WIS 51 sign at the WIS 16 intersection south of Portage

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4938857,-89.4092728,3a,75y,274.97h,78.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sannpLGVgo-3mxwMKa0m5WQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on October 06, 2015, 08:17:30 AM
Just for delaying these four projects the inflation costs are estimated at $160 million:
1.) I-39/90 from the Illinois state line to Madison
2.) Highway 151/Verona Road in Madison
3.) Highway 10/441 in the Fox Valley
4.) Highway 23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth (granted this one is not moving due to the lawsuit whether or not there was money for it)

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/cost-of-delaying-road-projects-pegged-at-160-million-b99590739z1-330778161.html

This does not include the WIS 15 (Hortonville Bypass) delay or other 3R project delays as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 07, 2015, 11:11:47 PM
Political cowardice all the way around. The state can't raise fuel taxes sufficiently to pay for the state's transportation needs because the GOP leadership is terrified of being kicked out of office. Killing off the automatic mechanism that kept fuel taxes tied to inflation (something Democrats were just as eager to do) removed the one solution they had to not have to deal with the problem.

And yet people simply grumble when Big Oil catches a sniffle and jacks prices 50 cents or a buck for "market conditions".

Morons.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 08, 2015, 05:01:53 PM
To those noting signing errors of Wisconsin Highways, I remember once when the entire length of Stoughton Road from WIS 30 to US 12/18 had WIS 51 signs along the corridor. They were soon changed to the proper US 51 signs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on October 08, 2015, 05:38:58 PM
There used to be at least one WIS 61 shield on westbound I-90 leaving La Crosse for Minnesota.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: discochris on October 19, 2015, 01:58:24 AM
I know there's been talk, fictional and otherwise, about expanding US 2 to four-lane from Superior to Hurley. While there's a fair amount of truck traffic, I can't see how this would possibly be needed.

That said, why on earth has there never been a loop/bypass of Superior connecting up with I-35? 
Is it because Wisconsin would prefer that traffic go south on 53, or that MNDot wouldn't ever cooperate with such a project? Or is it because they'd have to build another bridge, probably over the St. Louis river, and that would make it cost prohibitive? Coming from Duluth going east on 2, driving through Superior is a total time waster. It would be nice to have a bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 19, 2015, 08:53:02 AM
US-2 does not need to be four lanes between Superior and Hurley.  Traffic counts are in the 4,000 - 6,000 range in the rural areas, which means the current two lanes are sufficient.  To put this in context, the recently completed WI-26 four laning projects, which a number of people claim wasn't necessary, has traffic counts in the 7,000 - 8,000 range at its least congested part.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on October 19, 2015, 10:22:44 AM
Quote from: discochris on October 19, 2015, 01:58:24 AM
That said, why on earth has there never been a loop/bypass of Superior connecting up with I-35? 
Is it because Wisconsin would prefer that traffic go south on 53, or that MNDot wouldn't ever cooperate with such a project? Or is it because they'd have to build another bridge, probably over the St. Louis river, and that would make it cost prohibitive? Coming from Duluth going east on 2, driving through Superior is a total time waster. It would be nice to have a bypass.

Duluth/Superior is overbuilt as is given the traffic up there.  It's really not that bad going from I-535 to US 53 to US 2.  I doubt anyone would take the Bong Bridge and drive through Superior on US 2 besides roadgeeks clinching the route. :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: discochris on October 19, 2015, 12:35:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 19, 2015, 10:22:44 AM
Quote from: discochris on October 19, 2015, 01:58:24 AM
That said, why on earth has there never been a loop/bypass of Superior connecting up with I-35? 
Is it because Wisconsin would prefer that traffic go south on 53, or that MNDot wouldn't ever cooperate with such a project? Or is it because they'd have to build another bridge, probably over the St. Louis river, and that would make it cost prohibitive? Coming from Duluth going east on 2, driving through Superior is a total time waster. It would be nice to have a bypass.

Duluth/Superior is overbuilt as is given the traffic up there.  It's really not that bad going from I-535 to US 53 to US 2.  I doubt anyone would take the Bong Bridge and drive through Superior on US 2 besides roadgeeks clinching the route. :D

Actually most GPS will route you on the Bong Bridge rather than 535, even when set to faster time. I've done both ways (I drive this at least once a month, and in the summer, once a week), and there's virtually no difference in time to get through Superior, depending on the stoplights. I agree that the area is overbuilt, but I don't understand why when they built the Bong Bridge they didn't make it a loop to the south of Superior, rather than just another route right through town.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on October 19, 2015, 12:42:13 PM
Quote from: discochris on October 19, 2015, 12:35:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 19, 2015, 10:22:44 AM
Quote from: discochris on October 19, 2015, 01:58:24 AM
That said, why on earth has there never been a loop/bypass of Superior connecting up with I-35? 
Is it because Wisconsin would prefer that traffic go south on 53, or that MNDot wouldn't ever cooperate with such a project? Or is it because they'd have to build another bridge, probably over the St. Louis river, and that would make it cost prohibitive? Coming from Duluth going east on 2, driving through Superior is a total time waster. It would be nice to have a bypass.

Duluth/Superior is overbuilt as is given the traffic up there.  It's really not that bad going from I-535 to US 53 to US 2.  I doubt anyone would take the Bong Bridge and drive through Superior on US 2 besides roadgeeks clinching the route. :D

Actually most GPS will route you on the Bong Bridge rather than 535, even when set to faster time. I've done both ways (I drive this at least once a month, and in the summer, once a week), and there's virtually no difference in time to get through Superior, depending on the stoplights. I agree that the area is overbuilt, but I don't understand why when they built the Bong Bridge they didn't make it a loop to the south of Superior, rather than just another route right through town.

Superior takes a lot of pride in their large municipal forest (they claim it's the largest in the country; I'm sure that's arguable).  The area near the forest is also one of the more affluent neighborhoods in Superior (relatively speaking...for Superior -- Billings Park).  Then you have the railyards, airport and big box commerical strip on WI 35 to contend with. 

I'm also thinking that, as has been pointed out, there's simply not a lot of traffic headed out to the U.P. along US 2 and the Bong Bridge was simply built as another connection between Duluth and Superior rather than to accommodate long-distance traffic.

And then, even if there was demand for it, you have the fact that Madison doesn't pay attention to anything north of WI 29 (or US 8). :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on October 19, 2015, 03:38:18 PM
I think mgk mentioned at one point that there was in fact a bypass planned (obviously long dead). I haven't found anything to confirm beyond what he said on here, but since there's a flyover ramp from southbound I-35 to eastbound US 2 in Duluth that somewhat suggests to me that there may have been bigger plans for US 2 in Superior at one point. And MNDot won't even build those sort of ramps where they're actually needed, so the fact that they built one there could be telling.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: discochris on October 20, 2015, 01:26:33 AM
Thinking more about it, it could be a terrain issue. You can cross south of Duluth on that weird old swing bridge in Gary-New Duluth that connects with the Village of Superior, but connecting to I-35 would basically mean blasting through Spirit Mountain. As far as the flyover, I assume it was just money Oberstar was able to get directed to his area.

The question was largely me being selfish, as I detest having to drive through Superior.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 20, 2015, 03:52:06 AM
There was indeed once a plan to build a bypass freeway to connect the Bong Bridge with the US 2/53 freeway on the SE corner of Superior.  The recent work on the Bong Bridge approach was to remove the incomplete 'ghost' diamond interchange at Belknap St and replace it with a roundabout.  The unbuilt bypass freeway was to run due south from there to the the city's south side, then curve southeastward and then eastward to feed into the US 2/53 freeway.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2015, 10:24:57 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 19, 2015, 12:42:13 PM
And then, even if there was demand for it, you have the fact that Madison doesn't pay attention to anything north of WI 29 (or US 8). :D


As they should.  South is where the people are and where the growth is occurring. 

https://www.census.gov/2010census/news/img/cb11cn80_wi_perchange_2010map.jpg
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on October 20, 2015, 01:08:19 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2015, 10:24:57 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 19, 2015, 12:42:13 PM
And then, even if there was demand for it, you have the fact that Madison doesn't pay attention to anything north of WI 29 (or US 8). :D


As they should.  South is where the people are and where the growth is occurring. 

https://www.census.gov/2010census/news/img/cb11cn80_wi_perchange_2010map.jpg

Not to start a bitch fight over this, but I absolutely disagree. After living in Superior for four years it became pretty clear to me that people up there were justified in feeling like Madison forgets about them. There's a difference between appropriating the necessary resources for smaller populations, and simply ignoring them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2015, 01:28:19 PM
You do realize that Douglas County has less than 1% of the total population of the State of Wisconsin right? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 20, 2015, 03:50:45 PM
Back when the Bong Bridge was built, how much did Superior want a bypass to be built?  Usually local politics dictates how highway projects get built.  I think there has been significant investment in Northwest Wisconsin.  US 53 is now an expressway between Superior and Eau Claire.  WIS 35 is being converted to a freeway between Hudson and River Falls.  Wis 64 is freeway/expressway between New Richmond and the soon to be completed New Stillwater Bridge, I-94 is in the process of being upgraded, and Wis 65 between New Richmond and I-94 is being studied to possibly be upgraded to an expressway.  Superior isn't the only "annoyance" when it comes to expressways being incomplete in urban areas.  US 10 in Stevens Point, Wis 26 in Janesville and Johnson Creek, and US 18/151 (Verona Rd) even though that area is slowly being worked on.  In the last few years, Wis 29 in Wausau and Green Bay, US 53 in Eau Claire, US 45 in Oshkosh were sites that were improved to have free flow traffic, so in the future those other sites may be.  The biggest problem with a US 2 bypass of Superior would be the amount of homes that would have to be demolished to connect to the Bong Bridge, and there would probably be local opposition to that. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2015, 04:00:14 PM
Exactly.  US-53 is a great example.  North of US-63, it really is overbuilt as a four-lane expressway.  The traffic counts on some stretches are 4,000 - 5,000 vpd.  Another example, UW-Superior is a four-year university that is constantly being subsidized by the UW System because its enrollments are so low.

If anything, Superior has benefited more than it really should have given its size.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on October 20, 2015, 04:10:22 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 20, 2015, 03:50:45 PM
Back when the Bong Bridge was built, how much did Superior want a bypass to be built?  Usually local politics dictates how highway projects get built.  I think there has been significant investment in Northwest Wisconsin.  US 53 is now an expressway between Superior and Eau Claire.  WIS 35 is being converted to a freeway between Hudson and River Falls.  Wis 64 is freeway/expressway between New Richmond and the soon to be completed New Stillwater Bridge, I-94 is in the process of being upgraded, and Wis 65 between New Richmond and I-94 is being studied to possibly be upgraded to an expressway. 

Ahem... we in the River Falls and surrounding areas do not think of ourselves as Northwest Wisconsin.  We're West Central Wisconsin.  I wouldn't apply the Northwest moniker to anywhere until at least the north side of US 8. 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on October 21, 2015, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: invincor on October 20, 2015, 04:10:22 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 20, 2015, 03:50:45 PM
Back when the Bong Bridge was built, how much did Superior want a bypass to be built?  Usually local politics dictates how highway projects get built.  I think there has been significant investment in Northwest Wisconsin.  US 53 is now an expressway between Superior and Eau Claire.  WIS 35 is being converted to a freeway between Hudson and River Falls.  Wis 64 is freeway/expressway between New Richmond and the soon to be completed New Stillwater Bridge, I-94 is in the process of being upgraded, and Wis 65 between New Richmond and I-94 is being studied to possibly be upgraded to an expressway. 
Ahem... we in the River Falls and surrounding areas do not think of ourselves as Northwest Wisconsin.  We're West Central Wisconsin.  I wouldn't apply the Northwest moniker to anywhere until at least the north side of US 8. 
^ This.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on October 21, 2015, 12:27:58 PM
Not that it means much, but something I threw together cause I was interested.  According to the map on the WI DOT plans and studies page (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/default.aspx), here is the population breakdown by region:

North Central     594,380
Northeast        1,081,812
Northwest          688,163
Southeast        2,039,003
Southwest       1,354,206

I wonder how the funding is broken down, is it proportional by population, by region, a mixture, etc?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 22, 2015, 07:30:47 PM
Interesting to think Superior was the second largest city in Wisconsin 100 years ago.  It has lost almost half its population since then.  Check out a plat map from the city of Superior and you will see an ambitious paper street grid extending quite a ways into swampland.  They were prepared for growth that never materialized.

It's tough to say never, but given the population trends in Superior, a bypass does seem unlikely in the foreseeable future.  I've driven through on US 53 many times and it doesn't take that much time to get through town.  A bypass would have a high price tag for the limited benefit it would give to a low amount traffic.

Far from ignoring Superior, WisDOT has done a lot in recent years fixing up Tower Ave and Belknap St.  They have plans to add a little jughandle interchange right where US 2/53 enters town at Moccasin Mike Road.  (Awesome road name, by the way.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 23, 2015, 04:26:10 AM
Right now the biggest concern in the Superior area has to be I-535.  Last I checked there was a weight limit posted on the Blatnik Bridge, and it's because the bridge is an aging steel truss bridge.  In the next 25 years or even sooner, the bridge is going to have to be replaced, and I'm guessing that it isn't going to be cheap.  By looking at the WIS and MN DOT websites and the bridge parapets, I notice that MNDOT is primarily responsible for the Blatnik Bridge while WISDOT is responsible for the Bong Bridge.  THE Blatnik Bridge rehab project was on the MNDOT website, while the Bong Bridge rehab project was listed on the WISDOT website.  The bridge parapets on the Bong Bridge are unique to Wisconsin, and I notice that they're also used on the interchange ramps with I-35.   Are the costs for maintaining the bridges split, or do the DOTs take care of the bridges they take a lead on?  If the Blatnik Bridge gets to the point where it's unusable, will it be rebuilt or will the Bong Bridge become the only crossing between Duluth and Superior?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on October 23, 2015, 08:23:54 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 23, 2015, 04:26:10 AM
Right now the biggest concern in the Superior area has to be I-535.  Last I checked there was a weight limit posted on the Blatnik Bridge, and it's because the bridge is an aging steel truss bridge.  In the next 25 years or even sooner, the bridge is going to have to be replaced, and I'm guessing that it isn't going to be cheap.  By looking at the WIS and MN DOT websites and the bridge parapets, I notice that MNDOT is primarily responsible for the Blatnik Bridge while WISDOT is responsible for the Bong Bridge.  THE Blatnik Bridge rehab project was on the MNDOT website, while the Bong Bridge rehab project was listed on the WISDOT website.  The bridge parapets on the Bong Bridge are unique to Wisconsin, and I notice that they're also used on the interchange ramps with I-35.   Are the costs for maintaining the bridges split, or do the DOTs take care of the bridges they take a lead on?  If the Blatnik Bridge gets to the point where it's unusable, will it be rebuilt or will the Bong Bridge become the only crossing between Duluth and Superior?

For crossings between WI and MN, each state pays half of the cost for the bridge structure.  They pay their own costs for any approach work up to the bridge.  WI and MN tend to alternate who oversees and constructs crossings (14/61 is WisDOT although the border is a side channel, 90 is MnDOT, Winona is MnDOT although the border is a side channel, Wabasha is WisDOT, Red Wing is MnDOT, Prescott is WisDOT, 94 is WisDOT, 36 is MnDOT, 2 is WiSDOT, 535 is MnDOT). 

Especially with the recent replacements for many of the crossings you can see what styles of bridges each DOT prefers as well.  MnDOT prefers more of the prestressed concrete box segment bridges like the 35W bridge while WisDOT prefers more steel arch bridges like the Hoan Bridge.  You can even tell the differences in who built it typically by the light poles as well, note the different styles between the Blatnik and Bong bridges.

When the Blatnik eventually needs to get replaced (I expect due to high costs they may look at additional rehab and leave replacement as a last resort), they will find the money to do it.  Just for emergency purposes alone, there needs to be the two crossings.  But today it would probably be well over $750 million to replace it.  So it will probably require special allocations by both states through the legislature and governor to fund it as neither DOT has that money sitting around.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 23, 2015, 11:22:45 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on October 23, 2015, 08:23:54 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 23, 2015, 04:26:10 AM
Right now the biggest concern in the Superior area has to be I-535.  Last I checked there was a weight limit posted on the Blatnik Bridge, and it's because the bridge is an aging steel truss bridge.  In the next 25 years or even sooner, the bridge is going to have to be replaced, and I'm guessing that it isn't going to be cheap.  By looking at the WIS and MN DOT websites and the bridge parapets, I notice that MNDOT is primarily responsible for the Blatnik Bridge while WISDOT is responsible for the Bong Bridge.  THE Blatnik Bridge rehab project was on the MNDOT website, while the Bong Bridge rehab project was listed on the WISDOT website.  The bridge parapets on the Bong Bridge are unique to Wisconsin, and I notice that they're also used on the interchange ramps with I-35.   Are the costs for maintaining the bridges split, or do the DOTs take care of the bridges they take a lead on?  If the Blatnik Bridge gets to the point where it's unusable, will it be rebuilt or will the Bong Bridge become the only crossing between Duluth and Superior?

For crossings between WI and MN, each state pays half of the cost for the bridge structure.  They pay their own costs for any approach work up to the bridge.  WI and MN tend to alternate who oversees and constructs crossings (14/61 is WisDOT although the border is a side channel, 90 is MnDOT, Winona is MnDOT although the border is a side channel, Wabasha is WisDOT, Red Wing is MnDOT, Prescott is WisDOT, 94 is WisDOT, 36 is MnDOT, 2 is WiSDOT, 535 is MnDOT). 

Especially with the recent replacements for many of the crossings you can see what styles of bridges each DOT prefers as well.  MnDOT prefers more of the prestressed concrete box segment bridges like the 35W bridge while WisDOT prefers more steel arch bridges like the Hoan Bridge.  You can even tell the differences in who built it typically by the light poles as well, note the different styles between the Blatnik and Bong bridges.

When the Blatnik eventually needs to get replaced (I expect due to high costs they may look at additional rehab and leave replacement as a last resort), they will find the money to do it.  Just for emergency purposes alone, there needs to be the two crossings.  But today it would probably be well over $750 million to replace it.  So it will probably require special allocations by both states through the legislature and governor to fund it as neither DOT has that money sitting around.

Find it interesting that the bridges that WISDOT oversees are newer and in a lot better shape than the bridges that MNDOT oversees.  Aside from the new MN 36/WIS 64 Bridge that is set to open, all of the other bridges mentioned that MNDOT oversees are probably going to need to be replaced or undergo a major rehab.  All of the structures that WISDOT takes the lead in that are mentioned are in great shape and will last a long time. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 24, 2015, 01:04:41 AM
Is the bridge that connects Oliver, WI (west end of WI 105) with the Fond du Lac neighborhood in Duluth, MN still privately owned (Canadian National)?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 24, 2015, 02:14:34 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 24, 2015, 01:04:41 AM
Is the bridge that connects Oliver, WI (west end of WI 105) with the Fond du Lac neighborhood in Duluth, MN still privately owned (Canadian National)?

Mike

According to MNDOT, CN does own the bridge.  But WISDOT and MNDOT paid to rehab the deck in 2000 for vehicular traffic.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/historicbridges/6544.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 24, 2015, 07:43:44 PM
It looks like 70 MPH may be coming to the WI-16 freeway between I-94 and Oconomowoc. Driving in the area today, I noticed that there are now freshly planted second posts placed next to the current posts holding the 65 MPH signs. They could be just installing new 65 MPH signs using what appears to be the new "2-post" standard, but I don't see WisDOT doing that out of the blue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 24, 2015, 08:20:27 PM
I'll have to check if they're doing the same thing for US 41/141 north of Green Bay
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 24, 2015, 11:34:12 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 24, 2015, 07:43:44 PM
It looks like 70 MPH may be coming to the WI-16 freeway between I-94 and Oconomowoc. Driving in the area today, I noticed that there are now freshly planted second posts placed next to the current posts holding the 65 MPH signs. They could be just installing new 65 MPH signs using what appears to be the new "2-post" standard, but I don't see WisDOT doing that out of the blue.
Not when they delay projects to make a political move :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on October 25, 2015, 12:33:06 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 24, 2015, 07:43:44 PM
It looks like 70 MPH may be coming to the WI-16 freeway between I-94 and Oconomowoc. Driving in the area today, I noticed that there are now freshly planted second posts placed next to the current posts holding the 65 MPH signs. They could be just installing new 65 MPH signs using what appears to be the new "2-post" standard, but I don't see WisDOT doing that out of the blue.

I noticed that too last week when I was in that area. I saw the same thing yesterday on the US 12 freeway from Elkhorn to IL. US 12 is still 65 as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 27, 2015, 11:55:44 PM
In other news: Madison residents can't merge.

DOT closes what neighbors call the 'Stoughton Road death ramp'
http://www.channel3000.com/news/DOT-closes-what-neighbors-call-the-Stoughton-Road-death-ramp/36079912
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on October 28, 2015, 08:12:15 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2015, 11:55:44 PM
In other news: Madison residents can't merge.

DOT closes what neighbors call the 'Stoughton Road death ramp'
http://www.channel3000.com/news/DOT-closes-what-neighbors-call-the-Stoughton-Road-death-ramp/36079912

I have not been on Stoughton for awhile so when I first saw this I went to google streetview to remind myself what it looked like and though, there is an auxiliary lane... what's the big deal?

Then I watched the video... I can see the concerns.   That is a very sub-standard merge point (construction zones typically don't meet standards) but that is pretty bad.  I agree people don't know how to merge but that is tough merge to begin with.  If traffic is dense on Stoughton and you wanted to make it on at full speed you are at the mercy of drivers on Stoughton to let you in (as you force your way in) as there is no "escape zone aka shoulder" if things go wrong.  The other option is to stop, but most people won't because they feel like once they stop they are stuck.

Smart move to close it as that is just an crash waiting to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on October 28, 2015, 08:20:11 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 23, 2015, 11:22:45 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on October 23, 2015, 08:23:54 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 23, 2015, 04:26:10 AM
Right now the biggest concern in the Superior area has to be I-535.  Last I checked there was a weight limit posted on the Blatnik Bridge, and it's because the bridge is an aging steel truss bridge.  In the next 25 years or even sooner, the bridge is going to have to be replaced, and I'm guessing that it isn't going to be cheap.  By looking at the WIS and MN DOT websites and the bridge parapets, I notice that MNDOT is primarily responsible for the Blatnik Bridge while WISDOT is responsible for the Bong Bridge.  THE Blatnik Bridge rehab project was on the MNDOT website, while the Bong Bridge rehab project was listed on the WISDOT website.  The bridge parapets on the Bong Bridge are unique to Wisconsin, and I notice that they're also used on the interchange ramps with I-35.   Are the costs for maintaining the bridges split, or do the DOTs take care of the bridges they take a lead on?  If the Blatnik Bridge gets to the point where it's unusable, will it be rebuilt or will the Bong Bridge become the only crossing between Duluth and Superior?

For crossings between WI and MN, each state pays half of the cost for the bridge structure.  They pay their own costs for any approach work up to the bridge.  WI and MN tend to alternate who oversees and constructs crossings (14/61 is WisDOT although the border is a side channel, 90 is MnDOT, Winona is MnDOT although the border is a side channel, Wabasha is WisDOT, Red Wing is MnDOT, Prescott is WisDOT, 94 is WisDOT, 36 is MnDOT, 2 is WiSDOT, 535 is MnDOT). 

Especially with the recent replacements for many of the crossings you can see what styles of bridges each DOT prefers as well.  MnDOT prefers more of the prestressed concrete box segment bridges like the 35W bridge while WisDOT prefers more steel arch bridges like the Hoan Bridge.  You can even tell the differences in who built it typically by the light poles as well, note the different styles between the Blatnik and Bong bridges.

When the Blatnik eventually needs to get replaced (I expect due to high costs they may look at additional rehab and leave replacement as a last resort), they will find the money to do it.  Just for emergency purposes alone, there needs to be the two crossings.  But today it would probably be well over $750 million to replace it.  So it will probably require special allocations by both states through the legislature and governor to fund it as neither DOT has that money sitting around.

Find it interesting that the bridges that WISDOT oversees are newer and in a lot better shape than the bridges that MNDOT oversees.  Aside from the new MN 36/WIS 64 Bridge that is set to open, all of the other bridges mentioned that MNDOT oversees are probably going to need to be replaced or undergo a major rehab.  All of the structures that WISDOT takes the lead in that are mentioned are in great shape and will last a long time.


A lot of MnDOT's bridges are currently seeing work.  I-90 (Dresbach) is being replaced, MN 43 in Winona is seeing the existing span rehabbed and a 2nd span added, Red Wing is getting replaced in 2018, Stillwater has the new bridge built in the new location while the old will become a trail bridge, Blatnik saw work on it a few years ago although that was a very minor preservation project.  WisDOT definitely has the advantage as many of the bridges they own are newer to begin with, give it another 10-20 years and a lot of work will need to be done on those bridges as well.  It is all cyclical and dependent on the original age of the bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on October 28, 2015, 09:12:53 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on October 28, 2015, 08:12:15 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2015, 11:55:44 PM
In other news: Madison residents can't merge.

DOT closes what neighbors call the 'Stoughton Road death ramp'
http://www.channel3000.com/news/DOT-closes-what-neighbors-call-the-Stoughton-Road-death-ramp/36079912

I have not been on Stoughton for awhile so when I first saw this I went to google streetview to remind myself what it looked like and though, there is an auxiliary lane... what's the big deal?

Then I watched the video... I can see the concerns.   That is a very sub-standard merge point (construction zones typically don't meet standards) but that is pretty bad.  I agree people don't know how to merge but that is tough merge to begin with.  If traffic is dense on Stoughton and you wanted to make it on at full speed you are at the mercy of drivers on Stoughton to let you in (as you force your way in) as there is no "escape zone aka shoulder" if things go wrong.  The other option is to stop, but most people won't because they feel like once they stop they are stuck.

Smart move to close it as that is just an crash waiting to happen.

This is for entering Stoughton Rd going North... I'm not seeing any auxiliary lane before, and there certainly isn't one now either.
It's a pretty sketchy looking setup, but nothing special compared to some of the ramps I've seen in Chicago (that aren't under construction). Couple that with Madison drivers (which I've found to be some of the worst) I could see why they might want to re-think it/close it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on October 28, 2015, 09:26:34 AM
Quote from: colinstu on October 28, 2015, 09:12:53 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on October 28, 2015, 08:12:15 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2015, 11:55:44 PM
In other news: Madison residents can't merge.

DOT closes what neighbors call the 'Stoughton Road death ramp'
http://www.channel3000.com/news/DOT-closes-what-neighbors-call-the-Stoughton-Road-death-ramp/36079912

I have not been on Stoughton for awhile so when I first saw this I went to google streetview to remind myself what it looked like and though, there is an auxiliary lane... what's the big deal?

Then I watched the video... I can see the concerns.   That is a very sub-standard merge point (construction zones typically don't meet standards) but that is pretty bad.  I agree people don't know how to merge but that is tough merge to begin with.  If traffic is dense on Stoughton and you wanted to make it on at full speed you are at the mercy of drivers on Stoughton to let you in (as you force your way in) as there is no "escape zone aka shoulder" if things go wrong.  The other option is to stop, but most people won't because they feel like once they stop they are stuck.

Smart move to close it as that is just an crash waiting to happen.

This is for entering Stoughton Rd going North... I'm not seeing any auxiliary lane before, and there certainly isn't one now either.
It's a pretty sketchy looking setup, but nothing special compared to some of the ramps I've seen in Chicago (that aren't under construction). Couple that with Madison drivers (which I've found to be some of the worst) I could see why they might want to re-think it/close it.

Read the article and look at it closer, the issue is the Southbound ramp on to Stoughton.  Chicago is also a tough comparison because many of the freeways where there are sub-standard ramps are crawling for many of hours of the day as well.  Makes it easier to merge when traffic when its moving slow.  The two situations are not really comparable.

If someone from the area can confirm I'm wrong, go for it, but looking at the article and watching the video they clearly are discussing southbound.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on October 28, 2015, 09:42:27 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on October 28, 2015, 09:26:34 AM
Quote from: colinstu on October 28, 2015, 09:12:53 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on October 28, 2015, 08:12:15 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2015, 11:55:44 PM
In other news: Madison residents can't merge.

DOT closes what neighbors call the 'Stoughton Road death ramp'
http://www.channel3000.com/news/DOT-closes-what-neighbors-call-the-Stoughton-Road-death-ramp/36079912

I have not been on Stoughton for awhile so when I first saw this I went to google streetview to remind myself what it looked like and though, there is an auxiliary lane... what's the big deal?

Then I watched the video... I can see the concerns.   That is a very sub-standard merge point (construction zones typically don't meet standards) but that is pretty bad.  I agree people don't know how to merge but that is tough merge to begin with.  If traffic is dense on Stoughton and you wanted to make it on at full speed you are at the mercy of drivers on Stoughton to let you in (as you force your way in) as there is no "escape zone aka shoulder" if things go wrong.  The other option is to stop, but most people won't because they feel like once they stop they are stuck.

Smart move to close it as that is just an crash waiting to happen.

This is for entering Stoughton Rd going North... I'm not seeing any auxiliary lane before, and there certainly isn't one now either.
It's a pretty sketchy looking setup, but nothing special compared to some of the ramps I've seen in Chicago (that aren't under construction). Couple that with Madison drivers (which I've found to be some of the worst) I could see why they might want to re-think it/close it.

Read the article and look at it closer, the issue is the Southbound ramp on to Stoughton.  Chicago is also a tough comparison because many of the freeways where there are sub-standard ramps are crawling for many of hours of the day as well.  Makes it easier to merge when traffic when its moving slow.  The two situations are not really comparable.

If someone from the area can confirm I'm wrong, go for it, but looking at the article and watching the video they clearly are discussing southbound.
Plus there is a solid white line in the merge area on Stoughton Road, so technically drivers on Stoughton Road cannot change lanes to help let someone merge, they can only slow down.  I wonder if there is enough room to have the entrance ramp meet Stoughton Road at close to a 90 degree angle and put up a stop sign there?  I think that would be safer and better than just closing the whole thing.

There are a couple of entrance ramps to Highway 50 near Kenosha just west of Highway 31 that are just like this but those ramps are not utilized very much so it's not really a problem right now.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5665728,-87.8993454,3a,75y,37.69h,76.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbo09vyCak8BPxvVLcO6oOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5670094,-87.9035136,3a,75y,268.55h,68.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCy6IJN0Tc6gF4EQ543JzXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 29, 2015, 06:46:50 PM
http://www.wjfw.com/email_story.html?SKU=20151028191610

Interesting story in the Town of Lincoln, which is just north of Eagle River where the DOT is removing street lights along US 45 because they don't want to turn the lights on.  WISDOT is removing the lights and billing the town.  The town is accusing WISDOT of bullying them, and WISDOT says that the town agreed to maintain the lights when they were installed and they have to be taken down due to safety.  LED retrofitting was discussed also in the article.  Who's side are you on, the town or WISDOT?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 29, 2015, 10:29:12 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 29, 2015, 06:46:50 PM
http://www.wjfw.com/email_story.html?SKU=20151028191610

Interesting story in the Town of Lincoln, which is just north of Eagle River where the DOT is removing street lights along US 45 because they don't want to turn the lights on.  WISDOT is removing the lights and billing the town.  The town is accusing WISDOT of bullying them, and WISDOT says that the town agreed to maintain the lights when they were installed and they have to be taken down due to safety.  LED retrofitting was discussed also in the article.  Who's side are you on, the town or WISDOT?

'They' in the first sentence refers to the township.

If the township is crying poor like they are, then it's their fault for having them installed in the first place.  This makes me question their very existence.  If the township can't afford to govern themselves, then maybe they should be merged into the City of Eagle River.  Then the city can maintain them to their hearts' content.

:poke:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 30, 2015, 12:54:08 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 29, 2015, 06:46:50 PM
http://www.wjfw.com/email_story.html?SKU=20151028191610

Interesting story in the Town of Lincoln, which is just north of Eagle River where the DOT is removing street lights along US 45 because they don't want to turn the lights on.  WISDOT is removing the lights and billing the town.  The town is accusing WISDOT of bullying them, and WISDOT says that the town agreed to maintain the lights when they were installed and they have to be taken down due to safety.  LED retrofitting was discussed also in the article.  Who's side are you on, the town or WISDOT?

I don't totally agree with removing the poles, but I can see both sides of the removal/leave them installed argument. For many years (still?) WisDOT has admitted to not having the resources to ensure all of their own lighting was in proper working order (read: WisDOT has their own non-functioning/dark street lights, albeit for a different reason), so I can see a bit of hypocrisy here.

That's where the blame on WisDOT ends in my book. The town agreed to maintain them; WisDOT has it in writing. Stop paying your mortgage or credit card and see what happens. I guess this is just repossession on a governmental scale. As stated in this and other WisDOT has tried to work with the town...but the town has stonewalled. Other articles I've read on the situation mentioned the town diverting the lighting money towards road patching. One article also mentioned the town even threatened to have law enforcement officials prevent the workers from removing the lights (turning the whole thing into one big pissing match). I wonder if Vilas County could have absorbed the lights into their system (unless the county does not currently maintain any)?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 30, 2015, 05:26:25 AM
The town also received about $135,000 from WISDOT for roads, according to jsonline.  They probably figured that they needed all of the money for road projects within the town.  Some of that money could have been used to keep the lights on.  Once I found out they received that much aid, I'd have to side with the state because the cost of lights is a fraction of that amount.  If they're receiving that much money in aid, the town must have a lot of roads that are in rough shape.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on October 30, 2015, 08:59:35 AM
Superior was the second largest city in Wisconsin? I never would have guessed that!!

"If the township can't afford to govern themselves, then maybe they should be merged into the City of Eagle River."

Agree. Makes me wonder if there are any Merger talks going on up north as there are/were going on down south. And then my A.D.D. brain thinks about the Town of Sheboygan, how they have tried and failed in the past to incorporate as a village. Doesn't make too much sense to me, they've got the population base for it, it really reminds me of the Milwaukee and West Suburbs area, how you can tell it's in the country yet it's built up at the same time. If that makes any sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 30, 2015, 11:34:48 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 29, 2015, 06:46:50 PM
http://www.wjfw.com/email_story.html?SKU=20151028191610

Interesting story in the Town of Lincoln, which is just north of Eagle River where the DOT is removing street lights along US 45 because they don't want to turn the lights on.  WISDOT is removing the lights and billing the town.  The town is accusing WISDOT of bullying them, and WISDOT says that the town agreed to maintain the lights when they were installed and they have to be taken down due to safety.  LED retrofitting was discussed also in the article.  Who's side are you on, the town or WISDOT?

Another article. 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lights-out-in-lincoln-dot-to-remove-streetlights-in-dispute-b99603804z1-337505001.html

The town's actions were even worse.

The town chairman threatened to call law enforcement for theft if WIDOT took the poles down, even though the town willingly relinquished the ownership of the lights.  Another town supervisor, when asked about the threat to call law enforcement, said to the paper:  "We were talking about rounding up a couple guys with muzzle loaders and meeting them."

WIDOT paid for the lights for a few months and even offered to have them turn every other light on or keep them on for a limited time at night.  The town refused.

Town governments are the worst.  I think Wisconsin should seriously consider unincorporated areas to be overseen by the County Boards and eliminate this kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on October 30, 2015, 12:35:03 PM
Wow, that's ridiculous. I agree.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 30, 2015, 03:09:09 PM
What a bunch of bullcrap.  The Town of Lincoln includes most of Vilas County's portion of the Eagle Chain of Lakes; the shores of which are packed with expensive vacation properties.  The idea that they don't have enough money to keep a few streetlights on is laughable on its face. Either they are absolutely terrible at managing their money over there (or worse, committing some sort of fraud) or they are trying to pull some ideological bullshit that benefits no one.  (*cough* teabaggers *cough*cough*)

These town officials sound like idiots threatening to call the cops on the DOT or show up with "muzzle loaders" (which by the way is especially odd they are that specific about the type of old-timey gun that almost no one owns, even Up North.)

And then the DOT; they don't look so hot either.  Clearly they are removing the streetlights just to spite these idiots on the town board.  Traffic hazard my ass.

It should have never come to this.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 30, 2015, 03:41:28 PM
To tie the last two subject together, I was driving on Stoughton Road in Madison in the rain the other night, and was amazed to see that it still doesn't have streetlights between the Broadway intersection and Buckeye Road.  (I didn't go further north than that.)

Maybe Madison can buy from from the cheap from WIDOT?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on October 30, 2015, 05:07:03 PM
No one looks very good here.

Clearly the Town reneged on an agreement.

WisDOT got petty, and decided for some capricious reason that street lights were a traffic hazard in Lincoln Twp. and nowhere else in the state.  It all starts to sound rather hillbillyish to me, and I find it really embarrassing. 

Wisconsin politics are definitely taking a turn for the worse these days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 30, 2015, 05:13:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 30, 2015, 03:41:28 PM
To tie the last two subject together, I was driving on Stoughton Road in Madison in the rain the other night, and was amazed to see that it still doesn't have streetlights between the Broadway intersection and Buckeye Road.  (I didn't go further north than that.)

Maybe Madison can buy from from the cheap from WIDOT?

Other than the recent signal and lighting upgrades at the Buckeye and Pflaum intersections, I doubt that stretch will get lighting until Stoughton Rd gets completely rebuilt. Plus, it's not all the city of Madison...you have the town of Blooming Grove (which Madison will eventually own) and the city of Monona to deal with. Madison likes throwing their weight around at times, but I doubt it would happen in this instance. Not to forget, there are many stretches of the Beltline that are still unlit.

Quote from: midwesternroadguy on October 30, 2015, 05:07:03 PM
No one looks very good here.

Clearly the Town reneged on an agreement.

WisDOT got petty, and decided for some capricious reason that street lights were a traffic hazard in Lincoln Twp. and nowhere else in the state.  It all starts to sound rather hillbillyish to me, and I find it really embarrassing. 

Wisconsin politics are definitely taking a turn for the worse these days.

I agree completely.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jreuschl on November 02, 2015, 11:37:28 PM
At the I-94 and CTH F exit in Waukesha Co, WisDOT has covered the former F and TO WI-74 sign to just indicate hwy F. Why would they do this?

They should have extended 74 south anyway to I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Sephyroth on November 02, 2015, 11:46:16 PM
Quote from: jreuschl on November 02, 2015, 11:37:28 PM
At the I-94 and CTH F exit in Waukesha Co, WisDOT has covered the former F and TO WI-74 sign to just indicate hwy F. Why would they do this?

They should have extended 74 south anyway to I-94.

That helps answer my question then...I noticed yesterday that the signs for Hwy 74 were covered on the BGSs on I-41, and the End 74 sign (that was just there last Sunday) was completely removed, along with any trace of the road existing (e.g. JCT signs at Hwy 175)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jreuschl on November 03, 2015, 12:06:55 AM
So is WisDOT decommissioning Wi-74 then!?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Sephyroth on November 03, 2015, 12:23:28 AM
Quote from: jreuschl on November 03, 2015, 12:06:55 AM
So is WisDOT decommissioning Wi-74 then!?

Yes, it looks that way. I did some googling and found this item (http://agendas.menomonee-falls.org:8085/docs/2015/VBREG/20151019_1029/2693%5FMain%20St%20Jursidtional%20Transfer%20Presentation%202015%2D10%2D19%2Epdf) from the Menomonee Falls village board talking about the transfer from state control to local control.

This looks to be part of the western Waukesha bypass, where the state can't add any new highway miles to the existing plan, so they're transferring what (now used to be!) Hwy 74 to the county & towns, effective as of yesterday.


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 03, 2015, 09:37:02 AM
So it looks like they are eventually planning to route US-18 over the Les Paul Pkwy as part of the planned Waukesha Bypass. That would likely explain the reconstruction of Summit Ave. in Waukesha, since it's typically SOP for WisDOT to make road repairs before handing jurisdiction over to other bodies.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 03, 2015, 11:14:04 AM
Wow.  Good find.

If the planned Waukesha bypass goes heads north to I-94 as that map indicates, I think it would be better to have US-18 routed along the I-94 to Bluemound Road.  At first glance, the Les Paul Parkway is longer.

Or even better, route US-18 north to I-94 and end it there.  Then come up with another number for Bluemound Road and  WI-164 south of I-94.  That gets rid of that dumb duplex with I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 03, 2015, 12:08:17 PM
I am unable to open the link, but am I correct in assuming then that the new Waukesha Bypass will bear Highway 18 then?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 03, 2015, 12:36:06 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 03, 2015, 11:14:04 AM
Wow.  Good find.

If the planned Waukesha bypass goes heads north to I-94 as that map indicates, I think it would be better to have US-18 routed along the I-94 to Bluemound Road.  At first glance, the Les Paul Parkway is longer.

Or even better, route US-18 north to I-94 and end it there.  Then come up with another number for Bluemound Road and  WI-164 south of I-94.  That gets rid of that dumb duplex with I-94.

I originally assumed that the I-94 routing was what they were going to do, until I saw that they were turning it back at Wolf Rd. That would put 18 onto the parkway. I think the reason they're doing that is the relative importance (and traffic volumes) of US-18 between I-94 and Wolf Rd.

I also think that past Wolf Rd., US-18 is mostly a local route so it probably makes more sense to route it over the parkway than I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 03, 2015, 12:37:16 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on November 03, 2015, 12:08:17 PM
I am unable to open the link, but am I correct in assuming then that the new Waukesha Bypass will bear Highway 18 then?

It looks like at least the proposed section from WI-59/CTH-X to the current intersection of CTH-TT and US-18 would, yes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on November 03, 2015, 01:36:13 PM
Additional highways will be moving to 70 mph: Madison.com story (http://host.madison.com/traffic/parts-of-highways-added-to-mph-speed-limit-list/article_162ff818-d2d4-5b00-91de-195daba51732.html)

QuoteIn Dane County, the two stretches of roads getting new signs include nine miles of Highway 14 from the Beltline south to Highway 138 in Oregon and 22 miles of Highway 151 from Sun Prairie north to Columbus.

QuoteThe other seven segments of Wisconsin highways going to 70 include:
-Highway 29 in Brown County, five miles from east of Highway VV to I-41.
-Highway 57 in Brown County, five miles from I-43 to Highway 54.
-Highway 12 in Walworth County, 18 miles from one mile southeast of the Highway 67 interchange to one mile northwest of Highway H.
-Highway 45 in Washington County, 13 miles from I-41 to the Highway D interchange.
-Highway 16 in Waukesha County, 14 miles from Highway P/Brown Street to I-94.
-Highway 53 in Chippewa and Barron counties, 53 miles from Highway 29 to 26th Avenue.
-Highway 29 in Chippewa County, 22 miles from Highway T in Chippewa Falls to Highway 27 in Cadott.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Right on Red on November 03, 2015, 04:48:06 PM
Wow, that was fast.

According to Facebook, the 70 MPH signs are up on 45 already to the West Bend Elevator (CTH D), and apparently also on US 12 near Lake Geneva.

I'm also surprised to see US 41 from Green Bay to Abrams not mentioned. Unless they just forgot.

Edit: Story from JSOnline. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/traffic/more-highway-segments-in-southeastern-wisconsin-posted-at-70-mph-b99609036z1-339904581.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 03, 2015, 06:30:11 PM
I just drove on US 41 north of Howard today.  Signs still say 65.  Would think that US 10 from I-41 to Fremont and US 45 from US 10 to I-41 would have been eligible as well to raise to 70.  Surprised that Wis 29 and Wis 57 would be raised on short stretches. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 03, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: Right on Red on November 03, 2015, 04:48:06 PM
I'm also surprised to see US 41 from Green Bay to Abrams not mentioned. Unless they just forgot.

Also conspicuous by its absence: the freeway stretch of US 51 north of Hwy 29.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 04, 2015, 02:55:55 PM
Back to STH 74 being decommissioned, I see old 74 from STH 190 to Sussex becoming an extension of CTH F, but what about the rest of 74 from Sussex to Interstate 41/US 41-45/STH 100? Does anyone know what that stretch's new designation will be? Probably another county highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 04, 2015, 03:21:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 04, 2015, 02:55:55 PM
Back to STH 74 being decommissioned, I see old 74 from STH 190 to Sussex becoming an extension of CTH F, but what about the rest of 74 from Sussex to Interstate 41/US 41-45/STH 100? Does anyone know what that stretch's new designation will be? Probably another county highway.
From Sephyroth's link, it will be CTH F to Menomonee Falls, then Main Street in Menomonee Falls will revert to a local street.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2015, 11:41:55 AM
WI 74 wouldn't have been my first choice to eliminate if WisDOT is looking for mileage truncate.
Makes me wonder if they are forcing themselves to do that within the same region.

In my opinion, US 18 is unnecessary east of Dodgeville, so rerouting it in Waukesha is a big 'whatever'.  Nobody is going thru on US 18 anyway, so it doesn't matter what path it takes through town.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on November 08, 2015, 01:06:58 PM
I'm not really surprised about WIS 74 being decommissioned. It used to be a more important road that went all the way out to WIS 83. But since the extension and rerouting of 164, 74 seems to have lost its purpose. On a related note, I always wondered why WIS 100 was rerouted up 41/45 to Main St. rather than a concurrency to Brown Deer Rd. with WIS 145 along 124th St.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2015, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 08, 2015, 01:06:58 PM
I'm not really surprised about WIS 74 being decommissioned. It used to be a more important road that went all the way out to WIS 83. But since the extension and rerouting of 164, 74 seems to have lost its purpose. On a related note, I always wondered why WIS 100 was rerouted up 41/45 to Main St. rather than a concurrency to Brown Deer Rd. with WIS 145 along 124th St.

WI 100 used to slide east on Good Hope and up 107th to Brown Deer.
Also, the interchange at 124th is relatively new.  There was no access there prior to ~2000.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on November 08, 2015, 02:07:13 PM
I read the Menomonee Falls report, and it does claim that the WIS 74 removal is related to the rerouting of US 18 along the Bypass/Les Paul Parkway,and onto CTY TT. For this to occur, state highway miles had to be taken from somewhere, and arrangements were made between WISDOT, Waukesha County and Menomonee Falls to take over the remaining WIS 74. CTY F now extends along the former 74 from WIS 190, through Sussex, and to the Menomonee Falls city limits, where it becomes a locally maintained street until the intersection with 41/45, where it continues east as 100.

Incidentally, it looks like CTY TT will be maintained by WISDOT between I-94 and US 18. Will this become some sort of unsigned spur route? Brief extension of WIS 16? Who knows?

WIS 74 is one of the earliest route designations in the state, going back 98 years to 1917. Since then, it has moved around quite a bit along the same section of road. It originally ran north along Lake Michigan starting Silver Spring and onto Brown Deer Rd. Later, that section became part of 32, and 74 extended farther west. It was eventually pushed farther west out of Milwaukee County and into Waukesha County. When 164 was extended, 74 became truncated there, and soon ran south to 190 when 164 was rerouted along CTY J. By this point, 74 had essentially become decommissioning fodder, as the route didn't really make much sense from a navigation standpoint. WIS 74 was the obvious sacrificial route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 08, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 08, 2015, 02:07:13 PM
Incidentally, it looks like CTY TT will be maintained by WISDOT between I-94 and US 18. Will this become some sort of unsigned spur route? Brief extension of WIS 16? Who knows?


I'm guessing WI-16 won't work there - there is no direct connection between WI-16 EB and CTH-TT. In order to go from WI-16 EB to I-94 WB (to get to CTH-TT) you have to exit WI-16 at CTH-JJ and take that to I-94. They could sign CTH-TT as a 3 digit "X"18 state route like they did with WI-341 and WI-794. Or just leave it, like Layton Ave. between I-43 and WI-100.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 08, 2015, 06:44:24 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2015, 11:41:55 AM
WI 74 wouldn't have been my first choice to eliminate if WisDOT is looking for mileage truncate.
Makes me wonder if they are forcing themselves to do that within the same region.

In my opinion, US 18 is unnecessary east of Dodgeville, so rerouting it in Waukesha is a big 'whatever'.  Nobody is going thru on US 18 anyway, so it doesn't matter what path it takes through town.


US-18 is worthy of a state highway designation between Cambridge and Waukesha.  So that means either keeping it at US-18 or giving it a new number and changing all the signage.  Clearly the former is the easier choice for everyone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 08, 2015, 06:52:59 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 08, 2015, 02:07:13 PM
I read the Menomonee Falls report, and it does claim that the WIS 74 removal is related to the rerouting of US 18 along the Bypass/Les Paul Parkway,and onto CTY TT. For this to occur, state highway miles had to be taken from somewhere, and arrangements were made between WISDOT, Waukesha County and Menomonee Falls to take over the remaining WIS 74. CTY F now extends along the former 74 from WIS 190, through Sussex, and to the Menomonee Falls city limits, where it becomes a locally maintained street until the intersection with 41/45, where it continues east as 100.

Incidentally, it looks like CTY TT will be maintained by WISDOT between I-94 and US 18. Will this become some sort of unsigned spur route? Brief extension of WIS 16? Who knows?

WIS 74 is one of the earliest route designations in the state, going back 98 years to 1917. Since then, it has moved around quite a bit along the same section of road. It originally ran north along Lake Michigan starting Silver Spring and onto Brown Deer Rd. Later, that section became part of 32, and 74 extended farther west. It was eventually pushed farther west out of Milwaukee County and into Waukesha County. When 164 was extended, 74 became truncated there, and soon ran south to 190 when 164 was rerouted along CTY J. By this point, 74 had essentially become decommissioning fodder, as the route didn't really make much sense from a navigation standpoint. WIS 74 was the obvious sacrificial route.



I'm assuming they are going to improve County TT (Merrill Hills Road) because right now I think it is substandard for a state highway.  Also do they own some ROW to get from County D (Sunset Drive) to the bypass?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 08, 2015, 07:31:44 PM
Looking at the map, it looks like they left open the option to route it over Sunset Dr. (CTH-D) to St. Paul Ave. (CTH-X) back to WI-59. So if they can't get the ROW, they'll go with that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 08, 2015, 08:20:11 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 08, 2015, 07:31:44 PM
Looking at the map, it looks like they left open the option to route it over Sunset Dr. (CTH-D) to St. Paul Ave. (CTH-X) back to WI-59. So if they can't get the ROW, they'll go with that.


That is just so odd.  Why not run it north on TT to I-94 instead?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 08, 2015, 09:59:42 PM
The "ultimate" plan is to have a belt line bypass of Waukesha running from US-18 and Wolf Rd. all the way around the west and north sides to I-94. Mostly because a good part of the growth in that area will be along that corridor.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 09, 2015, 12:31:09 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 08, 2015, 02:07:13 PM

Incidentally, it looks like CTY TT will be maintained by WISDOT between I-94 and US 18. Will this become some sort of unsigned spur route? Brief extension of WIS 16? Who knows?

This sounds almost like S. Oneida St between US 10/WI 441 and downtown Appleton, which to the best of my knowledge is an unnumbered state highway.  At one point, its entire routing was either US 10 or US 41, with US 10 being rerouted off of it not long after the WI 441 freeway was completed during the early 1990s.  US 41 left the northern part of it during the late 1920s.  The present Oneida St Fox River bridge was opened in late 1980.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on November 09, 2015, 08:10:29 AM
What made me think of the spur thing was that weird little half mile stretch of Howard Avenue in St. Francis between 794 and 32. On the books, it's an unmarked spur of 794. WISDOT maintains it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 09, 2015, 08:26:43 AM
I just drove Wis 16 last night from Oconomowoc over to I-94 East (to Milwaukee). Makes me wonder, what was the original intention of Wis 16...uh...Freeway? Expressway? whatever it is...I know about the Freeway History of Milwaukee's past, and how there was to be a Bay Freeway basically on Capitol Drive (Wis 190) going out that way, but I was just curious to know about why Wis 16 was upgraded and built the way it was from I-94 to Oconomowoc, if anybody has some info :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 09, 2015, 11:36:26 AM
The traffic counts certainly support it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 09, 2015, 02:16:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 09, 2015, 12:31:09 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 08, 2015, 02:07:13 PM

Incidentally, it looks like CTY TT will be maintained by WISDOT between I-94 and US 18. Will this become some sort of unsigned spur route? Brief extension of WIS 16? Who knows?

This sounds almost like S. Oneida St between US 10/WI 441 and downtown Appleton, which to the best of my knowledge is an unnumbered state highway.  At one point, its entire routing was either US 10 or US 41, with US 10 being rerouted off of it not long after the WI 441 freeway was completed during the early 1990s.  US 41 left the northern part of it during the late 1920s.  The present Oneida St Fox River bridge was opened in late 1980.

Mike

According to the State Trunk Highway map, S Oneida St was removed as a state highway.  The Skyline Bridge may be owned by WISDOT, as many large bridges are that aren't a part of the state highway system, such as the Sturgeon Bay Bridges and the Water St Bridge in Eau Claire that is under construction. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 09, 2015, 04:31:34 PM
I really don't like the idea of taking away some mileage of a state highway in order to extend another state highway. What is the reasoning behind this?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 09, 2015, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 08, 2015, 09:59:42 PM
The "ultimate" plan is to have a belt line bypass of Waukesha running from US-18 and Wolf Rd. all the way around the west and north sides to I-94. Mostly because a good part of the growth in that area will be along that corridor.


Well I understand that to a point.  They should have done it years ago
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 09, 2015, 09:12:59 PM
I suppose the numbering is based on a "they have to number it *something*" mentality. It isn't really about making the US-18 route more direct, it's about turning over the streets US-18 runs over back to the City of Waukesha, and then finding a number for the bypass. US-18 fits the bill. So I guess it makes sense in a "big picture" way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on November 10, 2015, 11:27:47 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 09, 2015, 04:31:34 PM
I really don't like the idea of taking away some mileage of a state highway in order to extend another state highway. What is the reasoning behind this?

Some vague law about WISDOT not adding any additional miles of funded road to their allotment. If they add additional miles, they need to take it from somewhere else. WIS 74 seems to fit the bill, and it was truncated and relocated heavily when 164 was shifted over to the CTY J route and extended north. I get the feeling 74 was kept on the books for when an opportunity like this happened, and they needed to take mileage away from elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 10, 2015, 03:51:02 PM
Exited from I-43 onto Wis 57 and saw a Speed Limit 65 Ahead sign.  After passing that sign I saw new Speed Limit 70 signs posted.  The new 70 zone on Wis 57 goes up to just before Church Rd past the Wis 54 interchange, where there were new Speed Likit 65 ahead signs.  I thought the signs from the I-43 ramps would be moved and placed there instead.  I guess the sign crews forgot about those signs because they're still posted despite changing all of the speed limit signs to 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on November 10, 2015, 04:25:49 PM
Despite what the news release (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/591-co-exec.aspx) said, the 70 mph speed limit for US 151 will not begin at I-39. Instead, it begins between Exit 98 (American Pkwy) & 100 (Reiner Rd). The SB drop to 55 heading into Madison actually got pushed further upstream than it used to be, likely to match the point where the 70 signs now begin for northbound.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 10, 2015, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 10, 2015, 11:27:47 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 09, 2015, 04:31:34 PM
I really don't like the idea of taking away some mileage of a state highway in order to extend another state highway. What is the reasoning behind this?

Some vague law about WISDOT not adding any additional miles of funded road to their allotment. If they add additional miles, they need to take it from somewhere else. WIS 74 seems to fit the bill, and it was truncated and relocated heavily when 164 was shifted over to the CTY J route and extended north. I get the feeling 74 was kept on the books for when an opportunity like this happened, and they needed to take mileage away from elsewhere.


I don't think it is a law.  In fact the .pdf presentation to Menomonee Falls, it specifically says "As part of this project WDOT per their rules they cannot add any new STH miles."

WIDOT has been maintaining about 11,750 miles in highways since 1998.  My guess is that they have simply decided that this is the limit and any additions must come with a deletion.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/data-plan/veh-miles/vmt-hist.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 10, 2015, 06:44:09 PM
In the past they sure didn't care about adding mileage.  Wis 127 is an old alignment of Hwy 16 and Wis 175 was designated right after US 41 was rerouted between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee in the 50s. Both of those routes would moat likely be turned back to local control if a similar reroute would happen today.  Those are 2 routes that could probably be easily turned back to county/local control.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 10, 2015, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 10, 2015, 06:44:09 PM
In the past they sure didn't care about adding mileage.  Wis 127 is an old alignment of Hwy 16 and Wis 175 was designated right after US 41 was rerouted between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee in the 50s. Both of those routes would moat likely be turned back to local control if a similar reroute would happen today.  Those are 2 routes that could probably be easily turned back to county/local control.

Also, when the US 10/45 freeway complex (Appleton/Fremont/New London/Oshkosh) was built (opened in late 2003), the original plan was to turn the north-south part of former US 45 over to the two counties (Outagamie and Winnebago), but traffic projections found that it would still be a worthy state highway.  Thus, except for former WI 110 (Oshkosh-Fremont), ALL of the 'old' roads that the new-ROW US 10 and US 45 freeways plus the former County 'D' part of rerouted US 45 in that area replaced are still state highways (WI 15, WI 76 and WI 96).  In fact, the supplanted part of WI 15 is one of WisDOT's six 'delayed' major upgrade projects.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 10, 2015, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 10, 2015, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 10, 2015, 06:44:09 PM
In the past they sure didn't care about adding mileage.  Wis 127 is an old alignment of Hwy 16 and Wis 175 was designated right after US 41 was rerouted between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee in the 50s. Both of those routes would moat likely be turned back to local control if a similar reroute would happen today.  Those are 2 routes that could probably be easily turned back to county/local control.

Also, when the US 10/45 freeway complex (Appleton/Fremont/New London/Oshkosh) was built (opened in late 2003), the original plan was to turn the north-south part of former US 45 over to the two counties (Outagamie and Winnebago), but traffic projections found that it would still be a worthy state highway.  Thus, except for former WI 110 (Oshkosh-Fremont), ALL of the 'old' roads that the new-ROW US 10 and US 45 freeways plus the former County 'D' part of rerouted US 45 in that area replaced are still state highways (WI 15, WI 76 and WI 96).  In fact, the supplanted part of WI 15 is one of WisDOT's six 'delayed' major upgrade projects.

Mike

Wis 150 was also decommissioned since it ran within 2 miles of US 10.  When US 10 was open to end at US 45 (now Wis 76), the stretch of Wis 150 between US 45 and US 41 became II.  In 2003 when the rest of US 10 opened, the rest of Wis 150 was turned back to local control. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 10, 2015, 08:08:38 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 10, 2015, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 10, 2015, 06:44:09 PM
In the past they sure didn't care about adding mileage.  Wis 127 is an old alignment of Hwy 16 and Wis 175 was designated right after US 41 was rerouted between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee in the 50s. Both of those routes would moat likely be turned back to local control if a similar reroute would happen today.  Those are 2 routes that could probably be easily turned back to county/local control.

Also, when the US 10/45 freeway complex (Appleton/Fremont/New London/Oshkosh) was built (opened in late 2003), the original plan was to turn the north-south part of former US 45 over to the two counties (Outagamie and Winnebago), but traffic projections found that it would still be a worthy state highway.  Thus, except for former WI 110 (Oshkosh-Fremont), ALL of the 'old' roads that the new-ROW US 10 and US 45 freeways plus the former County 'D' part of rerouted US 45 in that area replaced are still state highways (WI 15, WI 76 and WI 96).  In fact, the supplanted part of WI 15 is one of WisDOT's six 'delayed' major upgrade projects.

Mike


If you look at the link I posted above, that is probably why mileage went from 11,755 to 11,812 over two year to 2004.  But then it went back down over the next couple of years.  Something somewhere was either decommissioned or turned back over to a municipality to maintain.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 10, 2015, 08:51:48 PM
Wis 149, 175 north of US 151, Wis 115, and Wis 194 were decommissioned in the years after that project
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 10, 2015, 10:02:04 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 10, 2015, 08:51:48 PM
Wis 149, 175 north of US 151, Wis 115, and Wis 194 were decommissioned in the years after that project


Very likely not a coincidence. 

So to go back to your earlier topic, the reason you don't see more decommissionings is because you haven't seen many additions recently. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 11, 2015, 03:16:28 AM
In the 80s there were 5 state highways roads nearby where I grew up where the state transferred about 70 miles to local control and I don't think there were any additions that added up to that amount(Wis 32, Wis 96, Wis 114, Wis 148, and Wis 149 were the affected routes near me) In the 90s, many of the state maintained business routes were transferred to local control.  When a road is decommissioned and a new state highway is created, I do notice that WISDOT sure likes to "recycle" numbers, even 3 digit numbers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 11, 2015, 07:51:50 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 11, 2015, 03:16:28 AM
In the 80s there were 5 state highways roads nearby where I grew up where the state transferred about 70 miles to local control and I don't think there were any additions that added up to that amount(Wis 32, Wis 96, Wis 114, Wis 148, and Wis 149 were the affected routes near me) In the 90s, many of the state maintained business routes were transferred to local control.  When a road is decommissioned and a new state highway is created, I do notice that WISDOT sure likes to "recycle" numbers, even 3 digit numbers.

Actually, often local governments get to pick numbers (like in the case of WI-15). As for no additions during that time frame in the 80's - are you sure? WisDOT could have certainly made additions elsewhere in the state - or at least planned some.

Additionally, I don't think Business routes were ever state maintained, were they?

While I don't think there is a "hard" rule about STH mileage, there are per-mile maintenance costs involved. I imagine that WisDOT would prefer to control those costs by keeping the size of the STH system relatively static.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 11, 2015, 09:56:45 AM
There are still 2 business routes that are state maintained and they're still listed on the WISDOT state trunk system map.  Business 51 in the Wausau area, and Business 51 from the south Stevens Point city limits to the southern interchange of I-39/US 51.  When the US 10 expressway opened to Marshfield, Business 51 was turned back to local control in the city of Stevens Point, but is still part of the state highway system outside the city for some reason.  Business 51 in Merrill also used to be state maintained, but that was turned back.  Business 41 in Green Bay also appeared on state maps for a while.  If you go to wisconsinhighways.org, there is some more information on business routes and you can check out the WISDOT maps to see that Business 51 is state maintained in Stevens Point and Wausau.

There were some additions approved in the 80s, but they didn't match the amount of miles that WISDOT turned back on those routes.  The WIS 441 bridge and Wis 172 to the airport were previous county highways that became state highways, and Wis 156 was extended while Wis 187 in the same area was shortened.  The highways that the state turned back to local control were pretty minor.  Wis 114 actually created a loop with US 10, but the stretch from Hilbert to Brillion was turned back so there isn't a loop anymore.  Wis 148 was a short state highway that ran from Cato (US 10) to Valders (US 151).  Wis 32 north of Reedsville is very curvy, and Wis 57 is a lot better route between Kiel and De Pere, which is probably why it now runs concurrent with Wis 57. 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2015, 02:37:31 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 11, 2015, 03:16:28 AM
In the 80s there were 5 state highways roads nearby where I grew up where the state transferred about 70 miles to local control and I don't think there were any additions that added up to that amount(Wis 32, Wis 96, Wis 114, Wis 148, and Wis 149 were the affected routes near me) In the 90s, many of the state maintained business routes were transferred to local control.  When a road is decommissioned and a new state highway is created, I do notice that WISDOT sure likes to "recycle" numbers, even 3 digit numbers.


In 1980, WIDOT maintained 11,936 miles of highway.  In 1989 that figure 11,882.  So during the decade they dropped a rather insignificant 52 total miles.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 11, 2015, 04:10:32 PM
a little off topic but still on point with the entry, does anybody know what's up with I-94 in Milwaukee, since they voted down the Double Deck option? Is it back to the drawing board?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on November 11, 2015, 04:15:31 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on November 11, 2015, 04:10:32 PM
a little off topic but still on point with the entry, does anybody know what's up with I-94 in Milwaukee, since they voted down the Double Deck option? Is it back to the drawing board?
They always had an eight lane at-grade option with the side effect of eliminating some ramps at Hawley. I think that's what they're going with.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 11, 2015, 04:27:47 PM
This might sound a little fiction-ish and I assure you it's not intended...but...way back when John Norquist suggested to re-route I-94 onto current day I-894, drop 894 and extend I-794 along current day I-94 (or turn it into an urban boulevard or whatever it was)...It almost sort of makes sense to me...It would seem that if, at the Zoo, I-94 goes along the bypass and completely just obliterates I-894, it would make a little sense and...okay hear me out:

If your main goal is to go I-94 from Madison to Chicago...aside from alternate routes, if you were set on traveling I-94 thru Milwaukee, You'd want to take the bypass anyways to stay tf away from Downtown anyway. Unless you have a reason to go Downtown, having I-94 route through (or corner-nip as it were) Downtown, an extension of I-794 would be just fine for that purpose, and still fall within guidelines. Looking at Google Maps, my (very uneducated mind you) brain sees potential to expand perhaps a little more than say the congested corridor in question. I-894 has become a bit of an excess number anyways, people on here have been talking about ditching it, or why don't they ditch it, the "Will-They-Won't-They" of the I-41 Thread, you know after the "Will-They-Won't-They" extend I-55...we all needed something else to surmise...

It's just, the more I thought about it, the more it (seemingly) makes sense to do it that way. Everyone will end up in the same place anyway...now I know what some might be thinking, okay so they have *and i'm paraphrasing here* "To Chicago Follow Bypass"...the BGS's could be cleaned up a bit more (yeah i know i'm a little late for that considering they are updated now from the I-41 promotion)...I do realize there are incomplete interchanges on I-894 in the West Allis/Greenfield Areas, and it seems like they could even be remedied or even removed/replaced with another cross street.

Thoughts? And then also, My sincere apologies if this is fictional. It seems realistic in my head...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2015, 04:30:47 PM
You lost me at "If your main goal is to go I-94 from Madison to Chicago..."  No one would do that.

I-94 should go through the center of Milwaukee.  That is what most urban interstates do.  Bypasses "bypass" the city center.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 11, 2015, 05:50:34 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on November 11, 2015, 04:15:31 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on November 11, 2015, 04:10:32 PM
a little off topic but still on point with the entry, does anybody know what's up with I-94 in Milwaukee, since they voted down the Double Deck option? Is it back to the drawing board?
They always had an eight lane at-grade option with the side effect of eliminating some ramps at Hawley. I think that's what they're going with.

The preferred alternative is for 8 lanes through the cemetery with 11 foot lanes through the area.  The Stadium Interchange will have low speed free flow ramps from I-94 to Wis 175, but there will be protected left turn signals from Wis 175 to I-94, so Wis 175 will be downgraded in the interchange area. 

Here is a link of the announcement on the cemetery option

http://www.wisn.com/news/dot-officials-kill-doubledecker-option-for-i94/31318692
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 11, 2015, 06:01:13 PM
There were two options, the at-grade on-alignment option, that had 8 lanes, but either no or half-access to Hawley Rd, as well as no shoulders, reduced lane widths, etc... and the double deck "all-up" config that featured full access with Hawley.

The double deck lost out, and the FEIS or whatever that was submitted shows the non-double deck option as the preferred alternative selected.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 11, 2015, 08:14:55 PM
Drove on Hwys 41/141 north of Green Bay and the Speed Limit remains 65.  No idea why short stretches of Wis 29/57 get changed to 70, while the freeway stretch of 41/141 is longer than both of those sections combined.  I'm assuming that all of the other freeway sections not listed in the press release didn't get raised speed limit.  There are several sections that could still be raised to 70, including US 45 north of Oshkosh, US 10 west of Appleton and from I-39 to Wis 13, US 51 north of Wausau, and Wis 29 east of I-39 to Ringle.  Hopefully in the future those stretches of freeway will get the faster speed limit.

At the same time I give credit to WISDOT for raising the speed limit to 70 on non-interstate freeways.  A large stretch of US 20 is freeway in Iowa, but the speed limit remains 65.  Some states to the south or to the east only give higher speed limits to interstates only like Iowa. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 11, 2015, 11:30:12 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on November 11, 2015, 04:10:32 PM
a little off topic but still on point with the entry, does anybody know what's up with I-94 in Milwaukee, since they voted down the Double Deck option? Is it back to the drawing board?

From what I understand, the current thought by WisDOT is for four very narrow lanes to be scrunched in in each direction.

:rolleyes:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 12, 2015, 08:30:24 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2015, 04:30:47 PM
You lost me at "If your main goal is to go I-94 from Madison to Chicago..."  No one would do that.

I-94 should go through the center of Milwaukee.  That is what most urban interstates do.  Bypasses "bypass" the city center.

SEWI, you're right, i didn't really think about that...from Madison and points west you're undoubtedly going to take at the very least I-39...my thought process at the time was "instead of narrowing the lanes like that why not use road with more room for expansion"...I'd had the thought that there was one city that did that but a quick glance around Google Maps told me that either I was seeing things or it's a small city. If only a couple of those never-built freeways of Milwaukee's checkered freeway past would have been built, perhaps some of the East-West's congestion could have been alleviated...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 12, 2015, 09:03:32 AM
I happy those freeways were never built. They would've been ugly & take up a lot of nice real estate.

4 Lanes thru this area of 94 makes sense because the Marquette is 4 lanes and the upcoming Zoo interchange will be 4 lanes too. To maintain this 3-lane bottle neck & make no changes would suck. Plus, the left-hand exits/entrances at the Stadium interchange need to go + remove the weaves at 35th & 25-27th Sts... the project needs to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 12, 2015, 09:20:40 AM
^^Good point.

In regards to the unbuilt freeways, I have sort of mixed feelings. Some of it was probably overkill but like the Belt Freeway would be nice to have now, although maybe perhaps it would have further facilitated Urban Flight to Waukesha...something like the Bay Freeway could have maybe been an expressway, not necessarily up to freeway standards...I could go on but I'll stop there. Maybe look for/create a fictional board on that subject ;)

So is Hawley for sure being removed?

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on November 12, 2015, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2015, 04:30:47 PM
You lost me at "If your main goal is to go I-94 from Madison to Chicago..."  No one would do that.

I-94 should go through the center of Milwaukee.  That is what most urban interstates do.  Bypasses "bypass" the city center.

I agree on two counts, I-94 should remain on its current alignment to downtown Milwaukee, and that if one were traveling to Madison to the Loop in Chicago that they would take I-90 to do that.  However, if one is traveling to Lake County/North Shore from Madison, one would go through Milwaukee on I-94 to do that, hence there is some use for the directional signage for Madison-to-Chicagoland trips. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2015, 05:24:13 PM
Milwaukee really only lacks one major highway item...a northern connection between I-41 and I-43.  All those other planned freeways would have been overkill.  It is an exceedingly easy city to get around, and through, with the current set up plus expansion and improvement.  I travel often for my job and see what other cities have to deal with.  Milwaukee is a breeze in comparison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 12, 2015, 05:45:23 PM
^^agreed. The Northern Connection would be helpful..even if they had to push it to Wis-60. You look at Google Maps and basically the right angle of Wis 60 and Wis 164 make a decent beltway, then you have Wis 100. The Stadium Freeway would have totally been overkill. And basically Capitol Dr (Wis 190) with its current setup is basically a makeshift "Bay Freeway" if you will...only a "Bay Freeway" John Norquist and other NIMBYs would have approved of, or at the very least tolerated...going to the Wis 16 connection.

Upon further thought, I'm actually embarrassed I brought up the notion of routing 94 around the bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 12, 2015, 09:24:31 PM
I would like to see an "outer" belt line around Milwaukee someday, though it's a pipe-dream. Something perhaps just north of the Milwaukee/Racine county line that swings out west, then circles north across the Rock Freeway then I-94 then swings back east through Washington and Ozaukee counties - over I-41 and meeting up with I-43.

Not totally needed, and impossible to build, but it would be a nice addition!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on November 13, 2015, 09:23:09 AM
The outer beltway idea was floated a long time ago. In fact, the beginning of an Interchange with 41/45 in Washington County was established. But considering how land values have shot up along the whole route, it would most definitely be impossible to build. It would have been convenient for commercial truck traffic passing Milwaukee, but that's why I-41 was designated.

As for the northern crosstown freeway, that probably should have been built. Capitol Drive works somewhat, but there are tons of traffic signals along that street through some rather sketchy neighborhoods (not that it really bothers me). I don't recommend it for driving across the north side. Good Hope (which in some parts is almost an expressway) and Brown Deer are far better, with honorable mention going to Silver Spring.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 13, 2015, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 13, 2015, 09:23:09 AM
The outer beltway idea was floated a long time ago. In fact, the beginning of an Interchange with 41/45 in Washington County was established. But considering how land values have shot up along the whole route, it would most definitely be impossible to build.
That is why the Lannon, oops I meant Mequon Rd, bridge over I-41 is so long.  It was built to accommodate the ramps for this outer freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 13, 2015, 11:59:55 AM
Quote from: Big John on November 13, 2015, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 13, 2015, 09:23:09 AM
The outer beltway idea was floated a long time ago. In fact, the beginning of an Interchange with 41/45 in Washington County was established. But considering how land values have shot up along the whole route, it would most definitely be impossible to build.
That is why the Lannon Rd bridge over I-41 is so long.  It was built to accommodate the ramps for this outer freeway.

Hmm? The bridge doesn't look any different to me than any other diamond interchange..
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 13, 2015, 12:09:43 PM
Quote from: colinstu on November 13, 2015, 11:59:55 AM
Quote from: Big John on November 13, 2015, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 13, 2015, 09:23:09 AM
The outer beltway idea was floated a long time ago. In fact, the beginning of an Interchange with 41/45 in Washington County was established. But considering how land values have shot up along the whole route, it would most definitely be impossible to build.
That is why the Lannon Rd bridge over I-41 is so long.  It was built to accommodate the ramps for this outer freeway.

Hmm? The bridge doesn't look any different to me than any other diamond interchange..
Sorry, got my roads mixed up.  I meant the Mequon Rd bridge. (The 2 roads meeting then the extension of one of them messes me up)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 13, 2015, 12:19:01 PM
Ah that makes a lot of sense now.. I've wondered about that before. It looks like you could fit C-D lanes through there but never knew why.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 13, 2015, 12:23:00 PM
In that since, the the bridge on I-43 southbound at the WI 57 split by Saukville is very high because it was meant to be a 3rd-level bridge as the Stadium North freeway was supposed to end there too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2015, 10:01:38 PM
I frequently used Silver Spring to FdL Ave for my many trips between the east side of Milwaukee and points northwest during the afternoon rush.  The little interchanges cut down the number of lights you need to pass through.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 14, 2015, 09:42:17 AM
Yeah, I've done that one many times. It's not bad, though it can be tight in a few spots between Teutonia and FdL Ave.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrsman on November 15, 2015, 07:52:37 AM
Quote from: merrycilantro on November 11, 2015, 04:27:47 PM
This might sound a little fiction-ish and I assure you it's not intended...but...way back when John Norquist suggested to re-route I-94 onto current day I-894, drop 894 and extend I-794 along current day I-94 (or turn it into an urban boulevard or whatever it was)...It almost sort of makes sense to me...It would seem that if, at the Zoo, I-94 goes along the bypass and completely just obliterates I-894, it would make a little sense and...okay hear me out:

If your main goal is to go I-94 from Madison to Chicago...aside from alternate routes, if you were set on traveling I-94 thru Milwaukee, You'd want to take the bypass anyways to stay tf away from Downtown anyway. Unless you have a reason to go Downtown, having I-94 route through (or corner-nip as it were) Downtown, an extension of I-794 would be just fine for that purpose, and still fall within guidelines. Looking at Google Maps, my (very uneducated mind you) brain sees potential to expand perhaps a little more than say the congested corridor in question. I-894 has become a bit of an excess number anyways, people on here have been talking about ditching it, or why don't they ditch it, the "Will-They-Won't-They" of the I-41 Thread, you know after the "Will-They-Won't-They" extend I-55...we all needed something else to surmise...

It's just, the more I thought about it, the more it (seemingly) makes sense to do it that way. Everyone will end up in the same place anyway...now I know what some might be thinking, okay so they have *and i'm paraphrasing here* "To Chicago Follow Bypass"...the BGS's could be cleaned up a bit more (yeah i know i'm a little late for that considering they are updated now from the I-41 promotion)...I do realize there are incomplete interchanges on I-894 in the West Allis/Greenfield Areas, and it seems like they could even be remedied or even removed/replaced with another cross street.

Thoughts? And then also, My sincere apologies if this is fictional. It seems realistic in my head...

From the perspective of what makes sense as far as whether an interstate should be a 2di or a 3di, normally a 2di goes straight through a city and a 3di is the bypass.  The 2di will follow the shortest route, even though it may be busier going through the city center.

Milwaukee is unique because the I-94 routing goes from the west side of town to the south side of town, essentially making a 90 degree turn at the Marquette interchange.  To connect from the west side of town (Zoo) to the south side of town (Airport), the bypass routing actually has fewer miles.  So it certainly makes sense to have Zoo to Airport traffic and west suburbs to south suburbs traffic follow an I-94 routing around the bypass and not through Downtown Milwaukee.  The controls on the bypass will be Madison and Chicago.  So your proposal does have some merit.

Of course, Madison to Chicago traffic would not follow this at all since they would use I-90.  But some far northern Chicago suburban traffic could follow this routing to their benefit.  And yes, some people navigate by number alone so making the number on the route with fewer miles I-94 would be beneficial.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 15, 2015, 10:03:58 AM
The reality is that there is a difference of two miles between the two routes (894 being two miles shorter). I think it's a stretch to call making a change like that beneficial when the control cities are Milwaukee for I-94 and Chicago for I-894.

I also believe it to be a stretch that in this day and age where GPS navigation and online maps are so prevalent that we're seeing people navigate by number alone. They'd be foolish to.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 15, 2015, 10:13:14 AM
Not to mention that there are tons of instances where taking the numbered route is longer than a short cut of some sort AND the BGSs at the west and south ends of I-894 use Chicago and Madison respectively as control cities.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on November 16, 2015, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2015, 04:30:47 PM
You lost me at "If your main goal is to go I-94 from Madison to Chicago..."  No one would do that.

I-94 should go through the center of Milwaukee.  That is what most urban interstates do.  Bypasses "bypass" the city center.
Then why didn't they route I41 through downtown?  People already refer to 894 as "the bypass" so the bypass could have been 894/841 which I think would have been cleaner than to have I41 follow the "bypass".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 16, 2015, 10:39:05 AM
They need to eliminate I-894 entirely, it's a pointless concurrency now. It will be sad, I know, but there's no need for it now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 16, 2015, 10:43:48 AM
Quote from: Mrt90 on November 16, 2015, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2015, 04:30:47 PM
You lost me at "If your main goal is to go I-94 from Madison to Chicago..."  No one would do that.

I-94 should go through the center of Milwaukee.  That is what most urban interstates do.  Bypasses "bypass" the city center.
Then why didn't they route I41 through downtown?  People already refer to 894 as "the bypass" so the bypass could have been 894/841 which I think would have been cleaner than to have I41 follow the "bypass".

They didn't do it because it would make no sense (and add traffic to an already congested segment of I-94).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on November 16, 2015, 12:32:20 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 16, 2015, 10:43:48 AM
Quote from: Mrt90 on November 16, 2015, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2015, 04:30:47 PM
You lost me at "If your main goal is to go I-94 from Madison to Chicago..."  No one would do that.

I-94 should go through the center of Milwaukee.  That is what most urban interstates do.  Bypasses "bypass" the city center.
Then why didn't they route I41 through downtown?  People already refer to 894 as "the bypass" so the bypass could have been 894/841 which I think would have been cleaner than to have I41 follow the "bypass".

They didn't do it because it would make no sense (and add traffic to an already congested segment of I-94).
Why would that add to traffic on I94?  People who are just passing through on I41 would follow the bypass, just like people just passing through on I94 follow the bypass now.  I'm just saying the same logic that puts I94 "through the center of Milwaukee" should apply to I41 as well.  Oh well, this is probably a very, very old debate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 16, 2015, 06:37:52 PM
I get what you're saying, however it's kind of a "mixed metaphor" thing. When the system was designed, the intention was to have the main route go through the urban center, and the 3di to bypass it. However, that doesn't apply to *every* interstate, and certainly matters less these days (again, with the advent of GPS and online mapping.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 16, 2015, 09:25:51 PM
Right now if a traveler is going to Madison, it's better to take I-94 than I-894 because the ramp from I-894 north to I-94 west is closed.  When I was in the Milwaukee area I was surprised that I didn't see many VMS signs telling people to stay on I-94. 

If you look at Michigan, several 3 digit interstates actually go through the central city and the 2 digit bypasses the community, so I-94 could serve as a bypass.  I-496 in Lansing, I-475 in Flint, and I-675 in Saginaw go into the downtowns of these communities while the parent route is the bypass.  Shows that sometimes the opposite of the norm happens. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on November 16, 2015, 09:44:31 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 16, 2015, 09:25:51 PM
If you look at Michigan, several 3 digit interstates actually go through the central city and the 2 digit bypasses the community, so I-94 could serve as a bypass.  I-496 in Lansing, I-475 in Flint, and I-675 in Saginaw go into the downtowns of these communities while the parent route is the bypass.  Shows that sometimes the opposite of the norm happens. 

That's true, but he did say that it's not universal that the 2di goes through the city center (Des Moines and Tulsa might be two of the larger examples where the 3di goes downtown and the parent bypasses). Depends on the state policies and the natures of the cities involved.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 18, 2015, 07:34:18 AM
OK one more question about the I-94 segment between 35th and 70th St., when you guys say "at-grade"...what does that exactly mean? i know what at-grade is, like with railroad crossings or I suppose any other crossing, but in this instance what are we referring to?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 18, 2015, 07:49:33 AM
At the current grade it currently is (i.e. not Double decking it)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 18, 2015, 09:40:40 AM
Oh, okay. Makes sense to me. Thanks for clarifying :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
I think reconstructing Interstate 94 through the cemetary at-grade could present problems in the future, as there would be narrow lanes and no shoulders. That's why I would have supported the double-deck option. But I can understand why WISDOT choose the at-grade alternative, since the locals would consider the double-deck noisy and an eyesore.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 19, 2015, 04:27:28 PM
I live around there and fully supported the double deck, but rather than nothing be done with the area at least they're going with this option...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 04:45:05 PM
I was thinking about the residents of the Story Hill neighborhood in general. They have been the loudest opponents of freeway expansion in the Milwaukee area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on November 19, 2015, 08:59:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuxLk5fk.jpg%3F2&hash=a45ddcedd0de800d5f6b9f95bfd585e1a371e9ea)

I'd thought I would mention the 4 stack FYA on the left here, the flashing yellow section's LED has since failed already. Drove by it about a week or two ago, and the doghouse was flashing, but the 4 stack was dark. Anyone know what type of LED's these are?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 20, 2015, 05:00:54 PM
I've seen a number of flashing yellow arrow signals in the Madison area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
I'd love to see more of them pop up, there are several intersections that have left turn signals that needlessly hold up left turns because of a red arrow and no oncoming traffic - mostly because of dual left lanes. This may be a good way to fix that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 08:49:56 PM
Saw this the other day - it's about time. They've put in a 4-way stop at WI-33 and CTH-P. That intersection is nasty, and an excellent candidate for a roundabout like at WI-60 and CTH-P. Looks like they hope to put one there in the future.

http://www.wiscnews.com/news/local/article_43a6fd95-f55d-5547-93bf-1b94565d452c.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 09:08:34 PM
By the way, speaking of STH-33, here's a flashback for you. I took a shot of the WI-175 bridge over WI-33 in Addison a few months before it came down. What a classic!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fimages%2FSTH33W.jpg&hash=a6dd6ed3d378d65facd57063981bc476317e1259)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 21, 2015, 09:15:53 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 09:08:34 PM
By the way, speaking of STH-33, here's a flashback for you. I took a shot of the WI-175 bridge over WI-33 in Addison a few months before it came down. What a classic!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fimages%2FSTH33W.jpg&hash=a6dd6ed3d378d65facd57063981bc476317e1259)


I still think what they did to "improve" that intersection was road overkill at its worst.  Completely cut the town in half. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 09:19:06 PM
I'm guessing they didn't want the cost of rebuilding the bridge, plus there was an issue with the limited sight line. You can see that where I'm standing, which would have been on the access road off of 175, north of 33. I'm looking west.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 21, 2015, 10:13:58 PM
I don't mind the routing of WI-33 south of town.  I think what they did with WI-175 through town was a bit much.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 10:16:21 PM
I do appreciate that they put up the Yellowstone Trail plaque up at the near the site of the old bridge though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 22, 2015, 01:00:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
I'd love to see more of them pop up, there are several intersections that have left turn signals that needlessly hold up left turns because of a red arrow and no oncoming traffic - mostly because of dual left lanes. This may be a good way to fix that.

Dual left-turn lanes are not allowed to use the flashing yellow arrow aspect, they are still only solid green, yellow or red arrows.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 22, 2015, 08:29:01 AM
Dang! I suppose that makes sense. I deal with one almost every day that is poorly set up. There ends up being a full queue waiting for a green left with not much in the way of oncoming traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on November 22, 2015, 09:51:31 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2015, 01:00:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
I'd love to see more of them pop up, there are several intersections that have left turn signals that needlessly hold up left turns because of a red arrow and no oncoming traffic - mostly because of dual left lanes. This may be a good way to fix that.

Dual left-turn lanes are not allowed to use the flashing yellow arrow aspect, they are still only solid green, yellow or red arrows.

Mike

MnDOT has started to put in FYA at every installation (including dual and triple left turns).  Some higher speed installations the FYA is never activated and some are only activated in the late night hours.  The thought is in the future as people become more accustom to them and as traffic patterns change, even ones that are not activated today may be in the near future (pending safety wise it is acceptable to do so).

Here is one example in Woodbury: https://goo.gl/maps/tZEDxzUj5U82
Here is one example in Shorewood: https://goo.gl/maps/dZE3BuXHDro, this one also includes the new U-Turn signal indication with FYA: https://goo.gl/maps/cxB4MK845y12

This is another advantage of having the new monotube poles versus the old WI trombone style with horizontal mounting.  The new style the mast arms have the length and have the wind loading capabilities to allow for signs to be put up on the arm to better inform drivers about the FYA.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 22, 2015, 11:43:12 AM
I've never seen the "U-Turn" arrow. Interesting stuff!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 03:57:38 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 22, 2015, 11:43:12 AM
I've never seen the "U-Turn" arrow. Interesting stuff!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8471.msg196692#msg196692 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8471.msg196692#msg196692)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 22, 2015, 03:59:52 PM
I'm going to have to check that out this week (before Black Friday) :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2015, 01:00:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
I'd love to see more of them pop up, there are several intersections that have left turn signals that needlessly hold up left turns because of a red arrow and no oncoming traffic - mostly because of dual left lanes. This may be a good way to fix that.

Dual left-turn lanes are not allowed to use the flashing yellow arrow aspect, they are still only solid green, yellow or red arrows.

Mike
It hasn't been updated on GSV yet, but S Hastings Way @ Bracket Ave in Eau Clarie (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8003488,-91.468554,93m/data=!3m1!1e3) has a dual left turn with a FYA. I snapped a couple pics when I drove through, but unfortunately they're on my work computer. :banghead:

Otherwise, Mike is correct. WisDOT, along with many other agencies prohibit protected permissive left turn phasing for dual or triple left turn lanes, left turns on 45 mph+ facilities, in addition to turns that must cross more than 2 opposing thru lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 22, 2015, 04:10:36 PM
The intersection that I was thinking of would certainly not qualify then. There are two opposing lanes in addition to a right turn lane. I can see where that might be an issue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 22, 2015, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 20, 2015, 05:00:54 PM
I've seen a number of flashing yellow arrow signals in the Madison area.

They added a bunch on US-14 and at County S/Hwy 11 in Janesville. They also realigned the left turn lanes so you can actually see oncoming traffic. Much easier and safer now!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on November 22, 2015, 05:48:05 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2015, 01:00:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
I'd love to see more of them pop up, there are several intersections that have left turn signals that needlessly hold up left turns because of a red arrow and no oncoming traffic - mostly because of dual left lanes. This may be a good way to fix that.

Dual left-turn lanes are not allowed to use the flashing yellow arrow aspect, they are still only solid green, yellow or red arrows.

Mike
It hasn't been updated on GSV yet, but S Hastings Way @ Bracket Ave in Eau Clarie (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8003488,-91.468554,93m/data=!3m1!1e3) has a dual left turn with a FYA. I snapped a couple pics when I drove through, but unfortunately they're on my work computer. :banghead:

Otherwise, Mike is correct. WisDOT, along with many other agencies prohibit protected permissive left turn phasing for dual or triple left turn lanes, left turns on 45 mph+ facilities, in addition to turns that must cross more than 2 opposing thru lanes.

Hmm. Hastings Way and Brackett Ave In Eau Claire have a dual left turn lane setup with Protected/permissive flashing yellow arrows, cross 2 lanes, granted the speed limit is 35 MPH. Google street view hasn't been updated, but sometimes the intersection can be seen on this live camera. It is the intersection in which you can see a CVS and Walgreens across from each other. Not the intersection with kfc and Starbucks.http://www.weau.com/weather/skycamnetwork/ipcams/283243781.html?device=tablet&c=y
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 06:39:35 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on November 22, 2015, 05:48:05 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2015, 01:00:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
I'd love to see more of them pop up, there are several intersections that have left turn signals that needlessly hold up left turns because of a red arrow and no oncoming traffic - mostly because of dual left lanes. This may be a good way to fix that.

Dual left-turn lanes are not allowed to use the flashing yellow arrow aspect, they are still only solid green, yellow or red arrows.

Mike
It hasn't been updated on GSV yet, but S Hastings Way @ Bracket Ave in Eau Clarie (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8003488,-91.468554,93m/data=!3m1!1e3) has a dual left turn with a FYA. I snapped a couple pics when I drove through, but unfortunately they're on my work computer. :banghead:

Otherwise, Mike is correct. WisDOT, along with many other agencies prohibit protected permissive left turn phasing for dual or triple left turn lanes, left turns on 45 mph+ facilities, in addition to turns that must cross more than 2 opposing thru lanes.

Hmm. Hastings Way and Brackett Ave In Eau Claire have a dual left turn lane setup with Protected/permissive flashing yellow arrows, cross 2 lanes, granted the speed limit is 35 MPH. Google street view hasn't been updated, but sometimes the intersection can be seen on this live camera. It is the intersection in which you can see a CVS and Walgreens across from each other. Not the intersection with kfc and Starbucks.http://www.weau.com/weather/skycamnetwork/ipcams/283243781.html?device=tablet&c=y
It's also a local intersection, so DOT rules aren't always followed. As we've seen before, Eau Claire seems to like to experiment. Found the photos I was looking for:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi955.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae39%2Ferfrailing%2FAARoads%2F20150518_164626_zpspjyuwgsy.jpg&hash=3166772933fb90f99ffb3d6176be3f25d1b32297)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi955.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae39%2Ferfrailing%2FAARoads%2F20150518_164637_zpshgiavwtb.jpg&hash=e45bc241104fb98058261ac371828d968d22b5cf)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on November 22, 2015, 11:03:12 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 06:39:35 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on November 22, 2015, 05:48:05 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2015, 01:00:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
I'd love to see more of them pop up, there are several intersections that have left turn signals that needlessly hold up left turns because of a red arrow and no oncoming traffic - mostly because of dual left lanes. This may be a good way to fix that.

Dual left-turn lanes are not allowed to use the flashing yellow arrow aspect, they are still only solid green, yellow or red arrows.

Mike
It hasn't been updated on GSV yet, but S Hastings Way @ Bracket Ave in Eau Clarie (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8003488,-91.468554,93m/data=!3m1!1e3) has a dual left turn with a FYA. I snapped a couple pics when I drove through, but unfortunately they're on my work computer. :banghead:

Otherwise, Mike is correct. WisDOT, along with many other agencies prohibit protected permissive left turn phasing for dual or triple left turn lanes, left turns on 45 mph+ facilities, in addition to turns that must cross more than 2 opposing thru lanes.

Hmm. Hastings Way and Brackett Ave In Eau Claire have a dual left turn lane setup with Protected/permissive flashing yellow arrows, cross 2 lanes, granted the speed limit is 35 MPH. Google street view hasn't been updated, but sometimes the intersection can be seen on this live camera. It is the intersection in which you can see a CVS and Walgreens across from each other. Not the intersection with kfc and Starbucks.http://www.weau.com/weather/skycamnetwork/ipcams/283243781.html?device=tablet&c=y
It's also a local intersection, so DOT rules aren't always followed. As we've seen before, Eau Claire seems to like to experiment. Found the photos I was looking for:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi955.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae39%2Ferfrailing%2FAARoads%2F20150518_164626_zpspjyuwgsy.jpg&hash=3166772933fb90f99ffb3d6176be3f25d1b32297)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi955.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae39%2Ferfrailing%2FAARoads%2F20150518_164637_zpshgiavwtb.jpg&hash=e45bc241104fb98058261ac371828d968d22b5cf)
I also noticed the lack of stop bar signals at this intersection. Has Eau Claire basically done away with them?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 24, 2015, 07:20:48 AM
When I was in Eau Claire a few months ago, I noticed that the new signals installed didn't have stop bars.  They also have gone to doghouse lights for lanes where traffic can turn left or go straight.  Farwell/Galloway and Lake/1st Ave had dog house lights.  New lights were also installed on Brackett Ave without stop bars.  They also use clearview exclusively on all new signs.  The BGS were replaced on Bus 53 at the US 12/Clairemont Ave exit with clearview font.  The signs southbound were newer than the northbound BGS at the same interchange, yet those signs remain.  The northbound signs are button copy, and there is a sign that says North 53.  Interesting that the newer south signs were replaced with identical signage aside from the clearview font, but the northbound signs with a North 53 reference that should be corrected remains.  I have a screenshot from google streetview to show the assembly.  The photo was from 2011, but the assembly was exactly the same  when I visited in September. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7919839,-91.4586245,3a,75y,346.27h,79.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swpDYF52NRxpS5AZXGRbeHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

The Water Street Bridge is currently being replaced and new signals are going to be installed at Water and 1st Ave.  Will be interesting to see if they still decide to abandon the stop bar signal when the intersection reopens next year. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2015, 02:09:43 PM
Drove US-12/18 into Madison at rush hour today, and the new RIRO WI-73 intersection is complete.  The typical back ups on WI-73, and the "frantic" left hand turns onto US-12/18 are gone.  Replaced with nice merging lanes and WI-73 through traffic driving underneath.  Very simple solution to a bad problem.  Well done by WIDOT.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on December 02, 2015, 06:24:56 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
Otherwise, Mike is correct. WisDOT, along with many other agencies prohibit protected permissive left turn phasing for dual or triple left turn lanes, left turns on 45 mph+ facilities, in addition to turns that must cross more than 2 opposing thru lanes.

The last one must be a district by district thing in Wisconsin; the very new signals for the new Meijers on WI 31 in Kenosha has a FYA for lefts off of WI 31 that cross three opposing through lanes.  IIRC there are a few other signals on WI 31 that were recently upgraded to use FYA's and allow permissive turns across three opposing through lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on December 02, 2015, 07:43:38 PM
^^ In front of Lambeau Field, left-turning traffic on Lombardi Ave was protected-only at Ridge Rd as it crossed 3 thru lanes.  A couple years ago it was changed to FYA in both directions.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 03, 2015, 09:13:22 AM
Drove through Wrightstown and checked out the new bridge.  I have some pictures below.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5628/23126438799_f4762d824e_k_d.jpg)
East Apporach

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/613/22867277113_12e79846ff_k_d.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/755/23126438439_ce6ef9dd23_k_d.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/607/23494435535_0a967dec2b_k_d.jpg)
West Approach
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 03, 2015, 11:26:46 AM
The old bridge is now under demolition, I assume.

I didn't even know that it was complete and open.  I'll have to check it out.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 03, 2015, 12:04:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 03, 2015, 11:26:46 AM
The old bridge is now under demolition, I assume.

I didn't even know that it was complete and open.  I'll have to check it out.

:nod:

Mike

The old bridge was just closed and demolition is starting.  The old bridge was open to allow access to County ZZ and the businesses on the east side of Wrightstown while Old 96 between County ZZ and the new bridge was reconstructed, even though the new bridge was open to traffic.  Old 96 is now being designate as County MW between Wis 96 and County ZZ.  (no idea how Brown County came up with that.  Seems like they have been coming up with strange county road designations lately).  Now that the road is reconstructed, that part of town can now be accessed via County MW and the new bridge, so the old bridge can come down. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 03, 2015, 05:34:53 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 02, 2015, 06:24:56 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
Otherwise, Mike is correct. WisDOT, along with many other agencies prohibit protected permissive left turn phasing for dual or triple left turn lanes, left turns on 45 mph+ facilities, in addition to turns that must cross more than 2 opposing thru lanes.

The last one must be a district by district thing in Wisconsin; the very new signals for the new Meijers on WI 31 in Kenosha has a FYA for lefts off of WI 31 that cross three opposing through lanes.  IIRC there are a few other signals on WI 31 that were recently upgraded to use FYA's and allow permissive turns across three opposing through lanes.

I should have worded my post better :banghead:...whether or not the left turn crosses multiple lanes is part of the speed criteria. There are several intersections around Madison with protected/permissive left turn phasing and still cross multiple thru lanes. Long story short, speed and the number of left turning lanes are typically the main criteria that would determine protected/permissive vs. protected only left turns. If speeds are under 45, either phasing is usually fair game. If there are multiple left turn lanes, protected-only is the way the state prefers it, regardless of speed. That was my understanding from one of my mentors and the WisDOT Traffic Signal Design Manual. Regions seem to be developing their own regional standards/experiments and the trial of adaptive signalization in the SE Region and the Madison area have changed the ballgame some. The Design Manual unfortunately hasn't kept up with a lot of the innovations as well as it should.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 03, 2015, 06:31:24 PM
On a different note - I had no idea that CTH-T/TT was the original routing of STH-30 between CTH-N and the current STH-30. I was driving it today and noticed the large amount of unused right-of-way with the typical Wis-DOT no trespassing signs, which I thought was and odd thing for a lightly used secondary road. After looking at it on a map, it suddenly made sense! :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 04, 2015, 09:40:20 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2015, 06:31:24 PM
On a different note - I had no idea that CTH-T/TT was the original routing of STH-30 between CTH-N and the current STH-30. I was driving it today and noticed the large amount of unused right-of-way with the typical Wis-DOT no trespassing signs, which I thought was and odd thing for a lightly used secondary road. After looking at it on a map, it suddenly made sense! :-D


While a very old routing, that's not the original.  From Bessert's site:

"It was by 1924 that STH-30 was removed from the Illinois-Readstown routing and applied to a new, more direct route from Madison to Milwaukee. From the Capitol, STH-30 began by running northeasterly out of downtown, then southeasterly around Lake Monona via Atwood Ave and then easterly via Cottage Grove Rd/CTH-BB in Dane Co and CTH-B through Lake Mills, Azatlan, Johnson Creek and Concord. In Waukesha Co, STH-30 followed present day Delafield Rd and CTH-DR through Delafield, continuing roughly along the present-day I-94 corridor passing Waukesha to the north before joining with STH-19 (later US-16) for the final 14 miles into downtown Milwaukee.

Just prior to World War II, STH-30 was realigned onto the route of present-day I-94 from Lake Mills easterly to the Concord area. The improvements continued westerly from Lake Mills to CTH-N north of Cottage Grove, again running via today's I-94 route (although it used the current CTH-TT alignment for the last half-mile to CTH-N). A year later, the STH-30 improvements carried the new highway westerly from CTH-N at Cottage Grive via present-day CTH-TT, CTH-T and Commercial Ave into Madison to US-151/Washington Ave, where it turned southwesterly with US-151 to the Capitol."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on December 04, 2015, 09:43:31 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 02, 2015, 06:24:56 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
Otherwise, Mike is correct. WisDOT, along with many other agencies prohibit protected permissive left turn phasing for dual or triple left turn lanes, left turns on 45 mph+ facilities, in addition to turns that must cross more than 2 opposing thru lanes.

The last one must be a district by district thing in Wisconsin; the very new signals for the new Meijers on WI 31 in Kenosha has a FYA for lefts off of WI 31 that cross three opposing through lanes.  IIRC there are a few other signals on WI 31 that were recently upgraded to use FYA's and allow permissive turns across three opposing through lanes.
Where are the other FYA on WI31 besides the new ones at Meijer/78th Street?  There are a couple of unprotected lefts (at WI165 and at 95th Street in Pleasant Prairie) but they don't have FYA, and I haven't seen FYA at 85th Street, WI50, 67th Street, 60th Street, or 52nd Street. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: pianocello on December 05, 2015, 01:29:23 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 03, 2015, 09:13:22 AM
Drove through Wrightstown and checked out the new bridge.  I have some pictures below.

(snipped pics)

Are there still signs for WI-96 along the old bridge and Main St? They were in October when I was there, but I think the old bridge was still open at the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 17, 2015, 05:58:11 PM
DOT marks milestone as Hoan Bridge project complete, Lakefront Gateway project begins
http://fox6now.com/2015/12/15/wisconsin-department-of-transportation-to-celebrate-milestone-announce-start-of-new-project/ (http://fox6now.com/2015/12/15/wisconsin-department-of-transportation-to-celebrate-milestone-announce-start-of-new-project/)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 18, 2015, 09:49:27 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 17, 2015, 05:58:11 PM
DOT marks milestone as Hoan Bridge project complete, Lakefront Gateway project begins
http://fox6now.com/2015/12/15/wisconsin-department-of-transportation-to-celebrate-milestone-announce-start-of-new-project/ (http://fox6now.com/2015/12/15/wisconsin-department-of-transportation-to-celebrate-milestone-announce-start-of-new-project/)


With the new arena, the new NML tower, Johnson Controls talking about moving downtown, and condos all over the place, downtown Milwaukee really is looking a lot better than it was even a decade ago.  The city has done well in that regard.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2015, 05:17:33 PM
The exit ramps are still on the left-hand side, right? I would have moved them to the right-hand side.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 30, 2015, 10:07:25 AM
Bill allowing counties to raise half-cent sales tax for transportation has bipartisan support

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-allowing-counties-to-raise-half-cent-sales-tax-for/article_f0e441f6-d88b-5a5d-91df-3c86d81aa777.html

I think that rather than passing the buck on down to the counties, the legislature should do its job and properly fund the transportation needs of the state, and not by more borrowing. Raise the gas tax now, while cars are getting more fuel efficient and gas prices are low.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 30, 2015, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 30, 2015, 10:07:25 AM
Bill allowing counties to raise half-cent sales tax for transportation has bipartisan support

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-allowing-counties-to-raise-half-cent-sales-tax-for/article_f0e441f6-d88b-5a5d-91df-3c86d81aa777.html

I think that rather than passing the buck on down to the counties, the legislature should do its job and properly fund the transportation needs of the state, and not by more borrowing. Raise the gas tax now, while cars are getting more fuel efficient and gas prices are low.

It also looks too cumbersome to make it work, between the county voters (some people would rather commit suicide than vote to raise taxes) and the fact that they have to reapprove it every four years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on December 30, 2015, 07:35:07 PM
If something like this passes, I can see a scenario where a county, say Dane County, votes to raise the money for local road work improvements.  Then the state government in the future reduces transportation money to Dane County (since they have some funding on their own) instead to give more money to counties that won't vote for any increases.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 30, 2015, 10:07:28 PM
Sounds like the state legislature is shunting responsibility for funding roads onto someone else.  I suppose, they can't cancel/delay any more major projects without upsetting their donors friends at the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association.

WisDOT is trying to keep building roads like the state's gas tax is still indexed to inflation, but it hasn't for a decade so they are cutting local roads to try and keep the same pace of construction.  A robust construction industry developed in the state while the gas tax was indexed for inflation for a generation.  They became influential enough to keep the high-dollar projects coming while WisDOT cuts funding to local roads in post-indexed Wisconsin.  After all, local road projects mostly go to smaller companies who don't have the size to bid on major projects like Lunda and Hoffman.

The Gerrymandering of state legislative districts has painted Wisconsin into an anti-tax corner until at least 2023.
So now the state is in a place where you can't increase funding for transportation and a 25 year surge of highway expansion is not backed by adequate funding for continued maintenance.  This is going to result in Wisconsin's roads and highways getting shittier and shittier for the foreseeable future, save for a handful of brand new expansions.  It means there will be more stealing of money from great state institutions like the UW system or our fantastic network of state parks and public lands to chase the deficit of transportation maintenance.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on December 31, 2015, 11:13:48 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 30, 2015, 10:07:28 PM
Sounds like the state legislature is shunting responsibility for funding roads onto someone else.  I suppose, they can't cancel/delay any more major projects without upsetting their donors friends at the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association.

WisDOT is trying to keep building roads like the state's gas tax is still indexed to inflation, but it hasn't for a decade so they are cutting local roads to try and keep the same pace of construction.  A robust construction industry developed in the state while the gas tax was indexed for inflation for a generation.  They became influential enough to keep the high-dollar projects coming while WisDOT cuts funding to local roads in post-indexed Wisconsin.  After all, local road projects mostly go to smaller companies who don't have the size to bid on major projects like Lunda and Hoffman.

The Gerrymandering of state legislative districts has painted Wisconsin into an anti-tax corner until at least 2023.
So now the state is in a place where you can't increase funding for transportation and a 25 year surge of highway expansion is not backed by adequate funding for continued maintenance.  This is going to result in Wisconsin's roads and highways getting shittier and shittier for the foreseeable future, save for a handful of brand new expansions.  It means there will be more stealing of money from great state institutions like the UW system or our fantastic network of state parks and public lands to chase the deficit of transportation maintenance.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid your analysis is spot-on. Couldn't have said it better myself. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on January 01, 2016, 10:10:52 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 30, 2015, 10:07:25 AM
Bill allowing counties to raise half-cent sales tax for transportation has bipartisan support

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-allowing-counties-to-raise-half-cent-sales-tax-for/article_f0e441f6-d88b-5a5d-91df-3c86d81aa777.html


There is no question that counties are so far behind funding that they are even in worse shape than WisDOT.  Many don't even have enough money to fund mill and overlay programs to keep up with their system.  That does not include the fact they still need money to reconstruct roadways as well.

For this to pass it is going to require county board support and county engineers to delve into more politics than they are use to.  The key is to present to the public:
1.) With that money, what specific projects would be completed with that money.  The key may be to include some projects that may not necessarily are on the top of the list but would have high public support for their completion.  Taxpayers when they see the results will be more willing to vote for an increase if they have a specific list of projects they know will be completed.
2.) Once passed make drivers aware that the projects are funded by the sales tax, similar to ARRA where signs went up for all of those projects, do the same for these projects.
3.) When the 4 year vote comes up, present to the public the list of projects completed and note without that money, those projects would not have been completed.
4.) Continuously on an annual basis update the list of projects completed with that money and the list of projects to be completed the next upcoming year with that money.

It's going to require more politics than most are comfortable with but if a county can get over the initial vote of getting it passed the first time, most likely it will be easier to get it passed in subsequent years.

In terms of the taxes, the focus should be on the work that would be completed, not the taxes.  Trying to steer the conversation away from just the taxes and focus it on the work that would be done is key to the success of the referendum.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 01, 2016, 10:24:21 AM
The issue is that cities and counties are bound by levy limits that limit what can be generated through property taxes.  In many cases the limits fall short of inflation and short of increases in personnel benefits and the like.  Therefore road projects, which are an ongoing issue, generally get pushed further and further back.

I have lived in this state for over 40 years, and the general quality of the roads has never been worse.  The new construction is great.  State maintained roads are usually OK.  But the county and municipal streets?  Generally they are awful.  My municipality just instituted a $20 wheel tax (the maximum allowed by state law) to specifically take care of road projects that have fallen behind.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: nwi_navigator_1181 on January 01, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
My family is heading to the Dells for a late spring vacation this May (with a brief stop in Madison). Are there any outstanding projects I need to be on the lookout for along the I-39/90/94 corridors?

Thanks in advance for your responses.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 01, 2016, 05:47:49 PM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on January 01, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
My family is heading to the Dells for a late spring vacation this May (with a brief stop in Madison). Are there any outstanding projects I need to be on the lookout for along the I-39/90/94 corridors?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Not sure about large-scale projects, but they are rebuilding some of the interchanges on I-39/90 south of Madison in preparation for a full-scale rebuild and widen of that stretch later this decade.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 01, 2016, 08:30:50 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2016, 05:47:49 PM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on January 01, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
My family is heading to the Dells for a late spring vacation this May (with a brief stop in Madison). Are there any outstanding projects I need to be on the lookout for along the I-39/90/94 corridors?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Not sure about large-scale projects, but they are rebuilding some of the interchanges on I-39/90 south of Madison in preparation for a full-scale rebuild and widen of that stretch later this decade.
The full-scale rebuild won't happen this year as planned due to political interference.  There are no other known (to me) projects along that corridor in Wisconsin. If you're using I-90 from Chicago there is a rebuild happening on it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on January 02, 2016, 07:27:45 PM
Right, I think they might be putting in some kind of C/D system around the Janesville exits at US 14 and WI 26, which was always kind of messy.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 02, 2016, 11:27:21 PM
Quote from: mrose on January 02, 2016, 07:27:45 PM
Right, I think they might be putting in some kind of C/D system around the Janesville exits at US 14 and WI 26, which was always kind of messy.

Not right now. They did reconfigure the US 14 interchange this fall in preparation for construction of the C/D system between the Hwy 26 and US 14 interchanges. They are currently reconstructing the Hwy 11 West/Avalon Rd interchange, and I believe there is still work being done at the County A overpass north of the Hwy 51/Stoughton interchange. None of this should be much concern.

There is construction on I-90 between I-294 and Elgin, but it's wide open west of Elgin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 03, 2016, 07:59:34 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 02, 2016, 11:27:21 PM
There is construction on I-90 between I-294 and Elgin, but it's wide open west of Elgin.
with a speed limit only at 65 between Elgin and I-39.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: discochris on January 04, 2016, 12:02:14 AM
So who's funding that massive new weigh station on US 2 outside Superior? That has to be an incredibly expensive project, and for what purpose?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on January 04, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on January 01, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
My family is heading to the Dells for a late spring vacation this May (with a brief stop in Madison). Are there any outstanding projects I need to be on the lookout for along the I-39/90/94 corridors?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

If you don't mind taking a little longer way to get up the Dells from Madison I highly recommend taking WIS-113 out of Madison and taking the free ferry across Lake Wisconsin. You can then follow 113 to Baraboo and take either CTH-A or US-12 to Wis Dells. WIS-113 is especially scenic driving between Merrimac and Baraboo.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 04, 2016, 10:08:15 AM
Quote from: jwags on January 04, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on January 01, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
My family is heading to the Dells for a late spring vacation this May (with a brief stop in Madison). Are there any outstanding projects I need to be on the lookout for along the I-39/90/94 corridors?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

If you don't mind taking a little longer way to get up the Dells from Madison I highly recommend taking WIS-113 out of Madison and taking the free ferry across Lake Wisconsin. You can then follow 113 to Baraboo and take either CTH-A or US-12 to Wis Dells. WIS-113 is especially scenic driving between Merrimac and Baraboo.

That part of US 12 is both an unattractive commercial chaos and a faceless rural freeway.  Take County 'A', it is a nice rural two-lane drive and then POW!, you're in the middle of the Wisconsin Dells/Lake Delton 'strip'.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on January 04, 2016, 02:07:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on January 04, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on January 01, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
My family is heading to the Dells for a late spring vacation this May (with a brief stop in Madison). Are there any outstanding projects I need to be on the lookout for along the I-39/90/94 corridors?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

If you don't mind taking a little longer way to get up the Dells from Madison I highly recommend taking WIS-113 out of Madison and taking the free ferry across Lake Wisconsin. You can then follow 113 to Baraboo and take either CTH-A or US-12 to Wis Dells. WIS-113 is especially scenic driving between Merrimac and Baraboo.

Agreed, the family (especially if there are kids) might think the ferry is cool. But... I would take the US 12 expressway out of Madison to STH 188 and get to the crossing that way. You would save some time and avoid going through the cluster-f that is downtown Waunakee.

Quote from: mgk920 on January 04, 2016, 10:08:15 AM
That part of US 12 is both an unattractive commercial chaos and a faceless rural freeway.  Take County 'A', it is a nice rural two-lane drive and then POW!, you're in the middle of the Wisconsin Dells/Lake Delton 'strip'.
Skip CTH-A it is absolutely nothing special and you have to go through Baraboo itself to get to it. After the boat take STH 113 and CTH-DL/ STH 159 back to US 12, it's just as scenic and faster then Highway A. (IMHO) Plus by then the family will probably just want to 'get there'.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on January 06, 2016, 08:21:37 AM
Quote from: discochris on January 04, 2016, 12:02:14 AM
So who's funding that massive new weigh station on US 2 outside Superior? That has to be an incredibly expensive project, and for what purpose?

It's only $13.4 million   :D

There are a lot of heavy trucks up in that region from logging and other operations.  The intent is to have it open more often with weigh in motion compared to the old weight station to check these trucks for overweight issues.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 11, 2016, 08:22:51 AM
I'm surprised that much would be spent on a weigh station.  There were 2 north of Stevens Ponit that closed on I-39 a few years ago and a virtual weigh station was put up along I-43 northeast of Beloit.  The weigh stations I see in Wisconsin are barely open and seem like they're hardly used. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 11, 2016, 10:20:38 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2016, 08:22:51 AM
I'm surprised that much would be spent on a weigh station.  There were 2 north of Stevens Ponit that closed on I-39 a few years ago and a virtual weigh station was put up along I-43 northeast of Beloit.  The weigh stations I see in Wisconsin are barely open and seem like they're hardly used. 


It seems to make sense to invest resources where the problems are.  And if they are mostly up north, due to the content of the trucks and their weight, I would rather spend $13M on a modern station that is open more regularly than opening a bunch of him on the IL border where they problems supposedly don't exist to the same extent.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 11, 2016, 10:34:56 AM
WisDOT also installed automatic weigh-in-motion scales on the north end of the I-41 Lake Butte des Morts causeway in Oshkosh when it was rebuilt a few years ago.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on January 11, 2016, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2016, 05:47:49 PM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on January 01, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
My family is heading to the Dells for a late spring vacation this May (with a brief stop in Madison). Are there any outstanding projects I need to be on the lookout for along the I-39/90/94 corridors?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Not sure about large-scale projects, but they are rebuilding some of the interchanges on I-39/90 south of Madison in preparation for a full-scale rebuild and widen of that stretch later this decade.

If you want to take one of the mentioned detours from Devil's Lake on STH 159 to US 12, you would be able to see the construction of the Baraboo bypass from Ski-hi Road to Terrytown Road.  There's a large cut through the bluff near Point of Rocks and the road grade is finished through there.  Some construction of the piers has begun on the bridge over the Baraboo River.  However, the portions south of Point of Rocks have only seen minor clearing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: fuller523 on January 15, 2016, 09:33:38 AM
Quote from: discochris on January 04, 2016, 12:02:14 AM
So who's funding that massive new weigh station on US 2 outside Superior? That has to be an incredibly expensive project, and for what purpose?

My opinion: the new weigh stations are the prime examples of WisDOT wasting money.  Why build a Taj Mahal one?  Either build a basic one or put in a virtual one on the road. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: fuller523 on January 15, 2016, 09:38:01 AM
On another note, it looks like the City of Brookfield is starting to widen Pilgrim Pkwy around Gebhardt Rd.  I thought I read somewhere that SEWRPC recommended plans to widen Moorland Rd and Pilgrim Pkwy/Rd to make up for the Belt Fwy not being built. I do not see Elm Grove agreeing to widen their portion, but one can only hope.  With I-41/US-45 being under construction until 2018 at the earliest, there are not a lot of good alternate north-south routes as WI-100 is just as crowded as I-41/US-45
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 15, 2016, 01:59:43 PM
Quote from: fuller523 on January 15, 2016, 09:38:01 AM
On another note, it looks like the City of Brookfield is starting to widen Pilgrim Pkwy around Gebhardt Rd.  I thought I read somewhere that SEWRPC recommended plans to widen Moorland Rd and Pilgrim Pkwy/Rd to make up for the Belt Fwy not being built. I do not see Elm Grove agreeing to widen their portion, but one can only hope.  With I-41/US-45 being under construction until 2018 at the earliest, there are not a lot of good alternate north-south routes as WI-100 is just as crowded as I-41/US-45


I'm not sure how many people use, or will use, Pilgrim/Moorland as an alternate to I-41.  I think it is almost entirely local traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on January 15, 2016, 05:05:24 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on December 31, 2015, 11:13:48 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 30, 2015, 10:07:28 PM
Sounds like the state legislature is shunting responsibility for funding roads onto someone else.  I suppose, they can't cancel/delay any more major projects without upsetting their donors friends at the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association.

WisDOT is trying to keep building roads like the state's gas tax is still indexed to inflation, but it hasn't for a decade so they are cutting local roads to try and keep the same pace of construction.  A robust construction industry developed in the state while the gas tax was indexed for inflation for a generation.  They became influential enough to keep the high-dollar projects coming while WisDOT cuts funding to local roads in post-indexed Wisconsin.  After all, local road projects mostly go to smaller companies who don't have the size to bid on major projects like Lunda and Hoffman.

The Gerrymandering of state legislative districts has painted Wisconsin into an anti-tax corner until at least 2023.
So now the state is in a place where you can't increase funding for transportation and a 25 year surge of highway expansion is not backed by adequate funding for continued maintenance.  This is going to result in Wisconsin's roads and highways getting shittier and shittier for the foreseeable future, save for a handful of brand new expansions.  It means there will be more stealing of money from great state institutions like the UW system or our fantastic network of state parks and public lands to chase the deficit of transportation maintenance.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid your analysis is spot-on. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I am in total agreement.  Very well put.

It is so disheartening watching from outside my home state, seeing Wisconsin just dissolve due to some very short-sighted policies.  I see a once-great state now teetering on ineptitude and I have lost confidence in its leadership, and I fear, its electorate. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: kkt on January 15, 2016, 05:17:48 PM
Much the same thing could be said for a lot of states, not necessarily through gerrymandering but the political situation.  Cutting state universities, parks, deferred maintenance in many programs, chasing a few high profile projects.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 15, 2016, 05:27:25 PM
The political situation is hopeless. Hopefully the road situation doesn't go into the crapper as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 17, 2016, 02:42:50 PM
It's going to get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.  You can blame the politicians, but ultimately it's the shortsightedness of voters that is causing this problem.  They are the ones who are unwilling to pay a few extra cents per gallon to adequately fund the roads they drive on.  (or the roads others drive on to bring them stuff they need and want)

I predict that Wisconsin roads and highways are going to get much, much crappier before anything happens to address the systemic funding problem.  And with no other options for travel, we will be stuck dodging increasing potholes deep into the 2020's.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 17, 2016, 04:05:12 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 17, 2016, 02:42:50 PM
It's going to get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.  You can blame the politicians, but ultimately it's the shortsightedness of voters that is causing this problem.  They are the ones who are unwilling to pay a few extra cents per gallon to adequately fund the roads they drive on.  (or the roads others drive on to bring them stuff they need and want)

I predict that Wisconsin roads and highways are going to get much, much crappier before anything happens to address the systemic funding problem.  And with no other options for travel, we will be stuck dodging increasing potholes deep into the 2020's.
You might be able to blame the voting public, but they are definitely conned into it by politicians trying to sell empty promises to land themselves jobs/continue their reign.  It's not the people who speak, it's the parties </end political rant - back to topic>
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2016, 04:42:27 PM
That's the problem with road funding. We want good roads, but we don't want to pay for them. And I think both are to blame (voters and politicians).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 21, 2016, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on November 22, 2015, 05:48:05 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 22, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2015, 01:00:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 21, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
I'd love to see more of them pop up, there are several intersections that have left turn signals that needlessly hold up left turns because of a red arrow and no oncoming traffic - mostly because of dual left lanes. This may be a good way to fix that.

Dual left-turn lanes are not allowed to use the flashing yellow arrow aspect, they are still only solid green, yellow or red arrows.

Mike
It hasn't been updated on GSV yet, but S Hastings Way @ Bracket Ave in Eau Clarie (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8003488,-91.468554,93m/data=!3m1!1e3) has a dual left turn with a FYA. I snapped a couple pics when I drove through, but unfortunately they're on my work computer. :banghead:

Otherwise, Mike is correct. WisDOT, along with many other agencies prohibit protected permissive left turn phasing for dual or triple left turn lanes, left turns on 45 mph+ facilities, in addition to turns that must cross more than 2 opposing thru lanes.

Hmm. Hastings Way and Brackett Ave In Eau Claire have a dual left turn lane setup with Protected/permissive flashing yellow arrows, cross 2 lanes, granted the speed limit is 35 MPH. Google street view hasn't been updated, but sometimes the intersection can be seen on this live camera. It is the intersection in which you can see a CVS and Walgreens across from each other. Not the intersection with kfc and Starbucks.http://www.weau.com/weather/skycamnetwork/ipcams/283243781.html?device=tablet&c=y
**UPDATE** It appears GSV car went thru a weird route in Sept 2015, so now the dual flashing yellow arrow at Hastings and brackett is shown. Also for those curious, River Prairie Dr at US 53 has been updated to show the new and odd signal upgrades/installations.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 21, 2016, 12:50:28 PM
I had to drive over to northern Eau Claire yesterday and used the WIS 29 expressway to get there.  They've marked the portion past CTH T (if you're going eastbound) as a full freeway now, with a 70mph speed limit and a no-pedestrians/no-bikes sign at the start of it.  I'm guessing they'll have done this to anywhere along 29 that's marked on the state maps as a full freeway.  Maybe other highways like this too?  I know this was discussed last summer as being possible, and on this bit of 29 at least, it's happened. 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 21, 2016, 01:31:57 PM
That stretch of Wis 29 was marked with no bikes/pedestrians signs for quite a while.  The expressway portion of US 51 is also marked with them after every intersection between County K and County S.  US 41/141 north of Green Bay still doesn't have a 70 mph speed limit, but short stretches of Wis 29 and Wis 57 do, even though they're only about 5 mile stretches. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mahaasma on January 22, 2016, 05:55:50 PM
Has the speed limit on US-53 north of Eau Claire been updated?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 22, 2016, 06:00:03 PM
Eh I can't say. U.S. 53 from I-94 to WI 29 is 65 as far as I know. That's a pretty curvy stretch.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 23, 2016, 02:37:10 AM
No increase (yet) on US 10, US 45 and WI 441 in the Appleton/Oshkosh area.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 24, 2016, 12:54:46 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 21, 2016, 01:31:57 PM
That stretch of Wis 29 was marked with no bikes/pedestrians signs for quite a while.  The expressway portion of US 51 is also marked with them after every intersection between County K and County S.  US 41/141 north of Green Bay still doesn't have a 70 mph speed limit, but short stretches of Wis 29 and Wis 57 do, even though they're only about 5 mile stretches. 

I would expect US 41/141 will end up with a 70 mph speed limit once construction work has completed north of the I-43 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 24, 2016, 11:35:52 AM
I don't think the construction has anything to do with not increasing the speed limit to 70 on 41/141.  The short stretch of Wis 29 with a 70 mph speed limit ends at a work zone right now.  US 51 north of Wausau is also still 65.  Wis 29 east of Wausau could also be raised to 70.  That segment of freeway is twice as long as the 5 mile stretch that was raised heading out of Green Bay.  Seems like WISDOT is very inconsistent on raising non interstate freeways to 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 25, 2016, 08:58:24 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 24, 2016, 11:35:52 AM
I don't think the construction has anything to do with not increasing the speed limit to 70 on 41/141.  The short stretch of Wis 29 with a 70 mph speed limit ends at a work zone right now.  US 51 north of Wausau is also still 65.  Wis 29 east of Wausau could also be raised to 70.  That segment of freeway is twice as long as the 5 mile stretch that was raised heading out of Green Bay.  Seems like WISDOT is very inconsistent on raising non interstate freeways to 70.

Or it could just be they're not finished yet and taking their time with the assessments of which bits to raise. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 25, 2016, 02:51:31 PM
I was never gung-ho about the speed limit increase in the first place. To me, whether the speed limit is 65 or 70 is inconsequential.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Highway63 on January 26, 2016, 01:17:36 AM
One of the updates/issues for Wisconsin in the CHM package is that Business 18/151 in Mount Horeb isn't signed anymore. The Mount Horeb village board voted Jan. 7 to change the name of the east half of Business 18-15 to Springdale Street. I'm guessing the issues are related and there's not a signed business route anymore for whatever reason. Probably for the best, given that the road is infested with roundabouts.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 26, 2016, 02:34:20 AM
Quote from: Jeff Morrison on January 26, 2016, 01:17:36 AM
One of the updates/issues for Wisconsin in the CHM package is that Business 18/151 in Mount Horeb isn't signed anymore. The Mount Horeb village board voted Jan. 7 to change the name of the east half of Business 18-15 to Springdale Street. I'm guessing the issues are related and there's not a signed business route anymore for whatever reason. Probably for the best, given that the road is infested with roundabouts.

In the last 15 years, there's been quite a few business routes throughout Wisconsin that have disappeared.  Chris Bessert's wisconsinhighways.org website says that WISDOT is encouraging communities to get rid of their business routes.  I would like to know why WISDOT still maintains Business 51 as a state highway, along with Business 51 through Whiting and Plover while recently turning Bus 51 to local control in the City of Stevens Point.  Why would WISDOT discourage business routes, yet maintain them in those 2 communities?  Even stranger, why would they keep 1/2 of a route as a state highway, then have it dead end at the Stevens Point city limits, miles away from US 51?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 26, 2016, 08:16:43 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 26, 2016, 02:34:20 AM
Quote from: Jeff Morrison on January 26, 2016, 01:17:36 AM
One of the updates/issues for Wisconsin in the CHM package is that Business 18/151 in Mount Horeb isn't signed anymore. The Mount Horeb village board voted Jan. 7 to change the name of the east half of Business 18-15 to Springdale Street. I'm guessing the issues are related and there's not a signed business route anymore for whatever reason. Probably for the best, given that the road is infested with roundabouts.

In the last 15 years, there's been quite a few business routes throughout Wisconsin that have disappeared.  Chris Bessert's wisconsinhighways.org website says that WISDOT is encouraging communities to get rid of their business routes.  I would like to know why WISDOT still maintains Business 51 as a state highway, along with Business 51 through Whiting and Plover while recently turning Bus 51 to local control in the City of Stevens Point.  Why would WISDOT discourage business routes, yet maintain them in those 2 communities?  Even stranger, why would they keep 1/2 of a route as a state highway, then have it dead end at the Stevens Point city limits, miles away from US 51?


My guess is that its politics.  Eventually it will go away.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 27, 2016, 02:26:14 AM
Up in Merrill, Bus 51 was a state highway until the mid 90s when it was removed.  Haven't heard anything from the municipalities about wanting to keep Bus 51.  The portion in Stevens Point was transferred to local control when US 10 north of S.P.opened up.  Could just be one of the oddball things that WISDOT likes to do.  US 61 in Lancaster is practically a business route since Wis 129 is a bypass and shorter than US 61 in the area.  Haven't heard an explanation on why US 61 doesn't follow 129.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 27, 2016, 12:44:57 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 26, 2016, 02:34:20 AM
Quote from: Jeff Morrison on January 26, 2016, 01:17:36 AM
One of the updates/issues for Wisconsin in the CHM package is that Business 18/151 in Mount Horeb isn't signed anymore. The Mount Horeb village board voted Jan. 7 to change the name of the east half of Business 18-15 to Springdale Street. I'm guessing the issues are related and there's not a signed business route anymore for whatever reason. Probably for the best, given that the road is infested with roundabouts.


In the last 15 years, there's been quite a few business routes throughout Wisconsin that have disappeared.  Chris Bessert's wisconsinhighways.org website says that WISDOT is encouraging communities to get rid of their business routes.  I would like to know why WISDOT still maintains Business 51 as a state highway, along with Business 51 through Whiting and Plover while recently turning Bus 51 to local control in the City of Stevens Point.  Why would WISDOT discourage business routes, yet maintain them in those 2 communities?  Even stranger, why would they keep 1/2 of a route as a state highway, then have it dead end at the Stevens Point city limits, miles away from US 51?
Purely a guess here, but perhaps WisDOT maintains those business routes if their used for alternate (emergency) freeway routes, and there's no other state-maintained highway nearby. I know there's been a big push in the past few years to have alternate routes posted for all state freeways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 27, 2016, 02:30:10 PM
When Bus 41 was removed in Oshkosh, Alt. 41 signs pretty much replaced the whole route.  Seems like alternate routes are used extensively except for the Green Bay/Appleton area.  Alt. I-43 signs are plastered south of Manitowoc and Alt. I-41 is also heavily signed south of Oshkosh.  Would be interesting to see why the alternate routes seem to stop there, especially since an alternate for I-43 could easily be signed along County R (old 141) between Manitowoc and Green Bay. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on February 05, 2016, 11:00:41 AM
As a compromise with the Village of Brown Deer, WisDOT is proposing to replace a grade separated interchange with an at-grade intersection with Michigan Lefts. Should be the first of its kind in Wisconsin. (Interchange of STH 100 and STH 57 in north metro Milwaukee)

More here: http://www.mybrowndeernow.com/news/dot-proposes-michigan-left-intersection-at-brown-deer-green-bay-roads-b99663169z1-367430211.html?lc=Smart (http://www.mybrowndeernow.com/news/dot-proposes-michigan-left-intersection-at-brown-deer-green-bay-roads-b99663169z1-367430211.html?lc=Smart)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 05, 2016, 07:54:55 PM
WisDOT put in some Michigan lefts on WI 29 in Brown County recently, so it would not be the first ones in the state.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=44.57463,-88.16599&z=17&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=44.57463,-88.16599&z=17&t=S)

Those are interim, however, until the state can get the money to freeway convert that stretch.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 05, 2016, 09:46:55 PM
^^ Those are not a true Michigan left, but a "superstreet" design called a J-Turn as the cross street must turn right, and to stay straight, must turn right, make the U-turn and turn right again.

There is one on WI 29 as you described and one on US 53 in NW Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 07, 2016, 04:07:35 AM
Quote from: Big John on February 05, 2016, 09:46:55 PM
^^ Those are not a true Michigan left, but a "superstreet" design called a J-Turn as the cross street must turn right, and to stay straight, must turn right, make the U-turn and turn right again.

There is one on WI 29 as you described and one on US 53 in NW Wisconsin.

Ditto on WI 26 between Johnson Creek and Watertown.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 08, 2016, 03:21:18 AM
Another one went up on Wis 57 and County C south of Sturgeon Bay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 23, 2016, 07:32:59 AM
Got some good and bad news today.  The good: The I-41 project in Green Bay will finally finish this year!

http://wbay.com/2016/02/22/i-41-construction-update/

The bad:  The southern bridge project in De Pere is delayed until 2029.  This bridge is badly needed and work has been extremely slow.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/2016/02/22/southern-bridge-de-pere-hold-until-2029/80757732/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on February 23, 2016, 08:52:30 AM
13 years down the road.  In NY, anything beyond five years might as well be that far out.  Interesting year for them to choose.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 23, 2016, 09:15:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2016, 08:52:30 AM
13 years down the road.  In NY, anything beyond five years might as well be that far out.  Interesting year for them to choose.

The planning for the bridge began in the mid 1990s and back then, the goal was to be complete by 2020.  20 years later and still no progress. 
Title: US 10 upgrades being studied
Post by: mgk920 on February 24, 2016, 04:32:06 PM
WisDOT is beginning a study on what work will be needed to upgrade US 10 to a full freeway between Fremont and Amherst, WI.  It is now a four-lane expressway with some freeway sections, completed in the late 1990s.

http://www.waupacanow.com/2016/02/24/u-s-10-may-become-freeway/

Enjoy!

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 24, 2016, 07:18:05 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 24, 2016, 04:32:06 PM
WisDOT is beginning a study on what work will be needed to upgrade US 10 to a full freeway between Fremont and Amherst, WI.  It is now a four-lane expressway with some freeway sections, completed in the late 1990s.

http://www.waupacanow.com/2016/02/24/u-s-10-may-become-freeway/

Enjoy!

Mike

Fairly routine; it probably won't actually happen for 20-30 years. More likely is that individual intersections will be replaced by overpasses or exits for a while, then a larger project later to complete the conversion process when traffic / carnage reaches a certain level.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 25, 2016, 01:47:17 AM
Work on eliminating the backups in Stevens Point first before that section of expressway.  That is needed a lot more than converting that section to freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 25, 2016, 01:20:33 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 25, 2016, 01:47:17 AM
Work on eliminating the backups in Stevens Point first before that section of expressway.  That is needed a lot more than converting that section to freeway.


Aren't they planning on the Steven's Point section?  No reason not to work on both.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
A realigned US 10 to connect with Interstate 39 at a freeway to freeway interchange should be in the cards. I'd start the realignment just west of the CTH J interchange, and have it meet Interstate 39 just south of the railroad track crossing north of Exit 156.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 25, 2016, 05:48:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
A realigned US 10 to connect with Interstate 39 at a freeway to freeway interchange should be in the cards. I'd start the realignment just west of the CTH J interchange, and have it meet Interstate 39 just south of the railroad track crossing north of Exit 156.

The proposed routing would actually start near the Hwy K east intersection and head straight west to I-39.  I'm really surprised that the plans were put on hold since it's more heavily traveled than US 10 west of Stevens Point.  But Marshfield wanted its expressway connection and got it.  They complained how it was the biggest city in Wisconsin without a major highway and it worked.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 25, 2016, 10:16:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
I'd start the realignment just west of the CTH J interchange, and have it meet Interstate 39 just south of the railroad track crossing north of Exit 156.

That's what I wanted to do as well, but that nice opening straight to I-39 filled in with new light industrial/commercial office buildings recently.

This was more or less WisDOT's preferred alternative before the project was shelved for lack of funds:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FUS%252010%2Fpref%2520alt_zpsgcyrpm7x.jpg&hash=ce9ce37039610de93776c67e7e02a87821e1f0f5)
The interchange where it leaves the existing expressway changed some, but you get the general idea.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 26, 2016, 11:06:54 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 25, 2016, 10:16:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
I'd start the realignment just west of the CTH J interchange, and have it meet Interstate 39 just south of the railroad track crossing north of Exit 156.

That's what I wanted to do as well, but that nice opening straight to I-39 filled in with new light industrial/commercial office buildings recently.

This was more or less WisDOT's preferred alternative before the project was shelved for lack of funds:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FUS%252010%2Fpref%2520alt_zpsgcyrpm7x.jpg&hash=ce9ce37039610de93776c67e7e02a87821e1f0f5)
The interchange where it leaves the existing expressway changed some, but you get the general idea.

The original planning thoughts had the bypass freeway diverging west of County 'J', but as time and PIMs passed, such an option became so increasingly 'Rube Goldbergish' that the WisDOT guys simply gave up on it.

As for the current plan, the last that I am aware of is that it is still 'active', but is indeed waiting on funding.  The final has been tweaked in many places, but generally follows the above lines.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 29, 2016, 03:29:29 PM
Does anyone think it could still be constructed, perhaps in the distant future?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 02, 2016, 08:51:34 PM
Question.

Is the I-39/90 and Beltline (US 12/18) system interchange now being omitted from the I-39/90 reconstruction/widening plans? On the website, it is not listed on the north section schedule anymore.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 03, 2016, 03:18:37 PM
It looks to me it will not be constructed along with the existing 39/90 Madison to Illinois project. I disagree with this. I think the interchange should have been included, since the original interchange opened in 1961. When the interchange with the Madison Beltline will be reconstructed is anyone's guess.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2016, 10:14:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 03, 2016, 03:18:37 PM
It looks to me it will not be constructed along with the existing 39/90 Madison to Illinois project. I disagree with this. I think the interchange should have been included, since the original interchange opened in 1961. When the interchange with the Madison Beltline will be reconstructed is anyone's guess.

Looks like it is part of the I-39/90/94 study from Portage to Madison.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx

So did that get moved for money reasons?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2016, 04:53:30 PM
That would push the date back to 2025 or 2030.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 04, 2016, 06:12:41 PM
I don't see anything on the I-39/90/94 study that indicates that the beltline interchange is now included there. In fact, the pdf shows the study area beginning just north of the interchange.

I wonder what is going on.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 04, 2016, 06:34:37 PM
There's a PIM in less than two weeks at the project field office in Edgerton.  Perhaps one could ask about it there.
http://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/schedule/ (http://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/schedule/)
Bit confusing though, because it says it's on Tuesday the 16th; Tuesday is the 15th.  Methinks someone got messed up by the leap day.  Somehow.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: noelbotevera on March 05, 2016, 11:32:25 AM
Speaking of I-39, will exit 85 (Cascade Mountain Road) be reconstructed? I-39 through that stretch got reconstructed, but that interchange wasn't. Sorry for interrupting.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 24, 2016, 04:05:56 AM
There's a public meeting about the I-39/90 and US 12/18 (Beltline) interchange on Thursday, April 7th in McFarland.
http://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/segments/north/schedule/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2016, 03:53:30 PM
I suspect the date of the interchange's reconstruction will be at least 10 to 15 years down the road. I think it should be done sooner.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 24, 2016, 08:12:57 PM
So where is the interchange on the schedule if it is still part of this project?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on April 08, 2016, 12:42:07 PM
Not sure if this is the location to post this, but US 12 Clairemont Ave in Eau Claire has many signals. All left turns east of Cameron St all the way to BUS 53 Hastings Way are protected only signals, with FYA 4 stacks replacing the 5 stacks east of Cameron St to WIS 312 in 2013, and there are currently still 2 intersections with 5 stacks not including the ones on US 12 in altoona, because I do not frequently go that way so I don't know the signal situation there, minus some 4 stack FYA right turn signals. The spui at US 53 and US 12 has protected lefts and one approach from US 53 SB has a 4 stack FYA right turn signal.

Here is my point:
Over the last few weeks, I have noticed 4 stack left turn heads being placed on US 12 from London Rd to Patton St, replacing the 3 section protected only signals, but no FYA operation yet as they are running in protected only operation, and signage is not posted yet, as Rudolph Rd StI'll hasn't had its median signals switched as of this morning. I contacted the city traffic engineer with no response, and don't know who to contact if US 12 is state dot maintained. Anybody know if these 4 stacks are for future FYA use?  I would suspect a Protected only based on time of day in these high traffic intersections, but don't know if they would program them that way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 08, 2016, 10:46:40 PM
I have seen some protected lefts replaced with FYAs, so I would assume that they're being installed to replace the protected lefts.  Most of the signals weren't protected lefts prior to the 2008 reconstruction.  US 12 in Altoona is supposed to be resurfaced ok this spring and the signals are going to be replaced.  The signal changes could be related to that project. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on April 09, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 08, 2016, 10:46:40 PM
I have seen some protected lefts replaced with FYAs, so I would assume that they're being installed to replace the protected lefts.  Most of the signals weren't protected lefts prior to the 2008 reconstruction.  US 12 in Altoona is supposed to be resurfaced ok this spring and the signals are going to be replaced.  The signal changes could be related to that project.
Possibly. I wonder if they will change over to monotube masts. That will be a fist for US12 in the area. Did left turns along clairemont used to be all 5stack permissive? Thats how the old part of Clairemont that wasnt part of the 2008 construction was until 2013 when they replaced the streets west of cameron with FYA's. I think many of the cross streets along the clairemont corridor need Permissive/Protected either FYA or 5 stacks for the left turns, they get busy at times, and i would assume they would be put in if clairemont ever got upgraded to monotube style signals. Currently only Rudolph Rd @ US 12/Clairemont has 5 Stack Permissive/Protected left turns, and Patton St, Craig Rd, Menomonie St have one side at a time Protected Thru/Straight  (Green Ball With Green Left arrow, dont know what this phasing is called).
I am interested to see how this turns out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on April 09, 2016, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on April 09, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
and Patton St, Craig Rd, Menomonie St have one side at a time Protected Thru/Straight  (Green Ball With Green Left arrow, dont know what this phasing is called).
Split phasing
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 09, 2016, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on April 09, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 08, 2016, 10:46:40 PM
I have seen some protected lefts replaced with FYAs, so I would assume that they're being installed to replace the protected lefts.  Most of the signals weren't protected lefts prior to the 2008 reconstruction.  US 12 in Altoona is supposed to be resurfaced ok this spring and the signals are going to be replaced.  The signal changes could be related to that project.
Possibly. I wonder if they will change over to monotube masts. That will be a fist for US12 in the area. Did left turns along clairemont used to be all 5stack permissive? Thats how the old part of Clairemont that wasnt part of the 2008 construction was until 2013 when they replaced the streets west of cameron with FYA's. I think many of the cross streets along the clairemont corridor need Permissive/Protected either FYA or 5 stacks for the left turns, they get busy at times, and i would assume they would be put in if clairemont ever got upgraded to monotube style signals. Currently only Rudolph Rd @ US 12/Clairemont has 5 Stack Permissive/Protected left turns, and Patton St, Craig Rd, Menomonie St have one side at a time Protected Thru/Straight  (Green Ball With Green Left arrow, dont know what this phasing is called).
I am interested to see how this turns out.

They were mostly 5 stacks, but protected at Stein Blvd, Cameron St, and Business 53 north before reconstruction.  The signals in Eau Claire always seemed to be unique compared to the rest of the state.  With a lot of the protected left signals on Bus 53 before the bypass was built and some of the intersections on US 12, there was a straight vertical overhead arrow signal placed from the median.  At London Rd, the Bus 53 interchange, and Stein Blvd, those signals are still in place and existed before vertical overhead signals became widely used.  The Eau Claire area seems to have more protected left signals than any other area of the state.  Almost all of the signals along Wis 312 between I-94 and Jeffers Rd are protected, along with most of US 12 and Wis 124 in Lake Hallie.  When Bus 53 was reconstructed, they were all replaced with 4 stack FYAs so the trend may be to start removing the protected lefts in the future.  Bus 53 in Lake Hallie is supposed to be reconstructed this year, so it will be interesting to see if the protected lefts are removed or replaced with 4 stack FYAs.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on April 10, 2016, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 09, 2016, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on April 09, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 08, 2016, 10:46:40 PM
I have seen some protected lefts replaced with FYAs, so I would assume that they're being installed to replace the protected lefts.  Most of the signals weren't protected lefts prior to the 2008 reconstruction.  US 12 in Altoona is supposed to be resurfaced ok this spring and the signals are going to be replaced.  The signal changes could be related to that project.
Possibly. I wonder if they will change over to monotube masts. That will be a fist for US12 in the area. Did left turns along clairemont used to be all 5stack permissive? Thats how the old part of Clairemont that wasnt part of the 2008 construction was until 2013 when they replaced the streets west of cameron with FYA's. I think many of the cross streets along the clairemont corridor need Permissive/Protected either FYA or 5 stacks for the left turns, they get busy at times, and i would assume they would be put in if clairemont ever got upgraded to monotube style signals. Currently only Rudolph Rd @ US 12/Clairemont has 5 Stack Permissive/Protected left turns, and Patton St, Craig Rd, Menomonie St have one side at a time Protected Thru/Straight  (Green Ball With Green Left arrow, dont know what this phasing is called).
I am interested to see how this turns out.

They were mostly 5 stacks, but protected at Stein Blvd, Cameron St, and Business 53 north before reconstruction.  The signals in Eau Claire always seemed to be unique compared to the rest of the state.  With a lot of the protected left signals on Bus 53 before the bypass was built and some of the intersections on US 12, there was a straight vertical overhead arrow signal placed from the median.  At London Rd, the Bus 53 interchange, and Stein Blvd, those signals are still in place and existed before vertical overhead signals became widely used.  The Eau Claire area seems to have more protected left signals than any other area of the state.  Almost all of the signals along Wis 312 between I-94 and Jeffers Rd are protected, along with most of US 12 and Wis 124 in Lake Hallie.  When Bus 53 was reconstructed, they were all replaced with 4 stack FYAs so the trend may be to start removing the protected lefts in the future.  Bus 53 in Lake Hallie is supposed to be reconstructed this year, so it will be interesting to see if the protected lefts are removed or replaced with 4 stack FYAs.

That is one correct statement, I have no idea why the area has a need for so many protected signals. The city itself has no city maintained intersections with protected only signals, all 5 stacks minus the few oddball monotube FYA/Doghouse things. Something i am wondering about, almost all the intersections with protected lefts have porkchop islands separating side st right turns, and the right turns have a right turn arrow signal with red ball. These go in unison with the left turn. I wonder how operation will change with these FYA signals.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on May 03, 2016, 12:58:38 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 09, 2016, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on April 09, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 08, 2016, 10:46:40 PM
I have seen some protected lefts replaced with FYAs, so I would assume that they're being installed to replace the protected lefts.  Most of the signals weren't protected lefts prior to the 2008 reconstruction.  US 12 in Altoona is supposed to be resurfaced ok this spring and the signals are going to be replaced.  The signal changes could be related to that project.
Possibly. I wonder if they will change over to monotube masts. That will be a fist for US12 in the area. Did left turns along clairemont used to be all 5stack permissive? Thats how the old part of Clairemont that wasnt part of the 2008 construction was until 2013 when they replaced the streets west of cameron with FYA's. I think many of the cross streets along the clairemont corridor need Permissive/Protected either FYA or 5 stacks for the left turns, they get busy at times, and i would assume they would be put in if clairemont ever got upgraded to monotube style signals. Currently only Rudolph Rd @ US 12/Clairemont has 5 Stack Permissive/Protected left turns, and Patton St, Craig Rd, Menomonie St have one side at a time Protected Thru/Straight  (Green Ball With Green Left arrow, dont know what this phasing is called).
I am interested to see how this turns out.

They were mostly 5 stacks, but protected at Stein Blvd, Cameron St, and Business 53 north before reconstruction.  The signals in Eau Claire always seemed to be unique compared to the rest of the state.  With a lot of the protected left signals on Bus 53 before the bypass was built and some of the intersections on US 12, there was a straight vertical overhead arrow signal placed from the median.  At London Rd, the Bus 53 interchange, and Stein Blvd, those signals are still in place and existed before vertical overhead signals became widely used.  The Eau Claire area seems to have more protected left signals than any other area of the state.  Almost all of the signals along Wis 312 between I-94 and Jeffers Rd are protected, along with most of US 12 and Wis 124 in Lake Hallie.  When Bus 53 was reconstructed, they were all replaced with 4 stack FYAs so the trend may be to start removing the protected lefts in the future.  Bus 53 in Lake Hallie is supposed to be reconstructed this year, so it will be interesting to see if the protected lefts are removed or replaced with 4 stack FYAs.
It is official.  Craig Rd, 37, Patton St, Rudolph Rd,  keith st, Fairfax st and London Road are switching tonight.  Cameron St,  Menomonie st, stein blvd, university Dr and hastings way will be switched this summer. http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/TRAFFIC-ALERT-Crews-to-upgrade-traffic-signals-along-Clairemont-Ave--377946841.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 05, 2016, 11:28:19 PM
Good thing they got rid of those protected left turns.  Clairemont Ave was a lot slower than before they were put in.  It looks like they were only put in where the road was 3 lanes in each direction.  I hope that the lights on Wis 312 are also switched because there's no reason why those lights should be protected. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 06, 2016, 11:35:55 AM
A lot of places put protected left turns in "just because," and it is a nuisance.  A few years ago they did this on Main Street (US-12) in Fort Atkinson.  It used to be two lanes in both directions, but they changed it to one each way with left turn lanes (a good thing), but then protected the left hand turns at each of the lights for an *extremely* lengthy time. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on May 06, 2016, 12:20:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 05, 2016, 11:28:19 PM
Good thing they got rid of those protected left turns.  Clairemont Ave was a lot slower than before they were put in.  It looks like they were only put in where the road was 3 lanes in each direction.  I hope that the lights on Wis 312 are also switched because there's no reason why those lights should be protected.
They really should. 312 East of US 12 Is 5 Stack Permissive except at present US 53, those may be protected I do not remember. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how the fya is programmed on these new setups on clairemont, one side may be flashing, while the other side may stay solid red. I think certain lanes are protected only during certain times.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 06, 2016, 05:37:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 06, 2016, 11:35:55 AM
A lot of places put protected left turns in "just because," and it is a nuisance.  A few years ago they did this on Main Street (US-12) in Fort Atkinson.  It used to be two lanes in both directions, but they changed it to one each way with left turn lanes (a good thing), but then protected the left hand turns at each of the lights for an *extremely* lengthy time. 
80 and US 151 Bus in Platteville.  Add stop signs on the right turns
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 06, 2016, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on May 06, 2016, 12:20:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 05, 2016, 11:28:19 PM
Good thing they got rid of those protected left turns.  Clairemont Ave was a lot slower than before they were put in.  It looks like they were only put in where the road was 3 lanes in each direction.  I hope that the lights on Wis 312 are also switched because there's no reason why those lights should be protected.
They really should. 312 East of US 12 Is 5 Stack Permissive except at present US 53, those may be protected I do not remember. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how the fya is programmed on these new setups on clairemont, one side may be flashing, while the other side may stay solid red. I think certain lanes are protected only during certain times.

When US 53 was only open to Wis 312 and that stretch was designated as Bypass 53, there was a protected left turn, but the left turn had the priority green over oncoming traffic from County Q.  Jeffers Rd east of US 12 still has protected left turn arrows.  The newest signal is at Old Wells Rd, and I was concerned about a protected left being installed there, as that was the only road I turned left onto from Wis 312 heading west.  A 5 stack was placed there and more people probably turn left at that intersection than any of the protected left turn signals along Wis 312. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 24, 2016, 09:07:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 03, 2015, 11:14:04 AM
Wow.  Good find.

If the planned Waukesha bypass goes heads north to I-94 as that map indicates, I think it would be better to have US-18 routed along the I-94 to Bluemound Road.  At first glance, the Les Paul Parkway is longer.

Or even better, route US-18 north to I-94 and end it there.  Then come up with another number for Bluemound Road and  WI-164 south of I-94.  That gets rid of that dumb duplex with I-94.
I agree it is a dumb duplex when WI-164 was extended in the late 90's there was no need for a reroute between Waukesha and Sussex. It just simply could have been routed west where it used to end in Sussex and take over CR-J's routing north of there. That would have been far more logical than all these other routing changes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 01, 2016, 12:23:16 AM
WISDOT is holding a public meeting for a corridor mapping of US 10 between Amherst Junction and Stevens Point.  Looks like they're planning ahead for a future freeway bypass of eastern Stevens Point.   

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/074a-nc.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 01, 2016, 11:27:25 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 01, 2016, 12:23:16 AM
WISDOT is holding a public meeting for a corridor mapping of US 10 between Amherst Junction and Stevens Point.  Looks like they're planning ahead for a future freeway bypass of eastern Stevens Point.   

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/074a-nc.aspx

Good find, I'll try to make it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on June 02, 2016, 02:17:43 PM
Nice. That's one major choke point in the busy tourist season, people traveling from US 10 onto Northbound I-39. Could even toll it (in reference to another thread of mine...)...*not trying to ignite a flame war LOL*
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 02, 2016, 02:49:48 PM
Originally, the US 10 Corridor Preservation Study only went from Amherst Junction to Fremont. http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/us10corridor/default.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 02, 2016, 04:20:17 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on June 02, 2016, 02:17:43 PM
Nice. That's one major choke point in the busy tourist season, people traveling from US 10 onto Northbound I-39. Could even toll it (in reference to another thread of mine...)...*not trying to ignite a flame war LOL*

I'm going on the assumption that they'll be officially protecting the yet to be acquired ROW for the freeway routing that was decided upon back during the mid-00s.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on June 02, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
Was that the one that curved north of current US 10 or the one that curved south? I mean for me personally, either way I'd still stop in Stevens Point on the way up north, it's a great halfway point with some decent places to stop for fuel/food and what not. Just that intersection of US10 and I-39...gawdawful at times.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 02, 2016, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on June 02, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
Was that the one that curved north of current US 10 or the one that curved south? I mean for me personally, either way I'd still stop in Stevens Point on the way up north, it's a great halfway point with some decent places to stop for fuel/food and what not. Just that intersection of US10 and I-39...gawdawful at times.

I'm pretty sure it's the alternative curved south from Amherst Jct.  If that were built I think Wis 54 should be routed concurrently with US 10 then along County B to the existing expressway segment.  Right now I think US 10/County B is better than using Wis 54 between Plover and Waupaca due to being able to use the US 10 expressway.  The County B interchange is also a lot busier since WISDOT is proposing to build a diverging diamond interchange at I-39.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 02, 2016, 10:59:13 PM
Due to the lack of money and other higher priories like finishing I-94 to Illinois and between the zoo and the Marquette I am sure this is a long ways from becoming a reality. I would bet not until at least 2030.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2016, 09:02:58 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 02, 2016, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on June 02, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
Was that the one that curved north of current US 10 or the one that curved south? I mean for me personally, either way I'd still stop in Stevens Point on the way up north, it's a great halfway point with some decent places to stop for fuel/food and what not. Just that intersection of US10 and I-39...gawdawful at times.

I'm pretty sure it's the alternative curved south from Amherst Jct.  If that were built I think Wis 54 should be routed concurrently with US 10 then along County B to the existing expressway segment.  Right now I think US 10/County B is better than using Wis 54 between Plover and Waupaca due to being able to use the US 10 expressway.  The County B interchange is also a lot busier since WISDOT is proposing to build a diverging diamond interchange at I-39.


The preferred option is the "HH-Porter Split Option 1" on this map:

http://www.co.portage.wi.us/Comprehensive%20Plan/Planning%20Program/Stevens%20Point/Map32_021.pdf

It is the southernmost option and IMO the most logical.  The problem is that this was originally chosen back in 2008, and even then had a construction schedule of somewhere between 2025-2035.

Unless something has changed that I am unaware of.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 03, 2016, 10:25:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2016, 09:02:58 AM
The preferred option is the "HH-Porter Split Option 1" on this map:

http://www.co.portage.wi.us/Comprehensive%20Plan/Planning%20Program/Stevens%20Point/Map32_021.pdf

It is the southernmost option and IMO the most logical.  The problem is that this was originally chosen back in 2008, and even then had a construction schedule of somewhere between 2025-2035.

Unless something has changed that I am unaware of.

Yea.  I submitted some ideas for a variation on the theme for the middle option that got deep into the selection process and from what a WisDOT guy told me at the time, set back the timeline on the final decision by several weeks.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 04, 2016, 10:18:52 PM
Is it just me or do I post this image every few months? ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FUS%252010%2Fpref%2520alt_zpsgcyrpm7x.jpg&hash=ce9ce37039610de93776c67e7e02a87821e1f0f5)

Ignore the interchange configuration where it splits from the existing US 10 on the east end of the map because they are going to do something different apparently.
The alignment is what is relevant.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on June 05, 2016, 03:39:07 PM
New question: County Highway VK - why is it VK? Lombardi would be VL, and his middle name wasn't K.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 05, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2016, 03:39:07 PM
New question: County Highway VK - why is it VK? Lombardi would be VL, and his middle name wasn't K.
No idea if it was KV I would say that stands for King Vince.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 05, 2016, 03:54:33 PM
VK is the best 2-letter abbreviation of Vikings, which is bothersome for the road Lambeau Field is on.  I think it is someone else's initials.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 05, 2016, 07:47:36 PM
The frontage road along Wis 29 between County J and County EB is County RK, so there must be some significance to the K at the end.  All 3 dead end county roads in Brown County start with an I.  Old 96 in Wrightstown on the east side is now County MW and I have no idea how the Brown County Highway Department came up with that. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 10, 2016, 06:08:09 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 05, 2016, 07:47:36 PM
The frontage road along Wis 29 between County J and County EB is County RK, so there must be some significance to the K at the end.  All 3 dead end county roads in Brown County start with an I.  Old 96 in Wrightstown on the east side is now County MW and I have no idea how the Brown County Highway Department came up with that.
Was WI-96 recently rerouted? I don't see any change in google maps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 10, 2016, 06:21:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 10, 2016, 06:08:09 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 05, 2016, 07:47:36 PM
The frontage road along Wis 29 between County J and County EB is County RK, so there must be some significance to the K at the end.  All 3 dead end county roads in Brown County start with an I.  Old 96 in Wrightstown on the east side is now County MW and I have no idea how the Brown County Highway Department came up with that.
Was WI-96 recently rerouted? I don't see any change in google maps.
there is a new bridge on WI 96 in Wrightstown.  The road east of the old bridge was redeginated as county MW, though not marked on Google maps but labeled High St. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3254174,-88.1598582,18z
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 11, 2016, 09:38:11 AM
Quote from: Big John on June 10, 2016, 06:21:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 10, 2016, 06:08:09 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 05, 2016, 07:47:36 PM
The frontage road along Wis 29 between County J and County EB is County RK, so there must be some significance to the K at the end.  All 3 dead end county roads in Brown County start with an I.  Old 96 in Wrightstown on the east side is now County MW and I have no idea how the Brown County Highway Department came up with that.
Was WI-96 recently rerouted? I don't see any change in google maps.
there is a new bridge on WI 96 in Wrightstown.  The road east of the old bridge was redeginated as county MW, though not marked on Google maps but labeled High St. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3254174,-88.1598582,18z
I see it marked Wis-96.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 11, 2016, 10:28:16 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 11, 2016, 09:38:11 AM
Quote from: Big John on June 10, 2016, 06:21:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 10, 2016, 06:08:09 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 05, 2016, 07:47:36 PM
The frontage road along Wis 29 between County J and County EB is County RK, so there must be some significance to the K at the end.  All 3 dead end county roads in Brown County start with an I.  Old 96 in Wrightstown on the east side is now County MW and I have no idea how the Brown County Highway Department came up with that.
Was WI-96 recently rerouted? I don't see any change in google maps.
there is a new bridge on WI 96 in Wrightstown.  The road east of the old bridge was redeginated as county MW, though not marked on Google maps but labeled High St. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3254174,-88.1598582,18z
I see it marked Wis-96.

County MW goes from County ZZ up High St to Turner St, then it turns south briefly to the roundabout with Wis 96.  The road is very short.  The diagonal road northeast of the roundabout on google maps shouldn't be there and doesn't exist.  The new Wis 96 bridge is south of the old bridge and rises above the valley on both sides.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 06, 2016, 10:59:13 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 06, 2016, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on May 06, 2016, 12:20:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 05, 2016, 11:28:19 PM
Good thing they got rid of those protected left turns.  Clairemont Ave was a lot slower than before they were put in.  It looks like they were only put in where the road was 3 lanes in each direction.  I hope that the lights on Wis 312 are also switched because there's no reason why those lights should be protected.
They really should. 312 East of US 12 Is 5 Stack Permissive except at present US 53, those may be protected I do not remember. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how the fya is programmed on these new setups on clairemont, one side may be flashing, while the other side may stay solid red. I think certain lanes are protected only during certain times.

When US 53 was only open to Wis 312 and that stretch was designated as Bypass 53, there was a protected left turn, but the left turn had the priority green over oncoming traffic from County Q.  Jeffers Rd east of US 12 still has protected left turn arrows.  The newest signal is at Old Wells Rd, and I was concerned about a protected left being installed there, as that was the only road I turned left onto from Wis 312 heading west.  A 5 stack was placed there and more people probably turn left at that intersection than any of the protected left turn signals along Wis 312.
UPDATE: Cameron St, Menomonie St, and university dr by CVTC now has 4 stacks, not sure about stein. Interesting fact, I thought Dual Permissive FYA left turns werent allowed for crossing more than 2 lanes at 45mph. These two intersections are Dual Turns crossing 3 lanes of traffic going 45mph, and to most locals, they go more like 51-53 mph.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 11, 2016, 05:48:47 PM
I visited Eau Claire's only HAWK Signal today. Watched 3 activations and recorded one. Drivers for the most part knew how to use it without confusing signage.
https://youtu.be/HNC76jcZ0Is (https://youtu.be/HNC76jcZ0Is)

I also visited both of Eau Claires FYA doghouse intersections but didn't get any footage. I sat at the Lake St/First Ave setup for 15 minutes and the protected green arrow never came up. I took this video of the Farwell St/Galloway st setup about a month ago:
https://youtu.be/7FaFAoH4xZ0 (https://youtu.be/7FaFAoH4xZ0)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 11, 2016, 08:05:28 PM
Not only does it go "against" Wisconsin norms, it's also a MUTCD violation in that the green arrow and FYA are the same head...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on July 11, 2016, 10:10:38 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 11, 2016, 08:05:28 PM
Not only does it go "against" Wisconsin norms, it's also a MUTCD violation in that the green arrow and FYA are the same head...

Maybe I'm not quite understanding your post but anyway:

Quote from: MUTCD Section 4D.20 Paragraph 03 Item H
The display shall be a four-section signal face except that a three-section signal face containing a dual-arrow signal section shall be permitted where signal head height limitations (or lateral positioning limitations for a horizontally-mounted signal face) will not permit the use of a four-section signal face. The dual-arrow signal section, where used, shall display a GREEN ARROW for the protected left-turn movement and a flashing YELLOW ARROW for the permissive left-turn movement.

For additional consideration, there is also the following interpretation/ruling by FHWA for a display with a dual-arrow display (steady green/flashing yellow) in Minnesota:  Link. (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_15.htm)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 11, 2016, 10:25:24 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 11, 2016, 08:05:28 PM
Not only does it go "against" Wisconsin norms, it's also a MUTCD violation in that the green arrow and FYA are the same head...
It is allowed. This city has 2 of these setups, and  MN actually did this first. This is the only proper way to signal a option left/straight lane using the modern fya.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 12, 2016, 05:24:12 AM
Ok then, I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 12, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on July 11, 2016, 05:48:47 PM
I visited Eau Claire's only HAWK Signal today. Watched 3 activations and recorded one. Drivers for the most part knew how to use it without confusing signage.
https://youtu.be/HNC76jcZ0Is (https://youtu.be/HNC76jcZ0Is)

Notice when the guy honked his horn?  I would have gotten honked at, too.  Those flashing alternating red lights make me think of railroad crossings, where you sit and wait until the train goes by.  I would have sat there until the signal shut off.  Why can't we just have a typical three-section head here?  Eau Claire, why do you have to complicate things, especially when avoiding confusion is a matter of safety?  I'll even take a red-yellow-FYA signal here like you see at some fire stations.


Quote from: JMAN12343610 on July 11, 2016, 05:48:47 PM
I also visited both of Eau Claires FYA doghouse intersections but didn't get any footage. I sat at the Lake St/First Ave setup for 15 minutes and the protected green arrow never came up. I took this video of the Farwell St/Galloway st setup about a month ago:
https://youtu.be/7FaFAoH4xZ0 (https://youtu.be/7FaFAoH4xZ0)

So unnecessary.  Just get rid of the FYA.  People turning left know to yield during the sight of a green ball.  Do what the MUTCD says to do and put in a doghouse that operates as they've always been operating.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 12, 2016, 10:18:13 PM
Massive rainfall in northern Wisconsin yesterday (July 11) has caused major problems for roads and highways.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4072496-list-flood-related-road-closures-northland (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4072496-list-flood-related-road-closures-northland)
US 2 is washed out east of Ashland.
US 63 is washed out south of Ashland.
WI 13 is washed out south of Ashland in three places. (The Brunsweiler River, Trout Brook [North York], Silver Creek [Highbridge])
US 53 NB is closed at Lampson in Washburn Co.
The Bad River has closed WI 169 in Mellen.

US 63 at Twentymile Creek near Grand View:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.jrn.com%2Fimages%2F660%2A412%2Fb99760392z.1_20160712204325_000_gomgd0er.1-1.jpg&hash=737cc5a7e36458d51df9d5577010cf721a417c93)

The little county park and marina at Saxon Harbor has been utterly devastated.  It looks like nearly 10 inches of rain dumped on the watershed of Oronto Creek.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duluthnewstribune.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2F16x9_860%2Fpublic%2Ffield%2Fimage%2F13668989_1756497721264284_3917763806112321428_n.jpg%3Fitok%3D7ztgfMXu&hash=aa1c1c57dc65732622d760708ab26ba40a35370a)

It's reminiscent of the 2012 flooding further west in the Duluth area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 12, 2016, 10:24:05 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 12, 2016, 10:18:13 PM
Massive rainfall in northern Wisconsin yesterday (July 11) has caused major problems for roads and highways.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4072496-list-flood-related-road-closures-northland (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4072496-list-flood-related-road-closures-northland)
US 2 is washed out east of Ashland.
US 63 is washed out south of Ashland.
WI 13 is washed out south of Ashland in three places. (The Brunsweiler River, Trout Brook [North York], Silver Creek [Highbridge])
US 53 NB is closed at Lampson in Washburn Co.
The Bad River has closed WI 169 in Mellen.
It's reminiscent of the 2012 flooding further west in the Duluth area.

Whoaaaa.  Not cool.  I hope no one got hurt.
Much of this was the Bad River, yes?  There aren't any areas that are devoid of roadway access, are there?  Is WI-112 still intact?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 12, 2016, 10:31:46 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 12, 2016, 10:24:05 PM
Whoaaaa.  Not cool.  I hope no one got hurt.
Much of this was the Bad River, yes?  There aren't any areas that are devoid of roadway access, are there?  Is WI-112 still intact?

For a time yesterday it was impossible to leave Ashland.  There are some areas still cut off as I understand it, but they are not as large.
WI 112 is open.  The worst flooding happened just south of there outside the White River's drainage.
One fatality in the Saxon Harbor area, sadly.  But if it had been the weekend, there could have been dozens camping there.

If enough roads reopen, the area's waterfalls should be amazing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 12, 2016, 11:12:48 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 12, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on July 11, 2016, 05:48:47 PM
I visited Eau Claire's only HAWK Signal today. Watched 3 activations and recorded one. Drivers for the most part knew how to use it without confusing signage.
https://youtu.be/HNC76jcZ0Is (https://youtu.be/HNC76jcZ0Is)

Notice when the guy honked his horn?  I would have gotten honked at, too.  Those flashing alternating red lights make me think of railroad crossings, where you sit and wait until the train goes by.  I would have sat there until the signal shut off.  Why can't we just have a typical three-section head here?  Eau Claire, why do you have to complicate things, especially when avoiding confusion is a matter of safety?  I'll even take a red-yellow-FYA signal here like you see at some fire stations.


Quote from: JMAN12343610 on July 11, 2016, 05:48:47 PM
I also visited both of Eau Claires FYA doghouse intersections but didn't get any footage. I sat at the Lake St/First Ave setup for 15 minutes and the protected green arrow never came up. I took this video of the Farwell St/Galloway st setup about a month ago:
https://youtu.be/7FaFAoH4xZ0 (https://youtu.be/7FaFAoH4xZ0)

So unnecessary.  Just get rid of the FYA.  People turning left know to yield during the sight of a green ball.  Do what the MUTCD says to do and put in a doghouse that operates as they've always been operating.

The hawk signal was something they were trying out and is a first. Many other areas have had success with them (Wis Dell's has 3 within one two mile stretch of road)

Previously at First ave/Lake st, there was no protected left phasing, just standard ryg heads for all directions. Had there not been an option left/straight lane, and instead a dedicated turn lane, a regular 4 section fya would have been used, since WISDOT no longer allows 5 stack yield on green balls on new installations I believe. Wisdot has never allowed regular yield on green ball doghouses, but now is allowing them to be used for option lane situations.
Title: License plate format?
Post by: mgk920 on July 22, 2016, 01:18:10 AM
I note that WisDOT is getting very close to exhausting the NNN-LLL format number pool for regular issue automobile license plates (I saw a just-issued one with xxx-YZY here in the Appleton area a couple of days ago).  Does anyone in here know what format will be used once this happens?

:hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on July 22, 2016, 01:54:08 AM
123-ABC format allows for a theoretical max of 17,576,000 combinations, which is about triple the population of Wisconsin right now. That's also only for standard Auto plates, all other plates have independent combinations / permutations of numbers and or letters (trucks, semis, state-owned/municipal/collector/etc etc).

Now, that doesn't mean those are all valid (right now anyways). I don't think anything under 101 exists actually. Also, the ZY* range is for Human service vehicles only. I also think there are certain letter combinations that they don't allow ("bad words" or things like them, I presume, 123-ASS would probably catch some flack lol).

Wikipedia lists: 101-AAA to 999-YYY (as of June 26, 2016)

So they could open up the existing un-used ranges. They could also open up the use of old / existing plate numbers, right? Not sure how many years of not being renewed should be used. Probably start with the oldest first year first, and move on from there.

I sure hope WI doesn't go towards flat plates, or even worse, the 3M Digital font... holy crap that's ugly! MN has gone to flat plates (at least with a tasteful font that is reminiscent of the existing font, and similar to WI's). Also, WI's recent Bald Eagle Endangered Resources plate features a flat design (also maybe the new Badger plate? cannot remember)... it's possible they could make that move.

The easiest thing WI could do would be to go to a 101AAAA format. The state currently supports 7 digit plates, so there wouldn't be any need to shrink the letters or dies / change computer systems / etc.

Vanity plates support up to 7 characters AND 2 spaces. The width of a space is smaller if both two spaces are used I think (compared to using only a single space), I haven't done exact measurements. Since going to 101AAAA would remove the dash, could go with a space between the numbers and letters if there was a concern about that.

Adding that one extra letter would allow for 456,976,000 total permutations, a huge jump.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on July 22, 2016, 04:44:39 AM
Plus don't even light trucks in Wisconsin get special truck plates? That makes the pool for the standard car/minivan plates even smaller.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on July 22, 2016, 07:54:55 AM
Yup. Trucks don't fall under auto. Different letter/number scheme, says Truck on bottom, and has a weight class sticker.

I've seen some normal SUV and minivans with truck plates too. If you look at the requirements for truck plates they're identical as autos. However I think if people say they keep the rear and or middle seats folded down all the time, they can get truck plates instead. I don't see the benefit. Wouldn't save any money, they still need to get smogged every other year, etc.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 22, 2016, 01:08:59 PM
Wisconsin does not go below '101' for the number part.  Interesting in that the lowest possible number under the current format ('101-AAA') is/was an active plate here in the Appleton area.

Prior to the current format, Wisconsin used 'LLL-NNN', starting a long-term changeover in about 2000.  The last of those 'red number' plates were off the road only a year or two ago.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2016, 04:36:22 PM
It would be nice to get a new plate design too.  This one has been around for 30 years or so.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on July 22, 2016, 04:55:35 PM
I like the current clean design. Would be even more cool if they brought back an old design.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 23, 2016, 11:23:09 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2016, 04:36:22 PM
It would be nice to get a new plate design too.  This one has been around for 30 years or so.

I hate the current license plates. They should at least eliminate the horribly cheesy farm graphic in the corner and move "Wisconsin" to the center. I can deal with plain black and white plates; but that farm graphic has to go.
Title: Re: License plate format?
Post by: dvferyance on July 23, 2016, 09:45:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 22, 2016, 01:18:10 AM
I note that WisDOT is getting very close to exhausting the NNN-LLL format number pool for regular issue automobile license plates (I saw a just-issued one with xxx-YZY here in the Appleton area a couple of days ago).  Does anyone in here know what format will be used once this happens?

:hmmm:

Mike
I thought about that the other day. I would say they will probably reissue plate numbers not used anymore from long ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 24, 2016, 06:51:40 AM
I've seen plate#'s ending in Axx and Bxx recently.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 24, 2016, 10:27:21 AM
I just assumed they'd reverse the serial and move to the AAA-100 format once the current numbers were exhausted.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 24, 2016, 03:34:05 PM
I heard they don't use the letters O and I due to them being too similar to zero and 1.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on July 24, 2016, 03:39:10 PM
They use them...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 24, 2016, 11:31:24 PM
'O' (letter) and 'I' are only used on personalized plates.  The number of the personalized plates on my car includes an 'I'.  I'm half thinking that a 'O' (letter) on personalized plates is recorded the same as a '0' (number) in WisDOT's files.

I do kind of agree on the thought that WisDOT will begin reissuing numbers in the LLL-NNN format, since all of the previous plates with those combinations (the 'red letter/number' ones) are now off of the road.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 25, 2016, 12:12:42 PM
the Q is also not used on Wisconsin standard car plates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 28, 2016, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 25, 2016, 12:12:42 PM
the Q is also not used on Wisconsin standard car plates.
Your right but I know other states use it my grandfather had a Q on his Virginia plates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on July 28, 2016, 09:56:02 PM
It's available on vanity plates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: slorydn1 on August 02, 2016, 09:08:48 AM
Just a note from a person that accesses DMV files on a daily basis:

It seems regardless of the state in question no matter what it says on the plate itself, the return I get from any of  state's DMV files that I run for my deputies the printout always shows an "O" to be a "0". This includes Wisconsin. For example, my personalized tag SLORYDN1 shows up in the database here in NC as SL0RYDN1

The "I" versus "1" is a little cloudier, I have noticed most states (including NC) do allow the letter "I" and it shows up as an "I" in the database, not a "1". I don't remember seeing one with the letter "I" from Wisconsin but I must admit it's been a while since I have run a Wisconsin tag.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 05, 2016, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on August 02, 2016, 09:08:48 AM
Just a note from a person that accesses DMV files on a daily basis:

It seems regardless of the state in question no matter what it says on the plate itself, the return I get from any of  state's DMV files that I run for my deputies the printout always shows an "O" to be a "0". This includes Wisconsin. For example, my personalized tag SLORYDN1 shows up in the database here in NC as SL0RYDN1

The "I" versus "1" is a little cloudier, I have noticed most states (including NC) do allow the letter "I" and it shows up as an "I" in the database, not a "1". I don't remember seeing one with the letter "I" from Wisconsin but I must admit it's been a while since I have run a Wisconsin tag.

The personalized plate number on my car has a letter 'I' in it.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 12, 2016, 12:43:56 AM
Last week in Brown County, US 141/Wis 29, Wis 32/57, and Wis 96 were chipsealed on asphalt that wasn't very old.  Have seen it a lot in some counties like Calumet County that chipseals every road about 5 years after its asphalt paved.  Have anyone else seen other state highways chipsealed?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on August 12, 2016, 08:44:10 AM
Lafayette County chipseals their county roads on a regular basis, but I have yet to see them do it on any of the state highways in the county.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on August 14, 2016, 07:16:58 AM
Sorry to change the subject, but yesterday I was at Fox Valley Technical College's training center facility in Greenville, WI (just west of Appleton) and I noticed a bunch of named streets within the facility grounds, with names such as Spring, Summer, and Fall streets, Fourth through Seventh Avenues, and even a road signed as County FV.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2Fdzw51z.jpg&hash=d11b1620d8780314a6339c33263c323f3271ea71)
Are these streets actual streets, or do they exist simply for training and simulations?  Does anybody have more information about this area?

Any and all information is much appreciated.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Right on Red on August 14, 2016, 09:09:05 AM
Google doesn't recognize any Outagamie County Road FV. Is this it? (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Grand+Chute,+WI/@44.2791312,-88.4610128,17z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x880174378d010ec1:0xe89935598898bc43!2sFox+Valley+Technical+College,+1825+N+Bluemound+Dr,+Appleton,+WI+54912!3m1!1s0x8803b5d5c38ae44f:0xb8862b60ef4bfa39)

The sign looks real (or like a convincing knockoff), though it'd be interesting to know if any DOT stickers are on the back.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on August 14, 2016, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: Right on Red on August 14, 2016, 09:09:05 AM
Google doesn't recognize any Outagamie County Road FV. Is this it? (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Grand+Chute,+WI/@44.2791312,-88.4610128,17z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x880174378d010ec1:0xe89935598898bc43!2sFox+Valley+Technical+College,+1825+N+Bluemound+Dr,+Appleton,+WI+54912!3m1!1s0x8803b5d5c38ae44f:0xb8862b60ef4bfa39)

The sign looks real (or like a convincing knockoff), though it'd be interesting to know if any DOT stickers are on the back.

The address is W6450 County Rd BB, Appleton, WI 54914 in the Town of Greenville - it's their Public Safety Training Center, not on their main campus.

I didn't get to look at the back of the sign for DOT stickers; sorry.

And I noticed Google doesn't list it; OpenStreetMap doesn't either, and I haven't found a map that does.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 14, 2016, 03:56:13 PM
It's a simulation.  At the other campus, they have railroad crossing signals without a railroad crossing and traffic signals for their truck driving course. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on August 15, 2016, 06:48:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 14, 2016, 03:56:13 PM
It's a simulation.  At the other campus, they have railroad crossing signals without a railroad crossing and traffic signals for their truck driving course.

That's what I was kind of thinking after walking on it and everything, but I didn't know for sure.  Thanks for the information; have a nice day! :cheers:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 16, 2016, 12:05:13 AM
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 15, 2016, 06:48:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 14, 2016, 03:56:13 PM
It's a simulation.  At the other campus, they have railroad crossing signals without a railroad crossing and traffic signals for their truck driving course.

Their Class A CDL (big-rig truck driver) range is right along I-41 across from the Timber Rattlers' stadium.

QuoteThat's what I was kind of thinking after walking on it and everything, but I didn't know for sure.  Thanks for the information; have a nice day! :cheers:

It's all for police training simulation.  Among the other goodies, at the fire end they have a simulated aircraft rescue (a retired 727) and a freight train derailment (three retired propane tank cars realistically piled together).  Inside the main building, the police side also has a simulated bar room.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 19, 2016, 11:36:22 PM
A PIM on US 10 in Stevens Point is upcoming.  They do have a map on the proposed eastern Stevens Point Bypass.  I know someone kept posting one but this map is a little different.  There would be a full diamond interchange at Lake Rd and the 4 lane road would swoop to the left and cross existing US 10 and the CN railroad on one structure. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/nc/us10portage/us10-preferred-alignment.pdf

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/us10portage/default.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2016, 01:01:12 PM
I have updated my copy ;)
Now one can see the evolution of this process:
~2008:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FUS%252010%2Fall%2520alts_zpsrpzen9kt.jpg&hash=78fcd6a9dbfbafce5f44ff7cf810e521b41bd1b2)
~2009:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FUS%252010%2Fpref%2520alt_zpsgcyrpm7x.jpg&hash=ce9ce37039610de93776c67e7e02a87821e1f0f5)
2016:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FUS%252010%2Fpref%2520alt%25202016_zps0bkznf8u.jpg&hash=f8b058bad63ce7be0fce50e485bec15c34d6a699)


It's too late for my concept:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FInterchanges%2FUS10east.png&hash=9f6c9264aed5bac14a280e39ee34f50a93c5caa7)
The business park has filled in along the railroad just east of I-39.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on August 23, 2016, 09:54:58 PM
saw a Hobbyist plate with a white background and black text a few days ago.

Any idea what's goin on there? Normally they're green and yellow..

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfcSDo3M.png&hash=dfa2fdc968fcdc43abeeea2a7719e26d536fa34c)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 23, 2016, 09:58:59 PM
^^ The website still shows the old colors: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/vehicles/title-plates/hobbyist.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on August 23, 2016, 10:00:38 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 23, 2016, 09:58:59 PM
^^ The website still shows the old colors: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/vehicles/title-plates/hobbyist.aspx

It does... hence the confusion.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 01, 2016, 09:31:58 AM
Has anyone noticed that Wisconsin Highways 123, 74, and 115 have been decommissioned?  I managed to get a photo of WI-123 a year ago (to the day almost) before it was removed this year.  Is this the mark of a more minimalist era for WisDOT?  Or are they reorganizing their priorities in a particular way?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 01, 2016, 09:40:01 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 01, 2016, 09:31:58 AM
Has anyone noticed that Wisconsin Highways 123, 74, and 115 have been decommissioned?  I managed to get a photo of WI-123 a year ago (to the day almost) before it was removed this year.  Is this the mark of a more minimalist era for WisDOT?  Or are they reorganizing their priorities in a particular way?


WI-74 was discussed last year.  It was removed to use the mileage for the new US-18 western bypass of Waukesha. 

WI-115 was decommissioned over a decade ago.  Did you mean something else?

WI-123 I wasn't aware of.  It was pretty minor though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 01, 2016, 05:46:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 01, 2016, 09:40:01 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 01, 2016, 09:31:58 AM
Has anyone noticed that Wisconsin Highways 123, 74, and 115 have been decommissioned?  I managed to get a photo of WI-123 a year ago (to the day almost) before it was removed this year.  Is this the mark of a more minimalist era for WisDOT?  Or are they reorganizing their priorities in a particular way?
123 was a state route that simply pointed to Devil's Lake state park - a lot of highway for a short drive.
74 seemed like a highway that didn't have any point in being there since it didn't end in a good spot (short of an interstate at Capitol Drive)  Waukesha County wanted it gone as well.


WI-74 was discussed last year.  It was removed to use the mileage for the new US-18 western bypass of Waukesha. 

WI-115 was decommissioned over a decade ago.  Did you mean something else?

WI-123 I wasn't aware of.  It was pretty minor though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2016, 05:55:08 PM
Highway 123 was eliminated? I had no idea. It just connected Baraboo with Devils Lake Park. RIP WI-123, 1919-2016.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 01, 2016, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2016, 05:55:08 PM
Highway 123 was eliminated? I had no idea. It just connected Baraboo with Devils Lake Park. RIP WI-123, 1919-2016.

It was pretty much an un-needed little highway...

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/010-sw.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 02, 2016, 10:38:38 AM
Quote
WI-115 was decommissioned over a decade ago.  Did you mean something else?

No.  But I did mistake "2005" for "2015" when I read the year it was decommissioned.  So I thought it was recent  :-P
I was thinking of 'conquering' Wisconsin (wherein I visit every state route in a state & get one sign photo for each route).
Now I know to scratch a few more roads off my list.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 02, 2016, 04:51:44 PM
I read on Wikipedia (not the most reliable site) that when the US 12 West Baraboo Bypass is completed, STH-136 is going to be extended, and will completely replace STH-159. Does anyone know if this is accurate?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 02, 2016, 05:27:49 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 01, 2016, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2016, 05:55:08 PM
Highway 123 was eliminated? I had no idea. It just connected Baraboo with Devils Lake Park. RIP WI-123, 1919-2016.

It was pretty much an un-needed little highway...

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/010-sw.aspx
I just learned that myself on Wikipedia a couple weeks ago. I am ok with it though I thought it would have made more sense to decommission WI-159 instead. The whole purpose of it was to serve Devil's Lake State Park with a state highway. I believe WI-159 was extended to the entrance of Devil's Lake State Park. As for WI-74 is another story. I thought it was completely stupid to get rid of it just because the most corrupt suburb in SE Wisconsin perhaps all of Wisconsin asked for it. If it was going to go should have been done so at the same time WI-164 was extended back in the late 90's. Waukesha County has been hit so hard with routing changes over the last 30 years probably more than any other county. As for WI-115 that's a mixed bag for me. It was just a short cut off route between WI-60 and WI-26 but on the other hand wasn't the decommissioning of WI-109 a few years before enough of a reduction for Dodge County for years to come?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 02, 2016, 07:32:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 02, 2016, 05:27:49 PM
I thought it was completely stupid to get rid of it just because the most corrupt suburb in SE Wisconsin perhaps all of Wisconsin asked for it.

Again, the "most corrupt suburb" wasn't the only factor. You going to hate on Slinger for decommissioning STH 144 there (which will eventually cause the entire route to be decommissioned)?

I just don't get it. It's a stupid state highway, and all you can talk about is "boycotting" Menominee Falls because they didn't want 74 there.

By the way, you realize that Lannon and Sussex didn't really want the highway either, right? Let's boycott them, too!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 03, 2016, 09:38:57 AM
WI-115 was decommissioned in 2005.  No one misses it.  And WI-109?  Wasn't that like 20 years ago?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 05, 2016, 01:15:30 AM
Wis 127 needs to go.  It was an old alignment of US 16 and doesn't even go to any communities.  It's by far the most useless state highway in Wisconsin. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 05, 2016, 01:33:40 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2016, 01:15:30 AM
Wis 127 needs to go.  It was an old alignment of US 16 and doesn't even go to any communities.  It's by far the most useless state highway in Wisconsin.

I think you might be right about WI-127 being the most useless Wisconsin State Highway still active today.  It may very well be a case of the state agency trying to get rid of the road, but the road is too crappy for county or local agencies to want it.  WisDOT can't just say "here's this crappy road!  It's your problem now!" as much as they might like to
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 05, 2016, 03:03:37 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 05, 2016, 01:33:40 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2016, 01:15:30 AM
Wis 127 needs to go.  It was an old alignment of US 16 and doesn't even go to any communities.  It's by far the most useless state highway in Wisconsin.

I think you might be right about WI-127 being the most useless Wisconsin State Highway still active today.  It may very well be a case of the state agency trying to get rid of the road, but the road is too crappy for county or local agencies to want it.  WisDOT can't just say "here's this crappy road!  It's your problem now!" as much as they might like to

It could go to the town.  Taylor County didn't want Wis 194 between County H and Wis 73, so it became a town road.  Years ago, Wisconsin had a tradition of keeping old alignments as state highways, which is why Wis 127 is a state highway.  Other examples: Wis 175 which used to be US 41, Wis 67 between Plymouth and Kiel which was once Wis 57.

Wis 107 north of Merrill would also qualify as another highway not needed.  It doesn't even end at a state highway anymore, and is 1 of 2 state highways ending at an old alignment of Old US 51.  It serves loggers and hydroelectric power plants along the Wisconsin River, which may be why it's still around.  It can be an alternate to US 51, and came in handy when traffic backed up when it was under construction.  Wis 16 isn't that busy and doesn't need an alternate route with I-90/I-94 so close. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 05, 2016, 10:23:14 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2016, 03:03:37 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 05, 2016, 01:33:40 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 05, 2016, 01:15:30 AM
Wis 127 needs to go.  It was an old alignment of US 16 and doesn't even go to any communities.  It's by far the most useless state highway in Wisconsin.

I think you might be right about WI-127 being the most useless Wisconsin State Highway still active today.  It may very well be a case of the state agency trying to get rid of the road, but the road is too crappy for county or local agencies to want it.  WisDOT can't just say "here's this crappy road!  It's your problem now!" as much as they might like to

It could go to the town.  Taylor County didn't want Wis 194 between County H and Wis 73, so it became a town road.  Years ago, Wisconsin had a tradition of keeping old alignments as state highways, which is why Wis 127 is a state highway.  Other examples: Wis 175 which used to be US 41, Wis 67 between Plymouth and Kiel which was once Wis 57.


WI-67 at least serves a purpose - connecting with Road America and Elkhart Lake.

I wonder if the other two have legacy agreements in place that prevents the from being transferred. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 05, 2016, 01:10:08 PM
100% agree on Wis 127 becoming a county road. If there was a town along it not served by Wis 16, that would be one thing.
As for Wis 175, I got no issues with that route staying a state highway since it is a "business" route to 41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 05, 2016, 02:58:41 PM
At the north end of Wis 107, there was a guide sign on County S that pointed straight to Merrill and it said Merrill VIA 107 for Wis 107.  Interesting how it isn't the recommended route by WISDOT, yet it's a state highway. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 05, 2016, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 05, 2016, 01:33:40 AM
I think you might be right about WI-127 being the most useless Wisconsin State Highway still active today.  It may very well be a case of the state agency trying to get rid of the road, but the road is too crappy for county or local agencies to want it.  WisDOT can't just say "here's this crappy road!  It's your problem now!" as much as they might like to

WisDOT always does one more fix up of a state highway before handing it over to a local jurisdiction.  That way, the county, town, city or village is starting with a relatively nice road and WisDOT can never be accused of 'dumping off' a crappy old road onto someone else.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 06, 2016, 10:44:31 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 05, 2016, 01:10:08 PM
100% agree on Wis 127 becoming a county road. If there was a town along it not served by Wis 16, that would be one thing.
As for Wis 175, I got no issues with that route staying a state highway since it is a "business" route to 41.


Interestingly enough, I had forgotten that when US-16 was moved off of the current WI-127 route, that it was originally a couple of county highways.

It was reabsorbed into the state highway system about a decade later as WI-127.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 07, 2016, 01:16:23 AM
Wis 127's biggest claim to fame:  The last state highway Jeffrey Dahmer ever traveled on as the Columbia Correctional Institution is located on the roadway. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 09, 2016, 03:19:37 PM
This may have been brought up already, but from the "it's about damn time" file...

WI 106 is now truncated to WI 73 east of Albion.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Falbion.jpg&hash=7ddaf5d721c647d62a6736a8dd7a8de3f0b08b68)

The former crossroads of WI 106 and US 51 is now just "Edgerton and Albion Roads".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fend106.jpg&hash=87cb8b8eb4684d9af6407304d10fc66e0cc8dd5a)

The new end of WI 106.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 09, 2016, 06:46:50 PM
TOOK THEM LONG ENOUGH! It's only been 54 years since WIS 106 was retracted from US 14 in Oregon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 09, 2016, 08:58:25 PM
Really the entire route is pretty useless at this point. It's a very lightly traveled road, except for maybe the section between Fort and CTH N. Most every other section of that highway is dead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 09, 2016, 10:41:00 PM
Seems like in the southwest corner of the state there are a lot of state highways that are built to low standards with unpaved narrow shoulders or don't look like they're kept up well. 

In Northeast Wisconsin, there were state highways like that but have since been decommissioned or truncated in the last 35 years.  (Wis 32, Wis 96, Wis 114, Wis 148, Wis 149, Wis 163, Wis 168, Wis 177).  The only roads that do not have paved shoulders in the region and are narrow is Wis 76 from Bear Creek to Greenville, Wis 187, and Wis 156 east of Wis 187.  All 3 are fairly close to each other.  Wis 156 is going to be widened in the next few years and is an important state highway.  Wis 76 still gets a decent amount of traffic but was resurfaced with no paved shoulder.  Wis 187 could be decommissioned as it really doesn't go anywhere.   

Interesting how it seems like WISDOT has been aggressive to decommission highways in Northeast Wisconsin but not so much in Southwest Wisconsin where there seem to be more state highways that are built substandard and could be decommissioned.  Wis 56,  Wis 108, Wis 127, Wis 134, Wis 162, Wis 179 all fit that profile of substandard roadways in the state highway system that are lightly traveled.  Look on streetview and you can see that they are in poorer condition compared to most other state highways. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 10, 2016, 08:49:23 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 09, 2016, 03:19:37 PM
This may have been brought up already, but from the "it's about damn time" file...

WI 106 is now truncated to WI 73 east of Albion.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Falbion.jpg&hash=7ddaf5d721c647d62a6736a8dd7a8de3f0b08b68)

The former crossroads of WI 106 and US 51 is now just "Edgerton and Albion Roads".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fend106.jpg&hash=87cb8b8eb4684d9af6407304d10fc66e0cc8dd5a)

The new end of WI 106.

Side obs: Interesting in the 2nd pic that they use I-39 and not I-90 which long predates I-39 in the area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 10, 2016, 09:08:23 AM
WisDOT in their use of "Alternate routes" for major highways uses the lowest of the concurrent routes instead of showing all of them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 10, 2016, 10:28:28 AM
I didn't even think about the "Alternate routes". Got it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 10, 2016, 06:51:23 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 10, 2016, 09:08:23 AM
WisDOT in their use of "Alternate routes" for major highways uses the lowest of the concurrent routes instead of showing all of them.

I think they're using I-39 because it's a north south route, while I-90 is an east west route and the interstate travels north-south in the area. I-90 is considered a major over I-94 which is why it is used west of Portage.  I think that was the main motivation for extending I-41 along I-94 south of Milwaukee.  WISDOT probably wanted the interstate to be signed north-south since that is the actual direction the freeway travels. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 10, 2016, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 10, 2016, 06:51:23 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 10, 2016, 09:08:23 AM
WisDOT in their use of "Alternate routes" for major highways uses the lowest of the concurrent routes instead of showing all of them.

I think they're using I-39 because it's a north south route, while I-90 is an east west route and the interstate travels north-south in the area. I-90 is considered a major over I-94 which is why it is used west of Portage.  I think that was the main motivation for extending I-41 along I-94 south of Milwaukee.  WISDOT probably wanted the interstate to be signed north-south since that is the actual direction the freeway travels. 
Nothing to do with it.  For the dual-concurrency of 90-94, 90 takes over. (N of Portage)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 10, 2016, 10:50:57 PM
And, if you notice, that's not an Alternate route sign anyway. It's a "to" sign. Same thing applies though - while WisDOT will typically do ALT and TO assemblies with all concurrent routes, in situations that lead to "sine salad" they will use the lowest numbered route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 01:32:22 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 10, 2016, 10:50:57 PM
And, if you notice, that's not an Alternate route sign anyway. It's a "to" sign. Same thing applies though - while WisDOT will typically do ALT and TO assemblies with all concurrent routes, in situations that lead to "sine salad" they will use the lowest numbered route.

I think it has more to do with either direction or importance.  It is coincidental that it ends up being the lowest number, but again I-39 is north south which is the actual direction the freeway travels between Portage and Beloit.  West of Portage, the I-90 major designation takes priority over I-94.  In my area of the state, Wis 32/57 are cosigned but the signs say To 57 because Wis 57 was the original designation and people know it locally as Wis 57 because of that. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 10:51:42 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 01:32:22 AM
I think it has more to do with either direction or importance. 

You really think they sign it 39 because the road trends in a N-S direction? That they thought to themselves "I-90 has been here for decades, but we'll choose 39 because it's a N-S number" (even though they don't place cardinal directions on Alt routes)?

Makes no sense at all. When you play the "what's more likely game" WisDOT *always* signs concurrent routes with the same type of highway (Wis, I, etc.) lowest number to highest number. So the mainline is signed "39/90". So 39 is what goes on the Alt trailblazer. Has nothing to do with direction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 03:10:28 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 10:51:42 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 01:32:22 AM
I think it has more to do with either direction or importance. 

You really think they sign it 39 because the road trends in a N-S direction? That they thought to themselves "I-90 has been here for decades, but we'll choose 39 because it's a N-S number" (even though they don't place cardinal directions on Alt routes)?

Makes no sense at all. When you play the "what's more likely game" WisDOT *always* signs concurrent routes with the same type of highway (Wis, I, etc.) lowest number to highest number. So the mainline is signed "39/90". So 39 is what goes on the Alt trailblazer. Has nothing to do with direction.
How doesn't it make sense?  It's better to use a north/south route than an east/west route since the actual direction of the freeway is north/south.  On the WISDOT website, the rehab project was referenced to I-43 instead of I-94 because of the north/south direction also.  The main motivation for signing I-41 to Illinois was most likely to give the freeway a north/south direction since people wouldn't associate West I-94 with north towards Milwaukee. 

I know when listing highways, it goes by interstate/us/state, then by lowest number, but when it comes to references on concurrencies, it's a little more complex and I have examples below:

I know it's state level, but here's a screenshot of a TO 57 marker when 32 is the lower number.  It's because the road was Wis 57 long before Wis 32, and locals in the area don't even think of the road as Wis 32.  They think of it as Wis 57.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2126777,-88.1737434,3a,75y,235.26h,88.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-rbLZ4uqug6lu46KUkYUhg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

Here's another screenshot of the I-43/Wis 32/Wis 57.  Wis 32 is the lower number, but why does Wis 57 have a 36" sign with Wis 32 having a smaller sign?  It's because Wis 57 is a more important route than Wis 32 in that area since Wis 57 goes to Plymouth and is 4 lanes north of I-43, while Wis 32 is a local road that mostly parallels and is concurrent to I-43 up to Sheboygan.https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2268101,-87.9205483,3a,75y,6.28h,83.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ByHqxh-vN8jUp_dhCHprQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

They also go priority by Interstate/US highway/ State highway.  US 51 is the higher number over Wis 29, but US 51 is first because it's the mainline and a US highway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9190704,-89.6559882,3a,75y,339.51h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPgoVBhM8OCPXfd0LWEmKpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 04:11:55 PM
You "picked and chose" the I-43 assembly there. If you go back a few years in the street view, you'll see that the WI-57 shield was originally the exact same size as the WI-32 shield. The only reason it's bigger now is because they replaced that one assembly. Has nothing to do with the "importance" of the route. You're also wrong about the "TO 57" marker. The reason it's there is because that assembly pre-dates WI-32, NOT because WI-57 is "more important".

Again, when doing "same" routes, WisDOT *always* goes lowest number to highest number. See: I-41/I-894, US-41/US-45. I-41 is NOT the most important route, but it's listed first because it's the lowest number of the "highest level" route.

So again: It has nothing to do with the direction or importance of the route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 04:32:06 PM
Right there is my perfect example.  You're more likely to see I-894 referenced on VMS boards and see signs that say TO 894 than I-41 and I-43 since I-894 is known as the bypass.  I know that routes are listed lowest to highest first when combined, but it's not necessarily true when picking one route over another on standalone markers.  On the I-43 Wis 32/Wis 57 marker I posted, the signs were replaced at the same time and WISDOT decided to go with a smaller Wis 32 sign.  Here are the backs.  If WISDOT felt that Wis 32 was as important as Wis 57, wouldn't the Wis 32 sign be just as big?

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2271009,-87.9204829,3a,37.5y,155.01h,82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svNofKt7COD3Krc_ULA79VA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 04:39:58 PM
I guess WisDOT never got your memo about the VMS's:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2FVMS1.png&hash=a5c808dbf313db06ca0d185a068394a63de80ab8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2FVMS2.png&hash=f7f5477d98cfad0f9abfbaefcb5bf7732e3d0c14)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2FVMS3.png&hash=cf6f16d25295349d0e0427e677c7de342632f315)

As for the sign, what are the odds that the contractor was advised to replace the assemblies as they existed, and not create one new one? Happens all the time - often replacement assemblies are not re-spec'd, which is why it's not surprising to see signing errors carry over to new signs. The contractor often recreates what's already there (which would explain why they didn't do a "uni-sign" with the "Circle Tour" and WI-32 signs). These were the signs that were replaced. Note that the WI-57 and WI-32 shields are exactly the same size.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2853466,-87.920982,3a,75y,48.29h,67.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY_vS6_Ibwn1z2tVtaqZ4DQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

One route is not "more important" than the other.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 05:06:23 PM
Here's the look from 2012.  The Wis 57 sign was smaller. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2268508,-87.9205392,3a,75y,17.13h,80.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_Y-t_6l8tmjTHatc5dqaqg!2e0!5s20120701T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 05:10:12 PM
Right. WI-57 didn't all of a sudden get "more important". The signage was re-done in place to current standards. The WI-57 shield was enlarged because it was signed with the I-43 shield, and it was turned into a "uni-sign". Had they elected to put the Circle Tour and WI-32 signs on there, they would have been enlarged as well. The contractor just did them as two assemblies, similar to what was originally there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 05:15:29 PM
http://www.511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

With the VMS boards, I-894 is referenced also.  Notice how I-41 is referenced on the VMS on the north-south portion of I-894.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 05:26:08 PM
You said: "You're more likely to see I-894 referenced on VMS boards and see signs that say TO 894 than I-41 and I-43 since I-894 is known as the bypass."

Which is it? The direction, or what's more well known?

My point here is that you're confusing one very clear standard with one that you believe should be. The sign I posted earlier "To 39" is there NOT because it's a north-south route, but because it's the lowest number of the two co-signed interstates. Most people still call it I-90 (another "standard" you reference above with 894). You then go on to talk about "importance" of routes based on the size of a shield on a replacement assembly.

In effect, you really haven't made any point here.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 05:29:49 PM
By the way - the reason that 894 is listed on that page is because it's the ramp to I-41/894/45 and not I-41/US 45.

It makes the sign easier to understand because there's no need for a cardinal direction. There's only one ramp to 894 from WB I-94. There are two ramps for I-41.

Again, nothing to do with how it's "known".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 05:47:17 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 05:29:49 PM
By the way - the reason that 894 is listed on that page is because it's the ramp to I-41/894/45 and not I-41/US 45.

It makes the sign easier to understand because there's no need for a cardinal direction. There's only one ramp to 894 from WB I-94. There are two ramps for I-41.

Again, nothing to do with how it's "known".

What about the time to Zoo VMS that says VIA I-94 and VIA 894?  I-41 is absent. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 06:10:07 PM
The "What's more likely game" tells us that, again, its for clarity. That sign is located where 41/94 are co-signed. It's less confusing to use 894 in that case.

So, What about the one *on* 894 that says "Lane Closure, I-41 3 Miles ahead"?  You can cherry pick one sign at a time, but it (again) doesn't mean a trend towards anything. Look at all the signs - I-41 is listed way more than 894. So there goes your "what everybody calls it" theory.

You keep seeing what you want to see, but haven't provided any real strong examples to prove it. Just plenty of "anecdotal" type-stuff that can be attributed to other things (sign replacement, sign location, etc).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 11, 2016, 06:23:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 06:10:07 PM
The "What's more likely game" tells us that, again, its for clarity. That sign is located where 41/94 are co-signed. It's less confusing to use 894 in that case.

So, What about the one *on* 894 that says "Lane Closure, I-41 3 Miles ahead"?  You can cherry pick one sign at a time, but it (again) doesn't mean a trend towards anything. Look at all the signs - I-41 is listed way more than 894. So there goes your "what everybody calls it" theory.

You keep seeing what you want to see, but haven't provided any real strong examples to prove it. Just plenty of "anecdotal" type-stuff that can be attributed to other things (sign replacement, sign location, etc).

My theory is based on direction.  Notice how the I-41 signs are posted on the VMS on the parts of I-894 when it's north south.  I-894 is signed as an east west freeway.  The VMS says I-41 northbound, which would be I-894 westbound.  Since the actual direction is north, it's better to have I-41 since it has a northbound direction.  With the additions of I-39, and I-41, all of the east/west signed interstates that actually travel north/south now have a north/south interstate and WISDOT seems to be signing based on actual direction of the freeway. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 06:36:04 PM
I get what you're theory is, but I believe it's "over thought". It is more confusing to change up route numbers than it is to have travel direction not the same as the cardinal direction of the route.

It is longstanding tradition to use the lowest route number as the "primary" or first number on signing. While you're examples happen to be in areas where that may be the case, the also happen to be the *only* areas. So it's easy to support your theory, even though it's more likely that WisDOT is just following their typical convention.

They put I-41 on the VMS's because that's the lowest number. The two examples you give *may* support your theory, but there are also very valid alternative reasons there.

We take this all back to the sign that started this. The "To I-39" sign. We say it's signed that way because it's the lowest number (following WisDOT's convention) while you say it's because it leads to a "N-S road". Here's the rub: At that sign, the motorist has no idea what direction the road is. It's not an alternate route marker - it's a trailblazer. Second, using your "use what everyone calls it" theory, that route is often still referred to as I-90. So there's two strikes for your theory out of the gate. Meanwhile, the sign *does* follow the "lowest number" convention.

What I'm saying is that I'm connecting the existing dots. You're putting new dots out there so you can connect them the way you think they should be connected.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 11, 2016, 06:27:22 PM
This has got to be one of the lamest discussions on this board in quite a while.  Based all on the placement of a TO sign at the end of a rather obscure state highway?

Well thank God you came by then! I mean, you could have just skipped past it, but fortunately you graced us with a reply!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 11, 2016, 07:19:47 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 11, 2016, 06:27:22 PM
This has got to be one of the lamest discussions on this board in quite a while.  Based all on the placement of a TO sign at the end of a rather obscure state highway?

Well thank God you came by then! I mean, you could have just skipped past it, but fortunately you graced us with a reply!

I'm with SEWIguy on this one. Don't know why he deleted his post.

A lot of speculation about something that doesn't have an official rule written about it. I don't think anyone is truly right or wrong on the subject. If unsubscribe from the thread to avoid the discussion, but I'm still interested in the main reason for this thread.

In other news, I didn't realize that WI in 2013-14 has already started and completed its replacements of Sesquicentennial and other Red lettered plates. I'll need to keep an eye out for any stragglers. Also, it feels like a lot of the early A-F black letter plates are gone too, I'm not sure if there's an official word on that or not. I see a number of cars that would be registered at that time and it seems like a lot of them have plates that start with X now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 07:30:39 PM
It went long, but peterj920 brought up good points. The problem with putting all of the states "notes" in one thread is that you're bound to occasionally get a discussion that doesn't interest you. It will eventually end, and everyone moves on. If you don't like it, don't read it!

As to the license plates, Im wondering if the reason for not seeing a lot of A-F plates are simply due to attrition due to age. I don't think there was a plan to replace them - or was there? I know the Sesquicentennial plates were "retired", but I hadn't heard of any others.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 12, 2016, 10:22:41 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 07:30:39 PM
It went long, but peterj920 brought up good points. The problem with putting all of the states "notes" in one thread is that you're bound to occasionally get a discussion that doesn't interest you. It will eventually end, and everyone moves on. If you don't like it, don't read it!

As to the license plates, Im wondering if the reason for not seeing a lot of A-F plates are simply due to attrition due to age. I don't think there was a plan to replace them - or was there? I know the Sesquicentennial plates were "retired", but I hadn't heard of any others.

I'm thinking 'attrition', too.  For example, about a year ago I was in a minor fender-bender crash (other driver's fault) that destroyed my car's front plate.  I had to have WisDOT stamp a new one (personalized number) and noticed on the order form that for regular-issue plates, WisDOT will simply assign a new plate number to the car instead of re-stamping the old plate.

BTW, a few days ago I noticed a regular-issue plate with xxx-ZDE here in the Appleton area, so we'll very soon be seeing what WisDOT's plan is for when the current NNN-LLL number pool exhausts.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 12, 2016, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 12, 2016, 10:22:41 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 11, 2016, 07:30:39 PM
It went long, but peterj920 brought up good points. The problem with putting all of the states "notes" in one thread is that you're bound to occasionally get a discussion that doesn't interest you. It will eventually end, and everyone moves on. If you don't like it, don't read it!

As to the license plates, Im wondering if the reason for not seeing a lot of A-F plates are simply due to attrition due to age. I don't think there was a plan to replace them - or was there? I know the Sesquicentennial plates were "retired", but I hadn't heard of any others.

I'm thinking 'attrition', too.  For example, about a year ago I was in a minor fender-bender crash (other driver's fault) that destroyed my car's front plate.  I had to have WisDOT stamp a new one (personalized number) and noticed on the order form that for regular-issue plates, WisDOT will simply assign a new plate number to the car instead of re-stamping the old plate.

BTW, a few days ago I noticed a regular-issue plate with xxx-ZDE here in the Appleton area, so we'll very soon be seeing what WisDOT's plan is for when the current NNN-LLL number pool exhausts.

Mike


Couldn't they simply reuse the LLL-NNN plates and "skip over" the few of those that are still active?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 12, 2016, 12:52:39 PM
I think they could, as long as their systems have a way of invalidating / nulling out any out-standing issues with previously registered numbers.
Sure, all those LLL-NNN plates should be gone, but...Parking tickets, other violations, etc related to that number... are they tied with the Plate Number itself? Or with the RRN? VIN? That would have to be checked out first I'm sure. Wouldn't want to get the number registered to a new car, and then that person sent a bunch of mail about other people's issues.

If they wanted to play it safe, they probably wouldn't re-use numbers. I think it would be the best move though.

They could also ditch the hyphen and go with a 7 digit plate. NNNLLLL?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 12, 2016, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 12, 2016, 12:52:39 PM
They could also ditch the hyphen and go with a 7 digit plate. NNNLLLL?

They already allow 7-digit personalized plates, other than losing the relatively easy parsing ability of the hyphened plates, I say why not?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 12, 2016, 03:18:33 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 12, 2016, 12:52:39 PM
I think they could, as long as their systems have a way of invalidating / nulling out any out-standing issues with previously registered numbers.
Sure, all those LLL-NNN plates should be gone, but...Parking tickets, other violations, etc related to that number... are they tied with the Plate Number itself? Or with the RRN? VIN? That would have to be checked out first I'm sure. Wouldn't want to get the number registered to a new car, and then that person sent a bunch of mail about other people's issues.

If they wanted to play it safe, they probably wouldn't re-use numbers. I think it would be the best move though.

They could also ditch the hyphen and go with a 7 digit plate. NNNLLLL?


That makes much more sense, and would actually allow for something like more than 400 million combinations.  (Instead of the 17 million or so with NNN-LLL format.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2016, 05:22:20 PM
I have a question about the photo. Why did they omit Interstate 90? The roadway has always had that number. It's only been duplexed with Interstate 39 since 1998.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on September 12, 2016, 05:24:09 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 12, 2016, 12:52:39 PM
I think they could, as long as their systems have a way of invalidating / nulling out any out-standing issues with previously registered numbers.
Sure, all those LLL-NNN plates should be gone, but...Parking tickets, other violations, etc related to that number... are they tied with the Plate Number itself? Or with the RRN? VIN? That would have to be checked out first I'm sure. Wouldn't want to get the number registered to a new car, and then that person sent a bunch of mail about other people's issues.

If they wanted to play it safe, they probably wouldn't re-use numbers. I think it would be the best move though.

They could also ditch the hyphen and go with a 7 digit plate. NNNLLLL?

I like that - let's just hope that they take out the silly or offensive ones, such as 895POOP or 637BUTT.  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 12, 2016, 05:44:38 PM
Quote from: RandomDude172 on September 12, 2016, 05:24:09 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 12, 2016, 12:52:39 PM
I think they could, as long as their systems have a way of invalidating / nulling out any out-standing issues with previously registered numbers.
Sure, all those LLL-NNN plates should be gone, but...Parking tickets, other violations, etc related to that number... are they tied with the Plate Number itself? Or with the RRN? VIN? That would have to be checked out first I'm sure. Wouldn't want to get the number registered to a new car, and then that person sent a bunch of mail about other people's issues.

If they wanted to play it safe, they probably wouldn't re-use numbers. I think it would be the best move though.

They could also ditch the hyphen and go with a 7 digit plate. NNNLLLL?

I like that - let's just hope that they take out the silly or offensive ones, such as 895POOP or 637BUTT.  :-D

They could also do LLLNNNN or NNNNLLL... they wouldn't have to worry about a whole bunch of new words to omit... just more numbers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 13, 2016, 10:01:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 12, 2016, 03:18:33 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 12, 2016, 12:52:39 PM
I think they could, as long as their systems have a way of invalidating / nulling out any out-standing issues with previously registered numbers.
Sure, all those LLL-NNN plates should be gone, but...Parking tickets, other violations, etc related to that number... are they tied with the Plate Number itself? Or with the RRN? VIN? That would have to be checked out first I'm sure. Wouldn't want to get the number registered to a new car, and then that person sent a bunch of mail about other people's issues.

If they wanted to play it safe, they probably wouldn't re-use numbers. I think it would be the best move though.

They could also ditch the hyphen and go with a 7 digit plate. NNNLLLL?


That makes much more sense, and would actually allow for something like more than 400 million combinations.  (Instead of the 17 million or so with NNN-LLL format.)

Well, seeing as all of the older LLL-NNN format ('red letter/number') plates are now off of the road, that pool can be reused.  I can also see going to 7 characters, like in Michigan and Illinois, so we'll have to see.  (I'm intrigued by Illinois' 'NNN NNNN' and 'LNN NNNN' formats.)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 14, 2016, 09:49:42 PM
Looks like preliminary transportation budget talks are underway.  Under the governor's proposal, it looks like we aren't going to see any new major projects for a while with some delays on them and more funding for highway rehabilitation and local aid.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 14, 2016, 11:53:06 PM
Sounds like the bad old days before Tommy Thompson was first elected.

:-(

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 14, 2016, 11:58:21 PM
They better not delay the finishing of the Zoo interchange any longer. It has already cost more than it should due to delays caused by previous politicians in the form of emergency bridges and other band aids. Additional delays are only going to inflate the final price. Stop kicking the damn can already. I can live with fewer mega projects, as in many cases they've seemed to get ahead of themselves. I'm all for more rehab and safety improvements.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 02:10:16 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2016, 11:58:21 PM
They better not delay the finishing of the Zoo interchange any longer. It has already cost more than it should due to delays caused by previous politicians in the form of emergency bridges and other band aids. Additional delays are only going to inflate the final price. Stop kicking the damn can already. I can live with fewer mega projects, as in many cases they've seemed to get ahead of themselves. I'm all for more rehab and safety improvements.

The core of the interchange is supposed to be finished on time.  It's the stretch of I-41 north of Swan Blvd that is supposed to be delayed.  I just noticed today that I-894 between the Zoo Interchange and 84th St is supposed to be resurfaced and re-striped for 8 lanes.  I-94 west of the Zoo Interchange could easily have this done also since the left shoulder is extremely wide.  I think the governor is caving to political pressure from county and municipal leaders that are complaining that they need more state money for local roads. 

I-94 in Racine and southern Milwaukee County is being delayed again and needs to be finished.  That project will continue to aid development and is worth investing in.  Wis 23 is also being delayed again.  Seems like WISDOT is ok with the court case that halted federal funding for that project since it gave an excuse to delay the project despite being approved in 1999. 

I do have a link to Mark Belling's interview with Governor Walker on the transportation budget below.  Mr. Belling does actually does ask him some challenging questions.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/media/play/27314594/

I didn't put the interview up to take sides on this issue.  I posted it because this is what is being proposed, but I'm sure that there will be plenty of changes and compromised when the transportation is finalized in the beginning of next year.  Towards the end of the interview the governor is challenged on the roundabouts being built in the state, but kind of dodges that part of the question.  He is also adamant in not raising fuel taxes. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 15, 2016, 02:35:10 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 02:10:16 AM
I-94 in Racine and southern Milwaukee County is being delayed again and needs to be finished.  That project will continue to aid development and is worth investing in.  Wis 23 is also being delayed again.  Seems like WISDOT is ok with the court case that halted federal funding for that project since it gave an excuse to delay the project despite being approved in 1999.

Those projects are worth delaying in my opinion.  The state has bigger priorities.  A fourth lane on I-94 isn't going to improve stuff as much as a 3rd lane on I-39/90, for example.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2016, 11:04:45 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 02:10:16 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2016, 11:58:21 PM
They better not delay the finishing of the Zoo interchange any longer. It has already cost more than it should due to delays caused by previous politicians in the form of emergency bridges and other band aids. Additional delays are only going to inflate the final price. Stop kicking the damn can already. I can live with fewer mega projects, as in many cases they've seemed to get ahead of themselves. I'm all for more rehab and safety improvements.

The core of the interchange is supposed to be finished on time.  It's the stretch of I-41 north of Swan Blvd that is supposed to be delayed.  I just noticed today that I-894 between the Zoo Interchange and 84th St is supposed to be resurfaced and re-striped for 8 lanes.  I-94 west of the Zoo Interchange could easily have this done also since the left shoulder is extremely wide.  I think the governor is caving to political pressure from county and municipal leaders that are complaining that they need more state money for local roads. 

I-94 in Racine and southern Milwaukee County is being delayed again and needs to be finished.  That project will continue to aid development and is worth investing in.  Wis 23 is also being delayed again.  Seems like WISDOT is ok with the court case that halted federal funding for that project since it gave an excuse to delay the project despite being approved in 1999. 

I do have a link to Mark Belling's interview with Governor Walker on the transportation budget below.  Mr. Belling does actually does ask him some challenging questions.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/media/play/27314594/

I didn't put the interview up to take sides on this issue.  I posted it because this is what is being proposed, but I'm sure that there will be plenty of changes and compromised when the transportation is finalized in the beginning of next year.  Towards the end of the interview the governor is challenged on the roundabouts being built in the state, but kind of dodges that part of the question.  He is also adamant in not raising fuel taxes. 


The state is being very short sighted in not dealing with these projects when the bonding rates are historically low.  The need isn't going to go away, and it will likely never be cheaper to borrow the money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 15, 2016, 11:25:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2016, 11:04:45 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 02:10:16 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2016, 11:58:21 PM
They better not delay the finishing of the Zoo interchange any longer. It has already cost more than it should due to delays caused by previous politicians in the form of emergency bridges and other band aids. Additional delays are only going to inflate the final price. Stop kicking the damn can already. I can live with fewer mega projects, as in many cases they've seemed to get ahead of themselves. I'm all for more rehab and safety improvements.

The core of the interchange is supposed to be finished on time.  It's the stretch of I-41 north of Swan Blvd that is supposed to be delayed.  I just noticed today that I-894 between the Zoo Interchange and 84th St is supposed to be resurfaced and re-striped for 8 lanes.  I-94 west of the Zoo Interchange could easily have this done also since the left shoulder is extremely wide.  I think the governor is caving to political pressure from county and municipal leaders that are complaining that they need more state money for local roads. 

I-94 in Racine and southern Milwaukee County is being delayed again and needs to be finished.  That project will continue to aid development and is worth investing in.  Wis 23 is also being delayed again.  Seems like WISDOT is ok with the court case that halted federal funding for that project since it gave an excuse to delay the project despite being approved in 1999. 

I do have a link to Mark Belling's interview with Governor Walker on the transportation budget below.  Mr. Belling does actually does ask him some challenging questions.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/media/play/27314594/

I didn't put the interview up to take sides on this issue.  I posted it because this is what is being proposed, but I'm sure that there will be plenty of changes and compromised when the transportation is finalized in the beginning of next year.  Towards the end of the interview the governor is challenged on the roundabouts being built in the state, but kind of dodges that part of the question.  He is also adamant in not raising fuel taxes. 


The state is being very short sighted in not dealing with these projects when the bonding rates are historically low.  The need isn't going to go away, and it will likely never be cheaper to borrow the money.

While that may be true for borrowing, unless we get some real reform in long-term transportation funding, we'll never be able to main the extra lane miles in the future. At some point, you can't keep borrowing money, despite what the feds keep doing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 15, 2016, 11:30:20 AM
Well, that's just it. With the refusal to add or raise any tax, nor add any fees, all they're doing is kicking the can down the road. It's totally unsustainable.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2016, 12:07:08 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 15, 2016, 11:30:20 AM
Well, that's just it. With the refusal to add or raise any tax, nor add any fees, all they're doing is kicking the can down the road. It's totally unsustainable.


Exactly.  And I think Walker is more concerned over how this stuff plays nationally than what's really in the interests of the state.  This is why you are seeing some Republicans grumble not only about this but other issues.

And I am not trying to be partisan about this.  Doyle and the Democrats should have never appealed the automatic gas tax increases that were tied to inflation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
The real challenge is public opinion.  Raising the gas tax is politically toxic, which is why there haven't been any attempts at the state and federal level.  CSPAN took calls on the issue for an hour and received a lot of calls.  Not one call was for raising the gas tax.  If you're a politician what do you do if people are overwhelmingly against raising the gas tax?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on September 15, 2016, 03:17:08 PM
What about tolling?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 15, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Tolling would never fly in WI imo. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2016, 06:33:12 PM
Although I don't drive, if I did I'd pay the toll, as long as it was a congestion-priced toll.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 15, 2016, 07:52:10 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 14, 2016, 09:49:42 PM
Looks like preliminary transportation budget talks are underway.  Under the governor's proposal, it looks like we aren't going to see any new major projects for a while with some delays on them and more funding for highway rehabilitation and local aid.  Thoughts?

Sounds like exactly what I would expect from a fiscally conservative governor / assembly which demonstrates why it's not always a good thing. As others point out, the bonds would be near the lowest level that THIS is the time to get bonds and pay less in interest.

That being said, the projects that I would like to see addressed for starters:
I-39/90 6 lanes from Illinois to Madison
I-39/90/94 8 lanes from Madison to Portage
I-43 reconstruction in Milwaukee and Ozaukee County
I-43/94 bridge reconstruction over the Menominee River in Milwaukee
I-90/94 6 lanes from Wisconsin Dells to Tomah
I-94 8 lanes in Racine and Milwaukee County
I-94 6 lanes in St Croix County
US 12 new expressway corridor from Elkhorn to Whitewater
US 12 4 lanes from Whitewater to Cambridge
US 12 complete the 4 lanes from Middleton to Lake Delton
US 18 4 lanes from Dodgeville to Prairie du Chien
US 151 upgrade to an interstate grade freeway from Madison to Fond du Lac
Wis 23 4 lanes from Fond du Lac to Sheboygan
Wis 26 expressway in from Wis 16/60 to Waupun

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 15, 2016, 08:03:03 PM
I'd like to see I-94 become six lanes from Pewaukee to I-90 before things like a 4 lane US-12, or a US-12 expressway from Elkhorn to Whitewater. That's just my opinion though. (I traveled to Madison this morning via I-94 and then back home via US-12, and I can tell you that traffic was substantially worse on 94 than it was on 12!)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 16, 2016, 12:45:51 AM
Living in the Green Bay Area, I'm pretty satisfied with the state's highway network.  I can drive on 4 lane freeways/expressways to almost any major destination in the state from here.  It does seem like there is more of a shift from building rural expressways to rebuilding and expanding existing mostly urban freeways.  I would like to see more of an I-894 approach to lane expansion.  If the resurfacing project from the Zoo Interchange to 84th St is successful in being able to add a 4th lane in each direction, that approach should be tried with other major projects.  It's interesting on the WISDOT website that they brag about being able to make I-39/90/94, 30 miles of freeway expanded to 6 lanes in only 1 year (1984).  I do notice that most of the structures were left intact, and the existing interstate bridges were widened and rehabbed.  Could WISDOT look into doing more of that to cut costs while still being able to add lanes?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2016, 11:31:10 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
The real challenge is public opinion.  Raising the gas tax is politically toxic, which is why there haven't been any attempts at the state and federal level.  CSPAN took calls on the issue for an hour and received a lot of calls.  Not one call was for raising the gas tax.  If you're a politician what do you do if people are overwhelmingly against raising the gas tax?


It could be argued that simply tying the tax back to inflation isn't really raising it.  Income taxes and sales taxes are automatically tied to inflation. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 16, 2016, 02:29:19 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 15, 2016, 08:03:03 PM
I'd like to see I-94 become six lanes from Pewaukee to I-90 before things like a 4 lane US-12, or a US-12 expressway from Elkhorn to Whitewater. That's just my opinion though. (I traveled to Madison this morning via I-94 and then back home via US-12, and I can tell you that traffic was substantially worse on 94 than it was on 12!)
I agree with that but for now I think 6 lanes is only needed to Oconomowoc.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 16, 2016, 02:32:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
The real challenge is public opinion.  Raising the gas tax is politically toxic, which is why there haven't been any attempts at the state and federal level.  CSPAN took calls on the issue for an hour and received a lot of calls.  Not one call was for raising the gas tax.  If you're a politician what do you do if people are overwhelmingly against raising the gas tax?
Right on the gas tax is one of the highest in the state I pay enough as it is. Some of these projects aren't all that needed anyways I say they can wait.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2016, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2016, 02:32:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
The real challenge is public opinion.  Raising the gas tax is politically toxic, which is why there haven't been any attempts at the state and federal level.  CSPAN took calls on the issue for an hour and received a lot of calls.  Not one call was for raising the gas tax.  If you're a politician what do you do if people are overwhelmingly against raising the gas tax?
Right on the gas tax is one of the highest in the state I pay enough as it is. Some of these projects aren't all that needed anyways I say they can wait.


What do you mean by "one of the highest in the state?"  Wisconsin's gas tax is slightly above the national average.  Nowhere near the highest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 16, 2016, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2016, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2016, 02:32:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
The real challenge is public opinion.  Raising the gas tax is politically toxic, which is why there haven't been any attempts at the state and federal level.  CSPAN took calls on the issue for an hour and received a lot of calls.  Not one call was for raising the gas tax.  If you're a politician what do you do if people are overwhelmingly against raising the gas tax?
Right on the gas tax is one of the highest in the state I pay enough as it is. Some of these projects aren't all that needed anyways I say they can wait.


What do you mean by "one of the highest in the state?"  Wisconsin's gas tax is slightly above the national average.  Nowhere near the highest.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"
"Germans?"
"Forget it, he's rolling."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on September 16, 2016, 05:28:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 13, 2016, 10:01:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 12, 2016, 03:18:33 PM
Quote from: colinstu on September 12, 2016, 12:52:39 PM
I think they could, as long as their systems have a way of invalidating / nulling out any out-standing issues with previously registered numbers.
Sure, all those LLL-NNN plates should be gone, but...Parking tickets, other violations, etc related to that number... are they tied with the Plate Number itself? Or with the RRN? VIN? That would have to be checked out first I'm sure. Wouldn't want to get the number registered to a new car, and then that person sent a bunch of mail about other people's issues.

If they wanted to play it safe, they probably wouldn't re-use numbers. I think it would be the best move though.

They could also ditch the hyphen and go with a 7 digit plate. NNNLLLL?


That makes much more sense, and would actually allow for something like more than 400 million combinations.  (Instead of the 17 million or so with NNN-LLL format.)

Well, seeing as all of the older LLL-NNN format ('red letter/number') plates are now off of the road, that pool can be reused.  I can also see going to 7 characters, like in Michigan and Illinois, so we'll have to see.  (I'm intrigued by Illinois' 'NNN NNNN' and 'LNN NNNN' formats.)

Mike

Illinois used 'NNN NNNN' during the early 2000s (starting like 1999 or 2000).  My license plate is in that format as I originally got my plates in 2001.  The current (and oddly, previous) format is the "LNN NNNN'.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 18, 2016, 11:04:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2016, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2016, 02:32:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
The real challenge is public opinion.  Raising the gas tax is politically toxic, which is why there haven't been any attempts at the state and federal level.  CSPAN took calls on the issue for an hour and received a lot of calls.  Not one call was for raising the gas tax.  If you're a politician what do you do if people are overwhelmingly against raising the gas tax?
Right on the gas tax is one of the highest in the state I pay enough as it is. Some of these projects aren't all that needed anyways I say they can wait.


What do you mean by "one of the highest in the state?"  Wisconsin's gas tax is slightly above the national average.  Nowhere near the highest.
So I misspoke but I am sure you know what I meant. It's one of the highest in the country. For 18 years we had an unconstitutional automatic increase in the gas tax. It would go up every year without any politician even voting on it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2016, 01:32:47 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2016, 11:04:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2016, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2016, 02:32:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
The real challenge is public opinion.  Raising the gas tax is politically toxic, which is why there haven't been any attempts at the state and federal level.  CSPAN took calls on the issue for an hour and received a lot of calls.  Not one call was for raising the gas tax.  If you're a politician what do you do if people are overwhelmingly against raising the gas tax?
Right on the gas tax is one of the highest in the state I pay enough as it is. Some of these projects aren't all that needed anyways I say they can wait.


What do you mean by "one of the highest in the state?"  Wisconsin's gas tax is slightly above the national average.  Nowhere near the highest.
So I misspoke but I am sure you know what I meant. It's one of the highest in the country. For 18 years we had an unconstitutional automatic increase in the gas tax. It would go up every year without any politician even voting on it.

Wisconsin is 16th.  It is with a group of states that vary by about $.03 a gallon that go from 8th to about 26th.  Really it's not that high.

And I am not sure where you get the idea that a tax tied to the cost of living is unconstitutional.  It isn't.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on September 18, 2016, 01:50:44 PM
Sounds like suburban Milwaukee focused talk radio / tea party rhetoric.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2016, 02:56:53 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 18, 2016, 01:50:44 PM
Sounds like suburban Milwaukee focused talk radio / tea party rhetoric.


I figured it was talk radio.  Really needs to do more research than taking what they say at face value.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on September 19, 2016, 04:45:56 PM
Just got new plates today and they end in ZGK.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on September 19, 2016, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2016, 11:04:58 AM
For 18 years we had an unconstitutional automatic increase in the gas tax. It would go up every year without any politician even voting on it.

Even if that were unconstitutional, it makes sense: as long as fuel taxes are a fixed amount, it has to go up each year to keep up with inflation.

Decades ago, governments around the world decided on fixed amounts for fuel taxes to compensate for varying fuel prices (thusly, varying income from fuel taxes). This allowed for gas prices to fluctuate without harming tax income (if it were a percentage, income each year could vary wildly). The problem is that 60 cents today may mean 30 cents 20 years from now. So to keep up with inflation, you have to steadily increase the fixed tax amount.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 21, 2016, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2016, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2016, 11:04:58 AM
For 18 years we had an unconstitutional automatic increase in the gas tax. It would go up every year without any politician even voting on it.

Even if that were unconstitutional, it makes sense: as long as fuel taxes are a fixed amount, it has to go up each year to keep up with inflation.

Decades ago, governments around the world decided on fixed amounts for fuel taxes to compensate for varying fuel prices (thusly, varying income from fuel taxes). This allowed for gas prices to fluctuate without harming tax income (if it were a percentage, income each year could vary wildly). The problem is that 60 cents today may mean 30 cents 20 years from now. So to keep up with inflation, you have to steadily increase the fixed tax amount.
Whether it makes sense or not isn't the point if it it's unconstitutional it should be repealed and I am glad it was. Then your saying the constitution doesn't matter. It's unconstitutional because we have a tax increase every year without any politician voting on it. That's taxation without representation that's why we declared our independence from England. I just want to let you know back in 2003 when it was repealed it had overwhelming support from both parties. Not just tea party Republicans but even from several Democrats as well. It was the will of the people it was probably one of the few good things fmr Gov Doyle did.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 21, 2016, 11:10:12 AM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 18, 2016, 01:50:44 PM
Sounds like suburban Milwaukee focused talk radio / tea party rhetoric.
If you like paying high taxes then your always free to write a check to the government. I would rather keep my own money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 21, 2016, 11:29:29 AM
No one likes taxes and no one wants to pay them. But I have NEVER, not once, ever seen a solution from anti-tax people regarding how they would replace the funding that would be eliminated. What would you do? In my opinion "it should be repealed solely because I don't like paying it" isn't a good enough reason.

If gas taxes piss you off that much, then don't drive. And when you object to that statement, don't give me shit then about how there is no other option available because it's people from your viewpoint that are also typically fighting against expanding other forms of transportation as having no use to you.

If you want things, you pay for them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2016, 02:03:46 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 21, 2016, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2016, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2016, 11:04:58 AM
For 18 years we had an unconstitutional automatic increase in the gas tax. It would go up every year without any politician even voting on it.

Even if that were unconstitutional, it makes sense: as long as fuel taxes are a fixed amount, it has to go up each year to keep up with inflation.

Decades ago, governments around the world decided on fixed amounts for fuel taxes to compensate for varying fuel prices (thusly, varying income from fuel taxes). This allowed for gas prices to fluctuate without harming tax income (if it were a percentage, income each year could vary wildly). The problem is that 60 cents today may mean 30 cents 20 years from now. So to keep up with inflation, you have to steadily increase the fixed tax amount.
Whether it makes sense or not isn't the point if it it's unconstitutional it should be repealed and I am glad it was. Then your saying the constitution doesn't matter. It's unconstitutional because we have a tax increase every year without any politician voting on it. That's taxation without representation that's why we declared our independence from England. I just want to let you know back in 2003 when it was repealed it had overwhelming support from both parties. Not just tea party Republicans but even from several Democrats as well. It was the will of the people it was probably one of the few good things fmr Gov Doyle did.


???

The law that implemented an automatic inflation adjustment of the fuel tax was approved by the state legislature.  You know, the one that was elected by the people.

You are flat out wrong that it was unconstitutional.  You are flat out wrong that it was a case of "taxation without representation." 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 21, 2016, 05:41:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2016, 02:03:46 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 21, 2016, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2016, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2016, 11:04:58 AM
For 18 years we had an unconstitutional automatic increase in the gas tax. It would go up every year without any politician even voting on it.

Even if that were unconstitutional, it makes sense: as long as fuel taxes are a fixed amount, it has to go up each year to keep up with inflation.

Decades ago, governments around the world decided on fixed amounts for fuel taxes to compensate for varying fuel prices (thusly, varying income from fuel taxes). This allowed for gas prices to fluctuate without harming tax income (if it were a percentage, income each year could vary wildly). The problem is that 60 cents today may mean 30 cents 20 years from now. So to keep up with inflation, you have to steadily increase the fixed tax amount.
Whether it makes sense or not isn't the point if it it's unconstitutional it should be repealed and I am glad it was. Then your saying the constitution doesn't matter. It's unconstitutional because we have a tax increase every year without any politician voting on it. That's taxation without representation that's why we declared our independence from England. I just want to let you know back in 2003 when it was repealed it had overwhelming support from both parties. Not just tea party Republicans but even from several Democrats as well. It was the will of the people it was probably one of the few good things fmr Gov Doyle did.


???

The law that implemented an automatic inflation adjustment of the fuel tax was approved by the state legislature.  You know, the one that was elected by the people.

You are flat out wrong that it was unconstitutional.  You are flat out wrong that it was a case of "taxation without representation."
But it went up every year after that without any politician voting on it. That very legislature from 1985 was not the same legislature in years to follow but yet the tax would go up anyways without a vote for the current legislature. So yes that is taxation without representation I was not represented by the same government who voted on the tax at the time it when up. If you want to raise the as tax every year simple have the current legislature from that year vote on it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on September 21, 2016, 06:12:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 21, 2016, 05:41:04 PM
But it went up every year after that without any politician voting on it. That very legislature from 1985 was not the same legislature in years to follow but yet the tax would go up anyways without a vote for the current legislature. So yes that is taxation without representation I was not represented by the same government who voted on the tax at the time it when up. If you want to raise the as tax every year simple have the current legislature from that year vote on it.

But the mandated increase became a law. You don't re-debate, and re-vote on laws every single year, simply because the legislature changes (which it doesn't always, but that's hardly the point here).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2016, 07:48:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 21, 2016, 05:41:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2016, 02:03:46 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 21, 2016, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2016, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2016, 11:04:58 AM
For 18 years we had an unconstitutional automatic increase in the gas tax. It would go up every year without any politician even voting on it.

Even if that were unconstitutional, it makes sense: as long as fuel taxes are a fixed amount, it has to go up each year to keep up with inflation.

Decades ago, governments around the world decided on fixed amounts for fuel taxes to compensate for varying fuel prices (thusly, varying income from fuel taxes). This allowed for gas prices to fluctuate without harming tax income (if it were a percentage, income each year could vary wildly). The problem is that 60 cents today may mean 30 cents 20 years from now. So to keep up with inflation, you have to steadily increase the fixed tax amount.
Whether it makes sense or not isn't the point if it it's unconstitutional it should be repealed and I am glad it was. Then your saying the constitution doesn't matter. It's unconstitutional because we have a tax increase every year without any politician voting on it. That's taxation without representation that's why we declared our independence from England. I just want to let you know back in 2003 when it was repealed it had overwhelming support from both parties. Not just tea party Republicans but even from several Democrats as well. It was the will of the people it was probably one of the few good things fmr Gov Doyle did.


???

The law that implemented an automatic inflation adjustment of the fuel tax was approved by the state legislature.  You know, the one that was elected by the people.

You are flat out wrong that it was unconstitutional.  You are flat out wrong that it was a case of "taxation without representation."
But it went up every year after that without any politician voting on it. That very legislature from 1985 was not the same legislature in years to follow but yet the tax would go up anyways without a vote for the current legislature. So yes that is taxation without representation I was not represented by the same government who voted on the tax at the time it when up. If you want to raise the as tax every year simple have the current legislature from that year vote on it.


Does the U.S. Congress vote on the entire IRS tax code every year? 

That is one of the stupidest ideas I have read and you clearly no nothing about how a representative democracy works.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on September 22, 2016, 08:19:04 AM
Federal Acts also provide funding for multiple years.

An amusing thought is to actually take dvferyance's suggestion that the automatic inflation adjustment was unconstitutional in the other direction:  Just how often does he think legislatures should vote on taxes?  Once a year?  Every month?  Every day?  If anything, those kinds of considerations show that his assertion is totally unfounded.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: quickshade on September 22, 2016, 11:57:55 AM
Our reps can barely pass a vote now, imagine if they had to vote on these things daily, weekly or monthly. Would be a disaster. Nothing would ever get done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 22, 2016, 05:33:23 PM
It seems like nothing ever gets done now. Now that is true gridlock!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 22, 2016, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 21, 2016, 11:29:29 AM
No one likes taxes and no one wants to pay them. But I have NEVER, not once, ever seen a solution from anti-tax people regarding how they would replace the funding that would be eliminated. What would you do? In my opinion "it should be repealed solely because I don't like paying it" isn't a good enough reason.

If gas taxes piss you off that much, then don't drive. And when you object to that statement, don't give me shit then about how there is no other option available because it's people from your viewpoint that are also typically fighting against expanding other forms of transportation as having no use to you.

If you want things, you pay for them.

:clap: :clap: :clap: AMEN!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 22, 2016, 10:12:15 PM
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 23, 2016, 07:11:13 PM
I'm sorry if I offended you GeekJedi.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 23, 2016, 09:09:41 PM
It a movie quote not directed at anyone in particular. More at the general state of the state, and the current gridlock climate in these parts. It's just idiotic (as others have pointed out).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 24, 2016, 08:38:05 AM
At least Ghostbuster knows how to apologize if he thought he offended someone unlike someone who shall remain nameless that needs to FIFY a lot. lol
+1 to Ghostbuster
-83 to DZ
Crap. Well so much for being nameless.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 24, 2016, 11:04:10 AM
Absolutely! I feel bad that GB felt the need to apologize, but that was very nice. That post was sort of cryptic, I should have been clear that it was really more of a statement of Wisconsin's policies at the moment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 26, 2016, 04:30:07 PM
That is what I meant when I made the comment. I don't think Gov. Walker's transportation plan is a good one. Delaying projects that need to be built, and will likely benefit drivers of those roads is a bad idea. There must be some way to increase funding to get the projects done on time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on October 06, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
County P in Menasha, Wisconsin, which had a part closed to convert the traffic light at the US 10/WI 441 interchange to a roundabout, re-opened yesterday.  Traffic is flowing pretty smoothly on it, but then again, the interchange itself is still closed.  Maybe there will be some backups on P after the interchange reopens, but for now, P provides an easier way for me to get to work each day than taking 47 and having to stop at a whole bunch of lights.

Personally I don't really see the advantages of roundabouts, though.  I think traffic lights were fine there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mahaasma on October 06, 2016, 09:53:36 PM
Earlier this week I drove on I-90/94 between Portage and Tomah and noticed some significant work being done alongside the interstate.  Looked like they were putting down  a bunch of railroad ties or something... I noticed a bunch of big pipes too.  Any idea what's going on here?  Trail?  Oil pipeline?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on October 07, 2016, 12:19:08 PM
Looks like transmission towers to me. Why they're all rusty though I have no idea. They've been sitting there for months not being moved. Looks like more action is happing now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 07, 2016, 12:25:30 PM
Quote from: colinstu on October 07, 2016, 12:19:08 PM
Looks like transmission towers to me. Why they're all rusty though I have no idea. They've been sitting there for months not being moved. Looks like more action is happing now.


Pretty sure this is what you are seeing.

http://www.atc-projects.com/projects/badger-coulee/

Map:

http://www.atc-projects.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/BCTLP-Construction-Segment-Map.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 07, 2016, 03:14:57 PM
So then there's going to be a 345KvAC power transmission line built along I-94 from US 51 (Madison) all the way to Black River Falls.

Wow!

:wow:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 07, 2016, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 06, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
County P in Menasha, Wisconsin, which had a part closed to convert the traffic light at the US 10/WI 441 interchange to a roundabout, re-opened yesterday.  Traffic is flowing pretty smoothly on it, but then again, the interchange itself is still closed.  Maybe there will be some backups on P after the interchange reopens, but for now, P provides an easier way for me to get to work each day than taking 47 and having to stop at a whole bunch of lights.

Personally I don't really see the advantages of roundabouts, though.  I think traffic lights were fine there.

There's going to be a 'semi roundabout' where the westbound ramps intersect that connector, too.

For an idea of how it will look, see the interchanges on the Kansas Turnpike (I-70) in the Lawrence, KS area.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 07, 2016, 06:02:19 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 07, 2016, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 06, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
County P in Menasha, Wisconsin, which had a part closed to convert the traffic light at the US 10/WI 441 interchange to a roundabout, re-opened yesterday.  Traffic is flowing pretty smoothly on it, but then again, the interchange itself is still closed.  Maybe there will be some backups on P after the interchange reopens, but for now, P provides an easier way for me to get to work each day than taking 47 and having to stop at a whole bunch of lights.

Personally I don't really see the advantages of roundabouts, though.  I think traffic lights were fine there.

There's going to be a 'semi roundabout' where the westbound ramps intersect that connector, too.

For an idea of how it will look, see the interchanges on the Kansas Turnpike (I-70) in the Lawrence, KS area.

Mike
Wasn't there a rail crossing there? Is that going away?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 08, 2016, 10:21:21 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 07, 2016, 06:02:19 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 07, 2016, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 06, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
County P in Menasha, Wisconsin, which had a part closed to convert the traffic light at the US 10/WI 441 interchange to a roundabout, re-opened yesterday.  Traffic is flowing pretty smoothly on it, but then again, the interchange itself is still closed.  Maybe there will be some backups on P after the interchange reopens, but for now, P provides an easier way for me to get to work each day than taking 47 and having to stop at a whole bunch of lights.

Personally I don't really see the advantages of roundabouts, though.  I think traffic lights were fine there.

There's going to be a 'semi roundabout' where the westbound ramps intersect that connector, too.

For an idea of how it will look, see the interchanges on the Kansas Turnpike (I-70) in the Lawrence, KS area.

Mike
Wasn't there a rail crossing there? Is that going away?

The railroad is still there.  The level crossing was not removed because a - rail traffic is extremely light (it is a branch that serves three customers) and b - the locals are used to it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on October 10, 2016, 06:13:12 PM
Yesterday on a drive to Wausau via US 10, I noticed a weird oddity.  Despite being a full freeway from Neenah to Fremont, the speed limit on US 10 was never increased from 65 to 70 mph, and to my knowledge almost every other freeway statewide, regardless of Interstate status, was upgraded.  So why is the freeway section of US 10 stuck with an expressway speed limit?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ET21 on October 10, 2016, 07:59:12 PM
Liking the new bridges over I-39/90, hopefully they don't change the street names/numbers since it's etched into the bridge forever now  :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 11, 2016, 02:39:07 AM
Quote from: ET21 on October 10, 2016, 07:59:12 PM
Liking the new bridges over I-39/90, hopefully they don't change the street names/numbers since it's etched into the bridge forever now  :)

Can always take the street name parapet section out and replace it if that would happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 11, 2016, 02:43:31 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 10, 2016, 06:13:12 PM
Yesterday on a drive to Wausau via US 10, I noticed a weird oddity.  Despite being a full freeway from Neenah to Fremont, the speed limit on US 10 was never increased from 65 to 70 mph, and to my knowledge almost every other freeway statewide, regardless of Interstate status, was upgraded.  So why is the freeway section of US 10 stuck with an expressway speed limit?

US 51 north of Wausau is also still 65.  US 41/141 was until Friday when it was raised to 70.  They were just waiting for the I-41 project to be completed.  US 45 between US 10 and I-41 could also be raised.  Oddly enough, sections of Wis 29 and Wis 57 in Green Bay that are less than 5 miles saw an increase to 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on October 11, 2016, 07:31:17 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 11, 2016, 02:43:31 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 10, 2016, 06:13:12 PM
Yesterday on a drive to Wausau via US 10, I noticed a weird oddity.  Despite being a full freeway from Neenah to Fremont, the speed limit on US 10 was never increased from 65 to 70 mph, and to my knowledge almost every other freeway statewide, regardless of Interstate status, was upgraded.  So why is the freeway section of US 10 stuck with an expressway speed limit?

US 51 north of Wausau is also still 65.  US 41/141 was until Friday when it was raised to 70.  They were just waiting for the I-41 project to be completed.  US 45 between US 10 and I-41 could also be raised.  Oddly enough, sections of Wis 29 and Wis 57 in Green Bay that are less than 5 miles saw an increase to 70.

Glad they finally raised 41/141 - forgot about that one, and it always seemed weird to me too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 11, 2016, 10:29:09 AM
Someone just reported to me that WisDOT is rerouting US 45 off of the city streets in the Fond du Lac area.  Can anyone confirm this?

:hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 11, 2016, 10:45:44 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 11, 2016, 10:29:09 AM
Someone just reported to me that WisDOT is rerouting US 45 off of the city streets in the Fond du Lac area.  Can anyone confirm this?

:hmmm:

Mike


I can't confirm it, but does this have to do with the US-151 bypass improvements that is removing its exit ramps from the US-45 interchange?  Drivers will have to access US-45 by a new interchange at County V with a frontage road taking traffic to US-45.  Traffic from NB US-151 to SB US-45 is going to have to exit at County V, go through a circle, cross back over the highway, through two more circles to get to US-45.

http://projects.511wi.gov/us151bypass/wp-content/uploads/sites/115/voverview.pdf

So if they do remove US-45 from the city, do you make traffic go through that maze, or do you keep US-45 on I-41 south of US-151?  Perhaps exiting at the current County B and heading east a couple miles to meet up with US-45 in Eden.

The other question is on the north side.  Do they just route US-45 with I-41 up in Oshkosh and replace US-45 from Oshkosh to Fond du Lac with a WI-76 extension?  Otherwise I can't figure out a good way to get US-45 over to I-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 11, 2016, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 11, 2016, 10:45:44 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 11, 2016, 10:29:09 AM
Someone just reported to me that WisDOT is rerouting US 45 off of the city streets in the Fond du Lac area.  Can anyone confirm this?

:hmmm:

Mike

I can't confirm it, but does this have to do with the US-151 bypass improvements that is removing its exit ramps from the US-45 interchange?  Drivers will have to access US-45 by a new interchange at County V with a frontage road taking traffic to US-45.  Traffic from NB US-151 to SB US-45 is going to have to exit at County V, go through a circle, cross back over the highway, through two more circles to get to US-45.

http://projects.511wi.gov/us151bypass/wp-content/uploads/sites/115/voverview.pdf

So if they do remove US-45 from the city, do you make traffic go through that maze, or do you keep US-45 on I-41 south of US-151?  Perhaps exiting at the current County B and heading east a couple miles to meet up with US-45 in Eden.

The other question is on the north side.  Do they just route US-45 with I-41 up in Oshkosh and replace US-45 from Oshkosh to Fond du Lac with a WI-76 extension?  Otherwise I can't figure out a good way to get US-45 over to I-41.

I'm scratching my head here, too, unless the ultimate plan is to put US 45 on I-41 all the way from metro Milwaukee to Oshkosh and give the US 45 West Bend Spur an odd 3DI number.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 11, 2016, 07:59:44 PM
I can confirm that US-45 will be transferred to the city between WI-23 and US-151.  I am checking to see if, from the north, it will be routed eastbound on WI-23 to US-151...or westbound on WI-23 to I-41 to US-151.  The eastbound routing is shorter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 12, 2016, 04:05:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 11, 2016, 07:59:44 PM
I can confirm that US-45 will be transferred to the city between WI-23 and US-151.  I am checking to see if, from the north, it will be routed eastbound on WI-23 to US-151...or westbound on WI-23 to I-41 to US-151.  The eastbound routing is shorter.

My source told me that he saw a newly installed 'North/US 45/Ahead' BGS on NB I-41 at US 151.

BTW, I like the layout that is shown in the .pdf file that is linked in SEWIguy's previous reply.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 12, 2016, 07:07:41 AM
My guess is that they would route 45 on 41 until either Wis 23 or Hwy OO if not all the way to north of Oshkosh.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 12, 2016, 10:26:01 AM
I can confirm it will be routed along WI-23, I-41 and US-151.

I would put it on I-41 from Oshkosh to US-151 and extend WI-76 south from Oshkosh to WI-23.  Small steps I guess.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 12, 2016, 02:10:48 PM
There goes the only 4 way intersection that I know of where a local street has the absolute right of way over a US highway.  (S Park Ave and US 45)  If a US highway has to stop for a local street and the local street traffic doesn't have to stop, that would probably be part of the reason why US 45 is being rerouted. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.771656,-88.438813,3a,60y,272.48h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKF4GM0Ela9VcI2yU8QdoQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on October 12, 2016, 06:13:49 PM
-US 12 (Clairemont Ave) In Eau Claire/Altoona has now fully completed it's switch to the Protected Only/Protected-Permissive 4Flashing Left Yellow Arrows. Cameron St, Menomonie St, Stein Blvd & University Dr now have "Left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow" signs and I have seen Cameron, Menomonie, and University Dr Flashing. Havent seen stein flashing yet. This is odd since Both University Dr & Stein blvd have the WB US 12 Approaches with Dual Turn Lanes. So there are two lanes of traffic facing a FYA to cross 3 lanes plus a right turn lane going 45-50 mph. Didnt think that was preferred.

But all of the intersections from Cameron St to BUS 53/Hastings Way are Protected Only for certain approaches during high traffic periods. Now all intersections on Clairemont Ave have FYA signals except:
-New Alpine Dr(Has original 5 stacks)
-Otter Rd(Has 5 stacks but were upgraded to reflected yellow border, not sure why no FYA)
-US12/US53 (Protected Only Due to SPUI)[Right Turn Lane FYA though!]
-10th St (5 Stack) [Right turn FYA!]
-3rd st (5 stack)
-AA (Newly installed Trombone Setup 5 stack)
All the signals between WI 312 & Vine St are Protected/permissive all the time, never protected only.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 16, 2016, 06:35:45 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 12, 2016, 04:05:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 11, 2016, 07:59:44 PM
I can confirm that US-45 will be transferred to the city between WI-23 and US-151.  I am checking to see if, from the north, it will be routed eastbound on WI-23 to US-151...or westbound on WI-23 to I-41 to US-151.  The eastbound routing is shorter.

My source told me that he saw a newly installed 'North/US 45/Ahead' BGS on NB I-41 at US 151.

BTW, I like the layout that is shown in the .pdf file that is linked in SEWIguy's previous reply.

:nod:

Mike

IIRC, I saw a 'South USH 45 Ahead sign on SB IH-41' BGS in the median on my way back from the UP a few hours ago...don't remember exactly where it was though. SB IH-41 exit mileage signs were also updated, featuring a USH 45 shield along side the USH 151.

When we were heading up to the UP on Wednesday morning, sign crews from Fond du Lac & Winnebago counties were busy installing new signs on a few overpass roadways. Felt bad for them, as it was pouring rain as I went by.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 16, 2016, 08:44:30 PM
I was just up there today, and heading Northbound US-45 is co-signed with US-151 and WI-23 on the BGS's and with I-41/US-41 NB reassurance markers between 151 and 23.

Southbound signage isn't complete yet. So far, just the reassurance markers are done, no changes to the BGS's yet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2016, 04:56:30 PM
Are they ever going to add exit numbers to the US 151 Fond du Lac Bypass? They numbered all of the other US 151 exits statewide, but did not give the Fond du Lac Bypass numbers. I know it will eventually be a full freeway from CTH-D to WIS-23, but I like my exits numbered.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 17, 2016, 10:00:02 PM
WI has been really skimpy on mile markers and exit tabs.  They limit to expressway or better.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 18, 2016, 10:30:50 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 17, 2016, 10:00:02 PM
WI has been really skimpy on mile markers and exit tabs.  They limit to expressway or better.

Wisconsin seems to be slowly adding more exits and mile markers to certain roads.  Wis 26, Wis 64, and US 10 are highways that didn't have exit numbers 10 years ago and now have them.  For some reason, US 53 doesn't have exit numbers with the US 2 and Wis 13 exits near Superior.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 19, 2016, 06:35:39 PM
This summer, while driving to Northern Minnesota on vacation, I saw new exit numbers on US 53 at WI 70 (Exit 165), and at the US 63 south junction (Exit 168). Maybe they'll also number the US 2 interchange (222), and the WI 13/County Z interchange (227) in the future as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 22, 2016, 06:13:26 PM
Now I hear that the DOT is going ahead with yet another roundabout in Racine County that nobody there wants. Yet again this irresponsible spending is why much needed projects are not getting done. Time for Walker to make a chance in the Secretary of Transportation in office. Gothlieb has been horrible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 22, 2016, 07:40:50 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 22, 2016, 06:13:26 PM
Now I hear that the DOT is going ahead with yet another roundabout in Racine County that I don't want. Yet again my opinion is that irresponsible spending is why much needed projects are not getting done, though I don't have data to back that up. Time for Walker to make a chance in the Secretary of Transportation in office. Gothlieb has been horrible.

Fixed that for you. Don't overlay your opinion as "fact".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 23, 2016, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 22, 2016, 07:40:50 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 22, 2016, 06:13:26 PM
Now I hear that the DOT is going ahead with yet another roundabout in Racine County that I don't want. Yet again my opinion is that irresponsible spending is why much needed projects are not getting done, though I don't have data to back that up. Time for Walker to make a chance in the Secretary of Transportation in office. Gothlieb has been horrible.

Fixed that for you. Don't overlay your opinion as "fact".

There were several people welcoming this roundabout in the online newspaper article I was reading regarding this intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on October 23, 2016, 09:22:53 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 23, 2016, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 22, 2016, 07:40:50 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 22, 2016, 06:13:26 PM
Now I hear that the DOT is going ahead with yet another roundabout in Racine County that I don't want. Yet again my opinion is that irresponsible spending is why much needed projects are not getting done, though I don't have data to back that up. Time for Walker to make a chance in the Secretary of Transportation in office. Gothlieb has been horrible.

Fixed that for you. Don't overlay your opinion as "fact".

There were several people welcoming this roundabout in the online newspaper article I was reading regarding this intersection.

I think it's been made blatantly clear in the past that dvferyance believes that roundabouts are 100% responsible for Wisconsin's budget deficit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2016, 04:15:31 PM
I'm on a ride and I want to get off
But they won't slow down the round-about

Song: The Reflex
Artist: Duran Duran
Album: Seven and the Ragged Tiger
Year: 1984
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on October 25, 2016, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 23, 2016, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 22, 2016, 07:40:50 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 22, 2016, 06:13:26 PM
Now I hear that the DOT is going ahead with yet another roundabout in Racine County that I don't want. Yet again my opinion is that irresponsible spending is why much needed projects are not getting done, though I don't have data to back that up. Time for Walker to make a chance in the Secretary of Transportation in office. Gothlieb has been horrible.

Fixed that for you. Don't overlay your opinion as "fact".

There were several people welcoming this roundabout in the online newspaper article I was reading regarding this intersection.
What intersection are you guys referring to? 

I live in Kenosha County, and every roundabout in Kenosha and Racine Counties that I've seen is an improvement over the previous intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on October 25, 2016, 03:51:04 PM
State's first diverging diamond interchange opens in Rock County

http://www.channel3000.com/news/states-first-diverging-diamond-interchange-opens-in-rock-county/42235042
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 28, 2016, 01:25:49 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 25, 2016, 03:51:04 PM
State's first diverging diamond interchange opens in Rock County

http://www.channel3000.com/news/states-first-diverging-diamond-interchange-opens-in-rock-county/42235042

Sort of. Only one lane of traffic in each direction, and there's a ton of landscaping and signal work needed yet. But traffic is using the new pattern.

My co-worker HATES it; she doesn't like the layout or being stuck at the lights, and she has to drive it every day. But it works well enough.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 28, 2016, 04:24:56 PM
I'd like to see a diverging diamond interchange here in Madison. Stoughton Road (US 51) may have two of them in the future; at US 12/18 (the Beltline), and at State Highway 30.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 30, 2016, 10:00:29 AM
A DDI at Wis 11 Avalon Rd??? Maybe that might signal sometime in the near future a reroute of Wis 11 east of I-39/90 along it?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 30, 2016, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 30, 2016, 10:00:29 AM
A DDI at Wis 11 Avalon Rd??? Maybe that might signal sometime in the near future a reroute of Wis 11 east of I-39/90 along it?
Would that be the case, roundabouts would have been more appropriate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 30, 2016, 10:31:52 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 30, 2016, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 30, 2016, 10:00:29 AM
A DDI at Wis 11 Avalon Rd??? Maybe that might signal sometime in the near future a reroute of Wis 11 east of I-39/90 along it?
Would that be the case, roundabouts would have been more appropriate.
Not necessarily. They are doing a DDI at Wis 26 that has much more traffic. I think they might be thinking of the Janesville south bypass with Avalon Rd as being a major enough bypass to use a DDI instead of a roundabout.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on October 30, 2016, 05:17:21 PM
I drove down US (I)-41 today, and each direction I too noticed "US 45 AHEAD" BGSes in Fond du Lac, WI.  I'm guessing based on the presence of these signs, and the reassurance markers for US 45 along the route, that the rerouting mentioned above has indeed taken place.

Does anybody know specifically what the new route is?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 31, 2016, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 30, 2016, 05:17:21 PM
I drove down US (I)-41 today, and each direction I too noticed "US 45 AHEAD" BGSes in Fond du Lac, WI.  I'm guessing based on the presence of these signs, and the reassurance markers for US 45 along the route, that the rerouting mentioned above has indeed taken place.

Does anybody know specifically what the new route is?

It's the new frontage road along US 151 to US 151, I-41 and Wis 23 back to Main St.  The reassurance signs are posted along Wis 23 as well as I-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on October 31, 2016, 06:57:51 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 31, 2016, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 30, 2016, 05:17:21 PM
I drove down US (I)-41 today, and each direction I too noticed "US 45 AHEAD" BGSes in Fond du Lac, WI.  I'm guessing based on the presence of these signs, and the reassurance markers for US 45 along the route, that the rerouting mentioned above has indeed taken place.

Does anybody know specifically what the new route is?

It's the new frontage road along US 151 to US 151, I-41 and Wis 23 back to Main St.  The reassurance signs are posted along Wis 23 as well as I-41.

Interesting.  Does this mean that the section along US 151 is now home to a wrong-way concurrency?

Either way, it's nice to see another US Highway routed off a whole bunch of city streets.  The old alignment didn't even make sense to me anyway because it followed a road with only 1,600 cars on it per day and had to yield to Park Avenue (a local street).

(EDIT to add: Google Maps hasn't updated their map yet.  :pan:)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 31, 2016, 07:59:09 AM
Last I checked it didn't officially take affect yet.  The US 45 signs at the US 151 ramps were covered up and there weren't any signs posted on Main St telling US 45 to turn onto Wis 23.  US 45 is also signed well along its original alignment. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 31, 2016, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 31, 2016, 06:57:51 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 31, 2016, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 30, 2016, 05:17:21 PM
I drove down US (I)-41 today, and each direction I too noticed "US 45 AHEAD" BGSes in Fond du Lac, WI.  I'm guessing based on the presence of these signs, and the reassurance markers for US 45 along the route, that the rerouting mentioned above has indeed taken place.

Does anybody know specifically what the new route is?

It's the new frontage road along US 151 to US 151, I-41 and Wis 23 back to Main St.  The reassurance signs are posted along Wis 23 as well as I-41.

Interesting.  Does this mean that the section along US 151 is now home to a wrong-way concurrency?

Either way, it's nice to see another US Highway routed off a whole bunch of city streets.  The old alignment didn't even make sense to me anyway because it followed a road with only 1,600 cars on it per day and had to yield to Park Avenue (a local street).

(EDIT to add: Google Maps hasn't updated their map yet.  :pan:)


Yes it will be a wrong way concurrency. 

I will say it again, but they should extend the US-45 route along I-41 all the way up to Oshkosh.  Extend WI-76 south from Oshkosh to FdL ending at WI-23.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 31, 2016, 10:06:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 31, 2016, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 31, 2016, 06:57:51 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 31, 2016, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on October 30, 2016, 05:17:21 PM
I drove down US (I)-41 today, and each direction I too noticed "US 45 AHEAD" BGSes in Fond du Lac, WI.  I'm guessing based on the presence of these signs, and the reassurance markers for US 45 along the route, that the rerouting mentioned above has indeed taken place.

Does anybody know specifically what the new route is?

It's the new frontage road along US 151 to US 151, I-41 and Wis 23 back to Main St.  The reassurance signs are posted along Wis 23 as well as I-41.

Interesting.  Does this mean that the section along US 151 is now home to a wrong-way concurrency?

Either way, it's nice to see another US Highway routed off a whole bunch of city streets.  The old alignment didn't even make sense to me anyway because it followed a road with only 1,600 cars on it per day and had to yield to Park Avenue (a local street).

(EDIT to add: Google Maps hasn't updated their map yet.  :pan:)


Yes it will be a wrong way concurrency. 

I will say it again, but they should extend the US-45 route along I-41 all the way up to Oshkosh.  Extend WI-76 south from Oshkosh to FdL ending at WI-23.   
That would make a lot of sense. And would work except that you would be missing the US 45 stretch on Algoma Blvd between 41 and 21. I think i would just have the old route be something like Wis 245 or a 3di number that is unsigned.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 01, 2016, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 30, 2016, 10:00:29 AM
A DDI at Wis 11 Avalon Rd??? Maybe that might signal sometime in the near future a reroute of Wis 11 east of I-39/90 along it?

It certainly wouldn't preclude one. The official line is the heavy amount of left turning (truck) traffic (NBD I-39/90 to WBD Hwy 11, EBD Hwy 11 to NBD I-39/90)  made this interchange style the most advantageous option. The area Hwy 11 traverses is a fairly large industrial area.

You could make similar arguments for one at the Racine St. exit. I don't have a great explanation for why one got roundabouts over the other.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 05, 2016, 07:40:25 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 01, 2016, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 30, 2016, 10:00:29 AM
A DDI at Wis 11 Avalon Rd??? Maybe that might signal sometime in the near future a reroute of Wis 11 east of I-39/90 along it?

It certainly wouldn't preclude one. The official line is the heavy amount of left turning (truck) traffic (NBD I-39/90 to WBD Hwy 11, EBD Hwy 11 to NBD I-39/90)  made this interchange style the most advantageous option. The area Hwy 11 traverses is a fairly large industrial area.

You could make similar arguments for one at the Racine St. exit. I don't have a great explanation for why one got roundabouts over the other.
Yeah I don't get why they changed that interchange to a bunch of roundabouts considering the truck traffic that would utilize Wis 11 going east.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 05, 2016, 09:08:50 AM
There have been a few posts recently on the Historic Madison group considering various road construction activities, including construction of the Beltline Highway, Hwy 30, and more.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/159700503902/?ref=nf_target&fref=nf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 06, 2016, 12:44:26 PM
I took a drive yesterday. Highlights:

- WisDOT is furiously working to complete paving work from Janesville to Beloit to allow both directions of travel in the SBD carriageway. Detail work is progressing on the Avalon Rd interchange.

- I-39/90 at Hwy 59 in Newville is progressing. The NBD bridge over Lake Koshkonong is partially complete; WisDOT is working to complete paving work just north of the bridge to allow all NBD traffic to shift over to the bridge; currently only NBD traffic exiting for Hwy 59 is using the bridge. It appears most of the paving work for the roundabouts is done, but it's still an obstacle course, particuarly at night with no lighting.

- I drove through Prairie Du Chein and observed the US 18 work. They're actively trying to complete the EBD side before winter strikes; the WBD side is carrying both directions of traffic at the moment. It feels tight for what's advertised as a 4-lane facility; I thought at first it was to be a 2-lane facility with a median, which struck me as odd for the level of traffic in this location. Possible they haven't paved the outside shoulders yet.

- Nice work on the I-90 bridge connecting Wisconsin to Minnesota. I-90 work east of the bridge appears to be 95% complete, with minor detail work remaining before all 4 (6?) lanes can be opened up.

- NOT Wisconsin-related, but US-14/61 is an interesting drive north to Winona. Pleasantly high-speed, nice 4-lane. But sections have a narrow median with just a short curb separating traffic; these parts are crying for Jersey barrier or at least heavy guardrail. Also moderately surprising are the stoplights through Winona; it's a large enough town that interchanges would be more appropriate.

- I observed a ton of progress on the US-12 Baraboo bypass; it appears to be mostly complete aside from paving shoulders and detail work up until it meets the current 4-lane stretch south of Baraboo. If good weather holds, they could open up at least one lane of traffic in each direction where the existing road and bypass meet; opening all lanes in both directions seems optimistic unless the good weather continues.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 06, 2016, 05:40:40 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 06, 2016, 12:44:26 PM
- I observed a ton of progress on the US-12 Baraboo bypass; it appears to be mostly complete aside from paving shoulders and detail work up until it meets the current 4-lane stretch south of Baraboo. If good weather holds, they could open up at least one lane of traffic in each direction where the existing road and bypass meet; opening all lanes in both directions seems optimistic unless the good weather continues.

I doubt very much they would try and open it before the winter.  There is no paving yet on the ramps for the two new interchanges.  But I would expect the bypass to open next year well ahead of the four lane expansion south of town.  Earthwork has only just begun through the Baraboo Hills. 

They have some cool decorations on some of the overpasses.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FAround%2520Town%2FIMG_3100_zpscujmlsyn.jpg&hash=770e4eac5d8b7ae4a45e4b28c9e58e020b11dee5)
(looking north at the Gasser Road overpass)
The same motif adorns the bridges over WI 136.  I didn't check out CTH W to look for it there.

Not sure if we covered this already, but with the demise of WI 123, surely WI 159 has little time remaining.  Once the US 12 bypass opens, it will connect to no state highways if left alone.  It has to be on the chopping block.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 06, 2016, 09:24:43 PM
Late Sept 2016 brought some minor sign improvements to I-94. Old on left, new on right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fh8O2jqL.png&hash=a5ef8526aa4f407b7c1daa1a40a3b3be9d9883fe)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2016, 05:12:40 PM
In Baraboo, WIS 159 will become an extension of WIS 136 once the US 12 bypass is completed in 2017.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: pianocello on November 07, 2016, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: colinstu on November 06, 2016, 09:24:43 PM
Late Sept 2016 brought some minor sign improvements to I-94. Old on left, new on right.

(image snipped)

What's the deal with the exit being numbered 293C? Is it to account for a parclo/cloverleaf upgrade to the interchange to the west?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 07, 2016, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: pianocello on November 07, 2016, 08:35:57 PM
What's the deal with the exit being numbered 293C? Is it to account for a parclo/cloverleaf upgrade to the interchange to the west?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrBrzp5T.png&hash=fa925ade91c7210dac389a29eb1bfa976d0c01b3)

Historically (prior to ~2000 when this interchange was reconstructed) there were 293A and B ramps, yes, a parclo.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 07, 2016, 09:01:52 PM
Quote from: colinstu on November 07, 2016, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: pianocello on November 07, 2016, 08:35:57 PM
What's the deal with the exit being numbered 293C? Is it to account for a parclo/cloverleaf upgrade to the interchange to the west?

Historically (prior to ~2000 when this interchange was reconstructed) there were 293A and B ramps, yes, a parclo.

Even crazier was that it was "A-B" prior to that, when then US-16 had a ramp to WB 94, and the loop ramp was the exit for CTH-T North and South, though even earlier than that, Grandview ended at 94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 11, 2016, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2016, 05:12:40 PM
In Baraboo, WIS 159 will become an extension of WIS 136 once the US 12 bypass is completed in 2017.

Really?  That's stupid.  They should make it part of that CTH BD which is replacing and has replaced the old alignment of US 12.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 11, 2016, 06:26:05 PM
That would make sense, triplemultiplex, but it appears that's not the route WisDOT is taking in the area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 12, 2016, 12:06:03 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 11, 2016, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2016, 05:12:40 PM
In Baraboo, WIS 159 will become an extension of WIS 136 once the US 12 bypass is completed in 2017.

Really?  That's stupid.  They should make it part of that CTH BD which is replacing and has replaced the old alignment of US 12.

If they extend it out to Hwy 113 SE of Baraboo, it's not totally worthless. If it dead-ends at Devil's Lake State Park as currently configured, I agree with your assessment that it's stupid.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2016, 05:27:28 PM
If WISDOT wanted to extend WIS 159 to WIS 113, I think they would have done so decades ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 19, 2016, 12:44:08 PM
A couple observations from a northbound trip yesterday:

SB I-39 traffic is using the new bridge at WI 23/82.  The temporary bridge in the median is already removed and crews were working on tearing out the temporary roadway.

2/10ths mile markers have been added to US 51 north of Wausau to the county line.

The temporary lane and bridge in the median of US 51 at CTH WW in Brokaw is ready to take NB traffic so the existing bridge can be replaced.  I think that's happening in spring.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on November 21, 2016, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 12, 2016, 12:06:03 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 11, 2016, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2016, 05:12:40 PM
In Baraboo, WIS 159 will become an extension of WIS 136 once the US 12 bypass is completed in 2017.

Really?  That's stupid.  They should make it part of that CTH BD which is replacing and has replaced the old alignment of US 12.

If they extend it out to Hwy 113 SE of Baraboo, it's not totally worthless. If it dead-ends at Devil's Lake State Park as currently configured, I agree with your assessment that it's stupid.
In most states, access to a state park is sufficient justification for a state highway. Why not here?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 21, 2016, 04:06:39 PM
Because there are multiple state parks in Wisconsin that don't have access via a state maintained highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 22, 2016, 03:10:51 PM
More than that, Devil's Lake is the only state park in Wisconsin with a state highway that exists only to serve the park.  Pretty big outlier.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 22, 2016, 03:25:38 PM
What other Wisconsin state parks should have a state highway serving it?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 23, 2016, 07:05:23 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 22, 2016, 03:25:38 PM
What other Wisconsin state parks should have a state highway serving it?
Good question. Here are the ones that I would suggest with the number I would assign.
American Falls (Wis 502)
Big Bay (Wis 513)
Buckhorn (Wis 580)
Burnet Island (Wis 527)
Crystal Muskie (Extension of Wis 155)
Flambeau River St Forest (Wis 570)
Grandad Bluff (Wis 516)
Harrington Beach (Wis 532)
Kohler Andrea (Wis 528)
Pattison (Wis 535)
Rib Mountain (Wis 529)
Rock Island (Wis 542)
Willow River (Wis 565)
Wyalusing (Wis 518)
Yellowstone Lake (Wis 581)

All the other ones have a state highway very close by.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on November 23, 2016, 09:24:38 AM
Kinnickinnic State Park in Pierce County is at present only "served" by CTH F.  Way back in time, in the very early days of the highway system, this was the route of Highway 29, but it was moved to its present alignment further east not that long after. 

In more recent times, Pierce and St. Croix counties have asked if CTH F could be upgraded to a state highway, as traffic counts warrant it, but the state has turned that down on the grounds of a) the cap limit of how many miles of state highway they can have, and b) there is too much private driveway access along F, especially in St. Croix County, and some of those would have to be closed off before they could accept it as a state highway.  Were it to ever happen, the logical thing to do would be to reroute Highway 35 onto it, so that it no longer goes to River Falls at all but just continues due north, hugging the St. Croix River and the state line like it normally does.  The expressway section of 35 from I-94 to River Falls would need a new number then.  Something like WI-594 maybe?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 23, 2016, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 23, 2016, 07:05:23 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 22, 2016, 03:25:38 PM
What other Wisconsin state parks should have a state highway serving it?
Good question. Here are the ones that I would suggest with the number I would assign.
American Falls (Wis 502)
Big Bay (Wis 513)
Buckhorn (Wis 580)
Burnet Island (Wis 527)
Crystal Muskie (Extension of Wis 155)
Flambeau River St Forest (Wis 570)
Grandad Bluff (Wis 516)
Harrington Beach (Wis 532)
Kohler Andrea (Wis 528)
Pattison (Wis 535)
Rib Mountain (Wis 529)
Rock Island (Wis 542)
Willow River (Wis 565)
Wyalusing (Wis 518)
Yellowstone Lake (Wis 581)

All the other ones have a state highway very close by.


Why is this necessary?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on November 23, 2016, 10:37:33 AM
This week, I noticed signs on I-94/I-41 in Kenosha County for a Frank Lloyd Wright Trail. Apparently, it runs between Kenosha County and Richland County, I'm pretty sure I saw an exit sign southbound at Hwy 165 in Kenosha County which I assume will direct people to the visitors center (or maybe Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Culver's restaurants or outlet mall :-D) but I couldn't find any specific information about the route, except for the link which shows the places to visit.  Does anyone know anything more about this?  I guess signing it to start at the state line going north to Racine makes sense, but I can't figure out why someone starting in the western part of the state, then going east, and finishing in Racine would then want to go south on I-94/I-41 to Kenosha County?

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/article/tours/wisconsins-frank-lloyd-wright-trail
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 23, 2016, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on November 23, 2016, 10:37:33 AM
This week, I noticed signs on I-94/I-41 in Kenosha County for a Frank Lloyd Wright Trail. Apparently, it runs between Kenosha County and Richland County, I'm pretty sure I saw an exit sign southbound at Hwy 165 in Kenosha County which I assume will direct people to the visitors center (or maybe Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Culver's restaurants or outlet mall :-D) but I couldn't find any specific information about the route, except for the link which shows the places to visit.  Does anyone know anything more about this?  I guess signing it to start at the state line going north to Racine makes sense, but I can't figure out why someone starting in the western part of the state, then going east, and finishing in Racine would then want to go south on I-94/I-41 to Kenosha County?

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/article/tours/wisconsins-frank-lloyd-wright-trail


It was established this past spring.  The law didn't designate a specific routing, but directs WIDOT to do so and then sign it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 26, 2016, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 23, 2016, 07:05:23 AM
American Falls (Wis 502)

I think you got autocorrected there.  Amnicon Falls.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on November 26, 2016, 09:19:53 PM
In other news, Midway Road (County AP) in Menasha and Appleton, WI between US 10 (Oneida St) and Telulah Ave (about 1 mile) recently had two new marked crosswalks installed, and the speed limit was lowered to 30 from 35.  Personally I think 35 was the ideal speed limit for that section, being that people generally went between 33-36 before the change, so I guess the cops just wanted to make an extra buck or two.

I'm aware that there was recently some construction over there, but can't they bump the speed limit back up when the construction is finished?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 27, 2016, 09:53:24 PM
Excellent article on the plight of state highway funding in Wisconsin.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/27/easy-answers-wisconsin-road-funding-problem/94513984/

Dropping the automatic increase in the gas tax was a terrible decision.  The refusal to consider a moderate increase to catch up is simply putting the state further behind.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 28, 2016, 09:51:29 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 27, 2016, 09:53:24 PM
Dropping the automatic increase in the gas tax was a terrible decision.  The refusal to consider a moderate increase to catch up is simply putting the state further behind.

I think at the time (when gas was at an all time high) it wasn't a horrible idea. However, it should have been a temporary measure that should have been set to automatically re-start after a certain amount of time. Of course now everyone realizes that we need more money, but nobody wants to actually raise taxes. It also doesn't help that people throw out "roundabouts and landscaping" as the problem. That's kind of like someone complaining about a running faucet as the Titanic sinks. ;-)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 28, 2016, 03:17:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 23, 2016, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 23, 2016, 07:05:23 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 22, 2016, 03:25:38 PM
What other Wisconsin state parks should have a state highway serving it?
Good question. Here are the ones that I would suggest with the number I would assign.
American Falls (Wis 502)
Big Bay (Wis 513)
Buckhorn (Wis 580)
Burnet Island (Wis 527)
Crystal Muskie (Extension of Wis 155)
Flambeau River St Forest (Wis 570)
Grandad Bluff (Wis 516)
Harrington Beach (Wis 532)
Kohler Andrea (Wis 528)
Pattison (Wis 535)
Rib Mountain (Wis 529)
Rock Island (Wis 542)
Willow River (Wis 565)
Wyalusing (Wis 518)
Yellowstone Lake (Wis 581)

All the other ones have a state highway very close by.


Why is this necessary?
Better quality of road going in to a state park since county codes vary so much. Tourism. I just am of the belief that if it is a state park, the roads into or near it should be maintained by the state as well. It cuts out red tape going through the county.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 28, 2016, 03:19:02 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 26, 2016, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 23, 2016, 07:05:23 AM
American Falls (Wis 502)

I think you got autocorrected there.  Amnicon Falls.
Correct.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 28, 2016, 04:28:30 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 07, 2016, 09:01:52 PM
Quote from: colinstu on November 07, 2016, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: pianocello on November 07, 2016, 08:35:57 PM
What's the deal with the exit being numbered 293C? Is it to account for a parclo/cloverleaf upgrade to the interchange to the west?

Historically (prior to ~2000 when this interchange was reconstructed) there were 293A and B ramps, yes, a parclo.

Even crazier was that it was "A-B" prior to that, when then US-16 had a ramp to WB 94, and the loop ramp was the exit for CTH-T North and South, though even earlier than that, Grandview ended at 94.
It was actually reconstructed around 1996 and I do agree that it should have been changed. US-16 should be Exit 293B and Hwy T should be Exit 293A.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 28, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 11, 2016, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2016, 05:12:40 PM
In Baraboo, WIS 159 will become an extension of WIS 136 once the US 12 bypass is completed in 2017.

Really?  That's stupid.  They should make it part of that CTH BD which is replacing and has replaced the old alignment of US 12.
I would have kept WI-123 and decommissioned WI-159 instead of the other way around.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2016, 07:07:38 PM
Google Maps still doesn't show construction imprints of the US 12 West Baraboo Bypass. Is this why everybody hates Google Maps?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 02, 2016, 02:28:09 AM
Not totally surprised by this news about the I-39/90/94 study: http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html (http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 02, 2016, 02:42:37 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 02, 2016, 02:28:09 AM
Not totally surprised by this news about the I-39/90/94 study: http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html (http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html)

Wow that's a pretty extensive project.  I wasn't aware that they're looking at constructing a new parallel freeway north of Madison.  I think East Reliever A is the best option but could possibly use East Reliever C.  I don't see the point of the B and D options.  Based on those alternatives I wasn't aware that there is that much traffic on I-94 that only passes through Madison, since through traffic from Chicago is more likely to use I-90.  I have the presentation link below.   


http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/presentation201611.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 02, 2016, 03:26:01 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2016, 02:42:37 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 02, 2016, 02:28:09 AM
Not totally surprised by this news about the I-39/90/94 study: http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html (http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html)

Wow that's a pretty extensive project.  I wasn't aware that they're looking at constructing a new parallel freeway north of Madison.  I think East Reliever A is the best option but could possibly use East Reliever C.  I don't see the point of the B and D options.  Based on those alternatives I wasn't aware that there is that much traffic on I-94 that only passes through Madison, since through traffic from Chicago is more likely to use I-90.  I have the presentation link below.   


http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/presentation201611.pdf

It caught me by surprise as well. When the surveys went out ~ a year ago, I was expecting more safety/access improvements along the corridor, not necessarily this extensive of capacity expansion. I was envisioning things like replacing the cloverleaf of the I at US 151 along with other spot interchange improvements.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mvak36 on December 02, 2016, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2016, 02:42:37 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 02, 2016, 02:28:09 AM
Not totally surprised by this news about the I-39/90/94 study: http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html (http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html)

Wow that's a pretty extensive project.  I wasn't aware that they're looking at constructing a new parallel freeway north of Madison.  I think East Reliever A is the best option but could possibly use East Reliever C.  I don't see the point of the B and D options.  Based on those alternatives I wasn't aware that there is that much traffic on I-94 that only passes through Madison, since through traffic from Chicago is more likely to use I-90.  I have the presentation link below.   


http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/presentation201611.pdf

I was thinking they would have to expand the 39/90/94 section anyways. I agree with you on the reliever route options.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 02, 2016, 10:18:22 AM
I would rather see a North Beltline built than the reliever route.  I think that should be more of a priority but that study scraps it.  I know it doesn't take traffic off of I-39/90/94, but it should take some traffic off of the current Beltline. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2016, 01:01:18 PM
Count me among those who didn't know WisDOT was mulling some of these wasteful, absurd options.  What the hell are they thinking?

WisDOT must be up to their fraudulent traffic forecasting again.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on December 02, 2016, 01:16:08 PM
This doesn't make much sense to me either.  Improve and repair the existing section by all means, but those reliever routes are silly and don't solve the real problem as I see it. 

I don't get down that way too often, but when I do, I look forward to driving that section because I know it's three lanes in both directions and traffic will flow smoothly.  The northern I-90/94 section (before/after I-39 joins) is only two lanes and that frequently backs up now with no terrific alternatives nearby.  That badly needs to be three lanes each way, and achieving that should take priority over any of those reliever routes.   94 from Eau Claire to Hudson could really use three-laning too. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 02, 2016, 01:36:49 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2016, 01:01:18 PM
Count me among those who didn't know WisDOT was mulling some of these wasteful, absurd options.  What the hell are they thinking?

WisDOT must be up to their fraudulent traffic forecasting again.

Or it's a ruse to make a plan to repair what's already there look more agreeable to the public.

As someone who drives that stretch fairly frequently, it's not that bad as the roadway exists today. The weaving issues during the AM & PM peaks at the 151 cloverleaf are the biggest problems I see along the corridor other than what's already been discussed here many times.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2016, 01:44:31 PM
Quote from: invincor on December 02, 2016, 01:16:08 PM
This doesn't make much sense to me either.  Improve and repair the existing section by all means, but those reliever routes are silly and don't solve the real problem as I see it. 

I don't get down that way too often, but when I do, I look forward to driving that section because I know it's three lanes in both directions and traffic will flow smoothly.  The northern I-90/94 section (before/after I-39 joins) is only two lanes and that frequently backs up now with no terrific alternatives nearby.  That badly needs to be three lanes each way, and achieving that should take priority over any of those reliever routes.   94 from Eau Claire to Hudson could really use three-laning too. 


And eventually I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee needs to grow to three lanes too.

The corridors are in place.  Improve them first and foremost. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tribar on December 02, 2016, 02:48:42 PM
WisDot Needs to stop with this nonsense and widen I-39/90 between the border and I 94. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 02, 2016, 04:48:13 PM
I also believe that the new proposed reliever route will never be constructed. In the end, I'm sure the existing Interstates will be expanded.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2016, 04:54:58 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 02, 2016, 01:36:49 PM
Or it's a ruse to make a plan to repair what's already there look more agreeable to the public.

I think you are on to something.
"Okay, fine, you talked us out of an 'outer beltline'; we'll settle for expanding the triplemultiplex to 8 lanes and adding flyovers to the East Town Interchange.  You win, Dane County suckers."
They might also be trying to dupe Dane County into accepting a more freeway-ized version of Stoughton Road.

Wisconsin has so many higher priorities than anything for 39/90/94 beyond new pavement in a few stretches and some spot interchange improvements.
One of those is the third lane for 39/90.  94 between Cottage Grove and Oconomowoc is less of a priority for me than the 90/94 concurrency to Tomah when it comes to more lanes.  And don't even get me started on metro MKE.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on December 02, 2016, 09:25:03 PM
Now hold on a sec guys. Think about the huge growth that Dane County has had in the last 2 decades. If Corridor A is built, it would not be a huge stretch to see the next step to be extending it south to 39/90 near Hwy N and extending the north end west to US 12 near Springfield Corners and eventually a full blown beltway which would relieve 94 traffic on 39/90/94, Beltline traffic and finally have a quick way across the northern part of the metro area. Just a thought.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 02, 2016, 11:06:16 PM
I'm not a fan of any of those 'reliever' routes, either.  I'd upgrade the existing I-39/90/94 corridor freeway (Beltline interchange to Cascade interchange) to eight lanes, I-90/94 from the Cascade interchange to the Tomah interchange to six lanes and upgrade existing US 12 between Middleton and I-90/94 at Lake Delton to interstate standards, perhaps making the entire corridor, including the Madison Beltline, into a full interstate (I-490?).  And yes, include a bypass of the Sauk Prairie area. :poke:

The other highways in the area, especially the US 51/Stoughton Rd corridor, can continue their upgrade progression as they have been.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 03, 2016, 07:36:53 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2016, 11:06:16 PM
I'm not a fan of any of those 'reliever' routes, either.  I'd upgrade the existing I-39/90/94 corridor freeway (Beltline interchange to Cascade interchange) to eight lanes, I-90/94 from the Cascade interchange to the Tomah interchange to six lanes and upgrade existing US 12 between Middleton and I-90/94 at Lake Delton to interstate standards, perhaps making the entire corridor, including the Madison Beltline, into a full interstate (I-490?).  And yes, include a bypass of the Sauk Prairie area. :poke:

The other highways in the area, especially the US 51/Stoughton Rd corridor, can continue their upgrade progression as they have been.

Mike

According to the wisconsinhighways.org website, it was very difficult to get US 12 upgraded and there was an agreement in place that a Sauk City Bypass wouldn't be considered until after 2020.  With all of the local opposition for the initial projects an interstate quality roadway may be difficult to push through. 

I'm surprised at the amount of improvements being proposed in the Madison Area.  Is it because WISDOT's main headquarters is in Madison?  Milwaukee still has the busiest roadways in the state and the East-West Freeway badly needs to be rebuilt along with I-43 between Grafton and Glendale.  The pavement is barely holding up since resurfacings aren't lasting long.  2 years ago it was resurfaced and it's already becoming rough again.   

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 03, 2016, 11:32:58 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 03, 2016, 07:36:53 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2016, 11:06:16 PM
I'm not a fan of any of those 'reliever' routes, either.  I'd upgrade the existing I-39/90/94 corridor freeway (Beltline interchange to Cascade interchange) to eight lanes, I-90/94 from the Cascade interchange to the Tomah interchange to six lanes and upgrade existing US 12 between Middleton and I-90/94 at Lake Delton to interstate standards, perhaps making the entire corridor, including the Madison Beltline, into a full interstate (I-490?).  And yes, include a bypass of the Sauk Prairie area. :poke:

The other highways in the area, especially the US 51/Stoughton Rd corridor, can continue their upgrade progression as they have been.

Mike

According to the wisconsinhighways.org website, it was very difficult to get US 12 upgraded and there was an agreement in place that a Sauk City Bypass wouldn't be considered until after 2020.  With all of the local opposition for the initial projects an interstate quality roadway may be difficult to push through. 

I'm surprised at the amount of improvements being proposed in the Madison Area.  Is it because WISDOT's main headquarters is in Madison?  Milwaukee still has the busiest roadways in the state and the East-West Freeway badly needs to be rebuilt along with I-43 between Grafton and Glendale.  The pavement is barely holding up since resurfacings aren't lasting long.  2 years ago it was resurfaced and it's already becoming rough again.   


It has nothing to do with the headquarters and I think you are mistaken.  The Milwaukee area has seen the reconstruction of the Marquette interchange, the airport interchange and now the Zoo interchange.  The North/South I-94 project has added a lane from Milwaukee all the way to Illinois.  They have planned out the East/West I-94 project as well.

Madison is in the process of redoing the Verona Road interchange and are working to add a third lane south of the Beltline to the Illinois border.  They have also upgraded US-51 north for a short distance.  But outside of that am I missing something?

Madison traffic on the Beltline during rush hour is pretty close to being as bad as the Milwaukee highways during rush hour.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 03, 2016, 05:30:32 PM
I believe there is a long range plan to make US-12 a full freeway between Madison and the Dells, but it won't be completed for a long time (if ever). I think the plan is to, when the agreement runs out, bypass Sauk City, as indicated in these plans.

http://www.prairiedusac.net/vertical/sites/%7B9B4AD25B-1470-4128-8A1E-0DB407531D87%7D/uploads/Highway_12_PF_Airport_Area_Plan_Adopted_6_26_12_small.pdf (http://www.prairiedusac.net/vertical/sites/%7B9B4AD25B-1470-4128-8A1E-0DB407531D87%7D/uploads/Highway_12_PF_Airport_Area_Plan_Adopted_6_26_12_small.pdf)

I agree that existing freeways need to be rebuilt/expanded over building new freeways, and I think that US 51 parallel freeway is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen. If built, it would go right up there with the US 10 corridor (the Marshfield spur) and the WIS 26 corridor (the way it was ultimately built) as overbuilt, unnecessary projects.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 03, 2016, 06:07:39 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 03, 2016, 11:32:58 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 03, 2016, 07:36:53 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2016, 11:06:16 PM
I'm not a fan of any of those 'reliever' routes, either.  I'd upgrade the existing I-39/90/94 corridor freeway (Beltline interchange to Cascade interchange) to eight lanes, I-90/94 from the Cascade interchange to the Tomah interchange to six lanes and upgrade existing US 12 between Middleton and I-90/94 at Lake Delton to interstate standards, perhaps making the entire corridor, including the Madison Beltline, into a full interstate (I-490?).  And yes, include a bypass of the Sauk Prairie area. :poke:

The other highways in the area, especially the US 51/Stoughton Rd corridor, can continue their upgrade progression as they have been.

Mike

According to the wisconsinhighways.org website, it was very difficult to get US 12 upgraded and there was an agreement in place that a Sauk City Bypass wouldn't be considered until after 2020.  With all of the local opposition for the initial projects an interstate quality roadway may be difficult to push through. 

I'm surprised at the amount of improvements being proposed in the Madison Area.  Is it because WISDOT's main headquarters is in Madison?  Milwaukee still has the busiest roadways in the state and the East-West Freeway badly needs to be rebuilt along with I-43 between Grafton and Glendale.  The pavement is barely holding up since resurfacings aren't lasting long.  2 years ago it was resurfaced and it's already becoming rough again.   


It has nothing to do with the headquarters and I think you are mistaken.  The Milwaukee area has seen the reconstruction of the Marquette interchange, the airport interchange and now the Zoo interchange.  The North/South I-94 project has added a lane from Milwaukee all the way to Illinois.  They have planned out the East/West I-94 project as well.

Madison is in the process of redoing the Verona Road interchange and are working to add a third lane south of the Beltline to the Illinois border.  They have also upgraded US-51 north for a short distance.  But outside of that am I missing something?

Madison traffic on the Beltline during rush hour is pretty close to being as bad as the Milwaukee highways during rush hour.

The Verona Road project is badly needed and I think there should be freeway to freeway ramps between the Beltline and US 18/151.  I know that The Beltline gets very congested and could use an upgrade to 8 lanes.  I'm looking at that reliever route proposal and haven't seen a project proposal like that in any area of the state with a new freeway of that magnitude to supplement an existing freeway.  I also look at the US 51/Stoughton Road proposal to pretty much make that a freeway.  I'm just amazed that there are 2 freeway proposals so close to I-39/I-90. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 03, 2016, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 03, 2016, 06:07:39 PMThe Verona Road project is badly needed and I think there should be freeway to freeway ramps between the Beltline and US 18/151.  I know that The Beltline gets very congested and could use an upgrade to 8 lanes.  I'm looking at that reliever route proposal and haven't seen a project proposal like that in any area of the state with a new freeway of that magnitude to supplement an existing freeway.  I also look at the US 51/Stoughton Road proposal to pretty much make that a freeway.  I'm just amazed that there are 2 freeway proposals so close to I-39/I-90.

The Madison area continues to grow at a fairly torrid pace and municipal boundary agreements are in place that will significantly increase the land area of the cities (especially including Madison) in the eastern and northeastern parts of the metro area.  Three entire townships (Blooming Grove, Burke and Madison) are slated to completely disappear over the next couple of decades.  The entire area in the Deforest/Sun Prairie/Madison triangle and on northward will likely fill in completely within my lifetime.

This 'planning ahead' on transport facilities for that area is well warranted.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: cwm1276 on December 04, 2016, 09:45:46 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 02, 2016, 09:25:03 PM
Now hold on a sec guys. Think about the huge growth that Dane County has had in the last 2 decades. If Corridor A is built, it would not be a huge stretch to see the next step to be extending it south to 39/90 near Hwy N and extending the north end west to US 12 near Springfield Corners and eventually a full blown beltway which would relieve 94 traffic on 39/90/94, Beltline traffic and finally have a quick way across the northern part of the metro area. Just a thought.
Moving to fictional area now.
If going the route of new right away, how about moving 39 to its own right away?  Folllowing concept A down to 39/90 to the south and running it all the way to Portage.  Have a connector south of Portage between the 2 highways.   Possibly move 94 onto the new alignment as well using the Portage connector.

The benefits would be 90 near Madison would be more local traffic, and between the 2 highways they could back each other up in cases of accidents and traffic concerns.

Honestly when I travel the area the area around 151 and southbound Summer Sunday traffic are the main things I notice.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 04, 2016, 10:58:56 AM
Quote from: cwm1276 on December 04, 2016, 09:45:46 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 02, 2016, 09:25:03 PM
Now hold on a sec guys. Think about the huge growth that Dane County has had in the last 2 decades. If Corridor A is built, it would not be a huge stretch to see the next step to be extending it south to 39/90 near Hwy N and extending the north end west to US 12 near Springfield Corners and eventually a full blown beltway which would relieve 94 traffic on 39/90/94, Beltline traffic and finally have a quick way across the northern part of the metro area. Just a thought.
Moving to fictional area now.
If going the route of new right away, how about moving 39 to its own right away?  Folllowing concept A down to 39/90 to the south and running it all the way to Portage.  Have a connector south of Portage between the 2 highways.   Possibly move 94 onto the new alignment as well using the Portage connector.

The benefits would be 90 near Madison would be more local traffic, and between the 2 highways they could back each other up in cases of accidents and traffic concerns.

Honestly when I travel the area the area around 151 and southbound Summer Sunday traffic are the main things I notice.


The issue can be resolved by increasing capacity on the current route.  Perhaps you could simply upgrade County CS and its interchange to a state highway that ties into US-51 as a reliever route.  (Or perhaps you could route US-51 along this route and turn US-51 between Poynette and WI-16 into WI-551 or something similar.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on December 04, 2016, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: invincor on December 02, 2016, 01:16:08 PM94 from Eau Claire to Hudson could really use three-laning too. 
As someone who has lived both in areas, this definitely needs to happen before any major upgrades of US 51 north of De Forrest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on December 04, 2016, 12:42:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 03, 2016, 11:32:58 AM
The North/South I-94 project has added a lane from Milwaukee all the way to Illinois.

Last time I drove I-41/I-94, there were quite a few miles where construction on the fourth through lane had not even started, and I though it was not planned to be completed until 2020 or later.

Quote from: peterj920 on December 03, 2016, 06:07:39 PM
I'm looking at that reliever route proposal and haven't seen a project proposal like that in any area of the state with a new freeway of that magnitude to supplement an existing freeway.

Stretching a bit, but the unbuilt Lake Freeway between the east/south end of I-794 and the Illinois border could have been considered a reliever for current I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 04, 2016, 03:26:27 PM
Let's worry about finishing the I-39/90 expansion between Madison and the state line as well as the I-94 expansion between Milwaukee and the state line before starting anything else. Those are both long overdue and are progressing at a snail's pace. I still don't even see a firm date for the reconstruction of the Beltline interchange on the I-39/90 project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 04, 2016, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 04, 2016, 03:26:27 PM
Let's worry about finishing the I-39/90 expansion between Madison and the state line as well as the I-94 expansion between Milwaukee and the state line before starting anything else. Those are both long overdue and are progressing at a snail's pace. I still don't even see a firm date for the reconstruction of the Beltline interchange on the I-39/90 project.

I-39/I-90 in Janesville did get a federal fastlane grant this year for work in Janesville.  I think right now it's getting priority over I-94/I-41 in Racine County.  I-94/I-41 is the busiest rural freeway in the state along with the busiest border crossing in the state.  Looks like the Beltline Interchange is included in the new I-39/90/94 study.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 05, 2016, 05:17:55 PM
It will be at least 10 years before any work is started on the Interstate 39/90/94 corridor. Let's see what they come up with first. IMHO, most of the upgrades will likely be confined to the existing Interstate corridor, rather than alternate corridors.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on December 06, 2016, 11:23:19 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 23, 2016, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on November 23, 2016, 10:37:33 AM
This week, I noticed signs on I-94/I-41 in Kenosha County for a Frank Lloyd Wright Trail. Apparently, it runs between Kenosha County and Richland County, I'm pretty sure I saw an exit sign southbound at Hwy 165 in Kenosha County which I assume will direct people to the visitors center (or maybe Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Culver's restaurants or outlet mall :-D) but I couldn't find any specific information about the route, except for the link which shows the places to visit.  Does anyone know anything more about this?  I guess signing it to start at the state line going north to Racine makes sense, but I can't figure out why someone starting in the western part of the state, then going east, and finishing in Racine would then want to go south on I-94/I-41 to Kenosha County?

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/article/tours/wisconsins-frank-lloyd-wright-trail


It was established this past spring.  The law didn't designate a specific routing, but directs WIDOT to do so and then sign it.
So I had a chance to follow the Frank Lloyd Wright Trail signs this past weekend.  Rather than originating on I-94/I-41 at the state line, for some reason it actually begins/ends on WI31 (Green Bay Road) at the state line, then turns west on to WI165, and then enters I-94/41. If they were going to start it on WI31, I'm not sure why they just didn't have it run up WI31 all the way to Racine, which would actually be faster.  Also, once you are on I-94/41, there are no signs directing you to exit or any directions to the 3 places to visit in Racine. 

I find it really bizarre that there are no signs directing you where to go in Racine, but for some reason they decided to originate the route in Kenosha County and then began it off the interstate in Kenosha County where there are no FLW building to see, yet in Racine County it is only routed on the interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2016, 12:13:43 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on December 06, 2016, 11:23:19 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 23, 2016, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on November 23, 2016, 10:37:33 AM
This week, I noticed signs on I-94/I-41 in Kenosha County for a Frank Lloyd Wright Trail. Apparently, it runs between Kenosha County and Richland County, I'm pretty sure I saw an exit sign southbound at Hwy 165 in Kenosha County which I assume will direct people to the visitors center (or maybe Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Culver's restaurants or outlet mall :-D) but I couldn't find any specific information about the route, except for the link which shows the places to visit.  Does anyone know anything more about this?  I guess signing it to start at the state line going north to Racine makes sense, but I can't figure out why someone starting in the western part of the state, then going east, and finishing in Racine would then want to go south on I-94/I-41 to Kenosha County?

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/article/tours/wisconsins-frank-lloyd-wright-trail


It was established this past spring.  The law didn't designate a specific routing, but directs WIDOT to do so and then sign it.
So I had a chance to follow the Frank Lloyd Wright Trail signs this past weekend.  Rather than originating on I-94/I-41 at the state line, for some reason it actually begins/ends on WI31 (Green Bay Road) at the state line, then turns west on to WI165, and then enters I-94/41. If they were going to start it on WI31, I'm not sure why they just didn't have it run up WI31 all the way to Racine, which would actually be faster.  Also, once you are on I-94/41, there are no signs directing you to exit or any directions to the 3 places to visit in Racine. 

I find it really bizarre that there are no signs directing you where to go in Racine, but for some reason they decided to originate the route in Kenosha County and then began it off the interstate in Kenosha County where there are no FLW building to see, yet in Racine County it is only routed on the interstate.


I mean to mention that I saw it posted on I-94 in Jefferson County a couple weeks ago too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 06, 2016, 03:41:47 PM
Here's the answer to the burning question about the license plates...WI is going to seven characters:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/columnists/jim-stingl/2016/12/06/stingl-license-plate-combinations-running-out/95010738/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on December 06, 2016, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2016, 03:41:47 PM
Here's the answer to the burning question about the license plates...WI is going to seven characters:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/columnists/jim-stingl/2016/12/06/stingl-license-plate-combinations-running-out/95010738/

Awesome update. I've been seeing the letters getting higher and higher and was very curious what they would do next.

I wonder if they will keep the dash or not, it almost sounded like they might keep it still?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on December 06, 2016, 04:43:03 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2016, 03:41:47 PM
Here's the answer to the burning question about the license plates...WI is going to seven characters:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/columnists/jim-stingl/2016/12/06/stingl-license-plate-combinations-running-out/95010738/
I had forgotten about the blue lettering on the original ABC-123 format plates in 1986. It was always odd to spot the occasional blue letter plates years later.  I got the red letter plates when I bought my first car in 1990 (began with the letter G) and the letters faded pretty quickly, and were barely readable when I got new plates (2000 or 2001) but those black letter plates still look very good. 

Since the 3 letter, 3 number format took somewhere around 14 to 17 years to run out, I guess that means the extra digit should make this format last around 150 years. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2016, 09:08:02 PM
"The plate artwork will stay the same, and the characters will be squeezed onto the metal rectangles without making them any smaller."

<sigh>  I wish they would change the design.  It has been the same for 30 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on December 06, 2016, 09:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2016, 09:08:02 PM

<sigh>  I wish they would change the design.  It has been the same for 30 years.
And voted on with questionable intentions in 1986.  There were 5 plate designs in the contest - 2 designd with the "America's Dairyland" slogan, 2 with other slogans and 1 with no slogan.  The winner was the still-current design as it had no slogan.  But the state legislature would have nothing with a no-slogan plate so they pasted the "America's Dairyland" slogan on it.  If the voters knew the legislature was going to do that, they may have voted for a different design.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on December 07, 2016, 01:37:55 AM
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2016/12/02/will-dangerous-intersection-finally-be-fixed/

Looks like the northern terminus of the Stadium Freeway is being investigated.
IMO any of these designs would be better than what's there now, but if I had to rank them, it would be: 2, 1, 4, 3.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2016, 05:36:18 PM
I really don't have a preference, although I would like whichever alternative improves safety the most, and best fits in with the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 07, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
I know it won't happen but I'd prefer a new freeway that connects Wis 175 with Wis 145.  It's still on the WISDOT map as a proposed route. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/milwaukee.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on December 07, 2016, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 07, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
I know it won't happen but I'd prefer a new freeway that connects Wis 175 with Wis 145.  It's still on the WISDOT map as a proposed route. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/milwaukee.pdf
Agreed
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 07, 2016, 08:52:58 PM
Absolutely not.  There has been enough of those neighborhoods torn up as it is.  There is no need for it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on December 07, 2016, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 07, 2016, 08:52:58 PM
Absolutely not.  There has been enough of those neighborhoods torn up as it is.  There is no need for it.

Agreed. Exactly zero need for that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 08, 2016, 10:28:17 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2016, 03:41:47 PM
Here's the answer to the burning question about the license plates...WI is going to seven characters:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/columnists/jim-stingl/2016/12/06/stingl-license-plate-combinations-running-out/95010738/

From the article, I did note that they will be in the LLL-NNNN format (with the dash).  Also, there was a slight error in the article - not every possible number combination has been used.  WisDOT has never issued a regular-issue plate in the current format with a leading zero ('0').  I have not seen it for several years, so it is likely now off of the road, but back during the '00s' I do recall seeing a car being driven in various locations on Appleton's northwest side with the lowest possible plate number in the current format - '101-AAA'.

As for the first state to assign seven character regular-issue plate numbers, I believe that it was California - car plates with '1LLLNNN' were being issued in the late 1970s.  I believe that they are into the 7LLLNNN range now.  In CA, the plate and its number stays with the car for as long as it exists in the state.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2016, 10:42:37 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 07, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
I know it won't happen but I'd prefer a new freeway that connects Wis 175 with Wis 145.  It's still on the WISDOT map as a proposed route. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/milwaukee.pdf


BTW, that is not a proposed route as a freeway.  That is simply a proposed re-route of state highway.  That actually dates back to when US-41 still ran on the city streets.  The thought was that, heading southbound, US-41 would re-route along the WI-145 freeway, go south on 60th Street, and eventually meet up with its routing along Appleton Avenue.  Once that occurred, the state highway segment along Appleton Avenue would be removed between 60th Street and the freeway.

However now that US-41 has been replaced with WI-175, that re-route makes no sense given the routing of WI-175 west of the I-41/US-41/US-45 freeway. 

The freeway option hasn't been under considerations for decades and likely never will be again.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 08, 2016, 10:46:28 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 07, 2016, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 07, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
I know it won't happen but I'd prefer a new freeway that connects Wis 175 with Wis 145.  It's still on the WISDOT map as a proposed route. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/milwaukee.pdf
Agreed

Ditto.  The Park West/Stadium North out to 67th/FdL is one that should have been built.

Howabout incremental major upgrades to Lisbon Ave, 60th St and FdL Ave with that as the ultimate goal?

For now, I'd do Option 2 with a two-lane roundabout at the intersection, also reserving enough ROW for a future high(er)-speed direct turn.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2016, 12:12:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2016, 10:46:28 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 07, 2016, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 07, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
I know it won't happen but I'd prefer a new freeway that connects Wis 175 with Wis 145.  It's still on the WISDOT map as a proposed route. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/milwaukee.pdf
Agreed

Ditto.  The Park West/Stadium North out to 67th/FdL is one that should have been built.

Howabout incremental major upgrades to Lisbon Ave, 60th St and FdL Ave with that as the ultimate goal?


It should not have been built.  To save, what, two or three minutes from your trek from northwest of town to the ballpark?    Milwaukee initially planned for too extensive a freeway system.  What it has right now is sufficient, and any upgrades should happen along the corridors that are already in place.  The only exception may have been a northern bypass, but that will never occur.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 09, 2016, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2016, 12:12:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2016, 10:46:28 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 07, 2016, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 07, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
I know it won't happen but I'd prefer a new freeway that connects Wis 175 with Wis 145.  It's still on the WISDOT map as a proposed route. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/milwaukee.pdf
Agreed

Ditto.  The Park West/Stadium North out to 67th/FdL is one that should have been built.

Howabout incremental major upgrades to Lisbon Ave, 60th St and FdL Ave with that as the ultimate goal?


It should not have been built.  To save, what, two or three minutes from your trek from northwest of town to the ballpark?    Milwaukee initially planned for too extensive a freeway system.  What it has right now is sufficient, and any upgrades should happen along the corridors that are already in place.  The only exception may have been a northern bypass, but that will never occur.

If those freeways were built, it would take traffic off of I-41 and I-94 heading into Downtown and Wis 145/Wis 175 would get some use.  That combination would be shorter than I-94/I-41.  The Park West would have allowed traffic to completely avoid I-94 coming from the northwest.  With how backed up I-94 gets those freeways would be very useful especially with the Zoo Interchange under construction. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2016, 01:59:02 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 09, 2016, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2016, 12:12:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2016, 10:46:28 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 07, 2016, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 07, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
I know it won't happen but I'd prefer a new freeway that connects Wis 175 with Wis 145.  It's still on the WISDOT map as a proposed route. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/milwaukee.pdf
Agreed

Ditto.  The Park West/Stadium North out to 67th/FdL is one that should have been built.

Howabout incremental major upgrades to Lisbon Ave, 60th St and FdL Ave with that as the ultimate goal?


It should not have been built.  To save, what, two or three minutes from your trek from northwest of town to the ballpark?    Milwaukee initially planned for too extensive a freeway system.  What it has right now is sufficient, and any upgrades should happen along the corridors that are already in place.  The only exception may have been a northern bypass, but that will never occur.

If those freeways were built, it would take traffic off of I-41 and I-94 heading into Downtown and Wis 145/Wis 175 would get some use.  That combination would be shorter than I-94/I-41.  The Park West would have allowed traffic to completely avoid I-94 coming from the northwest.  With how backed up I-94 gets those freeways would be very useful especially with the Zoo Interchange under construction. 


I-94 only gets backed up during rush hour.  And even then, it isn't terrible.  The idea that we have to build freeways everywhere just to save a few minutes sounds great, but you are cutting through neighborhoods with houses, stores, etc.  Look on a map and see the blocks and blocks that would have been knocked down to build the Park West.  And eyeballing it on a map, that would have saved four miles of travel between Good Hope on the NW side and downtown.  What does that four miles do you?  Just expand I-94 and you help relieve the back ups while minimizing the collateral damage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 09, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2016, 10:42:37 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 07, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
I know it won't happen but I'd prefer a new freeway that connects Wis 175 with Wis 145.  It's still on the WISDOT map as a proposed route. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/milwaukee.pdf


BTW, that is not a proposed route as a freeway.  That is simply a proposed re-route of state highway.  That actually dates back to when US-41 still ran on the city streets.  The thought was that, heading southbound, US-41 would re-route along the WI-145 freeway, go south on 60th Street, and eventually meet up with its routing along Appleton Avenue.  Once that occurred, the state highway segment along Appleton Avenue would be removed between 60th Street and the freeway.

However now that US-41 has been replaced with WI-175, that re-route makes no sense given the routing of WI-175 west of the I-41/US-41/US-45 freeway. 

The freeway option hasn't been under considerations for decades and likely never will be again.


There was a 1975 proposal for the "Gap Closure Freeway" by the Milwaukee County Execuitive at the time to link the Stadium and Fond Du Lac Freeways. 
http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/buzz/articles/milwaukeefreewayhistory.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 09, 2016, 05:01:51 PM
While it would have been nice to have a link between the Stadium and Fond du Lac freeways, you'd have an easier time building a road across Lake Michigan.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on December 09, 2016, 08:52:27 PM
The idea of new Milwaukee-area freeways died in the 70s, with a massive amount of freeway revolts, and the final nail driven in by former mayor John Norquist, who actually succeeded in ripping out a stub freeway (the Park East). Therefore, we currently have a few remaining stub freeways (the FDL and the Stadium Freeways) that don't make much sense in modern thinking, but were originally intended for bigger things.

The Stadium Freeway was originally intended to run south along the 43rd Street corridor to connect with I-894. But that freeway would have ripped apart a nice county park and some thriving neighborhoods. So, it was scrapped. And it laid the foundation for the massive, thriving retail district along the current Miller Park Way in West Milwaukee, which all materialized over the past 15 years.

On the north side, the Fond Du Lac Ave Freeway was also canceled from Hampton Ave south to I-43, even after the clearing of a lot of land in the right-of-way. FDL Ave. runs through some really bad neighborhoods (it was the epicenter of the August riots). But further south, there has been considerable commercial development, after decades of sitting empty. The county transit built a new garage and HQ at the south end. And North Avenue is starting to see development in the corridor.

Perhaps a diagonal freeway across the north side would have worked (though I haven't even touched on the homes in Sherman Park). But it could have made things far worse. The county missed a chance at making a freeway through the Good Hope Rd. corridor, but it does flow fast enough to make it suitable for crosstown travel, even moreso than Brown Deer Rd. And forget about the suburban counties - the land is too expensive and the NIMBY voices too powerful. They won't even allow an I-94 exit at Calhoun Rd.!

Therefore, the freeways you have are the freeways you'll always have. Hopefully, the upgrades will be adequate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 09, 2016, 09:34:34 PM
I referenced the article for the Gap Closure Freeway since it's a little known proposal that was Milwaukee County Executive John Doyne's idea to utilize the stub ends of the Stadium and Fond Du Lac Freeways after the other freeways were killed off.  The gap closure freeway is also referenced at wisconsinhighways.org.  There are plenty of remnants of proposed freeways in the Milwaukee area. 

The most obvious one is the I-894 ghost ramps just east of Loomis Rd that served a park and ride, but were completely closed off when the Mitchell Interchange was reconstructed.  The Park West right of way was cleared but is being filled in now with new development from the south end of the North Ave curve on I-43 to the west and northwest.   

The Lake Interchange with I-794 and Lincoln Memorial Dr was built larger to accommodate a Downtown Loop Freeway, and one of the uncompleted ramps that was eventually demolished was used in the Blues Brothers Movie.

The Mequon Rd overpass at I-41 was built extra long so ramps from the Northern Terminus of the Belt Freeway could go under the bridge.  That is the only remnant of that freeway.

Finally there is the I-43/Wis 57 which was the original proposed terminus of the Stadium Freeway.  The southbound I-43 bridge over Wis 57 was built higher than normal it could accommodate future ramps from the Stadium Freeway.  The stretch of the Stadium through Mequon and past Cedarburg was killed of earlier than the stretch south of I-94 which was very close to being built. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WISFreeways on December 12, 2016, 12:08:49 AM
Drove the Beltline the other day and got to witness the reconstructed segment between Verona Rd and Whitney Way. It's looking pretty nice: six through lanes, smooth pavement and the neat gantries you tend to only see in the eastern portions of Wisconsin. 

Here are some photos:
http://imgur.com/a/nVSuQ
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 09:25:02 AM
So good to see them ditch Clearview. Madison was big into using that font for awhile but it looks like that has stopped.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MKEDavenH on December 12, 2016, 02:52:03 PM
Quote from: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 09:25:02 AM
So good to see them ditch Clearview. Madison was big into using that font for awhile but it looks like that has stopped.

The Beltline between Fish Hatchery Rd. and Stoughton Rd. was used as test ground for possibly using Clearview in Wisconsin. I think that may be the only stretch of Wisconsin highway that ever got Clearview. Amusingly, the highway shields on these signs still used Highway Gothic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 03:04:28 PM
Quote from: MKEDavenH on December 12, 2016, 02:52:03 PM
Quote from: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 09:25:02 AM
So good to see them ditch Clearview. Madison was big into using that font for awhile but it looks like that has stopped.

The Beltline between Fish Hatchery Rd. and Stoughton Rd. was used as test ground for possibly using Clearview in Wisconsin. I think that may be the only stretch of Wisconsin highway that ever got Clearview. Amusingly, the highway shields on these signs still used Highway Gothic.

That's the correct way to do it (According to the FHWA's MUTCD).

And as far as I know, Clearview is also being discontinued https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-25/html/2016-01383.htm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on December 12, 2016, 11:11:38 PM
Quote from: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 03:04:28 PM
Quote from: MKEDavenH on December 12, 2016, 02:52:03 PM
Quote from: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 09:25:02 AM
So good to see them ditch Clearview. Madison was big into using that font for awhile but it looks like that has stopped.

The Beltline between Fish Hatchery Rd. and Stoughton Rd. was used as test ground for possibly using Clearview in Wisconsin. I think that may be the only stretch of Wisconsin highway that ever got Clearview. Amusingly, the highway shields on these signs still used Highway Gothic.

That's the correct way to do it (According to the FHWA's MUTCD).

And as far as I know, Clearview is also being discontinued https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-25/html/2016-01383.htm
From that source I would agree it is dead. Good. I hated Clearview.
Title: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mvak36 on December 13, 2016, 12:24:16 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 12, 2016, 11:11:38 PM
Quote from: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 03:04:28 PM
Quote from: MKEDavenH on December 12, 2016, 02:52:03 PM
Quote from: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 09:25:02 AM
So good to see them ditch Clearview. Madison was big into using that font for awhile but it looks like that has stopped.

The Beltline between Fish Hatchery Rd. and Stoughton Rd. was used as test ground for possibly using Clearview in Wisconsin. I think that may be the only stretch of Wisconsin highway that ever got Clearview. Amusingly, the highway shields on these signs still used Highway Gothic.

That's the correct way to do it (According to the FHWA's MUTCD).

And as far as I know, Clearview is also being discontinued https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-25/html/2016-01383.htm
From that source I would agree it is dead. Good. I hated Clearview.
I'd be one of the first ones in that line. I'll be glad to see them gradually get rid of the existing signs out in the field.


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on December 13, 2016, 01:35:21 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on December 13, 2016, 12:24:16 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 12, 2016, 11:11:38 PM
Quote from: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 03:04:28 PM
Quote from: MKEDavenH on December 12, 2016, 02:52:03 PM
Quote from: colinstu on December 12, 2016, 09:25:02 AM
So good to see them ditch Clearview. Madison was big into using that font for awhile but it looks like that has stopped.

The Beltline between Fish Hatchery Rd. and Stoughton Rd. was used as test ground for possibly using Clearview in Wisconsin. I think that may be the only stretch of Wisconsin highway that ever got Clearview. Amusingly, the highway shields on these signs still used Highway Gothic.

That's the correct way to do it (According to the FHWA's MUTCD).

And as far as I know, Clearview is also being discontinued https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-25/html/2016-01383.htm

From that source I would agree it is dead. Good. I hated Clearview.

I'd be one of the first ones in that line. I'll be glad to see them gradually get rid of the existing signs out in the field.

Couple of points:

A) Clearview isn't necessarily "dead" yet. It's still being installed in many states, and the revocation of the interim approval is being challenged by AASHTO (https://goo.gl/0wUj40)  (page 72)
B) It's gonna be a long time before they start getting rid of existing Clearview signage. Well-manufactured retro-reflective sign panels can last for decades.

Wisconsin may be dumping Clearview. Hooray for them! But Clearview isn't going out without a fight. This is the government, after all. Nothing happens fast.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mvak36 on December 13, 2016, 09:17:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2016, 01:35:21 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on December 13, 2016, 12:24:16 AM
I'd be one of the first ones in that line. I'll be glad to see them gradually get rid of the existing signs out in the field.

Couple of points:

A) Clearview isn't necessarily "dead" yet. It's still being installed in many states, and the revocation of the interim approval is being challenged by AASHTO (https://goo.gl/0wUj40)  (page 72)
B) It's gonna be a long time before they start getting rid of existing Clearview signage. Well-manufactured retro-reflective sign panels can last for decades.

Wisconsin may be dumping Clearview. Hooray for them! But Clearview isn't going out without a fight. This is the government, after all. Nothing happens fast.

I agree with everything you have said. I was a bit overzealous in my post. That's how much I hate Clearview lol.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 13, 2016, 07:38:43 PM
That portion of the beltline looks a lot better than it did before that segment was reconstructed. Now let's see how Phase 2 of the Verona Road reconstruction project bears out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on December 28, 2016, 07:57:56 AM
Old Transportation Secretary out, New Transportation Secretary coming on board:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/27/transportation-secretary-gottlieb-step-down/95877780/

Will be interesting to see how the new guy does... not exactly the same credentials as Gottlieb had as he was actually an engineer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 28, 2016, 09:12:43 AM
Booted cause he told the truth that Walker's road budget is a disaster.  Problems don't go away.  They just get worse.  And since borrowing is really cheap right now, it would make much more sense to lift the gas tax and spend more now.  When interest rates rise, its not going to be easy - especially with a backlog of projects to deal with.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 28, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on December 28, 2016, 07:57:56 AM
Old Transportation Secretary out, New Transportation Secretary coming on board:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/27/transportation-secretary-gottlieb-step-down/95877780/

Will be interesting to see how the new guy does... not exactly the same credentials as Gottlieb had as he was actually an engineer.
This is great news. Hopefully the new secretary will spend money wisely on things that are needed instead of throwing it away on useless roundabouts and unnecessary sign replacements like Gottlieb did. I am very disappointed in Walker that he would hire such a train wreck of a DOT secretary and it took him 6 years to get rid of him.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 28, 2016, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 28, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on December 28, 2016, 07:57:56 AM
Old Transportation Secretary out, New Transportation Secretary coming on board:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/27/transportation-secretary-gottlieb-step-down/95877780/

Will be interesting to see how the new guy does... not exactly the same credentials as Gottlieb had as he was actually an engineer.
This is great news. Hopefully the new secretary will spend money wisely on things that are needed instead of throwing it away on useless roundabouts and unnecessary sign replacements like Gottlieb did. I am very disappointed in Walker that he would hire such a train wreck of a DOT secretary and it took him 6 years to get rid of him.


You continue to show your ignorance by complaining about the small things while the large things are growing as problems.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/28/report-major-road-delays-store/95931678/?hootPostID=35696abedc3d06e6841c715e0e1d7b9b

"That study ā€“ done in house by the DOT ā€“ looked at what would happen over a decade if state officials didn't put more money toward roads. The answer: Major delays and worsening road conditions.

The miles of interstate, state and U.S. highways in Wisconsin in poor condition would more than double, from 21% of roads to 44% in 2027.

Additionally, major projects around the state would face delays of one to three years. The expansion of I-39/90 from the Illinois state line to Madison would take three years longer than currently planned and would likely force the state to give up a $40 million federal grant, the report found.

Once they did get going, projects would take longer than they have in the past. For instance, the north-south leg of I-94 would take more than 15 years. The project started in 2010 but has long been stalled and won't be completed until 2025 if current spending levels hold."


But hey....it's all about roundabounts right???
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 28, 2016, 08:10:02 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 28, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
This is great news. Hopefully the new secretary will spend money wisely on things that are needed instead of throwing it away on useless roundabouts and unnecessary sign replacements like Gottlieb did. I am very disappointed in Walker that he would hire such a train wreck of a DOT secretary and it took him 6 years to get rid of him.

What will be more fun to watch is the fact that nothing much will change in the way roads are built. There will still be plenty of roundabouts, signing projects, and projects (hint: you don't know as much as you think about how these things happen). There isn't anyone on Walker's team that has an issue with roundabouts or project planning. The problem is the method they're using to pay for it.

Covering your ears and repeating the same things over and over may work for Belling and his listeners, but it doesn't change reality, no matter how hard you try.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 28, 2016, 08:29:44 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 28, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
This is great news. Hopefully the new secretary will spend money wisely on things that are needed instead of throwing it away on useless roundabouts and unnecessary sign replacements like Gottlieb did. I am very disappointed in Walker that he would hire such a train wreck of a DOT secretary and it took him 6 years to get rid of him.

Your ignorance is showing...please try to tuck it in a little.

Unnecessary sign replacements? :confused:  Roundabouts? Hate to break the facts to ya, but those started under the Doyle administration. Sorry, but IMO, Gottlieb was one of our better Transportation Secretaries. At the very least, he is a registered professional engineer and has worked in the industry. Additionally, the buck doesn't stop with Gottlieb when it comes to what gets ultimately funded and approved...I'll give you a hint as to who signs off on everything -- his name rhymes with stalker.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on December 29, 2016, 07:58:41 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 28, 2016, 08:00:47 PM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/28/report-major-road-delays-store/95931678/?hootPostID=35696abedc3d06e6841c715e0e1d7b9b

"That study ā€“ done in house by the DOT ā€“ looked at what would happen over a decade if state officials didn't put more money toward roads. The answer: Major delays and worsening road conditions.

The miles of interstate, state and U.S. highways in Wisconsin in poor condition would more than double, from 21% of roads to 44% in 2027.

Additionally, major projects around the state would face delays of one to three years. The expansion of I-39/90 from the Illinois state line to Madison would take three years longer than currently planned and would likely force the state to give up a $40 million federal grant, the report found.

Once they did get going, projects would take longer than they have in the past. For instance, the north-south leg of I-94 would take more than 15 years. The project started in 2010 but has long been stalled and won't be completed until 2025 if current spending levels hold."

Anyone who is familiar with WisDOT's budget over the past 20+ years knew this was coming.  Some of those years up to 1/3rd of the dollars ($1 billion) have come from bonding against the transportation and general fund.  Each year a larger percentage of the transportation fund goes toward debt service to pay off these bonds (It use to be 5%, now it's close to 25%).

The reality is if citizens and lawmakers want road construction to continue at it's current pace, money will have to be found somewhere.  Where? Obviously that is the big debate.  But if revenues allocated towards DOT remain as laid out in the current 2 year budget, you might as well call SE Freeways and the Majors programs basically dead as no new projects will be started.

Wisconsin is going through the same debates as many other states from Michigan to Iowa to Illinois and Minnesota.  Iowa recently raised it's gas tax by 10 cents but in doing so presented a list to the public of what projects that money would go towards (many which the public wanted to see completed) to help sell to the public why it was vital to raise it by that additional amount. 

Illinois and Minnesota are currently going through the same debates as Wisconsin although both states unlike Wisconsin have no expansion projects even on the table (imagine no 39/90, no Zoo, no 94 north-south, etc.) as they are in preservation and maintenance only modes.  In noting this, the Illinois Tollway Authority has expansion plans, but not IDOT.

The final thing to note, leaving it as is in the status quo only means it gets more costly down the road to catch up.  As the can gets kicked, the problem continues to get larger and harder to solve.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2016, 04:15:39 PM
How money is spent is more important than how much money is spent. Priorities should be made, and the most important projects should be funded and constructed first.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 16, 2017, 07:29:25 PM
FHWA warns state to hold off on new road projects:

"There are so many projects under development, we do not believe all of them can advance on a reasonable schedule based on likely funding scenarios,"  the head of the Federal Highway Administration's Wisconsin office wrote to state officials last month."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/15/federal-agency-warns-state-road-plan/96559230/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 08:30:01 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 16, 2017, 07:29:25 PM
FHWA warns state to hold off on new road projects:

"There are so many projects under development, we do not believe all of them can advance on a reasonable schedule based on likely funding scenarios,"  the head of the Federal Highway Administration's Wisconsin office wrote to state officials last month."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/15/federal-agency-warns-state-road-plan/96559230/
Ha!  Maybe FHWA's division out there will make WI go through the same nonsense they make NYSDOT go through:  Having to "prove fiscal constraint" by the DOT producing a report showing their STIP is reasonable and requiring offsets when new projects are added.

Let the lipservice begin!

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 17, 2017, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 28, 2016, 08:10:02 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 28, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
This is great news. Hopefully the new secretary will spend money wisely on things that are needed instead of throwing it away on useless roundabouts and unnecessary sign replacements like Gottlieb did. I am very disappointed in Walker that he would hire such a train wreck of a DOT secretary and it took him 6 years to get rid of him.

What will be more fun to watch is the fact that nothing much will change in the way roads are built. There will still be plenty of roundabouts, signing projects, and projects (hint: you don't know as much as you think about how these things happen). There isn't anyone on Walker's team that has an issue with roundabouts or project planning. The problem is the method they're using to pay for it.

Covering your ears and repeating the same things over and over may work for Belling and his listeners, but it doesn't change reality, no matter how hard you try.
If that's the case then we will have the same old same old again and might as well just kept Gothleib there. Still have no money to spend on things that are really needed. The reality is we have a spending problem and priorities by the DOT are being set in the wrong place. I would like to mention that Walker promised he would halt roundabout construction when he was running for Governor back in 2010. So there is nothing wrong with holding a politician accountable to a campaign promise. You just love roundabouts and don't care if there isn't any money to spend elsewhere. We have enough roundabouts as is there is no need for anymore. Like I said before you can always write a check to WisDOT to help pay for them I would like to keep my money to spend myself.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2017, 03:38:58 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 17, 2017, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 28, 2016, 08:10:02 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 28, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
This is great news. Hopefully the new secretary will spend money wisely on things that are needed instead of throwing it away on useless roundabouts and unnecessary sign replacements like Gottlieb did. I am very disappointed in Walker that he would hire such a train wreck of a DOT secretary and it took him 6 years to get rid of him.

What will be more fun to watch is the fact that nothing much will change in the way roads are built. There will still be plenty of roundabouts, signing projects, and projects (hint: you don't know as much as you think about how these things happen). There isn't anyone on Walker's team that has an issue with roundabouts or project planning. The problem is the method they're using to pay for it.

Covering your ears and repeating the same things over and over may work for Belling and his listeners, but it doesn't change reality, no matter how hard you try.
If that's the case then we will have the same old same old again and might as well just kept Gothleib there. Still have no money to spend on things that are really needed. The reality is we have a spending problem and priorities by the DOT are being set in the wrong place. I would like to mention that Walker promised he would halt roundabout construction when he was running for Governor back in 2010. So there is nothing wrong with holding a politician accountable to a campaign promise. You just love roundabouts and don't care if there isn't any money to spend elsewhere. We have enough roundabouts as is there is no need for anymore. Like I said before you can always write a check to WisDOT to help pay for them I would like to keep my money to spend myself.


Oh God....not the roundabouts again.

And everyone wants to keep their money to spend themselves.  The problem is that you are failing to invest in infrastructure, which is a problem that's only going to get worse.  But I know...ditch roundabouts and everything is good right??? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2017, 04:29:24 PM
I doubt Wisconsin is going to give up on roundabouts. They've constructed too many to do that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 17, 2017, 04:36:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 17, 2017, 02:06:09 PM
I would like to mention that Walker promised he would halt roundabout construction when he was running for Governor back in 2010. So there is nothing wrong with holding a politician accountable to a campaign promise.

And then he realized (like everyone else except for you, apparently) that doing that would hurt the budget more than help it, so he backed away from it. Not to mention that he didn't exactly make that a platform of his campaign.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:43:19 PM
What's the alternative then? If it's not cutting down a roundabouts then what? The Governor has made it very clear he will not support any tax increases so that's out the window something has got to change. I am sure nobody wants vital projects like the zoo and 94 down to the state line to take 25 years to get done. I can pinpoint plenty of places where there are roundabouts when stop signs could have worked just fine. that would have been such an easy way to save money but I guess if these roundabouts are such a sacred thing in the world then there has to be some other plan to save money. I am open to any other ideas to cut spending in the DOT but so far all I am hearing is raise taxes which is not an option.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 19, 2017, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:43:19 PM
What's the alternative then? If it's not cutting down a roundabouts then what? The Governor has made it very clear he will not support any tax increases so that's out the window something has got to change. I am sure nobody wants vital projects like the zoo and 94 down to the state line to take 25 years to get done. I can pinpoint plenty of places where there are roundabouts when stop signs could have worked just fine. that would have been such an easy way to save money but I guess if these roundabouts are such a sacred thing in the world then there has to be some other plan to save money. I am open to any other ideas to cut spending in the DOT but so far all I am hearing is raise taxes which is not an option.

The solution is simple. Have a governor that is actually willing to increase taxes to appropriate levels.

Cutting taxes and spending down to $0 does NOT work, government finances are completely different than personal finances, and the faster voters and the GOP recognize this, the better. (and as we all know, that's never going to happen either).

Roads need to be made safer, maintained, updated... it helps the public function, work, those both traveling for leisure and for business.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 19, 2017, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:43:19 PM
What's the alternative then? If it's not cutting down a roundabouts then what? The Governor has made it very clear he will not support any tax increases so that's out the window something has got to change. I am sure nobody wants vital projects like the zoo and 94 down to the state line to take 25 years to get done. I can pinpoint plenty of places where there are roundabouts when stop signs could have worked just fine. that would have been such an easy way to save money but I guess if these roundabouts are such a sacred thing in the world then there has to be some other plan to save money. I am open to any other ideas to cut spending in the DOT but so far all I am hearing is raise taxes which is not an option.


Signed intersections are cheaper than roundabouts.  However I drive all over the state and I think the VAST majority of roundabouts exist en lieu of signaled intersections, thus making them cheaper.

Really your (likely talk radio fueled) obsession over roundabouts is a classic case of worrying about the small stuff.  Too small to make a difference at all. 

What should be done?  The gas tax should be raised and re-indexed back to inflation.  The governor doesn't want it because of his own personal, political reasons.  However the Republican Speaker of the Assembly wants it discussed as part of the budget (but likely knows it won't be approved.)  The fact is that all we are doing is punting this further and further down the road.  EVENTUALLY we are going to have to pay to have our infrastructure in decent shape.  And it will likely cost more when that happens since interest rates are very low.

I drive about 25,000 miles a year in two cars that average at minimum 25 mpg.  That's 1,000 gallons of gas a year.  If the gas tax would have remained indexed to inflation, it would be about 6 cents higher than it is now.  I would have paid about $60 more a year than I would have otherwise.  $60.  $5 a month. 

And that's the problem with society today.  Too obsessed with how much something costs and not as concerned about how much it is worth.  And a higher functioning transportation system is worth more to me than a couple cups of coffee at Starbucks a month.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 19, 2017, 02:30:41 PM
To take this further.  In 2014, WIDOT estimates that drivers drove 60 billion miles on Wisconsin highways. 

http://fox6now.com/2015/10/29/wisconsin-dot-drivers-logged-more-than-60-billion-miles-in-wisconsin-in-2014/

The overall fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks is 23.6 miles a gallon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/12/13/cars-in-the-u-s-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-ever-heres-how-it-happened/?utm_term=.f63af3812924

So 60B / 23.6 = over 2.5 billion gallons of gas.  At 6 cents per gallon, that is $155M that the state *could* have collected this year.  Over ten years, that would have gone a long way in making up that $1B shortfall the DOT says it has.  (You can't simply multiply $155M by 10 years since it would have ramped up to that figure.)

Shameful that the state screwed itself over like that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 19, 2017, 03:19:47 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:43:19 PM
What's the alternative then? If it's not cutting down a roundabouts then what? The Governor has made it very clear he will not support any tax increases so that's out the window something has got to change. I am sure nobody wants vital projects like the zoo and 94 down to the state line to take 25 years to get done. I can pinpoint plenty of places where there are roundabouts when stop signs could have worked just fine. that would have been such an easy way to save money but I guess if these roundabouts are such a sacred thing in the world then there has to be some other plan to save money. I am open to any other ideas to cut spending in the DOT but so far all I am hearing is raise taxes which is not an option.

Why only cut roundabouts? Signal projects aren't much cheaper (referring to intersections that also require geometric redesign with signal installation). If you're going to put a moratorium on an intersection control project, you might as well put it on all, unless you want your bias to show.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2017, 03:33:17 PM
I don't mind roundabouts. I don't have a car and never driven in my life, so that might be easy for me to say. In any event, I believe roundabouts are a permanent fixture on Wisconsin's roads and highways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 19, 2017, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2017, 03:33:17 PM
I believe roundabouts are a permanent fixture on Wisconsin's roads and highways.

Not to try to redirect this discussion back to the never-ending roundabout good vs. evil debate, I agree. They have been used and proven worldwide, just like the traffic signal, stop sign, and yield sign. Each control has its purpose and place; one not intended to make the other obsolete, as no device is perfectly applicable in every location. Each has their faults and inherent flaws.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 19, 2017, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 19, 2017, 03:19:47 PM
If you're going to put a moratorium on an intersection control project, you might as well put it on all, unless you want your bias to show.

That's just it. It's (mostly) a bias. There are certain talk show hosts that are convinced that the discussion of roundabouts is a political one, simply because of who was in charge when the big push for them was started. So, as part of framing the debate it became a "symbol of waste" rhetorically, though not truthfully.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 21, 2017, 12:48:56 PM
I was wondering was a really so necessary to roundabout all the intersections at the interchanges on the Watertown bypass and the Milton bypass and the Baraboo bypass? As well as the Hwy 29 Hwy FF interchange just west of Green Bay. I just don't see any reason why stop signs couldn't have worked there just fine. Those intersections at least some of them probably hardly get any traffic as they are located in rural areas. If there was a good justifiable reason to have roundabouts there then perhaps I would be open to it but I just don't see it. Stop signs there could have saved a lot of money for other projects. So yes I think that there is a good reason to look into halting roundabout construction it's been overdone no doubt and it's an area where money can be saved and I don't see how this is being unrealistic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on January 21, 2017, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 21, 2017, 12:48:56 PM
I was wondering was a really so necessary to roundabout all the intersections at the interchanges on the Watertown bypass and the Milton bypass and the Baraboo bypass? As well as the Hwy 29 Hwy FF interchange just west of Green Bay. I just don't see any reason why stop signs couldn't have worked there just fine. Those intersections at least some of them probably hardly get any traffic as they are located in rural areas. If there was a good justifiable reason to have roundabouts there then perhaps I would be open to it but I just don't see it. Stop signs there could have saved a lot of money for other projects. So yes I think that there is a good reason to look into halting roundabout construction it's been overdone no doubt and it's an area where money can be saved and I don't see how this is being unrealistic.

It's entirely possible that those key intersections were expected to experience growth in the next 10 to 20 years, so instead of building a signal, which wouldn't necessarily be good for low-volume intersections in a rural environment, they elected to construct roundabouts, which provide excellent through-put in all environments.

You really have to look at the bigger picture to understand why these roundabouts work as well as they do. The real issue here, and I say this with some apprehension because I do tend to lean conservative, is Scott Walker. Wisconsin wasn't having any issue affording roundabouts until he came into office. Apparently, his transport budget can only afford RIROs and stop signs?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 21, 2017, 08:11:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 21, 2017, 12:48:56 PM
I was wondering was a really so necessary to roundabout all the intersections at the interchanges on the Watertown bypass and the Milton bypass and the Baraboo bypass? As well as the Hwy 29 Hwy FF interchange just west of Green Bay. I just don't see any reason why stop signs couldn't have worked there just fine. Those intersections at least some of them probably hardly get any traffic as they are located in rural areas. If there was a good justifiable reason to have roundabouts there then perhaps I would be open to it but I just don't see it. Stop signs there could have saved a lot of money for other projects. So yes I think that there is a good reason to look into halting roundabout construction it's been overdone no doubt and it's an area where money can be saved and I don't see how this is being unrealistic.

Halting construction of roundabouts because you believe (without really presenting any reasons other than your opinion) they're overdone is what's unreasonable.

Perhaps you should (as Jakeroot mentions) investigate the studies that lead to the roundabouts. That would answer your question in a much more efficient manner than halting anything based on a hunch.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on January 26, 2017, 10:10:02 AM
Work will be starting this spring on the West Waukesha Bypass:

http://www.waukeshanow.com/story/news/local/2017/01/19/west-waukesha-bypass/96676602/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 26, 2017, 10:28:56 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 26, 2017, 10:10:02 AM
Work will be starting this spring on the West Waukesha Bypass:

http://www.waukeshanow.com/story/news/local/2017/01/19/west-waukesha-bypass/96676602/

Man, this is one of those proposal that I remember from loooong ago and that I thought would always remain a fantasy 'line on the map'.

I am amazed in that it is being built.

:clap:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on January 26, 2017, 10:32:06 AM
I grew up in the Brookfield/Waukesha area and I can remember it being talked about as a kid back in the 1980s. I never thought it would get built either. It's about time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 26, 2017, 01:28:25 PM
Fasten your seat belts and grab your popcorn:

Audit: Wisconsin DOT significantly underestimated highway project costs (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/audit-wisconsin-dot-significantly-underestimated-highway-project-costs/article_157bea53-f5b1-5e41-8b87-df9e06da19b6.html)

QuoteThe DOT underestimated cost estimates for 16 ongoing major highway projects by a total of about $3.1 billion and did not adequately account for the extent to which inflation and unexpected expenses could contribute to cost increases, the audit found.

Costs for 19 completed projects exceeded estimates by $772.5 million, the audit found.

QuoteThe department also failed to make use of measures it had developed to help streamline its operations. Doing so could have saved money in recent years, state auditor Joe Chrisman wrote in a letter to the Legislature's audit committee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 26, 2017, 01:30:06 PM
well it doesn't help that they see 'lack of funds' and then delay the projects... which ends up costing MILLIONS more in interest. So we get projects that take longer when they don't need to, and we pay more for them.

If they were allowed to stay on track, such findings wouldn't've been found in the audits.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 26, 2017, 02:06:28 PM
Ugh.

Please don't tell me that they are going to say "Look...we don't need to raise the gas tax!  We just need to be more efficient!"

I'm all for creating efficiences, but this is mostly a revenue issue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 26, 2017, 02:12:14 PM
Define being "more efficient." Also, raising the gas tax might not work due to the decades-long actions of building more fuel-efficient cars. Maybe tolls and/or a mileage tax could suffice.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on January 26, 2017, 02:40:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 26, 2017, 02:12:14 PM
Also, raising the gas tax might not work due to the decades-long actions of building more fuel-efficient cars. Maybe tolls and/or a mileage tax could suffice.

That's true, but it's a slow process. I think average industry MPG has actually sat stagnant for a couple years now. Guessing the EPA's wary approach to diesels might be to blame.

Either way, a reasonable uptick in the gas taxes this year or next could make up the deficit in 10 or 15 years, even with an increase in industry-wide MPG averages.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 26, 2017, 03:05:44 PM
If we would just stop building roundabouts, we wouldn't be in this situation.  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 26, 2017, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 26, 2017, 02:12:14 PM
Define being "more efficient." Also, raising the gas tax might not work due to the decades-long actions of building more fuel-efficient cars. Maybe tolls and/or a mileage tax could suffice.


I used "more efficient" in relation to this quote:

"The department also failed to make use of measures it had developed to help streamline its operations. Doing so could have saved money in recent years, state auditor Joe Chrisman wrote in a letter to the Legislature's audit committee."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 26, 2017, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 26, 2017, 03:05:44 PM
If we would just stop building roundabouts, we wouldn't be in this situation.  :-D

Oh great. this discussion ALL over again.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 26, 2017, 03:51:13 PM
Quote from: colinstu on January 26, 2017, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 26, 2017, 03:05:44 PM
If we would just stop building roundabouts, we wouldn't be in this situation.  :-D

Oh great. this discussion ALL over again.

It's a joke, and a pre-emptive strike.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 26, 2017, 06:28:19 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 26, 2017, 03:51:13 PM
Quote from: colinstu on January 26, 2017, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 26, 2017, 03:05:44 PM
If we would just stop building roundabouts, we wouldn't be in this situation.  :-D

Oh great. this discussion ALL over again.

It's a joke, and a pre-emptive strike.
This isn't a joke. Roundabouts are very costly and many where not necessary at all like along recently built bypasses. Hwy 20 and 75 in Racine County and Hwy 60 at P in Dodge County just to name a few. I don't see any reason whatsoever what was wrong with stop sings there before. Money could have been saved. It's just a fact not everyone loves roundabouts let's just agree to disagree please. But it goes just beyond roundabouts. I also have an issue with them replacing signs that don't need to be replaced. Last year they did a construction project by the Waukesha bypass and Sunset they replaced all the signs in that area even though all of them were just fine and in no need of replacement. They always replace signs everytime they repave a road regardless of the condition they are in. If there are other ideas of how we can save money sure I would be open to it. But the gas tax is high enough as is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on January 26, 2017, 07:49:49 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 26, 2017, 06:28:19 PM
This isn't a joke.

If you don't piss off with the roundabout grouse, you're gonna become one, mate.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 26, 2017, 06:28:19 PM
But the gas tax is high enough as is.

The motor fuel tax goes down every year due to inflation, because static taxes (like the motor fuel tax) pull in less revenue over time (10 cents today may equal five cents ten years from now). Percentage taxes don't work for fuel because the price of oil varies. Motor fuel taxes have to go up every year just to keep pulling in the same amount of money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 26, 2017, 09:13:16 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 26, 2017, 06:28:19 PM
Roundabouts are very costly and many where not necessary at all like along recently built bypasses. Hwy 20 and 75 in Racine County and Hwy 60 at P in Dodge County just to name a few. I don't see any reason whatsoever what was wrong with stop sings there before. Money could have been saved. It's just a fact not everyone loves roundabouts let's just agree to disagree please.

I have no problem with your disdain for roundabouts. I do, however, have a problem with you stating things like "nobody wants them" and "they waste money" and "they're wrong for..." as fact. Those aren't facts. And those statements are actually contradicted (as pointed out here many, many times) with actual facts.

So go ahead and hate 'em. But they're not "very costly and unnecessary". That's been proven as fact.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on January 26, 2017, 11:39:51 PM
Problem with gas taxes is when government funnels some of it off for other things.  I'm fine with the gas tax equaling what is spent on ROADS
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on January 26, 2017, 11:40:20 PM
http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=DvDGRj5I&id=2A002AFC35828390790A8C830A644B903F8E2F1E&q=yes+roundabout&simid=608001125147936741&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 27, 2017, 12:00:22 AM
Passed through Fond Du Lac today and the US 45 route is finalized with the new interchange built at County V open.  US 45 does not appear on any BGS on I-41 so if anyone were to follow US 45 by the signs, the motorist wouldn't know to exit on Wis 23 or US 151.  The reassurance signs with US 151 have US 45 right after County V and I-41, otherwise US 151 signs stand alone.  The only people that really pay attention to it would be road enthusiasts since it's doubtful that many people would religiously follow the route of US 45 anyways in the Fond Du Lac area. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 27, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 27, 2017, 12:00:22 AM
Passed through Fond Du Lac today and the US 45 route is finalized with the new interchange built at County V open.  US 45 does not appear on any BGS on I-41 so if anyone were to follow US 45 by the signs, the motorist wouldn't know to exit on Wis 23 or US 151.  The reassurance signs with US 151 have US 45 right after County V and I-41, otherwise US 151 signs stand alone.  The only people that really pay attention to it would be road enthusiasts since it's doubtful that many people would religiously follow the route of US 45 anyways in the Fond Du Lac area. 

Usually there is a sign at the beginning that will say "US-45 FOLLOW I-41"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 27, 2017, 04:24:27 AM
Quote from: colinstu on January 27, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 27, 2017, 12:00:22 AM
Passed through Fond Du Lac today and the US 45 route is finalized with the new interchange built at County V open.  US 45 does not appear on any BGS on I-41 so if anyone were to follow US 45 by the signs, the motorist wouldn't know to exit on Wis 23 or US 151.  The reassurance signs with US 151 have US 45 right after County V and I-41, otherwise US 151 signs stand alone.  The only people that really pay attention to it would be road enthusiasts since it's doubtful that many people would religiously follow the route of US 45 anyways in the Fond Du Lac area. 

Usually there is a sign at the beginning that will say "US-45 FOLLOW I-41"

There's reassurance signs for US 45 on the I-41 mainline and US 45 ahead signs.  There aren't any US 45 signs on the BGS where US 45 exits at US 151 and Wis 23 yet.  There are signs on the ramps but no way of people knowing where to exit if following US 45.  I'm guessing in the future that will be corrected. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 31, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Eau Claire Area Signal Update
Some signal modifications have been made over the past 6 months in my area so I will list them below.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on February 01, 2017, 12:54:44 PM
Stupid roundabouts messing up our fun... ;-)

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-puts-beltline-interchange-upgrade-in-limbo-total-i-/article_96e493fa-e784-5407-a641-e1660869c118.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2017, 03:20:28 PM
I wouldn't blame roundabouts for the delay of the Beltline Interchange Reconstruction project. I'd blame Governor Walker's transportation policies.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 01, 2017, 04:00:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2017, 03:20:28 PM
I wouldn't blame roundabouts for the delay of the Beltline Interchange Reconstruction project. I'd blame Governor Walker's transportation policies.

I'm pretty-sure the  ;-)  indicates sarcasm (or troll bait).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 05:34:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2017, 03:20:28 PM
I wouldn't blame roundabouts for the delay of the Beltline Interchange Reconstruction project. I'd blame Governor Walker's transportation policies.
Blame loser Gothlieb he was the DOT secretary. He did a horrible job running that agency.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 01, 2017, 07:36:42 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 05:34:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2017, 03:20:28 PM
I wouldn't blame roundabouts for the delay of the Beltline Interchange Reconstruction project. I'd blame Governor Walker's transportation policies.
Blame loser Gothlieb he was the DOT secretary. He did a horrible job running that agency.


It is much more institutional than the Secretary.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-puts-beltline-interchange-upgrade-in-limbo-total-i-/article_96e493fa-e784-5407-a641-e1660869c118.html

"One of the projects, on U.S. Highway 10 in central Wisconsin, was approved in 1989 at a cost of $125 million. Still incomplete, it since has cost nearly 4ƂĀ½ times the initial estimate.

The audit finds a similar pattern with 19 highway projects completed from 2006 through 2015. Their combined cost total is $772.5 million more than what the DOT told lawmakers they would cost when they approved the projects.

Cowles didn't blame any individual for the problems identified in the audit, saying they may stem from the department's culture and go back several administrations."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 03, 2017, 07:23:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 01, 2017, 07:36:42 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2017, 05:34:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2017, 03:20:28 PM
I wouldn't blame roundabouts for the delay of the Beltline Interchange Reconstruction project. I'd blame Governor Walker's transportation policies.
Blame loser Gothlieb he was the DOT secretary. He did a horrible job running that agency.


It is much more institutional than the Secretary.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-puts-beltline-interchange-upgrade-in-limbo-total-i-/article_96e493fa-e784-5407-a641-e1660869c118.html

"One of the projects, on U.S. Highway 10 in central Wisconsin, was approved in 1989 at a cost of $125 million. Still incomplete, it since has cost nearly 4ƂĀ½ times the initial estimate.

The audit finds a similar pattern with 19 highway projects completed from 2006 through 2015. Their combined cost total is $772.5 million more than what the DOT told lawmakers they would cost when they approved the projects.

Cowles didn't blame any individual for the problems identified in the audit, saying they may stem from the department's culture and go back several administrations."

This proves my point that WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Some of the corridors (like US 10) got too elaborate of upgrades when it really wasn't necessary (particularly the Marshfield spur of US 10). WIS 26 is another good example.

Now WisDOT is facing the reality of overspending on unnecessary projects and not having enough money to rebuild its existing infrastructure. The Beltline interchange is in dire need of reconstruction, but we are looking at 10 years at the absolute minimum before anything happens there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 04, 2017, 11:00:03 PM
Reminder: Rosendale is still a speed trap, and that's not about to change.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/love-it-or-hate-it-rosendale-is-just-the-ticket/article_ec45df46-f32b-5b33-863d-bad4442bb350.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 05, 2017, 11:41:36 AM
I can speak from experience that Rosendale's revenue generating operation has nothing to do with safety.  They tag people all the time on the outskirts of the village where there is nothing but corn fields.  No houses, driveways, business or stupid children throwing balls into the street.

QuoteRosendale gets $30 of the fine for each ticket it writes for low- and intermediate-level speeding citations that ends in a conviction. Income from traffic citations averaged just over $100,000 from 2013 through 2015, or about 14 percent of the village's revenue, according to village clerk Emily Wirkus.

That says it all right there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 05, 2017, 11:57:09 AM
What at this point is ultimately keeping this from ending up like the other nationally-notorious speed traps in other states that the states have ended up coming in and dismantling?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 05, 2017, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 05, 2017, 11:57:09 AM
What at this point is ultimately keeping this from ending up like the other nationally-notorious speed traps in other states that the states have ended up coming in and dismantling?
The state put it in.

This area is rife with traps especialy on NFL Sundays where the Packers play at home - as the southwest WI traffic uses it regularly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on February 05, 2017, 02:31:45 PM
Not that I condone the "speed trap" mentality, but the simple solution is to not speed through there. Now, whether or not it's accurate, the story mentions twice how they rarely issue tickets for anyone traveling less than 10 over. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I've never gotten a ticket in Rosendale, but then again I've never gone more than 5 over there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 05, 2017, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 05, 2017, 02:31:45 PM
Not that I condone the "speed trap" mentality, but the simple solution is to not speed through there. Now, whether or not it's accurate, the story mentions twice how they rarely issue tickets for anyone traveling less than 10 over. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I've never gotten a ticket in Rosendale, but then again I've never gone more than 5 over there.

Seconded. Or, stay on 151 to 41 and avoid Rosendale altogether. Higher speed limits until you reach Fond du Lac in addition to being a nice 4-lane divided highway. The biggest annoyance is waiting for the light to turn onto 41 NB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on February 05, 2017, 04:06:17 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on February 05, 2017, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 05, 2017, 02:31:45 PM
Not that I condone the "speed trap" mentality, but the simple solution is to not speed through there. Now, whether or not it's accurate, the story mentions twice how they rarely issue tickets for anyone traveling less than 10 over. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I've never gotten a ticket in Rosendale, but then again I've never gone more than 5 over there.

Seconded. Or, stay on 151 to 41 and avoid Rosendale altogether. Higher speed limits until you reach Fond du Lac in addition to being a nice 4-lane divided highway. The biggest annoyance is waiting for the light to turn onto 41 NB.

Absolutely. It may be slightly longer mileage-wise, but with the higher speed limit it should take less time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 05, 2017, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 05, 2017, 04:06:17 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on February 05, 2017, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 05, 2017, 02:31:45 PM
Not that I condone the "speed trap" mentality, but the simple solution is to not speed through there. Now, whether or not it's accurate, the story mentions twice how they rarely issue tickets for anyone traveling less than 10 over. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I've never gotten a ticket in Rosendale, but then again I've never gone more than 5 over there.

Seconded. Or, stay on 151 to 41 and avoid Rosendale altogether. Higher speed limits until you reach Fond du Lac in addition to being a nice 4-lane divided highway. The biggest annoyance is waiting for the light to turn onto 41 NB.

Absolutely. It may be slightly longer mileage-wise, but with the higher speed limit it should take less time.

Google claims taking 151 to 41 adds 7.4 miles, ~ +2 minutes. Looking at the map, it does add a bit of back-tracking, as 151 takes you a bit further east than you need to be.

Of course, being pulled over by the local Barney Fife will add at least 10-minutes to your trip and make you're wallet a bit lighter too. Moral of the story: if you insist on being lead-footed and drive >10 over, make sure you're surrounded by easier targets. :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 05, 2017, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 04, 2017, 11:00:03 PM
Reminder: Rosendale is still a speed trap, and that's not about to change.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/love-it-or-hate-it-rosendale-is-just-the-ticket/article_ec45df46-f32b-5b33-863d-bad4442bb350.html

Follow-up to the above story: Speeding tickets up in state as cops target aggressive drivers  (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/speeding-tickets-up-in-state-as-cops-target-aggressive-drivers/article_5f9a7b2a-0f37-5331-96f7-bf9e7cef6df4.html)

Quote from: WI State Patrol Sgt."I can go out on the interstate and sit in a fully marked car at high noon in bright sunshine and nothing but mowed grass around me and I'll pull the laser out and I won't be there 10 minutes. Somebody will blow right by me. We don't have to hide,"  Yahn said. "I don't even think we scratch the surface of the speed problem out there."

Quote from: Blue Mounds Police Chief"The standard now is 15 over. We can't concern ourselves with somebody going 12 over in a 65 when 97 percent are driving 80 mph or higher,"  Rose said.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 05, 2017, 09:40:23 PM
That pretty much sums up the diving habits of the majority of those on southern WI freeways - particuluarly around Madison on the triple multiplex.  Most people think that 10 over is pretty much normal.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: slorydn1 on February 06, 2017, 09:04:12 AM
I don't believe it's limited to just Wisconsin. Almost everyone I talk to (I have friends and family all over the country) believe that most roads are under posted, and they drive the speed that they feel comfortable with for the particular roadway/conditions.

My family/friend group's comfort must be towards the lower end of the spectrum because the only one of us who has gotten a ticket in the last 10 years is me, and that was for 80 in a 65 on I-95 near the I-40 interchange in NC at 10PM on a weekend. There was almost no one on the road and I was pacing another vehicle that was about a quarter of a mile ahead of me, so I was going a touch faster than I like to go normally and it bit me. As soon as I saw the trooper jump out of the median I started to pull over, so he probably just went for the easier target of the two.

I will also add that no one in my group has ever had an "at fault" accident and none of us have been in a wreck of any kind in the last 10 years (knock on wood). I guess we could be classified as pretty safe drivers in the grand scheme of things even though we aren't strict adherents to the speed limit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Set speed limits for a given road based on the 85th percentile speed, and couple that with strict enforcement (no more than a few mph over to account for differences in measuring devices) and steep penalties and I think we will find that epidemic of speeding will go away within a few short years.

Sure, there will always be "that guy". That guy won't be driving for very long.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on February 06, 2017, 03:22:09 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on February 06, 2017, 09:04:12 AM
Set speed limits for a given road based on the 85th percentile speed, and couple that with strict enforcement (no more than a few mph over to account for differences in measuring devices) and steep penalties and I think we will find that epidemic of speeding will go away within a few short years.

You shouldn't have to worry too much about enforcement if the speed limit is set appropriately.

Example: If the 85th percentile was 76 mph, the speed limit (IMO) should be 80 mph. If the threshold for a speeding ticket is 10 mph, only those exceeding 90 would be ticketed. Keeping in mind that 85% of cars arent exceeding 76 mph, so those going 90 likely don't account for a significant amount of the traffic. You could set the threshold lower, but those who are posing a danger are only those going significantly faster than other traffic, not a couple of mph's quicker. A threshold too low just pisses off commuters.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 06, 2017, 11:41:31 PM
I generally keep it to no more than 10 over, and usually more like 8 over. It's generally keeping up with faster traffic without daring the police to pull you over. That puts me at about 73-75 on expressways like 151, and about 78 or so on interstates. That's generally about right for conditions.

It doesn't surprise me that agencies tend not to bother pulling motorists over on highways unless they're doing at least 15 over; it's pretty difficult to make a case for ignorance at that point. Few would bother taking it before a judge.

I tend to stick close to the speed limit in urban areas and small towns; they're much less likely to give you a 5 or 10mph cushion before nailing you. Some places are stricter than others; Rock County tends to focus on dangerous speeders instead of ticketing every 5-over driver in sight.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on February 07, 2017, 07:20:01 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 06, 2017, 11:41:31 PM
I generally keep it to no more than 10 over, and usually more like 8 over. It's generally keeping up with faster traffic without daring the police to pull you over. That puts me at about 73-75 on expressways like 151, and about 78 or so on interstates. That's generally about right for conditions.

It doesn't surprise me that agencies tend not to bother pulling motorists over on highways unless they're doing at least 15 over; it's pretty difficult to make a case for ignorance at that point. Few would bother taking it before a judge.

I tend to stick close to the speed limit in urban areas and small towns; they're much less likely to give you a 5 or 10mph cushion before nailing you. Some places are stricter than others; Rock County tends to focus on dangerous speeders instead of ticketing every 5-over driver in sight.

That's pretty much the same thing I do. Haven't gotten a ticket in years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 07, 2017, 10:40:56 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 06, 2017, 11:41:31 PM
I generally keep it to no more than 10 over, and usually more like 8 over. It's generally keeping up with faster traffic without daring the police to pull you over. That puts me at about 73-75 on expressways like 151, and about 78 or so on interstates. That's generally about right for conditions.

It doesn't surprise me that agencies tend not to bother pulling motorists over on highways unless they're doing at least 15 over; it's pretty difficult to make a case for ignorance at that point. Few would bother taking it before a judge.

I tend to stick close to the speed limit in urban areas and small towns; they're much less likely to give you a 5 or 10mph cushion before nailing you. Some places are stricter than others; Rock County tends to focus on dangerous speeders instead of ticketing every 5-over driver in sight.


Ditto.  I have received one speeding ticket in 25 years, and it was completely on me for accelerating out of a construction zone too soon.  As soon as he pulled me over I said "Yep.  I knew it and it's my fault."  (He knocked it down from 10-15 over to 0-10 over and didn't double the fine for the construction zone.  Always fall on your sword.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 08, 2017, 08:41:11 PM
2017 Wisconsin Official Highway Map is out--both on-line and paper copies.  My paper copy came today.  As expected, there are very few updates from the (secret) 2016 version:

1) The expressway extension of STH 16/26 north of Watertown
2) The incorporation of the villages of Fox Crossing in Winnebago County and Windsor in Dane County

Unfortunately, the Madison Beltline and US 151 NE of I-39 are still erroneously shown as a non-freeway divided highway again, and the incorporation of Somers and Salem Lakes, both in Kenosha County were missed as they have no population listed in the index or are missing in the Kenosha inset. 

I think this is one of the most confusing and uninspired covers to be used on a Wisconsin OHM.  While the photo is at a very beautiful place (Wyalusing), the image is mostly of rock and is very muddy.  One has to look hard to figure out that this pamphlet is actually a highway map of Wisconsin. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 08, 2017, 11:20:46 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 08, 2017, 08:41:11 PM
2017 Wisconsin Official Highway Map is out--both on-line and paper copies.  My paper copy came today.  As expected, there are very few updates from the (secret) 2016 version:

1) The expressway extension of STH 16/26 north of Watertown
2) The incorporation of the villages of Fox Crossing in Winnebago County and Windsor in Dane County

Unfortunately, the Madison Beltline and US 151 NE of I-39 are still erroneously shown as a non-freeway divided highway again, and the incorporation of Somers and Salem Lakes, both in Kenosha County were missed as they have no population listed in the index or are missing in the Kenosha inset. 

I think this is one of the most confusing and uninspired covers to be used on a Wisconsin OHM.  While the photo is at a very beautiful place (Wyalusing), the image is mostly of rock and is very muddy.  One has to look hard to figure out that this pamphlet is actually a highway map of Wisconsin.

- Going over these, 'Fox Crossing' is a two-faced kind of place, the part west of Little Lake Butte des Morts (the I-41/US 10/WI 441 Bridgeview interchange is in it) is a solid, 'Ashwaubenon-like' geographic entity that, although it needs a LOT of public works and planning work (believe me, a local, it does!), is needed to properly serve its area.  The part east of Little Lake Butte des Morts is a true municipal mess and the best reason of all as to why the State of Wisconsin badly needs top to bottom local government reform.  Just check a closely detailed map of that part of Winnebago County (the part north of Lake Winnebago and east of the Fox River/Little Lake Buttes des Morts) to see why.

- 'Windsor' - Someone explain to me the border between them and the Village of De Forest.  The two should merge.

- 'Salem Lakes' is a merger between the existing Village of Silver Lake and Salem Township.  It's not shown because it hasn't taken effect yet.  It becomes official this Tuesday (2017-02-14).  There is a boundary agreement between Salem Township and the Village of Paddock Lake, which Salem Township surrounds about 90 percent of, that guarantees that Paddock Lake will receive significant amounts of territory from Salem regardless of the township's corporate status.  See: http://www.townofsalem.net/vertical/sites/%7BFD43A93D-1DA7-4F52-8644-C09DA66C3401%7D/uploads/Salem-Paddock_Lake_Boundary_Agreement_and_Growth_Area.pdf for details and a map.

- 'Somers' is the result of a boundary agreement between the City of Kenosha and the township, allowing the city to annex numerous shreds and remnants of the township to logically square off its border while allowing the rest of the township to incorporate.  See: http://www.somers.org/sites/default/files/SomersNewVilTownMap2016_0.pdf for a detailed map.  The incorporation took effect on 2016-01-01.

Interesting stuff.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 09, 2017, 12:24:42 AM
I also note that Maine Township (Marathon County) was incorporated as a village at the end of 2015, this as part of special legislation that was introduced in the July, 2015 state budget update, as a way of trying to solve the problems in the Village of Brokaw, which is financially failing and will otherwise be forced to dissolve.  This incorporation includes everything along US 51 from the Wausau city limits to the Lincoln County line.  A cooperative agreement (which I find strange in that the City of Wausau was not involved/invited to the table) between Maine, Brokaw and Texas Township (the two townships would be stuck with Brokaw's mess if they simply dissolved) has Brokaw merging with Maine in the near future and Texas getting considerations from Maine.

We'll see how well this works out.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 09, 2017, 04:51:11 AM
Drove on I-41 in Green Bay today and Wis 32 shields were added to every I-41 BGS between Wis 54 and County G.  Ashland Ave is closing for reconstruction today and it's rare to see signs placed on so many BGS for a detour.  The red arrows were included.  Have to wonder if it's possible that Ashland Ave will be turned over to De Pere, Ashwaubenon, and Green Bay once reconstruction is finished? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 09, 2017, 06:52:38 AM
The Maine/Brokaw/Texas story is really quite incredible as municipal interactions go.   It is worth reading about. 

I would think that it the incorporation of Salem Lakes would be appropriate to show as it occurs one week after the release of the state highway map. 

The entire civil township of Somers did not incorporate.   The lesser-developed western half remains unincorporated.  This reflects conditions of incorporation implemented by the WI Department of Administration stating that if there are discrepancies in the level of development within a town, that only the urban portion should incorporate.  This explains why only part of Harrison and Bloomfield incorporated recently.  It does not explain why all of Windsor incorporated.  Other incorporation efforts to watch:  Midway in LaCrosse County, Ledgeview in Brown County, Town of Beloit, Town of Lisbon and Town of Brookfield in Waukesha County.   How about Grand Chute?  This was shot down in the 1980s, any effort to revive it? Any other incorporations?   It should also be noted that the towns of Blooming Grove, Burke, and Madison have agreements in place to dissolve into the surrounding incorporated municipalities (Cities of Madison or Sun Prairie or DeForest or Fitchburg) that are well mapped in each of the boundary agreements that can be found online.  These dissolutions will occur within the next 20 years, and seem to be appropriate and create logical new boundaries. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 09, 2017, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 09, 2017, 06:52:38 AM
The entire civil township of Somers did not incorporate.   The lesser-developed western half remains unincorporated.  This reflects conditions of incorporation implemented by the WI Department of Administration stating that if there are discrepancies in the level of development within a town, that only the urban portion should incorporate.   


To prevent another Fitchburg-type situation?  There are still plenty of parts of the City of Fitchburg that are very much rural and unchanged from when I grew up there 30-40 years ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 09, 2017, 09:44:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 08, 2017, 11:20:46 PM
- 'Windsor' - Someone explain to me the border between them and the Village of De Forest.  The two should merge.


Windsor's incorporation was part of a state budget bill that allowed them to bypass the traditional process as long as a referendum was passed.

I think it is ridiculous as well.  I think the State should require towns who want to incorporate to do so with an adjacent city or village.  I also think a number of these incorporations should be forced upon towns that meet certain situations.  I also think school districts should be forced to merge in certain situations.  (There is no reason that smaller school districts surrounded by larger districts with capacity should remain.  Williams Bay and Johnson Creek are examples.)  We have way too many governmental units in this state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 09, 2017, 11:18:26 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 09, 2017, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 09, 2017, 06:52:38 AM
The entire civil township of Somers did not incorporate.   The lesser-developed western half remains unincorporated.  This reflects conditions of incorporation implemented by the WI Department of Administration stating that if there are discrepancies in the level of development within a town, that only the urban portion should incorporate.   


To prevent another Fitchburg-type situation?  There are still plenty of parts of the City of Fitchburg that are very much rural and unchanged from when I grew up there 30-40 years ago.

How does this mesh with the map (it was drawn up by Kenosha County) that I linked in my above posting?  The remaining township is the bits and shreds that are on the City of Kenosha side of their boundary agreement line.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 09, 2017, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 09, 2017, 06:52:38 AM
The Maine/Brokaw/Texas story is really quite incredible as municipal interactions go.   It is worth reading about. 

I would think that it the incorporation of Salem Lakes would be appropriate to show as it occurs one week after the release of the state highway map. 

The entire civil township of Somers did not incorporate.   The lesser-developed western half remains unincorporated.  This reflects conditions of incorporation implemented by the WI Department of Administration stating that if there are discrepancies in the level of development within a town, that only the urban portion should incorporate.  This explains why only part of Harrison and Bloomfield incorporated recently.  It does not explain why all of Windsor incorporated.  Other incorporation efforts to watch:  Midway in LaCrosse County, Ledgeview in Brown County, Town of Beloit, Town of Lisbon and Town of Brookfield in Waukesha County.   How about Grand Chute?  This was shot down in the 1980s, any effort to revive it? Any other incorporations?   It should also be noted that the towns of Blooming Grove, Burke, and Madison have agreements in place to dissolve into the surrounding incorporated municipalities (Cities of Madison or Sun Prairie or DeForest or Fitchburg) that are well mapped in each of the boundary agreements that can be found online.  These dissolutions will occur within the next 20 years, and seem to be appropriate and create logical new boundaries.

I'm doubtful on many of the townships shown trying to incorporate, although in the cases of Harrison and Menasha townships, they did a *VERY SLIMY* workaround on the geographic standards requirements by incorporating a small 'logical' part and then, by using a secretly-negotiated boundary agreement with mandatory transfer of territory, 'transferred' the rest (or major parts) of the remaining townships into the new villages.  Appleton and Menasha are still in court over the Harrison case.  Fast-growing Sherwood suddenly found itself landlocked by Harrison in 2013 because of this.  To say that they were not happy is a total understatement.

Lisbon Township tried incorporating about ten years or so ago and was rejected by the state with a recommendation to negotiate a boundary agreement with Sussex and then to resubmit their amended petition. To date, they have not.

Grand Chute Township is in a 'pickle' with Appleton.  They have a non-expiring boundary agreement with Appleton that puts several of their densely populated eastern neighborhoods on the Appleton side of the line - the city's protected growth area.  It carries over to any potential 'village' to the west, which Appleton will not oppose the creation of.  The township doesn't want to leave those residents behind and be lost to that big, bad, *EVIL* :evilgrin: city, so they do nothing.

One 'Fox Crossing' (man, that is an AWFUL name, too!  :rolleyes: ) thing - on their 'east' side (check a very detailed map to see this), even though several of its chunks of territory are on the Appleton side of the city's mutual boundary agreement line with the City of Menasha (who is totally *POed* over that incorporation/sham boundary agreement!) and much of what is on the Appleton side of that line is 100% surrounded by Appleton - APPLETON DOES NOT WANT IT.  (Appleton mayor Tim Hanna about a year ago - "If they (Menasha Township) want it, they can have it.  We don't want it".)  It is either a very large block of questionable, at best, quality apartments or some of the smallest house/lot worn-out early to mid 20th century blue collar single family residential anywhere that would cost the city more in public works upgrades and, especially, ongoing police resources than it would take in in added tax revenue.  Interestingly, too, is that there is an Appleton fire station that is literally right next door to this worn out small house township neighborhood.  It will not respond to any call to the houses next door or across the street due to that municipal border, except to actually rescue someone whose life is in immediate danger.  Appleton does have a full 'first response' mutual aid pact with the merged Neenah-Menasha (city) Fire-Rescue (ditto with Grand Chute Township, BTW), but not Menasha Township/'Fox Crossing', which has their own volunteer department.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 09, 2017, 12:17:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 09, 2017, 09:44:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 08, 2017, 11:20:46 PM
- 'Windsor' - Someone explain to me the border between them and the Village of De Forest.  The two should merge.


Windsor's incorporation was part of a state budget bill that allowed them to bypass the traditional process as long as a referendum was passed.

I think it is ridiculous as well.  I think the State should require towns who want to incorporate to do so with an adjacent city or village.  I also think a number of these incorporations should be forced upon towns that meet certain situations.  I also think school districts should be forced to merge in certain situations.  (There is no reason that smaller school districts surrounded by larger districts with capacity should remain.  Williams Bay and Johnson Creek are examples.)  We have way too many governmental units in this state.

I would also seriously consider forcing mergers between urbanized townships and their adjacent 'legacy' cities, and I would include adjacent incorporated suburban cities and villages in this.  Yes, even in the 'little' metros (ie, Village of Lohrville/City of Redgranite).  One stand-alone 'forced' incorporation that I would definitely do is in the totally unincorporated Minocqua-Woodruff area - take a very wide, broad area of territory there and create a 'City of Lakeland'.

There is no reason why the Fox Valley (the general Appleton area) needs all of those separate cities, villages and townships, plus all of the other nit-pikky entities (school districts, etc) to serve an area with fewer total residents than live in two of the state's existing cities.  Ditto most of the rest of the state's metros.

As for nonsensical school district lines, here in the Fox Valley we have the Little Chute School District, which is smaller in land area than the current Village of Little Chute, and is totally surrounded by the Kaukauna School District (north of the Fox River).

:rolleyes:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 09, 2017, 12:46:00 PM
Regarding school district boundaries, my favorite example is Franklin (south side of Milwaukee County).  Despite there being a Franklin School District, depending on where you live, you can also go to the Oak Creek schools or the Whitnall schools.  The school district lines cut through City of Franklin neighborhoods as the City has evolved.

I have a friend out in Waukesha County that lives in the Town of Delafield, with a Pewaukee mailing address and is in the Hartland Arrowhead school district.

It is a mess.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 09, 2017, 03:03:38 PM
I just ordered my copy of the 2017-18 map from the Department of Tourism webpage. The page shows the new state highway map on the top of the page, but in the place where you click to order print versions of the maps still shows the 2015-16 map decal. I hope I don't get that one by mistake (I already got a copy when that edition first came out).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dcharlie on February 09, 2017, 03:14:24 PM
Can anyone share the link on where to get the map from?  Thanks!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 09, 2017, 04:00:29 PM
^^  DOT link: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on February 09, 2017, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 09, 2017, 12:46:00 PM
Regarding school district boundaries, my favorite example is Franklin (south side of Milwaukee County).  Despite there being a Franklin School District, depending on where you live, you can also go to the Oak Creek schools or the Whitnall schools.  The school district lines cut through City of Franklin neighborhoods as the City has evolved.

I have a friend out in Waukesha County that lives in the Town of Delafield, with a Pewaukee mailing address and is in the Hartland Arrowhead school district.

It is a mess.

I grew up in Brookfield and went to Elmbrook schools, graduating from Brookfield Central High School. But about 1/2 mile to the west of our house is a corner of the City of Brookfield, west of Brookfield Rd. that has a Brookfield mailing address, but is part of the Waukesha School district. An elementary school in the town of Brookfield and Waukesha school district was actually closer than the elementary school I attended. And there are parts of the town of Brookfield east of Brookfield Rd. that are part of Elmbrook school district, while parts west of Brookfield Rd. are Waukesha school district. Confusing as all hell.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jw1 on February 09, 2017, 05:46:35 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 09, 2017, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 09, 2017, 12:46:00 PM
Regarding school district boundaries, my favorite example is Franklin (south side of Milwaukee County).  Despite there being a Franklin School District, depending on where you live, you can also go to the Oak Creek schools or the Whitnall schools.  The school district lines cut through City of Franklin neighborhoods as the City has evolved.

I have a friend out in Waukesha County that lives in the Town of Delafield, with a Pewaukee mailing address and is in the Hartland Arrowhead school district.

It is a mess.

I grew up in Brookfield and went to Elmbrook schools, graduating from Brookfield Central High School. But about 1/2 mile to the west of our house is a corner of the City of Brookfield, west of Brookfield Rd. that has a Brookfield mailing address, but is part of the Waukesha School district. An elementary school in the town of Brookfield and Waukesha school district was actually closer than the elementary school I attended. And there are parts of the town of Brookfield east of Brookfield Rd. that are part of Elmbrook school district, while parts west of Brookfield Rd. are Waukesha school district. Confusing as all hell.

School districts are completely separate units of government, so their boundaries do not have to match municipal boundaries even when there are annexations or other changes to a municipal boundary.

Here is a fun example: About 7 years ago, there was a gas station right on the Shorewood-Whitefish Bay boundary that got torn down for a new mixed-use (apartments & ground floor retail) building. Shorewood cut a deal with Whitefish Bay so that the entire parcel would become part of Shorewood. However, the school districts did not reach a deal, so if you rent an apartment on the north end of the building, you're in the Whitefish Bay school district (and vote in WFB school elections,) and if you rent an apartment on the south end of the building, you're in the Shorewood school district.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 09, 2017, 06:58:24 PM
Quote from: jw1 on February 09, 2017, 05:46:35 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 09, 2017, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 09, 2017, 12:46:00 PM
Regarding school district boundaries, my favorite example is Franklin (south side of Milwaukee County).  Despite there being a Franklin School District, depending on where you live, you can also go to the Oak Creek schools or the Whitnall schools.  The school district lines cut through City of Franklin neighborhoods as the City has evolved.

I have a friend out in Waukesha County that lives in the Town of Delafield, with a Pewaukee mailing address and is in the Hartland Arrowhead school district.

It is a mess.

I grew up in Brookfield and went to Elmbrook schools, graduating from Brookfield Central High School. But about 1/2 mile to the west of our house is a corner of the City of Brookfield, west of Brookfield Rd. that has a Brookfield mailing address, but is part of the Waukesha School district. An elementary school in the town of Brookfield and Waukesha school district was actually closer than the elementary school I attended. And there are parts of the town of Brookfield east of Brookfield Rd. that are part of Elmbrook school district, while parts west of Brookfield Rd. are Waukesha school district. Confusing as all hell.

School districts are completely separate units of government, so their boundaries do not have to match municipal boundaries even when there are annexations or other changes to a municipal boundary.

Here is a fun example: About 7 years ago, there was a gas station right on the Shorewood-Whitefish Bay boundary that got torn down for a new mixed-use (apartments & ground floor retail) building. Shorewood cut a deal with Whitefish Bay so that the entire parcel would become part of Shorewood. However, the school districts did not reach a deal, so if you rent an apartment on the north end of the building, you're in the Whitefish Bay school district (and vote in WFB school elections,) and if you rent an apartment on the south end of the building, you're in the Shorewood school district.

Madison is a great example of school district boundaries not coinciding with municipal boundaries. Fitchburg, Monona/Cottage Grove, Middleton, and Sun Prairie all overlap.

For example, everything (including a large, new residential development (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1249983,-89.2823605,1266m/data=!3m1!1e3)) roughly bordered by the interstate, Lein Rd and north all belongs to the Sun Prairie School District, despite being in the city of Madison. Somehow, SPSD negotiated to keep that area in order to take advantage of the commercial tax base along the interstate and 151, (despite the new, rapid growth that will soon strain the existing Sun Prairie schools).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 09, 2017, 10:31:48 PM
Thanks for the updates on the new incorporations, guys.  I don't have my ear to the ground for them these days.
I've got some play maps to update. ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 09, 2017, 10:54:13 PM
 
Quote from: colinstu on February 09, 2017, 10:20:49 PM
Saw this months ago while in I-94. A hobbyist plate that's black on white. Aren't they always yellow on green?

Also... just found a forum user with the name 'lizmo' http://forums.nicoclub.com/fs-ft-98-vw-jetta-vr6-t351518.html ...has WI plates. Maybe I should just ask directly!
you posted that on 8/23/16 (page 46) too.  I checked the website again and they still show green for that. http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/formdocs/mv2388.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on February 09, 2017, 10:58:44 PM
Quote from: Big John on February 09, 2017, 10:54:13 PM
Quote from: colinstu on February 09, 2017, 10:20:49 PM
Saw this months ago while in I-94. A hobbyist plate that's black on white. Aren't they always yellow on green?

Also... just found a forum user with the name 'lizmo' http://forums.nicoclub.com/fs-ft-98-vw-jetta-vr6-t351518.html ...has WI plates. Maybe I should just ask directly!
you posted that on 8/23/16 (page 46) too.  I checked the website again and they still show green for that. http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/formdocs/mv2388.pdf

Oops! Sorry, deleted the double post. Was going through my pictures and never recalled an answer/idea (figured I forgot and didn't post it).

Strange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 10, 2017, 06:10:57 AM
Mike--thanks for all the updates about incorporation efforts.  You answered several questions that I've had for awhile. 

I also agree with your point about consolidating governmental units.  In the interest of providing comprehensive and more efficient services, it makes sense to have a metropolitan perspective.  In Fox Crossing 's case, how many people live, work and shop exclusively within it? ( I think the name is silly too, even something like Little Butte des Morts would have made more sense). I suspect that most households within it have a daily interaction with Appleton or Neenah, Menasha, or Grand Chute. 

I grew up in an very old incorporated Wisconsin suburb, and on an emotional level, I would hate to see it merge with the surrounding city, but I realize that it can't be as efficient anymore and is increasingly sharing services with adjacent communities. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on February 10, 2017, 07:36:31 AM
New state budget proposal removes 94 East-West between the Marquette and Zoo from additional design work the next two years.  That $31 million is proposed to be spent on bringing 94 North-South between 894 and the Illinois border closer to completion.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/08/gov-scott-walker-wants-restore-some-his-past-cuts-wisconsin-schools-and-universities/97608986/

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2017/02/08/gov-walker-expected-to-drop-funding-for-i-94-east.html

If design is not progressed on 94 east-west over the next few years, FHWA may revoke approval and in turn set the project back for years (if it were ever to get completed). 

The bridges and roadway surface in this stretch are nearing the end of their designed lifespan.  The roadway has 4 overlays on it.  The next step is bridge replacement and full pavement replacement.  If SE district opts to do pavement replacement and bridge rehabilitation work with the regular budget (which is already short changed) outside of the SE Freeways program then the originally designed full rebuild of the highway and reconfiguration of interchanges as it's been studied the last few years is probably dead.  :-(
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on February 10, 2017, 09:05:24 AM
LAME :/

what an IDIOT. There's just no words. Delaying stuff NEVER saves money... can these people ever look past a single or couple years?
Not only that, we're all stuck with unsafe, slow, antiquated, suboptimal freeway connection between the Marquette / Zoo.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 10, 2017, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: colinstu on February 10, 2017, 09:05:24 AM
LAME :/

what an IDIOT. There's just no words. Delaying stuff NEVER saves money... can these people ever look past a single or couple years?
Not only that, we're all stuck with unsafe, slow, antiquated, suboptimal freeway connection between the Marquette / Zoo.


People are so conditioned with the short term savings that they never realize the long-term costs.  If you raise the gas tax NOW and pay for it NOW, you are saving the taxpayers money in the long-run. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 10, 2017, 04:34:36 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on February 10, 2017, 07:36:31 AM
New state budget proposal removes 94 East-West between the Marquette and Zoo from additional design work the next two years.  That $31 million is proposed to be spent on bringing 94 North-South between 894 and the Illinois border closer to completion.

In my opinion, those two priorities should be flipped.  41/94 can wait for its fourth lane longer than the Stadium Interchange area can stave off functional obsolescence.

But the Republicans are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that is WisDOT.  They've been running this state for a long-ass time now, so they own this funding problem.  They've had the power to fix it for many years, but decided it was more important to give the John Menards of the state more tax handouts.  Time to let someone else drive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 10, 2017, 07:47:29 PM
Something has to be done to that corridor, and soon! It has been in operation since the early 1960's. If they just reconstruct the road, and add the additional lane later, that should be sufficient. Of course, that all depends on whether design and construction will be funded in the near-future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 11, 2017, 04:16:58 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 10, 2017, 06:10:57 AM
Mike--thanks for all the updates about incorporation efforts.  You answered several questions that I've had for awhile. 

I also agree with your point about consolidating governmental units.  In the interest of providing comprehensive and more efficient services, it makes sense to have a metropolitan perspective.  In Fox Crossing 's case, how many people live, work and shop exclusively within it? ( I think the name is silly too, even something like Little Butte des Morts would have made more sense). I suspect that most households within it have a daily interaction with Appleton or Neenah, Menasha, or Grand Chute. 

I grew up in an very old incorporated Wisconsin suburb, and on an emotional level, I would hate to see it merge with the surrounding city, but I realize that it can't be as efficient anymore and is increasingly sharing services with adjacent communities.

In the case of 'Fox Crossing', the name that they proposed when they tried incorporating their entire township back in the very early 1980s was 'Bridgeview', a far better name, IMHO.  That's a big reason why I refer to it as the 'Bridgeview Interchange'.  That said, it is my belief that the USPS will not be acknowledging its presence, especially on their east side, and to them they will remain divided between Appleton (54914 or 54915), Menasha (54952) and Neenah (54956).  The vast majority of their west side is served by the Neenah Post Office and it is all in the Neenah School District.  Their entire east side is in the Menasha School District.  BTW, there are *no* either grocery nor department stores anywhere within their borders.  All of the grocery stores in NE Winnebago County (east of Little Butte des Morts) are in either the Cities of Appleton or Menasha.  West of it, the nearest grocery stores, IIRC, are the west Appleton WalMart (in Grand Chute Township) and the Pick N' Save and WalMart in Neenah (city).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 13, 2017, 12:14:19 AM
Random notes from this weekend's travels:

- US-51 north of the Hwy 29 east interchange in Wausau is still posted for 65 mph. There's 27 more miles of freeway before you hit the first at-grade crossroad at Lincoln Dr north of Merrill. Seems kinda silly when US-41/141 south of Abrams merits a 70 mph limit.

- A 5-mile stretch of US-51 south of Hazelhurst (between US-8 and Minocqua) is getting realignment work, basically shifting the highway west slightly and leveling it out. I didn't remember this being a horribly sub-standard stretch of road, but it does appear it would have ROW for passing lanes. WisDOT's Projects and Studies page doesn't mention this at all.

- Michigan starting putting in passing lanes on 2-lane highways in earnest in the '90s. Wisconsin hadn't really warmed up to them until very recently - the ones on many highways (Hwy 26 between Waupun and Oshkosh, for example) were too infrequent and too short to do much good.

Bravo, then, to the planners that took notes from Michigan and installed multiple 2 mile long passing lanes on US-141 between Iron Mountain and the beginning of the expressway segment just north of Hwy 64. Even with iffy weather and lots of semis jockeying for position with brodozers and their snowmobile trailers, US-141 moved beautifully. I'm sure eventually WisDOT will find it worthwhile to 4-lane US-141 north beyond Wausaukee, but the passing lanes bought them probably a decade or two before it becomes necessary.

- US-41/141 traffic south of Abrams was pretty heavy this afternoon, in part because lackluster snow pushed all the snowmobilers north into the U.P. this winter.

- I-41 through Green Bay is a beast. Janesville should only hope the work on I-39/90 turns out as well.

- WisDOT is delusional if they honestly think people are shying away from Hwy 26 through Rosendale because of a couple sign changes on I-41 and US-151. The traffic is *definitely* there to justify a 4-laning. Are there bigger priorities? Sure. But it wouldn't have killed them to lengthen the ridiculously short passing lanes north of Rosendale during the last round of upgrades.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on February 13, 2017, 07:48:02 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 13, 2017, 12:14:19 AM
WisDOT is delusional if they honestly think people are shying away from Hwy 26 through Rosendale because of a couple sign changes on I-41 and US-151. The traffic is *definitely* there to justify a 4-laning. Are there bigger priorities? Sure. But it wouldn't have killed them to lengthen the ridiculously short passing lanes north of Rosendale during the last round of upgrades.

I think the renaming will eventually work. What you're seeing (I'm sure) are people who have taken that route forever. 151->41 is 8 miles longer and is two minutes slower, but I'm guessing by the time you factor in Rosendale on 26 and faster-than-70 speeds on 41, it's probably the same or slightly faster. I think there's simply an ROW issue along 26, and it makes little sense to dump a ton of money into what is a slightly shorter cutoff route when they have a nicely improved facility already in place.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 13, 2017, 11:51:38 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 13, 2017, 07:48:02 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 13, 2017, 12:14:19 AM
WisDOT is delusional if they honestly think people are shying away from Hwy 26 through Rosendale because of a couple sign changes on I-41 and US-151. The traffic is *definitely* there to justify a 4-laning. Are there bigger priorities? Sure. But it wouldn't have killed them to lengthen the ridiculously short passing lanes north of Rosendale during the last round of upgrades.

I think the renaming will eventually work. What you're seeing (I'm sure) are people who have taken that route forever. 151->41 is 8 miles longer and is two minutes slower, but I'm guessing by the time you factor in Rosendale on 26 and faster-than-70 speeds on 41, it's probably the same or slightly faster. I think there's simply an ROW issue along 26, and it makes little sense to dump a ton of money into what is a slightly shorter cutoff route when they have a nicely improved facility already in place.

I'm wondering, too, if Oshkosh has plans for significant additional development in that area (the I-41/WI 26 interchange and the Planeview truck stop are in the city), which, with added signalized intersections, will slow up that WI 26 routing all the more.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on February 13, 2017, 02:35:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 08, 2017, 11:20:46 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 08, 2017, 08:41:11 PM
2017 Wisconsin Official Highway Map is out--both on-line and paper copies.  My paper copy came today.  As expected, there are very few updates from the (secret) 2016 version:

1) The expressway extension of STH 16/26 north of Watertown
2) The incorporation of the villages of Fox Crossing in Winnebago County and Windsor in Dane County

Unfortunately, the Madison Beltline and US 151 NE of I-39 are still erroneously shown as a non-freeway divided highway again, and the incorporation of Somers and Salem Lakes, both in Kenosha County were missed as they have no population listed in the index or are missing in the Kenosha inset. 

I think this is one of the most confusing and uninspired covers to be used on a Wisconsin OHM.  While the photo is at a very beautiful place (Wyalusing), the image is mostly of rock and is very muddy.  One has to look hard to figure out that this pamphlet is actually a highway map of Wisconsin.

- Going over these, 'Fox Crossing' is a two-faced kind of place, the part west of Little Lake Butte des Morts (the I-41/US 10/WI 441 Bridgeview interchange is in it) is a solid, 'Ashwaubenon-like' geographic entity that, although it needs a LOT of public works and planning work (believe me, a local, it does!), is needed to properly serve its area.  The part east of Little Lake Butte des Morts is a true municipal mess and the best reason of all as to why the State of Wisconsin badly needs top to bottom local government reform.  Just check a closely detailed map of that part of Winnebago County (the part north of Lake Winnebago and east of the Fox River/Little Lake Buttes des Morts) to see why.

- 'Windsor' - Someone explain to me the border between them and the Village of De Forest.  The two should merge.

- 'Salem Lakes' is a merger between the existing Village of Silver Lake and Salem Township.  It's not shown because it hasn't taken effect yet.  It becomes official this Tuesday (2017-02-14).  There is a boundary agreement between Salem Township and the Village of Paddock Lake, which Salem Township surrounds about 90 percent of, that guarantees that Paddock Lake will receive significant amounts of territory from Salem regardless of the township's corporate status.  See: http://www.townofsalem.net/vertical/sites/%7BFD43A93D-1DA7-4F52-8644-C09DA66C3401%7D/uploads/Salem-Paddock_Lake_Boundary_Agreement_and_Growth_Area.pdf for details and a map.

- 'Somers' is the result of a boundary agreement between the City of Kenosha and the township, allowing the city to annex numerous shreds and remnants of the township to logically square off its border while allowing the rest of the township to incorporate.  See: http://www.somers.org/sites/default/files/SomersNewVilTownMap2016_0.pdf for a detailed map.  The incorporation took effect on 2016-01-01.

Interesting stuff.

Mike
I believe that the boundary agreement between the City of Kenosha and the Town of Somers has been in effect for many years.  I thought I heard that the reason Somers wanted to incorporate was to protect themselves from annexation by the Village of Mount Pleasant in Racine County? Of course, the first thing the Village of Somers does is try to grab land west of I-94 from the Town of Paris, which would have cut off west of I-94 expansion by the City of Kenosha in the northern part of the county.  The Town of Somers has also delayed repairs on a road that is now entirely in the Town of Somers because they know it will eventually be in the City of Kenosha: 27th is one of the main east-west roads connecting the far north side of Kenosha to the Bradford High School/Bullen Middle School area so it is pretty heavily used but it is essentially a narrow, 2 lane, rural type road in need of repair.  I think they just recently came to some kind of agreement to split the cost of 27th Street repairs.

Salem Lakes is kind of an odd situation.  Silver Lake is a Village that no longer wants to be a Village, and Salem wanted to incorporate as a Village.  So the two merge as Salem Lakes so that Salem doesn't have to go through the incorporation process.  But the main "town-like/urban" area of Salem Lakes is Silver Lake.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on February 15, 2017, 05:57:05 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 10, 2017, 06:10:57 AM
Mike--thanks for all the updates about incorporation efforts.  You answered several questions that I've had for awhile. 

I also agree with your point about consolidating governmental units.  In the interest of providing comprehensive and more efficient services, it makes sense to have a metropolitan perspective.  In Fox Crossing 's case, how many people live, work and shop exclusively within it? ( I think the name is silly too, even something like Little Butte des Morts would have made more sense). I suspect that most households within it have a daily interaction with Appleton or Neenah, Menasha, or Grand Chute. 

I grew up in an very old incorporated Wisconsin suburb, and on an emotional level, I would hate to see it merge with the surrounding city, but I realize that it can't be as efficient anymore and is increasingly sharing services with adjacent communities.

I agree.  Fox Crossing sounds like a retirement community.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 15, 2017, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 15, 2017, 05:57:05 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 10, 2017, 06:10:57 AM
Mike--thanks for all the updates about incorporation efforts.  You answered several questions that I've had for awhile. 

I also agree with your point about consolidating governmental units.  In the interest of providing comprehensive and more efficient services, it makes sense to have a metropolitan perspective.  In Fox Crossing 's case, how many people live, work and shop exclusively within it? ( I think the name is silly too, even something like Little Butte des Morts would have made more sense). I suspect that most households within it have a daily interaction with Appleton or Neenah, Menasha, or Grand Chute. 

I grew up in an very old incorporated Wisconsin suburb, and on an emotional level, I would hate to see it merge with the surrounding city, but I realize that it can't be as efficient anymore and is increasingly sharing services with adjacent communities.

I agree.  Fox Crossing sounds like a retirement community.

I've always thought that it sounds like the name of either a C-grade commercial strip center or a cheap pressboard subdivision.  I wonder if it's anything like 'Deer Crossing'.    :spin:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on February 16, 2017, 07:15:27 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 15, 2017, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 15, 2017, 05:57:05 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 10, 2017, 06:10:57 AM
Mike--thanks for all the updates about incorporation efforts.  You answered several questions that I've had for awhile. 

I also agree with your point about consolidating governmental units.  In the interest of providing comprehensive and more efficient services, it makes sense to have a metropolitan perspective.  In Fox Crossing 's case, how many people live, work and shop exclusively within it? ( I think the name is silly too, even something like Little Butte des Morts would have made more sense). I suspect that most households within it have a daily interaction with Appleton or Neenah, Menasha, or Grand Chute. 

I grew up in an very old incorporated Wisconsin suburb, and on an emotional level, I would hate to see it merge with the surrounding city, but I realize that it can't be as efficient anymore and is increasingly sharing services with adjacent communities.

I agree.  Fox Crossing sounds like a retirement community.

I've always thought that it sounds like the name of either a C-grade commercial strip center or a cheap pressboard subdivision.  I wonder if it's anything like 'Deer Crossing'.    :spin:

Mike

Those would work too.  :)

Either way, I still think Bridgeview would have been a better name.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on February 16, 2017, 09:15:46 PM
At least they didn't go the Pewaukee route and end up with two different municipalities with the same name (City of and Village of). That should be illegal.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 16, 2017, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 15, 2017, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 15, 2017, 05:57:05 PM
Fox Crossing sounds like a retirement community.

I've always thought that it sounds like the name of either a C-grade commercial strip center or a cheap pressboard subdivision.

I thought it sounded like a golf course in McHenry, IL.

In my fictional maps, I went with a name uninspired in a different direction.  East of the lake, I glommed most of the township on to the city (with a few parcels for Appleton), then incorporated the area west of the lake as, get this, "West Menasha".  Brilliant. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 17, 2017, 10:21:59 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 16, 2017, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 15, 2017, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 15, 2017, 05:57:05 PM
Fox Crossing sounds like a retirement community.

I've always thought that it sounds like the name of either a C-grade commercial strip center or a cheap pressboard subdivision.

I thought it sounded like a golf course in McHenry, IL.

In my fictional maps, I went with a name uninspired in a different direction.  East of the lake, I glommed most of the township on to the city (with a few parcels for Appleton), then incorporated the area west of the lake as, get this, "West Menasha".  Brilliant. :rolleyes:

That's similar to what I was advocating - barring a full municipal amalgamation of the metro area, I would have ceded the township's entire east side to the City of Menasha (remember that Appleton has no further territorial interests in Winnebago County) and incorporate its west side, with its development interest being westward along US 10.

Interestingly, the township that is immediately to the west (Clayton Township) officially opposed that incorporation and testified against it.  They are worried about just that.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on February 17, 2017, 03:51:54 PM
Big news coming for Clairemont Ave in Eau Claire, "signal head per lane" coming by 2018. Not sure if this means monotube mast arm or more trombone arms.
News article: http://www.weau.com/content/news/Critical-Crossroads-413900123.html (http://www.weau.com/content/news/Critical-Crossroads-413900123.html)

As for Clairemont Ave. in Eau Claire, Helgeson said a big change in store for 2018, with a concept called 'signal head per lane' stretching from Otter Rd. to Cameron Rd.

"In other words, based on the number of lanes, each lane gets its own signal head. So, rather than having just two far side signal indications - one on the right and one of the left - we will actually put the signal indications overhead - one for each lane."


I am kind of surprised they didn't do this with the 4 section FYA upgrade last summer, they could have installed extended reverse-left mounted trombone arms for the left 2 lanes. I think this indicates monotube masts.
Unfortunately I will be in College down in Platteville during this time period, so I won't get to see changes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on February 17, 2017, 04:01:39 PM
"concept called 'signal head per lane'"... they make it sound like it's a foreign concept (though I know it is in Wisconsin).

I'm okay with this as long as the auxiliary signal heads on the left and right remain. I know some newer signals in Eau Claire do away with the near side signal. Are near side signals still installed in Wisconsin?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 17, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 17, 2017, 04:01:39 PM
Are near side signals still installed in Wisconsin?
Outside of Eau Claire, they are.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on February 17, 2017, 07:03:43 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 17, 2017, 10:21:59 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 16, 2017, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 15, 2017, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 15, 2017, 05:57:05 PM
Fox Crossing sounds like a retirement community.

I've always thought that it sounds like the name of either a C-grade commercial strip center or a cheap pressboard subdivision.

I thought it sounded like a golf course in McHenry, IL.

In my fictional maps, I went with a name uninspired in a different direction.  East of the lake, I glommed most of the township on to the city (with a few parcels for Appleton), then incorporated the area west of the lake as, get this, "West Menasha".  Brilliant. :rolleyes:

That's similar to what I was advocating - barring a full municipal amalgamation of the metro area, I would have ceded the township's entire east side to the City of Menasha (remember that Appleton has no further territorial interests in Winnebago County) and incorporate its west side, with its development interest being westward along US 10.

Interestingly, the township that is immediately to the west (Clayton Township) officially opposed that incorporation and testified against it.  They are worried about just that.

Mike

Then you would have hundreds if not thousands of people who would now be in the City of Menasha, despite having Appleton addresses (unless the ZIP code lines are modified too).

Personally, the dividing line I would have used would have coincided with the ZIP code line; that seems to be about where the line is culturally as well, if you know what I mean.

I could actually get behind the amalgamation of the entire metro area; can you think of another metro area of similar size with as many different municipalities in it?

As such, I present to you:
The Unified City of Metro Appleton!  (Accepting all suggestions for names.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F35a3u5l.png&hash=82bdc93dab6107c23f8e6ace7a799138ee544700)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on February 18, 2017, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: Big John on February 17, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 17, 2017, 04:01:39 PM
Are near side signals still installed in Wisconsin?
Outside of Eau Claire, they are.
Near side signals were reinstalled for both of the signal projects along river prairie Dr in neighboring Altoona, so for some reason, the city of Eau Claire doesn't mount them like that anymore. I am unaware or any city signal changes in the near future, but now quite a large signal project along Clairemont Ave. That is 13 intersections, and not even all along Claremont! (These all were upgraded to FYA this past summer except Otter Rd, which still has a 5 stack for for an unknown reason. One-yEar were upgraded to FYA in 2013 however that is all 2 lane each way. Luckily, Clairemont Ave, 312/North crossing, 93 are all DOT maintained. Bus 53 Hastings is city maintained hence the new signals, but no near right signals south of birch st. Birch and Seymour were completed before the rest of the Hastings way rehab so they have near signals mounted on the mast.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 19, 2017, 02:20:52 AM

Quote
I could actually get behind the amalgamation of the entire metro area; can you think of another metro area of similar size with as many different municipalities in it?

Green Bay is right up there.  Years ago, the Town of Preble was absorbed the the City of Green Bay, something that is extremely rare.  Green Bay's mayor has said that he would like surrounding communities to join with Green Bay.  I personally think it's a bad idea since Green Bay is run poorly compared to surrounding communities and has the roughest streets by far in the area. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 19, 2017, 11:26:16 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 19, 2017, 02:20:52 AM

Quote
I could actually get behind the amalgamation of the entire metro area; can you think of another metro area of similar size with as many different municipalities in it?

Green Bay is right up there.  Years ago, the Town of Preble was absorbed the the City of Green Bay, something that is extremely rare.  Green Bay's mayor has said that he would like surrounding communities to join with Green Bay.  I personally think it's a bad idea since Green Bay is run poorly compared to surrounding communities and has the roughest streets by far in the area.

OTOH, if the entire Green Bay metro area joined the city, the present-day suburbs would control the resulting city's city council and mayor's office (about 45% city/55% suburbs).

That number is more stark here in the Appleton area - a full metro amalgamation (Kaukauna through Neenah and Sherwood through Greenville) would have the present-day City of Appleton controlling about 35% of the resulting city's city council and mayor's office.

A Milwaukee metro-wide amalgamation would have the present-day City of Milwaukee controlling about 40% of it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 19, 2017, 11:38:46 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 17, 2017, 07:03:43 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 17, 2017, 10:21:59 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 16, 2017, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 15, 2017, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 15, 2017, 05:57:05 PM
Fox Crossing sounds like a retirement community.

I've always thought that it sounds like the name of either a C-grade commercial strip center or a cheap pressboard subdivision.

I thought it sounded like a golf course in McHenry, IL.

In my fictional maps, I went with a name uninspired in a different direction.  East of the lake, I glommed most of the township on to the city (with a few parcels for Appleton), then incorporated the area west of the lake as, get this, "West Menasha".  Brilliant. :rolleyes:

That's similar to what I was advocating - barring a full municipal amalgamation of the metro area, I would have ceded the township's entire east side to the City of Menasha (remember that Appleton has no further territorial interests in Winnebago County) and incorporate its west side, with its development interest being westward along US 10.

Interestingly, the township that is immediately to the west (Clayton Township) officially opposed that incorporation and testified against it.  They are worried about just that.

Mike

Then you would have hundreds if not thousands of people who would now be in the City of Menasha, despite having Appleton addresses (unless the ZIP code lines are modified too).

Personally, the dividing line I would have used would have coincided with the ZIP code line; that seems to be about where the line is culturally as well, if you know what I mean.

In fact, there are parts of the City of Appleton that are served by other Post Offices, most notably the Schindler Place area (near US 10/WI 441/Oneida St) - those apartment buildings get their mail from the Menasha Post Office.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those residents think that they are in Menasha, to the point of trying to vote in their city elections.

QuoteI could actually get behind the amalgamation of the entire metro area; can you think of another metro area of similar size with as many different municipalities in it?

As such, I present to you:
The Unified City of Metro Appleton!  (Accepting all suggestions for names.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F35a3u5l.png&hash=82bdc93dab6107c23f8e6ace7a799138ee544700)

My vision (I'd call it 'City of Fox Valley') also includes the Sherwood area and the entirety of the Harrison, Greenville, Clayton and Vanden Broek Townships plus the built-up Winchester area.  I would also seriously consider including the built up Mackville area in it.

To make such a transition easier, one thought that I've been having over the past few years is to find a way to 'grandfather' the differences in property tax rates until individual properties change owners.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on February 20, 2017, 04:57:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 19, 2017, 11:38:46 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 17, 2017, 07:03:43 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 17, 2017, 10:21:59 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 16, 2017, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 15, 2017, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on February 15, 2017, 05:57:05 PM
Fox Crossing sounds like a retirement community.

I've always thought that it sounds like the name of either a C-grade commercial strip center or a cheap pressboard subdivision.

I thought it sounded like a golf course in McHenry, IL.

In my fictional maps, I went with a name uninspired in a different direction.  East of the lake, I glommed most of the township on to the city (with a few parcels for Appleton), then incorporated the area west of the lake as, get this, "West Menasha".  Brilliant. :rolleyes:

That's similar to what I was advocating - barring a full municipal amalgamation of the metro area, I would have ceded the township's entire east side to the City of Menasha (remember that Appleton has no further territorial interests in Winnebago County) and incorporate its west side, with its development interest being westward along US 10.

Interestingly, the township that is immediately to the west (Clayton Township) officially opposed that incorporation and testified against it.  They are worried about just that.

Mike

Then you would have hundreds if not thousands of people who would now be in the City of Menasha, despite having Appleton addresses (unless the ZIP code lines are modified too).

Personally, the dividing line I would have used would have coincided with the ZIP code line; that seems to be about where the line is culturally as well, if you know what I mean.

In fact, there are parts of the City of Appleton that are served by other Post Offices, most notably the Schindler Place area (near US 10/WI 441/Oneida St) - those apartment buildings get their mail from the Menasha Post Office.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those residents think that they are in Menasha, to the point of trying to vote in their city elections.

QuoteI could actually get behind the amalgamation of the entire metro area; can you think of another metro area of similar size with as many different municipalities in it?

As such, I present to you:
The Unified City of Metro Appleton!  (Accepting all suggestions for names.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F35a3u5l.png&hash=82bdc93dab6107c23f8e6ace7a799138ee544700)

My vision (I'd call it 'City of Fox Valley') also includes the Sherwood area and the entirety of the Harrison, Greenville, Clayton and Vanden Broek Townships plus the built-up Winchester area.  I would also seriously consider including the built up Mackville area in it.

To make such a transition easier, one thought that I've been having over the past few years is to find a way to 'grandfather' the differences in property tax rates until individual properties change owners.

Mike

I like it, especially the part about grandfathering in the tax rates.  :nod:

And why exactly does the Menasha post office serve that little chunk of Appleton?  That's just weird to me.  :confused:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 20, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
I do agree that there are getting to be too many villages in NE Wisconsin. I would combine Combined Locks with either Kimberly or Little Chute. Or better yet might as well combine all 3 as one. I am surprised that Grand Chute hasn't tried to incorporate again. They did try back in the 80's but were denied.  It wouldn't surprise me if you looking at the village of Greenville in the near future. I think if the Town of Ledgeview incorporates than Bellevue should be annexed into Green Bay. I combined Fox Cities is an interesting idea but I doubt that all of them would ever be combined into one city.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 25, 2017, 12:40:05 AM
The entrances to Wisconsin are about to get a little more mundane in the future. Enjoy the I2-1-B signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0607582,-91.6381318,3a,24.8y,58.05h,85.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_7VSp3UkYgEjsXOf4QYXww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) while they last:

Quote from: Feb 24, 2017 TGM TransmittalIn the past, several different signs have been installed along Department-maintained roadways at state entrances. In some cases, several signs have been installed on the same support. At some state entrances, blue signs with the state outline (I2-1-B) are installed. Based on an interpretation received from FHWA in 2013, the shape of these signs is not in conformance with the 2009 MUTCD.
Source: TGM 2-1-42

At the end of their useful lives, they will be replaced with the I2-1
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 25, 2017, 10:43:15 AM
yawn

At least it doesn't say "Open For Business" underneath


or worse... the Governor's name.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on February 25, 2017, 12:31:59 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on February 25, 2017, 12:40:05 AM
The entrances to Wisconsin are about to get a little more mundane in the future. Enjoy the I2-1-B signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0607582,-91.6381318,3a,24.8y,58.05h,85.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_7VSp3UkYgEjsXOf4QYXww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) while they last:

Quote from: Feb 24, 2017 TGM TransmittalIn the past, several different signs have been installed along Department-maintained roadways at state entrances. In some cases, several signs have been installed on the same support. At some state entrances, blue signs with the state outline (I2-1-B) are installed. Based on an interpretation received from FHWA in 2013, the shape of these signs is not in conformance with the 2009 MUTCD.
Source: TGM 2-1-42

At the end of their useful lives, they will be replaced with the I2-1

I don't suppose that MUTCD interpretation is online somewhere?  I wouldn't mind seeing FHWA's exact words.

Either way, even as a strong supporter of the MUTCD, I think this might be going a little far for a sign used at or shortly after the state line.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 25, 2017, 05:01:27 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on February 25, 2017, 10:43:15 AM
yawn

At least it doesn't say "Open For Business" underneath


or worse... the Governor's name.
Can we just put the Governor to rest? This is not a political board.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 26, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 25, 2017, 05:01:27 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on February 25, 2017, 10:43:15 AM
yawn

At least it doesn't say "Open For Business" underneath


or worse... the Governor's name.
Can we just put the Governor to rest? This is not a political board.

Idk, YOU'RE the one talking about putting him to rest!!   :spin: :spin: :spin: :bigass: :bigass: :bigass: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on February 27, 2017, 08:41:49 AM
Well, that escalated quickly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2017, 06:53:34 PM
Transportation and politics are too intertwined IMHO. But then again, this isn't a political board.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 28, 2017, 08:57:32 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on February 25, 2017, 10:43:15 AM
or worse... the Governor's name.

Then you know whose name to curse when you're dodging potholes for the next 50 miles.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 01, 2017, 03:09:52 PM
Even WIDOT knows we are taking a penny-wise and pound-foolish approach by delaying major reconstruction in favor of temporary fixes.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/01/wisconsin-faces-tidal-wave-costly-roadwork-delays/98546080/?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=hs&hootPostID=7a59429daba4028c650ba8fee40d6114

"The plans will also force more money to be spent on temporary repairs as the state puts off major projects because of a funding crunch, according to a Department of Transportation memo written in January.

The situation will only get worse.

"The tidal wave is coming, as this critical work can't be delayed forever,"  the January memo says.

The memo was prepared for Secretary David Ross and Deputy Secretary Bob Seitz to get them up to speed as they took over the Department of Transportation. The memo and other briefing documents were released to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel under the state's open records law."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2017, 04:11:54 PM
Delaying major projects into the 2030s and 2040s is unacceptable. The road systems might completely rot away if we wait that long for stretches of highways that will need to be reconstructed well before then.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 01, 2017, 04:42:29 PM
If you do 27 overlays, that's basically the same as reconstructing the road, right? -___-
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 02, 2017, 10:28:17 AM
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has stopped studying a potential expansion of interstate highways from Madison to Wisconsin Dells, a sign the department may be downsizing its road-building ambitions in the face of mounting budget pressure.

The move appears to foreclose any near-term efforts to expand a corridor that carries growing volumes of traffic, much of it tourism-based, from southern Wisconsin and Illinois to Wisconsin Dells and other points north and west.


DOT scraps study of interstate expansion from Madison to Wisconsin Dells

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-scraps-study-of-interstate-expansion-from-madison-to-wisconsin/article_979d1024-58f5-5426-a867-0b88a57feb44.html#utm_source=host.madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail%2Fwsj-news%2F%3Fref%3Demail&utm_medium=email
(http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-scraps-study-of-interstate-expansion-from-madison-to-wisconsin/article_979d1024-58f5-5426-a867-0b88a57feb44.html#utm_source=host.madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail%2Fwsj-news%2F%3Fref%3Demail&utm_medium=email)

Thank you, no taxes for anything ever crowd. Gas prices can jump 50 cents or a dollar a gallon, entirely based on the whim of Big Oil, and people simply accept it. Try to raise gas taxes 10 cents a gallon, and everyone goes apoplectic.

The politicians who un-indexed the gas tax a few years ago, preventing the automatic increases to match inflation, deserve repeated smacks in the head for doing so.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 02, 2017, 05:01:08 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 02, 2017, 10:28:17 AM
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has stopped studying a potential expansion of interstate highways from Madison to Wisconsin Dells, a sign the department may be downsizing its road-building ambitions in the face of mounting budget pressure.

The move appears to foreclose any near-term efforts to expand a corridor that carries growing volumes of traffic, much of it tourism-based, from southern Wisconsin and Illinois to Wisconsin Dells and other points north and west.


DOT scraps study of interstate expansion from Madison to Wisconsin Dells

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-scraps-study-of-interstate-expansion-from-madison-to-wisconsin/article_979d1024-58f5-5426-a867-0b88a57feb44.html#utm_source=host.madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail%2Fwsj-news%2F%3Fref%3Demail&utm_medium=email
(http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-scraps-study-of-interstate-expansion-from-madison-to-wisconsin/article_979d1024-58f5-5426-a867-0b88a57feb44.html#utm_source=host.madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail%2Fwsj-news%2F%3Fref%3Demail&utm_medium=email)

Thank you, no taxes for anything ever crowd. Gas prices can jump 50 cents or a dollar a gallon, entirely based on the whim of Big Oil, and people simply accept it. Try to raise gas taxes 10 cents a gallon, and everyone goes apoplectic.

The politicians who un-indexed the gas tax a few years ago, preventing the automatic increases to match inflation, deserve repeated smacks in the head for doing so.
I really don't see how the current 6 lane highway between Madison and Portage needed any upgrades right now. Portage to the Dells I can see. The gas tax was repelled in 2003 that was 14 years ago I would say that's more then just a few years. That's water over the dam now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 05:20:37 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 02, 2017, 05:01:08 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 02, 2017, 10:28:17 AM
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has stopped studying a potential expansion of interstate highways from Madison to Wisconsin Dells, a sign the department may be downsizing its road-building ambitions in the face of mounting budget pressure.

The move appears to foreclose any near-term efforts to expand a corridor that carries growing volumes of traffic, much of it tourism-based, from southern Wisconsin and Illinois to Wisconsin Dells and other points north and west.


DOT scraps study of interstate expansion from Madison to Wisconsin Dells

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-scraps-study-of-interstate-expansion-from-madison-to-wisconsin/article_979d1024-58f5-5426-a867-0b88a57feb44.html#utm_source=host.madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail%2Fwsj-news%2F%3Fref%3Demail&utm_medium=email
(http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dot-scraps-study-of-interstate-expansion-from-madison-to-wisconsin/article_979d1024-58f5-5426-a867-0b88a57feb44.html#utm_source=host.madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail%2Fwsj-news%2F%3Fref%3Demail&utm_medium=email)

Thank you, no taxes for anything ever crowd. Gas prices can jump 50 cents or a dollar a gallon, entirely based on the whim of Big Oil, and people simply accept it. Try to raise gas taxes 10 cents a gallon, and everyone goes apoplectic.

The politicians who un-indexed the gas tax a few years ago, preventing the automatic increases to match inflation, deserve repeated smacks in the head for doing so.
I really don't see how the current 6 lane highway between Madison and Portage needed any upgrades right now. Portage to the Dells I can see. The gas tax was repelled in 2003 that was 14 years ago I would say that's more then just a few years. That's water over the dam now.

1. They took the automatic inflation adjustment off 14 years ago.  Of course it was going to take awhile for it to have an impact because at first the difference between the actual and the projected adjustment wasn't that great.  14 years later, the difference is much larger.  It was a dumb idea then and now we are living with the results of that.

2. The six lanes are probably fine right now.  You do realize that these studies are for years into the future right?  As the says:

"Patrick Goss, director of the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association, said the announcement means it could be more than two decades before an expansion of the corridor will occur. That's based on how long other road-expansion projects have taken to complete from the time at which lawmakers approved them."

Of course that might be a bit of hyperbole since he obviously has a vested interest in getting projects built, but it isn't an exaggeration to say that nothing significant is going to be happening in more than a decade and a half.  And do you have any idea what the corridor will be like then?

3. It isn't just about this corridor.  It is about continuing to punt the ball down the field and dealing with it another day.  And when you finally come around to dealing with it, it will be that much more expensive.  And you are eventually going to have to deal with it.

It was a foolish decision to take away the inflation adjustment.  It is a foolish decision not to put it back and to raise the tax.  It is particularly foolish to do all this in an era when the cost to bond these things are at historically low levels.  Unless you plan on closing highways and taking down bridges, this problem is only going to get worse.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on March 02, 2017, 06:34:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 02, 2017, 05:01:08 PM
The [automatically increasing] gas tax was repelled in 2003

This decision may qualify as one of the top ten dumbest legislative moves in US history. There has never been a place anywhere in the world that kept their gas tax the same throughout history, but somehow kept money flowing in, enough to continue building infrastructure at least. It's basic fucking economics. Just looking at the federal gas tax as an example, 18.4 cents today has the same buying power in 1994 as 30 cents. The federal gas tax today would need to be 30 cents just to have the same amount of money rolling in as we did in 1994. Never mind the fact that we have far more roads today than in 1994.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2017, 07:22:32 PM
I read about the cancelation of the 39/90/94 study. I hope it is resumed when/if the state's transportation finances improve. The corridor will have to be reconstructed sometime in the next 20 or 30 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
What is the big deal about indexing the gas tax to inflation? It's a very wise thing to do. I think every state ought to raise their gas tax and index it, as a starting point to fix transportation funding. In Tennessee, Governor Haslam is proposing to raise and index the gas tax, but people are all bent out of shape about it. I fully support it. 

As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 02, 2017, 08:12:25 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
What is the big deal about indexing the gas tax to inflation? It's a very wise thing to do. I think every state ought to raise their gas tax and index it, as a starting point to fix transportation funding. In Tennessee, Governor Haslam is proposing to raise and index the gas tax, but people are all bent out of shape about it. I fully support it. 

As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............
The real waste was overdoing roundabouts and replacing signs that didn't need replacement. I think US 10 between Appleton and Stevens Point was needed but I do agree that WI-26 and the Marshfield spur was a bit overkill. WI-26 is basically just another route from Milwaukee to Beloit/Janesville when you already have I-43. As far as the gas tax goes. I am tired of the solution always being let's raise taxes. The gas tax goes up ever year without anyone voting on it. I don't know how anyone could say that's Democracy it's anything but that. Does your state have the automatic gas tax increase? Does any state have it. The fact is when it was repealed it had overwhelming support from both parties and it was approved by a Democratic Governor.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 02, 2017, 08:12:25 PM
As far as the gas tax goes. I am tired of the solution always being let's raise taxes. The gas tax goes up ever year without anyone voting on it. I don't know how anyone could say that's Democracy it's anything but that. Does your state have the automatic gas tax increase? Does any state have it. The fact is when it was repealed it had overwhelming support from both parties and it was approved by a Democratic Governor.

The gas tax is a different thing. It's paid for by those who use the roads (99% of the population). If not indexed to inflation, it loses its buying power fairly quickly. It does not go up every year. Refusal to raise it is one of the main reasons we have a transportation funding crisis today. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:46:28 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 02, 2017, 08:12:25 PM
The real waste was overdoing roundabouts and replacing signs that didn't need replacement.


My God.  You are STILL on that kick?  Just stop... :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on March 02, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 02, 2017, 08:12:25 PM
As far as the gas tax goes. I am tired of the solution always being let's raise taxes.

[facepalm]

That's because of inflation ... do you like not believe in it, or something? Does it just not make any sense to you? It's basic economics.

Several posts up, I explain why inflation plays a role in gas taxes. Apparently, you didn't read it, so here it is again:

Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2017, 06:34:12 PM
18.4 cents today has the same buying power in 1994 as 30 cents. The federal gas tax today would need to be 30 cents just to have the same amount of money rolling in as we did in 1994.

It's the reason that nobody pays for anything in coins anymore. They're fucking worthless! Back in the day, you could see a film for 50 cents. Theatres haven't gotten greedier, they just kept up with inflation. If they didn't, they'd go bankrupt. Kind of like how WisDOT will go bankrupt if they don't see a gas tax increase at some point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 09:01:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 02, 2017, 08:12:25 PM
As far as the gas tax goes. I am tired of the solution always being let's raise taxes.

[facepalm]

That's because of inflation ... do you like not believe in it, or something? Does it just not make any sense to you? It's basic economics.

Several posts up, I explain why inflation plays a role in gas taxes. Apparently, you didn't read it, so here it is again:

Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2017, 06:34:12 PM
18.4 cents today has the same buying power in 1994 as 30 cents. The federal gas tax today would need to be 30 cents just to have the same amount of money rolling in as we did in 1994.

It's the reason that nobody pays for anything in coins anymore. They're fucking worthless! Back in the day, you could see a film for 50 cents. Theatres haven't gotten greedier, they just kept up with inflation. If they didn't, they'd go bankrupt. Kind of like how WisDOT will go bankrupt if they don't see a gas tax increase at some point.


Tying your gas tax to inflation is the same exact concept as tying your income tax to a percentage of your income.  It makes perfect sense and repealing it was a terrible decision.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 02, 2017, 09:20:20 PM
And to boot, vehicles have become more fuel-efficient, meaning that each mile of road gets less motor fuel tax revenue per gallon of gas burned.  If we transition to electric cars, THEN how will roads be paid for?  It's a bigger problem that has plenty of threads' worth of discussion anyway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dzlsabe on March 02, 2017, 11:45:12 PM
2/3rds of the state is basically un/der developed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on March 03, 2017, 08:07:25 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 01, 2017, 03:09:52 PM
Even WIDOT knows we are taking a penny-wise and pound-foolish approach by delaying major reconstruction in favor of temporary fixes.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/01/wisconsin-faces-tidal-wave-costly-roadwork-delays/98546080/?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=hs&hootPostID=7a59429daba4028c650ba8fee40d6114

"The plans will also force more money to be spent on temporary repairs as the state puts off major projects because of a funding crunch, according to a Department of Transportation memo written in January.

The situation will only get worse.

“The tidal wave is coming, as this critical work can’t be delayed forever,” the January memo says.

The memo was prepared for Secretary David Ross and Deputy Secretary Bob Seitz to get them up to speed as they took over the Department of Transportation. The memo and other briefing documents were released to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel under the state’s open records law."

The reality is if these majors get held off until 2030 or 2040 they won't ever be completed.  If you look at Wisconsin's needs to maintain what is there for existing state and local roadways, there wouldn't be any money left for expansion (Majors program and SE Freeways Program) and there would still be a shortfall in money to maintain what exists today.

In the article the administration notes that "Under Walker’s budget, the effects would not be as severe because he proposed spending $669 million on major projects over the next two years — compared with $563 million the DOT recommended".  The reality is an extra $100 million a year is no where near enough money to accelerate the construction of major projects and doesn't really change the fact that these projects will get pushed to 2030/2040.  (Don't turn this into a political discussion about Walker, just stating the fact that this slight budget change wouldn't change how far projects get pushed out).

Unless there is a substantial shift in funding streams, Wisconsin will be in maintenance only mode (Only repair and replace what we have) sooner than we think where any expansion projects are dead (43 N-S, 94 E-W, Beltline improvements, 90/94 improvements near Wis Dells, etc).  The question is are politicians and the citizens willing to accept that?   One thing I can say is that special interest groups like 1000 Friends of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group will be thrilled to have roadway expansion killed off.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 03, 2017, 04:27:04 PM
Maybe those expansion proposals could still be funded via a reconstruct first/expand later mentality. That way, the roads can still be reconstructed, and the expansion could be held off until more funding becomes available.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 03, 2017, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 03, 2017, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2017, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 06, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on March 06, 2017, 05:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 06, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.

Nope.

Thanks for asking nicely though!  :-D

As for the state's transportation finances, I'm not sure what can be done if there continues to be a refusal to increase taxes. You can only cut so much spending. Those savings don't magically increase funding.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:17:16 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on March 06, 2017, 05:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 06, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.

Nope.

Thanks for asking nicely though!  :-D

As for the state's transportation finances, I'm not sure what can be done if there continues to be a refusal to increase taxes. You can only cut so much spending. Those savings don't magically increase funding.
I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on March 08, 2017, 02:22:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:17:16 PM
I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.

Because you need money to pay for things. It's that simple.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2017, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2017, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.
I would also put the Baraboo bypass on that list. Was it really necessary to build it as a full freeway? Not to mention they roundabouted every intersection at every interchange. Can anyone give me just one good reason why stop signs could not have worked there just fine? Was the Burlington bypass even necessary at all? How much traffic even goes through Burlington to the other side on Hwy 36? Not to mention from what I understood the people of Burlington didn't even want it. Another example of over doing where money could have been saved.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on March 08, 2017, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2017, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2017, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.
I would also put the Baraboo bypass on that list. Was it really necessary to build it as a full freeway? Not to mention they roundabouted every intersection at every interchange. Can anyone give me just one good reason why stop signs could not have worked there just fine? Was the Burlington bypass even necessary at all? How much traffic even goes through Burlington to the other side on Hwy 36? Not to mention from what I understood the people of Burlington didn't even want it. Another example of over doing where money could have been saved.
In my opinion Burlington needed a bypass, but they didn't need a 4 lane divided highway bypass.  Prior to the bypass, they had a ridiculous traffic pattern where 83, 36, and 11 all intersected downtown and followed different paths down different one-way streets, I assume this was because they don't have a street that was capable of handling the potential traffic that could have resulted from putting all of them on the same street through downtown.  It will be interesting to see how the city develops over the next 5, 10, 25 years along the bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 08, 2017, 03:21:29 PM
Perhaps, some projects around the state were overbuilt, but we can't do anything about that now. In any event, Wisconsin needs to come up with a new road funding mechanism so future projects don't have to be delayed or canceled. Perhaps tolls or even a mileage-based fee would work. I don't have much hope for a gas tax increase due to it being a political nonstarter, as well as the construction of more fuel-efficient vehicles over the last few decades. As for raising registration fees, I feel it might get to a point where the fees get too high for ordinary people to afford paying them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2017, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:17:16 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on March 06, 2017, 05:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 06, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.

Nope.

Thanks for asking nicely though!  :-D

As for the state's transportation finances, I'm not sure what can be done if there continues to be a refusal to increase taxes. You can only cut so much spending. Those savings don't magically increase funding.
I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.


You do realize that oftentimes that roundabouts are *cheaper* than other alternatives right?

But even so, let's say we eliminated funding roundabouts RIGHT NOW where other, less expensive options exist.  Do you honestly think that would save enough money to take care of the infrastructure needs of the state?  Why do you think that even Republican law-makers are pushing a gas tax increase?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 08, 2017, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:17:16 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on March 06, 2017, 05:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 06, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.

Nope.

Thanks for asking nicely though!  :-D

As for the state's transportation finances, I'm not sure what can be done if there continues to be a refusal to increase taxes. You can only cut so much spending. Those savings don't magically increase funding.
I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.

How many times do we have to beat the sign horse to death?!? The cost of replacing signs is a drop in the bucket...barely a blip on the budget radar screen compared to the other cost overruns.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2017, 03:48:22 PM
...
You do realize that oftentimes that roundabouts are *cheaper* than other alternatives right?

But even so, let's say we eliminated funding roundabouts RIGHT NOW where other, less expensive options exist.  Do you honestly think that would save enough money to take care of the infrastructure needs of the state?  Why do you think that even Republican law-makers are pushing a gas tax increase?

Agreed. Sure, stop signs are cheaper in the short-run, but the roundabout will satisfy capacity needs for a much longer time. Further, roundabouts, especially single-lane roundabouts are about the best way to prevent wrong-way freeway driving, a problem which has grown significantly lately.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on March 08, 2017, 06:02:38 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:17:16 PM
I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.

Because that is the only way to raise funding. Period. You can't continue to cut your way into growing revenue. Road maintenance and construction isn't a static number that can be made to be the same every year. Even at that, you can't hold the line on revenue and expect to meet the needs of the future. Especially now, since the current state government has continued to kick the can down the road so many times that we now can't catch up. Eliminating a few roundabouts won't help - and as many others have pointed out, they don't cost significantly more, and they are much more safe than the alternatives...no matter what Belling says.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 08, 2017, 07:22:36 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2017, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2017, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.
I would also put the Baraboo bypass on that list. Was it really necessary to build it as a full freeway? Not to mention they roundabouted every intersection at every interchange. Can anyone give me just one good reason why stop signs could not have worked there just fine? Was the Burlington bypass even necessary at all? How much traffic even goes through Burlington to the other side on Hwy 36? Not to mention from what I understood the people of Burlington didn't even want it. Another example of over doing where money could have been saved.

In my personal experience, Yes the Burlington Bypass was needed as much as the Oconomowoc Bypass. The traffic in Downtown Burlington at times could get bad and it was only a 2 lane street if you were on 11 or 83.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 08, 2017, 07:55:20 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on March 08, 2017, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2017, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2017, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.
I would also put the Baraboo bypass on that list. Was it really necessary to build it as a full freeway? Not to mention they roundabouted every intersection at every interchange. Can anyone give me just one good reason why stop signs could not have worked there just fine? Was the Burlington bypass even necessary at all? How much traffic even goes through Burlington to the other side on Hwy 36? Not to mention from what I understood the people of Burlington didn't even want it. Another example of over doing where money could have been saved.
In my opinion Burlington needed a bypass, but they didn't need a 4 lane divided highway bypass.  Prior to the bypass, they had a ridiculous traffic pattern where 83, 36, and 11 all intersected downtown and followed different paths down different one-way streets, I assume this was because they don't have a street that was capable of handling the potential traffic that could have resulted from putting all of them on the same street through downtown.  It will be interesting to see how the city develops over the next 5, 10, 25 years along the bypass.

Yes, a lesser at-grade 4 lane undivided (or eve two lane) bypass would have been fine in Burlington. It's just another example of WisDOT's bypass building spree.

And I agree about the Baraboo bypass, it really was not needed (for now). I would have waited until they figure out what to do with the rest of the corridor (particularly in the Sauk City area).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 08, 2017, 07:57:57 PM
If I were Wisconsin, I would put a moratorium on all new freeway-building projects (excluding the conversion of existing expressways to freeways, but only if there is a legit traffic need) for the next 15-20 years, until they deal with their funding issue as well as the reconstruction and modernization of their existing Interstates/freeways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on March 08, 2017, 09:05:59 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 08, 2017, 07:22:36 PM

In my personal experience, Yes the Burlington Bypass was needed as much as the Oconomowoc Bypass. The traffic in Downtown Burlington at times could get bad and it was only a 2 lane street if you were on 11 or 83.

Amen. Especially when there's a train rolling through downtown.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2017, 09:10:36 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2017, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.


I live in Fort Atkinson.  I have for 20 years.  This area is growing steadily but not dramatically.

Traffic flowed through Jefferson and Watertown just fine prior to the bypasses.  It got a little sticky in Milton down through Janesville but hardly intolerable. 

The four lane, limited access bypasses are very much overkill.  There are times when I am on the Fort Atkinson bypass and I am the only car I see in either direction and it is rare that I have to change lanes to pass.  I really doubt traffic will reach WIDOT's projections in the near future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 09, 2017, 09:38:34 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2017, 09:10:36 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2017, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2017, 08:51:33 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 02, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............


I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.


Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.
But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.


I live in Fort Atkinson.  I have for 20 years.  This area is growing steadily but not dramatically.

Traffic flowed through Jefferson and Watertown just fine prior to the bypasses.  It got a little sticky in Milton down through Janesville but hardly intolerable. 

The four lane, limited access bypasses are very much overkill.  There are times when I am on the Fort Atkinson bypass and I am the only car I see in either direction and it is rare that I have to change lanes to pass.  I really doubt traffic will reach WIDOT's projections in the near future.

So what was the stated purpose of building it then? Is WisDOT using "alternative facts" when deciding to construct these freeways/bypasses.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 09, 2017, 11:34:46 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2017, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 08, 2017, 02:17:16 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on March 06, 2017, 05:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 06, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.

Nope.

Thanks for asking nicely though!  :-D

As for the state's transportation finances, I'm not sure what can be done if there continues to be a refusal to increase taxes. You can only cut so much spending. Those savings don't magically increase funding.
I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.


You do realize that oftentimes that roundabouts are *cheaper* than other alternatives right?

But even so, let's say we eliminated funding roundabouts RIGHT NOW where other, less expensive options exist.  Do you honestly think that would save enough money to take care of the infrastructure needs of the state?  Why do you think that even Republican law-makers are pushing a gas tax increase?

Case in point - The College Ave Fox River bridge (2009) here in Appleton - the engineers' report on the proposal compared building a conventional intersection at its east end (College Ave/John St/Walter Ave - infamously known among the locals for major drive-time backups and congestion) v. a two-lane roundabout.  In order to adequately handle the new bridge's four lanes of traffic (the old bridge was a two-lane span), the roundabout was found to require the acquisition of SIX fewer houses and cost at least a half-million dollars less to build than the signalized intersection.

The wisdom of going with the roundabout was driven home within minutes of the new bridge's opening.  That afternoon's commuter rush went through it with virtually no delays, not even for having to stop to enter it.  It has been operating trouble-free ever since.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 09, 2017, 05:11:04 PM
The state has already canceled the Interstate 39/90/94 study (Madison-Portage) and the Interstate 90/94 study (Portage-Wis. Dells). I wonder how many more studies and projects will be axed. They better not ax the Stoughton Road corridor study, I have a special interest in that one (my mother and stepfather live not too far away from that road).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 09, 2017, 06:25:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 09, 2017, 05:11:04 PM
The state has already canceled the Interstate 39/90/94 study (Madison-Portage) and the Interstate 90/94 study (Portage-Wis. Dells). I wonder how many more studies and projects will be axed. They better not ax the Stoughton Road corridor study, I have a special interest in that one (my mother and stepfather live not too far away from that road).

And it's those projects that they should NOT be axing, because those corridors need upgrades. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 09, 2017, 11:07:48 PM
If paying an extra 10-20 cents per gallon at the pump would genuinely cause you a hardship, you're not in the middle class.

People don't have to LIKE paying it. That's perfectly acceptable. But the amount of drama over a gas tax hike of 10-20 cents is blown way out of proportion to the actual harm to your wallet.

WisDOT isn't helping make this case, however, when the storyline is that it couldn't stick to a budget if its existence depended on it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dzlsabe on March 10, 2017, 01:29:31 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 09, 2017, 05:11:04 PM
The state has already canceled the Interstate 39/90/94 study (Madison-Portage) and the Interstate 90/94 study (Portage-Wis. Dells). I wonder how many more studies and projects will be axed. They better not ax the Stoughton Road corridor study, I have a special interest in that one (my mother and stepfather live not too far away from that road).

No doubt central/west WI needs something. Madison, Portage, WI Dells, Camp Douglas, Wyeville, Eau Claire are all on a lot of maps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 10, 2017, 05:18:59 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 09, 2017, 11:07:48 PM
If paying an extra 10-20 cents per gallon at the pump would genuinely cause you a hardship, you're not in the middle class.

People don't have to LIKE paying it. That's perfectly acceptable. But the amount of drama over a gas tax hike of 10-20 cents is blown way out of proportion to the actual harm to your wallet.


Amen.  Here is what I said two months ago.

"I drive about 25,000 miles a year in two cars that average at minimum 25 mpg.  That's 1,000 gallons of gas a year.  If the gas tax would have remained indexed to inflation, it would be about 6 cents higher than it is now.  I would have paid about $60 more a year than I would have otherwise.  $60.  $5 a month."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 10, 2017, 09:02:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 10, 2017, 05:18:59 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 09, 2017, 11:07:48 PM
If paying an extra 10-20 cents per gallon at the pump would genuinely cause you a hardship, you're not in the middle class.

People don't have to LIKE paying it. That's perfectly acceptable. But the amount of drama over a gas tax hike of 10-20 cents is blown way out of proportion to the actual harm to your wallet.


Amen.  Here is what I said two months ago.

"I drive about 25,000 miles a year in two cars that average at minimum 25 mpg.  That's 1,000 gallons of gas a year.  If the gas tax would have remained indexed to inflation, it would be about 6 cents higher than it is now.  I would have paid about $60 more a year than I would have otherwise.  $60.  $5 a month."

But...but...at that increase, you'll have to skip one 12-syllable coffee a month. How will you ever survive? How will the barista finish school? It'll send the economy into a tailspin and we'll all be living in refrigerator boxes remembering the good ole days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2017, 04:25:46 PM
We need to find alternatives to gas taxes for transportation funding. There are ideas out there, but it's hard to say how much support they might get.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on March 10, 2017, 04:41:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2017, 04:25:46 PM
We need to find alternatives to gas taxes for transportation funding. There are ideas out there, but it's hard to say how much support they might get.

Increase car registration fees, maybe.

Looking at what other states do, http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/registration-and-title-fees-by-state.aspx might give some alternate ideas.

I think basing the fee based off the value or age of the car is a bad idea. That can deter people from buying newer, more efficient / safer / automated cars, and basically legitimizes people to keep their old clunkers on the roads.

Basing it on vehicle weight is the smartest IMO. Heavier the car, the more damage they do to the roads... that's how the figure out registration on large trucks, trailers, etc.

Basing it on vehicle efficiency sounds like it could be a good idea, but there are downsides too. If you increase fees for those with less efficient cars, great you can persuade people to get more efficient cars. The problem is, if/when everyone uses something more efficient, less money is being pulled in again and you're back at square one.

Making the gax tax indexed on inflation would be a great positive step, but like I heard earlier... this still includes a loophole of sorts. Those with completely electric or partially electric cars can skirt the gas tax. (since they're not paying gas tax on their electric bill...). Several states mentioned in that list have extra registration fees, or higher registration costs for those types of vehicles---that would equalize things.

Tollways, nope.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 11, 2017, 10:21:55 AM
Howabout putting transport on the general fund?  Eliminate the fuel tax, instead make it subject to the sales tax, adjust the rate to be revenue neutral.

Rationale?  The overall level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that one receives, both directly and indirectly, from the transport system.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 11, 2017, 01:35:19 PM
What is the fundamental difference between a sales tax and a fuel tax?

A sales tax is based on the amount you pay.  If the amount you pay is based on the amount of fuel you buy, and a fuel tax is based on the amount you buy, it is essentially the same thing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on March 11, 2017, 01:51:02 PM
Maybe what mgk920 is getting at is making the gas tax a percentage tax like sales tax, instead of a flat per gallon tax?

LGL56VL

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 11, 2017, 02:00:45 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on March 11, 2017, 01:51:02 PM
Maybe what mgk920 is getting at is making the gas tax a percentage tax like sales tax, instead of a flat per gallon tax?


Oh I see.  But doesn't that make it more volatile and price sensitive?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on March 11, 2017, 03:48:12 PM
All I can say is that there's no way that I'd go for sales tax on fuel going to the general fund and then paying for roads out of that. There's nothing to stop the Governor and legislature from taking (or perpetually borrowing) monies from "gas sales tax" to prop up other things. It leaves them to determine the best use of the funds, and I don't believe that's a smart idea.

Now, if that money collected goes into a segregated transportation fund to be used only for that, I can work with that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on March 12, 2017, 08:19:24 AM
I believe the state passed a constitutional amendment stating that taxes collected for transportation can only be used for transportation, so that shouldn't be an issue.

LGL56VL

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 12, 2017, 11:45:03 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on March 12, 2017, 08:19:24 AM
I believe the state passed a constitutional amendment stating that taxes collected for transportation can only be used for transportation, so that shouldn't be an issue.

IIRC, they did that about 2-3 years ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WISFreeways on March 16, 2017, 09:41:46 PM
Construction has begun on stage 2 of the Verona Road project, extending south from Raymond Road to County Highway PD (McKee). A drive on the road the other day revealed orange cones, raised power lines at the 151/PD intersection (ostensibly to accomodate for the future diamond interchange), and frontage road closures.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US71 on March 16, 2017, 11:38:42 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 09, 2017, 11:07:48 PM
If paying an extra 10-20 cents per gallon at the pump would genuinely cause you a hardship, you're not in the middle class.

People don't have to LIKE paying it. That's perfectly acceptable. But the amount of drama over a gas tax hike of 10-20 cents is blown way out of proportion to the actual harm to your wallet.

It has become a buzzword, IMO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 17, 2017, 12:32:18 AM
We were talking about the funding situation a bit at work over lunch today. What came out of it: Tack on a % increase to the sales tax and segregate the funds to infrastructure maintenance. IIRC from the discussion, areas of Georgia have a similar type of sales tax system of varying amounts that funds road improvements. Right now, GDOT is swimming in road funding. Yeah, I know it's still/another tax, but at least it comes a bit closer to spreading out the pain (even amongst our toll-happy tourists from south of the border). Whatever widget you're buying had to use the road system somehow to reach you, even if you walked/biked/drove your electric car to pick it up. We've done it before for "lesser" things...Lambeau...cough...Miller Park...cough, cough.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 17, 2017, 11:13:46 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 17, 2017, 12:32:18 AM
We were talking about the funding situation a bit at work over lunch today. What came out of it: Tack on a % increase to the sales tax and segregate the funds to infrastructure maintenance. IIRC from the discussion, areas of Georgia have a similar type of sales tax system of varying amounts that funds road improvements. Right now, GDOT is swimming in road funding. Yeah, I know it's still/another tax, but at least it comes a bit closer to spreading out the pain (even amongst our toll-happy tourists from south of the border). Whatever widget you're buying had to use the road system somehow to reach you, even if you walked/biked/drove your electric car to pick it up. We've done it before for "lesser" things...Lambeau...cough...Miller Park...cough, cough.

This thought is nearly identical to my musings from a few days upthread.

QuoteHowabout putting transport on the general fund?  Eliminate the fuel tax, instead make it subject to the sales tax, adjust the rate to be revenue neutral.

Rationale?  The overall level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that one receives, both directly and indirectly, from the transport system.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on March 17, 2017, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 17, 2017, 11:13:46 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 17, 2017, 12:32:18 AM
We were talking about the funding situation a bit at work over lunch today. What came out of it: Tack on a % increase to the sales tax and segregate the funds to infrastructure maintenance. IIRC from the discussion, areas of Georgia have a similar type of sales tax system of varying amounts that funds road improvements. Right now, GDOT is swimming in road funding. Yeah, I know it's still/another tax, but at least it comes a bit closer to spreading out the pain (even amongst our toll-happy tourists from south of the border). Whatever widget you're buying had to use the road system somehow to reach you, even if you walked/biked/drove your electric car to pick it up. We've done it before for "lesser" things...Lambeau...cough...Miller Park...cough, cough.

This thought is nearly identical to my musings from a few days upthread.

QuoteHowabout putting transport on the general fund?  Eliminate the fuel tax, instead make it subject to the sales tax, adjust the rate to be revenue neutral.

Rationale?  The overall level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that one receives, both directly and indirectly, from the transport system.

:nod:

Mike

Except E makes a very important distinction: Segregate the funds.

I don't believe for a minute that the current administration (much like the last) would have any problem playing fast and loose with those funds in order to "cover up" shortfalls coming from other tax breaks, etc.

I get that the current rules are set up that way. That needs to be made very clear that it would continue with any change that would earmark sales tax for infrastructure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 17, 2017, 02:11:21 PM
I just found out that there will be a 2017 publication of the state map coming out next month. This was a shocker to me with how broke the DOT I would think this would be their last priority. Another area money could have been saved. There was no 2011 edition so it's not like there has to be a new publication every 2 years. A few states aren't even publishing state maps at all anymore.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 17, 2017, 02:50:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 17, 2017, 02:11:21 PM
I just found out that there will be a 2017 publication of the state map coming out next month. This was a shocker to me with how broke the DOT I would think this would be their last priority. Another area money could have been saved. There was no 2011 edition so it's not like there has to be a new publication every 2 years. A few states aren't even publishing state maps at all anymore.

They're already out, as it was pointed out elsewhere in these forums. IIRC, they're a joint venture between the DOT and the Dept of Tourism.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on March 17, 2017, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 17, 2017, 02:11:21 PM
I just found out that there will be a 2017 publication of the state map coming out next month. This was a shocker to me with how broke the DOT I would think this would be their last priority. Another area money could have been saved. There was no 2011 edition so it's not like there has to be a new publication every 2 years. A few states aren't even publishing state maps at all anymore.

*if* the DOT foots the bill, they're paying $150,000 year. Not exactly a huge deal - especially if it aids travelers. This is based on the 2015 numbers of 1 million maps at a cost of $0.15 each.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on March 18, 2017, 07:03:14 AM
BGSs were just replaced on US 151 in Grant County - albeit with Platteville getting 3d US 151 "BUS" shields and - in general - distant control cities (Lancaster for US 61 in Dickeyville and WIS 80/81 in PVille (on the WB ramp) and Darlington on the EB ramp to WIS 80/81) being removed. The 80/81 signs did get a replacement - Cuba City.

On the bright side, the replacement finally corrected a mistake made a Kieler where H and HHH were reversed in both direction (the one marked "TO" was the actual designation the ramp met.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 18, 2017, 06:35:04 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 18, 2017, 07:03:14 AM
BGSs were just replaced on US 151 in Grant County - albeit with Platteville getting 3d US 151 "BUS" shields and - in general - distant control cities (Lancaster for US 61 in Dickeyville and WIS 80/81 in PVille (on the WB ramp) and Darlington on the EB ramp to WIS 80/81) being removed. The 80/81 signs did get a replacement - Cuba City.

On the bright side, the replacement finally corrected a mistake made a Kieler where H and HHH were reversed in both direction (the one marked "TO" was the actual designation the ramp met.)
I always thought it was more logical to use Cuba City as a control city of that exit instead of Lancaster. Because it was the closest city in the opposite direction of Platteville.To get to Lancaster you would have to get through Platteville first. Typically they use the 2 closest cities in each direction for the control cities which makes the most sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on March 29, 2017, 08:20:06 AM
Rumblings coming out the woodwork have said Wisconsin is heading down the future of maintenance only mode.  Maintaining what exists will be the main focus is what is coming down from higher up in the DOT.  Future reconstruction projects will be scaled back and future expansion projects will be all but eliminated (If the project is already going it will be completed).  There will be a refocus on funding repairs on the roadway system that exists today versus building brand new or expanding that system.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2017, 01:36:24 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on March 29, 2017, 08:20:06 AM
Rumblings coming out the woodwork have said Wisconsin is heading down the future of maintenance only mode.  Maintaining what exists will be the main focus is what is coming down from higher up in the DOT.  Future reconstruction projects will be scaled back and future expansion projects will be all but eliminated (If the project is already going it will be completed).  There will be a refocus on funding repairs on the roadway system that exists today versus building brand new or expanding that system.


That seems like a very good decision to make in the short run.  I am assuming they would still complete the three laning of I-39/90 to the IL line? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2017, 03:20:41 PM
A maintenance-only mentality is fine, but that doesn't mean expansion of certain roads should be out of the question. Projects where expansion may be warranted will likely face increased scrutiny under the new plan. I still think new forms of funding should be explored for financing road improvements.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on March 30, 2017, 06:57:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2017, 01:36:24 PM
That seems like a very good decision to make in the short run.  I am assuming they would still complete the three laning of I-39/90 to the IL line?

Yes, the project is already being built so the plan is to complete it.  That goes as well for the Zoo Interchange, 94 North-South, 441, Verona Road, etc although the time frames for completion may get extended out the intention baring any major reduction in funding would be to complete them since shovels are already in the ground.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 30, 2017, 12:30:20 PM
I think this is a good plan. Most road projects that are planned but haven't started aren't vitally needed anyways. Though I am sure many will disagree with me on this. The one exception is I-43 on the north shore but let's face it that should have been done back in the 90's anyways. WisDOT incompetence for putting it off so long.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 30, 2017, 10:45:20 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 30, 2017, 12:30:20 PM
I think this is a good plan. Most road projects that are planned but haven;t started aren't vitally needed anyways. Though I am sure many will disagree with me on this. The one exception is I-43 on the north shore but let's face it that should have been done back in the 90's anyways. WisDOT incompetence for putting it off so long.

There was a moratorium on state law that prevented I-43 from being expanded that was placed in state law by Mordecali Lee, who was a state senator at the time.  He is now an urban planning professor at UW Milwaukee. 

If you want to complain to him, here's his contact according to his UWM profile.

Email:mordecai@uwm.edu
Phone: 414-227-3282

If you're upset about I-43 not being expanded on the Nortg Shore air your grievances at him. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on March 30, 2017, 10:46:46 PM
where's that law?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dzlsabe on March 30, 2017, 11:51:21 PM
My WI buddy tells me there is this gigantic bridge that nobody uses in Milwaukee that requires continual maintenance. Could that possibly be true? Say it aint so. Why IS Milwaukee the "gateway to WI" anyway?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2017, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on March 30, 2017, 10:45:20 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 30, 2017, 12:30:20 PM
I think this is a good plan. Most road projects that are planned but haven;t started aren't vitally needed anyways. Though I am sure many will disagree with me on this. The one exception is I-43 on the north shore but let's face it that should have been done back in the 90's anyways. WisDOT incompetence for putting it off so long.

There was a moratorium on state law that prevented I-43 from being expanded that was placed in state law by Mordecali Lee, who was a state senator at the time.  He is now an urban planning professor at UW Milwaukee. 

If you want to complain to him, here's his contact according to his UWM profile.

Email:mordecai@uwm.edu
Phone: 414-227-3282

If you're upset about I-43 not being expanded on the Nortg Shore air your grievances at him. 


So you are posting the guy's email and phone number in a public forum because he sponsored a bill that was enacted 25-30 years ago?  Newsflash, if this bill actually exists, the state legislature can simply repeal it.  Lee has nothing to do with that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 31, 2017, 04:19:04 AM
http://wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/northsouth.html

The moratorium was repealed when the Silver Spring Dr Interchange was rebuilt.  Can see the article above on the moratorium being implemented by the now professor.  The email and phone were listed on the UWM website and is his business contact. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2017, 07:15:37 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on March 31, 2017, 04:19:04 AM
http://wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/northsouth.html

The moratorium was repealed when the Silver Spring Dr Interchange was rebuilt.  Can see the article above on the moratorium being implemented by the now professor.  The email and phone were listed on the UWM website and is his business contact. 

What is the point of putting that contact information out there when he is no longer in the legislature and the moratorium is gone anyway? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 31, 2017, 10:13:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2017, 07:15:37 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on March 31, 2017, 04:19:04 AM
http://wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/northsouth.html

The moratorium was repealed when the Silver Spring Dr Interchange was rebuilt.  Can see the article above on the moratorium being implemented by the now professor.  The email and phone were listed on the UWM website and is his business contact. 

What is the point of putting that contact information out there when he is no longer in the legislature and the moratorium is gone anyway?
Exactly and I highly doubt that one state senator can impose a moratorium all by himself. The legislature as a whole would have to vote on it. The Silver Spring interchange reconstruction was completed in the early 90's anyways so there is no excuse that WisDOt couldn't have done I-43 on the north shore in the mid to late 90's when even then it was long overdue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 31, 2017, 03:07:08 PM
In some respect, scaling back future expansions means Wisconsin has "caught up" with traffic needs in most places around the state.  In the late 80's WisDOT started building for the future.  Well now it's the future and we've got the core infrastructure in place.  As roadgeeks, we may cringe at the remaining choke points in the state's highway system, but I can see places where expansion has outstripped growth.  So it makes a little sense that the priority would shift from building new highways to maintaining existing ones.

I'm not thrilled about it, but I understand it.  The highways I saw being constructed as a kid are now reaching the two decade mark and I can see why the priority necessarily has to shift.  It's getting rough out there.  (Driving north of Madison has me dodging longitudinal spalling in the concrete.) It's easy to rant about how Wisconsin is being penny wise and pound foolish, but lets' face it; that pace of construction wasn't going to last no matter what was going on with budgets and taxes and all that shit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2017, 05:50:26 PM
One project, whose study was completed, I hope will still be constructed in the near-future is the Interstate 94 project between 70th St. and 16th St. in Milwaukee. I don't think that stretch can wait 10-20 years to be reconstructed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 01, 2017, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2017, 05:50:26 PM
One project, whose study was completed, I hope will still be constructed in the near-future is the Interstate 94 project between 70th St. and 16th St. in Milwaukee. I don't think that stretch can wait 10-20 years to be reconstructed.
I think I-43 on the north shore is more important. Go up there on I-43 NB near the merge from 3 to 2 lanes by Bayshore. Traffic is a nightmare I went that way one during peak times. It felt like I was sitting in LA traffic it was bad. The lanes are also narrow there have been a fair share of accidents it's dangerous. Should have been expanded back in the 90's it was overdue even then. It wasn't even expanded in the 00's and now here we are sitting well into the 2010's still nothing. This isn't something we should be talking about in 2017 should have been done long before.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2017, 10:20:54 AM
I drive both I-94 and I-43 regularly in Milwaukee, and it is hard to say for me which is "worse."  They are both bad during rush hours but relatively easy to travel otherwise. 

I by and large agree that most of the major expansion projects have been completed and the shift toward maintenance is a good one.  I just hope that Wisconsin doesn't get caught flat footed and has to start playing catch up 20 years from now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dzlsabe on April 02, 2017, 01:52:40 PM
Maybe use this more...https://www.ridemcts.com/ and make it better. Is there Uber or Lyft in MIWI yet?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on April 04, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 02, 2017, 01:52:40 PMIs there Uber or Lyft in MIWI yet?

Why, yes. We even have electricity and running water now!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 04, 2017, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on April 04, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 02, 2017, 01:52:40 PMIs there Uber or Lyft in MIWI yet?

Why, yes. We even have electricity and running water now!

Whoa. Slow down there, Mr. Rockefeller. We haven't gotten indoor plumbing yet. We're not at the level of sophistication that the folks in the "big city" down south have. Thank goodness they grace our quaint little forum page here with their presence. Otherwise we'd be totally lost!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 04, 2017, 04:57:38 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 02, 2017, 01:52:40 PM
Maybe use this more...https://www.ridemcts.com/ and make it better. Is there Uber or Lyft in MIWI yet?
The Milwaukee County buses do not go up to Grafton. That was my destination when I was stuck in traffic on I-43. Sorry but it's not a realistic option I-43 on the north shore needs expansion.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on April 04, 2017, 05:11:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2017, 03:20:41 PM
A maintenance-only mentality is fine, but that doesn't mean expansion of certain roads should be out of the question. Projects where expansion may be warranted will likely face increased scrutiny under the new plan. I still think new forms of funding should be explored for financing road improvements.
Tolling?

http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/toll-road-idea-resurfaces-in-wisconsin/article_f86a13c1-58b9-5ed4-8a89-ede35ccacb27.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2017, 05:27:48 PM
I'd support tolling, though I'd prefer it was a toll lane, rather than tolling all general purpose lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 04, 2017, 09:20:29 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2017, 05:27:48 PM
I'd support trolling, though I'd prefer it was a troll lane, rather than trolling all general purpose lanes.
FTFY  :sombrero:

all trolling aside, it would seem that the side roads will get busy as the anti-toll establishment shuns the Interstates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dzlsabe on April 04, 2017, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on April 04, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 02, 2017, 01:52:40 PMIs there Uber or Lyft in MIWI yet?

Why, yes. We even have electricity and running water now!

Also this awesome bridge...

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.8398535,-87.7891038//@43.0250068,-87.8985171,285m/data=!3m1!1e3

Sure love me some I-43 hypo speedway to Beloit.

Is that Milwaukee (Kenosha, Racine) "Gateway to WI" thing really workin out for anybody?

The west and central WI? Used to be on the map pre AMTRAK.

Has been suggested before and certainly cant happen now, but if Chicago was in WI (ie crazy political maps drawn 200 years ago), things would be hugely different
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 04, 2017, 11:56:56 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 04, 2017, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on April 04, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 02, 2017, 01:52:40 PMIs there Uber or Lyft in MIWI yet?

Why, yes. We even have electricity and running water now!

Also this awesome bridge...

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.8398535,-87.7891038//@43.0250068,-87.8985171,285m/data=!3m1!1e3

Sure love me some I-43 hypo speedway to Beloit.

The west and central WI? Used to be on the map pre AMTRAK.

Has been suggested before and certainly cant happen now, but if Chicago was in WI (ie crazy political maps drawn 200 years ago), things would be hugely different


See what happens when you say troll [at least] three times?  :pan:


Quote from: SSOWorld on April 04, 2017, 09:20:29 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2017, 05:27:48 PM
I'd support trolling, though I'd prefer it was a troll lane, rather than trolling all general purpose lanes.
FTFY  :sombrero:

all trolling aside, it would seem that the side roads will get busy as the anti-toll establishment shuns the Interstates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on April 04, 2017, 11:57:40 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on April 04, 2017, 11:56:56 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 04, 2017, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on April 04, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 02, 2017, 01:52:40 PMIs there Uber or Lyft in MIWI yet?

Why, yes. We even have electricity and running water now!

Also this awesome bridge...

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.8398535,-87.7891038//@43.0250068,-87.8985171,285m/data=!3m1!1e3

Sure love me some I-43 hypo speedway to Beloit.

The west and central WI? Used to be on the map pre AMTRAK.

Has been suggested before and certainly cant happen now, but if Chicago was in WI (ie crazy political maps drawn 200 years ago), things would be hugely different


See what happens when you say troll [at least] three times?  :pan:


Quote from: SSOWorld on April 04, 2017, 09:20:29 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2017, 05:27:48 PM
I'd support trolling, though I'd prefer it was a troll lane, rather than trolling all general purpose lanes.
FTFY  :sombrero:

all trolling aside, it would seem that the side roads will get busy as the anti-toll establishment shuns the Interstates.


So it works like Beetlejuice?


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ET21 on April 05, 2017, 12:36:18 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on April 04, 2017, 11:57:40 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on April 04, 2017, 11:56:56 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 04, 2017, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on April 04, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 02, 2017, 01:52:40 PMIs there Uber or Lyft in MIWI yet?

Why, yes. We even have electricity and running water now!

Also this awesome bridge...

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.8398535,-87.7891038//@43.0250068,-87.8985171,285m/data=!3m1!1e3

Sure love me some I-43 hypo speedway to Beloit.

The west and central WI? Used to be on the map pre AMTRAK.

Has been suggested before and certainly cant happen now, but if Chicago was in WI (ie crazy political maps drawn 200 years ago), things would be hugely different


See what happens when you say troll [at least] three times?  :pan:


Quote from: SSOWorld on April 04, 2017, 09:20:29 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2017, 05:27:48 PM
I'd support trolling, though I'd prefer it was a troll lane, rather than trolling all general purpose lanes.
FTFY  :sombrero:

all trolling aside, it would seem that the side roads will get busy as the anti-toll establishment shuns the Interstates.


So it works like Beetlejuice?


iPhone

Pretty much
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 05, 2017, 07:40:25 AM
So then how do we get him to disappear? So far he's added absolutely zero to this and needs to go back on his meds.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on April 05, 2017, 09:26:36 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 04, 2017, 11:14:05 PM

Has been suggested before and certainly cant happen now, but if Chicago was in WI (ie crazy political maps drawn 200 years ago), things would be hugely different

Indeed.  The state line is where it is because at the Illinois statehood convention, one of the delegates requested the line be moved north 50 miles from where the territorial line had been ostensibly so that Illinois would have some Lake Michigan shoreline.  Indiana had been granted a similar request earlier, but they'd only moved their line north 10 miles.  This delegate wanted 50 because he wanted Illinois to remain free, i.e. non-slaveholding, and he bet that the Wisconsin miners this new line would include would give his side the votes it needed for the state to remain free.  Sure enough, one of the first things to happen was a referendum on whether Illinois would have slavery or not, and slavery lost by about the margin that mining population provided. 

So yes, history would've been hugely different if that line had stayed further south. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 06, 2017, 12:01:05 AM
Quote from: invincor on April 05, 2017, 09:26:36 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 04, 2017, 11:14:05 PM

Has been suggested before and certainly cant happen now, but if Chicago was in WI (ie crazy political maps drawn 200 years ago), things would be hugely different

Indeed.  The state line is where it is because at the Illinois statehood convention, one of the delegates requested the line be moved north 50 miles from where the territorial line had been ostensibly so that Illinois would have some Lake Michigan shoreline.  Indiana had been granted a similar request earlier, but they'd only moved their line north 10 miles.  This delegate wanted 50 because he wanted Illinois to remain free, i.e. non-slaveholding, and he bet that the Wisconsin miners this new line would include would give his side the votes it needed for the state to remain free.  Sure enough, one of the first things to happen was a referendum on whether Illinois would have slavery or not, and slavery lost by about the margin that mining population provided. 

So yes, history would've been hugely different if that line had stayed further south.

Also, wasn't the City of Chicago incorporated about 20 years after Illinois' statehood?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on April 06, 2017, 07:46:17 AM
Looks like the political backing may not there in the budget process to revive 94 east-west: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/05/speakers-push-wisconsin-lawmakers-education-transportation-funding/100080694/

Was interesting watching the new DOT Secretary at the recent budget hearing for the joint budget committee meeting.  Clueless about roads and a political mouthpiece.  It really was an embarrassment to watch.  A true piece of work.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 06, 2017, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on April 06, 2017, 07:46:17 AM
Looks like the political backing may not there in the budget process to revive 94 east-west: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/05/speakers-push-wisconsin-lawmakers-education-transportation-funding/100080694/

Was interesting watching the new DOT Secretary at the recent budget hearing for the joint budget committee meeting.  Clueless about roads and a political mouthpiece.  It really was an embarrassment to watch.  A true piece of work.
Like the old Secretary knew about roads?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dzlsabe on April 07, 2017, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 05, 2017, 07:40:25 AM
So then how do we get him to disappear? So far he's added absolutely zero to this and needs to go back on his meds.

WTF does that mean? You wanna replace the First Amendment with the Second? Its not illegal to be "crazy" (note to self WI notes now at 272750?), in most states. Yet. Maybe in Wherethefami?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on April 07, 2017, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 06, 2017, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on April 06, 2017, 07:46:17 AM
Looks like the political backing may not there in the budget process to revive 94 east-west: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/05/speakers-push-wisconsin-lawmakers-education-transportation-funding/100080694/

Was interesting watching the new DOT Secretary at the recent budget hearing for the joint budget committee meeting.  Clueless about roads and a political mouthpiece.  It really was an embarrassment to watch.  A true piece of work.
Like the old Secretary knew about roads?

The best part is the new secretary still supports building roundabouts!  :D  :clap:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 07, 2017, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 06, 2017, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on April 06, 2017, 07:46:17 AM
Looks like the political backing may not there in the budget process to revive 94 east-west: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/05/speakers-push-wisconsin-lawmakers-education-transportation-funding/100080694/

Was interesting watching the new DOT Secretary at the recent budget hearing for the joint budget committee meeting.  Clueless about roads and a political mouthpiece.  It really was an embarrassment to watch.  A true piece of work.
Like the old Secretary knew about roads?

You're off by a Secretary.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 07, 2017, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 05, 2017, 07:40:25 AM
So then how do we get him to disappear? So far he's added absolutely zero to this and needs to go back on his meds.

WTF does that mean? You wanna replace the First Amendment with the Second? Its not illegal to be "crazy" (note to self WI notes now at 272750?), in most states. Yet. Maybe in Wherethefami?

Your point is moot on a privately run internet forum. We're all at the whim of the owner(s).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 07, 2017, 05:32:30 PM
The Interstate 94 project from Milwaukee south to Illinois should be completed. However, that does not mean the Interstate 94 70th St to 16th St project should be delayed indefinitely. I completely agree with David Haynes' article: http://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/blogs/real-time/2017/04/05/-94-east-west-rebuild-should-states-top-priority/100085376/. Yes a billion dollars
is a lot of money, but southeast Wisconsin has about 270 miles of freeway, and all of it will need to be reconstructed in the decades to come, as this 2003 SEWRPC study listed: http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Publications/pr/pr-047_regional_freeway_system_reconstruction.pdf.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 09, 2017, 10:35:02 AM
The stub end of a section of U.S. Highway 12 freeway just north of Elkhorn dies abruptly in gravel, the remnant of a construction project that would have extended U.S. 12 to a point about one-half mile east of County Highway O near Whitewater.

The plan officially was mapped by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation back in 1967.

But it remained in the planning stages for decades, and now that empty section of freeway, barricaded from traffic, is a road going nowhere.

That worries local officials who see the increase in traffic along the current route and would like to have the stalled project revived.


After 50 years, U.S. Highway 12 reroute and expansion remains stalled
http://www.communityshoppers.com/item/2442-after-50-years-u-s-highway-12-reroute-and-expansion-remains-stalled
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on April 09, 2017, 10:42:54 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 09, 2017, 10:35:02 AM
The stub end of a section of U.S. Highway 12 freeway just north of Elkhorn dies abruptly in gravel, the remnant of a construction project that would have extended U.S. 12 to a point about one-half mile east of County Highway O near Whitewater.

The plan officially was mapped by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation back in 1967.

But it remained in the planning stages for decades, and now that empty section of freeway, barricaded from traffic, is a road going nowhere.

That worries local officials who see the increase in traffic along the current route and would like to have the stalled project revived.


After 50 years, U.S. Highway 12 reroute and expansion remains stalled
http://www.communityshoppers.com/item/2442-after-50-years-u-s-highway-12-reroute-and-expansion-remains-stalled

Why is a freeway necessary here when it will not connect to Illinois? With the DOT funding crisis and the refusal of the state legislature to raise the gas tax, I'd push for a scaled back project along the existing alignment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 09, 2017, 10:54:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 09, 2017, 10:35:02 AM
The stub end of a section of U.S. Highway 12 freeway just north of Elkhorn dies abruptly in gravel, the remnant of a construction project that would have extended U.S. 12 to a point about one-half mile east of County Highway O near Whitewater.

The plan officially was mapped by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation back in 1967.

But it remained in the planning stages for decades, and now that empty section of freeway, barricaded from traffic, is a road going nowhere.

That worries local officials who see the increase in traffic along the current route and would like to have the stalled project revived.


After 50 years, U.S. Highway 12 reroute and expansion remains stalled
http://www.communityshoppers.com/item/2442-after-50-years-u-s-highway-12-reroute-and-expansion-remains-stalled


What I don't understand about this idea is that the re-route would have minimal impact on the local traffic north of Elkhorn and the summer traffic to the Lauderdale Lakes area.  Yeah you would get the traffic going beyond Lauderdale off the roads, but IMO that isn't a great deal of traffic.  The backups that occur at County A and ES are almost entirely due to local traffic. 

IMO this is exactly the type of project that is unnecessary and should be tabled until higher priority expansions get done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on April 09, 2017, 12:02:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 09, 2017, 10:54:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 09, 2017, 10:35:02 AM
The stub end of a section of U.S. Highway 12 freeway just north of Elkhorn dies abruptly in gravel, the remnant of a construction project that would have extended U.S. 12 to a point about one-half mile east of County Highway O near Whitewater.

The plan officially was mapped by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation back in 1967.

But it remained in the planning stages for decades, and now that empty section of freeway, barricaded from traffic, is a road going nowhere.

That worries local officials who see the increase in traffic along the current route and would like to have the stalled project revived.


After 50 years, U.S. Highway 12 reroute and expansion remains stalled
http://www.communityshoppers.com/item/2442-after-50-years-u-s-highway-12-reroute-and-expansion-remains-stalled


What I don't understand about this idea is that the re-route would have minimal impact on the local traffic north of Elkhorn and the summer traffic to the Lauderdale Lakes area.  Yeah you would get the traffic going beyond Lauderdale off the roads, but IMO that isn't a great deal of traffic.  The backups that occur at County A and ES are almost entirely due to local traffic. 

IMO this is exactly the type of project that is unnecessary and should be tabled until higher priority expansions get done.

Exactly. There are way more important things for WisDOT to focus on than this. Plus, with no connection at the Illinois line, it won't be necessary to complete.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 09, 2017, 12:12:59 PM
Also that NASTY turn that US 12 takes at WI 20/67.  Aside from its crossing of the easy to dig through Kettle Moraine just outside of Whitewater, the 'Corner Cut' would run through absolutely flat, wide-open countryside.  I would build it as a two-lane road on an upgradable four-lane ROW, to match the existing US 12 Whitewater bypass.

Someday, Illinois will find 'religion' on their end of this corridor as increasing traffic overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ChiMilNet on April 09, 2017, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2017, 12:12:59 PM
Also that NASTY turn that US 12 takes at WI 20/67.  Aside from its crossing of the easy to dig through Kettle Moraine just outside of Whitewater, the 'Corner Cut' would run through absolutely flat, wide-open countryside.  I would build it as a two-lane road on an upgradable four-lane ROW, to match the existing US 12 Whitewater bypass.

Someday, Illinois will find 'religion' on their end of this corridor as increasing traffic overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County.

Mike

Believe me, traffic already overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County. Our short term solution should be to make sure 12 is four lanes (if even undivided) from just West of Fox Lake to the State Border. Long term, one day after the IL 53 extension is finally done because Long Grove realizes they are not a country town (and hasn't been for about 50 years as of the time of this post), maybe the freeway/tollway portion finally gets done. I was up in the area yesterday, and it is a joke that the main route between Lake Geneva and Chicago has a two lane portion. For the population of that part of WI, I hope the powers that be here finally get a clue as well!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 10, 2017, 07:21:36 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on April 07, 2017, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 05, 2017, 07:40:25 AM
So then how do we get him to disappear? So far he's added absolutely zero to this and needs to go back on his meds.

WTF does that mean? You wanna replace the First Amendment with the Second? Its not illegal to be "crazy" (note to self WI notes now at 272750?), in most states. Yet. Maybe in Wherethefami?

1. The first amendment doesn't apply to message boards.
2. Nope. I don't want the second amendment to replace the first. I simply hope that someday you get the mental help you so obviously need.

Now go on back to "fictional highways" and talk about roads that will never be built.

As to the topic at hand, I still don't see US-12 ever getting any major upgrades in Wisconsin. For years a few people have been beating the "pressure cooker waiting to explode" drum, but I just don't see it. I drive on 12 from WI-67 out to Madison quite a bit, and have never thought "boy, this really needs to be four lanes". With the I-90 upgrades and 70MPH speed limits, there's just no reason to spend the money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on April 10, 2017, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on April 09, 2017, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2017, 12:12:59 PM
Also that NASTY turn that US 12 takes at WI 20/67.  Aside from its crossing of the easy to dig through Kettle Moraine just outside of Whitewater, the 'Corner Cut' would run through absolutely flat, wide-open countryside.  I would build it as a two-lane road on an upgradable four-lane ROW, to match the existing US 12 Whitewater bypass.

Someday, Illinois will find 'religion' on their end of this corridor as increasing traffic overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County.

Mike

Believe me, traffic already overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County. Our short term solution should be to make sure 12 is four lanes (if even undivided) from just West of Fox Lake to the State Border. Long term, one day after the IL 53 extension is finally done because Long Grove realizes they are not a country town (and hasn't been for about 50 years as of the time of this post), maybe the freeway/tollway portion finally gets done. I was up in the area yesterday, and it is a joke that the main route between Lake Geneva and Chicago has a two lane portion. For the population of that part of WI, I hope the powers that be here finally get a clue as well!

very little room in Richmond il to 4 lane us12 but maybe trumps dump the EPA can get the Richmond bypass build may have to toll it to pay for it it need hooks to FAP420 and maybe something along 47 or Randall Road area back to I-90.

IL-31 mchenry il to crystal lake 4 laneing is in the works and after that is mchenry il to Richmond next?

I think FAP 420 was going to trun in somewhere near mccullom lake \ ringwood road.

An exit near wonder lake IL would be nice.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 02:29:09 PM
I don't see the missing link of US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn being built anytime soon, if ever. The most I see WISDOT likely doing is maintain the existing US 12 corridor, and perhaps making minor improvements. How much traffic would the long-proposed "missing link" potentially take off existing US 12 anyway?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on April 10, 2017, 04:39:30 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 10, 2017, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on April 09, 2017, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2017, 12:12:59 PM
Also that NASTY turn that US 12 takes at WI 20/67.  Aside from its crossing of the easy to dig through Kettle Moraine just outside of Whitewater, the 'Corner Cut' would run through absolutely flat, wide-open countryside.  I would build it as a two-lane road on an upgradable four-lane ROW, to match the existing US 12 Whitewater bypass.

Someday, Illinois will find 'religion' on their end of this corridor as increasing traffic overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County.

Mike

Believe me, traffic already overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County. Our short term solution should be to make sure 12 is four lanes (if even undivided) from just West of Fox Lake to the State Border. Long term, one day after the IL 53 extension is finally done because Long Grove realizes they are not a country town (and hasn't been for about 50 years as of the time of this post), maybe the freeway/tollway portion finally gets done. I was up in the area yesterday, and it is a joke that the main route between Lake Geneva and Chicago has a two lane portion. For the population of that part of WI, I hope the powers that be here finally get a clue as well!

very little room in Richmond il to 4 lane us12 but maybe trumps dump the EPA can get the Richmond bypass build may have to toll it to pay for it it need hooks to FAP420 and maybe something along 47 or Randall Road area back to I-90.

IL-31 mchenry il to crystal lake 4 laneing is in the works and after that is mchenry il to Richmond next?

I think FAP 420 was going to trun in somewhere near mccullom lake \ ringwood road.

An exit near wonder lake IL would be nice.

They are never going to build the full Richmond-Waukegan FAP 420 corridor. It is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Too many environmental constraints and too much development. And the environmental restrictions will never be reversed, even if the EPA did, Illinois would still have to sign off on it and I doubt that would ever happen.

McHenry just going to have to make due with improving existing arterials.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on April 10, 2017, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 02:29:09 PM
I don't see the missing link of US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn being built anytime soon, if ever. The most I see WISDOT likely doing is maintain the existing US 12 corridor, and perhaps making minor improvements. How much traffic would the long-proposed "missing link" potentially take off existing US 12 anyway?

It is not needed unless it is going to connect with the FAP 420 corridor in Illinois, and the FAP 420 corridor will never be built. Therefore, building a new freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater is not necessary, even if it is only two lanes on four lane ROW.

Improve the existing road and call it a day.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 05:54:20 PM
That's most likely what will happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tribar on April 10, 2017, 06:34:22 PM
Quote from: I-39 on April 10, 2017, 04:39:30 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 10, 2017, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on April 09, 2017, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2017, 12:12:59 PM
Also that NASTY turn that US 12 takes at WI 20/67.  Aside from its crossing of the easy to dig through Kettle Moraine just outside of Whitewater, the 'Corner Cut' would run through absolutely flat, wide-open countryside.  I would build it as a two-lane road on an upgradable four-lane ROW, to match the existing US 12 Whitewater bypass.

Someday, Illinois will find 'religion' on their end of this corridor as increasing traffic overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County.

Mike

Believe me, traffic already overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County. Our short term solution should be to make sure 12 is four lanes (if even undivided) from just West of Fox Lake to the State Border. Long term, one day after the IL 53 extension is finally done because Long Grove realizes they are not a country town (and hasn't been for about 50 years as of the time of this post), maybe the freeway/tollway portion finally gets done. I was up in the area yesterday, and it is a joke that the main route between Lake Geneva and Chicago has a two lane portion. For the population of that part of WI, I hope the powers that be here finally get a clue as well!

very little room in Richmond il to 4 lane us12 but maybe trumps dump the EPA can get the Richmond bypass build may have to toll it to pay for it it need hooks to FAP420 and maybe something along 47 or Randall Road area back to I-90.

IL-31 mchenry il to crystal lake 4 laneing is in the works and after that is mchenry il to Richmond next?

I think FAP 420 was going to trun in somewhere near mccullom lake \ ringwood road.

An exit near wonder lake IL would be nice.

They are never going to build the full Richmond-Waukegan FAP 420 corridor. It is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Too many environmental constraints and too much development. And the environmental restrictions will never be reversed, even if the EPA did, Illinois would still have to sign off on it and I doubt that would ever happen.

McHenry just going to have to make due with improving existing arterials.

Something needs to be done with Richmond at least. It doesn't really need to be anything special. A 4 lane road from the existing partial interchange in Genoa City down to either Route 31 or Route 12 on the southern edge of town is all that's needed. You can even have stop lights instead of interchanges.  This shouldn't be terribly expensive either so there's no need to toll it, especially because it would only be a couple miles.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on April 10, 2017, 07:37:37 PM
Quote from: tribar on April 10, 2017, 06:34:22 PM
Quote from: I-39 on April 10, 2017, 04:39:30 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 10, 2017, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on April 09, 2017, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2017, 12:12:59 PM
Also that NASTY turn that US 12 takes at WI 20/67.  Aside from its crossing of the easy to dig through Kettle Moraine just outside of Whitewater, the 'Corner Cut' would run through absolutely flat, wide-open countryside.  I would build it as a two-lane road on an upgradable four-lane ROW, to match the existing US 12 Whitewater bypass.

Someday, Illinois will find 'religion' on their end of this corridor as increasing traffic overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County.

Mike

Believe me, traffic already overwhelms the existing roads in McHenry County. Our short term solution should be to make sure 12 is four lanes (if even undivided) from just West of Fox Lake to the State Border. Long term, one day after the IL 53 extension is finally done because Long Grove realizes they are not a country town (and hasn't been for about 50 years as of the time of this post), maybe the freeway/tollway portion finally gets done. I was up in the area yesterday, and it is a joke that the main route between Lake Geneva and Chicago has a two lane portion. For the population of that part of WI, I hope the powers that be here finally get a clue as well!

very little room in Richmond il to 4 lane us12 but maybe trumps dump the EPA can get the Richmond bypass build may have to toll it to pay for it it need hooks to FAP420 and maybe something along 47 or Randall Road area back to I-90.

IL-31 mchenry il to crystal lake 4 laneing is in the works and after that is mchenry il to Richmond next?

I think FAP 420 was going to trun in somewhere near mccullom lake \ ringwood road.

An exit near wonder lake IL would be nice.

They are never going to build the full Richmond-Waukegan FAP 420 corridor. It is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Too many environmental constraints and too much development. And the environmental restrictions will never be reversed, even if the EPA did, Illinois would still have to sign off on it and I doubt that would ever happen.

McHenry just going to have to make due with improving existing arterials.

Something needs to be done with Richmond at least. It doesn't really need to be anything special. A 4 lane road from the existing partial interchange in Genoa City down to either Route 31 or Route 12 on the southern edge of town is all that's needed. You can even have stop lights instead of interchanges.  This shouldn't be terribly expensive either so there's no need to toll it, especially because it would only be a couple miles.

maybe Richmond + IL-53 with IL-120 full tollway from US/41 till just past US-12.

and then widen us 12 Richmond to fox lake and IL 31 Richmond to mchenry il
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 10, 2017, 08:30:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on April 10, 2017, 06:34:22 PM
Something needs to be done with Richmond at least. It doesn't really need to be anything special. A 4 lane road from the existing partial interchange in Genoa City down to either Route 31 or Route 12 on the southern edge of town is all that's needed. You can even have stop lights instead of interchanges.  This shouldn't be terribly expensive either so there's no need to toll it, especially because it would only be a couple miles.

If I remember correctly, the last time this came up, Richmond officials flat out refused to discuss any alternative that took US-12 outside of town. They want it there, apparently.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 10, 2017, 08:46:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 10, 2017, 08:30:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on April 10, 2017, 06:34:22 PM
Something needs to be done with Richmond at least. It doesn't really need to be anything special. A 4 lane road from the existing partial interchange in Genoa City down to either Route 31 or Route 12 on the southern edge of town is all that's needed. You can even have stop lights instead of interchanges.  This shouldn't be terribly expensive either so there's no need to toll it, especially because it would only be a couple miles.

If I remember correctly, the last time this came up, Richmond officials flat out refused to discuss any alternative that took US-12 outside of town. They want it there, apparently.

If they were smart, you could have a super 2 expressway (think more like Wis 36 around Burlington but with just 2 lanes and no exits) that connects the US 12 freeway and US 12 east of IL 31. Old 12 could be Business 12 to appease the city of Richmond.

Same could be done to cut the Wis 20/67 corner.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on April 10, 2017, 09:23:23 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 10, 2017, 08:30:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on April 10, 2017, 06:34:22 PM
Something needs to be done with Richmond at least. It doesn't really need to be anything special. A 4 lane road from the existing partial interchange in Genoa City down to either Route 31 or Route 12 on the southern edge of town is all that's needed. You can even have stop lights instead of interchanges.  This shouldn't be terribly expensive either so there's no need to toll it, especially because it would only be a couple miles.

If I remember correctly, the last time this came up, Richmond officials flat out refused to discuss any alternative that took US-12 outside of town. They want it there, apparently.
call the bypass TOLL-US12 they can keep there free us-12.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 11, 2017, 07:19:33 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 10, 2017, 09:23:23 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 10, 2017, 08:30:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on April 10, 2017, 06:34:22 PM
Something needs to be done with Richmond at least. It doesn't really need to be anything special. A 4 lane road from the existing partial interchange in Genoa City down to either Route 31 or Route 12 on the southern edge of town is all that's needed. You can even have stop lights instead of interchanges.  This shouldn't be terribly expensive either so there's no need to toll it, especially because it would only be a couple miles.

If I remember correctly, the last time this came up, Richmond officials flat out refused to discuss any alternative that took US-12 outside of town. They want it there, apparently.
call the bypass TOLL-US12 they can keep there free us-12.

Pretty certain that it won't make a difference. I think at this point, the chances of a meaningful Richmond bypass are effectively zero.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on April 12, 2017, 07:01:34 AM
In other news, a few days ago I was driving down County KK/Calumet St in Appleton, and as I was approaching the traffic light at John St/Driftwood Ln, I noticed a sign that said "END County KK", instead of a sign stating KK turns right to go up John St.  (There have never been reassurance signs along John St, though, at least from what I remember.)  So did they truncate the route, or was it simply the replacement of an old sign?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2017, 04:40:38 PM
There was a KK Right sign on Calumet St. the last time a Google car traveled the corridor back in September 2016: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2438485,-88.3651261,3a,75y,320.9h,83.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su3v5FeBn3Co4PYtBRwKqmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

My guess is it was a replaced sign, and one that may have been inaccurate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 12, 2017, 06:35:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2017, 04:40:38 PM
There was a KK Right sign on Calumet St. the last time a Google car traveled the corridor back in September 2016: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2438485,-88.3651261,3a,75y,320.9h,83.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su3v5FeBn3Co4PYtBRwKqmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

My guess is it was a replaced sign, and one that may have been inaccurate.

When John St was reconstructed, it was turned over to the City of Appleton just like Ballard Rd between County OO and Wis 96 was after reconstruction. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 12, 2017, 06:36:52 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on April 12, 2017, 07:01:34 AM
In other news, a few days ago I was driving down County KK/Calumet St in Appleton, and as I was approaching the traffic light at John St/Driftwood Ln, I noticed a sign that said "END County KK", instead of a sign stating KK turns right to go up John St.  (There have never been reassurance signs along John St, though, at least from what I remember.)  So did they truncate the route, or was it simply the replacement of an old sign?

Truncated after John St reconstruction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on April 12, 2017, 08:59:30 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 10, 2017, 08:30:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on April 10, 2017, 06:34:22 PM
Something needs to be done with Richmond at least. It doesn't really need to be anything special. A 4 lane road from the existing partial interchange in Genoa City down to either Route 31 or Route 12 on the southern edge of town is all that's needed. You can even have stop lights instead of interchanges.  This shouldn't be terribly expensive either so there's no need to toll it, especially because it would only be a couple miles.

If I remember correctly, the last time this came up, Richmond officials flat out refused to discuss any alternative that took US-12 outside of town. They want it there, apparently.

I thought it was the Army Corps objecting to wetland impacts that was the main issue last time the bypass came up?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 12, 2017, 10:57:10 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on April 12, 2017, 07:01:34 AM
In other news, a few days ago I was driving down County KK/Calumet St in Appleton, and as I was approaching the traffic light at John St/Driftwood Ln, I noticed a sign that said "END County KK", instead of a sign stating KK turns right to go up John St.  (There have never been reassurance signs along John St, though, at least from what I remember.)  So did they truncate the route, or was it simply the replacement of an old sign?

I saw the same sign a few days ago and was about to report it, too.  I was thinking that it was done just to clarify things and didn't even know when Outagamie County completely turned John St over to the City of Appleton.  IIRC, the whole thing to at least its former Fox River bridge was once County 'KK', ditto the Walter Ave/Newberry St corridor once being County 'Z'.

For those unaware of how Appleton is laid out, this sign is a few blocks west of the WI 441/Calumet St interchange.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on April 13, 2017, 07:00:59 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 12, 2017, 10:57:10 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on April 12, 2017, 07:01:34 AM
In other news, a few days ago I was driving down County KK/Calumet St in Appleton, and as I was approaching the traffic light at John St/Driftwood Ln, I noticed a sign that said "END County KK", instead of a sign stating KK turns right to go up John St.  (There have never been reassurance signs along John St, though, at least from what I remember.)  So did they truncate the route, or was it simply the replacement of an old sign?

I saw the same sign a few days ago and was about to report it, too.  I was thinking that it was done just to clarify things and didn't even know when Outagamie County completely turned John St over to the City of Appleton.  IIRC, the whole thing to at least its former Fox River bridge was once County 'KK', ditto the Walter Ave/Newberry St corridor once being County 'Z'.

For those unaware of how Appleton is laid out, this sign is a few blocks west of the WI 441/Calumet St interchange.

Mike

Is the "JCT County AP" sign along westbound KK as it approaches Eisenhower Dr also a remnant from a previous incarnation of AP?  That sign has always irked me personally; AP is Midway Rd, for Pete's sake!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 13, 2017, 10:51:56 AM
If you're wondering how I found out about the County KK truncation, it was listed on Outagamie County's highway project website.  John St was listed as a joint project between Outagamie County and the City of Appleton with the city leading the project.  It said once completed, Appleton would take full jurisdiction.  The JCT AP sign on KK is a remnant from when County AP was part of Eisenhower and Plank Rd. 

Before all the development, Plank Rd once cut through where Walmart is now at an angle, but was rerouted with the new Eisenhower Dr.  It was also once County P and ran at a Southwest to Northeast angle between US 10 and County KK.  County AP/Midway Rd ended at a T intersection with US 10 until the mid 90s when it was extended east.  When that happened, County P was removed and County AP took over Plank Rd to the east of where they intersect. 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:20:35 PM
The new number format standard issue Wisconsin license plates will be on the road within the next week or two.  Their design is unchanged.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-to-start-issuing-seven-character-license-plates-419381884.html (note, there is an auto-play feed in that link).

:cool:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:23:09 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 13, 2017, 10:51:56 AM
If you're wondering how I found out about the County KK truncation, it was listed on Outagamie County's highway project website.  John St was listed as a joint project between Outagamie County and the City of Appleton with the city leading the project.  It said once completed, Appleton would take full jurisdiction.  The JCT AP sign on KK is a remnant from when County AP was part of Eisenhower and Plank Rd. 

Before all the development, Plank Rd once cut through where Walmart is now at an angle, but was rerouted with the new Eisenhower Dr.  It was also once County P and ran at a Southwest to Northeast angle between US 10 and County KK.  County AP/Midway Rd ended at a T intersection with US 10 until the mid 90s when it was extended east.  When that happened, County P was removed and County AP took over Plank Rd to the east of where they intersect.

I haven't driven that way in a while, does Calumet County 'AP' still have that 'hanging' end near Lake Park Rd?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on April 13, 2017, 12:41:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:20:35 PM
The new number format standard issue Wisconsin license plates will be on the road within the next week or two.  Their design is unchanged.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-to-start-issuing-seven-character-license-plates-419381884.html (note, there is an auto-play feed in that link).

:cool:

Mike

thanks for sharing!

I saw a ???-ZW? plate last week on the roads, I can tell the end is near!

I hope they stick with embossed letters and don't go with flat plates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: colinstu on April 13, 2017, 12:41:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:20:35 PM
The new number format standard issue Wisconsin license plates will be on the road within the next week or two.  Their design is unchanged.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-to-start-issuing-seven-character-license-plates-419381884.html (note, there is an auto-play feed in that link).

:cool:

Mike

thanks for sharing!

I saw a ???-ZW? plate last week on the roads, I can tell the end is near!

I hope they stick with embossed letters and don't go with flat plates.

From WisDOT:
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/041317-dmv-7digit-plates.aspx

The photo gallery in it shows an image of a car with 'ABC-1234', shot on what looks to me like a street in or near the UW campus in Madison.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 13, 2017, 01:47:39 PM
Quote from: colinstu on April 13, 2017, 12:41:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:20:35 PM
The new number format standard issue Wisconsin license plates will be on the road within the next week or two.  Their design is unchanged.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-to-start-issuing-seven-character-license-plates-419381884.html (note, there is an auto-play feed in that link).

:cool:

Mike

thanks for sharing!

I saw a ???-ZW? plate last week on the roads, I can tell the end is near!

I hope they stick with embossed letters and don't go with flat plates.


It looks embossed.  And if BSI is making it, they aren't going to change the process.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 13, 2017, 04:50:32 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:23:09 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 13, 2017, 10:51:56 AM
If you're wondering how I found out about the County KK truncation, it was listed on Outagamie County's highway project website.  John St was listed as a joint project between Outagamie County and the City of Appleton with the city leading the project.  It said once completed, Appleton would take full jurisdiction.  The JCT AP sign on KK is a remnant from when County AP was part of Eisenhower and Plank Rd. 

Before all the development, Plank Rd once cut through where Walmart is now at an angle, but was rerouted with the new Eisenhower Dr.  It was also once County P and ran at a Southwest to Northeast angle between US 10 and County KK.  County AP/Midway Rd ended at a T intersection with US 10 until the mid 90s when it was extended east.  When that happened, County P was removed and County AP took over Plank Rd to the east of where they intersect.

I haven't driven that way in a while, does Calumet County 'AP' still have that 'hanging' end near Lake Park Rd?

Mike

County AP ends at Coop Rd. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on April 13, 2017, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:20:35 PM
The new number format standard issue Wisconsin license plates will be on the road within the next week or two.  Their design is unchanged.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-to-start-issuing-seven-character-license-plates-419381884.html (note, there is an auto-play feed in that link).

:cool:

Mike

I can just see these coming out:

420-POOP
666-FART
069-BUTT

etc.  :)

Quote from: peterj920 on April 13, 2017, 10:51:56 AM
If you're wondering how I found out about the County KK truncation, it was listed on Outagamie County's highway project website.  John St was listed as a joint project between Outagamie County and the City of Appleton with the city leading the project.  It said once completed, Appleton would take full jurisdiction.  The JCT AP sign on KK is a remnant from when County AP was part of Eisenhower and Plank Rd. 

Before all the development, Plank Rd once cut through where Walmart is now at an angle, but was rerouted with the new Eisenhower Dr.  It was also once County P and ran at a Southwest to Northeast angle between US 10 and County KK.  County AP/Midway Rd ended at a T intersection with US 10 until the mid 90s when it was extended east.  When that happened, County P was removed and County AP took over Plank Rd to the east of where they intersect.

Could someone please hack up a map so I can visualize these changes better?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 13, 2017, 11:02:48 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on April 13, 2017, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:20:35 PM
The new number format standard issue Wisconsin license plates will be on the road within the next week or two.  Their design is unchanged.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-to-start-issuing-seven-character-license-plates-419381884.html (note, there is an auto-play feed in that link).

:cool:

Mike

I can just see these coming out:

420-POOP
666-FART
069-BUTT

etc.  :)

The DMV may be a little slow in many cases*, but their reviews would surely stop those before they got produced. And the new length only impacts standard, non-personalized plates. Most personalized plates have been allowed to have 7 characters for quite some time.

* Seriously, why in this day and age does it take over a month and a half just to process a special license plate application? (Wisconsin is not alone in this situation.) Then another 4-6 weeks for the plates to actually arrive? I get it's a government operation/non-competitive product, but I could make a plate by hand in that amount of time.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on April 14, 2017, 02:13:37 PM
Whew. I haven't been on here in quite a while, so I just spent the day catching up from back on Page 45. I do have a couple of questions:

1. In regards to reforming/consolidating municipalities in Wisconsin, somebody on here (or multiple people) was talking about fictional maps. Is there a link to any of them? I had toyed with the idea of creating my own, but maybe I won't if there's already the same thing out there. A "Roadgeek Fanfic" if you will...I guess?

2. I am from FDL and I do not understand the re-route of US45 one bit. It seems to take the traveler way out of the way, only to bring them back to Main Street and then back west again to 45 (The Lake Road). I agree with whomever, that just duplex 41 and 45...it would make sense if they are making a 3DI out of the West Bend Spur, however, why would they need to remove US45 from it in order to do so? LOL They didn't have a problem doing that with US/I 41.

3. In regards to the much-needed Wis23 Expansion to Plymouth...Yep. That's the joke around here too, that we'll all be dead and it'll still be the current 2 lane mess it is. I've just resorted to thinking a High Speed Rail service would suffice just fine. My in laws live in Sheboygan Falls, and I frequent Wis23 often enough and I'd ride it (doesn't help that my kids love riding trains and my father is a model railroader so Trains are in my blood :))

3A. Hopefully it doesn't cause people to cry blasphemy, but I've often daydreamed about High Speed Rail and what it could be if given a chance in Wisconsin. Partisan Politics aside, and maybe again I am biased because of the aforementioned train-blood hybrid, but I very much enjoy the concept of taking a train to and around Chicago. I do see the other negative side of the coin, however, that you better hope your destination is on a train line, and your life (schedule) is now in the hands of the CTA.

4. I guess I wouldn't be against tolling, I've mentioned that a few times before on other threads and maybe this one as well. It'd be a PITA, I know, but it would make sense to me, is all I'm saying. Freeways being Free in Wisconsin was a fun concept while it lasted, but as many on here have said, roads were overbuilt (and I agree with the fact that roundabouts and signs do not the budget crisis make. It is truly US 10s to Marshfield and Wis 26's), crucial projects put on the back burner, and the like. Maybe looking into a Toll for just, say, 41/94 from Milwaukee to Pleasant Prairie, 39/90/94 from Janesville to the Dells (or an iteration of that)...doesn't have to be all of it, just the crucial parts that need the fixing and needed it last century (hyperbolically speaking)

That's All I've got for now, It's good to be back!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 14, 2017, 08:42:19 PM
The reroute of US 45 in Fond Du Lac was done so the local streets could be turned back to the City of Fond Du Lac.  It's doubtful anyone closely follows the route within the area anyways. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 14, 2017, 08:46:14 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 14, 2017, 08:42:19 PM
The reroute of US 45 in Fond Du Lac was done so the local streets could be turned back to the City of Fond Du Lac.  It's doubtful anyone closely follows the route within the area anyways. 


That is undoubtedly why they made the routing decision they did.  I thought they should have just routed WI-76 down US-45 to end at WI-23 and just had US-45 duplex with I-41 down to US-151, but they made the decision to make it most convenient for people who live along the route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 14, 2017, 11:45:06 PM
Although not 'high speed' in any sense of the word (it was only to be 'restored conventional speed'), the proposed restoration of common-carrier rail passenger service to Madison back in the early 00s had expensive mess written all over it.  $800M just to do the infrastructure?  :wow:  That's twice what the Marquette Interchange cost to rebuild.  Restoring service to the Fox Valley (FdL/Oshkosh/Appleton/Green Bay) would have been much more popular, IMHO, in that it is in just the right geographic direction and distance from Chicago and is the largest total market anywhere in the 'Lower 48' USA that currently does not have such service.  And at about $175M for the infrastructure (*one fifth* of the cost!), that, to me, was a 'no brainer'.

BTW, from everything that I've read on it, CNW's pre May, 1971 Green Bay/Fox Valley service was popular and operated at a profit 'above the rail', such that Amtrak wanted to take it over at their startup.  Hesitation on the part of the state legislature (remember, this was the time of the Apollo Moon landings and the rise of jet-powered airliners and the interstate highway system, such that rails were thought of as being 'quaint' and 'old fashioned') to chip in to cover part of the cost of rebuilding CNW's then deteriorating track ultimately forced Amtrak to walk away.   :no:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on April 15, 2017, 12:26:27 AM
Umm.. the Marquette rebuild was $810 million? And that was after several downgrades that were made to its design?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:09:20 PM
Quote from: colinstu on April 15, 2017, 12:26:27 AM
Umm.. the Marquette rebuild was $810 million? And that was after several downgrades that were made to its design?

Thinking back, the 'half' number was what Doyle raided from the Transportation Fund that one year, money that WisDOT was saving up to rebuild the Marquette.   A massive amount of money.  Why so much?  Part of the Madison line plan was to dig several lengthy sections of that roadbed on either side of Waterloo, WI out of the swamps and replace them with bridging.

Brainfart.   :-P

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:29:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: colinstu on April 13, 2017, 12:41:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:20:35 PM
The new number format standard issue Wisconsin license plates will be on the road within the next week or two.  Their design is unchanged.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-to-start-issuing-seven-character-license-plates-419381884.html (note, there is an auto-play feed in that link).

:cool:

Mike

thanks for sharing!

I saw a ???-ZW? plate last week on the roads, I can tell the end is near!

I hope they stick with embossed letters and don't go with flat plates.

From WisDOT:
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/041317-dmv-7digit-plates.aspx

The photo gallery in it shows an image of a car with 'ABC-1234', shot on what looks to me like a street in or near the UW campus in Madison.

Mike

A couple of more items in today's (Saturday, 2017-04-15) Appleton Post-Crescent

- This new format will allow over 100M number combinations.  With about 3.5M cars currently registered with standard issue plate numbers in Wisconsin, I can easily see the pool of available numbers in this format lasting until at least the late 21st century.

- WisDOT has no plans to systematically replace any existing plates.  The state's spokesguy said that if anyone's plates become worn out and unreadable, they can take them to any WisDOT licensing office to have them replaced.  This will also help make the new number pool last a looooong time.

- He also said that the state purposely decided not to jumble the letters and numbers to expand the six-digit pool in that keeping the letters and numbers grouped separately on either sides of a dash makes the plate numbers easier to read and remember.

Also, a couple of days ago, I saw a local vehicle with the plate 'APR 1974' (no dash).  This is a personalized plate number that I've seen a few times before in recent years.  That number fits nicely on the plate and, I would assume, it will be skipped when the standard issue numbers get that far.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on April 16, 2017, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:29:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: colinstu on April 13, 2017, 12:41:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2017, 12:20:35 PM
The new number format standard issue Wisconsin license plates will be on the road within the next week or two.  Their design is unchanged.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-to-start-issuing-seven-character-license-plates-419381884.html (note, there is an auto-play feed in that link).

:cool:

Mike

thanks for sharing!

I saw a ???-ZW? plate last week on the roads, I can tell the end is near!

I hope they stick with embossed letters and don't go with flat plates.

From WisDOT:
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/041317-dmv-7digit-plates.aspx

The photo gallery in it shows an image of a car with 'ABC-1234', shot on what looks to me like a street in or near the UW campus in Madison.

Mike

A couple of more items in today's (Saturday, 2017-04-15) Appleton Post-Crescent

- This new format will allow over 100M number combinations.  With about 3.5M cars currently registered with standard issue plate numbers in Wisconsin, I can easily see the pool of available numbers in this format lasting until at least the late 21st century.

- WisDOT has no plans to systematically replace any existing plates.  The state's spokesguy said that if anyone's plates become worn out and unreadable, they can take them to any WisDOT licensing office to have them replaced.  This will also help make the new number pool last a looooong time.

- He also said that the state purposely decided not to jumble the letters and numbers to expand the six-digit pool in that keeping the letters and numbers grouped separately on either sides of a dash makes the plate numbers easier to read and remember.

Also, a couple of days ago, I saw a local vehicle with the plate 'APR 1974' (no dash).  This is a personalized plate number that I've seen a few times before in recent years.  That number fits nicely on the plate and, I would assume, it will be skipped when the standard issue numbers get that far.

Mike

Kind of unfortunate they aren't taking the opportunity to update the plate artwork. I know that probably would take an act of the legislature, but it would be fun to have a design competition and allow the public to weigh in. Good for civic pride and all that...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 17, 2017, 01:27:36 PM
For your consideration...

http://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/04/17/poole-wisconsin-should-act-now-interstate-tolling/100561372/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 17, 2017, 08:21:27 PM
Update on the US 151 BGS replacements - Various Exit BGSs have been replaced further northeast to Dodgeville.  Updated so far:

* Exit 1 (WIS 11) - none
* Exit 2 and 3 (Badger Rd/Eagle Pt Rd) - none
* Exit 5 (CTH HHH/H) - Swapped H and HHH - which one had the TO banner was previously the opposite from the one the ramp junctioned with.  The swapped corrected the problem.
* Exit 8 (US61/WIS35/CTH HH) - NB removed Lancaster as a control city leaving only Dickeyville. Neither SB sign nor the NB advance sign were replaced. (NOTE: Great River Road is still shown on SB signs - this would ideally removed and paired with the "Scenic Byway" shields on unisigns to match northbound and Exit 1's updates from 2015.)
* Exit 19 (CTH D/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH D being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.  (BR 151 is still shown NB only).
* Exit 18 (WIS 80/81) - Control City updates: SB removed Lancaster and replaced with Cuba City, NB removed Darlington and replaced with Cuba City - still have PLatteville (obviously).
* Exit 21 (CTH XX/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH XX being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.   (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet.
* Exit 26 (WIS 126/CTH G) - Rewey added as secondary CC SB (already was such NB).   Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet.  WIS 126 is now a wide shield on replaced signs.
* Exit 37 (CTH O/Bus 151 Mineral Point) -  Signs were replaced with CTH O being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.  (BR 151 is still shown NB only). Contractors did not replace the SB signs.
* Exit 40 (WIS 23/WIS 39/Bus 151 Mineral Point) -  Signs were replaced with WIS 23/WIS 39 being featured routes and US 151 shield now a wide one.  Darlington (SB) and Hollandale (NB) were replaced with Linden (a town on WIS 39 west of MP)  (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the NB 1 Mile Advance sign yet
** Pandervais Historic Site was returned to a brown sign from a blue one (as a "logo") in both directions - "Historic Downtown Mineral Point" was added SB only.  SWAG says the NB side might be at exit 37(For the layman - SWAG == Scientific wild-ass guess ;) )
* Exit 44 (WIS 23) - No apparent replacements yet.  Speculations (based on Exit 47 below) point to Spring Green (NB secondary) being removed and The House on the Rock (before project on green BG co-signed with brown BG Governor Dodge State Park) - now being on a brown background.  Signs on the SB overhead bridge have not been touched yet.
* Exit 47 (US 18 West) - Prairie du Chein was removed from advanced sign going WB.  A second advance sign at "1/8 mile" was pulled completely.  The treatment for HOTR took place here (as noted in Exit 44).  Signs on the SB overhead bridge have not been touched yet.
So far this is the extent of the work - some other notes:
* Exit overview signs (Platteville, Mineral Point) were replaced with order of route ID and wide US 151 shields in both directions
* Blue Ad signs were all replaced or in progress of being replaced in affected areas.
All of the signs are narrower - leaving very little space on each side of the widest line.  The signs are also way cleaner than their predecessors which were put together quite sloppy.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 20, 2017, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 17, 2017, 08:21:27 PM
Update on the US 151 BGS replacements - Various Exit BGSs have been replaced further northeast to Dodgeville.  Updated so far:

* Exit 1 (WIS 11) - none
* Exit 2 and 3 (Badger Rd/Eagle Pt Rd) - none
* Exit 5 (CTH HHH/H) - Swapped H and HHH - which one had the TO banner was previously the opposite from the one the ramp junctioned with.  The swapped corrected the problem.
* Exit 8 (US61/WIS35/CTH HH) - NB removed Lancaster as a control city leaving only Dickeyville. Neither SB sign nor the NB advance sign were replaced. (NOTE: Great River Road is still shown on SB signs - this would ideally removed and paired with the "Scenic Byway" shields on unisigns to match northbound and Exit 1's updates from 2015.)
* Exit 19 (CTH D/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH D being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.  (BR 151 is still shown NB only).
* Exit 18 (WIS 80/81) - Control City updates: SB removed Lancaster and replaced with Cuba City, NB removed Darlington and replaced with Cuba City - still have PLatteville (obviously).
* Exit 21 (CTH XX/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH XX being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.   (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet.
* Exit 26 (WIS 126/CTH G) - Rewey added as secondary CC SB (already was such NB).   Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet.  WIS 126 is now a wide shield on replaced signs.
* Exit 37 (CTH O/Bus 151 Mineral Point) -  Signs were replaced with CTH O being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.  (BR 151 is still shown NB only). Contractors did not replace the SB signs.
* Exit 40 (WIS 23/WIS 39/Bus 151 Mineral Point) -  Signs were replaced with WIS 23/WIS 39 being featured routes and US 151 shield now a wide one.  Darlington (SB) and Hollandale (NB) were replaced with Linden (a town on WIS 39 west of MP)  (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the NB 1 Mile Advance sign yet
** Pandervais Historic Site was returned to a brown sign from a blue one (as a "logo") in both directions - "Historic Downtown Mineral Point" was added SB only.  SWAG says the NB side might be at exit 37(For the layman - SWAG == Scientific wild-ass guess ;) )
* Exit 44 (WIS 23) - No apparent replacements yet.  Speculations (based on Exit 47 below) point to Spring Green (NB secondary) being removed and The House on the Rock (before project on green BG co-signed with brown BG Governor Dodge State Park) - now being on a brown background.  Signs on the SB overhead bridge have not been touched yet.
* Exit 47 (US 18 West) - Prairie du Chein was removed from advanced sign going WB.  A second advance sign at "1/8 mile" was pulled completely.  The treatment for HOTR took place here (as noted in Exit 44).  Signs on the SB overhead bridge have not been touched yet.
So far this is the extent of the work - some other notes:
* Exit overview signs (Platteville, Mineral Point) were replaced with order of route ID and wide US 151 shields in both directions
* Blue Ad signs were all replaced or in progress of being replaced in affected areas.
All of the signs are narrower - leaving very little space on each side of the widest line.  The signs are also way cleaner than their predecessors which were put together quite sloppy.
I can agree with eliminating Lancaster and Darlington from the exit 19 signs. Cuba City makes much more sense. Same goes for eliminating Hollandale at exit 40. I probably would've left Darlington, though, as taking 23 south from Mineral Point is a common route to Darlington. Or at least have a supplemental sign saying Darlington exit 40.

At exit 26 I would have left Rewey off the southbound sign, because if you're heading south on 151 and then heading to Rewey, you would've already taken cty A. I suppose I can understand wanting consistency for both directions however.

Speaking of consistency, I wish they would sign Bus 151 from both directions at Platteville and Mineral Point. I've know people coming from the south and were headed to Wal-Mart in Platteville and were told to exit at XX. So they exited at XX exit 21, and proceeded to turn right at the end of the ramp because they assumed they were to follow XX to get to walmart, and ended up in Belmont before turning around. These people may not have been the brightest crayons in the box, but signing should be made mostly idiot proof. Putting Bus 151 on both directions signage would help.

I'm also not a fan of the wide shields for 151 and 126. Nowhere else are they signed with wide shields, so why start now?

LGL56VL

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 20, 2017, 05:35:31 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 20, 2017, 05:06:11 PM
I'm also not a fan of the wide shields for 151 and 126. Nowhere else are they signed with wide shields, so why start now?

LGL56VL

Wide 151 shields also appear on a select few signs (https://goo.gl/maps/WZNMg7NANis) around the interchange with the interstate on the NE side of Madison. However, the spec shows "square" shields.

As for 126... that's how 3-digits shields are technically spec'd (http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/signplate/mseries/M1-56.pdf) for BGSs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 21, 2017, 12:31:38 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on April 20, 2017, 05:35:31 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 20, 2017, 05:06:11 PM
I'm also not a fan of the wide shields for 151 and 126. Nowhere else are they signed with wide shields, so why start now?

LGL56VL

Wide 151 shields also appear on a select few signs (https://goo.gl/maps/WZNMg7NANis) around the interchange with the interstate on the NE side of Madison. However, the spec shows "square" shields.

As for 126... that's how 3-digits shields are technically spec'd (http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/signplate/mseries/M1-56.pdf) for BGSs.

New wide US 151 shields on I-43 appeared last year.  Have yet to see one for US 141.  The BGS on I-43 will be replaced so it will be interesting to see if they go wide or narrow. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on April 21, 2017, 12:35:57 AM
What's wrong with wide shields? Heck... what's a 3-digit non-wide shield look like anyway?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2017, 04:20:32 AM
OK, so they were the first wide 126 and 151 shields I had seen. For a look at a non-wide 151 or 126 shield, just take a ride along one of the highways and you'll see them posted all along the routes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dzlsabe on April 22, 2017, 11:40:47 PM
In Kenosha the other rainy day, figured out that the Edens Spur & Tri state are basically just a "wormhole" to the Brat Stop. On the way back see "I-41 ends". Why did it start? Eight lanes of magnificent concrete and I-94 was insufficient? BTW, the added sign clutter around Hwy 50 is hillarryous. 249221
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 01, 2017, 12:34:47 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/0Mgnl8V.png)

Saw this last week.... getting very low on old plates! Should see new format ones soon... anyone see one in the wild yet?

edit: what's interesting, allegedly the 123-ZZA (and higher?) series plates were for 'for hire' cars up until 2004. ZYA+ were also used for human service vehicles.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 01, 2017, 10:08:52 AM
I've seen plates up to (xxx)-ZZJ so far (about a week ago).  I'm expecting to see a LLL-NNNN plate sometime this week.

There is a vehicle here in the Appleton area that has 'APR 1974' (no dash), but that is a personalized number that Ive seen a few times over the past several years. I'm assuming that WisDOT will skip that one in the regular issue series when they get that far.  That number balances nicely on the plate, BTW.

BTW, the plate in your image also tops the high number that is currently shown in licenseplates(dot)cc.  As of this posting, their highest is 168-ZZK.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on May 03, 2017, 07:28:57 AM
As some other states have done, new proposal out there partially transitions Wisconsin from a gas tax to a sales tax funding strategy at the pump to raise more revenue for transportation and be less reliant on bonding.  To make it tax neutral it also cuts the income tax.  Also puts Wisconsin on board to apply to the Feds to convert some freeways to tollways. 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/02/gop-plan-would-hike-wisconsin-gas-tax-slash-income-taxes-and-borrowing/101194618/

Not sure how people will feel about this... I doubt there is support in it's current form but I expect parts of it (like tolling) may make it into the final budget.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 03, 2017, 08:06:47 AM
I'd rather have nothing done than any part of that plan become a thing.

Half step forward and 29 steps back. CLUELESS on how budgets and taxes work. "Let's cut taxes. Obviously that means we'll be able to pay for everything now!" *runs home to the bank with barely any more money and the entire public suffers*
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on May 03, 2017, 09:24:52 AM
I actually kind of like the idea of converting the gas tax to a percentage tax like the sales tax, but I'm not really seeing how this plan would increase funding for transportation. Cutting the per gallon gas tax and replacing that lost revenue isn't really getting us ahead. They just need to either raise the gas tax, or have it indexed to inflation again like it was before 2007. Really all this plan is is a political stunt to try to get Walker to accept it, since he won't back down from his stance that he won't accept any tax increase without a corresponding tax cut somewhere else, i.e. revenue neutral. And a gas tax proposal shouldn't be included with a plan to cut income taxes. Each should be discussed and voted on on its own.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on May 03, 2017, 12:59:45 PM
Question for the group, especially those of you more in tune with the present politics in Madison. 

If a municipality were to approach the governor and the WisDOT chief and ask that a project that is in the current schedules to be completed in about 10 years time instead be advanced to as soon as possible so that it can help in the construction of a new, large business development for that municipality, how likely would it be that it could be approved? 

Just this situation is happening in Hudson right now.  An investment group from the Twin Cities has bought the long disused St. Croix Meadows dog-racing track property and plans to redevelop it in three phases.  Phase One is to include a baseball park for a Northwoods League baseball team, as well as a brewery, a hotel, and at least one corporate headquarters.  Phases Two and Three will add other businesses in later years. 

Everyone in Hudson loves the idea of this, but the one concern that keeps getting raised is the poor and somewhat dangerous traffic situation on Carmichael Road.  They want to reconstruct the road in the vicinity of the new development, but even then they're worried about how it will plug in further north to it's interchange with I-94's Exit 2.  They've been told that that interchange is due for reconstruction in about 10 years, but I heard the city council and staff people say in their latest meeting they'd like to approach the state about getting that advanced so that they can do it all at once, or close to it anyway. 

They hope to start construction in June, and I think they even want to have the baseball park done in time to open for the 2018 season.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2017, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on May 03, 2017, 07:28:57 AM
As some other states have done, new proposal out there partially transitions Wisconsin from a gas tax to a sales tax funding strategy at the pump to raise more revenue for transportation and be less reliant on bonding.  To make it tax neutral it also cuts the income tax.  Also puts Wisconsin on board to apply to the Feds to convert some freeways to tollways. 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/02/gop-plan-would-hike-wisconsin-gas-tax-slash-income-taxes-and-borrowing/101194618/

Not sure how people will feel about this... I doubt there is support in it's current form but I expect parts of it (like tolling) may make it into the final budget.


Also within this bill is a provision that would require a local municipality to conduct a referendum to enact a wheel tax.  I guess I don't understand why representative democracy isn't good enough in cases like this. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2017, 05:33:13 PM
I'm not a fan of increasing gas taxes. My reasoning is the trend in recent decades to build more fuel-efficient cars, and the diversion of gas taxes to pay for things that have nothing to do with building and maintaining roads.

I would prefer a tax based on mileage driven, or congestion-priced tolls on the heaviest-traveled roads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 03, 2017, 05:42:05 PM
How about a higher registration fee instead then? And an inflation-indexed gas tax would be a very minimal increase to the individual -- and would STILL help the budget... increased fuel efficiency or not. It will be a long time before the state is 100% electric... Rather get SOMETHING in the meantime compared to nothing like right now. Political bickering, delaying projects, and borrowing more money (which costs even more in the long run compared to just getting it done asap and fixing the taxes/fees now...)

People will find a way to avoid tolls. Which will put more wear, tear, and congestion on side streets instead.
And there are definitely costs involved with setting up and maintaining a toll system.

As it stands, sounding like from previous articles, change freeways to tollways will not be easy and isn't going to fly with the feds.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 07, 2017, 11:00:45 AM
More paying-for-roads discussion, this time about tolls:
http://www.gazettextra.com/20170507/state_lawmakers_weighing_toll_roads?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 07, 2017, 11:15:38 AM
The whole gas tax debate is ridiculous.

What happens when Big Oil raises their prices, causing your gas to go up 10 or 20 cents per gallon? People shrug. People might bitch and moan a bit. The more dedicated might decide NOW to buy a more fuel-efficient car. The rest of us suck it up and pay a little extra because we have places to be.

Wisconsin used to have a sensible system that tracked fuel taxes to inflation. It helped build a rather impressive highway system. Then it was decided (thanks, Democrats) that it was no longer necessary. Now, 10 years later, a bunch of anti-government imbeciles (the Republicans) are doing anything possible to avoid having to raise fuel taxes, lest an angry populace wrest them from power.

I, for one, would not care if fuel taxes went up 50 cents a gallon as long as it went straight to transportation. That's not just roads, but public transportation (bus, rail, etc). Cities like Milwaukee and Madison would benefit immensely from decent public transportation, but don't provide it. That makes it harder for those unable to afford or drive a car to participate in the economy.

Lowest-bidder politics has left us with a dollar-store version of a once-great country. It shows.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on May 07, 2017, 12:21:30 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 07, 2017, 11:15:38 AM
The whole gas tax debate is ridiculous.

What happens when Big Oil raises their prices, causing your gas to go up 10 or 20 cents per gallon? People shrug. People might bitch and moan a bit. The more dedicated might decide NOW to buy a more fuel-efficient car. The rest of us suck it up and pay a little extra because we have places to be.

Wisconsin used to have a sensible system that tracked fuel taxes to inflation. It helped build a rather impressive highway system. Then it was decided (thanks, Democrats) that it was no longer necessary. Now, 10 years later, a bunch of anti-government imbeciles (the Republicans) are doing anything possible to avoid having to raise fuel taxes, lest an angry populace wrest them from power.

I, for one, would not care if fuel taxes went up 50 cents a gallon as long as it went straight to transportation. That's not just roads, but public transportation (bus, rail, etc). Cities like Milwaukee and Madison would benefit immensely from decent public transportation, but don't provide it. That makes it harder for those unable to afford or drive a car to participate in the economy.

Lowest-bidder politics has left us with a dollar-store version of a once-great country. It shows.

Well said. 

It's so disheartening to see the Republicans run this state into the ground.  I hate to see Wisconsin become a Mississippi With Snow.

Believe it or not, people and corporations actually do chose WI and MN for their once highly regarded quality of life.  Look at Epic. 

And why don't people scream at the oil companies for jacking up prices, but scream bloody murder when government does raise taxes to maintain our highways?  At least we get some new highways out of it from government.  What do we get from the oil companies when they raise their prices?  It's time to return to viewing things objectively, and not be cowed by the corporations who have bullied their way into reducing what we need to keep this country running properly. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 07, 2017, 11:28:58 PM
Saw my first new format (AAA-1111) plate in the wild.

(https://i.imgur.com/toyjeLE.jpg)

Sorry for the crap quality. Was in partner's truck, and I didn't notice it until right as the light changed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 08, 2017, 03:20:55 PM
Quote from: colinstu on May 07, 2017, 11:28:58 PM
Saw my first new format (AAA-1111) plate in the wild.

(https://i.imgur.com/toyjeLE.jpg)

Sorry for the crap quality. Was in partner's truck, and I didn't notice it until right as the light changed.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: quickshade on May 08, 2017, 05:00:11 PM
I'd disagree with the oil companies don't get any backlash when they increase prices. I look at it more of something that people realize we don't have complete control over, unlike government in which people feel like they can bitch and moan and bring about change. I remember in 2008 when oil prices spiked every other news story was about how this was affecting people's long term plans (and some would argue was the finally turning point into the financial disaster and recession that we ended up in). Either way people just seem to accept that as fact of life.

Personally i'd love to see a tax system in which companies could get tax breaks for investing in local infrastructure projects, putting the pressure on the massive companies that abuse our roadways to invest in building them properly for the future since they benefit from having a proper infrastructure built out and maintained. It only makes sense not just from a tax standpoint (you can't write off government taxes as a ROI) but you could justify to a board and stockholders that this investment on infrastructure you can not only know where the money is going, but you might see a small ROI in travel time for workers or shipping of product.

But alas we live in the real world, and not a utopia.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 12, 2017, 04:46:46 PM
The State Highway 30 freeway is getting exit numbers. I just noticed this yesterday, when I traveled on the road to go grocery shopping. So far, the numbers are only on the advance signs, but I'm sure that will change soon. Not long ago, blue mileposts were erected in the median, and I believed that exit numbers might not be far behind.

The new numbers are as follows:

US 151/East Washington Avenue: Exit 1A
Fair Oaks Avenue: Exit 1B
US 51/North Stoughton Road: Exit 1C
CTH-T/North Thompson Drive: Exit 2

I'm not sure what the numbers for the Badger Interchange will be as I haven't that far east since the exit number tabs were added, but my guess is that Interstate 39 south/Interstate 90 east will be Exit 3A, and Interstate 39 north/Interstate 90 west/Interstate 94 west will be Exit 3B.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 12, 2017, 10:02:39 PM
^^ What is exit 240A in the Badger interchange used to be Exit 4A, so I am assuming it might revert to that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 12, 2017, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 07, 2017, 12:21:30 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 07, 2017, 11:15:38 AM
The whole gas tax debate is ridiculous.

What happens when Big Oil raises their prices, causing your gas to go up 10 or 20 cents per gallon? People shrug. People might bitch and moan a bit. The more dedicated might decide NOW to buy a more fuel-efficient car. The rest of us suck it up and pay a little extra because we have places to be.

Wisconsin used to have a sensible system that tracked fuel taxes to inflation. It helped build a rather impressive highway system. Then it was decided (thanks, Democrats) that it was no longer necessary. Now, 10 years later, a bunch of anti-government imbeciles (the Republicans) are doing anything possible to avoid having to raise fuel taxes, lest an angry populace wrest them from power.

I, for one, would not care if fuel taxes went up 50 cents a gallon as long as it went straight to transportation. That's not just roads, but public transportation (bus, rail, etc). Cities like Milwaukee and Madison would benefit immensely from decent public transportation, but don't provide it. That makes it harder for those unable to afford or drive a car to participate in the economy.

Lowest-bidder politics has left us with a dollar-store version of a once-great country. It shows.

Well said. 

It's so disheartening to see the Republicans run this state into the ground.  I hate to see Wisconsin become a Mississippi With Snow.

Believe it or not, people and corporations actually do chose WI and MN for their once highly regarded quality of life.  Look at Epic. 

And why don't people scream at the oil companies for jacking up prices, but scream bloody murder when government does raise taxes to maintain our highways?  At least we get some new highways out of it from government.  What do we get from the oil companies when they raise their prices?  It's time to return to viewing things objectively, and not be cowed by the corporations who have bullied their way into reducing what we need to keep this country running properly.
Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long time and we are now in the top 10 business friendly states. How is that running it into the ground? I admit the DOT is still screwed up but it wasn't run any better when the Democrats were in charge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 13, 2017, 12:51:19 PM
I think the former exit 4A was a stupid number. It didn't match up with the mileage of either STH-30 or Interstate 94. I looked on the DOT website for information on the new exit numbers on Highway 30, but came up empty. Maybe more information will be available eventually.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 13, 2017, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 12, 2017, 10:03:02 PM
Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long time and we are now in the top 10 business friendly states. How is that running it into the ground? I admit the DOT is still screwed up but it wasn't run any better when the Democrats were in charge.

We are NOT in ANY "Top 10 business friendly states" list (seriously, we're not - Google it), roads are falling apart, every year there are tons of local referenda for various projects since the state can't (or won't) pay for anything.

The Doyle years were certainly nothing to write home about, but you've been listening to too much Belling if you think things are great now.

On to roads (the topic at hand): I really don't see much improvement coming anytime soon. The Governor and Legislature can't agree on a funding model. Until that happens, it will be more of the same.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 13, 2017, 05:37:53 PM
Well, some random magazine DID rank WI #10 for business this year
https://www.biztimes.com/2017/ideas/government-politics/wisconsin-in-top-10-of-chief-executive-magazines-best-states-for-business/

How much that really means remains to be seen. Really, they rank California number 50? ...yet that state is BOOMing for big tech among other things. Pretty much looks like a ranking of "Most red to Most blue" states than anything.

It's hard to compare pre-economic recession politics and how things were going to post-economic recession recovery.
Doyle and Walker have both been really poor governors.

Removing the gas tax and replacing it with sales tax is the scariest thing ever. There's no way that collected sales tax will be going into a transportation fund, not to mention that doing this will ultimately cost MORE in tax than just resurrecting the indexing on the gas tax again. A completely bone-headed move that will hurt transportation, and likely line someone else's pockets.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 13, 2017, 06:14:04 PM
Quote from: colinstu on May 13, 2017, 05:37:53 PM
Well, some random magazine DID rank WI #10 for business this year
https://www.biztimes.com/2017/ideas/government-politics/wisconsin-in-top-10-of-chief-executive-magazines-best-states-for-business/

How much that really means remains to be seen. Really, they rank California number 50? ...yet that state is BOOMing for big tech among other things. Pretty much looks like a ranking of "Most red to Most blue" states than anything.

It's hard to compare pre-economic recession politics and how things were going to post-economic recession recovery.
Doyle and Walker have both been really poor governors.

Removing the gas tax and replacing it with sales tax is the scariest thing ever. There's no way that collected sales tax will be going into a transportation fund, not to mention that doing this will ultimately cost MORE in tax than just resurrecting the indexing on the gas tax again. A completely bone-headed move that will hurt transportation, and likely line someone else's pockets.

OK there's one - it's offset by all the other ones that *don't* have WI on the list. And with crumbling infrastructure and schools begging for money, it will be hard to sustain.

Anyway, I share your concern with the sales tax. I agree that it's much to easy to "borrow" the funds earmarked for transportation for something else with the promise to put it back someday.

The gas tax (while not perfect) was a good way to do it. Easy to track, and easy to account for.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on May 13, 2017, 07:08:07 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 13, 2017, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 12, 2017, 10:03:02 PM
Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long time and we are now in the top 10 business friendly states. How is that running it into the ground? I admit the DOT is still screwed up but it wasn't run any better when the Democrats were in charge.

We are NOT in ANY "Top 10 business friendly states" list (seriously, we're not - Google it), roads are falling apart, every year there are tons of local referenda for various projects since the state can't (or won't) pay for anything.

The Doyle years were certainly nothing to write home about, but you've been listening to too much Belling if you think things are great now.

On to roads (the topic at hand): I really don't see much improvement coming anytime soon. The Governor and Legislature can't agree on a funding model. Until that happens, it will be more of the same.

I'm gonna say one thing political.

Wisconsin isn't nearly as bad as Illinois. Seriously, Wisconsin isn't all that bad compared to other states (and I'm not a Walker fan FYI). I can think of a lot worse states. Sure, it isn't perfect and there are some serious issues that need to be addressed, but it's microscopic compared to the issues, say, Illinois has. Plus, you also need to consider geographical measures when considering business-friendly states. The Midwest as a whole is losing ground to the South and West. 

Nonetheless, I think Republican Governor's need to follow the mold of Bill Haslam here in Tennessee. He's conservative, but not over the top and he realizes the need to invest in the future. Under his leadership, Tennessee recently passed a gas tax increase (Haslam even tried to have the gas tax indexed to inflation, but that unfortunately was shot down), has increased education funding and is pushing to make community college free through programs such as Tennessee promise. All while the state is booming economically and has no income tax. Walker could learn a few things from Haslam.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. I agree that getting rid of the gas tax and imposing a general sales tax is stupid.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:08:38 PM
A quick note on Wisconsin's new-format license plates.

I've seen a small handful of new-format plates 'in the wild' here in the Appleton area over the past few days. They have all been 'AAB-xxxx', with the highest being 'AAB-6467'.

Did WisDOT decide to skip the 'AAA-xxxx' block?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:08:38 PM
A quick note on Wisconsin's new-format license plates.

I've seen a small handful of new-format plates 'in the wild' here in the Appleton area over the past few days. They have all been 'AAB-xxxx', with the highest being 'AAB-6467'.

Did WisDOT decide to skip the 'AAA-xxxx' block?

Mike

No they didn't. I saw an AAA-xxxx plate here in Milwaukee. Perhaps the batch they sent to the DMV in Appleton were the AAB-xxxx block.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170516/12e748bc91e4558500a708f0d88061be.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:23:52 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:08:38 PM
A quick note on Wisconsin's new-format license plates.

I've seen a small handful of new-format plates 'in the wild' here in the Appleton area over the past few days. They have all been 'AAB-xxxx', with the highest being 'AAB-6467'.

Did WisDOT decide to skip the 'AAA-xxxx' block?

Mike

No they didn't. I saw an AAA-xxxx plate here in Milwaukee. Perhaps the batch they sent to the DMV in Appleton were the AAB-xxxx block.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170516/12e748bc91e4558500a708f0d88061be.jpg)


iPhone

Kewl!

:cool:

I wonder who got the lowest one ('AAA-1001').   :hmmm:

Someone here in Appleton got the lowest number in the old format ('101-AAA'), I saw it fairly often on the city's west side until about 2006 or so.

An added note - as time passes, I am increasingly liking Wisconsin's plate design.  Its artwork is sleek, simple, very unique and it is one of the easiest to read of all of the states and provinces in North America.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:23:52 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:08:38 PM
A quick note on Wisconsin's new-format license plates.

I've seen a small handful of new-format plates 'in the wild' here in the Appleton area over the past few days. They have all been 'AAB-xxxx', with the highest being 'AAB-6467'.

Did WisDOT decide to skip the 'AAA-xxxx' block?

Mike

No they didn't. I saw an AAA-xxxx plate here in Milwaukee. Perhaps the batch they sent to the DMV in Appleton were the AAB-xxxx block.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170516/12e748bc91e4558500a708f0d88061be.jpg)


iPhone

Kewl!

:cool:

I wonder who got the lowest one ('AAA-1001').   :hmmm:

Someone here in Appleton got the lowest number in the old format ('101-AAA'), I saw it fairly often on the city's west side until about 2006 or so.

An added note - as time passes, I am increasingly liking Wisconsin's plate design.  Its artwork is sleek, simple, very unique and it is one of the easiest to read of all of the states and provinces in North America.

Mike

I actually have to admit that as time goes on I appreciate a simple license plate design.  Texas and California come to mind as plates I'm a fan of... The only thing I'd perhaps change is moving the artwork to the bottom center (replacing the "America's Dairyland" slogan) and centering the state's name in the upper portion. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 16, 2017, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:23:52 PM
An added note - as time passes, I am increasingly liking Wisconsin's plate design.  Its artwork is sleek, simple, very unique and it is one of the easiest to read of all of the states and provinces in North America.

Mike

I actually have to admit that as time goes on I appreciate a simple license plate design.  Texas and California come to mind as plates I'm a fan of...
I agree as well. Despite a little hypocrisy in just putting a specialty plate on my own car, :pan: I've been a firm believer in simplistic plate design/using a plate as ID purposes only and not a mobile art palette.

QuoteThe only thing I'd perhaps change is moving the artwork to the bottom center (replacing the "America's Dairyland" slogan) and centering the state's name in the upper portion.

That's a nice idea, but it would mess up most of Wisconsin's other specialty plate designs (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/vehicles/title-plates/special-list.aspx) (for those who like uniformity/have OCD tendencies), which omit the top artwork, recenter 'WISCONSIN', and put the plate description in place of "America's Dairyland".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 18, 2017, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:08:38 PM
A quick note on Wisconsin's new-format license plates.

I've seen a small handful of new-format plates 'in the wild' here in the Appleton area over the past few days. They have all been 'AAB-xxxx', with the highest being 'AAB-6467'.

Did WisDOT decide to skip the 'AAA-xxxx' block?

Mike

Just saw my first 7-digit WI plate in the Madison-area, coming back from lunch just a little bit ago...AAA-1140.

For shits and grins, I decided to use the WisDMV plate look-up tool (https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/pinq/PinqServlet?whoami=pinqp1) for AAA-0001...it is issued and belongs to a 2008 Ford.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on May 18, 2017, 02:07:43 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:58:48 PM
I actually have to admit that as time goes on I appreciate a simple license plate design.  Texas and California come to mind as plates I'm a fan of... The only thing I'd perhaps change is moving the artwork to the bottom center (replacing the "America's Dairyland" slogan) and centering the state's name in the upper portion. 

Still beats the shit out of Illinois's new "clipart" design.  X-(
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on May 18, 2017, 02:37:17 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 18, 2017, 02:07:43 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:58:48 PM
I actually have to admit that as time goes on I appreciate a simple license plate design.  Texas and California come to mind as plates I'm a fan of... The only thing I'd perhaps change is moving the artwork to the bottom center (replacing the "America's Dairyland" slogan) and centering the state's name in the upper portion. 

Still beats the shit out of Illinois's new "clipart" design.  X-(

Yeah, I think their new plate is horrible. The "Lincoln head" is so dark that it makes the first two letters illegible from more than about ten feet away.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 18, 2017, 03:48:24 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 18, 2017, 01:57:51 PM

For shits and grins, I decided to use the WisDMV plate look-up tool (https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/pinq/PinqServlet?whoami=pinqp1) for AAA-0001...it is issued and belongs to a 2008 Ford.
So Wisconsin is starting to use lead zeroes?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 18, 2017, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 18, 2017, 03:48:24 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 18, 2017, 01:57:51 PM

For shits and grins, I decided to use the WisDMV plate look-up tool (https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/pinq/PinqServlet?whoami=pinqp1) for AAA-0001...it is issued and belongs to a 2008 Ford.
So Wisconsin is starting to use lead zeroes?

I just tried 'AAA-1001' - it comes back 'No record found'.

Also, a new 'high number' for me this afternoon, I saw 'AAB-6708' on a parked car in downtown Appleton.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 18, 2017, 07:09:37 PM
Well there's your problem. Not supposed to use dashes in that form.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 18, 2017, 07:11:59 PM
Also, DaBigE searched AAA0001, not AAA1001.

(https://i.imgur.com/F1RXioF.png)

edit: however, if you search AAA0002, 3, 4, etc nothing is found. It's possible that's just an odd vanity plate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 18, 2017, 09:04:28 PM
Based on that expiration date, it's a vanity. That plate should have an expiration date of APR or MAY of 18 if it was sequential.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 18, 2017, 09:52:30 PM
As I've mentioned upthread, 'APR1974' has been active here in the Appleton area for several years, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 18, 2017, 09:54:14 PM
Quote from: colinstu on May 18, 2017, 07:09:37 PM
Well there's your problem. Not supposed to use dashes in that form.

It still came back with wording equivalent to 'No record found'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on May 19, 2017, 09:49:52 PM
Back on the new Illinois plates for a moment... this is what I was referring to re: the legibility of the serials, for those who may have not seen them yet:

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170520/46a797100281dd090c18545d1c45b214.jpg)

Kind of difficult to make out...

Zoomed in:

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170520/8b3eb4e9adb69269a863b477f81d7c61.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dzlsabe on May 20, 2017, 01:14:47 AM
Those sure are pretty license plates though. Why does I-41 "end" again?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 20, 2017, 02:47:49 AM
Yeah, that wasn't planned out very well. I'm a little amazed that the design got approved.

I understand the desire to have a pretty license plate, but that's ridiculous.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on May 20, 2017, 07:33:58 AM
That's embarrassing, the old IL plates were way better than that (actually readable).  They do just as well with their license plates as they do with their budgets...  :-D :clap:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2017, 05:46:50 PM
I've seen those 7-digit plates, and I wonder why Wisconsin hadn't adopted them sooner.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on May 22, 2017, 06:11:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2017, 05:46:50 PM
I've seen those 7-digit plates, and I wonder why Wisconsin hadn't adopted them sooner.

There wasn't any need. The previous format lasted almost 17 years. These things aren't changed just for the heck of it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 25, 2017, 01:06:13 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 22, 2017, 06:11:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2017, 05:46:50 PM
I've seen those 7-digit plates, and I wonder why Wisconsin hadn't adopted them sooner.

There wasn't any need. The previous format lasted almost 17 years. These things aren't changed just for the heck of it.
They should have just gone with reissuing plate numbers no longer in use. Four digits is too much.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2017, 02:51:23 PM
I suppose they could have done that, but apparently, that's not the route that was taken.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 25, 2017, 03:48:49 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 25, 2017, 01:06:13 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 22, 2017, 06:11:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2017, 05:46:50 PM
I've seen those 7-digit plates, and I wonder why Wisconsin hadn't adopted them sooner.

There wasn't any need. The previous format lasted almost 17 years. These things aren't changed just for the heck of it.
They should have just gone with reissuing plate numbers no longer in use. Four digits is too much.


Too much for whom?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on May 25, 2017, 04:11:11 PM
You don't want to start reissuing numbers because if the person who had a number previously held onto the old plates as souvenirs, they could possibly put them on another car after those numbers have been reissued to someone else, and viola! You've got two cars with the same plate numbers floating around.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on May 25, 2017, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:08:38 PM
A quick note on Wisconsin's new-format license plates.

I've seen a small handful of new-format plates 'in the wild' here in the Appleton area over the past few days. They have all been 'AAB-xxxx', with the highest being 'AAB-6467'.

Did WisDOT decide to skip the 'AAA-xxxx' block?

Mike

No they didn't. I saw an AAA-xxxx plate here in Milwaukee. Perhaps the batch they sent to the DMV in Appleton were the AAB-xxxx block.

I've spotted a couple AAB-XXXX series plates in the Eau Claire area in the past few weeks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on May 25, 2017, 04:22:32 PM
Saw this one last night:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170525/9af2b2f76f18182bd499595cb9fc7333.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 25, 2017, 07:52:33 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 25, 2017, 01:06:13 PM
They should have just gone with reissuing plate numbers no longer in use. Four digits is too much.

There's a few issues with that:

1. How long do you wait before you re-issue a number?
2. What if the "original" plate is still on a car, and they simply haven't renewed their registration?
3. It makes it more difficult to stamp plates since you'd be jumping all over the place instead of stamping sequentially.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 26, 2017, 03:47:42 PM
I saw a couple in the 'AAD-2xxx' range earlier this week here in Appleton.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 30, 2017, 03:55:25 AM
All of the BGS on the Wis 57 freeway between I-43 and Wis 54 were just replaced. 

County A now appears on the BGS when it just said University Ave and Nicolet Dr before. 

A wide To US 141 shield was posted on a new I-43 Exit 3/4 mile sign along with a To I-41 shield.  There have been many wide US 151 shields on BGS but this is the first wide US 141 shield seen.  On I-41 all of the shields are narrow.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on May 30, 2017, 01:13:12 PM
Has anyone seen this report?

http://wispirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Road%20Overkill%20Report.pdf (http://wispirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Road%20Overkill%20Report.pdf)

Some of the points are well taken, but I think some of the data is questionable.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 30, 2017, 01:54:41 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 30, 2017, 01:13:12 PM
Has anyone seen this report?

http://wispirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Road%20Overkill%20Report.pdf (http://wispirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Road%20Overkill%20Report.pdf)

Some of the points are well taken, but I think some of the data is questionable.

This thread is based on it: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9522.0
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 30, 2017, 05:01:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 30, 2017, 01:13:12 PM
Has anyone seen this report?

http://wispirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Road%20Overkill%20Report.pdf (http://wispirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Road%20Overkill%20Report.pdf)

Some of the points are well taken, but I think some of the data is questionable.

They don't factor in the reduction of accidents or the economic development that the new expressways have created.  The anti-highway people can only win if they can have a liberal judge rules for them.  People who live near Wis 23 east of Fond Du Lac want it expanded to 4 lanes which was supposed to happen until Judge Lynn Adleman halted the project.  There was a recent bad accident on that stretch and people are mad that it's all happening mostly because the road isn't expanded yet. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on May 30, 2017, 09:30:15 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 30, 2017, 05:01:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 30, 2017, 01:13:12 PM
Has anyone seen this report?

http://wispirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Road%20Overkill%20Report.pdf (http://wispirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Road%20Overkill%20Report.pdf)

Some of the points are well taken, but I think some of the data is questionable.

They don't factor in the reduction of accidents or the economic development that the new expressways have created.  The anti-highway people can only win if they can have a liberal judge rules for them.  People who live near Wis 23 east of Fond Du Lac want it expanded to 4 lanes which was supposed to happen until Judge Lynn Adleman halted the project.  There was a recent bad accident on that stretch and people are mad that it's all happening mostly because the road isn't expanded yet.

I know. Like I said, some of the points were well taken. I do agree that some of the projects they listed weren't necessary (like WIS 26, Burlington bypass, US 141, etc), but these people are against any highway expansion, and that is ludicrous.

IMO, Wisconsin should have only made the backbone routes in the corridors 2030 upgradable expressway/freeway-grade and done the connectors as lesser expressways or four lane arterials.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 31, 2017, 04:32:11 AM
US 141 is busier than most people think.  It's the main highway to Nothern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula. 

I think Wis 26 was needed since it connected many mid size cities with a 4-lane roadway.  I think Watertown might be the only city over 10,000 that isn't connected by a freeway or Expressway in the entire state.  I'd say that's pretty impressive. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 31, 2017, 07:05:14 AM
I also think it's easy to look at these projects simply by predicted AADT, however a lot of the roads referenced had geometry and safety issues as well. For example, in Burlington, there are railroad tracks that cut through downtown. Even now when there's a train, the backups are enormous. Or, as peterj920 mentioned, 141. While it's pretty quiet during the week, the traffic on the weekends during the summer can be dangerous. Yes, those roads could have been upgraded to lesser facilities, but combine that with the traffic projections, and it makes sense. Often it's easier (and less expensive in the long run) to do it "big" the first time, than to go back and upgrade later.

That's the issue that I have with that report. It spends a lot of time looking at traffic projections, but not any of the other issues that make these projects unique.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on June 02, 2017, 07:19:24 AM
Yesterday near my house in Metro Appleton, I saw an AAB-5555 (number modified to protect the dude's privacy).

And I'm honestly shocked that 141 is busier than that same part of 41.  41 is a direct shot into Marinette/Menominee (combined population 21K?) and a couple of other smaller cities, and in the UP it passes right through Escanaba (13K) and Marquette (21K).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 02, 2017, 07:19:24 AM
Yesterday near my house in Metro Appleton, I saw an AAB-5555 (number modified to protect the dude's privacy).
Your new(ly acquired) car?

:hmmm:

I saw a car with 'AAE-4202' in the wild here in Appleton yesterday.

Quote
And I'm honestly shocked that 141 is busier than that same part of 41.  41 is a direct shot into Marinette/Menominee (combined population 21K?) and a couple of other smaller cities, and in the UP it passes right through Escanaba (13K) and Marquette (21K).

US 141 has always been a busy straight shot northward from Green Bay.  It seems to me to be a much more popular commuter route from the northwoods than is US 41.  The four lanes on US 41 were done at the same time as on US 141.

Also, the traffic north of Green Bay is such that once funding becomes available (yea, right...), I can easily see the six lanes being extended from Lineville Rd northward all the way to the Abrams interchange.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 01:08:37 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2017, 07:05:14 AM
I also think it's easy to look at these projects simply by predicted AADT, however a lot of the roads referenced had geometry and safety issues as well. For example, in Burlington, there are railroad tracks that cut through downtown. Even now when there's a train, the backups are enormous. Or, as peterj920 mentioned, 141. While it's pretty quiet during the week, the traffic on the weekends during the summer can be dangerous. Yes, those roads could have been upgraded to lesser facilities, but combine that with the traffic projections, and it makes sense. Often it's easier (and less expensive in the long run) to do it "big" the first time, than to go back and upgrade later.

That's the issue that I have with that report. It spends a lot of time looking at traffic projections, but not any of the other issues that make these projects unique.

I agree there are other reasons for highway upgrades, but I think they could have been addressed with lesser upgrades (in some cases such as US 10 west of Stevens Point, WIS 26, Burlington Bypass, etc) without plowing in a major four lane divided highway that is freeway or near freeway-grade. For example, some of those routes could have gotten by with an improved two lane highway or a five lane undivided road with traffic lights or roundabouts. Is it ideal? No, but freeway and high-quality expressway-grade highways are expensive to maintain, and I think those should have been saved for the backbone routes.

Granted, like I said, while I think some of their points are well-taken, I do not agree with everything. Ultimately, these kind of people want everyone to live in cities and use public transit. That's not gonna happen. Whether they like it or not, highways are here and will be here for a long time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 02, 2017, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 01:08:37 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2017, 07:05:14 AM
I also think it's easy to look at these projects simply by predicted AADT, however a lot of the roads referenced had geometry and safety issues as well. For example, in Burlington, there are railroad tracks that cut through downtown. Even now when there's a train, the backups are enormous. Or, as peterj920 mentioned, 141. While it's pretty quiet during the week, the traffic on the weekends during the summer can be dangerous. Yes, those roads could have been upgraded to lesser facilities, but combine that with the traffic projections, and it makes sense. Often it's easier (and less expensive in the long run) to do it "big" the first time, than to go back and upgrade later.

That's the issue that I have with that report. It spends a lot of time looking at traffic projections, but not any of the other issues that make these projects unique.

I agree there are other reasons for highway upgrades, but I think they could have been addressed with lesser upgrades (in some cases such as US 10 west of Stevens Point, WIS 26, Burlington Bypass, etc) without plowing in a major four lane divided highway that is freeway or near freeway-grade. For example, some of those routes could have gotten by with an improved two lane highway or a five lane undivided road with traffic lights or roundabouts. Is it ideal? No, but freeway and high-quality expressway-grade highways are expensive to maintain, and I think those should have been saved for the backbone routes.

Granted, like I said, while I think some of their points are well-taken, I do not agree with everything. Ultimately, these kind of people want everyone to live in cities and use public transit. That's not gonna happen. Whether they like it or not, highways are here and will be here for a long time.


I have to agree with this.  As someone who is regularly on WI-26, the new four lane road is nice.  But there are times where I am one of just a few cars I can see in either direction.  It could have easily been a Super 2 expressway like what was around Fort Atkinson before.  I even question whether or not the bypass around Milton was necessary.  The traffic was never terrible through town, and the entire north end of the bypass has a basically deserted Old WI-26 running just to the west.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 02:55:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 02, 2017, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 01:08:37 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2017, 07:05:14 AM
I also think it's easy to look at these projects simply by predicted AADT, however a lot of the roads referenced had geometry and safety issues as well. For example, in Burlington, there are railroad tracks that cut through downtown. Even now when there's a train, the backups are enormous. Or, as peterj920 mentioned, 141. While it's pretty quiet during the week, the traffic on the weekends during the summer can be dangerous. Yes, those roads could have been upgraded to lesser facilities, but combine that with the traffic projections, and it makes sense. Often it's easier (and less expensive in the long run) to do it "big" the first time, than to go back and upgrade later.

That's the issue that I have with that report. It spends a lot of time looking at traffic projections, but not any of the other issues that make these projects unique.

I agree there are other reasons for highway upgrades, but I think they could have been addressed with lesser upgrades (in some cases such as US 10 west of Stevens Point, WIS 26, Burlington Bypass, etc) without plowing in a major four lane divided highway that is freeway or near freeway-grade. For example, some of those routes could have gotten by with an improved two lane highway or a five lane undivided road with traffic lights or roundabouts. Is it ideal? No, but freeway and high-quality expressway-grade highways are expensive to maintain, and I think those should have been saved for the backbone routes.

Granted, like I said, while I think some of their points are well-taken, I do not agree with everything. Ultimately, these kind of people want everyone to live in cities and use public transit. That's not gonna happen. Whether they like it or not, highways are here and will be here for a long time.


I have to agree with this.  As someone who is regularly on WI-26, the new four lane road is nice.  But there are times where I am one of just a few cars I can see in either direction.  It could have easily been a Super 2 expressway like what was around Fort Atkinson before.  I even question whether or not the bypass around Milton was necessary.  The traffic was never terrible through town, and the entire north end of the bypass has a basically deserted Old WI-26 running just to the west.

And when I've discussed the north end of WI 26 (the part between WI 60 and US 151), I've always advocated building a new-ROW WI 26 between WI 60 and US 151 on the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam - as a 'super two' expressway on an upgradable four-lane ROW.

Ditto a new-ROW US 10 between County 'CE' southeast of Kaukauna and existing US 10 at Forest Junction (an idea that I really, REALLY like) - two lanes on an upgradable four-lane ROW.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 02, 2017, 04:40:07 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 02:55:03 PM
Ditto a new-ROW US 10 between County 'CE' southeast of Kaukauna and existing US 10 at Forest Junction (an idea that I really, REALLY like) - two lanes on an upgradable four-lane ROW.

I would like to have seen a corridor preserved for US 10 from the southwestern "elbow" of 441 (probably just west of where Lake Park Rd crosses under) to where US 10 and CTH N currently meet.  But the development has closed in and now it's not a viable option.  If it was still 1991, back when 441 was first going in, it would've been a cinch.  If it wouldn't be built for 30 years, so be it; at least the corridor would be available.  Could've even held enough ROW for a system interchange.  Oh well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 02, 2017, 04:40:07 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 02:55:03 PM
Ditto a new-ROW US 10 between County 'CE' southeast of Kaukauna and existing US 10 at Forest Junction (an idea that I really, REALLY like) - two lanes on an upgradable four-lane ROW.

I would like to have seen a corridor preserved for US 10 from the southwestern "elbow" of 441 (probably just west of where Lake Park Rd crosses under) to where US 10 and CTH N currently meet.  But the development has closed in and now it's not a viable option.  If it was still 1991, back when 441 was first going in, it would've been a cinch.  If it wouldn't be built for 30 years, so be it; at least the corridor would be available.  Could've even held enough ROW for a system interchange.  Oh well.

I can easily envision something like at I-41/WI 32/WI 29 (Shawano Interchange) in the Green Bay area or what is planned at I-39/90/I-43 (Beloit Interchange) in Beloit being done at WI 441/County 'CE' (College Ave) in Appleton for such a US 10 reroute.

Every time that I drive on County 'CE' east of WI 441, I can't help but think that it would be an ideal reroute of US 10.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 04, 2017, 12:12:25 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2017, 07:05:14 AM
I also think it's easy to look at these projects simply by predicted AADT, however a lot of the roads referenced had geometry and safety issues as well. For example, in Burlington, there are railroad tracks that cut through downtown. Even now when there's a train, the backups are enormous.

Ditto with the Hwy 26 bypass. Traffic through Milton may not have been "bad" most of the time, but rail traffic is heavy enough to make a big mess at inopportune times.

Traffic may not be heavy by I-39/90 or I-94 standards, but it's picking up as people discover the route, particularly truck traffic. With construction underway on I-39/90, anyone headed for the Fox Valley is much better served following Hwy 26.

Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2017, 07:05:14 AMOr, as peterj920 mentioned, 141. While it's pretty quiet during the week, the traffic on the weekends during the summer can be dangerous.

Hell, traffic during the winter (the supposed "slow" season) on US-141 can be dangerous! I came back from the UP on a Sunday in early February and the 2-lane section north of Hwy 64 was jammed with southbound traffic. The 4-lane section was a huge relief after fighting sketchy road conditions and limited visibility from the roostertails of spray kicked up.

At least Wisconsin has finally embraced the concept of passing lanes on its 2-lanes; it was about the only safe way to get any passing done until the 4-lane stretch.

20 years ago, prior to the 4-laning, US-141 was a horrible slog, particularly on the weekends. The lack of passing opportunities and the constant slowdowns for all the small towns wore you down. And, don't forget, the stoplight at Hwy 22. That was frequently a 2 to 3 cycle wait to get through.

US-41 to Marquette through Marinette and Escanaba is actually slower than US-141 through Iron Mountain to M-95 to US-41/M-28 outside of Ishpeming, MI. You have to traverse more towns, and it's a less direct route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 09, 2017, 08:57:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 02, 2017, 07:19:24 AM
Yesterday near my house in Metro Appleton, I saw an AAB-5555 (number modified to protect the dude's privacy).
Your new(ly acquired) car?

:hmmm:

I saw a car with 'AAE-4202' in the wild here in Appleton yesterday.

Up to 'AAH-16##' in the Madison area. I've seen at least 3 others appear around our apartments over the past couple weeks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2017, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 09, 2017, 08:57:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 02, 2017, 07:19:24 AM
Yesterday near my house in Metro Appleton, I saw an AAB-5555 (number modified to protect the dude's privacy).
Your new(ly acquired) car?

:hmmm:

I saw a car with 'AAE-4202' in the wild here in Appleton yesterday.

Up to 'AAH-16##' in the Madison area. I've seen at least 3 others appear around our apartments over the past couple weeks.


With all due respect, do we really need anymore of these reports?  The new license plates are out and people will start to see them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
I agree with SEWIGuy. Let's talk about something other than license plates in Wisconsin. Like this story from jsonline.com, for instance: Walker movement on tolling is a good sign for Wisconsin roads - http://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/blogs/real-time/2017/06/07/walker-movement-tolling-good-sign-wisconsin-roads/379209001/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on June 09, 2017, 10:49:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
I agree with SEWIGuy. Let's talk about something other than license plates in Wisconsin. Like this story from jsonline.com, for instance: Walker movement on tolling is a good sign for Wisconsin roads - http://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/blogs/real-time/2017/06/07/walker-movement-tolling-good-sign-wisconsin-roads/379209001/
limited to access points on the state line?? so I can just get off at Russell and back on at 104 to get out of the toll?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 10, 2017, 11:25:27 AM
Yeah that's just another dumb idea by Walker.  It looks good because it seems to "tax" people from out out state, but it wouldn't be much of a revenue generator and would be easily avoided by those with a map.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on June 10, 2017, 11:46:36 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 09, 2017, 10:49:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
I agree with SEWIGuy. Let's talk about something other than license plates in Wisconsin. Like this story from jsonline.com, for instance: Walker movement on tolling is a good sign for Wisconsin roads - http://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/blogs/real-time/2017/06/07/walker-movement-tolling-good-sign-wisconsin-roads/379209001/
limited to access points on the state line?? so I can just get off at Russell and back on at 104 to get out of the toll?

I do not believe this setup would be legal under current rules for tolling interstates - especially since there is at the moment no further reconstruction needed for I-94 south of Kenosha.  Sounds about as bad as the proposals in Pennsylvania to toll I-80.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 10, 2017, 12:51:59 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 10, 2017, 11:46:36 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 09, 2017, 10:49:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
I agree with SEWIGuy. Let's talk about something other than license plates in Wisconsin. Like this story from jsonline.com, for instance: Walker movement on tolling is a good sign for Wisconsin roads - http://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/blogs/real-time/2017/06/07/walker-movement-tolling-good-sign-wisconsin-roads/379209001/
limited to access points on the state line?? so I can just get off at Russell and back on at 104 to get out of the toll?

I do not believe this setup would be legal under current rules for tolling interstates - especially since there is at the moment no further reconstruction needed for I-94 south of Kenosha.  Sounds about as bad as the proposals in Pennsylvania to toll I-80.


Because that's not Walker's motivation.  His motivation is entirely political.  "Hey, here's a way we can get money for roads without increasing the gas tax.  And get out of state residents to pay for it!"  (Sound familiar???)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 10, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
So what reconstruction projects will be done as part of the Governor's efforts to toll the Interstates. After all, Interstates can only be tolled if it is to pay for reconstruction......
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 10, 2017, 07:51:50 PM
In a rare moment of clarity, the Republican legislature actually acknowledges raising gas taxes is necessary. But they're just as sketchy as Walker about implementing it, trying to tie it to tax reductions elsewhere. C'mon!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on June 10, 2017, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2017, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 09, 2017, 08:57:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 02, 2017, 07:19:24 AM
Yesterday near my house in Metro Appleton, I saw an AAB-5555 (number modified to protect the dude's privacy).
Your new(ly acquired) car?

:hmmm:

I saw a car with 'AAE-4202' in the wild here in Appleton yesterday.

Up to 'AAH-16##' in the Madison area. I've seen at least 3 others appear around our apartments over the past couple weeks.


With all due respect, do we really need anymore of these reports?  The new license plates are out and people will start to see them.

That's the beauty of a catch-all thread. If something doesn't interest you, you can scroll past it. I don't have a particular interest in discussing state highway bypasses in some far-afield upstate town. But I recognize that others might want to talk about that, so I don't come in here and ask them to stop.


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tribar on June 10, 2017, 09:17:40 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on June 10, 2017, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2017, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 09, 2017, 08:57:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 02, 2017, 07:19:24 AM
Yesterday near my house in Metro Appleton, I saw an AAB-5555 (number modified to protect the dude's privacy).
Your new(ly acquired) car?

:hmmm:

I saw a car with 'AAE-4202' in the wild here in Appleton yesterday.

Up to 'AAH-16##' in the Madison area. I've seen at least 3 others appear around our apartments over the past couple weeks.


With all due respect, do we really need anymore of these reports?  The new license plates are out and people will start to see them.

That's the beauty of a catch-all thread. If something doesn't interest you, you can scroll past it. I don't have a particular interest in discussing state highway bypasses in some far-afield upstate town. But I recognize that others might want to talk about that, so I don't come in here and ask them to stop.


iPhone

What more is there to discuss though? The new plates are out. I don't see the purpose of continuing to post random driver's license plates here.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 10, 2017, 09:21:59 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 10, 2017, 07:51:50 PM
In a rare moment of clarity, the Republican legislature actually acknowledges raising gas taxes is necessary. But they're just as sketchy as Walker about implementing it, trying to tie it to tax reductions elsewhere. C'mon!
I would be open to a a slight increase in the gas tax only if ethanol was done away with to help relief elsewhere. However I would like to know where the money is going to be spent on directly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 10, 2017, 09:59:28 PM
Quote from: tribar on June 10, 2017, 09:17:40 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on June 10, 2017, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2017, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 09, 2017, 08:57:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 02, 2017, 07:19:24 AM
Yesterday near my house in Metro Appleton, I saw an AAB-5555 (number modified to protect the dude's privacy).
Your new(ly acquired) car?

:hmmm:

I saw a car with 'AAE-4202' in the wild here in Appleton yesterday.

Up to 'AAH-16##' in the Madison area. I've seen at least 3 others appear around our apartments over the past couple weeks.


With all due respect, do we really need anymore of these reports?  The new license plates are out and people will start to see them.

That's the beauty of a catch-all thread. If something doesn't interest you, you can scroll past it. I don't have a particular interest in discussing state highway bypasses in some far-afield upstate town. But I recognize that others might want to talk about that, so I don't come in here and ask them to stop.


iPhone

What more is there to discuss though? The new plates are out. I don't see the purpose of continuing to post random driver's license plates here.

The only reason I posed something more was because I thought it was interesting how rapidly the series and sightings of tags were progressing for only having been out for a little over a month (then again, I never really followed tag numbers much until a change like this came along). While I can understand SEWIGuy (and others) being tired of the topic, it's not much different than being tired of discussing pointless sign replacement projects or the ever-changing political favor of roundabouts. Unless it's your thread or your forum, just scroll on.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2017, 09:50:52 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 10, 2017, 09:59:28 PM
Quote from: tribar on June 10, 2017, 09:17:40 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on June 10, 2017, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2017, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 09, 2017, 08:57:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 02, 2017, 07:19:24 AM
Yesterday near my house in Metro Appleton, I saw an AAB-5555 (number modified to protect the dude's privacy).
Your new(ly acquired) car?

:hmmm:

I saw a car with 'AAE-4202' in the wild here in Appleton yesterday.

Up to 'AAH-16##' in the Madison area. I've seen at least 3 others appear around our apartments over the past couple weeks.


With all due respect, do we really need anymore of these reports?  The new license plates are out and people will start to see them.

That's the beauty of a catch-all thread. If something doesn't interest you, you can scroll past it. I don't have a particular interest in discussing state highway bypasses in some far-afield upstate town. But I recognize that others might want to talk about that, so I don't come in here and ask them to stop.


iPhone

What more is there to discuss though? The new plates are out. I don't see the purpose of continuing to post random driver's license plates here.

The only reason I posed something more was because I thought it was interesting how rapidly the series and sightings of tags were progressing for only having been out for a little over a month (then again, I never really followed tag numbers much until a change like this came along). While I can understand SEWIGuy (and others) being tired of the topic, it's not much different than being tired of discussing pointless sign replacement projects or the ever-changing political favor of roundabouts. Unless it's your thread or your forum, just scroll on.


Because license plates aren't roads.  They really aren't even on-topic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ixnay on June 15, 2017, 07:49:12 AM
Parts of WI 175 are closed in Richfield right now per Google Maps.  Does this pertain to the U.S. Open beginning today at nearby Erin Hills?

ixnay
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: ixnay on June 15, 2017, 07:49:12 AM
Parts of WI 175 are closed in Richfield right now per Google Maps.  Does this pertain to the U.S. Open beginning today at nearby Erin Hills?

ixnay


No it is closed until November.  Reconstruction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 15, 2017, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: ixnay on June 15, 2017, 07:49:12 AM
Parts of WI 175 are closed in Richfield right now per Google Maps.  Does this pertain to the U.S. Open beginning today at nearby Erin Hills?

ixnay


No it is closed until November.  Reconstruction.
Because they are doing a roundabout a the intersection of 175 and Lannon Rd. Everytime they do a roundabout the road has to be shut down.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 15, 2017, 07:19:26 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 15, 2017, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: ixnay on June 15, 2017, 07:49:12 AM
Parts of WI 175 are closed in Richfield right now per Google Maps.  Does this pertain to the U.S. Open beginning today at nearby Erin Hills?

ixnay


No it is closed until November.  Reconstruction.
Because they are doing a roundabout a the intersection of 175 and Lannon Rd. Everytime they do a roundabout the road has to be shut down.

Wis 60 at Cty P (Dodge Co) wasn't...Wis 60 at Cty G (Washington Co) wasn't...

However, when they are shut down, it does take months off the construction duration.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 15, 2017, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 15, 2017, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: ixnay on June 15, 2017, 07:49:12 AM
Parts of WI 175 are closed in Richfield right now per Google Maps.  Does this pertain to the U.S. Open beginning today at nearby Erin Hills?

ixnay


No it is closed until November.  Reconstruction.
Because they are doing a roundabout a the intersection of 175 and Lannon Rd. Everytime they do a roundabout the road has to be shut down.

STH 83 and 59 wasn't. STH 83 and CTH DE wasn't. STH 83 and US 18 wasn't. :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 10:19:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 15, 2017, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: ixnay on June 15, 2017, 07:49:12 AM
Parts of WI 175 are closed in Richfield right now per Google Maps.  Does this pertain to the U.S. Open beginning today at nearby Erin Hills?

ixnay


No it is closed until November.  Reconstruction.
Because they are doing a roundabout a the intersection of 175 and Lannon Rd. Everytime they do a roundabout the road has to be shut down.


That may be one thing they are doing.  It's not the only thing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ixnay on June 16, 2017, 09:49:47 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 10:19:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 15, 2017, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: ixnay on June 15, 2017, 07:49:12 AM
Parts of WI 175 are closed in Richfield right now per Google Maps.  Does this pertain to the U.S. Open beginning today at nearby Erin Hills?

ixnay


No it is closed until November.  Reconstruction.
Because they are doing a roundabout a the intersection of 175 and Lannon Rd. Everytime they do a roundabout the road has to be shut down.


That may be one thing they are doing.  It's not the only thing.

Well, judging from Google maps and http://www.usopen.com/fan-info.html#!1 , the closures on WI 175 don't seem to have much effect on access to the red and blue lots where fans can park and board shuttles to Erin Hills.  The blue lot (south) is near I-94's WI 67 exit, and the red lot (northeast) is at the Washington County fairgrounds.

ixnay
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ixnay on June 17, 2017, 08:25:49 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: ixnay on June 15, 2017, 07:49:12 AM
Parts of WI 175 are closed in Richfield right now per Google Maps.  Does this pertain to the U.S. Open beginning today at nearby Erin Hills?

ixnay


No it is closed until November.  Reconstruction.

From the dirt up?  I imagine Wisconsin roads have a rather thick base (but surely no treble [apologies to Meghan Trainor]).  :)

ixnay
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tribar on June 17, 2017, 12:56:12 PM
With I-41 following the same route, why is there still a need for I-894?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 17, 2017, 01:00:19 PM
Quote from: tribar on June 17, 2017, 12:56:12 PM
With I-41 following the same route, why is there still a need for I-894?

There hasn't been a need since I-43 was duplexed over the e/w portion. 

However it is still signed as a bypass of I-94.  That's the only value it has.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 18, 2017, 03:24:31 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 17, 2017, 08:21:27 PM
Update on the US 151 BGS replacements - Various Exit BGSs have been replaced further northeast to Dodgeville.  Updated so far:

* Exit 1 (WIS 11) - none
* Exit 2 and 3 (Badger Rd/Eagle Pt Rd) - none
* Exit 5 (CTH HHH/H) - Swapped H and HHH - which one had the TO banner was previously the opposite from the one the ramp junctioned with.  The swapped corrected the problem.
* Exit 8 (US61/WIS35/CTH HH) - NB removed Lancaster as a control city leaving only Dickeyville. Neither SB signthe ramp sign is now replaced. nor the SB and NB advance signs were not yet replaced. (NOTE: Great River Road is still shown on SB signs - this would ideally removed and paired with the "Scenic Byway" shields on unisigns to match northbound and Exit 1's updates from 2015.)
* Exit 19 (CTH D/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH D being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.  (BR 151 is still shown NB only).
* Exit 18 (WIS 80/81) - Control City updates: SB removed Lancaster and replaced with Cuba City, NB removed Darlington and replaced with Cuba City - still have PLatteville (obviously).
* Exit 21 (CTH XX/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH XX being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.   (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet.
* Exit 26 (WIS 126/CTH G) - Rewey added as secondary CC SB (already was such NB).   Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet.Now replaced.  WIS 126 is now a wide shield on replaced signs.
* Exit 37 (CTH O/Bus 151 Mineral Point) -  Signs were replaced with CTH O being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.  (BR 151 is still shown NB only). Contractors did not replace the SB signs.Now replaced.
* Exit 40 (WIS 23/WIS 39/Bus 151 Mineral Point) -  Signs were replaced with WIS 23/WIS 39 being featured routes and US 151 shield now a wide one.  Darlington (SB) and Hollandale (NB) were replaced with Linden (a town on WIS 39 west of MP)  (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the NB 1 Mile Advance sign yet Now replaced.
** Pandervais Historic Site was returned to a brown sign from a blue one (as a "logo") in both directions - "Historic Downtown Mineral Point" was added SB only.  SWAG says the NB side might be at exit 37(For the layman - SWAG == Scientific wild-ass guess ;) ) Exit 40 has Darlington and Hollandale as cities noted on a separate sign in both directions which was Linden's condition previously.
* Exit 44 (WIS 23) - No apparent replacements yet.  Speculations (based on Exit 47 below) point to Spring Green (NB secondary) being removed and The House on the Rock (before project on green BG co-signed with brown BG Governor Dodge State Park) - now being on a brown background.  Signs on the SB overhead bridge have not been touched yet. Signage replaced - the exit sign drops Spring Green.  Wide shield is present on the through route sign
* Exit 47 (US 18 West) - Prairie du Chein was removed from advanced sign going WB.  A second advance sign at "1/8 mile" was pulled completely.  The treatment for HOTR took place here (as noted in Exit 44).  Signs on the SB overhead bridge have not been touched yet. Signage replaced - the through route sign previously only had one arrow and directed both Platteville and Dubuque.  The new one has both down arrows (no APL here :D ) and Platteville was dropped.  Wide shield is present
So far this is the extent of the work - some other notes:
* Exit overview signs (Platteville, Mineral Point) were replaced with order of route ID and wide US 151 shields in both directions
* Blue Ad signs were all replaced or in progress of being replaced in affected areas.
All of the signs are narrower - leaving very little space on each side of the widest line.  The signs are also way cleaner than their predecessors which were put together quite sloppy.
Also add signs around Verona:
* Exit 70 (CTH PD/P) No wording changes, just new signs.
* Exit 75 (CTH G)No wording changes, just new signs
* Exit 76 (Bus 18/151 Verona Ave/Epic Lane) CTH MV was removed (seems the route was removed - being redundant).  The WB Sign does omit the BRs  Ironically the 151 shield is still a 2d.
* Exits 77 (US 69 Verona/Monroe) and 79 (CTH PB/M) no wording changes, just new signs
* Exit 81 (Bus 18/151 Verona Ave) Previously had Verona (the city) as its control, now has the street - 151 is a wide shield.

No signs touched between Dodgeville and CTH PD yet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 18, 2017, 10:48:25 PM
A TV clip showing Wisconsin 7-digit plates being produced.  It is showing ABB-xxxx plates being made. http://www.wbay.com/video?vid=429281263
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 18, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 18, 2017, 03:24:31 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 17, 2017, 08:21:27 PM
Update on the US 151 BGS replacements - Various Exit BGSs have been replaced further northeast to Dodgeville.  Updated so far:

* Exit 1 (WIS 11) - none
* Exit 2 and 3 (Badger Rd/Eagle Pt Rd) - none
* Exit 5 (CTH HHH/H) - Swapped H and HHH - which one had the TO banner was previously the opposite from the one the ramp junctioned with.  The swapped corrected the problem.
* Exit 8 (US61/WIS35/CTH HH) - NB removed Lancaster as a control city leaving only Dickeyville. Neither SB signthe ramp sign is now replaced. nor the SB and NB advance signs were not yet replaced. (NOTE: Great River Road is still shown on SB signs - this would ideally removed and paired with the "Scenic Byway" shields on unisigns to match northbound and Exit 1's updates from 2015.)
* Exit 19 (CTH D/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH D being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.  (BR 151 is still shown NB only).
* Exit 18 (WIS 80/81) - Control City updates: SB removed Lancaster and replaced with Cuba City, NB removed Darlington and replaced with Cuba City - still have PLatteville (obviously).
* Exit 21 (CTH XX/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH XX being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.   (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet.
* Exit 26 (WIS 126/CTH G) - Rewey added as secondary CC SB (already was such NB).   Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet.Now replaced.  WIS 126 is now a wide shield on replaced signs.
* Exit 37 (CTH O/Bus 151 Mineral Point) -  Signs were replaced with CTH O being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.  (BR 151 is still shown NB only). Contractors did not replace the SB signs.Now replaced.
* Exit 40 (WIS 23/WIS 39/Bus 151 Mineral Point) -  Signs were replaced with WIS 23/WIS 39 being featured routes and US 151 shield now a wide one.  Darlington (SB) and Hollandale (NB) were replaced with Linden (a town on WIS 39 west of MP)  (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the NB 1 Mile Advance sign yet Now replaced.
** Pandervais Historic Site was returned to a brown sign from a blue one (as a "logo") in both directions - "Historic Downtown Mineral Point" was added SB only.  SWAG says the NB side might be at exit 37(For the layman - SWAG == Scientific wild-ass guess ;) ) Exit 40 has Darlington and Hollandale as cities noted on a separate sign in both directions which was Linden's condition previously.
* Exit 44 (WIS 23) - No apparent replacements yet.  Speculations (based on Exit 47 below) point to Spring Green (NB secondary) being removed and The House on the Rock (before project on green BG co-signed with brown BG Governor Dodge State Park) - now being on a brown background.  Signs on the SB overhead bridge have not been touched yet. Signage replaced - the exit sign drops Spring Green.  Wide shield is present on the through route sign
* Exit 47 (US 18 West) - Prairie du Chein was removed from advanced sign going WB.  A second advance sign at "1/8 mile" was pulled completely.  The treatment for HOTR took place here (as noted in Exit 44).  Signs on the SB overhead bridge have not been touched yet. Signage replaced - the through route sign previously only had one arrow and directed both Platteville and Dubuque.  The new one has both down arrows (no APL here :D ) and Platteville was dropped.  Wide shield is present
So far this is the extent of the work - some other notes:
* Exit overview signs (Platteville, Mineral Point) were replaced with order of route ID and wide US 151 shields in both directions
* Blue Ad signs were all replaced or in progress of being replaced in affected areas.
All of the signs are narrower - leaving very little space on each side of the widest line.  The signs are also way cleaner than their predecessors which were put together quite sloppy.
Also add signs around Verona:
* Exit 70 (CTH PD/P) No wording changes, just new signs.
* Exit 75 (CTH G)No wording changes, just new signs
* Exit 76 (Bus 18/151 Verona Ave/Epic Lane) CTH MV was removed (seems the route was removed - being redundant).  The WB Sign does omit the BRs  Ironically the 151 shield is still a 2d.
* Exits 77 (US 69 Verona/Monroe) and 79 (CTH PB/M) no wording changes, just new signs
* Exit 81 (Bus 18/151 Verona Ave) Previously had Verona (the city) as its control, now has the street - 151 is a wide shield.

No signs touched between Dodgeville and CTH PD yet.

A few weeks ago, the 151 BGSs from the interstate to the Reiner Rd/Grand Ave interchange were replaced as well. The biggest change I noticed were some arrows being moved on a few of the overheads and the borders being added to the 'Exit Only' tabs. I imagine more will be replaced to the north as work progresses on 151 through the city of Sun Prairie.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 19, 2017, 11:07:06 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 18, 2017, 03:24:31 PM
* Exit 76 (Bus 18/151 Verona Ave/Epic Lane) CTH MV was removed (seems the route was removed - being redundant).  The WB Sign does omit the BRs

CTH MV was retired years ago (close to 10?). Was it still on that BGS before the replacement?  I can't recall.
It's standard for WisDOT to only sign business routes for interchanges as one approaches a city. I guess their logic is that way, drivers only see one exit for a business route in a given community.  Doesn't seem to cause confusion in other states, though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 19, 2017, 07:30:20 PM
I ran up to da U.P. this past weekend, eh! Some thoughts:

- Traffic definitely isn't lighter following the I-41/US-41 widening and reconstruction work. It was heavy from the US-141 split at Abrams all the way down to Oshkosh, with only the 8-lane sections through Green Bay opening up traffic flow significantly. The 4-lane section around Appleton and north to Green Bay is definitely a candidate for 6-laning in the next 10 years. I would also not be surprised to see a 6-laning north to Abrams in the next 20 years. Yeah, it was that busy.

- About 20 years out would be a good estimate for extending the 4-lane US-141 north past Wausaukee. The passing lanes are doing their job to manage the traffic load, but the same safety factors that lead to 4-laning US-141 south of Hwy 64 are coming into play north of it now. It calms down enough north of Wausaukee that 2-lanes will suffice a while longer.

- If people are avoiding Hwy 26 near Rosendale because WisDOT changed the signs, I see absolutely no evidence of it. Some out-of-town folks may opt to follow the freeway/expressway route, but GPS and locals know they still save time following Hwy 26, particularly if the 4-lane I-41/US-41 clogs up. They also clearly knew about the Rosendale traffic enforcement.

- Hwy 26 south of Hwy 16 down to Janesville was also quite heavy. I'd be pretty surprised if the rural sections aren't hitting 15,000 vpd now - I'd peg it at about 20,000 or so. The traffic growth over even a year or two ago is quite dramatic, both in cars and in heavy truck traffic. Some of WisDOT's 4-laning projects may seem overkill, but this one clearly wasn't.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on June 19, 2017, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on May 25, 2017, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 16, 2017, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2017, 04:08:38 PM
A quick note on Wisconsin's new-format license plates.

I've seen a small handful of new-format plates 'in the wild' here in the Appleton area over the past few days. They have all been 'AAB-xxxx', with the highest being 'AAB-6467'.

Did WisDOT decide to skip the 'AAA-xxxx' block?

Mike

No they didn't. I saw an AAA-xxxx plate here in Milwaukee. Perhaps the batch they sent to the DMV in Appleton were the AAB-xxxx block.

I've spotted a couple AAB-XXXX series plates in the Eau Claire area in the past few weeks.

The Eau Claire area must have gotten the AAA-XXXX batch, as the plates I got for my (new to me) car last week are AAA-XXXX. Also, nice to see another person from the area on here. Howdy!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 19, 2017, 09:44:40 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 19, 2017, 11:07:06 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 18, 2017, 03:24:31 PM
* Exit 76 (Bus 18/151 Verona Ave/Epic Lane) CTH MV was removed (seems the route was removed - being redundant).  The WB Sign does omit the BRs

CTH MV was retired years ago (close to 10?). Was it still on that BGS before the replacement?  I can't recall.
It's standard for WisDOT to only sign business routes for interchanges as one approaches a city. I guess their logic is that way, drivers only see one exit for a business route in a given community.  Doesn't seem to cause confusion in other states, though.
both Point and Wausau have business routes signed in both directions - but both routes are the only state maintained business routes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 20, 2017, 09:44:22 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 19, 2017, 07:30:20 PM
I ran up to da U.P. this past weekend, eh! Some thoughts:

- Traffic definitely isn't lighter following the I-41/US-41 widening and reconstruction work. It was heavy from the US-141 split at Abrams all the way down to Oshkosh, with only the 8-lane sections through Green Bay opening up traffic flow significantly. The 4-lane section around Appleton and north to Green Bay is definitely a candidate for 6-laning in the next 10 years. I would also not be surprised to see a 6-laning north to Abrams in the next 20 years. Yeah, it was that busy.

- About 20 years out would be a good estimate for extending the 4-lane US-141 north past Wausaukee. The passing lanes are doing their job to manage the traffic load, but the same safety factors that lead to 4-laning US-141 south of Hwy 64 are coming into play north of it now. It calms down enough north of Wausaukee that 2-lanes will suffice a while longer.

- If people are avoiding Hwy 26 near Rosendale because WisDOT changed the signs, I see absolutely no evidence of it. Some out-of-town folks may opt to follow the freeway/expressway route, but GPS and locals know they still save time following Hwy 26, particularly if the 4-lane I-41/US-41 clogs up. They also clearly knew about the Rosendale traffic enforcement.

- Hwy 26 south of Hwy 16 down to Janesville was also quite heavy. I'd be pretty surprised if the rural sections aren't hitting 15,000 vpd now - I'd peg it at about 20,000 or so. The traffic growth over even a year or two ago is quite dramatic, both in cars and in heavy truck traffic. Some of WisDOT's 4-laning projects may seem overkill, but this one clearly wasn't.


The only way WIDOT keeps traffic out of Rosendale is to close a portion of the highway.  (Which won't happen obviously.)

And yeah I have noticed increases in traffic at times on WI-26.  But summer weekends shouldn't be the sole judge of that.  There are still times between Jefferson and Milton where I can be the only car I see going my direction. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on June 21, 2017, 12:01:59 PM
Unrelated, but last week I was driving around near the east side of Appleton, and along Kensington Drive between College Ave (County CE?) and Newberry St, I noticed two buildings with the following addresses: N629 and N710 Kensington Drive (at least one was a house).  This is weird because I thought that whole area (being that it's inside of WI 441 after all) was part of the City of Appleton and thus should get Appleton-style addresses as opposed to on the county's rural system.

So is this area part of the COA, and if not, why doesn't the COA just annex them?

And on a related note, if County CE supposedly begins at the John St/Walter Ave roundabout, why are there no signs in either direction until the WI 441 interchange?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 21, 2017, 04:16:05 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 21, 2017, 12:01:59 PM
Unrelated, but last week I was driving around near the east side of Appleton, and along Kensington Drive between College Ave (County CE?) and Newberry St, I noticed two buildings with the following addresses: N629 and N710 Kensington Drive (at least one was a house).  This is weird because I thought that whole area (being that it's inside of WI 441 after all) was part of the City of Appleton and thus should get Appleton-style addresses as opposed to on the county's rural system.

So is this area part of the COA, and if not, why doesn't the COA just annex them?

And on a related note, if County CE supposedly begins at the John St/Walter Ave roundabout, why are there no signs in either direction until the WI 441 interchange?


Did they have the traditional fire marker addresses?  If so, that is an unincorporated area.

If they just have the directional letter in front of the address, that could be because the post office treats it as part of their rural route.  For instance, I live in an incorporated city, but my "post office official" address is "N1603" because my house is along a rural route for mail delivery.

The post office does this because they can pay less to rural route postal carriers.  I believe they don't have union status but someone can correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 22, 2017, 05:00:14 AM
The rural mail carriers have their own union separate from the other postal carriers.  I looked at a Town of Buchanan map and there are some isolated parcels that are in the Town and are not part of Appleton.  99% of everything else west of 441 is part of Appleton.  Festival, Lowes, and the Movie Theater are part of the Town of Buchanan east of 441.  I have a link to the map below.

http://www.townofbuchanan.org/media/1413/officialmaplegalsizerod2016.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on June 22, 2017, 08:55:18 AM
Dividing unions like that was the biggest con on the workers ever.  Weakened their position in trade for the idea that their role was somehow exceptional and in need of specific representation.  Not the best trade.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:16:35 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 21, 2017, 12:01:59 PM
Unrelated, but last week I was driving around near the east side of Appleton, and along Kensington Drive between College Ave (County CE?) and Newberry St, I noticed two buildings with the following addresses: N629 and N710 Kensington Drive (at least one was a house).  This is weird because I thought that whole area (being that it's inside of WI 441 after all) was part of the City of Appleton and thus should get Appleton-style addresses as opposed to on the county's rural system.

So is this area part of the COA, and if not, why doesn't the COA just annex them?

And on a related note, if County CE supposedly begins at the John St/Walter Ave roundabout, why are there no signs in either direction until the WI 441 interchange?

Those houses with the 'oddball' addresses (Outagamie County 'fire number' grid, used in all of the unincorporated parts of the county other than for Grand Chute Township, which uses the City of Appleton address number grid) are in fact in Buchanon Township and yes, Appleton has been trying to annex that tiny remnant of township west of WI 441 ever since at least the 1970s, when that township area was the entire triangle bounded by Newberry St, the railroad and the Village of Kimberly.  Why hasn't the City succeeded in getting those few houses yet?  Gotta talk to your state legislators about that one.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, County 'CE' ends at WI 441.
[Fantasy mode]If I were the WisDOT highway planning Poo-Bah, I would extend County 'CE' southeastward and eastward past Hollandtown and then southeastward towards Forest Junction as a 'super two' freeway/expressway on an upgradable four-lane new ROW and use it as a reroute for US 10, this to get US 10 off of the increasingly congested Oneida St and WI 114 in Appleton and Menasha and give it a much better feed into the metro area from the east.  Every time that I drive eastward from WI 441 on County 'CE', I can't help but think that it would make a perfect reroute of US 10.[/Fantasy mode]

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 24, 2017, 01:59:43 AM
The property owners have to petition for annexation and those property owners west of 441 must be ok with residing in the Town of Buchanan.  Property taxes are probably lower being a part of the Town than the city. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on June 26, 2017, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:16:35 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 21, 2017, 12:01:59 PM
Unrelated, but last week I was driving around near the east side of Appleton, and along Kensington Drive between College Ave (County CE?) and Newberry St, I noticed two buildings with the following addresses: N629 and N710 Kensington Drive (at least one was a house).  This is weird because I thought that whole area (being that it's inside of WI 441 after all) was part of the City of Appleton and thus should get Appleton-style addresses as opposed to on the county's rural system.

So is this area part of the COA, and if not, why doesn't the COA just annex them?

And on a related note, if County CE supposedly begins at the John St/Walter Ave roundabout, why are there no signs in either direction until the WI 441 interchange?

Those houses with the 'oddball' addresses (Outagamie County 'fire number' grid, used in all of the unincorporated parts of the county other than for Grand Chute Township, which uses the City of Appleton address number grid) are in fact in Buchanon Township and yes, Appleton has been trying to annex that tiny remnant of township west of WI 441 ever since at least the 1970s, when that township area was the entire triangle bounded by Newberry St, the railroad and the Village of Kimberly.  Why hasn't the City succeeded in getting those few houses yet?  Gotta talk to your state legislators about that one.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, County 'CE' ends at WI 441.
[Fantasy mode]If I were the WisDOT highway planning Poo-Bah, I would extend County 'CE' southeastward and eastward past Hollandtown and then southeastward towards Forest Junction as a 'super two' freeway/expressway on an upgradable four-lane new ROW and use it as a reroute for US 10, this to get US 10 off of the increasingly congested Oneida St and WI 114 in Appleton and Menasha and give it a much better feed into the metro area from the east.  Every time that I drive eastward from WI 441 on County 'CE', I can't help but think that it would make a perfect reroute of US 10.[/Fantasy mode]

Mike

Seems legit; it's just a shame that a new roundabout has been put in along CE and with all the new developments going on over there, soon it'll probably just be 35 mph all the way to Appleton.

And what do you make of the construction at the intersection of WI 47 (Richmond St) and County OO (Northland Ave) on the north side of Appleton, replacing the traffic light with a roundabout?  I think it's stupid, personally; now we're forcing 40,000 people each day through that cramped little space, adding to congestion, and probably jacking the speed limit on OO down to 30/35 too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 26, 2017, 11:24:33 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 26, 2017, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:16:35 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 21, 2017, 12:01:59 PM
Unrelated, but last week I was driving around near the east side of Appleton, and along Kensington Drive between College Ave (County CE?) and Newberry St, I noticed two buildings with the following addresses: N629 and N710 Kensington Drive (at least one was a house).  This is weird because I thought that whole area (being that it's inside of WI 441 after all) was part of the City of Appleton and thus should get Appleton-style addresses as opposed to on the county's rural system.

So is this area part of the COA, and if not, why doesn't the COA just annex them?

And on a related note, if County CE supposedly begins at the John St/Walter Ave roundabout, why are there no signs in either direction until the WI 441 interchange?

Those houses with the 'oddball' addresses (Outagamie County 'fire number' grid, used in all of the unincorporated parts of the county other than for Grand Chute Township, which uses the City of Appleton address number grid) are in fact in Buchanon Township and yes, Appleton has been trying to annex that tiny remnant of township west of WI 441 ever since at least the 1970s, when that township area was the entire triangle bounded by Newberry St, the railroad and the Village of Kimberly.  Why hasn't the City succeeded in getting those few houses yet?  Gotta talk to your state legislators about that one.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, County 'CE' ends at WI 441.
[Fantasy mode]If I were the WisDOT highway planning Poo-Bah, I would extend County 'CE' southeastward and eastward past Hollandtown and then southeastward towards Forest Junction as a 'super two' freeway/expressway on an upgradable four-lane new ROW and use it as a reroute for US 10, this to get US 10 off of the increasingly congested Oneida St and WI 114 in Appleton and Menasha and give it a much better feed into the metro area from the east.  Every time that I drive eastward from WI 441 on County 'CE', I can't help but think that it would make a perfect reroute of US 10.[/Fantasy mode]

Mike

Seems legit; it's just a shame that a new roundabout has been put in along CE and with all the new developments going on over there, soon it'll probably just be 35 mph all the way to Appleton.

And what do you make of the construction at the intersection of WI 47 (Richmond St) and County OO (Northland Ave) on the north side of Appleton, replacing the traffic light with a roundabout?  I think it's stupid, personally; now we're forcing 40,000 people each day through that cramped little space, adding to congestion, and probably jacking the speed limit on OO down to 30/35 too.

I like the planned roundabout at Northland (County 'OO')/Richmond (WI 47).  IMHO, it will likely function much like the ones at Green Bay/Winneconne (WI 114) in Neenah, Jackson/Murdock (US 45/WI 76) in Oshkosh or the one at College/John/Walter (east end of College Ave Fox River bridge) in Appleton.  Traffic and safety relief is very much needed there.

One item about it, when the Wisconsin Highway Commission (precursor to WisDOT) first built the US 41 Appleton bypass (original two-lane Northland and Westland Aves) back in the mid-late 1930s, they included ROW for what were then fairly wide 'vision corners' at its major intersections.  That made ROW acquisition for the now under-construction Northland/Richmond roundabout a non-issue.

As for County 'CE' eastward from WI 441, all of my US 10 freeway upgrade musings regarding it have been on the assumption that the current development along County 'CE' would happen.  My thoughts have always been on the lines of what WisDOT did at the I-41/Shawano Ave (WI 29/32) 'Shawano' Interchange in Green Bay/Howard or has planned at the I-39/90/I-43/WI 81 'Beloit' Interchange.  In my discussions with the WisDOT guys regarding WI 441/College, I have also often used US 83/281 (now I-2/69C) in McAllen/Pharr, TX as an example of what could be adapted for use there.

To me, the intersection roundabouts on County 'CE' are a non-issue in this regard.  They are just different styles of intersections along the way, essentially stop-gap traffic capacity and safety upgrades that will hold until more major, substantive 'real' upgrades can be done.

One more quick note, if US 10 would be so rerouted, I would renumber and mark Oneida St from WI 114 to the north end of the Skyline Bridge ('hanging' end at Prospect Ave?) to 'WI 510'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 26, 2017, 03:08:12 PM
The state of Wisconsin has gone on a roundabout binge since at least the early 2000's. I don't expect it to stop anytime soon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 27, 2017, 11:43:15 PM
An appeals court ruled that federal money is not allowed to be used on the WIS 23 project between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/27/appeals-court-rules-wisconsin-cant-use-federal-money-highway-23/430087001/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2017, 09:05:24 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 27, 2017, 11:43:15 PM
An appeals court ruled that federal money is not allowed to be used on the WIS 23 project between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/27/appeals-court-rules-wisconsin-cant-use-federal-money-highway-23/430087001/


Since the federal government did not appeal the ruling, should we interpret this that they think WIDOT's traffic projects were bunk as well?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2017, 02:48:19 PM
Even if the traffic counts are bunk, I consider the lawsuit to be frivolous. WIS 23 should have been four-laned by now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 28, 2017, 07:34:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 26, 2017, 03:08:12 PM
The state of Wisconsin has gone on a roundabout binge since at least the early 2000's. I don't expect it to stop anytime soon.
It should Gov Walker promised it would and with the Transportation budget broke it would be irresponsible not to cut down on it. These roundabouts are very costly and many have been built were stops signs would have worked just as well. There are plenty of roundabouts in this state as is anyways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2017, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2017, 02:48:19 PM
Even if the traffic counts are bunk, I consider the lawsuit to be frivolous. WIS 23 should have been four-laned by now.

"I don't care if WIDOT fudged data to get federal funding, I just want my highway."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 29, 2017, 09:32:47 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 28, 2017, 07:34:09 PM
It should Gov Walker promised it would and with the Transportation budget broke it would be irresponsible not to cut down on it. These roundabouts are very costly and many have been built were stops signs would have worked just as well. There are plenty of roundabouts in this state as is anyways.
Do we really have to cover this again?
Four way stops and left turn arrows can suck it.  Give me roundabouts all day!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Finrod on June 29, 2017, 05:12:31 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 26, 2017, 03:08:12 PM
The state of Wisconsin has gone on a roundabout binge since at least the early 2000's. I don't expect it to stop anytime soon.

It's not just Wisconsin.  They're showing up all over the place down here in Georgia and I hear about them popping up in Indiana (my old home state) as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 30, 2017, 09:31:37 AM
Roundabouts can be annoying, but in general they are more useful and better choices than stoplights or 4-way stops.  Still, WIDOT did go overboard with them for a while.  There's a stretch of WI 65 between I-94 at Roberts and New Richmond where there's six of them in 10 miles, and half of them could've/should've been left as ordinary intersections where 65 goes through and the intersecting county road has stop signs. 

Also, I seem to be the only person in my area who knows how and when to use a turn signal in one. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 30, 2017, 02:35:23 PM
Quote from: invincor on June 30, 2017, 09:31:37 AM
Roundabouts can be annoying, but in general they are more useful and better choices than stoplights or 4-way stops.  Still, WIDOT did go overboard with them for a while.  There's a stretch of WI 65 between I-94 at Roberts and New Richmond where there's six of them in 10 miles, and half of them could've/should've been left as ordinary intersections where 65 goes through and the intersecting county road has stop signs. 

Also, I seem to be the only person in my area who knows how and when to use a turn signal in one. 

On US 45 in Oshkosh, at last count in 2015, there are at least 4 I know of between I-41/US 41 and Downtown. That is a stretch of maybe 4 miles.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 02, 2017, 01:03:16 AM
Quote from: invincor on June 30, 2017, 09:31:37 AM
There's a stretch of WI 65 between I-94 at Roberts and New Richmond where there's six of them in 10 miles, and half of them could've/should've been left as ordinary intersections where 65 goes through and the intersecting county road has stop signs.

Perhaps WisDOT predicted some major growth in traffic at those junctions. Better to build them, while you have the money, than wait until you need the roundabout, only to discover that there's no money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on July 04, 2017, 03:45:39 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 30, 2017, 02:35:23 PM
Quote from: invincor on June 30, 2017, 09:31:37 AM
Roundabouts can be annoying, but in general they are more useful and better choices than stoplights or 4-way stops.  Still, WIDOT did go overboard with them for a while.  There's a stretch of WI 65 between I-94 at Roberts and New Richmond where there's six of them in 10 miles, and half of them could've/should've been left as ordinary intersections where 65 goes through and the intersecting county road has stop signs. 

Also, I seem to be the only person in my area who knows how and when to use a turn signal in one. 

On US 45 in Oshkosh, at last count in 2015, there are at least 4 I know of between I-41/US 41 and Downtown. That is a stretch of maybe 4 miles.

I don't know if Green Bay has the highest concentration of roundabouts, but the stretch along Shawano Avenue has the most I've seen.
  Roundabout at corner of Shawano Av and Taylor. Travel about 1500 feet west to
  Roundabout at Shawano and NB I-43 ramps. Travel about 650 feet west to
  Roundabout at Shawano and SB I-43 ramps. Travel about 750 feet west to
  Roundabout at Shawano and Duck Creek Parkway. Travel about 2400 feet west to
  Roundabout at Shawano, Packerland Parkway, Cardinal Lane, and WB ramp to WI 29.

That's five roundabouts in less than a mile. But we're not done yet. At this point, you can go south on Packerland Drive and hit two more roundabouts within 900 feet or go north on Cardinal Lane and hit another roundabout within 1000 feet. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5400224,-88.07973,16.04z?hl=en

My youngest brother's home is on the route going south on Packerland Drive. I hit all but the Shawano/Taylor roundabout (plus another where County RK meets County J) when I visit. It's not bad but easy to get confused, especially if you haven't visited for a while and the weather is bad. I'd hate to deal with this everyday for a commute. I love roundabouts, but even I think this is overkill.
 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on July 04, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
County F/Scheuring Road in nearby DePere is almost as bad. Six roundabouts within 1 3/4 miles. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.430027,-88.1011814,16.25z?hl=en
Title: WI 29 upgrade project note
Post by: mgk920 on July 04, 2017, 07:22:59 PM
This project will upgrade a short section of WI 29 west of the WI 32 split interchange NW of Green Bay to a full freeway.

For anyone who was at my 2014 Appleton-Green Bay roadmeet, the intersection on WI 29 at the Brown-Shawano County line that we stopped and turned around at for a county clinching is being eliminated and replaced with an overpass and WI 156 is being rerouted to follow 'old' WI 29 from there eastward to feed into the WI 32 interchange.

http://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/local-news/gov-walker-approves-wis-29156-improvements/756999014

Enjoy!

Mike
Title: Re: WI 29 upgrade project note
Post by: I-39 on July 04, 2017, 08:54:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 04, 2017, 07:22:59 PM
This project will upgrade a short section of WI 29 west of the WI 32 split interchange NW of Green Bay to a full freeway.

For anyone who was at my 2014 Appleton-Green Bay roadmeet, the intersection on WI 29 at the Brown-Shawano County line that we stopped and turned around at for a county clinching is being eliminated and replaced with an overpass and WI 156 is being rerouted to follow 'old' WI 29 from there eastward to feed into the WI 32 interchange.

http://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/local-news/gov-walker-approves-wis-29156-improvements/756999014

Enjoy!

Mike

When are they going to finish the upgrades between County FF and WIS 32? That should have been done a while ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 04, 2017, 08:57:38 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
County F/Scheuring Road in nearby DePere is almost as bad. Six roundabouts within 1 3/4 miles. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.430027,-88.1011814,16.25z?hl=en
I am with you on that one. I am ok with some roundabouts but what drives me nuts the most are series of them having 3 or 4 within a short distance or having them on high speed roads. If WisDOT would avoid those kind of roundabouts then I would say I am ok with them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 04, 2017, 09:05:24 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
County F/Scheuring Road in nearby DePere is almost as bad. Six roundabouts within 1 3/4 miles. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.430027,-88.1011814,16.25z?hl=en

I disagree.  If there are going to be that many controlled intersections that close together, I'd rather they be roundabouts than signalized.  Can't synchronize that many signals that close together in both directions. 

The real question is why it's necessary to have that many controlled intersections that close together.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 05, 2017, 07:43:15 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 04, 2017, 08:57:38 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
County F/Scheuring Road in nearby DePere is almost as bad. Six roundabouts within 1 3/4 miles. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.430027,-88.1011814,16.25z?hl=en
I am with you on that one. I am ok with some roundabouts but what drives me nuts the most are series of them having 3 or 4 within a short distance or having them on high speed roads. If WisDOT would avoid those kind of roundabouts then I would say I am ok with them.

Yeah, that's a tough one. I do agree with you on that - multiple successive roundabouts can be confusing. Wanderer2575 has a great point though - that would be a mess if it was all signalized. I think that in that area, the options were a bunch of signalized intersections, change road access, or roundabouts.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on July 07, 2017, 12:27:45 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 05, 2017, 07:43:15 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 04, 2017, 08:57:38 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
County F/Scheuring Road in nearby DePere is almost as bad. Six roundabouts within 1 3/4 miles. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.430027,-88.1011814,16.25z?hl=en
I am with you on that one. I am ok with some roundabouts but what drives me nuts the most are series of them having 3 or 4 within a short distance or having them on high speed roads. If WisDOT would avoid those kind of roundabouts then I would say I am ok with them.

Yeah, that's a tough one. I do agree with you on that - multiple successive roundabouts can be confusing. Wanderer2575 has a great point though - that would be a mess if it was all signalized. I think that in that area, the options were a bunch of signalized intersections, change road access, or roundabouts.

One more factor in the Shawano Avenue cluster is that many of the roundabouts are two and occasionally three lanes wide. These aren't simple, low-volume roundabouts. These are high traffic with speeds between them up to 45 mph. Just converting the I-41 roundabout pair to a DDI would help immensely, at least with visitors.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 07, 2017, 02:39:48 AM
^^ signals surrounded by roundabouts spell danger for the roundabouts. Traffic can quickly back up into the roundabouts.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 07, 2017, 07:45:06 AM
Way better to have the roundabouts than stoplights.   Intersections closely spaced with stoplights are a nightmare and impossible to coordinate.  A DDI only works when there is low through traffic and high percentages of turning traffic.  At 41, a high enough percentage of traffic flows through the interchange that a DDI would fail quickly with traffic backing up between the two stoplights at the ramps.

The old configuration of Dousman Street and Shawano Avenue running parallel to each other under 41 always backed up in the AM and PM rush hours.  Too difficult to coordinate the stoplights when they were that close.  The lack of adequate length turn lanes didn't help as well.

The new configuration with roundabouts at Packerland, Duck Creek Parkway, 41 ramps southbound, 41 ramps northbound, and Taylor make sense.  Stoplights would have required a much wider footprint to accommodate the dual lefts and right turn lanes needed at these intersections and the traffic queues at the stoplights would have backed up into each other due to the closely spaced intersections.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2017, 04:49:58 PM
I wouldn't mind having more roundabouts here in Madison. Where they would actually go is another discussion.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 08, 2017, 01:22:00 AM
Quote from: I-39 on July 04, 2017, 08:54:54 PM
When are they going to finish the upgrades between County FF and WIS 32? That should have been done a while ago.

Whenever they can acquire funding.  That upgrade is "shovel ready" and in my opinion, the traffic warrants the freeway conversion.  The party of penny wise, pound foolish is in charge so take it up with them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on July 08, 2017, 10:08:21 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 08, 2017, 01:22:00 AM
Quote from: I-39 on July 04, 2017, 08:54:54 PM
When are they going to finish the upgrades between County FF and WIS 32? That should have been done a while ago.

Whenever they can acquire funding.  That upgrade is "shovel ready" and in my opinion, the traffic warrants the freeway conversion.  The party of penny wise, pound foolish is in charge so take it up with them.

It's as simple as putting a new interchange and one new overpass. Yet, they think putting an overpass at St. Augustine Rd should be a priority over that, smh.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 08, 2017, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2017, 02:39:48 AM
^^ signals surrounded by roundabouts spell danger for the roundabouts. Traffic can quickly back up into the roundabouts.

Such as this winner built a couple years ago in Farmington Hills, MI.  This satellite view must have been taken on a Sunday morning.  It's routine, especially during weekday rush hour, for northbound Orchard Lake Road to back up into the roundabout.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5288838,-83.3593183,290m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 09, 2017, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 08, 2017, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2017, 02:39:48 AM
^^ signals surrounded by roundabouts spell danger for the roundabouts. Traffic can quickly back up into the roundabouts.

Such as this winner built a couple years ago in Farmington Hills, MI.  This satellite view must have been taken on a Sunday morning.  It's routine, especially during weekday rush hour, for northbound Orchard Lake Road to back up into the roundabout.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5288838,-83.3593183,290m/data=!3m1!1e3

With the 3D imagery turned on, you can actually see a truck sitting in the roundabout. Generally speaking, vehicles are only captured in Google's 3D imagery when they're sitting still.

Still, that does look to be a mess. You could easily fix the entire thing by making it a gigantic signalised triangle-about, but engineers don't seem to be as creative as they once were.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2017, 03:42:12 PM
If there was sufficient right-of-way to do something else at the intersection, I'm sure they would have done it. Also, the Northwest Expressway (M-10) was once proposed to go further northwest, but the development has regulated the extension to the dustbins of history.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on July 10, 2017, 08:17:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2017, 03:42:12 PM
If there was sufficient right-of-way to do something else at the intersection, I'm sure they would have done it.

Roundabouts are not always easy on ROW either.  The Streetview images from the time prior to the roundabout show space that could have been used to improve the Orchard Lake/14 Mile intersection with adding a NB dual left or a third through lane SB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 11, 2017, 04:32:20 AM
They should at least paint some yellow boxes in the conflict areas, in an attempt to contain junction blocking.

Beyond that, there's not much that can be done with the current layout. The only real option would be to change the left/right turns into yields. Yes, that would mean a triple left yield from SB to SB, a double left yield from NB to WB, a double right yield NB to NB, and a triple right yield EB to SB. But it would mostly eliminate the chance of junction blocking!

For those concerned of the possible safety issues, the roundabout has a triple lane entry, plus the right turns are already "yield" situations due to the permittance of right-on-red. The only change would be the left turns.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 11, 2017, 07:43:25 AM
Speaking of roundabouts, I went through the intersection of WI-164 and WI-167 up in Richfield on Sunday, and that looks to be a prime candidate for one. There was a decent line of cars NB and SB on WI-164 queuing at the 4-way stop, with no EB/WB traffic on WI-167. However, that does change on other days/times of the week, so a 2-way stop wouldn't work there. A roundabout would have cleared that queue and kept it clear.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 11, 2017, 09:55:33 PM
I-39/90 traffic near Edgerton, WI recently got switched over to 2-way operation on the northbound bridge over Lake Koshkonong. WisDOT posted this on their Facebook page:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMBXCkKi.png&hash=d8fa74ca5ed32ac46da5e3002c4067af1f92d7d7) (http://imgur.com/MBXCkKi)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 11, 2017, 10:09:23 PM
Not to be too pedantic, but it's the Rock River.
The new bridge is noticeably higher than the one it replaced.  Makes for less of an elevation change for trucks.

If you look closely at the new bridge, you'll see the tops of the support columns sticking out past the edge of the parapet in the (future) median.  This means there is the ability to add more deck for a fourth lane in the future.  (The current deck and parapets are in their finished condition to handle 3 lanes with full shoulders once in final configuration.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 12, 2017, 10:30:13 PM
Considering the minor additional cost to fit wider support structures, and the likelihood traffic demands will justify an 8-laning in the next 50 years, it's a smart move to go wider.

Having an easier grade will make life easier on trucks (and other slow-moving vehicles struggling to climb the hill). But I'm still concerned that the southbound bridge, as designed, will force slower merging vehicles from Hwy 59 into traffic before they're able to reach highway speed. However, the WisDOT reps I spoke with didn't share that view. Apparently, at least on paper, the on-ramp will be sufficient without extending it onto the bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 12, 2017, 10:38:47 PM
WisDOT appears, at least here in the Appleton area, to be moving very quickly to eliminate the ubiquitous 'trombone arm' horizontal overhead traffic signals from intersections on roads that they control.  Right now, there are two separate projects that do that in the western part of the metro area, WI 125 (College Ave) from I-41 eastward to the railroad yard bridge and WI 15 (Northland Ave and Greenville Rd) from I-41 westward through the Greenville area.

:no:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on July 12, 2017, 10:39:39 PM
WisDOT did admit on the I-39/90 Facebook page that the piers were built wider to accommodate a potential widening to eight lanes in the future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 13, 2017, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 12, 2017, 10:38:47 PM
WisDOT appears, at least here in the Appleton area, to be moving very quickly to eliminate the ubiquitous 'trombone arm' horizontal overhead traffic signals from intersections on roads that they control.  Right now, there are two separate projects that do that in the western part of the metro area, WI 125 (College Ave) from I-41 eastward to the railroad yard bridge and WI 15 (Northland Ave and Greenville Rd) from I-41 westward through the Greenville area.

:no:

Mike
They are dissapearing fast in Milwaukee County as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 15, 2017, 04:26:33 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 12, 2017, 10:38:47 PM
WisDOT appears, at least here in the Appleton area, to be moving very quickly to eliminate the ubiquitous 'trombone arm' horizontal overhead traffic signals from intersections on roads that they control.  Right now, there are two separate projects that do that in the western part of the metro area, WI 125 (College Ave) from I-41 eastward to the railroad yard bridge and WI 15 (Northland Ave and Greenville Rd) from I-41 westward through the Greenville area.

:no:

Mike

Wis 32/Ashland Ave is also undergoing signal replacement with the construction project going on now. WISDOT is going to be replacing signals on every multilane road project from here on out.  The resurfacing of Wis 125 is badly needed and I'm looking forward to the smoother surface. 


Within Green Bay itself they've been using monotubes for years.  Only difference is that they were horizontal in the past and now they're being mounted vertically. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on July 15, 2017, 09:41:07 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 15, 2017, 04:26:33 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 12, 2017, 10:38:47 PM
WisDOT appears, at least here in the Appleton area, to be moving very quickly to eliminate the ubiquitous 'trombone arm' horizontal overhead traffic signals from intersections on roads that they control.  Right now, there are two separate projects that do that in the western part of the metro area, WI 125 (College Ave) from I-41 eastward to the railroad yard bridge and WI 15 (Northland Ave and Greenville Rd) from I-41 westward through the Greenville area.

:no:

Mike

Wis 32/Ashland Ave is also undergoing signal replacement with the construction project going on now. WISDOT is going to be replacing signals on every multilane road project from here on out.  The resurfacing of Wis 125 is badly needed and I'm looking forward to the smoother surface. 


Within Green Bay itself they've been using monotubes for years.  Only difference is that they were horizontal in the past and now they're being mounted vertically.

I never understood why Wisconsin had those kind of traffic signals, they looked kind of goofy and confusing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2017, 02:04:13 PM
What is Wisconsin doing for signal replacement projects, where there are medians (in which signals were formerly placed?) Are they still placing signals in the median?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 17, 2017, 11:31:38 AM
They do place the monotubes in the medians. Fairly often, actually.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170717/a9b2bee837269a2d2afe41280df3056d.png)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170717/d5f9c6c169e035fca7a24e13e270ac9d.png)


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:02:51 PM
It does seem like monotube traffic signals are the wave of the future here in Wisconsin. Although I'm sure plenty of horizontal signals will still be constructed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 17, 2017, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:02:51 PM
It does seem like monotube traffic signals are the wave of the future here in Wisconsin. Although I'm sure plenty of horizontal signals will still be constructed.
Hardly perhaps at a few occasional minor intersections and that is about it. The old style arm is still being used sometimes but the light is hung vertically. I never understood myself when Wisconsin once had a very unusual traffic light setup. It would be nice to know the history as to why it was picked for some reason.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 17, 2017, 11:54:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2017, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:02:51 PM
It does seem like monotube traffic signals are the wave of the future here in Wisconsin. Although I'm sure plenty of horizontal signals will still be constructed.

Hardly perhaps at a few occasional minor intersections and that is about it. The old style arm is still being used sometimes but the light is hung vertically. I never understood myself when Wisconsin once had a very unusual traffic light setup. It would be nice to know the history as to why it was picked for some reason.

Color me interested as well. Wisconsin, up until recently, had (IMO) the most unique signal requirements of any state in the nation. By the far the heaviest user of pole-mounted signals.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on July 18, 2017, 12:49:18 AM
By the way, I got the impression that whatever department is responsible for cleaning up roadkill seems to have been gutted...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 18, 2017, 08:12:21 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2017, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:02:51 PM
It does seem like monotube traffic signals are the wave of the future here in Wisconsin. Although I'm sure plenty of horizontal signals will still be constructed.
Hardly perhaps at a few occasional minor intersections and that is about it. The old style arm is still being used sometimes but the light is hung vertically. I never understood myself when Wisconsin once had a very unusual traffic light setup. It would be nice to know the history as to why it was picked for some reason.

Me too. Growing up here, I always thought that the horizontal traffic signal was just how everyone did it. Then I went to other states and found it so odd that they mounted theirs vertically!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 18, 2017, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 18, 2017, 12:49:18 AM
By the way, I got the impression that whatever department is responsible for cleaning up roadkill seems to have been gutted...


I appreciate the play on words...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 18, 2017, 08:40:26 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 18, 2017, 12:49:18 AM
By the way, I got the impression that whatever department is responsible for cleaning up roadkill seems to have been gutted...

WisDOT stopped compensating county highway/sheriff departments for time spent clearing roadkill some 15 years ago, so unless it presents an immediate traffic hazard, it is left to rot in place.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 20, 2017, 10:46:55 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 15, 2017, 04:26:33 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 12, 2017, 10:38:47 PM
WisDOT appears, at least here in the Appleton area, to be moving very quickly to eliminate the ubiquitous 'trombone arm' horizontal overhead traffic signals from intersections on roads that they control.  Right now, there are two separate projects that do that in the western part of the metro area, WI 125 (College Ave) from I-41 eastward to the railroad yard bridge and WI 15 (Northland Ave and Greenville Rd) from I-41 westward through the Greenville area.

:no:

Mike

Wis 32/Ashland Ave is also undergoing signal replacement with the construction project going on now. WISDOT is going to be replacing signals on every multilane road project from here on out.  The resurfacing of Wis 125 is badly needed and I'm looking forward to the smoother surface. 


Within Green Bay itself they've been using monotubes for years.  Only difference is that they were horizontal in the past and now they're being mounted vertically.

I note that on the W College Ave (WI 125) 'strip' project (they've been cutting in the new signals this week, BTW), the overhead 'trombone arms' that face a couple of the cross streets (Perkins St and Lilas Dr, in particular) look like they're being left in place.

Interesting.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 21, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
WISDOT is leaving in place horizontal signals where there's a single lane.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 21, 2017, 01:16:14 PM
They're leaving the cross-street facing trombone arms in place at College Ave (WI 125)/Kools St/Westhill Bd (first intersection east of I-41), too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 21, 2017, 02:01:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 21, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
WISDOT is leaving in place horizontal signals where there's a single lane.

Not so much. They might use the trombone arms in certain cases, but they're almost exclusively mounting the signal heads vertically.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 21, 2017, 02:28:13 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on July 21, 2017, 02:01:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 21, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
WISDOT is leaving in place horizontal signals where there's a single lane.

Not so much. They might use the trombone arms in certain cases, but they're almost exclusively mounting the signal heads vertically.

So far, they've left the horizontals in place at those College Ave intersections.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 21, 2017, 02:40:28 PM
Are they using yellow borders with the new signals too?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 21, 2017, 02:42:23 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2017, 02:28:13 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on July 21, 2017, 02:01:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 21, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
WISDOT is leaving in place horizontal signals where there's a single lane.

Not so much. They might use the trombone arms in certain cases, but they're almost exclusively mounting the signal heads vertically.

So far, they've left the horizontals in place at those College Ave intersections.

Mike

Could be different for SeWI. There are a bunch of intersections around Milwaukee Metro that have single vertical heads on monotubes and/or trombone arms.

Also, Milwaukee city is rapidly turning their overhead signals from horizontal to vertical on their weird concrete pole/mast arm signals.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 21, 2017, 02:44:53 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2017, 02:40:28 PM
Are they using yellow borders with the new signals too?

In some cases, but not frequently.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 21, 2017, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 21, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
WISDOT is leaving in place horizontal signals where there's a single lane.

I think a lot of agencies across the country are adopting the "signal head per lane" rule.  So if there's just one lane in the approach to an intersection, that single overhead signal head will suffice.  This also applies if there are two lanes, whether the second lane is a turn lane or not (you're required to have 2 signal heads minimum anyway).  Anything more than that, and WisDOT will probably change to a monotube with multiple signal heads strung along it?  Does this sound right?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 21, 2017, 02:56:57 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 21, 2017, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 21, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
WISDOT is leaving in place horizontal signals where there's a single lane.

I think a lot of agencies across the country are adopting the "signal head per lane" rule.  So if there's just one lane in the approach to an intersection, that single overhead signal head will suffice.  This also applies if there are two lanes, whether the second lane is a turn lane or not (you're required to have 2 signal heads minimum anyway).  Anything more than that, and WisDOT will probably change to a monotube with multiple signal heads strung along it?  Does this sound right?

That sounds correct. I also seem to recall reading in the Wisconsin MUTCD supplement that for WisDOT installations, if one approach requires a monotube, that all approaches shall have at least one vertically mounted overhead signal. I could be wrong about that though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 21, 2017, 07:04:54 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2017, 02:40:28 PM
Are they using yellow borders with the new signals too?
I have seen very few of them in Wisconsin. Indiana and Ohio are using them a lot.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on July 22, 2017, 08:39:15 AM
The WI 125 FYA installation prompts a question from me: what was wrong with the existing phase configuration?  What are the benefits of FYA's, and if it wasn't broke, why are they fixing it?  :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 22, 2017, 10:03:48 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2017, 08:39:15 AM
The WI 125 FYA installation prompts a question from me: what was wrong with the existing phase configuration?  What are the benefits of FYA's, and if it wasn't broke, why are they fixing it?  :eyebrow:

'FYA' allows vehicles to make a permissive (not protected) turn while oncoming traffic has a green/green left arrow, allowing greater flexibility in signal sequencing.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 23, 2017, 03:19:30 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on July 21, 2017, 02:01:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 21, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
WISDOT is leaving in place horizontal signals where there's a single lane.

Not so much. They might use the trombone arms in certain cases, but they're almost exclusively mounting the signal heads vertically.

At the US 41/County B interchange in Suamico, horizontal overhead lights with trombone arms were installed with FYA signals mounted on poles at the median and the far left. 

US 12/County AA east of Eau Claire is another recent horizontal trombone mast install
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 23, 2017, 08:13:33 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 23, 2017, 03:19:30 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on July 21, 2017, 02:01:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 21, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
WISDOT is leaving in place horizontal signals where there's a single lane.

Not so much. They might use the trombone arms in certain cases, but they're almost exclusively mounting the signal heads vertically.

At the US 41/County B interchange in Suamico, horizontal overhead lights with trombone arms were installed with FYA signals mounted on poles at the median and the far left. 

US 12/County AA east of Eau Claire is another recent horizontal trombone mast install


Just speculation, but I'd guess that those signals probably aren't owned by WisDOT. In those cases, they're probably the county's responsibility. But I might be completely wrong...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 24, 2017, 12:11:13 PM
They're WISDOT installed.  They were on the 6 year highway plan and WISDOT made a press release after install.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 26, 2017, 02:43:07 AM
Speaking of Eau Claire, we are not far away from havil alot fewer horizontally mounted trombone setups. All of the mainline US12/Clairemont Ave signals extending over the 3 lane sections will be replaced with monotubes soon, 2 lanes around here have been getting the vertical trombone from the right and from the median on the left treatment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 31, 2017, 03:35:21 AM
It looks like WISDOT is abandoning plans for a US 10 eastern bypass of Stevens Point.  They plan on abandoning future mapping of a new corridor.  There was a Public Hearing about 2 weeks ago.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/us10portage/default.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 31, 2017, 10:15:51 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 31, 2017, 03:35:21 AM
It looks like WISDOT is abandoning plans for a US 10 eastern bypass of Stevens Point.  They plan on abandoning future mapping of a new corridor.  There was a Public Hearing about 2 weeks ago.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/us10portage/default.aspx

And we'll ultimately end up with a Texas-style freeway setup for the part between County 'J' and I-39.  I've been doing detailed map scribblings on this off and on over the past year or so.  I've found the part east of about Badger Av to be remarkably simple and straightforward to upgrade.  Think: 'narrow median freeway' - there's enough room in the median for an entirely new interstate-compatible EB roadway with the existing EB side to become a frontage road.  The part from Badger Av on westward would have to look and function like an urbanized freeway in Texas or metro Detroit.

---

Two decades of planning work for this very needed system upgrade and nothing to show for it.  Wastefully sad.

:banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2017, 04:47:05 PM
The webpage said that 30,000 cars use the existing US 10 corridor, at present. And that 18,000 cars would continue to use the existing US 10 corridor, even if the new alignment is constructed. My guess is they will close the books on the new alignment, and start a new study to make improvements to the existing alignment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 31, 2017, 08:15:34 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 18, 2017, 03:24:31 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 17, 2017, 08:21:27 PM
Update on the US 151 BGS replacements - Various Exit BGSs have been replaced further northeast to Dodgeville.  Updated so far:

(***Omitted completed interchanges)
* Exit 8 (US61/WIS35/CTH HH) - NB removed Lancaster as a control city leaving only Dickeyville. Neither SB signthe ramp sign is now replaced. nor the SB and NB advance signs were not yet replaced. (NOTE: Great River Road is still shown on SB signs - this would ideally removed and paired with the "Scenic Byway" shields on unisigns to match northbound and Exit 1's updates from 2015.) All signs replaced - A new sign added indicating SB 61 and 35 ahead (as in follow 151), also added unisign style GRR directionals in both directions to compensate for the removal from BGS's
* Exit 21 (CTH XX/Bus 151 Platteville) - Signs were replaced with CTH XX being featured route and US 151 shield now a wide one.   (BR 151 is still shown SB only). Contractors did not replace the sign prior to the SB ramp yet. Completed
* Exit 44 (WIS 23) - All signs replaced - no Spring Green on the signs - wide 151 on through sign, brown HOTR
So far this is the extent of the work - some other notes:
It seems they're not going to do anything with the signs in Barneveld or Mt Horeb - which is sad since said signs need the most work. (especially just greening out the BRs in Horeb and plopping TO WIS 92 over it)
Also add signs around Verona:
* Exit 70 (CTH PD/P) No wording changes, just new signs.
* Exit 75 (CTH G)No wording changes, just new signs
* Exit 76 (Bus 18/151 Verona Ave/Epic Lane) CTH MV was removed (seems the route was removed - being redundant).  The WB Sign does omit the BRs  Ironically the 151 shield is still a 2d.
* Exits 77 (US 69 Verona/Monroe) and 79 (CTH PB/M) no wording changes, just new signs.  Didn't think that MV was already retired for a while, I just don't pay attention ;)
* Exit 81 (Bus 18/151 Verona Ave) Previously had Verona (the city) as its control, now has the street - 151 is a wide shield.

Quote from: DaBigE on June 18, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
A few weeks ago, the 151 BGSs from the interstate to the Reiner Rd/Grand Ave interchange were replaced as well. The biggest change I noticed were some arrows being moved on a few of the overheads and the borders being added to the 'Exit Only' tabs. I imagine more will be replaced to the north as work progresses on 151 through the city of Sun Prairie.

Updates above.

Also: The overhead signs on I-90 C-D lanes at the Madison 151 Cloverleaf were replaced - the hideous 2d squeezed shields are now 3d shields.  The NB BGSs were 3D except for the pre-gore.  The SBs are still 2D.
Also - the distance signs at the points between that interchange and the Badger as well as between the Badger and Beltline were replaced.  The text only route #s were replaced with shields.  Guess what size the 151 shield is.  :wow:   

3d <--- answer here.

Additionally, they seemed to have taken down the NB diagram sign at the NB 1 Mile point.  They put up a sign with WIS 30 and the Airport symbol as well as the I-94 usual.  No pull-through sign for the threesome.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on August 01, 2017, 08:29:56 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 31, 2017, 10:15:51 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 31, 2017, 03:35:21 AM
It looks like WISDOT is abandoning plans for a US 10 eastern bypass of Stevens Point.  They plan on abandoning future mapping of a new corridor.  There was a Public Hearing about 2 weeks ago.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/us10portage/default.aspx

And we'll ultimately end up with a Texas-style freeway setup for the part between County 'J' and I-39.  I've been doing detailed map scribblings on this off and on over the past year or so.  I've found the part east of about Badger Av to be remarkably simple and straightforward to upgrade.  Think: 'narrow median freeway' - there's enough room in the median for an entirely new interstate-compatible EB roadway with the existing EB side to become a frontage road.  The part from Badger Av on westward would have to look and function like an urbanized freeway in Texas or metro Detroit.

---

Two decades of planning work for this very needed system upgrade and nothing to show for it.  Wastefully sad.

:banghead:

Mike

All I can say is an acre of undeveloped land costs less than an acre of developed land.  Any existing improvements within the existing US 10 corridor will be expensive and difficult to implement (once access is there it's impossible to remove, land costs are high because the land is developed, a systems interchange with I-39 will be cost prohibitive to implement).  Dedicating a corridor to someday relieve the pressure off the existing corridor especially at/near I-39 has many positives that outweigh the negatives.

By preserving the corridor, it does not mean they are going to build it.  It just means they have a corridor to build on if needed in the future.  The taxpayers will pay dearly for this decision and it basically means there will never be a systems interchange (no stoplights) between I-39/US10.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on August 01, 2017, 01:29:54 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 24, 2017, 12:11:13 PM
They're WISDOT installed.  They were on the 6 year highway plan and WISDOT made a press release after install.


Okay, I don't dispute that. But for reference, this is the document I was referring to (first paragraph specifically):

http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/tsdm/06/06-01-11.pdf (http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/tsdm/06/06-01-11.pdf)


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 01, 2017, 09:23:49 PM
Damn, I figured the US 10 project would languish on the back burner until fewer stupid people were in charge of Wisconsin.  So much for planning.  Breezewoodism is spreading in the Badger State.

With this development, I would expect the existing interchange with I-39 is going to become a DDI in the next 10-15 years.  That's probably the best way to polish that turd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2017, 10:39:14 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 01, 2017, 09:23:49 PM
Damn, I figured the US 10 project would languish on the back burner until fewer stupid people were in charge of Wisconsin.  So much for planning.  Breezewoodism is spreading in the Badger State.

With this development, I would expect the existing interchange with I-39 is going to become a DDI in the next 10-15 years.  That's probably the best way to polish that turd.


While I think they should preserve the corridor, the US-10 situation is hardly a Breezwood type example.  It *may* add three or four minutes to your trip and is rarely all that backed up. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
That is probably why they are closing the book on the existing study, because it would not greatly reduce congestion. Personally, I think they should go forward with the mapping of the US 10 freeway corridor, even if it isn't built. However, I am probably in the minority, since at the 6/13/16 PIM, the majority of comments supported not preserving the proposed right-of-way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 02, 2017, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 01, 2017, 09:23:49 PM
Damn, I figured the US 10 project would languish on the back burner until fewer stupid people were in charge of Wisconsin.  So much for planning.  Breezewoodism is spreading in the Badger State.

With this development, I would expect the existing interchange with I-39 is going to become a DDI in the next 10-15 years.  That's probably the best way to polish that turd.

They won't make that a DDI.  The loop ramp allows the majority of traffic to make a right turn onto US 10 from I-39 south and on northbound I-39, there are 2 exit ramps, one to US 10 east and Wis 66 west which eliminates a traffic signal on the east side of I-39.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2017, 07:45:21 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 02, 2017, 05:29:53 PM
They won't make that a DDI.  The loop ramp allows the majority of traffic to make a right turn onto US 10 from I-39 south and on northbound I-39, there are 2 exit ramps, one to US 10 east and Wis 66 west which eliminates a traffic signal on the east side of I-39.

I like a DDI there because of the proximity of the ramp terminals on the east side of the interchange to the next signalized intersection east (Maple Bluff Rd/Old Hwy 18).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:27:52 AM
Right now the main turning movements are right turns which are a lot easier to make than left turns.  Where US 10 turns onto Wis 441 in Appleton, most of the traffic turns left which is why that is being turned into a DDI.

Besides the Right of Way costs for a DDI would be costly since there's businesses at the northwest quadrant of the interchange and would not improve traffic flow compared to now at the I-39 interchange. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:34:59 AM
In other news Wis 32/Ashland Ave opened to traffic last week and 8th St in De Pere is close to being open.  I'm guessing there will be overnight lane closures on I-41 to remove the Wis 32 shields from all of the overhead BGS. 

All of the signals were changed to monotube on Ashland while the signals on the cross streets remained the same.  There is also a new U turn signal which is a FYA southbound at Vanderparren Way. 

All of the new Wis 32 signs are missing red arrows.  Was probably a contractor error since all the shields on the BGS for the detour have the red arrows. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 07, 2017, 09:26:15 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:34:59 AM
In other news Wis 32/Ashland Ave opened to traffic last week and 8th St in De Pere is close to being open.  I'm guessing there will be overnight lane closures on I-41 to remove the Wis 32 shields from all of the overhead BGS. 

All of the signals were changed to monotube on Ashland while the signals on the cross streets remained the same.  There is also a new U turn signal which is a FYA southbound at Vanderparren Way. 

All of the new Wis 32 signs are missing red arrows.  Was probably a contractor error since all the shields on the BGS for the detour have the red arrows. 


Are they relocating WI-32?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 03:19:33 PM
For the detour Wis 32 shields were posted on every overhead BGS on the mainline of I-41 between Hwy G and Hwy 29.  Ashland Ave and 8th St have new Wis 32 signs but they're missing red arrows.

I'm guessing the Wis 32 signs on I-41 will be coming down next week. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on August 07, 2017, 06:08:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 07, 2017, 09:26:15 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:34:59 AM
In other news Wis 32/Ashland Ave opened to traffic last week and 8th St in De Pere is close to being open.  I'm guessing there will be overnight lane closures on I-41 to remove the Wis 32 shields from all of the overhead BGS. 

All of the signals were changed to monotube on Ashland while the signals on the cross streets remained the same.  There is also a new U turn signal which is a FYA southbound at Vanderparren Way. 

All of the new Wis 32 signs are missing red arrows.  Was probably a contractor error since all the shields on the BGS for the detour have the red arrows. 


Are they relocating WI-32?
It was relocted there as it once went down Lombardi Ave. I can;t make much sense as to why it heads west on Mason then up I-41 to WI-29. It should just stay north on Ashland then heads west on WI-29 from there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 07, 2017, 06:15:41 PM
^^ Ashland Ave north of Mason St. is residential/parkland and the city would object to that designation as to it would allow trucks to travel that way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on August 07, 2017, 09:25:57 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 07, 2017, 06:15:41 PM
^^ Ashland Ave north of Mason St. is residential/parkland and the city would object to that designation as to it would allow trucks to travel that way.
It's amazing all the petty little things people complain about. If you can't deal with trucks driving down your street then move to another street with less traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 10:58:54 PM
I think WISDOT relocated Wis 32 from Lombardi onto Ashland so Wis 32 could be located on a connecting highway inside Green Bay so the state would have less responsibility. 

As for trucks I do not think they pay too much attention to route numbers in Green Bay.  For some reason there are way more innnercity highways than any city with 70,000 people or more.  For traffic passing through the Beltway around the city (I-41/I-43/Wis 172) is a lot faster and has a minimal affect on distance. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on August 08, 2017, 07:30:43 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 10:58:54 PM
I think WISDOT relocated Wis 32 from Lombardi onto Ashland so Wis 32 could be located on a connecting highway inside Green Bay so the state would have less responsibility. 

As for trucks I do not think they pay too much attention to route numbers in Green Bay.  For some reason there are way more innnercity highways than any city with 70,000 people or more.  For traffic passing through the Beltway around the city (I-41/I-43/Wis 172) is a lot faster and has a minimal affect on distance. 

I don't think responsibility had much to do with it, as much as the non-typical use and plans along the route. My guess is that the Packers wanted to not have to deal with the state in the future if they wanted to expand north of Lombardi or decide they want changes in signaling, etc. The state will typically remove STH/US designations if they feel that the local community wants to do something "non-conforming" with the road. (See STH-241/Layton Blvd.)

There isn't much saving of "responsibility" by the state with the move. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 09, 2017, 01:16:20 AM
Lombardi Ave underwent a major reconstruction and was expanded to 6 lanes between I-41 and Oneida St a few years after it became a county road.  I don't think the Packers or a non-conforming road had anything to do with the transfer since Lombardi Ave is a lot more modern now than it was when it was Wis 32.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on August 09, 2017, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 09, 2017, 01:16:20 AM
Lombardi Ave underwent a major reconstruction and was expanded to 6 lanes between I-41 and Oneida St a few years after it became a county road.  I don't think the Packers or a non-conforming road had anything to do with the transfer since Lombardi Ave is a lot more modern now than it was when it was Wis 32.

Which kind of makes my point. Green Bay, Ashwaubenon and Brown County (with, I guarantee, input from the Packers organization) designed and built the road. Typically in those cases, WisDOT does a jurisdictional transfer.

Edited to add: The state provided funds to Ashwaubenon, Green Bay, and Brown County to cover a lot of the work done there, but the funding was contingent on WisDOT transferring the road to the city/county. WisDOT paid $600,000 as their payment for the transfer. It's not much of a stretch to think that WisDOT passed the road to them so that they could design and build what they wanted, vs. WisDOT's standard designs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2017, 07:28:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:27:52 AM
Right now the main turning movements are right turns which are a lot easier to make than left turns.  Where US 10 turns onto Wis 441 in Appleton, most of the traffic turns left which is why that is being turned into a DDI.
Well DDI's don't have left turns in the traditional sense.   It's more like making a left between one-way roads.  I think SB to EB would flow better without a low-speed loop ramp.  Moreover, the geometry of the NB onramp would improve immensely.  Traffic would actually be able to get up to freeway speed by the time it gets to the gore.

Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:27:52 AMBesides the Right of Way costs for a DDI would be costly since there's businesses at the northwest quadrant of the interchange and would not improve traffic flow compared to now at the I-39 interchange.
Big fan of Econolodge? :-D
A DDI would free up more land than it would take, especially in that northwest quadrant.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 14, 2017, 12:46:16 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2017, 07:28:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:27:52 AM
Right now the main turning movements are right turns which are a lot easier to make than left turns.  Where US 10 turns onto Wis 441 in Appleton, most of the traffic turns left which is why that is being turned into a DDI.
Well DDI's don't have left turns in the traditional sense.   It's more like making a left between one-way roads.  I think SB to EB would flow better without a low-speed loop ramp.  Moreover, the geometry of the NB onramp would improve immensely.  Traffic would actually be able to get up to freeway speed by the time it gets to the gore.

Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:27:52 AMBesides the Right of Way costs for a DDI would be costly since there's businesses at the northwest quadrant of the interchange and would not improve traffic flow compared to now at the I-39 interchange.
Big fan of Econolodge? :-D
A DDI would free up more land than it would take, especially in that northwest quadrant.

Would make a lot more sense to make traffic from I-39/US 51 south to US 10 east free flowing by adding a lane across the bridge.  That way traffic from US 10 east does not have to stop along with US 10 west traffic that does not have to stop currently.  That interchange is not the biggest part of the problem in Stevens Point.  It's the stretch between Old Hwy 18/Maple Bluff Rd and Badger Ave.  There isn't much right of way to work with to improve that stretch.  Frontage Roads would help but there isn't enough land unless there would be some costly real estate acquisitions. 

A Diverging Diamond is the preferred alternative for the I-39/County B Interchange which is more practical there since there are more left turns with the way the interchange is set up now and there would be minimal right of way costs to implement it.  Speaking of County B I wouldn't mind swapping County B and Wis 54 between where they meet in Plover and US 10.  Traffic could utilize more of the US 10 expressway by using the current County B/US 10 combo instead of Wis 54.  When it comes to mileage, it's only 0.1 miles further and 3 minutes faster than Wis 54 according to google maps. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 14, 2017, 10:33:09 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 14, 2017, 12:46:16 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2017, 07:28:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:27:52 AM
Right now the main turning movements are right turns which are a lot easier to make than left turns.  Where US 10 turns onto Wis 441 in Appleton, most of the traffic turns left which is why that is being turned into a DDI.
Well DDI's don't have left turns in the traditional sense.   It's more like making a left between one-way roads.  I think SB to EB would flow better without a low-speed loop ramp.  Moreover, the geometry of the NB onramp would improve immensely.  Traffic would actually be able to get up to freeway speed by the time it gets to the gore.

Quote from: peterj920 on August 07, 2017, 04:27:52 AMBesides the Right of Way costs for a DDI would be costly since there's businesses at the northwest quadrant of the interchange and would not improve traffic flow compared to now at the I-39 interchange.
Big fan of Econolodge? :-D
A DDI would free up more land than it would take, especially in that northwest quadrant.

Would make a lot more sense to make traffic from I-39/US 51 south to US 10 east free flowing by adding a lane across the bridge.  That way traffic from US 10 east does not have to stop along with US 10 west traffic that does not have to stop currently.  That interchange is not the biggest part of the problem in Stevens Point.  It's the stretch between Old Hwy 18/Maple Bluff Rd and Badger Ave.  There isn't much right of way to work with to improve that stretch.  Frontage Roads would help but there isn't enough land unless there would be some costly real estate acquisitions. 

A Diverging Diamond is the preferred alternative for the I-39/County B Interchange which is more practical there since there are more left turns with the way the interchange is set up now and there would be minimal right of way costs to implement it.  Speaking of County B I wouldn't mind swapping County B and Wis 54 between where they meet in Plover and US 10.  Traffic could utilize more of the US 10 expressway by using the current County B/US 10 combo instead of Wis 54.  When it comes to mileage, it's only 0.1 miles further and 3 minutes faster than Wis 54 according to google maps.

What would the ROW acquisition and construction cost of a 'Texas freeway' style upgrade to US 10 between Badger Ave and I-39 be compared with the now-cancelled bypass routing?

As for US 10 between there and Amherst Junction?  IMHO, there is plenty of room in the existing ROW to add a new eastbound roadway in the median with the existing eastbound side to become a major frontage/access roadway (to become County 'K'?), only needing new ROW for a new interchange and related wetland mitigation at WI 161.  Make the US 10 mainline from County 'J' to WI 161 look like the existing narrow-median part of US 10 at County 'J', with frontage roads between there and Badger Ave.  Between WI 161 and the existing freeway at Amherst Junction, the only upgrade that I would do is add a bridge overcrossing for County 'K' to cross US 10 and the adjacent CN mainline.

I'm wondering if the much lower ROW acquisition cost for that routing would make the overall project cost a 'wash'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 15, 2017, 01:43:32 AM
There would have to be a lot of expensive real estate acquisitions between I-39 and Badger Ave.  East of there it would be easy to upgrade to freeway, but the expressway works well with non-stop traffic.  The problem is within Stevens Point.  The Brilowski Rd intersection is the biggest choke point with dedicated left turn lanes from Brilowski Rd onto US 10.  Applebees, Jung Garden Center, Huntington Bank, and the Fleet Farm Car Wash would all have to go if an interchange is placed there.  There's no shoulder along US 10 and the businesses are so close to the road between I-39 and Brilowski Rd where it would be extremely hard to make improvements without major teardowns.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 17, 2017, 06:23:49 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 14, 2017, 12:46:16 AM
Would make a lot more sense to make traffic from I-39/US 51 south to US 10 east free flowing by adding a lane across the bridge.  That way traffic from US 10 east does not have to stop along with US 10 west traffic that does not have to stop currently.

A reasonable alternative.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 18, 2017, 05:42:17 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 17, 2017, 06:23:49 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 14, 2017, 12:46:16 AM
Would make a lot more sense to make traffic from I-39/US 51 south to US 10 east free flowing by adding a lane across the bridge.  That way traffic from US 10 east does not have to stop along with US 10 west traffic that does not have to stop currently.

A reasonable alternative.

I see how the Wis 794/Oklahoma Ave intersection was reconfigured in Milwaukee where traffic from Oklahoma onto Wis 794 north doesn't have to stop and it works well. But instead of having traffic eventually merge left I'd have the left lane with traffic from Wis 66 in the far left lane merge right after the bridge if 4 lanes are going to be maintained. 

The other thing that could be done to the intersection is have Wis 66 west traffic travel non-stop
with an eternal green light and add a lane that allows traffic from I-39 to merge from the left like the Wis 794 configuration.  I linked below what I'd like it modeled after.  Wouldn't take much work to do it. 


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fernwood,+Milwaukee,+WI/@42.9877236,-87.8874547,3a,47.7y,281.59h,91.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sidJvKherAGyPHiCon9yeLw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x880517943db61629:0xb4b245c142700e48
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on August 22, 2017, 08:45:52 PM
Came across this petition to build a bridge across the Mississippi River at Cassville. While the petition lists some compelling reasons to build a bridge at Cassville, I don't see it happening. I don't see anyway where the cost would be justified. Cassville is out of the way and not on a route to really anywhere. While there is currently a ferry across the river, it is really more of a tourist attraction than a viable commuter route or anything like that. What do you think?

https://www.change.org/p/bridge-the-gap-build-a-highway-bridge-across-the-mississippi-river-at-cassville-wi
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 22, 2017, 08:48:29 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 22, 2017, 08:45:52 PM
Came across this petition to build a bridge across the Mississippi River at Cassville. While the petition lists some compelling reasons to build a bridge at Cassville, I don't see it happening. I don't see anyway where the cost would be justified. Cassville is out of the way and not on a route to really anywhere. While there is currently a ferry across the river, it is really more of a tourist attraction than a viable commuter route or anything like that. What do you think?

https://www.change.org/p/bridge-the-gap-build-a-highway-bridge-across-the-mississippi-river-at-cassville-wi

It looks like Iowa would have to invest significant money into a new connecting road, so there's another huge obstacle.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on August 23, 2017, 06:58:34 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 22, 2017, 08:48:29 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 22, 2017, 08:45:52 PM
Came across this petition to build a bridge across the Mississippi River at Cassville. While the petition lists some compelling reasons to build a bridge at Cassville, I don't see it happening. I don't see anyway where the cost would be justified. Cassville is out of the way and not on a route to really anywhere. While there is currently a ferry across the river, it is really more of a tourist attraction than a viable commuter route or anything like that. What do you think?

https://www.change.org/p/bridge-the-gap-build-a-highway-bridge-across-the-mississippi-river-at-cassville-wi

It looks like Iowa would have to invest significant money into a new connecting road, so there's another huge obstacle.

Add in the current Iowa political environment and you've got the perfect recipe for a "yeah, that's not gonna happen."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2017, 08:54:44 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 22, 2017, 08:45:52 PM
Came across this petition to build a bridge across the Mississippi River at Cassville. While the petition lists some compelling reasons to build a bridge at Cassville, I don't see it happening. I don't see anyway where the cost would be justified. Cassville is out of the way and not on a route to really anywhere. While there is currently a ferry across the river, it is really more of a tourist attraction than a viable commuter route or anything like that. What do you think?

https://www.change.org/p/bridge-the-gap-build-a-highway-bridge-across-the-mississippi-river-at-cassville-wi


Building a bridge for roughly $60 million to bring jobs to a city of less than 1,000 people is a terrible waste of money.  No one else would use this crossing because it is so out of the way.

Eventually the Blackhawk Bridge between Lansing, IA and Wisconsin is going to be closed without replacement as well.  Those parts of Wisconsin and Iowa don't have a lot of people and not many prospects for adding more.  Dumping money there would be a waste.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 01, 2017, 03:07:47 AM
Wis 47/County OO roundabout opens today in Apoleton.  County OO signals west of the roundabout in the Northland Mall Area were also replaced.  County OO has the new monotube signal per lane with FYA left signals while the side streets have the horizontal trombone signals.

Before the project, none of the signals at any of the intersections in the project area had overhead signals so the horizontal trombone signals aren't dead yet for single lane configurations.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 01, 2017, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 01, 2017, 03:07:47 AM
Wis 47/County OO roundabout opens today in Apoleton.  County OO signals west of the roundabout in the Northland Mall Area were also replaced.  County OO has the new monotube signal per lane with FYA left signals while the side streets have the horizontal trombone signals.

Before the project, none of the signals at any of the intersections in the project area had overhead signals so the horizontal trombone signals aren't dead yet for single lane configurations.

Not dead at all - those are *new* signal masts.

MIke
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 01, 2017, 12:20:26 PM
I noticed they are replacing the horizontal lights on US 151 in Manitwoc at I-43. I guess this is a trend in all of NE Wisconsin to just replace the lights without any major reconstruction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 06, 2017, 01:18:52 AM
Wisconsin's new transportation budget has been revealed which includes a moratorium on any I-94 work between the Zoo and Marquette and a stop to any work on the "north leg of the Zoo" itself (I'm not clear what the "north leg" being referred to is and why it's being suspended). It also includes $2.5M for a toll study after a million was spent on a previous tolling study.

https://www.wpr.org/republicans-poised-pass-transportation-budget
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on September 06, 2017, 09:23:48 AM
I believe the north leg of the Zoo Interchange was to include rebuilding I-41  from Watertown Plank Rd. up to Burleigh St.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 06, 2017, 04:51:12 PM
QuoteThe GOP plan would let trucks weighing more than twice the legal limit travel on stretches of state highway in Ashland and Vilas Counties [that are] carrying raw forest products and lumber.

Well that's going to make our roads even worse.  Also, if you can put more logs on one truck, then you need less truck drivers to move those logs to the mills.  The big forest products companies get to pay less while the individual truckers get fucked.  And meanwhile the highways up north get torn to shit even faster.

QuoteRepeal Wisconsin's prevailing wage law for state construction projects.

Yeah, because it's the little guy at the bottom that's driving up the cost of road construction.  :pan:

QuoteWhile Republican lawmakers won't increase the state's gas tax or vehicle registration fee to pay for roads, they will create a new $100 annual fee for electric cars and a $75 fee for hybrids.

Yay, more incentives for pollution...

QuoteProhibit the state or local governments from using the power of condemnation to acquire land for recreational trails, bicycle lanes, or pedestrian ways.

Non-problem solved!

QuoteLimit the ability of local governments to restrict the operation of a quarry, like a sand or gravel pit.

Yay, more groundwater contamination and sediment clogging up our streams.

So the long and short of it is, more handouts to well connected companies and the average citizen gets shafted.  Business as usual in Madison these days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2017, 06:47:51 PM
I'm disappointed that funding for the reconstruction of Interstate 94 between 70th and 16th St. is being delayed again. I do support the study of potentially tolling some roads in Wisconsin. I am very pleased that funding for the streetcar in Milwaukee is being restricted. When a streetcar proposal came to Madison about 10 years ago, I attended a couple hearings, and made my opposition clear. Streetcars are too slow, and their routes are too inflexible, I'd much rather take a bus.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on September 06, 2017, 08:43:16 PM
There was already at least one sign of the I-41 ZIC north leg being put on ice. The Meinecke Ave. bridge was originally going to be completely rebuilt, like Center St. was. Now, after being damaged by a truck hitting it, it is closed for a partial rebuild using the original frame.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on September 06, 2017, 08:45:45 PM
As for the streetcar, I don't really see how it will improve commuting, but I believe it was built using federal funds, rather than state. They should have started a county-wide LRT system instead. The streetcar seems kinda gimmicky to me. But time will tell.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 06, 2017, 09:07:39 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 06, 2017, 04:51:12 PM
QuoteProhibit the state or local governments from using the power of condemnation to acquire land for recreational trails, bicycle lanes, or pedestrian ways.

Non-problem solved!

This is one that I would 'line item' out.  Often these are needed for public safety reasons, besides park purposes.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 06, 2017, 09:32:58 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 06, 2017, 09:07:39 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 06, 2017, 04:51:12 PM
QuoteProhibit the state or local governments from using the power of condemnation to acquire land for recreational trails, bicycle lanes, or pedestrian ways.

Non-problem solved!

This is one that I would 'line item' out.  Often these are needed for public safety reasons, besides park purposes.

Mike

Also, the idea that those items don't bring value is absurd.  The bike trail that was expanded along with the WI-26 upgrades in Jefferson County is used all the time.  It's a public good.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on September 07, 2017, 09:04:18 PM
QuoteProhibit the state or local governments from using the power of condemnation to acquire land for recreational trails, bicycle lanes, or pedestrian ways.

So if a local government is widening a road and needs to acquire land for a sidewalk that needs to be moved to make room for a new lane, they will have to choose between not widening the road or removing the sidewalk?   :banghead:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 18, 2017, 06:44:34 PM
Recall that a mass replacement of signs took place on 151 from Dubuque to FDL, but no sign was replaced between Dodgeville and Mt Horeb's east point interchange. 

Here's why those signs were not replaced --> https://projects.511wi.gov/us18151countyid/full-project-overview/

Short story - HHH will be stricken.  ID will be "extended westward".  This is quoted because ID ends in Barneveld at it's interchange with 151 and there is no side road that would accomodate such an extension - It is quite possible that ID will be extended along the highway to the eastern HHH intersection short term and later routed onto a frontage road or nearby road.  That is pure speculation on my part so YMMV on it.

EDIT: http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/map-sect3altb.pdf

This is part of the grand scheme to convert the highway from from Dodgville to Verona to full freeway.  The one above is step 1.  The others likely don't have funding.  It routes ID south of the highway at Barneveld and west to Ridgeway.  It is quite possible that HHH remains after the project is done, and replaced later.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2017, 11:33:55 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 18, 2017, 06:44:34 PM
Recall that a mass replacement of signs took place on 151 from Dubuque to FDL, but no sign was replaced between Dodgeville and Mt Horeb's east point interchange. 

Here's why those signs were not replaced --> https://projects.511wi.gov/us18151countyid/full-project-overview/

Short story - HHH will be stricken.  ID will be "extended westward".  This is quoted because ID ends in Barneveld at it's interchange with 151 and there is no side road that would accomodate such an extension - It is quite possible that ID will be extended along the highway to the eastern HHH intersection short term and later routed onto a frontage road or nearby road.  That is pure speculation on my part so YMMV on it.

EDIT: http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/map-sect3altb.pdf

This is part of the grand scheme to convert the highway from from Dodgville to Verona to full freeway.  The one above is step 1.  The others likely don't have funding.  It routes ID south of the highway at Barneveld and west to Ridgeway.  It is quite possible that HHH remains after the project is done, and replaced later.


So is HHH the original US-18/151 route through Ridgeway?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 19, 2017, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 18, 2017, 06:44:34 PM
Recall that a mass replacement of signs took place on 151 from Dubuque to FDL, but no sign was replaced between Dodgeville and Mt Horeb's east point interchange. 

Here's why those signs were not replaced --> https://projects.511wi.gov/us18151countyid/full-project-overview/

Short story - HHH will be stricken.  ID will be "extended westward".  This is quoted because ID ends in Barneveld at it's interchange with 151 and there is no side road that would accomodate such an extension - It is quite possible that ID will be extended along the highway to the eastern HHH intersection short term and later routed onto a frontage road or nearby road.  That is pure speculation on my part so YMMV on it.

EDIT: http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/map-sect3altb.pdf

This is part of the grand scheme to convert the highway from from Dodgville to Verona to full freeway.  The one above is step 1.  The others likely don't have funding.  It routes ID south of the highway at Barneveld and west to Ridgeway.  It is quite possible that HHH remains after the project is done, and replaced later.

Kewl, me likey!

:cheers:

I did not know that this was in the project pipeline for 2018 construction.  It will be something to check out as work progresses.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2017, 11:33:55 PM
So is HHH the original US-18/151 route through Ridgeway?

As is County 'ID' through Barneveld.  The new County 'ID' between them maintains local non-freeway 'through' access.  When is this section expected to begin construction?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 19, 2017, 03:00:46 PM
This will leave one intersection, a couple driveways and three field entrances between Ridgeway and Dodgeville.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 19, 2017, 06:58:02 PM
Regarding the Verona-Dodgeville part of US 18/151, I'm also wondering if the short local road gap between County 'G' and the west Verona interchange (that wetland area) will someday have to be addressed as that part of the metro area continues to develop, and if so, what would be the best way of addressing it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 20, 2017, 04:37:37 PM
I noticed that the Hwy E intersection just west of Mt Horeb was recently removed and Hwy E was rerouted to end at Hwy 78 to the east. I wondered of this was the beginning for greater things to come.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 20, 2017, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 19, 2017, 06:58:02 PM
Regarding the Verona-Dodgeville part of US 18/151, I'm also wondering if the short local road gap between County 'G' and the west Verona interchange (that wetland area) will someday have to be addressed as that part of the metro area continues to develop, and if so, what would be the best way of addressing it.

Mike
Just make Epic Systems pay for it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on September 20, 2017, 09:21:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2017, 04:37:37 PM
I noticed that the Hwy E intersection just west of Mt Horeb was recently removed and Hwy E was rerouted to end at Hwy 78 to the east. I wondered of this was the beginning for greater things to come.
That intersection was changed at least 3 or 4 years ago. It was dangerous as it was right before the exit ramp to 78. Another nearby intersection was closed many years ago after too many accidents.

LGL56VL

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on September 20, 2017, 09:24:50 PM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/waukesha/news/waukesha/2017/09/20/bridge-over-west-waukesha-bypass-could-soar-costs-11-million-delay-completion/680966001/

Dispute over a railroad crossing could further delay the west Waukesha bypass. I say build an overpass now as part of the bypass project. It will save money in the long run and reduce the chances of having to redo the crossing in the future as well as be safer.

LGL56VL

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 21, 2017, 03:06:08 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 20, 2017, 09:24:50 PM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/waukesha/news/waukesha/2017/09/20/bridge-over-west-waukesha-bypass-could-soar-costs-11-million-delay-completion/680966001/

Dispute over a railroad crossing could further delay the west Waukesha bypass. I say build an overpass now as part of the bypass project. It will save money in the long run and reduce the chances of having to redo the crossing in the future as well as be safer.

LGL56VL
I say just cancel it all together. Nobody wants it and there are far greater needs in the area like I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:40:25 PM
When the West Waukesha Bypass is completed, will the US 18 designation be applied to it, as well as the pre-existing STH-59/164 segments of the entire bypass?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2017, 04:47:51 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:40:25 PM
When the West Waukesha Bypass is completed, will the US 18 designation be applied to it, as well as the pre-existing STH-59/164 segments of the entire bypass?

Yes.  US-18 will be applied to it.


Quote from: dvferyance on September 21, 2017, 03:06:08 PM
I say just cancel it all together. Nobody wants it and there are far greater needs in the area like I-94.

I am kind of leaning that way as well.  Route US-18 north at I-94 and then have it exit at Bluemound Road.  (Which is a much better routing anyway.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 21, 2017, 07:36:42 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 21, 2017, 03:06:08 PM
Nobody wants it

Wrong. *You* don't want it. Others do.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on September 23, 2017, 10:26:46 AM
From an inside source, WisDOT Secretary Ross has directed staff to look closer at the Majors and SE Freeway projects currently in the queue: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/default.aspx

This includes looking at the actual need, re-scoping them to see if less work can be done, and prioritizing which ones should move forward if money is available.  Some of them have been on the books since the early 1990s. 

The ones that are now complete: 51 in Wausau, 10 to Marshfield, 12 between Sauk City and Middleton, 12 between Baraboo and Lake Delton, 18 in Prairie Du Chien, 26 from Janesville to Watertown, 41 bypass of Oconto and Peshtigo,  and 41 in Brown and Winnebago counties that have any remaining funding left over will be reallocated to current majors projects and these projects will be closed out.

The winners in the most recently passed budget are 39/90, Verona Road, 94 North-South, 10/441, and 94 in St. Croix County.  While the losers were 94 East-West, Phase II (North Section) of the Zoo Interchange, 43 North-South, and 15 (Hortonville Bypass).

At this time, almost all studies for majors/SE Freeways have been suspended until further notice unless they have a short time frame (within a year) to get to completion.  The direction is that the majors/SE Freeways is already overprogrammed so projects already in the hopper will receive funding as available.  Currently the budget shows the majors/SE freeways program would have a minor amount of funding available in the mid 2020s.  But it would only be enough to do studies.  The projects approved in the most recent budget encumber the funding available for the next 6-8 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ChiMilNet on September 24, 2017, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on September 23, 2017, 10:26:46 AM
From an inside source, WisDOT Secretary Ross has directed staff to look closer at the Majors and SE Freeway projects currently in the queue: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/default.aspx

This includes looking at the actual need, re-scoping them to see if less work can be done, and prioritizing which ones should move forward if money is available.  Some of them have been on the books since the early 1990s. 

The ones that are now complete: 51 in Wausau, 10 to Marshfield, 12 between Sauk City and Middleton, 12 between Baraboo and Lake Delton, 18 in Prairie Du Chien, 26 from Janesville to Watertown, 41 bypass of Oconto and Peshtigo,  and 41 in Brown and Winnebago counties that have any remaining funding left over will be reallocated to current majors projects and these projects will be closed out.

The winners in the most recently passed budget are 39/90, Verona Road, 94 North-South, 10/441, and 94 in St. Croix County.  While the losers were 94 East-West, Phase II (North Section) of the Zoo Interchange, 43 North-South, and 15 (Hortonville Bypass).

At this time, almost all studies for majors/SE Freeways have been suspended until further notice unless they have a short time frame (within a year) to get to completion.  The direction is that the majors/SE Freeways is already overprogrammed so projects already in the hopper will receive funding as available.  Currently the budget shows the majors/SE freeways program would have a minor amount of funding available in the mid 2020s.  But it would only be enough to do studies.  The projects approved in the most recent budget encumber the funding available for the next 6-8 years.

I-94 Between Kenosha and Milwaukee desperately needs to have the widening finished. Yesterday, I was traveling to Milwaukee for the Brewers/Cubs game, and it was just so overloaded with traffic that it was slowing down just randomly, and I even left early. Others who met us at the game got totally stuck in traffic and were a bit late getting there. I am glad to see that it appears that this is getting some of the funding to finally get the ball rolling again.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 25, 2017, 09:41:22 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on September 24, 2017, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on September 23, 2017, 10:26:46 AM
From an inside source, WisDOT Secretary Ross has directed staff to look closer at the Majors and SE Freeway projects currently in the queue: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/default.aspx

This includes looking at the actual need, re-scoping them to see if less work can be done, and prioritizing which ones should move forward if money is available.  Some of them have been on the books since the early 1990s. 

The ones that are now complete: 51 in Wausau, 10 to Marshfield, 12 between Sauk City and Middleton, 12 between Baraboo and Lake Delton, 18 in Prairie Du Chien, 26 from Janesville to Watertown, 41 bypass of Oconto and Peshtigo,  and 41 in Brown and Winnebago counties that have any remaining funding left over will be reallocated to current majors projects and these projects will be closed out.

The winners in the most recently passed budget are 39/90, Verona Road, 94 North-South, 10/441, and 94 in St. Croix County.  While the losers were 94 East-West, Phase II (North Section) of the Zoo Interchange, 43 North-South, and 15 (Hortonville Bypass).

At this time, almost all studies for majors/SE Freeways have been suspended until further notice unless they have a short time frame (within a year) to get to completion.  The direction is that the majors/SE Freeways is already overprogrammed so projects already in the hopper will receive funding as available.  Currently the budget shows the majors/SE freeways program would have a minor amount of funding available in the mid 2020s.  But it would only be enough to do studies.  The projects approved in the most recent budget encumber the funding available for the next 6-8 years.

I-94 Between Kenosha and Milwaukee desperately needs to have the widening finished. Yesterday, I was traveling to Milwaukee for the Brewers/Cubs game, and it was just so overloaded with traffic that it was slowing down just randomly, and I even left early. Others who met us at the game got totally stuck in traffic and were a bit late getting there. I am glad to see that it appears that this is getting some of the funding to finally get the ball rolling again.

The FoxConn proposal is likely a catalyst here, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 26, 2017, 07:43:13 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 25, 2017, 09:41:22 PM

The FoxConn proposal is likely a catalyst here, too.

Mike

That work (94 N-S) was included as part of the Foxconn deal. At least originally.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on September 26, 2017, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on September 24, 2017, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on September 23, 2017, 10:26:46 AM
From an inside source, WisDOT Secretary Ross has directed staff to look closer at the Majors and SE Freeway projects currently in the queue: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/default.aspx

This includes looking at the actual need, re-scoping them to see if less work can be done, and prioritizing which ones should move forward if money is available.  Some of them have been on the books since the early 1990s. 

The ones that are now complete: 51 in Wausau, 10 to Marshfield, 12 between Sauk City and Middleton, 12 between Baraboo and Lake Delton, 18 in Prairie Du Chien, 26 from Janesville to Watertown, 41 bypass of Oconto and Peshtigo,  and 41 in Brown and Winnebago counties that have any remaining funding left over will be reallocated to current majors projects and these projects will be closed out.

The winners in the most recently passed budget are 39/90, Verona Road, 94 North-South, 10/441, and 94 in St. Croix County.  While the losers were 94 East-West, Phase II (North Section) of the Zoo Interchange, 43 North-South, and 15 (Hortonville Bypass).

At this time, almost all studies for majors/SE Freeways have been suspended until further notice unless they have a short time frame (within a year) to get to completion.  The direction is that the majors/SE Freeways is already overprogrammed so projects already in the hopper will receive funding as available.  Currently the budget shows the majors/SE freeways program would have a minor amount of funding available in the mid 2020s.  But it would only be enough to do studies.  The projects approved in the most recent budget encumber the funding available for the next 6-8 years.

I-94 Between Kenosha and Milwaukee desperately needs to have the widening finished. Yesterday, I was traveling to Milwaukee for the Brewers/Cubs game, and it was just so overloaded with traffic that it was slowing down just randomly, and I even left early. Others who met us at the game got totally stuck in traffic and were a bit late getting there. I am glad to see that it appears that this is getting some of the funding to finally get the ball rolling again.
That's what happens when you bring Chicago traffic into Wisconsin.  Seriously though, the 3 lane part between northern Kenosha County to Milwaukee is not typically as bad as you describe, unless there are a lot of left lane hogs. And even the 4 lane part gets backed up on the weekends south of highway 50 to the state line when the Illinois folks are driving home.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on September 26, 2017, 07:27:59 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on September 26, 2017, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on September 24, 2017, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on September 23, 2017, 10:26:46 AM
From an inside source, WisDOT Secretary Ross has directed staff to look closer at the Majors and SE Freeway projects currently in the queue: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/default.aspx

This includes looking at the actual need, re-scoping them to see if less work can be done, and prioritizing which ones should move forward if money is available.  Some of them have been on the books since the early 1990s. 

The ones that are now complete: 51 in Wausau, 10 to Marshfield, 12 between Sauk City and Middleton, 12 between Baraboo and Lake Delton, 18 in Prairie Du Chien, 26 from Janesville to Watertown, 41 bypass of Oconto and Peshtigo,  and 41 in Brown and Winnebago counties that have any remaining funding left over will be reallocated to current majors projects and these projects will be closed out.

The winners in the most recently passed budget are 39/90, Verona Road, 94 North-South, 10/441, and 94 in St. Croix County.  While the losers were 94 East-West, Phase II (North Section) of the Zoo Interchange, 43 North-South, and 15 (Hortonville Bypass).

At this time, almost all studies for majors/SE Freeways have been suspended until further notice unless they have a short time frame (within a year) to get to completion.  The direction is that the majors/SE Freeways is already overprogrammed so projects already in the hopper will receive funding as available.  Currently the budget shows the majors/SE freeways program would have a minor amount of funding available in the mid 2020s.  But it would only be enough to do studies.  The projects approved in the most recent budget encumber the funding available for the next 6-8 years.

I-94 Between Kenosha and Milwaukee desperately needs to have the widening finished. Yesterday, I was traveling to Milwaukee for the Brewers/Cubs game, and it was just so overloaded with traffic that it was slowing down just randomly, and I even left early. Others who met us at the game got totally stuck in traffic and were a bit late getting there. I am glad to see that it appears that this is getting some of the funding to finally get the ball rolling again.
That's what happens when you bring Chicago traffic into Wisconsin.  Seriously though, the 3 lane part between northern Kenosha County to Milwaukee is not typically as bad as you describe, unless there are a lot of left lane hogs. And even the 4 lane part gets backed up on the weekends south of highway 50 to the state line when the Illinois folks are driving home.
IL is 4 lanes till the I-94/I-294 split and some people / trucks take the free US-41
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 26, 2017, 10:25:46 PM
Not to mention WI has no rule restricting truck lane use so you will possibly come across a 4-lane-wide "truck conversation"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ChiMilNet on September 27, 2017, 06:26:56 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on September 26, 2017, 07:27:59 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on September 26, 2017, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on September 24, 2017, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on September 23, 2017, 10:26:46 AM
From an inside source, WisDOT Secretary Ross has directed staff to look closer at the Majors and SE Freeway projects currently in the queue: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/default.aspx

This includes looking at the actual need, re-scoping them to see if less work can be done, and prioritizing which ones should move forward if money is available.  Some of them have been on the books since the early 1990s. 

The ones that are now complete: 51 in Wausau, 10 to Marshfield, 12 between Sauk City and Middleton, 12 between Baraboo and Lake Delton, 18 in Prairie Du Chien, 26 from Janesville to Watertown, 41 bypass of Oconto and Peshtigo,  and 41 in Brown and Winnebago counties that have any remaining funding left over will be reallocated to current majors projects and these projects will be closed out.

The winners in the most recently passed budget are 39/90, Verona Road, 94 North-South, 10/441, and 94 in St. Croix County.  While the losers were 94 East-West, Phase II (North Section) of the Zoo Interchange, 43 North-South, and 15 (Hortonville Bypass).

At this time, almost all studies for majors/SE Freeways have been suspended until further notice unless they have a short time frame (within a year) to get to completion.  The direction is that the majors/SE Freeways is already overprogrammed so projects already in the hopper will receive funding as available.  Currently the budget shows the majors/SE freeways program would have a minor amount of funding available in the mid 2020s.  But it would only be enough to do studies.  The projects approved in the most recent budget encumber the funding available for the next 6-8 years.

I-94 Between Kenosha and Milwaukee desperately needs to have the widening finished. Yesterday, I was traveling to Milwaukee for the Brewers/Cubs game, and it was just so overloaded with traffic that it was slowing down just randomly, and I even left early. Others who met us at the game got totally stuck in traffic and were a bit late getting there. I am glad to see that it appears that this is getting some of the funding to finally get the ball rolling again.
That's what happens when you bring Chicago traffic into Wisconsin.  Seriously though, the 3 lane part between northern Kenosha County to Milwaukee is not typically as bad as you describe, unless there are a lot of left lane hogs. And even the 4 lane part gets backed up on the weekends south of highway 50 to the state line when the Illinois folks are driving home.
IL is 4 lanes till the I-94/I-294 split and some people / trucks take the free US-41
The left lane hogs were a factor. I am sure there was baseball game traffic affecting it too. But this being such a busy corridor, and believe me, a lot of IL people use this towards their destination in WI, I am surprised this whole project to eight lane this corridor got moved back (funding issues aside). Either way, this is a much needed project that will very much help traffic flow in this part of the state (and that much easier for those of us from IL looking to get away for a day or weekend).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on October 05, 2017, 08:56:18 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on September 23, 2017, 10:26:46 AM
From an inside source, WisDOT Secretary Ross has directed staff to look closer at the Majors and SE Freeway projects currently in the queue: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/default.aspx

This includes looking at the actual need, re-scoping them to see if less work can be done, and prioritizing which ones should move forward if money is available.  Some of them have been on the books since the early 1990s. 

The ones that are now complete: 51 in Wausau, 10 to Marshfield, 12 between Sauk City and Middleton, 12 between Baraboo and Lake Delton, 18 in Prairie Du Chien, 26 from Janesville to Watertown, 41 bypass of Oconto and Peshtigo,  and 41 in Brown and Winnebago counties that have any remaining funding left over will be reallocated to current majors projects and these projects will be closed out.

The winners in the most recently passed budget are 39/90, Verona Road, 94 North-South, 10/441, and 94 in St. Croix County.  While the losers were 94 East-West, Phase II (North Section) of the Zoo Interchange, 43 North-South, and 15 (Hortonville Bypass).

At this time, almost all studies for majors/SE Freeways have been suspended until further notice unless they have a short time frame (within a year) to get to completion.  The direction is that the majors/SE Freeways is already overprogrammed so projects already in the hopper will receive funding as available.  Currently the budget shows the majors/SE freeways program would have a minor amount of funding available in the mid 2020s.  But it would only be enough to do studies.  The projects approved in the most recent budget encumber the funding available for the next 6-8 years.

Was waiting to hear when this would be official and now it is.  Because state politicians opted to not fund 94 East-West in the budget, FHWA is rescinding their authorization for federal funds.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/04/wisconsin-abandons-94-westgov-scott-walkers-administration-asks-pull-up-stakes-i-94-east-west-projec/731644001/

Delaying/eliminating the project doesn't means the needs go away for the existing infrastructure.  This section of roadway already has 4 layers of asphalt on top of the original concrete that is in poor shape.  The bridges are also reaching the end of their lifespans (Not hazardous to drivers but will need replacement before they get to that point).  They still will need to spend almost a billion dollars to do all of this work.  This stretch is similar to the Zoo interchange before it was redone.  Everything was reaching the end of it's lifespan and because they kept delaying it, the state per-maturely before the project had to go in and replace a couple of the existing bridges.  This decision will only cost more money in the long run.

The kick the can down the road philosophy will negatively impact the state for many years to come.  :-/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 05, 2017, 11:33:43 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on October 05, 2017, 08:56:18 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on September 23, 2017, 10:26:46 AM
From an inside source, WisDOT Secretary Ross has directed staff to look closer at the Majors and SE Freeway projects currently in the queue: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/default.aspx

This includes looking at the actual need, re-scoping them to see if less work can be done, and prioritizing which ones should move forward if money is available.  Some of them have been on the books since the early 1990s. 

The ones that are now complete: 51 in Wausau, 10 to Marshfield, 12 between Sauk City and Middleton, 12 between Baraboo and Lake Delton, 18 in Prairie Du Chien, 26 from Janesville to Watertown, 41 bypass of Oconto and Peshtigo,  and 41 in Brown and Winnebago counties that have any remaining funding left over will be reallocated to current majors projects and these projects will be closed out.

The winners in the most recently passed budget are 39/90, Verona Road, 94 North-South, 10/441, and 94 in St. Croix County.  While the losers were 94 East-West, Phase II (North Section) of the Zoo Interchange, 43 North-South, and 15 (Hortonville Bypass).

At this time, almost all studies for majors/SE Freeways have been suspended until further notice unless they have a short time frame (within a year) to get to completion.  The direction is that the majors/SE Freeways is already overprogrammed so projects already in the hopper will receive funding as available.  Currently the budget shows the majors/SE freeways program would have a minor amount of funding available in the mid 2020s.  But it would only be enough to do studies.  The projects approved in the most recent budget encumber the funding available for the next 6-8 years.

Was waiting to hear when this would be official and now it is.  Because state politicians opted to not fund 94 East-West in the budget, FHWA is rescinding their authorization for federal funds.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/04/wisconsin-abandons-94-westgov-scott-walkers-administration-asks-pull-up-stakes-i-94-east-west-projec/731644001/

Delaying/eliminating the project doesn't means the needs go away for the existing infrastructure.  This section of roadway already has 4 layers of asphalt on top of the original concrete that is in poor shape.  The bridges are also reaching the end of their lifespans (Not hazardous to drivers but will need replacement before they get to that point).  They still will need to spend almost a billion dollars to do all of this work.  This stretch is similar to the Zoo interchange before it was redone.  Everything was reaching the end of it's lifespan and because they kept delaying it, the state per-maturely before the project had to go in and replace a couple of the existing bridges.  This decision will only cost more money in the long run.

The kick the can down the road philosophy will negatively impact the state for many years to come.  :-/


I hope you spend the $50 you saved on gas taxes this year wisely!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 09, 2017, 03:12:18 PM
Maybe the DOT met resistance from city leaders and local neighborhoods, all of whom oppose freeway expansion. Nevertheless, this stretch of Interstate 94 needs to be reconstructed ASAP, local resistance non-withstanding. It has been in existence since the early 1960's, and politicians need to stop playing their favorite sport, kick-the-can-down-the-road.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 09, 2017, 04:01:05 PM
I was just on I-894 SB in the zoo interchange reconstruction. WisDOT installed a new sign for National Ave which includes Hwy ES on it. Uh National Ave is no longer Hwy ES at 124th street when it enters Milwaukee County. And the end sign is still there this is a goof no doubt.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 03, 2017, 07:15:53 PM
A friend told me a new WIS 318 has been established in Waukesha running along Meadowbrook Road connecting I-94 and US 18. Is that related to the future bypass?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 03, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2017, 07:15:53 PM
A friend told me a new WIS 318 has been established in Waukesha running along Meadowbrook Road connecting I-94 and US 18. Is that related to the future bypass?

Is it signed? I know that stretch is being widened as part of the Waukesha West bypass, however there wasn't a route planned there originally. It wouldn't surprise me that it would become an unsigned route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 03, 2017, 08:30:34 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2017, 07:15:53 PM
A friend told me a new WIS 318 has been established in Waukesha running along Meadowbrook Road connecting I-94 and US 18. Is that related to the future bypass?

Is it signed? I know that stretch is being widened as part of the Waukesha West bypass, however there wasn't a route planned there originally. It wouldn't surprise me that it would become an unsigned route.

I was told it was signed (Chris Lokken was the source)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 03, 2017, 08:31:23 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2017, 08:30:34 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2017, 07:15:53 PM
A friend told me a new WIS 318 has been established in Waukesha running along Meadowbrook Road connecting I-94 and US 18. Is that related to the future bypass?

Is it signed? I know that stretch is being widened as part of the Waukesha West bypass, however there wasn't a route planned there originally. It wouldn't surprise me that it would become an unsigned route.

I was told it was signed (Chris Lokken was the source)

Wow! He's a reliable source, so I'd believe it. Totally out of left field though!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 04, 2017, 10:23:45 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2017, 08:31:23 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2017, 08:30:34 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2017, 07:15:53 PM
A friend told me a new WIS 318 has been established in Waukesha running along Meadowbrook Road connecting I-94 and US 18. Is that related to the future bypass?

Is it signed? I know that stretch is being widened as part of the Waukesha West bypass, however there wasn't a route planned there originally. It wouldn't surprise me that it would become an unsigned route.

I was told it was signed (Chris Lokken was the source)

Wow! He's a reliable source, so I'd believe it. Totally out of left field though!

There was a photo of a WI 318 sign posted on my FB news feed scroll yesterday.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: catofdar on December 04, 2017, 01:45:25 PM
It is signed on BGSs approaching Exit 291 (G/TT) on I-94 west.

-Chris Lokken
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 04, 2017, 04:05:32 PM
I wonder if that was a contractor error, or if they meant to sign it. Kind of makes me think of Miller Park Way...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: catofdar on December 04, 2017, 04:21:02 PM
Not yet sure if it is signed on mainline. Will investigate (with camera) tomorrow.

-Chris Lokken
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 05, 2017, 09:51:50 AM
I came to this thread for the express purpose of asking people if they knew anything about Wis-318.  I accidentally came across it in the field:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4581/23955385017_d98911cbed_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/CuRBnB)
WI-318 (https://flic.kr/p/CuRBnB) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr

^That was signage from I-94 eastbound at exit 291.  Wis-318 extends south from I-94, presumably to US18.

I also got a photo of a BGS on I-94 indicating Wis-318 on the sign for exit 291.  I'll have to upload that later.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 05, 2017, 08:13:47 PM
I dug around on the WIDOT website and found the MOA between WIDOT, the County and the City for the West Waukesha Bypass. 

https://projects.511wi.gov/westwaukeshabypass/wp-content/uploads/sites/319/MOA.pdf

If you look at #5 under WIDOT responsibilities, the section of Meadowbrook between US-18 and I-94 was supposed to be transferred to the State.  Obviously this is the reason for WI-318.

#8 under County responsibilities, details the transfer of WI-74 to the County.  This was done a couple years ago.

#9 under County responsibilities calls into question the remaining portions of County D and TT.

#3 under City responsibilities details the transfer of US-18 to the City (the portion being bypassed).  WIDOT of course improved that portion last year.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:08:45 PM
I wonder why 318 and not 218.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.

I agree with you on WI-24. I get why they did it - it's really just a local connector that pretty much drops to an almost empty rural road south of WI-164, but to end it at the county line just doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:42:18 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:08:45 PM
I wonder why 318 and not 218.

I guess there's a little precedence there with 341. That road is just a short connector between I-94 and US-18, that simply exists to connect the eventual West Bypass to I-94 on both ends.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:43:41 AM
This ought to be a mess. Something needed to be done there, and with the limited space, I guess it's probably the best alternative:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/southwest/news/hales-corners/2017/12/05/22-million-rebuild-highway-100-hales-corners-include-roundabout-new-signals/922782001/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 06, 2017, 07:52:18 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:43:41 AM
This ought to be a mess. Something needed to be done there, and with the limited space, I guess it's probably the best alternative:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/southwest/news/hales-corners/2017/12/05/22-million-rebuild-highway-100-hales-corners-include-roundabout-new-signals/922782001/

Don't let certain members of this forum know...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2017, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.

I agree with you on WI-24. I get why they did it - it's really just a local connector that pretty much drops to an almost empty rural road south of WI-164, but to end it at the county line just doesn't make sense to me.


It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 06, 2017, 04:06:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2017, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.

I agree with you on WI-24. I get why they did it - it's really just a local connector that pretty much drops to an almost empty rural road south of WI-164, but to end it at the county line just doesn't make sense to me.


It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way.
I disagree there is definitely enough traffic on it to justify it as a state highway east of 164. West of there ok I will give you that. If not restore the whole route I would at least end it at 164 at least there it would have a far more logical ending then ending it a the county line. Anyways back on topic to 318 I checked it out today so far the only signs for it or on I-94 or near it. Nothing posted anywhere else yet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2017, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 06, 2017, 04:06:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2017, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.

I agree with you on WI-24. I get why they did it - it's really just a local connector that pretty much drops to an almost empty rural road south of WI-164, but to end it at the county line just doesn't make sense to me.


It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way.
I disagree there is definitely enough traffic on it to justify it as a state highway east of 164. West of there ok I will give you that. If not restore the whole route I would at least end it at 164 at least there it would have a far more logical ending then ending it a the county line. Anyways back on topic to 318 I checked it out today so far the only signs for it or on I-94 or near it. Nothing posted anywhere else yet.


It's not a matter of having a lot of traffic.  Many roads have a lot of traffic.  The purpose is to aid with navigation and whose responsibility is it to maintain.  The state doesn't need to maintain a road that parallels an interstate highway...and yes I am looking at you Highway 175.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 06, 2017, 06:09:43 PM
I don't remember Highway 318 being signed on Interstate 94 when I went to my aunt's house for Thanksgiving. Thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 06, 2017, 07:54:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2017, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 06, 2017, 04:06:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2017, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.

I agree with you on WI-24. I get why they did it - it's really just a local connector that pretty much drops to an almost empty rural road south of WI-164, but to end it at the county line just doesn't make sense to me.


It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way.
I disagree there is definitely enough traffic on it to justify it as a state highway east of 164. West of there ok I will give you that. If not restore the whole route I would at least end it at 164 at least there it would have a far more logical ending then ending it a the county line. Anyways back on topic to 318 I checked it out today so far the only signs for it or on I-94 or near it. Nothing posted anywhere else yet.


It's not a matter of having a lot of traffic.  Many roads have a lot of traffic.  The purpose is to aid with navigation and whose responsibility is it to maintain.  The state doesn't need to maintain a road that parallels an interstate highway...and yes I am looking at you Highway 175.
According to that argument then WI-59 east of Waukesha should go it runs close to I-94. US-18 east of Madison should go as well as US-51 south of Portage. The fmr WI-24 really doesn't get that close to I-43 until you get out to WI-83. Otherwise it's a good 3-4 miles away. There are plenty of routes that come much closer than that to an interstate highway. I am just saying it would make sense to at least extend it out to 164 to give it a more logical ending. Just look at the amount of routes in Kentucky now there you will see real overkill.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 07, 2017, 06:18:22 AM
Don't be going fictional on us guys!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 07, 2017, 08:52:30 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 06, 2017, 07:54:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2017, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 06, 2017, 04:06:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2017, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.

I agree with you on WI-24. I get why they did it - it's really just a local connector that pretty much drops to an almost empty rural road south of WI-164, but to end it at the county line just doesn't make sense to me.


It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way.
I disagree there is definitely enough traffic on it to justify it as a state highway east of 164. West of there ok I will give you that. If not restore the whole route I would at least end it at 164 at least there it would have a far more logical ending then ending it a the county line. Anyways back on topic to 318 I checked it out today so far the only signs for it or on I-94 or near it. Nothing posted anywhere else yet.


It's not a matter of having a lot of traffic.  Many roads have a lot of traffic.  The purpose is to aid with navigation and whose responsibility is it to maintain.  The state doesn't need to maintain a road that parallels an interstate highway...and yes I am looking at you Highway 175.
According to that argument then WI-59 east of Waukesha should go it runs close to I-94. US-18 east of Madison should go as well as US-51 south of Portage. The fmr WI-24 really doesn't get that close to I-43 until you get out to WI-83. Otherwise it's a good 3-4 miles away. There are plenty of routes that come much closer than that to an interstate highway. I am just saying it would make sense to at least extend it out to 164 to give it a more logical ending. Just look at the amount of routes in Kentucky now there you will see real overkill.


US-18 is completely different. It is a rural highway that connects rural communities. WI-59 east of Waukesha can go away though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 07, 2017, 11:34:03 AM
All I can say is your standards are really high. All that I mentioned still makes far more sense then having less then 2 miles of Meadowbrook Rd on the west side of Waukesha as a state highway. But I guess there are a lot of things that don't make sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 07, 2017, 11:54:00 AM
Yeah I just think most urban/suburban numbered highways are simply not necessary. For instance, how does the routing of US-18 in Milwaukee or US-151 in Madison make any sense navigation-wise?  They are legacies of a pre-freeway era that are no longer relevant.

If state maintenance is the issue, you can keep the maintenance- just don't sign them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 07, 2017, 10:09:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 07, 2017, 11:54:00 AM
Yeah I just think most urban/suburban numbered highways are simply not necessary. For instance, how does the routing of US-18 in Milwaukee or US-151 in Madison make any sense navigation-wise?  They are legacies of a pre-freeway era that are no longer relevant.

If state maintenance is the issue, you can keep the maintenance- just don't sign them.

I do think US 151 should remain in Madison as a state highway because it does lead to the State Capitol.  US 151 is better off being moved onto the freeways for a more direct route but would like to at least have a state highway remain on the route. 

US 18 was rerouted in Milwaukee just west of Downtown onto Highland Ave instead of the one way pair of Wells St and State St.  Don't think many people noticed in the area and there isn't a US 18 exit sign on I-43. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 07, 2017, 11:00:35 PM
Not sure why the capitol is worthy of a state highway, but I would then replace US-151 with WI-551 or something similar and put the former on the freeways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 08, 2017, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 07, 2017, 11:00:35 PM
Not sure why the capitol is worthy of a state highway, but I would then replace US-151 with WI-551 or something similar and put the former on the freeways.

I'm quickly veering into "fictional highway" territory, but I've often felt that if they wanted this would be a good reason to change the current law and allow an "STH-1", replacing US-151 from I-90 to the Capitol.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2017, 09:26:26 AM
I like that idea even more.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 08, 2017, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 08, 2017, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 07, 2017, 11:00:35 PM
Not sure why the capitol is worthy of a state highway, but I would then replace US-151 with WI-551 or something similar and put the former on the freeways.

I'm quickly veering into "fictional highway" territory, but I've often felt that if they wanted, this would be a good reason to change the current law, and allow an "STH-1", replacing US-151 from I-90 to the Capitol.

Not to delve too much deeper into the fictional highway realm, but how about including the stretch west from the Capitol to the beltline? WIS 1 could become the inner capitol loop, then have it run down W Washington to Park St, to the beltline. Rerouting US 151 along the interstates and the beltline could alleviate some of the pain the city experiences at the existing Blair St and Williamson St intersections.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2017, 06:52:07 PM
Wisconsin has never had a STH-1 through STH-9, and it likely never will. I don't see the route of existing US 151 through Madison to ever change. I think it is fine the way it is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2017, 10:27:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2017, 06:52:07 PM
Wisconsin has never had a STH-1 through STH-9, and it likely never will. I don't see the route of existing US 151 through Madison to ever change. I think it is fine the way it is.


When it is freeway / expressway on either side of Madison, the routing through the city on regular streets is confusing.  It should change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on December 08, 2017, 10:57:12 PM
WisDOT will be having a meeting on December 14 in Mout Pleasant to discuss I-94 improvements and improvements related to Foxconn:  https://projects.511wi.gov/i94northsouth/public-involvement-meeting/ (https://projects.511wi.gov/i94northsouth/public-involvement-meeting/)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 09, 2017, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2017, 10:27:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2017, 06:52:07 PM
Wisconsin has never had a STH-1 through STH-9, and it likely never will. I don't see the route of existing US 151 through Madison to ever change. I think it is fine the way it is.


When it is freeway / expressway on either side of Madison, the routing through the city on regular streets is confusing.  It should change.

I went to college in Platteville and I met plenty of fellow students from the Fox Valley area who just followed US 151 through Madison without thinking twice about taking the interstate and Beltline around instead. I explained to them how to go around and how much quicker and easier it is to go around instead of getting lost doing laps around the capitol. It would be easier for long distance navigation for sure. And there are already two to four route numbers on the interstate and Beltline around Madison, so what's one more? :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 09, 2017, 10:22:37 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2017, 10:27:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2017, 06:52:07 PM
Wisconsin has never had a STH-1 through STH-9, and it likely never will. I don't see the route of existing US 151 through Madison to ever change. I think it is fine the way it is.


When it is freeway / expressway on either side of Madison, the routing through the city on regular streets is confusing.  It should change.

Agreed.

US 151 through Madison is what US 41 through Milwaukee was before I-41.  And yes, a noticeable percentage of the traffic that enters the metro area on US 151 from either direction transits and leaves it via US 151.  Big Rig Steve has done it numerous times.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 09, 2017, 11:35:03 AM
In other news, US-14 north of Evansville made the local news:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/neighbors-want-more-to-be-done-about-dangerous-driving-on-highway-14/670085629

From discussions I've had with WisDOT in the past, they are trying NOT to have to 4-lane US-14. But that whole stretch from Oregon through Evansville to Janesville sees plenty of traffic to justify 4-laning. On the unofficial Evansville bypass (Territorial Rd), they've posted 35 mph speed limits and resorted to placing stop signs at random intersections to discourage its use.

But, thanks to the crack fiscal management of the past few administrations (Doyle's included), there's no money to 4-lane US-14.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 10, 2017, 03:12:02 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 09, 2017, 11:35:03 AM
In other news, US-14 north of Evansville made the local news:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/neighbors-want-more-to-be-done-about-dangerous-driving-on-highway-14/670085629

From discussions I've had with WisDOT in the past, they are trying NOT to have to 4-lane US-14. But that whole stretch from Oregon through Evansville to Janesville sees plenty of traffic to justify 4-laning. On the unofficial Evansville bypass (Territorial Rd), they've posted 35 mph speed limits and resorted to placing stop signs at random intersections to discourage its use.

But, thanks to the crack fiscal management of the past few administrations (Doyle's included), there's no money to 4-lane US-14.

There's no money because....

A. They got rid of the indexing the gas tax to inflation

B. They wasted a ton of money on overbuilding highways that were not needed

US 14 probably could use 4 lanes in that segment, but it does not need to be built to freeway or high-quality expressway standards.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 04, 2017, 10:23:45 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2017, 08:31:23 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2017, 08:30:34 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2017, 07:15:53 PM
A friend told me a new WIS 318 has been established in Waukesha running along Meadowbrook Road connecting I-94 and US 18. Is that related to the future bypass?

Is it signed? I know that stretch is being widened as part of the Waukesha West bypass, however there wasn't a route planned there originally. It wouldn't surprise me that it would become an unsigned route.

I was told it was signed (Chris Lokken was the source)

Wow! He's a reliable source, so I'd believe it. Totally out of left field though!

There was a photo of a WI 318 sign posted on my FB news feed scroll yesterday.

Mike
WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 06, 2017, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 05, 2017, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.

:hmm:

I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)

:hmmm:

Mike
I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.

I agree with you on WI-24. I get why they did it - it's really just a local connector that pretty much drops to an almost empty rural road south of WI-164, but to end it at the county line just doesn't make sense to me.
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:29:10 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.
But Wisconsin famously decommissioned the stretch of Layton Blvd between Forest Home Ave and National Avenue, after improvements were done, which led to the introduction of WIS 241/341 (since US 41 had to be removed).

Still never figured out how that part of Layton/27th didn't meet state highway standards, as I've seen far worse quality state highways in Wisconsin (like WIS 32). Also never figured out who this Layton guy was that merited naming two major streets in the area after him. I just call it South 27th.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 10, 2017, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:29:10 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.
But Wisconsin famously decommissioned the stretch of Layton Blvd between Forest Home Ave and National Avenue, after improvements were done, which led to the introduction of WIS 241/341 (since US 41 had to be removed).

Still never figured out how that part of Layton/27th didn't meet state highway standards, as I've seen far worse quality state highways in Wisconsin (like WIS 32). Also never figured out who this Layton guy was that merited naming two major streets in the area after him. I just call it South 27th.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Layton

And I thought it was the people around the area who wanted the designation gone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 10, 2017, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:29:10 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.
But Wisconsin famously decommissioned the stretch of Layton Blvd between Forest Home Ave and National Avenue, after improvements were done, which led to the introduction of WIS 241/341 (since US 41 had to be removed).

Still never figured out how that part of Layton/27th didn't meet state highway standards, as I've seen far worse quality state highways in Wisconsin (like WIS 32). Also never figured out who this Layton guy was that merited naming two major streets in the area after him. I just call it South 27th.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Layton

And I thought it was the people around the area who wanted the designation gone.
Apparently, the city wanted to reconstruct the road, but didn't want to cut down a bunch of trees. Residents weren't too keen on that. The city was warned that, as a result, the reconstructed segment would not conform to state highway standards, so US 41 was moved to I-94 and WIS 241 was born, which terminated at the intersection with WIS 24 (a bizarre double termination of routes). And that segment of S. Layton Blvd. became a local street. Still never figured out why it would not have met state standards. After all, why would the ragged segments of WIS 32 and 38 to the east conform better than a divided highway? Or even the N. 20th St. portion of WIS 57, which is essentially a glorified, and very narrow, two-lane residential street?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 10:12:24 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.

WIS 341 was not completely unsigned. There were a few shields (I saw one on the eastbound stadium approach to the Canal St. interchange, as well as on northbound Miller Park Way just before Greenfield Av.) But the freeway segment was never signed. Even today, its replacement, WIS 175, doesn't have much signing until north of I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 11, 2017, 05:00:06 PM
WI 318 has to be the shortest time from a new state highway's creation to me clinching it.  :-D

re: US 14 to Evansville
At least WisDOT already has the r/w they need in Dane County to eventually do something about that bugger.
Well almost. I see part of the r/w north of WI 92 is now a lake, so it would have to shift west and take some different property.

As Madison continues to grow, it's going to get increasingly beneficial to expand that US 14 corridor from Janesville to Oregon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 12, 2017, 05:29:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.



The MOU with the City, County and WIDOT gives you an insight into this process.  Basically WIDOT is going to hold these routes until they need the mileage.  Then they will work out some deal with all parties involved.  Probably don't even need to be in the same county if a state highway is turned over to the City of Milwaukee. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 12, 2017, 06:16:23 PM
While we're talking on-and-off about 318...

I've been trying to snap a photo of every state highway in Wisconsin, so I need a comprehensive list of every highway in the state.  Imagine my surprise when I encounter one that wasn't on my list!  Good thing I did, or my collection would be incomplete without me even knowing!

Here's what the signage looks like from I-94 to WI-318.  I wonder if a wiki page about the highway will go up anytime soon.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4582/38164426584_0c21849ca2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/219sEoU)
WI-I-94X291E (https://flic.kr/p/219sEoU) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 12, 2017, 08:06:23 PM
Nice!  I plan on cllinching Thursday when I'm in the area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 12, 2017, 08:09:29 PM
Drove it today. It is signed along the route now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 14, 2017, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2017, 10:15:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 14, 2017, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.



You make a good point when you said that Good Hope should not be a state highway because alternative highways exist.  Which is exactly the reason WI-24 should not be extended.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 15, 2017, 11:57:55 AM
I clinched WI-318 in both directions yesterday.  Only observation is that the END sign on the north is after the I-94 interchange.  Otherwise it is a nice, four lane boulevard the entire way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 15, 2017, 12:03:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 15, 2017, 11:57:55 AM
I clinched WI-318 in both directions yesterday.  Only observation is that the END sign on the north is after the I-94 interchange.  Otherwise it is a nice, four lane boulevard the entire way.

Isn't that where it should be? Or does Wisconsin not typically put it there?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 15, 2017, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 15, 2017, 12:03:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 15, 2017, 11:57:55 AM
I clinched WI-318 in both directions yesterday.  Only observation is that the END sign on the north is after the I-94 interchange.  Otherwise it is a nice, four lane boulevard the entire way.

Isn't that where it should be? Or does Wisconsin not typically put it there?


They usually post them at the junction sign before the intersection.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fwisconsin%2Fimages2%2Fwendwi142jctwi11.jpg&hash=9941dc9700238841001d3219344dd1c8db7b6345)


Occasionally right at the intersection

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTR7IhUZUjmikqPlGKXA9q8Up-KL8Bwd_guRsCEUazMg5yiHsc)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 15, 2017, 01:44:40 PM
I can think of two examples offhand (13 and 105) that have two end shields for some reason, one advance END sign and one at the physical endpoint.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 15, 2017, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 15, 2017, 01:44:40 PM
I can think of two examples offhand (13 and 105) that have two end shields for some reason, one advance END sign and one at the physical endpoint.

Ooh, I actually have seen the second one! (Pictures are from August this year.)

(https://i.imgur.com/cgLUbbQ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/su9uB0q.jpg)

I thought it was odd too.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on December 15, 2017, 05:53:42 PM
On a related note, the end sign on WI 125 westbound is 0.24 miles before the actual endpoint.  :pan:
http://www.mappedometer.com/?maproute=662120 (http://www.mappedometer.com/?maproute=662120)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 15, 2017, 06:25:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2017, 10:15:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 14, 2017, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.



You make a good point when you said that Good Hope should not be a state highway because alternative highways exist.  Which is exactly the reason WI-24 should not be extended.
You don't live in the New Berlin Muskego area. I have a better feel for this area becasue I live here. If you want to do away with a state highway why not 127 instead? Makes no sense runs with Hwy 16 and serves nothing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on December 15, 2017, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 14, 2017, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.
Mequon Road and Brown Deer Road are good east-west routes across the northern metro area. However, Good Hope Road does have the advantage of being a direct freeway-to-freeway connection between I-41 and I-43, with limited stops. There aren't many major intersections along this route. Brown Deer Road has many more intersections and much more traffic. Plus, it's a bit more out of the way between the two interstates. Mequon Road is missing a direct north-south connector from I-41 northbound. It is more useful for the far northern suburbs.

I've taken Good Hope Road (County PP) as a bypass before, and was surprised at how efficient it was. Far more than Brown Deer Road, and far more than Silver Spring Drive to the south. The Bay Freeway was never built, so wouldn't it make sense to remove TH 24 or TH 57 south of Capitol Drive to create a more substantial and effective state route?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 15, 2017, 10:46:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2017, 06:25:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2017, 10:15:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 14, 2017, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.



You make a good point when you said that Good Hope should not be a state highway because alternative highways exist.  Which is exactly the reason WI-24 should not be extended.
You don't live in the New Berlin Muskego area. I have a better feel for this area becasue I live here. If you want to do away with a state highway why not 127 instead? Makes no sense runs with Hwy 16 and serves nothing.


Been through there on that road many times.  It's fine as a city street / county highway.  You're biased.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 15, 2017, 10:57:36 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on December 15, 2017, 05:53:42 PM
On a related note, the end sign on WI 125 westbound is 0.24 miles before the actual endpoint.  :pan:
http://www.mappedometer.com/?maproute=662120 (http://www.mappedometer.com/?maproute=662120)

Well, that IS where the 'JCT/I-41' sign is, after all.

:-P

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on December 17, 2017, 09:09:39 PM
WisDOT has posted materials from the recent public meeting for the Foxconn improvements.]WisDOT has posted materials from the recent public meeting for the Foxconn improvements. (https://projects.511wi.gov/fdr/full-project-overview/)  Some of the roadways around Racine will be getting significant widening:

* WI 11 will go to five through lanes near I-41/I-94

* County KR will get a stretch with four through lanes

From the I-94 exhibits (https://projects.511wi.gov/i94northsouth/corridor-construction-projects/) some of the interchanges will get a lot of widening as well.
* The ramp from WI 11 to NB I-41/I-94 would become a three lane ramp. (https://projects.511wi.gov/i94northsouth/wp-content/uploads/sites/105/South-Seg13-STH-11-Int.pdf)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 18, 2017, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on December 15, 2017, 05:53:42 PM
On a related note, the end sign on WI 125 westbound is 0.24 miles before the actual endpoint.  :pan:
http://www.mappedometer.com/?maproute=662120 (http://www.mappedometer.com/?maproute=662120)

And at the eastbound approach, the junction marker for 125 and 41 is pretty absurdly far in advance, as well.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4578/23955557187_2dacd03e07_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/CuSuy4)
WI-125 (https://flic.kr/p/CuSuy4) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:15:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 15, 2017, 10:46:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2017, 06:25:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2017, 10:15:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 14, 2017, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.



You make a good point when you said that Good Hope should not be a state highway because alternative highways exist.  Which is exactly the reason WI-24 should not be extended.
You don't live in the New Berlin Muskego area. I have a better feel for this area becasue I live here. If you want to do away with a state highway why not 127 instead? Makes no sense runs with Hwy 16 and serves nothing.


Been through there on that road many times.  It's fine as a city street / county highway.  You're biased.
Everyone has a bias but I don't get why you would get rid of 24 and the southernmost part of 57 but keep 127. If you looking for a tradeoff 127 is the logical choice. I would really like to see Moorland/Durham Rd from Janesville to North Cape become a county highway. I take it quite often to get to 45 to avoid the Milwaukee area freeways. It's too major of a route just to be a city of Muskego road.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 19, 2017, 08:27:52 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:15:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 15, 2017, 10:46:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2017, 06:25:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2017, 10:15:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 14, 2017, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.



You make a good point when you said that Good Hope should not be a state highway because alternative highways exist.  Which is exactly the reason WI-24 should not be extended.
You don't live in the New Berlin Muskego area. I have a better feel for this area becasue I live here. If you want to do away with a state highway why not 127 instead? Makes no sense runs with Hwy 16 and serves nothing.


Been through there on that road many times.  It's fine as a city street / county highway.  You're biased.
Everyone has a bias but I don't get why you would get rid of 24 and the southernmost part of 57 but keep 127. If you looking for a tradeoff 127 is the logical choice. I would really like to see Moorland/Durham Rd from Janesville to North Cape become a county highway. I take it quite often to get to 45 to avoid the Milwaukee area freeways. It's too major of a route just to be a city of Muskego road.

I've never said anything about WI-127.  I just don't think WI-24 should be extended.  It really isn't that major of a route.

For instance, looking at WIDOT's traffic count map, County ES through New Berlin and west has more traffic.  I don't think we should re-create WI-15 on that route.  Moorland Road has more traffic as well.  That shouldn't be a state highway either.

Even non-county highways like North Avenue have similar traffic.

Sorry but it's just fine as a county highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 09:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 19, 2017, 08:27:52 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:15:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 15, 2017, 10:46:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2017, 06:25:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2017, 10:15:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 14, 2017, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 10, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.
I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.
I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.



You make a good point when you said that Good Hope should not be a state highway because alternative highways exist.  Which is exactly the reason WI-24 should not be extended.
You don't live in the New Berlin Muskego area. I have a better feel for this area becasue I live here. If you want to do away with a state highway why not 127 instead? Makes no sense runs with Hwy 16 and serves nothing.


Been through there on that road many times.  It's fine as a city street / county highway.  You're biased.
Everyone has a bias but I don't get why you would get rid of 24 and the southernmost part of 57 but keep 127. If you looking for a tradeoff 127 is the logical choice. I would really like to see Moorland/Durham Rd from Janesville to North Cape become a county highway. I take it quite often to get to 45 to avoid the Milwaukee area freeways. It's too major of a route just to be a city of Muskego road.

I've never said anything about WI-127.  I just don't think WI-24 should be extended.  It really isn't that major of a route.

For instance, looking at WIDOT's traffic count map, County ES through New Berlin and west has more traffic.  I don't think we should re-create WI-15 on that route.  Moorland Road has more traffic as well.  That shouldn't be a state highway either.

Even non-county highways like North Avenue have similar traffic.

Sorry but it's just fine as a county highway.
I just think Big Bend makes more sense for and end to state highway then just ending at the county line. You can't recreate 15 anyways becasue it's being used in the Fox cities. North Ave is a county highway. The city of Brookfield turned it over in 2005. There are some roads I would like to see in Waukesha County be upgraded to county highways from city roads. Coffee Rd in New Berlin Calhoun Rd I think should be as well Durham Rd in Musekgo I mentioned before. Brookfield Rd could also be a candidate. These cities put strict weight restrictions which makes truck navigation difficult.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 24, 2017, 03:10:29 AM
I'm surprised the Wis 11 interchange is still going to remain a half cloverleaf with I-94/I-41.  Why not make it a diamond interchange now that the railroad is abandoned on the north side of Wis 11?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 24, 2017, 12:11:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 24, 2017, 03:10:29 AM
I'm surprised the Wis 11 interchange is still going to remain a half cloverleaf with I-94/I-41.  Why not make it a diamond interchange now that the railroad is abandoned on the north side of Wis 11?

Because realigning everything would be way more expensive, and the interchange the way it is would serve the same function.  Plus, if most of the traffic coming off of I-94 would be going east toward Racine/Kenosha, they would all be making right turns which is easier than left turns.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 25, 2017, 01:00:05 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 24, 2017, 12:11:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 24, 2017, 03:10:29 AM
I'm surprised the Wis 11 interchange is still going to remain a half cloverleaf with I-94/I-41.  Why not make it a diamond interchange now that the railroad is abandoned on the north side of Wis 11?

Because realigning everything would be way more expensive, and the interchange the way it is would serve the same function.  Plus, if most of the traffic coming off of I-94 would be going east toward Racine/Kenosha, they would all be making right turns which is easier than left turns.

It wouldn't be that expensive to place new ramps in to create a diamond interchange.  Would be better than having low speed 180 degree ramps.  The College, Rawson and Hwy 100 interchanges were redesigned to a tight diamond configuration after they were built to accommodate full cloverleaf interchanges to eliminate the curves. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 25, 2017, 10:23:12 AM
I could justify adding a NBD on-ramp there to turn a left turn into a right turn, but I can't justify spending more money to make ramps that would create a left turn movement.

SM-G950U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 25, 2017, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 25, 2017, 01:00:05 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 24, 2017, 12:11:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 24, 2017, 03:10:29 AM
I'm surprised the Wis 11 interchange is still going to remain a half cloverleaf with I-94/I-41.  Why not make it a diamond interchange now that the railroad is abandoned on the north side of Wis 11?

Because realigning everything would be way more expensive, and the interchange the way it is would serve the same function.  Plus, if most of the traffic coming off of I-94 would be going east toward Racine/Kenosha, they would all be making right turns which is easier than left turns.

It wouldn't be that expensive to place new ramps in to create a diamond interchange.  Would be better than having low speed 180 degree ramps.  The College, Rawson and Hwy 100 interchanges were redesigned to a tight diamond configuration after they were built to accommodate full cloverleaf interchanges to eliminate the curves.
Wouldn't be that expensive you say. I hear that all the time then I hear it again and again and guess what the cost build up. This is why we have no money. Besides I think the railroad is planned to become an extension of the White River Trail anyways so I say it's fine as is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 25, 2017, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 25, 2017, 01:36:19 PM
Wouldn't be that expensive you say. I hear that all the time then I hear it again and again and guess what the cost build up. This is why we have no money. Besides I think the railroad is planned to become an extension of the White River Trail anyways so I say it's fine as is.

No. We have no money because the Governor and legislators are playing "chicken" with taxes and the transportation fund.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 25, 2017, 07:14:52 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 25, 2017, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 25, 2017, 01:00:05 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 24, 2017, 12:11:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 24, 2017, 03:10:29 AM
I'm surprised the Wis 11 interchange is still going to remain a half cloverleaf with I-94/I-41.  Why not make it a diamond interchange now that the railroad is abandoned on the north side of Wis 11?

Because realigning everything would be way more expensive, and the interchange the way it is would serve the same function.  Plus, if most of the traffic coming off of I-94 would be going east toward Racine/Kenosha, they would all be making right turns which is easier than left turns.

It wouldn't be that expensive to place new ramps in to create a diamond interchange.  Would be better than having low speed 180 degree ramps.  The College, Rawson and Hwy 100 interchanges were redesigned to a tight diamond configuration after they were built to accommodate full cloverleaf interchanges to eliminate the curves.
Wouldn't be that expensive you say. I hear that all the time then I hear it again and again and guess what the cost build up. This is why we have no money. Besides I think the railroad is planned to become an extension of the White River Trail anyways so I say it's fine as is.


We have no money because this state had short-changed itself with the gas tax.  Infrastructure needs don't go away.

And I think it's funny that you were touting extending a meaningless state highway earlier in this topic but now complaining that the state doesn't have any money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 26, 2017, 09:25:21 AM
Keeping the existing interchange configuration leaves open the possibility of having some kind of industrial park west of I-41/94 that is still accessible for rail.
After all, isn't the hand-out to FoxCon supposed to make the area explode with new businesses or something?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 27, 2017, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 25, 2017, 07:14:52 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 25, 2017, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 25, 2017, 01:00:05 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 24, 2017, 12:11:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 24, 2017, 03:10:29 AM
I'm surprised the Wis 11 interchange is still going to remain a half cloverleaf with I-94/I-41.  Why not make it a diamond interchange now that the railroad is abandoned on the north side of Wis 11?

Because realigning everything would be way more expensive, and the interchange the way it is would serve the same function.  Plus, if most of the traffic coming off of I-94 would be going east toward Racine/Kenosha, they would all be making right turns which is easier than left turns.

It wouldn't be that expensive to place new ramps in to create a diamond interchange.  Would be better than having low speed 180 degree ramps.  The College, Rawson and Hwy 100 interchanges were redesigned to a tight diamond configuration after they were built to accommodate full cloverleaf interchanges to eliminate the curves.
Wouldn't be that expensive you say. I hear that all the time then I hear it again and again and guess what the cost build up. This is why we have no money. Besides I think the railroad is planned to become an extension of the White River Trail anyways so I say it's fine as is.


We have no money because this state had short-changed itself with the gas tax.  Infrastructure needs don't go away.

And I think it's funny that you were touting extending a meaningless state highway earlier in this topic but now complaining that the state doesn't have any money.
Meaningless was just your opinion and I did suggest decommissioning 127 which is a meaningless state highway. I also though made the point that the railroad may become a state trail so that is another reason why I think the interchange is fine as is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 28, 2017, 06:38:54 AM
For the Madison-area folks:

Madison to study adding an interstate connection off Milwaukee Street (http://host.madison.com/wsj/traffic/madison-to-study-adding-an-interstate-connection-off-milwaukee-street/article_10949898-6989-55c6-ad48-6d57e1433dc6.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest) [to I-94]

Quote...in 2014, a study by the state Department of Transportation examining prospective interstate connections identified the eastern end of Milwaukee Street as one possible Madison location that warranted further study.

QuoteThis fall, the City Council added $250,000 to the 2018 budget and recommended another $250,000 be used in 2019 to complete a more in-depth study, known as an Interstate Access Justification Report.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 28, 2017, 09:55:21 AM
WisDOT built a pair of bridges over nothing in at this location when I-94 was expanded to 6 lanes a few years back.  (Well, 8 or 9 years; crap when was that? 2010 or something...)

Personally, I don't want to see the interstates in Madison cluttered up with more interchanges.  You'd be looking at about 3/4 of mile between the on ramps coming together at the Badger Interchange and where a hypothetical exit would diverge, assuming the bridges over nothing are the location of the interchange.  That's not an unreasonable distance but if the service interchange becomes as busy as developers envision, then there might be issues.

If it's going to get to the point where WisDOT has to put in braided ramps between the system interchange and the new interchange, they might as well build the new service interchange at Sprecher Rd and put the braided ramps in now.  Sprecher is developing into the main north-south surface arterial corridor east of I-39/90.  It feeds directly into CTH C/Reiner Rd up in Sun Prairie and will eventually tie into CTH AB and it's future interchange with US 12/18.  So if one is going to jam a service interchange between the Badger and CTH N on I-94, it would make the most sense to do it directly at Sprecher Rd rather than push it to an indirect connection a half mile further east.  One just has to contend with potentially expensive ramp braiding now rather than in 15 years or whatever.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 28, 2017, 10:35:43 AM
An interchange should have been put in along I-39/90 between I-94 and the Beltline years ago.  Preferably at Buckeye or at Cottage Grove. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 28, 2017, 10:40:53 AM
I can see the adding of a 'braided ramp' interchange at I-94/Sprecher.  That 'bridge over nothing' will usefully take future inter-neighborhood local traffic off of Sprecher.

Can I safely assume that the City of Madison has current plans to extend Milwaukee St eastward around the north end of Door Creek Park to feed into Gaston Rd, making for a more cohesive arterial street network in that area?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 28, 2017, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 28, 2017, 10:40:53 AM
Can I safely assume that the City of Madison has current plans to extend Milwaukee St eastward around the north end of Door Creek Park to feed into Gaston Rd, making for a more cohesive arterial street network in that area?

Well, the plat maps for that part of the city only show a r/w curving to the bridges over nothing at present.
The boundary between the City of Madison and the Town of Cottage Grove lay between those two roads so it's not entirely up to them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 28, 2017, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 28, 2017, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 28, 2017, 10:40:53 AM
Can I safely assume that the City of Madison has current plans to extend Milwaukee St eastward around the north end of Door Creek Park to feed into Gaston Rd, making for a more cohesive arterial street network in that area?

Well, the plat maps for that part of the city only show a r/w curving to the bridges over nothing at present.
The boundary between the City of Madison and the Town of Cottage Grove lay between those two roads so it's not entirely up to them.

In Wisconsin, a city or village can legally preserve RsOW that are on unincorporated land within a certain radius outside of their limits, within what is called their 'extraterritorial jurisdiction'.  They can also legally review subdivision plats on unincorporated land within that radius.  This is so that they can effectively plan for their futures.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 15, 2018, 01:15:57 PM
Looking at the roadways within the Foxconn Project they're all multi lane roads with traffic signals.  No roundabouts or 3 lane roads which WISDOT has been high on lately. 

I like the proposed roadways but if they're essentially admitting 4 lane roads are better than 3 why are they forcing it on people statewide?  Shawano, Park Falls, Appleton, Black River Falls, and Prairie Du Chien are some places where 4 lane roads have been reduced to 3 or 2 recently. 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 15, 2018, 03:30:00 PM
I disagree.  It's not about thru lanes as much as it is about turning traffic.  All those locations you cite where a four lane, undivided road was turned into a two lane road with a continuous center left turn lane are packed with driveway entrances.  Lots of left turns being made.
These proposed upgrades around the FoxConJob are to rural roads with few driveways and therefore, few left turns that will 'block' a travel lane when a vehicle is waiting for traffic to clear to make its turn.
Add to that the high volume of traffic expected around shift changes and multi-lane undivided roads will be superior to the 'three lane' layout used elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 15, 2018, 01:15:57 PM
Looking at the roadways within the Foxconn Project they're all multi lane roads with traffic signals.  No roundabouts or 3 lane roads which WISDOT has been high on lately. 

I like the proposed roadways but if they're essentially admitting 4 lane roads are better than 3 why are they forcing it on people statewide?  Shawano, Park Falls, Appleton, Black River Falls, and Prairie Du Chien are some places where 4 lane roads have been reduced to 3 or 2 recently.
Roundabouts are bad for semis which there will be a lot of there so I think that was a good call.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
If roundabouts are bad for semis, why has WISDOT built so many roundabouts around the state over the past 20 years? Do you know personally about any semis having crashes or semis getting stuck within the circles of roundabouts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 16, 2018, 08:01:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
If roundabouts are bad for semis, why has WISDOT built so many roundabouts around the state over the past 20 years? Do you know personally about any semis having crashes or semis getting stuck within the circles of roundabouts?


Some extenuating circumstances, but...

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/taxpayers-to-fork-out-165000-to-modify-waukesha-county-roundabout-4265dis-168989416.html/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 21, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
If roundabouts are bad for semis, why has WISDOT built so many roundabouts around the state over the past 20 years? Do you know personally about any semis having crashes or semis getting stuck within the circles of roundabouts?
You think wisdot knows everything? Because they are idiots over there that is why. Just watch a youtube video of a semi truck driver try to navigate through one and you will see how hard it is to drive I truck through there. I have also heard about it from truck drivers on talk shows. Roundabouts and semis not a good combination.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 21, 2018, 09:30:42 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 21, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
If roundabouts are bad for semis, why has WISDOT built so many roundabouts around the state over the past 20 years? Do you know personally about any semis having crashes or semis getting stuck within the circles of roundabouts?
You think wisdot knows everything? Because they are idiots over there that is why. Just watch a youtube video of a semi truck driver try to navigate through one and you will see how hard it is to drive I truck through there. I have also heard about it from truck drivers on talk shows. Roundabouts and semis not a good combination.


So typical of today's society.  Believing Youtube videos and talk-shows instead of experts in the field.  All you have to add is "talk radio" and you'll have completed the "ignorance trifecta."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 21, 2018, 11:08:38 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 21, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
If roundabouts are bad for semis, why has WISDOT built so many roundabouts around the state over the past 20 years? Do you know personally about any semis having crashes or semis getting stuck within the circles of roundabouts?
You think wisdot knows everything? Because they are idiots over there that is why. Just watch a youtube video of a semi truck driver try to navigate through one and you will see how hard it is to drive I truck through there. I have also heard about it from truck drivers on talk shows. Roundabouts and semis not a good combination.

:rofl:

Yes, because talk shows are objective on who they talk to. And when it comes to talk radio, one word: 'screeners'. It's all a business; people who agree with something don't sell papers/bring in the viewers/listeners.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 22, 2018, 12:16:33 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 21, 2018, 11:08:38 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 21, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
If roundabouts are bad for semis, why has WISDOT built so many roundabouts around the state over the past 20 years? Do you know personally about any semis having crashes or semis getting stuck within the circles of roundabouts?
You think wisdot knows everything? Because they are idiots over there that is why. Just watch a youtube video of a semi truck driver try to navigate through one and you will see how hard it is to drive I truck through there. I have also heard about it from truck drivers on talk shows. Roundabouts and semis not a good combination.

:rofl:

Yes, because talk shows are objective on who they talk to. And when it comes to talk radio, one word: 'screeners'. It's all a business; people who agree with something don't sell papers/bring in the viewers/listeners.

BUT MARK BELLING SAYS THEY'RE AN EXPENSIVE THING CONCEIVED BY LIBERALS!!! :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 22, 2018, 01:11:43 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 22, 2018, 12:16:33 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 21, 2018, 11:08:38 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 21, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
If roundabouts are bad for semis, why has WISDOT built so many roundabouts around the state over the past 20 years? Do you know personally about any semis having crashes or semis getting stuck within the circles of roundabouts?
You think wisdot knows everything? Because they are idiots over there that is why. Just watch a youtube video of a semi truck driver try to navigate through one and you will see how hard it is to drive I truck through there. I have also heard about it from truck drivers on talk shows. Roundabouts and semis not a good combination.

:rofl:

Yes, because talk shows are objective on who they talk to. And when it comes to talk radio, one word: 'screeners'. It's all a business; people who agree with something don't sell papers/bring in the viewers/listeners.

BUT MARK BELLING SAYS THEY'RE AN EXPENSIVE THING CONCEIVED BY LIBERALS!!! :-D

Mark Belling... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Here's a spin on roundabouts for him to discuss: Roundabouts encourage free thought; traffic signals are just another way of the government telling you what to do and controlling your life.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:31:14 PM
What does right-wing radio talk show host Mark Belling have to do with roundabouts anyway? Nothing!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 22, 2018, 05:41:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:31:14 PM
What does right-wing radio talk show host Mark Belling have to do with roundabouts anyway? Nothing!

What does he have to do with it? He's an outspoken critic of them. Thanks for asking!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2018, 08:52:08 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 22, 2018, 05:41:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:31:14 PM
What does right-wing radio talk show host Mark Belling have to do with roundabouts anyway? Nothing!

What does he have to do with it? He's an outspoken critic of them. Thanks for asking!


And since dvferyance parrots all of Belling's talking points on the issue (and on gas taxes), it's safe to say that this is where he gets his "ideas."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2018, 05:11:31 PM
I don't listen to talk radio, so I wouldn't know what they say. In any event, I don't have a problem with roundabouts. For those who do, maybe they should get together to found an anti-roundabout coalition.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on January 25, 2018, 06:30:37 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2018, 05:11:31 PM
I don't listen to talk radio, so I wouldn't know what they say. In any event, I don't have a problem with roundabouts. For those who do, maybe they should get together to found an anti-roundabout coalition.

They did; it's the "Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'" thread.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on January 26, 2018, 01:11:01 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 25, 2018, 06:30:37 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2018, 05:11:31 PM
I don't listen to talk radio, so I wouldn't know what they say. In any event, I don't have a problem with roundabouts. For those who do, maybe they should get together to found an anti-roundabout coalition.

They did; it's the "Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'" thread.

Seriously? They're not hard to understand. I got my 66 year old mother to understand how they work with a 30 second drive through one. Yield to traffic from the left. How hard is that??


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 26, 2018, 09:21:15 AM
Never underestimate some people's ability to resist change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on January 26, 2018, 01:11:01 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 25, 2018, 06:30:37 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2018, 05:11:31 PM
I don't listen to talk radio, so I wouldn't know what they say. In any event, I don't have a problem with roundabouts. For those who do, maybe they should get together to found an anti-roundabout coalition.

They did; it's the "Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'" thread.

Seriously? They're not hard to understand. I got my 66 year old mother to understand how they work with a 30 second drive through one. Yield to traffic from the left. How hard is that??


iPhone
Read tradephoric's thread.  His selection of data and defense thereof is...unique...but lots of decent info in there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on January 29, 2018, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on January 26, 2018, 01:11:01 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 25, 2018, 06:30:37 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2018, 05:11:31 PM
I don't listen to talk radio, so I wouldn't know what they say. In any event, I don't have a problem with roundabouts. For those who do, maybe they should get together to found an anti-roundabout coalition.

They did; it's the "Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'" thread.

Seriously? They're not hard to understand. I got my 66 year old mother to understand how they work with a 30 second drive through one. Yield to traffic from the left. How hard is that??

Read tradephoric's thread.  His selection of data and defense thereof is...unique...but lots of decent info in there.

Right. I was pretty pro-roundabout for a long time. And I still have this piece of me that's pretty sure things will improve as roundabouts become more common. But the data he's presented is hard to ignore. These 2x2 (and larger) roundabouts just don't seem to perform well. They are far from deathtraps, but signals aren't exactly deathtraps either.

His main argument has become more about the cost of small-time crashes (no injuries except to the cars involved), of which there is almost universally more of than at signals.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 06:24:35 PM
It is the data he leaves out that is also interesting.  Like I said, read the entire thread.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on January 29, 2018, 06:35:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 06:24:35 PM
It is the data he leaves out that is also interesting.  Like I said, read the entire thread.

But he doesn't exactly have a ton of data to go off. Many (if not, most) cities don't publish crash data.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 07:04:29 PM


Quote from: jakeroot on January 29, 2018, 06:35:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 06:24:35 PM
It is the data he leaves out that is also interesting.  Like I said, read the entire thread.

But he doesn't exactly have a ton of data to go off. Many (if not, most) cities don't publish crash data.

That is why I leave it to serious researchers  who take the time to make FOIA/FOIL requests to get it.  I trust conclusions based upon more complete sets of data.

Also, he tends to outright ignore data that goes against his mantra, such as the drop offs in incidents on some of his highlighted roundabouts in the past.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 07:05:35 PM
If a moderator wants to move this back into tradephoric's thread, fine by me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on February 20, 2018, 05:25:14 PM
Tolls in the news again...what are the odds that we're going to start to see them, especially I'd assume starting from the IL Line up to Milwaukee? I saw an infographic on the hypothetical cost of how much a toll would be between the WI cities. Attempting to unpack the thought, it'd take cars off the Interstates and force those who want to travel free to use secondary highways (which admittedly will cause more wear and tear on them, but money saved from the hypothetical tollways should then be free to use on them, right?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2018, 08:38:55 AM
I just think that not many people are going to avoid a toll road as long as it's a reasonable price.  Would a lot of people avoid paying a toll if it were $5 from Milwaukee to the IL line?  There isn't an easy alternative...WI-31 or US-45?  I think people value their time more than that.  That's exactly what you see in Illinois with so many people taking the Tri-State instead of US-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on February 21, 2018, 12:45:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2018, 08:38:55 AM
I just think that not many people are going to avoid a toll road as long as it's a reasonable price.  Would a lot of people avoid paying a toll if it were $5 from Milwaukee to the IL line?  There isn't an easy alternative...WI-31 or US-45?  I think people value their time more than that.  That's exactly what you see in Illinois with so many people taking the Tri-State instead of US-41.

I don't know if Wisconsin is willing to set up toll booths on all the ramps along the I-94 corridor from Milwaukee to the state line. I always thought the best place for a toll was the I-39/90/94 bridge over the Wisconsin River. There are no good shunpike alternatives. (US 12 might be used by some and US 51 could be used by those headed towards Point, but are inconvenient enough to be little used.) It also gets a lot of tourist and out-of-state traffic, making it an easier sell. The I-39/90 bridge over the Rock River is much the same.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on February 21, 2018, 05:19:07 PM
Wis 175 could be the alternative for Milwaukee to Fond du Lac, and 45 from there to Oshkosh...might even get Wis 23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth paid for by just making it a toll...

I'm not certain how open road tolling would work, or if a state could in theory choose to start their tolling venture with open road?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on February 21, 2018, 06:56:14 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on February 20, 2018, 05:25:14 PM
Tolls in the news again...what are the odds that we're going to start to see them, especially I'd assume starting from the IL Line up to Milwaukee? I saw an infographic on the hypothetical cost of how much a toll would be between the WI cities. Attempting to unpack the thought, it'd take cars off the Interstates and force those who want to travel free to use secondary highways (which admittedly will cause more wear and tear on them, but money saved from the hypothetical tollways should then be free to use on them, right?
and then people will just take the frontage road
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on February 21, 2018, 08:05:14 PM
What about managed lanes? They work well enough in places like Texas, Colorado and Virginia. Theoretically you could put tolls on the added lanes in some instances, and 100% tolling in other places where drivers would have less incentive to shunpike (I.e., less direct parallel routes...)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on February 21, 2018, 10:17:33 PM
OK...for the dumb (i.e. me...) what is shunpike?

and Joe, good thought, I didn't think about frontage roads.

Are we talking like the express lanes in the Chicagoland area? I could see something like that for sure in the Milwaukee area. I guess I'm having a hard time visualizing adding lanes and then tolling only those.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 21, 2018, 11:15:41 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on February 21, 2018, 10:17:33 PM
OK...for the dumb (i.e. me...) what is shunpike?
A free road to take to shun a turnpike (toll road).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on February 21, 2018, 11:30:20 PM
aaaah i see what you did there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 22, 2018, 09:53:42 AM
People aren't going to use the frontage roads just to avoid tolls. 

"Shunpiking" seems to be more of a thing when it comes to long distance drives where people don't want to rack up big payments on the Indiana Toll Road or Ohio Turnpike.

For shorter routes that are relatively cheap, I just don't think it's going to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 22, 2018, 04:41:20 PM
I'd support tolls if they were congestion-priced. Maybe have the inner-most lane (preferably a new one) be the toll lane, and the other general purpose lanes remain free. I don't think full blown toll roads (even ones that are charged electronically) will be implemented in Wisconsin, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on February 22, 2018, 07:21:06 PM
What is congestion-priced, or did you just explain that?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 22, 2018, 07:27:41 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on February 22, 2018, 07:21:06 PM
What is congestion-priced, or did you just explain that?

Prices will vary based on congestion, so you pay more in tolls if the overall traffic is heavier at a given time. You're basically paying for the convenience of skipping the line.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2018, 06:08:05 PM
That is exactly what I meant, TheHighwayMan394. I believe that is the type of tolling that is most likely to come to Wisconsin. It would likely get more support than full blown toll roads in the state. Of course, I have no idea what form tolling in Wisconsin will come in, if it is implemented at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 23, 2018, 06:25:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 29, 2018, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on January 26, 2018, 01:11:01 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 25, 2018, 06:30:37 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2018, 05:11:31 PM
I don't listen to talk radio, so I wouldn't know what they say. In any event, I don't have a problem with roundabouts. For those who do, maybe they should get together to found an anti-roundabout coalition.

They did; it's the "Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'" thread.

Seriously? They're not hard to understand. I got my 66 year old mother to understand how they work with a 30 second drive through one. Yield to traffic from the left. How hard is that??

Read tradephoric's thread.  His selection of data and defense thereof is...unique...but lots of decent info in there.

Right. I was pretty pro-roundabout for a long time. And I still have this piece of me that's pretty sure things will improve as roundabouts become more common. But the data he's presented is hard to ignore. These 2x2 (and larger) roundabouts just don't seem to perform well. They are far from deathtraps, but signals aren't exactly deathtraps either.

His main argument has become more about the cost of small-time crashes (no injuries except to the cars involved), of which there is almost universally more of than at signals.
I am not saying they don't work sometimes they do. My point was the they just not good for semis becasue of the difficulty it is to drive on through. And I do think the argument that they are better becasue while they increase minor accidents they reduce fatal crashes is just nuts. An increase in accidents means our insurance goes up it's never fun to be in an accident even a minor one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on February 24, 2018, 03:45:31 PM
Quote
And I do think the argument that they are better becasue while they increase minor accidents they reduce fatal crashes is just nuts. An increase in accidents means our insurance goes up it's never fun to be in an accident even a minor one.

I think fewer deaths is always preferable to fewer accidents
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 25, 2018, 01:06:30 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4747/38659514330_3cee329bb3_b_d.jpg)

The first WISDOT sign recognizing a town that I've seen on I-41
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 25, 2018, 07:25:17 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 23, 2018, 06:25:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 29, 2018, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on January 26, 2018, 01:11:01 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 25, 2018, 06:30:37 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2018, 05:11:31 PM
I don't listen to talk radio, so I wouldn't know what they say. In any event, I don't have a problem with roundabouts. For those who do, maybe they should get together to found an anti-roundabout coalition.

They did; it's the "Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'" thread.

Seriously? They're not hard to understand. I got my 66 year old mother to understand how they work with a 30 second drive through one. Yield to traffic from the left. How hard is that??

Read tradephoric's thread.  His selection of data and defense thereof is...unique...but lots of decent info in there.

Right. I was pretty pro-roundabout for a long time. And I still have this piece of me that's pretty sure things will improve as roundabouts become more common. But the data he's presented is hard to ignore. These 2x2 (and larger) roundabouts just don't seem to perform well. They are far from deathtraps, but signals aren't exactly deathtraps either.

His main argument has become more about the cost of small-time crashes (no injuries except to the cars involved), of which there is almost universally more of than at signals.
I am not saying they don't work sometimes they do. My point was the they just not good for semis becasue of the difficulty it is to drive on through. And I do think the argument that they are better becasue while they increase minor accidents they reduce fatal crashes is just nuts. An increase in accidents means our insurance goes up it's never fun to be in an accident even a minor one.


Hold on.  You think it's nuts because it's not accurate?  Or because you would rather have a few more people die because you don't want to be an a minor accident.

Regardless, something like 30% of vehicle crashes at roundabouts in Wisconsin are single vehicle crashes due to people not figuring out how to navigate them.  Experience will improve that.

https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/03/the-other-side-of-roundabouts-more-crashes/518484/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 26, 2018, 11:33:30 AM
Hey, take this dead-horse beating roundabout conversation to that one boring thread where it belongs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 27, 2018, 11:00:35 PM
Hey, speaking of roundabouts, check this out:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FAround%2520Town%2FIMG_1156_zpse1mwyknn.jpg&hash=c399ad47edecade056d9f541c415345ac1989732)

Remember the roundabout that existed at the temporary end of the US 12 freeway north of Baraboo?  When the new freeway around Baraboo opened, they tore out the temporary connection, roundabout included.  They left behind, however, the landscaping that was once in the middle of the roundabout.  This little cluster of red cedars will mark the roundabout's former location for the a long time.  Look for them as you're passing on by.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on February 28, 2018, 02:45:59 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 27, 2018, 11:00:35 PM
Remember the roundabout that existed at the temporary end of the US 12 freeway north of Baraboo?  When the new freeway around Baraboo opened, they tore out the temporary connection, roundabout included.  They left behind, however, the landscaping that was once in the middle of the roundabout.  This little cluster of red cedars will mark the roundabout's former location for the a long time.  Look for them as you're passing on by.

You just found someone's favorite roundabout!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on March 03, 2018, 09:42:19 PM
On a recent trip to the Milwaukee area I took the new exit from EB I-794 to the Lakefront (Exit 1F).  IMHO the new design is awful enough that the ramp should have been removed entirely and Lakefront traffic directed to use the Jackson Street/Van Buren Street ramp (Exit 1E) (although in a better world, the previous design would have been left alone).  By the time one waits for the stoplight at Lincoln Memorial at the end of the ramp, then for the stoplight at Clybourn, it might be faster to exit at Jackson Street.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2018, 08:05:00 PM
So WI-80 ends at a roundabout at its intersection with US-10 south of Marshfield. Any other highways end at roundabouts?  WI-142 at I-41/94 near Kenosha?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on March 08, 2018, 08:11:41 PM
WI 22 at US 41 by Oconto ends in a roundabout.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 09, 2018, 01:02:53 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2018, 08:05:00 PM
So WI-80 ends at a roundabout at its intersection with US-10 south of Marshfield. Any other highways end at roundabouts?  WI-142 at I-41/94 near Kenosha?

WI 76 ends at a roundabout in Oshkosh.

Also, WI 172 ends at a roundabout in Hobart (suburban Green Bay).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: sparker on March 09, 2018, 02:15:29 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 28, 2018, 02:45:59 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 27, 2018, 11:00:35 PM
Remember the roundabout that existed at the temporary end of the US 12 freeway north of Baraboo?  When the new freeway around Baraboo opened, they tore out the temporary connection, roundabout included.  They left behind, however, the landscaping that was once in the middle of the roundabout.  This little cluster of red cedars will mark the roundabout's former location for the a long time.  Look for them as you're passing on by.

You just found someone's favorite roundabout!

Are you implying that one or more contributors think that the only good roundabout is a dead roundabout?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 12, 2018, 04:10:04 AM
Should also note the 3 Freeway/expressways that end at roundabouts in the state. 

US 53 in Eau Claire just south of I-94

US 10 at Central Avenue in Marshfield

US 2 just east of the Bong Bridge in Superior

All 3 also have dual flashing yellow lights above the roundabout signs due to the end of the high speed roads. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on March 12, 2018, 11:04:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2018, 08:05:00 PM
So WI-80 ends at a roundabout at its intersection with US-10 south of Marshfield. Any other highways end at roundabouts?  WI-142 at I-41/94 near Kenosha?

There isn't a roundabout there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheCatalyst31 on March 12, 2018, 10:19:30 PM
In the Madison area, WI 92 ends at a roundabout in Mount Horeb, and WI 138 ends at a roundabout in Oregon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 13, 2018, 06:13:55 AM
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on March 12, 2018, 10:19:30 PM
In the Madison area, WI 92 ends at a roundabout in Mount Horeb, and WI 138 ends at a roundabout in Oregon.

LOL clearly this was not as unusual a circumstance as I thought it was!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 19, 2018, 11:40:36 PM
Construction is moving forward again on the I-39/90 corridor south of Madison after a long winter. Work was done last week to set up two-way traffic (separated by concrete median barrier) on the SBD roadway south of Racine St. in Janesville (exit 175). They're working this week on setting up two-way traffic on the SBD roadway between US-12/18 and just north of the US-51 exit (exit 156). The NBD side will be rebuilt and widened this summer to set up for a rebuild and widening of the SBD roadway next year.

Brochure:
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/I39-90Project-2018ConstructionGuide.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on March 20, 2018, 07:51:45 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 19, 2018, 11:40:36 PM
Construction is moving forward again on the I-39/90 corridor south of Madison after a long winter. Work was done last week to set up two-way traffic (separated by concrete median barrier) on the SBD roadway south of Racine St. in Janesville (exit 175). They're working this week on setting up two-way traffic on the SBD roadway between US-12/18 and just north of the US-51 exit (exit 156). The NBD side will be rebuilt and widened this summer to set up for a rebuild and widening of the SBD roadway next year.

Brochure:
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/I39-90Project-2018ConstructionGuide.pdf

Definitely enjoying it as it progresses and it's neat to see the project progress every time I drive through it towards Chicago. It's kind of sad to think it's the beginning of the end of the majors program.  Most of the significant improvements across the state over the last 25+ years have been funded out of the program.
Title: US 10 east Stevens Point bypass (new alignment) formally cancelled.
Post by: mgk920 on March 22, 2018, 04:27:49 PM
I received this email from WisDOT yesterday (2018-03-21):

(Subject) WisDOT update: WisDOT no longer mapping a future location for US 10 between I-39 and Lake Drive

For several years, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) has been working to map a future location for US 10 between I-39 (Stevens Point) and Lake Drive (Amherst Junction), in Portage County. We are writing to inform you that the department is no longer pursuing a future location for US 10. The US 10 corridor study is officially closed.

Our decision to discontinue mapping a future location was based on updated traffic data, feedback received through public outreach activities, and a public hearing conducted in 2017.

We plan to focus future efforts on maintaining the existing US 10 alignment. We will also continue to monitor the safety and operations of the highway to determine if any improvements are required. 

Environmental documents and other information about the corridor preservation effort is available on the WisDOT website: wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/us10portage/default.aspx

If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact our region's Planning and Programming Supervisor, Shannon Riley, at (715) 421-8326 or shannonp.riley@dot.wi.gov.

Sincerely,

Michael Wendt, P.E.

WisDOT North Central Region Systems Planning Manager

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  :banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there's no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 22, 2018, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there's no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.


It really isn't that terrible of a stretch.  Improving that corridor should be good enough.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Highway63 on March 25, 2018, 12:58:34 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 28, 2018, 02:45:59 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 27, 2018, 11:00:35 PM
Remember the roundabout that existed at the temporary end of the US 12 freeway north of Baraboo?  When the new freeway around Baraboo opened, they tore out the temporary connection, roundabout included.  They left behind, however, the landscaping that was once in the middle of the roundabout.  This little cluster of red cedars will mark the roundabout's former location for the a long time.  Look for them as you're passing on by.

You just found someone's favorite roundabout!
BEST. ROUNDABOUT. EVER.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2018, 05:47:09 PM
I noticed that the US 10 corridor preservation study (Stevens Point to Amherst Junction) has been terminated, as the DOT had proposed. What is the likelihood that existing US 10 might eventually be upgraded to freeway standards (at least to the existing CTH-J interchange)?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 26, 2018, 06:50:35 PM
I've been off and on working on ideas towards that end, mainly centering on adding a new EB roadway in the very generous median between County 'J' and WI 161 with a narrow median to match the highway under County 'J' and the current EB side to become a frontage/access road.  Include grade separations where needed (County 'K' at Custer, County 'QQ' and Ridge Rd) along with a new diamond interchange at WI 161 on a slightly new alignment.  Feed the former EB side frontage road into WI 161 and mitigate wetlands as needed.  Also add a new grade separation at County 'K' east of WI 161 to clear both the existing highway and the adjacent CN mainline.  Make the former EB side frontage road between WI 161 and Custer into a reroute of County 'K'(?)

West of County 'J', add a two-way frontage road on each side and a median barrier westward to Badger Ave in the City of Stevens Point and allow for a future north-south overcrossing to line up with Burbank Rd, to be built when development warrants.

West of Badger Ave, I would consult with the Gurus at TxDOT on a frontage road, slip ramp and free-flow interchange setup to make the I-39 connection.  (This last part could make a good challenge for the Redesigning Interchanges thread in the Fictional Highways forvm in here.   :nod: )

-------------

One beauty of this is that it can be done in small affordable chunks and could well cost less in total than doing the full monty new-alignment thing.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 26, 2018, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there's no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.
US 10 is fine the way it is between Appleton and Stevens Point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 27, 2018, 12:10:09 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 26, 2018, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there’s no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.
US 10 is fine the way it is between Appleton and Stevens Point.

For us here in the Fox Valley, those signals just east of I-39 in Stevens Point are a pain in the neck, especially when compared with how US 10 is done at our end.

:verymad:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
The 2018 WisDOT County maps were posted this week.  These are notable updates:

*completion of the US 12 Baraboo bypass to Ski-hi Road (shown as freeway)
*completion of the STH 64 St. Croix River Bridge and approach freeway (not shown to the state line though)
*completion of multi-lane US 18/STH 60 east of Prairie du Chien
*incorporation of Salem Lakes in Kenosha County (but they missed the incorporation of Somers)

Ongoing errors still not addressed: multiple freeways, such as the Madison Beltline, shown as multi-lane divided highways in a number of counties.  Why were these ever "declassified"  anyway?   While other orphan freeways, such as STH 64 in St Croix County are correctly depicted?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 29, 2018, 03:29:05 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
Ongoing errors still not addressed: multiple freeways, such as the Madison Beltline, shown as multi-lane divided highways in a number of counties.  Why were these ever "declassified"  anyway?   While other orphan freeways, such as STH 64 in St Croix County are correctly depicted?
The Beltline has been shown wrong on those county maps forever.  Then that garbage bled into the official state highway map. :banghead
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 29, 2018, 05:57:43 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 27, 2018, 12:10:09 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 26, 2018, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there's no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.
US 10 is fine the way it is between Appleton and Stevens Point.

For us here in the Fox Valley, those signals just east of I-39 in Stevens Point are a pain in the neck, especially when compared with how US 10 is done at our end.

:verymad:

Mike
Ok but not everything has to be perfect.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on March 30, 2018, 01:55:59 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
The 2018 WisDOT County maps were posted this week.  These are notable updates:

*completion of the US 12 Baraboo bypass to Ski-hi Road (shown as freeway)
*completion of the STH 64 St. Croix River Bridge and approach freeway (not shown to the state line though)
*completion of multi-lane US 18/STH 60 east of Prairie du Chien
*incorporation of Salem Lakes in Kenosha County (but they missed the incorporation of Somers)

Ongoing errors still not addressed: multiple freeways, such as the Madison Beltline, shown as multi-lane divided highways in a number of counties.  Why were these ever "declassified"  anyway?   While other orphan freeways, such as STH 64 in St Croix County are correctly depicted?

Do you know why the Baraboo bypass is shown as a freeway on the county map but still listed as a multilane divided highway on the official state highway map?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on March 30, 2018, 02:09:38 AM
I also have another note, even though it's not directly related to highways (please tell me if it's still appropriate for this thread):
So I've noticed the Wisconsin Department of Transportation has been building a new office, and on the DOT website it said they just made the move to the new building official. My question is, how come I haven't seen the new building on Google Maps yet?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 30, 2018, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 30, 2018, 02:09:38 AM
I also have another note, even though it's not directly related to highways (please tell me if it's still appropriate for this thread):
So I've noticed the Wisconsin Department of Transportation has been building a new office, and on the DOT website it said they just made the move to the new building official. My question is, how come I haven't seen the new building on Google Maps yet?

It takes time. No one likely has submitted the change to Google.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on March 30, 2018, 04:15:18 PM
Are WisDOT offices typically on Google Maps? I don't believe any WSDOT offices are. In fact, I fell out of my chair laughing at MantyMadTown's question because it was genuinely the last thing I expected anyone to wonder (since it's totally normal for things like this to not be on GMaps in my area).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on March 30, 2018, 05:50:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 30, 2018, 04:15:18 PM
Are WisDOT offices typically on Google Maps? I don't believe any WSDOT offices are. In fact, I fell out of my chair laughing at MantyMadTown's question because it was genuinely the last thing I expected anyone to wonder (since it's totally normal for things like this to not be on GMaps in my area).

The old one certainly was. I think it was removed since they moved into the new building.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on April 01, 2018, 07:18:48 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 26, 2018, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there's no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.
US 10 is fine the way it is between Appleton and Stevens Point.

Although the stretch heading west from Appleton where it's still freeway could stand to be raised to 70 mph as opposed to an unexplained, unnecessary, and nearly idiosyncratic 65.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on April 01, 2018, 08:53:20 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on April 01, 2018, 07:18:48 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 26, 2018, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there's no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.
US 10 is fine the way it is between Appleton and Stevens Point.

Although the stretch heading west from Appleton where it's still freeway could stand to be raised to 70 mph as opposed to an unexplained, unnecessary, and nearly idiosyncratic 65.
Yeah it really feels like you should go 70 over there. I think they only reserve 70 for interstates? I haven't really noticed too much
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tribar on April 01, 2018, 09:03:45 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 01, 2018, 08:53:20 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on April 01, 2018, 07:18:48 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 26, 2018, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there's no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.
US 10 is fine the way it is between Appleton and Stevens Point.

Although the stretch heading west from Appleton where it's still freeway could stand to be raised to 70 mph as opposed to an unexplained, unnecessary, and nearly idiosyncratic 65.
Yeah it really feels like you should go 70 over there. I think they only reserve 70 for interstates? I haven't really noticed too much

Nah, US 12 between Genoa City and Wis 67 is 70. Maybe they reserve it for rural interstate standard freeways?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 01, 2018, 09:45:55 PM
And 51 north of 29 east in Wausau to Merrill (to Lincoln Dr.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on April 01, 2018, 10:36:17 PM
Quote from: tribar on April 01, 2018, 09:03:45 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 01, 2018, 08:53:20 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on April 01, 2018, 07:18:48 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 26, 2018, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
I thought the development and numbers were no longer meeting growth expectations for when that study was opened. If there's no longer a need to realign US 10, there should be no realignment.
US 10 is fine the way it is between Appleton and Stevens Point.

Although the stretch heading west from Appleton where it's still freeway could stand to be raised to 70 mph as opposed to an unexplained, unnecessary, and nearly idiosyncratic 65.
Yeah it really feels like you should go 70 over there. I think they only reserve 70 for interstates? I haven't really noticed too much

Nah, US 12 between Genoa City and Wis 67 is 70. Maybe they reserve it for rural interstate standard freeways?
Per law, it must be an Interstate-quality freeway to be 70.

Other examples are WI 54/57 and WI 29 for short stretches by Green Bay. and US 41 from the end of I-41 to Abrams.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 01, 2018, 11:14:08 PM
The implementation of the 70 zones is quite inconsistent.  US-45 to West Bend, sections of WIS-29 north of Eau Claire and US-41 north to US-141's split are all 70, but the US-51 freeway through and north of Wausau along with the WIS 29 freeway sections are all Interstate standard and still 65. As is 10 east of 45 to 41.  30 and the beltline being 55 make sense in an urban environment with some sub-standard build.  WIS-16 also is 65 in Waukesha County.  This one I'm not sure is standard, but I don't see why it shouldn't be 70 either.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2018, 12:03:18 PM
Bridge fixin's are well underway on the triplemultiplex at WI 19.  I recon they want to get that in before Memorial Day.  39/90/94 is down to two lanes each way until then.

All the barrels are ready to close lanes between CTH CS and the Wisconsin River on 39/90/94 for off-peak paving operations.  They patched some of the potholes in the concrete last fall and now are going to overlay the whole thing.

More bridge work on I-39 where it crosses the Wisconsin River and over WI 16. One lane each direction for several miles.  There was an amusing gap in the closed NB bridge over the Wisconsin River this weekend where they must be replacing an expansion joint.  Looks like that's another one they want to get in before the Memorial Day rush to the Northwoods.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2018, 05:01:11 PM
I hate the fact that they terminated the Interstate 39/90/94 study last year. I was actually looking forward to some of the potential improvements that came out of that study. With the study's demise (including the demise of the Interstate 90/94 study between Portage and Wisconsin Dells), it appears the Interstate 39/90/94 will remain as-is for a long time to come, with the exclusion of replacing the Wisconsin River Bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 02, 2018, 09:30:13 PM
I finally noticed they replaced the signs for the I-39 (Cascade) Interchange NB off ramp - they removed US-51 altogether from the advance signs and dropped any reference to Stevens Point and Portage (the latter was added as a line above Wausau on the overheads, barely leaving room for the down arrow.

I'm surprised they didn't put in APLs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on April 03, 2018, 07:49:35 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2018, 05:01:11 PM
I hate the fact that they terminated the Interstate 39/90/94 study last year. I was actually looking forward to some of the potential improvements that came out of that study. With the study's demise (including the demise of the Interstate 90/94 study between Portage and Wisconsin Dells), it appears the Interstate 39/90/94 will remain as-is for a long time to come, with the exclusion of replacing the Wisconsin River Bridge.

The section of 90/94 between 39 and exit 92 in WI Dells is already a problem. The improvements to Hwy 12 around Baraboo over the years are not going to relieve this pressure as 95% are not going to exit to the beltline to take 12 around the congestion (the travel time is 20 minutes longer assuming no congestion around the Madison beltline, which rarely occurs).  There's a lot of political pressure from tourism related owners in the Dells where eventually the state will be politically pressured into expansion.  I expect state representatives will write into a budget bill it shall be expanded giving WisDOT no choice but to expand it.

Time to sit back and enjoy the show  :popcorn:

Side Note: Due to all of the development around the Dells, it's a shame that WisDOT never did a study from exit 85 to south of exit 92. Would have allowed them to look at the future 3 thru lanes + 1 auxiliary lane between exits needed in each direction and preserve the right of way for it as development occurs along the 90/94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 03, 2018, 09:45:27 AM
Political winds don't blow the same way forever.  I only consider studies like Madison-Dells to be dormant.
Wisconsin might only be one election away from going back to investing in its infrastructure, even with all the gerrymandering.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2018, 10:32:49 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on April 03, 2018, 07:49:35 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2018, 05:01:11 PM
I hate the fact that they terminated the Interstate 39/90/94 study last year. I was actually looking forward to some of the potential improvements that came out of that study. With the study's demise (including the demise of the Interstate 90/94 study between Portage and Wisconsin Dells), it appears the Interstate 39/90/94 will remain as-is for a long time to come, with the exclusion of replacing the Wisconsin River Bridge.

The section of 90/94 between 39 and exit 92 in WI Dells is already a problem. The improvements to Hwy 12 around Baraboo over the years are not going to relieve this pressure as 95% are not going to exit to the beltline to take 12 around the congestion (the travel time is 20 minutes longer assuming no congestion around the Madison beltline, which rarely occurs).  There's a lot of political pressure from tourism related owners in the Dells where eventually the state will be politically pressured into expansion.  I expect state representatives will write into a budget bill it shall be expanded giving WisDOT no choice but to expand it.

Time to sit back and enjoy the show  :popcorn:

Side Note: Due to all of the development around the Dells, it's a shame that WisDOT never did a study from exit 85 to south of exit 92. Would have allowed them to look at the future 3 thru lanes + 1 auxiliary lane between exits needed in each direction and preserve the right of way for it as development occurs along the 90/94.


US-12 is the better option if you are going to the far west side of Madison.  Really anything west of Fitchburg and north toward Middleton, Waunakee, etc.  And that's about it.

Milwaukee, Chicago, most of Madison, the interstate is the better option.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 08, 2018, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
The 2018 WisDOT County maps were posted this week.  These are notable updates:

*completion of the US 12 Baraboo bypass to Ski-hi Road (shown as freeway)
*completion of the STH 64 St. Croix River Bridge and approach freeway (not shown to the state line though)
*completion of multi-lane US 18/STH 60 east of Prairie du Chien
*incorporation of Salem Lakes in Kenosha County (but they missed the incorporation of Somers)

Ongoing errors still not addressed: multiple freeways, such as the Madison Beltline, shown as multi-lane divided highways in a number of counties.  Why were these ever "declassified"  anyway?   While other orphan freeways, such as STH 64 in St Croix County are correctly depicted?

Salem Lakes is not really a straight incorporation, it was the result of Salem Township merging with the already existing Village of Silver Lake.  A couple of years ago I also read through a boundary agreement between them and the Village of Paddock Lake (incorporated from Salem Township in 1960) that would transfer a significant part of Salem to Paddock Lake, essentially the NE 20-25% of the pre-1960 township's land mass, with a nice squared off mutual border, as a part of this merger.  What is the status of this?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 08, 2018, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 08, 2018, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
The 2018 WisDOT County maps were posted this week.  These are notable updates:

*completion of the US 12 Baraboo bypass to Ski-hi Road (shown as freeway)
*completion of the STH 64 St. Croix River Bridge and approach freeway (not shown to the state line though)
*completion of multi-lane US 18/STH 60 east of Prairie du Chien
*incorporation of Salem Lakes in Kenosha County (but they missed the incorporation of Somers)

Ongoing errors still not addressed: multiple freeways, such as the Madison Beltline, shown as multi-lane divided highways in a number of counties.  Why were these ever "declassified"  anyway?   While other orphan freeways, such as STH 64 in St Croix County are correctly depicted?

Salem Lakes is not really a straight incorporation, it was the result of Salem Township merging with the already existing Village of Silver Lake.  A couple of years ago I also read through a boundary agreement between them and the Village of Paddock Lake (incorporated from Salem Township in 1960) that would transfer a significant part of Salem to Paddock Lake, essentially the NE 20-25% of the pre-1960 township's land mass, with a nice squared off mutual border, as a part of this merger.  What is the status of this?



Still in place.

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/paddock-lake-won-t-oppose-salem-silver-lake-merger/article_da309a0d-e2cb-5f05-b7c5-8c6dac03578d.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 09, 2018, 04:06:07 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 08, 2018, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 08, 2018, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
The 2018 WisDOT County maps were posted this week.  These are notable updates:

*completion of the US 12 Baraboo bypass to Ski-hi Road (shown as freeway)
*completion of the STH 64 St. Croix River Bridge and approach freeway (not shown to the state line though)
*completion of multi-lane US 18/STH 60 east of Prairie du Chien
*incorporation of Salem Lakes in Kenosha County (but they missed the incorporation of Somers)

Ongoing errors still not addressed: multiple freeways, such as the Madison Beltline, shown as multi-lane divided highways in a number of counties.  Why were these ever “declassified” anyway?   While other orphan freeways, such as STH 64 in St Croix County are correctly depicted?

Salem Lakes is not really a straight incorporation, it was the result of Salem Township merging with the already existing Village of Silver Lake.  A couple of years ago I also read through a boundary agreement between them and the Village of Paddock Lake (incorporated from Salem Township in 1960) that would transfer a significant part of Salem to Paddock Lake, essentially the NE 20-25% of the pre-1960 township's land mass, with a nice squared off mutual border, as a part of this merger.  What is the status of this?



Still in place.

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/paddock-lake-won-t-oppose-salem-silver-lake-merger/article_da309a0d-e2cb-5f05-b7c5-8c6dac03578d.html

Thanks!   :nod:

Now - to get the legislature to take action to clean up the total municipal messes here in northwest Calumet and northeast Winnebago counties....

Especially in Calumet County - Harrison Township did an incorporation and boundary agreement thing in 2013 that likely kiboshed $50M-100M+ in near-term proposed economic development projects in Appleton, Kaukauna, Menasha and especially Sherwood, along with rendering tens of millions of dollars more in the munis' taxpayer investments in infrastructure upgrades needed to service this anticipated development useless and wasted, simply to 'protect their borders'.  Harrison then got a court to rule that their township boundary agreements with Appleton and Menasha that included mandatory transfers of territory on very logical lines did not apply in that they were agreed to by the 'town', but not the 'village' ("not a party to the agreement(s)").  Menasha Township (Winnebago County) then followed suit a couple of years later (Appleton does feel that they have a case against Menasha Township on this due to how the city's boundary agreement with them is worded).  Yes, there are a LOT of very hard feelings between the munis around here due to that and the resulting economic development issues from this are, IMHO, a matter of critical statewide concern.

:verymad:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 09, 2018, 09:01:24 AM
Wisconsin has a knack for petty municipal squabbles hampering metro/regional cooperation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 09, 2018, 09:42:52 AM
I personally think town governments should be disbanded an all unincorporated issues be dealt with at the county level.  I also think municipal annexation should be a much easier process than it is already.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 09, 2018, 07:41:28 PM
Looks like the I-39/90 and Beltline interchange is back on the table as part of the I-39/90 widening project. I knew the interchange had been removed from the original scope of the project because of cost and lack of money, but the article makes no mention of that at all. Just something about not needing to do a full EIS.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/traffic/beltline-interchange-project-up-for-discussion-april/article_feea6ff4-1dc5-5229-95bc-02609536bf9f.html?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wisconsin%20state%20journal
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 09, 2018, 09:18:39 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 09, 2018, 09:42:52 AM
I personally think town governments should be disbanded an all unincorporated issues be dealt with at the county level.  I also think municipal annexation should be a much easier process than it is already.
I do too but again that is a political topic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2018, 09:39:45 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 09, 2018, 09:18:39 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 09, 2018, 09:42:52 AM
I personally think town governments should be disbanded an all unincorporated issues be dealt with at the county level.  I also think municipal annexation should be a much easier process than it is already.
I do too but again that is a political topic.


No it isn't. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 10, 2018, 10:14:08 AM
Link to WisDOT's info about the 4/17 PIM in McFarland:
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/segments/north/public/
I'd go, but I plan on being at a baseball game that evening. ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2018, 03:35:06 PM
The sooner that interchange is reconstructed the better. I hope we don't have to wait another 10 to 15 years for it to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 11, 2018, 09:40:39 AM
The Beltline Interchange isn't terrible.  It would be nice to modernize with smoother ramps and no left exits on the interstate.  But it's functional.  The left exit EB is acceptable, maybe even preferred, given that more volume heads north than continues east.  It would be great if it were higher a speed ramp.
The worst tie-ups seem to come from all the weaving on the WB Beltline between there and Stoughton Rd.
And it's getting bumpy.  I think that concrete is pushing 30 years old.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2018, 10:44:11 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 11, 2018, 09:40:39 AM
The Beltline Interchange isn't terrible.  It would be nice to modernize with smoother ramps and no left exits on the interstate.  But it's functional.  The left exit EB is acceptable, maybe even preferred, given that more volume heads north than continues east.  It would be great if it were higher a speed ramp.
The worst tie-ups seem to come from all the weaving on the WB Beltline between there and Stoughton Rd.
And it's getting bumpy.  I think that concrete is pushing 30 years old.


I agree, except the cloverleaf ramps that merge WB US-12/18 to SB I-39/90 traffic with the SB I-39/90 to EB US-12/18 traffic can get a bit hairy.  Those are the two directions that likely get the least volume, but I think it has grown substantially over the past 30 years. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 11, 2018, 12:33:08 PM
For sure need a c/d lane for those loops if they end up keeping both of them.  A SB->EB turbine ramp was included in many of the options I've seen from WisDOT.  But in reality, I doubt that's really needed.  Changing that ramp just improves the options to get better geometry from the other ramps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 12, 2018, 10:20:34 PM
Are Wisconsin's state highway markers getting boxier?  Compare the top photo to the bottom photo.  In the top photo, the triangle is less apparent, as in less of it protrudes from the square housing the route number.  You can barely discern the (presumably cheese) triangle from the rest of the shape, which makes me feel like the symbol is losing less of its unique character.  Please tell me there isn't a trend towards seeing even LESS of the triangle!

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4525/38103059264_284835171f_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/214392E)
WI-060-188D (https://flic.kr/p/FtjtM8) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1581/25907064805_d6881fcd4f_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FtjtM8)
WI-052 (https://flic.kr/p/214392E) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr 
               
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 12, 2018, 11:59:49 PM
It does look like the WI-52 marker has less of the triangle at the top, but without looking at a ton of newer markers I don't think it's fair to say that it's some sort of new "design change." It might just be a one-off (or one of a small batch that were produced somewhat uglier.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 13, 2018, 12:43:00 AM
Depends on the QC of the vendor that made the sign. The official (http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/signplate/mseries/M1-6.pdf) shape has not changed. Note that neither correctly reproduced the "triangle", as the top angle should be different from the bottom.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 13, 2018, 05:22:03 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 12, 2018, 10:20:34 PM
You can barely discern the (presumably cheese) triangle               

It would be hilarious if it was cheese, but it's not. It's essentially a triangle overlaid by a rectangle. The original state marker was an "upside down" triangle, but the route numbers were hard to see being squeezed in there. So they created room for the numbers, and the rest is history.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on April 14, 2018, 08:30:23 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 11, 2018, 12:33:08 PM
For sure need a c/d lane for those loops if they end up keeping both of them.  A SB->EB turbine ramp was included in many of the options I've seen from WisDOT.  But in reality, I doubt that's really needed.  Changing that ramp just improves the options to get better geometry from the other ramps.

Speaking of the beltline, has there ever been any discussion of extending the beltline through the north side between Middleton and Waunakee and re-connecting it with 39-90?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on April 14, 2018, 11:51:13 AM
So what exactly will they do with the Beltline interchange? Are they still planning on doing a full reconstruction and realignment, or are they simply going to do some realignment and leave most of the existing infrastructure in place?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 14, 2018, 01:11:59 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on April 14, 2018, 08:30:23 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 11, 2018, 12:33:08 PM
For sure need a c/d lane for those loops if they end up keeping both of them.  A SB->EB turbine ramp was included in many of the options I've seen from WisDOT.  But in reality, I doubt that's really needed.  Changing that ramp just improves the options to get better geometry from the other ramps.

Speaking of the beltline, has there ever been any discussion of extending the beltline through the north side between Middleton and Waunakee and re-connecting it with 39-90?


Yes.  But I doubt it will happen as a freeway and I doubt it would relieve much congestion on the current Beltline. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dcharlie on April 14, 2018, 01:15:04 PM
Speaking of the beltline, has there ever been any discussion of extending the beltline through the north side between Middleton and Waunakee and re-connecting it with 39-90?
[/quote]

I used to have a link to a website about a North side beltline.  But can't find it and google isn't helping.  This is the probably close but is almost 10 years old.

https://plandev.countyofdane.com/planning/North_Mendota.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 14, 2018, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: dcharlie on April 14, 2018, 01:15:04 PM
Speaking of the beltline, has there ever been any discussion of extending the beltline through the north side between Middleton and Waunakee and re-connecting it with 39-90?

I used to have a link to a website about a North side beltline.  But can't find it and google isn't helping.  This is the probably close but is almost 10 years old.

https://plandev.countyofdane.com/planning/North_Mendota.aspx
[/quote]The only changes that need to be made to the beltline that I can see is a direct connection to US 18-151 and an interchange at Hwy K.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 16, 2018, 11:29:37 AM
Quote from: gbgoose on April 14, 2018, 08:30:23 AM
Speaking of the beltline, has there ever been any discussion of extending the beltline through the north side between Middleton and Waunakee and re-connecting it with 39-90?

The non-freeway North Mendota Parkway is the closest we will ever get I reckon.  It would be an surface arterial upgrade of CTH M and CTH K to the Beltline from WI 113.  I suspect the uncertainty about the North Mendota Parkway is why we don't have an interchange for US 12 at CTH K already.  Some of the options bring it in right along existing CTH K, others put it a little north on a new alignment.  The Freeway Conversion Study for US 12 between Middleton and WI 19 eludes to this in some of its documentation.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx)

Quote from: I-39 on April 14, 2018, 11:51:13 AM
So what exactly will they do with the Beltline interchange? Are they still planning on doing a full reconstruction and realignment, or are they simply going to do some realignment and leave most of the existing infrastructure in place?

Someone should swing by the PIM in McFarland Tuesday night and find out!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 16, 2018, 11:59:21 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 16, 2018, 11:29:37 AM
Quote from: gbgoose on April 14, 2018, 08:30:23 AM
Speaking of the beltline, has there ever been any discussion of extending the beltline through the north side between Middleton and Waunakee and re-connecting it with 39-90?

The non-freeway North Mendota Parkway is the closest we will ever get I reckon.  It would be an surface arterial upgrade of CTH M and CTH K to the Beltline from WI 113.  I suspect the uncertainty about the North Mendota Parkway is why we don't have an interchange for US 12 at CTH K already.  Some of the options bring it in right along existing CTH K, others put it a little north on a new alignment.  The Freeway Conversion Study for US 12 between Middleton and WI 19 eludes to this in some of its documentation.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx)

I can't find a link to the posting anymore, but Dane County recently put out an RFP for significant upgrades to CTH M from approximately Middleton to STH 113.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 16, 2018, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on April 16, 2018, 11:59:21 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 16, 2018, 11:29:37 AM
Quote from: gbgoose on April 14, 2018, 08:30:23 AM
Speaking of the beltline, has there ever been any discussion of extending the beltline through the north side between Middleton and Waunakee and re-connecting it with 39-90?

The non-freeway North Mendota Parkway is the closest we will ever get I reckon.  It would be an surface arterial upgrade of CTH M and CTH K to the Beltline from WI 113.  I suspect the uncertainty about the North Mendota Parkway is why we don't have an interchange for US 12 at CTH K already.  Some of the options bring it in right along existing CTH K, others put it a little north on a new alignment.  The Freeway Conversion Study for US 12 between Middleton and WI 19 eludes to this in some of its documentation.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx)

I can't find a link to the posting anymore, but Dane County recently put out an RFP for significant upgrades to CTH M from approximately Middleton to STH 113.
probably mothballed alongside the US-10 Stevens Point and I-94 through the cemetery projects
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 19, 2018, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 16, 2018, 09:55:11 PM
probably mothballed alongside the US-10 Stevens Point and I-94 through the cemetery projects

North Mendota Pkwy is a Dane County project, not WisDOT.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 19, 2018, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 16, 2018, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on April 16, 2018, 11:59:21 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 16, 2018, 11:29:37 AM
Quote from: gbgoose on April 14, 2018, 08:30:23 AM
Speaking of the beltline, has there ever been any discussion of extending the beltline through the north side between Middleton and Waunakee and re-connecting it with 39-90?

The non-freeway North Mendota Parkway is the closest we will ever get I reckon.  It would be an surface arterial upgrade of CTH M and CTH K to the Beltline from WI 113.  I suspect the uncertainty about the North Mendota Parkway is why we don't have an interchange for US 12 at CTH K already.  Some of the options bring it in right along existing CTH K, others put it a little north on a new alignment.  The Freeway Conversion Study for US 12 between Middleton and WI 19 eludes to this in some of its documentation.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx)

I can't find a link to the posting anymore, but Dane County recently put out an RFP for significant upgrades to CTH M from approximately Middleton to STH 113.
probably mothballed alongside the US-10 Stevens Point and I-94 through the cemetery projects

The CTH M RFP was a project posted within the past couple months, and like triplemultiplex said, it's a county project, not WisDOT. The winning design firm is supposed to be announced any time now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 27, 2018, 09:33:42 PM
Is anyone else noticing a severe deterioration of Wisconsin license plates that were issued several years ago, mainly six-character plates in the number range from about [nnn-Fxx] to about [nnn-Sxx]?  The retro-reflective white (with artwork) backing is peeling away from the aluminum substrate on many of them, rendering a large number of the plates in that number range unreadable.

:wow:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on April 28, 2018, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 27, 2018, 09:33:42 PM
Is anyone else noticing a severe deterioration of Wisconsin license plates that were issued several years ago, mainly six-character plates in the number range from about [nnn-Fxx] to about [nnn-Sxx]?  The retro-reflective white (with artwork) backing is peeling away from the aluminum substrate on many of them, rendering a large number of the plates in that number range unreadable.

:wow:

Mike

Yes I have noticed that. In fact, I seem to recall the Journal Sentinel did a short piece about that a year or two ago. WisDOT said something along the lines of “well, they’re not supposed to last forever...”  They look like absolute garbage, and I’ve even noticed it on some more recent issues, including one that was a nnn-Zxx plate, which should have been issued in late 2016 or early 17.

Edit- it was actually the State Journal:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ask/just-ask-us/just-ask-us-license-plates-do-fall-apart-but-it/article_dd598585-e68b-5813-ab57-3d476d2209b8.html (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ask/just-ask-us/just-ask-us-license-plates-do-fall-apart-but-it/article_dd598585-e68b-5813-ab57-3d476d2209b8.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 28, 2018, 07:13:55 PM
Situation - cheap metal and whatever material used to apply the sealed paint.

They also stopped replacing plates after X many years and expect one to replace them themselves now - and yes you get new numbers.  Mine were quite damaged by wear and I ended up with a AAA-0000 plate set.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 28, 2018, 10:54:07 PM
Discussion from December on the Dane County study for County M:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/dane-county-study-looks-to-alleviate-congestion-on-highway-m/article_4ae309e9-0780-5e8d-8814-cc22d5480161.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on May 15, 2018, 09:03:15 AM
Looks like WISDOT has started working on the Signal-Head-Per-Lane upgrades along U.S. Hwy 12 (Clairemont Ave) in Eau Claire. http://www.weau.com/content/news/State-DOT-improving-traffic-signals-at-21-area-intersections-482002271.html (http://www.weau.com/content/news/State-DOT-improving-traffic-signals-at-21-area-intersections-482002271.html)

Also recently completed was the lane & signal phase re configuring of two intersections on STH 93, which included the installation of Monotube masts for the side roads. http://www.leadertelegram.com/News/Front-Page/2018/04/30/New-traffic-configuration-should-help-Highway-93-drivers.html (http://www.leadertelegram.com/News/Front-Page/2018/04/30/New-traffic-configuration-should-help-Highway-93-drivers.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on May 16, 2018, 02:25:22 PM
^^
Speaking of the NW division finally getting in the signal per-lane game. Taken at WIS 25/ N. Broadway St. and Ceder Falls Rd. in Menomonie:

Looking Northbound:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZmrBPve.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/OeMeb7y.jpg)

Southbound:
(https://i.imgur.com/LVIryV6.jpg)

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 16, 2018, 05:02:07 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on May 16, 2018, 02:25:22 PM
^^
Speaking of the NW division finally getting in the signal per-lane game. Taken at WIS 25/ N. Broadway St. and Ceder Falls Rd. in Menomonie:

Looking Northbound:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZmrBPve.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/OeMeb7y.jpg)

Southbound:
(https://i.imgur.com/LVIryV6.jpg)
Do you know if they did this at the intersections on the other side of I-94? Like at Oak Ave and Pine Ave.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on May 17, 2018, 12:45:58 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 16, 2018, 05:02:07 PMDo you know if they did this at the intersections on the other side of I-94? Like at Oak Ave and Pine Ave.

No, the speed limit drops to 35 immediately south of the Interstate so I doubt they'll get replaced soon. The lights on the interchange itself where replaced last year but with virtically mounted fixtures on new trombone arms, however.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 17, 2018, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on May 17, 2018, 12:45:58 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 16, 2018, 05:02:07 PMDo you know if they did this at the intersections on the other side of I-94? Like at Oak Ave and Pine Ave.

No, the speed limit drops to 35 immediately south of the Interstate so I doubt they'll get replaced soon. The lights on the interchange itself where replaced last year but with virtically mounted fixtures on new trombone arms, however.
What does the speed limit have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on May 17, 2018, 04:59:35 PM
I am back in Eau Claire for the summer and got out today to check on the "Signal Head Per Lane" progress. All intersections from London Rd to Truax Blvd have new foundations installed for mainline traffic. Initially I thought only the 3 lane intersections london rd to vine st were going to get Monotubes, and Moholt to Truax would be getting double trombone arms with the heads mounted vertically, but that does not seem to be the case. University Dr, Stein Blvd, Hendrickson Dr (STH 37), and Craig Rd all have vertical masts installed and have the monotubes with signals installed laying on the ground waiting installation. It looks like reflective yellow boarder is going to be the norm with these signals. Below are some pictures of the stuff at University Dr.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/951/41273892665_0eacfb1ae0_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25Teuk4)IMG_20180517_110450 (https://flic.kr/p/25Teuk4) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/904/41273893765_18f6dcac35_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25TeuE2)IMG_20180517_110453 (https://flic.kr/p/25TeuE2) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/950/42128065802_a7a30d7ef1_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27bHmf7)IMG_20180517_110500 (https://flic.kr/p/27bHmf7) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/909/41273895205_52b00aa4c6_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25Tev5R)IMG_20180517_110504 (https://flic.kr/p/25Tev5R) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr


I also checked out the completed projects on STH 93 at the Golf Rd and Hamilton Ave Intersections. I took these photos at Golf Rd, they aren't the best, my apologies.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/909/41453412924_207caed4c2_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26a6zrW)IMG_20180517_104933 (https://flic.kr/p/26a6zrW) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/828/41453413884_d328c15b4c_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26a6zJu)IMG_20180517_104939 (https://flic.kr/p/26a6zJu) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/912/28301973108_0c03fef01d_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K7X1zA)IMG_20180517_104942 (https://flic.kr/p/K7X1zA) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/824/41453415064_b1cbf155a1_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26a6A5Q)IMG_20180517_104948 (https://flic.kr/p/26a6A5Q) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

I find it interesting that they are going to leave the mainline signals alone and not upgrade them to vertical mount on monotube mast arm.

Lastly I swung by STH 37 to check out the construction there, and they were actually putting up the poles for the span wire temporary signals as I was there!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/974/41273900605_a605930685_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25TewFX)IMG_20180517_113557 (https://flic.kr/p/25TewFX) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/944/28301981198_699bff1f10_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K7X3Z5)IMG_20180517_113555 (https://flic.kr/p/K7X3Z5) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/904/28301980508_e5fc8074c4_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K7X3Mb)IMG_20180517_113552 (https://flic.kr/p/K7X3Mb) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/946/40367237370_abb52c8bde_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24v7Did)IMG_20180517_113550 (https://flic.kr/p/24v7Did) by WisconsinSirens&amp;Signals (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99160587@N07/), on Flickr

I intend on getting out and doing some progress updates as these projects continue over the summer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on May 18, 2018, 03:33:16 PM
The Wisconsin state highway system's numbering was first posted during a week in May of 1918, or so I have read.

That means somewhere around now we're having the 100th Anniversary of the world's first numbered highway system. 

Happy Anniversary everyone!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: kkt on May 22, 2018, 05:37:58 PM
Quote from: invincor on May 18, 2018, 03:33:16 PM
The Wisconsin state highway system's numbering was first posted during a week in May of 1918, or so I have read.

That means somewhere around now we're having the 100th Anniversary of the world's first numbered highway system. 

Happy Anniversary everyone!

The world's first?  Napoleon's government numbered the major French roads starting in 1811 (and I can't be sure they were first).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_nationale

QuoteThe system dates back to December 16, 1811, when Napoleon designated a number of routes impƩriales (imperial highways). First class routes were numbered from 1 to 14; all began at Paris, radiating out in a clockwise manner.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on May 24, 2018, 10:23:31 AM
http://wisconsinhighways.org/historical_overview.html is where I got it from. 

Perhaps he meant it in terms of auto travel?  As opposed to human feet and horses. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on May 26, 2018, 03:23:42 PM
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmkKJeAP

I have a huge chunk of new photos from Clairemont Ave in Eau Claire. Looks like I will have to go out again for more pics as all of the equipment in these pictures has been installed as of last week. Go check them out in the album since there are too many photos to post here.

Pixel

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 31, 2018, 03:18:20 PM
I-43 in Ozaukee County will finally get smoothed out.  It's going to be diamond ground again.  Wonder why WISDOT doesn't resurface the road instead?  I'm guessing they think the concrete is still in good shape aside from the joints?

https://projects.511wi.gov/i43diamond/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 01, 2018, 09:04:27 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 31, 2018, 03:18:20 PM
I-43 in Ozaukee County will finally get smoothed out.  It's going to be diamond ground again.  Wonder why WISDOT doesn't resurface the road instead?  I'm guessing they think the concrete is still in good shape aside from the joints?

https://projects.511wi.gov/i43diamond/

The concrete is in good shape, the problem is the "faulting" where the concrete panels are shifting. The reason being Wisconsin made the mistake for many years thinking they could remove the steel that connects each panel (Dowel bars). They are wasting their money diamond grinding this stretch, it's just a temporary fix. To solve it they need to do a dowel bar retrofit where they place the steel in that would support the loads as they travel over the joints. They keep doing this to many roads around the state (just diamond grinding), time to get the act together and do it right with a dowel bar retrofit.

The ride on 43 at this point is miserable: thump... thump... thump... thump... thump...

Details:
www.wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/sdd/sd-13c10.pdf (http://www.wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/sdd/sd-13c10.pdf)
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/dowel-bar-retrofit-construction-practices/ (http://www.pavementinteractive.org/dowel-bar-retrofit-construction-practices/)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
Speed limit was formerly 70 mph, but too many accidents have prompted the speed limit reduction.

A speed limit reduction to 55 mph will be implemented for the Interstate 39/90 work zone from just south of the US 12/18 (Beltline) Interchange near Madison to about three miles north of the Wisconsin-Illinois border. Two lanes of Interstate traffic are maintained in each direction during daytime hours and weekends. Motorists are advised to obey the posted speed limit. The new signs will be posted by early Saturday morning, June 2.

https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/55mph-speedlimit/ (https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/55mph-speedlimit/)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on June 01, 2018, 10:01:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
Speed limit was formerly 70 mph, but too many accidents have prompted the speed limit reduction.

Safety or a desire for ticket revenue?  I do not recall seeing much enforcement of the 70 mph limit the times I went through the workzone.  Also, why 55 over 60?  The last time that work zone had a reduced speed section, the limit was 60.
Title: WI 23 redux?
Post by: mgk920 on June 02, 2018, 12:03:55 AM
I don't have an article link handy, but I caught a news report on local radio earlier today (Friday, 2018-06-01) that said that WisDOT is working to restart the process of upgrading WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth, WI to four lanes.  The report mentioned that WisDOT will be holding a public hearing in Fond du Lac in a couple of weeks (19-June at the UW FdL center) on a revised environmental study of this exceedingly dangerous two lane highway, with the objective of overcoming a federal court order that halted the progress of upgrading the highway over 10 years ago.

WI 23 (FdL to Sheboygan) is one of my favorite drives in the state, too, and yes, this upgrade is critically needed.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on June 02, 2018, 12:04:53 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 01, 2018, 10:01:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
Speed limit was formerly 70 mph, but too many accidents have prompted the speed limit reduction.

Safety or a desire for ticket revenue?  I do not recall seeing much enforcement of the 70 mph limit the times I went through the workzone.  Also, why 55 over 60?  The last time that work zone had a reduced speed section, the limit was 60.
Sounds likes the WI version of the IL 45 MPH speed limit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 02, 2018, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 01, 2018, 10:01:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
Speed limit was formerly 70 mph, but too many accidents have prompted the speed limit reduction.

Safety or a desire for ticket revenue?  I do not recall seeing much enforcement of the 70 mph limit the times I went through the workzone.  Also, why 55 over 60?  The last time that work zone had a reduced speed section, the limit was 60.

Volumes have been bad through that area. I think this is a smart move.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: csw on June 02, 2018, 09:42:35 PM
Drove through today, speed limit is indeed down to 55 with only a handful of vehicles actually obeying it. There are signs everywhere warning of the lowered speed limit and of "aerial checking of speed"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 02, 2018, 09:52:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 01, 2018, 10:01:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
Speed limit was formerly 70 mph, but too many accidents have prompted the speed limit reduction.

Safety or a desire for ticket revenue?  I do not recall seeing much enforcement of the 70 mph limit the times I went through the workzone.  Also, why 55 over 60?  The last time that work zone had a reduced speed section, the limit was 60.

There's been a series of bad wrecks within the past month, including several over the Memorial Day weekend. I'm frankly surprised that they kept the 70 mph limit as long as they have; it's not as tight as the I-90 construction zone in Illinois was a few years ago, but it's pretty tight. The last bad wreck, a semi-truck fire that shut down the interstate for several hours, appeared to be the last straw.

Will it make much difference? I doubt it. I presume they posted it for 70 because they figured nobody would obey lower limits anyway. But WisDOT apparently needed to "do something" about it for PR reasons.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 03, 2018, 08:49:32 AM
Hit a worker? $14000 fine, 10 years in prison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2018, 09:56:40 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 03, 2018, 08:49:32 AM
Hit a worker? $14000 fine, 10 years in prison.


I understand that, but workers are relatively safe in the current set up.  They are generally working on the other side of the road or well behind barriers.  This is much more about traffic at high rates of speed in narrow lanes that weave through construction zones.

Furthermore, I think speed enforcement is difficult since there is very little room to pull someone over so I doubt this is about ticket revenue.  There are plenty of places in the state where that would be easier and safer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 03, 2018, 12:51:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2018, 09:56:40 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 03, 2018, 08:49:32 AM
Hit a worker? $14000 fine, 10 years in prison.


I understand that, but workers are relatively safe in the current set up.  They are generally working on the other side of the road or well behind barriers.  This is much more about traffic at high rates of speed in narrow lanes that weave through construction zones.

Furthermore, I think speed enforcement is difficult since there is very little room to pull someone over so I doubt this is about ticket revenue.  There are plenty of places in the state where that would be easier and safer.
Tell that to them.  They're trying to own up to a mistake

Oh wait, nevermind - they might "fix it" more.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on June 17, 2018, 02:25:44 PM
Posted this in the Minnesota notes thread, but I thought I'd post it here too, since last night's rain also affected highways in northwest Wisconsin.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/06/17/flash-flooding-northeastern-minnesota-northwestern-wisconsin-carlton-county-superior

WI-35 and US-2 appear to have been most affected, so far.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 20, 2018, 03:20:33 PM
Yeah, I don't think much of this will be able to be fixed anytime soon... wow. 

as of 6/19/18
Current closures due to flooding in northern Wisconsin:
Bayfield County
Highway: US 2
Location: At North Fish Creek (east of Ino), approximat
ely 1 mile east of the intersection
with County G.
Condition: Road completely washed out.
Detour: WIS 27, WIS 77, WIS 13 for trucks, car detour on County Highway G
Highway: US 63
Location: From County Highway D in Grand View north to County Highway E, B
ibon
Swamp
Condition: Water over the road in multiple locations.
Detour: WIS 27, WIS 77, WIS 13, US 2
Burnett County
Highway: WIS 35
Location: Riverside, Burnett County H to Big Island Road
Condition: Water over the roadway.
Detour: No posted detour.
Highway: WIS 77
Location: St. Croix River Bridge at the MN border, west of Danbury
Condition: Water over the roadway on MN side of border.
Detour: No posted detour.
Douglas County
Highway: US 53 Southbound
Location: Between Huron Road and County A (near Solon Springs)
Condition: Closed due to culvert washouts.
Detour: Southbound traffic moved to the northbound lanes; reducing US 53 to one lane
in each direction between Bennett and Business 53 (Solon Springs)
Highway: WIS 35
Location: Black River Bridg
e, Pattison State Park
Condition: South bridge approach washed out and north shoulder washout. Water over
bridge.
Detour: WIS 77, US 53, WIS 35
Highway: WIS 35
Location: County B to County T in Dairyland
Condition: Several washouts
Detour: WIS 77, US 53, WIS 35
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on June 21, 2018, 12:23:34 PM
I took this screenshot on the 18th.  Holy mackerel.  How are people going to get anywhere?

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1785/42890498712_b8bdea1242_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28m61Z7)
wwm (https://flic.kr/p/28m61Z7) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on June 21, 2018, 04:58:07 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 21, 2018, 12:23:34 PM
I took this screenshot on the 18th.  Holy mackerel.  How are people going to get anywhere?

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1785/42890498712_b8bdea1242_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28m61Z7)
wwm (https://flic.kr/p/28m61Z7) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Teleportation would be my guess. ;)  :-o

Construction season is in full swing down here in metro Appleton too; if I were to take a drink every time I saw a "Road Work Ahead" sign today, I probably would have been completely hammered upon my arrival back at home, unless I got a DUI first. ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 06:33:38 PM
1st to close, last to open: Zoo Interchange ramp from WB I-94 to SB I-894 to reopen

http://fox6now.com/2018/06/20/1st-to-close-last-to-open-zoo-interchange-ramp-from-wb-i-94-to-sb-i-894-to-reopen/

It's almost complete!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on June 21, 2018, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 21, 2018, 04:58:07 PM
Teleportation would be my guess. ;)  :-o

Construction season is in full swing down here in metro Appleton too; if I were to take a drink every time I saw a "Road Work Ahead" sign today, I probably would have been completely hammered upon my arrival back at home, unless I got a DUI first. ;)

I just wanted to say I really appreciate the humor in your post.   :-D :)

Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 06:33:38 PM
1st to close, last to open: Zoo Interchange ramp from WB I-94 to SB I-894 to reopen

http://fox6now.com/2018/06/20/1st-to-close-last-to-open-zoo-interchange-ramp-from-wb-i-94-to-sb-i-894-to-reopen/

It's almost complete!

Did I hear rumblings about a roadmeet at the Zoo Interchange once it's completed?  Because that sounds like an awesome proposition.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 21, 2018, 09:00:04 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 21, 2018, 12:23:34 PM
I took this screenshot on the 18th.  Holy mackerel.  How are people going to get anywhere?

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1785/42890498712_b8bdea1242_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28m61Z7)
wwm (https://flic.kr/p/28m61Z7) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr

Did Scott Walker have to order the NG to install any 'Bailey' bridges on any of those roads?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on July 01, 2018, 09:43:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 02, 2018, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 01, 2018, 10:01:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
Speed limit was formerly 70 mph, but too many accidents have prompted the speed limit reduction.

Safety or a desire for ticket revenue?  I do not recall seeing much enforcement of the 70 mph limit the times I went through the workzone.  Also, why 55 over 60?  The last time that work zone had a reduced speed section, the limit was 60.

Volumes have been bad through that area. I think this is a smart move.

It appears the new work zone on I-94 between County G and WI 142 is 60.

On a related note, there are a lot of new, temporary span wire signals at intersections around the FoxConn project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 02, 2018, 03:44:42 PM
I hope once the reconstruction of 41/94 south of Milwaukee and the reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange are completed in the next few years, the state can provide funding for the final design and construction of the following two freeway reconstruction projects: Interstate 94 between 70th St. and 16th St. (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/94stadiumint/default.aspx) and Interstate 43 between Silver Spring Dr. and STH-60 (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 02, 2018, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 02, 2018, 03:44:42 PM
I hope once the reconstruction of 41/94 south of Milwaukee and the reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange are completed in the next few years, the state can provide funding for the final design and construction of the following two freeway reconstruction projects: Interstate 94 between 70th St. and 16th St. (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/94stadiumint/default.aspx) and Interstate 43 between Silver Spring Dr. and STH-60 (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx)

That would be nice, but I'm anticipating a political fight. Although the Zoo is in its final stages, now the Foxcon project ramping up. Tensions will be high elsewhere in the state, with so much cash being devoted to the SE region for so many years and now years to come. No one has made any promises that funding the Foxcon project won't disrupt the schedule of 2019+ projects (and those are the ones already in the hopper...not including all the crumbling sections not even programmed). WisDOT already got less Federal $$ then they had hoped. It's going to be ugly for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 02, 2018, 05:06:29 PM
I haven't really been following this thread closely enough to know if it's been brought up already, but I've been reading on various websites that Wisconsin's highway debt has quintupled since 2000 to $3.8B. Is this true? Because if so, I don't see why they are trying to lure Foxconn with tax incentives when they are already in the hole.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 02, 2018, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2018, 05:06:29 PM
I haven't really been following this thread closely enough to know if it's been brought up already, but I've been reading on various websites that Wisconsin's highway debt has quintupled since 2000 to $3.8B. Is this true? Because if so, I don't see why they are trying to lure Foxconn with tax incentives when they are already in the hole.

A lot of that was the previous administration raiding the Transportation Fund to cover general fund budget shortfalls, with that cash then being replaced with bonded debt, throughout much of the 00s.

:banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 02, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 02, 2018, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2018, 05:06:29 PM
I haven't really been following this thread closely enough to know if it's been brought up already, but I've been reading on various websites that Wisconsin's highway debt has quintupled since 2000 to $3.8B. Is this true? Because if so, I don't see why they are trying to lure Foxconn with tax incentives when they are already in the hole.

A lot of that was the previous administration raiding the Transportation Fund to cover general fund budget shortfalls, with that cash then being replaced with bonded debt, throughout much of the 00s.

:banghead:

Mike

And the current administration (and other officials) refusing to raise taxes to pay for roads, instead choosing to kick the can down the road (and increasing the need for debt).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 02, 2018, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 02, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 02, 2018, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2018, 05:06:29 PM
I haven't really been following this thread closely enough to know if it's been brought up already, but I've been reading on various websites that Wisconsin's highway debt has quintupled since 2000 to $3.8B. Is this true? Because if so, I don't see why they are trying to lure Foxconn with tax incentives when they are already in the hole.

A lot of that was the previous administration raiding the Transportation Fund to cover general fund budget shortfalls, with that cash then being replaced with bonded debt, throughout much of the 00s.

:banghead:

Mike

And the current administration (and other officials) refusing to raise taxes to pay for roads, instead choosing to kick the can down the road (and increasing the need for debt).

This is what I would assume to be the bigger issue. Obviously, mismanagement is the root cause, but the state budget doesn't seem to indicate any interest in rectifying the situation, at least not in the short-term. I will admit that the websites I were reading were generally left-leaning blogs, that don't have a lot of good things to say about Wisconsin at this point in time. But it is a bit confusing that they would give so many tax breaks to Foxconn, when they are already in the hole. They must be extremely optimistic how much money that company will be bringing in.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 03, 2018, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 02, 2018, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 02, 2018, 03:44:42 PM
I hope once the reconstruction of 41/94 south of Milwaukee and the reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange are completed in the next few years, the state can provide funding for the final design and construction of the following two freeway reconstruction projects: Interstate 94 between 70th St. and 16th St. (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/94stadiumint/default.aspx) and Interstate 43 between Silver Spring Dr. and STH-60 (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx)

That would be nice, but I'm anticipating a political fight. Although the Zoo is in its final stages, now the Foxcon project ramping up. Tensions will be high elsewhere in the state, with so much cash being devoted to the SE region for so many years and now years to come. No one has made any promises that funding the Foxcon project won't disrupt the schedule of 2019+ projects (and those are the ones already in the hopper...not including all the crumbling sections not even programmed). WisDOT already got less Federal $$ then they had hoped. It's going to be ugly for the foreseeable future.

The southeast part of the state has been largely ignored for the past 30 years with regards to transportation funding. There have been highways of questionable value built all over the state, but the infrastructure needs of the state's most populous region have not been properly addressed. It's time to address them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 03, 2018, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 03, 2018, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 02, 2018, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 02, 2018, 03:44:42 PM
I hope once the reconstruction of 41/94 south of Milwaukee and the reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange are completed in the next few years, the state can provide funding for the final design and construction of the following two freeway reconstruction projects: Interstate 94 between 70th St. and 16th St. (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/94stadiumint/default.aspx) and Interstate 43 between Silver Spring Dr. and STH-60 (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx)

That would be nice, but I'm anticipating a political fight. Although the Zoo is in its final stages, now the Foxcon project ramping up. Tensions will be high elsewhere in the state, with so much cash being devoted to the SE region for so many years and now years to come. No one has made any promises that funding the Foxcon project won't disrupt the schedule of 2019+ projects (and those are the ones already in the hopper...not including all the crumbling sections not even programmed). WisDOT already got less Federal $$ then they had hoped. It's going to be ugly for the foreseeable future.

The southeast part of the state has been largely ignored for the past 30 years with regards to transportation funding. There have been highways of questionable value built all over the state, but the infrastructure needs of the state's most populous region have not been properly addressed. It's time to address them.

A lot of that was due to the attitudes of the locals, especially the political powers-that-be in Milwaukee (ie, John Norquist and Tom Barrett).  "You don't want that freeway work?  OK, we'll do it elsewhere."  The rebuilds of the Marquette, Mitchell and Zoo interchanges were because they could not wait any longer and their health and fluidity was soooooo critical to the economic health of the entire state.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 03, 2018, 10:01:41 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 03, 2018, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 03, 2018, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 02, 2018, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 02, 2018, 03:44:42 PM
I hope once the reconstruction of 41/94 south of Milwaukee and the reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange are completed in the next few years, the state can provide funding for the final design and construction of the following two freeway reconstruction projects: Interstate 94 between 70th St. and 16th St. (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/94stadiumint/default.aspx) and Interstate 43 between Silver Spring Dr. and STH-60 (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx)

That would be nice, but I'm anticipating a political fight. Although the Zoo is in its final stages, now the Foxcon project ramping up. Tensions will be high elsewhere in the state, with so much cash being devoted to the SE region for so many years and now years to come. No one has made any promises that funding the Foxcon project won't disrupt the schedule of 2019+ projects (and those are the ones already in the hopper...not including all the crumbling sections not even programmed). WisDOT already got less Federal $$ then they had hoped. It's going to be ugly for the foreseeable future.

The southeast part of the state has been largely ignored for the past 30 years with regards to transportation funding. There have been highways of questionable value built all over the state, but the infrastructure needs of the state's most populous region have not been properly addressed. It's time to address them.

A lot of that was due to the attitudes of the locals, especially the political powers-that-be in Milwaukee (ie, John Norquist and Tom Barrett).  "You don't want that freeway work?  OK, we'll do it elsewhere."  The rebuilds of the Marquette, Mitchell and Zoo interchanges were because they could not wait any longer and their health and fluidity was soooooo critical to the economic health of the entire state.

Mike

And unfortunately, the rest of the state won't see it that way. They'll just see the big dollars spent on the interchange rebuilds and pre-Foxconn 94 work and say that the SE has had it's share and it's their turn at a large slice of the shrinking pie.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 05, 2018, 11:35:15 PM
'Accident waiting to happen': Officials make push for Interstate 41 expansion
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/07/05/interstate-41-officials-push-highway-expansion/758948002/ (https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/07/05/interstate-41-officials-push-highway-expansion/758948002/)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 05, 2018, 11:48:35 PM
^^ Another link about it (no paywall): http://www.wbay.com/content/news/41-frustration-high-crash-numbers-lead-to-call-for-expansion-486625031.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 06, 2018, 01:14:08 AM
^^

I would further break down those crash statistics in that half of the section quoted (Breezewood Ln in Neenah to WI 15 in Appleton) is six and eight lanes and as far as I can tell functions well while the four lane part from WI 15 to the WI 441 'Northeast' interchange (across Appleton's north side) is where the problems are.  I agree that the highway's surface is fine, there are no problems with its physical condition, only with its massive, excessive traffic volume for its four lanes.

The entire section from WI 15 to Scheuring Rd in De Pere (in the Green Bay area) badly needs upgrading to six lanes although yes, the part in Appleton is most critical.  The only question that I keep reminding others of when they bring it up is 'How much do you want the fuel tax to go up?'

BTW, there is good video of the east-west section of I-41 in Appleton in the WBAY report.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Bickendan on July 06, 2018, 01:30:51 AM
QuoteThe DOT reminds residents that major highway developments are complex, costly and sometimes controversial.
LOL at the controversial part. Here's a case where people want a freeway expansion, and they pull out the controversial card.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 10, 2018, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 06, 2018, 01:14:08 AM
The only question that I keep reminding others of when they bring it up is 'How much do you want the fuel tax to go up?'
As much as reasonably necessary, bring back RTA's while your at it as well. /snark
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 10, 2018, 10:41:45 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 06, 2018, 01:14:08 AM
The only question that I keep reminding others of when they bring it up is 'How much do you want the fuel tax to go up?'

Enough to fix the darned roads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on July 10, 2018, 02:40:15 PM
We can either raise the gas to enough to keep up with needed maintenance and projects, keep bonding and borrowing to keep up with needed maintenance and projects, or let the roads fall apart and congestion get worse. Which option would you choose? I think I'd pick raising the gas tax.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2018, 03:37:09 PM
I think we need to convert to some sort of user fee that works better than a gas tax. The gas tax is mostly obsolete, and cannot raise enough money to address all our road work needs. Maybe a tax based on vehicle miles traveled?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 10, 2018, 04:35:58 PM
When was the last time the gas tax was raised in Wisconsin? If its been a while, it would be smart to raise it again. And then start working on a per-mile tax replacement for the future. This is what we're doing out here in the PNW.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 10, 2018, 08:29:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 10, 2018, 04:35:58 PM
When was the last time the gas tax was raised in Wisconsin? If its been a while, it would be smart to raise it again. And then start working on a per-mile tax replacement for the future. This is what we're doing out here in the PNW.
It has been frozen and no politician will even mention it as they're scared for their jobs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 12:32:02 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 10, 2018, 08:29:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 10, 2018, 04:35:58 PM
When was the last time the gas tax was raised in Wisconsin? If its been a while, it would be smart to raise it again. And then start working on a per-mile tax replacement for the future. This is what we're doing out here in the PNW.

It has been frozen and no politician will even mention it as they're scared for their jobs.

Bunch of idiots. How are they paying for roads? Or rather, how have they been failing to pay? Because I keep seeing stories on Wisconsin having money problems.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 11, 2018, 07:19:07 AM
One - I-94 - was funded by redirects from other projects and grants thanks to the Foxconn construction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 11, 2018, 08:59:09 AM
Every little bit helps, but even if Wisconsin would have retained its automatic gas tax indexing, would it have been enough to keep up with needs and rising costs?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 11, 2018, 09:44:55 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 11, 2018, 08:59:09 AM
Every little bit helps, but even if Wisconsin would have retained its automatic gas tax indexing, would it have been enough to keep up with needs and rising costs?
Tough to say, but at the very least, things would not be so bad.
The other great thing about the indexing was there didn't need to be a big fight over road funding every few years.  No one had to stick their necks out.  "Anti-tax boogieman" makes for more effective campaign ads then "insufficiently invested in infrastructure boogieman."

What pisses me off the most about losing that indexing is Doyle only jumped on board in a futile attempt to court voters who were not going to vote for him anyway.  "Oh look at me, I'll be all bi-partisan and woo a few of those suburbanites who drive every where."  Idiot.  This is America.  People don't change their stupid minds.  Elections are won when people show up to vote.  That's it.  Candidate A gets more turnout than Candidate B; Candidate A wins.  Vote switchers are insignificant by comparison.

But that was 8 goddamn years ago.  Republicans have been in charge ever since so the road funding shortfall is now their problem.  They've had the power to fix this but won't.  Shit or get off the pot, GOP.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 11, 2018, 08:59:09 AM
Every little bit helps, but even if Wisconsin would have retained its automatic gas tax indexing, would it have been enough to keep up with needs and rising costs?

Probably not. But, if they did a one time increase, and then froze the automatic indexing until such point as the one-time increase matches what the gas tax would have eventually been, they'd have a higher income for several years to pay for larger projects that the steady tax increase might not pay for (due to inflation). All while still maintaining the steady increase for maintenance and other basic improvements.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on July 11, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
But will never happen in the current environment.  State officials are on record saying that any money received from online sales tax would be offset with cuts to other parts of the budget.  Which to me is just dumb.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on July 11, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
But will never happen in the current environment.  State officials are on record saying that any money received from online sales tax would be offset with cuts to other parts of the budget.  Which to me is just dumb.

So they're struggling with what they have, yet don't want any more money? I am so confused.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2018, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on July 11, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
But will never happen in the current environment.  State officials are on record saying that any money received from online sales tax would be offset with cuts to other parts of the budget.  Which to me is just dumb.



So they're struggling with what they have, yet don't want any more money? I am so confused.
It's very simple when you think of it in these terms:  Scott Walker will be running for President in 2024 and doesn't want anything resembling a tax hike on his record.
quote fix --sso
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 05:56:23 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2018, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on July 11, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
But will never happen in the current environment.  State officials are on record saying that any money received from online sales tax would be offset with cuts to other parts of the budget.  Which to me is just dumb.

So they're struggling with what they have, yet don't want any more money? I am so confused.

It's very simple when you think of it in these terms:  Scott Walker will be running for President in 2024 and doesn't want anything resembling a tax hike on his record.

Well, I'd rather have a tax hike than a budgetary shortfall on my record. I'd say more but this thread'll get locked.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2018, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on July 11, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
But will never happen in the current environment.  State officials are on record saying that any money received from online sales tax would be offset with cuts to other parts of the budget.  Which to me is just dumb.



So they're struggling with what they have, yet don't want any more money? I am so confused.
It's very simple when you think of it in these terms:  Scott Walker will be running for President in 2024 and doesn't want anything resembling a tax hike on his record.
quote fix --sso
I really doubt he would run for president again. He wasn't even a top contender when he ran and was 2nd only to Rick Perry to drop out. The real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants. And they are always replacing signs that are by no means in need of replacement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 16, 2018, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2018, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on July 11, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
But will never happen in the current environment.  State officials are on record saying that any money received from online sales tax would be offset with cuts to other parts of the budget.  Which to me is just dumb.

So they're struggling with what they have, yet don't want any more money? I am so confused.

It's very simple when you think of it in these terms:  Scott Walker will be running for President in 2024 and doesn't want anything resembling a tax hike on his record.

I really doubt he would run for president again. He wasn't even a top contender when he ran and was 2nd only to Rick Perry to drop out. The real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants. And they are always replacing signs that are by no means in need of replacement.

Which projects do you think were unpopular?

Seems like WisDOT is spending money like they used to, however, they aren't taking money in like they once were.

You either have a high budget, and high-quality infrastructure. Or, a low budget, and crumbling infrastructure. I don't know what the situation is in Wisconsin, but over here in Washington, WSDOT is having to spend a lot of money on maintenance and rebuilding because many of our freeways and major arterials are coming to the end of their original lifespan. This wasn't a major problem twenty years ago, like it is now. Stuff like the new 520 bridge, or new 99 tunnel, were only built because the original infrastructure was inadequate for modern times, mostly because of structural fragility. There were other advantages to rebuilding, but the weren't the primary one. From the 70s to the 90s, if they weren't building new roads, they were improving existing ones to meet new demand. This often resulted in freeways with two types of pavement: the original (not yet old enough to need replacing), and the new.

Wisconsin, like many state DOTs who might have deferred maintenance, has two priorities right now: rebuild and maintain existing structures, and improve the infrastructure to meet demand. Doing both at the same time requires a very large budget.

Here in Washington, there have been three major gas tax increases since 2000. Many of the projects funded as part of these increases were new projects that improved flow, sometimes by rebuilding what already existed, and improving it by adding lanes, etc. WSDOT could not have funded many of their new projects without a gas tax increase, because the main yearly operating budget goes primarily to maintenance. Capital improvement programs are a separate section of the budget, and are usually the bits funded by gas tax increases.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 16, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AMThe real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants.

Projects you don't like are not the same as projects nobody wants. Unless you can actually name one...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 17, 2018, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 16, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AMThe real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants.

Projects you don't like are not the same as projects nobody wants. Unless you can actually name one...
Replacing signs that are in fine condition is something I am sure most could agree is a waste of money. From what I understood the Burlington bypass was not very well supported won there at the time it was being built. They also go ahead and build roundabouts even if it's not in the interest of the community to becasue they always act like they know better. The Hwy 18 and 83 one in Wales was widely opposed by local officials there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 17, 2018, 04:39:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2018, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 16, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AMThe real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants.

Projects you don't like are not the same as projects nobody wants. Unless you can actually name one...
Replacing signs that are in fine condition is something I am sure most could agree is a waste of money

How many times are you going to beat that poor dead horse?
Did you test all the signs with a retroreflectometer to see if they all still met MUTCD specs? Did you at least request the results of the retroreflectometer readings?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on July 17, 2018, 10:16:25 PM
Maybe instead of making expressways into freeways that didn't need to be and four-laning roads that don't need to be and pouring more money into dumb Foxconn shit, they could have put more money into the freeway connecting the state's two largest cities.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 18, 2018, 02:52:05 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 17, 2018, 04:39:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2018, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 16, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AMThe real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants.

Projects you don't like are not the same as projects nobody wants. Unless you can actually name one...
Replacing signs that are in fine condition is something I am sure most could agree is a waste of money

How many times are you going to beat that poor dead horse?
Did you test all the signs with a retroreflectometer to see if they all still met MUTCD specs? Did you at least request the results of the retroreflectometer readings?

inb4 "signs that existed before modern reflectivity requirements are allowed to stay up until the end of their useful life".

End of useful life could mean "when they are no longer reflective" (i.e. not readable unless hit with direct light). This requires replacement.

Further, it seems to me that many new signs across Wisconsin are the result of changes to intersection or interchange geometry, generally necessitating new signage. From an outsider's perspective, Wisconsin does seem to have made a lot of changes in geometry over the last 15 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 18, 2018, 09:17:00 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 18, 2018, 02:52:05 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 17, 2018, 04:39:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2018, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 16, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AMThe real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants.

Projects you don't like are not the same as projects nobody wants. Unless you can actually name one...
Replacing signs that are in fine condition is something I am sure most could agree is a waste of money

How many times are you going to beat that poor dead horse?
Did you test all the signs with a retroreflectometer to see if they all still met MUTCD specs? Did you at least request the results of the retroreflectometer readings?

inb4 "signs that existed before modern reflectivity requirements are allowed to stay up until the end of their useful life".

Based on dvferyance reoccurring complaint, that shouldn't be an issue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on July 18, 2018, 02:05:57 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 18, 2018, 09:17:00 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 18, 2018, 02:52:05 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 17, 2018, 04:39:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2018, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 16, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AMThe real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants.

Projects you don't like are not the same as projects nobody wants. Unless you can actually name one...
Replacing signs that are in fine condition is something I am sure most could agree is a waste of money

How many times are you going to beat that poor dead horse?
Did you test all the signs with a retroreflectometer to see if they all still met MUTCD specs? Did you at least request the results of the retroreflectometer readings?

inb4 "signs that existed before modern reflectivity requirements are allowed to stay up until the end of their useful life".

Based on dvferyance reoccurring complaint, that shouldn't be an issue.

I always thought their gripe was with roundabouts, not signs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 18, 2018, 02:55:15 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2018, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 16, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 16, 2018, 10:56:53 AMThe real problem is Wis Dot waste too much on project nobody wants.

Projects you don't like are not the same as projects nobody wants. Unless you can actually name one...
Replacing signs that are in fine condition is something I am sure most could agree is a waste of money. From what I understood the Burlington bypass was not very well supported won there at the time it was being built. They also go ahead and build roundabouts even if it's not in the interest of the community to becasue they always act like they know better. The Hwy 18 and 83 one in Wales was widely opposed by local officials there.

Hmm...

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/burlington-bypass-set-to-open-thursday/article_c2e61861-5bdc-5fb7-b951-6d1707266f96.html

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/getting-around-burlington---bypass-opens-in-its-entirety/article_546c49b2-e5a9-11df-a614-001cc4c03286.html

Those two articles make it seem like they were looking forward to it.

As for the roundabout in Wales, i just spent the past 20 minutes trying to find anything that shows that there was "wide opposition" to it. I came up with nothing. While I'm sure there were people against it (there always is) there's nothing to show it was widely panned.

Both of these are things that WisDOT critics like to point to, yet both items greatly improved traffic flow in their respective areas. It wasn't uncommon to have to sit through two complete light cycles during peak times at the 18/83 and 59/83 intersections, and heaven forbid you hit a train in Burlington on a heavy weekend.

Plus, neither of those projects came at the expense of anything else, especially since they were enumerated before the freeze on the gas tax.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2018, 04:48:21 PM
Didn't the Burlington Bypass have widespread opposition to it before it was constructed? wisconsinhighways.org stated Burlington and the nearby towns all passed resolutions opposing the bypass. Also, does anyone know if residents of Burlington have changed their opinions in the years since the bypass was completed?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 18, 2018, 06:53:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2018, 04:48:21 PM
Didn't the Burlington Bypass have widespread opposition to it before it was constructed? wisconsinhighways.org stated Burlington and the nearby towns all passed resolutions opposing the bypass. Also, does anyone know if residents of Burlington have changed their opinions in the years since the bypass was completed?

My understanding was they opposed it due to the route (and the four lanes) and not the necessity.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 18, 2018, 02:55:15 PM
Both of these are things that WisDOT critics like to point to, yet both items greatly improved traffic flow in their respective areas. It wasn't uncommon to have to sit through two complete light cycles during peak times at the 18/83 and 59/83 intersections, and heaven forbid you hit a train in Burlington on a heavy weekend.


I've spent a lot of time in Green Bay over the past couple of months, and I have to tell you, the roundabouts are EVERYWHERE.  And people seem to have gotten to the point where they grudgingly accept them, but they don't like them.  I think what it comes down to is that people would rather simply drive straight even if it means sitting at a light for a short while.  "Improved traffic flow" just isn't as important as simplicity.  I also think there is a wariness that they aren't quite sure what others are going to do.

And I get it.  I fully understand why they are used.  But where I am staying, I have to go through three back to back to back just as I get off the highway.  Then I drive about a mile down the road and go through two more.  And it's a pain.  Honestly lights are just easier.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tribar on July 19, 2018, 10:43:51 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 18, 2018, 02:55:15 PM
Both of these are things that WisDOT critics like to point to, yet both items greatly improved traffic flow in their respective areas. It wasn't uncommon to have to sit through two complete light cycles during peak times at the 18/83 and 59/83 intersections, and heaven forbid you hit a train in Burlington on a heavy weekend.


I've spent a lot of time in Green Bay over the past couple of months, and I have to tell you, the roundabouts are EVERYWHERE.  And people seem to have gotten to the point where they grudgingly accept them, but they don't like them.  I think what it comes down to is that people would rather simply drive straight even if it means sitting at a light for a short while.  "Improved traffic flow" just isn't as important as simplicity.  I also think there is a wariness that they aren't quite sure what others are going to do.

And I get it.  I fully understand why they are used.  But where I am staying, I have to go through three back to back to back just as I get off the highway.  Then I drive about a mile down the road and go through two more.  And it's a pain.  Honestly lights are just easier.

I agree that Wisconsin goes a little overboard on roundabouts but think of all the time they have saved you. I have one on my commute and it has no doubt saved me hours of waiting at lights the past few years. It's amazing how any people would rather a drive be simple than to get from Point A to B as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 02:17:21 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
Honestly lights are just easier.

That's actually one of the selling points of roundabouts. They force you to pay attention and drive more carefully. It's one of the reasons they like them for congested or dangerous intersections.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: tribar on July 19, 2018, 10:43:51 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 18, 2018, 02:55:15 PM
Both of these are things that WisDOT critics like to point to, yet both items greatly improved traffic flow in their respective areas. It wasn't uncommon to have to sit through two complete light cycles during peak times at the 18/83 and 59/83 intersections, and heaven forbid you hit a train in Burlington on a heavy weekend.


I've spent a lot of time in Green Bay over the past couple of months, and I have to tell you, the roundabouts are EVERYWHERE.  And people seem to have gotten to the point where they grudgingly accept them, but they don't like them.  I think what it comes down to is that people would rather simply drive straight even if it means sitting at a light for a short while.  "Improved traffic flow" just isn't as important as simplicity.  I also think there is a wariness that they aren't quite sure what others are going to do.

And I get it.  I fully understand why they are used.  But where I am staying, I have to go through three back to back to back just as I get off the highway.  Then I drive about a mile down the road and go through two more.  And it's a pain.  Honestly lights are just easier.

I agree that Wisconsin goes a little overboard on roundabouts but think of all the time they have saved you. I have one on my commute and it has no doubt saved me hours of waiting at lights the past few years. It's amazing how any people would rather a drive be simple than to get from Point A to B as quickly and efficiently as possible.


Eh.  It's Green Bay.  Saving me two minutes isn't that big of a deal.


Quote from: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 02:17:21 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
Honestly lights are just easier.

That's actually one of the selling points of roundabouts. They force you to pay attention and drive more carefully. It's one of the reasons they like them for congested or dangerous intersections.


As I said, I get it.  That doesn't mean I like it!   :sombrero:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Quote from: tribar on July 19, 2018, 10:43:51 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 18, 2018, 02:55:15 PM
Both of these are things that WisDOT critics like to point to, yet both items greatly improved traffic flow in their respective areas. It wasn't uncommon to have to sit through two complete light cycles during peak times at the 18/83 and 59/83 intersections, and heaven forbid you hit a train in Burlington on a heavy weekend.


I've spent a lot of time in Green Bay over the past couple of months, and I have to tell you, the roundabouts are EVERYWHERE.  And people seem to have gotten to the point where they grudgingly accept them, but they don't like them.  I think what it comes down to is that people would rather simply drive straight even if it means sitting at a light for a short while.  "Improved traffic flow" just isn't as important as simplicity.  I also think there is a wariness that they aren't quite sure what others are going to do.

And I get it.  I fully understand why they are used.  But where I am staying, I have to go through three back to back to back just as I get off the highway.  Then I drive about a mile down the road and go through two more.  And it's a pain.  Honestly lights are just easier.

I agree that Wisconsin goes a little overboard on roundabouts but think of all the time they have saved you. I have one on my commute and it has no doubt saved me hours of waiting at lights the past few years. It's amazing how any people would rather a drive be simple than to get from Point A to B as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Well there is not an unlimited amount of money and they are costly. My point many times it is not in the interest of the community but they will go ahead with it anyways regardless of public opinion. And they shouldn't becasue it's our money they are spending. The Waukesha west bypass was another one that was not generally liked by the residents of the west side of Waukesha. Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 08:51:59 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Quote from: tribar on July 19, 2018, 10:43:51 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 19, 2018, 09:19:32 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 18, 2018, 02:55:15 PM
Both of these are things that WisDOT critics like to point to, yet both items greatly improved traffic flow in their respective areas. It wasn't uncommon to have to sit through two complete light cycles during peak times at the 18/83 and 59/83 intersections, and heaven forbid you hit a train in Burlington on a heavy weekend.


I've spent a lot of time in Green Bay over the past couple of months, and I have to tell you, the roundabouts are EVERYWHERE.  And people seem to have gotten to the point where they grudgingly accept them, but they don't like them.  I think what it comes down to is that people would rather simply drive straight even if it means sitting at a light for a short while.  "Improved traffic flow" just isn't as important as simplicity.  I also think there is a wariness that they aren't quite sure what others are going to do.

And I get it.  I fully understand why they are used.  But where I am staying, I have to go through three back to back to back just as I get off the highway.  Then I drive about a mile down the road and go through two more.  And it's a pain.  Honestly lights are just easier.

I agree that Wisconsin goes a little overboard on roundabouts but think of all the time they have saved you. I have one on my commute and it has no doubt saved me hours of waiting at lights the past few years. It's amazing how any people would rather a drive be simple than to get from Point A to B as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Well there is not an unlimited amount of money and they are costly. My point many times it is not in the interest of the community but they will go ahead with it anyways regardless of public opinion. And they shouldn't becasue it's our money they are spending. The Waukesha west bypass was another one that was not generally liked by the residents of the west side of Waukesha. Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.


You keep saying roundabouts are costly.  They aren't in the long run when compared to a traffic signal.

And no, locals should not get a veto over traffic projects that impact the transportation system at large.  They aren't paid by local taxes.  They are paid by state and federal taxes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 10:09:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.

You keep saying "the will of the people" yet you're wrong. Of course there are people who don't want it - in fact those are often the most vocal types. However, that isn't "the will of the people". The reality is that these are things YOU don't like, and therefore, you use them as examples of waste. If you spent any time trying to make a turn from MacArthur Rd. to Merrill Hills road, you wouldn't say that the Waukesha West Bypass (which has been studied for years by the very community you say doesn't want it) is not in the best interest of the community.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 20, 2018, 12:20:30 AM
The way I see it, someone has three options:
Until that someone does one of those three things, stop bitching about the same things over, and over, and over, and over again with little or no empirical evidence to support those complaints.

Are 5 roundabouts in a row annoying? Arguably, but they sure beat 5 out-of-sync traffic lights in a row or someone using arterial timing to combat cruising (looking at you, Madison). Despite what some think, WisDOT's not putting roundabouts in just to piss people off.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2018, 08:48:44 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 10:09:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.

You keep saying "the will of the people" yet you're wrong. Of course there are people who don't want it - in fact those are often the most vocal types. However, that isn't "the will of the people". The reality is that these are things YOU don't like, and therefore, you use them as examples of waste. If you spent any time trying to make a turn from MacArthur Rd. to Merrill Hills road, you wouldn't say that the Waukesha West Bypass (which has been studied for years by the very community you say doesn't want it) is not in the best interest of the community.


Ah yes.  Mistaking opinion for facts because they only consume information that reinforces their beliefs.  America in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 20, 2018, 09:39:05 AM
I would also prefer roundabouts to 4-way stops at every highway's junction with another numbered highway like Illinois has :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on August 01, 2018, 02:26:06 AM
http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Two-ramps-at-the-I-41US-10and-WIS-441-interchange-opening-week-early--487537781.html (http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Two-ramps-at-the-I-41US-10and-WIS-441-interchange-opening-week-early--487537781.html)

Yay, the missing ramps for US 10 and I-41 finally opened up! Do you know when Google Maps will update it?
Title: Re: WI 23 redux?
Post by: MantyMadTown on August 01, 2018, 02:38:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2018, 12:03:55 AM
I don't have an article link handy, but I caught a news report on local radio earlier today (Friday, 2018-06-01) that said that WisDOT is working to restart the process of upgrading WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth, WI to four lanes.  The report mentioned that WisDOT will be holding a public hearing in Fond du Lac in a couple of weeks (19-June at the UW FdL center) on a revised environmental study of this exceedingly dangerous two lane highway, with the objective of overcoming a federal court order that halted the progress of upgrading the highway over 10 years ago.

WI 23 (FdL to Sheboygan) is one of my favorite drives in the state, too, and yes, this upgrade is critically needed.

Mike

Yes, please upgrade highway 23!

(I know this is old, I just haven't been on here in awhile and I wanted to catch up so I'm just continuing that conversation)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on August 01, 2018, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 10:09:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.

You keep saying "the will of the people" yet you're wrong. Of course there are people who don't want it - in fact those are often the most vocal types. However, that isn't "the will of the people". The reality is that these are things YOU don't like, and therefore, you use them as examples of waste. If you spent any time trying to make a turn from MacArthur Rd. to Merrill Hills road, you wouldn't say that the Waukesha West Bypass (which has been studied for years by the very community you say doesn't want it) is not in the best interest of the community.
Well then how do you know the people do want it? It drives me nuts when you keep saying I am wrong without providing any proof. I have driven around Waukesha and I have seen lots of no bypass signs. Dosen't look so popular to me. I can use the same augment the other way around just becasue you support it doesn't mean it's the majority opinion.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on August 01, 2018, 06:24:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 01, 2018, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 10:09:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.
You keep saying "the will of the people" yet you're wrong. Of course there are people who don't want it - in fact those are often the most vocal types. However, that isn't "the will of the people". The reality is that these are things YOU don't like, and therefore, you use them as examples of waste. If you spent any time trying to make a turn from MacArthur Rd. to Merrill Hills road, you wouldn't say that the Waukesha West Bypass (which has been studied for years by the very community you say doesn't want it) is not in the best interest of the community.
Well then how do you know the people do want it? It drives me nuts when you keep saying I am wrong without providing any proof. I have driven around Waukesha and I have seen lots of no bypass signs. Dosen't look so popular to me. I can use the same augment the other way around just becasue you support it doesn't mean it's the majority opinion.

Usually, when an agency implements a major change, public comment is taken (and considered). My guess is that few residents raised any opposition, so they proceeded. It's possible that more dislike the roundabouts than appreciate them, but they don't speak up when it matters.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on August 01, 2018, 07:55:37 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 01, 2018, 06:09:55 PM
Well then how do you know the people do want it? It drives me nuts when you keep saying I am wrong without providing any proof. I have driven around Waukesha and I have seen lots of no bypass signs. Dosen't look so popular to me. I can use the same augment the other way around just becasue you support it doesn't mean it's the majority opinion.

Because, just as jakeroot inferred, there were several hearings spanning several agencies. There was plenty of opportunity for the public to come out in force and kill the project (which has happened with other projects). There just wasn't that kind of pushback. Sure there are people with no bypass signs. Of course. But that does not signify substantial majority.

Here's the thing - anytime something comes up that you don't agree with (or that talk radio has rallied against), you take the position that WisDOT is wasting money and ignoring the will of the people. Yet you provide no proof of that, other than because you don't agree, it must be the case. It's total confirmation bias.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:04:52 PM
I have read comments for the proposed widening of STH-23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth. It seems that other than 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, most of the people and government officials who gave comments support the expansion to four lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on August 01, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:04:52 PM
I have read comments for the proposed widening of STH-23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth. It seems that other than 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, most of the people and government officials who gave comments support the expansion to four lanes.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't support it. Overall it seems like it would improve traffic safety and allow for easier access between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 01, 2018, 09:51:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 01, 2018, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 10:09:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.

You keep saying "the will of the people" yet you're wrong. Of course there are people who don't want it - in fact those are often the most vocal types. However, that isn't "the will of the people". The reality is that these are things YOU don't like, and therefore, you use them as examples of waste. If you spent any time trying to make a turn from MacArthur Rd. to Merrill Hills road, you wouldn't say that the Waukesha West Bypass (which has been studied for years by the very community you say doesn't want it) is not in the best interest of the community.
Well then how do you know the people do want it? It drives me nuts when you keep saying I am wrong without providing any proof. I have driven around Waukesha and I have seen lots of no bypass signs. Dosen't look so popular to me. I can use the same augment the other way around just becasue you support it doesn't mean it's the majority opinion.


Again, traffic projects really aren't subject to a "majority opinion" by locals.  Nor should they be. 

WIDOT identified it as a priority, and with most things like this, some people are for it, some are against it, but most don't really care.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 02, 2018, 02:28:54 PM
Not exactly a scientific poll to go off of what signs people may have put out on the road(s) one happens to be driving on.  If I were to make assumptions based on that, it would seem as though everyone is against everything everywhere.  I thought most roadgeeks were attuned to the disproportionate attention a small group of NIMBY's tend to get.

No one makes a little yard sign to declare their support for an infrastructure project.  The majority either don't care or are casually fine with it.

Regarding the WI 318/Merrill Hills project; I personally find it to be an excellent project with a LOT of merit.  Mostly because the east leg of the Les Paul Pkwy doesn't make it to I-94, thus limiting its utility in moving vehicles from the south end of Waukesha to the north end of Waukesha.  The new western facility will connect directly to I-94.  I wish it had been built before the Zoo Interchange project because it would've been an attractive alternate route (along with WI 164) in getting me to the SW suburbs from Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on August 02, 2018, 03:04:13 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 01, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2018, 08:04:52 PM
I have read comments for the proposed widening of STH-23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth. It seems that other than 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, most of the people and government officials who gave comments support the expansion to four lanes.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't support it. Overall it seems like it would improve traffic safety and allow for easier access between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan.

Well, it's more pavement to maintain, for one. With the budget constraints DOT has been operating under lately, they've already been deferring maintenance on roads that already exist, like the Marquette interchange.


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on August 18, 2018, 07:45:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 01, 2018, 09:51:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 01, 2018, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 10:09:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.

You keep saying "the will of the people" yet you're wrong. Of course there are people who don't want it - in fact those are often the most vocal types. However, that isn't "the will of the people". The reality is that these are things YOU don't like, and therefore, you use them as examples of waste. If you spent any time trying to make a turn from MacArthur Rd. to Merrill Hills road, you wouldn't say that the Waukesha West Bypass (which has been studied for years by the very community you say doesn't want it) is not in the best interest of the community.
Well then how do you know the people do want it? It drives me nuts when you keep saying I am wrong without providing any proof. I have driven around Waukesha and I have seen lots of no bypass signs. Dosen't look so popular to me. I can use the same augment the other way around just becasue you support it doesn't mean it's the majority opinion.


Again, traffic projects really aren't subject to a "majority opinion" by locals.  Nor should they be. 

WIDOT identified it as a priority, and with most things like this, some people are for it, some are against it, but most don't really care.
It should be because it's our money they are spending and it effects our lives and not theirs. We should not keep spending money on things that the DOT thinks is best for us but may not be. Just because they identified it as a priority does not mean it's a good idea. This is why there is a shortfall in the transportation budget to begin with. Interesting that the argument changed from projects you don't like are not necessarily projects people don't want to whatever the will of the people is doesn't matter anyways because whatever the DOT deems necessary then that is what is gotta be regardless.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 18, 2018, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 18, 2018, 07:45:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 01, 2018, 09:51:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 01, 2018, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 19, 2018, 10:09:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 19, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Again the DOT did not care about the will of the people in fact they never do. This is how we could save money.

You keep saying "the will of the people" yet you're wrong. Of course there are people who don't want it - in fact those are often the most vocal types. However, that isn't "the will of the people". The reality is that these are things YOU don't like, and therefore, you use them as examples of waste. If you spent any time trying to make a turn from MacArthur Rd. to Merrill Hills road, you wouldn't say that the Waukesha West Bypass (which has been studied for years by the very community you say doesn't want it) is not in the best interest of the community.
Well then how do you know the people do want it? It drives me nuts when you keep saying I am wrong without providing any proof. I have driven around Waukesha and I have seen lots of no bypass signs. Dosen't look so popular to me. I can use the same augment the other way around just becasue you support it doesn't mean it's the majority opinion.


Again, traffic projects really aren't subject to a "majority opinion" by locals.  Nor should they be. 

WIDOT identified it as a priority, and with most things like this, some people are for it, some are against it, but most don't really care.
It should be because it's our money they are spending and it effects our lives and not theirs. We should not keep spending money on things that the DOT thinks is best for us but may not be. Just because they identified it as a priority does not mean it's a good idea. This is why there is a shortfall in the transportation budget to begin with. Interesting that the argument changed from projects you don't like are not necessarily projects people don't want to whatever the will of the people is doesn't matter anyways because whatever the DOT deems necessary then that is what is gotta be regardless.


My argument hasn't changed one bit.  The idea that locals should have veto power over projects to benefit the overall state transportation system is simply dumb.  I'm paying for the project in Waukesha just as much as you are.  It benefits me as a resident of this state.

But you are right about one thing.  (Shocker!!!)  Just because they identified it as a priority does not mean it's a good idea.  That's why they held hearings.  That's why they gathered feedback.  And you know what?  It was basically considered a good idea by most people involved.  There are cases where projects identified as a priority have been placed on a back burner based on such feedback.  The US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson is an example.

Honestly, do some research and come prepared with more than just your Bellingesque opinions.  They don't fly when facts are actually presented.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on August 19, 2018, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 18, 2018, 07:45:10 PM
This is why there is a shortfall in the transportation budget to begin with.

Actually, that's not why. There's a shortfall because these projects are identified and budgeted well in advance. In the meantime, the current legislature repealed the automatic gas tax increases, and refuse to raise it, meaning that the DOT no longer has the budget they planned for.
Title: I-41 major upgrade in sight?
Post by: mgk920 on August 22, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Yes, it is election season and he is up for re-election in early November, but I do find this to be encouraging.  Today (Wednesday, 2018-08-22), Wisconsin governor Scott Walker directed WisDOT to begin formally studying I-41 from WI 15 (Northland Ave) in Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere for upgrading from four lanes to six lanes, this to match the six lanes that the highway already has on either side of those points.

This is a badly needed upgrade as traffic on this highway is looking more and more like the LOS-E and F that is seen after Packer games during every weekday commuter rush.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Gov-Walker-calls-on-DOT-to-look-at-expanding-I-41-corridor-491462751.html

Mike
Title: Re: I-41 major upgrade in sight?
Post by: MantyMadTown on August 22, 2018, 10:16:01 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 22, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Yes, it is election season and he is up for re-election in early November, but I do find this to be encouraging.  Today (Wednesday, 2018-08-22), Wisconsin governor Scott Walker directed WisDOT to begin formally studying I-41 from WI 15 (Northland Ave) in Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere for upgrading from four lanes to six lanes, this to match the six lanes that the highway already has on either side of those points.

This is a badly needed upgrade as traffic on this highway is looking more and more like the LOS-E and F that is seen after Packer games during every weekday commuter rush.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Gov-Walker-calls-on-DOT-to-look-at-expanding-I-41-corridor-491462751.html

Mike

Good. I-41 should be 6 lanes between Appleton and Green Bay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 22, 2018, 11:06:15 PM
Would think I-41 would be fairly easy to expand I-41 to 6 lanes between Hwy 15 and Kaukauna.  The only bridges that need to be rebuilt are over the CN Railroad, Gillett St, Hwy 55, and Maloney Rd.  The interchanges have all been rebuilt to modern standards, although I think they did a poor job with Wis 47 by not adding longer left turn lanes.  All of the other bridges pass over I-41 and have been raised in the last few years to accommodate modern height requirements.  Should just be able to add an additional lane each direction in the median and add a concrete barrier. 
Title: Re: I-41 major upgrade in sight?
Post by: 20160805 on August 23, 2018, 07:22:40 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 22, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Yes, it is election season and he is up for re-election in early November, but I do find this to be encouraging.  Today (Wednesday, 2018-08-22), Wisconsin governor Scott Walker directed WisDOT to begin formally studying I-41 from WI 15 (Northland Ave) in Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere for upgrading from four lanes to six lanes, this to match the six lanes that the highway already has on either side of those points.

This is a badly needed upgrade as traffic on this highway is looking more and more like the LOS-E and F that is seen after Packer games during every weekday commuter rush.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Gov-Walker-calls-on-DOT-to-look-at-expanding-I-41-corridor-491462751.html

Mike
This is very much a good thing - I don't think I can remember ever being on that stretch of US (I) 41 without being caught in a whole bunch of traffic swirling around me, and shoving 60,000 people each day through just four lanes is a bit ridiculous anyway IMO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 23, 2018, 10:46:19 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 22, 2018, 11:06:15 PM
Would think I-41 would be fairly easy to expand I-41 to 6 lanes between Hwy 15 and Kaukauna.  The only bridges that need to be rebuilt are over the CN Railroad, Gillett St, Hwy 55, and Maloney Rd.  The interchanges have all been rebuilt to modern standards, although I think they did a poor job with Wis 47 by not adding longer left turn lanes.  All of the other bridges pass over I-41 and have been raised in the last few years to accommodate modern height requirements.  Should just be able to add an additional lane each direction in the median and add a concrete barrier.

From what I can tell, the highway's current surface and roadbed is a bodged together mix of materials and overlays of all different age vintages ranging from very recent to nearly 60 years old.  The east-west part from WI 15 across Appleton's north side and through Kaukauna was opened in 1960 and under that asphalt surface remains its original 1960 concrete.  Like what was done on all of I-41's now six-lane parts, the entire highway will have to be dug out and replaced, although it should all be doable within its existing ROW.  All of its current bridge structures should be fine with being widened and redecked, though.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 23, 2018, 11:00:53 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2018, 10:46:19 AM
All of its current bridge structures should be fine with being widened and redecked, though.

Mike
For the Green Bay area reconstruction, most of the late 60s to mid 80s bridges were replaced, with the exception of the Ashland Ave interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 23, 2018, 11:17:34 AM
Might be cause to bump the I-41 thread if it's not just election year hot air.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 23, 2018, 11:24:06 AM
Quote from: Big John on August 23, 2018, 11:00:53 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2018, 10:46:19 AM
All of its current bridge structures should be fine with being widened and redecked, though.

Mike
For the Green Bay area reconstruction, most of the late 60s to mid 80s bridges were replaced, with the exception of the Ashland Ave interchange.

They all had to be realigned, too.  Many were in perfectly good condition, just in the wrong places for that upgrade.

Another example, check what is under the I-41 bridge over Cecil St in Neenah - even though that original 1960 or so overcrossing was completely rebuilt in the highway's early 1990s six-lane upgrade, its original support piers were kept with the new bridge's wider structure built around them and the original bridges' pre-stressed concrete beams were set aside and reused in the new structure.  IMHO, it is a very interesting case study for bridge engineers.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 23, 2018, 01:39:37 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 23, 2018, 11:00:53 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2018, 10:46:19 AM
All of its current bridge structures should be fine with being widened and redecked, though.

Mike
For the Green Bay area reconstruction, most of the late 60s to mid 80s bridges were replaced, with the exception of the Ashland Ave interchange.

In Green Bay, most of the bridges on I-41 traveled over local roads and had to be replaced since it's between 6-10 lanes.  The Larsen Ave bridges were built in 2002 and at the time said that the bridges wouldn't be replaced for the I-41 expansion.  They ended up being torn down and replaced.  All interchanges except Wis 172 were replaced along with 2 new freeway to freeway interchanges were really costly. 

In Appleton, the interchanges do not have to be reconstructed since they all have been replaced or modified in the last 20 years with the Wis 55 Interchange being reconstructed right now.  When bridges travel over the freeway, it really reduces costs since there's less lanes of traffic and less heavy truck traffic that uses those bridges.  With no major bridges or interchanges needing reconstruction, the costs should be significantly lower than the other two I-41 projects in Oshkosh and Green Bay. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on August 23, 2018, 10:07:07 PM
Seems Lancaster, WI wielded their political clout to get WisDOT to replace recently replaced signs on US 151 in Grant County

SB at WIS 80/81 replaced Cuba City (left on a smaller sign like before the first replacement) with Lancaster (which was on the big signs before the first replacement).  The opposing sign still has Cuba City as the second city (Platteville being the first in both directions)

NB at US 61 put Lancaster on the last sign before the exit (the first still lacks it)

Truthfully - more for the 80/81 exit - Lancaster could have been the supplementary city on the small sign just as well - which meant that they (IMO) have demanded the spotlight.

I would hope the city funded the change, but they likely had not.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 23, 2018, 10:15:54 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 23, 2018, 10:07:07 PM
Seems Lancaster, WI wielded their political clout to get WisDOT to replace recently replaced signs on US 151 in Grant County

SB at WIS 80/81 replaced Cuba City (left on a smaller sign like before the first replacement) with Lancaster (which was on the big signs before the first replacement).  The opposing sign still has Cuba City as the second city (Platteville being the first in both directions)

NB at US 61 put Lancaster on the last sign before the exit (the first still lacks it)

Truthfully - more for the 80/81 exit - Lancaster could have been the supplementary city on the small sign just as well - which meant that they (IMO) have demanded the spotlight.

I would hope the city funded the change, but they likely had not.

Impending wasted money on a sign replacement rant in 3...2...1...
:popcorn:
Title: Re: I-41 major upgrade in sight?
Post by: Roadguy on August 24, 2018, 09:05:40 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 22, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Yes, it is election season and he is up for re-election in early November, but I do find this to be encouraging.  Today (Wednesday, 2018-08-22), Wisconsin governor Scott Walker directed WisDOT to begin formally studying I-41 from WI 15 (Northland Ave) in Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere for upgrading from four lanes to six lanes, this to match the six lanes that the highway already has on either side of those points.

This is a badly needed upgrade as traffic on this highway is looking more and more like the LOS-E and F that is seen after Packer games during every weekday commuter rush.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Gov-Walker-calls-on-DOT-to-look-at-expanding-I-41-corridor-491462751.html

Mike

The volumes are higher than I expected between Kaukauna and DePere.  It will be interesting to see how this gets scoped out:

A memory that most people don't remember is that the 41 project in Brown County which ended up being around $1 billion dollars was scoped out originally to be only around a couple hundred million when initially conceived.  Then through the traffic analysis,  expanded scope changes, and inflation it ballooned to its final cost.

Based on that, I would say this is well over a billion dollars today.  Add in inflation (5% a year), contingency, design costs, utility relocation costs, and construction administration costs for construction 10 years from now I would say this is over a $2 billion project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 24, 2018, 09:20:43 AM
I don't think it's going to be that expensive.  It's only 20 miles and only includes potentially one freeway to freeway interchange.  I doubt South Crossing will ever happen due to the value of the properties along the Fox River.  They will have to place it so far south towards Wrightstown that I think it would be meaningless. 

EDIT:  The entire I-39/90 expansion project, which is longer, much more complex and includes a Rock River crossing, is expected to cost about $1.2 B. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 25, 2018, 11:28:04 PM
Just add 2 lanes in the median with a concrete barrier, expand the bridges north of Kaukauna and rebuild at the 4 locations between Wis 15 and County J.  The project can get done a lot faster and for a smaller price tag. 

However, I do think there should be a half interchange built at Wrightsrown Road.  Traffic heading to Appleton from Wrightstown doesn't want to drive up County U and backtrack.  All other local interchanges are fine.  Wouldn't mind seeing a rebuild of the Wis 441 interchange but it would be expensive and don't think it's that high of a priority compared to adding lanes. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on August 26, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2018, 11:28:04 PM
Just add 2 lanes in the median with a concrete barrier, expand the bridges north of Kaukauna and rebuild at the 4 locations between Wis 15 and County J.  The project can get done a lot faster and for a smaller price tag. 

However, I do think there should be a half interchange built at Wrightsrown Road.  Traffic heading to Appleton from Wrightstown doesn't want to drive up County U and backtrack.  All other local interchanges are fine.  Wouldn't mind seeing a rebuild of the Wis 441 interchange but it would be expensive and don't think it's that high of a priority compared to adding lanes.
There's also a very direct way from Wrightstown to Appleton and vice versa already: WI 96.  ;-)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2018, 12:49:54 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 26, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2018, 11:28:04 PM
Just add 2 lanes in the median with a concrete barrier, expand the bridges north of Kaukauna and rebuild at the 4 locations between Wis 15 and County J.  The project can get done a lot faster and for a smaller price tag. 

However, I do think there should be a half interchange built at Wrightsrown Road.  Traffic heading to Appleton from Wrightstown doesn't want to drive up County U and backtrack.  All other local interchanges are fine.  Wouldn't mind seeing a rebuild of the Wis 441 interchange but it would be expensive and don't think it's that high of a priority compared to adding lanes.
There's also a very direct way from Wrightstown to Appleton and vice versa already: WI 96.  ;-)



You could probably route WI-96 up WI-55 from Kaukauna to I-41, have it duplex north, then exit at Wrightstown Road. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 27, 2018, 04:57:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2018, 12:49:54 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 26, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2018, 11:28:04 PM
Just add 2 lanes in the median with a concrete barrier, expand the bridges north of Kaukauna and rebuild at the 4 locations between Wis 15 and County J.  The project can get done a lot faster and for a smaller price tag. 

However, I do think there should be a half interchange built at Wrightsrown Road.  Traffic heading to Appleton from Wrightstown doesn’t want to drive up County U and backtrack.  All other local interchanges are fine.  Wouldn’t mind seeing a rebuild of the Wis 441 interchange but it would be expensive and don’t think it’s that high of a priority compared to adding lanes.
There's also a very direct way from Wrightstown to Appleton and vice versa already: WI 96.  ;-)

You could probably route WI-96 up WI-55 from Kaukauna to I-41, have it duplex north, then exit at Wrightstown Road.

That part of WI 96 is the original routing of WI 15 (first version), what became US 41 later on in the 1920s.  It then continued on towards De Pere and Green Bay via modern-day Brown County 'D'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on August 28, 2018, 09:10:42 AM
There's been more awful flooding closing upwards of fifteen highways in the southeastern part of the state.  I heard the whole town of Coon Valley has been evacuated. 


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 28, 2018, 10:07:22 AM
Quote from: invincor on August 28, 2018, 09:10:42 AM
There's been more awful flooding closing upwards of fifteen highways in the southeastern part of the state.  I heard the whole town of Coon Valley has been evacuated.

Last night there was a line of very heavy thunderstorms that went from just south of La Crosse eastward through the Dells area, Portage, Beaver Dam and Sheboygan - literally across the state - that moved laterally.  Coon Valley, WI is in that area.  We also got rained on here in Appleton from that line, but it was more of a normal seasonal storm for us.

Yes, it has been an unusually wet summer in Wisconsin.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2018, 05:02:52 PM
The Lemonweir River has flooded out I-90/94 at Mauston.  The entire interstate is shut down between New Lisbon and Lyndon Station.
To make matters worse, the primary alternate route, US 12/WI 16 is also closed just outside Lyndon Station.  That whole area is going to be a giant CF all night, so give it a wide birth if you can!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on August 28, 2018, 05:09:34 PM
Yeah Madison had some of that flooding too, but it didn't happen where I live (around the campus area). It was mostly in the isthmus but some other parts of the city as well as the rest of Dane County were also affected by the flooding. They had to close off some of the streets downtown in addition to the Costco in Middleton. I think things are finally getting back to normal here but we're supposed to get more rain today so we'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2018, 05:11:49 PM
Check that; it's only eastbound 90/94 that's closed.  But WB ain't moving that great and with more water on the way, I can't imagine it's much higher than it's EB partner.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on August 28, 2018, 05:54:00 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2018, 10:07:22 AM
Quote from: invincor on August 28, 2018, 09:10:42 AM
There's been more awful flooding closing upwards of fifteen highways in the southeastern part of the state.  I heard the whole town of Coon Valley has been evacuated.

Last night there was a line of very heavy thunderstorms that went from just south of La Crosse eastward through the Dells area, Portage, Beaver Dam and Sheboygan - literally across the state - that moved laterally.  Coon Valley, WI is in that area.  We also got rained on here in Appleton from that line, but it was more of a normal seasonal storm for us.

Yes, it has been an unusually wet summer in Wisconsin.

Mike
At my location May and June were good months, both seeing rainfall in the 5" range.  July ran a bit below average, and August was poised to come out less than half of average until the rain events of the past three days; here have been my totals:

Sun: 1.87"
Mon: 1.66"
Tue: 2.79" and counting; still raining lightly as of this writing

And here are the monthly totals since May:
May: avg 3.3", TY 5.14"  :nod:
Jun: avg 4.0", TY 5.07" :nod:
Jul: avg 3.5", TY 2.91" :no:
Aug: avg 4.0", TY 7.66" :wow:

I honestly thought this month was going to be a complete failure with a total of less than two inches, but now we've had way too much rain for a while.  My front yard is a bloody lake.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on August 28, 2018, 08:02:48 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 28, 2018, 05:54:00 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2018, 10:07:22 AM
Quote from: invincor on August 28, 2018, 09:10:42 AM
There's been more awful flooding closing upwards of fifteen highways in the southeastern part of the state.  I heard the whole town of Coon Valley has been evacuated.

Last night there was a line of very heavy thunderstorms that went from just south of La Crosse eastward through the Dells area, Portage, Beaver Dam and Sheboygan - literally across the state - that moved laterally.  Coon Valley, WI is in that area.  We also got rained on here in Appleton from that line, but it was more of a normal seasonal storm for us.

Yes, it has been an unusually wet summer in Wisconsin.

Mike
At my location May and June were good months, both seeing rainfall in the 5" range.  July ran a bit below average, and August was poised to come out less than half of average until the rain events of the past three days; here have been my totals:

Sun: 1.87"
Mon: 1.66"
Tue: 2.79" and counting; still raining lightly as of this writing

And here are the monthly totals since May:
May: avg 3.3", TY 5.14"  :nod:
Jun: avg 4.0", TY 5.07" :nod:
Jul: avg 3.5", TY 2.91" :no:
Aug: avg 4.0", TY 7.66" :wow:

I honestly thought this month was going to be a complete failure with a total of less than two inches, but now we've had way too much rain for a while.  My front yard is a bloody lake.

Yeah, it's been an unusually rainy summer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 28, 2018, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 26, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2018, 11:28:04 PM
Just add 2 lanes in the median with a concrete barrier, expand the bridges north of Kaukauna and rebuild at the 4 locations between Wis 15 and County J.  The project can get done a lot faster and for a smaller price tag. 

However, I do think there should be a half interchange built at Wrightsrown Road.  Traffic heading to Appleton from Wrightstown doesn't want to drive up County U and backtrack.  All other local interchanges are fine.  Wouldn't mind seeing a rebuild of the Wis 441 interchange but it would be expensive and don't think it's that high of a priority compared to adding lanes.
There's also a very direct way from Wrightstown to Appleton and vice versa already: WI 96.  ;-)

Wis 96 is extremely slow and has a 25 mph speed limit between Little Chute and Kaukauna. Aside from the Lawe St duplex with Wis 55, it's only 1 lane in each direction east of Ballard Rd in Appleton.

During rush hours, watch the amount of people on Wis 96 turn on County JJ, then turn on the I-41 frontage road to County J, and get on I-41 from there. 

At JJ, there's a rail line, Wis 96, and the Frontage Rd within 200 feet along with being extremely close to the County J interchange so a half interchange wouldn't work there.  There's plenty of room and space at Wrightstown Rd for a half interchange.  That would cut down on the Frontage Rd traffic. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 29, 2018, 10:13:18 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2018, 05:11:49 PM
Check that; it's only eastbound 90/94 that's closed.  But WB ain't moving that great and with more water on the way, I can't imagine it's much higher than it's EB partner.

A major mainline railroad (BNSF's Aurora Sub - their mainline between Chicago, MStP and the Pacific northwest) was seriously washed out south of La Crosse.  Yesterday, Canadian Pacific started detouring trains via the CN west of Duplainville (west suburban Milwaukee), too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 29, 2018, 11:26:54 AM
Looks like a lot of I-90/94 is closed between Wis-80 and Wis-13.  Based on Google's traffic imagery, it looks like a lot of people are using Wis-21 as an alternate, because it is all jammed up near Necedah.  Lots of closures on Wis-35 along the Mississippi River as well, between Wis-82 and La Crosse.  Wis-80 closed from US14 north to Wis-82, too--wow. :crazy:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on August 29, 2018, 11:58:52 AM
^ I actually got stuck in it yesterday evening.  It's due to all the rain central Wisconsin has received the past few days.

I had taken back roads up to Wisconsin Dells (in part due to a stop at New Glarus for beer).  I didn't realize that the US 14 closure in Black Earth was related to the flooding...I thought it was road construction.  My first recognizable inclination of something wrong was a lack of traffic on 90/94 in Wisconsin Dells and the ramps to go WB being blocked.  I eventually stopped at a gas station and inquired, then checked the 511 website and traffic apps.

In short, State Police and WisDOT closed 90/94 between New Lisbon and Portage.  Eastbound traffic was officially directed up 80 to Necedah, then over on 21 to I-39.  Westbound traffic was directed to I-39 north to WI 21 to Tomah.  I also know from my efforts to get out of Wisconsin Dells that a lot of traffic was taking 13 north from there and turning left on 82....was stuck in a 3-mile backup getting to the 4-way stop at 13/82.

The backups you see on the traffic imagery are legit, and are largely due to the signal in Necedah or the all-way stop at 13/21.  When I finally rolled through westbound...and mind you this was well after 8pm, there was a 5-mile backup on EB 21 approaching 13, and a 3.5 backup approaching Necedah.  There was also a lengthy backup on NB 80 getting into Necedah.

Reports are that there's a bridge on WI 33 that was completely washed out.  That will be a multi-week (if not multi-month) closure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on August 29, 2018, 02:06:19 PM
As of their 10am update this morning, westbound 90/94 has been reopened.  Eastbound is still closed and being detoured from New Lisbon.  US 12 in the area also remains closed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: pianocello on August 29, 2018, 08:16:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2018, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on August 26, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2018, 11:28:04 PM
Just add 2 lanes in the median with a concrete barrier, expand the bridges north of Kaukauna and rebuild at the 4 locations between Wis 15 and County J.  The project can get done a lot faster and for a smaller price tag. 

However, I do think there should be a half interchange built at Wrightsrown Road.  Traffic heading to Appleton from Wrightstown doesn't want to drive up County U and backtrack.  All other local interchanges are fine.  Wouldn't mind seeing a rebuild of the Wis 441 interchange but it would be expensive and don't think it's that high of a priority compared to adding lanes.
There's also a very direct way from Wrightstown to Appleton and vice versa already: WI 96.  ;-)

Wis 96 is extremely slow and has a 25 mph speed limit between Little Chute and Kaukauna. Aside from the Lawe St duplex with Wis 55, it's only 1 lane in each direction east of Ballard Rd in Appleton.

During rush hours, watch the amount of people on Wis 96 turn on County JJ, then turn on the I-41 frontage road to County J, and get on I-41 from there. 

At JJ, there's a rail line, Wis 96, and the Frontage Rd within 200 feet along with being extremely close to the County J interchange so a half interchange wouldn't work there.  There's plenty of room and space at Wrightstown Rd for a half interchange.  That would cut down on the Frontage Rd traffic. 

Eh, it'd be nice to see a half-interchange at Wrightstown Rd, but at the end of the day, you're saving ~2,000 people 2 minutes off their drive time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on August 29, 2018, 08:29:01 PM
80, 82 and surrounding county routes are not as capable as 13 and 21 at handling heavy traffic.  The view from the goog showed that 80 was slow or a parking lot between the freeway and 21.  21 handled it outside the towns until traffic built up and practically rendered every intersection inaccessible.
Title: WB US 10 now open at I-41 Bridgeview/Ellis interchange.
Post by: mgk920 on September 01, 2018, 04:29:30 PM
While I was driving around a couple of days ago, I noticed that the WB US 10 through movement at the I-41/WI 441 Bridgeview/Ellis interchange between Appleton and Neenah, WI is now open.  I did not have a chance to drive it, but this is the final movement to be completed in that interchange rebuild.  There are still a few bandages here and there in it to remove, but it is essentially complete.

Also, I-41 in both directions is now fully open through it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 05, 2018, 04:17:16 PM
Don't scrimp on Beltline interchange: https://madison.com/wsj/opinion/#tracking-source=main-nav

It had better be reconstructed and widened to six lanes. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. And get rid of all left-hand and cloverleaf ramps while you're at it!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 05, 2018, 04:55:31 PM
As long as the left exits/entrances are removed I think four lanes could suffice. There is a lot of traffic transitioning between both directions of 39/90 and 12/18 west of the interchange where thru traffic levels on 39/90 might drop low enough.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on September 05, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
By the looks of it, it looks like WISDOT is going to create a new alignment of mainline I-39/90 northbound to eliminate the left exit there. Now if they could remove the other left exit, that would be great.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on September 06, 2018, 08:13:57 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 05, 2018, 04:55:31 PM
As long as the left exits/entrances are removed I think four lanes could suffice. There is a lot of traffic transitioning between both directions of 39/90 and 12/18 west of the interchange where thru traffic levels on 39/90 might drop low enough.

This issue isn't traffic capacity through the interchange, it's that everyone in the right lanes (exit only) will need to shift over multiple lanes to make it to the through lanes if there are only two through lanes through the core of the interchange.  A large percentage of drivers are not locals who drive it daily, many drivers don't seem to read big green signs over their heads, and the volumes are heavy so they should expect a lot of shifting traffic.  I would expect the number of crashes to remain higher due to all of this shifting traffic if they proceed with the two lane option.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 06, 2018, 01:03:00 PM
But a lot of that shifting is largely due to the left movements as well. Six lanes is ideal but probably not essential.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on September 06, 2018, 03:33:56 PM
How much money would really be saved by building I-39/90 as only 2 lanes each way through the interchange? I can't believe it would be that much to make it cost effective vs. the extra safety and capacity that would come by building it 3 lanes each way. Some might be saved by not having to rebuild some bridges, but if the northbound lanes are going to be realigned anyway in order to eliminate left hand exits, there would really be maybe two bridges that wouldn't have to be rebuilt. Just go all the way from the start. Knock it off with the short-sightedness.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 06, 2018, 03:40:57 PM
It's six lanes north of there, and will be six lanes south of there.  Building it for four lanes would be monumentally stupid and short-sighted. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2018, 06:44:20 PM
Depends on how much traffic from each direction enters and exits.  If there's a high enough percentage that enters or exits at the Beltline, then 4 lanes through the interchange should be adequate as others suggest.

Regarding tchafe1978's question...given scale, bridging, and traffic control, probably in the order of 8 digits.  Not a small figure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 07, 2018, 12:52:08 AM
Through Janesville, WisDOT is building out I-39/90 to 8 lanes (and 12 between the US-14 and Hwy 26 exits with the weave/merge lanes). It seems highly unlikely that they would cheap out at the Beltline and not have at least 6 through lanes.

If 4 through lanes was going to be adequate there, all they would have to do to "finish" the Beltline interchange is run the NBD I-39/90 left lane into the WBD Beltline exit, and have the EBD Beltline to SBD I-39/90 ramp turn into the right lane. No need to bother with new bridges.  Just a series of signs on NBD I-39/90 indicating the left lane is for the Beltline.

One of the major goals is for I-39/90 to not be a parking lot for weekend tourist traffic. You bet your ass the first 4-lane section of I-39/90 north of Rockford would be a crash hotspot every Friday, and the last thing any Wisconsinite would want is to have over $1 Billion dumped into I-39/90 south of the Beltline and end up with the same backup hell immediately afterwards.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 07, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 07, 2018, 12:52:08 AM
Through Janesville, WisDOT is building out I-39/90 to 8 lanes (and 12 between the US-14 and Hwy 26 exits with the weave/merge lanes). It seems highly unlikely that they would cheap out at the Beltline and not have at least 6 through lanes.

If 4 through lanes was going to be adequate there, all they would have to do to "finish" the Beltline interchange is run the NBD I-39/90 left lane into the WBD Beltline exit, and have the EBD Beltline to SBD I-39/90 ramp turn into the right lane. No need to bother with new bridges.  Just a series of signs on NBD I-39/90 indicating the left lane is for the Beltline.

One of the major goals is for I-39/90 to not be a parking lot for weekend tourist traffic. You bet your ass the first 4-lane section of I-39/90 north of Rockford would be a crash hotspot every Friday, and the last thing any Wisconsinite would want is to have over $1 Billion dumped into I-39/90 south of the Beltline and end up with the same backup hell immediately afterwards.

If it's only going to be 8 lanes until Janesville and 6 after that, Janesville is going to become the site of a daily traffic jam in the summer.  Why would they create a bottleneck like that...they'd probably be better off keeping it all 6 lanes.

So I agree with you--if there was a place to change the width from 8 lanes to 6, it would be the Beltline Interchange.  Enough traffic will divert to Madison that it wouldn't be as bad of a bottleneck as the one they're establishing in Janesville.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 07, 2018, 02:53:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2018, 06:44:20 PM
Depends on how much traffic from each direction enters and exits.  If there's a high enough percentage that enters or exits at the Beltline, then 4 lanes through the interchange should be adequate as others suggest.

Regarding tchafe1978's question...given scale, bridging, and traffic control, probably in the order of 8 digits.  Not a small figure.


If I am reading the traffic count maps correctly, 60,900 vehicles approach the interchange from the north.

Southbound, about 25,400 (more than 1/3) exits onto the Beltline WB, and 3,000 exit EB.  So could you use two through lanes and one "exit only," which is how it is set up now?  Maybe...as long as you get rid of the EB cloverleaf.

Now northbound relatively few exit the interchange.  A higher percentage of the traffic is "through traffic." 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 07, 2018, 07:15:21 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 07, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 07, 2018, 12:52:08 AM
Through Janesville, WisDOT is building out I-39/90 to 8 lanes (and 12 between the US-14 and Hwy 26 exits with the weave/merge lanes). It seems highly unlikely that they would cheap out at the Beltline and not have at least 6 through lanes.

If 4 through lanes was going to be adequate there, all they would have to do to "finish" the Beltline interchange is run the NBD I-39/90 left lane into the WBD Beltline exit, and have the EBD Beltline to SBD I-39/90 ramp turn into the right lane. No need to bother with new bridges.  Just a series of signs on NBD I-39/90 indicating the left lane is for the Beltline.

One of the major goals is for I-39/90 to not be a parking lot for weekend tourist traffic. You bet your ass the first 4-lane section of I-39/90 north of Rockford would be a crash hotspot every Friday, and the last thing any Wisconsinite would want is to have over $1 Billion dumped into I-39/90 south of the Beltline and end up with the same backup hell immediately afterwards.

If it's only going to be 8 lanes until Janesville and 6 after that, Janesville is going to become the site of a daily traffic jam in the summer.  Why would they create a bottleneck like that...they'd probably be better off keeping it all 6 lanes.

So I agree with you--if there was a place to change the width from 8 lanes to 6, it would be the Beltline Interchange.  Enough traffic will divert to Madison that it wouldn't be as bad of a bottleneck as the one they're establishing in Janesville.

Some clarification is in order. The I-39/90 widening is to provide AT LEAST 6 through lanes between the state line and the Beltline. Between Hwy 11/Avalon Rd and north of Hwy 26 in Janesville, it will have 8 through lanes. The justification was that 20-year traffic projections indicated traffic through Janesville will be heavy enough to justify the extra lane. On the section of I-39/90 south of the Illinois line, it's only 6 lanes now.

In reality, 8 lanes in Janesville will probably be overkill for a while - the AADT of the section through Janesville currently has 56,000 vpd between Hwy 11/Racine St and Hwy 14, dropping to 50,000 vpd between US-14 and Hwy 26 before rebounding to 55,000 north of Edgerton. That's comparable to traffic counts north of DeForest on the 6-lane section of I-39/90/94 - which is less than many 4-lane freeways move. Suffice it to say that the drop to 6 lanes north of Janesville shouldn't be a major issue for a while yet.

The only section of I-39/90/94 to have 8 through lanes is the stretch between US-151 and Hwy 30, where traffic counts climb north of 100,000 vpd. The Beltline is moving 140,000 vpd (with some issues) with only 6 through lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on September 07, 2018, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 07, 2018, 07:15:21 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 07, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 07, 2018, 12:52:08 AM
Through Janesville, WisDOT is building out I-39/90 to 8 lanes (and 12 between the US-14 and Hwy 26 exits with the weave/merge lanes). It seems highly unlikely that they would cheap out at the Beltline and not have at least 6 through lanes.

If 4 through lanes was going to be adequate there, all they would have to do to "finish" the Beltline interchange is run the NBD I-39/90 left lane into the WBD Beltline exit, and have the EBD Beltline to SBD I-39/90 ramp turn into the right lane. No need to bother with new bridges.  Just a series of signs on NBD I-39/90 indicating the left lane is for the Beltline.

One of the major goals is for I-39/90 to not be a parking lot for weekend tourist traffic. You bet your ass the first 4-lane section of I-39/90 north of Rockford would be a crash hotspot every Friday, and the last thing any Wisconsinite would want is to have over $1 Billion dumped into I-39/90 south of the Beltline and end up with the same backup hell immediately afterwards.

If it's only going to be 8 lanes until Janesville and 6 after that, Janesville is going to become the site of a daily traffic jam in the summer.  Why would they create a bottleneck like that...they'd probably be better off keeping it all 6 lanes.

So I agree with you--if there was a place to change the width from 8 lanes to 6, it would be the Beltline Interchange.  Enough traffic will divert to Madison that it wouldn't be as bad of a bottleneck as the one they're establishing in Janesville.

The only section of I-39/90/94 to have 8 through lanes is the stretch between US-151 and Hwy 30, where traffic counts climb north of 100,000 vpd. The Beltline is moving 140,000 vpd (with some issues) with only 6 through lanes.

If it's 8 lanes between 151 and Hwy 30, then 4 lanes through the Beltline interchange is quite the bottleneck.
Yep, we should definitely build it to 6 lanes all the way through.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on September 08, 2018, 02:15:47 PM
The only way to have 39/90 be 6 lanes through the Beltline interchange and not create a bottleneck on the Beltline ramps is to convince them to add auxiliary lanes between the Beltline and 94.  Yes, there's that much traffic going to/from the Beltline.  If you're only going to have 6 lanes between the Beltline and 94, then keeping 4 lanes on 39/90 through the Beltline interchange is the only way you'll avoid having a worse bottleneck on the Beltline ramps...specifically the ramps between the Beltline and 39/90 North(West).  Those ramps actually carry more traffic than 39/90 through traffic through the interchange.

Quote from: SEWIGuyIf I am reading the traffic count maps correctly, 60,900 vehicles approach the interchange from the north.

I ran the number crunching and got a figure in the vicinity of 46,000.  There's also a continuous traffic recorder on 39/90 between the Beltline and 94 which for 2014 (most recent year available) had an average daily traffic volume of 86,000 in both directions with an almost even 50/50 directional split (so roughly 43,000 southbound approaching the Beltline).  An average daily volume of 86K correlates well with summer weekend (Saturday/Sunday) traffic.  Friday summer traffic is the busiest and is approximately 30% heavier.

Based on this (and as I mentioned above), you actually have over half of your southbound traffic exiting to the Beltline (and, conversely, half of your northbound traffic coming from the Beltline).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on September 09, 2018, 05:32:18 PM
Why couldn't WisDOT just go through with the original plans for the Beltline interchange?

What they are proposing is simply kicking the can down the road for 15-20 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 09, 2018, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 09, 2018, 05:32:18 PM
What they are proposing is simply kicking the can down the road for 15-20 years.

That appears to be their motto lately...whatever they can do to save money in the short-term.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on September 09, 2018, 05:52:10 PM
QuoteWhy couldn't WisDOT just go through with the original plans for the Beltline interchange?

Funding.  The governor and state legislature opted some years ago to no longer index the state gas tax to inflation, and the result is that WisDOT's buying power has been eroding since then.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 09, 2018, 08:35:46 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2018, 05:52:10 PM
QuoteWhy couldn't WisDOT just go through with the original plans for the Beltline interchange?

Funding.  The governor and state legislature opted some years ago to no longer index the state gas tax to inflation, and the result is that WisDOT's buying power has been eroding since then.
Cascade effect - and the politicians in the seats do not want to lose their jobs due to "mistakes" like raising taxes.  Nobody likes higher taxes. (even if they do help the funds) #NIMBY
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 10, 2018, 09:33:42 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 09, 2018, 08:35:46 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2018, 05:52:10 PM
QuoteWhy couldn't WisDOT just go through with the original plans for the Beltline interchange?

Funding.  The governor and state legislature opted some years ago to no longer index the state gas tax to inflation, and the result is that WisDOT's buying power has been eroding since then.
Cascade effect - and the politicians in the seats do not want to lose their jobs due to "mistakes" like raising taxes.  Nobody likes higher taxes. (even if they do help the funds) #NIMBY


Actually many of the Republicans are also wanting to restore the indexing.  Really its the governor who doesn't want it, and given the powerful veto that he wields, it will be nearly impossible to restore it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 11, 2018, 02:56:36 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 10, 2018, 09:33:42 AM
Actually many of the Republicans are also wanting to restore the indexing.  Really its the governor who doesn't want it, and given the powerful veto that he wields, it will be nearly impossible to restore it.

There's a solution to that this November...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 13, 2018, 09:11:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 11, 2018, 02:56:36 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 10, 2018, 09:33:42 AM
Actually many of the Republicans are also wanting to restore the indexing.  Really its the governor who doesn't want it, and given the powerful veto that he wields, it will be nearly impossible to restore it.

There's a solution to that this November...
I have never heard Evers say he wants to invest in roads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on September 13, 2018, 09:29:52 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 13, 2018, 09:11:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 11, 2018, 02:56:36 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 10, 2018, 09:33:42 AM
Actually many of the Republicans are also wanting to restore the indexing.  Really its the governor who doesn't want it, and given the powerful veto that he wields, it will be nearly impossible to restore it.

There's a solution to that this November...
I have never heard Evers say he wants to invest in roads.

I'm pretty sure he said that's one of his top priorities. If you look at his campaign platform he definitely says he wants to invest in roads and other types of transportation infrastructure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on September 14, 2018, 09:15:05 AM
And certainly it's got to be allies of his behind the "Scottholes" campaign.  And didn't I hear they even flew a banner over Lambeau Field before or during the game last Sunday?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 14, 2018, 09:57:53 AM
Please keep the partisan politics under control, OK?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 14, 2018, 12:37:47 PM
While this is veering a bit into partisan politics, these are excellent road-related points. No matter what side you're on, the (published) facts are that the quality of Wisconsin roads have declined greatly in recent years. The (published) facts are that it's because the transportation fund is running at a deficit. Yes, some of that can be controlled with spending, but the reality is that expenses grow over time, while the funding has stopped. That was also political. So, the two are intertwined, whether you want them to be or not. It's already a plank in the platform of the campaigns.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 15, 2018, 09:30:50 AM
The current governor is more interested in keeping his image squeaky clean for a presidential run than he is in funding the roads (Which would mean increasing the gas tax).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on September 15, 2018, 02:50:09 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 15, 2018, 09:30:50 AM
The current governor is more interested in keeping his image squeaky clean for a presidential run than he is in funding the roads (Which would mean increasing the gas tax).

I don't know if he's interested in another presidential run at this point but he's certainly trying to reshape his image for the governor's race. I don't think many of us are fooled by his campaign.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 16, 2018, 08:24:12 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 15, 2018, 02:50:09 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 15, 2018, 09:30:50 AM
The current governor is more interested in keeping his image squeaky clean for a presidential run than he is in funding the roads (Which would mean increasing the gas tax).

I don't know if he's interested in another presidential run at this point but he's certainly trying to reshape his image for the governor's race. I don't think many of us are fooled by his campaign.
Regardless, he is only interested in self-interest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 17, 2018, 09:37:07 AM
Apparently it's not just roadgeeks that are seeing WisDOT's plans for the Beltline interchange as cheaping out:


Critics call WisDOT's preferred plan for I-39/90 at Beltline 'brand-new bottleneck'
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/critics-call-wisdot-s-preferred-plan-for-i--at/article_179d47a1-8812-5dbd-89dc-73c55aaf9f1e.html (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/critics-call-wisdot-s-preferred-plan-for-i--at/article_179d47a1-8812-5dbd-89dc-73c55aaf9f1e.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 19, 2018, 04:48:08 PM
Rebuild the interchange right the first time (6 lanes, right-hand-only exit and entrance ramps), or don't rebuild the interchange at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on September 20, 2018, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 19, 2018, 04:48:08 PM
Rebuild the interchange right the first time (6 lanes, right-hand-only exit and entrance ramps), or don't rebuild the interchange at all.

The only ramp at that interchange that should even be a left exit is north I-39/90 to the westbound Beltline due to traffic volume.  Everything else should be on the right and only the right.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on September 20, 2018, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 09, 2018, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 09, 2018, 05:32:18 PM
What they are proposing is simply kicking the can down the road for 15-20 years.

That appears to be their motto lately...whatever they can do to save money in the short-term.

Could be worse.  You could have FIB-DOT in charge of your roads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 20, 2018, 10:27:14 AM
Quote from: Brandon on September 20, 2018, 09:24:08 AM
The only ramp at that interchange that should even be a left exit is north I-39/90 to the westbound Beltline due to traffic volume.  Everything else should be on the right and only the right.

I 100% agree with this.  The west and south approaches should be connected as fluidly as possible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on September 20, 2018, 09:58:12 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 20, 2018, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 19, 2018, 04:48:08 PM
Rebuild the interchange right the first time (6 lanes, right-hand-only exit and entrance ramps), or don't rebuild the interchange at all.

The only ramp at that interchange that should even be a left exit is north I-39/90 to the westbound Beltline due to traffic volume.  Everything else should be on the right and only the right.

If it were more of an even split, I could see that.  But almost 70% of northbound 39/90 traffic is remaining on 39/90 at the Beltline interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on September 20, 2018, 10:45:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 20, 2018, 09:58:12 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 20, 2018, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 19, 2018, 04:48:08 PM
Rebuild the interchange right the first time (6 lanes, right-hand-only exit and entrance ramps), or don't rebuild the interchange at all.

The only ramp at that interchange that should even be a left exit is north I-39/90 to the westbound Beltline due to traffic volume.  Everything else should be on the right and only the right.

If it were more of an even split, I could see that.  But almost 70% of northbound 39/90 traffic is remaining on 39/90 at the Beltline interchange.

This is why it should be 6 lanes throughout the whole interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on September 21, 2018, 11:39:19 AM
^ However, there's even more traffic going from the Beltline to northbound 39/90 than there is through traffic on 39/90.  Making 6 lanes through the interchange without adding lanes between the Beltline and 94 will just make the bottleneck worse.  Traffic coming from the Beltline needs its own dedicated lane once it reaches northbound 39/90.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 21, 2018, 12:33:21 PM
Yes, any rebuild of the Beltline Interchange should also add a fourth lane to 39/90 up to the Badger Interchange.
That would mean replacing the Cottage Grove Rd overpass, but that needs it anyway.  Gotta make that bridge four lanes with all the sprawl east of the interstate now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 21, 2018, 01:00:03 PM
^^You guys bring up a really good point.  Yeah, plenty of people from US12/18 are cutting north on I-39 to reach I-94 east.  Those trips warrant a third lane on I-39/90 between the two interchanges.  You might idealize that third lane as an auxiliary lane for the EB I-94 exit.  And of course you'd design for the reverse trip as well on I-39/90 SB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on September 24, 2018, 06:52:09 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 21, 2018, 01:00:03 PM
^^You guys bring up a really good point.  Yeah, plenty of people from US12/18 are cutting north on I-39 to reach I-94 east.  Those trips warrant a third lane on I-39/90 between the two interchanges.  You might idealize that third lane as an auxiliary lane for the EB I-94 exit.  And of course you'd design for the reverse trip as well on I-39/90 SB.

I agree with all this. Traffic also uses the beltline to I-39/90 to get to the US 151 exit (like I used to when traveling to Green Bay). The interstate needs to be rebuilt four lanes each way from the beltline to the US 151 exit with a stack or turbine at the Badger and C/D lanes at East Washington.

Edit: Just looked at G Maps. I haven't been up that way in a few years. I see they've already upgraded the part between I-94 and US 151/East Wash. Doesn't change the rest of it though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 24, 2018, 07:57:20 PM
The C/D lanes were at E Washington for over a decade.  The 8 lanes for at least 5 years.  Honestly about the rest, good luck 8-laning the beltline on this governor's budget.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 24, 2018, 10:29:49 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 24, 2018, 06:52:09 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 21, 2018, 01:00:03 PM
^^You guys bring up a really good point.  Yeah, plenty of people from US12/18 are cutting north on I-39 to reach I-94 east.  Those trips warrant a third lane on I-39/90 between the two interchanges.  You might idealize that third lane as an auxiliary lane for the EB I-94 exit.  And of course you'd design for the reverse trip as well on I-39/90 SB.

I agree with all this. Traffic also uses the beltline to I-39/90 to get to the US 151 exit (like I used to when traveling to Green Bay). The interstate needs to be rebuilt four lanes each way from the beltline to the US 151 exit with a stack or turbine at the Badger and C/D lanes at East Washington.

Edit: Just looked at G Maps. I haven't been up that way in a few years. I see they've already upgraded the part between I-94 and US 151/East Wash. Doesn't change the rest of it though.

And at least part of the cloverleaf of the Interstate @ E Washington already needs a redo. Thanks to the substantial growth in the AmFam business park just to the north, in addition to the growth in the city of Sun Prairie, the ramps to/from SB 151 to the interstate are a cluster in the AM and PM peaks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 25, 2018, 03:34:21 PM
The East Town interchange would benefit greatly from better ramps between south and northeast.  Hard to do without going to town on the whole thing; at least that's what I've found in my fictional sketching.

For the Beltline Interchange, now is the time to build it right the first time and save money in the future.
Pay now or pay a shit ton more in the coming years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 27, 2018, 09:54:31 PM
I did a very quick drive to the Green Bay area this afternoon.  A couple of similarly quick observations:

- NB I-41 ends just past the northbound merge gore point at the I-43 Howard Interchange on US 41/141 (that's where the 'END/I-41' signs are), while the 'BEGIN/I-41' sign is on an overhead BGS that is just past the southbound US 41/141 merge gore point at Lineville Rd.

- The US 41/141 freeway has a 70 speed limit northward until the last interchange before the highways split at the Abrams Interchange.

- The missing US 141 shield error on the overhead BGSes on NB US 41/141 just north of the I-43 Howard Interchange have been fixed.

- The US 141/County 'E' intersection just north of the Abrams Interchange has been redone as a Michigan Left.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2018/09/28/wisconsin-dot-knowingly-overpays-milwaukees-zoo-interchange/1443896002/

But the real problems are the roundabouts right?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 28, 2018, 03:59:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2018/09/28/wisconsin-dot-knowingly-overpays-milwaukees-zoo-interchange/1443896002/

But the real problems are the roundabouts right?

And unnecessary sign replacements  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on October 01, 2018, 02:31:35 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2018/09/28/wisconsin-dot-knowingly-overpays-milwaukees-zoo-interchange/1443896002/

But the real problems are the roundabouts right?

Is it too late to get the money back?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 08, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 28, 2018, 03:59:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2018/09/28/wisconsin-dot-knowingly-overpays-milwaukees-zoo-interchange/1443896002/

But the real problems are the roundabouts right?

And unnecessary sign replacements  :rolleyes:
And the answer is simply raise taxes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 08, 2018, 05:33:50 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 08, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 28, 2018, 03:59:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2018/09/28/wisconsin-dot-knowingly-overpays-milwaukees-zoo-interchange/1443896002/

But the real problems are the roundabouts right?

And unnecessary sign replacements  :rolleyes:
And the answer is simply raise taxes.


90% of WIDOT's issues are on the revenue side. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 08, 2018, 07:09:33 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 08, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 28, 2018, 03:59:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2018/09/28/wisconsin-dot-knowingly-overpays-milwaukees-zoo-interchange/1443896002/

But the real problems are the roundabouts right?

And unnecessary sign replacements  :rolleyes:
And the answer is simply raise taxes.

Yes it is. Or add tolls. The roads won't pay for themselves.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on October 08, 2018, 07:19:37 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 08, 2018, 07:09:33 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 08, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 28, 2018, 03:59:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2018/09/28/wisconsin-dot-knowingly-overpays-milwaukees-zoo-interchange/1443896002/

But the real problems are the roundabouts right?

And unnecessary sign replacements  :rolleyes:
And the answer is simply raise taxes.

Yes it is. Or add tolls. The roads won't pay for themselves.

Can we toll traffic coming in from Illinois on I-90 and I-94?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on October 14, 2018, 09:52:38 PM
Haven't seen this one mentioned yet, but it certainly deserves attention.

Come tomorrow morning, the South 27th Street (WIS 241) interchange with I-41/94 at the Milwaukee-Racine will be no more. The plan is to convert S. 27th into a smooth segue with Frontage Road to Seven Mile Road. And the longtime interchange at the county line will be permanently removed.

Next, the northbound 41/94 lanes will move to the west a bit, leading up to an interchange with a to-be-constructed Elm Road. This will allow more separation between the old S. 27th and Seven Mile Road exits. And cede the current northbound lanes back to nature. The new Elm Road will be the new connector between 41/94 and S. 27th, and likely, the future southern terminus of WIS 241.

As for now, I imagine the de facto southern terminus of WIS 241 will be at the Ryan Rd. (WIS 100) interchange.

https://projects.511wi.gov/i94northsouth/corridor-construction-projects/27th-street-interchange/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 14, 2018, 10:22:24 PM
The reroute serves right.  The half-interchange did not make sense in the first place - even when it pulled US-41 off the freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on October 15, 2018, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 14, 2018, 09:52:38 PM
Haven't seen this one mentioned yet, but it certainly deserves attention.

Come tomorrow morning, the South 27th Street (WIS 241) interchange with I-41/94 at the Milwaukee-Racine will be no more. The plan is to convert S. 27th into a smooth segue with Frontage Road to Seven Mile Road. And the longtime interchange at the county line will be permanently removed.

Next, the northbound 41/94 lanes will move to the west a bit, leading up to an interchange with a to-be-constructed Elm Road. This will allow more separation between the old S. 27th and Seven Mile Road exits. And cede the current northbound lanes back to nature. The new Elm Road will be the new connector between 41/94 and S. 27th, and likely, the future southern terminus of WIS 241.

As for now, I imagine the de facto southern terminus of WIS 241 will be at the Ryan Rd. (WIS 100) interchange.

https://projects.511wi.gov/i94northsouth/corridor-construction-projects/27th-street-interchange/

Does this mean that 241 will go along Elm Rd until it connects with 94/41?

Also I wonder what new development will be built there once the new road is constructed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2018, 08:58:19 AM
It would be a good opportunity to decommission WI-241 and end WI-36 at I-41/43/894.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on October 15, 2018, 09:14:26 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 14, 2018, 10:22:24 PM
The reroute serves right.  The half-interchange did not make sense in the first place - even when it pulled US-41 off the freeway.
The half-interchange is a remnant of the days prior to I-94, when US 41 (S. 27th St.) continued straight through to the Illinois border. It still allowed smooth access to the many businesses along the road that served travelers (though most of those businesses today consist of run-down motels.) The Elm Road exit will allow access from both directions, adequate spacing from the Seven Mile interchange and the opportunity to move the northbound lanes closer to the southbound lanes, allowing that land to be turned over to natural preserve. In addition, there will be a smooth connection between S. 27th and the west Frontage Road, leading to Seven Mile.

As for the WIS 241 routing, I would assume that would follow along Elm Road, since that will pretty much be the new 27th St. interchange. As for amenities, probably the same type of truck stops, gas stations and hotels that haven't already cluttered the other interchanges. Especially for the Foxconn interests.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on October 15, 2018, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2018, 08:58:19 AM
It would be a good opportunity to decommission WI-241 and end WI-36 at I-41/43/894.
Unlikely. WIS 241 is a pretty major road on the south side. Also lots of newer development there. Plus, the counties typically hold on to state route mileage until needed for other projects (such as WIS 794 replacing WIS 62, or Waukesha County dropping WIS 74 to complete the US 18 bypass). If any state route mileage leaves Milwaukee County, I would expect WIS 24 or parts of WIS 57 to go first.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2018, 09:42:14 AM
Yeah I know it is unlikely for the reasons you state.  I just don't think urban state highways along surface streets are really necessary. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 15, 2018, 03:04:02 PM
I'm going to miss that section of wide median on I-41/94.

<sniffle...>

Mike

:-P
Title: WI 23 upgrades are back on
Post by: mgk920 on October 16, 2018, 03:53:50 PM
WisDOT is confident on the latest environmental review (the FHWA just signed off on it) and is planning on a spring 2019 start for four lane upgrades to the remaining two lane part of WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan (the part west of about WI 67).  Completion is expected in 2023.

https://wtaq.com/news/articles/2018/oct/16/attention-on-dangerous-stretch-of-highway/

:cheers:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 16, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
I hope that is the case. But based on recent history on four-laning WIS-23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth, I believe some skepticism is warranted.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: msunat97 on October 16, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/outagamie-officials-seek-brown-county-support-41-speed-limit/1565346002/

What does everyone think about this article?  Seems like a Band-Aid solution to this problem.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 16, 2018, 05:41:59 PM
Quote from: msunat97 on October 16, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/outagamie-officials-seek-brown-county-support-41-speed-limit/1565346002/

What does everyone think about this article?  Seems like a Band-Aid solution to this problem.


I live in the area, and I-41 can be pretty fast and full of traffic between WI-15 and Scheuring Road.  It is definitely in need of an expansion.

That being said, 55mph is a joke.  If they want to reduce it to 65 mph between WI-15 and County J (northernmost Kaukauna exit), I would be fine with that.  I could even go for 60 mph.  But as the article states, between Kaukauna and DePere the traffic counts go down. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tribar on October 16, 2018, 05:44:26 PM
Quote from: msunat97 on October 16, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/outagamie-officials-seek-brown-county-support-41-speed-limit/1565346002/

What does everyone think about this article?  Seems like a Band-Aid solution to this problem.

What a terrible idea. 55 mph on a rural stretch of freeway is ridiculous. 70 is low enough.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 16, 2018, 05:55:56 PM
It is a very fast highway - one of the, if not the, fastest highways in the entire state - flowing at much the current speed in clear traffic for several decades now.

As is fairly commonly known in here - 'Speed limit ≠ average speed of clear traffic'.

Mike
Title: Re: WI 23 upgrades are back on
Post by: MantyMadTown on October 16, 2018, 08:46:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 16, 2018, 03:53:50 PM
WisDOT is confident on the latest environmental review (the FHWA just signed off on it) and is planning on a spring 2019 start for four lane upgrades to the remaining two lane part of WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan (the part west of about WI 67).  Completion is expected in 2023.

https://wtaq.com/news/articles/2018/oct/16/attention-on-dangerous-stretch-of-highway/

:cheers:

Mike

Yes! I've been wanting that for a long time.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 16, 2018, 05:41:59 PM
Quote from: msunat97 on October 16, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/outagamie-officials-seek-brown-county-support-41-speed-limit/1565346002/

What does everyone think about this article?  Seems like a Band-Aid solution to this problem.


I live in the area, and I-41 can be pretty fast and full of traffic between WI-15 and Scheuring Road.  It is definitely in need of an expansion.

That being said, 55mph is a joke.  If they want to reduce it to 65 mph between WI-15 and County J (northernmost Kaukauna exit), I would be fine with that.  I could even go for 60 mph.  But as the article states, between Kaukauna and DePere the traffic counts go down.

Yeah I don't think lowering the speed limit between Kaukauna and De Pere would be a good idea. Setting it to 55 won't make drivers any slower. If anything, it'll just unnecessarily slow travel times between Green Bay and Appleton.

I do think I-41 should be expanded though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on October 16, 2018, 10:12:46 PM
Quote from: tribar on October 16, 2018, 05:44:26 PM
Quote from: msunat97 on October 16, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/outagamie-officials-seek-brown-county-support-41-speed-limit/1565346002/

What does everyone think about this article?  Seems like a Band-Aid solution to this problem.

What a terrible idea. 55 mph on a rural stretch of freeway is ridiculous. 70 is low enough.

I think those county officials need to drive the work zone on I-39/I-90 and few times and see how well the 55 mph limit is obeyed when there is not a cop around.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on October 16, 2018, 10:44:10 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 16, 2018, 10:12:46 PM
Quote from: tribar on October 16, 2018, 05:44:26 PM
Quote from: msunat97 on October 16, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/outagamie-officials-seek-brown-county-support-41-speed-limit/1565346002/

What does everyone think about this article?  Seems like a Band-Aid solution to this problem.

What a terrible idea. 55 mph on a rural stretch of freeway is ridiculous. 70 is low enough.

I think those county officials need to drive the work zone on I-39/I-90 and few times and see how well the 55 mph limit is obeyed when there is not a cop around.

Amateurs.

Amateurs are the only people who would propose a speed limit reduction as a safety measure on a rural freeway.  Either that or extortionists. 

I say this having just completed two speed studies at work today LOL
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on October 17, 2018, 12:42:29 AM
Would be odd going 70 in an urban area going to 55 in a rural area.  Opposite of what is expected.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on October 17, 2018, 01:01:42 AM
Quote from: Big John on October 17, 2018, 12:42:29 AM
Would be odd going 70 in an urban area going to 55 in a rural area.  Opposite of what is expected.

I think they would slow it down in Green Bay too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 17, 2018, 05:11:04 AM
As a frequent I-41 driver between Green Bay and Appleton, the biggest problem by far is people hogging the left lane.  It's either older people who don't care that they're slowing traffic or younger people using their phones and not knowing that they're driving slower and holding up traffic.  There's days I pass more on the right than the left.

The state patrol should emphasize enforcement in ticketing drivers who stay in the left lane without attempting to pass and camp out in that lane.  That would help cut down on the root of the problem with I-41.  The speed limit isn't an issue at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 17, 2018, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 17, 2018, 05:11:04 AM
As a frequent I-41 driver between Green Bay and Appleton, the biggest problem by far is people hogging the left lane.  It's either older people who don't care that they're slowing traffic or younger people using their phones and not knowing that they're driving slower and holding up traffic.  There's days I pass more on the right than the left.

The state patrol should emphasize enforcement in ticketing drivers who stay in the left lane without attempting to pass and camp out in that lane.  That would help cut down on the root of the problem with I-41.  The speed limit isn't an issue at all.
Say that a little louder to them so they'll listen...

Oh wait, they won't. Not profitable.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 17, 2018, 08:56:39 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 17, 2018, 05:11:04 AM
As a frequent I-41 driver between Green Bay and Appleton, the biggest problem by far is people hogging the left lane.  It's either older people who don't care that they're slowing traffic or younger people using their phones and not knowing that they're driving slower and holding up traffic.  There's days I pass more on the right than the left.

The state patrol should emphasize enforcement in ticketing drivers who stay in the left lane without attempting to pass and camp out in that lane.  That would help cut down on the root of the problem with I-41.  The speed limit isn't an issue at all.


Part of the problem is the truck traffic as well.  That slows everyone down because you have trucks going 70 mph and people passing them going 72.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 17, 2018, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 17, 2018, 01:01:42 AM
Quote from: Big John on October 17, 2018, 12:42:29 AM
Would be odd going 70 in an urban area going to 55 in a rural area.  Opposite of what is expected.

I think they would slow it down in Green Bay too.


There is zero reason to slow it down in Green Bay.  The three lanes with exit lanes means traffic is moving just fine even at the height of rush hour.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 17, 2018, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 17, 2018, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 17, 2018, 01:01:42 AM
Quote from: Big John on October 17, 2018, 12:42:29 AM
Would be odd going 70 in an urban area going to 55 in a rural area.  Opposite of what is expected.

I think they would slow it down in Green Bay too.

There is zero reason to slow it down in Green Bay.  The three lanes with exit lanes means traffic is moving just fine even at the height of rush hour.

Most of I-41 in the Green Bay area is FOUR through lanes in each direction, roomy as all get-go and with free-flowing traffic even after Packer games.  The big post-game backups are now where it condenses from three to two southbound lanes just southwest of Scheuring Rd and on to the Appleton area, normally backing up to about the final on-ramp merge at Ashland Ave.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on October 18, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: msunat97 on October 16, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/outagamie-officials-seek-brown-county-support-41-speed-limit/1565346002/

What does everyone think about this article?  Seems like a Band-Aid solution to this problem.

Seems like the forest is on fire and they are filling the gas can to fuel it more. If anything they are tearing the band aid off and making the wound worse :eyebrow:

Artificially lowering the speed limit by using signage will do nothing.  If anything it will create a larger speed differential... more crashes are guaranteed as the rule followers will do 60 and the rule breakers (They won't be able to enforce it enough to bring down these drivers to 60) will do 70 weaving in and out between lanes to pass slower drivers.  These maneuvers only cause more crashes.

They only way they slow drivers down to 55 from 70 is by changing roadway context and that is not going to happen on a rural freeway section.  One thing to consider would be more low cost ITS technologies: additional message boards, ramp meters to create gaps in traffic entering 41 (drivers are bad at merging, this spreads them out), if permissible by state law consideration of variable speed limits set by DOT, and lane control designation signs to help when incidents occur.  Pair that with enforcement (add some hidden enforcement pads as they did with the 41 projects in Winnebago & Brown counties) of existing speeding issues, tailgating, and slow drivers in the left lane rules and they would see much better results.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 21, 2018, 12:26:01 AM
I-43 is finally smoothed out in Northern Ozaukee County with the latest diamond grind.  No dowel bar retrofit so how long will it last?  Also interesting that the short freeway section of Wis 57 isn't getting worked on. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 10:11:06 AM
Quote from: msunat97 on October 16, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/outagamie-officials-seek-brown-county-support-41-speed-limit/1565346002/

What does everyone think about this article?  Seems like a Band-Aid solution to this problem.


So the Outagamie County Board did pass a resolution last night.  It is requesting a 55 mph zone from County BB (Prospect Ave.) outside of Appleton to County J near Kaukauna. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 24, 2018, 12:15:54 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 15, 2018, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2018, 08:58:19 AM
It would be a good opportunity to decommission WI-241 and end WI-36 at I-41/43/894.
Unlikely. WIS 241 is a pretty major road on the south side. Also lots of newer development there. Plus, the counties typically hold on to state route mileage until needed for other projects (such as WIS 794 replacing WIS 62, or Waukesha County dropping WIS 74 to complete the US 18 bypass). If any state route mileage leaves Milwaukee County, I would expect WIS 24 or parts of WIS 57 to go first.
I thought 74 was dropped because Menomonee Falls wanted it. It had nothing to do with the Waukesha bypass as 18 inside the bypass was turned over to the city of Waukesha that was already the tradeoff with the bypass. Why would you want 241 decommissioned? Aside from it being a major route on the southside haven't we had more than enough of that already? I know many disagree with me on this but I think the 74 decommissioning was a huge mistake it being once the major route between I-41 and the Sussex Pewaukee area. Now that Menomonee Falls owns the road they put that stupid truck weight limit on it while the Sussex Pewaukee areas has a lot of major industries including Quad Graphics. Now trucks have to take major detours to get to them. It was unfair that the falls got what they wanted but Sussex and Pewaukee had no say in it. We had to screw up industry just so the falls could make their downtown perfect not very smart.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 24, 2018, 12:15:54 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 15, 2018, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2018, 08:58:19 AM
It would be a good opportunity to decommission WI-241 and end WI-36 at I-41/43/894.
Unlikely. WIS 241 is a pretty major road on the south side. Also lots of newer development there. Plus, the counties typically hold on to state route mileage until needed for other projects (such as WIS 794 replacing WIS 62, or Waukesha County dropping WIS 74 to complete the US 18 bypass). If any state route mileage leaves Milwaukee County, I would expect WIS 24 or parts of WIS 57 to go first.
I thought 74 was dropped because Menomonee Falls wanted it. It had nothing to do with the Waukesha bypass as 18 inside the bypass was turned over to the city of Waukesha that was already the tradeoff with the bypass. Why would you want 241 decommissioned? Aside from it being a major route on the southside haven't we had more than enough of that already? I know many disagree with me on this but I think the 74 decommissioning was a huge mistake it being once the major route between I-41 and the Sussex Pewaukee area. Now that Menomonee Falls owns the road they put that stupid truck weight limit on it while the Sussex Pewaukee areas has a lot of major industries including Quad Graphics. Now trucks have to take major detours to get to them. It was unfair that the falls got what they wanted but Sussex and Pewaukee had no say in it. We had to screw up industry just so the falls could make their downtown perfect not very smart.


WI-74 was decommissioned when WI-318 came about. And 318 is much more important than WI-74.

And I want WI-241 decommissioned because I don't see much purpose to state highways on major city streets.  Unless they aid navigation, why even have them?

So I would have all highways end at WI-100 in Milwaukee.  I would reroute US-151 in Madison to the freeways.  The only route that would survive in Green Bay is US-141, etc.  That doesn't mean that they would go without state funding.  Just no longer signed. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2018, 02:39:14 PM
As a remnant of US 41's former route, I think the STH-241 designation has merit. As for US 151 being rerouted to the freeways around Madison, I doubt that will ever happen. Maybe someday, Chris Bessert will find the time to update his Wisconsin Highways website to include STH-318 in the Routes 200-399 page.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 24, 2018, 05:54:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
...And I want WI-241 decommissioned because I don't see much purpose to state highways on major city streets.  Unless they aid navigation, why even have them?...

Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "major city street"? Should WIS 23 disappear within Fond du Lac? WIS 125 in Appleton? While I can see merit to a few of them (e.g., US 151 in Madison, but based on volume), I see the potential for a lot of unnecessary multiplexes or black holes in routing. Other than a few extra signs, I don't see what they're hurting.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 24, 2018, 06:31:18 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 24, 2018, 12:15:54 PM
I know many disagree with me on this but I think the 74 decommissioning was a huge mistake it being once the major route between I-41 and the Sussex Pewaukee area. Now that Menomonee Falls owns the road they put that stupid truck weight limit on it while the Sussex Pewaukee areas has a lot of major industries including Quad Graphics. Now trucks have to take major detours to get to them. It was unfair that the falls got what they wanted but Sussex and Pewaukee had no say in it. We had to screw up industry just so the falls could make their downtown perfect not very smart.

I don't think WI 74 was the best truck route to get to Quad Graphics from I-41 anyway.  But I do agree there were more worth state highway demotions in that region that could've been used instead.  (Like WI 57 south of Port; or at least south of Capitol Dr)




I drove the two-lane WI 23 just last week and I'm still convinced there are better places for WI to spend money than on four-laning that road.  Hold the R/W, for sure, but I've never seen the volume to justify it every time I go there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 24, 2018, 07:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
So I would have all highways end at WI-100 in Milwaukee.  I would reroute US-151 in Madison to the freeways.  The only route that would survive in Green Bay is US-141, etc.  That doesn't mean that they would go without state funding.  Just no longer signed. 

There's a purpose to the US-151 routing through downtown Madison. Personally, I'd would reroute US-151 to the Beltline and I-39/90, but then sign a new Hwy 1 on John Nolen Drive from the Beltline, then over the current US-151 routing back to I-39/90/94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 09:19:12 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 24, 2018, 07:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
So I would have all highways end at WI-100 in Milwaukee.  I would reroute US-151 in Madison to the freeways.  The only route that would survive in Green Bay is US-141, etc.  That doesn't mean that they would go without state funding.  Just no longer signed. 

There's a purpose to the US-151 routing through downtown Madison. Personally, I'd would reroute US-151 to the Beltline and I-39/90, but then sign a new Hwy 1 on John Nolen Drive from the Beltline, then over the current US-151 routing back to I-39/90/94.


What is the purpose?  It's not the direct route through downtown, especially on the west side.  It sends drivers down Park Street, which is the long way to get anywhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on October 24, 2018, 09:43:28 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 24, 2018, 07:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
So I would have all highways end at WI-100 in Milwaukee.  I would reroute US-151 in Madison to the freeways.  The only route that would survive in Green Bay is US-141, etc.  That doesn't mean that they would go without state funding.  Just no longer signed. 

There's a purpose to the US-151 routing through downtown Madison. Personally, I'd would reroute US-151 to the Beltline and I-39/90, but then sign a new Hwy 1 on John Nolen Drive from the Beltline, then over the current US-151 routing back to I-39/90/94.

I like the John Nolen Drive idea. It seems like a much better fit for the route than Park St.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on October 25, 2018, 09:28:02 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 09:19:12 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 24, 2018, 07:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
So I would have all highways end at WI-100 in Milwaukee.  I would reroute US-151 in Madison to the freeways.  The only route that would survive in Green Bay is US-141, etc.  That doesn't mean that they would go without state funding.  Just no longer signed. 

There's a purpose to the US-151 routing through downtown Madison. Personally, I'd would reroute US-151 to the Beltline and I-39/90, but then sign a new Hwy 1 on John Nolen Drive from the Beltline, then over the current US-151 routing back to I-39/90/94.
What is the purpose?  It's not the direct route through downtown, especially on the west side.  It sends drivers down Park Street, which is the long way to get anywhere.

Trucks.  Trucks need a truck route into places.  Using Indianapolis as an example for a place with no state or US routes, I don't understand how we allow state DOTs to abandon their responsibility to maintain a thorough network of truck routes.  Now that Indianapolis canceled every US and state route inside of I-465, I haven't the foggiest idea where you would be allowed to drive a truck.  Of course, there ARE still truck routes, but they aren't maintained by the state.  Madison has more truck routes too, other than US151, but I don't see why a municipality would want to maintain the truck routes, since they're the most heavily damaged by far, and thus the costliest to maintain.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 25, 2018, 10:36:51 AM
There is traffic that transits the Madison area between US 151 to the northeast and US 151 to the southwest and it is difficult to describe the 'best' routing (the interstate and the Beltline) to some of those drivers, who are unfamiliar with the area.  This is very similar to what the situation WRT US 41 through Milwaukee County was for travelers between Chicagoland and the Fox Valley (Appleton, Oshkosh, etc) before I-41 was marked.  For that reason, I would reroute US 151 to follow that all-freeway routing and give the current through town route a new number.

As for US 141, I'd decommission it south of the Abrams interchange (US 41 split north of metro Green Bay).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2018, 11:20:03 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 25, 2018, 09:28:02 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 09:19:12 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 24, 2018, 07:31:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
So I would have all highways end at WI-100 in Milwaukee.  I would reroute US-151 in Madison to the freeways.  The only route that would survive in Green Bay is US-141, etc.  That doesn't mean that they would go without state funding.  Just no longer signed. 

There's a purpose to the US-151 routing through downtown Madison. Personally, I'd would reroute US-151 to the Beltline and I-39/90, but then sign a new Hwy 1 on John Nolen Drive from the Beltline, then over the current US-151 routing back to I-39/90/94.
What is the purpose?  It's not the direct route through downtown, especially on the west side.  It sends drivers down Park Street, which is the long way to get anywhere.

Trucks.  Trucks need a truck route into places.  Using Indianapolis as an example for a place with no state or US routes, I don't understand how we allow state DOTs to abandon their responsibility to maintain a thorough network of truck routes.  Now that Indianapolis canceled every US and state route inside of I-465, I haven't the foggiest idea where you would be allowed to drive a truck.  Of course, there ARE still truck routes, but they aren't maintained by the state.  Madison has more truck routes too, other than US151, but I don't see why a municipality would want to maintain the truck routes, since they're the most heavily damaged by far, and thus the costliest to maintain.


Again, I would decouple the idea of state maintenance from signage.  The state can still maintain the route, it just should be signed best to aid navigation.  Wisconsin has gotten ridiculous with how it signs highways now due to it being coupled with maintenance - look at US-45's re-route around Fond du Lac.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on October 25, 2018, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 24, 2018, 12:15:54 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 15, 2018, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2018, 08:58:19 AM
It would be a good opportunity to decommission WI-241 and end WI-36 at I-41/43/894.
Unlikely. WIS 241 is a pretty major road on the south side. Also lots of newer development there. Plus, the counties typically hold on to state route mileage until needed for other projects (such as WIS 794 replacing WIS 62, or Waukesha County dropping WIS 74 to complete the US 18 bypass). If any state route mileage leaves Milwaukee County, I would expect WIS 24 or parts of WIS 57 to go first.
I thought 74 was dropped because Menomonee Falls wanted it. It had nothing to do with the Waukesha bypass as 18 inside the bypass was turned over to the city of Waukesha that was already the tradeoff with the bypass. Why would you want 241 decommissioned? Aside from it being a major route on the southside haven't we had more than enough of that already? I know many disagree with me on this but I think the 74 decommissioning was a huge mistake it being once the major route between I-41 and the Sussex Pewaukee area. Now that Menomonee Falls owns the road they put that stupid truck weight limit on it while the Sussex Pewaukee areas has a lot of major industries including Quad Graphics. Now trucks have to take major detours to get to them. It was unfair that the falls got what they wanted but Sussex and Pewaukee had no say in it. We had to screw up industry just so the falls could make their downtown perfect not very smart.
As I understand it, Wisconsin maintains a tight mileage budget on state highways. To  create a new route, equivalent mileage needs to be taken away somewhere. And I think it goes by county (i.e. WIS 62 in Cudahy disappeared once nearby WIS 794 was designated).

Menomonee Falls wanting to take over Main Street was just one factor in the demise of WIS 74 (aside from the fact that most of the route had already been taken away or re-routed many times. WIS 74 stuck around only long enough to set the designation of the west Waukesha bypass (including the soon-to-be relocated US 18 and the new WIS 318 connector to I-94). With that, WIS 74 could finally be removed.

As I've said before, I'm guessing the only reason WIS 24, and WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive, exist, is to swap for possible future routes, or to merely hold on to their state mileage. I still stand by my idea of Good Hope Road being upgraded to a state route. It's a really good east-west route, and quite a bit quicker than WIS 100 and WIS 190 above and below them. Since the Bay Freeway was never built, this could almost come close.

ON EDIT: I realized that WIS 57 probably exists south of Capitol Drive because of the 27th Street bridge over the Menomonee Valley. Makes more sense than running a state highway up N. 20th Street. Also makes me wonder why Layton Blvd. doesn't meet state route standards while that puny little street does.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2018, 11:50:14 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 25, 2018, 10:15:34 PM
ON EDIT: I realized that WIS 57 probably exists south of Capitol Drive because of the 27th Street bridge over the Menomonee Valley. Makes more sense than running a state highway up N. 20th Street. Also makes me wonder why Layton Blvd. doesn't meet state route standards while that puny little street does.


It could be the reason but I'm not sure.  There are large viaducts the valley at 16th, 27th and 35th street, and only the 27th one has a state highway designation.

WI-57 has been on that route from the very beginning of the state highway system.  In fact it used to head south along Layton Blvd and WI-241 to Racine before being supplanted by US-41. 

Layton Blvd lost its highway designation because the people in that neighborhood no longer wanted it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 26, 2018, 05:19:59 PM
Here's an explaination on what happened to old US 41 on Layton Blvd. in 1999: http://wisconsinhighways.org/listings/WiscHwys200-399.html
See the STH-241 and Former STH-341 entries for details.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 12, 2018, 12:31:15 AM
https://fox11online.com/news/local/appletons-diverging-diamond-interchange-opening-on-saturday

WISDOT just opened the new diverging diamond interchange at WIS 441 and US 10/Oneida St in Appleton last Saturday. Have any of you checked it out?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 12, 2018, 01:46:47 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 12, 2018, 12:31:15 AM
https://fox11online.com/news/local/appletons-diverging-diamond-interchange-opening-on-saturday

WISDOT just opened the new diverging diamond interchange at WIS 441 and US 10/Oneida St in Appleton last Saturday. Have any of you checked it out?

I just drove through it as I arrived back in the city from a daytrip to Milwaukee a couple of hours ago.  Very simple and straightforward to navigate 'on the ground'.  The rest of the street from there to downtown Appleton is pretty nice now, too.  BTW, IMHO, WisDOT should mark it as a state highway (WI 510?), since the last that I heard it still is one, albeit a 'secret' one, from US 10/WI 441 northwards to and across the Fox River bridge ('Oneida Skyline Bridge').

The Appleton Police Department has also reported no problems with it so far.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on November 12, 2018, 02:00:49 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 25, 2018, 10:15:34 PM

As I understand it, Wisconsin maintains a tight mileage budget on state highways. To  create a new route, equivalent mileage needs to be taken away somewhere. And I think it goes by county (i.e. WIS 62 in Cudahy disappeared once nearby WIS 794 was designated).

I believe this is correct; I noticed that WI-184 disappeared and changed to Co "H" when they extended WI-104.


Quote
As I've said before, I'm guessing the only reason WIS 24, and WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive, exist, is to swap for possible future routes, or to merely hold on to their state mileage. I still stand by my idea of Good Hope Road being upgraded to a state route. It's a really good east-west route, and quite a bit quicker than WIS 100 and WIS 190 above and below them. Since the Bay Freeway was never built, this could almost come close.

I've never been able to figure out why WI-24 just arbitrarily ends like it does at the Milwaukee/Waukesha CO line.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on November 12, 2018, 09:46:37 AM
Quote from: mrose on November 12, 2018, 02:00:49 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 25, 2018, 10:15:34 PM

As I understand it, Wisconsin maintains a tight mileage budget on state highways. To  create a new route, equivalent mileage needs to be taken away somewhere. And I think it goes by county (i.e. WIS 62 in Cudahy disappeared once nearby WIS 794 was designated).

I believe this is correct; I noticed that WI-184 disappeared and changed to Co "H" when they extended WI-104.


Quote
As I've said before, I'm guessing the only reason WIS 24, and WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive, exist, is to swap for possible future routes, or to merely hold on to their state mileage. I still stand by my idea of Good Hope Road being upgraded to a state route. It's a really good east-west route, and quite a bit quicker than WIS 100 and WIS 190 above and below them. Since the Bay Freeway was never built, this could almost come close.

I've never been able to figure out why WI-24 just arbitrarily ends like it does at the Milwaukee/Waukesha CO line.
And if WIS 794 ever gets extended down to WIS 100, Milwaukee County will need the mileage. WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive will probably be first to go. N 20th St. isn't what I would consider an optimal state route. And N 27th St. runs through one of the worst sections of town. But, as someone else pointed out, it's probably because of the bridge over the Valley.

WIS 24, on the other hand, is a pretty important route on the south side. Strange how it just ends abruptly at the county line.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 12, 2018, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 12, 2018, 09:46:37 AM
Quote from: mrose on November 12, 2018, 02:00:49 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 25, 2018, 10:15:34 PM

As I understand it, Wisconsin maintains a tight mileage budget on state highways. To  create a new route, equivalent mileage needs to be taken away somewhere. And I think it goes by county (i.e. WIS 62 in Cudahy disappeared once nearby WIS 794 was designated).

I believe this is correct; I noticed that WI-184 disappeared and changed to Co "H" when they extended WI-104.


Quote
As I've said before, I'm guessing the only reason WIS 24, and WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive, exist, is to swap for possible future routes, or to merely hold on to their state mileage. I still stand by my idea of Good Hope Road being upgraded to a state route. It's a really good east-west route, and quite a bit quicker than WIS 100 and WIS 190 above and below them. Since the Bay Freeway was never built, this could almost come close.

I've never been able to figure out why WI-24 just arbitrarily ends like it does at the Milwaukee/Waukesha CO line.
And if WIS 794 ever gets extended down to WIS 100, Milwaukee County will need the mileage. WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive will probably be first to go. N 20th St. isn't what I would consider an optimal state route. And N 27th St. runs through one of the worst sections of town. But, as someone else pointed out, it's probably because of the bridge over the Valley.

WIS 24, on the other hand, is a pretty important route on the south side. Strange how it just ends abruptly at the county line.

WISDOT should re-extend it to WIS 164 or WIS 83.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2018, 10:53:07 AM
Why?  It's basically a local road that parallels I-43 the entire way.

I really, really don't like how Wisconsin ties the highway designation with funding.  Highway designations should first and foremost help to aid navigation, and navigation has gotten messed up too many times.

US-45 in Fond du Lac...WI-57 in Milwaukee...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on November 13, 2018, 04:56:04 PM
WisDot is probably trying to transfer WI-24 over to local control, but Waukesha County is the only one that accepted the offer.  That would explain why it ends abruptly at the county line.  The freight trucks that would use WI-24 probably all use I-43 now, so WisDot probably finds WI-24 to be redundant, now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2018, 05:40:37 PM
My recollection is that they eliminated WI-24 in Waukesha County when WI-164 was extended south to end at WI-36.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 13, 2018, 06:53:15 PM
If WIS 24 is supposed to end at the Waukesha County line then I don't see any benefit of keeping it past 108th St. There isn't anything past there that makes it worth keeping unless it goes all the way to Muskego or WIS 164.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 14, 2018, 12:38:53 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 13, 2018, 06:53:15 PM
If WIS 24 is supposed to end at the Waukesha County line then I don't see any benefit of keeping it past 108th St. There isn't anything past there that makes it worth keeping unless it goes all the way to Muskego or WIS 164.


Right.  Really the entire designation of the highway is meaningless as are most urban state highways. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 14, 2018, 03:15:54 PM
I wonder why they only truncated it to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980's. It should have been truncated to US 45/STH-100. STH-24 west of 45/100 could have also been CTH-L, as I do not think there is a CTH-L in Milwaukee County. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 14, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 14, 2018, 03:15:54 PM
I wonder why they only truncated it to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980's. It should have been truncated to US 45/STH-100. STH-24 west of 45/100 could have also been CTH-L, as I do not think there is a CTH-L in Milwaukee County. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.


My guess is that Milwaukee County is holding onto every inch of state highway it can. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 14, 2018, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 14, 2018, 03:15:54 PM
I wonder why they only truncated it to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980's. It should have been truncated to US 45/STH-100. STH-24 west of 45/100 could have also been CTH-L, as I do not think there is a CTH-L in Milwaukee County. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. I also like the idea of extending CTH-L to follow the rest of WIS 24 until US 45/WIS 100.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 14, 2018, 07:30:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2018, 10:53:07 AM
Why?  It's basically a local road that parallels I-43 the entire way.

I really, really don't like how Wisconsin ties the highway designation with funding.  Highway designations should first and foremost help to aid navigation, and navigation has gotten messed up too many times.

US-45 in Fond du Lac...WI-57 in Milwaukee...
Not really WI-24 or what used to be of it is really a good 2 or 3 miles south of I-43 in Muskego. It really isn't until west of Big Bend it gets closer. I really think WI-24 should be restored in it's entire length but if it just was up to WI-164 I would be just fine with that. There is enough traffic east of Big Bend to justify it as a state highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 14, 2018, 07:33:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 24, 2018, 12:15:54 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 15, 2018, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2018, 08:58:19 AM
It would be a good opportunity to decommission WI-241 and end WI-36 at I-41/43/894.
Unlikely. WIS 241 is a pretty major road on the south side. Also lots of newer development there. Plus, the counties typically hold on to state route mileage until needed for other projects (such as WIS 794 replacing WIS 62, or Waukesha County dropping WIS 74 to complete the US 18 bypass). If any state route mileage leaves Milwaukee County, I would expect WIS 24 or parts of WIS 57 to go first.
I thought 74 was dropped because Menomonee Falls wanted it. It had nothing to do with the Waukesha bypass as 18 inside the bypass was turned over to the city of Waukesha that was already the tradeoff with the bypass. Why would you want 241 decommissioned? Aside from it being a major route on the southside haven't we had more than enough of that already? I know many disagree with me on this but I think the 74 decommissioning was a huge mistake it being once the major route between I-41 and the Sussex Pewaukee area. Now that Menomonee Falls owns the road they put that stupid truck weight limit on it while the Sussex Pewaukee areas has a lot of major industries including Quad Graphics. Now trucks have to take major detours to get to them. It was unfair that the falls got what they wanted but Sussex and Pewaukee had no say in it. We had to screw up industry just so the falls could make their downtown perfect not very smart.


WI-74 was decommissioned when WI-318 came about. And 318 is much more important than WI-74.

And I want WI-241 decommissioned because I don't see much purpose to state highways on major city streets.  Unless they aid navigation, why even have them?

So I would have all highways end at WI-100 in Milwaukee.  I would reroute US-151 in Madison to the freeways.  The only route that would survive in Green Bay is US-141, etc.  That doesn't mean that they would go without state funding.  Just no longer signed.
WI-318 is more important than WI-74? Are you kidding me WI-318 is like less than 2 miles long. It could be unsinged for that matter. I actually have been on the new WI-318 there really isn't much traffic on it at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on November 14, 2018, 09:05:08 PM
There's probably not a lot of traffic on 318 yet because:

A. it's new

B. the road it's going to feed into isn't really built yet/under construction

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 14, 2018, 10:50:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on November 14, 2018, 07:33:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 24, 2018, 12:15:54 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 15, 2018, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2018, 08:58:19 AM
It would be a good opportunity to decommission WI-241 and end WI-36 at I-41/43/894.
Unlikely. WIS 241 is a pretty major road on the south side. Also lots of newer development there. Plus, the counties typically hold on to state route mileage until needed for other projects (such as WIS 794 replacing WIS 62, or Waukesha County dropping WIS 74 to complete the US 18 bypass). If any state route mileage leaves Milwaukee County, I would expect WIS 24 or parts of WIS 57 to go first.
I thought 74 was dropped because Menomonee Falls wanted it. It had nothing to do with the Waukesha bypass as 18 inside the bypass was turned over to the city of Waukesha that was already the tradeoff with the bypass. Why would you want 241 decommissioned? Aside from it being a major route on the southside haven't we had more than enough of that already? I know many disagree with me on this but I think the 74 decommissioning was a huge mistake it being once the major route between I-41 and the Sussex Pewaukee area. Now that Menomonee Falls owns the road they put that stupid truck weight limit on it while the Sussex Pewaukee areas has a lot of major industries including Quad Graphics. Now trucks have to take major detours to get to them. It was unfair that the falls got what they wanted but Sussex and Pewaukee had no say in it. We had to screw up industry just so the falls could make their downtown perfect not very smart.


WI-74 was decommissioned when WI-318 came about. And 318 is much more important than WI-74.

And I want WI-241 decommissioned because I don't see much purpose to state highways on major city streets.  Unless they aid navigation, why even have them?

So I would have all highways end at WI-100 in Milwaukee.  I would reroute US-151 in Madison to the freeways.  The only route that would survive in Green Bay is US-141, etc.  That doesn't mean that they would go without state funding.  Just no longer signed.
WI-318 is more important than WI-74? Are you kidding me WI-318 is like less than 2 miles long. It could be unsinged for that matter. I actually have been on the new WI-318 there really isn't much traffic on it at all.

WIDOT disagrees.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 04:33:34 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 25, 2018, 10:36:51 AM
There is traffic that transits the Madison area between US 151 to the northeast and US 151 to the southwest and it is difficult to describe the 'best' routing (the interstate and the Beltline) to some of those drivers, who are unfamiliar with the area.  This is very similar to what the situation WRT US 41 through Milwaukee County was for travelers between Chicagoland and the Fox Valley (Appleton, Oshkosh, etc) before I-41 was marked.  For that reason, I would reroute US 151 to follow that all-freeway routing and give the current through town route a new number.

As for US 141, I'd decommission it south of the Abrams interchange (US 41 split north of metro Green Bay).

Mike

And while we're at it, decommission highway 29's routing along US 141 and give the section east of Green Bay a new number! I honestly think the routing of US 141 in Green Bay should become a state highway and WIS 29 should end at Monroe Ave.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 15, 2018, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 04:33:34 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 25, 2018, 10:36:51 AM
There is traffic that transits the Madison area between US 151 to the northeast and US 151 to the southwest and it is difficult to describe the 'best' routing (the interstate and the Beltline) to some of those drivers, who are unfamiliar with the area.  This is very similar to what the situation WRT US 41 through Milwaukee County was for travelers between Chicagoland and the Fox Valley (Appleton, Oshkosh, etc) before I-41 was marked.  For that reason, I would reroute US 151 to follow that all-freeway routing and give the current through town route a new number.

As for US 141, I'd decommission it south of the Abrams interchange (US 41 split north of metro Green Bay).

Mike

And while we're at it, decommission highway 29's routing along US 141 and give the section east of Green Bay a new number! I honestly think the routing of US 141 in Green Bay should become a state highway and WIS 29 should end at Monroe Ave.

I would end WI 29 at the I-41 Shawano Interchange, including a slight reroute of WI 29 there, turning the street over to the City of Green Bay and Village of Howard.  Interesting in that the freeway itself at that interchange is *not* WI 29, rather it is only WI 32.  Right now, WI 29 hops off of that freeway at Packerland Dr.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 15, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
WI 24 doesn't need any number or letter.  Everyone just calls it Forest Home Avenue.

I'm going to simply express my disdain for strict mileage caps.  And the dumb way WisDOT is adhering to them by county or whatever.  It leaves us with situations where there are worthwhile state highways getting decomissioned in some areas while utterly useless or convoluted ones stick around in others.

I use WI 127 as the poster child for this.  It is a useless state highway that is not only redundant, but also a far less direct route between Portage and The Dells.  I'm flummoxed as to why this was ever made a state highway in the first place.  It persists while WI 175 gets pulled out of Fond du Lac and WI 74 bites the dust.  I must assume this is due to some overly sensitive political bullshit about trying not to appear like they are taking mileage from one area and giving it to another.

The solution is obvious: just put me in charge of the numbering and I'll do what I think is best for a useful system of numbered highways (working as much as I can with an existing system) and everyone just accept my decisions without whining.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 15, 2018, 11:32:49 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 15, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
The solution is obvious: just put me in charge of the numbering and I'll do what I think is best for a useful system of numbered highways (working as much as I can with an existing system) and everyone just accept my decisions without whining.

Unlikely. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on November 15, 2018, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 15, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
The solution is obvious: just put me in charge of the numbering and I'll do what I think is best for a useful system of numbered highways (working as much as I can with an existing system) and everyone just accept my decisions without whining.

I've heard the gov-elect still has a Transportation Secretary opening... :hmmm:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 03:13:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 15, 2018, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 04:33:34 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 25, 2018, 10:36:51 AM
There is traffic that transits the Madison area between US 151 to the northeast and US 151 to the southwest and it is difficult to describe the 'best' routing (the interstate and the Beltline) to some of those drivers, who are unfamiliar with the area.  This is very similar to what the situation WRT US 41 through Milwaukee County was for travelers between Chicagoland and the Fox Valley (Appleton, Oshkosh, etc) before I-41 was marked.  For that reason, I would reroute US 151 to follow that all-freeway routing and give the current through town route a new number.

As for US 141, I'd decommission it south of the Abrams interchange (US 41 split north of metro Green Bay).

Mike

And while we're at it, decommission highway 29's routing along US 141 and give the section east of Green Bay a new number! I honestly think the routing of US 141 in Green Bay should become a state highway and WIS 29 should end at Monroe Ave.

I would end WI 29 at the I-41 Shawano Interchange, including a slight reroute of WI 29 there, turning the street over to the City of Green Bay and Village of Howard.  Interesting in that the freeway itself at that interchange is *not* WI 29, rather it is only WI 32.  Right now, WI 29 hops off of that freeway at Packerland Dr.

Mike

Does that mean highway 32 should be rerouted along Shawano Ave instead of Mason St and I-41?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 15, 2018, 04:12:16 PM
^^ Where would it reconnect to?  Green Bay doen't want to allow trucks on Ashland Ave. north of W. Mason St.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 15, 2018, 05:03:25 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 03:13:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 15, 2018, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 04:33:34 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 25, 2018, 10:36:51 AM
There is traffic that transits the Madison area between US 151 to the northeast and US 151 to the southwest and it is difficult to describe the 'best' routing (the interstate and the Beltline) to some of those drivers, who are unfamiliar with the area.  This is very similar to what the situation WRT US 41 through Milwaukee County was for travelers between Chicagoland and the Fox Valley (Appleton, Oshkosh, etc) before I-41 was marked.  For that reason, I would reroute US 151 to follow that all-freeway routing and give the current through town route a new number.

As for US 141, I'd decommission it south of the Abrams interchange (US 41 split north of metro Green Bay).

Mike

And while we're at it, decommission highway 29's routing along US 141 and give the section east of Green Bay a new number! I honestly think the routing of US 141 in Green Bay should become a state highway and WIS 29 should end at Monroe Ave.

I would end WI 29 at the I-41 Shawano Interchange, including a slight reroute of WI 29 there, turning the street over to the City of Green Bay and Village of Howard.  Interesting in that the freeway itself at that interchange is *not* WI 29, rather it is only WI 32.  Right now, WI 29 hops off of that freeway at Packerland Dr.

Mike

Does that mean highway 32 should be rerouted along Shawano Ave instead of Mason St and I-41?


No it's fine where it is now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 06:13:22 PM
Then what should we do about highway 29 along Shawano Ave? Decommission it? What purpose does that serve? I would still like to see a state highway there for mileage purposes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 15, 2018, 07:14:12 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 06:13:22 PM
Then what should we do about highway 29 along Shawano Ave? Decommission it? What purpose does that serve? I would still like to see a state highway there for mileage purposes.

I would end WI-29 at I-41, then extend US-141 along WI-29 east of Green Bay.  Shawano Avenue doesn't need to be a state highway. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 16, 2018, 12:46:26 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 15, 2018, 07:14:12 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 15, 2018, 06:13:22 PM
Then what should we do about highway 29 along Shawano Ave? Decommission it? What purpose does that serve? I would still like to see a state highway there for mileage purposes.

I would end WI-29 at I-41, then extend US-141 along WI-29 east of Green Bay.  Shawano Avenue doesn't need to be a state highway.

I don't think 141 should exist south of the 41-141 interchange. The portion of 141 in Green Bay can become a new state highway and 29 east of Green Bay can become a separate highway as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2018, 06:34:38 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 18, 2018, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 15, 2018, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 15, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
The solution is obvious: just put me in charge of the numbering and I'll do what I think is best for a useful system of numbered highways (working as much as I can with an existing system) and everyone just accept my decisions without whining.

I've heard the gov-elect still has a Transportation Secretary opening... :hmmm:

Get ready for more transportation dollars going toward the streetcar and empty buses in Wausau and Manitowoc with roads as less of a priority under Evers.


Or not.

https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/02/tony-evers-wisconsin-roads-would-top-priority-governor/1489721002/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 18, 2018, 10:28:42 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 18, 2018, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 15, 2018, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 15, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
The solution is obvious: just put me in charge of the numbering and I'll do what I think is best for a useful system of numbered highways (working as much as I can with an existing system) and everyone just accept my decisions without whining.

I've heard the gov-elect still has a Transportation Secretary opening... :hmmm:

Get ready for more transportation dollars going toward the streetcar and empty buses in Wausau and Manitowoc with roads as less of a priority under Evers.

What's this about empty buses in Manitowoc?

But yeah, our bus system there is pretty stupid. It's often very late, has the worst hours, and doesn't even go to all the destinations on the route map. I don't see more people riding it anytime soon and it's bound to get worse. I don't see it getting fixed anytime soon, but even if our bus system gets an increase in state funding (which I'm not sure is even much), I'm sure more money will still be allocated to fixing roads, with an increase in road funding greater than public transit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 19, 2018, 05:51:02 PM
We'll soon be able to add exit 52 to the exit list for US 151. The new interchange with County BB/County HHH/Ridgevue Rd just west of Ridgeway is almost complete, and all signing is up. I'm not sure of an opening date, but it should be soon. This interchange will eliminate at grade intersections with County BB, County HHH, and Ridgevue Rd, and a handful of private driveways. The at grade intersections with County HHH on the east side of Ridgeway remains.... for now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 19, 2018, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 19, 2018, 05:51:02 PM
We'll soon be able to add exit 52 to the exit list for US 151. The new interchange with County BB/County HHH/Ridgevue Rd just west of Ridgeway is almost complete, and all signing is up. I'm not sure of an opening date, but it should be soon. This interchange will eliminate at grade intersections with County BB, County HHH, and Ridgevue Rd, and a handful of private driveways. The at grade intersections with County HHH on the east side of Ridgeway remains.... for now.
Likely won't be done given the new direction the state has taken nowadays.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 20, 2018, 02:18:37 PM
Maybe not, but one can dream, can't they?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 26, 2018, 06:27:01 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 14, 2018, 09:05:08 PM
There's probably not a lot of traffic on 318 yet because:

A. it's new

B. the road it's going to feed into isn't really built yet/under construction
New? nope not at all the Meadowbrook extension was done like 25 years ago. The route number means nothing the road itself has been there a long time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 26, 2018, 07:18:26 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on November 26, 2018, 06:27:01 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 14, 2018, 09:05:08 PM
There's probably not a lot of traffic on 318 yet because:

A. it's new

B. the road it's going to feed into isn't really built yet/under construction
New? nope not at all the Meadowbrook extension was done like 25 years ago. The route number means nothing the road itself has been there a long time.

It's new in that it's a new connector route that will get more traffic once the US18 bypass is done. And the route number will have meaning once it's done. Certainly much more than WI-74 had.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ET21 on November 27, 2018, 03:11:44 PM
Construction seems to be moving nicely with the 39/90 expansion. Saw it this past weekend for the first time in 2 years since my last trip up north. The hell that will come with the I-43/39/90 interchange though.....  :no:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 27, 2018, 05:01:19 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 19, 2018, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 19, 2018, 05:51:02 PM
We'll soon be able to add exit 52 to the exit list for US 151. The new interchange with County BB/County HHH/Ridgevue Rd just west of Ridgeway is almost complete, and all signing is up. I'm not sure of an opening date, but it should be soon. This interchange will eliminate at grade intersections with County BB, County HHH, and Ridgevue Rd, and a handful of private driveways. The at grade intersections with County HHH on the east side of Ridgeway remains.... for now.
Likely won't be done given the new direction the state has taken nowadays.

It's still part of long range plans to convert US 151 to a full freeway from Dodgeville to Verona, though there is no set timetable for the work to be done. It will probably be one project at a time and not all at once.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 27, 2018, 11:42:53 PM
Drove past Ridgeway today and the new interchange is open.  All lanes are open and even the temporary crossovers have been removed.  Nice to have a couple more miles of full access control on US 18/151.
Next, WisDOT should focus on getting the part between Verona and Mt. Horeb all freewayized.  It'll be relatively easy and help the safety on that stretch as Mt. Horeb continues its growth as an outer suburb of Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 28, 2018, 11:11:25 AM
I agree. Lots of commuter traffic between Verona and Mt. Horeb. The east bound side is getting pretty rough also and needs redone. And I think an auxiliary lane between county G and county MV would be helpful.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 28, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
Like other expressway-to-freeway conversions proposed around the state, a lot of patience is required. These conversions, of course, are long-term in length, and won't happen quickly. And like tchafe1978 said, the conversions will be one-project-at-a-time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 29, 2018, 01:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 28, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
Like other expressway-to-freeway conversions proposed around the state, a lot of patience is required. These conversions, of course, are long-term in length, and won't happen quickly. And like tchafe1978 said, the conversions will be one-project-at-a-time.

IMHO, US 41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay is a classic case - despite being at least four lanes divided the whole way since about 1968 (when the last two-lane parts between Kaukauna and Green Bay and across the Oshkosh Causeway were upgraded to four lanes divided), it was not fully up to interstate standards and thus able to be so designated until 2015.  The last at-grade intersection was cut off in about 2000.

Besides US 151 between Fond du Lac and the Iowa state line, WI 29 between I-94 (Elk Mound interchange) and the Green Bay area is the same way.  Ditto US 10 between I-39 and I-41.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 04, 2018, 03:43:38 PM
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/us1218publichearing/

There is a public hearing set for the beltline interchange improvements. There us a link to a YouTube video explaining why they chose the alternative with 2 lanes northbound through the interchange. It makes a little more sense once they put the numbers behind the reasoning. But I also think it makes for an unnecessary lane drop going northbound.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 04, 2018, 04:13:50 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 04, 2018, 03:43:38 PM
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/us1218publichearing/

There is a public hearing set for the beltline interchange improvements. There us a link to a YouTube video explaining why they chose the alternative with 2 lanes northbound through the interchange. It makes a little more sense once they put the numbers behind the reasoning. But I also think it makes for an unnecessary lane drop going northbound.


So they are keeping the two "cloverleaf ramps?"  (SB-I39 to EB US12/18 and WB12/18 to SB I39?) 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 04, 2018, 04:14:30 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 29, 2018, 01:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 28, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
Like other expressway-to-freeway conversions proposed around the state, a lot of patience is required. These conversions, of course, are long-term in length, and won't happen quickly. And like tchafe1978 said, the conversions will be one-project-at-a-time.

IMHO, US 41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay is a classic case - despite being at least four lanes divided the whole way since about 1968 (when the last two-lane parts between Kaukauna and Green Bay and across the Oshkosh Causeway were upgraded to four lanes divided), it was not fully up to interstate standards and thus able to be so designated until 2015.  The last at-grade intersection was cut off in about 2000.

Besides US 151 between Fond du Lac and the Iowa state line, WI 29 between I-94 (Elk Mound interchange) and the Green Bay area is the same way.  Ditto US 10 between I-39 and I-41.



There were still driveways on US-41 just south of Green Bay about 20 years ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 04, 2018, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 04, 2018, 03:43:38 PM
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/us1218publichearing/

There is a public hearing set for the beltline interchange improvements. There us a link to a YouTube video explaining why they chose the alternative with 2 lanes northbound through the interchange. It makes a little more sense once they put the numbers behind the reasoning. But I also think it makes for an unnecessary lane drop going northbound.

It appears their reasoning is that at the point they have to maintain 3 NBD lanes through the interchange, they will have to go to 4 or 5 lanes where EBD Beltline traffic merges into NBD I-39/90 traffic. They are at least making 3 lanes an available option when they reach that point. There's also a safety benefit in forcing the NBD traffic down to 2 lanes before the interchange vs. making EBD Beltline traffic force a merge after the interchange.

I would argue adding the additional lane between the Beltline and Hwy 30/I-94 needs to happen sooner rather that later. Fortunately, the work they'd have to accomplish this is rather minimal beyond grading and paving the additional lane.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 04, 2018, 05:29:38 PM
The preferred alternative at the Beltline looks very much like an 'interim' solution.  There are accommodations being made in the new bridges for the future aspirations we've seen in other alternatives for this system interchange. ( ;) )
Specifically, the new NB bridge over the ramp to the WB beltline has the length to fit all those unweaving ramps designed to separate Beltline traffic from traffic getting off right away at Stoughton Rd.
When money becomes available, the interchange can be improved further without impacting any new structures constructed with this stage.

The lane drop may suck for a while, but it will only last until we get a fourth lane between the Beltline and I-94 (which has to be in the cards ~10 years out.).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 04, 2018, 05:34:52 PM
One question I have if they do in fact go with two northbound lanes through the interchange is instead of having the lane drop from the left lane, why not have the lane drop as part of the ramp to the EB/WB beltline?I think that would create less merging.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 04, 2018, 09:09:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 04, 2018, 04:14:30 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 29, 2018, 01:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 28, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
Like other expressway-to-freeway conversions proposed around the state, a lot of patience is required. These conversions, of course, are long-term in length, and won't happen quickly. And like tchafe1978 said, the conversions will be one-project-at-a-time.

IMHO, US 41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay is a classic case - despite being at least four lanes divided the whole way since about 1968 (when the last two-lane parts between Kaukauna and Green Bay and across the Oshkosh Causeway were upgraded to four lanes divided), it was not fully up to interstate standards and thus able to be so designated until 2015.  The last at-grade intersection was cut off in about 2000.

Besides US 151 between Fond du Lac and the Iowa state line, WI 29 between I-94 (Elk Mound interchange) and the Green Bay area is the same way.  Ditto US 10 between I-39 and I-41.



There were still driveways on US-41 just south of Green Bay about 20 years ago.

The west frontage road that is a short distance SW of Scheuring Rd, just past the curve where the three to two lane drop is, was the southbound side of the highway mainline before US 41 was upgraded to a full freeway.  The present-day southbound side of I-41 there was built in the previously much wider median.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 05, 2018, 12:07:32 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 04, 2018, 05:34:52 PM
One question I have if they do in fact go with two northbound lanes through the interchange is instead of having the lane drop from the left lane, why not have the lane drop as part of the ramp to the EB/WB beltline?I think that would create less merging.

Thought about that myself. On a second look at the Beltline interchange plans, it looks like WisDOT want to free up available space for the 3->2 merge by keeping three full lanes past the Beltline exit. They run a 4th lane as an exit lane for a distance. Slots for the left lane to merge into opens up, and then the left lane traffic can safely merge into the center lane.

A lane drop at I-39/90 would force all the weaving movements before the exit, ultimately reducing safe throughput. As much bitching as we've done (myself included) about not having three full through lanes, putting in a simple lane drop at the Beltline would be worse.

So basically, WisDOT has done everything to smooth the EBD Beltline traffic merge into NBD I-39/90 traffic short of adding two additional NBD lanes north of the merge point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 05, 2018, 09:22:07 PM
I attended a public information meeting tonight about upcoming work to US-14 between Evansville and Janesville, as described here:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us14-rockcounty/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us14-rockcounty/default.aspx)

The biggest concerns from local residents (at least the vocal ones) by far was regarding the intersection at County H. The plans call for reconstructing the intersection with channelized left and right turn lanes, with a concrete curb separating each direction of traffic on US-14. Many folks demanded further action - a stoplight, a reduced speed limit, etc. There was consternation when advised that a) the studies WisDOT performed showed that, based on current traffic levels, a stoplight would be LESS safe than leaving the stop signs for County H in place, and b) dropping the speed limit would be largely ignored.

One brave soul stood up and floated the idea of putting a roundabout there. That went over like a lead balloon with the rest of the room.  :-D It *would* calm down traffic - no doubt about that. But this room of mostly over-50 folks wanted nothing to do with roundabouts.

There were a few that voiced (valid) concerns about the lack of remedy for another dangerous intersection, at S. River Rd immediately east of the Rock River bridge. US-14 east of County H has sufficient traffic that it should just be 4-laned, but thanks in part to WisDOT funding troubles (and a large price tag) all it's basically getting is fresh pavement with a few intersection band-aids.

I'm curious to read what tomorrow's Janesville Gazette has to report about the meeting. It was honestly quite entertaining. I'm not sure if the WisDOT folks knew what kind of buzzsaw they were walking into when they arrived at the Center Town Hall tonight.

Edited to correct unclear text.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on December 05, 2018, 09:50:04 PM
Big problem that I see at US 14 and CTH H is all the westbound 14 traffic turning left (south) onto H while also all the northbound H traffic wanting to turn left (west) onto 14.  I am one of the individuals turning west onto 14 from H at least weekly and there can be times where it is just not safe to try to turn.  And the DOT is right, reducing speeds won't do anything, just look at 14/59 at Union.  Personally I wouldn't mind a roundabout, since it would help me and my movements, and I'm not afraid of them like the talk radio listening crowd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on December 05, 2018, 10:31:56 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 05, 2018, 09:22:07 PM
based on current traffic levels, a stoplight would be LESS safe than placing a stoplight at the intersection,
Did you mean stop sign?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on December 05, 2018, 11:09:52 PM
Gazette Article
https://www.gazettextra.com/news/government/traffic-safety-a-big-concern-at-highway-meeting/article_eceea51f-f447-5bb1-8ee0-1179d583cd1e.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 05, 2018, 11:22:31 PM
Quote from: Big John on December 05, 2018, 10:31:56 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 05, 2018, 09:22:07 PM
based on current traffic levels, a stoplight would be LESS safe than placing a stoplight at the intersection,
Did you mean stop sign?

Fixed. Thanks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 05, 2018, 11:36:09 PM
I think their plans for the channelized left and right turn lanes on US-14 at County H will help a lot. Ditto having the dedicated right turn lanes from County H to US-14. If, at some point, a stoplight gets installed there, it's already prepped for the light.

At some point (2040?), WisDOT is going to have to bit the bullet and 4-lane US-14, at least from County H to US-51. That stretch has stupid amounts of traffic for a 2-lane highway. But with current state level politics in play, it's ain't happening anytime soon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2018, 05:52:53 AM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on December 05, 2018, 11:09:52 PM
Gazette Article
https://www.gazettextra.com/news/government/traffic-safety-a-big-concern-at-highway-meeting/article_eceea51f-f447-5bb1-8ee0-1179d583cd1e.html



From the article:

"The state considered connecting the Highway 11 bypass south of Janesville northward to Highway 14 about six years ago, but residents in the area objected, and the idea was dropped."

<sigh>

Public input is important obviously, but this is why it always needs to be balanced.  The public is basing their input on current conditions and not on future growth.  When the Highway 11 bypass was constructed, it didn't solve the issue of getting traffic north of Janesville to Highway 11.  (Going on I-39/90 to the new bypass is completely out of the way.)  Adding this into the bypass project would have solved a lot of these problems.

I also believe this portion of County H was a state highway until the late 1990s.  WI-184?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 06, 2018, 04:48:41 PM
Correct. CTH-H between STH-11 and STH-59 was STH-184 from 1947 to 1999. Although I've never traveled along that stretch of US 14, I'm sure an expansion to 4 lanes is warranted. In fact, I'd support making US 14 four lanes for its entire length between Madison and Janesville. Unfortunately, it will probably be a few decades before that happens, if it happens at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 08, 2018, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 06, 2018, 04:48:41 PM
Correct. CTH-H between STH-11 and STH-59 was STH-184 from 1947 to 1999. Although I've never traveled along that stretch of US 14, I'm sure an expansion to 4 lanes is warranted. In fact, I'd support making US 14 four lanes for its entire length between Madison and Janesville. Unfortunately, it will probably be a few decades before that happens, if it happens at all.

Keep it going to I-43 in Darien. US-14/Hwy 11 has heavier traffic east of Janesville, if anything.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 08, 2018, 01:13:09 AM
Some winding down on the I-39/90 expansion for the year. So far, the NBD lanes between Newville and County AB just south of the Beltline are completed, as well as the SBD lanes between E. Church Rd (N of the US-51 exit for Stoughton) and Newville. Work on the SBD lanes from County AB to E Church Rd will happen next year.

The NBD lanes between E. Hart Rd in Beloit and US-14 in Janesville are also done, with the SBD lanes picking up next year. Work around the I-43 interchange is underway. Much of the NBD I-39/90 work necessary for two-way traffic between Janesville and Newville is done, though additional work is needed early in the spring.

With the majority of the construction work done for the season, WisDOT hinted on the project's Facebook page that speed limits may be reset back to 70 on much of the route. Stay tuned.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 08, 2018, 11:17:25 AM
Although I haven't driven it in a couple of years, I note from a very recent Big Rig Steve trip that most of the new concrete paving for the northbound side of the I-41/94 eight lane upgrade project in Racine and Kenosha Counties is now in.  Traffic is down to two lanes each way on the old southbound side through most of Racine County.

Grading work for the upgraded highway is now underway in southern Milwaukee County, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on December 08, 2018, 11:56:08 PM
US 14 should have been four-laned between I-90/39 and I-43 years ago. I can only imagine how bad it is now.

It's always been heavy between Janesville and Madison too, though I'm not sure if it was every heavy enough to be four-laned the whole way. But it certainly should be around both sides of Janesville.

And I haven't lived in the area for 20 years.... but even back then it was problematic.


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 11, 2018, 06:44:12 AM
Quote from: mrose on December 08, 2018, 11:56:08 PM
US 14 should have been four-laned between I-90/39 and I-43 years ago. I can only imagine how bad it is now.

It's always been heavy between Janesville and Madison too, though I'm not sure if it was every heavy enough to be four-laned the whole way. But it certainly should be around both sides of Janesville.

And I haven't lived in the area for 20 years.... but even back then it was problematic.

US-14/Hwy 11 traffic is sufficiently bad that I frequently take CTH MM, CTH M, and CTH C to catch I-43. Or, if I'm headed to Milwaukee, CTH A to CTH ES around the north side of Elkhorn. Traffic is rarely light enough during the day on US-14/Hwy 11 to make passing a realistic option. The Hwy 140 intersection near Emerald Grove is a notorious spot for accidents and probably should be a stoplight.

WisDOT's intention was to 4-lane US-14/Hwy 11 to connect Janesville to I-43 at Darien, then route a 4-lane section along Avalon Rd around and up the west side of Janesville to meet the current US-14 alignment west of the Rock River. They got the Avalon Rd section 4-laned and routed up the west side to meet existing Hwy 11 (Court St) before the GM plant closing and NIMBYs in the Town of Janesville put a kibosh on further buildout. (Of course, this is the same group complaining about not getting a stoplight at CTH H right now.)

US-14 through traffic on the existing 4-laned section around Janesville's north side is heavy but tolerable. Planned work in 2022 on the section between Hwy 26 and Wright Rd will help smooth traffic. Interestingly, traffic counts are just a little under that of Hwy 26 with 6 lanes. But with less side-street interruptions, 4 lanes manage it adequately. West of US-51 to CTH H, traffic is high enough to warrant 4 lanes.

I imagine an uncorked I-39/90 will have some impact on US-14 traffic counts west of Janesville, but Evansville, Brooklyn, and Oregon have grown considerably. US-14 north of Evansville is awful enough that 4-laning chatter keeps bubbling up - WisDOT keeps trying to push a 4-lane down to Brooklyn but gets stymied by funding.

The thing is, even with those issues and an uncorked I-39/90, US-14 is routinely as quick or quicker to Park St. and Madison's west side from Janesville thanks to Beltline congestion issues.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 11, 2018, 03:37:50 PM
Another note on US 14 between Madison and Janesville, regarding the portion between STH-138 and STH-92. In 1976, land was purchased west of the existing road, as part of a future project to reroute US 14. Earlier this decade, the DOT website had a proposal to relocate US 14 onto this relocated alignment, as a four-lane freeway. There would be interchanges at CTH-A and possibly STH-92. That proposal has apparently been scrapped, and the only construction will be resurfacing the existing alignment between 138 and 92 in 2022, with a roundabout being built at the US 14/STH-92/Biglow Road intersection. Information is listed here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us14-wis92/default.aspx.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 12, 2018, 03:53:59 PM
Wis 29 will soon be freeway between the Brown/Shawano County Line and I-41.  The County VV interchange juist received a grant to begin construction soon.  Will also have a County U and new Pine Tree Rd overpasses. 

https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Brown-County-receives-nearly-20-million-for-29-VV-Project-502448551.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 12, 2018, 11:57:50 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 12, 2018, 03:53:59 PM
Wis 29 will soon be freeway between the Brown/Shawano County Line and I-41.  The County VV interchange juist received a grant to begin construction soon.  Will also have a County U and new Pine Tree Rd overpasses. 

https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Brown-County-receives-nearly-20-million-for-29-VV-Project-502448551.html

Just like how US 41 was progressively upgraded until it was fully interstate compatible.

:nod:

Also, I assume that the Outagamie County section of WI 29 will be a fully interstate compatible freeway when this upgrade is complete.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DJ Particle on December 13, 2018, 02:39:53 AM
So what do you think will be the most likely number for WI-29 once it becomes an Interstate?

I-96 (Western)?
I-98?
An odd 3di of either I-94, I-39, or I-41?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 13, 2018, 05:15:26 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on December 13, 2018, 02:39:53 AM
So what do you think will be the most likely number for WI-29 once it becomes an Interstate?

I-96 (Western)?
I-98?
An odd 3di of either I-94, I-39, or I-41?
WIS-29.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 07:22:48 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 13, 2018, 05:15:26 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on December 13, 2018, 02:39:53 AM
So what do you think will be the most likely number for WI-29 once it becomes an Interstate?

I-96 (Western)?
I-98?
An odd 3di of either I-94, I-39, or I-41?
WIS-29.

I can think of few things more annoying than the tendency to go "HURR THIS IS INTERSTATE-QUALITY FREEWAY NOW! LET'S SLAP THE RED WHITE AND BLUE ON IT!"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 13, 2018, 11:41:47 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 07:22:48 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 13, 2018, 05:15:26 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on December 13, 2018, 02:39:53 AM
So what do you think will be the most likely number for WI-29 once it becomes an Interstate?

I-96 (Western)?
I-98?
An odd 3di of either I-94, I-39, or I-41?
WIS-29.

I can think of few things more annoying than the tendency to go "HURR THIS IS INTERSTATE-QUALITY FREEWAY NOW! LET'S SLAP THE RED WHITE AND BLUE ON IT!"


Well I think it's a good idea.  It speaks to a certain quality of highway.  I would be completely supportive of it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 13, 2018, 11:50:05 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 07:22:48 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 13, 2018, 05:15:26 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on December 13, 2018, 02:39:53 AM
So what do you think will be the most likely number for WI-29 once it becomes an Interstate?

I-96 (Western)?
I-98?
An odd 3di of either I-94, I-39, or I-41?
WIS-29.

I can think of few things more annoying than the tendency to go "HURR THIS IS INTERSTATE-QUALITY FREEWAY NOW! LET'S SLAP THE RED WHITE AND BLUE ON IT!"

Highways in the Interstate system get better access to federal funding.  I just want all my freeways to get the resources they deserve!  Especially when some non-Interstate freeways are much more useful than some Interstates.  I'm also a little biased toward wanting every freeway to be an Interstate since I'm from Illinois...and EVERY FREEWAY OR TOLLWAY worth a salt has an Interstate number (with a few stubby exceptions).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 11:56:40 AM
While that's true, I'd rather see a change in the funding model than changing a well-established route number (and all the costs associated with a changeover) just because it nets a DOT more federal money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 13, 2018, 12:02:34 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 11:56:40 AM
While that's true, I'd rather see a change in the funding model than changing a well-established route number (and all the costs associated with a changeover) just because it nets a DOT more federal money.

Totally fair.  I just like the numbering system
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 13, 2018, 12:07:26 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 11:56:40 AM
While that's true, I'd rather see a change in the funding model than changing a well-established route number (and all the costs associated with a changeover) just because it nets a DOT more federal money.


My experience is those route number changes really aren't that difficult.  US-51 to I-39 was very seemless.  After a couple years, everyone referred to it as "Interstate 39" with no issues.

In the end, I wouldn't care either way, but it isn't really that difficult to change numbers nor is it all that expensive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on December 13, 2018, 12:51:25 PM
^^ It cost $5-$7 Million to convert to I-41.  https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/us41interstate/faqs.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 13, 2018, 06:11:13 PM
I see it becoming a western I-96.

That said, it will be decades before WIS 29 is fully freeway between Green Bay and Elk Mound.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 13, 2018, 10:28:56 PM
Quote from: Big John on December 13, 2018, 12:51:25 PM
^^ It cost $5-$7 Million to convert to I-41.  https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/us41interstate/faqs.aspx


Yep.  One tenth of one percent of WIDOT's total budget.  Not even worth worrying about.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 14, 2018, 12:06:25 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 08, 2018, 01:13:09 AM
With the majority of the construction work done for the season, WisDOT hinted on the project's Facebook page that speed limits may be reset back to 70 on much of the [I-39/90] route. Stay tuned.

It appears WisDOT put the 70 mph speed limits back overnight last night on I-39/90. I was pleasantly surprised to see the 70 mph posting on the way back from Beloit tonight. Last night coming from Madison it was still posted for 55.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on December 14, 2018, 09:01:43 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2018, 06:11:13 PM
I see it becoming a western I-96.

That said, it will be decades before WIS 29 is fully freeway between Green Bay and Elk Mound.

and that being said they'll make it an extension of I-43 and have everyone go "What?!?!?"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 15, 2018, 07:58:11 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 14, 2018, 12:06:25 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 08, 2018, 01:13:09 AM
With the majority of the construction work done for the season, WisDOT hinted on the project's Facebook page that speed limits may be reset back to 70 on much of the [I-39/90] route. Stay tuned.

It appears WisDOT put the 70 mph speed limits back overnight last night on I-39/90. I was pleasantly surprised to see the 70 mph posting on the way back from Beloit tonight. Last night coming from Madison it was still posted for 55.

Confirmed.  Just rolled through the entire zone yesterday.
Such a tease to see the full section done between the Rock River and Stoughton (exit), but only striped for 2x2.  I suppose they don't want to give drivers a lane only to take it away again in a few miles. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 15, 2018, 02:33:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 12, 2018, 11:57:50 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 12, 2018, 03:53:59 PM
Wis 29 will soon be freeway between the Brown/Shawano County Line and I-41.  The County VV interchange juist received a grant to begin construction soon.  Will also have a County U and new Pine Tree Rd overpasses. 

https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Brown-County-receives-nearly-20-million-for-29-VV-Project-502448551.html

Just like how US 41 was progressively upgraded until it was fully interstate compatible.

:nod:

Also, I assume that the Outagamie County section of WI 29 will be a fully interstate compatible freeway when this upgrade is complete.

Mike

Yes the few hundred feet of Wis 29 will be freeway.  The Wis 156 shortcut will be gone with a CTH U overpass.  Most people are now using U/Old 29 to get to Wis 156 instead of using the Wis 32/Wis 156 interchange
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2018, 04:42:30 PM
Forget about a STH-29-to-Interstate Highway conversion. Save it for Fictional Highways!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 18, 2018, 05:39:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2018, 04:42:30 PM
Forget about a STH-29-to-Interstate Highway conversion. Save it for Fictional Highways!

Agreed.  WI 29 will continue to evolve in the direction of interstate-compatibility for its entire length between I-41 at the Shawano Interchange in the Green Bay area and I-94 at the Elk Mound interchange, but we'll cross the 'promotion' bridge when it gets that far along.  I can easily envision WI 172 and WI 441 getting the snazzy signs long before WI 29 does.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Bickendan on December 19, 2018, 02:08:22 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 07:22:48 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 13, 2018, 05:15:26 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on December 13, 2018, 02:39:53 AM
So what do you think will be the most likely number for WI-29 once it becomes an Interstate?

I-96 (Western)?
I-98?
An odd 3di of either I-94, I-39, or I-41?
WIS-29.

I can think of few things more annoying than the tendency to go "HURR THIS IS INTERSTATE-QUALITY FREEWAY NOW! LET'S SLAP THE RED WHITE AND BLUE ON IT!"
Yep. Equally annoying is that some mapping symbology (cough ODOT cough) delineates interstates only, leaving non-interstate freeways the same as generic divided highways.

That said, better make WI 29 I-92, just to really get on our nerves.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Henry on December 19, 2018, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2018, 06:11:13 PM
I see it becoming a western I-96.

That said, it will be decades before WIS 29 is fully freeway between Green Bay and Elk Mound.
I echo that sentiment!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on December 19, 2018, 03:05:06 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 19, 2018, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2018, 06:11:13 PM
I see it becoming a western I-96.

That said, it will be decades before WIS 29 is fully freeway between Green Bay and Elk Mound.
I echo that sentiment!

If you have read some of the ads from Green Bay area newsletters and free stuff in grocery stores many that show maps for whatever reason call it I-96.  Must have a spare DeLorean sitting somewhere......
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 19, 2018, 04:50:26 PM
Maybe they thought they were in Michigan!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 19, 2018, 05:10:32 PM
I like the idea of making it I-92. It's just 29 reversed. :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 19, 2018, 05:43:09 PM
In all seriousness, after the project in Brown County is completed, what section of WIS 29 will be converted to freeway next?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 19, 2018, 09:11:25 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 19, 2018, 05:43:09 PM
In all seriousness, after the project in Brown County is completed, what section of WIS 29 will be converted to freeway next?

The interchange with I-94?
Maybe do something about Robin Ln in Wittenberg so the entire duplex with US 45 is freeway?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 20, 2018, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 19, 2018, 05:43:09 PM
In all seriousness, after the project in Brown County is completed, what section of WIS 29 will be converted to freeway next?

IMHO, the part between WI 40 and Chippewa County 'T'.

Then the part between Ringle and Hatley.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 20, 2018, 08:28:13 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/wisdot-to-consider-plan-to-alleviate-madison-s-beltline-congestion/article_5bbf5de0-638f-5b7e-a6da-d20251e48eff.html?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wisconsin%20state%20journal

New plan for adding capacity to the Madison Beltline: shoulder running! Hey, I'm all for whatever works and doesn't take 10 years to build.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on December 21, 2018, 10:57:41 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 19, 2018, 09:11:25 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 19, 2018, 05:43:09 PM
In all seriousness, after the project in Brown County is completed, what section of WIS 29 will be converted to freeway next?

The interchange with I-94?
Maybe do something about Robin Ln in Wittenberg so the entire duplex with US 45 is freeway?

They do have the I-94/WIS29 interchange on the studies list here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nw/i94redcedar/default.aspx

And back on the topic of whether giving 29 an interstate number sometime in the future makes sense or not...the trouble with doing that is you'd leave two stubs of ordinary 2-lane WIS 29 on opposite ends of the state, and certainly they'd not want to have to renumber one or the other if they don't have to.  I'd guess they'd leave it as it is. 

I did have a thought in general about Wisconsin expressways though... leave them numbered as they are, but give expressways a special-colored shield to indicate their status.  Keep using the standard triangle/rectangle shield we have now, but have the top bit red and the box section blue maybe?  Or maybe use Wisconsin Badger colors?  Something other than white.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 21, 2018, 11:57:55 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 
But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 12:01:17 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 21, 2018, 11:57:55 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 
But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.


I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 21, 2018, 12:07:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 12:01:17 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 21, 2018, 11:57:55 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 
But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.
That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.
I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.

Ah, okay. Didn't know that. That makes more sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 21, 2018, 12:17:45 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 12:01:17 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 21, 2018, 11:57:55 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 
But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.


I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.

If you look at the I-41 interstate conversion website, I-41 was WISDOT's first choice.  I-47, I-594 and I-643 were the other 3 alternatives presented to AASHTO.  AASHTO approved I-41 which was WISDOT's preferred choice.

There were also local governments that wanted I-55 to be extended over but that went nowhere. 

The federal highway bill that designated US 41 as a future interstate did not include a number. 

See exhibit below on route numbers officially considered:

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/ne/41interstate/map-routenumber.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 21, 2018, 06:25:56 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 21, 2018, 12:07:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 12:01:17 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 21, 2018, 11:57:55 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 
But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.
That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.
I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.

Ah, okay. Didn't know that. That makes more sense.

However, WisDOT has hinted that WIS 29 could become an Interstate. In the this document (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/nw/i94redcedar/ea-2013.pdf (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/nw/i94redcedar/ea-2013.pdf)) on page 6, speaking of WIS 29, it states

To the east of IH 94, USH 12/STH 29 is currently constructed as a 4-lane expressway. Future plans include
upgrading the facility to a freeway and possibly an Interstate. During coordination with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), WisDOT was advised to design any future interchange reconfiguration to meet freeway
interstate design standards for Interstate to Interstate connection.


Also, keep in mind I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit was a state highway before being the interstate designation was applied.

So I think there is a good chance WisDOT will apply for an Interstate designation for WIS 29 when the time comes, but as I said, it will be quite a while before WIS 29 is a full freeway between Elk Mound and Green Bay.

Nonetheless, IMO, along with reconstructing the existing Interstates, converting WIS 29 to a freeway should be a top priority for WisDOT going forward.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on December 21, 2018, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

WI 15 was converted to I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit. The remaining stub in Beloit was appended to WI 81. The eastern end along Beloit Road was removed from the system. The west end of WI 29 could become more of WI 40 or the east end renumbered as a WI 172 extension. Or one end could be given a new number; I'm sure a few numbers are available.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 08:08:14 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2018, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

WI 15 was converted to I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit. The remaining stub in Beloit was appended to WI 81. The eastern end along Beloit Road was removed from the system. The west end of WI 29 could become more of WI 40 or the east end renumbered as a WI 172 extension. Or one end could be given a new number; I'm sure a few numbers are available.


The eastern end of WI-29 could easily just become an extension of US-141.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 08:09:10 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 21, 2018, 12:17:45 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 12:01:17 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 21, 2018, 11:57:55 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 
But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.


I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.

If you look at the I-41 interstate conversion website, I-41 was WISDOT's first choice.  I-47, I-594 and I-643 were the other 3 alternatives presented to AASHTO.  AASHTO approved I-41 which was WISDOT's preferred choice.

There were also local governments that wanted I-55 to be extended over but that went nowhere. 

The federal highway bill that designated US 41 as a future interstate did not include a number. 

See exhibit below on route numbers officially considered:

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/ne/41interstate/map-routenumber.pdf



Right, but IMO without that highway bill, I think the highway would have remained an interstate-compatible US-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 21, 2018, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice.

[WI 29]
Follow
[I-xx]

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 10:42:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2018, 07:06:50 PM

WI 15 was converted to I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit.

That was because, at the time, the 65MPH speed limit only applied to Interstate highways. That was the sole reason for changing that stretch of highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 10:45:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 21, 2018, 09:46:27 PM

[WI 29]
Follow
[I-xx]

:nod:

Mike

Or, just WI-29!

Seriously - the ONLY reason these state highways get "I" designations are that local politicians want an Interstate nearby. It was the reason behind I-39 and I-41. Unless something like that happens, WisDOT is generally averse to changing numbers for the sake of changing numbers. It's actually one of the more sensible things about them!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: sparker on December 22, 2018, 04:02:13 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 10:45:27 PM
Seriously - the ONLY reason these state highways get "I" designations are that local politicians want an Interstate nearby. It was the reason behind I-39 and I-41. Unless something like that happens, WisDOT is generally averse to changing numbers for the sake of changing numbers. It's actually one of the more sensible things about them!

Except for (arguably) NC and TX, almost all DOT's display some resistance to establishment of new Interstates within their jurisdictions -- largely since (a) there's invariably some sort of substandard feature that needs to be corrected, throwing STIP-originated budged planning for a loop; (b) the cost of replacing signage and/or mileposts isn't insubstantial, particularly with cross-state trunk routes; and (c) if the DOT has an internal rule barring duplication, a grid-appropriate Interstate designation will likely conflict with a state route, requiring that route to be redesignated, often with political implications.  DOT's thus rarely instigate Interstate-upgrade activities; those almost always originate with either towns along the projected corridor or commercial interests in the affected areas, working with their chambers of commerce or other quasi-public entities.  Occasionally, as with the I-69 cluster in TX, a composite grouping of backers will emerge as various interest groups coalesce, with that group working hand-in-hand with any public entity that will comply to achieve their developmental ends (and they were fortunate to have a like-minded DOT management).  In the case of WI 29, it would take a few of the larger towns (or interests within) to pressure a state legislator or two to draft authorizing legislation to be forwarded to one or more WI congresspersons that would append a "future Interstate" designation to the authorizing language for the WI 29 portion of the High Priority Corridor #32 in-state cluster, possibly with a specific number attached (such as "98").  This was the methodology utilized to designate I-86 in NY (appended to HPC #36), I-11 in AZ and NV (appended to HPC's #26 & 68), and the southern I-87 in NC (appended to HPC #13).  In this way the coalition of local interests and Congresspeople can do an "end run" around a state agency, resulting in a federal (unfunded, of course) mandate to deploy an Interstate over a particular corridor.  The chances are if WI 29 ever becomes an Interstate, the process to do so will progress in this manner -- with or without WIDOT's input.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 22, 2018, 10:29:42 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 21, 2018, 10:45:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 21, 2018, 09:46:27 PM

[WI 29]
Follow
[I-xx]

:nod:

Mike

Or, just WI-29!

Seriously - the ONLY reason these state highways get "I" designations are that local politicians want an Interstate nearby. It was the reason behind I-39 and I-41. Unless something like that happens, WisDOT is generally averse to changing numbers for the sake of changing numbers. It's actually one of the more sensible things about them!


And since all the major cities along WI-29 are already serviced by an interstate highway, that makes the chances much less that politicians might push for such designation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
I have to say the above comments surprise me.

I find it extremely hard to believe communities/politicians and even WisDOT wouldn't push for an Interstate designation after WIS 29 becomes a full freeway between Elk Mound and Green Bay. We are talking almost 200 miles of what will be Interstate-grade highway.

If it were a US highway like US 10 or 151, then I'd say leave it alone, but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin. Trust me, the communities along the corridor will want the economic benefits of having an Interstate designation.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 22, 2018, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.


That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 22, 2018, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 22, 2018, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.
That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

Might be better as an I-x94 instead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2018, 02:39:58 PM
Back to the story about opening the Madison Beltline's shoulders to alleviate congestion, I have a clear answer: NO! Shoulders on roadways should not be used as traffic lanes. They should only be used in emergency situations, such as a car breaking down, etc. Has opening the shoulders to traffic ever helped much in alleviating congestion anyway?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 22, 2018, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.


That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

By that logic, why do I-41 and I-43 exist?

Mark my words, an Interstate designation will come when the WIS 29 corridor is fully freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2018, 02:39:58 PM
Back to the story about opening the Madison Beltline's shoulders to alleviate congestion, I have a clear answer: NO! Shoulders on roadways should not be used as traffic lanes. They should only be used in emergency situations, such as a car breaking down, etc. Has opening the shoulders to traffic ever helped much in alleviating congestion anyway?

Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 22, 2018, 06:15:24 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 22, 2018, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.


That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

By that logic, why do I-41 and I-43 exist?

Mark my words, an Interstate designation will come when the WIS 29 corridor is fully freeway.
I doubt that will ever happen in any of our lifetimes. I think an interstate for US 151 would make more sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 22, 2018, 08:51:55 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 22, 2018, 06:15:24 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 22, 2018, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.


That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

By that logic, why do I-41 and I-43 exist?

Mark my words, an Interstate designation will come when the WIS 29 corridor is fully freeway.
I doubt that will ever happen in any of our lifetimes. I think an interstate for US 151 would make more sense.
No.

also no to 29.

41 was written in by the Feds and IDiOT not allowing 57 or 55 to be rerouted

43 was created thanks to IDiOT not allowing 57 to be rerouted.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 09:21:59 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 22, 2018, 06:15:24 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 22, 2018, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.


That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

By that logic, why do I-41 and I-43 exist?

Mark my words, an Interstate designation will come when the WIS 29 corridor is fully freeway.
I doubt that will ever happen in any of our lifetimes. I think an interstate for US 151 would make more sense.

Maybe. Who knows how long it will take to convert WIS 29 to a full freeway.

Same with US 151, but that is a US Highway that has two separate expressway/freeway segments. Even if they were to convert both segments to a freeway, it wouldn't make sense to decommission a US highway in favor of an Interstate that doesn't even end at an Interstate on one end (Dubuque) and doesn't connect any major population centers. WIS 29 converting to an Interstate would be essentially connecting Green Bay to the Twin Cities.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 22, 2018, 09:40:21 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 09:21:59 PM
WIS 29 converting to an Interstate would be essentially connecting Green Bay to the Twin Cities.

Something that I'm certain Twin Cities residents would rather not happen. :bigass:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 22, 2018, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 22, 2018, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 22, 2018, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.
That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

Might be better as an I-x94 instead.

I've seen suggestions of it being designated as an eastward extension of US 212, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 23, 2018, 12:29:20 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2018, 02:39:58 PM
Back to the story about opening the Madison Beltline's shoulders to alleviate congestion, I have a clear answer: NO! Shoulders on roadways should not be used as traffic lanes. They should only be used in emergency situations, such as a car breaking down, etc. Has opening the shoulders to traffic ever helped much in alleviating congestion anyway?

I couldn't agree more. There'll be nowhere to push a broken down car or crash to, so the impact of any such event will be that much more magnified. Does the secretary even know if the pavement structure under the shoulders can support sustained live load? Nevermind the horrible exit spacing; (just what people need: one more lane to cut across at the last minute), or the garbage and debris that collects there. And at most, they think it'll gain them another 10 years.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 23, 2018, 12:34:44 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:16:10 PM
Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?

In many areas, they can't. They're either landlocked by development (especially with the transmission line that was erected several years back) or an environmental corridor. What they need is a southern bypass to connect to 151 by Verona. That should remove a lot of the heavy truck traffic that clogs things up between the beltline interchange and Verona Rd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 23, 2018, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 23, 2018, 12:34:44 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:16:10 PM
Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?

In many areas, they can't. They're either landlocked by development (especially with the transmission line that was erected several years back) or an environmental corridor. What they need is a southern bypass to connect to 151 by Verona. That should remove a lot of the heavy truck traffic that clogs things up between the beltline interchange and Verona Rd.


That's going to be very difficult too.  Really at this point they are stuck with the corridor.  It is really only stop and go during rush and for a pretty limited window of time. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 23, 2018, 09:07:12 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2018, 02:39:58 PM
Back to the story about opening the Madison Beltline's shoulders to alleviate congestion, I have a clear answer: NO! Shoulders on roadways should not be used as traffic lanes. They should only be used in emergency situations, such as a car breaking down, etc. Has opening the shoulders to traffic ever helped much in alleviating congestion anyway?

Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?

This has only begun in the past year or so:

Madison Beltline Study
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx

They don't go into detail in the article about opening up shoulders for traffic in high-congestion scenarios, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't discussing an implementation of an ITS system on the Beltline, much like what I-90 west of O'Hare has. Obviously it's not a replacement for widening, but it would also be useful in managing traffic during accident cleanup activities.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2018, 10:45:58 PM
What the Beltline needs is continuous local arteries paralleling it to give 'local' traffic an alternative to hopping on the freeway for two exits.  The aforementioned study reveals that a huge proportion of Beltline traffic between Verona Rd and I-39/90 is only traveling on the freeway for two or three exits. Very little traffic, relatively speaking, is making a 'thru trip' from one side of Madison to the other.  An alternate route to the south will not pull enough traffic from the Beltline to make a difference.

The Beltline's problem is not so much capacity as it is interchange spacing.  Between Verona Rd and South Towne/Broadway, there are too many interchanges.  All the entering/exiting traffic jockeying for position is what jams it up.  What is needed are some ramp braids and the elimination of at least one interchange.  I think Rimrock Rd should get the ax.  An improved Nolen Dr interchange can easily replace the functionality of Rimrock.  Yeah it might get annoying briefly during weekend shindigs at the convention center, but not enough to make the weekday hassles worth it.

WisDOT is planning to eliminate the half interchange at Seminole Hwy once they get around to building the system ramps at Verona Rd, but I don't see the point in waiting.  Scrap that access right now and get everyone used to it not being there for the future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 30, 2018, 02:17:04 PM
The problem is that "continuous local arteries" can't exist where the Beltline needs them.  The single biggest problem is that the Beltline runs between Lake Monona and Lake Waubesa, and to get from the interstate to the west side, it's the ONE route that will conveniently get you there.  The alternatives are too far out of the way and/or take too much time regardless of Beltline congestion. 

I agree with you that there are too many interchanges, but capacity increases are needed as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 30, 2018, 03:24:05 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2018, 10:45:58 PM
The Beltline's problem is not so much capacity as it is interchange spacing.  Between Verona Rd and South Towne/Broadway, there are too many interchanges.  All the entering/exiting traffic jockeying for position is what jams it up.  What is needed are some ramp braids and the elimination of at least one interchange.  I think Rimrock Rd should get the ax.  An improved Nolen Dr interchange can easily replace the functionality of Rimrock.  Yeah it might get annoying briefly during weekend shindigs at the convention center, but not enough to make the weekday hassles worth it.

I can't disagree about the spacing issues, but how do you plan to upgrade the John Nolen interchange? It's pretty-well landlocked by development, railroad, Cap City Trail, Nob Hill Dr, and wetlands. Moving/adjusting the ATC line won't be cheap either. If anything, I'd keep the Rimrock interchange and nix John Nolen (or reduce JN to exits from the Beltline only).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 30, 2018, 07:36:57 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 30, 2018, 02:17:04 PM
The problem is that "continuous local arteries" can't exist where the Beltline needs them.  The single biggest problem is that the Beltline runs between Lake Monona and Lake Waubesa, and to get from the interstate to the west side, it's the ONE route that will conveniently get you there.  The alternatives are too far out of the way and/or take too much time regardless of Beltline congestion. 

I agree with you that there are too many interchanges, but capacity increases are needed as well.
Other than the half interchange with Seminole Hwy I think they are all needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 31, 2018, 12:39:51 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2018, 10:45:58 PM
The Beltline's problem is not so much capacity as it is interchange spacing.  Between Verona Rd and South Towne/Broadway, there are too many interchanges.  All the entering/exiting traffic jockeying for position is what jams it up.  What is needed are some ramp braids and the elimination of at least one interchange.

I concur with the removal of the Rimrock Rd and Seminole Dr interchanges. However, some reconfiguration of the Rimrock Rd intersection with John Nolen Dr. will be necessary to accommodate traffic demands with the removal of the Rimrock Rd interchange.

The interchange at US-51 (Stoughton Rd) is also overdue for a freeway-to-freeway reconfiguration to uncork it. Having traffic bound for Broadway and Dutch Mill Rd combined with traffic to-from Stoughton Rd makes this a nasty bottleneck.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 31, 2018, 01:49:29 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 31, 2018, 12:39:51 AM
The interchange at US-51 (Stoughton Rd) is also overdue for a freeway-to-freeway reconfiguration to uncork it. Having traffic bound for Broadway and Dutch Mill Rd combined with traffic to-from Stoughton Rd makes this a nasty bottleneck.

Redoing that mess was/is part of the grand plans for the Stoughton Rd corridor, which at least according to the project website (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/51/default.aspx), is scheduled to finally have a Final EIS around fall 2020. At least as of the last PIM, alternatives included a combination of a DDI at the interchange and flyover ramps or a modified echelon at Broadway. Given the current funding status, I'm thinking nothing major will happen until 2025.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on December 31, 2018, 05:58:08 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 23, 2018, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 23, 2018, 12:34:44 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:16:10 PM
Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?

In many areas, they can't. They're either landlocked by development (especially with the transmission line that was erected several years back) or an environmental corridor. What they need is a southern bypass to connect to 151 by Verona. That should remove a lot of the heavy truck traffic that clogs things up between the beltline interchange and Verona Rd.

That's going to be very difficult too.  Really at this point they are stuck with the corridor.  It is really only stop and go during rush and for a pretty limited window of time.

Is there anything they could do along the County "M" corridor?

Coming up from Janesville, that was always the way to cut over from US 14 to US 18/151 without dealing with Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2018, 08:59:38 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 31, 2018, 01:49:29 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 31, 2018, 12:39:51 AM
The interchange at US-51 (Stoughton Rd) is also overdue for a freeway-to-freeway reconfiguration to uncork it. Having traffic bound for Broadway and Dutch Mill Rd combined with traffic to-from Stoughton Rd makes this a nasty bottleneck.

Redoing that mess was/is part of the grand plans for the Stoughton Rd corridor, which at least according to the project website (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/51/default.aspx), is scheduled to finally have a Final EIS around fall 2020. At least as of the last PIM, alternatives included a combination of a DDI at the interchange and flyover ramps or a modified echelon at Broadway. Given the current funding status, I'm thinking nothing major will happen until 2025.


I actually think they should put another exit on the interstate too.  Maybe at Buckeye Road?  I think that may relieve some of the pressure of traffic coming off the Beltline and heading to Stoughton Road. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2018, 09:00:05 AM
Quote from: mrose on December 31, 2018, 05:58:08 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 23, 2018, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 23, 2018, 12:34:44 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 22, 2018, 04:16:10 PM
Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?

In many areas, they can't. They're either landlocked by development (especially with the transmission line that was erected several years back) or an environmental corridor. What they need is a southern bypass to connect to 151 by Verona. That should remove a lot of the heavy truck traffic that clogs things up between the beltline interchange and Verona Rd.

That's going to be very difficult too.  Really at this point they are stuck with the corridor.  It is really only stop and go during rush and for a pretty limited window of time.

Is there anything they could do along the County "M" corridor?

Coming up from Janesville, that was always the way to cut over from US 14 to US 18/151 without dealing with Madison.

I think it's too far south for local traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 31, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2018, 08:59:38 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 31, 2018, 01:49:29 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 31, 2018, 12:39:51 AM
The interchange at US-51 (Stoughton Rd) is also overdue for a freeway-to-freeway reconfiguration to uncork it. Having traffic bound for Broadway and Dutch Mill Rd combined with traffic to-from Stoughton Rd makes this a nasty bottleneck.

Redoing that mess was/is part of the grand plans for the Stoughton Rd corridor, which at least according to the project website (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/51/default.aspx), is scheduled to finally have a Final EIS around fall 2020. At least as of the last PIM, alternatives included a combination of a DDI at the interchange and flyover ramps or a modified echelon at Broadway. Given the current funding status, I'm thinking nothing major will happen until 2025.


I actually think they should put another exit on the interstate too.  Maybe at Buckeye Road?  I think that may relieve some of the pressure of traffic coming off the Beltline and heading to Stoughton Road.

Spacing-wise, Buckeye makes sense. But from the perspective of where the road ultimately goes/connectivity, I think Cottage Grove Rd would be a better choice. The latter would have a dramatic impact on response times for MPD and MFD along the interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 31, 2018, 02:08:56 PM
I'm loathed to add an interchange to 39/90.  That's only going to encourage more local traffic to use the interstate for short trips that should taken via local arterials.  I want the interstate to be mostly thru traffic.

I have some fictional mapping of the Beltline I should work on some more and show how I can get some parallel routes in along the freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 02, 2019, 04:17:23 PM
Playing around on the internet today, I found this proposal from 1950 for highway relocations in the Green Bay area.  Apparently this guy was politically connected and owned an engineering firm.

http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/8003/rec/1

Interesting that the routes for "Temporary US-141" and "Future US-141" almost mirror the highways that were eventually built.  The relocated WI-29 between Green Bay and Suamico runs pretty much right through my house.   :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 02, 2019, 05:49:22 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 31, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2018, 08:59:38 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on December 31, 2018, 01:49:29 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 31, 2018, 12:39:51 AM
The interchange at US-51 (Stoughton Rd) is also overdue for a freeway-to-freeway reconfiguration to uncork it. Having traffic bound for Broadway and Dutch Mill Rd combined with traffic to-from Stoughton Rd makes this a nasty bottleneck.

Redoing that mess was/is part of the grand plans for the Stoughton Rd corridor, which at least according to the project website (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/51/default.aspx), is scheduled to finally have a Final EIS around fall 2020. At least as of the last PIM, alternatives included a combination of a DDI at the interchange and flyover ramps or a modified echelon at Broadway. Given the current funding status, I'm thinking nothing major will happen until 2025.


I actually think they should put another exit on the interstate too.  Maybe at Buckeye Road?  I think that may relieve some of the pressure of traffic coming off the Beltline and heading to Stoughton Road.

Spacing-wise, Buckeye makes sense. But from the perspective of where the road ultimately goes/connectivity, I think Cottage Grove Rd would be a better choice. The latter would have a dramatic impact on response times for MPD and MFD along the interstate.
Not sure if an interchange there would work. WISDOT has a policy of interchanges being at least 2 miles apart except in urban areas and Cottage Grove Rd is just one mile from the I-94 WI-30 interchange. Buckeye makes sense as being half way between the 2 interchanges. One advantage Cottage Grove Rd has is that it goes much farther east while Buckeye Rd angles south and actually crosses the interstate again.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 02, 2019, 08:45:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 02, 2019, 04:17:23 PM
Playing around on the internet today, I found this proposal from 1950 for highway relocations in the Green Bay area.  Apparently this guy was politically connected and owned an engineering firm.

http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/8003/rec/1

Interesting that the routes for "Temporary US-141" and "Future US-141" almost mirror the highways that were eventually built.  The relocated WI-29 between Green Bay and Suamico runs pretty much right through my house.   :D

Even before then, a few years ago I saw an interesting planning map from the 1930s that showed a new 'Union Station' being proposed for a then edge of the urbanized city area on Green Bay's west side.  I want to say that the main railroad trackage that was to serve it was to run north-south in the area of Gross Ave.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 02, 2019, 09:16:03 PM
On another note - as I had predicted, WisDOT is slowly phasing out all US-41 signage that isn't on the mainline. I noticed today that the new signs on WI-100 at the I-43 NB ramp now only show I-41/I-43/I-894/US-45 and a new (To I-94). They removed the "standalone" US-41 sign that was there (and looked like an afterthought). I wouldn't be too surprised to even see mainline signage change in the future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 03, 2019, 09:09:52 AM
I thought phasing out the signage not on the mainline was part of the plan?  Regardless, they should just phase out all US-41 signage between the IL line and Green Bay.  No one will get confused.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 03, 2019, 10:24:46 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 03, 2019, 09:09:52 AM
I thought phasing out the signage not on the mainline was part of the plan?  Regardless, they should just phase out all US-41 signage between the IL line and Green Bay.  No one will get confused.

Could've been, though I don't recall WisDOT mentioning that. What is interesting is that they put up US-41 signs in places like WI-100/I-43 in the first place, since US-41 was rerouted there because of I-41. So the signs were only up for a couple of years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 04, 2019, 05:50:04 PM
Does anyone have an pictures of the new Hwy 151 interchange near Ridgeway? I would love to see how it looks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2019, 12:32:55 PM
The new Fleet Farm in Madison (well, DeForest/Windsor; whatever) has a fun sign that should make some roadgeek heads explode:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FAround%2520Town%2Ffleet_farm_zpsooe6w7zv.jpg&hash=eaf970c72686bd18e96a9a2f1b4632af6a7fddab)

Interesting idea, but the execution is... shitty.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 07, 2019, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2019, 12:32:55 PM
The new Fleet Farm in Madison (well, DeForest/Windsor; whatever) has a fun sign that should make some roadgeek heads explode:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FAround%2520Town%2Ffleet_farm_zpsooe6w7zv.jpg&hash=eaf970c72686bd18e96a9a2f1b4632af6a7fddab)

Interesting idea, but the execution is... shitty.

At least they used FHWA fonts. The question is, is this better or worse than Madison's naked Interstate shields (https://goo.gl/maps/yDL8vDVbw622)?

I'm still impressed they used the WisDOT-spec arrow and not the smaller federal version. The fancy poles, sign backs/borders seem a little excessive, though. They also have an interesting use for a trombone arm at the other driveway, to prevent large trucks from using it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 08, 2019, 06:17:44 AM
It's not all one sign!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:07:36 PM
Imagine seeing that kind of shield along the side of the Interstates, or on the overhead signs. That would be awesome!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on January 09, 2019, 05:28:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:07:36 PM
Imagine seeing that kind of shield along the side of the Interstates, or on the overhead signs. That would be awesome!

For half a second. And then my steering wheel would be covered in vomit. I'm gagging just looking at it here.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: sparker on January 10, 2019, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 09, 2019, 05:28:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:07:36 PM
Imagine seeing that kind of shield along the side of the Interstates, or on the overhead signs. That would be awesome!

For half a second. And then my steering wheel would be covered in vomit. I'm gagging just looking at it here.

If they're like Caltrans district shops, they have stick-on reflective integers in a few sizes; they probably assembled it with a size enabling them to get all the numbers on the shield.  But they certainly need to do a better job of both kerning and vertical placement -- as well as vertical spacing; no need to smash all the numbers into the top portion of the blue field.  Chances are someone was simply in a hurry and couldn't be bothered to lay it out properly.  (n.b.: they probably have relatives in Caltrans' D4!)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 10, 2019, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 10, 2019, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 09, 2019, 05:28:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:07:36 PM
Imagine seeing that kind of shield along the side of the Interstates, or on the overhead signs. That would be awesome!

For half a second. And then my steering wheel would be covered in vomit. I'm gagging just looking at it here.

If they're like Caltrans district shops, they have stick-on reflective integers in a few sizes; they probably assembled it with a size enabling them to get all the numbers on the shield.  But they certainly need to do a better job of both kerning and vertical placement -- as well as vertical spacing; no need to smash all the numbers into the top portion of the blue field.  Chances are someone was simply in a hurry and couldn't be bothered to lay it out properly.  (n.b.: they probably have relatives in Caltrans' D4!)

All the sign shops are in a hurry. The commercial one we indirectly worked with on a project (a sub to the contractor) sent us a W6-2 that would only be applicable in countries that drive on the left. It should never have even seen the light of day, but they shipped it anyway.

The installers weren't much better, as they not only installed it, but installed it upside down. At least they were consistent and installed the W6-1 (that was manufactured properly) upside-down as well.   :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 11, 2019, 09:03:21 PM
As I mentioned earlier about photos of the new Hwy 151 interchange near Ridgeway turns out you can find a couple of them at www.folklorevillage.org.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 16, 2019, 06:45:29 PM
I heard a professional roadgeek (as in, he's getting paid to be a roadgeek) on WPR today: https://www.wpr.org/listen/1390651

Eric of statetrunktour.com was on the air discussing his website and the roadgeeking hobby. Is he on this site?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 16, 2019, 07:07:56 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 16, 2019, 06:45:29 PM
I heard a professional roadgeek (as in, he's getting paid to be a roadgeek) on WPR today: https://www.wpr.org/listen/1390651

Eric of statetrunktour.com was on the air discussing his website and the roadgeeking hobby. Is he on this site?

Not sure. He's a friend of mine. I'll have to ask him.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2019, 09:49:33 AM
This site has been linked here before.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16952.msg2109432#msg2109432

I'm pretty jazzed that my memory is still pretty decent!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 17, 2019, 02:24:48 PM
Eric mentioned that he is a member of the FB group, but not the forum. He said that he should sign up. ;-)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 20, 2019, 12:20:39 AM
Wis 441 now has exit numbers after years of having mile markers.  However, the US 10 exit numbers are still used for the concurrency.  There's also a new sign for Harrison for the KK exit, which is now Exit 7. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on January 20, 2019, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 20, 2019, 12:20:39 AM
Wis 441 now has exit numbers after years of having mile markers.  However, the US 10 exit numbers are still used for the concurrency.  There's also a new sign for Harrison for the KK exit, which is now Exit 7. 

I saw that also - the signage goes from Exit 291 at Oneida St to Exit 7 with Calumet.  I wonder if Wis 172 will eventually do the same.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 22, 2019, 03:13:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"
They could just change it back to 43rd street.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 03:22:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 22, 2019, 03:13:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"
They could just change it back to 43rd street.


What about the freeway portion?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 22, 2019, 03:25:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 03:22:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 22, 2019, 03:13:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"
They could just change it back to 43rd street.


What about the freeway portion?
That's WI-175 now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on January 22, 2019, 03:41:38 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 22, 2019, 03:25:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 03:22:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 22, 2019, 03:13:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"
They could just change it back to 43rd street.


What about the freeway portion?
That's WI-175 now.



Could be Wis 175 Milwaukee/To Hwy 59
(not meant to be serious)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2019, 04:39:06 PM
Maybe if the Miller Parkway name goes, they could change the roadway back to Stadium South. Also, I'd like WIS-175 to be signposted both north and south of Intestate 94, and maybe number the exits from the southern junction at WIS-59.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on January 22, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"

AmFam Boulevard
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on January 22, 2019, 06:45:02 PM
I'm seriously upset that the name of the Brewers stadium will not stay as Miller Park. The name means so much to the team and the city of Milwaukee, and to name it otherwise means we lose a part of Milwaukee's brewing history. It doesn't even feel like a corporate-named stadium, because the name Miller is synonymous with the Milwaukee Brewers. There's just no point naming it anything else.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on January 22, 2019, 06:45:02 PM
I'm seriously upset that the name of the Brewers stadium will not stay as Miller Park. The name means so much to the team and the city of Milwaukee, and to name it otherwise means we lose a part of Milwaukee's brewing history. It doesn't even feel like a corporate-named stadium, because the name Miller is synonymous with the Milwaukee Brewers. There's just no point naming it anything else.


Eh. It's just a corporate named stadium.  Always has been. Just because it is familiar to you, that doesn't change that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 22, 2019, 08:50:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on January 22, 2019, 06:45:02 PM
I'm seriously upset that the name of the Brewers stadium will not stay as Miller Park. The name means so much to the team and the city of Milwaukee, and to name it otherwise means we lose a part of Milwaukee's brewing history. It doesn't even feel like a corporate-named stadium, because the name Miller is synonymous with the Milwaukee Brewers. There's just no point naming it anything else.


Eh. It's just a corporate named stadium.  Always has been. Just because it is familiar to you, that doesn't change that.

Wrigley Field is a 'corporate named' stadium, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on January 23, 2019, 09:31:15 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 22, 2019, 08:50:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on January 22, 2019, 06:45:02 PM
I'm seriously upset that the name of the Brewers stadium will not stay as Miller Park. The name means so much to the team and the city of Milwaukee, and to name it otherwise means we lose a part of Milwaukee's brewing history. It doesn't even feel like a corporate-named stadium, because the name Miller is synonymous with the Milwaukee Brewers. There's just no point naming it anything else.


Eh. It's just a corporate named stadium.  Always has been. Just because it is familiar to you, that doesn't change that.

Wrigley Field is a 'corporate named' stadium, too.

Mike


Wrigley was named after it's then owner William Wrigley Jr., not a corporate name for the gum company. 

Miller Park is a corporate name, but it was simple, had local ties, and did have a baseball feel/name to it.  Just hoping for the rest of stadiums time with us that it doesn't become one of those stadiums that ends up having 4 or 5 names before it's time to be replaced.  There is that traditional old style feeling having a short, simple, and not overly corporate name that connects to fans.  I would hope Lambeau Field never goes this way(but I remember early 2000's it was looked into though).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2019, 10:49:46 AM
I just think "Miller Park" doesn't sound corporate because it has been the only name the stadium has had for 18 years. Regardless, the Brewers did what they had to do in taking the best offer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 23, 2019, 11:12:46 AM
I think the change from Miller Park might be harder, since it was called that from the time the first brick was laid. Until 2020, one can say it was always known as Miller Park.

I found a comment elsewhere on the net a bit intriguing. If AmFam wants more of a Milwaukee presence, why didn't they go harder after naming rights to the new Bucks arena? I still wonder what else there is to the story. Will there be another big announcement from Miller (e.g., they're in a bigger financial hurt)? Is the Brewers organization trying to be more "PC" by reducing the influence of an adult beverage company?

I don't like the change myself, but I'm going to reserve a harder stance on the situation until AmFam announces what the name will be changed to. IMO, Miller Park, while commercialized, was easy, classy, and a seemingly perfect fit, given the history of the team and Milwaukee. The whole thing caught me by surprise; I never realized there was a sunset to the stadium's naming rights. Makes me wonder if AmFam will buy rights to the Kohl Center next? As others have mentioned, I highly doubt Lambeau will go anywhere. There's way too much history there, not to mention a very deep fanbase, in conjunction with the unique ownership status. Riots will ensue if a name change there ever sees the serious light of day.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2019, 11:53:21 AM
1. We don't know if AmFam was involved with the naming of the Fiserv Forum. I think those rights went for more money than Miller Park's.  (Stories are that this went for just under $3M per year while the Bucks' owners were looking to get about double that for the Forum.  Also it has been rumored that Fiserv is moving its headquarters somewhere downtown where the Bucks' are developing property so that could have been part of this transaction as well.)

2. I had a friend tell me that the Miller Park naming was always interesting in that it was "charged" to the various branding budgets within Miller with a portion paid by the local Miller distributors. Apparently they couldn't come to an agreement on how to divide up the increased share.  Miller will still be the primary beer sponsor however and there is talk that Bernie's slide may change back to become more "beer oriented."  So this isn't a PC move by the Brewers by any means.

3. Miller is doing just fine financially.  But remember it is part of a much larger corporation now than it was 20 years ago and really no longer headquartered in Milwaukee.  MillerCoors is a joint venture in Chicago, and that is part of Molson Coors, which is located in Denver and Montreal.

4. Unless I am unaware of some detail, the Kohl Center won't be renamed. That is a recognition of a personal gift by Herb Kohl to construct the building and *usually* those naming agreements don't sunset.

5. Lambeau only goes somewhere if the deal is *extremely* lucrative. They have too much branding in the name for it to go anywhere cheaply.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 23, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
I'm going to keep calling it Miller Park, you can bet on that.
I like it better because it sounds like somebody's name, even if it is a company.

Shame on MillerCoors for letting that get away.  I appreciate the fact that three major league stadiums are named after beer and to have the one in Brew City change just doesn't sit right with me.  I know it's stupid and it's not like I'm going to stop going, but I'm going to exercise my goddamn American right to  bitch and moan about something I have no control over.

Insurance companies are evil, too.  Even ones with "family" in the name.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on January 23, 2019, 01:14:46 PM
While the name of Miller Park changing is a bummer, to me, it's just a name. Not a huge deal. It won't affect the product on the field, which is most important anyway. Maybe the extra couple mil a year the Brewers will get from AmFam will help the afford the player that will bring a world series title home.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on January 23, 2019, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 22, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"

AmFam Boulevard
Not sure if you are serious, but that would be bad.  They need to go with something permanent so they don't have to rename it again when someone outbids AmFam next time.  Best suggestion I've heard is to name it after Bob Uecker or just call it Brewers Parkway.  Or maybe they can sell the naming rights to the road to Miller :-D.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 23, 2019, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on January 23, 2019, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 22, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"

AmFam Boulevard
Not sure if you are serious, but that would be bad.  They need to go with something permanent so they don't have to rename it again when someone outbids AmFam next time.  Best suggestion I've heard is to name it after Bob Uecker or just call it Brewers Parkway.  Or maybe they can sell the naming rights to the road to Miller :-D.
They should have just kept it 43rd Street. But why even do they have to change it? There are still names of streets named after things that are no longer there. It's not unusual.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on January 23, 2019, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on January 22, 2019, 06:45:02 PM
I'm seriously upset that the name of the Brewers stadium will not stay as Miller Park. The name means so much to the team and the city of Milwaukee, and to name it otherwise means we lose a part of Milwaukee's brewing history. It doesn't even feel like a corporate-named stadium, because the name Miller is synonymous with the Milwaukee Brewers. There's just no point naming it anything else.


Eh. It's just a corporate named stadium.  Always has been. Just because it is familiar to you, that doesn't change that.
I think Harley-Davidson and Rexnord missed an opportunity here.  But I'm really glad it's not going to be Potawatomi Hotel and Casino Ballpark.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on January 23, 2019, 02:32:22 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 23, 2019, 11:12:46 AM
I think the change from Miller Park might be harder, since it was called that from the time the first brick was laid. Until 2020, one can say it was always known as Miller Park.

I found a comment elsewhere on the net a bit intriguing. If AmFam wants more of a Milwaukee presence, why didn't they go harder after naming rights to the new Bucks arena? I still wonder what else there is to the story. Will there be another big announcement from Miller (e.g., they're in a bigger financial hurt)? Is the Brewers organization trying to be more "PC" by reducing the influence of an adult beverage company?

I don't like the change myself, but I'm going to reserve a harder stance on the situation until AmFam announces what the name will be changed to. IMO, Miller Park, while commercialized, was easy, classy, and a seemingly perfect fit, given the history of the team and Milwaukee. The whole thing caught me by surprise; I never realized there was a sunset to the stadium's naming rights. Makes me wonder if AmFam will buy rights to the Kohl Center next? As others have mentioned, I highly doubt Lambeau will go anywhere. There's way too much history there, not to mention a very deep fanbase, in conjunction with the unique ownership status. Riots will ensue if a name change there ever sees the serious light of day.


In riots you mean people will keep saying Lambeau Field instead of whatever name they would try and rename it.  That will be American Family Insurance's big issue if anything here is people still calling by former name instead of new name.  Still have White sox fans to this day that refuse to call their team's ballpark anything except Comiskey Park.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 23, 2019, 03:29:11 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 23, 2019, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on January 23, 2019, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 22, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"

AmFam Boulevard
Not sure if you are serious, but that would be bad.  They need to go with something permanent so they don't have to rename it again when someone outbids AmFam next time.  Best suggestion I've heard is to name it after Bob Uecker or just call it Brewers Parkway.  Or maybe they can sell the naming rights to the road to Miller :-D.
There are still names of streets named after things that are no longer there. It's not unusual.
^ This. Think about how many industries or businesses that have gone out of business or relocated. For example, Madison has an ever-growing list of street names that are now meaningless...Mayer Ave, Royster, Ave, Shopko Dr, Ray-o-vac Dr. Sure, it may sound weird, but I wouldn't mind it remaining Miller Park Way. It does go past the stadium lot named Miller. Unless they rename that too, it's not totally meaningless. As time passes, it won't be as strange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 23, 2019, 06:03:45 PM
I think I'll sell rights to name me :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Bickendan on January 23, 2019, 10:05:29 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 23, 2019, 06:03:45 PM
I think I'll sell rights to name me :P
"Brought to you by Carl's Jr."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 23, 2019, 10:26:24 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 23, 2019, 10:05:29 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 23, 2019, 06:03:45 PM
I think I'll sell rights to name me :P
"Brought to you by Carl's Jr."
In Wisconsin that would be Hardees
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on January 23, 2019, 11:01:09 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 23, 2019, 03:29:11 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 23, 2019, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on January 23, 2019, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 22, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"

AmFam Boulevard
Not sure if you are serious, but that would be bad.  They need to go with something permanent so they don't have to rename it again when someone outbids AmFam next time.  Best suggestion I've heard is to name it after Bob Uecker or just call it Brewers Parkway.  Or maybe they can sell the naming rights to the road to Miller :-D.
There are still names of streets named after things that are no longer there. It's not unusual.
^ This. Think about how many industries or businesses that have gone out of business or relocated. For example, Madison has an ever-growing list of street names that are now meaningless...Mayer Ave, Royster, Ave, Shopko Dr, Ray-o-vac Dr. Sure, it may sound weird, but I wouldn't mind it remaining Miller Park Way. It does go past the stadium lot named Miller. Unless they rename that too, it's not totally meaningless. As time passes, it won't be as strange.

I wouldn't mind keeping it Miller Park Way or changing it to something like Mrt90 suggested. Just as long as they don't name it after AmFam. They already have a street like that in Madison. It's by the AmFam headquarters.

Quote from: gr8daynegb on January 23, 2019, 02:32:22 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 23, 2019, 11:12:46 AM
I think the change from Miller Park might be harder, since it was called that from the time the first brick was laid. Until 2020, one can say it was always known as Miller Park.

I found a comment elsewhere on the net a bit intriguing. If AmFam wants more of a Milwaukee presence, why didn't they go harder after naming rights to the new Bucks arena? I still wonder what else there is to the story. Will there be another big announcement from Miller (e.g., they're in a bigger financial hurt)? Is the Brewers organization trying to be more "PC" by reducing the influence of an adult beverage company?

I don't like the change myself, but I'm going to reserve a harder stance on the situation until AmFam announces what the name will be changed to. IMO, Miller Park, while commercialized, was easy, classy, and a seemingly perfect fit, given the history of the team and Milwaukee. The whole thing caught me by surprise; I never realized there was a sunset to the stadium's naming rights. Makes me wonder if AmFam will buy rights to the Kohl Center next? As others have mentioned, I highly doubt Lambeau will go anywhere. There's way too much history there, not to mention a very deep fanbase, in conjunction with the unique ownership status. Riots will ensue if a name change there ever sees the serious light of day.


In riots you mean people will keep saying Lambeau Field instead of whatever name they would try and rename it.  That will be American Family Insurance's big issue if anything here is people still calling by former name instead of new name.  Still have White sox fans to this day that refuse to call their team's ballpark anything except Comiskey Park.

When a name sticks with the community usually they're never gonna want to change it, especially if it's named after somebody or after a company that's very important to the city. That means if it does change the opposition would naturally be fierce, and they'll keep calling it by its original name. There's plenty of people in Chicago who still call their tallest building the Sears Tower. I would still like the Brewers stadium to be called Miller Park. Lambeau Field is never gonna change its name exactly because of this.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 24, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
Sadly, Miller Park is not a landmark like Lambeau.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on January 25, 2019, 04:22:24 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on January 23, 2019, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 22, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"

AmFam Boulevard
Not sure if you are serious, but that would be bad.  They need to go with something permanent so they don't have to rename it again when someone outbids AmFam next time.  Best suggestion I've heard is to name it after Bob Uecker or just call it Brewers Parkway.  Or maybe they can sell the naming rights to the road to Miller :-D.



Yeah, I wasn't serious.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 25, 2019, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on January 23, 2019, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 22, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
So MillerCoors lost the naming rights for Miller Park to American Family Insurance.  What do they do about "Miller Park Way?"

AmFam Boulevard
Not sure if you are serious, but that would be bad.  They need to go with something permanent so they don't have to rename it again when someone outbids AmFam next time.  Best suggestion I've heard is to name it after Bob Uecker or just call it Brewers Parkway.

Brewers Pkwy would create a whole 'nother mess, since there's already a Brewer's Way nearby. Just leave the street alone. A few of the businesses would appreciate that, since a quick google map tour shows a few of them use it in their name. Not to mention everyone else along the ~1-mile stretch who would have to re-brand business cards, etc... But if they must change it, and they don't go for Uecker Pkwy, I'll throw this one out there: Home Run.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Bickendan on January 26, 2019, 06:56:47 AM
Quote from: Big John on January 23, 2019, 10:26:24 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 23, 2019, 10:05:29 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 23, 2019, 06:03:45 PM
I think I'll sell rights to name me :P
"Brought to you by Carl's Jr."
In Wisconsin that would be Hardees
Do you think Idiocracy did the research? :p
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on January 26, 2019, 12:46:31 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 24, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
Sadly, Miller Park is not a landmark like Lambeau.

^^^^^^^^^ This

I lived in St Louis for most of the last 30 years (moved last summer). Busch Stadium is still Busch Stadium, but there has been a Busch Stadium since 1953 and AB (now InBev) still pours a large amount of money into supporting the Cards. However, what was once the Kiel Center has been called the Savvis Center, the Scottrade Center, and now the Enterprise Center since 2000. There are locals who still call it the Kiel or Savvis Center. The Hollywood Casino Amphitheatre was originally Riverport Amphitheatre, then UMB Bank Pavilion and Verizon Wireless Amphitheater St. Louis before its current moniker. Most locals still call it Riverport.

The point is you can brand a stadium, get your brand mentioned on all sports broadcasts, but you can't control what locals call it. No doubt many fans will call it Miller Park for years. So get over the branding thing. Nobody really cares what the name is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on January 26, 2019, 01:31:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on January 26, 2019, 12:46:31 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 24, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
Sadly, Miller Park is not a landmark like Lambeau.

^^^^^^^^^ This

I lived in St Louis for most of the last 30 years (moved last summer). Busch Stadium is still Busch Stadium, but there has been a Busch Stadium since 1953 and AB (now InBev) still pours a large amount of money into supporting the Cards. However, what was once the Kiel Center has been called the Savvis Center, the Scottrade Center, and now the Enterprise Center since 2000. There are locals who still call it the Kiel or Savvis Center. The Hollywood Casino Amphitheatre was originally Riverport Amphitheatre, then UMB Bank Pavilion and Verizon Wireless Amphitheater St. Louis before its current moniker. Most locals still call it Riverport.

The point is you can brand a stadium, get your brand mentioned on all sports broadcasts, but you can't control what locals call it. No doubt many fans will call it Miller Park for years. So get over the branding thing. Nobody really cares what the name is.

In the case of St. Louis, younger fans would probably still be more likely to call it by its new name because they don't remember the original name. It's probably also going to be like that for young Brewers fans.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DJ Particle on January 28, 2019, 05:54:36 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 26, 2019, 06:56:47 AM
Quote from: Big John on January 23, 2019, 10:26:24 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 23, 2019, 10:05:29 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 23, 2019, 06:03:45 PM
I think I'll sell rights to name me :P
"Brought to you by Carl's Jr."
In Wisconsin that would be Hardees
Do you think Idiocracy did the research? :p

I just call them all "Carl's Jr."  Never understood why they didn't just rename them after Carl's Jr bought out Hardees.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on January 28, 2019, 08:23:04 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 24, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
Sadly, Miller Park is not a landmark like Lambeau.
Soldier Field is an other one that can't really change unless some wants to have the term in office to be labeled as the one that sold out the troops
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 31, 2019, 03:50:09 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 28, 2019, 08:23:04 AM
Soldier Field is an other one that can't really change unless some wants to have the term in office to be labeled as the one that sold out the troops
Besides, what company would want the ignominy of being associated with the Bears? :P

In my opinion, though, "Soldier Field" doesn't exist any more.  That facility was torn down and replaced with one that looks like a flying saucer crashed into a museum.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 31, 2019, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 31, 2019, 03:50:09 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 28, 2019, 08:23:04 AM
Soldier Field is an other one that can't really change unless some wants to have the term in office to be labeled as the one that sold out the troops
Besides, what company would want the ignominy of being associated with the Bears? :P

Pepsi (https://youtu.be/kA6jofSohtI)?
Taco Bell (https://youtu.be/dNl4-w9ZrBs)?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 01, 2019, 01:58:55 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 31, 2019, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 31, 2019, 03:50:09 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 28, 2019, 08:23:04 AM
Soldier Field is an other one that can't really change unless some wants to have the term in office to be labeled as the one that sold out the troops
Besides, what company would want the ignominy of being associated with the Bears? :P

Pepsi (https://youtu.be/kA6jofSohtI)?
Taco Bell (https://youtu.be/dNl4-w9ZrBs)?

This bar none is the best post ever made on this board.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on February 04, 2019, 09:37:28 PM
With a change in administration and a new Transportation Secretary (Good riddance to Dave Ross who was nowhere near qualified for the job), there is new talk of starting up new/restarting studies (pending additional revenue is found for construction): https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/citing-impact-of-delayed-studies-wisdot-to-restart-look-at/article_60d82999-ede0-50af-a145-3ba58439f6f2.html (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/citing-impact-of-delayed-studies-wisdot-to-restart-look-at/article_60d82999-ede0-50af-a145-3ba58439f6f2.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 05, 2019, 05:38:37 PM
I hope the projects mentioned are resurrected, and ultimately constructed. I think delaying them was a mistake. Of course, there is always the issue of funding, but that does not mean the projects should be deferred indefinitely.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 05, 2019, 06:11:03 PM
It comes down to though that simply increasing user fees is not enough. It'll help, but not solve the problem.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 05, 2019, 08:33:21 PM
And after the lame duck laws - don't expect any changes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 14, 2019, 11:27:41 PM
The freeze-thaw cycle has been rather unkind to I-39/90 just south of the Beltline:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/delays-continue-on-southbound-interstate-as-crews-repair-damaged-roads/1019329248
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on February 26, 2019, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 14, 2019, 11:27:41 PM
The freeze-thaw cycle has been rather unkind to I-39/90 just south of the Beltline:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/delays-continue-on-southbound-interstate-as-crews-repair-damaged-roads/1019329248

I hope we have enough money in the budget to repair all the damaged roads this year. This winter has been pretty brutal.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2019, 05:27:01 AM
The 2019 WisDOT county maps have been released.  There aren't many changes. I only saw the addition of STH 318/ Western Waukesha Bypass as a four lane divided roadway with an interchange with US 18 ( is this accurate?), and the incorporation of the village of Yorkville in Racine County.  What is still missing, after several years, is the incorporation of the village of Somers in Kenosha County, and the misclassification of a number of freeways as non-freeways, including the Madison Beltline.   Is there a contact link for the WisDOT cartographer's office?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2019, 09:00:45 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2019, 05:27:01 AM
The 2019 WisDOT county maps have been released.  There aren't many changes. I only saw the addition of STH 318/ Western Waukesha Bypass as a four lane divided roadway with an interchange with US 18 ( is this accurate?), and the incorporation of the village of Yorkville in Racine County.  What is still missing, after several years, is the incorporation of the village of Somers in Kenosha County, and the misclassification of a number of freeways as non-freeways, including the Madison Beltline.   Is there a contact link for the WisDOT cartographer's office?


https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/county-maps/waukesha.pdf

It's been about a year since I have been through there, but there isn't an interchange at US-18/WI-318 that I'm aware of.

That "Temporary US-18" routing is interesting.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dcharlie on March 29, 2019, 09:36:49 AM
[quote author=SEWIGuy link=topic=6819.msg2405549#msg24


https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/county-maps/waukesha.pdf

It's been about a year since I have been through there, but there isn't an interchange at US-18/WI-318 that I'm aware of.

That "Temporary US-18" routing is interesting.
[/quote]

Poking around, I found this map also:  https://projects.511wi.gov/18moorland/wp-content/uploads/sites/237/Temporary-alternate-USH-18.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 29, 2019, 09:37:39 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2019, 05:27:01 AM
The 2019 WisDOT county maps have been released.  There aren't many changes. I only saw the addition of STH 318/ Western Waukesha Bypass as a four lane divided roadway with an interchange with US 18 ( is this accurate?), and the incorporation of the village of Yorkville in Racine County.  What is still missing, after several years, is the incorporation of the village of Somers in Kenosha County, and the misclassification of a number of freeways as non-freeways, including the Madison Beltline.   Is there a contact link for the WisDOT cartographer's office?

I trust that the border between this 'Yorkville' and Union Grove is going to be adjusted in a somewhat logical manner, correct?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2019, 10:31:45 AM
Quote from: dcharlie on March 29, 2019, 09:36:49 AM
[quote author=SEWIGuy link=topic=6819.msg2405549#msg24


https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/county-maps/waukesha.pdf

It's been about a year since I have been through there, but there isn't an interchange at US-18/WI-318 that I'm aware of.

That "Temporary US-18" routing is interesting.

Poking around, I found this map also:  https://projects.511wi.gov/18moorland/wp-content/uploads/sites/237/Temporary-alternate-USH-18.pdf

[/quote]


I guess they just want to keep US-18 traffic away from the construction zone.  I'm on record that US-18 should be routed north on WI-318 to I-94 to the Bluemound exit.

The new Waukesha bypass can be an extension of WI-318.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2019, 05:27:00 PM
The new Waukesha bypass is more likely to be numbered US 18, and 18 will likely follow the existing 59/164 portions of the bypass as well. Will old 18 through the city of Waukesha be turned over to the city as local streets?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on March 29, 2019, 07:11:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2019, 05:27:00 PM
Will old 18 through the city of Waukesha be turned over to the city as local streets?

I thought they already did this, hence the "gap"  and the Temp 18.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on March 29, 2019, 07:53:55 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2019, 05:27:01 AM
The 2019 WisDOT county maps have been released.  There aren't many changes. I only saw the addition of STH 318/ Western Waukesha Bypass as a four lane divided roadway with an interchange with US 18 ( is this accurate?), and the incorporation of the village of Yorkville in Racine County.  What is still missing, after several years, is the incorporation of the village of Somers in Kenosha County, and the misclassification of a number of freeways as non-freeways, including the Madison Beltline.   Is there a contact link for the WisDOT cartographer's office?

Those county maps look horrifying in a cartographic sense. The text looks like it was just plopped on there with no regards to size, placement, or any sense of foreground and background. And what's up with Comic Sans for the exit numbers? Couldn't they have used a different font for them? I also can't tell some of the communities apart because some of the neighboring ones are the same color. The red and green highway lines are a menace to anybody who's red-green colorblind, and even if you're not, the green lines are still rather hard to look at.

Those maps are a cartographer's nightmare. After all these years of making maps, I'm surprised WISDOT hasn't hired someone better to make them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on April 01, 2019, 04:43:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 29, 2019, 09:37:39 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2019, 05:27:01 AM
The 2019 WisDOT county maps have been released.  There aren't many changes. I only saw the addition of STH 318/ Western Waukesha Bypass as a four lane divided roadway with an interchange with US 18 ( is this accurate?), and the incorporation of the village of Yorkville in Racine County.  What is still missing, after several years, is the incorporation of the village of Somers in Kenosha County, and the misclassification of a number of freeways as non-freeways, including the Madison Beltline.   Is there a contact link for the WisDOT cartographer's office?

I trust that the border between this 'Yorkville' and Union Grove is going to be adjusted in a somewhat logical manner, correct?

Mike
I think the answer is maybe. It sounds like Union Grove and Yorkville have an agreement (or at least a verbal understanding) that Union Grove might be able to annex certain areas whose needs will best be served by Union Grove.  But it appears at the current time that the previous Union Grove border was set and the new village of Yorkville surrounds Union Grove for the most part.  I think UG and Yorkville may already share some services, like I think they have a common fire department?

I found it interesting that Yorkville was allowed to incorporate the entire town as a village even though the entire town didn't meet the population density criteria.  When Somers and Bristol (both in Kenosha County) incorporated within the past few years, only certain areas were allowed to become part of the new village for now, so that there is now both a town and a village of Bristol and Somers.  Over time it will all become part of the new villages (or part of the city of Kenosha where previous boundary agreements were already in place) but right now the towns of Bristol and Somers still exist along with the new villages.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 02, 2019, 11:21:32 AM
Quote from: Mrt90 on April 01, 2019, 04:43:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 29, 2019, 09:37:39 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2019, 05:27:01 AM
The 2019 WisDOT county maps have been released.  There aren’t many changes. I only saw the addition of STH 318/ Western Waukesha Bypass as a four lane divided roadway with an interchange with US 18 ( is this accurate?), and the incorporation of the village of Yorkville in Racine County.  What is still missing, after several years, is the incorporation of the village of Somers in Kenosha County, and the misclassification of a number of freeways as non-freeways, including the Madison Beltline.   Is there a contact link for the WisDOT cartographer’s office?

I trust that the border between this 'Yorkville' and Union Grove is going to be adjusted in a somewhat logical manner, correct?

Mike
I think the answer is maybe. It sounds like Union Grove and Yorkville have an agreement (or at least a verbal understanding) that Union Grove might be able to annex certain areas whose needs will best be served by Union Grove.  But it appears at the current time that the previous Union Grove border was set and the new village of Yorkville surrounds Union Grove for the most part.  I think UG and Yorkville may already share some services, like I think they have a common fire department?

I found it interesting that Yorkville was allowed to incorporate the entire town as a village even though the entire town didn't meet the population density criteria.  When Somers and Bristol (both in Kenosha County) incorporated within the past few years, only certain areas were allowed to become part of the new village for now, so that there is now both a town and a village of Bristol and Somers.  Over time it will all become part of the new villages (or part of the city of Kenosha where previous boundary agreements were already in place) but right now the towns of Bristol and Somers still exist along with the new villages.

Bristol took in the entire township.  Bristol first incorporated a small 'logical' part of itself and then that new 'village' quickly annexed the remainder of the township (this has been a common tactic statewide over the past couple of decades and must be addressed by the legislature) while Somers has an agreement with Kenosha to transfer all of the irregular the bits and scraps along their mutual border (those bits and scraps are the remaining township) to Kenosha in order to seriously straighten out that line.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2019, 11:51:30 AM
So if you were in the legislature, how would you address this?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on April 02, 2019, 12:55:31 PM
Is WisDOT still planning to straighten the s-curve on US 12 by the Badger ammunition plant this year?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on April 02, 2019, 02:38:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 02, 2019, 11:21:32 AM
Quote from: Mrt90 on April 01, 2019, 04:43:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 29, 2019, 09:37:39 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 29, 2019, 05:27:01 AM
The 2019 WisDOT county maps have been released.  There aren't many changes. I only saw the addition of STH 318/ Western Waukesha Bypass as a four lane divided roadway with an interchange with US 18 ( is this accurate?), and the incorporation of the village of Yorkville in Racine County.  What is still missing, after several years, is the incorporation of the village of Somers in Kenosha County, and the misclassification of a number of freeways as non-freeways, including the Madison Beltline.   Is there a contact link for the WisDOT cartographer's office?

I trust that the border between this 'Yorkville' and Union Grove is going to be adjusted in a somewhat logical manner, correct?

Mike
I think the answer is maybe. It sounds like Union Grove and Yorkville have an agreement (or at least a verbal understanding) that Union Grove might be able to annex certain areas whose needs will best be served by Union Grove.  But it appears at the current time that the previous Union Grove border was set and the new village of Yorkville surrounds Union Grove for the most part.  I think UG and Yorkville may already share some services, like I think they have a common fire department?

I found it interesting that Yorkville was allowed to incorporate the entire town as a village even though the entire town didn't meet the population density criteria.  When Somers and Bristol (both in Kenosha County) incorporated within the past few years, only certain areas were allowed to become part of the new village for now, so that there is now both a town and a village of Bristol and Somers.  Over time it will all become part of the new villages (or part of the city of Kenosha where previous boundary agreements were already in place) but right now the towns of Bristol and Somers still exist along with the new villages.

Bristol took in the entire township.  Bristol first incorporated a small 'logical' part of itself and then that new 'village' quickly annexed the remainder of the township (this has been a common tactic statewide over the past couple of decades and must be addressed by the legislature) while Somers has an agreement with Kenosha to transfer all of the irregular the bits and scraps along their mutual border (those bits and scraps are the remaining township) to Kenosha in order to seriously straighten out that line.

Mike
I didn't realize the Town of Bristol was already completely absorbed by the village but you are right.  Part of the town was incorporated as a village on December 1, 2009 and the Village of Bristol voted to annex the entire town on June 29, 2010, so the entire town became part of the village on July 4, 2010.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2019, 03:42:43 PM
I hope they release the 2019-20 state highway map soon. I have each edition dating back to 1987 (including a raggedy state highway map from 1983 that I got from my stepsister).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 02, 2019, 05:02:29 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2019, 11:51:30 AM
So if you were in the legislature, how would you address this?

Several things, such as setting the shared revenue formula to strongly favor munis that cover larger percentages of their urbanized areas than ones that cover lower percentages, combine their governments with other munis (must include the 'legacy' munis), etc.  Also give existing incorporated munis a much greater say in whether or not adjacent and nearby townships incorporate, require that iron-clad boundary agreements with all of the neighbors be in place before incorporations are allowed to proceed, require that boundary agreements 'run with the land' and not with the specific munis (a BIG problem here in the Fox Valley - ie, the agreement was with the defunct township and not the newly incorporated village of the same name, thus the new township village is 'not a party to the agreement', etc), and so forth.

I would also make it much easier for landowners to transfer properties from newer incorporated munis to older adjacent ones, perhaps in the same manner as with unchallengeable unanimous annexations from townships to cities and villages, 'unlandlocking' the older legacy munis and helping to further the cause of economic development (making this a matter of statewide concern).

There are many other things that could also be done here.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 02, 2019, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on April 02, 2019, 02:38:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 02, 2019, 11:21:32 AMBristol took in the entire township.  Bristol first incorporated a small 'logical' part of itself and then that new 'village' quickly annexed the remainder of the township (this has been a common tactic statewide over the past couple of decades and must be addressed by the legislature) while Somers has an agreement with Kenosha to transfer all of the irregular the bits and scraps along their mutual border (those bits and scraps are the remaining township) to Kenosha in order to seriously straighten out that line.

Mike
I didn't realize the Town of Bristol was already completely absorbed by the village but you are right.  Part of the town was incorporated as a village on December 1, 2009 and the Village of Bristol voted to annex the entire town on June 29, 2010, so the entire town became part of the village on July 4, 2010.

Yea, that part of Bristol that surrounds the part of Kenosha that is along WI 50 west of I-41/94 needs a major boundary adjustment to make better sense of that area.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on April 03, 2019, 03:05:51 PM
Big news released this past week in terms of 23 between FDL and Plymouth, they supposedly are starting construction on it the end of May (at least that's what I heard). 1000 Friends declined to file a complaint. Here's to hoping it won't be a mess like 151 is around FDL.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MantyMadTown on April 03, 2019, 05:29:01 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on April 03, 2019, 03:05:51 PM
Big news released this past week in terms of 23 between FDL and Plymouth, they supposedly are starting construction on it the end of May (at least that's what I heard). 1000 Friends declined to file a complaint. Here's to hoping it won't be a mess like 151 is around FDL.

Good thing there isn't too much to mess up on 23 between Plymouth and FDL. But I really do hate 151 around FDL. Remember my earlier post about how WISDOT decided to mess up the exits on the bypass?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 04, 2019, 06:01:24 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 03, 2019, 05:29:01 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on April 03, 2019, 03:05:51 PM
Big news released this past week in terms of 23 between FDL and Plymouth, they supposedly are starting construction on it the end of May (at least that's what I heard). 1000 Friends declined to file a complaint. Here's to hoping it won't be a mess like 151 is around FDL.

Good thing there isn't too much to mess up on 23 between Plymouth and FDL. But I really do hate 151 around FDL. Remember my earlier post about how WISDOT decided to mess up the exits on the bypass?

And the sad thing is that back when they were holding design hearings on that bypass, several of us in here and in other forvms of the time, myself included, pretty much warned WisDOT that it would be a FUBAR as it laid out.

:rolleyes:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 04, 2019, 06:07:56 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 02, 2019, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on April 02, 2019, 02:38:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 02, 2019, 11:21:32 AMBristol took in the entire township.  Bristol first incorporated a small 'logical' part of itself and then that new 'village' quickly annexed the remainder of the township (this has been a common tactic statewide over the past couple of decades and must be addressed by the legislature) while Somers has an agreement with Kenosha to transfer all of the irregular the bits and scraps along their mutual border (those bits and scraps are the remaining township) to Kenosha in order to seriously straighten out that line.

Mike
I didn't realize the Town of Bristol was already completely absorbed by the village but you are right.  Part of the town was incorporated as a village on December 1, 2009 and the Village of Bristol voted to annex the entire town on June 29, 2010, so the entire town became part of the village on July 4, 2010.

Yea, that part of Bristol that surrounds the part of Kenosha that is along WI 50 west of I-41/94 needs a major boundary adjustment to make better sense of that area.

Mike

One note here, this past Tuesday (2019-04-02), Raymond Township (Racine County) voted to become a village.  This is the area along the west side of I-41/94 in the north half of Racine County, the full 36 section township north of Yorkville and south of Franklin.  The 7 Mile Fair and that massive auto auction yard are in it.

IMHO, this was likely needed due to the amounts of development that are expected in the area surrounding the FoxConn campus site and unlike with Yorkville, I consider this one to be inconsequential in that there are no 'legacy' incorporated munis anywhere near it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on April 04, 2019, 03:25:15 PM
I know along the way between Plymouth and Sheboygan they put in a bunch of Michigan Lefts (I think I'm using the correct term?) rather than interchanges/overpasses. I'm not sure if they're doing anything with the "improvements" east of Plymouth, at one point they were talking about doing an interchange/overpass at TT. Anyway, hopefully it finally takes off and more importantly, lessens the frequency of crashes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 24, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
What are WISDOT's plans for WI-23 between FDL and Sheboygan? Is there any chance that the FDL-Plymouth part will be widened? It's a busy highway, sure, but I don't want to see it widened because it's such a beautiful drive. They shouldn't cut into the rolling prairie.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 24, 2019, 05:21:02 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 24, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
What are WISDOT's plans for WI-23 between FDL and Sheboygan? Is there any chance that the FDL-Plymouth part will be widened? It's a busy highway, sure, but I don't want to see it widened because it's such a beautiful drive. They shouldn't cut into the rolling prairie.


It will be expanded to a four lane expressway between Fond du Lac and where the current freeway ends in Plymouth starting this summer.

https://projects.511wi.gov/wis23resurface/full-project-overview/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 24, 2019, 05:32:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 24, 2019, 05:21:02 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 24, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
What are WISDOT's plans for WI-23 between FDL and Sheboygan? Is there any chance that the FDL-Plymouth part will be widened? It's a busy highway, sure, but I don't want to see it widened because it's such a beautiful drive. They shouldn't cut into the rolling prairie.


It will be expanded to a four lane expressway between Fond du Lac and where the current freeway ends in Plymouth starting this summer.

https://projects.511wi.gov/wis23resurface/full-project-overview/
To improve safety, primarily? There are busier 2 lane roads that aren't expressways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 24, 2019, 11:03:05 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 24, 2019, 05:32:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 24, 2019, 05:21:02 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 24, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
What are WISDOT's plans for WI-23 between FDL and Sheboygan? Is there any chance that the FDL-Plymouth part will be widened? It's a busy highway, sure, but I don't want to see it widened because it's such a beautiful drive. They shouldn't cut into the rolling prairie.


It will be expanded to a four lane expressway between Fond du Lac and where the current freeway ends in Plymouth starting this summer.

https://projects.511wi.gov/wis23resurface/full-project-overview/
To improve safety, primarily? There are busier 2 lane roads that aren't expressways.

WI 23 has been a seriously dangerous highway for many years.  WisDOT was just able to get around that federal court order within the past year and the Madison-based enviros who got that court order stopping upgrade construction in place over a decade ago were nowhere to be found this time around.  It has always been a very popular project among the locals.

Construction should be under way within the next few weeks.

:cheers:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on April 25, 2019, 04:39:30 PM
^ There are less expensive measures that would improve safety without the cost or impact of a full 4-lane widening.

I recall doing some number crunching on WI 23 a couple years ago.  From FdL, you can definitely make a case for a short 4-lane extension to CTH UU, but traffic volumes take a noticeable dip east of UU, even more by the county line (under 6K), and don't really pick back up again until Greenbush.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 25, 2019, 05:20:43 PM
There's just a lot of intersections of that section of WI-23. Cross traffic and turning traffic don't mix well with traffic going 70 MPH, obviously.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Verlanka on April 26, 2019, 07:05:54 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 25, 2019, 05:20:43 PM
There's just a lot of intersections of that section of WI-23. Cross traffic and turning traffic don't mix well with traffic going 70 MPH, obviously.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 26, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
For a DOT that's supposedly starved for cash, the WI 23 expansion seems ostentatious.  Sure it'll be safer and shorten the drive between FDL and Sheboygan slightly, but I think it's going to look a lot like US 10 west of Stevens Point when done: Way overbuilt for the traffic it handles.

But unlike, say, US 53 in northwest Wisconsin (an expressway seemingly overbuilt for its traffic) WI 23 doesn't function as an inter-regional corridor.  Sheboygan and Fond du Lac are too small and close together for WI 23 to be considered in the same breathe as US 53 up in Douglas & Washburn Counties.  US 53 connects a MAJOR inland port, an entire region of northern Minnesota and even a sizeable chunk of Canada to everywhere in Chicago's influence and beyond to the south and east.

I haven't driven WI 23 a ton over the proposed expansion, but every time I have, I was never struck with the impression "Wow, this seriously needs 4 lanes."  There must be dozens of projects currently backburnered by WisDOT more deserving of action than this one.  Like US 10 before it, WI 23 is a special interest project of dubious merit championed by influential politicians from that area.

In an alternate universe where WisDOT hasn't been kneecapped by a decade and a half of shortsightedness I'm okay with expanding WI 23.  But in the real world, with thousands of miles of dilapidated and/or congested highways in the state, expanding WI 23 is not a financially prudent decision.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2019, 05:10:05 PM
You may be right. On the other hand, the amount of support for four-laning STH-23 was overwhelming. Time will tell whether four-laning the corridor was overkill.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 26, 2019, 05:10:31 PM
I agree with most of what you said. WISDOT needs to find ways to make highways safer that don't involve dramatically widening the highway. Regardless of how, though, improvements are needed on WI-23.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on May 01, 2019, 11:49:41 PM
I tend to agree with most comments about this project.  So my question to all of you is name 4-lane expansion or new corridor projects that are in greater need than STH 23 from FdL to Plymouth.  I'll nominate the following:

Madison North Beltline
STH 21, Coloma to Oshkosh, passing lanes and/or expansion, and a Wautoma bypass
Sauk City bypass and removing US 12 stoplights to Middleton
US 14 Janesville to Darien
US 12 new corridor Elkhorn to Whitewater (interim Super 2) bypassing Lauderdale Lakes
STH 83 near Wales and Genessee Depot
STH 42/57 Sturgeon Bay bypass, 4-lane north of canal
US 14 Oregon to Evansville (future need, but increasing ADTs)
US 14 Spring Green to Middleton
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2019, 06:58:45 AM
The new corridor between Elkhorn and Whitewater really isn't that necessary given the cost. US-12 traffic is really only heavy on summer weekends and is otherwise reasonable.

IMO, expansion of current interstate highways (such as I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay and I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee) are MUCH higher priorities than any four-laning project I can think of.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 02, 2019, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 01, 2019, 11:49:41 PM
I tend to agree with most comments about this project.  So my question to all of you is name 4-lane expansion or new corridor projects that are in greater need than STH 23 from FdL to Plymouth.

The more deserving projects I'm thinking about are not new four lane expansions.  Narrowing the question like that bumps WI 23 higher; higher than at least half of your proposals.  I'm thinking more along the lines of remaining freeway expansions in Milwaukee County and extending I-94's six lanes west to at least Oconomowoc.  I'd resurrect US 10 east at Stevens Point over WI 23.  I'd work on a bit of freeway conversion of some existing expressways around the state to increase the safety of those corridors.  Agree about US 12 tho; those lights are sucky and I'm jonsing for that Sauk bypass.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 02, 2019, 06:06:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 02, 2019, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 01, 2019, 11:49:41 PM
I tend to agree with most comments about this project.  So my question to all of you is name 4-lane expansion or new corridor projects that are in greater need than STH 23 from FdL to Plymouth.

The more deserving projects I'm thinking about are not new four lane expansions.  Narrowing the question like that bumps WI 23 higher; higher than at least half of your proposals.  I'm thinking more along the lines of remaining freeway expansions in Milwaukee County and extending I-94's six lanes west to at least Oconomowoc.  I'd resurrect US 10 east at Stevens Point over WI 23.  I'd work on a bit of freeway conversion of some existing expressways around the state to increase the safety of those corridors.  Agree about US 12 tho; those lights are sucky and I'm jonsing for that Sauk bypass.
Honestly, expressways and megafreeways are nice, but first WISDOT should address its crumbling roads, especially in the western part of the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 03, 2019, 12:27:16 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 02, 2019, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 01, 2019, 11:49:41 PM
I tend to agree with most comments about this project.  So my question to all of you is name 4-lane expansion or new corridor projects that are in greater need than STH 23 from FdL to Plymouth.

The more deserving projects I'm thinking about are not new four lane expansions.  Narrowing the question like that bumps WI 23 higher; higher than at least half of your proposals.  I'm thinking more along the lines of remaining freeway expansions in Milwaukee County and extending I-94's six lanes west to at least Oconomowoc.  I'd resurrect US 10 east at Stevens Point over WI 23.  I'd work on a bit of freeway conversion of some existing expressways around the state to increase the safety of those corridors.  Agree about US 12 tho; those lights are sucky and I'm jonsing for that Sauk bypass.

US 10 between I-39 at Stevens Point and Amherst Junction will now have to be upgraded on its current ROW, any other potential corridor is no longer available.  IMHO, that would be a 'piece 'o cake' east of the Stevens Point city limits and especially east of County 'J' - there is enough room in the median to add a new eastbound mainline roadway, extending the existing narrow barrier median at county 'J' between it and the current westbound side and downgrading the current eastbound side into a frontage/access road from County 'J' to WI 161.

The real fun here, though, is the part from the Stevens Point city limits westward to I-39 - it would have to be upgraded in a manner that is very much like a Texas freeway complete with the paired one-way frontage roads and a free-flow interchange at I-39 on a seriously wider ROW.  Yepper - $$$$$.

<sigh....>

:no:

OTOH, serious upgrades are needed on that two-lane part of WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan due to safety issues and it is a hugely popular project among the locals.  The prohibition on WisDOT studying a US 12 Sauk-Prairie bypass is soon to expire (if it hasn't already) and a US 12 Ekhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' should not be too difficult to do as a Super-Two on an upgradable ROW - the vast majority of where it will go is wide-open, FLAT, undeveloped countryside.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 03, 2019, 02:02:29 AM
From the programmed projects side of things, I'm happy to see Hwy 23/33 in Sauk County (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/wis23-reedsburg/default.aspx) finally slated to get some attention, but I don't think it's going to last until 2021. It was already in poor shape, but this past winter did a serious beating on this stretch. It makes going to the in-laws that much more enjoyable.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2019, 08:35:48 AM
US-10 on the east side of Stevens Point is fine. Sure it slows down but traffic isn't terrible and everyone moves well. Relocating that would have been a great example of overkill. Not everything needs to be free flowing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on May 03, 2019, 10:51:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2019, 06:58:45 AM
The new corridor between Elkhorn and Whitewater really isn't that necessary given the cost. US-12 traffic is really only heavy on summer weekends and is otherwise reasonable.

Being a high accident corridor (with 'Crash Reduction Project' signs' (https://goo.gl/maps/Y9WS5DJXmfXejuLx7)) is not enough to warrant at least an upgraded two lane facility?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 04, 2019, 08:32:41 AM
Sure.  Upgrade the corridor by adding passing lanes, straightening out curves and hills, etc.  A new terrain corridor across the Kettle Morraine?  Overkill.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on May 04, 2019, 12:07:48 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 02, 2019, 06:06:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 02, 2019, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 01, 2019, 11:49:41 PM
I tend to agree with most comments about this project.  So my question to all of you is name 4-lane expansion or new corridor projects that are in greater need than STH 23 from FdL to Plymouth.

The more deserving projects I'm thinking about are not new four lane expansions.  Narrowing the question like that bumps WI 23 higher; higher than at least half of your proposals.  I'm thinking more along the lines of remaining freeway expansions in Milwaukee County and extending I-94's six lanes west to at least Oconomowoc.  I'd resurrect US 10 east at Stevens Point over WI 23.  I'd work on a bit of freeway conversion of some existing expressways around the state to increase the safety of those corridors.  Agree about US 12 tho; those lights are sucky and I'm jonsing for that Sauk bypass.
Honestly, expressways and megafreeways are nice, but first WISDOT should address its crumbling roads, especially in the western part of the state.

This! The state highways are in a miserable way here in west Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Yeah, they have been spending on Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and St. Croix County recently, and really nowhere else.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 04, 2019, 05:55:04 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Yeah, they have been spending on Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and St. Croix County recently, and really nowhere else.

St. Croix County is Western Wisconsin, isn't it?  :colorful:

/I'll show myself the door.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 04, 2019, 08:24:21 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Yeah, they have been spending on Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and St. Croix County recently, and really nowhere else.


You mean where most of the people live???
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 04, 2019, 05:55:04 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Yeah, they have been spending on Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and St. Croix County recently, and really nowhere else.

St. Croix County is Western Wisconsin, isn't it?  :colorful:

/I'll show myself the door.
Oops. Western Wisconsin besides St. Croix County.  :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 04, 2019, 10:27:27 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Yeah, they have been spending on Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and St. Croix County recently, and really nowhere else.
What about the I-39/90 project that isn't in any of those areas.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Yeah, they have been spending on Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and St. Croix County recently, and really nowhere else.

I'm a little surprised you left your own town off the list. :hmmm:  Verona Rd and the beltline too close?

While I won't speak to the rest of the Milwaukee metro, the Zoo Interchange has been in dire shape for far too long. Unless you like spending millions of dollars on emergency bridge repairs, it had to be done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 05, 2019, 08:49:16 AM
It probably could be argued that WIDOT hasn't spent enough money in the Milwaukee area if you used a measurement based on dollars spent per AADT.   I might be wrong, but I think a lot of the recent spending is catch up to a lot of spending in largely rural areas upgrading highways that, while busy, don't contain nearly the amount of traffic as Milwaukee's highways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 05, 2019, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Yeah, they have been spending on Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and St. Croix County recently, and really nowhere else.

I'm a little surprised you left your own town off the list. :hmmm:  Verona Rd and the beltline too close?

While I won't speak to the rest of the Milwaukee metro, the Zoo Interchange has been in dire shape for far too long. Unless you like spending millions of dollars on emergency bridge repairs, it had to be done.

And, as I have mentioned off and on for many years in all sorts of forvms, the health and fluidity of the Zoo interchange is of critical importance to the economic well-being of the entire eastern half of Wisconsin, not just western Milwaukee County.  A HUGE chunk of the commerce into and out of most of the state east of I-39 passes through it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 05, 2019, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 05, 2019, 08:49:16 AM
It probably could be argued that WIDOT hasn't spent enough money in the Milwaukee area if you used a measurement based on dollars spent per AADT.   I might be wrong, but I think a lot of the recent spending is catch up to a lot of spending in largely rural areas upgrading highways that, while busy, don't contain nearly the amount of traffic as Milwaukee's highways.

Don't forget that for much of the later part of the 20th century and into the 21st century, many high-end pols in metro Milwaukee were not very warm and welcoming to the idea of major highway upgrades within their domains, so the legislature decided to spend that money were it was welcomed, that being outstate.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 05, 2019, 03:23:53 PM
The next part of the Milwaukee area that needs to be addressed is the I-43 corridor from Downtown to about Brown Deer Rd. As for other parts of the state, I like the idea of addressing Wis 21 between Oshkosh and Coloma but I would say have it addressed to Tomah making 21 a true backbone road of the state system.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 05, 2019, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 05, 2019, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Maybe someone should write to the DOT asking them to pay more attention to roads in Western Wisconsin.
Yeah, they have been spending on Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and St. Croix County recently, and really nowhere else.

I'm a little surprised you left your own town off the list. :hmmm:  Verona Rd and the beltline too close?

While I won't speak to the rest of the Milwaukee metro, the Zoo Interchange has been in dire shape for far too long. Unless you like spending millions of dollars on emergency bridge repairs, it had to be done.

And, as I have mentioned off and on for many years in all sorts of forvms, the health and fluidity of the Zoo interchange is of critical importance to the economic well-being of the entire eastern half of Wisconsin, not just western Milwaukee County.  A HUGE chunk of the commerce into and out of most of the state east of I-39 passes through it.

Mike
I agree that the Zoo Interchange project was needed, and WISDOT did a pretty good job on it, honestly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 05, 2019, 08:32:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 05, 2019, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 05, 2019, 08:49:16 AM
It probably could be argued that WIDOT hasn't spent enough money in the Milwaukee area if you used a measurement based on dollars spent per AADT.   I might be wrong, but I think a lot of the recent spending is catch up to a lot of spending in largely rural areas upgrading highways that, while busy, don't contain nearly the amount of traffic as Milwaukee's highways.

Don't forget that for much of the later part of the 20th century and into the 21st century, many high-end pols in metro Milwaukee were not very warm and welcoming to the idea of major highway upgrades within their domains, so the legislature decided to spend that money were it was welcomed, that being outstate.

Mike

The legislature also has a history of treating Milwaukee like a punching bag too.  Oftentimes in more than subtly racist manner.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 06, 2019, 12:43:38 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 05, 2019, 03:23:53 PM
The next part of the Milwaukee area that needs to be addressed is the I-43 corridor from Downtown to about Brown Deer Rd.

I recently sat in on a presentation from Secretary-designee Thompson, where he mentioned that stretch (but extended into Ozaukee County) as one that would be looked at more seriously again.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 06, 2019, 01:40:32 PM
What about the stalled Interstate 94 reconstruction and widening project between 70th St. and 16th St.? That project may need a restart more than the Interstate 43 project (although they both should be restarted). I think the Interstate 94 reconstruction should be the priority, since the traffic counts of that segment of 94 are far higher than the segment of the 43 project (Silver Spring Dr. to STH-60).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 06, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 05, 2019, 03:23:53 PM
The next part of the Milwaukee area that needs to be addressed is the I-43 corridor from Downtown to about Brown Deer Rd.
That should have been done like 20 years ago. Why has Wisdot put it off for so long?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 06, 2019, 04:22:11 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 06, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 05, 2019, 03:23:53 PM
The next part of the Milwaukee area that needs to be addressed is the I-43 corridor from Downtown to about Brown Deer Rd.
That should have been done like 20 years ago. Why has Wisdot put it off for so long?
The NIMBYism is strong there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 06, 2019, 10:27:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 06, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 05, 2019, 03:23:53 PM
The next part of the Milwaukee area that needs to be addressed is the I-43 corridor from Downtown to about Brown Deer Rd.
That should have been done like 20 years ago. Why has Wisdot put it off for so long?

It was being looked at several years ago. There's likely posts about it in this thread, discussing the interchange alternatives that were being looked at. While NIMBYism may have played a roll, I think limited funding was more of the reason the plans got shoved back on the shelf.

EDIT: Looks like it was 5-7 years ago: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 07, 2019, 12:45:15 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 06, 2019, 10:27:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 06, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 05, 2019, 03:23:53 PM
The next part of the Milwaukee area that needs to be addressed is the I-43 corridor from Downtown to about Brown Deer Rd.
That should have been done like 20 years ago. Why has Wisdot put it off for so long?

It was being looked at several years ago. There's likely posts about it in this thread, discussing the interchange alternatives that were being looked at. While NIMBYism may have played a roll, I think limited funding was more of the reason the plans got shoved back on the shelf.

EDIT: Looks like it was 5-7 years ago: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx)

I-43 has needed to be widened to six lanes from Silver Spring to the WI-57 split at Saukville for years. I mostly stopped going to Green Bay via I-43 from STL years ago because of the traffic backups. It was quicker going via US 151 or even WI 26 to I-41 even though it's slightly longer. (I did take it two summers ago on my way back, but it was about 11 AM on a Monday so rush hour was long over. I quit using the slightly shorter Tri-State routing around Chicago even before I-39 was completed south of I-80 because going anywhere near Chicago is inviting delays.) The biggest problem on I-43 was the narrow ROW at the bend just north of Silver Spring which really jammed afternoon rush hour traffic. But that's been fixed for several years now and widening the rest would be relatively simple. Unfortunately, widening through the bend just moved the source of the jams slightly further north.

I'm guessing the NIMBYs are the wealthy Milwaukee County lakeside towns. I can't imagine many Ozaukee County residents fighting a better I-43.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on May 25, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'll ask again since it seemed to get lost in the shuffle the first time.

Does anyone know the status of the previously planned project to realign the "s-curve" section of US 12 near the Badger Ammunition plant (between Sauk City and the recently completed Baraboo bypass)?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 25, 2019, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'll ask again since it seemed to get lost in the shuffle the first time.

Does anyone know the status of the previously planned project to realign the "s-curve" section of US 12 near the Badger Ammunition plant (between Sauk City and the recently completed Baraboo bypass)?
I'm not sure. But that curve has to be part of the Sauk city bypass plan that will happen in the next few years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 26, 2019, 02:39:08 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'll ask again since it seemed to get lost in the shuffle the first time.

Does anyone know the status of the previously planned project to realign the "s-curve" section of US 12 near the Badger Ammunition plant (between Sauk City and the recently completed Baraboo bypass)?

Looks like the study was completed (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12skihi19/default.aspx), but that's about it. It doesn't appear to show up elsewhere on the SW Region project page (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/default.aspx#design), nor have I heard any rumors from WisDOT staff. After the study was completed, they said something would happen around 2018...obviously those plans fell through. At the very least, there are some stretches of pavement that need some TLC in the near-future.


Quote from: thspfc on May 25, 2019, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'll ask again since it seemed to get lost in the shuffle the first time.

Does anyone know the status of the previously planned project to realign the "s-curve" section of US 12 near the Badger Ammunition plant (between Sauk City and the recently completed Baraboo bypass)?
I'm not sure. But that curve has to be part of the Sauk city bypass plan that will happen in the next few years.

According to whom? WisDOT said in this article (https://www.wiscnews.com/saukprairieeagle/news/local/sauk-city-hwy-bypass-on-backburner/article_40e5d568-5e2f-5c96-8799-be62e0823d1c.html) from 5 years ago that any bypass would be 20-30 years out. They can't even begin to seriously dream about it until the agreement ends in 2020.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 26, 2019, 08:48:14 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 26, 2019, 02:39:08 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'll ask again since it seemed to get lost in the shuffle the first time.

Does anyone know the status of the previously planned project to realign the "s-curve" section of US 12 near the Badger Ammunition plant (between Sauk City and the recently completed Baraboo bypass)?
Quote from: thspfc on May 25, 2019, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'll ask again since it seemed to get lost in the shuffle the first time.

Does anyone know the status of the previously planned project to realign the "s-curve" section of US 12 near the Badger Ammunition plant (between Sauk City and the recently completed Baraboo bypass)?
I'm not sure. But that curve has to be part of the Sauk city bypass plan that will happen in the next few years.

According to whom? WisDOT said in this article (https://www.wiscnews.com/saukprairieeagle/news/local/sauk-city-hwy-bypass-on-backburner/article_40e5d568-5e2f-5c96-8799-be62e0823d1c.html) from 5 years ago that any bypass would be 20-30 years out. They can't even begin to seriously dream about it until the agreement ends in 2020.
I was judging by how quickly they completed the baraboo bypass. I didn't go on the website or anything.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 26, 2019, 10:42:04 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 26, 2019, 08:48:14 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 26, 2019, 02:39:08 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'll ask again since it seemed to get lost in the shuffle the first time.

Does anyone know the status of the previously planned project to realign the "s-curve" section of US 12 near the Badger Ammunition plant (between Sauk City and the recently completed Baraboo bypass)?
Quote from: thspfc on May 25, 2019, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'll ask again since it seemed to get lost in the shuffle the first time.

Does anyone know the status of the previously planned project to realign the "s-curve" section of US 12 near the Badger Ammunition plant (between Sauk City and the recently completed Baraboo bypass)?
I'm not sure. But that curve has to be part of the Sauk city bypass plan that will happen in the next few years.

According to whom? WisDOT said in this article (https://www.wiscnews.com/saukprairieeagle/news/local/sauk-city-hwy-bypass-on-backburner/article_40e5d568-5e2f-5c96-8799-be62e0823d1c.html) from 5 years ago that any bypass would be 20-30 years out. They can't even begin to seriously dream about it until the agreement ends in 2020.
I was judging by how quickly they completed the baraboo bypass. I didn't go on the website or anything.

I would be totally shocked if the local WisDOT engineers weren't at least playing around with a Sauk-Prairie bypass on their off time, much like how we play around with ideas of all kinds during our spare time, such that anything that we see will be pretty well developed by the time that they can officially start work on it with most of that work being already done.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 28, 2019, 01:15:03 AM
The US 12 intersections with County K and Wis 19 east desperately need to be upgraded to interchanges but no planned construction dates yet. Traffic frequently backs up once the Beltline ends.  Would think an interchange with County K would be a very high priority.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 28, 2019, 05:27:56 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 28, 2019, 01:15:03 AM
The US 12 intersections with County K and Wis 19 east desperately need to be upgraded to interchanges but no planned construction dates yet. Traffic frequently backs up once the Beltline ends.  Would think an interchange with County K would be a very high priority.
I've always wondered why there aren't interchanges at such spots. WISDOT has neglected that US-12 corridor for a while now - its upgrade to four lanes was long overdue, and once it was upgraded they still didn't add any interchanges.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Well when they designed the US-12 project 20+ yers ago, I don't think they thought it would be so crowded so soon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 28, 2019, 06:55:44 PM
IMHO, that is work that likely would have been done by sometime in the 1950s had the interstate system not been approved by Congress/Ike, unless a cross-country ticket tollway had been developed in that corridor instead (sans interstates).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 29, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Well when they designed the US-12 project 20+ yers ago, I don't think they thought it would be so crowded so soon.

The far west side of Madison and Middleton were a lot different back then. The housing boom in Waunakee hasn't helped things much either. Then tack on corporate changes/relocation of Fiskars, Rayovac (Spectrum), Epic, and now Exact Sciences. Yes, it's surprising WisDOT hasn't had more along US 12 on the front burner, but they're also under a lot of political heat elsewhere in the state and with no new money to work with.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on May 29, 2019, 01:32:18 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 29, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Well when they designed the US-12 project 20+ yers ago, I don't think they thought it would be so crowded so soon.

The far west side of Madison and Middleton were a lot different back then. The housing boom in Waunakee hasn't helped things much either. Then tack on corporate changes/relocation of Fiskars, Rayovac (Spectrum), Epic, and now Exact Sciences. Yes, it's surprising WisDOT hasn't had more along US 12 on the front burner, but they're also under a lot of political heat elsewhere in the state and with no new money to work with.

I think I remember a long drawn out battle between the DOT and residents of the area, which led to compromises on the project to widen US 12 between Middleton and Sauk. Which is why there are no interchanges and a 55 mph speed limit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 29, 2019, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 29, 2019, 01:32:18 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 29, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Well when they designed the US-12 project 20+ yers ago, I don't think they thought it would be so crowded so soon.

The far west side of Madison and Middleton were a lot different back then. The housing boom in Waunakee hasn't helped things much either. Then tack on corporate changes/relocation of Fiskars, Rayovac (Spectrum), Epic, and now Exact Sciences. Yes, it's surprising WisDOT hasn't had more along US 12 on the front burner, but they're also under a lot of political heat elsewhere in the state and with no new money to work with.

I think I remember a long drawn out battle between the DOT and residents of the area, which led to compromises on the project to widen US 12 between Middleton and Sauk. Which is why there are no interchanges and a 55 mph speed limit.

Part of that may have come from the farming community, as a freeway will change the access they have between fields. The proposal a few years ago to raise the speed limit to 65 along a portion of US 12 was met by a lot of resistance from the farmers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 29, 2019, 07:17:21 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 29, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Well when they designed the US-12 project 20+ yers ago, I don't think they thought it would be so crowded so soon.

The far west side of Madison and Middleton were a lot different back then. The housing boom in Waunakee hasn't helped things much either. Then tack on corporate changes/relocation of Fiskars, Rayovac (Spectrum), Epic, and now Exact Sciences. Yes, it's surprising WisDOT hasn't had more along US 12 on the front burner, but they're also under a lot of political heat elsewhere in the state and with no new money to work with.
like F*CKsCONS!??
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 02, 2019, 11:24:05 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 29, 2019, 07:17:21 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 29, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Well when they designed the US-12 project 20+ yers ago, I don't think they thought it would be so crowded so soon.

The far west side of Madison and Middleton were a lot different back then. The housing boom in Waunakee hasn't helped things much either. Then tack on corporate changes/relocation of Fiskars, Rayovac (Spectrum), Epic, and now Exact Sciences. Yes, it's surprising WisDOT hasn't had more along US 12 on the front burner, but they're also under a lot of political heat elsewhere in the state and with no new money to work with.
like F*CKsCONS!??

Beltline/Old Sauk was a rural intersection between a two lane state highway and a minor 'township' style side road as late as the early 1980s.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on June 02, 2019, 07:27:39 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2019, 11:24:05 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 29, 2019, 07:17:21 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 29, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Well when they designed the US-12 project 20+ yers ago, I don't think they thought it would be so crowded so soon.

The far west side of Madison and Middleton were a lot different back then. The housing boom in Waunakee hasn't helped things much either. Then tack on corporate changes/relocation of Fiskars, Rayovac (Spectrum), Epic, and now Exact Sciences. Yes, it's surprising WisDOT hasn't had more along US 12 on the front burner, but they're also under a lot of political heat elsewhere in the state and with no new money to work with.
like F*CKsCONS!??

Beltline/Old Sauk was a rural intersection between a two lane state highway and a minor 'township' style side road as late as the early 1980s.

Mike

Old Sauk Road had practically no traffic back then. I used it to bicycle to Blue Mounds State Park circa 1979/80.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on June 06, 2019, 11:44:18 PM
The Waukesha Bypass will supposedly be completed this fall

https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/waukesha/2019/06/04/west-waukesha-bypass-project-complete-fall-2019-dot-says/3565393002/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 07, 2019, 03:01:00 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 06, 2019, 11:44:18 PM
The Waukesha Bypass will supposedly be completed this fall

https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/waukesha/2019/06/04/west-waukesha-bypass-project-complete-fall-2019-dot-says/3565393002/

Honestly, this is one of those proposed routes that I thought would *never* actually be built, this going back to the early 1980s.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 07, 2019, 10:51:48 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 07, 2019, 03:01:00 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 06, 2019, 11:44:18 PM
The Waukesha Bypass will supposedly be completed this fall

https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/waukesha/2019/06/04/west-waukesha-bypass-project-complete-fall-2019-dot-says/3565393002/

Honestly, this is one of those proposed routes that I thought would *never* actually be built, this going back to the early 1980s.

Mike

I am very much looking forward to it being done. I use Merrill Hills Rd./Mac Arthur Rd. quite a bit, and there's a lot of "white knuckling" going on. Merrill Hills Rd. is narrow, hilly, and full of traffic. Trying to make a left turn on to Merrill Hills from Mac Arthur can be quite scary.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 07, 2019, 05:13:11 PM
The story does not say that US 18 will be rerouted onto the bypass, which I assume will happen. Also, the much-hated Google Maps does not indicate that Meadowbrook Road from Interstate 94 to US 18/Summit Road is now STH-318. Are there any Maps websites that do?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2019, 05:30:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 07, 2019, 05:13:11 PM
The story does not say that US 18 will be rerouted onto the bypass, which I assume will happen. Also, the much-hated Google Maps does not indicate that Meadowbrook Road from Interstate 94 to US 18/Summit Road is now STH-318. Are there any Maps websites that do?


I am assuming US-18 will be routed onto the bypass, but the only legal thing that I can find is that it will be incorporated into the state highway system and signed as such.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on June 08, 2019, 09:59:18 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2019, 05:30:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 07, 2019, 05:13:11 PM
The story does not say that US 18 will be rerouted onto the bypass, which I assume will happen. Also, the much-hated Google Maps does not indicate that Meadowbrook Road from Interstate 94 to US 18/Summit Road is now STH-318. Are there any Maps websites that do?


I am assuming US-18 will be routed onto the bypass, but the only legal thing that I can find is that it will be incorporated into the state highway system and signed as such.
I've heard that US 18 will follow the bypass to Summit Av. That was part of the plan to turn the local downtown section back to local control. That's also why WIS 74 was removed.

WIS 318 will complete the bypass between Summit and I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on June 09, 2019, 07:08:32 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 07, 2019, 05:13:11 PM
The story does not say that US 18 will be rerouted onto the bypass, which I assume will happen. Also, the much-hated Google Maps does not indicate that Meadowbrook Road from Interstate 94 to US 18/Summit Road is now STH-318. Are there any Maps websites that do?
If you have an account on OpenStreetMap, you can edit/add it yourself. ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 11, 2019, 08:28:26 PM
I assume CR-TT will be decommissioned once the bypass is complete.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 14, 2019, 10:23:59 AM
I'm in Door County right now, notes from the Green Bay area:
- WI-172 approaching I-43 needs to be 6 lanes like the section near 41. Quite a bit of weaving between left and right lane traffic approaching I-43. Also needs a resurfacing.
- I-43 could also use a facelift all the way around Green Bay.
- WI-54/57 is a nice highway up the Door Peninsula, but there are lots of intersections, some of which I would like to see eliminated. A limited access Sturgeon Bay bypass would also be nice, but it's not dire.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 14, 2019, 10:33:47 AM
WI-172 is really a mess in the mornings with traffic coming from the east.  The Riverside (WI-57) / Webster (CTH X) is backed up onto the highway on many days.  There is just not enough access to the De Pere area from anywhere else. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2019, 04:08:10 PM
I wonder if any freeways/expressways in the state that currently don't have exit numbers will get numbers in the future.

Roads that I know of that currently don't have exit numbers:

STH-11 (and STH-69/STH-81) Monroe Bypass
STH-16/STH-67 Oconomowoc Bypass
STH-23 Freeway/Expressway from Plymouth to Sheboygan
US 45 Freeway between Oshkosh and US 10 near Winchester
STH-57 (and partially STH-54) Freeway/Expressway between Green Bay and STH-42 southeast of Sturgeon Bay
STH-119 Airport Spur Freeway
US 141 Freeway/Expressway between Abrams to near Beaver (north of STH-64)
US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass
STH-172 South Freeway Bypass of Green Bay
STH-175 Miller Parkway/Stadium North Freeway (excluding the Stadium Interchange southbound)
STH-794 Lake Parkway
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 15, 2019, 05:18:42 PM
^^STH 441 outside the US 10 concurrency, though it has mile markers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 15, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
It's pretty consistent with both MN and IL (no Interstate style mile markers/exit tabs for them).  IL has the per-county mile-marker outside the Interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on June 16, 2019, 08:55:55 AM
Quote from: Big John on June 15, 2019, 05:18:42 PM
^^STH 441 outside the US 10 concurrency, though it has mile markers.
Actually, they added exit numbers along this stretch circa 2017-2018; Calumet St/County KK is exit 7, College Ave/County CE is exit 8, Northland Ave/County OO is exit 10, and the northern terminus at US (I) 41 is exits 10A and 10B.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on June 18, 2019, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2019, 04:08:10 PM
I wonder if any freeways/expressways in the state that currently don't have exit numbers will get numbers in the future.

Roads that I know of that currently don't have exit numbers:

STH-11 (and STH-69/STH-81) Monroe Bypass
STH-16/STH-67 Oconomowoc Bypass
STH-23 Freeway/Expressway from Plymouth to Sheboygan
US 45 Freeway between Oshkosh and US 10 near Winchester
STH-57 (and partially STH-54) Freeway/Expressway between Green Bay and STH-42 southeast of Sturgeon Bay
STH-119 Airport Spur Freeway
US 141 Freeway/Expressway between Abrams to near Beaver (north of STH-64)
US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass
STH-172 South Freeway Bypass of Green Bay
STH-175 Miller Parkway/Stadium North Freeway (excluding the Stadium Interchange southbound)
STH-794 Lake Parkway

I can see WI-172 getting mile marked signs being connected to I-41 and I-43 - and also 151 around Fond du Lac. 

Does WI-30 in Madison have them currently?   I assume yes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 18, 2019, 08:27:41 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on June 18, 2019, 07:53:52 PM

Does WI-30 in Madison have them currently?   I assume yes.
No
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 18, 2019, 10:23:05 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 18, 2019, 08:27:41 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on June 18, 2019, 07:53:52 PM

Does WI-30 in Madison have them currently?   I assume yes.
No

Sure looks like they do: https://goo.gl/maps/rhcGonuuvyLCFF2b9 (https://goo.gl/maps/rhcGonuuvyLCFF2b9)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 19, 2019, 12:41:12 AM
Must be recent.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 19, 2019, 09:17:32 AM
Over here in western Wisconsin...

WI 35 from Hudson to River Falls does not have exit numbers.

WI 64 from the MN line to New Richmond does have them.

And WI 29 from where it turns expressway at I-94 and heading east does have them.


When it comes to 35, there's a couple reasons I can think of for why it doesn't... one is that it may actually be difficult to determine what they should be since it's right in the middle of its length, and it's the longest highway in Wisconsin.  The other is that it has a recent history of getting rerouted in this area, and so this bit's numbers would change if it happens again.  Most recently it was shifted in River Falls off of Cascade Avenue and Main Street and down to Cemetery Road.  And around 1989 or so, it was shifted in Pierce County to keep it closer to the Mississippi River once traffic counts on the former county highways Q and the southern leg of E picked up. 

One long range option might be for 35 to be shifted again to the west, this time to take over County F from Prescott to Hudson.  The traffic counts for that to become state highway have been there for a long time, but the state is up against the mileage cap, and I've also been told there are too many private driveways with direct access on F for it to meet state highway standards.  Were that ever to become state highway, a high percentage of those would have to be closed off.   Still, if it ever did happen, then the Hudson-River Falls expressway would need a new number, and it could get single-digit exit numbers at that point.  (something like WI 594?)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 19, 2019, 02:15:44 PM
Quote from: invincor on June 19, 2019, 09:17:32 AM
Over here in western Wisconsin...

WI 35 from Hudson to River Falls does not have exit numbers.

WI 64 from the MN line to New Richmond does have them.

And WI 29 from where it turns expressway at I-94 and heading east does have them.


When it comes to 35, there's a couple reasons I can think of for why it doesn't... one is that it may actually be difficult to determine what they should be since it's right in the middle of its length, and it's the longest highway in Wisconsin. 



WIDOT would know the exact mileage and would have no trouble determining exit numbers. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 19, 2019, 03:21:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 19, 2019, 02:15:44 PM


WIDOT would know the exact mileage and would have no trouble determining exit numbers.

Like they did on US 10 ?   :)

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 19, 2019, 05:28:41 PM
I live in Madison and can confirm that STH-30 does indeed have exit numbers. They were installed two years ago, shortly after blue mileposts were erected in the median. Also, I totally agree that the DOT made a major misnumbering mistake when it numbered US 10's exits between Marshfield and Appleton (off by about 40 miles). Unfortunately, I doubt those exit numbers will ever be corrected.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 19, 2019, 06:03:18 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on June 18, 2019, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2019, 04:08:10 PM
I wonder if any freeways/expressways in the state that currently don't have exit numbers will get numbers in the future.

Roads that I know of that currently don't have exit numbers:

STH-11 (and STH-69/STH-81) Monroe Bypass
STH-16/STH-67 Oconomowoc Bypass
STH-23 Freeway/Expressway from Plymouth to Sheboygan
US 45 Freeway between Oshkosh and US 10 near Winchester
STH-57 (and partially STH-54) Freeway/Expressway between Green Bay and STH-42 southeast of Sturgeon Bay
STH-119 Airport Spur Freeway
US 141 Freeway/Expressway between Abrams to near Beaver (north of STH-64)
US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass
STH-172 South Freeway Bypass of Green Bay
STH-175 Miller Parkway/Stadium North Freeway (excluding the Stadium Interchange southbound)
STH-794 Lake Parkway

I can see WI-172 getting mile marked signs being connected to I-41 and I-43 - and also 151 around Fond du Lac
I think it's good bet WI-23 will get them when the upgrade from Fond Du Lac to Plymouth is complete.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 21, 2019, 05:01:28 AM
I-39 has exit numbers, but the mileage they're based on isn't its own.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DJ Particle on June 21, 2019, 05:29:41 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 21, 2019, 05:01:28 AM
I-39 has exit numbers, but the mileage they're based on isn't its own.

According to Google Maps, they seem to be...unless the mile markers themselves are wrong.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 21, 2019, 09:01:47 AM
The I-39 mile markers are actually US-51's.  The Portage-to-Wausau freeway was originally an upgrade of US 51, and its mile markers were posted on it.  It was fully upgraded to I-39 in the mid-1990s, but they left the mile markers as they were.  The difference would only be a few miles, in any case, as the two routes enter the state on parallel paths before uniting just north of the Portage interchange.  That's why it looks OK on first glance at a map.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 21, 2019, 09:17:03 AM
I believe that US-51 is slightly longer due to the jogs it makes into Stoughton and DeForest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on June 23, 2019, 11:40:02 PM
I worked it out to a five mile difference.

Last mile marker on 39/90 at IL border is 187 and the Portage exit is 108, so that's 79 miles.

IIRC the same exit is exit 84 from southbound I-39 to mainline 39/90/94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on June 24, 2019, 12:47:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 19, 2019, 06:03:18 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on June 18, 2019, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2019, 04:08:10 PM
I wonder if any freeways/expressways in the state that currently don't have exit numbers will get numbers in the future.

Roads that I know of that currently don't have exit numbers:

STH-11 (and STH-69/STH-81) Monroe Bypass
STH-16/STH-67 Oconomowoc Bypass
STH-23 Freeway/Expressway from Plymouth to Sheboygan
US 45 Freeway between Oshkosh and US 10 near Winchester
STH-57 (and partially STH-54) Freeway/Expressway between Green Bay and STH-42 southeast of Sturgeon Bay
STH-119 Airport Spur Freeway
US 141 Freeway/Expressway between Abrams to near Beaver (north of STH-64)
US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass
STH-172 South Freeway Bypass of Green Bay
STH-175 Miller Parkway/Stadium North Freeway (excluding the Stadium Interchange southbound)
STH-794 Lake Parkway

I can see WI-172 getting mile marked signs being connected to I-41 and I-43 - and also 151 around Fond du Lac
I think it's good bet WI-23 will get them when the upgrade from Fond Du Lac to Plymouth is complete.

I always thought if was weird when WIS-29 meets I-41 that no exit number is used coming up to I-41.

Would think a number with an A(29/EB), B(North 41), C(South 32/41) would be there.....not big issue(just random Jack Handy-like thoughts).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on June 24, 2019, 01:33:58 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 15, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
It's pretty consistent with both MN and IL (no Interstate style mile markers/exit tabs for them).  IL has the per-county mile-marker outside the Interstate.

And IL-390.  IL-390 uses the Tollway-standard mileposts every quarter mile with exit numbers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 24, 2019, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2019, 01:33:58 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 15, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
It's pretty consistent with both MN and IL (no Interstate style mile markers/exit tabs for them).  IL has the per-county mile-marker outside the Interstate.

And IL-390.  IL-390 uses the Tollway-standard mileposts every quarter mile with exit numbers.
Sorry to talk about IL in a WI thread, but is IL-390 set to become I-390 any time soon? I know that I-490 is going to be built in the O'Hare area. Will they connect?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 25, 2019, 10:11:12 AM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on June 24, 2019, 12:47:27 PM
I always thought if was weird when WIS-29 meets I-41 that no exit number is used coming up to I-41.

Would think a number with an A(29/EB), B(North 41), C(South 32/41) would be there.....not big issue(just random Jack Handy-like thoughts).

I believe that it is because WI 29 is not on that freeway where it meets I-41.  Going eastbound, WI 29 hops off at Packerland Dr, continuing on eastward on Shawano Ave, and the freeway continues on that short distance as WI 32.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 27, 2019, 04:33:16 PM
Does the US-53 freeway just north of La Crosse have exit numbers? If not it was let off the list.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 27, 2019, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 27, 2019, 04:33:16 PM
Does the US-53 freeway just north of La Crosse have exit numbers? If not it was let off the list.

A quick check of Google Streetview images shows that yes, its interchanges are numbered.

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/VZcUDz589jfgwt8s9

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 29, 2019, 11:12:53 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 25, 2019, 10:11:12 AM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on June 24, 2019, 12:47:27 PM
I always thought if was weird when WIS-29 meets I-41 that no exit number is used coming up to I-41.

Would think a number with an A(29/EB), B(North 41), C(South 32/41) would be there.....not big issue(just random Jack Handy-like thoughts).

I believe that it is because WI 29 is not on that freeway where it meets I-41.  Going eastbound, WI 29 hops off at Packerland Dr, continuing on eastward on Shawano Ave, and the freeway continues on that short distance as WI 32.

Mike

The mile markers between Packerland and I-41 have Wis 32 shields on them since the flyovers actually connect with Wis 32 while the Shawano Ave Interchange connects with Wis 29. However the mileage is a continuation of Wis 29.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 29, 2019, 11:15:12 AM
Exit numbers were also just recently added to the US 151 Bypass
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 29, 2019, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 29, 2019, 11:15:12 AM
Exit numbers were also just recently added to the US 151 Bypass
Fond du Lac?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 30, 2019, 01:11:27 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 29, 2019, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 29, 2019, 11:15:12 AM
Exit numbers were also just recently added to the US 151 Bypass
Fond du Lac?

Yes, Fond Du Lac. Standard green mile markers were placed every mile. There's now exit numbers up to Wis 23
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on July 01, 2019, 12:40:25 PM
That reminds me... there was some reconstruction and reconfiguration of I-94 and its ramps in Hudson last year and early this year.  As part of this, they added the blue "tenth-mile" markers to I-94 in this area between Exit 4 at US 12 and the state line.  As a result, now you can tell exactly where on the St. Croix River bridge the state line is.  There are also more small green signs in the median telling you what the next two or three exits are.  All that is new.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 01, 2019, 09:14:56 PM
Quote from: invincor on July 01, 2019, 12:40:25 PM
That reminds me... there was some reconstruction and reconfiguration of I-94 and its ramps in Hudson last year and early this year.  As part of this, they added the blue "tenth-mile" markers to I-94 in this area between Exit 4 at US 12 and the state line.  As a result, now you can tell exactly where on the St. Croix River bridge the state line is.  There are also more small green signs in the median telling you what the next two or three exits are.  All that is new.
The blue tabs are becoming the new staple for freeway mile markers - particularly for Interstates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 03, 2019, 11:13:30 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?



Both are problems that kicking the can down the road will make worse. The three lanes on I-41 are needed now. The "south crossing"  isn't yet a necessity but will be if DePere and points south continue to grow. Traffic backs up now over the Allouez bridge (WI-32) during rush and will only get worse.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 12:14:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?

It ends prior to Wausau. If it is extended anytime soon it won't be much past Wausau. It was never really intended to be anything but a interstate along the US-51 freeway. And that will not be extended anytime soon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 08:32:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 12:14:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?

It ends prior to Wausau. If it is extended anytime soon it won't be much past Wausau. It was never really intended to be anything but a interstate along the US-51 freeway. And that will not be extended anytime soon.

Sounds like a classic porkbarrel move.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 04, 2019, 08:43:24 AM
As far as I know, WISDOT has no vision for I-39 north of Wausau. I think they truncated it to WI-29 to establish an endpoint that has connections with other limited access highways - like how I-41 and 43 end in Green Bay instead of continuing north on the US-41/141 freeway.
Going into fictional highways ground, the furthest I-39 could ever be extended is Hazelhurst, if the at grade intersections on US-51 north of Merrill are removed and it is widened to four lanes past US-8, with no intersections. Going past Hazelhurst would require a bypass of Minocqua and Woodruff, and NIMBYs would literally burn down the plans for such a project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 10:55:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 08:32:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 12:14:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?

It ends prior to Wausau. If it is extended anytime soon it won't be much past Wausau. It was never really intended to be anything but a interstate along the US-51 freeway. And that will not be extended anytime soon.

Sounds like a classic porkbarrel move.

Not even sure what that means. The signing of I-39 didn't come with any highway upgrades. US-51 was interstate compatible already.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 04, 2019, 11:39:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?

How politically possible would it be for the legislature to override those line-item vetoes?

:verymad:

:banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 04, 2019, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?

The original plan was for the 1960s-standard interstate-compatible US 51 freeway to be extended all the way to that trumpet at US 2 in Hurley, ditto US 53 north of the Rice Lake/Haugen area (note the change in engineering design style where it rejoined the 'old' road there).  The US 51 extension was dropped north of the Minocqua-Woodruff ('Lakeland') area due to a lack of traffic demand and for the part between there and about County 'K' south of the Lakeland area, the best that I can tell is that WisDOT just never got around to building it by the time that those upgrades were being scaled back in the mid-1970s, same with US 53 north of that point between Rice Lake and Haugen.

Those plans also had a similar four lane US 2 between Hurley/US 51 and Superior that was also dropped for a lack of traffic demand.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 10:55:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 08:32:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 12:14:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?

It ends prior to Wausau. If it is extended anytime soon it won't be much past Wausau. It was never really intended to be anything but a interstate along the US-51 freeway. And that will not be extended anytime soon.

Sounds like a classic porkbarrel move.

Not even sure what that means. The signing of I-39 didn't come with any highway upgrades. US-51 was interstate compatible already.

i.e. "I'll get my constituents to vote for me. We want that interstate."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 10:55:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 08:32:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 12:14:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?

It ends prior to Wausau. If it is extended anytime soon it won't be much past Wausau. It was never really intended to be anything but a interstate along the US-51 freeway. And that will not be extended anytime soon.

Sounds like a classic porkbarrel move.

Not even sure what that means. The signing of I-39 didn't come with any highway upgrades. US-51 was interstate compatible already.

i.e. "I'll get my constituents to vote for me. We want that interstate."

That's not what happened.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 16, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 27, 2019, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 27, 2019, 04:33:16 PM
Does the US-53 freeway just north of La Crosse have exit numbers? If not it was let off the list.

A quick check of Google Streetview images shows that yes, its interchanges are numbered.

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/VZcUDz589jfgwt8s9

Mike
Your right it does must be really recent. Although US 53 still has a few unnumbered exits near Superior.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2019, 04:10:26 PM
I've seen on Google Streetview that the US 2 east interchange is numbered Exit 222 (though only northbound). The STH-13/CTH-Z interchange is numbered Exit 227.

US 2 East Interchange (NB): https://www.google.com/maps/@46.5982804,-91.9016463,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_vyMOBgJxC7GImCzE5HHoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

STH-13/CTH-Z Interchange

NB: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.6455047,-91.9777172,3a,75y,329.5h,89.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spwxMoiLMQYv7i9sQ3Fc2hg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
SB: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.6500588,-91.9832718,3a,75y,141.29h,91.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh4k5MyBzLwuCyUYQbn62kQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: renegade on July 17, 2019, 07:24:45 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 10:55:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 08:32:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 12:14:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?

It ends prior to Wausau. If it is extended anytime soon it won't be much past Wausau. It was never really intended to be anything but a interstate along the US-51 freeway. And that will not be extended anytime soon.

Sounds like a classic porkbarrel move.

Not even sure what that means. The signing of I-39 didn't come with any highway upgrades. US-51 was interstate compatible already.

i.e. "I'll get my constituents to vote for me. We want that interstate."

That's not what happened.
Nope.  In the 1970s, US-51 was upgraded to a "Super-2"  configuration from Portage to Stevens Point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 17, 2019, 11:04:43 PM
Quote from: renegade on July 17, 2019, 07:24:45 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 10:55:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 08:32:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2019, 12:14:54 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 04, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
I have a question in regards to I-39:

What was the plan supposed to be with its northern end? Seems like it just stops north of Merrill; was it meant to hook into the UP of Michigan?

It ends prior to Wausau. If it is extended anytime soon it won't be much past Wausau. It was never really intended to be anything but a interstate along the US-51 freeway. And that will not be extended anytime soon.

Sounds like a classic porkbarrel move.

Not even sure what that means. The signing of I-39 didn't come with any highway upgrades. US-51 was interstate compatible already.

i.e. "I'll get my constituents to vote for me. We want that interstate."

That's not what happened.
Nope.  In the 1970s, US-51 was upgraded to a "Super-2"  configuration from Portage to Stevens Point.

IIRC, that 'Super Two' was built in the mid 1960s and progressively upgraded to the current four lanes in the mid 1970s to early 1980s.

It didn't receive its I-39 signs until after the connection at I-90/94 (the Cascade Interchange) was upgraded from its previous conventional par-clo to interstate standard for the interstate-to-interstate turns.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 18, 2019, 09:18:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2019, 04:10:26 PM
I've seen on Google Streetview that the US 2 east interchange is numbered Exit 222 (though only northbound). The STH-13/CTH-Z interchange is numbered Exit 227.

US 2 East Interchange (NB): https://www.google.com/maps/@46.5982804,-91.9016463,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_vyMOBgJxC7GImCzE5HHoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

STH-13/CTH-Z Interchange

NB: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.6455047,-91.9777172,3a,75y,329.5h,89.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spwxMoiLMQYv7i9sQ3Fc2hg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
SB: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.6500588,-91.9832718,3a,75y,141.29h,91.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh4k5MyBzLwuCyUYQbn62kQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Again another very recent thing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2019, 06:34:44 PM
Indeed. The last time I went up that way (summer of 2016), the exits I mentioned did not have numbers. I also think that (further south) the interchanges at STH-70 in Spooner (Exit 165), and the exit/junction with US 63 north of Spooner (Exit 168), had likely just been numbered. I believe it is beneficial that exits on freeways and expressways are numbered, and I believe the DOT should number all freeway/expressway exits that currently do not have numbers. I'd like it if most freeway/expressway/tollway exits around the entire country had exit numbers (mileage-based being my preference), but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 19, 2019, 07:27:23 PM
It's just been tough for the DOT to keep up with posting exit numbers on all the newer freeways and expressways because there's so many new segments.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?

And they still won't resurface WIS32  from the state line to 60th street, US12 through Walworth county, and US18 between Waukesha and Dousman. All of these roads are in horrible shape.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 20, 2019, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 19, 2019, 07:27:23 PM
It's just been tough for the DOT to keep up with posting exit numbers on all the newer freeways and expressways because there's so many new segments.

Sorry, but I call BS. They could always assign numbers as part of the project that is building the new segment. Once they have the interchanges nailed down, usually early in the planning/design process, there's no reason they couldn't assign numbers by the time central office designs the official sign plates for the exits. If they aren't assigned during the project phase, they're likely going to have to wait for the 12-year signing cycle, and assign numbers as part of the corridor sign upgrades.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 21, 2019, 09:59:10 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.


Not overkill in the least.  It is a very busy stretch that is likely to grow busier as the Kaukauna and Green Bay areas grow even closer together.  Expanding current interstate corridors should be a priority for Wisconsin right now.  There are many places where expanding the number of lanes would be wise investments.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 22, 2019, 03:20:48 AM
One item in that particular veto, and I am kind of in agreement with it, is that it was calling for such a study to include potentially adding new access interchanges at various specific named points between Appleton and Green Bay.  Several of those would never pass muster with the design standards of the Interstate Highway system, these mainly relating to minimum interchange spacing.  Had it been worded in a much more open and generic manner such as "and adding any other potential new access points", it likely would have been signed along with the rest of the budget.  The long seriously and actively proposed South (Fox River) Crossing bridge in De Pere will likely require a design exception in that its I-41 interchange would otherwise be way too close to Scheuring Rd (I believe that a set of auxiliary and/or C/D lanes are planned as a part of it).  It is planned to connect where that east frontage road curves away from the I-41 mainline going northbound.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2019, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.


Please don't use that phrase. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 23, 2019, 10:04:28 AM
I do remember a while back when WisDOT did a survey on the average 'clear traffic' speeds of vehicles on the state's highway system and it was found that the fastest highway in all of Wisconsin was (then) US 41 between Kaukauna and De Pere.

:-o

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 23, 2019, 11:19:07 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 23, 2019, 10:04:28 AM
I do remember a while back when WisDOT did a survey on the average 'clear traffic' speeds of vehicles on the state's highway system and it was found that the fastest highway in all of Wisconsin was (then) US 41 between Kaukauna and De Pere.

:-o

Mike
Now it would be I-39/US-51 from Portage to Stevens Point, I think.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: renegade on July 23, 2019, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2019, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.


Please don't use that phrase.
I second that.  There's another young person on here that has used a similar phrase in recent days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 23, 2019, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: renegade on July 23, 2019, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2019, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.


Please don't use that phrase.
I second that.  There's another young person on here that has used a similar phrase in recent days.
RGT?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on July 23, 2019, 02:33:39 PM
Just saw a YouTube video of WisDOT studying the use of shoulders on the Madison Beltline for part-time. What do you guys think about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrDOiiPbBYQ
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 23, 2019, 02:40:52 PM
That's the first time I've heard that idea. I would like to know why this is the main option versus HOV, HOT, or express lanes, especially since they're going to be redoing the median anyways if they do this project.
One major challenge with the Beltline is that unlike many other urban freeways, the traffic is moving heavily in both directions, rather than one direction in the morning and another in the afternoon, because of all the commuting traffic to Epic in Verona, making many solutions impractical.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 23, 2019, 03:29:14 PM
I think they should just add another lane to the Beltline, instead of using the shoulder during peak hours. Either way, the proposal should include congestion pricing for the shoulder lane. I know that won't happen, but if there is any roadway in the Madison area that I think would benefit from congestion pricing, it is the Beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on July 23, 2019, 07:11:03 PM
Quote from: renegade on July 23, 2019, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2019, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.


Please don't use that phrase.
I second that.  There's another young person on here that has used a similar phrase in recent days.
I'm barely young anymore, being 26 and all, and what's even wrong with it?  I never attached "re" to it; as such, it's not even a valid word.  Tard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tard,_Hungary) is a village in Hungary.  Also, you guys aren't the moderators, and besides, I've seen people use far worse words than "tard" or "retard" all over the place on here.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 23, 2019, 07:48:28 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 23, 2019, 07:11:03 PM
Quote from: renegade on July 23, 2019, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2019, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.


Please don't use that phrase.
I second that.  There's another young person on here that has used a similar phrase in recent days.
I'm barely young anymore, being 26 and all, and what's even wrong with it?  I never attached "re" to it; as such, it's not even a valid word.  Tard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tard,_Hungary) is a village in Hungary.  Also, you guys aren't the moderators, and besides, I've seen people use far worse words than "tard" or "retard" all over the place on here.
Seriously? Just be a little bit considerate. Just because you didn't say "retarded"  doesn't mean that you weren't using the term in a manner that it was not meant to be used.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 23, 2019, 08:02:49 PM
We should probably retard this conversation and get back to talking about roads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 24, 2019, 01:02:24 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 23, 2019, 02:40:52 PM
I would like to know why this is the main option versus HOV, HOT, or express lanes, especially since they're going to be redoing the median anyways if they do this project.

Because they don't have room to add any more permanent lanes, and outside of peak hours, the extra lanes aren't needed, therefore it's money that can be better spent elsewhere. They're only suggesting using the inside shoulder lanes part time because it's not an ideal situation from the safety perspective (little room for error next to a concrete barrier--look at the issues along the I-94 and I-39 construction zones). The Arboretum is a major pinch point, in addition to major interchange reconstruction that would need to occur if another lane was added to the outside. Most of the commuter traffic is single occupancy vehicles, so HOV wouldn't reduce congestion much and would only add to the weaving problems. HOT is out since that is political suicide. The governor has already closed the door to tolling during the next budget biennium. (Not to stray off-topic too far, but IMO, tolling will cost more money than it will bring in.)

Quote
One major challenge with the Beltline is that unlike many other urban freeways, the traffic is moving heavily in both directions, rather than one direction in the morning and another in the afternoon, because of all the commuting traffic to Epic in Verona, making many solutions impractical.

Not quite true. Traffic is heavier than non-peak hours, but there definitely is a directional bias depending on the time of day.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on July 24, 2019, 07:40:51 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 23, 2019, 08:02:49 PM
We should probably retard this conversation and get back to talking about roads.
Good idea.

A block or two of Prospect Avenue in Appleton closed yesterday morning; I'm not sure exactly what they're doing, but I saw a hole being dug in the pavement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 24, 2019, 09:09:28 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 23, 2019, 07:11:03 PM
Quote from: renegade on July 23, 2019, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2019, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.


Please don't use that phrase.
I second that.  There's another young person on here that has used a similar phrase in recent days.
I'm barely young anymore, being 26 and all, and what's even wrong with it?  I never attached "re" to it; as such, it's not even a valid word.  Tard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tard,_Hungary) is a village in Hungary.  Also, you guys aren't the moderators, and besides, I've seen people use far worse words than "tard" or "retard" all over the place on here.


I simply asked you to be considerate. It is considered a dated and offensive word.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 20160805 on July 24, 2019, 05:20:58 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 24, 2019, 09:09:28 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 23, 2019, 07:11:03 PM
Quote from: renegade on July 23, 2019, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2019, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.


Please don't use that phrase.
I second that.  There's another young person on here that has used a similar phrase in recent days.
I'm barely young anymore, being 26 and all, and what's even wrong with it?  I never attached "re" to it; as such, it's not even a valid word.  Tard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tard,_Hungary) is a village in Hungary.  Also, you guys aren't the moderators, and besides, I've seen people use far worse words than "tard" or "retard" all over the place on here.


I simply asked you to be considerate. It is considered a dated and offensive word.
I've already moved on.  And I can think of 20 words off the top of my head that are more offensive than any form of that one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 24, 2019, 05:25:04 PM
The 26-year old has a lot of growing up to do.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 24, 2019, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 24, 2019, 05:20:58 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 24, 2019, 09:09:28 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 23, 2019, 07:11:03 PM
Quote from: renegade on July 23, 2019, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2019, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 22, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 21, 2019, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 04:59:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on July 20, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 03, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
State Budget signed which increases funds for roads. However studies for  the I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton along with the Southern Bridge in Brown County were taken out by the governor. Thoughts?


I thought it was overkill to expand I-41 the whole way however I do support expanding it from the eastern curve to the northern 441 interchange.
I drove that section of I-41 in June, and even in the middle of the day Thursday it was congested. Not bumper to bumper, but a little slow. I'm in favor of 6 lanes.

The east-west part across Appleton through Kaukauna especially, volume-related slowdowns are fast becoming S.O.P. on it.

:verymad:

Mike
And Outagamie County wanting to reduce the speed limit there to 55 MPH. :ded:
That's kinda 'tarded, if you ask me.  I read once that the average moving speed on this section (i.e. when relatively free flowing) is 75 mph, so reducing the limit to that would mean the average person on that stretch of road is now going 20 mph over the limit.  Sounds like a huge cash cow for the cops with no benefit to Joe Traveler.


Please don't use that phrase.
I second that.  There's another young person on here that has used a similar phrase in recent days.
I'm barely young anymore, being 26 and all, and what's even wrong with it?  I never attached "re" to it; as such, it's not even a valid word.  Tard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tard,_Hungary) is a village in Hungary.  Also, you guys aren't the moderators, and besides, I've seen people use far worse words than "tard" or "retard" all over the place on here.


I simply asked you to be considerate. It is considered a dated and offensive word.
I've already moved on.  And I can think of 20 words off the top of my head that are more offensive than any form of that one.


But you haven't modified your original post.  And it's irrelevant if there are more offensive words.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on July 24, 2019, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 24, 2019, 05:26:12 PM
And it's irrelevant if there are more offensive words.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This. Arguing whether it's less offensive doesn't change that it's offensive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on July 24, 2019, 07:57:43 PM
The point has been made. While we all have freedom of speech in here, we should avoid using derogatory terms and acknowledge when we do so. Let's move back to roads, all. Thanks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 25, 2019, 10:50:44 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on July 24, 2019, 07:40:51 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 23, 2019, 08:02:49 PM
We should probably retard this conversation and get back to talking about roads.
Good idea.

A block or two of Prospect Avenue in Appleton closed yesterday morning; I'm not sure exactly what they're doing, but I saw a hole being dug in the pavement.

What part?  The City of Appleton just reopened the part by Elm St Wednesday evening after they finally were able to clear out that large tree that was blown over in Saturday's storm.

The part from the railroad by Outagamie St to almost I-41 is being prepped for a major rebuild that is scheduled for next year.

:confused:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 08, 2019, 08:21:27 AM
If folks are curious how the I-39/90 expansion between Madison and Beloit is going, WisDOT has been very active on its Facebook page for the project, at https://www.facebook.com/WisconsinI3990Project/. There are a lot of pictures of construction progress, and WisDOT representatives have been answering lots of questions about the project.

For those who love looking at construction work, it's been quite a time to live in southern Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 08, 2019, 03:25:22 PM
Goodness, when is that project going to be done. For the last 10 years, even before the project started, that road has been a nightmare.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2019, 04:02:22 PM
I wish they were reconstructing the Beltline Interchange (Exit 142 A-B) with Interstates 39/90 to a different configuration. Even after they do reconstruct it, the US 12/18 EB-to-Interstate 39 North/Interstate 90 West ramp will still be on the left hand side. I would have preferred all ramps being on the right hand side, not to mention all the roads being three lanes in each direction through the interchange. However, I should probably just be grateful that the Beltline Interchange is being reconstructed with the existing 30/90 project, and not being deferred to whenever Interstate 39/90 will be reconstructed north of Exit 142AB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on August 08, 2019, 10:09:37 PM
This is the preferred alternative for the Beltline interchange.
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/I39-90US12-18intchgprefalt-Dec2018.pdf

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on August 08, 2019, 10:16:46 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on August 08, 2019, 10:09:37 PM
This is the preferred alternative for the Beltline interchange.
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/I39-90US12-18intchgprefalt-Dec2018.pdf

They couldn't get rid of the left exit from EB US 12 to NB I-39/WB I-90 and realign mainline EB US 12 to make any possible future upgrades easier?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 08, 2019, 10:48:04 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 08, 2019, 10:16:46 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on August 08, 2019, 10:09:37 PM
This is the preferred alternative for the Beltline interchange.
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/I39-90US12-18intchgprefalt-Dec2018.pdf

They couldn't get rid of the left exit from EB US 12 to NB I-39/WB I-90 and realign mainline EB US 12 to make any possible future upgrades easier?

We're lucky they're fixing NB I-39/90 - technically all they needed to do is make the far left lane the exit to the Beltline. They didn't *have* to realign the mainline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on August 09, 2019, 04:20:27 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2019, 04:02:22 PM
I wish they were reconstructing the Beltline Interchange (Exit 142 A-B) with Interstates 39/90 to a different configuration. Even after they do reconstruct it, the US 12/18 EB-to-Interstate 39 North/Interstate 90 West ramp will still be on the left hand side. I would have preferred all ramps being on the right hand side,

Casual observation indicates that the "mainline"  movement from EB US 12/18 may be traveling north to I-39/90 versus continuing east on 12/18.  Traffic volumes probably support that EB 12/18 toward Cambridge would be the exit from the major traffic movement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 09, 2019, 08:22:44 AM
I've never had a problem with the Beltline interchange, but I avoid the Beltline like the plague during evening rush.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 09, 2019, 09:04:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on August 09, 2019, 04:20:27 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2019, 04:02:22 PM
I wish they were reconstructing the Beltline Interchange (Exit 142 A-B) with Interstates 39/90 to a different configuration. Even after they do reconstruct it, the US 12/18 EB-to-Interstate 39 North/Interstate 90 West ramp will still be on the left hand side. I would have preferred all ramps being on the right hand side,

Casual observation indicates that the "mainline"  movement from EB US 12/18 may be traveling north to I-39/90 versus continuing east on 12/18.  Traffic volumes probably support that EB 12/18 toward Cambridge would be the exit from the major traffic movement.


According to the traffic count maps, at least on the day it was measured, more than twice as many vehicles entered onto I-39/90 (28,600) than west east on US-12/18 (13,100).

Look, they don't have a lot of money so they dealt with the most important movement that needed to be upgraded - NB I-39/90 to WB US-12/18.  And I would put getting rid of the damn cloverleafs as a higher priority than the EB US-12/18 to NB I-39/90 ramps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on August 12, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
So what happened to the big plan for rebuilding Wisconsin Dells Parkway that they were studying about five years ago?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 12, 2019, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 12, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
So what happened to the big plan for rebuilding Wisconsin Dells Parkway that they were studying about five years ago?
Never heard about that. I don't think the Dells Pkwy needs that much work anyways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 12, 2019, 03:27:08 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 12, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
So what happened to the big plan for rebuilding Wisconsin Dells Parkway that they were studying about five years ago?
Like many other study projects, when the study ended, it got shelved until design money becomes available/it becomes a programmed project.

Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2019, 01:35:35 PM
Never heard about that. I don't think the Dells Pkwy needs that much work anyways.
Take a drive up there during the day anytime between now and Labor Day, and your opinion will change. The Ped Hybrid Signals improved the situation slightly for pedestrians, but left turns along the corridor are still a major headache/hazard.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 13, 2019, 09:28:53 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on August 12, 2019, 03:27:08 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 12, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
So what happened to the big plan for rebuilding Wisconsin Dells Parkway that they were studying about five years ago?
Like many other study projects, when the study ended, it got shelved until design money becomes available/it becomes a programmed project.

Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2019, 01:35:35 PM
Never heard about that. I don't think the Dells Pkwy needs that much work anyways.
Take a drive up there during the day anytime between now and Labor Day, and your opinion will change. The Ped Hybrid Signals improved the situation slightly for pedestrians, but left turns along the corridor are still a major headache/hazard.
I drove it about a month ago, and it wasn't that terrible, but I guess I hit it at a good time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 13, 2019, 12:32:52 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2019, 09:28:53 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on August 12, 2019, 03:27:08 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 12, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
So what happened to the big plan for rebuilding Wisconsin Dells Parkway that they were studying about five years ago?
Like many other study projects, when the study ended, it got shelved until design money becomes available/it becomes a programmed project.

Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2019, 01:35:35 PM
Never heard about that. I don't think the Dells Pkwy needs that much work anyways.
Take a drive up there during the day anytime between now and Labor Day, and your opinion will change. The Ped Hybrid Signals improved the situation slightly for pedestrians, but left turns along the corridor are still a major headache/hazard.
I drove it about a month ago, and it wasn't that terrible, but I guess I hit it at a good time.

It's kind of like all of that traffic piling onto SB I-41 in the Green Bay area after Packer games.  OTOH, that situation was somewhat alleviated with the I-41 rebuild a few years ago and will likely be an historical anomaly once the rest of the highway can be upgraded to six lanes southward into the Appleton area.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on August 20, 2019, 01:11:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2019, 09:28:53 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on August 12, 2019, 03:27:08 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 12, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
So what happened to the big plan for rebuilding Wisconsin Dells Parkway that they were studying about five years ago?
Like many other study projects, when the study ended, it got shelved until design money becomes available/it becomes a programmed project.

Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2019, 01:35:35 PM
Never heard about that. I don't think the Dells Pkwy needs that much work anyways.
Take a drive up there during the day anytime between now and Labor Day, and your opinion will change. The Ped Hybrid Signals improved the situation slightly for pedestrians, but left turns along the corridor are still a major headache/hazard.
I drove it about a month ago, and it wasn't that terrible, but I guess I hit it at a good time.


Always depends the time of day, day of week, season, and weather as to the traffic you get.  If you are a local you know the backroads to avoid most of the congestion.  But during peak times driving 13/16/23 or driving 12/23 and 12 until end of Lake Delton  can be at a snails pace.  The US 12 Bypass helped as well as the old US 12 to Baraboo used to have it's issues(many accidents by casino).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 21, 2019, 11:29:15 PM
Received my 2019-2020 Wisconsin State Map. Tony Evers and Mandella Barnes are together on the picture. Looking like freeways that that have a speed limit of 55 with the exception of interstates and Wis 172 and Wis 30 are going to continue to be mapped as simply "multilane divided."  Even US 151 between I-39/90/94 and Reiner Rd is not shown as a freeway eventhough it is. The Madison Beltline, Wis 11 around Monroe, Wis 145, Wis 175, and Wis 119 freeway stretches continue to not be mapped as freeways.

US 45 between Antigo and Deerbrook is multilane divided but has never been mapped for it. I wonder why? The short stretch of US 10 between Wis 80 and Marshfield continues to be shown as 2 lanes eventhough it's 4 lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on August 23, 2019, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 21, 2019, 11:29:15 PM
Received my 2019-2020 Wisconsin State Map. Tony Evers and Mandella Barnes are together on the picture. Looking like freeways that that have a speed limit of 55 with the exception of interstates and Wis 172 and Wis 30 are going to continue to be mapped as simply "multilane divided."  Even US 151 between I-39/90/94 and Reiner Rd is not shown as a freeway eventhough it is. The Madison Beltline, Wis 11 around Monroe, Wis 145, Wis 175, and Wis 119 freeway stretches continue to not be mapped as freeways.

US 45 between Antigo and Deerbrook is multilane divided but has never been mapped for it. I wonder why? The short stretch of US 10 between Wis 80 and Marshfield continues to be shown as 2 lanes eventhough it's 4 lanes.
Looks like I will be hanging on to my 2015 map for awhile longer. Strange that Barnes would be in the picture instead of Kathy Evers. I never recall Rebecca Klefisch or Barbara Lawton ever being on state maps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2019, 04:56:52 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 23, 2019, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 21, 2019, 11:29:15 PM
Received my 2019-2020 Wisconsin State Map. Tony Evers and Mandella Barnes are together on the picture. Looking like freeways that that have a speed limit of 55 with the exception of interstates and Wis 172 and Wis 30 are going to continue to be mapped as simply "multilane divided."  Even US 151 between I-39/90/94 and Reiner Rd is not shown as a freeway eventhough it is. The Madison Beltline, Wis 11 around Monroe, Wis 145, Wis 175, and Wis 119 freeway stretches continue to not be mapped as freeways.

US 45 between Antigo and Deerbrook is multilane divided but has never been mapped for it. I wonder why? The short stretch of US 10 between Wis 80 and Marshfield continues to be shown as 2 lanes eventhough it's 4 lanes.
Looks like I will be hanging on to my 2015 map for awhile longer. Strange that Barnes would be in the picture instead of Kathy Evers. I never recall Rebecca Klefisch or Barbara Lawton ever being on state maps.


"I'm going to hold onto an outdated map because I'm butthurt over an election result."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2019, 06:14:48 PM
Just ordered one for myself and my mother. She's going to be very happy the map no longer has Walker's ugly mug on it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 23, 2019, 06:21:08 PM
Not to play mod, but we already flooded one thread about the WI governor's photo on a map and that thread WASN'T EVEN ABOUT WISCONSIN.

So I'll just ask since I can't do anything to actually stop anyone, but can we please not?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 23, 2019, 08:56:21 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 23, 2019, 06:21:08 PM
Not to play mod, but we already flooded one thread about the WI governor's photo on a map and that thread WASN'T EVEN ABOUT WISCONSIN.

So I'll just ask since I can't do anything to actually stop anyone, but can we please not?
I agree, I don't know what everybody is on about. Nobody really cares about your political stance.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2019, 09:20:17 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 23, 2019, 06:21:08 PM
Not to play mod, but we already flooded one thread about the WI governor's photo on a map and that thread WASN'T EVEN ABOUT WISCONSIN.

So I'll just ask since I can't do anything to actually stop anyone, but can we please not?

Report the post and quit whining.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on August 25, 2019, 11:38:31 PM
Its been a fat minute since I've made a post here, but I've been busy with life.

-The Eau Claire area went from almost exclusively horizontal trombone mounted signals to mostly vertically mounted monotube or trombone arms, with most of the holdouts being city approaches on wisdot owned roads, or city owned signals completely.

-NWRegion has been very quickly going around and changing all horizontal signals on monotubes to be oriented vertically on approaches with speeds of 45+, even where signal head per lane had already existed. I presume this is to promote uniformity.

-NWRegion has also been exclusively using reflective yellow borders on ALL signals (above roadway and on poles) on approaches 45+ mph.

-The 1st gen wisdot spec'd "Pixel" LED modules are also nearly extinct in the Chippewa valley, with a few stragglers forgotten, and surprisingly the two intersections on old US 53 in Eau Claire, now owned by the city, that did not get the update when NWR came around replacing modules two years ago.

-NWR is also nearly complete with converting all state owned roadway lighting to LED in the area.

-I've noticed bigger signs on roads with speeds above 45mph have been appearing, especially along US 12 in Eau Claire. Not sure if there was an update to MUTCD, but these signs seem quite comical at times, as they almost seem bigger than they need to be.

Thats all as far as updates go from me
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 26, 2019, 12:14:46 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on August 25, 2019, 11:38:31 PM
-I've noticed bigger signs on roads with speeds above 45mph have been appearing, especially along US 12 in Eau Claire. Not sure if there was an update to MUTCD, but these signs seem quite comical at times, as they almost seem bigger than they need to be.

They were likely undersized to begin with. The section of TEOpS manual (fka the TGM) pertaining to sign size hasn't been updated in nearly 9 years. Per TEOpS 2-01-35 (https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/02-01.pdf), signs on multilane conventional (non expwy/fwy) roadways with a posted speed of 45 or greater are supposed to be size 3 (https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/signplate/rseries/R2-1.pdf).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on August 26, 2019, 05:25:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2019, 09:20:17 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 23, 2019, 06:21:08 PM
Not to play mod, but we already flooded one thread about the WI governor's photo on a map and that thread WASN'T EVEN ABOUT WISCONSIN.

So I'll just ask since I can't do anything to actually stop anyone, but can we please not?

Report the post and quit whining.


I thought we had bigger things to worry about than picture of politician that's no bigger than the size of a quarter on a map.  Quite frankly anyone that judges morality based by party affiliation needs to check themselves.  But to discuss politics anywhere is --->  :pan:  :poke:  :banghead:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 26, 2019, 10:09:05 PM
So, apparently WisDOT and Iowa County can't figure out how to correctly create a detour. The US-18/151 split at Dodgeville is closed and drivers are *supposed* to take Highway 23 through Dodgeville. Instead, they're taking County YZ to County Y, and so far there's been over 25 accidents at this at-grade intersection, including FOUR accidents in the span of one hour last Sunday.

This leads one to wonder: why haven't they just shut down County Y west of this intersection until the US-18 detour is over?

https://www.channel3000.com/news/sheriff-says-after-dozens-of-crashes-at-iowa-county-intersection-he-fears-a-fatality-could-be-next/1113581844
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on August 26, 2019, 11:07:01 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 26, 2019, 10:09:05 PM
So, apparently WisDOT and Iowa County can't figure out how to correctly create a detour. The US-18/151 split at Dodgeville is closed and drivers are *supposed* to take Highway 23 through Dodgeville. Instead, they're taking County YZ to County Y, and so far there's been over 25 accidents at this at-grade intersection, including FOUR accidents in the span of one hour last Sunday.

This leads one to wonder: why haven't they just shut down County Y west of this intersection until the US-18 detour is over?

https://www.channel3000.com/news/sheriff-says-after-dozens-of-crashes-at-iowa-county-intersection-he-fears-a-fatality-could-be-next/1113581844

I am familiar with the area and that intersection is not designed to handle a large volume of traffic. Quite dangerous. Intersection needs to be closed until construction is done. Guarantee nothing will happen though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 27, 2019, 09:07:32 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 26, 2019, 10:09:05 PM
So, apparently WisDOT and Iowa County can't figure out how to correctly create a detour. The US-18/151 split at Dodgeville is closed and drivers are *supposed* to take Highway 23 through Dodgeville. Instead, they're taking County YZ to County Y, and so far there's been over 25 accidents at this at-grade intersection, including FOUR accidents in the span of one hour last Sunday.

This leads one to wonder: why haven't they just shut down County Y west of this intersection until the US-18 detour is over?

https://www.channel3000.com/news/sheriff-says-after-dozens-of-crashes-at-iowa-county-intersection-he-fears-a-fatality-could-be-next/1113581844
Wait, so the DOT is at-fault because people aren't following the posted detour?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2019, 12:02:43 PM
That intersection should have been permanently closed awhile ago.  Too much traffic uses it as a short cut even during "regular" times.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 27, 2019, 04:10:45 PM
Aren't they planning on putting an interchange at CTH-YZ (old US 18/151 prior to 1982) eventually, as part of the US 18/151 Freeway Conversion Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx)? Maybe that interchange should be built sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on August 27, 2019, 04:48:44 PM
Most of the people using County YZ are Lands' End employees heading too and from Madison, and YZ heads right past Lands' End HQ. I bet at rush hour, those waiting 10+ cars deep to turn onto 18-151 waste just as much time waiting in line as they would to take the posted detour. Then people get impatient and try to jump a gap and end up pulling out in front of somebody. I've seen many near misses even without the construction. It should either be closed until construction is over or made into right-in right-out only, and close the median. That planned interchange needs to be built yesterday, and I'm surprised the one by Ridgeway was built before this one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on August 27, 2019, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 27, 2019, 04:48:44 PM
Most of the people using County YZ are Lands' End employees heading too and from Madison, and YZ heads right past Lands' End HQ. I bet at rush hour, those waiting 10+ cars deep to turn onto 18-151 waste just as much time waiting in line as they would to take the posted detour. Then people get impatient and try to jump a gap and end up pulling out in front of somebody. I've seen many near misses even without the construction. It should either be closed until construction is over or made into right-in right-out only, and close the median. That planned interchange needs to be built yesterday, and I'm surprised the one by Ridgeway was built before this one.

In all my times passing that interchange a week, I've never once seen a car utilize the new Ridgeway interchange (except when I did to check it out after it opened). Perhaps I just go by at the wrong times?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on August 27, 2019, 05:45:13 PM
I had two cars (one from each direction) turn in front of me blocking both lanes.  I had to quickly find out which was the fastest asshole ahead of me before I rear-ended one of them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2019, 04:41:02 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 21, 2019, 11:29:15 PM
Looking like freeways that that have a speed limit of 55 with the exception of interstates and Wis 172 and Wis 30 are going to continue to be mapped as simply "multilane divided."  Even US 151 between I-39/90/94 and Reiner Rd is not shown as a freeway eventhough it is. The Madison Beltline, Wis 11 around Monroe, Wis 145, Wis 175, and Wis 119 freeway stretches continue to not be mapped as freeways.

Boooooo!!!
It's 2019; there's no excuse for making a map worse with incorrect road classifications.
That's the reason to hold on to some old copy.  Before they ruined it with these BS freeway demotions.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on August 28, 2019, 09:48:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 27, 2019, 04:10:45 PM
Aren't they planning on putting an interchange at CTH-YZ (old US 18/151 prior to 1982) eventually, as part of the US 18/151 Freeway Conversion Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx)? Maybe that interchange should be built sooner rather than later.

Your link doesn't work. I believe this is the correct link.  (https://projects.511wi.gov/us18151/)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 28, 2019, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on August 27, 2019, 09:07:32 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 26, 2019, 10:09:05 PM
This leads one to wonder: why haven't they just shut down County Y west of this intersection until the US-18 detour is over?
Wait, so the DOT is at-fault because people aren't following the posted detour?

Nope. But at the same time, that's a lot of accidents tying up the sheriff's deputies, fire department, ambulance, and State Police. It's also obvious nobody is going to respect the detour unless forced to. At some point, the inconvenience of shutting down the road has to get outweighed by the mounting losses from all the accidents there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 29, 2019, 01:24:47 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 28, 2019, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on August 27, 2019, 09:07:32 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 26, 2019, 10:09:05 PM
This leads one to wonder: why haven't they just shut down County Y west of this intersection until the US-18 detour is over?
Wait, so the DOT is at-fault because people aren't following the posted detour?

Nope. But at the same time, that's a lot of accidents tying up the sheriff's deputies, fire department, ambulance, and State Police. It's also obvious nobody is going to respect the detour unless forced to. At some point, the inconvenience of shutting down the road has to get outweighed by the mounting losses from all the accidents there.

I fully agree with that logic and agree that something should be done, but that's not the way you framed your original statement. You made it sound like this traffic pattern was created by the DOT and the county, when it's the unfortunate side effect of posting a detour for a state (or higher facility). More often than not, the official detour ends up being more inconvenient than the local roadway network, but that's the byproduct of how detours have to legally be assigned, unless formal agreements are made with local jurisdictions.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 31, 2019, 09:31:22 AM
The highest Zoo Interchange ramp, I-94 EB to I-41 NB, is a bucket list piece of road. I drove it this week for the first time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 01, 2019, 10:01:28 AM
The last remaining state-named interstate shield that I was aware of is now gone. It was an I-90 at the WIS 82 interchange. It was replaced sometime in the last two months. :(
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 01, 2019, 10:48:30 AM
WisDOT just installed big brown signs with the words "Michael G. Ellis/Memorial/Interchange" in the median of I-41 (one each way) right in front of the ramp stack in the recently rebuilt I-41/US 10/WI 441 interchange between Appleton and Neenah.  Is this the first time that they've actually identified an interchange in that manner?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 01, 2019, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 01, 2019, 10:48:30 AM
WisDOT just installed big brown signs with the words "Michael G. Ellis/Memorial/Interchange" in the median of I-41 (one each way) right in front of the ramp stack in the recently rebuilt I-41/US 10/WI 441 interchange between Appleton and Neenah.  Is this the first time that they've actually identified an interchange in that manner?

Mike

Yeah I just saw that Friday. I do not recall others signed like this but I think most of the other interchanges are "nicknames"  rather than formal names.

I can't think of a more depressing way to be memorialized though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:23:38 PM
Who was Michael G. Ellis? Was he a former politician who served the Appleton area?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 03, 2019, 04:25:41 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:23:38 PM
Who was Michael G. Ellis? Was he a former politician who served the Appleton area?


https://www.kesslerfh.com/notices/SenatorMichaelG-Ellis
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 03, 2019, 09:09:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 03, 2019, 04:25:41 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:23:38 PM
Who was Michael G. Ellis? Was he a former politician who served the Appleton area?


https://www.kesslerfh.com/notices/SenatorMichaelG-Ellis

Yea, he was a late long-time state Senator from Neenah, his district also included much of Appleton.  He was well known for being a bit of an outspoken curmudgeon at times, too.

:meh:

BTW, there is also a sign on an overhead gantry on the bridge on the WB approach to that interchange.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 05, 2019, 06:54:27 PM
Mike Ellis fought hard to have Wis 441 built as a freeway. Wis 441 was originally a multi-county project and was supposed to simply be a 4 lane expressway with intersections. The Little Lake Butte Des Mortes Bridge was originally a Winnebago County project and was signed as County Q when opened. 

Ellis lead the charge for the state to takeover the Tri-County project and upgrade the route to freeway.

Can you imagine the traffic issues if Wis 441 was not built as a freeway?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
The traffic would use US/Interstate 41 and surface streets if WIS 441 did not exist. US 10 might still be on its pre-existing alignment through Appleton, although I'm not sure about whether or not US 10 would be four-lanes all the way west to Stevens Points. It probably would, but the route would likely be closer to old US 10 between Fremont and Appleton.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 06, 2019, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
The traffic would use US/Interstate 41 and surface streets if WIS 441 did not exist. US 10 might still be on its pre-existing alignment through Appleton, although I'm not sure about whether or not US 10 would be four-lanes all the way west to Stevens Points. It probably would, but the route would likely be closer to old US 10 between Fremont and Appleton.

A 4 lane highway was going to be built along the Wis 441 corridor. It was going to be an expressway with a county road designation. The ROW was purchased in the 3 counties for the project. It's evident with the intersections that were once present with US 41 when the original bridge opened as County Q. I'm asking to imagine a roadway with intersections instead of interchanges.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 07, 2019, 08:33:42 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 06, 2019, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
The traffic would use US/Interstate 41 and surface streets if WIS 441 did not exist. US 10 might still be on its pre-existing alignment through Appleton, although I'm not sure about whether or not US 10 would be four-lanes all the way west to Stevens Points. It probably would, but the route would likely be closer to old US 10 between Fremont and Appleton.

A 4 lane highway was going to be built along the Wis 441 corridor. It was going to be an expressway with a county road designation. The ROW was purchased in the 3 counties for the project. It's evident with the intersections that were once present with US 41 when the original bridge opened as County Q. I'm asking to imagine a roadway with intersections instead of interchanges.


It would have been a crowded street, but would have largely been fine.  WI-441 isn't *that* busy even during rush hour.  Would have been smarter to use that $$ to expand I-41 instead.  Just another example of how WIDOT has spent too much on alternate corridors instead of increasing the capacity on those where it is needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 07, 2019, 05:03:01 PM
There's orange barrels on 39/90 northbound through the Badger interchange (WI-30/I-94 east). Is the redesign going to come, at long last?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 07, 2019, 11:48:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 07, 2019, 08:33:42 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 06, 2019, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
The traffic would use US/Interstate 41 and surface streets if WIS 441 did not exist. US 10 might still be on its pre-existing alignment through Appleton, although I'm not sure about whether or not US 10 would be four-lanes all the way west to Stevens Points. It probably would, but the route would likely be closer to old US 10 between Fremont and Appleton.

A 4 lane highway was going to be built along the Wis 441 corridor. It was going to be an expressway with a county road designation. The ROW was purchased in the 3 counties for the project. It's evident with the intersections that were once present with US 41 when the original bridge opened as County Q. I'm asking to imagine a roadway with intersections instead of interchanges.


It would have been a crowded street, but would have largely been fine.  WI-441 isn't *that* busy even during rush hour.  Would have been smarter to use that $$ to expand I-41 instead.  Just another example of how WIDOT has spent too much on alternate corridors instead of increasing the capacity on those where it is needed.

Well, seeing as the Winnebago County part of WI 441 is currently being upgraded to six lanes....

Also, without WI 441, the southeast Appleton area would be far less developed than it is now (that area, including the City of Menasha, was *TOUGH* to get to before WI 441 and that bridge opened!), while the north-south part of the US/I-41 corridor would likely now be eight lanes - that's where all of that SE Appleton area development would have gone.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 09, 2019, 02:39:29 PM
I doubt it, thspfc. I've heard nothing about reconfigurating the interchange ramps at the Badger Interchange, either now or in the future. If such an improvement were ever proposed, I would strongly support it. I believe the Badger Interchange should be reconfigured to have only right-hand entrance and exit ramps. The ramps could probably remain one lane wide, as there probably isn't enough traffic to warrant two-lane ramps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on September 09, 2019, 06:07:53 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 07, 2019, 11:48:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 07, 2019, 08:33:42 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 06, 2019, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
The traffic would use US/Interstate 41 and surface streets if WIS 441 did not exist. US 10 might still be on its pre-existing alignment through Appleton, although I'm not sure about whether or not US 10 would be four-lanes all the way west to Stevens Points. It probably would, but the route would likely be closer to old US 10 between Fremont and Appleton.

A 4 lane highway was going to be built along the Wis 441 corridor. It was going to be an expressway with a county road designation. The ROW was purchased in the 3 counties for the project. It's evident with the intersections that were once present with US 41 when the original bridge opened as County Q. I'm asking to imagine a roadway with intersections instead of interchanges.


It would have been a crowded street, but would have largely been fine.  WI-441 isn't *that* busy even during rush hour.  Would have been smarter to use that $$ to expand I-41 instead.  Just another example of how WIDOT has spent too much on alternate corridors instead of increasing the capacity on those where it is needed.

Well, seeing as the Winnebago County part of WI 441 is currently being upgraded to six lanes....

Also, without WI 441, the southeast Appleton area would be far less developed than it is now (that area, including the City of Menasha, was *TOUGH* to get to before WI 441 and that bridge opened!), while the north-south part of the US/I-41 corridor would likely now be eight lanes - that's where all of that SE Appleton area development would have gone.

Mike

And potential I-441 redesignation talks for highway also support area would be less developed, or that much more a pain to drive through.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 09, 2019, 07:58:13 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 07, 2019, 05:03:01 PM
There's orange barrels on 39/90 northbound through the Badger interchange (WI-30/I-94 east). Is the redesign going to come, at long last?

I HIGHLY doubt it. A big project like that would have had a lot of press. The barrels are likely for some routine maintenance.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:19:26 PM
I just checked the Wisconsin DOT website, and it looks like the Interstate 43 reconstruction project from Silver Spring Drive to STH-60 is back in business. However, the Interstate 94 reconstruction and expansion project is still "on hold." I think the latter should have been the priority.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 12, 2019, 02:28:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:19:26 PM
I just checked the Wisconsin DOT website, and it looks like the Interstate 43 reconstruction project from Silver Spring Drive to STH-60 is back in business. However, the Interstate 94 reconstruction and expansion project is still "on hold." I think the latter should have been the priority.


I think you are right if judged by simply need.  But I think the former might be easier politically. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on September 12, 2019, 02:42:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:19:26 PM
I just checked the Wisconsin DOT website, and it looks like the Interstate 43 reconstruction project from Silver Spring Drive to STH-60 is back in business. However, the Interstate 94 reconstruction and expansion project is still "on hold." I think the latter should have been the priority.
Where does it say that? I checked the 511 site and there's no mention of any of that. Besides, the I-94 project south of Milwaukee is going full steam, and is a very high priority. I see crews working on it every day.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:48:37 PM
Try here for the Interstate 43 project: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx. As for the Interstate 94 project, I was referring to the one in the city between 70th St. and 16th St. along the East-West Freeway, not the ongoing one between the Mitchell Interchange and the Illinois border.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 12, 2019, 02:51:29 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:48:37 PM
Try here for the Interstate 43 project: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx.


It's on hold.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 14, 2019, 09:31:17 AM
With the new budget Interstate 43 was approved as the only new Majors Project. On the major projects portion. Should be complete by 2024. On the Majors page the project is updated. The rest of the pages are not. See the majors timetable to see for yourself below.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/majorlist.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 16, 2019, 01:52:45 PM
Automated traffic enforcement coming?

QuoteMILWAUKEE ā€“ A proposed state bill would let Milwaukee become the first Wisconsin municipality to employ automated traffic enforcement, a controversial measure that is currently illegal in Wisconsin and has found middling results in other American cities that employ it. The bipartisan bill, first read in the Assembly on Aug. 12 and in the state Senate on Sept. 5, would allot the city a trial period of five years to place cameras at signaled intersections and other roadways to automatically enforce speed-limit and red-light violations by sending vehicle owners citations in the mail.

Full Article (https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bipartisan-bill-would-test-automated-traffic-enforcement-in-milwaukee/article_1c754930-ada9-5ff8-9451-dfd8a2dd238c.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 17, 2019, 09:04:46 PM
(https://www.ssoworld.org/pics/angry-512.png)

Desperate for $$ since you can't raise gas taxes?  First wheel taxes, now this.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 18, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
As an Illinoisan, I'm very sorry that the dreaded cameras may be migrating north. Especially for speed limit enforcement, that sounds awful.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 18, 2019, 01:08:58 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 18, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
As an Illinoisan, I'm very sorry that the dreaded cameras may be migrating north. Especially for speed limit enforcement, that sounds awful.

Unfortunately, I think WisDOT's hands are kinda tied, especially with projects like the I-94 and I-39 corridors. They either take forever and include breakdown/enforcement lanes as part of the staging or they forgo the extra widths in order to fast-track the staging. The latter means there is no safe place to pull someone over for miles at a time. Speeds are crazy through those construction corridors because A) most drivers are selfish assholes who don't give a damn about anything/one outside of their steel cage, and B) they know the section is nearly impossible to enforce. As much as I don't like the idea of automated enforcement, outside of pace cars and rolling roadblocks, what else can they do to slow people down? Adding extra LEOs only creates a whole new set of PR problems, not to mention the State Patrol cannot legally get any larger.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2019, 01:54:40 PM
This is about the City of Milwaukee making money as it will only take place in the City to enforce traffic regulations.  I'm sure it will be deployed elsewhere if it successfully rakes in the cash.  Oh and it survives lawsuits.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on September 18, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
Milwaukee has had a big problem with people running red lights. This is supposedly to aid in enforcement of red light runners, not to, ahem, raise cash. I mean, cops can't be everywhere all the time to catch the red light runners. Not that I totally agree with red light cameras, but if it helps cut down on the problem, and reduces accidents, short of stringing people up by their toenails, why not give it a shot?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2019, 04:16:17 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 18, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
Milwaukee has had a big problem with people running red lights. This is supposedly to aid in enforcement of red light runners, not to, ahem, raise cash. I mean, cops can't be everywhere all the time to catch the red light runners. Not that I totally agree with red light cameras, but if it helps cut down on the problem, and reduces accidents, short of stringing people up by their toenails, why not give it a shot?


I don't really mind, but study after study has shown that it doesn't make things safer. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on September 18, 2019, 09:57:36 PM
They'll say it's for safety, then probably stick most of the speed cameras on the interstates and WI 794.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on September 18, 2019, 11:57:39 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 18, 2019, 09:57:36 PM
They'll say it's for safety, then probably stick most of the speed cameras on the interstates and WI 794.
vehicle owners not the driver and how far out of state will they go? And can the city put speed cameras on a state road? and if they do have them on them they should set them to speed + 10 MPH on interstates
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2019, 11:59:24 PM
If you read the article, these are not going on interstates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 19, 2019, 08:55:41 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2019, 11:59:24 PM
If you read the article, these are not going on interstates.

It doesn't say that explicitly.
Quote from: Articleplace cameras at signaled intersections and other roadways to automatically enforce speed-limit and red-light violations

Given the bill's sponsors and the following statement, it's not hard to postulate they may migrate there:
Quote from: ArticleKenosha County Sheriff David Beth and traffic-safety expert David Noyce told The Journal Times last month that they supported such measures to curb Interstate 94 crashes during the current construction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on September 25, 2019, 07:32:09 AM
Looks like I-41 between Appleton and De Pere is on the schedule for 2025-2029.  I am still hoping this gets moved up as this is a crazy stretch of highway.

https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2019/09/24/41-expansion-project-between-appleton-and-de-pere-planned-start-2025/2427163001/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 25, 2019, 10:12:27 AM
Quote from: gbgoose on September 25, 2019, 07:32:09 AM
Looks like I-41 between Appleton and De Pere is on the schedule for 2025-2029.  I am still hoping this gets moved up as this is a crazy stretch of highway.

https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2019/09/24/41-expansion-project-between-appleton-and-de-pere-planned-start-2025/2427163001/

Could you post a few fair use excepts, I'm out of 'wishes' with them.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on September 25, 2019, 10:14:21 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 25, 2019, 10:12:27 AM
Could you post a few fair use excepts, I'm out of 'wishes' with them.

Quote from: the entire articleAPPLETON - The expansion of Interstate 41 between Appleton and De Pere is scheduled to begin in 2025 and be completed in 2029.

Appleton Public Works Director Paula Vandehey announced the schedule after meeting with officials from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation last week.

"They are very enthusiastic about this project, and they have a green light to go," Vandehey told Appleton's Municipal Services Committee on Monday.

The expansion project will stretch 23.6 miles between State 96 (Wisconsin Avenue) in Grand Chute and Scheuring Road in De Pere. It will widen the highway from two lanes to three lanes in each direction to reduce congestion and crash rates.

"That's the gap that's left that's two lanes," DOT Regional Communications Manager Mark Kantola told The Post-Crescent. "Once we widen that, it will be three lanes all the way from Green Bay to Oshkosh."

Money to start the project was included in the 2019-21 state budget.

Vandehey said the DOT will conduct environmental studies from 2020 to 2022, purchase right of way and complete the design and engineering from 2023 to 2024 and construct the improvements from 2025 to 2029.

"(It's) good news for anyone who gets stuck out on 41 just about every day," she said.

Alderwoman Patti Coenen agreed, though she noted the completion date is still a decade away.

"At least they have something in place," Coenen said. "It's a bad stretch of highway. Anybody who drives it with the two lanes, it's very difficult."

Vandehey said the I-41 expansion has been classified as a major project by DOT officials and should hold its place against other projects competing for funding.

"Their feeling is there is no project that's going to have a higher priority and that's going to bump this," Vandehey said.

Grand Chute police said there were 890 crashes on the stretch of I-41 near Appleton and Grand Chute between August 2016 and September 2018. In the same period, police recorded more than 4,700 traffic incidents, including 907 reports of reckless drivers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 25, 2019, 10:22:31 AM
An interesting traffic note on that part of I-41 is that before the Green Bay area upgrades to six and eight lanes (most of I-41 in the Green Bay area is now 8 lanes), post Packer game traffic was LOS-F the whole way southbound from north of Lombardi Ave (north of the stadium) to at least the Wrightstown area, now it is free-flowing southbound to about the Ashland Ave merge area where it starts piling up for the three to two lane drop south of Scheuring Rd.  Upgraded to six lanes, the entire highway will likely be free-flowing post-game.

And to think, until about 1968, US 41 was still a two lane highway between Kaukauna and De Pere.

:-o

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 25, 2019, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 25, 2019, 10:22:31 AM
An interesting traffic note on that part of I-41 is that before the Green Bay area upgrades to six and eight lanes (most of I-41 in the Green Bay area is now 8 lanes), post Packer game traffic was LOS-F the whole way southbound from north of Lombardi Ave (north of the stadium) to at least the Wrightstown area, now it is free-flowing southbound to about the Ashland Ave merge area where it starts piling up for the three to two lane drop south of Scheuring Rd.  Upgraded to six lanes, the entire highway will likely be free-flowing post-game.

And to think, until about 1968, US 41 was still a two lane highway between Kaukauna and De Pere.

:-o

Mike


15-20 years ago, people still had driveways and mailboxes on US-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 25, 2019, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 25, 2019, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 25, 2019, 10:22:31 AM
An interesting traffic note on that part of I-41 is that before the Green Bay area upgrades to six and eight lanes (most of I-41 in the Green Bay area is now 8 lanes), post Packer game traffic was LOS-F the whole way southbound from north of Lombardi Ave (north of the stadium) to at least the Wrightstown area, now it is free-flowing southbound to about the Ashland Ave merge area where it starts piling up for the three to two lane drop south of Scheuring Rd.  Upgraded to six lanes, the entire highway will likely be free-flowing post-game.

And to think, until about 1968, US 41 was still a two lane highway between Kaukauna and De Pere.

:-o

Mike


15-20 years ago, people still had driveways and mailboxes on US-41.

The last of those was cut off in about 2000 when US 41 was upgraded to a full freeway between Kaukauna and De Pere.  The present-day SB side on the first part south of Scheuring Rd was built in the median at that time and the previous SB side there is now the highway's west frontage road.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 27, 2019, 07:25:28 PM
Speaking of removing driveways, I would like to see that happen on US-151 between Columbus and FDL.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: fuller523 on September 28, 2019, 07:42:30 PM
The West Waukesha Bypass is making progress.  They have a US-18 reassurance shield on the new roadway, but nothing yet posted and covered on the existing bypass.  Not sure if the new roadway will be part of the "Les Paul Parkway" or just simply US-18.  Still has a ways to go as WI-59 east of the bypass is still using only the WB lanes.  It was interesting that layout of the Future US-18/WI-59/CR-X intersections is the way it was prior to the late 90s.  For some reason, I think going west on 59 will be backed up with the two stoplights right next to each other.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 29, 2019, 01:04:20 PM
I'm kind of thinking that that SW intersection with WI 59 would have been a good place for a roundabout.

That said, the west part of the Waukesha bypass is a road that I had always thought was lost to the 1970s memory hole of cancelled major highway proposals.  And now it is being built.

There is still hope in this World.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 02, 2019, 02:57:17 PM
Construction The West Waukesha Bypass (unsurprisingly) is not shown on Google Maps, although the Street View is up-to-date enough to show construction on a few side-roads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 05, 2019, 09:00:40 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 02, 2019, 02:57:17 PM
Construction The West Waukesha Bypass (unsurprisingly) is not shown on Google Maps, although the Street View is up-to-date enough to show construction on a few side-roads.
I'll believe that this construction is done when I see it myself.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 06, 2019, 03:10:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 02, 2019, 02:57:17 PM
Construction The West Waukesha Bypass (unsurprisingly) is not shown on Google Maps, although the Street View is up-to-date enough to show construction on a few side-roads.
Of course not it will be once it's opened.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on October 20, 2019, 05:49:06 PM
Just got back home from a trip through Dodgeville. US 151 is being rebuilt between the Dodgeville exits, along with all the interchange ramps. Heading east on US 18, the overhead sign for the ramp to US 151 south now contains a state shield error for US 151. Couldn't get a picture, but how does that happen? :poke: :banghead: :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 20, 2019, 06:21:17 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 20, 2019, 05:49:06 PM
Just got back home from a trip through Dodgeville. US 151 is being rebuilt between the Dodgeville exits, along with all the interchange ramps. Heading east on US 18, the overhead sign for the ramp to US 151 south now contains a state shield error for US 151. Couldn't get a picture, but how does that happen? :poke: :banghead: :pan:
Contractors (╯ƂĀ°□ƂĀ°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 20, 2019, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 20, 2019, 05:49:06 PM
Just got back home from a trip through Dodgeville. US 151 is being rebuilt between the Dodgeville exits, along with all the interchange ramps. Heading east on US 18, the overhead sign for the ramp to US 151 south now contains a state shield error for US 151. Couldn't get a picture, but how does that happen? :poke: :banghead: :pan:

Suggest you peruse this thread: US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on October 20, 2019, 09:17:52 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 20, 2019, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 20, 2019, 05:49:06 PM
Just got back home from a trip through Dodgeville. US 151 is being rebuilt between the Dodgeville exits, along with all the interchange ramps. Heading east on US 18, the overhead sign for the ramp to US 151 south now contains a state shield error for US 151. Couldn't get a picture, but how does that happen? :poke: :banghead: :pan:



Suggest you peruse this thread: US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0)

I saw the post about the WI 191 being posted as US 191 before, but we didn't go through downtown Dodgeville today, which is where that error is. Funny, though, that there would be two mistakes in the same city, but in "opposite directions".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MKEDavenH on October 21, 2019, 10:30:08 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 20, 2019, 05:49:06 PM
Just got back home from a trip through Dodgeville. US 151 is being rebuilt between the Dodgeville exits, along with all the interchange ramps. Heading east on US 18, the overhead sign for the ramp to US 151 south now contains a state shield error for US 151. Couldn't get a picture, but how does that happen? :poke: :banghead: :pan:

I came through that interchange yesterday, too. It wasn't just the US-151 S ramp. The sign for US-18 E / US-151 N / Madison also had Wisconsin state highway shields. Unfortunately my brain wasn't working quickly enough to grab my phone and click a picture.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on October 21, 2019, 10:54:58 AM
Quote from: MKEDavenH on October 21, 2019, 10:30:08 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 20, 2019, 05:49:06 PM
Just got back home from a trip through Dodgeville. US 151 is being rebuilt between the Dodgeville exits, along with all the interchange ramps. Heading east on US 18, the overhead sign for the ramp to US 151 south now contains a state shield error for US 151. Couldn't get a picture, but how does that happen? :poke: :banghead: :pan:

I came through that interchange yesterday, too. It wasn't just the US-151 S ramp. The sign for US-18 E / US-151 N / Madison also had Wisconsin state highway shields. Unfortunately my brain wasn't working quickly enough to grab my phone and click a picture.


My one of the weekend was taking WI-82 towards Oxford from Mauston.  When coming to WI-13 the JCT sign has a US 13 shield and then the sign following has 13 and 82 as US Highways from that sign.


So I guess magically at this point I'm in the southern US or along the Atlantic coast at that intersection lol  :spin:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2019, 12:08:44 PM
Man, if one of us had a job at some company that makes or installs signs, this kind of shit would never happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 21, 2019, 02:48:37 PM
I saw STH-18 signs along the Beltline during a construction project, and I once saw STH-51 reassurance markers along the side of Stoughton Rd. And I know there was once  a sign along US 12/STH-16 at CTH-A west of Wisconsin Dells, that still showed both highways as US 12/US 16. It appears to be gone now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on October 21, 2019, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 21, 2019, 02:48:37 PM
I saw STH-18 signs along the Beltline during a construction project, and I once saw STH-51 reassurance markers along the side of Stoughton Rd. And I know there was once  a sign along US 12/STH-16 at CTH-A west of Wisconsin Dells, that still showed both highways as US 12/US 16. It appears to be gone now.

Fairly sure by Florence Wisconsin were CTH-N reaches US-2/US-141 the sign that tells you both left and right turns is the highway has sign as US-2/US-41........what's missing by 100 here or there  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 22, 2019, 12:26:31 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on October 21, 2019, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 21, 2019, 02:48:37 PM
I saw STH-18 signs along the Beltline during a construction project, and I once saw STH-51 reassurance markers along the side of Stoughton Rd. And I know there was once  a sign along US 12/STH-16 at CTH-A west of Wisconsin Dells, that still showed both highways as US 12/US 16. It appears to be gone now.

Fairly sure by Florence Wisconsin were CTH-N reaches US-2/US-141 the sign that tells you both left and right turns is the highway has sign as US-2/US-41........what's missing by 100 here or there  :hmmm:

As of September, 2015, that sign is correct:

https://goo.gl/maps/9nD2bfFtVvqAA6ua9

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on October 23, 2019, 02:53:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 22, 2019, 12:26:31 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on October 21, 2019, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 21, 2019, 02:48:37 PM
I saw STH-18 signs along the Beltline during a construction project, and I once saw STH-51 reassurance markers along the side of Stoughton Rd. And I know there was once  a sign along US 12/STH-16 at CTH-A west of Wisconsin Dells, that still showed both highways as US 12/US 16. It appears to be gone now.

Fairly sure by Florence Wisconsin were CTH-N reaches US-2/US-141 the sign that tells you both left and right turns is the highway has sign as US-2/US-41........what's missing by 100 here or there  :hmmm:

As of September, 2015, that sign is correct:

https://goo.gl/maps/9nD2bfFtVvqAA6ua9

Mike



I'll have to take a picture to post here.  My wife and I go to Ontonagon, MI every other month and come up to the intersection.  The sign currently up is US-2/US-41..........So some point between that image and current date the sign was changed/replaced.  Last visit was about 2 months ago, quoting what was there when we passed this point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2019, 10:44:46 PM
Up in Florence right now. Can confirm the US-2/41 sign error. Will try to get a picture tomorrow.
Title: State trail/abandoned railroad bridge hit
Post by: mgk920 on October 31, 2019, 02:06:08 PM
https://fox11online.com/news/local/state-highway-117-now-open

This is the former Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Green Bay-Wausau, WI line, now the Mountain Bay State Trail, bridge over WI 117 in Bonduel, WI, hit by an overheight truck on 2019-10-22.

https://binged.it/2N1IGdO

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Crash_It on November 07, 2019, 11:27:51 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 18, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
As an Illinoisan, I'm very sorry that the dreaded cameras may be migrating north. Especially for speed limit enforcement, that sounds awful.

So then drive the speed limit and you will never have to worry about a speed camera. I support them because they cut down on tailgating a**holes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 08, 2019, 12:56:59 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on November 07, 2019, 11:27:51 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 18, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
As an Illinoisan, I'm very sorry that the dreaded cameras may be migrating north. Especially for speed limit enforcement, that sounds awful.

So then drive the speed limit and you will never have to worry about a speed camera. I support them because they cut down on tailgating a**holes.
like hell they do.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 08, 2019, 04:49:15 PM
Here's a cause for celebration:

https://madison.com/wsj/traffic/new-expanded-verona-road-opening-this-weekend/article_d11d558c-8ab2-5ff9-a410-a5c6bea170fe.html#utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fbreaking&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=a7186738f56ec3cf114bb1ce9e81854ec6e69e48
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 08, 2019, 04:59:20 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 08, 2019, 04:49:15 PM
Here's a cause for celebration:

https://madison.com/wsj/traffic/new-expanded-verona-road-opening-this-weekend/article_d11d558c-8ab2-5ff9-a410-a5c6bea170fe.html#utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fbreaking&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=a7186738f56ec3cf114bb1ce9e81854ec6e69e48
Only 15 years too late.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 08, 2019, 06:48:27 PM
I wonder if the proposed Stage 3 improvements of Verona Rd. will be constructed at some point? Info: https://projects.511wi.gov/veronard/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/map-altstage3.pdf.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 08, 2019, 10:18:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 08, 2019, 06:48:27 PM
I wonder if the proposed Stage 3 improvements of Verona Rd. will be constructed at some point? Info: https://projects.511wi.gov/veronard/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/map-altstage3.pdf.
I don't care if it takes a half hour to get from the beltline to Verona, I just want to see with my very eyes a Verona Road that is not under construction. I can't remember such a time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 09, 2019, 09:58:37 PM
Well it's still not going to be a direct freeway to freeway connection but no question a major improvement form what it was before. At least you will only have 2 traffic lights now instead 5.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2019, 09:02:58 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on November 09, 2019, 09:58:37 PM
Well it's still not going to be a direct freeway to freeway connection but no question a major improvement form what it was before. At least you will only have 2 traffic lights now instead 5.


You are the one who complains that WIDOT doesn't listen enough to local input, in cases like the west Waukesha bypass and roundabounts as examples, yet it was pretty clear that the locals didn't want the direct freeway to freeway option.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 12, 2019, 07:38:32 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 11, 2019, 09:02:58 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on November 09, 2019, 09:58:37 PM
Well it's still not going to be a direct freeway to freeway connection but no question a major improvement form what it was before. At least you will only have 2 traffic lights now instead 5.


You are the one who complains that WIDOT doesn't listen enough to local input, in cases like the west Waukesha bypass and roundabounts as examples, yet it was pretty clear that the locals didn't want the direct freeway to freeway option.
I am not complaining sure I would have liked the freeway to freeway connection I am looking on the bright side as to what we did get and that while not perfect is still better. And yes I still believe the general public should be able to have a say in this after all it's our tax dollars that is being spent. I am surprised at how many on this forum disagree with that but oh well. I am actually starting to warm up to the west Waukesha bypass I would have preferred if I-94 had been widened first but I think this new bypass is going to work out ok.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 17, 2019, 02:59:22 AM
Is WISDOT done using wood for their signs? I'm noticing that all new signs are now metal with reinforced brackets on the back of longer signs to prevent them from bending.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on November 18, 2019, 02:08:03 PM
If anyone remembers the low pressure sodium vapor lights on the La Crosse Big Blue Bridge, they've now been replaced with LEDs, and the old ones were bought by me... Notice the light blue paint spray on some of them.
(https://i.imgur.com/QokFQ2n.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 18, 2019, 04:52:46 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on November 18, 2019, 02:08:03 PM
If anyone remembers the low pressure sodium vapor lights on the La Crosse Big Blue Bridge, they've now been replaced with LEDs, and the old ones were bought by me... Notice the light blue paint spray on some of them.
(https://i.imgur.com/QokFQ2n.jpg)
That's really cool. Did you get them at auction?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on November 20, 2019, 05:41:33 PM
Yes, some lighting collectors tipped me off and I got nominated to do the pickup since I was the only one remotely close. I might eventually scrap what i can't sell, but a lot of these are heading to new homes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: MKEDavenH on November 24, 2019, 02:55:57 PM
Some maybe exciting news re: the Waukesha Bypass and US-18. The BGSs at I-94 Exit 291 have been updated to "WIS-318 / CTH-G / To US-18"  (removing CTH-TT), and they've added separate "Waukesha Bypass / Exit 291"  green advisory signs. I didn't get to explore, but that in and of itself is cool IMO.

(Edited: Yes, 318, not 341. Need more coffee. Or sleep.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 24, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
^^ So they moved WI 341 from Miller Park Way?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 24, 2019, 08:42:15 PM
Quote from: MKEDavenH on November 24, 2019, 02:55:57 PM
Some maybe exciting news re: the Waukesha Bypass and US-18. The BGSs at I-94 Exit 291 have been updated to "WIS-341 / CTH-G / To US-18"  (removing CTH-TT), and they've added separate "Waukesha Bypass / Exit 291"  green advisory signs. I didn't get to explore, but that in and of itself is cool IMO.
Don't you mean WIS-318?

They removed the hidden 341 from Miller Park Way when 41 was shifted and 175 was drawn down to it
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 25, 2019, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 24, 2019, 08:42:15 PM
Quote from: MKEDavenH on November 24, 2019, 02:55:57 PM
Some maybe exciting news re: the Waukesha Bypass and US-18. The BGSs at I-94 Exit 291 have been updated to "WIS-341 / CTH-G / To US-18"  (removing CTH-TT), and they've added separate "Waukesha Bypass / Exit 291"  green advisory signs. I didn't get to explore, but that in and of itself is cool IMO.
Don't you mean WIS-318?

They removed the hidden 341 from Miller Park Way when 41 was shifted and 175 was drawn down to it

So then Miller Park Way, at least north of National Ave (WI 59), now fully WI 175?

Also, is that WI 341 sign still there on that Miller Park access road east of the stadium?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 25, 2019, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 25, 2019, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 24, 2019, 08:42:15 PM
Quote from: MKEDavenH on November 24, 2019, 02:55:57 PM
Some maybe exciting news re: the Waukesha Bypass and US-18. The BGSs at I-94 Exit 291 have been updated to "WIS-341 / CTH-G / To US-18"  (removing CTH-TT), and they've added separate "Waukesha Bypass / Exit 291"  green advisory signs. I didn't get to explore, but that in and of itself is cool IMO.
Don't you mean WIS-318?

They removed the hidden 341 from Miller Park Way when 41 was shifted and 175 was drawn down to it

So then Miller Park Way, at least north of National Ave (WI 59), now fully WI 175?

Also, is that WI 341 sign still there on that Miller Park access road east of the stadium?

Mike


Yes WI-175 is signed to WI-59.  No that WI-341 shield is gone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 26, 2019, 03:23:10 PM
WIS 318 has been signed at Exit 291 for a while. Now if the webmaster of Wisconsin Highways (wisconsinhighways.org) can someday find time to update the pages to include WIS 318 to his Routes 200-399 page.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on November 26, 2019, 06:01:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 26, 2019, 03:23:10 PM
WIS 318 has been signed at Exit 291 for a while. Now if the webmaster of Wisconsin Highways (wisconsinhighways.org) can someday find time to update the pages to include WIS 318 to his Routes 200-399 page.

Wish with many of these pages had more photo's of highways in past too(like 141 to Milwaukee, or wis 15 between Beloit to Milwaukee for example).  But at that time people didn't know the internet or interest in things like that existed.  But what people on pages like this one and Wisconsin Highways do is quite awesome
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 27, 2019, 11:47:32 AM
I concur, gr8daynegb. Photos of those highways from those time periods would be awesome, assuming any exist.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 29, 2019, 05:20:24 PM
The BGSes on I-39/US-51 at CTY-WW near Wausau now have "Maine" as their control city, rather than "Brokaw". This must be a fairly recent switch.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2019, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 29, 2019, 05:20:24 PM
The BGSes on I-39/US-51 at CTY-WW near Wausau now have "Maine" as their control city, rather than "Brokaw". This must be a fairly recent switch.

Brokaw merged into Maine last year.

https://waow.com/news/wisconsin-news/2018/10/03/wausau-area-communities-merge-a-first-in-state-history/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 30, 2019, 12:08:08 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2019, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 29, 2019, 05:20:24 PM
The BGSes on I-39/US-51 at CTY-WW near Wausau now have "Maine" as their control city, rather than "Brokaw". This must be a fairly recent switch.

Brokaw merged into Maine last year.

https://waow.com/news/wisconsin-news/2018/10/03/wausau-area-communities-merge-a-first-in-state-history/

Now . . . to get 'Maine' merged into Wausau.

Yea, I know that that'll be a tall order for the foreseeable future, but you never know.

:meh:

BTW, there have been mergers between incorporated munis happening throughout state history.  Essentially, this one was Brokaw throwing in the towel and Maine using that as an opportunity to (try to) cut off a future growth corridor for Wausau.  The financial mess that Brokaw was in has only been transferred to all of its surrounding former township.  Stay tuned.

:popcorn:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 30, 2019, 04:29:32 AM
Brokaw relied heavily - if not solely on the paper mill.  When that closed back when the mills were being consolidated, that pretty much sealed its doom.  Townships around Wausau have been jockeying for position in order to preserve their borders by incorporating (Kronnenwetter did the same in 2001).  This isn't the only area that did such (See Mt. Pleasant near Racine/Kenosha)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 02, 2019, 01:33:25 PM
Drove down I-39/90 between Janesville and Beloit on Thanksgiving. A fun mix of control cities for WI-11 through the construction zone...

The first sign (which looks new) lists Orfordville as the control city. The second (temporary) sign uses Janesville and Monroe as control cities. The third (original) sign lists Janesville and Avalon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 02, 2019, 01:40:22 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 02, 2019, 01:33:25 PM
Drove down I-39/90 between Janesville and Beloit on Thanksgiving. A fun mix of control cities for WI-11 through the construction zone...

The first sign (which looks new) lists Orfordville as the control city. The second (temporary) sign uses Janesville and Monroe as control cities. The third (original) sign lists Janesville and Avalon.
Monroe is a better choice than Orfordville. But I am surprised they would not use Janesville anymore.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2019, 03:04:01 PM
I, too, saw the Maine thing this weekend and did a double take.  Last mumblings I heard about it, Maine was still a township so it was an open question as what Brokaw would do.
Been a long time since we've had one incorporated community absorb another incorporated community.
Usually, it's a town + village merger.  Or in the case of Wisconsin Rapids, the merger of two cities.  But that was like a hundred years ago.
Didn't Milwaukee absorb something incorporated a long time ago?  Like maybe Granville?


On a separate note, I finally found some information about US 12 over by the old ammunition plant in Sauk County.  They're going to fix those crappy S-curves next year.  I had always heard that was going to happen, but could never find a firm date until now.  Construction starts in May:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us12-saukcounty/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us12-saukcounty/default.aspx)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2019, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2019, 03:04:01 PM
I, too, saw the Maine thing this weekend and did a double take.  Last mumblings I heard about it, Maine was still a township so it was an open question as what Brokaw would do.
Been a long time since we've had one incorporated community absorb another incorporated community.
Usually, it's a town + village merger.  Or in the case of Wisconsin Rapids, the merger of two cities.  But that was like a hundred years ago.
Didn't Milwaukee absorb something incorporated a long time ago?  Like maybe Granville?


DePere and West DePere (which was briefly known as the City of Nicolet) used to be two separate cities.  They still are two separate school districts.

Maine became a village back in 2015.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 02, 2019, 10:23:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2019, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2019, 03:04:01 PM
I, too, saw the Maine thing this weekend and did a double take.  Last mumblings I heard about it, Maine was still a township so it was an open question as what Brokaw would do.
Been a long time since we've had one incorporated community absorb another incorporated community.
Usually, it's a town + village merger.  Or in the case of Wisconsin Rapids, the merger of two cities.  But that was like a hundred years ago.
Didn't Milwaukee absorb something incorporated a long time ago?  Like maybe Granville?


DePere and West DePere (which was briefly known as the City of Nicolet) used to be two separate cities.  They still are two separate school districts.

Maine became a village back in 2015.

West Bend annexed the former Village of Barton in the 1960s (it's now a neighborhood on the city's north side).  Green Bay annexed the former Preble Township in 1964 (it's now most of the city's east side east of the East River).  Milwaukee annexed the former Granville and Lake Townships and the remaining sliver of Wauwatosa Township along Hampton Ave in the very late 1950s.

Menomonee Falls annexed Menomonee Township in the very early 1960s.

Madison has boundary agreements with Blooming Grove, Burke and Madison Townships that will see the city annexing the remaining parts of all three of them within the next 10 years or so.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 02, 2019, 11:40:41 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2019, 10:23:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2019, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 02, 2019, 03:04:01 PM
I, too, saw the Maine thing this weekend and did a double take.  Last mumblings I heard about it, Maine was still a township so it was an open question as what Brokaw would do.
Been a long time since we've had one incorporated community absorb another incorporated community.
Usually, it's a town + village merger.  Or in the case of Wisconsin Rapids, the merger of two cities.  But that was like a hundred years ago.
Didn't Milwaukee absorb something incorporated a long time ago?  Like maybe Granville?


DePere and West DePere (which was briefly known as the City of Nicolet) used to be two separate cities.  They still are two separate school districts.

Maine became a village back in 2015.

West Bend annexed the former Village of Barton in the 1960s (it's now a neighborhood on the city's north side).  Green Bay annexed the former Preble Township in 1964 (it's now most of the city's east side east of the East River).  Milwaukee annexed the former Granville and Lake Townships and the remaining sliver of Wauwatosa Township along Hampton Ave in the very late 1950s.

Menomonee Falls annexed Menomonee Township in the very early 1960s.

Madison has boundary agreements with Blooming Grove, Burke and Madison Townships that will see the city annexing the remaining parts of all three of them within the next 10 years or so.

Mike

If I recall correctly, Burke is being split between Madison, Sun Prairie, and DeForest. The Sun Prairie FD has made it a practice to put the name of the townships it has coverage agreements for on the rigs whose primary response area is outside the city. This year's latest vehicle acquisition omitted the Town of Burke from the side of the truck.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on December 08, 2019, 10:21:38 PM
From a recent trip, it looks like I-43 may end a signal for now on the east side of I-39.

I also hate the use of Exit Only on the new guide signs between Beloit and Madison where there is a not much more than a deceleration lane prior to the ramp.  Not like these are 1/2 mile or more deceleration lanes.  From a distance it makes it appear the right through lane is exiting and WisDOT forgot the advance signing.

At least for now the work zone speed limit on I-39/I-90 is back to at least 60, though there was at least one stretch with lots of barrels up to 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 09, 2019, 06:03:50 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 08, 2019, 10:21:38 PM
From a recent trip, it looks like I-43 may end a signal for now on the east side of I-39.
Temporary until they connect the flyovers. 2 years.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 08, 2019, 10:21:38 PM
I also hate the use of Exit Only on the new guide signs between Beloit and Madison where there is a not much more than a deceleration lane prior to the ramp.  Not like these are 1/2 mile or more deceleration lanes.  From a distance it makes it appear the right through lane is exiting and WisDOT forgot the advance signing.
I fail to see what's wrong with this.  It is a decel lane so EXIT ONLY makes sense.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 08, 2019, 10:21:38 PM
At least for now the work zone speed limit on I-39/I-90 is back to at least 60, though there was at least one stretch with lots of barrels up to 70.
Inactive due to winter, it's taken as a suggestion anyway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on December 09, 2019, 01:20:42 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 09, 2019, 06:03:50 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 08, 2019, 10:21:38 PM
From a recent trip, it looks like I-43 may end a signal for now on the east side of I-39.
Temporary until they connect the flyovers. 2 years.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 08, 2019, 10:21:38 PM
I also hate the use of Exit Only on the new guide signs between Beloit and Madison where there is a not much more than a deceleration lane prior to the ramp.  Not like these are 1/2 mile or more deceleration lanes.  From a distance it makes it appear the right through lane is exiting and WisDOT forgot the advance signing.
I fail to see what's wrong with this.  It is a decel lane so EXIT ONLY makes sense.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 08, 2019, 10:21:38 PM
At least for now the work zone speed limit on I-39/I-90 is back to at least 60, though there was at least one stretch with lots of barrels up to 70.
Inactive due to winter, it's taken as a suggestion anyway.


There goes another old memory of old WI-15 by Beloit(for those old enough to remember back when)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on December 09, 2019, 04:54:51 PM
I recently noticed that the intersection of N Hastings Way & Birch St in Eau Claire has two nearside corner signals & two far-side corner signals:

https://goo.gl/maps/xPKSSbPVvQgvyPEL8

This intersections appears to use Wisconsin's new signal layout, with the large mast arms and vertical overhead signals, but it has two nearside signals and two far-side signals on the corners as well. Basically, this has by far the most number of signal heads that I've seen at an intersection since the new style was adopted. I know nearside signals are fairly common, but not usually when also accompanied by farside 'corner signals' as well.

Is it possible that this signal was installed around the switchover time, so the signals ended up satisfying both the old and new requirements? Wisconsin has always had pretty good signal placement, but this intersection's signal placement is more comprehensive than what I remember.

Also, any other intersections in WI this many signals?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 09, 2019, 08:29:48 PM
That's interesting. StreetView indicates those signals are at least 8 years old. That intersection is more typical of what I think of what Illinois practices, also with an extra left turn signal in the median.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 10, 2019, 03:17:32 AM
Pretty much every setup.

The only change in signal design was to replace the trombone single head with the 1 per lane mast arm.  All other aspects remain unchanged.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on December 10, 2019, 03:44:02 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 10, 2019, 03:17:32 AM
Pretty much every setup.

The only change in signal design was to replace the trombone single head with the 1 per lane mast arm.  All other aspects remain unchanged.

I do not recall old signal setups including far-side corner signals. Two nearside signals were always the norm, but not two far-side corner signals, as seen at the Eau Claire intersection above. To be clear, I've never lived in WI (hell, I've never even visited), but I've spent a fair amount of time looking around on Street View, and the Eau Claire intersection seems to be a party of one. Surely if this is the norm, you can link to a couple identical examples?

As an example of what I mean, consider this signal in Lake Hallie (https://goo.gl/maps/F8urkiG8U3AWTzG8A) -- three near-side signals, but zero far-side corner signals. Only two post-mounted median signals, and one overhead horizontal trombone-mast signal. AFAIK, far-left corner signals have only been used when there was no median to mount signals, and far right corner signals have never been common anywhere, that I can recall at least. Most new signals (https://goo.gl/maps/4beVq8F9tp9z7KCG6) don't use them either (with some exceptions, of course -- many signals in Eau Claire seem to have them).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on December 10, 2019, 03:47:06 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 09, 2019, 08:29:48 PM
That's interesting. StreetView indicates those signals are at least 8 years old. That intersection is more typical of what I think of what Illinois practices, also with an extra left turn signal in the median.

The age is what prompted me to consider the question, since it features standards of both new installations (vertical signal per lane setups, more far-corner signals), but also features traits of the old setups (namely, near-side signals). The Eau Claire setup reminds me a lot of stuff I see in California or even Alaska (https://goo.gl/maps/jnTLf2seToDWFo1t6).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 11, 2019, 01:56:33 PM
I was on the Waukesha bypass today and saw crews out putting up new signs that included hwy 18 on them. The opening of the west bypass must be really close.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: fuller523 on December 18, 2019, 10:04:45 PM
Open as of 8pm tonight. The west leg from the train tracks to Madison is only a lane in each direction until they finish in the spring.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 20, 2019, 04:03:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 11, 2019, 01:56:33 PM
I was on the Waukesha bypass today and saw crews out putting up new signs that included hwy 18 on them. The opening of the west bypass must be really close.

The bypass opened today. US 18 is fully signed around the Les Paul Pkwy and the new alignment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:47:01 PM
Does anyone have any pictures of the newly opened West Waukesha bypass? I saw a couple portions of it over the summer when my mother and I visited my grandmother (her mother). Any photos of the newly completed bypass would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 23, 2019, 05:48:55 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 20, 2019, 04:03:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 11, 2019, 01:56:33 PM
I was on the Waukesha bypass today and saw crews out putting up new signs that included hwy 18 on them. The opening of the west bypass must be really close.

The bypass opened today. US 18 is fully signed around the Les Paul Pkwy and the new alignment.


Temp US-18 signs were still up on I-94 as of Saturday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 25, 2019, 06:22:13 AM
The Temp signs will probably remain up for the winter into next year.  There is an incomplete portion between WIS 318 and Madison St which the NB carriageway is not finished (2-way traffic on the other side) but the route is open.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 26, 2019, 03:35:39 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 25, 2019, 06:22:13 AM
The Temp signs will probably remain up for the winter into next year.  There is an incomplete portion between WIS 318 and Madison St which the NB carriageway is not finished (2-way traffic on the other side) but the route is open.

It hurts my brain a little bit. I grew up on Westmoreland Rd. (now MacArthur Rd.) when it was CTH DE just off of Merrill Hills. My school bus stop was at Westmoreland and Merrill Hills. I still remember when Merrill Hills Rd. ended at US-18 at a quiet little rural "T" intersection. Time (and progress) march on!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 26, 2019, 04:26:19 PM
Well, Google Maps has been updated (partially). It doesn't show the new construction of the West Waukesha bypass, but it does show STH-59 meeting Genesse Rd. (old 59) meeting the bypass at an intersection just to the north of the old intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.977155,-88.2706212,2890m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 26, 2019, 05:19:22 PM
I did a full drive of the bypass on Tuesday.  The new alignment (STH 318 to STH 59 takes new right of way and replaces CTH TT fully.  The BGSs on I-94 replace TT with US 18 (The TO part already was there).  Also, a secondary sign with "Waukesha Bypass" was put in on the Interstate for the same exit - As if they knew it would be a roadgeek tourist attraction 😁

There are a few spots on the existing ROW with 59 and 164 where they just added 18's signs on separate posts, and others where they completely replaced signs, but in general, the signage accurately reflects today's alignment.  Photos were collected, coming soon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 26, 2019, 09:12:23 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 26, 2019, 03:35:39 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 25, 2019, 06:22:13 AM
The Temp signs will probably remain up for the winter into next year.  There is an incomplete portion between WIS 318 and Madison St which the NB carriageway is not finished (2-way traffic on the other side) but the route is open.

It hurts my brain a little bit. I grew up on Westmoreland Rd. (now MacArthur Rd.) when it was CTH DE just off of Merrill Hills. My school bus stop was at Westmoreland and Merrill Hills. I still remember when Merrill Hills Rd. ended at US-18 at a quiet little rural "T" intersection. Time (and progress) march on!


I spent part of my childhood in the same area.  I went to Tor Horst Elementary in 1st Grade, which is now part of the building at Faith Baptist Church on Tor Horst Road off of US-18 just west of Merrill Hills Road.  This was in 1975.  It seemed like it was in the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 27, 2019, 06:00:34 PM
I am surprised the traffic light at Sunset and Merrill Hills Rd has not been removed. With that no longer being the main route traffic counts at the intersection have gone way down.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 30, 2019, 02:38:59 PM
When visiting my grandmother with my mother on Friday, I instructed my mother to follow the new West Waukesha bypass. Although she asked me, "are you sure?" a few times en route about the highway's routing, my directing her to follow the bypass worked like a charm. If you ask me, the West Waukesha bypass should have been constructed decades ago. I saw that the bypass wasn't 100% finished, but it was finished enough to provide a much-needed bypass of the west side of Waukesha.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 02, 2020, 01:00:04 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 30, 2019, 02:38:59 PM
When visiting my grandmother with my mother on Friday, I instructed my mother to follow the new West Waukesha bypass. Although she asked me, "are you sure?" a few times en route about the highway's routing, my directing her to follow the bypass worked like a charm. If you ask me, the West Waukesha bypass should have been constructed decades ago. I saw that the bypass wasn't 100% finished, but it was finished enough to provide a much-needed bypass of the west side of Waukesha.

It is one of those 1950s-60s era freeway proposals that I also honestly believed would never be built, this back in the 1980s.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on January 02, 2020, 10:06:53 PM
Regarding US 12 between Madison and the Dells.......

It's 2020 now, so the moratorium on discussing/planning for a US 12 Sauk City bypass is now officially up right?

Also, when will construction to straighten the curve on US 12 by the Badger ammunition plant start? Wasn't that suppose to happen last year?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 02, 2020, 10:27:47 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 02, 2020, 10:06:53 PM
Also, when will construction to straighten the curve on US 12 by the Badger ammunition plant start? Wasn't that suppose to happen last year?

Scheduled for this year: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us12-saukcounty/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us12-saukcounty/default.aspx)
Title: WI 29 upgrade note
Post by: mgk920 on January 09, 2020, 11:33:19 AM
WisDOT just announced a new interchange for WI 29, this at Brown County 'VV' just west of Green Bay, construction to start in 2021.  It will be a conventional diamond in a rapidly developing area along the border between Hobart and Howard and will replace the semi-Michigan Left that was installed there several years ago, extending the freeway most of the way to the Outagamie County corner 'tick'.

https://fox11online.com/news/local/new-agreement-secures-plans-for-highway-29-vv-interchange-project-in-brown-county

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2020, 05:44:11 PM
If I had to make an estimate, I'd guess the proposed interchange at CTH-VV will be numbered Exit 253.
Title: Re: WI 29 upgrade note
Post by: thspfc on January 10, 2020, 10:13:16 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 09, 2020, 11:33:19 AM
WisDOT just announced a new interchange for WI 29, this at Brown County 'VV' just west of Green Bay, construction to start in 2021.  It will be a conventional diamond in a rapidly developing area along the border between Hobart and Howard and will replace the semi-Michigan Left that was installed there several years ago, extending the freeway most of the way to the Outagamie County corner 'tick'.

https://fox11online.com/news/local/new-agreement-secures-plans-for-highway-29-vv-interchange-project-in-brown-county

Mike
cue the bi-annual "WI-29 to I-98" thread.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 10, 2020, 10:36:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2020, 05:44:11 PM
If I had to make an estimate, I'd guess the proposed interchange at CTH-VV will be numbered Exit 253.
I think it would be 252.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 12, 2020, 11:33:12 PM
Once the project is complete Wis 29 will be freeway west of I-41 in all of Brown County and the speed limit will most likely be increased to the County Line at St. Augustine St. Wis 156 traffic will then have to use the designated exit. Right now most of the traffic is turning left on Hwy U and using Old 29 to get to Wis 156 because it is shorter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 13, 2020, 12:59:35 PM
What are the currently anticipated upgrade plans for that part of WI 29 between WI 32/156 and WI 55/160 at Angelica, just southwest of Pulaski in SE Shawano County, particularly at the intersection with Laney Rd?  There are a couple of small retail businesses there that, IMHO, can by economically moved to new buildings by the WI 55/160 interchange and that intersection simply cut off.  I am expecting some new frontage road construction work southeast of there, too.

Are there also any near-term plans for that intersection by that Harley-Davidson dealership between Angelica and Bonduel?

Quote from: peterj920 on January 12, 2020, 11:33:12 PM
Once the project is complete Wis 29 will be freeway west of I-41 in all of Brown County and the speed limit will most likely be increased to the County Line at St. Augustine St. Wis 156 traffic will then have to use the designated exit. Right now most of the traffic is turning left on Hwy U and using Old 29 to get to Wis 156 because it is shorter.

From that standpoint I can see the wisdom of not having an interchange nor intersection at County 'U', but there should (long term) be a grade separation bridge overcrossing there.  Is WisDOT planning a near term upgrade at the intersection turn on WI 156 at Old WI 29 just south of WI 29/32 there (ie, a roundabout)?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 13, 2020, 04:05:08 PM
Maybe try this webpage on the DOT website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/wis29study/default.aspx.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2020, 07:45:55 AM
Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Dougtone on February 16, 2020, 09:52:11 AM
Come visit the wonderful Smith Rapids Covered Bridge over the South Fork of the Flambeau River in Price County, Wisconsin. It's located on Rustic Road 105 near Fifield.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/smith-rapids-covered-bridge.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/smith-rapids-covered-bridge.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 17, 2020, 01:18:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2020, 07:45:55 AM
Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to "recycle"  numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 17, 2020, 05:49:22 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 17, 2020, 01:18:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2020, 07:45:55 AM
Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to "recycle"  numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list. 



Right. But that doesn't necessarily preclude why that's specific number was chosen. Of course it might have been one of a few available.

Anyway it was an interesting story by someone who knows those kind of things.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 17, 2020, 03:37:53 PM
Also, prior to 1988, the Highway 172 roadway west of US 41 (now Interstate/US 41) was CTH-GG. It became a 172 extension to supply state highway access to the Austin Straubel International Airport.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: billpa on February 18, 2020, 09:30:45 AM
The Struggle to Mend America's Rural Roads

https://nyti.ms/39CDZ2q(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200218/db3eb52c2d9d7519bf8a194efe883262.jpg)

Pixel 2

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

Quote from: bulldog1979 on February 20, 2020, 12:11:58 AM
AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1974-06-25) (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AASHTO_USRN_1974-06-25.pdf) (scanned document).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 22, 2020, 11:01:03 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

Quote from: bulldog1979 on February 20, 2020, 12:11:58 AM
AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1974-06-25) (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AASHTO_USRN_1974-06-25.pdf) (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: fuller523 on February 22, 2020, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 22, 2020, 11:01:03 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

Quote from: bulldog1979 on February 20, 2020, 12:11:58 AM
AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1974-06-25) (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AASHTO_USRN_1974-06-25.pdf) (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

Was the 4-lane section between the WI-32/57 merge and Kiel built for I-57 as well?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 22, 2020, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 22, 2020, 11:01:03 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

Quote from: bulldog1979 on February 20, 2020, 12:11:58 AM
AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1974-06-25) (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AASHTO_USRN_1974-06-25.pdf) (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

The route of what is now I-43 was determined long before 1974 though right?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 23, 2020, 03:46:38 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 22, 2020, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 22, 2020, 11:01:03 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

Quote from: bulldog1979 on February 20, 2020, 12:11:58 AM
AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1974-06-25) (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AASHTO_USRN_1974-06-25.pdf) (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

The route of what is now I-43 was determined long before 1974 though right?

Quote from: mgk920 on February 22, 2020, 11:01:03 AM
I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

Was the 4-lane section between the WI-32/57 merge and Kiel built for I-57 as well?
[/quote]

I am not totally sure on either, except that the straight north-south four lane part was very likely intended to be upgraded to be I-57.  As best that I can tell, that all changed in the early to mid 1970s time frame.  The US 141 corridor was the 'Plan 'B'' for that.  There are many analogies between 'Why wasn't the US 41 corridor originally chosen to be upgraded that way?' and the 'US/CA 99 v. the as-built I-5 corridors in California's Central Valley?' questions.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 23, 2020, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 17, 2020, 01:18:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2020, 07:45:55 AM
Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to "recycle"  numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.
They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 23, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 23, 2020, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 23, 2020, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 17, 2020, 01:18:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2020, 07:45:55 AM
Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to "recycle"  numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.
They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.
Why change a number just to match an adjoining state's number?

'sides, IDOT doesn't cooperate with anyone so why should WisDOT "help" them?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 23, 2020, 09:41:30 PM
BTW, IL 84 was IL 80 before I-80 was built.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2020, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 23, 2020, 02:54:41 PM
They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

62 is an east-west freeway along the south side of Minneapolis.  That's right.  Minnesota stole the number 62 from Wisconsin so they could use it twice  :-D :-D :pan: :pan:

In any event, 74 is another unused number under 100, but this is treading into Fictional Highways territory anyways.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 23, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.

That looks like a really difficult statement to prove.  Nobody ever?  A new number for WI-39 isn't a dire need, but it would be nice imo.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2020, 09:39:25 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2020, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 23, 2020, 02:54:41 PM
They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

62 is an east-west freeway along the south side of Minneapolis.  That's right.  Minnesota stole the number 62 from Wisconsin so they could use it twice  :-D :-D :pan: :pan:

In any event, 74 is another unused number under 100, but this is treading into Fictional Highways territory anyways.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 23, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.

That looks like a really difficult statement to prove.  Nobody ever?  A new number for WI-39 isn't a dire need, but it would be nice imo.

It would be completely unnecessary.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 24, 2020, 04:11:14 PM
I don't see them using the numbers 62, 74, 84, or 99 again. I believe there is a fixed amount of state highway mileage allowed within the state. As for renumbering STH-39, that would have happened before the 1990's. When the US Highway system debuted in 1926 (and later), state highways with the same number had to be renumbered. Same as when the Interstates debuted in 1956 (and Interstate 43 in 1974). For more information, consult Chris Bessert's Wisconsin Highways webpage: http://wisconsinhighways.org/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 24, 2020, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2020, 09:39:25 AM
It would be completely unnecessary.

I agree with you. Anyone who confuses I-39 and WIS 39, or for that matter the MN 62s, is too dumb to drive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on February 24, 2020, 05:43:53 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 24, 2020, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2020, 09:39:25 AM
It would be completely unnecessary.

I agree with you. Anyone who confuses I-39 and WIS 39, or for that matter the MN 62s, is too dumb to drive.

Then put in application to put up roads signs.....seems to be a career in putting in US signs for state highways or vice versa lol  :pan: :poke: :sombrero: :spin:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 26, 2020, 03:05:56 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on February 23, 2020, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 23, 2020, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 17, 2020, 01:18:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2020, 07:45:55 AM
Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to "recycle"  numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.
They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.
Why change a number just to match an adjoining state's number?

'sides, IDOT doesn't cooperate with anyone so why should WisDOT "help" them?
Just since the number is available. I only suggested using it for the portion of 80 south of 11 which is less than 2 miles long anyways. I would like to see other states do this too if one number is available in one state. For example Virginia could renumber VA-75 to VA-44 to match the 44 in Tennessee since that number is available in Virginia
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on February 27, 2020, 02:36:56 PM
It appears that STH-24 got a promotion! There's another one of these goofs on the mainline.  :-D

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fimages%2FIMG_0316.jpeg&hash=d675effff3a98ec19cc44d82cc6f1ecfe8ae1a5b)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2020, 03:45:18 PM
That is goofy! I dislike the fact that STH-24 ends at the Milwaukee/Waukesha County line. I know it was truncated there in the late 1980's when 24 between that point and STH-20 in East Troy became CTH-L, but I think 24's western end should have been at another highway, such as the nearby US 45/STH-100 junction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 27, 2020, 03:45:42 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 27, 2020, 02:36:56 PM
It appears that STH-24 got a promotion! There's another one of these goofs on the mainline.  :-D

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fimages%2FIMG_0316.jpeg&hash=d675effff3a98ec19cc44d82cc6f1ecfe8ae1a5b)

Nice work capturing the incorrect and correct shields in the same shot.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on February 27, 2020, 05:06:30 PM
Funny. I caught that last week and posted it on Facebook. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200227/8fa6e04e251df0a6c231b89d1203e39a.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 27, 2020, 06:35:46 PM
And the rash of sign errors across WI continues....
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 27, 2020, 06:51:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2020, 03:45:18 PM
That is goofy! I dislike the fact that STH-24 ends at the Milwaukee/Waukesha County line. I know it was truncated there in the late 1980's when 24 between that point and STH-20 in East Troy became CTH-L, but I think 24's western end should have been at another highway, such as the nearby US 45/STH-100 junction.
I would end it at WI-164 in Big Bend it's still a major route through Muskego west of Big Bend I would agree it's a minor route. The only other place I know of where a state highway ends at a county line is VA-108 ends at the Henry/Franklin County line and like WI-24 it too was truncated for whatever reason. None the less it is a very unusual ending probably the one that bothers me the most.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 28, 2020, 04:29:55 AM
Speaking of highway promotions, what County Trunk Highways in Wisconsin might be worthy of a promotion to a STH, or a swap with an existing STH?  I would consider County Trunk M in Dane County from Oregon to Verona through Westport.  It certainly has the volume and would be analogous to STH 100 around Milwaukee.  I’ve seen discussions here of swapping County Trunk A in Dodge County with STH 26 south of Waupun.  Others:

County Trunk M in Vilas County south of Boulder Jct. 
County Trunk PB and STH 69 in Dane County 
County Trunk GG and STH 77 in Ashland County
County Trunk N and STH 59 in Rock County (mostly)—granted, a STH connecting Milton and Edgerton makes sense. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 28, 2020, 02:42:43 PM
I've stated CTH-F in St. Croix County between Hudson and Prescott should be swapped in by putting US 12 on 94 between Hudson and Baldwin. F is still faster than WIS 35 even with 2/3 of that latter route being freeway/expressway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on February 29, 2020, 09:29:56 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2020, 03:45:18 PM
That is goofy! I dislike the fact that STH-24 ends at the Milwaukee/Waukesha County line. I know it was truncated there in the late 1980's when 24 between that point and STH-20 in East Troy became CTH-L, but I think 24's western end should have been at another highway, such as the nearby US 45/STH-100 junction.
There are some state routes that hold on to their designations in certain counties just so the counties don't lose the state miles. This is why WIS 74 stuck around in various, strange configurations until it was replaced by the Waukesha west bypass.

I'm guessing WIS 24 in Milwaukee exists mostly as a placeholder, though it is an important diagonal street on the south side. If a new state highway is designated in the county, those miles could possibly be taken away from WIS 24 (as occurred with the route in Waukesha County). Another turnback candidate in Milwaukee County would be much of the WIS 57 (which makes little sense).

Suggesting what would replace them as state routes would veer into fictional territory, but let's just say I like the idea of turning Good Hope Road over to the state. It's not a bad bypass on the north side, and not as crazy as Brown Deer Rd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on March 03, 2020, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 28, 2020, 02:42:43 PM
I've stated CTH-F in St. Croix County between Hudson and Prescott should be swapped in by putting US 12 on 94 between Hudson and Baldwin. F is still faster than WIS 35 even with 2/3 of that latter route being freeway/expressway.

About 20 years ago, I asked someone at WisDOT about possibly upgrading F to a state highway by routing WIS 35 onto it so that it never goes to River Falls at all, and then giving the expressway from Hudson to River Falls a number something like WIS 594. 
I was told that mightn't be a bad idea in theory, and apparently the counties have asked about making F into a state highway, but before the state can entertain that idea, a high number of the private driveways (something like 60% or more) that currently have access to F would have to be closed off to meet state highway-level requirements.  No one seems to think that's a good idea, or at least they didn't then.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 03, 2020, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 28, 2020, 04:29:55 AM
Speaking of highway promotions, what County Trunk Highways in Wisconsin might be worthy of a promotion to a STH, or a swap with an existing STH?  I would consider County Trunk M in Dane County from Oregon to Verona through Westport.  It certainly has the volume and would be analogous to STH 100 around Milwaukee.  I've seen discussions here of swapping County Trunk A in Dodge County with STH 26 south of Waupun.  Others:

County Trunk M in Vilas County south of Boulder Jct. 
County Trunk PB and STH 69 in Dane County 
County Trunk GG and STH 77 in Ashland County
County Trunk N and STH 59 in Rock County (mostly)ā€“granted, a STH connecting Milton and Edgerton makes sense.
Hwy W in Manitowoc County between 151 and 10 would work as an extension of hwy 67 was once part of hwy 32. They turned back hwy 149 nearby not that long ago so I don't see why anything else would.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2020, 09:23:19 AM
Highway W in Manitowoc County is perfectly fine as a county highway.  It goes nowhere of significance.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2020, 03:34:28 PM
When Wisconsin converts state highway routes into County Highways, they usually don't revert back to state highways in the future. In other news, I'm looking forward to the reconstruction of the Interstate 39/90 interchange with the US 12/18 Madison Beltline that begins this spring!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on March 05, 2020, 01:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2020, 03:34:28 PM
When Wisconsin converts state highway routes into County Highways, they usually don't revert back to state highways in the future. In other news, I'm looking forward to the reconstruction of the Interstate 39/90 interchange with the US 12/18 Madison Beltline that begins this spring!

WI-156 says hold my 2 mile beer lol
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 05, 2020, 09:43:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2020, 03:34:28 PM
When Wisconsin converts state highway routes into County Highways, they usually don't revert back to state highways in the future. In other news, I'm looking forward to the reconstruction of the Interstate 39/90 interchange with the US 12/18 Madison Beltline that begins this spring!
So what doesn't mean it can't ever be done. I only mentioned the part between 151 and 10 not the whole route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 06, 2020, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 05, 2020, 09:43:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2020, 03:34:28 PM
When Wisconsin converts state highway routes into County Highways, they usually don't revert back to state highways in the future. In other news, I'm looking forward to the reconstruction of the Interstate 39/90 interchange with the US 12/18 Madison Beltline that begins this spring!
So what doesn't mean it can't ever be done. I only mentioned the part between 151 and 10 not the whole route.


According to the interactive traffic count map, it gets less than 2,000 vehicles per day.  That's not a bad amount for a county highway.  It was decommissioned for a reason and that reason hasn't changed.

I look at Dane County N between I-90 and Sun Prairie, or Rock County N between WI-59 and Whitewater.  Those have counts three or four times that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 06, 2020, 11:18:57 PM
When the US 10/45 freeway complex was being built west of US (now 'I-') 41 in the early 00s, WisDOT was originally planning to turn the north-south part of the US 45 old road between Oshkosh and Greenville over to the two counties, but their post-construction traffic number projections showed that it would still be carrying more than enough local and regional traffic to warrant it remaining a state highway.  Ditto the US 10 old road west from Appleton to Fremont. 

Thus that part of US 45 became a rerouted/extended WI 76 and US 10 became a westward extension of WI 96 when the new freeways opened in December of 2003.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 07, 2020, 08:23:40 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 06, 2020, 11:18:57 PM
When the US 10/45 freeway complex was being built west of US (now 'I-') 41 in the early 00s, WisDOT was originally planning to turn the north-south part of the US 45 old road between Oshkosh and Greenville over to the two counties, but their post-construction traffic number projections showed that it would still be carrying more than enough local and regional traffic to warrant it remaining a state highway.  Ditto the US 10 old road west from Appleton to Fremont. 

Thus that part of US 45 became a rerouted/extended WI 76 and US 10 became a westward extension of WI 96 when the new freeways opened in December of 2003.

Mike
A rare good decision made by WISDOT.

Quote
'I-') 41
You don't need to do that anymore. Anyone who still argues about I-41 five years after the fact is stupid.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on March 07, 2020, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on March 07, 2020, 08:23:40 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 06, 2020, 11:18:57 PM
When the US 10/45 freeway complex was being built west of US (now 'I-') 41 in the early 00s, WisDOT was originally planning to turn the north-south part of the US 45 old road between Oshkosh and Greenville over to the two counties, but their post-construction traffic number projections showed that it would still be carrying more than enough local and regional traffic to warrant it remaining a state highway.  Ditto the US 10 old road west from Appleton to Fremont. 

Thus that part of US 45 became a rerouted/extended WI 76 and US 10 became a westward extension of WI 96 when the new freeways opened in December of 2003.

Mike
A rare good decision made by WISDOT.

Quote
'I-') 41
You don't need to do that anymore. Anyone who still argues about I-41 five years after the fact is stupid.

Not that any Cheesehead calls it anything but "HWY 41" anyway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 07, 2020, 01:31:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on February 23, 2020, 09:41:30 PM
BTW, IL 84 was IL 80 before I-80 was built.

And IL 40 was IL 88 before IL 5 Tollway was renumbered I-88.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 07, 2020, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 28, 2020, 04:29:55 AM
Speaking of highway promotions, what County Trunk Highways in Wisconsin might be worthy of a promotion to a STH, or a swap with an existing STH?  I would consider County Trunk M in Dane County from Oregon to Verona through Westport.  It certainly has the volume and would be analogous to STH 100 around Milwaukee.  I've seen discussions here of swapping County Trunk A in Dodge County with STH 26 south of Waupun.  Others:

County Trunk M in Vilas County south of Boulder Jct. 
County Trunk PB and STH 69 in Dane County 
County Trunk GG and STH 77 in Ashland County
County Trunk N and STH 59 in Rock County (mostly)ā€“granted, a STH connecting Milton and Edgerton makes sense. 

Dodge County A should be a state highway between Fox Lake and Wis 26. Possibly a rerouted Wis 33 between Fox Lake and Wis 33 east of Beaver Dam. Have the old route be Business 33. South of Wis 33, A could be 326 or 333.

While we are at it, can we please have Wis 127 be turned over to county control? It's a useless road between Portage and Wisconsin Dells as the 2 main ways between those cities are I-90/94 and Wis 16 (which 127 ends at on BOTH ENDS).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 07, 2020, 02:42:57 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 07, 2020, 08:23:40 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 06, 2020, 11:18:57 PM
When the US 10/45 freeway complex was being built west of US (now 'I-') 41 in the early 00s, WisDOT was originally planning to turn the north-south part of the US 45 old road between Oshkosh and Greenville over to the two counties, but their post-construction traffic number projections showed that it would still be carrying more than enough local and regional traffic to warrant it remaining a state highway.  Ditto the US 10 old road west from Appleton to Fremont. 

Thus that part of US 45 became a rerouted/extended WI 76 and US 10 became a westward extension of WI 96 when the new freeways opened in December of 2003.

Mike
A rare good decision made by WISDOT.

Quote
'I-') 41
You don't need to do that anymore. Anyone who still argues about I-41 five years after the fact is stupid.

He's not. He's just pointing out it wasn't an interstate at the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 13, 2020, 09:59:49 PM
I was looking at the Northwoods area and I had a better idea for a new number. I noticed Hwy 47 has like a 50+ mile duplex with US 45 and US 8. Would make sense to just eliminate it truncate 47 to Antigo and the Rhinelander to Manitowish segment could get a new number.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on March 14, 2020, 09:52:26 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 13, 2020, 09:59:49 PM
I was looking at the Northwoods area and I had a better idea for a new number. I noticed Hwy 47 has like a 50+ mile duplex with US 45 and US 8. Would make sense to just eliminate it truncate 47 to Antigo and the Rhinelander to Manitowish segment could get a new number.

You're right. That's another one of those "do crazy things to create a continuous route" thing that WisDOT occasionally does. I really can't see why it's necessary in this case. I'd think it would be less confusing not to do that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 14, 2020, 06:09:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on March 14, 2020, 09:52:26 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 13, 2020, 09:59:49 PM
I was looking at the Northwoods area and I had a better idea for a new number. I noticed Hwy 47 has like a 50+ mile duplex with US 45 and US 8. Would make sense to just eliminate it truncate 47 to Antigo and the Rhinelander to Manitowish segment could get a new number.

You're right. That's another one of those "do crazy things to create a continuous route" thing that WisDOT occasionally does. I really can't see why it's necessary in this case. I'd think it would be less confusing not to do that.
It would but on the other so would leaving the other routes alone they keep changing all the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2020, 08:25:12 AM
WIDOT doesn't do a lot of route changes, and when they do I don't think people get all that confused.  Most people navigate by GPS these days and that helps people figure those things out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 02, 2020, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2020, 08:25:12 AM
WIDOT doesn't do a lot of route changes, and when they do I don't think people get all that confused.  Most people navigate by GPS these days and that helps people figure those things out.
If your outside of Waukesha County I would agree but here we have one section of road that has 3 different designations in less than 2 decades. That says there has been too many changes around here.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2020, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 02, 2020, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2020, 08:25:12 AM
WIDOT doesn't do a lot of route changes, and when they do I don't think people get all that confused.  Most people navigate by GPS these days and that helps people figure those things out.
If your outside of Waukesha County I would agree but here we have one section of road that has 3 different designations in less than 2 decades. That says there has been too many changes around here.

What stretch is that?

And you have to know those are exceptions.  And considering Waukesha County's growth, a lot of those changes do make sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 03, 2020, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2020, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 02, 2020, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2020, 08:25:12 AM
WIDOT doesn't do a lot of route changes, and when they do I don't think people get all that confused.  Most people navigate by GPS these days and that helps people figure those things out.
If your outside of Waukesha County I would agree but here we have one section of road that has 3 different designations in less than 2 decades. That says there has been too many changes around here.

What stretch is that?

And you have to know those are exceptions.  And considering Waukesha County's growth, a lot of those changes do make sense.

I think he's talking about the Les Paul Pkwy: 18/59/164
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2020, 12:11:21 PM
OK, but that's actually my point.  99% of the people that use the Les Paul Parkway likely don't know or care about the highway designations.  Was there a bunch of confusion when WI-164 and US-18 were relcated onto the Parkway?  Very doubtful. 

People need to remember, that in urban areas, the vast majority of traffic is local.  It's people driving to work, to the store, etc.  Highway designations are largely meaningless.  We live about a mile off of Main Street in Green Bay.  My wife knows it as "Main Street."  She likely has no clue that it carries US-141 and WI-29, and even if she did, she's not navigating by those numbers.  They could take both highways off the local streets and put them on the interstates from one side of town to the other, and it wouldn't impact her one bit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on April 06, 2020, 01:20:26 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2020, 12:11:21 PM
OK, but that's actually my point.  99% of the people that use the Les Paul Parkway likely don't know or care about the highway designations.  Was there a bunch of confusion when WI-164 and US-18 were relcated onto the Parkway?  Very doubtful. 

People need to remember, that in urban areas, the vast majority of traffic is local.  It's people driving to work, to the store, etc.  Highway designations are largely meaningless.  We live about a mile off of Main Street in Green Bay.  My wife knows it as "Main Street."  She likely has no clue that it carries US-141 and WI-29, and even if she did, she's not navigating by those numbers.  They could take both highways off the local streets and put them on the interstates from one side of town to the other, and it wouldn't impact her one bit.

I'll second that, at least as far as Green Bay locals.  I grew up in Allouez and still have family all over the area. You could take every highway number and route them all onto I-41/I-43/WI 172 around the city, and the locals would never notice the difference. That you have to traverse roundabout hell to go eastbound on WI-29 once you leave the freeway (most traffic goes N-S on I-41) shows it's not WI 29 most people care about while getting to Shawano Avenue. We only referenced highway numbers when heading out of town.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2020, 02:01:56 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 06, 2020, 01:20:26 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2020, 12:11:21 PM
OK, but that's actually my point.  99% of the people that use the Les Paul Parkway likely don't know or care about the highway designations.  Was there a bunch of confusion when WI-164 and US-18 were relcated onto the Parkway?  Very doubtful. 

People need to remember, that in urban areas, the vast majority of traffic is local.  It's people driving to work, to the store, etc.  Highway designations are largely meaningless.  We live about a mile off of Main Street in Green Bay.  My wife knows it as "Main Street."  She likely has no clue that it carries US-141 and WI-29, and even if she did, she's not navigating by those numbers.  They could take both highways off the local streets and put them on the interstates from one side of town to the other, and it wouldn't impact her one bit.

I'll second that, at least as far as Green Bay locals.  I grew up in Allouez and still have family all over the area. You could take every highway number and route them all onto I-41/I-43/WI 172 around the city, and the locals would never notice the difference. That you have to traverse roundabout hell to go eastbound on WI-29 once you leave the freeway (most traffic goes N-S on I-41) shows it's not WI 29 most people care about while getting to Shawano Avenue. We only referenced highway numbers when heading out of town.

I just like hearing my GPS trying to pronounce Shawano and Oneida while in green bay lol.....taking on the roundabouts, not so much
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on April 14, 2020, 05:15:32 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2020, 02:01:56 PM
I just like hearing my GPS trying to pronounce Shawano and Oneida while in green bay lol.....taking on the roundabouts, not so much

LOL. I still remember laughing as a kid watching the Hollywood actors at the CP telethon every year mispronouncing Shawano (my mom's home town), Weyauwega, Winneconne, and all the other local Native tribal names.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 14, 2020, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 14, 2020, 05:15:32 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2020, 02:01:56 PM
I just like hearing my GPS trying to pronounce Shawano and Oneida while in green bay lol.....taking on the roundabouts, not so much

LOL. I still remember laughing as a kid watching the Hollywood actors at the CP telethon every year mispronouncing Shawano (my mom's home town), Weyauwega, Winneconne, and all the other local Native tribal names.


There was a Law and Order episode where the "defendent" was from Fond du Lac, but he pronounced it like it was French.  ie, the way no one who is actually from Wisconsin would ever pronounce it.

Then there's this.

https://twitter.com/pastorskidblog/status/1220725563305922560?s=20
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 14, 2020, 09:30:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2020, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 02, 2020, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2020, 08:25:12 AM
WIDOT doesn't do a lot of route changes, and when they do I don't think people get all that confused.  Most people navigate by GPS these days and that helps people figure those things out.
If your outside of Waukesha County I would agree but here we have one section of road that has 3 different designations in less than 2 decades. That says there has been too many changes around here.

What stretch is that?

And you have to know those are exceptions.  And considering Waukesha County's growth, a lot of those changes do make sense.
The part of hwy F between Capitol Dr. and Main st in Sussex. It was 164 until 1999 then 74 until 2016 also the part of 164 south of Waukesha was Hwy F crazy.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 16, 2020, 02:43:55 PM
Heck, the network sports guys seldom get Green Bay right, too.  It is 'green bay' (equal soft emphasis on both words), *not* 'GREEN bay'.

:-P

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 16, 2020, 03:10:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 16, 2020, 02:43:55 PM
Heck, the network sports guys seldom get Green Bay right, too.  It is 'green bay' (equal soft emphasis on both words), *not* 'GREEN bay'.

:-P

Mike

One of my biggest pet-peeves with Troy Aikman's game calling.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 04:19:30 PM
Could you guys possibly link to a Youtube example of someone saying it right or wrong?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on April 16, 2020, 04:56:09 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on April 16, 2020, 03:10:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 16, 2020, 02:43:55 PM
Heck, the network sports guys seldom get Green Bay right, too.  It is 'green bay' (equal soft emphasis on both words), *not* 'GREEN bay'.

:-P

Mike

One of my biggest pet-peeves with Troy Aikman's game calling.  :banghead:

I'm pretty sure Al Michaels does this too, along with his "New Or-lee-uhns"  which drives me crazy as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 16, 2020, 05:28:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 04:19:30 PM
Could you guys possibly link to a Youtube example of someone saying it right or wrong?


At about the :20 mark, he says it correctly here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OXucJunm0o
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 07:29:26 PM
I see.

So it's either "GREEN BAY" or "green bay" or something in between? Just as long as neither word has more emphasis than the other?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: CtrlAltDel on April 16, 2020, 09:57:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 07:29:26 PM
I see.

So it's either "GREEN BAY" or "green bay" or something in between? Just as long as neither word has more emphasis than the other?

The stress is that of a two-syllable word, as opposed to two one-syllable words. That is, it's like "high school," an institution of secondary education, and not as "high school," a school where all the students are high.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on April 16, 2020, 10:32:38 PM
And the state name is pronounced Wis-con-sin,, not Wes-con=sin.  I hear the latter too often.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 17, 2020, 11:16:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 07:29:26 PM
I see.

So it's either "GREEN BAY" or "green bay" or something in between? Just as long as neither word has more emphasis than the other?

Pretty much so.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 17, 2020, 11:30:28 AM
Quote from: Big John on April 16, 2020, 10:32:38 PM
And the state name is pronounced Wis-con-sin,, not Wes-con=sin.  I hear the latter too often.


I usually pronouce it "HEA-ven"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 19, 2020, 11:22:20 AM
It's actually pronounced wezGAHNsin, with a super nasal "AH"

by various Midwestern gomers
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on April 20, 2020, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Big John on April 16, 2020, 10:32:38 PM
And the state name is pronounced Wis-con-sin,, not Wes-con=sin.  I hear the latter too often.

Digger Phelps(former ESPN college basketball analyst) objects to you pronunciation of our states name. :pan: :wave: :-D :clap:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 27, 2020, 12:45:14 AM
I didn't get a chance to take pictures, but contractors are making steady progress on the I-39/90 construction between Newville and Janesville right now. The northbound roadway is taking shape, and one can see how the area will eventually look once construction has completed. They appear to be on schedule to move traffic to the NBD side by this fall to rebuild the SBD side through Janesville.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on May 31, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Any thoughts of any highways that should become interstates in the future in Wisconsin? Like for instance, Highway 29 from I-41 in Green Bay to I-94 in Elk Mound. If that happened, it should be I-98. How about Wis 441 becoming I-441? Or Highway 30 becoming a spur route of I-39, I-90, or I-94? If that happened, it could be a spur route of I-39 (say I-239, for instance). Although if that didn't happened, I would prefer Highway 30 expand to end at Highway 113 instead of US 151. Or US 151 from the I-39-I-90-I-94 exit in Madison to the I-41-US 41-US 45 exit in Fond Du Lac. If they did that, it could be I-98 or a spur route of I-39, I-41, I-90, or I-94. Or US 151 from the US 12-US 14 exit to at least Wisconsin-Iowa state line or into Iowa. That could be I-37. They shouldn't be big priorities right now and if never happens, I wouldn't be upset about it. Just thoughts on that. I was thinking about this because I remember talk about how making US 41 an interstate would be a big boon to businesses among cities along that highway because an interstate highway encourages more business than a US highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 31, 2020, 02:33:13 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on May 31, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Any thoughts of any highways that should become interstates in the future in Wisconsin? Like for instance, Highway 29 from I-41 in Green Bay to I-94 in Elk Mound. If that happened, it should be I-98. How about Wis 441 becoming I-441? Or Highway 30 becoming a spur route of I-39, I-90, or I-94? If that happened, it could be a spur route of I-39 (say I-239, for instance). Although if that didn't happened, I would prefer Highway 30 expand to end at Highway 113 instead of US 151. Or US 151 from the I-39-I-90-I-94 exit in Madison to the I-41-US 41-US 45 exit in Fond Du Lac. If they did that, it could be I-98 or a spur route of I-39, I-41, I-90, or I-94. Or US 151 from the US 12-US 14 exit to at least Wisconsin-Iowa state line or into Iowa. That could be I-37. They shouldn't be big priorities right now and if never happens, I wouldn't be upset about it. Just thoughts on that. I was thinking about this because I remember talk about how making US 41 an interstate would be a big boon to businesses among cities along that highway because an interstate highway encourages more business than a US highway.
All fictional - please keep that to the appropriate board.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2020, 09:28:15 PM
My dumb ass thought it'd be 'fine' to roll US 51 SB by Tomahawk on Memorial Day while it's down to two lanes for the full depth pavement reconstruction of the SB carriageway.  It was not.  Won't make that weekend mistake again this summer until that is done.
Pretty sure the traffic jam overloaded the cell towers in the area because neither me nor my cousin could load data worth a damn to see how bad it was ahead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 06, 2020, 11:25:27 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2020, 09:28:15 PM
My dumb ass thought it'd be 'fine' to roll US 51 SB by Tomahawk on Memorial Day while it's down to two lanes for the full depth pavement reconstruction of the SB carriageway.  It was not.  Won't make that weekend mistake again this summer until that is done.
Pretty sure the traffic jam overloaded the cell towers in the area because neither me nor my cousin could load data worth a damn to see how bad it was ahead.
The road being closed tricked the traffic status on the goog.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 11, 2020, 05:33:25 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2020, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2020, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 02, 2020, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2020, 08:25:12 AM
WIDOT doesn't do a lot of route changes, and when they do I don't think people get all that confused.  Most people navigate by GPS these days and that helps people figure those things out.
If your outside of Waukesha County I would agree but here we have one section of road that has 3 different designations in less than 2 decades. That says there has been too many changes around here.

What stretch is that?

And you have to know those are exceptions.  And considering Waukesha County's growth, a lot of those changes do make sense.

I think he's talking about the Les Paul Pkwy: 18/59/164
Nope that is a triplex and that road has always at least been 59 since the Waukesha bypass was built. I am talking about a road that has had 3 different numbers or letters in the last 2 decades and that goes to Hwy F from Capitol Dr to Main st in Sussex. It was 164 until 1999 then 74 until 2016 and now F. Not to mention 164 south of Waukesha was once F. So 164 used to be F and F used to be 164 how crazy is that? I am sure you can't find another example of that anywhere else.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 11, 2020, 05:52:49 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2020, 05:33:25 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2020, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2020, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 02, 2020, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2020, 08:25:12 AM
WIDOT doesn't do a lot of route changes, and when they do I don't think people get all that confused.  Most people navigate by GPS these days and that helps people figure those things out.
If your outside of Waukesha County I would agree but here we have one section of road that has 3 different designations in less than 2 decades. That says there has been too many changes around here.

What stretch is that?

And you have to know those are exceptions.  And considering Waukesha County's growth, a lot of those changes do make sense.

I think he's talking about the Les Paul Pkwy: 18/59/164
Nope that is a triplex and that road has always at least been 59 since the Waukesha bypass was built. I am talking about a road that has had 3 different numbers or letters in the last 2 decades and that goes to Hwy F from Capitol Dr to Main st in Sussex. It was 164 until 1999 then 74 until 2016 and now F. Not to mention 164 south of Waukesha was once F. So 164 used to be F and F used to be 164 how crazy is that? I am sure you can't find another example of that anywhere else.


Are these changes creating confusion or do you just not like change?  IMO this is how highway systems evolve, especially in high growth areas.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 12, 2020, 04:28:43 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 06, 2020, 11:25:27 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2020, 09:28:15 PM
My dumb ass thought it'd be 'fine' to roll US 51 SB by Tomahawk on Memorial Day while it's down to two lanes for the full depth pavement reconstruction of the SB carriageway.  It was not.  Won't make that weekend mistake again this summer until that is done.
Pretty sure the traffic jam overloaded the cell towers in the area because neither me nor my cousin could load data worth a damn to see how bad it was ahead.
The road being closed tricked the traffic status on the goog.
That road is always backed up on Memorial Day. From Minocqua to Wausau, then again from Portage to Madison and beyond - probably all the way to Rockford, but I've never taken it that far on a holiday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 06, 2020, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 11, 2020, 05:52:49 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2020, 05:33:25 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2020, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2020, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 02, 2020, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2020, 08:25:12 AM
WIDOT doesn't do a lot of route changes, and when they do I don't think people get all that confused.  Most people navigate by GPS these days and that helps people figure those things out.
If your outside of Waukesha County I would agree but here we have one section of road that has 3 different designations in less than 2 decades. That says there has been too many changes around here.

What stretch is that?

And you have to know those are exceptions.  And considering Waukesha County's growth, a lot of those changes do make sense.

I think he's talking about the Les Paul Pkwy: 18/59/164
Nope that is a triplex and that road has always at least been 59 since the Waukesha bypass was built. I am talking about a road that has had 3 different numbers or letters in the last 2 decades and that goes to Hwy F from Capitol Dr to Main st in Sussex. It was 164 until 1999 then 74 until 2016 and now F. Not to mention 164 south of Waukesha was once F. So 164 used to be F and F used to be 164 how crazy is that? I am sure you can't find another example of that anywhere else.


Are these changes creating confusion or do you just not like change?  IMO this is how highway systems evolve, especially in high growth areas.
Little of both really I don't mind a few changes here and there every once in a great while but for them to keep doing it every few years get's to be too much. At least the good news is I don't see any further changes in Waukesha County in the coming years. I don't see what would be changed. The only thing I could see is a few local roads promoted to county highways as the county grows and some minor roads become more major but I see no future candidates with swaps between the state and the county.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 06, 2020, 03:30:53 PM
I checked out the new Elm Road interchange today. I noticed Elm Road does not go through to the east to 13th street. That is too bad because it would provide some relief to Ryan Road with the new Amazon plant. It does appear I was right and they are keeping the southern terminus of WI-241 at 7 Mile Road as I thought which I think is a good idea myself instead of turning it onto Elm and ending it at the interchange. I am kind of surprised they did not put a traffic light at 27th and Elm but I guess there isn't enough traffic to warrant one. The 4 way stop should be sufficient enough.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 08, 2020, 05:19:01 PM
Gov. Evers wants to revive the !-94 East-West freeway project.

https://www.wpr.org/evers-wants-revive-i-94-east-west-expansion
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 08, 2020, 11:11:28 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2020, 05:19:01 PM
Gov. Evers wants to revive the !-94 East-West freeway project.

https://www.wpr.org/evers-wants-revive-i-94-east-west-expansion

:wow:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 10, 2020, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 08, 2020, 11:11:28 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2020, 05:19:01 PM
Gov. Evers wants to revive the !-94 East-West freeway project.

https://www.wpr.org/evers-wants-revive-i-94-east-west-expansion

:wow:

Mike
Hopefully that means the bottleneck at the Stadium Interchange will be gone. That area is impossible to drive through on game days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 24, 2020, 09:26:55 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 10, 2020, 02:46:16 PM
Hopefully that means the bottleneck at the Stadium Interchange will be gone. That area is impossible to drive through on game days.

If only there were game day traffic...

At least that last chunk is sort of 'shovel ready' as soon as someone can rustle up some funds.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 28, 2020, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 24, 2020, 09:26:55 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 10, 2020, 02:46:16 PM
Hopefully that means the bottleneck at the Stadium Interchange will be gone. That area is impossible to drive through on game days.

If only there were game day traffic...

At least that last chunk is sort of 'shovel ready' as soon as someone can rustle up some funds.
Yeah, very true.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on August 29, 2020, 09:17:40 PM
It appears that WisDOT is phasing out unincorporated places as control cities with their new signage. I-43 Exit 107 now only has Belgium previously Lake Church had also been used. I-39 and Hwy 34 no longer uses Knowlton no control city NB only Wisconsin Rapids is used SB. I-39 and Hwy W once used Bancroft but no longer being used SB still signed NB for now. I really don't like this I mean even if it's not officially incorporated it's still a place and it looks better than nothing. I wonder how many Wisconsinites even know that Minocqua and Woodruff are not incorporated towns. I also noticed that goofy north-south or east-west have also but phased out but I am cool with that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 29, 2020, 09:36:53 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 29, 2020, 09:17:40 PM
It appears that WisDOT is phasing out unincorporated places as control cities with their new signage. I-43 Exit 107 now only has Belgium previously Lake Church had also been used. I-39 and Hwy 34 no longer uses Knowlton no control city NB only Wisconsin Rapids is used SB. I-39 and Hwy W once used Bancroft but no longer being used SB still signed NB for now. I really don't like this I mean even if it's not officially incorporated it's still a place and it looks better than nothing. I wonder how many Wisconsinites even know that Minocqua and Woodruff are not incorporated towns. I also noticed that goofy north-south or east-west have also but phased out but I am cool with that.
I agree. And Minocqua and Woodruff definitely should be incorporated. It's not a stretch to say those towns are the second most significant population/economic centers in Wisconsin north of US-8.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 30, 2020, 10:30:04 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2020, 09:36:53 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 29, 2020, 09:17:40 PM
It appears that WisDOT is phasing out unincorporated places as control cities with their new signage. I-43 Exit 107 now only has Belgium previously Lake Church had also been used. I-39 and Hwy 34 no longer uses Knowlton no control city NB only Wisconsin Rapids is used SB. I-39 and Hwy W once used Bancroft but no longer being used SB still signed NB for now. I really don't like this I mean even if it's not officially incorporated it's still a place and it looks better than nothing. I wonder how many Wisconsinites even know that Minocqua and Woodruff are not incorporated towns. I also noticed that goofy north-south or east-west have also but phased out but I am cool with that.
I agree. And Minocqua and Woodruff definitely should be incorporated. It's not a stretch to say those towns are the second most significant population/economic centers in Wisconsin north of US-8.


Not sure about that at all but not putting unincorporated areas on signage is strange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 30, 2020, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 30, 2020, 10:30:04 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2020, 09:36:53 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 29, 2020, 09:17:40 PM
It appears that WisDOT is phasing out unincorporated places as control cities with their new signage. I-43 Exit 107 now only has Belgium previously Lake Church had also been used. I-39 and Hwy 34 no longer uses Knowlton no control city NB only Wisconsin Rapids is used SB. I-39 and Hwy W once used Bancroft but no longer being used SB still signed NB for now. I really don't like this I mean even if it's not officially incorporated it's still a place and it looks better than nothing. I wonder how many Wisconsinites even know that Minocqua and Woodruff are not incorporated towns. I also noticed that goofy north-south or east-west have also but phased out but I am cool with that.
I agree. And Minocqua and Woodruff definitely should be incorporated. It's not a stretch to say those towns are the second most significant population/economic centers in Wisconsin north of US-8.
Not sure about that at all but not putting unincorporated areas on signage is strange.

I've been thinking for some time now that a wide area in the Minocqua-Woodruff area should be turned into a 'City of Lakeland'.  School District there is called 'Lakeland'.

:nod:

Do they also know that Florence, WI is unincorporated?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 01, 2020, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 29, 2020, 09:17:40 PM
It appears that WisDOT is phasing out unincorporated places as control cities with their new signage. I-43 Exit 107 now only has Belgium previously Lake Church had also been used. I-39 and Hwy 34 no longer uses Knowlton no control city NB only Wisconsin Rapids is used SB. I-39 and Hwy W once used Bancroft but no longer being used SB still signed NB for now. I really don't like this I mean even if it's not officially incorporated it's still a place and it looks better than nothing. I wonder how many Wisconsinites even know that Minocqua and Woodruff are not incorporated towns. I also noticed that goofy north-south or east-west have also but phased out but I am cool with that.

I agree - even if they're unincorporated, they are still population centers. I had no idea that Minocqua wasn't incorporated!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 01, 2020, 01:11:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 30, 2020, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 30, 2020, 10:30:04 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2020, 09:36:53 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 29, 2020, 09:17:40 PM
It appears that WisDOT is phasing out unincorporated places as control cities with their new signage. I-43 Exit 107 now only has Belgium previously Lake Church had also been used. I-39 and Hwy 34 no longer uses Knowlton no control city NB only Wisconsin Rapids is used SB. I-39 and Hwy W once used Bancroft but no longer being used SB still signed NB for now. I really don't like this I mean even if it's not officially incorporated it's still a place and it looks better than nothing. I wonder how many Wisconsinites even know that Minocqua and Woodruff are not incorporated towns. I also noticed that goofy north-south or east-west have also but phased out but I am cool with that.
I agree. And Minocqua and Woodruff definitely should be incorporated. It's not a stretch to say those towns are the second most significant population/economic centers in Wisconsin north of US-8.
Not sure about that at all but not putting unincorporated areas on signage is strange.

I've been thinking for some time now that a wide area in the Minocqua-Woodruff area should be turned into a 'City of Lakeland'.  School District there is called 'Lakeland'.

:nod:

Do they also know that Florence, WI is unincorporated?

Mike
In that case the term "Island City" would have to go, as Woodruff is not on an island while Minocqua is (or was, until the US-51 trestle just north of downtown was built).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 03, 2020, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 01, 2020, 01:11:17 PM
In that case the term "Island City" would have to go, as Woodruff is not on an island while Minocqua is (or was, until the US-51 trestle just north of downtown was built).

Technically, Minocqua is and has always been on a peninsula.  The railroad filled in the swamp that separated it from the 'mainland' long before any roads were built.  It was never open water to the north of "The Island".

(Queue Simpson's reference about Monster Island. ;) )
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 08, 2020, 01:22:33 AM
On I-41 there's signs for the Town of Lawrence. I believe that's the only official WISDOT sign for a township in the entire state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on September 09, 2020, 07:24:08 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 08, 2020, 01:22:33 AM
On I-41 there's signs for the Town of Lawrence. I believe that's the only official WISDOT sign for a township in the entire state.

On I-94 there is an exit for Ixonia (exit 275)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 09, 2020, 08:57:33 PM
Where is the Town of Lawrence sign?  It's not a BGS.

If they didn't use Ixonia on that I-94 sign, what would they use?  County F dead ends at Wi-16 and there isn't an incorporated city close.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on September 11, 2020, 08:34:41 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 09, 2020, 08:57:33 PM
Where is the Town of Lawrence sign?  It's not a BGS.

If they didn't use Ixonia on that I-94 sign, what would they use?  County F dead ends at Wi-16 and there isn't an incorporated city close.

The town signs for Lawrence are similar to what you'd see for a city/village limit sign on the highway. NB 41 is located upon entering into Brown County.  SB 41 just past the Main Ave exit in De Pere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 13, 2020, 06:15:34 PM
They still use Allenton for WI-33 West at I-41 although an alternative would be Horicon the next town which is incorporated. I find some unincorporated places to be bigger than some incorporated places. Wind Lake in Racine county has a population of 4,000 you can find many incorporated towns much smaller than that over the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 13, 2020, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 13, 2020, 06:15:34 PM
They still use Allenton for WI-33 West at I-41 although an alternative would be Horicon the next town which is incorporated. I find some unincorporated places to be bigger than some incorporated places. Wind Lake in Racine county has a population of 4,000 you can find many incorporated towns much smaller than that over the state.

But for an unicorp town, Allenton doesn't look like one. It looks like a regular small town with about a dozen streets.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4212574,-88.3457859,15z?hl=en

To me, an real unicorp town is more like a crossroads like North Leeds in Columbia County.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3309452,-89.3307791,16z?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 14, 2020, 03:33:42 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 13, 2020, 06:15:34 PM
They still use Allenton for WI-33 West at I-41 although an alternative would be Horicon the next town which is incorporated. I find some unincorporated places to be bigger than some incorporated places. Wind Lake in Racine county has a population of 4,000 you can find many incorporated towns much smaller than that over the state.

Wind Lake is an incorporated village.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 14, 2020, 03:36:31 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 13, 2020, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 13, 2020, 06:15:34 PM
They still use Allenton for WI-33 West at I-41 although an alternative would be Horicon the next town which is incorporated. I find some unincorporated places to be bigger than some incorporated places. Wind Lake in Racine county has a population of 4,000 you can find many incorporated towns much smaller than that over the state.

But for an unicorp town, Allenton doesn't look like one. It looks like a regular small town with about a dozen streets.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4212574,-88.3457859,15z?hl=en

To me, an real unicorp town is more like a crossroads like North Leeds in Columbia County.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3309452,-89.3307791,16z?hl=en

Allenton is an unincorporated settlement in Addison Township, Washington County.  I am very surprised that it was not incorporated in the late 19th century.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2020, 08:49:01 PM
Drove the new Waukesha bypass today.  I thought they should have routed US-18 north to the interstate, duplex it with I-94, then exit at Bluemound to resume its route.  WI-318 could have been used for the short stretch between US-18 and WI-59. 

The route US-18 now takes is nonsensical.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 17, 2020, 09:01:41 PM
I disagree about putting US 18 on Interstate 94. I think putting it on the new and pre-existing Waukesha bypass was the right move. The new bypass helped get me and my mother to her mother's house quicker than the old way we went (of course that was before my grandmother had a stroke, and had to be moved to a nursing home). My only complaint is that I think they shouldn't have decommissioned US 18 through Waukesha until after the West Waukesha Bypass was completed. Instead, US 18 though Waukesha was decommissioned a few years before the West Waukesha Bypass was built, probably around the same time that STH-74 was decommissioned.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2020, 09:07:44 PM
But if you want to take US-18 around Waukesha to Bluemound, you would not take the bypass. You would take the route I mention above.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 18, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 14, 2020, 03:33:42 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 13, 2020, 06:15:34 PM
They still use Allenton for WI-33 West at I-41 although an alternative would be Horicon the next town which is incorporated. I find some unincorporated places to be bigger than some incorporated places. Wind Lake in Racine county has a population of 4,000 you can find many incorporated towns much smaller than that over the state.

Wind Lake is an incorporated village.

Mike
Oh it is? Since when?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 18, 2020, 10:06:54 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 13, 2020, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 13, 2020, 06:15:34 PM
They still use Allenton for WI-33 West at I-41 although an alternative would be Horicon the next town which is incorporated. I find some unincorporated places to be bigger than some incorporated places. Wind Lake in Racine county has a population of 4,000 you can find many incorporated towns much smaller than that over the state.

But for an unicorp town, Allenton doesn't look like one. It looks like a regular small town with about a dozen streets.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4212574,-88.3457859,15z?hl=en

To me, an real unicorp town is more like a crossroads like North Leeds in Columbia County.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3309452,-89.3307791,16z?hl=en
I agree but neither was Bancroft it looks like a regular town.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 21, 2020, 02:39:45 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2020, 08:49:01 PM
Drove the new Waukesha bypass today.  I thought they should have routed US-18 north to the interstate, duplex it with I-94, then exit at Bluemound to resume its route.  WI-318 could have been used for the short stretch between US-18 and WI-59. 

The route US-18 now takes is nonsensical.

US 18 is used more for local traffic so it makes perfect sense to route it on the Waukesha Bypass. With that logic why have US 18 on Bluemound Rd since it's close to the interstate?

If you want to talk about a nonsensical route US 45 in Fond Du Lac is a complete mess since the reroute. It bypasses southern Fond Du Lac and rejoins its original alignment at the edge of Downtown Fond Du Lac. Hwy V is also used more than US 45 between Kewaskum and Fond Du Lac also making the route even more of a questionable route in the area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 22, 2020, 11:02:37 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2020, 02:39:45 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2020, 08:49:01 PM
Drove the new Waukesha bypass today.  I thought they should have routed US-18 north to the interstate, duplex it with I-94, then exit at Bluemound to resume its route.  WI-318 could have been used for the short stretch between US-18 and WI-59. 

The route US-18 now takes is nonsensical.

US 18 is used more for local traffic so it makes perfect sense to route it on the Waukesha Bypass. With that logic why have US 18 on Bluemound Rd since it's close to the interstate?

If you want to talk about a nonsensical route US 45 in Fond Du Lac is a complete mess since the reroute. It bypasses southern Fond Du Lac and rejoins its original alignment at the edge of Downtown Fond Du Lac. Hwy V is also used more than US 45 between Kewaskum and Fond Du Lac also making the route even more of a questionable route in the area.
Yeah I always thought that when they rerouted 45 onto the FDL Bypass, the logical thing would be to keep it on 41 until the split in Oshkosh. Have old US 45 become Wis 245 or an extension of Wis 175.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 23, 2020, 09:52:51 AM
Looks like we are very close to opening the 3rd lane on 39/90 between Janesville and the Rock River.  Traffic is back in their respective carriageways and northbound only needed a yellow stripe on the left when I passed through yesterday.  Crews were busy pulling up the temporary pavement markings from the southbound carriageway and disassembling the temporary concrete barrier from the segment.

Some bridges in the northern part of the larger rebuild appear to be getting a fresh friction coating; including ones that already had one.  Crews on the NB bridge over the Rock River were throwing up a heck of a dust cloud with whatever they were doing.  I thought that bridge was totally done; it looked that way earlier this year.  So I wonder what was up.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 24, 2020, 05:17:54 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 14, 2020, 03:33:42 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 13, 2020, 06:15:34 PM
They still use Allenton for WI-33 West at I-41 although an alternative would be Horicon the next town which is incorporated. I find some unincorporated places to be bigger than some incorporated places. Wind Lake in Racine county has a population of 4,000 you can find many incorporated towns much smaller than that over the state.

Wind Lake is an incorporated village.

My bad, I was thinking of Wind Point (Racine Suburb).

Mike
Oh it is? Since when?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: EpicRoadways on September 25, 2020, 11:13:04 PM
This has probably already been addressed somewhere on the forum, but what is the point of these  (https://goo.gl/maps/5RZ6Eh7ThCvXVQiw7) concrete overhead sign "poles" that have been popping up along urban stretches of freeway in Wisconsin for the past 10 years or so? Is there enough of a (or any?) design benefit to justify the additional cost as opposed to a traditional overhead sign assembly, or is it solely for aesthetic reasons?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 26, 2020, 08:43:20 AM
Quote from: EpicRoadways on September 25, 2020, 11:13:04 PM
This has probably already been addressed somewhere on the forum, but what is the point of these  (https://goo.gl/maps/5RZ6Eh7ThCvXVQiw7) concrete overhead sign "poles" that have been popping up along urban stretches of freeway in Wisconsin for the past 10 years or so? Is there enough of a (or any?) design benefit to justify the additional cost as opposed to a traditional overhead sign assembly, or is it solely for aesthetic reasons?
There was a "community sensitive" design initiative during Jim Doyle's time as governor.  All projects had to be designed to "blend in".  It was scrapped in 2010.   The I-39/90 widening is the last to require it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on September 26, 2020, 11:18:04 PM
Quote from: EpicRoadways on September 25, 2020, 11:13:04 PM
This has probably already been addressed somewhere on the forum, but what is the point of these  (https://goo.gl/maps/5RZ6Eh7ThCvXVQiw7) concrete overhead sign "poles" that have been popping up along urban stretches of freeway in Wisconsin for the past 10 years or so? Is there enough of a (or any?) design benefit to justify the additional cost as opposed to a traditional overhead sign assembly, or is it solely for aesthetic reasons?
These are all over the rebuilt interchanges and freeways in the Milwaukee area, and on I-41/94 south to Illinois. I think they look good, and not boring. Seeing how much work they put into all that reconstruction, why not make it look nice?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 27, 2020, 08:51:50 AM
Because there is a segment of our society that believes any money spent on aesthetics is a waste. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: zzcarp on September 28, 2020, 08:47:16 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 27, 2020, 08:51:50 AM
Because there is a segment of our society that believes any money spent on aesthetics is a waste.

I guess I represent that segment. I think these brick/concrete sign supports look cool and unique. I also think plain Jane steel monotubes look just fine as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 28, 2020, 11:00:40 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on September 26, 2020, 11:18:04 PM
Quote from: EpicRoadways on September 25, 2020, 11:13:04 PM
This has probably already been addressed somewhere on the forum, but what is the point of these  (https://goo.gl/maps/5RZ6Eh7ThCvXVQiw7) concrete overhead sign "poles" that have been popping up along urban stretches of freeway in Wisconsin for the past 10 years or so? Is there enough of a (or any?) design benefit to justify the additional cost as opposed to a traditional overhead sign assembly, or is it solely for aesthetic reasons?
These are all over the rebuilt interchanges and freeways in the Milwaukee area, and on I-41/94 south to Illinois. I think they look good, and not boring. Seeing how much work they put into all that reconstruction, why not make it look nice?
I think I read somewhere that the 39/90 project will be the last one to feature that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 28, 2020, 11:05:54 PM
So why does every 4 way stop intersection have to be a roundabout?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 29, 2020, 08:49:05 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 28, 2020, 11:05:54 PM
So why does every 4 way stop intersection have to be a roundabout?

They don't.

Why are you so triggered by roundabouts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 29, 2020, 12:50:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 29, 2020, 08:49:05 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 28, 2020, 11:05:54 PM
So why does every 4 way stop intersection have to be a roundabout?

They don't.

Why are you so triggered by roundabouts?
Because he wants back his good old days of roads when there wasn't so much knowledge ( :rolleyes:) and creativity ( :angry:) around managing and improving traffic flow.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 30, 2020, 03:56:03 PM
Locals approve funds for a new bridge south of DePere, https://fox11online.com/news/local/brown-county-leaders-announce-funding-plan-toward-southern-bridge-project
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 30, 2020, 04:39:05 PM
I guess "Southbridge Road" will finally live up to its name.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 01, 2020, 05:46:27 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 01, 2020, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 01, 2020, 05:46:27 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike
It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 01, 2020, 11:56:26 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 01, 2020, 05:46:27 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike



Radical idea:

**Reroute WI-57 off Green Bay city streets.  Have it follow I-43, then WI-172 to the Monroe Road exit, crossing the south crossing, ending at I-41.
**WI-32 will still exist on the current duplex with WI-57.
**Reroute WI-32 over WI-57's current routing to I-43.
**Decommission WI-57 in the Milwaukee area
**Reroute WI-42 along what is now WI-32 ending at its current intersection with WI-57
**Extend US-151 along WI-42 from Manitowoc to Door County
**Decommission WI-42 between Howards Grove and Manitowoc
**Decommission WI-32 between Howards Grove and I-43 near Cedar Grove.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2020, 05:04:44 PM
What would be the exact route of SEWIGuy's proposed state highway addition? Not being from Green Bay, I have no idea where the "South Crossing" is? Also, such a proposal would require an existing state highway segment to be decommissioned, since the state can only have a fixed amount of state highway mileage. That is why US 18 through Waukesha and STH 74 were decommissioned in order for STH 318 and the US 18 portion of the West Waukesha Bypass to come into existence.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 01, 2020, 08:30:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 01, 2020, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 01, 2020, 05:46:27 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike
It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.
It was never signed so I never thought it ever existed at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 02, 2020, 09:00:58 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2020, 05:04:44 PM
What would be the exact route of SEWIGuy's proposed state highway addition? Not being from Green Bay, I have no idea where the "South Crossing" is? Also, such a proposal would require an existing state highway segment to be decommissioned, since the state can only have a fixed amount of state highway mileage. That is why US 18 through Waukesha and STH 74 were decommissioned in order for STH 318 and the US 18 portion of the West Waukesha Bypass to come into existence.

(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f25e079f37d33664cd9611a0f8fb89245d7e43c5/c=0-49-634-407/local/-/media/2016/02/25/WIGroup/GreenBay/635920258280314746-SOUTHERN-CONNECTOR.jpg?width=634&height=358&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)


Here is the map.  They are looking at the south corridor option.  What I am suggesting is that from I-41 (marked as US-41) that a state highway should go east, over the Fox River, and then over County GV to end at WI-172 (far upper right corner).  County GV (also known at Monroe Road) is a nice four lane road that currently dead ends at County X (Heritage Road)

EDIT:  And if you need to subtract state highway mileage from the system to accomplish this, you have numerous options to get state highways off Green Bay city streets.  In reality, they are likely just going to give the short bridge section between I-41 and WI-32/57 a number.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 02, 2020, 09:01:44 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 01, 2020, 08:30:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 01, 2020, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 01, 2020, 05:46:27 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike
It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.
It was never signed so I never thought it ever existed at all.


I believe there was one reassurance marker NB between National Ave and I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 02, 2020, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 02, 2020, 09:01:44 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 01, 2020, 08:30:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 01, 2020, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 01, 2020, 05:46:27 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike
It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.
It was never signed so I never thought it ever existed at all.


I believe there was one reassurance marker NB between National Ave and I-94.
I thought for some reason that it was signed on I-94, but a check of old GSV says otherwise.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 02, 2020, 12:58:25 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 02, 2020, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 02, 2020, 09:01:44 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 01, 2020, 08:30:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 01, 2020, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 01, 2020, 05:46:27 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike
It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.
It was never signed so I never thought it ever existed at all.


I believe there was one reassurance marker NB between National Ave and I-94.
I thought for some reason that it was signed on I-94, but a check of old GSV says otherwise.

There was also a 'pathfinder' sign for WI 341 on one of the parking lot access roads east of Miller Park in the parking lots, it was visible from a pedestrian stadium access bridge over that access road and the Miller Park Way freeway.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 03, 2020, 12:19:41 AM
If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on October 04, 2020, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 03, 2020, 12:19:41 AM
If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

At first I thought you meant to Abrams in the city, near Kroll's. LOL. But I agree. There's no point to US 141 south of Abrams. It follows a convoluted route through Green Bay's West Side (Velp, Mather, Broadway, Dousman) that's mostly used by locals. I think the only reason Green Bay keeps it is the mileage cap, so they can get a new highway should one be needed. They could also route WI 57, WI 32, and especially WI 29 around the Green Bay "Beltway" for more original mileage.

Proposals for a crossing between DePere and Wrightstown go back to when I was a kid in the 60's. I've seen ideas for both Scheuring/ Heritage and Red Maple/ Rockland corridors. The Scheuring/ Heritage Road corridor is probably out considering all the development around Scheuring Road. If I still lived there, I'd include it in the current "Road Problems your city or state will never likely fix" thread in General Highway Talk. It's been arguably needed since my youth to take non-local traffic out of the Claude Allouez Bridge area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 04, 2020, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 04, 2020, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 03, 2020, 12:19:41 AM
If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

At first I thought you meant to Abrams in the city, near Kroll's. LOL. But I agree. There's no point to US 141 south of Abrams. It follows a convoluted route through Green Bay's West Side (Velp, Mather, Broadway, Dousman) that's mostly used by locals. I think the only reason Green Bay keeps it is the mileage cap, so they can get a new highway should one be needed. They could also route WI 57, WI 32, and especially WI 29 around the Green Bay "Beltway" for more original mileage.

Proposals for a crossing between DePere and Wrightstown go back to when I was a kid in the 60's. I've seen ideas for both Scheuring/ Heritage and Red Maple/ Rockland corridors. The Scheuring/ Heritage Road corridor is probably out considering all the development around Scheuring Road. If I still lived there, I'd include it in the current "Road Problems your city or state will never likely fix" thread in General Highway Talk. It's been arguably needed since my youth to take non-local traffic out of the Claude Allouez Bridge area.
If every route currently "inside the beltway" in Green Bay is rerouted (and US-141 removed and truncated), that would create Wisconsin's first quintuplex. I-41, US-41, WI-29, WI-32, and WI-54 would all be on the same pavement between Mason St and Shawano Ave.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 05, 2020, 12:46:25 AM
Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don't really go anywhere?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 05, 2020, 08:34:46 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 05, 2020, 12:46:25 AM
Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don’t really go anywhere?
I've heard that WI-127 is still a thing because it connects to the Columbia County Correctional Facility. There must be some legal stuff there. WI-134 is no longer a state highway and hasn't been for some time. The shields might still be there but it's not on the trunkline system.
Edit - Okay nevermind, Wikipedia says that WI-134 still exists and I can't find any information proving otherwise, so . . .
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 05, 2020, 08:58:22 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 04, 2020, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 04, 2020, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 03, 2020, 12:19:41 AM
If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

At first I thought you meant to Abrams in the city, near Kroll's. LOL. But I agree. There's no point to US 141 south of Abrams. It follows a convoluted route through Green Bay's West Side (Velp, Mather, Broadway, Dousman) that's mostly used by locals. I think the only reason Green Bay keeps it is the mileage cap, so they can get a new highway should one be needed. They could also route WI 57, WI 32, and especially WI 29 around the Green Bay "Beltway" for more original mileage.

Proposals for a crossing between DePere and Wrightstown go back to when I was a kid in the 60's. I've seen ideas for both Scheuring/ Heritage and Red Maple/ Rockland corridors. The Scheuring/ Heritage Road corridor is probably out considering all the development around Scheuring Road. If I still lived there, I'd include it in the current "Road Problems your city or state will never likely fix" thread in General Highway Talk. It's been arguably needed since my youth to take non-local traffic out of the Claude Allouez Bridge area.
If every route currently "inside the beltway" in Green Bay is rerouted (and US-141 removed and truncated), that would create Wisconsin's first quintuplex. I-41, US-41, WI-29, WI-32, and WI-54 would all be on the same pavement between Mason St and Shawano Ave.


The problem with putting WI-29 or WI-32 on the beltway around Green Bay, is that neither have a direct connection on the "other side."  To get back onto WI-29, you have to exit at US-141.  To get back on WI-32 you have to exit onto a couple local streets that have a fair amount of traffic already.

IMO, I would simply end WI-29 at I-41 and give WI-29 between I-43 and Kewaunee a new number.  And I would keep WI-32 on city streets.  Ashland Avenue is worthy of a state highway designation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 05, 2020, 05:15:22 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 05, 2020, 08:34:46 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 05, 2020, 12:46:25 AM
Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don't really go anywhere?
I've heard that WI-127 is still a thing because it connects to the Columbia County Correctional Facility. There must be some legal stuff there. WI-134 is no longer a state highway and hasn't been for some time. The shields might still be there but it's not on the trunkline system.
Edit - Okay nevermind, Wikipedia says that WI-134 still exists and I can't find any information proving otherwise, so . . .

Checked the Dane County official state trunkline map and Wis 134 is still there giving the small unincorporated community of London a state highway. Wis 127 is also poorly maintained past the prison. If there was a such thing as a minimum maintenance state highway Wis 127 would qualify. I see there is work on it now but WISDOT doesn't even list it in their current projects.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 05, 2020, 08:09:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 05, 2020, 08:58:22 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 04, 2020, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 04, 2020, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 03, 2020, 12:19:41 AM
If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

At first I thought you meant to Abrams in the city, near Kroll's. LOL. But I agree. There's no point to US 141 south of Abrams. It follows a convoluted route through Green Bay's West Side (Velp, Mather, Broadway, Dousman) that's mostly used by locals. I think the only reason Green Bay keeps it is the mileage cap, so they can get a new highway should one be needed. They could also route WI 57, WI 32, and especially WI 29 around the Green Bay "Beltway" for more original mileage.

Proposals for a crossing between DePere and Wrightstown go back to when I was a kid in the 60's. I've seen ideas for both Scheuring/ Heritage and Red Maple/ Rockland corridors. The Scheuring/ Heritage Road corridor is probably out considering all the development around Scheuring Road. If I still lived there, I'd include it in the current "Road Problems your city or state will never likely fix" thread in General Highway Talk. It's been arguably needed since my youth to take non-local traffic out of the Claude Allouez Bridge area.
If every route currently "inside the beltway" in Green Bay is rerouted (and US-141 removed and truncated), that would create Wisconsin's first quintuplex. I-41, US-41, WI-29, WI-32, and WI-54 would all be on the same pavement between Mason St and Shawano Ave.


The problem with putting WI-29 or WI-32 on the beltway around Green Bay, is that neither have a direct connection on the "other side."  To get back onto WI-29, you have to exit at US-141.  To get back on WI-32 you have to exit onto a couple local streets that have a fair amount of traffic already.

IMO, I would simply end WI-29 at I-41 and give WI-29 between I-43 and Kewaunee a new number.  And I would keep WI-32 on city streets.  Ashland Avenue is worthy of a state highway designation.
Easy. Just have WI-29 backtrack slightly along current US-141 to I-43. And I would be fine with WI-32's routing staying the same, as it would not affect the creation of the quintuplex. Really that's all I care about with this.  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 06, 2020, 01:46:13 PM
I guess US highway downgrades appear on WISDOT maps now. This US 51 project map liked below shows US 12/US 14/US 18 as state highways.

https://twitter.com/wisdotsouthwest/status/1313529473002766336?s=21
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 07, 2020, 06:21:53 PM
I would be far more interested if there were updates on this US 51 project: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/51/default.aspx. My parents live close to Stoughton Rd. and I am much more familiar with it than US 51 between Stoughton and McFarland. I'm also getting tired of waiting for updates about the future of the 11-mile Stoughton Rd. Corridor Study Project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 08, 2020, 09:49:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 05, 2020, 12:46:25 AM
Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don't really go anywhere?
Thank you on Wis 127. There's no reason that should not be an extension of County G or the unused D or L.
As for Wis 134, I think it is that way because of the fact it is on the county line. But it could be County O.
A few others that annoys me are Wis 129 and Wis 126. 129 should be US 61 and make the current US 61 a Business Route in Lancaster. 126 should be County I. It goes nowhere on the south end to warrant it being a state highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 09, 2020, 04:18:13 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 08, 2020, 09:49:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 05, 2020, 12:46:25 AM
Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don't really go anywhere?
Thank you on Wis 127. There's no reason that should not be an extension of County G or the unused D or L.
As for Wis 134, I think it is that way because of the fact it is on the county line. But it could be County O.
A few others that annoys me are Wis 129 and Wis 126. 129 should be US 61 and make the current US 61 a Business Route in Lancaster. 126 should be County I. It goes nowhere on the south end to warrant it being a state highway.
For Wis 129, though I cannot prove it, but I think this is connected to Lancaster's politicians being afraid of being "isolated".  The state removed Lancaster from being a control point on Exit 8 (US-61 N) NB and Exit 19 (WIS-80/81) SB on US-151 - the latter in favor of Cuba City.  For both, an extra sign with Lancaster - EXIT <8/19> would have sufficed, but no! they had to be on the main one, so Cuba City was kicked off.  Theory is that this is true for 61 having to be the thru route to draw traffic to the downtown businesses.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 09, 2020, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 09, 2020, 04:18:13 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 08, 2020, 09:49:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 05, 2020, 12:46:25 AM
Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don't really go anywhere?
Thank you on Wis 127. There's no reason that should not be an extension of County G or the unused D or L.
As for Wis 134, I think it is that way because of the fact it is on the county line. But it could be County O.
A few others that annoys me are Wis 129 and Wis 126. 129 should be US 61 and make the current US 61 a Business Route in Lancaster. 126 should be County I. It goes nowhere on the south end to warrant it being a state highway.
For Wis 129, though I cannot prove it, but I think this is connected to Lancaster's politicians being afraid of being "isolated".  The state removed Lancaster from being a control point on Exit 8 (US-61 N) NB and Exit 19 (WIS-80/81) SB on US-151 - the latter in favor of Cuba City.  For both, an extra sign with Lancaster - EXIT <8/19> would have sufficed, but no! they had to be on the main one, so Cuba City was kicked off.  Theory is that this is true for 61 having to be the thru route to draw traffic to the downtown businesses.
Interesting. The sign at the 129/61 split points Lancaster Business Dist and Fennimore. They already are telling 61 traffic that this goes to the next town quicker. Oh well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 13, 2020, 12:44:28 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 09, 2020, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 09, 2020, 04:18:13 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 08, 2020, 09:49:26 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 05, 2020, 12:46:25 AM
Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don't really go anywhere?
Thank you on Wis 127. There's no reason that should not be an extension of County G or the unused D or L.
As for Wis 134, I think it is that way because of the fact it is on the county line. But it could be County O.
A few others that annoys me are Wis 129 and Wis 126. 129 should be US 61 and make the current US 61 a Business Route in Lancaster. 126 should be County I. It goes nowhere on the south end to warrant it being a state highway.
For Wis 129, though I cannot prove it, but I think this is connected to Lancaster's politicians being afraid of being "isolated".  The state removed Lancaster from being a control point on Exit 8 (US-61 N) NB and Exit 19 (WIS-80/81) SB on US-151 - the latter in favor of Cuba City.  For both, an extra sign with Lancaster - EXIT <8/19> would have sufficed, but no! they had to be on the main one, so Cuba City was kicked off.  Theory is that this is true for 61 having to be the thru route to draw traffic to the downtown businesses.
Interesting. The sign at the 129/61 split points Lancaster Business Dist and Fennimore. They already are telling 61 traffic that this goes to the next town quicker. Oh well.

I find the whole Lancaster US-61 situation very fascinating. How did this even end up happening in the first place?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 13, 2020, 01:09:03 PM
The STH 129 bypass has had its present designation since 1959, it was previously designated CTH I: http://wisconsinhighways.org/listings/WiscHwys120-129.html#STH-129. The original Waukesha bypass was originally a county highway as well, in this case CTH A. In c.1983-84, the STH 59 designation replaced CTH A between Genesee Rd. and Arcadian Rd. The roadway from there northward to US 18/E. Moreland Rd. remained CTH A until 1988, when it became part of STH 164's southern extension to STH 36 near Waterford.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 13, 2020, 03:10:21 PM
The unnecessary 3 block detour around the courthouse for US 61 southbound traffic makes no sense either. US 61 has 2 way traffic through Lancaster highway except for 1 block.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 13, 2020, 07:30:36 PM
The US-61/WI-129 fiasco is really a microcosm of Wisconsin's highways. There must be somone with a lot of money, or a lot of people with a lot of combined money, who is/are set on keeping US-61 where it is. Really, it's not fooling anyone. Google Maps and other GPSes will still tell you to use WI-129. And anyways I suspect that the majority of Lancaster's thru traffic is using WI-35/WI-81 to the west into the community, to US-61/WI-35/WI-81 out of the community to the south, or vice versa, in which case WI-129 would not be relevant at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 13, 2020, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 13, 2020, 03:10:21 PM
The unnecessary 3 block detour around the courthouse for US 61 southbound traffic makes no sense either. US 61 has 2 way traffic through Lancaster highway except for 1 block.
Yeah, that is dumb.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 27, 2020, 03:44:30 PM
Last week, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the FHWA signed off on the Tier I EIS and issued a Record of Decision on a final corridor for the proposed South Crossing bypass of De Pere.

https://943jackfm.com/2020/10/26/location-for-south-bridge-connector-project-corridor-confirmed/

It will run from Packerland Dr west of I-41, south of Scheuring Rd, across the river to the County 'X'/'GV' intersection east of De Pere.

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge-connector/

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 28, 2020, 01:50:09 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 27, 2020, 03:44:30 PM
Last week, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the FHWA signed off on the Tier I EIS and issued a Record of Decision on a final corridor for the proposed South Crossing bypass of De Pere.

https://943jackfm.com/2020/10/26/location-for-south-bridge-connector-project-corridor-confirmed/

It will run from Packerland Dr west of I-41, south of Scheuring Rd, across the river to the County 'X'/'GV' intersection east of De Pere.

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge-connector/

Mike

I see that the bridge isn't scheduled to be built until 2030. It would be great if the state could take over the project like they did with the Tri County Expressway (Wis 441).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 08, 2020, 10:13:08 PM
The all-way stop at the south end of the US 12 freeway by Genoa City has been replaced with a signalized intersection, complete with a dual left turn for the EB US 12.  The EB US 12 to NB County H movement is still stop controlled.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on November 10, 2020, 11:04:52 PM
Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 11, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/business/congestion-frustration-and-delays-come-to-an-end-as-verona-road-project-nears-completion/article_1eb102f0-bfef-5992-bc24-34f0cc5ff182.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The Verona Rd. US 18/151 project in Madison is finally coming to an end!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 11, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/business/congestion-frustration-and-delays-come-to-an-end-as-verona-road-project-nears-completion/article_1eb102f0-bfef-5992-bc24-34f0cc5ff182.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The Verona Rd. US 18/151 project in Madison is finally coming to an end!
It's the end of an era in Madison. In my entire life I have not known a world where Verona Road was not at least a little bit under construction. That world is now a reality. I drove it a couple weeks ago and it is quite nice. Worth dealing with the construction? Definitely not. But better really late than never.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 11, 2020, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 11, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/business/congestion-frustration-and-delays-come-to-an-end-as-verona-road-project-nears-completion/article_1eb102f0-bfef-5992-bc24-34f0cc5ff182.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The Verona Rd. US 18/151 project in Madison is finally coming to an end!
It's the end of an era in Madison. In my entire life I have not known a world where Verona Road was not at least a little bit under construction. That world is now a reality. I drove it a couple weeks ago and it is quite nice. Worth dealing with the construction? Definitely not. But better really late than never.
Now they just need to implement Phase 3

For those wondering - this was planned to be a free-flowing fly-under for Traffic to-from the East Beltline to Verona Road South (replacing the Jughandle Roundabout).  The state scrapped the plans.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 11, 2020, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 11, 2020, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 11, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/business/congestion-frustration-and-delays-come-to-an-end-as-verona-road-project-nears-completion/article_1eb102f0-bfef-5992-bc24-34f0cc5ff182.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The Verona Rd. US 18/151 project in Madison is finally coming to an end!
It's the end of an era in Madison. In my entire life I have not known a world where Verona Road was not at least a little bit under construction. That world is now a reality. I drove it a couple weeks ago and it is quite nice. Worth dealing with the construction? Definitely not. But better really late than never.
Now they just need to implement Phase 3

For those wondering - this was planned to be a free-flowing fly-under for Traffic to-from the East Beltline to Verona Road South (replacing the Jughandle Roundabout).  The state scrapped the plans.

I would be shocked if this ever happened. Honestly, phases 1 and 2 are more than adequate to meet the needs for a long time to come.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 07:38:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 11, 2020, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 11, 2020, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 11, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/business/congestion-frustration-and-delays-come-to-an-end-as-verona-road-project-nears-completion/article_1eb102f0-bfef-5992-bc24-34f0cc5ff182.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The Verona Rd. US 18/151 project in Madison is finally coming to an end!
It's the end of an era in Madison. In my entire life I have not known a world where Verona Road was not at least a little bit under construction. That world is now a reality. I drove it a couple weeks ago and it is quite nice. Worth dealing with the construction? Definitely not. But better really late than never.
Now they just need to implement Phase 3

For those wondering - this was planned to be a free-flowing fly-under for Traffic to-from the East Beltline to Verona Road South (replacing the Jughandle Roundabout).  The state scrapped the plans.

I would be shocked if this ever happened. Honestly, phases 1 and 2 are more than adequate to meet the needs for a long time to come.
Right now the current interchange works fine. I think most of the problem during the construction was not the interchange itself, but the lights at Raymond, Williamsburg, and McKee (McKee especially, that was a war zone at rush hour). Southbound cars would back up in those spots at reds, which would then slow down the Beltline interchange even after the reconstruction to its current form. Now that only one light remains between US-12 and Verona, those backups no longer occur, and suddenly that interchange flows much better. With that being said, Verona is growing quickly and Epic is getting bigger by the day. We'll see how long the current setup works for. Put the over/under at 10 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 12, 2020, 07:21:45 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 07:38:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 11, 2020, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 11, 2020, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 11, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/business/congestion-frustration-and-delays-come-to-an-end-as-verona-road-project-nears-completion/article_1eb102f0-bfef-5992-bc24-34f0cc5ff182.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The Verona Rd. US 18/151 project in Madison is finally coming to an end!
It's the end of an era in Madison. In my entire life I have not known a world where Verona Road was not at least a little bit under construction. That world is now a reality. I drove it a couple weeks ago and it is quite nice. Worth dealing with the construction? Definitely not. But better really late than never.
Now they just need to implement Phase 3

For those wondering - this was planned to be a free-flowing fly-under for Traffic to-from the East Beltline to Verona Road South (replacing the Jughandle Roundabout).  The state scrapped the plans.

I would be shocked if this ever happened. Honestly, phases 1 and 2 are more than adequate to meet the needs for a long time to come.
Right now the current interchange works fine. I think most of the problem during the construction was not the interchange itself, but the lights at Raymond, Williamsburg, and McKee (McKee especially, that was a war zone at rush hour). Southbound cars would back up in those spots at reds, which would then slow down the Beltline interchange even after the reconstruction to its current form. Now that only one light remains between US-12 and Verona, those backups no longer occur, and suddenly that interchange flows much better. With that being said, Verona is growing quickly and Epic is getting bigger by the day. We'll see how long the current setup works for. Put the over/under at 10 years.
Two lights - the jughandle roundabout and Raymond. (The SPUI doesn't count ;) )

Nevertheless, it is more efficient - I agree with that.  Now if only WisDOT would not post such rediculously low speed limits at traffic lights...

they drop the limit to 40 at the Williamsburg Way Interchange.  (Granted, the ramp is close enough to the Raymond light that you risk crossovers.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 12, 2020, 07:59:34 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 12, 2020, 07:21:45 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 07:38:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 11, 2020, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 11, 2020, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 11, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/business/congestion-frustration-and-delays-come-to-an-end-as-verona-road-project-nears-completion/article_1eb102f0-bfef-5992-bc24-34f0cc5ff182.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The Verona Rd. US 18/151 project in Madison is finally coming to an end!
It's the end of an era in Madison. In my entire life I have not known a world where Verona Road was not at least a little bit under construction. That world is now a reality. I drove it a couple weeks ago and it is quite nice. Worth dealing with the construction? Definitely not. But better really late than never.
Now they just need to implement Phase 3

For those wondering - this was planned to be a free-flowing fly-under for Traffic to-from the East Beltline to Verona Road South (replacing the Jughandle Roundabout).  The state scrapped the plans.

I would be shocked if this ever happened. Honestly, phases 1 and 2 are more than adequate to meet the needs for a long time to come.
Right now the current interchange works fine. I think most of the problem during the construction was not the interchange itself, but the lights at Raymond, Williamsburg, and McKee (McKee especially, that was a war zone at rush hour). Southbound cars would back up in those spots at reds, which would then slow down the Beltline interchange even after the reconstruction to its current form. Now that only one light remains between US-12 and Verona, those backups no longer occur, and suddenly that interchange flows much better. With that being said, Verona is growing quickly and Epic is getting bigger by the day. We'll see how long the current setup works for. Put the over/under at 10 years.
Two lights - the jughandle roundabout and Raymond. (The SPUI doesn't count ;) )

Nevertheless, it is more efficient - I agree with that.  Now if only WisDOT would not post such rediculously low speed limits at traffic lights...

they drop the limit to 40 at the Williamsburg Way Interchange.  (Granted, the ramp is close enough to the Raymond light that you risk crossovers.)

They probably should have grade separated Raymond as well, but other than that the improvements are great.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 12, 2020, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 12, 2020, 07:59:34 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 12, 2020, 07:21:45 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 07:38:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 11, 2020, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 11, 2020, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 11, 2020, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 11, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
https://madison.com/wsj/business/congestion-frustration-and-delays-come-to-an-end-as-verona-road-project-nears-completion/article_1eb102f0-bfef-5992-bc24-34f0cc5ff182.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The Verona Rd. US 18/151 project in Madison is finally coming to an end!
It's the end of an era in Madison. In my entire life I have not known a world where Verona Road was not at least a little bit under construction. That world is now a reality. I drove it a couple weeks ago and it is quite nice. Worth dealing with the construction? Definitely not. But better really late than never.
Now they just need to implement Phase 3

For those wondering - this was planned to be a free-flowing fly-under for Traffic to-from the East Beltline to Verona Road South (replacing the Jughandle Roundabout).  The state scrapped the plans.

I would be shocked if this ever happened. Honestly, phases 1 and 2 are more than adequate to meet the needs for a long time to come.
Right now the current interchange works fine. I think most of the problem during the construction was not the interchange itself, but the lights at Raymond, Williamsburg, and McKee (McKee especially, that was a war zone at rush hour). Southbound cars would back up in those spots at reds, which would then slow down the Beltline interchange even after the reconstruction to its current form. Now that only one light remains between US-12 and Verona, those backups no longer occur, and suddenly that interchange flows much better. With that being said, Verona is growing quickly and Epic is getting bigger by the day. We'll see how long the current setup works for. Put the over/under at 10 years.
Two lights - the jughandle roundabout and Raymond. (The SPUI doesn't count ;) )

Nevertheless, it is more efficient - I agree with that.  Now if only WisDOT would not post such rediculously low speed limits at traffic lights...

they drop the limit to 40 at the Williamsburg Way Interchange.  (Granted, the ramp is close enough to the Raymond light that you risk crossovers.)

They probably should have grade separated Raymond as well, but other than that the improvements are great.

It's pretty smooth sailing through there now. What could sometimes take 15 minutes to go 2 miles now takes 2 minutes. One downside though, if you can call it that, is you don't get the racing off the blocks from the lights that used to be at PD heading towards Verona to see who could get to 65 first, only to get off right away at the first Verona exit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 13, 2020, 09:08:17 PM
Quote from: mrose on November 10, 2020, 11:04:52 PM
Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 14, 2020, 10:07:02 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 13, 2020, 09:08:17 PM
Quote from: mrose on November 10, 2020, 11:04:52 PM
Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.
Well said. A lot of this thread is about US-12 in some way shape or form, and there's another six page thread also in this board lol. There's a reason why it's all talk. The traffic volumes aren't there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 14, 2020, 10:53:55 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 13, 2020, 09:08:17 PM
Quote from: mrose on November 10, 2020, 11:04:52 PM
Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.


From recent travels the I-39/I-90 widening is progressing well, with multiple sections complete and all lanes open.  It appears by the start of next year most of the work be completed will be at Beloit, maybe some at Janesville and at the US 12/US 18 interchange, though both of those areas appeared to be fairly close to completion.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 15, 2020, 01:34:53 AM


Quote from: Revive 755 on November 14, 2020, 10:53:55 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 13, 2020, 09:08:17 PM
Quote from: mrose on November 10, 2020, 11:04:52 PM
Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

At the Illinois border, it's more like 12,000 vpd, and the intersection is already plenty capable of handling the traffic at that intersection, particularly with the new stop light. That intersection is not the choke point in that area. US-12 is only two lanes a significant distance into Illinois, and it will only feed so many vehicles into Wisconsin. Nothing you do short of four-laning the two-lane stretch of US-12 in IL will fundamentally change that situation. 

North of I-43, you don't need to sell me (or any other local) on a reroute and/or 4-laning of US-12. It is stupid busy north of Elkhorn. Literally the only roadblock here is getting WisDOT funding. 

SM-G950U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 17, 2020, 02:42:40 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 15, 2020, 01:34:53 AM


Quote from: Revive 755 on November 14, 2020, 10:53:55 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 13, 2020, 09:08:17 PM
Quote from: mrose on November 10, 2020, 11:04:52 PM
Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

At the Illinois border, it's more like 12,000 vpd, and the intersection is already plenty capable of handling the traffic at that intersection, particularly with the new stop light. That intersection is not the choke point in that area. US-12 is only two lanes a significant distance into Illinois, and it will only feed so many vehicles into Wisconsin. Nothing you do short of four-laning the two-lane stretch of US-12 in IL will fundamentally change that situation. 

North of I-43, you don't need to sell me (or any other local) on a reroute and/or 4-laning of US-12. It is stupid busy north of Elkhorn. Literally the only roadblock here is getting WisDOT funding. 

SM-G950U

And that entire 'corner cut' between Elkhorn and Whitewater is pretty much clear going through wide-open flat countryside, only needing to cut through a narrow part of the Kettle Moraine forest hill, which is random mixed sand, gravel and rocks - about as easy physical construction conditions as can be imagined.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 17, 2020, 09:50:58 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 17, 2020, 02:42:40 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 15, 2020, 01:34:53 AM


Quote from: Revive 755 on November 14, 2020, 10:53:55 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 13, 2020, 09:08:17 PM
Quote from: mrose on November 10, 2020, 11:04:52 PM
Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

At the Illinois border, it's more like 12,000 vpd, and the intersection is already plenty capable of handling the traffic at that intersection, particularly with the new stop light. That intersection is not the choke point in that area. US-12 is only two lanes a significant distance into Illinois, and it will only feed so many vehicles into Wisconsin. Nothing you do short of four-laning the two-lane stretch of US-12 in IL will fundamentally change that situation. 

North of I-43, you don't need to sell me (or any other local) on a reroute and/or 4-laning of US-12. It is stupid busy north of Elkhorn. Literally the only roadblock here is getting WisDOT funding. 

SM-G950U

And that entire 'corner cut' between Elkhorn and Whitewater is pretty much clear going through wide-open flat countryside, only needing to cut through a narrow part of the Kettle Moraine forest hill, which is random mixed sand, gravel and rocks - about as easy physical construction conditions as can be imagined.

Mike
So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 17, 2020, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 17, 2020, 09:50:58 PM
So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

While this is drifting into fictional, would it be that hard to just start with an improved two lane alignment/corner cut between Whitewater and Elkhorn?  North of Whitewater can wait, though a passing lane or two on County N between US 12 and WI 59 near I-39/I-90 would be nice.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 17, 2020, 11:21:45 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 17, 2020, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 17, 2020, 09:50:58 PM
So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

While this is drifting into fictional, would it be that hard to just start with an improved two lane alignment/corner cut between Whitewater and Elkhorn?  North of Whitewater can wait, though a passing lane or two on County N between US 12 and WI 59 near I-39/I-90 would be nice.

The US 12 Whitewater bypass was designed with building the 'corner cut' in mind.  Like with that bypass, I would be fine with building it as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on November 18, 2020, 02:06:29 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 17, 2020, 09:50:58 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 17, 2020, 02:42:40 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 15, 2020, 01:34:53 AM


Quote from: Revive 755 on November 14, 2020, 10:53:55 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 13, 2020, 09:08:17 PM
Quote from: mrose on November 10, 2020, 11:04:52 PM
Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

At the Illinois border, it's more like 12,000 vpd, and the intersection is already plenty capable of handling the traffic at that intersection, particularly with the new stop light. That intersection is not the choke point in that area. US-12 is only two lanes a significant distance into Illinois, and it will only feed so many vehicles into Wisconsin. Nothing you do short of four-laning the two-lane stretch of US-12 in IL will fundamentally change that situation. 

North of I-43, you don't need to sell me (or any other local) on a reroute and/or 4-laning of US-12. It is stupid busy north of Elkhorn. Literally the only roadblock here is getting WisDOT funding. 

SM-G950U

And that entire 'corner cut' between Elkhorn and Whitewater is pretty much clear going through wide-open flat countryside, only needing to cut through a narrow part of the Kettle Moraine forest hill, which is random mixed sand, gravel and rocks - about as easy physical construction conditions as can be imagined.

Mike
So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

As a Wisconsin taxpayer, 100% this! There are so many more pertinent projects worth pursuing than US 12 south of Whitewater. Plus, isn't there an whole other thread dedicated to US 12?  :poke:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 18, 2020, 02:51:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 17, 2020, 09:50:58 PM
So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

Do the corner cut. Then, make incremental upgrades as needed.

Chances are that US-12 between Cambridge and Whitewater won't see dramatic growth anytime soon - certainly not between Fort Atkinson and Whitewater. What growth you see will likely be on County N, Hwy 20, and US-12 south of Whitewater.

A big chunk of the traffic on US-12/Hwy 67 is NOT heading to Whitewater. You've bought 20-30 years of not having to touch anything in the area before the "Now what?" question come back.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 18, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater as it will never connect to anything regionally. Not sure why some people on here continuously call for it. Upgrade the existing road to a five lane cross section and call it a day. There are bigger issues WisDOT needs to focus on. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on November 18, 2020, 03:59:23 PM
I don't know much about Wisconsin (I'm more of an observer of this thread for various reasons), but why not simply continuing rounding the corner at WI-20/WI-67 north of Lauderdale Lakes?

The overall route is kind of a right angle, but I doubt a straighter alignment would save more than about 5 minutes. Improving the current roadway seems like a much better option.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 18, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 18, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater as it will never connect to anything regionally. Not sure why some people on here continuously call for it. Upgrade the existing road to a five lane cross section and call it a day. There are bigger issues WisDOT needs to focus on. 

It connects to WI 50, a four lane semi-expressway near the south end, and using County N makes a decent shortcut that can provide an alternative route northwest out of Chicagoland.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2020, 03:59:23 PM
I don't know much about Wisconsin (I'm more of an observer of this thread for various reasons), but why not simply continuing rounding the corner at WI-20/WI-67 north of Lauderdale Lakes?

The overall route is kind of a right angle, but I doubt a straighter alignment would save more than about 5 minutes. Improving the current roadway seems like a much better option.

There's a decent amount of development already along the north-south section. (https://goo.gl/maps/W1u461MqnezCAida6) 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on November 18, 2020, 10:55:42 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 18, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2020, 03:59:23 PM
I don't know much about Wisconsin (I'm more of an observer of this thread for various reasons), but why not simply continuing rounding the corner at WI-20/WI-67 north of Lauderdale Lakes?

The overall route is kind of a right angle, but I doubt a straighter alignment would save more than about 5 minutes. Improving the current roadway seems like a much better option.

There's a decent amount of development already along the north-south section. (https://goo.gl/maps/W1u461MqnezCAida6)

I'm sure you meant to link something else? That's a few shops and certainly not a reason to build a new road.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 20, 2020, 08:41:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 18, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 20, 2020, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 20, 2020, 08:41:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 18, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Your suggestion itself is fair, but let's be brutally honest for a minute. The day that the corner cut is finished as a two lane road, what are you going to do? I think I know: "WiSdOt ToTaLlY fLoPpEd On ThE uS-12 pRoJeCt BeCaUsE tHeY dId'Nt MaKe It FoUr LaNeS."  Moral of the story is, you have to be happy with the existing road at some reasonable point. Not everything has to be upgraded and not everything has to be an expressway. How often do you drive the Beltline? It sucks so bad, I would rather pick all the bark off an oak tree with my teeth. If you think that US-12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn needs an upgrade more than the Beltline, well, you're entitled to your opinion but that's a very unpopular opinion.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on November 20, 2020, 03:27:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 20, 2020, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 20, 2020, 08:41:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 18, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Your suggestion itself is fair, but let's be brutally honest for a minute. The day that the corner cut is finished as a two lane road, what are you going to do? I think I know: "WiSdOt ToTaLlY fLoPpEd On ThE uS-12 pRoJeCt BeCaUsE tHeY dId'Nt MaKe It FoUr LaNeS."  Moral of the story is, you have to be happy with the existing road at some reasonable point. Not everything has to be upgraded and not everything has to be an expressway. How often do you drive the Beltline? It sucks so bad, I would rather pick all the bark off an oak tree with my teeth. If you think that US-12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn needs an upgrade more than the Beltline, well, you're entitled to your opinion but that's a very unpopular opinion.

What Madison really needs is some sort of alternative to the Beltline (whether parallel or improving N/S access), but geography and politics make that possibility well beyond impossible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 20, 2020, 09:57:47 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 20, 2020, 03:27:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 20, 2020, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 20, 2020, 08:41:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 18, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Your suggestion itself is fair, but let's be brutally honest for a minute. The day that the corner cut is finished as a two lane road, what are you going to do? I think I know: "WiSdOt ToTaLlY fLoPpEd On ThE uS-12 pRoJeCt BeCaUsE tHeY dId'Nt MaKe It FoUr LaNeS."  Moral of the story is, you have to be happy with the existing road at some reasonable point. Not everything has to be upgraded and not everything has to be an expressway. How often do you drive the Beltline? It sucks so bad, I would rather pick all the bark off an oak tree with my teeth. If you think that US-12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn needs an upgrade more than the Beltline, well, you're entitled to your opinion but that's a very unpopular opinion.

What Madison really needs is some sort of alternative to the Beltline (whether parallel or improving N/S access), but geography and politics make that possibility well beyond impossible.
A North Beltline between 39/90/94 and US-12 roughly along what is now the River Road, CTH-M, and CTH-K corridors could have been built a decade or two ago, but now it's never going to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 20, 2020, 10:46:14 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 20, 2020, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 20, 2020, 08:41:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 18, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Your suggestion itself is fair, but let's be brutally honest for a minute. The day that the corner cut is finished as a two lane road, what are you going to do? I think I know: "WiSdOt ToTaLlY fLoPpEd On ThE uS-12 pRoJeCt BeCaUsE tHeY dId'Nt MaKe It FoUr LaNeS."  Moral of the story is, you have to be happy with the existing road at some reasonable point. Not everything has to be upgraded and not everything has to be an expressway.

I find County N (Whitewater towards I-39/I-90) easier to accept than the north-south section of US 12 north of Elkhorn.  At least County N looks like it has had some improvements made.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on November 21, 2020, 10:32:46 PM
Here's a link to potential reroute plans for Highway 32 in Racine:

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/rerouting-highway-32-so-it-doesnt-include-main-street-could-help-downtown-but-itll-be/article_48f8db56-838b-5819-a7c2-5cb4f8618222.html#tracking-source=home-trending



Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 22, 2020, 12:26:58 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 21, 2020, 10:32:46 PM
Here's a link to potential reroute plans for Highway 32 in Racine:

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/rerouting-highway-32-so-it-doesnt-include-main-street-could-help-downtown-but-itll-be/article_48f8db56-838b-5819-a7c2-5cb4f8618222.html#tracking-source=home-trending
I think the Marquette Street option is a no-brainer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 22, 2020, 12:32:03 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 17, 2020, 11:21:45 PM
The US 12 Whitewater bypass was designed with building the 'corner cut' in mind.  Like with that bypass, I would be fine with building it as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW.

A previous plan for Walworth County indicates the corner cut would have tied in near the eastern end, if not east of the Whitewater Bypass - see https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Transportation/Files/JHSP-walworth/2010-04-25-150858v1-FinalRecWalwCoJHSP-Presentation.pdf (https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Transportation/Files/JHSP-walworth/2010-04-25-150858v1-FinalRecWalwCoJHSP-Presentation.pdf)

The corridor still appears to show up in at least drafts for the long range plan for Milwaukee - see Page 39 of 54 of https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/LUTranSysPlanning/2020-04-29-mtg/VISION2050-2020Update-Chapter4-00252090-4.pdf (https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/LUTranSysPlanning/2020-04-29-mtg/VISION2050-2020Update-Chapter4-00252090-4.pdf)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 22, 2020, 12:41:56 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2020, 12:32:03 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 17, 2020, 11:21:45 PM
The US 12 Whitewater bypass was designed with building the 'corner cut' in mind.  Like with that bypass, I would be fine with building it as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW.

A previous plan for Walworth County indicates the corner cut would have tied in near the eastern end, if not east of the Whitewater Bypass - see https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Transportation/Files/JHSP-walworth/2010-04-25-150858v1-FinalRecWalwCoJHSP-Presentation.pdf (https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Transportation/Files/JHSP-walworth/2010-04-25-150858v1-FinalRecWalwCoJHSP-Presentation.pdf)

The corridor still appears to show up in at least drafts for the long range plan for Milwaukee - see Page 39 of 54 of https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/LUTranSysPlanning/2020-04-29-mtg/VISION2050-2020Update-Chapter4-00252090-4.pdf (https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/LUTranSysPlanning/2020-04-29-mtg/VISION2050-2020Update-Chapter4-00252090-4.pdf)
Cool. We have like 30 replies about US-12 in the last few pages of this thread, and nobody has yet explained to me why the corner cut is justified.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 22, 2020, 10:47:55 PM
^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on November 23, 2020, 06:34:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 22, 2020, 12:26:58 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 21, 2020, 10:32:46 PM
Here's a link to potential reroute plans for Highway 32 in Racine:

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/rerouting-highway-32-so-it-doesnt-include-main-street-could-help-downtown-but-itll-be/article_48f8db56-838b-5819-a7c2-5cb4f8618222.html#tracking-source=home-trending
I think the Marquette Street option is a no-brainer.

A look at Google Maps imagery shows that only northbound traffic uses Marquette north of the Root River. Southbound traffic uses Dr Martin Luther King Drive; streets named after Dr King tend to go through black (or other minority) neighborhoods and a quick check of the Racial Dot Map (http://racialdotmap.demographics.coopercenter.org/) confirms this. I'd doubt the local residents will be thrilled with more truck traffic; the "only 5% more" in the article would be the same going through downtown where it seems to be more than a 5% impact. It's only a no-brainer if the impacted residents aren't considered, though I agree it looks like the easiest and cheapest solution.

I can see this working if the solution is to return Marquette St traffic to two-way traffic (which would slow truck traffic through the neighborhood). If the solution is to keep both Marquette and Dr King one-way north of the river, it's just moving a traffic problem to a poorer area to make everyone else happy.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 23, 2020, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2020, 10:47:55 PM
^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?
That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 23, 2020, 10:59:35 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 23, 2020, 06:34:26 PM
A look at Google Maps imagery shows that only northbound traffic uses Marquette north of the Root River. Southbound traffic uses Dr Martin Luther King Drive; streets named after Dr King tend to go through black (or other minority) neighborhoods and a quick check of the Racial Dot Map (http://racialdotmap.demographics.coopercenter.org/) confirms this. I'd doubt the local residents will be thrilled with more truck traffic; the "only 5% more" in the article would be the same going through downtown where it seems to be more than a 5% impact. It's only a no-brainer if the impacted residents aren't considered, though I agree it looks like the easiest and cheapest solution.
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that it would be okay if the area around Marquette Street was primarily white?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 23, 2020, 11:53:56 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 23, 2020, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2020, 10:47:55 PM
^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?
That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?

US-12/Hwy 67 has AVERAGE daily traffic ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 vpd (via https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html (https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html)). It's high enough that WisDOT put a permanent traffic counter in to measure that traffic. That's well within the range justifying 4 lanes.

This area has a high number of summer properties and associated tourist traffic. So frequently, that traffic load is considerably higher. Woe be the poor sucker who has to cross US-12/Hwy 67 during those times. On one occasion. I was trying to follow County ES and was held up for a solid 10 minutes trying to cross US-12/Hwy 67.

WisDOT has a few options to address it. The do-nothing option is becoming increasingly untenable.

WisDOT could make a 4-lane boulevard and put in a bunch of traffic lights at the bigger intersections. Given the limited right-of-way and current development near the highway, that's an expensive undertaking. It also slows traffic and takes away from the rural, scenic character of the area.

Much of the traffic choking this stretch is not local tourist traffic - it's regional traffic trying to go elsewhere - for instance, Whitewater. There's a large UW campus there. There's also considerable manufacturing presence there, including Generac.

The so-called "Corner Cut" takes this regional traffic off the existing US-12/Hwy 67. Now the traffic on that road is primarily people with a local destination. Take 4,000 to 5,000 vpd off that stretch (a not unreasonable assumption), and you've fixed a lot of problems without having to widen the existing road. A Super-2 highway on 4-lane right-of-way (much like the Whitewater bypass or the Hwy 11 Janesville bypass) will solve a lot of traffic headaches in the area for decades, and make things easier later on if a widening is eventually necessary.

It's costs are a drop in the bucket compared with the costs of widening the Beltline or widening I-94 in Milwaukee. 10 miles of 2-lane highway on new ROW in a rural area isn't going to bust WisDOT's budget, especially considering some of the other area projects they've built (Hwy 26, Burlington bypass, etc). Ignoring this isn't going to magically free up cash that makes a dent in the Beltline's traffic issues.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 24, 2020, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 23, 2020, 11:53:56 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 23, 2020, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2020, 10:47:55 PM
^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?
That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?

US-12/Hwy 67 has AVERAGE daily traffic ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 vpd (via https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html (https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html)). It's high enough that WisDOT put a permanent traffic counter in to measure that traffic. That's well within the range justifying 4 lanes.
There are several other two lane roads in the state with a higher VPD and more potential for that VPD to increase. For instance, WI-19 between Windsor and Waunakee. For a decade that was a traditional two lane road with counts approaching 20,000. Now it is being widened but only from Windsor to River Road. Windsor and Waunakee are two of the state's fastest growing communities. Why should US-12 take precedent there? There are other roads just within that part of the state that have higher counts than US-12. US-14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. WI-113 between CTH-M and WI-19. I could go on.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on November 24, 2020, 09:56:48 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 24, 2020, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 23, 2020, 11:53:56 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 23, 2020, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2020, 10:47:55 PM
^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?
That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?

US-12/Hwy 67 has AVERAGE daily traffic ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 vpd (via https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html (https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html)). It's high enough that WisDOT put a permanent traffic counter in to measure that traffic. That's well within the range justifying 4 lanes.
There are several other two lane roads in the state with a higher VPD and more potential for that VPD to increase. For instance, WI-19 between Windsor and Waunakee. For a decade that was a traditional two lane road with counts approaching 20,000. Now it is being widened but only from Windsor to River Road. Windsor and Waunakee are two of the state's fastest growing communities. Why should US-12 take precedent there? There are other roads just within that part of the state that have higher counts than US-12. US-14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. WI-113 between CTH-M and WI-19. I could go on.

I think the design of US-12 should be considered here. The stretch of road north form Elkhorn is full of hills and blind curves. The side roads also have a lot of cross traffic which creates conflicts at intersections.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on November 24, 2020, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 23, 2020, 10:59:35 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 23, 2020, 06:34:26 PM
A look at Google Maps imagery shows that only northbound traffic uses Marquette north of the Root River. Southbound traffic uses Dr Martin Luther King Drive; streets named after Dr King tend to go through black (or other minority) neighborhoods and a quick check of the Racial Dot Map (http://racialdotmap.demographics.coopercenter.org/) confirms this. I'd doubt the local residents will be thrilled with more truck traffic; the "only 5% more" in the article would be the same going through downtown where it seems to be more than a 5% impact. It's only a no-brainer if the impacted residents aren't considered, though I agree it looks like the easiest and cheapest solution.
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that it would be okay if the area around Marquette Street was primarily white?

No. I'm saying the planners have two different stories; one story to the Marquette neighborhood residents and a different one to everyone else. This is similar to freeway planners in earlier times telling of all the wonderful development produced by ramming a freeway through the middle of urban neighborhoods when those freeways often destroyed neighborhoods in cities (e.g., New Orleans Treme, Detroit Paradise Valley, etc.), a main reason behind the freeway revolts of the 60's and 70's.

The article doesn't state if there was any local opposition by Marquette residents in the town hall. I have a difficult time believing there was no local opposition.

Again, two different stories for two different audiences. Planners are saying how all the truck traffic is clogging downtown, yet moving that same traffic will only be a drop in the bucket to the neighborhood. I'm calling "shenanigans" like the kids on South Park.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on November 24, 2020, 06:07:34 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 23, 2020, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2020, 10:47:55 PM
^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?
That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?


I know, it takes us away from our true purpose here of discussing projects on US 41 in the state......  :spin:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 24, 2020, 07:52:51 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 24, 2020, 08:50:51 AM
There are several other two lane roads in the state with a higher VPD and more potential for that VPD to increase. For instance, WI-19 between Windsor and Waunakee. For a decade that was a traditional two lane road with counts approaching 20,000. Now it is being widened but only from Windsor to River Road. Windsor and Waunakee are two of the state's fastest growing communities. Why should US-12 take precedent there? There are other roads just within that part of the state that have higher counts than US-12. US-14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. WI-113 between CTH-M and WI-19. I could go on.

Point being?

WisDOT has plenty of needs. US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater is just one of them. That need isn't negated because there happens to be other ares with greater need. But you've aptly described why this particular section has been passed over for upgrades.

Perhaps with projects like I-39/90 winding down, there will be funds available to move some of these projects forward.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 24, 2020, 09:12:38 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 24, 2020, 07:52:51 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 24, 2020, 08:50:51 AM
There are several other two lane roads in the state with a higher VPD and more potential for that VPD to increase. For instance, WI-19 between Windsor and Waunakee. For a decade that was a traditional two lane road with counts approaching 20,000. Now it is being widened but only from Windsor to River Road. Windsor and Waunakee are two of the state's fastest growing communities. Why should US-12 take precedent there? There are other roads just within that part of the state that have higher counts than US-12. US-14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. WI-113 between CTH-M and WI-19. I could go on.

Point being?

WisDOT has plenty of needs. US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater is just one of them. That need isn't negated because there happens to be other ares with greater need. But you've aptly described why this particular section has been passed over for upgrades.

Perhaps with projects like I-39/90 winding down, there will be funds available to move some of these projects forward.
If WISDOT has so many funds available and US-12 is in such a big need for an upgrade, then why isn't there serious talk about doing that? The point is, you can't do everything. There might be a road here or there that could use an upgrade but isn't getting one. Use WI-23 between FDL and Plymouth as an example. That road was in need of an upgrade for at least a decade. That project has barely started. We're just going to need to live with having to drive like four extra miles on that stretch of US-12.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 25, 2020, 08:16:52 PM
Right. You can't do EVERYTHING, thspfc. No one is saying you can. But ignoring a problem that has existed in the last 20 years is no solution either. You rattled off a ton of projects in and around Dane County that should be done. Are you going to tell us that US 12, a freaking US Highway that does not parallel an interstate in that part of the state, should be a lower priority than Wis 113 which does have 39/90/94 within a few miles and a 4 lane US 12 within a few miles in the other direction? As much as you may want to believe that 12 is not a regional road, it is. And the traffic volume indicates that.

Doing US 12 as a Super 2 rural boulevard between Elkhorn and Whitewater with ROW for 4 lanes would push that need for anymore upgrades to US 12 back a few decades.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 26, 2020, 08:01:19 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 25, 2020, 08:16:52 PM
Right. You can't do EVERYTHING, thspfc. No one is saying you can. But ignoring a problem that has existed in the last 20 years is no solution either. You rattled off a ton of projects in and around Dane County that should be done. Are you going to tell us that US 12, a freaking US Highway that does not parallel an interstate in that part of the state, should be a lower priority than Wis 113 which does have 39/90/94 within a few miles and a 4 lane US 12 within a few miles in the other direction? As much as you may want to believe that 12 is not a regional road, it is. And the traffic volume indicates that.

Doing US 12 as a Super 2 rural boulevard between Elkhorn and Whitewater with ROW for 4 lanes would push that need for anymore upgrades to US 12 back a few decades.
The traffic flows and patterns of the roads I mentioned are distinct and not impacted by the presence of more important roads nearby. Neither is US-12. I don't doubt that US-12 is a regional road. Just because it is a US highway doesn't mean anything (example: WI-26).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 26, 2020, 09:45:45 AM
Ok, so far I've seen both four lanes is needed on US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater, yet, US 12 can do with a new super 2 initially. Which is it?

How about if we want to continue this discussion, we resurrect this thread so we don't keep spamming the Wisconsin thread with this?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16338.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16338.0)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 02, 2020, 03:01:53 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2532479,-92.6973194,3a,15y,129.96h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNa4waJkCkUSWm0JHAQocQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Wisconsin has ATV highways?! (Wonder what that little yellow sign says too...)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on December 02, 2020, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 02, 2020, 03:01:53 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2532479,-92.6973194,3a,15y,129.96h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNa4waJkCkUSWm0JHAQocQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Wisconsin has ATV highways?! (Wonder what that little yellow sign says too...)

Each municipality is allowed to designate certain roads as ATV routes. That yellow sign says that ATVs must remain on the pavement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 03, 2020, 12:25:10 AM
Quote
What Madison really needs is some sort of alternative to the Beltline (whether parallel or improving N/S access), but geography and politics make that possibility well beyond impossible.

The cities of Madison and Middleton are working to upgrade Pleasant View Rd to 4 lanes between US 14 and County M/Junction Rd and is scheduled between 2022-2026. The plans can be found on the City of Madison website. The County M section of Pleasant View Rd was upgraded to 4-6 lanes between Verona and Junction Rd.

County PD/McKee Rd is now 4 lanes between Northern Lights Rd and County D/Fish Hatchery Rd. Those 2 routes are Beltline Alternatives. Between Fish Hatchery Rd and I-39/I-90, wetlands and Lake Waubesa prevent an alternate route from being built. That section needs an alternate route the most since The Beltline is the only continuous east/west route in the area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 03, 2020, 10:47:47 AM
Olive Street in Alma might actually be steeper than Baldwin Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3210526,-91.9150283,3a,28y,26.14h,89.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAK0vDpBbs4yVEzCPibeF6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

EDIT: Alma actually has a lot of these :-o

EDIT 2: What the... ? (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.313217,-91.9112904,3a,37.5y,78.55h,91.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv1PatOL7EHjck-1vxbVEWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on December 03, 2020, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 03, 2020, 10:47:47 AM
Olive Street in Alma might actually be steeper than Baldwin Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3210526,-91.9150283,3a,28y,26.14h,89.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAK0vDpBbs4yVEzCPibeF6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

That's not too unusual. In grid cities with steep areas, some parts of the grid are too steep for vehicles, so they became pedestrian-only routes, typically utilizing stairs. Seattle has a ton of these (example here (https://goo.gl/maps/dYZ8MkkXqG6hifMn8)). Though unlike that Alma example, those in Seattle are marked with pedestrian symbols on the street blade to indicate a pedestrian-only road (which is really not a road but actually just a small path, but it remains part of the grid).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 03, 2020, 02:46:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2020, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 03, 2020, 10:47:47 AM
Olive Street in Alma might actually be steeper than Baldwin Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3210526,-91.9150283,3a,28y,26.14h,89.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAK0vDpBbs4yVEzCPibeF6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

That's not too unusual. In grid cities with steep areas, some parts of the grid are too steep for vehicles, so they became pedestrian-only routes, typically utilizing stairs. Seattle has a ton of these (example here (https://goo.gl/maps/dYZ8MkkXqG6hifMn8)). Though unlike that Alma example, those in Seattle are marked with pedestrian symbols on the street blade to indicate a pedestrian-only road (which is really not a road but actually just a small path, but it remains part of the grid).

Is signing pedestrian-only routes as if they were actually drivable streets unusual?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on December 03, 2020, 06:20:06 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 03, 2020, 02:46:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2020, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 03, 2020, 10:47:47 AM
Olive Street in Alma might actually be steeper than Baldwin Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3210526,-91.9150283,3a,28y,26.14h,89.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAK0vDpBbs4yVEzCPibeF6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

That's not too unusual. In grid cities with steep areas, some parts of the grid are too steep for vehicles, so they became pedestrian-only routes, typically utilizing stairs. Seattle has a ton of these (example here (https://goo.gl/maps/dYZ8MkkXqG6hifMn8)). Though unlike that Alma example, those in Seattle are marked with pedestrian symbols on the street blade to indicate a pedestrian-only road (which is really not a road but actually just a small path, but it remains part of the grid).

Is signing pedestrian-only routes as if they were actually drivable streets unusual?
I don't think so.  I'm thinking San Francisco.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on December 03, 2020, 09:58:29 PM
IMO if they're not drivable by car then they're paths, not streets. It's the 21st century and cars rule. So anyone know what the steepest actual street is in WI?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: kphoger on December 03, 2020, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 03, 2020, 09:58:29 PM
IMO if they're not drivable by car then they're paths, not streets. It's the 21st century and cars rule.

It's the 21st century, and plenty of cities have designated some downtown and trendy-area streets as pedestrian-only.  It's the 21 century and cars don't rule everywhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on December 03, 2020, 11:59:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 03, 2020, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 03, 2020, 09:58:29 PM
IMO if they're not drivable by car then they're paths, not streets. It's the 21st century and cars rule.

It's the 21st century, and plenty of cities have designated some downtown and trendy-area streets as pedestrian-only.  It's the 21 century and cars don't rule everywhere.

Nail on the head. Cars don't need access to every street. Particularly those that they couldn't possible traverse anyways. Doesn't mean that street can't be signed as part of the grid.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on December 04, 2020, 08:29:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2020, 11:59:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 03, 2020, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 03, 2020, 09:58:29 PM
IMO if they're not drivable by car then they're paths, not streets. It's the 21st century and cars rule.

It's the 21st century, and plenty of cities have designated some downtown and trendy-area streets as pedestrian-only.  It's the 21 century and cars don't rule everywhere.

Nail on the head. Cars don't need access to every street. Particularly those that they couldn't possible traverse anyways. Doesn't mean that street can't be signed as part of the grid.
Seeing the definition of "street", you're right. So my question is, what is the steepest street in WI that is drivable by car?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 08, 2020, 08:40:40 PM
The TPC met today to discuss potential new projects today. They recommended dropping I-94 expansion in St. Croix Co and US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater from majors consideration. They recommended studying expanding I-90/I-94 between Wis Dells and Madison again and reviving I-94 in Milwaukee.

They're approving a new Wisconsin River Bridge for over $100
Million on I-39/90/94 and US 51 mostly as a 2 lane reconstruct between McFarland and I-39/I-90. In short no new "exciting"  projects.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 08, 2020, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 08, 2020, 08:40:40 PM
The TPC met today to discuss potential new projects today. They recommended dropping I-94 expansion in St. Croix Co and US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater from majors consideration. They recommended studying expanding I-90/I-94 between Wis Dells and Madison again and reviving I-94 in Milwaukee.

They're approving a new Wisconsin River Bridge for over $100
Million on I-39/90/94 and US 51 mostly as a 2 lane reconstruct between McFarland and I-39/I-90. In short no new "exciting"  projects.

I-90/94 between the Dells and Madison and I-94/Milwaukee should have never been dropped in the first place. That was a head scratcher to say the least.

What about a Sauk City bypass on US 12? Surely, that ought to gain some traction now that the restriction has been lifted and the need is there.

Is there a list of meeting minutes anywhere?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2020, 09:39:31 PM
Here is the meeting's information binder: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2020-binder.pdf.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 08, 2020, 10:11:26 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 08, 2020, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 08, 2020, 08:40:40 PM
The TPC met today to discuss potential new projects today. They recommended dropping I-94 expansion in St. Croix Co and US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater from majors consideration. They recommended studying expanding I-90/I-94 between Wis Dells and Madison again and reviving I-94 in Milwaukee.

They're approving a new Wisconsin River Bridge for over $100
Million on I-39/90/94 and US 51 mostly as a 2 lane reconstruct between McFarland and I-39/I-90. In short no new "exciting"  projects.

I-90/94 between the Dells and Madison and I-94/Milwaukee should have never been dropped in the first place. That was a head scratcher to say the least.

What about a Sauk City bypass on US 12? Surely, that ought to gain some traction now that the restriction has been lifted and the need is there.

Is there a list of meeting minutes anywhere?

You can watch the meeting below:

https://youtu.be/if49Z8ciZB0


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: fuller523 on December 09, 2020, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 08, 2020, 08:40:40 PM
The TPC met today to discuss potential new projects today. They recommended dropping I-94 expansion in St. Croix Co and US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater from majors consideration. They recommended studying expanding I-90/I-94 between Wis Dells and Madison again and reviving I-94 in Milwaukee.

They're approving a new Wisconsin River Bridge for over $100
Million on I-39/90/94 and US 51 mostly as a 2 lane reconstruct between McFarland and I-39/I-90. In short no new "exciting"  projects.

Well, there goes the US-12 corner cut to Whitewater.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 09, 2020, 07:50:13 PM
Given the amount of money that was already invested in preparing I-94 for six-laning east of Hudson, that sucks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on December 09, 2020, 08:40:40 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 08, 2020, 08:40:40 PM
The TPC met today to discuss potential new projects today. They recommended dropping I-94 expansion in St. Croix Co and US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater from majors consideration. They recommended studying expanding I-90/I-94 between Wis Dells and Madison again and reviving I-94 in Milwaukee.

They're approving a new Wisconsin River Bridge for over $100
Million on I-39/90/94 and US 51 mostly as a 2 lane reconstruct between McFarland and I-39/I-90. In short no new "exciting"  projects.
How many times have they studied I-94 from the Dells to Madison? Hopefully this is the time when they finally do something about it, particularly between the Cascade Interchange and the official tourism exit of Wisconsin (a.k.a. the US-12 Baraboo/Lake Delton exit). Expansion of the triplex is a hot topic here and in the past I've been against it, but it can't wait much longer. It's not as dire of a need as the aforementioned stretch though. On the off chance that any work is done on I-94 in Milwaukee (politics, not gonna get into it), that would be the end of an amazing three (!) year period of no major construction of Milwaukee's freeways. I'm not gonna hold my breath though.

I haven't driven US-51 along that stretch recently but I recall there being work on the stretch from Stoughton to I-90 near Edgerton not long ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 13, 2020, 09:52:41 PM
Another piece of the I-39/90 rebuild off the checklist: Ryan Rd. in Janesville under I-39/90 is open to traffic. This will be a critical link for local traffic while Hwy 26 and US-14 are rebuilt in the next couple of years.
https://www.facebook.com/WisconsinI3990Project/photos/a.140941179370711/2047040845427392/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 14, 2020, 10:14:49 AM
And in related news to the I-39/90 project:

https://www.beloitdailynews.com/news/local-news/interstate-construction-ahead-of-schedule-heading-into-final-year/article_5b27efa5-d147-5303-8802-2e7a91b8474e.html?fbclid=IwAR1vfdPpBhnNuc2OMrMNpZd3RlHlO3obeKComPnmr7jNIxnqpHJpbQNNj28
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 16, 2020, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2020, 09:39:31 PM
Here is the meeting's information binder: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2020-binder.pdf.

This document has some delightful things in it; especially when they compile facts about 39/90/94.
I encourage people to skip to page 112 in particular which contains a graphic that puts the lifespan of the Wisconsin River bridge into the context of Green Bay Packers quarterbacks over the years. :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on December 16, 2020, 08:09:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 16, 2020, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2020, 09:39:31 PM
Here is the meeting's information binder: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2020-binder.pdf.

This document has some delightful things in it; especially when they compile facts about 39/90/94.
I encourage people to skip to page 112 in particular which contains a graphic that puts the lifespan of the Wisconsin River bridge into the context of Green Bay Packers quarterbacks over the years. :-D

It would have been funnier if they used Bears QBs. Let's hear it for Billy Wade, Jim Harbaugh, and Smokin' Jay Cutler.  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:33 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 16, 2020, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2020, 09:39:31 PM
Here is the meeting's information binder: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2020-binder.pdf.

This document has some delightful things in it; especially when they compile facts about 39/90/94.
I encourage people to skip to page 112 in particular which contains a graphic that puts the lifespan of the Wisconsin River bridge into the context of Green Bay Packers quarterbacks over the years. :-D

In seriousness, I wonder if they will consider an expansion to four lanes in each direction from the Beltline to the I-39 split off?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 17, 2020, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 16, 2020, 08:09:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 16, 2020, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2020, 09:39:31 PM
Here is the meeting's information binder: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2020-binder.pdf.

This document has some delightful things in it; especially when they compile facts about 39/90/94.
I encourage people to skip to page 112 in particular which contains a graphic that puts the lifespan of the Wisconsin River bridge into the context of Green Bay Packers quarterbacks over the years. :-D

It would have been funnier if they used Bears QBs. Let's hear it for Billy Wade, Jim Harbaugh, and Smokin' Jay Cutler.  :-D

How many different starting QBs did the Bears go through during Brett Favre's tenure?

:hmmm:

Anyways, what I find most remarkable is that the outer portions of that bridge have been in service for nearly *60* years (when it was upgraded to six lanes in the 1980s, it was widened in the median of the original four lane highway).  Amazing!

:wow:

And yes, I fully agree with replacing and upgrading it to eight lanes, even if six would be opened at the start.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 18, 2020, 10:00:10 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:33 PM
In seriousness, I wonder if they will consider an expansion to four lanes in each direction from the Beltline to the I-39 split off?

I think that is most definitely on the table.  It was discussed in that study before it was shelved.  Some of us speculated that WisDOT floated a new-terrain I-94 built east and north of Sun Prairie and DeForest as a way to soft-peddle the expansion of the triplex to 8 lanes.  Make it seem like the more reasonable option, you know?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2020, 02:45:33 PM
Building a new-terrain freeway via the original study seemed very unlikely to me. Widening 39/90/94 to 8 lanes was the most likely route for the DOT to take. Even the proposed replacement of the Wisconsin River Bridge will allow provisions for a fourth general-purpose lane in each direction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on December 19, 2020, 10:05:12 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 18, 2020, 10:00:10 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:33 PM
In seriousness, I wonder if they will consider an expansion to four lanes in each direction from the Beltline to the I-39 split off?

I think that is most definitely on the table.  It was discussed in that study before it was shelved.  Some of us speculated that WisDOT floated a new-terrain I-94 built east and north of Sun Prairie and DeForest as a way to soft-peddle the expansion of the triplex to 8 lanes.  Make it seem like the more reasonable option, you know?
Yeah, that was interesting for like 10 minutes, and then reality set in. It's almost impossible to build new Interstates from scratch nowadays. Even I-11, I-69, and the North Carolinan madness arose from existing roads that were previously at or near Interstate standards.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 19, 2020, 12:36:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 19, 2020, 10:05:12 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 18, 2020, 10:00:10 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:33 PM
In seriousness, I wonder if they will consider an expansion to four lanes in each direction from the Beltline to the I-39 split off?

I think that is most definitely on the table.  It was discussed in that study before it was shelved.  Some of us speculated that WisDOT floated a new-terrain I-94 built east and north of Sun Prairie and DeForest as a way to soft-peddle the expansion of the triplex to 8 lanes.  Make it seem like the more reasonable option, you know?
Yeah, that was interesting for like 10 minutes, and then reality set in. It's almost impossible to build new Interstates from scratch nowadays. Even I-11, I-69, and the North Carolinan madness arose from existing roads that were previously at or near Interstate standards.

Ditto I-39 north of Portage and I-41.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 30, 2020, 09:19:56 PM
I just noticed on Google Maps that STH-23 (between Fond du Lac and Plymouth) is now shown as a four-lane divided highway from just east of Division Rd. to where the four-lane previously reduced to two lanes just west of CTH-P.

Western Terminus: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7743387,-88.1511823,1669m/data=!3m1!1e3.

Eastern Terminus: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7686211,-88.034474,1670m/data=!3m1!1e3.

Hopefully, as more of the roadway is four-laned, the map will be updated to show it. Unfortunately, the Street View along that stretch of STH-23 was last updated in November 2018. Who knows how long before "the Google car" goes along that corridor again?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 30, 2020, 11:04:59 PM
^^
Well, it is under construction and should be completed by this time next year.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on December 31, 2020, 09:08:20 PM
I used to travel to Sheboygan a lot, and I always found that stretch of WI-23 interesting. I wonder if a resurfacing of the existing four lane highway between US-151 and the top of the hill will be part of the project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 03, 2021, 02:47:07 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 31, 2020, 09:08:20 PM
I used to travel to Sheboygan a lot, and I always found that stretch of WI-23 interesting. I wonder if a resurfacing of the existing four lane highway between US-151 and the top of the hill will be part of the project.

The existing 4 lane stretch is set to be reconstructed including a jug handle interchange with County K and a roundabout with a side street just east of the US 151 interchange. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 03:11:14 PM
There will also be interchanges at CTH-UU and at CTH-G. Those new interchanges and all of the existing interchanges further east on STH-23 (CTH-C, STH-67, STH-57, STH-32, CTH-Y, Interstate 43, and N. Taylor Dr. in Sheboygan), should all have exit numbers based on the mileage from STH-23's southern terminus at STH-11 five miles east of Shullsburg.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on January 06, 2021, 11:38:33 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 03:11:14 PM
There will also be interchanges at CTH-UU and at CTH-G. Those new interchanges and all of the existing interchanges further east on STH-23 (CTH-C, STH-67, STH-57, STH-32, CTH-Y, Interstate 43, and N. Taylor Dr. in Sheboygan), should all have exit numbers based on the mileage from STH-23's southern terminus at STH-11 five miles east of Shullsburg.
No interchange at CTH-W?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on January 06, 2021, 02:11:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-KcKqw1A8

The "Flex Lane" project on the Beltline in Madison is "officially" going ahead with construction to start in March 2021 and to be completed by December 2021. This will be the first one in the state, and if successful, WisDOT might use this technology in other areas with high amounts of traffic with no room to widen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:47 PM
Is it sad that my takeaway from that video was wondering why they blued out the I-35W in their photo of a (formerly) real life functioning example?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on January 06, 2021, 08:28:11 PM
I find it rather odd they are using a yellow "X" to warn of a merge and not an arrow as used elsewhere. I think an arrow is a bit clearer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on January 08, 2021, 11:22:58 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.
I think everyone is in agreement with this. Rimrock and Seminole especially, but I would get rid of Todd Drive and keep Fish Hatchery. Parmenter and Greenway in Middleton are also pretty redundant.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on January 08, 2021, 11:51:32 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

I wish I could like this 1,000 times!

This is what people don't seem to understand, not just here, but in freeways and major arterials around the country. What causes congestion is not necessarily the number of lanes (though it can be a factor), but more often than not, its the number of access points! Transportation authorities and other agencies put too many interchanges, stoplights, etc, close together. This causes unsafe weaving conditions and major backups as it prevents a meaningful flow of traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on January 08, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
Quote from: thspfc on January 08, 2021, 11:22:58 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.
I think everyone is in agreement with this. Rimrock and Seminole especially, but I would get rid of Todd Drive and keep Fish Hatchery. Parmenter and Greenway in Middleton are also pretty redundant.

I'm fine with your idea but I doubt there's room for C-D lanes between Fish Hatchery and Park. The distance between the roads is maybe a half mile and IIRC it's the worst area outside the never-ending cluster**** at Verona Road/ Midvale. (It's been 10 years since I went that way so I don't know if the recent construction has helped; I'm not counting on it.) I really wouldn't want to keep both interchanges without C-D lanes or other mitigation which would add significantly to any upgrading costs. They'd probably have to take all the businesses along Ann St, though there's nothing there that couldn't be relocated.

I'm not familiar enough with the Beltline in Middleton to have a valid opinion (I was a poor college student without a car at the time), but looking at the map I'd say you're correct and would probably just get rid of the Greenway interchange too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 08, 2021, 10:51:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on January 08, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
Quote from: thspfc on January 08, 2021, 11:22:58 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.
I think everyone is in agreement with this. Rimrock and Seminole especially, but I would get rid of Todd Drive and keep Fish Hatchery. Parmenter and Greenway in Middleton are also pretty redundant.

I'm fine with your idea but I doubt there's room for C-D lanes between Fish Hatchery and Park. The distance between the roads is maybe a half mile and IIRC it's the worst area outside the never-ending cluster**** at Verona Road/ Midvale. (It's been 10 years since I went that way so I don't know if the recent construction has helped; I'm not counting on it.) I really wouldn't want to keep both interchanges without C-D lanes or other mitigation which would add significantly to any upgrading costs. They'd probably have to take all the businesses along Ann St, though there's nothing there that couldn't be relocated.

I'm not familiar enough with the Beltline in Middleton to have a valid opinion (I was a poor college student without a car at the time), but looking at the map I'd say you're correct and would probably just get rid of the Greenway interchange too.
The Midvale-Verona interchange is now a SPUI with a roundabout jughandle following that on Verona. then 1 at-grade before the freeway starts (extended across McKee and under Williamsburg Way)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 09, 2021, 01:01:41 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

The Rimrock Rd Interchange is very busy and getting rid of it would inconvenience a lot of people. There are quite a few people that depend on it south of The Beltline. I personally used it every work day before having to work from home. If you get rid of that interchange it would cause way more problems on John Nolen Dr since so many people would have to turn left to get onto Rimrock when hardly anyone needs to now. Has anyone thought of that traffic issue that removing the Rimrock Interchange would cause?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on January 09, 2021, 02:04:42 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 09, 2021, 01:01:41 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

The Rimrock Rd Interchange is very busy and getting rid of it would inconvenience a lot of people. There are quite a few people that depend on it south of The Beltline. I personally used it every work day before having to work from home. If you get rid of that interchange it would cause way more problems on John Nolen Dr since so many people would have to turn left to get onto Rimrock when hardly anyone needs to now. Has anyone thought of that traffic issue that removing the Rimrock Interchange would cause?

Rimrock should be closed because it's too close to the exits on either side (the Beltline viaducts at Park and John Nolan are only 6800' apart as measured on Google Earth) and the least busy of the three busy exits (https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e12a4f051de4ea9bc865ec6393731f8). It would never have been built if the Beltline was being planned today. Yes, it inconveniences a lot of people but not that significantly; it's not like drivers are forced miles out of their way. Much of the traffic coming from/going to points west could use the underused (about 3,000/day on each ramp) US 14 McCoy Road exit if the John Nolen/ Rimrock intersection is too troublesome for the drivers. The less busy ramps to/from points east can be accessed the same way for those coming from the south, those closer south of the highway can exit at South Towne Drive/ Raymond Road, or John Nolan if they're north of the highway. These two ramps may be less a problem because of the continuous extra lane between Rimrock and John Nolan, but Rimrock to Park is far too close even with the extra mitigation lanes. I doubt removing Rimrock adds more than three minutes to any driver's commute. A lot of people are inconvenienced by highway upgrades, but most drivers will benefit by the significantly better traffic flow on the Beltline. In this case, a few people's inconvenience of having to drive a couple extra minutes to get to a freeway is as First World Problem as it gets. If the inconvenienced person is you, it may be of some consolation that I went through the same thing when Virginia closed the entrance onto the MLK Freeway in Portsmouth out of my Shea Terrace neighborhood as part of the Pinner's Point Interchange construction which added almost two minutes to my drive normally (but 5-10 during the morning rush).

I believe the traffic counts support thspfc's argument for keeping Fish Hatchery; over 11K to/from all directions on the Beltline though strangely the least busy movement on the Beltline (from WB) is the only one with two ramps. He's probably right that it would be better to close the Todd Drive exit. It's too bad that Dane County didn't extend Todd Drive down to Fish Hatchery back when Crazy TV Lenny was doing all those American TV ads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 11, 2021, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

Remove the Fish Hatchery Rd Interchange?! No way that would happen and that would cause all sorts of problems. It's Fitchburg's Main Street and 40,000 VPD travel on Fish Hatchery Rd in the Beltline Area.

Good thing that all this talk is fictional and the only interchange that plans on being removed is the Seminole Hwy Interchange. Removing all these interchanges would make driving very difficult for me and along with many other people who live on the south side of Madison and Fitchburg.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2021, 03:06:10 PM
There is a Beltline Corridor Study ongoing (US 14 to CTH N): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx. There haven't been any updates as to what they might do to the corridor since the last public involvement meetings in the fall of 2015.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on January 11, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2021, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

Remove the Fish Hatchery Rd Interchange?! No way that would happen and that would cause all sorts of problems. It's Fitchburg's Main Street and 40,000 VPD travel on Fish Hatchery Rd in the Beltline Area.

Good thing that all this talk is fictional and the only interchange that plans on being removed is the Seminole Hwy Interchange. Removing all these interchanges would make driving very difficult for me and along with many other people who live on the south side of Madison and Fitchburg.

Is Seminole highway actually confirmed to be removed?

What about removing Todd Drive as well?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on January 11, 2021, 06:29:59 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 11, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2021, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

Remove the Fish Hatchery Rd Interchange?! No way that would happen and that would cause all sorts of problems. It's Fitchburg's Main Street and 40,000 VPD travel on Fish Hatchery Rd in the Beltline Area.

Good thing that all this talk is fictional and the only interchange that plans on being removed is the Seminole Hwy Interchange. Removing all these interchanges would make driving very difficult for me and along with many other people who live on the south side of Madison and Fitchburg.

Is Seminole highway actually confirmed to be removed?

What about removing Todd Drive as well?
Todd needs to go. There are so many accidents in the area of that interchange.

I agree with Peter's assessment of Fish Hatchery. Going off his points about the Rimrock interchange, I think that the Rimrock interchange could be removed if the John Nolen interchange was rebuilt similarily to the Verona Road interchange. But to be honest, I don't see any changes to Rimrock or John Nolen for a very long time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 14, 2021, 03:00:32 AM
Quote from: I-39 on January 11, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2021, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

Remove the Fish Hatchery Rd Interchange?! No way that would happen and that would cause all sorts of problems. It's Fitchburg's Main Street and 40,000 VPD travel on Fish Hatchery Rd in the Beltline Area.

Good thing that all this talk is fictional and the only interchange that plans on being removed is the Seminole Hwy Interchange. Removing all these interchanges would make driving very difficult for me and along with many other people who live on the south side of Madison and Fitchburg.

Is Seminole highway actually confirmed to be removed?

What about removing Todd Drive as well?

The Seminole Hwy Interchange will be removed once the US 18/US 151 Verona Rd Phase 3 portion of the project gets constructed in order for high speed ramps to be constructed. That is many years away.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on January 14, 2021, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 14, 2021, 03:00:32 AM
Quote from: I-39 on January 11, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2021, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

Remove the Fish Hatchery Rd Interchange?! No way that would happen and that would cause all sorts of problems. It's Fitchburg's Main Street and 40,000 VPD travel on Fish Hatchery Rd in the Beltline Area.

Good thing that all this talk is fictional and the only interchange that plans on being removed is the Seminole Hwy Interchange. Removing all these interchanges would make driving very difficult for me and along with many other people who live on the south side of Madison and Fitchburg.

Is Seminole highway actually confirmed to be removed?

What about removing Todd Drive as well?

The Seminole Hwy Interchange will be removed once the US 18/US 151 Verona Rd Phase 3 portion of the project gets constructed in order for high speed ramps to be constructed. That is many years away.

I don't think Phase 3 will be done ever. They may as well just remove the ramps now, along with Todd Drive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on January 14, 2021, 12:42:02 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 14, 2021, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 14, 2021, 03:00:32 AM
Quote from: I-39 on January 11, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2021, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

Remove the Fish Hatchery Rd Interchange?! No way that would happen and that would cause all sorts of problems. It's Fitchburg's Main Street and 40,000 VPD travel on Fish Hatchery Rd in the Beltline Area.

Good thing that all this talk is fictional and the only interchange that plans on being removed is the Seminole Hwy Interchange. Removing all these interchanges would make driving very difficult for me and along with many other people who live on the south side of Madison and Fitchburg.

Is Seminole highway actually confirmed to be removed?

What about removing Todd Drive as well?

The Seminole Hwy Interchange will be removed once the US 18/US 151 Verona Rd Phase 3 portion of the project gets constructed in order for high speed ramps to be constructed. That is many years away.

I don't think Phase 3 will be done ever. They may as well just remove the ramps now, along with Todd Drive.
I agree with I-39 here. WISDOT spent all that time and money on phase 2. They're not ripping it up and starting over anytime soon. I think the earliest we could see construction of phase 3 is 25-30 years. They should just do away with the useless interchanges now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on January 14, 2021, 12:46:52 PM
Also, on Seminole - does anyone know the backstory of how it got that name? Becuase I'm surprised it survived the latest wave of cancel culture, especially in a place like Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on January 14, 2021, 10:57:02 PM
Quote from: thspfc on January 14, 2021, 12:42:02 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 14, 2021, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 14, 2021, 03:00:32 AM
Quote from: I-39 on January 11, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2021, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: skluth on January 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
I'm skeptical about how much a flex lane will improve things.  The Beltline's main issue is all the closely spaced interchanges that create weaving problems with exiting and entering traffic.  A flex lane is more effective when the interchanges are further apart, like US 23 north of Ann Arbor.

I've stated before, the most effective solution for the Madison Beltine isn't necessarily another lane, but unweaving the closely spaced interchanges and making the parallel local streets more connective. 

The money they're spending on this should be going toward an interchange at CTH K.

I know this would upset a lot of people. I think the half interchange at Seminole Highway, and full interchanges at Rimrock and Fish Hatchery, can be removed with no real change of usefulness. There would definitely need to be a new road between Fish Hatchery and Park/US 14, though I have no idea where you could build one these days. Rimrock traffic can use John Nolen. (IMO, Rimrock Road's interchange should never have been built in the first place.) The Beltline was already bad when I left Madison in 1980 and I thought those interchanges could have been removed even then.

Remove the Fish Hatchery Rd Interchange?! No way that would happen and that would cause all sorts of problems. It's Fitchburg's Main Street and 40,000 VPD travel on Fish Hatchery Rd in the Beltline Area.

Good thing that all this talk is fictional and the only interchange that plans on being removed is the Seminole Hwy Interchange. Removing all these interchanges would make driving very difficult for me and along with many other people who live on the south side of Madison and Fitchburg.

Is Seminole highway actually confirmed to be removed?

What about removing Todd Drive as well?

The Seminole Hwy Interchange will be removed once the US 18/US 151 Verona Rd Phase 3 portion of the project gets constructed in order for high speed ramps to be constructed. That is many years away.

I don't think Phase 3 will be done ever. They may as well just remove the ramps now, along with Todd Drive.
I agree with I-39 here. WISDOT spent all that time and money on phase 2. They're not ripping it up and starting over anytime soon. I think the earliest we could see construction of phase 3 is 25-30 years. They should just do away with the useless interchanges now.

IIRC, I don't think Phase 3 would impact the existing improvements too much, but it's just not needed from a traffic flow standpoint at this point and I'm not sure if it will ever be. The only thing I would've done differently is grade separate Raymond Rd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on January 15, 2021, 12:03:56 AM
The 2021 WisDOT online county maps are out.  I only found one revision: the incorporation of Vernon in Waukesha County.  Instead, there is a growing list of omissions/errors that have persisted for a number of years.

The depiction of the Madison Beltline  and non-interstate freeways in Milwaukee County as just multi lane divided highway.  This demotion was intentional and based on speed limits?   WTH, when is a freeway not cartographically designated as such because it has a 55 mph limit?

The incorporation of Somers in Kenosha County.

The S-curve project on US 12 and County Trunk C in Sauk County.

Who do we contact to fix theseā€“the State Cartographer's Office?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2021, 03:01:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on January 14, 2021, 12:46:52 PM
Also, on Seminole - does anyone know the backstory of how it got that name? Becuase I'm surprised it survived the latest wave of cancel culture, especially in a place like Madison.


Seminole Highway emerges from the neighborhood where multiple streets are named after Native tribes.  However the road itself predates that neighborhood so my guess is that it had some name prior to that back when it was a country road.  I used to drive it every day when I was lucky enough to take the car to school.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 25, 2021, 03:35:56 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on January 15, 2021, 12:03:56 AM
The 2021 WisDOT online county maps are out.  I only found one revision: the incorporation of Vernon in Waukesha County.  Instead, there is a growing list of omissions/errors that have persisted for a number of years.

The depiction of the Madison Beltline  and non-interstate freeways in Milwaukee County as just multi lane divided highway.  This demotion was intentional and based on speed limits?   WTH, when is a freeway not cartographically designated as such because it has a 55 mph limit?

The incorporation of Somers in Kenosha County.

The S-curve project on US 12 and County Trunk C in Sauk County.

Who do we contact to fix theseā€“the State Cartographer's Office?
My goodness the town of Vernon is now a village? Soon every remaining township in SE Wisconsin will be. Yet to this day the Town of Brookfield which is basically a village in many ways still not incorporated.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 25, 2021, 04:49:33 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 25, 2021, 03:35:56 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on January 15, 2021, 12:03:56 AM
The 2021 WisDOT online county maps are out.  I only found one revision: the incorporation of Vernon in Waukesha County.  Instead, there is a growing list of omissions/errors that have persisted for a number of years.

The depiction of the Madison Beltline  and non-interstate freeways in Milwaukee County as just multi lane divided highway.  This demotion was intentional and based on speed limits?   WTH, when is a freeway not cartographically designated as such because it has a 55 mph limit?

The incorporation of Somers in Kenosha County.

The S-curve project on US 12 and County Trunk C in Sauk County.

Who do we contact to fix theseā€“the State Cartographer's Office?
My goodness the town of Vernon is now a village? Soon every remaining township in SE Wisconsin will be. Yet to this day the Town of Brookfield which is basically a village in many ways still not incorporated.

They've tried multiple times.  But the Cities of Brookfield, Sussex and Waukesha usually object so the DOA has denied it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2021, 10:11:19 AM
Don't know if this has been posted, but the Milwaukee portion of Miller Park Way will be renamed "Brewers Blvd."  However the West Milwaukee portion will stay Miller Park Way.

https://www.wisn.com/article/part-of-miller-park-way-to-get-name-change/35219257#

What they should have done is name the highway portion (between I-94 and National Avenue) Brewers Blvd., but revert the portion south of there back to its original name - 43rd Street. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on January 27, 2021, 02:29:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2021, 10:11:19 AM
Don't know if this has been posted, but the Milwaukee portion of Miller Park Way will be renamed "Brewers Blvd."  However the West Milwaukee portion will stay Miller Park Way.

https://www.wisn.com/article/part-of-miller-park-way-to-get-name-change/35219257#

What they should have done is name the highway portion (between I-94 and National Avenue) Brewers Blvd., but revert the portion south of there back to its original name - 43rd Street.
West Milwaukee declined to change the name.

SM-N986U1

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2021, 04:13:34 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on January 27, 2021, 02:29:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2021, 10:11:19 AM
Don't know if this has been posted, but the Milwaukee portion of Miller Park Way will be renamed "Brewers Blvd."  However the West Milwaukee portion will stay Miller Park Way.

https://www.wisn.com/article/part-of-miller-park-way-to-get-name-change/35219257#

What they should have done is name the highway portion (between I-94 and National Avenue) Brewers Blvd., but revert the portion south of there back to its original name - 43rd Street.
West Milwaukee declined to change the name.

SM-N986U1




Right I know.  Which they did for short term reasons that in the long term is going to seem really wierd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 08:27:38 PM
Brewers Boulevard? I think they should either keep the Miller Parkway name, or change the name to Stadium Parkway, given that the freeway-turned-parkway was the Stadium South Freeway from 1953 to 1998.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 02, 2021, 10:10:28 AM
West Milwaukee should rename it to "Harnishfeger Blvd". ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on February 04, 2021, 08:45:55 AM
https://www.facebook.com/statetrunktour/posts/10159194430225522

Signs are now up for Brewers Blvd. I think it should be named after Bob Uecker, long time Brewers broadcaster.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 04, 2021, 09:02:11 AM
I would name it after Aaron before Uecker.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on February 04, 2021, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 04, 2021, 09:02:11 AM
I would name it after Aaron before Uecker.
There might be some confusion about the Hank Aaron State Trail that crosses it, though.

SM-N986U1

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on February 04, 2021, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2021, 04:13:34 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on January 27, 2021, 02:29:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2021, 10:11:19 AM
Don't know if this has been posted, but the Milwaukee portion of Miller Park Way will be renamed "Brewers Blvd."  However the West Milwaukee portion will stay Miller Park Way.

https://www.wisn.com/article/part-of-miller-park-way-to-get-name-change/35219257#

What they should have done is name the highway portion (between I-94 and National Avenue) Brewers Blvd., but revert the portion south of there back to its original name - 43rd Street.
West Milwaukee declined to change the name.

SM-N986U1




Right I know.  Which they did for short term reasons that in the long term is going to seem really wierd.
Miller Park Way is the major commercial district that passes through West Milwaukee. Not only would all the street signs have to be changed, but all of the businesses would have to update as well.

The Village does have a long history of thumbing their noses at the City of Milwaukee. When Milwaukee wanted to turn that entire strip into the Stadium South freeway, West Milwaukee refused to let it be built within the village limits. Which is why the freeway ends at National Ave. and continues as MPW (S. 43rd St).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 04, 2021, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on February 04, 2021, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2021, 04:13:34 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on January 27, 2021, 02:29:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2021, 10:11:19 AM
Don't know if this has been posted, but the Milwaukee portion of Miller Park Way will be renamed "Brewers Blvd."  However the West Milwaukee portion will stay Miller Park Way.

https://www.wisn.com/article/part-of-miller-park-way-to-get-name-change/35219257#

What they should have done is name the highway portion (between I-94 and National Avenue) Brewers Blvd., but revert the portion south of there back to its original name - 43rd Street.
West Milwaukee declined to change the name.

SM-N986U1




Right I know.  Which they did for short term reasons that in the long term is going to seem really wierd.
Miller Park Way is the major commercial district that passes through West Milwaukee. Not only would all the street signs have to be changed, but all of the businesses would have to update as well.

The Village does have a long history of thumbing their noses at the City of Milwaukee. When Milwaukee wanted to turn that entire strip into the Stadium South freeway, West Milwaukee refused to let it be built within the village limits. Which is why the freeway ends at National Ave. and continues as MPW (S. 43rd St).


Oh I know.  My wife went to the now defunct West Milwaukee High School and our first apartment was just blocks away from MPW.  I just think the long run changing it is worth the short term cost.  Reasonable minds can disagree.

But I thought the problem wasn't West Milwaukee - the ROW was cleared and everything.  I thought the problem was that south of Lincoln you have the nice Jackson Park neighborhood, which I think is in Milwaukee, and they put a stop to it.

And they were right.  The Stadium Freeway would have been terrible.  Absolutely not necessary.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 04, 2021, 04:48:23 PM
Wis 175 is fully signed with the change to Brewers Blvd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 22, 2021, 11:45:22 PM
The VMS signs on The Beltline are informing of lane closures starting March 1st. Next week the flex lane project begins!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:58:45 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 22, 2021, 11:45:22 PM
The VMS signs on The Beltline are informing of lane closures starting March 1st. Next week the flex lane project begins!
The flex lane idea is cool, but I wish WISDOT would just rip the band-aid off and expand it to 10 lanes, or build elevated express/HOV lanes but that would be much more expensive I presume.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 23, 2021, 10:38:15 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 22, 2021, 11:45:22 PM
The VMS signs on The Beltline are informing of lane closures starting March 1st. Next week the flex lane project begins!

I'm out of the loop here, what beltline are you talking about?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 23, 2021, 10:38:15 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 22, 2021, 11:45:22 PM
The VMS signs on The Beltline are informing of lane closures starting March 1st. Next week the flex lane project begins!

I'm out of the loop here, what beltline are you talking about?
Madison. Everyone from around here calls US-12 around the city "The Beltline" . US-14, US-18, and US-151 are all on it for a little while as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2021, 02:36:56 PM
I agree the flex lane project is a short-term solution. As for expanding the Beltline to 10 lanes, that would require a great deal of plowing down homes and businesses to implement it. Elevated lanes may work within the corridor, but they should be HOT Lanes or Express Toll Lanes, not HOV or Carpool Lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:58:45 AM
but I wish WISDOT would just rip the band-aid off and expand it to 10 lanes, or build elevated express/HOV lanes but that would be much more expensive I presume.

In Madison, WI? Haha, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than this happening.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 23, 2021, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:58:45 AM
but I wish WISDOT would just rip the band-aid off and expand it to 10 lanes, or build elevated express/HOV lanes but that would be much more expensive I presume.

In Madison, WI? Haha, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than this happening.
The lack of available right-of-way doesn't help matters.

WisDOT is also not very good at upgrading ever since the Walker took their budget away.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 05:20:12 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on February 23, 2021, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:58:45 AM
but I wish WISDOT would just rip the band-aid off and expand it to 10 lanes, or build elevated express/HOV lanes but that would be much more expensive I presume.

In Madison, WI? Haha, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than this happening.
The lack of available right-of-way doesn't help matters.

WisDOT is also not very good at upgrading ever since the Walker took their budget away.

Yes, but Doyle taking away the gas tax index didn't help either. Also, a lot of money was spent elsewhere that should've been spent fixing the Beltline.

My comment was more aimed at because Madison is super liberal, there would be mass opposition to a 5 lane in each direction widening.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2021, 09:09:22 AM
The political sh*tstorm around the I-94 expansion on the west side of Milwaukee has been huge.

It would pale in comparison to the sh*tstorm around a proposed expansion of the Beltline.  Not only because Madison is more liberal, but because there is very little room.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on February 25, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2021, 09:09:22 AM
The political sh*tstorm around the I-94 expansion on the west side of Milwaukee has been huge.

It would pale in comparison to the sh*tstorm around a proposed expansion of the Beltline.  Not only because Madison is more liberal, but because there is very little room.
Fair point by I-39. Freeway expansion doesn't come easy in Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 25, 2021, 11:20:12 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 25, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2021, 09:09:22 AM
The political sh*tstorm around the I-94 expansion on the west side of Milwaukee has been huge.

It would pale in comparison to the sh*tstorm around a proposed expansion of the Beltline.  Not only because Madison is more liberal, but because there is very little room.
Fair point by I-39. Freeway expansion doesn't come easy in Madison.

Never understood why they scaled back the I-39/90/Beltline interchange. The original proposal was much better.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on February 26, 2021, 07:38:21 AM
Quote from: I-39 on February 25, 2021, 11:20:12 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 25, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2021, 09:09:22 AM
The political sh*tstorm around the I-94 expansion on the west side of Milwaukee has been huge.

It would pale in comparison to the sh*tstorm around a proposed expansion of the Beltline.  Not only because Madison is more liberal, but because there is very little room.
Fair point by I-39. Freeway expansion doesn't come easy in Madison.
Never understood why they scaled back the I-39/90/Beltline interchange. The original proposal was much better.
That's not as urgent as the Beltline itself. The interchange is functional as is. Only thing that needs to be done is elimination of the lane drop on 39/90 SB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 26, 2021, 11:10:47 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 26, 2021, 07:38:21 AM
Quote from: I-39 on February 25, 2021, 11:20:12 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 25, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2021, 09:09:22 AM
The political sh*tstorm around the I-94 expansion on the west side of Milwaukee has been huge.

It would pale in comparison to the sh*tstorm around a proposed expansion of the Beltline.  Not only because Madison is more liberal, but because there is very little room.
Fair point by I-39. Freeway expansion doesn't come easy in Madison.
Never understood why they scaled back the I-39/90/Beltline interchange. The original proposal was much better.
That's not as urgent as the Beltline itself. The interchange is functional as is. Only thing that needs to be done is elimination of the lane drop on 39/90 SB.

The interchange will work better with the lane drop. With the large volume of traffic merging from The Beltline traffic will flow better by adding the lane back after the merge.  If two lanes from The Beltline had to merge into 3 full lanes it would cause more problems. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on February 26, 2021, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 26, 2021, 11:10:47 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 26, 2021, 07:38:21 AM
Quote from: I-39 on February 25, 2021, 11:20:12 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 25, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 24, 2021, 09:09:22 AM
The political sh*tstorm around the I-94 expansion on the west side of Milwaukee has been huge.

It would pale in comparison to the sh*tstorm around a proposed expansion of the Beltline.  Not only because Madison is more liberal, but because there is very little room.
Fair point by I-39. Freeway expansion doesn't come easy in Madison.
Never understood why they scaled back the I-39/90/Beltline interchange. The original proposal was much better.
That's not as urgent as the Beltline itself. The interchange is functional as is. Only thing that needs to be done is elimination of the lane drop on 39/90 SB.

The interchange will work better with the lane drop. With the large volume of traffic merging from The Beltline traffic will flow better by adding the lane back after the merge.  If two lanes from The Beltline had to merge into 3 full lanes it would cause more problems.
Then expand 39/90 to eight lanes up to I-94. It would be entirely through swampland that isn't protected or anything. Whichever way you slice it, there needs to be six through lanes of 39/90 all the way through.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on February 26, 2021, 10:14:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 26, 2021, 06:49:22 PM
Then expand 39/90 to eight lanes up to I-94. It would be entirely through swampland that isn't protected or anything. Whichever way you slice it, there needs to be six through lanes of 39/90 all the way through.

The swampland probably qualifies as protected wetlands that would require mitigation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on February 27, 2021, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 26, 2021, 10:14:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 26, 2021, 06:49:22 PM
Then expand 39/90 to eight lanes up to I-94. It would be entirely through swampland that isn't protected or anything. Whichever way you slice it, there needs to be six through lanes of 39/90 all the way through.

The swampland probably qualifies as protected wetlands that would require mitigation.
The swampland that is . . . underneath a six lane freeway and surrounded by factories and office buildings?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 27, 2021, 12:09:03 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 27, 2021, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 26, 2021, 10:14:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 26, 2021, 06:49:22 PM
Then expand 39/90 to eight lanes up to I-94. It would be entirely through swampland that isn't protected or anything. Whichever way you slice it, there needs to be six through lanes of 39/90 all the way through.

The swampland probably qualifies as protected wetlands that would require mitigation.
The swampland that is . . . underneath a six lane freeway and surrounded by factories and office buildings?
Doesn't matter, still requires mitigation
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 08:22:51 PM
Interstate 39/90 from STH 30/Interstate 94 to US 12/18 was expanded from four to six lanes in 1998. It will probably remain that way for some time to come (and possibly always will be). There is a pavement patching project proposed along this stretch, with construction planned for 2026 (though it could be bumped up to as soon as next year): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i39-danecounty/default.aspx. Outside of that, nothing else is planned for this stretch of Interstate 39/90, although I wish they would add a second bridge (for eastbound traffic) to the existing Cottage Grove Road/CTH BB overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0845454,-89.2836542,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. The roadway is four lanes west of the Interstate, and was recently expanded to four lanes east of the Interstate to Sprecher Rd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 27, 2021, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 08:22:51 PM
Interstate 39/90 from STH 30/Interstate 94 to US 12/18 was expanded from four to six lanes in 1998. It will probably remain that way for some time to come (and possibly always will be). There is a pavement patching project proposed along this stretch, with construction planned for 2026 (though it could be bumped up to as soon as next year): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i39-danecounty/default.aspx. Outside of that, nothing else is planned for this stretch of Interstate 39/90, although I wish they would add a second bridge (for eastbound traffic) to the existing Cottage Grove Road/CTH BB overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0845454,-89.2836542,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. The roadway is four lanes west of the Interstate, and was recently expanded to four lanes east of the Interstate to Sprecher Rd.

Didn't they recommend restarting the I-39/90/94 study from the Beltline to the Dells? I would imagine that would eight lane the Interstate at least in the Madison area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 28, 2021, 08:35:55 AM
That study was going to eventually recommend the expand existing capacity alternatives, which would have included four laning in the Madison area.  But I still think construction of those lanes would be a long time in the future.  The only time I-39/90 is THAT busy is on Holiday weekends in the summer.  On an every day basis, six lanes is plenty of capacity.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 28, 2021, 01:25:43 PM
^^ The usual number for capacity analysis is the 30th highest traffic amount in a year.  Wisconsin is conservative and the last time I saw this they use the 200th highest traffic count as their basis.  Meaning that 6 lanes is plenty of capacity using that criteria.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 28, 2021, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: Big John on February 28, 2021, 01:25:43 PM
^^ The usual number for capacity analysis is the 30th highest traffic amount in a year.  Wisconsin is conservative and the last time I saw this they use the 200th highest traffic count as their basis.  Meaning that 6 lanes is plenty of capacity using that criteria.

Gotcha. I bet even using the 30th that six lanes is sufficient.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on March 01, 2021, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 27, 2021, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 08:22:51 PM
Interstate 39/90 from STH 30/Interstate 94 to US 12/18 was expanded from four to six lanes in 1998. It will probably remain that way for some time to come (and possibly always will be). There is a pavement patching project proposed along this stretch, with construction planned for 2026 (though it could be bumped up to as soon as next year): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i39-danecounty/default.aspx. Outside of that, nothing else is planned for this stretch of Interstate 39/90, although I wish they would add a second bridge (for eastbound traffic) to the existing Cottage Grove Road/CTH BB overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0845454,-89.2836542,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. The roadway is four lanes west of the Interstate, and was recently expanded to four lanes east of the Interstate to Sprecher Rd.

Didn't they recommend restarting the I-39/90/94 study from the Beltline to the Dells? I would imagine that would eight lane the Interstate at least in the Madison area.

Honestly I think it may be more pressing to 6 lane 90/94 from the I-39 split at least up to exit 92 (US 12) in Lake Delton or maybe even exit 87 in Wisconsin Dells (unlikely due to Mirror Lake crossing). That stretch of road is horrendous to drive on, especially during the summer. Easily my least favorite stretch of interstate between exits in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 01, 2021, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: jwags on March 01, 2021, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 27, 2021, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 08:22:51 PM
Interstate 39/90 from STH 30/Interstate 94 to US 12/18 was expanded from four to six lanes in 1998. It will probably remain that way for some time to come (and possibly always will be). There is a pavement patching project proposed along this stretch, with construction planned for 2026 (though it could be bumped up to as soon as next year): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i39-danecounty/default.aspx. Outside of that, nothing else is planned for this stretch of Interstate 39/90, although I wish they would add a second bridge (for eastbound traffic) to the existing Cottage Grove Road/CTH BB overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0845454,-89.2836542,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. The roadway is four lanes west of the Interstate, and was recently expanded to four lanes east of the Interstate to Sprecher Rd.

Didn't they recommend restarting the I-39/90/94 study from the Beltline to the Dells? I would imagine that would eight lane the Interstate at least in the Madison area.

Honestly I think it may be more pressing to 6 lane 90/94 from the I-39 split at least up to exit 92 (US 12) in Lake Delton or maybe even exit 87 in Wisconsin Dells (unlikely due to Mirror Lake crossing). That stretch of road is horrendous to drive on, especially during the summer. Easily my least favorite stretch of interstate between exits in Wisconsin.

I included that stretch in my initial statement (from the Beltline to the Dells). I agree that stretch needs to be six lanes, and probably before the Madison to Portage segment of I-39/90/94 is eight laned. Though the Wisconsin River bridge needs to be done now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on March 01, 2021, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 01, 2021, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: jwags on March 01, 2021, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 27, 2021, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 08:22:51 PM
Interstate 39/90 from STH 30/Interstate 94 to US 12/18 was expanded from four to six lanes in 1998. It will probably remain that way for some time to come (and possibly always will be). There is a pavement patching project proposed along this stretch, with construction planned for 2026 (though it could be bumped up to as soon as next year): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i39-danecounty/default.aspx. Outside of that, nothing else is planned for this stretch of Interstate 39/90, although I wish they would add a second bridge (for eastbound traffic) to the existing Cottage Grove Road/CTH BB overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0845454,-89.2836542,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. The roadway is four lanes west of the Interstate, and was recently expanded to four lanes east of the Interstate to Sprecher Rd.

Didn't they recommend restarting the I-39/90/94 study from the Beltline to the Dells? I would imagine that would eight lane the Interstate at least in the Madison area.

Honestly I think it may be more pressing to 6 lane 90/94 from the I-39 split at least up to exit 92 (US 12) in Lake Delton or maybe even exit 87 in Wisconsin Dells (unlikely due to Mirror Lake crossing). That stretch of road is horrendous to drive on, especially during the summer. Easily my least favorite stretch of interstate between exits in Wisconsin.

I included that stretch in my initial statement (from the Beltline to the Dells). I agree that stretch needs to be six lanes, and probably before the Madison to Portage segment of I-39/90/94 is eight laned. Though the Wisconsin River bridge needs to be done now.

I agree with that. The interchange at exit 92 is already well configured to handle the new lane when entering from the loop ramp on US-12 and the WB lane could easily be dropped by forcing traffic off at exit 92. A huge portion of Dells bound traffic already uses 92 vs the actual Wisconsin Dells exit 87.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 02, 2021, 08:42:30 PM
The stretch from US-12 at Lake Delton to the Cascade Interchange needs six lanes badly. If I was in charge of WISDOT, that would be my #1 priority right now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 02, 2021, 08:46:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 01, 2021, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: jwags on March 01, 2021, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 27, 2021, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 08:22:51 PM
Interstate 39/90 from STH 30/Interstate 94 to US 12/18 was expanded from four to six lanes in 1998. It will probably remain that way for some time to come (and possibly always will be). There is a pavement patching project proposed along this stretch, with construction planned for 2026 (though it could be bumped up to as soon as next year): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i39-danecounty/default.aspx. Outside of that, nothing else is planned for this stretch of Interstate 39/90, although I wish they would add a second bridge (for eastbound traffic) to the existing Cottage Grove Road/CTH BB overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0845454,-89.2836542,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. The roadway is four lanes west of the Interstate, and was recently expanded to four lanes east of the Interstate to Sprecher Rd.

Didn't they recommend restarting the I-39/90/94 study from the Beltline to the Dells? I would imagine that would eight lane the Interstate at least in the Madison area.

Honestly I think it may be more pressing to 6 lane 90/94 from the I-39 split at least up to exit 92 (US 12) in Lake Delton or maybe even exit 87 in Wisconsin Dells (unlikely due to Mirror Lake crossing). That stretch of road is horrendous to drive on, especially during the summer. Easily my least favorite stretch of interstate between exits in Wisconsin.

I included that stretch in my initial statement (from the Beltline to the Dells). I agree that stretch needs to be six lanes, and probably before the Madison to Portage segment of I-39/90/94 is eight laned. Though the Wisconsin River bridge needs to be done now.
If we agree now that six lanes is sufficient all the way from WI-30 to the IL border, WISDOT would just need to expand I-39/90/94 between WI-78 and US-151 to make the entire triplex eight lanes. It's already eight lanes between US-151 and WI-30.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 02, 2021, 08:46:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 01, 2021, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: jwags on March 01, 2021, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 27, 2021, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 08:22:51 PM
Interstate 39/90 from STH 30/Interstate 94 to US 12/18 was expanded from four to six lanes in 1998. It will probably remain that way for some time to come (and possibly always will be). There is a pavement patching project proposed along this stretch, with construction planned for 2026 (though it could be bumped up to as soon as next year): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i39-danecounty/default.aspx. Outside of that, nothing else is planned for this stretch of Interstate 39/90, although I wish they would add a second bridge (for eastbound traffic) to the existing Cottage Grove Road/CTH BB overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0845454,-89.2836542,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. The roadway is four lanes west of the Interstate, and was recently expanded to four lanes east of the Interstate to Sprecher Rd.

Didn't they recommend restarting the I-39/90/94 study from the Beltline to the Dells? I would imagine that would eight lane the Interstate at least in the Madison area.

Honestly I think it may be more pressing to 6 lane 90/94 from the I-39 split at least up to exit 92 (US 12) in Lake Delton or maybe even exit 87 in Wisconsin Dells (unlikely due to Mirror Lake crossing). That stretch of road is horrendous to drive on, especially during the summer. Easily my least favorite stretch of interstate between exits in Wisconsin.

I included that stretch in my initial statement (from the Beltline to the Dells). I agree that stretch needs to be six lanes, and probably before the Madison to Portage segment of I-39/90/94 is eight laned. Though the Wisconsin River bridge needs to be done now.
If we agree now that six lanes is sufficient all the way from WI-30 to the IL border, WISDOT would just need to expand I-39/90/94 between WI-78 and US-151 to make the entire triplex eight lanes. It's already eight lanes between US-151 and WI-30.

I think it really just needs to be eight lanes in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51/WIS 19. I could see a case though for going all the way to Portage/WIS 78, and I'm glad the new Wisconsin River bridge is being planned with a fourth lane in mind.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2021, 10:52:05 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 02, 2021, 08:46:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 01, 2021, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: jwags on March 01, 2021, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 27, 2021, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 08:22:51 PM
Interstate 39/90 from STH 30/Interstate 94 to US 12/18 was expanded from four to six lanes in 1998. It will probably remain that way for some time to come (and possibly always will be). There is a pavement patching project proposed along this stretch, with construction planned for 2026 (though it could be bumped up to as soon as next year): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i39-danecounty/default.aspx. Outside of that, nothing else is planned for this stretch of Interstate 39/90, although I wish they would add a second bridge (for eastbound traffic) to the existing Cottage Grove Road/CTH BB overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0845454,-89.2836542,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. The roadway is four lanes west of the Interstate, and was recently expanded to four lanes east of the Interstate to Sprecher Rd.

Didn't they recommend restarting the I-39/90/94 study from the Beltline to the Dells? I would imagine that would eight lane the Interstate at least in the Madison area.

Honestly I think it may be more pressing to 6 lane 90/94 from the I-39 split at least up to exit 92 (US 12) in Lake Delton or maybe even exit 87 in Wisconsin Dells (unlikely due to Mirror Lake crossing). That stretch of road is horrendous to drive on, especially during the summer. Easily my least favorite stretch of interstate between exits in Wisconsin.

I included that stretch in my initial statement (from the Beltline to the Dells). I agree that stretch needs to be six lanes, and probably before the Madison to Portage segment of I-39/90/94 is eight laned. Though the Wisconsin River bridge needs to be done now.
If we agree now that six lanes is sufficient all the way from WI-30 to the IL border, WISDOT would just need to expand I-39/90/94 between WI-78 and US-151 to make the entire triplex eight lanes. It's already eight lanes between US-151 and WI-30.

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


Traffic isn't nearly deserving of 8 lanes all the way to Portage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 03, 2021, 05:31:53 PM
A flyover ramp from US 151 south to I-39 south and eliminating the loop ramp would be a huge improvement that is needed. But money and real estate stand in the way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2021, 10:52:05 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 08:58:41 PM
I think it really just needs to be eight lanes in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51/WIS 19. I could see a case though for going all the way to Portage/WIS 78, and I'm glad the new Wisconsin River bridge is being planned with a fourth lane in mind.
Traffic isn't nearly deserving of 8 lanes all the way to Portage.

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

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 03, 2021, 07:50:03 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2021, 10:52:05 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 08:58:41 PM
I think it really just needs to be eight lanes in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51/WIS 19. I could see a case though for going all the way to Portage/WIS 78, and I'm glad the new Wisconsin River bridge is being planned with a fourth lane in mind.
Traffic isn't nearly deserving of 8 lanes all the way to Portage.

I tend to agree, which is why I only think they should widen it in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51. Widening between Portage and the Dells should be a higher priority. But I do think the Wisconsin River bridges should be rebuilt to accommodate a fourth lane.
It sounds weird, but Illinois might want that stretch widened more than than Wisconsin does. It's constantly full of weekenders from Illinois.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
I'm wondering if the traffic numbers on I-90/94 between Wisconsin Dells and the Tomah Interchange would warrant upgrade it to six lanes within a reasonable planning period.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
I'm wondering if the traffic numbers on I-90/94 between Wisconsin Dells and the Tomah Interchange would warrant upgrade it to six lanes within a reasonable planning period.

Mike


Anecdotally, I think that would be a much higher priority. 

I think I-94 needs to be six lanes from where it cuts down to four in Waukesha all the way to Tomah.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on March 04, 2021, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
I'm wondering if the traffic numbers on I-90/94 between Wisconsin Dells and the Tomah Interchange would warrant upgrade it to six lanes within a reasonable planning period.

Mike


Anecdotally, I think that would be a much higher priority. 

I think I-94 needs to be six lanes from where it cuts down to four in Waukesha all the way to Tomah.

Agreed. I never understood how the route between the two most important metros in the state was still mostly only four lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:44:42 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 04, 2021, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
I'm wondering if the traffic numbers on I-90/94 between Wisconsin Dells and the Tomah Interchange would warrant upgrade it to six lanes within a reasonable planning period.

Mike


Anecdotally, I think that would be a much higher priority. 

I think I-94 needs to be six lanes from where it cuts down to four in Waukesha all the way to Tomah.

Agreed. I never understood how the route between the two most important metros in the state was still mostly only four lanes.
Making it 6 lanes in Jefferson County would be overkill but I do agree that it should be 6 out to Oconomowoc and again from Portage to at least the Dells.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 04:39:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:44:42 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 04, 2021, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
I'm wondering if the traffic numbers on I-90/94 between Wisconsin Dells and the Tomah Interchange would warrant upgrade it to six lanes within a reasonable planning period.

Mike


Anecdotally, I think that would be a much higher priority. 

I think I-94 needs to be six lanes from where it cuts down to four in Waukesha all the way to Tomah.

Agreed. I never understood how the route between the two most important metros in the state was still mostly only four lanes.
Making it 6 lanes in Jefferson County would be overkill but I do agree that it should be 6 out to Oconomowoc and again from Portage to at least the Dells.


I-94 traffic counts in Jefferson County are about the same as I-90/94 traffic counts between WI Dells and Portage.  (Low to mid 30,000s)  And I-90/94s stay at about that level until the split at Tomah.

Both are much lower than I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay (40,000s), which is likely why it is a higher priority for expansion at this time.  That's about the same as I-90 south of Madison to the IL border.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on March 04, 2021, 05:56:55 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
I'm wondering if the traffic numbers on I-90/94 between Wisconsin Dells and the Tomah Interchange would warrant upgrade it to six lanes within a reasonable planning period.

Mike

I'd be for 90/94 from Madison to Tomah be 6 lanes their entire overlap in the state.  But would settle for from going from four to six lanes somewhere between Mauston and Lyndon Station. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 04, 2021, 06:02:57 PM
It continues to surprise me that we made it to the 2020's without extending the six lane portion of I-94 in Waukesha County out to Oconomowoc.  Considering that area's political clout, the genuine utility of such an expansion, the fact that most of the structures can already accommodate a third land, and the fact that it can be done without any additional right-of-way, it's almost weird that it hasn't been done by now.  Alas, it isn't even being studied.

Further west, it makes obvious sense to build the new Wisco River bridges to accommodate 8 lanes.  Not only does that future-proof the crossing, but it makes the replacement way less painful because there's no need for long term lane closures.

Extending six lanes west to the Lake Delton crossing is a no-brainer.  I'm sure that'll get done this decade.  What I'm also interested in is seeing how some of the interchanges north of Madison could be modernized.  Setting aside the Cascade Interchange for a moment (since I've done my own fictional musing on that) I think it behooves us for the interchanges at WI 60, CTH CS and WI 33 to be transformed into diamond interchanges similar to how they did WI 73 and WI 59 south of Madison.  The geometry of the ramps at CTH CS particularly sucks since there's a truck stop there and big rigs are hampered in their accel/decel by even the 'outer' ramps.  Nothing quite like hitting the gore at half the posted speed limit. :P

I'll just reiterate the idea for a fourth lane between The Beltline and I-94 in Madison.  It simplifies the lane situation as The Beltline merges on NB and it eases the disruption of the left-hand ramps at the Badger Interchange.  No additional r/w is needed and the only changes to structures is to widen/expand the Cottage Grove Road overpass and widen the bridges over the Wisconsin Southern rail line.

When it comes to the Badger Interchange, the fictional cartographer in me wants to try different things to shit-can all the left-hand ramps, but the truth is the interchange functions pretty well as is and the expense of totally re-configuring this junction might not justify the modest improvement in traffic flow.  The left-hand ramps don't knee-cap this interchange due to the distance between it and the next interchange in every direction.  There are miles and miles to get into the proper lane approaching the Badger Interchange from the north, south and east.  (Even west is still really good for an urban interchange).  Additionally, all of the structures are less than 30 years old, having been replaced in the 90's.

So as WisDOT restarts their studies for the triplex corridor, I would advocate leaving the Badger out of that scope for now.  Put that money toward some serious overhauls at US 151 where that kind of expensive work is needed.  The Badger will be fine for another quarter century.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 10:18:02 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 04:39:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:44:42 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 04, 2021, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
I'm wondering if the traffic numbers on I-90/94 between Wisconsin Dells and the Tomah Interchange would warrant upgrade it to six lanes within a reasonable planning period.

Mike


Anecdotally, I think that would be a much higher priority. 

I think I-94 needs to be six lanes from where it cuts down to four in Waukesha all the way to Tomah.

Agreed. I never understood how the route between the two most important metros in the state was still mostly only four lanes.
Making it 6 lanes in Jefferson County would be overkill but I do agree that it should be 6 out to Oconomowoc and again from Portage to at least the Dells.


I-94 traffic counts in Jefferson County are about the same as I-90/94 traffic counts between WI Dells and Portage.  (Low to mid 30,000s)  And I-90/94s stay at about that level until the split at Tomah.

Both are much lower than I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay (40,000s), which is likely why it is a higher priority for expansion at this time.  That's about the same as I-90 south of Madison to the IL border.

What are the current and projected traffic numbers on I-41 south of where the six lanes now end at WI 26 in Oshkosh?

BTW, the part of I-41 from WI 15 in Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere is currently programed for six lane upgrade construction in the 2025-2029 time frame.

Also, what are the current and projected traffic numbers on I-94 between WI 35 (east) in Hudson (Hudson or River Falls Interchange?) and the WI 29 Elk Mound Interchange?  That part could also be in line for six-laning.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 10:27:34 PM
Another that could well be a foreseeable future 'under the radar' six-lane warrant is the fairly short combined section of US 10 and US 45 west of Appleton/northwest of Oshkosh.  That little piece of freeway between the Winchester and Dale interchanges is amazingly busy!

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 05, 2021, 09:16:20 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 10:18:02 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 04:39:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:44:42 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 04, 2021, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2021, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 04, 2021, 02:14:55 PM
I'm wondering if the traffic numbers on I-90/94 between Wisconsin Dells and the Tomah Interchange would warrant upgrade it to six lanes within a reasonable planning period.

Mike


Anecdotally, I think that would be a much higher priority. 

I think I-94 needs to be six lanes from where it cuts down to four in Waukesha all the way to Tomah.

Agreed. I never understood how the route between the two most important metros in the state was still mostly only four lanes.
Making it 6 lanes in Jefferson County would be overkill but I do agree that it should be 6 out to Oconomowoc and again from Portage to at least the Dells.


I-94 traffic counts in Jefferson County are about the same as I-90/94 traffic counts between WI Dells and Portage.  (Low to mid 30,000s)  And I-90/94s stay at about that level until the split at Tomah.

Both are much lower than I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay (40,000s), which is likely why it is a higher priority for expansion at this time.  That's about the same as I-90 south of Madison to the IL border.

What are the current and projected traffic numbers on I-41 south of where the six lanes now end at WI 26 in Oshkosh?

BTW, the part of I-41 from WI 15 in Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere is currently programed for six lane upgrade construction in the 2025-2029 time frame.

Also, what are the current and projected traffic numbers on I-94 between WI 35 (east) in Hudson (Hudson or River Falls Interchange?) and the WI 29 Elk Mound Interchange?  That part could also be in line for six-laning.

Mike


South of the WI-26 interchange, it is in the mid to high 30,000s

On either side of the Elk Mound interchange it is about 30,000.  Only 12,000 on WI-29

It picks up west of there on I-94 until just east of WI-35 where it goes up to the high 40,000s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on March 06, 2021, 10:58:55 PM
Per message boards the road, construction is supposed to start on WI 50 (probably for the widening project) in the Kenosha area from the end of the three lane section east of I-41/I-94 to the CP railroad overpass on Monday.  All of the traffic signals in the construction section have already been switched to temporary span wire setups.  Based on construction markings it appears eastbound traffic will be shifted southward with part of the right lane using the existing shoulder.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 07, 2021, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2021, 10:52:05 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 08:58:41 PM
I think it really just needs to be eight lanes in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51/WIS 19. I could see a case though for going all the way to Portage/WIS 78, and I'm glad the new Wisconsin River bridge is being planned with a fourth lane in mind.
Traffic isn't nearly deserving of 8 lanes all the way to Portage.

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



I would say make I-39/90 to 4 lanes each way between Hwy N and Hwy V. The reason for those exits instead of the Beltline to US 51 is because of the overall growth that has continued in Dane County which is the 3rd fastest growing county in Wisconsin. Compare some of the towns in that corridor besides Madison and their growth in the last 20 years.
Madison 259,680 up 23.9%
Cottage Grove 7143 up 75.9%
Stoughton 13,114 up 4.6%
McFarland 9031 up 40.7%
Sun Prairie 34,661 up 67.0%
Waunakee 14,052 up 54.8%
Windsor 7,644 up 44.6%
De Forest 10,691 up 43.6%
Dane 1135 up 29.6%
Arlington 820 up 69.4%
Lodi 3092 up 7.2%
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 07, 2021, 03:45:05 PM
WisDOT left themselves room on I-39/90 for an additional lane between County N and the Beltline; it can be added relatively easily when traffic warrants. North of the Beltline, I would agree it's time for 4 through lanes to County V.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on March 08, 2021, 04:46:42 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 07, 2021, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 03, 2021, 10:52:05 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 08:58:41 PM
I think it really just needs to be eight lanes in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51/WIS 19. I could see a case though for going all the way to Portage/WIS 78, and I’m glad the new Wisconsin River bridge is being planned with a fourth lane in mind.
Traffic isn't nearly deserving of 8 lanes all the way to Portage.

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



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

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

Along the lines of additional freeway capacity in Madison, the Beltline flex lane project has reportedly started with completion anticipated late this year or early 2022 from Whitney Way to I-39.   Usage will be open to all traffic during peak hours and controlled by an overhead sign with a red X or green arrow only over the flex lane.  A quick fix for a corridor with limited options.  It will be interesting to see how cross-gradients and drainage are addressed. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 09, 2021, 12:34:18 PM
I am not a proponent of the proposed flex-lane. I personally do not think shoulder lanes should be used as traffic lanes. It seems to me like a band-aid approach (although major improvements to the beltline might not come until the 2030s at the earliest, since the PEL report has just been completed and the NEPA report is yet to begin). I might support the flex-lane proposal if it were congestion-priced, but since no road in Wisconsin has ever been tolled, that might be a hard sell.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 09, 2021, 01:37:06 PM
I've said before that I believe the Beltline's greatest deficiency is too many close-spaced interchanges which causes too much weaving.
Also, too many people to use the Beltline for only very short distances, like two exits, due to the lack of local street connections.  Thus more traffic is trying to weave together.  I don't know how successful this flex lane is going to be.  Someone at WisDOT must have some numbers that say it will, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, but my impression is that simply adding a lane, whether permanent or flex, will just turn 6 lanes of gridlock into 8 lanes of gridlock because it does nothing to fix the interchanges problem.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 09, 2021, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 09, 2021, 01:37:06 PM
I've said before that I believe the Beltline's greatest deficiency is too many close-spaced interchanges which causes too much weaving.
Also, too many people to use the Beltline for only very short distances, like two exits, due to the lack of local street connections.  Thus more traffic is trying to weave together.  I don't know how successful this flex lane is going to be.  Someone at WisDOT must have some numbers that say it will, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, but my impression is that simply adding a lane, whether permanent or flex, will just turn 6 lanes of gridlock into 8 lanes of gridlock because it does nothing to fix the interchanges problem.


I think you are 100% right about the deficiencies about the Beltline.  People take the Beltline to go everywhere, because it is the only reasonable way to get from one side of the city to the other.  The lakes and isthmus that make Madison beautiful also make it a traffic headache.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on March 10, 2021, 05:52:32 AM
I share concerns about this approach.  Will people follow the off-peak prohibitions, or continue to still use the flex lane?  Growing up in Madison, I still use the Beltline for local destinations and I don't see a lot of options for closing ramps other than at Seminole Hwy. and some, but not all, at Todd Drive, Monona Drive,  and Rimrock Road. 

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

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

And I still think that a North Beltline should be back on the table.  When I am in Madison, I'm on the very far west side, and a North Beltline would be very useful.  Unfortunately, Waunakee has developed its south side, so a corridor would be limited to the existing County Trunk M.  A new alignment would have to be west of Waunakee making it less useful for many. An opportunity lost.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on March 10, 2021, 03:22:28 PM
Re: Shoulders as Flex Lanes. I lived in Tidewater several years ago. I-264 has rush hour flex lanes east of I-64 for several miles, or at least did in the mid-aughts. I lived in Portsmouth and usually worked at the main Navy base, so I rarely saw them in action. But the few times I did, they seemed to work fairly well. I don't recall drivers ever using them before the use time kicked in, though I do remember seeing cars use them up to an hour after they were supposedly closed because of the heavy evening rush hour traffic between I-64 and Independence. I believe trucks were not permitted to use them and the shoulders were almost as good as the regular driving lanes.

This is my only experience with flex lanes and it was about 15 years ago, so I don't know if they'd work with the same drivers today.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 10, 2021, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 10, 2021, 05:52:32 AM
I share concerns about this approach.  Will people follow the off-peak prohibitions, or continue to still use the flex lane?  Growing up in Madison, I still use the Beltline for local destinations and I don't see a lot of options for closing ramps other than at Seminole Hwy. and some, but not all, at Todd Drive, Monona Drive,  and Rimrock Road. 

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

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

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


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

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

Honestly there aren't a lot of good choices here.  Having better traffic options to get *through* the city would be helpful, but that will never happen.  Again, the geography that makes Madison beautiful also makes it a mess traffic wise.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on March 11, 2021, 02:26:06 AM
I think that a North Beltline would be used by more than the northern suburbs.  From West Towne and the developing areas out to Pioneer Road in the Town of Middleton, having an alternate route to access the Interstate system and US 151 to the northeast would divert some traffic from the South Beltline.   Looking at the backups at the US 12/County K intersection, this is an indication of unmet needs in the corridor.  Most people that I know in Madison will do anything to avoid the South Beltline at peak hour (pre-COVID). But as you mention, what alternatives are there? 

(I'm amazed at the amount of inbound traffic heading into the isthmus in the evening peak hour, so that doesn't leave many other options.  Madison is not the same city it was 40 years ago)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 11, 2021, 08:52:32 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 11, 2021, 02:26:06 AM
I think that a North Beltline would be used by more than the northern suburbs.  From West Towne and the developing areas out to Pioneer Road in the Town of Middleton, having an alternate route to access the Interstate system and US 151 to the northeast would divert some traffic from the South Beltline.   Looking at the backups at the US 12/County K intersection, this is an indication of unmet needs in the corridor.  Most people that I know in Madison will do anything to avoid the South Beltline at peak hour (pre-COVID). But as you mention, what alternatives are there? 

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


I am fully aware of Madison. 

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

I do think they should have a 3dwi routing of some sort in the area that can be upgraded over time.  (K, M, River Road, 19?)  Would likely never be a full Beltline but a corridor that can be developed at least into a boulevard of some sort.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Weathernerd645 on March 11, 2021, 04:46:50 PM
Hello, long-time lurker here who wants to give their 2 cents. I personally don't think the North Beltline is ever going to happen. The corridor that it has been proposed for has been too built up over the last 30 or so years. Can't do a county M route cause of Bishop's Bay and Governor Nelson. K would be too far from Madison and just promote more sprawl in that direction. 19 is way too far north for such a bypass on the west side and the east side is pretty much built up from 39/90/94 to 151. Maybe back in the 70's or 80's it could have been built, but not now. Besides that the terrain and environmental areas aren't very friendly for building a highway with Cherokee Marsh and Governor Nelson State Park. It's just not possible nowadays.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 12, 2021, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Weathernerd645 on March 11, 2021, 04:46:50 PM
Hello, long-time lurker here who wants to give their 2 cents. I personally don't think the North Beltline is ever going to happen. The corridor that it has been proposed for has been too built up over the last 30 or so years. Can't do a county M route cause of Bishop's Bay and Governor Nelson. K would be too far from Madison and just promote more sprawl in that direction. 19 is way too far north for such a bypass on the west side and the east side is pretty much built up from 39/90/94 to 151. Maybe back in the 70's or 80's it could have been built, but not now. Besides that the terrain and environmental areas aren't very friendly for building a highway with Cherokee Marsh and Governor Nelson State Park. It's just not possible nowadays.
100% agree. The North Beltline ship sank to the bottom of Lake Mendota at least two decades ago. The residential growth along Woodland Drive just north of CTH-M makes a freeway through there impossible. The only remaining option would be starting the beltway at 39/90/94 near DeForest and go around the north side of Waunakee then dipping back south towards CTH-K. But that would pretty much defeat the purpose, as such a highway would be too far north to take traffic off CTH-M, CTH-K, CTH-Q, WI-19, and WI-113.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 13, 2021, 11:58:38 AM
I don't think any new roadways will be built in the Madison area. One pure fantasy idea I had was to build bridges or tunnels across Lakes Monona, Mendota and Waubesa. However, I am not delusional enough to believe any such proposals would ever see the light of day.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: sparker on March 13, 2021, 03:48:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 13, 2021, 11:58:38 AM
I don't think any new roadways will be built in the Madison area. One pure fantasy idea I had was to build bridges or tunnels across Lakes Monona, Mendota and Waubesa. However, I am not delusional enough to believe any such proposals would ever see the light of day.

Only railroads were able to get away with that (e.g. the rail bridge crossing at Monona Bay) to any extent!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on March 13, 2021, 04:08:14 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 12, 2021, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Weathernerd645 on March 11, 2021, 04:46:50 PM
Hello, long-time lurker here who wants to give their 2 cents. I personally don't think the North Beltline is ever going to happen. The corridor that it has been proposed for has been too built up over the last 30 or so years. Can't do a county M route cause of Bishop's Bay and Governor Nelson. K would be too far from Madison and just promote more sprawl in that direction. 19 is way too far north for such a bypass on the west side and the east side is pretty much built up from 39/90/94 to 151. Maybe back in the 70's or 80's it could have been built, but not now. Besides that the terrain and environmental areas aren't very friendly for building a highway with Cherokee Marsh and Governor Nelson State Park. It's just not possible nowadays.
100% agree. The North Beltline ship sank to the bottom of Lake Mendota at least two decades ago. The residential growth along Woodland Drive just north of CTH-M makes a freeway through there impossible. The only remaining option would be starting the beltway at 39/90/94 near DeForest and go around the north side of Waunakee then dipping back south towards CTH-K. But that would pretty much defeat the purpose, as such a highway would be too far north to take traffic off CTH-M, CTH-K, CTH-Q, WI-19, and WI-113.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
Having a North Beltline that would be north of Wis 19 between US 12 and US 151 would take traffic off of 19 in Waunakee and Sun Prairie, two of the fastest growing suburbs. Are we going to wait for Sun Prairie to be 50k or De Forest and Waunakee being 30k or Cottage Grove being 25k before that problem is addressed? All of those places have a lot of room to build out to those population numbers.  I actually think a 60 mile full loop would help both the north and east sides tremendously with the growth going on currently. The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 13, 2021, 04:43:49 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
Having a North Beltline that would be north of Wis 19 between US 12 and US 151 would take traffic off of 19 in Waunakee and Sun Prairie, two of the fastest growing suburbs. Are we going to wait for Sun Prairie to be 50k or De Forest and Waunakee being 30k or Cottage Grove being 25k before that problem is addressed? All of those places have a lot of room to build out to those population numbers.  I actually think a 60 mile full loop would help both the north and east sides tremendously with the growth going on currently. The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.
We're not talking about Texas here. This is Wisconsin. Dane County, Wisconsin to be exact. Highways need to be justified ten times over again for them to be built. If Wisconsin was Texas or Florida, I-94 would have been eight, maybe even ten or twelve lanes between Waukesha and downtown Milwaukee several years ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 05:49:59 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2021, 04:43:49 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
Having a North Beltline that would be north of Wis 19 between US 12 and US 151 would take traffic off of 19 in Waunakee and Sun Prairie, two of the fastest growing suburbs. Are we going to wait for Sun Prairie to be 50k or De Forest and Waunakee being 30k or Cottage Grove being 25k before that problem is addressed? All of those places have a lot of room to build out to those population numbers.  I actually think a 60 mile full loop would help both the north and east sides tremendously with the growth going on currently. The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.
We're not talking about Texas here. This is Wisconsin. Dane County, Wisconsin to be exact. Highways need to be justified ten times over again for them to be built. If Wisconsin was Texas or Florida, I-94 would have been eight, maybe even ten or twelve lanes between Waukesha and downtown Milwaukee several years ago.
As liberal as Madison is, and by the way I am a liberal politically, the reality is that north and east suburbs will be a major traffic nightmare if it is not addressed soon.
If Madison had a light rail system, that could be different alternative. But it doesn't. I once took the bus system between East Towne and Camp Randall. That was over an hour each way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on March 13, 2021, 05:54:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 05:49:59 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2021, 04:43:49 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
Having a North Beltline that would be north of Wis 19 between US 12 and US 151 would take traffic off of 19 in Waunakee and Sun Prairie, two of the fastest growing suburbs. Are we going to wait for Sun Prairie to be 50k or De Forest and Waunakee being 30k or Cottage Grove being 25k before that problem is addressed? All of those places have a lot of room to build out to those population numbers.  I actually think a 60 mile full loop would help both the north and east sides tremendously with the growth going on currently. The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.
We're not talking about Texas here. This is Wisconsin. Dane County, Wisconsin to be exact. Highways need to be justified ten times over again for them to be built. If Wisconsin was Texas or Florida, I-94 would have been eight, maybe even ten or twelve lanes between Waukesha and downtown Milwaukee several years ago.
As liberal as Madison is, and by the way I am a liberal politically, the reality is that north and east suburbs will be a major traffic nightmare if it is not addressed soon.
If Madison had a light rail system, that could be different alternative. But it doesn't. I once took the bus system between East Towne and Camp Randall. That was over an hour each way.

Similar political views, but bikes seem to be the only allowed alternative transport game in town these days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 13, 2021, 09:08:15 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 05:49:59 PM
If Madison had a light rail system, that could be different alternative. But it doesn't. I once took the bus system between East Towne and Camp Randall. That was over an hour each way.

Madison's solution is Bus Rapid Transit, but even that is still in planning hell: https://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/routes-schedules/bus-rapid-transit (https://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/routes-schedules/bus-rapid-transit)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on March 13, 2021, 10:56:33 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

IIRC the 1970's era freeway/expressway planning for Wisconsin had another freeway south of the Beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on March 14, 2021, 11:27:41 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 13, 2021, 10:56:33 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

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

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


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2021, 09:56:15 AM
Quote from: mrose on March 14, 2021, 11:27:41 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 13, 2021, 10:56:33 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

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

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


I just don't see how that would take much traffic off the Beltline though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on March 15, 2021, 10:24:49 AM
I don't necessarily know if it would or wouldn't.... was just thinking about loud about where another freeway south of the beltline might have gone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2021, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: mrose on March 15, 2021, 10:24:49 AM
I don't necessarily know if it would or wouldn't.... was just thinking about loud about where another freeway south of the beltline might have gone.


Gotcha.  Yeah I grew up in Fitchburg in the 70s and 80s and M was out in the middle of nowhere then.  Now...not so much.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on March 15, 2021, 04:11:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2021, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: mrose on March 15, 2021, 10:24:49 AM
I don't necessarily know if it would or wouldn't.... was just thinking about loud about where another freeway south of the beltline might have gone.


Gotcha.  Yeah I grew up in Fitchburg in the 70s and 80s and M was out in the middle of nowhere then.  Now...not so much.

Ain't it the truth. I lived in Madison in the late 70's. One of my favorite morning bicycle trips was from my apartment on the isthmus to the Arboretum, then take Seminole Drive and CTH PB to Paoli. (I know there's some missing roads, but these were the important ones.) I'd usually continue south on CTH PB until it ended near Belleville, then turn around and ride home. Sometimes I'd stop in Paoli for a bite, but I was usually broke back then so I'd bring my own lunch and picnic instead. It was all rural once you got about a half mile south of the Beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 15, 2021, 04:37:43 PM
County M's future is probably some sort of multi-lane arterial between Verona and Oregon that follows development.  It's already the posted alternate for US 18/151 from before, during and after the recent Verona Road project.   In my opinion, it's probably worth a future promotion to a state highway (extend WI 138 west?)
But that will all be in service of the immediate development of that area, not so much as an alternate to the Beltline.

Most Beltline traffic has an origin and/or destination that is close enough to the Beltline that there is no alternative; very little of it is 'thru' traffic trying to push on toward Dubuque or Baraboo.  So one is stuck trying to improve the existing corridor by braiding some interchange ramps or beefing up local, parallel streets.

Meanwhile, the Flex Lane project is moving right along.  The travel lanes have been shunted over a few feet for most of the project length already to give crews space to rework that median.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Dougtone on March 20, 2021, 11:43:31 PM
Take a Wisconsibly scenic drive down WIS 42 in northeastern Wisconsin. Plenty to see and do along the way in Kewaunee and Manitowoc Counties. Come join us for a virtual drive.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/03/wisconsin-state-trunk-highway-42-in.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/03/wisconsin-state-trunk-highway-42-in.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 04, 2021, 09:50:16 PM
The BGS's on I-94 around County Stad...no...Miller Pa...no...American Family Field have now been updated. Miller Park Way has been replaced with Brewers Blvd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: Dougtone on March 20, 2021, 11:43:31 PM
Take a Wisconsibly scenic drive down WIS 42 in northeastern Wisconsin. Plenty to see and do along the way in Kewaunee and Manitowoc Counties. Come join us for a virtual drive.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/03/wisconsin-state-trunk-highway-42-in.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/03/wisconsin-state-trunk-highway-42-in.html)


Prior to the WI-57 upgrades between Green Bay and Sturgeon Bay, taking I-43 and WI-42 up to Door County from Milwaukee was the preferred route - or at least it wasn't significantly longer.  Much more scenic too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 05, 2021, 12:39:11 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2021, 09:50:16 PM
The BGS's on I-94 around County Stad...no...Miller Pa...no...American Family Field have now been updated. Miller Park Way has been replaced with Brewers Blvd.

Lol.  I love that they gave up trying to keep up with the corporate ballpark names and just went with the team name when naming the road.  No need to give those corporate sponsors more than their money's worth.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 01:19:30 PM
The Milwaukee Brewers are a for-profit corporation as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on April 05, 2021, 04:38:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 01:19:30 PM
The Milwaukee Brewers are a for-profit corporation as well.

True. But the Brewers are unlikely to change their name unless they move while sponsors come and go depending on their fortunes. I was living in St Louis as the Kiel Center became the Savvis Center, then Scottrade Center, and now the Enterprise Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Center). It's still home of the Blues.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 05:02:37 PM
I would have preferred something like Henry Aaron Way...or Robin Yount...or something like that.  I was being someone sarcastic, but the Brewers may not be in Milwaukee forever.  And their next stadium may be located somewhere else entirely.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 05, 2021, 08:42:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 05:02:37 PM
I would have preferred something like Henry Aaron Way...or Robin Yount...or something like that.  I was being someone sarcastic, but the Brewers may not be in Milwaukee forever.  And their next stadium may be located somewhere else entirely.

It's good enough. Even if the Brewers relocated I still feel like the name would be halfway appropriate in Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:46:51 PM
Miller Park is now called American Family Field? This is the first I've heard of that, and I'm a native Wisconsinite. I still like my idea of naming the former Miller Parkway south of Interstate 94 the Stadium Parkway, instead of the chosen Brewers Boulevard designation, but then again, I'm not in charge of name changes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:46:51 PM
Miller Park is now called American Family Field? This is the first I've heard of that, and I'm a native Wisconsinite. I still like my idea of naming the former Miller Parkway south of Interstate 94 the Stadium Parkway, instead of the chosen Brewers Boulevard designation, but then again, I'm not in charge of name changes.

It was announced over a year ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2021, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:46:51 PM
Miller Park is now called American Family Field? This is the first I've heard of that, and I'm a native Wisconsinite. I still like my idea of naming the former Miller Parkway south of Interstate 94 the Stadium Parkway, instead of the chosen Brewers Boulevard designation, but then again, I'm not in charge of name changes.

It was announced over a year ago.

Good thing for you is many still call it Miller Park in defiance.

As many teams in many sports have no issue changing name of where they play, and the increasing frequency of changes......ballpark/stadium/arena etc names unless an iconic one(like Fenway or Wrigley) don't mean much anymore as a fan.........now if it was Lambeau Field being rebranded to a different name that may be a special level of defiance coming
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:28:49 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2021, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:46:51 PM
Miller Park is now called American Family Field? This is the first I've heard of that, and I'm a native Wisconsinite. I still like my idea of naming the former Miller Parkway south of Interstate 94 the Stadium Parkway, instead of the chosen Brewers Boulevard designation, but then again, I'm not in charge of name changes.

It was announced over a year ago.

Good thing for you is many still call it Miller Park in defiance.

As many teams in many sports have no issue changing name of where they play, and the increasing frequency of changes......ballpark/stadium/arena etc names unless an iconic one(like Fenway or Wrigley) don't mean much anymore as a fan.........now if it was Lambeau Field being rebranded to a different name that may be a special level of defiance coming
The name change is dumb, but let's be honest, nobody is going to care in five years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2021, 05:30:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:28:49 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2021, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:46:51 PM
Miller Park is now called American Family Field? This is the first I've heard of that, and I'm a native Wisconsinite. I still like my idea of naming the former Miller Parkway south of Interstate 94 the Stadium Parkway, instead of the chosen Brewers Boulevard designation, but then again, I'm not in charge of name changes.

It was announced over a year ago.

Good thing for you is many still call it Miller Park in defiance.

As many teams in many sports have no issue changing name of where they play, and the increasing frequency of changes......ballpark/stadium/arena etc names unless an iconic one(like Fenway or Wrigley) don't mean much anymore as a fan.........now if it was Lambeau Field being rebranded to a different name that may be a special level of defiance coming
The name change is dumb, but let's be honest, nobody is going to care in five years.

Agreed, and American Family has been associated with the Brewers for years.  So still very local compared to many other placed outside of Wisconsin
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 08, 2021, 09:33:06 AM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2021, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:46:51 PM
Miller Park is now called American Family Field? This is the first I've heard of that, and I'm a native Wisconsinite. I still like my idea of naming the former Miller Parkway south of Interstate 94 the Stadium Parkway, instead of the chosen Brewers Boulevard designation, but then again, I'm not in charge of name changes.

It was announced over a year ago.

Good thing for you is many still call it Miller Park in defiance.

As many teams in many sports have no issue changing name of where they play, and the increasing frequency of changes......ballpark/stadium/arena etc names unless an iconic one(like Fenway or Wrigley) don't mean much anymore as a fan.........now if it was Lambeau Field being rebranded to a different name that may be a special level of defiance coming



I guess I don't see much to be defiant about.  They lost a naming sponsor...and gained another.

But you are correct.  If they renamed Lambeau or Camp Randall, people would defiantly never refer to them by any other name.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2021, 06:49:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 08, 2021, 09:33:06 AM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 07, 2021, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2021, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:46:51 PM
Miller Park is now called American Family Field? This is the first I've heard of that, and I'm a native Wisconsinite. I still like my idea of naming the former Miller Parkway south of Interstate 94 the Stadium Parkway, instead of the chosen Brewers Boulevard designation, but then again, I'm not in charge of name changes.

It was announced over a year ago.

Good thing for you is many still call it Miller Park in defiance.

As many teams in many sports have no issue changing name of where they play, and the increasing frequency of changes......ballpark/stadium/arena etc names unless an iconic one(like Fenway or Wrigley) don't mean much anymore as a fan.........now if it was Lambeau Field being rebranded to a different name that may be a special level of defiance coming



I guess I don't see much to be defiant about.  They lost a naming sponsor...and gained another.

But you are correct.  If they renamed Lambeau or Camp Randall, people would defiantly never refer to them by any other name.

And as quoted from a previous post American Family insurance has a history with the Brewers.  Think Miller Park had to at least keep the name for another 20 years before people maybe would consider nostalgic to avoid name changes.  I would add Kohl Center/UW Fieldhouse to list of sports venues in Wisconsin that would get serious resistance if name change proposal came through.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on April 15, 2021, 06:29:30 PM
I-94 project in Milwaukee put on hold: https://www.wpr.org/i-94-expansion-put-hold-department-transportation-opts-more-research
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2021, 08:28:46 PM
Again? At this rate, Interstate 94 between 70th St. and 16th St. will never be reconstructed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 15, 2021, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Big John on April 15, 2021, 06:29:30 PM
I-94 project in Milwaukee put on hold: https://www.wpr.org/i-94-expansion-put-hold-department-transportation-opts-more-research

If WisDOT kicked in $50-100 million towards Bus Rapid Transit or some other substantial transit improvement in Milwaukee, it would be cheaper then continuing to battle the city over getting this rebuild done. Every kick of the can down the road drives the cost up.

There's no way only 3 lanes each way are going to cut it, but the legislature's middle finger towards Milwaukee in general means there's little willingness to cooperate on a project they weren't that crazy about to begin with.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 15, 2021, 09:18:00 PM
From the city's point of view, I understand it.  This project doesn't benefit them very much.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 17, 2021, 04:57:31 AM
In another local Milwaukee development forvm that I follow, the anti-car/road crowd in it is doing a collective Kabuki dance over that news.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 17, 2021, 01:54:43 PM
I am well aware of the Milwaukee's long-time opposition to expanding their freeways within their city limits. However, I think this is one case where expansion is warranted. Maybe the DOT should do what they did with the Zoo Interchange Reconstruction: keep the freeway 6 lanes, but build extra-wide shoulders to accommodate a fourth lane in the future. This segment of Interstate 94 needs to be reconstructed sooner rather than later, given the roadway first opened 60 years ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 17, 2021, 02:22:32 PM
With the Marquette Interchange, Mitchell Interchange, Zoo Interchange, and I-894 all recently done, the only major projects that remain undone in southeast WI are I-43 north of downtown and I-94 between 70th and 16th. A rebuild of the Stadium Interchange, which is needed, would cover a pretty sizeable chunk of the latter, when you consider the approaches to the new interchange on both sides.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on April 17, 2021, 11:02:48 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 17, 2021, 02:22:32 PM
With the Marquette Interchange, Mitchell Interchange, Zoo Interchange, and I-894 all recently done, the only major projects that remain undone in southeast WI are I-43 north of downtown and I-94 between 70th and 16th. A rebuild of the Stadium Interchange, which is needed, would cover a pretty sizeable chunk of the latter, when you consider the approaches to the new interchange on both sides.

I-43 could use a rebuild between the Layton Avenue interchange and I-894, along with a redesign of the I-894 interchange so the NB I-43 ramp enters NB I-41/WB I-894 on the right.




For the time it appears the traffic signal on WI 794 at the Oklahoma Avenue connector has been removed down to the foundations.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 18, 2021, 03:55:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 17, 2021, 01:54:43 PM
I am well aware of the Milwaukee's long-time opposition to expanding their freeways within their city limits. However, I think this is one case where expansion is warranted. Maybe the DOT should do what they did with the Zoo Interchange Reconstruction: keep the freeway 6 lanes, but build extra-wide shoulders to accommodate a fourth lane in the future. This segment of Interstate 94 needs to be reconstructed sooner rather than later, given the roadway first opened 60 years ago.


Again, how does this benefit the City of Milwaukee?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on April 19, 2021, 01:35:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 18, 2021, 03:55:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 17, 2021, 01:54:43 PM
I am well aware of the Milwaukee's long-time opposition to expanding their freeways within their city limits. However, I think this is one case where expansion is warranted. Maybe the DOT should do what they did with the Zoo Interchange Reconstruction: keep the freeway 6 lanes, but build extra-wide shoulders to accommodate a fourth lane in the future. This segment of Interstate 94 needs to be reconstructed sooner rather than later, given the roadway first opened 60 years ago.


Again, how does this benefit the City of Milwaukee?

Thank you for reiterating this. Until WisDOT actually takes Milwaukee's concerns into the discussion, it's not going to happen. Does it need to happen? I think so. Do the residents of the city care if Waukesha County commuters save a few minutes on their commute? Absolutely not. It's a democracy and the power of voters around the construction site matters.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 19, 2021, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 17, 2021, 02:22:32 PM
With the Marquette Interchange, Mitchell Interchange, Zoo Interchange, and I-894 all recently done, the only major projects that remain undone in southeast WI are I-43 north of downtown and I-94 between 70th and 16th. A rebuild of the Stadium Interchange, which is needed, would cover a pretty sizeable chunk of the latter, when you consider the approaches to the new interchange on both sides.

I-43 north of downtown definitely could use some upgrades. Driving from Chicagoland, it's crazy when you go from what you have south of downtown, through downtown, and then when you get north, you're on a subpar, overcrowded, 4-lane freeway for quite some time.

Are there any concrete plans or interest in improving that segment of I-43 anytime soon?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 19, 2021, 11:37:53 AM
In the long run, both I-94 E/W and I-43 expansions are needed.  But I completely understand why the City of Milwaukee wouldn't really be a fan of either.  It has been scarred by a history of over-zealous highway expansion in the past.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2021, 01:01:01 PM
What overzealous highway expansion? Only about half of Milwaukee County's freeway system was built, and only two routes were built after the 1974 freeway referendum: the STH-119 Airport Spur (completed in 1978), and the STH-794 Lake Parkway (initially completed in 1999, short extension to intersect Pennsylvania Ave. completed in 2004). Prior to the reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange in 2004, none of the freeways in Milwaukee County were ever expanded (as far as I know). If you are referring to the initial construction of the Milwaukee freeway system when you say "overzealous highway expansion", or to the routes that were canceled in the 1970s, Milwaukee is not unique in that aspect. The Wisconsin Highways website has a great and in-depth history into the highway system of Wisconsin, including the evolution of the Milwaukee freeway system: wisconsinhighways.org.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 19, 2021, 02:32:29 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2021, 01:01:01 PM
What overzealous highway expansion? Only about half of Milwaukee County's freeway system was built, and only two routes were built after the 1974 freeway referendum: the STH-119 Airport Spur (completed in 1978), and the STH-794 Lake Parkway (initially completed in 1999, short extension to intersect Pennsylvania Ave. completed in 2004). Prior to the reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange in 2004, none of the freeways in Milwaukee County were ever expanded (as far as I know). If you are referring to the initial construction of the Milwaukee freeway system when you say "overzealous highway expansion", or to the routes that were canceled in the 1970s, Milwaukee is not unique in that aspect. The Wisconsin Highways website has a great and in-depth history into the highway system of Wisconsin, including the evolution of the Milwaukee freeway system: wisconsinhighways.org.


I'm fully aware of the history.  I am fully aware of neighborhoods that were cut in two by ROWs cleared for highways that were either never built or partially built.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 19, 2021, 11:14:51 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx

I-43 is supposed to undergo a reconstruction and expansion project starting later this year, from Silver Spring Dr. to WIS 60.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on April 19, 2021, 11:25:41 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 19, 2021, 11:14:51 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx

I-43 is supposed to undergo a reconstruction and expansion project starting later this year, from Silver Spring Dr. to WIS 60.

Long overdue! That section should've been widened 10-20 years ago...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 20, 2021, 12:11:42 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on April 19, 2021, 11:25:41 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 19, 2021, 11:14:51 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx

I-43 is supposed to undergo a reconstruction and expansion project starting later this year, from Silver Spring Dr. to WIS 60.

Long overdue! That section should've been widened 10-20 years ago...

The roadbed is completely shot and resurfacing does nothing anymore. Within 2 years of new asphalt it crumbles. With a complete rebuild the road should last for decades to come.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 20, 2021, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 19, 2021, 11:14:51 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx

I-43 is supposed to undergo a reconstruction and expansion project starting later this year, from Silver Spring Dr. to WIS 60.

Is Silver Spring where it currently goes down to two lanes?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 11:08:51 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 20, 2021, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 19, 2021, 11:14:51 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx

I-43 is supposed to undergo a reconstruction and expansion project starting later this year, from Silver Spring Dr. to WIS 60.

Is Silver Spring where it currently goes down to two lanes?

Correct.

Widening the road that far north would work wonders. I remember driving that route up to Door County both in summer 2019 and 2020. Even with the virus, that stretch was fairly congested. Not to mention the road surface itself is in poor shape. I assume they'll be using concrete on it as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 20, 2021, 11:31:11 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 11:08:51 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 20, 2021, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 19, 2021, 11:14:51 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx

I-43 is supposed to undergo a reconstruction and expansion project starting later this year, from Silver Spring Dr. to WIS 60.

Is Silver Spring where it currently goes down to two lanes?

Correct.

Widening the road that far north would work wonders. I remember driving that route up to Door County both in summer 2019 and 2020. Even with the virus, that stretch was fairly congested. Not to mention the road surface itself is in poor shape. I assume they'll be using concrete on it as well.

Also none of the project (I believe) lies within the City of Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2021, 01:02:07 PM
There once was a Wisconsin Senator (Mordecai Lee) who got a budget amendment passed in 1983 that forbade the expansion of Interstate 43 between Bender Rd. and the Ozaukee County Line. It was overturned in the 1990's. Source: http://wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/northsouth.html. I'm surprised the moratorium didn't go all the way south to the Marquette Interchange, but maybe the moratorium only covered the area the senator represented. The Interstate 43 reconstruction and expansion project greatly interests me, and I hope it and the new Highland Rd. interchange (Exit 87) will be beneficial to the corridor.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 20, 2021, 11:31:11 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 11:08:51 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 20, 2021, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 19, 2021, 11:14:51 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx

I-43 is supposed to undergo a reconstruction and expansion project starting later this year, from Silver Spring Dr. to WIS 60.

Is Silver Spring where it currently goes down to two lanes?

Correct.

Widening the road that far north would work wonders. I remember driving that route up to Door County both in summer 2019 and 2020. Even with the virus, that stretch was fairly congested. Not to mention the road surface itself is in poor shape. I assume they'll be using concrete on it as well.

Also none of the project (I believe) lies within the City of Milwaukee.

That's also correct. Though if you go straight west, you're in Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2021, 06:04:54 PM
Maybe we can save everyone time and skip ahead to the part where WisDOT has to kick in some sheckles to Milwaukee County Transit just like the last big court fight over the Zoo Interchange.
The thing about going from a six lane freeway to an eight lane freeway is you can almost always do it without additional right of way and it makes it much easier and safer to handle the traffic coming into/out of the system interchanges.  And in terms of cost, rebuilding and modernizing this stretch of 94 as 6 lanes vs 8 lanes is minor relative to the cost of the whole project.  It's gonna cost a billion dollars whether it has 6 lanes or 8.  I think the only difference would be your bridge widths over 70th, 68th, Hawley, Mitchell, the river, etc; maybe a few extra retaining walls.  A pittance in the scheme of things.  All overpasses would be built to physically span an 8 lane freeway anyway due to shoulder widths and embankments. 

This is one of those situations where I think my peeps in the city should compromise if they can get something out of it.  The car people can expand some more freeways and in exchange, we legalize weed in Wisconsin and use the tax revenue from it to beef up public transit.  Turn that token street car line into a bonafide light rail system; I dunno.  That's right, it's grand bargain time 'sconnie!

SB 43/94/420; the "Legalize Cannabis and Expand the Beltline and Milwaukee Freeways Act of 2021".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on April 20, 2021, 07:40:18 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2021, 06:04:54 PM

SB 43/94/420; the "Legalize Cannabis and Expand the Beltline and Milwaukee Freeways Act of 2021".
And you wrote that on 4/20.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 20, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 17, 2021, 02:22:32 PM
With the Marquette Interchange, Mitchell Interchange, Zoo Interchange, and I-894 all recently done, the only major projects that remain undone in southeast WI are I-43 north of downtown and I-94 between 70th and 16th. A rebuild of the Stadium Interchange, which is needed, would cover a pretty sizeable chunk of the latter, when you consider the approaches to the new interchange on both sides.
I would say I-94 between Waukesha and Oconomowoc needs to be expanded.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 21, 2021, 08:45:47 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 20, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 17, 2021, 02:22:32 PM
With the Marquette Interchange, Mitchell Interchange, Zoo Interchange, and I-894 all recently done, the only major projects that remain undone in southeast WI are I-43 north of downtown and I-94 between 70th and 16th. A rebuild of the Stadium Interchange, which is needed, would cover a pretty sizeable chunk of the latter, when you consider the approaches to the new interchange on both sides.
I would say I-94 between Waukesha and Oconomowoc needs to be expanded.
As far west as the WI-83 exit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 21, 2021, 02:47:56 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 20, 2021, 12:11:42 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on April 19, 2021, 11:25:41 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 19, 2021, 11:14:51 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/43crdr/default.aspx

I-43 is supposed to undergo a reconstruction and expansion project starting later this year, from Silver Spring Dr. to WIS 60.

Long overdue! That section should've been widened 10-20 years ago...

The roadbed is completely shot and resurfacing does nothing anymore. Within 2 years of new asphalt it crumbles. With a complete rebuild the road should last for decades to come.

The part of that that is in Milwaukee County is still the patched and bodged together pre-freeway Port Washington Rd (US 141) that was somehow accepted for marking as a full interstate.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 22, 2021, 10:10:32 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.

They stopped using them in 2017, as they said. WisDOT very much still uses unisigns though. They just print them on big sheets of aluminum with rounded corners which look pretty good. And as they said, they can be recycled at the end of their service, so that's a win.

Here's an example at the western end of WI-11:
https://goo.gl/maps/UdVZB2BLL6SjR8e46
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 22, 2021, 07:08:32 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 22, 2021, 10:10:32 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.

They stopped using them in 2017, as they said. WisDOT very much still uses unisigns though. They just print them on big sheets of aluminum with rounded corners which look pretty good. And as they said, they can be recycled at the end of their service, so that's a win.

Here's an example at the western end of WI-11:
https://goo.gl/maps/UdVZB2BLL6SjR8e46

Good call with the high price of wood!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 26, 2021, 12:54:37 AM
Drove on the freeway stretch of US 12 in Walworth County. It was just resurfaced in addition to new concrete below bridges from the state line to Lake Geneva. There's now signals at the stub end. Between Wis 67 and Wis 50, the freeway is in rough shape and will hopefully be worked on soon!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 26, 2021, 09:15:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 26, 2021, 12:54:37 AM
Drove on the freeway stretch of US 12 in Walworth County. It was just resurfaced in addition to new concrete below bridges from the state line to Lake Geneva. There's now signals at the stub end. Between Wis 67 and Wis 50, the freeway is in rough shape and will hopefully be worked on soon!
Decades likely.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 27, 2021, 09:50:41 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 26, 2021, 09:15:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 26, 2021, 12:54:37 AM
Drove on the freeway stretch of US 12 in Walworth County. It was just resurfaced in addition to new concrete below bridges from the state line to Lake Geneva. There's now signals at the stub end. Between Wis 67 and Wis 50, the freeway is in rough shape and will hopefully be worked on soon!
Decades likely.

I'm sure Lake Geneva wanted WisDOT to fix the stretch from the state line to WI-50. There's much less incentive to do WI-50 to WI-67, even though the AADT is the same.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 27, 2021, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 27, 2021, 09:50:41 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 26, 2021, 09:15:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 26, 2021, 12:54:37 AM
Drove on the freeway stretch of US 12 in Walworth County. It was just resurfaced in addition to new concrete below bridges from the state line to Lake Geneva. There's now signals at the stub end. Between Wis 67 and Wis 50, the freeway is in rough shape and will hopefully be worked on soon!
Decades likely.

I'm sure Lake Geneva wanted WisDOT to fix the stretch from the state line to WI-50. There's much less incentive to do WI-50 to WI-67, even though the AADT is the same.

Gee, I wonder what Lake Geneva's incentive could have possibly been...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 29, 2021, 12:50:45 AM
Groundbreaking ceremony today on the Wis 29/County VV Interchange Project. Wis 29 will be all freeway west of I-41 in Brown County once the project is complete. The 70 mph speed limit will probably also extend west from County FF to Shawano County once the project is complete.

https://www.wbay.com/2021/04/28/ground-broken-on-new-highway-29-interchange/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 29, 2021, 07:54:34 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 29, 2021, 12:50:45 AM
Groundbreaking ceremony today on the Wis 29/County VV Interchange Project. Wis 29 will be all freeway west of I-41 in Brown County once the project is complete. The 70 mph speed limit will probably also extend west from County FF to Shawano County once the project is complete.

https://www.wbay.com/2021/04/28/ground-broken-on-new-highway-29-interchange/
And this is how WI-29 will be upgraded over time - one new interchange every decade or so. It might eventually get to Interstate standards, but it will be a while.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 29, 2021, 05:25:43 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 29, 2021, 07:54:34 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 29, 2021, 12:50:45 AM
Groundbreaking ceremony today on the Wis 29/County VV Interchange Project. Wis 29 will be all freeway west of I-41 in Brown County once the project is complete. The 70 mph speed limit will probably also extend west from County FF to Shawano County once the project is complete.

https://www.wbay.com/2021/04/28/ground-broken-on-new-highway-29-interchange/
And this is how WI-29 will be upgraded over time - one new interchange every decade or so. It might eventually get to Interstate standards, but it will be a while.

And from there, it would be a fairly simple and inexpensive task to similarly upgrade the non-freeway part from the Brown/Shawano County line westward to Bonduel.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on April 30, 2021, 12:24:01 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 29, 2021, 05:25:43 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 29, 2021, 07:54:34 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 29, 2021, 12:50:45 AM
Groundbreaking ceremony today on the Wis 29/County VV Interchange Project. Wis 29 will be all freeway west of I-41 in Brown County once the project is complete. The 70 mph speed limit will probably also extend west from County FF to Shawano County once the project is complete.

https://www.wbay.com/2021/04/28/ground-broken-on-new-highway-29-interchange/
And this is how WI-29 will be upgraded over time - one new interchange every decade or so. It might eventually get to Interstate standards, but it will be a while.

And from there, it would be a fairly simple and inexpensive task to similarly upgrade the non-freeway part from the Brown/Shawano County line westward to Bonduel.

Mike

It's a fairly simple and inexpensive task to upgrade the non-freeway parts to Chippewa Falls. There's just no need and the money can be better spent elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 05, 2021, 03:09:13 AM
Here is a map of officially designated freeways and expressways. Notice how most of Wis 29 is designated as a freeway even though most parts have cross traffic along with US 51 north of Merrill, the US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass, and Wis 35 between Hudson and River Falls.  I'm assuming those sections will get top priority for freeway conversion?

It's also interesting that no part of Wis 26 received a freeway or expressway designation and Wis 15 has an expressway designation in anticipation of future expansion around Hortonville even with 2 roundabouts on the mainline.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/freewaymap.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 05, 2021, 02:52:05 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 05, 2021, 03:09:13 AM
Here is a map of officially designated freeways and expressways. Notice how most of Wis 29 is designated as a freeway even though most parts have cross traffic along with US 51 north of Merrill, the US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass, and Wis 35 between Hudson and River Falls.  I'm assuming those sections will get top priority for freeway conversion?

It's also interesting that no part of Wis 26 received a freeway or expressway designation and Wis 15 has an expressway designation in anticipation of future expansion around Hortonville even with 2 roundabouts on the mainline.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/freewaymap.pdf


Couldn't they use a better key than a bunch of empty squares bunched together and a bunch of empty circles bunched together?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 05, 2021, 07:53:44 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 05, 2021, 02:52:05 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 05, 2021, 03:09:13 AM
Here is a map of officially designated freeways and expressways. Notice how most of Wis 29 is designated as a freeway even though most parts have cross traffic along with US 51 north of Merrill, the US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass, and Wis 35 between Hudson and River Falls.  I'm assuming those sections will get top priority for freeway conversion?

It's also interesting that no part of Wis 26 received a freeway or expressway designation and Wis 15 has an expressway designation in anticipation of future expansion around Hortonville even with 2 roundabouts on the mainline.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/freewaymap.pdf


Couldn't they use a better key than a bunch of empty squares bunched together and a bunch of empty circles bunched together?
No.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 05, 2021, 08:46:42 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 05, 2021, 03:09:13 AM
Here is a map of officially designated freeways and expressways. Notice how most of Wis 29 is designated as a freeway even though most parts have cross traffic along with US 51 north of Merrill, the US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass, and Wis 35 between Hudson and River Falls.  I'm assuming those sections will get top priority for freeway conversion?

It's also interesting that no part of Wis 26 received a freeway or expressway designation and Wis 15 has an expressway designation in anticipation of future expansion around Hortonville even with 2 roundabouts on the mainline.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/freewaymap.pdf

Heck, I'm wondering if the WI 35 River Falls Spur might someday become 'I-994'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 05, 2021, 10:20:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 05, 2021, 08:46:42 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 05, 2021, 03:09:13 AM
Here is a map of officially designated freeways and expressways. Notice how most of Wis 29 is designated as a freeway even though most parts have cross traffic along with US 51 north of Merrill, the US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass, and Wis 35 between Hudson and River Falls.  I'm assuming those sections will get top priority for freeway conversion?

It's also interesting that no part of Wis 26 received a freeway or expressway designation and Wis 15 has an expressway designation in anticipation of future expansion around Hortonville even with 2 roundabouts on the mainline.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/freewaymap.pdf

Heck, I'm wondering if the WI 35 River Falls Spur might someday become 'I-994'.

Mike
A fate worse than I-180 in IL?

The portion of freeway north of Wausau is still signed 65-mph speed limit. Most if not all of it can be 70 up to US 8.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 05, 2021, 10:42:55 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 05, 2021, 10:20:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 05, 2021, 08:46:42 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 05, 2021, 03:09:13 AM
Here is a map of officially designated freeways and expressways. Notice how most of Wis 29 is designated as a freeway even though most parts have cross traffic along with US 51 north of Merrill, the US 151 Fond Du Lac Bypass, and Wis 35 between Hudson and River Falls.  I'm assuming those sections will get top priority for freeway conversion?

It's also interesting that no part of Wis 26 received a freeway or expressway designation and Wis 15 has an expressway designation in anticipation of future expansion around Hortonville even with 2 roundabouts on the mainline.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/freewaymap.pdf

Heck, I'm wondering if the WI 35 River Falls Spur might someday become 'I-994'.

Mike
A fate worse than I-180 in IL?

The portion of freeway north of Wausau is still signed 65-mph speed limit. Most if not all of it can be 70 up to US 8.

The 70 mph speed limits have been very inconsistent on non-interstate freeways. Short stretches of Wis 57 and Wis 29 in Brown County are signed at 70. Yet much longer freeway stretches such as US 51 north of Wausau, US 10/US 45 west of I-41, and Wis 16 in Lake Country are signed at 65 when they could easily be 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 06, 2021, 02:41:56 PM
I often joke that the short US 14 freeway from Madison to Oregon was upped to 70 because some folks who work at WisDOT must live that way. :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 13, 2021, 05:34:55 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.
No but I hope this means they will move away from the non cutout interstate shields.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 13, 2021, 07:21:22 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 13, 2021, 05:34:55 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.
No but I hope this means they will move away from the non cutout interstate shields.
Nope.  Due to the unisigns
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 14, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 13, 2021, 07:21:22 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 13, 2021, 05:34:55 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.
No but I hope this means they will move away from the non cutout interstate shields.
Nope.  Due to the unisigns
I am ok with the non cut outs for the unisigns it's the non cut out stand alone shields that I wish would be phased out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 14, 2021, 04:39:30 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 14, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 13, 2021, 07:21:22 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 13, 2021, 05:34:55 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.
No but I hope this means they will move away from the non cutout interstate shields.
Nope.  Due to the unisigns
I am ok with the non cut outs for the unisigns it's the non cut out stand alone shields that I wish would be phased out.

Hahahaha, imagine seeing standalone shields posted from WisDOT!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 17, 2021, 11:17:29 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 14, 2021, 04:39:30 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 14, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 13, 2021, 07:21:22 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 13, 2021, 05:34:55 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.
No but I hope this means they will move away from the non cutout interstate shields.
Nope.  Due to the unisigns
I am ok with the non cut outs for the unisigns it's the non cut out stand alone shields that I wish would be phased out.

Hahahaha, imagine seeing standalone shields posted from WisDOT!
I don't get why that is so funny but whatever. Speaking of shields the Illinois style county route shields are once again appearing in Waukesha County. Has anyone seen them in any other county. For whatever reason at least as far as I know I have only seen them in Waukesha County. I wonder what is up with that?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 12:48:46 PM
Where in Waukesha County are these "Illinois-style" county shields? As I can't travel there myself, can you get pictures of these county shields? I'd be interested to see what they look like.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 17, 2021, 02:18:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 12:48:46 PM
Where in Waukesha County are these "Illinois-style" county shields? As I can't travel there myself, can you get pictures of these county shields? I'd be interested to see what they look like.
I don't have a smartphone so I can't share pictures but I can tell you there are several around Mukwonago along Hwy LO and at ES and NN. In fact Bill Burmaster featured it as a goof on his sign mistakes page so that is another place you can check it out. And as of recently several new ones have appeared around the Sussex Menomonee Falls area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 02:33:18 PM
I just saw this shield on CTH-LO just west of its eastern terminus on Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.866037,-88.3346866,3a,75y,272.49h,96.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skyM-2IG51k5PSkMGbYC0Eg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656. I like the "Wisconsin-style" County Highway signs better. I also find it interesting that both CTH-NN (1919-1967) and CTH-LO (1967-1999) were both once designated STH-99.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 17, 2021, 04:13:50 PM
I thought that you were referring to MUTCD 'County' pentagons, which I have (at least I think that I have) seen in Illinois.  A few counties in the northwoods use that style of square county sign, too, including Lincoln County.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2021, 04:21:52 PM
Those county highway signs are different, but hardly problematic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 17, 2021, 04:24:33 PM
Yeah, I was thinking they were blue pentagons which would have been very weird to see.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 17, 2021, 08:27:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 02:33:18 PM
I just saw this shield on CTH-LO just west of its eastern terminus on Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.866037,-88.3346866,3a,75y,272.49h,96.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skyM-2IG51k5PSkMGbYC0Eg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656. I like the "Wisconsin-style" County Highway signs better. I also find it interesting that both CTH-NN (1919-1967) and CTH-LO (1967-1999) were both once designated STH-99.
Meh - county work.  That happens.
Quote from: dvferyance on May 17, 2021, 11:17:29 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 14, 2021, 04:39:30 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 14, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 13, 2021, 07:21:22 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 13, 2021, 05:34:55 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2021, 11:43:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WisDOT/posts/4215240631833733

WisDOT is moving away from plywood signs. Not sure if this means they are also moving away from unisigns as well.
No but I hope this means they will move away from the non cutout interstate shields.
Nope.  Due to the unisigns
I am ok with the non cut outs for the unisigns it's the non cut out stand alone shields that I wish would be phased out.

Hahahaha, imagine seeing standalone shields posted from WisDOT!
I don't get why that is so funny but whatever.
Imagine a Wisconsin Interstate shield without a black background getting installed as part of a finished project.

Oh, you can't?  I wonder why.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 17, 2021, 09:38:47 PM
I hate the CTH-LO shield almost as much as I hate the name CTH-LO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 17, 2021, 09:45:55 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 17, 2021, 09:38:47 PM
I hate the CTH-LO shield almost as much as I hate the name CTH-LO.
So you hate Lloyd Owens, a longtime local politician?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2021, 09:40:04 AM
Quote from: Big John on May 17, 2021, 09:45:55 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 17, 2021, 09:38:47 PM
I hate the CTH-LO shield almost as much as I hate the name CTH-LO.
So you hate Lloyd Owens, a longtime local politician?


Well he's been dead for over a decade, so I don't think he'd be offended.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2021, 04:52:51 PM
If we're going to name Wisconsin Highways after politicians, how about we rename Interstate 794 (currently known as the East-West Freeway) from the Marquette Interchange to the Lake Interchange as the John Norquist Freeway. The irony of doing that is that, soon after becoming mayor, Norquist proposed tearing down that portion of Interstate 794 and converting it into a signaled surface boulevard. Ultimately, it was the underutilized Park East Freeway that was demolished.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2021, 05:25:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2021, 04:52:51 PM
If we're going to name Wisconsin Highways after politicians, how about we rename Interstate 794 (currently known as the East-West Freeway) from the Marquette Interchange to the Lake Interchange as the John Norquist Freeway. The irony of doing that is that, soon after becoming mayor, Norquist proposed tearing down that portion of Interstate 794 and converting it into a signaled surface boulevard. Ultimately, it was the underutilized Park East Freeway that was demolished.


It was a good idea.  It was great for the Park East Freeway corridor.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: vortexrider04 on May 18, 2021, 09:20:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 02:33:18 PM
I just saw this shield on CTH-LO just west of its eastern terminus on Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.866037,-88.3346866,3a,75y,272.49h,96.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skyM-2IG51k5PSkMGbYC0Eg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656. I like the "Wisconsin-style" County Highway signs better. I also find it interesting that both CTH-NN (1919-1967) and CTH-LO (1967-1999) were both once designated STH-99.

Isn't that just a really old county highway sign? I'm not sure when CTH LO was designated, but this plain looking county highway sign was(is?) seen frequently in Marinette County. I'm not sure how many of them still exist. Here is a really crappy Google streetview pic, and you can see it's the same style sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0708675,-87.6198505,3a,75y,107.71h,90.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8tFwX812yDNuBPPcFBUVOg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

This intersection in the City of Marinette has had this sign for as long as I can remember. CTH BB is(was) full of this style sign. There were also quite a few of them along CTH M and CTH W southwest of Peshtigo.

First time poster here, but I've been a lurker for years!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 18, 2021, 09:31:15 PM
^^ CTH LO was designated in 1999.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2021, 09:58:31 PM
Yeah those style county signs started popping up about 15-20 years ago and only in Waukesha County.  It was all the talk on misc.transport.road back then.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 21, 2021, 04:08:59 PM
https://www.facebook.com/123584364348830/posts/5921057061268169/?d=n

Groundbreaking on the Wis 15 project. Instead of interchanges WISDOT opted for 2 roundabouts at each end of the Hortonville Bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 22, 2021, 11:43:53 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 21, 2021, 04:08:59 PM
https://www.facebook.com/123584364348830/posts/5921057061268169/?d=n

Groundbreaking on the Wis 15 project. Instead of interchanges WISDOT opted for 2 roundabouts at each end of the Hortonville Bypass.

I've known about the roundabouts for several years now.  It is good to see this project starting, commuter traffic on WI 15 through Hortonville has been the stuff of legends for as long as I have been alive.  I can envision major upgrades for the entire corridor, including at its interchange at I-41, too.  We have not seen the last of this road.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 23, 2021, 01:02:36 PM
What's the construction on I-41/894 at the Zoo Interchange?

Also, that interchange never ceases to amaze me. I would put it right up there behind Texas' High Five in terms of the best interchanges in the country.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 03:54:12 PM
It should be this: https://projects.511wi.gov/41goodhope/. Also, I'm glad STH-15 is finally being expanded to four lanes between US 45 in New London and Lily of the Valley Dr. in Greenville, although I find having roundabouts at both terminuses of the Hortonville Bypass to be rather odd. I don't recall seeing that on any other bypasses within the state of Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 24, 2021, 06:35:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 03:54:12 PM
It should be this: https://projects.511wi.gov/41goodhope/.
So it's mostly the Silver Spring and Lovers Lane intersection. The rest is cosmetic stuff.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Icewolf on May 25, 2021, 11:06:17 AM
Quote from: thspfc on May 23, 2021, 01:02:36 PM
What's the construction on I-41/894 at the Zoo Interchange?

Also, that interchange never ceases to amaze me. I would put it right up there behind Texas' High Five in terms of the best interchanges in the country.

I think you're also looking at the North Leg project between Watertown Plank Road and Burleigh.  It was part of the original Zoo Interchange project that was pushed back...
https://projects.511wi.gov/zoo-interchange-project/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 01, 2021, 02:32:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2021, 09:58:31 PM
Yeah those style county signs started popping up about 15-20 years ago and only in Waukesha County.  It was all the talk on misc.transport.road back then.
Then they stopped for awhile but now they are popping up again. What is odd is when Hwy LO was created in 1999 there is a mix of these odd signs as well as the traditional ones. Even though they were all put up at the exact same time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 26, 2021, 08:47:42 PM
The widening of WI-23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth is . . . going on. The expected timeframe of "mid-2021"  for the completion of the eastern half of the project (east of Division Road) is not going to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2021, 09:36:05 AM
Wisconsin's budget will include funds for the expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee.  Both the Republicans and Governor Evers are in agreement here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/29/wisconsin-republican-legislators-pass-budget-cuts-taxes/7785245002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

I-94 expansion gets bipartisan support

Despite their many differences, Evers and Republicans have seen eye to eye on rebuilding I-94 west of downtown Milwaukee. The budget would spend $82 million to prepare for a project that could begin in late 2022 and is expected to eventually cost more than $1.1 billion.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 29, 2021, 02:27:55 PM
Good! Rebuilding and expanding Interstate 94 between 70th St. and 16th St. is well overdue. Hopefully, the project is also enumerated and begins on time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2021, 09:36:05 AM
Wisconsin's budget will include funds for the expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee.  Both the Republicans and Governor Evers are in agreement here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/29/wisconsin-republican-legislators-pass-budget-cuts-taxes/7785245002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

I-94 expansion gets bipartisan support

Despite their many differences, Evers and Republicans have seen eye to eye on rebuilding I-94 west of downtown Milwaukee. The budget would spend $82 million to prepare for a project that could begin in late 2022 and is expected to eventually cost more than $1.1 billion.
Not going to happen, too much political backlash in Milwaukee for its own good.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2021, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2021, 09:36:05 AM
Wisconsin's budget will include funds for the expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee.  Both the Republicans and Governor Evers are in agreement here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/29/wisconsin-republican-legislators-pass-budget-cuts-taxes/7785245002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

I-94 expansion gets bipartisan support

Despite their many differences, Evers and Republicans have seen eye to eye on rebuilding I-94 west of downtown Milwaukee. The budget would spend $82 million to prepare for a project that could begin in late 2022 and is expected to eventually cost more than $1.1 billion.
Not going to happen, too much political backlash in Milwaukee for its own good.


If Evers is supporting it, my guess is that it will happen. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 30, 2021, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2021, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2021, 09:36:05 AM
Wisconsin's budget will include funds for the expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee.  Both the Republicans and Governor Evers are in agreement here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/29/wisconsin-republican-legislators-pass-budget-cuts-taxes/7785245002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

I-94 expansion gets bipartisan support

Despite their many differences, Evers and Republicans have seen eye to eye on rebuilding I-94 west of downtown Milwaukee. The budget would spend $82 million to prepare for a project that could begin in late 2022 and is expected to eventually cost more than $1.1 billion.
Not going to happen, too much political backlash in Milwaukee for its own good.


If Evers is supporting it, my guess is that it will happen.

Is it going to include a rebuild of the stadium interchange?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2021, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2021, 09:36:05 AM
Wisconsin's budget will include funds for the expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee.  Both the Republicans and Governor Evers are in agreement here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/29/wisconsin-republican-legislators-pass-budget-cuts-taxes/7785245002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

I-94 expansion gets bipartisan support

Despite their many differences, Evers and Republicans have seen eye to eye on rebuilding I-94 west of downtown Milwaukee. The budget would spend $82 million to prepare for a project that could begin in late 2022 and is expected to eventually cost more than $1.1 billion.
Not going to happen, too much political backlash in Milwaukee for its own good.


If Evers is supporting it, my guess is that it will happen.
Yeah, hopefully. Can't wait to drive it if and when it finally gets done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 30, 2021, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2021, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2021, 09:36:05 AM
Wisconsin's budget will include funds for the expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee.  Both the Republicans and Governor Evers are in agreement here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/29/wisconsin-republican-legislators-pass-budget-cuts-taxes/7785245002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

I-94 expansion gets bipartisan support

Despite their many differences, Evers and Republicans have seen eye to eye on rebuilding I-94 west of downtown Milwaukee. The budget would spend $82 million to prepare for a project that could begin in late 2022 and is expected to eventually cost more than $1.1 billion.
Not going to happen, too much political backlash in Milwaukee for its own good.


If Evers is supporting it, my guess is that it will happen.

Is it going to include a rebuild of the stadium interchange?
I don't see how it wouldn't. They wouldn't have a problem funding it either, they could just sign a sponsorship deal with American Family to rename it the American Family Interchange.  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 30, 2021, 08:33:32 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 30, 2021, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2021, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2021, 09:36:05 AM
Wisconsin's budget will include funds for the expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee.  Both the Republicans and Governor Evers are in agreement here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/29/wisconsin-republican-legislators-pass-budget-cuts-taxes/7785245002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

I-94 expansion gets bipartisan support

Despite their many differences, Evers and Republicans have seen eye to eye on rebuilding I-94 west of downtown Milwaukee. The budget would spend $82 million to prepare for a project that could begin in late 2022 and is expected to eventually cost more than $1.1 billion.
Not going to happen, too much political backlash in Milwaukee for its own good.


If Evers is supporting it, my guess is that it will happen.

Is it going to include a rebuild of the stadium interchange?
I don't see how it wouldn't. They wouldn't have a problem funding it either, they could just sign a sponsorship deal with American Family to rename it the American Family Interchange.  :-D

The drawing that I have seen from WisDOT over the past few decades have mostly shown the Stadium Interchange being downgraded to a par-clo.

YMMV.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 30, 2021, 08:33:32 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 30, 2021, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2021, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2021, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2021, 09:36:05 AM
Wisconsin's budget will include funds for the expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee.  Both the Republicans and Governor Evers are in agreement here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/29/wisconsin-republican-legislators-pass-budget-cuts-taxes/7785245002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

I-94 expansion gets bipartisan support

Despite their many differences, Evers and Republicans have seen eye to eye on rebuilding I-94 west of downtown Milwaukee. The budget would spend $82 million to prepare for a project that could begin in late 2022 and is expected to eventually cost more than $1.1 billion.
Not going to happen, too much political backlash in Milwaukee for its own good.


If Evers is supporting it, my guess is that it will happen.

Is it going to include a rebuild of the stadium interchange?
I don't see how it wouldn't. They wouldn't have a problem funding it either, they could just sign a sponsorship deal with American Family to rename it the American Family Interchange.  :-D

The drawing that I have seen from WisDOT over the past few decades have mostly shown the Stadium Interchange being downgraded to a par-clo.

YMMV.

Mike
Interesting. The bottleneck on I-94 is the main problem, so a par-clo could work, but it could also be overwhelmed with traffic on WI-175. I suppose upgrading the Mitchell Blvd and 35th Street interchanges could counteract that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 01, 2021, 07:10:10 AM
^
The preferred alternative for the Stadium Interchange appears to be a SPUI/Stack hybrid:

(https://i.imgur.com/5eUxoKq.png)
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/94ew-study/final-eis.pdf

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/94ew-study/preferred-alternative-v4.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 01, 2021, 07:31:04 AM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on July 01, 2021, 07:10:10 AM
^
The preferred alternative for the Stadium Interchange appears to be a SPUI/Stack hybrid:

(https://i.imgur.com/5eUxoKq.png)
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/94ew-study/final-eis.pdf

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/94ew-study/preferred-alternative-v4.pdf
Interesting but I could see this being a nightmare on gamedays. Look how small the area is to merge onto Miller Park Way (I refuse to call it Brewers Blvd) and the exit to Canal St.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 01, 2021, 09:11:06 AM
Is it that much different than now?

Anyway, I also don't understand the anti-American Family Field sentiment.  Miller was a corporate sponsor who backed out, and another one took its place.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 01, 2021, 10:57:53 AM
It looks like there are provisions for gameday traffic to/from I-94 that do not involve WI 175/Canal.

I'm curious about how well those two left turn from WI 175 to I-94 will work out.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 01, 2021, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 01, 2021, 09:11:06 AM
Is it that much different than now?

Anyway, I also don't understand the anti-American Family Field sentiment.  Miller was a corporate sponsor who backed out, and another one took its place.

I get the reasoning behind naming rights. I just prefer the name to be a real name unless the company had helped in the funding of the stadium as it was being built.
Heinz Field, Coors Field, Busch Stadium, no problem.  Qualcomm Stadium and Guaranteed Rate Field, hell no. 
It will always be Miller Park to me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 01, 2021, 01:04:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 01, 2021, 09:11:06 AM
Is it that much different than now?

Anyway, I also don't understand the anti-American Family Field sentiment.  Miller was a corporate sponsor who backed out, and another one took its place.

Along with hobsini's argument, I think part of it is that Miller is a beer company, and American Family is an insurance company. Which brand seems "cooler" and more relevant to the Milwaukee Brewers?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 01, 2021, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 01, 2021, 01:04:33 PM
Along with hobsini's argument, I think part of it is that Miller is a beer company, and American Family is an insurance company. Which brand seems "cooler" and more relevant to the Milwaukee Brewers?

I get that Miller sounds cooler given the name of the team, but its not as though the Brewers can force MillerCoors to sign a contract.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 01, 2021, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 01, 2021, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 01, 2021, 01:04:33 PM
Along with hobsini's argument, I think part of it is that Miller is a beer company, and American Family is an insurance company. Which brand seems "cooler" and more relevant to the Milwaukee Brewers?

I get that Miller sounds cooler given the name of the team, but its not as though the Brewers can force MillerCoors to sign a contract.

The type of brand makes no difference to me. I just want something that sounds like a real name. Chase Field is perfectly fine.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 02, 2021, 02:09:03 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 01, 2021, 07:31:04 AM
Interesting but I could see this being a nightmare on gamedays. Look how small the area is to merge onto Miller Park Way (I refuse to call it Brewers Blvd) and the exit to Canal St.

That's a crappy movement as it is.  But only a chump comes in from the west and goes to Canal Street to park.  The lot north of 94 is the same price as the lots east of the river and much faster to get into.  And it's the same distance from the actual ball park.

As for the road name, I think they should've just mashed the words "park" and "way" together so it goes from Miller Park Way to Miller Parkway.  It still goes toward the brewery, after all. ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 02, 2021, 09:09:49 PM
I-39 north of US-10 in northern Portage County is the first freeway I've ever seen that has no visible lane markings. Seriously. The middle white lines are completely faded.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on July 03, 2021, 04:47:36 PM
I noticed that Highway 158 now at ends at Highway 32 in Kenosha. As somebody who grew up in Kenosha and still goes there from time to time, for the longest time it ended at 6th Avenue at the stop sign with the flashing red light. To be fair, it never made much sense to me that it didn't end at Highway 32. But apparently this has been changed. Does anybody know when they did this? 

p.s. But they still need to take down the 158 East sign. If you're driving on Highway 32 on Sheridan Road, you can still see it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 03, 2021, 04:59:34 PM
^^Check your links.  They are referring to e-mail.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 05, 2021, 11:56:16 AM
Quote from: US 12 fan on July 03, 2021, 04:47:36 PM
I noticed that Highway 158 now at ends at Highway 32 in Kenosha. As somebody who grew up in Kenosha and still goes there from time to time, for the longest time it ended at 6th Avenue at the stop sign with the flashing red light. To be fair, it never made much sense to me that it didn't end at Highway 32. But apparently this has been changed. Does anybody know when they did this? 

p.s. But they still need to take down the 158 East sign. If you're driving on Highway 32 on Sheridan Road, you can still see it.

There's still an End 158 sign east of WI-32, so I'm not too sure what's going on there.

https://goo.gl/maps/PXNHBFgUvaGmBL8S9
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 05, 2021, 03:09:51 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 05, 2021, 11:56:16 AM
Quote from: US 12 fan on July 03, 2021, 04:47:36 PM
I noticed that Highway 158 now at ends at Highway 32 in Kenosha. As somebody who grew up in Kenosha and still goes there from time to time, for the longest time it ended at 6th Avenue at the stop sign with the flashing red light. To be fair, it never made much sense to me that it didn't end at Highway 32. But apparently this has been changed. Does anybody know when they did this? 

p.s. But they still need to take down the 158 East sign. If you're driving on Highway 32 on Sheridan Road, you can still see it.

There's still an End 158 sign east of WI-32, so I'm not too sure what's going on there.

https://goo.gl/maps/PXNHBFgUvaGmBL8S9
Maybe it had something to do with the Harbor being at the end of 52nd St,
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 08, 2021, 05:52:28 PM
Mason St  (WI 54) bridge in Green Bay stuck in open position indefinitely: https://fox11online.com/news/local/downtown-green-bay-bridge-experiencing-mechanical-issue
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2021, 12:04:34 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2021, 05:52:28 PM
Mason St  (WI 54) bridge in Green Bay stuck in open position indefinitely: https://fox11online.com/news/local/downtown-green-bay-bridge-experiencing-mechanical-issue

So I hadn't heard about this until you posted this, and I live about two miles away. (Been on vacation and disconnected this week.)

Apparently this happened just a few minutes after we went over on Tuesday. We saw the ship it was lifting for too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: galacticskyway on July 11, 2021, 11:59:49 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster here. I live in northern Chicagoland at the moment, but my whole life, I've spent a lot of time visiting family in / exploring Wisconsin and I've always gotten the impression that there are a lot of roads in Wisconsin for which I just don't get the rationale. The Burlington Bypass is probably the largest and clearest example of this. Here is one of my all-time favorite threads (tho a small one), and it sums up the thoughts I had on the Burlington Bypass before even having found the thread; I thought about posting on it but it's so old I thought this thread might make more sense: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3744.0

One of the replies on that old post says that some 80% of the traffic he saw using the bypass ended up going towards downtown Burlington anyways. Anyone know whether that is still / was ever the case?

Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 01:08:37 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2017, 07:05:14 AM
I also think it's easy to look at these projects simply by predicted AADT, however a lot of the roads referenced had geometry and safety issues as well. For example, in Burlington, there are railroad tracks that cut through downtown. Even now when there's a train, the backups are enormous. Or, as peterj920 mentioned, 141. While it's pretty quiet during the week, the traffic on the weekends during the summer can be dangerous. Yes, those roads could have been upgraded to lesser facilities, but combine that with the traffic projections, and it makes sense. Often it's easier (and less expensive in the long run) to do it "big" the first time, than to go back and upgrade later.

That's the issue that I have with that report. It spends a lot of time looking at traffic projections, but not any of the other issues that make these projects unique.

I agree there are other reasons for highway upgrades, but I think they could have been addressed with lesser upgrades (in some cases such as US 10 west of Stevens Point, WIS 26, Burlington Bypass, etc) without plowing in a major four lane divided highway that is freeway or near freeway-grade. For example, some of those routes could have gotten by with an improved two lane highway or a five lane undivided road with traffic lights or roundabouts. Is it ideal? No, but freeway and high-quality expressway-grade highways are expensive to maintain, and I think those should have been saved for the backbone routes.

Granted, like I said, while I think some of their points are well-taken, I do not agree with everything. Ultimately, these kind of people want everyone to live in cities and use public transit. That's not gonna happen. Whether they like it or not, highways are here and will be here for a long time.

So it sounds like a lot of the problems that were causing traffic in the first place in Burlington still exist. I feel like bypass might have made more sense if there were an effort to address some of the issues downtown. Now of course I'm no traffic engineer, but I can spot a number of places where it at least seems that flow could be addressed in some pretty obvious ways. Plus, isn't the point of a bypass not just to route traffic around a congested downtown but also to relieve that downtown congestion, like the Hwy 26 upgrades are supposed to do? It seems like it hasn't achieved one of the major goals of a bypass because there wasn't funding or an advanced plan to address those major problems. And once they addressed downtown traffic, would the bypass have been necessary? I have my doubts that there is truly all that much thru traffic using that thing, and even more doubts that the thru traffic was the key problem to begin with.

Plus, let's address the fact that this is a near-freeway grade expressway that runs at 55mph, and has 10mph exit ramps, plus two lights at two of the most major intersections on the bypass. For a project that's meant to address long-term increases in traffic projections, it sounds like it was designed more to be a highway-on-the-cheap compared to a project like Hwy 26. It'll need to be rebuilt to safer standards with interchanges replacing the lights, plus diamonds replacing all those jughandles, if it wants to address long-term increases in traffic.

I actually disagree with a lot of the ideas that 26 should have been a super-two at most, or that the project was not yet necessary. I totally get who's using 26, and I think it's also an important alternate for other highways when they're congested or under construction. Plus even if you only build it out to a super-two, it'll probably need to be upgraded to a four-lane long before the end of the lifecycle anyway so you may as well just lay the roadbeds now. I've driven it a number of times, and I think it's a relatively well thought-out and designed project.

I don't see that same logic at play with the Burlington bypass. The only thru-traffic it seems you're likely to get is people going between Racine and Elkhorn/Interstates, which I doubt is enough people to justify building a bypass, especially when that comes in lieu of improving local roads. Plus, according to Google Maps (not the greatest source but still), for drivers taking it beginning to end, it's 3.2 miles longer, has the same travel time during rush hour, and is slower off peak. Which is even worse considering those existing major problems downtown. It kinda gives me the feeling that it was more meant to get the support of some constituency with a cool new road, but from what I heard on threads, the locals didn't support it strongly. Maybe the road-planning "elites" just went down the list if metro/micropolitan areas in Wisconsin by population, and wanted to give all the bigger ones bypasses/expressways, even if some of them had to be done on the cheap? I don't know.

Personally, if I were road planning king, I would have done a number of projects to address downtown traffic flow, then maybe saved some land for either a bypass or green belt long in the future. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a clearly unnecessary project to me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 12, 2021, 09:18:37 AM
Yeah the problem with the Burlington bypass is that very little traffic went *through* Burlington to go anywhere. It's pretty much off the beaten path at the intersection of three state highways in the middle of a triangle formed by I-43, I-94 and WI-50.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 12, 2021, 05:07:39 PM
I've never been on the Burlington bypass, but looking at Google Maps it does seem like a poor effort from WISDOT. Similar to the Whitewater bypass, which is an odd crossover between expressway and normal two-lane road, yet you can't even call it a Super 2 because there are several intersections. I'm guessing that WISDOT anticipated more growth in that area than what has actually happened since the bypass was built in the late 2000s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 12, 2021, 07:54:58 PM
It's definitely a weird road. I drove on the eastern half of it earlier this year for fun and it was pretty dead. The quality of the "interchanges" indeed leaves a lot to be desired.

Probably best to just leave it as it is unless traffic volumes increase. If they somehow don't by then time the road needs repair, maybe convert into a Super-2 to reduce costs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 09:52:44 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 12, 2021, 05:07:39 PM
I've never been on the Burlington bypass, but looking at Google Maps it does seem like a poor effort from WISDOT. Similar to the Whitewater bypass, which is an odd crossover between expressway and normal two-lane road, yet you can't even call it a Super 2 because there are several intersections. I'm guessing that WISDOT anticipated more growth in that area than what has actually happened since the bypass was built in the late 2000s.

Yeah I've never driven the Burlington Bypass either but I spent some time on street view trying to figure out what the design philosophy was.

I've driven the Whitewater Bypass a number of times and I actually it's a neat road, they avoided overbuilding it I think. From the looks of some of the bridges, it seems like they bought ROW for an expressway, but don't want to bother building it unless volumes increase, or until Illinois finally puts up that 53 extension. Tho if they ever do finally put up that Fort Atkinson Bypass for 12, which they should in my opinion, turning the Whitewater Bypass into an expressway bypass won't be too far behind I suspect.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 13, 2021, 08:55:36 AM
Quote from: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 09:52:44 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 12, 2021, 05:07:39 PM
I've never been on the Burlington bypass, but looking at Google Maps it does seem like a poor effort from WISDOT. Similar to the Whitewater bypass, which is an odd crossover between expressway and normal two-lane road, yet you can't even call it a Super 2 because there are several intersections. I'm guessing that WISDOT anticipated more growth in that area than what has actually happened since the bypass was built in the late 2000s.

Yeah I've never driven the Burlington Bypass either but I spent some time on street view trying to figure out what the design philosophy was.

I've driven the Whitewater Bypass a number of times and I actually it's a neat road, they avoided overbuilding it I think. From the looks of some of the bridges, it seems like they bought ROW for an expressway, but don't want to bother building it unless volumes increase, or until Illinois finally puts up that 53 extension. Tho if they ever do finally put up that Fort Atkinson Bypass for 12, which they should in my opinion, turning the Whitewater Bypass into an expressway bypass won't be too far behind I suspect.


I believe the Fort Atkinson bypass is off the board.  Not happening.  And that's fine.

The problem with the Whitewater bypass is that it was built initially without stoplights, which lead to a couple of terrible accidents.  It is serviceable now, but still not great.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on July 13, 2021, 03:00:44 PM
I guess Wisconsin was building a bunch of budget bypasses back in the day. The US 8 Rhinelander bypass is another budget bypass. Traffic demands may not ever increase enough for a freeway, but it would have been good to at least make sure the ROW existed for not only four lanes but interchanges. They've actually allowed homes along US 8  (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6137215,-89.3806298,853a,35y,4.49t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)which is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 13, 2021, 06:37:43 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 12, 2021, 07:54:58 PM
It's definitely a weird road. I drove on the eastern half of it earlier this year for fun and it was pretty dead. The quality of the "interchanges" indeed leaves a lot to be desired.

Probably best to just leave it as it is unless traffic volumes increase. If they somehow don't by then time the road needs repair, maybe convert into a Super-2 to reduce costs.
I wonder how long it would take a downgrade to a Super 2 to pay for itself due to the reduced maintenance costs thereafter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 13, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 09:52:44 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 12, 2021, 05:07:39 PM
I've never been on the Burlington bypass, but looking at Google Maps it does seem like a poor effort from WISDOT. Similar to the Whitewater bypass, which is an odd crossover between expressway and normal two-lane road, yet you can't even call it a Super 2 because there are several intersections. I'm guessing that WISDOT anticipated more growth in that area than what has actually happened since the bypass was built in the late 2000s.

Yeah I've never driven the Burlington Bypass either but I spent some time on street view trying to figure out what the design philosophy was.

I've driven the Whitewater Bypass a number of times and I actually it's a neat road, they avoided overbuilding it I think. From the looks of some of the bridges, it seems like they bought ROW for an expressway, but don't want to bother building it unless volumes increase, or until Illinois finally puts up that 53 extension. Tho if they ever do finally put up that Fort Atkinson Bypass for 12, which they should in my opinion, turning the Whitewater Bypass into an expressway bypass won't be too far behind I suspect.
The current design of the Whitewater bypass makes it the most dangerous kind of road in the world in terms of serious accidents: relatively busy rural two lane highway with a high speed limit (55) and numerous intersections. WISDOT has spent loads of time and money upgrading highways like that recently. The WI-23 project that is going on now, WI-26, WI-29, US-12 between Madison and Wisconsin Dells, US-10 between Stevens Point and Marshfield, WI-50 east of Lake Geneva, and I'm sure there are others. So it beats me as to why they chose to create another one of those roads.

The Fort Atkinson bypass isn't needed and isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2021, 09:04:41 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 13, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 09:52:44 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 12, 2021, 05:07:39 PM
I've never been on the Burlington bypass, but looking at Google Maps it does seem like a poor effort from WISDOT. Similar to the Whitewater bypass, which is an odd crossover between expressway and normal two-lane road, yet you can't even call it a Super 2 because there are several intersections. I'm guessing that WISDOT anticipated more growth in that area than what has actually happened since the bypass was built in the late 2000s.

Yeah I've never driven the Burlington Bypass either but I spent some time on street view trying to figure out what the design philosophy was.

I've driven the Whitewater Bypass a number of times and I actually it's a neat road, they avoided overbuilding it I think. From the looks of some of the bridges, it seems like they bought ROW for an expressway, but don't want to bother building it unless volumes increase, or until Illinois finally puts up that 53 extension. Tho if they ever do finally put up that Fort Atkinson Bypass for 12, which they should in my opinion, turning the Whitewater Bypass into an expressway bypass won't be too far behind I suspect.
The current design of the Whitewater bypass makes it the most dangerous kind of road in the world in terms of serious accidents: relatively busy rural two lane highway with a high speed limit (55) and numerous intersections. WISDOT has spent loads of time and money upgrading highways like that recently. The WI-23 project that is going on now, WI-26, WI-29, US-12 between Madison and Wisconsin Dells, US-10 between Stevens Point and Marshfield, WI-50 east of Lake Geneva, and I'm sure there are others. So it beats me as to why they chose to create another one of those roads.

The Fort Atkinson bypass isn't needed and isn't going to happen.


US-12 around Whitewater doesn't get nearly the traffic (except for summer weekends) that WI-23 gets.  The problem with the bypass initially was that it was built with stop signs and not stop lights.  But it should have been built as a "Super 2" in the first place.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2021, 04:07:42 PM
I've long suspected state politics played a roll in getting that bypass around Burlington.  Something a state senator or assembly person could point to and say, "See what I did?  Re-elect me!"

I haven't had reason to drive through Burlington in recent years, so I don't have any first-hand anecdotes to relate since that one from a decade ago.  I'd be surprised if there has been a substantial change.

Burlington and Whitewater were indicative of a trend in Wisconsin in the mid to late 00's.  The half-ass bypass craze.  Not wanting to spend the money to build it right, but wanting to spread a little cheddar around the state, several of these went up.  In addition to Burlington and Whitewater, the Fond du Lac bypass for US 151 fell into this category.  A high speed divided roadway with at grade intersections and stoplights that were quickly the sites of grisly wrecks.  They've since gone in and patched together more access control for far more money that would have been spent if the damn thing had been built as a freeway from the get go.  The resulting reroute of US 45 would be hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.

Another half-ass bypass was slated to go in around Viroqua; this one would've been two lanes and had very few grade separations.  Similar to Burlington, the traffic wasn't actually there for it and it was eventually scrapped. 

Just when you thought Wisconsin learned its lesson, the half-ass bypass is coming back for folks up in Hortonville.  They're getting bypassed by a four lane expressway for WI 15 with roundabouts on either end.  And on the west end, WI 15 will effectively T-out on itself creating a 'turn left to stay on' situation for EB traffic.  The roundabouts seem to me to be a penny saving move.  They can't afford proper interchanges, so they're just putting up something that will make it harder for cars to hit each other at high speed.

Coming back to Rhinelander; that's a bypass of 80's vintage where the old route navigated through a pair of 90 degree turns.  It's another situation where there isn't that much thru traffic trying to go around the city on US 8, so the horizon for additional lanes or interchanges was and still is far away.  But the 45 mph limit feels painfully slow between the traffic signals due to the rural nature and high-speed appearance of the highway.  When WI 17 was rerouted out of town onto a new arterial on the city's east side in the 00's I did lament that the new junction at US 8 couldn't have been an interchange.  Hard to justify with the traffic counts tho.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on July 14, 2021, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2021, 04:07:42 PM
I've long suspected state politics played a roll in getting that bypass around Burlington.  Something a state senator or assembly person could point to and say, "See what I did?  Re-elect me!"

That is the case for most of the four lane highway expansions in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 17, 2021, 09:56:06 AM
No article links handy, but I have been hearing some local chatter about the State of Wisconsin possibly having moved up the proposed six lane upgrades to I-41 from WI 15/Northland Ave at Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere by three years, from the 2025-2029 time frame to 2022-2026.  Is anyone able to confirm this?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 17, 2021, 12:23:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2021, 04:07:42 PM
Coming back to Rhinelander; that's a bypass of 80's vintage where the old route navigated through a pair of 90 degree turns.  It's another situation where there isn't that much thru traffic trying to go around the city on US 8, so the horizon for additional lanes or interchanges was and still is far away.  But the 45 mph limit feels painfully slow between the traffic signals due to the rural nature and high-speed appearance of the highway.  When WI 17 was rerouted out of town onto a new arterial on the city's east side in the 00's I did lament that the new junction at US 8 couldn't have been an interchange.  Hard to justify with the traffic counts tho.

I absolutely detest driving around Rhinelander. After tooling up I-39/US-51 for hours at Interstate speeds, and just starting to get acclimated to 55 (or thereabouts) on US-8, you run into speed limits made to rack up expensive tickets. There's absolutely no reason US-8 on the bypass couldn't be posted for 55. Hwy 17 could've easily been posted for 40 or 45; the posted 35 is frustratingly slow.

Problem is, if you're headed for the Keweenaw from the Wausau area, there's not a good way to avoid Rhinelander. The alternatives are all longer and farther.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 17, 2021, 05:35:03 PM
^^ There are traffic signals on the bypass and WisDOT doesn't like speed limits over 45 by those.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 17, 2021, 05:59:01 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 17, 2021, 12:23:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2021, 04:07:42 PM
Coming back to Rhinelander; that's a bypass of 80's vintage where the old route navigated through a pair of 90 degree turns.  It's another situation where there isn't that much thru traffic trying to go around the city on US 8, so the horizon for additional lanes or interchanges was and still is far away.  But the 45 mph limit feels painfully slow between the traffic signals due to the rural nature and high-speed appearance of the highway.  When WI 17 was rerouted out of town onto a new arterial on the city's east side in the 00's I did lament that the new junction at US 8 couldn't have been an interchange.  Hard to justify with the traffic counts tho.

I absolutely detest driving around Rhinelander. After tooling up I-39/US-51 for hours at Interstate speeds, and just starting to get acclimated to 55 (or thereabouts) on US-8, you run into speed limits made to rack up expensive tickets. There's absolutely no reason US-8 on the bypass couldn't be posted for 55. Hwy 17 could've easily been posted for 40 or 45; the posted 35 is frustratingly slow.

Problem is, if you're headed for the Keweenaw from the Wausau area, there's not a good way to avoid Rhinelander. The alternatives are all longer and farther.
You could take US-51 up to Woodruff, then WI-70 east to Eagle River. But the Minocqua/Woodruff area is probably worse than Rhinelander, in the summer at least.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 18, 2021, 07:45:23 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 17, 2021, 05:35:03 PM
^^ There are traffic signals on the bypass and WisDOT doesn't like speed limits over 45 by those.


Whitewater bypass is 55 mph the entire stretch.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 18, 2021, 05:30:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 18, 2021, 07:45:23 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 17, 2021, 05:35:03 PM
^^ There are traffic signals on the bypass and WisDOT doesn't like speed limits over 45 by those.


Whitewater bypass is 55 mph the entire stretch.

As is the Burlington bypass. Also, the Hwy 11 bypass of Janesville (speaking of half-assed bypasses) is posted for 55 for all except just shortly before the I-39/90 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:41:36 PM
Assuming the DOT was right to have built the Burlington Bypass, would two lanes have been sufficient for the bypass? What about if all highway crossings had been at-grade intersections, instead of constructing the four jug-handle interchanges, and the three no-access grade separations?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 19, 2021, 03:04:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:41:36 PM
Assuming the DOT was right to have built the Burlington Bypass, would two lanes have been sufficient for the bypass? What about if all highway crossings had been at-grade intersections, instead of constructing the four jug-handle interchanges, and the three no-access grade separations?
I have a feeling that the reason they did not go with 2 lanes on the Burlington Bypass was because Wis 36 was already a 4 lane in the 1990s out to Burlington.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ChiMilNet on July 19, 2021, 03:26:25 PM
This past weekend, I was driving up I-90 towards the Dells from Chicagoland, and I will say, the sections that have been redone between the border and Madison are a welcome improvement... it will greatly help once the I-43 interchange in Beloit and the portion through Janesville are all done. Overall, the lane additions have been needed for a long time. However, at the construction sites, the lane drops seem a bit premature, particularly Northbound at the State Line, where it happens very suddenly with little warning. I had to suddenly move over, and it would have been nice to have a little more of a gradual merge. Maybe I am nitpicking, but I felt this was causing some unnecessary backups at places.

One question, that I am wondering, but are there any longer terms plans to widen I-90/94 at least through their North split? The stretch North of where I-39 splits off the mainline and then it reduces down to two lanes each way feels very congested now. In fact, traffic was backing up just because of a vehicle on the side of the road with a slight fender bender. I feel, with the summer holiday traffic going up to the Dells and places beyond, I-90/94 really is going to need an additional lane through the entirety of the multiplex. I hope WiDOT has long terms plans to continue the widening at least through this stretch and maybe beyond.

Edit: One last thought, also, any plans on the stretch through Madison itself? I see that Janesville is going to be as wide as eight lanes in spots, and the Madison stretch would greatly benefit from such a widening also.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on July 19, 2021, 04:14:32 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 19, 2021, 03:26:25 PM
This past weekend, I was driving up I-90 towards the Dells from Chicagoland, and I will say, the sections that have been redone between the border and Madison are a welcome improvement... it will greatly help once the I-43 interchange in Beloit and the portion through Janesville are all done. Overall, the lane additions have been needed for a long time. However, at the construction sites, the lane drops seem a bit premature, particularly Northbound at the State Line, where it happens very suddenly with little warning. I had to suddenly move over, and it would have been nice to have a little more of a gradual merge. Maybe I am nitpicking, but I felt this was causing some unnecessary backups at places.

One question, that I am wondering, but are there any longer terms plans to widen I-90/94 at least through their North split? The stretch North of where I-39 splits off the mainline and then it reduces down to two lanes each way feels very congested now. In fact, traffic was backing up just because of a vehicle on the side of the road with a slight fender bender. I feel, with the summer holiday traffic going up to the Dells and places beyond, I-90/94 really is going to need an additional lane through the entirety of the multiplex. I hope WiDOT has long terms plans to continue the widening at least through this stretch and maybe beyond.

Edit: One last thought, also, any plans on the stretch through Madison itself? I see that Janesville is going to be as wide as eight lanes in spots, and the Madison stretch would greatly benefit from such a widening also.

I think they are or are about to restart the study to widen I-39/90/94 between the Beltline and the I-90/94 split off northwest of the Dells.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: ChiMilNet on July 19, 2021, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 19, 2021, 04:14:32 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 19, 2021, 03:26:25 PM
This past weekend, I was driving up I-90 towards the Dells from Chicagoland, and I will say, the sections that have been redone between the border and Madison are a welcome improvement... it will greatly help once the I-43 interchange in Beloit and the portion through Janesville are all done. Overall, the lane additions have been needed for a long time. However, at the construction sites, the lane drops seem a bit premature, particularly Northbound at the State Line, where it happens very suddenly with little warning. I had to suddenly move over, and it would have been nice to have a little more of a gradual merge. Maybe I am nitpicking, but I felt this was causing some unnecessary backups at places.

One question, that I am wondering, but are there any longer terms plans to widen I-90/94 at least through their North split? The stretch North of where I-39 splits off the mainline and then it reduces down to two lanes each way feels very congested now. In fact, traffic was backing up just because of a vehicle on the side of the road with a slight fender bender. I feel, with the summer holiday traffic going up to the Dells and places beyond, I-90/94 really is going to need an additional lane through the entirety of the multiplex. I hope WiDOT has long terms plans to continue the widening at least through this stretch and maybe beyond.

Edit: One last thought, also, any plans on the stretch through Madison itself? I see that Janesville is going to be as wide as eight lanes in spots, and the Madison stretch would greatly benefit from such a widening also.

I think they are or are about to restart the study to widen I-39/90/94 between the Beltline and the I-90/94 split off northwest of the Dells.

Put me down as someone who says it's badly needed! I realize they have and continue to have work to do in order to get it up to par between Madison and the State Line, so props to that portion coming together. I think it all the more highlights the need for the rest of this stretch now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on July 19, 2021, 07:10:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 17, 2021, 09:56:06 AM
No article links handy, but I have been hearing some local chatter about the State of Wisconsin possibly having moved up the proposed six lane upgrades to I-41 from WI 15/Northland Ave at Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere by three years, from the 2025-2029 time frame to 2022-2026.  Is anyone able to confirm this?

Mike


Would hope this is true, would help everyone heading south or north on that stretch on 41 to do that sooner than later.  I'd assume the creation of the Southridge road exit would be moved up too(just south of Schuering Road exit)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 19, 2021, 07:42:11 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 19, 2021, 03:26:25 PM
This past weekend, I was driving up I-90 towards the Dells from Chicagoland, and I will say, the sections that have been redone between the border and Madison are a welcome improvement... it will greatly help once the I-43 interchange in Beloit and the portion through Janesville are all done. Overall, the lane additions have been needed for a long time. However, at the construction sites, the lane drops seem a bit premature, particularly Northbound at the State Line, where it happens very suddenly with little warning. I had to suddenly move over, and it would have been nice to have a little more of a gradual merge. Maybe I am nitpicking, but I felt this was causing some unnecessary backups at places.

One question, that I am wondering, but are there any longer terms plans to widen I-90/94 at least through their North split? The stretch North of where I-39 splits off the mainline and then it reduces down to two lanes each way feels very congested now. In fact, traffic was backing up just because of a vehicle on the side of the road with a slight fender bender. I feel, with the summer holiday traffic going up to the Dells and places beyond, I-90/94 really is going to need an additional lane through the entirety of the multiplex. I hope WiDOT has long terms plans to continue the widening at least through this stretch and maybe beyond.

Edit: One last thought, also, any plans on the stretch through Madison itself? I see that Janesville is going to be as wide as eight lanes in spots, and the Madison stretch would greatly benefit from such a widening also.
WISDOT has done a great job on I-39/90 through Janesville. Has anyone here driven it recently? Last time I drove it was in February, when it was only complete up to Racine Street, but I was impressed with the finished part.

I can't remember exactly where the I-43/WI-81 construction zone starts on I-39/90 in Beloit, but if it's really close to the state line then it might be ISTHA's responsibility to adequately sign the lane drop for the northbound carriageway.

The decent majority of the north/westbound I-39/90/94 traffic continues on I-90/94 towards the Dells rather than splitting onto I-39 towards Wausau. For that reason I think that expanding 90/94 to six lanes between US-12/Dells Parkway and I-39/WI-78 takes priority over expanding the triplex to eight lanes, as an eight to four lane drop would be a nasty one for a freeway with that much traffic.

Interestingly I haven't had too many issues with I-39/90/94 in Madison. It's busy, but what really helps is that the interchanges in the most densely populated areas (US-151, I-94/WI-30, and the Beltline) are free-flowing. The 70 MPH speed limit also makes a huge difference, but the busier the highway gets the less sustainable the 70 MPH speed becomes.

In fact, I've noticed that I-39/90/(94) traffic backs up more often at the CTH-N and WI-19 interchanges than it does at the more major junctions. The CTH-N interchange is being/just got converted into a dumbbell (is that finished yet?) so we'll see if that makes a difference. But the WI-19 interchange is in a rough position in terms of traffic, due to a combination of surrounding development, the somewhat unconventional angles of the highways, railroad tracks complicating matters, and the nearby Lake Road intersection. The railroad crossing and Lake Road traffic light are oddly in between the 39/90/94 WB exit ramp and the 19 WB entrance ramp to the freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 19, 2021, 07:45:38 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on July 19, 2021, 07:10:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 17, 2021, 09:56:06 AM
No article links handy, but I have been hearing some local chatter about the State of Wisconsin possibly having moved up the proposed six lane upgrades to I-41 from WI 15/Northland Ave at Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere by three years, from the 2025-2029 time frame to 2022-2026.  Is anyone able to confirm this?

Mike


Would hope this is true, would help everyone heading south or north on that stretch on 41 to do that sooner than later.  I'd assume the creation of the Southridge road exit would be moved up too(just south of Schuering Road exit)
Has WISDOT confirmed that they're going to build an exit at Southridge Road when they expand that stretch of I-41? It doesn't seem needed to me, as northbound traffic can use Lawrence Drive while southbound can use Scheuring.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 19, 2021, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 19, 2021, 07:45:38 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on July 19, 2021, 07:10:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 17, 2021, 09:56:06 AM
No article links handy, but I have been hearing some local chatter about the State of Wisconsin possibly having moved up the proposed six lane upgrades to I-41 from WI 15/Northland Ave at Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere by three years, from the 2025-2029 time frame to 2022-2026.  Is anyone able to confirm this?

Mike


Would hope this is true, would help everyone heading south or north on that stretch on 41 to do that sooner than later.  I'd assume the creation of the Southridge road exit would be moved up too(just south of Schuering Road exit)
Has WISDOT confirmed that they're going to build an exit at Southridge Road when they expand that stretch of I-41? It doesn't seem needed to me, as northbound traffic can use Lawrence Drive while southbound can use Scheuring.
Southridge Rd would have a bridge over the Fox River while the previous 2 roads don't.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 19, 2021, 11:04:11 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 19, 2021, 07:42:11 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 19, 2021, 03:26:25 PM
This past weekend, I was driving up I-90 towards the Dells from Chicagoland, and I will say, the sections that have been redone between the border and Madison are a welcome improvement... it will greatly help once the I-43 interchange in Beloit and the portion through Janesville are all done. Overall, the lane additions have been needed for a long time. However, at the construction sites, the lane drops seem a bit premature, particularly Northbound at the State Line, where it happens very suddenly with little warning. I had to suddenly move over, and it would have been nice to have a little more of a gradual merge. Maybe I am nitpicking, but I felt this was causing some unnecessary backups at places.

WISDOT has done a great job on I-39/90 through Janesville. Has anyone here driven it recently? Last time I drove it was in February, when it was only complete up to Racine Street, but I was impressed with the finished part.

I can't remember exactly where the I-43/WI-81 construction zone starts on I-39/90 in Beloit, but if it's really close to the state line then it might be ISTHA's responsibility to adequately sign the lane drop for the northbound carriageway.

Only all the time! It's kind of necessary to get anywhere from Janesville.  :D 
The lane drop at the border is ISTHA's responsibility, since they did the 6 lane widening prior to WisDOT, and I agree the signage for the lane drop is quite poor. The roadway is finished for an additional mile up to the I-43/WI-81 interchange, but striped for 2 lanes northbound instead of 3. WisDOT does a much better job of warning about their lane drops.

At the end of last year the vast majority of the construction between Madison and the border was completed. It's now only the 3 most major interchanges on the stretch, and they've made good progress towards completion. WisDOT has done a good job of posting about the progress on their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/WisconsinI3990Project

Quote from: thspfc on July 19, 2021, 07:42:11 PMThe decent majority of the north/westbound I-39/90/94 traffic continues on I-90/94 towards the Dells rather than splitting onto I-39 towards Wausau. For that reason I think that expanding 90/94 to six lanes between US-12/Dells Parkway and I-39/WI-78 takes priority over expanding the triplex to eight lanes, as an eight to four lane drop would be a nasty one for a freeway with that much traffic.
I agree. 6-laning to at least the Hwy 13 interchange in Wisconsin Dells is the next order of business, followed closely by 8-laning the section between I-94/WI-30 and the Beltline (US-12/18). If/when WisDOT completes a 4-lane bypass around Prairie du Sac and Sauk City, US-12 will be able to take some of the Dells traffic off I-39/90/94, but not for long. Any advantage gained staying off the Interstate will go away once drivers encounter the congestion of the Beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on July 20, 2021, 08:23:55 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 17, 2021, 09:56:06 AM
No article links handy, but I have been hearing some local chatter about the State of Wisconsin possibly having moved up the proposed six lane upgrades to I-41 from WI 15/Northland Ave at Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere by three years, from the 2025-2029 time frame to 2022-2026.  Is anyone able to confirm this?

Mike


I hope there is some truth to the chatter!  I drive that stretch several times a week, and it's one of the, if not most dangerous stretches in Wisconsin.  There are accidents all the time between Richmond St (Hwy 47) and the Wrightstown exit. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2021, 08:51:31 AM
Traffic counts on that stretch of I-90/94 are about the same as I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.  That follows my experience.  I think I-94 expansion between Waukesha and the Dells makes sense long term, but it should start on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 20, 2021, 12:10:06 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2021, 08:51:31 AM
Traffic counts on that stretch of I-90/94 are about the same as I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.  That follows my experience.  I think I-94 expansion between Waukesha and the Dells makes sense long term, but it should start on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
When you say "between Madison and Milwaukee", does that mean the average AADT between I-39/90/WI-30 and the Marquette Interchange (or something along those lines), or does it mean the average AADT on the four lane segment (between CTH-N at Cottage Grove and WI-16 at Waukesha)?

Regardless, it's important to note that I-90/94 between Portage and Tomah has significantly more truck traffic. Look at this map: <img src="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/11factsfigures/images/fig3_9.jpg"

Trucks move slower, and therefore hold up traffic more. They're also much more important from an economic standpoint, which is an important factor in road projects. So a tie goes to the highway with more trucks IMO.

I don't think that I-94 needs six lanes for the entire distance between Madison and Milwaukee, but it does need six lanes from the current lane drop at WI-16 out to the about WI-83 exit in Delafield, which is where metropolitan Milwaukee traffic picks up.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2021, 03:22:13 PM
I'd put money on WisDOT breaking ground on 6-laning 90/94 between Portage and Lake Delton this decade.
(Though 10 years ago, I would've said the same thing about 94 west of Waukesha, and yet, here we are. :P )


Public hearings for I-41 expansion between Appleton and Green Bay next week should reveal some answers about a sooner start date for construction:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 21, 2021, 01:56:26 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2021, 12:10:06 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2021, 08:51:31 AM
Traffic counts on that stretch of I-90/94 are about the same as I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.  That follows my experience.  I think I-94 expansion between Waukesha and the Dells makes sense long term, but it should start on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
When you say "between Madison and Milwaukee", does that mean the average AADT between I-39/90/WI-30 and the Marquette Interchange (or something along those lines), or does it mean the average AADT on the four lane segment (between CTH-N at Cottage Grove and WI-16 at Waukesha)?

Regardless, it's important to note that I-90/94 between Portage and Tomah has significantly more truck traffic. Look at this map: <img src="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/11factsfigures/images/fig3_9.jpg"

Trucks move slower, and therefore hold up traffic more. They're also much more important from an economic standpoint, which is an important factor in road projects. So a tie goes to the highway with more trucks IMO.

I don't think that I-94 needs six lanes for the entire distance between Madison and Milwaukee, but it does need six lanes from the current lane drop at WI-16 out to the about WI-83 exit in Delafield, which is where metropolitan Milwaukee traffic picks up.

The difference also as well for priority is the peaks / variation in traffic.  I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee does not have the same weekend / holiday peaks as I-39/90/94.  No doubt that I-94 is busy between the two cities and the 3rd lane EB / WB on I-94 should be extended west from WIS 16 but it is not surprising that WisDOT is studying I-39/90/94 first.  In my opinion on I-39/90/94 the 3rd lane should be extended up I-90/94 to Exit 92 (Hwy 12 in Wis Dells) and Auxiliary lanes added between exits 92-89, 89-87 and 87-85 to help drivers transition off / on the highway in this area (the heavy merge volumes slow traffic on the interstate up through the Dells).  Ultimately someday that 3rd lane is going to have to be extended further north towards the I-90/94 split.  The advantage is WisDOT is already widening many of the bridges to fit 3 lanes when they get worked on as for construction staging FHWA is requiring 2 lanes be maintained in each direction during that work.  That makes the 3rd lane expansion more feasible in the future as bridges are a significant cost in any expansion project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 21, 2021, 02:01:00 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2021, 03:22:13 PM
Public hearings for I-41 expansion between Appleton and Green Bay next week should reveal some answers about a sooner start date for construction:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx)

The Environmental Document (purpose of the meetings next week) is on the website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/enviro.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/enviro.aspx)

The document lists as early as 2024 for a construction start date (project will take multiple years).  It also has layouts of the design (6 lanes, a lot of DDI's in Appleton, new systems interchange with flyovers at WIS 441, and new interchange for the south bridge connection).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on July 21, 2021, 03:26:24 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on July 21, 2021, 02:01:00 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2021, 03:22:13 PM
Public hearings for I-41 expansion between Appleton and Green Bay next week should reveal some answers about a sooner start date for construction:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx)

The Environmental Document (purpose of the meetings next week) is on the website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/enviro.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/enviro.aspx)

The document lists as early as 2024 for a construction start date (project will take multiple years).  It also has layouts of the design (6 lanes, a lot of DDI's in Appleton, new systems interchange with flyovers at WIS 441, and new interchange for the south bridge connection).

Kudos to the city of Appleton and Outagamie County for going with the DDIs and not go with the clusterf**k three-lane roundabouts for those busy interchanges!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 21, 2021, 09:06:16 AM
I have been told that WIDOT will no longer do three lane roundabouts.  Too many issues.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 21, 2021, 11:29:18 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 21, 2021, 09:06:16 AM
I have been told that WIDOT will no longer do three lane roundabouts.  Too many issues.

Yeah, too many issues. Like how seemingly American drivers simply cannot handle roundabouts well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 21, 2021, 11:37:07 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 20, 2021, 12:10:06 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2021, 08:51:31 AM
Traffic counts on that stretch of I-90/94 are about the same as I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.  That follows my experience.  I think I-94 expansion between Waukesha and the Dells makes sense long term, but it should start on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
When you say "between Madison and Milwaukee", does that mean the average AADT between I-39/90/WI-30 and the Marquette Interchange (or something along those lines), or does it mean the average AADT on the four lane segment (between CTH-N at Cottage Grove and WI-16 at Waukesha)?

Regardless, it's important to note that I-90/94 between Portage and Tomah has significantly more truck traffic. Look at this map: <img src="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/11factsfigures/images/fig3_9.jpg"

Trucks move slower, and therefore hold up traffic more. They're also much more important from an economic standpoint, which is an important factor in road projects. So a tie goes to the highway with more trucks IMO.

I don't think that I-94 needs six lanes for the entire distance between Madison and Milwaukee, but it does need six lanes from the current lane drop at WI-16 out to the about WI-83 exit in Delafield, which is where metropolitan Milwaukee traffic picks up.
The lane drop is at CR-SS about 3 miles west of 16. I would six lane it out to WI-67 in Oconomowoc.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 21, 2021, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on July 21, 2021, 02:01:00 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2021, 03:22:13 PM
Public hearings for I-41 expansion between Appleton and Green Bay next week should reveal some answers about a sooner start date for construction:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/default.aspx)

The Environmental Document (purpose of the meetings next week) is on the website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/enviro.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/i41/enviro.aspx)

The document lists as early as 2024 for a construction start date (project will take multiple years).  It also has layouts of the design (6 lanes, a lot of DDI's in Appleton, new systems interchange with flyovers at WIS 441, and new interchange for the south bridge connection).

On Page 24 of the Preferred Alternate Maps 1, is that the new Weigh Station? Nice if it is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on July 21, 2021, 05:01:51 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 19, 2021, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: thspfc on July 19, 2021, 07:45:38 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on July 19, 2021, 07:10:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 17, 2021, 09:56:06 AM
No article links handy, but I have been hearing some local chatter about the State of Wisconsin possibly having moved up the proposed six lane upgrades to I-41 from WI 15/Northland Ave at Appleton to Scheuring Rd in De Pere by three years, from the 2025-2029 time frame to 2022-2026.  Is anyone able to confirm this?

Mike


Would hope this is true, would help everyone heading south or north on that stretch on 41 to do that sooner than later.  I'd assume the creation of the Southridge road exit would be moved up too(just south of Schuering Road exit)
Has WISDOT confirmed that they're going to build an exit at Southridge Road when they expand that stretch of I-41? It doesn't seem needed to me, as northbound traffic can use Lawrence Drive while southbound can use Scheuring.
Southridge Rd would have a bridge over the Fox River while the previous 2 roads don't.

A Fox River bridge between De Pere and Wrightstown has been a desire since I was a kid and I'm 65. I'll believe this bridge when it's funded and built. Right now there's only an agreement on where it will be built, but I wouldn't count on it quite yet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on July 21, 2021, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 21, 2021, 11:29:18 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 21, 2021, 09:06:16 AM
I have been told that WIDOT will no longer do three lane roundabouts.  Too many issues.

Yeah, too many issues. Like how seemingly American drivers simply cannot handle roundabouts well.

Three lanes are difficult even when you like roundabouts. I've dealt with a couple on the west side of Green Bay. I hate them. They're especially hard to navigate at night when it's raining, even with little other traffic around. One or two lanes in a roundabout are fine. Three lanes, as SEWIGuy stated, make too many issues.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2021, 10:11:58 AM
Quote from: skluth on July 21, 2021, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 21, 2021, 11:29:18 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 21, 2021, 09:06:16 AM
I have been told that WIDOT will no longer do three lane roundabouts.  Too many issues.

Yeah, too many issues. Like how seemingly American drivers simply cannot handle roundabouts well.

Three lanes are difficult even when you like roundabouts. I've dealt with a couple on the west side of Green Bay. I hate them. They're especially hard to navigate at night when it's raining, even with little other traffic around. One or two lanes in a roundabout are fine. Three lanes, as SEWIGuy stated, make too many issues.


I know exactly the ones you are talking about.  Too many pavement markings and too many drivers that don't look like they know what they're doing are also problems.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 22, 2021, 02:57:45 PM
I'd like to see Interstate 94 be at least six lanes between Madison and Milwaukee. My mother has asked me when they might do it. I told her she may have to wait a long time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on July 22, 2021, 09:35:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 22, 2021, 02:57:45 PM
I'd like to see Interstate 94 be at least six lanes between Madison and Milwaukee. My mother has asked me when they might do it. I told her she may have to wait a long time.

Are there even any active studies on this segment?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on July 23, 2021, 10:36:27 AM
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FWIS441I41News%2Fposts%2F4791065880920872&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="685" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe>

The Facebook page for the I-41/WI-441 interchange project has been reactivated as a page for the new I-41 study and project between Appleton and DePere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 23, 2021, 01:11:07 PM
Why in God's name do they think that the North end 441 interchange prevailing traffic is westbound?  They have 2 lanes going that way (now a trumpet with the loop coming from EB to southbound
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 23, 2021, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2021, 01:11:07 PM
Why in God's name do they think that the North end 441 interchange prevailing traffic is westbound?  They have 2 lanes going that way (now a trumpet with the loop coming from EB to southbound
The only reason I can think of why they are going to do it that way is maybe Wis 47 will be routed along the freeways to bypass Downtown Appleton. Otherwise, I completely agree.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 23, 2021, 03:45:54 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 23, 2021, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2021, 01:11:07 PM
Why in God's name do they think that the North end 441 interchange prevailing traffic is westbound?  They have 2 lanes going that way (now a trumpet with the loop coming from EB to southbound
The only reason I can think of why they are going to do it that way is maybe Wis 47 will be routed along the freeways to bypass Downtown Appleton. Otherwise, I completely agree.

Speaking as a local, that is the way that about 2/3rds of the WI 441 traffic goes at that interchange.  Also, a significant portion of that traffic is coming from or going to Ballard Rd (Outagamie County 'E') to the north.  Yes, IMHO, provision to extend the WI 441 freeway to the north on a new ROW should have been made when it was first being planned during the 1960s and 1970s (this was shown on some 'popular' local maps that were published during that time frame).  The Calumet and Outagamie County part of the WI 441 freeway first opened in late 1993.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 23, 2021, 05:40:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 23, 2021, 03:45:54 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 23, 2021, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2021, 01:11:07 PM
Why in God's name do they think that the North end 441 interchange prevailing traffic is westbound?  They have 2 lanes going that way (now a trumpet with the loop coming from EB to southbound
The only reason I can think of why they are going to do it that way is maybe Wis 47 will be routed along the freeways to bypass Downtown Appleton. Otherwise, I completely agree.

Speaking as a local, that is the way that about 2/3rds of the WI 441 traffic goes at that interchange.  Also, a significant portion of that traffic is coming from or going to Ballard Rd (Outagamie County 'E') to the north.  Yes, IMHO, provision to extend the WI 441 freeway to the north on a new ROW should have been made when it was first being planned during the 1960s and 1970s (this was shown on some 'popular' local maps that were published during that time frame).  The Calumet and Outagamie County part of the WI 441 freeway first opened in late 1993.

:nod:

Mike


The traffic going westbound makes perfect sense to me.  WI-441 is used much more for local traffic to get around the Appleton area than as some sort of bypass. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on July 25, 2021, 08:20:42 PM
Why does WisDOT struggle at building smooth approaches to bridges? So many approaches to bridges along interstates and expressways first send you through a dip, and then when you hit the bridge itself, you're sent flying like you're in the Dukes of Hazzard. Even newly or recently built bridges are like this. I see WisDOT finally had some asphalt put down on many of the bridge approaches on US 151 around and near Mineral Point, and the difference is like night and day. Other stretches of US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac are much the same way, but haven't been smoothed out yet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 25, 2021, 10:08:21 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 25, 2021, 08:20:42 PM
Why does WisDOT struggle at building smooth approaches to bridges? So many approaches to bridges along interstates and expressways first send you through a dip, and then when you hit the bridge itself, you're sent flying like you're in the Dukes of Hazzard. Even newly or recently built bridges are like this. I see WisDOT finally had some asphalt put down on many of the bridge approaches on US 151 around and near Mineral Point, and the difference is like night and day. Other stretches of US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac are much the same way, but haven't been smoothed out yet.
That's been a common problem everywhere, not just in WI.  I've seen bridges in Iowa that have that problem.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 25, 2021, 10:13:54 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 25, 2021, 08:20:42 PM
Why does WisDOT struggle at building smooth approaches to bridges? So many approaches to bridges along interstates and expressways first send you through a dip, and then when you hit the bridge itself, you're sent flying like you're in the Dukes of Hazzard. Even newly or recently built bridges are like this. I see WisDOT finally had some asphalt put down on many of the bridge approaches on US 151 around and near Mineral Point, and the difference is like night and day. Other stretches of US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac are much the same way, but haven't been smoothed out yet.

I just drove US-151 from Platteville to the Beltline today and I saw the bridges with the replaced asphalt. Those ones were really great. Hopefully they can expand that to more places.

I otherwise feel like most WisDOT bridge approaches are alright. They are lots of joints and you're right that the up-and-down is odd, but they're still alright. If you want to see bad approaches (combined with poor bridge surfaces), drive down IL-53 north of I-90 in Illinois.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 26, 2021, 08:42:34 AM
Some details on I-41 expansion between Green Bay and Appleton. Construction slated to start in 2025.

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2021/07/26/appleton-de-pere-interstate-41-expansion-plan-includes-roundabouts/8045827002/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 26, 2021, 04:31:29 PM
When one builds a new bridge, sometimes the earthwork and the bridge settle at different rates over time leading to that little ramp effect.  You'll see that all over the place, especially (but not exclusively) in places where the ground freezes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 09, 2021, 05:31:48 PM
Apparently US-14 got decommissioned because from a reasonable distance, Google Maps only shows it between the Beltline and CTH-MM as "US-18 Alternate". Google is hilarious sometimes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 17, 2021, 02:20:40 AM
Sign replacements are happening on the Beltline in Madison and clearview will be a thing of the past on WISDOT roads. Rimrock Rd also has County MM and Monona Dr has County BB and I didn't know it had a county road designation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 17, 2021, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 17, 2021, 02:20:40 AM
Sign replacements are happening on the Beltline in Madison and clearview will be a thing of the past on WISDOT roads. Rimrock Rd also has County MM and Monona Dr has County BB and I didn't know it had a county road designation.


I knew Rimrock was always MM, but I don't recall seeing a BB reassurance marker on Monona Drive for decades.  If you look back in the Historic Aerials topo maps, the BB designation is right there on the 1980 map where it intersects Broadway, but not on the 1984 map.  I guess it never went away.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2021, 10:27:23 PM
I knew Rimrock Rd. was CTH-MM and Monona Drive (and Cottage Grove Rd.) was CTH-BB. John Nolen Drive (Beltline to Olin Ave.) and a short portion of Olin Ave. was (or still is) CTH-MC. I remember seeing an End MC sign a short distance west of the Olin/John Nolen intersection, and a regular MC sign at nearly the same place in the opposite direction (don't recall any MC signs on John Nolen). Of course, this was 30-some years ago, when I was a child. Those two signs are long gone, and I'm not sure if CTH-MC still exists or not.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 18, 2021, 01:53:55 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2021, 10:27:23 PM
I knew Rimrock Rd. was CTH-MM and Monona Drive (and Cottage Grove Rd.) was CTH-BB. John Nolen Drive (Beltline to Olin Ave.) and a short portion of Olin Ave. was (or still is) CTH-MC. I remember seeing an End MC sign a short distance west of the Olin/John Nolen intersection, and a regular MC sign at nearly the same place in the opposite direction (don't recall any MC signs on John Nolen). Of course, this was 30-some years ago, when I was a child. Those two signs are long gone, and I'm not sure if CTH-MC still exists or not.

MC still shows up on the Dane County map. No sign for it on The Beltline. When there's snowfall you can tell when John Nolan Dr switches from Dane County to City of Madison. Dane County's portion will be clear while the City of Madison stretch will be snow covered. Olin Ave is where the difference happens.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 18, 2021, 09:24:01 AM
John Nolen / Olin and Monona / Cottage Grove are both former state / US highway routes.  Rimrock Road is not, but used to be County CC before US-14 was moved to the current freeway and off of what is now MM.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2021, 03:55:03 PM
John Nolen Dr. and Olin Ave. were once part of US 12 and US 18; Monona Dr. was once US 51; and Cottage Grove Rd. was once STH-30. I wish I could have seen those roads before all of those designations were relocated in the 1940s and 1950s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 19, 2021, 11:40:56 AM
It's fascinating to think of Olin Ave as a US highway today.  Though it does provide some insight into my observation of historic aerial photos that show a bridge for Olin over the railroad tracks next to go Goodman Park.  It would make sense to have the main egress from the southeast into a pre-Beltline, pre-Nolen Drive era of Madison be grade separated from what would have been a fairly busy RR back then.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on August 19, 2021, 11:58:34 PM
I remember a long time ago discussion here or elsewhere in the forum where we puzzled over the exit numbers in the freeway portions of US 10 in Wisconsin and how they don't match the true mileage of the highway at all.  I was just studying a state highway map in preparation for a trip tomorrow, and I think I just stumbled on where this mistake came from.

The exit number on I-94 at its junction with US 10 in Osseo is 88.  And if you follow US 10's mileage from there back to the state line, adding up all the little black numbers I get 87.  Allow for some rounding errors and I bet the true mileage is 88.  So it looks to me that whoever numbered US 10's mile markers and exits for some reason started from I-94's 88 and sloppily guessed that 10's mileage would be similar since they both go to the state line and used that rather than actually measure along 10. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 20, 2021, 08:17:49 PM
The exit numbers on US 10 boggles the mind of myself (and probably plenty of others). West of Interstate 39, the exit numbers are about 40 digits higher than they would have been if US 10's actual mileage from the Minnesota/Wisconsin border had been used. East of Interstate 39, the numbers are about 37 digits higher than they should be. I don't know what the DOT was thinking when they posted those numbers, although I'm afraid those 37/40 digits higher exit numbers are here permanently.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 01, 2021, 08:16:25 PM
I-43 between Silver Spring Dr in Glendale to Hwy 60 in Grafton is next up for widening:
https://projects.511wi.gov/43north-south/full-project-overview/ (https://projects.511wi.gov/43north-south/full-project-overview/)

(https://projects.511wi.gov/43north-south/wp-content/uploads/sites/705/sequencing2-683x1024.png)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on September 02, 2021, 02:28:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 20, 2021, 08:17:49 PM
The exit numbers on US 10 boggles the mind of myself (and probably plenty of others). West of Interstate 39, the exit numbers are about 40 digits higher than they would have been if US 10's actual mileage from the Minnesota/Wisconsin border had been used. East of Interstate 39, the numbers are about 37 digits higher than they should be. I don't know what the DOT was thinking when they posted those numbers, although I'm afraid those 37/40 digits higher exit numbers are here permanently.

I think I've figured this out now.  Somewhere in their archives they have a mileage list of US 10 that dates back to its first appearance in Wisconsin, and at that time, it was joined with US 12 and came into the state in Hudson, and they ran together until Osseo.  They're still using that mileage list for everywhere that US 10 needs mile markers. 

This actually makes a bit of sense, that you don't change the mile markers if a road gets rerouted earlier on its route, or else you can never do a reroute without also changing every mile marker in the state.  I got to thinking about this because I know that WIS 29's total mileage dropped very slightly when they rerouted it in River Falls to follow Cemetery Road on the south edge of town instead of going up Main St. to Cascade Avenue as it had historically done.  In the strictest sense, every mile marker on the 4-lane sections of WIS 29 should now be one mile lower than they are posted because that of that recent reroute.  That would be silly, so they stuck with the old listed mileage. 

In 10's case, this will only ever become a problem if they ever 4-lane some of the section from Prescott to Osseo, where these old numbers won't obviously won't fit, but that's something I don't ever see happening.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 02, 2021, 03:12:57 PM
But when US-10 was moved onto its current route in 1934, did they actually use mileage based mile markers? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 05:00:52 PM
I see in Green Bay, US 41 is not co-signed with I-41. Is that statewide? Is US 41 like US routes on interstates in Colorado now? It disappears until it becomes independent again, that is.

https://goo.gl/maps/3jmvqFyDNuostxP5A
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 07, 2021, 05:55:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 05:00:52 PM
I see in Green Bay, US 41 is not co-signed with I-41. Is that statewide? Is US 41 like US routes on interstates in Colorado now? It disappears until it becomes independent again, that is.

https://goo.gl/maps/3jmvqFyDNuostxP5A

When I-41 was first commissioned they were co-signed, but WISDot indicated they would ghost US 41 in future sign replacements with Minnesota-style "US 41 FOLLOW I-41" signage. There should still be plenty of I-41/US 41 dual reassurance assemblies.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on September 07, 2021, 06:43:10 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 07, 2021, 05:55:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 05:00:52 PM
I see in Green Bay, US 41 is not co-signed with I-41. Is that statewide? Is US 41 like US routes on interstates in Colorado now? It disappears until it becomes independent again, that is.

https://goo.gl/maps/3jmvqFyDNuostxP5A

When I-41 was first commissioned they were co-signed, but WISDot indicated they would ghost US 41 in future sign replacements with Minnesota-style "US 41 FOLLOW I-41" signage. There should still be plenty of I-41/US 41 dual reassurance assemblies.


Those signs in Green Bay for I-41 have been like that since the designation came to be(assuming you are meaning the I-41 southbound signs when you pass I-43 and Lombardi Ave).  But from my travels if sign had I-41/US-41 they still are signed the same, and if there are I-41 by itself it has stay that way to this time.........If only Business US 41 was still signed in GB would we have had a business loop like Michigan and other states do? lol
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 08, 2021, 12:13:03 PM
It was always planned to have only Interstate 41 shields on all overhead signs due to potential confusion of having both US and Interstate 41 shields on signs (also to reduce on clutter). Maybe North Carolina could have done the same thing: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.586455,-79.1263496,3a,75y,98.14h,72.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNWh0fJ7lbjP4dLmvGlGTgQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 08, 2021, 12:15:47 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on September 07, 2021, 06:43:10 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 07, 2021, 05:55:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 05:00:52 PM
I see in Green Bay, US 41 is not co-signed with I-41. Is that statewide? Is US 41 like US routes on interstates in Colorado now? It disappears until it becomes independent again, that is.

https://goo.gl/maps/3jmvqFyDNuostxP5A

When I-41 was first commissioned they were co-signed, but WISDot indicated they would ghost US 41 in future sign replacements with Minnesota-style "US 41 FOLLOW I-41" signage. There should still be plenty of I-41/US 41 dual reassurance assemblies.


Those signs in Green Bay for I-41 have been like that since the designation came to be(assuming you are meaning the I-41 southbound signs when you pass I-43 and Lombardi Ave).  But from my travels if sign had I-41/US-41 they still are signed the same, and if there are I-41 by itself it has stay that way to this time.........If only Business US 41 was still signed in GB would we have had a business loop like Michigan and other states do? lol


It's not necessary to sign US-41 at all - even with "US-41 Follow I-41" signage.  It's all "Highway 41," and no one gets confused.  They should remove all references to US-41 between the IL line and the end of I-41/43 just north of Green Bay.  Much cleaner.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 09, 2021, 09:02:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 08, 2021, 12:15:47 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on September 07, 2021, 06:43:10 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 07, 2021, 05:55:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 05:00:52 PM
I see in Green Bay, US 41 is not co-signed with I-41. Is that statewide? Is US 41 like US routes on interstates in Colorado now? It disappears until it becomes independent again, that is.

https://goo.gl/maps/3jmvqFyDNuostxP5A

When I-41 was first commissioned they were co-signed, but WISDot indicated they would ghost US 41 in future sign replacements with Minnesota-style "US 41 FOLLOW I-41" signage. There should still be plenty of I-41/US 41 dual reassurance assemblies.


Those signs in Green Bay for I-41 have been like that since the designation came to be(assuming you are meaning the I-41 southbound signs when you pass I-43 and Lombardi Ave).  But from my travels if sign had I-41/US-41 they still are signed the same, and if there are I-41 by itself it has stay that way to this time.........If only Business US 41 was still signed in GB would we have had a business loop like Michigan and other states do? lol


It's not necessary to sign US-41 at all - even with "US-41 Follow I-41" signage.  It's all "Highway 41," and no one gets confused.  They should remove all references to US-41 between the IL line and the end of I-41/43 just north of Green Bay.  Much cleaner.
In Wisconsin, it's always "Highway" (or just HWY)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 15, 2021, 12:53:02 AM
Drove through Northern Wisconsin over the weekend. US 51 now ends at a temporary T intersection with US 2 with the interchange completely demolished. The roundabout is still far from being done.

Wis 77 traffic across US 53 now has to use a J Turn or Michigan Left to cross as the median crossing is completely closed. There are several J Turn intersections along US 53 due to high crashes.

The Trego Interchange at US 63 north along US 53 is well underway with grading work currently being worked on. US 53 will have to be lowered to accommodate the US 63 bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 15, 2021, 01:34:48 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 15, 2021, 12:53:02 AM
Wis 77 traffic across US 53 now has to use a J Turn or Michigan Left to cross as the median crossing is completely closed. There are several J Turn intersections along US 53 due to high crashes.

I recall this intersection being the pilot experiment for an intersection conflict warning system in the state around 10 years ago (Minnesota followed suit with a few of these in the central part of the state on US 169 and MN 23 that are still operating). Sounds like it did not succeed. I had a feeling it wouldn't.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 15, 2021, 11:36:51 PM
Milwaukee urbanists have outlined their plan to improve I-94 on the west side without adding any freeway capacity.

https://www.wpr.org/coalition-groups-propose-alternative-i-94-expansion?fbclid=IwAR1V71_DZQDbQ96Q_qmgQEYcgWysg7uaHXqYr3VxUzW4yU6veFdrp4la1ho
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 07:36:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 15, 2021, 11:36:51 PM
Milwaukee urbanists have outlined their plan to improve I-94 on the west side without adding any freeway capacity.

https://www.wpr.org/coalition-groups-propose-alternative-i-94-expansion?fbclid=IwAR1V71_DZQDbQ96Q_qmgQEYcgWysg7uaHXqYr3VxUzW4yU6veFdrp4la1ho
When it comes to projects like this, it annoys me that the only opinions that seem to matter are the ones of the people living in the neighborhoods right near the proposed project. Then they play the race card, and just like that, the construction is postponed 5 more years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 16, 2021, 08:23:08 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 15, 2021, 11:36:51 PM
Milwaukee urbanists have outlined their plan to improve I-94 on the west side without adding any freeway capacity.

https://www.wpr.org/coalition-groups-propose-alternative-i-94-expansion?fbclid=IwAR1V71_DZQDbQ96Q_qmgQEYcgWysg7uaHXqYr3VxUzW4yU6veFdrp4la1ho

Effectively, their plan to improve I-94 is to... add bus routes and bike lanes on nearby arterials. Nice, that'll do it!  :colorful:

On a less sarcastic note, why are we listening to what faith groups have to say on an Interstate expansion? It's not a particularly moral issue where they have much say. I'm also curious as to exactly what "faith groups" they even are, since the article does not say.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 07:36:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 15, 2021, 11:36:51 PM
Milwaukee urbanists have outlined their plan to improve I-94 on the west side without adding any freeway capacity.

https://www.wpr.org/coalition-groups-propose-alternative-i-94-expansion?fbclid=IwAR1V71_DZQDbQ96Q_qmgQEYcgWysg7uaHXqYr3VxUzW4yU6veFdrp4la1ho
When it comes to projects like this, it annoys me that the only opinions that seem to matter are the ones of the people living in the neighborhoods right near the proposed project. Then they play the race card, and just like that, the construction is postponed 5 more years.

Or maybe you could realize that it is a problem and not just dismiss their concerns so easily. 


Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 16, 2021, 08:23:08 AM
On a less sarcastic note, why are we listening to what faith groups have to say on an Interstate expansion? It's not a particularly moral issue where they have much say. I'm also curious as to exactly what "faith groups" they even are, since the article does not say.

The displacement of people from their homes isn't a moral issue?  And MICAH is a coalition of numerous churches covering multiple faiths.

https://micahmke.org/our-staff-and-leadership/


Look, I am not saying they are right, but dismissing their concerns and claiming they are playing the "race card" is a highly condescending way of trying to understand their POV.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 07:36:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 15, 2021, 11:36:51 PM
Milwaukee urbanists have outlined their plan to improve I-94 on the west side without adding any freeway capacity.

https://www.wpr.org/coalition-groups-propose-alternative-i-94-expansion?fbclid=IwAR1V71_DZQDbQ96Q_qmgQEYcgWysg7uaHXqYr3VxUzW4yU6veFdrp4la1ho
When it comes to projects like this, it annoys me that the only opinions that seem to matter are the ones of the people living in the neighborhoods right near the proposed project. Then they play the race card, and just like that, the construction is postponed 5 more years.

Or maybe you could realize that it is a problem and not just dismiss their concerns so easily. 


Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 16, 2021, 08:23:08 AM
On a less sarcastic note, why are we listening to what faith groups have to say on an Interstate expansion? It's not a particularly moral issue where they have much say. I'm also curious as to exactly what "faith groups" they even are, since the article does not say.

The displacement of people from their homes isn't a moral issue?  And MICAH is a coalition of numerous churches covering multiple faiths.

https://micahmke.org/our-staff-and-leadership/


Look, I am not saying they are right, but dismissing their concerns and claiming they are playing the "race card" is a highly condescending way of trying to understand their POV.
I 100% understand their point of view. But the reality is that there are no good options here. When you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, doing nothing is not the right choice, and nothing is exactly what WISDOT is doing here. I empathize with the people who live near I-94 in that area; I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic. All I'm saying is that there's two sides to every story, yet in this debate the only one that ever makes it into the media is the inner city side.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 07:36:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 15, 2021, 11:36:51 PM
Milwaukee urbanists have outlined their plan to improve I-94 on the west side without adding any freeway capacity.

https://www.wpr.org/coalition-groups-propose-alternative-i-94-expansion?fbclid=IwAR1V71_DZQDbQ96Q_qmgQEYcgWysg7uaHXqYr3VxUzW4yU6veFdrp4la1ho
When it comes to projects like this, it annoys me that the only opinions that seem to matter are the ones of the people living in the neighborhoods right near the proposed project. Then they play the race card, and just like that, the construction is postponed 5 more years.

Or maybe you could realize that it is a problem and not just dismiss their concerns so easily. 


Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 16, 2021, 08:23:08 AM
On a less sarcastic note, why are we listening to what faith groups have to say on an Interstate expansion? It's not a particularly moral issue where they have much say. I'm also curious as to exactly what "faith groups" they even are, since the article does not say.

The displacement of people from their homes isn't a moral issue?  And MICAH is a coalition of numerous churches covering multiple faiths.

https://micahmke.org/our-staff-and-leadership/


Look, I am not saying they are right, but dismissing their concerns and claiming they are playing the "race card" is a highly condescending way of trying to understand their POV.
I 100% understand their point of view. But the reality is that there are no good options here. When you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, doing nothing is not the right choice, and nothing is exactly what WISDOT is doing here. I empathize with the people who live near I-94 in that area; I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic. All I'm saying is that there's two sides to every story, yet in this debate the only one that ever makes it into the media is the inner city side.


That is simply not true.  There have been all sorts of stories on how the expansion of I-94 to eight lanes would impact traffic, etc.  For example:

https://wtmj.com/news/2021/03/24/wtmj-guest-op-ed-the-road-to-a-brighter-economic-future/

https://www.wisn.com/article/proponents-renew-push-for-i-94-widening/36372451

And countless more.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Trademark on September 16, 2021, 11:41:49 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 07:36:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 15, 2021, 11:36:51 PM
Milwaukee urbanists have outlined their plan to improve I-94 on the west side without adding any freeway capacity.

https://www.wpr.org/coalition-groups-propose-alternative-i-94-expansion?fbclid=IwAR1V71_DZQDbQ96Q_qmgQEYcgWysg7uaHXqYr3VxUzW4yU6veFdrp4la1ho
When it comes to projects like this, it annoys me that the only opinions that seem to matter are the ones of the people living in the neighborhoods right near the proposed project. Then they play the race card, and just like that, the construction is postponed 5 more years.

Or maybe you could realize that it is a problem and not just dismiss their concerns so easily. 


Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 16, 2021, 08:23:08 AM
On a less sarcastic note, why are we listening to what faith groups have to say on an Interstate expansion? It's not a particularly moral issue where they have much say. I'm also curious as to exactly what "faith groups" they even are, since the article does not say.

The displacement of people from their homes isn't a moral issue?  And MICAH is a coalition of numerous churches covering multiple faiths.

https://micahmke.org/our-staff-and-leadership/


Look, I am not saying they are right, but dismissing their concerns and claiming they are playing the "race card" is a highly condescending way of trying to understand their POV.
I 100% understand their point of view. But the reality is that there are no good options here. When you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, doing nothing is not the right choice, and nothing is exactly what WISDOT is doing here. I empathize with the people who live near I-94 in that area; I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic. All I'm saying is that there's two sides to every story, yet in this debate the only one that ever makes it into the media is the inner city side.


That is simply not true.  There have been all sorts of stories on how the expansion of I-94 to eight lanes would impact traffic, etc.  For example:

https://wtmj.com/news/2021/03/24/wtmj-guest-op-ed-the-road-to-a-brighter-economic-future/

https://www.wisn.com/article/proponents-renew-push-for-i-94-widening/36372451

And countless more.

The alternatives presented are good but don't tie into this project. A 27th BRT is a layup even though light rail is probably what the corridor needs. More bike lanes are good. But that doesn't mean that it precludes interstate construction.

Does anyone have numbers on how many houses/businesses would need to be torn down for this construction?

Liveability impacts on an increased freeway are concerns. But those can be addressed partially be implementing some of their requests and maybe things like red light cameras at the exits and surrounding intersections.

But if this project is going to tear down a significant amount of homes then that's going to make me side with them then convenience for people in the suburbs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 16, 2021, 02:53:48 PM
Here is the presentation from the March 16, 2021 PIM: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/94ew-study/2021/presentation.pdf. This should tell you everything you need to know about the Interstate 94 (70th St. to 16th St.) project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.

Washington Heights, Mount Mary, Jackson Park, Etc. People who know Milwaukee knows these things. Those who don't make comical assumptions and likely never stray from the interstates because it's "scary."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 09:53:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.

Washington Heights, Mount Mary, Jackson Park, Etc. People who know Milwaukee knows these things. Those who don't make comical assumptions and likely never stray from the interstates because it's "scary."
I'll give you Washington and Jackson Park. Mount Mary not so much. It is technically in Milwaukee, but a quick glace at a map shows that it's obviously in Wauwatosa, as it's even further from downtown Milwaukee than Wauwatosa itself is. Wauwatosa is a suburb, same as Waukesha or Greenfield.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 09:17:49 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 09:53:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.

Washington Heights, Mount Mary, Jackson Park, Etc. People who know Milwaukee knows these things. Those who don't make comical assumptions and likely never stray from the interstates because it's "scary."
I'll give you Washington and Jackson Park. Mount Mary not so much. It is technically in Milwaukee, but a quick glace at a map shows that it's obviously in Wauwatosa, as it's even further from downtown Milwaukee than Wauwatosa itself is. Wauwatosa is a suburb, same as Waukesha or Greenfield.


Mount Mary is not "obviously in Wauwatosa."  It's literally in Milwaukee.  And I have a college roommate that lives across Burleigh Street from campus...which is the City of Milwaukee.

That's my point.  The City of Milwaukee is full of nice, economical neighborhoods which are neither "dangerous with poor schools and poverty," nor "really expensive."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 17, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 09:17:49 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 09:53:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.

Washington Heights, Mount Mary, Jackson Park, Etc. People who know Milwaukee knows these things. Those who don't make comical assumptions and likely never stray from the interstates because it's "scary."
I'll give you Washington and Jackson Park. Mount Mary not so much. It is technically in Milwaukee, but a quick glace at a map shows that it's obviously in Wauwatosa, as it's even further from downtown Milwaukee than Wauwatosa itself is. Wauwatosa is a suburb, same as Waukesha or Greenfield.


Mount Mary is not "obviously in Wauwatosa."  It's literally in Milwaukee.  And I have a college roommate that lives across Burleigh Street from campus...which is the City of Milwaukee.

That's my point.  The City of Milwaukee is full of nice, economical neighborhoods which are neither "dangerous with poor schools and poverty," nor "really expensive."
Don't be like that. Seriously. Mount Mary is between Wauwatosa and Brookfield. It's less than two miles east of the Zoo Freeway, which is the generally accepted boundary between the inner suburbs (Tosa, West Allis) and outer suburbs (Brookfield, Waukesha, Menomonee Falls, New Berlin). Yes, the houses have a Milwaukee address; yet when driving downtown from Mt. Mary, you pass through Tosa no matter what route you take (within reason - staying in Milwaukee would take much longer).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 17, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 09:17:49 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 09:53:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.

Washington Heights, Mount Mary, Jackson Park, Etc. People who know Milwaukee knows these things. Those who don't make comical assumptions and likely never stray from the interstates because it's "scary."
I'll give you Washington and Jackson Park. Mount Mary not so much. It is technically in Milwaukee, but a quick glace at a map shows that it's obviously in Wauwatosa, as it's even further from downtown Milwaukee than Wauwatosa itself is. Wauwatosa is a suburb, same as Waukesha or Greenfield.


Mount Mary is not "obviously in Wauwatosa."  It's literally in Milwaukee.  And I have a college roommate that lives across Burleigh Street from campus...which is the City of Milwaukee.

That's my point.  The City of Milwaukee is full of nice, economical neighborhoods which are neither "dangerous with poor schools and poverty," nor "really expensive."
Don't be like that. Seriously. Mount Mary is between Wauwatosa and Brookfield. It's less than two miles east of the Zoo Freeway, which is the generally accepted boundary between the inner suburbs (Tosa, West Allis) and outer suburbs (Brookfield, Waukesha, Menomonee Falls, New Berlin). Yes, the houses have a Milwaukee address; yet when driving downtown from Mt. Mary, you pass through Tosa no matter what route you take (within reason - staying in Milwaukee would take much longer).


Don't be like what?  Factually accurate?

I claimed there are plenty of parts of Milwaukee that were safe and economical.  You claimed I didn't state any evidence.  And now you claim that the evidence I present doesn't count?

It would just be better for you to admit you were wrong and move on.  Or we could keep going on here and you could tell me more wrong things about the city I was born in, went to school in, lived for over a decade and where most of my family still lives.  What will it be?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on September 17, 2021, 01:18:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 17, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 09:17:49 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 09:53:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.

Washington Heights, Mount Mary, Jackson Park, Etc. People who know Milwaukee knows these things. Those who don't make comical assumptions and likely never stray from the interstates because it's "scary."
I'll give you Washington and Jackson Park. Mount Mary not so much. It is technically in Milwaukee, but a quick glace at a map shows that it's obviously in Wauwatosa, as it's even further from downtown Milwaukee than Wauwatosa itself is. Wauwatosa is a suburb, same as Waukesha or Greenfield.


Mount Mary is not "obviously in Wauwatosa."  It's literally in Milwaukee.  And I have a college roommate that lives across Burleigh Street from campus...which is the City of Milwaukee.

That's my point.  The City of Milwaukee is full of nice, economical neighborhoods which are neither "dangerous with poor schools and poverty," nor "really expensive."
Don't be like that. Seriously. Mount Mary is between Wauwatosa and Brookfield. It's less than two miles east of the Zoo Freeway, which is the generally accepted boundary between the inner suburbs (Tosa, West Allis) and outer suburbs (Brookfield, Waukesha, Menomonee Falls, New Berlin). Yes, the houses have a Milwaukee address; yet when driving downtown from Mt. Mary, you pass through Tosa no matter what route you take (within reason - staying in Milwaukee would take much longer).


Don't be like what?  Factually accurate?

I claimed there are plenty of parts of Milwaukee that were safe and economical.  You claimed I didn't state any evidence.  And now you claim that the evidence I present doesn't count?

It would just be better for you to admit you were wrong and move on.  Or we could keep going on here and you could tell me more wrong things about the city I was born in, went to school in, lived for over a decade and where most of my family still lives.  What will it be?
thspfc be a-trolling, from the looks of things.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on September 17, 2021, 06:11:41 PM
J-turn at WI 29 and CTH VV west of Green Bay is closing Monday (https://fox11online.com/news/local/j-turn-at-highways-29-and-vv-closing-monday) to be replaced by an interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on September 17, 2021, 07:14:59 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2021, 06:11:41 PM
J-turn at WI 29 and CTH VV west of Green Bay is closing Monday (https://fox11online.com/news/local/j-turn-at-highways-29-and-vv-closing-monday) to be replaced by an interchange.

Too bad couldn't have been done sooner. Always a dangerous area regardless if joining or turning off of hwy 29/32
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 17, 2021, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 17, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 09:17:49 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 09:53:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.

Washington Heights, Mount Mary, Jackson Park, Etc. People who know Milwaukee knows these things. Those who don't make comical assumptions and likely never stray from the interstates because it's "scary."
I'll give you Washington and Jackson Park. Mount Mary not so much. It is technically in Milwaukee, but a quick glace at a map shows that it's obviously in Wauwatosa, as it's even further from downtown Milwaukee than Wauwatosa itself is. Wauwatosa is a suburb, same as Waukesha or Greenfield.


Mount Mary is not "obviously in Wauwatosa."  It's literally in Milwaukee.  And I have a college roommate that lives across Burleigh Street from campus...which is the City of Milwaukee.

That's my point.  The City of Milwaukee is full of nice, economical neighborhoods which are neither "dangerous with poor schools and poverty," nor "really expensive."
Don't be like that. Seriously. Mount Mary is between Wauwatosa and Brookfield. It's less than two miles east of the Zoo Freeway, which is the generally accepted boundary between the inner suburbs (Tosa, West Allis) and outer suburbs (Brookfield, Waukesha, Menomonee Falls, New Berlin). Yes, the houses have a Milwaukee address; yet when driving downtown from Mt. Mary, you pass through Tosa no matter what route you take (within reason - staying in Milwaukee would take much longer).


Don't be like what?  Factually accurate?

I claimed there are plenty of parts of Milwaukee that were safe and economical.  You claimed I didn't state any evidence.  And now you claim that the evidence I present doesn't count?

It would just be better for you to admit you were wrong and move on.  Or we could keep going on here and you could tell me more wrong things about the city I was born in, went to school in, lived for over a decade and where most of my family still lives.  What will it be?
Going back to the original point, we're talking about a possible upgrade of I-94 near the WI-175 interchange. I said that the voices of the I-94 commuters should also be heard. We got to this discussion because someone said that there are lots of neighborhoods in Milwaukee where you don't have to commute, but they're also nice places to live with low housing costs. I took issue with one of your three examples because while it is in Milwaukee, it still requires a significant commute to the location of most jobs in Milwaukee. Depending on traffic, I-94 between I-41 and I-43 is generally part of that commute. So I'm not disputing the fact that Mount Mary is in Milwaukee; I understand how my words might have conveyed it that way. What I'm disputing is, going back to the beginning of this conversation, I don't think Mt. Mary is relevant in terms of being a neighborhood that is in the inner city, and doesn't require much of a commute, particularly along the stretch of highway in question.

San Bernardino County is an extreme example of this, much more so than Mt. Mary and Milwaukee. If someone asks you for a good place to live in San Bernardino County where you can commute easily to the rest of the LA area, you're not going to tell them to live in Needles or Baker, even though it is in San Bernardino County.

And I'll remember to keep the "I live(d) here so I'm 100% right you can't debate me on this" card in my pocket.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on September 17, 2021, 10:39:17 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2021, 06:11:41 PM
J-turn at WI 29 and CTH VV west of Green Bay is closing Monday (https://fox11online.com/news/local/j-turn-at-highways-29-and-vv-closing-monday) to be replaced by an interchange.

So the J-turn didn't work?  Could be a nice case study.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 11:09:43 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 17, 2021, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 17, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2021, 09:17:49 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 09:53:10 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 16, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on September 16, 2021, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
I also empathize with the people living in the suburbs and elsewhere who are losing hundreds of hours a year sitting in traffic.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. If people are tired of sitting in traffic (and Milwaukee traffic isn't that bad) then move closer to work. Not a fan of people that want the opportunities and options that cities provide but then don't want to live in and/or pay for it by instead living in suburbia or the hinterland.
This is too objective. Inner city neighborhoods are either a) dangerous with poor schools and poverty, or b) really expensive. The suburbs are higher quality neighborhoods but less expensive than inner city neighborhoods of the same quality, thus why people live there.


What?  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Milwaukee that are both safe and economical.
" Your claim is false."  Proceeds to not state any evidence whatsoever, doesn't even list one such neighborhood.

Washington Heights, Mount Mary, Jackson Park, Etc. People who know Milwaukee knows these things. Those who don't make comical assumptions and likely never stray from the interstates because it's "scary."
I'll give you Washington and Jackson Park. Mount Mary not so much. It is technically in Milwaukee, but a quick glace at a map shows that it's obviously in Wauwatosa, as it's even further from downtown Milwaukee than Wauwatosa itself is. Wauwatosa is a suburb, same as Waukesha or Greenfield.


Mount Mary is not "obviously in Wauwatosa."  It's literally in Milwaukee.  And I have a college roommate that lives across Burleigh Street from campus...which is the City of Milwaukee.

That's my point.  The City of Milwaukee is full of nice, economical neighborhoods which are neither "dangerous with poor schools and poverty," nor "really expensive."
Don't be like that. Seriously. Mount Mary is between Wauwatosa and Brookfield. It's less than two miles east of the Zoo Freeway, which is the generally accepted boundary between the inner suburbs (Tosa, West Allis) and outer suburbs (Brookfield, Waukesha, Menomonee Falls, New Berlin). Yes, the houses have a Milwaukee address; yet when driving downtown from Mt. Mary, you pass through Tosa no matter what route you take (within reason - staying in Milwaukee would take much longer).


Don't be like what?  Factually accurate?

I claimed there are plenty of parts of Milwaukee that were safe and economical.  You claimed I didn't state any evidence.  And now you claim that the evidence I present doesn't count?

It would just be better for you to admit you were wrong and move on.  Or we could keep going on here and you could tell me more wrong things about the city I was born in, went to school in, lived for over a decade and where most of my family still lives.  What will it be?
Going back to the original point, we're talking about a possible upgrade of I-94 near the WI-175 interchange. I said that the voices of the I-94 commuters should also be heard. We got to this discussion because someone said that there are lots of neighborhoods in Milwaukee where you don't have to commute, but they're also nice places to live with low housing costs. I took issue with one of your three examples because while it is in Milwaukee, it still requires a significant commute to the location of most jobs in Milwaukee. Depending on traffic, I-94 between I-41 and I-43 is generally part of that commute. So I'm not disputing the fact that Mount Mary is in Milwaukee; I understand how my words might have conveyed it that way. What I'm disputing is, going back to the beginning of this conversation, I don't think Mt. Mary is relevant in terms of being a neighborhood that is in the inner city, and doesn't require much of a commute, particularly along the stretch of highway in question.

San Bernardino County is an extreme example of this, much more so than Mt. Mary and Milwaukee. If someone asks you for a good place to live in San Bernardino County where you can commute easily to the rest of the LA area, you're not going to tell them to live in Needles or Baker, even though it is in San Bernardino County.

And I'll remember to keep the "I live(d) here so I'm 100% right you can't debate me on this" card in my pocket.

Ah. You went with shifting the goalposts I see.

A common but desperate option for those who are wrong.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 17, 2021, 11:31:25 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 17, 2021, 10:39:17 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2021, 06:11:41 PM
J-turn at WI 29 and CTH VV west of Green Bay is closing Monday (https://fox11online.com/news/local/j-turn-at-highways-29-and-vv-closing-monday) to be replaced by an interchange.
Federal money has an earmark to put an interchange there so it is a freeway to the Shawano county line.
If that project was not done now, the J turn would remain.

So the J-turn didn't work?  Could be a nice case study.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on September 18, 2021, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 17, 2021, 10:39:17 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2021, 06:11:41 PM
J-turn at WI 29 and CTH VV west of Green Bay is closing Monday (https://fox11online.com/news/local/j-turn-at-highways-29-and-vv-closing-monday) to be replaced by an interchange.

So the J-turn didn't work?  Could be a nice case study.

Probably a matter of the area being built up in recent years with the accompanied increased traffic. My brother lived just west of Pamprin Park until last year and I was always surprised at how many new homes had been built every time I visited. Traffic may not justify an interchange today, but the intersection likely would have been overwhelmed within a few years.

I believe this will make County Line Road the only cross-traffic on WI 29/32 east of the Pulaski interchange, and traffic can only turn left off to leave the highway with traffic on County Line only allowed to turn right at the highway. I'm curious if this will eventually be an interchange, bridge across the highway with no access to 29/32, truncated on each side of the highway, or converted to a J-turn intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 18, 2021, 02:04:29 PM
Here's your answer. Wis 29 will be freeway from the Shawano Co line to I-41 when the project is finished.

https://projects.511wi.gov/29vv/wp-content/uploads/sites/682/cthumap.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on September 21, 2021, 08:14:13 AM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?

I can't answer your question but I know that in Dodge County L was last single-letter county route to be assigned.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 08:57:41 AM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?


My guess....  Back when these highways were laid out, US and State highways had small "L" and "R" signs to indicate direction instead of arrows.  Counties stayed away from these two letters to avoid confusion because I don't think there are many CTH-R's either.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 08:57:41 AM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?


My guess....  Back when these highways were laid out, US and State highways had small "L" and "R" signs to indicate direction instead of arrows.  Counties stayed away from these two letters to avoid confusion because I don't think there are many CTH-R's either.

Ah, that would explain it...and it appears you're right, very few R's well. Thanks!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 08:57:41 AM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?


My guess....  Back when these highways were laid out, US and State highways had small "L" and "R" signs to indicate direction instead of arrows.  Counties stayed away from these two letters to avoid confusion because I don't think there are many CTH-R's either.

Ah, that would explain it...and it appears you're right, very few R's well. Thanks!


You are welcome.  It is amazing how consistent the lettering has been since the system started.  There have been a couple additions, re-routes and shortenings, but generally if the letter "N" was slapped on a route back in the 1920s, it is still County N today!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on September 21, 2021, 02:08:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2021, 02:04:29 PM
Here's your answer. Wis 29 will be freeway from the Shawano Co line to I-41 when the project is finished.

https://projects.511wi.gov/29vv/wp-content/uploads/sites/682/cthumap.pdf

They ought to just finish the freeway conversion between there and Shawano. Wouldn't be too difficult to do.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on September 21, 2021, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 08:57:41 AM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?


My guess....  Back when these highways were laid out, US and State highways had small "L" and "R" signs to indicate direction instead of arrows.  Counties stayed away from these two letters to avoid confusion because I don't think there are many CTH-R's either.

Ah, that would explain it...and it appears you're right, very few R's well. Thanks!

I can confirm this is the correct answer too.  :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: chrismarion100 on September 21, 2021, 10:33:39 PM
Wisconsin's second oldest highway tunnel will switch to LED lighting but not before bring closed for two weeks. (last state owned lightning in the NW region to switch to LED lighting)
https://wqow.com/2021/09/21/us-53-exit-tunnel-to-wis-93-will-close-for-lightning-maintenance/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 22, 2021, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on September 21, 2021, 10:33:39 PM
Wisconsin's second oldest highway tunnel will switch to LED lighting but not before bring closed for two weeks. (last state owned lightning in the NW region to switch to LED lighting)
https://wqow.com/2021/09/21/us-53-exit-tunnel-to-wis-93-will-close-for-lightning-maintenance/
What's the oldest? Kilbourn Avenue ramp?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on September 22, 2021, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 21, 2021, 02:08:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2021, 02:04:29 PM
Here's your answer. Wis 29 will be freeway from the Shawano Co line to I-41 when the project is finished.

https://projects.511wi.gov/29vv/wp-content/uploads/sites/682/cthumap.pdf

They ought to just finish the freeway conversion between there and Shawano. Wouldn't be too difficult to do.

There are several small farms on WI 29 between the Shawano/Bonduel bypass and WI 32. It may happen some day, but building access for all those properties is a fair amount of money for a project not currently needed. The expressway works fine for now. There are far more important needs in NE WI, like completing the US 10 expressway in Point to eliminate the stoplights east of I-39.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 22, 2021, 03:06:52 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 22, 2021, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on September 21, 2021, 10:33:39 PM
Wisconsin's second oldest highway tunnel will switch to LED lighting but not before bring closed for two weeks. (last state owned lightning in the NW region to switch to LED lighting)
https://wqow.com/2021/09/21/us-53-exit-tunnel-to-wis-93-will-close-for-lightning-maintenance/
What's the oldest? Kilbourn Avenue ramp?

Kilbourn Avenue ramps are 60's originals.  The tunnel on Howell Ave (WI 38) under the E-W runway at MKE dates to the 70's if my memory is correct.  Then comes the tunnel ramp at US 53/WI 93 (2005).
Since then, we've got College Avenue under the southern tip of the N-S runway at MKE and two of the ramps at the Mitchell Interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on September 23, 2021, 06:31:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 22, 2021, 03:06:52 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 22, 2021, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on September 21, 2021, 10:33:39 PM
Wisconsin's second oldest highway tunnel will switch to LED lighting but not before bring closed for two weeks. (last state owned lightning in the NW region to switch to LED lighting)
https://wqow.com/2021/09/21/us-53-exit-tunnel-to-wis-93-will-close-for-lightning-maintenance/
What's the oldest? Kilbourn Avenue ramp?

Kilbourn Avenue ramps are 60's originals.  The tunnel on Howell Ave (WI 38) under the E-W runway at MKE dates to the 70's if my memory is correct.  Then comes the tunnel ramp at US 53/WI 93 (2005).
Since then, we've got College Avenue under the southern tip of the N-S runway at MKE and two of the ramps at the Mitchell Interchange.

The Howell Avenue runway tunnel dates back to about 1964.
3. Replacement of the Existing Tunnel with a New Tunnel ā€” With major rehabilitation of the existing tunnel, we recommend that consideration be given to constructing a new tunnel to replace the existing tunnel in 20 years (2040). The existing tunnel will be 76 years old at that time, which is at the end of its expected 75-year service life. (https://county.milwaukee.gov/files/county/administrative-services/ArchEng/Bids-and-RFPs/02-HowellTunnelStudyDec2017.pdf) Found in the executive summary of the Howell Tunnel Management Plan, PROJECT NO. 5041-16018
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 24, 2021, 01:42:49 AM
Quote from: skluth on September 22, 2021, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 21, 2021, 02:08:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2021, 02:04:29 PM
Here's your answer. Wis 29 will be freeway from the Shawano Co line to I-41 when the project is finished.

https://projects.511wi.gov/29vv/wp-content/uploads/sites/682/cthumap.pdf

They ought to just finish the freeway conversion between there and Shawano. Wouldn't be too difficult to do.

There are several small farms on WI 29 between the Shawano/Bonduel bypass and WI 32. It may happen some day, but building access for all those properties is a fair amount of money for a project not currently needed. The expressway works fine for now. There are far more important needs in NE WI, like completing the US 10 expressway in Point to eliminate the stoplights east of I-39.

WISDOT abandoned building a new US 10 Stevens Point Bypass east of I-39 so the lights are there to stay. Here's a link to the story stating that the project is dead.

https://stevenspoint.news/2016/09/01/wisdot-dropping-plans-to-complete-highway-10-bypass-project/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on September 25, 2021, 06:27:24 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 24, 2021, 01:42:49 AM
Quote from: skluth on September 22, 2021, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 21, 2021, 02:08:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2021, 02:04:29 PM
Here's your answer. Wis 29 will be freeway from the Shawano Co line to I-41 when the project is finished.

https://projects.511wi.gov/29vv/wp-content/uploads/sites/682/cthumap.pdf

They ought to just finish the freeway conversion between there and Shawano. Wouldn't be too difficult to do.

There are several small farms on WI 29 between the Shawano/Bonduel bypass and WI 32. It may happen some day, but building access for all those properties is a fair amount of money for a project not currently needed. The expressway works fine for now. There are far more important needs in NE WI, like completing the US 10 expressway in Point to eliminate the stoplights east of I-39.

WISDOT abandoned building a new US 10 Stevens Point Bypass east of I-39 so the lights are there to stay. Here's a link to the story stating that the project is dead.

https://stevenspoint.news/2016/09/01/wisdot-dropping-plans-to-complete-highway-10-bypass-project/

Probably should have pursued this instead of the wasteful Marshfield spur.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 25, 2021, 09:30:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 25, 2021, 06:27:24 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 24, 2021, 01:42:49 AM
Quote from: skluth on September 22, 2021, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 21, 2021, 02:08:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2021, 02:04:29 PM
Here's your answer. Wis 29 will be freeway from the Shawano Co line to I-41 when the project is finished.

https://projects.511wi.gov/29vv/wp-content/uploads/sites/682/cthumap.pdf

They ought to just finish the freeway conversion between there and Shawano. Wouldn't be too difficult to do.

There are several small farms on WI 29 between the Shawano/Bonduel bypass and WI 32. It may happen some day, but building access for all those properties is a fair amount of money for a project not currently needed. The expressway works fine for now. There are far more important needs in NE WI, like completing the US 10 expressway in Point to eliminate the stoplights east of I-39.

WISDOT abandoned building a new US 10 Stevens Point Bypass east of I-39 so the lights are there to stay. Here's a link to the story stating that the project is dead.

https://stevenspoint.news/2016/09/01/wisdot-dropping-plans-to-complete-highway-10-bypass-project/

Probably should have pursued this instead of the wasteful Marshfield spur.

I think the Marshfield spur is a lot more useful than a section of roadway that saves maybe two minutes for through traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on September 26, 2021, 12:00:24 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 25, 2021, 09:30:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 25, 2021, 06:27:24 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 24, 2021, 01:42:49 AM
Quote from: skluth on September 22, 2021, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 21, 2021, 02:08:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 18, 2021, 02:04:29 PM
Here's your answer. Wis 29 will be freeway from the Shawano Co line to I-41 when the project is finished.

https://projects.511wi.gov/29vv/wp-content/uploads/sites/682/cthumap.pdf

They ought to just finish the freeway conversion between there and Shawano. Wouldn't be too difficult to do.

There are several small farms on WI 29 between the Shawano/Bonduel bypass and WI 32. It may happen some day, but building access for all those properties is a fair amount of money for a project not currently needed. The expressway works fine for now. There are far more important needs in NE WI, like completing the US 10 expressway in Point to eliminate the stoplights east of I-39.

WISDOT abandoned building a new US 10 Stevens Point Bypass east of I-39 so the lights are there to stay. Here's a link to the story stating that the project is dead.

https://stevenspoint.news/2016/09/01/wisdot-dropping-plans-to-complete-highway-10-bypass-project/

Probably should have pursued this instead of the wasteful Marshfield spur.

I think the Marshfield spur is a lot more useful than a section of roadway that saves maybe two minutes for through traffic.

The Marshfield spur is a poster child for Wisconsin's wasteful highway spending. The US 10 bypass would at least get more use.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 27, 2021, 05:03:08 PM
Well that's what happens when you get a state legislator or two with a big trucking company constantly in their ear.
US 10 should be named the "Roehl Expressway" west of Point for this reason.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 07, 2021, 07:20:05 PM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?
I also beleive that the only LL that exist in the whole state is the one in Ozaukee County. I beleive just about every other double letter of the same is used quite frequently.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on October 08, 2021, 07:34:30 PM
There is a County L in Kenosha County and in Walworth County.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 08, 2021, 11:56:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 07, 2021, 07:20:05 PM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?
I also beleive that the only LL that exist in the whole state is the one in Ozaukee County. I beleive just about every other double letter of the same is used quite frequently.

County L and County R were not used initially because for advanced warning signs in the past there was the letter L for left and letter R for right. When advanced turn arrow signs replaced the letters, then County L and County R were used. Notice that the ones designated are newer. For example County L in Oneida Co is Old US 51 and County R in Brown/Manitowoc Co is old US 141 when I-43 opened.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 09, 2021, 07:44:50 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 08, 2021, 11:56:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 07, 2021, 07:20:05 PM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?
I also beleive that the only LL that exist in the whole state is the one in Ozaukee County. I beleive just about every other double letter of the same is used quite frequently.

County L and County R were not used initially because for advanced warning signs in the past there was the letter L for left and letter R for right. When advanced turn arrow signs replaced the letters, then County L and County R were used. Notice that the ones designated are newer. For example County L in Oneida Co is Old US 51 and County R in Brown/Manitowoc Co is old US 141 when I-43 opened.


Yeah back up the topic I stated this, but thanks for the additional info.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 08:57:41 AM
Quote from: Caps81943 on September 21, 2021, 12:43:39 AM
I've been looking into and exploring Wisconsin a lot lately, and I've noticed something with the county trunk road system. There is a SERIOUS lack of County Road L's. As in, there's only a handful in the entire state.

Can anyone explain this mysterious lack of L's?


My guess....  Back when these highways were laid out, US and State highways had small "L" and "R" signs to indicate direction instead of arrows.  Counties stayed away from these two letters to avoid confusion because I don't think there are many CTH-R's either.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on October 13, 2021, 01:14:09 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 08, 2021, 07:34:30 PM
There is a County L in Kenosha County and in Walworth County.
Eau Claire, Washburn, Lincoln/Oneida, Dodge and Marinette I beleive are the only other ones left. Did I miss any?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on October 29, 2021, 08:55:43 AM
Have they officially restarted the I-39/90/94 study between Madison and the Dells? The section on the WisDOT website regarding it is  outdated.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2021, 02:44:41 PM
Yes, the 39/90/94 study has been restarted. See page 28 on this document: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/status.pdf. I think it was stupid to cancel the study back in 2017. I expect the corridor to be widened from 6 to 8 lanes between Madison and Portage, and widened from 4 to 6 lanes from Portage to Wisconsin Dells, with various interchange improvements throughout the entire corridor. Two projects planned to occur along the corridor in the near future are the replacement of the Wisconsin River Bridge (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i399094-bridge/default.aspx), and the reconfiguration of the interchange with STH-60 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i399094-wis60/default.aspx).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 30, 2021, 09:17:51 AM
Interesting that they're basically making lateral changes from a parclo-looking thing to a diamond. Seems like they have better things to work on than the WI-60 interchange, but I don't care for the loop ramps so I'm not complaining.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: cwm1276 on October 30, 2021, 11:28:37 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2021, 09:17:51 AM
Interesting that they're basically making lateral changes from a parclo-looking thing to a diamond. Seems like they have better things to work on than the WI-60 interchange, but I don't care for the loop ramps so I'm not complaining.
Would there still be space for the loop ramps with additional lanes?  They almost need to move the centerline of the interstate west to avoid the transmission lines, which would make that loop in the southwest even tighter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on October 30, 2021, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: cwm1276 on October 30, 2021, 11:28:37 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2021, 09:17:51 AM
Interesting that they're basically making lateral changes from a parclo-looking thing to a diamond. Seems like they have better things to work on than the WI-60 interchange, but I don't care for the loop ramps so I'm not complaining.
Would there still be space for the loop ramps with additional lanes?  They almost need to move the centerline of the interstate west to avoid the transmission lines, which would make that loop in the southwest even tighter.

Probably not. Those loop ramps are tight as it is, a diamond interchange is better, and will better accommodate future widening to the corridor. I presume the bridge over Hwy 60 will be rebuilt to accommodate a future fourth lane.

When are they going to update the website with new information about the I-39/90/94 study? It still says it is being cancelled. Also, are they going to lump the Madison to Portage and the Portage to Wisconsin Dells segments together this time? Last time, there were separate studies for both of them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 03, 2021, 07:32:52 PM
Silly question - is there any significant stretch of 6-lane or wider freeway in Wisconsin with a truck travel lane restriction? In other states, trucks are restricted from the leftmost lane (or on a 8-lane or wider stretch, from the left 2 lanes), to reduce left-lane hogging. There is general "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signage, but nothing specific to trucks.

Just curious - the lack of lane discipline from trucks on I-39/90 since the 6-laning can be awfully road-rage inducing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on November 03, 2021, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 03, 2021, 07:32:52 PM
Silly question - is there any significant stretch of 6-lane or wider freeway in Wisconsin with a truck travel lane restriction? In other states, trucks are restricted from the leftmost lane (or on a 8-lane or wider stretch, from the left 2 lanes), to reduce left-lane hogging. There is general "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signage, but nothing specific to trucks.

Just curious - the lack of lane discipline from trucks on I-39/90 since the 6-laning can be awfully road-rage inducing.

The only thing that came close, that I can think of, was the 45 mph minimum speed limit in the left two lanes, and no minimum speed far right lane going up the Brookfield Hill on westbound I-94 east of Moorland Road in Brookfield.  However, those overhead speed signs were removed some time ago. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 03, 2021, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 03, 2021, 07:32:52 PM
Silly question - is there any significant stretch of 6-lane or wider freeway in Wisconsin with a truck travel lane restriction? In other states, trucks are restricted from the leftmost lane (or on a 8-lane or wider stretch, from the left 2 lanes), to reduce left-lane hogging. There is general "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signage, but nothing specific to trucks.

Just curious - the lack of lane discipline from trucks on I-39/90 since the 6-laning can be awfully road-rage inducing.
There are no restrictions outside of any work zone where they put signs up.  Hence trucks can engage in a 3+ way Elephant race if they choose to and they will make you mad.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 03, 2021, 08:10:28 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 03, 2021, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 03, 2021, 07:32:52 PM
Silly question - is there any significant stretch of 6-lane or wider freeway in Wisconsin with a truck travel lane restriction? In other states, trucks are restricted from the leftmost lane (or on a 8-lane or wider stretch, from the left 2 lanes), to reduce left-lane hogging. There is general "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signage, but nothing specific to trucks.

Just curious - the lack of lane discipline from trucks on I-39/90 since the 6-laning can be awfully road-rage inducing.
There are no restrictions outside of any work zone where they put signs up.  Hence trucks can engage in a 3+ way Elephant race if they choose to and they will make you mad.
I've seen that a few times on the Triplex.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on November 04, 2021, 07:56:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 03, 2021, 08:10:28 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 03, 2021, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 03, 2021, 07:32:52 PM
Silly question - is there any significant stretch of 6-lane or wider freeway in Wisconsin with a truck travel lane restriction? In other states, trucks are restricted from the leftmost lane (or on a 8-lane or wider stretch, from the left 2 lanes), to reduce left-lane hogging. There is general "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signage, but nothing specific to trucks.

Just curious - the lack of lane discipline from trucks on I-39/90 since the 6-laning can be awfully road-rage inducing.
There are no restrictions outside of any work zone where they put signs up.  Hence trucks can engage in a 3+ way Elephant race if they choose to and they will make you mad.
I've seen that a few times on the Triplex.

I believe that's called a clustertruck.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 04, 2021, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 04, 2021, 07:56:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 03, 2021, 08:10:28 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 03, 2021, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 03, 2021, 07:32:52 PM
Silly question - is there any significant stretch of 6-lane or wider freeway in Wisconsin with a truck travel lane restriction? In other states, trucks are restricted from the leftmost lane (or on a 8-lane or wider stretch, from the left 2 lanes), to reduce left-lane hogging. There is general "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signage, but nothing specific to trucks.

Just curious - the lack of lane discipline from trucks on I-39/90 since the 6-laning can be awfully road-rage inducing.
There are no restrictions outside of any work zone where they put signs up.  Hence trucks can engage in a 3+ way Elephant race if they choose to and they will make you mad.
I've seen that a few times on the Triplex.

I believe that's called a clustertruck.  :bigass:
Sitting behind three shoulder-to-shoulder semis, going <25 MPH in traffic, rolling past the 1-mile sign for the WI-60 exit and knowing that it will be several minutes before you actually reach the exit ramp.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 04, 2021, 11:08:30 PM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 04, 2021, 10:13:42 PM
What's your thoughts of making US 53 a four lane highway without any traffic lights all the way to I-35

It already is, unless you are speaking of making it a freeway all the way to I-35? In that case, it's not necessary. The expressway functions well. Maybe at some point you could make the case for full freeway conversion between Rice Lake and Spooner, but there are way more important priorities for WisDOT right now.

Heck, I'd say closing the freeway gap on US 51 between Merrill and Tomahawk should be more important than any freeway conversion projects on US 53 at the moment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on November 04, 2021, 11:13:40 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 04, 2021, 11:08:30 PM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 04, 2021, 10:13:42 PM
What's your thoughts of making US 53 a four lane highway without any traffic lights all the way to I-35

It already is, unless you are speaking of making it a freeway all the way to I-35? In that case, it's not necessary. The expressway functions well. Maybe at some point you could make the case for full freeway conversion between Rice Lake and Spooner, but there are way more important priorities for WisDOT right now.

I think he meant specifically making 2/53 freeway through Superior, which isn't really necessary either aside from maybe cleaning up some of the minor intersections between Belknap St and the expressway. Other than that it takes a damn eternity to drive through East End, the traffic's not there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Based on how Minnesota constructed the I-35/US east interchange, this was probably close to the thinking when they built the Bong Bridge.

The thing is, it is hard to justify the expense compared to the traffic up there.  The long slog through the entire length of Superior is here to stay.  In 1910, Superior was the 2nd largest city in Wisconsin. Today, it doesn't crack the top 30.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.



Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on November 05, 2021, 04:48:22 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.

As I understand it, when a US 2 bypass was considered the rail yard ROW south of Belknap was where it was studied. But then you run into that same problem of where it could turn back to the east, as what commercial growth has happened in Superior has fanned out along Tower Avenue between downtown and the airport, and ultimately as you mentioned, there would be zero benefit in time saved.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 05, 2021, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 05, 2021, 04:48:22 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.

As I understand it, when a US 2 bypass was considered the rail yard ROW south of Belknap was where it was studied. But then you run into that same problem of where it could turn back to the east, as what commercial growth has happened in Superior has fanned out along Tower Avenue between downtown and the airport, and ultimately as you mentioned, there would be zero benefit in time saved.

I just don't see the need for a freeway along US 53 in Superior. What are the ADT counts in the area anyway?

Don't get me wrong, I think US 53 is an important corridor, but probably not enough to justify converting the entire stretch between Rice Lake and I-535 a freeway.

Then again, I do remember reading somewhere once that the corridor was proposed to be added to the Interstate system, but was turned down. Did anyone else read that?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 05, 2021, 10:48:13 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 05, 2021, 10:28:43 PM

I just don't see the need for a freeway along US 53 in Superior. What are the ADT counts in the area anyway?

Around 19,000  https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e12a4f051de4ea9bc865ec6393731f8
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 05, 2021, 11:03:33 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 05, 2021, 10:48:13 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 05, 2021, 10:28:43 PM

I just don't see the need for a freeway along US 53 in Superior. What are the ADT counts in the area anyway?

Around 19,000  https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e12a4f051de4ea9bc865ec6393731f8

So steadily busy, but not nearly enough for a freeway. And man, those sections north of Rice Lake, woof. There's barely enough ADT for four lanes let alone a freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 06, 2021, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.

I think the idea of a "freeway bypass" along the rail line as you propose is not a bad idea.  If Bong Airport wasn't sprawled out the way it is, you could cut on the southwest flank of the airport and tie it into the US 2/53 freeway at Hwy Z. But because of the airport, you would have to go around the west and south side of the Village of Superior to utilize the Hwy Z corridor.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 07, 2021, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 06, 2021, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.

I think the idea of a "freeway bypass" along the rail line as you propose is not a bad idea.  If Bong Airport wasn't sprawled out the way it is, you could cut on the southwest flank of the airport and tie it into the US 2/53 freeway at Hwy Z. But because of the airport, you would have to go around the west and south side of the Village of Superior to utilize the Hwy Z corridor.

But why would this even be needed? Is US 53 such a high traffic corridor that a freeway connection is needed between I-535 and the US 53 expressway? No. The current road is not ideal, but fine for current traffic loads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on November 09, 2021, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 07, 2021, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 06, 2021, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.

I think the idea of a "freeway bypass" along the rail line as you propose is not a bad idea.  If Bong Airport wasn't sprawled out the way it is, you could cut on the southwest flank of the airport and tie it into the US 2/53 freeway at Hwy Z. But because of the airport, you would have to go around the west and south side of the Village of Superior to utilize the Hwy Z corridor.

But why would this even be needed? Is US 53 such a high traffic corridor that a freeway connection is needed between I-535 and the US 53 expressway? No. The current road is not ideal, but fine for current traffic loads.
Going back to the original question from chrismarion100 of what are your thoughts on a US 53 freeway, I think it's been everyone's in agreement that there's no reason to build it even if there are questions on whether it could be built. I've yet to see anyone make an argument for an actual need to upgrade US 53 to a freeway north of Spooner to Duluth or a freeway through Superior itself.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 09, 2021, 09:38:27 AM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2021, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 07, 2021, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 06, 2021, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.

I think the idea of a "freeway bypass" along the rail line as you propose is not a bad idea.  If Bong Airport wasn't sprawled out the way it is, you could cut on the southwest flank of the airport and tie it into the US 2/53 freeway at Hwy Z. But because of the airport, you would have to go around the west and south side of the Village of Superior to utilize the Hwy Z corridor.

But why would this even be needed? Is US 53 such a high traffic corridor that a freeway connection is needed between I-535 and the US 53 expressway? No. The current road is not ideal, but fine for current traffic loads.
Going back to the original question from chrismarion100 of what are your thoughts on a US 53 freeway, I think it's been everyone's in agreement that there's no reason to build it even if there are questions on whether it could be built. I've yet to see anyone make an argument for an actual need to upgrade US 53 to a freeway north of Spooner to Duluth or a freeway through Superior itself.

Yep. They should eventually convert the section between Rice Lake and Spooner to full freeway, as the US 63 interchange in Spooner is a more logical terminus for the freeway than Rice Lake, but there are bigger priorities right now.

North of there is fine as it is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 11, 2021, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 09, 2021, 09:38:27 AM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2021, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 07, 2021, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 06, 2021, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.

I think the idea of a "freeway bypass" along the rail line as you propose is not a bad idea.  If Bong Airport wasn't sprawled out the way it is, you could cut on the southwest flank of the airport and tie it into the US 2/53 freeway at Hwy Z. But because of the airport, you would have to go around the west and south side of the Village of Superior to utilize the Hwy Z corridor.

But why would this even be needed? Is US 53 such a high traffic corridor that a freeway connection is needed between I-535 and the US 53 expressway? No. The current road is not ideal, but fine for current traffic loads.
Going back to the original question from chrismarion100 of what are your thoughts on a US 53 freeway, I think it's been everyone's in agreement that there's no reason to build it even if there are questions on whether it could be built. I've yet to see anyone make an argument for an actual need to upgrade US 53 to a freeway north of Spooner to Duluth or a freeway through Superior itself.

Yep. They should eventually convert the section between Rice Lake and Spooner to full freeway, as the US 63 interchange in Spooner is a more logical terminus for the freeway than Rice Lake, but there are bigger priorities right now.

North of there is fine as it is.
I would like to see an interchange at Hwy B that appears to be a very dangerous intersection. I beleive a Hwy 77 interchange has been discused.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on November 11, 2021, 10:34:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on November 11, 2021, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 09, 2021, 09:38:27 AM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2021, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 07, 2021, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 06, 2021, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 05, 2021, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2021, 01:42:22 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 05, 2021, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
I don't know where you would even put a US-53 freeway through Superior.

Well there is a nice gap in that tank farm to get one up toward 28th Ave.  Depart the existing facility at the welcome center to hit that gap, then one just has to punch through going west to north of the municipal airport to the railyards that divide the city at which point one turns back north and uses that space to get up to the foot of the Bong Bridge.  It's not a particularly cheap path, but it is possible without being too disruptive. 

Egads, this is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.  North of the airport?  Gap between the tank farms?  Punch through?  This would be very disruptive and totally infeasible given you'd have to deal with Murphy Oil and the west side industries...let alone the residence takings and airport disruption...So, SEWI's got it right.
Getting dangerously close to fictional here. But why couldn't a freeway be run along the wide railroad corridor between Elmira and Oakes? I honestly don't think one is needed. But if a freeway was built through Superior along the rail corridor north until the Belknap St viaduct and then over the Bong Bridge, it could be done with a minimal loss of housing and businesses. It would have to be extended east to US 2/53 south of Superior, but that's mostly woodland. I don't think it would save any time vs the current 2nd St corridor considering 2nd St is essentially a (dare I say the word?) hypotenuse of the potential freeway legs.

I think the idea of a "freeway bypass" along the rail line as you propose is not a bad idea.  If Bong Airport wasn't sprawled out the way it is, you could cut on the southwest flank of the airport and tie it into the US 2/53 freeway at Hwy Z. But because of the airport, you would have to go around the west and south side of the Village of Superior to utilize the Hwy Z corridor.

But why would this even be needed? Is US 53 such a high traffic corridor that a freeway connection is needed between I-535 and the US 53 expressway? No. The current road is not ideal, but fine for current traffic loads.
Going back to the original question from chrismarion100 of what are your thoughts on a US 53 freeway, I think it's been everyone's in agreement that there's no reason to build it even if there are questions on whether it could be built. I've yet to see anyone make an argument for an actual need to upgrade US 53 to a freeway north of Spooner to Duluth or a freeway through Superior itself.

Yep. They should eventually convert the section between Rice Lake and Spooner to full freeway, as the US 63 interchange in Spooner is a more logical terminus for the freeway than Rice Lake, but there are bigger priorities right now.

North of there is fine as it is.
I would like to see an interchange at Hwy B that appears to be a very dangerous intersection. I beleive a Hwy 77 interchange has been discused.

It's good to see WisDOT is slowly upgrading the US 53 corridor. The future Trego interchange (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nw/us53trego/default.aspx) might be a good place to end the freeway as it's the US 53/63 split.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 12, 2021, 01:46:52 PM
I look forward to the completion and opening of Exit 171 (I assume that will be the number) at US 63 north in Trego next fall. I doubt there will many additional upgrades to the US 53 corridor anytime soon, but if the upgrades suggested in the US 53 Corridor Preservation Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nw/us53corridor/default.aspx) ever come to pass, I would support them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 12, 2021, 09:42:15 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on November 11, 2021, 07:40:56 PM
I would like to see an interchange at Hwy B that appears to be a very dangerous intersection. I beleive a Hwy 77 interchange has been discused.

Didn't they convert that into a 'reduced conflicts' intersection? (aka "J-turns")
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Weathernerd645 on November 17, 2021, 07:12:43 PM
So now that the infrastructure bill is officially signed into law. What road projects do you guys think will be funded by this bill here in Wisconsin? Personally, I think that at least the East-West Freeway/Stadium Interchange, the Wisconsin River Bridges, and the I-41 Appleton expansion will all get at least some increased funding from this bill. For a new project in the state, I could see either a lane expansion on 94 between Madison and Milwaukee or 90/94 between Portage and Lyndon Station. And for a wild card prediction, I could see them at least attempt to do the Beltine in Madison. It's going to be super expensive, but now is the time WIDOT has the money, so it might be the time for redoing the Beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 18, 2021, 04:09:59 PM
Well with that flex lane about to open I think odds are long that the Beltline gets to be in on this pool of money.
We could very well get that desperately needed interchange out at US 12 and CTH K, though.

I imagine I-41 between Green Bay and Appleton and I-94 through the Stadium Interchange are exactly the kind of near-shovel ready projects that are most likely to capture some infrastructure dough.
The triplex over the Wisconsin River is already funded, if I'm not misremembering.

In an effort to keep it geographically fair, I wouldn't be surprised to see some money thrown at I-94 west of Elk Mound.  Obviously not enough to six lane the whole thing to Hudson, but enough to do something cool like the free-flow interchange at WI 29.
They'd get a lot of bang for their buck extending the six lanes of I-94 west to Oconomowoc.  Super easy upgrade with most structures ready to go now, complete with fresh surfaces from 2 years ago.
Six-laning 90/94 from Portage to the Dells Parkway would be another worthwhile, relatively easy and high visibility use of this cash.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on November 18, 2021, 07:36:29 PM
Hopefully 6 lane/ upgrade US 53 around Eau Claire and replace the Interstate 94-Chippewa River bridges.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.

No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi River.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 20, 2021, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.
Well, he's not wrong. The only remaining four lane section between Eau Claire and the Mississippi is between Eau Claire and Hudson.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2021, 07:36:50 PM
I don't think I-94 needs to be six lanes directly west of Eau Claire.  Perhaps working east from Hudson over time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 20, 2021, 09:33:44 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2021, 07:36:50 PM
I don't think I-94 needs to be six lanes directly west of Eau Claire.  Perhaps working east from Hudson over time.

Probably between Hudson and WIS 29 would be sufficient, along with implementing the proposed I-94/WIS 29 interchange improvement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 20, 2021, 10:32:33 PM
The new ramps at the I-39/I-90/I-43 interchange in Beloit are open.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2021, 11:56:49 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 20, 2021, 09:33:44 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2021, 07:36:50 PM
I don't think I-94 needs to be six lanes directly west of Eau Claire.  Perhaps working east from Hudson over time.

Probably between Hudson and WIS 29 would be sufficient, along with implementing the proposed I-94/WIS 29 interchange improvement.


I think that would be too much. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on November 21, 2021, 01:23:36 AM
{The new ramps at the I-39/I-90/I-43 interchange in Beloit are open.}

Is the new alignment for Highway 81 finished yet? And if it is, are there any pictures available?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 21, 2021, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2021, 11:56:49 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 20, 2021, 09:33:44 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2021, 07:36:50 PM
I don't think I-94 needs to be six lanes directly west of Eau Claire.  Perhaps working east from Hudson over time.

Probably between Hudson and WIS 29 would be sufficient, along with implementing the proposed I-94/WIS 29 interchange improvement.


I think that would be too much.

The Interstate will need to be modernized in that stretch at some point. Might as well go six lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 21, 2021, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 21, 2021, 01:23:36 AM
Is the new alignment for Highway 81 finished yet? And if it is, are there any pictures available?

Someone else will need to answer the Highway 81 question - I only tried the SB to NB and SB to SB ramps between I-39/I-90 and I-43.  I don't recall seeing any detour signage along the interstates or at the roundabouts at the Hart Road interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: KCRoadFan on November 21, 2021, 11:06:42 PM
What's going on with the westernmost section of Highway 11 (between Hazel Green and the interchange on US 151 across the river from Dubuque)? I saw that it was closed when I went up earlier this month to visit my brother in Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 22, 2021, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on November 21, 2021, 11:06:42 PM
What's going on with the westernmost section of Highway 11 (between Hazel Green and the interchange on US 151 across the river from Dubuque)? I saw that it was closed when I went up earlier this month to visit my brother in Madison.

It was getting repaved. I believe it just opened back up last week.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 22, 2021, 10:19:08 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 21, 2021, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 21, 2021, 01:23:36 AM
Is the new alignment for Highway 81 finished yet? And if it is, are there any pictures available?

Someone else will need to answer the Highway 81 question - I only tried the SB to NB and SB to SB ramps between I-39/I-90 and I-43.  I don't recall seeing any detour signage along the interstates or at the roundabouts at the Hart Road interchange.

I believe everything is open on WI 81 in Beloit. They've been posting pictures throughout the project on the project facebook page. facebook.com/WisconsinI3990Project
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on November 22, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 20, 2021, 09:33:44 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2021, 07:36:50 PM
I don't think I-94 needs to be six lanes directly west of Eau Claire.  Perhaps working east from Hudson over time.

Probably between Hudson and WIS 29 would be sufficient, along with implementing the proposed I-94/WIS 29 interchange improvement.

I vote for 6-laning it all the way from Hudson to Eau Claire.  It's not just the number of vehicles, it's which ones, and it's very, very heavily travelled by trucks.  If you're in a car in the left lane, you can go for many miles without ever being able to read a sign posted on the right side of the road because it's solid trucks over there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 22, 2021, 08:40:01 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 21, 2021, 01:23:36 AM
{The new ramps at the I-39/I-90/I-43 interchange in Beloit are open.}

Is the new alignment for Highway 81 finished yet? And if it is, are there any pictures available?
Aside from some minor detail work, Hwy 81  is finished. The I-39/90 project page on Facebook has photos of the work in the area.

Certain folks are less than thrilled about having to exit at Hart Rd now, but I suspect they'll get over it. The old cloverleaf was probably fine in the '60s, but 60 years later it was sketchy getting on and off the Interstate.

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 22, 2021, 09:06:41 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 22, 2021, 08:40:01 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 21, 2021, 01:23:36 AM
{The new ramps at the I-39/I-90/I-43 interchange in Beloit are open.}

Is the new alignment for Highway 81 finished yet? And if it is, are there any pictures available?
Aside from some minor detail work, Hwy 81  is finished. The I-39/90 project page on Facebook has photos of the work in the area.

Certain folks are less than thrilled about having to exit at Hart Rd now, but I suspect they'll get over it. The old cloverleaf was probably fine in the '60s, but 60 years later it was sketchy getting on and off the Interstate.

SM-G991U



Quote from: WisDOT
BELOIT
I-39/90 and I-43/WIS 81 interchange area reconstruction, Beloit

Nightly lane closures on I-39/90 northbound and southbound from Townline Road and Colley Road near Beloit.
8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday through Wednesday (Nov. 22-24)
Pay attention for crews and equipment near the travel lanes.
The WIS 81 bridges over I-39/90 in Beloit are OPEN in the Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) configuration.
Read more about the WIS 81 DDI and follow the overhead signs and pavement markings.
All I-39/90 and I-43 interchange flyover ramps are OPEN. Watch the signs to choose the appropriate lane/ramp to reach your destination.
​Download the I-39/90 and I-43 interchange navigation map for the permanent configuration.
I-43 southbound traffic wishing to enter Beloit must exit at County X/Hart Road (Exit 2).
Nightly closure of I-39/90 northbound ramp to WIS 81 (Exit 185 A) in Beloit.
10 p.m. to 5 a.m. Monday through Thursday nights (Nov. 29 ā€” Dec. 2)
Alternate routes are required, such as I-39/90 northbound to I-43 exiting at County X/Hart Road to travel west on WIS 81.
WIS 81/Milwaukee Road is reduced to one lane each way between Cranston Road and I-39/90.
Access remains OPEN to local businesses.
Gateway Boulevard is reduced to one lane in each direction from S. Turtle Town Hall Road west to the railroad tracks.
Access is maintained to local businesses, including Kerry Corporation.
Read the I-39/90 and I-43 construction operations near Beloit.
Restoration work along the interchange ramp slopes.
Temporary pavement removal, permanent pavement markings and traffic signals.
Work continues for the reconstruction of the WIS 81 eastbound lanes from Ford Street/Freeman Parkway to the east.
https://projects.511wi.gov/i-39-90/wcu/

What the above said.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on November 22, 2021, 11:51:41 PM
Quote from: invincor on November 22, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on November 20, 2021, 09:33:44 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2021, 07:36:50 PM
I don't think I-94 needs to be six lanes directly west of Eau Claire.  Perhaps working east from Hudson over time.

Probably between Hudson and WIS 29 would be sufficient, along with implementing the proposed I-94/WIS 29 interchange improvement.

I vote for 6-laning it all the way from Hudson to Eau Claire.  It's not just the number of vehicles, it's which ones, and it's very, very heavily travelled by trucks.  If you're in a car in the left lane, you can go for many miles without ever being able to read a sign posted on the right side of the road because it's solid trucks over there.

100% this!  Unpopular Opinion: Would go as far to say this is more important than any more upgrades to WIS 26 (especially new ROW).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on November 22, 2021, 11:53:13 PM
For what it's worth, I've noticed some bridges between Eau Claire and Tomah built with possible 6-lane expansion in mind as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on November 23, 2021, 09:02:29 AM
The only 'advantage' of a four lane road is that trucks and other large vehicles mostly stay in the right lane. With a six lane road, there is a decent amount of trucks that just camp in the middle lane. That pushes more vehicles into the left passing lane and enough people also will pass in the right lane.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tosa on November 23, 2021, 09:53:21 AM
Quote from: WarrenWallace on November 23, 2021, 09:02:29 AM
The only 'advantage' of a four lane road is that trucks and other large vehicles mostly stay in the right lane. With a six lane road, there is a decent amount of trucks that just camp in the middle lane. That pushes more vehicles into the left passing lane and enough people also will pass in the right lane.

Driving on a 4 lane interstate with a lot of truck traffic (such as 65 in Indiana) is a nightmare. A passing truck in the left lane can easily block the whole traffic. And there are only two options for a passenger car at rush hour: either slowly following a semi in the right lane, or racing with other crazy drivers in the left lane.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 23, 2021, 09:57:39 AM


Quote from: WarrenWallace on November 23, 2021, 09:02:29 AM
With a six lane road, there is a decent amount of trucks that just camp in the middle lane. That pushes more vehicles into the left passing lane and enough people also will pass in the right lane.

This country doesn't believe in proper driver's education or enforcing any kind of driving behaviors besides speeding. Wisconsin is also a non-believer in lane restrictions for large trucks, to the detriment of traffic.


SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 23, 2021, 11:07:32 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 23, 2021, 09:57:39 AM
This country doesn't believe in proper driver's education or enforcing any kind of driving behaviors besides speeding. Wisconsin is also a non-believer in lane restrictions for large trucks, to the detriment of traffic.


Good.  Truck lane restrictions on high volume highways are actually less safe.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3141/2096-04
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on November 29, 2021, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.

I'm not sure that that AADT fully justifies six lanes.  I drive on a four-lane freeway daily in a much larger metro with an AADT of 54,000, and it doesn't need expansion.  And a crash on any freeway will bring traffic to grinding halt.  People in small cities have a much lower tolerance for traffic.  Look at US 52 in Rochester, MNā€“ expanded to six lanes around 2005 and it still isn't warranted.  However, people in Rochester will never tell you that. Wisconsin has bigger capacity issues than US 53. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 29, 2021, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.

I'm not sure that that AADT fully justifies six lanes.  I drive on a four-lane freeway daily in a much larger metro with an AADT of 54,000, and it doesn't need expansion.  And a crash on any freeway will bring traffic to grinding halt.  People in small cities have a much lower tolerance for traffic.  Look at US 52 in Rochester, MNā€“ expanded to six lanes around 2005 and it still isn't warranted.  However, people in Rochester will never tell you that. Wisconsin has bigger capacity issues than US 53. 


Yep.  I drive to work every day on WI-172 that has 60,000+ per day.  Sure it can slow down a little, and bad weather or an accident can grind traffic to a halt, but there are multiple alternatives through the city I can take if I want.  And outside of about 30 minutes in the morning and evening, four lanes is more than enough. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on November 29, 2021, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 29, 2021, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.

I’m not sure that that AADT fully justifies six lanes.  I drive on a four-lane freeway daily in a much larger metro with an AADT of 54,000, and it doesn’t need expansion.  And a crash on any freeway will bring traffic to grinding halt.  People in small cities have a much lower tolerance for traffic.  Look at US 52 in Rochester, MN— expanded to six lanes around 2005 and it still isn’t warranted.  However, people in Rochester will never tell you that. Wisconsin has bigger capacity issues than US 53. 

Yep.  I drive to work every day on WI-172 that has 60,000+ per day.  Sure it can slow down a little, and bad weather or an accident can grind traffic to a halt, but there are multiple alternatives through the city I can take if I want.  And outside of about 30 minutes in the morning and evening, four lanes is more than enough. 


US 53 gets fairly crowded in that area even during the weekends/ evenings and topography in the area also factors into need for widening. The expansion ready design of the bypass would likely make it significantly less costly and resource intensive then other potential major projects.

Altoona's 20%+ growth rate (third fastest in the state) over the past decade is another appreciable contributor. :coffee:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 06:40:12 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 29, 2021, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 29, 2021, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.

I'm not sure that that AADT fully justifies six lanes.  I drive on a four-lane freeway daily in a much larger metro with an AADT of 54,000, and it doesn't need expansion.  And a crash on any freeway will bring traffic to grinding halt.  People in small cities have a much lower tolerance for traffic.  Look at US 52 in Rochester, MNā€“ expanded to six lanes around 2005 and it still isn't warranted.  However, people in Rochester will never tell you that. Wisconsin has bigger capacity issues than US 53. 

Yep.  I drive to work every day on WI-172 that has 60,000+ per day.  Sure it can slow down a little, and bad weather or an accident can grind traffic to a halt, but there are multiple alternatives through the city I can take if I want.  And outside of about 30 minutes in the morning and evening, four lanes is more than enough. 


US 53 gets fairly crowded in that area even during the weekends/ evenings and topography in the area also factors into need for widening. The expansion ready design of the bypass would likely make it significantly less costly and resource intensive then other potential major projects.

Altoona's 20%+ growth rate (third fastest in the state) over the past decade is another appreciable contributor. :coffee:

Everyone thinks their local project is somehow different. It likely isn't.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on November 30, 2021, 01:57:05 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 06:40:12 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 29, 2021, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 29, 2021, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.

I'm not sure that that AADT fully justifies six lanes.  I drive on a four-lane freeway daily in a much larger metro with an AADT of 54,000, and it doesn't need expansion.  And a crash on any freeway will bring traffic to grinding halt.  People in small cities have a much lower tolerance for traffic.  Look at US 52 in Rochester, MNā€“ expanded to six lanes around 2005 and it still isn't warranted.  However, people in Rochester will never tell you that. Wisconsin has bigger capacity issues than US 53. 

Yep.  I drive to work every day on WI-172 that has 60,000+ per day.  Sure it can slow down a little, and bad weather or an accident can grind traffic to a halt, but there are multiple alternatives through the city I can take if I want.  And outside of about 30 minutes in the morning and evening, four lanes is more than enough. 


US 53 gets fairly crowded in that area even during the weekends/ evenings and topography in the area also factors into need for widening. The expansion ready design of the bypass would likely make it significantly less costly and resource intensive then other potential major projects.

Altoona's 20%+ growth rate (third fastest in the state) over the past decade is another appreciable contributor. :coffee:

Everyone thinks their local project is somehow different. It likely isn't.



I agree. 

The growth of Altoona pales in comparison to Madison's and Dane County's growth.  Lord knows there's plenty of capacity issues around Madison.  I suggest you, chrismarion,  drive the Beltline at peak hour and compare it to US 53.  On Wednesday alone, the three eastbound lanes were stopped for over eight miles.  I hope that the flex lane project offers some relief.  As I said, people's tolerance for congestion is directly proportional to a city's population.  And it doesn't seem right to throw limited resources at what are just perceived problems. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2021, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 30, 2021, 01:57:05 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 06:40:12 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 29, 2021, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 29, 2021, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.

I’m not sure that that AADT fully justifies six lanes.  I drive on a four-lane freeway daily in a much larger metro with an AADT of 54,000, and it doesn’t need expansion.  And a crash on any freeway will bring traffic to grinding halt.  People in small cities have a much lower tolerance for traffic.  Look at US 52 in Rochester, MN— expanded to six lanes around 2005 and it still isn’t warranted.  However, people in Rochester will never tell you that. Wisconsin has bigger capacity issues than US 53. 

Yep.  I drive to work every day on WI-172 that has 60,000+ per day.  Sure it can slow down a little, and bad weather or an accident can grind traffic to a halt, but there are multiple alternatives through the city I can take if I want.  And outside of about 30 minutes in the morning and evening, four lanes is more than enough. 


US 53 gets fairly crowded in that area even during the weekends/ evenings and topography in the area also factors into need for widening. The expansion ready design of the bypass would likely make it significantly less costly and resource intensive then other potential major projects.

Altoona's 20%+ growth rate (third fastest in the state) over the past decade is another appreciable contributor. :coffee:

Everyone thinks their local project is somehow different. It likely isn’t.



I agree. 

The growth of Altoona pales in comparison to Madison’s and Dane County’s growth.  Lord knows there’s plenty of capacity issues around Madison.  I suggest you, chrismarion,  drive the Beltline at peak hour and compare it to US 53.  On Wednesday alone, the three eastbound lanes were stopped for over eight miles.  I hope that the flex lane project offers some relief.  As I said, people’s tolerance for congestion is directly proportional to a city’s population.  And it doesn’t seem right to throw limited resources at what are just perceived problems. 

Not the fellow user in question but...

Any further upgrades to the bypass would be relatively inexpensive and have little new ROW impacts. Plus, US 53 from 94 to 312 is only around five miles long.

Other then extending FlexLane up to the Greenway area. Major improvements to the Beltline would almost certainly be a boondoggle from the start and be stuck in a never ending cycle of EIS revision/court action. As someone who has lived in Madtown for several years, the real updates the Beltline corridor desperately needs is likely not going be cheap, fast, or painless. Even the ongoing PEL study has taken nearly ten years so far...

FWIW, Eau Claire was second to Madison for the top ten cities in growth rate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 30, 2021, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2021, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 30, 2021, 01:57:05 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 06:40:12 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 29, 2021, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 29, 2021, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.

I'm not sure that that AADT fully justifies six lanes.  I drive on a four-lane freeway daily in a much larger metro with an AADT of 54,000, and it doesn't need expansion.  And a crash on any freeway will bring traffic to grinding halt.  People in small cities have a much lower tolerance for traffic.  Look at US 52 in Rochester, MNā€“ expanded to six lanes around 2005 and it still isn't warranted.  However, people in Rochester will never tell you that. Wisconsin has bigger capacity issues than US 53. 

Yep.  I drive to work every day on WI-172 that has 60,000+ per day.  Sure it can slow down a little, and bad weather or an accident can grind traffic to a halt, but there are multiple alternatives through the city I can take if I want.  And outside of about 30 minutes in the morning and evening, four lanes is more than enough. 


US 53 gets fairly crowded in that area even during the weekends/ evenings and topography in the area also factors into need for widening. The expansion ready design of the bypass would likely make it significantly less costly and resource intensive then other potential major projects.

Altoona's 20%+ growth rate (third fastest in the state) over the past decade is another appreciable contributor. :coffee:

Everyone thinks their local project is somehow different. It likely isn't.



I agree. 

The growth of Altoona pales in comparison to Madison's and Dane County's growth.  Lord knows there's plenty of capacity issues around Madison.  I suggest you, chrismarion,  drive the Beltline at peak hour and compare it to US 53.  On Wednesday alone, the three eastbound lanes were stopped for over eight miles.  I hope that the flex lane project offers some relief.  As I said, people's tolerance for congestion is directly proportional to a city's population.  And it doesn't seem right to throw limited resources at what are just perceived problems. 

Not the fellow user in question but...

Any further upgrades to the bypass would be relatively inexpensive and have little new ROW impacts. Plus, US 53 from 94 to 312 is only around five miles long.

Other then extending FlexLane up to the Greenway area. Major improvements to the Beltline would almost certainly be a boondoggle from the start and be stuck in a never ending cycle of EIS revision/court action. As someone who has lived in Madtown for several years, the real updates the Beltline corridor desperately needs is likely not going be cheap, fast, or painless. Even the ongoing PEL study has taken nearly ten years so far...

FWIW, Eau Claire was second to Madison for the top ten cities in growth rate.


Yes.  It was the second fastest growing city in Wisconsin.  It added 3,500 people.  Every one of those could take US-53 every day and it likely would still be fine.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on November 30, 2021, 12:30:11 PM
Considering the laundry list of improvements needed along the interstates in Wisconsin, US 53 widening in Eau Claire, along with any further improvements to the US 53 corridor between Eau Claire and Duluth should be low on the priority list.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 01, 2021, 02:22:37 PM
An injection of funds will do wonders for some of the more simple things, like keeping up with the wear and tear out there and get our highways smoother.  Some of my usual weekend warrior routes are overdue for a nice mill-and-overlay or concrete joint repair.  Just north of Portage, it's getting harder to dodge the potholes, for example.  I'm sure all y'all can rattle off 10 examples of crummy state roads you have to endure regularly in as many seconds.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on December 01, 2021, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 01, 2021, 02:22:37 PM
An injection of funds will do wonders for some of the more simple things, like keeping up with the wear and tear out there and get our highways smoother.  Some of my usual weekend warrior routes are overdue for a nice mill-and-overlay or concrete joint repair.  Just north of Portage, it's getting harder to dodge the potholes, for example.  I'm sure all y'all can rattle off 10 examples of crummy state roads you have to endure regularly in as many seconds.
Pretty much the entirety of WI-16 west of Columbus.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2021, 04:17:46 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 01, 2021, 02:22:37 PM
An injection of funds will do wonders for some of the more simple things, like keeping up with the wear and tear out there and get our highways smoother.  Some of my usual weekend warrior routes are overdue for a nice mill-and-overlay or concrete joint repair.  Just north of Portage, it's getting harder to dodge the potholes, for example.  I'm sure all y'all can rattle off 10 examples of crummy state roads you have to endure regularly in as many seconds.


(https://c.tenor.com/iSWe1z9m68QAAAAC/the-boss-baby-bored.gif)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 02, 2021, 02:25:05 PM
Right now, one of the top priority projects in the state is I-41 between WI 15 (Northland Ave) in Appleton and Scheuring Rd in De Pere (upgrade from 4 to six lanes with other related intechange improvements), all for just +/- $2.5billion. This project, at additional cost, includes a new 'south' crossing of the Fox River at DePere.  It will look and drive like WI 312.  The current four lanes on that  part of I-41 backs up due to volume on a near daily basis, almost like post Packer game traffic.  This project is currently programmed for construction in the 2025 to 2029 time frame.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2021, 04:43:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2021, 02:25:05 PM
Right now, one of the top priority projects in the state is I-41 between WI 15 (Northland Ave) in Appleton and Scheuring Rd in De Pere (upgrade from 4 to six lanes with other related intechange improvements), all for just +/- $2.5billion. This project, at additional cost, includes a new 'south' crossing of the Fox River at DePere.  It will look and drive like WI 312.  The current four lanes on that  part of I-41 backs up due to volume on a near daily basis, almost like post Packer game traffic.  This project is currently programmed for construction in the 2025 to 2029 time frame.

Mike


Here is the Record of Decision for the South Connector bridge over the Fox River.  Page 3 has the map showing the alternatives.  Option #2 is the choice, which makes sense to me.

http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/Plan/PlanningFolder/Transpotation/Southern%20Bridge%20Project/Final%20EIS-ROD/Tier%201%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:00:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2021, 04:43:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2021, 02:25:05 PM
Right now, one of the top priority projects in the state is I-41 between WI 15 (Northland Ave) in Appleton and Scheuring Rd in De Pere (upgrade from 4 to six lanes with other related intechange improvements), all for just +/- $2.5billion. This project, at additional cost, includes a new 'south' crossing of the Fox River at DePere.  It will look and drive like WI 312.  The current four lanes on that  part of I-41 backs up due to volume on a near daily basis, almost like post Packer game traffic.  This project is currently programmed for construction in the 2025 to 2029 time frame.

Mike


Here is the Record of Decision for the South Connector bridge over the Fox River.  Page 3 has the map showing the alternatives.  Option #2 is the choice, which makes sense to me.

http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/Plan/PlanningFolder/Transpotation/Southern%20Bridge%20Project/Final%20EIS-ROD/Tier%201%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf

I hadn't seen all these options before.  The Heritage and Scheuring Road concepts go back to when I was growing up in Allouez in the early 70's. Options #9-11 are further south than anything I'd seen proposed in the past; I'm guessing they were eliminated early as they are too far south to be anything but bypasses for traffic avoiding Green Bay and #6-7 would be similar. Option #2 is probably best for current needs. Option #3 would have been more expensive, but I like the idea of running the east end of the South Connector bridge to the I-43/WI 172 interchange. Traffic could soon overwhelm the CTH GV/Monroe interchange if the rest of the route becomes a popular bypass route.

I hadn't looked at the imagery in quite some time here. The growth of DePere on both sides of the river in the last three decades has been incredible. I do worry local officials won't limit direct access to the new route and it becomes a 4-6 lane suburban nightmare with stoplights every quarter-mile.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 03, 2021, 01:54:20 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:00:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2021, 04:43:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2021, 02:25:05 PM
Right now, one of the top priority projects in the state is I-41 between WI 15 (Northland Ave) in Appleton and Scheuring Rd in De Pere (upgrade from 4 to six lanes with other related intechange improvements), all for just +/- $2.5billion. This project, at additional cost, includes a new 'south' crossing of the Fox River at DePere.  It will look and drive like WI 312.  The current four lanes on that  part of I-41 backs up due to volume on a near daily basis, almost like post Packer game traffic.  This project is currently programmed for construction in the 2025 to 2029 time frame.

Mike


Here is the Record of Decision for the South Connector bridge over the Fox River.  Page 3 has the map showing the alternatives.  Option #2 is the choice, which makes sense to me.

http://www.public.applications.co.brown.wi.us/Plan/PlanningFolder/Transpotation/Southern%20Bridge%20Project/Final%20EIS-ROD/Tier%201%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf

I hadn't seen all these options before.  The Heritage and Scheuring Road concepts go back to when I was growing up in Allouez in the early 70's. Options #9-11 are further south than anything I'd seen proposed in the past; I'm guessing they were eliminated early as they are too far south to be anything but bypasses for traffic avoiding Green Bay and #6-7 would be similar. Option #2 is probably best for current needs. Option #3 would have been more expensive, but I like the idea of running the east end of the South Connector bridge to the I-43/WI 172 interchange. Traffic could soon overwhelm the CTH GV/Monroe interchange if the rest of the route becomes a popular bypass route.

I hadn't looked at the imagery in quite some time here. The growth of DePere on both sides of the river in the last three decades has been incredible. I do worry local officials won't limit direct access to the new route and it becomes a 4-6 lane suburban nightmare with stoplights every quarter-mile.


Highway GV (Monroe Road) between Highway X and WI-172 is a really nice, four-lane urban arterial.  No doubt they built it to there to take advantage of that.

The problem with 3, or anything else that leads to the I-43 / WI-172 interchange is that it would be extremely expensive.  Those subdivisions are some of the most high end in the area, and you would have to deal with Green Bay Country Club as well. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 03, 2021, 08:42:53 PM
https://www.nbc15.com/2021/12/04/software-chip-shortage-delays-flex-lane-opening-madison-beltline/

This doesn't surprise me one bit...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 03, 2021, 09:27:27 PM
The issue with the Beltline is there's too many interchanges. Eliminate some of them and traffic will flow more smoothly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on December 03, 2021, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 03, 2021, 09:27:27 PM
The issue with the Beltline is there's too many interchanges. Eliminate some of them and traffic will flow more smoothly.

Yes, but which?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 04, 2021, 12:41:31 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 03, 2021, 09:27:27 PM
The issue with the Beltline is there's too many interchanges. Eliminate some of them and traffic will flow more smoothly.

Yes, but which?
Todd Drive and Rimrock Rd are expendable, though one could argue the interchanges at Fish Hatchery Rd and John Nolen Dr would need upgrades to accommodate the additional traffic.

Braided ramps or a C/D lane are needed between Fish Hatchery and Park St, requiring ROW acquisition. I don't see a way around that one. Fish Hatchery could probably move more traffic with a diverging diamond conversion.

The other interchanges can stay as is; they're not causing congestion issues.

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 04, 2021, 08:05:23 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 04, 2021, 12:41:31 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 03, 2021, 09:27:27 PM
The issue with the Beltline is there's too many interchanges. Eliminate some of them and traffic will flow more smoothly.

Yes, but which?
Todd Drive and Rimrock Rd are expendable, though one could argue the interchanges at Fish Hatchery Rd and John Nolen Dr would need upgrades to accommodate the additional traffic.

Braided ramps or a C/D lane are needed between Fish Hatchery and Park St, requiring ROW acquisition. I don't see a way around that one. Fish Hatchery could probably move more traffic with a diverging diamond conversion.

The other interchanges can stay as is; they're not causing congestion issues.

SM-G991U


Yeah closing Todd Drive and Rimrock just moves the problems to different interchanges like you mention.  There is no way to head south of the Beltline off John Nolen for instance, which means you would have a lot of problems with the light at Rimrock, where traffic already backs up.

Honestly I don't think you can do too much with the Beltline.  The geography of Madison makes it difficult to develop alternate routes, and ROW acquisition for expansion would be very expensive or near impossible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 04, 2021, 10:16:22 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 04, 2021, 12:41:31 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 03, 2021, 09:27:27 PM
The issue with the Beltline is there's too many interchanges. Eliminate some of them and traffic will flow more smoothly.

Yes, but which?
Todd Drive and Rimrock Rd are expendable, though one could argue the interchanges at Fish Hatchery Rd and John Nolen Dr would need upgrades to accommodate the additional traffic.

Braided ramps or a C/D lane are needed between Fish Hatchery and Park St, requiring ROW acquisition. I don't see a way around that one. Fish Hatchery could probably move more traffic with a diverging diamond conversion.

The other interchanges can stay as is; they're not causing congestion issues.

SM-G991U

I use the Rimrock Interchange every work day and closing it would cause more problems since it's a busy interchange. With the traffic volume closing isn't happening.

I do think a ramp meters are needed badly at Broadway. Traveling eastbound in the evening traffic always backs up there and traffic flow improves at the Yahara River Bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 04, 2021, 11:59:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 04, 2021, 08:05:23 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 04, 2021, 12:41:31 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 03, 2021, 09:27:27 PM
The issue with the Beltline is there's too many interchanges. Eliminate some of them and traffic will flow more smoothly.

Yes, but which?
Todd Drive and Rimrock Rd are expendable, though one could argue the interchanges at Fish Hatchery Rd and John Nolen Dr would need upgrades to accommodate the additional traffic.

Braided ramps or a C/D lane are needed between Fish Hatchery and Park St, requiring ROW acquisition. I don't see a way around that one. Fish Hatchery could probably move more traffic with a diverging diamond conversion.

The other interchanges can stay as is; they're not causing congestion issues.

SM-G991U


Yeah closing Todd Drive and Rimrock just moves the problems to different interchanges like you mention.  There is no way to head south of the Beltline off John Nolen for instance, which means you would have a lot of problems with the light at Rimrock, where traffic already backs up.

Honestly I don't think you can do too much with the Beltline.  The geography of Madison makes it difficult to develop alternate routes, and ROW acquisition for expansion would be very expensive or near impossible.

Well then...... I'd say it's pretty clear the Beltline was a poorly planned freeway.

Todd Drive and Seminole Highway seem to be slam dunks for removal, but everything else is unclear. It would be ideal to remove Rimrock, but without being able to extend John Nolan to the south, it would cause too many issues. Another one that could go is Monona Dr.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on December 05, 2021, 01:01:38 AM
The Seminole ramps are going to be removed anyway, but a direct 18/151 freeway connection is going to go there. https://projects.511wi.gov/wp-content/uploads/feis-vol1.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on December 05, 2021, 01:04:55 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 29, 2021, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on November 26, 2021, 07:27:50 PM
And the busiest part of the US 53 (south of 312) have an AADT of 47,100 and also if there is a crash blocking a lane traffic will back up
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 20, 2021, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:45:00 PM
Does US 53 in Eau Claire really need to be 6 lanes? I could see them 6-laning Interstate 94, but not US 53.
Quote from: I-39 on November 19, 2021, 10:50:59 PM
No, but I-94 needs to probably be six lanes from Eau Claire to the Mississippi St. Croix River.

As a local, Yes. Especially, 53 between I-94 and WIS 312. It also comes up somewhat frequently in area media as a question asked by the public. The state has plans to start the EIS process in/ around 2026'ish, IIRC. As well as any expansion done along the corridor could likely be billed as a shovel-ready project as the facility was designed with expansion in mind and would require minimal new ROW. Even the major bridges had piers built wider then was necessary to accommodate future growth.
WisDOT was forced to put these along the road as well in past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/qvwD7X7aASr2xQrf8.

I'm not sure that that AADT fully justifies six lanes.  I drive on a four-lane freeway daily in a much larger metro with an AADT of 54,000, and it doesn't need expansion.  And a crash on any freeway will bring traffic to grinding halt.  People in small cities have a much lower tolerance for traffic.  Look at US 52 in Rochester, MNā€“ expanded to six lanes around 2005 and it still isn't warranted.  However, people in Rochester will never tell you that. Wisconsin has bigger capacity issues than US 53. 


Yep.  I drive to work every day on WI-172 that has 60,000+ per day.  Sure it can slow down a little, and bad weather or an accident can grind traffic to a halt, but there are multiple alternatives through the city I can take if I want.  And outside of about 30 minutes in the morning and evening, four lanes is more than enough. 

The entire "loop" around Green Bay should be 6 lanes.  I used 172 East the last time I went to a Packers game and the traffic was terrible going home to the point that I got off at Hwy G and waited until I got to Hwy K and Kellnersville before hoping on I-43.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 05, 2021, 07:40:21 AM
Game traffic is an exception, not the norm.  That's 8 times a year vs 365.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 05, 2021, 08:15:40 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 05, 2021, 07:40:21 AM
Game traffic is an exception, not the norm.  That's 8 times a year vs 365.


Yep.  The two lanes on the eastern side of WI-172 can slow down in the evening but is by and large fine, and I-43 between WI-172 and I-41 over the Leo Frigo Bridge is more than fine with two lanes.  The only time I have seen that back up is when the I-41 and I-43 traffic is merging on a holiday weekend in the summer.

Packer game traffic is what it is. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on December 05, 2021, 09:40:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 05, 2021, 08:15:40 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 05, 2021, 07:40:21 AM
Game traffic is an exception, not the norm.  That's 8 times a year vs 365.


Yep.  The two lanes on the eastern side of WI-172 can slow down in the evening but is by and large fine, and I-43 between WI-172 and I-41 over the Leo Frigo Bridge is more than fine with two lanes.  The only time I have seen that back up is when the I-41 and I-43 traffic is merging on a holiday weekend in the summer.

Packer game traffic is what it is.
As much as Packers postgame traffic sucks, the city probably loves it. The longer it takes fans to leave, the better.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 06, 2021, 11:10:34 AM
Post game traffic is avoided by a post-game tailgate. Fire up the grill, reheat the leftovers from pre-game and pop a beer while all the suckers sit there in traffic. :)

Quote from: I-39 on December 04, 2021, 11:59:35 PM
Well then...... I'd say it's pretty clear the Beltline was a poorly planned freeway.
"Beltline planned"?  Good one. :-D

Could have been a great facility if it was planned, designed and built as a freeway from the beginning instead of a slowly cobbled together hodgepodge of upgraded country roads.  That's how we ended up with too many interchanges and development hugging the corridor making it implausible to expand.  They built interchanges like Rimrock and Todd and Greenway and the development came.  Now we're stuck with it.

You know Rimrock opened as just an overpass?  Could've nipped that one in the bud 50 years ago by not adding ramps, but whoops. They build the old arena and then the convention center and now the interchange at Rimrock is pretty much indisposable. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 06, 2021, 11:54:12 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 06, 2021, 11:10:34 AM
"Beltline planned"?  Good one. :-D

:-D  Indeed.

It wasn't but a decade ago the Beltline still had an at-grade railroad crossing (on a 6-lane "freeway"), and said "freeway" dumped to a city street in Middleton. It was only about 30 years ago that the portion through Monona was built out as a freeway bypass of the existing at-grade city street section.

The idea of the Beltline as a fully limited-access freeway is very young. It was historically very much like what Stoughton Rd is today - a slightly-glorified city street that morphed from a rural 2-lane highway.

There was no "planning" involved with the Beltline. It represents 60 years of knee-jerk reactions to traffic that overwhelmed successive iterations of a more minor roadway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2021, 01:12:34 PM
Just over 30 years ago there were still at-grade intersections on the Beltline.  Westbound, you could turn off the Beltline in between Park Street and Fish Hatchery to get to a KMart on the north side of the highway.  (And yeah, you could turn onto the highway to go west too.)  Eastbound, you could turnoff onto Badger Road to access Rimrock because they initially only constructed off ramps for westbound traffic. 

Just play around on Historic Aerials and you'll see all sorts of stuff on the Beltline that makes you go  :hmmm: :hmmm: :hmmm:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 08, 2021, 11:28:47 PM
WisDOT I-39/90 project completion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jaIk_vY08Y

Remarks with WisDOT Secretary Thompson and various local dignitaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKsqIGfBuGo
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 09, 2021, 08:26:56 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 08, 2021, 11:28:47 PM
WisDOT I-39/90 project completion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jaIk_vY08Y

Remarks with WisDOT Secretary Thompson and various local dignitaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKsqIGfBuGo

Great! Now hopefully they'll get a move on the Madison to Wisconsin Dells segment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 09, 2021, 09:22:26 AM
IT TOOK THEM SIX YEARS??????
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 09, 2021, 09:31:19 AM
^^
Does that seem low or high to you?

Either way, I am puzzled because considering the scope of the project, the time frame is not surprising to me.
Also, 6 years isn't quite accurate as there was a bridge replacement associated with this project going on in 2014, so that makes 7 years total.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 09, 2021, 10:31:09 AM
Every other major project by WISDot that costs arounf $1billion takes 4-5-6 years. It's nothing new. The Marquette Interchange, Zoo Interchange, I-41 from Oshkosh to Appleton and the I-41/WI 441 interchange all took the same time frame. If there is something you have to suggest to speed things up, let's hear it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2021, 11:18:19 AM
I was at a presentation yesterday where the Secretary of Transportation spoke.  They are 30% done with the design for the I-41 expansion and construction will take place between 2024 and 2029.  Yeah these things take time.  And having them take longer likely makes them cheaper too.  The major construction firms only have so much capacity, so you are likely then dealing with multiple firms at higher cost.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 09, 2021, 11:40:18 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 09, 2021, 09:22:26 AM
IT TOOK THEM SIX YEARS??????
The major traffic-clogging mainline rebuild portion really got underway in 2017. There were a couple interchange and bridge replacements in the years prior to that, but no substantive mainline work until 2017. So, more like 4 years.

WisDOT had it planned for a 4-year build out, but the politicians in Madison pulled political shenanigans before it was to move forward, and caused it to be delayed due to lack of funding. Then they made a show of putting it back on the calendar and funding it to be completed in "only" 6 years.

Also remember they had to maintain traffic, deal with typical Wisconsin weather, and so on.

Yes, ISTHA got their rebuild between Elgin and Rockford done in 2 years. But they didn't replace many bridges. Also, their traffic maintenance, particularly the first year, was so horrible I drove 30+ miles out of my way to avoid using it. It was posted for 45 for 40 miles and was so narrow I nearly lost my mirrors on multiple occasions.

By contrast, I thought WisDOT did a fine job maintaining traffic flow on I-39/90 during construction. It was always at least 2 lanes each way, and the construction zones were never the entire stretch at once - generally a 10 mile section, then a break of 5-10 miles, then maybe another 5-10 miles. We could also  maintain at least 60 in the construction zones. Maybe it took 6 years to complete, but it wasn't unusable for those 6 years.

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 09, 2021, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 09, 2021, 11:40:18 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 09, 2021, 09:22:26 AM
IT TOOK THEM SIX YEARS??????
The major traffic-clogging mainline rebuild portion really got underway in 2017. There were a couple interchange and bridge replacements in the years prior to that, but no substantive mainline work until 2017. So, more like 4 years.

WisDOT had it planned for a 4-year build out, but the politicians in Madison pulled political shenanigans before it was to move forward, and caused it to be delayed due to lack of funding. Then they made a show of putting it back on the calendar and funding it to be completed in "only" 6 years.

Also remember they had to maintain traffic, deal with typical Wisconsin weather, and so on.

Yes, ISTHA got their rebuild between Elgin and Rockford done in 2 years. But they didn't replace many bridges. Also, their traffic maintenance, particularly the first year, was so horrible I drove 30+ miles out of my way to avoid using it. It was posted for 45 for 40 miles and was so narrow I nearly lost my mirrors on multiple occasions.

By contrast, I thought WisDOT did a fine job maintaining traffic flow on I-39/90 during construction. It was always at least 2 lanes each way, and the construction zones were never the entire stretch at once - generally a 10 mile section, then a break of 5-10 miles, then maybe another 5-10 miles. We could also  maintain at least 60 in the construction zones. Maybe it took 6 years to complete, but it wasn't unusable for those 6 years.

SM-G991U

Actually, ISTHA replaced nearly all the bridges on the I-90 rebuild. IIRC, The only things that weren't touched were the I-290/53 interchange and the US 20 bridges just west of Irene Road.

Though you are correct that the delays on this project were purely political. It also prevented the Beltline interchange from getting the full rebuild it was originally going to have.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on December 09, 2021, 03:36:02 PM
As someone who only drives I-39/90 south of Madison a few times a year, I would rather it have been completely undriveable for two years than barely driveable for six years. It SUCKED during construction. It was almost easier to use US-14 and put up with all the slow stretches through towns. But I understand why a complete closure for two years wasn't feasible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 09, 2021, 05:28:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 09, 2021, 03:36:02 PM
As someone who only drives I-39/90 south of Madison a few times a year, I would rather it have been completely undriveable for two years than barely driveable for six years. It SUCKED during construction. It was almost easier to use US-14 and put up with all the slow stretches through towns. But I understand why a complete closure for two years wasn't feasible.

Sounds like I-94 northwest of the Twin Cities which is finishing up two years of major rebuild. It was terrifying to drive, had a number of confusing elements like local/express lanes that people here are not familiar with, and ultimately more than 700 accidents happened on that stretch during the two years of major work. While it has a better alternate than 39/90 does (US 10), it wasn't going to be feasible to shut the whole thing down.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on December 09, 2021, 10:13:44 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 09, 2021, 01:53:17 PM
Actually, ISTHA replaced nearly all the bridges on the I-90 rebuild. IIRC, The only things that weren't touched were the I-290/53 interchange and the US 20 bridges just west of Irene Road.

I thought some of those bridge were started a few years prior to the full rebuild of the mainline as well?  Or was that just east of Elgin?

I think there were a few more bridges that weren't replaced:

* IL 59
*Beverly Road
* Randall Road
* US 20/Hampshire Interchange Ramps
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 09, 2021, 10:58:30 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 09, 2021, 10:13:44 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 09, 2021, 01:53:17 PM
Actually, ISTHA replaced nearly all the bridges on the I-90 rebuild. IIRC, The only things that weren't touched were the I-290/53 interchange and the US 20 bridges just west of Irene Road.

I thought some of those bridge were started a few years prior to the full rebuild of the mainline as well?  Or was that just east of Elgin?

I think there were a few more bridges that weren't replaced:

* IL 59
*Beverly Road
* Randall Road
* US 20/Hampshire Interchange Ramps

You are correct. Some of the bridges on the Randall to Kennedy segment were replaced the year prior to the start of mainline construction, but the Randall to I-39 segments bridges were replaced during mainline reconstruction. Also correct about those 4 not being replaced, all but Randall were previously replaced, and Randall will be replaced in the forthcoming interchange redesign.

Back to Wisconsin, when are they gonna update the website with new I-39/90/94 info? It still says the study was cancelled.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 10, 2021, 11:51:01 AM
I drove through the new I-39/I-90/I-43/STH-81 interchange a couple weeks ago on my way back to university. I wanted to stop on 81 for gas and lunch. Wow, it's incredible how much different the interchange is! It's weird, but it's probably necessary. Having a 2DI just end, dumping traffic into a commercial area just didn't seem like a great idea. I'm sure it sucks though for people who liked just cruising off the end of 43.

Side note: Never go to the Arby's at that exit. I was 4th in line, all I ordered was two sliders and mozzarella sticks and it took about 20 minutes to get my food. Huge delay and waste of my time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 10, 2021, 04:00:38 PM
Eh, par for the course for 'fast' food service in a lot of places these days what with this labor shortage.  Literally every Gulp n' Blow is hiring.



I had almost zero problems with 39/90 during construction.  It was heavy, but always moving well.  The only time I ate shit on that stretch and got stuck in traffic was because of a wreck.  Granted, I wasn't commuting on it everyday or anything like that, but given the number of times I've had to leave Madison to the south over the last few years, it's a pretty good sample size.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 10, 2021, 05:37:27 PM


Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 10, 2021, 04:00:38 PM
The only time I ate shit on that stretch and got stuck in traffic was because of a wreck.

That honestly wasn't much different than before construction. Fridays and Sundays in the summer months were a nightmare anyway; construction didn't make that significantly worse.

You definitely notice the difference now with 6-8 lanes, though without proper lane discipline it's not as big of a difference as it could have been. Enforcing slower traffic keeping right would help.

SM-G991U

Title: Re: bad srash in fog on US 141 (Pound, WI)
Post by: mgk920 on December 17, 2021, 11:11:06 AM
There was a multi-car and truck v Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad train crash on SB US 141 in the Pound, WI area in heavy (reeeeeeeally heavy!) fog during the morning hours of Wednesday. 2021-12-15.  There was one fatal (a truck driver).

https://www.wbay.com/2021/12/15/crews-scene-major-crash-marinette-county/

This is where the somewhat recently  built near interstate-compatible US 141 four lanes makes an 'S' curve across the railroad a very short distance south of its newly built interchange with with WI 64.

Will WisDOT announce the construction of a bridge to replace the level railroad crossing, as well as one just north of nearby Lena, WI, within the next few years?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 17, 2021, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 17, 2021, 10:59:30 AM
Will WisDOT announce the construction of a bridge to replace the level railroad crossing in the next few years?

Not likely, not when other similar railroad crossings exist on more heavily trafficked corridors, like US-151 outside of Waupun.
https://goo.gl/maps/wAagvcR1KPMu8mVW7 (https://goo.gl/maps/wAagvcR1KPMu8mVW7)

What I would expect out of WisDOT is a much better warning of the crossing itself. Michigan has flashing warning signs 1/2 mile from the crossing on its 4-lane "expressway" US-127 section (posted for 65 mph). https://goo.gl/maps/uJ1dqsnV56U9vY7a7 (https://goo.gl/maps/uJ1dqsnV56U9vY7a7)

Better yet would be something that is tied to the activation of the crossing itself, so that the lights are activated only when a train is actually crossing. Michigan's solution is an actual stoplight, but their original plan was to take advantage of a railroad turnback to eliminate the crossing. Said turnback hasn't happened yet, but the assumption appears to be that it will eventually happen.

Honestly, if it was up to me (and unlimited resources existed), there would be no such crossings on high-speed expressway sections. Yes, it's expensive to build and maintain an overpass, but nobody is expecting an actual train at these kinds of crossings. This one appears to be fairly regularly used and probably merits a crossing. Ditto for the one a few miles south of this one, just north of Lena.

Ultimately, people were not driving for conditions, and I hope the ones who caused the accident(s) at the crossing have the book thrown at them, particularly the one who killed the truck driver.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on December 17, 2021, 04:19:42 PM
I'm really surprised Wisconsin didn't bridge these tracks when the four-lane US 141 was built. I don't remember this railroad being busy when I was a kid visiting my grandparents in Coleman in the 60's and they lived a half-block away. Maybe WisDOT was hoping this rail line would go out of service so they could convert it into another bike trail.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 18, 2021, 08:25:43 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 17, 2021, 04:19:42 PM
I'm really surprised Wisconsin didn't bridge these tracks when the four-lane US 141 was built. I don't remember this railroad being busy when I was a kid visiting my grandparents in Coleman in the 60's and they lived a half-block away. Maybe WisDOT was hoping this rail line would go out of service so they could convert it into another bike trail.


If it's the mainline track, it runs regularly mostly carrying timber products to mills in Green Bay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2021, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 17, 2021, 04:19:42 PM
I'm really surprised Wisconsin didn't bridge these tracks when the four-lane US 141 was built. I don't remember this railroad being busy when I was a kid visiting my grandparents in Coleman in the 60's and they lived a half-block away.

Same.  Any active railroad should be bridged as part of such a construction effort to build rural freeway/expressways.  It's a huge safety risk.
The at-grades on US 151 at Beaver Dam and Waupun are equally ill-conceived and should be fixed.

Quote from: skluth on December 17, 2021, 04:19:42 PMMaybe WisDOT was hoping this rail line would go out of service so they could convert it into another bike trail.

Know that area, it would become another ATV trail.
Not implausible for those tracks to go out of service.  It's not THAT much of a 'detour' to send trains from Iron Mountain over to Powers to get to Green Bay and beyond.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on December 21, 2021, 07:27:36 PM
In all honestly I've always regarded the by Lena the 141/railroad crossing as the more dangerous one.  Sad one person died, but could have been a whole lot worse
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 21, 2021, 08:29:37 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2021, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 17, 2021, 04:19:42 PM
I'm really surprised Wisconsin didn't bridge these tracks when the four-lane US 141 was built. I don't remember this railroad being busy when I was a kid visiting my grandparents in Coleman in the 60's and they lived a half-block away.

Same.  Any active railroad should be bridged as part of such a construction effort to build rural freeway/expressways.  It's a huge safety risk.
The at-grades on US 151 at Beaver Dam and Waupun are equally ill-conceived and should be fixed.

Quote from: skluth on December 17, 2021, 04:19:42 PMMaybe WisDOT was hoping this rail line would go out of service so they could convert it into another bike trail.

Know that area, it would become another ATV trail.
Not implausible for those tracks to go out of service.  It's not THAT much of a 'detour' to send trains from Iron Mountain over to Powers to get to Green Bay and beyond.

The line is operated by Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad and it's their main line. Their customers are along that line along with a spur to Oconto Falls so shutting down the line would cause businesses along the line to lose rail service. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 26, 2021, 11:38:27 PM
That ELS track was originally Milwaukee Road's line between Green Bay and Da Yoopee of Michigan and it has a surprising base of good, steady on line customers.  They only needed someone to provide good service at a good price.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on January 01, 2022, 04:01:40 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2021, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 17, 2021, 04:19:42 PMMaybe WisDOT was hoping this rail line would go out of service so they could convert it into another bike trail.

Know that area, it would become another ATV trail.
Not implausible for those tracks to go out of service.  It's not THAT much of a 'detour' to send trains from Iron Mountain over to Powers to get to Green Bay and beyond.

Right, and then they can have a pedestrian/bike crossing on a high-speed road just like on WI-11 around Monroe. I still do not understand how that was installed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 02, 2022, 01:59:39 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 01, 2022, 04:01:40 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2021, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 17, 2021, 04:19:42 PMMaybe WisDOT was hoping this rail line would go out of service so they could convert it into another bike trail.

Know that area, it would become another ATV trail.
Not implausible for those tracks to go out of service.  It's not THAT much of a 'detour' to send trains from Iron Mountain over to Powers to get to Green Bay and beyond.

Right, and then they can have a pedestrian/bike crossing on a high-speed road just like on WI-11 around Monroe. I still do not understand how that was installed.

Has the WIOUWASH State Trail (a former CNW railroad grade) been grade separated where it crosses WI 29 at Wittenberg, WI yet.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2022, 06:11:07 PM
It hadn't the last time a Google Car went through that segment of STH-29 in September 2019. Looking at it on Street View, I wouldn't want to utilize it since doing so would seem like suicide to me. It probably should have been grade-separated when the Wittenberg Bypass was constructed and opened in 1999.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 04, 2022, 10:00:40 AM
It would have been nice to throw up one of those pre-fab ped/bike bridges, but two things working against that for now.  There isn't that much traffic on 29 such that it makes scooching across on a bicycle or snowmobile excessively dangerous.  And well, money.  I'm sure that will probably cost like 2 million dollars or something to put up one of those bridges now.

Since the Wittenberg bypass was constructed, though, I think WisDOT has learned to invest in that type of ped/bike infrastructure from the start of a new major bypass and/or expansion project.  If that bypass was being constructed today, they would absolutely include a crossing for the WIOUWASH Trail.  And it would likely go over 29 instead of under since that trail is used by snowmobiles in the winter in that area.  (So it needs to hold a little snow. ;) )
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 04, 2022, 07:14:48 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 04, 2022, 10:00:40 AM
Since the Wittenberg bypass was constructed, though, I think WisDOT has learned to invest in that type of ped/bike infrastructure from the start of a new major bypass and/or expansion project.  If that bypass was being constructed today, they would absolutely include a crossing for the WIOUWASH Trail.

Definitely can make that same argument for Hwy 11 through Monroe, which was built out in the '70s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 05, 2022, 03:40:53 PM
When WisDOT Built the interstate-compatible US 10 Freeway west of Appleton, WI (opened in Dec, 2003), they did include a grade separated crossing for the WIOUWASH State Trail (another former CNW railroad grade, abandoned in about 1976) a short distance east of US 45 (Winchester Interchange).  It is a very large poured-in-place box culvert that goes under the freeway.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 06, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 05, 2022, 03:40:53 PM
When WisDOT Built the interstate-compatible US 10 Freeway west of Appleton, WI (opened in Dec, 2003), they did include a grade separated crossing for the WIOUWASH State Trail (another former CNW railroad grade, abandoned in about 1976) a short distance east of US 45 (Winchester Interchange).  It is a very large poured-in-place box culvert that goes under the freeway.

Same for where US 45 crosses the same trail just outside of Oshkosh.
Both of these freeways were built about 5 years after the Wittenberg bypass.  They have more traffic than WI 29, so it was easier to justify, I'm sure.  But I think it speaks to my hypothesis that WisDOT is better about including that stuff with new projects.  The Burlington bypass has one, a good job was done on the WI 26 corridor to accommodate these trails, and US 151 around Fond du Lac really came thru with a crossing for the Wild Goose Trail and a parallel bike path for most of the route.

That's the thing about these types of ped/bike paths along major highway corridors: if you build it, they will come.  Outside of the dead of winter, I see folks using these facilities every single time I drive past them: US 12 north of Middleton, the Fondy bypass, that Friendship Trail along US 10 west of Appleton.  People love these, especially when they know they won't have to risk their lives to cross the highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 08, 2022, 06:46:07 PM
US 12 north of Middleton's trail is used a lot. I've never seen anyone use the Bypass on US 151 around Fond Du Lac. Wis 23 will have a trail from Fond Du Lac to Sheboygan once that project is complete. The Friendship Trail is supposed to span from Stevens Point to Manitowoc but only exists in bits and pieces along US 10, the popular Trestle Trail across Little Lake Butte does Mortes, and along US 10 on an old railroad grade between Brillion and Forest Jct.

Trails along highways don't seem to be used a lot in rural areas. I liked to bike on the Fox and East River trails that were heavily used in Green Bay and I use the various trails around Madison. Trails along scenic areas tend to be used more than trails along highways. I'd rather bike in a quiet scenic area than along a busy, noisy highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on February 08, 2022, 07:18:56 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/pages/travel/road/comm-hwys/default.aspx

Was US 51 ever signed east on US 2 to the state line?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 08, 2022, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 08, 2022, 07:18:56 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/pages/travel/road/comm-hwys/default.aspx

Was US 51 ever signed east on US 2 to the state line?
Not to my knowledge. However, it's terminus is only about a quarter mile from the Michigan line

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 08, 2022, 10:08:54 PM
The bi-annual Transportation Projects Commission report is available if anyone is interested: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/status.pdf.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 22, 2022, 11:46:23 PM
Another season of road work is underway. The 3 biggest projects in the state seem to be the I-43 expansion project north of Milwaukee, Wis 15 expansion in Outagamie County, and the Madison Beltline Flex Lane. It seems to be one of the quieter construction seasons Wisconsin has had in quite some time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on March 23, 2022, 06:54:23 AM
Don't forget the finishing of the Zoo Interchange project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on March 23, 2022, 11:56:37 AM
I'd also add the completion of the new interchange on Hwy 29 in Howard / Hobart.

I drove by there last weekend when heading to Maplewood Meats and that is coming along nicely.  After that is completed, I think there's only a couple intersections left and 29 would be a full freeway past Pulaski. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 23, 2022, 03:27:27 PM
Oh, how good is Maplewood?  Love their shit.  My uncle always picks out some good stuff on his way thru when we meet Up North.

I think the interchange and related projects will complete the freeway conversion in Brown County.

Quote from: SSOWorld on March 23, 2022, 06:54:23 AM
Don't forget the finishing of the Zoo Interchange project.

Probably best described as a "North Ave Interchange" project at this point.


WI 23 expansion between FdL and Sheboygan is still going on.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 23, 2022, 07:26:50 PM
Also Green Bay Rd (Hwy 57) reconstruction in Brown Deer and boy does it sure need it. The project also involves converting the intersection with Brown Deer Rd (Hwy 100) into an at grade intersection. No idea why they chose to do that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 23, 2022, 07:27:03 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on March 23, 2022, 11:56:37 AM
I'd also add the completion of the new interchange on Hwy 29 in Howard / Hobart.

I drove by there last weekend when heading to Maplewood Meats and that is coming along nicely.  After that is completed, I think there's only a couple intersections left and 29 would be a full freeway past Pulaski.

Once that interchange is complete the County U intersection will be removed and Wis 29 will be full freeway between the Shawano Co Line and I-41.

As for Wis 23, only the Fond Du Lac urban section is all that remains.

Compared to past years, there aren't that many major projects being worked on. The next 2 up are I-41 between Appleton and De Pere, and I-94 East-West Freeway in Milwaukee. There aren't really any roads being expanded from 2 to 4 lanes outside of current projects.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 23, 2022, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 23, 2022, 07:26:50 PM
Also Green Bay Rd (Hwy 57) reconstruction in Brown Deer and boy does it sure need it. The project also involves converting the intersection with Brown Deer Rd (Hwy 100) into an at grade intersection. No idea why they chose to do that.

Opens it up for more development.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 24, 2022, 01:26:49 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 23, 2022, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 23, 2022, 07:26:50 PM
Also Green Bay Rd (Hwy 57) reconstruction in Brown Deer and boy does it sure need it. The project also involves converting the intersection with Brown Deer Rd (Hwy 100) into an at grade intersection. No idea why they chose to do that.

Opens it up for more development.

I think it's being done because there's more traffic on Hwy 100/Brown Deer Rd than Hwy 57/Green Bay Rd and WISDOT doesn't think that rebuilding the bridges are worth the maintenance costs. That was citied with why the US 2/US 51 interchange was downgraded to a roundabout.

The Wis 16/Wis 22 Interchange was spared in Wyocena because a truck struck the overhead bridge and insurance covered a large portion of the reconstruction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2022, 04:25:35 PM
Are there any plans to do the same to the Brown Deer Rd. (STH-100)/N. 76th St. (STH-181) interchange? I could easily see that interchange meeting the same fate as the elimination of the Brown Deer Rd./Green Bay Rd. interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 24, 2022, 04:35:52 PM
The I-43 and Brown Deer Rd interchange is very outdated, looks like something you'd find on Long Island (which isn't a good thing in terms of interchanges). Hopefully some upgrades there come soon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 24, 2022, 04:47:22 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 24, 2022, 04:35:52 PM
The I-43 and Brown Deer Rd interchange is very outdated, looks like something you'd find on Long Island (which isn't a good thing in terms of interchanges). Hopefully some upgrades there come soon.


It is being reconstructed as a diverging diamond interchange as part of the I-43 expansion project. 

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/43n-s-corridor/2020materials/browndeer-diamond.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 24, 2022, 04:49:49 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on March 24, 2022, 01:26:49 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 23, 2022, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 23, 2022, 07:26:50 PM
Also Green Bay Rd (Hwy 57) reconstruction in Brown Deer and boy does it sure need it. The project also involves converting the intersection with Brown Deer Rd (Hwy 100) into an at grade intersection. No idea why they chose to do that.

Opens it up for more development.

I think it's being done because there's more traffic on Hwy 100/Brown Deer Rd than Hwy 57/Green Bay Rd and WISDOT doesn't think that rebuilding the bridges are worth the maintenance costs. That was citied with why the US 2/US 51 interchange was downgraded to a roundabout.

The Wis 16/Wis 22 Interchange was spared in Wyocena because a truck struck the overhead bridge and insurance covered a large portion of the reconstruction.

Makes sense.

It also makes sense why they built that interchange back in the late 60s.  Originally Brown Deer, 43rd St. and Green Bay Avenue came together at a three way intersection that was probably difficult as development moved into that area.  The current interchange is just NE of the original intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 25, 2022, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2022, 04:25:35 PM
Are there any plans to do the same to the Brown Deer Rd. (STH-100)/N. 76th St. (STH-181) interchange? I could easily see that interchange meeting the same fate as the elimination of the Brown Deer Rd./Green Bay Rd. interchange.
I haven't heard but I doubt it since that part of Brown Deer was redone fairly recently. I think it would have made more sense to convert that one to an at grade intersection due to less traffic because of the demise of Northridge and other surrounding commercial properties.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Trademark on March 28, 2022, 02:14:20 PM
Are there any plans to turn WI-441 into Interstate 441 thru Appleton? I just drove it yesterday and it appears to be at interstate standards.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 28, 2022, 03:18:47 PM
Quote from: Trademark on March 28, 2022, 02:14:20 PM
Are there any plans to turn WI-441 into Interstate 441 thru Appleton? I just drove it yesterday and it appears to be at interstate standards.


Doubtful.  Wisconsin just doesn't seem to care for 3dis, with no new ones since the 1960s, despite there being multiple candidates.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 28, 2022, 07:49:26 PM
STH-441 will likely keep its existing number for all eternity. I'd be very surprised if any new Interstate designations are approved within the state of Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 30, 2022, 08:11:49 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 28, 2022, 03:18:47 PM
Quote from: Trademark on March 28, 2022, 02:14:20 PM
Are there any plans to turn WI-441 into Interstate 441 thru Appleton? I just drove it yesterday and it appears to be at interstate standards.


Doubtful.  Wisconsin just doesn't seem to care for 3dis, with no new ones since the 1960s, despite there being multiple candidates.
Really the only other candidate would be the freeway portion of WI-172. It seems odd it not being an interstate given it has a number that a X41 would be.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 31, 2022, 12:07:27 AM
I have sensed no local interest in 'promoting' WI 441 to 'I-441', either.  WI 441 was designated as such back in about 1980 to mirror the function of a 3DI for then US 41.  I also sense that the shoulders on the north-south part along the Appleton-Kimberly border (including its Fox River bridge) are substandard narrow.  As part of the forthcoming upgrade of I-41 to six lanes (WI 15 to Scheuring Rd starting in 2025), The I-41/WI 441 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton will be re-engineered to a free-flowing directional 'T' design.  Maybe then (You never know) ....

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.

Heck, why not designate the Beltline as I-190? It's four different US highways hopping on and off of it - might as well tie it all together with one number.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on March 31, 2022, 12:39:55 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.

Heck, why not designate the Beltline as I-190? It's four different US highways hopping on and off of it - might as well tie it all together with one number.

It already does have a consistent number - US 12. The other three are the ones that come and go.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:50:18 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 31, 2022, 12:39:55 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.

Heck, why not designate the Beltline as I-190? It's four different US highways hopping on and off of it - might as well tie it all together with one number.

It already does have a consistent number - US 12. The other three are the ones that come and go.

I did know that, actually. My question was: what would you think about it having an interstate designation?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on March 31, 2022, 02:16:56 AM
The beltline is not exactly Interstate standard - and will never be because of the lack of right-of-way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:50:18 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 31, 2022, 12:39:55 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.

Heck, why not designate the Beltline as I-190? It's four different US highways hopping on and off of it - might as well tie it all together with one number.

It already does have a consistent number - US 12. The other three are the ones that come and go.

I did know that, actually. My question was: what would you think about it having an interstate designation?

Having grown up in Madison I can tell you that I never once heard it proposed or even talked about.  Ditto regarding WI-172 now that I live in Green Bay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 31, 2022, 10:41:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:50:18 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 31, 2022, 12:39:55 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.

Heck, why not designate the Beltline as I-190? It's four different US highways hopping on and off of it - might as well tie it all together with one number.

It already does have a consistent number - US 12. The other three are the ones that come and go.

I did know that, actually. My question was: what would you think about it having an interstate designation?

Having grown up in Madison I can tell you that I never once heard it proposed or even talked about.  Ditto regarding WI-172 now that I live in Green Bay.
If anything should be a 3di in Madison, I would think Wis 30 between the Badger Interchange and US 151 Washington Ave because it is the most direct way to Downtown from I-39/90/94. I would have it as I-390 but even that is slim chances.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2022, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 31, 2022, 10:41:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:50:18 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 31, 2022, 12:39:55 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.

Heck, why not designate the Beltline as I-190? It's four different US highways hopping on and off of it - might as well tie it all together with one number.

It already does have a consistent number - US 12. The other three are the ones that come and go.

I did know that, actually. My question was: what would you think about it having an interstate designation?

Having grown up in Madison I can tell you that I never once heard it proposed or even talked about.  Ditto regarding WI-172 now that I live in Green Bay.
If anything should be a 3di in Madison, I would think Wis 30 between the Badger Interchange and US 151 Washington Ave because it is the most direct way to Downtown from I-39/90/94. I would have it as I-390 but even that is slim chances.

It would be so pointless though. Isn't it barely 3 miles long?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2022, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 31, 2022, 10:41:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:50:18 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 31, 2022, 12:39:55 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 31, 2022, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.

Heck, why not designate the Beltline as I-190? It's four different US highways hopping on and off of it - might as well tie it all together with one number.

It already does have a consistent number - US 12. The other three are the ones that come and go.

I did know that, actually. My question was: what would you think about it having an interstate designation?

Having grown up in Madison I can tell you that I never once heard it proposed or even talked about.  Ditto regarding WI-172 now that I live in Green Bay.
If anything should be a 3di in Madison, I would think Wis 30 between the Badger Interchange and US 151 Washington Ave because it is the most direct way to Downtown from I-39/90/94. I would have it as I-390 but even that is slim chances.

It would be so pointless though. Isn't it barely 3 miles long?


About the same length as I-794 and longer than I-535.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on March 31, 2022, 01:32:09 PM
I would recommend just expanding Highway 30 to end at Highway 113. If not, I could understand making it a three-digit interstate from I-39-I-90-I-94 to US 151. On a totally different subject, I was wondering if they ever thought about re-routing US 151 in Madison. Instead of having it split from US 12 & 18, instead have it join I-39 & 90 and then have it have it split at its exit outside Madison. Then make the route in Madison a three digit highway (251 or 351). It's not super important that it's done but I have wondered if they every thought about rerouting that area in Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 01:39:54 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on March 31, 2022, 01:32:09 PM
I would recommend just expanding Highway 30 to end at Highway 113. If not, I could understand making it a three-digit interstate from I-39-I-90-I-94 to US 151. On a totally different subject, I was wondering if they ever thought about re-routing US 151 in Madison. Instead of having it split from US 12 & 18, instead have it join I-39 & 90 and then have it have it split at its exit outside Madison. Then make the route in Madison a three digit highway (251 or 351). It's not super important that it's done but I have wondered if they every thought about rerouting that area in Madison.


This is something I think they need to do. It is pretty ridiculous to have US-151 exist as four-lane expressways and freeways on either side of Madison, but in Madison it just becomes surface streets.  Especially when you can just multiplex it on an existing route, which is also the preferred route between those two segments to begin with.

Someone mentioned that the through city highways would be a good route to designate WI-1, which I could get behind. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2022, 01:43:25 PM
Wisconsin probably doesn't need any additional Interstate designations. The only thing that will probably happen in the future is some of the existing 4-lane expressways may be converted to freeway standards. There are studies for the following potential expressway-to-freeway conversions: US 12 Corridor Study (Ski Hi Road to WIS 19 West), Baraboo to Springfield; US 12 Freeway Conversion Study (WIS 19 to Parmenter Street); US 12/18 Freeway Conversion Study (I-39/90 to County N); US 18/151 Freeway Conversion Study (US 18/151 to County G); US 151 Freeway Conversion Study (WIS 73 to WIS 49); WIS 23 (County P-WIS 32) Corridor Preservation Study, Plymouth/Sheboygan Falls - Sheboygan County; WIS 29 Corridor Planning Study, Brown and Outagamie counties; US 53 Corridor Preservation Study, Rice Lake-Superior; WIS 64 Freeway/Expressway Designation and Conversion Study, 150th Street - WIS 65.

See https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/default.aspx for each regions' studies.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 31, 2022, 03:47:24 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 31, 2022, 02:16:56 AM
The beltline is not exactly Interstate standard - and will never be because of the lack of right-of-way.

Even less so since the "flex lane" project.  The right shoulder is now pretty much non-existent over the Yahara River.  Certainly way too narrow to function as a break-down lane as it's now about half a vehicle width from the fog line to the parapet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on March 31, 2022, 05:00:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2022, 01:43:25 PM
Wisconsin probably doesn't need any additional Interstate designations. The only thing that will probably happen in the future is some of the existing 4-lane expressways may be converted to freeway standards. There are studies for the following potential expressway-to-freeway conversions: (snip) WIS 29 Corridor Planning Study, Brown and Outagamie counties; (snip)
See https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/default.aspx for each regions' studies.
After the current construction project on WI 29/32 and CTH U and VV, WI 29 should be a freeway west of Packerland Dr to past the Brown/Shawano County line, including the sliver in Outagamie County.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 31, 2022, 05:48:34 PM
WI-172 and WI-441 really should be Interstates. Maybe WI-30 as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 31, 2022, 05:48:34 PM
WI-172 and WI-441 really should be Interstates. Maybe WI-30 as well.

Why?  How would that help navigation?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on April 01, 2022, 02:18:38 AM
I don't really know if putting an I- on the Beltline would really help navigation, personally.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 01, 2022, 08:23:05 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 31, 2022, 05:48:34 PM
WI-172 and WI-441 really should be Interstates. Maybe WI-30 as well.

Why?  How would that help navigation?
WI-441 is a loop of Appleton, WI-172 completes the loop of Green Bay, WI-30 is a spur into Madison. People see the Interstate shields and know that it's an Interstate standard freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 01, 2022, 08:24:47 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 01, 2022, 08:23:05 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 31, 2022, 05:48:34 PM
WI-172 and WI-441 really should be Interstates. Maybe WI-30 as well.

Why?  How would that help navigation?
WI-441 is a loop of Appleton, WI-172 completes the loop of Green Bay, WI-30 is a spur into Madison. People see the Interstate shields and know that it's an Interstate standard freeway.

I agree that WI-441 and WI-172 could become Interstates, assuming they are actually up to standards, but I still think WI-30 would be unnecessary to convert.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 01, 2022, 08:55:40 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 01, 2022, 08:23:05 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 31, 2022, 05:48:34 PM
WI-172 and WI-441 really should be Interstates. Maybe WI-30 as well.

Why?  How would that help navigation?
WI-441 is a loop of Appleton, WI-172 completes the loop of Green Bay, WI-30 is a spur into Madison. People see the Interstate shields and know that it's an Interstate standard freeway.


I guaranty you that most drivers don't need 3dis to figure out that stuff these days.  I would guess that a majority of the drivers out there have no idea what a 3di signifies, the difference if they start with an odd or even number, etc. I'm not against it by any means, but they are far from necessary.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 01, 2022, 11:48:49 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2022, 01:39:54 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on March 31, 2022, 01:32:09 PM
I would recommend just expanding Highway 30 to end at Highway 113. If not, I could understand making it a three-digit interstate from I-39-I-90-I-94 to US 151. On a totally different subject, I was wondering if they ever thought about re-routing US 151 in Madison. Instead of having it split from US 12 & 18, instead have it join I-39 & 90 and then have it have it split at its exit outside Madison. Then make the route in Madison a three digit highway (251 or 351). It's not super important that it's done but I have wondered if they every thought about rerouting that area in Madison.


This is something I think they need to do. It is pretty ridiculous to have US-151 exist as four-lane expressways and freeways on either side of Madison, but in Madison it just becomes surface streets.  Especially when you can just multiplex it on an existing route, which is also the preferred route between those two segments to begin with.

Someone mentioned that the through city highways would be a good route to designate WI-1, which I could get behind. 

Ok this may be getting into "Fantasy" territory but here was my long range thoughts on US 151.
Once 151 is freeway from Cedar Rapids to Fond du Lac, make it something like a Northern I-37. Northern i-37 would end in Sheboygan on Wis 23's freeway. For Madison itself, have old 151 on Washington/Blair/John Nolen/Proudfit/Washington/Park becomes Business Loop I-37. US 151 itself can cosign with I-37 from Cedar Rapids to Fond du Lac unless you want to have the orphaned segments in Iowa and Wisconsin become state routes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 01, 2022, 02:40:21 PM
I can't imagine US-151 becoming an interstate. The traffic volumes down here are insanely low. And I don't think they are much higher southwest of Dubuque.

Also, I-37 would be out of grid. Let's try I-33, or if you want an E-W number, I-92.

I'm an idiot, I forgot about how N-S route numbering works.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 01, 2022, 04:12:55 PM
I've always felt 30, 172 and 441 are logical 3di additions.  I'll throw in 119 as well.
If I somehow got elected to Congress (godforbid! :-D ), I'd pork them into some bill.

(Airport connector freeways, as critical intermodal links, should be interstates if they have at least one exit or are at least one mile in length, in my humble opinion.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 01, 2022, 05:59:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 01, 2022, 02:40:21 PM
I can't imagine US-151 becoming an interstate. The traffic volumes down here are insanely low. And I don't think they are much higher southwest of Dubuque.

Also, I-37 would be out of grid. Let's try I-33, or if you want an E-W number, I-92.

I'm an idiot, I forgot about how N-S route numbering works.
I did say Long Range.
Also, I am not a stickler for the "perfect grid". If it makes sense, do it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 01, 2022, 06:12:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2022, 09:32:33 PM
WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.
The Madison Beltline has too many routes on it as is. WI-30? Are you kidding me? Nowhere near up to interstate standards. The West Bend spur is fine just as US-45. West Bend really isn't very big only around 30,000 in population. US-12 is basically an unfinished stub that doesn't serve anything major. So really the only one that would work as 3di's are WI-172 and WI-441 and I am really even ok with WI-172 just being WI-172.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2022, 11:48:56 AM
The only changes I would make to STH 119 and STH 172 would be to number the exits (I think all expressway/freeway exits in Wisconsin should have numbers). Other than that, save the Interstate designations for Fictional Highways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on April 02, 2022, 04:16:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2022, 11:48:56 AM
The only changes I would make to STH 119 and STH 172 would be to number the exits (I think all expressway/freeway exits in Wisconsin should have numbers). Other than that, save the Interstate designations for Fictional Highways.
STH 119 would have only exits 1 and 2.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 03, 2022, 02:48:36 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 01, 2022, 04:12:55 PM
I've always felt 30, 172 and 441 are logical 3di additions.  I'll throw in 119 as well.
If I somehow got elected to Congress (godforbid! :-D ), I'd pork them into some bill.

(Airport connector freeways, as critical intermodal links, should be interstates if they have at least one exit or are at least one mile in length, in my humble opinion.)

I believe that would make WI 119 eligible under your standards.  Also, would you include US 10 from I-39 to I-41 in your 'promotion' list (to become 'I-441')?  Ditto WI 23 east of I-43?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on April 03, 2022, 07:28:08 AM
Apart from 441 and 172 I'm not sure any others are necessary, and possibly not up to standard anyway. Of course I haven't been in Wisconsin for 15+ years now so I may not be the best arbiter of such things anyway.

The Beltline never felt like an interstate to me. I still remember the rail crossing (!), although I know that is long gone now. I guess the way it has kind of been piece-mealed for much of its history and the way so many through routes come and go off it that I'm not sure a single number would serve much of a purpose anyway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on April 03, 2022, 04:15:35 PM
If I had a dollar for every time we talk about new Interstates and four lane highways in Wisconsin on this forum, I'd be a rich man.

The fact of the matter is, there are no new Interstates needed in Wisconsin at this time, especially new spurs. WIS 441/WIS 172/the Beltline are fine as they are. The only one that even makes a lick of sense is WIS 29 > I-96, but it'll be decades before WIS 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay.

What is needed now is rebuilding and expansion on the existing Interstates, specifically (in no particular order) I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee and I-94 between Eau Claire and the Mississippi.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2022, 05:03:33 PM
Quote from: I-39 on April 03, 2022, 04:15:35 PM
If I had a dollar for every time we talk about new Interstates and four lane highways in Wisconsin on this forum, I'd be a rich man.

The fact of the matter is, there are no new Interstates needed in Wisconsin at this time, especially new spurs. WIS 441/WIS 172/the Beltline are fine as they are. The only one that even makes a lick of sense is WIS 29 > I-96, but it'll be decades before WIS 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay.

What is needed now is rebuilding and expansion on the existing Interstates, specifically (in no particular order) I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee and I-94 between Eau Claire and the Mississippi.

St. Croix if you mean the border.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 04, 2022, 02:21:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on April 03, 2022, 04:15:35 PM
If I had a dollar for every time we talk about new Interstates and four lane highways in Wisconsin on this forum, I'd be a rich man.

The fact of the matter is, there are no new Interstates needed in Wisconsin at this time, especially new spurs. WIS 441/WIS 172/the Beltline are fine as they are. The only one that even makes a lick of sense is WIS 29 > I-96, but it'll be decades before WIS 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay.

What is needed now is rebuilding and expansion on the existing Interstates, specifically (in no particular order) I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee and I-94 between Eau Claire and the Mississippi.

Renumbering existing roads to Interstate status is nowhere near on the budget level of something like 6-laning I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.

You can make the same "dime-a-dozen" argument about interstate widenings as well...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 06:05:42 PM
Can we stop it with the "future Interstate" talk? IT WILL NOT HAPPEN! North Carolina and Texas are the only states that are going on an Interstate numbering binge. If we keep up with the "future Interstate in Wisconsin" talk, I wouldn't be surprised if the Moderator puts a lock on this thread. So, take the Interstate talk to Fictional Highways, end of discussion!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on April 05, 2022, 09:22:41 AM
What actually are the pros and cons of a highway converting from a state highway to an Interstate highway?   

For the cons, I would imagine that it leads to less flexibility on the design which in turn leads to more costs, and that leads to lots of federal strings being attached to the state's control of it. 

For the pros there's... what?  Once upon a time, it would've been federal funding, but ever since the 90s at least, there's the National Highway System which includes a lot of the major state and US highways, and they get similar funding through that.  The only other thing I can think of then is the Interstate "branding" of the highway, which actually does have an economic impact as I know that many manufacturing companies look for how far away their facilities are going to be from an Interstate highway when deciding where to locate.  If the nearest one is too many miles away, that takes certain communities off the candidates list when competing with other towns for businesses to move or start up there, and this leads to political lobbying from legislators in those areas for an Interstate promotion.  Wasn't this the reason we ultimately got I-39 and I-41? 

So, if there ever is going to be a future Interstate promotion, look for growing communities with a good lobbying effort that are currently in an Interstate-poor region of the state and that already have existing highway corridors that wouldn't take too much to get them up to Interstate standards.   Have we any places like this left?  I can't think of any just now, so I would agree that we're unlikely to see any more. 



Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: KCRoadFan on April 05, 2022, 09:59:29 AM
Here's something I wonder about Madison: before the Beltline was built, what were the former routes of US 12, US 14, and US 18 through the city?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2022, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on April 05, 2022, 09:59:29 AM
Here's something I wonder about Madison: before the Beltline was built, what were the former routes of US 12, US 14, and US 18 through the city?

Here is what I think the routings were.

US-12/18:  Entered from the southeast on Femrite Drive to Monona Drive (US-51) at the time.  North on Monona to Frost Woods Road.  West on Frost Woods to Bridge Road.  South on Bridge to Broadway, around the south part of Lake Monona to Olin Road.  Olin to Park Street (US-14) where they turned north to University Avenue.  At some point US-18 turned west, likely with US-151.  I don't think it went all the way to University Avenue.

At University, US-12/14 turned west and took University out of town. 

US-18/151 ended up on Monroe Street and took that southwest to Nakoma Road out of town to the southwest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2022, 11:33:05 AM
US 18/151 most likely used Regent St. and then turned left onto Monroe St. Truthfully, it would have been interesting to see those streets back when they were signed with those US Highways. It is also hard to believe that the Beltline was originally a 2-lane highway with at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2022, 11:37:40 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2022, 11:33:05 AM
US 18/151 most likely used Regent St. and then turned left onto Monroe St. Truthfully, it would have been interesting to see those streets back when they were signed with those US Highways. It is also hard to believe that the Beltline was originally a 2-lane highway with at-grade intersections.

I thought it was Regent too, but if you look at Historic Aerials, Regent didn't cut through from Monroe to Park until the 1950s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on April 05, 2022, 07:34:53 PM
Quote from: invincor on April 05, 2022, 09:22:41 AM
What actually are the pros and cons of a highway converting from a state highway to an Interstate highway?   

For the cons, I would imagine that it leads to less flexibility on the design which in turn leads to more costs, and that leads to lots of federal strings being attached to the state's control of it. 

For the pros there's... what?  Once upon a time, it would've been federal funding, but ever since the 90s at least, there's the National Highway System which includes a lot of the major state and US highways, and they get similar funding through that.  The only other thing I can think of then is the Interstate "branding" of the highway, which actually does have an economic impact as I know that many manufacturing companies look for how far away their facilities are going to be from an Interstate highway when deciding where to locate.  If the nearest one is too many miles away, that takes certain communities off the candidates list when competing with other towns for businesses to move or start up there, and this leads to political lobbying from legislators in those areas for an Interstate promotion.  Wasn't this the reason we ultimately got I-39 and I-41? 

So, if there ever is going to be a future Interstate promotion, look for growing communities with a good lobbying effort that are currently in an Interstate-poor region of the state and that already have existing highway corridors that wouldn't take too much to get them up to Interstate standards.   Have we any places like this left?  I can't think of any just now, so I would agree that we're unlikely to see any more.

Think the pro that seems to always be thrown around is the prestige or the reputation of an interstate making it a premier route seems to be the one most commonly used.  Nevermind a huge con is for some areas when you convert a highway to a freeway in many cases(especially smaller towns) you may be providing a death blow to some businesses that used to be on the route itself. 

Wisconsin doesn't need any more interstate highways.  They did improve 41 and 51 because people used those routes and they needed to stay ahead of things.....but not sure if adding I-39 or I-41 designation really added anything that wasn't already there to begin with(just my opinion)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 05, 2022, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2022, 11:37:40 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2022, 11:33:05 AM
US 18/151 most likely used Regent St. and then turned left onto Monroe St. Truthfully, it would have been interesting to see those streets back when they were signed with those US Highways. It is also hard to believe that the Beltline was originally a 2-lane highway with at-grade intersections.

I thought it was Regent too, but if you look at Historic Aerials, Regent didn't cut through from Monroe to Park until the 1950s.

I have seen old maps of Downtown Madison before the Beltline. I will see if I can find one that shows it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 06, 2022, 02:15:00 PM
IIRC, US 14 from the east came up Park St all the way to the University campus (Johnson St?).  Also, the short campus Dr mini-freeway did not exist,so it likely used the old narrow University Av there.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 06, 2022, 08:36:00 PM
There is two Madison inset map from 1927 and 1928 on usends.com: https://www.usends.com/151.html. It appears US 151 ended at the University/N. Park St. intersection prior to its 1937 extension to Cedar Rapids, IA. US 51 at the time followed Monona Dr., Atwood Ave., and Winnebago St. before meeting US 151 where Winnebago St. skewed into E. Washington Ave., then departed 151 at the present-day E. Washington Ave./N. Stoughton Rd. intersection. Traffic must have been able turn onto Winnebago St. from inbound E. Washington Ave.; that ability to turn left was eliminated in the reconstruction of E. Washington Ave. during the 1950's (when E. Washington was expanded from 4 to 6 lanes). The Winnebago Ave. skew was eliminated during the reconstruction of that portion of East Washington Ave. in 2007, when 6th St. was extended to meet Winnebago St. at a roundabout, and Winnebago St. was relocated to terminate at Milwaukee St.: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.098709,-89.3492403,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. To me, it is mind-boggling how the numerous State and US Highways that go through Madison were routed prior to the construction of the Beltline Highway, Stoughton Rd., and the western-most leg of the East-West Freeway (the STH 30 segment, not the Interstate 94 nor the Interstate 794 segment).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 06, 2022, 09:15:40 PM
Well those maps show a couple of my errors. First Regent Street clearly was the routing of US-18. Second US-12/18 originally took Lakeside Street and not Olin though I know Olin was a later routing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 05, 2022, 07:34:53 PM
Quote from: invincor on April 05, 2022, 09:22:41 AM
What actually are the pros and cons of a highway converting from a state highway to an Interstate highway?   

For the cons, I would imagine that it leads to less flexibility on the design which in turn leads to more costs, and that leads to lots of federal strings being attached to the state's control of it. 

For the pros there's... what?  Once upon a time, it would've been federal funding, but ever since the 90s at least, there's the National Highway System which includes a lot of the major state and US highways, and they get similar funding through that.  The only other thing I can think of then is the Interstate "branding" of the highway, which actually does have an economic impact as I know that many manufacturing companies look for how far away their facilities are going to be from an Interstate highway when deciding where to locate.  If the nearest one is too many miles away, that takes certain communities off the candidates list when competing with other towns for businesses to move or start up there, and this leads to political lobbying from legislators in those areas for an Interstate promotion.  Wasn't this the reason we ultimately got I-39 and I-41? 

So, if there ever is going to be a future Interstate promotion, look for growing communities with a good lobbying effort that are currently in an Interstate-poor region of the state and that already have existing highway corridors that wouldn't take too much to get them up to Interstate standards.   Have we any places like this left?  I can't think of any just now, so I would agree that we're unlikely to see any more.

Think the pro that seems to always be thrown around is the prestige or the reputation of an interstate making it a premier route seems to be the one most commonly used.  Nevermind a huge con is for some areas when you convert a highway to a freeway in many cases(especially smaller towns) you may be providing a death blow to some businesses that used to be on the route itself. 

Wisconsin doesn't need any more interstate highways.  They did improve 41 and 51 because people used those routes and they needed to stay ahead of things.....but not sure if adding I-39 or I-41 designation really added anything that wasn't already there to begin with(just my opinion)
I would favor an extension of I-39 to US 8 if the whole thing was upgraded to a freeway. But beyond that I agree no more interstates are needed. I hate this obsession with making every freeway an interstate. For time I wasn't so much in favor of making 41 an interstate. Here is an interesting fact. Wisconsin is one of the few states in the country without an x5 interstate. The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota. Now if the UP had been made part of Wisconsin then it would have gotten a little bit of I-75.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 11, 2022, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.
West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2022, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.
West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.
Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2022, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2022, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.
West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.
Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on April 11, 2022, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2022, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2022, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.
West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.
Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

I think his answer was short for "not part of the standard interstate grid". Both AK and HI have non-traditional alphanumeric non-grid based numbering (which I'm sure you know), so it stands to reason that they obviously wouldn't have any "x5" interstate freeways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on April 11, 2022, 10:03:07 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
Here is an interesting fact. Wisconsin is one of the few states in the country without an x5 interstate.

They could have fought harder or gone the congressional route to get I-55 or I-65 extended northward.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM
Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Hobart on April 12, 2022, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM
Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 12, 2022, 06:44:18 AM
Quote from: Hobart on April 12, 2022, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM
Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.

Slight jiggling? Reconfiguring the 55/294 interchange for 3 lanes each way would be a bit more than Jiggling. If you wanted an x5 into Wisconsin, I-65 would be a slight jiggling comparatively. I too am sick and tired of people needing a "perfect grid".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on April 12, 2022, 06:46:07 AM
Quote from: Hobart on April 12, 2022, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM
Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.
Citations needed for your rant.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 12, 2022, 08:34:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 11, 2022, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2022, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2022, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.
West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.
Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

I think his answer was short for "not part of the standard interstate grid". Both AK and HI have non-traditional alphanumeric non-grid based numbering (which I'm sure you know), so it stands to reason that they obviously wouldn't have any "x5" interstate freeways.


There could be an I-H5 and an I-A5.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 12, 2022, 11:34:21 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 12, 2022, 06:44:18 AM
Slight jiggling? Reconfiguring the 55/294 interchange for 3 lanes each way would be a bit more than Jiggling. If you wanted an x5 into Wisconsin, I-65 would be a slight jiggling comparatively. I too am sick and tired of people needing a "perfect grid".

I reject the concept that one would need to reconfigure any interchanges in Chicago to route any interstate north of there.  Interchanges should be built to handle whatever the traffic needs to do, not what the route numbers are doing.  For Chicago, that always will mean interchanges favor traffic going to/from The Loop.  It is wholly appropriate for a route to "exit off itself" if that is what the traffic situation calls for.  No one bats an eye that I-94 "exits off itself" in downtown Milwaukee.  Because the primary flow of traffic calls for it.

Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
I hate this obsession with making every freeway an interstate.

And I really dislike this ad absurdum argument that keeps coming up around here where people default to "Oh you just want to make EVERY freeway an interstate!" over every interstate proposal.  Like there's some sort of quota on interstates.  If I suggest that four freeways in Wisconsin would make logical 3di additions, that does not mean my position is to add interstate shields to every freakin' freeway in the world.

Frankly, I wish more states had the stones North Carolina does in being proactive in making useful additions to the interstate highway system.  I might like them to do a better job in some of their numbering choices, but I like that they are trying where most other places have given up.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on April 12, 2022, 01:08:40 PM
Quote from: Hobart on April 12, 2022, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM
Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.
I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 12, 2022, 02:28:29 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 12, 2022, 01:08:40 PM
Quote from: Hobart on April 12, 2022, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM
Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.
I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.


Yeah I drive I-43 pretty much every day of the week, and I have never heard anyone complain about the number.  Do people thing that the citizens of Green Bay feel slighted that I-43 isn't I-55 or I-65?

As for the idea that someone would "rather drive on one numbered route from point to point," well most people do.  Most people who use I-43 are using it for local or regional travel.  They aren't coming up from south of downtown Milwaukee much less Chicago.  And even if they do, no one is confused that the numbers change even when the highway goes straight.

Too many people here want things to be numbered a certain way because it looks nice on a map.  And that's silly. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2022, 05:48:20 PM
I suppose one should be grateful that Interstates 39, 41, and 43 were ever designated at all. After all, originally the Badger State was only to be the home of 2 mainline Interstate Highways, 90 and 94. It is interesting to imagine what it would be like if other corridors that weren't approved as Interstates had been, such as: US 18 (Prairie du Chien-to-Madison); US 53 (Eau Claire-to-Superior); STH-29 (Eau Claire-to-Green Bay); US 51 (Portage-to-Hurley, including existing Interstate 39 from Portage-to-Wausau); and possibly even US 12 (Wisconsin Dells-to-Madison. Source: http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/interstates.html.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2022, 09:10:23 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 12, 2022, 08:34:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 11, 2022, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2022, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2022, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.
West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.
Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

I think his answer was short for "not part of the standard interstate grid". Both AK and HI have non-traditional alphanumeric non-grid based numbering (which I'm sure you know), so it stands to reason that they obviously wouldn't have any "x5" interstate freeways.

There could be an I-H5 and an I-A5.

Not relevant, the point is that HI, AK, PR...they aren't part of the Interstate grid. So them having or lacking certain numbers is of very little consequence.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on April 12, 2022, 09:55:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM
Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide)

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM
Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy.

And having a long section of a north-south roadway signed as east-west is not lunacy?
[/quote]

[
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:51:35 PM]and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: bulldog1979 on April 13, 2022, 01:59:06 AM
Quote from: skluth on April 12, 2022, 01:08:40 PM
I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.

See the June 24, 1969, U.S. Route Numbering Subcommittee Agenda (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1969-06-24) from AASHO. They confirmed the I-57 number for the Milwaukeeā€”Green Bay freeway at that time. It was redesignated I-43 on June 25, 1974 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1974-06-25).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 13, 2022, 09:41:02 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2022, 09:10:23 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 12, 2022, 08:34:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 11, 2022, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2022, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2022, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:51:27 PM
The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.
West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.
Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

I think his answer was short for "not part of the standard interstate grid". Both AK and HI have non-traditional alphanumeric non-grid based numbering (which I'm sure you know), so it stands to reason that they obviously wouldn't have any "x5" interstate freeways.

There could be an I-H5 and an I-A5.

Not relevant, the point is that HI, AK, PR...they aren't part of the Interstate grid. So them having or lacking certain numbers is of very little consequence.


They are part of the interstate system.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 13, 2022, 09:45:57 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on April 13, 2022, 01:59:06 AM
Quote from: skluth on April 12, 2022, 01:08:40 PM
I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.

See the June 24, 1969, U.S. Route Numbering Subcommittee Agenda (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1969-06-24) from AASHO. They confirmed the I-57 number for the Milwaukeeā€”Green Bay freeway at that time. It was redesignated I-43 on June 25, 1974 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1974-06-25).


But is that when it was going to be located closer to the WI-57 corridor?  When the location of the highway was moved closer to the lakeshore, WIDOT wanted the number changed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 13, 2022, 09:47:24 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 12, 2022, 09:55:44 PM

And having a long section of a north-south roadway signed as east-west is not lunacy?

Nope.  It is not.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 13, 2022, 12:52:07 PM
The uncompleted Port Washington interchange was part of that 'I-57' legacy.  There are ghost ramp grades for an east-west freeway there,which was planned to connect the (I-43) US 141 freeway to the east and north east to continue westward and then curve southward to feed into the Stadium North freeway in Milwaukee. The straight through north-south course was to be I-43 (I-57) to the south to WI(I-)57 to the north.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 13, 2022, 02:20:43 PM
I am firmly on the side of leaving it all as-is. Numbering may have been important in the infancy of the system, but these days there are GPS systems, online maps, and major improvements in signing. It's getting to a point where it's pretty irrelevant how a road is signed, except for those who insist that roads be numbered in some exact, arbitrary way. If you ask 10 people what the numbering system for the Interstate and US Highway systems mean, 9 of them wouldn't know. If you asked those same people if a road like WI-441 should be signed as an interstate route, it's likely that 10 out of 10 wouldn't care.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on April 13, 2022, 06:06:45 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on April 13, 2022, 01:59:06 AM
Quote from: skluth on April 12, 2022, 01:08:40 PM
I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.

See the June 24, 1969, U.S. Route Numbering Subcommittee Agenda (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1969-06-24) from AASHO. They confirmed the I-57 number for the Milwaukeeā€”Green Bay freeway at that time. It was redesignated I-43 on June 25, 1974 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Route_Numbering_Sub-Committee_Agenda_1974-06-25).
At the point the highway was approved, it was still hypothetical. Initial concepts often change as this one subsequently did. By the time they actually started building, it was I-43. So I-57 never existed in Wisconsin, unless you consider a highway on a piece of paper real.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2022, 06:16:16 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 13, 2022, 02:20:43 PM
I am firmly on the side of leaving it all as-is. Numbering may have been important in the infancy of the system, but these days there are GPS systems, online maps, and major improvements in signing. It's getting to a point where it's pretty irrelevant how a road is signed, except for those who insist that roads be numbered in some exact, arbitrary way. If you ask 10 people what the numbering system for the Interstate and US Highway systems mean, 9 of them wouldn't know. If you asked those same people if a road like WI-441 should be signed as an interstate route, it's likely that 10 out of 10 wouldn't care.

At this point realistically maybe I-39 is extended towards Tomahawk, but after that I wouldn't see much else being done.  Maybe I-41 extended to Abrams, 441 made I-441, and least of the maybe's WI-29 gets that upgrade if they ever may it freeway all the way from I-41 to I-94.......but those unlikely and nothing more than maybes at best.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 13, 2022, 08:10:06 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 13, 2022, 02:20:43 PM
I am firmly on the side of leaving it all as-is. Numbering may have been important in the infancy of the system, but these days there are GPS systems, online maps, and major improvements in signing. It's getting to a point where it's pretty irrelevant how a road is signed, except for those who insist that roads be numbered in some exact, arbitrary way. If you ask 10 people what the numbering system for the Interstate and US Highway systems mean, 9 of them wouldn't know. If you asked those same people if a road like WI-441 should be signed as an interstate route, it's likely that 10 out of 10 wouldn't care.


Exactly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2022, 09:37:07 PM
I agree with gr8daynegb that Interstate 39 should be extended to US 8 north of Tomahawk, and with extending Interstate 41 to Abrams. The freeway upgrades to the STH 29 corridor between Interstates 94 and 41 will take decades, although I highly doubt STH 441 will ever become Interstate 441. I would be in favor of numbering all expressway/freeway exits that are currently unnumbered. Examples: The STH 11 Monroe Bypass; the STH 16/67 Oconomowoc Bypass; STH 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan; the STH 35 expressway between Hudson and River Falls; STH 57 northeast of Green Bay; US 45 between US 41/Interstate 41 and US 10 (including the STH 54 interchange along the New London Bypass); US 51 between McFarland and DeForest; the STH 119 Airport Spur; US 141 north of Abrams; the STH 175 Brewers Boulevard/Stadium North Freeway; and lastly, the STH 794 Lake Parkway (the numbers should be a continuation of Interstate 794's numbers and mileage).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 14, 2022, 12:55:50 PM
The public pathway that is along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built a few years ago on ROW that WisDOT already owned - it was to be the where the southbound side of where 'I-57' was to go and was acquired by WisDOT for that purpose.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2022, 01:31:33 PM
I wonder why STH 57 wasn't expanded to four lanes between CTH O just north of STH 23, and STH 32 just east of Kiel? Insufficient traffic counts? True, the STH 32/57 duplex into Kiel was expanded to four lanes way back in 1958, and the present-day Interstate 43-to-CTH O segment was expanded back in 1962, so the DOT had plenty of opportunities to make STH 57 a fully four-lane highway between Interstate 43 and STH 32. STH 32/57 between Kiel and DePere probably doesn't need to be expanded to four lanes, so maybe that portion of 57 further south didn't need to either.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 14, 2022, 03:34:05 PM
Those four lane sections were built when it was the main route between Milwaukee and Green Bay. I take WI-57 between Chilton and De Pere pretty regularly.  There is usually little traffic, and the road is so flat and wide that passing is easy.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 14, 2022, 08:39:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 14, 2022, 03:34:05 PM
Those four lane sections were built when it was the main route between Milwaukee and Green Bay. I take WI-57 between Chilton and De Pere pretty regularly.  There is usually little traffic, and the road is so flat and wide that passing is easy.

The 4 lane section of Wis 57 between Wis 144 near Random Lake and the stub freeway end near I-43 was built in the late 1990s and was a newer addition on existing ROW. The older section between Random Lake and Waldo had a bunch of sections where the roadways had were at uneven heights. There was a later project to level the carriageways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 14, 2022, 09:29:10 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 14, 2022, 08:39:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 14, 2022, 03:34:05 PM
Those four lane sections were built when it was the main route between Milwaukee and Green Bay. I take WI-57 between Chilton and De Pere pretty regularly.  There is usually little traffic, and the road is so flat and wide that passing is easy.

The 4 lane section of Wis 67 between Wis 144 near Random Lake and the stub freeway end near I-43 was built in the late 1990s and was a newer addition on existing ROW. The older section between Random Lake and Waldo had a bunch of sections where the roadways had were at uneven heights. There was a later project to level the carriageways.


Thank you for the clarification.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on April 19, 2022, 07:23:06 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2021, 05:52:28 PM
Mason St  (WI 54) bridge in Green Bay stuck in open position indefinitely: https://fox11online.com/news/local/downtown-green-bay-bridge-experiencing-mechanical-issue
While under annual maintenance today, the bridge was opened to let a ship through and is again stuck in the open position.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 19, 2022, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Big John on April 19, 2022, 07:23:06 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2021, 05:52:28 PM
Mason St  (WI 54) bridge in Green Bay stuck in open position indefinitely: https://fox11online.com/news/local/downtown-green-bay-bridge-experiencing-mechanical-issue
While under annual maintenance today, the bridge was opened to let a ship through and is again stuck in the open position.

It's actually nearly closed. Maddening. I don't take it regularly but I take it enough.

https://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/local-news/now-mason-street-bridge-malfunctions-closed-to-traffic/amp/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 20, 2022, 10:19:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 19, 2022, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Big John on April 19, 2022, 07:23:06 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2021, 05:52:28 PM
Mason St  (WI 54) bridge in Green Bay stuck in open position indefinitely: https://fox11online.com/news/local/downtown-green-bay-bridge-experiencing-mechanical-issue
While under annual maintenance today, the bridge was opened to let a ship through and is again stuck in the open position.

It's actually nearly closed. Maddening. I don't take it regularly but I take it enough.

https://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/local-news/now-mason-street-bridge-malfunctions-closed-to-traffic/amp/

It was back open today. Apparently a software issue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on April 20, 2022, 11:58:33 PM
^^ I wonder how old that computer is for a bridge that opened in 1973.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 21, 2022, 11:07:19 AM
Quote from: Big John on April 20, 2022, 11:58:33 PM
^^ I wonder how old that computer is for a bridge that opened in 1973.


I think this is the first time they had opened the bridge since last year's repairs.  So I am wondering if it was a result of that somehow.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on May 03, 2022, 10:39:22 AM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx

I see WisDOT is planning on recontructing the US18-151 and County F intersection near Blue Mounds into a J-turn intersection, but not until 2025. My question is why, with future plans to construct an interchange here, doesn't the DOT just go ahead and build the interchange now, instead of wasting time and money on an interim solution? Wouldn't it save money in the long run to go all out now? It boggles the mind. The DOT built the interchange near Ridgeway a few years ago that probably sees less traffic than the County F intersection. If they could go all out at Ridgeway, why not here?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 12:33:48 PM
A J-turn intersection seems significantly less expensive than a full interchange.  Why not build an interim solution that may last you 20 years?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 03, 2022, 12:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 12:33:48 PM
A J-turn intersection seems significantly less expensive than a full interchange.  Why not build an interim solution that may last you 20 years?
Which is cheaper:

J-turn intersection now + diamond interchange in 20 years

Or

Diamond interchange now

Answer: the latter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 03, 2022, 01:06:42 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 03, 2022, 10:39:22 AM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx

I see WisDOT is planning on recontructing the US18-151 and County F intersection near Blue Mounds into a J-turn intersection, but not until 2025. My question is why, with future plans to construct an interchange here, doesn't the DOT just go ahead and build the interchange now, instead of wasting time and money on an interim solution? Wouldn't it save money in the long run to go all out now? It boggles the mind. The DOT built the interchange near Ridgeway a few years ago that probably sees less traffic than the County F intersection. If they could go all out at Ridgeway, why not here?

WisDOT did the same thing on WI 29/32 just west of Green Bay.  They are currently replacing an 'almost' Michigan Left intersection with a regular diamond interchange (County 'C'?).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 03, 2022, 01:10:58 PM
I think the better question is: does it really take 3 years just to begin construction on something like this? If it's that much of a concern, that seems like the sort of project that could be done a bit quicker.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Cave of the Mounds Rd, which is used to access Tyrol Basin Ski Area, is closed at some point to force people to use the J-turn.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 02:10:15 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 03, 2022, 12:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 12:33:48 PM
A J-turn intersection seems significantly less expensive than a full interchange.  Why not build an interim solution that may last you 20 years?
Which is cheaper:

J-turn intersection now + diamond interchange in 20 years

Or

Diamond interchange now

Answer: the latter.


First, it assumes that you actually will need such an interchange.  You may not.

Second, you are ignoring the time value of money, especially if you are spending a bunch of money on an overbuilt project early.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 03, 2022, 03:14:05 PM
For long term safety, the interchange is the way to go.  Especially at this junction where a cheese factory in the southwest quadrant means there are extra trucks making turns.
In my unprofessional opinion, that junction needs an interchange now.
Best to do it before more sprawl gets that far west from Madison and more locals come to get used to the at-grades, then piss and moan when WisDOT freeway converts it in like 15 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2022, 03:59:55 PM
The US 18/151 Freeway Conversion Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/maps.aspx) has been split up into 6 sections (Section 1 - US 18 to County BB; Section 2 - County BB to County HHH (west); Section 3 - County H to County K; Section 4 - Mounds View Road to WIS 78; Section 5 - WIS 78 to County P; and Section 6 - County P to County MV). Under the preferred alternative for Section 4 (Alternative 4A), there will be an interchange at CTH F (see https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/map-sect4alta.pdf for ramp configuration). In the interim, converting the intersection to a J-Turn intersection will cost less than building a full interchange with local road modifications, thus the interchange proposal will be implemented in the long-term.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 03, 2022, 05:57:25 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2022, 01:06:42 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 03, 2022, 10:39:22 AM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx

I see WisDOT is planning on recontructing the US18-151 and County F intersection near Blue Mounds into a J-turn intersection, but not until 2025. My question is why, with future plans to construct an interchange here, doesn't the DOT just go ahead and build the interchange now, instead of wasting time and money on an interim solution? Wouldn't it save money in the long run to go all out now? It boggles the mind. The DOT built the interchange near Ridgeway a few years ago that probably sees less traffic than the County F intersection. If they could go all out at Ridgeway, why not here?

WisDOT did the same thing on WI 29/32 just west of Green Bay.  They are currently replacing an 'almost' Michigan Left intersection with a regular diamond interchange (County 'C'?).

Mike
County VV.

The interchange came sooner than expected when they got federal funds earmarked for it under SCORN.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 04, 2022, 07:21:35 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 03, 2022, 12:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 12:33:48 PM
A J-turn intersection seems significantly less expensive than a full interchange.  Why not build an interim solution that may last you 20 years?
Which is cheaper:

J-turn intersection now + diamond interchange in 20 years

Or

Diamond interchange now

Answer: the latter.
An interchange should have been built there like 20 years ago. It's long overdue for an interchange. J Turns aren't really much safer anyways. Your making tight U turns on a highway with a 65 MPH speed limit. Blue Mound State Park is close by that is a popular destination in the state. I have to go all the way to Hwy 78 to get back on US18/151 because I don't feel safe getting on at Hwy F at an at grade intersection. A J turn is not going to change that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 04, 2022, 07:57:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 04, 2022, 07:21:35 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 03, 2022, 12:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 12:33:48 PM
A J-turn intersection seems significantly less expensive than a full interchange.  Why not build an interim solution that may last you 20 years?
Which is cheaper:

J-turn intersection now + diamond interchange in 20 years

Or

Diamond interchange now

Answer: the latter.
An interchange should have been built there like 20 years ago. It's long overdue for an interchange. J Turns aren't really much safer anyways. Your making tight U turns on a highway with a 65 MPH speed limit. Blue Mound State Park is close by that is a popular destination in the state. I have to go all the way to Hwy 78 to get back on US18/151 because I don't feel safe getting on at Hwy F at an at grade intersection. A J turn is not going to change that.
They're not tight - remember they widen the shoulder so it can be made loosely.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 05, 2022, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 04, 2022, 07:57:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 04, 2022, 07:21:35 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 03, 2022, 12:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 12:33:48 PM
A J-turn intersection seems significantly less expensive than a full interchange.  Why not build an interim solution that may last you 20 years?
Which is cheaper:

J-turn intersection now + diamond interchange in 20 years

Or

Diamond interchange now

Answer: the latter.
An interchange should have been built there like 20 years ago. It's long overdue for an interchange. J Turns aren't really much safer anyways. Your making tight U turns on a highway with a 65 MPH speed limit. Blue Mound State Park is close by that is a popular destination in the state. I have to go all the way to Hwy 78 to get back on US18/151 because I don't feel safe getting on at Hwy F at an at grade intersection. A J turn is not going to change that.
They're not tight - remember they widen the shoulder so it can be made loosely.
You also have to make a quick lane change to the left and another to the right if your continuing on the same route. They are not much safer. Do they even exist anywhere outside Wisconsin?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 05, 2022, 08:11:24 PM
^^ They are based on the Michigan Left.  For other states, they are becoming common in Missouri for example: https://www.modot.org/j-turns
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 05, 2022, 11:44:46 PM
Just be glad it's better than this atrocity of a left turn in Illinois.

https://goo.gl/maps/2riaJYUSHKVCUvxR6

I've made this one a couple times and it is scary. I wouldn't even try if I had somebody really on my tail.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on May 07, 2022, 08:23:53 PM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/05/06/wisconsin-dot-looks-new-designs-highway-175-near-stadium-interchange-milwaukee/9664986002/

The Stadium Interchange in Milwaukee may get rebuilt into a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). WisDOT is also doing a study to convert the Stadium Freeway into an at-grade boulevard.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 07, 2022, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 07, 2022, 08:23:53 PM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/05/06/wisconsin-dot-looks-new-designs-highway-175-near-stadium-interchange-milwaukee/9664986002/

The Stadium Interchange in Milwaukee may get rebuilt into a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). WisDOT is also doing a study to convert the Stadium Freeway into an at-grade boulevard.
This was in the works for some time - ever since the full stadium freeway got canceled, there is no point for a full-freeway interchange at this point.  One exception - the conversion of 175 north of 94 is new.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 07, 2022, 09:30:37 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 07, 2022, 08:49:16 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 07, 2022, 08:23:53 PM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/05/06/wisconsin-dot-looks-new-designs-highway-175-near-stadium-interchange-milwaukee/9664986002/

The Stadium Interchange in Milwaukee may get rebuilt into a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). WisDOT is also doing a study to convert the Stadium Freeway into an at-grade boulevard.
This was in the works for some time - ever since the full stadium freeway got canceled, there is no point for a full-freeway interchange at this point.  One exception - the conversion of 175 north of 94 is new.

It's smart though.  If they could duplicate north if I-94 what has occurred along 43rd St, it would be good for the area
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 08, 2022, 10:59:56 AM
The full Stadium Freeway, the Park Freeway/Fond du Lac (Ave) Freeway, the Lake (South) Freeway, etc, were all originally meant to be part of a cohesive system that required all of its component parts to be there and functioning or order to work.  It was doomed as a freeway network when the first piece was canceled in the very early 1970s.  We'll have to make do with an as cohesive a surface boulevard system as is possible.  It will be very interesting, indeed, to see what is done to connect the Stadium North Boulevard (freeway) to the Fond du Lac Boulevard (freeway).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2022, 12:38:02 PM
I would support reconstructing the Stadium North Freeway as a parkway similar to Brewers Boulevard to the south, while retaining all existing bridges and ramps. As for an at-grade boulevard with intersections and likely traffic signals, I would strongly oppose it. Converting the Stadium Interchange to a diverging-diamond would be acceptable as long as the configuration doesn't become overwhelmingly congested.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 08, 2022, 02:25:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2022, 12:38:02 PM
I would support reconstructing the Stadium North Freeway as a parkway similar to Brewers Boulevard to the south, while retaining all existing bridges and ramps. As for an at-grade boulevard with intersections and likely traffic signals, I would strongly oppose it. Converting the Stadium Interchange to a diverging-diamond would be acceptable as long as the configuration doesn't become overwhelmingly congested.
I do question if a DDI there could handle gameday traffic. It would be fine on normal days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 08, 2022, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2022, 12:38:02 PM
I would support reconstructing the Stadium North Freeway as a parkway similar to Brewers Boulevard to the south, while retaining all existing bridges and ramps. As for an at-grade boulevard with intersections and likely traffic signals, I would strongly oppose it. Converting the Stadium Interchange to a diverging-diamond would be acceptable as long as the configuration doesn't become overwhelmingly congested.


Are the bridges in good shape?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 08, 2022, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 08, 2022, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2022, 12:38:02 PM
I would support reconstructing the Stadium North Freeway as a parkway similar to Brewers Boulevard to the south, while retaining all existing bridges and ramps. As for an at-grade boulevard with intersections and likely traffic signals, I would strongly oppose it. Converting the Stadium Interchange to a diverging-diamond would be acceptable as long as the configuration doesn't become overwhelmingly congested.


Are the bridges in good shape?
The bridges have been rehabilitated, but are nearing the end of their useful life.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 08, 2022, 06:05:25 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 08, 2022, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 08, 2022, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2022, 12:38:02 PM
I would support reconstructing the Stadium North Freeway as a parkway similar to Brewers Boulevard to the south, while retaining all existing bridges and ramps. As for an at-grade boulevard with intersections and likely traffic signals, I would strongly oppose it. Converting the Stadium Interchange to a diverging-diamond would be acceptable as long as the configuration doesn't become overwhelmingly congested.


Are the bridges in good shape?
The bridges have been rehabilitated, but are nearing the end of their useful life.

Yeah, then they aren't going to replace them with new bridges.  They will be full intersections just like on Miller Park Way.  (Remember it is still named that south of National Avenue.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2022, 03:48:55 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.


Of course it makes sense for multiple reasons.

First, if the concrete and bridges are toward the end of their lifespan, they need to be replaced.  What they are proposing is less expensive to both build and maintain. 

Second, a boulevard type of arrangement is going to be able to be developed and not act as a barrier between two neighborhoods like the stub of the highway north of I-94 now. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 11, 2022, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2022, 03:48:55 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.


Of course it makes sense for multiple reasons.

First, if the concrete and bridges are toward the end of their lifespan, they need to be replaced.  What they are proposing is less expensive to both build and maintain. 

Second, a boulevard type of arrangement is going to be able to be developed and not act as a barrier between two neighborhoods like the stub of the highway north of I-94 now.
Your last point makes no sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2022, 01:49:55 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 11, 2022, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2022, 03:48:55 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.


Of course it makes sense for multiple reasons.

First, if the concrete and bridges are toward the end of their lifespan, they need to be replaced.  What they are proposing is less expensive to both build and maintain. 

Second, a boulevard type of arrangement is going to be able to be developed and not act as a barrier between two neighborhoods like the stub of the highway north of I-94 now.
Your last point makes no sense.


Of course it does.  Why do you think the city is in support of this idea?  Compare the commercial development along Miller Park Way south of National Avenue over the last 30 years (multiple big box stores, restaurants, strip malls, etc.) with that north of I-94 (pretty much nothing.)  Getting rid of that short stub of a highway that serves very little purpose is going to do for that part of town what getting rid of the Park East Freeway did for downtown.  In retrospect, getting rid of the Park East was a BRILLIANT move - do people really complain about that freeway being gone anymore?

The Stadium North Freeway is basically useless.  It carries relatively little traffic over a distance of less than two miles.  Get rid of it and let the area breathe.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on May 11, 2022, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.
The interchange definitely needs to be replaced. It's pretty old and gets very congested. Most importantly, the left exits have got to go.

I'm not sure what conversion of the north freeway will do for attracting retail business, since the terrain is very hilly, and the last mile or so before the terminus at North Avenue is a big county park. Plus, the area is not nearly as attractive to business as West Milwaukee, for obvious reasons. But a boulevard would still probably improve the aesthetics of the area overall.

As for expansion to the FDL freeway, that ship sailed back in the 70s. It will never happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2022, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 11, 2022, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.
The interchange definitely needs to be replaced. It's pretty old and gets very congested. Most importantly, the left exits have got to go.

I'm not sure what conversion of the north freeway will do for attracting retail business, since the terrain is very hilly, and the last mile or so before the terminus at North Avenue is a big county park. Plus, the area is not nearly as attractive to business as West Milwaukee, for obvious reasons. But a boulevard would still probably improve the aesthetics of the area overall.

As for expansion to the FDL freeway, that ship sailed back in the 70s. It will never happen.


I don't think you know this area well.  The census tracks along the Stadium North freeway have a higher annual income than those along Miller Park Way.

https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 11, 2022, 02:33:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2022, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 11, 2022, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.
The interchange definitely needs to be replaced. It's pretty old and gets very congested. Most importantly, the left exits have got to go.

I'm not sure what conversion of the north freeway will do for attracting retail business, since the terrain is very hilly, and the last mile or so before the terminus at North Avenue is a big county park. Plus, the area is not nearly as attractive to business as West Milwaukee, for obvious reasons. But a boulevard would still probably improve the aesthetics of the area overall.

As for expansion to the FDL freeway, that ship sailed back in the 70s. It will never happen.


I don't think you know this area well.  The census tracks along the Stadium North freeway have a higher annual income than those along Miller Park Way.

https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html

I don't think the parkland along the corridor will change. However, I can see the triangle within 47th, Lloyd, and Lisbon being bought out and turned into similar development to that along Miller Park Way. (That recently happened to a not-very rundown neighborhood south of the I-64/170 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6273311,-90.3429823,541m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) in suburban St Louis.) I also wouldn't be surprised to see State St towards Miller Valley becoming a popular commercial district. I'm sure somewhere there are design concepts out there for redevelopment that are just waiting for the interchange redesign to be finalized and speculators buying up property near the corridor hoping for profit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 11, 2022, 04:15:15 PM
I've done plenty of mulling about the Stadium North Freeway over the years.  In my opinion the topography is such that it makes sense to retain the overpasses and interchange for Wisconsin, Bluemound & Wells.  The freeway punches through a curve in the Menomonee Valley placing it below grade in such a way that sets up the bridge over the valley quite well.
Once the freeway touches down north of State St, that's where the real downgrade should start.  The current stub divides the Washington Heights neighborhood from Washington Park and there's a great opportunity to eliminate an underutilized freeway trench and provide a more seamless transition to and from the park.  Align the boulevard with 47th St and that frees up a nice strip of real estate to either attach to Washington Park or redevelop as housing or some mix of both.  I'm surprised we're not doing that part of it already.

Downgrading the Stadium Interchange to a DDI; I think that will function well enough, even with game traffic.  And really, it's not reasonable to demand that the interchange be overbuilt for all times that are not game days.  It's going to be way less expensive than the preferred alternative WisDOT was previously angling toward.  Like I wish WisDOT had gotten on the DDI bandwagon before they built that monstrously overbuilt interchange at The Zoo and Watertown Plank.  Good god that was dumb.  A DDI would have done the job just about as good for half the price.

Game day congestion in Milwaukee isn't really centered around the Stadium Interchange anyway.  It's all about cars getting stacked up at the left exit for Mitchell Blvd.  The right turn motion coming in from the west to get ya to the remote lots across the river from the stadium is the highest demand movement and that wouldn't even change if it was a DDI.  And smart people don't use the Stadium Interchange if they're coming in from the east.  No man, you bail at 25th and 'sneak in' via Canal St.  It's shorter and you don't have to try and merge in with all the impatient suburbanites.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2022, 04:22:02 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 11, 2022, 04:15:15 PM
I've done plenty of mulling about the Stadium North Freeway over the years.  In my opinion the topography is such that it makes sense to retain the overpasses and interchange for Wisconsin, Bluemound & Wells.  The freeway punches through a curve in the Menomonee Valley placing it below grade in such a way that sets up the bridge over the valley quite well.
Once the freeway touches down north of State St, that's where the real downgrade should start.  The current stub divides the Washington Heights neighborhood from Washington Park and there's a great opportunity to eliminate an underutilized freeway trench and provide a more seamless transition to and from the park.  Align the boulevard with 47th St and that frees up a nice strip of real estate to either attach to Washington Park or redevelop as housing or some mix of both.  I'm surprised we're not doing that part of it already.

Downgrading the Stadium Interchange to a DDI; I think that will function well enough, even with game traffic.  And really, it's not reasonable to demand that the interchange be overbuilt for all times that are not game days.  It's going to be way less expensive than the preferred alternative WisDOT was previously angling toward.  Like I wish WisDOT had gotten on the DDI bandwagon before they built that monstrously overbuilt interchange at The Zoo and Watertown Plank.  Good god that was dumb.  A DDI would have done the job just about as good for half the price.

Game day congestion in Milwaukee isn't really centered around the Stadium Interchange anyway.  It's all about cars getting stacked up at the left exit for Mitchell Blvd.  The right turn motion coming in from the west to get ya to the remote lots across the river from the stadium is the highest demand movement and that wouldn't even change if it was a DDI.  And smart people don't use the Stadium Interchange if they're coming in from the east.  No man, you bail at 25th and 'sneak in' via Canal St.  It's shorter and you don't have to try and merge in with all the impatient suburbanites.


Coming from the southwest, I would take I-43, Forest Home, 43rd Street to the stadium.  I could just zoom onto 43rd Street south after the game cause everyone wanted to get onto west I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 11, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
I-41 expansion scheduled to start in 2024.  Includes 55 MPH flyover ramps at STH 441, DDIs at STH 15, STH 47 and CTH E.  https://wtaq.com/2022/05/11/i-41-expansion-project-getting-closer/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2022, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 11, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
I-41 expansion scheduled to start in 2024.  Includes 55 MPH flyover ramps at STH 441, DDIs at STH 15, STH 47 and CTH E.  https://wtaq.com/2022/05/11/i-41-expansion-project-getting-closer/


The proposed interchange is for the South Bridge Connector project.  What is the timing on that?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 11, 2022, 08:11:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 11, 2022, 04:15:15 PM
I've done plenty of mulling about the Stadium North Freeway over the years.  In my opinion the topography is such that it makes sense to retain the overpasses and interchange for Wisconsin, Bluemound & Wells.  The freeway punches through a curve in the Menomonee Valley placing it below grade in such a way that sets up the bridge over the valley quite well.
Once the freeway touches down north of State St, that's where the real downgrade should start.  The current stub divides the Washington Heights neighborhood from Washington Park and there's a great opportunity to eliminate an underutilized freeway trench and provide a more seamless transition to and from the park.  Align the boulevard with 47th St and that frees up a nice strip of real estate to either attach to Washington Park or redevelop as housing or some mix of both.  I'm surprised we're not doing that part of it already.

Downgrading the Stadium Interchange to a DDI; I think that will function well enough, even with game traffic.  And really, it's not reasonable to demand that the interchange be overbuilt for all times that are not game days.  It's going to be way less expensive than the preferred alternative WisDOT was previously angling toward.  Like I wish WisDOT had gotten on the DDI bandwagon before they built that monstrously overbuilt interchange at The Zoo and Watertown Plank.  Good god that was dumb.  A DDI would have done the job just about as good for half the price.

Game day congestion in Milwaukee isn't really centered around the Stadium Interchange anyway.  It's all about cars getting stacked up at the left exit for Mitchell Blvd.  The right turn motion coming in from the west to get ya to the remote lots across the river from the stadium is the highest demand movement and that wouldn't even change if it was a DDI.  And smart people don't use the Stadium Interchange if they're coming in from the east.  No man, you bail at 25th and 'sneak in' via Canal St.  It's shorter and you don't have to try and merge in with all the impatient suburbanites.

I was up at Miller Park 2 weekends ago. I took 94 to Miller Park Way (Brewers Blvd). The only backup I encounted 30 minutes before the game was exiting onto Canal St and then the line into the Uecker Parking. When we left, I did take Canal to 6th to get onto 94. It was much quicker.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 11, 2022, 08:48:42 PM
I suppose mileage varies, as when I go to Brewers games, there are typically 5-15 minute backups pregame along I-94 EB to WI-175 SB, and then similar backups postgame along WI-175 NB to I-94 WB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on May 12, 2022, 08:24:44 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2022, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 11, 2022, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.
The interchange definitely needs to be replaced. It's pretty old and gets very congested. Most importantly, the left exits have got to go.

I'm not sure what conversion of the north freeway will do for attracting retail business, since the terrain is very hilly, and the last mile or so before the terminus at North Avenue is a big county park. Plus, the area is not nearly as attractive to business as West Milwaukee, for obvious reasons. But a boulevard would still probably improve the aesthetics of the area overall.

As for expansion to the FDL freeway, that ship sailed back in the 70s. It will never happen.


I don't think you know this area well.  The census tracks along the Stadium North freeway have a higher annual income than those along Miller Park Way.

https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html
I live a couple miles from the stadium. I know the area well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 12, 2022, 09:13:03 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 12, 2022, 08:24:44 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2022, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 11, 2022, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.
The interchange definitely needs to be replaced. It's pretty old and gets very congested. Most importantly, the left exits have got to go.

I'm not sure what conversion of the north freeway will do for attracting retail business, since the terrain is very hilly, and the last mile or so before the terminus at North Avenue is a big county park. Plus, the area is not nearly as attractive to business as West Milwaukee, for obvious reasons. But a boulevard would still probably improve the aesthetics of the area overall.

As for expansion to the FDL freeway, that ship sailed back in the 70s. It will never happen.


I don't think you know this area well.  The census tracks along the Stadium North freeway have a higher annual income than those along Miller Park Way.

https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html
I live a couple miles from the stadium. I know the area well.


Well, I don't think you are aware of the neighborhood around the Stadium Freeway.  There is plenty of money in the Washington Highlands part of Tosa, and the Washington Heights part of Milwaukee, not to mention Hi Mount, etc. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 12, 2022, 10:37:19 AM
Quote from: Big John on May 11, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
I-41 expansion scheduled to start in 2024.  Includes 55 MPH flyover ramps at STH 441, DDIs at STH 15, STH 47 and CTH E.  https://wtaq.com/2022/05/11/i-41-expansion-project-getting-closer/

Just thinking about when that then US 41 bypass freeway was built and opened across the north metro area in about 1960, it was all well outside the city in a rural farming area, with little traffic and NO development.  It is amazing how that entire area has changed.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on May 12, 2022, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 12, 2022, 09:13:03 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 12, 2022, 08:24:44 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2022, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 11, 2022, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 10, 2022, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 08, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Sounds like this kind of conversion is inevitable. Kind of a shame though, I thought the current configuration worked well for going to Brewers games. And even if they don't connect to anything, freeway stubs are still cool from a roadgeek perspective.

A DDI for game-day traffic might work well. The majority of traffic would being going one way, so it might not cause much delay.
As long as it is there I see no reason to get rid of it. this makes no sense.
The interchange definitely needs to be replaced. It's pretty old and gets very congested. Most importantly, the left exits have got to go.

I'm not sure what conversion of the north freeway will do for attracting retail business, since the terrain is very hilly, and the last mile or so before the terminus at North Avenue is a big county park. Plus, the area is not nearly as attractive to business as West Milwaukee, for obvious reasons. But a boulevard would still probably improve the aesthetics of the area overall.

As for expansion to the FDL freeway, that ship sailed back in the 70s. It will never happen.


I don't think you know this area well.  The census tracks along the Stadium North freeway have a higher annual income than those along Miller Park Way.

https://www.city-data.com/income/income-Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html
I live a couple miles from the stadium. I know the area well.


Well, I don't think you are aware of the neighborhood around the Stadium Freeway.  There is plenty of money in the Washington Highlands part of Tosa, and the Washington Heights part of Milwaukee, not to mention Hi Mount, etc.
Sorry, I just don't see many big-box retail possibilities in Washington Heights. Not enough space, and the mansion folks likely won't go for retail zones around there. If there's any further retail possibilities, either State St. or Vliet St. are really the only possibilities I see. Those residents are likely already doing their grocery shopping at Metro Market, Metcalfe's or Outpost on State.

Plus, the part that isn't on an incline transitioning toward the Menomonee Valley borders Washington Park (the part most often discussed as transitioning to a boulevard). North of Lisbon, well, the area needs a lot of improvement. There used to be a bank right at that intersection that was ripe for robberies, since criminals could just jump right on the freeway and disappear. It became a clinic, and last I checked, the building was razed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 12, 2022, 04:24:41 PM
Oh yes, big box stores would be a poor fit for redeveloping land vacated by the freeway north of State.  You're looking at low-rise mixed-use development, small apartment buildings and townhouses.

I'd align the boulevard along the east edge of the r/w and then build houses and stuff between the boulevard and 47th St. I think the surface street replacement could even be a two-lane undivided facility, based on what I remember about traffic on Stadium North.  It would look something like Swan Blvd in 'Tosa, but with the park to the east and new homes to the west.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on May 13, 2022, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2022, 10:37:19 AM
Quote from: Big John on May 11, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
I-41 expansion scheduled to start in 2024.  Includes 55 MPH flyover ramps at STH 441, DDIs at STH 15, STH 47 and CTH E.  https://wtaq.com/2022/05/11/i-41-expansion-project-getting-closer/

Just thinking about when that then US 41 bypass freeway was built and opened across the north metro area in about 1960, it was all well outside the city in a rural farming area, with little traffic and NO development.  It is amazing how that entire area has changed.

Mike

I always am amazed looking at Lambeau Field pictures(when US 41 pasted the stadium) when they show the stadium when it was first built.  From stadium with a corn field in sight to what it is now again is amazing to what has happened in this 5-060 year timeline
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 13, 2022, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 13, 2022, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2022, 10:37:19 AM
Quote from: Big John on May 11, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
I-41 expansion scheduled to start in 2024.  Includes 55 MPH flyover ramps at STH 441, DDIs at STH 15, STH 47 and CTH E.  https://wtaq.com/2022/05/11/i-41-expansion-project-getting-closer/

Just thinking about when that then US 41 bypass freeway was built and opened across the north metro area in about 1960, it was all well outside the city in a rural farming area, with little traffic and NO development.  It is amazing how that entire area has changed.

Mike

I always am amazed looking at Lambeau Field pictures(when US 41 pasted the stadium) when they show the stadium when it was first built.  From stadium with a corn field in sight to what it is now again is amazing to what has happened in this 5-060 year timeline

The land north of Appleton was still farmland well into the 70's and mostly farmland as far south as Northland. The first big development I remember north of the highway was the Aid Association for Lutherans which I believe was built in the late 70's. The land around Lambeau was developed pretty quickly in the 60's, though it was a while before much of the land west of the current I-41 was developed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 13, 2022, 07:04:46 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 13, 2022, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2022, 10:37:19 AM
Quote from: Big John on May 11, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
I-41 expansion scheduled to start in 2024.  Includes 55 MPH flyover ramps at STH 441, DDIs at STH 15, STH 47 and CTH E.  https://wtaq.com/2022/05/11/i-41-expansion-project-getting-closer/

Just thinking about when that then US 41 bypass freeway was built and opened across the north metro area in about 1960, it was all well outside the city in a rural farming area, with little traffic and NO development.  It is amazing how that entire area has changed.

Mike

I always am amazed looking at Lambeau Field pictures(when US 41 pasted the stadium) when they show the stadium when it was first built.  From stadium with a corn field in sight to what it is now again is amazing to what has happened in this 5-060 year timeline

Maybe stop posting while drinking in the future ok?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 13, 2022, 09:07:16 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 13, 2022, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2022, 10:37:19 AM
Quote from: Big John on May 11, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
I-41 expansion scheduled to start in 2024.  Includes 55 MPH flyover ramps at STH 441, DDIs at STH 15, STH 47 and CTH E.  https://wtaq.com/2022/05/11/i-41-expansion-project-getting-closer/

Just thinking about when that then US 41 bypass freeway was built and opened across the north metro area in about 1960, it was all well outside the city in a rural farming area, with little traffic and NO development.  It is amazing how that entire area has changed.

Mike

I always am amazed looking at Lambeau Field pictures(when US 41 pasted the stadium) when they show the stadium when it was first built.  From stadium with a corn field in sight to what it is now again is amazing to what has happened in this 5-060 year timeline
Being originally from Oshkosh (born in 1976) and having my grandparents there until they died 5 years ago, I remember as a kid that Oshkosh had nothing west of 41 especially along 21 and 44. Park Plaza Mall was THE place to go shopping Downtown. No Outlet Mall. And the every 2 or 3 hour train crossing on 41 to Ripon from the Quarry. And walking 1 1/2 miles each way with my grandfather every time we visited to Field's Ice Cream Parlor on 9th and I think Ohio (might have been Oregon). And we still had a Shakey's by Witzel and 41. Nostalgia!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on May 15, 2022, 11:38:43 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 04, 2022, 07:21:35 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 03, 2022, 12:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 12:33:48 PM
A J-turn intersection seems significantly less expensive than a full interchange.  Why not build an interim solution that may last you 20 years?
Which is cheaper:

J-turn intersection now + diamond interchange in 20 years

Or

Diamond interchange now

Answer: the latter.
An interchange should have been built there like 20 years ago. It's long overdue for an interchange. J Turns aren't really much safer anyways. Your making tight U turns on a highway with a 65 MPH speed limit. Blue Mound State Park is close by that is a popular destination in the state. I have to go all the way to Hwy 78 to get back on US18/151 because I don't feel safe getting on at Hwy F at an at grade intersection. A J turn is not going to change that.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why there hasn't been a bigger push to complete freeway upgrades along this segment of US 18/151 (Verona to Dodgeville), along with US 151 from Columbus to Waupun. Both segments are overdue to become full freeways at this point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on May 16, 2022, 11:02:39 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 13, 2022, 07:04:46 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 13, 2022, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2022, 10:37:19 AM
Quote from: Big John on May 11, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
I-41 expansion scheduled to start in 2024.  Includes 55 MPH flyover ramps at STH 441, DDIs at STH 15, STH 47 and CTH E.  https://wtaq.com/2022/05/11/i-41-expansion-project-getting-closer/

Just thinking about when that then US 41 bypass freeway was built and opened across the north metro area in about 1960, it was all well outside the city in a rural farming area, with little traffic and NO development.  It is amazing how that entire area has changed.

Mike

I always am amazed looking at Lambeau Field pictures(when US 41 pasted the stadium) when they show the stadium when it was first built.  From stadium with a corn field in sight to what it is now again is amazing to what has happened in this 5-060 year timeline

Maybe stop posting while drinking in the future ok?

Not sure what that post meant.....but many worse and more frequent spelling/grammar errors than my last post in the forum outside of what I post in here
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 16, 2022, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 13, 2022, 09:07:16 PM
And we still had a Shakey's by Witzel and 41. Nostalgia!

Ooh, Shakey's was great.  At least in my memory.  Definitely assaulted their buffet in Wausau a few times as a teenager.  Nothing like loading a plate with pizza, chicken and ribs!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 16, 2022, 04:11:20 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 16, 2022, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 13, 2022, 09:07:16 PM
And we still had a Shakey's by Witzel and 41. Nostalgia!

Ooh, Shakey's was great.  At least in my memory.  Definitely assaulted their buffet in Wausau a few times as a teenager.  Nothing like loading a plate with pizza, chicken and ribs!
and mojo potatoes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 16, 2022, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 15, 2022, 11:38:43 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 04, 2022, 07:21:35 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 03, 2022, 12:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 03, 2022, 12:33:48 PM
A J-turn intersection seems significantly less expensive than a full interchange.  Why not build an interim solution that may last you 20 years?
Which is cheaper:

J-turn intersection now + diamond interchange in 20 years

Or

Diamond interchange now

Answer: the latter.
An interchange should have been built there like 20 years ago. It's long overdue for an interchange. J Turns aren't really much safer anyways. Your making tight U turns on a highway with a 65 MPH speed limit. Blue Mound State Park is close by that is a popular destination in the state. I have to go all the way to Hwy 78 to get back on US18/151 because I don't feel safe getting on at Hwy F at an at grade intersection. A J turn is not going to change that.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why there hasn't been a bigger push to complete freeway upgrades along this segment of US 18/151 (Verona to Dodgeville), along with US 151 from Columbus to Waupun. Both segments are overdue to become full freeways at this point.

I can see Columbus to Waupun being upgraded over the next decade, especially north to Beaver Dam. But the current expressway SW of Verona is more than adequate for the traffic. I do think a few more interchanges should be built between Verona and Dodgeville, but that doesn't mean a full freeway is needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 16, 2022, 05:39:27 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 16, 2022, 04:11:20 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 16, 2022, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 13, 2022, 09:07:16 PM
And we still had a Shakey's by Witzel and 41. Nostalgia!

Ooh, Shakey's was great.  At least in my memory.  Definitely assaulted their buffet in Wausau a few times as a teenager.  Nothing like loading a plate with pizza, chicken and ribs!
and mojo potatoes.

For the food, I do remember the pizza and ribs the most. And playing Mr Do or Dig Dug in the small arcade.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 16, 2022, 07:05:39 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 16, 2022, 05:39:27 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 16, 2022, 04:11:20 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 16, 2022, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 13, 2022, 09:07:16 PM
And we still had a Shakey's by Witzel and 41. Nostalgia!

Ooh, Shakey's was great.  At least in my memory.  Definitely assaulted their buffet in Wausau a few times as a teenager.  Nothing like loading a plate with pizza, chicken and ribs!
and mojo potatoes.

For the food, I do remember the pizza and ribs the most. And playing Mr Do or Dig Dug in the small arcade.

I also have mainly pleasant childhood memories of the Shakey's that was here in Appleton, WI.  Located on College Ave (WI 125) at Perkins St on the city's west side.  The building is now a locally operated Cheese Fondue place ('The Fondue Pot').

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2022, 07:10:56 PM
US 18/151 is planned to eventually become a freeway between Dodgeville and Verona (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx), ditto with US 151 between Columbus and Waupun (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/151/default.aspx). However, the upgrades will come gradually. At present, there are only two projects along 18/151 in the near future. The first is a pavement rehabilitation project between Town Hall Road and Fitchrona Rd. in 2023 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151/default.aspx). The second is converting the 18/151 intersection at CTH F into a J-Turn intersection in Blue Mounds (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx). There will be an intersection improvement project along US 151 at CTH C in Trenton (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-cintersection/default.aspx) although I doubt it will be an upgrade into an interchange or a grade-separation. There is also a proposal to convert the US 151 intersection at CTH DE/Jackson Rd. into either a J-Turn intersection, or an offset T intersection (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-intersection/default.aspx). Construction will happen in 2025.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on May 16, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2022, 07:10:56 PM
US 18/151 is planned to eventually become a freeway between Dodgeville and Verona (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx), ditto with US 151 between Columbus and Waupun (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/151/default.aspx). However, the upgrades will come gradually. At present, there are only two projects along 18/151 in the near future. The first is a pavement rehabilitation project between Town Hall Road and Fitchrona Rd. in 2023 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151/default.aspx). The second is converting the 18/151 intersection at CTH F into a J-Turn intersection in Blue Mounds (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx). There will be an intersection improvement project along US 151 at CTH C in Trenton (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-cintersection/default.aspx) although I doubt it will be an upgrade into an interchange or a grade-separation. There is also a proposal to convert the US 151 intersection at CTH DE/Jackson Rd. into either a J-Turn intersection, or an offset T intersection (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-intersection/default.aspx). Construction will happen in 2025.

I would've thought by now there would be a large scale conversion of the remaining expressway sections to freeway on US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac, a la US 41 in the 90s. Arguably, that segment is the only one of the non-Interstate backbone routes that should be full freeway. Even the lower traffic count segment between Waupun and Fond du Lac could use it to discourage the use of WIS 26.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2022, 09:06:15 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2022, 07:10:56 PM
US 18/151 is planned to eventually become a freeway between Dodgeville and Verona (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx), ditto with US 151 between Columbus and Waupun (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/151/default.aspx). However, the upgrades will come gradually. At present, there are only two projects along 18/151 in the near future. The first is a pavement rehabilitation project between Town Hall Road and Fitchrona Rd. in 2023 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151/default.aspx). The second is converting the 18/151 intersection at CTH F into a J-Turn intersection in Blue Mounds (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx). There will be an intersection improvement project along US 151 at CTH C in Trenton (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-cintersection/default.aspx) although I doubt it will be an upgrade into an interchange or a grade-separation. There is also a proposal to convert the US 151 intersection at CTH DE/Jackson Rd. into either a J-Turn intersection, or an offset T intersection (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-intersection/default.aspx). Construction will happen in 2025.

I would've thought by now there would be a large scale conversion of the remaining expressway sections to freeway on US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac, a la US 41 in the 90s. Arguably, that segment is the only one of the non-Interstate backbone routes that should be full freeway. Even the lower traffic count segment between Waupun and Fond du Lac could use it to discourage the use of WIS 26.


I don't think people don't use US-151 because it isn't a full freeway.  Even if you converted it to one, increasing the speed limit by 5 mph and putting in free flow ramps at I-41 isn't going to change that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on May 17, 2022, 10:44:07 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2022, 09:06:15 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2022, 07:10:56 PM
US 18/151 is planned to eventually become a freeway between Dodgeville and Verona (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx), ditto with US 151 between Columbus and Waupun (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/151/default.aspx). However, the upgrades will come gradually. At present, there are only two projects along 18/151 in the near future. The first is a pavement rehabilitation project between Town Hall Road and Fitchrona Rd. in 2023 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151/default.aspx). The second is converting the 18/151 intersection at CTH F into a J-Turn intersection in Blue Mounds (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx). There will be an intersection improvement project along US 151 at CTH C in Trenton (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-cintersection/default.aspx) although I doubt it will be an upgrade into an interchange or a grade-separation. There is also a proposal to convert the US 151 intersection at CTH DE/Jackson Rd. into either a J-Turn intersection, or an offset T intersection (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-intersection/default.aspx). Construction will happen in 2025.

I would've thought by now there would be a large scale conversion of the remaining expressway sections to freeway on US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac, a la US 41 in the 90s. Arguably, that segment is the only one of the non-Interstate backbone routes that should be full freeway. Even the lower traffic count segment between Waupun and Fond du Lac could use it to discourage the use of WIS 26.


I don't think people don't use US-151 because it isn't a full freeway.  Even if you converted it to one, increasing the speed limit by 5 mph and putting in free flow ramps at I-41 isn't going to change that.


People are going to keep using 26 because it's percieved to be shorter. Distance-wise it is, but I've found that time-wise, it's about the same within a few minutes to take 151 to I-41 to Oshkosh. 26 is two lanes with occasional passing lanes, but Rosendale is a big time slow down and can be a bottleneck on busy traffic days. 151 from Waupun to Fond du Lac is mostly free and clear and much more relaxing to drive, so most times when I head that way that is the way I go.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2022, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 17, 2022, 10:44:07 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2022, 09:06:15 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2022, 07:10:56 PM
US 18/151 is planned to eventually become a freeway between Dodgeville and Verona (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx), ditto with US 151 between Columbus and Waupun (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/151/default.aspx). However, the upgrades will come gradually. At present, there are only two projects along 18/151 in the near future. The first is a pavement rehabilitation project between Town Hall Road and Fitchrona Rd. in 2023 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151/default.aspx). The second is converting the 18/151 intersection at CTH F into a J-Turn intersection in Blue Mounds (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx). There will be an intersection improvement project along US 151 at CTH C in Trenton (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-cintersection/default.aspx) although I doubt it will be an upgrade into an interchange or a grade-separation. There is also a proposal to convert the US 151 intersection at CTH DE/Jackson Rd. into either a J-Turn intersection, or an offset T intersection (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-intersection/default.aspx). Construction will happen in 2025.

I would've thought by now there would be a large scale conversion of the remaining expressway sections to freeway on US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac, a la US 41 in the 90s. Arguably, that segment is the only one of the non-Interstate backbone routes that should be full freeway. Even the lower traffic count segment between Waupun and Fond du Lac could use it to discourage the use of WIS 26.


I don't think people don't use US-151 because it isn't a full freeway.  Even if you converted it to one, increasing the speed limit by 5 mph and putting in free flow ramps at I-41 isn't going to change that.


People are going to keep using 26 because it's percieved to be shorter. Distance-wise it is, but I've found that time-wise, it's about the same within a few minutes to take 151 to I-41 to Oshkosh. 26 is two lanes with occasional passing lanes, but Rosendale is a big time slow down and can be a bottleneck on busy traffic days. 151 from Waupun to Fond du Lac is mostly free and clear and much more relaxing to drive, so most times when I head that way that is the way I go.

Ditto.  This is part of the reason I think WIDOT should do more to discourage people from taking WI-26.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 17, 2022, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2022, 09:06:15 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2022, 07:10:56 PM
US 18/151 is planned to eventually become a freeway between Dodgeville and Verona (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx), ditto with US 151 between Columbus and Waupun (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/151/default.aspx). However, the upgrades will come gradually. At present, there are only two projects along 18/151 in the near future. The first is a pavement rehabilitation project between Town Hall Road and Fitchrona Rd. in 2023 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151/default.aspx). The second is converting the 18/151 intersection at CTH F into a J-Turn intersection in Blue Mounds (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx). There will be an intersection improvement project along US 151 at CTH C in Trenton (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-cintersection/default.aspx) although I doubt it will be an upgrade into an interchange or a grade-separation. There is also a proposal to convert the US 151 intersection at CTH DE/Jackson Rd. into either a J-Turn intersection, or an offset T intersection (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-intersection/default.aspx). Construction will happen in 2025.

I would've thought by now there would be a large scale conversion of the remaining expressway sections to freeway on US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac, a la US 41 in the 90s. Arguably, that segment is the only one of the non-Interstate backbone routes that should be full freeway. Even the lower traffic count segment between Waupun and Fond du Lac could use it to discourage the use of WIS 26.


I don't think people don't use US-151 because it isn't a full freeway.  Even if you converted it to one, increasing the speed limit by 5 mph and putting in free flow ramps at I-41 isn't going to change that.

60 mph?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2022, 04:58:43 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 17, 2022, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2022, 09:06:15 AM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2022, 07:10:56 PM
US 18/151 is planned to eventually become a freeway between Dodgeville and Verona (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/default.aspx), ditto with US 151 between Columbus and Waupun (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/151/default.aspx). However, the upgrades will come gradually. At present, there are only two projects along 18/151 in the near future. The first is a pavement rehabilitation project between Town Hall Road and Fitchrona Rd. in 2023 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151/default.aspx). The second is converting the 18/151 intersection at CTH F into a J-Turn intersection in Blue Mounds (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx). There will be an intersection improvement project along US 151 at CTH C in Trenton (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-cintersection/default.aspx) although I doubt it will be an upgrade into an interchange or a grade-separation. There is also a proposal to convert the US 151 intersection at CTH DE/Jackson Rd. into either a J-Turn intersection, or an offset T intersection (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-intersection/default.aspx). Construction will happen in 2025.

I would've thought by now there would be a large scale conversion of the remaining expressway sections to freeway on US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac, a la US 41 in the 90s. Arguably, that segment is the only one of the non-Interstate backbone routes that should be full freeway. Even the lower traffic count segment between Waupun and Fond du Lac could use it to discourage the use of WIS 26.


I don't think people don't use US-151 because it isn't a full freeway.  Even if you converted it to one, increasing the speed limit by 5 mph and putting in free flow ramps at I-41 isn't going to change that.

60 mph?


US-151 is initially 55 mph, for what...a mile south of FdL, but ramps up to 65 mph soon after.  Wisconsin would sign it as 70 mph as a full freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2022, 09:06:26 PM
The freeway conversion process for US 18/151 (Dodgeville to Verona) and US 151 (Columbus to Waupun) will likely be a gradual one. It will likely happen bit by bit over the course of 20-30 years. Same with the other freeway conversion proposals on the DOT website. Would I like these freeway conversions to happen sooner? Absolutely! However, I understand the reality that these conversions to freeway standards will require a good deal of time (and a lot of patience from us road geeks).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 18, 2022, 02:29:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2022, 07:10:56 PM
The first is a pavement rehabilitation project between Town Hall Road and Fitchrona Rd. in 2023 (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151/default.aspx).

This year, they are adding an aux lane WB between WI 69 entrance and Epic Ln exit.
https://projects.511wi.gov/us18151-verona/ (https://projects.511wi.gov/us18151-verona/)

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 18, 2022, 09:03:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2022, 09:06:26 PM
The freeway conversion process for US 18/151 (Dodgeville to Verona) and US 151 (Columbus to Waupun) will likely be a gradual one. It will likely happen bit by bit over the course of 20-30 years. Same with the other freeway conversion proposals on the DOT website. Would I like these freeway conversions to happen sooner? Absolutely! However, I understand the reality that these conversions to freeway standards will require a good deal of time (and a lot of patience from us road geeks).
Recently they have made a few upgrades like eliminating the Hwy E intersection and building a new interchange on the west side of Ridgeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 19, 2022, 08:00:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 18, 2022, 09:03:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2022, 09:06:26 PM
The freeway conversion process for US 18/151 (Dodgeville to Verona) and US 151 (Columbus to Waupun) will likely be a gradual one. It will likely happen bit by bit over the course of 20-30 years. Same with the other freeway conversion proposals on the DOT website. Would I like these freeway conversions to happen sooner? Absolutely! However, I understand the reality that these conversions to freeway standards will require a good deal of time (and a lot of patience from us road geeks).
Recently they have made a few upgrades like eliminating the Hwy E intersection and building a new interchange on the west side of Ridgeway.
RidgewaY
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 06, 2022, 12:33:41 AM
Manitowoc is going to convert 8th and 10/11th Streets to two way streets which US 10 currently runs on. Along with the change the City of Manitowoc is proposing for US 151 to end at I-43, and reroute US 10 along Maritime Dr, across 8th Street, and Quay St to access the Carferry from the north. Business 42 would also run along Maritime Dr and 8th St. Here's a link with from the City of Manitowoc.

https://www.manitowoc.org/DocumentCenter/View/31217/Two-Way-Streets-Downtown-Manitowoc-7121-REV?bidId=
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 06, 2022, 08:43:51 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 06, 2022, 12:33:41 AM
Manitowoc is going to convert 8th and 10/11th Streets to two way streets which US 10 currently runs on. Along with the change the City of Manitowoc is proposing for US 151 to end at I-43, and reroute US 10 along Maritime Dr, across 8th Street, and Quay St to access the Carferry from the north. Business 42 would also run along Maritime Dr and 8th St. Here's a link with from the City of Manitowoc.

https://www.manitowoc.org/DocumentCenter/View/31217/Two-Way-Streets-Downtown-Manitowoc-7121-REV?bidId=


I am all for removing one-way pairs like that.  And even though that proposed routing for US-10 looks strange, with the roundabout they installed a couple of years ago, it isn't a bad route.  Maritime Drive is a four lane street.

I think one issue is that WIDOT wants to keep WI-42 traffic on Waldo because people still use that highway to get up to Door County.

(I also think US-151 should replace WI-42 from Manitowoc north, but that's never going to happen.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on June 06, 2022, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 06, 2022, 08:43:51 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 06, 2022, 12:33:41 AM
Manitowoc is going to convert 8th and 10/11th Streets to two way streets which US 10 currently runs on. Along with the change the City of Manitowoc is proposing for US 151 to end at I-43, and reroute US 10 along Maritime Dr, across 8th Street, and Quay St to access the Carferry from the north. Business 42 would also run along Maritime Dr and 8th St. Here's a link with from the City of Manitowoc.

https://www.manitowoc.org/DocumentCenter/View/31217/Two-Way-Streets-Downtown-Manitowoc-7121-REV?bidId=


I am all for removing one-way pairs like that.  And even though that proposed routing for US-10 looks strange, with the roundabout they installed a couple of years ago, it isn't a bad route.  Maritime Drive is a four lane street.

I think one issue is that WIDOT wants to keep WI-42 traffic on Waldo because people still use that highway to get up to Door County.

(I also think US-151 should replace WI-42 from Manitowoc north, but that's never going to happen.)

That business that "What do you do, when you're on 42....and you come to the end of the road?" for their commercial dislikes this 151 idea
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 06, 2022, 01:44:59 PM
I'd rather US 151 be rerouted to replace WI 23 east of Fond du Lac.  Reflag the north-south part of present day US 151 to restore it as WI 55 and turn back the east-west part east of WI 55 to the various counties.  Right now, I would NOT recommend that through big-rig trucks use US 151 between Chilton and WI 55, especially westbound.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 06, 2022, 05:39:35 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 06, 2022, 01:44:59 PM
I'd rather US 151 be rerouted to replace WI 23 east of Fond du Lac.  Reflag the north-south part of present day US 151 to restore it as WI 55 and turn back the east-west part east of WI 55 to the various counties.  Right now, I would NOT recommend that through big-rig trucks use US 151 between Chilton and WI 55, especially westbound.

Mike
Agree with this, but it would be nice to have a free-flowing connection if it does happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 06, 2022, 06:16:41 PM
I believe that US 151 and STH 23 should remain on their existing alignments. STH 23 from Fond du Lac to Sheboygan has existed since the state highway system debuted in 1918 (the orignal western terminus was at STH 10, now US 51, in Packwaukee; US 151 from Fond du Lac to Manitowoc dates back to 1934, when 151 was extended, replacing STH 31 between those two cities. Therefore, mgk920's proposed reroutings are unnecessary. The only change I would make is to number all of the exits along STH 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on June 06, 2022, 07:27:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 06, 2022, 06:16:41 PM
I believe that US 151 and STH 23 should remain on their existing alignments. STH 23 from Fond du Lac to Sheboygan has existed since the state highway system debuted in 1918 (the orignal western terminus was at STH 10, now US 51, in Packwaukee; US 151 from Fond du Lac to Manitowoc dates back to 1934, when 151 was extended, replacing STH 31 between those two cities. Therefore, mgk920's proposed reroutings are unnecessary. The only change I would make is to number all of the exits along STH 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan.

Albeit could argue just have hwy 82 keep going east of I-39 instead of 23 and have hwy 23 end once it reaches I-39 east of the Dells. Not gonna happen but looking at a map without historical context having 82 continue one likely would have made more sense(albeit go way back and people would say that all should be hwy 71 lol).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 06, 2022, 08:38:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 17, 2022, 11:52:11 AM
Ditto.  This is part of the reason I think WIDOT should do more to discourage people from taking WI-26.

I vote to have the speed limit reduced to 45 and have the entire stretch patrolled by the Rosendale PD! :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2022, 02:02:10 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on June 06, 2022, 07:27:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 06, 2022, 06:16:41 PM
I believe that US 151 and STH 23 should remain on their existing alignments. STH 23 from Fond du Lac to Sheboygan has existed since the state highway system debuted in 1918 (the orignal western terminus was at STH 10, now US 51, in Packwaukee; US 151 from Fond du Lac to Manitowoc dates back to 1934, when 151 was extended, replacing STH 31 between those two cities. Therefore, mgk920's proposed reroutings are unnecessary. The only change I would make is to number all of the exits along STH 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan.

Albeit could argue just have hwy 82 keep going east of I-39 instead of 23 and have hwy 23 end once it reaches I-39 east of the Dells. Not gonna happen but looking at a map without historical context having 82 continue one likely would have made more sense(albeit go way back and people would say that all should be hwy 71 lol).

I hate the fact that 23 goes both north-south and east-west. I am all for having the east-west section become Wis 82. I wish Wisconsin would have their numbers as an odd/even orientation but no grid needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 07, 2022, 05:47:37 PM
It would be a different story if it weren't a four-lane highway across the rest of Wisconsin. But 151 is a special case where a very significant amount of the road in both states is an expressway. That being the case, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't move it to the logical expressway it could continue on, rather than keep it on the random two-lane road to satisfy some history buffs. This is also the reason why it should be moved off the surface roads of Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 08, 2022, 09:15:12 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 07, 2022, 05:47:37 PM
It would be a different story if it weren't a four-lane highway across the rest of Wisconsin. But 151 is a special case where a very significant amount of the road in both states is an expressway. That being the case, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't move it to the logical expressway it could continue on, rather than keep it on the random two-lane road to satisfy some history buffs. This is also the reason why it should be moved off the surface roads of Madison.

I think it is quite different to move US-151 onto the Beltline and I-39/90, which is effectively a bypass of Madison, then routing US-151 along WI-23.  In the first case, even with this move, US-151 isn't changing the corridor it serves - Dubuque to Dodgeville to Madison to Fond du Lac.

That's not the same as relocating a highway to serve a completely different corridor than it historically has.  And that not just me being a "history buff."  IMO it just makes sense from a navigational perspective to keep the routes where they are.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 02:23:41 PM
With the four lane open (or almost, whatever), it's now faster between FdL and Manitowoc via Sheboygan then slogging through podunk towns on 151. 

The main thing for me with 151's northern terminus is there's nothing particularly special about it going to Manitowoc instead of Sheboygan.  Those two cities are basically the same.  Oh one's got the ferry, but that's an insignificant draw for traffic.

If I need to go to Door County from Madison from now on, I'll be using the new WI 23 expressway.
Well, absent any desire to do some road geek wandering, that is.  And that usually is a part of any road trip to a corner of the state I don't go to all the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 08, 2022, 05:10:10 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 02:23:41 PM
With the four lane open (or almost, whatever), it's now faster between FdL and Manitowoc via Sheboygan then slogging through podunk towns on 151. 

The main thing for me with 151's northern terminus is there's nothing particularly special about it going to Manitowoc instead of Sheboygan.  Those two cities are basically the same.  Oh one's got the ferry, but that's an insignificant draw for traffic.

If I need to go to Door County from Madison from now on, I'll be using the new WI 23 expressway.
Well, absent any desire to do some road geek wandering, that is.  And that usually is a part of any road trip to a corner of the state I don't go to all the time.

But US-151 has gone to one place for nearly 100 years. Ditto WI-23. Why change that?  Will it really help with navigation?

And I'm pretty sure US-151 to I-41 to WI-172 to I-43 to WI-57 is going to be the fastest way to Door County regardless of WI-23.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 08, 2022, 06:35:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 08, 2022, 05:10:10 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2022, 02:23:41 PM
With the four lane open (or almost, whatever), it's now faster between FdL and Manitowoc via Sheboygan then slogging through podunk towns on 151. 

The main thing for me with 151's northern terminus is there's nothing particularly special about it going to Manitowoc instead of Sheboygan.  Those two cities are basically the same.  Oh one's got the ferry, but that's an insignificant draw for traffic.

If I need to go to Door County from Madison from now on, I'll be using the new WI 23 expressway.
Well, absent any desire to do some road geek wandering, that is.  And that usually is a part of any road trip to a corner of the state I don't go to all the time.

But US-151 has gone to one place for nearly 100 years. Ditto WI-23. Why change that?  Will it really help with navigation?

And I'm pretty sure US-151 to I-41 to WI-172 to I-43 to WI-57 is going to be the fastest way to Door County regardless of WI-23.

Just did the math on it. Madison to Stugeon Bay
151 to 23 to 43 to 42 - 201 miles, 3:35
151 to 41 to 172 to 43 to 57 - 194 mi, 3:05
151 to 26 to 41 to 172 to 43 to 57 - 185 mi, 2:59
151 to 23 to 43 to 57 - 218 mi, 3:30

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 09:43:37 AM
Milwaukee is set to lose another freeway. WisDOT wants to replace the existing I-94/US 175 interchange with a DDI
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 09, 2022, 10:09:08 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 09:43:37 AM
Milwaukee is set to lose another freeway. WisDOT wants to replace the existing I-94/WI 175 interchange with a DDI
fixed
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2022, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 09:43:37 AM
Milwaukee is set to lose another freeway. WisDOT wants to replace the existing I-94/US 175 interchange with a DDI

Yeah this was discussed earlier in this topic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2022, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 09:43:37 AM
Milwaukee is set to lose another freeway. WisDOT wants to replace the existing I-94/US 175 interchange with a DDI

Yeah this was discussed earlier in this topic.

It's time for me to rant a little about why I don't like this giant garbage can of a thread for all Wisconsin stuff.  These "notes" threads are supposed to be for little things flung around the state that would clutter the place with threads of their own.  But when EVERYTHING gets dumped here stuff gets buried too quickly in a miles deep thread no one is going to read.

We have a nice thread for Milwaukee area stuff that these kinds of discussions should be in.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0)
Yet things keep getting piled in here that should go in other, more geographic threads.  There used to be nice separate threads for Milwaukee, Madison, the I-41 corridor; even Wausau had a thread for all the stuff that was going on up there at the time.  But now all that discussion gets swallowed by this enormous thread.

I don't know why this bothers me so much but it's been digging at me for years now.  I guess I just feel like the discussions flow better when they are grouped together more logically rather than just have a giant dumpster.  Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'm just putting this out there:  Use other threads when appropriate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 09, 2022, 12:46:42 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2022, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 09:43:37 AM
Milwaukee is set to lose another freeway. WisDOT wants to replace the existing I-94/US 175 interchange with a DDI

Yeah this was discussed earlier in this topic.

It's time for me to rant a little about why I don't like this giant garbage can of a thread for all Wisconsin stuff.  These "notes" threads are supposed to be for little things flung around the state that would clutter the place with threads of their own.  But when EVERYTHING gets dumped here stuff gets buried too quickly in a miles deep thread no one is going to read.

We have a nice thread for Milwaukee area stuff that these kinds of discussions should be in.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0)
Yet things keep getting piled in here that should go in other, more geographic threads.  There used to be nice separate threads for Milwaukee, Madison, the I-41 corridor; even Wausau had a thread for all the stuff that was going on up there at the time.  But now all that discussion gets swallowed by this enormous thread.

I don't know why this bothers me so much but it's been digging at me for years now.  I guess I just feel like the discussions flow better when they are grouped together more logically rather than just have a giant dumpster.  Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'm just putting this out there:  Use other threads when appropriate.


I get it. You aren't wrong to feel that way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 09, 2022, 01:04:14 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 09, 2022, 12:46:42 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2022, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 09:43:37 AM
Milwaukee is set to lose another freeway. WisDOT wants to replace the existing I-94/US 175 interchange with a DDI

Yeah this was discussed earlier in this topic.

It's time for me to rant a little about why I don't like this giant garbage can of a thread for all Wisconsin stuff.  These "notes" threads are supposed to be for little things flung around the state that would clutter the place with threads of their own.  But when EVERYTHING gets dumped here stuff gets buried too quickly in a miles deep thread no one is going to read.

We have a nice thread for Milwaukee area stuff that these kinds of discussions should be in.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0)
Yet things keep getting piled in here that should go in other, more geographic threads.  There used to be nice separate threads for Milwaukee, Madison, the I-41 corridor; even Wausau had a thread for all the stuff that was going on up there at the time.  But now all that discussion gets swallowed by this enormous thread.

I don't know why this bothers me so much but it's been digging at me for years now.  I guess I just feel like the discussions flow better when they are grouped together more logically rather than just have a giant dumpster.  Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'm just putting this out there:  Use other threads when appropriate.


I get it. You aren't wrong to feel that way.

That freeway proposal ship sailed back in the late 1960s and very early 1970s.  Those roads and bridges are wearing out (they're over 45 years old(!) now) and it's time to rebuild them.  Do it as well as can be done for all concerned.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2022, 08:27:13 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2022, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 09:43:37 AM
Milwaukee is set to lose another freeway. WisDOT wants to replace the existing I-94/US 175 interchange with a DDI

Yeah this was discussed earlier in this topic.

It's time for me to rant a little about why I don't like this giant garbage can of a thread for all Wisconsin stuff.  These "notes" threads are supposed to be for little things flung around the state that would clutter the place with threads of their own.  But when EVERYTHING gets dumped here stuff gets buried too quickly in a miles deep thread no one is going to read.

We have a nice thread for Milwaukee area stuff that these kinds of discussions should be in.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0)
Yet things keep getting piled in here that should go in other, more geographic threads.  There used to be nice separate threads for Milwaukee, Madison, the I-41 corridor; even Wausau had a thread for all the stuff that was going on up there at the time.  But now all that discussion gets swallowed by this enormous thread.

I don't know why this bothers me so much but it's been digging at me for years now.  I guess I just feel like the discussions flow better when they are grouped together more logically rather than just have a giant dumpster.  Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'm just putting this out there:  Use other threads when appropriate.



People can start new topics if they wish.  The mods don't seem to care.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 09, 2022, 10:25:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2022, 08:27:13 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 09, 2022, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 09:43:37 AM
Milwaukee is set to lose another freeway. WisDOT wants to replace the existing I-94/US 175 interchange with a DDI

Yeah this was discussed earlier in this topic.

It's time for me to rant a little about why I don't like this giant garbage can of a thread for all Wisconsin stuff.  These "notes" threads are supposed to be for little things flung around the state that would clutter the place with threads of their own.  But when EVERYTHING gets dumped here stuff gets buried too quickly in a miles deep thread no one is going to read.

We have a nice thread for Milwaukee area stuff that these kinds of discussions should be in.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4191.0)
Yet things keep getting piled in here that should go in other, more geographic threads.  There used to be nice separate threads for Milwaukee, Madison, the I-41 corridor; even Wausau had a thread for all the stuff that was going on up there at the time.  But now all that discussion gets swallowed by this enormous thread.

I don't know why this bothers me so much but it's been digging at me for years now.  I guess I just feel like the discussions flow better when they are grouped together more logically rather than just have a giant dumpster.  Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'm just putting this out there:  Use other threads when appropriate.



People can start new topics if they wish.  The mods don't seem to care.

And neither do I, 'OP' in this thread.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on July 20, 2022, 09:25:43 AM
Here are some stories for the upcoming I-41 expansion from Appleton to De Pere beginning in 2024

https://www.wbay.com/2021/07/27/virtual-public-hearing-being-held-i-41-expansion-appleton-de-pere/

https://i41project.wisconsindot.gov/

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 20, 2022, 09:50:32 AM
^^The first link was from last year.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on July 20, 2022, 09:58:49 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 20, 2022, 09:50:32 AM
^^The first link was from last year.

<-----  clearly not enough coffee this morning
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes Bridge over I-41 (Kaukauna-Little Chute border) Hit (again)
Post by: mgk920 on August 07, 2022, 12:06:44 PM
https://fox11online.com/news/local/overpass-to-remain-closed-indefinitely-dump-truck-box-strikes-overpass-bridge-outagamie-county-kaukauna-rosehill-road-fox-valley-technical-college-wisconsin-department-of-transportation-rob-behnke-rod-hamilton-accident-traffic-crash

Oops....

This has not been unusual on that section of I-41.  In that news clip, you can notice that from the appearance of the bridge's support piers, its height has been increased once before (after being hit).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 07, 2022, 12:43:11 PM
^^ In 1993.

It is usually the CTH J bridge that gets hit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2022, 12:36:12 PM
What is the vertical clearance of the CTH-CC/Rose Hill Rd. overpass? An Interstate-Standard bridge has to be at least 16 feet in vertical clearance. Maybe they need to start manufacturing shorter dump trucks (or shorter trucks in general).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 02:44:57 PM
It would be nice if they could just jump straight to building the new bridge that is gonna go there once the six laning project starts.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 08, 2022, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 02:44:57 PM
It would be nice if they could just jump straight to building the new bridge that is gonna go there once the six laning project starts.

This may actually reduce the cost since the trucking company's insurance has to pay to fix it. A truck hitting the Wis 22 bridge over Wis 16 saved that interchange since insurance paid for repairs and wouldn't cover conversion to an intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on August 08, 2022, 03:59:24 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 08, 2022, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 02:44:57 PM
It would be nice if they could just jump straight to building the new bridge that is gonna go there once the six laning project starts.

This may actually reduce the cost since the trucking company's insurance has to pay to fix it. A truck hitting the Wis 22 bridge over Wis 16 saved that interchange since insurance paid for repairs and wouldn't cover conversion to an intersection.

Intersection? This is Wisconsin we're discussing. They'd undoubtedly have converted it to a beautifully landscaped roundabout.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 04:16:58 PM
Quote from: skluth on August 08, 2022, 03:59:24 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 08, 2022, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 02:44:57 PM
It would be nice if they could just jump straight to building the new bridge that is gonna go there once the six laning project starts.

This may actually reduce the cost since the trucking company's insurance has to pay to fix it. A truck hitting the Wis 22 bridge over Wis 16 saved that interchange since insurance paid for repairs and wouldn't cover conversion to an intersection.

Intersection? This is Wisconsin we're discussing. They'd undoubtedly have converted it to a beautifully landscaped roundabout.

With a Kwik Trip and a Culvers in two of the quadrants. :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 08, 2022, 04:27:06 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 04:16:58 PM
Quote from: skluth on August 08, 2022, 03:59:24 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 08, 2022, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 02:44:57 PM
It would be nice if they could just jump straight to building the new bridge that is gonna go there once the six laning project starts.

This may actually reduce the cost since the trucking company's insurance has to pay to fix it. A truck hitting the Wis 22 bridge over Wis 16 saved that interchange since insurance paid for repairs and wouldn't cover conversion to an intersection.

Intersection? This is Wisconsin we're discussing. They'd undoubtedly have converted it to a beautifully landscaped roundabout.

With a Kwik Trip and a Culvers in two of the quadrants. :-D

From your lips to God's ears...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 09, 2022, 01:28:09 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 02:44:57 PM
It would be nice if they could just jump straight to building the new bridge that is gonna go there once the six laning project starts.

And IIRC, that bridge WAS in its final location and configuration for the pending I-41 upgrade had it not been hit.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on August 10, 2022, 12:43:21 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 04:16:58 PM
Quote from: skluth on August 08, 2022, 03:59:24 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 08, 2022, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 02:44:57 PM
It would be nice if they could just jump straight to building the new bridge that is gonna go there once the six laning project starts.

This may actually reduce the cost since the trucking company's insurance has to pay to fix it. A truck hitting the Wis 22 bridge over Wis 16 saved that interchange since insurance paid for repairs and wouldn't cover conversion to an intersection.

Intersection? This is Wisconsin we're discussing. They'd undoubtedly have converted it to a beautifully landscaped roundabout.

With a Kwik Trip and a Culvers in two of the quadrants. :-D

The other two would be a Fleet Farm and a Farm & Fleet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on August 10, 2022, 11:03:27 AM
Quote from: mrose on August 10, 2022, 12:43:21 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 04:16:58 PM
Quote from: skluth on August 08, 2022, 03:59:24 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 08, 2022, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 08, 2022, 02:44:57 PM
It would be nice if they could just jump straight to building the new bridge that is gonna go there once the six laning project starts.

This may actually reduce the cost since the trucking company's insurance has to pay to fix it. A truck hitting the Wis 22 bridge over Wis 16 saved that interchange since insurance paid for repairs and wouldn't cover conversion to an intersection.

Intersection? This is Wisconsin we're discussing. They'd undoubtedly have converted it to a beautifully landscaped roundabout.

With a Kwik Trip and a Culvers in two of the quadrants. :-D

The other two would be a Fleet Farm and a Farm & Fleet.

And a random cheese or porn shop.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2022, 11:54:25 AM
My mother and late stepfather always called Farm & Fleet "Farm & Barn".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:05:25 PM
If you have an exit with a Kwik Trip, a Culvers and a Fleet Farm, you win the prize for Most "Wisconsin" Exit.

(Sorry Stevens Point; close but no cigar.  That Fleet Farm is too far off the interstate to count. :P )
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 10, 2022, 12:09:03 PM
Well, Fleet-Farm recently moved a major base of their operations from somewhere in Nordern Minnesoda to a building on the south side of the City of Appleton, WI.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on August 10, 2022, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:05:25 PM
If you have an exit with a Kwik Trip, a Culvers and a Fleet Farm, you win the prize for Most "Wisconsin" Exit.

(Sorry Stevens Point; close but no cigar.  That Fleet Farm is too far off the interstate to count. :P )

Don't forget about Menards!  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 10, 2022, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:05:25 PM
If you have an exit with a Kwik Trip, a Culvers and a Fleet Farm, you win the prize for Most "Wisconsin" Exit.

(Sorry Stevens Point; close but no cigar.  That Fleet Farm is too far off the interstate to count. :P )

Don't forget about Menards!  :-D

No, fuck Menards and their goddamn mail-in rebates.  Just give people the damn sale price at checkout, you bastards.  Also, quit turning your home improvement store into a grocery store.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on August 10, 2022, 12:24:42 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 10, 2022, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:05:25 PM
If you have an exit with a Kwik Trip, a Culvers and a Fleet Farm, you win the prize for Most "Wisconsin" Exit.

(Sorry Stevens Point; close but no cigar.  That Fleet Farm is too far off the interstate to count. :P )

Don't forget about Menards!  :-D

No, fuck Menards and their goddamn mail-in rebates.  Just give people the damn sale price at checkout, you bastards.  Also, quit turning your home improvement store into a grocery store.
Menard's USED to be a Wisconsin thing. They are too national now. Culver's is creeping into that territory now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 10, 2022, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 10, 2022, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:05:25 PM
If you have an exit with a Kwik Trip, a Culvers and a Fleet Farm, you win the prize for Most "Wisconsin" Exit.

(Sorry Stevens Point; close but no cigar.  That Fleet Farm is too far off the interstate to count. :P )

Don't forget about Menards!  :-D

No, fuck Menards and their goddamn mail-in rebates.  Just give people the damn sale price at checkout, you bastards.  Also, quit turning your home improvement store into a grocery store.


Hey at least they now have one universal rebate form. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on August 10, 2022, 06:28:06 PM
Woodmans and Festival Foods should be on the Wisconsin list.  Many Festival Foods seem to like to pair themselves claim to Menards
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 10, 2022, 06:52:46 PM
The Kwik Trip has to prominently be selling New Glarus beer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 10, 2022, 07:45:38 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 10, 2022, 06:28:06 PM
Woodmans and Festival Foods should be on the Wisconsin list.  Many Festival Foods seem to like to pair themselves claim to Menards

I think that's just because the developer works with both companies. There isn't a formal relationship between the companies.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 11, 2022, 09:51:38 AM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 10, 2022, 06:28:06 PM
Woodmans and Festival Foods should be on the Wisconsin list.  Many Festival Foods seem to like to pair themselves claim to Menards

Woodman's is also turning into a "not-Wisconsin" thing by creeping into Illinois.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 11, 2022, 01:01:50 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 10, 2022, 06:28:06 PM
Woodmans and Festival Foods should be on the Wisconsin list.  Many Festival Foods seem to like to pair themselves claim to Menards

None of the Festvals here in the Appleton, WI area are located anywhere close to Menards stores.  They do appear to have joint marketing for fuel with the Kwik Trips in the area, though.

:-P

At least the west Appleton Fleet-Farm is still pump then pay for cash fuel.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Papa Emeritus on August 11, 2022, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 10, 2022, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:05:25 PM
If you have an exit with a Kwik Trip, a Culvers and a Fleet Farm, you win the prize for Most "Wisconsin" Exit.

(Sorry Stevens Point; close but no cigar.  That Fleet Farm is too far off the interstate to count. :P )

Don't forget about Menards!  :-D

No, fuck Menards and their goddamn mail-in rebates.  Just give people the damn sale price at checkout, you bastards.  Also, quit turning your home improvement store into a grocery store.

Menards is even selling tampons at some of their stores now. Although I understand that margins on Mountain Dew, Jack Links, and Tampax are probably higher than their margins on plywood, their newer, larger stores take a lot longer to navigate than their older stores that only sold home improvement products did. If I want to go to a giant home improvement store where I have to walk a long way to get what I need, I'll go to Home Depot.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 11, 2022, 05:37:18 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 11, 2022, 01:01:50 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 10, 2022, 06:28:06 PM
Woodmans and Festival Foods should be on the Wisconsin list.  Many Festival Foods seem to like to pair themselves claim to Menards

None of the Festvals here in the Appleton, WI area are located anywhere close to Menards stores.  They do appear to have joint marketing for fuel with the Kwik Trips in the area, though.

:-P

:nod:

Mike
To counteract the Pick n Save - BP gas deal?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 11, 2022, 08:27:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:05:25 PM
If you have an exit with a Kwik Trip, a Culvers and a Fleet Farm, you win the prize for Most "Wisconsin" Exit.

(Sorry Stevens Point; close but no cigar.  That Fleet Farm is too far off the interstate to count. :P )
US-10 through there is such a mess. It's the stroad-iest of all the stroads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 12, 2022, 11:56:30 AM
Janesville should qualify, with the following within a 1 mile radius of the Hwy 26 and US-14 exits:
- Menards
- Festival Foods
- Woodman's
- Blain's Farm & Fleet (Get outta here w/ that Fleet Farm nonsense! It's Blain's home turf here)
- Culver's (plus at the exits immediately before and after)
- TWO Kwik Trips (plus a rapidly increasing number elsewhere in town)
- A roundabout in front of Menard's

Of course, since it's "Chainsville", we also have about every chain restaurant known to mankind here, and epic Stroadiness.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 12, 2022, 12:41:12 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 11, 2022, 08:27:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 10, 2022, 12:05:25 PM
If you have an exit with a Kwik Trip, a Culvers and a Fleet Farm, you win the prize for Most "Wisconsin" Exit.

(Sorry Stevens Point; close but no cigar.  That Fleet Farm is too far off the interstate to count. :P )
US-10 through there is such a mess. It's the stroad-iest of all the stroads.

I can see WisDOT turning US 10 through there, including its interchange with I-39, over to TXDOT for needed upgrades, with the NIMBYs having gotten through to deep six WisDOT's planned US 10 bypass.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 12, 2022, 11:56:30 AM
Janesville should qualify, with the following within a 1 mile radius of the Hwy 26 and US-14 exits:
- Menards
- Festival Foods
- Woodman's
- Blain's Farm & Fleet (Get outta here w/ that Fleet Farm nonsense! It's Blain's home turf here)
- Culver's (plus at the exits immediately before and after)
- TWO Kwik Trips (plus a rapidly increasing number elsewhere in town)
- A roundabout in front of Menard's

Of course, since it's "Chainsville", we also have about every chain restaurant known to mankind here, and epic Stroadiness.
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 12, 2022, 09:30:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D

The nearest Waffle House to me is either in the NativeAmericanapolis area or the Illinois suburbs of Saint Louis, MO.

In Wisconsin it is George Webb!

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on August 12, 2022, 10:36:44 PM
Yeah that sounds like the Janesville I remember.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D

I would not be against having a Waffle House north of St Louis.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 14, 2022, 12:59:18 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D

I would not be against having a Waffle House north of St Louis.

I read a few years ago that there is some sort of trademark rights issue WRT them entering the Chicagoland market (where I feel that they'd do very well).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on August 16, 2022, 04:36:11 PM
Probably not worth its own thread. Link in headline.
Quote
Green Bay seeking public feedback on proposed Larsen Road Bridge project (https://fox11online.com/news/local/green-bay-seeking-public-feedback-on-proposed-larsen-road-bridge-project-construction-beaver-dam-creek-taylor-street-lambeau-street-beaver-dam-creek-greenway-ayres-associates-ryan-schaitel)

GREEN BAY (WLUK) -- The city of Green Bay is seeking feedback from community members about the proposed replacement of the Larsen Road Bridge over Beaver Dam Creek.

Construction is scheduled for the summer of 2024 and is expected to last two to three months.

During construction, Larsen Road between Taylor Street and Lambeau Street will be closed. Construction is expected to impact the Beaver Dam Creek Greenway as well.

The city will not be hosting a public meeting about the project. Instead, officials are encouraging community members to review the project description and displays online (https://greenbaywi.gov/civicalerts.aspx?AID=452).

Comments and questions can be submitted to Ryan Schaitel at Ayres Associates, Inc. up until Aug. 31 by calling (920) 498-1200 or emailing SchaitelR@AyresAssociates.com.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 16, 2022, 04:53:29 PM
^^ Plenty of bridges over Beaver Dam Creek were built around the same time (Late 60s?) and are currently being replaced or in bad condition.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2022, 12:29:48 PM
The Interstate 41 expansion project recently had a public information meeting: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wisconsin-dot-holds-public-meetings-on-i-41-expansion/ar-AA10K9gi?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8cdd814a584e425383b93e882c9fb800. And, of course, the DOT has a website that details anything one would want to know about the project: https://i41project.wisconsindot.gov/.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 17, 2022, 01:28:40 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 12, 2022, 09:30:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D

The nearest Waffle House to me is either in the NativeAmericanapolis area or the Illinois suburbs of Saint Louis, MO.

In Wisconsin it is George Webb!

https://www.theonion.com/mason-dixon-line-renamed-ihop-waffle-house-line-1819587859 (https://www.theonion.com/mason-dixon-line-renamed-ihop-waffle-house-line-1819587859)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 17, 2022, 11:26:40 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2022, 12:29:48 PM
The Interstate 41 expansion project recently had a public information meeting: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wisconsin-dot-holds-public-meetings-on-i-41-expansion/ar-AA10K9gi?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8cdd814a584e425383b93e882c9fb800. And, of course, the DOT has a website that details anything one would want to know about the project: https://i41project.wisconsindot.gov/.

25 years ago, there were still driveways and direct side-road access on much of that stretch of US-41. Packers fans will welcome the extra lanes of traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 18, 2022, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 17, 2022, 11:26:40 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2022, 12:29:48 PM
The Interstate 41 expansion project recently had a public information meeting: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wisconsin-dot-holds-public-meetings-on-i-41-expansion/ar-AA10K9gi?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8cdd814a584e425383b93e882c9fb800. And, of course, the DOT has a website that details anything one would want to know about the project: https://i41project.wisconsindot.gov/.

25 years ago, there were still driveways and direct side-road access on much of that stretch of US-41. Packers fans will welcome the extra lanes of traffic.

I-41's west frontage road a bit south of Scheuring Rd is the southbound side of the original four lane US 41 highway, and was replaced with a new southbound roadway is the median in about Y2K.  Driveways, sideroads and all, it was carrying a good percentage the traffic load of the current southbound side at that time.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 19, 2022, 02:51:16 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 18, 2022, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 17, 2022, 11:26:40 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2022, 12:29:48 PM
The Interstate 41 expansion project recently had a public information meeting: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wisconsin-dot-holds-public-meetings-on-i-41-expansion/ar-AA10K9gi?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8cdd814a584e425383b93e882c9fb800. And, of course, the DOT has a website that details anything one would want to know about the project: https://i41project.wisconsindot.gov/.

25 years ago, there were still driveways and direct side-road access on much of that stretch of US-41. Packers fans will welcome the extra lanes of traffic.

I-41's west frontage road a bit south of Scheuring Rd is the southbound side of the original four lane US 41 highway, and was replaced with a new southbound roadway is the median in about Y2K.  Driveways, sideroads and all, it was carrying a good percentage the traffic load of the current southbound side at that time.

Mike

The evidence is south of De Pere where the west frontage road has a wider paved southbound shoulder from when it was US 41 and the pork chop at Birchwood Rd which looks to have been eliminated with recent road work.


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on August 19, 2022, 05:46:26 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 12, 2022, 09:30:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D

The nearest Waffle House to me is either in the NativeAmericanapolis area or the Illinois suburbs of Saint Louis, MO.

In Wisconsin it is George Webb!

Mike
There are some in the Indianapolis area. I am pretty sure that is farther north than St Louis.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 19, 2022, 06:15:18 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 19, 2022, 05:46:26 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 12, 2022, 09:30:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D

The nearest Waffle House to me is either in the NativeAmericanapolis area or the Illinois suburbs of Saint Louis, MO.

In Wisconsin it is George Webb!

Mike
There are some in the Indianapolis area. I am pretty sure that is farther north than St Louis.

Further north than either is Austinburg, Ohio's location.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 20, 2022, 12:22:24 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 19, 2022, 06:15:18 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 19, 2022, 05:46:26 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 12, 2022, 09:30:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D

The nearest Waffle House to me is either in the NativeAmericanapolis area or the Illinois suburbs of Saint Louis, MO.

In Wisconsin it is George Webb!

Mike
There are some in the Indianapolis area. I am pretty sure that is farther north than St Louis.

Further north than either is Austinburg, Ohio's location.
But what outlet closest to NE Wisconsin?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on August 22, 2022, 11:44:32 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 20, 2022, 12:22:24 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 19, 2022, 06:15:18 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 19, 2022, 05:46:26 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 12, 2022, 09:30:51 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 12, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Throw a whitie's and a waffle house in.

A Waffle House in Wisconsin?  That'll be the day! :-D

The nearest Waffle House to me is either in the NativeAmericanapolis area or the Illinois suburbs of Saint Louis, MO.

In Wisconsin it is George Webb!

Mike
There are some in the Indianapolis area. I am pretty sure that is farther north than St Louis.

Further north than either is Austinburg, Ohio's location.
But what outlet closest to NE Wisconsin?

Mike
Daleville IN just outside Indianapolis.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 22, 2022, 06:05:35 PM
Google streetview taked a pic  of the upcoming Highland Road interchange on I-43.
https://goo.gl/maps/g4mmS5TNh2jX1kui6
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2022, 08:54:44 PM
Nice!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?

Wisconsin of all places has a new freeway?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DJ Particle on August 30, 2022, 11:40:50 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?

Wisconsin of all places has a new freeway?

The way things are going, WI-29 will probably be an I-x41 or I-x94 soon enough.  🤣
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 31, 2022, 07:20:46 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?

Is there a new exit number for this interchange?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2022, 08:54:47 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:51 PM
Wisconsin of all places has a new freeway?

Yeah this has been a long time in the making.  Upgrading the expressway further west. I am sure it will continue over time, but I doubt it will ever be a full freeway to Wausau much less Chippewa Falls.


Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?

I am assuming so.  That is usually the SOP. 


Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 31, 2022, 07:20:46 AM
Is there a new exit number for this interchange?

I will be up there next weekend and can check it out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 31, 2022, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 30, 2022, 11:40:50 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?

Wisconsin of all places has a new freeway?

The way things are going, WI-29 will probably be an I-x41 or I-x94 soon enough.  🤣

'Sconnie doesn't mess around with 3di's.  They haven't tried to add any since 1968.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 31, 2022, 01:29:17 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 31, 2022, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 30, 2022, 11:40:50 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?

Wisconsin of all places has a new freeway?

The way things are going, WI-29 will probably be an I-x41 or I-x94 soon enough.  🤣

'Sconnie doesn't mess around with 3di's.  They haven't tried to add any since 1968.

Yea, it's still 'WI 441'.  :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on August 31, 2022, 01:56:39 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 31, 2022, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 30, 2022, 11:40:50 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?

Wisconsin of all places has a new freeway?

The way things are going, WI-29 will probably be an I-x41 or I-x94 soon enough.  🤣

'Sconnie doesn't mess around with 3di's.  They haven't tried to add any since 1968.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they *won't* if there's enough public demand for one. Two 3DI options were considered for I-41.

But I don't see there being very much public demand unless the freeway reaches Wausau at some point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2022, 02:10:15 PM
Hypothetically, they could just make it an extension of I-43. It would be weird, but entirely doable.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 31, 2022, 03:28:16 PM
Google Maps has partially updated this location: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5758865,-88.1693039,823m/data=!3m1!1e3. As for making the STH 29 corridor an Interstate, I say "fugetaboutit"!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 31, 2022, 03:33:10 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:51 PM
Wisconsin of all places has a new freeway?

What's so surprising about this? They've only been building freeways en masse for the last 20+ years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on August 31, 2022, 03:48:22 PM
I found it interesting that WI-29 between Green Bay and Wausau actually averages significantly less traffic than US-10 between Appleton and Stevens Point. Obviously WI-29 is a more Interstate-worthy corridor because of its connections to Eau Claire and MSP (though neither of them will be Interstates anytime soon, if ever).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2022, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 31, 2022, 03:48:22 PM
I found it interesting that WI-29 between Green Bay and Wausau actually averages significantly less traffic than US-10 between Appleton and Stevens Point. Obviously WI-29 is a more Interstate-worthy corridor because of its connections to Eau Claire and MSP (though neither of them will be Interstates anytime soon, if ever).


A lot of people from the Milwaukee area use US-41, US-45, US-10 to get to I-39.  It's about 25 miles shorter than I-94 to I-39 from downtown.  Furthermore, if you are going north from the Fox Valley, you are taking that route as well. 

About the only traffic on WI-29, outside of local traffic, is Green Bay to Wausau and beyond...and that's just not a lot.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 31, 2022, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?
You mean currently 65.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 31, 2022, 11:50:01 PM
It only makes sense to re-designate Hwy 29 as an Interstate if the entire expressway between I-94 and I-41 is upgraded to freeway. There's not a compelling safety reason to do so right now. Give it 20-30 years, and traffic levels may build up high enough to justify a freeway conversion - and at that point it may be worth discussing an Interstate designation. But right now? There's no compelling need.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 01, 2022, 06:59:56 AM
Quote from: Big John on August 31, 2022, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?
You mean currently 65.

I'm 99% sure that it's 70 mph between I-41 and FF.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 01, 2022, 08:26:34 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5558841,-88.1196411,3a,39.6y,124.48h,91.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEsoILNErHXPV0YLY73zjMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5644796,-88.1397251,3a,20.6y,300.19h,90.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNMslvKPWXnh-MQdJDpt0rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It's 65 west of FF and 70 east of FF.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on September 01, 2022, 08:58:40 AM
Over on the west end, the speed limit is 65 for the first few eastbound miles off of I-94, then it increases to 70mph about halfway to Chippewa Falls as it enters a stretch where there's no cross-traffic intersections. 

On another topic, what would you all think if Wisconsin added some colors to the state highway shields on 4-lane expressways within the state, just to differentiate them a bit from standard 2-lane highways?   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on September 01, 2022, 09:56:07 AM
Quote from: invincor on September 01, 2022, 08:58:40 AM
Over on the west end, the speed limit is 65 for the first few eastbound miles off of I-94, then it increases to 70mph about halfway to Chippewa Falls as it enters a stretch where there's no cross-traffic intersections. 

On another topic, what would you all think if Wisconsin added some colors to the state highway shields on 4-lane expressways within the state, just to differentiate them a bit from standard 2-lane highways?
I've wondered this myself, like I know the FHWA owns the trademark to the interstate shield, but if WisDOT decided to mark WIS 29 with a red, white, and blue shield, would they get sued for it? Texas has a separate shield for state toll roads, for example, even though it's not even close to resembling an Interstate shield. I think WisDOT would have a pretty compelling case, given that if any other state tried to retrofit their shields with red, white, and blue, it would look nothing like an Interstate shield, and the WIS highway shield was designed decades before the Interstate shield was.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 01, 2022, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 31, 2022, 11:50:01 PM
It only makes sense to re-designate Hwy 29 as an Interstate if the entire expressway between I-94 and I-41 is upgraded to freeway. There's not a compelling safety reason to do so right now. Give it 20-30 years, and traffic levels may build up high enough to justify a freeway conversion - and at that point it may be worth discussing an Interstate designation. But right now? There's no compelling need.


20-30 years?  I am saying at least 50.

WIDOT has a lot of work in front of it to upgrade its current interstate corridors.  Wausau and Green Bay are growing, but not to the extent that they are going to need a full e/w interstate connection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 01, 2022, 01:38:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 01, 2022, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 31, 2022, 11:50:01 PM
It only makes sense to re-designate Hwy 29 as an Interstate if the entire expressway between I-94 and I-41 is upgraded to freeway. There's not a compelling safety reason to do so right now. Give it 20-30 years, and traffic levels may build up high enough to justify a freeway conversion - and at that point it may be worth discussing an Interstate designation. But right now? There's no compelling need.


20-30 years?  I am saying at least 50.

WIDOT has a lot of work in front of it to upgrade its current interstate corridors.  Wausau and Green Bay are growing, but not to the extent that they are going to need a full e/w interstate connection.

I'm thinking that US 10 east of I-39 will need work BIG TIME before then, too.  With the NIMBYs having gotten through to the previous effort a few years ago. I can envision the current routing in the city of Stevens Point getting the 'TXDOT' treatment in the next few decades.  The rest of US 10 eastward to I-41 won't be all that difficult to properly upgrade.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2022, 06:55:35 PM
There are plenty of existing four-lane highways across the state that are planned to eventually be converted to freeway standards, but the process will undoubtably take decades to plan, fund, design, and construct them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 02, 2022, 09:20:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2022, 06:55:35 PM
There are plenty of existing four-lane highways across the state that are planned to eventually be converted to freeway standards, but the process will undoubtably take decades to plan, fund, design, and construct them.
Hwy 18/151 from Verona to Dodgeville was one of them like 20 years ago and still to this day next to nothing has been done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 02, 2022, 09:55:24 PM
Quote from: invincor on September 01, 2022, 08:58:40 AM
Over on the west end, the speed limit is 65 for the first few eastbound miles off of I-94, then it increases to 70mph about halfway to Chippewa Falls as it enters a stretch where there's no cross-traffic intersections. 

On another topic, what would you all think if Wisconsin added some colors to the state highway shields on 4-lane expressways within the state, just to differentiate them a bit from standard 2-lane highways?
Not sure how that would work. What routes would get this different shield? What's the distance cutoff? How is "expressway"  defined?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 02, 2022, 10:16:49 PM
The last effort WISDOT made to upgrade an expressway to freeway is US 45 (Old 110) between Winchester and Winneconne.

There have been plenty of new interchanges that were/are being built such as US 53/County V by Haugen, US 53/63 north by Trego, US 18/151 and County HHH by Ridgeway, and the Wis 29 County FF and County VV interchanges to name a few.

The biggest priority for a new interchange should be US 12/County K at the end of The Beltline by Middleton. There are a lot of rush hour backups on US 12 at that intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on September 03, 2022, 12:33:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 02, 2022, 09:20:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2022, 06:55:35 PM
There are plenty of existing four-lane highways across the state that are planned to eventually be converted to freeway standards, but the process will undoubtably take decades to plan, fund, design, and construct them.
Hwy 18/151 from Verona to Dodgeville was wone of them like 20 years ago and still to this day next to nothing has been done.

Other than the obvious need for a non-stop driving experience between Williamsburg Way and getting on/off the Beltline, what absolutely needs to be done. I believe they're currently doing some work around Blue Mounds. All of 2B has been completed in the proposals in the last freeway conversion study I could find (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/map-sect2altb.pdf); I don't know the timeline for completing the rest. I did drive from Madison to Dubuque in 2016 and thought the expressway was more than adequate once beyond Verona. I saw no reason to rush the freeway conversion beyond what the budget could accommodate, though I would start from Verona and put each segment on a three-year build program (12 years construction in total for all remaining build segments) if I were in charge just to get it done. I'm just not sure it all needs to be done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 03, 2022, 08:04:04 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 03, 2022, 12:33:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 02, 2022, 09:20:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2022, 06:55:35 PM
There are plenty of existing four-lane highways across the state that are planned to eventually be converted to freeway standards, but the process will undoubtably take decades to plan, fund, design, and construct them.
Hwy 18/151 from Verona to Dodgeville was wone of them like 20 years ago and still to this day next to nothing has been done.

Other than the obvious need for a non-stop driving experience between Williamsburg Way and getting on/off the Beltline, what absolutely needs to be done. I believe they're currently doing some work around Blue Mounds. All of 2B has been completed in the proposals in the last freeway conversion study I could find (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/map-sect2altb.pdf); I don't know the timeline for completing the rest. I did drive from Madison to Dubuque in 2016 and thought the expressway was more than adequate once beyond Verona. I saw no reason to rush the freeway conversion beyond what the budget could accommodate, though I would start from Verona and put each segment on a three-year build program (12 years construction in total for all remaining build segments) if I were in charge just to get it done. I'm just not sure it all needs to be done.
It should be converted to a freeway out to Mt Horeb as that city continues to grow. I would also like to see an interchange built at Hwy F at Blue Mounds. After that any further upgrades can wait. I think an interchange at Blue Mounds was always needed more than the one at Ridgeway which did get built.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 04, 2022, 02:19:16 AM
Noticed on Friday that Madison has done away with the 45 MPH section of John Nolen Drive on the isthmus and lowered it to 35 in line with the remainder of the route and the section of US 151 it ties into at the north end.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 04, 2022, 01:19:05 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 04, 2022, 02:19:16 AM
Noticed on Friday that Madison has done away with the 45 MPH section of John Nolen Drive on the isthmus and lowered it to 35 in line with the remainder of the route and the section of US 151 it ties into at the north end.
Pity. That was the quickest way Downtown from the Beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 04, 2022, 08:08:10 PM
Probably still is. I doubt the traffic has actually slowed that much.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 05, 2022, 11:38:09 AM
Remember that despite what the signs say, traffic will usually (always?) move that the speeds at which the drivers collectively feel the most comfortable when the cops are away.  That is, unless the City of Madison P.D. wants to gain a reputation of enforcing 'tollgate' speed traps (complete with all of the 'unPC' trappings that go along with it).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on September 06, 2022, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2022, 02:10:15 PM
Hypothetically, they could just make it an extension of I-43. It would be weird, but entirely doable.

If WI-29 was an interstate between Green Bay and Wausau I'd guess(won't happen) my guess the potential route changed are:
#1- Be a 3di from either I-41 or I-39(like I-139)
#2- If was able to upgrade 29 to interstate standards to I-94 being labeled I-96

I'd be more for extending I-39 east towards Green Bay(this is assuming I-39 doesn't extend northward) to connect with I-41 in Green Bay.  Still would be odd, but not as odd as if I-43 was extended that distance.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 06, 2022, 11:24:10 AM
I would make it I-96.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 06, 2022, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 04, 2022, 02:19:16 AM
Noticed on Friday that Madison has done away with the 45 MPH section of John Nolen Drive on the isthmus and lowered it to 35 in line with the remainder of the route and the section of US 151 it ties into at the north end.

I haven't noticed a difference in how folks drive that stretch.  Between driving it occasionally and riding the parallel bike path, everything seems to be moving the same.  Similar non-effect when they dropped Park Street from 30 to 25.
Madison's a big enough city to where the cops have better things to do than tax people for going 10 over.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 06, 2022, 12:34:07 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on September 06, 2022, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2022, 02:10:15 PM
Hypothetically, they could just make it an extension of I-43. It would be weird, but entirely doable.

If WI-29 was an interstate between Green Bay and Wausau I'd guess(won't happen) my guess the potential route changed are:
#1- Be a 3di from either I-41 or I-39(like I-139)
#2- If was able to upgrade 29 to interstate standards to I-94 being labeled I-96

I'd be more for extending I-39 east towards Green Bay(this is assuming I-39 doesn't extend northward) to connect with I-41 in Green Bay.  Still would be odd, but not as odd as if I-43 was extended that distance.

I-43 was *ALWAYS* planned to end at US (now 'I-') 41.  It was NEVER planned to go any farther, even with the layout of the old, original Howard Interchange (possibly) alluding to that potential.  That is what WI 29 was (and most definitely still is) for, also why the new I-41/WI 29 'Shawano' Interchange is so high powered.

Over the years, I have been seeing off and on fanciful, idle roadgeek chatter of WI 29 (along with that tiny bit of WI 32) across the state becoming something like an 'I-92'.  I find it much more plausible that it could someday become an eastward extension of 'US 212'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 06, 2022, 01:11:08 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 06, 2022, 12:34:07 PM
I find it much more plausible that it could someday become an eastward extension of 'US 212'.

Mike

MnDOT almost certainly will never get on board with this idea, especially as they had a chance to extend 212 eastward in 2018 when they decided to consolidate the current Crosstown route and TH 110 under one number, and chose to extend TH 62 eastward.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on September 06, 2022, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 06, 2022, 01:11:08 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 06, 2022, 12:34:07 PM
I find it much more plausible that it could someday become an eastward extension of 'US 212'.

Mike

MnDOT almost certainly will never get on board with this idea, especially as they had a chance to extend 212 eastward in 2018 when they decided to consolidate the current Crosstown route and TH 110 under one number, and chose to extend TH 62 eastward.

I think most of us are realistic WI-29 will be WI-29 when all said and done.  Think what is more debatable is the time frame to when, or if, the portions of 29 between I-41 and 94 ever get to full interstate standards.  While intersections at FF, VV, and U near Green Bay needed to worked not all other intersections are/were as dangerous. I can see East of 39/51 getting said upgrades, West of 51 not as much   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 06, 2022, 01:30:25 PM
Well, 50, 60 years from now and today's gentry has completely turned over....

:-D

)BTW, think of the cost in signing that any of these renumbering proposals would also entail here in WisDOT territory)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:56:51 PM
I would love for STH 29 to ultimately be completely freeway from Interstate 94 to Interstate 41. However, even if that eventually happened, I would like the roadway to remain numbered STH 29.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 08, 2022, 09:19:31 PM
I just saw the crosscountryroads.com update on I-43 and the signs on I-43 were changed to reflect the reroute in Manitowoc. US 151 says "south"  and the Wis 42 sign is removed from the Waldo Blvd exit. The Wis 42 Ahead sign still needs to be removed.

Next time I'm in the area I'll have to check out the new signs.

Here's a link if you want to see for yourself.

https://www.crosscountryroads.com/photos/wisconsin/wi-i43nb
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2022, 11:27:50 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 08, 2022, 09:19:31 PM
I just saw the crosscountryroads.com update on I-43 and the signs on I-43 were changed to reflect the reroute in Manitowoc. US 151 says "south"  and the Wis 42 sign is removed from the Waldo Blvd exit. The Wis 42 Ahead sign still needs to be removed.

Next time I'm in the area I'll have to check out the new signs.

Here's a link if you want to see for yourself.

https://www.crosscountryroads.com/photos/wisconsin/wi-i43nb

I just took 42 through there last Sunday and it's perfectly well signed for itself. Actually forgot it was even rerouted, that's how thorough the surface job was done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 11, 2022, 11:52:45 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2022, 08:54:47 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:51 PM
Wisconsin of all places has a new freeway?

Yeah this has been a long time in the making.  Upgrading the expressway further west. I am sure it will continue over time, but I doubt it will ever be a full freeway to Wausau much less Chippewa Falls.


Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?

I am assuming so.  That is usually the SOP. 


Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 31, 2022, 07:20:46 AM
Is there a new exit number for this interchange?

I will be up there next weekend and can check it out.


Drove WI-29 from Green Bay to Wausau yesterday and today.  It is still 65 mph at the new interchange, but new signage is up but covered that leads me to believe it will be increased. It is still a construction zone due to the removal of the previous intersection so it will likely still be that way for couple of months.

I think the biggest barrier to WI-29 becoming a full freeway is the amount of local roads, and some driveways, that still have direct access. There is just not a compelling reason to change that given current volumes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on September 12, 2022, 10:08:53 AM
There is going to be a meeting soon about the I-39-I-90-I-94 corridor from Madison to the Dells.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/studyintroduction.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 12, 2022, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 12, 2022, 10:08:53 AM
There is going to be a meeting soon about the I-39-I-90-I-94 corridor from Madison to the Dells.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/studyintroduction.pdf

Some quick thoughts of mine here:

- Upgrade the current four lane part of I-90/94 to six lanes (ultimately all the way to their split at the Tomah interchange);
- Re-engineer the I-39 split (Cascade interchange) to better separate the local roads, including WI 78 to the southwest, from the freeways, also to eliminate the 'left' exit and entrance situations from the I-39 mainline lanes.
- Re-engineer the I-90/94/US 12 interchange at Lake Delton to better separate the local roads and their tourist access from the freeways and their overhead traffic, and;
- Upgrade the current six lane highway north of the Badger interchange to eight lanes(?).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2022, 01:34:00 PM
I would agree that Interstate 39/90/94 should be expanded from six to eight lanes, and 90/94 should be expanded from four to six lanes. The one thing I would absolutely demand happen would be for the Badger Interchange (39/90's Exit 138AB, 94's 240 and 240A, and 30's 3A and 3B) to be reconstructed with right-handed-only exit and entrance ramps, even if the ramps remain one lane wide.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 12, 2022, 02:59:48 PM
Do you think they could try to separate the US-12/18 (Beltline) traffic from the mainline earlier? Could you have a split at the Badger interchange exit for I-94 WB to I-39 SB traffic specifically for Beltline bound traffic?  I think you are going to end up dumping a bunch of traffic onto the right lane that isn't destined for the Beltline, and they will have to navigate their way onto a speedy mainline.  Better than a left entrance ramp however.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 12, 2022, 06:55:32 PM
I don't understand the desperation for a Badger Interchange rebuild. The left hand ramps are not ideal, but they're functional, they keep traffic flowing, and I haven't heard of many accidents at that interchange. If WISDOT was just building it now, of course they would use exclusively right hand ramps, but it's not necessary to rebuild it.

For me, new interchanges at Hanson Rd and Lien Rd would be preferable to a Badger rework. (But those interchanges won't happen.)

I agree with wanting expansion to 8 lanes between the Beltline and the I-39 split at Portage. Worth noting that it's already 8 lanes between 151 and the Badger, which is the busiest segment of that stretch.

And finally, 6 lanes from the I-39 split to at least US-12/Dells Pkwy. Eventually it should get to 6 all the way up to Tomah, but that first 15 miles will do for now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 12, 2022, 10:20:15 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 12, 2022, 06:55:32 PM
I don't understand the desperation for a Badger Interchange rebuild. The left hand ramps are not ideal, but they're functional, they keep traffic flowing, and I haven't heard of many accidents at that interchange. If WISDOT was just building it now, of course they would use exclusively right hand ramps, but it's not necessary to rebuild it.
try crossing from the 151 interchange to the left for 94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on September 13, 2022, 01:48:17 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 12, 2022, 10:20:15 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 12, 2022, 06:55:32 PM
I don't understand the desperation for a Badger Interchange rebuild. The left hand ramps are not ideal, but they're functional, they keep traffic flowing, and I haven't heard of many accidents at that interchange. If WISDOT was just building it now, of course they would use exclusively right hand ramps, but it's not necessary to rebuild it.
try crossing from the 151 interchange to the left for 94.
IMO it's not too bad. You only need to move over two lanes because the second lane is an option lane for the 94 exit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 13, 2022, 02:32:13 PM
The WB I-94 to SB-39 left entrance ramp is a problem. Mostly because the traffic in the left hand lane is going significantly faster than the entrance traffic because the ramp is short, and a lot of the entering traffic needs to get to the right to get off at the Beltline.

Since the interchange was built in the 1960s, it is due for a full replacement.  May as well do it right.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on September 13, 2022, 02:41:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 12, 2022, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 12, 2022, 10:08:53 AM
There is going to be a meeting soon about the I-39-I-90-I-94 corridor from Madison to the Dells.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/studyintroduction.pdf

Some quick thoughts of mine here:

- Upgrade the current four lane part of I-90/94 to six lanes (ultimately all the way to their split at the Tomah interchange);
- Re-engineer the I-39 split (Cascade interchange) to better separate the local roads, including WI 78 to the southwest, from the freeways, also to eliminate the 'left' exit and entrance situations from the I-39 mainline lanes.
- Re-engineer the I-90/94/US 12 interchange at Lake Delton to better separate the local roads and their tourist access from the freeways and their overhead traffic, and;
- Upgrade the current six lane highway north of the Badger interchange to eight lanes(?).

Mike

"- Re-engineer the I-90/94/US 12 interchange at Lake Delton to better separate the local roads and their tourist access from the freeways and their overhead traffic, and;"

Would agree.  As it that interchange is right now surprised not more accidents than there already is.  Those driving into Lake Delton slow to getting speed in check and those going onto 12W from I90/94 Eastbound still need to make a turn onto 12 from a stopped position. Guessing a cloverleaf in the future but not truly sure that would fully solve the issue
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 13, 2022, 03:36:27 PM
They have some fairly hard r/w constraints at the Dells Pkwy to do something "fancier" with those giant resorts right there.  Guaranteed they're not going to expand the r/w north at all.
I've been tinkering with that interchange, but as I do, I'm struck by the realization that most of the traffic coming in on 12 from the south isn't getting on the interstate, it's continuing into the The Dells.  So I don't think it's unreasonable to make the freeway-freeway traffic "exit" in some manner.
I do think WisDOT dropped the ball when they did that "casino bypass" part of US 12 with the interchange at the north end at Fern Dell.  The diamond puts the gore for the north-pointing ramps too close to the 90/94 interchange and complicates what one can do to improve that situation.  Should've folded that diamond, you know?  Like how they 'future-proofed' the interchange at WI 29 & WI 40 by giving future generations plenty of room to work with for I-94/WI 29.

I might have to dust off my old Cascade Interchange concepts.  I use that quite often and the geometry of the turbine ramp that handles I-39 SB leaves much to be desired.  A decent effort for 1991, but I have visions of something that's much less sketchy in the winter.

Another challenge is the East Town Interchange.  It's time for something a little more advanced at this location to move traffic more smoothly between Sun Prairie and the Badger Interchange.  A loop ramp SB and a single lane, 40 mph ramp NB can't cut the mustard any more.

Related to this study, work has begun to convert the triplex interchange with WI 60 into a diamond from the existing, old school, unnecessary parclo.  Something they did to all of those parclo interchanges on 39/90 during that expansion project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 13, 2022, 07:24:21 PM
Ok, who names these interchanges?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1OB_DbgnRCz2h2iONS1tN4mokFXAgGEw&usp=sharing

Are there any other made-up named interchanges in this state?

And yes, that one in Chicago is still the Circle to me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Hobart on September 13, 2022, 08:04:54 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 13, 2022, 07:24:21 PM
Ok, who names these interchanges?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1OB_DbgnRCz2h2iONS1tN4mokFXAgGEw&usp=sharing

Are there any other made-up named interchanges in this state?

And yes, that one in Chicago is still the Circle to me.

I know that in the Milwaukee Freeways thread, all of the ramps off of I-794 were referred to as the "Lake Interchange", but I'm not sure if anyone actually refers to it as that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 13, 2022, 08:26:05 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 13, 2022, 07:24:21 PM
Ok, who names these interchanges?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1OB_DbgnRCz2h2iONS1tN4mokFXAgGEw&usp=sharing

Are there any other made-up named interchanges in this state?

And yes, that one in Chicago is still the Circle to me.


The only one of those that I have not heard of regularly is East Towne.  The four in Milwaukee are commonly referred that way in traffic reports.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 14, 2022, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 13, 2022, 07:24:21 PM
Ok, who names these interchanges?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1OB_DbgnRCz2h2iONS1tN4mokFXAgGEw&usp=sharing

Are there any other made-up named interchanges in this state?

And yes, that one in Chicago is still the Circle to me.

I've been wondering the same thing since following these Wisconsin threads. It's my second home state and I still have no idea what's going on here for the most part.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 14, 2022, 10:15:29 AM
SSO missed the Stadium Interchange on his map, too.
The informal name for the I-41/US 45/WI 145 split on the northwest side of Milwaukee is the "Granville Interchange".
I think we've come to call the I-41/US10/WI 441 junction the "Bridgeview Interchange."  But I'm not sure I've seen that outside of this community.
Those are the ones I can think of I've seen in common use on this board.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 14, 2022, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 14, 2022, 10:15:29 AM
SSO missed the Stadium Interchange on his map, too.
The informal name for the I-41/US 45/WI 145 split on the northwest side of Milwaukee is the "Granville Interchange".
I think we've come to call the I-41/US10/WI 441 junction the "Bridgeview Interchange."  But I'm not sure I've seen that outside of this community.
Those are the ones I can think of I've seen in common use on this board.

The Granville Interchange is named as such because until about 1960, it was in Granville Township (Milwaukee County), before it was subsequently annexed into the city of Milwaukee.

The Bridgeview Interchage is now the only one statewide that has an 'official' name.  Several yeas ago, the legislature decreed that it will be known as the 'Michael G. Ellis Memorial Interchange', named after a somewhat flamboyant late state senator from the area.  Yes, signs to that effect have been posted at it.

:spin:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on September 14, 2022, 04:50:52 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on September 13, 2022, 02:41:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 12, 2022, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 12, 2022, 10:08:53 AM
There is going to be a meeting soon about the I-39-I-90-I-94 corridor from Madison to the Dells.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/studyintroduction.pdf

Some quick thoughts of mine here:

- Upgrade the current four lane part of I-90/94 to six lanes (ultimately all the way to their split at the Tomah interchange);
- Re-engineer the I-39 split (Cascade interchange) to better separate the local roads, including WI 78 to the southwest, from the freeways, also to eliminate the 'left' exit and entrance situations from the I-39 mainline lanes.
- Re-engineer the I-90/94/US 12 interchange at Lake Delton to better separate the local roads and their tourist access from the freeways and their overhead traffic, and;
- Upgrade the current six lane highway north of the Badger interchange to eight lanes(?).

Mike

"- Re-engineer the I-90/94/US 12 interchange at Lake Delton to better separate the local roads and their tourist access from the freeways and their overhead traffic, and;"

Would agree.  As it that interchange is right now surprised not more accidents than there already is.  Those driving into Lake Delton slow to getting speed in check and those going onto 12W from I90/94 Eastbound still need to make a turn onto 12 from a stopped position. Guessing a cloverleaf in the future but not truly sure that would fully solve the issue

A DDI would be as effective and a lot cheaper, especially if the cloverleaf includes C/D lanes so traffic coming off the cloverleafs don't slow down through traffic too much. A DDI also fits better into the current ROW. There's already one down by Janesville so WISDOT is familiar with them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 14, 2022, 06:36:12 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 14, 2022, 10:15:29 AM
think we've come to call the I-41/US10/WI 441 junction the "Bridgeview Interchange."  But I'm not sure I've seen that outside of this community.
Locals have a derisive unofficial name of the "Polish Connection".
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 14, 2022, 07:00:54 PM
DDI would likely be WisDOT's choice at the I-90/94/US-12 interchange. It handles heavy turning traffic well, and serves to calm incoming traffic on US-12 before it enters the Dells.

WisDOT doesn't have a compelling need to completely rebuild the I-39/90/94/Hwy 78 interchange yet, even after 6-laning I-90/94. When WisDOT does proceed, however, the I-43 interchange example in Beloit would be a likely template. Hwy 78 would be forced off early at the Cascade Mountain Rd exit and routed under I-39 traffic navigating the interchange. A DDI would serve I-90/94 and Hwy 78 traffic while a flyover for the EBD I-90/94 -> NBD I-39 movement is built, the existing flyover for SBD I-39/ to EBD I-90/94 is rebuilt and realigned for full speed operation, and the NBD I-39 ramp from WBD I-90/94 is rebuilt to overpass the extended Hwy 78 east of the new DDI.

Anyone else think constructing an exit at Hwy 58 in Mauston would be worthwhile? Seems odd that it never got one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2022, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 14, 2022, 07:00:54 PM
DDI would likely be WisDOT's choice at the I-90/94/US-12 interchange. It handles heavy turning traffic well, and serves to calm incoming traffic on US-12 before it enters the Dells.

WisDOT doesn't have a compelling need to completely rebuild the I-39/90/94/Hwy 78 interchange yet, even after 6-laning I-90/94. When WisDOT does proceed, however, the I-43 interchange example in Beloit would be a likely template. Hwy 78 would be forced off early at the Cascade Mountain Rd exit and routed under I-39 traffic navigating the interchange. A DDI would serve I-90/94 and Hwy 78 traffic while a flyover for the EBD I-90/94 -> NBD I-39 movement is built, the existing flyover for SBD I-39/ to EBD I-90/94 is rebuilt and realigned for full speed operation, and the NBD I-39 ramp from WBD I-90/94 is rebuilt to overpass the extended Hwy 78 east of the new DDI.

Anyone else think constructing an exit at Hwy 58 in Mauston would be worthwhile? Seems odd that it never got one.


Probably because it was a county highway until the mid 90s. But yeah I do think it should get an exit because to go north on WI-80 you either have to go into Mauston or go to the New Lisbon exit, both of which are out of the way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 14, 2022, 10:04:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2022, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 14, 2022, 07:00:54 PM
DDI would likely be WisDOT's choice at the I-90/94/US-12 interchange. It handles heavy turning traffic well, and serves to calm incoming traffic on US-12 before it enters the Dells.

WisDOT doesn't have a compelling need to completely rebuild the I-39/90/94/Hwy 78 interchange yet, even after 6-laning I-90/94. When WisDOT does proceed, however, the I-43 interchange example in Beloit would be a likely template. Hwy 78 would be forced off early at the Cascade Mountain Rd exit and routed under I-39 traffic navigating the interchange. A DDI would serve I-90/94 and Hwy 78 traffic while a flyover for the EBD I-90/94 -> NBD I-39 movement is built, the existing flyover for SBD I-39/ to EBD I-90/94 is rebuilt and realigned for full speed operation, and the NBD I-39 ramp from WBD I-90/94 is rebuilt to overpass the extended Hwy 78 east of the new DDI.

Anyone else think constructing an exit at Hwy 58 in Mauston would be worthwhile? Seems odd that it never got one.


Probably because it was a county highway until the mid 90s. But yeah I do think it should get an exit because to go north on WI-80 you either have to go into Mauston or go to the New Lisbon exit, both of which are out of the way.

There's enough going on along the STH-58 corridor north of downtown to justify it too (car dealer, grocery store, etc.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 14, 2022, 10:32:08 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 14, 2022, 10:04:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2022, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 14, 2022, 07:00:54 PM
DDI would likely be WisDOT's choice at the I-90/94/US-12 interchange. It handles heavy turning traffic well, and serves to calm incoming traffic on US-12 before it enters the Dells.

WisDOT doesn't have a compelling need to completely rebuild the I-39/90/94/Hwy 78 interchange yet, even after 6-laning I-90/94. When WisDOT does proceed, however, the I-43 interchange example in Beloit would be a likely template. Hwy 78 would be forced off early at the Cascade Mountain Rd exit and routed under I-39 traffic navigating the interchange. A DDI would serve I-90/94 and Hwy 78 traffic while a flyover for the EBD I-90/94 -> NBD I-39 movement is built, the existing flyover for SBD I-39/ to EBD I-90/94 is rebuilt and realigned for full speed operation, and the NBD I-39 ramp from WBD I-90/94 is rebuilt to overpass the extended Hwy 78 east of the new DDI.

Anyone else think constructing an exit at Hwy 58 in Mauston would be worthwhile? Seems odd that it never got one.


Probably because it was a county highway until the mid 90s. But yeah I do think it should get an exit because to go north on WI-80 you either have to go into Mauston or go to the New Lisbon exit, both of which are out of the way.

There's enough going on along the STH-58 corridor north of downtown to justify it too (car dealer, grocery store, etc.)

I think a 1/2 interchange would be great for Wis 58 with a westbound off ramp and eastbound on ramp. It's also a National Highway System route.

As part of that I-41 project a 1/2 interchange should have been proposed at Wrightstown Rd. County U is way out of the way for Wrightstown traffic heading to Appleton. Many people use Wis 96, County JJ, the east frontage road, and County J to get to I-41. A 1/2 interchange at Wrightstown Rd would stop that route from being used for the most part.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 15, 2022, 11:19:06 AM
Current guidance from FHWA discourages new half interchanges on interstates outside of special circumstances, or so I've read on this forum over the years.

The Mauston location discussed is outside the scope of the current study, which ends a couple miles west of exit 85.  That being the said, the idea has merit.  It's far enough away from WI 82 to add a full access interchange; just need aux lanes between the two exits.

I wonder if it would be too much to ask from this project to have them construct bridges over Mirror Lake that don't look ugly as sin from the water.  After all, they'd for sure be replacing those bridges as they have an outdated, fracture critical design.  At the very least, color the concrete to resemble the sandstone in the gorge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 15, 2022, 11:36:38 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 14, 2022, 06:36:12 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 14, 2022, 10:15:29 AM
think we've come to call the I-41/US10/WI 441 junction the "Bridgeview Interchange."  But I'm not sure I've seen that outside of this community.
Locals have a derisive unofficial name of the "Polish Connection".

That's not for the interchange, that local colloquial name is for the US 10/WI 441 BRIDGE over Little Lake Butte des Morts, it connects heavily Polish-settled Menasha with US (now 'I-') 41.

:nod:

Yes, I'm also a 'local'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2022, 11:55:54 AM
Does anyone know if STH 441 is still referred to as the Tri-County Expressway? Or is that name now obsolete?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 15, 2022, 02:43:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2022, 11:55:54 AM
Does anyone know if STH 441 is still referred to as the Tri-County Expressway? Or is that name now obsolete?

That old 'working' name has been pretty much obsolete ever since the first part (the Winnebago County part) opened to traffic in 1991.  The freeway has been referred to as 'Four Forty One' by pretty much all of the locals ever since.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 15, 2022, 09:07:38 PM
updated
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on September 16, 2022, 07:50:53 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 15, 2022, 09:07:38 PM
updated
?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 16, 2022, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 16, 2022, 07:50:53 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 15, 2022, 09:07:38 PM
updated
?
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1OB_DbgnRCz2h2iONS1tN4mokFXAgGEw&usp=sharing
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 17, 2022, 12:09:14 PM
Discussion from Madison.com (which may be paywalled):
Wisconsin DOT opens study of possible future I-39/90/94 construction from Madison to Dells area
https://madison.com/traffic/wisconsin-dot-opens-study-of-possible-future-i-39-90-94-construction-from-madison-to/article_05eb9c37-bede-56e6-a56f-25aba8a05c9d.html?utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=23b09c1eb865031d0f60a1dc63cc71cd77fb9763

(https://madison.com/traffic/wisconsin-dot-opens-study-of-possible-future-i-39-90-94-construction-from-madison-to/article_05eb9c37-bede-56e6-a56f-25aba8a05c9d.html?utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=23b09c1eb865031d0f60a1dc63cc71cd77fb9763)Apparently a major focus will be with dealing with flooding issues on the section north of the Wisconsin River bridge to the Dells, as well as alleviating congestion and replacing bridges and overpasses that are at end of life.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 17, 2022, 01:13:18 PM
8 lanes from US 12/18 to the Interstate 39/STH 78 interchange; 6 lanes through the Wisconsin Dells segment. All ramps at the Badger Interchange should be on the right-hand side. Those are the demands I would make. Fortunately the Wisconsin River Bridge Replacement project, which will be constructed first, will be wide enough to accommodate 8 lanes of traffic. I would also like Interstate 94 from Madison to Milwaukee to be a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, but that would be another project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 18, 2022, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 12, 2022, 06:55:32 PM
I don't understand the desperation for a Badger Interchange rebuild. The left hand ramps are not ideal, but they're functional, they keep traffic flowing, and I haven't heard of many accidents at that interchange. If WISDOT was just building it now, of course they would use exclusively right hand ramps, but it's not necessary to rebuild it.

For me, new interchanges at Hanson Rd and Lien Rd would be preferable to a Badger rework. (But those interchanges won't happen.)

I agree with wanting expansion to 8 lanes between the Beltline and the I-39 split at Portage. Worth noting that it's already 8 lanes between 151 and the Badger, which is the busiest segment of that stretch.

And finally, 6 lanes from the I-39 split to at least US-12/Dells Pkwy. Eventually it should get to 6 all the way up to Tomah, but that first 15 miles will do for now.
I think Lien Rd would not be a good candidate. Hansen Rd is better but I would put one at Hoepker Rd instead because you already have a light at Hoepker & 51 and it's closer to the industrial area along Manufacturers Dr. The only reason I would chose Hansen Rd instead is because of the hospital. Now if Hansen was extended west to tie into Messerschmidt Rd to get to Hwy CV, then I would say Hansen should be the choice.

Quote from: SSOWorld on September 13, 2022, 07:24:21 PM
Ok, who names these interchanges?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1OB_DbgnRCz2h2iONS1tN4mokFXAgGEw&usp=sharing

Are there any other made-up named interchanges in this state?

And yes, that one in Chicago is still the Circle to me.

You missed the Richfield Interchange for the 41/45 split.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on September 18, 2022, 04:48:29 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 14, 2022, 07:00:54 PM
DDI would likely be WisDOT's choice at the I-90/94/US-12 interchange. It handles heavy turning traffic well, and serves to calm incoming traffic on US-12 before it enters the Dells.

WisDOT doesn't have a compelling need to completely rebuild the I-39/90/94/Hwy 78 interchange yet, even after 6-laning I-90/94. When WisDOT does proceed, however, the I-43 interchange example in Beloit would be a likely template. Hwy 78 would be forced off early at the Cascade Mountain Rd exit and routed under I-39 traffic navigating the interchange. A DDI would serve I-90/94 and Hwy 78 traffic while a flyover for the EBD I-90/94 -> NBD I-39 movement is built, the existing flyover for SBD I-39/ to EBD I-90/94 is rebuilt and realigned for full speed operation, and the NBD I-39 ramp from WBD I-90/94 is rebuilt to overpass the extended Hwy 78 east of the new DDI.

Anyone else think constructing an exit at Hwy 58 in Mauston would be worthwhile? Seems odd that it never got one.

Wis 58 could use a diamond interchange but it probably won't happen because Wis 82 is not too far and Mauston is not that big.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2022, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 17, 2022, 01:13:18 PM
8 lanes from US 12/18 to the Interstate 39/STH 78 interchange; 6 lanes through the Wisconsin Dells segment. All ramps at the Badger Interchange should be on the right-hand side. Those are the demands I would make. Fortunately the Wisconsin River Bridge Replacement project, which will be constructed first, will be wide enough to accommodate 8 lanes of traffic. I would also like Interstate 94 from Madison to Milwaukee to be a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, but that would be another project.


I don't think it needs to be 8 lanes from Madison to Portage.  Right now I would think between the Beltline and WI-19 would be sufficient.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 18, 2022, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2022, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 17, 2022, 01:13:18 PM
8 lanes from US 12/18 to the Interstate 39/STH 78 interchange; 6 lanes through the Wisconsin Dells segment. All ramps at the Badger Interchange should be on the right-hand side. Those are the demands I would make. Fortunately the Wisconsin River Bridge Replacement project, which will be constructed first, will be wide enough to accommodate 8 lanes of traffic. I would also like Interstate 94 from Madison to Milwaukee to be a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, but that would be another project.


I don't think it needs to be 8 lanes from Madison to Portage.  Right now I would think between the Beltline and WI-19 would be sufficient.
Do you drive north of Wis 19?  If you don't - you don't realize how busy this road is north of there!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 18, 2022, 08:03:56 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 18, 2022, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 12, 2022, 06:55:32 PM
I don't understand the desperation for a Badger Interchange rebuild. The left hand ramps are not ideal, but they're functional, they keep traffic flowing, and I haven't heard of many accidents at that interchange. If WISDOT was just building it now, of course they would use exclusively right hand ramps, but it's not necessary to rebuild it.

For me, new interchanges at Hanson Rd and Lien Rd would be preferable to a Badger rework. (But those interchanges won't happen.)

I agree with wanting expansion to 8 lanes between the Beltline and the I-39 split at Portage. Worth noting that it's already 8 lanes between 151 and the Badger, which is the busiest segment of that stretch.

And finally, 6 lanes from the I-39 split to at least US-12/Dells Pkwy. Eventually it should get to 6 all the way up to Tomah, but that first 15 miles will do for now.
I think Lien Rd would not be a good candidate. Hansen Rd is better but I would put one at Hoepker Rd instead because you already have a light at Hoepker & 51 and it's closer to the industrial area along Manufacturers Dr. The only reason I would chose Hansen Rd instead is because of the hospital. Now if Hansen was extended west to tie into Messerschmidt Rd to get to Hwy CV, then I would say Hansen should be the choice.

Quote from: SSOWorld on September 13, 2022, 07:24:21 PM
Ok, who names these interchanges?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1OB_DbgnRCz2h2iONS1tN4mokFXAgGEw&usp=sharing

Are there any other made-up named interchanges in this state?

And yes, that one in Chicago is still the Circle to me.

You missed the Richfield Interchange for the 41/45 split.


It's just a Y - why name it for a nearby town?  This confirms that most of the Interchanges around this state have made-up names made by us rather than the populace (Government or media) - the ones that really count are those in Milwaukee (Zoo, Marquette, Mitchell, Hale, and Stadium) and the Badger and maybe the beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2022, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 18, 2022, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2022, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 17, 2022, 01:13:18 PM
8 lanes from US 12/18 to the Interstate 39/STH 78 interchange; 6 lanes through the Wisconsin Dells segment. All ramps at the Badger Interchange should be on the right-hand side. Those are the demands I would make. Fortunately the Wisconsin River Bridge Replacement project, which will be constructed first, will be wide enough to accommodate 8 lanes of traffic. I would also like Interstate 94 from Madison to Milwaukee to be a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, but that would be another project.


I don't think it needs to be 8 lanes from Madison to Portage.  Right now I would think between the Beltline and WI-19 would be sufficient.
Do you drive north of Wis 19?  If you don't - you don't realize how busy this road is north of there!


I do.  Many times.  It's busy no doubt, but I don't think it's busy enough for four lanes.  Traffic is usually moving just fine outside of the major summer holiday weekends. I-41/94 is up around 98,000 vpd so four lanes made sense.  That's similar to the Madison area, but it drops off to less than 60,000 north of US-51.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on September 19, 2022, 08:28:52 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2022, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 18, 2022, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2022, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 17, 2022, 01:13:18 PM
8 lanes from US 12/18 to the Interstate 39/STH 78 interchange; 6 lanes through the Wisconsin Dells segment. All ramps at the Badger Interchange should be on the right-hand side. Those are the demands I would make. Fortunately the Wisconsin River Bridge Replacement project, which will be constructed first, will be wide enough to accommodate 8 lanes of traffic. I would also like Interstate 94 from Madison to Milwaukee to be a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, but that would be another project.


I don't think it needs to be 8 lanes from Madison to Portage.  Right now I would think between the Beltline and WI-19 would be sufficient.
Do you drive north of Wis 19?  If you don't - you don't realize how busy this road is north of there!


I do.  Many times.  It's busy no doubt, but I don't think it's busy enough for four lanes.  Traffic is usually moving just fine outside of the major summer holiday weekends. I-41/94 is up around 98,000 vpd so four lanes made sense.  That's similar to the Madison area, but it drops off to less than 60,000 north of US-51.
But 39/90/94 has more truck traffic than any other road in the state. Trucks are larger and slower, making the road more congested despite the AADT staying the same.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 19, 2022, 09:00:24 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 19, 2022, 08:28:52 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2022, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 18, 2022, 08:01:50 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 18, 2022, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 17, 2022, 01:13:18 PM
8 lanes from US 12/18 to the Interstate 39/STH 78 interchange; 6 lanes through the Wisconsin Dells segment. All ramps at the Badger Interchange should be on the right-hand side. Those are the demands I would make. Fortunately the Wisconsin River Bridge Replacement project, which will be constructed first, will be wide enough to accommodate 8 lanes of traffic. I would also like Interstate 94 from Madison to Milwaukee to be a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, but that would be another project.


I don't think it needs to be 8 lanes from Madison to Portage.  Right now I would think between the Beltline and WI-19 would be sufficient.
Do you drive north of Wis 19?  If you don't - you don't realize how busy this road is north of there!


I do.  Many times.  It's busy no doubt, but I don't think it's busy enough for four lanes.  Traffic is usually moving just fine outside of the major summer holiday weekends. I-41/94 is up around 98,000 vpd so four lanes made sense.  That's similar to the Madison area, but it drops off to less than 60,000 north of US-51.
But 39/90/94 has more truck traffic than any other road in the state. Trucks are larger and slower, making the road more congested despite the AADT staying the same.

Sure. I still don't think it needs to be eight lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 19, 2022, 10:43:56 PM
If what they did around Janesville is any guide, WisDOT will likely use the 20-year traffic projections to justify 8-laning. Even if the daily volume is a little light, the weekend traffic levels are definitely there.

Given that it's likely to be 10 years or more before major construction happens, they'll be looking at 2060 traffic levels as a guide. Could traffic grow by 50% in that time? Certainly, especially as Dane County continues it's growth pace (561,000 residents at the 2020 Census, an increase of 125,000 residents since 2000).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 28, 2022, 06:54:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 30, 2022, 09:27:41 PM
The Wis 29/County VV Interchange opened in Hobart/Howard today. Next up is removing County U at Wis 29 forcing motorists to use the Wis 32/Wis 156 Interchange to get to Wis 156. Most Wis 156 traffic was using County U/Old 29 as a short cut.

Wis 29 will now be freeway from Birch Rd in Shawano County to I-41. Will the speed limit be raised to 70 mph between the Shawano Co line and County FF where it's currently 70 mph?
Ribbon-cutting ceremony today: https://fox11online.com/news/local/officials-cut-ribbon-on-new-highway-29vv-interchange-brown-county-construction-traffic-howard-hobart-economy-safety-troy-streckenbach-federal-grant#
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 17, 2022, 03:26:37 PM
The speed limit was raised to 70 on Wis 29 with the opening of the County VV Interchange up to Wis 32.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2022, 01:48:17 PM
1,000 Friends of Wisconsin, a land use advocacy group, released their thoughts on replacing I-794 in Milwaukee with a surface boulevard.  "Rethink 794."

https://www.rethink794.com/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 20, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
I strongly disagree with 1000 Friends of Wisconsin. Tearing down Interstate 794 would be much worse than tearing down the Park East Freeway spur was (the Park East was an underutilized roadway). There is too much traffic on 794 for a surface boulevard to adequately handle. 1000 Friends might as well advocate demolishing the Hoan Bridge and the Lake Parkway while they're at it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2022, 05:01:24 PM
I think it's a good idea.  The point that there is too much traffic on 794 is not really relevant.  A good portion of that traffic wouldn't use the boulevard.  They would use something else.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 20, 2022, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2022, 01:48:17 PM
1,000 Friends of Wisconsin, a land use advocacy group, released their thoughts on replacing I-794 in Milwaukee with a surface boulevard.  "Rethink 794."

https://www.rethink794.com/
Personally, I would be good with 794 becoming a street boulevard if they figure out where all the traffic from the Hoan Bridge and I-94 will go. This is different from when they demolished the Park Frwy because you didn't have a major interstate on one side of the interchange. With 794, you do.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2022, 10:40:10 AM
This belongs in the Milwaukee Freeways discussion, not the statewide garbage bin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on October 22, 2022, 01:03:34 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2022, 10:40:10 AM
This belongs in the Milwaukee Freeways discussion, not the statewide garbage bin.
This is not a garbage bin. People can decide whether their topic is going to be quick, or long enough to put in a separate thread. Respect this please.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on October 22, 2022, 09:58:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2022, 05:01:24 PM
I think it's a good idea.  The point that there is too much traffic on 794 is not really relevant.  A good portion of that traffic wouldn't use the boulevard.  They would use something else.

Key question, if traffic would use something else, what roads would those be?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 23, 2022, 08:16:53 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on October 22, 2022, 09:58:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2022, 05:01:24 PM
I think it's a good idea.  The point that there is too much traffic on 794 is not really relevant.  A good portion of that traffic wouldn't use the boulevard.  They would use something else.

Key question, if traffic would use something else, what roads would those be?


All sorts of them depending on where they are coming from and where they are going.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 24, 2022, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2022, 01:48:17 PM
1,000 Friends of Wisconsin, a land use advocacy group, released their thoughts on replacing I-794 in Milwaukee with a surface boulevard.  "Rethink 794."

https://www.rethink794.com/

The same group that delayed Wis 23 between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 24, 2022, 12:40:04 PM
I did notice that WISDOT took back Wis 145 between I-41 and US 45 by Cabellas and extended it to Wis 175. I wonder what made WISDOT take back the road after giving it to Washington County about 10 years ago?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 24, 2022, 06:42:03 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 24, 2022, 12:40:04 PM
I did notice that WISDOT took back Wis 145 between I-41 and US 45 by Cabellas and extended it to Wis 175. I wonder what made WISDOT take back the road after giving it to Washington County about 10 years ago?

Also, about 12/15 years ago, WisDOT was thinking about  turning what was then US 45 from Murdock St in Oshkosh to what became WI 15 in the northwest Appleton/Greenville area over to Outagamie and Winnebago Counties for 'lettering', but decided against it when their traffic volume projection studies showed that it would still carry a traffic load that would warrant it staying a state highway after the then under construction US 10/45 freeway complex in that area was complete and open.  Subsequently, it became a rerouted WI 76.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2022, 07:12:43 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but I still think US 45 should be removed from its existing route between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, and should continue northward on Interstate/US 41 from Exit 95 to Exit 120. I would then number existing 45 between STH 23 and the current southern terminus of STH 76 could either become an extension of 76 or a county highway or local road. STH 21 would be extended northwestward along present US 45 from its current terminus to Interstate/US 41 at Exit 120, or be re-extended to the W. Murdock Ave./Jackson St. intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 25, 2022, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2022, 07:12:43 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but I still think US 45 should be removed from its existing route between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, and should continue northward on Interstate/US 41 from Exit 95 to Exit 120. I would then number existing 45 between STH 23 and the current southern terminus of STH 76 could either become an extension of 76 or a county highway or local road. STH 21 would be extended northwestward along present US 45 from its current terminus to Interstate/US 41 at Exit 120, or be re-extended to the W. Murdock Ave./Jackson St. intersection.
Re-extending 21 on Murdock would make the most sense. Algoma Blvd/High St, Jackson St, South Park Ave would be a good Bus 45 if they want to keep Algoma as a state highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 25, 2022, 08:56:44 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 24, 2022, 12:40:04 PM
I did notice that WISDOT took back Wis 145 between I-41 and US 45 by Cabellas and extended it to Wis 175. I wonder what made WISDOT take back the road after giving it to Washington County about 10 years ago?

My guess is that it had something to do with the incorporation of Richfield.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 26, 2022, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 25, 2022, 08:56:44 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 24, 2022, 12:40:04 PM
I did notice that WISDOT took back Wis 145 between I-41 and US 45 by Cabellas and extended it to Wis 175. I wonder what made WISDOT take back the road after giving it to Washington County about 10 years ago?

My guess is that it had something to do with the incorporation of Richfield.

Richfield Township incorporated about 20 years or so ago.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 27, 2022, 10:51:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 26, 2022, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 25, 2022, 08:56:44 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 24, 2022, 12:40:04 PM
I did notice that WISDOT took back Wis 145 between I-41 and US 45 by Cabellas and extended it to Wis 175. I wonder what made WISDOT take back the road after giving it to Washington County about 10 years ago?



My guess is that it had something to do with the incorporation of Richfield.

Richfield Township incorporated about 20 years or so ago.

Mike

14 years ago. However, there's a new-ish industrial park growing on the west side of I-41, and the village is looking to do more development in that area to the north and south of 145.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 28, 2022, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2022, 07:12:43 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but I still think US 45 should be removed from its existing route between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, and should continue northward on Interstate/US 41 from Exit 95 to Exit 120. I would then number existing 45 between STH 23 and the current southern terminus of STH 76 could either become an extension of 76 or a county highway or local road. STH 21 would be extended northwestward along present US 45 from its current terminus to Interstate/US 41 at Exit 120, or be re-extended to the W. Murdock Ave./Jackson St. intersection.

I guess you can say WISDOT met in the middle by removing Wis 175 from Fond Du Lac to Oshkosh. Oddly enough there were 3 highways within about 5 miles of each other going to the same place. Another question is how necessary is Wis 175 between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 28, 2022, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 28, 2022, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2022, 07:12:43 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but I still think US 45 should be removed from its existing route between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, and should continue northward on Interstate/US 41 from Exit 95 to Exit 120. I would then number existing 45 between STH 23 and the current southern terminus of STH 76 could either become an extension of 76 or a county highway or local road. STH 21 would be extended northwestward along present US 45 from its current terminus to Interstate/US 41 at Exit 120, or be re-extended to the W. Murdock Ave./Jackson St. intersection.

I guess you can say WISDOT met in the middle by removing Wis 175 from Fond Du Lac to Oshkosh. Oddly enough there were 3 highways within about 5 miles of each other going to the same place. Another question is how necessary is Wis 175 between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee?


WI 175 was the previous routing of US 41, so when the current I-41 was first opened back in the late 1940s, it made sense to keep the old road as a state highway and reflag it as WI 175.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 29, 2022, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 28, 2022, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 28, 2022, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2022, 07:12:43 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but I still think US 45 should be removed from its existing route between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, and should continue northward on Interstate/US 41 from Exit 95 to Exit 120. I would then number existing 45 between STH 23 and the current southern terminus of STH 76 could either become an extension of 76 or a county highway or local road. STH 21 would be extended northwestward along present US 45 from its current terminus to Interstate/US 41 at Exit 120, or be re-extended to the W. Murdock Ave./Jackson St. intersection.

I guess you can say WISDOT met in the middle by removing Wis 175 from Fond Du Lac to Oshkosh. Oddly enough there were 3 highways within about 5 miles of each other going to the same place. Another question is how necessary is Wis 175 between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee?


WI 175 was the previous routing of US 41, so when the current I-41 was first opened back in the late 1940s, it made sense to keep the old road as a state highway and reflag it as WI 175.

Mike
So US-41 and US-45 were within a few miles, both two lane roads?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 30, 2022, 01:16:57 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 29, 2022, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 28, 2022, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 28, 2022, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2022, 07:12:43 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but I still think US 45 should be removed from its existing route between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, and should continue northward on Interstate/US 41 from Exit 95 to Exit 120. I would then number existing 45 between STH 23 and the current southern terminus of STH 76 could either become an extension of 76 or a county highway or local road. STH 21 would be extended northwestward along present US 45 from its current terminus to Interstate/US 41 at Exit 120, or be re-extended to the W. Murdock Ave./Jackson St. intersection.

I guess you can say WISDOT met in the middle by removing Wis 175 from Fond Du Lac to Oshkosh. Oddly enough there were 3 highways within about 5 miles of each other going to the same place. Another question is how necessary is Wis 175 between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee?


WI 175 was the previous routing of US 41, so when the current I-41 was first opened back in the late 1940s, it made sense to keep the old road as a state highway and reflag it as WI 175.

Mike
So US-41 and US-45 were within a few miles, both two lane roads?

They, and their pre-US highway predecessors, both went through Milwaukee County, downtown Fond do Lac and downtown Oshkosh.  They were on the same street in both Fond du Lac and Oshkosh.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 30, 2022, 08:36:46 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 29, 2022, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 28, 2022, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 28, 2022, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2022, 07:12:43 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but I still think US 45 should be removed from its existing route between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, and should continue northward on Interstate/US 41 from Exit 95 to Exit 120. I would then number existing 45 between STH 23 and the current southern terminus of STH 76 could either become an extension of 76 or a county highway or local road. STH 21 would be extended northwestward along present US 45 from its current terminus to Interstate/US 41 at Exit 120, or be re-extended to the W. Murdock Ave./Jackson St. intersection.

I guess you can say WISDOT met in the middle by removing Wis 175 from Fond Du Lac to Oshkosh. Oddly enough there were 3 highways within about 5 miles of each other going to the same place. Another question is how necessary is Wis 175 between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee?


WI 175 was the previous routing of US 41, so when the current I-41 was first opened back in the late 1940s, it made sense to keep the old road as a state highway and reflag it as WI 175.

Mike
So US-41 and US-45 were within a few miles, both two lane roads?


I have no idea why US-45 was extended northward from Chicago, but it was in the mid 1930s when it happened. Between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac, US-45 replaced the routing of WI-55.  Between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, it ran (as it does now) right along the shore of Lake Winnebago, replacing a highway.

And the routing doesn't even take the most direct route between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac.  County V through Campbellsport is a better routing north of Kewaskum. North of Oshkosh it is fine, well travelled highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 30, 2022, 01:04:19 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 30, 2022, 08:36:46 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 29, 2022, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 28, 2022, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 28, 2022, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2022, 07:12:43 PM
I may have mentioned this before, but I still think US 45 should be removed from its existing route between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, and should continue northward on Interstate/US 41 from Exit 95 to Exit 120. I would then number existing 45 between STH 23 and the current southern terminus of STH 76 could either become an extension of 76 or a county highway or local road. STH 21 would be extended northwestward along present US 45 from its current terminus to Interstate/US 41 at Exit 120, or be re-extended to the W. Murdock Ave./Jackson St. intersection.

I guess you can say WISDOT met in the middle by removing Wis 175 from Fond Du Lac to Oshkosh. Oddly enough there were 3 highways within about 5 miles of each other going to the same place. Another question is how necessary is Wis 175 between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee?


WI 175 was the previous routing of US 41, so when the current I-41 was first opened back in the late 1940s, it made sense to keep the old road as a state highway and reflag it as WI 175.

Mike
So US-41 and US-45 were within a few miles, both two lane roads?


I have no idea why US-45 was extended northward from Chicago, but it was in the mid 1930s when it happened. Between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac, US-45 replaced the routing of WI-55.  Between Fond du Lac and Oshkosh, it ran (as it does now) right along the shore of Lake Winnebago, replacing a highway.

And the routing doesn't even take the most direct route between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac.  County V through Campbellsport is a better routing north of Kewaskum. North of Oshkosh it is fine, well travelled highway.

Not that long ago I mused in another thread about 'What if' the major four lane road (now I-41) was instead built along the now abandoned CNW  railroad ROW (US 45/County 'V'  corridor) between Richfield/West Bend and Fond du Lac in the immediate post-WWII years.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 09, 2022, 09:43:02 PM
From the "surprised the heck outta me" department - Wisconn Vally Parkway is now WI-311. Drove by there yesterday and it was signed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 10, 2022, 06:41:37 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 09, 2022, 09:43:02 PM
From the "surprised the heck outta me" department - Wisconn Vally Parkway is now WI-311. Drove by there yesterday and it was signed.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/2022/05/13/wisconsin-dot-renaming-foxconn-wisconn-valley-way-state-highway-311-mount-pleasant-racine/9760613002/

Seems to have been that way for a while.  Thanks Walker for such wasteful spending.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 10, 2022, 08:51:37 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 09, 2022, 09:43:02 PM
From the "surprised the heck outta me" department - Wisconn Vally Parkway is now WI-311. Drove by there yesterday and it was signed.


https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/2022/05/13/wisconsin-dot-renaming-foxconn-wisconn-valley-way-state-highway-311-mount-pleasant-racine/9760613002/

Was this the road that received temporary signage when it was under construction as well?

Also is it marked on the BGS on I-41/94?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 10, 2022, 08:52:47 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 10, 2022, 06:41:37 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 09, 2022, 09:43:02 PM
From the "surprised the heck outta me" department - Wisconn Vally Parkway is now WI-311. Drove by there yesterday and it was signed.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/2022/05/13/wisconsin-dot-renaming-foxconn-wisconn-valley-way-state-highway-311-mount-pleasant-racine/9760613002/

Seems to have been that way for a while.  Thanks Walker for such wasteful spending.

That's hilarious. On the bright side, it gives me something new to go and clinch. And the number at least makes sense.

All those Foxconn roads did end up being way over-built unfortunately. But I'm sure in the not-so-distant future, things will continue to be built in the area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 10, 2022, 10:42:01 AM
I'm more upset that the road name contains the word "valley" when it exists on the flattest area of flatness in southeast Wisconsin.  What the hell are they talking about with that name? The "valley" of Kilbourn Road Ditch?  Clearly a name chosen by either a total shithead or someone who's never set foot in Racine County.

Nice to see we've got a new front runner in the contest for most useless state highway in the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 10, 2022, 03:57:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 10, 2022, 08:51:37 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 09, 2022, 09:43:02 PM
From the "surprised the heck outta me" department - Wisconn Vally Parkway is now WI-311. Drove by there yesterday and it was signed.


https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/2022/05/13/wisconsin-dot-renaming-foxconn-wisconn-valley-way-state-highway-311-mount-pleasant-racine/9760613002/

Was this the road that received temporary signage when it was under construction as well?

Also is it marked on the BGS on I-41/94?

No markings on 94/41 from what I could tell.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 10, 2022, 10:42:01 AM
I'm more upset that the road name contains the word "valley" when it exists on the flattest area of flatness in southeast Wisconsin.  What the hell are they talking about with that name? The "valley" of Kilbourn Road Ditch?  Clearly a name chosen by either a total shithead or someone who's never set foot in Racine County.

Nice to see we've got a new front runner in the contest for most useless state highway in the state.

"Wisconn Valley" is supposed to be a play on "Silicon Valley". But yeah. Nothing but flatlands, corn, and cows.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 10, 2022, 04:09:33 PM
Google Maps doesn't list STH 311, nor does Wikipedia. I assume the designation is too new for either to mention. Also, since wisconsinhighways.org hasn't since October 24, 2016, neither STH 311 nor STH 318 are listed on the Highways 200-399 page.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 10, 2022, 05:43:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 10, 2022, 04:09:33 PM
Google Maps doesn't list STH 311, nor does Wikipedia. I assume the designation is too new for either to mention. Also, since wisconsinhighways.org hasn't since October 24, 2016, neither STH 311 nor STH 318 are listed on the Highways 200-399 page.

Probably because nobody knew about it. Seems the only way one would know is from a handful of local news articles, unless they dig through WisDOT files.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 10, 2022, 07:26:47 PM
I guess that WI 311 will join the short list of Wisconsin state highways that are located completely within single municipalities, along side of WI 30(soon),WI 119, WI 341(?), I-535,  I-794, etc.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 10, 2022, 07:35:16 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 09, 2022, 09:43:02 PM
From the "surprised the heck outta me" department - Wisconn Vally Parkway is now WI-311. Drove by there yesterday and it was signed.
Oh it was because it's still not marked on googlemaps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 11, 2022, 01:48:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 10, 2022, 07:26:47 PM
I guess that WI 311 will join the short list of Wisconsin state highways that are located completely within single municipalities, along side of WI 30(soon)
I thought the annexation went down last month?  The town hall on Fish Hatch is looking rather unused the last couple times I drove by.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 11, 2022, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 11, 2022, 01:48:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 10, 2022, 07:26:47 PM
I guess that WI 311 will join the short list of Wisconsin state highways that are located completely within single municipalities, along side of WI 30(soon)
I thought the annexation went down last month?  The town hall on Fish Hatch is looking rather unused the last couple times I drove by.

Town of Madison is no more as of October 31st.
https://www.channel3000.com/town-of-madison-officially-absorbed-by-city-of-madison-fitchburg/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 11, 2022, 10:44:36 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 11, 2022, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 11, 2022, 01:48:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 10, 2022, 07:26:47 PM
I guess that WI 311 will join the short list of Wisconsin state highways that are located completely within single municipalities, along side of WI 30(soon)
I thought the annexation went down last month?  The town hall on Fish Hatch is looking rather unused the last couple times I drove by.

Town of Madison is no more as of October 31st.

https://www.channel3000.com/town-of-madison-officially-absorbed-by-city-of-madison-fitchburg/

The part of WI 30 that is not in Madison (a section near Stoughton Rd/US 51) is in Burke Township.  It joins the City of Madison in a few more years.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on November 12, 2022, 12:08:04 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 10, 2022, 10:42:01 AM
I'm more upset that the road name contains the word "valley" when it exists on the flattest area of flatness in southeast Wisconsin.  What the hell are they talking about with that name? The "valley" of Kilbourn Road Ditch?  Clearly a name chosen by either a total shithead or someone who's never set foot in Racine County.

Nice to see we've got a new front runner in the contest for most useless state highway in the state.
I guess WISDOT needed to slap a number on it, since they own it. And yes, that whole area is pointless. I knew Foxconn would screw the state from the get-go.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on November 12, 2022, 12:33:37 PM
I just drove by that area and I saw all the Highway 311 signs. I have to admit, it makes no sense having a state highway there. It's one thing if they made it a county highway but not a state highway. If they were going to put a state highway in that area, they should have changed Highway KR or Highway H, if not both. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 12, 2022, 01:52:25 PM
CTH H was once part of the state highway system, at least the portion between CTH S and STH 50 was. First it was part of STH 57 (1919-1926); then part of US 41 (1926-1936); then STH 31 (1936-1947); then STH 192 (1947-1990); and since 1990, CTH H.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 12, 2022, 03:56:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 11, 2022, 10:44:36 PM

The part of WI 30 that is not in Madison (a section near Stoughton Rd/US 51) is in Burke Township.  It joins the City of Madison in a few more years.


This got me curious and so I pulled up Dane County's mapping application.  Looks like WI 30 is all in Madison except for a part around Fair Oaks Ave where half the r/w is still Town of Blooming Grove.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 05:00:47 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 09, 2022, 09:43:02 PM
From the "surprised the heck outta me" department - Wisconn Vally Parkway is now WI-311. Drove by there yesterday and it was signed.

For anyone who is a "pics or it didn't happen" person...

Coming off of I-41/94 northbound at CTH-KR:
(https://i.imgur.com/Sn91Wiz.jpg)

Before the intersection with WI-311's southern terminus on CTH-KR:
(https://i.imgur.com/jegMTtx.jpg)

The first northbound WI-311 trailblazer:
(https://i.imgur.com/eaFBakM.jpg)

And the northbound End sign, which I'll be cross-posting to the End Signs thread:
(https://i.imgur.com/MCKQ3Wr.jpg)

It is all really weird. I'm sure one day this road will be more developed, but the question is just how long might it take.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on November 12, 2022, 08:52:56 PM
I remember when Highway 192 existed between what used to be 142 (Now County S) and 50 before they changed it to H in 1992.  It would have made more sense to make that 311 or bring back 192 and make it go from Highway 20 to Highway 50.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 12, 2022, 09:13:24 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 11, 2022, 01:48:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 10, 2022, 07:26:47 PM
I guess that WI 311 will join the short list of Wisconsin state highways that are located completely within single municipalities, along side of WI 30(soon)
I thought the annexation went down last month?  The town hall on Fish Hatch is looking rather unused the last couple times I drove by.

The City of Fitchburg received the old town hall despite the City of Madison getting all of the properties up to The Beltline.

Since the dissolution the City of Madison has put up new street signs at Rimrock Rd and E Rusk Ave. The City of Fitchburg added a new sign on Rimrock Rd just south of The Beltline with an updated population of just over 30,000. None of the other Fitchburg signs have the updated population so it may have been ordered specifically for the annexation. Fitchburg received Zimbrick and the area of Rimrock Rd south of The Beltline by Exact Sciences and Delta Beer Lab.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on November 13, 2022, 10:38:30 AM
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 12, 2022, 08:52:56 PM
I remember when Highway 192 existed between what used to be 142 (Now County S) and 50 before they changed it to H in 1992.  It would have made more sense to make that 311 or bring back 192 and make it go from Highway 20 to Highway 50.
As I explained before, this obviously wasn't a matter of having another N-S between I-41/94 and Kenosha/Racine. There is no need for that. That's what WIS 31 and the interstate do.

However, the state is heavily involved in the Wisconn project, and needed to apply a number to a jurisdictional road. Not the first time it ever happened.

Of course, the road may actually serve some purpose in years to come. As it stands currently, it obviously makes little sense. But again, it's WISDOT's road, so they had to number it, and the state has noticeably been moving away from unsigned routes in recent years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2022, 10:47:12 AM
Yeah I believe Wisconsin now just has a couple of spur routes unsigned. Both are less than a half mile long.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 13, 2022, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2022, 10:47:12 AM
Yeah I believe Wisconsin now just has a couple of spur routes unsigned. Both are less than a half mile long.


42 and 794.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 13, 2022, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 13, 2022, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2022, 10:47:12 AM
Yeah I believe Wisconsin now just has a couple of spur routes unsigned. Both are less than a half mile long.


42 and 794.

I'm not sure of its current jurisdictional status, but Oneida St between US 10/WI 441 and the downtown area here in Appleton, including the Skyline Bridge over the Fox River and the adjacent bridges over Jones Park, have all of the hallmarks of being a WisDOT road.  it all WAS a marked state highway until the 1980s and before (US 10), but to the layman crowd, it is now just a busy Appleton city street.  'WI 510' anyone?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 13, 2022, 02:49:46 PM
Meanwhile, WisDOT chooses an interesting time (post-election) to insist the plan for I-94 between 70th and 16th streets in Milwaukee really should be 8-lanes.

They note that this new plan only takes one home and 6 business properties, and the 6-lane option only saves $40 million (off a $1.2 billion price tag) while resulting in poor level of service. It includes rebuilding the Stadium interchange as a diverging diamond, for $60 million in savings.

https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2022/11/11/wisdot-interstate-94-rebuild-east-west.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2022/11/11/wisdot-interstate-94-rebuild-east-west.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 13, 2022, 03:45:38 PM
Without digging into the linked article, how does WisDOT propose to handle the narrow part in the cemetery, with its legally sealed graves?  In previous proposals, engineers suggested cantilevering the two sides of the freeway to make room for the proposed eight lanes.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 13, 2022, 03:46:17 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 13, 2022, 02:49:46 PM
Meanwhile, WisDOT chooses an interesting time (post-election) to insist the plan for I-94 between 70th and 16th streets in Milwaukee really should be 8-lanes.

They note that this new plan only takes one home and 6 business properties, and the 6-lane option only saves $40 million (off a $1.2 billion price tag) while resulting in poor level of service. It includes rebuilding the Stadium interchange as a diverging diamond, for $60 million in savings.

https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2022/11/11/wisdot-interstate-94-rebuild-east-west.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2022/11/11/wisdot-interstate-94-rebuild-east-west.html)

I'm all for that plan. If it only takes 7 properties and doesn't increase cost by total amount much, that's worth it. I also think the DDI at the stadium would be appropriate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on November 13, 2022, 03:48:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2022, 03:45:38 PM
Without digging into the linked article, how does WisDOT propose to handle the narrow part in the cemetery, with its legally sealed graves?  In previous proposals, engineers suggested cantilevering the two sides of the freeway to make room for the proposed eight lanes.

Mike

Narrowing the lanes to 10-11 feet and narrowing the shoulders to around 4 feet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 13, 2022, 08:45:19 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on November 13, 2022, 03:48:54 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2022, 03:45:38 PM
Without digging into the linked article, how does WisDOT propose to handle the narrow part in the cemetery, with its legally sealed graves?  In previous proposals, engineers suggested cantilevering the two sides of the freeway to make room for the proposed eight lanes.

Mike

Narrowing the lanes to 10-11 feet and narrowing the shoulders to around 4 feet.
Route trucks onto 894 to bypass Chicago
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on November 13, 2022, 09:08:42 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2022, 03:45:38 PM
Without digging into the linked article, how does WisDOT propose to handle the narrow part in the cemetery, with its legally sealed graves? In previous proposals, engineers suggested cantilevering the two sides of the freeway to make room for the proposed eight lanes.
Dead end on both sides.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2022, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 13, 2022, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2022, 10:47:12 AM
Yeah I believe Wisconsin now just has a couple of spur routes unsigned. Both are less than a half mile long.


42 and 794.


I was thinking of a Spur US-51 in Beloit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 14, 2022, 06:49:16 PM
I was thinking of the Ashland Ave spur of WI 32 in De Pere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gr8daynegb on November 18, 2022, 01:33:26 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 14, 2022, 06:49:16 PM
I was thinking of the Ashland Ave spur of WI 32 in De Pere.

One of those roads in the Green Bay/DePere area that I wonder why it's there.  Just have 32 join 41 until it reaches 29 and can have VK be extended over 32 from Kwik trip in Depere until Lombardi Ave.  That or keep 32 going on Ashland Avenue until it reaches 29 then they both head west towards Shawano/Pulaski
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 01:48:11 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 14, 2022, 06:49:16 PM
I was thinking of the Ashland Ave spur of WI 32 in De Pere.

Do you mean Main Street?  The section of Main Street in De Pere between I-41 and WI-32 used to be a spur route, but I believe that was removed awhile ago.


Quote from: gr8daynegb on November 18, 2022, 01:33:26 PM
One of those roads in the Green Bay/DePere area that I wonder why it's there.  Just have 32 join 41 until it reaches 29 and can have VK be extended over 32 from Kwik trip in Depere until Lombardi Ave.  That or keep 32 going on Ashland Avenue until it reaches 29 then they both head west towards Shawano/Pulaski

I think Ashland Avenue between De Pere and Green Bay is "worthy" of being a state highway.  It doesn't go all the way to WI-29 though because technically WI-29 doesn't use the interchange with I-41. (It goes under the interchanges and continues along Shawano Avenue to next exit at Packerland.)  So they routed WI-32 along WI-54 and I-41 so the section of highway between Packerland and I-41 is on the state highway system. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.


Yeah that last one shows exactly what I am talking about.  WI-29 leaves the highway before the interchange, so if WI-32 weren't routed along it to I-41, there would technically be no number for it's last stretch.

Which is terribly annoying.  Sometimes it doesn't help to be a roadgeeek.  For instance, the last time I took this exit, I wanted to get onto the surface street, which I knew was West WI-29.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5434277,-88.0734135,3a,75y,209.38h,92.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBStvqbBRJORMY_hOiyAMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

So I took the West WI-29 exit, only to find myself on the highway.  But look!  When you go straight to Shawano Avenue, it also is marked West WI-29!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5396604,-88.0770901,3a,75y,242.59h,93.21t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sSZrlKyfZOwEnN_kYH6Pl3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 05:48:32 PM
While I am thinking about it, why couldn't the interchange on the Beltline in Madison for US 18 West / 151 South / Midvale Blvd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0368372,-89.4540012,16.33z/data=!5m1!1e1) be designed the same way that Wis 29 and I/US 41 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5424713,-88.0684557,15.19z/data=!5m1!1e1) is? I know it is tight spacing but I think it could work well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 18, 2022, 05:54:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 01:48:11 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 14, 2022, 06:49:16 PM
I was thinking of the Ashland Ave spur of WI 32 in De Pere.

Do you mean Main Street?  The section of Main Street in De Pere between I-41 and WI-32 used to be a spur route, but I believe that was removed awhile ago.


Quote from: gr8daynegb on November 18, 2022, 01:33:26 PM
One of those roads in the Green Bay/DePere area that I wonder why it's there.  Just have 32 join 41 until it reaches 29 and can have VK be extended over 32 from Kwik trip in Depere until Lombardi Ave.  That or keep 32 going on Ashland Avenue until it reaches 29 then they both head west towards Shawano/Pulaski

I think Ashland Avenue between De Pere and Green Bay is "worthy" of being a state highway.  It doesn't go all the way to WI-29 though because technically WI-29 doesn't use the interchange with I-41. (It goes under the interchanges and continues along Shawano Avenue to next exit at Packerland.)  So they routed WI-32 along WI-54 and I-41 so the section of highway between Packerland and I-41 is on the state highway system. 
I mean the piece just north of Main Avenue (not Street).  It used to be US 41 prior to the freeway segment from there to Lombardi Ave being built circa 1974.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on November 18, 2022, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.


Yeah that last one shows exactly what I am talking about.  WI-29 leaves the highway before the interchange, so if WI-32 weren't routed along it to I-41, there would technically be no number for it's last stretch.

Which is terribly annoying.  Sometimes it doesn't help to be a roadgeeek.  For instance, the last time I took this exit, I wanted to get onto the surface street, which I knew was West WI-29.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5434277,-88.0734135,3a,75y,209.38h,92.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBStvqbBRJORMY_hOiyAMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

So I took the West WI-29 exit, only to find myself on the highway.  But look!  When you go straight to Shawano Avenue, it also is marked West WI-29!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5396604,-88.0770901,3a,75y,242.59h,93.21t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sSZrlKyfZOwEnN_kYH6Pl3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

If WI 32 was routed concurrent with WI 29 from south of Pulaski to Ashland Av, the unmarked portion of the interchange would be no different than this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0230641,-77.1452693,15.14z?hl=en) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8494854,-87.9259171,16.32z?hl=en). And if Ohio ever replaces the I-76/I-80 interchange with something with flyover ramps, there is a good chance both highways will be on flyover ramps and no highway as drivers traverse the bridge, over or under.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on November 18, 2022, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 18, 2022, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.


Yeah that last one shows exactly what I am talking about.  WI-29 leaves the highway before the interchange, so if WI-32 weren't routed along it to I-41, there would technically be no number for it's last stretch.

Which is terribly annoying.  Sometimes it doesn't help to be a roadgeeek.  For instance, the last time I took this exit, I wanted to get onto the surface street, which I knew was West WI-29.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5434277,-88.0734135,3a,75y,209.38h,92.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBStvqbBRJORMY_hOiyAMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

So I took the West WI-29 exit, only to find myself on the highway.  But look!  When you go straight to Shawano Avenue, it also is marked West WI-29!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5396604,-88.0770901,3a,75y,242.59h,93.21t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sSZrlKyfZOwEnN_kYH6Pl3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

If WI 32 was routed concurrent with WI 29 from south of Pulaski to Ashland Av, the unmarked portion of the interchange would be no different than this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0230641,-77.1452693,15.14z?hl=en) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8494854,-87.9259171,16.32z?hl=en). And if Ohio ever replaces the I-76/I-80 interchange with something with flyover ramps, there is a good chance both highways will be on flyover ramps and no highway as drivers traverse the bridge, over or under.
Plus all the WI trunk highway spurs are unsigned, and WI 341 was also unsigned, so it's not like WisDOT hasn't hidden a trunk highway designation before.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on November 18, 2022, 06:28:03 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 05:48:32 PM
While I am thinking about it, why couldn't the interchange on the Beltline in Madison for US 18 West / 151 South / Midvale Blvd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0368372,-89.4540012,16.33z/data=!5m1!1e1) be designed the same way that Wis 29 and I/US 41 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5424713,-88.0684557,15.19z/data=!5m1!1e1) is? I know it is tight spacing but I think it could work well.
That's the plan, eventually they will tear out the Seminole Highway ramps and have flyover ramps that will make a direct connection. It'll only be ramps to make a direct freeway connection to and from US 18/151, but it'll be better than nothing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on November 18, 2022, 11:13:15 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 18, 2022, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.


Yeah that last one shows exactly what I am talking about.  WI-29 leaves the highway before the interchange, so if WI-32 weren't routed along it to I-41, there would technically be no number for it's last stretch.

Which is terribly annoying.  Sometimes it doesn't help to be a roadgeeek.  For instance, the last time I took this exit, I wanted to get onto the surface street, which I knew was West WI-29.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5434277,-88.0734135,3a,75y,209.38h,92.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBStvqbBRJORMY_hOiyAMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

So I took the West WI-29 exit, only to find myself on the highway.  But look!  When you go straight to Shawano Avenue, it also is marked West WI-29!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5396604,-88.0770901,3a,75y,242.59h,93.21t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sSZrlKyfZOwEnN_kYH6Pl3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

If WI 32 was routed concurrent with WI 29 from south of Pulaski to Ashland Av, the unmarked portion of the interchange would be no different than this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0230641,-77.1452693,15.14z?hl=en) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8494854,-87.9259171,16.32z?hl=en). And if Ohio ever replaces the I-76/I-80 interchange with something with flyover ramps, there is a good chance both highways will be on flyover ramps and no highway as drivers traverse the bridge, over or under.
This is getting OT but that's probably a case where the official highway goes to the centerline and then turns up the other centerline. They wouldn't define the ramps as a highway alignment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 19, 2022, 08:18:38 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 18, 2022, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 18, 2022, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.


Yeah that last one shows exactly what I am talking about.  WI-29 leaves the highway before the interchange, so if WI-32 weren't routed along it to I-41, there would technically be no number for it's last stretch.

Which is terribly annoying.  Sometimes it doesn't help to be a roadgeeek.  For instance, the last time I took this exit, I wanted to get onto the surface street, which I knew was West WI-29.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5434277,-88.0734135,3a,75y,209.38h,92.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBStvqbBRJORMY_hOiyAMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

So I took the West WI-29 exit, only to find myself on the highway.  But look!  When you go straight to Shawano Avenue, it also is marked West WI-29!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5396604,-88.0770901,3a,75y,242.59h,93.21t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sSZrlKyfZOwEnN_kYH6Pl3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

If WI 32 was routed concurrent with WI 29 from south of Pulaski to Ashland Av, the unmarked portion of the interchange would be no different than this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0230641,-77.1452693,15.14z?hl=en) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8494854,-87.9259171,16.32z?hl=en). And if Ohio ever replaces the I-76/I-80 interchange with something with flyover ramps, there is a good chance both highways will be on flyover ramps and no highway as drivers traverse the bridge, over or under.
Plus all the WI trunk highway spurs are unsigned, and WI 341 was also unsigned, so it's not like WisDOT hasn't hidden a trunk highway designation before.


Or they could just keep it as it is now, which keeps that portion of Ashland Ave off the state highway system.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 19, 2022, 01:05:43 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 18, 2022, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 18, 2022, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.


Yeah that last one shows exactly what I am talking about.  WI-29 leaves the highway before the interchange, so if WI-32 weren't routed along it to I-41, there would technically be no number for it's last stretch.

Which is terribly annoying.  Sometimes it doesn't help to be a roadgeeek.  For instance, the last time I took this exit, I wanted to get onto the surface street, which I knew was West WI-29.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5434277,-88.0734135,3a,75y,209.38h,92.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBStvqbBRJORMY_hOiyAMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

So I took the West WI-29 exit, only to find myself on the highway.  But look!  When you go straight to Shawano Avenue, it also is marked West WI-29!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5396604,-88.0770901,3a,75y,242.59h,93.21t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sSZrlKyfZOwEnN_kYH6Pl3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

If WI 32 was routed concurrent with WI 29 from south of Pulaski to Ashland Av, the unmarked portion of the interchange would be no different than this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0230641,-77.1452693,15.14z?hl=en) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8494854,-87.9259171,16.32z?hl=en). And if Ohio ever replaces the I-76/I-80 interchange with something with flyover ramps, there is a good chance both highways will be on flyover ramps and no highway as drivers traverse the bridge, over or under.
Plus all the WI trunk highway spurs are unsigned, and WI 341 was also unsigned, so it's not like WisDOT hasn't hidden a trunk highway designation before.

There was a WI 341 sign on one of the parking lot access roads at Miller Park.

As for WI 29 in Green Bay, I'd just cut it back to I-41 (Shawano interchange) and find a new number for the part farther east.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 19, 2022, 01:13:55 PM
The redesign of the signs on 29 at 41 that I mentioned I would do have been posted in the road related illustrations section, redesign this thread.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on November 19, 2022, 11:16:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 19, 2022, 08:18:38 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 18, 2022, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 18, 2022, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.


Yeah that last one shows exactly what I am talking about.  WI-29 leaves the highway before the interchange, so if WI-32 weren't routed along it to I-41, there would technically be no number for it's last stretch.

Which is terribly annoying.  Sometimes it doesn't help to be a roadgeeek.  For instance, the last time I took this exit, I wanted to get onto the surface street, which I knew was West WI-29.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5434277,-88.0734135,3a,75y,209.38h,92.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBStvqbBRJORMY_hOiyAMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

So I took the West WI-29 exit, only to find myself on the highway.  But look!  When you go straight to Shawano Avenue, it also is marked West WI-29!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5396604,-88.0770901,3a,75y,242.59h,93.21t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sSZrlKyfZOwEnN_kYH6Pl3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

If WI 32 was routed concurrent with WI 29 from south of Pulaski to Ashland Av, the unmarked portion of the interchange would be no different than this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0230641,-77.1452693,15.14z?hl=en) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8494854,-87.9259171,16.32z?hl=en). And if Ohio ever replaces the I-76/I-80 interchange with something with flyover ramps, there is a good chance both highways will be on flyover ramps and no highway as drivers traverse the bridge, over or under.
Plus all the WI trunk highway spurs are unsigned, and WI 341 was also unsigned, so it's not like WisDOT hasn't hidden a trunk highway designation before.


Or they could just keep it as it is now, which keeps that portion of Ashland Ave off the state highway system.
Yes of course. But the point is that they weren't forced to use WIS 32 as a crutch on the flyover ramps in order to keep those ramps in the trunk highway system.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 19, 2022, 11:19:52 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2022, 11:16:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 19, 2022, 08:18:38 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 18, 2022, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 18, 2022, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 18, 2022, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 18, 2022, 02:53:06 PM
Speaking of the Wis 29 & I/US 41 JCT in Green Bay, I do have a couple small issues with a few of the signs leading up to the JCT, specifically Eastbound on 29. I am going to do a redesign of these signs under the sign redesign thread this weekend. But here are the signs I have the issue with:

1. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.551932,-88.1099419,3a,75y,126.15h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ8c_4-K3y4CaraRy-SDgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.547793,-88.0999179,3a,75y,116.72h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dUn7eycbhD8_N5f1YThxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
3. https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5460744,-88.0957466,3a,75y,117.64h,92.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2XRzB86ZRKb6r00MRWTK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

I know simplicity is the way to go but a couple things are missing.
In the first one, I-41 technically is a left exit from Wis 29.
In the next 2, they put up Hwy EB but fail to mention that EB is Packerland Dr, a major roadway on the west side. Google doesn't even bother to label it as Hwy EB. They label it as Packerland and Cardinal. Otherwise, have a side sign that says Packerland and Cardinal, Next Right.  And as for the Green Bay control, I think you would be better having Shawano Ave as the control because you are coming off a freeway onto a city street if you are stay on 29.


Yeah that last one shows exactly what I am talking about.  WI-29 leaves the highway before the interchange, so if WI-32 weren't routed along it to I-41, there would technically be no number for it's last stretch.

Which is terribly annoying.  Sometimes it doesn't help to be a roadgeeek.  For instance, the last time I took this exit, I wanted to get onto the surface street, which I knew was West WI-29.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5434277,-88.0734135,3a,75y,209.38h,92.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBStvqbBRJORMY_hOiyAMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

So I took the West WI-29 exit, only to find myself on the highway.  But look!  When you go straight to Shawano Avenue, it also is marked West WI-29!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5396604,-88.0770901,3a,75y,242.59h,93.21t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sSZrlKyfZOwEnN_kYH6Pl3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i28!5m1!1e1

If WI 32 was routed concurrent with WI 29 from south of Pulaski to Ashland Av, the unmarked portion of the interchange would be no different than this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0230641,-77.1452693,15.14z?hl=en) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8494854,-87.9259171,16.32z?hl=en). And if Ohio ever replaces the I-76/I-80 interchange with something with flyover ramps, there is a good chance both highways will be on flyover ramps and no highway as drivers traverse the bridge, over or under.
Plus all the WI trunk highway spurs are unsigned, and WI 341 was also unsigned, so it's not like WisDOT hasn't hidden a trunk highway designation before.


Or they could just keep it as it is now, which keeps that portion of Ashland Ave off the state highway system.
Yes of course. But the point is that they weren't forced to use WIS 32 as a crutch on the flyover ramps in order to keep those ramps in the trunk highway system.

Who said they were "forced?"  
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 30, 2022, 09:29:14 PM
Governor Evers tweeted a picture of a photo shoot for the upcoming new map. There hasn't been a new map in a while but there aren't really any major updates outside of Wis 23 expansion between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth. I am hoping that US 12/The Beltline in Madison, Wis 145 in Milwaukee, and Wis 119 are back to being marked as freeways instead of 4 lane divided highways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 31, 2022, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 30, 2022, 09:29:14 PM
Governor Evers tweeted a picture of a photo shoot for the upcoming new map. There hasn't been a new map in a while but there aren't really any major updates outside of Wis 23 expansion between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth. I am hoping that US 12/The Beltline in Madison, Wis 145 in Milwaukee, and Wis 119 are back to being marked as freeways instead of 4 lane divided highways.

I would assume that the WI 15 Hortonville bypass is at least shown as being under construction.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 31, 2022, 12:40:40 PM
I was at my storage shed yesterday (next to the tracks on Merrill Hills Rd. in Waukesha) and it really drives home why the West Bypass was needed. I used to live on Mac Arthur Rd., so I could see for years that Merrill Hills was unsafe.

However, just look at Merrill Hills off of Sunset and look at how narrow the road is and how close the trees are to the road. Then look over at the bypass and see the traffic there.

When I was growing up, Merrill Hills was a fairly quiet country road. It ended at a "T" intersection with US-18. However once it was extended north, traffic picked up. Trying to make a left onto Merrill Hills anywhere between Sunset Dr. and 18 was a challenge, often ending in a crash. The speed limit was 45 with people doing 55 on a road with no shoulders and limited sight lines.

Long story short, despite some rumblings on the expense, in hindsight finally finishing the bypass was necessary. I'm glad it's done!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 31, 2022, 09:42:13 PM
I was miffed at the need for a bypass to the south of Waukesha when I-94 went to the north
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 31, 2022, 11:53:35 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 31, 2022, 09:42:13 PM
I was miffed at the need for a bypass to the south of Waukesha when I-94 went to the north


Problem is that 94 isn't really a bypass. It runs along the north side. If you, say, lived along East Ave your choices were pretty limited in terms of getting from I-94 to there.

Before the Les Paul Pkwy, your options of getting around the city from the south was Sunset Dr., former CTH-A, or through downtown. Later with he retail growth along Sunset, Merrill Hills to Sunset became a "de-facto" bypass route to the west and transformed a quiet farm road into a suburban artery. However, anyone sitting at the corner of MacArthur and Merrill Hills played Russian roulette during drive times making a turn at that intersection.

Add to that the crazy routing that US-18 took through Waukesha, and all the pieces were there to make it work.

I am a little curious why they didn't run 18 north at Merrill Hills to 94 and then over to the Bluemound exit. I mean, the bypass is really a "bypass" route as US-18, but it's certainly not the faster route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 01, 2023, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 31, 2022, 12:40:40 PM
I was at my storage shed yesterday (next to the tracks on Merrill Hills Rd. in Waukesha) and it really drives home why the West Bypass was needed. I used to live on Mac Arthur Rd., so I could see for years that Merrill Hills was unsafe.

However, just look at Merrill Hills off of Sunset and look at how narrow the road is and how close the trees are to the road. Then look over at the bypass and see the traffic there.

When I was growing up, Merrill Hills was a fairly quiet country road. It ended at a "T" intersection with US-18. However once it was extended north, traffic picked up. Trying to make a left onto Merrill Hills anywhere between Sunset Dr. and 18 was a challenge, often ending in a crash. The speed limit was 45 with people doing 55 on a road with no shoulders and limited sight lines.

Long story short, despite some rumblings on the expense, in hindsight finally finishing the bypass was necessary. I'm glad it's done!


I didn't know you grew up in that area! I spent the first few years of my life in Waukesha and Genessee, even going to a small, two room school house in first grade in the mid-70s (Torhorst School) which is now part of the church at the corner of Meadowbrook and Summit.  It was out in the middle of nowhere back then.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 01, 2023, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 01, 2023, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 31, 2022, 12:40:40 PM
I was at my storage shed yesterday (next to the tracks on Merrill Hills Rd. in Waukesha) and it really drives home why the West Bypass was needed. I used to live on Mac Arthur Rd., so I could see for years that Merrill Hills was unsafe.

However, just look at Merrill Hills off of Sunset and look at how narrow the road is and how close the trees are to the road. Then look over at the bypass and see the traffic there.

When I was growing up, Merrill Hills was a fairly quiet country road. It ended at a "T" intersection with US-18. However once it was extended north, traffic picked up. Trying to make a left onto Merrill Hills anywhere between Sunset Dr. and 18 was a challenge, often ending in a crash. The speed limit was 45 with people doing 55 on a road with no shoulders and limited sight lines.

Long story short, despite some rumblings on the expense, in hindsight finally finishing the bypass was necessary. I'm glad it's done!


I didn't know you grew up in that area! I spent the first few years of my life in Waukesha and Genessee, even going to a small, two room school house in first grade in the mid-70s (Torhorst School) which is now part of the church at the corner of Meadowbrook and Summit.  It was out in the middle of nowhere back then.

Yep! When I was growing up, MacArthur Rd. was named Westmoreland. It was changed for obvious reasons! The road was CTH-DE.

We moved in the same year Fox Run opened on the corner of what was then Sunset and STH-59. I've been on the planet long enough to now see it demolished!

I went to first grade at the then new Bethesda Elementary, and graduated from Waukesha North.

Things have definitely changed over the years!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 02, 2023, 07:32:53 PM
For 2023 it doesn't look like there's really any new "exciting"  projects other than ongoing construction on I-41 and I-43 in the Milwaukee Area and Wis 15 around Hortonville. Wis 172 is being resurfaced from the airport to I-43, I-894/I-41/I-43 will also be resurfaced, and the US 12/County AB Interchange will be open.

4 lane expansion is slowing down compared to other years and WISDOT appears to be either rebuilding and expanding existing freeways (I-94 MKE, I-41), or just maintaining existing roads. After Wis 15 is done, WISDOT doesn't appear to have any projects widening any 2 lane roads to 4 lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 03, 2023, 09:49:38 AM
It's nice to see the interchange of WI 60 and the triplex getting modernized. Those parclo B2's sure were popular back when they built I-90 from Illinois to The Dells. They converted all of them to diamonds south of Madison last decade as part of that big project.  Now they're starting to chip away at the last ones north of Madison, it would seem.




In other holiday weekend observations, I'm struck by the change in character of US 53 north of Rice Lake when you transition from the freeway constructed in the 70's to the expressway constructed in the 80's.  The big sweeping curves and wide r/w with long, steel-girdered overpasses gives way to a more curvy 'tighter-feeling' facility with, of course, all the cross traffic and stuff.  To be expected for most of it as the expressway was built on-alignment of the old two lane highway.

Though I look at the Spooner bypass section and think about the missed opportunities there.  If my memory is right, it was built contemporaneously with US 51's super-2 bypass of Tomahawk in the early 80's.  But over there, they had the foresight to preserve as much access control as they could so that two decades later, it was a cinch to twin that stretch and have it be a freeway.  At Spooner, however, this long stretch of new (at the time) terrain four lane highway was built lousy with cross roads and no effort to grab up the r/w for future full access control.  They even made it worse by putting that veterans cemetery right off the highway with additional at-grades.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda, I suppose.

Anyway, the whole dynamic illustrates how highways were built pre and post NEPA.  And I find that interesting.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 03, 2023, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 03, 2023, 09:49:38 AM
It's nice to see the interchange of WI 60 and the triplex getting modernized. Those parclo B2's sure were popular back when they built I-90 from Illinois to The Dells. They converted all of them to diamonds south of Madison last decade as part of that big project.  Now they're starting to chip away at the last ones north of Madison, it would seem.


I'm guessing at the time, that was an easier choice for WisDOT because that was a very rural section of interstate. We'd use that interchange a lot when I was a kid to go to Devil's Lake via the Colsac ferry. As traffic picked up over the years, I've been very surprised that there hasn't been more accidents there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2023, 02:18:53 PM
Hopefully, there will be enough space at the reconfigured interchange for a fourth traffic lane to be added in each direction in the future. That is what they are planning to do with the Wisconsin River Bridge Replacement Project further north.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 03, 2023, 03:13:49 PM
The overhaul of the 90/94 and WIS 82 interchange in Mauston also wrapped up this fall. As a regular user of this interchange the roundabouts here feel to me like a huge improvement to the old configuration where 82 had free-flowing traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 03, 2023, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 03, 2023, 03:13:49 PM
The overhaul of the 90/94 and WIS 82 interchange in Mauston also wrapped up this fall. As a regular user of this interchange the roundabouts here feel to me like a huge improvement to the old configuration where 82 had free-flowing traffic.

I'm going to have to check that out on my run up to La Crosse tomorrow. I know that whole thing has been under construction for quite a while, though the traffic flows pretty freely through there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 03, 2023, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 03, 2023, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 03, 2023, 03:13:49 PM
The overhaul of the 90/94 and WIS 82 interchange in Mauston also wrapped up this fall. As a regular user of this interchange the roundabouts here feel to me like a huge improvement to the old configuration where 82 had free-flowing traffic.

I'm going to have to check that out on my run up to La Crosse tomorrow. I know that whole thing has been under construction for quite a while, though the traffic flows pretty freely through there.

I should probably be a little more clear than I was, which is the bulk of the work on 82 and the interchange itself is done with the roundabouts open and temporary intersections/stoplights being removed, but some ongoing work on 90/94 continues (including a work zone speed reduction still being in effect westbound)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 04, 2023, 08:22:50 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 03, 2023, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 03, 2023, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 03, 2023, 03:13:49 PM
The overhaul of the 90/94 and WIS 82 interchange in Mauston also wrapped up this fall. As a regular user of this interchange the roundabouts here feel to me like a huge improvement to the old configuration where 82 had free-flowing traffic.

I'm going to have to check that out on my run up to La Crosse tomorrow. I know that whole thing has been under construction for quite a while, though the traffic flows pretty freely through there.

I should probably be a little more clear than I was, which is the bulk of the work on 82 and the interchange itself is done with the roundabouts open and temporary intersections/stoplights being removed, but some ongoing work on 90/94 continues (including a work zone speed reduction still being in effect westbound)

Saw it today - there's a restriction EB as well. It's looking really good though!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 05, 2023, 10:48:22 AM
I noted most traffic viewed the construction zone SL in Mauston as a mere suggestion.

Project page on WisDOT for the WI 60 interchange doesn't specify what the bridges will be like; they have no useful maps of the project available.  But I have to assume the new spans will be able to accommodate four lanes each?  If for no other reason than it makes construction staging much easier because you can keep 3 lanes open in one direction at least.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 05, 2023, 02:03:37 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 05, 2023, 10:48:22 AM
I noted most traffic viewed the construction zone SL in Mauston as a mere suggestion.

Project page on WisDOT for the WI 60 interchange doesn't specify what the bridges will be like; they have no useful maps of the project available.  But I have to assume the new spans will be able to accommodate four lanes each?  If for no other reason than it makes construction staging much easier because you can keep 3 lanes open in one direction at least.

I am noticing that rebuilt bridges are wider on I-94 mainly for that reason since there aren't any expansion plans on many of the wider rebuilt bridges.

In the future most of I-94 is going to have to be rebuilt across the state especially between Cottage Grove and Milwaukee. The road beds are shot and resurfacings don't even last 10 years anymore. The bridges are old and the interchanges are outdated.

Compare to I-43 and I-41 that have more modern interchanges and newer designs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 10, 2023, 10:49:06 PM
State 23 expansion wraps up for Sheboygan, Fond du Lac counties. Here's what's changed
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/state-23-expansion-wraps-up-for-sheboygan-fond-du-lac-counties-here-s-what-s-changed/ar-AA16awUV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=9dcb2d0c87c047f3a72d5901240d8941

https://projects.511wi.gov/wis23resurface/full-project-overview/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2023, 12:30:23 PM
The STH 23 expansion to four lanes between Fond du Lac and Plymouth should have been constructed a long time ago. It was nearly universally supported (save for 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, who should have told to go pound sand). Still, better late than never.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 11, 2023, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2023, 12:30:23 PM
The STH 23 expansion to four lanes between Fond du Lac and Plymouth should have been constructed a long time ago. It was nearly universally supported (save for 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, who should have told to go pound sand). Still, better late than never.

It was a federal judge that delayed the project. If it would have been built earlier I'm guessing most of the J Turn intersections wouldn't be there or the roundabout.

I do find it odd that some of these expressways "stop short"  of free flow access.

Examples:

US 10 in Stevens Point
Wis 26 in Johnson Creek/I-94 and Janesville
US 53 Superior
US 18/151 Madison Eventhough Verona Rd is an improvement.
Wis 23 near US 151

Wis 29 eliminated all the lights and it's completely free flowing and US 53 was fixed in Eau Claire. US 45 became free flowing in Oshkosh when I-41 was reconstructed. I'm guessing nothing will be done with the others.


                 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 11, 2023, 02:32:05 PM
Why is it odd?  It's just a simply cost / benefit analysis.  WI-26 in Johnson Creek for instance. You weren't going to be able to build a free flowing I-94 exit in its current location. So you ramp up the costs to save...what...one or two minutes of travel time? The current set up can be a bit of a hassle, but by and large works fine.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: pianocello on January 11, 2023, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2023, 01:54:33 PM
I do find it odd that some of these expressways "stop short"  of free flow access.

Examples:

US 10 in Stevens Point
Wis 26 in Johnson Creek/I-94 and Janesville
US 53 Superior
US 18/151 Madison Eventhough Verona Rd is an improvement.
Wis 23 near US 151

Wis 29 eliminated all the lights and it's completely free flowing and US 53 was fixed in Eau Claire. US 45 became free flowing in Oshkosh when I-41 was reconstructed. I'm guessing nothing will be done with the others.               

It sucks that there are these gaps, but given the ROW and bridge costs at these locations, I get it.

FWIW the US 18-151/Beltline interchange is on WisDOT's radar if I remember right, just low on the priority list.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on January 12, 2023, 11:10:45 AM
Quote from: pianocello on January 11, 2023, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2023, 01:54:33 PM
I do find it odd that some of these expressways "stop short"  of free flow access.

Examples:

US 10 in Stevens Point
Wis 26 in Johnson Creek/I-94 and Janesville
US 53 Superior
US 18/151 Madison Eventhough Verona Rd is an improvement.
Wis 23 near US 151

Wis 29 eliminated all the lights and it's completely free flowing and US 53 was fixed in Eau Claire. US 45 became free flowing in Oshkosh when I-41 was reconstructed. I'm guessing nothing will be done with the others.               

It sucks that there are these gaps, but given the ROW and bridge costs at these locations, I get it.

FWIW the US 18-151/Beltline interchange is on WisDOT's radar if I remember right, just low on the priority list.

I don't see anything happening with the 18/151 and Beltline interchange within the next decade at minimum. They just spent money rebuilding it, so I can't see them turning around and ripping it out again soon. If there's an explosion of growth around Verona, then maybe. But again, probably not for at least ten years from now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 12, 2023, 04:18:41 PM
More significantly, the completion of WI 23 seems to mark the end of the era of major rural four lane expansions in the state for a while.  There's a four lane highway to every city with at least 20,000 people and they're all pretty robustly connected.

Just in time to start fixing the ones that are aging out of their ~30 year initial lifespan.  With some minor exceptions here and there, our future is going to be mostly fixing pavement and addressing safety concerns in this state with our road money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: chrismarion100 on January 13, 2023, 06:09:42 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 12, 2023, 11:10:45 AM
Quote from: pianocello on January 11, 2023, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2023, 01:54:33 PM
I do find it odd that some of these expressways "stop short"  of free flow access.

Examples:

US 10 in Stevens Point
Wis 26 in Johnson Creek/I-94 and Janesville
US 53 Superior
US 18/151 Madison Eventhough Verona Rd is an improvement.
Wis 23 near US 151

Wis 29 eliminated all the lights and it's completely free flowing and US 53 was fixed in Eau Claire. US 45 became free flowing in Oshkosh when I-41 was reconstructed. I'm guessing nothing will be done with the others.               

It sucks that there are these gaps, but given the ROW and bridge costs at these locations, I get it.

FWIW the US 18-151/Beltline interchange is on WisDOT's radar if I remember right, just low on the priority list.

I don't see anything happening with the 18/151 and Beltline interchange within the next decade at minimum. They just spent money rebuilding it, so I can't see them turning around and ripping it out again soon. If there's an explosion of growth around Verona, then maybe. But again, probably not for at least ten years from now.

There are plans to eventually make US 18/151 from the beltline to Verona Rd into a freeway (however not a full freeway-to-freeway connection) but won't happen until needed (WisDOT say 2030 or later)
Link to a diagram of that will look like.https://projects.511wi.gov/veronard/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/map-altstage3.pdf (https://projects.511wi.gov/veronard/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/map-altstage3.pdf)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 14, 2023, 01:41:00 PM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on January 13, 2023, 06:09:42 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 12, 2023, 11:10:45 AM
Quote from: pianocello on January 11, 2023, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 11, 2023, 01:54:33 PM
I do find it odd that some of these expressways "stop short"  of free flow access.

Examples:

US 10 in Stevens Point
Wis 26 in Johnson Creek/I-94 and Janesville
US 53 Superior
US 18/151 Madison Eventhough Verona Rd is an improvement.
Wis 23 near US 151

Wis 29 eliminated all the lights and it's completely free flowing and US 53 was fixed in Eau Claire. US 45 became free flowing in Oshkosh when I-41 was reconstructed. I'm guessing nothing will be done with the others.               

It sucks that there are these gaps, but given the ROW and bridge costs at these locations, I get it.

FWIW the US 18-151/Beltline interchange is on WisDOT's radar if I remember right, just low on the priority list.

I don't see anything happening with the 18/151 and Beltline interchange within the next decade at minimum. They just spent money rebuilding it, so I can't see them turning around and ripping it out again soon. If there's an explosion of growth around Verona, then maybe. But again, probably not for at least ten years from now.

There are plans to eventually make US 18/151 from the beltline to Verona Rd into a freeway (however not a full freeway-to-freeway connection) but won't happen until needed (WisDOT say 2030 or later)
Link to a diagram of that will look like.https://projects.511wi.gov/veronard/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/map-altstage3.pdf (https://projects.511wi.gov/veronard/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/map-altstage3.pdf)

That's kind of like what WisDOT was proposing a decade or so ago.  Even then, engineering studies showed such a low traffic demand for turns between the Beltline to the northwest and US 18/151 to the southwest that any thoughts of (highly complex and EXPENSIVE) free-flow freeway-o-freeway ramps for them were omitted early on - the existing ramp intersection turns are more than sufficient for the demand.  I generally like that preliminary proposal.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 10:02:29 PM
I highly doubt that freeway proposal will ever be implemented (although I would not oppose such a proposal being built). The two stages of Verona Rd. improvements built between 2014 and 2020 are probably as upgraded as Verona Rd. is ever going to get.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 16, 2023, 11:44:57 AM
And the WB off ramp to Verona Rd will forever backup onto the freeway during peak times.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Stephane Dumas on January 19, 2023, 07:51:38 PM
Google Streeview showed the construction progress of the I-43 interchange at Highland road from last October. https://goo.gl/maps/uRS4JiQxsPD5D4Vh7
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 21, 2023, 01:36:59 AM
As part of the 39/90 rebuild and turning the US 14/WIS 26 cluster in Janesville into one exit with a C/D lane, WisDOT put a green gore-point style EXIT sign off to the right shoulder of the road, and even having driven through it several times it really psychs me out into thinking I missed the ramp. I hope no one goes into the ditch or anything thinking the same thing out of habit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on January 21, 2023, 07:57:42 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 21, 2023, 01:36:59 AM
As part of the 39/90 rebuild and turning the US 14/WIS 26 cluster in Janesville into one exit with a C/D lane, WisDOT put a green gore-point style EXIT sign off to the right shoulder of the road, and even having driven through it several times it really psychs me out into thinking I missed the ramp. I hope no one goes into the ditch or anything thinking the same thing out of habit.

That has the potential to be dangerous. Reminds me of when I've seen a Keep Right sign used in place of a Right Turn Only sign on the side of the road.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 21, 2023, 01:51:14 PM
Is those two high-speed 'flyunder' ramps were to be built, there would not be those backups.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on January 22, 2023, 03:11:09 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 21, 2023, 01:36:59 AM
As part of the 39/90 rebuild and turning the US 14/WIS 26 cluster in Janesville into one exit with a C/D lane, WisDOT put a green gore-point style EXIT sign off to the right shoulder of the road, and even having driven through it several times it really psychs me out into thinking I missed the ramp. I hope no one goes into the ditch or anything thinking the same thing out of habit.

I'm sure it'll be a lawsuit as soon as someone goes off the road during heavy rain or a white-out snowstorm into the ditch
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 22, 2023, 05:39:52 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 21, 2023, 01:36:59 AM
As part of the 39/90 rebuild and turning the US 14/WIS 26 cluster in Janesville into one exit with a C/D lane, WisDOT put a green gore-point style EXIT sign off to the right shoulder of the road, and even having driven through it several times it really psychs me out into thinking I missed the ramp. I hope no one goes into the ditch or anything thinking the same thing out of habit.

A couple views of it from Street View, which really doesn't drive home its absurdity:
https://goo.gl/maps/f2EZWRAPRJwosgg69
https://goo.gl/maps/Y1QoLdfU43TUjSaYA

It's trying (poorly) to indicate a 4th lane is emerging to the right, and you have to change lanes to the right twice (three times if you're exiting at Hwy 26). 

What this needs is the same overhead they have on the NBD side at Hwy 14, to wit:
https://goo.gl/maps/bf3QXtmDdYm97g6U8
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 23, 2023, 02:34:30 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 22, 2023, 05:39:52 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 21, 2023, 01:36:59 AM
As part of the 39/90 rebuild and turning the US 14/WIS 26 cluster in Janesville into one exit with a C/D lane, WisDOT put a green gore-point style EXIT sign off to the right shoulder of the road, and even having driven through it several times it really psychs me out into thinking I missed the ramp. I hope no one goes into the ditch or anything thinking the same thing out of habit.

A couple views of it from Street View, which really doesn't drive home its absurdity:
https://goo.gl/maps/f2EZWRAPRJwosgg69
https://goo.gl/maps/Y1QoLdfU43TUjSaYA

It's trying (poorly) to indicate a 4th lane is emerging to the right, and you have to change lanes to the right twice (three times if you're exiting at Hwy 26). 

What this needs is the same overhead they have on the NBD side at Hwy 14, to wit:
https://goo.gl/maps/bf3QXtmDdYm97g6U8

WISDOT did the same thing on US 10 at the Wis 22 South Interchange in Waupaca.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GoQayXBv5DcCe29TA?g_st=ic
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 23, 2023, 04:16:23 AM
^^ That better be contractor error as when I lived there the sign was in the correct place and said exit 252.

BTW The Pennsylvania Turnpike used to do that too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2023, 02:36:36 PM
The exit would be numbered Exit 206 if it was going by the actual mileage from the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. The exit numbers on US 10 are a sign of indigestion for me; not unlike Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 238 in California are for others.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2023, 02:41:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2023, 02:36:36 PM
The exit would be numbered Exit 206 if it was going by the actual mileage from the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. The exit numbers on US 10 are a sign of indigestion for me; not unlike Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 238 in California are for others.

What mile numbers are they using?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 23, 2023, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2023, 02:41:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2023, 02:36:36 PM
The exit would be numbered Exit 206 if it was going by the actual mileage from the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. The exit numbers on US 10 are a sign of indigestion for me; not unlike Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 238 in California are for others.

What mile numbers are they using?

It's been speculated on here that the exit numbers/internal WisDOT mileage on US 10 in Wisconsin still reflects the highway's original routing, which followed a duplex with US 12 from Minnesota rather than being based on US 10's current crossing of the MN/WI border at Prescott.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 23, 2023, 03:17:31 PM
I looked into the US 10 mileage issue a little while ago.  To me, it appears that it's mileage list on the books was compiled way back when the route was first established in the 1920s and the west central portion was duplexed with U.S. 12 from the state line at Hudson until they separated somewhere around Fairchild or Humbird on more-or-less the routings they still have today through the rest of the state.  When U.S. 10 was shifted to its own more southerly routing from Prescott eastwards (after the drawbridge in Prescott was finished), they never changed the mileage numbering from what it had started with on the western half.  And it still has those numbers today.

 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2023, 04:24:31 PM
Oh yes. Now I remember that. Thanks to you both.

The only other thought that made some sense was that they were using WI-54's mileage for some reason.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 23, 2023, 05:21:35 PM
I don't dispute Invincor's conclusion as it makes the most sense of any explanations, but I do wonder if the difference between the two routings is enough to create a nearly 50-mile discrepancy.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 23, 2023, 06:19:06 PM
There are multiple inaccuracies in WI's exit numbering system.  I-41 and US 45 match US-41's current mileposts which did not change at all when 41 was moved to the freeways earlier and then to 894 recently. I-39's mileage follows that of US-51 which is still inaccurate.  The mileposting for 39 (including the former 51 bypass used by WIS-78 is ~6 miles off from its southern entry point (which belonged to I-90 to begin with.

I-90's mileposting also is way off. I-39 pulls off at 78 miles north of the IL State line - at exit 108.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 23, 2023, 06:54:39 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 23, 2023, 06:19:06 PM

I-90's mileposting also is way off. I-39 pulls off at 78 miles north of the IL State line - at exit 108.
What is the distance from the Minnesota state line, where the numbering starts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2023, 07:29:47 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 23, 2023, 05:21:35 PM
I don't dispute Invincor's conclusion as it makes the most sense of any explanations, but I do wonder if the difference between the two routings is enough to create a nearly 50-mile discrepancy.


Not even close. Unless I am mis-measuring something, the US-12 routing is only a handful of miles longer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2023, 07:53:00 PM
I took the mileage numbers from the "US 10 in Wisconsin" Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_10_in_Wisconsin. I knew that US 10 was co-current with US 12 from Hudson to Humbird when the US Highway System debuted in 1926. Since US 10 was relocated onto its present alignment in 1934 (replacing what was then STH-34), the DOT should have updated US 10 to correspond with its existing length (294.01 miles) a long time ago. As for Interstate 39 and Interstate 41, 39 corresponds with US 51's mileposts from Exit 92 northward; that is why the exits south of where US 51 exits 39 are numbered 84-92 (as opposed to 78-86). Also, if Interstate 41's exits had been numbered by the post-2015 mileage of Interstate 41/US 41, all numbered exits from the Zoo Interchange northward would be numbered five digits higher than they are currently numbered. I don't have a problem with how Interstate 39 and 41's exits are numbered, just US 10's. Unfortunately for me, the numbers posted will likely never be changed. I just hope that if more non-numbered exits on existing State and US Highways receive numbers, they more accurately correspond with the routes' existing mileage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 23, 2023, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2023, 07:29:47 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 23, 2023, 05:21:35 PM
I don't dispute Invincor's conclusion as it makes the most sense of any explanations, but I do wonder if the difference between the two routings is enough to create a nearly 50-mile discrepancy.


Not even close. Unless I am mis-measuring something, the US-12 routing is only a handful of miles longer.

When I rerun the calculations now, I only get a small difference too.  I must have made a mistake when I first investigated this.  So sorry, everyone, this doesn't explain it after all!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 23, 2023, 08:31:03 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 23, 2023, 06:19:06 PM
I-90's mileposting also is way off. I-39 pulls off at 78 miles north of the IL State line - at exit 108.

I-90's mileposting is from East to West - from LaCrosse to Beloit. The math checks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 24, 2023, 10:23:18 AM
The US 10 exit numbering is particularly annoying because they were starting from scratch when they started to number exits and put up mile markers ~10 years ago or whatever it was.  They could have done it to accurately reflect the actual path of US 10 in the state, but nope!

I think I measured it out when we first noticed this anomaly and I figured mile 0 for US 10 in Wisconsin would be in like Coon Rapids, Minnesota.  So the ancient routing for US 10 west of Fairchild wouldn't account for that large of a discrepancy. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 24, 2023, 02:11:55 PM
It's still an interesting puzzle to solve... what could account for this 40-ish mile discrepancy?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on January 24, 2023, 06:23:45 PM
Quote from: invincor on January 24, 2023, 02:11:55 PM
It's still an interesting puzzle to solve... what could account for this 40-ish mile discrepancy?

The ability to add bypasses around little towns in the future that could potentially add mileage?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 24, 2023, 07:25:30 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 24, 2023, 06:23:45 PM
Quote from: invincor on January 24, 2023, 02:11:55 PM
It's still an interesting puzzle to solve... what could account for this 40-ish mile discrepancy?

The ability to add bypasses around little towns in the future that could potentially add mileage?

Yep. Pick a number that won't have to change. Then, don't change it. If it ever becomes a big deal, change it then.

Wisconsin isn't big on mile-markers for 2-lane highways, and US-10 won't ever be 4-laned to a significant degree west of I-94. A 40-mile discrepancy is a bit extreme, but it's not uncommon for some number-fudging with milemarkers and exit numbers.

One example is I-69 in Indiana, where Indiana decided to make the milemarkers north of Indianapolis start with 200 (though the actual mileage from the start in Evansville is more like 180 miles). It was way simpler to just add 200 to the existing milemarkers than to precisely measure it - only for that precision to go away as soon as some portion is realigned or moved.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 25, 2023, 11:43:52 AM
OK so I have a new theory about US-10's exit numbers, and it is probably a bad one.

The US-10 / WI-13 exit just outside of Marshfield is Exit 187.  Obviously the mileage is less than that if you follow US-10 westbound to the Minnesota line.  However, if you follow WI-13 southbound along its historical routing to the IL line, it is almost exactly 187 miles.

My guess is that is just an odd coincidence...but still.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 25, 2023, 06:36:51 PM
US 10 in Wisconsin is 293 miles long and the final exit number is Exit 291. Could WISDOT possibly have counted from the end and started in Appleton rather than Manitowoc where it ends?

In Appleton, Wis 441 has both Exit numbers for US 10 and Wis 441. Wouldn't it be more consistent to use Wis 441 exit numbers throughout so the mile markers don't go from 291 to 5 like they do now? And why does US 10 have markers every 2/10s of a mile while Wis 441 has the basic mile markers for every mile?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 25, 2023, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 25, 2023, 11:43:52 AM
OK so I have a new theory about US-10's exit numbers, and it is probably a bad one.

The US-10 / WI-13 exit just outside of Marshfield is Exit 187.  Obviously the mileage is less than that if you follow US-10 westbound to the Minnesota line.  However, if you follow WI-13 southbound along its historical routing to the IL line, it is almost exactly 187 miles.

My guess is that is just an odd coincidence...but still.

The geographic center of Wisconsin is about 12 miles due south of the Marshfield US-10/Hwy 13 intersection, in Pittsville.
https://goo.gl/maps/FzNyuRaqkfDNTHNSA
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 26, 2023, 06:30:01 AM
Quote from: Big John on January 23, 2023, 06:54:39 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 23, 2023, 06:19:06 PM

I-90's mileposting also is way off. I-39 pulls off at 78 miles north of the IL State line - at exit 108.
What is the distance from the Minnesota state line, where the numbering starts?
Oops - wrong direction 😳
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2023, 04:51:16 PM
So about those US-10 exit numbers. I actually emailed WIDOT about this last week. I got a response today. I am not going to quote it directly but they went back and looked at planning documents from the late 80s for when US-10 first was planned to be a freeway/expressway in the "eastern part of the state."

And the long and short of it is, they really don't know! It could be a simple miscalculation by the original planners. But since then they have used the exit numbers that correspond to this initial exits, which is why everything is off by about 50 miles. So the mystery continues...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 02, 2023, 07:27:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 25, 2023, 11:43:52 AM
OK so I have a new theory about US-10's exit numbers, and it is probably a bad one.

The US-10 / WI-13 exit just outside of Marshfield is Exit 187.  Obviously the mileage is less than that if you follow US-10 westbound to the Minnesota line.  However, if you follow WI-13 southbound along its historical routing to the IL line, it is almost exactly 187 miles.

My guess is that is just an odd coincidence...but still.
If you go by the milage from the Minnesota border it should be Exit 146 so it's off by 41 miles.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 08, 2023, 05:42:22 PM
More US 10 news. Passing lanes are going to be constructed between Reedsville and Cato. On the project website there's also a map of highways for potential passing lanes.

Eventhough 4 lane expansion is mostly over, it does look like WISDOT is committed to adding passing lanes to improve 2 lane roads..

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/us10pass/default.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 18, 2023, 10:28:35 AM
Quotehttps://twitter.com/WisDOTnorthwest/status/1626635428206870538(https://i.imgur.com/JQ2CYJ1.jpg)

Looks like the bottom bit of the sign in the background got nicked up as well...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 12, 2023, 05:06:56 PM
Construction season is almost here: I'm looking forward to the repair/resurfacing of US 18/US 151 between Mt. Horeb and Fitchburg. The Verona Bypass has become extremely rough.

Any Wisconsin projects you're looking forward to this season?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2023, 06:08:03 PM
The three projects I'm most interested in are still in the study phase, with construction far into the future: the US 51 Stoughton Road Corridor Studies (North: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/northstudy.aspx) (South: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx)); the US 12/14/18/151 Madison Beltline Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx)); and the Interstate 39/90/94 Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx). I hate how many years it takes to propose, fund, design, and then construct road projects.

fixing broken hyperlinks --sso
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 12, 2023, 07:19:41 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2023, 06:08:03 PM
The three projects I'm most interested in are still in the study phase, with construction far into the future: the US 51 Stoughton Road Corridor Studies (North: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/northstudy.aspx) (South: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx)); the US 12/14/18/151 Madison Beltline Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx)); and the Interstate 39/90/94 Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx). I hate how many years it takes to propose, fund, design, and then construct road projects.

Other than US 51/Stoughton Rd which is basically a freeway conversion, the other 2 projects don't really have any plans.

fixing broken hyperlinks --sso
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on March 12, 2023, 07:44:53 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on March 12, 2023, 05:06:56 PM
Any Wisconsin projects you're looking forward to this season?
I-43 N/S freeway: https://projects.511wi.gov/43north-south/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 12, 2023, 10:00:54 PM
I'm looking forward to WI-50 in and around Kenosha being completed. The intersection with WI-31 is a bit messy at the moment.

I'm also interested to see whether any construction will take place on any roads out near Platteville. Not that I'm out there very often, but I'm hoping for a resurfacing or two, and maybe even a potential new roundabout at WI-80/WI-81.

I'm also looking forward to the I-43 improvements north of Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2023, 10:34:40 PM
I take that back! One near-future project I am very interested in is the Interstate 94 East-West Corridor Study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/94stadiumint/default.aspx. I am very happy that the freeway is going to be reconstructed as an 8-lane freeway. I just hope it isn't delayed longer, since the city has made it clear that they oppose freeway expansion within the city of Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on March 13, 2023, 10:38:53 AM
I'm interested in the continued progress if the WI-15 Hortonville bypass this year. from Greenville to New London

I'm also interested in getting closer to the long overdue I-41 expansion from NW Appleton to De Pere.  The amount of crashes within this section of the interstate is insane.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 13, 2023, 11:12:02 AM
Quote from: gbgoose on March 13, 2023, 10:38:53 AM
I'm interested in the continued progress if the WI-15 Hortonville bypass this year. from Greenville to New London

I'm also interested in getting closer to the long overdue I-41 expansion from NW Appleton to De Pere.  The amount of crashes within this section of the interstate is insane.

Probably some minor preliminary work on the I-41 project, mainly here and there utility relocations and ROW clearance works.  I'm also very much looking forward (state motto!) to this one when it gets going for real.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 13, 2023, 11:34:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2023, 06:08:03 PM
The three projects I'm most interested in are still in the study phase, with construction far into the future: the US 51 Stoughton Road Corridor Studies (North: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/northstudy.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/northstudy.aspx)) (South: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx)); the US 12/14/18/151 Madison Beltline Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx)); and the Interstate 39/90/94 Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx). I hate how many years it takes to propose, fund, design, and then construct road projects.
I think the realistic best-case scenario for Stoughton Rd is a split interchange with Texas-style frontage roads at Pflaum and Buckeye. Which would be pretty nice. Free-flow with the Beltline will never happen.

fixing broken hyperlinks --sso
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 14, 2023, 11:42:19 AM
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2023, 11:34:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2023, 06:08:03 PM
The three projects I'm most interested in are still in the study phase, with construction far into the future: the US 51 Stoughton Road Corridor Studies (North: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/northstudy.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/northstudy.aspx)) (South: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx)); the US 12/14/18/151 Madison Beltline Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx)); and the Interstate 39/90/94 Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx). I hate how many years it takes to propose, fund, design, and then construct road projects.
I think the realistic best-case scenario for Stoughton Rd is a split interchange with Texas-style frontage roads at Pflaum and Buckeye. Which would be pretty nice. Free-flow with the Beltline will never happen.

fixing broken hyperlinks --sso

I do remember seeing some mention  a couple of decades ago of Stoughton Rd being referred to as the 'East Beltline'.  I can really see that had the I-system never been set up (maybe the creation of the I-system simply set big-time upgrades to the US 51 corridor back by a half century or so).  As it is, a locally useful re-engineering of the Beltline/Stoughton Rd interchange will be an interesting animal to address and follow.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 14, 2023, 04:07:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2023, 11:34:36 PM
Free-flow with the Beltline will never happen.

Highly likely to become a DDI some day, however.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2023, 04:44:40 PM
Stoughton Rd. was known as the East Madison Beltline when it first opened around 1950, although that name died out decades ago (probably soon after the road's completion).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 15, 2023, 01:21:52 AM
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2023, 11:34:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2023, 06:08:03 PM
The three projects I'm most interested in are still in the study phase, with construction far into the future: the US 51 Stoughton Road Corridor Studies (North: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/northstudy.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/northstudy.aspx)) (South: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/southstudy.aspx)); the US 12/14/18/151 Madison Beltline Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx)); and the Interstate 39/90/94 Study (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx). I hate how many years it takes to propose, fund, design, and then construct road projects.
I think the realistic best-case scenario for Stoughton Rd is a split interchange with Texas-style frontage roads at Pflaum and Buckeye. Which would be pretty nice. Free-flow with the Beltline will never happen.

fixing broken hyperlinks --sso

One of the proposals is for free flow ramps from The Beltline west to US 51 north including a flyover from The Beltline Eastbound to US 51/Stoughton Rd north. US 51 thru traffic would still have signals at The Beltline and Broadway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 15, 2023, 11:45:14 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on March 15, 2023, 01:21:52 AM
One of the proposals is for free flow ramps from The Beltline west to US 51 north including a flyover from The Beltline Eastbound to US 51/Stoughton Rd north. US 51 thru traffic would still have signals at The Beltline and Broadway.

Just like how there's a WisDOT plan for free-flow ramps at Verona Rd.  As to if or when either comes to fruition, that's an open question.  My bet is they settle for a DDI at the Beltline & Stoughton.  Especially with Broadway right there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2023, 01:43:56 PM
I just spent some time reading this study done by the City of Madison on Stoughton Road. In the end, they recommend WIDOT's second alternative, which is depressing Stoughton Road and building more bridges to connect both sides which they think would eliminate a lot of the congestion by separating regional from local traffic.  This includes some of the free flow movements at the Beltline and re-positions the intersection with Broadway further north.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/us51-corridor/stoughtonrevitalization.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on March 15, 2023, 02:45:02 PM
Why would anyone expect movements from Stoughton Road to the Beltline to be free-flowing? There's a reason why they're partially in the works for Verona Road: because they would complete US 151 so that it is consistently free-flowing from Dubuque to Madison. Traffic lights are consistent with the type of roadway US 51 is in that area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 15, 2023, 03:30:25 PM
The segment of Stoughton Rd. between US 12/18 and STH 30 is the segment I am most interested in, since my mother lives not too far away from that segment of US 51.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2023, 05:11:39 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 15, 2023, 02:45:02 PM
Why would anyone expect movements from Stoughton Road to the Beltline to be free-flowing? There's a reason why they're partially in the works for Verona Road: because they would complete US 151 so that it is consistently free-flowing from Dubuque to Madison. Traffic lights are consistent with the type of roadway US 51 is in that area.


Because the traffic backs up onto the Beltline due to the lights both there at at Broadway. I don't think it's going to happen mind you, but I completely understand why they would be an option.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 15, 2023, 10:49:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 15, 2023, 05:11:39 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 15, 2023, 02:45:02 PM
Why would anyone expect movements from Stoughton Road to the Beltline to be free-flowing? There's a reason why they're partially in the works for Verona Road: because they would complete US 151 so that it is consistently free-flowing from Dubuque to Madison. Traffic lights are consistent with the type of roadway US 51 is in that area.
Because the traffic backs up onto the Beltline due to the lights both there at at Broadway. I don't think it's going to happen mind you, but I completely understand why they would be an option.

Stoughton Rd carries freeway levels of traffic, with some sections approaching WisDOT standards for a 6-lane freeway. It's also the only highway access for much of the east side of the Madison metro (I-39/90 only interchanges at freeways within Madison city limits).

Also, EB Beltline to NB Stoughton Rd traffic is already at the point they have to have THREE left turn lanes. That movement is literally BEGGING to be uncorked. WisDOT is a little tight on space, but they can braid the Monona Rd ramps with the Stoughton Rd ramps and accommodate the heavy EB to NB and SB to WB movements. That would relieve the rest of the Stoughton Rd interchange for the time being.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 15, 2023, 11:11:24 PM
As is, 39/90/94 isn't really for local traffic. Too far out, and basically only interchanges with other limited-access roads. As a result, that local traffic is pushed onto Stoughton Rd.

I'm sure if WISDOT could redo things from scratch, they would build 39/90/94 closer to Stoughton Rd's current alignment than the Interstates' current alignment. That would eliminate the need for 1) a limited-access Stoughton Rd, and 2) the WI-30 connector freeway. I imagine it being a slightly longer version of I-41 in Green Bay. Separated C/D lanes between close exits, allowing for more interchanges with access to city streets.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 16, 2023, 12:33:36 AM
Quote from: thspfc on March 15, 2023, 11:11:24 PM
As is, 39/90/94 isn't really for local traffic. Too far out, and basically only interchanges with other limited-access roads. As a result, that local traffic is pushed onto Stoughton Rd.

I'm sure if WISDOT could redo things from scratch, they would build 39/90/94 closer to Stoughton Rd's current alignment than the Interstates' current alignment. That would eliminate the need for 1) a limited-access Stoughton Rd, and 2) the WI-30 connector freeway. I imagine it being a slightly longer version of I-41 in Green Bay. Separated C/D lanes between close exits, allowing for more interchanges with access to city streets.

I don't think WISDOT would re-do the interstate alignment. I think they're happy that I-39/I-90/I-94 doesn't carry local traffic because the interstate carries so much traffic and local traffic would cause serious congestion. US 51/Stoughton Rd keeps the interstate less congested.

However, the lack of interchanges on the far east side does make driving frustrating.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2023, 08:31:56 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 15, 2023, 02:45:02 PM
Why would anyone expect movements from Stoughton Road to the Beltline to be free-flowing? There's a reason why they're partially in the works for Verona Road: because they would complete US 151 so that it is consistently free-flowing from Dubuque to Madison. Traffic lights are consistent with the type of roadway US 51 is in that area.

Also, providing a US-151 free flowing through route to go to Dubuque is at best a secondary reason for the idea of a free flowing interchange at the Beltline and Verona Road.  The vast majority of traffic that goes through that interchange is local - people commuting to and from Verona and points west.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 16, 2023, 11:05:06 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2023, 08:31:56 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 15, 2023, 02:45:02 PM
Why would anyone expect movements from Stoughton Road to the Beltline to be free-flowing? There's a reason why they're partially in the works for Verona Road: because they would complete US 151 so that it is consistently free-flowing from Dubuque to Madison. Traffic lights are consistent with the type of roadway US 51 is in that area.

Also, providing a US-151 free flowing through route to go to Dubuque is at best a secondary reason for the idea of a free flowing interchange at the Beltline and Verona Road.  The vast majority of traffic that goes through that interchange is local - people commuting to and from Verona and points west.
Yeah, WISDOT isn't making decisions based on arbitrary stuff like a no-stop drive between Madison and Dubuque. On a large scale, that doesn't matter. What matters are the actual traffic conditions on US-151.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 16, 2023, 01:43:22 PM
I have a feeling that the previously-proposed Stage 3 upgrade of Verona Rd. (https://projects.511wi.gov/veronard/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/ss-2012nov13.pdf) will likely never happen. Verona Rd. is likely as upgraded as it is going to get. Also, I don't think Stoughton Rd. needs to be upgraded to be free-flow throughout the entire corridor (which seems like overkill to me, considering Interstates 39/90/94 are just a couple of miles to the east). The previously-proposed Alternative B (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/51/map-propalts.pdf) with additional lanes in each direction will probably be enough of an upgrade to the US 51 corridor.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 16, 2023, 01:45:56 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on March 16, 2023, 12:33:36 AM
Quote from: thspfc on March 15, 2023, 11:11:24 PM
As is, 39/90/94 isn't really for local traffic. Too far out, and basically only interchanges with other limited-access roads. As a result, that local traffic is pushed onto Stoughton Rd.

I'm sure if WISDOT could redo things from scratch, they would build 39/90/94 closer to Stoughton Rd's current alignment than the Interstates' current alignment. That would eliminate the need for 1) a limited-access Stoughton Rd, and 2) the WI-30 connector freeway. I imagine it being a slightly longer version of I-41 in Green Bay. Separated C/D lanes between close exits, allowing for more interchanges with access to city streets.

I don't think WISDOT would re-do the interstate alignment. I think they're happy that I-39/I-90/I-94 doesn't carry local traffic because the interstate carries so much traffic and local traffic would cause serious congestion. US 51/Stoughton Rd keeps the interstate less congested.

However, the lack of interchanges on the far east side does make driving frustrating.

Yea, but that ship sailed at least 60 years ago and before then (before the Interstate Highway Act), there were proposals (plans?) to extend the cross-country ticket-turnpike (Indiana Toll Road) through Chicago and onward at least to the MSP area, which would have served and bypassed Madison.  Stoughton Rd WOULD have been the east Beltline under that scenario.  The original stated purpose of the Interstates as to bypass major population centers to mainly serve cross-country through traffic and not local traffic, so I do agree with the light access to the existing I-39/90/94 corridor in Madison.  Yes, I can also see the existing Beltline becoming and 'odd' 3DI.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on March 28, 2023, 09:10:43 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 16, 2023, 01:45:56 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on March 16, 2023, 12:33:36 AM
Quote from: thspfc on March 15, 2023, 11:11:24 PM
As is, 39/90/94 isn't really for local traffic. Too far out, and basically only interchanges with other limited-access roads. As a result, that local traffic is pushed onto Stoughton Rd.

I'm sure if WISDOT could redo things from scratch, they would build 39/90/94 closer to Stoughton Rd's current alignment than the Interstates' current alignment. That would eliminate the need for 1) a limited-access Stoughton Rd, and 2) the WI-30 connector freeway. I imagine it being a slightly longer version of I-41 in Green Bay. Separated C/D lanes between close exits, allowing for more interchanges with access to city streets.

I don't think WISDOT would re-do the interstate alignment. I think they're happy that I-39/I-90/I-94 doesn't carry local traffic because the interstate carries so much traffic and local traffic would cause serious congestion. US 51/Stoughton Rd keeps the interstate less congested.

However, the lack of interchanges on the far east side does make driving frustrating.

Yea, but that ship sailed at least 60 years ago and before then (before the Interstate Highway Act), there were proposals (plans?) to extend the cross-country ticket-turnpike (Indiana Toll Road) through Chicago and onward at least to the MSP area, which would have served and bypassed Madison.  Stoughton Rd WOULD have been the east Beltline under that scenario.  The original stated purpose of the Interstates as to bypass major population centers to mainly serve cross-country through traffic and not local traffic, so I do agree with the light access to the existing I-39/90/94 corridor in Madison.  Yes, I can also see the existing Beltline becoming and 'odd' 3DI.

Mike
Yeah just what we need a fifth route sharing the same pavement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2023, 08:46:51 AM
I just don't see WIDOT being all that interested in 3dis at all so I think we are safe from a fifth highway on the corridor. (Although the corridor DID have five highways in the past before WI-13 was truncated.)

Anyway, I think if WIDOT knew then what it knows now, it would have kept the interstate right where it is but would have developed an exit at Buckeye Road (County AB) in between I-94 and the Beltline.  I think it would have helped reduce congestion on the US-51 / Beltline interchange because a significant amount of traffic from Monona and the east side of Madison has to use the US-51 corridor to get to the interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2023, 11:11:00 AM
There won't be any new 3dis in Wisconsin (or new 2dis for that matter). Interstates 535, 794 and 894 are all the 3dis that will likely ever exist. I certainly would not want one on the Beltline or STH-30.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 29, 2023, 11:51:06 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2023, 11:11:00 AM
There won't be any new 3dis in Wisconsin (or new 2dis for that matter). Interstates 535, 794 and 894 are all the 3dis that will likely ever exist. I certainly would not want one on the Beltline or STH-30.
I could see Wis 30 being a 3di because of its access between I-39/90/94 and Downtown. Not likely but I could see it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on March 29, 2023, 12:07:23 PM
Yawn. Another "WisDOT has a vendetta against 3DIs"  hyperbolic conversation. How quickly can we forget that two numbering considerations for the I-41 corridor were 3DI numbers less than a decade ago?

It's about a lack of demand, not an imaginary hatred the DOT has for them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2023, 12:31:54 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 29, 2023, 12:07:23 PM
Yawn. Another "WisDOT has a vendetta against 3DIs"  hyperbolic conversation. How quickly can we forget that two numbering considerations for the I-41 corridor were 3DI numbers less than a decade ago?

It's about a lack of demand, not an imaginary hatred the DOT has for them.


No one said WIDOT "hated" 3dis. I said that they don't seem to have interest in them - given that there are multiple interstate compatible freeways in Wisconsin that could be signed as such.  Your "lack of demand" statement isn't really accurate - WI-30, Beltline, US-12 between I-43 and the IL line, US-45 to West Bend, etc.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on March 29, 2023, 12:48:32 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2023, 12:31:54 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 29, 2023, 12:07:23 PM
Yawn. Another "WisDOT has a vendetta against 3DIs"  hyperbolic conversation. How quickly can we forget that two numbering considerations for the I-41 corridor were 3DI numbers less than a decade ago?

It's about a lack of demand, not an imaginary hatred the DOT has for them.

No one said WIDOT "hated" 3dis. I said that they don't seem to have interest in them - given that there are multiple interstate compatible freeways in Wisconsin that could be signed as such.  Your "lack of demand" statement isn't really accurate - WI-30, Beltline, US-12 between I-43 and the IL line, US-45 to West Bend, etc.
This is a rabbit hole we've been down dozens of times before. The lack of demand is from local authorities and focus groups who, to the best of my knowledge, haven't asked WisDOT to give those corridors interstate designations. I-41 happened because there was enough fanfare from local authorities to make it happen.

The fact that non-interstate freeways exist in Wisconsin proves nothing. I'm talking about the designations, not the freeways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 29, 2023, 01:47:05 PM
In reality, I too see little interest ( NOT hatred nor ambivalence!) in WisDOT for the idea of designating any new I-routes in the state. It does not serve a useful purpose for them.  That said, IMHO, the most likely next future new I-route in Wisconsin is 441, but certainly not until after the currently planned six lane upgrades to I-41 are completed at the very earliest (7-8 years minimum) and any few blocks long extension of 535 when the Blatnik bridge is replaced notwithstanding.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2023, 02:02:42 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 29, 2023, 12:48:32 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2023, 12:31:54 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 29, 2023, 12:07:23 PM
Yawn. Another "WisDOT has a vendetta against 3DIs"  hyperbolic conversation. How quickly can we forget that two numbering considerations for the I-41 corridor were 3DI numbers less than a decade ago?

It's about a lack of demand, not an imaginary hatred the DOT has for them.

No one said WIDOT "hated" 3dis. I said that they don't seem to have interest in them - given that there are multiple interstate compatible freeways in Wisconsin that could be signed as such.  Your "lack of demand" statement isn't really accurate - WI-30, Beltline, US-12 between I-43 and the IL line, US-45 to West Bend, etc.
This is a rabbit hole we've been down dozens of times before. The lack of demand is from local authorities and focus groups who, to the best of my knowledge, haven't asked WisDOT to give those corridors interstate designations. I-41 happened because there was enough fanfare from local authorities to make it happen.

The fact that non-interstate freeways exist in Wisconsin proves nothing. I'm talking about the designations, not the freeways.


I think you are correct that if West Bend were insistent on US-45 being a 3di, and applied pressure on WIDOT to do so, a 3di would happen.  But WIDOT isn't going out of its way to designate interstate compatible freeways as 3dis. 

Both statements can be true.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on March 29, 2023, 05:16:51 PM
WI-441 is a classic beltway 3di. Unless there's Interstate requirements it doesn't meet (which seems unlikely), the only reason it's not is that WISDOT doesn't feel like making it official.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on March 29, 2023, 05:41:57 PM
You can make the same arguments for WI 172 (between I-41 and I-43) as you can for WI 441, and that part of WI 172 has been interstate compliant for its entire existence. There's been no outcry from anyone I know in Green Bay to make it an interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on March 30, 2023, 06:29:41 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 29, 2023, 05:16:51 PM
WI-441 is a classic beltway 3di. Unless there's Interstate requirements it doesn't meet (which seems unlikely), the only reason it's not is that WISDOT doesn't feel like making it official.

I totally agree. WisDOT is generally not in the habit of playing with highway numbering for the sake of following convention. I don't ever see WI-441 become I-441 unless a local jurisdiction specifically asks for it. There's just no reason to do so.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on March 31, 2023, 07:52:09 AM
it's HWY 441 to you.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2023, 11:00:37 AM
I will personally pledge $1 million of Jeff Bezos' money for WisDOT to change all WI-441 shields to I-441 shields.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2023, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2023, 11:00:37 AM
I will personally pledge $1 million of Jeff Bezos' money for WisDOT to change all WI-441 shields to I-441 shields.

Why?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: zzcarp on March 31, 2023, 12:24:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2023, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2023, 11:00:37 AM
I will personally pledge $1 million of Jeff Bezos' money for WisDOT to change all WI-441 shields to I-441 shields.

Why?

As Milton Friedman said, "Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2023, 01:29:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2023, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2023, 11:00:37 AM
I will personally pledge $1 million of Jeff Bezos' money for WisDOT to change all WI-441 shields to I-441 shields.

Why?

Red, white, and blue shields are cool.  :-D

Jokes aside, I do think it would be nice if it was recategorized as an Interstate, but I'm not going to fight for the death for it. It's more of a "would be nice" sort of thing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 31, 2023, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2023, 01:29:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 31, 2023, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 31, 2023, 11:00:37 AM
I will personally pledge $1 million of Jeff Bezos' money for WisDOT to change all WI-441 shields to I-441 shields.

Why?

Red, white, and blue shields are cool.  :-D

Jokes aside, I do think it would be nice if it was recategorized as an Interstate, but I'm not going to fight for the death for it. It's more of a "would be nice" sort of thing.

Sort of mirroring the British style, 'WI 441 I'.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 04, 2023, 05:17:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2023, 11:11:00 AM
There won't be any new 3dis in Wisconsin (or new 2dis for that matter). Interstates 535, 794 and 894 are all the 3dis that will likely ever exist. I certainly would not want one on the Beltline or STH-30.
With the exception of 441 I would agree. I think 172 would be eligible to be a 3di but I doubt it will ever happen. WI-30 is nowhere near interstate compatible and I would not even want a 3di on the beltline too many routes already exist there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 05, 2023, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 04, 2023, 05:17:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2023, 11:11:00 AM
There won't be any new 3dis in Wisconsin (or new 2dis for that matter). Interstates 535, 794 and 894 are all the 3dis that will likely ever exist. I certainly would not want one on the Beltline or STH-30.
With the exception of 441 I would agree. I think 172 would be eligible to be a 3di but I doubt it will ever happen. WI-30 is nowhere near interstate compatible and I would not even want a 3di on the beltline too many routes already exist there.

Theoretically, you could give the beltway a 3DI designation for its entire length and hide the remaining designations along the route, except where relevent. But it's not hugely necessary.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2023, 10:57:49 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 05, 2023, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 04, 2023, 05:17:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2023, 11:11:00 AM
There won't be any new 3dis in Wisconsin (or new 2dis for that matter). Interstates 535, 794 and 894 are all the 3dis that will likely ever exist. I certainly would not want one on the Beltline or STH-30.
With the exception of 441 I would agree. I think 172 would be eligible to be a 3di but I doubt it will ever happen. WI-30 is nowhere near interstate compatible and I would not even want a 3di on the beltline too many routes already exist there.

Theoretically, you could give the beltway a 3DI designation for its entire length and hide the remaining designations along the route, except where relevent. But it's not hugely necessary.

Beltline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on April 05, 2023, 05:15:07 PM
The only reason I would ever advocate for a 3DI on the beltline is if there were a northern counterpart built to give unity to the corridor. But that's a moot point since it'll never happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 05, 2023, 09:18:40 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/040523-statemaparchive.aspx

Explore transportation history with WisDOT's online highway map archive

All of the state hghways maps from the last 100 years are now on an online archive

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2023, 09:34:09 PM
I greatly look forward to the new state highway map being released in early summer. I've been growing old waiting for them to move on from distributing the old 2019-2020 map. I've scanned the old map website before: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx, and I find them spectacular.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on April 06, 2023, 08:53:24 AM
Are they really finally going to do a new map?  And will it be available on paper in rest areas or just an online edition?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 06, 2023, 11:27:15 PM
It will be on paper. There hasn't been too much to update. Wis 23 is now expressway between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth. Other than that not much has changed from the old edition.

I'm hoping that the Madison Beltline, Wis 145 and Wis 119 in Milwaukee go back to being marked as freeways instead of 4 lane divided.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 07, 2023, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 06, 2023, 11:27:15 PM
It will be on paper. There hasn't been too much to update. Wis 23 is now expressway between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth. Other than that not much has changed from the old edition.

I'm hoping that the Madison Beltline, Wis 145 and Wis 119 in Milwaukee go back to being marked as freeways instead of 4 lane divided.
The should have been to begin with. Throw in US 151 on the Madison inset north of 39/90/94.

One error that I did notice in the current Waukesha inset map is they put an interchange at US 18 & Wis 318.

As a side note, I wonder if WisDOT will ever treat Waukesha as a metro area with it's signing. They still use Hwy XX and "Waukesha" instead of naming the roadway on 94. That area has enough Waukesha & Pewaukee exits that there's no reason not to name Hwy SS NORTH Prospect Ave, Wis 318/Hwy G Meadowbrook Rd, Hwy T Grandview Blvd, Wis 164 NORTH/Hwy J SOUTH Pewaukee Rd, Hwy F Redford Blvd. I get skipping Moreland Blvd because of the next exit being Moorland Rd but come on.
Also, why is Wis 16 West still just Pewaukee? It's the quickest way to Downtown Oconomowoc. Put that up there too.

Rant done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 08, 2023, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 05, 2023, 09:18:40 PM
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/040523-statemaparchive.aspx

Explore transportation history with WisDOT's online highway map archive

All of the state hghways maps from the last 100 years are now on an online archive



They did a great job on those scans - excellent resolution.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 08, 2023, 09:14:31 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 07, 2023, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 06, 2023, 11:27:15 PM
It will be on paper. There hasn't been too much to update. Wis 23 is now expressway between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth. Other than that not much has changed from the old edition.

I'm hoping that the Madison Beltline, Wis 145 and Wis 119 in Milwaukee go back to being marked as freeways instead of 4 lane divided.
The should have been to begin with. Throw in US 151 on the Madison inset north of 39/90/94.

One error that I did notice in the current Waukesha inset map is they put an interchange at US 18 & Wis 318.

As a side note, I wonder if WisDOT will ever treat Waukesha as a metro area with it's signing. They still use Hwy XX and "Waukesha" instead of naming the roadway on 94. That area has enough Waukesha & Pewaukee exits that there's no reason not to name Hwy SS NORTH Prospect Ave, Wis 318/Hwy G Meadowbrook Rd, Hwy T Grandview Blvd, Wis 164 NORTH/Hwy J SOUTH Pewaukee Rd, Hwy F Redford Blvd. I get skipping Moreland Blvd because of the next exit being Moorland Rd but come on.
Also, why is Wis 16 West still just Pewaukee? It's the quickest way to Downtown Oconomowoc. Put that up there too.

Rant done.
For Hwy F I get using the control cities there because the NB one is Sussex and not Pewaukee but the rest I would agree use the names. You kind of confused me at first when you said Hwy XX I thought you were referring to Oakdale Rd which runs just south of Waukesha which is also known as Hwy XX but now I get what you meant. I beleive at one time Oconomowoc was on Hwy 16 along with Pewaukee but for whatever reason the newer signs only say Pewaukee. I don't like the wisdot trend either of dropping places that are unincorporated. Like I-43 Exit 107 it use to say Belgium Lake Church but now only Belgium is used because the later is unincorporated.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 08, 2023, 09:39:41 PM
Agreed that "Waukesha"  is too vague for those exits now. "Waukesha next _ exits"  is sufficient. The I-94 corridor through there is completely built up, no point in aggressively signing the individual cities.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 08, 2023, 10:05:33 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 08, 2023, 09:39:41 PM
Agreed that "Waukesha"  is too vague for those exits now. "Waukesha next _ exits"  is sufficient. The I-94 corridor through there is completely built up, no point in aggressively signing the individual cities.

Absolutely considering that Waukesha is now over 71k and the county is over 406k. At least they do put up the next 3 listed exits signs along that stretch.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 09, 2023, 12:17:38 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 08, 2023, 09:14:31 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 07, 2023, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 06, 2023, 11:27:15 PM
It will be on paper. There hasn't been too much to update. Wis 23 is now expressway between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth. Other than that not much has changed from the old edition.

I'm hoping that the Madison Beltline, Wis 145 and Wis 119 in Milwaukee go back to being marked as freeways instead of 4 lane divided.
The should have been to begin with. Throw in US 151 on the Madison inset north of 39/90/94.

One error that I did notice in the current Waukesha inset map is they put an interchange at US 18 & Wis 318.

As a side note, I wonder if WisDOT will ever treat Waukesha as a metro area with it's signing. They still use Hwy XX and "Waukesha" instead of naming the roadway on 94. That area has enough Waukesha & Pewaukee exits that there's no reason not to name Hwy SS NORTH Prospect Ave, Wis 318/Hwy G Meadowbrook Rd, Hwy T Grandview Blvd, Wis 164 NORTH/Hwy J SOUTH Pewaukee Rd, Hwy F Redford Blvd. I get skipping Moreland Blvd because of the next exit being Moorland Rd but come on.
Also, why is Wis 16 West still just Pewaukee? It's the quickest way to Downtown Oconomowoc. Put that up there too.

Rant done.
For Hwy F I get using the control cities there because the NB one is Sussex and not Pewaukee but the rest I would agree use the names. You kind of confused me at first when you said Hwy XX I thought you were referring to Oakdale Rd which runs just south of Waukesha which is also known as Hwy XX but now I get what you meant. I beleive at one time Oconomowoc was on Hwy 16 along with Pewaukee but for whatever reason the newer signs only say Pewaukee. I don't like the wisdot trend either of dropping places that are unincorporated. Like I-43 Exit 107 it use to say Belgium Lake Church but now only Belgium is used because the later is unincorporated.

What WISDOT is doing with unincorporated communities is a mystery. I have noticed that some have disappeared while others have not and this applies to regular guide signs.

On the I-43 Wis 96 exit, Greenleaf is unincorporated but still listed as the control city for the exit.

On Wis 32/57, Brant was once signed but now it's just Stockbridge. Yet Askeaton remains and that's pretty much just an intersection.

On US 10, Wayside, Taus, and Maple Grove were removed. Dundas, Holland, and Clarks Mills are still signed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 09, 2023, 10:11:45 AM
There's also some mind-numbing signs in terms of which city is listed first. At the aforementioned I-43/WI-96, unincorporated Greenleaf, 15 miles away, is listed before pop. 2500 Denmark, which is immediately to the east of the exit. I-39/90/94 and CTH-V is even worse - Dane, pop. 1k, 6 miles away, is listed before DeForest, pop. 11k, immediately to the east of the exit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 09, 2023, 12:28:52 PM
WisDOT's love with control cities that don't make sense (Kronnenwetter, Kronnenwetter, Mt. Pleasant, Mt. Pleasant, Lancaster, Weston, Pewaukee, Waukesha, Waukesha, Waukesha, Waukesha) 

Corrected version
WisDOT's love with control cities that don't make sense

US-51/I-39
- (Wausau Merrill Ave (Sure it's not a direct, but it works) (CTH-K),
- Westonlose it and put Shawano instead if you want a short-distance(Wis 29 off 51)
- Mosinee/KronnenwetterMaple Ridge Rd (what it was before),
- KronnenwetterSchofield (Bus 51),
- Stevens PointStanley Street (Rosholt can stay) (Wis-66)
- Stevens PointMain St. (Appleton can Stay) (US-10)
- Plover Plover Rd/Amherst or Wis Rapids (CTH B)
- Plover/Wis Rapids/Waupaca
- Portage/New Pinery Rd (US-51 S)
- Portage/Wisconsin St (Wis-16)
- Portage/Baraboo Wis-33
I-94 (Racine/Kenosha Counties
- Caledonia5 1/2 Mile Rd (Put Caledonia on a next # exits sign)
- Racine/CaledoniaNorthwestern Ave (CTH K)
- Racine/Mt. PleasantWashington Ave(Wis 20)(Put Mt. Pleasant on a next 3 exits sign)
- Racine/Mt. PleasantDurand Ave,
- Mt Pleasant/SomersCounty Line Road (original) or 1st st (?) CTH KR - Where the fuck is Somers???
- SomersSomers Rd CTH E - Where the fuck is Somers???
- Kenosha/BurlingtonBurlington Road Wis 142/CTH S- Yank 142 to Kenosha - again!!! (Kenosha already has a next # exits sign)
- Kenosha52nd St Wis 158
- EAST-WESTWilmot Rd  CTH-C - EAST-WEST? No Shit, Sherlock!
- Kenosha/Pleasant Prairie104th St  WIS-168/CTH-G (Secondary sign Pleasant Prairie)
US-151
- VeronaPaoli St (Wis 69 (nice))
- Mt HorebSpringdale St - CTH ID
- Mt HorebPrairie Du Sac/Blanchardville
- LancasterCuba City (Though it's questionable - put Lancaster on a smaller sign)
I-94 around Waukesha
- PewaukeeOconomowoc/Watertown?
- Waukesha, Waukesha, Waukesha, Waukesha Replace with the street names, you already had a next # exits signs both ways
I-90 Janesville/Beloit
- Madison/DeForest/Stoughton Rd US-51
- Madison/East Washington Ave/Sun Prairie US-151
- (Leave the Badger alone)
- Madison/Cambridgejust the route #s or put East Beltline Hwy? US-12/18
- Wis-26: Milton Ave (One can keep Milton)
- US-14: Oregon (Keep Delevan)
- Wis 11 E: Racine St
- Wis-11 W: Monroe/Avalon Rd

La Crosse and Eau Claire can use changes too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on April 09, 2023, 12:31:48 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 09, 2023, 10:11:45 AM
There's also some mind-numbing signs in terms of which city is listed first. At the aforementioned I-43/WI-96, unincorporated Greenleaf, 15 miles away, is listed before pop. 2500 Denmark, which is immediately to the east of the exit. I-39/90/94 and CTH-V is even worse - Dane, pop. 1k, 6 miles away, is listed before DeForest, pop. 11k, immediately to the east of the exit.

I think there's actually some MUTCD play that's supposed to be involved (although WisDOT doesn't follow it) - if the two cities on the sign are in opposite directions from the interchange, the city that requires a left turn to reach is supposed to be listed first, with the city reached by turning right listed second. That was said somewhere on this board. But as I said, WisDOT doesn't seem to do this (Minnesota does).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 09, 2023, 01:54:13 PM
A lot of them sound like townships that wanted to flex their muscles and say something like "we're not a part of THAT city (even though we really know that we should be)".

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 09, 2023, 06:38:15 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 09, 2023, 12:28:52 PM

- Wis-11 W: Monroe/Avalon Rd


I dunno. I quite enjoy knowing that Wis-11 is the exit for Orfordville. :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 09, 2023, 08:25:51 PM
It drove me nuts years ago when they added Mount Plesant to several exits in the Racine area and dropped Waterford and Burlington. They should have just made a separate sign for Mt Plesant instead of dropping the previous control cities and putting them on a separate sign. Another suggestion I would have is to replace Fond Du Lac with Valders on I-43 at US 151. Anyone going to Fond Du Lac would have gotten off at WI-23 in Sheboygan.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 09, 2023, 08:51:26 PM
Who the fuck goes to Valders?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 09, 2023, 11:01:31 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 09, 2023, 06:38:15 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 09, 2023, 12:28:52 PM

- Wis-11 W: Monroe/Avalon Rd


I dunno. I quite enjoy knowing that Wis-11 is the exit for Orfordville. :-D
Certainly a tossup between that and Brodhead but both are smaller towns and certainly deserve secondary mention. Monroe is significant enough being the central point of Green County - which is left off the map as far as the mainline through WI is concerned. It gets a mention on 151 but less people go that way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 09, 2023, 11:06:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2023, 01:54:13 PM
A lot of them sound like townships that wanted to flex their muscles and say something like "we're not a part of THAT city (even though we really know that we should be)".

Mike
Townships like Mt Pleasant, Kronnenwetter, Plover, Weston, Caledonia, Somers, etc incorporated because of not wanting to be absorbed by another municipality.  One can argue that Foxconn was Mt. Pleasant's reason for villaging, but Weston (a section of the town) and Plover (same) wanted not to be absorbed by other municipalities (Schofield and Point/Whiting (maybe - don't know which one)) This whole village to protect shit is political (but we won't go there in this thread)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2023, 06:31:29 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 09, 2023, 11:06:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2023, 01:54:13 PM
A lot of them sound like townships that wanted to flex their muscles and say something like "we're not a part of THAT city (even though we really know that we should be)".

Mike
Townships like Mt Pleasant, Kronnenwetter, Plover, Weston, Caledonia, Somers, etc incorporated because of not wanting to be absorbed by another municipality.  One can argue that Foxconn was Mt. Pleasant's reason for villaging, but Weston (a section of the town) and Plover (same) wanted not to be absorbed by other municipalities (Schofield and Point/Whiting (maybe - don't know which one)) This whole village to protect shit is political (but we won't go there in this thread)

I think it would have been better in the long run to have most of these town absorbed by local municipalities rather than incorporated themselves.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on April 10, 2023, 08:56:26 AM
Speaking of control cities, YouTube channel "Control City Freak" has recently covered I-90 and I-94, and points out the strangeness of Janesville suddenly becoming a control city in the Madison metro and further south.  Am I correct in thinking that the only reason Janesville is on the signage there now was the Paul Ryan-sponsored Foxconn boondoggle?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 10, 2023, 10:25:14 AM
Quote from: invincor on April 10, 2023, 08:56:26 AM
Speaking of control cities, YouTube channel "Control City Freak" has recently covered I-90 and I-94, and points out the strangeness of Janesville suddenly becoming a control city in the Madison metro and further south.  Am I correct in thinking that the only reason Janesville is on the signage there now was the Paul Ryan-sponsored Foxconn boondoggle?

The Foxconn Development is along I-94 in Mount Pleasant, nowhere near Janesville. It's the control city northbound at the I-43 interchange that opened last year. There may have been local lobbying but in fairness it has a population of 65,000. It's also former senator Russ Feingold's hometown.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2023, 11:16:09 AM
Nothing irritates me more about the road geek community than it's weird obsession with control cities. 99.9% of them are fine and get the point across.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 10, 2023, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2023, 11:16:09 AM
Nothing irritates me more about the road geek community than it's weird obsession with control cities. 99.9% of them are fine and get the point across.

It's just something to discuss. Like making freeways 3DIs. That being said...

I don't agree with the need to change most of the 41/94 control cities between the IL border and north. Caledonia and Somers are legitimate places, and since there's only a couple exits they apply to each, it's not a huge issue.

I can personally attest to one particular exit, that CTH-G Caledonia is more useful signage than 5 1/2 Mile Rd, since 5 1/2 Mile Rd ends not too far east of 41/94. If you're continuing east, you'll end up following CTH-G via STH-38 and 6 Mile Rd.

I also don't think the amount of Kenosha and Racine exits are a huge problem either. Maybe the issue is that east of 41/94, you're mostly in developed area, whereas west you're mostly in undeveloped area, so the MUTCD strongly suggests you go one way or the other with cities versus streets.

On the other hand, Waukesha has way more exits than Kenosha or Racine, so their signage should be changed to reflect street names where possible.

Let me put it this way:
If your city has one or two exits, use the city name.
If your city has four or more exits, use the street names.
If your city has three exits, use whichever works better given the area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on April 10, 2023, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2023, 11:16:09 AM
Nothing irritates me more about the road geek community than it's weird obsession with control cities. 99.9% of them are fine and get the point across.

Yeah, most control city discussions make me reach for my revolver.

But, there's also nothing stopping them from proceeding down their useless paths.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 10, 2023, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 10, 2023, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2023, 11:16:09 AM
Nothing irritates me more about the road geek community than it's weird obsession with control cities. 99.9% of them are fine and get the point across.

Yeah, most control city discussions make me reach for my revolver.

But, there's also nothing stopping them from proceeding down their useless paths.

Then just don't participate in them. There's been many other threads here (forum-wide) about topics that I loathe, I try my best to either read and remain silent or skip entirely.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 10, 2023, 01:02:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2023, 06:31:29 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 09, 2023, 11:06:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2023, 01:54:13 PM
A lot of them sound like townships that wanted to flex their muscles and say something like "we're not a part of THAT city (even though we really know that we should be)".

Mike
Townships like Mt Pleasant, Kronnenwetter, Plover, Weston, Caledonia, Somers, etc incorporated because of not wanting to be absorbed by another municipality.  One can argue that Foxconn was Mt. Pleasant's reason for villaging, but Weston (a section of the town) and Plover (same) wanted not to be absorbed by other municipalities (Schofield and Point/Whiting (maybe - don't know which one)) This whole village to protect shit is political (but we won't go there in this thread)

I think it would have been better in the long run to have most of these town absorbed by local municipalities rather than incorporated themselves.

eventually they will be, but likely not until after we are all long gone and forgotten.  Their development patterns and resulting lack of dolid tax base (especially low density residential and auto-centric commercial) and deferred infrastructure needs will demand it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 10, 2023, 04:30:46 PM
The reason many of these places incorporated was due to a loophole that was around for a while that allowed unincorporated areas to incorporate and set boundaries without needing approval from adjacent villages and cities. Typically the adjoining cities would have to approve the borders - and generally don't want to because they want to be able to annex the land. With Foxconn, a lot of those new incorporated areas (Somers, Mt. Pleasant, Yorkville, et.al.) formed figuring they could take advantage of the growing tax bases in their areas.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 10, 2023, 06:15:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 06, 2023, 11:27:15 PM
It will be on paper. There hasn't been too much to update. Wis 23 is now expressway between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth. Other than that not much has changed from the old edition.

I'm hoping that the Madison Beltline, Wis 145 and Wis 119 in Milwaukee go back to being marked as freeways instead of 4 lane divided.
Also the interchange at Hwy 57 and Hwy 100 was removed now an at grade intersection so there is another recent change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on April 11, 2023, 10:12:10 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 10, 2023, 04:30:46 PM
With Foxconn, a lot of those new incorporated areas (Somers, Mt. Pleasant, Yorkville, et.al.) formed figuring they could take advantage of the growing tax bases in their areas.

The clue was right there in the name.  Why did so many fall for it?   And here I used to think calling a set of robot villains Decepticons was too obvious...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:07:40 PM
This is about as good of a shot of the new STH 57/STH 100 intersection as Street View allows at present: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1783474,-87.9624297,3a,75y,85.92h,80.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFRAmb1eFPwvOfeDsU9sA7A!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on April 11, 2023, 06:49:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:07:40 PM
This is about as good of a shot of the new STH 57/STH 100 intersection as Street View allows at present: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1783474,-87.9624297,3a,75y,85.92h,80.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFRAmb1eFPwvOfeDsU9sA7A!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192.
I was there last Sunday. It's now open going south on Green Bay Road but it's still has a ways to go.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 18, 2023, 10:17:25 AM
https://madison.com/news/local/madison-could-get-2-new-interstate-interchanges-in-i-39-90-94-madison-dells-project/article_9299c73e-a722-5811-80ea-4a2df5c36ab7.html?utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&lctg=2416912&tn_email_eh1=a7186738f56ec3cf114bb1ce9e81854ec6e69e48

WISDOT is starting to study I-39/90/94 from Madison to the Dells, including the possibility of two new interchanges near Madison and adding more lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 18, 2023, 11:07:59 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 18, 2023, 10:17:25 AM
https://madison.com/news/local/madison-could-get-2-new-interstate-interchanges-in-i-39-90-94-madison-dells-project/article_9299c73e-a722-5811-80ea-4a2df5c36ab7.html?utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&lctg=2416912&tn_email_eh1=a7186738f56ec3cf114bb1ce9e81854ec6e69e48

WISDOT is starting to study I-39/90/94 from Madison to the Dells, including the possibility of two new interchanges near Madison and adding more lanes.

Milwaukee St doesn't intersect with I-94 so I wonder if the street is going to turn north for a new interchange. Freeway access is badly needed in that growing area with the closest interchange at Hwy N in Cottage Grove. The other proposed interchange is at Hoepker Rd which would also need a major rebuild to accommodate even more traffic from a new interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 18, 2023, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 18, 2023, 11:07:59 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 18, 2023, 10:17:25 AM
https://madison.com/news/local/madison-could-get-2-new-interstate-interchanges-in-i-39-90-94-madison-dells-project/article_9299c73e-a722-5811-80ea-4a2df5c36ab7.html?utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&lctg=2416912&tn_email_eh1=a7186738f56ec3cf114bb1ce9e81854ec6e69e48

WISDOT is starting to study I-39/90/94 from Madison to the Dells, including the possibility of two new interchanges near Madison and adding more lanes.

Milwaukee St doesn't intersect with I-94 so I wonder if the street is going to turn north for a new interchange. Freeway access is badly needed in that growing area with the closest interchange at Hwy N in Cottage Grove. The other proposed interchange is at Hoepker Rd which would also need a major rebuild to accommodate even more traffic from a new interchange.


The project starts at the Beltline, so it would include Milwaukee Street's intersection with I-39/90.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on April 18, 2023, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 18, 2023, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 18, 2023, 11:07:59 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 18, 2023, 10:17:25 AM
https://madison.com/news/local/madison-could-get-2-new-interstate-interchanges-in-i-39-90-94-madison-dells-project/article_9299c73e-a722-5811-80ea-4a2df5c36ab7.html?utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&lctg=2416912&tn_email_eh1=a7186738f56ec3cf114bb1ce9e81854ec6e69e48

WISDOT is starting to study I-39/90/94 from Madison to the Dells, including the possibility of two new interchanges near Madison and adding more lanes.

Milwaukee St doesn't intersect with I-94 so I wonder if the street is going to turn north for a new interchange. Freeway access is badly needed in that growing area with the closest interchange at Hwy N in Cottage Grove. The other proposed interchange is at Hoepker Rd which would also need a major rebuild to accommodate even more traffic from a new interchange.


The project starts at the Beltline, so it would include Milwaukee Street's intersection with I-39/90.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx

All I found is the project "could add two new interchanges near the Madison area, with one on Interstate 94 just east of the Badger interchange (interchange between I-94, I-39/90, and Wisconsin Highway 30), and the other just north of it on I-39/90/94 (https://www.wiscnews.com/community/wisconsindellsevents/wisconsin-dot-opening-future-study-on-i-39-90-94-construction/article_7ac591fe-9ca8-5ef2-8164-41b7b23dcd20.html)." That wouldn't include Milwaukee St unless it involved an eastern extension of Milwaukee St to I-94 west of Gaston Rd. I assume that means Sprecher Rd and either Commercial Av or (more likely) Lien Rd. A Sprecher Rd interchange would solve the access issue without being so close to the Badger Interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2023, 01:00:58 PM
Personally, I am happy that they are planning to remove the left-handed ramps at the Badger Interchange and moving them to the right-hand side. I don't have a strong opinion about adding an Exit 133 on Interstate 39/90/94 (Hoepker Rd.) or adding an Exit 241 on Interstate 94 (Milwaukee St.). I would prefer Alternative 2 for the US 151 interchange, since I would not support downgrading East Washington Avenue and would prefer that US 151 remain free-flow through the interchange. I would definitely support the diverging-diamond alternative for the US 51 interchange. I have no preferences for the interchanges at STH-19, CTH-V, CTH-CS, STH-33 at both Interstate 39 and at Interstate 90/94, STH-23, STH-13, or US 12/STH-16. The high-build interchange at the Interstate 39/STH-78 split seems most rational to me. As for the US 12 interchange, I would prefer the diverging-diamond interchange (I would have liked US 12 to have had freeway-to-freeway ramps to and from the south of 90/94, but that wasn't proposed).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 18, 2023, 02:22:58 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 18, 2023, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 18, 2023, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 18, 2023, 11:07:59 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 18, 2023, 10:17:25 AM
https://madison.com/news/local/madison-could-get-2-new-interstate-interchanges-in-i-39-90-94-madison-dells-project/article_9299c73e-a722-5811-80ea-4a2df5c36ab7.html?utm_source=madison.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&lctg=2416912&tn_email_eh1=a7186738f56ec3cf114bb1ce9e81854ec6e69e48

WISDOT is starting to study I-39/90/94 from Madison to the Dells, including the possibility of two new interchanges near Madison and adding more lanes.

Milwaukee St doesn't intersect with I-94 so I wonder if the street is going to turn north for a new interchange. Freeway access is badly needed in that growing area with the closest interchange at Hwy N in Cottage Grove. The other proposed interchange is at Hoepker Rd which would also need a major rebuild to accommodate even more traffic from a new interchange.


The project starts at the Beltline, so it would include Milwaukee Street's intersection with I-39/90.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx

All I found is the project "could add two new interchanges near the Madison area, with one on Interstate 94 just east of the Badger interchange (interchange between I-94, I-39/90, and Wisconsin Highway 30), and the other just north of it on I-39/90/94 (https://www.wiscnews.com/community/wisconsindellsevents/wisconsin-dot-opening-future-study-on-i-39-90-94-construction/article_7ac591fe-9ca8-5ef2-8164-41b7b23dcd20.html)." That wouldn't include Milwaukee St unless it involved an eastern extension of Milwaukee St to I-94 west of Gaston Rd. I assume that means Sprecher Rd and either Commercial Av or (more likely) Lien Rd. A Sprecher Rd interchange would solve the access issue without being so close to the Badger Interchange.


OK I guess I misread. Thanks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 18, 2023, 10:59:21 PM
I read somewhere that an interchange at Cuba Valley Rd was being considered, though that might have been a while ago. I'm kinda disappointed that that's not being pursued in this project, nor is an interchange at Windsor Rd.

I'm surprised that they're choosing Hoepker over Hanson for that new interchange. Hoepker is a more significant arterial as is, but Hanson would provide immediate access off 39/90/94 to the UW hospital and the American Family complex. Plus, Hanson is already 4 lanes to the east of the freeway, so they'd only have to upgrade it to the west. An interchange at Hoepker would almost certainly necessitate upgrading Hoepker (through some of the last rural land remaining in the Burke township) between 51 and American. And, they'd probably have to upgrade Portage Rd too, since AmFam area/hospital traffic would use 39/90/94 to Hoepker to Portage to Hanson.

Also surprised that neither CTH-BB nor Buckeye Rd on the southeast side, nor Siggelkow Rd in McFarland, are being discussed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 19, 2023, 08:43:23 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 18, 2023, 10:59:21 PM
Also surprised that neither CTH-BB nor Buckeye Rd on the southeast side, nor Siggelkow Rd in McFarland, are being discussed.

I just don't think there is enough room for the first two. It should have been done when the interstate went through.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on April 19, 2023, 09:43:42 AM
My favorite part of the plan is adding a much needed flyover ramp from US 151 south to I-39/I-90/I-94 south/east. That has become one of the busiest ramps in Madison and the loop ramp needs to go. I do see that the American Dr Interchange will be rebuilt to a simpler design.

This is going to be by far the most expensive project in Wisconsin History since almost 60 miles of interstate is going to be rebuilt to 8 lanes along with 3 system interchanges (The Badger, US 151, I-39/Wis 78). It's also going to have a long timeline.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2023, 11:03:05 AM
On the prospect of adding interchanges between US 151 and Interstate 94/STH-30, and between 94/30 and US 12/18: I saw it mentioned somewhere (I don't remember where) and the DOT's response to it was: "adding more traffic to the Interstate not desirable."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 19, 2023, 12:34:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2023, 11:03:05 AM
On the prospect of adding interchanges between US 151 and Interstate 94/STH-30, and between 94/30 and US 12/18: I saw it mentioned somewhere (I don't remember where) and the DOT's response to it was: "adding more traffic to the Interstate not desirable."

Major future upgrades to Stoughton Rd, too?    :hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 19, 2023, 04:51:52 PM
I personally disagree with adding any new interchanges to I-39/90(/94). US-51 has several existing connections back to I-39/90(/94) that already do the job. More interchanges just provide more opportunity for local commuting to clog up the long-distance travelers not intending to stop in Madison.

I can make a case for a Milwaukee St interchange east of the Badger interchange, as long as they can get a full mile east of the ramps for the Badger. I'd extend Milwaukee St east to tie into and replace Gaston Rd, and place the interchange to tie into where County T and TT break off. I mean, if we're going to sprawl anyway, at least make the roadways logical.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on April 19, 2023, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 19, 2023, 04:51:52 PM
I personally disagree with adding any new interchanges to I-39/90(/94). US-51 has several existing connections back to I-39/90(/94) that already do the job. More interchanges just provide more opportunity for local commuting to clog up the long-distance travelers not intending to stop in Madison.

I agree with this. As others have mentioned here, one of the reasons the Beltline has the issues it does is too many interchanges and poor local alternatives encouraging local traffic to use it for every little trip, although there are fewer long-distance trips on that route vs. the interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Trademark on April 19, 2023, 05:13:21 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 19, 2023, 09:43:42 AM
My favorite part of the plan is adding a much needed flyover ramp from US 151 south to I-39/I-90/I-94 south/east. That has become one of the busiest ramps in Madison and the loop ramp needs to go. I do see that the American Dr Interchange will be rebuilt to a simpler design.

This is going to be by far the most expensive project in Wisconsin History since almost 60 miles of interstate is going to be rebuilt to 8 lanes along with 3 system interchanges (The Badger, US 151, I-39/Wis 78). It's also going to have a long timeline.

I agree with 6-laning 94/90 from Wisconsin Dells to Portage, but they really don't need 8 lanes all the way to Madison
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 19, 2023, 07:11:00 PM
Is this going to reroute US-151 to the Beltline or be snaked onto the local roads to reach East Wash? Logically the former is more appropriate since it's essentially high-speed both northeast and southwest of Madison (of course you'll still have the SPUI and 2 traffic lights on Verona Rd)

I am curious if Wis OT considered the potential Buc-ee's at Highway V?

The Badger and the I-39 split potentially will be the 3rd and 4th four-level (or more) interchanges in WI (Marquette and Zoo) - Though the I-39 split won't be a true four level freeway-to-freeway as direction 4 is a 2-lane road.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 19, 2023, 07:43:03 PM
It is doubtful this reroutes US-151. No indication of that whatsoever.

Though it should be done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on April 19, 2023, 07:54:37 PM
Maybe dipping into fictional territory, but what about rerouting WI-78 along Old U Rd between its last 90-degree corner and the triplex, and building a new interchange there? I always thought that would make sense, but it's clearly not going to happen now. Should have been done when I-39 was first built.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on May 01, 2023, 12:44:17 PM
I was driving around downtown Manitowoc yesterday, and went to see the car ferry docks, which have a neat "East US 10" reassurance shield posted right at the dock where there's nothing beyond it but the water. 

When I left, though, I drove US 10 westbound through town and found several of the normal reassurance and directional markers for it missing, and the only way I knew for sure I was still on it was to pull over and consult my Apple Maps app.  In fact there's one left turn jog it takes that's not signed at all.  Once I got out of town, everything was normal from there on, but what gives inside Manitowoc? 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 01, 2023, 02:02:42 PM
Quote from: invincor on May 01, 2023, 12:44:17 PM
I was driving around downtown Manitowoc yesterday, and went to see the car ferry docks, which have a neat "East US 10" reassurance shield posted right at the dock where there's nothing beyond it but the water. 

When I left, though, I drove US 10 westbound through town and found several of the normal reassurance and directional markers for it missing, and the only way I knew for sure I was still on it was to pull over and consult my Apple Maps app.  In fact there's one left turn jog it takes that's not signed at all.  Once I got out of town, everything was normal from there on, but what gives inside Manitowoc? 

US 10 in town was recently rerouted and I guess it's possible something didn't catch up yet with field signage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 01, 2023, 02:17:08 PM
Yeah I am wondering if your Apple Maps App isn't updated.  I have been through town on the new route and my recollection is that it was signed fine.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2023, 03:05:25 PM
I don't think US 151 should have been truncated to Interstate 43. I still think it should have followed STH 42 until its junction with US 10 at the S. 8th Street/Maritime Dr. intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on May 01, 2023, 03:07:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 01, 2023, 02:17:08 PM
Yeah I am wondering if your Apple Maps App isn't updated.  I have been through town on the new route and my recollection is that it was signed fine.

I started from the ferry dock and tried to do it just following the signage without the app.  After a while I lost confidence in what I was on, stopped, looked at the app, saw it still said US 10 (and 42) then continued, and at the light where it takes a left turn to head west, I turned there but saw no signage indicating that it turns, and after a while started seeing reassurance shields again.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 01, 2023, 07:42:21 PM
Quote from: invincor on May 01, 2023, 03:07:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 01, 2023, 02:17:08 PM
Yeah I am wondering if your Apple Maps App isn't updated.  I have been through town on the new route and my recollection is that it was signed fine.

I started from the ferry dock and tried to do it just following the signage without the app.  After a while I lost confidence in what I was on, stopped, looked at the app, saw it still said US 10 (and 42) then continued, and at the light where it takes a left turn to head west, I turned there but saw no signage indicating that it turns, and after a while started seeing reassurance shields again.

As I recall the push for these changes came from the city and there was confusion initially about whether Manitowoc even got the state's permission or approval to make them. It sounded a lot like a "we want this and we're doing this whether you're (the state) ready or not:" It could explain why it seems to haphazard.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 01, 2023, 09:18:26 PM
The State approved it. Otherwise they wouldn't have changed the BGS signs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 12, 2023, 10:09:06 PM
I was on the new Hwy 23 the other day. My thoughts are I am surprised they still did not give any exit numbers. Typically any freeway/expressway that long in this case about 40 miles would have it. Not a fan of the number of J turns they have I am sure they have been very confusing. I thought that unusual interchange at Hwy K jsut before Fond Du Lac. was very odd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 13, 2023, 10:22:05 PM
Hwy 23 is one of those routes in Wisconsin where I'm positive the folks who designated it were well into their 4th or 5th pitcher at the local tavern. The section west of I-39/90 or the Dells could easily be a different route designation.

Frankly, if I had to assign milemarkers and exit numbers on the FdL-Sheboygan section of Hwy 23, I'd start them at 201 at the US-151 interchange, and work my way up eastward. While I doubt any part of Hwy 23 will change much south of the Dells, there's a possibility in the next 50 years that bypasses could be built around towns between I-39/US-51 and I-41 in Fond du Lac. WisDOT could also throw Hwy 23 onto US-151 and I-41 as a FdL bypass. No sense assigning precise milemarkers when they're not going to remain so.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2023, 03:55:17 AM
I don't think there is much chance for WI-23 upgrades west of Fond du Lac. It's a good, not overly busy highway that works fine. Furthermore, I can't imagine bypasses of places like Ripon or Montello would be much of a priority with what WIDOT has on its plate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 14, 2023, 07:33:46 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 13, 2023, 10:22:05 PM
Hwy 23 is one of those routes in Wisconsin where I'm positive the folks who designated it were well into their 4th or 5th pitcher at the local tavern. The section west of I-39/90 or the Dells could easily be a different route designation.

Frankly, if I had to assign milemarkers and exit numbers on the FdL-Sheboygan section of Hwy 23, I'd start them at 201 at the US-151 interchange, and work my way up eastward. While I doubt any part of Hwy 23 will change much south of the Dells, there's a possibility in the next 50 years that bypasses could be built around towns between I-39/US-51 and I-41 in Fond du Lac. WisDOT could also throw Hwy 23 onto US-151 and I-41 as a FdL bypass. No sense assigning precise milemarkers when they're not going to remain so.
West of I-39/US-51, WI-23 and WI-82 should swap.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 14, 2023, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2023, 03:55:17 AM
I don't think there is much chance for WI-23 upgrades west of Fond du Lac. It's a good, not overly busy highway that works fine. Furthermore, I can't imagine bypasses of places like Ripon or Montello would be much of a priority with what WIDOT has on its plate.
If anything they should upgrade the Sheboygan to Plymouth section as a full freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2023, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 14, 2023, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2023, 03:55:17 AM
I don't think there is much chance for WI-23 upgrades west of Fond du Lac. It's a good, not overly busy highway that works fine. Furthermore, I can't imagine bypasses of places like Ripon or Montello would be much of a priority with what WIDOT has on its plate.
If anything they should upgrade the Sheboygan to Plymouth section as a full freeway.

Eh. We'll see. It just opened as a four lane expressway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 08:48:38 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 13, 2023, 10:22:05 PM
Hwy 23 is one of those routes in Wisconsin where I'm positive the folks who designated it were well into their 4th or 5th pitcher at the local tavern. The section west of I-39/90 or the Dells could easily be a different route designation.

Agreed. To put into context how ridiculous WI-23's routing is, I used the very southern/western section to get to Platteville, a town in the southwest of the state. Weird to think about.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 15, 2023, 10:03:29 AM
The new state highway map is available. Not too many changes. Wis 23 is shown as a 4 lane highway after completion, not as an expressway. In the city maps, the changes in Manitowoc and Wis 311 is added in Mt. Pleasant. Wis 74 is removed. Railroads that CN sold are now labeled as "Fox."  Wis 30 is marked as freeway to US 151 but the Madison Beltline, Wis 145, 175, and 119 are still simply 4 lane divided despite being full freeways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 15, 2023, 11:56:24 AM
I just ordered a 2023 map for myself, and one for my mother. I'll tell her when she calls this evening.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 15, 2023, 12:00:38 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 08:48:38 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 13, 2023, 10:22:05 PM
Hwy 23 is one of those routes in Wisconsin where I'm positive the folks who designated it were well into their 4th or 5th pitcher at the local tavern. The section west of I-39/90 or the Dells could easily be a different route designation.

Agreed. To put into context how ridiculous WI-23's routing is, I used the very southern/western section to get to Platteville, a town in the southwest of the state. Weird to think about.


It is really just history. WI-82 used to be a 3dwi (WI-135) west of Packwaukee, but it only went as far as Oxford. WI-82 supplanted WI-135 when the new Wisconsin River bridge east of Mauston was opened in 1955. By that point, WI-23 was on its complete routing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 15, 2023, 12:16:28 PM
STH 23 originally only went from Sheboygan to Packwaukee in 1918, before being extended south to the Iowa border at Dubuque in the early 1920's (it was later truncated to Dodgeville in 1926 with the coming of US 118, and reextended to its present terminus at STH 11 when US 118 became part of US 151 in 1938). Incidentally, STH 22 also switches from an east-west highway to a north-south highway at Shawano.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2023, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 14, 2023, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2023, 03:55:17 AM
I don't think there is much chance for WI-23 upgrades west of Fond du Lac. It's a good, not overly busy highway that works fine. Furthermore, I can't imagine bypasses of places like Ripon or Montello would be much of a priority with what WIDOT has on its plate.
If anything they should upgrade the Sheboygan to Plymouth section as a full freeway.

Eh. We'll see. It just opened as a four lane expressway.

Give it its due time.  I'm also thinking that rerouting US 151 to follow what is now WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan is ultimately a good idea for some time in the long term foreseeable future.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 15, 2023, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 15, 2023, 10:03:29 AM
the Madison Beltline, Wis 145, 175, and 119 are still simply 4 lane divided despite being full freeways.

It just boggles my mind that they do that wrong.  In what universe is the Beltline not a freeway?
And out of no where too! A few years back after showing it correctly for decades, we're just gonna say, "DERP!"
It offends me as a map nerd and cartographer and a person with (I hope) common sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on May 15, 2023, 02:00:30 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2023, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 14, 2023, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2023, 03:55:17 AM
I don't think there is much chance for WI-23 upgrades west of Fond du Lac. It's a good, not overly busy highway that works fine. Furthermore, I can't imagine bypasses of places like Ripon or Montello would be much of a priority with what WIDOT has on its plate.
If anything they should upgrade the Sheboygan to Plymouth section as a full freeway.

Eh. We'll see. It just opened as a four lane expressway.

Give it its due time.  I'm also thinking that rerouting US 151 to follow what is now WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan is ultimately a good idea for some time in the long term foreseeable future.

Mike
On the basis of a single corridor, state route vs. US route does not matter anymore.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 15, 2023, 05:04:08 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 15, 2023, 10:03:29 AM
The new state highway map is available. Not too many changes. Wis 23 is shown as a 4 lane highway after completion, not as an expressway. In the city maps, the changes in Manitowoc and Wis 311 is added in Mt. Pleasant. Wis 74 is removed. Railroads that CN sold are now labeled as "Fox."  Wis 30 is marked as freeway to US 151 but the Madison Beltline, Wis 145, 175, and 119 are still simply 4 lane divided despite being full freeways.
That's too bad the beltline without question should be marked as a freeway. I am shocked they did not correct that this time. Does it no longer show an interchange at Hwy 100 and Hwy 57?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 17, 2023, 07:54:04 PM
I had the day off, so I made a quick trip up to the Green Bay, WI area.  Not too much to report, there was no preliminary work (ie, utility relocations, ROW clearance, etc) yet visible on the part of I-41 that will be upgraded starting next spring.  WisDOT is nearly done with the WI 29/32/Counry 'VV' interchange, only minor finishing touches are left (just the ROW fence on the north side of the highway east of the interchange has a week or two of work left).  With that, all of the WI 29 freeway in Brown and Outagamie Counties west of I-41 will be complete westward to the Brown/Shawano County line.  WisDOT did not remark the crossings of the Brown/Outagamie County line.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 18, 2023, 01:23:02 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 15, 2023, 05:04:08 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 15, 2023, 10:03:29 AM
The new state highway map is available. Not too many changes. Wis 23 is shown as a 4 lane highway after completion, not as an expressway. In the city maps, the changes in Manitowoc and Wis 311 is added in Mt. Pleasant. Wis 74 is removed. Railroads that CN sold are now labeled as "Fox."  Wis 30 is marked as freeway to US 151 but the Madison Beltline, Wis 145, 175, and 119 are still simply 4 lane divided despite being full freeways.
That's too bad the beltline without question should be marked as a freeway. I am shocked they did not correct that this time. Does it no longer show an interchange at Hwy 100 and Hwy 57?

That interchange is still on the map. The US 53/US 63 north interchange isn't on the map either. Here's a link to the map.

https://wisconsindot.gov/documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/statemap.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 18, 2023, 11:10:07 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 15, 2023, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 15, 2023, 10:03:29 AM
the Madison Beltline, Wis 145, 175, and 119 are still simply 4 lane divided despite being full freeways.

It just boggles my mind that they do that wrong.  In what universe is the Beltline not a freeway?
And out of no where too! A few years back after showing it correctly for decades, we're just gonna say, "DERP!"
It offends me as a map nerd and cartographer and a person with (I hope) common sense.

I can almost understand the Beltline if WISDOT only wants to use freeway with non-interstates not built to modern interstate standards but I agree that it should be depicted as a freeway. US 151 between Sun Prairie and I-90/94/39 also should be a freeway. WI 11 around Monroe should too but it has that insane bike trail crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6142164,-89.6297354,3a,60y,270.69h,76.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shw6FHclN_pIL-Kxs1vxr5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Stephane Dumas on May 18, 2023, 12:12:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on May 18, 2023, 11:10:07 AM

I can almost understand the Beltline if WISDOT only wants to use freeway with non-interstates not built to modern interstate standards but I agree that it should be depicted as a freeway. US 151 between Sun Prairie and I-90/94/39 also should be a freeway. WI 11 around Monroe should too but it has that insane bike trail crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6142164,-89.6297354,3a,60y,270.69h,76.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shw6FHclN_pIL-Kxs1vxr5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

That bike path was a former railroad (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.61113,-89.63093&z=14&t=U&marker0=42.60100%2C-89.63800%2CMonroe%20WI), I wonder when that line was abandonned? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2023, 12:31:34 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 18, 2023, 12:12:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on May 18, 2023, 11:10:07 AM

I can almost understand the Beltline if WISDOT only wants to use freeway with non-interstates not built to modern interstate standards but I agree that it should be depicted as a freeway. US 151 between Sun Prairie and I-90/94/39 also should be a freeway. WI 11 around Monroe should too but it has that insane bike trail crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6142164,-89.6297354,3a,60y,270.69h,76.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shw6FHclN_pIL-Kxs1vxr5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

That bike path was a former railroad (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.61113,-89.63093&z=14&t=U&marker0=42.60100%2C-89.63800%2CMonroe%20WI), I wonder when that line was abandonned? 

Looking at historic aerials, sometime in the late 80s / early 90s is my guess.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 18, 2023, 01:06:07 PM
To this day WISDOT does not like to build railroad bridges on lines with low rail traffic. When Wis 11 was constructed, the Illinois Central rail traffic was declining.

US 141 expressway was constructed with two rail crossings of the Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad, which has trains about once a day and poorly maintained rail, while US 151 has two Wisconsin & Southern at grade crossings in Beaver Dam and Waupun. Just south of Beaver Dam an overpass on US 151 was constructed over the Union Pacific line since that line is very busy.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 18, 2023, 02:39:43 PM
The frustrating part about this change for the worse in the official state highway map is they have a good road classification system on their map.  Particularly the distinction between just any ol' divided highway and an "expressway"; one that still has freeway speeds but not quite the access control of a freeway.  Few states bother making that distinction.  Hell, some states have never been bothered to show non-interstate freeways differently than the non-freeway portions of those highways. (Looking at you, Minnesota; your state map sucks!  City insets are good, but the statewide map fails.)

They've got a good system in place, but when they don't use it correctly, it's extra annoying.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Stephane Dumas on May 18, 2023, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 18, 2023, 01:06:07 PM
To this day WISDOT does not like to build railroad bridges on lines with low rail traffic. When Wis 11 was constructed, the Illinois Central rail traffic was declining.

TCH-20 south of LƩvis, QuƩbec used to have a railroad crossing where the line was abandonned in the early 1990s as shown in this GSV from 2009 https://goo.gl/maps/DHUKeN61Z8hpwsnW6 but since then an overpass for a bike path was constructed. https://goo.gl/maps/1cncMJTJYgLzJNHE9

Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 18, 2023, 02:39:43 PM
The frustrating part about this change for the worse in the official state highway map is they have a good road classification system on their map.  Particularly the distinction between just any ol' divided highway and an "expressway"; one that still has freeway speeds but not quite the access control of a freeway.  Few states bother making that distinction.  Hell, some states have never been bothered to show non-interstate freeways differently than the non-freeway portions of those highways. (Looking at you, Minnesota; your state map sucks!  City insets are good, but the statewide map fails.)

The way they identify an "expressway", it look like how Goshua maps used to identify a "Super-2" in their road atlas and maps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2023, 10:38:24 PM
I tried ordering a 2023 map from travelwisconsin.com. Instead, I received a 2019/2020 map (I now have three of them). I cursed when I saw what they sent me. I will try again in a few months to see if they send me the real 2023 map.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WisJohn on May 19, 2023, 10:47:00 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2023, 10:38:24 PM
I tried ordering a 2023 map from travelwisconsin.com. Instead, I received a 2019/2020 map (I now have three of them). I cursed when I saw what they sent me. I will try again in a few months to see if they send me the real 2023 map.

Contact your legislator. They got the 2023 ones a week or two ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 20, 2023, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 18, 2023, 01:06:07 PM
To this day WISDOT does not like to build railroad bridges on lines with low rail traffic. When Wis 11 was constructed, the Illinois Central rail traffic was declining.

US 141 expressway was constructed with two rail crossings of the Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad, which has trains about once a day and poorly maintained rail, while US 151 has two Wisconsin & Southern at grade crossings in Beaver Dam and Waupun. Just south of Beaver Dam an overpass on US 151 was constructed over the Union Pacific line since that line is very busy.

That's not WisDOT's finest decision-making, as became obvious a year ago.

Hwy 141 reopens at scene of deadly crash, train derailment; victim identified
https://www.wbay.com/2021/12/15/crews-scene-major-crash-marinette-county/ (https://www.wbay.com/2021/12/15/crews-scene-major-crash-marinette-county/)

The crossing isn't particularly obvious even in good weather conditions:
https://goo.gl/maps/ekTHFXrg6E8d8AAz6 (https://goo.gl/maps/ekTHFXrg6E8d8AAz6)https://goo.gl/maps/iyohgein6N21Bdww6
https://goo.gl/maps/oL2y1s1Qr6mmS3Y69 (https://goo.gl/maps/oL2y1s1Qr6mmS3Y69)https://goo.gl/maps/QyDRQC3eENu52ajv9


Michigan's DOT handles this situation better - US-127 just north of M-57:
Don't stop on green light!: https://goo.gl/maps/dLWmM5isUyUeFbVp7 (https://goo.gl/maps/dLWmM5isUyUeFbVp7)
1st warning: https://goo.gl/maps/Ezst9cb3mEbCd1XF9 (https://goo.gl/maps/Ezst9cb3mEbCd1XF9)
2nd warning: https://goo.gl/maps/ah1Yyzvg9AbK1pRh6 (https://goo.gl/maps/ah1Yyzvg9AbK1pRh6)
Seriously, don't stop on green!: https://goo.gl/maps/bZmhKhyw581R35rZ6 (https://goo.gl/maps/bZmhKhyw581R35rZ6)
Actual crossing, with a stoplight and flashing red lights: https://goo.gl/maps/NxsZN6bMtvXX1bWq9 (https://goo.gl/maps/NxsZN6bMtvXX1bWq9)

Would it have helped the terminally oblivious driving too fast for conditions? Maybe? But there's a few more chances to be reminded you might have to stop.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 20, 2023, 09:23:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2023, 10:38:24 PM
I tried ordering a 2023 map from travelwisconsin.com. Instead, I received a 2019/2020 map (I now have three of them). I cursed when I saw what they sent me. I will try again in a few months to see if they send me the real 2023 map.
I was just at the Jefferson County Rest Area today they still have the 2019 edition. I will have to wait longer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 26, 2023, 02:22:45 PM
The I-94/90 rest area in Mauston just stocked new 2023 maps and I was able to get one. The employee had a large box of them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 27, 2023, 12:19:01 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 26, 2023, 02:22:45 PM
The I-94/90 rest area in Mauston just stocked new 2023 maps and I was able to get one. The employee had a large box of them.
any improvements to the beltline drawing?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 27, 2023, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 27, 2023, 12:19:01 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 26, 2023, 02:22:45 PM
The I-94/90 rest area in Mauston just stocked new 2023 maps and I was able to get one. The employee had a large box of them.
any improvements to the beltline drawing?


I'd be shocked if it was any different than the one WisDOT posted on the web:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/statemap.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on May 28, 2023, 07:52:49 AM
I have never seen a speed limit-based decision to demote freeway status cartographically before.    That's just wrong. My guess is that it's WisDOT's desire to discourage use of the Beltline as an alternate route between Madison and the Dells (on the order of removing Oshkosh as a destination from the BGSs at the WI 26/US 151 interchange NE of Waupun).  WisDOT does some funny things to keep people from using some alternate routes, even though they sign others. Granted US 12 does back up horribly in Sauk City on summer weekends. 

Other minor updates on the 2023 map: 

Southwest Arterial/US 52 at Dubuque

Incorporation of Yorkville, Raymond, Greenville, and at long last, Somers. 

New cities reaching 10,000 people (with yellow tint):  Holmen, New Richmond, Sparta, Oregon, DeForest, Greenville, Salem Lakes (shown earlier?), and a large incorporated south of Sherwood (?). 

Improvements to US 18/151 and interchange with County Trunk PB/McKee Road. Interesting that PB is shown as multi lane divided to the west.  That is another frequent inconsistency: why are only a few selected divided CTHs depicted that way? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 28, 2023, 02:30:13 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 28, 2023, 07:52:49 AM
I have never seen a speed limit-based decision to demote freeway status cartographically before.    That's just wrong. My guess is that it's WisDOT's desire to discourage use of the Beltline as an alternate route between Madison and the Dells (on the order of removing Oshkosh as a destination from the BGSs at the WI 26/US 151 interchange NE of Waupun).  WisDOT does some funny things to keep people from using some alternate routes, even though they sign others. Granted US 12 does back up horribly in Sauk City on summer weekends. 

Other minor updates on the 2023 map: 

Southwest Arterial/US 52 at Dubuque

Incorporation of Yorkville, Raymond, Greenville, and at long last, Somers. 

New cities reaching 10,000 people (with yellow tint):  Holmen, New Richmond, Sparta, Oregon, DeForest, Greenville, Salem Lakes (shown earlier?), and a large incorporated south of Sherwood (?). 

Improvements to US 18/151 and interchange with County Trunk PB/McKee Road. Interesting that PB is shown as multi lane divided to the west.  That is another frequent inconsistency: why are only a few selected divided CTHs depicted that way?

IMHO, many/most of these suburban township incorporations will ultimately fail (give it a few decades) due to the factor of 'insufficient tax base to cover expected long-term cost of services'.  Unfortunately, that test is not a legal requirement in the state's municipal law statutes.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 28, 2023, 04:31:17 PM
Southwest Arterial/US 52 is a freeway with Breezewoods at both ends.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 29, 2023, 01:45:33 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 28, 2023, 07:52:49 AM
I have never seen a speed limit-based decision to demote freeway status cartographically before.    That's just wrong. My guess is that it's WisDOT's desire to discourage use of the Beltline as an alternate route between Madison and the Dells (on the order of removing Oshkosh as a destination from the BGSs at the WI 26/US 151 interchange NE of Waupun).  WisDOT does some funny things to keep people from using some alternate routes, even though they sign others. Granted US 12 does back up horribly in Sauk City on summer weekends. 

Other minor updates on the 2023 map: 

Southwest Arterial/US 52 at Dubuque

Incorporation of Yorkville, Raymond, Greenville, and at long last, Somers. 

New cities reaching 10,000 people (with yellow tint):  Holmen, New Richmond, Sparta, Oregon, DeForest, Greenville, Salem Lakes (shown earlier?), and a large incorporated south of Sherwood (?). 

Improvements to US 18/151 and interchange with County Trunk PB/McKee Road. Interesting that PB is shown as multi lane divided to the west.  That is another frequent inconsistency: why are only a few selected divided CTHs depicted that way?

The incorporated area around Sherwood is Harrison. Part of the town was initially incorporated which was the Darboy portion in Calumet County. The new village then annexed the rest of the town. Sherwood is done growing and is completely surrounded by Harrison. On Wis 114/55, there's Harrison signs right after leaving Sherwood on both sides.

One other thing I wondered is why US 45 north of Antigo to Hwy B is never shown as 4 lane divided?

As far as the 4 lane divided, ironically Wis 23 has a 65 mph speed limit between County C and UU with more J turns than probably any other expressway yet it's not marked as an expressway.

One other thing I also notice is that the US 51/US 2 interchange is removed from the new map.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 29, 2023, 02:55:35 AM
That Harrison Township is one of the munis I referenced above that I believe will ultimately fail as an entity due to the issue of insufficient tax base to cover expected long term cost of services.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 29, 2023, 04:33:09 AM
Has Wisconsin ever had a municipality "fail?"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 29, 2023, 01:43:17 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 29, 2023, 04:33:09 AM
Has Wisconsin ever had a municipality "fail?"

Village of Brokaw , also the then tiny Village of Kekoske.  Both were older munis and were a within the past few years.  The newer suburban 'township' entities that have been popping up in recent years (driven by the sole reason of preventing themselves from becoming parts of other existing entities) don't have enough real tax base (they are mostly low-density 1F residential, some low density commercial and industrial and lots of open farm and forest land) and won't have the cash needed when their infrastructures need replacing and serious upgrading, among other things.  I even worry about the newer 'low density' parts of older existing munis like the City of Appleton.  There are other munis that 'failed' decades ago and are now parts of other munis "ie, Village of Barton (now part of the City of West Bend) and  Preble Township (Brown County, now part of the City of Green Bay).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 29, 2023, 11:23:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 29, 2023, 02:55:35 AM
That Harrison Township is one of the munis I referenced above that I believe will ultimately fail as an entity due to the issue of insufficient tax base to cover expected long term cost of services.

Mike

Those municipalities aren't going to fail. I lived in Fitchburg which has been a city for 40 years now and the majority of the land is still rural. Fitchburg is divided into urban and rural service areas. Areas with low density do not have full City services like sewer and water.

Brokaw failed because the paper mill was by far the biggest customer of city services in a municipality under 300 people. All these other municipalities have high populations despite the large undeveloped portions.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 30, 2023, 08:47:51 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 29, 2023, 11:23:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 29, 2023, 02:55:35 AM
That Harrison Township is one of the munis I referenced above that I believe will ultimately fail as an entity due to the issue of insufficient tax base to cover expected long term cost of services.

Mike

Those municipalities aren't going to fail. I lived in Fitchburg which has been a city for 40 years now and the majority of the land is still rural. Fitchburg is divided into urban and rural service areas. Areas with low density do not have full City services like sewer and water.

Brokaw failed because the paper mill was by far the biggest customer of city services in a municipality under 300 people. All these other municipalities have high populations despite the large undeveloped portions.


Yeah I agree with this.  Harrison has over 100 times more people than Brokow did when it merged into Maine.  And how Fitchburg treats urban and rural areas is a great example. My parents built a house there when it was still a town in the mid-70s. To this day that house still does not have city water or sewer service, no cubs and gutters, etc. - and likely never will.

I think the real question is if towns should be able to incorporate themselves versus be annexed by neighboring municipalities. I live in what was once the Town of Preble before it was annexed by Green Bay. I would suggest that the ability to annex that land and grow to the east was very beneficial to the City of Green Bay - to this day there are still parts of the far east side that look quite rural. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 30, 2023, 11:39:44 AM
The Town of Preble became a part of Green Bay because of a town referendum in the late 1960s.

Last year a law was passed banning the 2 step annexation that Harrison, Fox Crossing, and Greenville used to acquire the portions of the town that were not included in the initial incorporation. There's a 5 year waiting period now and a link to the article is below:

https://www.thebrillionnews.com/amp/evers-signs-bill-nixing-two-step-annexations

Greenleaf was just approved to become a village this year and incorporated because the Town of Wrightstown felt threatened by the Village of Wrightstown. Under the new law Greenleaf can't annex outside the initial boundary for 5 years.

https://fox11online.com/news/local/town-of-wrightstown-incorporates-new-village-greenleaf-brown-county-wisconsin-incorporation-review-board
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 30, 2023, 12:49:55 PM
That law should include a provision requiring all cities and villages that are contiguous to any township proposing such a border deal to also give their assent to the proposal, also a provision to undo the damage that has already been done.  In the deeper future, when the 'suburban growth Ponzi scheme' inevitably implodes, we'll need a total top-to-bottom statewide rethink of local governance.  Why was Kekoske allowed to take over that township that completely surrounds Mayville?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 30, 2023, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 30, 2023, 12:49:55 PM
That law should include a provision requiring all cities and villages that are contiguous to any township proposing such a border deal to also give their assent to the proposal, also a provision to undo the damage that has already been done.  In the deeper future, when the 'suburban growth Ponzi scheme' inevitably implodes, we'll need a total top-to-bottom statewide rethink of local governance.  Why was Kekoske allowed to take over that township that completely surrounds Mayville?

I agree with your suggestion...although I am not sure what you mean by the "suburban growth Ponzi scheme."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 30, 2023, 01:10:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 30, 2023, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 30, 2023, 12:49:55 PM
That law should include a provision requiring all cities and villages that are contiguous to any township proposing such a border deal to also give their assent to the proposal, also a provision to undo the damage that has already been done.  In the deeper future, when the 'suburban growth Ponzi scheme' inevitably implodes, we'll need a total top-to-bottom statewide rethink of local governance.  Why was Kekoske allowed to take over that township that completely surrounds Mayville?

I agree with your suggestion...although I am not sure what you mean by the "suburban growth Ponzi scheme."
. The phrase is from several articles hat I have read in recent years on the process of suburban growth in the post-WWII era, financing services to existing developed areas (especially very low density areas) by using and pushing new similar development.  Eventually, it runs out.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on May 30, 2023, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 28, 2023, 07:52:49 AM
I have never seen a speed limit-based decision to demote freeway status cartographically before.    That's just wrong. My guess is that it's WisDOT's desire to discourage use of the Beltline as an alternate route between Madison and the Dells (on the order of removing Oshkosh as a destination from the BGSs at the WI 26/US 151 interchange NE of Waupun).  WisDOT does some funny things to keep people from using some alternate routes, even though they sign others. Granted US 12 does back up horribly in Sauk City on summer weekends. 

Other minor updates on the 2023 map: 

Southwest Arterial/US 52 at Dubuque

Incorporation of Yorkville, Raymond, Greenville, and at long last, Somers. 

New cities reaching 10,000 people (with yellow tint):  Holmen, New Richmond, Sparta, Oregon, DeForest, Greenville, Salem Lakes (shown earlier?), and a large incorporated south of Sherwood (?). 

Improvements to US 18/151 and interchange with County Trunk PB/McKee Road. Interesting that PB is shown as multi lane divided to the west.  That is another frequent inconsistency: why are only a few selected divided CTHs depicted that way?
It looks like Sturgeon Bay and Tomah are next in line for cities reaching over 10,000. I beleive Hwy EB in Green Bay is also marked as 4 lane. But that's inconsistent because Moorland Rd in New Berlin is also 4 lane but the map does not mark it as such. I am sure that's not the only one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2023, 03:07:13 PM
I would like the Sturgeon Bay bypass to be expanded to four lanes between the CTH-U/Clay Banks Rd./Circle Ridge Rd. and the Business 42/Business 57/Egg Harbor Rd. roundabout (since STH 57 is four lanes from Green Bay to Sturgeon Bay). I don't know if the traffic counts warrant an expansion to four lanes on the bypass, but it would be nice.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 30, 2023, 03:20:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2023, 03:07:13 PM
I would like the Sturgeon Bay bypass to be expanded to four lanes between the CTH-U/Clay Banks Rd./Circle Ridge Rd. and the Business 42/Business 57/Egg Harbor Rd. roundabout (since STH 57 is four lanes from Green Bay to Sturgeon Bay). I don't know if the traffic counts warrant an expansion to four lanes on the bypass, but it would be nice.

WisDOT would also have to build a paralleling Bascule drawbridge over the Ship Canal, too costly for the road's current traffic levels.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 30, 2023, 03:34:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2023, 03:07:13 PM
I would like the Sturgeon Bay bypass to be expanded to four lanes between the CTH-U/Clay Banks Rd./Circle Ridge Rd. and the Business 42/Business 57/Egg Harbor Rd. roundabout (since STH 57 is four lanes from Green Bay to Sturgeon Bay). I don't know if the traffic counts warrant an expansion to four lanes on the bypass, but it would be nice.


I've been on the bypass during the busy traffic season and two lanes is busy, but by and large fine.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 30, 2023, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on May 28, 2023, 07:52:49 AM
I have never seen a speed limit-based decision to demote freeway status cartographically before.    That's just wrong. My guess is that it's WisDOT's desire to discourage use of the Beltline as an alternate route between Madison and the Dells (on the order of removing Oshkosh as a destination from the BGSs at the WI 26/US 151 interchange NE of Waupun).  WisDOT does some funny things to keep people from using some alternate routes, even though they sign others. Granted US 12 does back up horribly in Sauk City on summer weekends. 

Yeah it sure was getting rough there yesterday.  Some crash had 90/94 all gummed up between The Dells and Portage, so even more folks were trying to get around it via Sauk.  So then I had to get around the traffic jam they were causing where the four lane ends and the first signal coming into the Sauk Prairie area from the north.
Oh and then one more jam on the Beltline where some crash had it down to one lane.  Took city streets between Middleton and home.

That was one of those drives where you could feel the frustration building as everyone seemed to want to be doing 90; just tons of FIBs tailgating.  Some shitheel even passed me on the goddamn shoulder in a construction zone because there was a truck micropassing me.  I'm like WTF? 

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 30, 2023, 03:34:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2023, 03:07:13 PM
I would like the Sturgeon Bay bypass to be expanded to four lanes between the CTH-U/Clay Banks Rd./Circle Ridge Rd. and the Business 42/Business 57/Egg Harbor Rd. roundabout (since STH 57 is four lanes from Green Bay to Sturgeon Bay). I don't know if the traffic counts warrant an expansion to four lanes on the bypass, but it would be nice.


I've been on the bypass during the busy traffic season and two lanes is busy, but by and large fine.

I would think they'd wait until traffic became really untenable, then go for an expansion with a high-level bridge that won't need to open for passing ships.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 30, 2023, 04:58:31 PM
^
I could see keeping the two lane bridge yet making WI 57 four lanes north of the bridge to the WI 43/57 split. The ROW looks wide enough to Egg Harbor Road and it would be taking minimal property if the ROW north of Egg Harbor Road isn't wide enough. I had to deal with that when I lived in Virginia and took the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel which only has two lanes through the tunnels but four lanes on the bridge sections. It worked pretty well but I see they've accumulated enough toll revenue to build a parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on June 01, 2023, 08:16:14 PM
Just looked at the state map. The Fox Valley is starting to look like a mini-Milwaukee with all the yellow. There's a few gaps (Is Grand Chute still a township?) but that's a lot different from the map I remember just a few decades ago. Wrightstown may only be a bit over 3K now, but they've annexed the land east of I-41 between Wrightstown Rd and CTH U so it wouldn't surprise me to see that blow up this decade. Wrightstown is the biggest gap in yellow from Suamico to Oshkosh.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 01, 2023, 10:35:39 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 01, 2023, 08:16:14 PM
Just looked at the state map. The Fox Valley is starting to look like a mini-Milwaukee with all the yellow. There's a few gaps (Is Grand Chute still a township?) but that's a lot different from the map I remember just a few decades ago. Wrightstown may only be a bit over 3K now, but they've annexed the land east of I-41 between Wrightstown Rd and CTH U so it wouldn't surprise me to see that blow up this decade. Wrightstown is the biggest gap in yellow from Suamico to Oshkosh.

It will be filled in eventually. That's why I-41 expansion is so important.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 03, 2023, 01:01:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 01, 2023, 10:35:39 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 01, 2023, 08:16:14 PM
Just looked at the state map. The Fox Valley is starting to look like a mini-Milwaukee with all the yellow. There's a few gaps (Is Grand Chute still a township?) but that's a lot different from the map I remember just a few decades ago. Wrightstown may only be a bit over 3K now, but they've annexed the land east of I-41 between Wrightstown Rd and CTH U so it wouldn't surprise me to see that blow up this decade. Wrightstown is the biggest gap in yellow from Suamico to Oshkosh.

It will be filled in eventually. That's why I-41 expansion is so important.

Yea, that township west and north of Appleton is still there, and their streets and major developed area are still falling apart.  They should have been added to Appleton back when Preble joined Green Bay.   The area around the slowly dying Fox River Mall is an embarrassment to the city.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on June 04, 2023, 10:39:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 30, 2023, 02:41:03 PM
It looks like Sturgeon Bay and Tomah are next in line for cities reaching over 10,000. I beleive Hwy EB in Green Bay is also marked as 4 lane. But that's inconsistent because Moorland Rd in New Berlin is also 4 lane but the map does not mark it as such. I am sure that's not the only one.
[/quote]

I would also add McFarland and Reedsburg as good candidates for exceeding 10,000 in the 2030 census.  A dark horse might be Windsor or Cottage Grove. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 05, 2023, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on June 04, 2023, 10:39:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 30, 2023, 02:41:03 PM
It looks like Sturgeon Bay and Tomah are next in line for cities reaching over 10,000. I beleive Hwy EB in Green Bay is also marked as 4 lane. But that's inconsistent because Moorland Rd in New Berlin is also 4 lane but the map does not mark it as such. I am sure that's not the only one.

I would also add McFarland and Reedsburg as good candidates for exceeding 10,000 in the 2030 census.  A dark horse might be Windsor or Cottage Grove.
[/quote]

Has the time come to drop that threshold to 20K or 25K?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2023, 11:15:36 AM

Has the time come to drop that threshold to 20K or 25K?


Given the scale they're working at for the state map, I don't think so.  The point of showing the incorporations of 10k+ is so one can omit some cartographic details like county roads, unincorporated place names and even interchange squares, in the case of Milwaukee.

However, I do feel like getting that yellow on the state-level map is cause for potentially having an inset map for that city.  Been a long time since the official map did anything different with insets.  Gotta be like 20 years since they added that Lake Country map for Waukesha County and the central Madison inset.  That was the last big change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on June 05, 2023, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2023, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on June 04, 2023, 10:39:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 30, 2023, 02:41:03 PM
It looks like Sturgeon Bay and Tomah are next in line for cities reaching over 10,000. I beleive Hwy EB in Green Bay is also marked as 4 lane. But that's inconsistent because Moorland Rd in New Berlin is also 4 lane but the map does not mark it as such. I am sure that's not the only one.

I would also add McFarland and Reedsburg as good candidates for exceeding 10,000 in the 2030 census.  A dark horse might be Windsor or Cottage Grove.
Windsor probably will. Reedsburg only needs 16 more people. McFarland and Cottage Grove could, though I would put the odds at less than 50%.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 05, 2023, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 05, 2023, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2023, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on June 04, 2023, 10:39:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 30, 2023, 02:41:03 PM
It looks like Sturgeon Bay and Tomah are next in line for cities reaching over 10,000. I beleive Hwy EB in Green Bay is also marked as 4 lane. But that's inconsistent because Moorland Rd in New Berlin is also 4 lane but the map does not mark it as such. I am sure that's not the only one.

I would also add McFarland and Reedsburg as good candidates for exceeding 10,000 in the 2030 census.  A dark horse might be Windsor or Cottage Grove.
Windsor probably will. Reedsburg only needs 16 more people. McFarland and Cottage Grove could, though I would put the odds at less than 50%.

And Kenosha was so close to becoming the 4th city with over 100,000 people at 99,986 at the 2020 census.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 05, 2023, 08:00:59 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 05, 2023, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 05, 2023, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2023, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on June 04, 2023, 10:39:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 30, 2023, 02:41:03 PM
It looks like Sturgeon Bay and Tomah are next in line for cities reaching over 10,000. I beleive Hwy EB in Green Bay is also marked as 4 lane. But that's inconsistent because Moorland Rd in New Berlin is also 4 lane but the map does not mark it as such. I am sure that's not the only one.

I would also add McFarland and Reedsburg as good candidates for exceeding 10,000 in the 2030 census.  A dark horse might be Windsor or Cottage Grove.
Windsor probably will. Reedsburg only needs 16 more people. McFarland and Cottage Grove could, though I would put the odds at less than 50%.

And Kenosha was so close to becoming the 4th city with over 100,000 people at 99,986 at the 2020 census.

I thought at one point that Kenosha might surpass Green Bay as the state's third largest city, but it looks like their growth has stalled out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 06, 2023, 10:34:30 AM
I could see Waukesha potentially be the next city over 100k.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 06, 2023, 10:39:36 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 06, 2023, 10:34:30 AM
I could see Waukesha potentially be the next city over 100k.

Kenosha is less than 100 people away, so I think that's obviously going to be the next one.

The problem with Waukesha is that it's been hemmed in with incorporated municipalities so there isn't much room to grow. It only grew by about 400 people between 2010 and 2020 - and sits at 71,000.

I actually think it will be quite awhile for another Wisconsin city to hit that mark after Kenosha. The largest of the remaining are all 20,000+ away and have the same issues that Waukesha has.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 06, 2023, 10:53:07 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 06, 2023, 10:39:36 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 06, 2023, 10:34:30 AM
I could see Waukesha potentially be the next city over 100k.

Kenosha is less than 100 people away, so I think that's obviously going to be the next one.

The problem with Waukesha is that it's been hemmed in with incorporated municipalities so there isn't much room to grow. It only grew by about 400 people between 2010 and 2020 - and sits at 71,000.

I actually think it will be quite awhile for another Wisconsin city to hit that mark after Kenosha. The largest of the remaining are all 20,000+ away and have the same issues that Waukesha has.
Damn Town of Pewaukee. :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on June 06, 2023, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 06, 2023, 10:39:36 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 06, 2023, 10:34:30 AM
I could see Waukesha potentially be the next city over 100k.

Kenosha is less than 100 people away, so I think that's obviously going to be the next one.

The problem with Waukesha is that it's been hemmed in with incorporated municipalities so there isn't much room to grow. It only grew by about 400 people between 2010 and 2020 - and sits at 71,000.

I actually think it will be quite awhile for another Wisconsin city to hit that mark after Kenosha. The largest of the remaining are all 20,000+ away and have the same issues that Waukesha has.

Kenosha last three censuses:
2000  90,352
2010  99,218
2020  99,986

Kenosha's growth has been slowing. It may have even peaked like Racine. It wouldn't surprise me if the 2030 census showed a population decline even if it ekes over 100k in the next year or two.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 06, 2023, 03:29:17 PM
Kenosha was able to annex its way across I-94 to keep it's population growth up for a while there, but now like it's neighbor just up the coast, they're hemmed in by other villages/cities.  Kind of interesting that Racine and Kenosha have basically switched population sizes in the last 50 years.  If not for Kenosha's aggressive annexations, that wouldn't have happened.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 07, 2023, 10:56:29 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2023, 11:15:36 AM

Has the time come to drop that threshold to 20K or 25K?


Given the scale they're working at for the state map, I don't think so.  The point of showing the incorporations of 10k+ is so one can omit some cartographic details like county roads, unincorporated place names and even interchange squares, in the case of Milwaukee.

However, I do feel like getting that yellow on the state-level map is cause for potentially having an inset map for that city.  Been a long time since the official map did anything different with insets.  Gotta be like 20 years since they added that Lake Country map for Waukesha County and the central Madison inset.  That was the last big change.
I believe West Bend is the largest city without an inset on the state map.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 12, 2023, 10:49:27 PM
WisDOT posted this to their Facebook page recently:

DYK? In April, we released an online archive of Wisconsin's Official State Highway Map over the past 100 years. The archive is a fun time capsule of Wisconsin highway history ā€” learn about road safety changes, highway improvements, tourism campaigns, and more. Spanning back to 1918, each year's map is available for free viewing and downloading. Start your history lesson here:

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 13, 2023, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 12, 2023, 10:49:27 PM
WisDOT posted this to their Facebook page recently:

DYK? In April, we released an online archive of Wisconsin's Official State Highway Map over the past 100 years. The archive is a fun time capsule of Wisconsin highway history ā€” learn about road safety changes, highway improvements, tourism campaigns, and more. Spanning back to 1918, each year's map is available for free viewing and downloading. Start your history lesson here:

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx)
Very Cool.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2023, 11:31:45 AM
I've looked at this portion of the DOT's website. The old maps rock!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 13, 2023, 02:02:13 PM
I haven't yet checked, but did they include the issue where they accidentally left the City of Winneconne off of it?  It remains the basis for heir annual 'Sovereign State Days' civic festival.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 13, 2023, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 13, 2023, 02:02:13 PM
I haven't yet checked, but did they include the issue where they accidentally left the City of Winneconne off of it?  It remains the basis for heir annual 'Sovereign State Days' civic festival.

Mike

Askeaton in Southern Brown County was removed from the map. A woman complained to the state and pushed hard to add it back. Her efforts to put Askeaton back on the map were listed in her obituary.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2023, 09:15:36 PM
Askeaton still has a sign on WI-32/57 though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 14, 2023, 10:32:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2023, 09:15:36 PM
Askeaton still has a sign on WI-32/57 though.

Yet many other towns were removed. At County E Brant was removed. My hometown of Brillion was removed from County PP (old 114) and only much smaller Potter remains. Frustrating how Reedsville which is 1/3 the size of Brillion gets signs on I-43 and Hwy PP at the split in De Pere. It was most likely there from when Wis 32 once went to Reedsville but WISDOT never wanted to update the sign to Brillion since County PP goes to Brillion and it doesn't go to Reedsville.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on June 15, 2023, 07:04:38 PM
QuoteSouthern Bridge Connector Project in Brown County moving forward (https://www.wbay.com/2023/06/14/southern-bridge-connector-project-brown-county-moving-forward/) (source link in headline)

BROWN COUNTY, Wis. (WBAY) - The Wisconsin Legislature's Joint Committee on Finance approved $50 million in funding as part of the 2023-25 biennial budget to build the Southern Bridge Connector in Brown County, according to a statement issued by Brown County Executive Troy Streckenbach on June 14, 2023.

The proposed route begins at Packerland Drive in the town of Lawrence, continues along a new road to a future Interstate 41 interchange, and follows Southbridge and Red Maple Roads to the Fox River, reads the statement further.

It will then cross the Fox River and follow Rockland Road and a new road to the intersection of County Highways X and GV in the town of Ledgeview.

The plan has been in the quiver for decades already: The need for road and bridge improvements was first identified in the 1968 Brown County comprehensive plan. Since then, proposals for building a new Fox River bridge and connecting roads were included in many local communities. Hundreds of stakeholders have worked to make the bridge a reality.

"The committee's action to approve this funding for the Southern Bridge has proven that this project's investment is truly bipartisan, garnering the support of both the Legislature and the Governor's office,"  said Streckenbach. "Over the past 5 years, we've been able to craft a coalition of supporters to get this generational economic development project funded, helping complete the final chapter in this shared vision of improving life and business in southern Brown County."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 16, 2023, 01:21:19 AM
Quote from: skluth on June 15, 2023, 07:04:38 PM
QuoteSouthern Bridge Connector Project in Brown County moving forward (https://www.wbay.com/2023/06/14/southern-bridge-connector-project-brown-county-moving-forward/) (source link in headline)

BROWN COUNTY, Wis. (WBAY) - The Wisconsin Legislature's Joint Committee on Finance approved $50 million in funding as part of the 2023-25 biennial budget to build the Southern Bridge Connector in Brown County, according to a statement issued by Brown County Executive Troy Streckenbach on June 14, 2023.

If the bridge is going to be mainly state funded it would be a great candidate for a relocated Wis 32. It could easily rejoin Ashland Ave at the half interchange with I-41.

The proposed route begins at Packerland Drive in the town of Lawrence, continues along a new road to a future Interstate 41 interchange, and follows Southbridge and Red Maple Roads to the Fox River, reads the statement further.

It will then cross the Fox River and follow Rockland Road and a new road to the intersection of County Highways X and GV in the town of Ledgeview.

The plan has been in the quiver for decades already: The need for road and bridge improvements was first identified in the 1968 Brown County comprehensive plan. Since then, proposals for building a new Fox River bridge and connecting roads were included in many local communities. Hundreds of stakeholders have worked to make the bridge a reality.

"The committee's action to approve this funding for the Southern Bridge has proven that this project's investment is truly bipartisan, garnering the support of both the Legislature and the Governor's office,"  said Streckenbach. "Over the past 5 years, we've been able to craft a coalition of supporters to get this generational economic development project funded, helping complete the final chapter in this shared vision of improving life and business in southern Brown County."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 16, 2023, 03:08:19 AM
I'm thinking that it would be proposed by WisDOT to reroute WI 32 to follow that connector to I-41 and then be duplexed with I-41 northward to resume its current routing at the Shawano interchange.  Maybe that and/or some way to reroute WI 29 off of the city streets, especially in connection with the pending rebuild of I-41 between De Pere and Appleton.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2023, 12:16:26 PM
Has it been officially stated that this new road will be part of the state highway system? I would imagine it would be either a county highway or a local roadway with no designation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 16, 2023, 12:34:41 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 16, 2023, 03:08:19 AM
I'm thinking that it would be proposed by WisDOT to reroute WI 32 to follow that connector to I-41 and then be duplexed with I-41 northward to resume its current routing at the Shawano interchange.  Maybe that and/or some way to reroute WI 29 off of the city streets, especially in connection with the pending rebuild of I-41 between De Pere and Appleton.


I doubt they move either WI-29 or WI-32 since they both cross the river already.

I think west of I-41 the road can just be an extension of CTH EB. East of I-41 should be a new state highway, crossing the Fox, and extending over the entire route, supplanting CTH GV (Monroe Road) to WI-172.

If they need to reduce mileage as part of this, they can just come up with a new number (WI-257) between I-41 and the current WI-32/57, but then have WI-57 take over the numbering, and duplex with WI-172 and I-43 to its current interchange up to Door County.  That would take the current portion of WI-57 from WI-32 to WI-54 off the state highway system. (Which is fine...its just an urban arterial at this point.)  They'd still have to come up with a couple of miles to equate the mileage, but that can be done.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 16, 2023, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2023, 12:16:26 PM
Has it been officially stated that this new road will be part of the state highway system? I would imagine it would be either a county highway or a local roadway with no designation.


I would guess that it would be a state maintained bridge
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 16, 2023, 12:58:32 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 16, 2023, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2023, 12:16:26 PM
Has it been officially stated that this new road will be part of the state highway system? I would imagine it would be either a county highway or a local roadway with no designation.


I would guess that it would be a state maintained bridge
It should be. I am of the belief that bridges over major state rivers should be state maintained. So for Wisconsin, that would be the Mississippi River, Wisconsin River (up to Wausau or Merrill), Fox River (from Green Bay down to Oshkosh or Berlin), St Croix River (up to Danbury), Rock River (up to Jefferson), and Menominee River (up to the Iron Mountain area). The Downtown Milwaukee Bridges should probably be included as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on June 16, 2023, 04:01:23 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 16, 2023, 12:58:32 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 16, 2023, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2023, 12:16:26 PM
Has it been officially stated that this new road will be part of the state highway system? I would imagine it would be either a county highway or a local roadway with no designation.


I would guess that it would be a state maintained bridge
It should be. I am of the belief that bridges over major state rivers should be state maintained. So for Wisconsin, that would be the Mississippi River, Wisconsin River (up to Wausau or Merrill), Fox River (from Green Bay down to Oshkosh or Berlin), St Croix River (up to Danbury), Rock River (up to Jefferson), and Menominee River (up to the Iron Mountain area). The Downtown Milwaukee Bridges should probably be included as well.

I'd also add those on the northern border, the Menominee/Brule River, Montreal River, and St Louis River.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: paulthemapguy on June 16, 2023, 09:29:32 PM
Maybe Green Bay will pull an Indiana and stick WI-57 on the eastern half of the new road, also sticking WI-32 on the western half, to get both state highways out of downtown Green Bay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 17, 2023, 04:16:54 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 16, 2023, 09:29:32 PM
Maybe Green Bay will pull an Indiana and stick WI-57 on the eastern half of the new road, also sticking WI-32 on the western half, to get both state highways out of downtown Green Bay.

WI-32 isn't in downtown Green Bay already.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 18, 2023, 04:45:04 AM
What complicates rerouting Wis 32/Wis 57 in the Green Bay Areas are Ashwaubenon and Allouez. Wis 32/57 are owned by the cities of De Pere and Green Bay within their boundaries and are connecting highways. WISDOT owns Wis 32/Ashland Ave in Ashwaubenon and Wis 57/Riverside Dr in Allouez is owned by WISDOT. Those stretches would most likely need to be transferred to the county since those municipalities probably don't want to take ownership. Wis 32 could easily be transferred to the new bridge, be rerouted onto I-41 until Ashland Ave and rejoin its current alignment since Wis 32 in De Pere is owned by the city.

That is the reason why Business 51 is owned by WISDOT in Plover and Whiting, but no longer an official highway in Stevens Point since it was a connecting highway that Stevens Point owned.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 18, 2023, 09:24:28 AM
I don't believe WI-32 in De Pere is owned by the city. The city in fact wants to study removing the double one-way alignment on the west side of the Fox River, but WIDOT is standing in the way of that. And again, they aren't going to remove WI-32 off the current De Pere bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 18, 2023, 02:01:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 18, 2023, 09:24:28 AM
I don't believe WI-32 in De Pere is owned by the city. The city in fact wants to study removing the double one-way alignment on the west side of the Fox River, but WIDOT is standing in the way of that. And again, they aren't going to remove WI-32 off the current De Pere bridge.

Here's the connecting highway map in De Pere. The way it works is that the city owns and maintains all jurisdiction on the road. WISDOT gives out connecting highway aids.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/data-plan/plan-res/connecting/depere-ch.pdf

Below is another link to the WISDOT connecting highway page with maps of all cities that have them:

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/data-plan/plan-res/connecting.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 18, 2023, 07:06:00 PM
Right, but that doesn't mean that De Pere can re-route or make substantial changes to the highway without WIDOT approval.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on June 22, 2023, 07:43:36 PM
Got the new 2023 map last weekend. And there are errors many in fact. First of all they still mark an interchange at Hwy 57/100 I know that is a recent change but come on. It's a Wisdot project they should know about that. It also incorrectly marks an interchange on the west side of Waukesha where the bypass meets Hwy 18 west. There never was an interchange there and I don't beleive one was even ever considered. It also still marks what's left of Merrill Hills Rd as Hwy TT when the bypass was completed that county route was decommissioned. The Madison beltline and Hwy 151 between Madison and Sun Prairie are marked as just 4 lane and not freeways. The Beloit inset shows I-43 disappearing before it reaches the edge of the inset. It marks the newly expanded Hwy 23 between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth as just 4 lane instead of an expressway. It still marks Lizard Mound as a county park rather than a state park. It marks New Berlin as a city that has a hospital but the Froedart campus there is still only a clinic. I believe I might have found more but those are the ones I can think of off hand.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 03, 2023, 06:24:32 PM
I just noticed today that WisDOT has rolled back STH 83 from STH 175 to STH 60 in Hartford. What was 83 going north are now city streets, and becomes CTH R north of town.

Not much of a surprise, since 83 north of Hartford is pretty much a lightly used rural road that kind of just peters out at 175.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 03, 2023, 06:29:56 PM
It appears the truncation of STH 83 occurred in 2021. However, this map of Washington County shows present-day CTH R as CTH W: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/county-maps/washington.pdf.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 03, 2023, 06:38:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 03, 2023, 06:29:56 PM
It appears the truncation of STH 83 occurred in 2021. However, this map of Washington County shows present-day CTH R as CTH W: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/county-maps/washington.pdf.
Washington CTH W follows STH 33 over I-41 in Allenton.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 03, 2023, 06:44:17 PM
True, but it stops at STH 175 just northwest of St. Lawerence. It doesn't continue into Hartford like the Washington County map mistakenly shows.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2023, 07:45:36 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 03, 2023, 06:24:32 PM
I just noticed today that WisDOT has rolled back STH 83 from STH 175 to STH 60 in Hartford. What was 83 going north are now city streets, and becomes CTH R north of town.

Not much of a surprise, since 83 north of Hartford is pretty much a lightly used rural road that kind of just peters out at 175.


Wonder if that's what they used to create the mileage for WI-311. It's the same WIDOT region and roughly the same length.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 04, 2023, 09:09:32 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2023, 07:45:36 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 03, 2023, 06:24:32 PM
I just noticed today that WisDOT has rolled back STH 83 from STH 175 to STH 60 in Hartford. What was 83 going north are now city streets, and becomes CTH R north of town.

Not much of a surprise, since 83 north of Hartford is pretty much a lightly used rural road that kind of just peters out at 175.


Wonder if that's what they used to create the mileage for WI-311. It's the same WIDOT region and roughly the same length.

If so, what a trade-off lol
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 04, 2023, 11:28:00 AM
That's probably the case, although I question how necessary the commissioning of STH 311 was.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on July 04, 2023, 03:33:49 PM
I had not heard about the new WIS 311, and after looking it up and what its purpose is...yeah, I will say no more.  :-|
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 05, 2023, 06:16:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2023, 07:45:36 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 03, 2023, 06:24:32 PM
I just noticed today that WisDOT has rolled back STH 83 from STH 175 to STH 60 in Hartford. What was 83 going north are now city streets, and becomes CTH R north of town.

Not much of a surprise, since 83 north of Hartford is pretty much a lightly used rural road that kind of just peters out at 175.


Wonder if that's what they used to create the mileage for WI-311. It's the same WIDOT region and roughly the same length.
That route is probably more useless than WI-134.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 05, 2023, 06:52:05 PM
The difference is that STH 134 has existed between its present terminuses since 1923, and STH 311 was only commissioned in 2021 (the first new state highway since STH 318 was commissioned in 2017). I think STH 318's commissioning was logical, while STH 311's was not.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 05, 2023, 07:13:15 PM
Is it written into law that WI-311 has to be part of the state highway system as part of the whole Foxconn nonsense? If so, they may as well number it. Otherwise its an odd choice for a state highway.

But regardless if WI-311 was the reason, decommissioning WI-83 north of WI-60 is a defensible decision.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 06, 2023, 10:24:25 AM
I would think that at some point STH 144 is on WisDOT's radar for potential decommissioning. They've already rolled back both ends over the years (though the west side was due to Slinger's insistence).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 06, 2023, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 06, 2023, 10:24:25 AM
I would think that at some point STH 144 is on WisDOT's radar for potential decommissioning. They've already rolled back both ends over the years (though the west side was due to Slinger's insistence).
I would think Wis 127 would be higher on the list of decommission possibilities than Wis 144. The only reason 127 is a state highway is because it was an old routing for 16. But it does not serve any real purpose that current 16 does not currently do. So that would put 14 miles in the mileage bank. I still think a mileage cap is fine to be in place but I think it was set too low for future routes that would make sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2023, 01:37:20 PM
WI-134, a good portion of WI-175, etc.  IDK, I think its mostly about balancing out who pays for what these days instead of navigation.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 06, 2023, 11:08:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2023, 01:37:20 PM
WI-134, a good portion of WI-175, etc.  IDK, I think its mostly about balancing out who pays for what these days instead of navigation.



I wonder if the reason for hanging on to STH 175 is because they use it as a signed alternate route for Hwy 41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 07, 2023, 08:54:05 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 06, 2023, 11:08:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2023, 01:37:20 PM
WI-134, a good portion of WI-175, etc.  IDK, I think its mostly about balancing out who pays for what these days instead of navigation.

I wonder if the reason for hanging on to STH 175 is because they use it as a signed alternate route for Hwy 41.


I wonder if it was a deal struck a long time ago that it would remain on the state highway system when US-41 was built. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 07, 2023, 09:22:13 AM
Reminds me of IL-251 paralleling I-39 and the aptly-related US-51.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 07, 2023, 09:45:41 AM
Then cases like in Georgia where US 41 parallels I-75
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 07, 2023, 10:01:14 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 07, 2023, 09:22:13 AM
Reminds me of IL-251 paralleling I-39 and the aptly-related US-51.
IMO 251 should have remained 51.  Having that it was on the freeway before 39 was put in place complicates that - one can't really move 51 back to it
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 07, 2023, 10:27:55 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 07, 2023, 10:01:14 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 07, 2023, 09:22:13 AM
Reminds me of IL-251 paralleling I-39 and the aptly-related US-51.
IMO 251 should have remained 51.  Having that it was on the freeway before 39 was put in place complicates that - one can't really move 51 back to it


Sure you could. There is precedent in Illinois in fact. I give you Route 53. Route 53 was originally on Rohlwing Rd before the freeway segment from Army Trail Rd to I-290 was built. When the freeway was built, 53 moved onto the freeway. Until I-355 was slapped on it with the extension south. 53 then returned back to Rohlwing Rd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 07, 2023, 10:40:45 AM
Well sure, that's a state route. With a US route, you gotta go thru the feds to move the designation and they usually resist moving US routes off of freeways after they've been moved to freeways.  Usually.  There is some precedent out there, but generally they're gonna want it to stay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 07, 2023, 11:46:42 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 04, 2023, 07:45:36 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 03, 2023, 06:24:32 PM
I just noticed today that WisDOT has rolled back STH 83 from STH 175 to STH 60 in Hartford. What was 83 going north are now city streets, and becomes CTH R north of town.

Not much of a surprise, since 83 north of Hartford is pretty much a lightly used rural road that kind of just peters out at 175.


Wonder if that's what they used to create the mileage for WI-311. It's the same WIDOT region and roughly the same length.
WISDOT does highway swaps by county. And seeing as WIS 83 is in Dodge County and WIS 311 is in Racine County, there really is no tradeoff there.

Am example of a county mileage trade would be what happened a few years ago in Waukesha County. To complete the western section of Les Paul Parkway, they decommissioned WIS 74 a few miles northeast of there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on July 07, 2023, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 07, 2023, 10:40:45 AM
Well sure, that's a state route. With a US route, you gotta go thru the feds to move the designation and they usually resist moving US routes off of freeways after they've been moved to freeways.  Usually.  There is some precedent out there, but generally they're gonna want it to stay.
I'm sure they would be fine with moving it onto a free alternate to a toll road.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 07, 2023, 12:40:01 PM
WI 175 is now a lettered county highway north of US 151.  The part in Oshkosh north of US 45 is now city streets.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on July 07, 2023, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 07, 2023, 10:40:45 AM
Well sure, that's a state route. With a US route, you gotta go thru the feds to move the designation and they usually resist moving US routes off of freeways after they've been moved to freeways.  Usually.  There is some precedent out there, but generally they're gonna want it to stay.

Or in the case of US 87 in Wyoming, refuse to allow the route to be rerouted over another surface road because they want it all on the freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 07, 2023, 01:30:52 PM
I didn't mean to start a debate about what happens in other states - this is the "Wisconsin" topic after all.

My point is that in a state with a capped mileage, Wisconsin has a lot of highways that parallel freeways (US-12, WI-16, WI-175)  In some cases that might be absolutely legit. In others, I question their importance.  For instance, you can actually see US-12 from I-94 as you drive from the Dells north to Black River Falls.  I think you can legit put US-12 on the interstate between that stretch and free up about 75 miles that could better be used elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on July 07, 2023, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 06, 2023, 11:08:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2023, 01:37:20 PM
WI-134, a good portion of WI-175, etc.  IDK, I think its mostly about balancing out who pays for what these days instead of navigation.



I wonder if the reason for hanging on to STH 175 is because they use it as a signed alternate route for Hwy 41.

WI 175 could have been reverted to US 41 had Wisconsin not been so insistent on the duplicative I-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 07, 2023, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 05, 2023, 07:13:15 PM
Is it written into law that WI-311 has to be part of the state highway system as part of the whole Foxconn nonsense? If so, they may as well number it. Otherwise its an odd choice for a state highway.

But regardless if WI-311 was the reason, decommissioning WI-83 north of WI-60 is a defensible decision.
It would have made tons more sense to extend 142 to 31. Than it was to create 311.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2023, 10:43:55 PM
STH 142 used to extend to STH 32 in Kenosha, but it was retracted to the Interstate 94 interchange (now Interstates 41/94) in the early 1990s. Old 142 is now CTH S.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on July 08, 2023, 12:01:00 AM
I still say that they should have made 311 a county highway because it still makes no sense.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 08, 2023, 10:33:24 AM
How about County FC for Foxconn?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 08, 2023, 10:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 08, 2023, 10:33:24 AM
How about County FC for Foxconn?
Or FU for how it ended up? :-/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 08, 2023, 02:00:46 PM
County FU is one better, since Foxconn and former Gov. Walker screwed over southeast Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 08, 2023, 03:53:29 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 07, 2023, 01:30:52 PM
I didn't mean to start a debate about what happens in other states - this is the "Wisconsin" topic after all.

My point is that in a state with a capped mileage, Wisconsin has a lot of highways that parallel freeways (US-12, WI-16, WI-175)  In some cases that might be absolutely legit. In others, I question their importance.  For instance, you can actually see US-12 from I-94 as you drive from the Dells north to Black River Falls.  I think you can legit put US-12 on the interstate between that stretch and free up about 75 miles that could better be used elsewhere.
WISDOT tends to keep highways on their books in case local jurisdictions (such as city or county) want to make a trade (I used the Waukesha and Menomonee Falls examples previously). Or, if the state initiates the trade (like when they relocated and extended WIS 164 a few years back.

WIS 175 appears to be trade-bait for potential swaps, or so go the rumors.

And some rather unusual assignments stay on the books for other reasons, like WIS 57 on the horribly decrepit N. 20th St. in Milwaukee, which I assume exists because it eventually leads to the 27th St. Bridge, overseen by WISDOT, that carries WIS 57 to its almost immediate southern terminus on the other end.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 08, 2023, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on July 08, 2023, 12:01:00 AM
I still say that they should have made 311 a county highway because it still makes no sense.
The road is owned by WISDOT, and may play a bigger role in the future, so it gets a number. There are many instances (in many states) of short spur routes leading to state-owned properties, such as state parks, prisons, etc. that carry route numbers. Minnesota is full of them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 08, 2023, 09:12:44 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 08, 2023, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on July 08, 2023, 12:01:00 AM
I still say that they should have made 311 a county highway because it still makes no sense.
The road is owned by WISDOT, and may play a bigger role in the future, so it gets a number. There are many instances (in many states) of short spur routes leading to state-owned properties, such as state parks, prisons, etc. that carry route numbers. Minnesota is full of them.

Right. It's just a jurisdictional issue. Not some statement of the relative value of the highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 08, 2023, 10:47:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2023, 10:43:55 PM
STH 142 used to extend to STH 32 in Kenosha, but it was retracted to the Interstate 94 interchange (now Interstates 41/94) in the early 1990s. Old 142 is now CTH S.
Right I knew that and that did make sense at the time. But that was 30 years ago times have changed. Now there is an Amazon warehouse and other warehouses by I-94. Making it a much more important route. Since the road has been expanded it sure has a state highway feel to it. I would keep the part east of 31 a local street but west of 31 it should be part of 142 again. Even the signage for Burlington is still there at that intersection. And I am sure the road gets a lot of trucks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 08:19:09 AM
This is why I hate the "trade offs". If a road makes sense to be a state highway, so be it. Dane N, Dodge A and Kenosha S come to mind.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2023, 09:00:32 AM
What does "makes sense to be a state highway" even mean? There are plenty of important roads that have a lot of trucks, especially in urban areas, that aren't state highways.

I agree that WI-311 is silly. However if it is something that Wisconsin agreed to, and is therefore state-maintained, it should be numbered as such. Does that mean it is more important than the county highways you listed?  Likely not, but I don't think that's the intent of state highways outside of rural areas anyway.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 09:23:36 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2023, 09:00:32 AM
What does "makes sense to be a state highway" even mean? There are plenty of important roads that have a lot of trucks, especially in urban areas, that aren't state highways.

I agree that WI-311 is silly. However if it is something that Wisconsin agreed to, and is therefore state-maintained, it should be numbered as such. Does that mean it is more important than the county highways you listed?  Likely not, but I don't think that's the intent of state highways outside of rural areas.
Making sense would be a connection between population centers on a heavily traveled road. If the traffic volume is high enough to be on the level with other local state highways, make it one. For example, Hwy N in Dane County had a daily count between Stoughton and Sun Prairie that was consistently over 4200 and at a couple points over 9000. Compare that to Wis 73 just a few miles east from I-90 to Marshall. The low point was 2200 with a high point of 5800. To me, it makes sense to have N be a state highway.

To me, signing a highway as a state route should be more about the importance of the road than if it is "state maintained". I know that's counter to reality but that's my opinion.  Wis 311 is not an important highway. Hell, it could be argued that it is the most useless state highway despite Wis 127 and Wis 134's existence. And it's not like a river bridge crossing that should be state maintained. Decommission it to a county highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2023, 09:40:29 AM
I agree with you that highways like Dodge County A should be a state highway instead of WI-26 (although I would keep it a state highway through Juneau to WI-33).  My opinion is based on that it is a better route for long-term navigation, which is why it is currently utilized by most people accessing US-151.

But IMO in urban areas its not simply a traffic count issue.  East Mason Street (County V) in Green Bay gets about 50-75% more traffic than Riverside Drive (WI-57).  I don't think the former needs to be a state highway because of that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 10:02:15 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2023, 09:40:29 AM
I agree with you that highways like Dodge County A should be a state highway instead of WI-26 (although I would keep it a state highway through Juneau to WI-33).  My opinion is based on that it is a better route for long-term navigation, which is why it is currently utilized by most people accessing US-151.

But IMO in urban areas its not simply a traffic count issue.  East Mason Street (County V) in Green Bay gets about 50-75% more traffic than Riverside Drive (WI-57).  I don't think the former needs to be a state highway because of that.
Urban areas are a different case. Obviously, there will be some city streets that would have more traffic than others. But in the cases where you have one town of say 10k and another town of 10k that has no state highway between them but a county highway, that county highway should be a state highway because of the vitality of the link. So in the case of Hwy N, you are linking 13k (Stoughton) with 7300 (Cottage Grove) and 35k (Sun Prairie) over 19 miles. I would not say this is an urban case.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2023, 10:40:42 AM
I don't know enough about Dane County N to know, but that's more of a persuasive argument than Kenosha County S.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 09, 2023, 09:00:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 08:19:09 AM
This is why I hate the "trade offs". If a road makes sense to be a state highway, so be it. Dane N, Dodge A and Kenosha S come to mind.
I am ok with a few every here and there. But in the SE part of the state they just happened way too much.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 09, 2023, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 09, 2023, 09:00:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 08:19:09 AM
This is why I hate the "trade offs". If a road makes sense to be a state highway, so be it. Dane N, Dodge A and Kenosha S come to mind.
I am ok with a few every here and there. But in the SE part of the state they just happened way too much.

Having a lot in SE Wisconsin makes sense though. It is the most populated part of the state with the largest road network, so there's bound to be more trading going on here.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 10, 2023, 09:11:32 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2023, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 09, 2023, 09:00:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 08:19:09 AM
This is why I hate the "trade offs". If a road makes sense to be a state highway, so be it. Dane N, Dodge A and Kenosha S come to mind.
I am ok with a few every here and there. But in the SE part of the state they just happened way too much.

Having a lot in SE Wisconsin makes sense though. It is the most populated part of the state with the largest road network, so there's bound to be more trading going on here.

Right. I am all for getting rid of state designations on highways like WI-83 between WI-33 and WI-175, if it means creating new ones on routes that are considered more important.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 10, 2023, 10:22:44 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 10, 2023, 09:11:32 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2023, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 09, 2023, 09:00:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 08:19:09 AM
This is why I hate the "trade offs". If a road makes sense to be a state highway, so be it. Dane N, Dodge A and Kenosha S come to mind.
I am ok with a few every here and there. But in the SE part of the state they just happened way too much.

Having a lot in SE Wisconsin makes sense though. It is the most populated part of the state with the largest road network, so there's bound to be more trading going on here.

Right. I am all for getting rid of state designations on highways like WI-83 between WI-33 and WI-175, if it means creating new ones on routes that are considered more important.

A few years ago I pondered thoughts on what lettered county highways in Wisconsin would be likely 3 digit state highways if they were in other states like Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 10, 2023, 01:19:44 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2023, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 09, 2023, 09:00:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 08:19:09 AM
This is why I hate the "trade offs". If a road makes sense to be a state highway, so be it. Dane N, Dodge A and Kenosha S come to mind.
I am ok with a few every here and there. But in the SE part of the state they just happened way too much.

Having a lot in SE Wisconsin makes sense though. It is the most populated part of the state with the largest road network, so there's bound to be more trading going on here.
There has been very little if any trading in the last several decades in NE Illinois where the Chicago area is. Also other midwest metros like Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinanti St Louis ect same thing. Very little change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 10, 2023, 01:47:33 PM
At the county level there seems to be a movement in giving back more urban routes back to the cities/municipalities. In the Appleton Area, parts of County E and KK were turned back to Appleton after reconstruction. Calumet County gave County LP to the cities and County F to Chilton. The counties in those cases helped fund the reconstruction and got rid of the roads at the end.

In Dane County County PD/McKee Rd appears to be given to Fitchburg between US 151 and County D/Fish Hatchery Rd as another example. It says "To PD"  at County D and at the US 151 off ramp the arrows only point west for PD. As more areas develop I wouldn't be surprised to see more turn backs of County roads.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 10, 2023, 02:11:37 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 10, 2023, 01:19:44 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2023, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 09, 2023, 09:00:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 08:19:09 AM
This is why I hate the "trade offs". If a road makes sense to be a state highway, so be it. Dane N, Dodge A and Kenosha S come to mind.
I am ok with a few every here and there. But in the SE part of the state they just happened way too much.

Having a lot in SE Wisconsin makes sense though. It is the most populated part of the state with the largest road network, so there's bound to be more trading going on here.
There has been very little if any trading in the last several decades in NE Illinois where the Chicago area is. Also other midwest metros like Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinanti St Louis ect same thing. Very little change.


Are the funding mechanisms similar?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 02:25:30 PM
It is my experience that county highways are the most sparsely signed routes in the state of Wisconsin. Here in the Madison area, along the beltline, several county highways are not signposted on the overhead signs. These include CTH MS (Exit 251A), CTH MM (Exit 262), CTH MC (Exit 263), CTH BW (Exit 264), and formerly there was no CTH BB sign at Exit 265. I'm sure there are other intersections and interchanges elsewhere in the state that omit county highway designations.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 10, 2023, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 02:25:30 PM
It is my experience that county highways are the most sparsely signed routes in the state of Wisconsin. Here in the Madison area, along the beltline, several county highways are not signposted on the overhead signs. These include CTH MS (Exit 251A), CTH MM (Exit 262), CTH MC (Exit 263), CTH BW (Exit 264), and formerly there was no CTH BB sign at Exit 265. I'm sure there are other intersections and interchanges elsewhere in the state that omit county highway designations.
I think this is mostly an urban thing with the BGS in Milwaukee and Madison. A lot of the Milwaukee County county highways are unsigned on the BGS but are signed on the ramps. College Ave Hwy ZZ comes to mind.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 10, 2023, 04:35:17 PM
^^ They used to be signed on BGS's in Milwaukee County but the policy changed in the late 1990s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 10, 2023, 06:15:22 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 10, 2023, 04:35:17 PM
^^ They used to be signed on BGS's in Milwaukee County but the policy changed in the late 1990s.

Which is fine since they aren't used for navigational purposes anyway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 10, 2023, 08:19:02 PM
College Ave in Downtown Appleton to get a road diet: https://www.wbay.com/video/2023/07/10/appleton-reconfigures-stretch-college-ave/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 08:41:46 PM
I hate road diets. I expect increased congestion due to decreased capacity, and diversion to other area surface streets. They may call it "traffic calming", but I believe that is an oxymoron.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 10, 2023, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 10, 2023, 01:19:44 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2023, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 09, 2023, 09:00:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 09, 2023, 08:19:09 AM
This is why I hate the "trade offs". If a road makes sense to be a state highway, so be it. Dane N, Dodge A and Kenosha S come to mind.
I am ok with a few every here and there. But in the SE part of the state they just happened way too much.

Having a lot in SE Wisconsin makes sense though. It is the most populated part of the state with the largest road network, so there's bound to be more trading going on here.
There has been very little if any trading in the last several decades in NE Illinois where the Chicago area is. Also other midwest metros like Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinanti St Louis ect same thing. Very little change.

It's very possible that their mechanism is different than Wisconsin. Wisconsin is unique in that the total mileage of state highways is capped. If they add mileage in one place, they have to remove it from another. That's why it happens a lot in Wisconsin, more specifically SE Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 11, 2023, 01:27:52 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 10, 2023, 08:19:02 PM
College Ave in Downtown Appleton to get a road diet: https://www.wbay.com/video/2023/07/10/appleton-reconfigures-stretch-college-ave/ (https://www.wbay.com/video/2023/07/10/appleton-reconfigures-stretch-college-ave/)

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 08:41:46 PM
I hate road diets. I expect increased congestion due to decreased capacity, and diversion to other area surface streets. They may call it "traffic calming", but I believe that is an oxymoron.

In every circumstance I've seen a diet of a 4-lane undivided roadway to 3-lanes with TWLTL, it's worked as advertised, and any resulting congestion was minimal.

With one lane in each direction, traffic moves as quickly as the slowest driver. That certainly aids in "calming" traffic. The dedicted TWLTL significantly cuts rear-end collisions and allows safer, easier left turns.

Based on WisDOT traffic counts of 12,000-14,000 vpd on this section of College Ave, it's unlikely significant congestion will occur from the road diet. (A 3-lane with TWLTL is generally good for 18,000-20,000 vpd before significant congestion occurs).

Janesville is considering such a diet for a section of Memorial Ave between US-51 (Parker Dr) and Hwy 26 (Milton Ave), particularly with its proximity to an elementary school and a narrow ROW that barely fits 4 lanes as it sits now. Totally different environment from downtown Appleton, but a similar need to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and slow speeding motorists to more sane speeds.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 11, 2023, 09:07:37 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 10, 2023, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 02:25:30 PM
It is my experience that county highways are the most sparsely signed routes in the state of Wisconsin. Here in the Madison area, along the beltline, several county highways are not signposted on the overhead signs. These include CTH MS (Exit 251A), CTH MM (Exit 262), CTH MC (Exit 263), CTH BW (Exit 264), and formerly there was no CTH BB sign at Exit 265. I'm sure there are other intersections and interchanges elsewhere in the state that omit county highway designations.
I think this is mostly an urban thing with the BGS in Milwaukee and Madison. A lot of the Milwaukee County county highways are unsigned on the BGS but are signed on the ramps. College Ave Hwy ZZ comes to mind.
Part of it has to do with whatever government entity (city or county) administers the road. In Milwaukee County, the city of Milwaukee tends to shy away from county routes (unless they're major E-W routes (E, PP, S, M, Y), and prefer to administer most non-state/US/Interstate within their border. Notice how some county highways (like EE, N, I, U, F, etc.) tend to cease at rather unusual spots? This is happening in Waukesha as well. Waukesha tends to terminate county routes as they enter the city limits. In Sussex, VV terminates at the east city limits along Silver Spring Rd., then picks up on Main St. west of town.

Apparently, some cities, towns, villages, etc. would rather handle as much as they can within their boundaries, as opposed to dealing with the county on the primary streets within their boundaries.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on July 11, 2023, 09:27:39 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 11, 2023, 01:27:52 AM
Janesville is considering such a diet for a section of Memorial Ave between US-51 (Parker Dr) and Hwy 26 (Milton Ave), particularly with its proximity to an elementary school and a narrow ROW that barely fits 4 lanes as it sits now. Totally different environment from downtown Appleton, but a similar need to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and slow speeding motorists to more sane speeds.

Janesville is also looking at W Court St on the city's west side for some improvements. Four lanes down to three.
https://www.janesvillewi.gov/departments-services/public-works/engineering-division/project-information/w-court-street-highway-safety-improvement-program
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 11, 2023, 09:28:54 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 11, 2023, 09:07:37 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 10, 2023, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 02:25:30 PM
It is my experience that county highways are the most sparsely signed routes in the state of Wisconsin. Here in the Madison area, along the beltline, several county highways are not signposted on the overhead signs. These include CTH MS (Exit 251A), CTH MM (Exit 262), CTH MC (Exit 263), CTH BW (Exit 264), and formerly there was no CTH BB sign at Exit 265. I'm sure there are other intersections and interchanges elsewhere in the state that omit county highway designations.
I think this is mostly an urban thing with the BGS in Milwaukee and Madison. A lot of the Milwaukee County county highways are unsigned on the BGS but are signed on the ramps. College Ave Hwy ZZ comes to mind.
Part of it has to do with whatever government entity (city or county) administers the road. In Milwaukee County, the city of Milwaukee tends to shy away from county routes (unless they're major E-W routes (E, PP, S, M, Y), and prefer to administer most non-state/US/Interstate within their border. Notice how some county highways (like EE, N, I, U, F, etc.) tend to cease at rather unusual spots? This is happening in Waukesha as well. Waukesha tends to terminate county routes as they enter the city limits. In Sussex, VV terminates at the east city limits along Silver Spring Rd., then picks up on Main St. west of town.

Apparently, some cities, towns, villages, etc. would rather handle as much as they can within their boundaries, as opposed to dealing with the county on the primary streets within their boundaries.
I get cities and towns wanting to control their streets. However, for navigation purposes, having the street maintain a county letter or state number is better for through traffic.  In my grandmother's town of Princeton, Green Lake County Hwy D, J and T all come into town. However, only D and J are signed through town. T had been signed in town but looks like it was not resigned after the reconstruction of 23 a few years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8513936,-89.1389589,15.03z?entry=ttu

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 11, 2023, 09:36:05 AM
City-maintained streets keep the state or US highway signed number that run through it (don't be like Indiana), so I don't understand why that is not the case for county-lettered highways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2023, 09:48:11 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 11, 2023, 09:36:05 AM
City-maintained streets keep the state or US highway signed number that run through it (don't be like Indiana), so I don't understand why that is not the case for county-lettered highways.

Because I think the general thought is that state and US highways carry more regional traffic so they have a greater need for signage, while county highways are mostly locals coming to or leaving the city.

If the city finds it to be a problem, they can always sign them through town like Princeton apparently has with one of its routes. Otherwise I don't think it needs to be standardized. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 11, 2023, 11:26:27 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 10, 2023, 08:19:02 PM
College Ave in Downtown Appleton to get a road diet: https://www.wbay.com/video/2023/07/10/appleton-reconfigures-stretch-college-ave/

I will never call it a 'road diet'. It's being restriped in the downtown area, but only the city street part (between the railroad crossing at Memorial Dr/Richmond St (WI 47) and Drew St, kind of like how the city treats the street after snowstorms (plowing the snow to the center to be trucked away later), temporarily reducing the street to one lane each way.  I am aware of no traffic problems during those snow times and the left turn lanes will be a relief.  I'm taking a 'wait and see' attitude with this part, but I'm not at all sold on the bicycle lane idea.  This work reminds me of several years ago when the nearby City of Neenah restriped Green Bay Rd (long ex US 41) between the roundabouts at Cecil St and Winneconne Ave (WI 114) from four lanes undivided to two lanes with a center left turn lane and how incredibly much the traffic flow on it improved with nobody having to stop in the left lanes waiting or cars to turn left into the adjacent businesses.  This work on College Ave should be done by the weekend.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 11, 2023, 01:03:52 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2023, 11:26:27 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 10, 2023, 08:19:02 PM
College Ave in Downtown Appleton to get a road diet: https://www.wbay.com/video/2023/07/10/appleton-reconfigures-stretch-college-ave/

I will never call it a 'road diet'. It's being restriped in the downtown area, but only the city street part (between the railroad crossing at Memorial Dr/Richmond St (WI 47) and Drew St, kind of like how the city treats the street after snowstorms (plowing the snow to the center to be trucked away later), temporarily reducing the street to one lane each way.  I am aware of no traffic problems during those snow times and the left turn lanes will be a relief.  I'm taking a 'wait and see' attitude with this part, but I'm not at all sold on the bicycle lane idea.  This work reminds me of several years ago when the nearby City of Neenah restriped Green Bay Rd (long ex US 41) between the roundabouts at Cecil St and Winneconne Ave (WI 114) from four lanes undivided to two lanes with a center left turn lane and how incredibly much the traffic flow on it improved with nobody having to stop in the left lanes waiting or cars to turn left into the adjacent businesses.  This work on College Ave should be done by the weekend.

Mike

I was just coming to say the same thing about Green Bay Rd. My parents live over in the neighborhood NE of Green Bay and Bell St. Traffic is much better now than it was. Nobody blocking the left lane trying to make a turn, creating a backup as well as a situation where drivers are trying to cut from the left to right lanes. Now I can make a left turn into Crank Pat's without worrying about getting rear-ended!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2023, 01:11:28 PM
Fort Atkinson did the same thing to their downtown a decade ago. It made traffic flow 100% better - much more pedestrian friendly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: pianocello on July 11, 2023, 09:51:28 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 10, 2023, 08:19:02 PM
College Ave in Downtown Appleton to get a road diet: https://www.wbay.com/video/2023/07/10/appleton-reconfigures-stretch-college-ave/

Lot of pedestrians on that corridor during all hours of the day and into the night, so reducing it from 4 lanes to 2 is a welcome change!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 18, 2023, 01:10:47 AM
Center Ave (US-51) on Janesville's south side apparently hit some snags in the 2024-2025 rebuild planned by WisDOT. From the Janesville Gazette:
https://www.gazettextra.com/news/local/center-avenue-rebuild-will-span-2024-25-construction-seasons/article_37c5bc38-21de-11ee-8be4-f3afbdd19b61.html (https://www.gazettextra.com/news/local/center-avenue-rebuild-will-span-2024-25-construction-seasons/article_37c5bc38-21de-11ee-8be4-f3afbdd19b61.html)

While the state intends to do most of the repaving on Center Avenue in 2024, the reworking of the five-way intersection at the Five Points, and work on a stretch of Center Avenue south of the river between State Street and the Center Avenue bridge, will wait until 2025.

The change in plans, the state says, is mainly tied to a lengthy regulatory process involving railroad crossings under part of Center Avenue.

The southern stretch includes a bridge that spans a Union Pacific Railroad crossing under Center Avenue just south of Delavan Drive.

That stretch of a few blocks will be given a temporary resurfacing that is a precursor to the railroad bridge section being completely torn out and replaced sometime in the next decade, project designers said Thursday at a public information session on the city's south side.

The more temporary resurfacing of that stretch, as well as the reworking and laying of new storm sewers at the Five Points intersection, are on hold in part because of an apparently cumbersome regulatory process that the DOT indicated has become bogged down within the Wisconsin Bureau of Rails and Harbors.

"Much of this process, including the timeframe for it, is outside of the hands of WisDOT and the city of Janesville,"  the DOT said this week in a memo laying out the project's timeline and other details.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 03:52:17 PM
I assume the story is referencing these two DOT projects: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-janesville/default.aspx and https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51intersection-janesville/default.aspx.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 19, 2023, 11:21:00 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 03:52:17 PM
I assume the story is referencing these two DOT projects: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-janesville/default.aspx and https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51intersection-janesville/default.aspx.

Correct.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 20, 2023, 01:11:50 AM
I see there's a ribbon cutting ceremony for Wis 50 in Kenosha. Was it truncated to Wis 31 as part of the project? It's being pitched as one of the largest urban reconstruction projects in state history.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 06:42:52 AM
Are you talking about this project?
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/wis50recon/default.aspx

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2023, 08:40:41 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 20, 2023, 01:11:50 AM
I see there's a ribbon cutting ceremony for Wis 50 in Kenosha. Was it truncated to Wis 31 as part of the project? It's being pitched as one of the largest urban reconstruction projects in state history.

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 06:42:52 AM
Are you talking about this project?
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/wis50recon/default.aspx

SM-G991U

Says right on the page:

"Transferring WIS 50 to local jurisdiction between WIS 31 and WIS 32"

Probably about three miles or so?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 20, 2023, 12:00:47 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2023, 08:40:41 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 20, 2023, 01:11:50 AM
I see there's a ribbon cutting ceremony for Wis 50 in Kenosha. Was it truncated to Wis 31 as part of the project? It's being pitched as one of the largest urban reconstruction projects in state history.

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 06:42:52 AM
Are you talking about this project?
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/wis50recon/default.aspx

SM-G991U

Says right on the page:

"Transferring WIS 50 to local jurisdiction between WIS 31 and WIS 32"

Probably about three miles or so?

Looked on street view and there are new Wis 50 signs on the newly reconstructed section at 52nd Ave. If there is as a transfer why would new signs be posted?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2023, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 20, 2023, 12:00:47 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2023, 08:40:41 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 20, 2023, 01:11:50 AM
I see there's a ribbon cutting ceremony for Wis 50 in Kenosha. Was it truncated to Wis 31 as part of the project? It's being pitched as one of the largest urban reconstruction projects in state history.

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 06:42:52 AM
Are you talking about this project?
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/wis50recon/default.aspx

SM-G991U

Says right on the page:

"Transferring WIS 50 to local jurisdiction between WIS 31 and WIS 32"

Probably about three miles or so?

Looked on street view and there are new Wis 50 signs on the newly reconstructed section at 52nd Ave. If there is as a transfer why would new signs be posted?


Maybe plans have changed because it looks like the project page hasn't been updated in awhile. Or maybe it's still to come.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 20, 2023, 02:09:28 PM
I don't think STH 50 will be truncated, since there are still STH 50 West signs at the Sheridan Rd./63rd St. intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5778683,-87.8215651,3a,75y,187.22h,86.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2OBvAnGYCDaeRz4DdSLNAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 08:16:38 PM
Looks like WisDOT was trying to get Kenosha to take over maintenance of Hwy 50 within city limits, and Kenosha refused?

Here's a newer version of the project page: https://projects.511wi.gov/wis50/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on July 20, 2023, 08:35:37 PM
I've noticed a couple "Merrimac Ferry closed when flashing"  signs, one on WI-113 in Waunakee and the other on WI-60 east of Lodi. I assume there are more scattered throughout Dane, Columbia, and Sauk counties. Are they new? I don't remember seeing them before. But in any case, they're definitely unique signs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 20, 2023, 08:39:28 PM
^^ I remember the one on WI 60 ten years ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 08:42:52 PM
They've been around awhile, at least on US-12. Helps save you from driving miles out of your way just to have to backtrack when you find out the ferry's shut down.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2023, 09:16:22 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 08:16:38 PM
Looks like WisDOT was trying to get Kenosha to take over maintenance of Hwy 50 within city limits, and Kenosha refused?

Here's a newer version of the project page: https://projects.511wi.gov/wis50/

Not sure they refused but it clearly didn't happen for whatever reason.

Wonder if this was the reason the small portion of WI-83 was decommissioned to make room for WI-311 instead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 25, 2023, 07:48:39 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 20, 2023, 09:16:22 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 08:16:38 PM
Looks like WisDOT was trying to get Kenosha to take over maintenance of Hwy 50 within city limits, and Kenosha refused?

Here's a newer version of the project page: https://projects.511wi.gov/wis50/

Not sure they refused but it clearly didn't happen for whatever reason.

Wonder if this was the reason the small portion of WI-83 was decommissioned to make room for WI-311 instead.
WI-83 north of Hartford was 6 miles while WI-311 is at the most 2 miles.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 25, 2023, 08:18:07 PM
Google Maps only has northbound on their Street View. Here is as good of a shot at the End STH 311 sign one can get: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6960356,-87.9446228,3a,75y,7.74h,96.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4NwXcgrEzH6TrboqauObsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Here is a shot of the 311 sign from eastbound STH 11: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6967782,-87.9468203,3a,75y,81.76h,90.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNR1Hoe9A0vDLG6r0v1lITg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Westbound STH 11's Street View shot is from October 2022, so this is the best shot one can get: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6972671,-87.9416444,3a,75y,283.72h,97.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sti_XP_PXJTArM_tqPSqE8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on July 26, 2023, 07:22:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 25, 2023, 08:18:07 PM
Google Maps only has northbound on their Street View. Here is as good of a shot at the End STH 311 sign one can get: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6960356,-87.9446228,3a,75y,7.74h,96.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4NwXcgrEzH6TrboqauObsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Here is a shot of the 311 sign from eastbound STH 11: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6967782,-87.9468203,3a,75y,81.76h,90.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNR1Hoe9A0vDLG6r0v1lITg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Westbound STH 11's Street View shot is from October 2022, so this is the best shot one can get: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6972671,-87.9416444,3a,75y,283.72h,97.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sti_XP_PXJTArM_tqPSqE8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
It's not even marked on google maps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 26, 2023, 07:43:28 PM
There also isn't a page for it on Wikipedia. I would have preferred that the STH 311 designation hadn't been implemented. The road should have just stayed the Wisconsin Valley Parkway without a highway designation. Plus, Interstates 41/94 are just to the west of the corridor, so the 311 designation was unnecessary.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 26, 2023, 09:10:13 PM
If the state agreed to maintain the highway, it should be numbered.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 27, 2023, 09:23:47 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 26, 2023, 09:10:13 PM
If the state agreed to maintain the highway, it should be numbered.
Can we officially blame Scott Walker for this silliness of 311? Just asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on July 27, 2023, 10:40:28 AM
Maybe it was just the time of day the Goog was in the area, but the highway looks to be way overbuilt for the traffic levels. But maybe if the area fills in with businesses in 20 years the road might fill up.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 27, 2023, 11:12:40 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 26, 2023, 09:10:13 PM
If the state agreed to maintain the highway, it should be numbered.
If the state owns it, they number it.

Besides, it might actually turn into something one of these years. Which might be why it's signed and posted, rather than unsigned. It could help attract attention to the massive amount of available real estate there.

And no, the numbering is unrelated to the WIS 83 turnback north of Hartford. Different counties. However, there was some freed-up state route mileage around Burlington in recent years, with the building of the bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 27, 2023, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 27, 2023, 11:12:40 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 26, 2023, 09:10:13 PM
If the state agreed to maintain the highway, it should be numbered.
If the state owns it, they number it.

Besides, it might actually turn into something one of these years. Which might be why it's signed and posted, rather than unsigned. It could help attract attention to the massive amount of available real estate there.

And no, the numbering is unrelated to the WIS 83 turnback north of Hartford. Different counties. However, there was some freed-up state route mileage around Burlington in recent years, with the building of the bypass.



They don't do it by county - they do it by district. And its the same district.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 27, 2023, 04:24:25 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 27, 2023, 10:40:28 AM
Maybe it was just the time of day the Goog was in the area, but the highway looks to be way overbuilt for the traffic levels. But maybe if the area fills in with businesses in 20 years the road might fill up.

You are correct, sir. There's a reason for that: the wet dream of a $10 billion investment from Foxconn was just that - a dream.

Wisconsin used eminent domain to acquire property and built out a bunch of infrastructure, plus offered $4 billion (with a B) to Foxconn if they followed through with job creation plans. None of the GOP folks pushing for this bothered to look at what Foxconn did elsewhere in similar situations (Foxconn has a history of not following through with promised investments), and so we have a bunch of unnecessary infrastructure built out with nothing to show for it.

It's probably the main reason Scott Walker is not governor of Wisconsin today.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/tech/foxconn-wisconsin-factory-scaled-down/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/tech/foxconn-wisconsin-factory-scaled-down/index.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on July 27, 2023, 04:57:28 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 27, 2023, 04:24:25 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 27, 2023, 10:40:28 AM
Maybe it was just the time of day the Goog was in the area, but the highway looks to be way overbuilt for the traffic levels. But maybe if the area fills in with businesses in 20 years the road might fill up.

You are correct, sir. There's a reason for that: the wet dream of a $10 billion investment from Foxconn was just that - a dream.

Wisconsin used eminent domain to acquire property and built out a bunch of infrastructure, plus offered $4 billion (with a B) to Foxconn if they followed through with job creation plans. None of the GOP folks pushing for this bothered to look at what Foxconn did elsewhere in similar situations (Foxconn has a history of not following through with promised investments), and so we have a bunch of unnecessary infrastructure built out with nothing to show for it.

It's probably the main reason Scott Walker is not governor of Wisconsin today.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/tech/foxconn-wisconsin-factory-scaled-down/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/tech/foxconn-wisconsin-factory-scaled-down/index.html)

It went so far that they changed the control cities on I-90's signage south of Madison to "Janesville" instead of "Chicago."   When Control City Freak covered I-90 on his YouTube channel, he flagged this as a bad move, and I knew at once what must have happened here. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on July 27, 2023, 10:40:58 PM
^ They should be using Rockford anyway over Chicago for those who are using I-39 to get around Chicagoland.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 28, 2023, 10:11:45 AM
Chicago is absolutely fine as a control city south of Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on July 28, 2023, 11:14:18 AM
Again, this is why I advocate having a primary and secondary together when it makes sense. Janesville/Chicago out of Madison then Rockford/Chicago south of Hwy 11 is what I would do. I skip Beloit despite its size because it is so close to Janesville.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 28, 2023, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 27, 2023, 04:24:25 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 27, 2023, 10:40:28 AM
Maybe it was just the time of day the Goog was in the area, but the highway looks to be way overbuilt for the traffic levels. But maybe if the area fills in with businesses in 20 years the road might fill up.

You are correct, sir. There's a reason for that: the wet dream of a $10 billion investment from Foxconn was just that - a dream.

Wisconsin used eminent domain to acquire property and built out a bunch of infrastructure, plus offered $4 billion (with a B) to Foxconn if they followed through with job creation plans. None of the GOP folks pushing for this bothered to look at what Foxconn did elsewhere in similar situations (Foxconn has a history of not following through with promised investments), and so we have a bunch of unnecessary infrastructure built out with nothing to show for it.

It's probably the main reason Scott Walker is not governor of Wisconsin today.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/tech/foxconn-wisconsin-factory-scaled-down/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/tech/foxconn-wisconsin-factory-scaled-down/index.html)

I am not at all a fan of Scott Walker or this project, however some interesting things are happening in spite of that boondoggle. It is attracting IT related industry to the area because of the upgraded infrastructure. It's not at the level of Foxconn to be sure, but I don't think that the area will remain empty forever.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2023/04/20/microsoft-will-pay-50-million-for-land-adjacent-to-foxconns-campus-in-mount-pleasant/70133816007/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on July 30, 2023, 11:22:16 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/F1JWs4aDu7hYgGnR8

I was back home in Waukesha County today visiting some family and noticed some county highway shields were looking a little bit "off". The borders on some of the shields aren't as thick as they should be on the top and bottom.

https://goo.gl/maps/T2PxDi2NHZG5ny5A8
https://goo.gl/maps/yh3BQUsT2qLQhWjf7

But then others at the same intersection looked normal. What gives, Waukesha County?! Even my current home of Lafayette County isn't this lax with signage, and being a poorer rural county and not keeping up with standards all the time, at least the borders and fonts are still usually correct.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 31, 2023, 08:34:19 AM
Those types of county shields have been popping up in Waukesha County for the last 15 years or so. Not really a recent development.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2023, 12:48:58 PM
Have those county shields popped up anywhere else in the state? I have a feeling Waukesha County isn't the only place in the state that "Illinois" shields appear.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 31, 2023, 03:00:13 PM
A couple of counties in the northern part of the state use those 'cheaper' signs, too, but nothing here in the Fox Valley.   :cool:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 02, 2023, 08:30:00 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 28, 2023, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 27, 2023, 04:24:25 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 27, 2023, 10:40:28 AM
Maybe it was just the time of day the Goog was in the area, but the highway looks to be way overbuilt for the traffic levels. But maybe if the area fills in with businesses in 20 years the road might fill up.

You are correct, sir. There's a reason for that: the wet dream of a $10 billion investment from Foxconn was just that - a dream.

Wisconsin used eminent domain to acquire property and built out a bunch of infrastructure, plus offered $4 billion (with a B) to Foxconn if they followed through with job creation plans. None of the GOP folks pushing for this bothered to look at what Foxconn did elsewhere in similar situations (Foxconn has a history of not following through with promised investments), and so we have a bunch of unnecessary infrastructure built out with nothing to show for it.

It's probably the main reason Scott Walker is not governor of Wisconsin today.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/tech/foxconn-wisconsin-factory-scaled-down/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/tech/foxconn-wisconsin-factory-scaled-down/index.html)

I am not at all a fan of Scott Walker or this project, however some interesting things are happening in spite of that boondoggle. It is attracting IT related industry to the area because of the upgraded infrastructure. It's not at the level of Foxconn to be sure, but I don't think that the area will remain empty forever.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2023/04/20/microsoft-will-pay-50-million-for-land-adjacent-to-foxconns-campus-in-mount-pleasant/70133816007/

It's inevitable that the area will be used for something, and that's why I'm not fretting it too much. If you're looking to build something medium to large, and want to be plopped in between Chicago and Milwaukee while also setting up shop in Wisconsin, this is a prime spot.

The biggest shame is that it destroyed the area just for nothing to replace it. Many homes and the still mostly rural nature of the area, just gone, along with lots of money with it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 21, 2023, 09:29:55 PM
Drove through the US 2/US 51 roundabout. Traffic flows fairly smooth with a lot of traffic heading south on US 51. The one part of the project that didn't make sense was removing a lane each way on US 2 and keeping the road divided west of the roundabout on US 2.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 22, 2023, 10:48:24 AM
They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 22, 2023, 04:46:28 PM
Looks like the Wis 54/Mason Street Bridge is possibly going to be replaced in the next decade. On the NE Region project site there's a new page on a study on the bridge. No alternatives have been decided on yet. By the time the project begins the bridge will be 60 years old.

If there is reconstruction a new bridge should stay close to the current configuration with some changes. An auxiliary lane extended from Ashland Ave would be helpful since there's way more traffic from that entrance than Broadway. The Broadway half interchange probably isn't needed.

The other 2 Downtown bridges have issues with bridges opening for boats and long trains that backup traffic. Mason St is the only bridge that passes over the railway and is high enough to avoid opening for most boats, although it has to open for the occasional large ship. If the current short freeway works, why mess with it?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 22, 2023, 05:20:09 PM
^^ Broadway was a lot more busy when the bridge was built, thus the current configuration.  Agree that the auxiliary lane needs to be extended to the Ashland on-ramp as a minimum as the current merge area is very substandard.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on August 22, 2023, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 22, 2023, 10:48:24 AM
They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.
Did they need the lanes?  With passing lanes in between points I digress.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 22, 2023, 08:21:11 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 22, 2023, 04:46:28 PM
Looks like the Wis 54/Mason Street Bridge is possibly going to be replaced in the next decade. On the NE Region project site there's a new page on a study on the bridge. No alternatives have been decided on yet. By the time the project begins the bridge will be 60 years old.

If there is reconstruction a new bridge should stay close to the current configuration with some changes. An auxiliary lane extended from Ashland Ave would be helpful since there's way more traffic from that entrance than Broadway. The Broadway half interchange probably isn't needed.

The other 2 Downtown bridges have issues with bridges opening for boats and long trains that backup traffic. Mason St is the only bridge that passes over the railway and is high enough to avoid opening for most boats, although it has to open for the occasional large ship. If the current short freeway works, why mess with it?


With the elevation change on the east side between Riverside and Webster, I don't how you can manage it without freeway like exit ramps.  The only thing I wonder is if they will try to slow down the traffic over the bridge which can routinely be 15 mph or higher than the speed limit. This can be especially problematic on the west side where you transition to a residential neighborhood rather quickly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 22, 2023, 08:27:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 22, 2023, 08:21:11 PM

With the elevation change on the east side between Riverside and Webster, I don't how you can manage it without freeway like exit ramps.
The bridge is in the Green Bay city limits, so it is Monroe Ave there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 23, 2023, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 22, 2023, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 22, 2023, 10:48:24 AM
They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.
Did they need the lanes?  With passing lanes in between points I digress.

I'm sure there was the occasional vehicle that used them as passing lanes.  Or like you're behind a truck that's going the same way as you from the ramp terminal and after each of you make the turn, you could zip around the truck in the other lane since your passenger vehicle has way better acceleration than a logging truck.

But aside from that, I'd say the extra lane wasn't really needed. They largely functioned as turn lanes to begin with so might as well just restripe with actual turn lanes.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 22, 2023, 08:21:11 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 22, 2023, 04:46:28 PM
Looks like the Wis 54/Mason Street Bridge is possibly going to be replaced in the next decade. On the NE Region project site there's a new page on a study on the bridge. No alternatives have been decided on yet. By the time the project begins the bridge will be 60 years old.

If there is reconstruction a new bridge should stay close to the current configuration with some changes. An auxiliary lane extended from Ashland Ave would be helpful since there's way more traffic from that entrance than Broadway. The Broadway half interchange probably isn't needed.

The other 2 Downtown bridges have issues with bridges opening for boats and long trains that backup traffic. Mason St is the only bridge that passes over the railway and is high enough to avoid opening for most boats, although it has to open for the occasional large ship. If the current short freeway works, why mess with it?


With the elevation change on the east side between Riverside and Webster, I don't how you can manage it without freeway like exit ramps.  The only thing I wonder is if they will try to slow down the traffic over the bridge which can routinely be 15 mph or higher than the speed limit. This can be especially problematic on the west side where you transition to a residential neighborhood rather quickly.

I strongly suspect the solution to that could be a roundabout at Mason & Ashland instead of retaining the interchange.
Probably not a popular outcome around here, but I would not be surprised if that's what comes out of this study.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2023, 11:27:21 AM
Wisconsin has demolished a few non-freeway interchanges in the recent past. In Brown Deer, the STH 57 interchange at STH 100 is being converted into a signaled at-grade intersection. The US 2/US 51 interchange in Hurley is now a roundabout (and Google Maps Street View needs to be updated to show the new roundabout, since the most recent Street View image is from October 2015). I wouldn't be surprised if other non-freeway interchanges are considered overkill and converted as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: chrismarion100 on August 23, 2023, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2023, 11:27:21 AM
Wisconsin has demolished a few non-freeway interchanges in the recent past. In Brown Deer, the STH 57 interchange at STH 100 is being converted into a signaled at-grade intersection. The US 2/US 51 interchange in Hurley is now a roundabout (and Google Maps Street View needs to be updated to show the new roundabout, since the most recent Street View image is from October 2015). I wouldn't be surprised if other non-freeway interchanges are considered overkill and converted as well.
Wisconsin replaced the trumpet interchange with STH 29 and STH 124 south of Chippewa Falls into a roundabout once the STH 29 Chippewa Falls was opened in 2005. They also replaced the diamond interchange with Bus US 53 and Birch Street in Eau Claire into a signalized intersection while they reconstructed Bus US 53 once the US 53 By-pass opened in 2006.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 23, 2023, 12:21:11 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 22, 2023, 05:20:09 PM
^^ Broadway was a lot more busy when the bridge was built, thus the current configuration.  Agree that the auxiliary lane needs to be extended to the Ashland on-ramp as a minimum as the current merge area is very substandard.

That bridge was also designed to clear a no longer existing railroad on its east end and the current sidewalk is definitely an afterthought.  It is a relic of the late 1960s design and urban development theory mindset and I will be very interested in seeing how this replacement planning progresses, especially with the land elevation changes on its east approach.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2023, 01:04:42 PM
A portion of CTH SS (Old US 53) in Barron County are being named for two police officers killed in the line of duty: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/portion-of-highway-ss-renamed-for-fallen-officers/ar-AA1fFWhE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=386dc9eef82b4f0783720fedd0bb3a1e&ei=273.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2023, 02:49:04 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 23, 2023, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 22, 2023, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 22, 2023, 10:48:24 AM
They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.
Did they need the lanes?  With passing lanes in between points I digress.

I'm sure there was the occasional vehicle that used them as passing lanes.  Or like you're behind a truck that's going the same way as you from the ramp terminal and after each of you make the turn, you could zip around the truck in the other lane since your passenger vehicle has way better acceleration than a logging truck.

But aside from that, I'd say the extra lane wasn't really needed. They largely functioned as turn lanes to begin with so might as well just restripe with actual turn lanes.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 22, 2023, 08:21:11 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 22, 2023, 04:46:28 PM
Looks like the Wis 54/Mason Street Bridge is possibly going to be replaced in the next decade. On the NE Region project site there's a new page on a study on the bridge. No alternatives have been decided on yet. By the time the project begins the bridge will be 60 years old.

If there is reconstruction a new bridge should stay close to the current configuration with some changes. An auxiliary lane extended from Ashland Ave would be helpful since there's way more traffic from that entrance than Broadway. The Broadway half interchange probably isn't needed.

The other 2 Downtown bridges have issues with bridges opening for boats and long trains that backup traffic. Mason St is the only bridge that passes over the railway and is high enough to avoid opening for most boats, although it has to open for the occasional large ship. If the current short freeway works, why mess with it?


With the elevation change on the east side between Riverside and Webster, I don't how you can manage it without freeway like exit ramps.  The only thing I wonder is if they will try to slow down the traffic over the bridge which can routinely be 15 mph or higher than the speed limit. This can be especially problematic on the west side where you transition to a residential neighborhood rather quickly.

I strongly suspect the solution to that could be a roundabout at Mason & Ashland instead of retaining the interchange.
Probably not a popular outcome around here, but I would not be surprised if that's what comes out of this study.


I had assumed they wanted to keep a certain bridge clearance, which would make an at grade intersection more difficult given the elevation changes.

If that is not the case, then you are likely correct.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 23, 2023, 03:16:02 PM
Wis 54/Mason St carries 34,000 VPD, more than the other two Downtown bridge crossings combined. Unlike the other examples cited which involved a new parallel freeway (US 53, Wis 29) or a reduction in traffic (US 2) the current configuration works best! The rail overpass and a higher clearance bridge is needed since the other 2 crossings back up a long ways for a bridge opening or a train. It would be difficult to build intersections to replace the interchanges without having an at grade railroad crossing or lower bridge clearance.

If it's not broke don't fix it!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2023, 03:32:40 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 23, 2023, 03:16:02 PM
Wis 54/Mason St carries 34,000 VPD, more than the other two Downtown bridge crossings combined. Unlike the other examples cited which involved a new parallel freeway (US 53, Wis 29) or a reduction in traffic (US 2) the current configuration works best! The rail overpass and a higher clearance bridge is needed since the other 2 crossings back up a long ways for a bridge opening or a train. It would be difficult to build intersections to replace the interchanges without having an at grade railroad crossing or lower bridge clearance.

If it's not broke don't fix it!


If it's not broke, why would they be replacing it?   :)

But yeah, I think you are probably correct. While a bit of a stroad, Mason is really the only city street that can get you easily all the way from one side of Green Bay to the other.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: pianocello on August 23, 2023, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 23, 2023, 03:16:02 PM
Wis 54/Mason St carries 34,000 VPD, more than the other two Downtown bridge crossings combined. Unlike the other examples cited which involved a new parallel freeway (US 53, Wis 29) or a reduction in traffic (US 2) the current configuration works best! The rail overpass and a higher clearance bridge is needed since the other 2 crossings back up a long ways for a bridge opening or a train. It would be difficult to build intersections to replace the interchanges without having an at grade railroad crossing or lower bridge clearance.

There are existing ramps that go directly from the bridge to both Ashland and Monroe, so I don't think at-grade intersections are outside the realm of possibility, unless there's different design criteria for ramps vs. arterials for some reason. At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians too.

As for roundabouts, the traffic counts are comparable to Mason St near I-41 or College Ave east of Hwy 441 in Appleton (Mason St bridge may be a little bit higher, but not a ton)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2023, 08:55:49 PM
I think the current set up is way more pedestrian friendly on the east side of the river than an at grade intersection would be. The Fox River Trail runs underneath the bridge and people are walking, running and biking under it all the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 25, 2023, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: pianocello on August 23, 2023, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 23, 2023, 03:16:02 PM
Wis 54/Mason St carries 34,000 VPD, more than the other two Downtown bridge crossings combined. Unlike the other examples cited which involved a new parallel freeway (US 53, Wis 29) or a reduction in traffic (US 2) the current configuration works best! The rail overpass and a higher clearance bridge is needed since the other 2 crossings back up a long ways for a bridge opening or a train. It would be difficult to build intersections to replace the interchanges without having an at grade railroad crossing or lower bridge clearance.


At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians


I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: pianocello on August 26, 2023, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2023, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: pianocello on August 23, 2023, 07:00:22 PM

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians


I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

Yeah, that's true. But it's easier to get from one street to another on foot if there isn't a grade separation (simply turning vs. navigating a 250+ foot ramp that may or may not be built). And adding at-grade intersections is likely to slow down traffic, which may not sound great for vehicular traffic but it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross upstream and downstream of the bridge. Especially here (https://goo.gl/maps/hKCidLsyATNHCt6Q6).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 26, 2023, 09:29:41 AM
^^ The west side approach even prohibits pedestrians from crossing the street at the closest intersections.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 26, 2023, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: pianocello on August 26, 2023, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2023, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: pianocello on August 23, 2023, 07:00:22 PM

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians


I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

Yeah, that's true. But it's easier to get from one street to another on foot if there isn't a grade separation (simply turning vs. navigating a 250+ foot ramp that may or may not be built). And adding at-grade intersections is likely to slow down traffic, which may not sound great for vehicular traffic but it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross upstream and downstream of the bridge. Especially here (https://goo.gl/maps/hKCidLsyATNHCt6Q6).

The Downtown bridges are made more for pedestrians to cross and there's a reason to cross there. All the attractions are by the Walnut and Main St bridges. Even if a lower bridge is built I doubt many pedestrians would use it. No one mentions that Adams Street which is fairly busy passes directly under the current bridge and that would be another intersection in addition to Ashland, Broadway, and Monroe.

No one on here is acknowledging the higher clearance above the rail line and for boat traffic. That alone is a reason to keep a similar design. The other 2 bridges are stopping all the time for trains and boats in the summer since those bridges are so low.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 26, 2023, 05:18:05 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 26, 2023, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: pianocello on August 26, 2023, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2023, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: pianocello on August 23, 2023, 07:00:22 PM

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians


I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

Yeah, that's true. But it's easier to get from one street to another on foot if there isn't a grade separation (simply turning vs. navigating a 250+ foot ramp that may or may not be built). And adding at-grade intersections is likely to slow down traffic, which may not sound great for vehicular traffic but it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross upstream and downstream of the bridge. Especially here (https://goo.gl/maps/hKCidLsyATNHCt6Q6).

The Downtown bridges are made more for pedestrians to cross and there's a reason to cross there. All the attractions are by the Walnut and Main St bridges. Even if a lower bridge is built I doubt many pedestrians would use it. No one mentions that Adams Street which is fairly busy passes directly under the current bridge and that would be another intersection in addition to Ashland, Broadway, and Monroe.

No one on here is acknowledging the higher clearance above the rail line and for boat traffic. That alone is a reason to keep a similar design. The other 2 bridges are stopping all the time for trains and boats in the summer since those bridges are so low.


And you can also walk under both the Walnut and Main St. bridges.

But what do you mean "no one here is acknowledging the higher clearance?" It was literally brought up by multiple people.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 26, 2023, 06:19:45 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 26, 2023, 05:18:05 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 26, 2023, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: pianocello on August 26, 2023, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 25, 2023, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: pianocello on August 23, 2023, 07:00:22 PM

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians


I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

Yeah, that's true. But it's easier to get from one street to another on foot if there isn't a grade separation (simply turning vs. navigating a 250+ foot ramp that may or may not be built). And adding at-grade intersections is likely to slow down traffic, which may not sound great for vehicular traffic but it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross upstream and downstream of the bridge. Especially here (https://goo.gl/maps/hKCidLsyATNHCt6Q6).

The Downtown bridges are made more for pedestrians to cross and there's a reason to cross there. All the attractions are by the Walnut and Main St bridges. Even if a lower bridge is built I doubt many pedestrians would use it. No one mentions that Adams Street which is fairly busy passes directly under the current bridge and that would be another intersection in addition to Ashland, Broadway, and Monroe.

No one on here is acknowledging the higher clearance above the rail line and for boat traffic. That alone is a reason to keep a similar design. The other 2 bridges are stopping all the time for trains and boats in the summer since those bridges are so low.


And you can also walk under both the Walnut and Main St. bridges.

But what do you mean "no one here is acknowledging the higher clearance?" It was literally brought up by multiple people.

What I meant is the negatives of having to wait for trains and boats if a lower bridge is constructed. There's no way that a bridge can be accommodate both intersections and a railroad overpass. The rail line is right next to Broadway. I'm for keeping a similar configuration since Mason St is the only one of the three downtown bridges that has a rail overpass and only has to open for big ships. The other two bridges have to open frequently for boats including a lot of recreational boats and traffic has to stop for trains on a fairly busy line. Those are the two biggest reasons why the bridge needs to stay in a similar configuration.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 26, 2023, 07:05:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 26, 2023, 05:18:05 PM

And you can also walk under both the Walnut and Main St. bridges.

But what do you mean "no one here is acknowledging the higher clearance?" It was literally brought up by multiple people.
To be picky, yes to the Main St bridge, but it is a tunnel adjacent to the Walnut St bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2023, 11:27:17 AM
There's enough room to for Mason St to come down to 'street level' at Ashland while retaining the existing clearance for the bridge over the Fox.
You'd be losing the Broadway ramps, probably, but they are overkill anyway.
Can probably do the same on the east bank and get back to street level at Monroe or even Madison

A more interesting thought is how to squeeze a new bridge next to the existing one, because I doubt they'd want to shut it down completely for more than a year while they tear it out and replace it on location.  So they're probably looking at having to acquire r/w for that.  Seems like fewer takings to build south of the exiting span, especially if they're looking to give up on some of those ramps between Ashland and Monroe.

Should be interesting to see what alternatives surface as this one is a tough logistical nut to crack.
Unless they're willing to bite the 'shut it down completely for 20 months' bullet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2023, 11:27:17 AM
There's enough room to for Mason St to come down to 'street level' at Ashland while retaining the existing clearance for the bridge over the Fox.
You'd be losing the Broadway ramps, probably, but they are overkill anyway.
Can probably do the same on the east bank and get back to street level at Monroe or even Madison

A more interesting thought is how to squeeze a new bridge next to the existing one, because I doubt they'd want to shut it down completely for more than a year while they tear it out and replace it on location.  So they're probably looking at having to acquire r/w for that.  Seems like fewer takings to build south of the exiting span, especially if they're looking to give up on some of those ramps between Ashland and Monroe.

Should be interesting to see what alternatives surface as this one is a tough logistical nut to crack.
Unless they're willing to bite the 'shut it down completely for 20 months' bullet.

What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

Urban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse. College Ave is another example of that by reducing a lane in each direction. If there are any downgrades from the current configuration new intersections are just going to lead to more traffic congestion and accidents.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 28, 2023, 12:15:18 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2023, 11:27:17 AM
There's enough room to for Mason St to come down to 'street level' at Ashland while retaining the existing clearance for the bridge over the Fox.
You'd be losing the Broadway ramps, probably, but they are overkill anyway.
Can probably do the same on the east bank and get back to street level at Monroe or even Madison

A more interesting thought is how to squeeze a new bridge next to the existing one, because I doubt they'd want to shut it down completely for more than a year while they tear it out and replace it on location.  So they're probably looking at having to acquire r/w for that.  Seems like fewer takings to build south of the exiting span, especially if they're looking to give up on some of those ramps between Ashland and Monroe.

Should be interesting to see what alternatives surface as this one is a tough logistical nut to crack.
Unless they're willing to bite the 'shut it down completely for 20 months' bullet.

What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

Urban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse. College Ave is another example of that by reducing a lane in each direction. If there are any downgrades from the current configuration new intersections are just going to lead to more traffic congestion and accidents.

College Ave in downtown Appleton was restriped as one lane each way with left turn lanes at the intersections due to a problem with street racing and the delays caused by cars stopped in the left lane while waiting to turn left at the intersections.  Snow removal activity showed that this was not going to be a traffic problem, as the S.O.P. of plowing the snow to the center of the street o be trucked away later after storms and the resulting temporary lane reductions never caused any traffic issues.  I'm taking a 'wait and see' attitude towards that, as I currently live only a few blocks from that part of College Ave.  Downtown Appleton is becoming a popular place for the younger crowd to live, as recent construction activity for mew rental apartments shows.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2023, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AM
What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

The bridge would cross the RR and Broadway still. I only mentioned removing the ramps because they're redundant and take up valuable space.

Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AMUrban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse.

Worse for whom?
Poorly thought out urban planning made things a LOT worse for way more people back in ye good ol' days.
I'll take "oh noes, I have to drive a wee bit slower now" over "we're gonna tear down all y'alls houses so some rich fuckers can get to their office two minutes faster."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 28, 2023, 12:39:39 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2023, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AM
What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

The bridge would cross the RR and Broadway still. I only mentioned removing the ramps because they're redundant and take up valuable space.

Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AMUrban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse.

Worse for whom?
Poorly thought out urban planning made things a LOT worse for way more people back in ye good ol' days.
I'll take "oh noes, I have to drive a wee bit slower now" over "we're gonna tear down all y'alls houses so some rich fuckers can get to their office two minutes faster."
A ton of buildings were torn down to build this bridge, more torn down to save the only 2 buildings on the site - Howe School and The White Store, whose building is now the county health department.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 28, 2023, 03:06:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2023, 12:15:18 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2023, 11:27:17 AM
There's enough room to for Mason St to come down to 'street level' at Ashland while retaining the existing clearance for the bridge over the Fox.
You'd be losing the Broadway ramps, probably, but they are overkill anyway.
Can probably do the same on the east bank and get back to street level at Monroe or even Madison

A more interesting thought is how to squeeze a new bridge next to the existing one, because I doubt they'd want to shut it down completely for more than a year while they tear it out and replace it on location.  So they're probably looking at having to acquire r/w for that.  Seems like fewer takings to build south of the exiting span, especially if they're looking to give up on some of those ramps between Ashland and Monroe.

Should be interesting to see what alternatives surface as this one is a tough logistical nut to crack.
Unless they're willing to bite the 'shut it down completely for 20 months' bullet.

What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

Urban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse. College Ave is another example of that by reducing a lane in each direction. If there are any downgrades from the current configuration new intersections are just going to lead to more traffic congestion and accidents.

College Ave in downtown Appleton was restriped as one lane each way with left turn lanes at the intersections due to a problem with street racing and the delays caused by cars stopped in the left lane while waiting to turn left at the intersections.  Snow removal activity showed that this was not going to be a traffic problem, as the S.O.P. of plowing the snow to the center of the street o be trucked away later after storms and the resulting temporary lane reductions never caused any traffic issues.  I'm taking a 'wait and see' attitude towards that, as I currently live only a few blocks from that part of College Ave.  Downtown Appleton is becoming a popular place for the younger crowd to live, as recent construction activity for mew rental apartments shows.


I've only been down to Appleton a couple of times since the re-striping, and I am cautiously optimistic. It was hard to parallel park downtown with two lanes of traffic. Slowing down the flow has been helpful with that and is way more pedestrian friendly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 29, 2023, 12:41:10 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 28, 2023, 12:39:39 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2023, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AM
What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

The bridge would cross the RR and Broadway still. I only mentioned removing the ramps because they're redundant and take up valuable space.

Quote from: peterj920 on August 28, 2023, 11:58:33 AMUrban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse.

Worse for whom?
Poorly thought out urban planning made things a LOT worse for way more people back in ye good ol' days.
I'll take "oh noes, I have to drive a wee bit slower now" over "we're gonna tear down all y'alls houses so some rich fuckers can get to their office two minutes faster."
A ton of buildings were torn down to build this bridge, more torn down to save the only 2 buildings on the site - Howe School and The White Store, whose building is now the county health department.

And that rail line by Broadway has the real near-term potential to become much busier than it is now - If/when common carrier rail pax service is restored into the I-41 corridor, that is the track that it will use.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 31, 2023, 01:36:00 AM
Looking at a Jsonline article the only thing holding up the final Bucees approval in DeForest is how to design the County V interchange and roadways leading to the future store/gas station. It will be interesting to see if there's major or minor improvements. I think back to Sheboygan years ago when Walmart mainly paid for the conversion to roundabouts at I-43/Wis 42. Will the interchange go to added lanes to existing, roundabouts or DDI?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on August 31, 2023, 04:12:09 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2023, 01:36:00 AM
Looking at a Jsonline article the only thing holding up the final Bucees approval in DeForest is how to design the County V interchange and roadways leading to the future store/gas station. It will be interesting to see if there's major or minor improvements. I think back to Sheboygan years ago when Walmart mainly paid for the conversion to roundabouts at I-43/Wis 42. Will the interchange go to added lanes to existing, roundabouts or DDI?

According to the plans for the site, the interchange will be rebuilt into a DDI with the existing bridge intact.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on August 31, 2023, 08:58:56 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 31, 2023, 04:12:09 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2023, 01:36:00 AM
Looking at a Jsonline article the only thing holding up the final Bucees approval in DeForest is how to design the County V interchange and roadways leading to the future store/gas station. It will be interesting to see if there's major or minor improvements. I think back to Sheboygan years ago when Walmart mainly paid for the conversion to roundabouts at I-43/Wis 42. Will the interchange go to added lanes to existing, roundabouts or DDI?

According to the plans for the site, the interchange will be rebuilt into a DDI with the existing bridge intact.
pics, or it didn't (or won't) happen
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 01, 2023, 08:04:05 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 28, 2023, 03:06:44 PM
I've only been down to Appleton a couple of times since the re-striping, and I am cautiously optimistic. It was hard to parallel park downtown with two lanes of traffic. Slowing down the flow has been helpful with that and is way more pedestrian friendly.

I'd actually like to see something similar implemented down in Racine. Their Main Street carries STH-32 and is mostly four lanes plus parallel parking. It's very tight to get through, even at the posted speed of 25. In theory, all the four lanes are doing is allowing for additional flow to get through, but I'm not sure it's necessary these days. Changing it to a three lane setup would likely be an improvement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 01, 2023, 01:22:04 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 31, 2023, 08:58:56 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 31, 2023, 04:12:09 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2023, 01:36:00 AM
Looking at a Jsonline article the only thing holding up the final Bucees approval in DeForest is how to design the County V interchange and roadways leading to the future store/gas station. It will be interesting to see if there's major or minor improvements. I think back to Sheboygan years ago when Walmart mainly paid for the conversion to roundabouts at I-43/Wis 42. Will the interchange go to added lanes to existing, roundabouts or DDI?

According to the plans for the site, the interchange will be rebuilt into a DDI with the existing bridge intact.
pics, or it didn't (or won't) happen

The project study for I-39/90/94 was already considering a DDI. The other option was basically a rebuild of what's there now. There's nothing scheduled (so far as I can tell), but the existing interchange will be sucking wind most of the day if a Buc-ee's plops in there without any changes to the interchange.

WisDOT also doesn't have to be sold on the DDI idea; they're popping up wherever they need to manage heavy turning volumes at an interchange.

Study website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/public.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/public.aspx)

Page 52 (58 in the PDF)
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/interchangealternatives-april23.pdf (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/interchangealternatives-april23.pdf)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 01, 2023, 08:01:33 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 01, 2023, 01:22:04 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 31, 2023, 08:58:56 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 31, 2023, 04:12:09 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2023, 01:36:00 AM
Looking at a Jsonline article the only thing holding up the final Bucees approval in DeForest is how to design the County V interchange and roadways leading to the future store/gas station. It will be interesting to see if there's major or minor improvements. I think back to Sheboygan years ago when Walmart mainly paid for the conversion to roundabouts at I-43/Wis 42. Will the interchange go to added lanes to existing, roundabouts or DDI?

According to the plans for the site, the interchange will be rebuilt into a DDI with the existing bridge intact.
pics, or it didn't (or won't) happen

The project study for I-39/90/94 was already considering a DDI. The other option was basically a rebuild of what's there now. There's nothing scheduled (so far as I can tell), but the existing interchange will be sucking wind most of the day if a Buc-ee's plops in there without any changes to the interchange.

WisDOT also doesn't have to be sold on the DDI idea; they're popping up wherever they need to manage heavy turning volumes at an interchange.

Study website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/public.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/public.aspx)

Page 52 (58 in the PDF)
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/interchangealternatives-april23.pdf (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/interchangealternatives-april23.pdf)

Partially false.  The DDI option replaces the existing bridge with two bridges wider apart. (YMMV)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 02, 2023, 01:26:08 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 01, 2023, 08:01:33 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 01, 2023, 01:22:04 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 31, 2023, 08:58:56 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 31, 2023, 04:12:09 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2023, 01:36:00 AM
Looking at a Jsonline article the only thing holding up the final Bucees approval in DeForest is how to design the County V interchange and roadways leading to the future store/gas station. It will be interesting to see if there’s major or minor improvements. I think back to Sheboygan years ago when Walmart mainly paid for the conversion to roundabouts at I-43/Wis 42. Will the interchange go to added lanes to existing, roundabouts or DDI?

According to the plans for the site, the interchange will be rebuilt into a DDI with the existing bridge intact.
pics, or it didn't (or won't) happen

The project study for I-39/90/94 was already considering a DDI. The other option was basically a rebuild of what's there now. There's nothing scheduled (so far as I can tell), but the existing interchange will be sucking wind most of the day if a Buc-ee's plops in there without any changes to the interchange.

WisDOT also doesn't have to be sold on the DDI idea; they're popping up wherever they need to manage heavy turning volumes at an interchange.

Study website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/public.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/public.aspx)

Page 52 (58 in the PDF)
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/interchangealternatives-april23.pdf (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/interchangealternatives-april23.pdf)

Partially false.  The DDI option replaces the existing bridge with two bridges wider apart. (YMMV)

I haven't even seen WisDOT's plans for the new DDIs at I-41/WI 15/County 'OO'/Northland Ave, I-41/WI47/Richmond St nor I-41/County 'E/Ballard Rd here in Appleton.  Work that is expected to begin next year.

Mike
Title: Real time live video now on WisDOT freeway cams.
Post by: mgk920 on September 02, 2023, 01:40:52 PM
Has anyone else noticed that the online versions of WisDOT freeway cams now have a real-time live video option?

:popcorn:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 06, 2023, 09:53:30 AM
Driving through Appleton on the weekend Wis 441 is undergoing concrete repair/diamond grind of the concrete yet I-41 seems to be rougher between Breezewood and Hwy 15. The pavement is now 30 years old. It's time for either a resurfacing or a patch and grind.

WISDOT seems to be very inconsistent when it comes to repairing concrete surfaces. I-43 in Ozaukee County must be 50 years old by now and received another diamond grind. WISDOT does not want to resurface for some reason. And in the Southwest Region, US 151 has been undergoing concrete repair and resurfacing the last few years between Dodgeville and Beaver Dam with current repairs on the Verona Bypass which is badly needed. I wonder why WISDOT is willing to resurface some concrete roadways while wanting to keep the original pavement on other stretches?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 06, 2023, 10:03:41 AM
The WI-441 project is more than just a concrete rehabilitation.

https://projects.511wi.gov/441bypass/full-project-overview/

Anyway, my assumption is that these people probably know what they're doing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 06, 2023, 11:50:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 06, 2023, 10:03:41 AM
The WI-441 project is more than just a concrete rehabilitation.

https://projects.511wi.gov/441bypass/full-project-overview/

Anyway, my assumption is that these people probably know what they're doing.

US 151 around Dodgeville was originally un-reinforced concrete (it was REEEALLY rough!) in the 1980s/1990s, retrofitted with joint dowel bars a couple of decades ago and then diamond ground.

WisDOT changes out bad squares of concrete on the six lane part of I-41 in the Appleton-Neenah area every five years or so.

Also, the current plans for the I-41/WI 441 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton are for it to be re-engineerd as a free-flowing Directional 'T' in the pending I-41 six lane upgrade project.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2023, 11:56:18 AM
Would converting the Interstate 41/STH 441 interchange from a trumpet interchange into a directional T interchange require the removal of the retention basin along French Rd.?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 06, 2023, 12:04:51 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2023, 11:56:18 AM
Would converting the Interstate 41/STH 441 interchange from a trumpet interchange into a directional T interchange require the removal of the retention basin along French Rd.?

Yes, that's where the new SB I-41 to SB WI 441 ramp will go.  In all, two buildings in Appleton's Northeast Industrial Park will have to be acquired and a sizable amount of current ROW vacated by WisDOT when it is all done.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 06, 2023, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 06, 2023, 11:50:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 06, 2023, 10:03:41 AM
The WI-441 project is more than just a concrete rehabilitation.

https://projects.511wi.gov/441bypass/full-project-overview/

Anyway, my assumption is that these people probably know what they're doing.

US 151 around Dodgeville was originally un-reinforced concrete (it was REEEALLY rough!) in the 1980s/1990s, retrofitted with joint dowel bars a couple of decades ago and then diamond ground.

WisDOT changes out bad squares of concrete on the six lane part of I-41 in the Appleton-Neenah area every five years or so.

Also, the current plans for the I-41/WI 441 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton are for it to be re-engineerd as a free-flowing Directional 'T' in the pending I-41 six lane upgrade project.

Mike

The concrete was replaced on the US 151 Dodgeville Bypass two years ago between Wis 23 and US 18 including the ramps on the interchanges. US 18/US 151 has been undergoing concrete patching/resurfacing for the last few years between Dodgeville and Fitchburg with the final stretch being worked on between Mt. Horeb and Fitchburg right now. The concrete on the Verona Bypass is newer than on I-41 yet it's being resurfaced and it's badly needed.

Instead of patching I-41 every 5 years why not patch and resurface for a longer term solution?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 06, 2023, 01:47:43 PM
Like anything else, they've gotta balance costs with needs using a limited supply of money.  And then they also must consider spacing out potential traffic impacts with nearby projects (something you'll see state and local agencies fumble on ALL THE TIME).

Concrete patching work is the kind of thing they can do in little bits during the overnight hours or other lower traffic periods and get things opened back before the rush hour or onslaught of weekend warriors.  The stretch of the triplex north of Madison is in the same boat as I-41 when it comes to concrete patching every few years.  Thought the timetable is a little shorter since the triplex gets pounded harder by more trucks than I-41.

As to whether or not to overlay old concrete with asphalt, I'm sure they've got a decision matrix of some sort that lets them know when to bring that in during the concrete's lifespan.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 06, 2023, 07:26:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 06, 2023, 01:47:43 PM
Like anything else, they've gotta balance costs with needs using a limited supply of money.  And then they also must consider spacing out potential traffic impacts with nearby projects (something you'll see state and local agencies fumble on ALL THE TIME).

Concrete patching work is the kind of thing they can do in little bits during the overnight hours or other lower traffic periods and get things opened back before the rush hour or onslaught of weekend warriors.  The stretch of the triplex north of Madison is in the same boat as I-41 when it comes to concrete patching every few years.  Thought the timetable is a little shorter since the triplex gets pounded harder by more trucks than I-41.

As to whether or not to overlay old concrete with asphalt, I'm sure they've got a decision matrix of some sort that lets them know when to bring that in during the concrete's lifespan.

The Beltline was resurfaced twice in 3 years (final layer during the Flexlane project) and work was done overnight. Wis 172 is currently being resurfaced at night with all lanes open during the day.

The busiest roads should have the highest priority and I-41 in Appleton really needs repairs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 06, 2023, 08:11:56 PM
WisDOT is no more consistent (or inconsistent) in its maintenance practices than any other DOT out there. I've seen Michigan's DOT do the diamond-grinding thing and the asphalt overlay thing on newer concrete roadways. Some sections were paved in concrete in the 1960s and have been patched/grinded, but never overlaid. Other sections got asphalt overlay pretty quickly. They've even done a CONCRETE overlay of concrete (I-69 south of Charlotte), which worked great for about 10 years, and then disintegrated under the relatively heavy truck traffic (left lane was still pretty smooth, but the right lane was very uneven and was breaking apart). Lately, MDOT has been leaning HARD on asphalt for a lot of its recent work; concrete reconstruction seems to be reserved for roads with heavy truck traffic like the I-94 rebuild in Jackson.

Asphalt overlays are quick and easy (and I suspect behind the decision making on the Beltline). Diamond grinding (if the surface condition allows it) allows you to skip the asphalt but takes more time to pull off. But that grinding also causes the road's friction to decrease a bit, and if the grinder is not lined up straight it causes some cars to weave and toss around in the lane.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on September 06, 2023, 08:14:49 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 22, 2023, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 22, 2023, 10:48:24 AM
They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.
Did they need the lanes?  With passing lanes in between points I digress.

8 hardly needs to be a US highway
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 06, 2023, 08:15:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 06, 2023, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 06, 2023, 11:50:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 06, 2023, 10:03:41 AM
The WI-441 project is more than just a concrete rehabilitation.

https://projects.511wi.gov/441bypass/full-project-overview/

Anyway, my assumption is that these people probably know what they're doing.

US 151 around Dodgeville was originally un-reinforced concrete (it was REEEALLY rough!) in the 1980s/1990s, retrofitted with joint dowel bars a couple of decades ago and then diamond ground.

WisDOT changes out bad squares of concrete on the six lane part of I-41 in the Appleton-Neenah area every five years or so.

Also, the current plans for the I-41/WI 441 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton are for it to be re-engineerd as a free-flowing Directional 'T' in the pending I-41 six lane upgrade project.



Mike

The concrete was replaced on the US 151 Dodgeville Bypass two years ago between Wis 23 and US 18 including the ramps on the interchanges. US 18/US 151 has been undergoing concrete patching/resurfacing for the last few years between Dodgeville and Fitchburg with the final stretch being worked on between Mt. Horeb and Fitchburg right now. The concrete on the Verona Bypass is newer than on I-41 yet it's being resurfaced and it's badly needed.

Instead of patching I-41 every 5 years why not patch and resurface for a longer term solution?

The part around Ridgway was dowel-bar retrofitted in the late 1980s or early 1990s, too.  That highway was due.  A decade or two ago, I heard a WisDOT engineer who said  that they were paying big time for well over a decade for the mistake of relying on the theory of an unreinforced 'aggregate lock' when they were building concrete highways from the early 1970s to the early 1980s.  Yes it was a mess going back and repairing them all.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 06, 2023, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on September 06, 2023, 08:14:49 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 22, 2023, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 22, 2023, 10:48:24 AM
They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.
Did they need the lanes?  With passing lanes in between points I digress.

8 hardly needs to be a US highway

Like all US highway's, it's just a state-maintained highway with a common number. So it might as well stay US-8.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2023, 10:18:15 PM
It's not like the US 8 designation can be reverted to STH 14 (due to the existence of US 14 within the state). Also, maybe they reduced the number of lanes at STH 13 and US 51 due to two lanes in each direction was overkill and not needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on September 12, 2023, 03:17:43 PM
Anyone know why there is a sign listing exits on I-794 way back in Waukesha County? This is on 94 EB between Moorland and the Zoo Interchange. I would expect this sign to be placed somewhere around the stadium interchange area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0251596,-88.0910322,3a,45y,91.68h,88.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shpWXlKGQVggTO8JwQQQMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2023, 03:44:35 PM
No idea. If it were closer to the Marquette Interchange, say east of Exit 309B, it would make more sense to me. But to have it west of the Zoo Interchange seems illogical. Then again, there are other signs along Interstate 94 between Madison and Milwaukee giving information about certain exits that are a few exits ahead. Examples Eastbound: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0489563,-88.3488026,3a,75y,98.64h,97.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scJWKXAThJnMixV2eWfI9HQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu; https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0503107,-88.2974885,3a,75y,76.68h,91.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHwt_DrDxSY4fgpQ9mWK-IQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Examples Westbound: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0499417,-88.339654,3a,75y,275.28h,84.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syat9oEy0RPqzoRzWSnjieg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu; https://www.google.com/maps/@43.029014,-88.1341318,3a,75y,285.46h,77.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSVKc0UL7Dv-oSW28xWhcdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on September 12, 2023, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 06, 2023, 03:29:17 PM
Kenosha was able to annex its way across I-94 to keep it's population growth up for a while there, but now like it's neighbor just up the coast, they're hemmed in by other villages/cities.  Kind of interesting that Racine and Kenosha have basically switched population sizes in the last 50 years.  If not for Kenosha's aggressive annexations, that wouldn't have happened.
Late to this topic but Kenosha still has a lot of room to grow, I could see at least another 10k given the right subdivisions.  Racine is locked in at Green Bay road so there is literally no open space, while there is still plenty of open space in Kenosha west of Green Bay Road to I94/I41 and beyond even though the Somers / Pleasant Prairie / Bristol borders are locked.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 12, 2023, 05:13:04 PM
Quote from: jwags on September 12, 2023, 03:17:43 PM
Anyone know why there is a sign listing exits on I-794 way back in Waukesha County? This is on 94 EB between Moorland and the Zoo Interchange. I would expect this sign to be placed somewhere around the stadium interchange area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0251596,-88.0910322,3a,45y,91.68h,88.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shpWXlKGQVggTO8JwQQQMsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Simple - those are "attractions" that visitors might visit. It gives them the information early enough as to not get confused at the Marquette.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on September 14, 2023, 04:27:10 PM
Apparently Highway 20 and Highway 32 are going to be rerouted in Racine.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/state-trunk-highways-20-and-32-to-be-removed-from-downtown/article_f847e04c-4c2e-11ee-9036-ff9878ef73e7.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2023, 04:50:12 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 14, 2023, 04:27:10 PM
Apparently Highway 20 and Highway 32 are going to be rerouted in Racine.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/state-trunk-highways-20-and-32-to-be-removed-from-downtown/article_f847e04c-4c2e-11ee-9036-ff9878ef73e7.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage

Wonder if they will get rid of the WI-20 concurrency.  Or will it end at State Street?

Also, State Street between Marquette and Main will have a wrong way concurrency with WI-38.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on September 15, 2023, 09:12:41 AM
I wonder if they will truncate Highway 38 in that area so that does not happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2023, 12:50:56 PM
STH 38 probably would be truncated to the State St./Marquette St./Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. intersection. I don't have any problems with this proposal save for the one-way to two-way street conversions. I prefer one-way streets since they improve traffic flow compared to a two-way street, and you only have to look in one direction when you cross the street on foot. These conversions are stupid, and I strongly believe that they cause more problems than they solve.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2023, 04:19:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2023, 12:50:56 PM
STH 38 probably would be truncated to the State St./Marquette St./Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. intersection. I don't have any problems with this proposal save for the one-way to two-way street conversions. I prefer one-way streets since they improve traffic flow compared to a two-way street, and you only have to look in one direction when you cross the street on foot. These conversions are stupid, and I strongly believe that they cause more problems than they solve.


In the right situation, and I think a downtown location is usually the right situation, I think it's wonderful. You are correct that it slows traffic flow, but that's what these cities want when they make their downtowns more pedestrian friendly. Cars can slow down for a few blocks - its not that inconvenient.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 16, 2023, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 14, 2023, 04:27:10 PM
Apparently Highway 20 and Highway 32 are going to be rerouted in Racine.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/state-trunk-highways-20-and-32-to-be-removed-from-downtown/article_f847e04c-4c2e-11ee-9036-ff9878ef73e7.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage

Good timing considering what I just wrote the other day, at least regarding the lane reduction on Main St:

Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 01, 2023, 08:04:05 AM
I'd actually like to see something similar implemented down in Racine. Their Main Street carries STH-32 and is mostly four lanes plus parallel parking. It's very tight to get through, even at the posted speed of 25. In theory, all the four lanes are doing is allowing for additional flow to get through, but I'm not sure it's necessary these days. Changing it to a three lane setup would likely be an improvement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on September 24, 2023, 06:24:05 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2023, 04:50:12 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 14, 2023, 04:27:10 PM
Apparently Highway 20 and Highway 32 are going to be rerouted in Racine.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/state-trunk-highways-20-and-32-to-be-removed-from-downtown/article_f847e04c-4c2e-11ee-9036-ff9878ef73e7.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage

Wonder if they will get rid of the WI-20 concurrency.  Or will it end at State Street?

Also, State Street between Marquette and Main will have a wrong way concurrency with WI-38.
Wisconsin is notoriously know for a lot of redundant and illogical concurrencies. I am not going to get into them all but the 20/32 one in Racine is a perfect example of one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on September 25, 2023, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 24, 2023, 06:24:05 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2023, 04:50:12 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 14, 2023, 04:27:10 PM
Apparently Highway 20 and Highway 32 are going to be rerouted in Racine.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/state-trunk-highways-20-and-32-to-be-removed-from-downtown/article_f847e04c-4c2e-11ee-9036-ff9878ef73e7.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage

Wonder if they will get rid of the WI-20 concurrency.  Or will it end at State Street?

Also, State Street between Marquette and Main will have a wrong way concurrency with WI-38.
Wisconsin is notoriously know for a lot of redundant and illogical concurrencies. I am not going to get into them all but the 20/32 one in Racine is a perfect example of one.

You're totally right. I know that many of these concurrencies made sense at the dawn of the state highway network, but many of them are now just remnants of a bygone era.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 03, 2023, 01:37:45 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 25, 2023, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 24, 2023, 06:24:05 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2023, 04:50:12 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 14, 2023, 04:27:10 PM
Apparently Highway 20 and Highway 32 are going to be rerouted in Racine.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/state-trunk-highways-20-and-32-to-be-removed-from-downtown/article_f847e04c-4c2e-11ee-9036-ff9878ef73e7.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage

Wonder if they will get rid of the WI-20 concurrency.  Or will it end at State Street?

Also, State Street between Marquette and Main will have a wrong way concurrency with WI-38.
Wisconsin is notoriously know for a lot of redundant and illogical concurrencies. I am not going to get into them all but the 20/32 one in Racine is a perfect example of one.

You're totally right. I know that many of these concurrencies made sense at the dawn of the state highway network, but many of them are now just remnants of a bygone era.

I think a lot of them are to route or connect state highways with a road or city. I think the Wis 20 concurrency is to connect Wis 20 with Downtown Racine and traffic can follow 20 West to I-94. Another recent example is Wis 91 in Oshkosh that runs concurrent with Wis 44 which was routed to connect Berlin with I-41. Wis 70/Wis 101, Wis 47/Wis 182 probably have dual endings to make it easier to follow one route to its destination.

Wis 32 is the only concurrency written into law because the highway had to go from Michigan to Illinois and is the only reason why it has a long concurrency with US 45. The Wis 42 original routing made the most sense along Lake Michigan from Door Co to Kenosha but fell victim to making Wis 32 mandatory to run from state line to state line.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2023, 01:57:36 PM
The STH 70/101 duplex has existed since 1949, when 70 was extended from STH 55 south of Alvin eastward to its present terminus. STH 101 has existed since STH 14 (now US 8) was rerouted at Armstrong Creek to end at STH 57 (now US 141) south of Pembine in 1923. The STH 47/182 duplex was originally a CTH-F/CTH-G duplex, before G was replaced by 182 in 1948, and 47 replaced F in 1952. Other duplexes to a common terminus include STH 71/108: co-designated since 1923 (108 was designated in 1919 and 71 was extended from Elroy to Melrose four years later); and STH 48/STH 87, also co-designated since 1923. As for STH 20, I think it should have ended at STH 32 and not been co-designated together. I'm not sure if 20 was also co-designated with 32's predecessors: STH 15 (1923-1930), STH 17 (1917-1926), and STH 42 (1930-1951). It would depend on whether those routes followed the same alignment through Racine as STH 32.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 09, 2023, 11:39:41 AM
I see WISDOT is celebrating the completion of the frontage road resurfacing in Racine County along I-94. Checked the trunkline map and they say that the frontage roads are WISDOT maintained. I wonder how WISDOT kept ownership of the road after I-94 was rebuilt? I could understand when the ramps were braided and tied into the frontage roads but they are now separated from the ramps.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 09, 2023, 12:03:13 PM
Celebrating resurfacing a roadway? I can understand celebrating the completion of a reconstructed roadway, but celebrating the completion of a resurfacing seems a little much to me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 09, 2023, 07:52:11 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 09, 2023, 11:39:41 AM
I wonder how WISDOT kept ownership of the road after I-94 was rebuilt? I could understand when the ramps were braided and tied into the frontage roads but they are now separated from the ramps.

How? It's not like WisDOT would automatically lose jurisdiction of the roadway. WisDOT could elect to transfer jurisdiction over the frontage roads to Racine County or the townships they travel through IF both parties agreed to it, but it could also elect to hang onto the roadway. Apparently WisDOT found it more expedient to maintain the frontage roads itself - and that makes sense given their symbiotic relationship to the main I-41/94 roadway, and their previous history of being the access points to the freeway.

There's other areas that download the frontage roads to local municipalities, and WisDOT has done the same elsewhere. But it's generally in areas where there's less of a need for them to be continuous or built to a particular standard.

There's also a non-zero chance in the future of I-41/94 needing further widening and requiring the ROW that the frontage roads occupy. It makes little sense to download them to local municipalties just to turn around and have to reclaim them with eminent domain.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 15, 2023, 08:51:25 AM
I've noticed the resurfaced Frontage Roads up there, and I have to say, it's hilarious how Frontage Roads get better treatment than mainline state highways in Illinois. Wonder what the IDOT-lover's take is on that one.  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 15, 2023, 12:43:45 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 15, 2023, 08:51:25 AM
I've noticed the resurfaced Frontage Roads up there, and I have to say, it's hilarious how Frontage Roads get better treatment than mainline state highways in Illinois. Wonder what the IDOT-lover's take is on that one.  :-D

I've always regarded rural IDOT state highw . . er . . routes to be a step below the average Wisconsin county highways in quality.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on October 16, 2023, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 15, 2023, 12:43:45 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 15, 2023, 08:51:25 AM
I've noticed the resurfaced Frontage Roads up there, and I have to say, it's hilarious how Frontage Roads get better treatment than mainline state highways in Illinois. Wonder what the IDOT-lover's take is on that one.  :-D

I've always regarded rural IDOT state highw . . er . . routes to be a step below the average Wisconsin county highways in quality.

Mike
But Crash It says that we are all delusional. Illinois' asphalt is great.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 16, 2023, 10:05:58 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 16, 2023, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 15, 2023, 12:43:45 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 15, 2023, 08:51:25 AM
I've noticed the resurfaced Frontage Roads up there, and I have to say, it's hilarious how Frontage Roads get better treatment than mainline state highways in Illinois. Wonder what the IDOT-lover's take is on that one.  :-D

I've always regarded rural IDOT state highw . . er . . routes to be a step below the average Wisconsin county highways in quality.

Mike
But Crash It says that we are all delusional. Illinois' asphalt is great.
Can we leave that behind?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 18, 2023, 02:08:03 PM
I noticed on US 14 west of Madison the mileage signs are replaced with a big emphasis on La Crosse. The new signs show the next nearest town and La Crosse is second now. I wonder why the change? The mileage for Spring Green was shown in Middleton but doesn't appear until after Arena with the new pattern of next city, then La Crosse.

It seems like WISDOT was removing long range mileage signs from 2 lane highways. There used to be long range mileage signs for Madison on the 2 lane stretch of US 151 west of Chilton but new signs only have mileage signs for Fond Du Lac.

Even weirder is that on US 18 in Ventura, Iowa there is a Madison 237 sign and Iowa has mileage signs to Madison. After entering Wisconsin, mileage signs to Madison on US 18 disappear until Dodgeville. Seems like the signage is very inconsistent.


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on October 18, 2023, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 18, 2023, 02:08:03 PM
Even weirder is that on US 18 in Ventura, Iowa there is a Madison 237 sign and Iowa has mileage signs to Madison. After entering Wisconsin, mileage signs to Madison on US 18 disappear until Dodgeville. Seems like the signage is very inconsistent.

Minnesota has two mileage signs for Madison on I-94 east of 494/694 in Woodbury, before those disappear in Wisconsin in favor of Eau Claire.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: thspfc on October 18, 2023, 07:53:23 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 18, 2023, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 18, 2023, 02:08:03 PM
Even weirder is that on US 18 in Ventura, Iowa there is a Madison 237 sign and Iowa has mileage signs to Madison. After entering Wisconsin, mileage signs to Madison on US 18 disappear until Dodgeville. Seems like the signage is very inconsistent.

Minnesota has two mileage signs for Madison on I-94 east of 494/694 in Woodbury, before those disappear in Wisconsin in favor of Eau Claire.
That's an interesting case. Personally, in MN I would go with Hudson - Madison - Chicago, and in WI, (next town) - Eau Claire - Madison. Dropping Chicago as you get closer is weird, but 1) the point gets across to long-distance traffic coming from/through the Twin Cities, and 2) there are many cities that are more helpful to Wisconsin natives: Eau Claire, Tomah, Wisconsin Dells, Portage, Madison, Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 19, 2023, 05:22:29 AM
Mileage signs and control cities are the strangest AARoads obsession. I don't they matter nearly as much as th bandwidth here suggests.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on October 19, 2023, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 18, 2023, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 18, 2023, 02:08:03 PM
Even weirder is that on US 18 in Ventura, Iowa there is a Madison 237 sign and Iowa has mileage signs to Madison. After entering Wisconsin, mileage signs to Madison on US 18 disappear until Dodgeville. Seems like the signage is very inconsistent.

Minnesota has two mileage signs for Madison on I-94 east of 494/694 in Woodbury, before those disappear in Wisconsin in favor of Eau Claire.

I don't think this is true anymore.  The mileage signs on I-94 itself in that stretch only list the next three exits.  On 494 and 694 approaching 94, the control cities have mostly been changed with an Eau Claire sign pasted over the top of the old Madison one.  This was done at the same time the interchange had some reconstruction done in recent years.  There is still one Madison sign that's escaped this, though I can't quite recall where exactly it is now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: EpicRoadways on October 20, 2023, 04:11:26 PM
Quote from: invincor on October 19, 2023, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 18, 2023, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 18, 2023, 02:08:03 PM
Even weirder is that on US 18 in Ventura, Iowa there is a Madison 237 sign and Iowa has mileage signs to Madison. After entering Wisconsin, mileage signs to Madison on US 18 disappear until Dodgeville. Seems like the signage is very inconsistent.

Minnesota has two mileage signs for Madison on I-94 east of 494/694 in Woodbury, before those disappear in Wisconsin in favor of Eau Claire.

I don't think this is true anymore.  The mileage signs on I-94 itself in that stretch only list the next three exits.  On 494 and 694 approaching 94, the control cities have mostly been changed with an Eau Claire sign pasted over the top of the old Madison one.  This was done at the same time the interchange had some reconstruction done in recent years.  There is still one Madison sign that's escaped this, though I can't quite recall where exactly it is now.

There were two Madison signs that survived the 494/694 interchange reconstruction. Here  (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Vh8H893mZnSpoKPK8)and here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/fmnu8FY6gucCRCj66). Both were removed as of late August as a result of a different project, but the GSV (early 2023) only shows the first of the two signs removed. A couple of references to Madison still exist on distance signs east of the 494/694 interchange before the WI border, but these signs are scheduled to be replaced as part of a reconstruction project over the next year or so. My money would be on the new signs having Eau Claire listed instead of Madison, or maybe even just opting for local roads entirely until the border.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Stephane Dumas on October 22, 2023, 09:51:48 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 09, 2023, 07:52:11 PM

There's also a non-zero chance in the future of I-41/94 needing further widening and requiring the ROW that the frontage roads occupy. It makes little sense to download them to local municipalties just to turn around and have to reclaim them with eminent domain.

Now then you mention it, I wonder if WISDOT might have some regrets to not have converted some parts of the service roads as one-way service roads like the ones on I-43 in downtown Milwaukee near Marquette University and the numerous ones in Texas?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 22, 2023, 01:40:19 PM
Texas is a unique state. They do things there they don't do elsewhere, such as building continuous frontage roads. While it would make sense to make the Interstate 41/94 frontage roads one-way, I doubt it will ever happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 22, 2023, 02:20:32 PM
I agree. The area along I-41/94 isn't so built-out that one-way frontage roads are needed. WisDOT would've had to create more over/underpasses along I-41/94 to accommodate traffic attempting to navigate to their desired destination along the frontage roads. They went to considerable expense to realign and improve the frontage road alignment during the last rebuild so that one-way frontage roads wouldn't be necessary.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 23, 2023, 10:34:05 AM
Wisconsin is reconstructing all new freeways with the most modern designs and probably spends more on interchanges than most states. There probably won't be another cloverleaf ever built and the ones that remain will be gone when there's a major reconstruction project.

With that being said Wisconsin eliminated all of the braided ramps between I-94 and the Frontage Roads and WISDOT said that they did not meet modern design standards. Yet in Texas the braided ramps remain with the on/off ramps still fed in/out of the frontage roads. If it's a dated design how does Texas continue to have off ramps merge into the frontage roads? I understand that the frontage roads are one way but separating the frontage roads and ramps would still be safer since traffic exiting a freeway has to cross over several lanes to make a right turn if there's heavy traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 23, 2023, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on October 23, 2023, 10:34:05 AM
Wisconsin is reconstructing all new freeways with the most modern designs and probably spends more on interchanges than most states. There probably won't be another cloverleaf ever built and the ones that remain will be gone when there's a major reconstruction project.

With that being said Wisconsin eliminated all of the braided ramps between I-94 and the Frontage Roads and WISDOT said that they did not meet modern design standards. Yet in Texas the braided ramps remain with the on/off ramps still fed in/out of the frontage roads. If it's a dated design how does Texas continue to have off ramps merge into the frontage roads? I understand that the frontage roads are one way but separating the frontage roads and ramps would still be safer since traffic exiting a freeway has to cross over several lanes to make a right turn if there's heavy traffic.

The biggest question in my mind as a NE WI local is the eventual fate of US 10 between I-39 and the east city limits of Stevens Point (yeah, a relatively minor local area).  The long argued and planned east bypass highway was unceremoniously NIMBYed a decade or so ago, but that traffic isn't going anywhere and that street looks like it could work as a 'Texas-style' freeway with one-way frontage roads in the urban area.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 23, 2023, 03:48:48 PM
Different mentality up here than in Texas regarding frontage roads among engineers, I suppose.  They focus on keeping freeway traffic separated from local traffic whenever they can and bring that approach to frontage roads.  It's not just avoiding the Texas-style one-way frontage roads, WisDOT seems to swing frontage roads out farther from the ramp terminals than they used to.  They're so deferential to intersection spacing on the surface road that they'll spend more money on r/w for frontage roads to build them further from the interchange then one might necessarily need to for the new configuration to function.

This makes the frontage roads longer and carves up more property lines than keeping them tight to the freeway.  But it does accomplish the goal of keeping surface traffic away from freeway traffic.

The one real example of Texas-style frontage roads is in Milwaukee along I-43 north of downtown, but even then, that was mostly an artifact of using the existing street grid to minimize r/w in an urban setting.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 23, 2023, 09:53:12 PM
One thing Texas has that Wisconsin doesn't is that requirement for property access from any road anywhere at any time. I'm quite OK with that, honestly. It's seriously expensive to build out freeways with continuous frontage roads, and the result is an endless sprawl of commercial businesses between point A and point B.

I-41/94 is more of an artifact of old-time planning than a blueprint for how a major Interstate highway *should* be built out. It was built before the Interstate system as US-41, before Interstate design standards were developed and people understood the need for limited access on such a roadway. Much of the 4-lane "expressway" US-41 was built out this way; the lessons learned from that and from roads like Madison's Beltline Highway guided how WisDOT handled later expressway builds. Namely, they give homes and businesses more space, and more aggressively practice access management.

Subsequent conversion of US-41 to an Interstate required the buildout of the frontage roads because that was cheaper than buying out every home, farm, and business along the right-of way. But the section south of Milwaukee was done in the late 1950s, when design standards were still rather lax. Continuous frontage roads with exits onto and off the main freeway aren't necessarily dated, but the design used on I-41/94 was dated. Worse, it left no room to expand the Interstate years later when it was clear even 6 lanes wasn't going to cut it. 

Wisely, I think, WisDOT made the investment to reconstruct the frontage roads properly when I-41/94 was rebuilt. While WisDOT could have emulated the Texas model, in a lot of places there simply wasn't room, and in many places they had to move the frontage roads behind properties or else buy them out. That's a seriously expensive proposition.

It made more sense to maintain the frontage roads as 2-way roadways and separate out that traffic from traffic entering and exiting the Interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2023, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 23, 2023, 09:53:12 PM
One thing Texas has that Wisconsin doesn't is that requirement for property access from any road anywhere at any time. I'm quite OK with that, honestly. It's seriously expensive to build out freeways with continuous frontage roads, and the result is an endless sprawl of commercial businesses between point A and point B.

I-41/94 is more of an artifact of old-time planning than a blueprint for how a major Interstate highway *should* be built out. It was built before the Interstate system as US-41, before Interstate design standards were developed and people understood the need for limited access on such a roadway. Much of the 4-lane "expressway" US-41 was built out this way; the lessons learned from that and from roads like Madison's Beltline Highway guided how WisDOT handled later expressway builds. Namely, they give homes and businesses more space, and more aggressively practice access management.

Subsequent conversion of US-41 to an Interstate required the buildout of the frontage roads because that was cheaper than buying out every home, farm, and business along the right-of way. But the section south of Milwaukee was done in the late 1950s, when design standards were still rather lax. Continuous frontage roads with exits onto and off the main freeway aren't necessarily dated, but the design used on I-41/94 was dated. Worse, it left no room to expand the Interstate years later when it was clear even 6 lanes wasn't going to cut it. 

Wisely, I think, WisDOT made the investment to reconstruct the frontage roads properly when I-41/94 was rebuilt. While WisDOT could have emulated the Texas model, in a lot of places there simply wasn't room, and in many places they had to move the frontage roads behind properties or else buy them out. That's a seriously expensive proposition.

It made more sense to maintain the frontage roads as 2-way roadways and separate out that traffic from traffic entering and exiting the Interstate.


Very well stated.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2023, 02:50:52 PM
Originally, US 41 started at the state line and followed existing STH 31 to STH 50, went west on 50 to 88th Ave./CTH H, went north on H to 38th St./CTH S (then STH 43 and later STH 142), and went west along present-day S to the existing Interstate 41/94 freeway before continuing north from there. The portion along the present-day Interstate 41/94 corridor was CTH W. Then in 1936, CTH W became a relocation of US 41's route, with old 41 becoming STH 31, although the portion along 88th Ave. became STH 192 in 1947 (192 become H in 1990), when 31 was relocated to follow its present-day alignment to a new terminus at STH 38. It wouldn't be extended to STH 42 (became STH 32 in 1951) until 1950.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 01, 2023, 12:25:45 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 22, 2023, 04:46:28 PM
Looks like the Wis 54/Mason Street Bridge is possibly going to be replaced in the next decade. On the NE Region project site there's a new page on a study on the bridge. No alternatives have been decided on yet. By the time the project begins the bridge will be 60 years old.

If there is reconstruction a new bridge should stay close to the current configuration with some changes. An auxiliary lane extended from Ashland Ave would be helpful since there's way more traffic from that entrance than Broadway. The Broadway half interchange probably isn't needed.

The other 2 Downtown bridges have issues with bridges opening for boats and long trains that backup traffic. Mason St is the only bridge that passes over the railway and is high enough to avoid opening for most boats, although it has to open for the occasional large ship. If the current short freeway works, why mess with it?
WisDOT is holding a public information meeting on November 14 at Washington Middle School with alternatives and public input.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on November 04, 2023, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 09, 2023, 07:52:11 PM
There's also a non-zero chance in the future of I-41/94 needing further widening and requiring the ROW that the frontage roads occupy. It makes little sense to download them to local municipalties just to turn around and have to reclaim them with eminent domain.

IMHO, if I-41/I-94 needs further widening south of Milwaukee beyond auxiliary lanes between some of the interchanges then WisDOT needs to look at making another north-south corridor more attractive such as US 45; a WI 83/WI 164 combo; or a Lake Parkway extension.  Otherwise it starts to become a repeat of the 'eggs in one basket'/funnel situation that exists with the Borman in NW Indiana where maintenance or an incident that causes a long term closure is or will be very painful.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on November 05, 2023, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 04, 2023, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 09, 2023, 07:52:11 PM
There's also a non-zero chance in the future of I-41/94 needing further widening and requiring the ROW that the frontage roads occupy. It makes little sense to download them to local municipalties just to turn around and have to reclaim them with eminent domain.

IMHO, if I-41/I-94 needs further widening south of Milwaukee beyond auxiliary lanes between some of the interchanges then WisDOT needs to look at making another north-south corridor more attractive such as US 45; a WI 83/WI 164 combo; or a Lake Parkway extension.  Otherwise it starts to become a repeat of the 'eggs in one basket'/funnel situation that exists with the Borman in NW Indiana where maintenance or an incident that causes a long term closure is or will be very painful.

One could make the case that Hwy 31 is that road as an alternate. It already is a 4 lane divided highway through Kenosha and Racine. I do like the idea of the Lake Parkway coming into Wisconsin. Perhaps tie it into Hwy 36 around Burlington and Waterford. I will work on that in the fantasy section.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 05, 2023, 03:50:26 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 05, 2023, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 04, 2023, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 09, 2023, 07:52:11 PM
There's also a non-zero chance in the future of I-41/94 needing further widening and requiring the ROW that the frontage roads occupy. It makes little sense to download them to local municipalties just to turn around and have to reclaim them with eminent domain.

IMHO, if I-41/I-94 needs further widening south of Milwaukee beyond auxiliary lanes between some of the interchanges then WisDOT needs to look at making another north-south corridor more attractive such as US 45; a WI 83/WI 164 combo; or a Lake Parkway extension.  Otherwise it starts to become a repeat of the 'eggs in one basket'/funnel situation that exists with the Borman in NW Indiana where maintenance or an incident that causes a long term closure is or will be very painful.

One could make the case that Hwy 31 is that road as an alternate. It already is a 4 lane divided highway through Kenosha and Racine. I do like the idea of the Lake Parkway coming into Wisconsin. Perhaps tie it into Hwy 36 around Burlington and Waterford. I will work on that in the fantasy section.

The chances that Illinois would play ball with a new N-S freeway are on par with pigs taking flight. I also doubt Wisconsin is all that interested in building another freeway to nowhere (like the US-12 freeway between Elkhorn and the IL state line).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 07, 2023, 12:33:32 PM
Looking at the US 10 passing lanes project I found this map of designated passing lanes corridors. I wonder how many of these roads will see additional passing lanes in the future?

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/ne/10pass/plc10.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2023, 03:34:17 PM
Since they are likely never going to expand any additional portions of US 10 from two to four lanes, they probably should build more passing lanes along Wisconsin's two-lane roadways. Also, that map is dated January 2000, so maybe some (or all) of those passing lanes projects have already been implemented.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on November 08, 2023, 08:40:10 AM
Well, I see Pierce County has some passing lanes listed on that map, and nothing has happened with that yet. 

US 10 from Prescott to Ellsworth is supposed to get redone soon.  I haven't seen passing lanes listed for that anywhere in its project files, but I guess we'll find out next year (if they stay on schedule).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 08, 2023, 09:17:37 PM
Quote from: invincor on November 08, 2023, 08:40:10 AM
Well, I see Pierce County has some passing lanes listed on that map, and nothing has happened with that yet. 

US 10 from Prescott to Ellsworth is supposed to get redone soon.  I haven't seen passing lanes listed for that anywhere in its project files, but I guess we'll find out next year (if they stay on schedule).

There are quite a few sections of US 63 that have passing lanes between US 8 and US 2. I feel like US 63 is the most underrated US highway in Wisconsin. It carries a good amount of traffic and serves quite a few northern vacation areas such as Hayward, Spooner, and Cumberland.

As for US 10, never say never on expansion. It does connect Appleton and Manitowoc. The Ariens have a goal of growing my hometown of Brillion to 5,000. I feel like that's a dream but if they'd somehow do that it would put more traffic on US 10.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 09, 2023, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 08, 2023, 09:17:37 PM
Quote from: invincor on November 08, 2023, 08:40:10 AM
Well, I see Pierce County has some passing lanes listed on that map, and nothing has happened with that yet. 

US 10 from Prescott to Ellsworth is supposed to get redone soon.  I haven't seen passing lanes listed for that anywhere in its project files, but I guess we'll find out next year (if they stay on schedule).

There are quite a few sections of US 63 that have passing lanes between US 8 and US 2. I feel like US 63 is the most underrated US highway in Wisconsin. It carries a good amount of traffic and serves quite a few northern vacation areas such as Hayward, Spooner, and Cumberland.

As for US 10, never say never on expansion. It does connect Appleton and Manitowoc. The Ariens have a goal of growing my hometown of Brillion to 5,000. I feel like that's a dream but if they'd somehow do that it would put more traffic on US 10.

For a long time now,  I have been considering it to be a complete 'natural' that US 10 between Appleton and Manitowoc become a mirror of WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan, With it being rerouted to feed into the WI 441 freeway with a new 'piggybacked' directional 'T' and street interchange at College Ave on Appleton's eastern edge, then to follow present-day Outagamie County 'CE' eastward past Kaukauna (I can't help but think of that road being a great future US 10 whenever I drive it), continuing cross-country as an upgradable 'Super-two' freeway past Hollandtown to rejoin the existing US 10 at Forest Junction.  To me, it is so 'natural' a reroute that I am very surprised that it has not yet even been talked about at informal levels locally.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 09, 2023, 03:39:25 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 08, 2023, 09:17:37 PM
Quote from: invincor on November 08, 2023, 08:40:10 AM
Well, I see Pierce County has some passing lanes listed on that map, and nothing has happened with that yet. 

US 10 from Prescott to Ellsworth is supposed to get redone soon.  I haven't seen passing lanes listed for that anywhere in its project files, but I guess we'll find out next year (if they stay on schedule).

There are quite a few sections of US 63 that have passing lanes between US 8 and US 2. I feel like US 63 is the most underrated US highway in Wisconsin. It carries a good amount of traffic and serves quite a few northern vacation areas such as Hayward, Spooner, and Cumberland.

As for US 10, never say never on expansion. It does connect Appleton and Manitowoc. The Ariens have a goal of growing my hometown of Brillion to 5,000. I feel like that's a dream but if they'd somehow do that it would put more traffic on US 10.

It's probably been about 15 years since I have been on US-63 between Spooner and Ashland, but it is a very nicely built and maintained road. I also think there isn't a highway in Wisconsin that has remained as close to its original routing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on November 17, 2023, 04:13:45 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBQdJcDN9lk

Completion of WIS 15 expansion - Outagamie County
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 17, 2023, 05:17:46 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on November 17, 2023, 04:13:45 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBQdJcDN9lk

Completion of WIS 15 expansion - Outagamie County


The long planned and anticipated Hortonville bypass.

:nod:

The WI 15/US 45 'Old' road through town is now a westward extension of Outagamie County 'JJ'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 17, 2023, 08:48:14 PM
The completed Hortonville bypass now shows up on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7471584,-81.3682678,3235m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu. The Street View for the corridor was last updated in August 2018, so we'll have to wait to see the completed four-lane roadway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 17, 2023, 08:56:04 PM
^^ Link leads me to a Hwy 321 in Hickory NC
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 17, 2023, 09:30:31 PM
DAMN GOOGLE MAPS! I was looking at US 321 in response to a thread in the Southeast Forum. Let me know if this shows Hortonville and it's new bypass: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3360799,-88.683795,9652m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 17, 2023, 11:22:25 PM
^^ Yes that is the new route, but the bypass shows no route indication and the old route, including new pavement  near the roundabouts, still is shown as hwy 15.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 24, 2023, 09:25:35 PM
Took a trip up to Green Bay/Appleton and checked out the Wis 441 and Wis 172 projects. The concrete on Wis 441 received a diamond grind up to County OO. There's extended off ramps but surprised an auxiliary lane wasn't added between KK and CE. Between OO and I-41 that was left alone since the interchange with I-41 is going to be rebuilt.

Wis 172 was resurfaced and the interchange with GV is now smooth for the 1st time in years! It had the original concrete pavement that was extremely rough. The overhead signs were changed at Wis 57/Webster Ave. The two big sign bridges were removed. A large concrete support post was built aside from the bridge for a new overhead sign for Wis 57/Webster Ave overhead exit sign. Did they think the old sign bridge added weight to the bridge?

Last year the sign bridge where the ramps at Wis 57/Webster Exits was removed and overhead signs weren't replaced until now. There's a lot smaller structure and signs were Wis 57 traffic takes the loop ramp and Webster Ave continues straight.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 24, 2023, 09:48:22 PM
I think the STH 172 freeway should get exit numbers. The numbers (from west to east) would be 5AB, 6, 7, 10, and 11AB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 24, 2023, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 24, 2023, 09:48:22 PM
I think the STH 172 freeway should get exit numbers. The numbers (from west to east) would be 5AB, 6, 7, 10, and 11AB.

Wis 441 just received exit numbers not too long ago. Although it's somewhat confusing since US 10 exit numbers are used on the US 10 stretch. It would be better to use Wis 441 numbers only so the mile markers don't go from Mile 290 to Mile 6. It's surprising that Wis 172 doesn't have any. Wis 30 has them too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Badger39 on November 25, 2023, 09:09:42 AM
Cambridge has its first set of stoplights.  They became operational this week at the US 12/18 and WI 134 intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 25, 2023, 12:04:40 PM
Quote from: Badger39 on November 25, 2023, 09:09:42 AM
Cambridge has its first set of stoplights.  They became operational this week at the US 12/18 and WI 134 intersection.

That would have been a good candidate for a roundabout.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 25, 2023, 12:09:37 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 25, 2023, 12:04:40 PM
Quote from: Badger39 on November 25, 2023, 09:09:42 AM
Cambridge has its first set of stoplights.  They became operational this week at the US 12/18 and WI 134 intersection.

That would have been a good candidate for a roundabout.

I wonder if Cambridge has long term plans for a US 12 bypass of the village.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 25, 2023, 08:43:17 PM
No bypass plans as far as I know. The US 12 Corridor Study (CTH-N to STH 26), which was completed in 2014, made some recommendations for the corridor: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12nto26/default.aspx. In the near future, though, the only planned project is to convert the US 12/18 intersection with CTH-W/Oak Park Rd. into a roundabout: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-intersection/default.aspx. Ultimately, I think the corridor should be expanded to four lanes, although I have no idea if that will ever happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 25, 2023, 08:53:49 PM
At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 26, 2023, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 25, 2023, 08:53:49 PM
At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 26, 2023, 03:21:25 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 26, 2023, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 25, 2023, 08:53:49 PM
At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike

I imagine that even if they do, any expansion of US-12 will be a non-starter now that the improvements have been made on I-90.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 27, 2023, 12:29:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 26, 2023, 03:21:25 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 26, 2023, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 25, 2023, 08:53:49 PM
At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike

I imagine that even if they do, any expansion of US-12 will be a non-starter now that the improvements have been made on I-90.

It is more local and regional traffic, not overhead through traffic, that has put the Illinois part of US 12 on the edge of breaking down.  OTOH, Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 27, 2023, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 27, 2023, 12:29:41 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 26, 2023, 03:21:25 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 26, 2023, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 25, 2023, 08:53:49 PM
At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike

I imagine that even if they do, any expansion of US-12 will be a non-starter now that the improvements have been made on I-90.

It is more local and regional traffic, not overhead through traffic, that has put the Illinois part of US 12 on the edge of breaking down.  OTOH, Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.


Pretty sure we will not see any sort of US-12 "corner cut" in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on November 27, 2023, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 26, 2023, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 25, 2023, 08:53:49 PM
At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike
All that I could see Illinois doing is building a Richmond bypass and upgrading the McHenry County portion to 4 lanes. I would like to see an interchange at IL-120 but that is doubtful.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 27, 2023, 06:38:44 PM
Is a Richmond Bypass ever going to be built? I would think the North Branch Conservation Area just south of the Illinois/Wisconsin border would be a barrier to such a bypass being built. Plus there are the matters of funding, and local opposition to such a project. The Richmond Bypass (more importantly the ill-fated Route 53/120 Project of decades past) is mentioned in this article: https://www.frrandp.com/2021/04/il53-120.html.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 27, 2023, 09:08:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 27, 2023, 12:29:41 PM
Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

That nice interstate compatible 4-lane ends at a 70 MPH freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90. There is really no reason to corner cut or do anything else with US-12 at this point. There's no return on investment there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on November 28, 2023, 12:40:21 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 27, 2023, 09:08:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 27, 2023, 12:29:41 PM
Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

That nice interstate compatible 4-lane ends at a 70 MPH freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90. There is really no reason to corner cut or do anything else with US-12 at this point. There's no return on investment there.

Eh?   I don't understand what route you're describing here.  Do you mean I-43 as the "70 mph freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90"?    The same I-43 that's headed southwest rather than northwest at that point, taking you first back down to near the state line at Beloit before you get to the nice upgraded I-90? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 28, 2023, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: invincor on November 28, 2023, 12:40:21 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 27, 2023, 09:08:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 27, 2023, 12:29:41 PM
Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

That nice interstate compatible 4-lane ends at a 70 MPH freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90. There is really no reason to corner cut or do anything else with US-12 at this point. There's no return on investment there.

Eh?   I don't understand what route you're describing here.  Do you mean I-43 as the "70 mph freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90"?    The same I-43 that's headed southwest rather than northwest at that point, taking you first back down to near the state line at Beloit before you get to the nice upgraded I-90? 

Yes, exactly. On the surface, it makes no sense. However, despite being 15 miles farther to Madison than a straight-shot drive along US-12, it's the same or similar drive time (per the Google). Ditto for Elkhorn -> Janesville.

Walworth County, despite the existence of Lake Geneva, has never quite established enough of its own demand to get a 4-lane US-12 connection to Madison. Illinois never completing its US-12 freeway killed any ambition for it on the Wisconsin side of the border. Coming from downtown Chicago, there's no advantage to diverting from either I-90 or I-94 to get to Madison.

The Madison metro area may not have the explosive growth of, say, an Austin TX, but for the Midwest it's a rapidly growing area. It's on a similar growth track as Columbus, OH, a city that is infamous on AARoads for its lack of NW/SE highway connectivity. Highway planners in the 1950s and 60s were not banking on that; otherwise a US-12 freeway to Chicago might've gotten off the table.

Janesville on its own hasn't quite driven demand for its own E/W 4-lane connection, though a 4-lane US-14 connection to I-43 keeps bubbling under the surface. It was close to happening when GM still produced vehicles there, but the plant's closure in 2008 killed it. Putting that in place would be a decent consolation prize, but not holding my breath for that. 4-laning Hwy 26 doesn't help that cause; doing that solved the issue of Janesville not having a 4-lane connection to Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on November 28, 2023, 02:34:37 PM
US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn is the proposal that was most seriously considered. There was a study but was shelved. I wouldn't be surprised if it's resurrected. Marshfield got US 10 to be upgraded arguing that it was the largest city without a 4 lane highway. That crown now goes to Whitewater and an upgraded US 12 would connect it with I-43. The mapped corridor is also there.

Northwest of Whitewater, there probably won't be any improvements. Traffic heading to Madison takes County N/Wis 59 to I-39/I-90 between Whitewater and Madison. US 12 serves mostly local traffic in that area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 28, 2023, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on November 28, 2023, 02:34:37 PM
US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn is the proposal that was most seriously considered. There was a study but was shelved. I wouldn't be surprised if it's resurrected. Marshfield got US 10 to be upgraded arguing that it was the largest city without a 4 lane highway. That crown now goes to Whitewater and an upgraded US 12 would connect it with I-43. The mapped corridor is also there.

Northwest of Whitewater, there probably won't be any improvements. Traffic heading to Madison takes County N/Wis 59 to I-39/I-90 between Whitewater and Madison. US 12 serves mostly local traffic in that area.


Just because its the largest city without a four lane highway it doesn't mean that its worthy of a four lane highway. And US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater is really only bogged down through the Lauderdale Lakes area - which makes we wonder if a corner cut will actually do much.,
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 28, 2023, 06:14:31 PM
And yet US 10 to Marshfield sees little traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 28, 2023, 06:58:01 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 28, 2023, 06:14:31 PM
And yet US 10 to Marshfield sees little traffic.

US 10 between I-39 and Marshfield exists for other reasons than purely traffic volume. It provides an additional Wisconsin River crossing where there are few other crossings available. It removed several railroad crossings. It removes through traffic from Stevens Point, as well as four towns in-between Marshfield and Stevens Point. Also, traffic was ultimately heavy enough that a 2-lane highway (and its attendant speed limit reduction) was going to be inadequate.

I think the Elkhorn-Whitewater "Corner Cut" would be worthwhile in 2-lane form to get through traffic out of the Lauderdale Lakes area. Beyond that, the existing connections to Madison via Hwy 59/County N, I-43 to US-14, or existing US-12 are adequate as-is.

I don't doubt that, "someday", traffic demand will rise to the point that a 4-lane US-12 east of Madison to Elkhorn gets built. But there's enough redundancy in the existing road network that "someday" will unlikely be during our lifetimes. It's also more likely that this 4-lane roadway could manifest itself as a Edgerton -> Whitewater -> Elkhorn connection first, rather than a 4-lane connecting through Fort Atkinson or Cambridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 29, 2023, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 28, 2023, 06:58:01 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 28, 2023, 06:14:31 PM
And yet US 10 to Marshfield sees little traffic.

US 10 between I-39 and Marshfield exists for other reasons than purely traffic volume. It provides an additional Wisconsin River crossing where there are few other crossings available. It removed several railroad crossings. It removes through traffic from Stevens Point, as well as four towns in-between Marshfield and Stevens Point. Also, traffic was ultimately heavy enough that a 2-lane highway (and its attendant speed limit reduction) was going to be inadequate.

I think the Elkhorn-Whitewater "Corner Cut" would be worthwhile in 2-lane form to get through traffic out of the Lauderdale Lakes area. Beyond that, the existing connections to Madison via Hwy 59/County N, I-43 to US-14, or existing US-12 are adequate as-is.

I don't doubt that, "someday", traffic demand will rise to the point that a 4-lane US-12 east of Madison to Elkhorn gets built. But there's enough redundancy in the existing road network that "someday" will unlikely be during our lifetimes. It's also more likely that this 4-lane roadway could manifest itself as a Edgerton -> Whitewater -> Elkhorn connection first, rather than a 4-lane connecting through Fort Atkinson or Cambridge.

I just can't see the corner cut as a big priority given the costs. US-12 is busy through Lauderdale Lakes, especially in the summer, but isn't awful during the rest of the year.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2023, 11:37:15 AM
I wonder if the DOT will eventually construct a roundabout at the US 12/STH 20/STH 67 intersection. It would be the ideal place for one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 29, 2023, 12:32:17 PM
Quote from: invincor on November 28, 2023, 12:40:21 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 27, 2023, 09:08:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 27, 2023, 12:29:41 PM
Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

That nice interstate compatible 4-lane ends at a 70 MPH freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90. There is really no reason to corner cut or do anything else with US-12 at this point. There's no return on investment there.

Eh?   I don't understand what route you're describing here.  Do you mean I-43 as the "70 mph freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90"?    The same I-43 that's headed southwest rather than northwest at that point, taking you first back down to near the state line at Beloit before you get to the nice upgraded I-90? 

The same one that, while slightly longer in mileage, is faster than the current route. So you get the faster travel time with none of the expense or hassle of a redundant upgrade.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 29, 2023, 01:15:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2023, 11:37:15 AM
I wonder if the DOT will eventually construct a roundabout at the US 12/STH 20/STH 67 intersection. It would be the ideal place for one.

Even if/when the 'corner cut' is built, I fully agree, a roundabout at that intersection is a 'no brainer'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on November 30, 2023, 01:18:57 PM
Just fyi, this week's new episode of "Control City Freak" on YouTube is all about WIS 29.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 30, 2023, 01:36:57 PM
Before the expansion to four lanes, STH 29 had some pretty grisly accidents. It was nicknamed "Bloody 29": https://www.wisconsinhighways.org/listings/WiscHwys20-29.html#STH-029. The expansion was badly needed, although I doubt it will ever be expanded to four lanes west of Elk Mound, or east of Green Bay. There will probably be further upgrades in the long-term future, such as replacing intersections with interchanges, grade-separations and cul-du-sacs. I doubt it will ever become an Interstate, though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on November 30, 2023, 01:45:19 PM
Quote from: invincor on November 30, 2023, 01:18:57 PM
Just fyi, this week's new episode of "Control City Freak" on YouTube is all about WIS 29.

What's there to discuss? The control cities are exactly what they should be on that route, as it relates to the 4-lane section which will likely be 95% of the content. I suppose you could swap Spring Valley for River Falls where it goes west from WIS 25 in Menomonie, but 2-lane rural roads are more of a crapshoot in terms of what's sensible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 30, 2023, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 30, 2023, 01:36:57 PM
There will probably be further upgrades in the long-term future, such as replacing intersections with interchanges, grade-separations and cul-du-sacs. I doubt it will ever become an Interstate, though.

I'll file a Hwy 29 Interstate under "Never say never". Traffic loads are low enough that WisDOT can probably maintain significant sections as expressway for the next 50+ years without much of a safety problem. If WisDOT ever reaches the point where it's converted the entire highway to Interstate-compatible freeway, however, I see no reason not to designate it I-96. Yes, it would be another intrastate Interstate designated I-96 - and it would be longer than the one in Michigan.

Based on traffic counts, however, I foresee first US-10 between Stevens Point and Appleton getting an 3-digit Interstate designation (I-441, perhaps?). This is assuming, of course, that the local support for such a designation is there. US-10 west of I-39 and east of Hwy 441 is a relatively minor route, so I see no reason to reserve a 2di Interstate designation for this section of US-10/Hwy 441 as it's only 72 miles, but it's a logical 3di Interstate routing. This could be possible within the next 20-30 years.

I also foresee US-151 getting the Interstate banner before Hwy 29, again based on traffic counts. It's also a regionally important roadway, with connections to important cities in Iowa. I expect this is more of a 50-60 year timeline; while US-151/Hwy 23 will likely be all-freeway between Sheboygan and Dodgeville in 20-30 years, the section west of Dodgeville is low traffic and unlikely to go full freeway. It would seem unlikely that anyone would push for Interstate status until most of the route is all-freeway (ala US-41).

The only other remotely feasible roadway for Interstate status would be US-12 between the Dells and I-39/90 in Madison, but there's still freaking stoplights on it, and even a 2-lane section. Not to mention, WisDOT's not going to force the Beltline to be fully Interstate-compatible. Maybe opinions will change in 50 years, but even if it's made all-freeway I'm not seeing it.

Beyond the above routes, any other Interstate routing is purely in Fictional territory. One could draw a line on a map connecting Superior, Eau Claire, La Crosse, and Dubuque to St. Louis via US-53, US-61, and US-67, but that's fictional as hell (and made largely redundant by the Avenue of the Saints corridor). Nobody is building an Interstate north of Hwy 29 in our lifetime. WisDOT hasn't felt compelled to designate any other corridor for 4-laning that would make any sense even as a line on a map.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 30, 2023, 08:08:16 PM
I can someday see WI 29 becoming a full interstate, but not with the '96' number, existing WI 96 is too close, runs east-west and it could confuse users. I can also see it becoming an eastward extension of US 212.  BTW, my sense is that WisDOT is taking the same attitude WRT WI 29 between I-41 and I-94 that they took with what is now I-41, eliminate the intersections as as conditions warrant and finances allow.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 30, 2023, 09:57:53 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 30, 2023, 08:08:16 PM
I can someday see WI 29 becoming a full interstate, but not with the '96' number, existing WI 96 is too close, runs east-west and it could confuse users.
At least not like Georgia where GA Rte 85 runs parallel and close to I-85 southwest of Atlanta.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 01, 2023, 12:05:55 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 30, 2023, 08:08:16 PM
I can someday see WI 29 becoming a full interstate, but not with the '96' number, existing WI 96 is too close, runs east-west and it could confuse users. I can also see it becoming an eastward extension of US 212.  BTW, my sense is that WisDOT is taking the same attitude WRT WI 29 between I-41 and I-94 that they took with what is now I-41, eliminate the intersections as as conditions warrant and finances allow.

Mike

What would be the point of Wis 29 being an eastward extension of US 212? There's no reason to renumber Wis 29 and will stay that way for years to come. It's already a free flowing route with no stops between I-94 and Green Bay. Upgrading to full freeway wouldn't improve the flow of traffic much at all. Busier intersections will continue to be upgraded to interchanges but many of the side roads in rural areas don't handle much cross traffic to impact the flow of the mainline traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 09:00:40 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 01, 2023, 12:05:55 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 30, 2023, 08:08:16 PM
I can someday see WI 29 becoming a full interstate, but not with the '96' number, existing WI 96 is too close, runs east-west and it could confuse users. I can also see it becoming an eastward extension of US 212.  BTW, my sense is that WisDOT is taking the same attitude WRT WI 29 between I-41 and I-94 that they took with what is now I-41, eliminate the intersections as as conditions warrant and finances allow.

Mike

What would be the point of Wis 29 being an eastward extension of US 212? There's no reason to renumber Wis 29 and will stay that way for years to come. It's already a free flowing route with no stops between I-94 and Green Bay. Upgrading to full freeway wouldn't improve the flow of traffic much at all. Busier intersections will continue to be upgraded to interchanges but many of the side roads in rural areas don't handle much cross traffic to impact the flow of the mainline traffic.


And the traffic on US-41 was significantly higher than WI-29 is now.  Even the least travelled portions of I-41 have 30,000 vpd. Portions of WI-29 have only 10-12,000.  WIDOT will add exits as needed, but I can't imagine that some of the more rural sections are ever going to need to be full freeway. So I can't see WI-29 becoming an interstate anytime soon.  If I were to actually pick the next highway to become a full, interstate compatible freeway, it would be US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac.

But anyway, I think WIDOT should be focusing its major project resources on increasing the capacity of the current interstates in place. Not creating new ones.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on December 01, 2023, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 09:00:40 AM

But anyway, I think WIDOT should be focusing its major project resources on increasing the capacity of the current interstates in place. Not creating new ones.

Agreed.  The number 1 priority imo should be adding lanes to I-94.  It should be at least three lanes each direction everywhere in the state except maybe the part between Eau Claire and the Dells.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 01, 2023, 01:18:15 PM
Quote from: invincor on December 01, 2023, 10:19:29 AM
The number 1 priority imo should be adding lanes to I-94.  It should be at least three lanes each direction everywhere in the state except maybe the part between Eau Claire and the Dells Tomah.

Fixed that for ya.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 01, 2023, 03:35:55 PM
Interstate 94 should also be three lanes in each direction from Madison to Milwaukee. Maybe it will eventually need to be at least three lanes in each direction throughout the entire state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 01, 2023, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.

Next priority for 3x3 is Portage to The Dells.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 01, 2023, 06:18:56 PM
I just hit the rebuilt section un US-12 yesterday between Whitewater and Fort. They did a nice job. The only major change is that they put a curve at the end of Hackbarth so that it meets US-12 at a "tee" instead of at an angle. They also put in a very welcome left turn lane there going from WB US-12 onto Hackbarth.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 02, 2023, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.
/


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.

Over the past couple of decades, WisDOT has also rebuilt some of the bridges along the way to be more 'drop in' degradable to six lanes (ie, at WI 26).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 03:52:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.

Pretty soon the pavement is going to have to be replaced. Resurfacings aren't lasting very long. There are bridge and interchange replacements that are happening. Wis 73 interchange is next up. A lot of the pavement on I-94 is being replaced because of the same problem in Northwest Wisconsin. Pretty soon the same thing is going to happen between Madison and Waukesha.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 02, 2023, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
They should have done it between Waukesha and Oconomowoc and forgot about the Waukesha bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on December 03, 2023, 06:41:35 AM
Quote from: invincor on December 01, 2023, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 09:00:40 AM

But anyway, I think WIDOT should be focusing its major project resources on increasing the capacity of the current interstates in place. Not creating new ones.

Agreed.  The number 1 priority imo should be adding lanes to I-94.  It should be at least three lanes each direction everywhere in the state except maybe the part between Eau Claire and the Dells.
90/94 should be 6 lanes from Portage to Tomah. You could leave the rest of 94 as 4 lanes north of there until Wis 29 and then have it 6 lanes into Minnesota from there.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 03, 2023, 01:26:31 PM
I've noticed on the recent reconstruction work on 94 around Osseo they left space on the Buffalo River bridges for 6 lanes, so maybe Wisconsin is thinking about the jugular on this some distant future day...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 03, 2023, 03:45:38 PM
I think that's pretty much SOP when WIDOT replaces an interstate bridge now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 03, 2023, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2023, 01:26:31 PM
I've noticed on the recent reconstruction work on 94 around Osseo they left space on the Buffalo River bridges for 6 lanes, so maybe Wisconsin is thinking about the jugular on this some distant future day...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 03, 2023, 03:45:38 PM
I think that's pretty much SOP when WIDOT replaces an interstate bridge now.

They may not necessarily  make the deck extra wide, but they'll make the piers wide enough that they can easily widen the deck later.

Interestingly, building extra-wide bridges doesn't always pay off. I-39/90 between Janesville and Madison had several bridges that were redecked (I assume in the late '80s or early '90s) for 6 lanes wide that ended up being replaced outright when the widening finally happened in the late 2010s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 03, 2023, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 02, 2023, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
They should have done it between Waukesha and Oconomowoc and forgot about the Waukesha bypass.

The Waukesha Bypass was needed. Traffic counts now support that. If you look at the remnants of Merrill Hills Rd., you're surprised that the accident count wasn't much higher than it was. There's no getting around the fact that Merrill Hills was a major route, and it allowed Waukesha to remove US-18 from town. It was money well spent (and split between the state, county, and city, so that money wouldn't have covered much of anything on 94).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 04, 2023, 04:07:50 PM
My mother and I use the West Waukesha Bypass when visiting family in the area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 05, 2023, 01:54:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2023, 01:26:31 PM
I've noticed on the recent reconstruction work on 94 around Osseo they left space on the Buffalo River bridges for 6 lanes, so maybe Wisconsin is thinking about the jugular on this some distant future day...

The wide bridges are used now for when there's reconstruction and traffic is moved to one side of the freeway. I've noticed this as sections of I-94 are undergoing pavement replacement in Northwest Wisconsin and I-94 between Madison and Waukesha. Eventhough it seems like 6 lane expansion is no where in sight I do notice that WISDOT is making an effort to keep
Work zones at 2 lanes in each direction on I-94. There were even temporary eastbound lanes built by Osseo. Question is if it's that easy to build the temporary lanes why not use the bed for a permanent 3rd lane?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 07, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2023, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 02, 2023, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
They should have done it between Waukesha and Oconomowoc and forgot about the Waukesha bypass.

The Waukesha Bypass was needed. Traffic counts now support that. If you look at the remnants of Merrill Hills Rd., you're surprised that the accident count wasn't much higher than it was. There's no getting around the fact that Merrill Hills was a major route, and it allowed Waukesha to remove US-18 from town. It was money well spent (and split between the state, county, and city, so that money wouldn't have covered much of anything on 94).
But how many people took Hwy 18 and followed it all the way through town to the other side? Anyone doing that might as well just take I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 06:51:21 PM
If I remember correctly, US 18 was decommissioned within the city of Waukesha around the same time as STH 74 was decommissioned (and partially redesignated as an extension of CTH F), which would have been in 2015. The decommissioning of 74 and 18 through Waukesha was to free up state highway mileage to designate Meadowbrook Rd. as STH 318, and for US 18 to bypass Waukesha once the West Waukesha Bypass had been completed. I believe the West Waukesha Bypass should have been constructed decades ago, maybe when the pre-existing Les Paul Parkway was still designated CTH A.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2023, 08:01:15 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 07, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2023, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 02, 2023, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
They should have done it between Waukesha and Oconomowoc and forgot about the Waukesha bypass.

The Waukesha Bypass was needed. Traffic counts now support that. If you look at the remnants of Merrill Hills Rd., you're surprised that the accident count wasn't much higher than it was. There's no getting around the fact that Merrill Hills was a major route, and it allowed Waukesha to remove US-18 from town. It was money well spent (and split between the state, county, and city, so that money wouldn't have covered much of anything on 94).
But how many people took Hwy 18 and followed it all the way through town to the other side? Anyone doing that might as well just take I-94.


Bypassing around the city on US-18 isn't the only reason for the bypass.  In fact, looking at traffic count maps, 15-20,000 people a day use the west bypass. It looks like a significant portion use it to go from I-94 to south of Waukesha. And that makes perfect sense considering how the lake country and Waukesha County have exploded in population.

Building this bypass seems like a no-brainer to me. It should have been done years ago when they put the rest of the bypass in.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 08, 2023, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2023, 08:01:15 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 07, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2023, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 02, 2023, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
They should have done it between Waukesha and Oconomowoc and forgot about the Waukesha bypass.

The Waukesha Bypass was needed. Traffic counts now support that. If you look at the remnants of Merrill Hills Rd., you're surprised that the accident count wasn't much higher than it was. There's no getting around the fact that Merrill Hills was a major route, and it allowed Waukesha to remove US-18 from town. It was money well spent (and split between the state, county, and city, so that money wouldn't have covered much of anything on 94).
But how many people took Hwy 18 and followed it all the way through town to the other side? Anyone doing that might as well just take I-94.


Bypassing around the city on US-18 isn't the only reason for the bypass.  In fact, looking at traffic count maps, 15-20,000 people a day use the west bypass. It looks like a significant portion use it to go from I-94 to south of Waukesha. And that makes perfect sense considering how the lake country and Waukesha County have exploded in population.

Building this bypass seems like a no-brainer to me. It should have been done years ago when they put the rest of the bypass in.

I still remember seeing planning maps of that bypass back in the 1980s and thinking that 'that is just one of the many previously planned Milwaukee area freeways that won't be built'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2023, 02:35:46 PM
The DOT website has a survey for the release of the 2025 State Highway Map: https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/95f265fe0ff84b2e8fb5bb9844413bfa. If anyone is interested, submit your replies.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 09, 2023, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 07, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2023, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 02, 2023, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
They should have done it between Waukesha and Oconomowoc and forgot about the Waukesha bypass.

The Waukesha Bypass was needed. Traffic counts now support that. If you look at the remnants of Merrill Hills Rd., you're surprised that the accident count wasn't much higher than it was. There's no getting around the fact that Merrill Hills was a major route, and it allowed Waukesha to remove US-18 from town. It was money well spent (and split between the state, county, and city, so that money wouldn't have covered much of anything on 94).
But how many people took Hwy 18 and followed it all the way through town to the other side? Anyone doing that might as well just take I-94.

Not the point. This allowed the city to have WisDOT fix Summit Ave and then transfer it to the city. They'll no longer have to be held to WisDOT's standards on parking, design, etc. This whole project was essentially a win for everyone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 09, 2023, 11:30:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2023, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2023, 08:01:15 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 07, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2023, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 02, 2023, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
They should have done it between Waukesha and Oconomowoc and forgot about the Waukesha bypass.

The Waukesha Bypass was needed. Traffic counts now support that. If you look at the remnants of Merrill Hills Rd., you're surprised that the accident count wasn't much higher than it was. There's no getting around the fact that Merrill Hills was a major route, and it allowed Waukesha to remove US-18 from town. It was money well spent (and split between the state, county, and city, so that money wouldn't have covered much of anything on 94).
But how many people took Hwy 18 and followed it all the way through town to the other side? Anyone doing that might as well just take I-94.


Bypassing around the city on US-18 isn't the only reason for the bypass.  In fact, looking at traffic count maps, 15-20,000 people a day use the west bypass. It looks like a significant portion use it to go from I-94 to south of Waukesha. And that makes perfect sense considering how the lake country and Waukesha County have exploded in population.

Building this bypass seems like a no-brainer to me. It should have been done years ago when they put the rest of the bypass in.

I still remember seeing planning maps of that bypass back in the 1980s and thinking that 'that is just one of the many previously planned Milwaukee area freeways that won't be built'.

Mike

The bypass was never intended to be a freeway. That would've never gone through. You might be thinking of the proposed Belt Freeway that would've been further east through Menomonee Falls and Brookfield. If that had been built it would've basically been in our backyard in Brookfield. It's also one of the reasons we still had farm fields behind our house into the 1990s and was some of the last land to be developed in Brookfield and was near where the potential interchange with I-94 would've gone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 10, 2023, 10:19:38 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 09, 2023, 11:30:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2023, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2023, 08:01:15 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 07, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2023, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 02, 2023, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 02, 2023, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 02, 2023, 12:23:16 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 01, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Well the top priority right now is I-41 expansion between Appleton and De Pere. But my guess is that three laning I-94 will gradually go east from Madison and west from Milwaukee.


It doesn't seem like WISDOT has any studies or interest in rebuilding I-94 between Madison and Waukesha but it should. The roadbed is shot and resurfacings don't last long anymore. Many of the interchanges are outdated especially at County C in Delafield. Here's the rankings right now in rebuilds based on construction:

1. I-41 between Appleton and De Pere: project approved
2. I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River Bridges wide enough for 8 lanes: project approved
3. I-94 between the Zoo and Marquette Interchanges: Ongoing study and is actively being pursued.
4. I-90 between Wis Dells and The Beltline: Currently being studied for expansion
\


Resources are limited so I get why the above are the current priorities.  A much as I agree that I-94 between Madison and Waukesha needs to be rebuilt and expanded, there just isn't enough to go around right now. And the current capacity is by and large fine for the time being.
They should have done it between Waukesha and Oconomowoc and forgot about the Waukesha bypass.

The Waukesha Bypass was needed. Traffic counts now support that. If you look at the remnants of Merrill Hills Rd., you're surprised that the accident count wasn't much higher than it was. There's no getting around the fact that Merrill Hills was a major route, and it allowed Waukesha to remove US-18 from town. It was money well spent (and split between the state, county, and city, so that money wouldn't have covered much of anything on 94).
But how many people took Hwy 18 and followed it all the way through town to the other side? Anyone doing that might as well just take I-94.


Bypassing around the city on US-18 isn't the only reason for the bypass.  In fact, looking at traffic count maps, 15-20,000 people a day use the west bypass. It looks like a significant portion use it to go from I-94 to south of Waukesha. And that makes perfect sense considering how the lake country and Waukesha County have exploded in population.

Building this bypass seems like a no-brainer to me. It should have been done years ago when they put the rest of the bypass in.

I still remember seeing planning maps of that bypass back in the 1980s and thinking that 'that is just one of the many previously planned Milwaukee area freeways that won't be built'.

Mike

The bypass was never intended to be a freeway. That would've never gone through. You might be thinking of the proposed Belt Freeway that would've been further east through Menomonee Falls and Brookfield. If that had been built it would've basically been in our backyard in Brookfield. It's also one of the reasons we still had farm fields behind our house into the 1990s and was some of the last land to be developed in Brookfield and was near where the potential interchange with I-94 would've gone.
It was proposed to be built very close to where I live too. Like 3/4 of a mile west.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 11, 2023, 12:45:26 PM
This was the proposed alignment for the Belt Freeway: https://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/belt.html. And here is the Mequon Rd. overpass, which provides the only evidence that the Belt Freeway was ever proposed to exist: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2217212,-88.1570971,3a,75y,167.1h,74.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szzeBoLsdse7LXg5PmOQ6kw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. The bridge is currently under construction, and I think the space within the overpass where the freeway-to-freeway ramps would have been constructed will be filled in, since obviously the Belt Freeway is permanently dead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 11, 2023, 01:51:26 PM
I was thinking about the Waukesha bypass.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on December 11, 2023, 08:09:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 11, 2023, 12:45:26 PM
This was the proposed alignment for the Belt Freeway: https://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/belt.html. And here is the Mequon Rd. overpass, which provides the only evidence that the Belt Freeway was ever proposed to exist: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2217212,-88.1570971,3a,75y,167.1h,74.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szzeBoLsdse7LXg5PmOQ6kw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. The bridge is currently under construction, and I think the space within the overpass where the freeway-to-freeway ramps would have been constructed will be filled in, since obviously the Belt Freeway is permanently dead.

The bridge work is done, and they left the space on both sides open.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 12, 2023, 03:15:12 PM
The Mequon Rd. overpass is not far from a former state highway alignment. From 1926 to 1953, present-day Hilltop Rd. (south of Interstate 41/US 41/US 45) and present-day Goldendale Rd. (north of Interstate 41/US 41/US 45) was numbered STH 165. It connected US 41 (now STH 175) with US 45/STH 55 (now STH 145). When the new 41/45 alignment was constructed, 165 was severed on both sides and thus decommissioned (165 would be recommissioned in its present location in 1989).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 13, 2023, 02:13:29 PM
Wis 11/Wis 81 near Broadhead is becoming a 4 way stop because the County Highway Commission petitioned the state after 6 deaths in the last 3 years at that intersection. There will be a roundabout built in 2027.

https://www.nbc15.com/2023/12/10/wis-dot-turning-deadly-green-co-intersection-into-four-way-stop/?outputType=amp
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 13, 2023, 03:03:27 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 13, 2023, 02:13:29 PM
Wis 11/Wis 81 near Broadhead is becoming a 4 way stop because the County Highway Commission petitioned the state after 6 deaths in the last 3 years at that intersection. There will be a roundabout built in 2027.

https://www.nbc15.com/2023/12/10/wis-dot-turning-deadly-green-co-intersection-into-four-way-stop/?outputType=amp


GG is the former routing of WI-11 into Broadhead where it entered town from the west then headed north on the current routing.  In the early 80s, they relocated WI-11 to its current routing so traffic could move straight through town.  Ironically they made that intersection more dangerous in the process.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 13, 2023, 06:21:52 PM
The project turning the STH-11/STH-81/CTH-GG intersection into a roundabout isn't presently listed on the DOT website. The only project close to this intersection is a proposed roundabout being constructed just to the east at the STH-81/CTH-T intersection in 2026: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/wis81-countyt/default.aspx. Maybe the project will show up on the DOT website next year. In any event, a four-way stop should have been implemented long ago, since the intersection is so dangerous.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 14, 2023, 01:10:25 AM

If Wis 11 was going to be rerouted anyways why wasn't a bypass of Broadhead built? I'm guessing this is when big plans for Wis 11 were scaled back. There's 4 land ROW from that intersection west to the 4 lane Monroe Bypass that probably won't be used.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 14, 2023, 01:31:02 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 14, 2023, 01:10:25 AM


If Wis 11 was going to be rerouted anyways why wasn't a bypass of Broadhead built? I'm guessing this is when big plans for Wis 11 were scaled back. There's 4 land ROW from that intersection west to the 4 lane Monroe Bypass that probably won't be used.

GG is the former routing of WI-11 into Broadhead where it entered town from the west then headed north on the current routing.  In the early 80s, they relocated WI-11 to its current routing so traffic could move straight through town.  Ironically they made that intersection more dangerous in the process.

Yea, WI 11 to the east was originally planned to run due eastward from Brodhead's south edge, continuing halfway between Janesville and Beloit and feeding into the WI 15 freeway (now I-43) at Clinton, WI.  It was planned in the 1950s/1960s era to be a freeway/expressway to run across the south edge of the state from Milwaukee to Dubuque,IA.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on December 14, 2023, 08:54:48 AM
It would be interesting if that actually happened and the fastest way from Dubuque to Chicago was through Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 14, 2023, 12:27:37 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 14, 2023, 08:54:48 AM
It would be interesting if that actually happened and the fastest way from Dubuque to Chicago was through Wisconsin.

Illinois would have certainly hopped to it and made similar improvements in the US 20 corridor, perhaps even including the ISTHA in the mix.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 14, 2023, 12:31:01 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 13, 2023, 02:13:29 PM
Wis 11/Wis 81 near Broadhead is becoming a 4 way stop because the County Highway Commission petitioned the state after 6 deaths in the last 3 years at that intersection. There will be a roundabout built in 2027.

https://www.nbc15.com/2023/12/10/wis-dot-turning-deadly-green-co-intersection-into-four-way-stop/?outputType=amp

Good. That intersection felt quite sketchy when I've been through there. The angles and traffic volumes warrant something more. A roundabout would probably be the best solution, so hopefully that'll happen by the end of the decade.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 14, 2023, 02:19:54 PM
I wonder if the STH-11/STH-104/CTH-T intersection in Broadhead will also eventually be converted into a roundabout?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on December 15, 2023, 08:52:39 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 05, 2023, 01:54:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2023, 01:26:31 PM
I've noticed on the recent reconstruction work on 94 around Osseo they left space on the Buffalo River bridges for 6 lanes, so maybe Wisconsin is thinking about the jugular on this some distant future day...

The wide bridges are used now for when there's reconstruction and traffic is moved to one side of the freeway. I've noticed this as sections of I-94 are undergoing pavement replacement in Northwest Wisconsin and I-94 between Madison and Waukesha. Eventhough it seems like 6 lane expansion is no where in sight I do notice that WISDOT is making an effort to keep
Work zones at 2 lanes in each direction on I-94. There were even temporary eastbound lanes built by Osseo. Question is if it's that easy to build the temporary lanes why not use the bed for a permanent 3rd lane?

Hi there, I actually worked alongside the NW region planning engineer in my previous position at WisDOT, and specifically asked about these wide bridges. The short answer is yes, the bridges are expected to last 50+ years, so all the 94 bridges being reconstructed as well as new overpasses are being constructed in such a way to allow for 3 driving lanes and a full hard shoulder when 3-laning commences at some point likely in the 2030s. An added benefit of this is that yes, they are able to run 4 lane bidirectional traffic over one of these bridges without a hard shoulder. I'd estimate 85-90% of the bridges between Hudson & Eau Claire are ready, and closer to 70% between Eau Claire and Portage. I know an upcoming major bridge project on the horizon locally will be the Chippewa River bridges in Eau Claire, which are currently 2 lanes with no hard shoulder. Regarding the temporary lanes, I want to say the recent projects in Dunn and St. Croix County included grading specifically for the new 3rd lane to come, especially around Roberts and the Knapp hill. I think we are closer than many think to shovels in the ground with this. The biggest hurdles have been replacing the original concrete (almost completely done), and the structures.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on December 15, 2023, 11:57:38 PM
Hi all,

I'd like to become more involved with this thread again. Moved to an FTE position with DOT in NW Region at the beginning of the year and have been busy as all heck this year. Without bumping too much and backtracking through this years thread pages, I'd like to just touch on some updates locally that I'm aware of. If any of these have already been shared, please forgive me.

Waterborne paint went from 4" and 8" to 6" and 10" statewide for the 2023 painting season for retraces. 6/10 inch paint should've been included in all November 2023 let projects for next year. All epoxy retraces moving forward will be 6/10 inch. Freeway/Interstate lane lines (skips) for concrete surfaces will be moving from the former 2+4+2 black+white+black "oreo" pattern will now be painted in white/black lag full 6" pattern, like our neighbors down south and potentially elsewhere. Please let me know where you see the first application of this!

In the Chippewa Valley specifically, a handful of intersections have been upgraded from protected only left turns to time-of-day flashing yellow arrow signal heads. Single left turn lanes are for the most part getting 24H leading protected/permissive phasing, dual left turns get protected only from 6a-9p, run free protected/permissive 9-6. Some intersections these have been or will be completed are:

STH 178 & CTH I
STH 178 & STH 29NB & SB ramps
STH 124 & CTH J
STH 124 & CTH OO
STH 124 & Commercial Blvd
River Prairie Dr & USH 53 NB ramp
STH 35 & STH 54
STH 54 & USH 53 at Galesville

Boyceville, WI got its first signal this at the tail end of last year.

It was recently discovered to me that 10 years ago a traffic study was done for the USH 53 & Golf Rd interchange in Eau Claire, among other improvements along CTH AA and Golf Road, the long-term preferred alternative for the interchange is to construct a DDI. I suspect this will happen whenever that overpass gets replaced or traffic gets substantially worse. This whole area is already horribly over capacity on a normal weekend. It's my understanding that any upgrades in this areas are on hold until it is more clear what the future of the declining Oakwood mall brings. A redevelopment plan by the city was in the works but I've not heard any further on that.

The CTH T corridor from USH 12/CTH 312 in Eau Claire to STH 29 in the Town of Wheaton has been officially mapped with construction hopefully commencing before 2030 to widen the highway to a 4 lane divided expressway, with a few intersection closures and roundabouts for those that remain. An overpass at the railroad is also planned. The addition of the Country Jam USA music festival to this area of town will likely accelerate this project. Previous talks within the DOT suggested realigning US 12 down this new divided highway, and terminating CTH T at STH 29. To satisfy Elk Mound, DOT would to extend STH 40 from its current southern terminus at STH 29, onto the freshly vacated former USH 12 through Elk Mound and terminate STH 40 at STH 312 just east of I-94 in Eau Claire. It is my understanding that Dunn and Chippewa county were not fully onboard with this for some reason. These talks likely happened many years ago at this point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on December 16, 2023, 12:35:33 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on December 15, 2023, 11:57:38 PM
The CTH T corridor from USH 12/CTH 312 in Eau Claire to STH 29 in the Town of Wheaton has been officially mapped with construction hopefully commencing before 2030 to widen the highway to a 4 lane divided expressway, with a few intersection closures and roundabouts for those that remain. An overpass at the railroad is also planned. The addition of the Country Jam USA music festival to this area of town will likely accelerate this project. Previous talks within the DOT suggested realigning US 12 down this new divided highway, and terminating CTH T at STH 29. To satisfy Elk Mound, DOT would to extend STH 40 from its current southern terminus at STH 29, onto the freshly vacated former USH 12 through Elk Mound and terminate STH 40 at STH 312 just east of I-94 in Eau Claire. It is my understanding that Dunn and Chippewa county were not fully onboard with this for some reason. These talks likely happened many years ago at this point.
Interesting news. Any upgrades to the existing interchanges at STH 312 and STH 29?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on December 16, 2023, 01:36:38 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 16, 2023, 12:35:33 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on December 15, 2023, 11:57:38 PM
The CTH T corridor from USH 12/CTH 312 in Eau Claire to STH 29 in the Town of Wheaton has been officially mapped with construction hopefully commencing before 2030 to widen the highway to a 4 lane divided expressway, with a few intersection closures and roundabouts for those that remain. An overpass at the railroad is also planned. The addition of the Country Jam USA music festival to this area of town will likely accelerate this project. Previous talks within the DOT suggested realigning US 12 down this new divided highway, and terminating CTH T at STH 29. To satisfy Elk Mound, DOT would to extend STH 40 from its current southern terminus at STH 29, onto the freshly vacated former USH 12 through Elk Mound and terminate STH 40 at STH 312 just east of I-94 in Eau Claire. It is my understanding that Dunn and Chippewa county were not fully onboard with this for some reason. These talks likely happened many years ago at this point.
Interesting news. Any upgrades to the existing interchanges at STH 312 and STH 29?

The official project limits only span from Alpine Rd in Eau Claire to 33rd Ave in Wheaton, and I'm not sure if DOT will see fit improvements at 29, but I'm sure some may come eventually. I'd really like to see roundabouts at CTH X & CTH T, both 29 ramps, and replace the signal at 33rd Ave with a roundabout. As part of the widening project, roundabouts are currently planned for 30th Ave, 20th Ave and County Line Rd, with most of the other side roads either being cul-de-sac'd or turned into right-in-right-outs. I'd also like to see signal upgrades at Alpine Rd. There really should be a pedestrian connection between Alpine Rd and Truax Blvd. There's a sidewalk on the east side of the overpass over 312 right now but nothing is connected to it. The CTH T widening project also is going to include a multiuse path the entire length, so it would only make sense it connects somewhere. Really there should also be a multiuse path along the east side of USH 12 between Menomonie St & here but ROW may be a little tight for that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 16, 2023, 08:43:10 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on December 15, 2023, 11:57:38 PM
Hi all,

...

Waterborne paint went from 4" and 8" to 6" and 10" statewide for the 2023 painting season for retraces. 6/10 inch paint should've been included in all November 2023 let projects for next year. All epoxy retraces moving forward will be 6/10 inch. Freeway/Interstate lane lines (skips) for concrete surfaces will be moving from the former 2+4+2 black+white+black "oreo" pattern will now be painted in white/black lag full 6" pattern, like our neighbors down south and potentially elsewhere. Please let me know where you see the first application of this!

Greetings! Appreciate the insight of what's going on up in Wisconsin. Just wanted to clarify, is WisDOT switching to this? From the Borman Expressway in NW Indiana.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/euThzbn7AcuZ69hk9

I've already noticed the increased width in paint being used on my last trip out to Platteville in the SW Region. But I haven't seen any of the white/black alternating pattern yet.

And while I'm at it, where's the best place to submit comments/missing sign reports or ask questions to WisDOT? Would it be these regional email addresses?
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/who-we-are/dtsd/dtsd-region-offices.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on December 16, 2023, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 16, 2023, 08:43:10 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on December 15, 2023, 11:57:38 PM
Hi all,

...

Waterborne paint went from 4" and 8" to 6" and 10" statewide for the 2023 painting season for retraces. 6/10 inch paint should've been included in all November 2023 let projects for next year. All epoxy retraces moving forward will be 6/10 inch. Freeway/Interstate lane lines (skips) for concrete surfaces will be moving from the former 2+4+2 black+white+black "oreo" pattern will now be painted in white/black lag full 6" pattern, like our neighbors down south and potentially elsewhere. Please let me know where you see the first application of this!

Greetings! Appreciate the insight of what's going on up in Wisconsin. Just wanted to clarify, is WisDOT switching to this? From the Borman Expressway in NW Indiana.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/euThzbn7AcuZ69hk9

I've already noticed the increased width in paint being used on my last trip out to Platteville in the SW Region. But I haven't seen any of the white/black alternating pattern yet.

And while I'm at it, where's the best place to submit comments/missing sign reports or ask questions to WisDOT? Would it be these regional email addresses?
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/who-we-are/dtsd/dtsd-region-offices.aspx

Yep! Thats exactly what we are switching to for freeways/interstates. I don't think we did any this year though. Good chance some will appear next year.

In regard to region contacts, those email addresses are great places to start. If those people cannot answer your question, they will certainly ask around to get an answer. I work closely with the signing and marking people currently, so I can try my best to answer questions with my own knowledge or ask for NW region stuff, however Type 1 signing decisions are made in Madison, not locally.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 17, 2023, 12:42:27 PM
Oakwood Mall's sister Fox River Mall here in the Appleton area is also in a serious, inexorable  long-term decline (as I often say, "malls are sooooo last century!"), but in its case, the unincorporated township that it is in has shown no interest in doing anything about it.  The truly poor streets around it are so bad that they embarrass me as a City of Appleton resident.  IMHO, it is a sad statement regarding that aspect of statewide affairs in Wisconsin.

BTW, welcome abroad, we love the insight of the professionally trained.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on December 18, 2023, 11:52:23 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 17, 2023, 12:42:27 PM
Oakwood Mall's sister Fox River Mall here in the Appleton area is also in a serious, inexorable  long-term decline (as I often say, "malls are sooooo last century!"), but in its case, the unincorporated township that it is in has shown no interest in doing anything about it.  The truly poor streets around it are so bad that they embarrass me as a City of Appleton resident.  IMHO, it is a sad statement regarding that aspect of statewide affairs in Wisconsin.

BTW, welcome abroad, we love the insight of the professionally trained.

Mike

I also live in that unincorporated township and near the mall area, and I can't say I've seen too many, if any places that take so little interest in maintaining their roads.  There are so many roads in the township that need additional street lighting in their residential areas - to the point that I'm actually surprised there aren't more accidents here.   

The "band-aid" project on Greenville Dr that completed earlier this year should have been a widening with all of the traffic between the mall and the Amazon Distribution Center.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on December 18, 2023, 12:46:40 PM
Hello JMAN, and welcome.  Nice to have you here. 

I have a pair of questions for you.

1) US 10 in Pierce County between Prescott and Ellsworth has been slated for reconstruction in 2024, however, I've heard rumors that this might be delayed due to a budget crunch.  Have you any update on this you could share?

2) 25 years ago or so I was in touch with someone in your office about the idea that someday in the future, CTH F between Prescott and Hudson could be upgraded to a state highway, and have WIS 35 routed onto it, keeping it nice and close to the border without dog-legging to River Falls anymore.  They said at the time that while traffic counts would seem to justify it, the counties involved have allowed too many private driveways to have highway access there and would need to cut those back to a level that's considered safe on a state highway before such an upgrade could happen.  There was also the matter of the cap on state highway mileage and there not being a logical nearby state highway downgrade available to trade.  Do you know if either of these situations has changed over these many years?   
(and btw, the expressway WIS 35 between Hudson and River Falls would get a new number in that scenario if it ever came to pass, something like WI 594.).

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 18, 2023, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on December 18, 2023, 11:52:23 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 17, 2023, 12:42:27 PM
Oakwood Mall's sister Fox River Mall here in the Appleton area is also in a serious, inexorable  long-term decline (as I often say, "malls are sooooo last century!"), but in its case, the unincorporated township that it is in has shown no interest in doing anything about it.  The truly poor streets around it are so bad that they embarrass me as a City of Appleton resident.  IMHO, it is a sad statement regarding that aspect of statewide affairs in Wisconsin.

BTW, welcome abroad, we love the insight of the professionally trained.

Mike

I also live in that unincorporated township and near the mall area, and I can't say I've seen too many, if any places that take so little interest in maintaining their roads.  There are so many roads in the township that need additional street lighting in their residential areas - to the point that I'm actually surprised there aren't more accidents here.   

The "band-aid" project on Greenville Dr that completed earlier this year should have been a widening with all of the traffic between the mall and the Amazon Distribution Center.

I work driving in that area and even I have no idea what the township did there. However, Greenville Dr there is still a county highway (Outagamie County 'GV'), downgraded from a previous state highway (WI 76).  If I were the Traffic God there, I would downgrade it to a local street, running it as a quiet tree-lined boulevard from the roundabout at County 'CB' to a new three-legged roundabout at Casaloma Dr.  That would allow the overpowered intersection at Wisconsin Av (WI 96/old US 10) and the north mall entrance to be rebuilt to more normal proportions and Greenville Dr there to be vacated and returned to the tax rolls as the mall inexorably dies.  I would also build a new crossover westward from the roundabout at County 'CB'/Greenville Dr to feed directly into School Rd to the west.  Yes, that entire area needs serious street lighting and sidewalks, too.  Governments can and regularly do recklessly spend too much pvblic treasure, but they certainly can and often do recklessly spend too little.  BTW, WisDOT has been replacing the stop and go lights on Wisconsin Av west of the city over the past few months to the newer style of one vertical head per lane overhead mast arms (Yuck!).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2023, 07:54:14 PM
Is W. Greenville Ave. (CTH-GV) being expanded to four lanes between Casaloma Dr. and the roundabout at N. McCarthy Rd.? The Satellite images show construction along that segment of W. Greenville Ave., but the Street View images (From August 2018) pre-date the shown expansion and the construction of the roundabout.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 18, 2023, 10:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2023, 07:54:14 PM
Is W. Greenville Ave. (CTH-GV) being expanded to four lanes between Casaloma Dr. and the roundabout at N. McCarthy Rd.? The Satellite images show construction along that segment of W. Greenville Ave., but the Street View images (From August 2018) pre-date the shown expansion and the construction of the roundabout.

Away from the intersections, Greenville Dr is still in the profile of the old two lane WI 76.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on December 21, 2023, 07:23:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 17, 2023, 12:42:27 PM
Oakwood Mall's sister Fox River Mall here in the Appleton area is also in a serious, inexorable  long-term decline (as I often say, "malls are sooooo last century!"), but in its case, the unincorporated township that it is in has shown no interest in doing anything about it.  The truly poor streets around it are so bad that they embarrass me as a City of Appleton resident.  IMHO, it is a sad statement regarding that aspect of statewide affairs in Wisconsin.

BTW, welcome abroad, we love the insight of the professionally trained.

Mike
Why doesn't Appleton just annex it?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2023, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 21, 2023, 07:23:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 17, 2023, 12:42:27 PM
Oakwood Mall's sister Fox River Mall here in the Appleton area is also in a serious, inexorable  long-term decline (as I often say, "malls are sooooo last century!"), but in its case, the unincorporated township that it is in has shown no interest in doing anything about it.  The truly poor streets around it are so bad that they embarrass me as a City of Appleton resident.  IMHO, it is a sad statement regarding that aspect of statewide affairs in Wisconsin.

BTW, welcome abroad, we love the insight of the professionally trained.

Mike
Why doesn't Appleton just annex it?

Why would they want to?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 22, 2023, 02:59:32 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 21, 2023, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 21, 2023, 07:23:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 17, 2023, 12:42:27 PM
Oakwood Mall's sister Fox River Mall here in the Appleton area is also in a serious, inexorable  long-term decline (as I often say, "malls are sooooo last century!"), but in its case, the unincorporated township that it is in has shown no interest in doing anything about it.  The truly poor streets around it are so bad that they embarrass me as a City of Appleton resident.  IMHO, it is a sad statement regarding that aspect of statewide affairs in Wisconsin.

BTW, welcome abroad, we love the insight of the professionally trained.

Mike
Why doesn't Appleton just annex it?

Why would they want to?

There's probably a long standing border agreement which the two municipalities agreed to years ago. Northeast Wisconsin has the least amount of cooperation between municipalities. Harrison upset surrounding cities by becoming a village and later annexing areas that were not eligible to become a part of the village. Even Greenleaf joined in and became a village. Because of Harrison it can't annex any part of the Town of Wrightstown for 5 years. The initial purpose of making Greenleaf a village is to stop annexation from the Village of Wrightstown.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 22, 2023, 09:15:28 AM
Good point. But there is no motivation for Appleton to annex a crumbling mall with a bunch of streets that need work as well. Why assume that liability when it is doubtful the property taxes would cover it? That's why annexations are usually in newer areas. Make the developer pay a portion of the infrastructure and it's all revenue positive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on December 22, 2023, 09:34:50 AM
I'd have to think there have been adjustments since 1992, but this is what I found.  I do agree that I don't think Appleton wants anything to do with the maintenance along the Mall area.   The mall itself has been fading, but there has been businesses added surrounding the mall area, and even heading west near McCarthy Rd.

This article should shed a little light on situation.
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2021/10/29/appleton-grand-chute-boundary-pact-allows-town-islands-uneven-borders/8573127002/

I have complained about the lack of lighting on Grand Chute streets, and poor street maintenance.  It is so obvious along the borders on College Ave (WI-125), Wisconsin Ave (WI-96), Northland Ave (Cty-OO / WI-15).   Capitol Drive, Spencer St are others that stand out along the borders.


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 22, 2023, 01:41:50 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on December 22, 2023, 09:34:50 AM
I'd have to think there have been adjustments since 1992, but this is what I found.  I do agree that I don't think Appleton wants anything to do with the maintenance along the Mall area.   The mall itself has been fading, but there has been businesses added surrounding the mall area, and even heading west near McCarthy Rd.

This article should shed a little light on situation.
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2021/10/29/appleton-grand-chute-boundary-pact-allows-town-islands-uneven-borders/8573127002/

I have complained about the lack of lighting on Grand Chute streets, and poor street maintenance.  It is so obvious along the borders on College Ave (WI-125), Wisconsin Ave (WI-96), Northland Ave (Cty-OO / WI-15).   Capitol Drive, Spencer St are others that stand out along the borders.

I'm thinking that ultimately, after we are all long gone and forgotten, he legislature of Wisconsin (and many other states) will essentially be forced to address the issue of mainly late 20th century suburban munis becoming insolvent and requiring state and even federal bailouts to maintain any semblance of services, likely by force-amalgamating these metros into single munis.  These were areas that incorporated for no other reason than to prevent themselves from being annexed by the then more expensive existing 'legacy' munis and asserting their 'independence'. Yes, the 'Suburban Growth Ponzi Scheme' at work.

Karma's a b****.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 22, 2023, 02:04:31 PM
The City of Appleton and Grand Chute Township have a non-expiring boundary agreement in place that sets out definite 'growth' areas for the two, also a 'joint first response' pact between their fire departments.  It is looking more and more to me like the City is the big winner in it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on December 23, 2023, 02:54:37 AM
Two new potential majors projects recommended in Dec 2023 to begin environmental study:

If anyone has access to the full 30 projects originally vetted down to 8 and then 2 as referenced in the TPC packet:  https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2023-binder.pdf (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2023-binder.pdf) let us all know what these projects are.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 23, 2023, 09:05:20 AM
I don't think freeway conversion WEST of Verona will have much to do with the free-flow interchange in Madison. Most of that traffic is local (including Verona). The pressure will almost entirely come from continued growth in this local traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 23, 2023, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on December 23, 2023, 02:54:37 AM
Two new potential majors projects recommended in Dec 2023 to begin environmental study:

  • US 18/151: From the end of the Verona Road major project recently completed with 6 lane expansion around Verona and freeway conversion to Dodgeville. That will put even more pressure to complete the free flow interchange at Verona / beltline in the future but imo would be surprised if something happened in the future here (this project would end south of County Road PD: McKee Rd)
  • US 151: Columbus to Waupun freeway conversion in Dodge County

If anyone has access to the full 30 projects originally vetted down to 8 and then 2 as referenced in the TPC packet:  https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2023-binder.pdf (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/about-wisdot/who-we-are/comm-couns/tpc/dec2023-binder.pdf) let us all know what these projects are.

The free flow ramps from The Beltline to Verona Rd is needed more than anything on US 151. During the day the VMS signs now say slow traffic ahead approaching that exit since exiting traffic backs up onto the mainline. WISDOT should at least change the signal phases and give the priority green light to traffic from The Beltline. Midvale Blvd gets priority green and shouldn't since it doesn't have nearly the amount of traffic that exiting traffic does.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 23, 2023, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on December 23, 2023, 02:54:37 AM
Two new potential majors projects recommended in Dec 2023 to begin environmental study:

  • US 18/151: From the end of the Verona Road major project recently completed with 6 lane expansion around Verona and freeway conversion to Dodgeville. That will put even more pressure to complete the free flow interchange at Verona / beltline in the future but imo would be surprised if something happened in the future here (this project would end south of County Road PD: McKee Rd)
  • US 151: Columbus to Waupun freeway conversion in Dodge County


The second listed project could also put pressure on the studiers to go with an option that includes free-flowing ramps to/from US 151 to the northeast at the East Towne interchange in the I-39/90/94 upgrade study.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 24, 2023, 03:15:55 PM
I hadn't heard about the US 18/151 Verona Bypass being expanded to six lanes. Good to know!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 25, 2023, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 24, 2023, 03:15:55 PM
I hadn't heard about the US 18/151 Verona Bypass being expanded to six lanes. Good to know!

There's some auxiliary lanes being added. They may be referring to this project:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151-danecounty/default.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 25, 2023, 11:52:48 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 25, 2023, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 24, 2023, 03:15:55 PM
I hadn't heard about the US 18/151 Verona Bypass being expanded to six lanes. Good to know!

There's some auxiliary lanes being added. They may be referring to this project:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18151-danecounty/default.aspx

The list referred to in Roadguy's post above is potential projects that were OKed for further study.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 26, 2023, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?

US 41's upgrade progress was VERY piecemeal until that final push in the late 1990/early 2000s, going back to before WWII.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 26, 2023, 03:42:36 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?
Given the fairly poor condition of the US-151 road surface between Columbus and Waupun, it would not surprise me if they performed the freeway upgrade work along with a roadway rebuild all at once, or in relatively few larger chunks.

They may also opt to perform a resurface project soon, then perform the rebuild later.

The current state of highway funding (and everything else remotely political in Wisconsin) is in limbo while both parties wrangle for power. The fuel taxes were indexed to inflation prior to 2009 or so, and have been constant since. That's crimped the ability for WisDOT to fund projects.

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on December 26, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?

Driving back last night on US 151 it looks like there could be an interchange at County C south of Waupun. There was a line of 6 cars waiting. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to swap with Wis 68 and make it a state highway. Wis 68 leads traffic through Waupun while County C provides a direct connection to US 151.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 26, 2023, 08:50:45 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 26, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?

Driving back last night on US 151 it looks like there could be an interchange at County C south of Waupun. There was a line of 6 cars waiting. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to swap with Wis 68 and make it a state highway. Wis 68 leads traffic through Waupun while County C provides a direct connection to US 151.

It'll be piecemeal. Near Dodgeville there were recently a couple of fatal accidents over the summer at CTH Y-YZ. There are long term plans for an interchange but the DOT is going to implement a short term change of J-turns instead. Same with at CTH F near Blue Mounds. Trying to save money in the short term is only going to cost more in the long run.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 27, 2023, 12:27:00 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 26, 2023, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?

US 41's upgrade progress was VERY piecemeal until that final push in the late 1990/early 2000s, going back to before WWII.

Mike


And then we're only fast-tracked due to the desire to make the highway an interstate
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 27, 2023, 01:05:36 PM
All the proposed freeway conversions on the DOT website will likely be piece-meal conversions. It could be decades before the corridors are fully up to freeway standards. The website for existing projects and studies on the DOT website is located here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/default.aspx.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 28, 2023, 09:26:14 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 26, 2023, 08:50:45 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 26, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?


Driving back last night on US 151 it looks like there could be an interchange at County C south of Waupun. There was a line of 6 cars waiting. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to swap with Wis 68 and make it a state highway. Wis 68 leads traffic through Waupun while County C provides a direct connection to US 151.

It'll be piecemeal. Near Dodgeville there were recently a couple of fatal accidents over the summer at CTH Y-YZ. There are long term plans for an interchange but the DOT is going to implement a short term change of J-turns instead. Same with at CTH F near Blue Mounds. Trying to save money in the short term is only going to cost more in the long run.
The rush intersection? What a rush.

Also, Yes - I love how they do two projects (per intersection) instead of one at twice the price.  First rule of government spending.

Theory I have is they're studying the entire stretch from Madison (more likely Verona) to US-18's split for freeway now, figuring that the J-Turns are a stop-gap and will do the diamond interchanges when the study becomes a project (IF it does)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 28, 2023, 11:10:37 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 27, 2023, 12:27:00 AM
And then we're only fast-tracked due to the desire to make the highway an interstate

Eh, it was more about traffic volume than interstate aspirations.  The chatter about making it an interstate didn't really start until all the freeway conversion was long done.

I find it interesting that both new "majors" projects are on the same corridor.  Adds to a growing list of majors projects that are either in Madison or pointing toward it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 28, 2023, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 28, 2023, 09:26:14 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 26, 2023, 08:50:45 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 26, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?


Driving back last night on US 151 it looks like there could be an interchange at County C south of Waupun. There was a line of 6 cars waiting. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to swap with Wis 68 and make it a state highway. Wis 68 leads traffic through Waupun while County C provides a direct connection to US 151.

It'll be piecemeal. Near Dodgeville there were recently a couple of fatal accidents over the summer at CTH Y-YZ. There are long term plans for an interchange but the DOT is going to implement a short term change of J-turns instead. Same with at CTH F near Blue Mounds. Trying to save money in the short term is only going to cost more in the long run.
The rush intersection? What a rush.

Also, Yes - I love how they do two projects (per intersection) instead of one at twice the price.  First rule of government spending.

Theory I have is they're studying the entire stretch from Madison (more likely Verona) to US-18's split for freeway now, figuring that the J-Turns are a stop-gap and will do the diamond interchanges when the study becomes a project (IF it does)

WisDOT did do that on WI 29 in western Brown County a few years ago before upgrading it to a full freeway this past summer.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on December 28, 2023, 11:27:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 28, 2023, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 28, 2023, 09:26:14 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 26, 2023, 08:50:45 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 26, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?


Driving back last night on US 151 it looks like there could be an interchange at County C south of Waupun. There was a line of 6 cars waiting. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to swap with Wis 68 and make it a state highway. Wis 68 leads traffic through Waupun while County C provides a direct connection to US 151.

It'll be piecemeal. Near Dodgeville there were recently a couple of fatal accidents over the summer at CTH Y-YZ. There are long term plans for an interchange but the DOT is going to implement a short term change of J-turns instead. Same with at CTH F near Blue Mounds. Trying to save money in the short term is only going to cost more in the long run.
The rush intersection? What a rush.

Also, Yes - I love how they do two projects (per intersection) instead of one at twice the price.  First rule of government spending.

Theory I have is they're studying the entire stretch from Madison (more likely Verona) to US-18's split for freeway now, figuring that the J-Turns are a stop-gap and will do the diamond interchanges when the study becomes a project (IF it does)

WisDOT did do that on WI 29 in western Brown County a few years ago before upgrading it to a full freeway this past summer.

Mike
The interchange was built earlier than planned as it got a BUILD grant earmarked for it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 02, 2024, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 26, 2023, 08:50:45 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on December 26, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 26, 2023, 01:46:08 PM
Would these 151 freeway conversions be large scale conversions all at once (a la US 41 in the 1990s) or a piecemeal approach?

Driving back last night on US 151 it looks like there could be an interchange at County C south of Waupun. There was a line of 6 cars waiting. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to swap with Wis 68 and make it a state highway. Wis 68 leads traffic through Waupun while County C provides a direct connection to US 151.

It'll be piecemeal. Near Dodgeville there were recently a couple of fatal accidents over the summer at CTH Y-YZ. There are long term plans for an interchange but the DOT is going to implement a short term change of J-turns instead. Same with at CTH F near Blue Mounds. Trying to save money in the short term is only going to cost more in the long run.
I don't know if there is enough traffic to warrant an interchange but there at least should be an overpass there. That would create a 10 mile freeway section from Ridgeway to the other side of Dodgeville.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2024, 06:41:17 PM
There will definitely need to be an interchange at CTH-Y/CTH-YZ someday. There will also need to be an interchange at CTH-HHH/Hi-Point Rd eventually. This portion of the US 18/151 Freeway Conversion Study has maps of what might be implemented in the decades to come: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/18151study/maps.aspx.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 05, 2024, 07:04:29 PM
I wonder why WISDOT doesn't prioritize US 12 between Sauk City and Middleton? There's 3 traffic signals that slow down traffic. US 18/151. A Sauk City Bypass would be even better!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 07, 2024, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 05, 2024, 07:04:29 PM
I wonder why WISDOT doesn't prioritize US 12 between Sauk City and Middleton? There's 3 traffic signals that slow down traffic. US 18/151. A Sauk City Bypass would be even better!

If the planners at WisDOT are smart, they would resolve those issues before any substantial work is done to widen/upgrade I-39/90/94 north of Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 07, 2024, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 07, 2024, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 05, 2024, 07:04:29 PM
I wonder why WISDOT doesn't prioritize US 12 between Sauk City and Middleton? There's 3 traffic signals that slow down traffic. US 18/151. A Sauk City Bypass would be even better!

If the planners at WisDOT are smart, they would resolve those issues before any substantial work is done to widen/upgrade I-39/90/94 north of Madison.

How long ago did the prohibition on building a US 12 Sauk Prairie bypass expire?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 07, 2024, 06:35:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 07, 2024, 03:24:46 PM
How long ago did the prohibition on building a US 12 Sauk Prairie bypass expire?

Mike

I thought it was 2020, but I can't immediately find the info.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 01:50:12 AM
Quote from: invincor on December 18, 2023, 12:46:40 PM
Hello JMAN, and welcome.  Nice to have you here. 

I have a pair of questions for you.

1) US 10 in Pierce County between Prescott and Ellsworth has been slated for reconstruction in 2024, however, I've heard rumors that this might be delayed due to a budget crunch.  Have you any update on this you could share?

2) 25 years ago or so I was in touch with someone in your office about the idea that someday in the future, CTH F between Prescott and Hudson could be upgraded to a state highway, and have WIS 35 routed onto it, keeping it nice and close to the border without dog-legging to River Falls anymore.  They said at the time that while traffic counts would seem to justify it, the counties involved have allowed too many private driveways to have highway access there and would need to cut those back to a level that's considered safe on a state highway before such an upgrade could happen.  There was also the matter of the cap on state highway mileage and there not being a logical nearby state highway downgrade available to trade.  Do you know if either of these situations has changed over these many years?   
(and btw, the expressway WIS 35 between Hudson and River Falls would get a new number in that scenario if it ever came to pass, something like WI 594.).

Hi invincor, thanks for the questions.

1) I believe we were just sent the current updated 6-year program last week, so I will take a look at it sometime this week and try to get back to you. As you can probably imagine, funds are constantly shuffling around and projects in programming move up or down a year. Projects within my own unit change several times January-March, and we have to adapt. The scope of the project determines how easily the project can be scaled up/down to fit within the budget. If it can't, it gets pushed out a year.

2) I've wondered the same thing. CTH F is arguably busier than STH 35 Prescott to River Falls is any given day of the week, however STH 35 between River Falls and I-94 blows this out of the water as far as AADT goes. I do tend to agree, the current access on CTH F would not allow the state to take the road over in its current form, and it 100% would be too costly to relocate access to all of the problem properties. I spent a bit of time in access before moving to my current position, and it does not take much for access to create messes on roadways.

A general rule of thumb, for state highway access, if the roadway falls under statute 86.07, residential and ag access needs to be 500' apart on the same side of the road if the AADT is <5,000. If the AADT is >5,000, this increases to 1,000'. All commercial accesses need to be 1,000' apart regardless of the AADT. Roadways with substantially higher AADT likely fall under statute 84.09 or 84.25/84.295 purchased access rights/frozen access rights, or controlled access. All new state highway alignment is constructed with controlled access only, since access did not previously exist, as no highway existed therefore the property owner does not have any rights to access whatsoever when a new alignment is constructed. Very interesting stuff, I wouldn't mind getting back into that realm someday.

Local agencies often do not give much thought to it until it is too late. Once the Carmichael I-94 interchange is completed in the next couple of years, even more signs would point towards considering this, however the access south of Hudson remains a big concern. I question whether the current STH 35 between River Falls and Prescott would swap with F or there would remain a need for this to also remain state highway. Your comment about the mileage cap is a good point, however I am not too familiar with that cap and what it entails. I can reach out to someone in planning and get their take on it and get back to you. My personal opinion, I do not think the local residents would let a swap happen.

Thanks
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on January 08, 2024, 02:01:48 AM
Why not move US 10 onto the routing from Ellsworth through River Falls to I-94?  Then move 35 onto F.   WI 72 could be extended west and  MN 95 or MN 55 could replace the stretch of 10 in Minnesota.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 02:11:55 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 08, 2024, 02:01:48 AM
Why not move US 10 onto the routing from Ellsworth through River Falls to I-94?  Then move 35 onto F.   WI 72 could be extended west and  MN 95 or MN 55 could replace the stretch of 10 in Minnesota.

I just realized I had a lapse in memory. STH 29 runs concurrently with 35 between Prescott and River Falls, so if 35 moved, it would then just be 29 between what is now F and 65.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 08, 2024, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 01:50:12 AM
Quote from: invincor on December 18, 2023, 12:46:40 PM
Hello JMAN, and welcome.  Nice to have you here. 

I have a pair of questions for you.

1) US 10 in Pierce County between Prescott and Ellsworth has been slated for reconstruction in 2024, however, I've heard rumors that this might be delayed due to a budget crunch.  Have you any update on this you could share?

2) 25 years ago or so I was in touch with someone in your office about the idea that someday in the future, CTH F between Prescott and Hudson could be upgraded to a state highway, and have WIS 35 routed onto it, keeping it nice and close to the border without dog-legging to River Falls anymore.  They said at the time that while traffic counts would seem to justify it, the counties involved have allowed too many private driveways to have highway access there and would need to cut those back to a level that's considered safe on a state highway before such an upgrade could happen.  There was also the matter of the cap on state highway mileage and there not being a logical nearby state highway downgrade available to trade.  Do you know if either of these situations has changed over these many years?   
(and btw, the expressway WIS 35 between Hudson and River Falls would get a new number in that scenario if it ever came to pass, something like WI 594.).
[/quote

Hi invincor, thanks for the questions.

1) I believe we were just sent the current updated 6-year program last week, so I will take a look at it sometime this week and try to get back to you. As you can probably imagine, funds are constantly shuffling around and projects in programming move up or down a year. Projects within my own unit change several times January-March, and we have to adapt. The scope of the project determines how easily the project can be scaled up/down to fit within the budget. If it can't, it gets pushed out a year.

2) I've wondered the same thing. CTH F is arguably busier than STH 35 Prescott to River Falls is any given day of the week, however STH 35 between River Falls and I-94 blows this out of the water as far as AADT goes. I do tend to agree, the current access on CTH F would not allow the state to take the road over in its current form, and it 100% would be too costly to relocate access to all of the problem properties. I spent a bit of time in access before moving to my current position, and it does not take much for access to create messes on roadways.

A general rule of thumb, for state highway access, if the roadway falls under statute 86.07, residential and ag access needs to be 500' apart on the same side of the road if the AADT is <5,000. If the AADT is >5,000, this increases to 1,000'. All commercial accesses need to be 1,000' apart regardless of the AADT. Roadways with substantially higher AADT likely fall under statute 84.09 or 84.25/84.295 purchased access rights/frozen access rights, or controlled access. All new state highway alignment is constructed with controlled access only, since access did not previously exist, as no highway existed therefore the property owner does not have any rights to access whatsoever when a new alignment is constructed. Very interesting stuff, I wouldn't mind getting back into that realm someday.

Local agencies often do not give much thought to it until it is too late. Once the Carmichael I-94 interchange is completed in the next couple of years, even more signs would point towards considering this, however the access south of Hudson remains a big concern. I question whether the current STH 35 between River Falls and Prescott would swap with F or there would remain a need for this to also remain state highway. Your comment about the mileage cap is a good point, however I am not too familiar with that cap and what it entails. I can reach out to someone in planning and get their take on it and get back to you. My personal opinion, I do not think the local residents would let a swap happen.

Thanks

On 1) Thanks.  I'll look forward to any answer you may hear.

On 2) The counties haven't done anything to decrease access on F in the last 25 years, although I don't think it's increased either.  Still, that seems a big obstacle to overcome, especially in Pierce County.  The difference in the tax base between St. Croix and Pierce is very large, and you see it on their roads.  St. Croix's are nicely maintained and well signed while Pierce's are all patched-together and in much poorer shape, with hardly a reassurance marker to be seen.  I can't see Pierce ever having the money to provide the alternate roads to reduce the main highway access.  So, I don't think it'll happen.
If that somehow wasn't a problem, moving 35's number to it would be the lesser problem as it's already been in the process of moving towards full freeway and a lot of the residences and addresses that would object to having to change addresses already have done or have had years of warning that it's coming.  That section would need a new number, then, and as I suggested way back then, WI-594 would be delicious as it could really add to the Minnesota/Wisconsin rivalry. :)     

On the mileage cap, I've heard that the county-to-state-and-back swaps had to be nearly equivalent within counties when done in the past, but that this has since been relaxed a bit by enlarging the area to the entire state district.  I know I heard that Pierce County felt screwed by the state when circa 1989 they did the swap to move 35 to its present route, 35 absorbing CTH Q and half of CTH E between Prescott and Hager City, while downgrading WIS 183 to CTH CC in the eastern part of the county (and also in Pepin County).  The mileage in that swap was in the state's favor, and Pierce wasn't happy about that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 08, 2024, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 08, 2024, 02:01:48 AM
Why not move US 10 onto the routing from Ellsworth through River Falls to I-94?  Then move 35 onto F.   WI 72 could be extended west and  MN 95 or MN 55 could replace the stretch of 10 in Minnesota.

It's nice to have a US route on the Prescott to Point Douglas drawbridge crossing the states.  That's why US 10 was put there in the first place, and I'd not want to see it moved, to say nothing of the locals not liking all the address swapping that would create.  Also, Minnesota would then have to co-sign US 10 on I-94 from Hudson to St. Paul, and they already just hide US 12 in that section and would likely do the same with 10.  Which, imo, sucks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 08, 2024, 09:58:35 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 02:11:55 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 08, 2024, 02:01:48 AM
Why not move US 10 onto the routing from Ellsworth through River Falls to I-94?  Then move 35 onto F.   WI 72 could be extended west and  MN 95 or MN 55 could replace the stretch of 10 in Minnesota.

I just realized I had a lapse in memory. STH 29 runs concurrently with 35 between Prescott and River Falls, so if 35 moved, it would then just be 29 between what is now F and 65.

Yes, and that's the way it was until 35 was moved circa 1989. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 10:23:18 AM
Quote from: invincor on January 08, 2024, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 01:50:12 AM
Quote from: invincor on December 18, 2023, 12:46:40 PM
Hello JMAN, and welcome.  Nice to have you here. 

I have a pair of questions for you.

1) US 10 in Pierce County between Prescott and Ellsworth has been slated for reconstruction in 2024, however, I've heard rumors that this might be delayed due to a budget crunch.  Have you any update on this you could share?

Hi invincor, thanks for the questions.

1) I believe we were just sent the current updated 6-year program last week, so I will take a look at it sometime this week and try to get back to you. As you can probably imagine, funds are constantly shuffling around and projects in programming move up or down a year. Projects within my own unit change several times January-March, and we have to adapt. The scope of the project determines how easily the project can be scaled up/down to fit within the budget. If it can't, it gets pushed out a year.

On 1) Thanks.  I'll look forward to any answer you may hear.

On 2) The counties haven't done anything to decrease access on F in the last 25 years, although I don't think it's increased either.  Still, that seems a big obstacle to overcome, especially in Pierce County.  The difference in the tax base between St. Croix and Pierce is very large, and you see it on their roads.  St. Croix's are nicely maintained and well signed while Pierce's are all patched-together and in much poorer shape, with hardly a reassurance marker to be seen.  I can't see Pierce ever having the money to provide the alternate roads to reduce the main highway access.  So, I don't think it'll happen.
If that somehow wasn't a problem, moving 35's number to it would be the lesser problem as it's already been in the process of moving towards full freeway and a lot of the residences and addresses that would object to having to change addresses already have done or have had years of warning that it's coming.  That section would need a new number, then, and as I suggested way back then, WI-594 would be delicious as it could really add to the Minnesota/Wisconsin rivalry. :)     

On the mileage cap, I've heard that the county-to-state-and-back swaps had to be nearly equivalent within counties when done in the past, but that this has since been relaxed a bit by enlarging the area to the entire state district.  I know I heard that Pierce County felt screwed by the state when circa 1989 they did the swap to move 35 to its present route, 35 absorbing CTH Q and half of CTH E between Prescott and Hager City, while downgrading WIS 183 to CTH CC in the eastern part of the county (and also in Pepin County).  The mileage in that swap was in the state's favor, and Pierce wasn't happy about that.

1) It looks like USH 10 Prescott-63 South (1530-02-80) Is scheduled for this year along with two culvert replacements between 63 South and Ellsworth itself. Other notable 2024 projects include 1530-05-73 USH 10 Pierce/Pepin Line-CTH P, and 7170-00-76 STH 25- STH 35-Durand. All 3 of these projects are mill and overlay resurfacing.

The other two main projects are pavement replacement projects on I94 from USH 53-Mallard Rd (1022-09-78) and USH 53, 40th Ave-CTH B (1190-08-79) in Chippewa County.

2) I totally get what you mean regarding the difference between SCC and Pierce. It's worse the further east you go in the county.

The 35/65 freeway project stopped dead in the water, I'm not sure if there will ever be further development south of River Falls in my lifetime.

I've always been fascinated by the former alignments of the highways in pierce county. The former curvy routing of 63 is very obvious south of 10, and CC is also fairly obvious. Often makes me wonder how many more of these situations exist that I'm completely unaware of.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on January 08, 2024, 11:11:48 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 10:23:18 AM
Quote from: invincor on January 08, 2024, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 01:50:12 AM
Quote from: invincor on December 18, 2023, 12:46:40 PM

2) I totally get what you mean regarding the difference between SCC and Pierce. It's worse the further east you go in the county.

The 35/65 freeway project stopped dead in the water, I'm not sure if there will ever be further development south of River Falls in my lifetime.

I've always been fascinated by the former alignments of the highways in pierce county. The former curvy routing of 63 is very obvious south of 10, and CC is also fairly obvious. Often makes me wonder how many more of these situations exist that I'm completely unaware of.

Thanks for the update on the projects.  Good to know. 

I too wouldn't expect 65 to ever get freeway-ified to Ellsworth.  Also, that was never in the plans I saw at the public info gatherings on it in the 90s. 
There's one bit from that original plan that still isn't done that I wonder if it ever will be (and you make it sound like it won't be) which is the removing the remaining private driveway and other road access that still exists on the middle 2-3 miles between Hudson and River Falls, along with a half-interchange at Glover Road.  If that were ever done, then it would be completely freeway from I-94 to just past the Main Street River Falls exit. 

The only other bit that could _maybe_ get done would be to extend the freeway just a little bit more to the WIS 29 intersection.  I believe they didn't do this originally due to having to displace a car dealership that was at that corner, but that dealership closed many years ago now and wouldn't be an obstacle anymore as nothing else has gone in there.

The former 63 routing you mention followed present day CTH-VV and also connected up to an even earlier bridge originally made for horses-and-buggies to get to Red Wing.  My dad says the new bridge that was recently finished is the third one there's been there in his lifetime. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: invincor link=topic=6819.msg2897183#msg2897183
Thanks for the update on the projects.  Good to know. 

I too wouldn't expect 65 to ever get freeway-ified to Ellsworth.  Also, that was never in the plans I saw at the public info gatherings on it in the 90s. 
There's one bit from that original plan that still isn't done that I wonder if it ever will be (and you make it sound like it won't be) which is the removing the remaining private driveway and other road access that still exists on the middle 2-3 miles between Hudson and River Falls, along with a half-interchange at Glover Road.  If that were ever done, then it would be completely freeway from I-94 to just past the Main Street River Falls exit. 

The only other bit that could _maybe_ get done would be to extend the freeway just a little bit more to the WIS 29 intersection.  I believe they didn't do this originally due to having to displace a car dealership that was at that corner, but that dealership closed many years ago now and wouldn't be an obstacle anymore as nothing else has gone in there.

The former 63 routing you mention followed present day CTH-VV and also connected up to an even earlier bridge originally made for horses-and-buggies to get to Red Wing.  My dad says the new bridge that was recently finished is the third one there's been there in his lifetime.
Last I recall hearing about improvements at Glover, options had been reduced to either an overpass with no access, with a new local road connecting Glover to the roundabout stub at Radio Rd & Paulson Rd, or what's likely the more realistic option unless some major development starts to occur, a RCUT/J-Turn gets installed at Glover. Personally I see this being most likely.

With the recent completion of the Jughandle at CTH M/Division St, I'd argue priorities have shifted elsewhere with regards to the freeway plan. The rock cut for the freeway exists, however the traffic demand does not. I would like to see a roundabout at 35/29 East though.

There are a lot bigger fish to fry in the region right now. Reconstructing the 94/12/29 Elk Mound interchange to be free flow seems like it could enter design within the decade as the overpasses are reaching the end of their lifespan and I sure hope they wouldn't fork the money to replace them with them eventually getting ripped out anyways. STH 95 & 93 badly needs a roundabout, but the locals want a signal instead. I think that might finally get done in the next couple years after a decade of arguing with the locals. I-94 Chippewa River Bridges need to be rebuilt. C/D lanes are already badly needed on 53 between 12 and River Prairie Dr, and RP Dr and 312 in both directions the whole length. Not to mention the Blatnik bridge and associated interchange work on the WI side up in Superior.

At the end of the day I'm pretty low on the totem pole around here so unless it's currently programmed, my word is as much speculation as your own. There too may be things I don't know! ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on January 09, 2024, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 12:04:52 PMReconstructing the 94/12/29 Elk Mound interchange to be free flow seems like it could enter design within the decade as the overpasses are reaching the end of their lifespan and I sure hope they wouldn't fork the money to replace them with them eventually getting ripped out anyways.
Thanks for the updates! Any word if they're still planing on that clunky, (wet)land consuming cloverleaf design that was initially proposed circa 2009'ish?   

QuoteC/D lanes are already badly needed on 53 between 12 and River Prairie Dr, and RP Dr and 312 in both directions the whole length.
US 53 from Clairemont to at least the North Xing, if not Melby should be widened to 6 thru lanes given all the rapid growth the area is seeing. Especially, given how many "You ask, We answer" type segments on the local news have been dedicated to expanding the Bypass in the last 5ā€“10 years. It's a bit surprising there hasn't been much, if any, urgency from WisDOT on the matter...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 09, 2024, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 09, 2024, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 12:04:52 PMReconstructing the 94/12/29 Elk Mound interchange to be free flow seems like it could enter design within the decade as the overpasses are reaching the end of their lifespan and I sure hope they wouldn't fork the money to replace them with them eventually getting ripped out anyways.
Thanks for the updates! Any word if they're still planing on that clunky, (wet)land consuming cloverleaf design that was initially proposed circa 2009'ish?   

QuoteC/D lanes are already badly needed on 53 between 12 and River Prairie Dr, and RP Dr and 312 in both directions the whole length.
US 53 from Clairemont to at least the North Xing, if not Melby should be widened to 6 thru lanes given all the rapid growth the area is seeing. Especially, given how many "You ask, We answer" type segments on the local news have been dedicated to expanding the Bypass in the last 5ā€“10 years. It's a bit surprising there hasn't been much, if any, urgency from WisDOT on the matter...

I don't like the coverleaf at I-94/US 12/WI 29 either (I sent WisDOT a scribbling of my thoughts on it based on the I-24/57 interchange in Illinois several years ago, too) and also very much disliked (and still don't at all like) how the Clairemont/Hastings area in Eau Claire was redone - it seriously violates my 'KISS" rule and is way too needlessly and expensively complicated.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 09, 2024, 01:46:28 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 09, 2024, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 12:04:52 PMReconstructing the 94/12/29 Elk Mound interchange to be free flow seems like it could enter design within the decade as the overpasses are reaching the end of their lifespan and I sure hope they wouldn't fork the money to replace them with them eventually getting ripped out anyways.
Thanks for the updates! Any word if they're still planing on that clunky, (wet)land consuming cloverleaf design that was initially proposed circa 2009'ish?   

QuoteC/D lanes are already badly needed on 53 between 12 and River Prairie Dr, and RP Dr and 312 in both directions the whole length.
US 53 from Clairemont to at least the North Xing, if not Melby should be widened to 6 thru lanes given all the rapid growth the area is seeing. Especially, given how many "You ask, We answer" type segments on the local news have been dedicated to expanding the Bypass in the last 5ā€“10 years. It's a bit surprising there hasn't been much, if any, urgency from WisDOT on the matter...

As far as I'm aware nothing has really moved forward with regards to the Elk Mound Interchange study.

I've asked people internally about 3 laning 53, and usually just get runaround. As far as I'm aware, all of the bridges between Clairemont and the North Crossing were built with wide piers to allow more girders and deck to be fairly easily added when the time comes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 09, 2024, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 09, 2024, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 09, 2024, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 08, 2024, 12:04:52 PMReconstructing the 94/12/29 Elk Mound interchange to be free flow seems like it could enter design within the decade as the overpasses are reaching the end of their lifespan and I sure hope they wouldn't fork the money to replace them with them eventually getting ripped out anyways.
Thanks for the updates! Any word if they're still planing on that clunky, (wet)land consuming cloverleaf design that was initially proposed circa 2009'ish?   

QuoteC/D lanes are already badly needed on 53 between 12 and River Prairie Dr, and RP Dr and 312 in both directions the whole length.
US 53 from Clairemont to at least the North Xing, if not Melby should be widened to 6 thru lanes given all the rapid growth the area is seeing. Especially, given how many "You ask, We answer" type segments on the local news have been dedicated to expanding the Bypass in the last 5ā€“10 years. It's a bit surprising there hasn't been much, if any, urgency from WisDOT on the matter...

I don't like the coverleaf at I-94/US 12/WI 29 either (I sent WisDOT a scribbling of my thoughts on it based on the I-24/57 interchange in Illinois several years ago, too) and also very much disliked (and still don't at all like) how the Clairemont/Hastings area in Eau Claire was redone - it seriously violates my 'KISS" rule and is way too needlessly and expensively complicated.

Mike

Yeah there are things about that project that I'd liked to have seen done differently. The Clairemont & 53 interchange really should've been free flow but I understand space was a constraint.The way the lights are timed now eastbound traffic is basically free flow if you're within the platoon of cars. Hastings way between 53 and Clairemont just feels underutilized now. Same with Hastings way north of Birch St.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 09, 2024, 04:14:55 PM
For one, I wold have fed WI 93 to the south into Hastings Way to the north as a major surface street, eliminating all of the related rampage'. That in itself would have gone a long way towards simplifying it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 09, 2024, 04:27:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 09, 2024, 04:14:55 PM
For one, I wold have fed WI 93 to the south into Hastings Way to the north as a major surface street, eliminating all of the related rampage'. That in itself would have gone a long way towards simplifying it.

Mike

I agree that would work, but then you'd need to deal with reconfiguring the interchange at Clairemont & Hastings & London to eliminate the missing movement. Part of me things Mall Dr was the original alignment for 93 and it met 53 and 12 where that diamond is now. If 93 used that London wouldn't need to connect to Clairemont
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 09, 2024, 04:46:27 PM
Also, at the Elk Mound interchange, it might be a cheaper alternative to simply buy out those businesses along US 12 than doing any needed access road work to maintain their presence.

Mke
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 09, 2024, 05:21:49 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 09, 2024, 04:27:04 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 09, 2024, 04:14:55 PM
For one, I wold have fed WI 93 to the south into Hastings Way to the north as a major surface street, eliminating all of the related rampage'. That in itself would have gone a long way towards simplifying it.

Mike

I agree that would work, but then you'd need to deal with reconfiguring the interchange at Clairemont & Hastings & London to eliminate the missing movement. Part of me things Mall Dr was the original alignment for 93 and it met 53 and 12 where that diamond is now. If 93 used that London wouldn't need to connect to Clairemont

My sense is that Mall Dr was the original WI 93.  I would have restored that as WI 93, feeding it into Hastings Way (reflagging  it too from the old US 53 number as a northward extension of WI 93?) with a big surface intersection where the diamond interchange with old US 53 is now.  As for London Rd, an eastward cross connection to WI 93 (now Mall Dr) at Henry Ave or thereabouts should have sufficed.  Also, for city street addressing purposes, I would have added the name of 'Hastings Way' to this 'new'  WI 93 in the City of Eau Claire.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2024, 06:41:08 PM
Maybe when they finally do reconstruct the Interstate 94/US 12/STH 29 interchange, it could be in a similar configuration as the Interstate 39/Interstate 43/Interstate 90/STH 81 interchange in Beloit; or the Interstate 41/US 41/STH 29 interchange in Green Bay. Of course, the existing businesses around the 94/12/29 interchange would have to be torn down to make way for such an interchange configuration, but that probably would have happened anyway. Another possibility is to realign 12 and 29 and build the new interchange like the Interstate 94/US 53 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on January 10, 2024, 12:33:03 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 09, 2024, 04:46:27 PM
Also, at the Elk Mound interchange, it might be a cheaper alternative to simply buy out those businesses along US 12 than doing any needed access road work to maintain their presence.
^ This, given all the enviro work/ wetland mitigation and railroad stuff that would have to be done if something close to the 2009 design is chosen. An entirely new EIS/ FONSI would likely have to be done anyway, given the amount of time that has passed. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 10, 2024, 10:13:56 AM
This is probably buried deep in the Redesigning Interchanges thread, but I took a few stabs at that Elk Mound junction and settled on this design:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2024/01/elk-mound-v4.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 10, 2024, 10:49:13 AM
There's really only two ramps that need high speed movements which are from I-94 E to Wis 29 E and Wis 29 W to I-94 W. A large reconstruction isn't needed like at I-43/I-90 in Beloit. Reconstruct those two ramps with a high speed design with slight modifications to the local ramps.

A flyover ramp from US 53 South to I-94 East should be the highest priority when it comes to interchange reconstruction in the Eau Claire Area. That's probably the busiest loop ramp.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 10, 2024, 12:55:32 PM
Yea, much better at Elk Mound.  I would just add a roundabout at US 12/WI 40. :spin:

Now, the next challenge (if you wish to accept it) is the I-94/US 53 interchange in Eau Claire.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 10, 2024, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 10, 2024, 12:55:32 PM
Yea, much better at Elk Mound.  I would just add a roundabout at US 12/WI 40. :spin:

Now, the next challenge (if you wish to accept it) is the I-94/US 53 interchange in Eau Claire.

:nod:

Mike

The concept I have in my head would be a flyover ramp for 53 SB-94 EB traffic, and then turn the rest of the cloverleaf into a regular diamond with roundabouts for all other movements. Keep the existing 94 WB to 53 NB high speed ramp. Might try to create a rendering of that later if someone else doesn't first. Need to figure out what the approach from 53 SB for this would look like tho.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 10, 2024, 11:24:57 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 10, 2024, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 10, 2024, 12:55:32 PM
Yea, much better at Elk Mound.  I would just add a roundabout at US 12/WI 40. :spin:

Now, the next challenge (if you wish to accept it) is the I-94/US 53 interchange in Eau Claire.

:nod:

Mike

The concept I have in my head would be a flyover ramp for 53 SB-94 EB traffic, and then turn the rest of the cloverleaf into a regular diamond with roundabouts for all other movements. Keep the existing 94 WB to 53 NB high speed ramp. Might try to create a rendering of that later if someone else doesn't first. Need to figure out what the approach from 53 SB for this would look like tho.

I would find a way to separate the US 53 freeway to the north and a free-flowing interchange between it and I-94 from US 53 to the south and feed that one into a Major surface street to the north, then 'piggyback' the two I-94 interchanges on top of each other (sort of like at the I-39/90/I-43 Beloit interchange or the I-41/WI 29/32 Shawano Interchange in the Green Bay area).  I'll have to get the maps and air photos out for that one.  IMHO, the easiest ramps there would be high-speed ones between I-94 to the southeast and US 53 to the north.  I would also move US 53 to follow I-94 between that Eau Claire Interchange and US 10 in Osseo, transferring the existing US 53 to Eau Claire and Trempealeau Counties for 'lettering'.  I do not consider Oakwood Mall to be a major long term traffic generator, it is dying and the City's planning department is already pondering that area's future.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2024, 11:43:53 AM
I highly doubt US 53 will be transferred to Interstate 94 between Eau Clarie and Osseo. It would have happened long ago if it was going to happen. US 12 largely parallels Interstate 94 between Hudson and Wisconsin Dells, and its only duplex with 94 is the first four miles of 94 within the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 11, 2024, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 10, 2024, 12:55:32 PM
Now, the next challenge (if you wish to accept it) is the I-94/US 53 interchange in Eau Claire.

Oh I did that years ago.  I'll have to dig it up and repost it.
Though I should probably do that in the Rebuilding Interchanges thread, lest I drop more fiction in this thread.

<several minutes later...>

And here we go. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2898089#msg2898089)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 11, 2024, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 11, 2024, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 10, 2024, 12:55:32 PM
Now, the next challenge (if you wish to accept it) is the I-94/US 53 interchange in Eau Claire.

Oh I did that years ago.  I'll have to dig it up and repost it.
Though I should probably do that in the Rebuilding Interchanges thread, lest I drop more fiction in this thread.

<several minutes later...>

And here we go. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2898089#msg2898089)
I-98?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 11, 2024, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 11, 2024, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 10, 2024, 12:55:32 PM
Now, the next challenge (if you wish to accept it) is the I-94/US 53 interchange in Eau Claire.

Oh I did that years ago.  I'll have to dig it up and repost it.
Though I should probably do that in the Rebuilding Interchanges thread, lest I drop more fiction in this thread.

<several minutes later...>

And here we go. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2898089#msg2898089)

These look just as good as I remember them being. My comments:

53 Interchange:
-Commonwealth Av & Keystone Crs badly needs a roundabout as is today. Good foreshadowing.
-Keystone & Gateway should also be a roundabout in my opinion.
-This option would be nice, as it would miss the current critical pedestrian wall that exists in this area. The only legal way to cross I-94 on foot or bike right now is via STH 93 or Hobbs Road.
-I feel like this configuration would give enough relief to the existing Golf/AA/53 diamond without having to build the planned DDI there potentially. Much of the current bottlenecking comes from traffic trying to head towards 94.
-Would the 53N to 94E movements both ways be one or two lanes?

29 Interchange:
-As a cost saving measure, since the parclo already exists at 40, I would not have any ramps from 29/12 going directly to 94 and continue to make traffic on 12 and 40 access 29 and 94 at the existing parclo.
-The routing of 12 through the new interchange does work however, my only concern is the grade crossing for 40. Turn lane storage for cars waiting for trains may be needed if there is no grade separation.
-Roundabouts would be helpful at 12&40, and at both of the intersections at the top of 40/29. Locals may also argue for one at the county road intersection to the north, but I've never seen traffic too crazy north of the ramps.
-Your interchange would work as designed just fine, but I'd at the very least try to put roundabouts at the tops of the 12 ramps. WisDOT doesn't really like to put stop controls at freeway diamonds that are unsignalized anymore.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on January 11, 2024, 10:31:50 PM
Fictional.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 12, 2024, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2024, 11:43:53 AM
I highly doubt US 53 will be transferred to Interstate 94 between Eau Clarie and Osseo. It would have happened long ago if it was going to happen. US 12 largely parallels Interstate 94 between Hudson and Wisconsin Dells, and its only duplex with 94 is the first four miles of 94 within the state.

US 141 between Milwaukee and Green Bay?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 12, 2024, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 12, 2024, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2024, 11:43:53 AM
I highly doubt US 53 will be transferred to Interstate 94 between Eau Clarie and Osseo. It would have happened long ago if it was going to happen. US 12 largely parallels Interstate 94 between Hudson and Wisconsin Dells, and its only duplex with 94 is the first four miles of 94 within the state.

US 141 between Milwaukee and Green Bay?

Mike

US-141 was built out as a relocated US-141, and then later redesignated as I-43. AASHTO wouldn't let WisDOT move US-141 back to the original roadway even if they wanted to (one reason why US-51 in Illinois is duplexed with I-39 instead of on what's now IL-251). The designation for US-141 went away because I-43 made it redundant. (Honestly, it should've been removed all the way back to Abrams).

I-94 was always designated as an Interstate highway, so WisDOT didn't need to move an existing designation. US-53 probably remains on its alignment more out of inertia than anything else; it could easily be downgraded to a County route. But it's also the best way to route traffic around I-94 closures, and the counties involved are likely less than enthusiastic about taking on more road maintenance.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 12, 2024, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 12, 2024, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2024, 11:43:53 AM
I highly doubt US 53 will be transferred to Interstate 94 between Eau Clarie and Osseo. It would have happened long ago if it was going to happen. US 12 largely parallels Interstate 94 between Hudson and Wisconsin Dells, and its only duplex with 94 is the first four miles of 94 within the state.

US 141 between Milwaukee and Green Bay?


Probably because most of what is now I-43 was part of a relocated, then upgraded, US-141. Some of US-141's original routing sits on REALLY rural roads before it was relocated to roughly its current route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on January 12, 2024, 07:52:44 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 12, 2024, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 12, 2024, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2024, 11:43:53 AM
I highly doubt US 53 will be transferred to Interstate 94 between Eau Clarie and Osseo. It would have happened long ago if it was going to happen. US 12 largely parallels Interstate 94 between Hudson and Wisconsin Dells, and its only duplex with 94 is the first four miles of 94 within the state.

US 141 between Milwaukee and Green Bay?

Mike

US-141 was built out as a relocated US-141, and then later redesignated as I-43. AASHTO wouldn't let WisDOT move US-141 back to the original roadway even if they wanted to (one reason why US-51 in Illinois is duplexed with I-39 instead of on what's now IL-251). The designation for US-141 went away because I-43 made it redundant. (Honestly, it should've been removed all the way back to Abrams).

I-94 was always designated as an Interstate highway, so WisDOT didn't need to move an existing designation. US-53 probably remains on its alignment more out of inertia than anything else; it could easily be downgraded to a County route. But it's also the best way to route traffic around I-94 closures, and the counties involved are likely less than enthusiastic about taking on more road maintenance.
I'm sure AASHTO would approve moving US 51 back to IL 251 since it's a toll-free alternate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 12, 2024, 09:49:13 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 12, 2024, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 12, 2024, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2024, 11:43:53 AM
I highly doubt US 53 will be transferred to Interstate 94 between Eau Clarie and Osseo. It would have happened long ago if it was going to happen. US 12 largely parallels Interstate 94 between Hudson and Wisconsin Dells, and its only duplex with 94 is the first four miles of 94 within the state.

US 141 between Milwaukee and Green Bay?

Mike

US-141 was built out as a relocated US-141, and then later redesignated as I-43. AASHTO wouldn't let WisDOT move US-141 back to the original roadway even if they wanted to (one reason why US-51 in Illinois is duplexed with I-39 instead of on what's now IL-251). The designation for US-141 went away because I-43 made it redundant. (Honestly, it should've been removed all the way back to Abrams).

I-94 was always designated as an Interstate highway, so WisDOT didn't need to move an existing designation. US-53 probably remains on its alignment more out of inertia than anything else; it could easily be downgraded to a County route. But it's also the best way to route traffic around I-94 closures, and the counties involved are likely less than enthusiastic about taking on more road maintenance.


Actually I-94, or at least one lane of it, was WI-30 for a good portion of the way between Waukesha County and Madison.  The original WI-30 runs along what is now Jefferson County B and Dane County BB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 12, 2024, 10:52:08 PM
Between Hudson and the Dells?

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 13, 2024, 07:50:16 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 12, 2024, 10:52:08 PM
Between Hudson and the Dells?

SM-G991U



No. I was just pointing out that that portion of I-94 is similar to the I-43 situation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 13, 2024, 07:37:47 PM
Interstate 43 also replaced STH 15 between Beloit and Milwaukee, as everyone knows. Of course, the Rock Freeway officially became 43 in late 1987, 11 years after the freeway was completed to Interstate 90 (now Interstate 39/90).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 13, 2024, 11:47:41 PM
I would consider the US-141 situation relatively unique in Wisconsin.

US-141 historically terminated in Milwaukee, both as the original 2-lane alignment and the later freeway alignment. There was no reason to continue the designation south of Green Bay once the I-43 designation was made, since there were no segments of US-141 that extended past Milwaukee.

Could WisDOT have left US-141 on the lesser roadway and used a temporary state highway designation on the new freeway? Sure - and if they planned on maintaining the old roadway, that would've been the smart move. But there apparently were plans to route I-43 "up the middle" along Hwy 57 between I-(US-)41 and the US-141 corridor. I-43 would go directly to Green Bay instead of serving Sheboygan and Manitowoc. In that scenario, US-141 would've remained 2-lane north of Sheboygan, with freeway south to Port Washington.

When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.

Most of I-94 west of Milwaukee was built on roadway that didn't previously carry a US highway designation, and WisDOT wisely didn't make any moves to put US highways on the Interstate roadway. Though US-12 is mainly a secondary roadway west of the Dells, it's still an important state-maintained corridor, and is helpful in situations where traffic has to divert from the Interstate in emergencies. Hwy 15, being a state highway, also became a redundant designation when WisDOT got the I-43 designation on it.

US-51 maintains its duplex with I-39 (and brief triplex with I-39/90) because US-51 extends both north and south of the section of I-39, and has several sections that deviate from the Interstate corridor. This makes it a harder designation to remove (if folks were so inclined).

Could IDOT and WisDOT potentially truncate US-51 back to Bloomington, IL? Perhaps, but it's a lot of upheaval and change for no good reason. Also, since we're dealing with a US highway, the AASHTO rule about not downgrading a US highway to a lesser roadway comes into play. Otherwise both IDOT and WisDOT could've taken US-51 off the I-39 freeway and removed the redundant IL-251 designation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on January 14, 2024, 04:43:56 AM
Quote from: JREwing78
Could IDOT and WisDOT potentially truncate US-51 back to Bloomington, IL? Perhaps, but it's a lot of upheaval and change for no good reason. Also, since we're dealing with a US highway, the AASHTO rule about not downgrading a US highway to a lesser roadway comes into play. Otherwise both IDOT and WisDOT could've taken US-51 off the I-39 freeway and removed the redundant IL-251 designation.
But as I said before, AASHTO typically will go for removing a US Highway from a toll road. And even then, it's not automatically guaranteed they wouldn't go for removal from a non-tolled freeway since they've basically given North Carolina everything they've wanted in the past few years (including examples of moving US highways off freeways with interstate designations).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 13, 2024, 11:47:41 PM
When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.


A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2024, 07:52:52 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 13, 2024, 11:47:41 PM
When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.


A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.
Wait, what?

That is far too much of a generalization.  Although FHWA has made a lot of funding available to States for bridge maintenance (e.g., broadening NHPP for use on bridges not on the NHS) there is no mandate or strong recommendation that State DOTs maintain all bridges over waterways.

Shoot, NYSDOT is just going through its "Bridge NY" initiative solicitations right now to fund local maintenance of bridges. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 08:13:00 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2024, 07:52:52 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 13, 2024, 11:47:41 PM
When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.


A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.
Wait, what?

That is far too much of a generalization.  Although FHWA has made a lot of funding available to States for bridge maintenance (e.g., broadening NHPP for use on bridges not on the NHS) there is no mandate or strong recommendation that State DOTs maintain all bridges over waterways.

Shoot, NYSDOT is just going through its "Bridge NY" initiative solicitations right now to fund local maintenance of bridges. 


Sorry I wasn't clear.  It has to do with the designation of the Fox River and/or the Port of Green Bay, and that is why all of the bridges over the Fox in the Green Bay area carry a state designation.

I can't find the post and it could very well be 100% wrong.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 14, 2024, 08:21:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2024, 07:52:52 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 13, 2024, 11:47:41 PM
When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.


A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.
Wait, what?

That is far too much of a generalization.  Although FHWA has made a lot of funding available to States for bridge maintenance (e.g., broadening NHPP for use on bridges not on the NHS) there is no mandate or strong recommendation that State DOTs maintain all bridges over waterways.

Shoot, NYSDOT is just going through its "Bridge NY" initiative solicitations right now to fund local maintenance of bridges. 
For some reason, the City of Green Bay is the maintainer of the Main Street bridge while WisDOT is the maintainer of all the other Fox River bridges in Green Bay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2024, 08:37:56 AM
Quote from: Big John on January 14, 2024, 08:21:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2024, 07:52:52 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 13, 2024, 11:47:41 PM
When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.


A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.
Wait, what?

That is far too much of a generalization.  Although FHWA has made a lot of funding available to States for bridge maintenance (e.g., broadening NHPP for use on bridges not on the NHS) there is no mandate or strong recommendation that State DOTs maintain all bridges over waterways.

Shoot, NYSDOT is just going through its "Bridge NY" initiative solicitations right now to fund local maintenance of bridges. 
For some reason, the City of Green Bay is the maintainer of the Main Street bridge while WisDOT is the maintainer of all the other Fox River bridges in Green Bay.
In NY, the reason would be centuries old records of ownership/construction/legislation/agreements. :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 14, 2024, 10:41:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 13, 2024, 11:47:41 PM
When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.


A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.

Nothing stopping a Business I-43 from happening - that's what Business Spur routes are for!

Not typical WisDOT SOP - they're non-belivers in designating Business route highways. I understand the reason to keep US-141 in Green Bay. It's just silly.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 01:16:58 PM
There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on January 14, 2024, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 01:16:58 PM
There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.
I could see the village of Elk Mound requesting Business US 12 when WisDOT takes over CTH-T. They would have a good case for it since the BGS's on I-94 and STH-29 would just need a "business" patch rather than a complete replacement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 02:12:35 PM
And WIDOT will probably say "sign what you want. We're not maintaining it."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 14, 2024, 02:43:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 01:16:58 PM
There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

Typically, the state will allow "Business Routes" if the municipality requests it, but once the signs are up the state is no longer responsible for the road. It is considered a locally-maintained road.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on January 14, 2024, 02:51:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 02:12:35 PM
And WIDOT will probably say "sign what you want. We're not maintaining it."
According to Jman_WiS&S, current US 12 through Elk Mound is planned to become an extension of STH-40 when that project is completed, so it will still be in the state highway system.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 14, 2024, 02:51:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 02:12:35 PM
And WIDOT will probably say "sign what you want. We're not maintaining it."
According to Jman_WiS&S, current US 12 through Elk Mound is planned to become an extension of STH-40 when that project is completed, so it will still be in the state highway system.

That's different than creating a business route. What you are describing isn't unprecedented.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 16, 2024, 03:38:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 01:16:58 PM
There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 16, 2024, 03:40:42 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 14, 2024, 02:51:46 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2024, 02:12:35 PM
And WIDOT will probably say "sign what you want. We're not maintaining it."
According to Jman_WiS&S, current US 12 through Elk Mound is planned to become an extension of STH-40 when that project is completed, so it will still be in the state highway system.

The relocating of USH 12 and extension of STH40 is purely my own speculation based on conversations about what could and most likely would happen with various people in planning over the years. There is no official plan in place yet as far as I'm aware. I don't think there are full plans for CTH T yet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 16, 2024, 05:35:16 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 16, 2024, 03:38:44 PM
We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.

Wausau.

Stevens Point got turned over to local control a while ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on January 16, 2024, 07:26:55 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 16, 2024, 03:38:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 01:16:58 PM
There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.
I know one Business route is still in effect in Green Lake for Bus Wis 23.
But honestly, Lancaster should have BUS US 61 on the current US 61 and US 61 should go on Wis 129.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 16, 2024, 10:29:46 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on January 16, 2024, 07:26:55 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 16, 2024, 03:38:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 01:16:58 PM
There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.
I know one Business route is still in effect in Green Lake for Bus Wis 23.
But honestly, Lancaster should have BUS US 61 on the current US 61 and US 61 should go on Wis 129.

Is BR US 51 in the Stevens Point area still there?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2024, 06:25:24 AM
^It is still in Travel Mapping.  (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=wi.us051busste)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2024, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 16, 2024, 10:29:46 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on January 16, 2024, 07:26:55 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 16, 2024, 03:38:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 01:16:58 PM
There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.
I know one Business route is still in effect in Green Lake for Bus Wis 23.
But honestly, Lancaster should have BUS US 61 on the current US 61 and US 61 should go on Wis 129.

Is BR US 51 in the Stevens Point area still there?

Mike


According to GSV, it still was signed as of this summer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 17, 2024, 11:00:49 AM
The Stevens Point business route is still plenty signed, it's just under local jurisdiction now.  Before, it was on the state highway system, like Bus 51 in Wausau.

Quote from: hobsini2 on January 16, 2024, 07:26:55 PM
I know one Business route is still in effect in Green Lake for Bus Wis 23.

Signage on that one is quite limited, though.  It lacks reassurance markers once you've turned onto it, and in town, it's only signed at the junctions where it makes a 90 degree turn.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2024, 12:02:41 PM
The Wisconsin State Highway Map inset for Stevens Point shows the Business 51 designation terminating at the Stevens Point City Limits on Post Road just past the Minnesota Ave. intersection. It has shown it like this for some time, even though Business 51 still exists as it always has between Exit 151 and Exit 161 on Interstate 39/US 51. This is likely because Business 51 was removed from the state highway system in 2009. The rest of the business route was supposed to also be removed from the state highway system in 2020, but I do not know whether that occurred.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 17, 2024, 01:59:14 PM
Bus 23 isn't signed in Green Lake anymore and they're removed from Wis 23.

Wausau has the only complete Business route that is a state highway. Bus 51 is still a state highway through Plover and Whiting but not in Stevens Point.

Most of Bus 42 in Manitowoc is now Wis 42.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2024, 03:10:52 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 17, 2024, 01:59:14 PM
Bus 23 isn't signed in Green Lake anymore and they're removed from Wis 23.

So this shield is gone? (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8371128,-88.9889033,3a,75y,112.63h,88.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9aJRHaYwa0KiW9R0W39uNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 17, 2024, 05:34:16 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2024, 03:10:52 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 17, 2024, 01:59:14 PM
Bus 23 isn't signed in Green Lake anymore and they're removed from Wis 23.

So this shield is gone? (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8371128,-88.9889033,3a,75y,112.63h,88.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9aJRHaYwa0KiW9R0W39uNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

Never mind those are new. Look at streetview from the last time in 2018 and they were removed. I wonder if new signs went up in Green Lake itself. I assumed it went away because there was only one sign standing at one of the turns.

I just checked streetview in Green Lake itself and there's new Business 23 signs. I think WISDOT removed the signs and should have because there was no way to follow Bus 23 in Green Lake. All but one sign was removed at the turns. Green Lake must have put new signs up and petitioned WISDOT to put Bus 23 signs back up on Wis 23.

WISDOT will remove business signs if they're in bad shape. In Tomahawk the Bus 51 signs were in awful shape before it was removed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2024, 08:34:43 PM
US 14 has had a Business 14 along its old alignment through Janesville since the US 14 bypass was completed in 1952. The only remaining sign along the Business 14 route is this End Business 14 sign at the east end of the route: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6708471,-88.9579672,3a,75y,88.69h,83.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQCw_7lmyPirNJSrM_NDrJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Thus, technically Business 14 still exists, but is otherwise unposted.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 17, 2024, 09:28:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2024, 08:34:43 PM
US 14 has had a Business 14 along its old alignment through Janesville since the US 14 bypass was completed in 1952. The only remaining sign along the Business 14 route is this End Business 14 sign at the east end of the route: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6708471,-88.9579672,3a,75y,88.69h,83.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQCw_7lmyPirNJSrM_NDrJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Thus, technically Business 14 still exists, but is otherwise unposted.

I think WISDOT just replaced the sign mindlessly without realizing that Bus 14 no longer exists. There's this Bus 51 sign at the end of Wis 107 but Bus 51 is gone.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/82h98pbyKeHkAujq6?g_st=ic

I wonder why Wis 107 doesn't just end at Wis 86 in Tomahawk or why it's even a state highway north of Merrill?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 18, 2024, 08:30:26 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2024, 08:34:43 PM
US 14 has had a Business 14 along its old alignment through Janesville since the US 14 bypass was completed in 1952. The only remaining sign along the Business 14 route is this End Business 14 sign at the east end of the route: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6708471,-88.9579672,3a,75y,88.69h,83.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQCw_7lmyPirNJSrM_NDrJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Thus, technically Business 14 still exists, but is otherwise unposted.

Up until about 15 or so years ago, the business route still had the old "CITY" US-14 signs in yellow.  Which should probably tell you how important these routes actually are - which is "not very."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 18, 2024, 03:15:51 PM
It depends on the municipality since they determine if they want the business route or not. WISDOT will initially sign the route in the beginning but the local jurisdiction has to maintain the signing on local roads or WISDOT will revoke the signs from its highways if they're not up to standard. I'm glad WISDOT removed the Bus 23 signs on Wis 23 and brought it back when the local signs were put back up. When I was there last the route couldn't be followed with all the missing signs at the turns. Now it's back up to standard.

Tomahawk let the signs rot to where the signs were worn out and didn't care to replace them which is why it was removed without objection.

In the case of Columbus, Bus 151 follows Wis 73 but the City of Columbus opted for that route to be signed.

Otherwise, many of them have been removed in the last 20 years in Appleton, Green Bay, Oshkosh, and Rhinelander to name a few.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 19, 2024, 11:25:53 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 17, 2024, 09:28:59 PM
I wonder why Wis 107 doesn't just end at Wis 86 in Tomahawk or why it's even a state highway north of Merrill?

Probably because since WisDOT has defaulted into applying their mileage cap as a by-county thing, there's zero incentive to decom any state route if they're not adding mileage somewhere else in the county.

It's a dumb system that isn't written down, as far as I'm aware, but they just seemed to start doing it this century as a way to placate some kind of local whining?  I'm not for sure sure why.  Used to be they'd decomission routes elsewhere in the district, but I have to assume they kept getting, "Why are you taking mileage from us and giving it to them?. So now we have defaulted into this system where the mileage of state highways is frozen in each county, seemingly forever?

That's definitely not the intent of the mileage cap.  It's a regressive implementation that favors rural counties with state highways to no where that should definitely be county roads at the expense of places where people actually live and drive.  Each of y'all reading this could rattle off 10 state highways in Wisconsin right now that should be turned back.  But the majority of them never will now that we've defaulted into this regressive approach to mileage apportionment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2024, 03:02:35 PM
STH 107 is hardly the only state highway that terminates at a county highway at one end. Others include: STH 24 (continues as CTH L west of the Milwaukee/Waukesha County border); STH 134 (continues as CTH O north of the Main St. intersection in London); STH 136 (continues as CTH DL east of the entrance to Devil's Lake State Park); STH 152 (continues east as CTH W and west as CTH G in Mt. Morris); STH 155 (continues as CTH N west of Sayner); STH 311 (terminates at CTH KR); and STH 794 (terminates at CTH ZZ).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2024, 04:32:47 PM
The next public involvement meetings for the Interstate 39/90/94 study are January 30th (Virtually), January 31st (Wisconsin Dells), and February 1st (Madison): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/public.aspx.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 19, 2024, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 19, 2024, 11:25:53 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 17, 2024, 09:28:59 PM
I wonder why Wis 107 doesn't just end at Wis 86 in Tomahawk or why it's even a state highway north of Merrill?

Probably because since WisDOT has defaulted into applying their mileage cap as a by-county thing, there's zero incentive to decom any state route if they're not adding mileage somewhere else in the county.

It's a dumb system that isn't written down, as far as I'm aware, but they just seemed to start doing it this century as a way to placate some kind of local whining?  I'm not for sure sure why.  Used to be they'd decomission routes elsewhere in the district, but I have to assume they kept getting, "Why are you taking mileage from us and giving it to them?. So now we have defaulted into this system where the mileage of state highways is frozen in each county, seemingly forever?


I think (smartly) that it's a way to keep legislators away from the cap. If they have a "bank" of extra miles, the state could take it away to prevent WisDOT from using them. So, might as well keep them "banked" there until they need the miles somewhere else.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 19, 2024, 09:41:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2024, 03:02:35 PM
STH 107 is hardly the only state highway that terminates at a county highway at one end. Others include: STH 24 (continues as CTH L west of the Milwaukee/Waukesha County border); STH 134 (continues as CTH O north of the Main St. intersection in London); STH 136 (continues as CTH DL east of the entrance to Devil's Lake State Park); STH 152 (continues east as CTH W and west as CTH G in Mt. Morris); STH 155 (continues as CTH N west of Sayner); STH 311 (terminates at CTH KR); and STH 794 (terminates at CTH ZZ).

True but what purpose does Wis 107 serve? I remember growing up there was a Merrill sign to go straight then it said "Merrill VIA 107." US 51 is the route to go from Tomahawk to Merrill.

Wis 136 serves Devils Lake, the busiest state park and is useful. According to the Wis highways site, Wis 24 is only around because Milwaukee Co refused to take it. Wis 794 is very important. Wis 152 and Wis 155 oddly serve unincorporated communities. There's nothing wrong with ending at a county road if the state highway is useful. Wis 107 doesn't really have any usefulness as a state highway north of Merrill. According to the traffic counts one part of Wis 107 has 90 cars a day! Why is that worth a state highway designation?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 19, 2024, 10:22:36 PM
It's not. But that's not the point of its designation as triple outlined.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on January 19, 2024, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 18, 2024, 03:15:51 PM
Tomahawk let the signs rot to where the signs were worn out and didn't care to replace them which is why it was removed without objection.
When was the Tomahawk loop removed? AASHTO records show it was approved in 1993, and there are no signs on GSV in 2008. That doesn't seem like enough time for the signs to start rotting...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 20, 2024, 03:23:01 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 19, 2024, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 18, 2024, 03:15:51 PM
Tomahawk let the signs rot to where the signs were worn out and didn't care to replace them which is why it was removed without objection.
When was the Tomahawk loop removed? AASHTO records show it was approved in 1993, and there are no signs on GSV in 2008. That doesn't seem like enough time for the signs to start rotting...

In 1993 Bus 51 was designated around Lake Nokomis between US 8 and US 51 when the US 51 "Super 2" was extended north of US 8. The signs that were wearing out were from when the US 51 bypass of Tomahawk opened in 1983 from County S to US 8. The bypass ended at US 8 until the route was extended 10 years later. At that time Bus 51 was also extended north on County L.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 20, 2024, 09:09:35 AM
WIS 311 anyone?  https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6839198,-87.9535269,14.06z/data=!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 20, 2024, 09:25:51 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 20, 2024, 09:09:35 AM
WIS 311 anyone?  https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6839198,-87.9535269,14.06z/data=!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu
First put up in 2022.  First post on it: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6819.msg2785671#msg2785671
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 22, 2024, 12:15:08 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 19, 2024, 10:30:02 PM
When was the Tomahawk loop removed? AASHTO records show it was approved in 1993, and there are no signs on GSV in 2008. That doesn't seem like enough time for the signs to start rotting...

They took down Bus 51 in Tomahawk when they four laned US 51 up there circa 2001.
I believe that's also about when they retired Bus 51 in Merrill as well.  I recall that signage going away at about the same time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 22, 2024, 09:24:04 PM
I was in the Madison area the other weekend exploring recent construction projects. On thing I found interesting is wisdot did not replace the traffic light at WI-113 and Hwy M. That's very unusual for them to do a reconstruction project and leave up the old traffic light.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2024, 10:13:40 PM
This probably won't ever happen, but I think STH 113 should have its four-lane segment extended northward to the STH 19/STH 113/CTH I roundabout.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 23, 2024, 11:11:53 AM
They just reconstructed that segment last summer and kept it two lanes.  I thought that was short sighted.  Waunakee aint' gonna stop growing.  WI 113 should be four lanes between there and Madison.  So should WI 19 east to the triplex.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2024, 01:19:04 PM
Maybe they should have also reserved some right-of-way to possibly construct a STH 19/STH 113 northern bypass around Waunakee. I've given up hope that the North Mendota Parkway will ever be constructed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 24, 2024, 02:17:08 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2024, 10:13:40 PM
This probably won't ever happen, but I think STH 113 should have its four-lane segment extended northward to the STH 19/STH 113/CTH I roundabout.

It's in the Connections 2030 plan to make Wis 113 four lanes. It's the most realistic of the plans north of the lake. Wis 19 definitely needs to be four lanes from Waunakee to Sun Prairie.

County M is being made four lanes to County K, that's some progress. A full scale parkway probably isn't needed. Expanding County K to four lanes and an interchange at US 12 would work well. So many people drive below 55 and there's nearly no areas to pass on K which really slows traffic .
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 25, 2024, 08:00:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 22, 2024, 09:24:04 PM
I was in the Madison area the other weekend exploring recent construction projects. On thing I found interesting is wisdot did not replace the traffic light at WI-113 and Hwy M. That's very unusual for them to do a reconstruction project and leave up the old traffic light.

I also find this interesting. I know in the NW region, we made it a priority to adopt signal-head-per-lane for any multilane roadway with approach speeds greater than 45, and it seems like wherever practically possible, as many intersections with permissive/protective green ball signals have been swapped to 4 section FYAs. It seems that other regions have been taking a much slower approach, adopting both. New construction standard calls for SHPL, FYA and Monotubes for approaches with more than 1 thru lane. If 113/M were in NWR, we'd have also upgraded the protected only dual lefts to 4 section FYAs to run protected/permissive during off peak hours and overnight. That is some insane storage for the left turn, though most of that may just be for the railroad crossing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 26, 2024, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 25, 2024, 08:00:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 22, 2024, 09:24:04 PM
I was in the Madison area the other weekend exploring recent construction projects. On thing I found interesting is wisdot did not replace the traffic light at WI-113 and Hwy M. That's very unusual for them to do a reconstruction project and leave up the old traffic light.

I also find this interesting. I know in the NW region, we made it a priority to adopt signal-head-per-lane for any multilane roadway with approach speeds greater than 45, and it seems like wherever practically possible, as many intersections with permissive/protective green ball signals have been swapped to 4 section FYAs. It seems that other regions have been taking a much slower approach, adopting both. New construction standard calls for SHPL, FYA and Monotubes for approaches with more than 1 thru lane. If 113/M were in NWR, we'd have also upgraded the protected only dual lefts to 4 section FYAs to run protected/permissive during off peak hours and overnight. That is some insane storage for the left turn, though most of that may just be for the railroad crossing.
At least you're not in Dubuque, IA - which replaced FYAs with protected lefts on the NW arterial after taking it over from the state ....😡
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on January 26, 2024, 08:12:34 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 26, 2024, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 25, 2024, 08:00:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 22, 2024, 09:24:04 PM
I was in the Madison area the other weekend exploring recent construction projects. On thing I found interesting is wisdot did not replace the traffic light at WI-113 and Hwy M. That's very unusual for them to do a reconstruction project and leave up the old traffic light.

I also find this interesting. I know in the NW region, we made it a priority to adopt signal-head-per-lane for any multilane roadway with approach speeds greater than 45, and it seems like wherever practically possible, as many intersections with permissive/protective green ball signals have been swapped to 4 section FYAs. It seems that other regions have been taking a much slower approach, adopting both. New construction standard calls for SHPL, FYA and Monotubes for approaches with more than 1 thru lane. If 113/M were in NWR, we'd have also upgraded the protected only dual lefts to 4 section FYAs to run protected/permissive during off peak hours and overnight. That is some insane storage for the left turn, though most of that may just be for the railroad crossing.
At least you're not in Dubuque, IA - which replaced FYAs with protected lefts on the NW arterial after taking it over from the state ....😡

Thats annoying. If only there was a way to run a FYA protected only certain times of the day... Oh wait.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on January 27, 2024, 08:17:51 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 26, 2024, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: JMAN_WiS&S on January 25, 2024, 08:00:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 22, 2024, 09:24:04 PM
I was in the Madison area the other weekend exploring recent construction projects. On thing I found interesting is wisdot did not replace the traffic light at WI-113 and Hwy M. That's very unusual for them to do a reconstruction project and leave up the old traffic light.

I also find this interesting. I know in the NW region, we made it a priority to adopt signal-head-per-lane for any multilane roadway with approach speeds greater than 45, and it seems like wherever practically possible, as many intersections with permissive/protective green ball signals have been swapped to 4 section FYAs. It seems that other regions have been taking a much slower approach, adopting both. New construction standard calls for SHPL, FYA and Monotubes for approaches with more than 1 thru lane. If 113/M were in NWR, we'd have also upgraded the protected only dual lefts to 4 section FYAs to run protected/permissive during off peak hours and overnight. That is some insane storage for the left turn, though most of that may just be for the railroad crossing.
At least you're not in Dubuque, IA - which replaced FYAs with protected lefts on the NW arterial after taking it over from the state ....😡

There were FYAs on the NW Arterial before? Where?

(Though I'll always stand on the side that it was a stupid decision to turn the NW Arterial over to Dubuque.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on January 29, 2024, 01:31:58 AM
I see WISDOT has concepts for the Mason St Bridge posted that will be the framework for alternatives. One is "as is" being elevated from Ashland to Monroe, another is just a bridge over the Fox River, and the 3rd with a bridge over Ashland, the railroad and at grade on the east side of the river..

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/ne/masonbrstudy/concept.pdf

I sure hope the new bridge stays the same length. Just improve the interchanges and add bike/ped access. Why create new at grade intersections that will cause more traffic delays and accidents? It's the only bridge downtown over the rail line and that can avoid most boat openings because of the higher clearance. Don't mess up what's already working well and make it worse.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 29, 2024, 09:50:22 AM
^^ Looking at that page, the 2 concepts that involve shortening the bridge will present some sharp vertical grades as the draw bridge span reconstruction has already been approved at the same elevation and there would be short room to get the surface down to ground level. before hitting the target (Adams St. and/or the railroad).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 29, 2024, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Big John on January 29, 2024, 09:50:22 AM
^^ Looking at that page, the 2 concepts that involve shortening the bridge will present some sharp vertical grades as the draw bridge span reconstruction has already been approved at the same elevation and there would be short room to get the surface down to ground level. before hitting the target (Adams St. and/or the railroad).
That seems like a bad idea given the proclivity for icy road conditions. Just a thought.

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 29, 2024, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: Big John on January 29, 2024, 09:50:22 AM
^^ Looking at that page, the 2 concepts that involve shortening the bridge will present some sharp vertical grades as the draw bridge span reconstruction has already been approved at the same elevation and there would be short room to get the surface down to ground level. before hitting the target (Adams St. and/or the railroad).

I am kind of ambivalent on this one, but I do note that the current bridge was built to clear things that are no longer there (ie, the Milwaukee Road railroad on the east side of the river).  before the current bridge was built, the crossing was entirely at 'street' level, crossed all of the railroads at grade and had a  center drawspan.  The street was much more frequently blocked by river and rail traffic.  Also note that I do expect train traffic on the existing railroad to increase over the next few decades.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on January 29, 2024, 08:58:56 PM
WisDOT is asking for input on the next edition of the state highway map: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 29, 2024, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 29, 2024, 08:58:56 PM
WisDOT is asking for input on the next edition of the state highway map: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx

I took the time to lodge my complaint with recent edits that muddied the formerly clear designations between a regular 4-lane divided highway (with no special access restrictions), a expressway segment (limited at-grades, no stoplights, 65 mph speed limit), and a full limited-access freeway. I pointed out as examples that the Madison Beltline has been a full freeway for 15 years, and Hwy 23 east of Fond du Lac should be marked expressway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 30, 2024, 09:18:41 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 29, 2024, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: Big John on January 29, 2024, 09:50:22 AM
^^ Looking at that page, the 2 concepts that involve shortening the bridge will present some sharp vertical grades as the draw bridge span reconstruction has already been approved at the same elevation and there would be short room to get the surface down to ground level. before hitting the target (Adams St. and/or the railroad).

I am kind of ambivalent on this one, but I do note that the current bridge was built to clear things that are no longer there (ie, the Milwaukee Road railroad on the east side of the river).  before the current bridge was built, the crossing was entirely at 'street' level, crossed all of the railroads at grade and had a  center drawspan.  The street was much more frequently blocked by river and rail traffic.  Also note that I do expect train traffic on the existing railroad to increase over the next few decades.


I would keep the length where it is now, find a way to combine the Ashland and Broadway exits on the west side of the river, and calm the traffic a little. The amount of speed variation on that bridge is pretty high. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 30, 2024, 11:53:57 AM
I look forward to the 2025 map showing the new STH 15 Hortonville Bypass. I also hope that the Madison Beltline is shown as a freeway, and not a multi-lane divided highway, although I have my doubts about that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 30, 2024, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 30, 2024, 11:53:57 AM
I look forward to the 2025 map showing the new STH 15 Hortonville Bypass. I also hope that the Madison Beltline is shown as a freeway, and not a multi-lane divided highway, although I have my doubts about that.

I would also hope that WisDOT shows municipalities in the manner that Ohio does on their state highway maps, with the rash of new ones cluttering things up.
BTW, the WI 15 Hortonville bypass should be shown an a 'freeway'.  It is like a rural interstate between the roundabouts at either end of town and has a couple of grade-separated crossroads at its mid point.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on January 30, 2024, 08:53:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 30, 2024, 11:53:57 AM
I look forward to the 2025 map showing the new STH 15 Hortonville Bypass. I also hope that the Madison Beltline is shown as a freeway, and not a multi-lane divided highway, although I have my doubts about that.
There probably won't be a new edition until 2027. There was no 2021 edition.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 30, 2024, 10:57:29 PM
That was likely due to Covid. I fully expect a new state highway map to be released next year.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on January 31, 2024, 11:21:44 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqlaVWhGpGE

Public meeting for I-39/90/94 Corridor Study ā€“ January 2024
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2024, 03:34:51 PM
Here is the PDF version of the PIM #3 meeting of the Interstate 39/90/94 Corridor Study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/0124presentation.pdf.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 01, 2024, 04:49:22 PM
^^ 2 things I noticed: 1. for the existing cross sections the truck is correctly positioned in the right lane, but the proposed cross sections show the truck in the far-left lane. 2. They show a hexagonal stop sign at interchanges where a stop sign is under consideration.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 01, 2024, 08:10:51 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 30, 2024, 10:57:29 PM
That was likely due to Covid. I fully expect a new state highway map to be released next year.
There was no 2011 edition either. Other states did publish editions for 2021.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 02, 2024, 11:35:15 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 01, 2024, 08:10:51 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 30, 2024, 10:57:29 PM
That was likely due to Covid. I fully expect a new state highway map to be released next year.
There was no 2011 edition either. Other states did publish editions for 2021.

Since the 1970s, it has not been unusual for WisDOT to skip years.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 05, 2024, 02:01:10 PM
I am happy that construction of the replacement of the Interstate 39/90/94 bridge across the Wisconsin River starts this year: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i399094-bridge/default.aspx. Hopefully, construction of the portion of 39/90/94 (between US 12/STH 16 and US 12/US 18) currently being studied will commence a few years after completion of the bridge replacement project: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 05, 2024, 11:07:40 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 05, 2024, 02:01:10 PM
I am happy that construction of the replacement of the Interstate 39/90/94 bridge across the Wisconsin River starts this year: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i399094-bridge/default.aspx. Hopefully, construction of the portion of 39/90/94 (between US 12/STH 16 and US 12/US 18) currently being studied will commence a few years after completion of the bridge replacement project: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx.

Aside from the Wisconsin River bridge, I'm expecting the I-39/90/94 'Big Shovel' project between Madison and the Dells to begin with the spring thaw of the first year following the completion of the I-41 six-laning project between Appleton and De Pere.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 06, 2024, 01:04:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 05, 2024, 11:07:40 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 05, 2024, 02:01:10 PM
I am happy that construction of the replacement of the Interstate 39/90/94 bridge across the Wisconsin River starts this year: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i399094-bridge/default.aspx. Hopefully, construction of the portion of 39/90/94 (between US 12/STH 16 and US 12/US 18) currently being studied will commence a few years after completion of the bridge replacement project: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx.

Aside from the Wisconsin River bridge, I'm expecting the I-39/90/94 'Big Shovel' project between Madison and the Dells to begin with the spring thaw of the first year following the completion of the I-41 six-laning project between Appleton and De Pere.

Mike

Biggest question is what's the price tag? Reconstructing 56 miles of freeway is going to cost a few billion and that has to be figured out before construction commences.

The County V interchange in DeForest also appears to be a separate project and I'm assuming it's going to be reconstructed this year for Bucees.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 06, 2024, 03:32:27 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 06, 2024, 01:04:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 05, 2024, 11:07:40 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 05, 2024, 02:01:10 PM
I am happy that construction of the replacement of the Interstate 39/90/94 bridge across the Wisconsin River starts this year: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i399094-bridge/default.aspx. Hopefully, construction of the portion of 39/90/94 (between US 12/STH 16 and US 12/US 18) currently being studied will commence a few years after completion of the bridge replacement project: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/399094/default.aspx.

Aside from the Wisconsin River bridge, I'm expecting the I-39/90/94 'Big Shovel' project between Madison and the Dells to begin with the spring thaw of the first year following the completion of the I-41 six-laning project between Appleton and De Pere.

Mike

Biggest question is what's the price tag? Reconstructing 56 miles of freeway is going to cost a few billion and that has to be figured out before construction commences.

The County V interchange in DeForest also appears to be a separate project and I'm assuming it's going to be reconstructed this year for Bucees.

The CTH V project is more or less separate and is primarily being funded by Buc-ee's and the Village of DeForest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 06, 2024, 12:14:22 PM
I expect the 39/90/94 corridor will be reconstructed in phases, like other construction projects around the state. I do agree that it will likely cost a hefty amount of money to design, fund and construct it. It will probably cost a few billion dollars, but it will be money well-spent.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 07, 2024, 10:26:31 AM
They've got three major system interchanges in the scope of this study.  That's probably over $2 billion at this point already just for those.
The 39/90 expansion cost 2 billion before The Plague and that was over a slightly shorter distance with only one system interchange.  I'd expect the Madison to Dells expansion to cost at least three times that much when all's said and done.

I think that's largely a good use of money, though having driven the triplex countless times, a fourth lane all the way to Portage does not seem like the most pressing issue on the corridor.  It's only ever a problem at those peak times on holiday weekends in summer.

For sure should have a fourth lane between the Beltline and the Badger Interchange as first priority.
Then I'd jump north and work on the 4 to 6 expansion between Portage and The Dells.  Get that done thru the Dells Pkwy interchange.
After that, come back to Madison and do the East Town Interchange.
Once those are done, I'd be agnostic on the phasing thereafter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2024, 11:58:35 AM
I am very happy that the Badger Interchange will have right-hand-only exit and entrance ramps, although I would have liked US 151 to have remained free-flow through the Interstate 39/90/94 interchange and not have traffic stop at signaled intersections within the interchange (although I would prefer the single-point urban interchange to the diamond interchange). Overall, I would prefer if they implement the Modernization Plus Added General Purpose Lanes alternative to the Modernization Hybrid alternative, since I think that would work better for the corridor.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 12, 2024, 01:41:21 PM
Looking at the WISDOT Corridors 2030 map, US 14 between Janesville and I-43 was upgraded as a backbone which are all supposed to be 4 lane expressways at least. US 45 was also added between US 10 and I-41 but is already a freeway.

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


https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/data-plan/plan-res/corr2030.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dvferyance on February 12, 2024, 05:11:48 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 12, 2024, 01:41:21 PM
Looking at the WISDOT Corridors 2030 map, US 14 between Janesville and I-43 was upgraded as a backbone which are all supposed to be 4 lane expressways at least. US 45 was also added between US 10 and I-41 but is already a freeway.

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


https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/data-plan/plan-res/corr2030.pdf
Could be a goof. I am surprised WI-23 between Sheboygan and Fond Du Lac was not included.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 12, 2024, 08:21:17 PM
In 2019 the Evers administration removed the US-14/WI-11 expansion project, along with two others, at WIDOT's request. This was long after Corridors 2030 was approved. 

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

And that's absolutely the right call. The I-43 project north of Milwaukee, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, and I-39/90 north of Madison are way more important.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on February 12, 2024, 08:34:50 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 12, 2024, 08:21:17 PM
In 2019 the Evers administration removed the US-14/WI-11 expansion project, along with two others, at WIDOT's request. This was long after Corridors 2030 was approved. 

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

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

Agreed. While I'd like to see 14/11 project done (it's brutal getting behind slow drivers on that stretch) I generally use 43 to 39/90 these days. The projects you mention are definitely more needed than 14/11.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 12, 2024, 11:31:17 PM
I suspect WisDOT is trying to get its money's worth out of the I-39/90 widening, specifically the SBD I-39/90 to EBD I-43 movement. If they can use that as an excuse to forestall widening US-14/Hwy 11, even if it's only a couple decades, that's money ahead.

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

SM-G991U
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 13, 2024, 08:55:04 AM
To be honest, I think the DOT figured out long before the politicians did that a lot of these two-lane expansion projects weren't really worth the costs. Sure a 11/14 expansion would be nice...as would a US-12 Fort Atkinson bypass... But both of them are hardly as necessary as adding capacity to existing interstate corridors.

Take the Burlington bypass for instance. That whole project just seems to be overkill, and I don't know if it got pushed because Robin Vos is from there, but its hard to justify the cost IMO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on February 13, 2024, 09:17:19 AM
It also might explain why they haven't expanded the US 12 freeway from Elkhorn to Whitewater.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 13, 2024, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: US 12 fan on February 13, 2024, 09:17:19 AM
It also might explain why they haven't expanded the US 12 freeway from Elkhorn to Whitewater.

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

I know the Fort Atkinson bypass had even a preferred alternative selected.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on February 13, 2024, 05:32:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 13, 2024, 08:55:04 AM
To be honest, I think the DOT figured out long before the politicians did that a lot of these two-lane expansion projects weren't really worth the costs. Sure a 11/14 expansion would be nice...as would a US-12 Fort Atkinson bypass... But both of them are hardly as necessary as adding capacity to existing interstate corridors.

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

The bypass was desperately needed, but not that kind of design. A "super 2" would have sufficed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 13, 2024, 07:17:51 PM
US 12 on a new alignment between Elkhorn and the Whitewater Bypass would be worth it since the traffic counts are high enough and there's a lot of bad intersections and driveways. A Fort Atkinson Bypass wouldn't be worth it at all. Traffic heading to Madison would take N/Wis 59/I-90 over US 12 after Whitewater. It would be logical to reroute Wis 59 on County N but Milton would probably object to that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 13, 2024, 07:38:16 PM
A new terrain US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater would definitely not be worth the cost. That would have been outrageously expensive for little benefit. The traffic on US-12 between Elkhorn and WI-67 is mostly local and is only really bad in the summer.

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

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 13, 2024, 07:39:29 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 13, 2024, 05:32:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 13, 2024, 08:55:04 AM
To be honest, I think the DOT figured out long before the politicians did that a lot of these two-lane expansion projects weren't really worth the costs. Sure a 11/14 expansion would be nice...as would a US-12 Fort Atkinson bypass... But both of them are hardly as necessary as adding capacity to existing interstate corridors.

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

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

Yeah that's what I meant by "overkill."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2024, 11:17:45 PM
Maybe someday the bypass might be built, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I would have liked the Whitewater-to-Elkhorn realignment to have been constructed, even as a two-lane roadway with at-grade intersections. However, that is as likely to happen as upgrading the Whitewater Bypass into a four-lane freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 15, 2024, 09:05:38 AM
If it ever gets built, it will be decades from now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 15, 2024, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 13, 2024, 07:17:51 PM
US 12 on a new alignment between Elkhorn and the Whitewater Bypass would be worth it since the traffic counts are high enough and there's a lot of bad intersections and driveways. A Fort Atkinson Bypass wouldn't be worth it at all. Traffic heading to Madison would take N/Wis 59/I-90 over US 12 after Whitewater. It would be logical to reroute Wis 59 on County N but Milton would probably object to that.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 13, 2024, 07:38:16 PM
A new terrain US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater would definitely not be worth the cost. That would have been outrageously expensive for little benefit. The traffic on US-12 between Elkhorn and WI-67 is mostly local and is only really bad in the summer.

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

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

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

As others have pointed out, don't hold your breath. As long as the legislature continues to be more concerned with protecting the party brand than solving the state's problems, nothing to resolve the highway funding problem will happen. We're still at 2009 funding levels thanks to the terrible decision to eliminate the fuel tax index, and that's impacting what kinds of projects get done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 15, 2024, 01:51:41 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 15, 2024, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 13, 2024, 07:17:51 PM
US 12 on a new alignment between Elkhorn and the Whitewater Bypass would be worth it since the traffic counts are high enough and there's a lot of bad intersections and driveways. A Fort Atkinson Bypass wouldn't be worth it at all. Traffic heading to Madison would take N/Wis 59/I-90 over US 12 after Whitewater. It would be logical to reroute Wis 59 on County N but Milton would probably object to that.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 13, 2024, 07:38:16 PM
A new terrain US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater would definitely not be worth the cost. That would have been outrageously expensive for little benefit. The traffic on US-12 between Elkhorn and WI-67 is mostly local and is only really bad in the summer.

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

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

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

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

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

Gas prices are one of the hottest topics and no politician wants to take blame for increasing prices.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 15, 2024, 02:45:43 PM
I agree, IMHO, the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' is a 'natural' long term project that will eventually separate the 'through' traffic between the cities from the more local access stuff on the existing roads, but when it is done ,build it as a 'Super Two' freeway on an upgradable four lane ROW.  It has an amazing amount of clear path along its way, too.  I also very much like the idea of rebuilding the US 12/WI 20/67 intersection as a roundabout, again to be able to handle the more localized traffic.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on February 21, 2024, 02:16:07 PM
Construction season is coming up. Any projects in 2024 that anyone is looking forward to?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 21, 2024, 06:16:59 PM
Check Wisconsin's 511 website: https://projects.511wi.gov/. That should tell you everything you need to know about upcoming projects around the state this year.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 22, 2024, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 21, 2024, 02:16:07 PM
Construction season is coming up. Any projects in 2024 that anyone is looking forward to?

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

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US 12 fan on February 27, 2024, 12:57:11 PM
Apparently there was an issue with the Mississippi River bridge that connects Highway 82 in Wisconsin with Highway 9 in Iowa. Now it is closed.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2024/02/27/bridge-over-mississippi-river-closed-to-iowa-wisconsin-commuters/72749462007/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2024, 01:58:20 PM
The bridge deck of the STH 82 bridge looks very weird to me, given it does not have any pavement: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3654832,-91.2140646,3a,75y,251.06h,79.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxx6RTFntR_2lZ1Il_x6KfA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dxx6RTFntR_2lZ1Il_x6KfA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D258.81693%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. It probably has been that way since it first opened in 1931. I'm glad they're building a new bridge to replace the existing one: https://iowadot.gov/lansingbridge/Home.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 27, 2024, 02:01:04 PM
I wasn't aware that they had decided to replace that bridge. Did the ongoing construction cause the existing bridge piers to move?

I have been across it once. It is an odd structure and really out of the way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on February 28, 2024, 09:57:40 AM
I've had to cross it when the Prairie Du Chien bridge was closed. I couldn't believe they were still letting cars on it.

I find it interesting that they are going to build a replacement in the identical shape and style, without the grate deck, as you very rarely see those giant steel trusses in new construction these days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 28, 2024, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 27, 2024, 02:01:04 PM
I wasn't aware that they had decided to replace that bridge. Did the ongoing construction cause the existing bridge piers to move?

That is the suspicion, given how close the replacement span is to the original. The JS article quoted the Iowa DOT that investigators looked at it, but didn't share the outcome. It would be odd if the pier movement wasn't related somehow.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 28, 2024, 01:54:41 PM
Quote from: mrose on February 28, 2024, 09:57:40 AM
I've had to cross it when the Prairie Du Chien bridge was closed. I couldn't believe they were still letting cars on it.

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


I think they wanted it to look like the old one, but improved.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on February 28, 2024, 04:52:21 PM
Thread about that bridge: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34519.0
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on March 05, 2024, 11:34:47 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 22, 2024, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 21, 2024, 02:16:07 PM
Construction season is coming up. Any projects in 2024 that anyone is looking forward to?

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


:nod:

Mike

Which is starting in April.  This project is sorely overdue, so it's good that we're here finally.

https://fox11online.com/news/local/i-41-expansion-from-de-pere-to-appleton-begins-next-month-brown-outagamie-county-lanes-traffic-closure-construction-road-barriers-wisconsin-travel#
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 05, 2024, 12:51:42 PM
Quote from: gbgoose on March 05, 2024, 11:34:47 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 22, 2024, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on February 21, 2024, 02:16:07 PM
Construction season is coming up. Any projects in 2024 that anyone is looking forward to?

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


:nod:

Mike

Which is starting in April.  This project is sorely overdue, so it's good that we're here finally.

https://fox11online.com/news/local/i-41-expansion-from-de-pere-to-appleton-begins-next-month-brown-outagamie-county-lanes-traffic-closure-construction-road-barriers-wisconsin-travel#

Agreed.  Workday traffic on that road is continually feeling more and more like Packers gameday traffic.

Now, to restore common-carrier passenger rail service in the I-41 corridor.

:)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 05, 2024, 02:27:08 PM
The replacement of the Interstate 39/90/94 bridge over the Wisconsin River starts this year, although I do not know the exact date construction will begin. Hopefully, the reconstruction of the Madison to Wisconsin Dells 39/90/94 corridor follows the replacement of the Wisconsin River Bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 07, 2024, 12:46:21 AM
I see that there's more work on I-41 in the Fox Cities between Breezewood and Wis 15. Diamond grinding will smooth the pavement. Looking forward to the rehab since that stretch was getting rough.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 07, 2024, 11:23:19 AM
Lotta 90's era concrete in need of maintenance around the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 07, 2024, 01:46:49 PM
WisDOT has been replacing bad squares in it every few years for a decade or two now.  Just normal overnight maintenance.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 08, 2024, 12:22:26 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 07, 2024, 11:23:19 AM
Lotta 90's era concrete in need of maintenance around the state.

That's because Wisconsin built more expressways in the 1990s than any other decade. Nearly all of Wis 29 was constructed between Chippewa Falls and Green Bay, US 151 west of Madison and northeast of Columbus, Wis 54 between Plover and Wis Rapids, US 10 in Waupaca County, and US 51 between Merrill and Tomahawk to name a few projects. I wonder why in Appleton I-41/Wis 441 are undergoing a diamond grind while US 151 around Verona and Beaver Dam is being resurfaced?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 08, 2024, 06:30:56 AM
My best guess is cost-effectiveness. I-41 apparently is in good enough condition to justify the grinding, where other areas have degraded to the point resurfacing is needed to restore ride quality.

Then again, I've seen WisDOT do asphalt overlays for roads that were basically fine. So maybe there's a logic to this we aren't in on.

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 08, 2024, 12:04:32 PM
The thing about grinding concrete level is it can be an interim step a few years ahead of an asphalt overlay or a full depth replacement.
Also, much shorter-term lane closures so they can get it done quickly over a series of nights.  Important for a busy freeway like I-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 08, 2024, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 08, 2024, 12:04:32 PM
The thing about grinding concrete level is it can be an interim step a few years ahead of an asphalt overlay or a full depth replacement.
Also, much shorter-term lane closures so they can get it done quickly over a series of nights.  Important for a busy freeway like I-41.

WISDOT must love the concrete on I-43 in Ozaukee County because it underwent another diamond grind. In order to make it effective a dowel bar retrofit is needed between the expansion joints. Seems like that could use a resurfacing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 10, 2024, 11:22:40 AM
My next question is that will the federal approval of the pending I-94 'big shovel' work in Milwaukee cause WisDOT to delay any on the I-41 upgrade work that is about to start here in the Appleton to Green Bay area.

:hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 10, 2024, 08:23:41 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 08, 2024, 06:30:56 AM
My best guess is cost-effectiveness. I-41 apparently is in good enough condition to justify the grinding, where other areas have degraded to the point resurfacing is needed to restore ride quality.

Then again, I've seen WisDOT do asphalt overlays for roads that were basically fine. So maybe there's a logic to this we aren't in on.

SM-G991U

My guess is they have a schedule of maintenance of that they want to follow, even if it's more proactive as opposed to reactive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on March 14, 2024, 12:20:15 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 10, 2024, 11:22:40 AM
My next question is that will the federal approval of the pending I-94 'big shovel' work in Milwaukee cause WisDOT to delay any on the I-41 upgrade work that is about to start here in the Appleton to Green Bay area.

:hmmm:

Mike

I-41 won't be delayed. All the planning and design work is done. If anything delay the US 51 major project, the weakest "major" project ever undertaken since it's only a 2 lane rebuild in the Stoughton Area. It does seem like new 4 lane expansions are largely over and new major projects are going to add lanes to existing freeways.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 14, 2024, 12:48:14 AM
Center Ave (US-51) in Janesville begins reconstruction on Monday between Nicolet St and W. Court St, including the "Five Points" intersection (pic from Janesville Gazette).

It's a 2-year long ground-up rebuild, including sewer, water main, signal upgrades, and bridge rehabilitation.

More info: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51intersection-janesville/default.aspx


(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazettextra.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/38/2380143a-dbce-11ee-b119-4f529034efc2/65e88b8a0a8a0.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C696)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2024, 12:56:27 PM
Maybe Madison St. should be cul-du-saced given its close proximity to the intersection and the railroad tracks. I doubt that will be part of the project, though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 06:08:50 PM
Wow, seems like they should've just saved money to trench the railroad tracks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2024, 06:56:25 PM
What is the shape of the Wisconsin route shield supposed to be? Or better yet where is it derived from?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on March 15, 2024, 06:59:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 15, 2024, 06:56:25 PM
What is the shape of the Wisconsin route shield supposed to be? Or better yet where is it derived from?
Originally a triangle, then a square was mixed in it to make the number easier to read.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 15, 2024, 09:00:20 PM
Quote from: Big John on March 15, 2024, 06:59:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 15, 2024, 06:56:25 PM
What is the shape of the Wisconsin route shield supposed to be? Or better yet where is it derived from?
Originally a triangle, then a square was mixed in it to make the number easier to read.

This subforum has the current shield as its avatar (black numbers).  freestanding signs have a black outlive.
Mike

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 15, 2024, 10:01:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 06:08:50 PM
Wow, seems like they should've just saved money to trench the railroad tracks.
Topography prevents that from happening. The rail tracks lead right into the WSOR depot, and have to cross the Rock River in almost every direction away from the depot.

To grade separate, they'd have to dig a giant pit or a massive overpass for the intersecting streets, which would be a real boondoggle.

SM-G991U

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2024, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 15, 2024, 10:01:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 06:08:50 PM
Wow, seems like they should've just saved money to trench the railroad tracks.
Topography prevents that from happening. The rail tracks lead right into the WSOR depot, and have to cross the Rock River in almost every direction away from the depot.

To grade separate, they'd have to dig a giant pit or a massive overpass for the intersecting streets, which would be a real boondoggle.

SM-G991U
It would be expensive for sure. I was thinking of something like the Alameda project in LA. How busy is this freight line?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 17, 2024, 10:05:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2024, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 15, 2024, 10:01:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 06:08:50 PM
Wow, seems like they should've just saved money to trench the railroad tracks.
Topography prevents that from happening. The rail tracks lead right into the WSOR depot, and have to cross the Rock River in almost every direction away from the depot.

To grade separate, they'd have to dig a giant pit or a massive overpass for the intersecting streets, which would be a real boondoggle.

SM-G991U
It would be expensive for sure. I was thinking of something like the Alameda project in LA. How busy is this freight line?

Not busy enough to merit such a boondoggle. WSOR rarely blocks Court St. very long, and they're only moving through there at about 10 mph or less, so it's not an unsafe RR crossing in particular. The signals are also very responsive and are set to clear Court St vehicles before trains cross. The rest of the intersection functions normally while waiting for the train to clear. In the rare instance a train is stuck blocking the intersection, there's several spots people can cross over or under the tracks nearby.

It would be one thing if Hwy 11 was still on Court St, but the southern Janesville bypass takes the majority of the truck traffic out of the area. Other than extending the left turn lane from NBD Center Ave (US-51) to WBD Court St, and the right-turn lane from SBD Centerway (US-51) to W Court St, and adding a formal pedestrian crossing on the south side of Court St, there's not much the intersection reasonably needs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2024, 12:51:33 PM
Madison and the Rock River cities (Janesville, Beloit, Rockford) are 'off the beaten path' when it comes to rail traffic going northwest out of Chicago.  Most of that goes thru Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2024, 05:53:22 PM
As everyone likely knows, in the 2000s, there was a proposal to extend the Metra line from Kenosha to Milwaukee. The extension was cancelled but appears to have been revived (along with a Madison-to-Milwaukee rail line): https://www.wisbusiness.com/2024/two-wisconsin-passenger-rail-ideas-back-on-the-study-track/. What do all of you think about these proposals? I'm not practically enthusiastic about them since I'd prefer utilizing buses between cities, but I am willing to hear feedback from others.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 18, 2024, 10:55:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2024, 05:53:22 PM
As everyone likely knows, in the 2000s, there was a proposal to extend the Metra line from Kenosha to Milwaukee. The extension was cancelled but appears to have been revived (along with a Madison-to-Milwaukee rail line): https://www.wisbusiness.com/2024/two-wisconsin-passenger-rail-ideas-back-on-the-study-track/. What do all of you think about these proposals? I'm not practically enthusiastic about them since I'd prefer utilizing buses between cities, but I am willing to hear feedback from others.

I'm more bullish on the idea of restoring inter-city rail passenger service in the I-41 corridor to Green Bay, including reclaiming and restoring the Eisenbahn State Trail (former CNW grade via West bend) for rail use as part of the route.  From all that I am aware of, the pre-May 1971 CNW service to Green Bay via Appleton was operating at a profit 'above the rails' and Amtrak wanted to take it over at their startup at that time, but other factors, many of which are no longer valid issues, prevented that.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 19, 2024, 09:26:37 AM
I honestly can't see anyone supporting turning a state trail back into a working railroad.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 19, 2024, 10:23:04 AM
Well that's always been a part of the rails-to-trails deal.  They retain the right to turn it back to railroad in the future if the need arises.  And the utility of using that corridor via West Bend for MKE - Fox Valley passenger rail is extremely high.  Especially since West Bend is the perfect distance between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac for an intermediate stop.

And obviously I've made my feelings known about MKE-MSN and how that should've been done a decade ago, but for certain short-sighted political bullcrap.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 19, 2024, 10:48:27 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 19, 2024, 10:23:04 AM
Well that's always been a part of the rails-to-trails deal.  They retain the right to turn it back to railroad in the future if the need arises.  And the utility of using that corridor via West Bend for MKE - Fox Valley passenger rail is extremely high.  Especially since West Bend is the perfect distance between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac for an intermediate stop.

I realize that it *can* be turned back. I just think there would be a public uprising if they seriously suggested turning it back into a rail line.

I really don't share your opinion on the utility of that line. It's an easy drive and most people have gotten used to that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 19, 2024, 11:42:25 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 19, 2024, 10:48:27 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 19, 2024, 10:23:04 AM
Well that's always been a part of the rails-to-trails deal.  They retain the right to turn it back to railroad in the future if the need arises.  And the utility of using that corridor via West Bend for MKE - Fox Valley passenger rail is extremely high.  Especially since West Bend is the perfect distance between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac for an intermediate stop.

I realize that it *can* be turned back. I just think there would be a public uprising if they seriously suggested turning it back into a rail line.

I really don't share your opinion on the utility of that line. It's an easy drive and most people have gotten used to that.

I am going to disagree with you respectfully. Turning that trail back into a rail line would be a good idea. In fact, I would even add a station in the Northwest Suburbs around Brown Deer Rd and 107th St.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 19, 2024, 11:59:43 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 19, 2024, 10:23:04 AM
Well that's always been a part of the rails-to-trails deal.  They retain the right to turn it back to railroad in the future if the need arises.  And the utility of using that corridor via West Bend for MKE - Fox Valley passenger rail is extremely high.  Especially since West Bend is the perfect distance between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac for an intermediate stop.

And obviously I've made my feelings known about MKE-MSN and how that should've been done a decade ago, but for certain short-sighted political bullcrap.

A key tenet of the federal 'Rails To Trails' act has always been the agreement that any such facilities can be restored to rail usage at any time, it was meant as a way of preserving such routings that have a potential for future transportation use but not RIGHT NOW.  Kind of like preserving routings for future highways.

That said, IMHO, restoring the Eisenbahn Trail to rail use would be more cost-effective as it is already graded and deep-ballasted compared having to add a second main track to the existing CN (ex WC, nee SOO) route (currently single-track with CTC-controled passing sidings and was never double tracked), which would require building an entirely new grade through an environmentally iffy area (although CN might have to do that in a few years anyways with the current levels of their own freight traffic).  And additionally, going by way of West Bend also brings a 10K+ market directly into the mix - a 'win-win'.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 19, 2024, 02:01:24 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 19, 2024, 11:59:43 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 19, 2024, 10:23:04 AM
Well that's always been a part of the rails-to-trails deal.  They retain the right to turn it back to railroad in the future if the need arises.  And the utility of using that corridor via West Bend for MKE - Fox Valley passenger rail is extremely high.  Especially since West Bend is the perfect distance between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac for an intermediate stop.

And obviously I've made my feelings known about MKE-MSN and how that should've been done a decade ago, but for certain short-sighted political bullcrap.

A key tenet of the federal 'Rails To Trails' act has always been the agreement that any such facilities can be restored to rail usage at any time, it was meant as a way of preserving such routings that have a potential for future transportation use but not RIGHT NOW.  Kind of like preserving routings for future highways.

That said, IMHO, restoring the Eisenbahn Trail to rail use would be more cost-effective as it is already graded and deep-ballasted compared having to add a second main track to the existing CN (ex WC, nee SOO) route (currently single-track with CTC-controled passing sidings and was never double tracked), which would require building an entirely new grade through an environmentally iffy area (although CN might have to do that in a few years anyways with the current levels of their own freight traffic).  And additionally, going by way of West Bend also brings a 10K+ market directly into the mix - a 'win-win'.

Mike
Actually, West Bend in the last census is now over 31k. If you add Jackson (7198), Kewaskum (4372) and Barton (2546) as surrounding cities, that brings the area pop to over 45k. Not a bad market at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 19, 2024, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 19, 2024, 11:42:25 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 19, 2024, 10:48:27 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 19, 2024, 10:23:04 AM
Well that's always been a part of the rails-to-trails deal.  They retain the right to turn it back to railroad in the future if the need arises.  And the utility of using that corridor via West Bend for MKE - Fox Valley passenger rail is extremely high.  Especially since West Bend is the perfect distance between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac for an intermediate stop.

I realize that it *can* be turned back. I just think there would be a public uprising if they seriously suggested turning it back into a rail line.

I really don't share your opinion on the utility of that line. It's an easy drive and most people have gotten used to that.

I am going to disagree with you respectfully. Turning that trail back into a rail line would be a good idea. In fact, I would even add a station in the Northwest Suburbs around Brown Deer Rd and 107th St.

I just don't see a significant number of people using it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on March 19, 2024, 04:41:26 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 19, 2024, 10:23:04 AM
Well that's always been a part of the rails-to-trails deal.  They retain the right to turn it back to railroad in the future if the need arises.  And the utility of using that corridor via West Bend for MKE - Fox Valley passenger rail is extremely high.  Especially since West Bend is the perfect distance between Milwaukee and Fond du Lac for an intermediate stop.

And obviously I've made my feelings known about MKE-MSN and how that should've been done a decade ago, but for certain short-sighted political bullcrap.

They may have grounds to turn a trail back to rail, but if it would be economically palatable to anyone is another question. It's not just rebuilding the track, but restoring all the long-removed crossing lights and gates, utilities, and other associated infrastructure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 19, 2024, 05:10:56 PM
If you build it, they will come.
Such a train would be well-used for Packer games, that's for sure.
But really it's for moving people to/from Chicago.  As a functional extension of the Hiawatha Line, that's going to be the biggest advantage here; not bringing people between, say, Appleton and Milwaukee (though it will), but to open up easy access to Chicago for the Fox Valley Cities.  That is the slam dunk about this proposal as far as I'm concerned.

More trains to Chicago; that's what I'm talking about.  Driving sucks in that entire metro and their airports are a shitshow.  If you build it, they will come.
That's what pissed me off the most about a former governor up here turning down big federal money to link Madison and Milwaukee.  It's not just about those two cities.  It's about having better options to get into Chicago, the economic engine of the entire Midwest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheCatalyst31 on March 19, 2024, 07:15:21 PM
I'll never forgive Walker for turning down that federal money. I love Madison, but one of its biggest downsides is the complete lack of passenger rail, and I know so many people (myself included) who have friends in Chicago or go there on a regular basis.