Wisconsin notes

[JMAN_WiS&S]

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.

[JoePCool14]

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.)

[peterj920]

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.

[Big John]

^^ 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).

[JREwing78]

^^ 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

[mgk920]

^^ 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

[on_wisconsin]

WisDOT is asking for input on the next edition of the state highway map: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx

[JREwing78]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

^^ 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. 

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[mgk920]

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

[dvferyance]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

That was likely due to Covid. I fully expect a new state highway map to be released next year.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqlaVWhGpGE

Public meeting for I-39/90/94 Corridor Study – January 2024

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[Big John]

^^ 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.

[dvferyance]

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.

[mgk920]

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

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[mgk920]

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

[peterj920]

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.

[on_wisconsin]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.