WISDOT Inconsistencies with routing highways in cities

[peterj920]

With the Waukesha Bypass construction, US 18 is the latest highway to be routed outside of a city.  It will join Eau Claire as the second city to not have a state or US highway routed within its inner city.  Over the last 20 years, highways have been removed from inner cities of Burlington, Oconomowoc, New London, Rhinelander, Whitewater, and Waupaca (Wis 22 went into Downtown, Wis 49 skirts it) in addition to Waukesha.  However, many other highways could easily be removed from the inner cities and cosigned with bypasses but are not.  Wis 29 and Wis 54 could easily in Green Bay, Wis 19 in Watertown, Wis 26 in Waupun, US 61 in Lancaster, Wis 11 in Delavan and Elkorn, Wis 23 in Fond Du Lac, and Wis 124 in Chippewa Falls.  Could also throw US 151 in there, but I'm guessing it's in Madison due to traveling nearby the Capitol Building. 

Wausau also has Business 51 which is the only fully state maintained Business route in Wisconsin.  In the Stevens Point area, Business 51 is still state maintained through Plover and Whiting.  After it undergoes the $42 reconstruction project, it is unclear if it will remain a state highway or be turned over to the villages. 

I'd like to know why WISDOT is determined to keep state highways in some cities when they can easily be rerouted along bypasses but remove them from others.

[hobsini2]

Wis 19 makes sense where it ends though in Watertown. Now if it was ectended east, then routing it on the Wis 16 Bypass would make sense. US 61 in Lancaster should be on Wis 129.

I like having state highways still routed in a city. Leave Wis 23 on Johnson St in Fond du Lac.

[SEWIGuy]

With the Waukesha Bypass construction, US 18 is the latest highway to be routed outside of a city.  It will join Eau Claire as the second city to not have a state or US highway routed within its inner city.  Over the last 20 years, highways have been removed from inner cities of Burlington, Oconomowoc, New London, Rhinelander, Whitewater, and Waupaca (Wis 22 went into Downtown, Wis 49 skirts it) in addition to Waukesha.  However, many other highways could easily be removed from the inner cities and cosigned with bypasses but are not.  Wis 29 and Wis 54 could easily in Green Bay, Wis 19 in Watertown, Wis 26 in Waupun, US 61 in Lancaster, Wis 11 in Delavan and Elkorn, Wis 23 in Fond Du Lac, and Wis 124 in Chippewa Falls.  Could also throw US 151 in there, but I'm guessing it's in Madison due to traveling nearby the Capitol Building. 

How exactly would you bypass WI-11 around Elkhorn and Delavan?  Using I-43 between US-14 and the WI-11 interchange east of Elkhorn?  That is a lot more than a traditional bypass.

[peterj920]

With the Waukesha Bypass construction, US 18 is the latest highway to be routed outside of a city.  It will join Eau Claire as the second city to not have a state or US highway routed within its inner city.  Over the last 20 years, highways have been removed from inner cities of Burlington, Oconomowoc, New London, Rhinelander, Whitewater, and Waupaca (Wis 22 went into Downtown, Wis 49 skirts it) in addition to Waukesha.  However, many other highways could easily be removed from the inner cities and cosigned with bypasses but are not.  Wis 29 and Wis 54 could easily in Green Bay, Wis 19 in Watertown, Wis 26 in Waupun, US 61 in Lancaster, Wis 11 in Delavan and Elkorn, Wis 23 in Fond Du Lac, and Wis 124 in Chippewa Falls.  Could also throw US 151 in there, but I'm guessing it's in Madison due to traveling nearby the Capitol Building. 

How exactly would you bypass WI-11 around Elkhorn and Delavan?  Using I-43 between US-14 and the WI-11 interchange east of Elkhorn?  That is a lot more than a traditional bypass.

If Wis 11 would be routed onto I-43 and US 14 in the area, all of Wis 11 would be on the National Highway Systems since that is the only part of the highway that isn't. 

[GeekJedi]

I like having state highways still routed in a city. Leave Wis 23 on Johnson St in Fond du Lac.

In the case of Waukesha, I remember WI 59 routing through the city before the bypass was built. Traffic was always a mess due to the zig-zagging of that route between St. Paul Ave. and Arcadian Ave. (of course, it didn't help that downtown Waukesha was a mess of one-way streets). The same problem exists today with US 18 through the city.

At any rate, I believe major highways really shouldn't go *through* major cities on local streets, unless they're limited access boulevards, or they terminate there. There's just too much traffic and too many hazards around for that to make much sense.

[dvferyance]

With the Waukesha Bypass construction, US 18 is the latest highway to be routed outside of a city.  It will join Eau Claire as the second city to not have a state or US highway routed within its inner city.  Over the last 20 years, highways have been removed from inner cities of Burlington, Oconomowoc, New London, Rhinelander, Whitewater, and Waupaca (Wis 22 went into Downtown, Wis 49 skirts it) in addition to Waukesha.  However, many other highways could easily be removed from the inner cities and cosigned with bypasses but are not.  Wis 29 and Wis 54 could easily in Green Bay, Wis 19 in Watertown, Wis 26 in Waupun, US 61 in Lancaster, Wis 11 in Delavan and Elkorn, Wis 23 in Fond Du Lac, and Wis 124 in Chippewa Falls.  Could also throw US 151 in there, but I'm guessing it's in Madison due to traveling nearby the Capitol Building. 

Wausau also has Business 51 which is the only fully state maintained Business route in Wisconsin.  In the Stevens Point area, Business 51 is still state maintained through Plover and Whiting.  After it undergoes the $42 reconstruction project, it is unclear if it will remain a state highway or be turned over to the villages. 

I'd like to know why WISDOT is determined to keep state highways in some cities when they can easily be rerouted along bypasses but remove them from others.

I still have some skepticism that the Waukesha Bypass will be built. It just keeps getting delayed delayed delayed. It really isn't needed and the DOT is broke.

[GeekJedi]

It just keeps getting delayed delayed delayed. It really isn't needed and the DOT is broke.

It's being funded by the city and county and the DOT, and the money is in the budget. If WisDOT wasn't ready, they wouldn't have filed with AASHO to do the "Temporary" 18 designation, nor would they have done the Summit Ave. upgrades before "downloading" it to the City of Waukesha.

Anyone who's traveled US 18 through Waukesha during the week will tell you it's definitely needed. It's one of the hardest to navigate routes in the city.

[GeekJedi]

I'd also add that as the traffic counts rise on Merrill Hills Rd., something will have to give. Try making a left turn onto Merrill Hills from MacArthur Rd. during a busy time. It can take a while.

[SEWIGuy]

BTW, I think WIDOT should route US-151 along the interstate and the Beltline.  If they want to reserve a state highway to the capitol, renumber it something like WI-551.

[GeekJedi]

BTW, I think WIDOT should route US-151 along the interstate and the Beltline.  If they want to reserve a state highway to the capitol, renumber it something like WI-551.

Or even a perfect case to change the rules and create WI-1!

[SEWIGuy]

BTW, I think WIDOT should route US-151 along the interstate and the Beltline.  If they want to reserve a state highway to the capitol, renumber it something like WI-551.

Or even a perfect case to change the rules and create WI-1!

That's even a better idea.

[JMAN_WiS&S]

Even though it is not a full freeway or even a highway thru town, U.S. 12 still goes thru Eau Claire, and for much of its current alignment (originally a bypass of downtown), U.S. 12 or Clairemont Ave is easily the main arterial surface thoroughfare thru town at 3 lanes per direction. It goes thru the middle of commercial and residential developments.

[peterj920]

Even though it is not a full freeway or even a highway thru town, U.S. 12 still goes thru Eau Claire, and for much of its current alignment (originally a bypass of downtown), U.S. 12 or Clairemont Ave is easily the main arterial surface thoroughfare thru town at 3 lanes per direction. It goes thru the middle of commercial and residential developments.

US 12 has a 45mph speed limit and doesn't travel within the inner city of Eau Claire.  On the south side, it does travel through newer parts of the community, but past Menomonie St, it borders the western city limits.  The gas station on the northwest corner of US 12 and County E is actually in the Town of Union.  In college, people would take advantage of that and buy beer there after 9 since they could sell til midnight. 

Urban highways in Wisconsin are considered "connecting highways" by WISDOT, where the cities control the highway decisions (signals, lane markings, etc).  For example, in Milwaukee and Green Bay, the signals within the city look different than what WISDOT uses because the cities make the decision on what style signals are erected, not WISDOT.  US 12 is not listed as a connecting highway because it's mainly suburban and does not have characteristics of a municipal street, such as multiple driveways and a slower speed limit.  WISDOT does provide connecting highway aids to cities to compensate for maintenance, but the municipality is in charge of the road.   All of the state highways in Eau Claire are WISDOT maintained and Eau Claire does not own any of the highways within its borders.  I have a link below where WISDOT lists all of the connecting highways in each city. 

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/data-plan/plan-res/connecting.aspx

[dvferyance]

It just keeps getting delayed delayed delayed. It really isn't needed and the DOT is broke.

It's being funded by the city and county and the DOT, and the money is in the budget. If WisDOT wasn't ready, they wouldn't have filed with AASHO to do the "Temporary" 18 designation, nor would they have done the Summit Ave. upgrades before "downloading" it to the City of Waukesha.

Anyone who's traveled US 18 through Waukesha during the week will tell you it's definitely needed. It's one of the hardest to navigate routes in the city.

Waukesha already has a bypass it's called I-94. I will believe the Waukesha bypass will happen when I see it. It's been delayed for 25 years now and I just heard on WISN radio this morning from Rep Joe Sanfillipo the budget problems in the transportation fund.

[GeekJedi]

Waukesha already has a bypass it's called I-94. I will believe the Waukesha bypass will happen when I see it. It's been delayed for 25 years now and I just heard on WISN radio this morning from Rep Joe Sanfillipo the budget problems in the transportation fund.

You may call it a bypass, but it's not a bypass (unless you have some secret quick route to get from the west side of Waukesha to that "bypass" without, you know, actually going through Waukesha).

The money is already there. I'd give it a high chance of happening, with the temporary route approved and signed, and the Summit Ave. construction almost done - there have been "budget problems" in the transportation fund for years now.

[SEWIGuy]

It just keeps getting delayed delayed delayed. It really isn't needed and the DOT is broke.

It's being funded by the city and county and the DOT, and the money is in the budget. If WisDOT wasn't ready, they wouldn't have filed with AASHO to do the "Temporary" 18 designation, nor would they have done the Summit Ave. upgrades before "downloading" it to the City of Waukesha.

Anyone who's traveled US 18 through Waukesha during the week will tell you it's definitely needed. It's one of the hardest to navigate routes in the city.

Waukesha already has a bypass it's called I-94. I will believe the Waukesha bypass will happen when I see it. It's been delayed for 25 years now and I just heard on WISN radio this morning from Rep Joe Sanfillipo the budget problems in the transportation fund.

The west Waukesha bypass has already been approved for construction next year.  It would have gone this year but it was a non fiscal issue that held it up.  They have already done the design work and property acquisition.  It would be ridiculously short-sighted to hold it up now.

[Mrt90]

It just keeps getting delayed delayed delayed. It really isn't needed and the DOT is broke.

It's being funded by the city and county and the DOT, and the money is in the budget. If WisDOT wasn't ready, they wouldn't have filed with AASHO to do the "Temporary" 18 designation, nor would they have done the Summit Ave. upgrades before "downloading" it to the City of Waukesha.

Anyone who's traveled US 18 through Waukesha during the week will tell you it's definitely needed. It's one of the hardest to navigate routes in the city.

Waukesha already has a bypass it's called I-94. I will believe the Waukesha bypass will happen when I see it. It's been delayed for 25 years now and I just heard on WISN radio this morning from Rep Joe Sanfillipo the budget problems in the transportation fund.

The west Waukesha bypass has already been approved for construction next year.  It would have gone this year but it was a non fiscal issue that held it up.  They have already done the design work and property acquisition.  It would be ridiculously short-sighted to hold it up now.

I'm not familiar with the Waukesha area in great detail but I assume from looking at a map that people are already using Merrill Hills/Meadowbrook as a "bypass" of the city of Waukesha?  So making it a real bypass now just solves a future mess.

I was looking at a plan for future construction on Hwy 50 in Kenosha County, from I-94/I-41 to approximately 43rd Avenue, and I noticed that part of the plan was to turn over the road east of Wis 31 (Green Bay Road) to Kenosha/Pleasant Prairie.  I assume this is part of what seems to be the same plan being discussed here by turning over those types of urban state highways to local control?  Also makes me wonder if they'll do the same thing with Wis 158, perhaps turning over the part from Wis 31 to Lake Michigan to the City of Kenosha, and making the part from I-94/I-41 to Wis 31 a county highway.

[GeekJedi]

I'm not familiar with the Waukesha area in great detail but I assume from looking at a map that people are already using Merrill Hills/Meadowbrook as a "bypass" of the city of Waukesha?  So making it a real bypass now just solves a future mess.

That's the problem - people are already using it as a bypass and it's a collection of narrow, low line-of-sight roads. There's one particular intersection that's fairly brutal, and can have quite a wait when you want to make a left turn. It's not a matter of if it should be a bypass, the fact is that it is a "de-facto" one now and safety improvements need to be made either way.

[peterj920]

If the governor's transportation budget proposal holds up, I wonder if WISDOT will propose to turn back more urban highways back to cities with the increase in local aid? 

[SEWIGuy]

I am going to post back to this topic instead of the general Wisconsin notes thread.

I have relocated to the Green Bay area, and I have come to the conclusion that WI-29 should not be routed into the city and in fact should end at I-41.  Even the locals get confused as to the interchange with WI-29 and Shawano Avenue due to the highway numbering.

I would eliminate WI-29 in the city of Green Bay, then extend US-141 to end at WI-42 at Kewaunee.

[mgk920]

I am going to post back to this topic instead of the general Wisconsin notes thread.

I have relocated to the Green Bay area, and I have come to the conclusion that WI-29 should not be routed into the city and in fact should end at I-41.  Even the locals get confused as to the interchange with WI-29 and Shawano Avenue due to the highway numbering.

I would eliminate WI-29 in the city of Green Bay, then extend US-141 to end at WI-42 at Kewaunee.

On that same note, and one that I have suggested in here and elsewhere many times, would be to turn Mason St over to Brown County (call it County 'E') and reroute WI 54 to replace WI 172 to the I-43 Bellevue interchange, then follow I-43 northward to the WI 54/57 University interchange.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

I am going to post back to this topic instead of the general Wisconsin notes thread.

I have relocated to the Green Bay area, and I have come to the conclusion that WI-29 should not be routed into the city and in fact should end at I-41.  Even the locals get confused as to the interchange with WI-29 and Shawano Avenue due to the highway numbering.

I would eliminate WI-29 in the city of Green Bay, then extend US-141 to end at WI-42 at Kewaunee.

On that same note, and one that I have suggested in here and elsewhere many times, would be to turn Mason St over to Brown County (call it County 'E') and reroute WI 54 to replace WI 172 to the I-43 Bellevue interchange, then follow I-43 northward to the WI 54/57 University interchange.

Mike

Not a bad idea at all.  You would only be taking a few blocks off the state highway system since WI-32 runs over most of Mason St. west of the river.  (I wonder if the reason all the highways still run through the city is to keep the river bridges as state highways???)

[mgk920]

I am going to post back to this topic instead of the general Wisconsin notes thread.

I have relocated to the Green Bay area, and I have come to the conclusion that WI-29 should not be routed into the city and in fact should end at I-41.  Even the locals get confused as to the interchange with WI-29 and Shawano Avenue due to the highway numbering.

I would eliminate WI-29 in the city of Green Bay, then extend US-141 to end at WI-42 at Kewaunee.

On that same note, and one that I have suggested in here and elsewhere many times, would be to turn Mason St over to Brown County (call it County 'E') and reroute WI 54 to replace WI 172 to the I-43 Bellevue interchange, then follow I-43 northward to the WI 54/57 University interchange.

Mike

Not a bad idea at all.  You would only be taking a few blocks off the state highway system since WI-32 runs over most of Mason St. west of the river.  (I wonder if the reason all the highways still run through the city is to keep the river bridges as state highways???)

Just because it is not formally marked as a numbered state highway does not mean that WisDOT cannot continue its ownership and maintenance of a road and/or bridge.  IIRC, the Oneida Skyline Bridge (Oneida St over the Fox River) and possibly (I am not fully sure on this one) Oneida St itself from there to US 10/WI 441 here in Appleton is still owned by WisDOT.  The state did cede the new College Ave Fox River bridge to the city when it was completed a few years ago, though.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

If you end STH-29 at Interstate 41, what will you redesignate existing STH-29 between Bellevue and Kewaunee as? If the through Green Bay route of STH-29 were eliminated, I'd expect STH-29 would be rerouted to follow Green Bay's freeway system (such as via Interstate 41, STH-172, and Interstate 43).

[triplemultiplex]

If you end STH-29 at Interstate 41, what will you redesignate existing STH-29 between Bellevue and Kewaunee as?

Ummm...

I would eliminate WI-29 in the city of Green Bay, then extend US-141 to end at WI-42 at Kewaunee.