Wisconsin notes

[JREwing78]

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

[peterj920]

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.

[tchafe1978]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[SSOWorld]

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)

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[mgk920]

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

[Big John]

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.

[dvferyance]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[peterj920]

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!

[JREwing78]

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.

[mgk920]

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

[JREwing78]

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.

[JMAN_WiS&S]

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

[texaskdog]

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.

[JMAN_WiS&S]

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.

[invincor]

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.

[invincor]

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.

[invincor]

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. 

[JMAN_WiS&S]

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.

[invincor]

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. 

[JMAN_WiS&S]

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!

[on_wisconsin]

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.

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?   

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.

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 5–10 years. It's a bit surprising there hasn't been much, if any, urgency from WisDOT on the matter...