Wisconsin notes

[dvferyance]

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.

[FightingIrish]

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?

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[mgk920]

On a related note, the end sign on WI 125 westbound is 0.24 miles before the actual endpoint. 
http://www.mappedometer.com/?maproute=662120

Well, that IS where the 'JCT/I-41' sign is, after all.



Mike

[Revive 755]

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.  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 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.

[paulthemapguy]

On a related note, the end sign on WI 125 westbound is 0.24 miles before the actual endpoint. 
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.


WI-125 by Paul Drives, on Flickr

[dvferyance]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[dvferyance]

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.

[peterj920]

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?

[paulthemapguy]

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.

[peterj920]

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. 

[JREwing78]

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

[dvferyance]

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.

[GeekJedi]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

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?

[dvferyance]

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.

[DaBigE]

For the Madison-area folks:

Madison to study adding an interstate connection off Milwaukee Street [to I-94]

...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.

This 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.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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. 

[mgk920]

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

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[mgk920]

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

[peterj920]

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.