WIS 29 - Interstate Standard? Or no?

[merrycilantro]

Anybody out there have any thoughts on the current upgrades to WIS 29...whether or not it will be built to interstate standards all the way from Eau Claire to Green Bay, and if so...what would they number it?

[on_wisconsin]

WisDOT has LONG, LONG range plans for upgrading that entire stretch of highway to freeway standards. However, I wouldn't bet on any sort EC-GB Interstate for many decades to come.

[mgk920]

Agreed.  The freeway sections appear to me to be interstate standard, but the vast, vast majority of WI 29 between US 41 and I-94 is not freeway, it is surface expressway.

Mike

[froggie]

As I recall, there's even a 5-lane undivided section west of Wausau.

[SSOWorld]

Still is - they've planned for quite some time to get rid of that but I do not see that happening anytime soon.

It's the only non-65 section on the highway (not counting Green Bay area or Elk Mound area which have surface crossings and/or construction)

[texaskdog]

It should become US-8.  The current 8 is hardly an important road anymore

[Alps]

From Minneapolis to Green Bay, WIS 29 is a no-brainer. Is it good enough to use to Appleton instead of I-94 to US 10? I imagine the answer is still "yes." As long as grade crossings don't slow the route down and as long as accidents remain relatively low, I see no reason to keep upgrading.

[mgk920]

From Minneapolis to Green Bay, WIS 29 is a no-brainer. Is it good enough to use to Appleton instead of I-94 to US 10? I imagine the answer is still "yes." As long as grade crossings don't slow the route down and as long as accidents remain relatively low, I see no reason to keep upgrading.

WI 29 is far superior to US 10 between I-39 and I-94 for us here in Appleton - including when going to and from Eau Claire.  We'll see if the currently under-construction Marshfield Spur changes anything (it will cut at least 15 minutes off of the US 10/I-94 routing).  Most of US 10 west of Marshfield is a typical two-lane rural highway.

East of I-39, US 10 is the route to use.

Mike

[tchafe1978]

If you're in Appleton heading to Eau Claire, wouldn't you be able to use US 10 to I-39 to WIS 29? That seems like a faily logical route to take to me. I think the US 10 four-lane west of Stevens Point is pretty useless unless it gets four-laned all the way to I-94 eventually, which I haven't heard any plans of.

[Alps]

If you're in Appleton heading to Eau Claire, wouldn't you be able to use US 10 to I-39 to WIS 29? That seems like a faily logical route to take to me. I think the US 10 four-lane west of Stevens Point is pretty useless unless it gets four-laned all the way to I-94 eventually, which I haven't heard any plans of.

I guess the point of my earlier post was that, if people already prefer WIS 29 despite being longer distance than US 10, it doesn't need further upgrades (assuming WisDOT wants people to prefer 29). It seems that that's the case.

[mgk920]

If you're in Appleton heading to Eau Claire, wouldn't you be able to use US 10 to I-39 to WIS 29? That seems like a faily logical route to take to me. I think the US 10 four-lane west of Stevens Point is pretty useless unless it gets four-laned all the way to I-94 eventually, which I haven't heard any plans of.

I guess the point of my earlier post was that, if people already prefer WIS 29 despite being longer distance than US 10, it doesn't need further upgrades (assuming WisDOT wants people to prefer 29). It seems that that's the case.

Before its recent upgrades, WI 29 was a much slower routing, especially in the Chippewa Falls area.  Also, before its recent upgrades, US 10, especially east of Fremont, WI was a far slower routing going westward from Appleton - the freeway that opened in late 2003 (WI 76 to Fremont) cut about 10-15 minutes off of the time needed to travel that distance, bypassing a bunch of tiny slow-down towns along the way.

When the US 10 Marshfield Spur is completed, the only real slowdowns left on the two-lane part between Marshfield to I-94 will be at Neillsville, the two roundabouts at the end of the spur at Marshfield's south edge (one is at the end of the new highway, the other replaces the existing 90 degree turn that US 10 makes at its intersection with WI 80) and in the I-94 interchange area.

With I-94 being on that diagonal between US 10 at Osseo, WI and the Eau Claire area, US 10 west of I-39 could then be an attractive routing for traffic between the Fox Valley and Eau Claire and points west.  And with Stevens Point and all of those piddly little towns between I-39 and Marshfield no longer being in the way, US 10 will be a much faster route, likely 20+ minutes faster, than it was before.

Mike

[jdsmith435]

How about Interstate 96.  It fits the grid, and could help facilitate a fixed crossing of Lake Michigan from Manitowoc to Ludington (wouldn't that be an engineering feat?).  The freeway portion of US 31 from Ludington to Muskegon would also be numbered as I-96 to complete the Michigan section.

[Henry]

How about Interstate 96.  It fits the grid, and could help facilitate a fixed crossing of Lake Michigan from Manitowoc to Ludington (wouldn't that be an engineering feat?).  The freeway portion of US 31 from Ludington to Muskegon would also be numbered as I-96 to complete the Michigan section.

As much as we'd love to see that crossing get built, it will NEVER happen. I, for one, would be fine with two separate I-96s, which would keep hope alive for an I-98 further north (even if it's more pie in the sky).

[SSOWorld]

WIS 29 is fine as is.  There is no need to upgrade it because the traffic is not there to warrant it.  It would be another case of I-41 all over again.

[SEWIGuy]

WIS 29 is fine as is.  There is no need to upgrade it because the traffic is not there to warrant it.  It would be another case of I-41 all over again.

I-41 has plenty of traffic.  Certainly enough to justify the upgrade.

But yeah...WI-29 does not.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'd argue the WIS 29/US 51 interchanges are excessively overbuilt.

[SSOWorld]

I'd argue the WIS 29/US 51 interchanges are excessively overbuilt.

Maybe, having lived in Wausau for 6 years has told me that the upgrade was desperately needed even if it meant putting the interchanges.  The greater need was on Sherman, Bridge and the N's.  all of them were outgrown by the blow-up in population growth.  The 29 West Interchange was a breezewood, while the 29 Interchange was a nice bonus as the trumpet was ok (unless you call an accident that let the cows loose a problem - that happened on the loop ramp.)

[thspfc]

I'd argue the WIS 29/US 51 interchanges are excessively overbuilt.

Yeah, no. I drive through there about 20 times a year. They're not overbuilt.

[thspfc]

I'll be shocked if all of WI-29 between Chippewa Falls and Green Bay ever becomes an Interstate.

[I-39]

One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.

[SSOWorld]

US-10 (and WIS-13) doesn't carry much traffic to exceed the capacity of the 2-lane ROW they occupy right now.  Much less the need for an Interstate.  Does a highway need the red-white-and-blue shield anyway?  Why not leave it alone?

[SEWIGuy]

One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.

I can't envision how this would have been effective.

[mrose]

I think it's pretty adaptable and it is slowly becoming standard from points of GB west.... but... there's a lot of work.

Does seem worthy of a US route IMO though.

[thspfc]

I think it's pretty adaptable and it is slowly becoming standard from points of GB west.... but... there's a lot of work.

Does seem worthy of a US route IMO though.

The US route vs State route hierarchy within individual states is pretty much a thing of the past.

[The Ghostbuster]

I wouldn't mind STH-29 being completely freeway from Interstate 94 to Interstate 41. In the extremely unlikely event STH-29 is given an Interstate designation, I'd pick the 98 designation. That way, the relatively-nearby STH-98 could be renumbered as an extension of STH-153. Continuing into this very unlikely scenario, existing STH-29 would be reduced to a Prescott-to-Interstate 94 route, and the portion of existing STH-29 from Green Bay to Kewaunee would either get a new number (such as 62, 84, or 99) or this segment would be removed from the state highway system.