Wisconsin notes

[hobsini2]

I can't imagine US-151 becoming an interstate. The traffic volumes down here are insanely low. And I don't think they are much higher southwest of Dubuque.

Also, I-37 would be out of grid. Let's try I-33, or if you want an E-W number, I-92.

I'm an idiot, I forgot about how N-S route numbering works.

I did say Long Range.
Also, I am not a stickler for the "perfect grid". If it makes sense, do it.

[dvferyance]

WI-172, the Madison Beltline, WI-30, US-45 up through West Bend, US-12 from Elkhorn to the IL line.  There are a number of potentials but no real movement to do so.

The Madison Beltline has too many routes on it as is. WI-30? Are you kidding me? Nowhere near up to interstate standards. The West Bend spur is fine just as US-45. West Bend really isn't very big only around 30,000 in population. US-12 is basically an unfinished stub that doesn't serve anything major. So really the only one that would work as 3di's are WI-172 and WI-441 and I am really even ok with WI-172 just being WI-172.

[The Ghostbuster]

The only changes I would make to STH 119 and STH 172 would be to number the exits (I think all expressway/freeway exits in Wisconsin should have numbers). Other than that, save the Interstate designations for Fictional Highways.

[Big John]

The only changes I would make to STH 119 and STH 172 would be to number the exits (I think all expressway/freeway exits in Wisconsin should have numbers). Other than that, save the Interstate designations for Fictional Highways.

STH 119 would have only exits 1 and 2.

[mgk920]

I've always felt 30, 172 and 441 are logical 3di additions.  I'll throw in 119 as well.
If I somehow got elected to Congress (godforbid! ), I'd pork them into some bill.

(Airport connector freeways, as critical intermodal links, should be interstates if they have at least one exit or are at least one mile in length, in my humble opinion.)

I believe that would make WI 119 eligible under your standards.  Also, would you include US 10 from I-39 to I-41 in your 'promotion' list (to become 'I-441')?  Ditto WI 23 east of I-43?

Mike

[mrose]

Apart from 441 and 172 I'm not sure any others are necessary, and possibly not up to standard anyway. Of course I haven't been in Wisconsin for 15+ years now so I may not be the best arbiter of such things anyway.

The Beltline never felt like an interstate to me. I still remember the rail crossing (!), although I know that is long gone now. I guess the way it has kind of been piece-mealed for much of its history and the way so many through routes come and go off it that I'm not sure a single number would serve much of a purpose anyway.

[I-39]

If I had a dollar for every time we talk about new Interstates and four lane highways in Wisconsin on this forum, I'd be a rich man.

The fact of the matter is, there are no new Interstates needed in Wisconsin at this time, especially new spurs. WIS 441/WIS 172/the Beltline are fine as they are. The only one that even makes a lick of sense is WIS 29 > I-96, but it'll be decades before WIS 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay.

What is needed now is rebuilding and expansion on the existing Interstates, specifically (in no particular order) I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee and I-94 between Eau Claire and the Mississippi.

[SEWIGuy]

If I had a dollar for every time we talk about new Interstates and four lane highways in Wisconsin on this forum, I'd be a rich man.

The fact of the matter is, there are no new Interstates needed in Wisconsin at this time, especially new spurs. WIS 441/WIS 172/the Beltline are fine as they are. The only one that even makes a lick of sense is WIS 29 > I-96, but it'll be decades before WIS 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay.

What is needed now is rebuilding and expansion on the existing Interstates, specifically (in no particular order) I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee and I-94 between Eau Claire and the Mississippi.

St. Croix if you mean the border.

[JoePCool14]

If I had a dollar for every time we talk about new Interstates and four lane highways in Wisconsin on this forum, I'd be a rich man.

The fact of the matter is, there are no new Interstates needed in Wisconsin at this time, especially new spurs. WIS 441/WIS 172/the Beltline are fine as they are. The only one that even makes a lick of sense is WIS 29 > I-96, but it'll be decades before WIS 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay.

What is needed now is rebuilding and expansion on the existing Interstates, specifically (in no particular order) I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee and I-94 between Eau Claire and the Mississippi.

Renumbering existing roads to Interstate status is nowhere near on the budget level of something like 6-laning I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.

You can make the same "dime-a-dozen" argument about interstate widenings as well...

[The Ghostbuster]

Can we stop it with the "future Interstate" talk? IT WILL NOT HAPPEN! North Carolina and Texas are the only states that are going on an Interstate numbering binge. If we keep up with the "future Interstate in Wisconsin" talk, I wouldn't be surprised if the Moderator puts a lock on this thread. So, take the Interstate talk to Fictional Highways, end of discussion!

[invincor]

What actually are the pros and cons of a highway converting from a state highway to an Interstate highway?   

For the cons, I would imagine that it leads to less flexibility on the design which in turn leads to more costs, and that leads to lots of federal strings being attached to the state's control of it. 

For the pros there's... what?  Once upon a time, it would've been federal funding, but ever since the 90s at least, there's the National Highway System which includes a lot of the major state and US highways, and they get similar funding through that.  The only other thing I can think of then is the Interstate "branding" of the highway, which actually does have an economic impact as I know that many manufacturing companies look for how far away their facilities are going to be from an Interstate highway when deciding where to locate.  If the nearest one is too many miles away, that takes certain communities off the candidates list when competing with other towns for businesses to move or start up there, and this leads to political lobbying from legislators in those areas for an Interstate promotion.  Wasn't this the reason we ultimately got I-39 and I-41? 

So, if there ever is going to be a future Interstate promotion, look for growing communities with a good lobbying effort that are currently in an Interstate-poor region of the state and that already have existing highway corridors that wouldn't take too much to get them up to Interstate standards.   Have we any places like this left?  I can't think of any just now, so I would agree that we're unlikely to see any more. 

[KCRoadFan]

Here's something I wonder about Madison: before the Beltline was built, what were the former routes of US 12, US 14, and US 18 through the city?

[SEWIGuy]

Here's something I wonder about Madison: before the Beltline was built, what were the former routes of US 12, US 14, and US 18 through the city?

Here is what I think the routings were.

US-12/18:  Entered from the southeast on Femrite Drive to Monona Drive (US-51) at the time.  North on Monona to Frost Woods Road.  West on Frost Woods to Bridge Road.  South on Bridge to Broadway, around the south part of Lake Monona to Olin Road.  Olin to Park Street (US-14) where they turned north to University Avenue.  At some point US-18 turned west, likely with US-151.  I don't think it went all the way to University Avenue.

At University, US-12/14 turned west and took University out of town. 

US-18/151 ended up on Monroe Street and took that southwest to Nakoma Road out of town to the southwest.

[The Ghostbuster]

US 18/151 most likely used Regent St. and then turned left onto Monroe St. Truthfully, it would have been interesting to see those streets back when they were signed with those US Highways. It is also hard to believe that the Beltline was originally a 2-lane highway with at-grade intersections.

[SEWIGuy]

US 18/151 most likely used Regent St. and then turned left onto Monroe St. Truthfully, it would have been interesting to see those streets back when they were signed with those US Highways. It is also hard to believe that the Beltline was originally a 2-lane highway with at-grade intersections.

I thought it was Regent too, but if you look at Historic Aerials, Regent didn't cut through from Monroe to Park until the 1950s.

[gr8daynegb]

What actually are the pros and cons of a highway converting from a state highway to an Interstate highway?   

For the cons, I would imagine that it leads to less flexibility on the design which in turn leads to more costs, and that leads to lots of federal strings being attached to the state's control of it. 

For the pros there's... what?  Once upon a time, it would've been federal funding, but ever since the 90s at least, there's the National Highway System which includes a lot of the major state and US highways, and they get similar funding through that.  The only other thing I can think of then is the Interstate "branding" of the highway, which actually does have an economic impact as I know that many manufacturing companies look for how far away their facilities are going to be from an Interstate highway when deciding where to locate.  If the nearest one is too many miles away, that takes certain communities off the candidates list when competing with other towns for businesses to move or start up there, and this leads to political lobbying from legislators in those areas for an Interstate promotion.  Wasn't this the reason we ultimately got I-39 and I-41? 

So, if there ever is going to be a future Interstate promotion, look for growing communities with a good lobbying effort that are currently in an Interstate-poor region of the state and that already have existing highway corridors that wouldn't take too much to get them up to Interstate standards.   Have we any places like this left?  I can't think of any just now, so I would agree that we're unlikely to see any more.

Think the pro that seems to always be thrown around is the prestige or the reputation of an interstate making it a premier route seems to be the one most commonly used.  Nevermind a huge con is for some areas when you convert a highway to a freeway in many cases(especially smaller towns) you may be providing a death blow to some businesses that used to be on the route itself. 

Wisconsin doesn't need any more interstate highways.  They did improve 41 and 51 because people used those routes and they needed to stay ahead of things.....but not sure if adding I-39 or I-41 designation really added anything that wasn't already there to begin with(just my opinion)

[hobsini2]

US 18/151 most likely used Regent St. and then turned left onto Monroe St. Truthfully, it would have been interesting to see those streets back when they were signed with those US Highways. It is also hard to believe that the Beltline was originally a 2-lane highway with at-grade intersections.

I thought it was Regent too, but if you look at Historic Aerials, Regent didn't cut through from Monroe to Park until the 1950s.

I have seen old maps of Downtown Madison before the Beltline. I will see if I can find one that shows it.

[mgk920]

IIRC, US 14 from the east came up Park St all the way to the University campus (Johnson St?).  Also, the short campus Dr mini-freeway did not exist,so it likely used the old narrow University Av there.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

There is two Madison inset map from 1927 and 1928 on usends.com: https://www.usends.com/151.html. It appears US 151 ended at the University/N. Park St. intersection prior to its 1937 extension to Cedar Rapids, IA. US 51 at the time followed Monona Dr., Atwood Ave., and Winnebago St. before meeting US 151 where Winnebago St. skewed into E. Washington Ave., then departed 151 at the present-day E. Washington Ave./N. Stoughton Rd. intersection. Traffic must have been able turn onto Winnebago St. from inbound E. Washington Ave.; that ability to turn left was eliminated in the reconstruction of E. Washington Ave. during the 1950's (when E. Washington was expanded from 4 to 6 lanes). The Winnebago Ave. skew was eliminated during the reconstruction of that portion of East Washington Ave. in 2007, when 6th St. was extended to meet Winnebago St. at a roundabout, and Winnebago St. was relocated to terminate at Milwaukee St.: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.098709,-89.3492403,422m/data=!3m1!1e3. To me, it is mind-boggling how the numerous State and US Highways that go through Madison were routed prior to the construction of the Beltline Highway, Stoughton Rd., and the western-most leg of the East-West Freeway (the STH 30 segment, not the Interstate 94 nor the Interstate 794 segment).

[SEWIGuy]

Well those maps show a couple of my errors. First Regent Street clearly was the routing of US-18. Second US-12/18 originally took Lakeside Street and not Olin though I know Olin was a later routing.

[dvferyance]

What actually are the pros and cons of a highway converting from a state highway to an Interstate highway?   

For the cons, I would imagine that it leads to less flexibility on the design which in turn leads to more costs, and that leads to lots of federal strings being attached to the state's control of it. 

For the pros there's... what?  Once upon a time, it would've been federal funding, but ever since the 90s at least, there's the National Highway System which includes a lot of the major state and US highways, and they get similar funding through that.  The only other thing I can think of then is the Interstate "branding" of the highway, which actually does have an economic impact as I know that many manufacturing companies look for how far away their facilities are going to be from an Interstate highway when deciding where to locate.  If the nearest one is too many miles away, that takes certain communities off the candidates list when competing with other towns for businesses to move or start up there, and this leads to political lobbying from legislators in those areas for an Interstate promotion.  Wasn't this the reason we ultimately got I-39 and I-41? 

So, if there ever is going to be a future Interstate promotion, look for growing communities with a good lobbying effort that are currently in an Interstate-poor region of the state and that already have existing highway corridors that wouldn't take too much to get them up to Interstate standards.   Have we any places like this left?  I can't think of any just now, so I would agree that we're unlikely to see any more.

Think the pro that seems to always be thrown around is the prestige or the reputation of an interstate making it a premier route seems to be the one most commonly used.  Nevermind a huge con is for some areas when you convert a highway to a freeway in many cases(especially smaller towns) you may be providing a death blow to some businesses that used to be on the route itself. 

Wisconsin doesn't need any more interstate highways.  They did improve 41 and 51 because people used those routes and they needed to stay ahead of things.....but not sure if adding I-39 or I-41 designation really added anything that wasn't already there to begin with(just my opinion)

I would favor an extension of I-39 to US 8 if the whole thing was upgraded to a freeway. But beyond that I agree no more interstates are needed. I hate this obsession with making every freeway an interstate. For time I wasn't so much in favor of making 41 an interstate. Here is an interesting fact. Wisconsin is one of the few states in the country without an x5 interstate. The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota. Now if the UP had been made part of Wisconsin then it would have gotten a little bit of I-75.

[thspfc]

The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.

West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.

[dvferyance]

The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.

West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.

Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

[SEWIGuy]

The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.

West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.

Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

[jakeroot]

The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.

West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.

Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

I think his answer was short for "not part of the standard interstate grid". Both AK and HI have non-traditional alphanumeric non-grid based numbering (which I'm sure you know), so it stands to reason that they obviously wouldn't have any "x5" interstate freeways.