News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Wisconsin notes

Started by mgk920, May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mgk920

Quote from: Big John on August 24, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
^^ I have never seen a cutout sign that used the whole "WISCONSIN" word before (excluding pre 1960's era signs that were of a slightly different design).  The non-neutered signs always had the abbreviation "WIS"

My guess is that it was a product of the county sign shop - statewide, they've all been known for some interesting stuff.

Mike


Jim920

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 24, 2013, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 23, 2013, 07:08:32 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   


I drove it this afternoon.  I *really* had to work to keep my speed down.  Very smooth....and it was very busy.  Well done.

I also drove it this afternoon, it's quite nice. I had to set the cruise control to 62 otherwise I would have been way over 55. I drove NB and the last SL sign I remember seeing was before the WI-59 exit, if you merged on at 59 you would have no clue the SL is only 55.

Jordanah1

Quote from: mgk920 on August 24, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 24, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
^^ I have never seen a cutout sign that used the whole "WISCONSIN" word before (excluding pre 1960's era signs that were of a slightly different design).  The non-neutered signs always had the abbreviation "WIS"

My guess is that it was a product of the county sign shop - statewide, they've all been known for some interesting stuff.

Mike
Could these be the same idiots who put up a dozen or so "alternate STATE 41" shields on WI 21 and US 45 in Oshkosh? They are all brand new, put up within the last month I'm guessing, I really haven't driven that route much this summer to have noticed them before.
"Oshkosh"- "Oh, you mean like 'Oshkosh BGosh'?"

colinstu

I've seen a couple signs down in Walworth/Racine/Kenosha counties (forgot which one, somewhere in the south of wisconsin, west of the Interstate) with State Highway signs with both "WIS" and pretty damn sure "WISCONSIN" too. I was thinking of stopping and taking pics but didn't have time.

triplemultiplex

Drove the new segment of WI 26 around Milton today.  Always cool to drive 'em when they're brand spanking new.  Obviously WisDOT is waiting until it's all done between Janesville and Ft. Atkinson before bumping up the SL.  Or at the very least, the work that still needs to be done on the SB carriageway south of Milton.

After driving the entire distance between Elkhorn and Whitewater on US 12 I think it would be very reasonable to get the ball rolling on a 2 lane version of a new alignment between the two towns.  It's not like there's a ton of traffic, but the SL is low and there are many, many driveways.  Even if Illinois never, ever gets a tollway up to the border at Genoa City, a two lane relocation would still be useful.

Do what was done around Whitewater and snatch up the r/w needed for a full freeway, but just build one carriageway.  There'd probably be a minor extension of the freeway to get ya through that interchange in Elkhorn with WI 67.  Whenever I look at how to route it, I like to return to the existing alignment in the area of CTH O to avoid blasting a new r/w through the Kettle Moraine (both the state forest and the geologic feature).  Seems pretty obvious to me.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

SEWIGuy

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 25, 2013, 09:03:12 PM
After driving the entire distance between Elkhorn and Whitewater on US 12 I think it would be very reasonable to get the ball rolling on a 2 lane version of a new alignment between the two towns.  It's not like there's a ton of traffic, but the SL is low and there are many, many driveways.  Even if Illinois never, ever gets a tollway up to the border at Genoa City, a two lane relocation would still be useful.



They are looking at it.

http://www.janesvillegazette.com/article/20130714/ARTICLES/130719901


mgk920

Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

I fully agree, too, a 'super-two' expressway on an upgradable four-lanes freeway ROW between Elkhorn and Whitewater, as well as between Whitewater and Fort Atkinson, is the best way to go.

Mike

Jordanah1

Can someone copy and paste that article or something?
"Oshkosh"- "Oh, you mean like 'Oshkosh BGosh'?"

Mdcastle

Given that none of us will live to see the tollway extended, would it make sense to downgrade the freeway section of US 12 to a Super 2 the next time the pavement needs replacing?

JREwing78

There's sufficient traffic (particularly in the summer) to justify leave the existing freeway section of US-12 as it is. It connects to 4-lane Hwy 50 at Lake Geneva, which connects you to I-94/US-41 at Kenosha, making it part of a vital connector to Chicago. If/when Illinois makes the proper connection to this stretch, that stretch will become a whole lot busier.

I agree that there's no pressing need to 4-lane a relocated US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater; much of the traffic on the existing stretch is local in nature and would remain after construction. Much like the Whitewater bypass, however, WisDOT would be smart to have the ROW in place to add an additional carriageway when it is needed.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 25, 2013, 10:17:20 PM
Can someone copy and paste that article or something?


Opened an incognito window and got it:

"The expansion of Highway 12 in Walworth County is now in the hands of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.

Last week, Gov. Scott Walker signed an environmental impact study conducted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, sending the project to the department of transportation for consideration.

The report, finished in 2011, indicates Highway 12 is almost at its capacity of 14,000 cars per day capacity. The planning commission projects by the year 2035 there will be 21,000 vehicles per day using the highway, causing significant traffic issues.

The two options the planning commission developed are widening the current route between Elkhorn and Whitewater to four lanes, estimated to cost $64.2 million, or creating a more direct route between Whitewater and Elkhorn that would pass through the town of Sugar Creek, estimated to cost $116.7 million.

The next step is for the department of transportation to conduct its own study. It may agree with the options the planning commission suggested, or it could come up with its own possible routes. There is no projected date for when the study will be finished, but Jefferey Knight, president of the Greater Whitewater Committee, said it could take years.

The first option, widening the current route, would cause significant disruption to homes and businesses and loss of land along the highway.

Whitewater City Manager Cameron Clapper said he personally would like the second option, allowing for a more direct route between Elkhorn and Whitewater, bringing more customers to local businesses.

"Long-term, having this highway expansion is going to be a huge benefit to the people in this community in terms of getting more commercial access in Whitewater,"  Clapper said. "Providing a larger number of cars is going to mean a larger number of customers, and that's going to improve our business community across the board."

Knight said Whitewater city officials have been trying to move the project forward for three years because it would be good for the local economy.

"This should be the beginning of conversations for companies to come to Whitewater, which means more jobs and money for the local economy,"  Knight said.

Another factor contributing to the need for the expansion is UW-Whitewater, which is the only University of Wisconsin System university that does not have direct access to a four-lane highway.

"It would help the university because it brings in over 1,000 students from Illinois, and it's not the easiest route to get back and forth, so those parents might come up here more and spend money in restaurants and other businesses,"  Knight said.

Both expansion options that the planning commission suggested go through the town of Sugar Creek. David Duwe, town chairman, said the town has not settled on a preferred option. Either way, people will lose land.

"Every time it comes up, it's a huge deal for Sugar Creek,"  Duwe said. "It's to the point where people in Sugar Creek want it to go one way or the other. Either they're going to do something or not instead of holding peoples' lands ransom."

Samuel Tapson, an administrator for Elkhorn, said the city has not taken a position on the options because city officials believe the expansion should be handled at the state level."

WarrenWallace

I hate sprawl!

mgk920

Even if the 'Corner Cut' is the routing selection, as it should be, the entire existing routing will likely remain state highways as the north-south part will still be WI 67 (it is already duplexed with US 12 there) and the east-west part will do very well as a westward extension of WI 20.

Also, IMHO, that wacky intersection at WI 20 and WI 67 where US 12 now makes its turn is an ideal site for a roundabout.

Mike

merrycilantro

Does anybody by chance happen to have a map of that route through Sugar Creek? I tried checking the WisDOT website but there is nothing listed. Would be nice to visualize what the suggested route for the Corner Cut is.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: merrycilantro on August 27, 2013, 08:03:57 AM
Does anybody by chance happen to have a map of that route through Sugar Creek? I tried checking the WisDOT website but there is nothing listed. Would be nice to visualize what the suggested route for the Corner Cut is.


There are some maps in this document here:

http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Publications/pr/pr-015-2nd-ed-jurisdictional-highway-system-plan-walworth-county.pdf

I have also seen some more detailed maps, but I can't seem to find them anywhere.  It has been on the books by WIDOT since the late 60s.

merrycilantro

Thanks SEWIGuy! That does make sense, I agree. Of course, my OCD can't stand to see a broken US 12 freeway from Genoa City to Elkhorn, when it should REALLY be a Chicago to Madison route. But I digress, don't want to get too fictional.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: merrycilantro on August 27, 2013, 10:36:09 AM
Thanks SEWIGuy! That does make sense, I agree. Of course, my OCD can't stand to see a broken US 12 freeway from Genoa City to Elkhorn, when it should REALLY be a Chicago to Madison route. But I digress, don't want to get too fictional.


It makes even more sense if you have driven it.  From Whitewater east to the intersection with WI-20 and WI-67, it is fine with just a little slow down in LaGrange.

From that intersection south to Elkhorn it is a stretch with driveways, stop lights, etc.  Lots of local traffic.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: mgk920 on August 25, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

Following the powerline through the moraine would be a mistake.  It passes over the headwaters of Bluff Creek; a nice coldwater trout stream.  It's a state natural area as well.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271
The best path should be to use the existing alignment between CTH O and Sweno Road.  No need to slice a expensive, distruptive new hole through some nice public land.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

mgk920

#243
I drove the new part of WI 26 today (Wednesday, 2013-08-28), too.  Yea, the two-lane part on the south end is simply there while crews connect the new bypass' end with the existing four lanes.

Other notes:
-I have little sympathy for the owner of that now-orphaned C-store/McDs along WI 26 on Milton's south side - he had several years to prepare to move it to a better 'after' location and knew (or should have known) that there would not be access to the new WI 26 by his property.  Major local access between Milton and Janesville is via County 'J', a major street and, IIRC, the original routing of WI 26 there, while the other major surface streets, including the now-bypassed old WI 26, in that developing area between Janesville and Milton are being formed into a useful grid for when that semi-rural land is annexed into one or the other of those two cities and developed.  The two are only a few short years from bumping borders.

-I noticed that much of the rebuilt WI 26 between I-39/90 and Watertown is flanked by bicycle paths on one side or the other.

-Why, oh WHY did WisDOT erase all vestiges of 'Oshkosh' as the northbound WI 26 control on US 151 in the Waupun area?  All that is there now is 'Rosendale', a tiny speck that nearly everyone who drives that road would rather not have to pass through - if they could help it - while on their respective ways to the much larger and infinitely more important Oshkosh and beyond.  The first mention of 'Oshkosh' on NB WI 26 is now on the distance sign that is just north of its major US 151 split northeast of Waupun.

:banghead:

-If WisDOT ever developed the desire and could find the funding, there is really not a lot in the way of them building a direct free-flow freeway-to-freeway connection between I-39/90 to the south and WI 26 to the north in Janesville - only a motel that has seen better days (the Ramada) and a tire dealer.  C'mon guys - you *CAN* do it!   :nod:

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.

-New interchange numbers, for those keeping track:

6 - Harmony Town Hall Rd
8 - WI 59/County 'M' - Milton
11 - County 'N' - Edgerton/Whitewater

Mike

SEWIGuy

Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM
I drove the new part of WI 26 today (Wednesday, 2013-08-28), too.  Yea, the two-lane part on the south end is simply there while crews connect the new bypass' end with the existing four lanes.

Other notes:
-I have little sympathy for the owner of that now-orphaned C-store/McDs along WI 26 on Milton's south side - he had several years to prepare to move it to a better 'after' location and knew (or should have known) that there would not be access to the new WI 26 by his property. 


The state started planning in 1999, he bought it in 2002...and says that he went to the meetings before plans were finalized in 2005.  He didn't raise the issue until about a year ago.

I don't have much sympathy for him either.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

mgk920

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.

Mike

SEWIGuy

Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.

Mike


But are they actually going ahead with that?  It looks as though WI-26 will be going on its current routing when all is said and done.

mgk920

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.


But are they actually going ahead with that?  It looks as though WI-26 will be going on its current routing when all is said and done.

Looking over that drawing, to me it looks like the underpass will be dug out (it is very narrow passing under there!) and filled in to hold a new bridge *over* the railroad.  This will require Union Pacific to also build a temporary bypass track there while the work is being done.

Mike

mgk920

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 27, 2013, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 25, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

Following the powerline through the moraine would be a mistake.  It passes over the headwaters of Bluff Creek; a nice coldwater trout stream.  It's a state natural area as well.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271
The best path should be to use the existing alignment between CTH O and Sweno Road.  No need to slice a expensive, distruptive new hole through some nice public land.

I do note that there is a route 'tweak' shown in the maps in that above-linked latest SEWRPC/Walworth County planning document.  Perhaps that is to address that issue.

Mike



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.