The I-94 at WIS 29 interchange is planned to be upgraded to a freeway to freeway interchange: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/nl-2013winter.pdf
Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 01, 2014, 07:50:56 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on May 30, 2014, 04:20:10 AM
Back in April, WisDOT finally posted it's recommended alternative for the future rebuild of the I-94, US-12, WIS 29 interchange near Elk Mound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fmap-alternativeElkMound_zps12496ca2.png&hash=301827c8e383376ce9af6b91b2074d29b15a6bb1)
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/map-alternative.pdf
That northern loop ramp looks awfully tight.
Somewhat interestingly, in the EA, the state mentions the possibility of WIS 29 becoming an Interstate at some point in the future: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/ea.pdf (page 6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F5387bb00-68d7-4545-9d40-b2913ec31d5e_zps8b1f89e5.png&hash=d41ba38eef9b0149776efd416b272ca323813b5c)
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/ea.pdf
This corridor would even be long enough to become a 2di. My vote would be for I-92 despite technically being a numbering violation. Not sure when this interchange is supposed to begin construction
not in our lifetimes - traffic volume is not that high outside the cities and there's still plenty of at-grades.
I have driven every mile of Wisconsin's interstate's this summer as well as all of WI-29 and US-10. I-94 could use a third lane everywhere from the Minnesota state line to Milwaukee long before WI-29 gets upgraded to interstate status. Really I am not even sure this free flow interchange is really needed.
Especially since the two highest turning movements -- WB 29 to WB 94 and EB 94 to EB 29 -- are already free-flow.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 16, 2014, 10:35:41 PM
I have driven every mile of Wisconsin's interstate's this summer as well as all of WI-29 and US-10. I-94 could use a third lane everywhere from the Minnesota state line to Milwaukee long before WI-29 gets upgraded to interstate status.
Agreed.
QuoteReally I am not even sure this free flow interchange is really needed.
This interchange rebuild is more about safety and geometry then any future Interstate dreams the feds have. In the snippet above, its the FHWA that told the state to make it I to I compliant. Plus, as someone who grew up in the area, there have been
many grizzly accidents at that location, especially involving trucks and vehicles using the non-major movement ramps.
I think WISDOT has done a good job in upgrading the "Bloody 29" corridor so far. I tend to agree that it is probably not needed as a new interstate, however I would not mind seeing it become an extended US 212 instead. Just my opinion!
Don't expect the commissioning of new US Routes anytime soon. WIS 29 is popular enough and the route is on the NHS anyway which means it's get priority funding.
I think WisDOT's preferred alternative uses too much land and impacts too many wetlands. Additionally, I don't like how close that eastbound system ramp is to the US 12 east/WI 40 exit on 29. My other criticism is 'thru traffic' for WI 29 (US 12) at this location is virtually non-existent, and in my opinion, that movement can be 'downgraded' in favor of better geometries for the only movements that matter (EB 94 -> EB 29 & WB 29 -> WB 94). I would consider WisDOT's plan to be overbuilt.
Here's an updated version of what I drew up a couple years ago in the redesigning interchanges thread.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FElkMoundv2_zps18da6e5f.jpg&hash=39120c0c26a24c59afb54cf0507072ba63712c8b)
It uses less land, has very little wetland impacts and is probably cheaper. There are more impacts to properties with structures, but it is not unreasonable.
For an even simpler alternative, imagine this layout without the service interchange for I-94 at US 12. :hmmm:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 19, 2014, 01:38:00 PM
I think WisDOT's preferred alternative uses too much land and impacts too many wetlands. Additionally, I don't like how close that eastbound system ramp is to the US 12 east/WI 40 exit on 29. My other criticism is 'thru traffic' for WI 29 (US 12) at this location is virtually non-existent, and in my opinion, that movement can be 'downgraded' in favor of better geometries for the only movements that matter (EB 94 -> EB 29 & WB 29 -> WB 94). I would consider WisDOT's plan to be overbuilt.
Here's an updated version of what I drew up a couple years ago in the redesigning interchanges thread.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FElkMoundv2_zps18da6e5f.jpg&hash=39120c0c26a24c59afb54cf0507072ba63712c8b)
It uses less land, has very little wetland impacts and is probably cheaper. There are more impacts to properties with structures, but it is not unreasonable.
For an even simpler alternative, imagine this layout without the service interchange for I-94 at US 12. :hmmm:
Valid point on the close proximity of the exit to WIS 40. That was my major concern with the preferred alternative. I think that WISDOT is just trying not to effect the local businesses or remove buildings with the preferred alternative .....?
My idea for this interchange was to use the existing WIS 29 undercrossing for a similar trumpet interchange and then have access for WIS 29 to continue to/from the west via a 2y that would be infused with the new trumpet. Other local movements would then use a widened WIS 40.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 19, 2014, 08:11:53 PMValid point on the close proximity of the exit to WIS 40. That was my major concern with the preferred alternative. I think that WisDOT is just trying not to effect the local businesses or remove buildings with the preferred alternative .....?
Yes, this was the only Alt that stood a chance with the local government(s). The strip club, sex shop, and gas station are really vital to the Chippewa Valley economy, you know. /sarcasm
QuoteMy other criticism is 'thru traffic' for WI 29 (US 12) at this location is virtually non-existent
According to WisDOT traffic counts, 12/29 west of the interchange carries 4,600 vpd, hardly "non-existant". The ramp volumes suggest that there is, at a minimum, at least 2,000 vpd that is "through traffic" on 12/29.
Quote from: froggie on August 22, 2014, 11:03:00 AM
QuoteMy other criticism is 'thru traffic' for WI 29 (US 12) at this location is virtually non-existent
According to WisDOT traffic counts, 12/29 west of the interchange carries 4,600 vpd, hardly "non-existent". The ramp volumes suggest that there is, at a minimum, at least 2,000 vpd that is "through traffic" on 12/29.
Link to WisDOT's useful interactive traffic count look up tool: http://trust.dot.state.wi.us/roadrunner/
As a native of the area I can also personally confirm that Highway 12/29 is not by any means an unused road between the Interstate and Menomonie.
I know it is some years away, but what do you guys think about this design for the proposed reconstruction of the WIS 29/I-94 interchange?
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/map-alternative.pdf (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/map-alternative.pdf)
Since WisDOT has a stated goal of converting WIS 29 to freeway all the way from I-94 west of Eau Claire to I-41 in Green Bay, and now that the system interchanges at I-41 and I-39 with WIS 29 have been reconstructed, this will be the last major system interchange that needs reconstruction.
WisDOT hinted at applying for an Interstate designation for WIS 29 when it is fully upgraded and that they are moving forward with their freeway conversion projects with that in mind. I don't know if it's just me, but that design doesn't look like it meets Interstate standards. The main ramps from WB WIS 29 to WB I-94 and EB I-94 to EB WIS 29 look like they have only a single lane, and the interchange is combined with the local US 12 through traffic. I thought they were trying to get away from these kind of designs. They may need to go back to the drawing board here. They should make it more like they did with the junction of I-41/U.S 41 and WIS 29 where the interchange for local through traffic is separated from the system interchange.
Several years ago I submitted a design idea for this interchange (the 'Elk Mound' interchange) based on the I-57/24 interchange in southern Illinois, with US 12 and the other surface roads being reconnected to each other and separated from the freeways there, using the current WI 29/WI 40 interchange for access between them.
One point that was brought up by the guys in the Eau Claire WisDOT office was that there is a significant amount of local traffic that uses US 12/WI 29 to the west to get between I-94 and WI 29 to the east and Menomonie.
I fully agree, I'd redo this much more on the lines of the other three major WI 29 interchanges (the 'Wausau', 'Rothschild' and 'Shawano' interchanges).
Mike
Menomonie is a city of only about 16,000 people. I don't think having the US 12 traffic and through traffic in the same carriageway will be that big a deal.
Not necessary. Simply add the ramp from I-94 west to WI 29 east and the two primary movements will be free-flow.
This already has it's own thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13224.0
I'll continue my posts here. I don't think the current design is adequate enough, WisDOT needs to look into doing something similar to the WIS 29/U.S 51/I-39 interchanges in Wausau and the WIS 29/I-41 interchange in Green Bay.
Quote from: adamlanfort on March 28, 2015, 03:47:46 PM
I'll continue my posts here. I don't think the current design is adequate enough, WisDOT needs to look into doing something similar to the WIS 29/U.S 51/I-39 interchanges in Wausau and the WIS 29/I-41 interchange in Green Bay.
Does that mean a high-speed ramp from WB 29 to EB 94? Because that would be serious overkill and a huge waste of money. In fact, if Elk Mound had its own service interchange on I-94, that movement wouldn't even be necessary.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 29, 2015, 09:54:23 AM
Quote from: adamlanfort on March 28, 2015, 03:47:46 PM
I'll continue my posts here. I don't think the current design is adequate enough, WisDOT needs to look into doing something similar to the WIS 29/U.S 51/I-39 interchanges in Wausau and the WIS 29/I-41 interchange in Green Bay.
Does that mean a high-speed ramp from WB 29 to EB 94? Because that would be serious overkill and a huge waste of money. In fact, if Elk Mound had its own service interchange on I-94, that movement wouldn't even be necessary.
I know loops are frowned upon these days, but honestly I'm not sure they need any high-speed movements at all. Like I said in the other thread Menomonie only has 16,000 people. I suppose anything less from EB 94 to EB 29 is a non-starter even with WISDOT, but I don't think we need a mammoth three-level stack with through traffic separations here.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 29, 2015, 06:40:00 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 29, 2015, 09:54:23 AM
Quote from: adamlanfort on March 28, 2015, 03:47:46 PM
I'll continue my posts here. I don't think the current design is adequate enough, WisDOT needs to look into doing something similar to the WIS 29/U.S 51/I-39 interchanges in Wausau and the WIS 29/I-41 interchange in Green Bay.
Does that mean a high-speed ramp from WB 29 to EB 94? Because that would be serious overkill and a huge waste of money. In fact, if Elk Mound had its own service interchange on I-94, that movement wouldn't even be necessary.
I know loops are frowned upon these days, but honestly I'm not sure they need any high-speed movements at all. Like I said in the other thread Menomonie only has 16,000 people. I suppose anything less from EB 94 to EB 29 is a non-starter even with WISDOT, but I don't think we need a mammoth three-level stack with through traffic separations here.
It's to bring the interchange up to Interstate standards (freeway to freeway connection) in case WIS 29 is ever designated an Interstate after it is fully converted to freeway (not out of the realm of possibility, according to WisDOT). I guess the design proposed would be good enough, but who knows when it will be built. Frankly, they need to finish converting WIS 29 to freeway between Wausau and Green Bay before doing this section.
When did loop ramps become verboten in interstate standards? I'm not saying not to rebuild the interchange, just that I think there is a wide gulf between what people here want to see and what is needed.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 29, 2015, 07:21:17 PM
When did loop ramps become verboten in interstate standards? I'm not saying not to rebuild the interchange, just that I think there is a wide gulf between what people here want to see and what is needed.
There is a reason the I-39/90/43 interchange in Beloit is being rebuilt (within the next few years), it currently has the design you are suggesting (a cloverleaf with loops). If/when WIS 29 is fully upgraded to freeway and signed as an Interstate, traffic will likely increase and single lane loop ramps will cause a bottleneck. The primary ramps (in this case, EB I-94 to EB WIS 29 and WB WIS 29 to WB I-94) should always be high speed two lane ramps
As long as the primary ramps are two lanes, then the above design should be fine. It's not great (it would be better to build a separate U.S 12 interchange from the WIS 29 system interchange, like they did with WIS 29 in Green Bay), but it get's the job done. Presumably, when this is reconstructed, the remaining expressway portions between I-94 and U.S 53 will be converted to freeway.
This shouldn't be the priority right now though. The first priority for WIS 29 should be finishing the freeway conversion between Green Bay and Wausau before anything is done in Eau Claire.
I doubt you'd see a significant traffic increase. This area is sufficiently far enough removed from major metropolitan areas that, combined with the eventual increase in gas prices, whatever traffic increase you see would be minimum.
As for direct freeway-to-freeway connections, you don't need much beyond what you yourself list as the "primary ramps". Plus there is plenty of precedent for incomplete freeway-to-freeway interchanges on the Interstate system. Sure, FHWA frowns upon them, but it doesn't prohibit new ones outright (witness I-494/US 169 in Bloomington, MN).
As for this idea that WI 29 may become an Interstate, I'd just keep dreaming. There are very lengthy segments of 29 that retain at-grade access. It would take a lot of work to fully convert it, and WisDOT (rightfully) has higher priorities elsewhere.
When would this project start/finish?
When would this approximately come out?
20-30 years from now, most likely. Not anytime soon.