I noticed that WISDOT is currently studying realigning US 12 on their majors highway report between Whitewater and Elkhorn.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/majors.pdf
I find it interesting that the Fork Atkinson Bypass was put on hold, while the proposed reroute is being resurrected. Could this possibly be happening because Whitewater holds the new title of biggest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway? The idea was put on hold years ago because Illinois didn't improve US 12, but something must have gotten WISDOT to revive the plans.
For some reason my browsers won't load the page, but approximately where is the studied corridor located? The issue being there's a state forest and Whitewater Lake directly in the path of the most logical route, so I was envisioning something like heading south on WIS 89 before cutting back to the east toward Elkhorn.
Here is a link to the majors timetable document, page 25 on the document or page 29 on the acrobat reader shows that they are just starting to study US 12
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/status.pdf
I also came across the Connections 2030 plan for Walworth County and it is in the plans to realign US 12
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/multimodal/conn2030/maps/walworth-mpa.pdf
If you want to know the specific location, here is the official map from the DOT:
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/walworth.pdf
My understanding is that the corridor for US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater has been mapped for some time. This issue is being pushed by the locals in Whitewater due to the University's growth, especially in the number of students from Illinois.
The Fort Atkinson bypass was put on hold by the governor because the people in the Town of Koshkonong are very much against it, and the City of Fort Atkinson's support could be best described as "mild" at this point. Since most of the traffic is local, this is hardly a problem right now.
But my guess is that neither is done anytime soon.
That's commonly referred to in Wisconsin Roadgeek circles as the 'Corner Cut'.
Despite all of the development and so forth in that general area, most of its likely routing is on wide-open, pool table flat land with little or no development of any kind in the way. It would likely follow a moderate-level power transmission line that runs between Elkhorn and Whitewater.
Also, any needed cutting in the Kettle Moraine area (its northwest end) would be through random mixed sand and gravel, typical glacial soil, and will provide few physical difficulties other than for an occasional large rock that will require blasting.
I would build it as a two lane highway on an upgradable rural four lane ROW, much like the current US 12 Whitewater bypass. I would also redo the existing US 12/WI 20/67 intersection (US 12 makes its obsolete 90 degree turn there) as a roundabout. WI 20 and 67 will still intersect there when the US 12 traffic is gone.
Mike
And then you can simply extend WI-20 west to Whitewater.
If it is constucted anytime in the future, I'd say it should start out as a 2-lane limited access highway with at-grade intersections. If further upgrades are ever needed, they should come later.
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2015, 12:35:39 AM
Could this possibly be happening because Whitewater holds the new title of biggest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway?
Nah. That's not a reason to build a 4 lane highway.
This seems to come up every couple of years, gets studied again, then gets put away for a few more years. My guess is that this is at least a decade or more out. Of course, that's just my opinion! ;-)
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2015, 12:35:39 AM
I noticed that WISDOT is currently studying realigning US 12 on their majors highway report between Whitewater and Elkhorn.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/majors.pdf
Where exactly does it say that study is for a realignment and not just a major upgrading of the existing corridor? The study could just as easily be a major overhaul of the current corridor to rebuild to modern standards with full shoulders and turn lanes.
Also interesting that I-90 would be studied again between the US 12/Beltline interchange at Madison and US 12 at Wisconsin Dells.
I drove on US 12 earlier this month from Madison to Chicago. Around Whitewater especially, it is very noticeable that US 12 will eventually be 4 lanes southeast of Whitewater. What I found most interesting is the stubs in Genoa City of what was supposed to be a US 12 freeway going into Illinois. Unfortunately that never happened.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2015, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2015, 12:35:39 AM
I noticed that WISDOT is currently studying realigning US 12 on their majors highway report between Whitewater and Elkhorn.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/majors.pdf
Where exactly does it say that study is for a realignment and not just a major upgrading of the existing corridor? The study could just as easily be a major overhaul of the current corridor to rebuild to modern standards with full shoulders and turn lanes.
Also interesting that I-90 would be studied again between the US 12/Beltline interchange at Madison and US 12 at Wisconsin Dells.
Look at the 2nd link I posted. If only minor improvements were going to be studied, it wouldn't show up on the Majors Projects Report. The report only shows big projects, such as the I-41 project and the Zoo Interchange. It does say "possible alignment adjustments and capacity improvements." It's a preliminary study and the route wasn't on the last report. The first three projects being studied on the report were put on hold, which are US 8 between St. Croix Falls and US 53, US 14/11 between Janesville and i-43, and the US 12 Fort Atkinson Bypass. The US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn section is going to be studied in order to be considered for a major project, which shows that there is enough traffic or political influence to take a look at that section of US 12. It says that the study and EIS won't be ready til 2019, but they're starting to plan for it.
Quote from: Revive755Where exactly does it say that study is for a realignment and not just a major upgrading of the existing corridor? The study could just as easily be a major overhaul of the current corridor to rebuild to modern standards with full shoulders and turn lanes.
Yes, a study could be for that. But you may not be aware that WisDOT has officially mapped out a new-alignment for US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn.
Because the freeway will not continue into Illinois, I would lean towards improving the existing route rather than continuing the freeway corridor northwest from Elkhorn to Whitewater.
However, if it must be built on the new alignment, I would scale it back to an expressway, but only build it as a Super Two with at-grade intersections. Then build the two other lanes when funding becomes available, but keep the at-grade intersections in the rural areas.
Of course, WisDOT has better things to spend their money on, and this really isn't a pressing need anyway.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2015, 02:49:35 PM
And then you can simply extend WI-20 west to Whitewater.
... and then on to Edgerton via County N. :D
Quote from: I-39 on September 01, 2015, 05:46:18 PM
Because the freeway will not continue into Illinois, I would lean towards improving the existing route rather than continuing the freeway corridor northwest from Elkhorn to Whitewater.
However, if it must be built on the new alignment, I would scale it back to an expressway, but only build it as a Super Two with at-grade intersections. Then build the two other lanes when funding becomes available, but keep the at-grade intersections in the rural areas.
Of course, WisDOT has better things to spend their money on, and this really isn't a pressing need anyway.
The DOT isn't looking at building US 12 as an expressway from Elkhorn to Madison. This project is starting to be worked on while the US 12 Bypass of Fort Atkinson is being put on hold. The logic for constructing this project is to give Whitewater 4 lane highway access. Currently, it's the largest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway. Marshfield lobbied for US 10 to be upgraded with this reasoning and now that they have their 4 lane expressway. Local officials in Whitewater probably feel that it's Whitewater's turn. According to the DOT's 2030 Connection plan, every community over 5,000 is connected with either a connector or backbone route. Many connectors are 2 lane roads, but the DOT gives them priority and tries to make them high quality routes. Over time, many of the connectors are going to be slated to be upgraded to 4 lanes, and priority will probably be ranked by how big the communities are that don't have a 4 lane highway. Whitewater would be next.
Better would be ranking them by traffic volume than by population size. They don't always correlate.
Quote from: froggie on September 02, 2015, 06:20:53 AM
Better would be ranking them by traffic volume than by population size. They don't always correlate.
I'm just using that theory based on how they are upgrading roads because it seems like the DOT is using that as logic for upgrading highways, and how the Corridors 2030 plan is laid out. For example, Wis 23 connector status dead ends at Ripon and Wis 60 connector status ends at Hartford because the goal of the plan is to link every city over 5,000 in the state of Wisconsin. US 10 east of Stevens Point has more traffic than west of Stevens Point, but the new expressway was built from I-39 to Marshfield, while the new freeway that was supposed to be constructed from Amherst Jct to I-39 was placed on hold. Marshfield was lobbying for a 4 lane expressway for years, and they got it. If the decision to delay a bypass was based on traffic counts, the bypass west of I-39 would have been placed on hold and the Stevens Point East bypass would have been built instead. Stevens Point already has uninterrupted high speed connection with I-39, something that Marshfield didn't have until recently. They're probably trying to give Whitewater that connection next.
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 02, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2015, 02:49:35 PM
And then you can simply extend WI-20 west to Whitewater.
... and then on to Edgerton via County N. :D
Extending Hwy 20 at least to I-39 should be done regardless of what happens with US12, but if they "cut the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater then the US12-Walworth Ave-Cnty N-Hwy 59 route to I-39 to get to Madison/Dells/etc. becomes an even better alternate than continuing on US12 or taking I-94 from Kenosha County or Northeastern Illinois, so that entire route should be a state highway.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 02, 2015, 02:03:27 AM
Quote from: I-39 on September 01, 2015, 05:46:18 PM
Because the freeway will not continue into Illinois, I would lean towards improving the existing route rather than continuing the freeway corridor northwest from Elkhorn to Whitewater.
However, if it must be built on the new alignment, I would scale it back to an expressway, but only build it as a Super Two with at-grade intersections. Then build the two other lanes when funding becomes available, but keep the at-grade intersections in the rural areas.
Of course, WisDOT has better things to spend their money on, and this really isn't a pressing need anyway.
The DOT isn't looking at building US 12 as an expressway from Elkhorn to Madison. This project is starting to be worked on while the US 12 Bypass of Fort Atkinson is being put on hold. The logic for constructing this project is to give Whitewater 4 lane highway access. Currently, it's the largest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway. Marshfield lobbied for US 10 to be upgraded with this reasoning and now that they have their 4 lane expressway. Local officials in Whitewater probably feel that it's Whitewater's turn. According to the DOT's 2030 Connection plan, every community over 5,000 is connected with either a connector or backbone route. Many connectors are 2 lane roads, but the DOT gives them priority and tries to make them high quality routes. Over time, many of the connectors are going to be slated to be upgraded to 4 lanes, and priority will probably be ranked by how big the communities are that don't have a 4 lane highway. Whitewater would be next.
I work in Whitewater and have never heard the "largest city without a four lane highway" reasoning for the upgrade. What I have heard is that "cutting the corner" provides better access to the city and to the University from Illinois and off I-43. I don't think anyone reasonably expects this to be a four lane highway any time in the near future. The traffic counts don't justify it.
Regardless, I doubt this is going to happen anytime soon. (And by "soon" I mean in the next 15 years.)
Quote from: Mrt90 on September 02, 2015, 10:04:46 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 02, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2015, 02:49:35 PM
And then you can simply extend WI-20 west to Whitewater.
... and then on to Edgerton via County N. :D
Extending Hwy 20 at least to I-39 should be done regardless of what happens with US12, but if they "cut the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater then the US12-Walworth Ave-Cnty N-Hwy 59 route to I-39 to get to Madison/Dells/etc. becomes an even better alternate than continuing on US12 or taking I-94 from Kenosha County or Northeastern Illinois, so that entire route should be a state highway.
Rock County N gets about 3000-3200 cars per day per WIDOT. There are plenty of county highways that get more than that across the state.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 02, 2015, 02:03:27 AM
The logic for constructing this project is to give Whitewater 4 lane highway access. Currently, it's the largest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway.
Source?
I don't think that's the case. If so, that's a huge waste of resources at a time when funding is scarce.
well in the CNN world they called us 12 in fox lake IL interstate 12
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 02, 2015, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 02, 2015, 02:03:27 AM
The logic for constructing this project is to give Whitewater 4 lane highway access. Currently, it's the largest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway.
Source?
I don't think that's the case. If so, that's a huge waste of resources at a time when funding is scarce.
It is the largest city without four lane access. But it's 14,000+ so it's not a travesty by any means. But I have simply never heard that as part of the reasoning.
If you keep looking for the next biggest city that doesn't have 4-lane access, and then give that city 4-lane access, eventually you'll have every town in the state connected by 4-lane highways. That's a bogus argument for a 4-lane highway, IMO.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 02, 2015, 02:33:47 PM
If you keep looking for the next biggest city that doesn't have 4-lane access, and then give that city 4-lane access, eventually you'll have every town in the state connected by 4-lane highways. That's a bogus argument for a 4-lane highway, IMO.
Exactly. Not every town needs 4 lane expressway/freeway access. US 10 to Marshfield was a complete waste of money for example, as are some of the other widening projects WisDOT is pursuing in rural areas.
WisDOT does a good job at building roads, but a lot of them need rebuilding. With federal and state dollars drying up, they need to focus on that.
Because the McHenry leg of the IL-53 extension (Richmond-Waukegan Expressway) will never be built in Illinois, it is pointless to continue the Interstate-grade US 12 freeway northwest of Elkhorn. Scale it back to an expressway or improve the existing route.
The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.
Quote from: quickshade on September 03, 2015, 11:12:35 AM
The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.
Do you know what route is planned for the Richmond bypass? That part of the state (Richmond/Spring Grove/Johnsburg) seems to be booming right now, so I hope they don't wait too long until more subdivisions get put in and then those people don't want a highway near their homes. Because that seems to happen all too often in northeastern Illinois.
Quote from: quickshade on September 03, 2015, 11:12:35 AM
The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.
they can toll the Richmond bypass and find a way to tie it into the IL-120 / IL-53 work.
I know the state owns a whole bunch of land in McHenry county, and I believe that the FAP 420 route was the most favorable option as that was the one that had the least impact on environment and cost. This was the ROW that the state got to build 53 in the first place many years ago. However where it goes after it connects back into the 12/31 intersection is anyones guess. If 53 does get extended to 120 you have to question what they would do next. I know the state had land set aside 20 years ago but I can't see how they would build it now considering the buildup the area has gone through in the past 20 years. I know there are plans around on 31 bypasses, 120 bypasses and such but I have a feeling until 53 is set in stone (construction started) none of these plans will be dusted off.
Last I heard, there wasn't going to be a Richmond Bypass. At least not one in the traditional sense. It got shot down pretty quickly at the city and county levels.
Quote from: quickshade on September 03, 2015, 05:47:06 PM
I know the state owns a whole bunch of land in McHenry county, and I believe that the FAP 420 route was the most favorable option as that was the one that had the least impact on environment and cost. This was the ROW that the state got to build 53 in the first place many years ago. However where it goes after it connects back into the 12/31 intersection is anyones guess. If 53 does get extended to 120 you have to question what they would do next. I know the state had land set aside 20 years ago but I can't see how they would build it now considering the buildup the area has gone through in the past 20 years. I know there are plans around on 31 bypasses, 120 bypasses and such but I have a feeling until 53 is set in stone (construction started) none of these plans will be dusted off.
some where near mccullom lake road??
really no way to bypass fox lake with a big / long bridge so more of a near IL-120 till McHenry route. Maybe can do a solon mills bypass / 4 laning of US12 up to it.
also 31 needs 4 lanes from mchenry to richmound and McHenry to crystal lake. randall rd / james rakow road maybe 3 lanes each way from 31 to I-90 with wided I-90 bridge.
randall rd should have been a interstate / toll road. Near Il-47 huntley still has some room to punch something though. Long term maybe some there linked to US-12 freeway in WI all the way down to I-80 with an eoe link along us 20
The EPA (or some environmental group) is not allowing the Richmond Bypass to link directly into the US 12 interchange in Genoa City because there are some wetlands just south of it. It's kind of ridiculous :rolleyes:
As for the rest of the FAP 420 right-of-way, nothing will ever be built along it because it routes through Glacial Park and Volo Blog, two extremely sensitive conservation areas. And they can't really route around it at this point without destroying a ton of development. So in short, the Richmond-Waukegan Expressway will never be built.
As such, WisDOT does not need to continue the Interstate-grade freeway along the US 12 corridor between Elkhorn and Whitewater. An expressway or upgrading the existing route will do.
Quote from: I-39 on September 04, 2015, 03:44:09 PM
The EPA (or some environmental group) is not allowing the Richmond Bypass to link directly into the US 12 interchange in Genoa City because there are some wetlands just south of it. It's kind of ridiculous :rolleyes:
As for the rest of the FAP 420 right-of-way, nothing will ever be built along it because it routes through Glacial Park and Volo Blog, two extremely sensitive conservation areas. And they can't really route around it at this point without destroying a ton of development. So in short, the Richmond-Waukegan Expressway will never be built.
As such, WisDOT does not need to continue the Interstate-grade freeway along the US 12 corridor between Elkhorn and Whitewater. An expressway or upgrading the existing route will do.
we can vote trump and he can make it so the states have more control over this EPA stuff. Also the found a way to build the I-355 ext in some environmental areas.
also why not double desk some roads / pull an EOE and trun an old free road in to a toll road + some frontage roads?
As I mentioned in another thread, how possible would it be to do something like the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline (US 12/18) in those places?
Mike
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on September 04, 2015, 09:52:56 PM
we can vote trump and he can make it so the states have more control over this EPA stuff.
That won't make a bit of difference. It won't be like people will all of a sudden be willing to tear up wetlands because they can.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 04, 2015, 11:55:39 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, how possible would it be to do something like the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline (US 12/18) in those places?
Mike
Guessing pretty difficult. The Yahara marsh bridging was done in a much different time. Something like that would be difficult to pull off today, unless it was an absolutely critical project. I don't see US-12 as being that important.
See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.
Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.
Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.
31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.
To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?
Quote from: quickshade on September 05, 2015, 12:29:31 PM
See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.
Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.
Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.
31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.
To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?
I do not disagree that the FAP 420 corridor should have been built, but I am saying now it would be almost impossible for it to be built, because the mapped ROW crosses two state conservation areas and there is no way they could get a permit to build through those areas. At this point, it is too late to build around the conservation areas because there's too much development.
FAP 420 is dead, forever. We'll just have to live with it.
Quote from: I-39 on September 05, 2015, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: quickshade on September 05, 2015, 12:29:31 PM
See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.
Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.
Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.
31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.
To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?
I do not disagree that the FAP 420 corridor should have been built, but I am saying now it would be almost impossible for it to be built, because the mapped ROW crosses two state conservation areas and there is no way they could get a permit to build through those areas. At this point, it is too late to build around the conservation areas because there's too much development.
FAP 420 is dead, forever. We'll just have to live with it.
Maybe maybe not if it were dead all of the row for the corridor would be covered with houseing developments
Are the wetlands in question just the small area straddling the state border? If so, that area can be easily avoided. It would require some inventive interchange design. But it could be done.
Quote from: I-90 on April 13, 2017, 08:04:23 AM
Maybe maybe not if it were dead all of the row for the corridor would be covered with houseing developments
I second this - it's not completely dead until IDOT sells all of the ROW.
Quote from: skluth on April 15, 2017, 06:05:45 PM
Are the wetlands in question just the small area straddling the state border? If so, that area can be easily avoided. It would require some inventive interchange design. But it could be done.
Based on a previous thread on this topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10069.0) (with nonfunctional links), it appears the wetlands were not going to be easy to get around.
Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?
Also, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings. Would that be possible?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PM
Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?
IIRC there were a couple alternatives to the east of Richmond, but there were still enough wetlands to the east to be a problem.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PMAlso, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings. Would that be possible?
Mike
There would still be the impacts during construction, but I think the main issue would be with the permitting agencies.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 16, 2017, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PM
Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?
IIRC there were a couple alternatives to the east of Richmond, but there were still enough wetlands to the east to be a problem.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PMAlso, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings. Would that be possible?
Mike
There would still be the impacts during construction, but I think the main issue would be with the permitting agencies.
Yes the east ideas would be a bigger problem due to Elizabeth Lake and the Elizabeth Lake Nature Preserve east of town.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4710843,-88.3117106,10461m/data=!3m1!1e3
The west wetlands area in question are between the end of the freeway and Ill 173 and west to Keystone Rd. I believe that creek is the Nippersink Creek which connects Powers Lake with the Chain of Lakes area by Fox Lake.
Quote from: I-39 on November 26, 2020, 09:45:45 AM
Ok, so far I've seen both four lanes is needed on US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater, yet, US 12 can do with a new super 2 initially. Which is it?
Traffic headed directly for Whitewater would follow the new road, pulling traffic off the old routing (which would likely remain Hwy 67). There's not enough traffic that the "corner cut" and the existing road would independently need 4 travel lanes.
WisDOT would be stupid not to purchase ROW for 4 travel lanes on the "corner cut" alignment if and when they build it. But it's only going to see about 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day initially, which a 2-lane highway is perfectly capable of handling.
Exactly.
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 26, 2020, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 26, 2020, 09:45:45 AM
Ok, so far I've seen both four lanes is needed on US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater, yet, US 12 can do with a new super 2 initially. Which is it?
Traffic headed directly for Whitewater would follow the new road, pulling traffic off the old routing (which would likely remain Hwy 67). There's not enough traffic that the "corner cut" and the existing road would independently need 4 travel lanes.
WisDOT would be stupid not to purchase ROW for 4 travel lanes on the "corner cut" alignment if and when they build it. But it's only going to see about 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day initially, which a 2-lane highway is perfectly capable of handling.
IMHO, the east-west part of the corner cut 'old road' should also be retained and remarked as a westward extension of WI 20. Could this 'WI 20' then be further extended westward to replace Rock County 'N'?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 26, 2020, 03:21:45 PM
IMHO, the east-west part of the corner cut 'old road' should also be retained and remarked as a westward extension of WI 20. Could this 'WI 20' then be further extended westward to replace Rock County 'N'?
Seems logical to me. County N definitely has the traffic load (relative to other area roadways) to justify being a state highway. It's the most direct connection to Madison via I-39/90.
The problem with "cutting the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater, is that a good portion of the US-12 traffic is heading for vacation destinations between Elkhorn and WI-20. I have driven that stretch dozens of times, and traffic drops off considerably just prior to the intersection with WI-20. If you look at the interactive traffic map, you go from about 10-12k per day, down to 7-8k.
So I am not sure what a new terrain route would actually accomplish when you consider the cost.
The problem with "cutting the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater, is that a good portion of the US-12 traffic is heading for vacation destinations between Elkhorn and WI-20. I have driven that stretch dozens of times, and traffic drops off considerably just prior to the intersection with WI-20. If you look at the interactive traffic map, you go from about 10-12k per day, down to 7-8k.
So I am not sure what a new terrain route would actually accomplish when you consider the cost.
Posted by: JREwing78
I could understand that argument. I do think they should put a roundabout at the Highway 12-20-67 intersection though to make it more efficient and more safe.
Quote from: US 12 fan on January 22, 2021, 04:15:45 PM
I do think they should put a roundabout at the Highway 12-20-67 intersection though to make it more efficient and more safe.
I agree with this. Absolutely hate that intersection.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 22, 2021, 04:43:19 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on January 22, 2021, 04:15:45 PM
I do think they should put a roundabout at the Highway 12-20-67 intersection though to make it more efficient and more safe.
I agree with this. Absolutely hate that intersection.
I'd put a roundabout there even if they do build the Corner Cut.
Mike
Since the corner cut isn't going to happen, let's continue this thread here. This way we don't have multiple US 12 Wisconsin threads.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0)
Mods, can you lock this thread?
Quote from: I-39 on January 23, 2021, 12:28:27 AM
Since the corner cut isn't going to happen, let's continue this thread here. This way we don't have multiple US 12 Wisconsin threads.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0)
Mods, can you lock this thread?
Please
DO NOT lock this thread! Unless, you want that thread to end up being 75% about the almighty "corner-cut".
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 23, 2021, 03:16:20 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 23, 2021, 12:28:27 AM
Since the corner cut isn't going to happen, let's continue this thread here. This way we don't have multiple US 12 Wisconsin threads.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0)
Mods, can you lock this thread?
Please DO NOT lock this thread! Unless, you want that thread to end up being 75% about the almighty "corner-cut".
I'm sick of the corner cut talk. It's not needed. We've had that discussion. I'm not going to debate it anymore.
Quote from: thspfc on January 24, 2021, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 23, 2021, 03:16:20 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 23, 2021, 12:28:27 AM
Since the corner cut isn't going to happen, let's continue this thread here. This way we don't have multiple US 12 Wisconsin threads.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0)
Mods, can you lock this thread?
Please DO NOT lock this thread! Unless, you want that thread to end up being 75% about the almighty "corner-cut".
I'm sick of the corner cut talk. It's not needed. We've had that discussion. I'm not going to debate it anymore.
It's easy to ignore if it is contained in this topic.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 24, 2021, 02:16:03 PM
Quote from: thspfc on January 24, 2021, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 23, 2021, 03:16:20 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 23, 2021, 12:28:27 AM
Since the corner cut isn't going to happen, let's continue this thread here. This way we don't have multiple US 12 Wisconsin threads.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0)
Mods, can you lock this thread?
Please DO NOT lock this thread! Unless, you want that thread to end up being 75% about the almighty "corner-cut".
I'm sick of the corner cut talk. It's not needed. We've had that discussion. I'm not going to debate it anymore.
It's easy to ignore if it is contained in this topic.
Hey, you're back, were you banned?
Quote from: thspfc on January 25, 2021, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 24, 2021, 02:16:03 PM
Quote from: thspfc on January 24, 2021, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 23, 2021, 03:16:20 PM
Quote from: I-39 on January 23, 2021, 12:28:27 AM
Since the corner cut isn't going to happen, let's continue this thread here. This way we don't have multiple US 12 Wisconsin threads.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20966.0)
Mods, can you lock this thread?
Please DO NOT lock this thread! Unless, you want that thread to end up being 75% about the almighty "corner-cut".
I'm sick of the corner cut talk. It's not needed. We've had that discussion. I'm not going to debate it anymore.
It's easy to ignore if it is contained in this topic.
Hey, you're back, were you banned?
I took a much needed break that may or may not have been of my own choosing. :colorful:
Over MLK weekend, I went to the Dells. On the way home I took US 12 all the way. I noticed something I hadn't before between Whitewater and County H. There were earth movers south of 12 on the hill and it looked like they were preparing to be grading. I happened to see on Google map's sat image, it is there. Are they clearing stuff for ROW of a US 12 freeway/expressway extension? It certainly looks like it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7999781,-88.6545117,1626m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Quote from: hobsini2 on January 26, 2021, 04:01:01 PM
Over MLK weekend, I went to the Dells. On the way home I took US 12 all the way. I noticed something I hadn't before between Whitewater and County H. There were earth movers south of 12 on the hill and it looked like they were preparing to be grading. I happened to see on Google map's sat image, it is there. Are they clearing stuff for ROW of a US 12 freeway/expressway extension? It certainly looks like it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7999781,-88.6545117,1626m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
No I believe that is the route of a pipeline of some sort. My recollection is that they are expanding a natural gas pipeline in the area.
The US 12 Realignment Study was suspend by the DOT in July 2016. The long-proposed realignment of US 12 will likely remain unbuilt permanently.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 26, 2021, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on January 26, 2021, 04:01:01 PM
Over MLK weekend, I went to the Dells. On the way home I took US 12 all the way. I noticed something I hadn't before between Whitewater and County H. There were earth movers south of 12 on the hill and it looked like they were preparing to be grading. I happened to see on Google map's sat image, it is there. Are they clearing stuff for ROW of a US 12 freeway/expressway extension? It certainly looks like it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7999781,-88.6545117,1626m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
No I believe that is the route of a pipeline of some sort. My recollection is that they are expanding a natural gas pipeline in the area.
Interesting. It looked wide enough for a 4 lane road.
Important to remember that under the fantasy scenario of there being any expansion of US 12 through the Kettle Moraine, it would certainly have to happen on the current alignment since the entire ridge is state forest. A quarter mile southwest of US 12 is Bluff Creek State Natural Area. SNA's get extra protection due to unique habitats/scenery. Bluff Creek is a cool area of springs and the SNA protects the immediate watershed of those springs.
Just too bad they rammed a giant powerline through Bluff Creek in the days before anyone gave a shit.