While searching for information on the 1956 highway act (that funded the Interstate system), I came across this Google-scanned document (https://books.google.com/books?id=1n8YZZ4l8CoC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&source=bl&ots=c6p-fnVR-c&sig=ACfU3U3ndg7nv2WRyrvTqBf2JsphiPbfdA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_8da73YLkAhXSxFkKHQmgAiw4HhDoATAEegQIChAB#v=onepage&q&f=false) from 1963. It's a report from the Wisconsin State Highway Commission to then-BPR requesting what was effectively 6 new/additional Interstate routes: a long-distance route from Milwaukee to Superior, a spur off that longer route serving Green Bay, and four smaller urban routes. I'll briefly describe the six routes below:
- The Milwaukee-Superior route was intended by the state to provide express service to the 1.8 million persons (as of the 1960 census) living in the corridor. It will pass through and connect with much of the industrial and agricultural greatness of Wisconsin. It will make the many recreation areas of Wisconsin readily accessible to the millions of persons living in Chicago, northern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio areas. All the major port facilities of Wisconsin will be served by this route..
From Milwaukee, it generally follows existing I-43 to Saukville. From Saukville, it angles slightly north-northeastward, meeting WI 32 west of Oostburg. It then continues more or less due north along the WI 32 and WI 42 corridors (passing through Sheboygan Falls and west of Sheboygan proper) to near Osman. It continues due north from Osman away from the WI 42 corridor to near Whitelaw, where it turns northwestward, crossing the Manitowoc/Brown County line south of Wayside, passing just south of Greenleaf, and crossing the Fox River just north of Wrightstown.
It would cross US 41 (today's I-41) in the vicinity of the Brown/Outagamie County line (Exit 154), pass near Black Creek (WI 47/WI 54), and pass just southwest of Clintonville. Between Clintonville and Wittenberg, it generally parallels US 45 to the north but takes a more direct path. It generally follows the WI 29 corridor to Wausau but would have taken a more direct path from Wittenberg to Hatley.
At Wausau, it turns north along the US 51 corridor...it's reasonable to assume that today's 4-lane US 51 from Wausau to north of US 8 would have been utilized for the Interstate corridor. The corridor was to have passed west of Minocquia and Woodruff (maps show west of Kawaguesaga Lake) and a more direct path to Manitowish, passing east of Fence Lake). The route would then generally follow the US 51 corridor to Hurley.
West of Hurley, the route would have generally followed the US 2 corridor, passing north of Saxon and Cedar, south of Ashland, north of Brule, and south of Maple. Finally, it likely would have followed the built US 2/53 freeway south of Superior and the unbuilt US 53 freeway through Superior before tying into the I-535 Blatnik Bridge (already completed by then).
All told, the Milwaukee-Superior route was proposed at approximately 411 miles with an estimated cost of $301 million. No Interstate route number is mentioned in the report, but given that a Milwaukee-Green Bay Interstate was later designated as I-43, it's reasonable to guess that the Milwaukee-Superior route would have become I-43.
- The Green Bay spur off of the main Milwaukee-Superior route would connect to Green Bay as well as serve as a western Green Bay bypass for through traffic. It would be 23 miles along and generally follow today's I-41/US 41 from where the main route would have intersected I-41 near the Brown/Outagamie County line (Exit 154) and extending north to Suamico. Maps suggest a northern terminus at Harbor Lights Rd. No Interstate route number is mentioned, but assuming the main Milwaukee-Superior route would have been I-43, an odd I-x43 for the spur seems reasonable.
- A 13.5 mile Madison urban loop route was proposed. From the I-90/Beltline interchange, it would have followed the Beltline west to John Nolen Drive, then along John Nolan Drive to downtown. The route along the isthmus through downtown is unclear. The map suggests it would have passed underneath or very close to the state capitol building, then continued northeast somewhere in between Washington Ave and Johnson St. After the Yahara River, it may have turned slightly north, perhaps along WI 113 (Pennsylvania Ave and Packers Ave). It would have eventually tied into the existing WI 30 freeway and used that to an ending at the Badger Interchange (I-90/I-94/WI 30). No Interstate route number was given, but an even I-x90 seems reasonable.
- A 4.8 mile spur into La Crosse was proposed. From existing I-90 Exit 4 (US 53 North/WI 157), the spur was to have traveled slightly west-of-south, crossing the La Crosse River near the end of Darling Rd (where the rail trail crosses), then continued southward between the river and WI 16. After crossing the BNSF Aurora Subdivision, the spur would have split, with one leg tying into WI 16 at Losey Blvd/La Crosse St and the other leg turning westward, passing north of Myrick park and Oak Grove Cemetery and tying into US 53 where it splits into the 3rd St/4th St one-way pair. Such a route is most likely unbuildable today as it would pass through the La Crosse Marsh, but that wasn't a consideration in the early 1960s. No Interstate route number was given, but it likely would have been an odd I-x90.
- A 2.6 mile spur into Eau Claire was proposed, and was actually built by the state. It simply would have followed US 53 and BUSINESS US 53 from I-94/Exit 70 to US 12.
- Lastly, the map on the front cover report suggests an additional Interstate loop (besides I-894) was proposed in Milwaukee. The report itself does not say what the detals were...they were "under separate volume" and I have been unable to locate that volume online, but the cover map suggests that a combination of the Stadium Freeway North and the Belt Freeway between I-94 and today's I-43 North would have been part of the Interstate highway recommendation.
Thanks for this - very interesting. Surprised they didn't just bring the route nearer to Green Bay before curving off northwest.
That's really cool. It honestly should have been built in the 60s. It would make things so much easier now. But, with all the NIMBYs and protected land between Wausau and Superior, it's not realistically going to happen.
QuoteThis loop will carry very large traffic volumes since it will serve all the major traffic generating locations in the city. The 1980 estimated volume is 20k - 45k average daily traffic.
They had no idea.
I doubt the Milwaukee-to-Superior Highway would have been built in its entirety. The traffic demands west of Green Bay probably wouldn't have warranted a four-lane roadway (maybe that portion could have been a two-lane route). There was once an Isthmus Freeway to be constructed through the north side of downtown Madison, I'm not sure if its related to this 1963 proposal. All in all, the proposal is very intriguing.
Since the original Milwaukee-Green bay corridor (eventually designated I-43) was authorized with the 1968 legislation -- which itself was truncated from 4500 miles down to 1500 over the course of its journey through Congress, and the proposal Adam mentions was proffered only five years previously -- was the full corridor to Superior submitted for consideration when the additional '68 mileage was triple that of what was eventually authorized? Nevertheless, the whole thing seems like a "make-work" project for WI; much of the same effect -- but with increased access to existing regional population centers (here, the Twin Cities in MN) could be accomplished by the I-43 routing, a facility along WI 29, and a direct Eau Claire-Superior route along US 53. Even together Hurley & Ashland don't seem populous enough to warrant the additional mileage required to service (or skirt!) them. But there were likely state legislators (and the local parties who influence them) from the northern areas who pressed for such a routing despite its inefficiencies; that's more often than not the inception point of new corridor concepts.
^ This was submitted when there was still lingering mileage available in the early '60s. I know this because I-335 in Minneapolis was added in 1964. The way they worded the study suggests they were also anticipating additional future Interstate mileage, and prioritized their request with the Madison, La Crosse, and Eau Claire loops/spurs receiving first priority and the Milwaukee-Superior corridor receiving second priority in segments from south to north. One could make the argument that this 1963 study led to the inclusion of the Milwaukee-Green Bay segment in 1968...albeit on a somewhat different corridor north of Saukville.
That Madison Isthmus route would have been a disaster.
But yeah the Milwaukee to Green Bay route eventually got built, but along the US-141 corridor instead of the WI-57 corridor - which makes more sense. And eventually much of the route got built anyway, except there should be no interstate between Wausau and Superior. That's FritzOwl-ish nonsense.
It was a good thing that the Madison loop was never built, mainly because of its potentially destructive route through the downtown area.
As the La Crosse and Eau Claire spurs followed the same corridor anyway, I am somewhat surprised that no connections were proposed in between the two cities, nor to Superior. The Milwaukee-Superior routing seems a bit redundant, especially because of its proximity to I-41 and I-39, plus a zigzagging path across the state.
The NIMBYism that exists between Wausau and Superior is the same reason why I-39 cannot be extended north, although I don't see this as FritzOwl-ish, because I have proposed the exact same extension in the past.
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
There's probably not enough traffic to justify a Wisconsin interstate (obviously I-39) extending up to Superior and Duluth.
With I-41 finally in place serving the Fox Valley, there really isn't a whole lot of demand for places to put in new interstates. The only one that comes to mind to me is WIS 29 from Eau Claire to Green Bay (which I would tag as a western I-96, because why the hell not?).
Oh, and maybe WIS 441.
When there was work on 51 from Tomahawk to Hazelhurst a couple years ago, the clear zones on part of the highway were extended to distances that could accommodate a four lane divided highway, so that might be in the plans for the far future, but I really don't know.
Probably not. I expect US 51 will remain two-lanes north of US 8 for all time.
Quote from: FightingIrish on August 14, 2019, 10:37:07 PM
With I-41 finally in place serving the Fox Valley, there really isn't a whole lot of demand for places to put in new interstates. The only one that comes to mind to me is WIS 29 from Eau Claire to Green Bay (which I would tag as a western I-96, because why the hell not?).
Oh, and maybe WIS 441.
US 151 perhaps? There are a couple studies for upgrading portions of it to a full freeway.
WIS 172 between I-41 and I-43 would be a candidate for a 3di.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 15, 2019, 05:36:56 PM
Probably not. I expect US 51 will remain two-lanes north of US 8 for all time.
I could see eventual 4-laning up to Minocqua, but not beyond that. Hurley and Ironwood are in decline. So is Ashland. A significant port of the US-51 traffic exits at US-8 for Rhinelander and Iron River.
Any Superior -> Milwaukee traffic is well-served by US-53 and I-94. Superior -> Green Bay traffic is similarly well-served by US-53 and Hwy 29.
It's an interesting concept, but WisDOT was wise to not push the Superior -> Wausau connection. It clearly wasn't needed.
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 16, 2019, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 15, 2019, 05:36:56 PM
Probably not. I expect US 51 will remain two-lanes north of US 8 for all time.
I could see eventual 4-laning up to Minocqua, but not beyond that. Hurley and Ironwood are in decline. So is Ashland. A significant port of the US-51 traffic exits at US-8 for Rhinelander and Iron River.
Any Superior -> Milwaukee traffic is well-served by US-53 and I-94. Superior -> Green Bay traffic is similarly well-served by US-53 and Hwy 29.
It's an interesting concept, but WisDOT was wise to not push the Superior -> Wausau connection. It clearly wasn't needed.
I could see the I-39 designation extended north to US 8 simply because it's a traffic generator -- but beyond that, not so much. The times I've been to the area (usually in early fall or late spring) I didn't notice enough traffic, particularly of the clearly recreational variety (RV's, towed boats, etc.), to warrant such expansion between US 8 and US 2.
I'd upgrade (fictionally, of course) US 51 to freeway standards, between Exits 211 and 225, so Interstate 39 could extend all the way up to US 8. The only additional interchange I'd include between those two interchanges would be at the CTH-K/Nelson Ave. intersection (call it Exit 220).
What is impressive is all their major highways are 4 lane freeways or expressways. The only exception is the Wausau Superior section which is well served as mentioned.
The other is part of 12. That was just made irrelevant when Illinois killed route 53.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 15, 2019, 05:36:56 PM
Probably not. I expect US 51 will remain two-lanes north of US 8 for all time.
North of Minocqua Woodruff yes. I could see it getting expanded to 4 lanes to up there but not a freeway.
Fascinating bit of ambitious history.
Reminds me of a pre-interstate concept for a turnpike that might have run from Milwaukee to Green Bay to Hudson.
I never knew what had been a little freeway stub prior to the 2006 completion of the US 53 bypass was once considered for an x94.
The La Crosse spur; versions of that lingered into the 90's, if I recall. Though by then I'm pretty sure the concept was more boulevard and less x90.
My knowledge of Madison freeway history didn't include that loop. If Madison hadn't been a larger city in the 60's, maybe that would've gained more traction. Glad it didn't. There's no room on the Isthmus for a freeway.
The uber I-43 concept; that's a lot to pick apart. I can imagine a world with that getting started and then cancelled beyond Wausau. The routing north of Minocqua would've punched thru two separate Ojibwa reservations (Lac du Flambeau and Bad River). Can't imagine that would've gone over well. All for a very lonely road, by interstate standards.
Makes me wonder if this overkill vision of I-43 was secretly a way to give room to negotiate a Milwaukee - Green Bay interstate. Present a massively out-sized project, then let them 'talk you down' to just MKE - GB. If that was anyone's thinking, then it seems to have backfired as the whole thing was apparently dismissed.
I think about the Northland portion in the context of the mid century population decline experienced in western Lake Superior as the cheap ore dried up in all the iron mines. Places like Ashland, Superior and Hurley were already passed their population peaks, but it wasn't so long ago that they were bustling. I can just imagine some old guy in an office somewhere downstate drawing lines on maps thinking that area was still happening. In 1910, Superior was the second largest city in Wisconsin and I'm sure there were old bureaucrats in the 60's who still thought Duluth-Superior was the next Chicago.
Quite a few of the highways that were eventually built were built on routings and use engineering standards that are different from what was planned in the 1950s and 1960s. The original temporary south end of the US 53 freeway at old US 53/WI 124/Hastings Way between Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls was very different from what was ultimately built when the bypass freeway was completed. Also, the original north end of the 1960s/1970s era interstate-compatible US 53 freeway at Haugen was very different from what was built when the four lanes was ultimately extended to Superior. Ditto the US 51 four lanes at Irma, WI.
Also, I agree, in the late 19th century, locals were expecting Superior to become another Chicago.
Mike
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2019, 12:29:58 PM
I think about the Northland portion in the context of the mid century population decline experienced in western Lake Superior as the cheap ore dried up in all the iron mines. Places like Ashland, Superior and Hurley were already passed their population peaks, but it wasn't so long ago that they were bustling. I can just imagine some old guy in an office somewhere downstate drawing lines on maps thinking that area was still happening. In 1910, Superior was the second largest city in Wisconsin and I'm sure there were old bureaucrats in the 60's who still thought Duluth-Superior was the next Chicago.
I also think the politics of providing services to distant geographic locales played a role. It's the same reason UW-Superior has stayed open despite it being massively inefficient.
Quote from: Henry on August 14, 2019, 09:27:42 PM
It was a good thing that the Madison loop was never built, mainly because of its potentially destructive route through the downtown area.
Through the isthmus would have been near impossible in the politics of the 60's and 70's in Madison. However, I could see John Nolan Drive having been upgraded at the time. One exit could have worked for both Rimrock and Olin, with a bridge over Lakeside. It would never be built beyond the causeway crossing Monona Bay though. The parallel bike trail was built across the causeway by the late 70's and the traffic never bothered me on the trail.
I agree with the others who don't see US 51 being four lanes north of Minoqua.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2019, 12:29:58 PM
I think about the Northland portion in the context of the mid century population decline experienced in western Lake Superior as the cheap ore dried up in all the iron mines. Places like Ashland, Superior and Hurley were already passed their population peaks, but it wasn't so long ago that they were bustling. I can just imagine some old guy in an office somewhere downstate drawing lines on maps thinking that area was still happening. In 1910, Superior was the second largest city in Wisconsin and I'm sure there were old bureaucrats in the 60's who still thought Duluth-Superior was the next Chicago.
I've mentioned it before, but I still think that building a bypass/loop south of Superior via US2/Bong Bridge to connect back up at the 53/2 junction would have made a lot of sense. I know why it didn't happen (the municipal forest) but I still think it was a good idea. At least as good an idea as the freeway to nowhere from Houlton to New Richmond.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
IMO, I-43 should have been extended into Illinois and used for the I-39/US 51 corridor between Rockford and Bloomington/Normal. The US 51 corridor in Wisconsin could have been a 3 digit interstate, if anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
Quoteif anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
All the money they save by refusing to buy streetlights for their rural interchanges they spend on red, white, and blue signs.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
The UP part of the country is one of the least populated areas. I love it but no one lives up there.
I also would like to note that nothing was proposed along the US 10 corridor at the time. Interesting how that became a priority later. I still think the entirety of US 10 between Appleton and Marshfield was drastically overbuilt, they could've done lesser upgrades. Same with WIS 26.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 16, 2020, 10:22:14 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
The UP part of the country is one of the least populated areas. I love it but no one lives up there.
And few people live up there because there is little economic activity up there. LEGENDARY scenery and year-round outdoor sports (hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, skiing, etc), but little other reason to be there. There is a reason why US 2 is not an interstate compatible four lane highway west of US 41.
Mike
Quote from: I-39 on June 16, 2020, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
IMO, I-43 should have been extended into Illinois and used for the I-39/US 51 corridor between Rockford and Bloomington/Normal. The US 51 corridor in Wisconsin could have been a 3 digit interstate, if anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
Agreed. But the problem is that I-39 in Illinois was planned before I-43 was extended to Beloit right?
Anyway, US-51 could have been a 3di or a seperate 2di from the start. A northern version of I-37 would have been fine.
Quote from: I-39 on June 16, 2020, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
IMO, I-43 should have been extended into Illinois and used for the I-39/US 51 corridor between Rockford and Bloomington/Normal. The US 51 corridor in Wisconsin could have been a 3 digit interstate, if anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
The only reasons WI chose I-43 as the designation for the first Green Bay extension were (1) the original concept of an I-57 extension was shut down by IL at the bequest of the Daley crowd in Chicago, who were loath to change numbers of local freeways, and (2) WI 43 was a short Milwaukee-area state route easily dealt with; WDOT wouldn't have had to renumber a longer state highway if the available alternatives, 47 or (at the time) 49 were selected. So the upper Midwest Interstate grid pattern was FUBAR'd for local convenience (and arrogance emanating from Chicagoland!).
I've also heard somewhere that I-43 was planned for the Illinois portion of I-39, but it was killed / rejected. At this time I-43 hadn't been extended down WI 15 to Beloit yet.
Then you would have had a continuous interstate from Green Bay to Bloomington-Normal.
I always wonder if I-39 in Wisconsin wouldn't have made more sense as a 3di and then you wouldn't have had that super long multiplex.
Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2020, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 16, 2020, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
IMO, I-43 should have been extended into Illinois and used for the I-39/US 51 corridor between Rockford and Bloomington/Normal. The US 51 corridor in Wisconsin could have been a 3 digit interstate, if anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
The only reasons WI chose I-43 as the designation for the first Green Bay extension were (1) the original concept of an I-57 extension was shut down by IL at the bequest of the Daley crowd in Chicago, who were loath to change numbers of local freeways, and (2) WI 43 was a short Milwaukee-area state route easily dealt with; WDOT wouldn't have had to renumber a longer state highway if the available alternatives, 47 or (at the time) 49 were selected. So the upper Midwest Interstate grid pattern was FUBAR'd for local convenience (and arrogance emanating from Chicagoland!).
How was the grid affected at all? I-43 fits it perfectly.
Quote from: mrose on June 17, 2020, 08:26:34 AM
I've also heard somewhere that I-43 was planned for the Illinois portion of I-39, but it was killed / rejected. At this time I-43 hadn't been extended down WI 15 to Beloit yet.
Then you would have had a continuous interstate from Green Bay to Bloomington-Normal.
I always wonder if I-39 in Wisconsin wouldn't have made more sense as a 3di and then you wouldn't have had that super long multiplex.
Yes, it would have made much more sense to use I-43 along the present day I-39 corridor and then subsequently use a 3 digit (I-390?) along the US 51 corridor between Portage and Wausau. What they ended up doing really made no sense, and caused a lot of unnecessary multiplexing.
Additionally, I-41 should have not been multiplexed with I-94 down to the state line.
Quote from: Mdcastle on June 16, 2020, 10:10:55 AM
Quoteif anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
All the money they save by refusing to buy streetlights for their rural interchanges they spend on red, white, and blue signs.
Why do you need lights at rural interchanges? They're just fine with proper reflectorization.
Quote from: Brandon on June 18, 2020, 02:08:09 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on June 16, 2020, 10:10:55 AM
Quoteif anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
All the money they save by refusing to buy streetlights for their rural interchanges they spend on red, white, and blue signs.
Why do you need lights at rural interchanges? They're just fine with proper reflectorization.
Yeah no kidding. Are there a rash of accidents at them now?
Quote from: mrose on June 17, 2020, 08:26:34 AM
I've also heard somewhere that I-43 was planned for the Illinois portion of I-39, but it was killed / rejected. At this time I-43 hadn't been extended down WI 15 to Beloit yet.
Then you would have had a continuous interstate from Green Bay to Bloomington-Normal.
I always wonder if I-39 in Wisconsin wouldn't have made more sense as a 3di and then you wouldn't have had that super long multiplex.
39 is in more of a line but 43 would eliminate much duplexing and TRIplexing
Quote from: I-39 on June 16, 2020, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
IMO, I-43 should have been extended into Illinois and used for the I-39/US 51 corridor between Rockford and Bloomington/Normal. The US 51 corridor in Wisconsin could have been a 3 digit interstate, if anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
But we also gave 39 it's only alone time too, because Midwest hospitality or something :awesomeface: :spin: :P
Quote from: gr8daynegb on June 19, 2020, 12:21:28 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 16, 2020, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
It's not necessary to extend I-39. Possibly expanding a four lane US-51, but even that's a marginal need right now compared to others.
IMO, I-43 should have been extended into Illinois and used for the I-39/US 51 corridor between Rockford and Bloomington/Normal. The US 51 corridor in Wisconsin could have been a 3 digit interstate, if anything. WisDOT sure does love their multiplexes.....
But we also gave 39 it's only alone time too, because Midwest hospitality or something :awesomeface: :spin: :P
39 is perfectly fine as is. It's straight, connects several important cities, and the traffic is enough to justify the designation. I love US-51 and the history of that road as much as anyone, but I don't understand why people think that a 300 mile direct freeway corridor with plenty of traffic should not be one 2 digit Interstate.
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
While I agree to some extent, at least it makes I-41 is a true Interstate, unlike I-43. Come to think of it, under the current setup, I-43 is probably the most pointless designation. Both the Milwaukee-Green Bay and Milwaukee-Beloit segments could have probably become 3 digit interstates.
Then again, if it were up to me I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee wouldn't exist at all. One of the biggest head scratchers of all time has to be the decision by WisDOT over a period of 40 years to build what is today the US 151, WIS 26 and I-43 corridors when theoretically, they could have built one corridor along WIS 26 that could serve the purpose of all three of those corridors. Big waste of $$$.
The system is what's "interstate." Not necessarily the individual highways.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
I agree on the 41 extension. At this point I'm just convinced that WISDOT has a fetish for concurrences. But the only other things I would change about WI's Interstate system is to extend 39 to the 29 West split and to extend 41 to the US-41/US-141 split.
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
I agree on the 41 extension. At this point I'm just convinced that WISDOT has a fetish for concurrences. But the only other things I would change about WI's Interstate system is to extend 39 to the 29 West split and to extend 41 to the US-41/US-141 split.
Why would they do either of those things? It wouldn't be worth it. Only other Interstate addition at this point would be converting WIS 29 to I-96 when it becomes a full freeway, but that is decades away.
Quote from: I-39 on June 20, 2020, 10:46:42 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
I agree on the 41 extension. At this point I'm just convinced that WISDOT has a fetish for concurrences. But the only other things I would change about WI's Interstate system is to extend 39 to the 29 West split and to extend 41 to the US-41/US-141 split.
Why would they do either of those things? It wouldn't be worth it. Only other Interstate addition at this point would be converting WIS 29 to I-96 when it becomes a full freeway, but that is decades away.
29 is never going to be a full freeway. There's so many intersections on it, especially from Marathon City to Boyd. The growth in the Eau Claire, Wausau, and Green Bay areas isn't fast enough to justify it.
I actually think US-151 between I-41 and I-39 could end up an interstate before WI-29.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 20, 2020, 12:58:10 PM
I actually think US-151 between I-41 and I-39 could end up an interstate before WI-29.
I would agree, but honestly if I was running WisDOT, I'd be in no hurry to do either.
The traffic load is there on US-151, at least to the Hwy 26 north exit near Waupun. East of that, traffic is pretty light for a 4-lane. One can make a case for fully limited-access freeway between Madison and Waupun, but Hwy 26 towards Oshkosh takes a huge chunk of that traffic. Also, given the design of the Fond du Lac bypass and its connections to Hwy 23 towards Sheboygan, WisDOT clearly isn't expecting an Interstate conversion anytime soon.
I don't see the benefit of an Interstate label on US-151 unless you can extend the designation from Cedar Rapids or the Quad Cities to at least Fond du Lac. Otherwise, US-151 is just fine as a route designation.
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
29 is never going to be a full freeway. There's so many intersections on it, especially from Marathon City to Boyd. The growth in the Eau Claire, Wausau, and Green Bay areas isn't fast enough to justify it.
I agree. I would rather WisDOT spend its money on areas with greater need. For example, US-12 between the Dells and Middleton has the traffic load justifying a fully limited-access freeway, at least south of Sauk City. Or 4-laning Hwy 26 between Oshkosh and US-151 near Waupun, a road I use all the time and has HEAVY traffic for a 2-lane.
I agree that any new interstate is very unlikely but n Wisconsin. I just think that US-151 may make a better candidate than WI-29.
My priority would be six laning I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay and I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 20, 2020, 04:43:26 PM
My priority would be six laning I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay and I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
90/94 from the Dells to at least Tomah needs six lanes more than 94 from Madison to Waukesha. The number of trucks on that stretch is outrageous for only two lanes in each direction.
You could probably make the argument that 39 from Portage to Stevens Point and 43 from the northern Milwaukee suburbs to Green Bay are the only mainline Interstates that will never need at least three lanes in each direction in WI. You could maybe throw 90 from Tomah to La Crosse in there too.
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 20, 2020, 03:39:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 20, 2020, 12:58:10 PM
I actually think US-151 between I-41 and I-39 could end up an interstate before WI-29.
I would agree, but honestly if I was running WisDOT, I'd be in no hurry to do either.
The traffic load is there on US-151, at least to the Hwy 26 north exit near Waupun. East of that, traffic is pretty light for a 4-lane. One can make a case for fully limited-access freeway between Madison and Waupun, but Hwy 26 towards Oshkosh takes a huge chunk of that traffic. Also, given the design of the Fond du Lac bypass and its connections to Hwy 23 towards Sheboygan, WisDOT clearly isn't expecting an Interstate conversion anytime soon.
I don't see the benefit of an Interstate label on US-151 unless you can extend the designation from Cedar Rapids or the Quad Cities to at least Fond du Lac. Otherwise, US-151 is just fine as a route designation.
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
29 is never going to be a full freeway. There's so many intersections on it, especially from Marathon City to Boyd. The growth in the Eau Claire, Wausau, and Green Bay areas isn't fast enough to justify it.
I agree. I would rather WisDOT spend its money on areas with greater need. For example, US-12 between the Dells and Middleton has the traffic load justifying a fully limited-access freeway, at least south of Sauk City. Or 4-laning Hwy 26 between Oshkosh and US-151 near Waupun, a road I use all the time and has HEAVY traffic for a 2-lane.
1. Yes, it will be a while before WIS 29 is full freeway across the state, but I wouldn't say never. I do agree there are bigger priorities.
2. Until a Sauk City bypass is constructed, it wouldn't be a good idea to make 12 a full freeway south of there so as
3. I don't think US 151 needs to be an Interstate or even a full freeway, the corridor is overbuilt as it is.
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 06:25:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 20, 2020, 04:43:26 PM
My priority would be six laning I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay and I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
90/94 from the Dells to at least Tomah needs six lanes more than 94 from Madison to Waukesha. The number of trucks on that stretch is outrageous for only two lanes in each direction.
You could probably make the argument that 39 from Portage to Stevens Point and 43 from the northern Milwaukee suburbs to Green Bay are the only mainline Interstates that will never need at least three lanes in each direction in WI. You could maybe throw 90 from Tomah to La Crosse in there too.
Yep. WisDOT is far behind on existing Interstate reconstruction/expansion IMO. Spent too much time building unneeded four lane highways rather than fixing existing ones.
Quote from: I-39 on June 19, 2020, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
While I agree to some extent, at least it makes I-41 is a true Interstate, unlike I-43. Come to think of it, under the current setup, I-43 is probably the most pointless designation. Both the Milwaukee-Green Bay and Milwaukee-Beloit segments could have probably become 3 digit interstates.
Then again, if it were up to me I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee wouldn't exist at all. One of the biggest head scratchers of all time has to be the decision by WisDOT over a period of 40 years to build what is today the US 151, WIS 26 and I-43 corridors when theoretically, they could have built one corridor along WIS 26 that could serve the purpose of all three of those corridors. Big waste of $$$.
No they couldn't. If WIS 26 was the only interstate corridor of the 3 you pointed out, Milwaukee and Madison traffic wouldn't have a direct connection to the Fond du Lac/Oshkosh/Fox Cities/Green Bay and Beloit without going at least 25 miles on I-94 to get to that corridor. Just because you may not think that all 3 are worthy of being 4 lane divided highways doesn't make it so.
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 20, 2020, 10:46:42 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
I agree on the 41 extension. At this point I'm just convinced that WISDOT has a fetish for concurrences. But the only other things I would change about WI's Interstate system is to extend 39 to the 29 West split and to extend 41 to the US-41/US-141 split.
Why would they do either of those things? It wouldn't be worth it. Only other Interstate addition at this point would be converting WIS 29 to I-96 when it becomes a full freeway, but that is decades away.
29 is never going to be a full freeway. There's so many intersections on it, especially from Marathon City to Boyd. The growth in the Eau Claire, Wausau, and Green Bay areas isn't fast enough to justify it.
I bet 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay by 2030.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 20, 2020, 10:46:42 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
I agree on the 41 extension. At this point I'm just convinced that WISDOT has a fetish for concurrences. But the only other things I would change about WI's Interstate system is to extend 39 to the 29 West split and to extend 41 to the US-41/US-141 split.
Why would they do either of those things? It wouldn't be worth it. Only other Interstate addition at this point would be converting WIS 29 to I-96 when it becomes a full freeway, but that is decades away.
29 is never going to be a full freeway. There's so many intersections on it, especially from Marathon City to Boyd. The growth in the Eau Claire, Wausau, and Green Bay areas isn't fast enough to justify it.
I bet 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay by 2030.
Lol, I would easily take that bet. How much? :-D
Quote from: I-39 on June 19, 2020, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
While I agree to some extent, at least it makes I-41 is a true Interstate, unlike I-43. Come to think of it, under the current setup, I-43 is probably the most pointless designation. Both the Milwaukee-Green Bay and Milwaukee-Beloit segments could have probably become 3 digit interstates.
Then again, if it were up to me I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee wouldn't exist at all. One of the biggest head scratchers of all time has to be the decision by WisDOT over a period of 40 years to build what is today the US 151, WIS 26 and I-43 corridors when theoretically, they could have built one corridor along WIS 26 that could serve the purpose of all three of those corridors. Big waste of $$$.
Are you serious about this? Who is going to drive from Madison to Johnson Creek just to take a WI-26 freeway to Fond du Lac?
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 20, 2020, 10:46:42 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
I agree on the 41 extension. At this point I'm just convinced that WISDOT has a fetish for concurrences. But the only other things I would change about WI's Interstate system is to extend 39 to the 29 West split and to extend 41 to the US-41/US-141 split.
Why would they do either of those things? It wouldn't be worth it. Only other Interstate addition at this point would be converting WIS 29 to I-96 when it becomes a full freeway, but that is decades away.
29 is never going to be a full freeway. There's so many intersections on it, especially from Marathon City to Boyd. The growth in the Eau Claire, Wausau, and Green Bay areas isn't fast enough to justify it.
I bet 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay by 2030.
Yeah right. Other than the County VV Interchange Project, I don't think there are any freeway conversion projects along WIS 29 on tap for the next 5 years. Unless they decide to do what they did with US 41 in the 1990's and conduct a large scale freeway conversion effort, it ain't happening by 2030.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 22, 2020, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 19, 2020, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
While I agree to some extent, at least it makes I-41 is a true Interstate, unlike I-43. Come to think of it, under the current setup, I-43 is probably the most pointless designation. Both the Milwaukee-Green Bay and Milwaukee-Beloit segments could have probably become 3 digit interstates.
Then again, if it were up to me I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee wouldn't exist at all. One of the biggest head scratchers of all time has to be the decision by WisDOT over a period of 40 years to build what is today the US 151, WIS 26 and I-43 corridors when theoretically, they could have built one corridor along WIS 26 that could serve the purpose of all three of those corridors. Big waste of $$$.
Are you serious about this? Who is going to drive from Madison to Johnson Creek just to take a WI-26 freeway to Fond du Lac?
The people who need to get to Fond du Lac? Sure, it may add a few miles more, but is it really that bad?
In all seriousness, with budget dollars stretched, maintaining all of these four lane highways built in the last 30-40 years is going to get expensive. The case for building some of them was overstated, and dollars are needed to rebuild the Interstates.
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 11:55:37 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 20, 2020, 10:46:42 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
I agree on the 41 extension. At this point I'm just convinced that WISDOT has a fetish for concurrences. But the only other things I would change about WI's Interstate system is to extend 39 to the 29 West split and to extend 41 to the US-41/US-141 split.
Why would they do either of those things? It wouldn't be worth it. Only other Interstate addition at this point would be converting WIS 29 to I-96 when it becomes a full freeway, but that is decades away.
29 is never going to be a full freeway. There's so many intersections on it, especially from Marathon City to Boyd. The growth in the Eau Claire, Wausau, and Green Bay areas isn't fast enough to justify it.
I bet 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay by 2030.
Yeah right. Other than the County VV Interchange Project, I don't think there are any freeway conversion projects along WIS 29 on tap for the next 5 years. Unless they decide to do what they did with US 41 in the 1990's and conduct a large scale freeway conversion effort, it ain't happening by 2030.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 22, 2020, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 19, 2020, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
While I agree to some extent, at least it makes I-41 is a true Interstate, unlike I-43. Come to think of it, under the current setup, I-43 is probably the most pointless designation. Both the Milwaukee-Green Bay and Milwaukee-Beloit segments could have probably become 3 digit interstates.
Then again, if it were up to me I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee wouldn't exist at all. One of the biggest head scratchers of all time has to be the decision by WisDOT over a period of 40 years to build what is today the US 151, WIS 26 and I-43 corridors when theoretically, they could have built one corridor along WIS 26 that could serve the purpose of all three of those corridors. Big waste of $$$.
Are you serious about this? Who is going to drive from Madison to Johnson Creek just to take a WI-26 freeway to Fond du Lac?
The people who need to get to Fond du Lac? Sure, it may add a few miles more, but is it really that bad?
In all seriousness, with budget dollars stretched, maintaining all of these four lane highways built in the last 30-40 years is going to get expensive. The case for building some of them was overstated, and dollars are needed to rebuild the Interstates.
It's not just to Fond du Lac, its the Fox Valley and Green Bay as well. And yes, 20 miles out of the way is bad.
If anything, upgrading WI-26 was the waste of money. US-151 and I-43 have been perfectly acceptable.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 22, 2020, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 11:55:37 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 20, 2020, 10:46:42 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 20, 2020, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
I agree on the 41 extension. At this point I'm just convinced that WISDOT has a fetish for concurrences. But the only other things I would change about WI's Interstate system is to extend 39 to the 29 West split and to extend 41 to the US-41/US-141 split.
Why would they do either of those things? It wouldn't be worth it. Only other Interstate addition at this point would be converting WIS 29 to I-96 when it becomes a full freeway, but that is decades away.
29 is never going to be a full freeway. There's so many intersections on it, especially from Marathon City to Boyd. The growth in the Eau Claire, Wausau, and Green Bay areas isn't fast enough to justify it.
I bet 29 is a full freeway between Eau Claire and Green Bay by 2030.
Yeah right. Other than the County VV Interchange Project, I don't think there are any freeway conversion projects along WIS 29 on tap for the next 5 years. Unless they decide to do what they did with US 41 in the 1990's and conduct a large scale freeway conversion effort, it ain't happening by 2030.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 22, 2020, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 19, 2020, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 19, 2020, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 02:04:51 PM
People do love to hate on Wisconsin's Interstates, don't they.
Other than I-41's useless extension to IL, I think they're fine. A lot of roadgeeks screech and scream about 894, but I think the reasons for keeping it were valid. Which coincidentally would not have been an issue without the useless 41 extension.
While I agree to some extent, at least it makes I-41 is a true Interstate, unlike I-43. Come to think of it, under the current setup, I-43 is probably the most pointless designation. Both the Milwaukee-Green Bay and Milwaukee-Beloit segments could have probably become 3 digit interstates.
Then again, if it were up to me I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee wouldn't exist at all. One of the biggest head scratchers of all time has to be the decision by WisDOT over a period of 40 years to build what is today the US 151, WIS 26 and I-43 corridors when theoretically, they could have built one corridor along WIS 26 that could serve the purpose of all three of those corridors. Big waste of $$$.
Are you serious about this? Who is going to drive from Madison to Johnson Creek just to take a WI-26 freeway to Fond du Lac?
The people who need to get to Fond du Lac? Sure, it may add a few miles more, but is it really that bad?
In all seriousness, with budget dollars stretched, maintaining all of these four lane highways built in the last 30-40 years is going to get expensive. The case for building some of them was overstated, and dollars are needed to rebuild the Interstates.
It's not just to Fond du Lac, its the Fox Valley and Green Bay as well. And yes, 20 miles out of the way is bad.
If anything, upgrading WI-26 was the waste of money. US-151 and I-43 have been perfectly acceptable.
The work on 26 was not a waste.
And it's utterly ridiculous how I-41 and I-43 are being beat to near death on this forum, while highways like I-4, I-12, and I-19 don't get the same treatment. I-41 AND I-43 ARE FINE AS THEY ARE. STOP WHINING ABOUT NOTHING.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 22, 2020, 12:06:02 PMIt's not just to Fond du Lac, its the Fox Valley and Green Bay as well. And yes, 20 miles out of the way is bad.
If anything, upgrading WI-26 was the waste of money. US-151 and I-43 have been perfectly acceptable.
My point there was that WisDOT has built a lot of unneeded/redundant four lane expansions over the last 30-40 years. I was just stating WIS 26 is one example where it
could in theory serve the functions of itself, I-43 and US 151 all in one corridor, even if it is not the most convenient. This would have saved money on highway maintenance and focused more resources on badly needed rebuilds of the actual Interstates in Wisconsin.
But I agree in hindsight, the improvements to WIS 26 shouldn't have been done.
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
The problem WRT US 151 at Fond du Lac is its I-41 interchange, it (a conventional diamond with RIRO roadways connecting it to adjacent Main St/WI 175) would have to be completely redone.
Ditto WRT the existing I-90/94/US 12 interchange in Lake Delton - it also would have to be completely redone to remove the freeway-to-freeway connection from it.
Both would be good 'challenges' for the 'Redesigning Interchanges' thread in the Fictional Highways forvm in here.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.
The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.
I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient. Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets. The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PM
The work on 26 was not a waste.
And it's utterly ridiculous how I-41 and I-43 are being beat to near death on this forum, while highways like I-4, I-12, and I-19 don't get the same treatment. I-41 AND I-43 ARE FINE AS THEY ARE. STOP WHINING ABOUT NOTHING.
I don't see a reason to harp on 41, 43, or really 4, 12, or 19 either. Last I checked, there's no length requirement for a 2di. Honestly, something like I-4 probably has more claim to be a 2di than something like I-27, even though the latter is longer. I-4 serves a major corridor between urban areas, length be damned.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.
The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.
I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient. Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets. The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 26, 2020, 09:27:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PM
The work on 26 was not a waste.
And it's utterly ridiculous how I-41 and I-43 are being beat to near death on this forum, while highways like I-4, I-12, and I-19 don't get the same treatment. I-41 AND I-43 ARE FINE AS THEY ARE. STOP WHINING ABOUT NOTHING.
I don't see a reason to harp on 41, 43, or really 4, 12, or 19 either. Last I checked, there's no length requirement for a 2di. Honestly, something like I-4 probably has more claim to be a 2di than something like I-27, even though the latter is longer. I-4 serves a major corridor between urban areas, length be damned.
19 is right on the fence between being 2di worthy and a 3di IMO. 4 is definitely 2di worthy, but 41 and 43 are both much longer. And 12 is just a joke. I-10 should take over all of I-12, then existing I-10 becomes an x10.
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.
The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.
I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient. Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets. The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.
I lived there for 22 years up until two years ago and their growth was completely manageable with little reason to think that would change significantly. And if you're driving to Madison you aren't taking WI-26 anyway. Likely not Waukesha either.
Four lanes was overkill and the road hasn't met its traffic projections yet.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.
The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.
I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient. Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets. The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.
I lived there for 22 years up until two years ago and their growth was completely manageable with little reason to think that would change significantly. And if you're driving to Madison you aren't taking WI-26 anyway. Likely not Waukesha either.
Four lanes was overkill and the road hasn't met its traffic projections yet.
*yet. It's been done for what, six years? When WISDOT builds roads, they don't build them for six years in the future, they build them so that they don't have to work on it again for a long time. And I wasn't specifically talking about commuting to Madison or Waukesha. Those commuters are going to go other places too, and 26 is the main road in and out of those places.
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:35:38 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 26, 2020, 09:27:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PM
The work on 26 was not a waste.
And it's utterly ridiculous how I-41 and I-43 are being beat to near death on this forum, while highways like I-4, I-12, and I-19 don't get the same treatment. I-41 AND I-43 ARE FINE AS THEY ARE. STOP WHINING ABOUT NOTHING.
I don't see a reason to harp on 41, 43, or really 4, 12, or 19 either. Last I checked, there's no length requirement for a 2di. Honestly, something like I-4 probably has more claim to be a 2di than something like I-27, even though the latter is longer. I-4 serves a major corridor between urban areas, length be damned.
19 is right on the fence between being 2di worthy and a 3di IMO. 4 is definitely 2di worthy, but 41 and 43 are both much longer. And 12 is just a joke. I-10 should take over all of I-12, then existing I-10 becomes an x10.
Despite your claim, I-12 HAS been beaten to death on this forum in other threads. I can also tell with how you're beating that horse that you haven't actually been to southeastern Louisiana.
Reasons to keep 10 and 12 as they are:
- New Orleans is a major city and worthy of a 2di. Your plan would demote it to 3di status.
- Historical context: when route numbering was approved, I-12 was not going to re-intersect with I-10 in Slidell. It was intended as a long-distance connection between I-10 and I-59, meeting I-59 in southern Mississippi while I-10 was originally slated to bypass Slidell entirely. During the 1960s is when things changed, with both I-10 and I-12 rerouted to Slidell.
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2020, 10:25:18 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:35:38 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 26, 2020, 09:27:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PM
The work on 26 was not a waste.
And it's utterly ridiculous how I-41 and I-43 are being beat to near death on this forum, while highways like I-4, I-12, and I-19 don't get the same treatment. I-41 AND I-43 ARE FINE AS THEY ARE. STOP WHINING ABOUT NOTHING.
I don't see a reason to harp on 41, 43, or really 4, 12, or 19 either. Last I checked, there's no length requirement for a 2di. Honestly, something like I-4 probably has more claim to be a 2di than something like I-27, even though the latter is longer. I-4 serves a major corridor between urban areas, length be damned.
19 is right on the fence between being 2di worthy and a 3di IMO. 4 is definitely 2di worthy, but 41 and 43 are both much longer. And 12 is just a joke. I-10 should take over all of I-12, then existing I-10 becomes an x10.
Despite your claim, I-12 HAS been beaten to death on this forum in other threads. I can also tell with how you're beating that horse that you haven't actually been to southeastern Louisiana.
Reasons to keep 10 and 12 as they are:
- New Orleans is a major city and worthy of a 2di. Your plan would demote it to 3di status.
- Historical context: when route numbering was approved, I-12 was not going to re-intersect with I-10 in Slidell. It was intended as a long-distance connection between I-10 and I-59, meeting I-59 in southern Mississippi while I-10 was originally slated to bypass Slidell entirely. During the 1960s is when things changed, with both I-10 and I-12 rerouted to Slidell.
While I agree that New Orleans needs to have a 2di interstate instead of a 3di, there are plenty of ways that could happen and still free up I-12. Here's what I would do.
I-12 becomes I-10.
I-59 gets extended into New Orleans to the Pontchartrain Expy.
We know that I-49 is going to be coming in on US 90. Great. Still do that.
I-55 continues southeast along I-10 to the new extension of I-59 and I-49.
That leaves I-55 to Baton Rouge without a number. I-155. Done.
I-310 becomes I-355 or I-349.
I-610 becomes I-655 or I-659.
I-510 becomes I-559.
And now I-12 is free.
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2020, 10:25:18 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:35:38 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 26, 2020, 09:27:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PM
The work on 26 was not a waste.
And it's utterly ridiculous how I-41 and I-43 are being beat to near death on this forum, while highways like I-4, I-12, and I-19 don't get the same treatment. I-41 AND I-43 ARE FINE AS THEY ARE. STOP WHINING ABOUT NOTHING.
I don't see a reason to harp on 41, 43, or really 4, 12, or 19 either. Last I checked, there's no length requirement for a 2di. Honestly, something like I-4 probably has more claim to be a 2di than something like I-27, even though the latter is longer. I-4 serves a major corridor between urban areas, length be damned.
19 is right on the fence between being 2di worthy and a 3di IMO. 4 is definitely 2di worthy, but 41 and 43 are both much longer. And 12 is just a joke. I-10 should take over all of I-12, then existing I-10 becomes an x10.
Despite your claim, I-12 HAS been beaten to death on this forum in other threads. I can also tell with how you're beating that horse that you haven't actually been to southeastern Louisiana.
Reasons to keep 10 and 12 as they are:
- New Orleans is a major city and worthy of a 2di. Your plan would demote it to 3di status.
- Historical context: when route numbering was approved, I-12 was not going to re-intersect with I-10 in Slidell. It was intended as a long-distance connection between I-10 and I-59, meeting I-59 in southern Mississippi while I-10 was originally slated to bypass Slidell entirely. During the 1960s is when things changed, with both I-10 and I-12 rerouted to Slidell.
The New Orleans area would still be served by I-10, just like how the Pittsburgh area is served by I-76 and I-79 but only the 3dis go into the city.
^ The North Shore (of Lake Pontchartrain) is generally considered a separate area from New Orleans, so in that effect your plan would NOT have NOLA served by I-10. What you're proposing is no different than saying "you don't need both I-41 and I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay...one of those could be a 3di."
Quote from: froggie on June 28, 2020, 09:43:17 AM
^ The North Shore (of Lake Pontchartrain) is generally considered a separate area from New Orleans, so in that effect your plan would NOT have NOLA served by I-10. What you're proposing is no different than saying "you don't need both I-41 and I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay...one of those could be a 3di."
It is different. I-41 is longer than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, and I-41 actually connects to other major highways (WI-29, US-10, US-45, US-151), while I-10 doesn't - it's basically just two spurs segmented together.
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2020, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 28, 2020, 09:43:17 AM
^ The North Shore (of Lake Pontchartrain) is generally considered a separate area from New Orleans, so in that effect your plan would NOT have NOLA served by I-10. What you're proposing is no different than saying "you don't need both I-41 and I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay...one of those could be a 3di."
It is different. I-41 is longer than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, and I-41 actually connects to other major highways (WI-29, US-10, US-45, US-151), while I-10 doesn't - it's basically just two spurs segmented together.
Note, none of those "other major highways" are Interstates. And you're incorrect on I-10...it intersects I-55 and the US 90/Future I-49 corridor.
Fundamentally, it is no different. So if you want to "lay the hate" on I-10, be prepared to receive the hate on I-41.
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:47:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.
The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.
I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient. Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets. The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.
I lived there for 22 years up until two years ago and their growth was completely manageable with little reason to think that would change significantly. And if you're driving to Madison you aren't taking WI-26 anyway. Likely not Waukesha either.
Four lanes was overkill and the road hasn't met its traffic projections yet.
*yet. It's been done for what, six years? When WISDOT builds roads, they don't build them for six years in the future, they build them so that they don't have to work on it again for a long time. And I wasn't specifically talking about commuting to Madison or Waukesha. Those commuters are going to go other places too, and 26 is the main road in and out of those places.
"Building them so you don't have to work on it again for a long time" is a terrible strategy. Upgrading a corridor over time makes a lot more sense because traffic projections may not prove accurate. Why would you intentionally build a corridor that may not meet projections for years?
Quote from: froggie on June 30, 2020, 04:14:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2020, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 28, 2020, 09:43:17 AM
^ The North Shore (of Lake Pontchartrain) is generally considered a separate area from New Orleans, so in that effect your plan would NOT have NOLA served by I-10. What you're proposing is no different than saying "you don't need both I-41 and I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay...one of those could be a 3di."
It is different. I-41 is longer than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, and I-41 actually connects to other major highways (WI-29, US-10, US-45, US-151), while I-10 doesn't - it's basically just two spurs segmented together.
Note, none of those "other major highways" are Interstates. And you're incorrect on I-10...it intersects I-55 and the US 90/Future I-49 corridor.
Fundamentally, it is no different. So if you want to "lay the hate" on I-10, be prepared to receive the hate on I-41.
If either of the two are demoted to a 3di, it should be I-12. I-410 would serve as a bypass while I-10 goes into the city. But there is no reason to change either of them now.
Quote from: froggie on June 30, 2020, 04:14:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2020, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 28, 2020, 09:43:17 AM
^ The North Shore (of Lake Pontchartrain) is generally considered a separate area from New Orleans, so in that effect your plan would NOT have NOLA served by I-10. What you're proposing is no different than saying "you don't need both I-41 and I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay...one of those could be a 3di."
It is different. I-41 is longer than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, and I-41 actually connects to other major highways (WI-29, US-10, US-45, US-151), while I-10 doesn't - it's basically just two spurs segmented together.
Note, none of those "other major highways" are Interstates. And you're incorrect on I-10...it intersects I-55 and the US 90/Future I-49 corridor.
Fundamentally, it is no different. So if you want to "lay the hate" on I-10, be prepared to receive the hate on I-41.
Lol since when is saying that another segment of a highway is more deserving of a 2di designation laying the hate on the less deserving road? And US-90 and I-55 are more local roads south of I-12. By comparison, WI-29 and US-10, 45, and 151 are regional corridors connecting to other major areas. Plus I-55 could easily be extended into NOLA on current I-10.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2020, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:47:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.
The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.
I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient. Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets. The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.
I lived there for 22 years up until two years ago and their growth was completely manageable with little reason to think that would change significantly. And if you’re driving to Madison you aren’t taking WI-26 anyway. Likely not Waukesha either.
Four lanes was overkill and the road hasn’t met its traffic projections yet.
*yet. It's been done for what, six years? When WISDOT builds roads, they don't build them for six years in the future, they build them so that they don't have to work on it again for a long time. And I wasn't specifically talking about commuting to Madison or Waukesha. Those commuters are going to go other places too, and 26 is the main road in and out of those places.
"Building them so you don't have to work on it again for a long time" is a terrible strategy. Upgrading a corridor over time makes a lot more sense because traffic projections may not prove accurate. Why would you intentionally build a corridor that may not meet projections for years?
It's cheaper and less of a hassle in the long run to err on the side of "overkill" rather than just sufficient for the present day. If you build early, there's plenty of space to make four lanes and interchanges and stuff. If you wait to the last minute, ROW is more difficult to acquire, there's a higher chance of NIMBY's, and there's less space to work with because of surrounding development. Just look at the Watertown bypass. There are new neighborhoods springing up on the west side of Watertown. If the bypass hadn't been completed to its current standard, they'd eventually be boxed in with no room.
The four lane ROW for the Fort Atkinson bypass was acquired when the super two was built. They should have done something similar.
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2020, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2020, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:47:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PM
"Building them so you don't have to work on it again for a long time" is a terrible strategy. Upgrading a corridor over time makes a lot more sense because traffic projections may not prove accurate. Why would you intentionally build a corridor that may not meet projections for years?
It's cheaper and less of a hassle in the long run to err on the side of "overkill" rather than just sufficient for the present day. If you build early, there's plenty of space to make four lanes and interchanges and stuff. If you wait to the last minute, ROW is more difficult to acquire, there's a higher chance of NIMBY's, and there's less space to work with because of surrounding development.
There's bound to be a middle ground. Build for projected future growth, but err on the conservative side of that projection.
Quote from: thspfc on June 30, 2020, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 30, 2020, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:47:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2020, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 26, 2020, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 26, 2020, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: jwags on June 25, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 25, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 22, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 22, 2020, 12:15:37 PMThe work on 26 was not a waste.
Yes it was.
Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.
I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.
The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.
The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.
I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient. Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets. The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.
I lived there for 22 years up until two years ago and their growth was completely manageable with little reason to think that would change significantly. And if you're driving to Madison you aren't taking WI-26 anyway. Likely not Waukesha either.
Four lanes was overkill and the road hasn't met its traffic projections yet.
*yet. It's been done for what, six years? When WISDOT builds roads, they don't build them for six years in the future, they build them so that they don't have to work on it again for a long time. And I wasn't specifically talking about commuting to Madison or Waukesha. Those commuters are going to go other places too, and 26 is the main road in and out of those places.
"Building them so you don't have to work on it again for a long time" is a terrible strategy. Upgrading a corridor over time makes a lot more sense because traffic projections may not prove accurate. Why would you intentionally build a corridor that may not meet projections for years?
It's cheaper and less of a hassle in the long run to err on the side of "overkill" rather than just sufficient for the present day. If you build early, there's plenty of space to make four lanes and interchanges and stuff. If you wait to the last minute, ROW is more difficult to acquire, there's a higher chance of NIMBY's, and there's less space to work with because of surrounding development. Just look at the Watertown bypass. There are new neighborhoods springing up on the west side of Watertown. If the bypass hadn't been completed to its current standard, they'd eventually be boxed in with no room.
It's not cheaper in the long term to overbuild, because you have more miles of highway and structures to maintain, adding to the maintenance budget significantly. Not everything needs to be Interstate-grade freeway. Several corridors, most prominently WIS-26, US 10 and US 41/141 north of Abrams could have and should have been, at the max, at-grade expressways with no freeway bypasses. Frankly, WIS 26 could have gotten away with a 5 lane arterial and it would have been fine. WisDOT has proven that their projections can be dubious.