It seems like WISDOT is taking a break from expanding 2 lane highways to 4 lanes after Wis 15 and Wis 23 are completed. Here are some much needed projects that WISDOT needs to consider expanding to 4 lanes:
US 12 in the Sauk Prairie Area. US 12 is 4 lane between Madison and Wisconsin Dells except for the 2 lane stretch though Sauk City and around Prairie Du Sac. Time to close the gap.
Wis 19 between Waunakee and Sun Prairie/Wis 113 from CTH M to Wis 19. Waunakee continues to grow and does not have a 4 lane connection. Both highways have become congested and need expansion.
US 14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. The growth in Cross Plains has make US 14 congested and the highway needs expansion to accommodate the growth.
Wis 26 between US 151 and I-41. WISDOT doesn't want to expand since US 151 and I-41 are close, but motorists continue to use Wis 26 because it is significantly shorter. Wis 26 connects two of the largest population centers in Wisconsin (Madison and Green Bay/Appleton) and would give a high quality route between the two regions of the state.
Any other proposals within reason? The traffic counts on these highways support the need for expansion.
It's been a few years since I've driven to Green Bay. But the current WI 26 setup north of Waupun with several passing areas worked fine from my perspective. The only improvement I'd add there is bypassing Rosendale and Sconsi's most notorious speed trap.
I'd add these four lane options:
US 51 between US 8 and Hazelhurst
US 12/18 between CTH N and Cambridge
I'd also be tempted to four-lane WI 42 between Sturgeon Bay and Egg Harbor and US 8 between US 51 and Rhinelander. Neither are normally busy but can be bad on weekends.
US 12 Souk City to Baraboo
US 18 Hwy N to Cambridge. (An interchange already exists at WI 73.)
US 45 US 10 to New London
US 51 US 8 to Hazlehurst
US 141 Pound to Crivitz
WI 42 Sturgeon Bay to the WI 57 split (Mentioned earlier to Egg Harbor which I don't think is possible without demolishing lots of properties. Any 4 lane north of the 57 intersection would kind of ruin the Door County countryside.)
WI 11 Just west of Monroe for a couple of miles. (It may not be vitally needed I just don't like how quickly the bypass goes from a freeway to 2 lane just west of town)
WI 83 I-94 to WI 16 (Which is probably busier than the part widened south of there back in the mid 2010's.)
I would add US 61 it's low volume but in area with few 4 lanes. The terrain is an issue . But it needs rehab. Maybe more passing lanes.
I've always wondered why there isn't a direct 4-lane connection between La Crosse and Eau Claire. It seems like it would be logical to connect western Wisconsin's two largest cities. The US 53 freeway north of La Crossee just kind of ends into nothing. The only question would be would it follow the current US 53, or WIS 93, with US 53 potentially rerouted onto 93. The state highway map has 93 as the red major route over 53.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 02, 2022, 12:43:42 AM
I've always wondered why there isn't a direct 4-lane connection between La Crosse and Eau Claire. It seems like it would be logical to connect western Wisconsin's two largest cities. The US 53 freeway north of La Crossee just kind of ends into nothing. The only question would be would it follow the current US 53, or WIS 93, with US 53 potentially rerouted onto 93. The state highway map has 93 as the red major route over 53.
There is no four-lane connection because traffic levels don't come close to needing one. Traffic counts on 93 between US 10 and Galesville are in the 3K-5K range.
Quote from: dvferyance on April 01, 2022, 06:08:05 PM
WI 11 Just west of Monroe for a couple of miles. (It may not be vitally needed I just don't like how quickly the bypass goes from a freeway to 2 lane just west of town)
Ditto on this one. And while they're at it, remove the trail crossing and bump the speed limit on the 4-lane section to 65.
WI 11 since Illinois will never do 20. Btw 3 to 5 was getting 4 lanes in Illinois 20 is mostly in that range.
While it would be nice to have more 2 lane roadways be expanded to 4 lanes, I think it will be a long time before we see any more 2-to-4 lane road expansions.
Quote from: peterj920 on April 01, 2022, 04:20:34 PM
Wis 26 between US 151 and I-41. WISDOT doesn't want to expand since US 151 and I-41 are close, but motorists continue to use Wis 26 because it is significantly shorter. Wis 26 connects two of the largest population centers in Wisconsin (Madison and Green Bay/Appleton) and would give a high quality route between the two regions of the state.
It is about seven miles shorter but usually not much more than a minute or two slower. And that minute or two can be eaten away pretty quickly if traffic is slowed for any reason. I routinely take the longer route because it is simply easier.
Four laning it would be redundant and expensive. I would rather see adding a third lane between Oshkosh and FdL and a more free flow connection between US-151 and I-41. And then I would actively find ways to further discourage the WI-26 routing including downgrading it to a county route.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2022, 03:56:03 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 01, 2022, 04:20:34 PM
Wis 26 between US 151 and I-41. WISDOT doesn't want to expand since US 151 and I-41 are close, but motorists continue to use Wis 26 because it is significantly shorter. Wis 26 connects two of the largest population centers in Wisconsin (Madison and Green Bay/Appleton) and would give a high quality route between the two regions of the state.
It is about seven miles shorter but usually not much more than a minute or two slower. And that minute or two can be eaten away pretty quickly if traffic is slowed for any reason. I routinely take the longer route because it is simply easier.
Four laning it would be redundant and expensive. I would rather see adding a third lane between Oshkosh and FdL and a more free flow connection between US-151 and I-41. And then I would actively find ways to further discourage the WI-26 routing including downgrading it to a county route.
What are the latest traffic counts on US 151 v. WI 26 between Waupun and I-41?
Mike
Would WI 54 between Waupaca and the roundabout at WI 172 be worthy of putting in the hopper for future four laning? Ditto WI 47 from I-41 northward to WI 29? Also US 45 from US 10 northward to Clintonville?
Mike
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2022, 03:56:03 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 01, 2022, 04:20:34 PM
Wis 26 between US 151 and I-41. WISDOT doesn't want to expand since US 151 and I-41 are close, but motorists continue to use Wis 26 because it is significantly shorter.
It is about seven miles shorter but usually not much more than a minute or two slower. And that minute or two can be eaten away pretty quickly if traffic is slowed for any reason. I routinely take the longer route because it is simply easier.
If WisDOT hadn't already built a free flowing major system interchange for the Hwy 26 interchange at US-151, I would put more value in the argument to not expand Hwy 26 further. But it was clear there was intent to eventually 4-lane that section. At the very least, build the Rosendale bypass so those poor folks get some relief from the traffic.
The last time I looked at non-pandemic traffic counts, Hwy 26 actually had more traffic towards Rosendale than US-151 towards Fond du Lac. I don't see much on the horizon that would tip the traffic counts in the other direction.
SM-G991U
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 02, 2022, 08:08:20 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 01, 2022, 06:08:05 PM
WI 11 Just west of Monroe for a couple of miles. (It may not be vitally needed I just don't like how quickly the bypass goes from a freeway to 2 lane just west of town)
Ditto on this one. And while they're at it, remove the trail crossing and bump the speed limit on the 4-lane section to 65.
I would add 4-laning on Hwy 11/81 east through Juda to their junction just outside Brodhead, and an interchange at the junction. That stretch is plenty busy, and WisDOT already has most of the ROW already purchased. The 11/81 intersection is also notorious for nasty wrecks.
A south-to-east (2-lane) bypass of Brodhead is one of the few remaining missing pieces to make Hwy 11 non-stop between Janesville and Hwy 61/151 outside Dubuque. Traffic doesn't justify it currently, but the Brodhead to Orfordville section is the only one between Janesville and Monroe not built to current primary 2-lane highway standards.
I understand that WisDOT had a fantasy about a 4-lane Hwy 11 west of I-39/90 that would carry both Beloit and Janesville traffic west to Monroe, but that'll never happen in my lifetime. East of the split, Hwys 11 and 81 both carry decent levels of traffic but neither are dominant.
It will be hard to pull significant traffic off Hwy 81, and Hwy 11 can't justify 4-laning on it's own. I-94 to US-151 is the dominant Iowa-bound route from Milwaukee, and there's no interest in a second southern route.
SM-G991U
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 03, 2022, 07:22:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2022, 03:56:03 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 01, 2022, 04:20:34 PM
Wis 26 between US 151 and I-41. WISDOT doesn't want to expand since US 151 and I-41 are close, but motorists continue to use Wis 26 because it is significantly shorter.
It is about seven miles shorter but usually not much more than a minute or two slower. And that minute or two can be eaten away pretty quickly if traffic is slowed for any reason. I routinely take the longer route because it is simply easier.
If WisDOT hadn't already built a free flowing major system interchange for the Hwy 26 interchange at US-151, I would put more value in the argument to not expand Hwy 26 further. But it was clear there was intent to eventually 4-lane that section. At the very least, build the Rosendale bypass so those poor folks get some relief from the traffic.
The last time I looked at non-pandemic traffic counts, Hwy 26 actually had more traffic towards Rosendale than US-151 towards Fond du Lac. I don't see much on the horizon that would tip the traffic counts in the other direction.
SM-G991U
According to WIDOT's traffic count map, there is more traffic on US-151 than WI-26. (Peak numbers are about 12,000 v. 9,300)
And that's what I mean. WIDOT has invested a lot of money into US-151. They should do what they can to move more traffic onto that route and off of the Rosendale route. It would be completely wasteful to expand WI-26.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 03, 2022, 03:04:54 AM
Would WI 54 between Waupaca and the roundabout at WI 172 be worthy of putting in the hopper for future four laning?
Mike
Traffic counts are too low and I-41 to US 10 is the preferred route from Green Bay to Waupaca.
Quote from: Big John on April 03, 2022, 08:41:21 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 03, 2022, 03:04:54 AM
Would WI 54 between Waupaca and the roundabout at WI 172 be worthy of putting in the hopper for future four laning?
Mike
Traffic counts are too low and I-41 to US 10 is the preferred route from Green Bay to Waupaca.
Agreed. Now with US-10 being four lanes, that's the quickest way to get to Waupaca from the Green Bay area. I have a co-worker that commutes to Green Bay from Seymour and he says even that stretch is pretty light.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 03, 2022, 02:57:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2022, 03:56:03 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 01, 2022, 04:20:34 PM
Wis 26 between US 151 and I-41. WISDOT doesn't want to expand since US 151 and I-41 are close, but motorists continue to use Wis 26 because it is significantly shorter. Wis 26 connects two of the largest population centers in Wisconsin (Madison and Green Bay/Appleton) and would give a high quality route between the two regions of the state.
It is about seven miles shorter but usually not much more than a minute or two slower. And that minute or two can be eaten away pretty quickly if traffic is slowed for any reason. I routinely take the longer route because it is simply easier.
Four laning it would be redundant and expensive. I would rather see adding a third lane between Oshkosh and FdL and a more free flow connection between US-151 and I-41. And then I would actively find ways to further discourage the WI-26 routing including downgrading it to a county route.
What are the latest traffic counts on US 151 v. WI 26 between Waupun and I-41?
Mike
WisDOT has an interactive ArcGIS web app (https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e12a4f051de4ea9bc865ec6393731f8) for traffic counts
Other than a Saul City bypass, Wisconsin is good with new four lanes. They need to save their money and maintain what they have, as well as focus on rebuilding/expanding the Interstates.
Quote from: peterj920 on April 01, 2022, 04:20:34 PM
It seems like WISDOT is taking a break from expanding 2 lane highways to 4 lanes after Wis 15 and Wis 23 are completed. Here are some much needed projects that WISDOT needs to consider expanding to 4 lanes:
US 12 in the Sauk Prairie Area. US 12 is 4 lane between Madison and Wisconsin Dells except for the 2 lane stretch though Sauk City and around Prairie Du Sac. Time to close the gap.
Wis 19 between Waunakee and Sun Prairie/Wis 113 from CTH M to Wis 19. Waunakee continues to grow and does not have a 4 lane connection. Both highways have become congested and need expansion.
US 14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. The growth in Cross Plains has make US 14 congested and the highway needs expansion to accommodate the growth.
Wis 26 between US 151 and I-41. WISDOT doesn’t want to expand since US 151 and I-41 are close, but motorists continue to use Wis 26 because it is significantly shorter. Wis 26 connects two of the largest population centers in Wisconsin (Madison and Green Bay/Appleton) and would give a high quality route between the two regions of the state.
Any other proposals within reason? The traffic counts on these highways support the need for expansion.
US 14 Evansville to Oregon. AADT of 13,900
US 14 Mazomanie to Middleton. The OP suggested to Cross Plains, I would go even farther west. AADT 10,500
Traffic volumes (and crash data?) warrant both expansions.
Quote from: 3467 on April 02, 2022, 11:15:05 AM
WI 11 since Illinois will never do 20. Btw 3 to 5 was getting 4 lanes in Illinois 20 is mostly in that range.
I don't understand the second sentence.
Oh Illinois has 4 laned roads in the 3 to 5000 range. Vpd. Iowa has too.
My top choice would be US-51 between Tomahawk and Minocqua.
I drive the aforementioned stretch of WI-19 often, four lanes would be nice but it's not urgent.
Quote from: thspfc on April 04, 2022, 12:28:24 PM
My top choice would be US-51 between Tomahawk and Minocqua.
I would go US-12/18 between Dane County N and Cambridge, especially as Madison's suburbs grow further east.
The problem with the Tomahawk to Minoqua trip is that two lanes isn't a problem 90% of the time.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 03, 2022, 07:47:26 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 02, 2022, 08:08:20 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 01, 2022, 06:08:05 PM
WI 11 Just west of Monroe for a couple of miles. (It may not be vitally needed I just don't like how quickly the bypass goes from a freeway to 2 lane just west of town)
Ditto on this one. And while they're at it, remove the trail crossing and bump the speed limit on the 4-lane section to 65.
I would add 4-laning on Hwy 11/81 east through Juda to their junction just outside Brodhead, and an interchange at the junction. That stretch is plenty busy, and WisDOT already has most of the ROW already purchased. The 11/81 intersection is also notorious for nasty wrecks.
A south-to-east (2-lane) bypass of Brodhead is one of the few remaining missing pieces to make Hwy 11 non-stop between Janesville and Hwy 61/151 outside Dubuque. Traffic doesn't justify it currently, but the Brodhead to Orfordville section is the only one between Janesville and Monroe not built to current primary 2-lane highway standards.
I understand that WisDOT had a fantasy about a 4-lane Hwy 11 west of I-39/90 that would carry both Beloit and Janesville traffic west to Monroe, but that'll never happen in my lifetime. East of the split, Hwys 11 and 81 both carry decent levels of traffic but neither are dominant.
It will be hard to pull significant traffic off Hwy 81, and Hwy 11 can't justify 4-laning on it's own. I-94 to US-151 is the dominant Iowa-bound route from Milwaukee, and there's no interest in a second southern route.
I believe that about the 11/81 intersection. It's definitely an awkward one that could lend itself well to a bridge.
I also agree about a 2-lane Brodhead bypass. For some reason, that always feels like a long slog through there. 25 MPH is ridiculous, but I guess that's typical small town speed limits.
Growing up, my wish was always WI 11 / US 14 from I-90/39 to I-43. That was the preferred Janesville-Milwaukee route for us then. Had always hoped they'd do more of 14 south of Madison as well, though that was probably a pipe dream.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 04, 2022, 02:26:27 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 03, 2022, 07:47:26 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 02, 2022, 08:08:20 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 01, 2022, 06:08:05 PM
WI 11 Just west of Monroe for a couple of miles. (It may not be vitally needed I just don't like how quickly the bypass goes from a freeway to 2 lane just west of town)
Ditto on this one. And while they're at it, remove the trail crossing and bump the speed limit on the 4-lane section to 65.
I would add 4-laning on Hwy 11/81 east through Juda to their junction just outside Brodhead, and an interchange at the junction. That stretch is plenty busy, and WisDOT already has most of the ROW already purchased. The 11/81 intersection is also notorious for nasty wrecks.
A south-to-east (2-lane) bypass of Brodhead is one of the few remaining missing pieces to make Hwy 11 non-stop between Janesville and Hwy 61/151 outside Dubuque. Traffic doesn't justify it currently, but the Brodhead to Orfordville section is the only one between Janesville and Monroe not built to current primary 2-lane highway standards.
I understand that WisDOT had a fantasy about a 4-lane Hwy 11 west of I-39/90 that would carry both Beloit and Janesville traffic west to Monroe, but that'll never happen in my lifetime. East of the split, Hwys 11 and 81 both carry decent levels of traffic but neither are dominant.
It will be hard to pull significant traffic off Hwy 81, and Hwy 11 can't justify 4-laning on it's own. I-94 to US-151 is the dominant Iowa-bound route from Milwaukee, and there's no interest in a second southern route.
I believe that about the 11/81 intersection. It's definitely an awkward one that could lend itself well to a bridge.
I also agree about a 2-lane Brodhead bypass. For some reason, that always feels like a long slog through there. 25 MPH is ridiculous, but I guess that's typical small town speed limits.
This is something I think Europe does better than the US. Many small towns in Europe are more difficult to drive through because they predate the auto, sometimes by centuries. This means smaller cities, even under 5000 people, often have bypasses around their centers. It something more American towns should consider.
There was a proposal to expand US 14/STH 11 to four lanes between Interstate 39/90 in Janesville and Interstate 43 near Darien. It was suspended in 2014. Other four lane suspensions include: US 8 (St. Croix Falls to Cameron), US 14 (STH 138 to STH 92, new alignment) and STH 38 (Oakwood Rd. to CTH K). Bypasses suspended include: US 12 (Fort Atkinson) and new US 12 alignment (Whitewater to Elkhorn), US 14/61 (Viroqua and Westby), and STH 81/213 (Beloit). There was also a proposed new freeway alignment of US 10 south of the existing alignment between Interstate 39 and Amherst that was canceled due to lack of public support, and projects that it wouldn't divert much traffic from the existing US 10 alignment between Amherst and Stevens Point. Those are all the ones off the top of my head.
Quote from: mrose on April 04, 2022, 02:56:35 PM
Growing up, my wish was always WI 11 / US 14 from I-90/39 to I-43. That was the preferred Janesville-Milwaukee route for us then. Had always hoped they'd do more of 14 south of Madison as well, though that was probably a pipe dream.
I know the people of Janesville will not like to hear this back in the 70's when 43 was planned wisdot chose Beloit over Janesville to be it's destination. At least Janesville eventually got a 4 lane WI-26 all the way up to Johnson Creek. That is probably the better way to Milwaukee now.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 04, 2022, 02:26:27 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 03, 2022, 07:47:26 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 02, 2022, 08:08:20 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 01, 2022, 06:08:05 PM
WI 11 Just west of Monroe for a couple of miles. (It may not be vitally needed I just don't like how quickly the bypass goes from a freeway to 2 lane just west of town)
Ditto on this one. And while they're at it, remove the trail crossing and bump the speed limit on the 4-lane section to 65.
I would add 4-laning on Hwy 11/81 east through Juda to their junction just outside Brodhead, and an interchange at the junction. That stretch is plenty busy, and WisDOT already has most of the ROW already purchased. The 11/81 intersection is also notorious for nasty wrecks.
A south-to-east (2-lane) bypass of Brodhead is one of the few remaining missing pieces to make Hwy 11 non-stop between Janesville and Hwy 61/151 outside Dubuque. Traffic doesn't justify it currently, but the Brodhead to Orfordville section is the only one between Janesville and Monroe not built to current primary 2-lane highway standards.
I understand that WisDOT had a fantasy about a 4-lane Hwy 11 west of I-39/90 that would carry both Beloit and Janesville traffic west to Monroe, but that'll never happen in my lifetime. East of the split, Hwys 11 and 81 both carry decent levels of traffic but neither are dominant.
It will be hard to pull significant traffic off Hwy 81, and Hwy 11 can't justify 4-laning on it's own. I-94 to US-151 is the dominant Iowa-bound route from Milwaukee, and there's no interest in a second southern route.
I believe that about the 11/81 intersection. It's definitely an awkward one that could lend itself well to a bridge.
I also agree about a 2-lane Brodhead bypass. For some reason, that always feels like a long slog through there. 25 MPH is ridiculous, but I guess that's typical small town speed limits.
Remember that what is now I-43 was originally planned (as in 1950s or early 1960s) to run east-west midway between Beloit and Janesville and feed into WI 11 at that ghost interchange on the south side of Brodhead, WI, with the four lanes then continuing westward to end at US 61/151 near the Mississippi River crossing into Dubuque, IA.
Mike
What ghost interchange?
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 05, 2022, 07:02:11 AM
What ghost interchange?
I assuming he means where WI-11 and WI-81 intersect currently.
I've never heard of the once-proposed Interstate 43 (then STH 15) connection to Janesville going all the way to Broadhead. I always thought it, like the current 43 terminus, would have ended at Interstate 39/90. It doesn't make since for it to have gone any further west, at least not to me.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 05, 2022, 10:48:58 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 05, 2022, 07:02:11 AM
What ghost interchange?
I assuming he means where WI-11 and WI-81 intersect currently.
Calling it a ghost interchange is generous. There's most of the r/w for a diamond interchange at this junction, but it's a little hard to pick out from an aerial photo. It shows up better on a parcel map. (I generally expect to see some evidence of construction when I hear the term "ghost interchange". ;) )
I think Wisconsin will be done building rural four laners for a while. The focus of the next 15 years will be incremental upgrades for some sections of rural expressway to full access controlled freeway. And naturally, the maintenance and expansion of existing facilities. People have identified the handful of outliers where new construction may go.
Talking about four lanes near Waunakee or in Lake Country, those are gonna be suburban arterial facilities when they eventually come around.
Certainly many of the tendrils feeding Madison come to my mind as well.
I think about US 45 between New London and Clintonville as that WI 15 corridor gets done. I could certainly see an interchange going in at US 45 & WI 15 at the very least.
There is a dark horse four lane corridor to consider as urban sprawl from the Twin Cities continues spilling over the St. Croix River. That would be WI 65 between River Falls and New Richmond. Look for that study as 2030 nears.
WI 11 at Airport Rd on the south edge of Bodhead, where WI 11 curves sharply to the north to enter the city. the oddly wide and flaring ROW there was one of the first things that I noticed when I first drove it years ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/xogmsb5FN5SCo4T78
A four lane highway was proposed to continue due eastward from there to run between Beloit and Janesville and then feed into the now I-43 (then WI 15) freeway at the curve on the northwest edge of Clinton, instead of the WI 15 freeway curving southwest to Beloit from there. It would have been a continuation from the Monroe bypass.
There obviously won't be any new 4-lane highways between Monroe and Janesville/Beloit, although I would like it if the exits on the Monroe Bypass were numbered (using STH 11's mileage, the four exits, from west-to-east, would probably be numbered 54, 55, 56, and 57).
I Can envision WI 11 eventually being rerouted to continue due eastward from Airport Rd as a two lane road on an upgradable four lane ROW and then 'S' curving northward to reconnect with the current WI 11 highway east of town as a useful bypass of Brodhead.
Mike
Quote from: dvferyance on April 04, 2022, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: mrose on April 04, 2022, 02:56:35 PM
Growing up, my wish was always WI 11 / US 14 from I-90/39 to I-43. That was the preferred Janesville-Milwaukee route for us then. Had always hoped they'd do more of 14 south of Madison as well, though that was probably a pipe dream.
I know the people of Janesville will not like to hear this back in the 70's when 43 was planned wisdot chose Beloit over Janesville to be it's destination. At least Janesville eventually got a 4 lane WI-26 all the way up to Johnson Creek. That is probably the better way to Milwaukee now.
It's not necessary now because Janesville isn't growing by much, and there's not a ton traffic of there to begin with. But WISDOT certainly could have built a full loop along WI-11 and US-14. The only portions of such a loop that aren't occupied by surface-level highways are the west/northwest and south/southeast portions. Had that been built, it would have been more logical to upgrade US-14 out to I-43 and WI-11 out to Monroe. Perhaps I-43 would have gone to Janesville along present-day US-14.
Quote from: thspfc on April 08, 2022, 12:44:13 PM
It's not necessary now because Janesville isn't growing by much, and there's not a ton traffic of there to begin with. But WISDOT certainly could have built a full loop along WI-11 and US-14. The only portions of such a loop that aren't occupied by surface-level highways are the west/northwest and south/southeast portions. Had that been built, it would have been more logical to upgrade US-14 out to I-43 and WI-11 out to Monroe. Perhaps I-43 would have gone to Janesville along present-day US-14.
The portion of the Janesville "beltline" (for lack of a better term) on Janesville's west side, north of current Hwy 11/CTY WC to US 14, reportedly was unpopular with the folks in the Town of Janesville. GM shutting down in 2009 didn't exactly encourage more highway building there either. Though, for a town that lost a major GM plant, Janesville's economy is performing well. Population is up by 2,000 residents since 2010, and by 6,000 residents since 2000. The housing market here is really tight, and prices reflect that. The major limitation on population right now isn't jobs - it's housing.
In theory, Janesville folks have an all-freeway connection to Milwaukee - they just have to head south to Beloit first. In practice I doubt most Janesville folks will opt for that over following US-14 to Darien, or Hwy 26 to Johnson Creek. Judging by the increase in traffic since the 4-lane Hwy 26 opened, it appears Milwaukee-bound folks are choosing that route more.
WisDOT still owns the right of way for a relocated 4-lane US-14 north of Hwy 92 in Brooklyn. There was chatter about building that out so that they wouldn't have to modify the existing US-14, and it would've been much safer. The traffic between Evansville and Oregon is heavy for a 2-lane and certainly merits it. I would expect it to get built eventually as Madison continues to grow, but I wouldn't advise holding your breath waiting for it.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 09, 2022, 02:34:41 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 08, 2022, 12:44:13 PM
It's not necessary now because Janesville isn't growing by much, and there's not a ton traffic of there to begin with. But WISDOT certainly could have built a full loop along WI-11 and US-14. The only portions of such a loop that aren't occupied by surface-level highways are the west/northwest and south/southeast portions. Had that been built, it would have been more logical to upgrade US-14 out to I-43 and WI-11 out to Monroe. Perhaps I-43 would have gone to Janesville along present-day US-14.
US 14/Wis 11 was added as a 2030 backbone route meaning that WISDOT does intend to make it 4 lanes as all backbone routes are 4 lane expressways. The only other addition from the 2020 backbone system is US 45 between I-41 and US 10 which is already a freeway.
The portion of the Janesville "beltline" (for lack of a better term) on Janesville's west side, north of current Hwy 11/CTY WC to US 14, reportedly was unpopular with the folks in the Town of Janesville. GM shutting down in 2009 didn't exactly encourage more highway building there either. Though, for a town that lost a major GM plant, Janesville's economy is performing well. Population is up by 2,000 residents since 2010, and by 6,000 residents since 2000. The housing market here is really tight, and prices reflect that. The major limitation on population right now isn't jobs - it's housing.
In theory, Janesville folks have an all-freeway connection to Milwaukee - they just have to head south to Beloit first. In practice I doubt most Janesville folks will opt for that over following US-14 to Darien, or Hwy 26 to Johnson Creek. Judging by the increase in traffic since the 4-lane Hwy 26 opened, it appears Milwaukee-bound folks are choosing that route more.
WisDOT still owns the right of way for a relocated 4-lane US-14 north of Hwy 92 in Brooklyn. There was chatter about building that out so that they wouldn't have to modify the existing US-14, and it would've been much safer. The traffic between Evansville and Oregon is heavy for a 2-lane and certainly merits it. I would expect it to get built eventually as Madison continues to grow, but I wouldn't advise holding your breath waiting for it.
The only issue I see regarding making US-14/WI-11 into a four lane expressway is that there are no active studies that I can tell looking into this as a possibility.
How about a wish list for existing 4 lanes sections to get upgraded to a freeway?
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:41:37 PM
How about a wish list for existing 4 lanes sections to get upgraded to a freeway?
US 10 from Fremont, WI all the way west to I-39?
Mike
US 10 from Fremont through Amherst Junction could probably be converted to a freeway. Between the Lake Dr. interchange near Amherst Junction and the CTH-J interchange, the roadway would have to be shifted slightly to the north to avoid the railroad tracks. West of the CTH-J interchange, a freeway conversion would be trickier. There are a bunch of businesses east of the Interstate 39/US 51 interchange that would need to be demolished or relocated. A bypass to the north or south would impact homes, a northern one would also impact the Stevens Point Municipal Airport. It looks like a freeway conversion could only be done to CTH-J, any further would like result in too many impacts, not to mention plenty of local opposition.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:43:10 PM
US 10 from Fremont through Amherst Junction could probably be converted to a freeway. Between the Lake Dr. interchange near Amherst Junction and the CTH-J interchange, the roadway would have to be shifted slightly to the north to avoid the railroad tracks. West of the CTH-J interchange, a freeway conversion would be trickier. There are a bunch of businesses east of the Interstate 39/US 51 interchange that would need to be demolished or relocated. A bypass to the north or south would impact homes, a northern one would also impact the Stevens Point Municipal Airport. It looks like a freeway conversion could only be done to CTH-J, any further would like result in too many impacts, not to mention plenty of local opposition.
They mapped out a preferred relocation of US-10 south of its current alignment.
https://www.co.portage.wi.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12070/636428161429470000
But scrapped it a few years ago. I doubt it happens anytime soon.
https://stevenspoint.news/2016/09/01/wisdot-dropping-plans-to-complete-highway-10-bypass-project/
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 12, 2022, 08:39:45 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:43:10 PM
US 10 from Fremont through Amherst Junction could probably be converted to a freeway. Between the Lake Dr. interchange near Amherst Junction and the CTH-J interchange, the roadway would have to be shifted slightly to the north to avoid the railroad tracks. West of the CTH-J interchange, a freeway conversion would be trickier. There are a bunch of businesses east of the Interstate 39/US 51 interchange that would need to be demolished or relocated. A bypass to the north or south would impact homes, a northern one would also impact the Stevens Point Municipal Airport. It looks like a freeway conversion could only be done to CTH-J, any further would like result in too many impacts, not to mention plenty of local opposition.
They mapped out a preferred relocation of US-10 south of its current alignment.
https://www.co.portage.wi.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12070/636428161429470000
But scrapped it a few years ago. I doubt it happens anytime soon.
https://stevenspoint.news/2016/09/01/wisdot-dropping-plans-to-complete-highway-10-bypass-project/
NIMBYs.... :meh:
I wouldn't be surprised if the highway planners come back with a 'Texas style' freeway on the current ROW there at some point within my remaining lifetime. US 10 between I-39 and I-41 is to important and busy not to.
East of there, I can see a new eastbound side of the highway being built between the existing roadways on the wide median section between Custer and WI 161, with the existing EB roadway becoming a frontage-local access road for the businesses and crossroads (especially that quarry) that are currently along US 10. That and a few crossroad bridges that also clear the railroad (ie, at Portage County 'K') and the freeway is complete.
Mike
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:41:37 PM
How about a wish list for existing 4 lanes sections to get upgraded to a freeway?
US 18/151 from Dodgeville to Verona. I know the plans are already in place for this stretch to be converted to freeway, I just wish it would hurry up and get done already. Same with the stetch of US 151 from Columbus to Waupun.
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:41:37 PM
How about a wish list for existing 4 lanes sections to get upgraded to a freeway?
1. WIS 29 across the state, but there's not enough traffic to justify the expense right now. Though I do think they should go ahead and covert it from the Brown County line to Shawano.
2. US 12 between the Beltline and the Dells.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 12, 2022, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:41:37 PM
How about a wish list for existing 4 lanes sections to get upgraded to a freeway?
US 18/151 from Dodgeville to Verona. I know the plans are already in place for this stretch to be converted to freeway, I just wish it would hurry up and get done already. Same with the stetch of US 151 from Columbus to Waupun.
In particular, the segment between Mt. Horeb and Verona would freeway convert relatively cheaply. No new bridges really needed, just some frontage road action. Commuter traffic makes it increasingly unsafe to have cross traffic on this facility.
I'd also like to see freeway conversion on US 51 between Merrill and Tomahawk. Again it's a safety situation. Here's this corridor 230 (or whatever) miles long coming up from Illinois and it's all controlled access freeway except for this 9 mile segment in Lincoln County. The expectation of no cross traffic after all that distance lulls drivers into not looking out for turning traffic. Combined with the peak volumes of weekend warriors, I think the state is easily justified in proceeding with freeway conversion even if the average traffic counts and crash statistics aren't quite raising alarm bells.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 12, 2022, 09:24:05 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 12, 2022, 08:39:45 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2022, 10:43:10 PM
US 10 from Fremont through Amherst Junction could probably be converted to a freeway. Between the Lake Dr. interchange near Amherst Junction and the CTH-J interchange, the roadway would have to be shifted slightly to the north to avoid the railroad tracks. West of the CTH-J interchange, a freeway conversion would be trickier. There are a bunch of businesses east of the Interstate 39/US 51 interchange that would need to be demolished or relocated. A bypass to the north or south would impact homes, a northern one would also impact the Stevens Point Municipal Airport. It looks like a freeway conversion could only be done to CTH-J, any further would like result in too many impacts, not to mention plenty of local opposition.
They mapped out a preferred relocation of US-10 south of its current alignment.
https://www.co.portage.wi.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12070/636428161429470000
But scrapped it a few years ago. I doubt it happens anytime soon.
https://stevenspoint.news/2016/09/01/wisdot-dropping-plans-to-complete-highway-10-bypass-project/
NIMBYs.... :meh:
I wouldn't be surprised if the highway planners come back with a 'Texas style' freeway on the current ROW there at some point within my remaining lifetime. US 10 between I-39 and I-41 is to important and busy not to.
East of there, I can see a new eastbound side of the highway being built between the existing roadways on the wide median section between Custer and WI 161, with the existing EB roadway becoming a frontage-local access road for the businesses and crossroads (especially that quarry) that are currently along US 10. That and a few crossroad bridges that also clear the railroad (ie, at Portage County 'K') and the freeway is complete.
Mike
Yeah I just don't see it. The distance between Highway J and I-39 is four miles. Its inconvenient to go through that stretch, but we are only talking about a couple minutes difference here.
I think the era of Wisconsin building a bunch of "new terrain" freeways like this is likely over. Or at least it is on a long pause. I think WIDOT is rightly focusing on major projects to increase capacity with I-43 just north of Milwaukee and I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay as examples.
I did know about that dropped freeway proposal south of US 10 between Stevens Point and Amherst Junction. That's why I considered it more practical to upgrade existing US 10 to freeway standards (if it ever comes to that). In any event, I agree that Wisconsin is probably finished with new 2-to-4-lane expansion plans for a long time. The most that will happen is that some existing 4-lane highways might be converted to freeway standards eventually, and maybe a few freeways will be widened. Other than that, the DOT will probably only construct some more roundabouts where the need arises.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 12, 2022, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on April 11, 2022, 04:41:37 PM
How about a wish list for existing 4 lanes sections to get upgraded to a freeway?
US 18/151 from Dodgeville to Verona. I know the plans are already in place for this stretch to be converted to freeway, I just wish it would hurry up and get done already. Same with the stetch of US 151 from Columbus to Waupun.
I would at least like to see a freeway upgrade from Verona to Mt Horeb with an interchange built at Hwy F at Blue Mounds. And perhaps on overpass at Hwy Y just east of Dodgeville.
When I drive from Mukwonago to Janesville and back, I now go through Beloit. With the improvements at the Beloit interchange an along I-90, it's a much better drive than taking 14. It's only a few minutes longer now.
Before any two-lane upgrades, I'd like to see some needed three-lane upgrades, such as I-94 between CTH-SS and WI-67, and I-90/94 from I-39 to the Dells.
A tiny four-lane wish that I haven't seen yet is upgrading CTH A in Dodge County between US 151 and WI 26 and then four-lane WI 26 south to WI 60. It would also include interchanges at CTH A/WI 26 and CTH A/WI 33. Don't know if it's needed now, but there will be a future need for it. CTH A was moderately busy when I drove it 5-6 years ago and several trucks were using it both ways.
Unfortunately, that might require CTH A being upgraded by Dodge County unless it is added to the state's highway mileage. And while I like roundabouts, I would hate to see one at CTH A/WI 33.
Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI. Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.
Quote from: skluth on April 13, 2022, 06:17:35 PM
A tiny four-lane wish that I haven't seen yet is upgrading CTH A in Dodge County between US 151 and WI 26 and then four-lane WI 26 south to WI 60. It would also include interchanges at CTH A/WI 26 and CTH A/WI 33.
Long-term, that might be the optimal routing for Hwy 26 in terms of traffic counts, and the shortest path to a continuous 4-lane divided highway from Janesville to Waupun. (It would save about 3-5 miles of new-terrain highway building v.s. a more direct route from the County A junction).
They would want to route the new highway close enough to Juneau to justify offloading the existing Hwy 26 as a County road; there's no reason to keep it in the state highway system.
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2022, 06:27:26 PM
Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI. Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.
I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.
Extending the 4-lane up and around Iron Mountain would certainly speed things up. I've taken to following County N, then County U south of Florence to bypass the long slog through Niagara and Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain's downtown would certainly appreciate not having massive logging trucks rumbling through it. Problem is, you've got to get Michigan involved to really make an Iron Mountain bypass worth the trouble - a westerly Iron Mountain bypass would have far less utility than a east to north loop. Last I checked, Michigan was far from being in a position to expand highways, let along fill the potholes in what they have now.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 13, 2022, 06:48:53 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2022, 06:27:26 PM
Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI. Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.
I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.
I grew up in Green Bay and my family regularly camped at Lake Antoine near Iron Mountain in the early 70s. US 141 was bad north of Abrams even then. My mom's family came from the Coleman area and I remember my dad hating the drive to Coleman to visit my grandma. That four-laning was much needed.
Do existing traffic demands warrant a further 4-lane upgrade of US 141 north of STH-64? I think the DOT would have studied and implemented expanding 141 further north if it had been warranted in the 2000s.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 13, 2022, 06:48:53 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2022, 06:27:26 PM
Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI. Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.
I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.
Extending the 4-lane up and around Iron Mountain would certainly speed things up. I've taken to following County N, then County U south of Florence to bypass the long slog through Niagara and Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain's downtown would certainly appreciate not having massive logging trucks rumbling through it. Problem is, you've got to get Michigan involved to really make an Iron Mountain bypass worth the trouble - a westerly Iron Mountain bypass would have far less utility than a east to north loop. Last I checked, Michigan was far from being in a position to expand highways, let along fill the potholes in what they have now.
If you're looking for a speed limit change, the building of 4-lane roads isn't the answer despite how Wisconsin thinks - They should get their heads out of their ****s and up speed limits on 2-lane roads where it is safe (like 141 is absolutely safe for 60 at the minimum). See MnDOT.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 16, 2022, 01:05:44 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 13, 2022, 06:48:53 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2022, 06:27:26 PM
Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI. Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.
I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.
Extending the 4-lane up and around Iron Mountain would certainly speed things up. I've taken to following County N, then County U south of Florence to bypass the long slog through Niagara and Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain's downtown would certainly appreciate not having massive logging trucks rumbling through it. Problem is, you've got to get Michigan involved to really make an Iron Mountain bypass worth the trouble - a westerly Iron Mountain bypass would have far less utility than a east to north loop. Last I checked, Michigan was far from being in a position to expand highways, let along fill the potholes in what they have now.
If you're looking for a speed limit change, the building of 4-lane roads isn't the answer despite how Wisconsin thinks - They should get their heads out of their ****s and up speed limits on 2-lane roads where it is safe (like 141 is absolutely safe for 60 at the minimum). See MnDOT.
Fixed the quoting for you.
It's less about the speed limit difference and more about removing traffic (including heavy truck traffic) just "passing through" towns along the route. To get through Iron Mountain/Kingsford/Quinnesec/Niagara on US-141 is 12 miles of stoplights and lower speed limits. Even a rudimentary bypass that's mostly 2-lane with at-grade intersections would save about 10 minutes of drive time. That's similar to the drive time difference of following the County N/County U/US-8 bypass between Florence and Pembine.
Given weekend traffic levels, one can make a case today to extend the 4-lane section of US-141 past Crivitz, and I would argue it prudent to continue it past Wausaukee, in effect extending the 4-lane section about 20 miles. But it's not at a crisis level like the section south of Hwy 22 was in the late '90s, and there's more compelling places for WisDOT to pursue highway expansion.
There are some state (and US) highways I would consider as a secondary backbone to the Backbone 2020 project. They should not be full fledge freeways or even divided highways but at least as 4 lane undivided highways. So with that in mind, these are the corridors that I could still see an upgrade in the next 20 years. And some of these already have 4 lane or freeway sections.
US 2 - Superior to Hurley
US 8 - Heafford Junction (US 51) to Rhinelander
US 10 - Osseo to Marshfield
US 10 - Appleton to Manitowoc
Wis 11 - Dubuque to Racine
US 14 - La Crosse to Madison
Wis 16 - Portage to Waukesha
US 18 - Prairie du Chien to Dodgeville
Wis 19 - US 12 to Sun Prairie
Wis 21 - Tomah to Oshkosh
Wis 26 - Watertown to Waupun
Wis 33 - Beaver Dam to Port Washington
US 51 - Tomahawk to Hurley
US 53 & Wis 93 - La Crosse to Eau Claire
Wis 60 - Slinger to Grafton
US 61 - Dubuque to La Crosse (with Wis 129 at Lancaster)
^
I have no problems with identifying those roads as future corridors to upgrade. I don't think they all need to be upgraded to four lanes anytime soon. Many could get by easily for quite some time if they are just upgraded to something like WI 26 north of Waupun with several three-lane passing segments (although with towns like Rosendale bypassed). Personally, I think Wisconsin would be well served by building cheap short bypasses around smaller towns like those around Whitewater, Rhinelander, and Lancaster rather than just going for expressways. I believe a budget bypass is also the plan for Hortonville. Ideally, they would also be planned for eventual upgrade to a four-lane expressway like US 151 was around Columbus.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 16, 2022, 06:59:48 PM
There are some state (and US) highways I would consider as a secondary backbone to the Backbone 2020 project. They should not be full fledge freeways or even divided highways but at least as 4 lane undivided highways. So with that in mind, these are the corridors that I could still see an upgrade in the next 20 years. And some of these already have 4 lane or freeway sections.
US 2 - Superior to Hurley
US 8 - Heafford Junction (US 51) to Rhinelander
US 10 - Osseo to Marshfield
US 10 - Appleton to Manitowoc
Wis 11 - Dubuque to Racine
US 14 - La Crosse to Madison
Wis 16 - Portage to Waukesha
US 18 - Prairie du Chien to Dodgeville
Wis 19 - US 12 to Sun Prairie
Wis 21 - Tomah to Oshkosh
Wis 26 - Watertown to Waupun
Wis 33 - Beaver Dam to Port Washington
US 51 - Tomahawk to Hurley
US 53 & Wis 93 - La Crosse to Eau Claire
Wis 60 - Slinger to Grafton
US 61 - Dubuque to La Crosse (with Wis 129 at Lancaster)
I think most of these are satisfactory as two lane roads. They handle current traffic volumes just fine.
As I have been saying, Wisconsin is focusing on adding additional capacity to current major corridors, and that is for the best. Large, expensive but kinda boring projects. They are needed though.
SE, I wasn't saying that these are needed to be done right away. But I could see these as the next set over the next 20 years.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 18, 2022, 03:01:08 PM
SE, I wasn't saying that these are needed to be done right away. But I could see these as the next set over the next 20 years.
Yeah, I just don't think that timeline is in anyway realistic. You have identified 16 upgrade projects, many of significant length. But are any of these even on WIDOT's radar? Just doing a quick review of their site, I don't see any of them.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 16, 2022, 06:59:48 PM
There are some state (and US) highways I would consider as a secondary backbone to the Backbone 2020 project. They should not be full fledge freeways or even divided highways but at least as 4 lane undivided highways. So with that in mind, these are the corridors that I could still see an upgrade in the next 20 years. And some of these already have 4 lane or freeway sections.
Wis 11 - Dubuque to Racine
I just clinched WI-11 today. I needed the segment from Burlington to Janesville and WI-23 to WI-80.
I do not think WI-11 needs to be four-laned for its entire length. Some more bypasses of small towns (i.e., Brodhead, as previously discussed) would be the primary improvement needed. Also some resurfacing east of Brodhead, that section's fairly ragged. The other option is just to add a few more passing lanes to help relieve in any bottlenecks that build up.
Let's just four lane every state highway in Wisconsin as a freeway, slap a bunch of Interstate shields on them and call it a day. That way we don't need to have endless threads about "What Wisconsin Highway needs to be four laned, converted to freeway, become an Interstate, etc."
In all seriousness, these threads are getting old. I admit I used to enjoy talking about this subject, but now it's just 2-3 threads at any one time of tired regurgitated info. Wisconsin seems to be talked about on this subject more than any other Midwest state because of the four lane highway building spree it went on in the 90s/2000s/2010s. Reality is those days are over and the focus is shifting to rebuilding the Interstates. A lot of the roads haven't met their traffic projections and WisDOT is going to be facing massive maintenance budgets in the future.
Unless something concrete emerges, we should limit this discussion to the fictional highways board or keep it within the Wisconsin notes thread.
I was going to suggest a regional thread. We apparently need catharsis on this subject.
Illinois has a few going In the suburbs and downstate. Downstate parts of 24 34 50 67 IL 97 127 . The rest are probably suitable for the wish list. How about the rest of the states. US 219 was just dropped in Western NY.
Quote from: I-39 on April 18, 2022, 09:22:08 PM
Let's just four lane every state highway in Wisconsin as a freeway, slap a bunch of Interstate shields on them and call it a day. That way we don't need to have endless threads about "What Wisconsin Highway needs to be four laned, converted to freeway, become an Interstate, etc."
In all seriousness, these threads are getting old. I admit I used to enjoy talking about this subject, but now it's just 2-3 threads at any one time of tired regurgitated info. Wisconsin seems to be talked about on this subject more than any other Midwest state because of the four lane highway building spree it went on in the 90s/2000s/2010s. Reality is those days are over and the focus is shifting to rebuilding the Interstates. A lot of the roads haven't met their traffic projections and WisDOT is going to be facing massive maintenance budgets in the future.
Unless something concrete emerges, we should limit this discussion to the fictional highways board or keep it within the Wisconsin notes thread.
Yeah, I travel this state extensively and some of these suggestions are just wild to me. It's like every inconvenience that slows someone down for even a brief period of time, be it driving through a small town or having to drive behind three cars before you can pass, calls for massive upgrades to corridors.
Like the idea of a Broadhead bypass. There is about 4,500 vpd on either side of a city of 3,200 that is maybe sits about a mile and a half along WI-11. Why on earth would that need to be bypassed? Especially when traffic flows through there just fine.
Now compare that to rush hour in the Milwaukee or Madison areas. Or along I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay. That is where the resources need to be focused.
Quote from: 3467 on April 18, 2022, 10:01:37 PM
I was going to suggest a regional thread. We apparently need catharsis on this subject.
Illinois has a few going In the suburbs and downstate. Downstate parts of 24 34 50 67 IL 97 127 . The rest are probably suitable for the wish list. How about the rest of the states. US 219 was just dropped in Western NY.
This thread is already walking the fine line of Fictional. Any expansion beyond speculation roughly based on past WISDOT activities would toss it completely into Fictional.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 16, 2022, 03:56:35 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 16, 2022, 01:05:44 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 13, 2022, 06:48:53 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2022, 06:27:26 PM
Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI. Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.
I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.
Extending the 4-lane up and around Iron Mountain would certainly speed things up. I've taken to following County N, then County U south of Florence to bypass the long slog through Niagara and Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain's downtown would certainly appreciate not having massive logging trucks rumbling through it. Problem is, you've got to get Michigan involved to really make an Iron Mountain bypass worth the trouble - a westerly Iron Mountain bypass would have far less utility than a east to north loop. Last I checked, Michigan was far from being in a position to expand highways, let along fill the potholes in what they have now.
If you're looking for a speed limit change, the building of 4-lane roads isn't the answer despite how Wisconsin thinks - They should get their heads out of their ****s and up speed limits on 2-lane roads where it is safe (like 141 is absolutely safe for 60 at the minimum). See MnDOT.
Fixed the quoting for you.
It's less about the speed limit difference and more about removing traffic (including heavy truck traffic) just "passing through" towns along the route. To get through Iron Mountain/Kingsford/Quinnesec/Niagara on US-141 is 12 miles of stoplights and lower speed limits. Even a rudimentary bypass that's mostly 2-lane with at-grade intersections would save about 10 minutes of drive time. That's similar to the drive time difference of following the County N/County U/US-8 bypass between Florence and Pembine.
Given weekend traffic levels, one can make a case today to extend the 4-lane section of US-141 past Crivitz, and I would argue it prudent to continue it past Wausaukee, in effect extending the 4-lane section about 20 miles. But it's not at a crisis level like the section south of Hwy 22 was in the late '90s, and there's more compelling places for WisDOT to pursue highway expansion.
Not crisis level.....but on weekends 141 becomes a highway you want to find other routes. I like to visit Ontonagon, MI in the summer so for the portion of the trip to get to Iron River, MI from Coleman we take WI-64 west to WI-32 north followed by taking US-8 east to WI-139 north which then turns into MI-189 before reaching US 2 as talking US 141 to US 2 to get to that point becomes gridlock in both directions(and the alternative routes get congested as we aren't the only ones with that idea. While does not need to be a freeway/expressway north of Pound, the more between Pound to the MI state line that could become 4 lane could help make traffic much less frustrating especially on weekends.
Cabin routes are the worst, because they only need 4 lanes on incredibly predictable Fridays and Sundays between Memorial Day and Labor Day (maybe into early October for the leaf peepers).
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 19, 2022, 03:46:23 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 16, 2022, 03:56:35 PM
Given weekend traffic levels, one can make a case today to extend the 4-lane section of US-141 past Crivitz, and I would argue it prudent to continue it past Wausaukee, in effect extending the 4-lane section about 20 miles. But it's not at a crisis level like the section south of Hwy 22 was in the late '90s, and there's more compelling places for WisDOT to pursue highway expansion.
Not crisis level.....but on weekends 141 becomes a highway you want to find other routes...
While does not need to be a freeway/expressway north of Pound, the more between Pound to the MI state line that could become 4 lane could help make traffic much less frustrating especially on weekends.
WisDOT has gotten better about deploying stretches of passing lanes as needed, and US-141 makes decent use of them, but one or two more sections would be helpful. US-2 east of Rapid River, MI is a good example - about every 10-12 miles you get a 2-mile section of passing lanes. Perhaps WisDOT can incorporate these into bypasses of Crivitz and Wausaukee?
Outside of the US 141, US 12 near Sauk City is one of the few areas that needs to go 4 lanes regardless if the bypass Sauk City or not.....being it's the last portion of 12 to still be two lanes does cause traffic to jam up before 12 becomes four lanes again regardless of direction you are heading. Being I grew up near the Dells if you took the scenic route to Madison(US 12, not 90/94) remember the old days of jammed traffic between Baraboo to Middleton lol
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 19, 2022, 06:28:01 PM
Outside of the US 141, US 12 near Sauk City is one of the few areas that needs to go 4 lanes regardless if the bypass Sauk City or not.....being it's the last portion of 12 to still be two lanes does cause traffic to jam up before 12 becomes four lanes again regardless of direction you are heading. Being I grew up near the Dells if you took the scenic route to Madison(US 12, not 90/94) remember the old days of jammed traffic between Baraboo to Middleton lol
This should be near top-priority for WisDOT, before they move forward with any I-39/90/94 expansion. Given the lack of other viable alternative routes (Hwy 16 to US-51 doesn't count), this is critical to keeping traffic flowing to/from Wisconsin Dells and points south/east.
At least it's under study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12skihi19/default.aspx
That study was completed 8 years ago. I don't think any of it will be implemented anytime soon. Also, why can't they do this project and the proposed Interstate 39/90/94 project at the same time (theoretically)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2022, 04:27:03 PM
That study was completed 8 years ago. I don't think any of it will be implemented anytime soon. Also, why can't they do this project and the proposed Interstate 39/90/94 project at the same time (theoretically)?
Yep....
"Schedule
For more information on Public Involvement Meetings (PIM), hearings and other public activities, visit Public involvement.
Upcoming
To be determined (TBD) - This study is intended as a source of information to aid in making future transportation decisions. There are no immediate plans or allocated funds for construction at this time."
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2022, 04:27:03 PM
That study was completed 8 years ago. I don't think any of it will be implemented anytime soon. Also, why can't they do this project and the proposed Interstate 39/90/94 project at the same time (theoretically)?
They *can*, but imagine the gridlock on weekends with tourist traffic if both projects were under construction simultaneously. It would be a massive parking lot, and the folks in office would take extraordinary amounts of heat for such a debacle. Upgrade US-12 first, and then it can better take the load off I-39/90/94 while that road is widened.
Yes, this is in a world where the legislature and executive branches can do something other than play political football, and WisDOT is properly funded. "Wish list", as it were.
Quote from: I-39 on April 18, 2022, 09:22:08 PM
Let's just four lane every state highway in Wisconsin as a freeway, slap a bunch of Interstate shields on them and call it a day. That way we don't need to have endless threads about "What Wisconsin Highway needs to be four laned, converted to freeway, become an Interstate, etc."
In all seriousness, these threads are getting old. I admit I used to enjoy talking about this subject, but now it's just 2-3 threads at any one time of tired regurgitated info. Wisconsin seems to be talked about on this subject more than any other Midwest state because of the four lane highway building spree it went on in the 90s/2000s/2010s. Reality is those days are over and the focus is shifting to rebuilding the Interstates. A lot of the roads haven't met their traffic projections and WisDOT is going to be facing massive maintenance budgets in the future.
Unless something concrete emerges, we should limit this discussion to the fictional highways board or keep it within the Wisconsin notes thread.
Well someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
As I said before, I am not saying these need to be full blown freeways nor do they need to be done now. What I said was is that "This is a set I COULD see being on the agenda in 20 OR SO YEARS."
If you are going to rant, and Lord knows I do love rants, make sure you have the correct context before ranting.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 21, 2022, 07:37:23 PM
Quote from: I-39 on April 18, 2022, 09:22:08 PM
Let's just four lane every state highway in Wisconsin as a freeway, slap a bunch of Interstate shields on them and call it a day. That way we don't need to have endless threads about "What Wisconsin Highway needs to be four laned, converted to freeway, become an Interstate, etc."
In all seriousness, these threads are getting old. I admit I used to enjoy talking about this subject, but now it's just 2-3 threads at any one time of tired regurgitated info. Wisconsin seems to be talked about on this subject more than any other Midwest state because of the four lane highway building spree it went on in the 90s/2000s/2010s. Reality is those days are over and the focus is shifting to rebuilding the Interstates. A lot of the roads haven't met their traffic projections and WisDOT is going to be facing massive maintenance budgets in the future.
Unless something concrete emerges, we should limit this discussion to the fictional highways board or keep it within the Wisconsin notes thread.
Well someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
As I said before, I am not saying these need to be full blown freeways nor do they need to be done now. What I said was is that "This is a set I COULD see being on the agenda in 20 OR SO YEARS."
If you are going to rant, and Lord knows I do love rants, make sure you have the correct context before ranting.
Hm. So we are squarely in fictional now.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 21, 2022, 07:37:23 PM
Quote from: I-39 on April 18, 2022, 09:22:08 PM
Let's just four lane every state highway in Wisconsin as a freeway, slap a bunch of Interstate shields on them and call it a day. That way we don't need to have endless threads about "What Wisconsin Highway needs to be four laned, converted to freeway, become an Interstate, etc."
In all seriousness, these threads are getting old. I admit I used to enjoy talking about this subject, but now it's just 2-3 threads at any one time of tired regurgitated info. Wisconsin seems to be talked about on this subject more than any other Midwest state because of the four lane highway building spree it went on in the 90s/2000s/2010s. Reality is those days are over and the focus is shifting to rebuilding the Interstates. A lot of the roads haven't met their traffic projections and WisDOT is going to be facing massive maintenance budgets in the future.
Unless something concrete emerges, we should limit this discussion to the fictional highways board or keep it within the Wisconsin notes thread.
Well someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
As I said before, I am not saying these need to be full blown freeways nor do they need to be done now. What I said was is that "This is a set I COULD see being on the agenda in 20 OR SO YEARS."
No, that is not what you said. You said nothing about "being on the agenda" nor did you add the "or so" qualifier.
First statement:
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 16, 2022, 06:59:48 PMSo with that in mind, these are the corridors that I could still see an upgrade in the next 20 years.
Second:
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 18, 2022, 03:01:08 PM
SE, I wasn't saying that these are needed to be done right away. But I could see these as the next set over the next 20 years.