Anybody out there have any thoughts on the current upgrades to WIS 29...whether or not it will be built to interstate standards all the way from Eau Claire to Green Bay, and if so...what would they number it?
WisDOT has LONG, LONG range plans for upgrading that entire stretch of highway to freeway standards. However, I wouldn't bet on any sort EC-GB Interstate for many decades to come.
Agreed. The freeway sections appear to me to be interstate standard, but the vast, vast majority of WI 29 between US 41 and I-94 is not freeway, it is surface expressway.
Mike
As I recall, there's even a 5-lane undivided section west of Wausau.
Still is - they've planned for quite some time to get rid of that but I do not see that happening anytime soon.
It's the only non-65 section on the highway (not counting Green Bay area or Elk Mound area which have surface crossings and/or construction)
It should become US-8. The current 8 is hardly an important road anymore
From Minneapolis to Green Bay, WIS 29 is a no-brainer. Is it good enough to use to Appleton instead of I-94 to US 10? I imagine the answer is still "yes." As long as grade crossings don't slow the route down and as long as accidents remain relatively low, I see no reason to keep upgrading.
Quote from: Steve on May 25, 2012, 06:45:21 PM
From Minneapolis to Green Bay, WIS 29 is a no-brainer. Is it good enough to use to Appleton instead of I-94 to US 10? I imagine the answer is still "yes." As long as grade crossings don't slow the route down and as long as accidents remain relatively low, I see no reason to keep upgrading.
WI 29 is far superior to US 10 between I-39 and I-94 for us here in Appleton - including when going to and from Eau Claire. We'll see if the currently under-construction Marshfield Spur changes anything (it will cut at least 15 minutes off of the US 10/I-94 routing). Most of US 10 west of Marshfield is a typical two-lane rural highway.
East of I-39, US 10 is the route to use.
Mike
If you're in Appleton heading to Eau Claire, wouldn't you be able to use US 10 to I-39 to WIS 29? That seems like a faily logical route to take to me. I think the US 10 four-lane west of Stevens Point is pretty useless unless it gets four-laned all the way to I-94 eventually, which I haven't heard any plans of.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 26, 2012, 08:31:07 AM
If you're in Appleton heading to Eau Claire, wouldn't you be able to use US 10 to I-39 to WIS 29? That seems like a faily logical route to take to me. I think the US 10 four-lane west of Stevens Point is pretty useless unless it gets four-laned all the way to I-94 eventually, which I haven't heard any plans of.
I guess the point of my earlier post was that, if people already prefer WIS 29 despite being longer distance than US 10, it doesn't need further upgrades (assuming WisDOT wants people to prefer 29). It seems that that's the case.
Quote from: Steve on May 26, 2012, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 26, 2012, 08:31:07 AM
If you're in Appleton heading to Eau Claire, wouldn't you be able to use US 10 to I-39 to WIS 29? That seems like a faily logical route to take to me. I think the US 10 four-lane west of Stevens Point is pretty useless unless it gets four-laned all the way to I-94 eventually, which I haven't heard any plans of.
I guess the point of my earlier post was that, if people already prefer WIS 29 despite being longer distance than US 10, it doesn't need further upgrades (assuming WisDOT wants people to prefer 29). It seems that that's the case.
Before its recent upgrades, WI 29 was a much slower routing, especially in the Chippewa Falls area. Also, before its recent upgrades, US 10, especially east of Fremont, WI was a far slower routing going westward from Appleton - the freeway that opened in late 2003 (WI 76 to Fremont) cut about 10-15 minutes off of the time needed to travel that distance, bypassing a bunch of tiny slow-down towns along the way.
When the US 10 Marshfield Spur is completed, the only real slowdowns left on the two-lane part between Marshfield to I-94 will be at Neillsville, the two roundabouts at the end of the spur at Marshfield's south edge (one is at the end of the new highway, the other replaces the existing 90 degree turn that US 10 makes at its intersection with WI 80) and in the I-94 interchange area.
With I-94 being on that diagonal between US 10 at Osseo, WI and the Eau Claire area, US 10 west of I-39 could then be an attractive routing for traffic between the Fox Valley and Eau Claire and points west. And with Stevens Point and all of those piddly little towns between I-39 and Marshfield no longer being in the way, US 10 will be a much faster route, likely 20+ minutes faster, than it was before.
Mike
How about Interstate 96. It fits the grid, and could help facilitate a fixed crossing of Lake Michigan from Manitowoc to Ludington (wouldn't that be an engineering feat?). The freeway portion of US 31 from Ludington to Muskegon would also be numbered as I-96 to complete the Michigan section. :cool:
Quote from: jdsmith435 on April 09, 2021, 07:18:21 PM
How about Interstate 96. It fits the grid, and could help facilitate a fixed crossing of Lake Michigan from Manitowoc to Ludington (wouldn't that be an engineering feat?). The freeway portion of US 31 from Ludington to Muskegon would also be numbered as I-96 to complete the Michigan section. :cool:
As much as we'd love to see that crossing get built, it will NEVER happen. I, for one, would be fine with two separate I-96s, which would keep hope alive for an I-98 further north (even if it's more pie in the sky).
WIS 29 is fine as is. There is no need to upgrade it because the traffic is not there to warrant it. It would be another case of I-41 all over again.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 09, 2021, 07:33:13 PM
WIS 29 is fine as is. There is no need to upgrade it because the traffic is not there to warrant it. It would be another case of I-41 all over again.
I-41 has plenty of traffic. Certainly enough to justify the upgrade.
But yeah...WI-29 does not.
I'd argue the WIS 29/US 51 interchanges are excessively overbuilt.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 09, 2021, 08:10:16 PM
I'd argue the WIS 29/US 51 interchanges are excessively overbuilt.
Maybe, having lived in Wausau for 6 years has told me that the upgrade was desperately needed even if it meant putting the interchanges. The greater need was on Sherman, Bridge and the N's. all of them were outgrown by the blow-up in population growth. The 29 West Interchange was a breezewood, while the 29 Interchange was a nice bonus as the trumpet was ok (unless you call an accident that let the cows loose a problem - that happened on the loop ramp.)
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 09, 2021, 08:10:16 PM
I'd argue the WIS 29/US 51 interchanges are excessively overbuilt.
Yeah, no. I drive through there about 20 times a year. They're not overbuilt.
I'll be shocked if all of WI-29 between Chippewa Falls and Green Bay ever becomes an Interstate.
One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.
US-10 (and WIS-13) doesn't carry much traffic to exceed the capacity of the 2-lane ROW they occupy right now. Much less the need for an Interstate. Does a highway need the red-white-and-blue shield anyway? Why not leave it alone?
Quote from: I-39 on April 09, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.
I can't envision how this would have been effective.
I think it's pretty adaptable and it is slowly becoming standard from points of GB west.... but... there's a lot of work.
Does seem worthy of a US route IMO though.
Quote from: mrose on April 10, 2021, 08:10:59 AM
I think it's pretty adaptable and it is slowly becoming standard from points of GB west.... but... there's a lot of work.
Does seem worthy of a US route IMO though.
The US route vs State route hierarchy within individual states is pretty much a thing of the past.
I wouldn't mind STH-29 being completely freeway from Interstate 94 to Interstate 41. In the extremely unlikely event STH-29 is given an Interstate designation, I'd pick the 98 designation. That way, the relatively-nearby STH-98 could be renumbered as an extension of STH-153. Continuing into this very unlikely scenario, existing STH-29 would be reduced to a Prescott-to-Interstate 94 route, and the portion of existing STH-29 from Green Bay to Kewaunee would either get a new number (such as 62, 84, or 99) or this segment would be removed from the state highway system.
Quote from: thspfc on April 10, 2021, 08:56:12 AM
Quote from: mrose on April 10, 2021, 08:10:59 AM
I think it's pretty adaptable and it is slowly becoming standard from points of GB west.... but... there's a lot of work.
Does seem worthy of a US route IMO though.
The US route vs State route hierarchy within individual states is pretty much a thing of the past.
Yep.
And we are decades away from it being fully interstate compatible.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2021, 04:12:29 PM
I wouldn't mind STH-29 being completely freeway from Interstate 94 to Interstate 41. In the extremely unlikely event STH-29 is given an Interstate designation, I'd pick the 98 designation. That way, the relatively-nearby STH-98 could be renumbered as an extension of STH-153. Continuing into this very unlikely scenario, existing STH-29 would be reduced to a Prescott-to-Interstate 94 route, and the portion of existing STH-29 from Green Bay to Kewaunee would either get a new number (such as 62, 84, or 99) or this segment would be removed from the state highway system.
Right now I'd put better odds on WI 29 becoming an eastward extension of US 212 that it becoming an interstate.
Mike
Quote from: texaskdog on May 25, 2012, 05:06:01 PM
It should become US-8. The current 8 is hardly an important road anymore
Or an eastern extension of US 212 or even a rerouted US 10 (the current US 10 could become US 110 or state numbered highways).
I doubt very much it will be a US-212 extension and definitely not a rerouted US-10. Wisconsin doesn't really see a difference between state and US highways.
Case in point, they give WI-93 the "red line treatment" on state maps between La Crosse and Eau Claire even with US-53 serving both AND having being a prominent route north of Eau Claire. If there was ever a case for a route swap, it would be there. They just don't think the hassle and expense is worth it.
The only think I wish they would do is end WI-29 at I-94 and I-41 and give new numbers to the short, relatively minor highways on either end.
I also think that US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac will be an interstate before WI-29 will be.
Quote from: thspfc on April 10, 2021, 08:56:12 AM
The US route vs State route hierarchy within individual states is pretty much a thing of the past.
So true. Here's some examples I can name of in my mind with a state route on a freeway/expressway and parallel 2 lane US route:
- OH 32 over US 50 between Cincinnati and Athens
- OH 2 over US 6 between Sandusky and Lorain
- OH 2 over US 20 east of Cleveland
- IN 63 over US 41 between Terre Haute and some point north of I-74
- In the past, OH 1 was originally planned as a second Ohio Turnpike, connecting the 3C cities. That would largely replace US 42. That planned route is now I-71.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2021, 11:50:20 AM
I also think that US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac will be an interstate before WI-29 will be.
Between Madison and Waupun, sure. But US-151 between Waupun and I-41 is just as far away, if not further, than WI-29 is from being an Interstate. 151's traffic volumes between WI-26 and I-41 don't justify any upgrades. Honestly, if they're going to make any changes to that section, the first thing I would do is
remove the WI-175 ""interchange" " .
Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2021, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2021, 11:50:20 AM
I also think that US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac will be an interstate before WI-29 will be.
Between Madison and Waupun, sure. But US-151 between Waupun and I-41 is just as far away, if not further, than WI-29 is from being an Interstate. 151's traffic volumes between WI-26 and I-41 don't justify any upgrades. Honestly, if they're going to make any changes to that section, the first thing I would do is remove the WI-175 ""interchange" " .
I don't think its going to happen anytime soon, but it's only 15 miles between the last WI-26 interchange and the Military Road interchange. You would have to close off a handful of intersections, and build an interchange at Lamartine, and that's about it.
Much easier than WI-29 and much likely to see future growth as well.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2021, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 09, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.
I can't envision how this would have been effective.
It would have provided a combined route that could have served the purposes of both US 10/WIS 29 and would have saved millions in maintenance costs by not having to maintain two freeway/expressway grade highways. The existence of both is just another example of a WisDOT pork barrel project and not thinking outside the box.
I never saw the point in WI 15 becoming I-43 and the wacky extension with long concurrency to promote US 51 to I-39 north of Portage. I think those were so Wisconsin could increase the speed limit after they finally trashed the universally ignored 55 mph national speed limit on rural interstate highways in the late 80's. (The only national law that may have been more ignored and reviled than Prohibition.) WI 29 is fine as a state highway. If it's promoted to US 212 or some other US number, it could subsume all of WI 29 west of GB leaving the Bellevue-Kewaunee segment as is. The B-K segment could also augment WI 172 while the Prescott-Elk Mound segment could be an extended WI 40. But I'd just leave it as it is.
Quote from: skluth on April 11, 2021, 05:01:36 PM
I never saw the point in WI 15 becoming I-43 and the wacky extension with long concurrency to promote US 51 to I-39 north of Portage. I think those were so Wisconsin could increase the speed limit after they finally trashed the universally ignored 55 mph national speed limit on rural interstate highways in the late 80's. (The only national law that may have been more ignored and reviled than Prohibition.) WI 29 is fine as a state highway. If it's promoted to US 212 or some other US number, it could subsume all of WI 29 west of GB leaving the Bellevue-Kewaunee segment as is. The B-K segment could also augment WI 172 while the Prescott-Elk Mound segment could be an extended WI 40. But I'd just leave it as it is.
When talking about the situations with I-39, I-43, and even I-41 for that matter, comparisons are important. The way I see it, I-39 between I-90/94 and Wausau compares to I-37 in Texas. But the difference is that the I-39 corridor, even without the I-39 designation, would be a 2di corridor already (and from Rockford to the current I-39 split near Portage, it is, albeit with east/west numbers), even if there was no freeway north of Portage. I-39 is a 306-mile arrow-straight Interstate-standard corridor that serves significant amounts of long-distance traffic. If that's not worthy of an Interstate designation, I don't know what is. At that point you might as well just delete the entire Interstate system other than the x0s and x5s and a select few others.
I-43 seems a bit awkward because of how the Milwaukee-Beloit (old WI-15) segment differs from the rest of the route, but if I-41 existed at the time that stretch became an Interstate, it would have been designated as I-41, and I-43 would have ended at the Marquette Interchange. At this point in time I see no reason to change it, as doing so would cause more confusion than good, but it is a product of the sometimes untidy growth of the Interstate system.
I've said this many times before. The changes I would make to the Wisconsin Interstate system are truncating I-41 to the Zoo Interchange, extending I-39 to the northern WI-29 interchange in Wausau, designating WI-172 as I-243, and designating WI-441 as I-441.
US-51 was 65 mph long before it was I-39. It was granted an exception when the 65 mph rule was for interstates only.
Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2021, 05:55:46 PM
designating WI-441 as I-441.
I think that's a long-term goal. Recent improvements are putting it in-line with I-standards.
Quote from: I-39 on April 11, 2021, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2021, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 09, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.
I can't envision how this would have been effective.
It would have provided a combined route that could have served the purposes of both US 10/WIS 29 and would have saved millions in maintenance costs by not having to maintain two freeway/expressway grade highways. The existence of both is just another example of a WisDOT pork barrel project and not thinking outside the box.
I just don't understand where you would put it. Say you placed this starting at Kaukauna, ran it up toward Clintonville, then straight west to I-39 at some point between Wausau and Stevens Point.
If I live in Appleton and wanted to go to Stevens Point, I wouldn't take this route even if it were a full interstate highway. I would take a two lane US-10. I live in Green Bay. If I wanted to go to Wausau or points west, I am not driving 30 miles out of my way to take this - I am taking WI-29.
I just don't think its feasible. So you would end up with an expensive "new terrain" highway that costs a lot, and you would probably still have crowded two lane highways in US-10 and WI-29 to deal with anyway.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 12, 2021, 10:25:01 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 11, 2021, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2021, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 09, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.
I can't envision how this would have been effective.
It would have provided a combined route that could have served the purposes of both US 10/WIS 29 and would have saved millions in maintenance costs by not having to maintain two freeway/expressway grade highways. The existence of both is just another example of a WisDOT pork barrel project and not thinking outside the box.
I just don't understand where you would put it. Say you placed this starting at Kaukauna, ran it up toward Clintonville, then straight west to I-39 at some point between Wausau and Stevens Point.
If I live in Appleton and wanted to go to Stevens Point, I wouldn't take this route even if it were a full interstate highway. I would take a two lane US-10. I live in Green Bay. If I wanted to go to Wausau or points west, I am not driving 30 miles out of my way to take this - I am taking WI-29.
I just don't think its feasible. So you would end up with an expensive "new terrain" highway that costs a lot, and you would probably still have crowded two lane highways in US-10 and WI-29 to deal with anyway.
Agreed. The way I look at it, US-10 is the Walmart version of WI-29, but both are important. US-10 connects smaller cities (Marshfield, Stevens Point, and Appleton compared to Eau Claire/Chippewa Falls, Wausau, and Green Bay), but they each have their own traffic flows.
Hwy 29 has been built out to a point where conversion to an Interstate highway requires little beyond closing off minor road access and building interchanges where it meets more major roads. If someone made a decent case for the Interstate-branding, it's not a monumental effort to make it happen.
But outside of Green Bay Packers game traffic, Hwy 29 isn't THAT busy of a highway. Most sections see fewer than 20,000 vpd, which is fairly light traffic for a 4-lane divided highway. It's not unlike traffic levels on US-41 and US-141 north of Abrams, and nobody is claiming either of those roadways need Interstate signage (south of Abrams, given traffic levels and importance, one could make a case to sign it as I-41). The decision to build those roadways as 4-lane controlled-access divided highways, with the ROW to upgrade to freeways as traffic conditions warrant, is evidence of wise planning on WisDOT's part.
This is quite unlike my home state of Michigan with non-Interstate divided highways. When MDOT began 4-lane divided highway buildouts in earnest, they built them on fairly narrow ROW (200' or less), and often still allowed driveway access. Poor zoning policy allowed homes and business to build too close to these roads, and now MDOT cheapest upgrade options are bypasses of these roads (US-31 between Holland and Grand Haven, and US-131 south of Portage are good examples).
Then MDOT went crazy in the other direction, by building fully-limited access freeways in lightly-populated areas based mainly on weekend traffic volumes (US-127 north of Mount Pleasant and US-131 north of Big Rapids are good examples). MDOT could have saved some cash by allowing some cross traffic and building fewer overpasses and interchanges, and redirected that to corridors that actually need 4 lanes (M-40 & M-89 between Holland and US-131, M-72 between Traverse City and Grayling, M-37 & M-113 south of Traverse City, US-127 between I-94 and US-12 in Jackson County).
One of the few places where MDOT used the controlled-access 4-lane highway type is US-2/41 between Gladstone and Rapid River. My guess is that there were daydreams in an MDOT 25 year plan to 4-lane US-2 between Iron Mountain and St. Ignace that never came to fruition.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 12, 2021, 09:08:56 PM
Hwy 29 has been built out to a point where conversion to an Interstate highway requires little beyond closing off minor road access and building interchanges where it meets more major roads. If someone made a decent case for the Interstate-branding, it's not a monumental effort to make it happen.
But outside of Green Bay Packers game traffic, Hwy 29 isn't THAT busy of a highway. Most sections see fewer than 20,000 vpd, which is fairly light traffic for a 4-lane divided highway.
Exactly. It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade. The money would just be better spent elsewhere.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 12, 2021, 09:08:56 PM
This is quite unlike my home state of Michigan with non-Interstate divided highways. When MDOT began 4-lane divided highway buildouts in earnest, they built them on fairly narrow ROW (200' or less), and often still allowed driveway access. Poor zoning policy allowed homes and business to build too close to these roads, and now MDOT cheapest upgrade options are bypasses of these roads (US-31 between Holland and Grand Haven, and US-131 south of Portage are good examples).
Then MDOT went crazy in the other direction, by building fully-limited access freeways in lightly-populated areas based mainly on weekend traffic volumes (US-127 north of Mount Pleasant and US-131 north of Big Rapids are good examples). MDOT could have saved some cash by allowing some cross traffic and building fewer overpasses and interchanges, and redirected that to corridors that actually need 4 lanes (M-40 & M-89 between Holland and US-131, M-72 between Traverse City and Grayling, M-37 & M-113 south of Traverse City, US-127 between I-94 and US-12 in Jackson County).
Sounds like something similar to what Ohio has. US 23 between Columbus and Delaware is a 4 lane expressway, but the sprawl from Columbus caught up there, and can be annoying to drive, as part of the main Columbus-Toledo corridor. I think the proposal now is to get a limited access connection to I-71 from north of Delaware. Between Columbus and Chillicothe, US 23 goes straight through South Broomfield, though a bypass is being planned. A bypass of Circleville would be nice too. Meanwhile, I think US 33 between Bellefontaine and Marysville as a full freeway is overkill, same could be argued for Columbus to Athens even.
As for WI 29, didn't it just get upgraded from a 2 lane to a 4 lane expressway about 15 years ago? I took a look of WI 29 on GSV, and it looks like there are very few traffic signals, unlike some other 4 lane expressways out there. Most of the access are from interchanges already, and the at grades are from small farm roads with like 3 vehicles a day using it. With most of the peak traffic for Packers games, as mentioned already, and nothing much outside of that, I don't really see a need for a full freeway upgrade atm, considering the quality of the road.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 13, 2021, 10:57:27 AM
Sounds like something similar to what Ohio has. US 23 between Columbus and Delaware is a 4 lane expressway, but the sprawl from Columbus caught up there, and can be annoying to drive, as part of the main Columbus-Toledo corridor.
"Expressway" is overselling that stretch of US-23 by a lot. You want to look north of Delaware for something that qualifies, starting with that section with the frontage roads. They didn't employ any significant access management between Delaware and I-270, and it's going to be crazy expensive now to retrofit that in - thus the proposal to connect to I-71 by way of the US-36 corridor.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 13, 2021, 10:57:27 AM
As for WI 29, didn't it just get upgraded from a 2 lane to a 4 lane expressway about 15 years ago? I took a look of WI 29 on GSV, and it looks like there are very few traffic signals, unlike some other 4 lane expressways out there. Most of the access are from interchanges already, and the at grades are from small farm roads with like 3 vehicles a day using it. With most of the peak traffic for Packers games, as mentioned already, and nothing much outside of that, I don't really see a need for a full freeway upgrade atm, considering the quality of the road.
Wisconsin upgraded Hwy 29 in bits and pieces over time; it only completed the 4-lane expressway between I-94 near Eau Claire and I-41 in Green Bay about 5 years ago, but it was easily 20-30 years for WisDOT to build it out. Similar story with US-151 between Fond du Lac and Dubuque - some sections were 4-laned 50+ years ago, but it wasn't completely expressway/freeway until ~10 years ago.
US-41 in Wisconsin was built out in a similar manner. Some 4-lane sections were started in the '50s, and over many years developed into freeway/expressway. The last sections of expressway were completed about 10 years ago, and one section of US-41 (now posted as I-41) between Green Bay and Appleton was converted to freeway only about 20 years ago.
It is insane to think that there were still driveways on US-41 just south of De Pere 20 years ago.
Prior to the expressway conversion, it was referred to as "Bloody 29" because of the high number of accidents.
Quote from: Big John on April 13, 2021, 03:21:53 PM
Prior to the expressway conversion, it was referred to as "Bloody 29" because of the high number of accidents.
I think that type of term was used for US-10 in central WI, US-12 between Middleton and the Dells, US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac, and WI-29 before their respective upgrades to four lane expressways.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 13, 2021, 12:52:02 PM
Wisconsin upgraded Hwy 29 in bits and pieces over time; it only completed the 4-lane expressway between I-94 near Eau Claire and I-41 in Green Bay about 5 years ago, but it was easily 20-30 years for WisDOT to build it out. Similar story with US-151 between Fond du Lac and Dubuque - some sections were 4-laned 50+ years ago, but it wasn't completely expressway/freeway until ~10 years ago.
The last freeway/expressway expansion project for WI 29 was finished in 2005. (Chippewa Falls bypass)
For US 151, that happened in 2007 (SW Fond du Lac County)
Both corridors have seen a few freeway conversion projects since then.
I remember the entertainment magazines labelling WI-29 as I-96 for whatever reason. Would guess if they were crazy enough it would be an I-x41 or I-x94, followed by a 96 extension or I-98, followed then by extending I-43, or on the bottom giving I-39 a 3di spur........with following how do we rename WI-29 as would seem pointless to keep as is lol
With likely winner being it stays WI-29 and nothing happens.....I would see WISDOT trying to make all of 29 from 41 to 94 completely up to interstate standards though
Even if STH-29 were completely brought up to Interstate Standards from Interstate 94 to Interstate 41, something I would support, it would probably be decades, or even a century or more before such a conversion were completed. Same with upgrading portions of US 10, US 12, US 41, US 51, US 53, US 141, US 151, STH-23 and STH-57 to full freeway standards.
I doubt WI-29 will be an Interstate within the next 50 years, but if and when that conversion does happen, I would rather it be numbered I-96 than I-98, as I feel like the 98 number should be saved for a more northern corridor. I doubt there would be any confusion with the Michigan Interstate.
Quote from: thspfc on April 13, 2021, 10:55:15 PM
I doubt there would be any confusion with the Michigan Interstate.
Plus if they ever built a bridge across Lake Michigan then the two I-96's would become one. :bigass:
I'd like to see anyone try to build a bridge across any of the Great Lakes, excluding the Interstate 75 Mackinac Bridge in Michigan.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
I'd like to see anyone try to build a bridge across any of the Great Lakes, excluding the Interstate 75 Mackinac Bridge in Michigan.
@FritzOwl
Wis 29 is a model Highway to be built on a limited budget and many southern states should take note. There isn't a single traffic signal or stop between I-94 and I-41. Freeway bypasses were built around cities guaranteeing that development won't interfere with traffic flow. Even with the intersections in rural areas traffic flows just about as well as a full freeway.
As intersections become busier upgrades will occur. Between the Shawano Co Line and I-41, Wis 29 will become full freeway by next year. A project is underway to build a new Hwy VV Interchange and remove the Hwy U intersection and will m Since the removal of the Wis 156 intersection, there has been an uptick in crashes there since Old 29 is used as a "short cut" between Wis 29 and Wis 156.
I could definitely see WI-29 as a full freeway all the way out to Shawano. There are many at grade separations as is. But I doubt it will ever be a full freeway the whole way. There may be a few other at grade intersections here and there that get overpassed.
147 miles of the total 182 miles from I-94 to I-41 is designated as a "freeway" but with many at grade crossings
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/freewaydesignations.pdf
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/freewaymap.pdf
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 14, 2021, 10:46:30 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 13, 2021, 10:55:15 PM
I doubt there would be any confusion with the Michigan Interstate.
Plus if they ever built a bridge across Lake Michigan then the two I-96's would become one. :bigass:
More so, there is a 'WI 96' that runs east-west from US 10 in Fremont, WI through Appleton to I-43 in Denmark, WI, not far from WI 29.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 05, 2021, 09:35:41 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 14, 2021, 10:46:30 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 13, 2021, 10:55:15 PM
I doubt there would be any confusion with the Michigan Interstate.
Plus if they ever built a bridge across Lake Michigan then the two I-96's would become one. :bigass:
More so, there is a 'WI 96' that runs east-west from US 10 in Fremont, WI through Appleton to I-43 in Denmark, WI, not far from WI 29.
Mike
Which could probably be decommissioned without much effort.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 05, 2021, 09:35:41 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 14, 2021, 10:46:30 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 13, 2021, 10:55:15 PM
I doubt there would be any confusion with the Michigan Interstate.
Plus if they ever built a bridge across Lake Michigan then the two I-96's would become one. :bigass:
More so, there is a 'WI 96' that runs east-west from US 10 in Fremont, WI through Appleton to I-43 in Denmark, WI, not far from WI 29.
Mike
Just renumber it to WI-196.
There's an I-96 in Michigan. I would suggest I-98 if they ever do that because it would be easier to decommission Highway 98 since it only runs for sixteen miles and Highway 96 runs for 56 miles. You could make it Highway 196 or 198 afterwards. Or it you want to be different, make it a single digit highway since we don't have any in this state except US 2 and 8. However, there is a potential Interstate 98 that is being proposed in New York.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 07, 2021, 12:22:25 PM
There's an I-96 in Michigan. I would suggest I-98 if they ever do that because it would be easier to decommission Highway 98 since it only runs for sixteen miles and Highway 96 runs for 56 miles. You could make it Highway 196 or 198 afterwards. Or it you want to be different, make it a single digit highway since we don't have any in this state except US 2 and 8. However, there is a potential Interstate 98 that is being proposed in New York.
It would be a western 96 or 98.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 07, 2021, 12:22:25 PM
There's an I-96 in Michigan. I would suggest I-98 if they ever do that because it would be easier to decommission Highway 98 since it only runs for sixteen miles and Highway 96 runs for 56 miles. You could make it Highway 196 or 198 afterwards. Or it you want to be different, make it a single digit highway since we don't have any in this state except US 2 and 8. However, there is a potential Interstate 98 that is being proposed in New York.
If WI-29 became I-96, the two I-96s would be further apart by driving distance than the two I-87s (the New York and VA/NC ones) once the southern I-87 is completed. So if you're not annoyed by the proximity of the 87s, then the proximity of the 96s would be no problem.
Knowing Wisconsin, they'll extend I-43 along it. They can then up the I-39/90/94 triplex to a quadraplex as they make I-43 a complete loop within the state.
Quote from: skluth on August 07, 2021, 07:15:48 PM
Knowing Wisconsin, they'll extend I-43 along it. They can then up the I-39/90/94 triplex to a quadraplex as they make I-43 a complete loop within the state.
Maybe they'll make it I-29. :spin:
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 07, 2021, 07:46:48 PM
Quote from: skluth on August 07, 2021, 07:15:48 PM
Knowing Wisconsin, they'll extend I-43 along it. They can then up the I-39/90/94 triplex to a quadraplex as they make I-43 a complete loop within the state.
Maybe they'll make it I-29. :spin:
(https://www.ssoworld.org/pics/angry-512.png)
Fun fact: If the expressway section of Hwy 29 between I-94 and I-41 ever got an Interstate designation, it would run 196 miles, 5 miles longer than I-43 and 4 miles longer than I-96 in Michigan. WisDOT could also extend it along WIS 172 to I-43 for 10 additional miles.
Then they could route it to WI 57 for another 10 miles (VIA WI 172) and if WisDOT really want to extend it they could upgrade the expressway part of WI 57 to freeway standards making another 32 miles ending just outside of Sturgeon Bay making a total distance of 240 miles
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 07, 2021, 12:22:25 PM
There's an I-96 in Michigan. I would suggest I-98 if they ever do that because it would be easier to decommission Highway 98 since it only runs for sixteen miles and Highway 96 runs for 56 miles. You could make it Highway 196 or 198 afterwards. Or it you want to be different, make it a single digit highway since we don't have any in this state except US 2 and 8. However, there is a potential Interstate 98 that is being proposed in New York.
In the I-98 scenario, WI 98 is a natural extension of WI 153.
Nothing's impossible, but I have to figure WI is done with new mainline interstates. US 53 was an original pitch but will never come back because there isn't the traffic and almost certainly never will be. The only snowball's chance in hell is if WI and IA got super ambitious about the US 151 corridor, but even that is pushing it.
I would think US-151 between I-39/90 and I-41 would become an interstate before WI-29. But even that's a long way off, and I don't think WIDOT seems very interested in 3dis since there are numerous highways that would qualify for them now.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 09, 2021, 03:10:41 PM
I would think US-151 between I-39/90 and I-41 would become an interstate before WI-29. But even that's a long way off, and I don't think WIDOT seems very interested in 3dis since there are numerous highways that would qualify for them now.
At this point I think WI-441 would be the leader in the clubhouse for US or State highways in the state that could receive an interstate upgrade.
If an interstate was to be extended then maybe I-41 extended to Abrams, or 39 up to US 8 or near it......maybe
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 09, 2021, 06:23:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 09, 2021, 03:10:41 PM
I would think US-151 between I-39/90 and I-41 would become an interstate before WI-29. But even that's a long way off, and I don't think WIDOT seems very interested in 3dis since there are numerous highways that would qualify for them now.
At this point I think WI-441 would be the leader in the clubhouse for US or State highways in the state that could receive an interstate upgrade.
If an interstate was to be extended then maybe I-41 extended to Abrams, or 39 up to US 8 or near it......maybe
I don't know what is stopping WISDOT from slapping the red and blue shields on WI-441. They would have no problem getting federal approval to make it an Interstate. They wouldn't even have to change the number.
Quote from: thspfc on August 09, 2021, 07:39:43 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 09, 2021, 06:23:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 09, 2021, 03:10:41 PM
I would think US-151 between I-39/90 and I-41 would become an interstate before WI-29. But even that's a long way off, and I don't think WIDOT seems very interested in 3dis since there are numerous highways that would qualify for them now.
At this point I think WI-441 would be the leader in the clubhouse for US or State highways in the state that could receive an interstate upgrade.
If an interstate was to be extended then maybe I-41 extended to Abrams, or 39 up to US 8 or near it......maybe
I don't know what is stopping WISDOT from slapping the red and blue shields on WI-441. They would have no problem getting federal approval to make it an Interstate. They wouldn't even have to change the number.
Or WI-172, US-12, US-45, etc. they're just not interested.
For such a 'promotion' on WI 441, I'm thinking that there are substandard sections on the Outagamie County part, mainly relating to narrow shoulders.
Mike
Quote from: thspfc on August 09, 2021, 07:39:43 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 09, 2021, 06:23:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 09, 2021, 03:10:41 PM
I would think US-151 between I-39/90 and I-41 would become an interstate before WI-29. But even that's a long way off, and I don't think WIDOT seems very interested in 3dis since there are numerous highways that would qualify for them now.
At this point I think WI-441 would be the leader in the clubhouse for US or State highways in the state that could receive an interstate upgrade.
If an interstate was to be extended then maybe I-41 extended to Abrams, or 39 up to US 8 or near it......maybe
I don't know what is stopping WISDOT from slapping the red and blue shields on WI-441. They would have no problem getting federal approval to make it an Interstate. They wouldn't even have to change the number.
Same reason they didn't try to slap a US shield on it. First, it's more of a loop route than a legit bypass, second, it's more of a local route than anything, and third, they just don't seem interested in spending time and money on it. I can appreciate that.
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 19, 2021, 03:15:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 09, 2021, 07:39:43 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 09, 2021, 06:23:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 09, 2021, 03:10:41 PM
I would think US-151 between I-39/90 and I-41 would become an interstate before WI-29. But even that's a long way off, and I don't think WIDOT seems very interested in 3dis since there are numerous highways that would qualify for them now.
At this point I think WI-441 would be the leader in the clubhouse for US or State highways in the state that could receive an interstate upgrade.
If an interstate was to be extended then maybe I-41 extended to Abrams, or 39 up to US 8 or near it......maybe
I don't know what is stopping WISDOT from slapping the red and blue shields on WI-441. They would have no problem getting federal approval to make it an Interstate. They wouldn't even have to change the number.
Same reason they didn't try to slap a US shield on it. First, it's more of a loop route than a legit bypass, second, it's more of a local route than anything, and third, they just don't seem interested in spending time and money on it. I can appreciate that.
First two reasons are irrelevant because there are dozens of 3dis like that around the country. The third one is more realistic.
In addition to the ongoing County VV interchange, WisDOT plans to close the Bass Lake Road intersection east of Hatley in 2023.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/wis29/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/wis29/default.aspx)
There is also a project ongoing to put a J turn at County U, but my guess is that will be an interim improvement until funding can be secured for an interchange.
With these little projects popping up, I'm beginning to think a case could be made for converting the Wausau to Green Bay section of WIS 29 to full freeway standards.
Quote from: I-39 on September 26, 2021, 10:33:21 PM
In addition to the ongoing County VV interchange, WisDOT plans to close the Bass Lake Road intersection east of Hatley in 2023.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/wis29/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/wis29/default.aspx)
There is also a project ongoing to put a J turn at County U, but my guess is that will be an interim improvement until funding can be secured for an interchange.
With these little projects popping up, I'm beginning to think a case could be made for converting the Wausau to Green Bay section of WIS 29 to full freeway standards.
When I look at the County U intersection I don't see that J-turn on the wisdot page. And working for the Oneida tribe for 15 years(former gas station at U and 29, and the the travel plaza on old 29 by 156/Y/32 anything besides doing a bridge over highway, making U it's own exit, or just cutting off access to U is just keeping a dangerous intersection at that spot. And if you see the turn as it's currently built/current condition that's not safe either as people make illegal turns quite frequently
Quote from: thspfc on August 19, 2021, 08:13:28 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 19, 2021, 03:15:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 09, 2021, 07:39:43 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on August 09, 2021, 06:23:56 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 09, 2021, 03:10:41 PM
I would think US-151 between I-39/90 and I-41 would become an interstate before WI-29. But even that's a long way off, and I don't think WIDOT seems very interested in 3dis since there are numerous highways that would qualify for them now.
At this point I think WI-441 would be the leader in the clubhouse for US or State highways in the state that could receive an interstate upgrade.
If an interstate was to be extended then maybe I-41 extended to Abrams, or 39 up to US 8 or near it......maybe
I don't know what is stopping WISDOT from slapping the red and blue shields on WI-441. They would have no problem getting federal approval to make it an Interstate. They wouldn't even have to change the number.
Same reason they didn't try to slap a US shield on it. First, it's more of a loop route than a legit bypass, second, it's more of a local route than anything, and third, they just don't seem interested in spending time and money on it. I can appreciate that.
First two reasons are irrelevant because there are dozens of 3dis like that around the country. The third one is more realistic.
I just don't think WIDOT is all that interested in 3dis. There could be one on US-12 in Walworth County, WI-30 in Dane County, US-45 north to West Bend, WI-441 in Outgamie County and WI-172 in Brown County. But all the current 3dis date from the advent of the interstate highway system.
Quote from: gr8daynegb on September 27, 2021, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 26, 2021, 10:33:21 PM
In addition to the ongoing County VV interchange, WisDOT plans to close the Bass Lake Road intersection east of Hatley in 2023.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/wis29/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/wis29/default.aspx)
There is also a project ongoing to put a J turn at County U, but my guess is that will be an interim improvement until funding can be secured for an interchange.
With these little projects popping up, I'm beginning to think a case could be made for converting the Wausau to Green Bay section of WIS 29 to full freeway standards.
When I look at the County U intersection I don't see that J-turn on the wisdot page. And working for the Oneida tribe for 15 years(former gas station at U and 29, and the the travel plaza on old 29 by 156/Y/32 anything besides doing a bridge over highway, making U it's own exit, or just cutting off access to U is just keeping a dangerous intersection at that spot. And if you see the turn as it's currently built/current condition that's not safe either as people make illegal turns quite frequently
Sorry, it is not the County U in Brown County, it is the County U in Shawano County
https://projects.511wi.gov/wis29countyu/full-project-overview/ (https://projects.511wi.gov/wis29countyu/full-project-overview/)
Not sure why they are putting a j turn there as opposed to just closing off the intersection or putting an interchange there.
Quote from: I-39 on September 27, 2021, 03:19:27 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on September 27, 2021, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 26, 2021, 10:33:21 PM
In addition to the ongoing County VV interchange, WisDOT plans to close the Bass Lake Road intersection east of Hatley in 2023.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/wis29/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nc/wis29/default.aspx)
There is also a project ongoing to put a J turn at County U, but my guess is that will be an interim improvement until funding can be secured for an interchange.
With these little projects popping up, I'm beginning to think a case could be made for converting the Wausau to Green Bay section of WIS 29 to full freeway standards.
When I look at the County U intersection I don't see that J-turn on the wisdot page. And working for the Oneida tribe for 15 years(former gas station at U and 29, and the the travel plaza on old 29 by 156/Y/32 anything besides doing a bridge over highway, making U it's own exit, or just cutting off access to U is just keeping a dangerous intersection at that spot. And if you see the turn as it's currently built/current condition that's not safe either as people make illegal turns quite frequently
Sorry, it is not the County U in Brown County, it is the County U in Shawano County
https://projects.511wi.gov/wis29countyu/full-project-overview/ (https://projects.511wi.gov/wis29countyu/full-project-overview/)
Not sure why they are putting a j turn there as opposed to just closing off the intersection or putting an interchange there.
Because the road is too important close off and an interchange is significantly more expensive.