AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Midwest - Great Lakes => Topic started by: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM

Title: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM
A few notes from a daytrip around the state on Monday (2012-05-28):

-Weather was warm and humid and, much to my chagrin, I found out that my car's air conditioner had lost its cool.

:-o

I survived with the sunroof open and so forth and the car goes in for service in a couple of days.

-Nothing really new of note in the US 41 Construction Geek Zone™ in the Oshkosh area.

-Dodge County 'A' running southward from US 151 by the Walmart* distribution center on the northeast edge of Beaver Dam ('Beaver Darn'?) was massively rebuilt and concrete paved over the past couple of years and looks nicer than similarly-rebuilt state highways - it is a FANTASTIC road!  The southernmost part of County 'A' near WI 26 southwest of Juneau is closed for upgrades right now.  The WI 33/County 'A' intersection just east of Beaver Dam was not rebuilt and since its traffic control is a four-way STOP, I'm sensing that WisDOT may be wanting to redo that intersection as a roundabout.  Even though County 'A' is a great alternative to existing WI 26 between WI 16/60 and US 151 and could well be a worthy new routing for it, IMHO it is not in the ideal location to be a permanent WI 26, which should ultimately feed into US 151 on Beaver Dam's southeast corner.

-The southernmost part of the WI 26 Watertown bypass freeway is complete and open northwards to the first interchange for the city.  Local roads and streets in the area are now being reconfigured for the new bypass and the remainder of this bypass appears to be on-track for opening sometime this fall.  Roundabouts are present in abundance, too, at Watertown.

-The WI 26 bridge over the railroad immediately south of Johnson Creek is complete and open.  Its north end almost looks to align in a way that would have it seamlessly feeding into a potential eastside Johnson Creek bypass.

-The WI 26 Fort Atkinson bypass four lane upgrade (from a 'Super Two') is complete and looks very nice.

-Grading/earthworks for the WI 26 Milton, WI bypass is well under way and several bridges are in various stages of construction.  The north end of this bypass will feed into existing WI 26 at County 'NN' (a WI 26 'old road') and some signs of the wider ROW are visible along WI 26 from there to the Fort Atkinson bypass section.

-The Ice Age National Scenic Trail http://www.iceagetrail.org is marked on sidewalks along existing WI 26 in Milton.

-At least one interchange and additional crossroad overcrossing are under construction on the section of WI 26 from the Milton bypass into the City of Janesville.  The condition of the land and buildings, including an aging motel, on the east side of WI 26 running northwards from I-39/90 in Janesville almost makes me think that WisDOT may have plans for that area.

-It seems like nearly half of the interchanges along WI 26 from Watertown to I-39/90 are for 'BUSINESS WI 26'.  There are WI 26 business routes in Fort Atkinson, Jefferson and Watertown.

-Once four lanes on WI 26 are completed, it will make a great road for someone to videotape.

-Washington St (US 151) is being repaved from I-39/90/94 to Portage Rd in Madison.  Ditto University Ave from the Hill Farms area to the Madison city limits.

-When did all of the gas stations in the Madison area start requiring their cash customers to pay for their fuel before they pump it?  That's the only place in the state that I know of where that is generally the case.

-That new 345 KV power line that is under construction along the Madison Beltline is very impressive!

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 30, 2012, 10:03:57 AM
The WI-26 bridges just south of Johnson Creek fully opened for the first time just last Friday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 30, 2012, 01:13:54 PM
County A in Dodge Co is probably my fav back road way to get to my grandmother's house in Princeton from Chicago. I agree it should be a 3di state highway due to the traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 30, 2012, 03:31:37 PM
WI-26 and County A in Dodge Co. could easily be flip-flopped, and WI-49 brought south over the old WI-26 routing. It would make for a lot less new 4-lane highway when it's extended to US-151.

I was up that way on WI-26 a week ago. Still annoyed that the freeway stretches don't merit a 65mph speed limit yet - it's a bona-fide speed trap the entire way. I can understand 55mph coming into and heading north of Johnson Creek, at least until the Watertown bypass is completed. But there's no reason other than revenue enhancement for 55mph on a rural freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on May 30, 2012, 06:03:13 PM
is there anything buzzing around the WISDOT about extending a 4lane WI 26 all the way to any point along US 151? i would think they would at least have something in their plans and projects, but i havent been able to find anything. also im wondering if they have any plans for widening US41 along the north side of the Fox Valley to Green bay. does anyone have anything on either of these?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 30, 2012, 07:33:16 PM
is there anything buzzing around the WISDOT about extending a 4lane WI 26 all the way to any point along US 151? i would think they would at least have something in their plans and projects, but i havent been able to find anything. also im wondering if they have any plans for widening US41 along the north side of the Fox Valley to Green bay. does anyone have anything on either of these?

I recall hearing some chatter within the past year or so about WisDOT being in the earliest stages of starting to study WI 26 north of WI 60, the planned north end of the current four lane upgrade projects.  It's not like they're not aware of the situation on that part of WI 26, I've been prodding them on it :poke: since at least the early 1990s.

One thought about WI 26 between US 151 and I-39/90 that I had while driving it Monday that I have not had before is that it is starting to have a 'feel' to me that is a lot like US 10 between Appleton and Stevens Point.

Also, it is my expectation that WisDOT will begin studying the remaining four-lane section of US 41 (I-xx) between WI 15 at Appleton and Scheuring Rd in De Pere once the current six-lane upgrade projects are complete.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 31, 2012, 05:02:34 PM

-When did all of the gas stations in the Madison area start requiring their cash customers to pay for their fuel before they pump it?  That's the only place in the state that I know of where that is generally the case.

That's par for the course in Milwaukee.  I swipe the debit card at the pump and avoid that hassle.  I guess they had a spike in drive-offs in Mad Town or something.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on June 01, 2012, 10:48:11 AM
I did a trip on Tuesday to the Wausau / Stevens Point / Wis. Rapids area on Wednesday.  This is one of my favorite routes - and if I had more time, I would have gone out to Eau Claire.  A few things of note with construction:

-I-39 / 51 - resurfacing job around Stevens Point looks to be near completion

-Hwy 29 interchange - Wausau / Chippewa Falls - those in the Green Bay area can look to that interchange to see how 29-41 will be set up over the next few years. 

-In Green Bay - the 41-Mason St construction appears ahead of schedule
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on June 01, 2012, 10:49:13 AM

-When did all of the gas stations in the Madison area start requiring their cash customers to pay for their fuel before they pump it?  That's the only place in the state that I know of where that is generally the case.

That's par for the course in Milwaukee.  I swipe the debit card at the pump and avoid that hassle.  I guess they had a spike in drive-offs in Mad Town or something.

Everywhere in Texas is prepay.  Hated working at the gas station in Minnesota & having to deal with driveoffs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 01, 2012, 11:31:27 AM
I always find it unusual if a gas pump is not prepay.  Most of the time, I pay with a credit card outside at the pump, but if there is no card reader, I walk in and am always surprised if they tell me to go ahead and pump and come back and pay.  I always expect them to take and run my card indoors first, before turning the pump on.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 08, 2012, 09:08:03 PM
I drove WI 26 from I-94 to US 18 last weekend and I'd agree the 55 MPH is a little frustrating.  If WisDOT hasn't posted it 65 with both Ft. Atkinson and Jefferson done, they're probably not going to until it's complete to Janesville if at all.  It's nice that WisDOT will have a better alternative for the next time the Rock River floods out I-94.

It's kind of fun driving a new highway with a GPS:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n208/triplemultiplex/WI%2026/IMG_1864.jpg?t=1339202976)

Johnson Creek is going to become a tempting speed trap for the next couple decades.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 09, 2012, 02:27:05 PM
I was always a bit astounded at how low the Rock River bridges on I-94 are. The ones over the Rock on I-39/90 are at least 40 feet above the river.

The lack of height over the isthmus between Upper and Lower Nemahbin Lakes near Delafield surprised me too; somehow, i don't that one's as subject to flooding as the Rock River near Johnson Creek.

WI-26, once completed, will pull a lot of traffic away from using I-39/90 to US-151 (or I-43 to US-45 to US-41), moreso if it doesn't become known as a 60-mile long speed trap.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 09, 2012, 07:01:32 PM
I was always a bit astounded at how low the Rock River bridges on I-94 are. The ones over the Rock on I-39/90 are at least 40 feet above the river.

IIRC, one of the two bridges was part of the original highway (Wis 30?).  When I-94 came through, they tacked on the bridge next to it.  I assume since that area doesn't see flooding on a regular basis, they decided to install the new bridge at roughly the same elevation to save a lot of earthwork/$$, (not to mention keep it from looking funny with bridges at two different heights).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on June 09, 2012, 09:30:21 PM
^^
The eastbound bridge is a few feet higher than the westbound bridge over both the Rock River and the Crawfish River. That is one reason why during the flooding of 2008, they had to close the westbound side and have bidirectional traffic in the eastbound lanes for those few miles over the bridges. This was done after deciding that this was a preferable alternative to the detour, which was to take I-39/90 to Beloit, then I-43 to Milwaukee, and vice versa to westbound. There was really no other way around the flooded Rock River, as all the other crossings along the river were pretty much flooded out as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 09, 2012, 11:29:02 PM
^^
The eastbound bridge is a few feet higher than the westbound bridge over both the Rock River and the Crawfish River. That is one reason why during the flooding of 2008, they had to close the westbound side and have bidirectional traffic in the eastbound lanes for those few miles over the bridges. This was done after deciding that this was a preferable alternative to the detour, which was to take I-39/90 to Beloit, then I-43 to Milwaukee, and vice versa to westbound. There was really no other way around the flooded Rock River, as all the other crossings along the river were pretty much flooded out as well.

I remember that flooding quite well.  I remember it being a PITA to get from Madison to anywhere north or east in the state, as there were spotty closures along US 151 as well as other state routes east of Madison.  I remember the loaded highway trucks that they parked on the WB bridge to weigh it down any hopefully prevent the river current from washing it into the EB bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 18, 2012, 10:53:39 PM
- Washington St East Washington Ave (US 151) is being repaved from I-39/90/94 to Portage Rd in Madison. 
fixed it for ya

A few cell phone pics from a quick road geek trip around Madtown:

The new US 14/ Lacy Rd interchange is finally taking shape after the original contractor went out of business:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/f7a815e9.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/f268d072.jpg)

The MUCH needed University Ave rebuild is well underway:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/521336a0.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/629668bd.jpg)

Finally, these have been popping up like weeds around Downtown in the last few weeks:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/a9dcd18c.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: twinsfan87 on June 18, 2012, 10:56:52 PM
Oh man, it's really good that section of University Ave is being redone. I remember driving over that section from Old Middleton Rd to west of Whitney Way and wondering if my car would make it through in one piece!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 19, 2012, 09:31:24 AM
The MUCH needed University Ave rebuild is well underway:

There's an understatement. I bet the Midas (or CarX I forget which one is there), probably won't like the downturn in business caused by damage from that road.

Finally, these have been popping up like weeds around Downtown in the last few weeks:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/a9dcd18c.jpg)

If I heard correctly, those are part of the mayor's initiative to try to keep more taxis off of State St. The cab companies claim that driving that street is the only way to get the bar-time business, even though the ordinances state they can be on that street only for an active pick-up or drop-off and not the general roaming they have been accustomed to lately.

On a slightly different note--anyone notice how Madison seems to love to create their own symbols and arrows, often when FHWA or WisDOT has already done the work for them? (Not that the taxi is all that bad, nor could I find a pre-existing one in the SHSM book). I've just never quite understood their infatuation with always showing a helmet-wearing person on a bike instead of the standard bike symbol. Similarly, how they still use their own version of the trail crossing sign, even after FHWA created the W11-15.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milepost61 on June 19, 2012, 11:26:42 PM
Denver created its on trail crossing sign, too (back in the '90s I think). It had the person on top and bike on the bottom with a horizontal line all the way across the diamond.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 28, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.

It will have a 65 MPH speed limit compared to the 55 in Jefferson and Fort Atkinson.

Here are some photos I took today of the new bypass as well as a couple other photos.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3273379673206.2124981.1228843089&type=3&l=47da28b1ee
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2012, 08:58:18 PM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.

It will have a 65 MPH speed limit compared to the 55 in Jefferson and Fort Atkinson.

Here are some photos I took today of the new bypass as well as a couple other photos.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3273379673206.2124981.1228843089&type=3&l=47da28b1ee


That annoys me to no end.  When this is all done, it should be 65 mph the entire stretch except for around Johnson Creek.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on June 28, 2012, 09:55:28 PM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.

It will have a 65 MPH speed limit compared to the 55 in Jefferson and Fort Atkinson.

Here are some photos I took today of the new bypass as well as a couple other photos.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3273379673206.2124981.1228843089&type=3&l=47da28b1ee


That annoys me to no end.  When this is all done, it should be 65 mph the entire stretch except for around Johnson Creek.
johnson creek should e bypassed too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 28, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
The WI-26 Watertown bypass will apparently open on Friday, July 6.

It will have a 65 MPH speed limit compared to the 55 in Jefferson and Fort Atkinson.

Here are some photos I took today of the new bypass as well as a couple other photos.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3273379673206.2124981.1228843089&type=3&l=47da28b1ee


That annoys me to no end.  When this is all done, it should be 65 mph the entire stretch except for around Johnson Creek.

I agree but at what annoys me most is Watertown's other "bypass" is only 45!  That one should be at least 55, it is a super 2 bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 28, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 29, 2012, 12:55:37 AM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights

I doubt it was because of the traffic lights at least not if WisDOT controls it.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) between the beltline and Cottage Grove Rd in Madison is posted at 55 with two traffic lights. That stretch also has a colorful crash history, yet the double nickel posting remains. My money would be on local politics.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 29, 2012, 12:59:07 AM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights

I doubt it was because of the traffic lights at least not if WisDOT controls it.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) between the beltline and Cottage Grove Rd in Madison is posted at 55 with two traffic lights. That stretch also has a colorful crash history, yet the double nickel posting remains. My money would be on local politics.

I believe the STH 16 bypass around Watertown is 45 because of the fact that part of it enters the city therefore making it a money maker.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 29, 2012, 11:43:30 AM
I think that the speed limit is that way on WI 16 around Watertown because it is very substandard and in need of modernization - with a reason to wonder why it wasn't built as a full freeway to begin with - and now functions more as a major city street instead of a full-fledged bypass highway.  Parts look like they are still stuck in the 1960s and the city just kind of grew up around it since.

Stoughton Rd, OTOH, is more highly engineered with relatively few intersections and with fairly minimal upgrades could function as a full freeway over much of its length.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2012, 12:15:29 PM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights


I doubt it was because of the traffic lights at least not if WisDOT controls it.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) between the beltline and Cottage Grove Rd in Madison is posted at 55 with two traffic lights. That stretch also has a colorful crash history, yet the double nickel posting remains. My money would be on local politics.
Stoughton Road, with all the traffic and the lights, is posted at 55mph.  The same as the Jefferson and Fort Atkinson bypasses that rarely have enough traffic to even need to pass anyone.  Bizarre.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 30, 2012, 01:07:36 AM
Stoughton Rd, OTOH, is more highly engineered with relatively few intersections and with fairly minimal upgrades could function as a full freeway over much of its length.

Mike

"Highly engineered" is debatable. I would agree for the stretch between Buckeye Rd and the Wis 30 intersection. The Beltline - Buckeye Rd and Wis 30 - Kinsman Blvd segments, however, not so much. A year or two ago, post a couple serious crashes along the Pflaum Rd - Buckeye Rd segment, there were a few articles floating around the capitol city newspapers, begging for something to be changed.

Interestingly, the Stoughton Rd (US 51)/E Washington Ave (US 151) intersection was originally planned as becoming a full-fledged interchange, rather than an at-grade signal. Unfortunately, commercial development occurred first, and effectively squashed any plans for an interchange conversion.

Post Merge: July 01, 2012, 08:53:29 AM
That's Wisconsin for ya - the US 8 bypass around Rhinelander was 55 when installed, but they cut it to 45 because it got traffic lights


I doubt it was because of the traffic lights at least not if WisDOT controls it.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) between the beltline and Cottage Grove Rd in Madison is posted at 55 with two traffic lights. That stretch also has a colorful crash history, yet the double nickel posting remains. My money would be on local politics.
Stoughton Road, with all the traffic and the lights, is posted at 55mph.  The same as the Jefferson and Fort Atkinson bypasses that rarely have enough traffic to even need to pass anyone.  Bizarre.

Stoughton Rd is posted at 55 between the Beltline and the Milwaukee St interchange; posted 45 between Milwaukee St and E Washington Ave (US 151); posted 35 between E Washington Ave and Kinsman Blvd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 18, 2012, 01:28:31 PM
I checked out the latest version of the US 10 Marshfield Spur on Monday.  All but the Auburndale section is open, but the parts where it was a temporary two lanes are still one lane while crews were still busy erasing the old lines and applying the new ones.  The part by Marshfield is a full freeway from the roundabout at Center St (US 10 takes a 90 degree turn there) and County 'T' at Hewitt.  (Note, others may dispute me on this and I may not live long enough to see it happen, but I don't think that we've seen the end of this road here.)

The WI 13/Veterans Parkway interchange at the halfway point in that freeway section is numbered, but that caught me off-guard and I was unable to record what its number is.  I don't recall numbers on the other two interchanges on the Marshfield Spur and there are none on any of the other US 10 interchange east of I-39, including here in the Appleton area.

At the south end of the north-south surface section of US 10 south of Marshfield, the new roundabout by the wayside is 1/4 complete, the northwest quadrant is in place with a temporary lane setup for EB US 10 traffic.

Yes, I am still amazed at the pace of work on the Auburndale section and it being completed by mid-late August is well within reason.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 18, 2012, 04:12:37 PM
What I don't get is why do they keep WIS 34 to Rapids even though 13 follows it through.  That is a classic Wisconsin habit - terminate highways along a concurrency.

Oh and that road doesn't end there, it just turns left. :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes- US 12 upgrades (Madison Area)
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 31, 2012, 08:47:58 PM
Quote
DOT Plans To Study Converting US 12/18 To A Freeway

POSTED: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 --- 3:30 p.m.


A busy section of highway that's packed with commuters everyday could be making a major transformation. But for some living along the road, more interstate means more problems. We're talking about US 12/18 from where the Beltline ends at the Interstate 39/90 interchange all the way to Highway N near Cottage Grove. Louis Schowerer doesn't like the sound of what she's hearing. She and her husband have lived along US 12/18 for 38 years. She says, "We're not ready to go to town we want to stay here." They're worried they might lose their home. She says, "There has only been one or two accidents here and I don't think there is that much traffic that we need to redo everything right away."

12/18 is a busy highway and while it's already 4 lanes. The department of transportation is talking about doing more by turning it into an interstate. Changes to the highway would obviously affect anyone who drives it but some of the biggest changes, and at this point biggest concerns, come from those who don't have a lot of room between the highway and their place. John Dott's lives along the highway and has his business there as well." He says, "I just put a bunch of money in that building up there 2 years ago."

Nostalgia Auto Restoration sits right at a 12/18 intersection. Dott says, "I've tried to cling to this corner for 35 years because of the property value and if that's going to affect that drastically I'm not going to be too happy. " The possibility of widening the road, overpasses and frontage roads could mean big changes for these property owners even if it would be a few years down the road. Dott says, "Maybe that's worse. Now I have to worry about it for 8 to 10 years. What am I going to do? Do I want to sell this whole property, get out of the business? I don't know."

Schwoerer says, "If you speak up once in a while it helps, but if they have their mind already made up."

According to a DOT project manager the reasoning here is pretty simple. They're looking at the amount of traffic flow and safety. They expect quite a bit of future growth east of the interstate and want to be prepared with the proper infrastructure when that starts happening. They did recently make one change to the road for safety reasons at the AB intersection, but say that was only a temporary fix. There are still some dangerous intersections and as traffic increases things would only get worse. Tonight's meeting is just the first step and they're only in the study phase.

Any construction would be years down the road.

Tonight DOT staff say they just want to hear from the public about any concerns and suggestions.

_____________________________________________________

From the WisDOT:

A public information meeting will occur on Tuesday, July 31 to discuss the US 12/18 Freeway Conversion Study between I-39/90 and US 12/18 (Beltline interchange) and the County N interchange in Dane County. The meeting is scheduled from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Cottage Grove Town Hall, 4058 County N, Cottage Grove, WI 53527.

This meeting will introduce the study and its goals while obtaining information from area residents. Conversion of US 12/18 to a freeway would eliminate at-grade intersections within study limits and reduce access to interchanges. The study will evaluate additional interchanges, grade-separated overpasses, and frontage roads to connect local roadways without interruption to freeway traffic flow.

No construction activities are planned at this time.

The public is encouraged to attend the meeting, provide input and ask questions regarding this project. Maps of the area will be on display and attendees will be given the opportunity to provide written or verbal comments. WisDOT representatives will be available to discuss the study on an individual basis.

If you are unable to attend the meeting, or would like more information, contact Craig Pringle at (608) 242-8058. Written comments regarding the project can be mailed to Craig Pringle, WisDOT Project Manager, 2101 Wright Street, Madison, WI 53704. Citizens who are hearing-impaired and require an interpreter may request one by contacting Craig Pringle at least three working days prior to the meeting via the Wisconsin Telecommunications Relay System (dial 711).
http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/DOT-Plans-To-Study-Converting-US-1218-To-A-Freeway-164488196.html (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/DOT-Plans-To-Study-Converting-US-1218-To-A-Freeway-164488196.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 01, 2012, 12:27:10 AM
Link to the video from the above story: http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/DOT-Plans-To-Study-Converting-US-1218-To-A-Freeway-164488196.html (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/DOT-Plans-To-Study-Converting-US-1218-To-A-Freeway-164488196.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 01, 2012, 04:58:14 PM
Ah, look at the non-roadgeek interchangeably using the words 'freeway' and 'interstate'.  Silly journalists.

This is just me talking, but if my driveway dumped out onto a rural expressway with 70 mph traffic, I would welcome such access control.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2012, 05:17:29 PM


This is just me talking, but if my driveway dumped out onto a rural expressway with 70 mph traffic, I would welcome such access control.

US-290 west of Austin, TX comes to mind.  no access control, a moderate amount of driveways (residential, storefront, and ranch access) - and a speed limit of 70!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2012, 10:05:44 AM
US-12/18 needs to be four lanes between I-39/90 and Cambridge.  The amount of traffic on that highway has increased considerably over the past decade.  At least the entire intersection with WI-73 needs to be redesigned.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 03, 2012, 07:41:37 PM
US-12/18 needs to be four lanes between I-39/90 and Cambridge.  The amount of traffic on that highway has increased considerably over the past decade.

I'll add on a 4-lane bypass of Cambridge for US-12, and extend it to Fort Atkinson. Cambridge gets an awful lot of traffic through it's narrow downtown.

At least the entire intersection with WI-73 needs to be redesigned.

I saw something about that here: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/swregion/73/maps.htm  6 alternatives being considered, 3 of them overpasses. They'd be insane NOT to have one, at the very least to maintain throughput on US 12/18.


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 03, 2012, 08:45:31 PM
US-12/18 needs to be four lanes between I-39/90 and Cambridge.  The amount of traffic on that highway has increased considerably over the past decade.

I'll add on a 4-lane bypass of Cambridge for US-12, and extend it to Fort Atkinson. Cambridge gets an awful lot of traffic through it's narrow downtown.

At least the entire intersection with WI-73 needs to be redesigned.

I saw something about that here: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/swregion/73/maps.htm  6 alternatives being considered, 3 of them overpasses. They'd be insane NOT to have one, at the very least to maintain throughput on US 12/18.

I think that WisDOT is insane to not be proposing at least one conventional diamond interchange option at US 12/18/WI 73....

 :banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 03, 2012, 09:06:20 PM
In other news, WIS 26 between the north Jefferson business-loop exit and Fort Atkinson's south business loop exits is now posted for 65 mph. It's much, much nicer than having to putz along at 55 or scanning the roadside for cops nervously doing 64.

No idea if they're going to bump the speed limit between Johnson Creek and Watertown; the 55mph stretch north of Jefferson is similar, and hasn't been raised.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on August 05, 2012, 01:22:57 AM
Here's an email reply I recieved regarding the speed limit on STH 26.
Quote
On Jul 11, 2012, at 8:56 AM, "Dramm, Dena - DOT" <dena.dramm@dot.wi.gov> wrote:

The ultimate goal for the speed limits on the new STH 26, from Janesville to Dodge County, is to establish 65mph zones on all the appropriate segments.  The existing 45mph speed zone through Johnson Creek will remain in place.  Transitional 55mph zones on the north and south ends of Johnson Creek will also be established.
 
When a sufficiently long segment of the new roadway is completed, we will establish a 65mph speed zone on it.  As you noted, the section of new STH 26 around Watertown has already been signed at 65mph.  As Mark noted, we are hoping to have the new section from Fort Atkinson to Jefferson, signed at 65mph by the end of next week.
 
From here forward we have included the 65mph signing in the those construction projects that will complete segments of roadway of sufficient length continuity with previously established 65mph zones to make the transition a smooth one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 05, 2012, 12:22:53 PM
These "transitional 55mph zones", at least as I've observed them thus far, are quite long.

On the north end, it starts at Ebenezer Dr south of Watertown, and continues as 55mph south to River Dr. in Johnson Creek. By Google Maps' reckoning, it's about 3 1/2 miles. If they extended the 65mph section farther south since my last visit, the logical transition point would be at either Spruce Dr or Baneck Ln.

On the south end, I'll charitably calculate it from County Y south to Jefferson Rd/Earl Ln, about 1 1/2 miles. The 45mph section might extend south of the new railroad overpass now; it was hard to tell the last time I went through there.

Much as I'm confounded with the strip of WIS 26 north of I-39/90 in Janesville, I'm confounded by the Johnson Creek section. WISDOT spent a boatload to upgrade and reroute the highway everywhere else, but then left this choke point without an obvious plan for remediation. The worst part is that WIS 26 through Johnson Creek can be upgraded to freeway right up to the I-94 interchange, but seems destined to be a traffic-choked commercial strip for at least the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on August 05, 2012, 12:37:53 PM
The 55 limit north if JC has been moved to just north of Emerald Drive now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on August 05, 2012, 12:40:25 PM
Wisconsin is notorious for putting 55 zones in odd places and not adding 65 zone where they are needed.  Though many 65 zone should be 70 instead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 05, 2012, 12:52:44 PM
Much as I'm confounded with the strip of WIS 26 north of I-39/90 in Janesville, I'm confounded by the Johnson Creek section. WISDOT spent a boatload to upgrade and reroute the highway everywhere else, but then left this choke point without an obvious plan for remediation. The worst part is that WIS 26 through Johnson Creek can be upgraded to freeway right up to the I-94 interchange, but seems destined to be a traffic-choked commercial strip for at least the next 20 years.

Check my I-39/90/WI 26 (Janesville) musings that I posted in the 'Fictional Highways/Redesigning Interchanges' subforvm a few weeks ago: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg160354#msg160354

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 05, 2012, 09:01:50 PM
I don't foresee Johnson Creek and Janesville being more than a minor inconvenience (/speed trap) for the next couple decades.  Ostensibly, WI 26 is a corridor for the Fox Valley to points south of Chicagoland as the Janesville to Rockford corridor is an intermediate traffic draw from the Fox Valley at most.

Personally, I would've have built Jefferson, Watertown and Milton bypasses as super-2's on 4 lane r/w's at this time based on my experiences on WI 26.  It's slowness seemed only due to the density through the those towns, not from thru traffic.  Those 70 mph facilities that are opening now seem way overpowered for the traffic volumes I've observed on them.  I would have rather spent that money on urban freeway rebuilds and access control on existing rural expressways.  All that ongoing stuff in the Fox Valley should've been done a decade ago, for example; a much higher priority than the WI 26 corridor.

Then again, I am biased by my own travel patterns.  WI 26 is perpendicular to most of my road trips. I'm dismissive of WI 26 while dreaming of an interstate-compatible freeway between Oshkosh and Stevens Point. ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 05, 2012, 10:00:18 PM


Then again, I am biased by my own travel patterns.  WI 26 is perpendicular to most of my road trips. I'm dismissive of WI 26 while dreaming of an interstate-compatible freeway between Oshkosh and Stevens Point. ;)
i like that dream.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 05, 2012, 10:39:06 PM
I suspect part of the rush to get a 4-lane WIS 26 put together is the upcoming I-39/90 widening work south of Madison. US 151 is hardly overloaded northeast of Sun Prairie, but anything WisDOT can do to pull traffic off I-39/90 will help (it's the reason WisDOT tried to pull forward the US 14 western bypass of Janesville). For Janesville-to-Milwaukee traffic, it's also a good alternative to I-43 while the stretch in Waukesha County is under construction.

I'm at least moderately surprised nothing significant has been discussed at WisDOT regarding the stretch of WIS 26 between Waupun and Oshkosh. That stretch has had heavy traffic every time I've traveled it, and you can tell traffic drops off considerably on US 151 headed into Fond du Lac past the northern WIS 26 exit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 05, 2012, 10:52:15 PM
I don't foresee Johnson Creek and Janesville being more than a minor inconvenience (/speed trap) for the next couple decades.  Ostensibly, WI 26 is a corridor for the Fox Valley to points south of Chicagoland as the Janesville to Rockford corridor is an intermediate traffic draw from the Fox Valley at most.

Personally, I would've have built Jefferson, Watertown and Milton bypasses as super-2's on 4 lane r/w's at this time based on my experiences on WI 26.  It's slowness seemed only due to the density through the those towns, not from thru traffic.  Those 70 mph facilities that are opening now seem way overpowered for the traffic volumes I've observed on them.  I would have rather spent that money on urban freeway rebuilds and access control on existing rural expressways.  All that ongoing stuff in the Fox Valley should've been done a decade ago, for example; a much higher priority than the WI 26 corridor.

Then again, I am biased by my own travel patterns.  WI 26 is perpendicular to most of my road trips. I'm dismissive of WI 26 while dreaming of an interstate-compatible freeway between Oshkosh and Stevens Point. ;)


Honestly, I drive WI-26 all of the time, and I am amazed at how little traffic the Jefferson and Fort Atkinson bypasses have on them.  The three times I have been on the Watertown bypass have been similar.

And that is why I see no reason to worry about upgrading Johnson Creek.  It is a hassle, but a minor one considering the costs of the alternatives.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 11:44:26 AM
I suspect part of the rush to get a 4-lane WIS 26 put together is the upcoming I-39/90 widening work south of Madison. US 151 is hardly overloaded northeast of Sun Prairie, but anything WisDOT can do to pull traffic off I-39/90 will help (it's the reason WisDOT tried to pull forward the US 14 western bypass of Janesville). For Janesville-to-Milwaukee traffic, it's also a good alternative to I-43 while the stretch in Waukesha County is under construction.

I'm at least moderately surprised nothing significant has been discussed at WisDOT regarding the stretch of WIS 26 between Waupun and Oshkosh. That stretch has had heavy traffic every time I've traveled it, and you can tell traffic drops off considerably on US 151 headed into Fond du Lac past the northern WIS 26 exit.
WI26 handles about the same, or a little more traffic from U151 to US41, than US151 does to Fond Du Lac.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/maps.htm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2012, 12:30:18 PM
Even though it is a few miles longer, US-151 to US-41 is about the same time wise as WI-26.  I think WIDOT simply wants to get traffic off that section.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 01:26:20 PM
i figure that is there position, but they should be building and upgrading routes that need it, and not build an alternate route and expect people to go to it, when it is 2 minutes longer, and people already use the WI26 route. WI26 from US151-US41 needs it, at least a super-2 bypass of rosendale with one grade seperation (diamond interchange at WI23 west of rosendale) at this point would be a good start in 5-7 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2012, 01:55:22 PM
WIDOT isn't going to spend money on duplicate routes when there is a perfectly good alternative available.  This is a good decision IMO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 06, 2012, 02:27:18 PM
im not sure, i think increasing traffic levels in the near future may force their hand, this route is already covered in passing lanes, and could use many more. if you ever go through rosendale during a holiday rush, you may encounter a line of traffic (heavily traveled truck route) half a mile long from the stop light at WI23. people who live here probably dont want to wait an hour to get out of their driveways, and to do their local buisiness. at somepoint, having a major highway routed downtown (near downtown) can hurt a town more than it can help it. and as traffic increases, WISDOT will be forced to make some upgrades (adding more passing lanes, super-2 bypass of rosendale) and if traffic continues to use this route, the increasingly dangerous traffic levels will force heavier upgrades. Oshkosh is also becoming an increasingly more important tourist destination, and having a good network of highways leading to the tourist hub is important.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2012, 04:08:36 PM
im not sure, i think increasing traffic levels in the near future may force their hand, this route is already covered in passing lanes, and could use many more. if you ever go through rosendale during a holiday rush, you may encounter a line of traffic (heavily traveled truck route) half a mile long from the stop light at WI23.


Then those people are idiots.  US-41 to US-151 avoids such lines of traffic.  Honestly, it would be a better use of money to build some sort of short cut from US-151 to US-41 further northeast of the WI-26 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 06, 2012, 09:54:07 PM
im not sure, i think increasing traffic levels in the near future may force their hand, this route is already covered in passing lanes, and could use many more. if you ever go through rosendale during a holiday rush, you may encounter a line of traffic (heavily traveled truck route) half a mile long from the stop light at WI23.


Then those people are idiots.  US-41 to US-151 avoids such lines of traffic.  Honestly, it would be a better use of money to build some sort of short cut from US-151 to US-41 further northeast of the WI-26 interchange.

This is starting to wander into the 'fantasy highways' realm, but many years ago (1980s/1990s) I was playing around with the idea of a new-ROW WI 26 that would diverge from US 41 around that big curve by County 'N', but pretty much any potential routing from there, especially a straight shot one from there to US 151 at that big curve by Lamartine, runs headlong into the Eldorado Marsh.  One would have to swing the roadway so far westward to avoid it (nearly all of the way to Rosendale) that there would be no advantage in building such a cutoff.

 :-/

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2012, 06:35:50 PM
at least a super-2 bypass of rosendale with one grade seperation (diamond interchange at WI23 west of rosendale) at this point would be a good start in 5-7 years.

And rob Rosendale of half of its revenue generating operation?  They won't stand for that!  That's makes it a good idea.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 07, 2012, 10:07:45 PM
The traffic counts on WIS 26 are clearly in the range to warrant 4-laning, and in fact are HIGHER than US 151 to Fond du Lac, this despite being 4-laned and (presumably) stealing some of the Oshkosh-bound traffic already.

There's a reason: it's 9 miles farther via US 151 to Fond du Lac than via WIS 26. In practice, even with the higher speed limits on US 151 and US 41, that translates to about 5-10 minutes quicker travel via WIS 26 as long as it isn't congested.

It's going to be 4-laned eventually, even if it's not currently a WisDOT priority.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 08, 2012, 10:22:55 AM
at least a super-2 bypass of rosendale with one grade seperation (diamond interchange at WI23 west of rosendale) at this point would be a good start in 5-7 years.

And rob Rosendale of half of its revenue generating operation?  They won't stand for that!  That's makes it a good idea.
at some point it hurts buisineses more than it help when you have traffic backed up for half a mile, and locals cant even get to the gas station. im not joking about the half mile traffic backups, i have seen northbound backed up to the cemetary, while traveling southbound. its also a major truck route. at this point, even if they built a *stupid* 4lanes on the cheap, like with a shared left turn lane or even just a double yellow line, and kept it as 55MPH, and bypassing rosendale with an interchange. rosendale would still likely be able to enforce the speed trap operation they currently run. much of the corridor is 3lanes already, why not build a passing lane in both directions the whole way?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 08, 2012, 12:01:53 PM
at some point it hurts buisineses more than it help when you have traffic backed up for half a mile, and locals cant even get to the gas station. im not joking about the half mile traffic backups, i have seen northbound backed up to the cemetary, while traveling southbound. its also a major truck route. at this point, even if they built a *stupid* 4lanes on the cheap, like with a shared left turn lane or even just a double yellow line, and kept it as 55MPH, and bypassing rosendale with an interchange. rosendale would still likely be able to enforce the speed trap operation they currently run. much of the corridor is 3lanes already, why not build a passing lane in both directions the whole way?

(http://www.wvah.com/programs/kingofthehill/boomhauer.jpg)

your writing reminds me of him.  :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Takumi on August 08, 2012, 12:13:03 PM
Dang ol' hurts dang ol' business, have traffic backin' up a dang ol' half mile
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:17:17 PM
In all seriousness guys, both Wis 26 and Wis 23 in Rosendale need a super 2 bypass of the town similar to the Wis 23 bypass of Green Lake, 20 miles west of there. 23 between I-39 and US 41 is a very heavily traveled road that gets worse during the summer months with tourists.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: qguy on August 08, 2012, 02:08:59 PM
In all seriousness guys…

Sounds a little extreme. Can't we just stay in some seriousness? I mean, why go overboard?
Title: WisDOT adding centerline and shoulder rumble strips in the northwoods
Post by: mgk920 on August 10, 2012, 11:30:28 AM
http://www.wjfw.com/stories.html?sku=20120809182615

Interesting.  I wonder how the shoulder ones will affect bicycles.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on August 11, 2012, 12:49:21 AM
http://www.wjfw.com/stories.html?sku=20120809182615

Interesting.  I wonder how the shoulder ones will affect bicycles.

Mike

More details on this project were also posted on the WisDOT website this past week. If a highway with these rumble strips has heavy bicycle traffic, my hope is that they would install wider paved shoulders for bicyclists. I can remember When US 151 was still on its old alignment between Belmont and Platteville (now County XX), it had rumble strips on the shoulders. I remember seeing bicyclists alternate between riding in the traffic lanes and riding on the gravel shoulder, depending on when a car was coming, to avoid riding on the rumble strips. Not very safe if you ask me. County XX was repaved after the four-lane US 151 opened and no longer has the rumble strips, to go along with much less traffic.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_3493.html_786229440.html
Title: US 10 Marshfield Spur complete
Post by: mgk920 on August 23, 2012, 09:04:40 PM
The US 10 Marshfield Spur is now complete and fully open:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_3539.html_786229440.html

 :cheers:

I'll have to check it out on my next day off.

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 24, 2012, 05:28:09 PM
The US 10 Marshfield Spur is now complete and fully open:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_3539.html_786229440.html

 :cheers:

I'll have to check it out on my next day off.


I guess I know which route I'll be traveling to the Northwoods for Labor Day!  My GPS won't know what's going on.  "Why is he barreling through farm fields at 70 mph?"
Although that does mean driving through all those towns on WI 13 between Marshfield and Medford.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on August 27, 2012, 10:48:58 AM
My question is, is there something behind WisDOT's US-10 Freeway conversions? Realistically speaking, building a spur to Marshfield...doesn't exactly seem like something that would be top priority, unless WisDOT had other plans. You look at what they've done in the Oshkosh/Appleton area with US45 and US10, how there's now a triangle of freeway where it all used to be 2 lane...don't get me wrong, it's nice as hell, making a formerly 5-6 hour drive Up North now into 3-4. Just sparked some curiosity as to the motives behind it. It would almost seem as though they're thinking 'OK, so we're not going to upgrade Wis29 to interstate standards, but we can sure do that to 10 and run it all the way to I-94'. Were that true, I'd say they should rename US41 from Milwaukee to Oshkosh I-94 (or at least a concurrence) and reroute 94 onto that...in the distant future, I'll say. Granted, I'm saying that having only looked at a WI map for 5 min to look at the feasability of it and I'm at work and can't devote too much time to thought about it. So that is literally just off the top of my head. Comments obviously welcome, just bear previous statement in mind before you rip me to shreds ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 27, 2012, 10:59:51 AM
My question is, is there something behind WisDOT's US-10 Freeway conversions? Realistically speaking, building a spur to Marshfield...doesn't exactly seem like something that would be top priority, unless WisDOT had other plans. You look at what they've done in the Oshkosh/Appleton area with US45 and US10, how there's now a triangle of freeway where it all used to be 2 lane...don't get me wrong, it's nice as hell, making a formerly 5-6 hour drive Up North now into 3-4. Just sparked some curiosity as to the motives behind it. It would almost seem as though they're thinking 'OK, so we're not going to upgrade Wis29 to interstate standards, but we can sure do that to 10 and run it all the way to I-94'. Were that true, I'd say they should rename US41 from Milwaukee to Oshkosh I-94 (or at least a concurrence) and reroute 94 onto that...in the distant future, I'll say. Granted, I'm saying that having only looked at a WI map for 5 min to look at the feasability of it and I'm at work and can't devote too much time to thought about it. So that is literally just off the top of my head. Comments obviously welcome, just bear previous statement in mind before you rip me to shreds ;)

You'd be surprised to see how busy US 10 is between US 41 and I-39, as well as the recently upgraded part of US 45 NW of Oshkosh.  In fact, I have a sense that I may well live long enough to see the concurrent US 10/45 section (between the Winchester and Dale interchanges) upgraded to six lanes - it is that busy.

 :wow:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on August 27, 2012, 11:09:14 AM
Oh I don't doubt that for one second. I travel 41 to 45, to 10 to 39 every year I go up north. It's the quickest way to get to that portion of the state. My question was more so the 10 Spur from 39 Westward. I was moreso just wondering if WisDOT had aspirations or something of 10 being 4 lane-freeway'ed all the way to 94...because where do they go frome here, you know? I know it's a backbone route in their plans for the future, I'm just wondering what that all entails, I guess.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 27, 2012, 11:33:59 AM
he does bring up some points about the fact that this was all 2 lanes not long ago, US45 north of oshkosh caries only a little more traffic than some other 2lane highways in wisconsin (WIS26 south of oshkosh, WIS21 just west of oshkosh). i would put my money on some sort of diagonal freeway from marshfield to WIS 29 sortof along the WIS 13 corridor, but perhaps more diagonal than that, and an upgrade of that would-be concurent section of WIS29 all the way to I94. call it I96 mabey from I94 to the fox valley including all of WIS441, and US45 can be I396
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on August 29, 2012, 12:39:48 AM
He does bring up some points about the fact that this was all 2 lanes not long ago, US͜  45 north of Oshkosh caries only a little more traffic than some other 2͜  lane highways in Wisconsin (WIS͜  26 south of Oshkosh, WIS͜  21 just west of Oshkosh). I would put my money on some sort of diagonal freeway from Marshfield to WIS 29 sort͜  of along the WIS͜  13 corridor, but perhaps more diagonal than that, and an upgrade of that would be concurrent section of WIS͜  29 all the way to I-94. Call it I-96 maybe from I-94 to the Fox Valley including all of WIS͜  441, and US͜  45 can be I-396.
Did some much needed minor copy-editing that had to be done...
I agree, WisDOT, should seriously study some sort of expressway west of Marshfield connecting US 10 and WIS 29 heading in the general direction of the Eau Claire/ Chippewa Valley area. Connecting to I-94 may have its advantages, but connecting the project to an important regional center is a much better use of (limited) funds. IMHO
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2012, 09:02:39 AM
I do think merrycilantro has a good point though.  I have mentioned this before, but I find it odd that WIDOT has upgraded all of these two lane roads, such as WI-26, and there is very little traffic on these roads...but at the same time we have interstates that are clogged at two lanes. 

Don't get me wrong.  I love getting up from Fort Atkinson to Johnson Creek at 70 mph and skipping downtown Jefferson, but there is so little traffic...and then I get on I-94 to Milwaukee and it is generally very full.  I wonder if resources would have been better placed increasing I-94 to three lanes in each direction.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2012, 11:34:01 AM
I think Wisconsin developed a lot of momentum for building rural expressways/freeways through the 90's and 00's connecting major cities and beefing up heavy tourism routes that all were wanting for more capacity.  Now that those are done, the bar for what needs expanding is lower.  So we get expansions on WI 26, WI 23 and US 10 to Marshfield where they seem like overkill.

I would have prioritized the US 41 expansions in the Fox Cities/Green Bay, metro Milwaukee freeway rebuilds & conversion of existing expressways to freeway over some of these lightly traveled expressways now opening.  I would have had WI 29 up to freeway standards between Shawano and Green Bay by now for sure, for example.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 29, 2012, 03:10:59 PM
With the most major impediments out of the way on US 10 between I-39 and I-94 - only one 'slow down' town (Neillsville) left along that way, and it is only a minor slowdown - we'll see if 'word of mouth' on the now faster nature of US 10 starts spreading.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 29, 2012, 05:24:23 PM
With the most major impediments out of the way on US 10 between I-39 and I-94 - only one 'slow down' town (Neillsville) left along that way, and it is only a minor slowdown - we'll see if 'word of mouth' on the now faster nature of US 10 starts spreading.

Mike
unfortunatly, i doubt that word of mouth will travel very fast. the whole project began under my radar, and obviously i try to keep up with this stuff. i have never heard of anything relating to the project outside of this site, and my internet searches for information. unlike the US41 project and the I94 north-south project were there is a big dedicated site and brochures and stuff informing people about the changes, there is no big fanfare for this project. everyone is all caught up in their travel impediments moving north-south from illinois to green bay, and are compleatly unaware of the rural projects that are out of their way. i wish that there would be more news coverage, and that local papers would pint articles about state big shovel projects. it would increase awarness, and if people have to make mabey one trip a year to Eau Claire or the twin cities, they would know about these upgrades and would be inclined to use them. maps dont help much either. most paper maps up too the 2011 state map i have seen still dont even show US45 north of oshkosh as having been limited access for half of its length, and a 4lane expressway the rest of the way. hopefully that will change soon now that it is a full freeway (or about to be so, last i saw there were some driveways still on US45 because the new frontage roads werent paved yet)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 31, 2012, 12:16:27 PM
I detoured my route Up North through Marshfield yesterday to check out the new facility on US 10.  Certainly it's a faster trip to Marshfield.  There was actually some noticeable traffic leaving I-39 with me.  I still have to shake my head at the pointless WI 13/34 duplex to Rapids.  (34 should end, in my opinion.) Work crews were still removing the temporary connector roadway between the new expressway and the old alignment east of the short Marshfield freeway segment.

I took 10 all the way to the roundabout to drive through downtown.  It seemed to function fairly well.  No complaints here.  Bus 13 is long gone from Marshfield but Central Ave is certainly a nice enough roadway for a state highway.  Makes me want to extend WI 80 over WI 97.

It seems US 10 is now getting exit numbers.  I first noticed new gore signs around Waupaca and all interchanges west of there are now numbered.  Either I didn't notice or they haven't been signed east of Waupaca.  There is a good chance that I missed it though.  The BGS's don't have any exit number tabs yet; the numbers only appear at the gore.  About time a major corridor like US 10 got its exits numbered!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 31, 2012, 12:39:31 PM
^^
I'll be heading out that way, likely tomorrow (Saturday, 2012-09-01), and report back, with an attempt to record interchange numbers if any are up.  I did notice the exit number on the WI 13 west (Veterans Parkway) interchange when I drove that area a couple of months ago.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 01, 2012, 10:04:59 PM
^^

I made the Roadgeek™ daytrip to the Marshfield area today and found some interesting stuff.

 :nod:

Interchange numbers and MPs are posted on US 10 all the way eastward to, but not including, the interchange where US 10 hops off of the freeway.  No pre-existing BGSs east of the section of the US 10 Marshfield Spur that recently opened have been modified so far, though.

Interchange numbers:
(Note, US 10 uses I-39's interchange numbers and MPs on the combined section)
(Note, as of this posting, WI 441 MPs are still posted east of the Bridgeview Interchange, in addition to the new US 10 MPs.  WI 441 interchanges were never numbered.)
As of this posting, the remainder of the WI 441 freeway is not interchange numbered and 290 is the highest posted US 10 MP, located between WI 47 and Midway Rd.

If the WI 441 interchanges were to be numbered, they would be (WI 441 MPs):
Also, US 45 between US 10 (Winchester Interchange) and US 41(I-xx) (Algoma Interchange) is not (yet) MPed nor interchange numbered.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on September 03, 2012, 10:16:28 AM
I took a road trip to Wisconsin Dells. Had some thoughts about what to do about the traffic there. 1) I'd add a loop in the southeast quadrant of the south US 12/I-90 interchange. That would enable free movements between the interstate and the new US 12 freeway south of there. 2) What I call the "Bingo junction"- Highways 12,13,16, and 23 operates in split phase all directions. The heavy movements are between south and east, and south and west. It looks like there's room to squeeze another lane in the south and east segments, so those could be dual left turn lanes and the signal could be changed to protected. 3) In the downtown area I'd add a signal at Church Street, do what's necessary to provide left turn lanes at Church and Elms streets, and ban left turns at the remainder of the downtown intersections.

I also found it intersting the lights in the median of Wi Dells parkway are a mix of mercury and sodium, with one LED. Apparently they just replace fixtures as they go bad with the lastest technology.

Saw my first vertical WI traffic signal. And noticed some button copy signs are still there on I-94 between Eau Claire and Baldwin. I-94 east of Tomah, and particularly east of Eau Claire used to have some of the worst pavement in Wi I've encountered, but they're slowly fixing it, several places were head-to-head traffic while they were rebuilding the road in concrete, they maintained two lanes in each direction with Jersey barriers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on September 04, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
This is going to be a bit off topic, but...as I was driving I-39 up north this past weekend, I know that I-39 ends at Wis29. I think it's kind of weird for it to just randomly end in the middle of a state, and seeing as how I don't foresee any construction northward (rightfully so, the northwoods would be one area I would NOT touch), wouldn't it be feasable to run I-39 along Wis29 from Wausau to Green Bay, and at least give I-39 a decent endpoint? Just my opinion, take it for what it is. That opens up 51 for spur numbers, since it would really probably only be interstate grade up to Merrill or so. If ever WisDOT did anything with Wis29 from Wausau to Eau Claire to make it interstate grade, then it could be another spur of either 39 or 94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 04, 2012, 10:32:13 AM
This is going to be a bit off topic, but...as I was driving I-39 up north this past weekend, I know that I-39 ends at Wis29. I think it's kind of weird for it to just randomly end in the middle of a state, and seeing as how I don't foresee any construction northward (rightfully so, the northwoods would be one area I would NOT touch), wouldn't it be feasable to run I-39 along Wis29 from Wausau to Green Bay, and at least give I-39 a decent endpoint?


Not really.  I would be more feasible to somehow extend I-43 along WI-29...but even that's not very feasible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 04, 2012, 12:20:08 PM
The endpoint in Wausau is fine where it is. If they extend it northward to US-8 once the remaining side-road access is closed off on US-51, that's fine too.

Trying to force an endpoint at an Interstate in this situation is kind of silly, and would confuse more than help motorists.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 04, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
On my return trip, via the "normal" route, I noticed that in addition to the new exit numbers, US 10 appears to have new mile markers.   I don't think US 10 had any before.  So that seems to be new as well.
It occurred to me that WisDOT may have waited until this year to add these navigation aids when all the new expressway/freeway construction was completed since that would affect the actual length of US 10 in Wisconsin.

Despite the presence of orange barrels on the shoulders, US 45's freeway conversion between Winneconne and Winchester seems complete.  The overpasses are done, the frontage roads area paved and striped, signs are in, landscaping looks done; I assume all they need to do is collected the barrels and take down the orange signs.  I was confused on my northbound trip Thursday when the left lanes were closed for no apparent reason.

With the summer tourist season over, WisDOT is ready to replace the SB I-39 bridges over the Wisconsin River and Bus US 51.  A VMS indicated work starts next Monday.  Kronenwetter's Maple Ridge Road exit was 3/4ths open and I imagine they'll be dropping the old overpass any day now.  These two projects should fix the final sub-interstate grade features of I-39 in Wisconsin.  (Vertical clearance at Maple Ridge and shoulder width plus accel/decel space at Bus 51.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 04, 2012, 02:27:16 PM
On my return trip, via the "normal" route, I noticed that in addition to the new exit numbers, US 10 appears to have new mile markers.   I don't think US 10 had any before.  So that seems to be new as well.
It occurred to me that WisDOT may have waited until this year to add these navigation aids when all the new expressway/freeway construction was completed since that would affect the actual length of US 10 in Wisconsin.

Despite the presence of orange barrels on the shoulders, US 45's freeway conversion between Winneconne and Winchester seems complete.  The overpasses are done, the frontage roads area paved and striped, signs are in, landscaping looks done; I assume all they need to do is collected the barrels and take down the orange signs.  I was confused on my northbound trip Thursday when the left lanes were closed for no apparent reason.

With the summer tourist season over, WisDOT is ready to replace the SB I-39 bridges over the Wisconsin River and Bus US 51.  A VMS indicated work starts next Monday.  Kronenwetter's Maple Ridge Road exit was 3/4ths open and I imagine they'll be dropping the old overpass any day now.  These two projects should fix the final sub-interstate grade features of I-39 in Wisconsin.  (Vertical clearance at Maple Ridge and shoulder width plus accel/decel space at Bus 51.)

I noticed the same thing on US 45 when I drove it on Saturday, but I simply forgot to report it.

 :meh:

As I also found, WisDOT has added US 10 MPs to the highway all the way to interchange 290 (WI 47/Appleton Rd/(Memorial Dr) on the Appleton/Menasha border.  They must have done that within the last couple of days last week, because I noticed nothing different when I drove it last Wednesday.

 :wow:

As I type this, I am busy updating my Yellowstone Trail 'strip' maps to reflect these changes to US 10 and US 45, both of which ran close to, or on, one or more of the YT's various historic routings.

 :thumbsup:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on September 04, 2012, 03:45:02 PM
On my return trip, via the "normal" route, I noticed that in addition to the new exit numbers, US 10 appears to have new mile markers.   I don't think US 10 had any before.  So that seems to be new as well.
It occurred to me that WisDOT may have waited until this year to add these navigation aids when all the new expressway/freeway construction was completed since that would affect the actual length of US 10 in Wisconsin.

Despite the presence of orange barrels on the shoulders, US 45's freeway conversion between Winneconne and Winchester seems complete.  The overpasses are done, the frontage roads area paved and striped, signs are in, landscaping looks done; I assume all they need to do is collected the barrels and take down the orange signs.  I was confused on my northbound trip Thursday when the left lanes were closed for no apparent reason.

With the summer tourist season over, WisDOT is ready to replace the SB I-39 bridges over the Wisconsin River and Bus US 51.  A VMS indicated work starts next Monday.  Kronenwetter's Maple Ridge Road exit was 3/4ths open and I imagine they'll be dropping the old overpass any day now.  These two projects should fix the final sub-interstate grade features of I-39 in Wisconsin.  (Vertical clearance at Maple Ridge and shoulder width plus accel/decel space at Bus 51.)

I noticed the same thing on US 45 when I drove it on Saturday, but I simply forgot to report it.

 :meh:

As I also found, WisDOT has added US 10 MPs to the highway all the way to interchange 290 (WI 47/Appleton Rd/(Memorial Dr) on the Appleton/Menasha border.  They must have done that within the last couple of days last week, because I noticed nothing different when I drove it last Wednesday.

 :wow:

As I type this, I am busy updating my Yellowstone Trail 'strip' maps to reflect these changes to US 10 and US 45, both of which ran close to, or on, one or more of the YT's various historic routings.

 :thumbsup:

Mike
cool, the last time i drove that, some of the frontage roads werent paved, and because of that some of the driveways were still on US45
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 06, 2012, 12:30:53 PM
When I was driving on US 41(I-xx) here in the Appleton-Neenah area yesterday (Wednesday, 2012-09-05), I noticed that WisDOT has removed the small green MP signs that were on the outside shoulders of the highway, leaving only the more recently installed 0.2 MP signs in the median for defining location.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 09, 2012, 11:27:24 PM
The wife and I took a trip to northern Wisconsin, and even snuck in a day trip to Duluth.

A few thoughts:
- US 10 from the I-39/US-51 exit west to Marshfield is 99% complete - there were crews closing off the old transitions to and from old US-10 when we came through. Traffic was lighter than I expected; I was doing my standard 10-over and never had to use the passing lane.

- I found WI-13 north of Marshfield to US-8 to be surprisingly busy. WisDOT has responded in kind by widening the stretch between Abbotsford and Colby to 4-lanes (still under construction), an alternating passing lane between Marshfield and Spencer, and a recent widening and rebuild through Medford.

It could use more passing lanes throughout; I could also see it justifying an expressway section from Marshfield north to at least Medford in the next 30 years. The County A intersection at Dorchester is particularly nasty. I suspect taking US-51 to US-8 and cutting over to WI-13 would be the less stressful choice next time.

- By comparison, north of Medford WI-13 feels like a typical Northwoods highway, with lots of trees, recreational vehicles, and hilly, rocky terrain. Park Falls had its stretch through downtown under construction, and they'll have to hustle to complete the road before the snow flies. Traffic was shuffled off on a side street, then at the north end controlled one-way traffic with flagmen.

- It's a little amazing WI-169 is a state highway; without Copper Falls State Park, it'd likely be a signed County highway at best. It's narrow with lots of tight corners, and woodlands interspersed with farmland. I'd be shocked if that road carried 500 vehicles per day; 200 is more likely. And yet, WI-169 merits a railroad overpass just north of Gurney (http://goo.gl/maps/4eRZG).

- US-2 east of WI-13 in Ashland was under construction for a widening and sewer replacement. The US-2/WI-13 roundabout west of Ashland is just about finished, with crews working to complete the eastbound roundabout bypass and the westbound-to-northbound movement. People seemed to have little trouble navigating the roundabout even with the continued construction work.

- Ashland has an impressive number of state highways for its population size. WI-112, WI-118, and WI-137 could easily be County highways. Apparently, US-2 along Chequamegon Bay has to be closed often enough that WisDOT installed a barrier at the US-2/WI-137 intersection to allow traffic to be diverted.

- Ashland is a beautiful small town with some awesome murals on downtown buildings. One example: http://goo.gl/maps/GE6Y7. It also has a lakeshore view most towns would kill to have. My wife used up a SD card or two on pictures of the area.

Ashland has clearly weathered the post-mining era better than a lot of others, namely Ironwood (which looks more and more run-down with age, particularly compared to next-door neighbor Hurley).

- US-2 is a heavily traveled 2-lane with numerous passing lanes sprinkled throughout. Sadly, I encountered more than my fair share of drivers who had no clue what a passing lane is for.

Traffic counts are not that far off the 4-lane US-53 south of the US-2/53 split; it wouldn't surprise me if WisDOT upgrades this road to expressway in the next 20 years.

Truck traffic is quite heavy, as well as recreational vehicle traffic. Bayfield County sheriff's deputies were very visible on their stretch; I saw at least 4 vehicles pulled over (and nearly became one myself).

- The wife and I spent an afternoon in Duluth's Canal Park, watching the freighters pass through the Aerial Bridge and exploring the Lakewalk. We could have easily spent a weekend there; we barely scratched the surface of things to do and see. No worries - Mother Nature ensured we experienced every season save Winter while we were there. ;-)

There's still a few reminders of the horrible flooding in June, but none too obvious to a casual tourist. Certainly, don't let that be a reason to not visit.

- The EBD side of the Blatnik Bridge was closed for deck reconstruction. This forced all cross-border traffic to the Bong bridge, which made traffic on SBD I-35 gridlocked at 5pm on Friday. Here's hoping Minnesota's DOT keeps up the maintenance; commuting from Superior will be miserable otherwise.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on September 10, 2012, 12:26:48 AM
And yet, WI-169 merits a railroad overpass just north of Gurney (http://goo.gl/maps/4eRZG).
Probably because of terrain: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=46.47815,-90.50876&z=15&t=T
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 10, 2012, 09:18:05 AM
It could use more passing lanes throughout; I could also see it justifying an expressway section from Marshfield north to at least Medford in the next 30 years. The County A intersection at Dorchester is particularly nasty. I suspect taking US-51 to US-8 and cutting over to WI-13 would be the less stressful choice next time.


I regularly travel to Park Falls and US-51 / US-8 / WI-13 is the fastest way to go.

For a really scenic way, I take I-94 to WI-58 at Mauston.  From there I go to WI-80 to WI-13.  There is very little traffic on WI-80 north of Necedah.  But you still get bogged down on WI-13 between Marshfield and Medford.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 10, 2012, 12:25:32 PM
Agreed - with 51 being 4-lane to US 8 you're better off.  The two-lane between M-field and M-ford ;) has too much traffic (even back in early 2000s when I lived in Wausau)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 10, 2012, 01:22:31 PM
I grew up in Phillips, so I know all too well that you go to 51/39 if you want to get somewhere fast.  It's even faster to use the interstate than WI 13 when going to Wisconsin Dells from there even though it's shorter.  Nice little town we got up there, eh?

I do like how WI 13 bypasses all the little burgs between Medford and Phillips.  The old road through Westboro in Taylor County is even called "Business Highway 13."

In Park Falls, a former four lane undvided segment on the city's south side is being rebuilt as a two lane divided with a continuous center left turn lane.  And the intersection at WI 182 is getting a better left turn lane SB.

WI 13 was already four lanes between Abbostford and Colby prior to the recent construction.

WI 112 & WI 118 serve as the "bypass" of Ashland for Twin Ports-bound traffic.

If you think Ashland was photogenic, you should've taken a side trip up to Washburn and Bayfield.
Title: Another Wisconsin Clearview sighting
Post by: mgk920 on September 13, 2012, 10:37:12 PM
As I was driving around today, I noticed that my home City of Appleton is now using Clearview on its street name 'blade' signs.

 :-o

 :-P

Also, it appears to me that the text on the Chamber of Commerce attraction directions signs posted throughout the Appleton/Fox Cities area is in Clearview.

Mike
Title: US 10 update
Post by: mgk920 on September 22, 2012, 11:57:11 AM
WisDOT has now installed interchange number tabs on most of the relevant BGSs on US 10 from Appleton to Marshfield.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 22, 2012, 09:27:14 PM
If you think Ashland was photogenic, you should've taken a side trip up to Washburn and Bayfield.

We're saving that trip for next year - no worries. We've also been all over the UP, both along the Lake Superior shore and the Lake Michigan shore.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on September 23, 2012, 01:05:48 AM
I thought I saw something around here about it before, but since I can't find it this morning:

* On a recent drive I noticed the WI 794/Lake Speedtrap intersection with the connector ramp to  Oklahoma Avenue has been changed into a Continuous Green T with southbound traffic no longer having to stop.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 25, 2012, 06:03:26 PM
WisDOT has now installed interchange number tabs on most of the relevant BGSs on US 10 from Appleton to Marshfield.

I too, saw this over the weekend.

Road crews were beginning to work on a median crossover for the project in Wausau-land to replace SB bridges of I-39 over the Wisconsin River and Bus US 51.
The Maple Ridge Road interchange is probably within 2 weeks of completion.

On a recent drive I noticed the WI 794/Lake Speedtrap intersection with the connector ramp to  Oklahoma Avenue has been changed into a Continuous Green T with southbound traffic no longer having to stop.

That modification was made last year.
Title: WisDOT studying an interchange for possile rebuild as a DDI
Post by: mgk920 on September 27, 2012, 11:27:42 PM
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20120927/APC0101/309270167

This is WI 441 at Calumet St in Appleton.

http://goo.gl/maps/PgtPC

My biggest worry here is the difficulty in synchronizing the signals of a DDI with those of the nearby cross street intersections and the proximity of those nearest intersections to this interchange.  I would likely opt for a series of roundabouts here.  Yes, it is a traffic zoo.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 28, 2012, 09:22:32 PM
Well, your DOT district seemed to be an early adopter of roundabouts in this state, so I wouldn't be surprised if they sprung for a DDI.  But our state did seem to pass on the SPUI fad.  If that project was down here in MKE-land, you'd probably be looking at "U-Ramp" interchange. ;)

The Post-Crescent could have supplemented their article with a DDI diagram.  While not all that complicated in practice, it is complicated to describe in words.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2012, 10:42:49 PM
Saw today that the WI-26 exit between Janesville and Milton has an exit number.  I believe it is Harmony Hill Road, and it has a #6 only on the exit signage.  (The BGS hasn't been erected.)

The other exits on the entire route don't have exit numbers so I guess this is something they will add later.  Surprised they didn't do this earlier.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on September 29, 2012, 10:13:11 PM
Saw today that the WI-26 exit between Janesville and Milton has an exit number.  I believe it is Harmony Hill Road, and it has a #6 only on the exit signage.  (The BGS hasn't been erected.)

The other exits on the entire route don't have exit numbers so I guess this is something they will add later.  Surprised they didn't do this earlier.

The exits on the Watertown bypass are numbered.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2012, 03:27:39 PM
Ah thank you.  Hadn't noticed that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on September 30, 2012, 07:47:14 PM
The new interchange at US-14 and Lacy Road (on new alignment) in Fitchburg will be opening this week.  When that interchange opens, the two southern ramps at McCoy Road will be permanently closed.
Title: WI 15 Hortonville bypass routing selected
Post by: mgk920 on November 06, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20121106/APC0101/311060158

It will go around the north side of the village.  Construction is expected to begin in 2016, completion in 2019.

WI 15 is a very busy commuter route into and out of the Appleton area and yes, this bypass has been badly needed for many, many years.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 09, 2012, 09:43:15 PM
^^

I made the Roadgeek™ daytrip to the Marshfield area today and found some interesting stuff.

 :nod:

Interchange numbers and MPs are posted on US 10 all the way eastward to, but not including, the interchange where US 10 hops off of the freeway.  No pre-existing BGSs east of the section of the US 10 Marshfield Spur that recently opened have been modified so far, though.

Interchange numbers:
  • 186 - WI 13 north/County 'A'/Veteran's Parkway
  • 204 - WI 13/34 south
  • 208 - WI 34 north
  • 213 - I-39 north (Marshfield Interchange)
(Note, US 10 uses I-39's interchange numbers and MPs on the combined section)
  • 230 - County 'J'
  • 237 - Lake Rd (EB-off/WB-on ONLY)
  • 238 - County 'B' west (Amherst west)
  • 240 - County 'A'/County 'B' east (Amherst east)
  • (246) - (unbuilt) County 'Q'
  • 250 - WI 49 north/WI 54 west (Waupaca west)
  • 252 - WI 22 south
  • 253 - Churchill St
  • 254 - WI 22 north/WI 54 east (Waupaca east)
  • 260A - WI 110 north/County 'X'
  • 260B - County 'F' (WB-off/EB-on ONLY)
  • 264 - WI 49 south/WI 110 east (Fremont west)
  • 267 - WI 96/WI 110/County 'II' (Fremont east)
  • 273 - US 45 north (Dale Interchange)
  • 276 - US 45 south (Winchester Interchange)
  • 284 - WI 76
  • 286 - County 'CB'
  • 287A-B - US 41(I-xx) (Bridgeview Interchange)
(Note, as of this posting, WI 441 MPs are still posted east of the Bridgeview Interchange, in addition to the new US 10 MPs.  WI 441 interchanges were never numbered.)
  • 289A - County 'P'/Racine St
  • 289B - County 'AP'/Midway Rd
  • 290 - WI 47/Appleton Rd (Memorial Dr)
As of this posting, the remainder of the WI 441 freeway is not interchange numbered and 290 is the highest posted US 10 MP, located between WI 47 and Midway Rd.

If the WI 441 interchanges were to be numbered, they would be (WI 441 MPs):
  • 0 - US 41(I-xx) (Bridgeview Interchange)
  • 1 - County 'P'/Racine St
  • 2 - County 'AP'/Midway Rd
  • 3 - WI 47/Appleton Rd (Memorial Dr)
  • 4 - US 10 east/Oneida St
  • 7 - County 'KK'/Calumet St
  • 8 - County 'CE'/College Ave
  • 10 - County 'OO'/Northland Ave
  • 11 - US 41(I-xx) (Northeast Interchange)
Also, US 45 between US 10 (Winchester Interchange) and US 41(I-xx) (Algoma Interchange) is not (yet) MPed nor interchange numbered.

Mike

WisDOT just added another interchange number on US 10 within the past couple of days:


This is where US 10 hops off of the WI 441 freeway on Appleton's south side.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 24, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 24, 2012, 10:16:49 PM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:

Gosh... I hope this doesn't cause problems :S ... at least not the darn zoo interchange. *is biased*
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 25, 2012, 12:15:38 AM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:

Gosh... I hope this doesn't cause problems :S ... at least not the darn zoo interchange. *is biased*

Ditto.

I have been more and more seriously wondering over the past few years if Wisconsin should convert to placing transportation infrastructure on the general fund, abolishing the transportation segregated fund and the fuel tax and instead imposing the regular state sales tax on fuel (fuel is now exempt from the regular retail sales tax in Wisconsin), this on the logic that the level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that he or she derives from the transport network.  IMHO, this would be much more long-term reliable than what we have now.

Yes, I do realize that one or more other state tax rates would have to be increased to make up for the fuel tax loss, perhaps increasing the regular retail sales tax from 5 to 6 percent.  As it stands now, the volume-based fuel tax will fail as a revenue source for funding roads and other transport as inflation charges along.  In fact, right now in some states, to replace their volume-based fuel taxes with their regular retail sales taxes (assuming that fuel is not sales taxed) will be tax rate INCREASES, their fuel tax rates are now so astonishingly low.

Right now in Wisconsin, the state fuel tax is about 10% of the pre-tax pump price.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 26, 2012, 12:29:54 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of tying sales taxes to road funding. It is NOT, as you suggest, a reliable funding source.

Michigan did something similar with school funding with Proposal A, the idea being to cut property taxes and replace that funding with the sales tax. That sales tax worked great in a good economy, and it helped moderate the differences between rich and poor school districts. However, when the economy went to hell, so did school funding. You'd get the same issue with tying a sales tax to fuel taxes.

What needs to happen is to reintroduce the inflation index that was previously in place.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 26, 2012, 12:52:39 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of tying sales taxes to road funding. It is NOT, as you suggest, a reliable funding source.

Michigan did something similar with school funding with Proposal A, the idea being to cut property taxes and replace that funding with the sales tax. That sales tax worked great in a good economy, and it helped moderate the differences between rich and poor school districts. However, when the economy went to hell, so did school funding. You'd get the same issue with tying a sales tax to fuel taxes.

What needs to happen is to reintroduce the inflation index that was previously in place.

Unfortunately the same people who were constantly howling a few years back about the inflation indexing ("Tax increases that were NEVER voted on!" Etc.) will be back in full force should that be reintroduced.  Instead, my best compromise on that would be to convert to a percentage of the price based fuel tax, this short of putting roads on the general fund (as I was advocating above, NOT tying roads to the sales tax).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 26, 2012, 09:45:07 AM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:

Gosh... I hope this doesn't cause problems :S ... at least not the darn zoo interchange. *is biased*

Ditto.

I have been more and more seriously wondering over the past few years if Wisconsin should convert to placing transportation infrastructure on the general fund, abolishing the transportation segregated fund and the fuel tax and instead imposing the regular state sales tax on fuel (fuel is now exempt from the regular retail sales tax in Wisconsin), this on the logic that the level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that he or she derives from the transport network.  IMHO, this would be much more long-term reliable than what we have now.

Yes, I do realize that one or more other state tax rates would have to be increased to make up for the fuel tax loss, perhaps increasing the regular retail sales tax from 5 to 6 percent.  As it stands now, the volume-based fuel tax will fail as a revenue source for funding roads and other transport as inflation charges along.  In fact, right now in some states, to replace their volume-based fuel taxes with their regular retail sales taxes (assuming that fuel is not sales taxed) will be tax rate INCREASES, their fuel tax rates are now so astonishingly low.

Right now in Wisconsin, the state fuel tax is about 10% of the pre-tax pump price.

Mike


Can you clarify if I have the problem right?

That the issue is that that the fuel tax is "volume based," in that it is a tax placed on each gallon of gas sold.  And with rising prices, the volume of gas sold decreases, therefore the revenues earned shrinks.  This problem can be made even more harmful if people drive more fuel efficient cars.

Perhaps the best idea is to have a hybrid.  For instance, have fuel subject to sales tax and designate such taxes to the transportation fund, but then cut the volume based tax by some figure.  Maybe they could also do this and do away with the minimum markup law as a compromise of some sort.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 26, 2012, 11:14:55 PM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/plan-would-delay-verona-road-interstate-road-work/article_690b4e7c-3642-11e2-9992-0019bb2963f4.html

Now they want to delay the Verona Road, I-39/90 and Zoo Interchange projects because of budget issues :rolleyes:

Gosh... I hope this doesn't cause problems :S ... at least not the darn zoo interchange. *is biased*

Ditto.

I have been more and more seriously wondering over the past few years if Wisconsin should convert to placing transportation infrastructure on the general fund, abolishing the transportation segregated fund and the fuel tax and instead imposing the regular state sales tax on fuel (fuel is now exempt from the regular retail sales tax in Wisconsin), this on the logic that the level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that he or she derives from the transport network.  IMHO, this would be much more long-term reliable than what we have now.

Yes, I do realize that one or more other state tax rates would have to be increased to make up for the fuel tax loss, perhaps increasing the regular retail sales tax from 5 to 6 percent.  As it stands now, the volume-based fuel tax will fail as a revenue source for funding roads and other transport as inflation charges along.  In fact, right now in some states, to replace their volume-based fuel taxes with their regular retail sales taxes (assuming that fuel is not sales taxed) will be tax rate INCREASES, their fuel tax rates are now so astonishingly low.

Right now in Wisconsin, the state fuel tax is about 10% of the pre-tax pump price.

Mike


Can you clarify if I have the problem right?

That the issue is that that the fuel tax is "volume based," in that it is a tax placed on each gallon of gas sold.  And with rising prices, the volume of gas sold decreases, therefore the revenues earned shrinks.  This problem can be made even more harmful if people drive more fuel efficient cars.

Perhaps the best idea is to have a hybrid.  For instance, have fuel subject to sales tax and designate such taxes to the transportation fund, but then cut the volume based tax by some figure.  Maybe they could also do this and do away with the minimum markup law as a compromise of some sort.

You're pretty close.  The 'volume-based' nature of the tax is that it is a fixed dollar amount on a fixed unit volume of fuel sold.  With inflation, real value of the revenue from the tax available to WisDOT shrinks in proportion to decreases in the real value of the dollar, assuming that the volume of fuel sold remains constant.  If it were percentage-based (like the regular sales tax is), the real value of the revenue would remain much more long-term constant with inflation, with the actual number of dollars available going up or down with changes in the market price of the fuel.

Adjusted for 'real' inflation, the price of fuel today is fairly close to what it was a couple of generations ago, although with the 'volume-based' fuel tax rates, the tax is a far, far lower percentage of the pump price today than it was back then and thus the real value of the money available to the DOTs to do their jobs is much less.

BTW, the volume-based federal fuel tax has not been adjusted in over a generation.

(Note, although I am very much a tax, spending and deficit *HAWK*, transportation infrastructure is one of the few places in government where there is a very strong positive correlation between tax rates and the quality of services rendered - and good transportation infrastructure is one of the top factors of all in having a healthy overall, and especially private-sector, economy.)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on November 27, 2012, 09:25:52 AM
The Zoo interchange isn't the only one which could be delayed under the proposed DOT budget:
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/fox_cities/highway-441-reconstruction-could-be-on-hold
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 27, 2012, 11:37:51 PM
The Zoo interchange isn't the only one which could be delayed under the proposed DOT budget:
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/fox_cities/highway-441-reconstruction-could-be-on-hold

Not just 'completing' the Bridgeview Interchange and upgrading US 10/WI 441 from there eastward to Oneida St to six lanes, but also upgrading WI 15 between the Greenville Twp area and US 45 at New London and building its planned bypass of Hortonville.

(I hate it when the legislature starts playing knee-jerk politics with the transport fund....   :banghead: )

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 29, 2012, 12:17:39 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of tying sales taxes to road funding. It is NOT, as you suggest, a reliable funding source.

Michigan did something similar with school funding with Proposal A, the idea being to cut property taxes and replace that funding with the sales tax. That sales tax worked great in a good economy, and it helped moderate the differences between rich and poor school districts. However, when the economy went to hell, so did school funding. You'd get the same issue with tying a sales tax to fuel taxes.

What needs to happen is to reintroduce the inflation index that was previously in place.

Unfortunately the same people who were constantly howling a few years back about the inflation indexing ("Tax increases that were NEVER voted on!" Etc.) will be back in full force should that be reintroduced.

Morons.... Big Oil jerks gas prices around all the time for much more than 6 cents (current difference between current funding and a return to the indexed rate). Nobody ever got a vote on that one.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 23, 2013, 01:03:55 AM
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 23, 2013, 12:25:09 PM
  • For all the map collectors out there, the 2013-14 WisDOT Official Highway Map (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/maps/) has been released (see bottom of the linked website)


Kind of surprised they have both US-10 west of I-39 and WI-26 as "other multilane divided," and not "expressway."  Are there certain standards that WIDOT applies to differentiate between the two?[/list]
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 23, 2013, 12:30:53 PM
Kind of surprised they have both US-10 west of I-39 and WI-26 as "other multilane divided," and not "expressway."  Are there certain standards that WIDOT applies to differentiate between the two?

The only thing I can think of is that they reserve "expressway" for more urban/denser developed areas?  :hmmm:  Although, that wouldn't fit for Wis 23 between Sheboygan and Plymouth or US 151 between Columbus and Beaver Dam.

Maybe it's based on the spacing/type of at-grade intersections or other access points? Consistency of speed limits?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on January 23, 2013, 01:51:48 PM
ya, but why is US45 from US41 to US10 STILL not a solid red line, it is now a FULL FREEWAY it should get the double red line. also US10 from I39 to marshfield should also be a double red line. i can sortof understand WI26 being marked as it is, but it should at least be the single solid red line from south of fort atkinson to south of johnson creek, while being the seperate red lines through fort atkinson, and then resume the solid red line untill north of  watertown. possibly having a dashed 'under construction' line for its southern segment in the milton area. also, what is with the expressway line for US151 justnorth of the beltline, it is 100% freeway there, yet they constantly class it on the map as an expressway?

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 23, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
The WI 26 Watertown bypass is a full freeway.  Ditto US 12 from I-90/94 to Baraboo.  OTOH, US 18/151 is a surface four lanes from the Beltline to McKee Rd.

Also, about LED streetlights, the lights on two of the major Fox River bridges here in Appleton (Oneida St and Memorial Dr/WI 47) were just changed to LEDs within the past few weeks.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 23, 2013, 07:34:17 PM
My guess is the mapmaker in charge of editing the map used the wrong line type on the new sections (WI-26, US-10, US-45, et al).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on January 24, 2013, 04:54:48 PM
Here's a summary of the highways that aren't accurately depicted on the 2013 Official Highway Map:

US 10 (I-39 west to STH 13 south/34 should be shown as a freeway
US 10 (STH 13 south/34 to STH 80) should be shown as an expressway
US 151 (I-39 to County Trunk C/Main Street) should be shown as a freeway
STH 26 (Ft. Atkinson, Jefferson, Watertown bypasses should be shown as freeway, non-bypass sections should be expressways.)
STH 16 (County Trunk P to eastern interchange with STH 67/Oconomowoc Bypass) should be shown as a freeway, and certainly not as a two-lane road.
US 12 (Baraboo to Lake Delton) should be shown as a freeway.
US 45 (US 41 to US 10) should be shown as a freeway.
US 141 (north of Coleman) should be shown as an expressway, since access is partially controlled.

If they can show a short, orphan segment of STH 54 as an expressway between 'Rapids and Plover, they can show STH 26 as one too.

Some of these freeway segments have a stoplight at a terminus (e.g. 16 at 67, US 12 at I-90/94), however the precedent has been set with showing US 53 as freeway north of I-90 from Onalaska (with stoplights at the I-90 interchange)

Otherwise the official highway map does a a great job separating freeways and expressways accurately.  It just seems to take an edition or two to get new highways shown correctly.  (Wasn't that the case with STH 57 from Green Bay to STH 42 near Sturgeon Bay, where it was first shown as just being multilane divided instead of an expressway?)

Most of the updates shown on the map are 2010 and 2011 completions.  The only 2012 completion I could think of, that was depicted, was the Watertown bypass.  Any others?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on January 24, 2013, 06:06:01 PM
US 151 (I-39 to County Trunk C/Main Street) should be shown as a freeway

CTH C is Reiner Rd (Exit 100). Main St is Exit 101 (http://goo.gl/maps/qw0UY) (not shown on the WisDOT map). While the Main St exit is not shown on the WisDOT map, that is a closer approximation of where the mapping error ends.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 26, 2013, 05:43:16 PM
And they still show US 2/53 as a freeway north of their southern junction even though an at-grade intersection completes the turning movements missing from the interchange.

A few years ago I recall there being an MTR thread started by someone affiliated with the WisDOT map looking for errors to correct.  And a lot of mistakes/corrections that were suggested were actually fixed on the next edition. It would be totally awesome for something like that to happen again.  I take personal responsibility for getting them to remove a fake peninsula into Lake Superior from the Duluth/Superior inset.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on January 26, 2013, 06:13:01 PM
I guess I'm surprised a new map came out. Last year I tried several places to get a current map and they were several years old and the people seemded to think tehe wouldn't be getting newer ones.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tdindy88 on January 26, 2013, 06:18:02 PM
That's odd. I got one last year from the visitors center in Ludington, Michigan (due to the car ferry across Lake Michigan no doubt.) It was the 2010 version though, but it was a newer map than the previous Wisconsin map I had (2008.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 28, 2013, 11:29:30 AM
In case anyone missed it, WisDOT began work on the 'Big Shovel' rebuild of the Zoo Interchange (I-(41)/94/894/US 45) in Milwaukee late last week with the closure and removal of the Greenfield Ave bridge over I-(41)/894/US 45.  The full freeway was closed during the overnight hours on Friday and Saturday nights to allow crews to remove the bridge.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/188147081.html

http://projects.511wi.gov/web/zoo-interchange-project

This is expected to be a six-year project. :hyper:

Enjoy!

 :cheers:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 30, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
I added an update to the Milwaukee Freeways thread to that effect.

I see WisDOT is looking to officially designate WI 15 as an expressway between New London and Greenville.  I find that interesting considering the proposed intersection at the west end of the future Hortonville bypass.  Doesn't seem to fit the character of what we've come to expect from 'expressways' in Wisconsin.  I assume this means that WI 15 will be posted at 65 mph when that project is done.  So to have an intersection where the thru route has to make a turn in the middle of a 65 mph stretch seems like a poor idea.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on January 31, 2013, 01:54:19 AM
I added an update to the Milwaukee Freeways thread to that effect.

I see WisDOT is looking to officially designate WI 15 as an expressway between New London and Greenville.  I find that interesting considering the proposed intersection at the west end of the future Hortonville bypass.  Doesn't seem to fit the character of what we've come to expect from 'expressways' in Wisconsin.  I assume this means that WI 15 will be posted at 65 mph when that project is done.  So to have an intersection where the thru route has to make a turn in the middle of a 65 mph stretch seems like a poor idea.

From what I am aware of, the current plan for both ends of the proposed Hortonville bypass are two-lane roundabouts.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 04, 2013, 05:44:53 PM
WisDOT recently held a PIM for reconstructing US 12 through The Dells area, one of the proposals is to make the existing highway one-way northbound and rebuilding a local street corridor as its southbound opposite.
See Alt 4C (pages 8-9): http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/12dells/docs/ho-alts.pdf
Personally, I think this is the best option as the other alternatives are really not much more then putting lip stick on pig. IMHO
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 04, 2013, 09:36:57 PM
WisDOT recently held a PIM for reconstructing US 12 through The Dells area, one of the proposals is to make the existing highway one-way northbound and rebuilding a local street corridor as its southbound opposite.
See Alt 4C (pages 8-9): http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/12dells/docs/ho-alts.pdf
Personally, I think this is the best option as the other alternatives are really not much more then putting lip stick on pig. IMHO

There are a few ways of looking at the one-way couplet:
Being involved in the design process for this project, that's about all I can say about it for now. Keep in mind that the businesses along this corridor are the life-blood of the Dells.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2013, 09:39:31 AM
Are there a lot of problems along this stretch?  Because honestly my guess is 95% the traffic on this road is tourist traffic.  Unless there are an inordinate number of accidents, I am not sure why they would change anything.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 05, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
I'd kind of agree, it is a local traffic road and not a through route (wondering what life was like on it before I-90/94 was built...  :-o ).  From my experiences on it, four lanes with left turn lanes should be sufficient.  How expensive would it be to upgrade at least parts of it to six lanes for the local traffic?

If anything, I still wonder why US 12 wasn't downgraded to a county highway west of the Lake Delton interchange in Wisconsin back when the interstate was first built.

An aside thought, that Lake Delton interchange is, IMHO, going to end up being a long-term FUBAR - it should have had separate high-speed ramps for the freeway-to-freeway through traffic turns with the surface US 12 maintained much as it was for the local tourist crowd.

 :banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 06, 2013, 06:21:10 PM
The one-way pair options are not particularly useful.  The water parks and stuff along that corridor are the destination.  This is not a place that needs better thru traffic.  It just needs better left turn capabilities.  Maybe throw in a couple more traffic signals to create gaps for left turns to happen.


Mike, I think your Lake Delton CF is still a ways in the future.  One simple upgrade that could stave off the need for a upgrade to full system interchange would be to have NB distributor ramp that allows NB->WB traffic to bypass the signal.  Really that's your heaviest system movement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on February 10, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
I'm not a fan of the one way pair. Granted it's a problem that "through traffic" from one end to the other mixes with "local traffic" going to Noah's or wherever, but the one way pair doesn't solve it. The real problem in the area are the crossroads of WI 13 and US 12, which just needs more turn lanes and the removal of the split phase arrangement, and banning left turns in the downtown area where there isn't a left turn bay provided.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on February 13, 2013, 06:56:47 AM
I'm not a fan of the one way pair. Granted it's a problem that "through traffic" from one end to the other mixes with "local traffic" going to Noah's or wherever, but the one way pair doesn't solve it. The real problem in the area are the crossroads of WI 13 and US 12, which just needs more turn lanes and the removal of the split phase arrangement, and banning left turns in the downtown area where there isn't a left turn bay provided.
I agree that the WI 13 and US 12 intersection is the cause of the backups in the Dells. South of there, Dells Pkwy is fine . I would be in favor of having the Pkwy having a reversible turn lane at least as far south as the 23-12 split in Lake Delton. As to what to do with the 13-12 intersection, I think you have to have a very long queue of a right turn lane for NB 12 to EB 13 and a double turn lane for NB 12 to WB 13. (Yes I know those are not the directions the state uses but those are the real directions as laid out.) They might also want to think about widening the bridge over the river to accommodate the 13 WB to 12 SB traffic. I don't think the current lane is long enough especially when the peak summer traffic is in town.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on March 17, 2013, 04:34:10 PM
Quote

State to propose innovative Stoughton Road interchange

9 hours ago  •  BARRY ADAMS | Wisconsin State Journal |

(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/3c/13cd6daa-8dae-11e2-a4e2-001a4bcf887a/5143830da4a30.preview-620.jpg)

The newest way to control traffic in the state won't have motorists doing circles in a roundabout. Instead, be prepared to drive on the left side of the road — on purpose.

When the state Department of Transportation holds a public information meeting on Tuesday about major changes to an 11-mile stretch of Stoughton Road/Highway 51, visitors will be introduced to what is called a diverging diamond interchange.

The design works like this: As drivers approach the interchange, those making a right turn merge on to an on-ramp; those going straight or making a left turn continue on to an intersection with traffic signals. The opposing lanes of traffic then lazily cross one another, continuing for a few hundred feet to the left of each other. Drivers turning left can then peel off, unimpeded, onto another ramp, while those continuing straight stay in their lanes, which cross back to the right side of the opposing lanes.

The DOT has proposed the design where Stoughton Road intersects the Beltline and at Highway 30 and is part of an improvement project for the busy corridor that could cost, depending on the final design for each project along the corridor, $215 million to $875 million.

At the Beltline, for example, the price could range from $26 million for a diverging diamond interchange to $280 million for a free-flowing interchange.

At the earliest, construction from Terminal Drive in McFarland to Highway 19 in DeForest wouldn't begin until 2020, would likely be built in phases and could take 10 years to complete.

Mike Hoelker, a planning supervisor for the DOT, said the goal is to reduce crashes, increase connectivity for neighborhoods and add routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.

"We want this to be a corridor that functions safely and efficiently but works within the communities so that it doesn't become a barrier," Hoelker said. "It has to fit into the community."
A crash a day

Stoughton Road, which is also Highway 51, is one of the county's most heavily traveled roadways. Peak-hour delays are increasing with long backups at Pflaum and Buckeye roads and East Washington Avenue, Hoelker said. From 2007 to 2011, the corridor experienced, on average, seven crashes per week, including more than two per week with injuries. During the five-year span, 10 people were killed.

The improvements would remove street-level crossings at Pflaum, Buckeye and East Washington Avenue, sinking Stoughton Road at those intersections below what is now ground level. Stoughton Road would be elevated over Anderson Street and Kinsman Boulevard. The project would also add overpass ramps at East Broadway.

Diverging diamond interchanges would be built under both the Beltline and Highway 30 bridges. In some spots the corridor would consist of six lanes of traffic, while six bicycle and pedestrian bridges would be built over Stoughton Road.

Tuesday's open house will feature foam and computer models, maps and videos portraying different types of intersections.

The meeting is part of a continuing planning process that will include more public hearings and informational meetings. Plans, which could change based on public comment, would not be finalized until next year.

"It's to help familiarize people with some of the concepts we're putting out there and giving them a good idea of what the corridor is going to look like," said Jeff Berens, a DOT traffic safety engineer. "We've had to look at some fairly innovative designs that probably a lot of people in Wisconsin haven't seen before or driven through."
'They move traffic'

Diverging diamond intersections are believed to have originated in France in the 1970s but were not introduced in the U.S. until 2009, when one was built at Interstate 44 and Highway 13 in Springfield, Mo. Motorists were skeptical at first when the new interchange was shown at public meetings, but the state has completed or is building more, said Bob Edwards, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Transportation.

"They work. They move traffic," Edwards said. "We get more complaints about roundabouts."

Other states with the interchanges include Tennessee, Utah and Minnesota, which is scheduled to open its first — in St. Cloud — this fall.

The diverging diamond interchanges proposed for Madison would be the first to be included in a state road project, but a number of locations around the state are being examined, said Michael Bie, a DOT spokesman.

The design lowers speeds, eliminates the chance of a T-bone crash and costs 10 times less than a free-flowing interchange like Interstate 39-90-94 and Highway 30, where traffic from any direction does not stop.

"It just guides you through," Hoelker said. "It's actually a very simple concept."

If you go

What: Public information meeting to discuss corridor planning for an 11-mile stretch of Stoughton Road/Highway 51, from Terminal Drive/Voges Road in McFarland to Highway 19 in DeForest.

When: 6 to 8 p.m. Tuesday with a formal presentation at 6:30 p.m.

Where: La Follette High School, 702 Pflaum Road
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/state-to-propose-innovative-stoughton-road-interchange/article_90572ba4-8dae-11e2-a5fc-001a4bcf887a.html
New depressed freeway and diverging diamond(s)... (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/cheesy.gif)(http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/drool.gif)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 17, 2013, 06:36:02 PM
Just saw that article as well...I must agree with the comments that a video or diagram of a DDI would have been helpful. Also, note that the artist has no concept of traffic signals in Wisconsin...all of the monotubes are depicted on the near-side.  :pan:

New depressed freeway and diverging diamond(s)... (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/cheesy.gif)(http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/drool.gif)

If you like that, you might wet yourself with all the DDI concepts for the I-43 corridor: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/seregion/43/public.htm (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/seregion/43/public.htm)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 10:36:45 PM
I'm very open to the idea of DDIs at the crossroad interchanges while OTOH, I'd be more inclined to go with the idea of going big at the Beltline.  Farther north (WI 30 and beyond) will be, IMHO, the biggest question marks.  Stoughton Rd (US 51) is a major local thoroughfare, very unlike the nearby paralleling interstate, and with expected continuing metro growth will need upgrades that will last a few decades.

As I have mentioned in other forvms, my biggest worry with DDIs is how traffic is handled in the event of power failures.  Do they go with 'STOP' signs for the side entering the interchange stopping for the side leaving the interchange at the crossovers?  Both directions stopping?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on March 17, 2013, 10:51:46 PM

As I have mentioned in other forvms, my biggest worry with DDIs is how traffic is handled in the event of power failures.  Do they go with 'STOP' signs for the side entering the interchange stopping for the side leaving the interchange at the crossovers?  Both directions stopping?

Mike

According to this: http://www.divergingdiamond.com/FAQ.html  a power outage would operate as an all-way stop, such as any other signalized intersection with a power outage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on March 17, 2013, 10:55:36 PM
Curious how a SPUI would work during a power outage. Sounds like HELL! Huge intersection, big movements, sounds like it'd be real slow. Lots of wiggle room for sure and I bet most cars could crawl a ways into the intersection before completing their move.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 11:11:25 PM

As I have mentioned in other forvms, my biggest worry with DDIs is how traffic is handled in the event of power failures.  Do they go with 'STOP' signs for the side entering the interchange stopping for the side leaving the interchange at the crossovers?  Both directions stopping?

Mike

According to this: http://www.divergingdiamond.com/FAQ.html  a power outage would operate as an all-way stop, such as any other signalized intersection with a power outage.

Whereas a roundabout would continue functioning normally (but I digress).

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 17, 2013, 11:16:03 PM
I also remember from a number of years ago Stoughton Rd being referred to in some circles as the 'East Beltline' and functioning in much the same way as the existing south and west Beltline.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2013, 02:15:49 PM
WisDOT seems to be leaning heavily on basically a freeway conversion for Stoughton Rd. (minus the system connetions).  I have very little familiarity with that corridor's performance since as an out of towner, I'm always coming in from the interstate.  So I was kind of surprised at the flyover options at Stoughton & the Beltline when I first started looking at the stuff for this corridor a few years ago.  The price tag for the DDI is certainly more attractive, but I can only speculate as to how effective it would be.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tdindy88 on March 18, 2013, 03:54:44 PM
I also remember from a number of years ago Stoughton Rd being referred to in some circles as the 'East Beltline' and functioning in much the same way as the existing south and west Beltline.

Mike

Is there any historical reason for this? I would have thought that 39/90 would have been viewed as the eastern Beltline. I'm not really familar with the history of Madison's highways, I just have a curiosity over them since I plan on visiting the city later on this year.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on March 18, 2013, 09:05:47 PM
WisDOT seems to be leaning heavily on basically a freeway conversion for Stoughton Rd. (minus the system connetions).  I have very little familiarity with that corridor's performance since as an out of towner, I'm always coming in from the interstate.  So I was kind of surprised at the flyover options at Stoughton & the Beltline when I first started looking at the stuff for this corridor a few years ago.  The price tag for the DDI is certainly more attractive, but I can only speculate as to how effective it would be.

There are already parts of Stoughton Rd that act like a quasi expressway between Hwy 19 and the Belt Line. What I am most curious about is what WDOT will do with the US 51 interchange with I-39/90/94. As it currently is, it's fine. But if they are going to convert this part of Stoughton Rd to a freeway, the off ramps from I-39/90/94 need to get redone with the elimination of the traffic signals there too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 18, 2013, 10:34:11 PM
WisDOT seems to be leaning heavily on basically a freeway conversion for Stoughton Rd. (minus the system connetions).  I have very little familiarity with that corridor's performance since as an out of towner, I'm always coming in from the interstate.  So I was kind of surprised at the flyover options at Stoughton & the Beltline when I first started looking at the stuff for this corridor a few years ago.  The price tag for the DDI is certainly more attractive, but I can only speculate as to how effective it would be.

There are already parts of Stoughton Rd that act like a quasi expressway between Hwy 19 and the Belt Line. What I am most curious about is what WDOT will do with the US 51 interchange with I-39/90/94. As it currently is, it's fine. But if they are going to convert this part of Stoughton Rd to a freeway, the off ramps from I-39/90/94 need to get redone with the elimination of the traffic signals there too.

IMHO, the north end past the airport (MSN) to the interstate would need a local-access street alternate should it be upgraded to a full freeway.  North of the interstate, US 51 is a fairly high-standard highway to WI 60 that would fit in well with a freeway upgrade to the south.

Also, and somewhat interesting in the 'What if....?' sense is that to me, this is work that would have been done 40-50 years ago had the interstates not been built, although I do consider it to be very likely that had the interstates not come along, a cross-country ticket tollway would have been built in roughly the US 12 corridor from Chicagoland to the MStP area, by way of Madison.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on March 18, 2013, 10:41:57 PM
WisDOT seems to be leaning heavily on basically a freeway conversion for Stoughton Rd. (minus the system connetions).  I have very little familiarity with that corridor's performance since as an out of towner, I'm always coming in from the interstate.  So I was kind of surprised at the flyover options at Stoughton & the Beltline when I first started looking at the stuff for this corridor a few years ago.  The price tag for the DDI is certainly more attractive, but I can only speculate as to how effective it would be.

During the rush hours, the Beltline interchange is quite overwhelmed, particularly the SBD Stoughton Rd to WBD Beltline movement. The Beltline regularly begins backing up here as traffic from Stoughton Rd struggles to merge before the Monona Dr exit. Traffic NBD on Stoughton Rd struggles too; it frequently takes two signal cycles to filter through. Outside of rush hours, it's busy but flows well enough.

The major issue with this area is the intersection at Broadway immediately north. It not only holds up traffic on Stoughton Rd, it makes movements between Broadway and the Beltline messy.

The DDI idea at the Beltline isn't going to perform much better than what's there now; the signal timing mimics a DDI style intersection. If they go with flyovers, they still need to get the SBD to WBD and EBD to NBD movements merge smoothly, which may spell the end of the Monona Dr. exit on the Beltline (or require additional ramps to separate Stoughton Rd and Monona Dr traffic).

Traffic backs up frequently at Buckeye Rd and Pflaum Rd as well, and have a high number of rear-end crashes. This stretch sorely needs grade separation, and its arrival is welcome.

The big issue I have with the non-free-flowing options at the Beltline and WI-30 is that the rest of Stoughton Rd drives similarly to a freeway. That means inattentive traffic will be more likely to miss the signals at the remaining locations, and rear-end accidents will be as bad if not worse than they are now.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on March 19, 2013, 12:35:37 AM
North of the interstate, US 51 is a fairly high-standard highway to WI 60 that would fit in well with a freeway upgrade to the south.

Speaking of that, WisDOT is currently in process of converting US 51 from WIS 19 to just east of DeForest (CTH V/ North St) into a full freeway. Also the Interstate-US 51 interchange has been under heavy reconstruction for the last year or so with many long term ramp closures.
US 51 WisDOT page: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d1/us51/index.htm
DeForest extension: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d1/us51/docs/map-ts3.pdf

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 19, 2013, 09:22:51 AM
I also remember from a number of years ago Stoughton Rd being referred to in some circles as the 'East Beltline' and functioning in much the same way as the existing south and west Beltline.

Mike

Is there any historical reason for this? I would have thought that 39/90 would have been viewed as the eastern Beltline. I'm not really familar with the history of Madison's highways, I just have a curiosity over them since I plan on visiting the city later on this year.


Stoughton Road carries a ton of local traffic.  If you live in Monona, parts of Cottage Grove or the southeast side of Madison, and you work either downtown or on the west side, you pretty much need to take Stoughton Road and the Beltline to get there.  The root of all of Madison's traffic problems are it's geography, and in particular the lakes.  Most east to west traffic has to take the Beltline because of the lakes.  The isthmus and going north are options, but not particularly good ones.  The problem with the interstate is that there are no interchanges between WI-30 and the Beltline, which effectively means that it is used by through traffic and traffic from the Sun Prairie area and points east.  That means local traffic pretty much has to use Stoughton Road to get to the Beltline.

I think if they could resign the Beltline over, you wouldn't put an interchange at Monona Drive - Stoughton Road and South Towne Drive would serve the area just fine.  However I am not sure they will be able to get rid of it now.  I do think that they need to ramp up the Stoughton Road interchange even at the expense of Monona Drive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on March 21, 2013, 11:23:53 PM
The Governor proposes new WisDOT HQ
Quote
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/72/972f286e-927c-11e2-be4c-0019bb2963f4/514b93b9b40ed.preview-620.jpg)
...
New Transportation building

The largest single project is the $196.6 million replacement of the 368,100-square-foot Department of Transportation headquarters on Sheboygan Avenue. The proposal calls for construction of a 600,000-square-foot building and a 1,500-space parking garage on the 21-acre site, much of which is taken up by large surface parking lots. Any excess land would be sold to help pay for the project, according to a Department of Administration summary.

The plan also calls for the state Department of Employee Trust Funds to move its 180 employees from the Badger Road State Office Building to the new facility. The old building and land at the corner of Badger Road and Park Street would likely be sold to lower the overall cost of the Hill Farms project, DOA spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said.

Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, admitted the project could generate "sticker shock" but said continuing to spend millions maintaining the 49-year-old hill Farms complex doesn't make sense. State officials estimate it needs $34 million in upgrades in the next few years to improve accessibility, air quality and heating and cooling systems. Complete renovation could run $142 million.

"Any future dollar spent on the existing building would be a dollar down the drain," Hintz said.
...
Wisconsin State Journal- http://bit.ly/15y73ji
:cool:

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 21, 2013, 11:56:42 PM
As one who has had the [displeasure] of working out of that place on quite a few occasions, a BIG standing  :clap: :clap: :clap: to this news. Can I bring a sledgehammer when it's demo time?? :biggrin:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 22, 2013, 09:40:56 AM
is that a photo of the current one, or a mockup of the new one?

in any case, that building looks very 1960s Eastern Europe.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 22, 2013, 10:30:50 AM
is that a photo of the current one, or a mockup of the new one?

in any case, that building looks very 1960s Eastern Europe.


That's the current one.  Built in 1964!

http://www.doa.state.wi.us/subcategory.asp?linksubcatid=112&locid=4

My son lives pretty much right across the street from that building.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 23, 2013, 10:30:03 AM
I like the 'Commie block' reference to it!

:nod:

That thing towers over the nearby major intersection and yes, reminds one very much of some of the worst that the 20th century foisted upon the World.

BTW, that is what is referred to when the words 'Hill Farms' are mentioned in discussions regarding transport in Wisconsin.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 23, 2013, 11:41:50 AM
The problem with a lot of those buildings built in the 1960s is that they are ridiculously hard to renovate and retrofit.  Furthermore the State of Wisconsin built buildings back then that were supposed to have a usable life of 100 years, so they are solidly built, but very costly and no one back then had a clue how space needed to be utilized in 100 years.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 09, 2013, 07:12:56 PM
It's construction season in Wisconsin again.
The Wausau area enters it's 10th year of continuous freeway construction with two projects on I-39/US 51 and one west of town on WI 29.

All traffic is currently in the NB lanes over the Wisconsin River while the SB bridge is replaced.  Pretty straightforward.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/39/index.htm (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/39/index.htm)

The more interesting US 51 project is at the other end of BUS 51 where construction just started to reconfigure the current split diamond interchange into a diamond interchange at Bus 51/CTH K and a half diamond (facing south) at CTH U.  Just yesterday, the CTH U overpass was demolished, eliminating the last sub-standard vertical clearance on the corridor. :clap:
The ramp terminals at Bus 51 will be roundabouts but during construction, temporary traffic signals have been installed.  This is interesting because these junctions were previously unsignalized.
This project will also finally replace the last stretch of bone-jarring pavement on US 51 and/or I-39 in the area. (The original concrete c. 1963 is still in use currently.)
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/51uk/ (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/51uk/)

Finally, we've got the almost-freeway conversion of WI 29 out to Marathon City.  (WisDOT is leaving 1 RIRO on the WB lanes.)  While I drove the US 51 projects recently, I didn't get out on 29 to see how that was going, but they should be going at the new interchange for CTH O.  This stretch of expressway previously had a paved center left turn lane median and a 55 mph speed limit.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/29107o/index.htm (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/ncregion/29107o/index.htm)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 11, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Hey, when did WisDOT do this?
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=46.21298,-91.79802&z=15&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=46.21298,-91.79802&z=15&t=S)

The SB carriageway on US 53 by Halfway Lake in southern Douglas County has been relocated to follow the NB carriageway further east of the lake.  You can see the obliterated r/w of the old, straight carriageway that was the original 2 lane US 53.
I did not know this was happening and I follow WisDOT projects pretty closely.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 12, 2013, 01:18:22 PM
Better question is why was it not done when the NB lanes were moved?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 12, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
I'm guessing it was money since there are several stretches where the old 2 lane highway was not rebuilt after construction of the new carriageway.  This was one of 'em.

Another 'stealth project' on US 53 seems to be construction of an interchange at Haugen.  Reading WisDOT's corridor preservation study for US 53, it is not obvious in any way that this interchange is being built right now.  There's just one sentence on the region's weekly construction update.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 12, 2013, 09:26:54 PM
I'm guessing it was money since there are several stretches where the old 2 lane highway was not rebuilt after construction of the new carriageway.  This was one of 'em.

Another 'stealth project' on US 53 seems to be construction of an interchange at Haugen.  Reading WisDOT's corridor preservation study for US 53, it is not obvious in any way that this interchange is being built right now.  There's just one sentence on the region's weekly construction update.

I've been aware of that one since last year.  WisDOT is also seriously studying full freeway upgrades for US 53's Spooner bypass.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 16, 2013, 11:17:28 AM
I stopped in at the WisDOT PIM for upgrades to US 10 and WI 114 in the SE Appleton area, from WI 441 to just short of the WI 114 east split yesterday (Wed 2013-05-15) evening.

-The discussion was about simple upgrades to the existing roadways in response to the rapid urbanization of the far northwestern part of Calumet County - that area, especially the part of the county west of about County 'N', is fast filling in and will likely be built out (assuming current zoning) within the planning window for this project.  WisDOT says that that part of US 10 is now functioning just fine with its current design, but will be failing assuming that urban buildout.

-The preferred plan for this roadway is a rework as a more major urban-suburban style major street with a raised median and intersection upgrades (likely roundabouts) at several key intersections, especially at US 10's west split with WI 114 at the Calumet-Winnebago County line (this is the south end of Oneida St in Appleton).  An idea of how busy US 10 at that intersection is likely to become by about 2030-2035?  The signalized intersection option shown has THREE left turn lanes to handle the EB US 10 turn there.

 :wow:

-A pedestrian-bicycle path is included along the south side of US 10/WI 114, an idea that I strongly support.  The existing Lake Winnebago north shore area is full of residences that are now only, in a practical sense, accessible via car from a series of mostly non-connecting private access roadways that branch off of that part of US 10/WI 114.  (These are called the 'Fire Lanes' - Fire Lane 2 through Fire Lane 13, with the numbers increasing as one travels eastward.  'Fire Lane 1' is the south end of Oneida St.)  This path MAY be built sooner than the US 10/WI 114 ugrades by local governments (I hope that it will be).

-I brought up the issue of 'US Bicycle Routes' that was recently discussed elsewhere and that (assuming that I read AASHTO's list correctly) IMHO, this would be a good link on the USBR 20 corridor.  This path would be an extension of an existing path on the Winnebago County side of WI 114 (called the 'Friendship Trail') that currently continues westward through Menasha, across Little Lake Butts des Morts on a very interesting abandoned railroad bridge, westward along the US 10 freeway to the Winchester area and is ultimately planned to continue on roughly along US 10 to Stevens Point.  A couple of the local planning officials who I mentioned that to were very interested in that point.

-Actual construction is many years away, likely not until well into the 2020s, but when funding becomes available and that happens, it will be truly 'shovel ready' as all of the EIS and other related red tape will already be out of the way by then.  The WisDOT guys were visibly happy when they were bringing up that point.

-I did pass along my thoughts for US 10 ultimately being relocated off of that current routing west of Forest Junction to instead be rerouted to go past Hollandtown and feed into and connect to WI 441 freeway via County 'CE' (E College Ave).  They seemed interested.

-Major 'big shovel' six-lane upgrades to the Winnebago County part of the US 10/WI 441 freeway (US(I)-41, interchange 134 to Oneida St) are still on track for the 2016-2019 timeframe, but could be moved up depending on funding.

-Q) Will WisDOT be applying to AASHTO for 'promotion' of the WI 441 freeway to a full 3DI once that work is done?  A) A definite . . . maybe.  WisDOT is still not 100% sure that US 41 itself will be promoted - if US 41's current heavier than interstate-standard truck weight limit is not grandfathered in (the decision is pending), its pending promotion to 'I-41' could very well be *CANCELLED* and, if so, there would be no reason to apply for the same for WI 441.  Ditto for any similar 'promotion' for WI 172 in the Green Bay area.

 :wow:  :wow:

Stay tuned.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on May 16, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
What about a new alignment freeway for US 10 coming out of 441 at the curve just south of KK, running southeast towards the county N/US 10 roundabout. The US 10 freeway would continue along the current corridor for much of the way towards manitowoc.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 16, 2013, 04:44:03 PM
What about a new alignment freeway for US 10 coming out of 441 at the curve just south of KK, running southeast towards the county N/US 10 roundabout. The US 10 freeway would continue along the current corridor for much of the way towards manitowoc.

That would have been quite appropriate - had it been laid out and finalized in the late 1970s or early 1980s, long before WI 441 was built in the early 1990s.  OTOH, in 2013, there are a Walmart*, Time-Warner Cable call center, industrial park and numerous residential neighborhoods in the way.

The only corridor left for a potential US 10 reroute is County 'CE'.

-----------------

One of the planning alternates in the 1970s and early 1980s for what became WI 441 was a southerly routing that would have headed slightly southeastward and then eastward from the Little Lake Butte des Morts bridge along 9th St and modern-day US 10/WI 114 to Lake Park Rd, where it would have split with a directional 'Y' interchange.  The north leg would have followed Lake Park Rd to where the freeway is now, feeding into its current routing with an 'S' curve where it now crosses Lake Park Rd.  The east leg would have continued eastward as modern-day US 10/WI 114.

IMHO, that option would have been far and away the best from a traffic flow and utility standpoint, but it was also far and away the most expensive option - it would have use the most concrete and had the most ROW-acquisition expense - among other things requiring taking a block-wide swath of houses across Menasha's north side.  The fact that much of the ROW for the existing freeway was already acquired by then was also a factor.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 23, 2013, 08:31:11 PM
The 25th St-70th St I-94 corridor project had some PIMs recently. I visited it, materials are available for viewing here: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/seregion/94stadiumint/public.htm

*E2 is the way to go IMO. Everyone can get to/from 27th st directly with no St Paul / 25th St BS. Also, 35th st on/off ramps are braided and aren't split-diamond like.
*S1 is my pick here too. Surprised there were only two designs here... but they're both good / interesting. S1 sure is huge looking... but it's only 2-3 levels it looks like vs. a more expensive 4+ level design.
*C2 or C1 are decent, better than C3 anyways. If I had to pick one, C2.
*W2 or W4 are the only acceptable ones in accordance to the idea that C3 isn't acceptable. W2 and W4 are both great, W4 would result in less residential impacts, but W2 would result in a tight diamond with 70th st instead of the split 68-70th st diamond... which I like better... screw it, 70th st only would be better, so W2 wins.

3.1MB Composition of my choices:
(http://i.imgur.com/HRS5qUJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on May 23, 2013, 09:55:35 PM
 I though US 41 was getting rerouted/hidden as part of the interstate conversion; I would have expected WisDOT to show the new numbering.

The single point option is certainly interesting with the flyovers for EB to NB and WB to SB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 23, 2013, 10:26:35 PM
Hmmm.  341 becomes "unhidden" in these plans...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 23, 2013, 11:02:05 PM
I though US 41 was getting rerouted/hidden as part of the interstate conversion; I would have expected WisDOT to show the new numbering.

Looked like those were just for the public information so they could reference what is there now.  Exit numbers were also blank.  Since the replacement numbering of 41 north is not known they went that way instead.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 23, 2013, 11:10:36 PM
Interesting to think once US-41 is rerouted around I-894 that WI-341 will remain a relic/remembrance of the past.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on May 24, 2013, 11:40:38 AM
What about a new alignment freeway for US 10 coming out of 441 at the curve just south of KK, running southeast towards the county N/US 10 roundabout. The US 10 freeway would continue along the current corridor for much of the way towards manitowoc.

That would have been quite appropriate - had it been laid out and finalized in the late 1970s or early 1980s, long before WI 441 was built in the early 1990s.  OTOH, in 2013, there are a Walmart*, Time-Warner Cable call center, industrial park and numerous residential neighborhoods in the way.

The only corridor left for a potential US 10 reroute is County 'CE'.

-----------------

One of the planning alternates in the 1970s and early 1980s for what became WI 441 was a southerly routing that would have headed slightly southeastward and then eastward from the Little Lake Butte des Morts bridge along 9th St and modern-day US 10/WI 114 to Lake Park Rd, where it would have split with a directional 'Y' interchange.  The north leg would have followed Lake Park Rd to where the freeway is now, feeding into its current routing with an 'S' curve where it now crosses Lake Park Rd.  The east leg would have continued eastward as modern-day US 10/WI 114.

IMHO, that option would have been far and away the best from a traffic flow and utility standpoint, but it was also far and away the most expensive option - it would have use the most concrete and had the most ROW-acquisition expense - among other things requiring taking a block-wide swath of houses across Menasha's north side.  The fact that much of the ROW for the existing freeway was already acquired by then was also a factor.

Mike
I think it can be done, avoiding the neighborhoods and the Wal-Mart, there would be few houses in fact that would need to come down. http://www.flickr.com/photos/90524991@N03/8803832435/
I also included something like a 4-lane/ shared left turn lane setup for WI114 going south, and bypassing Sherwood before narrowing back down to two lanes after a partial Y-interchange at WI55/WI114. this is just a thought I had while drawing this up, knowing how difficult it can be at times to travel around for WIAA games and stuff, and seeing the subdivisions there growing rapidly. few if any houses or businesses would need to be removed. the actual US10 corridor itself obviously is too wide, I did that more to illustrate the location rather than the logistics.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 24, 2013, 01:04:01 PM
What about a new alignment freeway for US 10 coming out of 441 at the curve just south of KK, running southeast towards the county N/US 10 roundabout. The US 10 freeway would continue along the current corridor for much of the way towards manitowoc.

That would have been quite appropriate - had it been laid out and finalized in the late 1970s or early 1980s, long before WI 441 was built in the early 1990s.  OTOH, in 2013, there are a Walmart*, Time-Warner Cable call center, industrial park and numerous residential neighborhoods in the way.

The only corridor left for a potential US 10 reroute is County 'CE'.

-----------------

One of the planning alternates in the 1970s and early 1980s for what became WI 441 was a southerly routing that would have headed slightly southeastward and then eastward from the Little Lake Butte des Morts bridge along 9th St and modern-day US 10/WI 114 to Lake Park Rd, where it would have split with a directional 'Y' interchange.  The north leg would have followed Lake Park Rd to where the freeway is now, feeding into its current routing with an 'S' curve where it now crosses Lake Park Rd.  The east leg would have continued eastward as modern-day US 10/WI 114.

IMHO, that option would have been far and away the best from a traffic flow and utility standpoint, but it was also far and away the most expensive option - it would have use the most concrete and had the most ROW-acquisition expense - among other things requiring taking a block-wide swath of houses across Menasha's north side.  The fact that much of the ROW for the existing freeway was already acquired by then was also a factor.

Mike
I think it can be done, avoiding the neighborhoods and the Wal-Mart, there would be few houses in fact that would need to come down. http://www.flickr.com/photos/90524991@N03/8803832435/
I also included something like a 4-lane/ shared left turn lane setup for WI114 going south, and bypassing Sherwood before narrowing back down to two lanes after a partial Y-interchange at WI55/WI114. this is just a thought I had while drawing this up, knowing how difficult it can be at times to travel around for WIAA games and stuff, and seeing the subdivisions there growing rapidly. few if any houses or businesses would need to be removed. the actual US10 corridor itself obviously is too wide, I did that more to illustrate the location rather than the logistics.

What you have drawn will also require taking the Rassmusson College Appleton school as well as Time-Warner's new call center.  Both are fairly substantial buildings that are located on the southeast side of WI 441 there, in addition to taking a corridor through a major portion of the City of Appleton's southeast Business Park.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on May 24, 2013, 02:41:08 PM
I put mine through so Rasmussen wasn't impacted, but im not an engineer, so I don't know what exactly would be required there in terms of space and angles. if your talking about a free-flow interchange at Cty CE, then how could you possibly fit that there with so many businesses there? if you built something similar to the WI 29 project in green bay, I count at least 10 businesses/buildings that would nee to go if the new college ave. would be routed on the north side of the new freeway on the current alignment, and that's just assuming you end with a intersection/roundabout at Eisenhower drive. there would be no room for any interchanges until the current one at Washington st. plus there would be many more buildings torn down near the interchange to make room for the new ramps. beyond that, the next possible location along CE for an interchange that would have minimal impacts on surrounding subdivisions would be at military road. all of this is irrelevant however if your NOT talking about a freeway, obviously CE would then be the clear choice if you are talking about 4-lanes to Manitowoc without limited access. so my above statements are in regards only to a full freeway to Manitowoc.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 24, 2013, 09:42:11 PM
This is starting to delve into the 'fantasy/fictional' highway realm, but I have played around with that area off and on over the past few years and found that it is likely possible to do a free-flow connection at WI 441/College Ave needing only some of the 'throwaway' retail and FF buildings in the SE quadrant closest to the interchange.  This would involve piggybacking the free-flow part of the interchange over most of the existing diamond, rerouting the College Ave street east of WI 441 to follow the south frontage/access road eastward to Railroad St, upgrading the existing County 'CE' eastward past Railroad St with grade separations at Eisenhower Dr and Railroad St and WB off/EB on feeder ramps on the east side of Railroad St.

From there eastward is would be a very straightforward upgrade of an existing four-lane controlled-access suburban arterial to a full freeway with SPUIs and/or 'dogbone' roundabouts at the needed narrow ROW interchanges.  A working example of what I am thinking about is Keystone Parkway in Carmel, IN.

East of Military Rd east of Kaukauna, I'm envisioning a 'Super Two' freeway/expressway to continue on past Hollandtown and on to the east side of Forest Junction (where it would rejoin existing US 10) on an upgradable new four-lane ROW.

The part to make the connections with WI 441 south of College Ave would be a tight fit within the current ROW, but I also consider it to be doable with minor, if any, ROW acquisition needed.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 26, 2013, 04:36:14 PM
The 25th St-70th St I-94 corridor project had some PIMs recently. I visited it, materials are available for viewing here: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/seregion/94stadiumint/public.htm

*E2 is the way to go IMO. Everyone can get to/from 27th st directly with no St Paul / 25th St BS. Also, 35th st on/off ramps are braided and aren't split-diamond like.
*S1 is my pick here too. Surprised there were only two designs here... but they're both good / interesting. S1 sure is huge looking... but it's only 2-3 levels it looks like vs. a more expensive 4+ level design.
*C2 or C1 are decent, better than C3 anyways. If I had to pick one, C2.
*W2 or W4 are the only acceptable ones in accordance to the idea that C3 isn't acceptable. W2 and W4 are both great, W4 would result in less residential impacts, but W2 would result in a tight diamond with 70th st instead of the split 68-70th st diamond... which I like better... screw it, 70th st only would be better, so W2 wins.

3.1MB Composition of my choices:
(http://i.imgur.com/HRS5qUJ.jpg)

Refresh my memory. To get to the Casino from 94, don't you have to exit on to St Paul Ave? By doing it the way you show, you could not exit anymore at St Paul and 27th Ave would have no access to it either.  I think you might have a problem with the Casino traffic. Just saying.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 26, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Refresh my memory. To get to the Casino from 94, don't you have to exit on to St Paul Ave? By doing it the way you show, you could not exit anymore at St Paul and 27th Ave would have no access to it either.  I think you might have a problem with the Casino traffic. Just saying.

You're saying that like the Casino gets a buttload of traffic.

Regardless, 27th St exit -> Clybourn St -> 16th St -> Casino -OR- 27th St exit -> St Paul -> Emmber Lane -> Canal St -> Casino... it's barely harder and there's still access.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 26, 2013, 05:46:46 PM
It always seems to be crowded when I play at that one. The people aka traffic has to come from somewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 01, 2013, 11:12:51 PM
Geeky moment:
WisDOT has a neat new(?) tool for finding the AADT of state maintained and other roads, based on Google maps:

https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/roadrunner/

My only quibble is that there are not enough data points in suburban and rural areas. (esp. intersections)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 07, 2013, 12:15:32 PM
I was in Milwaukee yesterday evening (Thu - 2013-06-06) for the Phillies @ Brewers game (a lackluster loss for the Brewers, BTW  Grrrrr....) and, while walking along the main walkway from the east Miller Park parking lots to the stadium, took a glance to the left from the walkway and noticed a genuine, WisDOT-issue 'WI 341' sign alive in the wild.  It is by the stop-and-go lights at the intersection between a parking lot access roadway, a couple of Miller Park Way freeway ('secret' WI 341) access ramps and Canal St just east of where that main walkway crosses over the Miller Park Way freeway.  No, I didn't have a camera handy.   :-(

There are also a couple of mis-placed US 41 signs on the NB Miller Park Way freeway on the approach to I-94.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2013, 12:41:40 PM
There are also a couple of mis-placed US 41 signs on the NB Miller Park Way freeway on the approach to I-94.


I know...same ones have been there since I can remember.  And I have been driving that stretch for over 20 years!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on June 18, 2013, 06:08:56 PM
The WI-26 bypass of Milton is being paved.  More info here: http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2013/jun/18/work-underway-new-highway-26-lanes/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 19, 2013, 12:04:13 AM
I recently found myself having a little vacation in the Kickapoo River area around La Farge and Ontario.  This afforded me the opportunity to see first hand the artifacts of the cancelled La Farge Dam project and it's associated highway changes.  Chris Bessert did a nice write up on the failed project's effects on WI 131.

[ur]http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/indepth/STH-131_kickapoo.html[/url]

The contrast between the relocated segment south of Rockton and the 2000's rebuild north of there is stark.  The high bridge at Rockton is also an interesting vestige.  I saw it from the river, too and it was impressive to imagine 40 or 50 feet of water above your head there.
The old alignment of WI 131 is a nice multi-use trail.  Because it's so wide, one 'lane' is paved for bikes and the other side is gravel for horses.

I hiked around the old dam site and stood at the base of the intake tower.  Cool stuff.  The history of the project is so interesting too.  It was an attempt to solve a man-made problem.  (Floods were made worse on the Kickapoo by poor farming practice and poorly sited communities.)  But doing so only created more problems.

In the end, we wound up with an awesome, large piece of public land in a part of the state where such things are small and scattered.  Nature has reclaimed all the old pastures and fields and one can get a sense of what that whole driftless region looked like prior to development by European settlers.  The only thing the Kickapoo Reserve needs now is bison.  That would be really cool.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on June 19, 2013, 12:15:25 AM
Kickapoo is cool.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 20, 2013, 05:36:01 PM
Kickapoo is cool.

Well played, sir. :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 02, 2013, 10:02:56 AM
I was in Milwaukee yesterday evening (Thu - 2013-06-06) for the Phillies @ Brewers game (a lackluster loss for the Brewers, BTW  Grrrrr....) and, while walking along the main walkway from the east Miller Park parking lots to the stadium, took a glance to the left from the walkway and noticed a genuine, WisDOT-issue 'WI 341' sign alive in the wild.  It is by the stop-and-go lights at the intersection between a parking lot access roadway, a couple of Miller Park Way freeway ('secret' WI 341) access ramps and Canal St just east of where that main walkway crosses over the Miller Park Way freeway.  No, I didn't have a camera handy.   :-(

There are also a couple of mis-placed US 41 signs on the NB Miller Park Way freeway on the approach to I-94.

Mike

You're making me want to go on a scavenger hunt! lol

If I get there and see the sign, I'll snap a few pics to upload.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 27, 2013, 02:23:38 PM
When did WisDOT add 'driveyour94.com' as a domain URL?
i.e. http://driveyour94.com/statepatrol/index.htm or http://driveyour94.com/travel/air/aircraft-reg.htm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 27, 2013, 02:46:36 PM
^^ Seems very odd that WisDOT would do this on their own as I-94 is not unique to Wisconsin, plus the urls lead to WisDOT sections that have nothing to do with I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on July 27, 2013, 05:18:33 PM
Anyone know how many miles of highway are in Wisconsin's state highway system? Maybe it's 9400? :bigass:

EDIT: Never mind, it's 11,000. Maybe now one of the Dakotas will register the domain name http://mightyfineon29.com/ :bigass:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mahaasma on July 28, 2013, 09:57:51 PM
I have a two Fort Atkinson questions, should be quick so I decided to post them here.

1)  WisDOT was studying a US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson, but it seems like it abruptly stopped all of a sudden last year.  Does anyone know why?  Lack of funding?
Here's the message on the page: 
Quote
Note - WisDOT has stopped all work on the study of a future US 12 Bypass through the town of Koshkonong south of Fort Atkinson. The final disposition of the study will be determined at a future date by the Transportation Projects Commission. (May 3, 2012)

2) I noticed that US-12 and Business 26 actually operate on two different streets in town.  I've seen this before when streets are one-way, but never when streets are two way.  The traditional route takes US-12 on Madison Avenue to south on Main St, then following Whitewater Ave toward WW.  But now, US-12 E (and Bus-26 southbound) is signed Madison Ave to Robert St to 3rd St to Main (and Bus-26 Robert St to Janesville Ave).  But the westbound US-12 routing stays with its traditional route.  Same with the northbound Business 26.

Hope this description makes sense.  I don't know how recent this change was.  Anyone know why?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 28, 2013, 10:19:11 PM
I have a two Fort Atkinson questions, should be quick so I decided to post them here.

1)  WisDOT was studying a US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson, but it seems like it abruptly stopped all of a sudden last year.  Does anyone know why?  Lack of funding?
Here's the message on the page: 
Quote
Note - WisDOT has stopped all work on the study of a future US 12 Bypass through the town of Koshkonong south of Fort Atkinson. The final disposition of the study will be determined at a future date by the Transportation Projects Commission. (May 3, 2012)

2) I noticed that US-12 and Business 26 actually operate on two different streets in town.  I've seen this before when streets are one-way, but never when streets are two way.  The traditional route takes US-12 on Madison Avenue to south on Main St, then following Whitewater Ave toward WW.  But now, US-12 E (and Bus-26 southbound) is signed Madison Ave to Robert St to 3rd St to Main (and Bus-26 Robert St to Janesville Ave).  But the westbound US-12 routing stays with its traditional route.  Same with the northbound Business 26.

Hope this description makes sense.  I don't know how recent this change was.  Anyone know why?


1. The Governor stopped all work on the project for political reasons.  It will likely be picked up again, but they are far away from building it anyway.

2.  I have lived in Fort Atkinson since just after the bypass opened.  My understanding is that WI-26 was simply replaced by Bus. WI-26.  I have no idea the exact date the change was made, but I am pretty sure it is when they upgraded Robert Street and the Robert Street bridge over the Rock River in the mid 70s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 29, 2013, 10:23:33 AM
On a slightly different note, I have found a genuine, albeit Sun-faded, 'INTERSTATE/WISCONSIN 43' sign alive in the wild.  It is on westbound Dousman St (US 141) just as one comes off of its Fox River bridge in downtown Green Bay.

http://goo.gl/maps/n8IAm

That's the Titletown Brewery in the background.

 :cool:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 29, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
^^ and the sign is older than 1998 when the road was reconstructed so that sign somehow survived that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 30, 2013, 10:29:27 PM
Speaking of US 12, I could've sworn I saw something in the Janesville Gazette or elsewhere about Walworth County trying to get a study done to push the Elkhorn-Whitewater 4-laning forward. Of course now I can't find it....

Update: yes, but the article's 2 years old - http://gazettextra.com/news/2011/nov/17/boards-urge-dot-hurry-hwy-12-study/

Update #2: Found it! (currently in Google's cache since gazettextra's being stupid)

DOT takes over Highway 12 expansion
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uyoCzfiwkHUJ:gazettextra.com/news/2013/jul/17/dot-takes-over-highway-12-expansion/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

And.....

Highway 12 expansion project underway
http://news.mywalworthcounty.com/?p=5793
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 31, 2013, 02:08:10 AM
^^
I would definitely do the 'Corner Cut' as proposed - except for the crossing of that small bit of the Kettle Moraine, which is easy to dig through random-mixed sand and gravel, the rest is entirely pool-table flat, wide-open countryside.

The existing US 12 would still remain a state highway, WI 67 and a westward extension of WI 20, and I would install a roundabout that the current US 12 turn intersection at WI 20/67, as well as study them at a couple of other intersections along the way.

And then, how long before the Whitewater-Fort Atkinson part is put back on the front burner???

 :hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 01, 2013, 09:41:47 PM
I attended the PIM regarding the I-39/90 construction in Janesville tonight, and came back with some interesting information, including:

- Previously, WisDOT was going to expand into the median throughout Rock County, and maintain at least a 60-foot median width through Dane County. This apparently has changed; they are now designing for a 84-foot median throughout, with the possible exceptions of the section through Janesville, and the stretch north of the weigh station to the Beltline. The goal is to not need any kind of median barrier in the rural sections, at least until such time that another lane becomes necessary.

- They are proposing a number of intersection improvements to US-14 along the east and north sides of Janesville, and to US-51 north through Edgerton. There is no proposal to widen any section of US-14 or US-51 in conjunction with this project. They anticipate about 15% of traffic currently using I-39/90 would divert around construction via US-14 and US-51. More: http://projects.511wi.gov/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f0e13a89-c192-46fc-aaac-3fde1a368182&groupId=33947

- They are proposing either a signalized diamond interchange at Hwy 26, or a DDI (diverging-diamond interchange). When I posed a question about considerations for a SPUI instead, the engineer indicated the longer, wider bridges would have been cost-prohibitive, and a SPUI did not perform any better than a DDI.

- Lots of complaints about the roundabouts proposed for the Hwy 59 interchange, with many citing the roundabouts at Hwy 59 and (future) Hwy 26 in Milton as evidence they are unsafe. More than one commenter indicated it would ruin business in Newville (unlikely).

The WisDOT representatives pointed out that the fact that roundabouts force traffic to slow down as a good thing, and that they updated roundabout design standards since the design of the Hwy 59/26 interchange (and that said roundabouts have since been updated).

They also mentioned both truck drivers who rolled their rigs in Milton were driving too fast through the roundabouts (they did not mention both were ethanol tankers, which are particularly prone to rolling over).

- Further complaints about the changes to Hwy 59 just east of the I-39/90 interchange in Newville involve the raised median forcing traffic to RIRO from side streets and businesses. I asked about a possible roundabout at Ellendale Rd (just south of the Hwy 59 bridge); the response was that it was outside the project scope. Traffic for businesses south (west) of Hwy 59 have a rear access road that mitigates this access issue somewhat.

- Assuming owners along the stretch approve them, most of I-39/90 between US-14 and Racine St will have sound walls. The exceptions are the stretches bordering the schools and Palmer Park.

- Even at this late date, there is still considerable discussion about the redesign of the Beltline interchange and its implementation. They hinted it may be broken off as a separate project from the widening project. Ditto to the I-43 interchange in Beloit.

- One issue I raised during the presentation was that there was no attempt to lengthen the short SBD on-ramp to I-39/90 from Hwy 59. The new ramp is straighter, but it ends hard at the bridge over the Rock River just like the current design. This may come back to bite them later, though adding an additional lane to accomodate that flow would raise costs significantly.

- The Town of Milton asked WisDOT to consider a new interchange at County M just west of Milton, but no action has taken place to incorporate that into the design. The railroad immediately south of County M would complicate matters a bit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 08:27:52 AM
A County M interchange would be good since that is where a lot of the growth in that area is occurring.

By they way, I would guess that the WI-26 bypass of Milton is within a week or two of opening.  They are going to be opening the future NB lanes as a single lane bypass to work on the connection on the SB lanes on either side of the bypass.  The entire thing is supposed to open as a full four lane bypass this November.

They have been making steady progress on the section between Fort Atkinson and Milton.  They will have the new lanes cleared and graded by the close of the construction season.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on August 02, 2013, 11:06:45 AM
I could see an interchange at M in the future.  More direct access into Milton, especially from Madison.  And would probably tie into some sort of a west Janesville bypass.

What was the reception from those in attendance to the proposal at I-39/90 and 26?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 02, 2013, 01:21:34 PM
I could see an interchange at M in the future.  More direct access into Milton, especially from Madison.  And would probably tie into some sort of a west Janesville bypass.

What was the reception from those in attendance to the proposal at I-39/90 and 26?

Not building an interchange is likely the best way of preventing what I call 'premature development' and that is, IMHO, the main reason for no interchange being there now.  That is why WisDOT purposely built no interchanges on the US 10 freeway between WI 76 ('old' US 45) and US 45 at Winchester here in the Appleton area - and in the ten years ( :wow: ) since that freeway opened, that tactic has worked out beautifully.

Also, I fail to see Milton Township's interest in pushing for an interchange there as IMHO, there is a near certainty that when the time comes to develop that area, it will have to be annexed into the City of Milton in order for sewer and water service to be extended to it.  As it stands right now, Milton and Janesville are only a couple of years away from bumping borders along WI 26, with the current strong development in that area and the need for one or the other city to provide those services.

That said, I'm going to have to make another daytrip into that area.

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 01:32:28 PM
Interestingly, there are parts of the City of Janesville that lie within the Milton School District.

http://wisconsin.hometownlocator.com/schools/profiles,n,milton%20high,z,53563,t,pb,i,1125563.cfm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 02, 2013, 08:04:07 PM
By they way, I would guess that the WI-26 bypass of Milton is within a week or two of opening.  They are going to be opening the future NB lanes as a single lane bypass to work on the connection on the SB lanes on either side of the bypass.  The entire thing is supposed to open as a full four lane bypass this November.

It's really damn close. They've had the concrete pavement in place for at least a month or two, and the asphalt shoulders and transitions are in place. All the ramps at County N and Hwy 59 are in place. All it's missing are signs, really.

They have been making steady progress on the section between Fort Atkinson and Milton.  They will have the new lanes cleared and graded by the close of the construction season.

It's crazy how much cut and fill they've done v.s. the old road. I was out that way a week or so ago, after a heavy rainstorm, and the NBD lane on the current carriageway flooded out. There was a Jefferson County deputy directing traffic around it, as it didn't quite submerge the SBD lane.

Between the recent WI-26 expansion and the pending work on I-39/90, Janesville is going to be a major roadgeek draw for a while.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2013, 10:28:50 PM
By they way, I would guess that the WI-26 bypass of Milton is within a week or two of opening.  They are going to be opening the future NB lanes as a single lane bypass to work on the connection on the SB lanes on either side of the bypass.  The entire thing is supposed to open as a full four lane bypass this November.

It's really damn close. They've had the concrete pavement in place for at least a month or two, and the asphalt shoulders and transitions are in place. All the ramps at County N and Hwy 59 are in place. All it's missing are signs, really, and the transitions at each end.


Just found this....August 23 is the date the Milton bypass opens with just the one lane.  Three weeks from today.

http://www.hngnews.com/milton_courier/news/local/article_064795a6-f9ed-11e2-9f3e-001a4bcf6878.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on August 03, 2013, 10:55:23 PM
Is there some reason Wisconsin seems to hang new signal heads on the mast arms horizontally initially and then rotating the heads, or is Wisconsin going back and forth between vertical and horizontal signals?  Take these two signals on WI 100:
(http://imageshack.com/a/img707/5905/8gj7.jpg)
(http://imageshack.com/a/img443/7296/1o5k.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 03, 2013, 11:14:13 PM
^^ They leave them horizontal until they are ready to be activated then they become vertical.  Makes for less confusion so the motorist better understands to still follow the temporary signal.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on August 03, 2013, 11:14:58 PM
Is there some reason Wisconsin seems to hang new signal heads on the mast arms horizontally initially and then rotating the heads, or is Wisconsin going back and forth between vertical and horizontal signals?  Take these two signals on WI 100:


Guess they're just waiting to fasten them into the right place. The new Greenfield Av. bridge was like that prior to being operational.

On a separate note, looks like you did quite a bit of driving today. Eastbound on Greenfield, then north on WI 100.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 04, 2013, 12:53:50 AM
What was the reception from those in attendance to the proposal at I-39/90 and 26?

Mostly meh. A couple older gentleman asked questions about it, but nobody seemed all that excited one way or the other.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on August 04, 2013, 01:08:27 AM
On a separate note, looks like you did quite a bit of driving today. Eastbound on Greenfield, then north on WI 100.

And a lovely tour of US 41 between US 45 and I-94, plus south on Miller Park Way to find out the hard way U-turns are prohibited at National Avenue.  Figured it was a good time to go exploring since gas is relatively cheap.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2013, 09:08:28 AM
By they way, I would guess that the WI-26 bypass of Milton is within a week or two of opening.  They are going to be opening the future NB lanes as a single lane bypass to work on the connection on the SB lanes on either side of the bypass.  The entire thing is supposed to open as a full four lane bypass this November.

It's really damn close. They've had the concrete pavement in place for at least a month or two, and the asphalt shoulders and transitions are in place. All the ramps at County N and Hwy 59 are in place. All it's missing are signs, really, and the transitions at each end.


Just found this....August 23 is the date the Milton bypass opens with just the one lane.  Three weeks from today.

http://www.hngnews.com/milton_courier/news/local/article_064795a6-f9ed-11e2-9f3e-001a4bcf6878.html


The August 23 date has now been confirmed by WIDOT at a PIM yesterday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on August 19, 2013, 12:45:39 PM
Saw on the news that Wisconsin may try to get the ball rolling on raising the speed limit to 70 now that Illinois has done so.  To keep in line with all the neighboring states.  I see that the Chicagoland area is staying at 65, not sure if there would be similar efforts for the Milwaukee area, Fox Valley, and/or Madison area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 19, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
The Milwaukee area and Madison area will for sure keep lower speed limits where they are already less than 65, as those places aren't designed to carry their traffic volumes faster. I could see the fox valley from breeze wood lane to kaukauna remaining at 65, mainly because of the curve north of Winchester ave, which is kind of hard over 70mph. Also, WI441, even after the new project will also likely remain at 65. I'm not so sure the efforts to remove the 's' curves will yield a 70mph highway, though, the rest of the hwy is pretty much straight. Green Bay, with some closely spaced interchanges could potentially stay at 65 for us41, though, after the Green Bay portion of the project is completed in 2017? There should be sufficient auxiliary lanes and whatnot. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 20, 2013, 12:33:35 AM
Saw on the news that Wisconsin may try to get the ball rolling on raising the speed limit to 70 now that Illinois has done so.  To keep in line with all the neighboring states.  I see that the Chicagoland area is staying at 65, not sure if there would be similar efforts for the Milwaukee area, Fox Valley, and/or Madison area.
The Milwaukee area and Madison area will for sure keep lower speed limits where they are already less than 65, as those places aren't designed to carry their traffic volumes faster. I could see the fox valley from breeze wood lane to kaukauna remaining at 65, mainly because of the curve north of Winchester ave, which is kind of hard over 70mph. Also, WI441, even after the new project will also likely remain at 65. I'm not so sure the efforts to remove the 's' curves will yield a 70mph highway, though, the rest of the hwy is pretty much straight. Green Bay, with some closely spaced interchanges could potentially stay at 65 for us41, though, after the Green Bay portion of the project is completed in 2017? There should be sufficient auxiliary lanes and whatnot.

I'm pretty sure at least one factor that would keep Chicagoland speed limits lower are Clean Air Act considerations. Most of the suburban freeways/tollways have suitable design characteristics for 70+ mph travel (in fact, they generally free flow at that pace).

I certainly expect any Wisconsin highways currently posted for 65mph outside of the metros to go to 70mph; none of them have any serious design problems. If there's only one curve on Hwy 441 that's too fast for 70mph, they could simply post a lower advisory speed for that curve and leave the remainder posted higher.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 01:08:23 PM
A 70 mph limit will not change one bit how I drive in Wisconsin (70 frwy/expy, 60 rural 2 lane).  I think the same is true for the majority of highway users.  I am completely ambivalent about this proposal.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on August 20, 2013, 01:11:17 PM
I got my first 2 speeding tickets in Wisconsin.  Jerks.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 20, 2013, 03:12:46 PM
A 70 mph limit will not change one bit how I drive in Wisconsin (70 frwy/expy, 60 rural 2 lane).  I think the same is true for the majority of highway users.  I am completely ambivalent about this proposal.

the difference is, when I'm going 75 down US(I) 41 between Oshkosh and FDL on my way to work (or home), and trooper Dave pulls me over for speeding, I won't be going ten over anymore, I will be going 5 over, and likely not pulled over. At least trooper Dave was good to me and gave me a warning for my first time being pulled over, he seen that I had just finished a long 12 hour shift and wanted to get home.
Additionally, I want to know if should this pass, how will it be structured? Will it be such that all non-metro interstates will be mandatory 70mph? Optional? Will full freeway US and state routes receive the same considerations? Also, would current 65 mph expressways like WI 57 north of Green Bay, US 41 and US 141 north of Green Bay, WI 29 and US 10 all get similar considerations for their 65mph expressway segments?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 20, 2013, 09:36:48 PM
i got a first glimpse of the bill.  It basically says that 70 MPH will be allowed, but WisDOT can lower it if it wants.  Not sure what highway classifications if any are specified in the bill.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 20, 2013, 10:35:24 PM
My expectation is that it won't apply to any non-freeways, and additionally, it will only apply to rural interstates, where not even full rural freeways that are only US highways or state routes (US 45, US10, WI441, US 53, WI16 and many other stretches) will remain at 65mph, such as in Ohio. The biggest one is US(I)41, though it won't be a problem if/when congress passes a bill to grandfather the weight limit. Ohio having only recently made the jump to 70 on only a limited basis is what is scaring me that Wisconsin may do this in the stupidest way possible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on August 21, 2013, 09:18:19 PM
make I-94 70 from IL line to milwaukee area
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 21, 2013, 09:29:10 PM
make I-94 70 from IL line to milwaukee area


They'll keep that at 65...traffic goes near 80 already.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 22, 2013, 09:49:11 PM
I went out to Waukesha today for a job, and took a "scenic" route back. I followed Hwy 16 over to Watertown, then north to the Hwy 60 junction.

I'm sure I've ranted about this before, but the speed limits on the Hwy 16/67 bypass around Oconomowoc are ridiculously underposted. 45 mph north to County Z, then 55mph to the west end of the bypass. There's no side traffic except at Lisbon Rd and County Z. No driveways. Light traffic (even at rush hour). Plenty of cops lying in wait. Headed westbound from Waukesha, it's 65mph up until shortly before the bypass. The inconsistency is frustrating.

Crews are certainly working fast on the Hwy 16/26 stretch; they have most of the new roadbed carved out, and appear to be making steady progress on the temporary bypass around the existing interchange. It wasn't quite as obvious how much the old road followed the land until most of that land was graded away; it looks a lot like a roller-coaster ride now.

The Fort Atkinson to County N stretch of Hwy 26 is coming together quickly as well; they appear to be close to laying concrete on the NBD lanes from the county line north. It appears the goal is two-way traffic on the new NBD lanes in time for winter.

The Milton bypass is scheduled to open tomorrow. They have the lane striping and construction barrels set up to guide traffic onto the new stretch, ready to be switched over quickly. They even have all the signs installed to make a 4-way stop at County N on the soon-to-be-former Hwy 26 stretch. The construction equipment is out in force, ready to tear up the old road north of County N as soon as traffic gets moved onto the bypass.

News reports suggested the bypass would be just on the NBD lanes, but from what I was able to see, they appear to be using the new SBD lanes between County N and Hwy 59, merging back to two-way traffic on the NBD lanes to get around the short stretch of SBD not yet completed south of Milton. I'll be out again after work tomorrow to confirm this is the case.

They have the new bridge beams set on the Hwy 11/Racine St overpass over I-39/90, and are making solid progress on the roadway west of the interchange. The east side is mostly under a bunch of concrete rubble at this point; they'll have to hustle to complete it in time for winter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2013, 09:29:03 AM
I made a run past the new Milton bypass as well, and I think you are correct about the use of the four-lanes.

I also noticed that the County N interchange doesn't appear to be "BGS worthy" in the eyes of WIDOT with just one "SGS" with a half mile indication southbound.  I have no idea if that will change once the four lanes are in place all the way to Fort Atkinson.  I also don't know if there will be a different sign northbound.  I guess in thinking about it I have no idea what the appropriate control cities would be anyway.  Whitewater and Edgerton?  (No one would actually use that route to get to either city though.)

NB the control cities for the WI-59 BGS are Whitewater and Milton...makes sense.  I assume they will be the same SB.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 23, 2013, 11:00:18 AM
Too bad they're not continuing the four lanes northward from WI 60 to US 151, preferably to connect at the curve at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

 :no:

OTOH, County 'A' from WI 26 just north of WI 60 to US 151 at the northeast corner of Beaver Dam (by the Walmart* distribution center) was rebuilt over the past few years with some of the very BEST two-lane concrete that I've seen anywhere - except at its major intersections at WI 26, WI 33 and County 'E', this as of my most recent drive-by this past spring.  (Will the latter two be rebuilt as roundabouts?)  My current expectation is for it to become a reroute for WI 26, with the existing part of WI 26 north of there to be both reflagged as a different state highway (WI 28?) south of WI 33 and turned back to the county (north of WI 33 to US 151 on Waupun's NE side).

I'll have to explore this again in the next few days.

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 23, 2013, 07:08:32 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 23, 2013, 08:04:25 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   


How many lanes are open?  I think Old 26 isn't supposed to be a county highway...just a street.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 24, 2013, 03:11:33 AM
All 4 lanes are open between County N and Hwy 59. They take it down to two lanes between Hwy 59 and Harmony Town Hall Rd, then back to 4 lanes to I-39/90.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 24, 2013, 03:30:05 PM
A couple of images of a little 'before' item that some in here may have missed, this was shot on NB County 'NN' (old WI 26) between County 'N' and WI 26 just a few weeks before it was obliterated by the Milton Bypass construction.

Enjoy!

 :cool:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img856/1012/u0r2.jpg)

and a close-up:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img23/6379/mdy9.jpg)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on August 24, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
^^ I have never seen a cutout sign that used the whole "WISCONSIN" word before (excluding pre 1960's era signs that were of a slightly different design).  The non-neutered signs always had the abbreviation "WIS"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 24, 2013, 06:24:31 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   


I drove it this afternoon.  I *really* had to work to keep my speed down.  Very smooth....and it was very busy.  Well done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 24, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
^^ I have never seen a cutout sign that used the whole "WISCONSIN" word before (excluding pre 1960's era signs that were of a slightly different design).  The non-neutered signs always had the abbreviation "WIS"

My guess is that it was a product of the county sign shop - statewide, they've all been known for some interesting stuff.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jim920 on August 24, 2013, 10:22:31 PM
Well, I'll say this much - traffic was surprisingly heavy on the new Milton bypass this afternoon. It's a very nicely-done stretch of highway, and Rock County is going to make a killing writing tickets for 70 in a 55 for a while. I saw a deputy nail just such a speeder near the County N exit tonight while checking things out.

The SBD "SGS" sign for County N is definitely temporary. NBD, the control cities on the BGS for County N are indeed Whitewater and Edgerton.

At least for the time being, County N and Old Hwy 26 is a 4-way stop (it's kind of an awkward intersection to drive through at speed). No leftover reassurance signs indicating Hwy 26 on the old stretch, but Rock County has not yet switched out its street signs. No indication (as of yet) that it will be recast as a County highway, let alone what letter designation it would earn (a northerly extension of County Y would likely make the most sense).   


I drove it this afternoon.  I *really* had to work to keep my speed down.  Very smooth....and it was very busy.  Well done.

I also drove it this afternoon, it's quite nice. I had to set the cruise control to 62 otherwise I would have been way over 55. I drove NB and the last SL sign I remember seeing was before the WI-59 exit, if you merged on at 59 you would have no clue the SL is only 55.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 24, 2013, 11:29:23 PM
^^ I have never seen a cutout sign that used the whole "WISCONSIN" word before (excluding pre 1960's era signs that were of a slightly different design).  The non-neutered signs always had the abbreviation "WIS"

My guess is that it was a product of the county sign shop - statewide, they've all been known for some interesting stuff.

Mike
Could these be the same idiots who put up a dozen or so "alternate STATE 41" shields on WI 21 and US 45 in Oshkosh? They are all brand new, put up within the last month I'm guessing, I really haven't driven that route much this summer to have noticed them before.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on August 25, 2013, 02:08:02 AM
I've seen a couple signs down in Walworth/Racine/Kenosha counties (forgot which one, somewhere in the south of wisconsin, west of the Interstate) with State Highway signs with both "WIS" and pretty damn sure "WISCONSIN" too. I was thinking of stopping and taking pics but didn't have time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 25, 2013, 09:03:12 PM
Drove the new segment of WI 26 around Milton today.  Always cool to drive 'em when they're brand spanking new.  Obviously WisDOT is waiting until it's all done between Janesville and Ft. Atkinson before bumping up the SL.  Or at the very least, the work that still needs to be done on the SB carriageway south of Milton.

After driving the entire distance between Elkhorn and Whitewater on US 12 I think it would be very reasonable to get the ball rolling on a 2 lane version of a new alignment between the two towns.  It's not like there's a ton of traffic, but the SL is low and there are many, many driveways.  Even if Illinois never, ever gets a tollway up to the border at Genoa City, a two lane relocation would still be useful.

Do what was done around Whitewater and snatch up the r/w needed for a full freeway, but just build one carriageway.  There'd probably be a minor extension of the freeway to get ya through that interchange in Elkhorn with WI 67.  Whenever I look at how to route it, I like to return to the existing alignment in the area of CTH O to avoid blasting a new r/w through the Kettle Moraine (both the state forest and the geologic feature).  Seems pretty obvious to me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 25, 2013, 09:23:21 PM
After driving the entire distance between Elkhorn and Whitewater on US 12 I think it would be very reasonable to get the ball rolling on a 2 lane version of a new alignment between the two towns.  It's not like there's a ton of traffic, but the SL is low and there are many, many driveways.  Even if Illinois never, ever gets a tollway up to the border at Genoa City, a two lane relocation would still be useful.



They are looking at it.

http://www.janesvillegazette.com/article/20130714/ARTICLES/130719901

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 25, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

I fully agree, too, a 'super-two' expressway on an upgradable four-lanes freeway ROW between Elkhorn and Whitewater, as well as between Whitewater and Fort Atkinson, is the best way to go.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on August 25, 2013, 10:17:20 PM
Can someone copy and paste that article or something?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on August 26, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Given that none of us will live to see the tollway extended, would it make sense to downgrade the freeway section of US 12 to a Super 2 the next time the pavement needs replacing?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 26, 2013, 01:16:33 AM
There's sufficient traffic (particularly in the summer) to justify leave the existing freeway section of US-12 as it is. It connects to 4-lane Hwy 50 at Lake Geneva, which connects you to I-94/US-41 at Kenosha, making it part of a vital connector to Chicago. If/when Illinois makes the proper connection to this stretch, that stretch will become a whole lot busier.

I agree that there's no pressing need to 4-lane a relocated US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater; much of the traffic on the existing stretch is local in nature and would remain after construction. Much like the Whitewater bypass, however, WisDOT would be smart to have the ROW in place to add an additional carriageway when it is needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 26, 2013, 08:47:27 AM
Can someone copy and paste that article or something?


Opened an incognito window and got it:

"The expansion of Highway 12 in Walworth County is now in the hands of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.

Last week, Gov. Scott Walker signed an environmental impact study conducted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, sending the project to the department of transportation for consideration.

The report, finished in 2011, indicates Highway 12 is almost at its capacity of 14,000 cars per day capacity. The planning commission projects by the year 2035 there will be 21,000 vehicles per day using the highway, causing significant traffic issues.

The two options the planning commission developed are widening the current route between Elkhorn and Whitewater to four lanes, estimated to cost $64.2 million, or creating a more direct route between Whitewater and Elkhorn that would pass through the town of Sugar Creek, estimated to cost $116.7 million.

The next step is for the department of transportation to conduct its own study. It may agree with the options the planning commission suggested, or it could come up with its own possible routes. There is no projected date for when the study will be finished, but Jefferey Knight, president of the Greater Whitewater Committee, said it could take years.

The first option, widening the current route, would cause significant disruption to homes and businesses and loss of land along the highway.

Whitewater City Manager Cameron Clapper said he personally would like the second option, allowing for a more direct route between Elkhorn and Whitewater, bringing more customers to local businesses.

“Long-term, having this highway expansion is going to be a huge benefit to the people in this community in terms of getting more commercial access in Whitewater,” Clapper said. “Providing a larger number of cars is going to mean a larger number of customers, and that's going to improve our business community across the board.”

Knight said Whitewater city officials have been trying to move the project forward for three years because it would be good for the local economy.

“This should be the beginning of conversations for companies to come to Whitewater, which means more jobs and money for the local economy,” Knight said.

Another factor contributing to the need for the expansion is UW-Whitewater, which is the only University of Wisconsin System university that does not have direct access to a four-lane highway.

“It would help the university because it brings in over 1,000 students from Illinois, and it's not the easiest route to get back and forth, so those parents might come up here more and spend money in restaurants and other businesses,” Knight said.

Both expansion options that the planning commission suggested go through the town of Sugar Creek. David Duwe, town chairman, said the town has not settled on a preferred option. Either way, people will lose land.

“Every time it comes up, it's a huge deal for Sugar Creek,” Duwe said. “It's to the point where people in Sugar Creek want it to go one way or the other. Either they're going to do something or not instead of holding peoples' lands ransom.”

Samuel Tapson, an administrator for Elkhorn, said the city has not taken a position on the options because city officials believe the expansion should be handled at the state level."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on August 26, 2013, 09:29:35 AM
The Milton Courier has some photos of the 26 bypass here:
http://www.hngnews.com/milton_courier/news/local/collection_27c43b88-0c14-11e3-976f-0019bb30f31a.html

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 26, 2013, 11:11:03 AM
Even if the 'Corner Cut' is the routing selection, as it should be, the entire existing routing will likely remain state highways as the north-south part will still be WI 67 (it is already duplexed with US 12 there) and the east-west part will do very well as a westward extension of WI 20.

Also, IMHO, that wacky intersection at WI 20 and WI 67 where US 12 now makes its turn is an ideal site for a roundabout.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on August 27, 2013, 08:03:57 AM
Does anybody by chance happen to have a map of that route through Sugar Creek? I tried checking the WisDOT website but there is nothing listed. Would be nice to visualize what the suggested route for the Corner Cut is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2013, 09:17:39 AM
Does anybody by chance happen to have a map of that route through Sugar Creek? I tried checking the WisDOT website but there is nothing listed. Would be nice to visualize what the suggested route for the Corner Cut is.


There are some maps in this document here:

http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Publications/pr/pr-015-2nd-ed-jurisdictional-highway-system-plan-walworth-county.pdf

I have also seen some more detailed maps, but I can't seem to find them anywhere.  It has been on the books by WIDOT since the late 60s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on August 27, 2013, 10:36:09 AM
Thanks SEWIGuy! That does make sense, I agree. Of course, my OCD can't stand to see a broken US 12 freeway from Genoa City to Elkhorn, when it should REALLY be a Chicago to Madison route. But I digress, don't want to get too fictional.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2013, 10:39:56 AM
Thanks SEWIGuy! That does make sense, I agree. Of course, my OCD can't stand to see a broken US 12 freeway from Genoa City to Elkhorn, when it should REALLY be a Chicago to Madison route. But I digress, don't want to get too fictional.


It makes even more sense if you have driven it.  From Whitewater east to the intersection with WI-20 and WI-67, it is fine with just a little slow down in LaGrange.

From that intersection south to Elkhorn it is a stretch with driveways, stop lights, etc.  Lots of local traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 27, 2013, 09:23:27 PM
Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

Following the powerline through the moraine would be a mistake.  It passes over the headwaters of Bluff Creek; a nice coldwater trout stream.  It's a state natural area as well.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S)
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271 (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271)
The best path should be to use the existing alignment between CTH O and Sweno Road.  No need to slice a expensive, distruptive new hole through some nice public land.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 28, 2013, 11:49:19 PM
I drove the new part of WI 26 today (Wednesday, 2013-08-28), too.  Yea, the two-lane part on the south end is simply there while crews connect the new bypass' end with the existing four lanes.

Other notes:
-I have little sympathy for the owner of that now-orphaned C-store/McDs along WI 26 on Milton's south side - he had several years to prepare to move it to a better 'after' location and knew (or should have known) that there would not be access to the new WI 26 by his property.  Major local access between Milton and Janesville is via County 'J', a major street and, IIRC, the original routing of WI 26 there, while the other major surface streets, including the now-bypassed old WI 26, in that developing area between Janesville and Milton are being formed into a useful grid for when that semi-rural land is annexed into one or the other of those two cities and developed.  The two are only a few short years from bumping borders.

-I noticed that much of the rebuilt WI 26 between I-39/90 and Watertown is flanked by bicycle paths on one side or the other.

-Why, oh WHY did WisDOT erase all vestiges of 'Oshkosh' as the northbound WI 26 control on US 151 in the Waupun area?  All that is there now is 'Rosendale', a tiny speck that nearly everyone who drives that road would rather not have to pass through - if they could help it - while on their respective ways to the much larger and infinitely more important Oshkosh and beyond.  The first mention of 'Oshkosh' on NB WI 26 is now on the distance sign that is just north of its major US 151 split northeast of Waupun.

 :banghead:

-If WisDOT ever developed the desire and could find the funding, there is really not a lot in the way of them building a direct free-flow freeway-to-freeway connection between I-39/90 to the south and WI 26 to the north in Janesville - only a motel that has seen better days (the Ramada) and a tire dealer.  C'mon guys - you *CAN* do it!   :nod:

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.

-New interchange numbers, for those keeping track:

6 - Harmony Town Hall Rd
8 - WI 59/County 'M' - Milton
11 - County 'N' - Edgerton/Whitewater

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 10:58:46 AM
I drove the new part of WI 26 today (Wednesday, 2013-08-28), too.  Yea, the two-lane part on the south end is simply there while crews connect the new bypass' end with the existing four lanes.

Other notes:
-I have little sympathy for the owner of that now-orphaned C-store/McDs along WI 26 on Milton's south side - he had several years to prepare to move it to a better 'after' location and knew (or should have known) that there would not be access to the new WI 26 by his property. 


The state started planning in 1999, he bought it in 2002...and says that he went to the meetings before plans were finalized in 2005.  He didn't raise the issue until about a year ago.

I don't have much sympathy for him either.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:04:57 AM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 11:16:54 AM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2013, 11:22:33 AM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.

Mike


But are they actually going ahead with that?  It looks as though WI-26 will be going on its current routing when all is said and done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 11:30:58 AM

-I also note that a short distance to the east of WI 26, WisDOT is currently building the new bridge that will take WI 60 over Union Pacific's ex CNW Adams Line just east of its planned new interchange at WI 26 and WI 16, which will replace the current trumpet there.  Yes, the new WI 16/26 four lanes is now being graded from there to Watertown and yes, it will be far, far less hilly and kinky than the current two lanes on that section.


If you look at the project map here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/26/seg8/docs/map-propseg8.pdf

I wonder if they considered a different solution that would have allowed WI-26 to no longer go under the tracks there.  For instance, what if they routed WI-26 along that "temporary road?"

The most recent drawing that I saw (admittedly several years ago) has the rebuilt WI 26 bridging over the railroad immediately east of the current underpass.  Your linked drawing shows likewise, with that 'temporary roadway' being the detour route for when that work is being done.


But are they actually going ahead with that?  It looks as though WI-26 will be going on its current routing when all is said and done.

Looking over that drawing, to me it looks like the underpass will be dug out (it is very narrow passing under there!) and filled in to hold a new bridge *over* the railroad.  This will require Union Pacific to also build a temporary bypass track there while the work is being done.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 31, 2013, 11:04:22 PM
Aside from cutting through the Kettle Moraine at nearly its narrowest point, the entire 'corner cut' routing, following that power line, passes through pool-table flat wide open countryside - about the easiest going for a new-ROW highway anywhere in the upper midwest.  And the moraine itself is entirely random-mixed sand and gravel, about the easiest stuff of all to cut through, just dig away (although crews may have to blast through an occasional large rock).

Following the powerline through the moraine would be a mistake.  It passes over the headwaters of Bluff Creek; a nice coldwater trout stream.  It's a state natural area as well.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.79550,-88.66628&z=15&t=S)
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271 (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=271)
The best path should be to use the existing alignment between CTH O and Sweno Road.  No need to slice a expensive, distruptive new hole through some nice public land.

I do note that there is a route 'tweak' shown in the maps in that above-linked latest SEWRPC/Walworth County planning document.  Perhaps that is to address that issue.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 08, 2013, 12:43:39 AM
Some recent items of interest about southern Wisconsin roads:

- In Madison, crews erected a new pedestrian bridge for the future Cannonball bike path just before the Labor Day weekend. This path crosses the Beltline near the Todd Dr. exit, following an old railroad right-of-way.

SLIDESHOW: Beltline bridge construction
http://www.wkow.com/story/23286925/2013/08/29/slideshow-beltline-bridge-construction


- A recent Janesville Gazette article on the reconstruction of the Racine St. exit @ I-39/90 (which is expected to be completed by November), and completion of work on River St. in downtown Janesville.

End of summer, end of construction (link is Google's cache of the site)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6mnW9JM-bAgJ:gazettextra.com/article/20130821/ARTICLES/130829926/1174+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


- I took a drive up to DeForest tonight, and found considerable progress on the 4-lane freeway upgrade to US-51. The grading and construction work is largely completed to Vinburn Rd, with only a bit of concrete paving and shoulder paving to be done on the SBD lanes. Access to Windsor Rd. is completed NBD, but blocked off until the SBD US-51 work is completed, and Windsor Rd is reopened later this fall.

- I-39/90/94 has a new coat of asphalt over the existing concrete between the WI-30/I-94 interchange and the US-51 north exit. The concrete road surface wasn't awful, but had been showing some wear.

- WI-11 between Spring Prairie and I-43 near Elkhorn got a repave this summer; it was much-needed, particularly at the I-43 exit. The stretch east of Spring Prairie to the (infamous) Burlington bypass got a repave last summer. I use this stretch to connect to WI-20 east to Racine at least once a month; all the recent work has made this stretch a very pleasant drive. Just remember - it's posted for 55 - and the Burlington cops are watching you like a hawk.

- US-51 between I-39/90 and Stoughton is having its asphalt pavement milled and repaved; it was certainly showing its age.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 08, 2013, 09:51:29 AM
Some recent items of interest about southern Wisconsin roads:

- In Madison, crews erected a new pedestrian bridge for the future Cannonball bike path just before the Labor Day weekend. This path crosses the Beltline near the Todd Dr. exit, following an old railroad right-of-way.


When I was a kid, I took a school bus to school along the beltline and it had to stop and pull over to a special lane to cross this railroad track.  (Late 70s)  In retrospect, it is kind of funny and a little dangerous that cars and trucks could whiz right through this but the bus had to stop.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on September 09, 2013, 05:02:06 AM
Even more southern Wisconsin news:
1. The old Seminole Hwy bridge over the Beltline is out (no longer there) and the area looks odd without it:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/1231446_626939100662487_568481674_n_zps3b159f4c.jpg)
WisDOT/ Verona Rd Project Facebook

2a. WisDOT is finally getting going on a corridor wide improvement study for the entirety of the Beltline itself, which a final report is due around late 2015:
Quote
Meetings seek public input for potentially massive overhaul of Beltline
BARRY ADAMS | Wisconsin State Journal | Published on 9/8/2013

It was a year ago when a flock of helicopters was deployed above Madison to take time-lapse photography of Beltline traffic.

The state Department of Transportation also gathered information from motorists’ Bluetooth devices and from electronic traffic counters to get a better idea of traffic flow and congestion points on Dane County’s most-talked-about roadway.

Now, officials want your input as part of a multiyear study of the Beltline that could eventually lead to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of improvements beginning in about 2025.

Five public meetings this month, beginning Monday in Fitchburg, have been scheduled for transportation officials to get feedback from motorists, residents, business owners and anyone else with an idea on how to ease congestion and frustrations. All suggestions are welcome, although a tunnel under Lake Mendota likely won’t make the final cut.

“If we can provide improvements north or south or through the Isthmus that would pull some people off of the Beltline by making those routes more convenient, or faster, then that might be part of our total answer to the Beltline,” said Larry Barta, a DOT project manager. “It’s still all Beltline-focused but there are, we think, other ways of improving conditions that aren’t just about adding lanes to the Beltline.”

Those ideas could include the oft-discussed North Mendota Parkway, which would connect Interstate 39-90-94 with Highway 12 around the north side of Lake Mendota and a south Beltline that would link I-39-90 southeast of McFarland with Highway 18-151 near Verona. Improvements to the Isthmus corridor could include better bus and other transit options that could also divert traffic from the Beltline, Barta said.

The study, scheduled for completion in 2015, covers the stretch from Highway N in Cottage Grove to Highway 14/University Avenue in Middleton. The Beltline was built in the early 1950s as a two-lane roadway with at-grade crossings but over the decades has morphed into a multi-lane highway with interchanges.

According to DOT data, the highway averaged 470 crashes a year between 2008 and 2012 and carries an average of 123,000 vehicles a day. There are also 43 industrial parks within five miles of the Beltline, while trucks carried $14.2 billion in freight on it in 2011, the DOT said.

The study is intended to work with other studies already underway, including Highway 51 north and south of the Beltline and the conversion of Highway 12 into a freeway between Middleton and Highway 19.

Barta said the changes from a $175 million interchange project underway at Verona Road and other recent and upcoming improvements would also be taken into consideration in the study.

Costs of any improvements resulting from the study won’t be calculated until options and strategies are narrowed, Barta said.

“We’re so early in the process and there’s such a wide range of what-ifs that we will look at that it’s just impossible to try and put a number on it,” Barta said. “It’s not something that would help our process at this point.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Beltline public meetings
The state Department of Transportation is holding a series of meetings this month to gather feedback on how to improve the Beltline.

Monday: Savannah Oaks Middle School, 5890 Lacy Road, Fitchburg, from 5:30-8 p.m.

Tuesday: Monona Community Center, 1011 Nichols Road, Monona, from 5:30- 8 p.m.

Sept. 18: Boys & Girls Club, 4619 Jenewein Road, Madison, 6-8:30 p.m.

Sept. 19: Westport Kennedy Administration Building, 5387 Mary Lake Road, Waunakee, from 5:30- 8 p.m.

Sept. 23: Middleton City Hall, 7426 Hubbard Ave., Middleton, from 5:30- 8 p.m.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/meetings-seek-public-input-for-potentially-massive-overhaul-of-beltline/article_66c6e6df-53d1-5f26-ac03-206e3ceb66b6.html

2b. logo and announcement video from WisDOT:
(http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/madisonbeltline/images/logo-mbs.gif)

2c. New WisDOT (human friendly) project page link and Facebook link: www.madisonbeltline.dot.wi.gov (Note, this one of the most complete project pages I have seen in a long time, there is even a history section. Fun Fact, the original Beltline construction was approved before 1945!)
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WIMadisonBeltlineStudy

3. The new bike/ pedestrian bridge over the Beltline between Todd Dr and Fish Hatchery Rd:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/521f6365c947bpreview-620_zpscf44a4ac.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/521f633732d74preview-620_zpsd5b8a95d.jpg)
Both courtesy of The Capitol Times
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 09, 2013, 01:33:46 PM
North Mendota Parkway?  Howabout a full North Beltline?

Also, do at Verona Rd what WisDOT is now doing at US(I)-41/WI 29 in the Green Bay area.

Four lanes each way between Verona Rd and Stoughton Rd would be useful, too.

And, yes, look into major upgrades for the County 'M' corridor.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 09, 2013, 01:57:16 PM
North Mendota Parkway?  Howabout a full North Beltline?

We'll take what we can get in the Madison-area. Either way, it's long overdue. Getting between areas like Sun Prairie and Middleton suck, especially during harvest season and the back roads are full of farm implements.

Quote from: mgk920
Also, do at Verona Rd what WisDOT is now doing at US(I)-41/WI 29 in the Green Bay area.

Keep dreamin'. The day something that drastic happens there is the day Dane County votes Republican. A plan like that would never leave the Dane County courts. I agree that would be the right way to fix that mess, but it'll never happen. Similarly, the US 151/51 intersection should be a full interchange, but the closest we'll ever get is a modified SPUI.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 09, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
Eight lanes wouldn't solve the Beltline's problems anyway.  It's the interchange density that slows it down during rush hours.  I would concentrate on taking service ramps and braiding them and/or setting up c/d lanes between South Towne and Verona Rd.

A north beltline can be Wisconsin's first toll road if we want it that bad.  It would just be a sprawl generator.

A full system interchange at Verona Rd is not unreasonable to me.  Having the planned interchange built to accommodate those missing movements would be a good idea.

I'm looking towards the potential almost-freeway options for Stoughton Road with increasing agreement.  When I first browsed some of that stuff, I thought it was overkill, but having driven around Madison a lot more in recent months, I can see how important it is for local traffic and maybe keeping it off the interstate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 09, 2013, 09:35:31 PM
Eight lanes wouldn't solve the Beltline's problems anyway.  It's the interchange density that slows it down during rush hours.  I would concentrate on taking service ramps and braiding them and/or setting up c/d lanes between South Towne and Verona Rd.

Howabout doing the Texas/Detroit frontage road thing on that section, too?

A north beltline can be Wisconsin's first toll road if we want it that bad.  It would just be a sprawl generator.

Perhaps on tolling I can agree, but on the 'sprawl issue' it seems to me like Waunakee and so forth are already ably taking care of that one - that area is filling in FAST.

A full system interchange at Verona Rd is not unreasonable to me.  Having the planned interchange built to accommodate those missing movements would be a good idea.

And with what we know now about engineering and architecture v. 3-4 decades ago, it can be done such that it will fit right in despite allowing full speed on at least the major moves (US 18/151 through turns).  Howabout cut and cover tunneled 'fly-under' ramps for those, like was done at I-(41)/43/94/894 (Mitchell Interchange) in Milwaukee?

I'm looking towards the potential almost-freeway options for Stoughton Road with increasing agreement.  When I first browsed some of that stuff, I thought it was overkill, but having driven around Madison a lot more in recent months, I can see how important it is for local traffic and maybe keeping it off the interstate.

Stoughton Rd is one that kind of flew in under my radar, too, and I'm pretty familiar with how the area is wired together.  It is the routing that would have been the major eastside through highway had the interstates not been built and now it is getting those belated upgrades (see: US 51 north of I-39/90/94).

As for the rest of Stoughton Rd (US 51), I can see no way that a proposed three-lane roundabout at Washington Ave (US 151) will work, only a full diamond (Texas/Detroit frontage road style?) interchange favoring Stoughton Rd.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on September 09, 2013, 10:52:00 PM
If you've read the study and plans on the Verona Rd./Beltline interchange, you'd see it is in the plans for free-flowing movements for the two major movements (WB-SB and NB-EB). However, those improvements aren't planned to take place for 25-30 years, so we're stuck with what we're getting in the meantime.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 09, 2013, 10:55:21 PM
As for the rest of Stoughton Rd (US 51), I can see no way that a proposed three-lane roundabout at Washington Ave (US 151) will work, only a full diamond (Texas/Detroit frontage road style?) interchange favoring Stoughton Rd.

Proposed three-lane roundabout?? Where have you seen that? :confused:   Regardless, I see a roundabout being one of the worst things they could do for that intersection. Madisonians have a hard enough time figuring out the two-lane roundabouts on the east (Lien Rd) and west sides (Mineral Point/Pleasant View) of the city. :spin:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 10, 2013, 12:48:41 AM
As for the rest of Stoughton Rd (US 51), I can see no way that a proposed three-lane roundabout at Washington Ave (US 151) will work, only a full diamond (Texas/Detroit frontage road style?) interchange favoring Stoughton Rd.

Proposed three-lane roundabout?? Where have you seen that? :confused:   Regardless, I see a roundabout being one of the worst things they could do for that intersection. Madisonians have a hard enough time figuring out the two-lane roundabouts on the east (Lien Rd) and west sides (Mineral Point/Pleasant View) of the city. :spin:

It was several years ago.  I'd have to go digging around to find the nitty-gritty on it.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on September 10, 2013, 12:49:11 AM
As for the rest of Stoughton Rd (US 51), I can see no way that a proposed three-lane roundabout at Washington Ave (US 151) will work, only a full diamond (Texas/Detroit frontage road style?) interchange favoring Stoughton Rd.

Actually, they are favoring a SPUI at the moment for that intersection: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/51/docs/map-propalts.pdf (page 4)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I went to the Beltline PEL PIM in Fitchburg tonight (9/9) and here are a couple of notes.
The meeting was sparsely attended by the public and was mostly press and Fitchburg city officials. I asked before the presentation if MnPASS style HOV/ HOT lanes where a possibility and the guy (who later turned out to be the head of the WisDOT SW region office) said, it was something they will defiantly look into as part of the process but most likely won't make the cut because the majority of Beltline trips are not long distance in nature.
   
      The presentation itself was interesting, the state is not just considering improving the Beltline itself, but rather just about everything is on the table right now. North and south bypass options as well as major improvements to the Isthmus are currently being look at.
In the lobby after the meeting proper, I asked another WisDOT official if it was a possibility that the highway may become an Interstate after upgrades are complete and she said that is not something the state is considering at all, right now.  Also I asked if southern bypass along the County M corridor built to high quality boulevard type road was a possibility and her eyes lit up and said that is definitely something there are looking into as part of the PEL.

(This was the first PIM I have ever attended so sorry if this rundown is not that good.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on September 12, 2013, 03:47:48 AM
Shitty cellphone pano of the under construction jughandle at Junction Rd (CTH M) and Mineral Point Rd (CTH S) in Madison:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/junction-rd-project_zps5f3e7818.png)

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Right on Red on September 24, 2013, 06:27:55 PM
Aerial shot of 26/60 interchange work, looking north:
(http://i40.tinypic.com/25ezqjk_th.jpg) (http://i40.tinypic.com/25ezqjk.jpg)
Looking south:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/oizqfl_th.jpg) (http://i44.tinypic.com/oizqfl.jpg)(http://i42.tinypic.com/mjy6hk_th.jpg) (http://i42.tinypic.com/mjy6hk.jpg)
US 51 north of Madison, looking south:
(http://i40.tinypic.com/nvwfo7_th.jpg) (http://i40.tinypic.com/nvwfo7.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on September 25, 2013, 09:02:51 PM
The pictures don't do justice to the topography of that stretch of Hwy 16/26, and how deep some of the excavation work had to go to level out the new 4-lane stretch.

Awesome 1st post! Where did you source these images?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Right on Red on September 25, 2013, 10:16:21 PM
I took them myself while I was out for a flight with family recently. I really didn't expect to see 16/26/60 as far along as it is.
I have a few more pictures lying around (some of them not as good).

What's it like from the ground? Does anyone know how far north the new 26 is?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 25, 2013, 11:25:06 PM
What's it like from the ground? Does anyone know how far north the new 26 is?

Well, the four lane currently ends just north of CTH Q north of Watertown.  The current expansion will end just south of the railroad crossing on the left edge of your first image.  You can see the temporary roadway under construction that will allow WI 26 to bypass that railroad crossing while it is switched from the highway going under to the highway going over.  When the project is all done, that stretch of WI 60 between WI 26 and the realignment of WI 60 will be obliterated (including that temporary curve currently under construction.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 26, 2013, 10:44:09 AM
On the south end, all the new concrete for the section of WI-26 between Fort Atkinson and the Milton bypasses has been laid.  I'm not sure what they specifically plan to do, but I would guess that they will lay down blacktop shoulders...shut down for the winter...and then switch traffic over in the spring so they can work on the current section of roadway.

Right now the current WI-26 will be the SB lanes of the new highway until just north of the Rock County line...where the current WI-26 becomes the new NB lanes until the Milton bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on September 28, 2013, 02:22:19 PM
Just happened to drive through the warzone known as the WIS 190 reconstruction (Capitol Dr.) in western Milwaukee County earlier. It is a massive rebuilding job that includes new concrete, widening, bike lanes, a new bridge over a creek and a massively reconfigured intersection with Lisbon Avenue and N. 100th St. The south side of the intersection has been closed for the past few months for this project, which it appears will consolidate everything into one big intersection, rather than three. Instead of three sets of lights, there will now be only one at N. 100th, which will ease congestion and chaos considerably.

Here are some before (taken from Google Street View) and after (taken by me this morning) shots:

This is the view westbound on Lisbon at 100th St., with Capitol Dr. farther to the right in the distance:

(http://s24.postimg.org/uf3fdt5qt/lisbon1.jpg)

A rough view NB on 100th St. (the second one was taken on the SE corner):

(http://s21.postimg.org/3nfut5vrr/lisbon2.jpg)

Finally, the view SB on 100th St.:

(http://s23.postimg.org/xkc4rppuj/lisbon3.jpg)

As part of the reconstruction, the old access from EB Capitol Dr. on to Lisbon Av. is no more. It is being converted into a short access street with a large turnaround. The area where the old EB lanes of Capitol Dr. and the Lisbon Av. intersection is being converted into green space with a garden display similar to the one that was in the median of Capitol Dr. just east of N. 100th St. Here is the satellite image of before, with a self-created mockup of what it will roughly look like when completed:

(http://s17.postimg.org/s099ahz3j/lisbonover.jpg)

And for you nostalgic types, here's what the whole intersection looked like in 1958:

http://content.mpl.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/HstoricPho/id/1264/rec/1
http://content.mpl.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/HstoricPho/id/1274/rec/4

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Fighting...thank you so much for this.  I used to drive through this intersection (from EB Capitol to SB Lisbon) every day to work.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 28, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. A better configuration but a little sad to see the interesting configuration go. I wonder if they'll do something with the neat Capital Dr + Roosevelt Dr intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on October 08, 2013, 07:50:45 PM
Quote
70 mph speed Limit bill clears committee

Press release | Posted: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:52 pm

MANITOWOC – Today, the Assembly Committee on Transportation approved Assembly Bill 389 to raise the speed limit to 70 mph on Wisconsin freeways and expressways.

“I’m pleased the Transportation Committee approved this bill,” said Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), author of the bill. “Most people tell me it’s about time, he said.

“This bill isn’t just about getting from one place to another more quickly. According to traffic safety experts, it could even help to make our highways safer,” Tittl said.

The bill would raise the speed limit on nearly 800 miles of rural freeways and expressways that are part of the interstate highway system. It also requires the DOT to prepare a report regarding the suitability of a 70 mph speed limit on freeways and expressways that are not interstate highways.

The bill is expected to come before the Assembly next week and pass with bipartisan support.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_57ae311a-306c-11e3-9536-0019bb2963f4.html

Good, now get the bill to the governor's desk.  :coffee:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on October 08, 2013, 08:02:29 PM
Quote
70 mph speed Limit bill clears committee

Press release | Posted: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:52 pm
It also requires the DOT to prepare a report regarding the suitability of a 70 mph speed limit on freeways and expressways that are not interstate highways.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_57ae311a-306c-11e3-9536-0019bb2963f4.html
Good, because most of WI 29 and U.S. 151 are definitely 70-ready.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 08, 2013, 08:22:09 PM
He'll, WI 57 to sturgeon bay, US 45 and US 10 north of Oshkosh, and between Appleton and marsh field are easily 70mph ready as well. My fear(s) however, are A) 'rural interstates'-does this mean that US(I) 41 from Oshkosh to kaukauna, or perhaps all the way to I 43 in Green Bay will be stuck at 65? Same thing for other freeways through larger cities in Wisconsin, I39/90 through Beloit Janesville, I90 in lacrosse, ect. B) the committed can decide not to raise any non interstate speed limits, so all other highways, deserving or not, cold remain in the slow lane :/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 08, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
I recall a few years ago when WisDOT released the results of a study that showed that US(I)-41 between Kaukauna and De Pere was the fastest segment of highway (average actual measured traffic speeds) in the entire state.  I believe it - you can be going near autobahn speed (130 km/h - 80 MPH) on it and it does not seem to be that fast at all.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jim920 on October 09, 2013, 01:00:55 AM
He'll, WI 57 to sturgeon bay, US 45 and US 10 north of Oshkosh, and between Appleton and marsh field are easily 70mph ready as well. My fear(s) however, are A) 'rural interstates'-does this mean that US(I) 41 from Oshkosh to kaukauna, or perhaps all the way to I 43 in Green Bay will be stuck at 65? Same thing for other freeways through larger cities in Wisconsin, I39/90 through Beloit Janesville, I90 in lacrosse, ect. B) the committed can decide not to raise any non interstate speed limits, so all other highways, deserving or not, cold remain in the slow lane :/

As a kid I used to live in Beloit from 1986-1992.  We occasionally traveled to Janesville and I remember when I-90 dropped from 65 or 55 through the Janesville area. By 1992 when we moved to Janesville the 55 limit was increased to 65.  The SL never dropped in the Beloit area that I can recall.

With the upcoming construction on I-39/90 from Madison to Illinois I can see the DOT not even bothering to sign this section 70 until after the construction is over.  Why bother replacing all the signs only to cover them up with 55's during construction or even replacing them again when construction is over.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 09, 2013, 08:40:59 AM
I recall a few years ago when WisDOT released the results of a study that showed that US(I)-41 between Kaukauna and De Pere was the fastest segment of highway (average actual measured traffic speeds) in the entire state.  I believe it - you can be going near autobahn speed (130 km/h - 80 MPH) on it and it does not seem to be that fast at all.


Milwaukee south to the IL border is pretty darn fast too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 09, 2013, 10:56:52 AM
I-(41)/94 in Racine and Kenosha Counties was much faster before the current sheriffs took over in their respective counties.  Both are looking at it as a departmental piggy-bank.

 :rolleyes:

I recall roadtrips to Chicagoland in the 1980s and 1990s where I was cruising with traffic in the 140 km/h+ (85-90 MPH+) range on that highway.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on October 10, 2013, 05:36:33 PM
The only times I have ever cruised at 85-90mph are holiday weekends on US 45 heading up to da nort or back, and one morning when I had to drive to work from lacrosse, so I left at 3:00am, and cruised at 90 until I saw a state trooper out gunning the northbound lanes of I 90/94, so I slowed it down from there for the rest of my commute! 4:30AM!!! What kinda trooper is out ther at 4:30AM!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 10, 2013, 11:19:17 PM
The only times I have ever cruised at 85-90mph are holiday weekends on US 45 heading up to da nort or back, and one morning when I had to drive to work from lacrosse, so I left at 3:00am, and cruised at 90 until I saw a state trooper out gunning the northbound lanes of I 90/94, so I slowed it down from there for the rest of my commute! 4:30AM!!! What kinda trooper is out ther at 4:30AM!!

You asked the question - there's your answer :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 10, 2013, 11:30:39 PM
What kinda trooper is out ther at 4:30AM!!

One who's bored on the graveyard shift...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 15, 2013, 01:22:57 PM
WisDOT is mulling a Diverging Diamond Interchange at the Hwy 11/Avalon Rd interchange for the upcoming I-39/90 widening:

I think this would go over considerably better with truckers & RV drivers than roundabouts.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on October 15, 2013, 01:33:44 PM
I-(41)/94 in Racine and Kenosha Counties was much faster before the current sheriffs took over in their respective counties.  Both are looking at it as a departmental piggy-bank.

 :rolleyes:

I recall roadtrips to Chicagoland in the 1980s and 1990s where I was cruising with traffic in the 140 km/h+ (85-90 MPH+) range on that highway.

Mike

They have a particularly nasty habit of singling out FIB plates along that stretch as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 15, 2013, 01:57:50 PM
WisDOT is mulling a Diverging Diamond Interchange at the Hwy 11/Avalon Rd interchange for the upcoming I-39/90 widening:

I think this would go over considerably better with truckers & RV drivers than roundabouts.

From what I've been told, it's much more than mulling.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on October 16, 2013, 05:36:47 PM
WisDOT is mulling a Diverging Diamond Interchange at the Hwy 11/Avalon Rd interchange for the upcoming I-39/90 widening:
Embedded:


Quote
Higher speed limit clears Assembly

Associated Press | Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:21 am


MADISON — Republicans pushed a bill to raise the speed limit on Wisconsin’s interstates to 70 mph through the state Assembly on Tuesday, brushing aside minority Democrats’ fears that the change would lead to more serious crashes.

The measure goes next to the state Senate. A spokesman for Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said a vote could come in that house as early as next month. Gov. Scott Walker hasn’t taken a public position on the proposal.

The bill would give the state Department of Transportation six months after the bill becomes law to change interstate speed limits from 65 mph to 70 mph. The agency would have to submit a study within a year on the feasibility of raising the limit to 70 on other four-lane highways to the Legislature.

The Assembly also approved an amendment on a voice vote that would allow the DOT to set a 65 mph limit for commercial vehicles if the agency determines it would improve highway safety. The bill’s author, Rep. Paul Tittl, R-Manitowoc, introduced the amendment on the Assembly floor to address last-minute concerns from truckers that the new limit would increase their fuel consumption.

Democrats said the change to 70 mph could lead to serious injuries on the road.

“You want to make our roads safer, you want to reconsider this. Speed does kill, Mr. Speaker,” Rep. Brett Hulsey, D-Madison, said.

Rep. Chris Danou, D-Trempealeau, a former police officer, said he knows firsthand higher speeds lead to more severe injuries. He questioned why no one from DOT or the State Patrol spoke at a public hearing on the bill earlier this month, leaving a dearth of information about the dangers of raising the limit.

“I realize this is a politically popular thing to do ... but we don’t know the risks,” Danou said. “This may be a good idea but the problem I have is relevant experts were not consulted.”

Rep. Fred Clark, D-Baraboo, said Green Bay-based trucking company Schneider National sent lawmakers an email Tuesday opposing the increase. The email cited data from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program that showed a 35 percent increase in fatalities in states with a 70 mph limit and said increasing the speed limit to 70 mph would increase fuel consumption.

Tittl defended the measure, noting Wisconsin is the only Midwestern state without a 70 mph limit. He went on to say he didn’t know why no one from DOT or the State Patrol spoke about the bill at the hearing but took the lack of comments as a sign neither agency opposes the measure.

In the end the Assemwbly passed the measure 63-32. A half-dozen Democrats joined majority Republicans in voting for the bill.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_8a4eb1cc-3633-11e3-b255-001a4bcf887a.html

 :cool:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on October 16, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
^^ Wisconsin even sees the light.  Now, what about Oregon and much of the Northeast/Middle Atlantic?

Funny though, some of them are concerned about a 5 mph change being a major change in injuries?  Yeah, right.  People already go 70-75 in Wisconsin anyway.  Now they'll just be legal and less of a choice picking for the Racine and Kenosha County Tax Patrol..er..Sheriff's Departments.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 16, 2013, 07:47:05 PM
^^ Wisconsin even sees the light.  Now, what about Oregon and much of the Northeast/Middle Atlantic?

Funny though, some of them are concerned about a 5 mph change being a major change in injuries?  Yeah, right.  People already go 70-75 in Wisconsin anyway.  Now they'll just be legal and less of a choice picking for the Racine and Kenosha County Tax Patrol..er..Sheriff's Departments.
The Assembly does.  The senate (and likely Walker) doesn't.  They're focused on "Creating jobs"  Since when do politicians create jobs?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on October 16, 2013, 07:53:36 PM
Since when do politicians create jobs?
There was this thing called the WPA... not that Walker would support a socialist program like that...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 21, 2013, 01:17:39 AM
Today was a cold, grey day to be on the Merrimac ferry. The fall colors are maybe at 30-40% - it's going to be at least another week or two before the colors peak. Maybe by then the sun will come out.

Construction on the Hwy 16/26 expansion north of Watertown appears to be winding down for this year. Crews are working to put in place a relocated roadway (partially new alignment on the future NBD lanes, partially old alignment) in time for winter, and to allow the sections of old roadway crossing the new roadway's path to be obliterated.

Farther south on the Fort Atkinson to Milton stretch, crews are close to switching traffic to the future NBD lanes north of the Jefferson/Rock line, and on the future SBD lanes south of the line to County N. They have not yet set up the crossover needed to switch between the lanes, but that appears to be coming soon.

Between the Harmony Town Hall exit and the Hwy 59 exit, the SBD carriageway has been completed, and traffic is now one lane in each direction on their own carriageway. Lane closures remain while crews complete work in the median.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 21, 2013, 09:42:47 AM
Today was a cold, grey day to be on the Merrimac ferry. The fall colors are maybe at 30-40% - it's going to be at least another week or two before the colors peak. Maybe by then the sun will come out.

Construction on the Hwy 16/26 expansion north of Watertown appears to be winding down for this year. Crews are working to put in place a relocated roadway (partially new alignment on the future NBD lanes, partially old alignment) in time for winter, and to allow the sections of old roadway crossing the new roadway's path to be obliterated.


So, if I read your post correctly, are they trying to get all four lanes done by the start of winter? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 21, 2013, 08:50:06 PM
So, if I read your post correctly, are they trying to get all four lanes done by the start of winter? 

No. What they've done is completed a substantial portion of the future NBD carriageway. They will shift traffic onto it for the winter, and while the SBD carriageway is constructed next year. There's still a considerable amount of grading to be done where the future SBD carriageway will go, not to mention the temporary section bypassing the 16/26 interchange and the RR underpass.

There's a stretch of about 1-2 miles in the middle where the old highway would have to be obliterated to complete construction of the NBD carriageway; they're postponing completion of this section until the SBD carriageway is completed (and traffic can then be shifted to it). The temporary arrangement is thus a mix of the old roadway and the new NBD carriageway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 21, 2013, 09:01:07 PM
So, if I read your post correctly, are they trying to get all four lanes done by the start of winter? 

No. What they've done is completed a substantial portion of the future NBD carriageway. They will shift traffic onto it for the winter, and while the SBD carriageway is constructed next year. There's still a considerable amount of grading to be done where the future SBD carriageway will go, not to mention the temporary section bypassing the 16/26 interchange and the RR underpass.

There's a stretch of about 1-2 miles in the middle where the old highway would have to be obliterated to complete construction of the NBD carriageway; they're postponing completion of this section until the SBD carriageway is completed (and traffic can then be shifted to it). The temporary arrangement is thus a mix of the old roadway and the new NBD carriageway.


OK thanks.  That is what I thought they were doing but wasn't sure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 23, 2013, 09:03:33 PM
I noticed while driving around today (Wednesday, 2013-10-23) that WisDOT has begun to install yellow backboard outlines around the stop-and-go lights along College Ave (WI 125) on Appleton's west side.  They are an allowable option in the latest Federal MUTCD.  As of this typing, they are now on the heads facing the side streets at two intersections (College/Perkins and College/Lilas).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 23, 2013, 10:51:18 PM
I noticed while driving around today (Wednesday, 2013-10-23) that WisDOT has begun to install yellow backboard outlines around the stop-and-go lights along College Ave (WI 125) on Appleton's west side.  They are an allowable option in the latest Federal MUTCD.  As of this typing, they are now on the heads facing the side streets at two intersections (College/Perkins and College/Lilas).

Mike

WisDOT is, or is it the city of Appleton? I wouldn't put it past the NE Region to experiment, but I believe this stretch (especially intersecting with local roads) would fall in the Connecting Highways category of maintenance.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:01:00 AM
I noticed while driving around today (Wednesday, 2013-10-23) that WisDOT has begun to install yellow backboard outlines around the stop-and-go lights along College Ave (WI 125) on Appleton's west side.  They are an allowable option in the latest Federal MUTCD.  As of this typing, they are now on the heads facing the side streets at two intersections (College/Perkins and College/Lilas).

Mike

WisDOT is, or is it the city of Appleton? I wouldn't put it past the NE Region to experiment, but I believe this stretch (especially intersecting with local roads) would fall in the Connecting Highways category of maintenance.

Well, a private contractor was doing the actual work, with a WisDOT truck parked right by it.  OTOH, the City of Appleton uses its own DPW-Electrical trucks for working on the city's signals and even has a contract with Grand Chute Township to maintain the township's signals in their westside/Fox River Mall area.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 24, 2013, 09:39:13 AM
WisDOT to study the possiblity of adding more lanes to IH90/94 in the Wisconsin Dells area: Portage Daily Register article (http://host.madison.com/news/local/more-lanes-for-i--in-portage-wisconsin-dells-corridor/article_4ae8d4ea-696f-50b3-a3f8-4f21a41fed1d.html).

Nothing posted on the WisDOT site yet...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 12:50:33 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 24, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike

You want 4 lanes? It's already 3 from CTH N (IH94 east of the Badger) north to the IH39 interchange near Portage. I could see adding one from the IH39 split to Tomah, but I've never had any non-construction problems south of there until I got south of Madison
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2013, 03:43:33 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike

You want 4 lanes? It's already 3 from CTH N (IH94 east of the Badger) north to the IH39 interchange near Portage. I could see adding one from the IH39 split to Tomah, but I've never had any non-construction problems south of there until I got south of Madison


Agreed.  Madison east to Milwaukee needs three lanes before north of Madison needs four. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on October 24, 2013, 03:49:30 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike

You want 4 lanes? It's already 3 from CTH N (IH94 east of the Badger) north to the IH39 interchange near Portage. I could see adding one from the IH39 split to Tomah, but I've never had any non-construction problems south of there until I got south of Madison


Agreed.  Madison east to Milwaukee needs three lanes before north of Madison needs four. 

Agreed on that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 24, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
I noticed while driving around today (Wednesday, 2013-10-23) that WisDOT has begun to install yellow backboard outlines around the stop-and-go lights along College Ave (WI 125) on Appleton's west side.  They are an allowable option in the latest Federal MUTCD.  As of this typing, they are now on the heads facing the side streets at two intersections (College/Perkins and College/Lilas).

Mike

WisDOT is, or is it the city of Appleton? I wouldn't put it past the NE Region to experiment, but I believe this stretch (especially intersecting with local roads) would fall in the Connecting Highways category of maintenance.

Well, a private contractor was doing the actual work, with a WisDOT truck parked right by it.  OTOH, the City of Appleton uses its own DPW-Electrical trucks for working on the city's signals and even has a contract with Grand Chute Township to maintain the township's signals in their westside/Fox River Mall area.

More of them appeared today at intersections scattered all along that part of College Ave (WI 125), including at its interchange with US(I)-41.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 28, 2013, 09:41:54 PM
If I had the available cash, I'd add an additional lane in each direction from the Badger Interchange (I-39/90/94/WI 30) in Madison to the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Mike

You want 4 lanes? It's already 3 from CTH N (IH94 east of the Badger) north to the IH39 interchange near Portage. I could see adding one from the IH39 split to Tomah, but I've never had any non-construction problems south of there until I got south of Madison

I suspect a freeway upgrade of Hwy 16 between Portage and I-94 near Waukesha would divert a sufficent amount of thru traffic on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee, and on I-39/90/94 between Madison and Portage, to make a widening of both highways completely unnecessary. That's certainly in "Fictional Highways" territory though.

I could certainly see 4 lanes each way on I-39/90/94 becoming a useful upgrade in about 20 years, but I don't think we're there quite yet. The 4-laning of US-12 between the Dells and Madison will divert some of this traffic, but this alternate route is not sufficiently developed to make a large impact. The congestion on the Beltline in Madison would also reduce the usefulness of US-12 as an alternate route.

6-laning of I-90/94 between Portage and Tomah? That should be a no-brainer - it's absolutely needed. But I-39/90 south of Madison warrants the upgrade first.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 02, 2013, 11:29:50 AM
Construction on the Hwy 16/26 expansion north of Watertown appears to be winding down for this year. Crews are working to put in place a relocated roadway (partially new alignment on the future NBD lanes, partially old alignment) in time for winter, and to allow the sections of old roadway crossing the new roadway's path to be obliterated.

Farther south on the Fort Atkinson to Milton stretch, crews are close to switching traffic to the future NBD lanes north of the Jefferson/Rock line, and on the future SBD lanes south of the line to County N. They have not yet set up the crossover needed to switch between the lanes, but that appears to be coming soon.


The traffic switch south of Fort Atkinson to County N occurred yesterday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on November 03, 2013, 11:24:31 PM
New sign gantry and sign installed on I-43 for Green bay Ave / Capitol Dr exit.

Took a picture of the interesting (temporary) configuration... I suppose they're taking down the old gantry behind it?

(http://i.imgur.com/PaG9AGB.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on November 04, 2013, 03:30:31 PM
My guess is that there was probably a pull-through sign (or an advance sign for Atkinson Ave.) in the center years ago.  No need for the gantry for just an exit sign.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on November 04, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
No need for the gantry for just an exit sign.
Calling Georgia.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on November 04, 2013, 11:39:57 PM
No need for the gantry for just an exit sign.
Calling Georgia.
And Wyoming.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on November 05, 2013, 12:42:02 AM
WisDOT's got a few more of those on the beltline in Madison:

WB Beltline east of USH 51 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.047526,-89.290958&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&layer=c&cbll=43.047518,-89.290723&panoid=ZAjz1UdyNljeOmpggI_KcA&cbp=12,276.05,,0,9.75&z=18)
EB Beltline west of USH 51 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.045209,-89.312575&spn=0.000001,0.000817&t=h&layer=c&cbll=43.045209,-89.312575&panoid=l0NKGMFNKUPuxo3mTRIyNA&cbp=12,89.15,,0,11.52&z=21)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 05, 2013, 08:09:01 AM
I've noticed that Arizona had put up their gantries with no signs in construction zones around the emerging Gateway Interchange and Loop 303/I-10 Interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2013, 10:05:23 AM
WisDOT's got a few more of those on the beltline in Madison:

WB Beltline east of USH 51 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.047526,-89.290958&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&layer=c&cbll=43.047518,-89.290723&panoid=ZAjz1UdyNljeOmpggI_KcA&cbp=12,276.05,,0,9.75&z=18)
EB Beltline west of USH 51 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.045209,-89.312575&spn=0.000001,0.000817&t=h&layer=c&cbll=43.045209,-89.312575&panoid=l0NKGMFNKUPuxo3mTRIyNA&cbp=12,89.15,,0,11.52&z=21)


I do not recall what was on the WB one, but the EB one used to have a sign indicating that the far right lane was ending.  When this section of the Beltline first opened in 1988, for some reason they decided to go down to two lanes over the bridge to give traffic from US-51 a dedicated lane into which to enter.  It was a dumb idea that lasted only a few years though.  As you head east on Streetview, you can even see the pavement markings indicating a lane change prior to the bridge.

I believe that they also had a sign indicating the upcoming interchange with I-90 there too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 15, 2013, 01:00:44 AM
The Seminole Highway bridge over the Beltline in Madison is nearly completed.

Photos: Seminole Highway bridge ready to open
http://host.madison.com/gallery/news/local/photos-seminole-highway-bridge-ready-to-open/collection_2bbfeed4-4d83-11e3-b28b-0019bb2963f4.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on November 15, 2013, 08:00:21 AM
Update: As of this morning, the Seminole Highway bridge is open to traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on November 26, 2013, 02:39:16 PM
Public meeting scheduled for Stage 2 of Verona Road (US 18/151) Project

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_4357.html_786229440.html

Proposed improvements for stage 2 include:

- Constructing a single point interchange at Verona Road and County PD with Verona Road traffic traveling over County PD.
- Construct a diamond interchange at Williamsburg Way with Verona Road traffic traveling beneath Williamsburg Way.
- WisDOT is also reviewing intersection alternatives for County PD between Fitchrona Road and Verona Road.

The SPUI at 18/151 and PD/McKee is new I believe.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on November 26, 2013, 10:24:02 PM
I still believe that WisDOT should do the 'Texas frontage road thing' along Verona Rd out to County 'PD', designing it in such a way as to make future real improvements at the Beltline as easy as possible.

This will extend the US 18/151 freeway inward to just short of the Beltline, too, correct?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 26, 2013, 10:36:44 PM
Correct. There will still be stoplights at Raymond Rd. and A RIRO intersection at Summit Rd. (by Home Depot).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jordanah1 on November 28, 2013, 01:19:34 AM
Ugh... I don't understand why they don't just do it all at once and get it over with!! Screw they stupid SPUI at the belt line and just get the damned freeway->freeway connection done! It's badly needed and will increase safety on the road. In addition, if will save alot of money to do it all now, rather than to let the property values go up over the next 20 years and do it in the future... Simply another example of govt waste around here!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 28, 2013, 08:27:51 AM
Ugh... I don't understand why they don't just do it all at once and get it over with!! Screw they stupid SPUI at the belt line and just get the damned freeway->freeway connection done! It's badly needed and will increase safety on the road. In addition, if will save alot of money to do it all now, rather than to let the property values go up over the next 20 years and do it in the future... Simply another example of govt waste around here!


Why issue one contract when you can issue two?

The wasteful and inefficient spending in Wisconsin isn't limited to road construction either, but pretty much all state facilities.  It is an absolute joke.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 01, 2013, 07:42:25 PM
WisDOT already owns some of the property it needs for the proposed system interchange at Verona Rd.  Compare the Google aerials to the more recent low-angle aerials on Google and watch some buildings disappear.

Elsewhere on US 51...
WisDOT completed a new overpass on US 51 north of Merrill thus extending the freeway by a couple miles to the next at grade intersection.  This is the one where the gas station was generating an unsafe amount of turning traffic.  I complained at length about this several times.  The gas station has a billboard on the side of it bitching about WisDOT costing people jobs and stuff.  But screw them for building at an unsafe location like that.

Work on the south end of Wausau finished recently and I-39's new SB exit to Bus 51 is so much safer because of it.

On the other end of Wausau, the reconstruction project at Bus 51/CTH K looks like it will get really fun next summer.  They are ready to divert all four lanes around the bridges via the NB exit and entrance ramps once the frost thaws.  Should be a Friday afternoon/evening bottle neck for a couple months.

Deforest's new freeway segment of US 51 is half complete.  South of Vinburn Road is open including the interchange at Windsor Rd. Construction at CTH V/North Street is still in the earlier stages and much earthwork is yet to be done north of there.  About 2 miles of the old alignment will function as a frontage road with the new freeway built just to the east.

Lastly, a shout out to the ballsy deer hunter I saw crossing the controlled access part of US 51 around Tomahawk today, the Sunday after Thanksgiving.  Those freeway fences are there for a reason, bro.  At least the blaze orange made him highly visible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jim920 on December 08, 2013, 12:37:34 AM
WisDOT has added 2 tenth mile markers along the median I-39/90 from just north of the County N interchange to Janesville (I assume all the way to the stateline as well.)  The new signs use both 39 & 90 shields however, they only use I-90's East/West directionals.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 08, 2013, 05:24:33 AM
WisDOT has added 2 tenth mile markers along the median I-39/90 from just north of the County N interchange to Janesville (I assume all the way to the stateline as well.)  The new signs use both 39 & 90 shields however, they only use I-90's East/West directionals.
They should have only put I-90 on them.  I believe they are only using 39 to give the route # recognition.  Technically I-39 has no markers since it uses the freeway's (N of the Cascade) original #s, which correspond to US-51.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 08, 2013, 11:35:16 PM
WisDOT has added 2 tenth mile markers along the median I-39/90 from just north of the County N interchange to Janesville (I assume all the way to the stateline as well.)  The new signs use both 39 & 90 shields however, they only use I-90's East/West directionals.

Just in time for the winter season and 40+ mile backups on I-39/90!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Jim920 on December 10, 2013, 01:11:46 AM
Here is a video from a WisDOT traffic cam showing the pile up on SB US-41/45 @ Lannon Rd. just north of Menomonee Falls.  The freeway here is 3 lanes each direction, but only 2 lanes were able to be used. Obviously people were driving way to fast!

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tkiller314 on December 10, 2013, 01:17:06 PM
Here is a video from a WisDOT traffic cam showing the pile up on SB US-41/45 @ Lannon Rd. just north of Menomonee Falls.  The freeway here is 3 lanes each direction, but only 2 lanes were able to be used. Obviously people were driving way to fast!


I can't say I am too surprised, having driven this stretch around this time of the year this seems like a common occurrence.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 10, 2013, 11:00:53 PM
There's a reason I stay the heck off the interstate in inclement weather, if possible.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on December 16, 2013, 02:39:27 PM
Public meeting scheduled for Stage 2 of Verona Road (US 18/151) Project

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_4357.html_786229440.html

Proposed improvements for stage 2 include:

- Constructing a single point interchange at Verona Road and County PD with Verona Road traffic traveling over County PD.
- Construct a diamond interchange at Williamsburg Way with Verona Road traffic traveling beneath Williamsburg Way.
- WisDOT is also reviewing intersection alternatives for County PD between Fitchrona Road and Verona Road.

The SPUI at 18/151 and PD/McKee is new I believe.

Some updates:
http://projects.511wi.gov/documents/34048/1f79fc3c-26b1-4e0a-ac60-811d943dd3a4

Stage 2. http://projects.511wi.gov/web/veronaroad-18-151/exhibits
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on December 16, 2013, 09:58:46 PM
Interesting pseudo-Michigan Lefts being proposed on County PD.

I've never seen a SPUI (Beltline/Verona Rd) that had piers in the middle of the interchange before. It appears to be arranged in such a way that it'll work fine, but after all the other SPUIs I've seen, it looks strange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 22, 2013, 12:10:12 PM
I've never seen a SPUI (Beltline/Verona Rd) that had piers in the middle of the interchange before. It appears to be arranged in such a way that it'll work fine, but after all the other SPUIs I've seen, it looks strange.
The proposed SPUI at US 18/151 and McKee Road also seems to have them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on December 27, 2013, 11:31:52 PM
Looks like the push to raise the speed limit on Wisconsin interstates is going nowhere...for now:

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Vos-supports-raising-Wis-speed-limits-to-70-mph-220072701.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 16, 2014, 12:27:48 AM
Hey, does anyone know how MnDOT and WisDOT decide who is responsible for each of the bridges between them (maintenance and replacement)?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 19, 2014, 07:30:26 PM
Annoyingly, the new Hwy 26 bypass of Milton is showing a lot of settling after this winter, at least in the NBD lanes. The pavement is not obviously damaged, but there's a noticeable roller-coaster effect north of the Hwy 59 interchange.

Elsewhere when there's (anticipated) settling of the travel lanes, it appears that WisDOT specifies the lanes are paved in asphalt. The fact this stretch is all concrete suggests WisDOT didn't anticipate this would be an issue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 19, 2014, 08:28:04 PM
Its called frost heaves.  This happens every year on every road in the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milepost61 on February 23, 2014, 09:41:24 PM
Hey, does anyone know how MnDOT and WisDOT decide who is responsible for each of the bridges between them (maintenance and replacement)?

Depends partly on where the border actually is, and might also be case by case.

In the case of US 14-61 WisDOT did the high bridge project, but that's because it's wholly within Wisconsin, while the smaller bridges over the west channel were done by Mn/DOT.

MN 43 at Winona has Mn/DOT doing the high bridge because it's wholly within Minnesota. But Mn/DOT also has its snowplows handle WI 54 the two additional miles to WI 35 as part of a maintenance agreement.

The I-90 project is being done by Mn/DOT, maybe there's some cost sharing with WisDOT?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on March 04, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
WisDOT has released its recommended alternative (http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/51/altrec.htm) for the US 51/Stoughton Rd corridor. As some may have expected, it is a combination of the previous alternatives. Revised exhibits are posted on the study page, but here are a few of the highlights:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on March 04, 2014, 01:42:03 PM
Looks like the push to raise the speed limit on Wisconsin interstates is going nowhere...for now:

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Vos-supports-raising-Wis-speed-limits-to-70-mph-220072701.html

Wisconsin: The Oregon of the Midwest.  X-(
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: gbgoose on March 15, 2014, 08:04:27 AM
I have a new job that has me going to Milwaukee and Chicago from Green Bay.  Taking I-43 from Sheboygan to Milwaukee is bumpy to say the least - especially between Port Washington and Glendale.  I'm hoping WIDOT has some resurfacing projects coming soon!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: froggie on April 07, 2014, 07:10:03 AM
Speaking of US 51, noticed while passing through yesterday that there's construction underway to widen it for a few miles further north, to near the Dane County line, with an interchange at CTH V West.  The current roadway along the east edge of De Forest looks like it will become a frontage road.  From what I saw of the construction and what's been completed further south (including an interchange at Windsor Rd), it looks like there will technically be a freeway section on US 51 from just south of WI 19 to just north of CTH V West.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Right on Red on April 08, 2014, 03:34:08 PM
We were in Milwaukee last weekend and went through the Zoo Interchange. US45N to I-94W is closed, and the detour is Blue Mound (US18). Traffic was backed up to about a mile before the I-94W to US45N ramp (and on US45 further south). I'd hate to see what it's like during rush hour.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on April 08, 2014, 03:44:28 PM
That closure is only during the night.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 08, 2014, 10:41:15 PM
We were in Milwaukee last weekend and went through the Zoo Interchange. US45N to I-94W is closed, and the detour is Blue Mound (US18). Traffic was backed up to about a mile before the I-94W to US45N ramp (and on US45 further south). I'd hate to see what it's like during rush hour.

Yeah, that one was temporary for construction at Hwy 100.  They were probably bringing down the old overpasses.  They've also got a new railroad bridge going in there this year.
I'm pretty sure they're going to do this project without long term closures of system ramps.  Just temporary ones to rip out old bridges and to lift girders for new ones into place.


Froggie's got it exactly right; US 51 is becoming a freeway through DeForest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2014, 03:08:40 PM
I was heading back home from Milwaukee through Madison last week, and partly out of curiosity, and also partly because I had never gone that way before, I took the recommended alternate US 18-151 around the Verona Rd. construction. That route takes you east (south) on US 14 to the County MM exit, then west on County M, to County PB, back to US 18-151 buy Verona. Not a bad route, even if it is a few miles longer. It avoids all the stoplights on Verona Rd, and the way I would probably go if I was hitting rush hour. However, I noticed one peculiar thing with signing along US 14. After the Beltline, the first signing for an exit you see is for McCoy Rd, 1/2 Mile. Then maybe a couple hundred feet down the road, you see a sign for Lacy Rd., 1 Mile, before even getting to the McCoy Rd. exit. I thought this was rather odd and confusing. Lacy Rd. shouldn't be signed until after the McCoy Rd. exit. I tried to look it up on streetview, but unfortunately, it doesn't even have the Lacy Rd. exit as even existing. The wording on the sign at the McCoy Rd. exit was also poorly aligned, looking something like Mc  Coy Rd. Worst signing I'd seen in a while.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on April 21, 2014, 03:49:57 PM
The wording on the sign at the McCoy Rd. exit was also poorly aligned, looking something like Mc  Coy Rd. Worst signing I'd seen in a while.

That ugly spacing has also shown up on a few signs for McFarland as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 21, 2014, 08:29:55 PM
I thought this was rather odd and confusing. Lacy Rd. shouldn't be signed until after the McCoy Rd. exit. I tried to look it up on streetview, but unfortunately, it doesn't even have the Lacy Rd. exit as even existing.

That Lacy Rd. interchange is pretty new, so it doesn't surprise me that it's not on street view.  They did end up closing the EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp when they opened the interchange.  Also, Lacy road was actually routed over the bridge immediately South of the interchange, but they put in a roundabout to the SW and put Lacy Rd. on a new alignment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 21, 2014, 09:05:22 PM
The Lacy Road interchange is about 18 months old.  I thought the initial plan was to completely close McCoy Road, but that never happened.

Here is a summary of the project.  The Lacy Road exit was done by the City of Fitchburg.

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/d1/us14/completed.htm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 21, 2014, 10:30:42 PM
The Lacy Road interchange is about 18 months old.  I thought the initial plan was to completely close McCoy Road, but that never happened.

Here is a summary of the project.  The Lacy Road exit was done by the City of Fitchburg.

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/d1/us14/completed.htm


I remember now reading about the project, but I didn't remember exactly what took place until I looked at it again. Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 21, 2014, 11:33:53 PM
I also happened across a study of US 14 between Brooklyn and Janesville:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/us14projects/14/index.htm

The goal of the study is to "preserve" the existing route as long as possible, but with safety improvements as appropriate.

As I am a frequent traveler of this stretch of highway, I decided to put in a public comment before tomorrow's deadline. Here is my comment:

- - -

As a frequent traveler on US 14 between Janesville and Madison, I have had frequent opportunity to observe traffic behavior on various days and times. I have a few suggestions that should fit the goal of not widening or relocating US 14 to a significant degree.


1) US 14, I-90 to Kennedy Rd
With the exception of the intersection at Hwy 26 (a prime candidate for an "Echelon" intersection, by the way), the left turn lanes at each stoplight are poorly angled, making it difficult to see oncoming traffic before proceeding through the intersection. The median should be reconfigured to either eliminate traffic from side streets flowing straight through the intersection, or the left turn lanes on US 14 should be angled to provide better visibility to left-turning traffic.

2) US 14 at Newville Rd
It appears this intersection may soon warrant a stoplight due to the commercial construction immediately south of the intersection.

3) US 14 / US 51 intersection
The intersection would appear to be a prime candidate for a roundabout, given the large amount of left-turning traffic, the odd angle at which US 14 intersects US 51, and the desire to calm traffic entering and exiting the intersection. Traffic currently has to wait up to 2 minutes to make a left turn at this intersection as it waits through the remaining signal cycles. A roundabout would also limit the amount of additional land required to accommodate the intersection.

4) US 14, US 51 to County E
There is a significant amount of left-turning traffic entering and exiting the roadway all along this stretch. The intersection of County F at US 14 is particularly problematic; sightlines are very poor for southbound traffic on County F attempting to turn left to head eastbound on US 14.

The fix that would best fit the Study's goals would be to realign County F to meet at an intersection with US 51 north of US 14. This would eliminate a dangerous intersection without having to acquire and demolish buildings, or perform any widening of US 14.

If County F is not realigned, it is very difficult to improve the safety of this stretch without extending the 4-lane divided highway westward past the County F intersection and adding a stoplight or roundabout at County F. This would also add to congestion on this stretch of road. This seems to be at odds with the goals of the study.

In addition, additional turn lanes and passing flares would provide additional safety for turning traffic. 10-foot wide shoulders would provide safer travel by farm implements, bicyclists, and other slow-moving traffic. It would also provide additional safety for disabled vehicles.

5) US 14, County E to County H
More passing flares for left-turning traffic are needed, as well as turn lanes for right-turning traffic. Also, providing 10-foot paved shoulders on each side would better accommodate tractors, bicyclists, and other slow-moving traffic. It would also provide a safer place for vehicle breakdowns.

6) US 14 at County H
There is significant left-turning traffic at this intersection, and visibility for traffic northbound on County H is deficient due to the nearby buildings and the angle US 14 intersects it with. Turn lanes for left and right-turning traffic, and possibly a stoplight activated by traffic waiting on County H would provide safer travel through the intersection. Realigning County H so it is perpendicular to US 14 would also be helpful.

7) US 14, County H to County M
This stretch would also benefit from 10-foot paved shoulders, passing flares, and turn lanes.

It would also benefit from a set of passing lanes in each direction. This would cut down on traffic attempting unsafe passing maneuvers on this stretch of highway. For example, eastbound traffic could have a passing lane between Tuttle Rd and Cassidy Rd. Westbound traffic could have its passing lane between County H and Eagle Rd.

8) Territorial Rd/Bullard Rd "bypass" of Evansville
The utility of the "bypass" using Territorial Rd and Bullard Rd is obvious. It easily saves 5-10 minutes of travel time for through traffic. I don't see how you would encourage traffic to continue on US 14, short of introducing dead ends on Territorial Rd. The only reasonable response to improve safety while maintaining the route's utility would be to widen and realign the route to state highway standards, which goes against the goals of the study.

A logical US 14 bypass of Evansville would start immediately north of Union, intersecting Hwy 59 perpendicularly, then make a 90 degree turn south to intersect Union Rd perpendicularly. It would then continue south to meet Territorial Rd at Bullard Rd. It would then roughly follow the existing Territorial Rd south to meet the existing US 14. The existing US 14 alignment could be retained as a business route.

9) US 14, Hwy 59/213 intersection in Evansville to Hwy 59 just north of Union
Realign US 14/Hwy 59 to bypass Union to the south and west, with a realignment of Hwy 59 to meet at a new intersection with US 14 NW of Union. The existing US 14/Hwy 59 can terminate in a cul-de-sac at both the north and south ends.

Also, as noted previously, 10-foot shoulders, passing flares, turn lanes as appropriate.

If traffic absolutely must be maintained on the existing US 14/Hwy 59 stretch through Union, a roundabout at the Hwy 59 intersection would calm traffic sufficiently. I also suspect it would prove very unpopular with area residents.

10) US 14, Hwy 59 intersection @ Union to Hwy 92
As noted previously, 10-foot shoulders, passing flares, and turn lanes as appropriate.

The stretch just south of Holt Rd northerly to Hwy 92 would be an appropriate location for passing lanes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 22, 2014, 10:35:48 AM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.


Really?  This project includes a US-12/18 overpass?  That is the first I have heard of that.

I have been complaining about the WI-73/US12/18 intersection ever since they redid 12/18 between Madison and Cambridge.  It has been a problem since it opened about 15 years ago.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on April 22, 2014, 05:20:38 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.

I thought that stretch of US 12/US 18 was intended to be upgraded to a full freeway eventually?  Seems WisDOT should be going for at least a regular interchange for EB US 12/US 18 at WIS 73 instead of a right in-right out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 22, 2014, 08:54:35 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.

I thought that stretch of US 12/US 18 was intended to be upgraded to a full freeway eventually?

Only to County N. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/1218conv/index.htm

They have a separate study for the stretch between County N and US 12 that does not involve widening or bypasses: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/12nto26/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 23, 2014, 08:30:01 AM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.

I thought that stretch of US 12/US 18 was intended to be upgraded to a full freeway eventually?

Only to County N. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/1218conv/index.htm

They have a separate study for the stretch between County N and US 12 that does not involve widening or bypasses: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/12nto26/


WIDOT upgrades WI-26 to four lanes based on traffic counts of about 8,000 per day.

But the stretch of US-12/18 between Cambridge and Madison gets about 11,500 per day...and no consideration of widening.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 24, 2014, 08:03:26 PM
The stretch between Milton and Watertown was in the 11,000-12,000 per day range.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/docs/jefferson/jefferson2009.pdf

It's also a safe bet that WI-26 gets more truck traffic (though for some reason I can't find that data).

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 25, 2014, 10:37:15 AM
The stretch between Milton and Watertown was in the 11,000-12,000 per day range.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/docs/jefferson/jefferson2009.pdf

It's also a safe bet that WI-26 gets more truck traffic (though for some reason I can't find that data).

WI 26 is a fairly popular route for big-rigs to get between the NE part of the state (Oshkosh, Appleton, Green Bay, etc) and points south (I-39 south corridor and beyond), avoiding Chicagoland.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 25, 2014, 11:16:29 AM
The stretch between Milton and Watertown was in the 11,000-12,000 per day range.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/docs/jefferson/jefferson2009.pdf

It's also a safe bet that WI-26 gets more truck traffic (though for some reason I can't find that data).




WIDOT's interactive traffic counts map does not reflect those figures.

Regardless, my point isn't about WI-26 as it is about the dismissal of widening and bypass options for US-12/18 when, even if I am wrong about traffic counts, that corridor is just as busy as WI-26 between Madison and Cambridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 25, 2014, 06:54:25 PM
There's definitely prioritization taking place. US-14 west of Madison and south to Darien is also purposely being delayed.

I heard somewhere Walker put the kibosh on the US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson, and it wouldn't surprise me if there's orders from above similarly holding off on the Whitewater-Elkhorn US-12 relocation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 25, 2014, 11:02:57 PM
^^
I expect those projects to be restarted in due time.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on April 27, 2014, 12:06:21 PM
There's definitely prioritization taking place. US-14 west of Madison and south to Darien is also purposely being delayed.

I heard somewhere Walker put the kibosh on the US-12 bypass of Fort Atkinson, and it wouldn't surprise me if there's orders from above similarly holding off on the Whitewater-Elkhorn US-12 relocation.


He put the US-12 bypass around Fort Atkinson on hold for political reasons.  MGK is right...it will be restored eventually.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 30, 2014, 11:39:55 PM
Over-height loads are apparently not limited to trucks.

Union Pacific will pay for damage to Milwaukee bridges
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/255929101.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 18, 2014, 07:14:13 PM
Could Madison create its own Millennium Park?
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/could-madison-create-its-own-millennium-park/article_a3d82102-dae6-11e3-bcee-0019bb2963f4.html

"Should the city bury the messy intersection where John Nolen Drive, Blair Street and Willy Street converge to create a Madison version of Chicago’s Millennium Park?

"It might prove difficult for a city this size. But a group of local architects and urban planners are urging people to give it some serious thought."


Link to report: http://host.madison.com/new-report-on-burying-john-nolen-drive/pdf_59677128-daea-11e3-aec5-0019bb2963f4.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 29, 2014, 02:24:02 PM
WIS-73 north of Edgerton to US-12/18 near Cambridge to be closed to thru traffic until November:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/

A good thing, too - WisDOT is expecting this stretch to be a reliever route for I-39/90 traffic during construction or a major accident. This construction also includes the US-12/18 overpass of WIS-73.


I just shared some emails with WIDOT over this.  The new overpass will be constructed in 2015...starting in May, ending in December.

Here is a .pdf of the preferred alternative.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/docs/map-prefalt.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on May 30, 2014, 04:20:10 AM
Back in April, WisDOT finally posted it's recommended alternative for the future rebuild of the I-94, US-12, WIS 29 interchange near Elk Mound:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/map-alternativeElkMound_zps12496ca2.png)
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/map-alternative.pdf

That northern loop ramp looks awfully tight.

Somewhat interestingly, in the EA, the state mentions the possibility of WIS 29 becoming an Interstate at some point in the future: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/ea.pdf (page 6)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on May 30, 2014, 06:21:12 PM
Somewhat interestingly, in the EA, the state mentions the possibility of WIS 29 becoming an Interstate at some point in the future: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/ea.pdf (page 6)

Which page?  Page 6/37 (6 of 144 using the pdf numbering) is completely blank.

Is there some reason I'm forgetting that this interchange can have the freeway/expressway connect to the minor road west of the interstate, yet for the I-39/I-90 interchange with I-43 the local road connection has to be via a completely separate interchange?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 01, 2014, 07:50:56 PM
Which page?  Page 6/37 (6 of 144 using the pdf numbering) is completely blank.
Screenshot of info in question:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/5387bb00-68d7-4545-9d40-b2913ec31d5e_zps8b1f89e5.png)
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/nwregion/94dunn/docs/ea.pdf
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 03, 2014, 01:09:12 AM
Is there some reason I'm forgetting that this interchange can have the freeway/expressway connect to the minor road west of the interstate, yet for the I-39/I-90 interchange with I-43 the local road connection has to be via a completely separate interchange?

With this design, WisDOT is indeed bucking their recent trend of separating system and local movements in these types of places.  (Green Bay, Wausau, Beloit, Oshkosh)  I can only guess that there's less cost with a couple additional loop ramps rather than two separate interchanges built in close proximity.  Or perhaps since those other places are more urban, they want better local access whereas this one is much more rural with nothing but a small gas station close by?

I see a WB C/D lane for I-94.  The high speed ramps are so long, they had better be two lanes.  The small loops are low volume movements, so that's no big deal.

Making new system interchanges up to interstate standards just seems like good practice to me rather than anticipating an actual interstate in the works.  WisDOT has already drawn up freeway conversion plans for the entire important part of WI 29 to use as traffic warrants it (and prevent any more crossroads gas stations, etc. from popping up).  The construction between Marathon City and Wausau is that plan in action.  The stuff for the entire corridor is not online anymore, though, I noticed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 03:14:56 AM
My complaints WRT that option is the lack of legal non-motorized (pedestrian, bicycle, etc) access across I-94 in that vicinity, as well as for the left entrance/exit situation for US 12 to the west <-> WI 29 to the east - US 12 to the west connects to the major 'interstate-to-interstate' turns (EB to EB and WB to WB) on the left.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2014, 09:36:02 AM
My complaints WRT that option is the lack of legal non-motorized (pedestrian, bicycle, etc) access across I-94 in that vicinity,


It looks as though they are keeping the current US-12 over I-94 even though it will no longer have the designation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 10:29:41 AM
My complaints WRT that option is the lack of legal non-motorized (pedestrian, bicycle, etc) access across I-94 in that vicinity,


It looks as though they are keeping the current US-12 over I-94 even though it will no longer have the designation.

Perhaps they could slip a pathway to connect US 12 to the west with that 'old' US 12 road to the east, along the south side of the EB to EB ramp under I-94 and then box-culverted under that WB to EB ramp.

As is sits now, 'US 12' follows WI 29 to the first interchange to the east of I-94 (WI 40), hops off of the freeway and then goes south across the railroad to feed into the previously existing road.  My guess is that that routing will be maintained.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 04, 2014, 11:18:55 AM
-Quick daytrip report-

I had the day off on Tuesday, 2014-06-03, so once I got some stuff done here, I hopped into the car and went driving.

First leg, I drove from Appleton, WI to the Beloit, WI/South Beloit, IL area.

Observations:
-Why did WisDOT change the controls for WI 26 between US(I)-41 and US 151 from 'Oshkosh' and 'Waupun' to 'Rosendale' - the last place in the state where most of those who live here in eastern Wisconsin ever want to go???  IMHO, that will just get more people lost.

-Work is well under way to upgrade the section of WI 26 from Watertown to WI 60 to four lanes and there are intermittent stretches where traffic has been shifted to the new northbound concrete. Work appears to be on-track for completion in fall of 2015.  Some ROW clearance has been done for the railroad bridge reversal just north of the WI 26/WI 16/60 interchange (the new four-lane WI 26 will go over Union Pacific's Adams line there, it now goes under in a very narrow cut), the latter of which is well under construction with beam-setting for the new bridge well under way.

-Four lane upgrades to WI 26 between Fort Atkinson and County 'N', just north of Milton, is also well under way with two-way traffic now using the new southbound concrete over that entire section.  Several overcrossing bridges are under construction, but for now it will not be a fully interstate-compatible freeway, as there will be several 'RIRO' intersections with side and overcrossing connector roads.  This looks to be on-track for completion this fall, if not sooner.

-Yes, those signalized intersections near the interstates (I-94 in Johnson Creek and I-39/90 in Janesville) are a real annoyance and should be addressed like with WI 29 at US(I)-41 in the Green Bay area and will soon be with US 10 (east) in Stevens Point.

One note here - traffic loading on WI 26 (from County 'A' southeast of Beaver Dam to I-39/90) was on a par with that on the Beloit end of I-43 and that last missing link between WI 60 and US 151 will have to be addressed.  North of County 'A', traffic disburses between WI 26 and County 'A'.  For a while now, my preference has been for WisDOT to build a new-ROW WI 26 from the WI 60 area to run NNW and then NW to feed directly into US 151 with free-flow ramps at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

-Not a lot of six-lane upgrade work is apparent on I-39/90 south of WI 26 (yet), except that that new interchange with WI 11 on Janesville's east side looks *NICE*.  That prior cloverleaf was nasty, indeed!

-There is a lot of development going on in the southeast quadrant of the I-39/90/I-43 interchange in Beloit and the wisdom of restoring surface street access between that area and Milwaukee Rd (WI 81) in the city west of I-39/90 is very clear.  The most favored plans with WisDOT now appear to be similar in layout to what is being done at US(I)-41/WI 29 in the Green Bay area, with the street interchange being 'piggybacked' with the planned I-39/90/I-43 free-flow ramps.

-I stopped at the Illinois welcome center and picked up a couple of IDOT highway maps, dated 2013-2014.  Lots of interesting stuff in it, such as a new muni appearing ('Plattville') and the City of Joliet now extending over halfway from the Kendall-Will County line to IL 47.

Next leg, Beloit to Milwaukee:
-Not a lot new along I-43, but that former racetrack at Delevan looks truly sad.  The building sits half demolished with what appears to be no further work going on.

-All but one of the overcrossings where I-43 crosses over a side road between Mukwonago and the Milwaukee County line have been rebuilt to allow 'drop in' upgrading of the highway to six lanes.  Yes, I can anticipate that.

-The main Beloit city street in the rapidly developing SE quadrant of its interchange with I-39/90 was recently rebuilt.

Metro Milwaukee:
-The I-794 Hoan Bridge is being redecked, a big-shovel project in its own right.  Traffic is now using the northbound side of the bridge in a 1x2 arrangement with - a Zipper lane  :wow: .  There are several interesting lane shifts and detour routings at the bridge's north end, where I-794 makes the transition between east-west and north-south.

-New guardrails have been installed on the former boulevard street section of I-43 in the northshore suburbs.  How the FHWA accepted that part into the I-system as it sat, I'll never know.

-(I-41)/US 45 through the county grounds just north of the Zoo interchange is massively under construction and driving through, I couldn't figure out the layout of all of the new roadways and bridging.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2014, 11:51:08 AM
-Quick daytrip report-

I had the day off on Tuesday, 2014-06-03, so once I got some stuff done here, I hopped into the car and went driving.

First leg, I drove from Appleton, WI to the Beloit, WI/South Beloit, IL area.

Observations:
-Why did WisDOT change the controls for WI 26 between US(I)-41 and US 151 from 'Oshkosh' and 'Waupun' to 'Rosendale' - the last place in the state where most of those who live here in eastern Wisconsin ever want to go???  IMHO, that will just get more people lost.

(snip)

-Four lane upgrades to WI 26 between Fort Atkinson and County 'N', just north of Milton, is also well under way with two-way traffic now using the new southbound concrete over that entire section.  Several overcrossing bridges are under construction, but for now it will not be a fully interstate-compatible freeway, as there will be several 'RIRO' intersections with side and overcrossing connector roads.  This looks to be on-track for completion this fall, if not sooner.


My guess is that they are using "Rosendale" because they want traffic to use US-151/US-41 from Waupun to Oshkosh instead of WI-26. 

With regards to WI-26 south of Fort Atkinson, the current traffic is using the eventual northbound lanes until just north of the Rock County line where it switches over to the southbound.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 05, 2014, 01:50:05 AM
-Not a lot of six-lane upgrade work is apparent on I-39/90 south of WI 26 (yet), except that that new interchange with WI 11 on Janesville's east side looks *NICE*.  That prior cloverleaf was nasty, indeed!

I was surprised, as well, that there wasn't much construction on that stretch of Interstate as well going through there on my recent trip to DC. Of course, I also get the feeling the state has been way over dramatizing how bad things will be when the ball really gets rolling later on. (Cough:"must upgrade US 14 and WIS 26 RIGHT NOW!" bullocks coming out of the SW office) IMHO



Back to the Elk Mound interchange, I went back over the original WisDOT drawing and covered up the old configuration in an quick attempt to make it easer to read:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/d73dced2-0b5f-4866-af29-a81a02accbd3_zpsd265fc06.png)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 05, 2014, 10:24:52 AM
With regards to WI-26 south of Fort Atkinson, the current traffic is using the eventual northbound lanes until just north of the Rock County line where it switches over to the southbound.

I think you're right, I was going by memory and yes, I do recall seeing a lot of cut digging going on where the southbound side will go, including into that abandoned railroad grade.

I do note that even though it will not be fully interstate compatible through there, such upgrades should not be all that difficult nor expensive to do for when that time comes.  The 'old' highway on the west side of the abandoned railroad there is a natural local access roadway for that area and some of those accesses that are being built into WI 26, IMHO, are not really needed and should have been omitted from the start.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 05, 2014, 11:45:02 AM
The only issue with cutting off that access, is that because of Lake Koshkonong to the west, you would only have one easy way to enter that neighborhood, and that would require exiting at the south "Business WI-26" exit, and winding your way down from there.

You are correct though that the "jughandle" exits they are building would be easy to eliminate if they have to.  What they may have to do is provide some sort of easier access off the County Highway N exit to the south.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on June 26, 2014, 08:13:32 AM
I don't think this fits into the 41 conversion, so I will post here

Groundbreaking was yesterday for work on 441 "tri county" freeway. It includes fixing the 41/441/10 interchange, and a new bridge over Little Lake Butte des Morts:
http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/highway-441-project-underway-in-fox-valley/

We also explained a Diverging Diamond interchange
http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/hwy-441-expansion-plan-includes-diverging-diamond/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 26, 2014, 09:58:41 AM
I don't think this fits into the 41 conversion, so I will post here

Groundbreaking was yesterday for work on 441 "tri county" freeway. It includes fixing the 41/441/10 interchange, and a new bridge over Little Lake Butte des Morts:
http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/highway-441-project-underway-in-fox-valley/

We also explained a Diverging Diamond interchange
http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/hwy-441-expansion-plan-includes-diverging-diamond/

I didn't realize that they were that far along with the planning on this - I wasn't expecting actual construction to start for another couple of years.

There IS some work going on in the northeast quadrant of the US(I)-41/US 10/WI 441 (Bridgeview) interchange, it appears to me to be underground utility relocation work.

 :nod:

I'll start a new thread for this truly BIG shovel project.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 26, 2014, 11:22:51 PM
Also, is WisDOT planning to seek 'promotion' of WI 441 to a full interstate (presumably as 'I-441') when this project is complete?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 06, 2014, 06:26:30 PM
Driving up to Waupun via WI-26 today...has WisDOT ever considered moving WI-26 over to CTH-A?  While it may not be more direct - it is definitely faster, especially with CTH-A being resurfaced and "smoothed out" a few years back.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 06, 2014, 11:03:35 PM
Driving up to Waupun via WI-26 today...has WisDOT ever considered moving WI-26 over to CTH-A?  While it may not be more direct - it is definitely faster, especially with CTH-A being resurfaced and "smoothed out" a few years back.

From what I am aware of, I believe that that is the near to mid-term plan.  IMHO, County 'A' would not have been rebuilt as it was if it were to always be just another lowly county highway.

Deeper into the future, I can see it being replaced with a new-ROW WI 26 that would extend the four lanes to US 151 at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 07, 2014, 01:18:29 AM
Driving up to Waupun via WI-26 today...has WisDOT ever considered moving WI-26 over to CTH-A?  While it may not be more direct - it is definitely faster, especially with CTH-A being resurfaced and "smoothed out" a few years back.

From what I am aware of, I believe that that is the near to mid-term plan.  IMHO, County 'A' would not have been rebuilt as it was if it were to always be just another lowly county highway.

Deeper into the future, I can see it being replaced with a new-ROW WI 26 that would extend the four lanes to US 151 at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

Mike

It makes it all the more confounding that County A passes right through Oak Grove rather than bypassing it. The entire stretch of Hwy 26 north of Janesville (with the exception of Johnson Creek) bypasses every population center all the way to County A. That 30mph stretch is a nasty speed trap, and will be more so once the 4-laning of Hwy 16/26 to Hwy 16/60 is completed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on August 05, 2014, 10:59:39 AM
Quote
Plan commission gives the go-ahead for new I-94 exit
Posted: Aug 04, 2014 9:53 PM CST
By Kristen Shill


Eau Claire (WQOW) - Plans for a new Eau Claire exit off of I-94 onto Cameron Street are moving forward.

The owner of land near the proposed interchange has asked the city to purchase the land, which is what the plan commission recommended Monday night. Members of the commission say the purchase is in line with the city's comprehensive plan. The proposal will now go before the Eau Claire City Council. At that time it's expected a dollar amount for the possible purchase will be made public.
http://www.wqow.com/story/26196007/2014/08/04/plan-commission-gives-the-go-ahead-for-new-i-94-exit
Location: http://goo.gl/maps/NfrDZ

If built I can easily see this becoming the preferred exit for downtown access.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 05, 2014, 05:44:08 PM
Quote
Plan commission gives the go-ahead for new I-94 exit
Posted: Aug 04, 2014 9:53 PM CST
By Kristen Shill


Eau Claire (WQOW) - Plans for a new Eau Claire exit off of I-94 onto Cameron Street are moving forward.

The owner of land near the proposed interchange has asked the city to purchase the land, which is what the plan commission recommended Monday night. Members of the commission say the purchase is in line with the city's comprehensive plan. The proposal will now go before the Eau Claire City Council. At that time it's expected a dollar amount for the possible purchase will be made public.
http://www.wqow.com/story/26196007/2014/08/04/plan-commission-gives-the-go-ahead-for-new-i-94-exit
Location: http://goo.gl/maps/NfrDZ

If built I can easily see this becoming the preferred exit for downtown access.

It's also the historic routing of the Yellowstone Trail.

Anyways, I wonder if the City has plans to reconnect Folsom St across I-94 when its development gets to that point.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 06, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
I've been adding an interchange at this location in my fictional sketches for years.  Good to hear!

Eau Claire really got short-changed on freeway access when I-94 was first built.  There wasn't even an interchange at WI 93 until much later, so that's just 3 exits for a fairly large city. (US 53, WI 37 & US 12/CTH EE)

I'm still waiting for a SB->EB flyover at US 53; then they will really have what is needed in Eau Claire.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on August 13, 2014, 09:53:35 AM
Update:
Quote
Council buys land for possible I-94 exit
Posted: Aug 12, 2014 10:41 PM CST
By Kristen Shill


Eau Claire (WQOW) – The Eau Claire City Council voted in favor of purchasing a parcel of land near I-94 and Cameron Street for $29,000.

The city has discussed the possibility of building a new exit from I-94 that would funnel traffic into downtown Eau Claire. Council member Lewis is the only one who voted against it.
http://www.wqow.com/story/26265583/2014/08/12/council-buys-land-for-possible-i-94-exit

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on August 13, 2014, 10:21:25 AM
I've been adding an interchange at this location in my fictional sketches for years.  Good to hear!

Eau Claire really got short-changed on freeway access when I-94 was first built.  There wasn't even an interchange at WI 93 until much later, so that's just 3 exits for a fairly large city. (US 53, WI 37 & US 12/CTH EE)

I'm still waiting for a SB->EB flyover at US 53; then they will really have what is needed in Eau Claire.

Why wasn't 94 built closer in?  It's like Eau Claire was an afterthought.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2014, 10:44:22 AM
I've been adding an interchange at this location in my fictional sketches for years.  Good to hear!

Eau Claire really got short-changed on freeway access when I-94 was first built.  There wasn't even an interchange at WI 93 until much later, so that's just 3 exits for a fairly large city. (US 53, WI 37 & US 12/CTH EE)

I'm still waiting for a SB->EB flyover at US 53; then they will really have what is needed in Eau Claire.

Why wasn't 94 built closer in?  It's like Eau Claire was an afterthought.


I'm not sure it could have been.  It's located less than two miles south of US-12, and undoubtedly there was a good deal of development south of US-12 when they routed I-94 through the area.  It is about the same distance from the "city center" when compared to similar cities in Wisconsin. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 13, 2014, 10:46:22 AM
Driving up to Waupun via WI-26 today...has WisDOT ever considered moving WI-26 over to CTH-A?  While it may not be more direct - it is definitely faster, especially with CTH-A being resurfaced and "smoothed out" a few years back.

From what I am aware of, I believe that that is the near to mid-term plan.  IMHO, County 'A' would not have been rebuilt as it was if it were to always be just another lowly county highway.

Deeper into the future, I can see it being replaced with a new-ROW WI 26 that would extend the four lanes to US 151 at the southeast 'corner' of Beaver Dam.

Mike

It makes it all the more confounding that County A passes right through Oak Grove rather than bypassing it. The entire stretch of Hwy 26 north of Janesville (with the exception of Johnson Creek) bypasses every population center all the way to County A. That 30mph stretch is a nasty speed trap, and will be more so once the 4-laning of Hwy 16/26 to Hwy 16/60 is completed.


If they route WI-26 onto County A, they will undoubtedly have to bypass Oak Grove somehow.  They will also have to completely re-do the WI-26 / County A intersection.  I think they are just trying to figure out what the best options for WI-26 are at this point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 13, 2014, 07:55:19 PM
Why wasn't 94 built closer in?  It's like Eau Claire was an afterthought.

They did well to build I-94 beyond the existing sprawl at the time.  Most of the predominantly residential area between US 12 and I-94 was already there when the interstate was built.  The priority was definitely thru traffic. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 13, 2014, 08:18:08 PM
I can't even begin to imagine how much it would have cost in money *and time* had the decision been made to upgrade existing US 12 through town instead of using that new-ROW for I-94, too.

 :wow:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on August 13, 2014, 09:25:00 PM
I've been adding an interchange at this location in my fictional sketches for years.  Good to hear!

Eau Claire really got short-changed on freeway access when I-94 was first built.  There wasn't even an interchange at WI 93 until much later, so that's just 3 exits for a fairly large city. (US 53, WI 37 & US 12/CTH EE)

Where they building off of old toll plans with limited exits?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on August 13, 2014, 10:19:48 PM

If they route WI-26 onto County A, they will undoubtedly have to bypass Oak Grove somehow.  They will also have to completely re-do the WI-26 / County A intersection.  I think they are just trying to figure out what the best options for WI-26 are at this point.

Why would they need to completely re-do the intersection?  It looks like it could be easily converted to a curve with what's now WI-26 north of A bent in to a "T" intersection past the apex of the curve.  Done.

There's also probably no rush to bypass Oak Grove.  It's not any worse (in fact it's easier) than driving through Juneau.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 13, 2014, 10:37:11 PM

If they route WI-26 onto County A, they will undoubtedly have to bypass Oak Grove somehow.  They will also have to completely re-do the WI-26 / County A intersection.  I think they are just trying to figure out what the best options for WI-26 are at this point.

Why would they need to completely re-do the intersection?  It looks like it could be easily converted to a curve with what's now WI-26 north of A bent in to a "T" intersection past the apex of the curve.  Done.

There's also probably no rush to bypass Oak Grove.  It's not any worse (in fact it's easier) than driving through Juneau.

I can see what is now WI 26 from the north being curved to feed into that county highway (County 'KW') that is just north of County 'A', with the part of WI 26 from there through Juneau to WI 33 being renumbered as a western extension of 'WI 28'.  WI 26 from WI 33 northward to US 151 (middle interchange) could then be downgraded to a county highway.

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 14, 2014, 12:25:26 PM

If they route WI-26 onto County A, they will undoubtedly have to bypass Oak Grove somehow.  They will also have to completely re-do the WI-26 / County A intersection.  I think they are just trying to figure out what the best options for WI-26 are at this point.

Why would they need to completely re-do the intersection?  It looks like it could be easily converted to a curve with what's now WI-26 north of A bent in to a "T" intersection past the apex of the curve.  Done.


I agree, but that is what I meant by "complete redo."  We are just splitting hairs.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jreuschl on August 15, 2014, 01:11:24 AM
Why does WisDOT only use the Clearview sign fonts on part of the Beltline in Madison?


iPad HD
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 15, 2014, 02:23:02 AM
Why does WisDOT only use the Clearview sign fonts on part of the Beltline in Madison?


iPad HD

It was an experiment.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2014, 02:07:00 PM
Why wasn't 94 built closer in?  It's like Eau Claire was an afterthought.

They did well to build I-94 beyond the existing sprawl at the time.  Most of the predominantly residential area between US 12 and I-94 was already there when the interstate was built.  The priority was definitely thru traffic. 


I-43 near Sheboygan and Manitowoc...
I-90 near Beloit, Janesville and LaCrosse...
i-94 near Racine and Kenosha...

All were built with similar intentions.  None of them pass near the center of cities of similar size to Eau Claire.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
WI-26 expansion update for the section south of Fort Atkinson.

http://www.gazettextra.com/20140803/another_part_of_highway_26_project_nears_completion

What surprises me is the mid-October completion date.  I drove it this morning and all of the concrete work is done except for some crossovers.  The grading for the blacktop shoulders looks to be near completion as well.  It looks to me that they will be done earlier than that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 19, 2014, 08:02:29 PM
WI-26 expansion update for the section south of Fort Atkinson.

http://www.gazettextra.com/20140803/another_part_of_highway_26_project_nears_completion

What surprises me is the mid-October completion date.  I drove it this morning and all of the concrete work is done except for some crossovers.  The grading for the blacktop shoulders looks to be near completion as well.  It looks to me that they will be done earlier than that.

Google cached link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-XGwLvkRAcIJ:www.gazettextra.com/20140803/another_part_of_highway_26_project_nears_completion+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I suspect they will have traffic in at least one lane on each carriageway just prior to or after Labor Day, with the remaining month or so devoted to work in the median. Much of that work will take place at the Rock/Jefferson county line, where a chunk of the old roadway has to come out and grading and drainage work needs to happen.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 01, 2014, 10:06:56 PM
New Zoo interchange animations/drive thrus have been posted on the WisDOT YouTube channel: http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0 (http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0) -- there looks to be about 4 or 5 animations.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 18, 2014, 01:58:44 AM
The Mineral Point Road/Junction Road jug handle is now complete in Madison. Story from WKOW-Madison (http://www.wkow.com/story/26561093/2014/09/17/mineral-point-rd-project-completed).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mahaasma on October 12, 2014, 08:49:20 PM
The Viroqua and Westby bypasses (US-14/61) planned ten years ago are being cancelled.  They already four laned the road between the two communities.

This would have saved a little time traveling on 14/61 or WI-27, but it's kind of hard to believe someone actually proposed this as a priority project....

http://lacrossetribune.com/vernonbroadcaster/news/local/viroqua-westby-bypasses-will-not-be-constructed/article_349798a7-fb5f-527b-8672-f5c4bc75891c.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 12, 2014, 11:21:19 PM
^^

I wasn't at all happy with how they were laid out, anyways.  They should have been set up as part of a potentially larger, long-term 'system' through traffic highway for the US 61 corridor, like with all of the other corridor upgrades elsewhere in the state, rather than the piecemeal bypasses complete with 90 degree intersection turns at a couple of their ends that were proposed.

Not a huge loss, IMHO.  If you're gonna do it, do it right, and the way that they were proposed wasn't right.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 13, 2014, 10:49:47 AM
My recollection was that the Viroqua and Westby bypasses were fast-tracked the same time as the US-51 Wausau improvements were and some people suggested that it was done for political reasons more than anything.  The fact is that these are lightly traveled roads (about 4500 per day), in a sparsely populated portion of the state that isn't growing terribly fast.  Furthermore neither US-14 nor US-61 are heavily traveled corridors.  Better to invest that money elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 13, 2014, 11:45:36 AM
From the La Crosse Tribune article:
Quote
In 2011, the DOT built a four-lane connecting highway between Viroqua and Westby. The stretch, coined as the “Uff-da-ban,” took land away from adjacent farms, but made the trip between the two cities a seven-minute drive.

"Uff-da-ban"?   :-D :-D :clap:
We might have to explain that one for our non-upper Midwest members.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 13, 2014, 10:55:04 PM
From the La Crosse Tribune article:
Quote
In 2011, the DOT built a four-lane connecting highway between Viroqua and Westby. The stretch, coined as the “Uff-da-ban,” took land away from adjacent farms, but made the trip between the two cities a seven-minute drive.

"Uff-da-ban"?   :-D :-D :clap:
We might have to explain that one for our non-upper Midwest members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uff_da

uff-da_Bahn is probably what he wants to say.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jhuntin1 on October 14, 2014, 08:14:02 PM
New Zoo interchange animations/drive thrus have been posted on the WisDOT YouTube channel: http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0 (http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0) -- there looks to be about 4 or 5 animations.

I'm surprised the signage in the videos still refers to US 41 rather than Interstate 41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 14, 2014, 09:25:01 PM
Because it's still US-41.  To do the animation with I-41 signage would be confusing.  Many people are still unaware of the impending change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 14, 2014, 09:26:53 PM
uff-da_Bahn is probably what he wants to say.

We call WI-83 between Wales and Mukwonago the "Mukwonabahn".  :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on October 14, 2014, 09:40:19 PM
New Zoo interchange animations/drive thrus have been posted on the WisDOT YouTube channel: http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0 (http://youtu.be/dvp4HKAUhj0) -- there looks to be about 4 or 5 animations.

Since when is the yellow left banner needed for ramps that initially split from the right side of the freeway?  The animation for NB to WB has one at 1:09, and the animation for SB to EB has one at 1:21
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on October 15, 2014, 06:00:27 AM
Because it's still US-41.  To do the animation with I-41 signage would be confusing.  Many people are still unaware of the impending change.
The current US 41 does not go that way.  This is an area where US 41 will be relocated to coincide with I-41.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 17, 2014, 11:11:52 AM
A couple of Wisconsin political notes that are germane to this forvm.

I don't have an article link handy, but apparently the Scott Walker administration is seriously studying the idea of converting Wisconsin's volume-based retail fuel tax to a percentage of the price based tax (he's calling it a special 'sales' tax), at a rate to be set as being revenue-neutral on the day that such a conversion would be made.

This is an interesting idea that I've been positing a lot about in recent years and we'll see where it goes assuming that Walker wins re-election on 2014-11-04.

Another item on the Wisconsin ballot next month is a binding referendum that would amend the state's Constitution to place a legal 'firewall' around the transportation segregated fund.  During the 'double-aughts', former Governor James Doyle repeatedly raided that fund to cover parts of major general fund budget shortfalls.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 18, 2014, 01:51:38 PM
It would not pain me to see that "firewall" put up.  It was a mistake for Doyle to raid that fund - we had some of the best roads in the Midwest, and in a few short years we saw the brakes applied on several worthwhile projects.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what would a change in the fuel tax look like to consumers?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on October 18, 2014, 04:32:54 PM
It would not pain me to see that "firewall" put up.  It was a mistake for Doyle to raid that fund - we had some of the best roads in the Midwest, and in a few short years we saw the brakes applied on several worthwhile projects.


Well it is inaccurate to say that Doyle raided the fund.  For the first six years that Doyle was governor, the Republicans controlled the state Assembly.  They were complicit in the raid of the funds from the beginning.

I have mixed thoughts and can see both sides of the issue.  On the one hand, it isn't written in stone that fuel taxes must be used for roads or other transportation.  On the other it does make it hard to plan long term without some sort of understanding of how much money is available in the future.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on October 18, 2014, 07:33:30 PM
A "Yes" vote is to amend the state constitution to say that money collected for transportation can only be used for transportation. I'm not sure how I feel on this either. Part of me says that money collected for that purpose should only be used for that purpose. But part of me also says that if a need arises in some other part of the state budget, and the transportation fund has a surplus, then there should be no reason why we shouldn't be able to use that money somewhere else instead of making cuts or raising taxes elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on October 18, 2014, 08:38:50 PM
A couple of Wisconsin political notes that are germane to this forvm.

I don't have an article link handy, but apparently the Scott Walker administration is seriously studying the idea of converting Wisconsin's volume-based retail fuel tax to a percentage of the price based tax (he's calling it a special 'sales' tax), at a rate to be set as being revenue-neutral on the day that such a conversion would be made.

I thought Wisconsin use to have a small percentage based tax on fuel that was repealed a few years ago?

A "Yes" vote is to amend the state constitution to say that money collected for transportation can only be used for transportation. I'm not sure how I feel on this either. Part of me says that money collected for that purpose should only be used for that purpose. But part of me also says that if a need arises in some other part of the state budget, and the transportation fund has a surplus, then there should be no reason why we shouldn't be able to use that money somewhere else instead of making cuts or raising taxes elsewhere.

Has there ever been a time a transportation fund anywhere has had a surplus?  There's almost always a road or bridge that needs repairs or upgrading, and Wisconsin certainly has the corridors that could use upgrading - US 12 from Madison to I-43 for example.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on October 19, 2014, 11:48:49 AM
A couple of Wisconsin political notes that are germane to this forvm.

I don't have an article link handy, but apparently the Scott Walker administration is seriously studying the idea of converting Wisconsin's volume-based retail fuel tax to a percentage of the price based tax (he's calling it a special 'sales' tax), at a rate to be set as being revenue-neutral on the day that such a conversion would be made.

I thought Wisconsin use to have a small percentage based tax on fuel that was repealed a few years ago?

A "Yes" vote is to amend the state constitution to say that money collected for transportation can only be used for transportation. I'm not sure how I feel on this either. Part of me says that money collected for that purpose should only be used for that purpose. But part of me also says that if a need arises in some other part of the state budget, and the transportation fund has a surplus, then there should be no reason why we shouldn't be able to use that money somewhere else instead of making cuts or raising taxes elsewhere.

Has there ever been a time a transportation fund anywhere has had a surplus?  There's almost always a road or bridge that needs repairs or upgrading, and Wisconsin certainly has the corridors that could use upgrading - US 12 from Madison to I-43 for example.

I realize having a surplus in the transportation fund is very unlikely, as there are always projects needing done, but if there ever was....
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 20, 2014, 09:56:18 AM
A couple of Wisconsin political notes that are germane to this forvm.

I don't have an article link handy, but apparently the Scott Walker administration is seriously studying the idea of converting Wisconsin's volume-based retail fuel tax to a percentage of the price based tax (he's calling it a special 'sales' tax), at a rate to be set as being revenue-neutral on the day that such a conversion would be made.

I thought Wisconsin use to have a small percentage based tax on fuel that was repealed a few years ago?

It's always been 'volume-based'.  What was repealed a few years ago was an annual administrative adjustment in the rate to keep it level with inflation.  "RAISING TAXES WITHOUT VOTING ON IT!!!!  :angry: :verymad:" was a common refrain from the discussion circles in the mid to late double-aughts.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2014, 01:42:12 PM
The referendum on the segregated transportation fund is too inflexible.  There should be a mechanism for diverting funds if it is in the best interest of the state budget.  Roads are nice but if push comes to shove, I do not have a problem delaying or cancelling a highway expansion.

The referendum is worded in absolute terms so it would require another referendum or the passage of a law to overrule it.  Government needs to be flexible to respond to changes and the referendum this year is a step away from that.  Especially in a state where a "balanced budget" is the law.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on October 21, 2014, 07:31:38 PM
The referendum on the segregated transportation fund is too inflexible.  There should be a mechanism for diverting funds if it is in the best interest of the state budget.  Roads are nice but if push comes to shove, I do not have a problem delaying or cancelling a highway expansion.

The referendum is worded in absolute terms so it would require another referendum or the passage of a law to overrule it.  Government needs to be flexible to respond to changes and the referendum this year is a step away from that.  Especially in a state where a "balanced budget" is the law.

That is an amendment to the state's Constitution and if passed, any changes to it (as with any other amendment to the state Constitution in Wisconsin) will require the proposed amendment to pass two consecutive sessions of the legislature in identical form and then a binding statewide referendum election.  There is no citizen-initiative process for enacting statewide laws in Wisconsin.  (Note, the only places in Wisconsin where where binding citizen-initiative referenda are allowed is for municipal charter ordinance amendments and for a very limited set of other purposes, such as initiating or challenging municipal annexations.)

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on October 31, 2014, 08:25:53 PM
Hwy 73 between I-39/90 and US-12/18 is now open to through traffic, and it is very nicely done. Travel lanes are considerably wider, as are the shoulders. All the sharp curves are straightened and the hills and dips flattened.

As anticipated with the pending I-39/90 construction, they have also installed scales and pulloffs for truck enforcement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 31, 2014, 08:45:58 PM
I was kind of intrigued by the US-2 alternate route in Ashland and why it was there.  Think hard - the main road is level with the bay and right along it and there are very few trees to protect against wind driven snow.  WisDOT installed gate beams at the road to Washburn and the connection to WIS 112 (which junctions with the alt route).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on November 05, 2014, 05:42:25 AM
Just an update:

The transportation fund amendment passed with 80% of voters saying yes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on November 05, 2014, 06:49:13 PM
Now if they just catch up with the neighbors and pass a 70 mph speed limit :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on November 07, 2014, 08:34:19 AM
^^AMEN!!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on December 05, 2014, 04:26:18 PM
Driving around the last few days, I've been noting that WisDOT is now installing a generous number of freeway cams on US 10, US(I)-41 and WI 441 here in the Appleton area, the last major metro in the state without a significant number of them (there already are a couple of them on US(I)-41 on the south edge of the Neenah area).

When they are turned on over the next month or so, they'll be available with all of the rest of them statewide at http://www.511wi.gov/web/traffic/cameras.aspx , then go to Outagamie and Winnebago Counties (with perhaps a couple under Calumet County).

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on December 05, 2014, 09:55:46 PM
Driving around the last few days, I've been noting that WisDOT is now installing a generous number of freeway cams on US 10, US(I)-41 and WI 441 here in the Appleton area, the last major metro in the state without a significant number of them (there already are a couple of them on US(I)-41 on the south edge of the Neenah area).

When they are turned on over the next month or so, they'll be available with all of the rest of them statewide at http://www.511wi.gov/web/traffic/cameras.aspx , then go to Outagamie and Winnebago Counties (with perhaps a couple under Calumet County).

 :nod:

Mike

Get ready to see many more installed now that the laws have changed. It used to be that cameras could only go in along with reconstruction projects. Now WisDOT has the freedom to install cams and other ITS projects pretty-much at-will.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 05, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
That's been that way for some time.  What's the body count up to now by the way? :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on December 05, 2014, 11:42:59 PM
That's been that way for some time.  What's the body count up to now by the way? :P
Just under 300

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/cameras.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 06, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: davenh on December 08, 2014, 06:11:21 PM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

Good grief. That's almost depressing. That information first really registered on my radar two weeks ago today, and it was 435. (In fact, I could swear I saw it earlier in the day and it said 427, but I can only say 435 for certain.) 32 traffic deaths in 14 days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on December 08, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

Good grief. That's almost depressing. That information first really registered on my radar two weeks ago today, and it was 435. (In fact, I could swear I saw it earlier in the day and it said 427, but I can only say 435 for certain.) 32 traffic deaths in 14 days.
Yeah that's the last thing you want to put up in a VMS.  Police state anyone?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2014, 03:31:58 PM
What does posting the number of drunk driving deaths in Wisconsin have to do with being a police state? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on December 09, 2014, 03:50:38 PM
What does posting the number of drunk driving deaths in Wisconsin have to do with being a police state? 
This.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: US71 on December 11, 2014, 12:16:19 PM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

MoDOT does those, too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jhuntin1 on December 11, 2014, 09:16:10 PM
actually I was referring to these...

http://511wi.gov/Web/traffic/message_signs.aspx

MoDOT does those, too.

As does IDOT and ISTA. The number of road fatalities is usually the first thing I see when I enter Illinois on 80-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2014, 04:01:18 AM
Why is Lombardi Avenue CTH "VK"? Vince's middle name was Thomas, so it's not that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on December 27, 2014, 07:27:55 AM
Why is Lombardi Avenue CTH "VK"? Vince's middle name was Thomas, so it's not that.
I don't know, but Bessert says it happened in 1999. (But he also says pooing is uncool.)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on January 18, 2015, 01:18:14 PM
Assembly Republicans are making another attempt at raising the speed limit to 70 mph, and they're hoping they can get their Senate colleagues to come along for the ride this time.

The Assembly in 2013 approved hiking the highway speed limit by 5 mph, but the measure died when the Senate declined to back it.

Both houses were controlled by Republicans at the time, as they are now. But the makeup of the Senate has changed significantly because of retirements, and supporters hope to pass it in the legislative session that began this month.


GOP lawmakers revive push for raising Wisconsin's speed limit to 70
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-lawmakers-revive-push-for-raising-wisconsins-speed-limit-to-70-b99427556z1-288963171.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-lawmakers-revive-push-for-raising-wisconsins-speed-limit-to-70-b99427556z1-288963171.html)

Speeds already average 70+ on Wisconsin freeways and expressways. It's time to make the change.  8-)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 18, 2015, 05:27:02 PM
we'll see how it goes.  It's a stronger majority, but there are still some skeptical republicans.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on January 24, 2015, 03:38:00 PM
we'll see how it goes.  It's a stronger majority, but there are still some skeptical republicans.

I personally think there is a very good case for a 70MPH speed limit on rural freeways, especially since Illinois has one and even Pennsylvania has a few 70 zones. I also wonder if Walker would sign it or not.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on January 24, 2015, 11:31:04 PM
What's the political calculus for not raising the speed limit? They don't want to be seen to be decreasing safety? I think that argument is kind of weak sauce. I would think that a 5 mph increase should be pretty much noncontroversial.  Of course, in today's political environment anything can be twisted when it comes time for political ad silly season.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 25, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
One I heard from someone is that government car drivers will drive faster now = less fuel efficient = more gas usage = cost taxpayers more $

who CARES just increase the limit it's not like they already drive that fast if they can.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 25, 2015, 08:50:24 AM
What's the political calculus for not raising the speed limit? They don't want to be seen to be decreasing safety? I think that argument is kind of weak sauce. I would think that a 5 mph increase should be pretty much noncontroversial.  Of course, in today's political environment anything can be twisted when it comes time for political ad silly season.


WIDOT doesn't really want it, and the general public has greeted it with a collective "meh."  There just isn't that much pressure to get it done. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on January 25, 2015, 03:15:59 PM
What's the political calculus for not raising the speed limit? They don't want to be seen to be decreasing safety? I think that argument is kind of weak sauce. I would think that a 5 mph increase should be pretty much noncontroversial.  Of course, in today's political environment anything can be twisted when it comes time for political ad silly season.

Good point! When Illinois passed its 70 MPH speed limit bill in 2013 the votes were overwhelmingly for it and there was a long list of sponsors from both political parties. It's common sense IMO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on January 25, 2015, 05:51:30 PM
I thought it passed the two chambers last time and Walker vetoed it anyway. Would this time be different?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on January 25, 2015, 05:55:08 PM
I thought it passed the two chambers last time and Walker vetoed it anyway. Would this time be different?
Actually passed the assembly but got nowhere in the state senate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on January 25, 2015, 09:36:12 PM
Not sure if anyone else has caught this, but I found this little gem while in Fond du Lac yesterday...

https://goo.gl/maps/PdPNa
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on January 26, 2015, 06:02:24 AM
oops somebody forgot to modify before saving :sombrero:

Thanks for the new avatar.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on January 26, 2015, 06:10:27 AM
Not sure if anyone else has caught this, but I found this little gem while in Fond du Lac yesterday...

https://goo.gl/maps/PdPNa
(http://emotibot.net/pix/466.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 26, 2015, 08:19:30 AM
I don't get it... that road really is OOO... there are several more signs for it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: NE2 on January 26, 2015, 08:31:48 AM
Took me a bit too. It's a boring shield error.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on January 26, 2015, 08:49:44 AM
Ahhhh, got it. State highway shield instead of County Trunk Highway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on February 02, 2015, 03:12:45 PM
Does anyone else find it surprising that nobody has introduced the speed limit hike bill yet?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on February 02, 2015, 05:30:18 PM
Does anyone else find it surprising that nobody has introduced the speed limit hike bill yet?

It has been mentioned in a devoted thread.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 11:39:54 AM
Does anyone else find it surprising that nobody has introduced the speed limit hike bill yet?

It has been mentioned in a devoted thread.


He means that no legislator has introduced it.  It's not surprising to me because most Wisconsinites are apathetic about it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: WarrenWallace on February 03, 2015, 03:34:49 PM
Basically.  I could live with the speed limit  on freeways/expressways outside of urban areas being moved to 70.  But would also love the police to have a heavy crackdown on people going 75 and above. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 03, 2015, 03:43:57 PM
Basically.  I could live with the speed limit  on freeways/expressways outside of urban areas being moved to 70.  But would also love the police to have a heavy crackdown on people going 75 and above. 


Which means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.

I just have never really understood the motivation that Wisconsin should do it because other states do.  If it is good for Wisconsin, then do it. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 03, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
Which means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.

This. 100%. The reason why most Wisconsinites are so apathetic about the bill. Speeding enforcement is generally lax as long as your not unsafe or blatant about it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on February 03, 2015, 11:01:56 PM
Which means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.

This. 100%. The reason why most Wisconsinites are so apathetic about the bill. Speeding enforcement is generally lax as long as your not unsafe or blatant about it.
also on highways there is also the lax on roads with 55 / 65 as the roads where build for 70 and the OLD 55 law took the speed down.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 04, 2015, 03:58:41 AM
Which means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.

This. 100%. The reason why most Wisconsinites are so apathetic about the bill. Speeding enforcement is generally lax as long as your not unsafe or blatant about it.
oh any speed over the limit is "unsafe" </insert police union here> ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 04, 2015, 09:02:11 AM
Which means, you could basically leave it at 65 because rarely do Police pull you over for less than 10 over.

This. 100%. The reason why most Wisconsinites are so apathetic about the bill. Speeding enforcement is generally lax as long as your not unsafe or blatant about it.
oh any speed over the limit is "unsafe" </insert police union here> ;)
That's why you'll never, ever see a squad car going faster than the posted limit. :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 04, 2015, 03:56:42 PM
I am a new poster from Madison, WI but have been reading this message board for several years. Personally I don't care if the speed limit is bumped up from 65 to 70. Does it really make much of a difference?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on February 04, 2015, 05:14:33 PM
If everyone is so apathetic about it I don't see why they don't just pass it and get it over with so this topic doesn't need to come up again.

I'd welcome the speed increase.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jhuntin1 on February 05, 2015, 09:56:33 AM
When did the Wisconsin State Patrol get softer on speed enforcement? When I used to drive to from Indiana to Wisconsin or back for college in the mid-90s, I was always warned about I-94 between Milwaukee and the Illinois line because it was heavily patrolled and they pulled you over for going barely over the limit. I remember seeing a lot of officers on that stretch, almost always with someone pulled over.

I drive up that way once or twice a year now and still see a lot of patrol cars, but the traffic seems to be moving at 70 or so. I know I'd support a higher speed limit, especially on I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 05, 2015, 11:02:07 AM
When did the Wisconsin State Patrol get softer on speed enforcement? When I used to drive to from Indiana to Wisconsin or back for college in the mid-90s, I was always warned about I-94 between Milwaukee and the Illinois line because it was heavily patrolled and they pulled you over for going barely over the limit. I remember seeing a lot of officers on that stretch, almost always with someone pulled over.

They still do heavily enforce that stretch, with the help of the local sheriffs...or at least it seems that way whenever I travel that stretch. But it does seem to matter more which state's plate is on your car.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on February 05, 2015, 11:21:00 AM
Enforcement is heaviest between IL-WI border on I-94 to the Mitchell Interchange. It's also very heavy between north of Madison all the way up to the Dells (mostly that second half that's closer to the Dells). Gotta catch those fibs I guess!

I wouldn't do more than 5 over on those two stretches. Got caught doing 11 over once (and everyone else was doing 11 or WAY more over).

Sometimes there's some enforcement on 94 between Waukesha and the Zoo, but you need to be doing about 10+ over for them to start getting an itchy ticket finger. Once in awhile I see some enforcement on I-43 between FDL Ave all the way past Mequon Rd.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on February 05, 2015, 12:40:51 PM
On the opposite end it hasn't been uncommon for me to see four or five turnarounds occupied by state troopers on 94 when I've driven between Minneapolis and Madison in the past, especially after Tomah and the I-90 traffic (which includes a lot more trucks) gets involved.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on February 05, 2015, 12:43:24 PM
Does anyone else find it surprising that nobody has introduced the speed limit hike bill yet?

It has been mentioned in a devoted thread.


He means that no legislator has introduced it.  It's not surprising to me because most Wisconsinites are apathetic about it.

Oops. I must have read that late at night or something.

Sorry! :(
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on February 05, 2015, 06:12:41 PM
When did the Wisconsin State Patrol get softer on speed enforcement? When I used to drive to from Indiana to Wisconsin or back for college in the mid-90s, I was always warned about I-94 between Milwaukee and the Illinois line because it was heavily patrolled and they pulled you over for going barely over the limit. I remember seeing a lot of officers on that stretch, almost always with someone pulled over.

I drive up that way once or twice a year now and still see a lot of patrol cars, but the traffic seems to be moving at 70 or so. I know I'd support a higher speed limit, especially on I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay.

Yeah, the WSP getting softer on speed enforcement is news to me. Hopefully I won't get a ticket driving through there. I've managed to escape ticketing so far and I do 70 in the 65 zones.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2015, 07:07:46 PM
I drive thousands of miles on Wisconsin highways a year.  Usually about 7 or 8 over.  I have never been pulled over for speeding much less given a ticket.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on February 06, 2015, 12:27:55 AM
10 over is my typical pace on Wisconsin highways, and I never get looked at.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 AM
I drive thousands of miles on Wisconsin highways a year.  Usually about 7 or 8 over.  I have never been pulled over for speeding much less given a ticket.
10 over is my typical pace on Wisconsin highways, and I never get looked at.

Do you have Wisconsin plates? If so, that would explain it.

As someone once told me, the State Patrol is Wisconsin's tollbooth for Illinois drivers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on February 06, 2015, 10:39:39 AM
I drive thousands of miles on Wisconsin highways a year.  Usually about 7 or 8 over.  I have never been pulled over for speeding much less given a ticket.
10 over is my typical pace on Wisconsin highways, and I never get looked at.

Do you have Wisconsin plates? If so, that would explain it.

As someone once told me, the State Patrol is Wisconsin's tollbooth for Illinois drivers.

The fact that they are form Illinois may not be the problem but typically drivers from Illinois drive faster than those from WI. During the summer I frequently drive up the 39/90/94 triplex at 8 over (73) and I'd have to say that about 75% of those that pass me have IL plates and almost 100% of the time there are drivers from IL that are traveling at a much faster speed than the other drivers (>85).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 06, 2015, 02:51:12 PM

also on highways there is also the lax on roads with 55 / 65 as the roads where build for 70 and the OLD 55 law took the speed down.
[/quote]

In the Pre-NMSL days, the Wisconsin speed limits on rural non-freeway roads were 65 mph day/55 night and 45 for trucks over a certain gross tonnage.  The interstate speed limit was 70 mph day/60 mph night.  So the current speed limit provides a faster freeway night time limit than pre-NMSL.  I sort of remember that a few non-interstate freeways may also have posted at 70 mph (US 41 around Appleton), but don't quote me on that.  However, design speeds may have been different than posted speed limits. 

I think that actual traveled speeds are fast enough now, and that the current system should be left as-is. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 06, 2015, 02:57:00 PM


As someone once told me, the State Patrol is Wisconsin's tollbooth for Illinois drivers.
[/quote]

The fact that they are form Illinois may not be the problem but typically drivers from Illinois drive faster than those from WI. During the summer I frequently drive up the 39/90/94 triplex at 8 over (73) and I'd have to say that about 75% of those that pass me have IL plates and almost 100% of the time there are drivers from IL that are traveling at a much faster speed than the other drivers (>85).
[/quote]

I remember how I'd leave Wisconsin and all the troopers behind at the Illinois state line in the old days.  Now I see more cops in IL than in southern WI.  My last speeding ticket was in Illinois 10 years ago, and I've never had a ticket in WI (where I lived). 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 08, 2015, 04:19:57 PM
Does anyone know if construction of the southern end of the U.S 12 bypass around Baraboo is still going to start for this summer? The website says "2015 or later"

Also, what is the status on the study continuing the U.S 12 freeway north of Middleton to Wis 19 west?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 08, 2015, 05:09:45 PM
Does anyone know if construction of the southern end of the U.S 12 bypass around Baraboo is still going to start for this summer? The website says "2015 or later"

According to the proposal document that went out with the Dec 2014 letting for this project, it is scheduled for completion by September 30, 2016. So, given the scope of the work, I would say that a spring/summer 2015 start date is probable.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 08, 2015, 08:50:56 PM
Does anyone know if construction of the southern end of the U.S 12 bypass around Baraboo is still going to start for this summer? The website says "2015 or later"

According to the proposal document that went out with the Dec 2014 letting for this project, it is scheduled for completion by September 30, 2016. So, given the scope of the work, I would say that a spring/summer 2015 start date is probable.

This was my understanding but the WisDOT project website's schedule page now says construction starting in 2015 or later with completion in 2017 or later. 
It can't happen soon enough.  However the alignment barely avoids a very scenic gorge and SNA and will have proximity impact to them. .   

It will be interesting to see how much traffic diverts from I90/94 once only Sauk City and the four stop lights southeast of there remain to impede traffic flow. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on February 08, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
This leaves the last 2 lane stretch between Leuders Road at the edge of Sauk City to County Road Z just south of the old ammunition plant.  Does anyone know if there are plans to expand this section to 4 lanes?

I'd bring up the whole Sauk City bypass discussion but I know at this point that is not going to happen.  I have heard politically this type of project is a no-go.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 09, 2015, 12:20:38 AM
This leaves the last 2 lane stretch between Leuders Road at the edge of Sauk City to County Road Z just south of the old ammunition plant.  Does anyone know if there are plans to expand this section to 4 lanes?

There is a study/project idea being kicked around that involves redesigning the S-curve to the south of the old plant at the very least. How much further south the reconstruction would go is anyone's guess at this point. In any case, the pavement along that stretch of US 12 is in very poor shape.

Quote
I'd bring up the whole Sauk City bypass discussion but I know at this point that is not going to happen.  I have heard politically this type of project is a no-go.

Already discussed here:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25) (start around reply #30)

With the reconstruction that happened just the other year from Wis 60 to the west end of Sauk City, a lot of people would be pissed if the idea would be floated any time in the next decade...especially the Dairy Queen that closed because of the latest project.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 09, 2015, 11:29:55 AM
This leaves the last 2 lane stretch between Leuders Road at the edge of Sauk City to County Road Z just south of the old ammunition plant.  Does anyone know if there are plans to expand this section to 4 lanes?

There is a study/project idea being kicked around that involves redesigning the S-curve to the south of the old plant at the very least. How much further south the reconstruction would go is anyone's guess at this point. In any case, the pavement along that stretch of US 12 is in very poor shape.

Quote
I'd bring up the whole Sauk City bypass discussion but I know at this point that is not going to happen.  I have heard politically this type of project is a no-go.

Already discussed here:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25) (start around reply #30)

With the reconstruction that happened just the other year from Wis 60 to the west end of Sauk City, a lot of people would be pissed if the idea would be floated any time in the next decade...especially the Dairy Queen that closed because of the latest project.

Frankly, I don't see the entire U.S 12 corridor becoming a freeway between Madison and Wisconsin Dells. While it perhaps may eliminate the need to further improve I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I don't see how they could build a Sauk City bypass without significant environmental impacts. Same goes for converting the segment between Sauk City and Baraboo (it goes through some forests around Devils Lake).

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it at this point.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on February 10, 2015, 09:44:57 AM
Same goes for converting the segment between Sauk City and Baraboo (it goes through some forests around Devils Lake).

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it at this point.

The expressway portion south of the Baraboo will extend past The Point of Rocks to the current expressway. As for the freeway thing, this area of US 12 doesn't pass that close to Devils Lake SP/ SNA (and the part that does border it is already an expressway).

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/swregion/12/south/docs/map-details.pdf

https://goo.gl/maps/FmJQ9



I wonder if WisDOT where to propose, say a six lane surface arterial around Sauk City instead of a full freeway, there would be less push back from the locals? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 11, 2015, 11:03:50 PM
The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 12, 2015, 09:52:54 AM
The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.


And it simply isn't needed.  Too many road advocates want something to be completely non-stop no matter the cost, when current set ups are usually fine.  (See the WI-26 thread for a couple of examples.)  Adding a minute or two onto a journey isn't going to kill anyone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on February 12, 2015, 10:39:32 AM
The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.


And it simply isn't needed.  Too many road advocates want something to be completely non-stop no matter the cost, when current set ups are usually fine.  (See the WI-26 thread for a couple of examples.)  Adding a minute or two onto a journey isn't going to kill anyone.

No, it will be needed, but only if U.S 12 is converted to freeway from Middleton to just shy of Sauk City (like they are studying) and the freeway is extended south from Baraboo. Not building a Sauk City bypass will create a bottleneck through the city.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on February 12, 2015, 05:05:19 PM
Sauk City engaged in some land use planning for the bypass, and has "mapped" a corridor.  I agree that some environmental issues will make it difficult to sell this project, even though I think future counts will warrant it someday.  I remember how badly US 12 would back up prior to the recent expansion.   Once I saw it backed up on the weekend to County Trunk Z from the stoplights in Sauk City. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on February 15, 2015, 07:00:16 PM
http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=28503#.VOEyEy4mlIM

From the trucking company perspective - seems that some trucking companies advocating a split speed limit were and are a thorn in the side of the effort to "align" the speed limit in WI with reality on the freeways and the neighboring states other than Chicago (oh wait... :bigass: )
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
My anecdotal experience is that split speed limits for trucks are less safe than one, uniform limit.  Nothing like a bunch of cars barreling down on a couple trucks going 5-10 mph slower.

I do have a question about something Tittl's says in his press release:

“It’s also about making our highways safer,” Tittl said in a news release. “Increasing the speed limit can reduce congestion that often contributes to unsafe driving and accidents.”

Is that true?  Can increasing the speed limit cause safer conditions by limiting congestion?  Or does it make the congestion just move faster?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on February 16, 2015, 10:51:51 AM
My anecdotal experience is that split speed limits for trucks are less safe than one, uniform limit.  Nothing like a bunch of cars barreling down on a couple trucks going 5-10 mph slower.

Except even with that uniform limit there are several trucking companies utilizing speed governors to limit their trucks to max speed around 60 mph to conserve fuel. I kinda like the idea of the split limit since the faster a fully-loaded truck is going, the more carnage there will be if it crashes into someone else.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on February 16, 2015, 11:58:28 AM
Split limits are a waste / unsafe.

Differences in car speed are one of the biggest contributors/factors to collisions and accidents.

Not to mention all the extra signage needed to display both limits.

Keep the limit the same for both, or increase it for both, they shouldn't bother splitting it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on February 17, 2015, 01:15:09 PM
Europeans would beg to differ - nearly all big-rigs 'across the pond' are governed at 80 km/h(!), and yet they ply the same highways that everyone else, even the most powerful sports cars, do.  The only thing is that they strictly adhere to the 'slower traffic keep right' rule.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on February 17, 2015, 10:57:49 PM
UPDATE: Bill aimed at increasing speed limit gains traction

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Wisconsin-Republicans-hope-to-increase-speed-limit-to-70-289351221.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on February 17, 2015, 10:58:23 PM
UPDATE: Bill aimed at increasing speed limit gains traction

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Wisconsin-Republicans-hope-to-increase-speed-limit-to-70-289351221.html

YES YES YES!!!!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on February 18, 2015, 11:11:45 PM
UPDATE: Bill aimed at increasing speed limit gains traction

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Wisconsin-Republicans-hope-to-increase-speed-limit-to-70-289351221.html

YES YES YES!!!!!

This is good news!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on March 17, 2015, 03:28:03 PM
   
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Wisconsin lawmakers have hit the gas pedal on a bill that would increase the maximum speed limit on some state highways and freeways.
   
The state Assembly approved the bill on a 76-22 vote Tuesday. The bill allows the Department of Transportation to increase speed limits to 70 mph in approved areas, up from the current 65 mph limit.
   
Opponents said increasing speed limits is too dangerous. Rep. Dana Wachs, an Eau Claire Democrat, said he would not support the bill because it could increase deaths on Wisconsin roadways. Rep. John Spiros, a Manitowoc Republican, warned commercial vehicles such as semi-trailers should have a lower speed limit. But their concerns fell on deaf ears.
   
The measure goes next to the state Senate.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on March 23, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
A man with a drone posted video of the Hwy 96 new bridge construction in Wrightstown (south of Green Bay):


Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on March 23, 2015, 08:38:19 PM
^^
That is a LOT more elaborate and extensive than I was expecting for that crossing - a high-level crossing that connects significantly inland on the southeast side while eliminating that 'jog' at County 'DD' on the northwest side.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on March 23, 2015, 08:59:35 PM
I got pulled over there last summer.  The 2 lane highway is ridiculous and when it opens up, you go
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 28, 2015, 11:12:49 PM
Madison— Republicans in the Legislature have reached an agreement to raise Wisconsin's speed limit on some highways to 70 miles per hour, breaking a two-year legislative stalemate and likely ending the state's status as a lone island of 65 mph limits in the Midwest.

Under the deal, the state Department of Transportation would decide which major highways in the state would be bumped up to 70 mph but could not raise the limits on roads with at-grade crossings. Those are intersections in which other roads run directly across the highways without on or off-ramps, overpasses or underpasses.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Lawmakers agree to 70 mph limit on major roads
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on April 29, 2015, 03:17:33 AM
Madison— Republicans in the Legislature have reached an agreement to raise Wisconsin's speed limit on some highways to 70 miles per hour, breaking a two-year legislative stalemate and likely ending the state's status as a lone island of 65 mph limits in the Midwest.

Under the deal, the state Department of Transportation would decide which major highways in the state would be bumped up to 70 mph but could not raise the limits on roads with at-grade crossings. Those are intersections in which other roads run directly across the highways without on or off-ramps, overpasses or underpasses.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Lawmakers agree to 70 mph limit on major roads
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html)

It's a start.

 :-/

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on April 29, 2015, 07:52:01 AM
As much as I'd love to see a road like 151 between Sun Prairie and Fond du Lac open up to 70, I agree that the at-grade intersections make that unlikely. I'm surprised they allowed 65 on those stretches to be honest.

Not that I have an opinion either way, just that I know that Wisconsin tends to be conservative about that kind of thing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on April 29, 2015, 08:18:35 PM
I think it's a good compromise. Keep in mind the stretches with at-grades also allow farm traffic, which I wasn't expecting the first time I drove US 151.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on April 29, 2015, 10:19:34 PM
Glad to see this.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on April 29, 2015, 11:24:11 PM
I have no problem with 65 on expressways, but I do think 70 should be strictly reserved for full freeways. US 53 for example I think is not a 70 road after having driven between EC and Superior a number of times.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on April 30, 2015, 03:43:09 AM
I have no problem with 65 on expressways, but I do think 70 should be strictly reserved for full freeways. US 53 for example I think is not a 70 road after having driven between EC and Superior a number of times.
US 53's stretch between Rice Lake and Chippewa Falls may qualify, as could US 51 between Merrill and Wausau.  However I am inclined to agree with you Patrick.  Like most other states, 70 will be reserved for the rural stretches that may be less traveled such as I-39 between the Cascade interchange and Stevens Point, I-43 between Green Bay and Port Washington I-90 between La Crosse and Tomah, and I-94 between Eau Claire and Tomah.  The remainder of the Interstate system has lots of traffic and WisDOT will find an excuse to keep them 65 because of the traffic load.  An excuse that - IMHO - is a lame one (just ask ISHTA!)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
As a lifelong Wisconsinite, I think the freeways and expressways are just fine with a speed limit of 65.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on May 02, 2015, 03:52:30 PM
As a lifelong Wisconsinite, I think the freeways and expressways are just fine with a speed limit of 65.

Glad I don't live there.  The freeway just outside of downtown Austin is now 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2015, 05:37:39 PM
As a lifelong Wisconsinite, I think the freeways and expressways are just fine with a speed limit of 65.

Glad I don't live there.  The freeway just outside of downtown Austin is now 70.


Yeah because I judge what is a great place to live by how fast I can drive on the freeways.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on May 02, 2015, 06:37:56 PM
Don't under the "just fine" mentality. They'll be "even better" at 70 so might as well do it. Look at our surrounding state's limits. Let's move forward and just get this done.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2015, 07:06:56 PM
Really I don't care either way, but why should Wisconsin do it just because other state's do?  We are talking about 5 mph.  15 minutes difference (assuming a constant speed limit) if you make the entire trip from Beloit to Hudson.

Some of the reasoning for this is really...odd. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 02, 2015, 08:57:25 PM
I welcome the speed limit boost just to get more consistency in travel speeds. The design of Wisconsin's freeways is no worse (and frequently better) than neighboring states, and yet (for political reasons) the speed limits are slower.

I also welcome anything that pulls attention back to driving from the distraction-of-the-month gadget.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2015, 09:20:00 PM
I welcome the speed limit boost just to get more consistency in travel speeds. The design of Wisconsin's freeways is no worse (and frequently better) than neighboring states, and yet (for political reasons) the speed limits are slower.

I also welcome anything that pulls attention back to driving from the distraction-of-the-month gadget.


What are the political reasons why it is slower?  It seems as though WIDOT isn't excited about it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on May 02, 2015, 09:35:37 PM
- Safety concerns
- Worse fuel economy
- Big insurance wanting to keep rates higher

All not atypical of other areas where 70+ mph speed lmits were enacted.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on May 02, 2015, 10:55:44 PM
yes I got pulled over on a long boring stretch of 65 just south of Mauston.  This road should have been a 75.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 03, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
I agree with the rural expressways being 70. You can add WI 57 in the Door Peninsula to that list. I'm fine doing 65 but half the FIB's are doing at least 75 anyways. It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 03, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
Actually, from Sun Prairie to Columbus, it is interstate grade with no cross traffic.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on May 03, 2015, 08:14:14 PM
I think it's a good compromise. Keep in mind the stretches with at-grades also allow farm traffic, which I wasn't expecting the first time I drove US 151.

I agree. 70 on the freeways is a no-brainer to me especially since even IL and OH are 70 now, but I don't mind slowing down a bit where there is cross-traffic. I'm pleasantly surprised by this.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on May 03, 2015, 08:42:41 PM
Well, you drive to the conditions of the road. I got pulled over behind someone from Montana who had been going 90.  I got caught at 79 but only got a warning.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on May 03, 2015, 11:02:13 PM
Actually, from Sun Prairie to Columbus, it is interstate grade with no cross traffic.

Then it's not a rural expressway there, is it? If you read my post, I specifically mentioned rural expressways. It is an expressway for part of the way between Madison and Fondy. I didn't expect some pedant to be so into picking apart other people's posts that he doesn't care what the discussion was about in the first place.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on May 03, 2015, 11:24:35 PM
Actually, from Sun Prairie to Columbus, it is interstate grade with no cross traffic.

Then it's not a rural expressway there, is it? If you read my post, I specifically mentioned rural expressways. It is an expressway for part of the way between Madison and Fondy. I didn't expect some pedant to be so into picking apart other people's posts that he doesn't care what the discussion was about in the first place.

You must be new around here. :)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 12:57:46 AM
I agree with the rural expressways being 70. You can add WI 57 in the Door Peninsula to that list. I'm fine doing 65 but half the FIB's are doing at least 75 anyways. It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison.

I was 'keeping up with traffic' at 85-90 (140-150 km/h) on most of US 151 between Waupun and Sun Prairie while going to and from the Madison meet a couple of weeks ago.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 04, 2015, 06:41:24 AM
I agree with the rural expressways being 70. You can add WI 57 in the Door Peninsula to that list. I'm fine doing 65 but half the FIB's are doing at least 75 anyways. It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison.

I was 'keeping up with traffic' at 85-90 (140-150 km/h) on most of US 151 between Waupun and Sun Prairie while going to and from the Madison meet a couple of weeks ago.

Mike
yea but i bet politically you were going to fast. :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 11:41:40 AM
I agree with the rural expressways being 70. You can add WI 57 in the Door Peninsula to that list. I'm fine doing 65 but half the FIB's are doing at least 75 anyways. It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison.

I was 'keeping up with traffic' at 85-90 (140-150 km/h) on most of US 151 between Waupun and Sun Prairie while going to and from the Madison meet a couple of weeks ago.

Mike
yea but i bet politically you were going to fast. :P

'To fast' or 'too fast'?

 :hmmm:

 :meh:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 04, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
An Appleton area traffic note, the NB-off and SB-on ramps at I-41/WI 125 (College Ave) went down this morning for about two weeks to allow crews to do 25 year maintenance related work on the I-41 bridges over adjacent Spencer St.  This is arguably the most important street interchange on the entire metro freeway network and these are the two 'major moves' ramps at that interchange.

With other freeway (especially with US 10/WI 441 at WI 47) and major street work that is going on around Appleton right now, the next two weeks will be very interesting for those wanting to get in and out of the city.

The part of I-41 in the Appleton-Neenah area that was upgraded to six lanes in the very early 1990s is getting a rehab and this ramp closure is part of that project.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on May 04, 2015, 06:55:07 PM
An Appleton area traffic note, the NB-off and SB-on ramps at I-41/WI 125 (College Ave) went down this morning for about two weeks to allow crews to do 25 year maintenance related work on the I-41 bridges over adjacent Spencer St.

 :-o

Yikes! I can only imagine what that mess is like.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 04, 2015, 08:14:39 PM
An Appleton area traffic note, the NB-off and SB-on ramps at I-41/WI 125 (College Ave) went down this morning for about two weeks to allow crews to do 25 year maintenance related work on the I-41 bridges over adjacent Spencer St.

 :-o

Yikes! I can only imagine what that mess is like.
Exactly why there are only two seasons in WI.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on May 05, 2015, 11:39:05 AM
from the wires:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The state Senate is poised to vote on a bill that would clear the way for a 70 mph speed limit on at least some Wisconsin roads.
   
The bill would allow the state Department of Transportation to decide where to raise the limit from 65 mph to 70 mph. The measure would prohibit the DOT from raising the limit on four-lane roads with at-grade access, however.
   
The Senate is set to vote on the measure on Wednesday. It would then go to the state Assembly. That house passed the bill in March before legislators added the at-grade restriction. Both houses must pass an identical bill before it can go to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 05, 2015, 06:25:29 PM
Actually, from Sun Prairie to Columbus, it is interstate grade with no cross traffic.

Then it's not a rural expressway there, is it? If you read my post, I specifically mentioned rural expressways. It is an expressway for part of the way between Madison and Fondy. I didn't expect some pedant to be so into picking apart other people's posts that he doesn't care what the discussion was about in the first place.

It was my reply to your "It also would probably work on 151 west of Verona, but I don't think it would work northeast of Madison."

You specifically said "NORTHEAST of Madison" on 151. That to me means you were talking about the entire corridor to Fond du Lac. I was simply pointing out that up to and including the Columbus bypass, 151 is interstate grade. I was not belittling anything you said. I could if you really want but that's not my style. So next time before you get upset about someone making a statement on what you said, maybe you should make sure that what you said is accurate.

 :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Fox 11 News on May 06, 2015, 03:16:02 PM
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The state Senate has approved a bill that would allow Wisconsin transportation officials to raise the speed limit on some roads to 70 mph.
   
The bill would permit the Department of Transportation officials to raise the limit to 70 mph on roads they deem fit. The proposal would prohibit DOT from going to 70 on four-lane roads with at-grade access, however.
   
The Senate passed the measure on a voice vote on Wednesday. It goes next to the state Assembly. That chamber passed the bill in March before legislators added the at-grade prohibition. Both houses must pass an identical bill before it can go to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature.
   
A Walker spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to an
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on May 07, 2015, 01:29:09 PM
From an article that gives a bit more detail...
Quote
MADISON (AP) — Wisconsin transportation officials would be allowed to raise the speed limit to 70 mph on some roads under a bill that the state Senate approved Wednesday.

 The Republican-authored bill would permit the Department of Transportation to raise the limit to 70 mph on roads where they decide the limit would be safe. The measure would prohibit DOT from going to 70 mph on four-lane roads with at-grade access, however.

 The GOP-controlled Assembly passed the measure overwhelmingly in March, but Senate Republicans were wary of the bill. Sen. Jerry Petrowski, R-Marahon, and Sen. Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, quelled concerns by drafting the at-grade prohibition as an amendment.

 The Senate approved the amendment and the bill on voice votes Wednesday with no debate. Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, made the only comment about the bill on the Senate floor, saying it shows both parties can work together.

‘‘I’m glad it happened,’’ Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, told reporters after the vote. ‘‘(There) seems to be a lot of support for the change.’’

The measure now goes back to the Assembly; both houses must pass the same bill before it can go to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature. The proposal’s Assembly author, Rep. Paul Tittl, R-Manitowoc, helped craft the at-grade amendment, so passage in that chamber appears all but certain.

 A Walker spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to an email Wednesday inquiring about whether the governor supports the bill.

 According to a fiscal estimate attached to the bill, DOT officials plan to raise the limit to 70 mph on freeway portions of the interstate system as well as portions of U.S. Highway 51, U.S. Highway 53 and U.S. Highway 141. The agency estimates it would spend about $238,000 to create and install 815 signs reflecting the change.

 DOT also estimates it will spend another $126,000 to investigate raising the limit on other freeway and expressway segments.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 07, 2015, 10:46:14 PM
Does the author not realize there are no "non-freeway portions" of the Interstate system?

I'd imagine he meant rural (to leave Milwaukee area at 55 and possibly other urban areas at 65 (Hopefully not))
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on May 13, 2015, 07:25:15 PM
A section of WIS 13 collapsed near Red Cliff this morning. No one was injured as the road was already in the process of being closed at the the time; the road will probably be closed for a few days. The collapse was caused by a culvert failure.

http://www.fox21online.com/news/local-news/Part-of-Highway-13-Collapses-Near-Red-Cliff/33006342
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on May 13, 2015, 08:32:00 PM
Tha assembly passed the speed limit bill and is awaiting the govenor's signature.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dcharlie on May 20, 2015, 05:18:54 PM
70 MPH signed into law!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on May 21, 2015, 04:32:09 AM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:

- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

Personally I had always thought that the section of 94 between 494/694 and the WI border was posted 65 simply because it was tying into a 65 in Wisconsin. Given the mostly widely spaced-out nature of the interchanges and the largely rural feel of the section I figured there was nothing holding it back from a 70 other than cosmetic purposes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on May 21, 2015, 07:15:31 AM
Personally I had always thought that the section of 94 between 494/694 and the WI border was posted 65 simply because it was tying into a 65 in Wisconsin. Given the mostly widely spaced-out nature of the interchanges and the largely rural feel of the section I figured there was nothing holding it back from a 70 other than cosmetic purposes.

Seeing that this section (Between 694/494 and the WI border) was done in 1985 (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/docs/projlog/county82/8282.pdf), it is designed for a 70 mph speed limit.  There are no substandard vertical or horizontal curves (hardly any horizontal curves at all and much of the vertical is rolling for drainage/bridge clearances).  I asked a guy from Mn/DOT why it was signed 65 and he said it was such a short stretch between 694/494 and WI's 65mph section, it was decided to leave it at 65mph instead of move it 70mph.

I can understand why WisDOT would not sign the section in Hudson 70mph, especially with the steep grade on the WI side into/out of the St. Croix River Valley. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on May 21, 2015, 07:29:49 AM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

Notice the one "urban area" missing from the list is I-41 in Oshkosh.  I know this was recently redone with the US 41 expansion but if the "urban area" rule where to apply, this is definitely a section (WI 44 to US 45) that would meet this criteria.

In my opinion the sections in Eau Claire, La Crosse (Although currently this is under construction at a temporary 55mph limit so they wouldn't change the speed limit right now anyways), Appleton, and Point are just going to become giant speed traps.  Very few drivers are going to slow down to meet the 65 mph speed limit (even 70mph going 5 over).  They would most likely operate fine with a 70 mph limit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on May 21, 2015, 09:54:13 AM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

Racine and Kenosha are missing from this list.  I hope they never get added, and we can then give the county sheriffs there the finger and go 70 mph along that stretch.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 21, 2015, 10:28:44 AM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

Racine and Kenosha are missing from this list.  I hope they never get added, and we can then give the county sheriffs there the finger and go 70 mph along that stretch.
(http://cdn.yourepeat.com/media/gif/000/700/451/5ccfa67553f30b54e41f2e8fd658f8f5.gif)

Sorry - I didn't know how this machine works.

about the speed trap thingy?  Yeah you could say that - it is Wisconsin you know - you have to make a profit somehow.

IL has a similar setup with Effingham and Mt Vernon.

Even Montana with Missoula.

California doesn't any 70 MPH on I-80.

Every state compensates its police somehow... :pan:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 21, 2015, 04:15:58 PM
Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, eastern Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse  (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

Notice the one "urban area" missing from the list is I-41 in Oshkosh.  I know this was recently redone with the US 41 expansion but if the "urban area" rule where to apply, this is definitely a section (WI 44 to US 45) that would meet this criteria.

In my opinion the sections in Eau Claire, La Crosse (Although currently this is under construction at a temporary 55mph limit so they wouldn't change the speed limit right now anyways), Appleton, and Point are just going to become giant speed traps.  Very few drivers are going to slow down to meet the 65 mph speed limit (even 70mph going 5 over).  They would most likely operate fine with a 70 mph limit.

I-41 in Oshkosh, the Lake Butte des Morts causeway part especially, drives like a German autobahn now.

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on May 22, 2015, 11:30:15 AM
I really didn't think raising the speed limit to 70 mph was necessary, however, I also think that the 65 mph zones in the urban areas seemed a little capricious....i.e. Why wasn't Janesville included?  There's interchange spacing issues of more concern there than there are in Point.  I-90 in LaCrosse is borderline, but I-94 is so far outside much of the Eau Claire urbanized area with ample interchange spacing, that only 65 mph seems to be slow there too.  The north-south portion of I-41 on the west side of Appleton and Neenah/Menasha has a lot of traffic and no increase there seems warranted.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 22, 2015, 12:59:34 PM
Yay, now you can catch up to slow moving trucks 8 seconds sooner.

 :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2015, 04:59:51 PM
Personally, my reaction to the speed limit increase is "meh!"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Joe The Dragon on May 22, 2015, 10:23:17 PM
I really didn't think raising the speed limit to 70 mph was necessary, however, I also think that the 65 mph zones in the urban areas seemed a little capricious....i.e. Why wasn't Janesville included?  There's interchange spacing issues of more concern there than there are in Point.  I-90 in LaCrosse is borderline, but I-94 is so far outside much of the Eau Claire urbanized area with ample interchange spacing, that only 65 mph seems to be slow there too.  The north-south portion of I-41 on the west side of Appleton and Neenah/Menasha has a lot of traffic and no increase there seems warranted.
70 is needed to match IL-toll way (that needs to go full 70)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on May 22, 2015, 10:28:23 PM
Congratulations Wisconsin! No longer a sore thumb. This is way overdue but hey better late than never. I look forward to legally going 70 in that state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on May 23, 2015, 01:44:56 AM
Looks like it is only going to apply to interstates. So, it appears it will not be applied to any freeway sections of 51, 53, 151 or WI-29.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on May 23, 2015, 06:31:58 AM
Looks like it is only going to apply to interstates. So, it appears it will not be applied to any freeway sections of 51, 53, 151 or WI-29.

nothing committed.  They're running studies though but don't expect any on 151 or 29
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on May 23, 2015, 09:57:35 AM
Looks like it is only going to apply to interstates. So, it appears it will not be applied to any freeway sections of 51, 53, 151 or WI-29.

nothing committed.  They're running studies though but don't expect any on 151 or 29

Even though US 151 between Sun Prairie and Waupun was flying along at autobahn speeds going to and from the Madison meet a few weeks ago.

 :rolleyes:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on May 23, 2015, 10:00:55 AM
The freeway section of US 53 from Eau Claire to Rice like will most likely be 70, as well as the freeway section of US 51 north of Wausau. But the freeway sections of US 151 and WIS 29 are just short sections and would likely cause problems if just those sections are raised to 70 and the rest of the highway remains at 65.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 23, 2015, 11:09:37 AM
I really didn't think raising the speed limit to 70 mph was necessary, however, I also think that the 65 mph zones in the urban areas seemed a little capricious....i.e. Why wasn't Janesville included?  There's interchange spacing issues of more concern there than there are in Point.  I-90 in LaCrosse is borderline, but I-94 is so far outside much of the Eau Claire urbanized area with ample interchange spacing, that only 65 mph seems to be slow there too.  The north-south portion of I-41 on the west side of Appleton and Neenah/Menasha has a lot of traffic and no increase there seems warranted.
70 is needed to match IL-toll way (that needs to go full 70)


Look I don't mind the increase at all, but the whole "we have to match what other states do" is the lamest reasoning behind the increase.

It really isn't hard to reduce your speed at one border...and increase it at the next. 

I wish people would just say "I want to drive faster."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on May 23, 2015, 06:26:34 PM
As a lifelong Wisconsinite, I think the freeways and expressways are just fine with a speed limit of 65.

Glad I don't live there.  The freeway just outside of downtown Austin is now 70.


Yeah because I judge what is a great place to live by how fast I can drive on the freeways.   :rolleyes:

Nothing like horribly slow roads
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on May 24, 2015, 03:02:37 PM
I really didn't think raising the speed limit to 70 mph was necessary, however, I also think that the 65 mph zones in the urban areas seemed a little capricious....i.e. Why wasn't Janesville included?  There's interchange spacing issues of more concern there than there are in Point.  I-90 in LaCrosse is borderline, but I-94 is so far outside much of the Eau Claire urbanized area with ample interchange spacing, that only 65 mph seems to be slow there too.  The north-south portion of I-41 on the west side of Appleton and Neenah/Menasha has a lot of traffic and no increase there seems warranted.
70 is needed to match IL-toll way (that needs to go full 70)


Look I don't mind the increase at all, but the whole "we have to match what other states do" is the lamest reasoning behind the increase.

It really isn't hard to reduce your speed at one border...and increase it at the next. 

I wish people would just say "I want to drive faster."

Agreed SW.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dave069 on May 27, 2015, 10:39:31 AM
US 53 should definitely be a 70 between Eau Claire and Rice Lake. People drive that fast and the road is built for it. I'd be annoyed if its still a 65 next time i drive it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on May 29, 2015, 01:21:35 AM
Other roads that could possibly have a 70 Mph speed limit are US 10 between I-41 and Fremont, US 45 between US 10 and I-41, and US 12 between Elkhorn and the WI/IL state line.  All 3 freeway segments branch off of freeway segments that will be signed at 70 so the speed limit would be consistent and continuous. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on June 02, 2015, 01:42:07 PM
Different Topic:  WI STH 57, from STH 23 at Plymouth to east of Elkhart Lake

Rand McNally's 2016 Atlas shows this as multi-lane divided now.  Is this a mistake?  Or was this section expanded?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 02, 2015, 08:39:58 PM
Different Topic:  WI STH 57, from STH 23 at Plymouth to east of Elkhart Lake

Rand McNally's 2016 Atlas shows this as multi-lane divided now.  Is this a mistake?  Or was this section expanded?

That is a mistake for sure. The four-lane ends just past CTH O immediately north of WI 23.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 04, 2015, 03:44:31 PM
In 2010, there was a proposal by a Milwaukee County Supervisor and South Milwaukee's mayor to establish a plan to extend the State Highway 794/Lake Parkway from it's current terminus southward to State Highway 100/Ryan Road. Has anyone else heard about this proposal? I've not found out much about the proposed project since it was first proposed. There is no timetable for its potential construction. If it was constructed, it would go behind the house my paternal grandfather grew up in, and lived in for many years (It is a short distance north of the S. Pennsylvania Ave./E. Puetz Rd. intersection) in Oak Creek. Thoughts anyone?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 04, 2015, 04:21:07 PM
Once the speed limit is changed, do you think MN/DOT will change I-90 through Dresbach and I-94 through Afton to 70? Or will the adjacent segments in Wisconsin remain 65 because of La Crosse and Hudson?


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 04, 2015, 06:31:25 PM
In 2010, there was a proposal by a Milwaukee County Supervisor and South Milwaukee's mayor to establish a plan to extend the State Highway 794/Lake Parkway from it's current terminus southward to State Highway 100/Ryan Road. Has anyone else heard about this proposal? I've not found out much about the proposed project since it was first proposed. There is no timetable for its potential construction. If it was constructed, it would go behind the house my paternal grandfather grew up in, and lived in for many years (It is a short distance north of the S. Pennsylvania Ave./E. Puetz Rd. intersection) in Oak Creek. Thoughts anyone?

I haven't heard squat either and I went to an information meeting about it several years ago.  WisDOT probably has little interest in a Lake Parkway extension as they have a full plate expanding existing freeways around Milwaukee.  I think it will end up as another SEWRPC fantasy; like the northern MKE bypass they themselves rejected as recently as 2000.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 04, 2015, 09:00:52 PM
Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 04, 2015, 10:50:29 PM
Once the speed limit is changed, do you think MN/DOT will change I-90 through Dresbach and I-94 through Afton to 70? Or will the adjacent segments in Wisconsin remain 65 because of La Crosse and Hudson?
iPhone

Mn/DOT will not end up changing I-90 speed limit in Dresbach because the current speed limit change location is less than a mile to the border.  WisDOT is not allowed to raise the 65 mph through La Crosse (it's only allowed for rural interstates) thus the 70 mph in Wisconsin will begin at US 53 (exit 4) in La Crosse.  It does not make sense for Mn/DOT to move that speed change unless they removed it altogether if WisDOT made it 70 mph through La Crosse.

As for Afton, that is a good question but because the 70mph in Wisconsin won't start until WIS 35 I doubt Mn/DOT is going to make the change.  It would only be a 7 mile stretch of 70 mph in MN before MnDOT would have to switch it back to 65 mph before the border crossing.  It does not make sense to change it, it's better to have consistency than speed limits changing every few miles on the interstate.  The time savings over 7 miles is insignificant.

**Ahem, cough, this is a hint to WisDOT that it does not make sense to change speed limits in places like Janesville, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Hudson, Appleton, Point, etc for a few miles just to switch them back to 70.**  Someone needs to advocate the legislature and governor to change this.  People are not going to drop their speeds for a few miles especially since many of these stretches don't drive like urban freeways especially the ones with rural ditch designs.  Although this is classic Wisconsin, I wouldn't expect anything less (Some of their rules and design standards make me shake my head).

The limits of the speed limit changes in Wisconsin are listed here: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 04, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
The new Wisconsin law allows 70 MPH for any freeway (not expressways with at-grade crossings) as long as the DOT determines it to be safe.  The DOT determined those urban areas to be unsafe for 70 MPH.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 12:31:28 AM
Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

Someone told me a week or so ago that WisDOT is building an interchange there.  Another piece of the US 12 puzzle falls into place.

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 05, 2015, 01:59:28 AM
**Ahem, cough, this is a hint to WisDOT that it does not make sense to change speed limits in places like Janesville, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Hudson, Appleton, Point, etc for a few miles just to switch them back to 70.**  Someone needs to advocate the legislature and governor to change this.  People are not going to drop their speeds for a few miles especially since many of these stretches don't drive like urban freeways especially the ones with rural ditch designs.  Although this is classic Wisconsin, I wouldn't expect anything less (Some of their rules and design standards make me shake my head).

Meh, there's worse. Like Iowa's DOT lowering I-35's speed limit literally just for the U.S. 30 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 05, 2015, 07:09:04 AM
The new Wisconsin law allows 70 MPH for any freeway (not expressways with at-grade crossings) as long as the DOT determines it to be safe.  The DOT determined those urban areas to be unsafe for 70 MPH.

I had heard at one point it was due to law (they were authorizing rural interstates only) but I looked it up and you are right.  http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/acts/19

It would be great to see a justification of reasons for each of these areas why DOT found these urban areas to be unsafe.  Many of these stretches have no substandard horizontal and vertical curves (you can tell because it's flat and straight, lol) and meet the 13 controlling criteria for design standards.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 05, 2015, 07:11:59 AM
**Ahem, cough, this is a hint to WisDOT that it does not make sense to change speed limits in places like Janesville, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Hudson, Appleton, Point, etc for a few miles just to switch them back to 70.**  Someone needs to advocate the legislature and governor to change this.  People are not going to drop their speeds for a few miles especially since many of these stretches don't drive like urban freeways especially the ones with rural ditch designs.  Although this is classic Wisconsin, I wouldn't expect anything less (Some of their rules and design standards make me shake my head).

Meh, there's worse. Like Iowa's DOT lowering I-35's speed limit literally just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Just because there are worse, that does not justify it as a proper decision.  But I have not driven that stretch of 35 since Iowa raised their speed limits so I did not realize this was the case.  That is another interesting case, it would be great to see the reasoning behind that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on June 05, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

Someone told me a week or so ago that WisDOT is building an interchange there.  Another piece of the US 12 puzzle falls into place.

 :nod:

Mike

It's not going to be a full interchange, it is going to be a "jug handle" interchange. 73 will be realigned to go straight under 12/18, with jug handle ramps from 73 to 12/18 and RIRO intersections on 12/18.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 05, 2015, 11:38:59 AM
Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

Someone told me a week or so ago that WisDOT is building an interchange there.  Another piece of the US 12 puzzle falls into place.

 :nod:

Mike

It's not going to be a full interchange, it is going to be a "jug handle" interchange. 73 will be realigned to go straight under 12/18, with jug handle ramps from 73 to 12/18 and RIRO intersections on 12/18.


Yep.  Here is what it will look like.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/docs/map-prefalt.pdf

When they redid US-12/18 from Cambridge to Madison about 15 years ago, I thought they should have dealt with this intersection then.  It almost immediately became a problem with traffic back ups on WI-73 and a lot of "nervy" left hand turns.  Not sure this will do the trick in the long run though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 05, 2015, 11:47:22 AM
Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

Someone told me a week or so ago that WisDOT is building an interchange there.  Another piece of the US 12 puzzle falls into place.

 :nod:

Mike

It's not going to be a full interchange, it is going to be a "jug handle" interchange. 73 will be realigned to go straight under 12/18, with jug handle ramps from 73 to 12/18 and RIRO intersections on 12/18.


Yep.  Here is what it will look like.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/docs/map-prefalt.pdf

When they redid US-12/18 from Cambridge to Madison about 15 years ago, I thought they should have dealt with this intersection then.  It almost immediately became a problem with traffic back ups on WI-73 and a lot of "nervy" left hand turns.  Not sure this will do the trick in the long run though.

It looks almost like US (now 'I') 41 at WI 33 at Allenton before it was upgraded to a more 'normal' interchange back in the 1990s.  It's a start and it does look to be upgradable.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2015, 10:25:44 PM
It's a start and it does look to be upgradable.

My fictional dreams still conjure images of a new terrain alignment between Ft. Atkinson and I-39/90.  But of course, only in the unlikely event US 12 connects to something in Illinois.
In the interim, perhaps it is time to start pondering a super-2 bypass of Cambridge.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 06, 2015, 04:19:00 AM
It's a start and it does look to be upgradable.

My fictional dreams still conjure images of a new terrain alignment between Ft. Atkinson and I-39/90.  But of course, only in the unlikely event US 12 connects to something in Illinois.
In the interim, perhaps it is time to start pondering a super-2 bypass of Cambridge.

Upgradable two lanes on a four-lanes ROW.

 :nod:

Also, if you look at the aerial images of I-39/90 SE of Madison, from above you can easily see the ROW for the interchange where that US 12 freeway was originally planned to connect at that kinky 'S' curve.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on June 06, 2015, 11:35:05 AM
My fictional dreams still conjure images of a new terrain alignment between Ft. Atkinson and I-39/90.  But of course, only in the unlikely event US 12 connects to something in Illinois.

I still think the semi-expressway section of WI 50 between US 12 and the Kenosha area is good enough for collecting Illinois travelers and funneling them towards US 12.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 05:36:18 PM
Once the speed limit is changed, do you think MN/DOT will change I-90 through Dresbach and I-94 through Afton to 70? Or will the adjacent segments in Wisconsin remain 65 because of La Crosse and Hudson?


iPhone

I think certainly I-94 will remain 65 until the US 12 exit. Too many interchanges in the first 5 miles to be considered rural.

I-90 is probably going to be that way as well but not because of the interchanges but rather the "S" curve and hills between the US 14/61 exit to Winona and US 53.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:45:21 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 07, 2015, 07:05:19 PM
Once the speed limit is changed, do you think MN/DOT will change I-90 through Dresbach and I-94 through Afton to 70? Or will the adjacent segments in Wisconsin remain 65 because of La Crosse and Hudson?


iPhone

I think certainly I-94 will remain 65 until the US 12 exit. Too many interchanges in the first 5 miles to be considered rural.

I-90 is probably going to be that way as well but not because of the interchanges but rather the "S" curve and hills between the US 14/61 exit to Winona and US 53.
Right now the 70 zone in MN goes south past Dresbach, but IIRC, the 70 zone ended prior to the southern US-14/61 exit to Le Cresecent.  A tight curve to the Mississippi River Bridge.  Though they're rebuilding it, it's still likely to be a 65-zone after the construction though due to "urban zone".  WI's cutting it's 70 zone at 53 NB on I-90.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

I showed you that often enough states don't wait for others to do something when the project is within their state.

As to the wetlands, you can do a causeway like the Belt Line. And the wetlands you are talking about
is a short piece that would be in the probable ROW. Like I said, it's not the Horicon Marsh.

Yes there are parts of 12 you can widen within the footprint such as Cambirdge to Wis 26 and Hwy K to the east side of Whitewater. In fact I would hope the do utilize them. But the biggest traffic issues with 12 is Cambridge  itself, Ft Atkinson itself and between the east end of Whitewater and the end of the freeway. putting in a suicide passing lane between Whitewater and Elkhorn is a bad idea. Way too many blind hills.

And you don't think that if people had a way to bypass Milwaukee entirely they wouldn't take it? I got a bridge to sell you if you do.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

I showed you that often enough states don't wait for others to do something when the project is within their state.

As to the wetlands, you can do a causeway like the Belt Line. And the wetlands you are talking about
is a short piece that would be in the probable ROW. Like I said, it's not the Horicon Marsh.

Yes there are parts of 12 you can widen within the footprint such as Cambirdge to Wis 26 and Hwy K to the east side of Whitewater. In fact I would hope the do utilize them. But the biggest traffic issues with 12 is Cambridge  itself, Ft Atkinson itself and between the east end of Whitewater and the end of the freeway. putting in a suicide passing lane between Whitewater and Elkhorn is a bad idea. Way too many blind hills.

And you don't think that if people had a way to bypass Milwaukee entirely they wouldn't take it? I got a bridge to sell you if you do.

Ok, let me say this for the record. I do support finishing the freeway between Madison and Elkhorn in principle, but I only believe it should be built if the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension is built (which will probably never happen). If you extend the freeway from Elkhorn to Madison, it is going to create an even bigger bottleneck at the state line than there is now, further congesting Lake County.

What I think needs to happen (in an ideal world), is IDOT/WisDOT need to discuss moving the end of the US 12 freeway further west closer to IL-47 (east of Hebron) so they can route it around Glacial Park, avoiding the environmental impacts, then they just find a way to route it around Volo Blog and then presto! The Richmond-Waukegan corridor can be constructed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 08:25:19 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

I showed you that often enough states don't wait for others to do something when the project is within their state.

As to the wetlands, you can do a causeway like the Belt Line. And the wetlands you are talking about
is a short piece that would be in the probable ROW. Like I said, it's not the Horicon Marsh.

Yes there are parts of 12 you can widen within the footprint such as Cambirdge to Wis 26 and Hwy K to the east side of Whitewater. In fact I would hope the do utilize them. But the biggest traffic issues with 12 is Cambridge  itself, Ft Atkinson itself and between the east end of Whitewater and the end of the freeway. putting in a suicide passing lane between Whitewater and Elkhorn is a bad idea. Way too many blind hills.

And you don't think that if people had a way to bypass Milwaukee entirely they wouldn't take it? I got a bridge to sell you if you do.

Ok, let me say this for the record. I do support finishing the freeway between Madison and Elkhorn in principle, but I only believe it should be built if the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension is built (which will probably never happen). If you extend the freeway from Elkhorn to Madison, it is going to create an even bigger bottleneck at the state line than there is now, further congesting Lake County.

What I think needs to happen (in an ideal world), is IDOT/WisDOT need to discuss moving the end of the US 12 freeway further west closer to IL-47 (east of Hebron) so they can route it around Glacial Park, avoiding the environmental impacts, then they just find a way to route it around Volo Blog and then presto! The Richmond-Waukegan corridor can be constructed.
Then why are you trying to play devil's advocate?

Think about this though. The "bottleneck" in Richmond would be Illinois' problem to deal with meaning they might actually get off their asses and do something about extending the US 12 freeway.

As to what to do with the Volo bog etc, I did that map about 3 months ago. Did you see it?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 09:13:07 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

I showed you that often enough states don't wait for others to do something when the project is within their state.

As to the wetlands, you can do a causeway like the Belt Line. And the wetlands you are talking about
is a short piece that would be in the probable ROW. Like I said, it's not the Horicon Marsh.

Yes there are parts of 12 you can widen within the footprint such as Cambirdge to Wis 26 and Hwy K to the east side of Whitewater. In fact I would hope the do utilize them. But the biggest traffic issues with 12 is Cambridge  itself, Ft Atkinson itself and between the east end of Whitewater and the end of the freeway. putting in a suicide passing lane between Whitewater and Elkhorn is a bad idea. Way too many blind hills.

And you don't think that if people had a way to bypass Milwaukee entirely they wouldn't take it? I got a bridge to sell you if you do.

Ok, let me say this for the record. I do support finishing the freeway between Madison and Elkhorn in principle, but I only believe it should be built if the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension is built (which will probably never happen). If you extend the freeway from Elkhorn to Madison, it is going to create an even bigger bottleneck at the state line than there is now, further congesting Lake County.

What I think needs to happen (in an ideal world), is IDOT/WisDOT need to discuss moving the end of the US 12 freeway further west closer to IL-47 (east of Hebron) so they can route it around Glacial Park, avoiding the environmental impacts, then they just find a way to route it around Volo Blog and then presto! The Richmond-Waukegan corridor can be constructed.
Then why are you trying to play devil's advocate?

Think about this though. The "bottleneck" in Richmond would be Illinois' problem to deal with meaning they might actually get off their asses and do something about extending the US 12 freeway.

As to what to do with the Volo bog etc, I did that map about 3 months ago. Did you see it?

Yes, I did, and it's a wonderful idea, but unrealistic because Illinois doesn't think outside the box........

I'm "playing devils advocate" because I know Illinois can't get ANYTHING done when it comes to highways (and infrastructure in general). So if you think finishing the freeway between Elkhorn and Madison will get Illinois to construct FAP 420, forget it. FAP 420 will never be constructed, they won't be willing to route it around environmentally sensitive areas. So why waste the money finishing the US 12 freeway when you have I-39/90 between the state line and Madison and I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee that needs reconstruction/widening? Those should be done first. Plus, the pavement on US 12 between Genoa City and Elkhorn is going to need reconstruction within the next decade, that will only add to the cost of any freeway extension.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2015, 09:42:33 PM
Cutting 20 minutes between Madison and Lake Geneva isn't really worth the $$$ because, really, how much traffic are we really talking about?  How many vehicle drive between the two cities on a daily basis?  Almost all of the traffic that uses US-12 is local.  It gets a little busier on summer weekends, but not significantly so.

Right now, US-12 could use an upgrade between Madison and Cambridge to a four lane expressway due to weekday commuting.

Eventually "cutting the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater will also be necessary, as well as upgrades such as a Fort Atkinson bypass, but really the current set up between Elkhorn and Cambridge is fine for the time being.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 10, 2015, 07:27:30 AM
The new Wisconsin law allows 70 MPH for any freeway (not expressways with at-grade crossings) as long as the DOT determines it to be safe.  The DOT determined those urban areas to be unsafe for 70 MPH.
Good thing they actually determined some sections were safe at 70 (in other words, fuck you ODOT)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2015, 12:54:28 PM
Article on the 70 mph that includes a map of where it will be signed.  Only on interstates.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/traffic/coming-to-wisconsin-this-week-70-mph-speed-limit-signs-b99519839z1-307383871.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 15, 2015, 11:49:15 PM
Article on the 70 mph that includes a map of where it will be signed.  Only on interstates.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/traffic/coming-to-wisconsin-this-week-70-mph-speed-limit-signs-b99519839z1-307383871.html

That map was the original plan, since that map was made the mileage of roads signed at 70 has gone up from 726 miles to 810 miles, an increase of 84 additional miles.  I see new posts along I-43 at the 172 and WIS 57 interchanges, which I'm assuming will be reduced speed ahead signs to 65 so a 70 mph zone may be extended north of where the DOT originally said they would end the 70 mph zone.  I'll post an update on what I find out this week. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 12:31:52 PM
Crews were posting Speed Limit 70 signs on I-43 at the Leo Frigo Bridge so the DOT must have reversed their decision to leave that section at 65.  Originally, the 70 zone was supposed to start south of Green Bay.  I saw an article that MNDOT is going to sign I-94 at 70 MPH east of the 494/694 Interchange so I'm assuming the stretch in Hudson will be 70 also.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2015, 02:50:09 PM
Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.  plus now Hudson being slowed down is moot since MnDOT's kicking its short part of I-94 between there and St Paul (see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6510.msg2071507#msg2071507 for detail and discussion of that).  Keep in mind though that this is the Journal Sentinel's interpretation of WisDOT's report.  It could be wrong.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:07:16 PM
Side note:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/371-co-exec.htm

beware - don't stop and photograph the signs ;) just shoot while driving :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 04:17:48 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 
Well then... if it's 70 to the Frigo - As you said - I can safely assume that the Tomah and Cascade Interchanges will be straight through 70.  They may have already loosened up.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 16, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on June 16, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 

MN isn't increasing the limit on I-94 until Wednesday.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 09:00:26 PM
I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 

MN isn't increasing the limit on I-94 until Wednesday.
Yep - WisDOT did soften up :sombrero:  RE: Minnesota - still decent timing.  Tells me they communicated.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 09:08:31 PM
Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 17, 2015, 01:34:04 AM
Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well.

*No* speed limit sign changes on I-41 in the Appleton area as of Tuesday afternoon (2015-06-16).

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 17, 2015, 07:29:50 AM
70 mpg signs have been posted on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 17, 2015, 12:43:16 PM
MPG??

Mike - They probably will be up today
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 17, 2015, 02:24:30 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 
Well then... if it's 70 to the Frigo - As you said - I can safely assume that the Tomah and Cascade Interchanges will be straight through 70.  They may have already loosened up.
Also the map had the 70 zone end at the Milwaukee/Racine Co Line. The article though said it would change at Rawson Ave which is 5 miles further north.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 17, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.
You got to remember though that the same was said about any further expansion of the Wis 26 bypass of Ft Atkinson. That was a super 2 to start. It didn't take long for them to not only make it 4 lanes but to extend it to a 4 lane divided highway on both ends. If the area pop continues to grow and the traffic on 12 gets worse, don't be surprised if 10 years from now the Whitewater bypass is extended and widened to at least a divided highway if not a full freeway.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 17, 2015, 07:00:32 PM
Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well.

*No* speed limit sign changes on I-41 in the Appleton area as of Tuesday afternoon (2015-06-16).

As of about 16:30 Wednesday (2015-06-17), except for the construction zone from WI 15 south to US 10/WI 441 (southbound) and from Breezewood Ln-Bell St in Neenah to WI 15 (northbound), the new signs are all in place on I-41 through the Appleton area - including between the two WI 441 interchanges.  There is no drop in the limit.

One impression driving through it all is that there is no apparent change in driving behavior, other than for a perceptible slight DECREASE in average speed.  Traffic seemed a little more relaxed, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 07:45:53 PM
From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 07:50:49 PM
Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.

You got to remember though that the same was said about any further expansion of the Wis 26 bypass of Ft Atkinson. That was a super 2 to start. It didn't take long for them to not only make it 4 lanes but to extend it to a 4 lane divided highway on both ends. If the area pop continues to grow and the traffic on 12 gets worse, don't be surprised if 10 years from now the Whitewater bypass is extended and widened to at least a divided highway if not a full freeway.

WI 26 and US 12 are two completely different animals. I drive both several times a week, and US 12 is a ghost road compared to 26. I would also think that there's not going to be a huge explosion in pop counts in Whitewater or Fort anytime soon. I don't see the bypass widened for more like 15-20 years. A lot of the originally predicted traffic will likely never materialize with the upgrades happening on I-90 and the speed limit increases. Basically removes the "appeal" of a US 12 routing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 17, 2015, 08:55:09 PM
From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
If Appleton and GB got 70s I need to check out Mad-town, Point and Wausau.  I have a feeling there's no drops there either.  La Crosse is a construction zone so it won't be getting a boost - hopefully yet.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 17, 2015, 09:33:11 PM
From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
If Appleton and GB got 70s I need to check out Mad-town, Point and Wausau.  I have a feeling there's no drops there either.  La Crosse is a construction zone so it won't be getting a boost - hopefully yet.

I was in Madtown today. 94W is 70 to the Badger Interchange, and 39/90 is 70 through the area with no reduction.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 17, 2015, 09:54:51 PM
From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
If Appleton and GB got 70s I need to check out Mad-town, Point and Wausau.  I have a feeling there's no drops there either.  La Crosse is a construction zone so it won't be getting a boost - hopefully yet.

I was in Madtown today. 94W is 70 to the Badger Interchange, and 39/90 is 70 through the area with no reduction.
Well that settles it - I'm pretty sure Point's 70 all the way too. Wausau's marred by construction still as they upgrade the freeway at both ends of Business 51.  WisDOT pretty much scrapped their plan of speed reductions - as you said.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 18, 2015, 02:22:57 PM
I also verified this morning that I-43 going north is 70 all the way to the Milwaukee County line instead of WI 164, which was the original plan. Kudos to WisDOT for making that change. It's much easier to understand "all Interstates that were 65 are now 70" instead of "they're 70 until here, then 65 until here." It's a pretty much common sense decision.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 19, 2015, 12:46:41 AM
Looks like right now the assembly and senate have agreed to a $800 million dollar reduction in bonding over the next 2 years for transportation. 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-leaders-in-legislature-squabble-about-budget-impasse-b99522269z1-308205131.html
It will be interesting to see how the people and politicians react when they actually get a list of projects across the state that would be postponed or even cut.  This amount is significant enough that current contracts under construction would be affected.  Because of this WisDOT would have to get contractors to agree through change order a delay in completion or claims would be submitted (Both will cost the state money).  It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out (A LOT of competing interests and priorities for many from the WTBA, Unions, residents, and legislators).

For others replying to this, I ask for this discussion to not to turn into a negative finger pointing politics discussion but rather let's focus on the potential effects (including listing projects you may think would get postponed or cut) due to this reduction in funding.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 19, 2015, 01:52:02 AM
Looks like right now the assembly and senate have agreed to a $800 million dollar reduction in bonding over the next 2 years for transportation. 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-leaders-in-legislature-squabble-about-budget-impasse-b99522269z1-308205131.html
It will be interesting to see how the people and politicians react when they actually get a list of projects across the state that would be postponed or even cut.  This amount is significant enough that current contracts under construction would be affected.  Because of this WisDOT would have to get contractors to agree through change order a delay in completion or claims would be submitted (Both will cost the state money).  It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out (A LOT of competing interests and priorities for many from the WTBA, Unions, residents, and legislators).

For others replying to this, I ask for this discussion to not to turn into a negative finger pointing politics discussion but rather let's focus on the potential effects (including listing projects you may think would get postponed or cut) due to this reduction in funding.

A lot of us (myself included, in addition to the rest of my office and other colleagues with other firms) are watching all of this with great interest/nervousness. Many don't realize how big of an impact this will have across the state. It's not just postponing maintenance or other road projects...this trickles down much further, to the construction crews and design engineers. Cutting projects => less work to be done => less workers needed => layoffs.

One of the projects rumored to be ground to a halt is the I-39 expansion between Illinois and Madison. Supposedly, the Zoo Interchange would continue.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on June 19, 2015, 09:43:36 AM
One project that might be low-hanging fruit to cut would be the expansion of STH 23 between Fond du Lac and Plymouth.  As mentioned on the forum already, it may be undergoing further environmental review which would push back its construction schedule.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 19, 2015, 09:57:42 AM
Projects that are all but guaranteed not to get cut are any with HSIP funding.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 03:09:47 PM
Projects that are all but guaranteed not to get cut are any with HSIP funding.

What's strange about that is that FHWA seems to be cracking down on the use of HSIP in terms of making certain projects meet their definition of safety projects.  At least in NY, using HSIP has actually been difficult historically, given the size of the apportionment and the size of the actual safety needs -- needed safety projects would be prohibitively expensive and so a more "puzzle piece" approach has traditionally been taken (a lot of HSIP projects also get supplemented by other fund sources).  I'm scratching my head over my perception of FHWA, since if NY's having trouble using it, why make it harder?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 10:26:09 PM
A standard Wisconsin "Speed Limit 70" sign on the original triple Interstate.

[/cue yawns]

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/18998360272_609bea6c4a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ)New speed limit approved in WI (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ) by Scott O (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 20, 2015, 10:29:13 PM
A standard Wisconsin "Speed Limit 70" sign on the original triple Interstate.

[/cue yawns]

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/18998360272_609bea6c4a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ)New speed limit approved in WI (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ) by Scott O (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/), on Flickr

Strange thing about this particular sign is this was part of an area that wasn't originally going to be signed at 70.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
A standard Wisconsin "Speed Limit 70" sign on the original triple Interstate.

[/cue yawns]

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/18998360272_609bea6c4a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ)New speed limit approved in WI (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ) by Scott O (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/), on Flickr

Strange thing about this particular sign is this was part of an area that wasn't originally going to be signed at 70.
Yea, WisDOT completely scrapped plans to keep any 65 zones on Interstates.  Even Milwaukee is 70 up to the original 55 zones. NOTE: Construction zones have not gotten new signs yet (Menomonee Falls (41), La Crosse (90), Wausau (39), Appleton/Neenah (41), Green Bay (41) to name a few. They should be getting the signs after the work zone limits are no longer needed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jwags on June 20, 2015, 10:34:23 PM
A standard Wisconsin "Speed Limit 70" sign on the original triple Interstate.

[/cue yawns]

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/18998360272_609bea6c4a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ)New speed limit approved in WI (https://flic.kr/p/uWPyBJ) by Scott O (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/), on Flickr

Strange thing about this particular sign is this was part of an area that wasn't originally going to be signed at 70.
Yea, WisDOT completely scrapped plans to keep any 65 zones on Interstates.  Even Milwaukee is 70 up to the original 55 zones. NOTE: Construction zones have not gotten new signs yet (Menomonee Falls (41), La Crosse (90), Wausau (39), Appleton/Neenah (41), Green Bay (41) to name a few. They should be getting the signs after the work zone limits are no longer needed.

Yeah. I noticed that the other day driving westbound towards Madison. Patiently waiting the slowdown to 65 which never happened. It finally hit me that 65 is gone when I got on 39/90 SB/EB and I saw a 70 sign. It makes perfect sense what they did.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on June 20, 2015, 11:34:03 PM
What's awesome is that the signs are consistent! Same exact sign everywhere, mounted the exact same way. The obsessive-compulsive side of me approves.

Minor complaint: the location of the lower mounting bolts is right in the black text of the 70 numerals. The fact that I notice it and it bugs me may say more about me than the signs themselves.

Driving I-39/90 seems considerably calmer the past few days; the slow drivers appear more willing to yield the fast lane than usual.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 20, 2015, 11:51:24 PM
What's awesome is that the signs are consistent! Same exact sign everywhere, mounted the exact same way. The obsessive-compulsive side of me approves.

Minor complaint: the location of the lower mounting bolts is right in the black text of the 70 numerals. The fact that I notice it and it bugs me may say more about me than the signs themselves.

Driving I-39/90 seems considerably calmer the past few days; the slow drivers appear more willing to yield the fast lane than usual.
I noticed the bolt placement as well.

To be honest, the majority of traffic was already traveling at 75 to 80 so kicking up the limit does relieve the stress and calm traffic, but not completely - I've ran into a few slow-pokes (I don't count semis due to their restrictions)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 21, 2015, 12:52:06 AM
What's awesome is that the signs are consistent! Same exact sign everywhere, mounted the exact same way. The obsessive-compulsive side of me approves.

Minor complaint: the location of the lower mounting bolts is right in the black text of the 70 numerals. The fact that I notice it and it bugs me may say more about me than the signs themselves.

Driving I-39/90 seems considerably calmer the past few days; the slow drivers appear more willing to yield the fast lane than usual.
I noticed the bolt placement as well.

To be honest, the majority of traffic was already traveling at 75 to 80 so kicking up the limit does relieve the stress and calm traffic, but not completely - I've ran into a few slow-pokes (I don't count semis due to their restrictions)

I noticed the same thing on my way to Milwaukee from Madison earlier Saturday. However, that notion seemed to disappear the closer we got to Milwaukee County. The Zoo Interchange was certainly living up to its name.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 21, 2015, 11:27:08 PM
I drove on US 53 near Chippewa Falls on Saturday.  That's still signed at 65 mph.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 22, 2015, 08:21:29 AM
I'm pretty certain that at least for now, 70MPH zones will be Interstate-signed routes only.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2015, 03:09:44 PM
Does anyone think electronic tolling will ever come to Wisconsin? I'd support it for the most congested routes, but I may be in the minority.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 22, 2015, 03:27:58 PM
I see the Wis DOT website was redesigned over the weekend.  I like the older format better, it was simpler to view and the recent news items are gone.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 22, 2015, 04:32:16 PM
I see the Wis DOT website was redesigned over the weekend.  I like the older format better, it was simpler to view and the recent news items are gone.  Thoughts?

I saw the warning last week about this happening... As of right now, it's a HUGE PITA for me, as over half of my links no longer work :banghead: :banghead:  Also doesn't help that their search function returns results that have old/dead links while things that should show up, don't.

On the plus side, you no longer need a login to access the standard sign plate designs...once you find them.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 22, 2015, 04:53:19 PM
As with most redesigns, no one like them to start, but once you get used to it, it will be fine.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 22, 2015, 07:29:37 PM
Does anyone think electronic tolling will ever come to Wisconsin? I'd support it for the most congested routes, but I may be in the minority.
Hard to tell, I don't think that the state well ever adopt tolls unless they were in dire straits with finances and a road had to be built between point A and point B - can you name a scenario? I can't.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: skluth on June 22, 2015, 10:30:00 PM
Does anyone think electronic tolling will ever come to Wisconsin? I'd support it for the most congested routes, but I may be in the minority.
Hard to tell, I don't think that the state well ever adopt tolls unless they were in dire straits with finances and a road had to be built between point A and point B - can you name a scenario? I can't.
I don't think toll roads are even legal in Wisconsin. That was what we were all told when I was growing up. I could see it for a south bypass of Madison from Verona to I-39/90. It would take traffic off the Beltline and possibly satisfy those locals who would otherwise be against it.  A toll is likely the only way one gets built. I'm not sure traffic counts could justify it though. Others here probably know more about that.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on June 22, 2015, 11:12:18 PM
Everyone here seems opposed to tolling. See it as something that the "lower" people of Chicago do... corrupt and trying to earn every penny from drivers. Every time it's brought up, it's knocked down right away. I don't see it ever happening. Not any time soon.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on June 23, 2015, 09:56:45 AM
I could see it for a south bypass of Madison from Verona to I-39/90. It would take traffic off the Beltline and possibly satisfy those locals who would otherwise be against it.  A toll is likely the only way one gets built. I'm not sure traffic counts could justify it though. Others here probably know more about that.
[/quote]

I don't think tolling a second southern beltline around Madison would help sell the concept.  The Town of Dunn will always try to stop any corridor whatsoever from traversing the township.  The township has a limited/controlled growth policy and would certainly be against any type of freeway crossing it, running the gauntlet between Lakes Waubesa and Kegonsa, and the associated pressure fof urbanization that would accompany it. 

I still am rooting for a North Beltline some day.  Spending a lot of time on the far west side of Madison, it would be a corridor that I would use frequently. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 23, 2015, 10:44:42 AM
I think a far southern bypass of Madison would be near useless.  If you look at a map, I-39/90 swings so far to the east just south of Madison, that it would be too long to be cost effective. 

As has been pointed out here, most of the traffic on the Beltline is local.  That means upgrading the current corridor is the best way to reduce traffic.  The northern Beltline would be the next best option.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 23, 2015, 03:34:41 PM
Everyone here seems opposed to tolling. See it as something that the "lower" people of Chicago do... corrupt and trying to earn every penny from drivers. Every time it's brought up, it's knocked down right away. I don't see it ever happening. Not any time soon.
I never said I was opposed to tolling, but I sure will bet that there is a group of people who don't understand that you cannot get a road for free - hence they don't think when they squeal "don't raise our gas tax" or "keep tolls off our roads".

Well guess what...
They promised no tax raises.
They didn't toll any roads.
But they are watching your speed!!!!!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mrose on June 23, 2015, 05:57:02 PM
I could see the southern belt useful between US 14 and US 18/151, as one who frequently did the CTH-M shortcut back in the day. Not sure it would be really practical east of 14 though.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 25, 2015, 02:27:40 PM
Speaking of speed limits, while driving around Appleton last night, I noticed that WisDOT has installed a pair of yellow graphic 'Reduced Speed Ahead/65' signs on opposite sides of SB WI 441 right after the ramp merge from its I-41 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 25, 2015, 02:51:30 PM
Speaking of speed limits, while driving around Appleton last night, I noticed that WisDOT has installed a pair of yellow graphic 'Reduced Speed Ahead/65' signs on opposite sides of SB WI 441 right after the ramp merge from its I-41 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton.

Mike
Makes sense, 441 should be 65 (55 intown)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 25, 2015, 10:39:44 PM
Speaking of speed limits, while driving around Appleton last night, I noticed that WisDOT has installed a pair of yellow graphic 'Reduced Speed Ahead/65' signs on opposite sides of SB WI 441 right after the ramp merge from its I-41 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton.

Mike

Those same signs were also installed at the I-43/WIS 54-57 and the I-43/WIS 172 interchanges.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: invincor on June 26, 2015, 09:03:09 AM
Speaking of speed limits, while driving around Appleton last night, I noticed that WisDOT has installed a pair of yellow graphic 'Reduced Speed Ahead/65' signs on opposite sides of SB WI 441 right after the ramp merge from its I-41 'Northeast' interchange in Appleton.

Mike

Those same signs were also installed at the I-43/WIS 54-57 and the I-43/WIS 172 interchanges.

Signs like those have also been posted on southbound WIS 35 coming off the I-94 offramp heading towards River Falls.  I saw these had been posted the day before the Speed Limit 70 signs on I-94 were, which was the first clue the 65-in-Hudson-area plan had been scrapped. 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 26, 2015, 06:11:26 PM
Personally, I was indifferent to the 70 MPH speed limit proposal. It doesn't make much of a difference whether the speed limit is 65 or 70. I saw my first 70 MPH sign on Interstate 39/90 while being driven home from a doctor's appointment.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 26, 2015, 07:22:22 PM
Personally, I was indifferent to the 70 MPH speed limit proposal. It doesn't make much of a difference whether the speed limit is 65 or 70. I saw my first 70 MPH sign on Interstate 39/90 while being driven home from a doctor's appointment.
I would think that a low speed limit anomaly would lead to more people who bypass/don't want to visit Wisconsin.


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on June 26, 2015, 08:59:27 PM

I would think that a low speed limit anomaly would lead to more people who bypass/don't want to visit Wisconsin.


Are you serious? You think there's someone out there who has said "I'm not going to visit Wisconsin because their speed limit is only 65."? Or that someone will bypass the state completely because of it?

The longest freeway in the state is I-94 at 348 miles. If the speed limit was 65 instead of 70 through the entire route, it would cost you approximately 30 minutes.
Title: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 26, 2015, 09:06:03 PM

I would think that a low speed limit anomaly would lead to more people who bypass/don't want to visit Wisconsin.


Are you serious? You think there's someone out there who has said "I'm not going to visit Wisconsin because their speed limit is only 65."? Or that someone will bypass the state completely because of it?

The longest freeway in the state is I-94 at 348 miles. If the speed limit was 65 instead of 70 through the entire route, it would cost you approximately 30 minutes.
Well yes, I'm being serious. It might not make that much of a difference, but I know a ton of people who would modify plans to travel west just to avoid a speed limit anomaly. To go from say Chicago to Seattle you can avoid Wisconsin by taking I-80, I-84, and I-82.


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 26, 2015, 09:22:44 PM

I would think that a low speed limit anomaly would lead to more people who bypass/don't want to visit Wisconsin.


Are you serious? You think there's someone out there who has said "I'm not going to visit Wisconsin because their speed limit is only 65."? Or that someone will bypass the state completely because of it?

The longest freeway in the state is I-94 at 348 miles. If the speed limit was 65 instead of 70 through the entire route, it would cost you approximately 30 minutes.
Well yes, I'm being serious. It might not make that much of a difference, but I know a ton of people who would modify plans to travel west just to avoid a speed limit anomaly. To go from say Chicago to Seattle you can avoid Wisconsin by taking I-80, I-84, and I-82.


iPhone


If you indeed know people that would add about 150 miles to their route from Chicago to Seattle, in order to avoid a 65 v. 70 mph speed limit, then the people you know aren't very bright.

If anyone was skipping going through Wisconsin because of this, it wasn't very many people.  Nowhere near enough to make a significant difference.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 26, 2015, 11:30:42 PM
Does it really matter anymore?  I suppose now drivers are going to skip North Dakota now that it has 75 mph limits as opposed to South Dakota's 80.

REALLY!!!????

80 is above the prevailing speed of most freeways anyway :sombrero:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on June 27, 2015, 12:32:46 AM
I love the speed increase. Before you mostly had drivers going 65, 70, and 75 (some 60 and some 80). Now however everyone is mostly going 70 or 75 (some 80. Really not that much 65, just people exiting or some trucks).

Less variety in speeds the better. This is definitely a change for the better.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2015, 10:37:23 AM
I love the speed increase. Before you mostly had drivers going 65, 70, and 75 (some 60 and some 80). Now however everyone is mostly going 70 or 75 (some 80. Really not that much 65, just people exiting or some trucks).

Less variety in speeds the better. This is definitely a change for the better.


I have actually noticed the opposite.  Some people driving no faster than they did before at about 65 mph.  Hopefully my experience will become more like yours.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 27, 2015, 12:11:00 PM
Those faster ones have Illinois plates on them?

There are always some that like to road surf.  These are the ones the cops should be looking for - not the random cruiser that flows with the pack and moves over when necessary
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2015, 12:48:26 PM
Those faster ones have Illinois plates on them?

There are always some that like to road surf.  These are the ones the cops should be looking for - not the random cruiser that flows with the pack and moves over when necessary


No I am usually one of the faster ones at about 78 or so.  The slower ones are those I am more concerned about.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on June 27, 2015, 04:54:58 PM
Does it really matter anymore?  I suppose now drivers are going to skip North Dakota now that it has 75 mph limits as opposed to South Dakota's 80.

REALLY!!!????

80 is above the prevailing speed of most freeways anyway :sombrero:
First of all, what the fuck is going on with you? Literally in a matter of months, you've transitioned from a poster who contributed a lot and wasn't bothering anyone into no less than a stone-cold NIMBY.

Second, there are other reasons to avoid North Dakota, so the speed limit increase doesn't matter in that regard. It may be a bit shorter on paper, but going via I-90 is the more reliably fast way because of Fargo and Minneapolis/St. Paul.


iPhone
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 27, 2015, 05:11:13 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 27, 2015, 05:24:34 PM
^^ And no front-side signals to boot.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday

Argg...my eyes!   :poke::-o :wow:

Never thought I'd see the day, even though I knew it was a possibility. :no:  A permissive-only FYA doghouse no less.

Can't say I am shocked that Eau Claire did it, as it seems like they've taken over the cutting edge crown for traffic-related items in Wisconsin. One of the first to use Clearview for SNSs, first SPUI, one of the first multilane roundabouts (many of the sign plates from that one made it into the FDM), in the runnings for the first FYA installation (IIRC, Madison or Appleton barely edged them out), first to try the reflective yellow borders around signals, and first to have a dual left turn lane that doesn't operate as protected only.

^^ And no front-side signals to boot.

Front-side? Are you referring to the second FYA signal face for the movement? If so, it's probably on the far-side left pole that's hidden by the trees from that camera angle.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on June 27, 2015, 07:17:28 PM


Front-side? Are you referring to the second FYA signal face for the movement? If so, it's probably on the far-side left pole that's hidden by the trees from that camera angle.
Can't see what is on the left pole behind the tree, but the 2 on the right side show no front side "stop bar" signal heads, something almost every signalized intersection in Wisconsin has.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 27, 2015, 10:15:46 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday

Argg...my eyes!   :poke::-o :wow:

Never thought I'd see the day, even though I knew it was a possibility. :no:  A permissive-only FYA doghouse no less.

Can't say I am shocked that Eau Claire did it, as it seems like they've taken over the cutting edge crown for traffic-related items in Wisconsin. One of the first to use Clearview for SNSs, first SPUI, one of the first multilane roundabouts (many of the sign plates from that one made it into the FDM), in the runnings for the first FYA installation (IIRC, Madison or Appleton barely edged them out), first to try the reflective yellow borders around signals, and first to have a dual left turn lane that doesn't operate as protected only.

^^ And no front-side signals to boot.

Front-side? Are you referring to the second FYA signal face for the movement? If so, it's probably on the far-side left pole that's hidden by the trees from that camera angle.

Well done Eau Claire! 

I think a lot of their concepts come from their engineers visiting twin cities.  I had heard the SPUI in Eau Claire was based off of the SPUI at 24th Ave and 494 near Mall of America in Bloomington.  Woodbury, an eastern suburb of the twin cities, has for the last few years been installing dual left FYAs.  Now Mn/DOT and many others have done so as well (even on 60 mph expressways like MN 55 and MN 65).  The doghouse signal with the FYA was first tested with approval from FHWA in Eden Prairie a few years back near Eden Prairie Center (The green arrow and FYA share an indication).

Addressing the stop bar (near right) signal head.  With the new monotubes (versus the old trombone arms with a 30' length max :pan:) and recommended signal per lane in the MUTCD , there is no need for a stop bar signal head.  There are already enough signal heads out there.  The only reason Wisconsin had the near right signal head was because if your overheard trombone arm got knocked down (your overhead signal head and far right signal head got knocked down), it only left the stop bar installation and far left signal head for many of the installations.  I have a feeling as time passes, the stop bar signal head will go away as engineers realize it is not needed anymore.

Plus the intersection in the news clip gives a perfect example of why not to have the stop bar signal head.  A stop bar signal head and yield sign at that intersection would only be a few feet from each other which could confuse drivers (especially those unfamiliar with Wi's stop bar signal head standard).  By removing the stop bar signal head, it is clear to drivers making a right turn that the yield sign controls that movement.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on June 27, 2015, 10:34:49 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday

Argg...my eyes!   :poke::-o :wow:

Never thought I'd see the day, even though I knew it was a possibility. :no:  A permissive-only FYA doghouse no less.

Can't say I am shocked that Eau Claire did it, as it seems like they've taken over the cutting edge crown for traffic-related items in Wisconsin. One of the first to use Clearview for SNSs, first SPUI, one of the first multilane roundabouts (many of the sign plates from that one made it into the FDM), in the runnings for the first FYA installation (IIRC, Madison or Appleton barely edged them out), first to try the reflective yellow borders around signals, and first to have a dual left turn lane that doesn't operate as protected only.

Appleton has been using Clearview blades since late 2012.

Appleton also had the first FYA in the state, at Midway Rd (Calumet County 'AP')/Telulah Ave on the City's southeast side.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 11:17:33 PM


Front-side? Are you referring to the second FYA signal face for the movement? If so, it's probably on the far-side left pole that's hidden by the trees from that camera angle.
Can't see what is on the left pole behind the tree, but the 2 on the right side show no front side "stop bar" signal heads, something almost every signalized intersection in Wisconsin has.

Don't know how I missed that signal not being there.  :pan:  Based on a ITE conference I attended a few years back, it was announced that the near-side (stop-bar) signal would be optional. Apparently Eau Claire has decided to exercise that option (first ones in WI?).

The only reason Wisconsin had the near right signal head was because if your overheard trombone arm got knocked down (your overhead signal head and far right signal head got knocked down), it only left the stop bar installation and far left signal head for many of the installations.

Not entirely true. WisDOT installations rarely had a signal mounted on the vertical pole of a trombone arm installation (at least facing in the same direction as the trombone arm signal. However, mounting a vertical signal on the trombone arm support has been a standard installation in many municipalities, Appleton  being one of them, IIRC. An older WisDOT installation would have included a stop-bar signal, one mounted on the far right on a trombone arm, and one mounted on the far left (mounted behind the stop-bar signal for the opposing direction), or in the median, if one was present.

I don't see the stop-bar signal going the way of the do-do anytime soon, as that pole is a convenient place to mount at least one of the pedestrian signals. As long as you got a pole there, you might as well include a vehicular signal as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 11:22:38 PM
It looks like the first doghouse style traffic signals were installed in Eau Claire.  Posted a video link, fast forward to :33

http://www.wqow.com/story/29418675/2015/06/26/block-of-south-barstow-street-to-close-monday

Argg...my eyes!   :poke::-o :wow:

Never thought I'd see the day, even though I knew it was a possibility. :no:  A permissive-only FYA doghouse no less.

Can't say I am shocked that Eau Claire did it, as it seems like they've taken over the cutting edge crown for traffic-related items in Wisconsin. One of the first to use Clearview for SNSs, first SPUI, one of the first multilane roundabouts (many of the sign plates from that one made it into the FDM), in the runnings for the first FYA installation (IIRC, Madison or Appleton barely edged them out), first to try the reflective yellow borders around signals, and first to have a dual left turn lane that doesn't operate as protected only.

Appleton has been using Clearview blades since late 2012.

Appleton also had the first FYA in the state, at Midway Rd (Calumet County 'AP')/Telulah Ave on the City's southeast side.

Mike

I would have sworn someone said the one near MATC on Anderson St in Madison beat Appleton out.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 27, 2015, 11:30:33 PM
I do [hate to] have to admit that the doghouse looks like it makes for a "cleaner" installation than the 5-head tower. The doghouse probably has wind loading benefits as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on June 28, 2015, 12:35:13 AM
Not entirely true. WisDOT installations rarely had a signal mounted on the vertical pole of a trombone arm installation (at least facing in the same direction as the trombone arm signal. However, mounting a vertical signal on the trombone arm support has been a standard installation in many municipalities, Appleton  being one of them, IIRC. An older WisDOT installation would have included a stop-bar signal, one mounted on the far right on a trombone arm, and one mounted on the far left (mounted behind the stop-bar signal for the opposing direction), or in the median, if one was present.

I don't see the stop-bar signal going the way of the do-do anytime soon, as that pole is a convenient place to mount at least one of the pedestrian signals. As long as you got a pole there, you might as well include a vehicular signal as well.

Dang, I forgot the Far Right is not exercised everywhere.  When I use to reside in Wisconsin the couple intersections I remembered had them and just assumed they were everywhere.  Then I looked on google and realized the far right on most signals is not there.

Still think with the new monotubes there is no need for a near right (stop bar signal head) but WisDOT has always done things their own unique way.  A pedestrian push button pole would suffice just fine.  By not requiring the stop bar signal head, on the thousands of signals statewide would could save on installation and maintenance costs.  Sure on per signal cost it's minimal much but you add together all of the new/replacements done each year and the costs add up.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 28, 2015, 12:45:07 AM
A unique situation exists in Prairie du Chien with no stop bar signal - but this - I believe - is a locally maintained setup. It has the monotube with 2 signals and a left side.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on June 28, 2015, 01:29:21 AM
Not entirely true. WisDOT installations rarely had a signal mounted on the vertical pole of a trombone arm installation (at least facing in the same direction as the trombone arm signal. However, mounting a vertical signal on the trombone arm support has been a standard installation in many municipalities, Appleton  being one of them, IIRC. An older WisDOT installation would have included a stop-bar signal, one mounted on the far right on a trombone arm, and one mounted on the far left (mounted behind the stop-bar signal for the opposing direction), or in the median, if one was present.

I don't see the stop-bar signal going the way of the do-do anytime soon, as that pole is a convenient place to mount at least one of the pedestrian signals. As long as you got a pole there, you might as well include a vehicular signal as well.
Dang, I forgot the Far Right is not exercised everywhere.  When I use to reside in Wisconsin the couple intersections I remembered had them and just assumed they were everywhere.  Then I looked on google and realized the far right on most signals is not there.

Still think with the new monotubes there is no need for a near right (stop bar signal head) but WisDOT has always done things their own unique way.  A pedestrian push button pole would suffice just fine.  By not requiring the stop bar signal head, on the thousands of signals statewide would could save on installation and maintenance costs.  Sure on per signal cost it's minimal much but you add together all of the new/replacements done each year and the costs add up.

As of right now, the near-right is still a shall condition in the WisDOT Signal Design Manual, however, that page/section has not officially been updated since July 2006. Of course, locals don't have to follow the WisDOT manual word-for-word.

As for knock-downs, the near-right isn't knocked nearly as often as median-mounted signals. That said, I'm not sure how I feel about the near-side signals. They've been around longer than I've been alive. I agree, they are redundant given WisDOT's monotube installations, however, WisDOT seems to be a fan of redundancies when signals are concerned. If/when they start disappearing, I'll just get used to them like I have the monotubes. With monotubes spreading across the state at a rapid pace, the once ubiquitous trombone arm installations are starting to look a little strange to me now. :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 28, 2015, 11:58:13 AM
The trombone arm is still being installed periodically.  At the U.S. 41/141 and County B interchange in Suamico, the DOT installed a new horizontal signal with a trombone arm, might have been because there's only one lane in each direction.  There were vertical flashing yellow left turn signals mounted on the ground.

In Ashwaubenon, there was also a new signal with a trombone arm installed at County G/Ridge Rd.  County G is 4 lanes, but no left turn signals were installed, which may be why the "traditional" setup was chosen.  But at County EB/Cormier Rd, they opted for a monotube with vertical signal heads.  The cost for both signals may have been split between Brown Co. and Ashwaubenon, but interesting how the same municipalities chose 2 different styles at 2 different intersections.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 28, 2015, 01:22:02 PM
I wish that Wisconsin would have kept the trombone. Also wish Illinois did as well. The monotube is just dull.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on June 28, 2015, 08:48:36 PM
I wish that Wisconsin would have kept the trombone. Also wish Illinois did as well. The monotube is just dull.

The trombone is still being used.  In a previous post I stated that 2 new intersections had signals installed with trombone arms, and one of them was by the DOT at the US 41-141/ County B interchange in Suamico.  If there's only one lane in each direction, I think they will probably use it since only one overhead signal is needed.  Roundabouts are more of a threat to trombone arms disappearing, in northeast Wisconsin there have been a lot of signals replaced with roundabouts. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 28, 2015, 09:57:46 PM
The exact policy for the state maintained roads is replace with monotubes on multi-lane road construction projects, trombones otherwise, locally maintained roads can do what they choose.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: hobsini2 on June 29, 2015, 05:31:52 AM
The exact policy for the state maintained roads is replace with monotubes on multi-lane road construction projects, trombones otherwise, locally maintained roads can do what they choose.
Well Green Lake replaced their trombone signal at 23/49/A with monotubes despite all directions having 1 thru lane and a left turn lane and left turn signals in the islands.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 29, 2015, 11:18:43 AM
Appleton has been using Clearview blades since late 2012.

The City of Eau Claire has been using Clearview as it's default sign typeface since around 2009.

EDIT. Actually, the city uses it for pretty much everything sign related:

(http://i.imgur.com/Sp2RfHum.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/b330nDim.jpg)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 29, 2015, 03:38:20 PM
That's clearview???

:eyebrow:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on June 29, 2015, 03:50:43 PM
That's clearview???

:eyebrow:

Yes, it appears to be so.  Of course, I'm used to seeing all-caps Clearview on freeways and tollways here in Illinois.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on June 29, 2015, 03:51:57 PM
/me thinks he should study up.... ;)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 02, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
I took a little trip down Lake Street in Eau Claire: (click to enlarge)

(http://i.imgur.com/G84Gl9N.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/w2I2r6B.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/uxLk5fk.jpg?2)

(http://i.imgur.com/eDB0Zkj.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/qbetaor.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/KgdHt7f.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/lQ0Zqj4.jpg?1)
(Yes, they where taken with a phone, sorry there not the best.)

As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 02, 2015, 09:07:11 PM
As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.

I agree with you. I think they look cleaner than a five section tower. Especially when the tower is mounted so the bottom of the assembly aligns with the others (which the city of Milwaukee has done on a few monotubes on the west side).

I also wouldn't hate if if they tried the way Colorado and Wyoming used to do five section PPLTs which was a regular 3 section with the left arrows mounted next to the yellow and green. These could look a bit lopsided, but they worked well in terms of clarity. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: tchafe1978 on July 08, 2015, 10:14:29 AM
The two segments of US 10 in Michigan and Wisconsin are now "connected":

http://www.channel3000.com/money/route-taken-by-lake-michigan-ferry-getting-new-designation/34050764

Now I know it wasn't official before this, but wasn't the ferry always thought of as connecting the two segments? Now maybe the ferry can carry US 10 shields.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on July 08, 2015, 10:30:38 AM
Now maybe the ferry can carry US 10 shields.
Already has their homemade shield
(http://www.crainsdetroit.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CD/20120509/FREE/120509888/AR/0/AR-120509888.jpg&MaxW=1400&MaxH=1400)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 08, 2015, 10:32:16 AM
The two segments of US 10 in Michigan and Wisconsin are now "connected":

http://www.channel3000.com/money/route-taken-by-lake-michigan-ferry-getting-new-designation/34050764

Now I know it wasn't official before this, but wasn't the ferry always thought of as connecting the two segments? Now maybe the ferry can carry US 10 shields.


Previously, they were two segments.  The first one in Michigan, the second Wisconsin and westward.  Similar to US-2.

Now they are considered one segment with the ferry line being part of the route.  Similar to US-101 prior to the Golden Gate.

It is a distinction without a meaningful difference.  Basically a PR thing.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 08, 2015, 02:53:06 PM
Personally, I've always considered US 10 in Michigan, and US 10 from Wisconsin westward to be one route. As for the two US 2's, they can be considered two routes. That also includes the two US 422s.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on July 08, 2015, 04:58:39 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2015, 05:03:15 PM
At $66 a person plus $66 for your car, the cost has to be factor that comes into play as well.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 08, 2015, 07:24:37 PM
There was actually a period in the 90s where the ferry didn't run between the 2 cities and the ferry was actually used more for railways in the past, which is probably why the ferry didn't have the US 10 designation.  The Manitowoc Ferry has to compete with the Lake Express, which is a newer ferry service that revived the route that connected the sections of US 16 between Milwaukee and Muskegon.  The SS Badger probably sees the US 10 designation as a leg up on the competition. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 08, 2015, 09:50:05 PM
At $66 a person plus $66 for your car, the cost has to be factor that comes into play as well.

F***, it's that cheap? That's not a terrible price at all! I remember it being more expensive before.

The competition is $86.50 or $99 per adult, plus $99 for your car.

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 08, 2015, 10:45:07 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.

Does this include the time you sit in traffic through Chicago or assume you make it through there with only minor delays?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 09, 2015, 12:54:29 AM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.

Does this include the time you sit in traffic through Chicago or assume you make it through there with only minor delays?

What about tolls? It's been years since I made the trip from WI to MI via IL and IN. How much does that trip cost these days? The value of being able to avoid Chicagoland traffic alone has got to be worth a decent amount of money.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
Saves miles on the car also, plus fuel costs.  A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.  Distance on the Lake Express between Milwaukee and Muskegon is more up for debate on time and money saved.  That saves about 1.5 hrs of travel time if traffic is normal and that ferry is faster since the 2 cities are closer by car than Manitowoc and Ludington are.  That ferry is also more expensive and there isn't really a cost savings with that ferry.  That ferry is also smaller than the SS Badger and the interior is set up more like an airplane with seating that looks like coach and first class.  The Lake Express must have business if it's still running, but if you compare the 2 ships the SS Badger looks more enjoyable. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 09, 2015, 07:23:22 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 11:50:40 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 09, 2015, 12:11:48 PM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on July 09, 2015, 02:34:20 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.

Does this include the time you sit in traffic through Chicago or assume you make it through there with only minor delays?
Well, Chicago traffic is the wildcard.  Of course, you also have to time the ferry correctly, and factor in a wait time there.  Basically, the further away you start/finish from Manitowoc/Ludington the less time advantage you seem to have with the ferry.  But as others have pointed out, there are other considerations (gas/wear and tear/stress/leisure), too.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on July 09, 2015, 02:37:11 PM
How long does the ferry take?  And how much time does it save?
The Manitowoc-Ludington ferry takes 4 hours to cross Lake Michigan.  If you were literally travelling between those two cities it would probably save you a few hours, but few people actually do that.  If you were driving between Wausau, Wi and Grand Rapids, MI, or between Madison, Wi and Traverse City, MI for a couple of examples, it would probably be a little faster to drive south toward Chicago and then back north.  Unless your departure and destination is pretty close (within 50 miles or so) to Manitowoc and Ludington the ferry is probably not faster.

Does this include the time you sit in traffic through Chicago or assume you make it through there with only minor delays?

What about tolls? It's been years since I made the trip from WI to MI via IL and IN. How much does that trip cost these days? The value of being able to avoid Chicagoland traffic alone has got to be worth a decent amount of money.
It depends upon the exact route, of course, but I think the most you would have to pay, if you paid in cash, would be just under $15 for the most expensive route.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 11, 2015, 06:01:09 PM
I took a little trip down Lake Street in Eau Claire: (click to enlarge)

(http://i.imgur.com/G84Gl9N.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/w2I2r6B.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/uxLk5fk.jpg?2)

(http://i.imgur.com/eDB0Zkj.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/qbetaor.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/KgdHt7f.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/lQ0Zqj4.jpg?1)
(Yes, they where taken with a phone, sorry there not the best.)

As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.
Wow I didn't know this was here. I will have to bike down there soon and check it out. This installation looks far better than the galloway/farwell one. That two monotubes for two different directions on one pole looks tacky.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on July 12, 2015, 01:35:36 AM
I have a feeling as time passes, the stop bar signal head will go away as engineers realize it is not needed anymore.

Plus the intersection in the news clip gives a perfect example of why not to have the stop bar signal head.  A stop bar signal head and yield sign at that intersection would only be a few feet from each other which could confuse drivers (especially those unfamiliar with Wi's stop bar signal head standard).  By removing the stop bar signal head, it is clear to drivers making a right turn that the yield sign controls that movement.

But in cases where the right turn is signalized, the stop bar/near right signal head can be useful if one is following a semi or other large vehicle.  The far side right cannot always be placed far enough right to get the same visibility.

(http://i.imgur.com/w2I2r6B.jpg?1)

I can't make out for sure what the far left heads on the legs with the doghouses are; are they standard FYA heads or four sections with a bimodal green arrow/FYA section?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 13, 2015, 12:03:10 AM
Trombone assembly not dead yet.  In Altoona a new traffic signal is being installed.  Interesting how the Eau Claire area is getting all of the new traffic signal installations.  Fast forward to :05 on the video link below.

http://www.wqow.com/story/29514249/2015/07/09/river-prairie-drive-closes-overnight-for-traffic-light-installation
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 14, 2015, 11:47:48 PM
Trombone assembly not dead yet.  In Altoona a new traffic signal is being installed.  Interesting how the Eau Claire area is getting all of the new traffic signal installations.  Fast forward to :05 on the video link below.

http://www.wqow.com/story/29514249/2015/07/09/river-prairie-drive-closes-overnight-for-traffic-light-installation
Those are not new. Those have been here since the 53 bypass was constructed with the river prairie exit. New intersections on river prairie Dr. Show the new monotube style signals, with fya, so either they are taking down the trombone signals in the video and then replaced them, or have updated them with fya. I just know those trombones have been there as long as the exit. Check gsv.
BUT- Yes they still are being installed. Last fall the I94&WI37 Interchange facelift was complete with new monotone signals, but here's the catch- For the Eastbound I94 Entrance/Exit and the crowd that connects on the other side of the intersection, trombones with horizontal signals were used, even though 37 got new vertical monotone signals. The other WB entrance/exit intersection is all vertical monotone.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 15, 2015, 01:31:56 AM
BUT- Yes they still are being installed. Last fall the I94&WI37 Interchange facelift was complete with new monotone signals, but here's the catch- For the Eastbound I94 Entrance/Exit and the crowd that connects on the other side of the intersection, trombones with horizontal signals were used, even though 37 got new vertical monotone signals. The other WB entrance/exit intersection is all vertical monotone.

This is not specifically a remark for the WI 37 and I94 interchange but more of a general comment.  I am not a fan of intermixing the two styles.  Drivers have the expectation of looking for similar signal layouts at the same intersection (It should all be either horizontal or all be vertical).

Drivers get use to looking for one style and get accustomed to looking for signal heads in specific places.  An example is if you go through 3 intersections in a downtown and 2 have overhead mast arms but the 3rd only has signal heads on poles on either side, a driver may be looking for an overhead signal head at the 3rd intersection and because they don't see it, run the light.  I know it is the drivers fault if they run a red but still it is good to have consistency for this exact reason.

I'm being bold and am definitely going to get some feedback on this statement, in my opinion the horizontal layouts and trombone arms should be phased out (not mandatory by a certain date but when an intersection comes up for a rebuild).  I know many people love the trombones but in the future as the MUTCD and FHWA wind loading requirements get more stringent the trombones will not meet the standards.  I also believe connecting highway limits are a terrible idea (especially for signal maintenance and signal coordination), but that's another whole conversation.  Creating a specific signal layout at intersections across the state allows for drivers to expect signal heads to be located in a specific location as they go through intersections (Think about it, that is what we see today with the trombone set up, because it is the standard, drivers became accustomed to it looking for signal heads in specific locations).  It also creates a uniform construction specification for construction materials, construction practices, ease in estimating bid prices, etc for contractors and construction.  If a municipality comes up with their own pole style (Green Bay or Milwaukee are a perfect example) it has to mean the signal heads get placed in similar locations and vertical like the rest of the state.  The current policy of letting municipalities do what they want just will create a hodge podge mess of signal layouts and poles across the state.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 15, 2015, 04:40:39 AM
The trombone based assemblies meet the MUTCD signal per lane setups just fine.  WisDOT replaces the trombone with the monotube but adds more signal heads to the overall count - that's excessive..
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: noelbotevera on July 15, 2015, 10:02:24 AM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience.
No, the ferry is used for people who want to shortcut from Chicago and jump into Michigan. It helps for people who live in the Twin Cities all the way to Wisconsin towns and cities if you want to head to Detroit and Grand Rapids (or Lansing).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:12:26 PM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience.
No, the ferry is used for people who want to shortcut from Chicago and jump into Michigan. It helps for people who live in the Twin Cities all the way to Wisconsin towns and cities if you want to head to Detroit and Grand Rapids (or Lansing).

What are you basing this statement on?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:21:18 PM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience.
No, the ferry is used for people who want to shortcut from Chicago and jump into Michigan. It helps for people who live in the Twin Cities all the way to Wisconsin towns and cities if you want to head to Detroit and Grand Rapids (or Lansing).

What are you basing this statement on?

The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
A lot of people take the ferry also for leisure and they enjoy the experience.

Honestly, that would be the point of the SS Badger for me. To drive to Lansing, MI is about 5 hours under perfect traffic conditions, 7 hours if traffic is imperfect. If I timed my trip perfectly to minimize delays at the ports, I'm looking at a 9 1/2 hour drive. There's no time advantage.

From Janesville there wouldn't be since it's pretty far south, and Lansing is pretty far south of Ludington.  From Green Bay and the Fox Cities there would be an advantage since they're farther north.  I use to live in Brillion, which was right on US 10 about 25 miles away from Manitowoc.  If traffic runs smoothly around Chicago driving is a little bit faster, but if there's congestion, the ferry is a lot more convenient and quicker.  The drive between Detroit and Ludington is a pretty easy drive.  The duration of the trip was close to 50/50 driving and being on the boat. 


But the issue is that not many people need to take that trip on a regular basis.  That is why they market themselves as more of a vacation or leisurely experience.
No, the ferry is used for people who want to shortcut from Chicago and jump into Michigan. It helps for people who live in the Twin Cities all the way to Wisconsin towns and cities if you want to head to Detroit and Grand Rapids (or Lansing).

What are you basing this statement on?

The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:27:30 PM
The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:

Sorry, I've had to do that at rush hour many, many times for the obvious reasons (see my location).  It really does suck, and I wish I could avoid it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:33:45 PM
The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:

Sorry, I've had to do that at rush hour many, many times for the obvious reasons (see my location). 

On the way to Michigan? :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on July 15, 2015, 12:44:12 PM
The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:

Sorry, I've had to do that at rush hour many, many times for the obvious reasons (see my location). 

On the way to Michigan? :D

To Michigan, to Wisconsin, to the Loop, to almost any suburb.  :D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
The fact that driving through Chicago sucks major brass balls.

Okay.   :hmm:

Sorry, I've had to do that at rush hour many, many times for the obvious reasons (see my location). 

On the way to Michigan? :D

To Michigan, to Wisconsin, to the Loop, to almost any suburb.  :D

Well, obviously you should have taken the ferry!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mdcastle on July 15, 2015, 01:42:56 PM
I have a feeling as time passes, the stop bar signal head will go away as engineers realize it is not needed anymore.

Plus the intersection in the news clip gives a perfect example of why not to have the stop bar signal head.  A stop bar signal head and yield sign at that intersection would only be a few feet from each other which could confuse drivers (especially those unfamiliar with Wi's stop bar signal head standard).  By removing the stop bar signal head, it is clear to drivers making a right turn that the yield sign controls that movement.

But in cases where the right turn is signalized, the stop bar/near right signal head can be useful if one is following a semi or other large vehicle.  The far side right cannot always be placed far enough right to get the same visibility.

(http://i.imgur.com/w2I2r6B.jpg?1)

I can't make out for sure what the far left heads on the legs with the doghouses are; are they standard FYA heads or four sections with a bimodal green arrow/FYA section?

It's clearly a four section head, with the second from the bottom lit up with a yellow arrow. If it's a copy of the initial Minnesota FYA doghouse installation, which has the exact same configuration except for an additional four section head on the end of the mast in one direction, it operates in split phase during peak times and permissive only at other times. This was the original approved setup, Mn/DOT later modified the phasing to protected/permissive without FHWA approval, and these installations have a second doghouse on the left.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 15, 2015, 06:52:10 PM
I have a feeling as time passes, the stop bar signal head will go away as engineers realize it is not needed anymore.

Plus the intersection in the news clip gives a perfect example of why not to have the stop bar signal head.  A stop bar signal head and yield sign at that intersection would only be a few feet from each other which could confuse drivers (especially those unfamiliar with Wi's stop bar signal head standard).  By removing the stop bar signal head, it is clear to drivers making a right turn that the yield sign controls that movement.

But in cases where the right turn is signalized, the stop bar/near right signal head can be useful if one is following a semi or other large vehicle.  The far side right cannot always be placed far enough right to get the same visibility.

(http://i.imgur.com/w2I2r6B.jpg?1)

I can't make out for sure what the far left heads on the legs with the doghouses are; are they standard FYA heads or four sections with a bimodal green arrow/FYA section?

It's clearly a four section head, with the second from the bottom lit up with a yellow arrow. If it's a copy of the initial Minnesota FYA doghouse installation, which has the exact same configuration except for an additional four section head on the end of the mast in one direction, it operates in split phase during peak times and permissive only at other times. This was the original approved setup, Mn/DOT later modified the phasing to protected/permissive without FHWA approval, and these installations have a second doghouse on the left.
I do think this is correct. This intersection and the Farwell/Galloway intersection, the Road with the doghouse fya, there is no dedicated turn lane. It is a split left/thru lane, and since there are video detection cameras, I think when traffic turning left gets backed up yielding, they will get a protected.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 15, 2015, 08:58:15 PM
Trombone assembly not dead yet.  In Altoona a new traffic signal is being installed.  Interesting how the Eau Claire area is getting all of the new traffic signal installations.  Fast forward to :05 on the video link below.

http://www.wqow.com/story/29514249/2015/07/09/river-prairie-drive-closes-overnight-for-traffic-light-installation
Further Update: I went by to check this intersection out today, and most of the trombone masts have been removed and only pieces of the old setup remain. I may go get pictures of the whole Construction ordeal near there Friday as well as check out lake/1 st ave.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: FightingIrish on July 16, 2015, 11:34:17 AM
Looks like Pewaukee may be the future recipient of an echelon intersection. This one would be at WIS 190 (Capitol Drive) and WIS 164.

http://www.lakecountrynow.com/news/lakecountryreporter/residents-react-to-capitol-drive-corridor-study-b99534458z1-315282371.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: dcharlie on July 16, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Maybe one in Madison too... 

Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on July 16, 2015, 03:06:07 PM
Madison has a hybrid echelon-jug handle at Mineral Point Rd (County Trunk S) and Junction Road (County Trunk M) just west of the Beltline on the far western edge of town. 

Some comments:  The jug handle creates two sets of stoplights for through movements on Mineral Point.  It could provide an opportunity for free flow turns to southbound Junction Road, but those are also controlled by stoplights.  The increased efficiency of the jug handle for southbound Junction Road is therefore lost.  I'm not sure if a pure echelon would have been better--any thoughts?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: I-39 on July 16, 2015, 07:54:17 PM
They need to raise the speed limit on the US 12 Baraboo bypass when the entire thing is finished. 55 mph is too low.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 16, 2015, 10:44:16 PM
I believe the 55MPH limit was a local requirement for WisDOT to build the bypass.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 17, 2015, 08:24:37 AM
Maybe one in Madison too... 

Glad you included the video, I'm not sure many people even in the engineering world have heard of the Echelon Interchange.  I understand substantial  benefits this interchange has operations wise but the costs of these are so substantial in terms of walls and bridge structures, it will be interesting to see if one ever gets built.  Especially with DOT entering a new era of tight fiscal constraints, where it will be difficult to find money for maintenance projects, I find it had to believe a region office would devote such a substantial sum of funding to one intersection out of their normal 3R budget.  The only way I ever see one getting built is if it is done out of majors funding.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 17, 2015, 09:17:33 AM
On a different note, I have a question regarding WisDOT/Traffic signal "Practices"
A common wisconsin setup is Protective only left turn signals, fya, or 5 stack in the median for left turns with Green Straight arrows,Yellow Ball, Red ball for the median thru signals, as well as the trombone vertically mounted left through lane signal. Here is where my question comes in. Today and over the last week ive noticed the thru signals have been changed from a green up arrow to a standard green ball. Why would this be? I will try to provide a flickr link. This is not the example i was looking for but it is on Clairemont, and is kind of similar to what im talking about. Type this into your browser: https://flic.kr/p/nSkWn2  This is a FYA/Thru signal. The aspect in question is the green straight arrow. Ive been noticing these being replaced with green balls. Anyone know why? Sorry for the long post.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on July 17, 2015, 09:46:30 AM
I don't know if this applies here, but before WI went crazy with arrows and different colors / flashing...
A green left arrow (or green ball with a sign below it that said "left turn signal")+ a green ball would be lit, then no arrow and just a green ball (basically equivalent to a flashing yellow arrow these days), and then a red ball (again no arrow).

I prefer these 4 light style setups. Much simpler to both setup & understand IMO.

I don't know why would they get rid of the green straight arrow. Did they remove the left turn arrows?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 17, 2015, 10:34:31 AM
^^
Isn't that spelled out in the MUTCD?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: midwesternroadguy on July 17, 2015, 11:53:41 AM
I believe the 55MPH limit was a local requirement for WisDOT to build the bypass.

I kind of like the idea of the reduced speed limit--one more thing to make US 12 less appealing as an alternative to 90/94 between the Dells and Madison (assuming some day that a Sauk City bypass is built, and the stoplights will be removed between there and Ashton Corners at County K north of Middleton)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on July 18, 2015, 11:20:45 PM
I don't know if this applies here, but before WI went crazy with arrows and different colors / flashing...

I don't know why would they get rid of the green straight arrow. Did they remove the left turn arrows?
No, the turn signals are still there. I wonder if it's has something to do with a lot of the already LED signalized intersections getting the new standard LED fixture/insert.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Revive 755 on July 18, 2015, 11:53:39 PM
I don't know why would they get rid of the green straight arrow. Did they remove the left turn arrows?

Wild guess:  For some reason green arrows do not seem to be as visible as red and yellow arrows are, much less a circular green, and Wisconsin is using this reason for preferring circular green indications over green arrows.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 21, 2015, 12:04:23 PM
Interesting article about the new speed limit. Of interest is the last paragraph:

"There are roadways built to freeway standards that were not automatically switched over from 65 to 70," state Southeast Region Communications Manager Michael Pyritz said. "There are areas out there that are at 65, but if the roadway is sufficient to meet freeway standards, the department is looking into changing those to 70, as well."

http://www.brookfieldnow.com/news/state-patrol-warns-that-higher-speed-limit-on-i-94-does-not-mean-go-faster-b99541242z1-317594491.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 21, 2015, 01:30:56 PM
Like WIS  16 Pewaukee to Oconomowoc, US-45 to West Bend, US 41/141 to the split, US-51 to Merrill and US-53 to Rice Lake.  US-10 and US-45 in Winnebago Co are questionable.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 22, 2015, 12:29:24 AM
U.S. 10/45 would have a continuous stretch of 70 mph from I-41 so I think they'd be great candidates to upgrade to 70.  U.S. 12 also in the Lake Geneva area.  Was in Wausau and the reduced speed signs were right at the I-39 terminus.  Will be interesting if the DOT plans to keep them those signs short or long term.
Title: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on July 22, 2015, 05:01:32 PM
Wausau-Milwaukee traffic should get the full 70, no less.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 22, 2015, 07:25:47 PM
They do...if they take I-94 to I-39.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 22, 2015, 07:53:40 PM
Politico has a nice, in-depth article discussing the hard budget choices the Wisconsin legislature encountered this session, and a discussion about how it ties into the larger national infrastructure funding crisis.

Politico: Overpasses: A love story
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/transportation-infrastructure-scott-walker-highways-000153?hp=t1_r#
Title: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on July 22, 2015, 08:32:00 PM
They do...if they take I-94 to I-39.
Why would anyone take that way when 39-10-45-41 is twelve minutes shorter as is?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 22, 2015, 11:01:46 PM
Then the "no less than 70" isn't needed, at least on segments that aren't 100% freeway compatible (IE: limited access via interchanges)!
Title: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on July 22, 2015, 11:38:59 PM
You stupid NIMBY. Time is money, and that's all I'm going to say about this subject.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 23, 2015, 02:28:43 AM
Politico has a nice, in-depth article discussing the hard budget choices the Wisconsin legislature encountered this session, and a discussion about how it ties into the larger national infrastructure funding crisis.

Politico: Overpasses: A love story
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/transportation-infrastructure-scott-walker-highways-000153?hp=t1_r#

Seems like the article focused a lot on not funding public transportation.  If enough people ride buses and trains, they would be self sufficient and wouldn't need to be subsidized.  Hardly anyone would use a commuter line to the suburbs or rail from Madison to Milwaukee since its way more convenient to drive, and the fares would probably be more expensive than driving.  Transit is needed for people that can't get around and the current bus system is adequate.  Trains would be a complete waste and the streetcar in Milwaukee will soon prove it.  As for Chicago to Minneapolis high speed rail, it would be a complete waste of money.  People already fly between the 2 cities and it's way more convenient and faster than s train.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on July 23, 2015, 04:49:27 AM
It's a double-edge sword. If public transit was more convenient, more people would use it - of course, that would mean putting much more money into it than we are right now. Trust me, when I went to Chicago on a day trip last year I was more than happy to drop my car at Rosemont Station and let buses and trains ferry me around for the day. I think more people dislike driving than we realize and would really rather other people do it for them, but that's just not possible for most people.

Unfortunately, public transit in the US still has the strong stigma attached that only poor people and hippies use it.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 23, 2015, 06:05:12 AM
It's a double-edge sword. If public transit was more convenient, more people would use it - of course, that would mean putting much more money into it than we are right now. Trust me, when I went to Chicago on a day trip last year I was more than happy to drop my car at Rosemont Station and let buses and trains ferry me around for the day. I think more people dislike driving than we realize and would really rather other people do it for them, but that's just not possible for most people.

Unfortunately, public transit in the US still has the strong stigma attached that only poor people and hippies use it.

In Chicago, public transit works great because they have a higher population and most places that people need to go are Downtown.  In a lot of other metro areas, everything is so spread out all over the city.  I do not understand why cities would want a street car.  They're slow and disrupt traffic.  It would be a lot cheaper and efficient to paint a dedicated bus lane and run a bus instead. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

Moland - enough with the NIMBY shit.  everyone has their views.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 23, 2015, 07:17:41 AM
You stupid NIMBY. Time is money, and that's all I'm going to say about this subject.


What kind of response is that?  You really think people are going to care about your POV with that kind of crap?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Molandfreak on July 23, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
I don't really care what GeekJedi thinks of my point of view. I'm sorry, I get defensive when people think that major freeways shouldn't be at least 70 mph. 65 mph feels like a crawl.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 23, 2015, 10:41:05 PM
I don't really care what GeekJedi thinks of my point of view. I'm sorry, I get defensive when people think that major freeways shouldn't be at least 70 mph. 65 mph feels like a crawl.

You are talking saving less than 5 minutes on a drive of about 65 miles.  Clearly important enough to flip out on a discussion board.    :crazy:
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 11:41:40 PM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

You still forget the high probability of construction cost over-runs. These train projects have been notorious for being over-budget, and not by small amounts either. Don't get me wrong, I still like the idea of a train, but there has to be some incentive for me (and many others like me) to use it. It's still cheaper for me to drive between Milwaukee and Madison (and will be for a long time), plus I'm not bound by a train schedule. My cargo limit is much greater by driving, in addition to being able to make spur of the moment changes in travel - taking a side trip to Oconomowoc or Delafield without having to worry about said cargo or how to get around beyond the train. The biggest thing that kills it for me and probably many others is the fact that there is very little time benefit (referring to the Madison to Milwaukee route). Any time saved by the train is eaten up by ticketing, security, and transfer to other modes of transportation once I am off the train. Passenger trains are great for a dense corridor of commuters, but many of those going between Madison and Chicago are either going to catch a flight out of O'Hare or for a weekend getaway, not traveling for work. As for the I-94 corridor, once you get west of Waukesha/Delafield, congestion is next to non-existent the majority of the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 07:49:22 AM
I don't really care what GeekJedi thinks of my point of view. I'm sorry, I get defensive when people think that major freeways shouldn't be at least 70 mph. 65 mph feels like a crawl.

You shouldn't care about what I think about your point of view. If this is what gets you mad in life, then maybe you need to rethink your priorities. Last I heard, a forum is a place where people with different points of view can have a discussion.

I'm not even sure what the hell being a NIMBY has to do with a speed limit...especially for a chunk of road that is definitely nowhere near my back yard! As SEWIGuy pointed out the time savings are negligible, and I believe there are still sections of road where 70 is not appropriate. As of right now, most major freeways are 70 MPH (some exceptions are US 45, US 151 from Madison to Columbus, the Fox valley sections of US 45 and US 10)- however roads with cross traffic are not "major freeways". That has nothing to do with being a NIMBY, and everything to do with being an adult who puts safety at a higher premium than saving 5 minutes on a drive.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 24, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

The $700 million is not free money from the feds, everyone on this board including myself pay into that money VIA taxes.  If you wonder why our national debt is so high, money is being spent left and right on projects that state and local governments see as "free money," and the logic is that if it's given to us, why not spend it?  States have to balance their budgets while the federal government doesn't have to, which is why minimal scrutiny is given every time the federal government spends money.  If the federal government had to balance their books, money given away on projects wouldn't be seen as "free" and more careful consideration would be given before giving out grants like governments at the state and local level have to. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 24, 2015, 11:08:46 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

The $700 million is not free money from the feds, everyone on this board including myself pay into that money VIA taxes.  If you wonder why our national debt is so high, money is being spent left and right on projects that state and local governments see as "free money," and the logic is that if it's given to us, why not spend it?  States have to balance their budgets while the federal government doesn't have to, which is why minimal scrutiny is given every time the federal government spends money.  If the federal government had to balance their books, money given away on projects wouldn't be seen as "free" and more careful consideration would be given before giving out grants like governments at the state and local level have to. 

So what? The money got spent anyway. Except instead of benefiting Wisconsin's economy, it went elsewhere. You're still paying your infinitesimally small portion of it. Turning that money down was incredibly short sighted and the political equivalent of plugging ones ears and shouting "nuh uhh!"
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on July 24, 2015, 11:15:34 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

Perhaps it's become a political football in Wisconsin but it is worth noting that the high-speed rail line in question was developed under Governor Thompson.  It seems like it only became a political kludge once the project was picked up by the Doyle administration and was funded by the Obama administration.  That's when talk radio grabbed it like an angry Rottweiler and made it the issue that it is today.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on July 24, 2015, 11:20:32 AM
It's easy to say "I don't use trains/buses, so funding them is a waste and I think it should be cut in favor of more road spending."
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 24, 2015, 05:38:41 PM
How bad are the signs on the Burlington Bypass?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on July 25, 2015, 10:37:15 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

They could have restored conventional (this proposal was *NOT* 'high speed') service to the FdL/Oshkosh/Appleton/Green Bay area for a quarter of the cost and it would have been much more successful.

AND - this forvm is not the place for childish partisan cheap shots, OK?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Mrt90 on July 25, 2015, 08:38:36 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: jreuschl on July 25, 2015, 08:41:11 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on July 25, 2015, 11:29:50 PM
on a note about roads, I can now confirm I-39 through Point is 70 the entire way as I had suspected based on other observations.  The 70 zone ends 1/4 mile short of the I-39 terminus - as I would expect at this point. 

After resetting my cruise for non-I mode, I have noticed a good handful of cars flying right by me in the 65 zone north of Wausau.  WisDOT should relay info to the State Patrol.  Set up a car with radar - PROFIT! :-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on July 26, 2015, 07:43:36 AM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P

According to the traffic counts, the only stretch of the bypass that gets above 10,000 vpd is between Wis 11 East and Wis 83 south.  Interesting that the western end gets only 2500 vpd and is 4 lanes, then the count more than doubles to 5900 and narrows to 2 lanes.  The other design I don't understand with that project is why traffic lights are used instead of interchanges at the busiest junctions, and jug handles are used at the less busy junctions?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on July 26, 2015, 10:44:59 AM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P

According to the traffic counts, the only stretch of the bypass that gets above 10,000 vpd is between Wis 11 East and Wis 83 south.  Interesting that the western end gets only 2500 vpd and is 4 lanes, then the count more than doubles to 5900 and narrows to 2 lanes.  The other design I don't understand with that project is why traffic lights are used instead of interchanges at the busiest junctions, and jug handles are used at the less busy junctions?

In terms of the low speed ramps, why would drivers have to worry about getting up to speed if there is very little traffic?  :D
^Just a fun quirk, in my mind they would have been better off to avoid these all together or extend the acceleration lanes.

Old D2 (Now SE Region), really liked the quadrant interchange designs with a lack of acceleration lanes.  Works for areas with really low traffic volumes where you want grade separation.  Random note, now the state taxpayers are picking up the tab to replace this interchange style in Fond Du Lac (that bypass is a whole another story and a perfect example of how not to build a bypass).

Why the Burlington bypass was built as four lanes compared with whitewater as two lanes is a great question, if someone knows chime in.  Although with the volumes a "Super Two" would have worked fine.  My guess is it was political, many of these bypasses were enumerated into the majors program through the budget process to get support for other projects (and to get votes).  I also don't like that there is a mix of stoplights and interchanges, it messes with drivers expectations. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on July 28, 2015, 05:30:48 PM
Not anything we haven't already discussed, but in the news today...

http://www.lakecountrynow.com/opinion/why-doesnt-highway-16-have-a-70-mph-speed-limit-b99541751z1-318638001.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 10, 2015, 01:17:34 PM
While I-41 is being signed, I'm noticing that the Northeast Region is primarily using aluminum signs while the Southeast Region is using the traditional plywood for signs.  Are different regions deciding to use different materials for their signs?  I thought it might be because there are more routes signed together on the south end, but I saw some standalone I-41 signs that are plywood in Kenosha County where the new signs around Green Bay are aluminum, and the new I-41/US 41/US 141/Lake Michigan Circle Tour sign is one panel and is completely aluminum.  Along Wis 29, the plywood signs are also being replaced with aluminum.  Could the Northeast Region be experimenting to see which material holds up better or do different regions decide what type of signs to use? 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 10, 2015, 02:00:26 PM
While I-41 is being signed, I'm noticing that the Northeast Region is primarily using aluminum signs while the Southeast Region is using the traditional plywood for signs.  Are different regions deciding to use different materials for their signs?  I thought it might be because there are more routes signed together on the south end, but I saw some standalone I-41 signs that are plywood in Kenosha County where the new signs around Green Bay are aluminum, and the new I-41/US 41/US 141/Lake Michigan Circle Tour sign is one panel and is completely aluminum.  Along Wis 29, the plywood signs are also being replaced with aluminum.  Could the Northeast Region be experimenting to see which material holds up better or do different regions decide what type of signs to use?

I'm not aware of any experiments, but typically there's no rhyme or reason. IRRC, there are some small green/white guide signs on aluminum blanks at the I-41/Wis 33 interchange (SE Region) that would typically be on wood. Could be whatever's cheaper at the time.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mahaasma on August 15, 2015, 10:56:53 PM
Has anyone driven in Eau Claire lately?  I recently noticed a flurry of ALT 53 signs being posted, both at exits on the US-53 bypass,  and on portions of Business 53 through town.  I didn't have time to take a closer look,  but it even appeared that some Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT-53 signs.

Anyone have any insights on this?  Why would you need to resign a business route as an ALT route?  (other than to give road geeks something to geek about and discuss...)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 16, 2015, 02:47:11 AM
http://www.wqow.com/story/29643983/2015/07/27/southbound-ramps-to-highway-53-closed-due-to-highway-repairs

There was a construction project on US 53 to repair a section of road that had a big dip and some ramps had to close.  It probably had something to do with that. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JREwing78 on August 19, 2015, 08:47:44 PM
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/talgo-to-keep-trains-get-10-million-more-in-settlement-b99560687z1-322348321.html

So, no train, and we're out $50+ million (plus the losses from not having a train to Madison). Good going, chumps!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2015, 08:53:50 PM
Even if you don't support the Madison line, this payment is for replacement trains for the Hiawatha line that cost $42M plus a 20 year maintenance contract.  So they are out $50 million and have no replacement trains. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 19, 2015, 11:33:43 PM
That deal reeked to high heaven when it was first announced, too, IMHO, the first reason being that it was a no-bid contract.

 :no:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 19, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
High speed rail isn't practical in most parts of the U.S.  It would work on the east coast because the cities are a lot closer together.  The 400 line between Chicago and Minneapolis was a high speed line, and it shut down due to lack of passengers in the mid 60s.  I don't understand why a line between those 2 cities is needed when they're an hour plane ride away.  Planes are way more convenient than trains are.  As for Madison to Milwaukee, it's a lot easier to drive and the passenger count would have been low to the point that the state would have to pickup the operation costs. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 20, 2015, 12:21:41 AM
That deal reeked to high heaven when it was first announced, too, IMHO, the first reason being that it was a no-bid contract.

 :no:

Mike

Agreed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2015, 08:30:29 AM
High speed rail isn't practical in most parts of the U.S.  It would work on the east coast because the cities are a lot closer together.  The 400 line between Chicago and Minneapolis was a high speed line, and it shut down due to lack of passengers in the mid 60s.  I don't understand why a line between those 2 cities is needed when they're an hour plane ride away.  Planes are way more convenient than trains are.  As for Madison to Milwaukee, it's a lot easier to drive and the passenger count would have been low to the point that the state would have to pickup the operation costs. 


A train is by far the most convenient way to go from downtown Milwaukee to Chicago. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: HandsomeRob on August 20, 2015, 01:26:16 PM
Planes are way more convenient than trains are.

If I'm going across the country, yes. Otherwise, I'd much rather have a high-speed train. I don't have to show up an hour ahead of time. 10 minutes should do it. It's way, way, way more comfortable. It takes me right into the city, instead of to an airport in the suburbs that's usually a half hour drive away. I don't have to check my luggage.

Yes, it's a faster trip on a plane. But when you factor in the time before takeoff and after landing that you need to invest when you fly, I'm not sure it's a faster trip at all.

In summary, "planes are way more convenient than trains are" is the kind of thing someone who's never used modern high-speed rail would say.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 20, 2015, 03:50:12 PM
If the cities are close together, such as New York and Philadelphia, then a high speed train would be more practical than flying.  The 400 line between Minneapolis and Chicago was just as fast as high speed rail lines would be now so why did that line close up in 1963?  Trains on that line reached 112 mph, and that line now is part of the Elroy-Sparta Trail.  If people wanted to use high speed rail, the 400 would still be in business today, and rail lines would have continued to be upgraded by private industry if they were profitable, but they weren't.  It would be great if prices on flights would be more balanced to make it more convenient for people in smaller towns to fly.  I just flew from Chicago to Dallas 2 weeks ago for $240, that same flight would have cost $500 if I flew out of Green Bay so I was willing to drive to Chicago for the cheaper flight.  Price differences like that should be looked at to make travel more convenient. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on August 20, 2015, 04:33:03 PM
A couple things, Peter. You have to understand that US high-speed rail is inferior to that of a number of Western European nations and Japan. If we could develop rail on par (both in terms of cost as well as efficiency) with those nations it would make high-speed rail much more attractive. I also think this is not 1963 anymore where more people are open to alternative methods of travel than cars and planes.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 20, 2015, 09:58:31 PM
A couple things, Peter. You have to understand that US high-speed rail is inferior to that of a number of Western European nations and Japan. If we could develop rail on par (both in terms of cost as well as efficiency) with those nations it would make high-speed rail much more attractive. I also think this is not 1963 anymore where more people are open to alternative methods of travel than cars and planes.

Those countries in Europe are so much smaller areawise also than the United States.  Japan's high speed rail network is only 1810 miles, that's barely enough to make a dent in the United States.  If rail transportation was profitable, the private sector market would have expanded rail.  Freight service is booming in the U.S. and freight companies are quietly making huge profits because there is high demand.  Those same companies don't offer passenger rail because it isn't economically viable.  If a government subsidy is required, it's because the demand isn't there in most instances.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 20, 2015, 10:30:32 PM
High speed rail isn't practical in most parts of the U.S.  It would work on the east coast because the cities are a lot closer together.  The 400 line between Chicago and Minneapolis was a high speed line, and it shut down due to lack of passengers in the mid 60s.  I don't understand why a line between those 2 cities is needed when they're an hour plane ride away.  Planes are way more convenient than trains are.  As for Madison to Milwaukee, it's a lot easier to drive and the passenger count would have been low to the point that the state would have to pickup the operation costs.

Three letters here:

'T', 'S' and 'A'.

-----------------------

Anyways, had Doyle announced restoring enhanced conventional-speed service to the Fond du Lac/Oshkosh/Appleton/Green Bay corridor first (estimated cost $150M-175M - only about 20% of the cost of such a restoration on the Madison line), IMHO, it would be up and running now.  Remember that Amtrak wanted to take over the CNW's Green Bay (via Appleton) service on their start up back in 1971 - it was very popular and operating at a *PROFIT* 'above the rails'.

HOWEVER, CNW's track was starting to deteriorate and needed a chip-in from the state for the work that was needed in order for Amtrak to be able to take it over.  The legislature of the day (also remember that this was the time of the Apollo Moon landings), despite the line's popularity with the daytrip crowd, especially with businessguys, thinking that rail was 'quaint and old fashioned' in the age of air and space travel, balked.  Had they agreed, NE Wisconsin would likely now have very useful and popular service from eight-ten (or perhaps more) daily round trips of extended Hiawathas and this would be a non-issue.

NE Wisconsin is just the right distance and direction from Chicago for such a service to be hugely popular and today, track condition is virtually a non-issue.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Brandon on August 21, 2015, 09:48:30 AM
A couple things, Peter. You have to understand that US high-speed rail is inferior to that of a number of Western European nations and Japan. If we could develop rail on par (both in terms of cost as well as efficiency) with those nations it would make high-speed rail much more attractive. I also think this is not 1963 anymore where more people are open to alternative methods of travel than cars and planes.

However, that said, those countries freight rail systems pale in comparison to ours.  Given a choice between having a superior freight rail system or a superior passenger rail system, I'll take the superior freight rail system.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 21, 2015, 11:31:59 AM
High speed rail works best within places of high population density.  In Europe it works great because you can get from one metro area to another very quickly without the hassle of flying.  However in the US I don't think it would work as well.  To use the aforementioned example, it is simply easier to fly between Chicago and Minneapolis - the 400 miles would take two hours (not including loading / unloading), etc., where it is an hour and 20 minute flight.  (And that includes from when you push off from the gate.)

Now there are certain places it would work.  But I think the US is simply too big and sparse to make it work nationally, or even regionally.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/World_population_density_1994.png
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 21, 2015, 10:33:14 PM
As I mentioned upthread, I'd likely find a restored service between NE Wisconsin and Chicago to be very useful - just the right distance and direction from DT Chicago to be perfect for the need.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on August 22, 2015, 06:01:47 PM
Has anyone driven in Eau Claire lately?  I recently noticed a flurry of ALT 53 signs being posted, both at exits on the US-53 bypass,  and on portions of Business 53 through town.  I didn't have time to take a closer look,  but it even appeared that some Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT-53 signs.

Anyone have any insights on this?  Why would you need to resign a business route as an ALT route?  (other than to give road geeks something to geek about and discuss...)
I live in Eau Claire and see that once in a while. At the WI 93 Entrance, there is a set of beacons, and a sign reading "Use BUS 53 when flashing" and there are railroad crossing style ramp closed gates. I think these are for when accidents occur, so traffic easily knows what other roads to use.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2015, 11:12:37 AM
Small but interesting observation today.  Waukesha County has painted "Caution Turtle Crossing" onto County CI (former WI-106) just east of the Jefferson County at the part where it winds around a pond. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on August 27, 2015, 11:17:33 AM
Satellite imagery has been updated for Milwaukee (not sure how much of WI) under Google Map Maker (mapmaker.google.com)
Isn't the NEWEST but it's pretty darn new, gives a much better view of the progress of the Zoo interchange for those interested.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on August 27, 2015, 01:38:30 PM
Satellite imagery has been updated for Milwaukee (not sure how much of WI) under Google Map Maker (mapmaker.google.com)
Isn't the NEWEST but it's pretty darn new, gives a much better view of the progress of the Zoo interchange for those interested.
Looks to be from around June of this year or so. Also looks much nicer with the green tree canopy than the previous imagery from April 2014.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2015, 05:11:55 AM
As much as I despise summer aerials, it is nice to see the progress.
The temporary configuration at the Lake Interchange is interesting.  And check out the skyscraper construction downtown!  Two towers going up; both kitty-corner from the US Bank Center.  Northwestern Mutual's new building to the north and 833 E. Wisconsin to the south.

Seriously, summer is a bad time for aerials in this part of the world.  The deciduous trees block out a LOT of detail.  We have months and months with no leaves and no snow; that's when you take your shots, man.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 28, 2015, 10:14:19 AM
As much as I despise summer aerials, it is nice to see the progress.
The temporary configuration at the Lake Interchange is interesting.  And check out the skyscraper construction downtown!  Two towers going up; both kitty-corner from the US Bank Center.  Northwestern Mutual's new building to the north and 833 E. Wisconsin to the south.

Seriously, summer is a bad time for aerials in this part of the world.  The deciduous trees block out a LOT of detail.  We have months and months with no leaves and no snow; that's when you take your shots, man.

AND, a couple of weeks ago, judge blessed a proposed 30+ floor residential building to go up by the Lake interchange.  The controversy centered on the site's status as filled former lake.

Like in many other cities, including nearby Chicago, there is a LOT of interest in downtown area residential.  The proposed new arena for the NBA Bucks should spark a similar interest in the area of the former Hillside interchange, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on August 29, 2015, 03:57:30 PM
*UPDATE*
Here is an update on the traffic signals on River Prairie Drive in Eau Claire/Altoona, now that woodmans is open, the new signals are activated.
Northbound US 53 & River Prairie Dr:
A new left turn lane was added to the off-ramp of NB US 53. The trombone signals mentioned in the news report that we thought were just being put up have been put back up, but are modified. All of the horizontal trombones remain except for the one for WB River Prairie Dr. A normal right hand and a backwards left hand median trombone arm has been put up, with vertical signals on each, 1 per lane. Here's the weird part. EB River Prairie Dr traffic turning left onto NB US 53 used to have a protected/Permissive 5 stack, but have been replaced with a protected-only 3 Section.
Southbound US 53 & R. P. Dr.:
All the horizontal trombones remain except the EB R.P.DR. traffic, which has the same dual trombone vertical setup as described above. WB R.P.Dr. traffic turning left onto SB US 53 has a protected/permissive FYA. It used to have a 5 stack.
Now these other two intersections west of US 53 I am not 100% sure of, but the one closest to US 53 is a strange intersection. The side street traffic can only turn right. But left turning traffic on R.P.DR. have 4 section FYA. You can see this intersection towards the end of the video in this report. http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Drivers-can-expect-delays-on-River-Prairie-Drive-as-road-construction-starts-309154421.html?device=tablet&c=y
*EDIT* The other intersection is a normal vertical mount monotube setup with Protected only signals for RPD, FYA for woodmans traffic, and either protected only or permissive only 3 Section for the not yet developed NW Quadrent. Also noted that this intersection has little (presumably) led lights next to the opticom sensors, just like the way Minnesota does them. I am not sure if the other 3 intersections got them. This will be the first intersection in eau Claire to have visual preemption confirmation. All signalized intersections in eau Claire have emergency vehicle preemption via opticom or whatever the other brand is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on August 29, 2015, 08:17:15 PM
Noticed a new addition to the freeways that are posted at 70MPH. WisDOT has now posted yellow "Exit 50MPH" advisory signs next to the BG exit signs (the sign before the exit gore). These have been popping up in the past few days.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 29, 2015, 08:48:44 PM
Noticed a new addition to the freeways that are posted at 70MPH. WisDOT has now posted yellow "Exit 50MPH" advisory signs next to the BG exit signs (the sign before the exit gore). These have been popping up in the past few days.

I have noticed a lot less speed differentiation the last few weeks on the interstates.  People are picking up their speed.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on August 29, 2015, 09:36:02 PM
Noticed a new addition to the freeways that are posted at 70MPH. WisDOT has now posted yellow "Exit 50MPH" advisory signs next to the BG exit signs (the sign before the exit gore). These have been popping up in the past few days.

IIRC, I saw a 60 MPH advisory sign at the 41-45 interchange near Oshkosh last weekend. I've never seen an advisory speed sign that high.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on August 30, 2015, 08:16:46 PM
Noticed a new addition to the freeways that are posted at 70MPH. WisDOT has now posted yellow "Exit 50MPH" advisory signs next to the BG exit signs (the sign before the exit gore). These have been popping up in the past few days.

IIRC, I saw a 60 MPH advisory sign at the 41-45 interchange near Oshkosh last weekend. I've never seen an advisory speed sign that high.

The ramps from US 51 to Wis 29 have had the 60 MPH advisory signs for a few years now.  There are also a lot of Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs popping up at interchanges where a freeway/expressway continues away from an interstate, such as I-43 to Wis 54/57, I-43 to Wis 172, and I-41 to Wis 441 south.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on August 31, 2015, 10:32:09 AM
Looks like right now the assembly and senate have agreed to a $800 million dollar reduction in bonding over the next 2 years for transportation. 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-leaders-in-legislature-squabble-about-budget-impasse-b99522269z1-308205131.html
It will be interesting to see how the people and politicians react when they actually get a list of projects across the state that would be postponed or even cut.  This amount is significant enough that current contracts under construction would be affected.  Because of this WisDOT would have to get contractors to agree through change order a delay in completion or claims would be submitted (Both will cost the state money).  It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out (A LOT of competing interests and priorities for many from the WTBA, Unions, residents, and legislators).

For others replying to this, I ask for this discussion to not to turn into a negative finger pointing politics discussion but rather let's focus on the potential effects (including listing projects you may think would get postponed or cut) due to this reduction in funding.

A lot of us (myself included, in addition to the rest of my office and other colleagues with other firms) are watching all of this with great interest/nervousness. Many don't realize how big of an impact this will have across the state. It's not just postponing maintenance or other road projects...this trickles down much further, to the construction crews and design engineers. Cutting projects => less work to be done => less workers needed => layoffs.

One of the projects rumored to be ground to a halt is the I-39 expansion between Illinois and Madison. Supposedly, the Zoo Interchange would continue.

Bringing back an old discussion about the next 2 year budget.  With the cut in transportation with this budget compared to the last 2 years ($800 million currently but can be dropped to $500 million with legislative approval for more bonding) there is a HUGE re-scope going on for projects.  With the current funding, even existing contracts may be affected (the goal is to avoid this situation).  Eventually lists will be released with project delays and possibly a few deletions.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on August 31, 2015, 12:17:23 PM
Bringing back an old discussion about the next 2 year budget.  With the cut in transportation with this budget compared to the last 2 years ($800 million currently but can be dropped to $500 million with legislative approval for more bonding) there is a HUGE re-scope going on for projects.  With the current funding, even existing contracts may be affected (the goal is to avoid this situation).  Eventually lists will be released with project delays and possibly a few deletions.

I'm kind of expecting the east end of the US 10/WI 441 upgrade project to be delayed.

 :no:

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 01, 2015, 04:53:28 AM
The Zoo Interchange project north of Watertown Plank Rd is supposed to be delayed.  Will the I-94 project in Racine County be delayed even further?  It was delayed already so the Zoo Interchange could be completed.  Last year, the stretch in Racine County was resurfaced so the roadway could last beyond the 2021, the revised completion date.  At the time, I thought that project was a waste because why resurface a road that's going to get ripped up within 5 years?  If the project is delayed further, the resurfacing would be more justified. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: marcreichman on September 01, 2015, 11:10:44 AM
The Zoo Interchange project north of Watertown Plank Rd is supposed to be delayed. 

That's a shame, the North ave legwork looks like it's already being started a bit, and with Meijer, Mayfair Collection, and Whole Foods (and new hotels, Bartolotta Restaurants, etc.) opening at Burleigh, some TLC would be welcomed!
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 01, 2015, 11:21:14 AM
Besides some road geometry being tweaked with the North Ave interchange there aren't any major changes with the actual configuration of the ramps. The delay sucks but it's not something huge. At least it's not cancelled.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 05, 2015, 06:36:03 AM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.  On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.  The signals did not use doghouse style lights, probably because the street has left turn only lanes.  I noticed that the 2 intersections that use doghouse lights are on streets where the driver has the option to go straight or turn left.  That city has every possible signal combination available in the state.  U.S. 12/Clairemont Ave has had some trombone vertical signal mounts at some intersections for years before the DOT started installing them mainstream, and they're still up at some intersections.  That project was also one of the last projects where the DOT used horizontal signals on multi lane roads when it was reconstructed in 2008.  A year later when Hastings Way was reconstructed, mono tubes and vertical signals were used. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on September 13, 2015, 03:21:03 PM
Did you get to check out the vertical monotone/horizontal trombone combo at I94&WI37? Or the new signals on River Prairie Dr. In Altoona? Also, Claremont ave went through some slight changes recently. At Clairemont ave/North crossing, all but one approach has vertically mounted signals on trombone arms, on on the right for the right lane, and one backwards on the left for the left lane. Also, all of the green straight arrows were replaced with green balls. You are correct about the fact that we have almost every combo in the state. There are Right turn FYA's at the SPUI for Claremont ave/US53 for the southbound traffic coming off of 53 going w on Claremont, as well as right turn FYA's at 10th st & Claremont ave/US 12 going into Altoona for the 10th st turning traffic. Not sure what the purpose is.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 03:41:49 PM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.

Source?

On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.

Omit is a better way of putting it. Though it hasn't been updated in a while, the signal design manual still requires it. I just rode through many of reconstructed signalized intersections around the Zoo interchange yesterday, and while there were a handful that had approaches without them, the majority had them.

I'll try to post a few photos from my trip later.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 13, 2015, 07:48:54 PM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.

Source?

On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.

Omit is a better way of putting it. Though it hasn't been updated in a while, the signal design manual still requires it. I just rode through many of reconstructed signalized intersections around the Zoo interchange yesterday, and while there were a handful that had approaches without them, the majority had them.

I'll try to post a few photos from my trip later.

All of the new traffic signals installed this year do not have the stop bar signal.  I did check out the River Prairie Dr area, and the off ramps have the trombone arms, while the the new intersections into Woodmans have monotubes.  I did check out the I-94/Wis 37 interchange and all I saw were monotubes installed on Wis 37, and pole mounted signals for traffic coming off of I-94.  It's evident by all of the new signals installed by the city of Eau Claire that they are getting rid of stop bar traffic signals, and are using dog house signals for intersections that have a left turn and straight lane.  I also saw a new BGS in clearview at the Business 53/US 12 interchange southbound.  The city of Eau Claire also exclusively uses clearview font for all of their signs.  However, the old button copy BGS' northbound on Business 53 still stand at the US 12 interchange, and there is one that says "North 53," and that has not been modified to say Business 53.  Also, most of the Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT 53, but the road is still considered Bus 53.  On US 12, there were 2 giant signs that pointed to Business 53 and Alt 53 on ramp entrance.  Another interesting observation on US 53 is that a lot of the Route Marker signs on the BGS' are faded and already need to be replaced driving southbound.  The Old High C&NW Bridge is also open to bike and pedestrian traffic.  The views are great and can be accessed off of 1st Street and I recommend a walk across it if you're in the area.   
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 08:00:54 PM
Please pardon the quality...cell-phone photos from the passenger seat  :meh:

Wis 100 (Mayfair Rd) at Watertown Plank Rd
(http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae39/erfrailing/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144539_zpsyvnspqqs.jpg) (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/media/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144539_zpsyvnspqqs.jpg.html)
No near right-side signal for Wis 100, but they did place them for Watertown Plank. The pattern on the corridor seemed to have them for side streets, but generally not for thru-traffic on Wis 100.

Wis 100 (Mayfair Rd) at Wisconsin Ave
(http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae39/erfrailing/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144650_zpscptqffdt.jpg) (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/media/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144650_zpscptqffdt.jpg.html)
(http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae39/erfrailing/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144708_zpsaldkffne.jpg) (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/media/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144708_zpsaldkffne.jpg.html)

Wis 100 (Mayfair Rd) at US 18 (Bluemound Rd)
(http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae39/erfrailing/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144738_zpsg7ihid3x.jpg) (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/media/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09/20150912_144738_zpsg7ihid3x.jpg.html)
Note the atypical high-mount right-turn signal

Additional photos from my trip (http://s955.photobucket.com/user/erfrailing/slideshow/AARoads/greater%20Zoo%20Interchange-I94%20area_2015_09)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 13, 2015, 08:05:31 PM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.

Source?

On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.

Omit is a better way of putting it. Though it hasn't been updated in a while, the signal design manual still requires it. I just rode through many of reconstructed signalized intersections around the Zoo interchange yesterday, and while there were a handful that had approaches without them, the majority had them.

I'll try to post a few photos from my trip later.

All of the new traffic signals installed this year do not have the stop bar signal.  I did check out the River Prairie Dr area, and the off ramps have the trombone arms, while the the new intersections into Woodmans have monotubes.  I did check out the I-94/Wis 37 interchange and all I saw were monotubes installed on Wis 37, and pole mounted signals for traffic coming off of I-94.  It's evident by all of the new signals installed by the city of Eau Claire that they are getting rid of stop bar traffic signals, and are using dog house signals for intersections that have a left turn and straight lane.

You missed the point of my question. Your earlier post said that "they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal." I was wondering if you heard this officially from the city or if the statement observationally-based.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on September 13, 2015, 09:02:22 PM
All of the new traffic signals installed this year do not have the stop bar signal.  I did check out the River Prairie Dr area, and the off ramps have the trombone arms, while the the new intersections into Woodmans have monotubes.  I did check out the I-94/Wis 37 interchange and all I saw were monotubes installed on Wis 37, and pole mounted signals for traffic coming off of I-94.  It's evident by all of the new signals installed by the city of Eau Claire that they are getting rid of stop bar traffic signals, and are using dog house signals for intersections that have a left turn and straight lane.  I also saw a new BGS in clearview at the Business 53/US 12 interchange southbound.  The city of Eau Claire also exclusively uses clearview font for all of their signs.  However, the old button copy BGS' northbound on Business 53 still stand at the US 12 interchange, and there is one that says "North 53," and that has not been modified to say Business 53.  Also, most of the Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT 53, but the road is still considered Bus 53.  On US 12, there were 2 giant signs that pointed to Business 53 and Alt 53 on ramp entrance.  Another interesting observation on US 53 is that a lot of the Route Marker signs on the BGS' are faded and already need to be replaced driving southbound.  The Old High C&NW Bridge is also open to bike and pedestrian traffic.  The views are great and can be accessed off of 1st Street and I recommend a walk across it if you're in the area.
[/quote]
The Monotube/Trombone combo is actually on 37 and I94 for the eastbound onramp, eastbound offramp and the Road for the construction company has a horizontally mounted trombone. I did notice recently that the signs are faded, and thought that was weird. And yes I know very much about that high bridge, as I live less than a mile from it and am frequently checking the progress of the rest of the trail.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 14, 2015, 04:06:27 PM
Drove through Eau Claire today, and they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal.

Source?

On Brackett Ave, the new signals omit them, along with the other signals that were installed this year.

Omit is a better way of putting it. Though it hasn't been updated in a while, the signal design manual still requires it. I just rode through many of reconstructed signalized intersections around the Zoo interchange yesterday, and while there were a handful that had approaches without them, the majority had them.

I'll try to post a few photos from my trip later.

All of the new traffic signals installed this year do not have the stop bar signal.  I did check out the River Prairie Dr area, and the off ramps have the trombone arms, while the the new intersections into Woodmans have monotubes.  I did check out the I-94/Wis 37 interchange and all I saw were monotubes installed on Wis 37, and pole mounted signals for traffic coming off of I-94.  It's evident by all of the new signals installed by the city of Eau Claire that they are getting rid of stop bar traffic signals, and are using dog house signals for intersections that have a left turn and straight lane.

You missed the point of my question. Your earlier post said that "they are officially getting rid of the stop bar traffic signal." I was wondering if you heard this officially from the city or if the statement observationally-based.

Observationally based.  They installed 6 new traffic signals and all 6 did not have a stop bar signal.  This only applies to the City of Eau Claire.  The signals in Altoona still have the stop bar signal.  There probably won't be any new signals installed until the Water Street Bridge is rebuilt next year (most main arteries are in great shape after Brackett Ave was reconstructed, could maybe reconstruct State St), guess the verdict will be out until the signals at Water Street and 1st Ave are replaced.  They probably will be since the signals at 1st Ave and Lake Street were replaced when that bridge went under a bridge rehab project (to prepare for extra traffic from the Water St. Bridge closure.)  I have no idea if any other municipality will follow suit, all other cities I've visited still have the stop bar signal.  Oneida St in Appleton is being reconstructed at the Skyline Bridge and the intersection with Prospect Ave will have the stop bar signal, but monotubes will replace the trombone overheads. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 04:14:47 PM
What do you guys mean by 'stop bar signal'?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on September 14, 2015, 05:16:24 PM
What do you guys mean by 'stop bar signal'?
The pole mounted signal on the close right side of the intersection, right next to the stop line on the ground.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 14, 2015, 05:44:31 PM
What do you guys mean by 'stop bar signal'?
The pole mounted signal on the close right side of the intersection, right next to the stop line on the ground.

Signal is unique to Wisconsin for the most part and was required by the state, but must not be now if Eau Claire is opting not to put signals there.  The Mason St. and Ashland Ave Interchange doesn't have them at the 2nd ramp after crossing under Mason St, but I think the only reason that they weren't installed there is because the ramps are very close together.  Other new signal installations in Green Bay still include them.  Illinois uses them in a lot of their intersections, and have seen them in California and Arizona.  Otherwise, most states don't put a signal at the stop bar. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 14, 2015, 05:53:31 PM
Where do other states put this signal? xD This all seems normal to me
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 14, 2015, 05:58:58 PM

The Mason St. and Ashland Ave Interchange doesn't have them at the 2nd ramp after crossing under Mason St, but I think the only reason that they weren't installed there is because the ramps are very close together. 
Yes.  When the bridge was first opened in 1973, there were near-side stop bar signals at that interchange.  One was removed almost immediately (NB near right) and the others (including in the median) were removed in 1983.  Reason was they were causing confusion with the signals before them.

One other case in Green Bay was on Baird St. and Main St.  For a long time there was no right side stop-bar signal for NB traffic, though there was one in the median.  There is no close-by intersection so its omission was a mystery.  But they have since put in the stop-bar signal on the right side.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 14, 2015, 06:02:59 PM
Where do other states put this signal? xD This all seems normal to me
Most states have their typical signal installations on the rear side above the street or an overhead rear-side signal(s) and a pole-mounted rear-side signal, or on a diagonal wire over the intersection.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 15, 2015, 02:46:53 AM

The Mason St. and Ashland Ave Interchange doesn't have them at the 2nd ramp after crossing under Mason St, but I think the only reason that they weren't installed there is because the ramps are very close together. 
Yes.  When the bridge was first opened in 1973, there were near-side stop bar signals at that interchange.  One was removed almost immediately (NB near right) and the others (including in the median) were removed in 1983.  Reason was they were causing confusion with the signals before them.

One other case in Green Bay was on Baird St. and Main St.  For a long time there was no right side stop-bar signal for NB traffic, though there was one in the median.  There is no close-by intersection so its omission was a mystery.  But they have since put in the stop-bar signal on the right side.

I didn't even notice that the stop bar signals were missing from that interchange until the signals were replaced recently.  I looked at streetview to look at the old configuration and you could tell that they were there at one point, but missing.  It's also surprising that there weren't any overhead signals for the offramps.  There are now with 3 overhead signals there.  Interesting that the interchange with Monroe St on the other side of the river has stop bar mounted signals.  For many years, the ramp from East Mason to Monroe St only merged north on Monroe (South Monroe Traffic exited off on Madison St and turned right on Chicago to meet with Monroe), and there wasn't a signal there.  Sometime in the late 90's, the ramp was reconfigured to allow the ramp to turn south on Monroe, signals were added, and they were placed closer than at the Ashland Interchange.  Signals were just replaced there and the stop bar signals were kept after the reconstruction.   The Main/Baird St intersection also has a unique overhead signal hanging right behind the westbound overhead signal for eastbound traffic because of a curve where the buildings limit the distance that the signals can be seen that are normally placed. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on September 16, 2015, 08:11:10 AM
Where do other states put this signal? xD This all seems normal to me
Most states have their typical signal installations on the rear side above the street or an overhead rear-side signal(s) and a pole-mounted rear-side signal, or on a diagonal wire over the intersection.

The stop bar signal (near right) is a waste of installation and operating costs now that the state, counties, and cities are converting to monotubes for installations.  The monotubes with the multiple heads and better visibility along with the fact they are installed to not be knocked down makes the stop bar signal un-needed.  It made sense to have it back in the days of the trombone installations as knockdowns of the mast meant only the stop bar and median signal (or far left remained).  Also the trombones with the horizontal signal heads have less visibility.

As for span wires :banghead: I cannot believe states like Michigan use them for standard installations.  Every span wire signal we have put in we purposely have tried to take as as soon as possible because the extra maintenance required with them is a pain in the butt.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 03:41:38 PM
Where do other states put this signal? xD This all seems normal to me
Most states have their typical signal installations on the rear side above the street or an overhead rear-side signal(s) and a pole-mounted rear-side signal, or on a diagonal wire over the intersection.

The stop bar signal (near right) is a waste of installation and operating costs now that the state, counties, and cities are converting to monotubes for installations.  The monotubes with the multiple heads and better visibility along with the fact they are installed to not be knocked down makes the stop bar signal un-needed.  It made sense to have it back in the days of the trombone installations as knockdowns of the mast meant only the stop bar and median signal (or far left remained).  Also the trombones with the horizontal signal heads have less visibility.

As for span wires :banghead: I cannot believe states like Michigan use them for standard installations.  Every span wire signal we have put in we purposely have tried to take as as soon as possible because the extra maintenance required with them is a pain in the butt.

I have seen instances where knocked down signals in the median cause problems that the monotube installations fix.  In Green Bay, I was at an intersection that had 2 signals installed in the median along Mason St.  The one on the far side of the intersection was knocked down, and the only light that was up was the light at the stop bar in the median.  There was a green arrow, and the driver did not go.  With the light on the far side down, the driver couldn't see the green arrow because the signal was posted slightly behind the stop line, and the driver was ahead of the light.  I here's a picture of the intersection. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5241399,-88.08901,3a,90y,266.76h,71.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqthgFsKG9gliN5tZA44nkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Big John on September 16, 2015, 04:58:00 PM
^^ Those signals were orignally installed by WisDOT in 1987.  Control of that section of road was transferred to the city around 1993.  Most of the signal heads except those on the trombone arms had been replaced since.  But with the city's early adaptation of monotube arms, I am a bit surprised that they had not converted these intersection to those.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 16, 2015, 07:45:18 PM
A lot of intersections had signals replaced but I'm surprised also that the signals on Mason St west of I-41 haven't been replaced either.  The signals on Main St east of Mason St already had monotubes with horizontal overheads, now they were replaced with new monotubes and there are now 3 veritcal signalheads with flashing yellow lights.  Those intersections aren't nearly as busy as the ones on W Mason.  At the intersetions of Mason&Challenger, Mason&Webster, and Packerland&West Point, the horizontal overhead signals were remounted to be vertical on existing poles.  I think at Challenger, the remounts were done because the signals at I-43 and Ontario are vertical, and the signals were modified at Packerland&West Point because of the roads being used for alternates during I-41 construction.  Otherwise, it seems like the City of Green Bay is replacing and modifying signals at random.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: TriCountyExpressway on September 17, 2015, 07:56:54 PM
I was driving on I-41 South & US 10 West today and noticed that the signs for Outagamie County Regional Airport (at the College Ave./County Road CA and County Road CB exits, respectively) have been replaced with "Appleton Int'l. Airport" markings.

The airport changed names last month, coinciding with its 50th anniversary, and these are the first road signs I've seen reflecting the change.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 18, 2015, 01:02:16 AM
I was driving on I-41 South & US 10 West today and noticed that the signs for Outagamie County Regional Airport (at the College Ave./County Road CA and County Road CB exits, respectively) have been replaced with "Appleton Int'l. Airport" markings.

The airport changed names last month, coinciding with its 50th anniversary, and these are the first road signs I've seen reflecting the change.

I noticed them, too, while driving around today, including WisDOT BGSes on I-41.  The airport's code remains the same - 'ATW'.

Have you seen the 'WI 41' sign on the EB approach to I-41 on Prospect Ave yet?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 18, 2015, 01:21:44 AM
I was driving on I-41 South & US 10 West today and noticed that the signs for Outagamie County Regional Airport (at the College Ave./County Road CA and County Road CB exits, respectively) have been replaced with "Appleton Int'l. Airport" markings.

The airport changed names last month, coinciding with its 50th anniversary, and these are the first road signs I've seen reflecting the change.

So is this an international airport in name only, or is Appleton actually handling international flights? With Green Bay not that far away, I figured Appleton would remain a regional airport indefinitely. I figured Dane County Regional would go international before Appleton. [sarcasm]Especially with having an address of 4000 International Lane. :) [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 18, 2015, 07:36:40 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 18, 2015, 10:10:43 PM
Wow, "Appleton International Airport"? 
And some folks said promoting Highway 41 to an interstate was pointless.
:-D
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 01:18:15 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/

I do see a lot of foreign-registered aircraft parked outside of the Gulfstream facilities on a regular basis.

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 19, 2015, 02:54:59 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/

I do see a lot of foreign-registered aircraft parked outside of the Gulfstream facilities on a regular basis.

Mike

Before the international airport designation, they had to stop at another airport before going to Appleton.  With the customs station opening, they can fly direct and Gulfstream was helping push for the international airport status.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: mgk920 on September 19, 2015, 11:26:50 AM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/

I do see a lot of foreign-registered aircraft parked outside of the Gulfstream facilities on a regular basis.

Mike

Before the international airport designation, they had to stop at another airport before going to Appleton.  With the customs station opening, they can fly direct and Gulfstream was helping push for the international airport status.

Can I safely assume that that also means that, let's say, an average Canadian flying his little Cessna to EAA, can clear Customs there instead of somewhere else?

Mike
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 20, 2015, 08:05:46 PM
There's a customs station that can handle small flights.  20 passengers is the maximum an incoming international flight can have.  Cargo planes can land also.  Gulfstream has a big facility at the airport and they wanted the designation so it would be easier for their jets to be serviced.  More information in this Post-Crescent Article:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/money/companies/buzz/2015/09/01/buzz-international-airport-really/71536342/

I do see a lot of foreign-registered aircraft parked outside of the Gulfstream facilities on a regular basis.

Mike

Before the international airport designation, they had to stop at another airport before going to Appleton.  With the customs station opening, they can fly direct and Gulfstream was helping push for the international airport status.

Can I safely assume that that also means that, let's say, an average Canadian flying his little Cessna to EAA, can clear Customs there instead of somewhere else?

Mike

It's perfect for those small planes.  Austin Straubel in Green Bay has been an international airport since 1988 and those small international planes may have flown in there before the EAA. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 29, 2015, 09:01:28 PM
WISDOT has announced the 5 projects that it will delay due to budget cuts.  They are: Verona Rd, I-39/90, WIS 15, WIS 23, and US 10/WIS 441.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/dot-puts-breaks-on-5-major-road-project-in-budget-crunch-b99586812z1-329959171.html
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on September 29, 2015, 09:34:50 PM
I'm not surprised that the projects around Milwaukee to Chicago survived.  The Racine County portion of that project had been delayed already so the Zoo could be expedited.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: Roadguy on September 30, 2015, 01:29:42 AM
WISDOT has announced the 5 projects that it will delay due to budget cuts.  They are: Verona Rd, I-39/90, WIS 15, WIS 23, and US 10/WIS 441.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/dot-puts-breaks-on-5-major-road-project-in-budget-crunch-b99586812z1-329959171.html

The most significant note out of the article is the following acknowledgement: "The five projects will face two-year delays, said DOT spokeswoman Peg Schmitt. But that time frame assumes lawmakers will inject more money into roads in the future."

I find it doubtful in 2 years (the next budget) lawmakers will inject more money into transportation.  Seems like they should be laying out schedules based on the current funding levels and not be assuming more money will be allocated.  The reason for the assumption is definitely political.

What is amazing is that less than 2 years ago many of these projects were on the "advanceable list" with staff/consultants being told to be prepared for earlier than expected lettings and now they have made the delayed list.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 30, 2015, 02:04:52 AM
There are some major projects that will be completed soon that should help alleviate the budget crunch.  The Hoan Bridge is a $172 million project that should end this year, I-41 in Green Bay is supposed to end next year and that is a near $1 billion project.  The Zoo Interchange is also supposed to end in 2017.   Those are 3 very expensive projects that are supposed to end within 2 years, that may be why the delays are estimated to last 2 years, when those projects are finished.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 30, 2015, 07:42:30 AM
Zoo ending in 2017? Huh? I thought that wouldn't be done until 2019 or even later. Last I saw the plans, parts of the mainline will be the last part.. At 2018-19.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on September 30, 2015, 09:04:35 AM
Zoo ending in 2017? Huh? I thought that wouldn't be done until 2019 or even later. Last I saw the plans, parts of the mainline will be the last part.. At 2018-19.

Depends on when you last looked at the plans. A couple iterations ago, the DOT had originally planned to extend the project much further down each of the Zoo's approaches. Much of it got scaled back to save money before the project when under construction, then scaled back/delayed more to save additional money. Had it not been for the original cuts to the project by the previous administration, it would have been done by now, and we probably would have saved millions of dollars by not having to build emergency bridges.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: colinstu on September 30, 2015, 09:18:08 AM
Where did it get scaled back? Each end of the legs looks like they're fully being worked on now (or will be). I think I heard the North Ave interchange reconstruction was being pushed back but not cancelled.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 30, 2015, 10:15:37 AM
The core of the interchange will be complete in 2017, and the vast majority of the spending should be complete on the project.  I have a PDF of the north leg, and according to the schedule the only parts of the project that will remain are the southbound lanes of I-41/US 45 between Burleigh St and Swan Blvd.  I'm assuming that the project will stay on schedule since there wasn't any announcement on the project being delayed.
http://projects.511wi.gov/zoo-interchange-project/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/Zoo_IC_north-leg.pdf

As for the US 10/Wis 441 project, it looks like the part of the project between Racine St and US 10 east is being delayed, and the I-41/US 10/Wis 441 interchange and Little Lake Butte Des Mortes bridge won't be delayed, since major work is already taking place that area is by far the biggest priority and the most vital part of the project.  An updated schedule is below:

http://projects.511wi.gov/wis441/wp-content/uploads/sites/107/New-WIS-441-timeline.jpg

Living in the Green Bay area, I will be relieved when the I-41 project is complete.  There has been non-stop construction since 2008 and it will be great to see everything finished!  Along with I-41, the 2 year project of rehabbing Wis 172 caused bigger traffic problems than I-41 since it's the busiest Fox River crossing, and there were very few alternate routes.  It would take 20 minutes to go from I-41 to the bridge in De Pere during rush hour when that project was being constructed.  As long as the Leo Frigo Bridge holds up and doesn't dip, the Green Bay Area won't need any major road work for a long, long time. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on September 30, 2015, 10:32:34 AM
I also looked at the 6 year highway improvement plans, and they are also updated as of 9-20-15.  There's parts of it that I do not understand at all.  I-43 is set to be resurfaced from US 10 to the South Manitowoc County Line next year, and the stretch from Wis 60 to the North County Line in Ozaukee County isn't supposed to be worked on until 2019-2021, despite the fact that I-43 in Ozaukee County is A LOT rougher!   I-43 in Manitowoc County was resurfaced in 2001 and the original pavement was placed in the early 80s, and the stretch in Ozaukee County still has the original pavement and it was placed in the 1970s (It has been diamond ground but was done many years ago).  I don't understand how a stretch of road that isn't that rough gets resurfaced twice in 15 years while a rougher stretch of road gets no attention in the same time frame, aside from shoulder repairs and bridge maintenance. 
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
It sucks that Wisconsin highway projects are being delayed, but then again, money doesn't grow on trees. What to do? What to do?
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: noelbotevera on September 30, 2015, 04:23:46 PM
It sucks that Wisconsin highway projects are being delayed, but then again, money doesn't grow on trees. What to do? What to do?
Call Texas. They blow their money to work on highway projects.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 30, 2015, 07:33:24 PM
It sucks that Wisconsin highway projects are being delayed, but then again, money doesn't grow on trees. What to do? What to do?
Call Texas. They blow their money to work on highway projects.


So you're saying Wisconsin should drill for oil???
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: noelbotevera on September 30, 2015, 07:44:55 PM
It sucks that Wisconsin highway projects are being delayed, but then again, money doesn't grow on trees. What to do? What to do?
Call Texas. They blow their money to work on highway projects.


So you're saying Wisconsin should drill for oil???
No, they drill for cheese (sorry for being a stereotype).
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: discochris on October 05, 2015, 12:06:24 AM
So this was odd. We were on WI-13, northbound from Ashland to Bayfield, and one of the signs for 13 was on a US highway shield. Someone screwed that one up...
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: DaBigE on October 05, 2015, 12:21:42 AM
So this was odd. We were on WI-13, northbound from Ashland to Bayfield, and one of the signs for 13 was on a US highway shield. Someone screwed that one up...

Definitely not unheard of in Wisconsin. This "Wis" 33 trailblazer (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4215895,-88.1813725,3a,75y,15.75h,80.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqEsd6lACFn5Jg7BCpPELaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been hanging around West Bend for as long as I can remember. Construction contractors are notorious for screwing up the route shields and slapping a highway ID on anything that's usable in their inventory for temporary signage.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: GeekJedi on October 05, 2015, 01:14:16 PM
There are a few new "WI-45" trailblazers in the Milwaukee area. ;-)
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: SSOWorld on October 05, 2015, 06:53:13 PM
There are a few new "WI-45" trailblazers in the Milwaukee area. ;-)
Well, Someone needs to contact that contractor - and fire them. :P
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: merrycilantro on October 06, 2015, 07:57:06 AM
There's a "Wis 28" sign on a US Shield in Sheboygan too. Easter Eggs, complements of WisDOT lol.
Title: Re: Wisconsin notes
Post by: peterj920 on October 06, 2015, 08:11:58 AM
My favorite WISDOT mistake is this Lake Michigan Circle Tour sign in Sheboygan that shows a picture of Lake Erie.  I have a screenshot from google maps below:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.71776,-87.7605487,3a,15y,306.25h,86.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2wIMXQG-eoewis2Ei3zyHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Also here is a fairly new US 16 sign in Lowell. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3393645,-88.8183573,3a,75y,279.05h,82.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdDWx5VKP7lzjFZlNrC_VMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

A WIS 51 sign at the WIS 16 intersection south of Portage