Madison Area

[The Ghostbuster]

Here is another article on the flex lanes in Madison: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/madison-flex-lane-tweaks-see-morning-commutes-move-later/ar-AA1a6IlU?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=51214293fb7c48949c5154ee6942b201&ei=108

[mgk920]

Ooh we have alternatives now.  This will be fun.

Gonna start with the East Town Interchange because I see two alternatives here that are non-starters.  There is way too much commuter traffic continuing on East Wash between the Isthmus and Sun Prairie to force that traffic to exit at a diamond and weave its way under a system interchange between US 151 and the interstate.  I know WisDOT has been a fan of trying to separate system and surface traffic like that at places like Beloit, Green Bay and Wausau, but that is NOT going to work in this location.  Therefore only their alternatives 1 and 2 are viable.

Next I'll note my surprise that WisDOT sees the need for collector/distributor roadways between the Badger Interchange and the East Town Interchange since that's a fairly long distance, but I guess.  Alternative 1 for the Badger interchange is better because it uses less land. Big fan of moving all the left exits to the right.  The existing left-hand ramps are a big disruption to the flow of things, in my experience.

I do not support the addition of interchanges to the Triplex at Hoepker Rd or at I-94 and the east end of Milwaukee St.  Those will only encourage more sprawl and create more future issues with traffic merging on the freeway.  These freeways are to move vehicles thru Madison, not to subsidize real estate development.  I don't want to see this corridor clogged with more interchanges.  There are plenty as is.  The Hoepker Rd one is particularly egregious since it's so close to US 51.  Nuts to that.  I like that it's a few miles between exits as one drives by Madison.

Some of those alternatives for WI 19 are overkill.  A flyover NB->WB?  I don't see that happening.  Same deal for that U-ramp bullcrap.  I think I'm on board with the idea of switching the grading so WI 19 can bridge the railroad.

The DDI's at US 51 and County V are inevitable, I feel.  Good on them

I'd really like to see County CS turned into a diamond, just like they're doing to WI 60 right now.  The Pilot at that exit is the reason.  It'll make it easier for trucks to enter and exit the freeway to not deal with a loop.

Cascade Interchange, alternative 2 is better.  No need for such a high speed, expensive ramp from EB to NB in Alt 1.

WI 33's two interchanges with the freeways, go with the diamonds again.  Though I might tighten up the I-39 diamond so it impacts fewer wetlands.

At the Dells Parkway, I'd favor retaining the existing parclo but with the addition of a distributor ramp NB->WB that bypasses the ramp terminal signal at the south end of the interchange.  Just like how US 14 hits the Beltline in Madison.

Finally, I think the split diamond is the way to go at WI 13/County H.  The other option impacts protected DNR land along Hulbert Creek, a class 1 trout stream.  I've actually fished that creek just upstream from the interstate and the existing culvert under the ramps is somewhat of a barrier to fish passage from what I could see.

A few notes after a quick look-see of he proposal

- Like with the engineers at WisDOT, I also see the need for CD lanes between the Badger and East Town interchanges - that highway carries a _lot_ of traffic and CD lanes will keep things simpler and more manageable for the drivers (like with ON 401), especially those who are not from the Madison area.

- I also much prefer the alternatives for the east Town interchange that do no feed Washington (Boulevard?) directly into US 151 to and from the northeast, IMHO that is now a nasty left exit/entrance situation.  I would definitely keep the freeway through traffic separate from the surface street traffic.  As for the access between Washington Bd and US 151 toward Sun Prairie, The ramps in alt. 4 (my current preferred option) should be adequate (make the intersection a roundabout?).  I find it interesting that both of those options include a 'split diamond' connection between the interstates and Washington and High Crossing.

I also prefer the second option for the Badger interchange, it has a much more logical through traffic feed for I-94 than the first one.

I have always been a firm adherent of the 'KISS' principal.

Mike

[triplemultiplex]

I would contend there is more traffic continuing on US 151 than there is traffic going to/from the interstate in any given direction, so it would be more appropriate to treat it like the thru route it is.
The SB off ramp to continue on East Wash from 151 in the alternatives that force that traffic to exit will be hopelessly clogged every single morning.

Using WisDOT traffic count information, if I haven't screwed this up, I've got about an AADT of 20,000 continuing on US 151 thru this interchange.
That should be both directions, so 10k each direction.

That is less than the traffic going between the Badger and Sun Prairie, so I can understand wanting that to be the 'thru' route, however those proposed exits in alts 3 & 4 are going to be clogged.

For comparison, an AADT of 10k is about what exits the Beltline WB at Nolen Dr.  Forcing that volume of traffic to exit and turn left in order to keep going 'straight' seems very sub-optimal to me.

Sort of a side complaint, but alts 3 and 4 would throw into question the routing of US 151 thru the isthmus in the future. :think

[Rothman]

I have always been a firm adherent of the 'KISS' principal.

Mike

Gene Simmons?

[mgk920]

Should one of the options of not feeding US 151 to the northeast into Washington BD is what WisDOT goes with, how much of that commuter traffic between the interstates and the central Isthmus or beyond will be diverting to I-39/90/94 and WI 30 or the Beltline (origin - destination studies)?  IMHO, if what you are saying is correct,that will take noticeable amounts of overhead traffic off of the major surface streets that pass through that the University area.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

Should one of the options of not feeding US 151 to the northeast into Washington BD is what WisDOT goes with, how much of that commuter traffic between the interstates and the central Isthmus or beyond will be diverting to I-39/90/94 and WI 30 or the Beltline (origin - destination studies)?  IMHO, if what you are saying is correct,that will take noticeable amounts of overhead traffic off of the major surface streets that pass through that the University area.

Mike

What think the vast majority of traffic is local coming to and from Madison.

[mgk920]

Should one of the options of not feeding US 151 to the northeast into Washington BD is what WisDOT goes with, how much of that commuter traffic between the interstates and the central Isthmus or beyond will be diverting to I-39/90/94 and WI 30 or the Beltline (origin - destination studies)?  IMHO, if what you are saying is correct,that will take noticeable amounts of overhead traffic off of the major surface streets that pass through that the University area.

Mike

What think the vast majority of traffic is local coming to and from Madison.

You are correct in that one of my friends commutes daily from Columbus, WI into the City of Madison via US 151.  He gets off at American Parkway to go to his job at American family Insurance.

Also, whatever is decided here will almost certainly not begin construction until after the I-41 project between Appleton and De Pere is completed in or after 2029.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

I would agree that any improvements to the Interstate 39/90/94 corridor will not be constructed until the 2030s at the earliest, same for any improvements to the adjacent US 51/Stoughton Rd. corridor. It will be built in phases, and that all improvements will likely not be complete until the 2040s. I also expect US 151 through Madison will likely remain on its existing alignment, and not be transferred to the Beltline and the Interstates.

[triplemultiplex]

We'll probably have Bus Rapid Transit extended out to Sun Prairie long before anything breaks ground to rebuild the East Town interchange.
Don't know how much that'll help, but it won't be zero.

[thspfc]

Forcing US-151 thru traffic to stop at the interchange with 39/90/94 cannot be an option. There's way too much traffic. To me, the obvious choice is building a flyover from 151 SB to 39/90/94 SB.

[peterj920]

Forcing US-151 thru traffic to stop at the interchange with 39/90/94 cannot be an option. There's way too much traffic. To me, the obvious choice is building a flyover from 151 SB to 39/90/94 SB.

All the alternatives for an interchange rebuild have free flowing movements between US 151 to Sun Prairie and I-39/90/94 south of the interchange. The diamond interchange would be mixed in with free flow ramps for local traffic. I'm on with the design. It gives high speed ramps to the ramps that are needed, replaces the loop ramp from south US 151, and E. Washington has signals any ways so it's ok for traditional ramps for local traffic.

[hobsini2]

Forcing US-151 thru traffic to stop at the interchange with 39/90/94 cannot be an option. There's way too much traffic. To me, the obvious choice is building a flyover from 151 SB to 39/90/94 SB.

Absolutely agree. US 151 on both the northeast end and southwest end of Madison are practically regionally freeways and should be treated as such with free flow ramps to divert traffic off of the local roads inside of the Interstate and Beltline. I actually could see 151 being converted to interstate standards between Dubuque and Fond du Lac sometime in the next 20 years.

[SEWIGuy]

I think US-151 between Madison and FdL is the most logical next interstate in Wisconsin.

[skluth]

I think US-151 between Madison and FdL is the most logical next interstate in Wisconsin.

Nothing else in Wisconsin needs to be interstate though upgrading US 151 to freeway to Beaver Dam would be useful (though it would destroy access to Schultz's Cheese Shop, my favorite little cheese stop along the highway between Green Bay and Madison). I'd rather have a better connection between WI 26 and US 151 rather than two lane CTH A.

[thspfc]

I think US-151 between Madison and FdL is the most logical next interstate in Wisconsin.

Traffic counts don't support it past Beaver Dam. And certainly not past WI-26.

[midwesternroadguy]

A couple of clarifications regarding the discussion of the I 39/90/94 study alternatives.: First, it is the East Towne (not East Town) area. Secondly, it's East Washington Avenue (not street or boulevard), no one in Madison says just Washington. E. Washington Ave. and W. Washington Ave. are almost considered to be separate streets divided by the Capitol Square.

Regarding the alternatives, I like the suggestion of the northbound bypass for US 12 to WB I-90 at the ramp terminal stoplights at exit 92 at Lake Delton a la S. Park St. at the Beltline. However, this may be short-lived. Once the Sauk City bypass is ever constructed, I imagine the additional traffic will warrant a free flow system interchange at I-90.

I also like the alignment of the northbound offramp at STH 19 aligning with County Trunk CV.

I don't care for removing the trumpet at STH 13 at the Dells.

Is the redo of the I-39 split at Cascade Mountain really warranted?  Seems like a lot of effort for little benefit.

[thspfc]

A couple of clarifications regarding the discussion of the I 39/90/94 study alternatives.: First, it is the East Towne (not East Town) area.

This might be the most obnoxious nitpick I've ever seen here.

[mgk920]

A couple of clarifications regarding the discussion of the I 39/90/94 study alternatives.: First, it is the East Towne (not East Town) area.

This might be the most obnoxious nitpick I've ever seen here.

Especially since WisDOT's own maps in the study website say 'Washington Boulevard'.  That had me confused, too.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

More information on the proposed j-turn on US 18/151 at CTH F is located here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx

[peterj920]

More information on the proposed j-turn on US 18/151 at CTH F is located here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx

There's also a proposed J Turn on County C on US 151 south of Waupun. It's used more than nearby Wis 68 because County C directly connects US 151 with Fox Lake and Wis 68 requires traffic to travel through Waupun.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us151-cintersection/default.aspx

[dvferyance]

More information on the proposed j-turn on US 18/151 at CTH F is located here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us18-bluemounds/default.aspx

Total waste of money. An interchange would be far far better. And is long overdue.

[triplemultiplex]

Penny wise, pound foolish.  How long did those "J-turns" last on WI 29 in western Brown County?  Like 3 years?  Then they got the money to do it correctly.  So yeah the early effort is effectively wasted.

[The Ghostbuster]

Construction of the J-turn at CTH-F is the short-term plan, and an interchange at that location is the long-term plan. I'm sure the US 18/151 corridor will eventually be converted to freeway standards, but it will be a long and slow process, just like the other freeway-conversion studies around the state.

[SEWIGuy]

Construction of the J-turn at CTH-F is the short-term plan, and an interchange at that location is the long-term plan. I'm sure the US 18/151 corridor will eventually be converted to freeway standards, but it will be a long and slow process, just like the other freeway-conversion studies around the state.

Yeah I don't understand the criticism here.  Sure it will eventually be a full interchange.  But they don't have the money for that now, so they may as well improve safety in the short term and do the full thing later.

[JREwing78]

Penny wise, pound foolish.  How long did those "J-turns" last on WI 29 in western Brown County?  Like 3 years?  Then they got the money to do it correctly.  So yeah the early effort is effectively wasted.

Those J-turns on Hwy 29 were poorly planned - I'll grant you that much. This stretch of US-151 is a much better candidate. I highly doubt this section of US-151 is going to grow so much in traffic so quickly that this J-turn will become a waste.