Madison Area

[SEWIGuy]

Is one year too short of a time for "induced demand" to overwhelm a roadway? The way I've heard induced demand proponents talk about it, as soon as one new road is built, or one existing road is widened: BOOM! It becomes overwhelmed with traffic, allegedly confirming its futility.

You're exaggerating.

[Plutonic Panda]

Is one year too short of a time for "induced demand" to overwhelm a roadway? The way I've heard induced demand proponents talk about it, as soon as one new road is built, or one existing road is widened: BOOM! It becomes overwhelmed with traffic, allegedly confirming its futility.

You're exaggerating.

They always do. When induced demand doesn't result in the freeway being gridlocked there's always some excuse.

[SEWIGuy]

Is one year too short of a time for "induced demand" to overwhelm a roadway? The way I've heard induced demand proponents talk about it, as soon as one new road is built, or one existing road is widened: BOOM! It becomes overwhelmed with traffic, allegedly confirming its futility.

You're exaggerating.

They always do. When induced demand doesn't result in the freeway being gridlocked there's always some excuse.

Anyone who thinks induced demand is instantaneous is wrong. Anyone who thinks induced demand isn't a thing is also wrong.

[Plutonic Panda]

Is one year too short of a time for "induced demand" to overwhelm a roadway? The way I've heard induced demand proponents talk about it, as soon as one new road is built, or one existing road is widened: BOOM! It becomes overwhelmed with traffic, allegedly confirming its futility.

You're exaggerating.

They always do. When induced demand doesn't result in the freeway being gridlocked there's always some excuse.

Anyone who thinks induced demand is instantaneous is wrong. Anyone who thinks induced demand isn't a thing is also wrong.

Correct. And anyone who thinks that it is always a bad thing is wrong.

[triplemultiplex]

Ugh not this boring stupid debate again.  Quit derailing threads with this circular argument.

[Plutonic Panda]

Ugh not this boring stupid debate again.  Quit derailing threads with this circular argument.

Yeah and if the facts were in the opposite direction you wouldn't care about it.

[The Ghostbuster]

Let's get back to discussing Madison Area Projects, and leave arguments about induced demand to another thread.

[mgk920]

Let's get back to discussing Madison Area Projects, and leave arguments about induced demand to another thread.

Why not just do something about those stupid lakes.



Mike

[peterj920]

The Flex Lane has worked very well and it's well designed for rush hour traffic. On my morning commute it's actually turned off eastbound because 70 was the minimum anyone was traveling in that lane. Even without it at 7:15am traffic moves smoothly without the flex lane. The flex lane is open the other direction and there is way more traffic traveling west than east in the morning. The opposite happens in the afternoon.

On my afternoon commute I use the Flex Lane going west and it helps me avoid the Verona Rd off ramp backups that is the root problem for congestion. The ramp is so clogged that traffic backs up onto the mainline.

I have noticed post-COVID there is less traffic during rush hour than before. It can be attributed  to more people working from home. I'm personally commuting 2 days a week less and the parking lot went from being full to half full.

[triplemultiplex]

I have noticed post-COVID there is less traffic during rush hour than before. It can be attributed  to more people working from home. I'm personally commuting 2 days a week less and the parking lot went from being full to half full.

Same.  In fact, way less than half the cars parked there now compared to 2019.  Gotta a lot of telecommuting at our office.  It's a permanent change, too, based on how they rearranged the office space.  I go in about once a week on average.
Though I didn't need to use the beltline on my commute, I can see what traffic is doing as I go over or under it en route to the office.

[peterj920]

Drove on PD by Epic and there's new APL BGS signs approaching Northern Lights Drive and the construction is continuing west on 4 lane expansion. A TIF district or Epic must be paying for the expansion. That project is moving way faster than any inside the City of Madison or Dane County!

[The Ghostbuster]

How far might CTH PD be expanded to four lanes? All the way to US 18/151 (Exit 70, not Exit 83A)?

[peterj920]

How far might CTH PD be expanded to four lanes? All the way to US 18/151 (Exit 70, not Exit 83A)?

It's being expanded to a new road that's going to be another entrance to Epic at a signalized intersection about 2 miles west. After the recent expansion more work was done in the last year to make extremely long dual left turn lanes between Woods Rd and Northern Lights Rd.

Epic just had their annual conference and construction was suspended and 2 lanes were opened up on US 18/US 151 just for that conference. That shows the power of Epic along with the new expanded ramps at Epic Lane and the further expansion of County PD.

[KCRoadFan]

My younger brother lives in Madison, and I'm currently visiting him for the weekend. While we were downtown, he remarked that the Johnson Street/Gorham Street one-way couplet (which University Avenue feeds into coming in from the west) is the unofficial "through-route" traversing the length of the Isthmus (as Washington Avenue, which US 151 follows in the northeast part of the city, is interrupted by Capitol Square), and I remarked that "Why doesn't US 151 come up Park Street to the Johnson/Gorham couplet, and follow that until it meets East Washington?"

Or, even better yet, as it comes into Madison from the south along Verona Road and meets the Beltline, why not just continue up Midvale Boulevard and then turn right on University, continuing into Johnson/Gorham? (Well, either that or just skirt the city on the Beltline and I-90/94 - the point is, just pick either the city streets or the bypass for the routing of US 151, rather than the strange mishmash of both that it follows today.)

Anyway, what do you think?

[SEWIGuy]

It should be placed on the Beltline and interstate. No need to re-route within the city.

[mgk920]

It should be placed on the Beltline and interstate. No need to re-route within the city.

That is my read on the option that WisDOT is studying for redoing the East Towne interchange (I-39/90/94 / Washington Ave US 151) with free flowing ramps pointing northeast on US 151 towards the northeastern part of the state.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

I support Alternative 2 of the US 151 interchange alternatives since I think traffic on US 151 should remain free-flow through the interchange. I would oppose adding a signalized interchange to US 151, and would strongly oppose shifting US 151 traffic to parallel roadways with at-grade intersections.

[dvferyance]

It should be placed on the Beltline and interstate. No need to re-route within the city.

Just what Wisconsin needs even more duplexing.

[Big John]

It should be placed on the Beltline and interstate. No need to re-route within the city.

Just what Wisconsin needs even more duplexing.

Or 4-plexing

[mgk920]

It should be placed on the Beltline and interstate. No need to re-route within the city.

Just what Wisconsin needs even more duplexing.

Or 4-plexing

There already is a US highway quad-plex on the Beltline (US 12-14-18-151).

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

I think US 151 should stay on its existing alignment through Madison. The time to reroute 151 to completely bypass Madison would have in 1955 (when 151 was removed from Nakoma Rd., Monroe St. and Regent St. and shifted to the Beltline between present-day Exits 258 and 261), or in 1961 when Interstates 90 and 94 were completed around Madison.

[SEWIGuy]

I think US 151 should stay on its existing alignment through Madison. The time to reroute 151 to completely bypass Madison would have in 1955 (when 151 was removed from Nakoma Rd., Monroe St. and Regent St. and shifted to the Beltline between present-day Exits 258 and 261), or in 1961 when Interstates 90 and 94 were completed around Madison.

US-151 is a much different route on either side of Madison now. Also I don't think there was "a time"  to relocate. It can be done at anytime.

[peterj920]

The most logical urban route for US 151 would be John Nolen Dr from The Beltline and retain the current alignment on Blair and E. Washington. That would cover Madison's two biggest Downtown gateways. Way more traffic uses John Nolen than Park St to get to Downtown and way easier than following the convoluted route of Park, W. Washington and Proudfit. Fish Hatchery Rd is even shorter than Park and traffic going to W Beltline uses that to get there instead of Park St.

[mgk920]

The most logical urban route for US 151 would be John Nolen Dr from The Beltline and retain the current alignment on Blair and E. Washington. That would cover Madison's two biggest Downtown gateways. Way more traffic uses John Nolen than Park St to get to Downtown and way easier than following the convoluted route of Park, W. Washington and Proudfit. Fish Hatchery Rd is even shorter than Park and traffic going to W Beltline uses that to get there instead of Park St.

Renumber the present routing of US 151 'in' from the freeways to be 'WI 251'?

Mike

[triplemultiplex]

But then US 151 is using an extremely tight, old, crappy loop ramp to continue northbound from the Beltline to Nolen.
Best just move it to the all freeway routing.

There's not that much value in having a route designated through the Isthmus when all the streets are referred to by their proper names instead of route numbers.  If WisDOT insists on having one though, just slap a new state highway number on it.