AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions  (Read 3470 times)

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11106
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:12:47 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions
« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2020, 04:14:53 PM »

^ The North Shore (of Lake Pontchartrain) is generally considered a separate area from New Orleans, so in that effect your plan would NOT have NOLA served by I-10.  What you're proposing is no different than saying "you don't need both I-41 and I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay...one of those could be a 3di."
It is different. I-41 is longer than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, and I-41 actually connects to other major highways (WI-29, US-10, US-45, US-151), while I-10 doesn't - it's basically just two spurs segmented together.

Note, none of those "other major highways" are Interstates.  And you're incorrect on I-10...it intersects I-55 and the US 90/Future I-49 corridor.

Fundamentally, it is no different.  So if you want to "lay the hate" on I-10, be prepared to receive the hate on I-41.
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1581
  • Last Login: Today at 05:21:56 PM
Re: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions
« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2020, 04:35:54 PM »

The work on 26 was not a waste.

Yes it was.

Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.

I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.

The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.


The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.

I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient.  Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets.  The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.

I lived there for 22 years up until two years ago and their growth was completely manageable with little reason to think that would change significantly. And if youíre driving to Madison you arenít taking WI-26 anyway. Likely not Waukesha either.

Four lanes was overkill and the road hasnít met its traffic projections yet.
*yet. It's been done for what, six years? When WISDOT builds roads, they don't build them for six years in the future, they build them so that they don't have to work on it again for a long time. And I wasn't specifically talking about commuting to Madison or Waukesha. Those commuters are going to go other places too, and 26 is the main road in and out of those places.


"Building them so you don't have to work on it again for a long time" is a terrible strategy.  Upgrading a corridor over time makes a lot more sense because traffic projections may not prove accurate.  Why would you intentionally build a corridor that may not meet projections for years?
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1581
  • Last Login: Today at 05:21:56 PM
Re: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions
« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2020, 04:42:05 PM »

^ The North Shore (of Lake Pontchartrain) is generally considered a separate area from New Orleans, so in that effect your plan would NOT have NOLA served by I-10.  What you're proposing is no different than saying "you don't need both I-41 and I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay...one of those could be a 3di."
It is different. I-41 is longer than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, and I-41 actually connects to other major highways (WI-29, US-10, US-45, US-151), while I-10 doesn't - it's basically just two spurs segmented together.

Note, none of those "other major highways" are Interstates.  And you're incorrect on I-10...it intersects I-55 and the US 90/Future I-49 corridor.

Fundamentally, it is no different.  So if you want to "lay the hate" on I-10, be prepared to receive the hate on I-41.



If either of the two are demoted to a 3di, it should be I-12.  I-410 would serve as a bypass while I-10 goes into the city.  But there is no reason to change either of them now.
Logged

thspfc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 820
  • I-41 for life!

  • Age: 2012
  • Location: Madison, WI metro area
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 08:08:03 AM
Re: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions
« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2020, 06:16:46 PM »

^ The North Shore (of Lake Pontchartrain) is generally considered a separate area from New Orleans, so in that effect your plan would NOT have NOLA served by I-10.  What you're proposing is no different than saying "you don't need both I-41 and I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay...one of those could be a 3di."
It is different. I-41 is longer than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, and I-41 actually connects to other major highways (WI-29, US-10, US-45, US-151), while I-10 doesn't - it's basically just two spurs segmented together.

Note, none of those "other major highways" are Interstates.  And you're incorrect on I-10...it intersects I-55 and the US 90/Future I-49 corridor.

Fundamentally, it is no different.  So if you want to "lay the hate" on I-10, be prepared to receive the hate on I-41.
Lol since when is saying that another segment of a highway is more deserving of a 2di designation laying the hate on the less deserving road? And US-90 and I-55 are more local roads south of I-12. By comparison, WI-29 and US-10, 45, and 151 are regional corridors connecting to other major areas. Plus I-55 could easily be extended into NOLA on current I-10.
Logged
Whoa, he has trouble with the snap

thspfc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 820
  • I-41 for life!

  • Age: 2012
  • Location: Madison, WI metro area
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 08:08:03 AM
Re: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions
« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2020, 06:24:40 PM »

The work on 26 was not a waste.

Yes it was.

Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.

I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.

The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.


The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.

I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient.  Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets.  The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.

I lived there for 22 years up until two years ago and their growth was completely manageable with little reason to think that would change significantly. And if you’re driving to Madison you aren’t taking WI-26 anyway. Likely not Waukesha either.

Four lanes was overkill and the road hasn’t met its traffic projections yet.
*yet. It's been done for what, six years? When WISDOT builds roads, they don't build them for six years in the future, they build them so that they don't have to work on it again for a long time. And I wasn't specifically talking about commuting to Madison or Waukesha. Those commuters are going to go other places too, and 26 is the main road in and out of those places.


"Building them so you don't have to work on it again for a long time" is a terrible strategy.  Upgrading a corridor over time makes a lot more sense because traffic projections may not prove accurate.  Why would you intentionally build a corridor that may not meet projections for years?
It's cheaper and less of a hassle in the long run to err on the side of "overkill" rather than just sufficient for the present day. If you build early, there's plenty of space to make four lanes and interchanges and stuff. If you wait to the last minute, ROW is more difficult to acquire, there's a higher chance of NIMBY's, and there's less space to work with because of surrounding development. Just look at the Watertown bypass. There are new neighborhoods springing up on the west side of Watertown. If the bypass hadn't been completed to its current standard, they'd eventually be boxed in with no room.
Logged
Whoa, he has trouble with the snap

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1581
  • Last Login: Today at 05:21:56 PM
Re: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions
« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2020, 09:13:35 PM »

The four lane ROW for the Fort Atkinson bypass was acquired when the super two was built. They should have done something similar.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 12980
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 08:12:35 PM
Re: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions
« Reply #81 on: July 01, 2020, 09:39:29 AM »











"Building them so you don't have to work on it again for a long time" is a terrible strategy.  Upgrading a corridor over time makes a lot more sense because traffic projections may not prove accurate.  Why would you intentionally build a corridor that may not meet projections for years?
It's cheaper and less of a hassle in the long run to err on the side of "overkill" rather than just sufficient for the present day. If you build early, there's plenty of space to make four lanes and interchanges and stuff. If you wait to the last minute, ROW is more difficult to acquire, there's a higher chance of NIMBY's, and there's less space to work with because of surrounding development.

There's bound to be a middle ground.  Build for projected future growth, but err on the conservative side of that projection.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1155
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
Re: 1963 Wisconsin Proposed Interstate Extensions
« Reply #82 on: July 01, 2020, 05:55:01 PM »

The work on 26 was not a waste.

Yes it was.

Not everything needs to be elaborate Interstate-grade freeway. And since most of the traffic is still local on that corridor, they could have done lessor upgrades like an expressway or a 5 lane undivided highway.
Safety is the #1 factor by far in determining what WISDOT does and what they don't do. Expanding undivided 2-3 lane highways with high traffic counts, like WI-26, has been proven to make them safer by a significant margin. And it's not like WISDOT is throwing cash at every two lane road. WI-26 and US-10 from Stevens Point to Marshfield are the only two that are controversial.

I grew up right off of WI-16/26 and I can say that the improvements have greatly helped traffic in the corridor. I can recall many bad accidents on the stretch between WI-60 and Watertown along with many dangerous hills where people would attempt to pass. Also, traffic in the city of Watertown has been reduced to more reasonable levels due to the bypass. The road handles a good portion of thru truck traffic coming from the fox cities heading toward I-39 in IL.

The issue isn't that WI 26 didn't need improvements. It obviously did. The issue is more the overkill of improvements to WI 26. Bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, and Ft Atkinson are much appreciated. The bypasses didn't need to be four-lane freeways though. Also, one of the worst stretches - WI 26 near the I-94 interchange - is still a mess. I also don't understand the point of the adjacent bike path; I don't object to bike paths but the money spent on that bike path could have built several smaller, more useful bike paths in other places (both locally and around Wisconsin). The overall impression is that a lot of money was wasted on extras for this project when the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
So basically you want to see clones of the US-12 bypass of Whitewater. I think you're pretty much alone in that category.
As for the stretch through Johnson Creek, I agree that they could have done a lot better there.


The Whitewater bypass is a disaster.

I think a clone of the Fort Atkinson bypass prior to the expansion would have been sufficient.  Two lanes with ramps at the major intersections and a few cross streets.  The only place where four lanes were truly needed were between Milton and Janesville.
Four lanes to Watertown and the Watertown bypass were needed as well. You could argue about Fort and Jefferson, but those communities are both growing and will only continue to grow as more jobs pop up in Madison and Waukesha County.

I lived there for 22 years up until two years ago and their growth was completely manageable with little reason to think that would change significantly. And if youíre driving to Madison you arenít taking WI-26 anyway. Likely not Waukesha either.

Four lanes was overkill and the road hasnít met its traffic projections yet.
*yet. It's been done for what, six years? When WISDOT builds roads, they don't build them for six years in the future, they build them so that they don't have to work on it again for a long time. And I wasn't specifically talking about commuting to Madison or Waukesha. Those commuters are going to go other places too, and 26 is the main road in and out of those places.


"Building them so you don't have to work on it again for a long time" is a terrible strategy.  Upgrading a corridor over time makes a lot more sense because traffic projections may not prove accurate.  Why would you intentionally build a corridor that may not meet projections for years?
It's cheaper and less of a hassle in the long run to err on the side of "overkill" rather than just sufficient for the present day. If you build early, there's plenty of space to make four lanes and interchanges and stuff. If you wait to the last minute, ROW is more difficult to acquire, there's a higher chance of NIMBY's, and there's less space to work with because of surrounding development. Just look at the Watertown bypass. There are new neighborhoods springing up on the west side of Watertown. If the bypass hadn't been completed to its current standard, they'd eventually be boxed in with no room.

It's not cheaper in the long term to overbuild, because you have more miles of highway and structures to maintain, adding to the maintenance budget significantly. Not everything needs to be Interstate-grade freeway. Several corridors, most prominently WIS-26, US 10 and US 41/141 north of Abrams could have and should have been, at the max, at-grade expressways with no freeway bypasses. Frankly, WIS 26 could have gotten away with a 5 lane arterial and it would have been fine. WisDOT has proven that their projections can be dubious.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 05:57:19 PM by I-39 »
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.