WISDOT illogical new signs

[peterj920]

It seems like WISDOT is updating signs and a lot of them do not make sense particularly along Wis 32/57 south of De Pere. The signs would point to either Chilton or Milwaukee which made sense. The sign at County PP had both cities but now only has Hilbert.


 Now all the signs point to Hilbert only which has 1200 people. Chilton is the county seat and has 4000 people. Why is it being omitted in favor of Hilbert?

South of Greenleaf the mileage sign listed Hilbert, Chilton, and Milwaukee. Now it has Hilbert, Plymouth, and Port Washington. What made WISDOT replace Milwaukee with Port Washington? I doubt anyone is following Wis 32 from Greenleaf to Port Washington.

Year ago my hometown Brillion was on a sign but omitted for Potter only which has only 250 people. What is driving the sign changes?

[kphoger]

South of Greenleaf the mileage sign listed Hilbert, Chilton, and Milwaukee. Now it has Hilbert, Plymouth, and Port Washington. What made WISDOT replace Milwaukee with Port Washington? I doubt anyone is following Wis 32 from Greenleaf to Port Washington.

I doubt anyone is following Wis 32 from Greenleaf to Milwaukee either.  And, anyway, nobody is taking either 32 or 57 to any point south of Port Washington without jumping on I-43, right?  Maybe WisDOT just figures nobody really needs to know mileage past where they get on the Interstate.

[SEWIGuy]

Now all the signs point to Hilbert only which has 1200 people. Chilton is the county seat and has 4000 people. Why is it being omitted in favor of Hilbert?

Eliminating Milwaukee there makes perfect sense. That hasn't been the preferred route between De Pere and Milwaukee for decades. Replacing Hilbert with Chilton is probably just because it's comes first.

South of Greenleaf the mileage sign listed Hilbert, Chilton, and Milwaukee. Now it has Hilbert, Plymouth, and Port Washington. What made WISDOT replace Milwaukee with Port Washington? I doubt anyone is following Wis 32 from Greenleaf to Port Washington.

I doubt anyone is following WI-32 from Greeleaf to Milwaukee either.

[SEWIGuy]

South of Greenleaf the mileage sign listed Hilbert, Chilton, and Milwaukee. Now it has Hilbert, Plymouth, and Port Washington. What made WISDOT replace Milwaukee with Port Washington? I doubt anyone is following Wis 32 from Greenleaf to Port Washington.

I doubt anyone is following Wis 32 from Greenleaf to Milwaukee either.  And, anyway, nobody is taking either 32 or 57 to any point south of Port Washington without jumping on I-43, right?  Maybe WisDOT just figures nobody really needs to know mileage past where they get on the Interstate.

I would guess that Plymouth is about as far south as anyone is going to go without taking I-43.

[hobsini2]

Now all the signs point to Hilbert only which has 1200 people. Chilton is the county seat and has 4000 people. Why is it being omitted in favor of Hilbert?

Eliminating Milwaukee there makes perfect sense. That hasn't been the preferred route between De Pere and Milwaukee for decades. Replacing Hilbert with Chilton is probably just because it's comes first.

South of Greenleaf the mileage sign listed Hilbert, Chilton, and Milwaukee. Now it has Hilbert, Plymouth, and Port Washington. What made WISDOT replace Milwaukee with Port Washington? I doubt anyone is following Wis 32 from Greenleaf to Port Washington.

I doubt anyone is following WI-32 from Greeleaf to Milwaukee either.

I did back in December coming back from Lambeau Field to avoid the 41 and 43 traffic.

[peterj920]

South of De Pere people will use Wis 57 to get to Milwaukee since I-43 and I-41 take time to get to. Wis 57 was the original proposal for I-43. The remnant of the proposal is the freeway section north of I-43 and the high I-43 south bridge since there was supposed to be a big interchange with the stadium freeway there.

Anyways I bring the signage up because I'm from the area and hardly anyone is going to Hilbert but they are going to Chilton with some Milwaukee traffic on Wis 57, not 32. No one is taking Wis 32 to Port Washington so why list it?

Everyone calls the route 57 and no one calls it 32 since it was tacked on to get rid of the irrelevant stretch between De Pere and Reedsville. It's also noted that Wis 57 is a 2030 connector route between US 10 and I-43 along with a part of the National Highway System.

[SEWIGuy]

South of De Pere people will use Wis 57 to get to Milwaukee since I-43 and I-41 take time to get to. Wis 57 was the original proposal for I-43. The remnant of the proposal is the freeway section north of I-43 and the high I-43 south bridge since there was supposed to be a big interchange with the stadium freeway there.

Anyways I bring the signage up because I'm from the area and hardly anyone is going to Hilbert but they are going to Chilton with some Milwaukee traffic on Wis 57, not 32. No one is taking Wis 32 to Port Washington so why list it?

Everyone calls the route 57 and no one calls it 32 since it was tacked on to get rid of the irrelevant stretch between De Pere and Reedsville. It's also noted that Wis 57 is a 2030 connector route between US 10 and I-43 along with a part of the National Highway System.

What am I missing? You have to drive right past Port Washington to get to Milwaukee on WI-57. And you have to drive right through Hilbert to get to Chilton.

And by the way, how do you know that people aren't going to Hilbert but they are going to Chilton?

[peterj920]

South of De Pere people will use Wis 57 to get to Milwaukee since I-43 and I-41 take time to get to. Wis 57 was the original proposal for I-43. The remnant of the proposal is the freeway section north of I-43 and the high I-43 south bridge since there was supposed to be a big interchange with the stadium freeway there.

Anyways I bring the signage up because I'm from the area and hardly anyone is going to Hilbert but they are going to Chilton with some Milwaukee traffic on Wis 57, not 32. No one is taking Wis 32 to Port Washington so why list it?

Everyone calls the route 57 and no one calls it 32 since it was tacked on to get rid of the irrelevant stretch between De Pere and Reedsville. It's also noted that Wis 57 is a 2030 connector route between US 10 and I-43 along with a part of the National Highway System.

What am I missing? You have to drive right past Port Washington to get to Milwaukee on WI-57. And you have to drive right through Hilbert to get to Chilton.

And by the way, how do you know that people aren't going to Hilbert but they are going to Chilton?

Wis 57 doesn't go through Port Washington at all but Wis 32 does. Yes you have to go through Hilbert to get to Chilton but why would a city of 1200 get signing priority of a city of over 4000 that's a county seat which is only 6 miles further south?

[SEWIGuy]

South of De Pere people will use Wis 57 to get to Milwaukee since I-43 and I-41 take time to get to. Wis 57 was the original proposal for I-43. The remnant of the proposal is the freeway section north of I-43 and the high I-43 south bridge since there was supposed to be a big interchange with the stadium freeway there.

Anyways I bring the signage up because I'm from the area and hardly anyone is going to Hilbert but they are going to Chilton with some Milwaukee traffic on Wis 57, not 32. No one is taking Wis 32 to Port Washington so why list it?

Everyone calls the route 57 and no one calls it 32 since it was tacked on to get rid of the irrelevant stretch between De Pere and Reedsville. It's also noted that Wis 57 is a 2030 connector route between US 10 and I-43 along with a part of the National Highway System.

What am I missing? You have to drive right past Port Washington to get to Milwaukee on WI-57. And you have to drive right through Hilbert to get to Chilton.

And by the way, how do you know that people aren't going to Hilbert but they are going to Chilton?

Wis 57 doesn't go through Port Washington at all but Wis 32 does. Yes you have to go through Hilbert to get to Chilton but why would a city of 1200 get signing priority of a city of over 4000 that's a county seat which is only 6 miles further south?

Point granted on Port Washington.

But I think Hilbert was simply added because it's the next larger city along the way. It's not about priority - it's just what's next.

[peterj920]

I'm also noticing that WISDOT is going away from listing 3 cities on mileage signs on 2 lane roads unless there is a multiplex of highways. I noticed this on US 10 between Appleton and Manitowoc. A new sign took away Whitelaw for no apparent reason.

I'm also disappointed northeast of Fond Du Lac on US 151 there used to be mileage signs for Madison and now it's just Fond Du Lac. I do use US 151 to go to Madison in that area by using a combination of Wis 55, County M, US 10, and Wis 57 to visit friends/family between the east side of De Pere and Madison. That route has me avoid Wis 26, I-41 construction, and driving through De Pere. If the new bridge opens I'll provably take I-41.

[wanderer2575]

I wonder if all this has to do with new guidelines to reduce information overload and increase information spreading.  As a non-Wisconsin example, there is an upcoming sign replacement project along US-127 in Clare County MI and some of the changes are real head-scratchers.  I exchanged e-mails with a regional engineer about the US-127 project and he indicated the new guidelines are being incorporated into the Michigan MUTCD.  Perhaps the same is happening with the Wisconsin MUTCD.

[peterj920]

I wonder if all this has to do with new guidelines to reduce information overload and increase information spreading.  As a non-Wisconsin example, there is an upcoming sign replacement project along US-127 in Clare County MI and some of the changes are real head-scratchers.  I exchanged e-mails with a regional engineer about the US-127 project and he indicated the new guidelines are being incorporated into the Michigan MUTCD.  Perhaps the same is happening with the Wisconsin MUTCD.

Even with that why is more important info being replaced with less important info? Freeways and expressways are signed really well. It's the 2 lane highways that have the questionable signing. No one is driving to Port Washington on Wis 32 south of Greenleaf, but that replaced a mileage sign for Milwaukee which some motorists travel to on Wis 57. And Chilton should get priority over Hilbert since the city is nearly 4 times the size and the county seat.

I'd also like to know if there are people behind the scenes that influence signing certain cities? I did see on this forum that Lancaster seems to get more signage than usual for a city that size. There is a rich person in Hilbert that puts a lot of money into the small town and promotes it. I wonder if he has anything to do with the signage changes? I should also add on US 10 at Wis 57, the southbound city changed 3 times with the last 3 signs. It was Chilton, then Milwaukee, and now Hilbert.

[SEWIGuy]

I think your are putting way more thought into this than it's worth.

[thspfc]

I wonder if all this has to do with new guidelines to reduce information overload and increase information spreading.  As a non-Wisconsin example, there is an upcoming sign replacement project along US-127 in Clare County MI and some of the changes are real head-scratchers.  I exchanged e-mails with a regional engineer about the US-127 project and he indicated the new guidelines are being incorporated into the Michigan MUTCD.  Perhaps the same is happening with the Wisconsin MUTCD.

Even with that why is more important info being replaced with less important info? Freeways and expressways are signed really well. It's the 2 lane highways that have the questionable signing. No one is driving to Port Washington on Wis 32 south of Greenleaf, but that replaced a mileage sign for Milwaukee which some motorists travel to on Wis 57. And Chilton should get priority over Hilbert since the city is nearly 4 times the size and the county seat.

I'd also like to know if there are people behind the scenes that influence signing certain cities? I did see on this forum that Lancaster seems to get more signage than usual for a city that size. There is a rich person in Hilbert that puts a lot of money into the small town and promotes it. I wonder if he has anything to do with the signage changes? I should also add on US 10 at Wis 57, the southbound city changed 3 times with the last 3 signs. It was Chilton, then Milwaukee, and now Hilbert.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2124434,-88.1571894,3a,15y,92.25h,90.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKdDBNkAbjk0fp264yGkjuw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.08467302752727335%26panoid%3DKdDBNkAbjk0fp264yGkjuw%26yaw%3D92.25401493023776!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2107,-88.1542777,3a,43y,217.03h,91.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSKV_7IB_lchav5HOdziodg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-1.9222736398842812%26panoid%3DSKV_7IB_lchav5HOdziodg%26yaw%3D217.02760142945607!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

You're saying that this is illogical? Hilbert is 5 miles away with 1250 people. Chilton is 12 miles away with 3700 people. Chilton is 3x the population but more than double the distance . . . given that it's a rural two lane highway, to me WISDOT got it right.

[kphoger]

why is more important info being replaced with less important info?

Because your definition of 'more important' is not universal.

[SEWIGuy]

There is a rich person in Hilbert that puts a lot of money into the small town and promotes it. I wonder if he has anything to do with the signage changes?

To be honest, I know the guy in Hilbert you are talking about, and since he made most of his money in the bridge contruction business, and contracts from WIDOT, it did cross my mind!

[kphoger]

Freeways and expressways are signed really well. It's the 2 lane highways that have the questionable signing.

I don't expect signage practices on two-lane highways to be the same as divided highways, because traffic patterns are likely to be different.  Presumably, traffic on minor highways is more likely to have a nearer destination than on major highways, so it makes sense for signage practice to adhere to that.

No one is driving to Port Washington on Wis 32 south of Greenleaf, but that replaced a mileage sign for Milwaukee which some motorists travel to on Wis 57.

Accommodating 'some motorists' may be less desirable than accommodating others.

As an analogy in Illinois:  Where IL-15 and IL-13 diverge on the south side of Freeburg, some motorists are traveling to Carbondale.  I know I certainly have.  The mileage sign there has New Athens and Pinckneyville, even though the latter has a fifth the population of Carbondale.  But that's perfectly fine:  New Athens is the next town down the road, and Pinckneyville is still a worthy control city.  Carbondale doesn't need to be on the mileage sign there, even though 'some motorists' are headed there.

And Chilton should get priority over Hilbert since the city is nearly 4 times the size and the county seat.

meh.  maybe.

But Hilbert comes first and, importantly in my opinion, is the location of a state highway junction.

I should also add on US 10 at Wis 57, the southbound city changed 3 times with the last 3 signs. It was Chilton, then Milwaukee, and now Hilbert.

See, they put Milwaukee on it and then decided that was a bad idea. 


Out of curiosity, does it also bother you that the mileage sign heading northwest on WI-32 out of Howards Grove has De Pere instead of Green Bay?

[GeekJedi]

There is a rich person in Hilbert that puts a lot of money into the small town and promotes it. I wonder if he has anything to do with the signage changes?

To be honest, I know the guy in Hilbert you are talking about, and since he made most of his money in the bridge contruction business, and contracts from WIDOT, it did cross my mind!

I would think that if that guy is as big of a wheel as you say, he'd go for something a little bigger than a mileage sign that is actually useful to motorists.

[SEWIGuy]

There is a rich person in Hilbert that puts a lot of money into the small town and promotes it. I wonder if he has anything to do with the signage changes?

To be honest, I know the guy in Hilbert you are talking about, and since he made most of his money in the bridge contruction business, and contracts from WIDOT, it did cross my mind!

I would think that if that guy is as big of a wheel as you say, he'd go for something a little bigger than a mileage sign that is actually useful to motorists.

Not this guy. He's a delightful and charitable man, but has never lived anywhere but Hilbert. A mileage sign would be right in his wheelhouse, especially since he drives up to Green Bay often.

[hobsini2]

That's just too funny.

[peterj920]

The mileage signs for Hilbert are fine, I don't think it's worthy of replacing it as a control city over Chilton or Milwaukee. Port Washington on the mileage signs make no sense at all. Wis 32 is only routed the way it is because it's the 32nd division highway and has to run the length of the state by law. Prior to it being a memorial highway Wis 42 continued south of Howards Grove to the Illinois state line which made more sense.

Some other signs I take issue with are no mileage signs for Madison between Prairie Du Chien and Dodgeville on US 18 eventhough there's mileage signs in Iowa and on Wis 93 south of Eau Claire, there's no mileage signs for La Crosse after being listed as a control city for the US 53 exit.

[hobsini2]

In my old stomping grounds of Central Wisconsin, I noticed on a recent trip up there that WISDOT has changed a number of the mileage signs along Wis 23 starting in Green Lake to I-39. They have made Wis Dells the primary control leaving each town and city instead of just the one off sign leaving Ripon until you got to I-39. I like that idea of having Wis Dells as a primary. However, leaving Montello, there used to be a sign that said Oxford 8. Now, it only says "Wis Dells 32". No mention of Oxford at all even. Not even a mention of it on a directional sign at I-39 when Wis 23 joins the interstate. Grant that Wis 23 does not go to Oxford however the road becomes Wis 82 at I-39 and goes to Oxford 5 miles down the road. They had that sign back in 2018 but it's gone.

It is cool that in the other direction, the sign that used to say only "Montello 8" now says "Montello 7,
Fond du Lac 54". In fact they added Fond du Lac as the primary control for 23 heading east out of each city. But leaving Princeton where Wis 23 is cosigned with Wis 73, they replace "Green Lake 8, Randolph 25" with "Green Lake 8, Fond du Lac 34". So no primary control for Wis 73 South until you get to the split 3 miles down the road then you see "Randolph 22, Columbus 38". I would argue that leaving a city on a cosigned route should automatically be a 3 lined mileage sign even in rural Green Lake County.

Off my soap box.

[kphoger]

Port Washington on the mileage signs make no sense at all.

Again, how does it make less sense than De Pere instead of Green Bay going the other direction from Howards Grove?