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: Wisconsin notes  (Read 452651 times)

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3604
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 02:19:52 AM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2825 on: January 13, 2020, 12:59:35 PM »

What are the currently anticipated upgrade plans for that part of WI 29 between WI 32/156 and WI 55/160 at Angelica, just southwest of Pulaski in SE Shawano County, particularly at the intersection with Laney Rd?  There are a couple of small retail businesses there that, IMHO, can by economically moved to new buildings by the WI 55/160 interchange and that intersection simply cut off.  I am expecting some new frontage road construction work southeast of there, too.

Are there also any near-term plans for that intersection by that Harley-Davidson dealership between Angelica and Bonduel?

Once the project is complete Wis 29 will be freeway west of I-41 in all of Brown County and the speed limit will most likely be increased to the County Line at St. Augustine St. Wis 156 traffic will then have to use the designated exit. Right now most of the traffic is turning left on Hwy U and using Old 29 to get to Wis 156 because it is shorter.

From that standpoint I can see the wisdom of not having an interchange nor intersection at County 'U', but there should (long term) be a grade separation bridge overcrossing there.  Is WisDOT planning a near term upgrade at the intersection turn on WI 156 at Old WI 29 just south of WI 29/32 there (ie, a roundabout)?

Mike
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2826 on: January 13, 2020, 04:05:08 PM »

Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1189
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:06 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2827 on: February 16, 2020, 07:45:55 AM »

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?
Logged

Dougtone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1560
  • I'm Doug and I approve this message.

  • Age: -4650
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • Last Login: Today at 05:55:11 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2828 on: February 16, 2020, 09:52:11 AM »

Come visit the wonderful Smith Rapids Covered Bridge over the South Fork of the Flambeau River in Price County, Wisconsin. It's located on Rustic Road 105 near Fifield.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/smith-rapids-covered-bridge.html

peterj920

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 740
  • Location: Green Bay, WI
  • Last Login: March 21, 2020, 08:48:52 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2829 on: February 17, 2020, 01:18:22 AM »

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to “recycle” numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list. 
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1189
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:06 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2830 on: February 17, 2020, 05:49:22 AM »

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to “recycle” numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list. 



Right. But that doesn’t necessarily preclude why that’s specific number was chosen. Of course it might have been one of a few available.

Anyway it was an interesting story by someone who knows those kind of things.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2831 on: February 17, 2020, 03:37:53 PM »

Also, prior to 1988, the Highway 172 roadway west of US 41 (now Interstate/US 41) was CTH-GG. It became a 172 extension to supply state highway access to the Austin Straubel International Airport.
Logged

billpa

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 98
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: March 24, 2020, 10:50:40 AM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2832 on: February 18, 2020, 09:30:45 AM »

The Struggle to Mend America’s Rural Roads

 https://nyti.ms/39CDZ2q

Pixel 2

Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1189
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:06 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2833 on: February 21, 2020, 04:53:35 PM »

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3604
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 02:19:52 AM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2834 on: February 22, 2020, 11:01:03 AM »

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike
Logged

fuller523

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7
  • Location: Milwaukee
  • Last Login: March 27, 2020, 03:54:30 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2835 on: February 22, 2020, 07:59:31 PM »

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

Was the 4-lane section between the WI-32/57 merge and Kiel built for I-57 as well?
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1189
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:06 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2836 on: February 22, 2020, 09:36:54 PM »

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

The route of what is now I-43 was determined long before 1974 though right?
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3604
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 02:19:52 AM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2837 on: February 23, 2020, 03:46:38 AM »

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

The route of what is now I-43 was determined long before 1974 though right?

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

Was the 4-lane section between the WI-32/57 merge and Kiel built for I-57 as well?
[/quote]

I am not totally sure on either, except that the straight north-south four lane part was very likely intended to be upgraded to be I-57.  As best that I can tell, that all changed in the early to mid 1970s time frame.  The US 141 corridor was the 'Plan 'B'' for that.  There are many analogies between 'Why wasn't the US 41 corridor originally chosen to be upgraded that way?' and the 'US/CA 99 v. the as-built I-5 corridors in California's Central Valley?' questions.

Mike
Logged

dvferyance

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1214
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: Today at 12:33:00 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2838 on: February 23, 2020, 02:54:41 PM »

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to “recycle” numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.
They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1189
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:06 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2839 on: February 23, 2020, 04:09:09 PM »

No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.
Logged

SSOWorld

  • 'Sconsin
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3282
  • Interstate <Make up your mind!>

  • Age: 46
  • Location: MAH House!
  • Last Login: Today at 05:55:46 AM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2840 on: February 23, 2020, 07:30:33 PM »

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to “recycle” numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.
They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.
Why change a number just to match an adjoining state's number?

'sides, IDOT doesn't cooperate with anyone so why should WisDOT "help" them?
Logged
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ssoworld-roads/

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

Big John

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2047
  • Age: 52
  • Last Login: Today at 11:44:36 AM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2841 on: February 23, 2020, 09:41:30 PM »

BTW, IL 84 was IL 80 before I-80 was built.
Logged

paulthemapguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4882
  • That's not how it works...

  • Age: 30
  • Location: Illinois
  • Last Login: Today at 08:49:28 AM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2842 on: February 24, 2020, 12:00:53 AM »

They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

62 is an east-west freeway along the south side of Minneapolis.  That's right.  Minnesota stole the number 62 from Wisconsin so they could use it twice  :-D :-D :pan: :pan:

In any event, 74 is another unused number under 100, but this is treading into Fictional Highways territory anyways.

No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.

That looks like a really difficult statement to prove.  Nobody ever?  A new number for WI-39 isn't a dire need, but it would be nice imo.
Logged
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmhQf3nW
Source Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHskFU42pF
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

Let's make the forum space a good time for everyone.

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1189
  • Last Login: Today at 12:40:06 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2843 on: February 24, 2020, 09:39:25 AM »

They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

62 is an east-west freeway along the south side of Minneapolis.  That's right.  Minnesota stole the number 62 from Wisconsin so they could use it twice  :-D :-D :pan: :pan:

In any event, 74 is another unused number under 100, but this is treading into Fictional Highways territory anyways.

No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.

That looks like a really difficult statement to prove.  Nobody ever?  A new number for WI-39 isn't a dire need, but it would be nice imo.

It would be completely unnecessary.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2844 on: February 24, 2020, 04:11:14 PM »

I don't see them using the numbers 62, 74, 84, or 99 again. I believe there is a fixed amount of state highway mileage allowed within the state. As for renumbering STH-39, that would have happened before the 1990's. When the US Highway system debuted in 1926 (and later), state highways with the same number had to be renumbered. Same as when the Interstates debuted in 1956 (and Interstate 43 in 1974). For more information, consult Chris Bessert's Wisconsin Highways webpage: http://wisconsinhighways.org/
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2585
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:33:50 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2845 on: February 24, 2020, 04:17:05 PM »

It would be completely unnecessary.

I agree with you. Anyone who confuses I-39 and WIS 39, or for that matter the MN 62s, is too dumb to drive.
Logged
It sucks that you think where I’m from is whack, but as long as that’s enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

gr8daynegb

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 41
  • Location: Coleman
  • Last Login: March 26, 2020, 02:58:02 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2846 on: February 24, 2020, 05:43:53 PM »

It would be completely unnecessary.

I agree with you. Anyone who confuses I-39 and WIS 39, or for that matter the MN 62s, is too dumb to drive.

Then put in application to put up roads signs.....seems to be a career in putting in US signs for state highways or vice versa lol  :pan: :poke: :sombrero: :spin:
Logged

dvferyance

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1214
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: Today at 12:33:00 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2847 on: February 26, 2020, 03:05:56 PM »

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to “recycle” numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.
They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.
Why change a number just to match an adjoining state's number?

'sides, IDOT doesn't cooperate with anyone so why should WisDOT "help" them?
Just since the number is available. I only suggested using it for the portion of 80 south of 11 which is less than 2 miles long anyways. I would like to see other states do this too if one number is available in one state. For example Virginia could renumber VA-75 to VA-44 to match the 44 in Tennessee since that number is available in Virginia
Logged

GeekJedi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 503
  • Age: 49
  • Location: I-43 & WI 83
  • Last Login: March 21, 2020, 03:25:05 PM
    • The Geek Jedi
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2848 on: February 27, 2020, 02:36:56 PM »

It appears that STH-24 got a promotion! There's another one of these goofs on the mainline.  :-D

Logged
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #2849 on: February 27, 2020, 03:45:18 PM »

That is goofy! I dislike the fact that STH-24 ends at the Milwaukee/Waukesha County line. I know it was truncated there in the late 1980's when 24 between that point and STH-20 in East Troy became CTH-L, but I think 24's western end should have been at another highway, such as the nearby US 45/STH-100 junction.
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.