Wisconsin notes

[thspfc]

^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?

That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?

[thspfc]

A look at Google Maps imagery shows that only northbound traffic uses Marquette north of the Root River. Southbound traffic uses Dr Martin Luther King Drive; streets named after Dr King tend to go through black (or other minority) neighborhoods and a quick check of the Racial Dot Map confirms this. I'd doubt the local residents will be thrilled with more truck traffic; the "only 5% more" in the article would be the same going through downtown where it seems to be more than a 5% impact. It's only a no-brainer if the impacted residents aren't considered, though I agree it looks like the easiest and cheapest solution.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that it would be okay if the area around Marquette Street was primarily white?

[JREwing78]

^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?

That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?

US-12/Hwy 67 has AVERAGE daily traffic ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 vpd (via https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html). It's high enough that WisDOT put a permanent traffic counter in to measure that traffic. That's well within the range justifying 4 lanes.

This area has a high number of summer properties and associated tourist traffic. So frequently, that traffic load is considerably higher. Woe be the poor sucker who has to cross US-12/Hwy 67 during those times. On one occasion. I was trying to follow County ES and was held up for a solid 10 minutes trying to cross US-12/Hwy 67.

WisDOT has a few options to address it. The do-nothing option is becoming increasingly untenable.

WisDOT could make a 4-lane boulevard and put in a bunch of traffic lights at the bigger intersections. Given the limited right-of-way and current development near the highway, that's an expensive undertaking. It also slows traffic and takes away from the rural, scenic character of the area.

Much of the traffic choking this stretch is not local tourist traffic - it's regional traffic trying to go elsewhere - for instance, Whitewater. There's a large UW campus there. There's also considerable manufacturing presence there, including Generac.

The so-called "Corner Cut" takes this regional traffic off the existing US-12/Hwy 67. Now the traffic on that road is primarily people with a local destination. Take 4,000 to 5,000 vpd off that stretch (a not unreasonable assumption), and you've fixed a lot of problems without having to widen the existing road. A Super-2 highway on 4-lane right-of-way (much like the Whitewater bypass or the Hwy 11 Janesville bypass) will solve a lot of traffic headaches in the area for decades, and make things easier later on if a widening is eventually necessary.

It's costs are a drop in the bucket compared with the costs of widening the Beltline or widening I-94 in Milwaukee. 10 miles of 2-lane highway on new ROW in a rural area isn't going to bust WisDOT's budget, especially considering some of the other area projects they've built (Hwy 26, Burlington bypass, etc). Ignoring this isn't going to magically free up cash that makes a dent in the Beltline's traffic issues.

[thspfc]

^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?

That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?

US-12/Hwy 67 has AVERAGE daily traffic ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 vpd (via https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html). It's high enough that WisDOT put a permanent traffic counter in to measure that traffic. That's well within the range justifying 4 lanes.

There are several other two lane roads in the state with a higher VPD and more potential for that VPD to increase. For instance, WI-19 between Windsor and Waunakee. For a decade that was a traditional two lane road with counts approaching 20,000. Now it is being widened but only from Windsor to River Road. Windsor and Waunakee are two of the state's fastest growing communities. Why should US-12 take precedent there? There are other roads just within that part of the state that have higher counts than US-12. US-14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. WI-113 between CTH-M and WI-19. I could go on.

[jwags]

^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?

That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?

US-12/Hwy 67 has AVERAGE daily traffic ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 vpd (via https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html). It's high enough that WisDOT put a permanent traffic counter in to measure that traffic. That's well within the range justifying 4 lanes.

There are several other two lane roads in the state with a higher VPD and more potential for that VPD to increase. For instance, WI-19 between Windsor and Waunakee. For a decade that was a traditional two lane road with counts approaching 20,000. Now it is being widened but only from Windsor to River Road. Windsor and Waunakee are two of the state's fastest growing communities. Why should US-12 take precedent there? There are other roads just within that part of the state that have higher counts than US-12. US-14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. WI-113 between CTH-M and WI-19. I could go on.

I think the design of US-12 should be considered here. The stretch of road north form Elkhorn is full of hills and blind curves. The side roads also have a lot of cross traffic which creates conflicts at intersections.

[skluth]

A look at Google Maps imagery shows that only northbound traffic uses Marquette north of the Root River. Southbound traffic uses Dr Martin Luther King Drive; streets named after Dr King tend to go through black (or other minority) neighborhoods and a quick check of the Racial Dot Map confirms this. I'd doubt the local residents will be thrilled with more truck traffic; the "only 5% more" in the article would be the same going through downtown where it seems to be more than a 5% impact. It's only a no-brainer if the impacted residents aren't considered, though I agree it looks like the easiest and cheapest solution.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that it would be okay if the area around Marquette Street was primarily white?

No. I'm saying the planners have two different stories; one story to the Marquette neighborhood residents and a different one to everyone else. This is similar to freeway planners in earlier times telling of all the wonderful development produced by ramming a freeway through the middle of urban neighborhoods when those freeways often destroyed neighborhoods in cities (e.g., New Orleans Treme, Detroit Paradise Valley, etc.), a main reason behind the freeway revolts of the 60's and 70's.

The article doesn't state if there was any local opposition by Marquette residents in the town hall. I have a difficult time believing there was no local opposition.

Again, two different stories for two different audiences. Planners are saying how all the truck traffic is clogging downtown, yet moving that same traffic will only be a drop in the bucket to the neighborhood. I'm calling "shenanigans" like the kids on South Park.

[gr8daynegb]

^ Because it would be easier to start over with a new corridor rather than try to fix the existing north-south section of US 12, particularly in regards to access management?

That's not what I want to know. I want to know, why is ANY work on US-12 necessary?

I know, it takes us away from our true purpose here of discussing projects on US 41 in the state...... 

[JREwing78]

There are several other two lane roads in the state with a higher VPD and more potential for that VPD to increase. For instance, WI-19 between Windsor and Waunakee. For a decade that was a traditional two lane road with counts approaching 20,000. Now it is being widened but only from Windsor to River Road. Windsor and Waunakee are two of the state's fastest growing communities. Why should US-12 take precedent there? There are other roads just within that part of the state that have higher counts than US-12. US-14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. WI-113 between CTH-M and WI-19. I could go on.

Point being?

WisDOT has plenty of needs. US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater is just one of them. That need isn't negated because there happens to be other ares with greater need. But you've aptly described why this particular section has been passed over for upgrades.

Perhaps with projects like I-39/90 winding down, there will be funds available to move some of these projects forward.

[thspfc]

There are several other two lane roads in the state with a higher VPD and more potential for that VPD to increase. For instance, WI-19 between Windsor and Waunakee. For a decade that was a traditional two lane road with counts approaching 20,000. Now it is being widened but only from Windsor to River Road. Windsor and Waunakee are two of the state's fastest growing communities. Why should US-12 take precedent there? There are other roads just within that part of the state that have higher counts than US-12. US-14 between Middleton and Cross Plains. WI-113 between CTH-M and WI-19. I could go on.

Point being?

WisDOT has plenty of needs. US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater is just one of them. That need isn't negated because there happens to be other ares with greater need. But you've aptly described why this particular section has been passed over for upgrades.

Perhaps with projects like I-39/90 winding down, there will be funds available to move some of these projects forward.

If WISDOT has so many funds available and US-12 is in such a big need for an upgrade, then why isn't there serious talk about doing that? The point is, you can't do everything. There might be a road here or there that could use an upgrade but isn't getting one. Use WI-23 between FDL and Plymouth as an example. That road was in need of an upgrade for at least a decade. That project has barely started. We're just going to need to live with having to drive like four extra miles on that stretch of US-12.

[hobsini2]

Right. You can't do EVERYTHING, thspfc. No one is saying you can. But ignoring a problem that has existed in the last 20 years is no solution either. You rattled off a ton of projects in and around Dane County that should be done. Are you going to tell us that US 12, a freaking US Highway that does not parallel an interstate in that part of the state, should be a lower priority than Wis 113 which does have 39/90/94 within a few miles and a 4 lane US 12 within a few miles in the other direction? As much as you may want to believe that 12 is not a regional road, it is. And the traffic volume indicates that.

Doing US 12 as a Super 2 rural boulevard between Elkhorn and Whitewater with ROW for 4 lanes would push that need for anymore upgrades to US 12 back a few decades.

[thspfc]

Right. You can't do EVERYTHING, thspfc. No one is saying you can. But ignoring a problem that has existed in the last 20 years is no solution either. You rattled off a ton of projects in and around Dane County that should be done. Are you going to tell us that US 12, a freaking US Highway that does not parallel an interstate in that part of the state, should be a lower priority than Wis 113 which does have 39/90/94 within a few miles and a 4 lane US 12 within a few miles in the other direction? As much as you may want to believe that 12 is not a regional road, it is. And the traffic volume indicates that.

Doing US 12 as a Super 2 rural boulevard between Elkhorn and Whitewater with ROW for 4 lanes would push that need for anymore upgrades to US 12 back a few decades.

The traffic flows and patterns of the roads I mentioned are distinct and not impacted by the presence of more important roads nearby. Neither is US-12. I don't doubt that US-12 is a regional road. Just because it is a US highway doesn't mean anything (example: WI-26).

[I-39]

Ok, so far I've seen both four lanes is needed on US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater, yet, US 12 can do with a new super 2 initially. Which is it?

How about if we want to continue this discussion, we resurrect this thread so we don't keep spamming the Wisconsin thread with this?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16338.0

[TheGrassGuy]

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2532479,-92.6973194,3a,15y,129.96h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNa4waJkCkUSWm0JHAQocQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Wisconsin has ATV highways?! (Wonder what that little yellow sign says too...)

[jwags]

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2532479,-92.6973194,3a,15y,129.96h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNa4waJkCkUSWm0JHAQocQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Wisconsin has ATV highways?! (Wonder what that little yellow sign says too...)

Each municipality is allowed to designate certain roads as ATV routes. That yellow sign says that ATVs must remain on the pavement.

[peterj920]

What Madison really needs is some sort of alternative to the Beltline (whether parallel or improving N/S access), but geography and politics make that possibility well beyond impossible.

The cities of Madison and Middleton are working to upgrade Pleasant View Rd to 4 lanes between US 14 and County M/Junction Rd and is scheduled between 2022-2026. The plans can be found on the City of Madison website. The County M section of Pleasant View Rd was upgraded to 4-6 lanes between Verona and Junction Rd.

County PD/McKee Rd is now 4 lanes between Northern Lights Rd and County D/Fish Hatchery Rd. Those 2 routes are Beltline Alternatives. Between Fish Hatchery Rd and I-39/I-90, wetlands and Lake Waubesa prevent an alternate route from being built. That section needs an alternate route the most since The Beltline is the only continuous east/west route in the area.

[TheGrassGuy]

Olive Street in Alma might actually be steeper than Baldwin Street

EDIT: Alma actually has a lot of these

EDIT 2: What the... ?

[jakeroot]

Olive Street in Alma might actually be steeper than Baldwin Street

That's not too unusual. In grid cities with steep areas, some parts of the grid are too steep for vehicles, so they became pedestrian-only routes, typically utilizing stairs. Seattle has a ton of these (example here). Though unlike that Alma example, those in Seattle are marked with pedestrian symbols on the street blade to indicate a pedestrian-only road (which is really not a road but actually just a small path, but it remains part of the grid).

[TheGrassGuy]

Olive Street in Alma might actually be steeper than Baldwin Street

That's not too unusual. In grid cities with steep areas, some parts of the grid are too steep for vehicles, so they became pedestrian-only routes, typically utilizing stairs. Seattle has a ton of these (example here). Though unlike that Alma example, those in Seattle are marked with pedestrian symbols on the street blade to indicate a pedestrian-only road (which is really not a road but actually just a small path, but it remains part of the grid).

Is signing pedestrian-only routes as if they were actually drivable streets unusual?

[Rothman]

Olive Street in Alma might actually be steeper than Baldwin Street

That's not too unusual. In grid cities with steep areas, some parts of the grid are too steep for vehicles, so they became pedestrian-only routes, typically utilizing stairs. Seattle has a ton of these (example here). Though unlike that Alma example, those in Seattle are marked with pedestrian symbols on the street blade to indicate a pedestrian-only road (which is really not a road but actually just a small path, but it remains part of the grid).

Is signing pedestrian-only routes as if they were actually drivable streets unusual?

I don't think so.  I'm thinking San Francisco.

[thspfc]

IMO if they're not drivable by car then they're paths, not streets. It's the 21st century and cars rule. So anyone know what the steepest actual street is in WI?

[kphoger]

IMO if they're not drivable by car then they're paths, not streets. It's the 21st century and cars rule.

It's the 21st century, and plenty of cities have designated some downtown and trendy-area streets as pedestrian-only.  It's the 21 century and cars don't rule everywhere.

[jakeroot]

IMO if they're not drivable by car then they're paths, not streets. It's the 21st century and cars rule.

It's the 21st century, and plenty of cities have designated some downtown and trendy-area streets as pedestrian-only.  It's the 21 century and cars don't rule everywhere.

Nail on the head. Cars don't need access to every street. Particularly those that they couldn't possible traverse anyways. Doesn't mean that street can't be signed as part of the grid.

[thspfc]

IMO if they're not drivable by car then they're paths, not streets. It's the 21st century and cars rule.

It's the 21st century, and plenty of cities have designated some downtown and trendy-area streets as pedestrian-only.  It's the 21 century and cars don't rule everywhere.

Nail on the head. Cars don't need access to every street. Particularly those that they couldn't possible traverse anyways. Doesn't mean that street can't be signed as part of the grid.

Seeing the definition of "street", you're right. So my question is, what is the steepest street in WI that is drivable by car?

[peterj920]

The TPC met today to discuss potential new projects today. They recommended dropping I-94 expansion in St. Croix Co and US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater from majors consideration. They recommended studying expanding I-90/I-94 between Wis Dells and Madison again and reviving I-94 in Milwaukee.

They're approving a new Wisconsin River Bridge for over $100
Million on I-39/90/94 and US 51 mostly as a 2 lane reconstruct between McFarland and I-39/I-90. In short no new "exciting"  projects.

[I-39]

The TPC met today to discuss potential new projects today. They recommended dropping I-94 expansion in St. Croix Co and US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater from majors consideration. They recommended studying expanding I-90/I-94 between Wis Dells and Madison again and reviving I-94 in Milwaukee.

They're approving a new Wisconsin River Bridge for over $100
Million on I-39/90/94 and US 51 mostly as a 2 lane reconstruct between McFarland and I-39/I-90. In short no new "exciting"  projects.

I-90/94 between the Dells and Madison and I-94/Milwaukee should have never been dropped in the first place. That was a head scratcher to say the least.

What about a Sauk City bypass on US 12? Surely, that ought to gain some traction now that the restriction has been lifted and the need is there.

Is there a list of meeting minutes anywhere?