Wisconsin notes

[mgk920]

If I'm not mistaken, WisDOT is redoing the Stadium Interchange into a DDI as a part of the pending eight-lane upgrades to the I-94 East-West Freeway.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

Yes they are. Brewers Blvd. And the Stadium North Freeway is too short (and probably has not enough traffic) for a freeway-to-freeway interchange to be practical.

[hobsini2]

Yes they are. Brewers Blvd. And the Stadium North Freeway is too short (and probably has not enough traffic) for a freeway-to-freeway interchange to be practical.

And considering that Brewers Blvd/Miller Park Way is where most of the traffic is going, a DDI IMO is a great idea for that new interchange or the "horseshoe interchange (not sure what the official name is)" copied from I-894 & 27th St. But I think the latter has the problem of Mitchell Blvd being too close.

[dvferyance]

The western end of STH 24 was retracted to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980s (old 24, of course, became CTH L). STH 24 probably won't be decommissioned anytime soon, although if it was, STH 241 may have to be truncated to STH 36's eastern terminus.

It should have only been retracted to STH 164 in Big Bend. It would have been a far more logical ending and the part east of Big Bend still gets enough traffic to justify it as a state highway.

[The Ghostbuster]

I believe STH 24 was truncated, and STH 164 was extended to STH 36 at about the same time. So that might've worked.

[US 12 fan]

I didn't hear about this but apparently funding for the I-39-90-94 expansion project was approved in the 2025-2027 Wisconsin State Budget earlier this year. While it's not official, it is believed that it will start in 2029 and then finish in the early 2040's.

https://wtba.org/latest-tpc-report-estimates-i-39-90-94-expansion-to-cost-3-6-billion/

[peterj920]

I didn't hear about this but apparently funding for the I-39-90-94 expansion project was approved in the 2025-2027 Wisconsin State Budget earlier this year. While it's not official, it is believed that it will start in 2029 and then finish in the early 2040's.

https://wtba.org/latest-tpc-report-estimates-i-39-90-94-expansion-to-cost-3-6-billion/

On WISDOT's website they take pride in reconstructing 30 miles of I-90/94 from Portage to Madison from four to six lanes in one year (1984). Over 40 years later reconstruction of that same stretch will take WAY longer.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, what the fuck is up with that timeline?

[mgk920]

Yes they are. Brewers Blvd. And the Stadium North Freeway is too short (and probably has not enough traffic) for a freeway-to-freeway interchange to be practical.

There are ramp meter signals on a few of the existing ramps there, too.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

I wish there was an End STH 175 sign at STH 59.

[dvferyance]

I believe STH 24 was truncated, and STH 164 was extended to STH 36 at about the same time. So that might've worked.

Yeah that's correct also around the same time STH 120 was extended from Lake Geneva to East Troy.

[SEWIGuy]

The western end of STH 24 was retracted to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980s (old 24, of course, became CTH L). STH 24 probably won't be decommissioned anytime soon, although if it was, STH 241 may have to be truncated to STH 36's eastern terminus.

It should have only been retracted to STH 164 in Big Bend. It would have been a far more logical ending and the part east of Big Bend still gets enough traffic to justify it as a state highway.

It feels like a lot of you still don't really understand the point of decommissioning and retaining state highway designations.

[peterj920]

The western end of STH 24 was retracted to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980s (old 24, of course, became CTH L). STH 24 probably won't be decommissioned anytime soon, although if it was, STH 241 may have to be truncated to STH 36's eastern terminus.

It should have only been retracted to STH 164 in Big Bend. It would have been a far more logical ending and the part east of Big Bend still gets enough traffic to justify it as a state highway.

It feels like a lot of you still don't really understand the point of decommissioning and retaining state highway designations.

A big problem is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency with why some state highways remain while others are decommissioned.

Wis 107 between Merrill and County S has to be the least traveled state highway. One stretch only has 90 VPD! Why is it a state highway when US 51 is so close and more direct. Wis 127 only has 300 VPD, and Wis 135 dead ends at the unincorporated community of London. Those highways are a waste to the state highway system.

Also, do segments of Wis 175 and US 12/Wis 16 need to be state highways when they parallel interstates? US 12 could easily be rerouted onto I-94 and parallel segments could be given to the counties.

There's also Wis 26 in Waupun and Wis 73 in Columbus that could be routed on US 151 instead of going through the cities. Most other state highways would be on a bypass in those situations.

[hobsini2]

The western end of STH 24 was retracted to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980s (old 24, of course, became CTH L). STH 24 probably won't be decommissioned anytime soon, although if it was, STH 241 may have to be truncated to STH 36's eastern terminus.

It should have only been retracted to STH 164 in Big Bend. It would have been a far more logical ending and the part east of Big Bend still gets enough traffic to justify it as a state highway.

It feels like a lot of you still don't really understand the point of decommissioning and retaining state highway designations.

A big problem is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency with why some state highways remain while others are decommissioned.

Wis 107 between Merrill and County S has to be the least traveled state highway. One stretch only has 90 VPD! Why is it a state highway when US 51 is so close and more direct. Wis 127 only has 300 VPD, and Wis 135 dead ends at the unincorporated community of London. Those highways are a waste to the state highway system.

Also, do segments of Wis 175 and US 12/Wis 16 need to be state highways when they parallel interstates? US 12 could easily be rerouted onto I-94 and parallel segments could be given to the counties.

There's also Wis 26 in Waupun and Wis 73 in Columbus that could be routed on US 151 instead of going through the cities. Most other state highways would be on a bypass in those situations.

Meanwhile, Dodge County A is just a busy county highway.

[mgk920]

The western end of STH 24 was retracted to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980s (old 24, of course, became CTH L). STH 24 probably won't be decommissioned anytime soon, although if it was, STH 241 may have to be truncated to STH 36's eastern terminus.

It should have only been retracted to STH 164 in Big Bend. It would have been a far more logical ending and the part east of Big Bend still gets enough traffic to justify it as a state highway.

It feels like a lot of you still don't really understand the point of decommissioning and retaining state highway designations.

A big problem is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency with why some state highways remain while others are decommissioned.

Wis 107 between Merrill and County S has to be the least traveled state highway. One stretch only has 90 VPD! Why is it a state highway when US 51 is so close and more direct. Wis 127 only has 300 VPD, and Wis 135 dead ends at the unincorporated community of London. Those highways are a waste to the state highway system.

Also, do segments of Wis 175 and US 12/Wis 16 need to be state highways when they parallel interstates? US 12 could easily be rerouted onto I-94 and parallel segments could be given to the counties.

There's also Wis 26 in Waupun and Wis 73 in Columbus that could be routed on US 151 instead of going through the cities. Most other state highways would be on a bypass in those situations.

WI 26 on Waupun city streets should be decommissioned as a state highway and the north US 151 interchange replaced with a straight across street bridge.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

STH 26 could have been rerouted onto the US 151 bypass when it was completed in 1962, but it remains on its original alignment. STH 33 could have been rerouted to follow the US 151 bypass in Beaver Dam between Exits 132 and 135 (with a short jog along CTH B/Ganske Rd. to reconnect it with its existing alignment). As for STH 73 in Columbus, it too could have been rerouted onto the US 151 bypass between Exits 115 and 120. Since none of those reroutings occurred, they likely won't ever happen.

[GeekJedi]

The western end of STH 24 was retracted to the Milwaukee/Waukesha County Line in the late 1980s (old 24, of course, became CTH L). STH 24 probably won't be decommissioned anytime soon, although if it was, STH 241 may have to be truncated to STH 36's eastern terminus.

It should have only been retracted to STH 164 in Big Bend. It would have been a far more logical ending and the part east of Big Bend still gets enough traffic to justify it as a state highway.

It feels like a lot of you still don't really understand the point of decommissioning and retaining state highway designations.

A big problem is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency with why some state highways remain while others are decommissioned.

Wis 107 between Merrill and County S has to be the least traveled state highway. One stretch only has 90 VPD! Why is it a state highway when US 51 is so close and more direct. Wis 127 only has 300 VPD, and Wis 135 dead ends at the unincorporated community of London. Those highways are a waste to the state highway system.

Also, do segments of Wis 175 and US 12/Wis 16 need to be state highways when they parallel interstates? US 12 could easily be rerouted onto I-94 and parallel segments could be given to the counties.

There's also Wis 26 in Waupun and Wis 73 in Columbus that could be routed on US 151 instead of going through the cities. Most other state highways would be on a bypass in those situations.

They want to keep 175 and 12/16 so that the state can use them as "emergency" routes. It's much easier to do that with state highways since they'll always be kept to a certain standard.

[GeekJedi]

It's just one of those legacy things with banked mileage that they can use when circumstances call for them.

This!

This conversation comes up every few months. WisDOT by law has a maximum amount of mileage they can have. While it generally can't be added to, it can be taken away. The policy has been to "bank" mileage, then decommission certain routes when new mileage is needed. For example, the swap of STH 75 in Racine county for the new STH 195. A lot of these seemingly useless STH designations will go away as WisDOT needs the "mileage".

[peterj920]

It's just one of those legacy things with banked mileage that they can use when circumstances call for them.

This!

This conversation comes up every few months. WisDOT by law has a maximum amount of mileage they can have. While it generally can't be added to, it can be taken away. The policy has been to "bank" mileage, then decommission certain routes when new mileage is needed. For example, the swap of STH 75 in Racine county for the new STH 195. A lot of these seemingly useless STH designations will go away as WisDOT needs the "mileage".

Back in the 1980s in Northeast Wisconsin there were way many subtractions than additions. In Manitowoc County, Wis 310 was added. However, Wis 148, Wis 149, and Wis 32 were all removed, moved or shortened. In nearby counties, Wis 114 was removed from Hilbert to Brillion, Wis 96 was removed east of Denmark, and 10 years later Wis 163 would be removed. That's over 100 miles of state highway in the area removed and there wasn't nearly as many added. The removals did make sense especially Wis 32 since Wis 57 was the much better parallel route and now Wis 32 runs concurrent with Wis 57 between De Pere and Kiel.

[dvferyance]

I see the mile markers on I-41 from Oshkosh to Appleton and in Green Bay have all been replaced. The color has changed from blue to green. The days of the blue signs are numbered.

What a waste of money. Those signs were in no need of replacement for at least another 10 years.

[dvferyance]

It's just one of those legacy things with banked mileage that they can use when circumstances call for them.

This!

This conversation comes up every few months. WisDOT by law has a maximum amount of mileage they can have. While it generally can't be added to, it can be taken away. The policy has been to "bank" mileage, then decommission certain routes when new mileage is needed. For example, the swap of STH 75 in Racine county for the new STH 195. A lot of these seemingly useless STH designations will go away as WisDOT needs the "mileage".

Back in the 1980s in Northeast Wisconsin there were way many subtractions than additions. In Manitowoc County, Wis 310 was added. However, Wis 148, Wis 149, and Wis 32 were all removed, moved or shortened. In nearby counties, Wis 114 was removed from Hilbert to Brillion, Wis 96 was removed east of Denmark, and 10 years later Wis 163 would be removed. That's over 100 miles of state highway in the area removed and there wasn't nearly as many added. The removals did make sense especially Wis 32 since Wis 57 was the much better parallel route and now Wis 32 runs concurrent with Wis 57 between De Pere and Kiel.

Same thing in Ozaukee County in 1995. WI-84 and WI-143 were removed entirely. Then WI-57 was removed from the Cedarburg Grafton area and rerouted onto I-43. The only thing that was added is WI-181 was extended north to WI-60. So the millage in Ozaukee County significantly decreased. I personally would have kept WI-163 WI-96 east of I-43 and the old WI-57 rerouting through Cedarburg and Grafton. The rest I get it. Although when WI-120 and WI-164 were extended and WI-24 was truncated is probably one instance I can think of where more was added then eliminated. Frankly I don't get why they won't even tolerate just a little extra millage in the SE region where much of the state's population is.

[SEWIGuy]

It's just one of those legacy things with banked mileage that they can use when circumstances call for them.

This!

This conversation comes up every few months. WisDOT by law has a maximum amount of mileage they can have. While it generally can't be added to, it can be taken away. The policy has been to "bank" mileage, then decommission certain routes when new mileage is needed. For example, the swap of STH 75 in Racine county for the new STH 195. A lot of these seemingly useless STH designations will go away as WisDOT needs the "mileage".

Back in the 1980s in Northeast Wisconsin there were way many subtractions than additions. In Manitowoc County, Wis 310 was added. However, Wis 148, Wis 149, and Wis 32 were all removed, moved or shortened. In nearby counties, Wis 114 was removed from Hilbert to Brillion, Wis 96 was removed east of Denmark, and 10 years later Wis 163 would be removed. That's over 100 miles of state highway in the area removed and there wasn't nearly as many added. The removals did make sense especially Wis 32 since Wis 57 was the much better parallel route and now Wis 32 runs concurrent with Wis 57 between De Pere and Kiel.

OK. Not sure at all how that is relevant to what is being discussed.

[triplemultiplex]

On WISDOT's website they take pride in reconstructing 30 miles of I-90/94 from Portage to Madison from four to six lanes in one year (1984). Over 40 years later reconstruction of that same stretch will take WAY longer.

Everything is more expensive, they need to maintain 3x3 traffic during most of construction, design standards have changed, traffic volumes have increased (especially around weekends and holidays), there are more funding priorities, the road building and road worker union lobbies are more influential, regulations are more stringent...
Those are just the ones I could come up with on the top of my head.

Then there's just the underlying mentality WisDOT has around these 4-to-6 (or 6-to-8) expansions.  It's 50 or 60 years old; build it to last another 50 years.

Another example: you can squeeze a third lane under an overpass built to span a 2x2.  You can't do that for a fourth lane.  So you've gotta go through and replace overpasses before you start on the mainline.  That's at least two or three construction seasons right there since you can't rip out all those overpasses all at once.  They have to be staged to keep some semblance of connectivity over the interstate during construction.

Same deal for every bridge the freeway crosses.  There's a bit of head start with like WI 60 or the 'Sconnie River which is ongoing.  But there's still dozens of bridges that need to be ripped out and widened in stages just so they can get to the point where they are expanding the mainline itself.

I'm sure in 1984, they could get away with doing 1x1 traffic during construction for long stretches.  Or shunt two lanes over to the right while a third lane gets built in the median.  That won't work this time.

It took a decade to expand 39/90 to 3x3 from Madison to Beloit; I totally expect expanding the triplex to 4x4 to take a decade.

[JREwing78]

I didn't hear about this but apparently funding for the I-39-90-94 expansion project was approved in the 2025-2027 Wisconsin State Budget earlier this year. While it's not official, it is believed that it will start in 2029 and then finish in the early 2040's.

https://wtba.org/latest-tpc-report-estimates-i-39-90-94-expansion-to-cost-3-6-billion/

On WISDOT's website they take pride in reconstructing 30 miles of I-90/94 from Portage to Madison from four to six lanes in one year (1984). Over 40 years later reconstruction of that same stretch will take WAY longer.

The reconstruction this time around is much more comprehensive. They didn't have to replace every overpass for the last widening. They also didn't have to completely rebuild the major system interchanges.

This is going to closely resemble the I-39/90 widening south of the Beltline a few years ago, where literally EVERYTHING was rebuilt from the ground up.

[on_wisconsin]

I didn't hear about this but apparently funding for the I-39-90-94 expansion project was approved in the 2025-2027 Wisconsin State Budget earlier this year. While it's not official, it is believed that it will start in 2029 and then finish in the early 2040's.

https://wtba.org/latest-tpc-report-estimates-i-39-90-94-expansion-to-cost-3-6-billion/

On WISDOT's website they take pride in reconstructing 30 miles of I-90/94 from Portage to Madison from four to six lanes in one year (1984). Over 40 years later reconstruction of that same stretch will take WAY longer.

The reconstruction this time around is much more comprehensive. They didn't have to replace every overpass for the last widening. They also didn't have to completely rebuild the major system interchanges.

This is going to closely resemble the I-39/90 widening south of the Beltline a few years ago, where literally EVERYTHING was rebuilt from the ground up.

Rebuilding the Badger and East Wash interchanges are likely going to take the better part of five years alone... Nevermind any funding issues that popup depending on how things go in November...