Wisconsin notes

[mgk920]

aside from the I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River bridge, that add-a-lane rebuild will be a 'big shovel' thing that will be starting with the completion of the I-41 six laning from Appleton to De Pere and the I-94 East-West Freeway eight laning in Milwaukee.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

I hope the reconstruction of the Interstates 39/90/94 happens sooner rather than later. I especially look forward to the reconstruction of the segments near Madison (where I live).

[SEWIGuy]

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.

This is great. Thank you.

It won't stop the usual WIDOT complainers from complaining, but still...

[SSOWorld]

...

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.

and more than once the freeway was fully closed in broad daylight because of crashes that whacked the temporary median barrier. I was nearly offed by one of them.

[GeekJedi]

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.

I agree. In fact, While I understand the statute (it's to prevent wasting money by allowing WisDOT to just "claim" as many roads as they wish) it's really counterintuitive and leads to games like this. Let them commission and decommission as needed. Honestly it would probably save money by not "banking" roads to keep the mileage as close to maximum as possible at any given time.

[FightingIrish]

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.

I seem to recall that Cedarburg and Grafton wanted WIS 57 removed from their local streets, due to excessive traffic through their downtowns. Even now, long after dropping 57, traffic is pretty heavy on those streets. Made sense to expand WIS 181, which runs outside of the central business districts, flows quickly and is expandable.

Menomonee Falls took the same approach with WIS 74. Sometimes, those state highways that helped build a central business district outgrow those areas. As mentioned earlier, the state often holds on to routes for bartering purposes, when there's an opportunity to trade for another route (i.e. WIS 195 for WIS 75). In the case of WIS 74, the state held on to the route long after it became irrelevant, so as to use it to trade for the new west leg of the Waukesha Bypass. That also involved US 18 being shifted there.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

I agree. In fact, While I understand the statute (it's to prevent wasting money by allowing WisDOT to just "claim" as many roads as they wish) it's really counterintuitive and leads to games like this. Let them commission and decommission as needed. Honestly it would probably save money by not "banking" roads to keep the mileage as close to maximum as possible at any given time.

Y'all are spending a lot of time complaining about a system that has it about 98% right. Seriously complaining that a state highway ends at a county line is something all but a relative handful of Wisconsin residents would even notice much less complain about.

[hobsini2]

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".

I never was a fan of the cap mileage law.
If a road designation needs to be a state highway, let it be done without needing to subtract elsewhere. Just my opinion.

[Molandfreak]

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".

I never was a fan of the cap mileage law.
If a road designation needs to be a state highway, let it be done without needing to subtract elsewhere. Just my opinion.

At least Wisconsin doesn't have a bunch of legislatively-mandated corridors which shoot MnDOT in the foot.

[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".

I never was a fan of the cap mileage law.
If a road designation needs to be a state highway, let it be done without needing to subtract elsewhere. Just my opinion.

I am not either but the catch is they are 250 miles below it anyways. I think at least some extra millage should be allowed in the SE part of the state where most of the population is.

[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.

I seem to recall that Cedarburg and Grafton wanted WIS 57 removed from their local streets, due to excessive traffic through their downtowns. Even now, long after dropping 57, traffic is pretty heavy on those streets. Made sense to expand WIS 181, which runs outside of the central business districts, flows quickly and is expandable.

Menomonee Falls took the same approach with WIS 74. Sometimes, those state highways that helped build a central business district outgrow those areas. As mentioned earlier, the state often holds on to routes for bartering purposes, when there's an opportunity to trade for another route (i.e. WIS 195 for WIS 75). In the case of WIS 74, the state held on to the route long after it became irrelevant, so as to use it to trade for the new west leg of the Waukesha Bypass. That also involved US 18 being shifted there.

That doesn't necessarily makes it a good idea. Frankly I think both routes are busy enough to be state highways even though they run closely for a few miles.

[mgk920]

WisDOT was originally going to turn the north-south part of US 45 (Oshkosh to WI 76) into a lettered Outagamie and Winnebago county highway when the freeway was opened a couple of decades ago, but they then reran the traffic projection numbers and decided to keep it.  It is now WI 76 from Oshkosh to WI 15.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

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.

I agree. In fact, While I understand the statute (it's to prevent wasting money by allowing WisDOT to just "claim" as many roads as they wish) it's really counterintuitive and leads to games like this. Let them commission and decommission as needed. Honestly it would probably save money by not "banking" roads to keep the mileage as close to maximum as possible at any given time.

For what purpose would expanding the system's mileage serve? To help with navigation? To place more highway construction and maintenance under the direct control of WIDOT? Both?

Because unless you are going to create more revenue, all this does is move less money that is currently directed to city, town and county governments through a variety of aid programs. Does that actually help the overall transportation system?

If it's for simply navigation purposes, and the "state highway system" is decoupled from "state highway funding" in some cases, I could see where that makes some sense. Maybe?

Anyway, I just want to understand the point.

[hobsini2]

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.

I agree. In fact, While I understand the statute (it's to prevent wasting money by allowing WisDOT to just "claim" as many roads as they wish) it's really counterintuitive and leads to games like this. Let them commission and decommission as needed. Honestly it would probably save money by not "banking" roads to keep the mileage as close to maximum as possible at any given time.

For what purpose would expanding the system's mileage serve? To help with navigation? To place more highway construction and maintenance under the direct control of WIDOT? Both?

Because unless you are going to create more revenue, all this does is move less money that is currently directed to city, town and county governments through a variety of aid programs. Does that actually help the overall transportation system?

If it's for simply navigation purposes, and the "state highway system" is decoupled from "state highway funding" in some cases, I could see where that makes some sense. Maybe?

Anyway, I just want to understand the point.

IMO, it is more about the navigation. If a corridor makes sense as a state highway, so be it. Funding for the maintenance of a state highway should be a completely separate issue even though the reality is not.

[Molandfreak]

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.

I agree. In fact, While I understand the statute (it's to prevent wasting money by allowing WisDOT to just "claim" as many roads as they wish) it's really counterintuitive and leads to games like this. Let them commission and decommission as needed. Honestly it would probably save money by not "banking" roads to keep the mileage as close to maximum as possible at any given time.

For what purpose would expanding the system's mileage serve? To help with navigation? To place more highway construction and maintenance under the direct control of WIDOT? Both?

Because unless you are going to create more revenue, all this does is move less money that is currently directed to city, town and county governments through a variety of aid programs. Does that actually help the overall transportation system?

If it's for simply navigation purposes, and the "state highway system" is decoupled from "state highway funding" in some cases, I could see where that makes some sense. Maybe?

Anyway, I just want to understand the point.

IMO, it is more about the navigation. If a corridor makes sense as a state highway, so be it. Funding for the maintenance of a state highway should be a completely separate issue even though the reality is not.

The way MnDOT and WisDOT do things is really a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's very easy to figure out the agency who is in charge of a section of roadway, with certain exceptions such as business loops. On the other hand, municipalities don't have as much control over their local roadways as they might like if they're part of the state highway system.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

I agree. In fact, While I understand the statute (it's to prevent wasting money by allowing WisDOT to just "claim" as many roads as they wish) it's really counterintuitive and leads to games like this. Let them commission and decommission as needed. Honestly it would probably save money by not "banking" roads to keep the mileage as close to maximum as possible at any given time.

For what purpose would expanding the system's mileage serve? To help with navigation? To place more highway construction and maintenance under the direct control of WIDOT? Both?

Because unless you are going to create more revenue, all this does is move less money that is currently directed to city, town and county governments through a variety of aid programs. Does that actually help the overall transportation system?

If it's for simply navigation purposes, and the "state highway system" is decoupled from "state highway funding" in some cases, I could see where that makes some sense. Maybe?

Anyway, I just want to understand the point.

IMO, it is more about the navigation. If a corridor makes sense as a state highway, so be it. Funding for the maintenance of a state highway should be a completely separate issue even though the reality is not.

The way MnDOT and WisDOT do things is really a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's very easy to figure out the agency who is in charge of a section of roadway, with certain exceptions such as business loops. On the other hand, municipalities don't have as much control over their local roadways as they might like if they're part of the state highway system.

Are Wisconsin and Minnesota different from other states in that regard?

[Molandfreak]

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.

I agree. In fact, While I understand the statute (it's to prevent wasting money by allowing WisDOT to just "claim" as many roads as they wish) it's really counterintuitive and leads to games like this. Let them commission and decommission as needed. Honestly it would probably save money by not "banking" roads to keep the mileage as close to maximum as possible at any given time.

For what purpose would expanding the system's mileage serve? To help with navigation? To place more highway construction and maintenance under the direct control of WIDOT? Both?

Because unless you are going to create more revenue, all this does is move less money that is currently directed to city, town and county governments through a variety of aid programs. Does that actually help the overall transportation system?

If it's for simply navigation purposes, and the "state highway system" is decoupled from "state highway funding" in some cases, I could see where that makes some sense. Maybe?

Anyway, I just want to understand the point.

IMO, it is more about the navigation. If a corridor makes sense as a state highway, so be it. Funding for the maintenance of a state highway should be a completely separate issue even though the reality is not.

The way MnDOT and WisDOT do things is really a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's very easy to figure out the agency who is in charge of a section of roadway, with certain exceptions such as business loops. On the other hand, municipalities don't have as much control over their local roadways as they might like if they're part of the state highway system.

Are Wisconsin and Minnesota different from other states in that regard?

Yes. At least in New York, Vermont, and South Dakota, certain sections of a state highway can be turned back to local maintenance without forcing a truncation or rerouting. I'm sure this is true in other states.

[mgk920]

Indiana also has a statutory limit state highways.

Mike

[NWI_Irish96]

Indiana also has a statutory limit state highways.

Mike

True, but we're not that close to it, so it's not a factor. INDOT just doesn't want to maintain routes through cities.

[hobsini2]

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...

What was the timeframe it took to redo the I-43 Interchange on 39/90? East Washington, from what I understand, is likely going to get that kind of design.

As for the Badger, I really don't know if it needs a full redesign. I know people have phobias of left exits and entrances but that is a case where I think it works well. I could see them try the same kind of redesign they did for US 12/18 by shifting the mainline over but that I think is going to be a bigger task.

[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.

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...

What was the timeframe it took to redo the I-43 Interchange on 39/90? East Washington, from what I understand, is likely going to get that kind of design.

As for the Badger, I really don't know if it needs a full redesign. I know people have phobias of left exits and entrances but that is a case where I think it works well. I could see them try the same kind of redesign they did for US 12/18 by shifting the mainline over but that I think is going to be a bigger task.

I agree The Badger Interchange works well despite the left exits. The US 151 interchange needs to be rebuilt more than any other interchange. That loop ramp and crossover from US 151 south to I-39/90/94 south is a huge bottleneck.

Finding for the County V interchange is holding up the Buc-ee's in DeForest. If the interchange is being rebuilt whether it gets built or not why is the state asking Buc-ee's/DeForest to fund the full interchange cost?

[on_wisconsin]

Finding for the County V interchange is holding up the Buc-ee's in DeForest. If the interchange is being rebuilt whether it gets built or not why is the state asking Buc-ee's/DeForest to fund the full interchange cost?

The state probably was/is planning on an in-place rebuild with additional lanes and channelization rather than a full redesign (DDI), etc. But IDK...

[mgk920]

What was the timeframe it took to redo the I-43 Interchange on 39/90? East Washington, from what I understand, is likely going to get that kind of design.

As for the Badger, I really don't know if it needs a full redesign. I know people have phobias of left exits and entrances but that is a case where I think it works well. I could see them try the same kind of redesign they did for US 12/18 by shifting the mainline over but that I think is going to be a bigger task.

The Beloit interchange (I-39/90/I-43) was completed last year, wasn't it?

I do fully agree on the east Washington Ave/US 151 ('East Town Interchange) in Madison, though.  That entire area needs to be scraped off and started over from scratch. (The cloverleaf there dates to the earliest days of the I-system.)

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

The freeway-to-freeway ramps to and from the US 151 freeway are a definite plus. The proposed diamond interchange between Interstate 39/90/94 and the E. Washington Ave. segment of US 151, will definitely take some getting used to once its constructed.

[SEWIGuy]

What was the timeframe it took to redo the I-43 Interchange on 39/90? East Washington, from what I understand, is likely going to get that kind of design.

As for the Badger, I really don't know if it needs a full redesign. I know people have phobias of left exits and entrances but that is a case where I think it works well. I could see them try the same kind of redesign they did for US 12/18 by shifting the mainline over but that I think is going to be a bigger task.

The Beloit interchange (I-39/90/I-43) was completed last year, wasn't it?

Pretty sure that's been in place for three or four years now.