Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dvferyance]

They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike

It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.

It was never signed so I never thought it ever existed at all.

[SEWIGuy]

What would be the exact route of SEWIGuy's proposed state highway addition? Not being from Green Bay, I have no idea where the "South Crossing" is? Also, such a proposal would require an existing state highway segment to be decommissioned, since the state can only have a fixed amount of state highway mileage. That is why US 18 through Waukesha and STH 74 were decommissioned in order for STH 318 and the US 18 portion of the West Waukesha Bypass to come into existence.

Here is the map.  They are looking at the south corridor option.  What I am suggesting is that from I-41 (marked as US-41) that a state highway should go east, over the Fox River, and then over County GV to end at WI-172 (far upper right corner).  County GV (also known at Monroe Road) is a nice four lane road that currently dead ends at County X (Heritage Road)

EDIT:  And if you need to subtract state highway mileage from the system to accomplish this, you have numerous options to get state highways off Green Bay city streets.  In reality, they are likely just going to give the short bridge section between I-41 and WI-32/57 a number.

[SEWIGuy]

They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike

It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.

It was never signed so I never thought it ever existed at all.

I believe there was one reassurance marker NB between National Ave and I-94.

[thspfc]

They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike

It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.

It was never signed so I never thought it ever existed at all.

I believe there was one reassurance marker NB between National Ave and I-94.

I thought for some reason that it was signed on I-94, but a check of old GSV says otherwise.

[mgk920]

They should apply a state route number from I-41, across the south crossing, then down Monroe Road (County GV) to WI-172.

Is 'WI 341' available for reassignment yet?

Mike

It hasn't been long since it was decomissioned. Honestly every time I drive through the Stadium Interchange I think of it as the junction between I-94 and WI-341, only to realize that 341 no longer exists.

It was never signed so I never thought it ever existed at all.

I believe there was one reassurance marker NB between National Ave and I-94.

I thought for some reason that it was signed on I-94, but a check of old GSV says otherwise.

There was also a 'pathfinder' sign for WI 341 on one of the parking lot access roads east of Miller Park in the parking lots, it was visible from a pedestrian stadium access bridge over that access road and the Miller Park Way freeway.

Mike

[triplemultiplex]

If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

[skluth]

If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

At first I thought you meant to Abrams in the city, near Kroll's. LOL. But I agree. There's no point to US 141 south of Abrams. It follows a convoluted route through Green Bay's West Side (Velp, Mather, Broadway, Dousman) that's mostly used by locals. I think the only reason Green Bay keeps it is the mileage cap, so they can get a new highway should one be needed. They could also route WI 57, WI 32, and especially WI 29 around the Green Bay "Beltway" for more original mileage.

Proposals for a crossing between DePere and Wrightstown go back to when I was a kid in the 60's. I've seen ideas for both Scheuring/ Heritage and Red Maple/ Rockland corridors. The Scheuring/ Heritage Road corridor is probably out considering all the development around Scheuring Road. If I still lived there, I'd include it in the current "Road Problems your city or state will never likely fix" thread in General Highway Talk. It's been arguably needed since my youth to take non-local traffic out of the Claude Allouez Bridge area.

[thspfc]

If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

At first I thought you meant to Abrams in the city, near Kroll's. LOL. But I agree. There's no point to US 141 south of Abrams. It follows a convoluted route through Green Bay's West Side (Velp, Mather, Broadway, Dousman) that's mostly used by locals. I think the only reason Green Bay keeps it is the mileage cap, so they can get a new highway should one be needed. They could also route WI 57, WI 32, and especially WI 29 around the Green Bay "Beltway" for more original mileage.

Proposals for a crossing between DePere and Wrightstown go back to when I was a kid in the 60's. I've seen ideas for both Scheuring/ Heritage and Red Maple/ Rockland corridors. The Scheuring/ Heritage Road corridor is probably out considering all the development around Scheuring Road. If I still lived there, I'd include it in the current "Road Problems your city or state will never likely fix" thread in General Highway Talk. It's been arguably needed since my youth to take non-local traffic out of the Claude Allouez Bridge area.

If every route currently "inside the beltway" in Green Bay is rerouted (and US-141 removed and truncated), that would create Wisconsin's first quintuplex. I-41, US-41, WI-29, WI-32, and WI-54 would all be on the same pavement between Mason St and Shawano Ave.

[peterj920]

Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don’t really go anywhere?

[thspfc]

Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don’t really go anywhere?

I've heard that WI-127 is still a thing because it connects to the Columbia County Correctional Facility. There must be some legal stuff there. WI-134 is no longer a state highway and hasn't been for some time. The shields might still be there but it's not on the trunkline system.
Edit - Okay nevermind, Wikipedia says that WI-134 still exists and I can't find any information proving otherwise, so . . .

[SEWIGuy]

If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

At first I thought you meant to Abrams in the city, near Kroll's. LOL. But I agree. There's no point to US 141 south of Abrams. It follows a convoluted route through Green Bay's West Side (Velp, Mather, Broadway, Dousman) that's mostly used by locals. I think the only reason Green Bay keeps it is the mileage cap, so they can get a new highway should one be needed. They could also route WI 57, WI 32, and especially WI 29 around the Green Bay "Beltway" for more original mileage.

Proposals for a crossing between DePere and Wrightstown go back to when I was a kid in the 60's. I've seen ideas for both Scheuring/ Heritage and Red Maple/ Rockland corridors. The Scheuring/ Heritage Road corridor is probably out considering all the development around Scheuring Road. If I still lived there, I'd include it in the current "Road Problems your city or state will never likely fix" thread in General Highway Talk. It's been arguably needed since my youth to take non-local traffic out of the Claude Allouez Bridge area.

If every route currently "inside the beltway" in Green Bay is rerouted (and US-141 removed and truncated), that would create Wisconsin's first quintuplex. I-41, US-41, WI-29, WI-32, and WI-54 would all be on the same pavement between Mason St and Shawano Ave.

The problem with putting WI-29 or WI-32 on the beltway around Green Bay, is that neither have a direct connection on the "other side."  To get back onto WI-29, you have to exit at US-141.  To get back on WI-32 you have to exit onto a couple local streets that have a fair amount of traffic already.

IMO, I would simply end WI-29 at I-41 and give WI-29 between I-43 and Kewaunee a new number.  And I would keep WI-32 on city streets.  Ashland Avenue is worthy of a state highway designation.

[peterj920]

Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don’t really go anywhere?

I've heard that WI-127 is still a thing because it connects to the Columbia County Correctional Facility. There must be some legal stuff there. WI-134 is no longer a state highway and hasn't been for some time. The shields might still be there but it's not on the trunkline system.
Edit - Okay nevermind, Wikipedia says that WI-134 still exists and I can't find any information proving otherwise, so . . .

Checked the Dane County official state trunkline map and Wis 134 is still there giving the small unincorporated community of London a state highway. Wis 127 is also poorly maintained past the prison. If there was a such thing as a minimum maintenance state highway Wis 127 would qualify. I see there is work on it now but WISDOT doesn’t even list it in their current projects.

[thspfc]

If one wanted to make this new southern crossing a state highway from I-41 to WI 172, and behold to WisDOT's arbitrary and silly county-based mileage 'cap', I'd decom US 141 through Green Bay.  Truncate that sucker up to Abrams.
and/or
Pull WI 54 off of Mason Street and route over 172 and I-43 to that northeast system interchange.

At first I thought you meant to Abrams in the city, near Kroll's. LOL. But I agree. There's no point to US 141 south of Abrams. It follows a convoluted route through Green Bay's West Side (Velp, Mather, Broadway, Dousman) that's mostly used by locals. I think the only reason Green Bay keeps it is the mileage cap, so they can get a new highway should one be needed. They could also route WI 57, WI 32, and especially WI 29 around the Green Bay "Beltway" for more original mileage.

Proposals for a crossing between DePere and Wrightstown go back to when I was a kid in the 60's. I've seen ideas for both Scheuring/ Heritage and Red Maple/ Rockland corridors. The Scheuring/ Heritage Road corridor is probably out considering all the development around Scheuring Road. If I still lived there, I'd include it in the current "Road Problems your city or state will never likely fix" thread in General Highway Talk. It's been arguably needed since my youth to take non-local traffic out of the Claude Allouez Bridge area.

If every route currently "inside the beltway" in Green Bay is rerouted (and US-141 removed and truncated), that would create Wisconsin's first quintuplex. I-41, US-41, WI-29, WI-32, and WI-54 would all be on the same pavement between Mason St and Shawano Ave.

The problem with putting WI-29 or WI-32 on the beltway around Green Bay, is that neither have a direct connection on the "other side."  To get back onto WI-29, you have to exit at US-141.  To get back on WI-32 you have to exit onto a couple local streets that have a fair amount of traffic already.

IMO, I would simply end WI-29 at I-41 and give WI-29 between I-43 and Kewaunee a new number.  And I would keep WI-32 on city streets.  Ashland Avenue is worthy of a state highway designation.

Easy. Just have WI-29 backtrack slightly along current US-141 to I-43. And I would be fine with WI-32's routing staying the same, as it would not affect the creation of the quintuplex. Really that's all I care about with this. 

[peterj920]

I guess US highway downgrades appear on WISDOT maps now. This US 51 project map liked below shows US 12/US 14/US 18 as state highways.

We're seeking public input on proposed improvements for the US 51 Study from #Stoughton to #McFarland in Dane County.

View the virtual presentation at https://t.co/ranXA6KpHR.

Please submit your comments on this project! pic.twitter.com/O37X8dw2Y2

— WisDOT Southwest Region (@WisDOTsouthwest) October 6, 2020

?s=21

[The Ghostbuster]

I would be far more interested if there were updates on this US 51 project: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/51/default.aspx. My parents live close to Stoughton Rd. and I am much more familiar with it than US 51 between Stoughton and McFarland. I'm also getting tired of waiting for updates about the future of the 11-mile Stoughton Rd. Corridor Study Project.

[hobsini2]

Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don’t really go anywhere?

Thank you on Wis 127. There's no reason that should not be an extension of County G or the unused D or L.
As for Wis 134, I think it is that way because of the fact it is on the county line. But it could be County O.
A few others that annoys me are Wis 129 and Wis 126. 129 should be US 61 and make the current US 61 a Business Route in Lancaster. 126 should be County I. It goes nowhere on the south end to warrant it being a state highway.

[SSOWorld]

Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don’t really go anywhere?

Thank you on Wis 127. There's no reason that should not be an extension of County G or the unused D or L.
As for Wis 134, I think it is that way because of the fact it is on the county line. But it could be County O.
A few others that annoys me are Wis 129 and Wis 126. 129 should be US 61 and make the current US 61 a Business Route in Lancaster. 126 should be County I. It goes nowhere on the south end to warrant it being a state highway.

For Wis 129, though I cannot prove it, but I think this is connected to Lancaster's politicians being afraid of being "isolated".  The state removed Lancaster from being a control point on Exit 8 (US-61 N) NB and Exit 19 (WIS-80/81) SB on US-151 - the latter in favor of Cuba City.  For both, an extra sign with Lancaster - EXIT <8/19> would have sufficed, but no! they had to be on the main one, so Cuba City was kicked off.  Theory is that this is true for 61 having to be the thru route to draw traffic to the downtown businesses.

[hobsini2]

Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don’t really go anywhere?

Thank you on Wis 127. There's no reason that should not be an extension of County G or the unused D or L.
As for Wis 134, I think it is that way because of the fact it is on the county line. But it could be County O.
A few others that annoys me are Wis 129 and Wis 126. 129 should be US 61 and make the current US 61 a Business Route in Lancaster. 126 should be County I. It goes nowhere on the south end to warrant it being a state highway.

For Wis 129, though I cannot prove it, but I think this is connected to Lancaster's politicians being afraid of being "isolated".  The state removed Lancaster from being a control point on Exit 8 (US-61 N) NB and Exit 19 (WIS-80/81) SB on US-151 - the latter in favor of Cuba City.  For both, an extra sign with Lancaster - EXIT <8/19> would have sufficed, but no! they had to be on the main one, so Cuba City was kicked off.  Theory is that this is true for 61 having to be the thru route to draw traffic to the downtown businesses.

Interesting. The sign at the 129/61 split points Lancaster Business Dist and Fennimore. They already are telling 61 traffic that this goes to the next town quicker. Oh well.

[JoePCool14]

Wis 127 and Wis 134 are the most pointless state highways. How are they both state highways since they don’t really go anywhere?

Thank you on Wis 127. There's no reason that should not be an extension of County G or the unused D or L.
As for Wis 134, I think it is that way because of the fact it is on the county line. But it could be County O.
A few others that annoys me are Wis 129 and Wis 126. 129 should be US 61 and make the current US 61 a Business Route in Lancaster. 126 should be County I. It goes nowhere on the south end to warrant it being a state highway.

For Wis 129, though I cannot prove it, but I think this is connected to Lancaster's politicians being afraid of being "isolated".  The state removed Lancaster from being a control point on Exit 8 (US-61 N) NB and Exit 19 (WIS-80/81) SB on US-151 - the latter in favor of Cuba City.  For both, an extra sign with Lancaster - EXIT <8/19> would have sufficed, but no! they had to be on the main one, so Cuba City was kicked off.  Theory is that this is true for 61 having to be the thru route to draw traffic to the downtown businesses.

Interesting. The sign at the 129/61 split points Lancaster Business Dist and Fennimore. They already are telling 61 traffic that this goes to the next town quicker. Oh well.

I find the whole Lancaster US-61 situation very fascinating. How did this even end up happening in the first place?

[The Ghostbuster]

The STH 129 bypass has had its present designation since 1959, it was previously designated CTH I: http://wisconsinhighways.org/listings/WiscHwys120-129.html#STH-129. The original Waukesha bypass was originally a county highway as well, in this case CTH A. In c.1983-84, the STH 59 designation replaced CTH A between Genesee Rd. and Arcadian Rd. The roadway from there northward to US 18/E. Moreland Rd. remained CTH A until 1988, when it became part of STH 164's southern extension to STH 36 near Waterford.

[peterj920]

The unnecessary 3 block detour around the courthouse for US 61 southbound traffic makes no sense either. US 61 has 2 way traffic through Lancaster highway except for 1 block.

[thspfc]

The US-61/WI-129 fiasco is really a microcosm of Wisconsin's highways. There must be somone with a lot of money, or a lot of people with a lot of combined money, who is/are set on keeping US-61 where it is. Really, it's not fooling anyone. Google Maps and other GPSes will still tell you to use WI-129. And anyways I suspect that the majority of Lancaster's thru traffic is using WI-35/WI-81 to the west into the community, to US-61/WI-35/WI-81 out of the community to the south, or vice versa, in which case WI-129 would not be relevant at all.

[thspfc]

The unnecessary 3 block detour around the courthouse for US 61 southbound traffic makes no sense either. US 61 has 2 way traffic through Lancaster highway except for 1 block.

Yeah, that is dumb.

[mgk920]

Last week, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the FHWA signed off on the Tier I EIS and issued a Record of Decision on a final corridor for the proposed South Crossing bypass of De Pere.

https://943jackfm.com/2020/10/26/location-for-south-bridge-connector-project-corridor-confirmed/

It will run from Packerland Dr west of I-41, south of Scheuring Rd, across the river to the County 'X'/'GV' intersection east of De Pere.

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge-connector/

Mike

[peterj920]

Last week, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the FHWA signed off on the Tier I EIS and issued a Record of Decision on a final corridor for the proposed South Crossing bypass of De Pere.

https://943jackfm.com/2020/10/26/location-for-south-bridge-connector-project-corridor-confirmed/

It will run from Packerland Dr west of I-41, south of Scheuring Rd, across the river to the County 'X'/'GV' intersection east of De Pere.

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge-connector/

Mike

I see that the bridge isn’t scheduled to be built until 2030. It would be great if the state could take over the project like they did with the Tri County Expressway (Wis 441).