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 502710 times)

thspfc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1321
  • I-180 in Wyoming >>>>> I-70 in Colorado

  • Age: 2013
  • Location: Madison, WI metro area
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:56 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #3000 on: November 20, 2020, 09:02:08 AM »

There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Your suggestion itself is fair, but let’s be brutally honest for a minute. The day that the corner cut is finished as a two lane road, what are you going to do? I think I know: “WiSdOt ToTaLlY fLoPpEd On ThE uS-12 pRoJeCt BeCaUsE tHeY dId’Nt MaKe It FoUr LaNeS.” Moral of the story is, you have to be happy with the existing road at some reasonable point. Not everything has to be upgraded and not everything has to be an expressway. How often do you drive the Beltline? It sucks so bad, I would rather pick all the bark off an oak tree with my teeth. If you think that US-12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn needs an upgrade more than the Beltline, well, you’re entitled to your opinion but that’s a very unpopular opinion.
Logged
Donate today to support the construction of I-19 from Ocean City, MD to Portland, OR.

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3145
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 06:18:52 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #3001 on: November 20, 2020, 03:27:16 PM »

There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Your suggestion itself is fair, but let’s be brutally honest for a minute. The day that the corner cut is finished as a two lane road, what are you going to do? I think I know: “WiSdOt ToTaLlY fLoPpEd On ThE uS-12 pRoJeCt BeCaUsE tHeY dId’Nt MaKe It FoUr LaNeS.” Moral of the story is, you have to be happy with the existing road at some reasonable point. Not everything has to be upgraded and not everything has to be an expressway. How often do you drive the Beltline? It sucks so bad, I would rather pick all the bark off an oak tree with my teeth. If you think that US-12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn needs an upgrade more than the Beltline, well, you’re entitled to your opinion but that’s a very unpopular opinion.

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.
Logged
Drive slow on the left. Pass on the right. Live your life the way you want.

thspfc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1321
  • I-180 in Wyoming >>>>> I-70 in Colorado

  • Age: 2013
  • Location: Madison, WI metro area
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:56 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #3002 on: November 20, 2020, 09:57:47 PM »

There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Your suggestion itself is fair, but let’s be brutally honest for a minute. The day that the corner cut is finished as a two lane road, what are you going to do? I think I know: “WiSdOt ToTaLlY fLoPpEd On ThE uS-12 pRoJeCt BeCaUsE tHeY dId’Nt MaKe It FoUr LaNeS.” Moral of the story is, you have to be happy with the existing road at some reasonable point. Not everything has to be upgraded and not everything has to be an expressway. How often do you drive the Beltline? It sucks so bad, I would rather pick all the bark off an oak tree with my teeth. If you think that US-12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn needs an upgrade more than the Beltline, well, you’re entitled to your opinion but that’s a very unpopular opinion.

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.
A North Beltline between 39/90/94 and US-12 roughly along what is now the River Road, CTH-M, and CTH-K corridors could have been built a decade or two ago, but now it's never going to happen.
Logged
Donate today to support the construction of I-19 from Ocean City, MD to Portland, OR.

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4107
  • Last Login: November 22, 2020, 11:00:40 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #3003 on: November 20, 2020, 10:46:14 PM »

There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater...

I didn't say freeway. A 2-lane highway north of Elkhorn to the  existing 2-lane Whitewater bypass will be sufficient. Get the ROW for a rural freeway in the event it ever needs additional lanes, but it doesn't need to be 4 lanes.

If you've had to drive the stretch in question on a regular basis, this wouldn't be up for debate.
Your suggestion itself is fair, but let’s be brutally honest for a minute. The day that the corner cut is finished as a two lane road, what are you going to do? I think I know: “WiSdOt ToTaLlY fLoPpEd On ThE uS-12 pRoJeCt BeCaUsE tHeY dId’Nt MaKe It FoUr LaNeS.” Moral of the story is, you have to be happy with the existing road at some reasonable point. Not everything has to be upgraded and not everything has to be an expressway.

I find County N (Whitewater towards I-39/I-90) easier to accept than the north-south section of US 12 north of Elkhorn.  At least County N looks like it has had some improvements made.
Logged

US 12 fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17
  • Location: SE Wisconsin
  • Last Login: Today at 08:27:04 PM
Logged

thspfc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1321
  • I-180 in Wyoming >>>>> I-70 in Colorado

  • Age: 2013
  • Location: Madison, WI metro area
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:56 PM
Logged
Donate today to support the construction of I-19 from Ocean City, MD to Portland, OR.

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4107
  • Last Login: November 22, 2020, 11:00:40 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #3006 on: November 22, 2020, 12:32:03 PM »

The US 12 Whitewater bypass was designed with building the 'corner cut' in mind.  Like with that bypass, I would be fine with building it as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW.

A previous plan for Walworth County indicates the corner cut would have tied in near the eastern end, if not east of the Whitewater Bypass - see https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Transportation/Files/JHSP-walworth/2010-04-25-150858v1-FinalRecWalwCoJHSP-Presentation.pdf

The corridor still appears to show up in at least drafts for the long range plan for Milwaukee - see Page 39 of 54 of https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/LUTranSysPlanning/2020-04-29-mtg/VISION2050-2020Update-Chapter4-00252090-4.pdf
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 12:35:37 PM by Revive 755 »
Logged

thspfc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1321
  • I-180 in Wyoming >>>>> I-70 in Colorado

  • Age: 2013
  • Location: Madison, WI metro area
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:56 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #3007 on: November 22, 2020, 12:41:56 PM »

The US 12 Whitewater bypass was designed with building the 'corner cut' in mind.  Like with that bypass, I would be fine with building it as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW.

A previous plan for Walworth County indicates the corner cut would have tied in near the eastern end, if not east of the Whitewater Bypass - see https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Transportation/Files/JHSP-walworth/2010-04-25-150858v1-FinalRecWalwCoJHSP-Presentation.pdf

The corridor still appears to show up in at least drafts for the long range plan for Milwaukee - see Page 39 of 54 of https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/LUTranSysPlanning/2020-04-29-mtg/VISION2050-2020Update-Chapter4-00252090-4.pdf
Cool. We have like 30 replies about US-12 in the last few pages of this thread, and nobody has yet explained to me why the corner cut is justified.
Logged
Donate today to support the construction of I-19 from Ocean City, MD to Portland, OR.

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4107
  • Last Login: November 22, 2020, 11:00:40 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #3008 on: November 22, 2020, 10:47:55 PM »

^ 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?
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1062
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:59 PM
Re: Wisconsin notes
« Reply #3009 on: Today at 06:34:26 PM »

Here's a link to potential reroute plans for Highway 32 in Racine:

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/rerouting-highway-32-so-it-doesnt-include-main-street-could-help-downtown-but-itll-be/article_48f8db56-838b-5819-a7c2-5cb4f8618222.html#tracking-source=home-trending
I think the Marquette Street option is a no-brainer.

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.

I can see this working if the solution is to return Marquette St traffic to two-way traffic (which would slow truck traffic through the neighborhood). If the solution is to keep both Marquette and Dr King one-way north of the river, it's just moving a traffic problem to a poorer area to make everyone else happy.
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.