Wisconsin notes

[JREwing78]

Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

[thspfc]

Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

Well said. A lot of this thread is about US-12 in some way shape or form, and there's another six page thread also in this board lol. There's a reason why it's all talk. The traffic volumes aren't there.

[Revive 755]

Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

From recent travels the I-39/I-90 widening is progressing well, with multiple sections complete and all lanes open.  It appears by the start of next year most of the work be completed will be at Beloit, maybe some at Janesville and at the US 12/US 18 interchange, though both of those areas appeared to be fairly close to completion.

[JREwing78]

Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

At the Illinois border, it's more like 12,000 vpd, and the intersection is already plenty capable of handling the traffic at that intersection, particularly with the new stop light. That intersection is not the choke point in that area. US-12 is only two lanes a significant distance into Illinois, and it will only feed so many vehicles into Wisconsin. Nothing you do short of four-laning the two-lane stretch of US-12 in IL will fundamentally change that situation. 

North of I-43, you don't need to sell me (or any other local) on a reroute and/or 4-laning of US-12. It is stupid busy north of Elkhorn. Literally the only roadblock here is getting WisDOT funding. 

SM-G950U

[mgk920]

Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

At the Illinois border, it's more like 12,000 vpd, and the intersection is already plenty capable of handling the traffic at that intersection, particularly with the new stop light. That intersection is not the choke point in that area. US-12 is only two lanes a significant distance into Illinois, and it will only feed so many vehicles into Wisconsin. Nothing you do short of four-laning the two-lane stretch of US-12 in IL will fundamentally change that situation. 

North of I-43, you don't need to sell me (or any other local) on a reroute and/or 4-laning of US-12. It is stupid busy north of Elkhorn. Literally the only roadblock here is getting WisDOT funding. 

SM-G950U

And that entire 'corner cut' between Elkhorn and Whitewater is pretty much clear going through wide-open flat countryside, only needing to cut through a narrow part of the Kettle Moraine forest hill, which is random mixed sand, gravel and rocks - about as easy physical construction conditions as can be imagined.

Mike

[thspfc]

Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

At the Illinois border, it's more like 12,000 vpd, and the intersection is already plenty capable of handling the traffic at that intersection, particularly with the new stop light. That intersection is not the choke point in that area. US-12 is only two lanes a significant distance into Illinois, and it will only feed so many vehicles into Wisconsin. Nothing you do short of four-laning the two-lane stretch of US-12 in IL will fundamentally change that situation. 

North of I-43, you don't need to sell me (or any other local) on a reroute and/or 4-laning of US-12. It is stupid busy north of Elkhorn. Literally the only roadblock here is getting WisDOT funding. 

SM-G950U

And that entire 'corner cut' between Elkhorn and Whitewater is pretty much clear going through wide-open flat countryside, only needing to cut through a narrow part of the Kettle Moraine forest hill, which is random mixed sand, gravel and rocks - about as easy physical construction conditions as can be imagined.

Mike

So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

[Revive 755]

So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

While this is drifting into fictional, would it be that hard to just start with an improved two lane alignment/corner cut between Whitewater and Elkhorn?  North of Whitewater can wait, though a passing lane or two on County N between US 12 and WI 59 near I-39/I-90 would be nice.

[mgk920]

So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

While this is drifting into fictional, would it be that hard to just start with an improved two lane alignment/corner cut between Whitewater and Elkhorn?  North of Whitewater can wait, though a passing lane or two on County N between US 12 and WI 59 near I-39/I-90 would be nice.

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.

Mike

[on_wisconsin]

Since connecting anything to that stub is probably never going to happen, is there any talk of reconfiguring that intersection in a way that would be more suited to thru traffic on 12, or is there no point?

I would say there's no point. There's no safety advantage to do so, and there's no cost savings to do so. The traffic load here isn't that significant either; US-12 roughly doubles in traffic volume north of Hwy 50. WisDOT has higher priorities.

The Wisconsin ADT map does not agree with this assessment.  I see 15,800 south of WI 50 and 21,700 north of WI 50.

The north-south section of 12 between the north end of the freeway and WI 20 is horrible, with the speed limit not exceeding 50 for most of that stretch.  At the least a new two lane alignment with passing lanes should be built.

At the Illinois border, it's more like 12,000 vpd, and the intersection is already plenty capable of handling the traffic at that intersection, particularly with the new stop light. That intersection is not the choke point in that area. US-12 is only two lanes a significant distance into Illinois, and it will only feed so many vehicles into Wisconsin. Nothing you do short of four-laning the two-lane stretch of US-12 in IL will fundamentally change that situation. 

North of I-43, you don't need to sell me (or any other local) on a reroute and/or 4-laning of US-12. It is stupid busy north of Elkhorn. Literally the only roadblock here is getting WisDOT funding. 

SM-G950U

And that entire 'corner cut' between Elkhorn and Whitewater is pretty much clear going through wide-open flat countryside, only needing to cut through a narrow part of the Kettle Moraine forest hill, which is random mixed sand, gravel and rocks - about as easy physical construction conditions as can be imagined.

Mike

So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

As a Wisconsin taxpayer, 100% this! There are so many more pertinent projects worth pursuing than US 12 south of Whitewater. Plus, isn't there an whole other thread dedicated to US 12? 

[JREwing78]

So you do the corner cut. Spend a sizeable chunk on it. Now what? A large-scale upgrade of US-12 would require major changes to the Whitewater bypass, a new routing between Lauderdale Lakes and I-43, and a brand new Fort Atkinson bypass. That's a WI-26-scale project. Does US-12 really need it that bad? Does it need it more than the Beltline? More than I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah?

Do the corner cut. Then, make incremental upgrades as needed.

Chances are that US-12 between Cambridge and Whitewater won't see dramatic growth anytime soon - certainly not between Fort Atkinson and Whitewater. What growth you see will likely be on County N, Hwy 20, and US-12 south of Whitewater.

A big chunk of the traffic on US-12/Hwy 67 is NOT heading to Whitewater. You've bought 20-30 years of not having to touch anything in the area before the "Now what?" question come back.

[I-39]

There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater as it will never connect to anything regionally. Not sure why some people on here continuously call for it. Upgrade the existing road to a five lane cross section and call it a day. There are bigger issues WisDOT needs to focus on. 

[jakeroot]

I don't know much about Wisconsin (I'm more of an observer of this thread for various reasons), but why not simply continuing rounding the corner at WI-20/WI-67 north of Lauderdale Lakes?

The overall route is kind of a right angle, but I doubt a straighter alignment would save more than about 5 minutes. Improving the current roadway seems like a much better option.

[Revive 755]

There is no longer a need for a US 12 corner cut freeway between Elkhorn and Whitewater as it will never connect to anything regionally. Not sure why some people on here continuously call for it. Upgrade the existing road to a five lane cross section and call it a day. There are bigger issues WisDOT needs to focus on. 

It connects to WI 50, a four lane semi-expressway near the south end, and using County N makes a decent shortcut that can provide an alternative route northwest out of Chicagoland.

I don't know much about Wisconsin (I'm more of an observer of this thread for various reasons), but why not simply continuing rounding the corner at WI-20/WI-67 north of Lauderdale Lakes?

The overall route is kind of a right angle, but I doubt a straighter alignment would save more than about 5 minutes. Improving the current roadway seems like a much better option.

There's a decent amount of development already along the north-south section. 

[jakeroot]

I don't know much about Wisconsin (I'm more of an observer of this thread for various reasons), but why not simply continuing rounding the corner at WI-20/WI-67 north of Lauderdale Lakes?

The overall route is kind of a right angle, but I doubt a straighter alignment would save more than about 5 minutes. Improving the current roadway seems like a much better option.

There's a decent amount of development already along the north-south section.

I'm sure you meant to link something else? That's a few shops and certainly not a reason to build a new road.

[JREwing78]

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.

[thspfc]

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.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[thspfc]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[US 12 fan]

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

[thspfc]

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.

[Revive 755]

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

[thspfc]

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.

[Revive 755]

^ 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?

[skluth]

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.