Plans & Projects > Find by location > SW Region > US 51 corridor > US 51 (I-39/90 - US 12/18) >

US 51 (I-39/90 - US 12/18) - Stoughton to McFarland - Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
South segment, Dane County

• Why is this study being done?
• What are the alternatives under consideration?
• When will an alternative be selected and built?
• What is the role of transit in handling travel needs in this corridor?
• How will the alternatives handle the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians?
  
  
• When will the public have opportunities to comment?
• What about environmental impacts?
• Who has to approve the preferred alternative that is selected for the Final EIS?
• Why is WisDOT going through all this planning work when funds have not been allocated?
• Will the project continue if traffic volumes decrease in the future? Has the economic downturn been accounted for?
  
  
• Has lowering the speed limit been considered?

Why is this study being done?

In 2004, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) completed a Needs Assessment (NA) that showed there are existing geometric deficiencies in the US 51 corridor (such as poor visibility at curves and intersections, narrow shoulders, obstacles that are too close to the roadway, and lack of turning lanes).

In addition, problems with safety and congestion and the lack of bike and pedestrian facilities were noted. These problems will worsen as additional jobs and residences come to the area. WisDOT decided to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine how travel needs can be met in the future.

What are the alternatives under consideration?

During the study of conceptual alternatives in 2005, the study team recognized that improvements to roads other than US
51 may be feasible options for accomplishing the goal of handling traffic demand in the area.

This broad consideration of alternatives meets the expectations of the environmental process. The concept alternatives presented at the public information meetings (PIM) in 2006 and 2009 have been refined.

The alternatives to be presented at the April 2011 PIM are:

• No Build
  • No improvements would be provided other than routine maintenance. The No Build Alternative serves as a baseline for comparison to the Build Alternatives.
• Alternative A
  • The Low Build alternative does not add capacity (no new through travel lanes). Efforts are focused on improving
    safety at intersections along US 51 and an eastbound passing lane on US 51, east of Stoughton, is included.
• Alternative B
  • 4-lane expansion on US 51 from Stoughton (County B East) to McFarland including a roundabout at County B East, an interchange at County B/AB, and a roundabout at Exchange St. in McFarland.
• Alternative C * (Being dismissed)
  • 4-lane expansion on WIS 138 between US 14 in Oregon and US 51 in Stoughton.
• Alternative D * (Being dismissed)
  • 4-lane expansion on County N between County B in Stoughton and I-39/90.
• Note - The reasons for dismissing Alternatives C and D are based on concerns regarding traffic operations and safety. These alternatives do not sufficiently satisfy the main purpose and need elements for the project, to improve safety and reduce congestion on US 51.
• Stoughton Bypass (Included with Alternatives B, C, and D)
  • 4-lane roadway provided around Stoughton on three segments: on US 51 from WIS 138 to County B East; on County B from US 51 to County N (with an option to shift south (off alignment) from Williams Dr. to County N); and on one of five alignment options east of County N to connect back to US 51 east of Stoughton. Those five options are:
    • County N
    • Spring Rd. west
    • Spring Rd. east
    • Overland alignment
    • Skaalen and Pleasant Hill roads

When will an alternative be selected and built?

After comments received at the April 2011 public information meeting are reviewed, the study team may refine the alternatives further. It is possible that a new alternative will emerge, or one or more options could be dropped from further consideration.

The alternatives moved forward in the study will be finalized and brought to the public again at a public hearing. After the public hearing, a preferred alternative will be selected and identified in the final environmental document.

The current schedule calls for completing a final EIS by the end of 2013.

Funds have not yet been committed for a project. Depending upon the alternative selected, improvements may be staged to address safety concerns and traffic congestion, as warranted.

What is the role of transit in handling travel needs in this corridor?

The study includes extensive computer modeling to determine how the existing roadway and proposed alternatives will handle the demand for travel in the corridor in the future. The future conditions regional traffic model assumes the “Locally Preferred Alternative” selected by the Transport 2020 study is constructed and operational. This alternative assumes a commuter rail system in the Madison area, with express bus service to outlying communities such as Stoughton. Even with a high level of transit service in the region, the problems identified in the Needs Assessment for this corridor
will remain.

How will the alternatives handle the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians?

Each alternative will provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities along and across the corridor. On-street bike accommodations and sidewalks are provided in the urban areas of Stoughton and McFarland. Bikes are accommodated on the paved shoulder in rural segments. The potential connection to existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be evaluated in coordination with Dane County Parks, the City of Stoughton, the Village of McFarland, and other interested parties.

When will the public have opportunities to comment?

Comments will be taken throughout the study until it is completed. The April 2011 public information meeting will be followed in 2012 with a public hearing. There will also be meetings with local officials throughout the process.

What about environmental impacts?

Environmental impacts will be an important part of the comparison of alternatives. Evaluation of the potential impacts to wetland, farmland, archaeological and historic resources, and other resources is ongoing and will be detailed in the Draft EIS. Environmental impacts will affect the selection of a preferred alternative.

Who has to approve the preferred alternative that is selected for the Final EIS?

WisDOT and the Federal Highway Administration approve the preferred alternative and seek the concurrence of the federal resource agencies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency. These approvals are sufficient for approval of the final EIS. Before a project is built in the Madison area using federal funds, the Transportation Planning Board must approve the project.

Why is WisDOT going through all this planning work when funds have not been allocated?

The goal is to have a plan so that as lands develop or redevelop in the corridor, the possible changes to the roadway can be taken into consideration. Without a long-term plan, the best solution may become too expensive to accomplish if it would require removing new buildings and businesses. Funds cannot be allocated until the environmental impacts of a project are assessed.

Will the project continue if traffic volumes decrease in the future? Has the economic downturn been accounted for?

There are existing geometric deficiencies and problems with safety, congestion, and bike and pedestrian connectivity in the US 51 corridor. These problems will worsen if traffic volumes increase. For this study, a conservative annual population growth rate of 1.2% was used for traffic projections and to simulate future facility operations. This rate should be appropriate to capture the traffic volumes currently being experienced during this economic slow down. Funds have not been committed for a project and improvements could be delayed, depending on need, or may be staged to address safety concerns and traffic congestion, as warranted.

Has lowering the speed limit been considered?

A major consideration when setting speed limits is the prevailing or majority speed of drivers. The nationally accepted principle is that the majority of drivers are cautious, prudent and drive at speeds that are reasonable and proper for that roadway, regardless of the speed limit. If speeds are arbitrarily lowered, the majority of drivers will continue to drive the speed that is reasonable to them. Studies have shown that vehicle speeds reduce by one fourth of the speed reduction. So for example, reducing the speed limit from 55 mph to 50 mph will reduce the average vehicle speed by only 1 mph. Further, posting speeds lower or higher than the majority speed has often resulted in an increase in traffic crashes due to tailgating, improper passing, reckless driving and excessive weaving. Speed limits are set within 5 mph of the observed 85th percentile or within 2 mph of the observed average speed.

Back to Public involvement

Return to top

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Last modified: March 23, 2012