Annual Winter Maintenance Report 2017-18 - Wisconsin Department … · 2014. 11. 10. · Wisconsin...

Wisconsin Department of TransportationDivision of Transportation System DevelopmentBureau of Highway MaintenanceWinter Operations Unit

Final January 2019

ANNUAL WINTER MAINTENANCE REPORT2017-2018

The Snow Must Go On

W i s D O T | A n n u a l W i n t e r M a i n t e n a n c e R e p o r t

AcknowledgmentsMany people at Wisconsin DOT contributed to the development of this report, including:

• James Hughes, Bureau of Highway Maintenance

• Allan Johnson, Bureau of Highway Maintenance

• Mike Adams, Bureau of Highway Maintenance

• Cathy Meinholz, Bureau of Highway Maintenance

• Lisa Meinholz, Bureau of Highway Maintenance

• Donald Lyden, Bureau of Transportation Safety

• Asadur Rahman, Transportation Modeling & Information Unit

We wish to thank these individuals for their contributions to and assistance with this report.

Cover Photo Credit: Chris Peeters

2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 1

Table of Contents1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5

About This Report .................................................................................................................................................7Report Structure and Data Sources ....................................................................................................................7Working with County Highway Departments .......................................................................................................8This Winter in Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................................10

2. Winter Weather ................................................................................................................................19Winter Weather Challenges .................................................................................................................................20This Winter’s Weather ...........................................................................................................................................20Winter Severity Index ............................................................................................................................................21

3. Winter Operations ............................................................................................................................313A Materials ..........................................................................................................................................................32

Salt ..................................................................................................................................................................32Abrasives ........................................................................................................................................................36Prewetting ......................................................................................................................................................37Anti-icing ........................................................................................................................................................39

3B Equipment & Technology ................................................................................................................................44RWIS ..............................................................................................................................................................44MDSS ..............................................................................................................................................................46Equipment Calibration ...................................................................................................................................47Product and Equipment Testing ....................................................................................................................47Winter Maintenance Research .....................................................................................................................47

3C Labor ................................................................................................................................................................49Winter Operations Training ...........................................................................................................................50

4. Performance .....................................................................................................................................654A Compass ..........................................................................................................................................................664B Winter Maintenance Management ................................................................................................................66

History of Snow and Ice Control....................................................................................................................66Storm Reports ................................................................................................................................................67Winter Patrol Sections ...................................................................................................................................68Route Optimization ........................................................................................................................................68

4C Response Time ................................................................................................................................................69Maintenance Crew Reaction Time ................................................................................................................70Time to Bare/Wet Pavement ........................................................................................................................70

4D Costs ................................................................................................................................................................71Components of Winter Costs ..........................................................................................................................75

4E Travel and Crashes ..........................................................................................................................................76Crashes and vehicle Miles Traveled ...............................................................................................................77

5. Looking Ahead..................................................................................................................................107

Appendix - See Separate Document

2 W i s D O T | A n n u a l W i n t e r M a i n t e n a n c e R e p o r t

List of Tables

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5Table 1.1. Statewide Summary: This Winter Versus Last Winter, by the Numbers .........................................6Table 1.2. Highway Categories for Winter Maintenance .....................................................................................8Table 1.3. County Winter Service Groups............................................................................................................10Table 1.4. Winter in Wisconsin, 2017–2018 .....................................................................................................13

2. Winter Weather ................................................................................................................................19Table 2.1. Storms and Incidents .........................................................................................................................25

3. Winter Operations ............................................................................................................................31Table 3.1. Statewide Brine Agent Use .................................................................................................................38Table 3.2. Labor Hours/Lane Miles/Severity Index Ranking .............................................................................57

4. Performance .....................................................................................................................................65Table 4.1. Statewide Compass Measures for Winter .........................................................................................66Table 4.2. Average Patrol Section Lengths by Winter Service Group ................................................................68Table 4.3. Maintenance Crew Reaction Time .....................................................................................................70Table 4.4. Average Time to Bare/Wet Pavement ................................................................................................70Table 4.5. Total Winter Costs Relative to Winter Severity ...................................................................................71Table 4.6. Winter Costs as Billed to WisDOT by Counties ..................................................................................74Table 4.7. Crashes and Vehicle Miles Traveled by Region ..................................................................................78Table 4.8. Winter Maintenance Sections ............................................................................................................81Table 4.9. Storm Start vs. Crew Out ....................................................................................................................82Table 4.10. Winter Maintenance Costs per Lane Mile .......................................................................................88Table 4.11. Cost per Lane Mile per Severity Index Ranking ..............................................................................95Table 4.12. Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles of Travel .............................................................................102Table 4.13. Motor Vehicle Crashes on Roads with Snow/Ice/Slush .................................................................105



List of Figures

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5Figure 1.1. WisDOT Regional Divisions ................................................................................................................9

2. Winter Weather ................................................................................................................................19Figure 2.1. Statewide Snowfall, 2017–2018 .....................................................................................................20Figure 2.2. Winter Severity Index, 2017–2018 ..................................................................................................21Figure 2.3. 2017–2018 Winter Severity Index vs. 5-Year Average ...................................................................21

3. Winter Operations ............................................................................................................................31Figure 3.1. Salt Use per Lane Mile and Average Severity Index ........................................................................32Figure 3.2. Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity Index ....................................................................................33Figure 3.3. Salt Prices Across the United States ................................................................................................34Figure 3.4. Salt Prices Over Time ........................................................................................................................35Figure 3.5. Statewide Sand Use From Storm Reports Data ...............................................................................36Figure 3.6. Winter Costs by Activity Code ............................................................................................................39Figure 3.7. Anti-icing Brine Use ............................................................................................................................40Figure 3.8. Prewetting Brine Use .........................................................................................................................41Figure 3.9. Counties Using Route Optimization ..................................................................................................42 Figure 3.10. 2017–2018 Salt Use per Lane Mile vs. 5-Year Average ..............................................................53Figure 3.11. Tons of Salt/Lane-Mile ....................................................................................................................54Figure 3.12. Winter Cost/Lane-Mile ....................................................................................................................55

4. Performance .....................................................................................................................................65Figure 4.1. Winter Costs per Lane Mile ...............................................................................................................71Figure 4.2. Total Winter Maintenance Cost by Region .......................................................................................71Figure 4.3. Statewide Winter Costs by Category .................................................................................................72Figure 4.4. Regional Winter Costs by Category ...................................................................................................73Figure 4.5. Costs per Lane Mile by Category ......................................................................................................75Figure 4.6. Winter Crashes and Winter Severity Index .......................................................................................77Figure 4.7. Winter Crashes by Highway Type .......................................................................................................78Figure 4.8. 2017–2018 Winter Costs vs. 5-Year Average .................................................................................93


List of Callout BoxesBest Practices: On-Board Prewetting ...................................................................................................................37Best Practices: Anti-Icing ......................................................................................................................................39Best Practices: Underbody Plow ..........................................................................................................................44Best Practices: Ground Speed Controllers ..........................................................................................................45Best Practices: Automatic Vehicle Location GPS ................................................................................................67


Glossary

AVL - GPS: Automated Vehicle Location - Global Positioning System

BHM: Bureau of Highway Maintenance

BMP: Best Management Practice

BTO: Bureau of Traffic Operations

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration

GUI: Graphical User Interface

MDSS: Maintenance Decision Support System

NWS: National Weather Service

RWIS: Roadway Weather Information System

STOC: State Traffic Operations Center

WISDOT: State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation

5

To Wisconsin Winter Maintenance Professionals,Fighting winter storms in Wisconsin can vary greatly, depending on whether you are in Bayfield County at the northern-most point in Wisconsin or south in Grant County along the Mississippi River. But geography isn’t the only variable in keeping the roads safe for travelers. Many variables impact how we react to a winter storm, such as the weather, pavement and traffic. Our weather for the winter of 2017-2018 was seemingly normal until we got to April, but the month of April was far from normal. Many all-time records were set for April storms with a whopping 34-inch snowfall record on April 13-15 in Shawano County. Different, and sometimes crazy weather conditions require different treatments to meet the public’s expectation that the road will be passable in a reasonable amount of time after a winter storm.

The longstanding relationship between the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and County Highway departments is over 100 years old. This unique relationship puts Wisconsin on the map for timely response to every winter storm and for cost effectiveness. The partnership between the counties and state DOT continues to prove to be economical for Wisconsin’s taxpayers and I thank all who support this partnership by engaging in modern winter maintenance practices and pilot projects in the years to come.

I am a strong proponent of being a good steward of Wisconsin’s environment and I stress the importance of improving processes in winter maintenance that use “Evidence-Based Practices” to save money, to save the environment, or both.

As we put together this annual report, the Bureau of Highway Maintenance compiles information and data from many resources:• winter incident and storm reporting by county staff;• salt purchasing and use data from DOT records and contracts with salt vendors;• information from partnering states participating in Clear Roads and MDSS pooled-fund studies;• MDSS (Maintenance Decision Support System).

If you need additional information, you may contact your regional WISDOT representative or Allan Johnson, WISDOT’s state winter maintenance engineer, at [email protected].

Sincerely,

James P. Hughes, P.E. State Highway Maintenance EngineerBureau of Highway Maintenance

Introduction1


Infrastructure

2016-2017 winter 2017-2018 winter

Lane miles 34,620 miles 34,678

Patrol sections4 755.0 754.0

Average patrol section length4 45.85 lane miles 46.0 lane miles

Weather

Average statewide Winter Severity Index (100=normal) 91.14 97.53

Number of storms, statewide average and range across counties

Average: 26Range: 13-55

Average: 33Range: 20-61

Snowfall, statewide average and range across counties Average: 60.2Range: 14.8 to 132

Average: 77.8Range: 25.8 to 222.6

Materials1

Salt used 526,199 tons15.2 tons per lane mile

567,600 tons16.4 tons per lane mile

Average cost of salt $68.74 per ton $67.60 per ton

Prewetting liquid used 3,018,207 gal. 3,359,432 gal.

Calcium chloride brine used 91,156 gal. 164,695 gal.

Magnesium chloride brine used 43,735 gal. 146,059 gal.

Total brine and blends used 4,915,864 gal. 5,742,575 gal.

Anti-icing agents used 1,918,324 gal. 2,383,143 gal.

Sand used 14,036 cubic yd. 19,955 cubic yd.

Costs, Equipment and Performance

Total winter costs2 $87,836,693 $97,831,087

Total winter costs per lane mile $2,537 $2,821

Average crew reaction time from start of storm 2.22 hours 4.25 hours

Percentage of roads to bare/wet pavement (Within WisDOT target times) 70% 66%

Road Weather Information System (RWIS) stations 68 68

Underbody plows 355 753

Counties that used anti-icing agents during the winter season 63 of 72 (88%) 64 of 72 (89%)

Labor and Services

Regular county winter labor hours3 147,395 hrs. 166,741 hrs.

Overtime county winter labor hours 122,220 hrs. 140,471 hrs.

Public service announcements aired 13,936 total12,269 radio; 1,667 TV

9,954 total8,385 radio; 1,569 TV

Cost of public service announcements$36,000

($498,411 market value)

$36,000 ($334,564

market value)

1. All material usage quantities are from the county storm reports except for salt. Salt quantities are from WisDOT’s Salt Inventory Reporting System.2. Costs refer to final costs billed to WisDOT for all winter activities, including activities such as installing snow fences and thawing culverts. 3. Labor hours come from county storm reports, and reflect salting, sanding, plowing and anti-icing efforts.4. Patrol sections and average length include hybrid sections in some counties which may include a portion of county highway.

Table 1.1. Statewide Summary: This Winter Versus Last Winter, by the Numbers


ABOUT THIS REPORTEvery year, WisDOT gathers a multitude of data on winter weather and the state’s response to it. Tracking and analyzing this data helps us become more efficient by identifying good performance as well as areas that need improvement. In this way we use our limited resources to achieve the greatest benefit.

Through this report, WisDOT’s Bureau of Highway Maintenance shares data with the department’s regional maintenance staff and with our partners in the county highway departments. This allows regional and county staff to compare resource use with that of their peers across the state. The report has also been shared with the WisDOT Secretary’s Office, the state legislature, national organizations such as Clear Roads, and the general public.

REPORT STRUCTURE AND DATA SOURCESFollowing this section, this report is divided into four main sections:

• Section 2: Weather

• Section 3: Winter Operations

• Section 4: Performance

• Section 5: Looking Ahead

Each section has several subsections; refer to the Table of Contents for more detail. To improve readability, the report includes more statewide summary tables within the text, while county-by-county data appears at the end of each section.

Within many of the county-by-county tables in this report, the counties are grouped by region, in acknowledgement of the role that WisDOT’s regional staff plays in coordinating winter maintenance in their counties. In some tables, counties are divided by Winter Service Group (Groups A, B, C , D, E and F), which reflect the difference in the level of service provided on roads in these counties and facilitate comparisons within these groups. See Table 1.3 on page 10 for more information on Winter Service Groups.

In most tables, raw numbers (such as total salt used) are presented along with data that has been adjusted for differences between counties (such as salt used per lane mile per Winter Severity Index point). This allows more accurate comparisons between regions in different parts of the state.

This report presents data from several sources:

• The weekly winter storm reports completed by the county highway departments, which detail the counties’ estimates of the weather they faced and the materials, equipment and labor they used in responding to it. (See Section 4 for more information about storm reports.)

• Final cost and materials data as billed to WisDOT.

• Data on weather, crashes, travel and other topics from other bureaus within WisDOT and other agencies.

The final billed amounts are considered the most accurate source of cost and materials data, and are presented wherever possible.

When interpreting the data in this report, readers should remember that many factors affect a county’s response to winter, including the local Winter Severity Index, local traffic generators, the mix of highway types and classifications in a county, the type of equipment being used, and the length of patrol sections. Some tables in this report give data that is adjusted for one or more of these factors (for example, salt use per lane mile per severity index point), while others provide raw data.


WORKING WITH COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS WisDOT’s Bureau of Highway Maintenance, in partnership with the five WisDOT regional offices, is responsible for the maintenance of the state trunk and Interstate highway system. This system includes 34,678 lane miles of highway and around 4,570 bridges.

WisDOT contracts with the state’s 72 county highway departments to provide snow and ice control on all state- and U.S.-owned highways in Wisconsin, including the Interstate system. This partnership was set up more than 100 years ago and is unique in the nation.

This relationship benefits both WisDOT and the county highway departments. WisDOT receives the services of a skilled, experienced work force at fair labor rates, and the counties are able to purchase more pieces and types of equipment than they could otherwise afford. This equipment is then available for use on both county and state roads, an arrangement that allows WisDOT and the counties to avoid duplicating equipment and facilities. This arrangement also allows for increased efficiencies in work crews, thus reducing labor costs to taxpayers.

Staff at WisDOT’s five regional offices work closely with the county highway departments. Regional managers administer the contracts with the counties, and work with the counties to plan maintenance activities and set priorities. Regional staff oversee county highway departments’ maintenance expenditures, and are responsible for ensuring that the counties use resources efficiently and adhere to state guidelines for materials use. Regional staff also serve as a resource for the counties on state and federal rules and regulations, and can provide training assistance.

Snow Removal StrategyWisconsin DOT policy in the “Highway Maintenance Manual” specifies two types of snow removal strategies in an effort to be cost-effective while recognizing the public need for clear roads during hours when most travel is done. High-volume highways with the most traffic typically receive 24-hour coverage, while on lower-volume highways, 18-hour coverage is sufficient. On 18-hour routes, the service hours can be adjusted based on the timing of the storms; passing lanes, if present, may require less attention than the driving lanes and ramps.

Table 1.2 shows these categories and what percent of the highways fall into each group. Categories 1 and 2 are the 24-hour routes and categories 3, 4, and 5 receive 18-hour coverage. See Figure 1.1.

To fairly compare counties with similar levels of service, WISDOT assigns the 72 counties into six winter service groups – A, B, C, D, E, and F with winter service group A being the most urban and complex counties and F the most rural. Table 1.3 shows which counties are assigned to each group. These are the original assignments from when this method for comparison was developed about 20 years ago. Today’s definition of the group might not fit all the counties assigned to

Category Definition Lane miles % of total

1 Major urban freeways and highways with six lanes and greater 3,455 10.0%

2 High volume four-lane highways (Average Daily Traffic ≥ 25,000) 3,313 9.6%

3 All other four-lane highways (ADT < 25,000) 8,873 25.6%

4 High volume two-lane highways (ADT ≥ 5,000) 4,690 13.5%

5 All other two-lane highways (ADT < 5,000) 14,358 41.4%

Total 34,689*

Table 1.2. Highway Categories for Winter Maintenance

77

70

70

47

17

17

707070

77

7777

13

13

13

13

13

1313

13

13

13

13

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

3333

33

33 3333 33

33 33

26

89

89

89

191919

26

26

50 50

36

83

83

83

83

83

83

36

59

59

5959

59

26

26

26

33

23

23

23

39

3939

69

6992

67

2020

67

67

67

74

75

67

67

67

67

233556

5682

82

82 82

16

16

16

44

44

49

49

49

49

49

49

47

47

47

47

3296

96

32

32

32

32

32

32

31

31

38

32

32

32

32

32

32

44

44

16

82

80

80

80

80

8058

58

58

80

80

80

8078

78

78

78

78

78

81

81

8111

11

11 11

11 11111111

81

81

81

82

3560

6060

60 6060

60

60

35

35

35

37

88

93

93

93

71

27

27

27

27

27 2121 21 21 2121

7171

95

93

95

54 54

54

54

5454

54 76

15

54

57

57

57

57

57

57

57

42

42

42

91 9142

42

57

54

37

35 2929

29

79

2929 29

52

29

29

2929

73

73

73

73

98

97

73

73

73

73

732323 23 23 23

28

28

2828

22

22

22

22

66

66

22

22

2222

73

73

73

27

27

27

29

7272

25

25

85

535

27

27

707070

48

48

46

87

46

6464

65

65

65

65

64

40

6464

6464

52

55

55

55

55

55

55

6464 64

48

48

48

25

25

70

40

40

169

112118

253

170

111

102

182

122

107

107

139

180

101

155

107

105

2

2

53

63

53

63

63

63

63

6310

10

10

12

12

53

53

53

53

53

53

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

1214

14

1818

181818

61

61

61

61

61

1818

14

1414

14

14

14

14

12

10 1010 10

10

10

10

53

10

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

41

45

45

45

45

4541

4145

45

10

41

41

45

45

41

51

2

2

8

88 8

8

8

8

141

141

141

141

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

888

94

94

94

94

949494

94

94

94

94

39

39

39

39

39

39

90

90

90

9090

90

90

43

43

43

43

43

43

43

172

187

175

175

147

144

164

164

138138 164

145190

119

158

165

120140

341

120

100

106106

113

133

193

133

133

133

133

130

130

154

154

188

136136

127

131

131

131

131

173

162108

121121

124178

128

121

162

162

173

186

153

126

191

133

213

171171

179

113

113

167

146

181

144

310

116

96

152

114

441

110

161161

156

Florence

Lincoln

Marathon

Clark

Chippewa

EauClaire

Taylor

DodgeColumbia

Washington

Winnebago

Fond du Lac

Door

Kewaunee

Forest

DaneWaukesha

Green Lake

TrempealeauJackson

Wood

Juneau

AdamsMarquette

Waushara

Crawford

Monroe

RacineWalworthRock

Green

Lafayette

Grant

Iowa

Sauk

Richland

Vernon

LaCrosse

Oconto

Shawano

Waupaca

Portage

Outagamie

Brown

Manitowoc

Calumet

Sheboygan

Ozaukee

Milwaukee

Kenosha

Rusk

Barron

Sawyer

Bayfield

Ashland

Iron

Price

Oneida

Vilas

Langlade

Menominee

Marinette

Douglas

Jefferson

Washburn

Polk

St Croix Dunn

Pepin

Buffalo

Pierce

Burnett

Milwaukee

Racine

11/10/2014

Washington

20

38

36

74

100

100

94

57

164

164

145190

119

341

45

181

794

894

For the most up-to-date map information, visit http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/road/docs/snowplowbrochure2014mapside.pdf

11

1 Major urban freeways and most highways with six lanes and greater

All lanes and ramps will be maintained to the highest level practical.

2 High volume four-lane highways (ADT* >= 25,000) and some four-lane highways (ADT < 25,000) and some six-lane highways All lanes and ramps will be maintained

equally with emphasis on plowing and sensible salting.

*ADT = Average Daily Traffic

All other four-lane highways (ADT< 25,000) All lanes and ramps will be maintained with

emphasis on plowing and sensible salting. However, the driving lanes and ramps will receive preferential treatment. The passing lane will receive less attention. Plowing with less salting will be done on the passing lane.

Most high volume two-lane highways (ADT >= 5,000) and some two-lanes (ADT < 5,000)

The driving lane will be maintained with emphasis on plowing and sensible salting.

All other two-lane highways The driving lane will be maintained primarily by plowing with minimal salting.

Snow plowing and ice controlcategories during a stormCategory Category

N

5

4

3

*Total is off due to rounding at the county level. Actual total lane miles is 34,678.


Figure 1.1. WisDOT Snow Plowing and Ice Control Categories

that group, but for now the counties are still assigned to the Winter Service Group in this table. Be sure to look at Chapter 4B if you are interested in a county by county comparison of plow routes in this table and winter patrol sections – a plow route is the same as a winter patrol section.

77

70

70

47

17

17

707070

77

7777

13

13

13

13

13

1313

13

13

13

13

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

3333

33

33 3333 33

33 33

26

89

89

89

191919

26

26

50 50

36

83

83

83

83

83

83

36

59

59

5959

59

26

26

26

33

23

23

23

39

3939

69

6992

67

2020

67

67

67

74

75

67

67

67

67

233556

5682

82

82 82

16

16

16

44

44

49

49

49

49

49

49

47

47

47

47

3296

96

32

32

32

32

32

32

31

31

38

32

32

32

32

32

32

44

44

16

82

80

80

80

80

8058

58

58

80

80

80

8078

78

78

78

78

78

81

81

8111

11

11 11

11 11111111

81

81

81

82

3560

6060

60 6060

60

60

35

35

35

37

88

93

93

93

71

27

27

27

27

27 2121 21 21 2121

7171

95

93

95

54 54

54

54

5454

54 76

15

54

57

57

57

57

57

57

57

42

42

42

91 9142

42

57

54

37

35 2929

29

79

2929 29

52

29

29

2929

73

73

73

73

98

97

73

73

73

73

732323 23 23 23

28

28

2828

22

22

22

22

66

66

22

22

2222

73

73

73

27

27

27

29

7272

25

25

85

535

27

27

707070

48

48

46

87

46

6464

65

65

65

65

64

40

6464

6464

52

55

55

55

55

55

55

6464 64

48

48

48

25

25

70

40

40

169

112118

253

170

111

102

182

122

107

107

139

180

101

155

107

105

2

2

53

63

53

63

63

63

63

6310

10

10

12

12

53

53

53

53

53

53

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

1214

14

1818

181818

61

61

61

61

61

1818

14

1414

14

14

14

14

12

10 1010 10

10

10

10

53

10

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

41

45

45

45

45

4541

4145

45

10

41

41

45

45

41

51

2

2

8

88 8

8

8

8

141

141

141

141

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

151

888

94

94

94

94

949494

94

94

94

94

39

39

39

39

39

39

90

90

90

9090

90

90

43

43

43

43

43

43

43

172

187

175

175

147

144

164

164

138138 164

145190

119

158

165

120140

341

120

100

106106

113

133

193

133

133

133

133

130

130

154

154

188

136136

127

131

131

131

131

173

162108

121121

124178

128

121

162

162

173

186

153

126

191

133

213

171171

179

113

113

167

146

181

144

310

116

96

152

114

441

110

161161

156

Florence

Lincoln

Marathon

Clark

Chippewa

EauClaire

Taylor

DodgeColumbia

Washington

Winnebago

Fond du Lac

Door

Kewaunee

Forest

DaneWaukesha

Green Lake

TrempealeauJackson

Wood

Juneau

AdamsMarquette

Waushara

Crawford

Monroe

RacineWalworthRock

Green

Lafayette

Grant

Iowa

Sauk

Richland

Vernon

LaCrosse

Oconto

Shawano

Waupaca

Portage

Outagamie

Brown

Manitowoc

Calumet

Sheboygan

Ozaukee

Milwaukee

Kenosha

Rusk

Barron

Sawyer

Bayfield

Ashland

Iron

Price

Oneida

Vilas

Langlade

Menominee

Marinette

Douglas

Jefferson

Washburn

Polk

St Croix Dunn

Pepin

Buffalo

Pierce

Burnett

Milwaukee

Racine

11/10/2014

Washington

20

38

36

74

100

100

94

57

164

164

145190

119

341

45

181

794

894

For the most up-to-date map information, visit http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/road/docs/snowplowbrochure2014mapside.pdf

11

1 Major urban freeways and most highways with six lanes and greater

All lanes and ramps will be maintained to the highest level practical.

2 High volume four-lane highways (ADT* >= 25,000) and some four-lane highways (ADT < 25,000) and some six-lane highways All lanes and ramps will be maintained

equally with emphasis on plowing and sensible salting.

*ADT = Average Daily Traffic

All other four-lane highways (ADT< 25,000) All lanes and ramps will be maintained with

emphasis on plowing and sensible salting. However, the driving lanes and ramps will receive preferential treatment. The passing lane will receive less attention. Plowing with less salting will be done on the passing lane.

Most high volume two-lane highways (ADT >= 5,000) and some two-lanes (ADT < 5,000)

The driving lane will be maintained with emphasis on plowing and sensible salting.

All other two-lane highways The driving lane will be maintained primarily by plowing with minimal salting.

Snow plowing and ice controlcategories during a stormCategory Category

N

5

4

3


THIS WINTER IN WISCONSINTable 1.4 on pages 13-17 summarizes key data from this winter for all 72 counties, including total salt use and cost data. This table facilitates comparisons in these core areas across regions and counties, and serves as a quick reference for commonly used data. The table uses a similar format to the Storm Report Summary (Table A-1 on pages 5-10 of the Appendix), but the cost data in Table 1.4 are actual billed costs as submitted to WisDOT by the counties, rather than estimates from the storm reports.

Winter ServiceGroup

County Names Number of Counties

% of Counties

A Dane, Milwaukee,Waukesha 3 4%

B

Brown, Chippewa, Columbia, Dodge, Eau Claire, Fond du Lac, Grant, Jefferson, Kenosha, Marathon, Monroe, Outagamie, Portage, Racine, Rock, Sauk, St. Croix, Walworth, Washington, Waupaca, Winnebago

21 29%

CBarron, Clark, Crawford, Douglas, Dunn, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lincoln, Manitowoc, Oconto, Pierce, Shawano, Sheboygan, Vernon, Wood

17 24%

DBayfield, Buffalo, Door, Green, Lafayette, Marinette, Marquette, Oneida, Ozaukee, Polk, Richland, Trempealeau, Washburn, Waushara

14 19%

E Ashland, Burnett, Calumet, Forest, Iron, Langlade, Pepin, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, Vilas 12 17%

F Adams, Florence, Green Lake, Kewaunee, Menominee 5 7%

Table 1.3. County Winter Service Groups


COUNTY-BY-COUNTY

QUICK REFERENCE WINTER SUMMARY TABLE

FOR SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION


NC

Table 1.4. Winter in Wisconsin, 2017-2018

County Lane miles

MDSS Severity

IndexSnowfall (inches)

Total salt used (tons)

Salt used (tons) per lane mile

Salt used per lane mile per Severity

IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Total winter

costs per lane mile

Total winter

costs per lane mile

per Severity

IndexNorth Central Region

Adams 193.20 90.27 67.1 3,179 16.45 0.18 $250,019 $1,294 $546,537 $2,829 $31.34Florence 141.07 129.62 114.3 2,640 18.72 0.14 $178,739 $1,267 $403,869 $2,863 $22.09Forest 312.38 129.84 117.3 4,452 14.25 0.11 $292,118 $935 $706,253 $2,261 $17.41Green Lake 158.44 87.02 43.7 1,236 7.80 0.09 $84,286 $532 $275,837 $1,741 $20.01Iron 249.56 197.99 222.6 4,264 17.09 0.09 $303,231 $1,215 $849,643 $3,405 $17.20Langlade 299.21 125.27 112.7 3,843 12.84 0.10 $242,821 $812 $701,272 $2,344 $18.71Lincoln 405.55 123.58 118.1 5,178 12.77 0.10 $365,329 $901 $1,116,316 $2,753 $22.27Marathon 874.81 115.58 94.0 12,650 14.46 0.13 $954,206 $1,091 $2,483,521 $2,839 $24.56Marquette 245.75 88.70 47.9 2,645 10.76 0.12 $186,403 $759 $475,904 $1,937 $21.83Menominee 90.26 105.14 100.4 1,666 18.46 0.18 $123,069 $1,363 $215,778 $2,391 $22.74Oneida 396.79 133.89 126.4 5,702 14.37 0.11 $346,500 $873 $1,036,299 $2,612 $19.51Portage 560.77 108.87 86.3 7,353 13.11 0.12 $547,181 $976 $1,714,229 $3,057 $28.08Price 320.19 129.78 140.8 4,672 14.59 0.11 $339,284 $1,060 $935,234 $2,921 $22.51Shawano 520.57 98.33 112.4 8,459 16.25 0.17 $615,921 $1,183 $1,629,118 $3,129 $31.83Vilas 305.24 149.89 134.3 7,732 25.33 0.17 $478,661 $1,568 $1,066,452 $3,494 $23.31Waupaca 546.52 95.23 71.1 10,845 19.84 0.21 $835,034 $1,528 $1,793,561 $3,282 $34.46Waushara 345.01 90.28 71.4 2,940 8.52 0.09 $189,020 $548 $504,050 $1,461 $16.18Wood 431.88 100.94 82.3 6,141 14.22 0.14 $405,171 $938 $949,358 $2,198 $21.78

Region total 6,397.20 95,596 $6,736,991 $17,403,229Region average 355.40 116.68 103.5 5311 14.94 0.13 $374,277 $1,053 $966,846 $2,720 $23.32

Sources: Cost data are final billed costs as billed to WisDOT by the counties. Salt data is taken from WisDOT's Salt Inventory Reporting System.



County Lane miles

MDSS Severity





IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Total winter

costs per lane mile

Total winter

costs per lane mile

per Severity

Index

Northeast RegionBrown 902.08 85.57 75.7 14,353 15.91 0.19 $806,913 $895 $2,469,937 $2,738 $32.00Calumet 202.30 86.70 51.4 2,113 10.45 0.12 $125,812 $622 $447,325 $2,211 $25.50Door 271.80 87.07 99.5 3,643 13.40 0.15 $230,719 $849 $822,696 $3,027 $34.76Fond du Lac 609.98 85.52 65.1 9,511 15.59 0.18 $641,714 $1,052 $1,580,217 $2,591 $30.29Kewaunee 111.35 84.93 89.5 903 8.11 0.10 $52,321 $470 $228,992 $2,057 $24.22Manitowoc 426.61 84.58 70.5 7,353 17.23 0.20 $443,798 $1,040 $1,336,953 $3,134 $37.05Marinette 436.66 101.02 97.7 7,124 16.32 0.16 $463,500 $1,061 $1,180,096 $2,703 $26.75Oconto 469.52 101.58 88.7 5,492 11.70 0.12 $348,218 $742 $1,032,246 $2,199 $21.64Outagamie 538.53 90.05 82.1 9,232 17.14 0.19 $556,428 $1,033 $1,662,551 $3,087 $34.29Sheboygan 528.68 85.59 51.1 8,539 16.15 0.19 $571,328 $1,081 $1,538,632 $2,910 $34.00Winnebago 629.54 87.14 41.5 9,245 14.69 0.17 $577,004 $917 $1,612,678 $2,562 $29.40

Region total 5,127.05 77,509 $4,817,756 $13,912,324Region average 466.10 89.07 73.9 7046 15.12 0.17 $437,978 $940 $1,264,757 $2,714 $30.47


NE



County Lane miles

MDSS Severity





IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Total winter

costs per lane mile

Total winter

costs per lane mile

per Severity

IndexNorthwest Region

Ashland 245.35 154.89 192.7 3,714 15.14 0.10 $257,617 $1,050 $732,366 $2,985 $19.27Barron 428.77 105.65 126.0 5,667 13.22 0.13 $395,980 $924 $1,357,934 $3,167 $29.98Bayfield 316.42 139.24 157.1 5,465 17.27 0.12 $352,028 $1,113 $969,236 $3,063 $22.00Buffalo 317.02 85.53 100.9 3,089 9.74 0.11 $212,091 $669 $606,738 $1,914 $22.38Burnett 237.93 103.72 103.4 3,598 15.12 0.15 $234,250 $985 $615,895 $2,589 $24.96Chippewa 654.65 99.10 92.6 13,167 20.11 0.20 $967,531 $1,478 $2,182,807 $3,334 $33.64Clark 402.56 103.76 87.3 6,139 15.25 0.15 $462,681 $1,149 $1,207,557 $3,000 $28.91Douglas 451.40 132.01 172.6 8,152 18.06 0.14 $477,859 $1,059 $1,373,728 $3,043 $23.05Dunn 519.24 97.05 74.9 12,175 23.45 0.24 $884,425 $1,703 $1,766,557 $3,402 $35.06Eau Claire 540.70 94.47 76.0 9,384 17.35 0.18 $697,120 $1,289 $1,792,574 $3,315 $35.09Jackson 515.44 92.88 80.3 9,795 19.00 0.20 $748,308 $1,452 $1,781,763 $3,457 $37.22Pepin 112.38 81.47 69.8 726 6.46 0.08 $54,446 $484 $230,000 $2,047 $25.12Pierce 369.46 85.57 92.3 5,264 14.25 0.17 $367,819 $996 $999,373 $2,705 $31.61Polk 385.81 101.32 105.3 7,811 20.25 0.20 $557,705 $1,446 $1,262,590 $3,273 $32.30Rusk 213.47 112.36 85.0 2,391 11.20 0.10 $175,408 $822 $463,708 $2,172 $19.33Saint Croix 646.54 93.26 96.0 14,635 22.64 0.24 $982,888 $1,520 $2,221,290 $3,436 $36.84Sawyer 367.44 124.49 118.7 4,997 13.60 0.11 $375,432 $1,022 $817,455 $2,225 $17.87Taylor 233.90 111.53 92.4 4,351 18.60 0.17 $359,031 $1,535 $775,815 $3,317 $29.74Trempeleau 443.67 86.71 102.7 7,480 16.86 0.19 $527,108 $1,188 $1,267,386 $2,857 $32.94Washburn 372.14 108.66 108.0 6,217 16.71 0.15 $407,989 $1,096 $1,066,763 $2,867 $26.38

Region total 7,774.29 134,218 $9,497,716 $23,491,535Region average 388.71 105.68 106.7 6711 16.21 0.15 $474,886 $1,222 $1,174,577 $3,022 $28.59


NW



County Lane miles

MDSS Severity





IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Total winter

costs per lane mile

Total winter

costs per lane mile

per Severity

Index

Southeast RegionKenosha 660.76 59.49 25.8 9,172 13.88 0.23 $556,302 $842 $1,659,933 $2,512 $42.23Milwaukee 1948.56 68.16 44.2 34,661 17.79 0.26 $2,030,800 $1,042 $7,415,656 $3,806 $55.84Ozaukee 309.54 81.66 51.1 6,167 19.92 0.24 $352,585 $1,139 $984,806 $3,182 $38.96Racine 683.46 64.43 58.6 11,647 17.04 0.26 $714,542 $1,045 $1,724,374 $2,523 $39.16Walworth 706.47 71.08 57.0 15,716 22.25 0.31 $910,752 $1,289 $2,107,393 $2,983 $41.97Washington 611.85 94.20 54.2 9,263 15.14 0.16 $589,593 $964 $1,696,477 $2,773 $29.43Waukesha 1073.65 81.54 66.1 21,247 19.79 0.24 $1,287,128 $1,199 $3,031,216 $2,823 $34.62



SE



County Lane miles

MDSS Severity





IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Total winter

costs per lane mile

Total winter

costs per lane mile

per Severity

IndexSouthwest Region

Columbia 787.76 86.86 47.0 18,880 23.97 0.28 $1,467,749 $1,863 $2,503,579 $3,178 $36.59Crawford 395.79 79.18 51.7 3,258 8.23 0.10 $230,192 $582 $570,964 $1,443 $18.22Dane 1544.20 78.00 36.8 35,371 22.91 0.29 $2,493,636 $1,615 $5,891,401 $3,815 $48.91Dodge 637.85 92.44 57.0 12,818 20.10 0.22 $876,510 $1,374 $1,829,999 $2,869 $31.04Grant 624.93 69.30 44.2 7,517 12.03 0.17 $490,991 $786 $1,125,630 $1,801 $25.99Green 314.64 67.53 43.6 2,422 7.70 0.11 $176,636 $561 $541,770 $1,722 $25.50Iowa 473.13 78.39 47.9 5,286 11.17 0.14 $370,030 $782 $995,350 $2,104 $26.84Jefferson 549.67 83.73 66.1 9,646 17.55 0.21 $643,406 $1,171 $1,376,255 $2,504 $29.90Juneau 496.27 92.02 73.9 8,725 17.58 0.19 $657,521 $1,325 $1,285,404 $2,590 $28.15LaCrosse 500.74 79.04 68.0 7,038 14.06 0.18 $465,281 $929 $1,271,257 $2,539 $32.12Lafayette 299.38 73.23 35.9 1,772 5.92 0.08 $121,615 $406 $530,067 $1,771 $24.18Monroe 665.65 92.41 59.0 10,093 15.16 0.16 $746,998 $1,122 $1,568,386 $2,356 $25.50Richland 327.64 84.97 52.9 1,782 5.44 0.06 $133,691 $408 $517,318 $1,579 $18.58Rock 683.31 67.81 53.7 11,377 16.65 0.25 $734,851 $1,075 $1,778,948 $2,603 $38.39Sauk 606.44 89.23 67.2 10,899 17.97 0.20 $836,424 $1,379 $1,656,582 $2,732 $30.61Vernon 477.82 93.80 54.1 5,518 11.55 0.12 $382,467 $800 $961,235 $2,012 $21.45


Statewide total 34,678.05 83.7 567,600 16.37 $38,322,162 $97,831,087Statewide average 97.53 $1,089 $2,832


SW

19

Every winter is different. The number and type of storms, the range of temperatures, the amount of snow – these factors, along with many others, combine to create varying challenges for Wisconsin's county highway departments each year.

The 2017-2018 winter was mild with the exception of April which saw record cold temperatures and snowfall across the state. Temperatures averaged about 10°F below normal for the month and more than 50 reporting stations in the state set snowfall records for April.

This section describes the weather Wisconsin experienced during the 2017-2018 winter, and the tools and methodologies WisDOT uses to analyze individual storms and the winter as a whole. The Winter Severity Index is one such tool – WisDOT uses it to facilitate comparisons from one winter to the next, and from county to county within the same season.

Statewide average

Range across counties

Total snowfall1 83.7 inches 25-223 inchesWinter Severity Index 102.91 67-178Winter storms 33 20-61Frost events 3.8 0-17Freezing rain events 8.8 2-21

Winter Weather, 2017–2018

1. All data in this table is from Winter Storm Reports, 2017–2018.

Tracking the WinterEach week during winter,

representatives from the 72 county highway departments complete

winter storm reports. These reports give WisDOT the tools to manage statewide materials use

and maintenance expenses as the winter progresses. See page 65 for

more information.

Photo Credit: Pixabay- Creative Commons License

In this section...Winter Weather Challenges.......................20This Winter’s Weather.................................20Winter Severity Index..................................21

Winter Weather2


WINTER WEATHER CHALLENGESEach year, county highway departments face unique combinations of temperatures and storms, and draw on their experience in deciding what combination of snow and ice control strategies to employ. The number of storms has a more significant impact on resources expended than snowfall totals, since staff and equipment may be mobilized even if only 0.1 inches of snow or freezing rain falls. Weekend and evening storms may also be more costly than weekday storms because of overtime pay.

Storms with low temperatures can be difficult for crews because deicing agents become less effective at lower temperatures. Storms with high winds also are a challenge, because snow blows back onto the roadway quickly after the plows pass.

Counties in the northern half of the state tend to face colder temperatures and heavier snowfall than those in the southern half. Wisconsin’s average annual snowfall ranges from about 40 inches in the south to as much as 160 inches along the shores of Lake Superior. In 2017-2018 snowfall ranged from 25 in the south to 223 in the north. The statewide average annual snowfall is 54.4 inches (30-year normal as recorded by the Wisconsin State Climatology Office).

On average, about 35 to 40 winter weather events hit Wisconsin each winter. While only a couple of large freezing rain events normally strike the state each winter, the state experiences numerous freezing drizzle and freezing fog events that cause roads to ice over.

THIS WINTER’S WEATHERWinter started off on the mild side. There was little snowfall in November. The first Arctic air outbreak didn’t occur until the last 10 days of December. This warmth led to warmer-than-usual water temperatures on Lake Superior, and that, in turn, caused significant lake-effect snowfall across the far north in December. Snowfall across the rest of the state was below average, with no major storms hitting the state.

January temperatures fluctuated wildly, with both record highs and record lows being recorded in Wisconsin. In the end, monthly temperatures were about average. A major storm hit west central Wisconsin on the 22nd, dropping over a foot of snow in some locations.

February offered a harbinger of things to come. Temperatures were well below average across all of Wisconsin. One major snow event hit southern Wisconsin February 8-12, with totals of more than 5 inches common. Another major storm dropped up to 10 inches of snow across northwest Wisconsin late in the month.

March temperatures were near the average statewide. Snowfall varied from above normal across the northwest to below normal across the south, with no major events being recorded.

Figure 2.1. Statewide Snowfall, 2017-2018 From Winter Storm Reports

94

89

52

84

47

97

95 94

105

70

98

99

88

58

58

104

103

96

96

104

54

101

73

53

72

56

53

48

7574

97

61

46

82

56

103109

90

77

61

42

101102

50

74

100

94

102

50

42

55 58

51

100

131

83

66

88

5766

54

61

55

97

84

73

55

85

57

88

58

60

MDSS Snow Totals(Inches)

42 - 60

61 - 80

81 - 100

101 - 120

> 120

Note: If you are looking at a black-and-white version of this map, you may download a color version of this report at http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/hwy-mnt/winter-maintenance/default.aspx


95

92

68

95

75

111

92

90

110

115

86

83

77

110

74

108

85

81

82

80

74

69

7692

95

76

72

117

96

103

101

76

104

137

74

100

73

68

111

104105

75

83

101

94

105

72

109

65

78 82

78

103

176

80

83

99

8374

74

84

102

74

95

87

83

76

83

87

97

81

84

MDSS Severity65 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

101 - 110

111 - 176

Statewide Average: 90.05-Year Average: 100

April featured record cold across the entire state. Temperatures averaged about 10°F below normal for the month. Most of Wisconsin received over seven times the normal amount of snow for April. More than 50 official reporting stations in the state set records for April. For instance, Green Bay saw 36.7” for the month. Two record-breaking storms hit the state. The first, on April 15, dropped over two feet of heavy, wet snow across central and northeastern Wisconsin. The second, just four days later, left over 6 inches across the south.

During the 2017-18 winter season, county highway departments responded to:

• A statewide average of 33 winter events per county, or 7 more than the previous winter. The high was 61 events in Douglas County and the low was 20 events in Milwaukee County.

• A statewide average of 4 frost events.

• A statewide average of 5 freezing rain events.

Figure 2.1 shows the total snowfall received in Wisconsin this winter based on storm report data. Snowfall varied significantly across the state; the highest snowfall recorded was in Iron County, at 131 inches; the lowest was in Lafayette and Green Counties, at 42 inches. This winter’s statewide average total snowfall was 77.8 inches.

WINTER SEVERITY INDEXWisDOT’s Winter Severity Index is a management tool that allows the department to maximize winter maintenance efficiency by evaluating the materials, labor and equipment used based on the severity of the winter in a given county or region.

Developed in 1995, the severity index is calculated using a formula that includes:

• Number of snow events

• Number of freezing rain events

• Total snow amount

• Total storm duration

• Total number of incidents

Since all of these factors can affect materials use, the severity index gives the department a simple way to quantify severity that incorporates multiple factors into a single number. WisDOT uses the severity index in two ways:

1. Season-to-season comparisons. This lets the department compare apples to apples when evaluating materials use

Note: If you are looking at a black-and-white version of the maps on this page, you may download a color version of this report at http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/hwy-mnt/winter-maintenance/default.aspx

Figure 2.2. Winter Severity Index, 2017-2018

Figure 2.3. 2017-2018 Winter Severity Index vs. 5-Year Average (2013–2014 to 2017-2018)

Price

Clark

Dane

Polk

Vilas

Grant

Iron

Rusk

Bayfield

Sawyer

Sauk

Oneida Forest

Douglas

Taylor

Dunn

Iowa

Marathon

Rock

Marinette

Dodge

Oconto

Wood

Barron

Jackson

Lincoln

Ashland

Burnett

JuneauMonroe

Vernon

Portage

Chippewa

Adams

Shawano

Buffalo

Langlade

Pierce

Green

Door

Columbia

Washburn

Waupaca Brown

Saint Croix

Lafayette

Richland

Eau Claire

Crawford

Jefferson

Waushara

Fond du Lac

Outagamie

Walworth

Florence

Waukesha

Manitowoc

Racine

La Crosse

Sheboygan

Pepin

Marquette

Winnebago

Kenosha

Menominee

Trempealeau

Calumet

Washington

Green Lake

Kewaunee

Ozaukee

Milwaukee

Percent Departure from Average

<= -10%

-5% to -10%

0% to -5%

> 0%

MDSS Severity Vs 5-Year Average4-15-2018


and costs over several seasons, and identify trends in winter weather that can be useful in planning materials purchases. In the case of cost trends, adjusting cost data for severity index ranking can help WisDOT separate cost increases due to more severe winters from those due to increased labor costs, equipment costs, lane miles and other factors.

2. Regional comparisons. Since snowfall, number of storms, and other factors vary widely across the state, the severity index also helps WisDOT compare resources use from one region or county to another within a single winter. This allows WisDOT to assess whether materials are being used consistently, whether counties have enough staff, and other factors that affect each region’s response to winter.

Data from weekly storm reports are used to calculate the Winter Severity Index for each county according to a weighted formula. Results are scaled such that the 5-year average is 100. A number above 100 indicates higher-than-average severity; a number below 100 indicates lower-than-average severity. We have begun scaling severity this way in order to make the numbers more easily understood. This winter:

• The statewide average Winter Severity Index was 97.53, which is 7.9 percent lower than the average of the previous five winters (105.9), and 5.7 percent lower than the average of the previous ten winters (103.4).

• Iron and Ashland Counties had the highest severity indexes, 176 and 137 respectively.

• Green and Lafayette/Dane Counties had the lowest severity indexes, 65 and 68 respectively.

With some exceptions across the state, this winter was slightly less severe than normal. Figure 2.2 on the previous page shows how severity index varied by county this winter, while Figure 2.3 shows how this winter’s severity index for each county compares to the average of the previous five years in that county.

Since the Winter Severity Index is an important tool for comparing cost and materials data from year to year, this report includes several charts that compare trends in winter measures over time with changes in severity index. This includes Figure 3.1, as well as Figure 3.2 (salt used per lane mile; page 33), Figure 4.1 (winter costs; page 71), and Figure 4.6 (winter crashes; page 77).

More information on the severity index is available by request from WisDOT:

• A report describing the process that was used to develop the severity index, including data on the five-year-average severity index for each county (March 1998).

• A table showing Winter Severity Index values for each county for the previous 10 winter seasons.

On pages 25-30, Table 2.1 gives details about the types of storms and other incidents (such as frost, ice, and drifting or blowing snow) that each county experienced this winter, as reported by the counties in their winter storm reports.


COUNTY-BY-COUNTY

TABLES FOR SECTION 2

WINTER WEATHER


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

of

Stor

ms

Wet

Sn

owD

ry

Snow

Free

zing

Rai

nSl

eet

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

U

p

Tabl

e 2.

1 St

orm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

sFr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

GR

EEN

LAK

E43

.715

8.44

1236

7.80

238

186

715

81

41

08

6N

C

WAU

SHAR

A71

.434

5.01

2940

8.52

317

203

313

67

12

06

0M

ARQ

UET

TE47

.924

5.75

2645

10.7

627

627

103

101

00

10

810

LIN

COLN

118.

140

5.55

5178

12.7

729

3412

1116

226

81

119

1517

LANG

LAD

E11

2.7

299.

2138

4312

.84

3423

246

234

116

420

27

30PO

RTA

GE

86.3

560.

7773

5313

.11

3322

159

414

71

12

18

9W

OO

D82

.343

1.88

6140

14.2

233

1816

57

137

77

52

117

FORE

ST11

7.3

312.

3844

5214

.25

4625

197

016

75

02

012

0O

NEI

DA

126.

439

6.79

5702

14.3

742

1535

66

90

12

41

68

MAR

ATH

ON

94.0

874.

8112

650

14.4

636

1720

34

3616

95

165

1539

PRIC

E14

0.8

322.

2646

7214

.50

5131

207

1023

111

84

510

9SH

AWAN

O11

2.4

520.

5784

5916

.25

3318

276

1023

910

03

616

17AD

AMS

67.1

193.

2031

7916

.45

3016

2410

117

12

03

04

19IR

ON

222.

624

9.56

4264

17.0

947

2324

14

2712

61

130

122

MEN

OM

INEE

100.

490

.26

1666

18.4

631

1411

50

220

00

120

101

FLO

REN

CE11

4.3

141.

0726

4018

.71

4146

26

1829

1611

89

410

14W

AUPA

CA

71.1

546.

7410

841

19.8

328

916

33

187

81

42

82

VILA

S13

4.3

305.

2477

3225

.33

4527

204

633

89

013

122

3

Reg

ion

Aver

age

103.

535

5.53

5311

14.9

836

2019

66

207

52

72

1011

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Wed

nesd

ay, A

ugus

t 29,

201

8Pa

ge 1

of 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

of

Stor

ms

Wet

Sn

owD

ry

Snow

Free

zing

Rai

nSl

eet

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

U

p

Tabl

e 2.

1 St

orm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

sFr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

KEW

AUN

EE89

.511

1.35

903

8.11

3519

119

611

99

21

07

4N

E

CAL

UM

ET51

.420

2.30

2113

10.4

430

624

71

167

20

20

67

OC

ON

TO88

.746

9.52

5492

11.7

030

1616

105

175

43

62

1217

DO

OR

99.5

271.

8036

4313

.40

3028

154

1229

2521

715

09

11W

INN

EBAG

O41

.562

9.54

9245

14.6

930

625

52

221

57

79

119

FOND

DU

LAC

65.1

609.

9895

1115

.59

235

162

020

104

103

36

7BR

OW

N75

.790

2.08

1435

315

.91

3112

154

79

66

11

10

23SH

EBO

YGAN

51.1

528.

6885

3916

.15

2313

1610

820

54

134

210

20M

ARIN

ETTE

97.7

436.

6671

2416

.31

3412

183

353

53

17

1437

35O

UTA

GAM

IE82

.153

8.63

9232

17.1

433

2510

37

116

45

31

54

MAN

ITO

WO

C70

.542

6.61

7353

17.2

429

917

61

160

46

12

711

Reg

ion

Aver

age

73.9

466.

1070

4614

.24

3014

176

520

76

55

310

13

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Wed

nesd

ay, A

ugus

t 29,

201

8Pa

ge 2

of 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

of

Stor

ms

Wet

Sn

owD

ry

Snow

Free

zing

Rai

nSl

eet

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

U

p

Tabl

e 2.

1 St

orm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

sFr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

PEPI

N69

.811

2.38

726

6.46

2920

296

179

98

43

67

11N

W

BUFF

ALO

100.

931

7.02

3089

9.74

4129

223

1110

94

16

08

7R

USK

85.0

213.

4723

9111

.20

3522

132

223

56

03

1120

0BA

RRO

N12

6.0

428.

7756

6713

.22

4422

261

752

2514

618

1429

2SA

WYE

R11

8.7

367.

4449

9713

.60

3926

133

217

44

311

77

0PI

ERC

E92

.336

9.46

5259

14.2

335

2018

117

2214

86

95

183

BURN

ETT

103.

423

7.93

3598

15.1

235

1720

03

112

20

30

60

ASH

LAN

D19

2.7

245.

3537

1415

.14

4921

302

132

242

26

016

3C

LAR

K87

.340

2.56

6135

15.2

430

2012

25

2923

62

81

1314

WAS

HBU

RN10

8.0

372.

1462

1716

.71

4827

201

417

44

23

411

2TR

EMPE

ALEA

U10

2.7

443.

6774

8016

.86

4521

254

135

33

30

34

3BA

YFIE

LD15

7.1

316.

4254

6517

.27

5023

301

636

2217

06

414

4EA

U C

LAIR

E76

.054

0.70

9384

17.3

630

2211

36

140

14

910

65

DO

UG

LAS

172.

645

1.40

8152

18.0

661

1842

34

162

01

21

113

TAYL

OR

92.4

233.

9043

5118

.60

3732

205

247

2418

728

923

24JA

CKS

ON

80.3

515.

4497

9519

.00

3013

171

79

44

01

27

0C

HIPP

EWA

92.6

654.

6513

167

20.1

130

311

63

176

53

40

1412

POLK

105.

338

5.81

7811

20.2

541

1518

61

3918

215

220

1013

SAIN

T C

ROIX

96.0

646.

5414

635

22.6

432

1720

06

159

102

15

60

DUN

N74

.951

9.24

1217

523

.45

3316

182

416

35

53

35

7

Reg

ion

Aver

age

106.

738

8.71

6710

16.2

139

2220

36

2211

73

74

126

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Wed

nesd

ay, A

ugus

t 29,

201

8Pa

ge 3

of 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

of

Stor

ms

Wet

Sn

owD

ry

Snow

Free

zing

Rai

nSl

eet

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

U

p

Tabl

e 2.

1 St

orm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

sFr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

KEN

OSH

A25

.866

0.76

9172

13.8

827

1110

44

00

03

00

09

SE

WAS

HIN

GTO

N54

.261

1.85

9263

15.1

429

1215

34

124

15

10

94

RAC

INE

58.6

683.

4611

647

17.0

427

421

45

93

21

87

73

MIL

WAU

KEE

44.2

1,94

8.56

3466

117

.79

209

112

05

01

30

32

8W

AUKE

SHA

66.1

1,07

3.65

2124

719

.79

289

142

40

00

00

00

0O

ZAUK

EE51

.130

9.54

6167

19.9

226

1515

42

82

23

11

59

WAL

WO

RTH

57.0

706.

4715

716

22.2

531

1115

44

337

96

115

1116

Reg

ion

Aver

age

51.0

856.

3315

410

17.9

727

1014

33

102

23

32

57

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Wed

nesd

ay, A

ugus

t 29,

201

8Pa

ge 4

of 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

of

Stor

ms

Wet

Sn

owD

ry

Snow

Free

zing

Rai

nSl

eet

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

U

p

Tabl

e 2.

1 St

orm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

sFr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

RIC

HLA

ND52

.932

7.64

1782

5.44

3419

1311

622

20

612

014

12SW

LAFA

YETT

E35

.929

9.38

1772

5.92

2512

127

511

07

83

12

12G

REE

N43

.631

4.64

2422

7.70

3015

138

87

33

12

15

11C

RAW

FOR

D51

.739

5.79

3256

8.23

297

228

231

55

1411

014

10IO

WA

47.9

473.

1352

8611

.17

3215

165

425

71

610

06

11VE

RNO

N54

.147

7.82

5518

11.5

526

915

47

127

73

12

525

GR

ANT

44.2

624.

9375

1712

.03

289

186

821

27

91

111

7LA

CRO

SSE

68.0

500.

7470

3814

.06

2617

162

76

21

172

04

16M

ON

RO

E59

.066

5.65

1009

315

.16

3416

163

215

24

04

15

12R

OC

K53

.768

3.31

1137

716

.65

248

182

223

41

25

411

1JE

FFER

SON

66.1

549.

6796

4617

.55

3012

216

114

53

92

15

18JU

NEAU

73.9

496.

2787

2517

.58

3424

64

39

31

02

04

10SA

UK

67.2

606.

4410

899

17.9

728

924

61

163

16

70

720

DO

DG

E57

.063

7.85

1281

820

.10

217

140

315

36

45

23

9D

ANE

36.8

1,54

4.20

3537

122

.91

3515

199

20

00

100

00

18C

OLU

MBI

A47

.078

7.76

1888

023

.97

229

122

322

59

77

72

18

Reg

ion

Aver

age

53.7

586.

5895

2514

.25

2913

165

416

34

65

16

13

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Wed

nesd

ay, A

ugus

t 29,

201

8Pa

ge 5

of 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

of

Stor

ms

Wet

Sn

owD

ry

Snow

Free

zing

Rai

nSl

eet

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

U

p

Tabl

e 2.

1 St

orm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

sFr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

482

7883

33.2

16.9

18.0

4.6

5.2

18.6

6.8

5.2

3.8

5.8

2.7

9.2

Stat

ewid

e Av

erag

es9.

9--

15.3

4

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Wed

nesd

ay, A

ugus

t 29,

201

8Pa

ge 6

of 6

31

Total salt used1 567,600 tons

Total salt used per lane mile 16.4 tons

Total cost of salt used2 $38,322,162Average cost per ton of salt $67.60Total prewetting agents used3 3,359,432 gal.Total abrasives used 19,955 cubic yardsTotal anti-icing agents used 2,383,143 gal.Total brine and blends used 5,742,575 gal.

MDSS....................................................46Equipment Calibration........................47Product and Equipment Testing.........47Winter Maintenance Research..........47

3C Labor.......................................................49Winter Operations Training ................50

Wisconsin county highway departments use an array of strategies to combat winter storms. Materials, equipment and labor are three key pieces of the puzzle; county patrol superintendents use their skills and experience to combine these pieces in the most efficient way possible for each storm.

This section describes the counties’ response to the 2017-2018 winter season, including materials use, best practices in equipment and technology, and training efforts. Most counties have added prewetting and anti-icing to their arsenal of best practices—strategies that help them use materials efficiently, save money and minimize environmental impacts.

Statewide Materials Use, 2017-2018

1. Salt use data is final data from WisDOT’s Salt Inventory Reporting System.2. Cost data is actual salt costs as billed to WisDOT by the counties. 3. Prewetting, abrasives and anti-icing data are estimates from Winter Storm Reports.

There’s More on the Web!Looking for more information about winter maintenance in

Wisconsin? WisDOT’s extranet site features detailed reports on products, equipment, best

practices and more.

See http://wisconsindot.gov/Pag-es/doing-bus/local-gov/hwy-mnt/winter-maintenance/default.aspx

Winter Operations3

Photo Credit: Pixabay-Creative Commons License

In this section...3A Materials...............................................32

Salt........................................................32Abrasives..............................................36Prewetting............................................37Anti-icing...............................................39

3B Equipment & Technology......................44RWIS ....................................................44


3A. MATERIALSSalt remains the primary material used in winter maintenance. The advent of prewetting (see pgs.37-38) has improved the efficiency of materials use (by keeping more of the material on the road instead of scattering off the edges), and proactive anti-icing applications (see pg. 39) have reduced the amount of salt needed to keep roads clear. Brine use is also becoming increasingly more common across the State as it saves taxpayer dollars, and reduces harm to the groundwater and environment.

SaltSalt is a critical part of a highway crew’s response to winter storms in Wisconsin. When salt combines with ice or snow, it creates a brine solution with a lower freezing point than water. This solution then acts to break the bond between the ice or packed snow and the pavement, which allows the snow to be removed more easily through plowing.

Due to cost and environmental concerns, maintenance crews strive to use the smallest amount of salt necessary to provide an appropriate level of service for each roadway. Best practices to reduce salt use include brine-only routes, prewetting, anti-icing, under body plows, etc.

Historically, counties have used disproportionately more salt during more severe winters. Between the winters of 2006 -07 and 2013-14, Winter Severity Index fluctuated greatly, as did salt usage. However, the past four winters have been similarly mild with varying levels of salt usage. Figure 3.1 plots the average statewide salt use per lane mile versus the average statewide Winter Severity Index. Looking back over the past 20 plus years of data, this year’s salt use and severity index was most similar to 2004-2005. This winter's statewide Winter Severity Index of 97.53 was seven percent higher than the previous year, while salt use was eight percent higher than the previous year, at 567,600 tons. See Table 1.4 on pages 13-17 for county-by-county salt use data for this winter.

Wisconsin counties applied a statewide average of 16.4 tons of salt per lane mile on state highways, an increase of eight percent compared with the 2016-2017 winter. (See Figure 3.10 on page 53 for a county-by-county comparison.) When compared with nearby states, which differ by winter severity and level of service standards, Wisconsin salt use is relatively high. In 2017-2018 Wisconsin used 16.4 tons of salt per lane mile on state highways. In that same year, Minnesota (8.2 tons per lane mile) and Iowa (7.2) used less while Michigan (19.3) used more. Better use of BMPs may contribute to other states’ lower rates of salt used per lane mile.

Figure 3.2 on page 33 shows salt use per lane mile in each county, overlaid with severity index to allow a further “apples to apples” comparison of salt use in each county. The counties in Winter Service Groups A and B have more urban highways and tend to use more salt per lane mile for a given level of severity. See Figure 3.11 on page 54 for a statewide map of tons of salt used per lane-mile.

For more detail on salt use in previous years, see Table A-7, “History of Salt Use on State Trunk Highways,” on page 37 of the Appendix.

Figure 3.1. Salt Use per Lane Mile and Average Severity IndexFrom Salt Inventory Reporting System, 1992–2018

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

92-93

93-94

94-95

95-96

96-97

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01

01-02

02-03

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

07-08

08-09

09-10

10-11

11-12

12-13

13-14

14-15

15-16

16-17

17-18

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

Use

(Ton

s Pe

r Lan

e M

ile)

WINTER

TOTAL SALT USE PER LANE MILE AND AVERAGE SEVERITY INDEX

SALT USE AVG STATEWIDE SEVERITY INDEX


Figure 3.2. Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity IndexFrom Salt Inventory Reporting System, 2017-2018

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

used

(ton

s)

per l

ane

mile

Salt used per lane mile and Severity Index (Group A)

Salt used (tons) per lane mile Severity Index

Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity Index (Group A) Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity Index (Group B)

Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity Index (Group C) Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity Index (Group D)

Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity Index (Group E) Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity Index (Group F)

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile


Figure 3.3. Salt Prices Across the United States 2017-2018Source: Clear Roads

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Pric

e pe

r ton

2017-2018 Salt Prices

Wisconsin


Cost of SaltThis winter, WisDOT spent $38,322,162 on salt statewide, purchasing salt at an average of $67.6 per ton. The average of $67.6 per ton is a decrease of two percent (2%) from last year. Each of the previous two winters WisDOT has renewed its existing salt contracts at lower prices in lieu of rebidding.

The department speculates that the flexibility of its contracting method might account for some of these salt price cost savings. Wisconsin’s contracts include a 100 percent provision, which means that the department guarantees that it will purchase 100 percent of the contracted amount of salt. Some other states’ contracts include an 80/120 provision that requires the salt vendor to keep 120 percent of the contracted salt amount on reserve, and commits the state to purchasing only 80 percent of the contracted amount. This 40 percent spread could translate to higher costs for states under an 80/120 contract.

For more on costs, see Section 4 starting on page 65.

A Note About Materials DataThis winter marks the ninth year that all salt data in this report comes from WisDOT’s Salt Inventory Reporting System (SIRS). In previous years, some tables used preliminary salt use data collected in the weekly winter storm reports. Sand use data continues to come from the storm reports, as does some detailed anti-icing and prewetting data. These materials use estimates are included in this report because they provide a level of detail and correlation with storm events that is not available from SIRS or from final financial data. The source of each table’s data is indicated below the table title.

Figure 3.4. Salt Prices Over Time

Source: Historical data supplied by Clear Roads. From 1999 to present, the number of states reporting data has increased from 14 to 35 states.

$0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70$80$90

Average cost per ton of road salt for 14+ states

14+ States WisDOT


AbrasivesCounty highway departments sometimes use sand and other abrasives to improve vehicles’ traction on icy or snowy roads or when temperatures are too low for salt to be effective. Abrasives are somewhat effective in low-speed trouble spots and intersections. Abrasives should be prewetted with a liquid agent for better adherence to the roadway.

A total of 19,955 cubic yards of sand was used by 47 counties on state highways this winter, a decrease of 75 percent compared with 2007–2008’s record-setting 80,133 cubic yards, and a 19 percent decrease from the average of the five previous winters (24,718 cubic yards).

In 2008, the Bureau of Highway Maintenance commissioned a synthesis report, “Limitations of the Use of Abrasives in Winter Maintenance Operations” to substantiate WisDOT’s guidance to Wisconsin counties on reducing sand use. The report cites factors recommending against the use of sand that have been supported by research, and offers the following general conclusions:

• Sand used in a salt-abrasive mixture has not been shown to reduce accidents.

• Salt is more cost-effective than sand in winter maintenance operations.

• A salt-sand mixture requires approximately three times more material applied to the road to achieve the same effectiveness as pre-wetted salt and results in plows making more frequent return trips to the sand pile to fill up.

The 2008 synthesis report is available on-line at: http://clearroads.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/tsr-limitations-of-abrasives.pdf

Figure 3.5 compares this winter’s statewide sand use with previous years’.

Figure 3.5. Statewide Sand Use From Storm Reports Data, 1998-2018

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

1998

-99

1999

-200

020

00-0

120

01-0

220

02-0

320

03-0

420

04-0

520

05-0

620

06-0

720

07-0

820

08-0

920

09-1

020

10-1

120

11-1

220

12-1

320

13-1

420

14-1

520

15-1

620

16-1

720

17-1

8

Sand Used (cubic yards)


Prewetting

Prewetting salt and sand with liquid deicing agents before or during their application to the pavement has several advantages. When used with dry rock salt, prewetting reduces loss of salt from bouncing and traffic action, which reduces the amount of material needed. Prewetting also improves salt penetration into ice and snow pack, and begins dissolving the dry salt, which allows it to work more quickly. When used with abrasives, prewetting helps keep the sand on the pavement and may allow crews to use higher truck spreading speeds.

WisDOT encourages all county highway departments to prewet their salt and sand, and to explore stocking one or more deicing agents so that different agents can be used as conditions warrant. For example, salt brine can be reasonably used at pavement temperatures down to about 15°F, whereas agents such as magnesium chloride and calcium chloride are effective at lower pavement temperatures, to about 0°F. See Table 3.1 on page 38 for details on statewide prewetting agent use.

Salt brine is a relatively inexpensive choice for prewetting. Salt brine use has increased significantly since counties first tested it a decade ago; 67 counties used salt brine for prewetting this winter (see Table A-5 on page 29-30 of the Appendix for details). Counties used more salt brine for prewetting this winter—3,359,432 gallons. Overall use of prewetting salt brine use increased by 11% percent. Nearly all counties are now applying this best practice to their winter road maintenance programs.

In addition to salt brine, some counties used calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, or agricultural-based products for prewetting this year. See Table A-6 on pages 31-36 of the Appendix for details. Organic blends seem to be preferred over the straight chemical products because they stick to pavement longer. The addition of the organics helps reduce corrosion to equipment.Although once the only option for prewetting, calcium chloride is a more corrosive chemical than other prewetting liquids, and can damage equipment and be more difficult for operators to handle.

BEST PRACTICES: On-Board Prewetting (see Figure 3.8)

WisDOT encourages counties to prewet salt before applying it to the roadway. Agencies across the country and worldwide consider prewetting a best practice, and some require that all material be prewetted before it is placed. Studies have shown that prewetting significantly improves the amount of material that stays on the road. On-Board prewetting is preferred because it is the simplest way to ensure that salt is being uniformly prewetted.

Some counties choose to prewet their salt directly in the pile. The benefit to this approach is that less equipment is required on salt trucks. Juneau County has had success with this method.

Wisconsin Transportation Bulletin No. 22 (December 2005) notes that as much as 26 percent more salt stays on the roadway when prewetted versus dry salt is used. Pre-wetting salt has been used since the late 1960s. In addition to reduced loss of salt from bounce and scatter, advantages of pre-wetting salt include:

1) Quicker melting.

2) Better salt penetration into ice and snow pack.

3) Salt melts at lower temperature if wetted with other deicing chemicals (generally limited to pavement temperatures above 20º F).

For more information on prewetting, see Chapter 6, Section 20 of the State Highway Maintenance Manual.

Faster melting action is the main benefit of pre-wetting salt. After 20 minutes the difference is significant. This photo shows two salt particles penetrating ice. The one on the right was pre-wetted.


Nearly all counties (93 percent) pretreat salt, in which a liquid prewetting agent is spray-applied to the salt supply before the salt is placed in storage. According to the Minnesota Snow and Ice Control Field Handbook for Snowplow Operators (published by the Minnesota Local Road Research Board), when treating a stockpile of salt, a liquid deicing chemical should be applied at a rate of 4 to 6 gallons/ton. Since liquid prewetting increases the leach risk of the stockpile, salt should be stored on an impervious pad.

While prewetting salt is the best practice in Wisconsin—67 of 72 counties (93 percent) prewetted their salt this winter—prewetting abrasives is far less common, but still considered a best practice. WisDOT strongly encourages counties to prewet their sand, since keeping sand on the pavement can reduce the amount of material used, which saves money and reduces environmental impacts. The Minnesota Snow and Ice Control Field Handbook for Snowplow Operators recommends prewetting sand at a rate of 4 gallons of salt brine/ton of sand.

Agent Prewet Gallons Used# Counties using

PreWetAnti-Icing gallons

# Counties using Anti-Icing

Salt Brine 3,359,432 67 2,383,143 63

CaCl - Liquid 154,640 10 10,055 3

MgCl - Liquid 13,802 6 1,240 2

IceBan M80 12,505 3 - - FreezeGuard 27,850 11 15,406 4 Dow Armor 4,860 1 - - M95 14,795 1 406 1 M90 600 1 - - GeoMelt 3,032 3 337 1 BioMelt 55 900 1 - - IceBite 55 46 1 - - Beet 55 44,375 9 11,783 7 AMP 45,646 11 85,371 8 BeetHeet 322,890 15 48,290 8

Total Liquid Used 4,005,373 2,556,031

Proprietary Mixtures

Magnesium Chloride

Calcium Chloride

Table 3.1. Statewide Brine Agent Usage


BEST PRACTICES: Anti-icing (see Figure 3.7)Anti-icing is a best practice not only nationwide, but across the globe. Anti-icing is the process of applying brine to the dry pavement-in the right conditions- prior to a winter storm. Agencies are finding that this technique, once reserved for bridge decks and trouble spots, yields excellent results on highways as well. More agencies are turning to anti-icing to help them use labor and materials efficiently, and to reduce overall salt usage.

This winter, Wisconsin counties used 2,556,031 gallons of anti-icing liquid—the most on record and an increase of 33% over last winter’s total. Yet at 1.5 percent of total winter expenditures, anti-icing continues to represent a small fraction of winter costs which is why anti-icing is a highly recommended practice when appropriate. For more information on anti-icing, see Chapter 6, Section 15 of the State Highway Maintenance Manual.

Anti-icingAnti-icing is a proactive snow and ice control strategy that involves applying a small amount of liquid deicing agent to pavements and bridge decks before a storm to prevent snow and ice from bonding with the surface. It is often used prior to light snowfall or freezing drizzle, and is also effective at preventing frost from forming on bridge decks and pavements. Anti-icing can reduce salt use, reduce materials costs, and improve safety.

This winter, counties used a record 2,556,031 gallons of anti-icing liquid (see Table A-3 on pages 22-25 of the Appendix for details). Currently, 64 of 72 counties (89 percent) are equipped to perform anti-icing operations, and this winter all 64 counties made at least one anti-icing application. (Counties may choose not to anti-ice if weather conditions do not warrant it.) The total statewide brine usage of 2,556,031 gallons was a 33% increase from the total used in 2016-17. See Table A-5 on pages 29-30 of the Appendix for county-by-county data on salt brine use.

WisDOT encourages counties to explore stocking one or more agent for prewetting and anti-icing, so that a choice of agents is available for use according to pavement temperature and weather conditions. Table 3.1 shows the agents used for anti-icing in Wisconsin this winter.

Note: Total cost data differs slightly from cost data elsewhere in this report due to rounding.

Figure 3.6. Winter Costs by Activity Code, 2017-2018

Plowing & Applying Chemicals

44%

Nonstorm Related Winter Activi ties

15%

Applying Liquid Anti-Icing Chemicals

1%

Alternate Chemicals0%

Salt Costs39%

Trucking Brine & Sa lt1%


Figure 3.7. Anti-Icing Brine Use

6

0

3

8

0

0

2 01

0 1

3

3

0

5

7

9

90

0

64

28

9

720

14022

24

53

13

254

15 5

31

47

362724

7

57

31

113

332

163

107

441

35

404

55

23 28 0

125185

116

73

133

82359

116

125

104

66

477

187 347

125

116

60

81

43

111

BRINE USEAnti-Icing

Anti-Icing Liquid Used(Gal/Ln-Mi)

Low (0 to 57)

Average (57 to 97)

High (> 97)

Statewide Average = 77 Gal/Ln-Mi

Map created: October 2018


Figure 3.8. Counties Prewetting

0

6

0

7

1

9

0

53

49 48

269

44

36

157

36

42

42

73

142

61

35

34

18

177

96

85

66

62

54

61

14447

0

16

156

123142

29

23

183

166

79

43

102

35

61 43 0

121

92

473

152

87

172

30

109

594

424 304

22 228

17409

51

269

248

147

10

40

108

267

1706

BRINE USEPrewetting

Prewetting Liquid Used(Gal/Ln-Mi)

Low (0 - 183)

Medium (184 - 330)

High (331 - 1706)

Statewide Average = 98 Gal/Ln-Mi

Map created: November 2018


Figure 3.9. Counties using Route Optimization

Bayfield

Price

Marathon

Clark

Marinette

Sawyer

Dane

Grant

Douglas

Oneida

Vilas

Forest

Polk

Taylor

Rusk

Oconto

Iron

Lincoln

Jackson

Ashland

Burnett

Barron

Sauk

Dunn Chippewa

Dodge

Monroe

Iowa

Langlade

Vernon

Portage Wood

Shawano

Rock

Buffalo

Columbia

Saint Croix

Pierce

Lafayette Green

Fond du Lac

Eau Claire

Waushara

Florence

Racine

Juneau

Washburn

Waupaca

Adams

Trempealeau

Jefferson

Richland

Crawford

Brown Outagamie

Walworth

Manitowoc

Door

Waukesha

La Crosse

Sheboygan Marquette

Winnebago

Washington

Green Lake

Calumet

Menominee

Kewaunee Pepin

Kenosha

Ozaukee

Milwaukee

Route Optimization StatusAs of: 8/31/2018

StatusMultiple counties combining routes

Implemented

Complete

Underway

Planned


3B. EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY As winter maintenance technology and practices evolve, the counties are continually expanding their arsenal of snow and ice control strategies. In recent years, Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) have become an effective tool for anticipating winter weather. These systems are automatic weather stations and measure real-time conditions. The Maintenance Decision Support System (MDSS) is another key system WisDOT has implemented. MDSS assists in assessing conditions and recommends appropriate treatments for routes. Equipment calibration is another strategy which not only ensures materials are applied to the roadway consistently, but also reduces product waste and costs. Winter Maintenance Research is also important to help crews continue to stay up to date on the latest tools and practices. There are several research initiatives that WisDOT is part of including Clear Roads and Aurora.

Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS)

WisDOT has had a Road Weather Information System in place since 1986, and continues to expand and enhance the information available through this system. Designed to provide maintenance crews with the most accurate information about current and future weather conditions, WisDOT’s RWIS system includes:

• 68 weather and pavement condition sensors along state highways.

• Detailed weather forecasts via the Maintenance Decision Support System (MDSS).

• A winter storm warning service for WisDOT and county highway departments.

• Over 1,000 mobile infrared pavement temperature sensors on patrol trucks around the state.

WisDOT contracts with an RWIS consultant to manage its RWIS program. This onsite consultant serves as WisDOT’s staff meteorologist and RWIS program manager, and provides ongoing technical and administrative support for the state’s RWIS systems.

Major activities in WisDOT’s RWIS program this year included:

• Management of the MDSS, as well as attending three meetings of the MDSS Pooled Fund Technical Panel.

• Assisting with WisDOT’s AVL-GPS.

A roadside weather sensor.

BEST PRACTICES: Underbody Plow

WisDOT encourages counties to use underbody plows when possible. If the plow blade is positioned in this way, it will apply downward pressure and can remove more snow pack and ice than a front-mounted plow. The underbody plow is most effective when removing hard packed snow and ice. In light and fluffy snow conditions, snow will compact a under truck with an underbody blade. Unevenness in pavement can also cause operating issues for this type of blade.

Photo credit: fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DesCoPlow.tif)


• Coordinating with Iteris on forecast services.

• Performing an annual weather forecast verification study, monthly interim reports, and monitoring comments from counties using the service.

• Providing MDSS and RWIS training for regional operations staff, the STOC, and county highway departments.

• Overseeing maintenance and repair of the department’s RWIS equipment.

• Representing WisDOT on the Aurora Program board and the MDSS Technical Panel.

In addition, the RWIS program manager works to coordinate WisDOT’s RWIS activities within Wisconsin and with other state and national agencies, including:

• Coordinating activities with the National Weather Service.

• Participating in national RWIS initiatives, such as Pathfinder.

• Providing RWIS presentations to WisDOT groups and agencies both inside and outside WisDOT.

• Working with NWS and BTO to develop the FHWA Pathfinder initiative

Other ongoing services provided by the RWIS program manager include:

• Managing contracts for weather forecast and winter storm warning services, and for system maintenance.

• Coordinating use of Winter Severity Index data as an accurate tool to measure the relative severity of winter seasons and researching a potential new winter severity index based on MDSS data.

• Establishing a plan for replacement of aging infrastructure, such as roadside towers and communications

• Ongoing assessment of new RWIS technology.

• RWIS program management (budgeting, billing, planning, etc.).

• Developing enhanced methods of data display using GIS technology.

BEST PRACTICES: Ground speed controllersGround speed controllers have been shown to reduce salt use by controlling the amount of salt spread according to the speed of the truck. These controllers can also provide accurate data on salt use.

In addition to reducing costs, controlling salt application can help limit the amount of chlorides that get into the environment, minimizing the degradation of plant species and water quality near roadways. See Chapter 6, Section 20 in the Winter Maintenance Manual for more information.

Photo credit: apwa.net


Maintenance Decision Support System (MDSS) BACKGROUND. Project management of MDSS activities continued to be a major focus for WisDOT.

CONFIGURATION. WisDOT continued its effort to improve route configuration in MDSS. Some progress has been made, but much work remains.

• Cycle time information is proving difficult to come by. There is no easy way to calculate it in the Automatic Vehicle Location-Global Positioning System (AVL-GPS). BHM collaborated with the route optimization program manager to determine if actual cycle times could be easily determined, and the answer was no.

• Other MDSS configuration data, specifically pavement surface, has slowly grown out of date since the original configuration was done seven years ago. BHM began working on a method to identify these segments using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This has not yet been finalized.

MANAGEMENT TOOLS. BHM collaborated with the MDSS Pooled Fund Technical Panel to develop new management tools for WebMDSS. While the old tools in the graphical user interface (GUI) were somewhat cumbersome, it is anticipated that these new tools (which should be deployed prior to the 2018-19 winter season) will be much more user-friendly.

TRAINING. Training was once again held at the region level. The majority of the time was spent demonstrating the newly-fielded WebMDSS.

MONITORING. BHM stopped using MDSS Usage as a performance metric. It had been useful during the original deployment, but it only measured usage on the GUI. As more users transitioned to the web and mobile platforms, the metric wasn’t tracking this. BHM continues to coordinate with Iteris to come up with a way to use Google Analytics to measure overall usage.

PAVEMENT BUCKLING. The PM used previously-developed maps in MDSS to monitor conditions during the pavement buckle season

COORDINATION. WisDOT attended three MDSS Pooled Fund Study Technical Panel meetings in Sioux Falls, SD. They interacted with other pooled fund members to elicit ideas that would help WisDOT. BHM provided two presentations on WisDOT’s experience in implementing MDSS and its winter operations. BHM worked with Iteris on a continuing basis to resolve any issues that arose and to better understand the workings of the system.

BHM worked with the Statewide Traffic Management Center (STMC) to better integrate MDSS into their operations.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONCERNS. The patent issue preventing WisDOT from integrating live plow truck data into MDSS was resolved in FY 2017, allowing WisDOT to once again begin incorporating it in FY 2018. All live truck data is now being ingested into MDSS.


Equipment CalibrationEnsuring correct calibration of winter operations equipment—including salt spreaders, anti-icing applicators, and prewetting application equipment—is a key step in providing precise, consistent materials application, which reduces waste and saves money. Winter vehicles should be calibrated prior to the start of the season and whenever equipment is repaired. WisDOT regional staff are tasked with working with the counties to ensure proper calibration.

CALIBRATION SCALES. Proper calibration has been and always will be an important part of winter maintenance. If the calibration is off by even 10 percent, thousands of dollars worth of salt can be wasted in one winter season. The purchase of three ScaleTech scales has shown that to be a benefit with respect to the process of calibrating salt spreaders. The scales increase the accuracy, speed up the process, and make the process safer for the technicians doing the work. Originally there was going to be a two year study on the scales but after calibrating a few spreaders it was very obvious that the scales would help the process. Therefore the study was discontinued and an email was sent to all the counties recommending that each county consider adding a scale to their inventory. At about $3k per scale the costs of the scales can be recovered in less than one winter season.

Product and Equipment Innovations Winter maintenance is a continuously evolving field—new technology and innovations are developed each year and best practices are being disseminated to staff as efficiently as possible. One tool that has facilitated winter road maintenance staff's evaluation of deicing chemicals is a training DVD that was developed by Clear Roads and funded by twenty DOTs across the US (including Wisconsin).

The DVD was created to help DOTs meet level of service requirements under increasing budget and environmental constraints. The training helps DOTs determine the "best value" for both chemical and mechanical snow/ice removal practices. Initially, Clear Roads developed a step-by-step Field Guide for Testing Deicing Chemicals. More recently, Clear Roads has developed a step-by-step instructional video to accompany the field guide which demonstrates three levels of field testing that can be performed to determine the effectiveness of a deicing chemical. The final result was a DVD of approximately 15 minutes in length that is distributed to state DOTs for use in training their maintenance staff on basic field testing. The video is also available on YouTube. More information can be found on the Clear Roads website: http://clearroads.org/project/developing-a-training-video-for-field-testing-of-deicing-materials/.

Winter Maintenance ResearchWisDOT joins other state DOTs in funding research projects of common interest. The two pooled fund groups where WisDOT participates are Clear Roads and Aurora. The projects from these entities allow WisDOT to combine funds with other states to provide more effective research for the dollar.

CLEAR ROADS. Clear Roads research is grouped into six areas: methods, equipment, materials, training, technology and safety. Launched in 2004 by Wisconsin and a few other states, Clear Roads now has 36 member states. They have completed 40 research projects conducted by universities and consultants, 19 projects in-house, and 9 projects that are currently in progress.

See the Clear Roads website for a complete list of completed projects: http://www.clearroads.org/completed-research/

Examples of recently completed research include:

• Snow Plow Operator and Supervisor Training – 22 modules

• Utilization of AVL/GPS technology

• Implementation of Liquid-only plow routes

• Emergency Operations Methodology for Extreme Winter Storm Events


Recent in-house synthesis projects include:

• Use of Prewetted Solid Materials for Roadway Anti-icing (in-progress)

• Annual Survey of State Winter Maintenance Data (some of this data is reflected in this report)

• Effective Snow and Ice Personnel and Equipment Management for Storm Activation

The synthesis projects can be found at this link: http://www.clearroads.org/synthesis-reports/

AURORA. Aurora is an international pooled fund partnership of public agencies that work together to perform joint research on road weather information systems (RWIS). Its membership includes 15 state DOTs, FHWA, and one international agency. WisDOT attended two meetings in person and participated in two web conferences. WisDOT is a member of several project technical panels. The most notable of these is a study of weight restriction models.

For a full list of Aurora projects, please go to http://www.aurora-program.org

research for winter highway maintenance


3C. LABOROver 1,500 employees of Wisconsin’s county highway departments are licensed to operate a snowplow, and over 1,000 of them are permanently assigned to the state highway system. Because a snowstorm can hit at any time of day, snowplow operators frequently put in overtime, and may plow for extended periods during heavy snowfall.

Labor costs vary from county to county according to each area’s contracts, which also defines when overtime hours can be charged. This winter, counties spent over $24 million on labor, for an average of $693 per lane mile. Per-lane-mile labor expenditures increased 15 percent compared with last year’s winter. An average of 25 percent of counties’ winter maintenance costs were spent on labor, with a high of 34 percent in the Southeast Region, where hourly labor rates tend to be higher. Labor hours were up 13 percent for regular hours and 15 percent for overtime hours compared with last winter. See Table 4.10 on pages 88-92 for county-by-county labor expenditures, and see Table 3.4 on pages 56-63 for county-by-county estimated labor hours and costs from the winter storm reports.

Photo Credit: Pixabay Commons License


Winter Operations TrainingBefore each winter season, BHM provides and supports a variety of training efforts for WisDOT regional staff and county highway departments. Recent efforts have included:

• AASHTO Computer-Based Training. AASHTO offers eight computer-based training courses that can be completed by winter maintenance staff at their own pace as schedules permit. Course topics include anti-icing/RWIS, mitigating environmental impacts, equipment maintenance, plowing techniques, deicing, mitigating blowing snow, performance measures, and winter maintenance management. Counties are encouraged to have their operators complete the appropriate training courses, including courses for supervisors.

• RWIS Training. WisDOT’s RWIS program manager provides training for both WisDOT regional operations staff and county highway departments. A summary of these training activities can be found in the RWIS Annual Report, available at https://dot-auth-prod.wi.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/hwy-mnt/winter-maintenance/reports.aspx.

• Regional Operations/County Fall Training Sessions. These sessions are held in all regions in preparation for the upcoming winter season, at some locations in conjunction with Snowfighters’ Roadeos. WisDOT provided support and participated in some of these training sessions.

• Snowfighters’ Roadeos. These events are held by some counties annually, with some roadeos held jointly by two or three counties. WisDOT prepared a Roadeo Manual in August 1997 to assist counties in organizing these roadeos. In addition, organizations such as the Wisconsin chapter of the American Public Works Association and the Wisconsin County Highways Association periodically host statewide Snowfighters’ Roadeos.

• MDSS Training. Training was reconfigured in FY 2015. Two introductory sessions for new users were held, one in Wisconsin Rapids and one in Waukesha. These covered the basics of MDSS for those who had never used it. This allowed the "main" MDSS training to focus on more advanced topics such as how to set up winter storm alerts and how to integrate MDSS into the decision-making process. Attendees included county patrol superintendents, state patrol, a few highway commissioners, and WisDOT Region personnel.

• Clear Roads. Clear Roads began developing snowplow operator/supervisor training modules in 2015. The Wisconsin County Highway Association training committee reviewed the modules and made comments from the Wisconsin perspective. Twenty-four (24) modules were completed in Fall 2016.


COUNTY-BY-COUNTY TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 3: SNOW AND ICE CONTROL


Figure 3.10. 2017-2018 Salt Use per Lane Mile vs. 5-Year Average

Polk4%

Barron30%

Rusk-24% Lincoln

43% Langlade8%

Taylor-29%

Shawano-5%

Marinette21%

Pierce26%

Eau Claire40% Kewaunee

-59%Pepin-52% Brown

124%

Waupaca-45%

Chippewa23% Door

-5%

Saint Croix24% Dunn

27%

Menominee19%Marathon

102%Clark16%

Ashland-52%

Bayfield20%Douglas

15%Iron

-65%Vilas46%

Burnett-73%

Washburn-23%

Sawyer17%

Forest-30%

Florence-29%

Price-50%

Oneida-37%

Oconto47%

Crawford-6%

Dane74%

Grant64%

Milwaukee151%

Iowa-3%

Waukesha69%

Jefferson49%

Portage1%

Wood-70%

Buffalo99%

Trempealeau72%

Jackson115%

Outagamie39%

Manitowoc84%

Calumet-50%

Adams25%

Juneau1%

Waushara34% Winnebago

18%Monroe-22%La Crosse

37%GreenLake-24%

Marquette-53% Fond du Lac

21%Sheboygan

5%Vernon3% Columbia

25%Sauk15%

Dodge21%

Ozaukee-33%

Washington6%

Richland-48%

Racine70%Green

8%Walworth

77%Rock71%

Lafayette-37% Kenosha

-5%

Decrease more than 40%

Decrease 20 to 40%

Decrease less than 20%

Increase less than 20%

Increase 20 to 40%

Increase more than 40%


Figure 3.11 Tons of Salt/Lane-Mile 2017-2018

12

19

14.5

17.3

18

16.3

24

13.6

18.1

14.6

22.9

14.4

15.2

14.3

20.1

25.3

9.7

18.6

15.1

11.220.2

16.3

15.2

20.1

12.8

8.5

13.2

5.9

12.8

15.1

23.4

16.7

11.5

8.25.4

13.1

7.7

14.2

11.2

19.8

22.6

15.6

16.7

17.4

17.1

14.2

17.5 19.8

22.2

16.2

18.7

11.7

17.6

17.1

16.9

16.5

17

17.2

15.9

7.8

8.1

14.114.7

10.8

13.4

15.1

18.5

6.5

10.4

13.9

17.8

19.9

SALT USE PER LANE-MILE

Tons Per Ln-Mi< 10

10 to 14

14 to 18

18 to 22

> 22

Statewide Average = 16.4 Tons/Ln-Mi


Polk$3273

Barron$3167

Rusk$2172 Lincoln

$2753 Langlade$2344

Taylor$3317

Shawano$3129

Marinette$2703

Pierce$2705

Eau Claire$3315 Kewaunee

$2057

Pepin$2047

Brown$2738

Waupaca$3282

Chippewa$3334 Door

$3027

SaintCroix$1264 Dunn

$3402

Menominee$2391Marathon

$2839Clark$3000

Ashland$2985

Bayfield$3063Douglas

$3043Iron

$3405Vilas

$3494Burnett$2589

Washburn$2867 Sawyer

$6045

Forest$2261

Florence$2863

Price$2921

Oneida$2612

Oconto$2199

Crawford$1443

Dane$3815

Grant$1801

Milwaukee$3806

Iowa$2104

Waukesha$2823Jefferson

$2504

Portage$3057

Wood$2198

Buffalo$1914

Trempealeau$2857

Jackson$3457

Outagamie$3087

Manitowoc$3134

Calumet$2211Adams

$2829

Juneau$2590

Waushara$1461

Winnebago$2562

Monroe$2356La Crosse

$2539GreenLake

$1741

Marquette$1937 Fond du Lac

$2591 Sheboygan$2910

Vernon$2012 Columbia

$3178Sauk$2732

Dodge$2869

Ozaukee$3182

Washington$2773

Richland$1579

Racine$2523Green

$1722 Walworth$2983

Rock$2603

Lafayette$1771 Kenosha

$2512

Very low

Low

Average

High

Very high

Figure 3.12 Winter Cost/Lane-Mile 2017-2018


Tabl

e 3.

4. L

abor

Hou

rs/L

ane

Mile

s/Se

verit

y In

dex

Ran

king

(Gro

up A

)Fr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r C

ost

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

H

rsO

T H

rsTo

tal

Hou

rs%

O

TTo

tal H

rs

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

ion

0.15

MIL

WA

UK

EE19

48.5

668

.74

17.7

9$8

0081

6411

805

1996

959

.1%

10.2

5S

E

0.11

WA

UK

ESH

A10

73.6

566

.80

19.7

9$4

3346

8134

2981

1042

.3%

7.55

SE

0.09

DA

NE

1544

.20

100.

2222

.91

$702

3880

1054

414

424

73.1

%9.

34S

W

Gro

up F

Avg

1,52

2.14

78.5

80.

1220

.16

$645

5575

8593

1416

858

.2%

9.05

Page

1 o

f 1W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Tabl

e 3.

4. L

abor

Hou

rs/L

ane

Mile

s/Se

verit

y In

dex

Ran

king

(Gro

up B

)Fr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r C

ost

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

H

rsO

T H

rsTo

tal

Hou

rs%

O

TTo

tal H

rs

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

ion

0.14

EA

U C

LAIR

E54

0.70

85.5

517

.36

$500

5152

1347

6499

20.7

%12

.02

NW

0.13

KE

NO

SH

A66

0.76

70.2

713

.88

$490

4156

1748

5904

29.6

%8.

94S

E

0.12

PO

RTA

GE

560.

7710

2.60

13.1

1$6

0042

0228

7070

7240

.6%

12.6

1N

C

0.12

BR

OW

N90

2.08

96.1

315

.91

$573

5131

5408

1053

951

.3%

11.6

8N

E

0.12

DO

DG

E63

7.85

69.6

020

.10

$439

1677

3467

5144

67.4

%8.

06S

W

0.11

CH

IPP

EW

A65

4.65

98.3

620

.11

$579

3057

4043

7100

56.9

%10

.85

NW

0.10

WIN

NE

BA

GO

629.

5484

.17

14.6

9$4

5427

9926

2454

2348

.4%

8.61

NE

0.10

OU

TAG

AM

IE53

8.63

96.5

317

.14

$491

3258

2018

5276

38.2

%9.

80N

E

0.10

FON

D D

U L

AC

609.

9884

.69

15.5

9$4

7717

7133

1750

8865

.2%

8.34

NE

0.10

SA

UK

606.

4490

.99

17.9

7$4

0825

3428

8854

2253

.3%

8.94

SW

0.10

RO

CK

683.

3168

.55

16.6

5$4

0417

6528

3746

0261

.6%

6.73

SW

0.10

RA

CIN

E68

3.46

81.0

717

.04

$520

2190

3215

5405

59.5

%7.

91S

E

0.10

WA

UP

AC

A54

6.74

91.7

719

.83

$433

2452

2369

4821

49.1

%8.

82N

C

0.09

SA

INT

CR

OIX

646.

5493

.44

22.6

4$4

9318

7934

6253

4164

.8%

8.26

NW

0.09

WA

SH

ING

TON

611.

8581

.41

15.1

4$4

1613

6930

0643

7568

.7%

7.15

SE

0.09

WA

LWO

RTH

706.

4798

.22

22.2

5$4

2147

3011

8459

1420

.0%

8.37

SE

0.08

MA

RA

THO

N87

4.81

129.

1914

.46

$536

6334

3108

9442

32.9

%10

.79

NC

0.08

MO

NR

OE

665.

6594

.76

15.1

6$3

3622

9828

1551

1355

.1%

7.68

SW

Page

1 o

f 2W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Tabl

e 3.

4. L

abor

Hou

rs/L

ane

Mile

s/Se

verit

y In

dex

Ran

king

(Gro

up B

)Fr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r C

ost

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

H

rsO

T H

rsTo

tal

Hou

rs%

O

TTo

tal H

rs

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

ion

0.08

JEFF

ER

SO

N54

9.67

87.7

417

.55

$385

1350

2334

3684

63.4

%6.

70S

W

0.07

CO

LUM

BIA

787.

7688

.06

23.9

7$3

5020

5027

2847

7857

.1%

6.07

SW

0.06

GR

AN

T62

4.93

89.3

712

.03

$260

1577

1869

3446

54.2

%5.

51S

W

Gro

up F

Avg

653.

4689

.64

0.10

17.2

7$4

5529

4027

9357

3350

.4%

8.75

Page

2 o

f 2W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Tabl

e 3.

4. L

abor

Hou

rs/L

ane

Mile

s/Se

verit

y In

dex

Ran

king

(Gro

up C

)Fr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r C

ost

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

H

rsO

T H

rsTo

tal

Hou

rs%

O

TTo

tal H

rs

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

ion

0.12

LA C

RO

SS

E50

0.74

73.2

014

.06

$492

1881

2610

4491

58.1

%8.

97S

W

0.11

SH

AW

AN

O52

0.57

108.

9716

.25

$533

4007

2222

6229

35.7

%11

.97

NC

0.11

BA

RR

ON

428.

7713

9.52

13.2

2$6

6547

3217

7265

0427

.2%

15.1

7N

W

0.11

MA

NIT

OW

OC

426.

6193

.35

17.2

4$4

6028

2714

8543

1234

.4%

10.1

1N

E

0.10

DU

NN

519.

2495

.81

23.4

5$5

4722

0225

4047

4253

.6%

9.13

NW

0.09

JAC

KS

ON

515.

4480

.62

19.0

0$3

5018

6918

5837

2749

.9%

7.23

NW

0.09

VE

RN

ON

477.

8279

.69

11.5

5$3

2013

4019

2832

6859

.0%

6.84

SW

0.08

CLA

RK

402.

5611

3.60

15.2

4$4

8119

0418

7637

8049

.6%

9.39

NW

0.08

LIN

CO

LN40

5.55

124.

0612

.77

$471

2955

1195

4150

28.8

%10

.23

NC

0.08

PIE

RC

E36

9.46

101.

4914

.23

$442

1783

1256

3039

41.3

%8.

23N

W

0.08

JUN

EA

U49

6.27

90.7

417

.58

$387

1645

1910

3555

53.7

%7.

16S

W

0.08

IOW

A47

3.13

97.6

811

.17

$372

1585

1902

3487

54.5

%7.

37S

W

0.07

WO

OD

431.

8898

.30

14.2

2$3

2216

6413

4430

0844

.7%

6.96

NC

0.07

OC

ON

TO46

9.52

109.

5211

.70

$396

2000

1625

3625

44.8

%7.

72N

E

0.07

DO

UG

LAS

451.

4016

3.10

18.0

6$5

5132

1819

0251

2037

.1%

11.3

4N

W

0.07

SH

EB

OY

GA

N52

8.68

90.7

816

.15

$283

2379

898

3277

27.4

%6.

20N

E

0.05

CR

AW

FOR

D39

5.79

105.

018.

23$2

4913

2888

522

1340

.0%

5.59

SW

Page

1 o

f 2W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Tabl

e 3.

4. L

abor

Hou

rs/L

ane

Mile

s/Se

verit

y In

dex

Ran

king

(Gro

up C

)Fr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r C

ost

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

H

rsO

T H

rsTo

tal

Hou

rs%

O

TTo

tal H

rs

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

ion

Gro

up F

Avg

459.

6110

3.85

0.09

14.9

5$4

3123

1317

1840

3143

.5%

8.80

Page

2 o

f 2W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Tabl

e 3.

4. L

abor

Hou

rs/L

ane

Mile

s/Se

verit

y In

dex

Ran

king

(Gro

up D

)Fr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r C

ost

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

H

rsO

T H

rsTo

tal

Hou

rs%

O

TTo

tal H

rs

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

ion

0.13

MA

RIN

ETT

E43

6.66

107.

3816

.31

$657

5181

1097

6278

17.5

%14

.38

NE

0.09

WA

SH

BU

RN

372.

1410

7.94

16.7

1$4

7323

1414

9238

0639

.2%

10.2

3N

W

0.09

ON

EID

A39

6.79

122.

6814

.37

$535

3651

960

4611

20.8

%11

.62

NC

0.09

OZA

UK

EE

309.

5475

.49

19.9

2$3

5011

2694

520

7145

.6%

6.69

SE

0.08

TRE

MP

EA

LEA

U44

3.67

109.

6416

.86

$464

1971

2119

4090

51.8

%9.

22N

W

0.08

MA

RQ

UE

TTE

245.

7579

.48

10.7

6$3

0672

477

815

0251

.8%

6.11

NC

0.08

DO

OR

271.

8011

8.53

13.4

0$5

6388

715

8024

6764

.0%

9.08

NE

0.07

BA

YFI

ELD

316.

4217

2.10

17.2

7$5

6127

7812

9140

6931

.7%

12.8

6N

W

0.07

RIC

HLA

ND

327.

6410

4.35

5.44

$363

1493

987

2480

39.8

%7.

57S

W

0.07

PO

LK38

5.81

138.

9520

.25

$520

2488

1372

3860

35.5

%10

.00

NW

0.07

BU

FFA

LO31

7.02

108.

119.

74$3

5614

9895

624

5439

.0%

7.74

NW

0.07

LAFA

YE

TTE

299.

3876

.50

5.92

$222

775

797

1572

50.7

%5.

25S

W

0.07

GR

EE

N L

AK

E15

8.44

78.1

97.

80$2

6352

030

782

737

.1%

5.22

NC

0.07

WA

US

HA

RA

345.

0185

.71

8.52

$227

1582

388

1970

19.7

%5.

71N

C

0.07

GR

EE

N31

4.64

83.7

57.

70$2

5071

010

0317

1358

.6%

5.44

SW

Gro

up F

Avg

329.

3810

4.59

0.08

12.7

3$4

0718

4710

7129

1840

.2%

8.47

Page

1 o

f 1W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Tabl

e 3.

4. L

abor

Hou

rs/L

ane

Mile

s/Se

verit

y In

dex

Ran

king

(Gro

up E

)Fr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r C

ost

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

H

rsO

T H

rsTo

tal

Hou

rs%

O

TTo

tal H

rs

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

ion

0.12

RU

SK

213.

4784

.83

11.2

0$4

3616

5351

221

6523

.6%

10.1

4N

W

0.12

PE

PIN

112.

3889

.09

6.46

$489

766

421

1187

35.5

%10

.56

NW

0.09

CA

LUM

ET

202.

3088

.76

10.4

4$3

2312

1735

915

7622

.8%

7.79

NE

0.08

VIL

AS

305.

2413

5.60

25.3

3$4

8720

8911

4232

3135

.3%

10.5

9N

C

0.08

BU

RN

ETT

237.

9389

.45

15.1

2$3

6970

090

916

0956

.5%

6.76

NW

0.07

LAN

GLA

DE

299.

2113

3.37

12.8

4$4

2118

7087

527

4531

.9%

9.17

NC

0.07

TAY

LOR

233.

9014

2.73

18.6

0$4

5913

5992

822

8740

.6%

9.78

NW

0.07

PR

ICE

322.

2615

7.60

14.5

0$4

1821

6711

9433

6135

.5%

10.4

3N

C

0.06

AS

HLA

ND

245.

3517

0.14

15.1

4$5

3318

4378

126

2429

.8%

10.6

9N

W

0.06

IRO

N24

9.56

177.

8917

.09

$547

1701

1070

2771

38.6

%11

.10

NC

0.06

FOR

ES

T31

2.38

137.

3314

.25

$301

1694

769

2463

31.2

%7.

88N

C

0.06

SA

WY

ER

367.

4410

9.99

13.6

0$3

0511

8910

6622

5547

.3%

6.14

NW

Gro

up F

Avg

258.

4512

6.40

0.08

14.5

5$4

2415

2183

623

5635

.7%

9.25

Page

1 o

f 1W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Tabl

e 3.

4. L

abor

Hou

rs/L

ane

Mile

s/Se

verit

y In

dex

Ran

king

(Gro

up F

)Fr

om W

inte

r Sto

rm R

epor

ts, 2

017-

2018

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r C

ost

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

H

rsO

T H

rsTo

tal

Hou

rs%

O

TTo

tal H

rs

per

Lane

Mi

Reg

ion

0.07

AD

AM

S19

3.20

94.1

616

.45

$323

999

281

1280

22.0

%6.

63N

C

0.06

FLO

RE

NC

E14

1.07

137.

7118

.71

$374

1047

212

1259

16.8

%8.

92N

C

0.06

KE

WA

UN

EE

111.

3511

1.08

8.11

$310

605

145

750

19.3

%6.

74N

E

0.05

ME

NO

MIN

EE

90.2

697

.50

18.4

6$1

8436

992

461

20.0

%5.

11N

C

Gro

up F

Avg

133.

9711

0.11

0.06

15.4

3$2

9875

518

393

819

.5%

6.85

Page

1 o

f 1W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

65

Total lane miles 34,678Total patrol sections 754Average lane miles per patrol section 46.0Roads to bare/wet pavement within WisDOT targets1 66%

Total tons of salt/lane-mile 16.4Total gallons of brine and blends/lane-mile 165.6Average crew reaction time from start of storm 4.25 hours

Total winter costs2 $ 97,831,087Total winter costs per lane mile $ 2,821Total winter crashes3 7,137Total winter crashes per 100 million VMT 24

Since weather can vary drastically from year to year, planning and budgeting for winter highway maintenance can be challenging. Throughout the winter, WisDOT staff and county highway departments evaluate progress in several areas, including materials use, money spent, and response time. When the season is complete, WisDOT can gather all the data and analyze this winter’s performance across all regions and compared to previous winters.

This section begins with a description of the winter maintenance portion of Compass, WisDOT’s operations performance measurement program, which measures trends in areas like response time and winter costs per lane mile. This section also discusses costs, using charts to visually compare spending in different categories from region to region and from year to year, and presents winter crash rates and customer satisfaction data.

Performance and Costs, 2017-2018

1. Time to bare/wet pavement and crew reaction time data are from storm reports.2. Cost data are actual costs as billed to WisDOT by the counties. 3. Crash data are from WisDOT’s Bureau of Transportation Safety.

An Economical ChoiceProactive anti-icing operations

are about three times less costly than treating frost once it has formed. Anti-icing costs made

up only 2 percent of total winter maintenance costs this year. See page 39 for more information on

anti-icing costs.

Photo Credit: Citypages.com (Google - Creative Commons License)

In this section...4A Compass................................................664B Winter Maintenance Management....66

History of Snow and Ice Control........66Storm Reports......................................67Winter Patrol Sections.........................68Route Optimization.............................68

4C Response Time.....................................69Maintenance Crew Reaction Time.....70

Performance4Time to Bare/Wet Pavement..............70

4D Costs......................................................71Components of Winter Costs.............75

4E Travel and Crashes...............................76Crashes and Vehicle Miles Traveled...77


4A. COMPASSDeveloped in 2001, Compass is WisDOT’s quality assurance and asset management program for highway maintenance and operations. Annual Compass reports provide information on winter maintenance activities as well as other aspects of highway maintenance and operations.

Measures for winter operations were established in 2003, and data from the winter of 2003–2004 was used to establish baseline measures for future winter seasons. The measures that were chosen include:

• time to bare/wet pavement• winter weather crashes per vehicle miles traveled• cost per lane mile per Winter Severity Index point

Table 4.1 gives the statewide average values for these measures for the last five winters. More detail on these measures is provided later in this section.

WisDOT has gathered several years of baseline data, this data can be used to make a year-to-year comparison in these areas.

Annual Compass reports are available at http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/hwy-mnt/compass/reports/reports.aspx

4B. WINTER MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENTHistory of Snow and Ice Control in WisconsinThe counties’ plowing and salting strategies have evolved considerably over the past several decades. For many years beginning in the 1950s, WisDOT maintained a “bare pavement” policy for state highways, striving to ensure that the roadways were kept essentially clear of ice and snow during winter. Snowplows operated continuously during storms and simultaneously applied deicing salts. In the 1970s, however, economic and environmental concerns compelled the department to modify this policy. The national energy crisis and the high cost of employee overtime strained the maintenance budget, and WisDOT made the decision to reduce winter maintenance coverage on less traveled state highways. To address the risk of environmental damage by chloride chemicals, the policy was modified further to include provisions calling for the prudent use of chemicals, and limiting each application of salt to 300 pounds per lane mile.

In 2002, a detailed salt application table was added to the maintenance manual’s winter guidelines. The table provides variable salt application rates for initial and repeated applications, depending on the type of precipitation, pavement

Table 4.1. Statewide Compass Measures for Winter

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18Percentage of roads to bare/wet pavement (Within WisDOT target times)

63% 70% 74% 70% 66%

Cost per lane mile $3,304 $2,155 $2,087 $2,537 $2,821

Winter Severity Index 133.6 99.28 90.35 91.14 97.53

Cost per lane mile per Winter Severity Index point

$24.73 $21.71 $23.09 $27.85 $28.93

Winter weather crashes44 per

100 million VMT25 per




100 million VMT


temperature, wind speeds, and other weather variables. Anti-icing application rates were also established; county highway departments were instructed to perform anti-icing applications prior to predicted frost, black ice, or snow events in order to minimize the amount of salt used during the event. With the implementation of MDSS, this process has become more automated. Patrol superintendents receive treatment recommendations based on the characteristics of the route, such as traffic volume and pavement type, residual de-icers, and forecasted weather.

Storm ReportsOne way that WisDOT has worked to increase efficiency in recent years is through the Winter Storm Reports. Every week during the winter, the county highway departments complete online storm report forms. These storm reports let county and WisDOT staff track the season’s weather and the counties’ response to it throughout the season, which allows the counties to adjust their resource use midseason if necessary. Storm reports track data such as types of storm events, salt use, anti-icing applications, labor hours, and cost estimates. Uses for this data include:

WisDOT Central Office• Create weekly reports and maps that track salt use and costs. These can help identify inconsistencies in service

levels provided by neighboring counties.

• Calculate the severity index. This is used to justify additional funding if conditions are more severe than normal

• MAPSS measures.

• DTSD Performance Measures.

WisDOT Regional Offices• Justify additional funding if conditions are more severe than normal.

• Manage salt inventory.

• Post-storm analysis of county’s response.

• Training tool for new staff.

Counties• Post-storm analysis of crew’s response.

• Compare their response (materials use, anti-icing, labor hours, etc.) to that of neighboring counties.

• Justify funding to county boards.

See https://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/storm-report/ for more detail on how to use the storm report data.

WisDOT relies on the county highway departments to make the storm reports a reliable tool by entering data accurately each week. Historically, the cost and salt use data in the storm reports has been relatively accurate when compared with final costs billed to WisDOT and end-of-season salt inventory figures. In 2010 the UW TOPS Lab took over the storm report input programming. As a result the data entry has been restricted to the point that erroneous entries have been nearly eliminated.

BEST PRACTICES: Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL-GPS)

AVL-GPS is used to determine the location of a vehicle and allows management to monitor the location of an entire fleet. This system can assist in the management of labor, equipment and materials. WisDOT primarily uses data from AVL-GPS to improve MDSS recommendations.

Additionally, AVL can record and transmit operational data from snowplows. Data such as application rates, pavement temperatures, and the position of blades and plows can all be captured. This data can be stored and used for reporting and analysis at a later date.


Winter Patrol SectionsMany factors influence a county’s response to winter storms, including the timing of snow events, the mix of highway types and classifications in a county, and the type of equipment being used. Another important factor is the length of each county’s patrol sections.

Each county highway department divides the state highways it is responsible for plowing into patrol sections. In general, one snowplow operator is assigned to each patrol section. This winter, the state highway system was divided into 754 winter patrol sections, an average of 10.5 sections per county. The length of patrol sections varies, with counties that are more urban (Group A) tending to have shorter patrol sections than more rural counties (Groups D, E and F). Local traffic patterns, highway geometrics, number of traffic lanes, intersections, interchanges, and other factors affect the length of patrol sections in each county.

In responding to a storm, operators in longer patrol sections may use more salt in an effort to melt any snow that accumulates between plowings. In addition, drivers may notice that some roads appear to be cleared faster than others, since the longer a patrol section, the longer it takes a snowplow operator to clear all the roads in his section.

Table 4.2 shows the average patrol section length for the counties in each Winter Service Group. For county-by- county patrol section data, see Table 4.8 on page 81.

Route OptimizationAfter a discussion about Winter Patrol Sections, it is appropriate to mention the newest trend across the country, Route Optimization. Route Optimization is just what it implies – optimizing a route traveled by taking less left turns or U-turns and equalizing the length of time between routes. Winter road maintenance route optimization highway segments are designed for plow speeds of 25-32.5 mph and a maximum rate of 300 lbs. of salt/lane-mile over the course of 2.5-3 hours. The 2.5-3 hours optimal plow route time is used because that is typically how long salt or salt brine will remain on the road before it becomes too diluted to be effective. Route optimization is used by major private sector companies including FedEx and UPS, and is considered a best practice for efficiency. In recent years, the public sector has seen success with the process too.

In 2018, 41 Wisconsin counties have volunteered to collaborate with WisDOT to determine the value of using GIS technology to optimize snow plow routes. Of the 41 Wisconsin counties involved, both Dane and Brown have seen a return on the investment from the 2016-2107 winter. Return on Investment is unique to each county. WisDOT expects to experience significant savings related to operations, salt use, fuel consumption and increases in safety as more counties implement route optimization. Cost savings during winter months means more funding is available for maintenance work during summer months, which Wisconsin residents view as a high priority. Preliminary numbers from route optimization show:

• When routes are absorbed into larger routes through optimization, it creates savings of roughly $85,000 annually per route.

Winter service group Average patrol section length (lane miles)

Range of average patrol section lengths by county (lane miles)

A 48.0 33.6 - 59.1B 46.1 30.1 - 61.0C 49.9 35.7 - 123.2D 49.6 30.2 - 64.3E 48.2 33.7 - 61.2F 44.1 37.1 - 52.8

Statewide average 46.0 20.1 - 123.2

Table 4.2. Average Patrol Section Lengths by Winter Service Group


• Brown County saved $1.2M in 2016 in equipment costs, as route optimization effectively absorbed 165 new lane miles and eliminated the need to expand the fleet. Even more savings on the equipment side are expected as these optimized routes use the existing and a few new “tow plows” which usually shortens the number of trips a plow truck will make.

• Dane County was able to eliminate four additional trucks from its fleet after a second round of optimization. The further analysis was performed to incorporate new shop and shed locations.

Be sure to check out Figure 3.9 which shows the 41 counties who have committed to invest in route optimization.

4C. RESPONSE TIMEWisDOT tracks two types of response time data—the time it takes a maintenance crew to get on the road after the start of a storm, and the time it takes the pavement to return to a bare/wet condition after the end of a storm. The first measure can impact the second. In general, a quicker response means the crews are dealing with less packed snow. However, WisDOT guidelines dictate that lower-volume highways receive 18-hour winter maintenance coverage rather than 24-hour coverage, so slower average reaction times are expected on 18-hour roads.

ÆU

ÆU

Sta rt

Sto p/ Dep art

©O pe nSt ree tMa p( and )c ont ribu tor s,C C- BY -SA

Path Overview Map

Polk County State Routes

Route: 1

Date: 2017-09-21Scale: 1 : 116990

C: \ FR_projects \ PolkState \ net \ nt_ara170913_144524 \cy_ara \ rc_ara \ rt_1 \ aru170913_1439_1.rt

Route Optimization mapping completed for Polk County.


Maintenance Crew Reaction Time Being proactive in getting on the road—even before the start of a storm—can result in bare/wet pavement being achieved faster and with less effort. Knowing this, county highway departments are becoming more proactive in their response to winter storms. Plows and salt spreader trucks are often on the road before a storm starts or shortly afterward. Sometimes counties wait until the sun comes out so their salting and plowing are more effective, which can increase average reaction times.

Using data from the weekly winter storm reports, Table 4.3 shows the average reaction time to storm events in each Winter Service Group. This winter the average reaction time of 2.89 was 11 percent faster than the latest 10-year average. As expected, average reaction times for Group A counties, which provide the highest level of service (24-hour coverage), were less than those counties that provide 18-hour coverage.

Last year's average reaction time of 2.22 hours was one of the quickest reaction times recorded since the Department began tracking this metric. The 2017-2018 winter slightly more severe than the previous winter, and saw a 30% decrease in average statewide reaction time from the prior year.

Time to Bare/Wet PavementAs explained in Section 1, county highway departments provide different levels of effort during and after a storm according to each highway’s category rating, as determined by average daily traffic. It would be expected that an urban freeway would receive more materials, labor and equipment—and would show a quicker recovery to bare/wet pavement—than a rural, two-lane highway. For more information on these categories, see page 8.

Highway Category 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201824‐Hour Roads 61% 70% 69% 83% 75% 66% 75% 78% 79% 73%18‐Hour Roads 56% 65% 66% 76% 70% 59% 67% 71% 70% 60%Target 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Percent of Time the Highway Category Target Time to Bare/Wet Pavement was Met (TargetTimes: 4 hours for 24‐Hour Roads; 6 hours for 18 Hour Roads)

Table 4.4. Percentage to Bare/Wet Pavement

Bare/wet condition is when the lanes of travel are wet and snow is no longer visible in the lane. Some winter levels of service are not expected to achieve a bare/wet condition as quickly as others.

Average reaction time (hours) 10-year Average

Percent change

Winter Service Group

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

2008-2009 to 2017-2018

2017-2018 vs. 10-year Average

A 1.02 1.74 0.49 0.19 0.63 2.31 0.32 1.21 0.37 0.52 0.88 -41%

B 1.46 1.78 1.60 1.11 1.27 4.48 1.67 2.40 1.07 1.34 1.82 -26%

C 2.70 3.37 2.87 2.15 2.38 4.99 2.57 3.19 2.22 2.61 2.91 -10%

D 3.46 4.23 3.25 2.54 3.77 6.23 2.86 3.91 2.06 2.70 3.50 -23%

E 4.00 4.71 3.48 3.16 2.99 9.36 3.77 6.72 3.94 5.04 4.72 +1%

F 5.08 5.79 5.68 3.39 3.79 14.81 4.78 8.62 3.64 5.13 6.07 -15%

Statewide average

(unweighted)2.78 3.38 2.74 2.08 2.42 7.03 2.66 4.34 2.22 2.89 3.25 -11%

Table 4.3. Maintenance Crew Reaction Time From winter storm reports, 2008/2009–2017/2018


Figure 4.1. Statewide Average Winter Costs per Lane Mile and Winter Severity Index, 1998-99 thru 2017-18

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Cost

s pe

r lan

e m

ile

Winter season

Costs per Lane Mile Severity Index

“Time to bare/wet pavement” is measured from the reported end time of a storm. Table 4.4 shows that the trend for average time to bare/wet pavement is as expected: More heavily traveled highways show a shorter average time to bare/wet pavement. From storm to storm, however, most variability is due to weather effects (type, duration and severity of storms throughout the winter season), according to analysis performed through the Compass program.

The 2017-18 percentage of roadways cleared to bare/wet pavement decreased from the previous year, despite both winters being considered mild.

4D. COSTSThe total billed cost of statewide winter operations this winter was $97.8 million, making it 11 percent more costly than 2016-17. A number of factors drive the cost of winter maintenance, including both the nature and severity of the winter (i.e. how much work has to be performed), as well as the unit costs of the component elements of winter maintenance (i.e. cost per lane mile for salt, labor and equipment).

Winter maintenance costs per lane mile increased in 2017-18 by about 11 percent from 2016-17. See Figure 3.12 for a statewide map of winter cost per lane-mile. Figure 4.1 shows the statewide average winter cost per lane mile and Winter Severity Index since the 1998-99 winter. The average Winter Severity Index increased in all regions compared with last winter.

Table 4.5 shows total winter maintenance costs statewide and for each region per lane mile, as well as relative to the region's average Winter Severity Index. The level of service provided in each county affects the total costs, and the mix of counties in a region affects the overall comparative costs.

Figure 4.2 shows, in 2017-18, all regions experienced higher winter maintenance costs as compared to 2016-2017. All regions also had costs above their most recent 5-year average. This year's increase in costs over 2016-17 can be attributed a higher severity index.

Region Average Winter Severity Index

Actual cost per lane mile

Relative cost per severity index point

SW 87.51 $2,600 $29.71

SE 77.43 $3,106 $40.12

NE 98.27 $2,714 $27.61

NC 116.23 $2,720 $23.41

NW 114.72 $3,022 $26.34

Statewide 102.91 $2,821 $27.41

Table 4.5. Total Winter Costs Relative to Winter Severity, 2017-2018

Figure 4.2. Total Winter Maintenance Cost by Region, 2017-18 vs. 2016-17 vs. Previous 5-Year Average

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

Region 1 /Southwest

Region 2 /Southeast

Region 3 /Northeast

Region 4 /Northcentral

Region 5 /Northwest

2016-2017 Total Cost 2017-2018 Total Cost 5-Yr Avg Cost ('13-'17)


There are five major cost categories in the Department's winter maintenance billing system. These include: cost of salt used, labor costs, cost of other materials furnished by the county, and administration costs. Figure 4.3 below shows the breakdown of the $97.8 million in 2017-18 statewide winter maintenance costs by these billing categories.

Figure 4.3. Statewide Winter Costs by Category

Figure 4.4 on page 73 shows the breakdown of costs by billing category for each of the five regions. More specific, detailed cost figures by region and for the state as a whole are shown in Table 4.6 on page 74.

In the five individual winter maintenance expenditure categories for 2017-18 statewide, the following trends were noted: • Salt expenditures were $38.3 million - a five percent increase compared to the previous winter. The Northcentral

region saw a two percent reduction from last winter, the Southwest region experienced no increase, and the Southeast, Northeast and Northwest all had between six and 13 percent increases.

• Equipment expenditures were $29.2 million, an increase of 17 percent compared to the previous winter.

• Labor expenditures were $24.0 million, an increase of 16 percent from the previous winter.

• County Furnished Material Costs were $3.4 million, an increase of nine percent compared with the previous winter.

Labor Costs25%

Equipment Costs30%

County Furnished Material Costs

3%

Administration Costs

3%

Cost of Sa lt Used 39%

Statewide Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $97,831,087


Figure 4.4. Regional Winter Costs by Category, 2017-18

Labor Costs22%

Equipment Costs28% County

Furnished Materials Cost

3%


3%

Cost of Sa lt Used44%

Southwest Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $24,404,146

Brine Used: 6.39 M Gallons

Labor Costs34%

Equipment Costs27%

County Furnished

Materials Cost3%


2%


Southeast Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $18,619,854


Labor Costs25%

Equipment Costs32%

County Furnished Materials Cost

5%


3%


Northeast Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $13,912,324


Labor Costs22%

Equipment Costs33%

County Furnished Materials Cost

3%


3%


Northcentral Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $17,403,229


Labor Costs22%

Equipment Costs31% County

Furnished Materials Cost

4%


3%


Northwest Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $23,491,535



Win

ter 2

017-

18 E

xper

ienc

efo

r Cou

nty

Serv

ices

Cou

nty

Five

Yea

r A

vg%

Cos

tsLa

bor

Equi

pmen

t F

urni

shed

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Cos

t of

Tot

al C

osts

Cos

t for

Win

ter

over

Fiv

eC

osts

Cos

tsM

ater

ial C

osts

Cos

tsSa

lt U

sed

for

Win

ter

('13-

'17

avg)

Yea

r A

vera

ge

Reg

ion

1 / S

outh

wes

t$5

,344

,950

$6,8

73,6

53$6

04,4

57$7

53,0

87$1

0,82

7,99

9$2

4,40

4,14

6$2

3,63

6,10

010

3%

Reg

ion

2 / S

outh

east

$6,2

86,6

65$5

,064

,370

$508

,380

$318

,738

$6,4

41,7

01$1

8,61

9,85

4$1

7,41

5,20

010

7%

Reg

ion

3 / N

orth

east

$3,4

77,7

14$4

,399

,592

$748

,878

$468

,384

$4,8

17,7

56$1

3,91

2,32

4$1

2,18

4,20

011

4%

Reg

ion

4 / N

orth

cent

ral

$3,7

61,4

53$5

,728

,558

$614

,901

$561

,326

$6,7

36,9

91$1

7,40

3,22

9$1

6,07

4,30

010

8%

Reg

ion

5 / N

orth

wes

t$5

,163

,143

$7,1

50,7

11$9

47,3

67$7

32,5

98$9

,497

,716

$23,

491,

535

$19,

185,

300

122%

Reg

ion

Tota

ls$2

4,03

3,92

5$2

9,21

6,88

4$3

,423

,983

$2,8

34,1

33$3

8,32

2,16

2$9

7,83

1,08

7$8

8,49

5,10

011

1%

Aug

ust 1

5, 2

018

Tabl

e 4.

6


Figure 4.5 shows the total cost per lane mile for winter maintenance in each region, along with the region’s Winter Severity Index. The level of service provided in each county affects total costs, as do the factors listed below. For these reasons, the Southeast Region historically experiences significantly higher costs relative to winter severity than the other regions.

Components of Winter CostsMajor components of winter costs include labor, equipment, salt, other materials such as sand and chemicals, and administrative costs. A region’s expenditures in each area are affected by the severity of its winter and the portion of its highways receiving 24-hour coverage. In addition:

• Labor costs are based on rates set in each county’s union contracts. Hourly rates tend to be higher in more urban counties. Timing of storms can increase labor costs if more overtime hours are required.

• Equipment costs are determined by the state Machinery Management Committee, which assigns an hourly rate to each piece of equipment that includes depreciation from the purchase price, maintenance costs, and fuel costs. Rising fuel costs have contributed to increased equipment costs, as have some counties’ purchase of larger, more expensive vehicles. These larger vehicles are often more useful for year-round maintenance tasks and are also more efficient in the winter, as they can accommodate larger plows and carry more salt.

• Salt costs are affected by salt prices per ton, which vary because of transportation costs. For example, salt entering the state at the Port of Milwaukee doesn’t have to travel as far to reach counties in the Southeast region

Figure 4.5. Costs per Lane Mile by Category

$-

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

$1,400.00

Southwest Southeast Northeast Northcentral Northwest

Salt Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2017-18

Costs by Region Statewide Average

$-

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00


Labor Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2017-18


$- $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,000.00


Equipment Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2017-18


$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00


Other Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2017-18



as it does to reach counties in the center of the state.

• Costs for materials other than salt, such as sand, are also affected by transportation costs. In addition, some counties use more expensive deicing agents that are more effective at lower temperatures (see Table 3.1 on page 38 for details on deicing agent costs).

• Administrative costs are calculated at 4.25 percent of each county’s combined labor, equipment and materials costs, and cover the overhead costs for office activities.

However, the breakdown of expenditures by category varies among regions because of the factors described above. For example, the Southeast Region spends more on labor because hourly labor rates tend to be higher in those counties, while equipment expenditures make up a smaller percentage of that region’s total expenditures. Figure 4.4 on page 73 shows the distribution of costs by category for each region.

County-by-county cost data is available in Table 4.10 on pages 88-92.

A Note About Cost DataThe tables at the end of this section were generated with data from two sources—final costs as billed to WisDOT, and preliminary costs from the winter storm reports. The tables created from preliminary storm reports data (such as Table 4.11 on pages 94-101 Cost per Lane Mile per Severity Index Ranking) are included in this report because they provide county-by-county breakdowns of cost data not available elsewhere. Many of the tables in the Appendix also include cost data from the storm reports. The source of each table’s data is indicated below the table title.

Final cost data includes expenses for all winter activities, including putting up snow fence, transporting salt, filling salt sheds, thawing out frozen culverts, calibrating salt spreaders, producing and storing salt brine, and anti-icing applications, as well as plowing and salting. Cost data from storm reports, however, include only plowing, sanding, salting and anti-icing expenses.

4E. TRAVEL AND CRASHESFrom black ice to freezing rain to white-out snowstorms, winter weather creates challenging conditions for even the most careful drivers. Many factors influence winter crash rates, most of which cannot be controlled by winter maintenance crews. However, by keeping roads as clear as possible within their expected level of service (18- or 24-hour coverage), maintenance crews have an opportunity to help prevent some winter crashes.

In the winter of 2017-2018, there were 7,137 reported winter weather crashes (those that occurred on pavements covered with snow, slush or ice), a 35 percent increase over the previous winter. The statewide average crash rate (number of crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) increased from 18 to 24, a 33 percent increase over the previous winter.

Crash rates tend to increase in more severe winters. Figure 4.6 shows the trends in total crashes statewide over the last 19 years overlaid with the Winter Severity Index. Compared to the severe winter in 2013-2014, it is no surprise that the number of crashes has been lower since then.

It’s important to note that crash rates provide only a portion of the picture of overall winter safety. Crash rates include only “reportable” crashes, which exclude those that cause property damage under $1,000 that aren’t required by law to be reported to police. Also, crashes in urban areas are more likely to occur at lower speeds and cause fewer deaths, while crashes on high-speed rural roads are more likely than low-speed crashes to be fatal.


Crashes and Vehicle Miles TraveledMore urban areas such as the Southeast Region often have fewer winter weather crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. This is partly due to the fact that a single crash in a county with low VMT has a bigger impact on the overall crash rate. In addition, urban regions have more highways with 24-hour coverage, which means that these roadways are more likely to be in passable condition. This year, all regions saw increases in crash rates. The southeast region saw the greatest percentage increase in crash rates (a 46 percent increase), with this year’s crash rate at 18 crashes per 100 million VMT (see Table 4.7). The southwest region saw the smallest percentage increase in crash rates (a 24 percent increase), with this year's crash rate at 23 crashes per 100 million VMT. Table 4.12 on pages 102-104 gives the estimated number of vehicle miles traveled in each county this winter (November 2017 to April 2018), and the number of crashes that occurred in each county.

WisDOT tracks crashes according to the type of road where they occurred (urban or rural, and Interstate or other state or U.S. highway), and whether the road was divided or nondivided. Figure 4.7 shows that most winter crashes occur on rural state or U.S. highways, largely because there are more lane miles in this category than in the others. Table 4.13 on pages 105-106 shows the breakdown of crashes in each county according to highway type.

Source: WisDOT Bureau of Transportation Safety

Figure 4.6. Winter Crashes and Winter Severity Index

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Seve

rity

inde

x

Cras

hes

Winter season

Winter Crashes Severity Index

Photo Credit: Pixabay Commons License


How VMT Is CalculatedWisDOT’s Traffic Forecasting Section uses a number of factors to estimate Vehicle Miles of Travel for the state’s roads. Annual average daily traffic counts are taken in about one-third of Wisconsin’s counties every year, and estimates are made for the counties not counted. In addition, forecasters factor in gallons of gas sold, fuel tax collected, and average vehicle miles per gallon.

Total winter VMT for all counties is shown in Table 4.12 on page 102-104. This winter, total VMT ranged from a low of 20.1 million in Menominee County to a high of 3.3 billion in Milwaukee County. VMT estimates at the county level tend to be less reliable than at the statewide level, because current traffic counts are not available for all counties, and more variability exists in the data at finer levels of resolution.

Region Winter Severity Index (2017-18)

VMT (100 million)

(Nov 2017 - April 2018)

Snow/Slush/Ice Crashes

(Nov 2017 - April 2018)

Crashes per 100M VMT (2016–17)

Crashes per 100M VMT

(2017–2018)NC 116.23 38.37 1,150 23 30

NW 114.72 47.94 1,268 20 26

NE 97.27 54.18 1,435 20 26

SE 77.43 85.82 1,559 12 18

SW 87.51 74.65 1,725 19 23

Statewide 102.91 300.95 7,137 18 24

Table 4.7. Crashes and Vehicle Miles of Travel by Region

Source: WisDOT Bureau of Transportation Safety

Figure 4.7. Winter Crashes by Highway Type, Bureau of Transportation Safety Data 2017-2018

Urban STH31%

Rural STH47%

Urban IH8%

Rural IH14%


COUNTY-BY-COUNTY TABLES AND FIGURE FOR SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE


Table 4.8. Winter Maintenance Sections

County Lane Miles Winter Patrol Sections 2018

Lane Miles per

Patrol Section



Lane Miles per

Patrol Section


Adams 193.20 5 38.64 F Ashland 245.35 5 49.07 EFlorence 141.07 3 47.02 F Barron 428.77 12 35.73 CForest 312.38 6 52.06 E Bayfield 316.42 6 52.74 DGreen Lake 158.44 3 52.81 F Buffalo 317.02 7 45.29 DIron 249.56 6 41.59 E Burnett 237.93 5 47.59 ELanglade 299.21 6 49.87 E Chippewa 654.65 16 40.92 BLincoln 405.55 10 40.56 C Clark 402.56 10 40.26 CMarathon 874.81 19 46.04 B Douglas 451.40 9 50.16 CMarquette 245.75 5 49.15 D Dunn 519.24 9 57.69 CMenominee 90.26 2 45.13 F Eau Claire 540.70 9 60.08 BOneida 396.79 10 39.68 D Jackson 515.44 9 57.27 CPortage 560.77 15 37.38 B Pepin 112.38 3 37.46 EPrice 320.19 6 53.37 E Pierce 369.46 3 123.15 CShawano 520.57 14 37.18 C Polk 385.81 6 64.30 DVilas 305.24 6 50.87 E Rusk 213.47 5 42.69 EWaupaca 546.52 13 42.04 B Saint Croix 646.54 12 53.88 BWaushara 345.01 7 49.29 D Sawyer 367.44 6 61.24 EWood 431.88 10 43.19 C Taylor 233.90 4 58.48 ERegion Average 45.33 Trempeleau 443.67 11 40.33 D

Washburn 372.14 7 53.16 DRegion Average 53.57


Lane Miles per

Patrol Section



Lane Miles per

Patrol Section


Brown 902.08 20 45.10 B Columbia 787.76 16 49.24 BCalumet 202.30 6 33.72 E Crawford 395.79 8 49.47 CDoor 271.80 9 30.20 D Dane 1544.20 30 51.47 AFond du Lac 609.98 10 61.00 B Dodge 637.85 17 37.52 BKewaunee 111.35 3 37.12 F Grant 624.93 11 56.81 BManitowoc 426.61 9 47.40 C Green 314.64 5 62.93 DMarinette 436.66 9 48.52 D Iowa 473.13 10 47.31 COconto 469.52 10 46.95 C Jefferson 549.67 11 49.97 BOutagamie 538.53 11 48.96 B Juneau 496.27 10 49.63 CSheboygan 528.68 13 40.67 C LaCrosse 500.74 13 38.52 CWinnebago 629.54 18 34.97 B Lafayette 299.38 5 59.88 DRegion Average 43.15 Monroe 665.65 13 51.20 B

Richland 327.64 7 46.81 DRock 683.31 17 40.19 BSauk 606.44 13 46.65 BVernon 477.82 11 43.44 CRegion Average 48.81


Lane Miles per

Patrol Section


Lane Miles

Winter Patrol

Sections 2018

Lane Miles per

Patrol Section

Kenosha 660.76 17 38.87 B Statewide Totals 34,678.05 754.0 45.99Milwaukee 1948.56 33 59.05 A Statewide Averages 481.64 10.5 45.99Ozaukee 309.54 6 51.59 D Group A Averages 1522.14 31.67 48.02Racine 683.46 17 40.20 B Group B Averages 653.44 14.71 46.07Walworth 706.47 23 30.72 B Group C Averages 459.61 10.00 49.92Washington 611.85 11 55.62 B Group D Averages 341.59 7.14 49.56Waukesha 1073.65 32 33.55 A Group E Averages 258.28 5.33 48.17Region Average 44.23 Group F Averages 138.86 3.20 44.14

From Route Optimization dataAssumed to be the same as previous year

NC Region NW Region

NE Region SW Region

SE Region


County Region Dry Snow

Freezing Rain

Wet Snow

Sleet All Precip. Types

Precipitation Type

(Average Time in Hours)

SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

Table 4.9. Storm Start vs. Crew Out by Precipitation Type, Group A

Note: 1) A negative number indicates that the crews were on the road when the storm started. 2) A discrepancy is inherent in these calculation because an individual storm may have several precipitation types but when calculating the average time difference for a particular precipitation type this is not taken into account.

From Winter Storm Reports, 2017-2018

DANE SW -0.28 0.06-0.13 0.00 -0.16 100.22 3.00WAUKESHA SE 1.46 1.102.33 3.38 1.71 66.80 1.88MILWAUKEE SE 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 68.74 1.26

0.39 0.390.73 1.69 0.52 78.58 2.05Group A Averages

Final totals as of Tuesday, October 30, 2018 Page 1 of 1



Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

Table 4.9. Storm Start vs. Crew Out by Precipitation Type, Group B



EAU CLAIRE NW 1.45 0.680.00 0.42 0.50 85.55 4.52PORTAGE NC 2.18 0.440.93 0.33 1.42 102.60 4.19CHIPPEWA NW 9.00 2.442.21 1.67 2.47 98.36 4.10WAUPACA NC 2.37 1.801.56 2.17 1.95 91.77 4.10SAINT CROIX NW 0.22 0.941.65 0.33 0.98 93.44 4.03OUTAGAMIE NE 2.67 1.352.30 2.36 2.12 96.53 4.02JEFFERSON SW 0.78 -0.172.11 0.00 1.08 87.74 3.87SAUK SW 1.42 0.001.29 2.00 1.07 90.99 3.75DODGE SW 0.75 6.502.21 4.67 1.24 69.60 3.66FOND DU LAC NE 2.69 0.881.40 2.24 84.69 3.65COLUMBIA SW 0.06 0.000.00 0.00 0.02 88.06 3.28WALWORTH SE 0.80 2.000.73 0.67 1.10 98.22 3.12WASHINGTON SE 1.03 -1.750.42 1.50 0.69 81.41 3.05WINNEBAGO NE 1.04 4.102.62 6.50 1.57 84.17 3.00RACINE SE 0.98 0.861.75 0.90 1.07 81.07 2.97MONROE SW 3.34 0.330.44 1.00 1.82 94.76 2.93MARATHON NC 3.60 2.783.34 1.63 3.39 129.19 2.85KENOSHA SE 0.25 0.380.59 0.00 0.39 70.27 2.75ROCK SW 0.15 -0.170.25 -0.50 0.19 68.55 2.71BROWN NE 0.80 2.140.17 -0.07 0.89 96.13 2.43GRANT SW 2.81 0.621.25 0.62 2.04 89.37 2.17

1.83 1.251.30 1.31 1.34 89.64 3.39Group B Averages




Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

Table 4.9. Storm Start vs. Crew Out by Precipitation Type, Group C



JACKSON NW 0.88 0.900.96 1.14 0.90 80.62 6.99BARRON NW 1.92 0.501.09 0.71 1.64 139.52 5.74CLARK NW 3.75 4.094.60 2.20 4.33 113.60 5.44DUNN NW 0.22 -0.060.12 0.13 0.15 95.81 5.37LINCOLN NC 4.21 5.134.97 4.92 4.98 124.06 5.32PIERCE NW 3.75 4.774.37 4.27 3.90 101.49 5.18MANITOWOC NE 1.63 1.000.37 2.50 1.05 93.35 4.93DOUGLAS NW 3.96 1.375.03 4.00 4.13 163.10 4.86LA CROSSE SW 0.86 8.176.05 7.40 3.04 73.20 4.36SHAWANO NC 2.79 2.174.92 4.67 3.47 108.97 4.33JUNEAU SW 0.83 0.811.35 1.00 1.19 90.74 4.31WOOD NC 4.40 3.173.75 1.43 3.61 98.30 4.22OCONTO NE 4.28 2.283.42 2.20 3.75 109.52 3.43VERNON SW 2.80 4.224.11 5.14 3.27 79.69 3.40SHEBOYGAN NE 0.53 0.000.00 0.00 0.35 90.78 3.38IOWA SW 1.56 0.501.64 0.50 1.58 97.68 3.26CRAWFORD SW 3.71 1.082.29 0.75 2.98 105.01 2.88

2.48 2.362.89 2.53 2.61 103.85 4.55Group C Averages




Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

Table 4.9. Storm Start vs. Crew Out by Precipitation Type, Group D



BAYFIELD NW 4.15 4.875.00 6.33 4.46 172.10 7.97DOOR NE 4.05 3.334.50 4.05 4.10 118.53 7.39GREEN LAKE NC 5.43 0.932.40 2.17 3.89 78.19 6.98POLK NW 1.61 2.292.10 1.50 1.88 138.95 6.66GREEN SW 4.85 3.394.46 4.57 4.28 83.75 6.35OZAUKEE SE 1.50 1.501.42 2.25 1.40 75.49 6.29WASHBURN NW 4.75 3.424.48 3.25 4.71 107.94 5.94MARQUETTE NC 2.26 4.50-0.75 1.00 2.37 79.48 5.74ONEIDA NC 5.43 5.645.54 5.00 5.80 122.68 5.49MARINETTE NE 1.06 0.000.17 0.00 0.62 107.38 5.40TREMPEALEAU NW 0.96 0.910.66 0.58 0.82 109.64 4.81BUFFALO NW 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 108.11 4.50RICHLAND SW 5.50 2.401.21 2.50 2.82 104.35 3.58WAUSHARA NC 3.12 1.000.93 3.50 2.58 85.71 3.27LAFAYETTE SW 0.92 0.600.67 0.00 0.76 76.50 3.09

3.04 2.322.19 2.45 2.70 104.59 5.56Group D Averages




Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

Table 4.9. Storm Start vs. Crew Out by Precipitation Type, Group E



PEPIN NW 4.90 5.194.69 4.77 4.45 89.09 13.40TAYLOR NW 2.63 2.432.80 4.25 2.59 142.73 11.54VILAS NC 6.16 6.326.34 5.17 6.18 135.60 10.19IRON NC 8.33 4.216.48 4.25 7.27 177.89 9.76ASHLAND NW 6.87 5.155.05 3.50 6.00 170.14 9.14RUSK NW 3.85 6.383.39 5.50 3.81 84.83 8.44BURNETT NW 3.73 7.835.06 9.50 4.50 89.45 7.23CALUMET NE 3.69 4.933.30 4.50 3.90 88.76 6.83PRICE NC 4.52 2.173.72 2.30 4.04 157.60 6.78LANGLADE NC 5.88 2.576.31 1.00 6.13 133.37 5.78FOREST NC 6.08 5.755.94 5.96 137.33 5.44SAWYER NW 4.65 3.946.23 6.75 5.69 109.99 4.57

5.11 4.744.94 4.68 5.04 126.40 8.26Group E Averages




Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

Table 4.9. Storm Start vs. Crew Out by Precipitation Type, Group F



MENOMINEE NC 5.45 4.586.50 5.18 97.50 17.83FLORENCE NC 11.50 6.205.95 5.71 6.27 137.71 15.38KEWAUNEE NE 4.23 3.713.87 4.00 3.84 111.08 11.95ADAMS NC 4.60 7.257.06 7.25 5.22 94.16 10.70

6.45 5.445.84 5.65 5.13 110.11 13.97Group F Averages



Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2018

Win

ter

Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts P

er L

ane

Mile

Lab

or $

's p

erE

quip

$'s

per

Mat

eria

ls $

'sC

ost o

fT

ons o

fT

otal

FY

201

820

18 L

OS

Win

ter

Cos

ts P

er

Cou

nty

#L

abor

Lan

e M

ileE

quip

men

tL

ane

Mile

Mat

eria

lsL

ane

Mile

Adm

inSa

lt U

sed

Salt

Use

dW

inte

r C

osts

Lan

e M

iles

Lan

e M

ile

RE

GIO

N 1

/ SO

UT

HW

EST

11C

olum

bia

$424

,405

$539

$524

,734

$666

$10,

816

$14

$75,

875

$1,4

67,7

4918

,880

$2

,503

,579

787.

76

$3,1

78

12C

raw

ford

$138

,027

$349

$180

,081

$455

$6,1

41$1

6$1

6,52

3$2

30,1

923,

258

$5

70,9

6439

5.79

$1

,443

13D

ane

$1,5

83,9

63$1

,026

$1,5

07,7

31$9

76$8

9,73

1$5

8$2

16,3

40$2

,493

,636

35,3

71

$5,8

91,4

011,

544.

20

$3

,815

14D

odge

$3

41,7

32$5

36$5

36,1

41$8

41$2

4,85

0$3

9$5

0,76

6$8

76,5

1012

,818

$1

,829

,999

637.

85

$2,8

69

22G

rant

$241

,053

$386

$324

,294

$519

$40,

083

$64

$29,

209

$490

,991

7,51

7

$1,1

25,6

3062

4.93

$1

,801

23G

reen

$167

,427

$532

$176

,289

$560

$4,5

60$1

4$1

6,85

8$1

76,6

362,

422

$5

41,7

7031

4.64

$1

,722

25Io

wa

$255

,070

$539

$304

,235

$643

$25,

407

$54

$40,

608

$370

,030

5,28

6

$995

,350

473.

13

$2,1

04

28Je

ffer

son

$218

,841

$398

$388

,436

$707

$90,

705

$165

$34,

867

$643

,406

9,64

6

$1,3

76,2

5554

9.67

$2

,504

29Ju

neau

$242

,077

$488

$330

,231

$665

$27,

534

$55

$28,

041

$657

,521

8,72

5

$1,2

85,4

0449

6.27

$2

,590

32L

a C

ross

e$2

82,9

98$5

65$4

28,8

11$8

56$5

8,26

3$1

16$3

5,90

4$4

65,2

817,

038

$1

,271

,257

500.

74

$2,5

39

33L

afay

ette

$128

,736

$430

$189

,411

$633

$71,

282

$238

$19,

023

$121

,615

1,77

2

$530

,067

299.

38

$1,7

71

41M

onro

e$2

80,5

78$4

22$4

92,0

92$7

39$9

,650

$14

$39,

068

$746

,998

10,0

93

$1,5

68,3

8666

5.65

$2

,356

52R

ichl

and

$155

,826

$476

$193

,474

$591

$13,

339

$41

$20,

988

$133

,691

1,78

2

$517

,318

327.

64

$1,5

79

53R

ock

$342

,386

$501

$558

,194

$817

$88,

658

$130

$54,

859

$734

,851

11,3

77

$1,7

78,9

4868

3.31

$2

,603

56Sa

uk$3

37,9

32$5

57$4

18,4

81$6

90$2

3,65

6$3

9$4

0,08

9$8

36,4

2410

,899

$1

,656

,582

606.

44

$2,7

32

62V

erno

n$2

03,8

99$4

27$3

21,0

18$6

72$1

9,78

2$4

1$3

4,06

9$3

82,4

675,

518

$9

61,2

3547

7.82

$2

,012

SW T

OT

AL

$5,3

44,9

50$5

70$6

,873

,653

$732

$604

,457

$64

$753

,087

$10,

827,

999

152,

403

$24,

404,

146

9,38

5.22

$2,6

00


Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2018

Win

ter

Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts P

er L

ane

Mile

Lab

or $

's p

erE

quip

$'s

per

Mat

eria

ls $

'sC

ost o

fT

ons o

fT

otal

FY

201

820

18 L

OS

Win

ter

Cos

ts P

er

Cou

nty

#L

abor

Lan

e M

ileE

quip

men

tL

ane

Mile

Mat

eria

lsL

ane

Mile

Adm

inSa

lt U

sed

Salt

Use

dW

inte

r C

osts

Lan

e M

iles

Lan

e M

ile

RE

GIO

N 2

/ SO

UT

HE

AST

30K

enos

ha$4

70,2

59$7

12$5

56,1

55$8

42$2

7,30

9$4

1$4

9,90

8$5

56,3

029,

172

$1

,659

,933

660.

76

$2,5

12

40M

ilwau

kee

$3,6

35,8

97$1

,866

$1,6

95,2

53$8

70$5

3,70

5$2

8$1

$2,0

30,8

0034

,661

$7

,415

,656

1,94

8.56

$3,8

06

45O

zauk

ee$2

90,4

34$9

38$2

95,1

88$9

54$1

8,64

8$6

0$2

7,95

1$3

52,5

856,

167

$9

84,8

0630

9.54

$3

,182

51R

acin

e$4

33,8

50$6

35$5

01,6

02$7

34$2

0,59

9$3

0$5

3,78

1$7

14,5

4211

,647

$1

,724

,374

683.

46

$2,5

23

64W

alw

orth

$385

,910

$546

$606

,607

$859

$139

,148

$197

$64,

976

$910

,752

15,7

16

$2,1

07,3

9370

6.47

$2

,983

66W

ashi

ngto

n$3

96,2

04$6

48$5

19,4

37$8

49$1

46,6

90$2

40$4

4,55

3$5

89,5

939,

263

$1

,696

,477

611.

85

$2,7

73

67W

auke

sha

$674

,111

$628

$890

,128

$829

$102

,281

$95

$77,

568

$1,2

87,1

2821

,247

$3

,031

,216

1,07

3.65

$2,8

23

SE T

OT

AL

$6,2

86,6

65$1

,049

$5,0

64,3

70$8

45$5

08,3

80$8

5$3

18,7

38$6

,441

,701

107,

874

$18,

619,

854

5,99

4.29

$3,1

06

RE

GIO

N 3

/ N

OR

TH

EA

ST

5B

row

n$5

78,0

63$6

41$9

56,4

95$1

,060

$19,

117

$21

$109

,349

$806

,913

14,3

53

$2,4

69,9

3790

2.08

$2

,738

8C

alum

et$1

11,1

12$5

49$1

42,0

83$7

02$5

4,22

9$2

68$1

4,08

9$1

25,8

122,

113

$4

47,3

2520

2.30

$2

,211

15D

oor

$204

,985

$754

$296

,189

$1,0

90$5

8,32

5$2

15$3

2,47

8$2

30,7

193,

643

$8

22,6

9627

1.80

$3

,027

20Fo

nd d

u L

ac$3

77,8

14$6

19$4

71,5

10$7

73$3

8,32

5$6

3$5

0,85

4$6

41,7

149,

511

$1

,580

,217

609.

98

$2,5

91

31K

ewan

ee$5

9,30

4$5

33$9

4,03

7$8

45$1

5,43

0$1

39$7

,900

$52,

321

903

$228

,992

111.

35

$2,0

57

36M

anito

woc

$377

,617

$885

$397

,746

$932

$70,

681

$166

$47,

111

$443

,798

7,35

3

$1,3

36,9

5342

6.61

$3

,134

38M

arin

ette

$302

,431

$693

$374

,359

$857

$5,6

39$1

3$3

4,16

7$4

63,5

007,

124

$1

,180

,096

436.

66

$2,7

03

42O

cont

o$2

75,1

07$5

86$3

68,4

40$7

85$1

0,34

2$2

2$3

0,13

9$3

48,2

185,

492

$1

,032

,246

469.

52

$2,1

99

44O

utag

amie

$474

,907

$882

$458

,683

$852

$121

,929

$226

$50,

604

$556

,428

9,23

2

$1,6

62,5

5153

8.53

$3

,087

59Sh

eboy

gan

$342

,615

$648

$326

,896

$618

$253

,728

$480

$44,

065

$571

,328

8,53

9

$1,5

38,6

3252

8.68

$2

,910

70W

inne

bago

$373

,759

$594

$513

,154

$815

$101

,133

$161

$47,

628

$577

,004

9,24

5

$1,6

12,6

7862

9.54

$2

,562

NE

TO

TA

L$3

,477

,714

$678

$4,3

99,5

92$8

58$7

48,8

78$1

46$4

68,3

84$4

,817

,756

77,5

09

$13,

912,

324

5,12

7.05

$2,7

14


Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2018

Win

ter

Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts P

er L

ane

Mile

Lab

or $

's p

erE

quip

$'s

per

Mat

eria

ls $

'sC

ost o

fT

ons o

fT

otal

FY

201

820

18 L

OS

Win

ter

Cos

ts P

er

Cou

nty

#L

abor

Lan

e M

ileE

quip

men

tL

ane

Mile

Mat

eria

lsL

ane

Mile

Adm

inSa

lt U

sed

Salt

Use

dW

inte

r C

osts

Lan

e M

iles

Lan

e M

ile

RE

GIO

N 4

/ N

OR

TH

CE

NT

RA

L

1A

dam

s$1

07,2

08$5

55$1

56,5

02$8

10$6

,625

$34

$26,

183

$250

,019

3,17

9

$546

,537

193.

20

$2,8

29

19Fl

oren

ce$7

0,33

7$4

99$1

36,1

82$9

65$7

,246

$51

$11,

365

$178

,739

2,64

0

$403

,869

141.

07

$2,8

63

21Fo

rest

$109

,247

$350

$266

,781

$854

$10,

107

$32

$28,

000

$292

,118

4,45

2

$706

,253

312.

38

$2,2

61

24G

reen

Lak

e$9

4,87

6$5

99$8

3,24

4$5

25$4

,397

$28

$9,0

34$8

4,28

61,

236

$2

75,8

3715

8.44

$1

,741

26Ir

on$2

08,8

49$8

37$3

03,6

04$1

,217

$9,4

80$3

8$2

4,47

9$3

03,2

314,

264

$8

49,6

4324

9.56

$3

,405

34L

angl

ade

$170

,666

$570

$247

,936

$829

$16,

928

$57

$22,

921

$242

,821

3,84

3

$701

,272

299.

21

$2,3

44

35L

inco

ln$2

69,3

55$6

64$4

26,0

98$1

,051

$21,

747

$54

$33,

787

$365

,329

5,17

8

$1,1

16,3

1640

5.55

$2

,753

37M

arat

hon

$496

,214

$567

$780

,970

$893

$173

,387

$198

$78,

744

$954

,206

12,6

50

$2,4

83,5

2187

4.81

$2

,839

39M

arqu

ette

$120

,690

$491

$144

,316

$587

$6,0

36$2

5$1

8,45

9$1

86,4

032,

645

$4

75,9

0424

5.75

$1

,937

73M

enom

inee

$22,

969

$254

$57,

681

$639

$7,9

65$8

8$4

,094

$123

,069

1,66

6

$215

,778

90.2

6

$2,3

91

43O

neid

a$2

46,9

64$6

22$3

57,0

72$9

00$5

4,69

7$1

38$3

1,06

6$3

46,5

005,

702

$1

,036

,299

396.

79

$2,6

12

49Po

rtag

e$4

58,2

38$8

17$6

11,1

53$1

,090

$44,

466

$79

$53,

191

$547

,181

7,35

3

$1,7

14,2

2956

0.77

$3

,057

50Pr

ice

$164

,826

$515

$318

,438

$995

$55,

328

$173

$57,

358

$339

,284

4,67

2

$935

,234

320.

19

$2,9

21

58Sh

awan

o$3

70,7

13$7

12$5

46,6

75$1

,050

$48,

513

$93

$47,

296

$615

,921

8,45

9

$1,6

29,1

1852

0.57

$3

,129

63V

ilas

$171

,310

$561

$367

,263

$1,2

03$2

1,02

9$6

9$2

8,18

9$4

78,6

617,

732

$1

,066

,452

305.

24

$3,4

94

68W

aupa

ca$3

42,6

52$6

27$5

04,5

87$9

23$6

7,55

7$1

24$4

3,73

1$8

35,0

3410

,845

$1

,793

,561

546.

52

$3,2

82

69W

aush

ara

$142

,597

$413

$152

,599

$442

$1,2

17$4

$18,

617

$189

,020

2,94

0

$504

,050

345.

01

$1,4

61

71W

ood

$193

,742

$449

$267

,457

$619

$58,

176

$135

$24,

812

$405

,171

6,14

1

$949

,358

431.

88

$2,1

98

NC

TO

TA

L$3

,761

,453

$588

$5,7

28,5

58$8

95$6

14,9

01$9

6$5

61,3

26$6

,736

,991

95,5

96

$17,

403,

229

6,39

7.20

$2,7

20


Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2018

Win

ter

Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts P

er L

ane

Mile

Lab

or $

's p

erE

quip

$'s

per

Mat

eria

ls $

'sC

ost o

fT

ons o

fT

otal

FY

201

820

18 L

OS

Win

ter

Cos

ts P

er

Cou

nty

#L

abor

Lan

e M

ileE

quip

men

tL

ane

Mile

Mat

eria

lsL

ane

Mile

Adm

inSa

lt U

sed

Salt

Use

dW

inte

r C

osts

Lan

e M

iles

Lan

e M

ile

RE

GIO

N 5

/ N

OR

TH

WE

ST

2A

shla

nd$1

36,1

99$5

55$2

52,5

52$1

,029

$54,

761

$223

$31,

237

$257

,617

3,71

4

$732

,366

245.

35

$2,9

85

3B

arro

n$3

82,7

56$8

93$4

79,1

44$1

,117

$49,

425

$115

$50,

629

$395

,980

5,66

7

$1,3

57,9

3442

8.77

$3

,167

4B

ayfie

ld$2

17,7

92$6

88$3

49,4

91$1

,105

$19,

589

$62

$30,

336

$352

,028

5,46

5

$969

,236

316.

42

$3,0

63

6B

uffa

lo$1

53,7

11$4

85$2

14,4

46$6

76$6

,031

$19

$20,

459

$212

,091

3,08

9

$606

,738

317.

02

$1,9

14

7B

urne

tt$1

38,7

78$5

83$1

68,8

06$7

09$5

0,00

3$2

10$2

4,05

8$2

34,2

503,

598

$6

15,8

9523

7.93

$2

,589

9C

hipp

ewa

$537

,476

$821

$598

,564

$914

$23,

288

$36

$55,

948

$967

,531

13,1

67

$2,1

82,8

0765

4.65

$3

,334

10C

lark

$245

,123

$609

$461

,203

$1,1

46$0

$0$3

8,55

0$4

62,6

816,

139

$1

,207

,557

402.

56

$3,0

00

16D

ougl

as$3

07,3

96$6

81$4

73,3

63$1

,049

$55,

987

$124

$59,

123

$477

,859

8,15

2

$1,3

73,7

2845

1.40

$3

,043

17D

unn

$357

,548

$689

$453

,850

$874

$25,

659

$49

$45,

075

$884

,425

12,1

75

$1,7

66,5

5751

9.24

$3

,402

18E

au C

lair

e$3

60,9

54$6

68$5

71,6

65$1

,057

$110

,652

$205

$52,

183

$697

,120

9,38

4

$1,7

92,5

7454

0.70

$3

,315

27Ja

ckso

n$3

00,7

39$5

83$4

25,9

96$8

26$2

61,1

50$5

07$4

5,57

0$7

48,3

089,

795

$1

,781

,763

515.

44

$3,4

57

46Pe

pin

$91,

073

$810

$76,

420

$680

$54

$0$8

,007

$54,

446

726

$230

,000

112.

38

$2,0

47

47Pi

erce

$264

,829

$717

$308

,872

$836

$23,

417

$63

$34,

436

$367

,819

5,26

4

$999

,373

369.

46

$2,7

05

48Po

lk$2

64,1

47$6

85$3

85,7

60$1

,000

$20,

459

$53

$34,

519

$557

,705

7,81

1

$1,2

62,5

9038

5.81

$3

,273

54R

usk

$100

,048

$469

$159

,287

$746

$7,6

94$3

6$2

1,27

1$1

75,4

082,

391

$4

63,7

0821

3.47

$2

,172

57Sa

wye

r$1

58,5

40$4

31$2

19,0

01$5

96$4

0,04

3$1

09$2

4,43

9$3

75,4

324,

997

$8

17,4

5536

7.44

$2

,225

55St

. Cro

ix$5

03,0

06$7

78$5

31,7

65$8

22$1

41,3

87$2

19$6

2,24

4$9

82,8

8814

,635

$2

,221

,290

646.

54

$3,4

36

60T

aylo

r$1

48,8

53$6

36$2

28,7

92$9

78$1

9,27

7$8

2$1

9,86

2$3

59,0

314,

351

$7

75,8

1523

3.90

$3

,317

61T

rem

peal

eau

$286

,011

$645

$400

,679

$903

$14,

501

$33

$39,

087

$527

,108

7,48

0

$1,2

67,3

8644

3.67

$2

,857

65W

ashb

urn

$208

,164

$559

$391

,055

$1,0

51$2

3,99

0$6

4$3

5,56

5$4

07,9

896,

217

$1

,066

,763

372.

14

$2,8

67

NW

TO

TA

L$5

,163

,143

$664

$7,1

50,7

11$9

20$9

47,3

67$1

22$7

32,5

98$9

,497

,716

134,

218

$23,

491,

535

7,77

4.29

$3,0

22


Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2018

Win

ter

Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts P

er L

ane

Mile

L

abor

$'s

per

Equ

ip $

's p

erM

ater

ials

$'s

Cos

t of

Ton

s of

Tot

al F

Y 2

018

2018

LO

SW

inte

r C

osts

Per

Cou

nty

#L

abor

Lan

e M

ileE

quip

men

tL

ane

Mile

Mat

eria

lsL

ane

Mile

Adm

inSa

lt U

sed

Salt

Use

dW

inte

r C

osts

Lan

e M

iles

Lan

e M

ile

STA

TE

WID

E S

UM

MA

RY

SW R

egio

n$5

,344

,950

$570

$6,8

73,6

53$7

32$6

04,4

57$6

4$7

53,0

87$1

0,82

7,99

915

2,40

3

$2

4,40

4,14

69,

385.

22

$2

,600

SE R

egio

n$6

,286

,665

$1,0

49$5

,064

,370

$845

$508

,380

$85

$318

,738

$6,4

41,7

0110

7,87

4

$1

8,61

9,85

45,

994.

29

$3

,106

NE

Reg

ion

$3,4

77,7

14$6

78$4

,399

,592

$858

$748

,878

$146

$468

,384

$4,8

17,7

5677

,509

$1

3,91

2,32

45,

127.

05

$2

,714

NC

Reg

ion

$3,7

61,4

53$5

88$5

,728

,558

$895

$614

,901

$96

$561

,326

$6,7

36,9

9195

,596

$1

7,40

3,22

96,

397.

20

$2

,720

NW

Reg

ion

$5,1

63,1

43$6

64$7

,150

,711

$920

$947

,367

$122

$732

,598

$9,4

97,7

1613

4,21

8

$2

3,49

1,53

57,

774.

29

$3

,022

Stat

ewid

e T

otal

s$2

4,03

3,92

5$6

93$2

9,21

6,88

4$8

43$3

,423

,983

$99

$2,8

34,1

33$3

8,32

2,16

256

7,60

0

$9

7,83

1,08

734

,678

.05

$2

,821


Figure 4.8. 2017-2018 Winter Costs vs. 5-Year Average

Polk4%

Barron30%

Rusk-24% Lincoln

43% Langlade8%

Taylor-29%

Shawano-5%

Marinette21%

Pierce26%

Eau Claire40% Kewaunee

-59%Pepin-52% Brown

124%

Waupaca-45%

Chippewa23% Door

-5%

Saint Croix24% Dunn

27%

Menominee19%Marathon

102%Clark16%

Ashland-52%

Bayfield20%Douglas

15%Iron

-65%Vilas46%

Burnett-73%

Washburn-23%

Sawyer17%

Forest-30%

Florence-29%

Price-50%

Oneida-37%

Oconto47%

Crawford-6%

Dane74%

Grant64%

Milwaukee151%

Iowa-3%

Waukesha69%

Jefferson49%

Portage1%

Wood-70%

Buffalo99%

Trempealeau72%

Jackson115%

Outagamie39%

Manitowoc84%

Calumet-50%

Adams25%

Juneau1%

Waushara34% Winnebago

18%Monroe-22%La Crosse

37%GreenLake-24%

Marquette-53% Fond du Lac

21%Sheboygan

5%Vernon3% Columbia

25%Sauk15%

Dodge21%

Ozaukee-33%

Washington6%

Richland-48%

Racine70%Green

8%Walworth

77%Rock71%

Lafayette-37% Kenosha

-5%

Decrease more than 40%

Decrease 20 to 40%

Decrease less than 20 %

Increase less than 40%

Increase 41 to 80%

Increase more than 80%


Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

(in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

l C

ost

Lane

M

iles

Tota

l $/

LM

Tabl

e 4.

11. C

ost p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x R

anki

ng (

Gro

up

Seve

rity

Inde

xC

ost p

er L

M

per S

ever

ity

Inde

x

Salt

per

LMSa

lt pe

r LM

pe

r Sev

erity

In

dex

Reg

ion

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

7-20

18

A)

SWD

ANE

36.8

3537

1$7

,117

,000

1,54

4.20

$4,6

2810

0.22

3.00

22.9

10.

23

SEW

AUKE

SHA

66.1

2124

7$2

,171

,000

1,07

3.65

$2,0

2366

.80

1.88

19.7

90.

30

SEM

ILW

AUKE

E44

.234

661

$4,7

31,0

001,

948.

56$2

,462

68.7

41.

2617

.79

0.26

Gro

up49

.030

426

$4,6

73,0

001,

522.

14$3

,038

78.5

82.

0520

.16

0.26

AA

vera

ges W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

201

8Pa

ge 1

of 1

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

(in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

l C

ost

Lane

M

iles

Tota

l $/

LM

Tabl

e 4.

11. C

ost p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x R

anki

ng (

Gro

up

Seve

rity

Inde

xC

ost p

er L

M

per S

ever

ity

Inde

x

Salt

per

LMSa

lt pe

r LM

pe

r Sev

erity

In

dex

Reg

ion

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

7-20

18

B)

NW

EAU

CLA

IRE

76.0

9384

$1,3

16,0

0054

0.70

$2,4

4385

.55

4.52

17.3

60.

20

NC

POR

TAG

E86

.373

53$1

,313

,000

560.

77$2

,350

102.

604.

1913

.11

0.13

NW

CHI

PPEW

A92

.613

167

$1,7

58,0

0065

4.65

$2,6

8598

.36

4.10

20.1

10.

20

NC

WAU

PAC

A71

.110

841

$1,2

18,0

0054

6.74

$2,2

3991

.77

4.10

19.8

30.

22

NW

SAIN

T C

ROIX

96.0

1463

5$1

,685

,000

646.

54$2

,606

93.4

44.

0322

.64

0.24

NE

OU

TAG

AMIE

82.1

9232

$1,1

11,0

0053

8.63

$2,1

6596

.53

4.02

17.1

40.

18

SWJE

FFER

SON

66.1

9646

$1,1

30,0

0054

9.67

$2,1

2687

.74

3.87

17.5

50.

20

SWSA

UK

67.2

1089

9$1

,376

,000

606.

44$2

,277

90.9

93.

7517

.97

0.20

SWD

OD

GE

57.0

1281

8$1

,479

,000

637.

85$2

,334

69.6

03.

6620

.10

0.29

NE

FOND

DU

LAC

65.1

9511

$1,3

15,0

0060

9.98

$2,2

2484

.69

3.65

15.5

90.

18

SWC

OLU

MBI

A47

.018

880

$2,0

33,0

0078

7.76

$2,5

8188

.06

3.28

23.9

70.

27

SEW

ALW

ORT

H57

.015

716

$1,5

57,0

0070

6.47

$2,2

0598

.22

3.12

22.2

50.

23

SEW

ASH

ING

TON

54.2

9263

$1,0

98,0

0061

1.85

$1,8

6481

.41

3.05

15.1

40.

19

NE

WIN

NEB

AGO

41.5

9245

$1,1

72,0

0062

9.54

$1,8

8784

.17

3.00

14.6

90.

17

SER

ACIN

E58

.611

647

$1,3

81,0

0068

3.46

$2,0

3181

.07

2.97

17.0

40.

21

SWM

ON

RO

E59

.010

093

$1,2

95,0

0066

5.65

$1,9

5194

.76

2.93

15.1

60.

16

NC

MAR

ATH

ON

94.0

1265

0$2

,162

,000

874.

81$2

,490

129.

192.

8514

.46

0.11

SEKE

NO

SHA

25.8

9172

$1,1

99,0

0066

0.76

$1,8

1470

.27

2.75

13.8

80.

20

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 1

7, 2

018

Page

1 o

f 2Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

l Co

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.1

1. Co

st p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ran

king

( Gro

up

Seve

rity

Inde

xCo

st p

er L

M

per S

ever

ity

Inde

x

Salt

per

LMSa

lt pe

r LM

pe

r Sev

erity

In

dex

Regi

on

From

Wint

er S

torm

Rep

orts,

201

7-20

18

B)

SWRO

CK53

.711

377

$1,26

8,000

683.

31$1

,855

68.55

2.71

16.65

0.24

NEBR

OWN

75.7

1435

3$1

,976,0

0090

2.08

$2,19

696

.132.

4315

.910.

17

SWGR

ANT

44.2

7517

$849

,000

624.

93$1

,359

89.37

2.17

12.03

0.13

Grou

p65

.211

305

$1,41

3,857

653.

46$2

,175

89.64

3.39

17.27

0.20

BAv

erag

es W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

2018

Page

2 o

f 2Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

l Co

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.1

1. Co

st p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ran

king

( Gro

up

Seve

rity

Inde

xCo

st p

er L

M

per S

ever

ity

Inde

x

Salt

per

LMSa

lt pe

r LM

pe

r Sev

erity

In

dex

Regi

on

From

Wint

er S

torm

Rep

orts,

201

7-20

18

C)

NWJA

CKSO

N80

.397

95$1

,857,0

0051

5.44

$3,60

380

.626.

9919

.000.

24

NWBA

RRON

126.

056

67$1

,055,0

0042

8.77

$2,46

013

9.52

5.74

13.22

0.09

NWCL

ARK

87.3

6135

$881

,000

402.

56$2

,189

113.

605.

4415

.240.

13

NWDU

NN74

.912

175

$1,44

4,000

519.

24$2

,790

95.81

5.37

23.45

0.24

NCLI

NCOL

N11

8.1

5178

$865

,000

405.

55$2

,158

124.

065.

3212

.770.

10

NWPI

ERCE

92.3

5259

$705

,000

369.

46$1

,915

101.

495.

1814

.230.

14

NEM

ANIT

OWOC

70.5

7353

$898

,000

426.

61$2

,105

93.35

4.93

17.24

0.18

NWDO

UGLA

S17

2.6

8152

$990

,000

451.

40$2

,194

163.

104.

8618

.060.

11

SWLA

CRO

SSE

68.0

7038

$1,08

5,000

500.

74$2

,184

73.20

4.36

14.06

0.19

NCSH

AWAN

O11

2.4

8459

$1,16

9,000

520.

57$2

,253

108.

974.

3316

.250.

15

SWJU

NEAU

73.9

8725

$1,05

8,000

496.

27$2

,138

90.74

4.31

17.58

0.19

NCW

OOD

82.3

6140

$782

,000

431.

88$1

,824

98.30

4.22

14.22

0.14

NEOC

ONTO

88.7

5492

$753

,000

469.

52$1

,612

109.

523.

4311

.700.

11

SWVE

RNON

54.1

5518

$765

,000

477.

82$1

,623

79.69

3.40

11.55

0.14

NESH

EBOY

GAN

51.1

8539

$931

,000

528.

68$1

,788

90.78

3.38

16.15

0.18

SWIO

WA

47.9

5286

$730

,000

473.

13$1

,543

97.68

3.26

11.17

0.11

SWCR

AWFO

RD51

.732

56$4

51,00

039

5.79

$1,13

910

5.01

2.88

8.23

0.08

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 1

7, 20

18Pa

ge 1

of 2

Fina

l tot

als a

s of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

l Co

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.1

1. Co

st p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ran

king

( Gro

up

Seve

rity

Inde

xCo

st p

er L

M

per S

ever

ity

Inde

x

Salt

per

LMSa

lt pe

r LM

pe

r Sev

erity

In

dex

Regi

on

From

Wint

er S

torm

Rep

orts,

201

7-20

18

C)

Grou

p85

.469

51$9

65,82

445

9.61

$2,08

910

3.85

4.55

14.95

0.15

CAv

erag

es W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

2018

Page

2 o

f 2Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

l Co

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.1

1. Co

st p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ran

king

( Gro

up

Seve

rity

Inde

xCo

st p

er L

M

per S

ever

ity

Inde

x

Salt

per

LMSa

lt pe

r LM

pe

r Sev

erity

In

dex

Regi

on

From

Wint

er S

torm

Rep

orts,

201

7-20

18

D)

NWBA

YFIE

LD15

7.1

5465

$786

,000

316.

42$2

,520

172.

107.

9717

.270.

10

NEDO

OR99

.536

43$5

42,00

027

1.80

$2,00

711

8.53

7.39

13.40

0.11

NCGR

EEN

LAKE

43.7

1236

$174

,000

158.

44$1

,106

78.19

6.98

7.80

0.10

NWPO

LK10

5.3

7811

$985

,000

385.

81$2

,568

138.

956.

6620

.250.

15

SWGR

EEN

43.6

2422

$629

,000

314.

64$1

,999

83.75

6.35

7.70

0.09

SEOZ

AUKE

E51

.161

67$6

00,00

030

9.54

$1,94

875

.496.

2919

.920.

26

NWW

ASHB

URN

108.

062

17$8

16,00

037

2.14

$2,21

110

7.94

5.94

16.71

0.15

NCM

ARQU

ETTE

47.9

2645

$347

,000

245.

75$1

,412

79.48

5.74

10.76

0.14

NCON

EIDA

126.

457

02$8

64,00

039

6.79

$2,17

712

2.68

5.49

14.37

0.12

NEM

ARIN

ETTE

97.7

7124

$1,02

7,000

436.

66$2

,358

107.

385.

4016

.310.

15

NWTR

EMPE

ALEA

U10

2.7

7480

$948

,000

443.

67$2

,136

109.

644.

8116

.860.

15

NWBU

FFAL

O10

0.9

3089

$452

,000

317.

02$1

,426

108.

114.

509.

740.

09

SWRI

CHLA

ND52

.917

82$3

84,00

032

7.64

$1,17

110

4.35

3.58

5.44

0.05

NCW

AUSH

ARA

71.4

2940

$390

,000

345.

01$1

,130

85.71

3.27

8.52

0.10

SWLA

FAYE

TTE

35.9

1772

$277

,000

299.

38$9

2476

.503.

095.

920.

08

Grou

p82

.943

66$6

14,73

332

9.38

$1,80

610

4.59

5.56

12.73

0.12

DAv

erag

es W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

2018

Page

1 o

f 1Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

l Co

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.1

1. Co

st p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ran

king

( Gro

up

Seve

rity

Inde

xCo

st p

er L

M

per S

ever

ity

Inde

x

Salt

per

LMSa

lt pe

r LM

pe

r Sev

erity

In

dex

Regi

on

From

Wint

er S

torm

Rep

orts,

201

7-20

18

E)

NWPE

PIN

69.8

726

$169

,000

112.

38$1

,506

89.09

13.40

6.46

0.07

NWTA

YLOR

92.4

4351

$617

,000

233.

90$2

,699

142.

7311

.5418

.600.

13

NCVI

LAS

134.

377

32$9

48,00

030

5.24

$3,11

013

5.60

10.19

25.33

0.19

NCIR

ON22

2.6

4264

$603

,000

249.

56$2

,436

177.

899.

7617

.090.

10

NWAS

HLAN

D19

2.7

3714

$546

,000

245.

35$2

,243

170.

149.

1415

.140.

09

NWRU

SK85

.023

91$3

85,00

021

3.47

$1,80

284

.838.

4411

.200.

13

NWBU

RNET

T10

3.4

3598

$409

,000

237.

93$1

,720

89.45

7.23

15.12

0.17

NECA

LUM

ET51

.421

13$2

78,00

020

2.30

$1,38

388

.766.

8310

.440.

12

NCPR

ICE

140.

846

72$6

88,00

032

2.26

$2,18

415

7.60

6.78

14.50

0.09

NCLA

NGLA

DE11

2.7

3843

$518

,000

299.

21$1

,730

133.

375.

7812

.840.

10

NCFO

REST

117.

344

52$5

26,00

031

2.38

$1,69

813

7.33

5.44

14.25

0.10

NWSA

WYE

R11

8.7

4997

$617

,000

367.

44$1

,680

109.

994.

5713

.600.

12

Grou

p12

0.1

3904

$525

,333

258.

45$2

,016

126.

408.

2614

.550.

12E

Aver

ages

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 1

7, 20

18Pa

ge 1

of 1

Fina

l tot

als a

s of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

l Co

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.1

1. Co

st p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ran

king

( Gro

up

Seve

rity

Inde

xCo

st p

er L

M

per S

ever

ity

Inde

x

Salt

per

LMSa

lt pe

r LM

pe

r Sev

erity

In

dex

Regi

on

From

Wint

er S

torm

Rep

orts,

201

7-20

18

F)

NCM

ENOM

INEE

100.

416

66$1

45,00

090

.26$1

,610

97.50

17.83

18.46

0.19

NCFL

OREN

CE11

4.3

2640

$306

,000

141.

07$2

,170

137.

7115

.3818

.710.

14

NEKE

WAU

NEE

89.5

903

$143

,000

111.

35$1

,331

111.

0811

.958.

110.

07

NCAD

AMS

67.1

3179

$399

,000

193.

20$2

,067

94.16

10.70

16.45

0.17

Grou

p92

.820

97$2

48,25

013

3.97

$1,79

511

0.11

13.97

15.43

0.14

FAv

erag

es W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

17,

2018

Page

1 o

f 1Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Table 4.12. Winter Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles of Travel

WisDOT REGION / COUNTY

2016-17 WINTER VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL

2016-17 WINTER CRASHES

CRASH RATE PER 100M VMT

NORTH CENTRALADAMS 118,100,000 16 14FLORENCE 37,700,000 7 19FOREST 74,400,000 13 17GREEN LAKE 107,500,000 9 8IRON 56,400,000 15 27LANGLADE 149,400,000 49 33LINCOLN 235,900,000 49 21MARATHON 811,900,000 385 47MARQUETTE 144,700,000 30 21MENOMINEE 20,100,000 2 10ONEIDA 240,900,000 51 21PORTAGE 446,900,000 156 35PRICE 106,000,000 8 8SHAWANO 304,600,000 77 25VILAS 178,800,000 53 30WAUPACA 301,600,000 66 22WAUSHARA 188,600,000 64 34WOOD 313,100,000 100 32Region Total 3,836,600,000 1,150 30

NORTHEASTBROWN 1,166,900,000 382 33CALUMET 204,000,000 28 14DOOR 206,100,000 30 15FOND DU LAC 564,900,000 130 23KEWAUNEE 110,200,000 19 17MANITOWOC 400,200,000 129 32MARINETTE 367,200,000 66 18OCONTO 303,300,000 55 18OUTAGAMIE 766,300,000 175 23SHEBOYGAN 495,300,000 133 27WINNEBAGO 833,100,000 288 35Region Total 5,417,500,000 1,435 26

Bureau of transportation Safety data, Nov. 1, 2017 - April 30, 2018 State, U.S. and Interstate Highways only








NORTHWESTASHLAND 107,400,000 13 12BARRON 312,900,000 78 25BAYFIELD 174,200,000 34 20BUFFALO 110,100,000 26 24BURNETT 119,200,000 18 15CHIPPEWA 444,500,000 136 31CLARK 257,300,000 57 22DOUGLAS 271,100,000 78 29DUNN 349,700,000 86 25EAU CLAIRE 501,500,000 222 44JACKSON 314,700,000 71 23PEPIN 44,700,000 16 36PIERCE 176,700,000 64 36POLK 246,700,000 58 24RUSK 110,500,000 17 15ST.CROIX 603,000,000 160 27SAWYER 145,800,000 14 10TAYLOR 115,000,000 33 29TREMPEALEAU 219,400,000 59 27WASHBURN 169,600,000 28 17Region Total 4,794,000,000 1,268 26

SOUTHEASTKENOSHA 755,300,000 136 18MILWAUKEE 3,256,400,000 567 17OZAUKEE 496,100,000 111 22RACINE 786,300,000 174 22WALWORTH 597,000,000 106 18WASHINGTON 748,600,000 178 24WAUKESHA 1,942,200,000 287 15Region Total 8,581,900,000 1,559 18








SOUTHWESTCOLUMBIA 513,600,000 104 20CRAWFORD 124,100,000 21 17DANE 2,389,200,000 408 17DODGE 494,900,000 87 18GRANT 284,600,000 69 24GREEN 166,200,000 34 20IOWA 210,700,000 50 24JEFFERSON 506,600,000 85 17JUNEAU 348,300,000 96 28LA CROSSE 489,100,000 242 49LAFAYETTE 118,400,000 16 14MONROE 377,400,000 98 26RICHLAND 111,900,000 22 20ROCK 757,500,000 232 31SAUK 408,300,000 116 28VERNON 164,200,000 45 27Region Total 7,465,000,000 1,725 23

STATEWIDE TOTAL 30,095,000,000 7,137 24


NC Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknADAMS 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0FLORENCE 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0FOREST 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1GREEN LAKE 9 2 7 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0IRON 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0LANGLADE 49 8 41 0 0 5 3 0 40 1 0LINCOLN 49 8 41 0 0 7 0 1 18 20 3MARATHON 385 129 202 21 33 41 76 12 47 149 6MARQUETTE 30 0 14 0 16 0 0 0 13 1 0ONEIDA 51 5 46 0 0 1 4 0 40 5 1PORTAGE 156 37 56 22 41 16 16 5 15 40 1PRICE 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0SHAWANO 77 10 67 0 0 9 0 1 23 41 3VILAS 53 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 43 5 5WAUPACA 66 2 64 0 0 1 1 0 30 31 3WAUSHARA 64 0 33 0 31 0 0 0 31 2 0WOOD 100 59 41 0 0 31 22 6 28 13 0MENOMINEE 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0TOTAL 1,150 260 726 43 121 113 122 25 394 309 23

NE Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknBROWN 382 226 53 74 29 52 160 14 11 41 1CALUMET 28 14 13 1 0 11 3 0 12 1 0DOOR 30 3 27 0 0 2 1 0 16 10 1FOND DU LAC 130 33 83 1 13 11 22 0 26 53 4KEWAUNEE 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 1MANITOWOC 129 40 21 3 65 22 15 3 17 3 1MARINETTE 66 15 51 0 0 12 3 0 32 18 1OCONTO 55 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 10 42 3OUTAGAMIE 175 75 79 6 15 31 37 7 39 37 3SHEBOYGAN 133 40 42 0 51 26 12 2 22 15 5WINNEBAGO 288 100 106 65 17 40 57 3 20 83 3TOTAL 1,435 546 549 150 190 207 310 29 221 305 23

Motor Vehicle Crashes on Roads with Snow/Ice/SlushBureau of transportation Safety data, Nov. 1, 2017 - April 30, 2018 State, U.S. and Interstate Highways only

Urban State Highway Rural State Highway


Table 4.13 Motor Vehicle Crashes on Roads with Snow/Ice/Slush


NW Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknASHLAND 13 7 6 0 0 2 2 3 6 0 0BARRON 78 6 72 0 0 2 4 0 34 36 2BAYFIELD 34 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 28 3 3BUFFALO 26 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0BURNETT 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 1CHIPPEWA 136 25 111 0 0 10 15 0 31 74 6CLARK 57 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 25 31 1DOUGLAS 78 34 21 23 0 12 18 4 5 16 0DUNN 86 21 24 7 34 14 7 0 18 4 2EAU CLAIRE 222 94 41 22 65 11 72 11 25 16 0JACKSON 71 0 28 0 43 0 0 0 23 3 2PEPIN 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0PIERCE 64 5 59 0 0 3 1 1 56 2 1POLK 58 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 52 4 2RUSK 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 1ST. CROIX 160 13 92 10 45 7 4 2 58 32 2SAWYER 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 2TAYLOR 33 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 31 2 0TREMPEALEAU 59 0 56 0 3 0 0 0 55 0 1WASHBURN 28 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 11 15 2TOTAL 1,268 205 811 62 190 61 123 21 542 241 28

SE Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknKENOSHA 136 62 43 14 17 22 38 2 15 25 3MILWAUKEE 567 382 0 185 0 122 235 25 0 0 0OZAUKEE 111 21 21 15 54 12 9 0 7 11 3RACINE 174 118 42 1 13 52 58 8 16 25 1WALWORTH 106 15 66 1 24 8 5 2 39 24 3WASHINGTON 178 72 87 8 11 25 41 6 22 61 4WAUKESHA 287 88 62 87 50 14 68 6 23 31 8TOTAL 1,559 758 321 311 169 255 454 49 122 177 22

SW Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknCOLUMBIA 104 12 39 3 50 6 4 2 31 5 3CRAWFORD 21 5 16 0 0 4 1 0 15 1 0DANE 408 195 134 28 51 26 154 15 63 64 7DODGE 87 5 81 0 1 2 2 1 44 34 3GRANT 69 2 67 0 0 2 0 0 45 19 3GREEN 34 4 30 0 0 2 1 1 27 2 1IOWA 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 17 29 4JEFFERSON 85 5 46 0 34 3 2 0 24 19 3JUNEAU 96 0 23 1 72 0 0 0 17 1 5LA CROSSE 242 136 66 17 23 58 68 10 31 33 2LAFAYETTE 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0MONROE 98 15 38 4 41 10 3 2 37 1 0RICHLAND 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 17 4 1ROCK 232 86 64 36 46 39 42 5 39 25 0SAUK 116 9 61 0 46 8 1 0 39 22 0VERNON 45 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 36 8 1TOTAL 1,725 474 798 89 364 160 278 36 490 275 33





The Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of Highway Maintenance will always continue to look toward efficiencies that reduce winter maintenance costs. Using brine in many ways helps us use less salt and in-turn results in less environmental impact. As was reported last year, WisDOT and some counties are testing and piloting the use of only brine on some routes. WisDOT created the Brine Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and from that group made up of county and DOT folks, a new term for this method of fighting winter called “Mostly Liquid Route” was generated. At least 9 counties will be attempting at least one Mostly Liquid Route in the winter of 2018-19. Jefferson County will be implementing this on many routes including Interstate routes (a first in Wisconsin.) These Mostly Liquid Routes will not see the application of granular rock salt unless necessary, and instead, those roads will see a brine or brine mixture. The Brine TAC expects to see significant salt reductions on routes where this method is used while keeping the road at a winter level of service that WisDOT policy and the public expects.

WisDOT has hired the University of Wisconsin – Madison Traffic Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory to collect data from these pilot - Mostly Liquid Routes and to research the effectiveness of different brine mixtures in varying weather conditions. These results are expected to promote statewide use of Mostly Liquid Routes in the near future, as equipment is upgraded and personnel adapt to the change in the industry.

WisDOT will continue to explore other methods of reducing rock salt usage on the state highway system. Through our partnership with the counties, we will continue to implement route optimization, which has proven to enhance efficiency. The Maintenance Decision Support System will continue to be improved, including the option of having treatment recommendations sent directly to plow drivers. Through the Wisconsin County Highway Association, winter maintenance training at all levels will be implemented using materials and methods created by Clear Roads and other expert sources.

All these efforts are aimed at providing users of Wisconsin’s highways the safest possible experience in spite of harsh winter weather, at the same time WisDOT safeguards the state’s natural environment by implementing sustainable practices.

Photo credit: Pixabay Creative Commons License

5 Looking Ahead

Annual Winter Maintenance Report 2017-18 - Wisconsin Department … · 2014. 11. 10. · Wisconsin...

Documents

Transcript of Annual Winter Maintenance Report 2017-18 - Wisconsin Department … · 2014. 11. 10. · Wisconsin...