annual winter maintenance report 2017-18 - wisconsin department … · 2014. 11. 10. · wisconsin...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Appendix - See Separate Document
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 3
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
Appendix - See Separate Document
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
4 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
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
6 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 7
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.
8 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
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.
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 9
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
10 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 11
COUNTY-BY-COUNTY
QUICK REFERENCE WINTER SUMMARY TABLE
FOR SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
12 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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 13
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.
14 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
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
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
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.
NE
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 15
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
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
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.
NW
16 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
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
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
Region total 5,994.29 107,874 $6,441,701 $18,619,854Region average 856.33 74.37 51.0 15411 18.00 0.24 $920,243 $1,075 $2,659,979 $3,106 $41.77
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.
SE
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 17
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
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
Region total 9,385.22 152,403 $10,827,999 $24,404,146Region average 586.58 81.75 53.7 9525 16.24 0.20 $676,750 $1,154 $1,525,259 $2,600 $31.81
Statewide total 34,678.05 83.7 567,600 16.37 $38,322,162 $97,831,087Statewide average 97.53 $1,089 $2,832
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.
SW
18 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
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
20 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 21
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
22 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
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.
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 23
COUNTY-BY-COUNTY
TABLES FOR SECTION 2
WINTER WEATHER
24 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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 25
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
26 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 27
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
28 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 29
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
30 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
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
32 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 33
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
34 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 35
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
36 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
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)
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 37
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.
38 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 39
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%
40 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 41
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
42 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 43
44 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
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)
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 45
• 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
46 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
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.
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 47
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
48 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 49
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
50 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
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.
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 51
COUNTY-BY-COUNTY TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 3: SNOW AND ICE CONTROL
52 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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 53
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%
54 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 55
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
56 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 57
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
58 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 59
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
60 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 61
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
62 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 63
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
64 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
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
66 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
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 VMT18 per
100 million VMT18 per
100 million VMT24 per
100 million VMT
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 67
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.
68 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 69
• 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.
70 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 71
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)
72 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 73
Figure 4.4. Regional Winter Costs by Category, 2017-18
Labor Costs22%
Equipment Costs28% County
Furnished Materials Cost
3%
Administration Costs
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%
Administration Costs
2%
Cost of Sa lt Used34%
Southeast Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $18,619,854
Brine Used: 0.82 M Gallons
Labor Costs25%
Equipment Costs32%
County Furnished Materials Cost
5%
Administration Costs
3%
Cost of Sa lt Used35%
Northeast Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $13,912,324
Brine Used: 1.61 M Gallons
Labor Costs22%
Equipment Costs33%
County Furnished Materials Cost
3%
Administration Costs
3%
Cost of Sa lt Used39%
Northcentral Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $17,403,229
Brine Used: 1.61 M Gallons
Labor Costs22%
Equipment Costs31% County
Furnished Materials Cost
4%
Administration Costs
3%
Cost of Sa lt Used40%
Northwest Region Winter Costs2017-18 Total Cost: $23,491,535
Brine Used: 0.67 M Gallons
74 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 75
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
Southwest Southeast Northeast Northcentral Northwest
Labor Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2017-18
Costs by Region Statewide Average
$- $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00 $800.00 $900.00
$1,000.00
Southwest Southeast Northeast Northcentral Northwest
Equipment Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2017-18
Costs by Region Statewide Average
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
Southwest Southeast Northeast Northcentral Northwest
Other Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2017-18
Costs by Region Statewide Average
76 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
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.
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 77
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
78 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
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%
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 79
COUNTY-BY-COUNTY TABLES AND FIGURE FOR SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE
80 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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 81
Table 4.8. Winter Maintenance Sections
County Lane Miles Winter Patrol Sections 2018
Lane Miles per
Patrol Section
Winter Service Group
County Lane Miles Winter Patrol Sections 2018
Lane Miles per
Patrol Section
Winter Service Group
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
County Lane Miles Winter Patrol Sections 2018
Lane Miles per
Patrol Section
Winter Service Group
County Lane Miles Winter Patrol Sections 2018
Lane Miles per
Patrol Section
Winter Service Group
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
County Lane Miles Winter Patrol Sections 2018
Lane Miles per
Patrol Section
Winter Service Group
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
82 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 83
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 B
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
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
Final totals as of Tuesday, October 30, 2018 Page 1 of 1
84 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
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 C
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
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
Final totals as of Tuesday, October 30, 2018 Page 1 of 1
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 85
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 D
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
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
Final totals as of Tuesday, October 30, 2018 Page 1 of 1
86 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
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 E
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
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
Final totals as of Tuesday, October 30, 2018 Page 1 of 1
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 87
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 F
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
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
Final totals as of Tuesday, October 30, 2018 Page 1 of 1
88 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 89
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
90 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 91
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
92 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 93
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%
94 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 95
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
96 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 97
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
98 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 99
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
100 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 101
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
102 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
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 103
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
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
104 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
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
Bureau of transportation Safety data, Nov. 1, 2017 - April 30, 2018 State, U.S. and Interstate Highways only
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
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 105
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
Urban State Highway Rural State Highway
Table 4.13 Motor Vehicle Crashes on Roads with Snow/Ice/Slush
106 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
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
Urban State Highway Rural State Highway
Urban State Highway Rural State Highway
Urban State Highway Rural State Highway
2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 | T h e S n o w M u s t G o O n 107
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
108