Annual Winter Maintenance Report - Wisconsin Department of … · 2017. 12. 12. · ANNUAL WINTER MAINTENANCE REPORT. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Division of Transportation

ANNUAL WINTER MAINTENANCE REPORT

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

FINAL December 2017

2016-2017It's Only Cold if You're Standing Still

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

• Mike Sproul, 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.

2 0 1 6 - 2 0 1 7 | I t ' s O n l y C o l d i f Y o u ' r e S t a n d i n g S t i l l / / 1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5About 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 ................................................................................................................................46RWIS ..............................................................................................................................................................46MDSS ..............................................................................................................................................................48Equipment Calibration ...................................................................................................................................49Product and Equipment Testing ....................................................................................................................49Winter Maintenance Research .....................................................................................................................49

3C Labor ................................................................................................................................................................51Winter Operations Training ...........................................................................................................................52

4. Performance .....................................................................................................................................694A Compass ..........................................................................................................................................................704B Winter Maintenance Management ................................................................................................................70

Storm Reports ................................................................................................................................................71Winter Patrol Sections ...................................................................................................................................72Route Optimization ........................................................................................................................................72

4C Response Time ................................................................................................................................................73Maintenance Crew Reaction Time ................................................................................................................73Time to Bare/Wet Pavement .........................................................................................................................74

4D Costs ................................................................................................................................................................754E Travel and Crashes ..........................................................................................................................................80

5. Looking Ahead..................................................................................................................................111

Appendix ................................................................................................................................................113

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 ............................................................................................................9Table 1.4. Winter in Wisconsin, 2016–2017 ......................................................................................................13

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

3. Winter Operations ............................................................................................................................31Table 3.1. Statewide Prewetting Agent Use for Salt ...........................................................................................38Table 3.2. Cost of Anti-icing vs. Deicing ..............................................................................................................39Table 3.3. Statewide Anti-icing Agent Use ...........................................................................................................39Table 3.4. Labor Hours/Lane Miles/Severity Index Ranking .............................................................................60

4. Performance .....................................................................................................................................69Table 4.1. Statewide Compass Measures for Winter .........................................................................................70Table 4.2. Average Patrol Section Lengths by Winter Service Group ................................................................72Table 4.3. Maintenance Crew Reaction Time .....................................................................................................74Table 4.4. Average Time to Bare/Wet Pavement ................................................................................................74Table 4.5. Total Winter Costs Relative to Winter Severity ..................................................................................75Table 4.6. Winter Costs as Billed to WisDOT by Counties ..................................................................................78Table 4.7. Crashes and Vehicle Miles Traveled by Region .................................................................................82Table 4.8. Winter Maintenance Sections ............................................................................................................85Table 4.9. Storm Start vs. Crew Out ....................................................................................................................86Table 4.10. Winter Maintenance Costs per Lane Mile .......................................................................................92Table 4.11. Cost per Lane Mile per Severity Index Ranking ..............................................................................98Table 4.12. Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles of Travel .............................................................................106Table 4.13. Motor Vehicle Crashes on Roads with Snow/Ice/Slush .................................................................109

Appendix ................................................................................................................................................113Table A-1. Storm Report Summary ......................................................................................................................117Table A-2. Weather Forecasting Service Usage ..................................................................................................129Table A-3. Anti-icing Details ..................................................................................................................................135Table A-4. Annual Anti-icing Agent Usage ............................................................................................................143Table A-5. Actual Anti-Icing Costs .........................................................................................................................149Table A-6. Salt Brine Use ......................................................................................................................................152Table A-7. Annual Prewetting Agent Usage for Salt .............................................................................................154Table A-8. Annual Abrasives Usage and Prewetting Agent Usage for Abrasives...............................................160Table A-9. History of Salt Use on State Trunk Highways .....................................................................................166


List of Figures

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5Figure 1.1. WisDOT Regional Divisions ................................................................................................................8

2. Winter Weather ................................................................................................................................19Figure 2.1. Statewide Snowfall, 2016–2017 ......................................................................................................20Figure 2.2. Winter Severity Index, 2016–2017 ..................................................................................................21Figure 2.3. 2016–2017 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. Anti-icing as a Percentage of Winter Costs ......................................................................................39Figure 3.7. Counties Using Anti-Icing ...................................................................................................................40Figure 3.8. Counties Using Closed Loop Ground Speed Controllers .................................................................41Figure 3.9. Counties Using Underbody Plows .....................................................................................................42Figure 3.10. Counties Prewetting Salt .................................................................................................................43Figure 3.11. Counties Using Route Optimization ................................................................................................44 Figure 3.12. 2016–2017 Salt Use per Lane Mile vs. 5-Year Average - WI ........................................................55Figure 3.13. Gallons of Brine/Lane-Mile .............................................................................................................56Figure 3.14. Tons of Salt/Lane-Mile ....................................................................................................................57Figure 3.15. Winter Cost/Lane-Mile ....................................................................................................................58Figure 3.16. Labor Cost/Lane-Mile ......................................................................................................................59

4. Performance .....................................................................................................................................69Figure 4.1. Winter Costs per Lane Mile ...............................................................................................................75Figure 4.2. Total Winter Maintenance Cost by Region .......................................................................................75Figure 4.3. Statewide Winter Costs by Category .................................................................................................76Figure 4.4. Regional Winter Costs by Category ...................................................................................................77Figure 4.5. Costs per Lane Mile by Category ......................................................................................................79Figure 4.6. Winter Crashes and Winter Severity Index .......................................................................................81Figure 4.7. Winter Crashes by Highway Type .......................................................................................................82Figure 4.8. 2016–2017 Winter Costs vs. 5-Year Average ..................................................................................97

Appendix ................................................................................................................................................113Figure A-1. WisDOT Regional Map .......................................................................................................................115


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 our partnersWhether you are in Ashland County along Lake Superior or Kenosha County on the southern border, fighting winter storms in Wisconsin can vary greatly. But geography isn’t the only variable in keeping the roads safe for travelers. The weather and the roads themselves can make the difference in how the road is treated. From two-lane sheltered roadways, to four-lane interstates with frequently windy conditions to six-lane urban highways with high traffic volumes, different roads require different treatments to meet the public’s expectation that the road will be traversable in a reasonable amount of time after a winter storm.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation commends county maintenance crews, staff and administration for their dedicated and timely response to every winter storm and for working with us to be increasingly cost effective and good stewards of Wisconsin’s environment. The Bureau of Highway Maintenance also recognizes the WisDOT regional staff and management who coordinate these efforts, provide priorities and stress the importance of improving processes in winter maintenance. The unique partnership between the counties and state DOT continues to prove to be economical for Wisconsin’s taxpayers.

This report is a compilation of 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 other partnering states who participate in Clear Roads and MDSS pooled fund studies;

• MDSS (Maintenance Decision Support System).

There is a wide range of material in this report – valuable for both high-level overviews and detailed analysis. There are also links to other sites and resources which can provide more detail and information -- including to WisDOT’s Highway Maintenance Manual, which is the defining policy document for state highway maintenance. If you need additional information, you may contact your regional WISDOT representative or Allan Johnson, WISDOT’s state winter maintenance engineer, at [email protected].

Sincerely,

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

Introduction1


Infrastructure

2015-2016 winter 2016-2017 winter

Lane miles 34,486 miles 34,620 miles

Patrol sections 754.0 755.0

Average patrol section length 45.73 lane miles 45.85 lane miles

Weather

Average statewide Winter Severity Index (100=normal) 90.35 91.14

Number of storms, statewide average and range across counties

Average: 29Range: 8 to 64

Average: 26Range: 13-55

Snowfall, statewide average and range across counties Average: 58.3 inches Range: 23 to 212 inches

Average: 60.2Range: 14.8 to 132

Materials1

Salt used 399,046 tons11.6 tons per lane mile

526,199 tons15.2 tons per lane mile

Average cost of salt $71.35 per ton $68.74 per ton

Prewetting liquid used 2,116,648 gal. 3,018,207 gal.

Anti-icing agents used 1,909,207 gal. 1,918,324 gal.

Sand used 9,255 cubic yd. 14,036 cubic yd.

Costs, Equipment and Performance

Total winter costs2 $71,988,308 $87,836,693

Total winter costs per lane mile $2,087 $2,537

Average crew reaction time from start of storm 4.34 hours 2.22 hours

Percentage of roads to bare/wet pavement (Within WisDOT target times) 74% 70%

Road Weather Information System (RWIS) stations 65 68

Counties with salt spreaders equipped with on-board prewetting unit 68 of 72 (94%) 68 of 72 (94%)

Counties with salt spreaders equipped with ground-speed controller unit 68 of 72 (94%) 68 of 72 (94%)

Underbody plows 355 355

Counties with underbody plows 54 of 72 (75%) 54 of 72 (75%)

Counties equipped to use anti-icing agents 66 of 72 (92%) 66 of 72 (92%)

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

Labor and Services

Regular county winter labor hours3 142,983 hrs. 147,395 hrs.

Overtime county winter labor hours 82,630 hrs. 122,220 hrs.

Public service announcements aired 4,971 total4,311 radio; 660 TV

13,936 total12,269 radio; 1,667 TV

Cost of public service announcements$36,000

($195,381 market value)

$36,000 ($498,411

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.

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


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

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

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

• Section 2: Weather

• Section 3: Winter Operations

• Section 4: Performance

• Section 5: Looking Ahead

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

Within many of the county-by-county tables in this report, the counties are grouped by region, in acknowledgement of the role that WisDOT’s regional staff plays in coordinating winter maintenance in their counties. In some tables, counties are divided by Winter Service Group (Groups A, B, C , D, E and F), which reflect the difference in the level of service provided on roads in these counties and facilitate comparisons within these groups. See Table 1.3 on page 9 for more information on Winter Service Groups.

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

This report presents data from several sources:

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

• Final cost and materials data as billed to WisDOT.

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

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

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


WORKING WITH COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS WisDOT’s Bureau of Highway Maintenance, in partnership with the five WisDOT regional offices, is responsible for the maintenance of the state trunk and Interstate highway system. This system includes 34,620 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 StrategyIn order to gain the most benefit from limited resources, counties provide different levels of service on highways according to the amount of daily traffic they receive. High-volume roads typically receive 24-hour coverage, while lower-volume roads receive 18-hour coverage. On 18-hour routes the service hours are adjusted based on timing of the storms. On lower-volume four-lane highways, the passing lanes may receive less attention than the driving lanes and ramps.

Table 1.2 shows how WisDOT categorizes the state’s highways for winter maintenance.

Category Definition Lane miles % of total

1 Major urban freeways and most highways with six lanes and greater 3,436 10%

2 High volume four-lane highways (Average Daily Traffic > 25,000) and some four-lane highways (ADT < 25,000), and some 6-lane highways. 3,269 9%

3 All other four-lane highways (ADT < 25,000) 8,861 26%

4 Most high volume two-lane highways (ADT > 5,000) and some 2-lanes (ADT <5000) 4,680 14%

5 All other two-lane highways 14,376 42%

Total 34,620

Table 1.2. Highway Categories for Winter Maintenance

Figure 1.1. WisDOT Regional DivisionsFigure 1.1. WisDOT Regional Divisions


To facilitate comparisons between counties that provide similar levels of service, WisDOT divides the 72 counties into six Winter Service Groups—A, B, C, D, E and F, with A being the most urban and F the most rural. Table 1.3 explains the divisions between the groups. This table also shows which counties are assigned to each service group. In many tables throughout this report, the counties are arranged according to these groups. Group A contains the fewest counties, while Group B has the most.

In addition, each county highway department divides its highways into winter patrol sections. One snowplow truck is generally assigned to each patrol section. This winter, there were 755 patrol sections on state-maintained highways, with an average of 45.85 lane miles per patrol section. Patrol section length is another factor that can affect performance; see Section 4 for a complete discussion of patrol sections.

Winter ServiceGroup

Definition County Names Number of Counties

% of Counties

A

• 1,000 or more lane miles and all counties have some roads with six or more lanes

• 900,000 or more square feet of bridge deck

• 20 or more plow routes; most routes are 24 hour routes

Dane, Milwaukee,Waukesha 3 4%

B

• 600 to 1,000 lane miles; some counties have roads with six or more lanes; all counties have high mileage on four-lane roads

• 400,000 to 900,000 square feet of bridge deck

• 14 to 20 plow routes; most routes are 24 hour routes

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%

C

• 450 to 600 lane miles; some counties have roads with six or more lanes; all counties medium mileage on four-lane roads


• 7 to 14 plow routes; mix of 18 and 24 hour routes

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

17 24%

D

• 325 to 450 lane miles; no counties have roads with six or more lanes; all counties have low to medium mileage on four-lane roads; highest mileage is in two-lane roads


• 4 to 7 plow routes; mix of 18 and 24 hour routes

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

14 19%

E

• 175 to 325 lane miles; no counties have roads with six or more lanes; few counties have four-lane roads; medium to high mileage on two-lane roads


• 2 to 4 plow routes; nearly all with 18 hour routes

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

F

• 90 to 175 lane miles; no counties have roads with six or more lanes; counties have 0 to 5 lane miles of four-lane roads; two-lane roads have low to medium mileage

• Less than 50,000 square feet of bridge deck

• Fewer than 2 plow routes; all 18 hour routes

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

Table 1.3. County Winter Service Groups


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. Data are sorted by salt used per lane mile per Severity Index. The table uses a similar format to the Storm Report Summary (Table A-1 on pages 117-122 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.


COUNTY-BY-COUNTY

QUICK REFERENCE WINTER SUMMARY TABLE

FOR SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION



NC

Table 1.4. Winter in Wisconsin, 2016-2017

County Lane milesSeverity

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

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

perSeverity

IndexNorth Central Region

Adams 193.20 111.59 45.8 3,374 17.47 0.16 $272,218 $1,409 $573,424 $2,968 $26.60Florence 141.07 132.71 91.6 2,627 18.62 0.14 $182,446 $1,293 $401,903 $2,849 $21.47Forest 312.38 108.97 90.3 4,434 14.20 0.13 $298,456 $955 $707,869 $2,266 $20.80Green Lake 158.44 79.01 42.0 1,599 10.09 0.13 $111,822 $706 $294,407 $1,858 $23.52Iron 249.56 145.20 131.9 5,063 20.29 0.14 $369,230 $1,480 $794,966 $3,185 $21.94Langlade 299.21 106.60 72.3 3,533 11.81 0.11 $228,901 $765 $629,835 $2,105 $19.75Lincoln 405.55 125.63 86.0 4,887 12.05 0.10 $353,616 $872 $1,077,493 $2,657 $21.15Marathon 874.81 112.64 64.2 11,158 12.75 0.11 $863,140 $987 $2,071,933 $2,368 $21.03Marquette 245.75 58.14 40.5 4,541 18.48 0.32 $328,253 $1,336 $649,598 $2,643 $45.46Menominee 90.26 77.67 58.7 1,558 17.26 0.22 $97,132 $1,076 $190,488 $2,110 $27.17Oneida 396.79 107.70 86.3 8,247 20.78 0.19 $629,491 $1,586 $1,308,566 $3,298 $30.62Portage 584.63 112.02 61.7 7,415 12.68 0.11 $552,286 $945 $1,601,886 $2,740 $24.46Price 322.26 142.11 126.0 4,203 13.04 0.09 $313,860 $974 $773,357 $2,400 $16.89Shawano 520.57 93.65 72.9 7,968 15.31 0.16 $505,930 $972 $1,305,431 $2,508 $26.78Vilas 305.24 127.73 108.5 6,083 19.93 0.16 $480,346 $1,574 $1,051,479 $3,445 $26.97Waupaca 546.74 88.42 51.9 7,702 14.09 0.16 $507,864 $929 $1,296,495 $2,371 $26.82Waushara 345.01 86.57 52.6 3,612 10.47 0.12 $244,441 $709 $573,587 $1,663 $19.20Wood 422.62 107.76 72.7 6,695 15.84 0.15 $507,262 $1,200 $988,873 $2,340 $21.71

Region total 6,414.09 94,700 $6,846,692 $16,291,588Region average 356.34 106.90 75.3 5261 14.76 0.14 $380,372 $1,067 $905,088 $2,540 $23.76

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.








IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

perSeverity

Index

Northeast RegionBrown 890.40 66.41 64.1 12,709 14.27 0.21 $732,820 $823 $2,052,368 $2,305 $34.71Calumet 201.71 95.00 58.2 1,804 8.94 0.09 $110,178 $546 $406,701 $2,016 $21.22Door 271.80 84.58 63.9 3,541 13.03 0.15 $230,004 $846 $766,700 $2,821 $33.35Fond du Lac 605.30 71.19 55.0 8,118 13.41 0.19 $561,731 $928 $1,454,304 $2,403 $33.75Kewaunee 111.35 63.96 65.5 1,313 11.79 0.18 $78,014 $701 $222,751 $2,000 $31.28Manitowoc 426.01 78.98 58.5 6,165 14.47 0.18 $381,691 $896 $1,158,183 $2,719 $34.42Marinette 436.66 125.00 68.4 5,553 12.72 0.10 $370,546 $849 $883,441 $2,023 $16.19Oconto 468.90 92.14 58.9 5,014 10.69 0.12 $326,068 $695 $868,436 $1,852 $20.10Outagamie 538.63 72.91 56.7 4,941 9.17 0.13 $305,476 $567 $1,275,031 $2,367 $32.47Sheboygan 527.86 81.72 57.1 8,721 16.52 0.20 $598,497 $1,134 $1,321,889 $2,504 $30.64Winnebago 626.56 66.88 46.0 9,081 14.49 0.22 $581,263 $928 $1,601,661 $2,556 $38.22

Region total 5,105.18 66,960 $4,276,288 $12,011,465Region average 464.11 81.71 59.3 6087 13.12 0.16 $388,753 $838 $1,091,951 $2,353 $28.80


NE








IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

perSeverity

IndexNorthwest Region

Ashland 245.35 144.99 119.6 2,691 10.97 0.08 $191,453 $780 $555,915 $2,266 $15.63Barron 428.77 115.12 63.1 3,979 9.28 0.08 $285,141 $665 $982,278 $2,291 $19.90Bayfield 316.42 143.66 96.0 4,976 15.73 0.11 $328,683 $1,039 $807,830 $2,553 $17.77Buffalo 317.02 98.17 69.3 3,188 10.06 0.10 $224,572 $708 $581,655 $1,835 $18.69Burnett 237.93 97.80 45.4 2,986 12.55 0.13 $199,384 $838 $724,224 $3,044 $31.12Chippewa 654.65 96.46 85.9 12,230 18.68 0.19 $921,625 $1,408 $2,028,369 $3,098 $32.12Clark 402.56 103.14 83.2 5,083 12.63 0.12 $392,906 $976 $909,985 $2,260 $21.92Douglas 451.40 168.87 84.7 7,713 17.09 0.10 $463,694 $1,027 $1,226,879 $2,718 $16.09Dunn 519.24 96.23 63.3 10,075 19.40 0.20 $750,600 $1,446 $1,505,687 $2,900 $30.13Eau Claire 540.70 64.13 58.1 11,059 20.45 0.32 $842,691 $1,559 $1,654,632 $3,060 $47.72Jackson 515.44 67.43 53.5 8,531 16.55 0.25 $668,527 $1,297 $1,452,745 $2,818 $41.80Pepin 112.38 93.23 58.3 698 6.21 0.07 $53,661 $477 $208,398 $1,854 $19.89Pierce 369.46 90.76 59.1 4,340 11.75 0.13 $311,058 $842 $804,266 $2,177 $23.98Polk 385.81 126.40 55.1 5,244 13.59 0.11 $383,998 $995 $856,407 $2,220 $17.56Rusk 213.47 90.36 60.4 2,415 11.31 0.13 $181,706 $851 $445,642 $2,088 $23.10Saint Croix 645.34 83.62 59.2 12,199 18.90 0.23 $840,313 $1,302 $1,793,155 $2,779 $33.23Sawyer 367.44 112.20 58.4 4,285 11.66 0.10 $330,219 $899 $664,549 $1,809 $16.12Taylor 233.90 110.61 66.5 3,233 13.82 0.12 $273,609 $1,170 $593,046 $2,535 $22.92Trempeleau 442.48 81.87 64.1 6,902 15.60 0.19 $498,825 $1,127 $1,045,931 $2,364 $28.87Washburn 372.14 101.72 46.2 6,151 16.53 0.16 $413,972 $1,112 $866,989 $2,330 $22.90

Region total 7,771.90 117,978 $8,556,636 $19,708,581Region average 388.60 104.34 67.5 5899 14.14 0.14 $427,832 $1,101 $985,429 $2,536 $24.30


NW








IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

perSeverity

Index

Southeast RegionKenosha 653.56 66.20 14.8 10,524 16.10 0.24 $654,645 $1,002 $1,483,608 $2,270 $34.29Milwaukee 1,955.81 62.67 36.7 27,642 14.13 0.23 $1,660,987 $849 $6,274,416 $3,208 $51.19Ozaukee 309.19 66.92 53.0 6,985 22.59 0.34 $409,576 $1,325 $1,043,878 $3,376 $50.45Racine 681.88 65.10 50.9 7,950 11.66 0.18 $500,188 $734 $1,252,592 $1,837 $28.22Walworth 706.03 65.50 36.4 12,878 18.24 0.28 $765,417 $1,084 $1,716,710 $2,431 $37.12Washington 611.91 78.49 54.4 12,212 19.96 0.25 $797,154 $1,303 $1,848,309 $3,021 $38.48Waukesha 1,073.97 54.70 44.2 20,596 19.18 0.35 $1,279,568 $1,191 $2,627,918 $2,447 $44.73

Region total 5,992.35 98,787 $6,067,535 $16,247,431Region average 856.05 65.65 41.5 14112 16.49 0.25 $866,791 $1,013 $2,321,062 $2,711 $41.30


SE








IndexTotal salt

costs

Total salt costs

per lane mile

Total winter costs

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

Totalwinter

costs per lane mile

perSeverity

IndexSouthwest Region

Columbia 787.40 96.38 57.0 18,933 24.04 0.25 $1,509,448 $1,917 $2,749,811 $3,492 $36.23Crawford 395.79 88.75 44.4 4,291 10.84 0.12 $310,976 $786 $694,937 $1,756 $19.78Dane 1,543.70 72.88 30.3 30,402 19.69 0.27 $2,198,247 $1,424 $5,112,227 $3,312 $45.44Dodge 637.85 63.82 49.1 13,465 21.11 0.33 $944,324 $1,480 $1,918,150 $3,007 $47.12Grant 622.06 77.41 32.6 7,594 12.21 0.16 $508,766 $818 $1,084,789 $1,744 $22.53Green 314.64 62.48 34.2 2,139 6.80 0.11 $159,981 $508 $465,386 $1,479 $23.67Iowa 473.13 84.40 36.4 6,799 14.37 0.17 $488,133 $1,032 $1,157,080 $2,446 $28.98Jefferson 549.67 63.75 34.2 9,057 16.48 0.26 $619,560 $1,127 $1,322,027 $2,405 $37.73Juneau 496.27 76.38 59.5 8,215 16.55 0.22 $634,923 $1,279 $1,304,123 $2,628 $34.40LaCrosse 503.31 46.37 58.0 6,959 13.83 0.30 $471,810 $937 $1,245,319 $2,474 $53.36Lafayette 299.38 63.03 24.4 2,249 7.51 0.12 $158,327 $529 $524,772 $1,753 $27.81Monroe 654.43 92.34 60.6 11,241 17.18 0.19 $853,344 $1,304 $1,629,259 $2,490 $26.96Richland 327.64 82.23 34.1 3,359 10.25 0.12 $258,432 $789 $592,792 $1,809 $22.00Rock 686.50 48.04 36.8 7,730 11.26 0.23 $512,122 $746 $1,256,426 $1,830 $38.10Sauk 576.25 95.71 53.7 9,834 17.07 0.18 $774,051 $1,343 $1,560,638 $2,708 $28.30Vernon 468.36 79.14 41.9 5,507 11.76 0.15 $391,463 $836 $959,892 $2,049 $25.90

Region total 9,336.38 147,773 $10,793,907 $23,577,628Region average 583.52 74.57 43.0 9236 15.83 0.21 $674,619 $1,156 $1,473,602 $2,525 $33.87

Statewide total 34,619.90 60.2 526,198 15.20 $36,541,058 $87,836,693Statewide average 91.14 $1,035 $2,533 $27.79


SW


19

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

The 2016-2017 winter was more mild than the previous year's moderate winter. Above average temperatures were common and snowfall was lighter statewide. This year's snowfall (60 in.) was slightly below the 10-year average of 64 in.

This section describes the weather Wisconsin experienced during the 2016-2017 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 60.2 inches 15-132 inchesWinter Severity Index 91.1 35-185Winter storms 26 13-55Frost events 3.8 0-17Freezing rain events 6.5 1-25

Winter Weather, 2016–2017

1. All data in this table is from Winter Storm Reports, 2016–2017.

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 71 for

more information.

Photo Credit: Pixabay- Creative Commons License

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

Winter Weather2


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

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

Counties in the northern half of the state tend to face colder temperatures and heavier snowfall than those in the southern half. Wisconsin’s average annual snowfall ranges from about 40 inches in the south to as much as 160 inches along the shores of Lake Superior. The statewide average annual snowfall is 47.7 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 WEATHERWhile snowfall ended up slightly below average statewide, there was a large variance. Parts of central Wisconsin saw above-average snowfall, while southern Wisconsin ended up well below average. Temperatures averaged about 5 degrees above the mean.

November was very mild with much lower than average snowfall. In fact, only far northern Wisconsin received any significant snowfall. December temperatures returned to more seasonal levels. Most of the state saw above-average snowfall, with the greatest departures being in the southeast. Storms hit much of the state almost weekly, with the heaviest snow falling on December 17 and 18.

January featured a return to milder weather across the state. There were two major events. One hit the north on January 10th, while the second hit west central Wisconsin on the 26th. A significant freezing rain event caused icing conditions across the south on the 17th.

February brought near-record warmth to much of the state. Temperatures were 8 to 10 degrees above average statewide. With the warmth came a dearth of snowfall, though one storm did strike a small part of west central Wisconsin on the 25th.

Figure 2.1. Statewide Snowfall, 2016-2017 From Winter Storm Reports

120

9685132

10945 46 58

9092

126 8655 63 60

86 7259

6786 6459 63 59

6483

73

68

59 586658 6452627369

64 54 5759

584660

53 466158

4241 55 5742 5754 49 535434

4430

333736 4434

5134 363724 15

Snow Totals(Inches)

15 - 37

38 - 53

54 - 69

70 - 96

97 - 132

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


7377

11396 92

144

67

125

112

90

94

92

64

169

98

96

142

96

108

79

103

76

96

84

8882

84

71

48

111

98

109

128145

64

73

126

87

63

115 126

89

79

91

107

82

62

64 55

66

112

102

108 66

8246

6758

78

79

133

145

112

8578

64

65

95

66

93

63

67

WINTER SEVERITYINDEX VALUES

<= 60

61 - 90

91 - 120

121 - 150

> 150

Statewide Average: 91.18-Year Average: 102.0

March featured wild swings. It started warm, turned cold for a couple weeks, then rapidly warmed again. These transitions caused March to be snowier than normal across the south, while the north stayed relatively dry.

During the 2016-17 winter season, county highway departments responded to:

• A statewide average of 26 winter events per county, or 3 less than the previous winter. The high was 55 events in Price and Douglas Counties and the low was 13 events in Fond du Lac and Lafayette Counties.

• A statewide average of 4 frost events.

• A statewide average of 7 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 132 inches; the lowest was in Kenosha County, at 15 inches. Statewide, this winter’s total snowfall of 60.2 inches was slightly below the 10-year average of 64 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 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.

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, 2016-2017

Figure 2.3. 2016-2017 Winter Severity Index vs. 5-Year Average (2012–2013 to 2016-2017)

8

8

0

7

0

-2-9

-3

-8

21

-1 -5-12

2

-14

-7

-8 -4

-9-6

-8

2

-1

-27

-30 -25

-11

-33

-15

-9

-12

17

-10

-13

-27

10

-10-12

-4

14

-26

-26

-21

-10

-12

-22

-19

-39

-30

-13

-26

-17

-5

-10

-19

-18 -22

-15

-47-19

-23

-15

15

-31

-12

-12

-16

-26

20

-13

-28

-16

WSI 2016-17 vs5-year average WSI

Much less severe (-15% or less)

Less severe (0 to -14.9%)

More severe (0 to +14.9%

Much more severe (+15% or greater)


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 91.14, which is 14.8 percent lower than the average of the previous five winters (105.9), and 12.3 percent lower than the average of the previous ten winters (103.4).

• Douglas, Ashland/Iron Counties had the highest severity indexes, 169 and 145 respectively.

• La Crosse and Rock Counties had the lowest severity indexes, 46 and 48 respectively.

With some exceptions across the state, this winter was much 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 70), and Figure 4.6 (winter crashes; page 81).

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

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

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

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


COUNTY-BY-COUNTY

TABLES FOR SECTION 2

WINTER WEATHER



Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

ofSt

orm

sW

et

Snow

Dry

Sn

owFr

eezi

ng R

ain

Slee

t

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

Up

Tabl

e 2.

1. S

torm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

s

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

GR

EE

N L

AK

E42

.015

8.44

1599

10.0

917

113

105

154

63

01

54

NC

WAU

SHAR

A52

.634

5.01

3612

10.4

723

116

84

199

122

10

72

LAN

GLA

DE

72.3

299.

2135

3311

.81

3330

156

132

85

68

011

21

LIN

CO

LN86

.040

5.55

4887

12.0

532

3411

1219

217

61

119

1518

POR

TAG

E61

.758

4.63

7415

12.6

836

227

93

228

72

63

73

MA

RA

THO

N64

.287

4.81

1115

812

.75

3117

96

331

1211

78

117

23

PRIC

E12

6.0

322.

2642

0313

.04

5522

3010

189

84

86

65

8

WAU

PAC

A51

.954

6.74

7702

14.0

924

710

76

238

56

50

133

FOR

ES

T90

.331

2.38

4434

14.1

938

2314

56

82

01

50

43

SHAW

AN

O72

.952

0.57

7968

15.3

125

1114

75

308

42

815

1710

WO

OD

72.7

422.

6266

9515

.84

3117

1411

1117

710

712

08

8

ME

NO

MIN

EE58

.790

.26

1558

17.2

624

911

40

250

00

170

110

ADAM

S45

.819

3.20

3374

17.4

621

236

2514

84

30

40

322

MA

RQ

UE

TTE

40.5

245.

7545

4118

.48

167

86

414

10

24

010

6

FLO

REN

CE

91.6

141.

0726

2718

.62

4140

610

1624

117

96

48

13

VILA

S10

8.5

305.

2460

8319

.93

4732

1210

1621

00

05

119

9

IRO

N13

1.9

249.

5650

6320

.29

5021

226

718

810

08

09

0

ON

EID

A86

.339

6.79

8247

20.7

833

1021

77

62

02

42

14

Reg

ion

Aver

age

75.3

356.

3452

6115

.29

3219

129

819

65

37

29

9

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Thu

rsda

y, J

une

22, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

ofSt

orm

sW

et

Snow

Dry

Sn

owFr

eezi

ng R

ain

Slee

t

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

Up

Tabl

e 2.

1. S

torm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

s

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

CA

LUM

ET

58.2

201.

7118

048.

9420

915

93

3216

23

50

1013

NE

OU

TAG

AM

IE56

.753

8.63

4941

9.17

2114

43

715

45

68

35

2

OC

ON

TO58

.946

8.90

5014

10.6

924

139

911

253

52

174

1413

KE

WA

UN

EE

65.5

111.

3513

1311

.79

168

71

418

1211

05

09

1

MA

RIN

ETT

E68

.443

6.66

5553

12.7

234

1817

107

488

917

2133

3326

DO

OR

63.9

271.

8035

4113

.03

1818

126

1324

98

816

07

14

FON

D D

U L

AC

55.0

605.

3081

1813

.41

137

41

326

199

55

16

11

BRO

WN

64.1

890.

4012

709

14.2

722

99

14

71

00

42

217

MA

NIT

OW

OC

58.5

426.

0161

6514

.47

179

57

520

35

72

212

22

WIN

NE

BA

GO

46.0

626.

5690

8114

.49

1812

63

823

66

109

811

6

SHEB

OY

GA

N57

.152

7.86

8721

16.5

218

1410

65

279

85

51

1313

Reg

ion

Aver

age

59.3

464.

1160

8712

.68

2012

95

624

86

69

511

13

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Thu

rsda

y, J

une

22, 2

017

Page

2 o

f 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

ofSt

orm

sW

et

Snow

Dry

Sn

owFr

eezi

ng R

ain

Slee

t

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

Up

Tabl

e 2.

1. S

torm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

s

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

PEP

IN58

.311

2.38

698

6.21

2215

188

1718

1211

1515

27

13N

W

BAR

RO

N63

.142

8.77

3979

9.28

3421

107

827

1314

38

612

2

BUFF

ALO

69.3

317.

0231

8810

.06

2718

143

524

105

214

09

10

ASH

LAN

D11

9.6

245.

3526

9110

.97

4926

205

820

120

35

07

3

RU

SK60

.421

3.47

2414

11.3

136

1913

77

154

22

37

80

SAW

YER

58.4

367.

4442

7611

.64

3620

135

525

99

118

37

0

PIER

CE

59.1

369.

4643

4011

.75

2615

149

1414

76

56

38

5

BUR

NE

TT45

.423

7.93

2986

12.5

536

1616

77

115

62

40

80

CLA

RK

83.2

402.

5650

8312

.63

3020

84

423

168

14

012

9

POLK

55.1

385.

8152

4413

.59

3816

1115

521

1214

112

04

10

TAY

LOR

66.5

233.

9032

3313

.82

3325

149

524

1510

112

811

18

TRE

MP

EAL

EAU

64.1

442.

4869

0215

.60

2318

106

1111

25

26

44

4

BAY

FIE

LD96

.031

6.42

4976

15.7

343

1932

111

4018

95

172

251

WAS

HBU

RN

46.2

372.

1460

5816

.28

3319

1411

1111

35

84

35

7

JAC

KSO

N53

.551

5.44

8531

16.5

520

135

310

163

11

100

110

DO

UG

LAS

84.7

451.

4077

1317

.09

5523

2213

1327

1611

14

821

3

CH

IPP

EW

A85

.965

4.65

1223

018

.68

2525

06

122

149

21

217

3

SAIN

T C

RO

IX59

.264

5.34

1219

918

.90

3217

148

70

00

00

00

0

DU

NN

63.3

519.

2410

075

19.4

029

179

68

185

55

62

95

EAU

CLA

IRE

58.1

540.

7011

059

20.4

522

136

22

100

00

10

61

Reg

ion

Aver

age

67.5

388.

6058

9414

.12

3219

137

819

97

38

310

5

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Thu

rsda

y, J

une

22, 2

017

Page

3 o

f 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

ofSt

orm

sW

et

Snow

Dry

Sn

owFr

eezi

ng R

ain

Slee

t

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

Up

Tabl

e 2.

1. S

torm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

s

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

RAC

INE

50.9

681.

8879

5011

.66

185

104

514

72

110

811

3SE

MIL

WAU

KEE

36.7

1,95

5.81

2764

214

.13

1511

27

12

00

20

20

6

KEN

OS

HA

14.8

653.

5610

524

16.1

023

127

71

00

01

00

023

WAL

WO

RTH

36.4

706.

0312

878

18.2

418

104

40

252

45

113

913

WAU

KESH

A44

.21,

073.

9720

596

19.1

817

107

54

21

01

10

021

WAS

HIN

GTO

N54

.461

1.91

1221

219

.96

1812

44

316

102

94

13

8

OZA

UKE

E53

.030

9.19

6985

22.5

919

119

42

125

33

21

57

Reg

ion

Aver

age

41.5

856.

0514

112

17.4

118

106

52

104

23

42

412

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Thu

rsda

y, J

une

22, 2

017

Page

4 o

f 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

ofSt

orm

sW

et

Snow

Dry

Sn

owFr

eezi

ng R

ain

Slee

t

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

Up

Tabl

e 2.

1. S

torm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

s

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

GR

EEN

34.2

314.

6421

396.

8019

68

54

125

06

00

914

SW

LAFA

YETT

E24

.429

9.38

2249

7.51

138

37

517

312

56

31

9

RIC

HLA

ND

34.1

327.

6433

5910

.25

1815

910

321

63

314

012

11

CR

AWFO

RD

44.4

395.

7942

9110

.84

2411

135

228

118

616

19

6

RO

CK

36.8

706.

0377

3010

.95

176

114

012

10

11

29

1

VER

NO

N41

.946

8.36

5507

11.7

614

74

54

2112

114

71

29

LA C

RO

SSE

58.0

503.

3161

4012

.20

149

41

34

43

21

03

3

GR

ANT

32.6

622.

0675

9412

.21

1811

84

426

39

119

16

8

IOW

A36

.447

3.13

6799

14.3

722

126

73

213

74

40

812

JEFF

ER

SON

34.2

549.

6790

5716

.48

198

86

213

75

132

06

18

JUN

EAU

59.5

496.

2782

1516

.55

2011

64

720

66

25

49

9

SAU

K53

.757

6.25

9834

17.0

720

1411

96

297

34

170

1321

MO

NR

OE

60.6

654.

4311

241

17.1

829

1614

53

75

40

12

58

DAN

E30

.31,

543.

7030

402

19.6

921

106

42

50

33

20

05

DO

DG

E49

.163

7.85

1346

521

.11

1411

55

611

55

23

15

7

CO

LUM

BIA

57.0

787.

4018

933

24.0

415

118

37

2618

223

24

921

Reg

ion

Aver

age

43.0

584.

7491

8514

.31

1910

85

417

66

46

17

10

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Thu

rsda

y, J

une

22, 2

017

Page

5 o

f 6


Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

Lane

M

iles

Salt

Use

dTo

ns/L

M

Num

ber

ofSt

orm

sW

et

Snow

Dry

Sn

owFr

eezi

ng R

ain

Slee

t

Num

ber

of

Inci

dent

sDrif

ting

Blo

win

g S

now

Fros

tIc

eB

ridge

Dec

ksC

lean

Up

Tabl

e 2.

1. S

torm

s an

d In

cide

nts

Ant

i-Ic

ing

appl

ic.

Type

s of

Sto

rms

Type

s of

Inci

dent

s

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

481

7296

26.0

15.1

10.4

6.5

6.3

18.5

6.9

5.6

3.8

6.7

2.5

8.6

Stat

ewid

e Av

erag

es8.

8--

14.5

6

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f Thu

rsda

y, J

une

22, 2

017

Page

6 o

f 6

31

Total salt used1 526,198 tonsTotal salt used per lane mile 15.2 tonsTotal cost of salt used2 $36,541,058Average cost per ton of salt $69.44Total prewetting agents used3 3,018,207 gal.Counties prewetting salt 66 of 72 (92%)Total abrasives used 14,467 cubic yardsCounties prewetting abrasives 15 of 47 using sand (32%)Total anti-icing agents used 1,918,324 gal.Counties equipped to use anti-icing 66 of 72 (92%)

MDSS....................................................49Equipment Calibration........................50Product and Equipment Testing.........51Winter Maintenance Research..........52

3C Labor.......................................................54Winter Operations Training ................55

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 2016-2017 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, 2016-2017

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...............................................34

Salt........................................................34Abrasives..............................................38Prewetting............................................39Anti-icing...............................................41

3B Equipment & Technology......................48RWIS ....................................................48


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 3.14 on page 57 for a statewide map of tons of salt used per lane-mile.

For more detail on salt use in previous years, see Table A-9, “History of Salt Use on State Trunk Highways,” on page 166 of the Appendix.

Page 1

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

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

Use

(Ton

s Pe

r Lan

e M

ile)

WINTER

SALT USE AVG STATEWIDE SEVERITY INDEX

3A. MATERIALSSalt remains the primary material used in winter maintenance. The advent of prewetting technology (see pgs.37-38) use 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 pgs. 39-40) have reduced the amount of salt needed to keep roads clear.

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 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 2014-15, Winter Severity Index has fluctuated greatly, as has salt usage. However, the past three 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 1995-1996 and 1997-1998. This winter's statewide Winter Severity Index of 91.14 was less than one percent higher than the previous year, while salt use was 32 percent higher than the previous year, at 526,199 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 15.2 tons of salt per lane mile on state highways, an increase of thirty-two percent compared with the 2015-2016 winter. (See Figure 3.12 on page 55 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 the last year with comparable data available - 2015-2016 - Wisconsin used 11.6 tons of salt per lane mile on state highways. In that same year, Minnesota (5.2 tons per lane mile), Iowa (6.1) and Illinois (7.2) used less while Michigan (15.1)used more (see http://clearroads.org/winter-maintenance-survey/ for updated numbers as they become available). Better use of BMPs may contribute

to other states’ lower rates of salt used per Figure 3.1. Salt Use per Lane Mile and Average Severity Index lane mile, including salt shortages that From Salt Inventory Reporting System, 1992–2017prevented several states from obtaining the Salt-Severity Chart

quantity of salt that they would normally use. TOTAL SALT USE PER LANE MILE AND AVERAGE SEVERITY INDEX

Winter severity also varies from state to state.


Figure 3.2. Salt Used per Lane Mile and Severity IndexFrom Salt Inventory Reporting System, 2016-2017

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

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

used

(ton

s)

per l

ane

mile

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

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

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

used

(ton

s)

per l

ane

mile

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

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

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

used

(ton

s)

per l

ane

mile

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

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

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

used

(ton

s)

per l

ane

mile

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

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

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

used

(ton

s)

per l

ane

mile

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

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

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

used

(ton

s)

per l

ane

mile

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Salt

used

(ton

s)

per l

ane

mile

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

Salt used (tons) per lane mile Severity Index

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

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

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

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile

Tons

per

Lan

e M

ile


Figure 3.3. Salt Prices Across the United States 2016-2017Source: Clear Roads

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Pric

e pe

r ton

2016-2017 Salt Prices

Wisconsin


Cost of SaltSalt prices have generally leveled out after several years of increases. This winter, WisDOT spent $36,541,058 on salt statewide, purchasing salt at an average of $68.74 per ton. The average of $68.74 per ton is a decrease of four percent (4%) 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 69.

A Note About Materials DataThis winter marks the eighth 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 TimeSource: Historical data supplied by Clear Roads. From 1999 to present, the number of states reporting data has increased from 14 to 34 states.

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

Average cost per ton of road salt for 14+ states

14+ States WisDOT


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

A total of 14,036 cubic yards of sand was used by 47 counties on state highways this winter, a decrease of 82 percent compared with 2007–2008’s record-setting 80,133 cubic yards, and a 38 percent decrease from the average of the five previous winters (23,414 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’. Refer to Table A-8 on pages 160-165 of the Appendix for county-by-county sand use data for this winter.

Figure 3.5. Statewide Sand Use From Storm Reports Data, 1998-2017

- 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

7

Sand Used (cubic yards)


Prewetting

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

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

Salt brine is a relatively inexpensive choice for prewetting. Salt brine use has increased significantly since counties first tested it a decade ago; 64 counties used salt brine for prewetting this winter (see Table A-6 on page 152-153 of the Appendix for details). Counties used more salt brine for prewetting this winter—3,018,207 gallons. Overall use of prewetting salt brine use increased by 43% 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-7 on pages 154-159 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 3.10)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 when dry salt is used. Pre-wetting salt has been used since the late 1960s. In addition to reduced loss of salt from bounce and scatter, advantages of pre-wetting salt include:

1) Quicker melting.

2) Better salt penetration into ice and snow pack.

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

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

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


Nearly all counties (94 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—68 of 72 counties (94 percent) prewetted their salt this winter—prewetting abrasives is far less common. Of the 47 counties that used sand this winter, only 15 counties prewetted it (see Table A-8 on pages 160-165 for details). 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.

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 ef-ficiently, and to reduce overall salt usage.

This winter, Wisconsin counties used 1,918,324 gallons of anti-icing liquid—the most on record and an increase of 0.5 percent over last winter’s total. Yet at 1.4 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.

Gallons CountiesDeicing Agent Used Using

Salt Brine 2,783,720 66

Calcium Chloride – liquid 76,188 10 Calcium Chloride with rust inhibitor 4,625 1

Magnesium Chloride 10,046 7 Freeze Guard 49,026 10

Ice Ban M80 11,705 3 IceBite 55 2,172 2 MC95 9,399 7 Geomelt 65,124 5 Biomelt 64 455 1 Amp 7,919 10

TOTAL

Calcium Chloride-based Products

Magnesium Chloride-based Products

Agricultural-based Products

68 3,020,379

gallons of liquid

Table 3.1. Statewide Prewetting Agent Use for Salt


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 1,918,324 gallons of anti-icing liquid (see Table A-4 on pages 143-148 for details). Currently, 66 of 72 counties (92 percent) are equipped to perform anti-icing operations, and this winter all 66 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 1,918,324 gallons was a 0.5% increase from the total used in 2015-16. See Figure 3.13 on page 56 for gallons of brine used per lane mile. See Table A-6 on pages 152-153 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 3.3 shows the agents used for anti-icing in Wisconsin this winter.

Winter Service Group

Counties reporting anti-icing

costs

Counties reporting deicing costs

2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016-2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A $3,630 $2,088 $809 $1,287 $2,245 3 $16,382 $61,801 $26,133 $19,656 $21,706 1B $1,437 $932 $724 $1,033 $1,193 11 $4,240 $5,984 $4,062 $6,178 $4,875 13C $653 $710 $484 $543 $732 6 $1,567 $3,100 $3,223 $2,417 $4,485 16D $692 $789 $834 $618 $829 10 $1,734 $2,661 $2,759 $3,309 $3,766 13E $793 $486 $322 $480 $763 5 $1,770 $2,395 $2,113 $2,080 $2,504 10F $614 $620 $512 $360 $631 1 NA $878 $3,067 $1,163 $1,603 2

Average cost of anti-icing treatment for possible frost Average cost of deicing treatment for frost event

Table 3.2. Cost of Anti-icing vs. Deicing

Chemical Gallons used Counties usingSalt brine 1,865,565 64

Calcium chloride – liquid 10,343 4

Magnesium chloride 4,100 3

Freeze Guard 8,422 3

IceBAN M80 261 1

GeoMelt 17,370 3

Amp 12,424 4

Total 1,918,485 66

Table 3.3. Statewide Anti-icing Agent Use

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

Figure 3.6. Winter Costs by Activity Code, 2016-2017

Plowing & applying chemicals

41%

Nonstorm related winter activities

15%

Applying liquid anti-icing chemicals

1%Alternate chemicals

0%Trucking salt - shed to

shed within county0%

Trucking salt - depot to user county

0%Back pay

0%

Winter activities58%

Salt costs42%

Winter Costs by Activity Code, 2016-2017Actual billed costs, by category


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

BEST PRACTICESAnti-Icing (2015-16)

Anti-Icing UseHeavy

Some

None

Figure 3.7. Counties Using Anti-Icing

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

BEST PRACTICESAnti-Icing (2016-17)

Anti-Icing UseHeavy

Some

None

Map created: July 2017


Figure 3.8. Counties Using Closed Loop Ground Speed Controllers

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

BEST PRACTICESClosed-Loop Ground Speed Controllers

Closed Loop Ground Speed Controllers

All

Some

None



Figure 3.9. Counties Using Underbody Plows

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

BEST PRACTICESUnderbody Plows

UnderbodyPlow Status

Have

Do not have



Figure 3.10. Counties Prewetting

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

BEST PRACTICESOn-Board Prewetting

On-boardPrewetting Status

Entire fleet equipped

Some trucks equipped

No trucks equipped



Figure 3.11. 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 Status

StatusMultiple Counties Combining Routes

Complete

In Progress

Planned

None



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. 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, Aurora and Madis.

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 avail-able 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 meteorolo-gist 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 (see Figure 3.9)

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

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


• Coordinating with Iteris on forecast services.

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

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

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

• Managing WisDOT’s rest area weather program.

• 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 MADIS.

• 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 television monitors at rest areas.

• 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 controllers (see Figure 3.8)Ground 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.


Maintenance Decision Support System (MDSS) MDSS is a major project undertaken by WisDOT since 2009. Initial deployment took place in 2009 along the Interstate corridors. The bulk of the second phase of deployment occurred in 2010-11. During this phase, WisDOT added four or five “representative” routes in each county so that county highway departments could get an accurate weather forecast and treatment recommendation for the various types of routes in their county. In 2011, BHM input the remainder of the state’s routes into MDSS. These are used for tracking purposes only, i.e., MDC/AVL data tracking.

MANAGEMENT TOOLS. Use of the new MDSS-based severity index continued. The MDSS database now contains 5 years of data. With one more season, we will be able to compute a 5-year average severity for comparison to the current season, similar to what is now done with the storm report severity index.

TRAINING. Training sessions were held in each region in November. These were a joint effort between Iteris and WMS. The sessions also emphasized the web version of MDSS. There was a detailed session on how to set up winter storm alerts. Attendance was about the same as the previous year.

MONITORING. BHM worked with Iteris to obtain monthly MDSS usage statistics.

BHM also coordinated regularly with Iteris to obtain usage statistics for the mobile and web versions. Mobile version statistics were included in the GUI using numbers. Iteris did develop some tracking for the web version. However, we have yet to determine a method to combine the two separate statistics into one usage number.

PAVEMENT BUCKLING. BHM used previously-developed maps in MDSS to monitor conditions during the pavement buckle season. He also sent a timely reminder to the regions concerning MDSS tools available for monitoring potential pavement buckling episodes.

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS. The PM continued to coordinate with Iteris on a regular basis on two new MDSS platforms.

• Mobile Devices. As stated previously, BHM included training on mobile devices in the overall training sessions. MDSS apps are available for both Android and iOS. They work much better on tablets than on phones just due to the amount of information that can be displayed. A new capability to report road conditions via the mobile apps was added.

• Browser-based. BHM continued to provide feedback to Iteris in order to improve the web MDSS, which is called WebMDSS. In FY 2018, it will encompass most of the functionality of the desktop version. We plan to transition users to this version with training in the Fall.

COORDINATION. BHM attended three MDSS Pooled Fund Study Technical Panel meetings in Sioux Falls, SD. They made two presentations on how WisDOT is using MDSS.

PATENT ISSUES. For the past few winters, WisDOT stopped the flow of AVL data to MDSS in an effort to not infringe on a patent. Those patent issues have now been resolved, so BHM hopes to have all trucks reporting AVL data by next winter.


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 should 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 20 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 ResearchIn an effort to stay informed of the latest methods, equipment and materials, WisDOT joins other state DOTs in funding research projects of common interest. These pooled fund projects allow WisDOT to leverage its research dollars to support projects at a higher funding level that are important to all research partners. WisDOT participates in these three pooled fund projects:

CLEAR ROADS. In 2008–2009, Wisconsin handed over the role of lead state in this pooled fund project to Minnesota. The pooled fund project focuses on rigorous testing of winter maintenance materials, equipment and methods for use by highway maintenance crews. Launched in 2004, Clear Roads now has 35 member states and has completed 33 research projects.

Clear Roads research addresses topics that may be of interest to Wisconsin counties and WisDOT regional staff. See the Clear Roads Web site (http://www.clearroads.org/completed-research/) for a list of completed projects.

Examples of projects that have been completed include:

• Synthesis of Best Practices for Eliminating Fogging and Icing on Winter Maintenance Vehicles• Determining Effectiveness of Deicing Materials and Procedures• Developing and Evaluating Safe Winter Driving Messages


• Identifying the Parameters for Effective Implementation of Liquid-Only Plow Routes• Cost-Benefit Analysis Toolkit• Mapping Weather Severity Zones• Snow Removal at Extreme Temperatures (Phase I)• Cost-Benefit Analysis Toolkit (Phase II)• Determining the Toxicity of Deicing Materials• Understanding the True Costs of Snow and Ice Control• Environmental Factors Causing Fatigue in Snowplow Operators• Synthesis on GPS/AVL Equipment Used for Winter Maintenance• Plug-and-Play Initiative: Phase II• North American Study on Contracting Snow and Ice Response• Snowplow Operator and Supervisor Training• Snow Removal Performance Metrics

Synthesis Reports compile research and best practices on topics including:• Monitoring stockpiles of solid winter maintenance materials• Snowplow truck washing practices

These reports are available for download at http://clearroads.org/synthesis-reports/.

Clear Roads produces a quarterly e-newsletter of winter maintenance news items, publications and research in progress. Read the newsletter online at http://www.clearroads.org/winter-maintenance-newsletter/. Highlights from the February 2016 edition included:

• Michigan Tests GPS Plow Trackers• Nevada Installs Automated Deicer Sprayer• Illinois Village Creates Plow Ride-Along Program• Iowa Tests Slick Road Sensor

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/projects.cfm.

research for winter highway maintenance


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

Labor costs vary from county to county according to each area’s contracts, which also defines when overtime hours can be charged. See Figure 3.16 on page 59 for a statewide map of labor cost per lane-mile. This winter, counties spent nearly $21 million on labor, for an average of $601 per lane mile. Per-lane-mile labor expenditures increased nine percent compared with last year’s winter. An average of 24 percent of counties’ winter maintenance costs were spent on labor, with a high of 33 percent in the Southeast Region, where hourly labor rates tend to be higher. Labor hours were up three (3) percent for regular hours and 48 percent for overtime hours compared with last winter. See Table 4.10 on pages 92-96 for county-by-county labor expenditures, and see Table 3.4 on pages 60-67 for county-by-county estimated labor hours and costs from the winter storm reports.

Photo Credit: Pixabay Commons License


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

• AASHTO Computer-Based Training. AASHTO offers eight computer-based training courses that can be completed by winter maintenance staff at their own pace as schedules permit. Course topics include anti-icing/RWIS, mitigating environmental impacts, equipment maintenance, plowing techniques, deicing, mitigating blowing snow, performance measures, and winter maintenance management. Counties are encouraged to have their operators complete the appropriate training courses, including courses for supervisors. For more information, see http://sicop.transportation.org/Documents/CBT_Flyer_v2b%5B1%5D.pdf.

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

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

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

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

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


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



Figure 3.12. 2016-2017 Salt Use per Lane Mile vs. 5-Year Average

Price-14%

Clark8%

Dane-17%

Grant10%

Vilas-12%

Rusk8%

Polk-10%

Iron14%

Bayfield0%

Sawyer-1%

Sauk9%

Oneida15%

Forest-23%

Douglas5%

Taylor16%

Dunn25%

Iowa36%

Marathon9%

Rock-24%

Marinette3%

Dodge7%

Oconto-2%

Wood31%

Barron3%

Jackson19%

Lincoln11%

Ashland-13%

Burnett28%

Juneau30%

Monroe36%

Vernon5%

Portage22%

Chippewa30%

Adams36%

Shawano16%

Buffalo69%

Langlade-1%

Pierce13%

Green21%

Columbia14%

Washburn21%

Waupaca5% Brown

12%

Saint Croix20%

Lafayette30%

Richland44%

Eau Claire44%

Crawford21%

Jefferson3%

Waushara20%

Outagamie-25%

Walworth3%

Florence5%

Waukesha28%

Racine-20%

La Crosse38%

Sheboygan20%

Marquette60%

Kenosha23%

Door4%

Fond du Lac5%

Trempealeau34%

Manitowoc8%

Pepin-4%

Winnebago7%

Calumet-3%

Washington9%

Green Lake58%

Kewaunee17%

Menominee31%

Ozaukee7%

Milwaukee-25%

Increase more than 40%

Increase 31 to 40%

Increase 21 to 30%

Increase 11 to 20%

Increase 1 to 10%

Decrease


Figure 3.13 Gallons of Brine/Lane-Mile 2016-2017

Bayfield 72

Price 349

Marathon 135

Clark 13

Marinette 270

Sawyer 4

Dane 118

Grant 145

Douglas 37

Oneida 219

Vilas 251

Forest 100

Polk 59

Taylor 313

Rusk 0

Iron 139

Lincoln 519

Jackson 6

Ashland 167

Burnett 115

Barron 48

Sauk 53

Dunn 27

Chippewa 12

Dodge 160

Monroe 99

Iowa 132

Langlade 291

Vernon 104

Portage 82

Wood 101

Rock 44

Buffalo 68

Columbia 189

Saint Croix30

Pierce 73

Lafayette 45

Green 90

Eau Claire 57

Jefferson 185

Richland 95

Waushara 64

Outagamie 336

Walworth 88

Florence 565

Racine 58

Oconto 103

Shawano 165

Juneau 279

Washburn 54

Waupaca 90

Adams 278

Fond du Lac218

Trempealeau46

Crawford 107

Brown 134

Manitowoc 336

Door 226

Waukesha 401

La Crosse 197

Sheboygan 322

Marquette 335

Winnebago 448

Washington 140

Green Lake 86

Calumet 163

Menominee 34

Kewaunee 126

Pepin 98

Kenosha 10

Ozaukee 153

Milwaukee 55

Gallons of Brine/Lane-Mile2016/17

LegendVery low

Low

Average

High

Very high


Bayfield 15.7

Price 13

Marathon 12.8

Clark 12.6

Marinette 12.7

Sawyer 11.7

Dane 19.7

Grant 12.2

Douglas 17

Oneida 20.8

Vilas 19.9

Forest 14.2

Polk 13.6

Taylor 13.8

Rusk 11.3

Iron 20.3

Lincoln 12.1

Jackson 16.6

Ashland 11

Burnett 12.5

Barron 9.3

Sauk 17.1

Dunn 19.4

Chippewa 18.7

Dodge 21.1

Monroe 17.2

Iowa 14.4

Langlade 11.8

Vernon 11.8

Portage 12.7

Wood 15.8

Rock 11.3

Buffalo 10.1

Columbia 24

Saint Croix18.9

Pierce 11.7

Lafayette 7.5

Green 6.8

Eau Claire 20.5

Jefferson 16.5

Richland 10.3

Waushara 10.5

Outagamie 9.2

Walworth 18.2

Florence 18.6

Racine 11.7

Oconto 10.7

Shawano 15.3

Juneau 16.6

Washburn 16.5

Waupaca 14.1

Adams 17.5

Fond du Lac13.4

Trempealeau15.6

Crawford 10.8

Brown 14.3

Manitowoc 14.5

Door 13

Waukesha 19.2

La Crosse 13.8

Sheboygan 16.5

Marquette 18.5

Winnebago 14.5

Washington 20

Green Lake 10.1

Calumet 8.9

Menominee 17.3

Kewaunee 11.8

Pepin 6.2

Kenosha 16.1

Ozaukee 22.6

Milwaukee 14.1

Tons of Salt/Lane-Mile2016/17

LegendVery low

Low

Average

High

Very high

Figure 3.14 Tons of Salt/Lane-Mile 2016-2017


Bayfield $2,553

Price $2,400

Marathon $2,368

Clark $2,260

Marinette $2,023

Sawyer $1,809

Dane $3,312

Grant $1,744

Douglas $2,710

Oneida $3,298

Vilas $3,445

Forest $2,266

Polk $2,220

Taylor $2,535

Rusk $2,088

Iron $3,185

Lincoln $2,657

Jackson $2,818

Ashland $2,266

Burnett $3,044

Barron $2,291

Sauk $2,708

Dunn $2,900

Chippewa $3,098

Dodge $3,007

Monroe $2,490

Iowa $2,446

Langlade $2,105

Vernon $2,049

Portage $2,740

Wood $2,340

Rock $1,830

Buffalo $1,835

Columbia $3,492

Saint Croix$2,779

Pierce $2,177

Lafayette $1,753

Green $1,479

Eau Claire $3,060

Jefferson $2,405

Richland $1,809

Waushara $1,663

Outagamie $2,367

Walworth $2,431

Florence $2,849

Racine $1,837

Oconto $1,852

Shawano $2,508

Juneau $2,628

Washburn $2,330

Waupaca $2,371

Adams $2,968

Fond du Lac$2,403

Trempealeau$2,364

Crawford $1,756

Brown $2,305

Manitowoc $2,719

Door $2,821

Waukesha $2,447

La Crosse $2,474

Sheboygan $2,504

Marquette $2,643

Winnebago $2,556

Washington $3,021

Green Lake $1,858

Calumet $2,016

Menominee $2,110

Kewaunee $2,000

Pepin $1,854

Kenosha $2,270

Ozaukee $3,376

Milwaukee $3,208

Winter Cost/Lane-Mile2016/17

LegendVery low

Low

Average

High

Very high

Figure 3.15 Winter Cost/Lane-Mile 2016-2017


Bayfield $515

Price $421

Marathon $502

Clark $519

Marinette $444

Sawyer $352

Dane $821

Grant $350

Douglas $573

Oneida $571

Vilas $614

Forest $313

Polk $449

Taylor $520

Rusk $277

Iron $634

Lincoln $610

Jackson $400

Ashland $447

Burnett $418

Barron $741

Sauk $582

Dunn $638

Chippewa $697

Dodge $552

Monroe $381

Iowa $540

Langlade $540

Vernon $434

Portage $693

Wood $453

Rock $462

Buffalo $457

Columbia $638

Saint Croix$539

Pierce $575

Lafayette $348

Green $447

Eau Claire $560

Jefferson $410

Richland $412

Waushara $426

Outagamie $779

Walworth $437

Florence $426

Racine $484

Oconto $473

Shawano $597

Juneau $515

Washburn $397

Waupaca $528

Adams $593

Fond du Lac$612

Trempealeau$467

Crawford $343

Brown $494

Manitowoc $763

Door $630

Waukesha $505

La Crosse $490

Sheboygan $628

Marquette $499

Winnebago $598

Washington $660

Green Lake $524

Calumet $516

Menominee $257

Kewaunee $501

Pepin $739

Kenosha $620

Ozaukee $848

Milwaukee $1592

Labor Cost/Lane-Mile2016/17

LegendVery low

Low

Average

High

Very high

Figure 3.16 Labor Cost/Lane-Mile 2016-2017


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

016-

2017

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r Cos

tpe

r Lan

e M

iR

eg Hrs

OT

Hrs

Tota

lH

ours

% OT

Tota

l Hrs

pe

r Lan

e M

iR

egio

n

0.14

DAN

E15

43.7

072

.88

24.4

0$7

0745

7611

439

1601

571

.4%

10.3

7S

W

0.13

MIL

WAU

KEE

1955

.81

62.6

713

.60

$554

7227

8427

1565

453

.8%

8.00

SE

0.12

WAU

KESH

A10

73.9

754

.70

22.0

4$3

8040

8532

0872

9344

.0%

6.79

SE

Gro

up A

Avg

1,52

4.49

63.4

10.

1320

.01

$547

5296

7691

1298

756

.4%

8.39

Page

1 o

f 1M

onda

y, J

une

26, 2

017

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


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

016-

2017

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r Cos

tpe

r Lan

e M

iR

eg Hrs

OT

Hrs

Tota

lH

ours

% OT

Tota

l Hrs

pe

r Lan

e M

iR

egio

n

0.20

BRO

WN

890.

4066

.41

19.9

0$6

1270

8949

6312

052

41.2

%13

.54

NE

0.15

EAU

CLA

IRE

540.

7064

.13

13.4

8$4

0736

8014

5351

3328

.3%

9.49

NW

0.13

WIN

NEB

AGO

626.

5666

.88

15.1

3$4

4228

3027

0655

3648

.9%

8.84

NE

0.13

KEN

OSH

A65

3.56

66.2

011

.49

$445

4217

1446

5663

25.5

%8.

66S

E

0.13

DO

DG

E63

7.85

63.8

220

.53

$330

1878

3410

5288

64.5

%8.

29S

W

0.13

FON

D D

U L

AC

605.

3071

.19

14.5

9$4

8421

6932

8654

5560

.2%

9.01

NE

0.11

OU

TAG

AMIE

538.

6372

.91

10.6

0$3

8529

4015

7245

1234

.8%

8.38

NE

0.11

RO

CK

706.

0348

.04

9.71

$291

1318

2289

3607

63.5

%5.

11S

W

0.11

WAL

WO

RTH

706.

0365

.50

18.0

6$3

1941

1577

648

9115

.9%

6.93

SE

0.10

WAS

HIN

GTO

N61

1.91

78.4

920

.00

$408

1912

2989

4901

61.0

%8.

01S

E

0.10

JEFF

ER

SO

N54

9.67

63.7

515

.47

$354

1413

2147

3560

60.3

%6.

48S

W

0.10

SAU

K57

6.25

95.7

118

.19

$421

2864

2681

5545

48.3

%9.

62S

W

0.10

CH

IPPE

WA

654.

6596

.46

16.9

3$5

0628

2234

3162

5354

.9%

9.55

NW

0.09

POR

TAG

E58

4.63

112.

0213

.46

$464

4399

1789

6188

28.9

%10

.58

NC

0.09

RAC

INE

681.

8865

.10

12.3

0$3

9216

4524

8341

2860

.2%

6.05

SE

0.08

WAU

PAC

A54

6.74

88.4

216

.37

$321

3171

930

4101

22.7

%7.

50N

C

0.08

CO

LUM

BIA

787.

4096

.38

22.2

2$4

4229

0134

4263

4354

.3%

8.06

SW

0.08

MAR

ATH

ON

874.

8111

2.64

12.5

9$4

2251

7225

5477

2633

.1%

8.83

NC

Page

1 o

f 2M

onda

y, J

une

26, 2

017

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


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

016-

2017

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r Cos

tpe

r Lan

e M

iR

eg Hrs

OT

Hrs

Tota

lH

ours

% OT

Tota

l Hrs

pe

r Lan

e M

iR

egio

n

0.07

GR

ANT

622.

0677

.41

9.73

$245

1415

1891

3306

57.2

%5.

31S

W

0.07

SAIN

T C

RO

IX64

5.34

83.6

213

.98

$327

1393

2261

3654

61.9

%5.

66N

W

0.06

MO

NR

OE

654.

4392

.34

15.7

2$2

6318

5620

4939

0552

.5%

5.97

SW

Gro

up B

Avg

652.

1378

.45

0.11

15.2

6$3

9429

1424

0753

2146

.6%

8.09

Page

2 o

f 2M

onda

y, J

une

26, 2

017

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


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

016-

2017

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r Cos

tpe

r Lan

e M

iR

eg Hrs

OT

Hrs

Tota

lH

ours

% OT

Tota

l Hrs

pe

r Lan

e M

iR

egio

n

0.16

VER

NO

N46

8.36

79.1

411

.69

$567

3124

2803

5927

47.3

%12

.65

SW

0.14

LA C

RO

SSE

503.

3146

.37

9.02

$331

1368

1848

3216

57.5

%6.

39S

W

0.12

MAN

ITO

WO

C42

6.01

78.9

815

.82

$390

2654

1316

3970

33.1

%9.

32N

E

0.10

IOW

A47

3.13

84.4

012

.07

$402

2451

1587

4038

39.3

%8.

53S

W

0.10

SHAW

ANO

520.

5793

.65

15.5

9$3

9331

2517

0248

2735

.3%

9.27

NC

0.09

JUN

EAU

496.

2776

.38

13.8

9$3

5219

8715

5135

3843

.8%

7.13

SW

0.09

JAC

KSO

N51

5.44

67.4

312

.94

$281

1644

1589

3233

49.1

%6.

27N

W

0.09

DU

NN

519.

2496

.23

17.2

7$4

7822

1022

0244

1249

.9%

8.50

NW

0.08

SHEB

OYG

AN52

7.86

81.7

214

.11

$322

2365

1215

3580

33.9

%6.

78N

E

0.08

BAR

RO

N42

8.77

115.

129.

58$3

7027

3699

437

3026

.6%

8.70

NW

0.07

LIN

CO

LN40

5.55

125.

6311

.11

$434

2596

1224

3820

32.0

%9.

42N

C

0.07

PIER

CE

369.

4690

.76

11.3

6$3

3214

0310

2224

2542

.1%

6.56

NW

0.07

CLA

RK

402.

5610

3.14

13.6

2$3

4916

5513

2629

8144

.5%

7.41

NW

0.07

WO

OD

422.

6210

7.76

17.6

8$3

5915

5317

0032

5352

.3%

7.70

NC

0.07

OC

ON

TO46

8.90

92.1

410

.31

$295

1497

1404

2901

48.4

%6.

19N

E

0.07

CR

AWFO

RD

395.

7988

.75

10.2

2$2

5612

1111

1023

2147

.8%

5.86

SW

0.06

DO

UG

LAS

451.

4016

8.87

17.2

3$4

3928

1014

4342

5333

.9%

9.42

NW

Page

1 o

f 2M

onda

y, J

une

26, 2

017

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


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

016-

2017

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r Cos

tpe

r Lan

e M

iR

eg Hrs

OT

Hrs

Tota

lH

ours

% OT

Tota

l Hrs

pe

r Lan

e M

iR

egio

n

Gro

up C

Avg

458.

5493

.91

0.09

13.1

5$3

7321

4115

3236

7242

.2%

8.01

Page

2 o

f 2M

onda

y, J

une

26, 2

017

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


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

016-

2017

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r Cos

tpe

r Lan

e M

iR

eg Hrs

OT

Hrs

Tota

lH

ours

% OT

Tota

l Hrs

pe

r Lan

e M

iR

egio

n

0.11

MAR

QU

ETTE

245.

7558

.14

15.2

8$2

8998

362

716

1038

.9%

6.55

NC

0.10

GR

EEN

314.

6462

.48

6.60

$255

962

933

1895

49.2

%6.

02S

W

0.10

OZA

UKE

E30

9.19

66.9

221

.71

$320

1115

860

1975

43.5

%6.

39S

E

0.10

ON

EID

A39

6.79

107.

7013

.99

$439

3833

242

4075

5.9%

10.2

7N

C

0.09

TREM

PEAL

EAU

442.

4881

.87

13.0

3$3

5514

1118

0132

1256

.1%

7.26

NW

0.08

DO

OR

271.

8084

.58

12.4

5$4

0961

611

8818

0465

.9%

6.64

NE

0.08

RIC

HLA

ND

327.

6482

.23

7.95

$288

1264

810

2074

39.1

%6.

33S

W

0.08

LAFA

YETT

E29

9.38

63.0

35.

42$1

9867

773

914

1652

.2%

4.73

SW

0.07

WAU

SHAR

A34

5.01

86.5

710

.17

$256

1936

285

2221

12.8

%6.

44N

C

0.07

BAYF

IELD

316.

4214

3.66

15.0

0$4

3723

3392

332

5628

.3%

10.2

9N

W

0.07

MAR

INET

TE43

6.66

125.

0014

.09

$368

3788

117

3905

3.0%

8.94

NE

0.07

BUFF

ALO

317.

0298

.17

9.45

$291

1393

777

2170

35.8

%6.

84N

W

0.06

WAS

HBU

RN

372.

1410

1.72

12.7

6$2

7414

6687

323

3937

.3%

6.29

NW

0.05

POLK

385.

8112

6.40

13.6

6$2

9616

9069

923

8929

.3%

6.19

NW

Gro

up D

Avg

341.

4892

.03

0.08

12.2

5$3

2016

7677

724

5335

.5%

7.08

Page

1 o

f 1M

onda

y, J

une

26, 2

017

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


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

016-

2017

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r Cos

tpe

r Lan

e M

iR

eg Hrs

OT

Hrs

Tota

lH

ours

% OT

Tota

l Hrs

pe

r Lan

e M

iR

egio

n

0.36

CAL

UM

ET20

1.71

95.0

08.

29$1

,697

1389

5471

6860

79.8

%34

.01

NE

0.10

PEPI

N11

2.38

93.2

36.

42$4

3760

544

510

5042

.4%

9.34

NW

0.08

VILA

S30

5.24

127.

7318

.21

$477

1939

1099

3038

36.2

%9.

95N

C

0.08

LAN

GLA

DE

299.

2110

6.60

11.1

5$3

7617

0077

424

7431

.3%

8.27

NC

0.07

RU

SK21

3.47

90.3

69.

82$2

7295

739

913

5629

.4%

6.35

NW

0.07

TAYL

OR

233.

9011

0.61

12.9

0$3

4411

7863

418

1235

.0%

7.75

NW

0.07

FOR

EST

312.

3810

8.97

14.4

2$2

8413

4591

322

5840

.4%

7.23

NC

0.06

PRIC

E32

2.26

142.

1115

.83

$350

1824

972

2796

34.8

%8.

68N

C

0.06

IRO

N24

9.56

145.

2014

.31

$418

1355

738

2093

35.3

%8.

39N

C

0.06

BUR

NET

T23

7.93

97.8

012

.85

$285

653

679

1332

51.0

%5.

60N

W

0.05

ASH

LAN

D24

5.35

144.

9911

.02

$396

1342

605

1947

31.1

%7.

94N

W

0.05

SAW

YER

367.

4411

2.20

11.7

9$2

6811

5786

320

2042

.7%

5.50

NW

Gro

up E

Avg

258.

4011

4.57

0.09

12.2

5$4

6712

8711

3324

2040

.8%

9.92

Page

1 o

f 1M

onda

y, J

une

26, 2

017

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


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

016-

2017

Tota

l Hrs

per

Lane

Mi/S

IC

ount

yLa

ne

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Salt

per

Lane

Mi

Labo

r Cos

tpe

r Lan

e M

iR

eg Hrs

OT

Hrs

Tota

lH

ours

% OT

Tota

l Hrs

pe

r Lan

e M

iR

egio

n

0.07

KEW

AU

NEE

111.

3563

.96

9.78

$208

463

5451

710

.4%

4.64

NE

0.06

GR

EEN

LAK

E15

8.44

79.0

110

.03

$238

466

340

806

42.2

%5.

09N

C

0.06

FLO

REN

CE

141.

0713

2.71

17.5

0$3

2091

423

111

4520

.2%

8.12

NC

0.06

MEN

OM

INEE

90.2

677

.67

16.4

5$1

5931

394

407

23.1

%4.

51N

C

0.05

ADAM

S19

3.20

111.

5914

.98

$275

1021

156

1177

13.3

%6.

09N

C

Gro

up F

Avg

138.

8692

.99

0.06

13.7

5$2

4063

517

581

021

.8%

5.69

Page

1 o

f 1M

onda

y, J

une

26, 2

017

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


69

Total lane miles 34,620Total patrol sections 755Average lane miles per patrol section 45.9Roads to bare/wet pavement within WisDOT targets1 70%

Total tons of salt/lane-mile 15.2Total gallons of brine/lane-mile 142.6Average crew reaction time from start of storm 2.22 hours

Total winter costs2 $ 87,836,693Total winter costs per lane mile $ 2,537Total winter crashes3 5,282Total winter crashes per 100 million VMT 18

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, 2016-2017

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: Jan Tik (Flickr - Creative Commons License)

In this section...4A Compass................................................704B Winter Maintenance Management....70

Storm Reports......................................71Winter Patrol Sections.........................72Route Optimization.............................72

4C Response Time.....................................73Maintenance Crew Reaction Time.....73Time to Bare/Wet Pavement..............74

Performance44D Costs......................................................754E Travel and Crashes...............................80


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 included:

• 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 temperature, wind speeds, and other weather variables. Anti-icing application rates were also established; county highway

Table 4.1. Statewide Compass Measures for Winter

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17Percentage of roads to bare/wet pavement (Within WisDOT target times)

73% 63% 70% 74% 70%

Cost per lane mile $2,778 $3,304 $2,155 $2,087 $2,537

Winter Severity Index 115.2 133.6 99.28 90.35 91.14

Cost per lane mile per Winter Severity Index point

$24.11 $24.73 $21.71 $23.09 $27.85

Winter weather crashes29 per

100 million VMT44 per




100 million VMT


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; use this 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. This will result in even more accuracy going forward.

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

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


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

Each county highway department divides the state highways it is responsible for plowing into patrol sections. In general, one snowplow operator is assigned to each patrol section. This winter, the state highway system was divided into 755 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 85.

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 25-35 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 2016, 34 Wisconsin counties volunteered to collaborate with WisDOT on a pilot project to determine the value of using GIS technology to optimize snow plow routes. Of the 34 Wisconsin counties involved, both Dane and Brown have begun analyzing return on 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. Preliminary numbers show:

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

• Brown County is saving $1.2M this year in equipment costs, as route optimization effectively absorbed 165 new lane miles and eliminated the need to expand the fleet.

Winter service group Average patrol section length (lane miles)

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

A 54.1 49.8 - 56.5B 46.6 31.7 - 70.9C 43.5 28.2 - 57.3D 47.8 30.2 - 62.9E 47.6 33.6 - 61.2F 42.0 37.1 - 47.0

Statewide average 46.9 28.2 - 70.9

Table 4.2. Average Patrol Section Lengths by Winter Service Group


• 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.

Expect to see more details and costs savings in future reports as more counties implement 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.

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.

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.


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's reaction time was faster than in previous years. This winter the average reaction time of 2.22 was 31 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 4.34 hours was one of the slower reaction times recorded since the Department began tracking this metric. The 2016-2017 winter slightly more mild than the previous winter, but saw a drastic 49% 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.

“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/

Highway Category 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 201724-Hour Roads 61% 70% 69% 83% 75% 66% 75% 78% 79%18-Hour Roads 56% 65% 66% 76% 70% 59% 67% 71% 70%Target 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


2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2007-2008 to 2016-2017

2016-2017 vs. 10-year Average

A 0.61 1.02 1.74 0.49 0.19 0.63 2.31 0.32 1.21 0.37 0.89 -58%

B 1.38 1.46 1.78 1.60 1.11 1.27 4.48 1.67 2.40 1.07 1.82 -41%

C 2.87 2.70 3.37 2.87 2.15 2.38 4.99 2.57 3.19 2.22 2.93 -24%

D 2.89 3.46 4.23 3.25 2.54 3.77 6.23 2.86 3.91 2.06 3.52 -41%

E 4.05 4.00 4.71 3.48 3.16 2.99 9.36 3.77 6.72 3.94 4.62 -15%

F 5.04 5.08 5.79 5.68 3.39 3.79 14.81 4.78 8.62 3.64 6.06 -40%Statewide average

(unweighted)2.66 2.78 3.38 2.74 2.08 2.42 7.03 2.66 4.34 2.22 3.23 -31%

Table 4.3. Maintenance Crew Reaction Time From winter storm reports, 2007/2008–2016/2017


Figure 4.1. Statewide Average Winter Costs per Lane Mile and Winter Severity Index, 1997-98 thru 2016-17

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

Cos

ts p

er la

ne m

ile

Winter season

Costs per lane mile Severity index

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 2016-17 percentage of roadways cleared to bare/wet pavement stayed nearly the same from the previous year. Last year's and this year's winters were both considered mild.

4D. COSTSThe total billed cost of statewide winter operations this winter was $87.8 million, making it 22 percent more costly than 2015-16. 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 significantly 2016-17 by about 21 percent from 2015-16. See Figure 3.14 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 1997-98 winter.

The average Winter Severity Index decreased slightly in the SE and NC regions compared with last winter while the remaining regions saw a light increase.

Table 4.5 show 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 2016-17, all regions experienced higher winter maintenance costs as compared to 2015-2016. However, regions had costs that were similar to their most recent 5-year average. This year's slight increase in winter severity over the 2015-16 can be attributed to the higher costs.

Region Average Winter Severity Index

Actual cost per lane mile

Relative cost per severity index point

SW 74.57 $2,525 $33.87

SE 65.65 $2,711 $41.30

NE 81.70 $2,353 $28.80

NC 106.9 $2,540 $23.76

NW 104.34 $2,536 $24.30

Statewide 91.14 $2,533 $27.79

Table 4.5. Total Winter Costs Relative to Winter Severity, 2016-2017

Figure 4.2. Total Winter Maintenance Cost by Region, 2016-17 vs. 2015-16 vs. Previous 5-Year Average

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

Region 1 /Southwest

Region 2 /Southeast

Region 3 /Northeast

Region 4 /Northcentral

Region 5 /Northwest

2015-2016 Total Cost 2016-2017 Total Cost 5-Yr Avg Cost ('12-'16)


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 $87.6 million in 2016-17 statewide winter maintenance costs by these billing categories.

Figure 4.3. Statewide Winter Costs by Category

Figure 4.4 on page 77 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 78.

In the five individual winter maintenance expenditure categories for 2016-17 statewide, the following trends were noted: • Salt expenditures were $36.5 million - nearly a 30 percent increase compared to the previous winter. The

Northeast region experiencing the smallest increase from last winter at only 6 percent while the Southwest, Northcentral and Northwest all nearly had 30 percent increases.

• Equipment expenditures were $24.9 million, an increase of 20 percent compared to the previous winter.

• Labor expenditures were $20.8 million, an increase of seventeen percent (17 percent) from the previous winter.

• County Furnished Material Costs were $3.2 million, an increase of 10 percent compared with the previous winter. .

Labor Costs24%

Equipment Costs28%County

Furnished Material Costs

3%

Administration Costs

3%

Cost of Salt Used 42%

Statewide Winter Costs2016-17 Total Cost: $87,836,693


Figure 4.4. Regional Winter Costs by Category, 2016-17

Labor Costs21%

Equipment Costs26%

County Furnished

Material Costs4%


3%


Southwest Region Winter Costs2016-17 Total Cost: $23,577,628

Brine Used: 1.21 M Gallons

Labor Costs33%

Equipment Costs27%County Furnished

Material Costs1%


2%


Southeast Region Winter Costs2016-17 Total Cost: $16,247,431


Labor Costs25%

Equipment Costs32%

County Furnished Material Costs

4%


3%


Northeast Region Winter Costs2016-17 Total Cost: $12,011,465


Labor Costs21%

Equipment Costs31%

County Furnished

Material Costs3%


3%


Northcentral Region Winter Costs2016-17 Total Cost: $16,291,588


Labor Costs21%

Equipment Costs27%

County Furnished

Material Costs6%


3%


Northwest Region Winter Costs2016-17 Total Cost: $19,708,581



Win

ter 2

016-

17 E

xper

ienc

efo

r Cou

nty

Serv

ices

Cou

nty

Five

Yea

r A

vg%

Cos

tsL

abor

Equ

ipm

ent

Fur

nish

edA

dmin

istr

atio

nC

ost o

fT

otal

Cos

tsC

ost f

or W

inte

rov

er F

ive

Cos

tsC

osts

Mat

eria

l Cos

tsC

osts

Salt

Use

dfo

r W

inte

r('1

2-'1

6 av

g)Y

ear

Ave

rage

Reg

ion

1 / S

outh

wes

t$4

,943

,862

$6,2

18,1

41$9

40,0

94$6

81,6

24$1

0,79

3,90

7$2

3,57

7,62

8$2

1,83

3,80

010

8%

Reg

ion

2 / S

outh

east

$5,3

66,0

79$4

,449

,903

$106

,784

$257

,130

$6,0

67,5

35$1

6,24

7,43

1$1

6,53

1,60

098

%

Reg

ion

3 / N

orth

east

$3,0

07,4

20$3

,880

,637

$445

,980

$401

,140

$4,2

76,2

88$1

2,01

1,46

5$1

1,27

9,60

010

6%

Reg

ion

4 / N

orth

cent

ral

$3,4

00,3

16$5

,056

,785

$532

,045

$455

,750

$6,8

46,6

92$1

6,29

1,58

8$1

5,05

1,60

010

8%

Reg

ion

5 / N

orth

wes

t$4

,079

,854

$5,3

08,2

40$1

,130

,341

$633

,510

$8,5

56,6

36$1

9,70

8,58

1$1

7,47

5,00

011

3%

Reg

ion

Tot

als

$20,

797,

531

$24,

913,

706

$3,1

55,2

44$2

,429

,154

$36,

541,

058

$87,

836,

693

$82,

171,

600

107%

Tabl

e 4.

6


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

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

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

SW SE NE NC NW

Salt Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2016-17

Costs by Region Statewide Avg

$-

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

Southwest Southeast Northeast Northcentral Northwest

Labor Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2016-17

Costs by Region Statewide Average

$600.00

$650.00

$700.00

$750.00

$800.00


Equipment Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2016-17


$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00


Other Costs Per Lane MileActual billed costs, 2016-17



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 3.3 on page 39 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 77 shows the distribution of costs by category for each region.

County-by-county cost data is available in Table 4.10 on pages 92-96.

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 98-105, 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 2016-2017, there were 5,282 reported winter weather crashes (those that occurred on pavements covered with snow, slush or ice) a 4 percent increase over the previous winter. The crash rate (number of crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) stayed the same as last winter - a statewide average of 18.

Crash rates tend to decrease in less severe winters. Figure 4.6 shows the trends in total crashes statewide over the last 18 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 in 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.

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


Crashes and Vehicle Miles TraveledMore urban areas such as the Southeast Region often have fewer winter weather crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. This is partly due to the fact that a single crash in a county with low VMT has a bigger impact on the overall crash rate. In addition, urban regions have more highways with 24-hour coverage, which means that these roadways are more likely to be in passable condition. This year, the southeast and southwest regions saw decreases in crash rates. The southeast region saw the greatest percentage reduction in crash rates (a 29 percent reduction), with this year’s crash rate at 12 crashes per 100 million VMT (see Table 4.7). The north central region saw the greatest percentage increase in crash rates (a 28 percent increase) compared to its crash rate last year (18 crashes per 100 million VMT). Table 4.12 on pages 106-108 gives the estimated number of vehicle miles traveled in each county this winter (November 2016 to April 2017), 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 109-110 shows the breakdown of crashes in each county according to highway type.

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.

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

Cra

shes

Winter season

Winter Crashes Severity Index


Total winter VMT for all counties is shown in Table 4.12 on page 106-108 This winter, total VMT ranged from a low of 18.8 million in Menominee County to a high of 3.2 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 (2016-17)

VMT (100 million)

(Nov 2016 - April 2017)

Snow/Slush/Ice Crashes

(Nov 2016 - April 2017)

Crashes per 100M VMT (2015–16)

Crashes per 100M VMT

(2015–2016)NC 106.90 36.80 860 18 23

NW 104.34 44.35 887 16 20

NE 81.71 56.14 1,131 20 20

SE 65.65 82.97 1,034 17 12

SW 74.57 73.24 1,370 20 19

Statewide 91.14 293.50 5,282 18 18

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 2016-2017

Urban STH29%

Rural STH52%

Urban IH6%

Rural IH13%


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



Table 4.8. Winter Maintenance Sections

County Lane MilesWinter Patrol Sections 2017

Survey

Lane Miles per

Patrol Section



Survey

Lane Miles per

Patrol Section


Adams 193.20 5 38.64 F Ashland 245.35 5 49.07 EFlorence 141.07 3 47.02 F Barron 428.77 12 35.73 CForest 312.38 6 52.06 E Bayfield 316.42 6 52.74 DGreen Lake 158.44 4 39.61 D 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 11 47.20 CMenominee 90.26 2 45.13 F Eau Claire 540.70 13 41.59 BOneida 396.79 10 39.68 D Jackson 515.44 9 57.27 CPortage 584.63 15 38.98 B Pepin 112.38 3 37.46 EPrice 322.26 6 53.71 E Pierce 369.46 7 52.78 CShawano 520.57 14 37.18 C Polk 385.81 7 55.12 DVilas 305.24 7 43.61 E Rusk 213.47 5 42.69 EWaupaca 546.74 13 42.06 B Saint Croix 645.34 11 58.67 BWaushara 345.01 7 49.29 D Sawyer 367.44 6 61.24 EWood 422.62 15 28.17 C Taylor 233.90 4 58.48 ERegion Average 43.46 Trempeleau 442.48 11 40.23 D

Washburn 372.14 8 46.52 DRegion Average 48.05


Survey

Lane Miles per

Patrol Section



Survey

Lane Miles per

Patrol Section


Brown 890.40 21 42.40 B Columbia 787.40 15 52.49 BCalumet 201.71 6 33.62 E Crawford 395.79 8 49.47 CDoor 271.80 9 30.20 D Dane 1543.70 31 49.80 AFond du Lac 605.30 10 60.53 B Dodge 637.85 9 70.87 BKewaunee 111.35 3 37.12 F Grant 622.06 11 56.55 BManitowoc 426.01 11 38.73 C Green 314.64 5 62.93 DMarinette 436.66 9 48.52 D Iowa 473.13 10 47.31 EOconto 468.90 10 46.89 C Jefferson 549.67 12 45.81 BOutagamie 538.63 17 31.68 B Juneau 496.27 10 49.63 CSheboygan 527.86 13 40.60 C LaCrosse 503.31 13 38.72 CWinnebago 626.56 18 34.81 B Lafayette 299.38 5 59.88 DRegion Average 40.46 Monroe 654.43 13 50.34 B

Richland 327.64 7 46.81 DRock 686.50 15 45.77 BSauk 576.25 15 38.42 BVernon 468.36 11 42.58 CRegion Average 50.46


Survey

Lane Miles per

Patrol Section


Lane Miles

Winter Patrol

Sections 2017 Survey

Lane Miles per

Patrol Section

Kenosha 653.56 17 38.44 B Statewide Totals 34,619.90 755.0 45.85Milwaukee 1955.81 35 55.88 A Statewide Averages 480.83 10.5 45.85Ozaukee 309.19 6 51.53 D Group A Averages 1509.23 30.0 51.38Racine 681.88 17 40.11 B Group B Averages 646.68 14.4 46.19Walworth 706.03 14 50.43 B Group C Averages 457.63 10.7 43.85Washington 611.91 12 50.99 B Group D Averages 328.95 6.9 49.11Waukesha 1073.97 19 56.52 A Group E Averages 275.39 5.7 48.20Region Average 49.13 Group F Averages 133.97 3.3 41.98

NC Region NW Region

NE Region SW Region

SE Region


County Region Dry Snow

Freezing Rain

Wet Snow

Sleet All Precip. Types

Precipitation Type

(Average Time in Hours)

SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

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

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

From Winter Storm Reports, 2016-2017

DANE SW 0.20 0.250.75 0.00 0.45 72.88 2.58WAUKESHA SE 1.58 0.360.43 0.37 0.79 54.70 1.79MILWAUKEE SE 0.00 -0.250.00 0.00 -0.13 62.67 0.93

0.59 0.120.39 0.12 0.37 63.41 1.76Group A Averages

Final totals as of Monday, June 26, 2017 Page 1 of 1



Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

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



EAU CLAIRE NW 0.75 3.301.58 3.00 1.77 64.13 4.62SAUK SW 0.80 1.130.78 0.90 1.03 95.71 3.98COLUMBIA SW 0.00 -0.07-0.06 0.00 -0.03 96.38 3.64DODGE SW 3.88 2.920.56 0.40 2.46 63.82 3.62WASHINGTON SE 0.38 1.330.73 0.67 0.72 78.49 3.52PORTAGE NC 4.14 0.922.64 1.67 2.49 112.02 3.50JEFFERSON SW 1.29 0.210.87 1.25 0.84 63.75 3.41FOND DU LAC NE 1.75 1.001.43 1.00 1.50 71.19 3.12WAUPACA NC 1.83 1.061.36 0.67 1.44 88.42 3.09SAINT CROIX NW 0.68 1.000.71 0.86 0.86 83.62 3.05MONROE SW 1.00 1.170.66 0.50 0.84 92.34 2.96WINNEBAGO NE 0.90 0.280.42 0.71 0.56 66.88 2.96KENOSHA SE 0.50 0.000.00 -0.50 0.13 66.20 2.85BROWN NE -0.33 -0.14-0.17 -0.25 -0.20 66.41 2.62WALWORTH SE 0.13 0.500.75 0.69 65.50 2.55OUTAGAMIE NE 0.13 1.060.93 1.29 0.79 72.91 2.50GRANT SW 2.58 1.632.11 2.00 1.97 77.41 2.20MARATHON NC 4.17 2.951.91 3.00 3.08 112.64 2.16RACINE SE 0.35 0.071.00 -0.10 0.44 65.10 2.13ROCK SW 0.05 -0.500.33 -0.03 48.04 1.83

1.25 0.990.93 0.95 1.07 77.55 3.02Group B Averages




Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

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



JACKSON NW 1.10 0.750.69 0.65 0.80 67.43 6.31WOOD NC 4.36 2.814.00 4.45 3.53 107.76 4.70DUNN NW 1.61 0.190.16 -0.21 0.69 96.23 4.61LINCOLN NC 7.86 2.552.82 2.53 4.23 125.63 4.55DOUGLAS NW 2.39 3.412.57 2.71 2.66 168.87 4.39CLARK NW 5.06 4.253.80 4.37 4.30 103.14 4.36MANITOWOC NE 0.80 0.580.31 0.25 0.94 78.98 4.33PIERCE NW 2.91 3.213.00 3.42 2.88 90.76 4.10JUNEAU SW 0.58 0.441.09 0.43 0.78 76.38 4.04IOWA SW 2.83 0.620.95 0.67 1.34 84.40 3.80VERNON SW 4.13 0.861.14 0.83 1.93 79.14 3.78BARRON NW 1.55 2.112.00 1.81 2.03 115.12 3.65SHAWANO NC 3.42 3.893.22 2.60 3.78 93.65 3.61CRAWFORD SW 2.55 0.290.94 -1.25 1.67 88.75 3.56SHEBOYGAN NE 1.00 0.140.37 -0.13 0.64 81.72 3.50LA CROSSE SW 2.12 2.002.94 3.75 2.36 46.37 3.02OCONTO NE 3.33 2.463.17 3.05 3.17 92.14 2.88

2.80 1.801.95 1.76 2.22 93.91 4.07Group C Averages




Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

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



MARQUETTE NC 1.29 1.311.25 1.63 1.25 58.14 7.97BAYFIELD NW 4.22 2.393.26 1.95 3.74 143.66 6.72OZAUKEE SE 0.17 0.071.28 0.75 0.66 66.92 6.56ONEIDA NC 5.95 5.573.38 4.07 5.50 107.70 6.38DOOR NE 2.62 1.282.00 1.44 1.97 84.58 6.29WASHBURN NW 3.79 2.472.76 2.18 3.44 101.72 4.69RICHLAND SW 3.83 2.333.79 2.67 3.50 82.23 4.31BUFFALO NW 1.11 0.110.67 0.20 0.70 98.17 4.28POLK NW 1.64 2.391.80 4.25 2.28 126.40 4.24TREMPEALEAU NW 1.15 -0.220.17 0.00 0.52 81.87 4.12WAUSHARA NC -0.67 0.961.14 0.25 0.74 86.57 3.89MARINETTE NE 1.41 0.681.75 1.79 1.10 125.00 3.84GREEN SW 4.62 0.360.67 0.50 2.18 62.48 3.41LAFAYETTE SW 1.33 1.361.57 0.80 1.27 63.03 3.31

2.32 1.501.82 1.61 2.06 92.03 5.00Group D Averages




Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

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



CALUMET NE 2.36 2.923.25 0.00 2.60 95.00 13.50PEPIN NW 4.85 3.455.50 2.88 4.43 93.23 12.50IRON NC 5.50 3.663.86 5.57 4.33 145.20 9.45VILAS NC 7.25 3.734.95 3.47 4.96 127.73 8.61TAYLOR NW 3.42 3.072.32 2.20 2.80 110.61 8.37ASHLAND NW 5.05 3.563.16 3.50 3.96 144.99 7.07RUSK NW 3.88 3.603.89 3.86 4.17 90.36 6.89BURNETT NW 4.66 4.554.50 2.14 4.42 97.80 5.98PRICE NC 2.33 1.201.36 1.11 1.83 142.11 5.70LANGLADE NC 3.77 2.703.53 4.50 3.41 106.60 5.33FOREST NC 6.57 3.783.82 2.00 4.97 108.97 5.18SAWYER NW 6.27 4.933.72 2.40 5.46 112.20 4.01

4.66 3.433.65 2.80 3.94 114.57 7.72Group E Averages




Freezing Rain

Wet Snow


Precipitation Type


SeverityIndex

Cost per LM per

Severity Index

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



MENOMINEE NC 3.45 2.003.28 3.15 77.67 16.66FLORENCE NC 4.75 2.753.74 3.38 3.95 132.71 14.79ADAMS NC 7.08 3.973.44 4.27 4.71 111.59 10.83KEWAUNEE NE 6.00 1.501.25 1.13 3.31 63.96 10.64GREEN LAKE NC 5.83 3.612.06 1.88 3.06 79.01 7.78

5.42 2.772.76 2.66 3.64 92.99 12.14Group F Averages



Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2017

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

720

17 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

$502

,058

$638

$578

,523

$735

$78,

291

$99

$81,

491

$1,5

09,4

4818

,933

$2,7

49,8

1178

7.40

$3,4

92

12C

raw

ford

$135

,769

$343

$182

,594

$461

$39,

347

$99

$26,

251

$310

,976

4,29

1$6

94,9

3739

5.79

$1,7

56

13D

ane

$1,2

67,5

80$8

21$1

,254

,051

$812

$240

,938

$156

$151

,411

$2,1

98,2

4730

,402

$5,1

12,2

271,

543.

70$3

,312

14D

odge

$3

52,2

03$5

52$5

39,2

08$8

45$3

7,29

5$5

8$4

5,12

0$9

44,3

2413

,465

$1,9

18,1

5063

7.85

$3,0

07

22G

rant

$217

,826

$350

$272

,472

$438

$56,

693

$91

$29,

032

$508

,766

7,59

4$1

,084

,789

622.

06$1

,744

23G

reen

$140

,608

$447

$139

,900

$445

$11,

630

$37

$13,

267

$159

,981

2,13

9$4

65,3

8631

4.64

$1,4

79

25Io

wa

$255

,501

$540

$288

,300

$609

$90,

618

$192

$34,

528

$488

,133

6,79

9$1

,157

,080

473.

13$2

,446

28Je

ffer

son

$225

,236

$410

$367

,722

$669

$43,

269

$79

$66,

240

$619

,560

9,05

7$1

,322

,027

549.

67$2

,405

29Ju

neau

$255

,588

$515

$321

,689

$648

$62,

462

$126

$29,

461

$634

,923

8,21

5$1

,304

,123

496.

27$2

,628

32L

a C

ross

e$2

46,5

66$4

90$4

07,7

61$8

10$8

3,69

4$1

66$3

5,48

8$4

71,8

106,

959

$1,2

45,3

1950

3.31

$2,4

74

33L

afay

ette

$104

,260

$348

$168

,400

$562

$76,

568

$256

$17,

217

$158

,327

2,24

9$5

24,7

7229

9.38

$1,7

53

41M

onro

e$2

49,5

93$3

81$4

35,6

69$6

66$5

5,52

7$8

5$3

5,12

6$8

53,3

4411

,241

$1,6

29,2

5965

4.43

$2,4

90

52R

ichl

and

$134

,990

$412

$169

,167

$516

$11,

542

$35

$18,

661

$258

,432

3,35

9$5

92,7

9232

7.64

$1,8

09

53R

ock

$317

,361

$462

$369

,524

$538

$17,

979

$26

$39,

440

$512

,122

7,73

0$1

,256

,426

686.

50$1

,830

56Sa

uk$3

35,2

25$5

82$4

10,6

14$7

13$6

,575

$11

$34,

173

$774

,051

9,83

4$1

,560

,638

576.

25$2

,708

62V

erno

n$2

03,4

98$4

34$3

12,5

47$6

67$2

7,66

6$5

9$2

4,71

8$3

91,4

635,

507

$959

,892

468.

36$2

,049

SW T

OT

AL

$4,9

43,8

62$5

30$6

,218

,141

$666

$940

,094

$101

$681

,624

$10,

793,

907

147,

774

$23,

577,

628

9,33

6.38

$2,5

25


Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2017

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

720

17 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

05,2

59$6

20$4

50,0

14$6

89($

62,0

64)

($95

)$3

5,75

4$6

54,6

4510

,524

$1,4

83,6

0865

3.56

$2,2

70

40M

ilwau

kee

$3,1

13,5

99$1

,592

$1,4

69,6

44$7

51$3

0,18

6$1

5$1

,660

,987

27,6

42$6

,274

,416

1,95

5.81

$3,2

08

45O

zauk

ee$2

62,0

42$8

48$3

28,0

33$1

,061

$16,

492

$53

$27,

735

$409

,576

6,98

5$1

,043

,878

309.

19$3

,376

51R

acin

e$3

30,3

08$4

84$3

75,4

17$5

51$1

0,44

9$1

5$3

6,23

0$5

00,1

887,

950

$1,2

52,5

9268

1.88

$1,8

37

64W

alw

orth

$308

,438

$437

$583

,714

$827

$4,3

40$6

$54,

801

$765

,417

12,8

78$1

,716

,710

706.

03$2

,431

66W

ashi

ngto

n$4

03,8

44$6

60$5

50,1

82$8

99$5

2,89

8$8

6$4

4,23

1$7

97,1

5412

,212

$1,8

48,3

0961

1.91

$3,0

21

67W

auke

sha

$542

,589

$505

$692

,899

$645

$54,

483

$51

$58,

379

$1,2

79,5

6820

,596

$2,6

27,9

181,

073.

97$2

,447

SE T

OT

AL

$5,3

66,0

79$8

95$4

,449

,903

$743

$106

,784

$18

$257

,130

$6,0

67,5

3598

,787

$16,

247,

431

5,99

2.35

$2,7

11

RE

GIO

N 3

/ N

OR

TH

EA

ST

5B

row

n$4

39,4

14$4

94$7

75,6

65$8

71$1

3,64

1$1

5$9

0,82

8$7

32,8

2012

,709

$2,0

52,3

6889

0.40

$2,3

05

8C

alum

et$1

04,1

73$5

16$1

68,6

16$8

36$1

1,13

2$5

5$1

2,60

2$1

10,1

781,

804

$406

,701

201.

71$2

,016

15D

oor

$171

,100

$630

$245

,900

$905

$91,

851

$338

$27,

845

$230

,004

3,54

1$7

66,7

0027

1.80

$2,8

21

20Fo

nd d

u L

ac$3

70,6

41$6

12$4

50,9

64$7

45$2

8,19

1$4

7$4

2,77

7$5

61,7

318,

118

$1,4

54,3

0460

5.30

$2,4

03

31K

ewan

ee$5

5,78

0$5

01$7

2,87

7$6

54$9

,936

$89

$6,1

44$7

8,01

41,

313

$222

,751

111.

35$2

,000

36M

anito

woc

$325

,016

$763

$341

,245

$801

$60,

262

$141

$49,

969

$381

,691

6,16

5$1

,158

,183

426.

01$2

,719

38M

arin

ette

$193

,722

$444

$276

,998

$634

$18,

415

$42

$23,

760

$370

,546

5,55

3$8

83,4

4143

6.66

$2,0

23

42O

cont

o$2

21,6

63$4

73$2

90,6

00$6

20$7

,058

$15

$23,

047

$326

,068

5,01

4$8

68,4

3646

8.90

$1,8

52

44O

utag

amie

$419

,472

$779

$412

,749

$766

$95,

760

$178

$41,

574

$305

,476

4,94

1$1

,275

,031

538.

63$2

,367

59Sh

eboy

gan

$331

,470

$628

$313

,183

$593

$44,

994

$85

$33,

745

$598

,497

8,72

1$1

,321

,889

527.

86$2

,504

70W

inne

bago

$374

,969

$598

$531

,840

$849

$64,

740

$103

$48,

849

$581

,263

9,08

1$1

,601

,661

626.

56$2

,556

NE

TO

TA

L$3

,007

,420

$589

$3,8

80,6

37$7

60$4

45,9

80$8

7$4

01,1

40$4

,276

,288

66,9

60$1

2,01

1,46

55,

105.

18$2

,353


Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2017

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

720

17 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

14,4

94$5

93$1

54,9

89$8

02$1

6,15

5$8

4$1

5,56

8$2

72,2

183,

374

$573

,424

193.

20$2

,968

19Fl

oren

ce$6

0,06

8$4

26$1

27,9

83$9

07$8

,925

$63

$22,

481

$182

,446

2,62

7$4

01,9

0314

1.07

$2,8

49

21Fo

rest

$97,

690

$313

$259

,951

$832

$30,

785

$99

$20,

987

$298

,456

4,43

4$7

07,8

6931

2.38

$2,2

66

24G

reen

Lak

e$8

3,02

2$5

24$8

4,30

0$5

32$7

,241

$46

$8,0

22$1

11,8

221,

599

$294

,407

158.

44$1

,858

26Ir

on$1

58,3

07$6

34$2

40,6

44$9

64$8

,565

$34

$18,

220

$369

,230

5,06

3$7

94,9

6624

9.56

$3,1

85

34L

angl

ade

$161

,502

$540

$214

,870

$718

$4,7

09$1

6$1

9,85

3$2

28,9

013,

533

$629

,835

299.

21$2

,105

35L

inco

ln$2

47,3

81$6

10$3

81,3

82$9

40$6

3,33

3$1

56$3

1,78

1$3

53,6

164,

887

$1,0

77,4

9340

5.55

$2,6

57

37M

arat

hon

$439

,463

$502

$633

,421

$724

$81,

481

$93

$54,

428

$863

,140

11,1

58$2

,071

,933

874.

81$2

,368

39M

arqu

ette

$122

,641

$499

$151

,217

$615

$32,

342

$132

$15,

145

$328

,253

4,54

1$6

49,5

9824

5.75

$2,6

43

73M

enom

inee

$23,

159

$257

$55,

394

$614

$10,

840

$120

$3,9

63$9

7,13

21,

558

$190

,488

90.2

6$2

,110

43O

neid

a$2

26,4

78$5

71$3

33,6

43$8

41$8

9,50

3$2

26$2

9,45

1$6

29,4

918,

247

$1,3

08,5

6639

6.79

$3,2

98

49Po

rtag

e$4

05,1

24$6

93$5

35,1

89$9

15$6

2,25

9$1

06$4

7,02

8$5

52,2

867,

415

$1,6

01,8

8658

4.63

$2,7

40

50Pr

ice

$135

,517

$421

$262

,717

$815

$36,

859

$114

$24,

404

$313

,860

4,20

3$7

73,3

5732

2.26

$2,4

00

58Sh

awan

o$3

10,5

42$5

97$4

32,9

01$8

32$9

,019

$17

$47,

039

$505

,930

7,96

8$1

,305

,431

520.

57$2

,508

63V

ilas

$187

,375

$614

$343

,330

$1,1

25$1

4,03

9$4

6$2

6,38

9$4

80,3

466,

083

$1,0

51,4

7930

5.24

$3,4

45

68W

aupa

ca$2

88,7

58$5

28$4

22,5

52$7

73$4

2,77

5$7

8$3

4,54

6$5

07,8

647,

702

$1,2

96,4

9554

6.74

$2,3

71

69W

aush

ara

$147

,138

$426

$161

,827

$469

$4,3

13$1

3$1

5,86

8$2

44,4

413,

612

$573

,587

345.

01$1

,663

71W

ood

$191

,657

$453

$260

,475

$616

$8,9

02$2

1$2

0,57

7$5

07,2

626,

695

$988

,873

422.

62$2

,340

NC

TO

TA

L$3

,400

,316

$530

$5,0

56,7

85$7

88$5

32,0

45$8

3$4

55,7

50$6

,846

,692

94,6

99$1

6,29

1,58

86,

414.

09$2

,540


Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2017

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

720

17 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

09,6

94$4

47$1

75,1

92$7

14$5

4,19

1$2

21$2

5,38

5$1

91,4

532,

691

$555

,915

245.

35$2

,266

3B

arro

n$3

17,6

51$7

41$3

01,1

48$7

02$3

6,96

9$8

6$4

1,36

9$2

85,1

413,

979

$982

,278

428.

77$2

,291

4B

ayfie

ld$1

62,9

86$5

15$2

71,3

23$8

57$2

2,09

2$7

0$2

2,74

6$3

28,6

834,

976

$807

,830

316.

42$2

,553

6B

uffa

lo$1

44,8

40$4

57$1

92,9

94$6

09$1

,163

$4$1

8,08

6$2

24,5

723,

188

$581

,655

317.

02$1

,835

7B

urne

tt$9

9,41

6$4

18$1

18,1

00$4

96$2

77,6

55$1

,167

$29,

669

$199

,384

2,98

6$7

24,2

2423

7.93

$3,0

44

9C

hipp

ewa

$456

,351

$697

$459

,805

$702

$128

,934

$197

$61,

654

$921

,625

12,2

30$2

,028

,369

654.

65$3

,098

10C

lark

$209

,023

$519

$266

,683

$662

$3,4

50$9

$37,

923

$392

,906

5,08

3$9

09,9

8540

2.56

$2,2

60

16D

ougl

as$2

59,2

89$5

73$4

20,9

45$9

30$4

0,28

1$8

9$4

2,67

0$4

63,6

947,

713

$1,2

26,8

7945

2.73

$2,7

10

17D

unn

$331

,044

$638

$383

,235

$738

$5,6

71$1

1$3

5,13

7$7

50,6

0010

,075

$1,5

05,6

8751

9.24

$2,9

00

18E

au C

lair

e$3

02,7

22$5

60$4

22,7

88$7

82$4

3,43

7$8

0$4

2,99

4$8

42,6

9111

,059

$1,6

54,6

3254

0.70

$3,0

60

27Ja

ckso

n$2

05,9

74$4

00$3

70,5

88$7

19$1

73,9

40$3

37$3

3,71

6$6

68,5

278,

531

$1,4

52,7

4551

5.44

$2,8

18

46Pe

pin

$83,

042

$739

$65,

033

$579

$0$0

$6,6

62$5

3,66

169

8$2

08,3

9811

2.38

$1,8

54

47Pi

erce

$212

,466

$575

$243

,391

$659

$12,

070

$33

$25,

281

$311

,058

4,34

0$8

04,2

6636

9.46

$2,1

77

48Po

lk$1

73,0

83$4

49$2

60,7

92$6

76$1

4,13

6$3

7$2

4,39

8$3

83,9

985,

244

$856

,407

385.

81$2

,220

54R

usk

$59,

104

$277

$106

,413

$498

$71,

211

$334

$27,

208

$181

,706

2,41

5$4

45,6

4221

3.47

$2,0

88

57Sa

wye

r$1

29,5

11$3

52$1

76,2

15$4

80$1

3,68

4$3

7$1

4,92

0$3

30,2

194,

285

$664

,549

367.

44$1

,809

55St

. Cro

ix$3

47,7

54$5

39$3

36,4

26$5

21$1

96,8

58$3

05$7

1,80

4$8

40,3

1312

,199

$1,7

93,1

5564

5.34

$2,7

79

60T

aylo

r$1

21,6

95$5

20$1

69,0

35$7

23$1

2,85

6$5

5$1

5,85

1$2

73,6

093,

233

$593

,046

233.

90$2

,535

61T

rem

peal

eau

$206

,487

$467

$295

,308

$667

$11,

505

$26

$33,

806

$498

,825

6,90

2$1

,045

,931

442.

48$2

,364

65W

ashb

urn

$147

,722

$397

$272

,826

$733

$10,

238

$28

$22,

231

$413

,972

6,15

1$8

66,9

8937

2.14

$2,3

30

NW

TO

TA

L$4

,079

,854

$525

$5,3

08,2

40$6

83$1

,130

,341

$145

$633

,510

$8,5

56,6

3611

7,97

8$1

9,70

8,58

17,

773.

23$2

,535


Tabl

e 4.

10. W

inte

r Mai

nten

ance

Cos

ts p

er L

ane

Mile

Fisc

al Y

ear

2017

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

017

2017

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$4

,943

,862

$530

$6,2

18,1

41$6

66$9

40,0

94$1

01$6

81,6

24$1

0,79

3,90

714

7,77

4$2

3,57

7,62

89,

336.

38$2

,525

SE R

egio

n$5

,366

,079

$895

$4,4

49,9

03$7

43$1

06,7

84$1

8$2

57,1

30$6

,067

,535

98,7

87$1

6,24

7,43

15,

992.

35$2

,711

NE

Reg

ion

$3,0

07,4

20$5

89$3

,880

,637

$760

$445

,980

$87

$401

,140

$4,2

76,2

8866

,960

$12,

011,

465

5,10

5.18

$2,3

53

NC

Reg

ion

$3,4

00,3

16$5

30$5

,056

,785

$788

$532

,045

$83

$455

,750

$6,8

46,6

9294

,699

$16,

291,

588

6,41

4.09

$2,5

40

NW

Reg

ion

$4,0

79,8

54$5

25$5

,308

,240

$683

$1,1

30,3

41$1

45$6

33,5

10$8

,556

,636

117,

978

$19,

708,

581

7,77

3.23

$2,5

35

Stat

ewid

e T

otal

s$2

0,79

7,53

1$6

01$2

4,91

3,70

6$7

20$3

,155

,244

$91

$2,4

29,1

54$3

6,54

1,05

852

6,19

8$8

7,83

6,69

334

,621

.23

$2,5

37

prep

ared

by:

Cat

hy M

einh

olz/

Bur

eau

of H

ighw

ay M

aint

enan

ce

u:\w

inte

r\fy1

7wnt

r. xl

wA

ugus

t 2, 2

017


Figure 4.8. 2016-2017 Winter Costs vs. 5-Year Average

Price-9

Clark9

Dane0

Polk-11

Grant0

Vilas-1

Iron-10

Bayfield-7

Rusk7

Sawyer-14

Oneida6

Marathon6

Sauk14

Forest-20

Douglas8

Iowa28

Dunn18

Taylor11

Marinette8

Rock-20

Oconto-5

Wood17

Barron-2 Lincoln

12

Burnett69

Jackson28

Ashland-13

Monroe28

Dodge 12

Vernon2

Juneau27

Portage21

Chippewa29

Buffalo35

Adams27

Shawano17

Langlade3

Green4

Pierce6

St. Croix20

Brown21

Columbia14

Waupaca14

Washburn 4

Lafayette-10

Richland27Crawford

9

Jefferson2

Waushara5

Walworth-1

Eau Claire21

Outagamie-4

Florence4

Waukesha3

Racine-20

Kenosha1

Door15

Fond du Lac6

Trempealeau24

Manitowoc9

La Crosse27 Marquette

53 Sheboygan-2

Pepin15

Winnebago9

Calumet6

Kewanee-1

Washington17

Green Lake23

Menominee29

Ozaukee9

Milwaukee -6

Increase more than 40%

Increase 30 to 39%

Increase 20 to 29%

Increase 10 to 19%

Increase 0 to 9%

Decrease


Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

(in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

lC

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

6-20

17

A)

SW

DAN

E30

.330

402

$6,1

05,0

001,

543.

70$3

,981

72.8

82.

5819

.69

0.27

SE

WA

UKE

SHA

44.2

2059

6$2

,059

,000

1,07

3.97

$1,9

1754

.70

1.79

19.1

80.

35

SE

MIL

WAU

KEE

36.7

2764

2$3

,540

,000

1,95

5.81

$1,8

1062

.67

0.93

14.1

30.

23

Gro

up37

.126

213

$3,9

01,3

331,

524.

49$2

,569

63.4

11.

7617

.67

0.28

AA

vera

ges W

edne

sday

, Jun

e 28

, 201

7Pa

ge 1

of 1

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


Cou

nty

Snow

D

epth

(in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

lC

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

6-20

17

B)

NW

EAU

CLA

IRE

58.1

1105

9$1

,347

,000

540.

70$2

,496

64.1

34.

6220

.45

0.32

SW

SAU

K53

.798

34$1

,323

,000

576.

25$2

,295

95.7

13.

9817

.07

0.18

NW

CH

IPPE

WA

85.9

1223

0$1

,624

,000

654.

65$2

,480

96.4

63.

7918

.68

0.19

SW

CO

LUM

BIA

57.0

1893

3$2

,260

,000

787.

40$2

,870

96.3

83.

6424

.04

0.25

SW

DO

DG

E49

.113

465

$1,4

71,0

0063

7.85

$2,3

0763

.82

3.62

21.1

10.

33

SE

WAS

HIN

GTO

N54

.412

212

$1,3

20,0

0061

1.91

$2,1

5778

.49

3.52

19.9

60.

25

NC

POR

TAG

E61

.774

15$1

,195

,000

584.

63$2

,044

112.

023.

5012

.68

0.11

SW

JEFF

ER

SO

N34

.290

57$1

,031

,000

549.

67$1

,875

63.7

53.

4116

.48

0.26

NE

FON

D D

U L

AC55

.081

18$1

,143

,000

605.

30$1

,889

71.1

93.

1213

.41

0.19

NC

WA

UPA

CA

51.9

7702

$923

,000

546.

74$1

,687

88.4

23.

0914

.09

0.16

NW

SAIN

T C

RO

IX59

.212

199

$1,2

71,0

0064

5.34

$1,9

6983

.62

3.05

18.9

00.

23

SW

MO

NR

OE

60.6

1124

1$1

,267

,000

654.

43$1

,936

92.3

42.

9617

.18

0.19

NE

WIN

NEB

AGO

46.0

9081

$1,1

61,0

0062

6.56

$1,8

5266

.88

2.96

14.4

90.

22

SE

KEN

OSH

A14

.810

524

$1,2

19,0

0065

3.56

$1,8

6566

.20

2.85

16.1

00.

24

NE

BRO

WN

64.1

1270

9$2

,074

,000

890.

40$2

,330

66.4

12.

6214

.27

0.21

SE

WA

LWO

RTH

36.4

1287

8$1

,270

,000

706.

03$1

,798

65.5

02.

5518

.24

0.28

NE

OU

TAG

AMIE

56.7

4941

$727

,000

538.

63$1

,349

72.9

12.

509.

170.

13

SW

GR

ANT

32.6

7594

$850

,000

622.

06$1

,367

77.4

12.

2012

.21

0.16

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 2Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

lCo

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.

11. C

ost p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ra

nkin

g ( G

roup

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

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

B)

NCM

ARAT

HON

64.2

1115

8$1

,654

,000

874.

81$1

,890

112.

642.

1612

.75

0.11

SERA

CINE

50.9

7950

$991

,000

681.

88$1

,453

65.1

02.

1311

.66

0.18

SWRO

CK36

.877

30$9

14,0

0070

6.03

$1,2

9448

.04

1.83

10.9

50.

23

Grou

p51

.610

382

$1,2

87,3

8165

2.13

$1,9

6278

.45

3.05

15.9

00.

21B

Aver

ages

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

2 o

f 2Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

lCo

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.

11. C

ost p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ra

nkin

g ( G

roup

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

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

C)

NWJA

CKSO

N53

.585

31$1

,677

,000

515.

44$3

,253

67.4

36.

3116

.55

0.25

NCW

OO

D72

.766

95$8

40,0

0042

2.62

$1,9

8810

7.76

4.70

15.8

40.

15

NWDU

NN63

.310

075

$1,2

43,0

0051

9.24

$2,3

9396

.23

4.61

19.4

00.

20

NCLI

NCO

LN86

.048

87$7

49,0

0040

5.55

$1,8

4612

5.63

4.55

12.0

50.

10

NWDO

UGLA

S84

.777

13$8

94,0

0045

1.40

$1,9

8016

8.87

4.39

17.0

90.

10

NWCL

ARK

83.2

5083

$707

,000

402.

56$1

,756

103.

144.

3612

.63

0.12

NEM

ANIT

OW

OC

58.5

6165

$786

,000

426.

01$1

,845

78.9

84.

3314

.47

0.18

NWPI

ERCE

59.1

4340

$560

,000

369.

46$1

,515

90.7

64.

1011

.75

0.13

SWJU

NEAU

59.5

8215

$996

,000

496.

27$2

,007

76.3

84.

0416

.55

0.22

SWIO

WA

36.4

6799

$852

,000

473.

13$1

,800

84.4

03.

8014

.37

0.17

SWVE

RNO

N41

.955

07$8

30,0

0046

8.36

$1,7

7279

.14

3.78

11.7

60.

15

NWBA

RRO

N63

.139

79$6

70,0

0042

8.77

$1,5

6311

5.12

3.65

9.28

0.08

NCSH

AWAN

O72

.979

68$9

77,0

0052

0.57

$1,8

7793

.65

3.61

15.3

10.

16

SWCR

AWFO

RD44

.442

91$5

55,0

0039

5.79

$1,4

1088

.75

3.56

10.8

40.

12

NESH

EBO

YGAN

57.1

8721

$976

,000

527.

86$1

,849

81.7

23.

5016

.52

0.20

SWLA

CRO

SSE

58.0

6140

$764

,000

503.

31$1

,519

46.3

73.

0212

.20

0.26

NEO

CONT

O58

.950

14$6

34,0

0046

8.90

$1,3

5292

.14

2.88

10.6

90.

12

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 2Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

lCo

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.

11. C

ost p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ra

nkin

g ( G

roup

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

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

C)

Grou

p62

.064

78$8

65,2

9445

8.54

$1,8

6693

.91

4.07

13.9

60.

16C

Aver

ages

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

2 o

f 2Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

lCo

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.

11. C

ost p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ra

nkin

g ( G

roup

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

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

D)

NCM

ARQ

UETT

E40

.545

41$4

81,0

0024

5.75

$1,9

5858

.14

7.97

18.4

80.

32

NWBA

YFIE

LD96

.049

76$6

69,0

0031

6.42

$2,1

2514

3.66

6.72

15.7

30.

11

SEO

ZAUK

EE53

.069

85$6

27,0

0030

9.19

$2,0

2866

.92

6.56

22.5

90.

34

NCO

NEID

A86

.382

47$1

,005

,000

396.

79$2

,532

107.

706.

3820

.78

0.19

NEDO

OR

63.9

3541

$462

,000

271.

80$1

,711

84.5

86.

2913

.03

0.15

NWW

ASHB

URN

46.2

6058

$650

,000

372.

14$1

,747

101.

724.

6916

.28

0.16

SWRI

CHLA

ND34

.133

59$4

63,0

0032

7.64

$1,4

1282

.23

4.31

10.2

50.

12

NWBU

FFAL

O69

.331

88$4

30,0

0031

7.02

$1,3

5898

.17

4.28

10.0

60.

10

NWPO

LK55

.152

44$6

31,0

0038

5.81

$1,6

3612

6.40

4.24

13.5

90.

11

NWTR

EMPE

ALEA

U64

.169

02$8

06,0

0044

2.48

$1,8

2181

.87

4.12

15.6

00.

19

NCW

AUSH

ARA

52.6

3612

$463

,000

345.

01$1

,343

86.5

73.

8910

.47

0.12

NEM

ARIN

ETTE

68.4

5553

$731

,000

436.

66$1

,675

125.

003.

8412

.72

0.10

SWG

REEN

34.2

2139

$337

,000

314.

64$1

,072

62.4

83.

416.

800.

11

SWLA

FAYE

TTE

24.4

2249

$297

,000

299.

38$9

9263

.03

3.31

7.51

0.12

Grou

p56

.347

57$5

75,1

4334

1.48

$1,6

7292

.03

5.00

13.8

50.

16D

Aver

ages

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 1Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

lCo

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.

11. C

ost p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ra

nkin

g ( G

roup

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

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

E)

NECA

LUM

ET58

.218

04$5

49,0

0020

1.71

$2,7

2495

.00

13.5

08.

940.

09

NWPE

PIN

58.3

698

$158

,000

112.

38$1

,405

93.2

312

.50

6.21

0.07

NCIR

ON

131.

950

63$5

88,0

0024

9.56

$2,3

5814

5.20

9.45

20.2

90.

14

NCVI

LAS

108.

560

83$8

02,0

0030

5.24

$2,6

2712

7.73

8.61

19.9

30.

16

NWTA

YLO

R66

.532

33$4

58,0

0023

3.90

$1,9

5911

0.61

8.37

13.8

20.

12

NWAS

HLAN

D11

9.6

2691

$420

,000

245.

35$1

,736

144.

997.

0710

.97

0.08

NWRU

SK60

.424

14$3

14,0

0021

3.47

$1,4

7190

.36

6.89

11.3

10.

13

NWBU

RNET

T45

.429

86$3

39,0

0023

7.93

$1,4

2397

.80

5.98

12.5

50.

13

NCPR

ICE

126.

042

03$5

92,0

0032

2.26

$1,8

3714

2.11

5.70

13.0

40.

09

NCLA

NGLA

DE72

.335

33$4

77,0

0029

9.21

$1,5

9510

6.60

5.33

11.8

10.

11

NCFO

REST

90.3

4434

$505

,000

312.

38$1

,617

108.

975.

1814

.19

0.13

NWSA

WYE

R58

.442

76$5

41,0

0036

7.44

$1,4

7411

2.20

4.01

11.6

40.

10

Grou

p83

.034

52$4

78,5

8325

8.40

$1,8

5211

4.57

7.72

12.8

90.

11E

Aver

ages

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 1Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of


Coun

tySn

ow

Dept

h (in

)

Salt

(ton)

Tota

lCo

stLa

ne

Mile

sTo

tal

$/LM

Tabl

e 4.

11. C

ost p

er L

ane

Mile

per

Sev

erity

Inde

x Ra

nkin

g ( G

roup

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

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

F)

NCM

ENO

MIN

EE58

.715

58$1

36,0

0090

.26

$1,5

0477

.67

16.6

617

.26

0.22

NCFL

ORE

NCE

91.6

2627

$294

,000

141.

07$2

,087

132.

7114

.79

18.6

20.

14

NCAD

AMS

45.8

3374

$404

,000

193.

20$2

,092

111.

5910

.83

17.4

60.

16

NEKE

WAU

NEE

65.5

1313

$132

,000

111.

35$1

,185

63.9

610

.64

11.7

90.

18

NCG

REEN

LAK

E42

.015

99$1

95,0

0015

8.44

$1,2

3379

.01

7.78

10.0

90.

13

Grou

p60

.720

94$2

32,2

0013

8.86

$1,6

2092

.99

12.1

415

.05

0.17

FAv

erag

es W

edne

sday

, Jun

e 28

, 201

7Pa

ge 1

of 1

Fina

l tot

als

as o

f


Table 4.12. Winter Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles of TravelBureau of Transportation Safety data, November 1, 2016 - April 30, 2017

WisDOT REGION / COUNTY

2016-17 WINTERVEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL

2016-17 WINTER CRASHES

CRASH RATE PER 100M VMT

NORTH CENTRALADAMS 108,000,000 15 13.88888889FLORENCE 32,800,000 3 9FOREST 62,800,000 23 37GREEN LAKE 111,300,000 6 5IRON 48,400,000 4 8LANGLADE 129,700,000 30 23LINCOLN 223,600,000 46 21MARATHON 780,200,000 215 28MARQUETTE 131,100,000 13 10MENOMINEE 18,800,000 2 11ONEIDA 229,500,000 60 26PORTAGE 432,300,000 126 29PRICE 85,700,000 13 15SHAWANO 328,500,000 63 19VILAS 169,600,000 32 19WAUPACA 291,000,000 82 28WAUSHARA 178,900,000 49 27WOOD 318,200,000 78 25Region Total 3,680,400,000 860 23

NORTHEASTBROWN 1,156,500,000 197 17CALUMET 215,700,000 54 25DOOR 211,100,000 27 13FOND DU LAC 563,800,000 124 22KEWAUNEE 110,300,000 22 20MANITOWOC 414,400,000 71 17MARINETTE 469,900,000 40 9OCONTO 376,100,000 55 15OUTAGAMIE 759,700,000 166 22SHEBOYGAN 508,600,000 109 21WINNEBAGO 827,900,000 266 32Region Total 5,614,000,000 1,131 20






NORTHWESTASHLAND 87,500,000 14 16BARRON 297,200,000 40 13BAYFIELD 134,800,000 19 14BUFFALO 97,000,000 15 15BURNETT 94,100,000 9 10CHIPPEWA 424,700,000 91 21CLARK 221,300,000 61 28DOUGLAS 258,100,000 66 26DUNN 322,900,000 78 24EAU CLAIRE 497,200,000 144 29JACKSON 291,400,000 61 21PEPIN 38,000,000 13 34PIERCE 165,800,000 44 27POLK 231,700,000 29 13RUSK 90,100,000 15 17ST.CROIX 123,000,000 86 70SAWYER 592,100,000 11 2TAYLOR 91,700,000 21 23TREMPEALEAU 225,700,000 49 22WASHBURN 150,200,000 21 14Region Total 4,434,500,000 887 20

SOUTHEASTKENOSHA 713,100,000 130 18MILWAUKEE 3,196,200,000 328 10OZAUKEE 477,300,000 56 12RACINE 758,400,000 110 15WALWORTH 594,400,000 95 16WASHINGTON 719,600,000 142 20WAUKESHA 1,837,800,000 173 9Region Total 8,296,800,000 1,034 12







NORTH CENTRALADAMS 108,000,000 15 13.88888889FLORENCE 32,800,000 3 9FOREST 62,800,000 23 37GREEN LAKE 111,300,000 6 5IRON 48,400,000 4 8LANGLADE 129,700,000 30 23LINCOLN 223,600,000 46 21MARATHON 780,200,000 215 28MARQUETTE 131,100,000 13 10MENOMINEE 18,800,000 2 11ONEIDA 229,500,000 60 26PORTAGE 432,300,000 126 29PRICE 85,700,000 13 15SHAWANO 328,500,000 63 19VILAS 169,600,000 32 19WAUPACA 291,000,000 82 28WAUSHARA 178,900,000 49 27WOOD 318,200,000 78 25Region Total 3,680,400,000 860 23

NORTHEASTBROWN 1,156,500,000 197 17CALUMET 215,700,000 54 25DOOR 211,100,000 27 13FOND DU LAC 563,800,000 124 22KEWAUNEE 110,300,000 22 20MANITOWOC 414,400,000 71 17MARINETTE 469,900,000 40 9OCONTO 376,100,000 55 15OUTAGAMIE 759,700,000 166 22SHEBOYGAN 508,600,000 109 21WINNEBAGO 827,900,000 266 32Region Total 5,614,000,000 1,131 20






NORTHWESTASHLAND 87,500,000 14 16BARRON 297,200,000 40 13BAYFIELD 134,800,000 19 14BUFFALO 97,000,000 15 15BURNETT 94,100,000 9 10CHIPPEWA 424,700,000 91 21CLARK 221,300,000 61 28DOUGLAS 258,100,000 66 26DUNN 322,900,000 78 24EAU CLAIRE 497,200,000 144 29JACKSON 291,400,000 61 21PEPIN 38,000,000 13 34PIERCE 165,800,000 44 27POLK 231,700,000 29 13RUSK 90,100,000 15 17ST.CROIX 123,000,000 86 70SAWYER 592,100,000 11 2TAYLOR 91,700,000 21 23TREMPEALEAU 225,700,000 49 22WASHBURN 150,200,000 21 14Region Total 4,434,500,000 887 20

SOUTHEASTKENOSHA 713,100,000 130 18MILWAUKEE 3,196,200,000 328 10OZAUKEE 477,300,000 56 12RACINE 758,400,000 110 15WALWORTH 594,400,000 95 16WASHINGTON 719,600,000 142 20WAUKESHA 1,837,800,000 173 9Region Total 8,296,800,000 1,034 12







SOUTHWESTCOLUMBIA 512,100,000 103 20CRAWFORD 123,800,000 29 23DANE 2,356,300,000 288 12DODGE 489,800,000 64 13GRANT 261,400,000 50 19GREEN 155,700,000 31 20IOWA 196,600,000 36 18JEFFERSON 498,200,000 74 15JUNEAU 324,100,000 79 24LA CROSSE 515,700,000 156 30LAFAYETTE 110,200,000 29 26MONROE 378,400,000 83 22RICHLAND 104,400,000 26 25ROCK 752,300,000 188 25SAUK 386,600,000 91 24VERNON 158,500,000 43 27Region Total 7,324,100,000 1,370 19

STATEWIDE TOTAL 29,349,800,000 5,282 18







SOUTHWESTCOLUMBIA 512,100,000 103 20CRAWFORD 123,800,000 29 23DANE 2,356,300,000 288 12DODGE 489,800,000 64 13GRANT 261,400,000 50 19GREEN 155,700,000 31 20IOWA 196,600,000 36 18JEFFERSON 498,200,000 74 15JUNEAU 324,100,000 79 24LA CROSSE 515,700,000 156 30LAFAYETTE 110,200,000 29 26MONROE 378,400,000 83 22RICHLAND 104,400,000 26 25ROCK 752,300,000 188 25SAUK 386,600,000 91 24VERNON 158,500,000 43 27Region Total 7,324,100,000 1,370 19

STATEWIDE TOTAL 29,349,800,000 5,282 18

NC Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknADAMS 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0FLORENCE 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0FOREST 23 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0GREEN LAKE 6 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0IRON 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0LANGLADE 30 5 25 0 0 5 0 0 23 2 0LINCOLN 46 4 42 0 0 4 0 0 19 22 1MARATHON 215 51 131 15 18 20 31 0 35 93 3MARQUETTE 13 0 6 0 7 0 0 0 6 0 0ONEIDA 60 3 57 0 0 2 1 0 50 7 0PORTAGE 126 21 53 13 39 9 12 0 18 34 1PRICE 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0SHAWANO 63 6 57 0 0 6 0 0 22 34 1VILAS 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 29 3 0WAUPACA 82 2 80 0 0 1 1 0 38 42 0WAUSHARA 49 0 38 0 11 0 0 0 35 3 0WOOD 78 47 31 0 0 21 26 0 20 11 0MENOMINEE 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0TOTAL 860 142 615 28 75 71 71 0 356 253 6

NE Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknBROWN 197 140 33 17 7 44 94 2 8 24 1CALUMET 54 21 27 6 0 14 7 0 26 1 0DOOR 27 5 22 0 0 3 2 0 14 8 0FOND DU LAC 124 42 82 0 0 25 16 1 36 46 0KEWAUNEE 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0MANITOWOC 71 20 19 0 32 11 9 0 18 0 1MARINETTE 40 9 31 0 0 6 3 0 14 17 0OCONTO 55 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 12 42 1OUTAGAMIE 166 72 94 0 0 28 43 1 40 53 1SHEBOYGAN 109 33 47 3 26 26 7 0 31 15 1WINNEBAGO 266 87 169 10 0 35 50 2 35 127 7TOTAL 1,131 429 601 36 65 192 231 6 256 333 12

NW Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknASHLAND 14 6 8 0 0 3 3 0 8 0 0BARRON 40 2 38 0 0 0 2 0 20 18 0BAYFIELD 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0BUFFALO 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0BURNETT 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0CHIPPEWA 91 12 79 0 0 1 11 0 17 62 0CLARK 61 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 26 35 0DOUGLAS 66 40 18 8 0 18 21 1 7 11 0DUNN 78 20 34 4 20 16 4 0 28 5 1EAU CLAIRE 144 71 29 9 35 12 57 2 15 14 0JACKSON 61 0 20 0 41 0 0 0 18 2 0PEPIN 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0PIERCE 44 6 38 0 0 6 0 0 38 0 0POLK 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 28 1 0RUSK 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0ST. CROIX 86 10 39 4 33 6 4 0 31 7 1SAWYER 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0TAYLOR 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0TREMPEALEAU 49 0 48 0 1 0 0 0 46 2 0WASHBURN 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 7 14 0TOTAL 887 167 565 25 130 62 102 3 390 173 2

Motor Vehicle Crashes on Roads with Snow/Ice/SlushBureau of Transportation Safety data, Nov. 1, 2016 - April 30, 2017 State, U.S. and Interstate Highways only

Urban State Highway Rural State Highway



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


SE Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknKENOSHA 130 40 50 15 25 24 16 0 21 29 0MILWAUKEE 328 213 0 115 0 71 139 3 0 0 0OZAUKEE 56 9 6 10 31 6 3 0 1 5 0RACINE 110 61 35 0 14 25 36 0 11 24 0WALWORTH 95 16 50 5 24 7 9 0 32 18 0WASHINGTON 142 65 77 0 0 22 43 0 22 54 1WAUKESHA 173 63 42 41 27 8 55 0 21 21 0TOTAL 1,034 467 260 186 121 163 301 3 108 151 1

SW Region

COUNTY TOTAL Urban STH Rural STH Urban IH Rural IH Non-div Divided Unkn Non-div Divided UnknCOLUMBIA 103 4 55 3 41 3 1 0 53 2 0CRAWFORD 29 8 21 0 0 7 1 0 21 0 0DANE 288 119 99 21 49 18 100 1 51 48 0DODGE 64 7 57 0 0 2 5 0 27 30 0GRANT 50 2 48 0 0 2 0 0 36 12 0GREEN 31 7 24 0 0 1 6 0 23 1 0IOWA 36 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 14 22 0JEFFERSON 74 17 36 0 21 15 2 0 14 22 0JUNEAU 79 0 28 1 50 0 0 0 27 1 0LA CROSSE 156 92 32 14 18 51 41 0 14 18 0LAFAYETTE 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 21 8 0MONROE 83 16 29 6 32 8 8 0 27 1 1RICHLAND 26 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 0ROCK 188 68 72 17 31 38 28 2 55 17 0SAUK 91 10 45 0 36 9 1 0 22 23 0VERNON 43 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 42 1 0TOTAL 1,370 350 680 62 278 154 193 3 468 211 1

STH = State highways or non-interstate US highwaysIH = Interstate highways Non-div = Non-dividedRural = An unincorporated area or an incorporated area with a population under 5,000Urban = An incorporated area with a population of 5,000 or more.

*2017 figures are preliminary at this time.**Does not include deer or other animal crashes




WisDOT is excited to be taking advantage of national research to strengthen both service and efficiency on Wisconsin’s winter roads. Areas of focus for the 2017-2018 winter include:

1. Brining. Brine is great for prewetting salt and anti-icing – and it can work harder for us. Research-based brining procedures and state-of-the-art brining equipment have been proven to use up to three times less salt than using dry materials. This saves taxpayer dollars, and reduces harm to the groundwater and environment.

This winter, WisDOT will partner with at least four counties to pilot high-capacity and more versatile brine-makers, and with six counties to pilot Direct Liquid Application (also known as “Liquid-Only Routes”). On liquid-only routes, a truck has little to no rock salt, and instead carries a much larger brine tank which is used to apply liquid brine directly to the pavement. Look for public service announcements (on Facebook and regular media sources) from WisDOT in December 2017.

2. Route Optimization. Using computer algorithms to identify the most effective and efficient snow-plow routes improves driver and public safety, and saves taxpayer dollars.

WisDOT launched a multi-year route optimization pilot last winter. As a result of analysis completed on 12 counties during Summer 2017, Wisconsin taxpayers will pay for 24 fewer snowplows on state and county highways during the winter of 2017-18 -- while receiving the same level of service. We continue to work closely with counties that elect to participate – providing initial routes, tweaking those routes, and tweaking the program as we learn from the pilot.

3. Tow plows. Research has demonstrated that these “plows attached to a trailer” greatly increase the width that one plow truck can accomplish in one pass – providing the same or better service for fewer dollars.

WisDOT owns two tow plows, and partners with counties to learn more about this technology. Brown County used both tow plows last winter. We learned that they appear to be most effective on four-lane highways with routes that involve minimal turning around. Brown County was pleased with the performance and savings from the tow plows; they will use the plows again this winter, and plan to purchase more for Winter 2019.

4. Strategic salt storage. Having the right salt storage in the right places ensures we have salt when we need it, and that we can purchase salt at a good price. Maintaining and replacing salt sheds as they age is critical.

WisDOT works with counties and contractors to identify and implement the most cost-effective sites and designs.

Photo credit: Pixabay Creative Commons License

5 Looking Ahead

112

113

AppendixFigure A-1. WisDOT Regional Organization .........................................................................................................115Table A-1. Storm Report Summary ......................................................................................................................117Weather Forecast Service Evaluation Summary ................................................................................................123Table A-2. Weather Forecasting Service Usage ..................................................................................................129Table A-3. Anti-icing Details ..................................................................................................................................135Table A-4. Annual Anti-icing Agent Usage ............................................................................................................143Table A-5. Actual Anti-icing Costs .........................................................................................................................149Table A-6. Salt Brine Use ......................................................................................................................................152Table A-7. Annual Prewetting Agent Usage for Salt .............................................................................................154Table A-8. Annual Abrasives Usage and Prewetting Agent Usage for Abrasives...............................................160Table A-9. History of Salt Use on State Trunk Highways .....................................................................................166

114

115

Wisconsin Department of Transportation New regional organization Effective May 29, 2005 (updated July 18, 2005)

Southwest RegionSoutheast Region

Northeast Region

North Central Region

Northwest Region

Figure A-1

Wisconsin Department of TransportationRegion MapOctober 2017

116

117Tabl

e A

.1 -

Stor

m R

epor

t Sum

mar

yN

otes

: 1) C

osts

sho

wn

in ta

ble

are

estim

ated

and

do

not i

nclu

de th

e 4.

47%

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Cos

ts; 2

) Mat

eria

l Cos

ts in

clud

es S

alt,

Sand

, and

oth

er D

eici

ng a

nd A

nti-i

cing

Age

nts;

3)

Equi

pmen

t Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

$60

per h

our p

er u

nit;

4) L

abor

Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

each

Cou

nty'

s av

erag

e la

bor r

ate;

5) T

otal

Sal

t Ava

ilabl

e =

salt

in s

heds

as

of M

ay p

lus

early

fill,

pl

us s

easo

nal f

ill, p

lus

vend

or re

serv

e av

aila

ble.

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Reg

ion

NC

Cou

nty

Lane

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Snow

Amou

nt

(inch

es)

Anti-

Icin

gSt

orm

sIn

ci-

dent

Free

z. R

ain

Eve

nts

Tota

l Sa

lt Av

ail.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt U

sed

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt R

emai

n.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

nd

Use

d (C

Y)

Tota

l R

eg.

Hou

rs

Tota

l O

T H

ours

Mat

'lEq

uip

Labo

rTo

tal

Estim

ated

To

tal C

ost

to D

ate

Salt

Use

d pe

r LM

(to

ns)

Even

ts th

is S

easo

nEs

timat

ed C

ost P

er L

ane

Mile

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Tota

l Th

aw-

Rox

(to

ns)

Tota

l C

lear

-La

ne

(tons

)VI

LAS

305.

2412

7.73

108.

59

4721

299,

316

6,08

33,

233

880

1939

.010

99.0

$1,5

74$5

77$4

77$2

,627

$801

,905

19.9

0.16

00

ON

EID

A39

6.79

107.

7086

.34

336

1710

,870

8,24

72,

623

1579

3833

.024

2.0

$1,5

86$5

07$4

39$2

,532

$1,0

04,6

0420

.80.

190

0

IRO

N24

9.56

145.

2013

1.9

050

1816

6,96

05,

063

1,89

769

1355

.073

8.0

$1,4

80$4

60$4

18$2

,358

$588

,473

20.3

0.14

00

ADAM

S19

3.2

111.

5945

.822

218

323,

849

3,37

447

59

1021

.015

6.0

$1,4

73$3

43$2

75$2

,092

$403

,790

17.5

0.16

00

FLO

REN

CE

141.

0713

2.71

91.6

1341

2416

3,44

02,

627

813

9891

4.0

231.

0$1

,293

$474

$320

$2,0

87$2

94,4

1018

.60.

140

0

POR

TAG

E58

4.63

112.

0261

.73

3622

139,

381

7,41

51,

966

957

4399

.017

89.0

$945

$635

$464

$2,0

44$1

,194

,852

12.7

0.11

00

WO

OD

422.

6210

7.76

72.7

831

1721

7,43

06,

695

735

2315

53.0

1700

.0$1

,200

$429

$359

$1,9

88$8

40,3

0715

.80.

150

0

MAR

QU

ETTE

245.

7558

.14

40.5

616

149

4,43

94,

541

-102

098

3.0

627.

0$1

,336

$333

$289

$1,9

58$4

81,1

0818

.50.

320

0

MAR

ATH

ON

874.

8111

2.64

64.2

2331

3111

14,4

0611

,158

3,24

815

351

72.0

2554

.0$9

87$4

82$4

22$1

,890

$1,6

53,7

4612

.80.

110

0

SHAW

ANO

520.

5793

.65

72.9

1025

3012

9,51

97,

968

1,55

110

3125

.017

02.0

$972

$513

$393

$1,8

77$9

77,2

3615

.30.

160

0

LIN

CO

LN40

5.55

125.

6386

.018

3221

306,

348

4,88

71,

461

1197

2596

.012

24.0

$872

$540

$434

$1,8

46$7

48,8

4212

.10.

100

0

PRIC

E32

2.26

142.

1112

6.0

855

926

6,25

24,

203

2,04

935

818

24.0

972.

0$9

74$5

13$3

50$1

,837

$591

,955

13.0

0.09

00

WAU

PAC

A54

6.74

88.4

251

.93

2423

98,

335

7,70

263

30

3171

.093

0.0

$929

$438

$321

$1,6

87$9

22,5

9514

.10.

160

0

FOR

EST

312.

3810

8.97

90.3

338

89

7,92

04,

434

3,48

613

1345

.091

3.0

$955

$377

$284

$1,6

17$5

05,0

7214

.20.

130

0

LAN

GLA

DE

299.

2110

6.60

72.3

2133

329

6,24

73,

533

2,71

40

1700

.077

4.0

$765

$454

$376

$1,5

95$4

77,3

3611

.80.

110

0

MEN

OM

INEE

90.2

677

.67

58.7

024

254

1,85

01,

558

292

7131

3.0

94.0

$1,0

76$2

69$1

59$1

,504

$135

,729

17.3

0.22

00

WAU

SHAR

A34

5.01

86.5

752

.62

2319

134,

245

3,61

263

30

1936

.028

5.0

$708

$378

$256

$1,3

43$4

63,1

9010

.50.

120

0

GR

EEN

LAK

E15

8.44

79.0

142

.04

1715

131,

918

1,59

931

90

466.

034

0.0

$706

$289

$238

$1,2

33$1

95,3

0710

.10.

130

0

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e10

6.90

122,

725

94,6

9928

,026

5417

2091

.490

9.4

$1,1

02$4

45$3

48$1

,895

$12,

280,

458

$682

,248

15.3

75.3

8.7

32.1

19.1

16.1

6,81

85,

261

1,55

730

1

----

----

----

----

----

----

--0.

150 0

0 0

Page

1 o

f 6W

edne

sday

, Nov

embe

r 15,

201

7Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

118 Tabl

e A

.1 -

Stor

m R

epor

t Sum

mar

yN

otes

: 1) C

osts

sho

wn

in ta

ble

are

estim

ated

and

do

not i

nclu

de th

e 4.

47%

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Cos

ts; 2

) Mat

eria

l Cos

ts in

clud

es S

alt,

Sand

, and

oth

er D

eici

ng a

nd A

nti-i

cing

Age

nts;

3)

Equi

pmen

t Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

$60

per h

our p

er u

nit;

4) L

abor

Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

each

Cou

nty'

s av

erag

e la

bor r

ate;

5) T

otal

Sal

t Ava

ilabl

e =

salt

in s

heds

as

of M

ay p

lus

early

fill,

pl

us s

easo

nal f

ill, p

lus

vend

or re

serv

e av

aila

ble.

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Reg

ion

NE

Cou

nty

Lane

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Snow

Amou

nt

(inch

es)

Anti-

Icin

gSt

orm

sIn

ci-

dent

Free

z. R

ain

Eve

nts

Tota

l Sa

lt Av

ail.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt U

sed

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt R

emai

n.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

nd

Use

d (C

Y)

Tota

l R

eg.

Hou

rs

Tota

l O

T H

ours

Mat

'lEq

uip

Labo

rTo

tal

Estim

ated

To

tal C

ost

to D

ate

Salt

Use

d pe

r LM

(to

ns)

Even

ts th

is S

easo

nEs

timat

ed C

ost P

er L

ane

Mile

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Tota

l Th

aw-

Rox

(to

ns)

Tota

l C

lear

-La

ne

(tons

)BR

OW

N89

0.4

66.4

164

.117

227

715

,238

12,7

092,

529

070

89.0

4963

.0$8

25$8

93$6

12$2

,330

$2,0

74,1

1314

.30.

210

0

FON

D D

U L

AC60

5.3

71.1

955

.011

1326

410

,846

8,11

82,

728

521

69.0

3286

.0$9

28$4

77$4

84$1

,889

$1,1

43,1

4713

.40.

190

0

WIN

NEB

AGO

626.

5666

.88

46.0

618

2311

12,5

639,

081

3,48

20

2830

.027

06.0

$928

$482

$442

$1,8

52$1

,160

,630

14.5

0.22

00

SHEB

OYG

AN52

7.86

81.7

257

.113

1827

911

,135

8,72

12,

414

123

65.0

1215

.0$1

,134

$393

$322

$1,8

49$9

76,1

8216

.50.

200

0

MAN

ITO

WO

C42

6.01

78.9

858

.522

1720

108,

790

6,16

52,

625

026

54.0

1316

.0$8

96$5

59$3

90$1

,845

$785

,960

14.5

0.18

00

DO

OR

271.

884

.58

63.9

1418

2412

4,72

93,

541

1,18

82

616.

011

88.0

$903

$399

$409

$1,7

11$4

61,7

0013

.00.

150

0

MAR

INET

TE43

6.66

125.

0068

.426

3448

207,

382

5,55

31,

829

5237

88.0

117.

0$8

49$4

58$3

68$1

,675

$731

,311

12.7

0.10

00

CAL

UM

ET20

1.71

95.0

058

.213

2032

122,

907

1,80

41,

103

013

89.0

347.

8$5

46$4

80$3

38$1

,364

$275

,227

8.9

0.09

00

OC

ON

TO46

8.9

92.1

458

.913

2425

167,

246

5,01

42,

232

014

97.0

1404

.0$6

95$3

61$2

95$1

,352

$633

,731

10.7

0.12

00

OU

TAG

AMIE

538.

6372

.91

56.7

221

159

10,2

344,

941

5,29

38

2940

.015

72.0

$567

$397

$385

$1,3

49$7

26,5

199.

20.

130

0

KEW

AUN

EE11

1.35

63.9

665

.51

1618

41,

775

1,31

346

245

463.

054

.0$7

01$2

76$2

08$1

,185

$131

,946

11.8

0.18

00

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e81

.71

92,8

4566

,960

25,8

8511

325

27.3

1651

.7$8

16$4

71$3

87$1

,673

$9,1

00,4

66$8

27,3

1512

.759

.312

.520

.124

.110

.48,

440

6,08

72,

353

10

----

----

----

----

----

----

--0.

160 0

0 0

Page

2 o

f 6W

edne

sday

, Nov

embe

r 15,

201

7Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

119Tabl

e A

.1 -

Stor

m R

epor

t Sum

mar

yN

otes

: 1) C

osts

sho

wn

in ta

ble

are

estim

ated

and

do

not i

nclu

de th

e 4.

47%

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Cos

ts; 2

) Mat

eria

l Cos

ts in

clud

es S

alt,

Sand

, and

oth

er D

eici

ng a

nd A

nti-i

cing

Age

nts;

3)

Equi

pmen

t Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

$60

per h

our p

er u

nit;

4) L

abor

Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

each

Cou

nty'

s av

erag

e la

bor r

ate;

5) T

otal

Sal

t Ava

ilabl

e =

salt

in s

heds

as

of M

ay p

lus

early

fill,

pl

us s

easo

nal f

ill, p

lus

vend

or re

serv

e av

aila

ble.

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Reg

ion

NW

Cou

nty

Lane

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Snow

Amou

nt

(inch

es)

Anti-

Icin

gSt

orm

sIn

ci-

dent

Free

z. R

ain

Eve

nts

Tota

l Sa

lt Av

ail.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt U

sed

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt R

emai

n.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

nd

Use

d (C

Y)

Tota

l R

eg.

Hou

rs

Tota

l O

T H

ours

Mat

'lEq

uip

Labo

rTo

tal

Estim

ated

To

tal C

ost

to D

ate

Salt

Use

d pe

r LM

(to

ns)

Even

ts th

is S

easo

nEs

timat

ed C

ost P

er L

ane

Mile

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Tota

l Th

aw-

Rox

(to

ns)

Tota

l C

lear

-La

ne

(tons

)JA

CKS

ON

515.

4467

.43

53.5

020

1610

11,0

168,

531

2,48

50

1644

.015

89.0

$1,2

97$1

,676

$281

$3,2

53$1

,676

,905

16.6

0.25

00

EAU

CLA

IRE

540.

764

.13

58.1

122

105

11,8

9011

,059

831

436

80.0

1453

.0$1

,604

$485

$407

$2,4

96$1

,346

,773

20.5

0.32

00

CH

IPPE

WA

654.

6596

.46

85.9

325

227

14,4

2512

,230

2,19

545

328

22.0

3431

.0$1

,420

$555

$506

$2,4

80$1

,623

,723

18.7

0.19

00

DU

NN

519.

2496

.23

63.3

529

189

12,1

5710

,075

2,08

22

2210

.022

02.0

$1,4

59$4

57$4

78$2

,393

$1,2

42,6

4619

.40.

200

0

BAYF

IELD

316.

4214

3.66

96.0

143

4014

6,20

54,

976

1,22

914

023

33.0

923.

0$1

,070

$618

$437

$2,1

25$6

69,1

7215

.70.

110

0

DO

UG

LAS

451.

416

8.87

84.7

355

2718

10,1

687,

713

2,45

584

2810

.014

43.0

$1,0

31$5

11$4

39$1

,980

$893

,717

17.1

0.10

10

SAIN

T C

RO

IX64

5.34

83.6

259

.20

320

1414

,033

12,1

991,

834

3713

93.0

2261

.0$1

,302

$340

$327

$1,9

69$1

,270

,599

18.9

0.23

00

TAYL

OR

233.

911

0.61

66.5

1833

2415

4,39

43,

233

1,16

130

1178

.063

4.0

$1,1

70$4

45$3

44$1

,959

$458

,185

13.8

0.12

00

TREM

PEAL

EAU

442.

4881

.87

64.1

423

1113

7,36

46,

902

462

014

11.0

1801

.0$1

,127

$338

$355

$1,8

21$8

05,7

3415

.60.

190

0

CLA

RK

402.

5610

3.14

83.2

930

2316

7,20

75,

083

2,12

40

1655

.013

26.0

$976

$431

$349

$1,7

56$7

06,8

6112

.60.

120

0

WAS

HBU

RN

372.

1410

1.72

46.2

733

1118

7,97

46,

058

1,91

60

1466

.087

3.0

$1,0

96$3

77$2

74$1

,747

$650

,186

16.3

0.16

00

ASH

LAN

D24

5.35

144.

9911

9.6

349

2024

4,48

82,

691

1,79

729

213

42.0

605.

0$8

89$4

50$3

96$1

,736

$420

,182

11.0

0.08

00

POLK

385.

8112

6.40

55.1

1038

2118

7,97

95,

244

2,73

515

316

90.0

699.

0$9

95$3

44$2

96$1

,636

$630

,994

13.6

0.11

00

BAR

RO

N42

8.77

115.

1263

.12

3427

186,

059

3,97

92,

080

1527

2736

.099

4.0

$724

$469

$370

$1,5

63$6

70,1

669.

30.

080

1

PIER

CE

369.

4690

.76

59.1

526

1415

5,93

04,

340

1,59

085

1403

.010

22.0

$842

$341

$332

$1,5

15$5

59,7

4111

.70.

130

0

SAW

YER

367.

4411

2.20

58.4

036

2514

5,76

04,

276

1,48

414

911

57.0

863.

0$8

97$3

09$2

68$1

,474

$541

,450

11.6

0.10

00

RU

SK21

3.47

90.3

660

.40

3615

102,

762

2,41

434

810

195

7.0

399.

0$8

51$3

48$2

72$1

,471

$313

,961

11.3

0.13

00

BUR

NET

T23

7.93

97.8

045

.40

3611

113,

618

2,98

663

20

653.

067

9.0

$838

$300

$285

$1,4

23$3

38,5

3112

.50.

130

0

PEPI

N11

2.38

93.2

358

.313

2218

151,

117

698

419

060

5.0

445.

0$4

78$4

91$4

37$1

,405

$157

,885

6.2

0.07

00

BUFF

ALO

317.

0298

.17

69.3

1027

249

2,93

53,

188

-253

2113

93.0

777.

0$7

09$3

58$2

91$1

,358

$430

,425

10.1

0.10

00

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e10

4.34

147,

481

117,

875

29,6

0630

7817

26.9

1221

.0$1

,039

$482

$357

$1,8

78$1

5,40

7,83

4$7

70,3

9214

.167

.54.

732

.518

.913

.77,

374

5,89

41,

480

154

----

----

----

----

----

----

--0.

151 0

1 0

Page

3 o

f 6W

edne

sday

, Nov

embe

r 15,

201

7Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

120 Tabl

e A

.1 -

Stor

m R

epor

t Sum

mar

yN

otes

: 1) C

osts

sho

wn

in ta

ble

are

estim

ated

and

do

not i

nclu

de th

e 4.

47%

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Cos

ts; 2

) Mat

eria

l Cos

ts in

clud

es S

alt,

Sand

, and

oth

er D

eici

ng a

nd A

nti-i

cing

Age

nts;

3)

Equi

pmen

t Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

$60

per h

our p

er u

nit;

4) L

abor

Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

each

Cou

nty'

s av

erag

e la

bor r

ate;

5) T

otal

Sal

t Ava

ilabl

e =

salt

in s

heds

as

of M

ay p

lus

early

fill,

pl

us s

easo

nal f

ill, p

lus

vend

or re

serv

e av

aila

ble.

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Reg

ion

SE Cou

nty

Lane

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Snow

Amou

nt

(inch

es)

Anti-

Icin

gSt

orm

sIn

ci-

dent

Free

z. R

ain

Eve

nts

Tota

l Sa

lt Av

ail.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt U

sed

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt R

emai

n.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

nd

Use

d (C

Y)

Tota

l R

eg.

Hou

rs

Tota

l O

T H

ours

Mat

'lEq

uip

Labo

rTo

tal

Estim

ated

To

tal C

ost

to D

ate

Salt

Use

d pe

r LM

(to

ns)

Even

ts th

is S

easo

nEs

timat

ed C

ost P

er L

ane

Mile

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Tota

l Th

aw-

Rox

(to

ns)

Tota

l C

lear

-La

ne

(tons

)W

ASH

ING

TON

611.

9178

.49

54.4

818

167

16,9

0712

,212

4,69

50

1912

.029

89.0

$1,3

03$4

46$4

08$2

,157

$1,3

19,6

5120

.00.

250

0

OZA

UKE

E30

9.19

66.9

253

.07

1912

710

,225

6,98

53,

240

011

15.0

860.

0$1

,325

$383

$320

$2,0

28$6

27,1

6222

.60.

340

0

WAU

KESH

A10

73.9

754

.70

44.2

2117

27

25,7

9420

,596

5,19

80

4085

.032

08.0

$1,1

91$3

45$3

80$1

,917

$2,0

58,9

8219

.20.

350

0

KEN

OSH

A65

3.56

66.2

014

.823

230

712

,719

10,5

242,

195

192

4217

.014

46.0

$1,0

02$4

18$4

45$1

,865

$1,2

18,8

8016

.10.

240

0

MIL

WAU

KEE

1955

.81

62.6

736

.76

152

855

,180

27,6

4227

,538

072

27.0

8427

.0$8

49$4

07$5

54$1

,810

$3,5

40,1

8114

.10.

230

0

WAL

WO

RTH

706.

0365

.50

36.4

1318

256

19,5

6412

,878

6,68

62

4115

.077

6.0

$1,0

84$3

95$3

19$1

,798

$1,2

69,5

6718

.20.

280

0

RAC

INE

681.

8865

.10

50.9

318

147

15,5

757,

950

7,62

50

1645

.024

83.0

$734

$328

$392

$1,4

53$9

91,0

0811

.70.

180

0

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e65

.65

155,

964

98,7

8757

,177

194

3473

.728

84.1

$1,0

70$3

89$4

03$1

,861

$11,

025,

431

$1,5

75,0

6217

.441

.511

.618

.310

.17.

022

,281

14,1

128,

168

28

----

----

----

----

----

----

--0.

270 0

0 0

Page

4 o

f 6W

edne

sday

, Nov

embe

r 15,

201

7Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

121Tabl

e A

.1 -

Stor

m R

epor

t Sum

mar

yN

otes

: 1) C

osts

sho

wn

in ta

ble

are

estim

ated

and

do

not i

nclu

de th

e 4.

47%

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Cos

ts; 2

) Mat

eria

l Cos

ts in

clud

es S

alt,

Sand

, and

oth

er D

eici

ng a

nd A

nti-i

cing

Age

nts;

3)

Equi

pmen

t Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

$60

per h

our p

er u

nit;

4) L

abor

Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

each

Cou

nty'

s av

erag

e la

bor r

ate;

5) T

otal

Sal

t Ava

ilabl

e =

salt

in s

heds

as

of M

ay p

lus

early

fill,

pl

us s

easo

nal f

ill, p

lus

vend

or re

serv

e av

aila

ble.

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Reg

ion

SW Cou

nty

Lane

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Snow

Amou

nt

(inch

es)

Anti-

Icin

gSt

orm

sIn

ci-

dent

Free

z. R

ain

Eve

nts

Tota

l Sa

lt Av

ail.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt U

sed

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt R

emai

n.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

nd

Use

d (C

Y)

Tota

l R

eg.

Hou

rs

Tota

l O

T H

ours

Mat

'lEq

uip

Labo

rTo

tal

Estim

ated

To

tal C

ost

to D

ate

Salt

Use

d pe

r LM

(to

ns)

Even

ts th

is S

easo

nEs

timat

ed C

ost P

er L

ane

Mile

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Tota

l Th

aw-

Rox

(to

ns)

Tota

l C

lear

-La

ne

(tons

)D

ANE

1543

.772

.88

30.3

521

54

52,5

7330

,402

22,1

7114

4576

.011

439.

0$1

,483

$1,7

91$7

07$3

,981

$6,1

04,6

3019

.70.

270

0

CO

LUM

BIA

787.

496

.38

57.0

2115

268

26,0

5218

,933

7,11

964

529

01.0

3442

.0$1

,943

$485

$442

$2,8

70$2

,259

,710

24.0

0.25

00

DO

DG

E63

7.85

63.8

249

.17

1411

819

,302

13,4

655,

837

018

78.0

3410

.0$1

,483

$495

$330

$2,3

07$1

,471

,118

21.1

0.33

00

SAU

K57

6.25

95.7

153

.721

2029

1214

,334

9,83

44,

500

028

64.0

2681

.0$1

,343

$531

$421

$2,2

95$1

,322

,701

17.1

0.18

00

JUN

EAU

496.

2776

.38

59.5

920

209

9,82

48,

215

1,60

90

1987

.015

51.0

$1,2

79$3

76$3

52$2

,007

$996

,028

16.6

0.22

00

MO

NR

OE

654.

4392

.34

60.6

829

76

10,8

3711

,241

-404

3418

56.0

2049

.0$1

,304

$369

$263

$1,9

36$1

,266

,865

17.2

0.19

00

JEFF

ERSO

N54

9.67

63.7

534

.218

1913

913

,832

9,05

74,

775

014

13.0

2147

.0$1

,127

$394

$354

$1,8

75$1

,030

,856

16.5

0.26

00

IOW

A47

3.13

84.4

036

.412

2221

87,

677

6,79

987

812

124

51.0

1587

.0$1

,032

$365

$402

$1,8

00$8

51,5

0614

.40.

170

0

VER

NO

N46

8.36

79.1

441

.99

1421

87,

422

5,50

71,

915

431

3124

.028

03.0

$836

$370

$567

$1,7

72$8

30,0

9211

.80.

150

0

LA C

RO

SSE

503.

3146

.37

58.0

314

44

7,44

66,

140

1,30

619

813

68.0

1848

.0$8

27$3

60$3

31$1

,519

$764

,279

12.2

0.26

00

RIC

HLA

ND

327.

6482

.23

34.1

1118

2111

3,40

73,

359

4851

512

64.0

810.

0$7

89$3

35$2

88$1

,412

$462

,702

10.3

0.12

00

CR

AWFO

RD

395.

7988

.75

44.4

624

287

5,24

64,

291

955

326

1211

.011

10.0

$830

$324

$256

$1,4

10$5

54,5

5210

.80.

120

0

GR

ANT

622.

0677

.41

32.6

818

265

10,6

347,

594

3,04

020

2114

15.0

1891

.0$8

18$3

04$2

45$1

,367

$850

,113

12.2

0.16

00

RO

CK

706.

0348

.04

36.8

117

126

15,9

367,

730

8,20

651

1318

.022

89.0

$725

$277

$291

$1,2

94$9

13,7

0510

.90.

230

0

GR

EEN

314.

6462

.48

34.2

1419

127

2,66

82,

139

529

7296

2.0

933.

0$5

08$3

09$2

55$1

,072

$337

,448

6.8

0.11

00

LAFA

YETT

E29

9.38

63.0

324

.49

1317

82,

600

2,24

935

112

3767

7.0

739.

0$5

29$2

65$1

98$9

92$2

96,9

727.

50.

120

0

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e74

.57

209,

790

146,

955

62,8

3556

6519

54.1

2545

.6$1

,054

$459

$356

$1,8

69$2

0,31

3,27

7$1

,269

,580

14.3

43.0

10.1

18.6

17.1

7.5

13,1

129,

185

3,92

735

4

----

----

----

----

----

----

--0.

200 0

0 0

Page

5 o

f 6W

edne

sday

, Nov

embe

r 15,

201

7Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

122 Tabl

e A

.1 -

Stor

m R

epor

t Sum

mar

yN

otes

: 1) C

osts

sho

wn

in ta

ble

are

estim

ated

and

do

not i

nclu

de th

e 4.

47%

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Cos

ts; 2

) Mat

eria

l Cos

ts in

clud

es S

alt,

Sand

, and

oth

er D

eici

ng a

nd A

nti-i

cing

Age

nts;

3)

Equi

pmen

t Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

$60

per h

our p

er u

nit;

4) L

abor

Cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

each

Cou

nty'

s av

erag

e la

bor r

ate;

5) T

otal

Sal

t Ava

ilabl

e =

salt

in s

heds

as

of M

ay p

lus

early

fill,

pl

us s

easo

nal f

ill, p

lus

vend

or re

serv

e av

aila

ble.

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

728,

805

525,

276

203,

529

1446

7.0

1664

.9$1

,027

$457

$364

$1,8

47

$68,

127,

466

2160

.6$9

46,2

15St

atew

ide

Aver

age

Stat

ewid

e To

tal

14.6

91.1

410

,122

7,29

62,

827

60.2

200.

9

----

----

----

----

----

----

--8.

826

.018

.511

.70.

17

--1 0.0

1 0.0

Lane

Mile

sSe

verit

yIn

dex

Snow

Amou

nt

(inch

es)

Anti-

Icin

gSt

orm

sIn

ci-

dent

Free

z. R

ain

Eve

nts

Tota

l Sa

lt Av

ail.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt U

sed

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

lt R

emai

n.

(tons

)

Tota

l Sa

nd

Use

d (C

Y)

Tota

l R

eg.

Hou

rs

Tota

l O

T H

ours

Mat

'lEq

uip

Labo

rTo

tal

Estim

ated

To

tal C

ost

to D

ate

Salt

Use

d pe

r LM

(to

ns)

Even

ts th

is S

easo

nEs

timat

ed C

ost P

er L

ane

Mile

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Tota

l Th

aw-

Rox

(to

ns)

Tota

l C

lear

-La

ne

(tons

)

Page

6 o

f 6W

edne

sday

, Nov

embe

r 15,

201

7Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

123

5/22/2017

Michael J. Adams

WEATHER FORECAST SERVICES EVALUATION 2017

WMS

124

This document contains the verification study of forecasts provided by Iteris to Wisconsin DOT for the winter of 2016-17. It is a statistical analysis of the accuracy of those forecasts, using a methodology developed over 15 years ago and refined several times since then.

125

Executive Summary

Introduction

In 2016-17, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) continued using weather and pavement forecast information provided by Iteris. The information is received through the Maintenance Decision Support System (MDSS) and through alerts received via text or voice messages. In order to assess the quality of these weather and pavement temperature forecasts provided to WisDOT and the county highway departments who provide winter maintenance on the state trunk highway system, the WisDOT Road Weather Information System (RWIS) Program Manager performed a verification study on these forecasts. The primary aim of this study is to uncover any potential problems in forecast accuracy, with the ultimate goal being to use the findings to improve the quality of weather and pavement temperature forecast information provided by Iteris or any other provider of forecast information. All information presented in this report is for forecasts provided by Iteris since 2005-06, first via a web site and, after 2009-10, MDSS.

Verification Procedures

Forecasts for eight locations were examined: Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Wausau, La Crosse, Eau Claire, and Rhinelander, and Rice Lake. The time period covered by the verification study was December 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. Four specific criteria were examined: snow, freezing precipitation, wind speed, and pavement temperature. Due to road construction at the La Crosse RWIS site, no pavement temperature verification was performed there. For the first two criteria, the verification methodology is based on a paper presented by John Thornes at the 1998 Standing International Road Weather Commission (SIRWEC) conference. It is based on common meteorological forecast verification techniques. The basis of the method is to choose two time periods (in our case 0 to 6 hours and 6 to 24 hours after forecast issuance) during the forecasts and see if the particular criterion was forecast to occur and whether it actually occurred during the periods being examined. In other words, was snow forecast to occur and did it occur? Two-by-two contingency tables are then constructed. A number of statistics were calculated, each of which provides a different piece of intelligence. Goal scores for each statistic have also been established. For pavement temperature and wind speed, the forecast values 3 and 9 hours after forecast issuance times were compared to the actual values and error statistics were computed. In addition, the timing error for the start and stop of precipitation and the lead time provided by the winter storm alert service were also examined. Results of this and previous studies are made available to Iteris or whoever the current forecast provider is. It is expected that Iteris will use the results of these studies to continue to improve upon their weather support to WisDOT and the county highway departments.

126

Verification Results

• Precipitation forecasts. Accuracy improved in the both the short and long term forecasts. The False Alarm Rate, which had been an issue the past two winters, improved this season, though there was a corresponding decline in the Probability of Detection.

• Timing error. Timing errors for both the start and end times of snow continue to be superb. The average timing error for the start of storms in the short term forecasts was 1 hour, 12 minutes, 15 minutes better than last year. This was the best result ever recorded.

• Pavement temperature. Performance declined and failed to meet goal scores. Forecasts exhibited somewhat of a cold bias.

127

• Winds. Wind forecast accuracy continued to be excellent and remained steady compared to last year. The only issue was a strong tendency to over forecast speeds near the 15 mph threshold.

• Winter storm alerts. Performance was about the same as the previous winter, and again failed to meet expectations. For the winter, only 59 percent of events were preceded by an alert issued more than two hours in advance, as required by WisDOT’s contract with Iteris.

Legend:Met: warning issued more than 2 hours before event onset

Before: warning issued before event onsetAfter: warning issued after event onset

Never: no warning ever issued for event

128

• Action Items

Iteris must investigate the cause of the strong tendency to over-forecast wind speeds near the 15 mph threshold. Iteris must investigate improvements to the MetAlert warning system to ensure that more events are preceded by alerts meeting the required 2-hour lead time.

129

Cou

nty

Goo

dFa

irPo

orTi

mes

Use

dTi

mes

N

ot

Use

d

% o

f Ev

ents

Use

d

Salt

Use

d (to

ns)

Snow

A

mou

nt

(inch

es)

Seve

rity

Inde

xN

o. o

f A

nti-I

ce

App

l.

No.

of

Stor

ms

Even

ts

No.

of

Inci

dent

s R

epor

ted

No.

of

Free

zing

Rai

ns

Tabl

e A

-2. W

eath

er F

orec

astin

g Se

rvic

e U

sage

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Reg

ion

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

MAR

QU

ETTE

112

619

386

%4,

541

40.5

58.1

616

146

0.32

NC

MEN

OM

INEE

66

214

1058

%1,

558

58.7

77.7

024

254

0.22

ON

EID

A0

361

370

100%

8,24

786

.310

7.7

433

67

0.19

SHAW

ANO

313

117

1849

%7,

968

72.9

93.7

1025

307

0.16

WAU

PAC

A0

60

621

22%

7,70

251

.988

.43

2423

70.

16

ADAM

S22

180

403

93%

3,37

445

.811

1.6

2221

825

0.16

VILA

S1

491

515

91%

6,08

310

8.5

127.

79

4721

100.

16

WO

OD

037

239

010

0%6,

695

72.7

107.

88

3117

110.

15

FLO

REN

CE

435

1554

010

0%2,

627

91.6

132.

713

4124

100.

14

IRO

N24

84

3614

72%

5,06

313

1.9

145.

20

5018

60.

14

FOR

EST

246

535

685

%4,

434

90.3

109.

03

388

50.

13

GR

EEN

LAK

E6

122

201

95%

1,59

942

.079

.04

1715

100.

13

WAU

SHAR

A7

150

223

88%

3,61

252

.686

.62

2319

80.

12

MAR

ATH

ON

716

427

2750

%11

,158

64.2

112.

623

3131

60.

11

POR

TAG

E2

1225

390

100%

7,41

561

.711

2.0

336

229

0.11

LAN

GLA

DE

836

549

591

%3,

533

72.3

106.

621

3332

60.

11

LIN

CO

LN0

00

050

0%4,

887

86.0

125.

618

3221

120.

10

PRIC

E2

610

630

100%

4,20

312

6.0

142.

18

559

100.

09

6.5

21.0

4.1

31.6

9.2

5,26

1.1

75.3

106.

98.

732

.119

.18.

80.

15R

egio

n A

vera

ge76

.7%

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

130

Cou

nty

Goo

dFa

irPo

orTi

mes

Use

dTi

mes

N

ot

Use

d

% o

f Ev

ents

Use

d

Salt

Use

d (to

ns)

Snow

A

mou

nt

(inch

es)

Seve

rity

Inde

xN

o. o

f A

nti-I

ce

App

l.

No.

of

Stor

ms

Even

ts

No.

of

Inci

dent

s R

epor

ted

No.

of

Free

zing

Rai

ns

Tabl

e A

-2. W

eath

er F

orec

astin

g Se

rvic

e U

sage

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Reg

ion

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

WIN

NEB

AGO

218

323

196

%9,

081

46.0

66.9

618

233

0.22

NE

BRO

WN

118

120

1951

%12

,709

64.1

66.4

1722

71

0.21

SHEB

OYG

AN24

30

274

87%

8,72

157

.181

.713

1827

60.

20

FON

D D

U L

AC1

111

1311

54%

8,11

855

.071

.211

1326

10.

19

KEW

AU

NEE

016

016

194

%1,

313

65.5

64.0

116

181

0.18

MAN

ITO

WO

C6

172

2514

64%

6,16

558

.579

.022

1720

70.

18

DO

OR

1711

129

391

%3,

541

63.9

84.6

1418

246

0.15

OU

TAG

AMIE

414

422

196

%4,

941

56.7

72.9

221

153

0.13

OC

ON

TO4

203

2710

73%

5,01

458

.992

.113

2425

90.

12

MAR

INET

TE33

00

3327

55%

5,55

368

.412

5.0

2634

4810

0.10

CA

LUM

ET

293

032

197

%1,

804

58.2

95.0

1320

329

0.09

11.9

11.0

1.4

24.3

8.4

6,08

7.3

59.3

81.7

12.5

20.1

24.1

5.1

0.16

Reg

ion

Ave

rage

78.0

%

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

2 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

131

Cou

nty

Goo

dFa

irPo

orTi

mes

Use

dTi

mes

N

ot

Use

d

% o

f Ev

ents

Use

d

Salt

Use

d (to

ns)

Snow

A

mou

nt

(inch

es)

Seve

rity

Inde

xN

o. o

f A

nti-I

ce

App

l.

No.

of

Stor

ms

Even

ts

No.

of

Inci

dent

s R

epor

ted

No.

of

Free

zing

Rai

ns

Tabl

e A

-2. W

eath

er F

orec

astin

g Se

rvic

e U

sage

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Reg

ion

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

EAU

CLA

IRE

615

223

010

0%11

,059

58.1

64.1

122

102

0.32

NW

JAC

KSO

N0

00

020

0%8,

531

53.5

67.4

020

163

0.25

SAI

NT

CR

OIX

013

1629

391

%12

,199

59.2

83.6

032

08

0.23

DU

NN

1315

230

488

%10

,075

63.3

96.2

529

186

0.20

CH

IPPE

WA

02

13

2511

%12

,230

85.9

96.5

325

226

0.19

TRE

MP

EA

LEA

188

127

010

0%6,

902

64.1

81.9

423

116

0.19

WA

SH

BU

RN

720

1138

295

%6,

058

46.2

101.

77

3311

110.

16

PIER

CE

1813

031

010

0%4,

340

59.1

90.8

526

149

0.13

BUR

NET

T0

333

360

100%

2,98

645

.497

.80

3611

70.

13

RU

SK0

00

036

0%2,

414

60.4

90.4

036

157

0.13

TAYL

OR

337

040

1178

%3,

233

66.5

110.

618

3324

90.

12

CLA

RK

03

2629

1074

%5,

083

83.2

103.

19

3023

40.

12

BAYF

IELD

00

00

440%

4,97

696

.014

3.7

143

401

0.11

POLK

022

224

2450

%5,

244

55.1

126.

410

3821

150.

11

SAW

YER

00

00

360%

4,27

658

.411

2.2

036

255

0.10

BUFF

ALO

270

027

1073

%3,

188

69.3

98.2

1027

243

0.10

DO

UG

LAS

1228

545

1378

%7,

713

84.7

168.

93

5527

130.

10

BAR

RO

N0

340

342

94%

3,97

963

.111

5.1

234

277

0.08

ASH

LAN

D2

500

520

100%

2,69

111

9.6

145.

03

4920

50.

08

PEPI

N22

90

314

89%

698

58.3

93.2

1322

188

0.07

7.9

13.6

3.5

25.0

12.2

5,89

3.8

67.5

104.

34.

732

.518

.96.

80.

15R

egio

n A

vera

ge66

.0%

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

3 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

132

Cou

nty

Goo

dFa

irPo

orTi

mes

Use

dTi

mes

N

ot

Use

d

% o

f Ev

ents

Use

d

Salt

Use

d (to

ns)

Snow

A

mou

nt

(inch

es)

Seve

rity

Inde

xN

o. o

f A

nti-I

ce

App

l.

No.

of

Stor

ms

Even

ts

No.

of

Inci

dent

s R

epor

ted

No.

of

Free

zing

Rai

ns

Tabl

e A

-2. W

eath

er F

orec

astin

g Se

rvic

e U

sage

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Reg

ion

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

WAU

KESH

A21

10

2216

58%

20,5

9644

.254

.721

172

50.

35SE

OZA

UKE

E8

161

251

96%

6,98

553

.066

.97

1912

40.

34

WAL

WO

RTH

136

221

1068

%12

,878

36.4

65.5

1318

254

0.28

WA

SH

ING

TON

124

126

010

0%12

,212

54.4

78.5

818

164

0.25

KEN

OS

HA

00

00

460%

10,5

2414

.866

.223

230

70.

24

MIL

WAU

KEE

142

117

481

%27

,642

36.7

62.7

615

27

0.23

RAC

INE

017

118

386

%7,

950

50.9

65.1

318

144

0.18

8.1

9.4

0.9

18.4

11.4

14,1

12.4

41.5

65.7

11.6

18.3

10.1

5.0

0.27

Reg

ion

Ave

rage

69.8

%

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

4 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

133

Cou

nty

Goo

dFa

irPo

orTi

mes

Use

dTi

mes

N

ot

Use

d

% o

f Ev

ents

Use

d

Salt

Use

d (to

ns)

Snow

A

mou

nt

(inch

es)

Seve

rity

Inde

xN

o. o

f A

nti-I

ce

App

l.

No.

of

Stor

ms

Even

ts

No.

of

Inci

dent

s R

epor

ted

No.

of

Free

zing

Rai

ns

Tabl

e A

-2. W

eath

er F

orec

astin

g Se

rvic

e U

sage

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Reg

ion

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

DO

DG

E0

00

021

0%13

,465

49.1

63.8

714

115

0.33

SW

DAN

E4

122

188

69%

30,4

0230

.372

.95

215

40.

27

LA C

RO

SSE

114

217

010

0%6,

140

58.0

46.4

314

41

0.26

JEFF

ER

SON

025

429

878

%9,

057

34.2

63.7

1819

136

0.26

CO

LUM

BIA

213

318

1850

%18

,933

57.0

96.4

2115

263

0.25

RO

CK

00

00

180%

7,73

036

.848

.01

1712

40.

23

JUN

EAU

89

118

1162

%8,

215

59.5

76.4

920

204

0.22

MO

NR

OE

34

18

2922

%11

,241

60.6

92.3

829

75

0.19

SAU

K8

185

3110

76%

9,83

453

.795

.721

2029

90.

18

IOW

A2

147

2311

68%

6,79

936

.484

.412

2221

70.

17

GR

ANT

167

326

010

0%7,

594

32.6

77.4

818

264

0.16

VER

NO

N7

80

158

65%

5,50

741

.979

.19

1421

50.

15

RIC

HLA

ND

020

626

390

%3,

359

34.1

82.2

1118

2110

0.12

CR

AWFO

RD

126

229

197

%4,

291

44.4

88.8

624

285

0.12

LAFA

YE

TTE

49

316

673

%2,

249

24.4

63.0

913

177

0.12

GR

EEN

175

123

1070

%2,

139

34.2

62.5

1419

125

0.11

4.6

11.5

2.5

18.6

10.1

9,18

4.7

43.0

74.6

10.1

18.6

17.1

5.3

0.20

Reg

ion

Ave

rage

63.7

%

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

5 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

134

Cou

nty

Goo

dFa

irPo

orTi

mes

Use

dTi

mes

N

ot

Use

d

% o

f Ev

ents

Use

d

Salt

Use

d (to

ns)

Snow

A

mou

nt

(inch

es)

Seve

rity

Inde

xN

o. o

f A

nti-I

ce

App

l.

No.

of

Stor

ms

Even

ts

No.

of

Inci

dent

s R

epor

ted

No.

of

Free

zing

Rai

ns

Tabl

e A

-2. W

eath

er F

orec

astin

g Se

rvic

e U

sage

Salt

per

LM p

er

Seve

rity

Inde

x

Reg

ion

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

7.4

14.2

2.8

24.4

10.3

7,29

5.5

60.2

91.1

8.8

26.0

18.5

6.5

0.17

Stat

ewid

e A

vera

ge70

.4%

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

6 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

135

Tabl

e A

.3. A

nti-i

cing

Det

ails

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Cou

nty

$ M

at'l

$ Eq

uip

$ La

bor

$ To

tal

Estim

ated

Cos

tsA

nti-

Icin

gap

plic

.

Wha

t wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

caus

ed y

ou to

ant

i-ice

? O

r did

you

do

anti-

icin

g on

a ro

utin

e sc

hedu

le?

Wet

Sno

wD

ry S

now

Frz

Rai

nSl

eet

Fros

tR

outin

e

Reg

ion

WA

US

HA

RA

096

059

71,

557

20

00

01

1N

C

FOR

ES

T0

540

294

834

33

00

10

0

WA

UP

ACA

01,

260

941

2,20

13

01

00

30

POR

TAG

E0

2,40

01,

534

3,93

43

10

00

20

GR

EE

N L

AKE

01,

560

1,04

32,

603

43

04

10

0

ON

EID

A0

3,42

02,

364

5,78

44

20

30

10

MA

RQ

UE

TTE

03,

840

3,20

97,

049

61

11

01

3

PR

ICE

01,

980

1,28

93,

269

81

01

07

0

WO

OD

02,

400

1,68

24,

082

85

03

06

0

VIL

AS

06,

120

4,13

810

,258

94

03

00

5

SH

AW

ANO

04,

440

2,44

86,

888

102

13

00

6

FLO

RE

NC

E0

4,86

03,

116

7,97

613

90

64

30

LIN

CO

LN0

11,5

807,

587

19,1

6718

150

114

00

LAN

GLA

DE

06,

120

5,30

511

,425

2113

24

02

5

AD

AM

S8,

050

4,98

03,

921

16,9

5122

140

173

03

MA

RA

THO

N0

19,8

6016

,159

36,0

1923

00

00

221

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

136

Tabl

e A

.3. A

nti-i

cing

Det

ails

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Cou

nty

$ M

at'l

$ Eq

uip

$ La

bor

$ To

tal

Estim

ated

Cos

tsA

nti-

Icin

gap

plic

.

Wha

t wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

caus

ed y

ou to

ant

i-ice

? O

r did

you

do

anti-

icin

g on

a ro

utin

e sc

hedu

le?

Wet

Sno

wD

ry S

now

Frz

Rai

nSl

eet

Fros

tR

outin

e

Reg

ion

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e8,

050

503

76,3

20

4,77

0

55,6

27

3,47

7

139,

997

8,75

0

157 10

735

5613

2844

----

----

----

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

2 o

f 8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

137

Tabl

e A

.3. A

nti-i

cing

Det

ails

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Cou

nty

$ M

at'l

$ Eq

uip

$ La

bor

$ To

tal

Estim

ated

Cos

tsA

nti-

Icin

gap

plic

.

Wha

t wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

caus

ed y

ou to

ant

i-ice

? O

r did

you

do

anti-

icin

g on

a ro

utin

e sc

hedu

le?

Wet

Sno

wD

ry S

now

Frz

Rai

nSl

eet

Fros

tR

outin

e

Reg

ion

KE

WA

UN

EE

024

017

041

01

00

00

01

NE

OU

TAG

AMIE

024

023

547

52

00

00

20

WIN

NE

BA

GO

03,

360

4,70

68,

066

60

12

16

0

FON

D D

U L

AC

011

,280

9,85

621

,136

110

00

00

11

OC

ON

TO0

12,5

408,

647

21,1

8713

10

30

010

SH

EB

OYG

AN

08,

520

6,74

615

,266

136

32

12

2

CAL

UM

ET0

5,10

03,

264

8,36

413

34

62

11

DO

OR

9,02

06,

300

4,86

420

,184

146

43

55

3

BR

OW

N53

818

,900

11,3

0930

,747

170

00

00

17

MA

NIT

OW

OC

08,

220

5,02

613

,246

221

04

14

13

MA

RIN

ETT

E0

6,30

04,

809

11,1

0926

00

00

026

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e9,

558

869

81,0

00

7,36

4

59,6

31

5,42

1

150,

189

13,6

54

138 13

1712

2010

2084

----

----

----

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

3 o

f 8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

138

Tabl

e A

.3. A

nti-i

cing

Det

ails

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Cou

nty

$ M

at'l

$ Eq

uip

$ La

bor

$ To

tal

Estim

ated

Cos

tsA

nti-

Icin

gap

plic

.

Wha

t wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

caus

ed y

ou to

ant

i-ice

? O

r did

you

do

anti-

icin

g on

a ro

utin

e sc

hedu

le?

Wet

Sno

wD

ry S

now

Frz

Rai

nSl

eet

Fros

tR

outin

e

Reg

ion

EA

U C

LAIR

E75

81,

440

1,12

73,

325

10

00

10

0N

W

BAYF

IELD

7536

022

365

81

00

00

01

BA

RR

ON

01,

200

413

1,61

32

00

00

02

DO

UG

LAS

01,

260

875

2,13

53

00

11

01

AS

HLA

ND

1,91

31,

440

1,03

84,

390

31

00

03

0

CH

IPP

EW

A0

2,46

01,

744

4,20

43

30

30

00

TRE

MPE

ALE

AU

02,

700

1,79

54,

495

43

04

20

0

DU

NN

04,

020

3,86

87,

888

51

01

10

3

PIE

RC

E0

2,04

03,

095

5,13

55

23

32

10

WA

SHBU

RN

02,

820

1,72

94,

549

72

01

06

0

CLA

RK

213,

420

2,46

75,

908

90

00

00

9

PO

LK0

1,98

01,

626

3,60

610

10

41

15

BUFF

ALO

105

3,96

02,

990

7,05

510

00

00

010

PEPI

N0

9,84

07,

213

17,0

5313

45

55

61

TAY

LOR

05,

640

3,55

39,

193

186

20

00

11

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e2,

872

191

44,5

80

2,97

2

33,7

57

2,25

0

81,2

09

5,41

4

94 6

2310

2213

1743

----

----

----

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

4 o

f 8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

139

Tabl

e A

.3. A

nti-i

cing

Det

ails

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Cou

nty

$ M

at'l

$ Eq

uip

$ La

bor

$ To

tal

Estim

ated

Cos

tsA

nti-

Icin

gap

plic

.

Wha

t wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

caus

ed y

ou to

ant

i-ice

? O

r did

you

do

anti-

icin

g on

a ro

utin

e sc

hedu

le?

Wet

Sno

wD

ry S

now

Frz

Rai

nSl

eet

Fros

tR

outin

e

Reg

ion

RA

CIN

E0

1,02

084

61,

866

30

00

00

3S

E

MIL

WA

UK

EE

06,

840

9,59

916

,439

61

00

01

4

OZA

UK

EE

06,

720

4,61

311

,333

72

30

01

1

WA

SHIN

GTO

N0

1,86

01,

229

3,08

98

10

10

60

WA

LWO

RTH

07,

020

5,34

012

,360

130

00

03

10

WA

UK

ESH

A0

17,2

2025

,084

42,3

0421

31

00

116

KE

NO

SH

A0

18,9

0030

,050

48,9

5023

00

20

120

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e0 0

59,5

80

8,51

1

76,7

62

10,9

66

136,

342

19,4

77

81 12

74

30

1354

----

----

----

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

5 o

f 8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

140

Tabl

e A

.3. A

nti-i

cing

Det

ails

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Cou

nty

$ M

at'l

$ Eq

uip

$ La

bor

$ To

tal

Estim

ated

Cos

tsA

nti-

Icin

gap

plic

.

Wha

t wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

caus

ed y

ou to

ant

i-ice

? O

r did

you

do

anti-

icin

g on

a ro

utin

e sc

hedu

le?

Wet

Sno

wD

ry S

now

Frz

Rai

nSl

eet

Fros

tR

outin

e

Reg

ion

RO

CK

01,

500

1,10

42,

604

10

00

00

1S

W

LA C

RO

SS

E0

2,16

01,

591

3,75

13

10

11

20

DAN

E8,

266

6,30

06,

053

20,6

195

01

00

31

CR

AW

FOR

D2,

310

1,62

01,

056

4,98

66

32

00

01

DO

DG

E37

38,

280

5,49

114

,144

73

12

10

3

GR

AN

T0

3,54

02,

349

5,88

98

22

11

40

MO

NR

OE

06,

120

2,73

98,

859

80

03

10

4

JUN

EAU

07,

260

5,97

113

,231

90

00

00

9

VE

RN

ON

03,

720

2,49

86,

218

90

01

11

8

LAFA

YET

TE0

3,48

02,

125

5,60

59

10

10

26

RIC

HLA

ND

016

,260

12,2

2428

,484

118

35

02

0

IOW

A0

6,24

04,

769

11,0

0912

10

00

011

GR

EE

N0

3,66

04,

521

8,18

114

00

00

410

JEFF

ER

SO

N0

12,4

806,

342

18,8

2218

01

20

132

CO

LUM

BIA

1,30

413

,500

10,2

2925

,033

212

21

10

18

SA

UK

010

,980

6,80

317

,783

215

14

14

9

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

6 o

f 8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

141

Tabl

e A

.3. A

nti-i

cing

Det

ails

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Cou

nty

$ M

at'l

$ Eq

uip

$ La

bor

$ To

tal

Estim

ated

Cos

tsA

nti-

Icin

gap

plic

.

Wha

t wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

caus

ed y

ou to

ant

i-ice

? O

r did

you

do

anti-

icin

g on

a ro

utin

e sc

hedu

le?

Wet

Sno

wD

ry S

now

Frz

Rai

nSl

eet

Fros

tR

outin

e

Reg

ion

Reg

ion

Tota

lR

egio

n Av

erag

e12

,253 76

6

107,

100

6,69

4

75,8

64

4,74

2

195,

217

12,2

01

162 10

2613

217

3583

----

----

----

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

7 o

f 8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

142

Tabl

e A

.3. A

nti-i

cing

Det

ails

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

Cou

nty

$ M

at'l

$ Eq

uip

$ La

bor

$ To

tal

Estim

ated

Cos

tsA

nti-

Icin

gap

plic

.

Wha

t wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

caus

ed y

ou to

ant

i-ice

? O

r did

you

do

anti-

icin

g on

a ro

utin

e sc

hedu

le?

Wet

Sno

wD

ry S

now

Frz

Rai

nSl

eet

Fros

tR

outin

e

Reg

ion

Stat

ewid

e To

tal

632

146

32,7

3336

8,58

030

1,64

270

2,95

444

122

4311

330

8

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

8 o

f 8Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

143

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

CaC

l2

(gal

)N

aCl

Brin

e (g

al)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB_M

80 (g

al)

Free

zeG

uard

(gal

)

Tabl

e A

.4. A

nnua

l Ant

i-ici

ng A

gent

Usa

ge

CaC

l2D

OW

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

ar

Gol

d

MC

95(g

al)

Cal

iber

M

1000

(gal

)

Cal

iber

M

2000

(gal

)

Bio

Mel

t 6

4(g

al)

Geo

-M

elt

(gal

)

Ice

Bite

55

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

AM

P(g

al)

Bee

t H

eat

(gal

)

NC

AD

AM

S0

47,3

500

00

00

00

00

00

00

FLO

RE

NC

E0

54,2

500

00

00

00

00

00

00

FOR

ES

T0

3,30

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

GR

EE

N L

AK

E0

5,72

50

00

00

00

00

00

00

IRO

N0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

LAN

GLA

DE

050

,700

269

00

00

00

00

00

00

LIN

CO

LN0

165,

740

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

MA

RA

THO

N0

69,0

750

00

00

00

00

00

00

MA

RQ

UE

TTE

052

,085

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

ME

NO

MIN

EE

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

ON

EID

A0

17,4

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

PO

RTA

GE

04,

247

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

PR

ICE

08,

958

260

00

00

00

00

00

0

SH

AW

AN

O0

43,0

500

00

00

00

00

00

00

VIL

AS

027

,382

00

00

00

00

079

00

00

WA

UP

AC

A0

2,55

70

00

00

00

00

00

00

WA

US

HA

RA

01,

950

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

WO

OD

013

,800

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Reg

ion

Tota

l0

567,

569

295

00

00

00

00

790

00

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

144

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

CaC

l2

(gal

)N

aCl

Brin

e (g

al)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB_M

80 (g

al)

Free

zeG

uard

(gal

)

Tabl

e A

.4. A

nnua

l Ant

i-ici

ng A

gent

Usa

ge

CaC

l2D

OW

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

ar

Gol

d

MC

95(g

al)

Cal

iber

M

1000

(gal

)

Cal

iber

M

2000

(gal

)

Bio

Mel

t 6

4(g

al)

Geo

-M

elt

(gal

)

Ice

Bite

55

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

AM

P(g

al)

Bee

t H

eat

(gal

)

NE

BR

OW

N0

53,8

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

CA

LUM

ET

023

,250

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

DO

OR

045

,100

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

FON

D D

U L

AC

040

,473

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

KE

WA

UN

EE

01,

600

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

MAN

ITO

WO

C0

109,

300

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

MA

RIN

ETT

E0

82,9

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

OC

ON

TO0

29,8

110

00

00

00

00

00

00

OU

TAG

AM

IE0

900

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

SH

EB

OY

GA

N0

31,7

290

00

00

00

00

00

00

WIN

NE

BA

GO

031

,125

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Reg

ion

Tota

l0

449,

988

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

2 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

145

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

CaC

l2

(gal

)N

aCl

Brin

e (g

al)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB_M

80 (g

al)

Free

zeG

uard

(gal

)

Tabl

e A

.4. A

nnua

l Ant

i-ici

ng A

gent

Usa

ge

CaC

l2D

OW

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

ar

Gol

d

MC

95(g

al)

Cal

iber

M

1000

(gal

)

Cal

iber

M

2000

(gal

)

Bio

Mel

t 6

4(g

al)

Geo

-M

elt

(gal

)

Ice

Bite

55

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

AM

P(g

al)

Bee

t H

eat

(gal

)

NW

AS

HLA

ND

05,

893

00

622

00

00

00

00

00

BA

RR

ON

045

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

BA

YFI

ELD

050

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

BU

FFA

LO0

10,5

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

BUR

NET

T0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

CH

IPP

EW

A60

26,

020

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

CLA

RK

02,

140

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

DO

UG

LAS

01,

350

00

300

00

00

00

00

00

DU

NN

03,

810

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

EA

U C

LAIR

E20

01,

600

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

JAC

KS

ON

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

PE

PIN

08,

050

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

PIE

RC

E0

6,80

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

PO

LK0

792

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

RU

SK

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

SA

INT

CR

OIX

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

SA

WY

ER

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

TAY

LOR

06,

100

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

TRE

MP

EA

LEA

U0

12,0

500

100

00

00

00

00

00

0

WA

SH

BU

RN

01,

428

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Reg

ion

Tota

l80

267

,483

010

092

20

00

00

00

00

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

3 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

146

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

CaC

l2

(gal

)N

aCl

Brin

e (g

al)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB_M

80 (g

al)

Free

zeG

uard

(gal

)

Tabl

e A

.4. A

nnua

l Ant

i-ici

ng A

gent

Usa

ge

CaC

l2D

OW

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

ar

Gol

d

MC

95(g

al)

Cal

iber

M

1000

(gal

)

Cal

iber

M

2000

(gal

)

Bio

Mel

t 6

4(g

al)

Geo

-M

elt

(gal

)

Ice

Bite

55

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

AM

P(g

al)

Bee

t H

eat

(gal

)

SE

KE

NO

SH

A0

03,

805

00

00

00

00

00

00

MIL

WA

UK

EE

029

,000

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

OZA

UK

EE

1,35

09,

700

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

RA

CIN

E0

1,90

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

WA

LWO

RTH

026

,050

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

WA

SH

ING

TON

03,

300

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

WAU

KESH

A8,

191

141,

473

00

00

00

00

016

,390

00

0

Reg

ion

Tota

l9,

541

211,

423

3,80

50

00

00

00

016

,390

00

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

4 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

147

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

CaC

l2

(gal

)N

aCl

Brin

e (g

al)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB_M

80 (g

al)

Free

zeG

uard

(gal

)

Tabl

e A

.4. A

nnua

l Ant

i-ici

ng A

gent

Usa

ge

CaC

l2D

OW

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

ar

Gol

d

MC

95(g

al)

Cal

iber

M

1000

(gal

)

Cal

iber

M

2000

(gal

)

Bio

Mel

t 6

4(g

al)

Geo

-M

elt

(gal

)

Ice

Bite

55

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

AM

P(g

al)

Bee

t H

eat

(gal

)

SW

CO

LUM

BIA

013

0,40

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

CR

AW

FOR

D0

16,5

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

DA

NE

030

,615

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

DO

DG

E0

37,3

180

00

00

00

00

00

3,70

00

GR

AN

T0

50,1

300

00

00

00

00

00

3,25

00

GR

EE

N0

8,37

50

00

00

00

00

00

00

IOW

A0

49,8

420

00

00

00

00

00

5,41

80

JEFF

ER

SO

N0

18,4

120

00

00

00

00

00

560

JUN

EA

U0

93,0

700

07,

500

00

00

00

00

00

LA C

RO

SS

E0

30,2

230

00

00

00

00

00

00

LAFA

YE

TTE

07,

950

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

MO

NR

OE

033

,155

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

RIC

HLA

ND

012

,432

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

RO

CK

02,

400

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

SA

UK

024

,555

00

00

00

00

019

00

00

VE

RN

ON

023

,725

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Reg

ion

Tota

l0

569,

102

00

7,50

00

00

00

019

00

12,4

240

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

5 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

148

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

CaC

l2

(gal

)N

aCl

Brin

e (g

al)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB_M

80 (g

al)

Free

zeG

uard

(gal

)

Tabl

e A

.4. A

nnua

l Ant

i-ici

ng A

gent

Usa

ge

CaC

l2D

OW

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

ar

Gol

d

MC

95(g

al)

Cal

iber

M

1000

(gal

)

Cal

iber

M

2000

(gal

)

Bio

Mel

t 6

4(g

al)

Geo

-M

elt

(gal

)

Ice

Bite

55

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

AM

P(g

al)

Bee

t H

eat

(gal

)

10,3

431,

865,

565

4,10

010

08,

422

Gra

nd T

otal

00

00

00

17,3

700

12,4

240

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

6 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

149

Region County Cost to Apply Liquid Anti-icing Chemicals

Total Billed Winter Maintenance Costs

Anti-icing as a % of Winter Costs

SOUTHWEST Columbia $32,388 $1,240,363 1.18%Crawford $3,809 $383,962 0.55%Dane $23,753 $2,913,980 0.46%Dodge $63,257 $973,826 3.30%Grant $27,402 $576,023 2.53%Green $5,816 $305,406 1.25%Iowa $35,248 $668,948 3.05%Jefferson $29,755 $702,467 2.25%Juneau $72,701 $669,200 5.57%La Crosse $93,650 $773,509 7.52%Lafayette $5,969 $366,445 1.14%Monroe $41,861 $775,914 2.57%Richland $28,228 $334,359 4.76%Rock $3,352 $744,303 0.27%Sauk $18,332 $786,587 1.17%Vernon $8,400 $568,429 0.88%SW TOTAL $493,921 $12,783,721 2.09%

SOUTHEAST Kenosha $29,974 $828,962 2.02%Milwaukee $21,468 $4,613,429 0.34%Ozaukee $16,663 $634,303 1.60%Racine $3,785 $752,404 0.30%Walworth $11,407 $951,293 0.66%Washington $3,409 $1,051,155 0.18%Waukesha $51,433 $1,348,350 1.96%SE TOTAL $138,139 $10,179,896 0.85%

NORTHEAST Brown $22,778 $1,319,548 1.11%Calumet $14,772 $296,522 3.63%Door $24,775 $536,696 3.23%Fond du Lac $27,716 $892,574 1.91%Kewanee $6,368 $144,737 2.86%Manitowoc $17,988 $776,493 1.55%Marinette $9,245 $512,895 1.05%Oconto $23,677 $542,368 2.73%Outagamie $969,554 0.00%Sheboygan $9,258 $723,392 0.70%Winnebago $15,486 $1,020,398 0.97%NE TOTAL $172,063 $7,735,177 1.43%

Table A-5. Actual Anti-icing Costs, 2016-2017

150

Region County Cost to Apply Liquid Anti-icing Chemicals

Total Billed Winter Maintenance Costs

Anti-icing as a % of Winter Costs

NORTHCENTRAL Adams $8,128 $301,206 1.42%Florence $9,007 $219,456 2.24%Forest $1,100 $409,413 0.16%Green Lake $368 $182,585 0.12%Iron $425,736 0.00%Langlade $15,244 $400,935 2.42%Lincoln $65,226 $723,876 6.05%Marathon $53,767 $1,208,796 2.60%Marquette $7,762 $321,346 1.19%Menominee $309 $93,357 0.16%Oneida $75,057 $679,075 5.74%Portage $4,464 $1,049,599 0.28%Price $6,962 $459,498 0.90%Shawano $9,215 $799,501 0.71%Vilas $8,685 $571,132 0.83%Waupaca $18,744 $788,630 1.45%Waushara $8,319 $329,145 1.45%Wood $7,682 $481,610 0.78%NC TOTAL $300,039 $9,444,896 1.84%

NORTHWEST Ashland $6,463 $364,463 1.16%Barron $1,158 $697,137 0.12%Bayfield $744 $479,146 0.09%Buffalo $8,756 $357,083 1.51%Burnett $524,840 0.00%Chippewa $1,106,744 0.00%Clark $4,940 $517,080 0.54%Douglas $6,723 $763,185 0.55%Dunn $10,150 $755,087 0.67%Eau Claire $12,392 $811,941 0.75%Jackson $727 $784,218 0.05%Pepin $9,219 $154,737 4.42%Pierce $7,978 $493,208 0.99%Polk $2,238 $472,408 0.26%Rusk $263,936 0.00%Sawyer $334,330 0.00%St. Croix $952,842 0.00%Taylor $7,084 $319,438 1.19%Trempealeau $9,444 $547,106 0.90%Washburn $5,260 $453,016 0.61%NW TOTAL $93,276 $11,151,945 0.47%


151

STATEWIDE SUMMARY

SW Region $493,921 $12,783,721 2.09%SE Region $138,139 $10,179,896 0.85%NE Region $172,063 $7,735,177 1.43%NC Region $300,039 $9,444,896 1.84%NW Region $93,276 $11,151,945 0.47%

Statewide Totals $1,197,438 $51,295,635 1.36%

prepared by: Cathy Meinholz/Bureau of Highway Maintenanceu:\winter\fy17wntr activities.xls August 2, 2017


152

Table A-6. Salt Brine UseFrom Winter Storm Reports, 2016-2017

REGION GROUP COUNTY PREWETTING ANTI-ICING TOTAL(GALLONS) (GALLONS) (GALLONS)

SOUTHWEST B COLUMBIA 18,450 130,400 148,850C CRAWFORD 25,661 16,500 42,161A DANE 151,195 30,615 181,810B DODGE 60,951 41,018 101,969B GRANT 36,528 53,380 89,908D GREEN 19,925 8,375 28,300E IOWA 7,015 55,260 62,275B JEFFERSON 83,356 18,468 101,824C JUNEAU 37,787 100,570 138,357C LA CROSSE 68,849 30,223 99,072D LAFAYETTE 5,495 7,950 13,445B MONROE 31,512 33,155 64,667D RICHLAND 18,604 12,432 31,036B ROCK 28,018 2,400 30,418B SAUK 5,971 24,745 30,716C VERNON 24,904 23,725 48,629

TOTAL 624,221 589,216 1,213,437

SOUTHEAST B KENOSHA 2,975 3,805 6,780A MILWAUKEE 79,250 29,000 108,250D OZAUKEE 36,160 11,050 47,210B RACINE 37,349 1,900 39,249A WALWORTH 36,320 26,050 62,370B WASHINGTON 82,475 3,300 85,775A WAUKESHA 264,559 166,054 430,613

TOTAL 539,088 241,159 780,247

NORTHEAST B BROWN 65,730 53,800 119,530E CALUMET 9,631 23,250 32,881D DOOR 16,284 45,100 61,384B FOND DU LAC 91,332 40,473 131,805F KEWAUNEE 12,385 1,600 13,985C MANITOWOC 33,819 109,300 143,119D MARINETTE 34,822 82,900 117,722C OCONTO 18,412 29,811 48,223B OUTAGAMIE 180,138 900 181,038C SHEBOYGAN 138,130 31,729 169,859B WINNEBAGO 249,387 31,125 280,512

TOTAL 850,070 449,988 1,300,058

153

Table A-6. Salt Brine UseFrom Winter Storm Reports, 2016-2017

REGION GROUP COUNTY PREWETTING ANTI-ICING TOTAL(GALLONS) (GALLONS) (GALLONS)

NORTH CENTRAL F ADAMS 6450 47,350 53,800F FLORENCE 25460 54,250 79,710E FOREST 28012 3,300 31,312D GREEN LAKE 7885 5,725 13,610E IRON 34,685 34,685E LANGLADE 36,152 50,969 87,121C LINCOLN 44,779 165,740 210,519B MARATHON 48,745 69,075 117,820D MARQUETTE 30,290 52,085 82,375F MENOMINEE 3,103 3,103D ONEIDA 69,450 17,400 86,850B PORTAGE 43,539 4,247 47,786E PRICE 103,478 8,984 112,462C SHAWANO 42649 43,050 91,556E VILAS 48,506 28,172 74,564B WAUPACA 46,392 2,557 22,607D WAUSHARA 20,050 1,950 30,951C WOOD 29,001 13,800 682,426

TOTAL 668,626 568,654 1,237,280

NORTHWEST E ASHLAND 34,408 6,515 40,923C BARRON 20,020 450 20,470D BAYFIELD 22,409 500 22,909D BUFFALO 11,170 10,500 21,670E BURNETT 27,345 27,345B CHIPPEWA 1,100 6,622 7,722C CLARK 3,029 2,140 5,169C DOUGLAS 15,042 1,650 16,692C DUNN 10,383 3810 12,183B EAU CLAIRE 28,855 1,800 28,855C JACKSON 3,150 11,200E PEPIN 2,955 8,050 9,755E PIERCE 20,110 6,800 20,902D POLK 21,828 792 21,828E RUSK 0B SAINT CROIX 19,186 19,186E SAWYER 1,425 1,425E TAYLOR 67,115 6,100 73,215D TREMPEALEAU 8,005 12,150 20,155D WASHBURN 18,667 1,428 20,095

TOTAL 336,202 69,307 405,509

STATE TOTAL 3,018,207 1,918,324 4,936,531# OF COUNTIES 71 65

2016-2017 3,018,207 1,918,324 4,936,531PREVIOUS USE 2015-2016 2,111,119 1,909,303 4,020,422

2014-2015 1,816,818 1,483,653 3,300,4712013-2014 3,060,116 872,780 3,932,8962012-2013 1,082,163 1,164,394 2,246,5572010-2011 1,674,472 714,760 2,389,2322009-2010 933,690 649,909 1,583,5992008-2009 1,028,457 467,943 1,496,4002007-2008 965,797 305,409 1,271,2062006-2007 530,733 456,875 987,6082005-2006 570,203 394,991 965,1942004-2005 398,661 246,813 695,4742003-2004 285,710 241,780 527,4902002-2003 174,413 228,524 402,9372001-2002 144,505 194,349 338,8542000-2001 111,816 48,149 159,965

154

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Salt

(CY)

CaC

l2 (g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB-M

80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

d(g

al)

Tabl

e A

.7. A

nnua

l Pre

wet

ting

Age

nt U

sage

for S

alt C

aCl2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic C

lear

G

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17A

MP

(gal

)B

eet

Hea

t(g

al)

NC

AD

AM

S3,

374

100

2,12

50

00

4,22

50

00

00

00

0FL

OR

ENC

E2,

627

025

,460

00

00

00

00

00

00

FOR

ES

T4,

434

028

,012

00

00

00

00

00

00

GR

EEN

LA

KE

1,59

90

7,88

50

00

00

00

00

00

0IR

ON

5,06

30

34,6

850

00

00

00

00

00

0LA

NG

LAD

E3,

533

035

,975

177

00

00

00

00

00

0LI

NC

OLN

4,88

70

42,6

900

010

00

00

00

00

0M

AR

ATH

ON

11,1

580

48,5

000

150

00

00

00

00

0M

AR

QU

ETTE

4,54

10

27,1

750

00

00

3,11

50

00

00

0M

EN

OM

INE

E1,

558

03,

103

00

00

00

00

00

00

ON

EID

A8,

247

057

,178

08,

165

00

00

00

00

00

PO

RTA

GE

7,41

50

42,0

040

00

00

00

00

00

0P

RIC

E4,

203

099

,963

3,02

50

00

00

00

00

00

SH

AW

AN

O7,

968

042

,569

00

00

00

00

00

00

VIL

AS

6,08

30

46,6

860

00

00

00

00

00

0W

AU

PA

CA

7,70

20

46,3

920

00

00

00

00

00

0W

AU

SH

AR

A3,

612

019

,966

00

840

00

00

00

00

WO

OD

6,69

50

29,0

010

00

00

00

00

00

0

Reg

ion

Tota

l94

,699

100

639,

369

3,20

28,

180

944,

225

03,

115

00

00

00

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

155

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Salt

(CY)

CaC

l2 (g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB-M

80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

d(g

al)

Tabl

e A

.7. A

nnua

l Pre

wet

ting

Age

nt U

sage

for S

alt C

aCl2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic C

lear

G

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17A

MP

(gal

)B

eet

Hea

t(g

al)

NE

BR

OW

N12

,709

065

,730

00

00

00

00

00

00

CA

LUM

ET

1,80

40

9,63

10

00

00

00

00

00

0D

OO

R3,

541

016

,284

00

00

00

00

00

00

FON

D D

U L

AC8,

118

090

,567

00

00

076

50

00

00

0K

EW

AU

NE

E1,

313

012

,385

00

00

00

00

00

00

MA

NIT

OW

OC

6,16

50

33,8

190

00

00

00

00

00

0M

AR

INET

TE5,

553

034

,822

00

00

00

00

00

00

OC

ON

TO5,

014

018

,412

00

00

00

00

00

00

OU

TAG

AM

IE4,

941

018

0,13

80

00

00

00

00

00

0S

HE

BO

YGA

N8,

721

013

8,13

00

00

00

00

00

00

0W

INN

EB

AG

O9,

081

024

9,19

140

00

00

156

00

00

00

Reg

ion

Tota

l66

,960

084

9,10

940

00

00

921

00

00

00

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

2 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

156

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Salt

(CY)

CaC

l2 (g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB-M

80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

d(g

al)

Tabl

e A

.7. A

nnua

l Pre

wet

ting

Age

nt U

sage

for S

alt C

aCl2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic C

lear

G

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17A

MP

(gal

)B

eet

Hea

t(g

al)

NW

AS

HLA

ND

2,69

10

28,0

560

05,

863

00

00

00

00

0B

AR

RO

N3,

979

016

,600

00

00

00

00

00

00

BA

YFIE

LD4,

976

022

,409

00

00

00

00

00

00

BU

FFA

LO3,

188

011

,170

00

00

00

00

00

00

BU

RN

ETT

2,98

60

00

027

,345

00

00

00

00

0C

HIP

PEW

A12

,230

100

1,00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0C

LAR

K5,

083

302,

380

599

020

00

00

00

00

0D

OU

GLA

S7,

713

010

,284

00

4,70

30

00

00

550

00

DU

NN

10,0

750

6,56

00

00

00

00

03,

743

00

0E

AU

CLA

IRE

11,0

5920

,506

7,82

40

00

00

00

052

50

00

JAC

KS

ON

8,53

10

03,

150

00

00

00

00

00

0P

EPI

N69

80

2,95

50

00

00

00

00

00

0P

IER

CE

4,34

035

519

,755

00

00

00

00

00

00

PO

LK5,

244

016

,976

00

4,65

70

019

50

00

00

0R

USK

2,41

40

00

00

00

00

00

00

0S

AIN

T C

RO

IX12

,199

19,1

860

00

00

00

00

00

00

SA

WYE

R4,

276

00

00

00

01,

352

00

00

00

TAYL

OR

3,23

30

67,1

150

00

00

00

00

00

0TR

EM

PE

ALE

AU

6,90

20

1,20

00

3,52

570

00

02,

580

00

00

00

WA

SH

BU

RN

6,05

80

18,6

670

00

00

00

00

00

0

Reg

ion

Tota

l11

7,87

540

,177

232,

951

3,74

93,

525

43,2

880

04,

127

00

4,32

30

00

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

3 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

157

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Salt

(CY)

CaC

l2 (g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB-M

80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

d(g

al)

Tabl

e A

.7. A

nnua

l Pre

wet

ting

Age

nt U

sage

for S

alt C

aCl2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic C

lear

G

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17A

MP

(gal

)B

eet

Hea

t(g

al)

SE

KE

NO

SH

A10

,524

00

2,97

50

00

00

00

00

00

MIL

WAU

KE

E27

,642

17,5

5058

,500

00

00

00

00

00

00

OZA

UK

EE

6,98

59,

345

26,8

150

00

00

00

00

00

0R

ACIN

E7,

950

3,94

133

,408

00

00

00

00

00

00

WA

LWO

RTH

12,8

780

36,3

200

00

00

00

00

00

0W

AS

HIN

GTO

N12

,212

082

,475

00

00

00

00

00

00

WA

UK

ES

HA

20,5

965,

075

255,

714

00

00

00

00

3,77

00

00

Reg

ion

Tota

l98

,787

35,9

1149

3,23

22,

975

00

00

00

03,

770

00

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

4 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

158

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Salt

(CY)

CaC

l2 (g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB-M

80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

d(g

al)

Tabl

e A

.7. A

nnua

l Pre

wet

ting

Age

nt U

sage

for S

alt C

aCl2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic C

lear

G

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17A

MP

(gal

)B

eet

Hea

t(g

al)

SW

CO

LUM

BIA

18,9

330

18,4

500

00

00

00

00

00

0C

RAW

FOR

D4,

291

025

,359

00

00

00

00

00

00

DAN

E30

,402

015

1,19

50

00

00

00

00

00

0D

OD

GE

13,4

650

55,4

810

00

00

00

00

05,

470

0G

RA

NT

7,59

40

36,5

280

00

00

00

00

00

0G

RE

EN2,

139

019

,692

00

00

00

00

00

00

IOW

A6,

799

06,

856

00

00

00

00

00

159

0JE

FFER

SO

N9,

057

080

,666

00

040

00

00

00

02,

290

0JU

NE

AU8,

215

031

,932

00

5,40

00

00

045

50

00

0LA

CR

OS

SE

6,14

00

10,8

280

00

00

00

057

,031

00

0LA

FAYE

TTE

2,24

90

5,49

50

00

00

00

00

00

0M

ON

RO

E11

,241

031

,512

00

00

00

00

00

00

RIC

HLA

ND

3,35

90

17,6

200

00

00

00

00

00

0R

OC

K7,

730

028

,018

00

00

00

00

00

00

SA

UK

9,83

40

5,97

10

00

00

00

00

00

0V

ER

NO

N5,

507

023

,655

00

860

01,

163

00

00

00

Reg

ion

Tota

l14

6,95

50

549,

258

00

5,48

640

00

1,16

30

455

57,0

310

7,91

90

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

5 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

159

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Salt

(CY)

CaC

l2 (g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2(g

al)

IB-M

80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

d(g

al)

Tabl

e A

.7. A

nnua

l Pre

wet

ting

Age

nt U

sage

for S

alt C

aCl2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic C

lear

G

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17A

MP

(gal

)B

eet

Hea

t(g

al)

525,

276

76,1

882,

763,

919

9,96

611

,705

48,8

68St

atew

ide

Tota

l4,

625

09,

326

045

565

,124

07,

919

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

6 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

160

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Sand

(C

Y)C

aCl2

(g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2

(gal

)IB

-M80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

dG

uard

Tabl

e A

.8. A

nnua

l Abr

asiv

es a

nd P

rew

ettin

g A

gent

Usa

ge fo

r Abr

asiv

es

CaC

l2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

arG

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

NC

AD

AM

S9

00

00

00

00

00

00

FLO

REN

CE

980

00

00

00

00

00

0FO

RES

T13

00

00

00

00

00

00

GR

EE

N L

AKE

00

00

00

00

00

00

0IR

ON

690

00

00

00

00

00

0LA

NG

LAD

E0

00

00

00

00

00

00

LIN

CO

LN1,

197

02,

089

00

00

00

00

00

MAR

ATH

ON

153

023

00

00

00

00

00

0M

ARQ

UET

TE0

00

00

00

00

00

00

MEN

OM

INEE

710

00

00

00

00

00

0O

NE

IDA

1,57

90

4,10

70

00

00

00

00

0P

OR

TAG

E95

70

1,53

50

00

00

00

00

0P

RIC

E35

80

490

800

00

00

00

00

SH

AW

AN

O10

00

00

00

00

00

00

VIL

AS

880

01,

820

00

00

00

00

00

WA

UP

AC

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

WA

US

HA

RA

00

00

00

00

00

00

0W

OO

D23

00

00

00

00

00

00

Reg

ion

Tota

l5,

417

010

,271

800

00

00

00

00

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

1 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

161

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Sand

(C

Y)C

aCl2

(g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2

(gal

)IB

-M80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

dG

uard

Tabl

e A

.8. A

nnua

l Abr

asiv

es a

nd P

rew

ettin

g A

gent

Usa

ge fo

r Abr

asiv

es

CaC

l2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

arG

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

NE

BR

OW

N0

00

00

00

00

00

00

CA

LUM

ET

00

00

00

00

00

00

0D

OO

R2

00

00

00

00

00

00

FON

D D

U L

AC5

00

00

00

00

00

00

KE

WA

UN

EE

450

00

00

00

00

00

0M

ANIT

OW

OC

00

00

00

00

00

00

0M

ARIN

ETTE

520

00

00

00

00

00

0O

CO

NTO

00

00

00

00

00

00

0O

UTA

GA

MIE

80

00

00

00

00

00

0S

HE

BO

YGA

N1

00

00

00

00

00

00

WIN

NE

BAG

O0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Reg

ion

Tota

l11

30

00

00

00

00

00

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

2 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

162

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Sand

(C

Y)C

aCl2

(g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2

(gal

)IB

-M80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

dG

uard

Tabl

e A

.8. A

nnua

l Abr

asiv

es a

nd P

rew

ettin

g A

gent

Usa

ge fo

r Abr

asiv

es

CaC

l2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

arG

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

NW

AS

HLA

ND

292

040

10

088

00

00

00

0B

AR

RO

N1,

527

03,

420

00

00

00

00

00

BA

YFIE

LD14

00

00

00

00

00

00

0B

UFF

ALO

210

00

00

00

00

00

0B

UR

NE

TT0

00

00

00

00

00

00

CH

IPP

EW

A45

30

00

00

00

00

00

0C

LAR

K0

00

00

00

00

00

00

DO

UG

LAS

840

00

080

00

00

00

0D

UN

N2

00

00

00

00

00

00

EA

U C

LAIR

E4

00

00

00

00

00

00

JAC

KS

ON

00

00

00

00

00

00

0P

EP

IN0

00

00

00

00

00

00

PIE

RC

E85

00

00

00

00

00

00

PO

LK15

30

00

00

00

00

00

0R

US

K10

10

00

00

00

00

00

0S

AIN

T C

RO

IX37

00

00

00

00

00

00

SA

WYE

R14

90

00

00

00

730

00

0TA

YLO

R30

00

00

00

00

00

00

TRE

MP

EA

LEA

U0

00

00

00

00

00

00

WA

SH

BU

RN

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Reg

ion

Tota

l3,

078

03,

821

00

168

00

730

00

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

3 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

163

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Sand

(C

Y)C

aCl2

(g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2

(gal

)IB

-M80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

dG

uard

Tabl

e A

.8. A

nnua

l Abr

asiv

es a

nd P

rew

ettin

g A

gent

Usa

ge fo

r Abr

asiv

es

CaC

l2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

arG

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

SE

KE

NO

SH

A19

20

00

00

00

00

00

0M

ILW

AU

KE

E0

03,

200

00

00

00

00

00

OZA

UK

EE

00

00

00

00

00

00

0R

AC

INE

00

00

00

00

00

00

0W

ALW

OR

TH2

00

00

00

00

00

00

WA

SH

ING

TON

00

00

00

00

00

00

0W

AU

KE

SH

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Reg

ion

Tota

l19

40

3,20

00

00

00

00

00

0

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

4 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

164

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Sand

(C

Y)C

aCl2

(g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2

(gal

)IB

-M80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

dG

uard

Tabl

e A

.8. A

nnua

l Abr

asiv

es a

nd P

rew

ettin

g A

gent

Usa

ge fo

r Abr

asiv

es

CaC

l2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

arG

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

SW

CO

LUM

BIA

645

00

00

00

00

00

00

CR

AWFO

RD

326

030

20

00

00

00

00

0D

ANE

140

00

00

00

00

00

0D

OD

GE

00

00

00

00

00

00

0G

RA

NT

2,02

10

00

00

00

00

00

0G

RE

EN

720

233

00

00

00

00

00

IOW

A12

10

00

00

00

00

00

0JE

FFER

SON

00

00

00

00

00

00

0JU

NE

AU0

00

00

00

00

00

00

LA C

RO

SSE

198

00

00

00

00

00

00

LAFA

YETT

E1,

237

099

00

00

00

00

00

0M

ON

RO

E34

00

00

00

00

00

00

RIC

HLA

ND

515

098

40

00

00

00

00

0R

OC

K51

00

00

00

00

00

00

SA

UK

00

00

00

00

00

00

0VE

RN

ON

431

00

00

00

00

00

00

Reg

ion

Tota

l5,

665

02,

509

00

00

00

00

00

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

5 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

165

Reg

ion

Cou

nty

Sand

(C

Y)C

aCl2

(g

al)

NaC

l B

rine

(gal

)

MgC

l2

(gal

)IB

-M80

(gal

)Fr

eeze

Gar

dG

uard

Tabl

e A

.8. A

nnua

l Abr

asiv

es a

nd P

rew

ettin

g A

gent

Usa

ge fo

r Abr

asiv

es

CaC

l2

DO

W

(gal

)

Arc

tic

Cle

arG

old

MC

95

(gal

)C

alib

er

M20

00

(gal

)

Bio

Me

lt64

(gal

)

Geo

Mel

t(g

al)

Ice

Bite

(gal

)

From

Win

ter S

torm

Rep

orts

, 201

6-20

17

14,4

670

19,8

0180

016

8St

atew

ide

Tota

l0

073

00

00

Wed

nesd

ay, J

une

28, 2

017

Page

6 o

f 6Fi

nal t

otal

s as

of

166

Table A-9. History of Salt Use on State Trunk HighwaysFrom Salt Inventory Reporting System

Winter Tons of Salt Lane Miles Tons/Lane Mile

Million Vehicle Miles Traveled STH

System (Winter)============ ============ =========== ============ =============

1959/60 93,673 19,521 4.8 8,8281960/61 54,805 19,948 2.7 9,2541961/62 109,412 19,966 5.5 9,5581962/63 77,719 19,756 3.9 9,7821963/64 82,033 19,717 4.2 10,0641964/65 149,329 19,911 7.5 10,5661965/66 111,634 19,505 5.7 11,1221966/67 181,230 20,137 8.0 11,9331967/68 137,729 22,395 6.2 12,1401968/69 193,004 22,675 8.5 12,8701969/70 199,353 22,831 8.7 13,8531970/71 273,010 23,120 11.8 15,1331971/72 223,249 25,543 8.7 14,3251972/73 256,571 25,673 10.0 15,3011973/74 218,189 N/A N/A 16,1981974/75 237,916 N/A N/A 15,8071975/76 257,154 N/A N/A 16,1981976/77 188,011 N/A N/A 18,5561977/78 210,054 N/A N/A 19,6211978/79 235,193 N/A N/A 21,0531979/80 220,180 N/A N/A 20,4031980/81 151,021 N/A N/A 19,3601981/82 192,740 N/A N/A 20,2101982/83 234,529 27,407 8.6 20,0561983/84 224,368 27,416 8.2 20,8731984/85 217,136 27,598 7.9 21,2141985/86 304,296 27,632 11.0 22,1101986/87 196,035 27,613 7.1 23,1761987/88 224,573 27,743 8.1 24,3461988/89 230,403 27,872 8.3 24,5501989/90 297,004 28,024 10.6 25,3701990/91 364,174 28,006 13.0 26,2471991/92 337,079* 28,104 12.0* 27,3911992/93 416,594* 28,182 14.8* 28,2521993/94 314,489* 28,221 11.1* 28,8591994/95 295,479* 28,312 10.4* 29,2101995/96 440,488* 28,374 15.5 30,0771996/97 509,147* 28,545 17.8* 31,1221997/98 413,824* 29,619 14.0* 32,0831998/99 371,602 30,119 12.4 33,2361999/00 346,963* 30,340 11.4* 33,8252000/01 521,056 30,553 17.1 34,6572001/02 308,954 30,909 10.0 34,0762002/03 328,922 30,975 10.6 35,0882003/04 390,664 31,429 12.4 35,6622004/05 407,924 31,810 12.8 36,0132005/06 410,570 33,022 12.4 35,6422006/07 405,793 33,221 12.2 27,9112007/08 644,484 33,297 19.4 27,9312008/09 569,985 33,531 17.0 26,8882009/10 408,523 33,532 12.2 26,1092010/11 573,253 33,776 17.0 26,9982011/12 355,519 33,944 10.5 25,6692012/13 621,207 34,192 18.2 26,5122013/14 669,807 34,339 19.5 26,7742014/15 388,797 34,435 11.3 28,2182016/17 526,198 34,621 15.2 29,350

* Quantities adjusted