Wisconsin notes

[paulthemapguy]

Wis 127 needs to go.  It was an old alignment of US 16 and doesn't even go to any communities.  It's by far the most useless state highway in Wisconsin.

I think you might be right about WI-127 being the most useless Wisconsin State Highway still active today.  It may very well be a case of the state agency trying to get rid of the road, but the road is too crappy for county or local agencies to want it.  WisDOT can't just say "here's this crappy road!  It's your problem now!" as much as they might like to

[peterj920]

Wis 127 needs to go.  It was an old alignment of US 16 and doesn't even go to any communities.  It's by far the most useless state highway in Wisconsin.

I think you might be right about WI-127 being the most useless Wisconsin State Highway still active today.  It may very well be a case of the state agency trying to get rid of the road, but the road is too crappy for county or local agencies to want it.  WisDOT can't just say "here's this crappy road!  It's your problem now!" as much as they might like to

It could go to the town.  Taylor County didn't want Wis 194 between County H and Wis 73, so it became a town road.  Years ago, Wisconsin had a tradition of keeping old alignments as state highways, which is why Wis 127 is a state highway.  Other examples: Wis 175 which used to be US 41, Wis 67 between Plymouth and Kiel which was once Wis 57.

Wis 107 north of Merrill would also qualify as another highway not needed.  It doesn't even end at a state highway anymore, and is 1 of 2 state highways ending at an old alignment of Old US 51.  It serves loggers and hydroelectric power plants along the Wisconsin River, which may be why it's still around.  It can be an alternate to US 51, and came in handy when traffic backed up when it was under construction.  Wis 16 isn't that busy and doesn't need an alternate route with I-90/I-94 so close. 

[SEWIGuy]

Wis 127 needs to go.  It was an old alignment of US 16 and doesn't even go to any communities.  It's by far the most useless state highway in Wisconsin.

I think you might be right about WI-127 being the most useless Wisconsin State Highway still active today.  It may very well be a case of the state agency trying to get rid of the road, but the road is too crappy for county or local agencies to want it.  WisDOT can't just say "here's this crappy road!  It's your problem now!" as much as they might like to

It could go to the town.  Taylor County didn't want Wis 194 between County H and Wis 73, so it became a town road.  Years ago, Wisconsin had a tradition of keeping old alignments as state highways, which is why Wis 127 is a state highway.  Other examples: Wis 175 which used to be US 41, Wis 67 between Plymouth and Kiel which was once Wis 57.

WI-67 at least serves a purpose - connecting with Road America and Elkhart Lake.

I wonder if the other two have legacy agreements in place that prevents the from being transferred. 

[hobsini2]

100% agree on Wis 127 becoming a county road. If there was a town along it not served by Wis 16, that would be one thing.
As for Wis 175, I got no issues with that route staying a state highway since it is a "business" route to 41.

[peterj920]

At the north end of Wis 107, there was a guide sign on County S that pointed straight to Merrill and it said Merrill VIA 107 for Wis 107.  Interesting how it isn't the recommended route by WISDOT, yet it's a state highway. 

[triplemultiplex]

I think you might be right about WI-127 being the most useless Wisconsin State Highway still active today.  It may very well be a case of the state agency trying to get rid of the road, but the road is too crappy for county or local agencies to want it.  WisDOT can't just say "here's this crappy road!  It's your problem now!" as much as they might like to

WisDOT always does one more fix up of a state highway before handing it over to a local jurisdiction.  That way, the county, town, city or village is starting with a relatively nice road and WisDOT can never be accused of 'dumping off' a crappy old road onto someone else.

[SEWIGuy]

100% agree on Wis 127 becoming a county road. If there was a town along it not served by Wis 16, that would be one thing.
As for Wis 175, I got no issues with that route staying a state highway since it is a "business" route to 41.

Interestingly enough, I had forgotten that when US-16 was moved off of the current WI-127 route, that it was originally a couple of county highways.

It was reabsorbed into the state highway system about a decade later as WI-127.

[peterj920]

Wis 127's biggest claim to fame:  The last state highway Jeffrey Dahmer ever traveled on as the Columbia Correctional Institution is located on the roadway. 

[GeekJedi]

This may have been brought up already, but from the "it's about damn time" file...

WI 106 is now truncated to WI 73 east of Albion.



The former crossroads of WI 106 and US 51 is now just "Edgerton and Albion Roads".



The new end of WI 106.

[The Ghostbuster]

TOOK THEM LONG ENOUGH! It's only been 54 years since WIS 106 was retracted from US 14 in Oregon.

[GeekJedi]

Really the entire route is pretty useless at this point. It's a very lightly traveled road, except for maybe the section between Fort and CTH N. Most every other section of that highway is dead.

[peterj920]

Seems like in the southwest corner of the state there are a lot of state highways that are built to low standards with unpaved narrow shoulders or don't look like they're kept up well. 

In Northeast Wisconsin, there were state highways like that but have since been decommissioned or truncated in the last 35 years.  (Wis 32, Wis 96, Wis 114, Wis 148, Wis 149, Wis 163, Wis 168, Wis 177).  The only roads that do not have paved shoulders in the region and are narrow is Wis 76 from Bear Creek to Greenville, Wis 187, and Wis 156 east of Wis 187.  All 3 are fairly close to each other.  Wis 156 is going to be widened in the next few years and is an important state highway.  Wis 76 still gets a decent amount of traffic but was resurfaced with no paved shoulder.  Wis 187 could be decommissioned as it really doesn't go anywhere.   

Interesting how it seems like WISDOT has been aggressive to decommission highways in Northeast Wisconsin but not so much in Southwest Wisconsin where there seem to be more state highways that are built substandard and could be decommissioned.  Wis 56,  Wis 108, Wis 127, Wis 134, Wis 162, Wis 179 all fit that profile of substandard roadways in the state highway system that are lightly traveled.  Look on streetview and you can see that they are in poorer condition compared to most other state highways. 

[hobsini2]

This may have been brought up already, but from the "it's about damn time" file...

WI 106 is now truncated to WI 73 east of Albion.



The former crossroads of WI 106 and US 51 is now just "Edgerton and Albion Roads".



The new end of WI 106.

Side obs: Interesting in the 2nd pic that they use I-39 and not I-90 which long predates I-39 in the area.

[SSOWorld]

WisDOT in their use of "Alternate routes" for major highways uses the lowest of the concurrent routes instead of showing all of them.

[hobsini2]

I didn't even think about the "Alternate routes". Got it.

[peterj920]

WisDOT in their use of "Alternate routes" for major highways uses the lowest of the concurrent routes instead of showing all of them.

I think they're using I-39 because it's a north south route, while I-90 is an east west route and the interstate travels north-south in the area. I-90 is considered a major over I-94 which is why it is used west of Portage.  I think that was the main motivation for extending I-41 along I-94 south of Milwaukee.  WISDOT probably wanted the interstate to be signed north-south since that is the actual direction the freeway travels. 

[SSOWorld]

WisDOT in their use of "Alternate routes" for major highways uses the lowest of the concurrent routes instead of showing all of them.

I think they're using I-39 because it's a north south route, while I-90 is an east west route and the interstate travels north-south in the area. I-90 is considered a major over I-94 which is why it is used west of Portage.  I think that was the main motivation for extending I-41 along I-94 south of Milwaukee.  WISDOT probably wanted the interstate to be signed north-south since that is the actual direction the freeway travels. 

Nothing to do with it.  For the dual-concurrency of 90-94, 90 takes over. (N of Portage)

[GeekJedi]

And, if you notice, that's not an Alternate route sign anyway. It's a "to" sign. Same thing applies though - while WisDOT will typically do ALT and TO assemblies with all concurrent routes, in situations that lead to "sine salad" they will use the lowest numbered route.

[peterj920]

And, if you notice, that's not an Alternate route sign anyway. It's a "to" sign. Same thing applies though - while WisDOT will typically do ALT and TO assemblies with all concurrent routes, in situations that lead to "sine salad" they will use the lowest numbered route.

I think it has more to do with either direction or importance.  It is coincidental that it ends up being the lowest number, but again I-39 is north south which is the actual direction the freeway travels between Portage and Beloit.  West of Portage, the I-90 major designation takes priority over I-94.  In my area of the state, Wis 32/57 are cosigned but the signs say To 57 because Wis 57 was the original designation and people know it locally as Wis 57 because of that. 

[GeekJedi]

I think it has more to do with either direction or importance. 

You really think they sign it 39 because the road trends in a N-S direction? That they thought to themselves "I-90 has been here for decades, but we'll choose 39 because it's a N-S number" (even though they don't place cardinal directions on Alt routes)?

Makes no sense at all. When you play the "what's more likely game" WisDOT *always* signs concurrent routes with the same type of highway (Wis, I, etc.) lowest number to highest number. So the mainline is signed "39/90". So 39 is what goes on the Alt trailblazer. Has nothing to do with direction.

[peterj920]

I think it has more to do with either direction or importance. 

You really think they sign it 39 because the road trends in a N-S direction? That they thought to themselves "I-90 has been here for decades, but we'll choose 39 because it's a N-S number" (even though they don't place cardinal directions on Alt routes)?

Makes no sense at all. When you play the "what's more likely game" WisDOT *always* signs concurrent routes with the same type of highway (Wis, I, etc.) lowest number to highest number. So the mainline is signed "39/90". So 39 is what goes on the Alt trailblazer. Has nothing to do with direction.

How doesn't it make sense?  It's better to use a north/south route than an east/west route since the actual direction of the freeway is north/south.  On the WISDOT website, the rehab project was referenced to I-43 instead of I-94 because of the north/south direction also.  The main motivation for signing I-41 to Illinois was most likely to give the freeway a north/south direction since people wouldn't associate West I-94 with north towards Milwaukee. 

I know when listing highways, it goes by interstate/us/state, then by lowest number, but when it comes to references on concurrencies, it's a little more complex and I have examples below:

I know it's state level, but here's a screenshot of a TO 57 marker when 32 is the lower number.  It's because the road was Wis 57 long before Wis 32, and locals in the area don't even think of the road as Wis 32.  They think of it as Wis 57.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2126777,-88.1737434,3a,75y,235.26h,88.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-rbLZ4uqug6lu46KUkYUhg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

Here's another screenshot of the I-43/Wis 32/Wis 57.  Wis 32 is the lower number, but why does Wis 57 have a 36" sign with Wis 32 having a smaller sign?  It's because Wis 57 is a more important route than Wis 32 in that area since Wis 57 goes to Plymouth and is 4 lanes north of I-43, while Wis 32 is a local road that mostly parallels and is concurrent to I-43 up to Sheboygan.https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2268101,-87.9205483,3a,75y,6.28h,83.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ByHqxh-vN8jUp_dhCHprQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

They also go priority by Interstate/US highway/ State highway.  US 51 is the higher number over Wis 29, but US 51 is first because it's the mainline and a US highway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9190704,-89.6559882,3a,75y,339.51h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPgoVBhM8OCPXfd0LWEmKpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[GeekJedi]

You "picked and chose" the I-43 assembly there. If you go back a few years in the street view, you'll see that the WI-57 shield was originally the exact same size as the WI-32 shield. The only reason it's bigger now is because they replaced that one assembly. Has nothing to do with the "importance" of the route. You're also wrong about the "TO 57" marker. The reason it's there is because that assembly pre-dates WI-32, NOT because WI-57 is "more important".

Again, when doing "same" routes, WisDOT *always* goes lowest number to highest number. See: I-41/I-894, US-41/US-45. I-41 is NOT the most important route, but it's listed first because it's the lowest number of the "highest level" route.

So again: It has nothing to do with the direction or importance of the route.

[peterj920]

Right there is my perfect example.  You're more likely to see I-894 referenced on VMS boards and see signs that say TO 894 than I-41 and I-43 since I-894 is known as the bypass.  I know that routes are listed lowest to highest first when combined, but it's not necessarily true when picking one route over another on standalone markers.  On the I-43 Wis 32/Wis 57 marker I posted, the signs were replaced at the same time and WISDOT decided to go with a smaller Wis 32 sign.  Here are the backs.  If WISDOT felt that Wis 32 was as important as Wis 57, wouldn't the Wis 32 sign be just as big?

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2271009,-87.9204829,3a,37.5y,155.01h,82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svNofKt7COD3Krc_ULA79VA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[GeekJedi]

I guess WisDOT never got your memo about the VMS's:





As for the sign, what are the odds that the contractor was advised to replace the assemblies as they existed, and not create one new one? Happens all the time - often replacement assemblies are not re-spec'd, which is why it's not surprising to see signing errors carry over to new signs. The contractor often recreates what's already there (which would explain why they didn't do a "uni-sign" with the "Circle Tour" and WI-32 signs). These were the signs that were replaced. Note that the WI-57 and WI-32 shields are exactly the same size.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2853466,-87.920982,3a,75y,48.29h,67.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY_vS6_Ibwn1z2tVtaqZ4DQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

One route is not "more important" than the other.

[peterj920]

Here's the look from 2012.  The Wis 57 sign was smaller. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2268508,-87.9205392,3a,75y,17.13h,80.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_Y-t_6l8tmjTHatc5dqaqg!2e0!5s20120701T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en