News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Should Wisconsin turn back Wis 175, US 12 and Wis 16 along I-41, I-90, I-94?

Started by peterj920, June 12, 2022, 11:50:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Ghostbuster

Wow! That's quite an old route to follow. Although this won't be done, I'd like it if this route was signed with Historic US 141 signs. After all, 141 only existed between Milwaukee and Green Bay prior to its 1928 extension to Covington, MI (and replacing US 102 between Crystal Falls and Covington).


GeekJedi

I may be mistaken (and I often am), but I think those highways remain in place because they're vital as "emergency" routes and therefore WisDOT likes to keep them in state inventory.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

triplemultiplex

The answer as to why US 141 was truncated and US 12/16 were not moved/turned back has to do with how they came into being.  Most of the current I-43 freeway between Milwaukee and Green Bay was constructed as a freeway for US 141; as far north as Sheboygan.  The designation had moved off of the former two lane/surface street alignments before I-43 was signed. Rather than have a long, pointless duplex, it made more sense to truncate US 141 as it was not standard practice to move US routes back onto old alignments.

This contrasts with the construction of Interstates 90 and 94 which were constructed as dedicated, new facilities signed as interstates the day they opened.  The old routes stayed on their existing roads.

So it's a matter of how these interstates came to be.  Which happened first?  Construction of the freeway or signing of the interstate?  This seems to have determined what course Wisconsin took in signing practices.

As far as turning back portions of US 12 and WI 16 and moving them onto the interstates, I can't help but be amused at how many more concurrencies that would create in a state that already has it's share. ;)
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

SEWIGuy

Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 16, 2022, 03:08:37 PM
As far as turning back portions of US 12 and WI 16 and moving them onto the interstates, I can't help but be amused at how many more concurrencies that would create in a state that already has it's share. ;)


If they ever decided to do that, I would end WI-16 in Wisconsin Dells, turn it over to the counties between Tomah and Sparta, and then have WI-21 replace WI-16 to LaCrosse.

Or if you wanted to keep WI-16 meeting with MN-16, replace WI-16 from Wisconsin Dells to Oconomowoc with an extension of WI-13.

The Ghostbuster

I think they would have done that in 1978, when US 16 was truncated from Pewaukee to Rapid City, SD, and the remainder of 16 in Minnesota and Wisconsin were downgraded to State Highway 16s. Like it or not, the two State Highway 16s are here to stay.

gr8daynegb

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 16, 2022, 04:40:33 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 16, 2022, 03:08:37 PM
As far as turning back portions of US 12 and WI 16 and moving them onto the interstates, I can't help but be amused at how many more concurrencies that would create in a state that already has it's share. ;)


If they ever decided to do that, I would end WI-16 in Wisconsin Dells, turn it over to the counties between Tomah and Sparta, and then have WI-21 replace WI-16 to LaCrosse.

Or if you wanted to keep WI-16 meeting with MN-16, replace WI-16 from Wisconsin Dells to Oconomowoc with an extension of WI-13.

With your idea wouldn't you end 16 at Tomah you mean?  As it is 12 and 16 stay concurrent until Wisconsin Dells. Albeit I have no issue with 16's routing.  I'd have personally/logically more an argument to either end US 141 in Abrams or extend to Manitowoc or Sheboygan than have issues with 16's route
So Lone Star now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: gr8daynegb on June 17, 2022, 03:39:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 16, 2022, 04:40:33 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 16, 2022, 03:08:37 PM
As far as turning back portions of US 12 and WI 16 and moving them onto the interstates, I can't help but be amused at how many more concurrencies that would create in a state that already has it's share. ;)


If they ever decided to do that, I would end WI-16 in Wisconsin Dells, turn it over to the counties between Tomah and Sparta, and then have WI-21 replace WI-16 to LaCrosse.

Or if you wanted to keep WI-16 meeting with MN-16, replace WI-16 from Wisconsin Dells to Oconomowoc with an extension of WI-13.

With your idea wouldn't you end 16 at Tomah you mean?  As it is 12 and 16 stay concurrent until Wisconsin Dells. Albeit I have no issue with 16's routing.  I'd have personally/logically more an argument to either end US 141 in Abrams or extend to Manitowoc or Sheboygan than have issues with 16's route

Yes. Tomah. Thanks.

gr8daynegb

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 17, 2022, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on June 17, 2022, 03:39:52 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 16, 2022, 04:40:33 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 16, 2022, 03:08:37 PM
As far as turning back portions of US 12 and WI 16 and moving them onto the interstates, I can't help but be amused at how many more concurrencies that would create in a state that already has it's share. ;)


If they ever decided to do that, I would end WI-16 in Wisconsin Dells, turn it over to the counties between Tomah and Sparta, and then have WI-21 replace WI-16 to LaCrosse.

Or if you wanted to keep WI-16 meeting with MN-16, replace WI-16 from Wisconsin Dells to Oconomowoc with an extension of WI-13.

With your idea wouldn't you end 16 at Tomah you mean?  As it is 12 and 16 stay concurrent until Wisconsin Dells. Albeit I have no issue with 16's routing.  I'd have personally/logically more an argument to either end US 141 in Abrams or extend to Manitowoc or Sheboygan than have issues with 16's route

Yes. Tomah. Thanks.

no problem.....just been on those highways enough in those areas enough times to make an educated guess lol
So Lone Star now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

dvferyance

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 14, 2022, 09:31:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 14, 2022, 07:51:48 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 13, 2022, 09:44:23 AM
Wisconsin keeps plenty of state highways on the books because the local jurisdictions won't take them back. Mostly, to swap with another new route sometime in the future.

Or, both entities aim to keep a designated amount of state highway mileage in a given county. A good recent example was the recent turnback of 74 in Waukesha County, in the works for several years, until the State was able to acquire the ROW to finish the Waukesha Bypass. They essentially swapped mileage.
The Waukesha bypass did not add any millage considering US 18 was dropped through Waukesha and the eastern and southern segments were already state highways to begin with.

My understanding is that the route through Waukesha didn't count toward the mileage cap because it was maintained by the city.
All of it? I can say with 100% certainty the part from Les Paul to Whiterock was once owned by wisdot as Wisdot signage and lighting once existed there and probably still does.

GeekJedi

"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

The Ghostbuster

What year was US 18 decomissioned within Waukesha between Meadowbrook Rd./Merrill Hills Rd. and the northern (eastern) terminus of the Les Paul Parkway? Was it in 2015 when STH 74 was decomissioned, or in 2017 when STH 318 was designated, or a different date entirely? Also, Google Maps still shows US 18 on its original alignment through Waukesha, and the West Waukesha Bypass between Summit Rd. and Genesee Rd. is marked as now-decommissioned CTH TT instead of US 18 (18 also isn't listed along STH 59 or STH 164). Maybe someday, Google Maps will rectify this, although I won't hold my breath.

GeekJedi

Very close to that. WisDOT got approval from AASHTO to create a "temporary" US-18 route that left the existing route in Wales, going north on WI-83, east on I-94, and rejoined US-18 at Goerke's Corners. That was about the time that Summit Ave in Waukesha was being reconstructed, and work was being done on the bypass.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.