This is one decommissioning that makes no sense to me. The US 16 segment in Wisconsin in Minnesota is much longer than the current segment in South Dakota and Wyoming that still exist today. Not to mention that it's duplexed with other routes much of it's length. If only one segment of US 16 is still going to exist the WI-MN segment should be the one.
I kind of always found it strange that more of US 16 and US 10 weren't kept in the mid-west. There was a lot of opportunity for surface alternates to the Interstate on US Routes that were taken advantage of out east like with US 1 and 41. Given the glut of good routes like US 14 and US 12 running intact I would speculate that had a lot to do with it.
From what I understand, Minnesota and South Dakota wanted to decommission their sections that I-90 had replaced, so they asked Wisconsin to decommission their section in order to make this possible.
I don't have the exact mileage but I'd also bet existing US 16 is still longer than WIS/MN 16. Wyoming is a big state and 16 crosses all of it.
MN/WI 16 is officially around 281 miles (MnDOT doesn't consider MN 16 as concurrent with US 14/61 across the river).
Worland, WY to Rapid City is over 340 miles via US 16, and this doesn't even factor that US 16 continues west of Worland to Yellowstone, albeit concurrent with other routes.
Quote from: froggie on June 11, 2016, 08:50:18 AM
(MnDOT doesn't consider MN 16 as concurrent with US 14/61 across the river).
But then why did they waste the time and money to fully sign it as doing so if they don't? That's weird...
WI-16 is also a relatively minor route in Wisconsin serving primarily local traffic.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 11, 2016, 12:09:29 PM
WI-16 is also a relatively minor route in Wisconsin serving primarily local traffic.
West of the Dells perhaps but east of there it's actually a major route it's even a freeway in some places. Even if the SD/WY segment is longer it's duplexed with another route much of it's length. It's duplexed with 2 routes for a long time into yellow stone then it and another route disappear. I would be in favor of keeping all of the original US 16 west of Waukesha. Sure I know it would have long duplexes with I-90 from Dexter MN to Sioux Falls SD. There it can be routed back on to what's now SD 38 out to Plankinton SD then duplex again with I-90 to Rapid City. I a bit long perhaps but they allow the insanely long US 87 duplex with I-25 and I-90.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 11, 2016, 12:09:29 PM
WI-16 is also a relatively minor route in Wisconsin serving primarily local traffic.
West of the Dells perhaps but east of there it's actually a major route it's even a freeway in some places. Even if the SD/WY segment is longer it's duplexed with another route much of it's length. It's duplexed with 2 routes for a long time into yellow stone then it and another route disappear. I would be in favor of keeping all of the original US 16 west of Waukesha. Sure I know it would have long duplexes with I-90 from Dexter MN to Sioux Falls SD. There it can be routed back on to what's now SD 38 out to Plankinton SD then duplex again with I-90 to Rapid City. I a bit long perhaps but they allow the insanely long US 87 duplex with I-25 and I-90.
It is a "major route" from Oconomowoc through the lake country to I-94. Maybe 8 miles?
Outside of that it is largely local traffic that parallels interstates almost the entire way. I realize in that respect it is no different than most of US-12 or US-51 in Wisconsin, but if Minnesota wanted to decommission it (and for good reason), there was no reason for WIDOT to put up a stink.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 11, 2016, 05:42:34 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 11, 2016, 12:09:29 PM
WI-16 is also a relatively minor route in Wisconsin serving primarily local traffic.
West of the Dells perhaps but east of there it's actually a major route it's even a freeway in some places. Even if the SD/WY segment is longer it's duplexed with another route much of it's length. It's duplexed with 2 routes for a long time into yellow stone then it and another route disappear. I would be in favor of keeping all of the original US 16 west of Waukesha. Sure I know it would have long duplexes with I-90 from Dexter MN to Sioux Falls SD. There it can be routed back on to what's now SD 38 out to Plankinton SD then duplex again with I-90 to Rapid City. I a bit long perhaps but they allow the insanely long US 87 duplex with I-25 and I-90.
It is a "major route" from Oconomowoc through the lake country to I-94. Maybe 8 miles?
Outside of that it is largely local traffic that parallels interstates almost the entire way. I realize in that respect it is no different than most of US-12 or US-51 in Wisconsin, but if Minnesota wanted to decommission it (and for good reason), there was no reason for WIDOT to put up a stink.
I would still say it's a major route through Watertown, Columbus, Portage up to the dells. Makes a nice shortcut than taking I-94 to Madison. Is it really a major route through Wyoming? Much of it shares a duplex with either I-90 or US 14 the largest city it serves on it's own is Newcastle population 3,500.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394But then why did they waste the time and money to fully sign it as doing so if they don't? That's weird...
Just going off what MnDOT's Logpoint says. It's been a number of years since I've been down in La Crescent so I couldn't speak to the signage.
Quote from: dvferyanceEven if the SD/WY segment is longer it's duplexed with another route much of it's length. It's duplexed with 2 routes for a long time into yellow stone then it and another route disappear.
Did you not notice above where I did not factor that concurrent mileage into Yellowstone into the mileage calculation? 16 still came out well longer than MN/WI 16.
And since you mention concurrencies, WI 16 has a lot of concurrencies of its own.
Wis 16 was added as a new 2030 connector route between Watertown and Pewaukee so it's considered a major route by WISDOT.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 06:44:14 PM
Is it really a major route through Wyoming? Much of it shares a duplex with either I-90 or US 14 the largest city it serves on it's own is Newcastle population 3,500.
Yes. Two segments are of particular significance: US 16 from Rapid City to Moorcroft and US 16 from Buffalo to Cody. US 16 is one of several options for crossing the Black Hills that connects several tourist areas together. I-90/US 14 steer north of most of the well-known attractions in the Black Hills, offering the best route for through traffic between Rapid City and Gillette. It links Sturgis, Spearfish, and Sundance along the way. US 16 connects Rapid City, Keystone (via US 16A), Mt. Rushmore (via SD 244), Crazy Horse, Custer, Jewel Cave, and Newcastle. Since these areas have high tourist interest and US 16 links to US 16A and SD 87 into other high interest areas (Custer State Park, Wind Cave National Park, etc.), US 16 sees quite a bit of traffic especially in summer months when visitation to the Black Hills is greatest.
The other major segment of US 16 is between Buffalo and Cody, which is one of four routing choices: US 16, US 14, US 14A, and I-90/US 310/US 14A. The first three choices involve mountain driving by crossing the heights of the Bighorns, while the I-90/US 310 route is much longer yet offers less mountainous terrain to traverse. US 16 is considered by many to be the easiest grade over the Bighorns (when compared to US 14 and US 14A); the combination of US 14 and US 14A is probably the most difficult (lots of switchbacks at either end of the Bighorns). As a result of this, US 16 is a major through route leading from the Powder River Basin to the Big Horn River Basin.
Even though the remaining segments of US 16 are overlapped with other routes that are often more important for through travel (such as I-90 and US 20), it does serve a purpose by offering choices when traveling between two points (whether from Cody to Buffalo or from Moorcroft to Rapid City) and has enough traffic, appropriate design, connectivity, etc. to justify its status as a US highway.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 06:44:14 PM
I would still say it's a major route through Watertown, Columbus, Portage up to the dells. Makes a nice shortcut than taking I-94 to Madison.
Not much of a shortcut to add 20 minutes to one's trip.
I am strongly in favor of demoting US highways that simply follow long stretches of interstate or are concurrent with them across entire states. I've stated this many times before.
They are no longer of national significance, so I have no problem turning them back into state highways or even county roads in some cases. I applaud western states for retiring US highways as the interstates came online.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 12, 2016, 01:02:54 PM
I am strongly in favor of demoting US highways that simply follow long stretches of interstate or are concurrent with them across entire states. I've stated this many times before.
They are no longer of national significance, so I have no problem turning them back into state highways or even county roads in some cases. I applaud western states for retiring US highways as the interstates came online.
Is it true that you're the most hated member of this forum? :D :D :D
Just messing of course. ;)
Quote from: peterj920 on June 11, 2016, 10:31:15 PM
Wis 16 was added as a new 2030 connector route between Watertown and Pewaukee so it's considered a major route by WISDOT.
Which makes it's State Trunk designation appropriate. The road in general from Milwaukee to Minnesota is a relatively minor, outside of a couple of segments. The section from Watertown to US 51 is dead, and from the Dells to Minnesota is winds around the interstate. "Demoting" it from a US route to a state one makes total sense.
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 12, 2016, 07:42:17 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 11, 2016, 10:31:15 PM
Wis 16 was added as a new 2030 connector route between Watertown and Pewaukee so it's considered a major route by WISDOT.
Which makes it's State Trunk designation appropriate. The road in general from Milwaukee to Minnesota is a relatively minor, outside of a couple of segments. The section from Watertown to US 51 is dead, and from the Dells to Minnesota is winds around the interstate. "Demoting" it from a US route to a state one makes total sense.
ok then, US-51 should end at Normal, IL, US 41 at I-94 in Waukegan (IL) *cue crying traditionalist*
US Routes are no different from State Routes these days. They're simply state routes with a different shield design. Interstates have essentially replaced them.
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 12, 2016, 07:56:30 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 12, 2016, 07:42:17 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 11, 2016, 10:31:15 PM
Wis 16 was added as a new 2030 connector route between Watertown and Pewaukee so it's considered a major route by WISDOT.
Which makes it's State Trunk designation appropriate. The road in general from Milwaukee to Minnesota is a relatively minor, outside of a couple of segments. The section from Watertown to US 51 is dead, and from the Dells to Minnesota is winds around the interstate. "Demoting" it from a US route to a state one makes total sense.
ok then, US-51 should end at Normal, IL, US 41 at I-94 in Waukegan (IL) *cue crying traditionalist*
US Routes are no different from State Routes these days. They're simply state routes with a different shield design. Interstates have essentially replaced them.
US routes are largely state routes with common numbers. Since Minnesota and South Dakota wanted to remove US-16, "demoting" it to a state route largely made sense.
If Illinois and Wisconsin wanted to do the same with US-51, I'd be fine with that.
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 12, 2016, 07:56:30 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 12, 2016, 07:42:17 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 11, 2016, 10:31:15 PM
Wis 16 was added as a new 2030 connector route between Watertown and Pewaukee so it's considered a major route by WISDOT.
Which makes it's State Trunk designation appropriate. The road in general from Milwaukee to Minnesota is a relatively minor, outside of a couple of segments. The section from Watertown to US 51 is dead, and from the Dells to Minnesota is winds around the interstate. "Demoting" it from a US route to a state one makes total sense.
ok then, US-51 should end at Normal, IL, US 41 at I-94 in Waukegan (IL) *cue crying traditionalist*
US Routes are no different from State Routes these days. They're simply state routes with a different shield design. Interstates have essentially replaced them.
You get no argument from me. I guess my point is that WI probably would have left it as a US route had Minnesota not requested it, because "meh". The fact remains that outside of a few local "connector" segments, it's not nearly as important of a road as it was in the pre-interstate days.
WI-16 could really be largely eliminated without much trouble.
Between LaCrosse and Sparta - replaced with WI-21 extention
Between Sparta and Tomah - county highway
Between Tomah and WI Dells - eliminated due to duplex with US-12
Between Dells and Columbus - replaced with WI-89 extention
Between Columbus and Watertown - eliminated due to duplexes with WI-60 and WI-26
Between Watertown and I-94 - replaced with WI-19 extention
I still think of WI 16 as Old US 16. I always will.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2016, 03:27:09 PM
WI-16 could really be largely eliminated without much trouble.
Between LaCrosse and Sparta - replaced with WI-21 extention
Between Sparta and Tomah - county highway
Between Tomah and WI Dells - eliminated due to duplex with US-12
Between Dells and Columbus - replaced with WI-89 extention
Between Columbus and Watertown - eliminated due to duplexes with WI-60 and WI-26
Between Watertown and I-94 - replaced with WI-19 extention
You can combine a lot of routes like WI-164 and WI-144 just duplex the two ends with I-41. Personally I am getting tired of all these routing changes. I just noticed a few months ago WI-74 is gone. I am thinking why now? Why not at least wait another year when the next edition of the state map comes out. The 2015-2016 edition is already out of date and it's still 2016. I don't get why it was even done away with at all in the first place. Nothing at least I am aware of has added as a state highway anywhere in the area. What's the trade off here?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 12, 2016, 04:31:14 PM
Is it true that you're the most hated member of this forum? :D :D :D
Just messing of course. ;)
:-D
People loves them some nostalgia. :awesomeface:
Why not bring back US 16 in Michigan? I'm a proponent of keeping routes around as long as there's a maintained through route (so, not so much US 66 in the Southwest, sadly).
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2016, 11:13:10 PM
Why not bring back US 16 in Michigan? I'm a proponent of keeping routes around as long as there's a maintained through route (so, not so much US 66 in the Southwest, sadly).
Grand River is basically intact, I never understood why it never went back to being numbered M-16 like was before the US Route system.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 13, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2016, 03:27:09 PM
WI-16 could really be largely eliminated without much trouble.
Between LaCrosse and Sparta - replaced with WI-21 extention
Between Sparta and Tomah - county highway
Between Tomah and WI Dells - eliminated due to duplex with US-12
Between Dells and Columbus - replaced with WI-89 extention
Between Columbus and Watertown - eliminated due to duplexes with WI-60 and WI-26
Between Watertown and I-94 - replaced with WI-19 extention
You can combine a lot of routes like WI-164 and WI-144 just duplex the two ends with I-41. Personally I am getting tired of all these routing changes. I just noticed a few months ago WI-74 is gone. I am thinking why now? Why not at least wait another year when the next edition of the state map comes out. The 2015-2016 edition is already out of date and it's still 2016. I don't get why it was even done away with at all in the first place. Nothing at least I am aware of has added as a state highway anywhere in the area. What's the trade off here?
The trade off is additional mileage for US 18 when it moves to the Les Paul Parkway. And because the village of Menominee Falls requested the removal.
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 13, 2016, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 13, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2016, 03:27:09 PM
WI-16 could really be largely eliminated without much trouble.
Between LaCrosse and Sparta - replaced with WI-21 extention
Between Sparta and Tomah - county highway
Between Tomah and WI Dells - eliminated due to duplex with US-12
Between Dells and Columbus - replaced with WI-89 extention
Between Columbus and Watertown - eliminated due to duplexes with WI-60 and WI-26
Between Watertown and I-94 - replaced with WI-19 extention
You can combine a lot of routes like WI-164 and WI-144 just duplex the two ends with I-41. Personally I am getting tired of all these routing changes. I just noticed a few months ago WI-74 is gone. I am thinking why now? Why not at least wait another year when the next edition of the state map comes out. The 2015-2016 edition is already out of date and it's still 2016. I don't get why it was even done away with at all in the first place. Nothing at least I am aware of has added as a state highway anywhere in the area. What's the trade off here?
The trade off is additional mileage for US 18 when it moves to the Les Paul Parkway. And because the village of Menominee Falls requested the removal.
Don't forget about its triplex with WI 13 and WI 23 through WI Dells across the Wisconsin River.
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 13, 2016, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 13, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2016, 03:27:09 PM
WI-16 could really be largely eliminated without much trouble.
Between LaCrosse and Sparta - replaced with WI-21 extention
Between Sparta and Tomah - county highway
Between Tomah and WI Dells - eliminated due to duplex with US-12
Between Dells and Columbus - replaced with WI-89 extention
Between Columbus and Watertown - eliminated due to duplexes with WI-60 and WI-26
Between Watertown and I-94 - replaced with WI-19 extention
You can combine a lot of routes like WI-164 and WI-144 just duplex the two ends with I-41. Personally I am getting tired of all these routing changes. I just noticed a few months ago WI-74 is gone. I am thinking why now? Why not at least wait another year when the next edition of the state map comes out. The 2015-2016 edition is already out of date and it's still 2016. I don't get why it was even done away with at all in the first place. Nothing at least I am aware of has added as a state highway anywhere in the area. What's the trade off here?
The trade off is additional mileage for US 18 when it moves to the Les Paul Parkway. And because the village of Menominee Falls requested the removal.
And unless I'm missing something, the WI-74 removal was the first significant route change since the reroutes with the opening of the US-10 freeway between I-39 and Marshfield. And that was...seven years ago?
Has Wisconsin ever gone that long between changes in state highway numbering?
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 13, 2016, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 13, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2016, 03:27:09 PM
WI-16 could really be largely eliminated without much trouble.
Between LaCrosse and Sparta - replaced with WI-21 extention
Between Sparta and Tomah - county highway
Between Tomah and WI Dells - eliminated due to duplex with US-12
Between Dells and Columbus - replaced with WI-89 extention
Between Columbus and Watertown - eliminated due to duplexes with WI-60 and WI-26
Between Watertown and I-94 - replaced with WI-19 extention
You can combine a lot of routes like WI-164 and WI-144 just duplex the two ends with I-41. Personally I am getting tired of all these routing changes. I just noticed a few months ago WI-74 is gone. I am thinking why now? Why not at least wait another year when the next edition of the state map comes out. The 2015-2016 edition is already out of date and it's still 2016. I don't get why it was even done away with at all in the first place. Nothing at least I am aware of has added as a state highway anywhere in the area. What's the trade off here?
The trade off is additional mileage for US 18 when it moves to the Les Paul Parkway. And because the village of Menominee Falls requested the removal.
How is that even a trade off? The Les Paul Parkway is already a state highway with both WI-59 and WI-164. That's not even planned to happen for another 4 years why not wait until that happens and turn over WI-74? I still have doubts if that is even ever going to happen. It's been delayed like 25 times. The decommissioning of WI-74 was a very idiotic decommissioning in my opinion.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 14, 2016, 10:21:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 13, 2016, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 13, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2016, 03:27:09 PM
WI-16 could really be largely eliminated without much trouble.
Between LaCrosse and Sparta - replaced with WI-21 extention
Between Sparta and Tomah - county highway
Between Tomah and WI Dells - eliminated due to duplex with US-12
Between Dells and Columbus - replaced with WI-89 extention
Between Columbus and Watertown - eliminated due to duplexes with WI-60 and WI-26
Between Watertown and I-94 - replaced with WI-19 extention
You can combine a lot of routes like WI-164 and WI-144 just duplex the two ends with I-41. Personally I am getting tired of all these routing changes. I just noticed a few months ago WI-74 is gone. I am thinking why now? Why not at least wait another year when the next edition of the state map comes out. The 2015-2016 edition is already out of date and it's still 2016. I don't get why it was even done away with at all in the first place. Nothing at least I am aware of has added as a state highway anywhere in the area. What's the trade off here?
The trade off is additional mileage for US 18 when it moves to the Les Paul Parkway. And because the village of Menominee Falls requested the removal.
And unless I'm missing something, the WI-74 removal was the first significant route change since the reroutes with the opening of the US-10 freeway between I-39 and Marshfield. And that was...seven years ago?
Has Wisconsin ever gone that long between changes in state highway numbering?
That was only like 3 years ago as far as I am concerned Wisconsin could go 50 years without any routing changes. Over the 35 years I have been alive there have been so many of them I can't even count. I see no reason tat they could not have at least waited until the time the next edition of the state map came out. The current one is already out of date after just being out a few months. What was the hurry? The US 18 change in Waukesha hasn't even started yet. I am boycotting this change by never driving on the old WI-74 ever.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 14, 2016, 11:21:29 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 14, 2016, 10:21:57 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 13, 2016, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 13, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 13, 2016, 03:27:09 PM
WI-16 could really be largely eliminated without much trouble.
Between LaCrosse and Sparta - replaced with WI-21 extention
Between Sparta and Tomah - county highway
Between Tomah and WI Dells - eliminated due to duplex with US-12
Between Dells and Columbus - replaced with WI-89 extention
Between Columbus and Watertown - eliminated due to duplexes with WI-60 and WI-26
Between Watertown and I-94 - replaced with WI-19 extention
You can combine a lot of routes like WI-164 and WI-144 just duplex the two ends with I-41. Personally I am getting tired of all these routing changes. I just noticed a few months ago WI-74 is gone. I am thinking why now? Why not at least wait another year when the next edition of the state map comes out. The 2015-2016 edition is already out of date and it's still 2016. I don't get why it was even done away with at all in the first place. Nothing at least I am aware of has added as a state highway anywhere in the area. What's the trade off here?
The trade off is additional mileage for US 18 when it moves to the Les Paul Parkway. And because the village of Menominee Falls requested the removal.
And unless I'm missing something, the WI-74 removal was the first significant route change since the reroutes with the opening of the US-10 freeway between I-39 and Marshfield. And that was...seven years ago?
Has Wisconsin ever gone that long between changes in state highway numbering?
That was only like 3 years ago as far as I am concerned Wisconsin could go 50 years without any routing changes. Over the 35 years I have been alive there have been so many of them I can't even count. I see no reason tat they could not have at least waited until the time the next edition of the state map came out. The current one is already out of date after just being out a few months. What was the hurry? The US 18 change in Waukesha hasn't even started yet. I am boycotting this change by never driving on the old WI-74 ever.
Seems reasonable. :crazy:
Quote from: dvferyance on June 14, 2016, 11:18:04 AM
How is that even a trade off? The Les Paul Parkway is already a state highway with both WI-59 and WI-164. That's not even planned to happen for another 4 years why not wait until that happens and turn over WI-74? I still have doubts if that is even ever going to happen. It's been delayed like 25 times. The decommissioning of WI-74 was a very idiotic decommissioning in my opinion.
Bottom line: Menominee Falls asked WisDOT to decommission WI-74. An absolutely minor highway. Just like when Slinger asked WisDOT to remove WI-144 from downtown. Once you do that, you have a State highway that ends in the middle of nowhere. So, on what planet does it make sense to leave WI-74 alone? The village that it leads to doesn't want it, the state would rather not maintain it, and it's pretty much a local commuter route.
Boycott it all you want. It's easy enough to take the bajillion other roads within a mile of WI-74 that take you to the same place (Lannon Rd, County Line Rd, Pilgrim Rd, Town Hall Rd, etc., etc., etc.)
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 14, 2016, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 14, 2016, 11:18:04 AM
How is that even a trade off? The Les Paul Parkway is already a state highway with both WI-59 and WI-164. That's not even planned to happen for another 4 years why not wait until that happens and turn over WI-74? I still have doubts if that is even ever going to happen. It's been delayed like 25 times. The decommissioning of WI-74 was a very idiotic decommissioning in my opinion.
Bottom line: Menominee Falls asked WisDOT to decommission WI-74. An absolutely minor highway.
Yeah that's a good reason. Menominee Falls is the most crooked corrupt suburb in SE Wisconsin. If it's so minor then why was it ever state highway all these years in the first place?
Quote from: dvferyance on June 15, 2016, 01:54:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 14, 2016, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 14, 2016, 11:18:04 AM
How is that even a trade off? The Les Paul Parkway is already a state highway with both WI-59 and WI-164. That's not even planned to happen for another 4 years why not wait until that happens and turn over WI-74? I still have doubts if that is even ever going to happen. It's been delayed like 25 times. The decommissioning of WI-74 was a very idiotic decommissioning in my opinion.
Bottom line: Menominee Falls asked WisDOT to decommission WI-74. An absolutely minor highway.
Yeah that's a good reason. Menominee Falls is the most crooked corrupt suburb in SE Wisconsin. If it's so minor then why was it ever state highway all these years in the first place?
That's actually an excellent reason. Can you give a better reason to keep it other than "it's always been that way".
Do tell me, what would be the purpose of keeping WI-74? Is it all the non-local traffic going from Waukesha to Menominee Falls? Is it because the road is more significant than the others around it?
Menominee Falls being "crooked and corrupt" (it's not) has nothing to do with whether or not it's a "good reason". Did you have the same opinion of Slinger when they requested that 144 be removed from Slinger? How about some of the other communities that have done the same thing over the years? Are they "crooked and corrupt" as well?
It's a road. Get over it.
SH 74 was once a more important route. It originally was signed along Brown Deer Rd. all the way to near the lake. Then that portion was replaced by the SH 100 belt, and 74 was pushed west. I remember it running a straight E-W alignment from Menomonee Falls to SH 83. Then the part west of 164 (which originally ended at 74) was turned back to the county, and 74 started drifting south. 164 became an even more important route over time and 74 was truncated into pointlessness. It was inevitable that it would be turned over to local control.
As for another route, I'm surprised SH 24 is still on the state books. Just abruptly ends at the county line at one end and a co-termination at SH 241 at the other end.
There seems to be a cap on the total mileage of state highways that WisDOT will accept. I know that locally, the two times the counties in my area have asked for a transfer of a county highway to state jurisdiction (that I'm aware of), WisDOT has answered they can only do so if the counties take some equivalent state highway mileage off their books.
The first was in the late 1980s, when Pierce County asked that the two county highways that connected Prescott to Hager City be added to the state highway system. Traffic counts had spiked on them in the few years previously after the Great River Road was routed onto them, after the rules about what roads it could be routed on were relaxed to able to include county highways. WisDOT did allow it, but only after Pierce and Pepin counties agreed to take control of what had been WIS 183 further east, connecting Spring Valley to Pepin. Today that's CTH-CC. WIS 35 was rerouted onto the Hager City-Prescott section, where it joins briefly with US 10 and then onto WIS 29 to get it back to the rest of itself in River Falls. Previously it had followed US 63 north from Hager City to Ellsworth, then was the solo highway from Ellsworth to River Falls. That portion became a southern extension of WIS 65. I know the county governments felt a bit screwed by this arrangement, as CTH-CC is actually several miles longer than the newer portion of WIS 35 is.
Later on, in the 1990s, I know that St. Croix and Pierce counties asked the state about possibly taking on CTH F as a state highway, which parallels the St. Croix River (and the state line) between Hudson and Prescott. Traffic counts along this road were (and still are) high enough to justify it being a state highway, and again, it seems a more logical routing for WIS 35 to keep it hugging the state line. This time, they were turned down, as there was no state highway mileage in either county of equivalent length that the counties wanted to take on. They also said the counties had allowed too much private driveway access along it, in excess of what is allowed on rural state highway, and before they could take it on, some of those driveways would have to be cut off.
If such a move like that were to be made in the future, we'd need a new number for the 4-lane near-freeway WIS 35 currently occupies connecting Hudson to River Falls. How does WIS-594 sound to everyone? :)
I've noticed the cap too. It seems like at some point, WISDOT set a maximum number of miles to the state highway system. In order to create a new highway or extend an existing one, mileage from another part of the state highway system must be taken away. Does anyone think my state's DOT did this because whatever the number is, is the maximum number of route miles the state can properly maintain?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2016, 04:48:03 PM
I've noticed the cap too. It seems like at some point, WISDOT set a maximum number of miles to the state highway system. In order to create a new highway or extend an existing one, mileage from another part of the state highway system must be taken away. Does anyone think my state's DOT did this because whatever the number is, is the maximum number of route miles the state can properly maintain?
If I'm not mistaken, the mileage of the highway system in Wisconsin is a matter of legislation. WisDOT can't exceed it. (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I heard that was the case)
Any idea what the cap is? In Minnesota I think it's 12,000; currently the existing trunk highway mileage is around 11,930 so not an overwhelmingly huge realm of space for movement, not that there are any huge things on MnDOT's list that would pose a problem at this time anyway.