WIS 175 runs along the old alignment of US 41 between Fond Du Lac and Milwaukee while US 12 and Wis 16 mostly run parallel to I-90/94 northwest of Wisconsin Dells.
When I-43 replaced old alignments of US 141 and Wis 15, those alignments became County Roads. Why not turn Wis 175 back to the county as well as parallel sections of US 12 and Wis 16? To continue the routes US 12 could be moved onto I-94 between Wis Dells and Black River Falls and between Eau Claire and Hudson.
Wis 16 could either be truncated at Wis Dells with a new highway designation west of Sparta or run concurrent with the interstates as well.
One more route that could also go back to the counties is US 53 between Osseo and Eau Claire which could easily be moved to I-94.
This would free up state highway mileage that WISDOT could use elsewhere instead of along parallel redundant roads that are only used for local traffic.
Whenever this discussion comes up the consensus seems overwhelmingly no, usually with people citing US/state routes as better dependability for alternate routes if they are needed.
Minnesota as a contrasting example of a state that did turn back those redundant routes, tough to be sure if it makes a difference or not.
Guess it depends. I saw a couple places where WI 175 is also signed as ALT I-41, so there might be an incentive to keep it.
Although, I found this oddity where an intersection had ALT I-41 signed in three places at a four-way stop.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4214142,-88.3753352,3a,61y,107.22h,83.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxb43WvSpgy8C49w-bp0weQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.882247880161373%26panoid%3Dxb43WvSpgy8C49w-bp0weQ%26yaw%3D107.2159762608544!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
The counties don't want them turned back. It will end up being a big jurisdictional fight with winners and losers.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2025, 06:10:45 PMThe counties don't want them turned back. It will end up being a big jurisdictional fight with winners and losers.
I don't know how it is in WI. In MN the state gives the counties money for the roads they take over, so jurisdictions here tend to be more approachable about turnbacks (the infamous exception is the remaining piece of TH 101 in Carver County, the last legacy of an aggravating process that's lasted since 1988).
Quote from: PColumbus73 on January 14, 2025, 05:19:32 PMGuess it depends. I saw a couple places where WI 175 is also signed as ALT I-41, so there might be an incentive to keep it.
Although, I found this oddity where an intersection had ALT I-41 signed in three places at a four-way stop.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4214142,-88.3753352,3a,61y,107.22h,83.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxb43WvSpgy8C49w-bp0weQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.882247880161373%26panoid%3Dxb43WvSpgy8C49w-bp0weQ%26yaw%3D107.2159762608544!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
There was a grade separation with a jug handle until 2005 when the bridge was replaced with an at grade 4 way stop. Here's pics from the Wisconsin Historical Society.
https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Property/HI46031
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 14, 2025, 06:14:38 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2025, 06:10:45 PMThe counties don't want them turned back. It will end up being a big jurisdictional fight with winners and losers.
I don't know how it is in WI. In MN the state gives the counties money for the roads they take over, so jurisdictions here tend to be more approachable about turnbacks (the infamous exception is the remaining piece of TH 101 in Carver County, the last legacy of an aggravating process that's lasted since 1988).
Minnesota's county roads can continue to receive state funding for maintenance in perpetuity as long as they are included in the county state-aid highway system. WI doesn't seem to have the equivalent of that.
Overall, the counties do a good job of maintaining the frontage roads—a much better job than the state would do considering it would be lower on the priority list. However, there is a problem with what was done during the construction of I-35 between exit 84 and 85 in Lakeville. They ended up mangling the old US 65/TH 165 alignment in the area, so there isn't a thru frontage road there and anyone looking for an alternate would be forced to drive all the way to the CSAH 50/CSAH 60 roundabout. That wouldn't have happened under the WisDOT philosophy of keeping the old alignments as US highways.
Quote from: peterj920 on January 14, 2025, 04:10:39 PMThis would free up state highway mileage that WISDOT could use elsewhere instead of along parallel redundant roads that are only used for local traffic.
Although I wouldn't have a problem with WI 311 going away, IMHO they would be better either reevaluating the size of the mileage cap or abolishing it altogether.
STH 175 has existed since US 41 was moved onto its present alignment in 1952: https://wisconsinhighways.org/listings/WiscHwys170-179.html#STH-175. It has been retracted on the north end twice (and may be retracted further if the Interstate 41 interchange with US 151 is one day converted into a freeway-to-freeway interchange) and extended on the southern end once. I don't think it will be decommissioned east of the Interstate 41 Zoo Freeway in Milwaukee, but west of the Zoo Freeway onward towards Fond Du Lac is anyone's guess.
It's not as though there is a bunch of mileage that needs to be turned into state highways either. Sure there are some examples here and there, but most the state highways either system covers 99% of the most important highways in the state.
If it is required to compensate for new routes? Why not?
Quote from: PColumbus73 on January 14, 2025, 05:19:32 PMGuess it depends. I saw a couple places where WI 175 is also signed as ALT I-41, so there might be an incentive to keep it.
Although, I found this oddity where an intersection had ALT I-41 signed in three places at a four-way stop.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4214142,-88.3753352,3a,61y,107.22h,83.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxb43WvSpgy8C49w-bp0weQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.882247880161373%26panoid%3Dxb43WvSpgy8C49w-bp0weQ%26yaw%3D107.2159762608544!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Wisconsin likes to sign nearby parallel routes as alternate interstates and other freeways, in case of closures, massive traffic jams, construction, etc. They are not considered official in reporting to the federal government - it's just a Wisconsin thing. And there could be several alternate routes as well - I-94 west of Milwaukee toward Madison has three of them. Alternate highways also have spurs connecting those routes to the main interstate (hence the weird directional signs). The system gets a bit too confusing if you think too much about it.
And yes, WIS 175 does carry the alternate routing for I-41/US 41 and US 45 (though US 45 branches off onto its own freeway in Richfield). There are many more ALT signs on the Washington County portion of WIS 175, which may be related to ongoing attempts to turn the road back to county control. That probably won't happen for a while, if at all.
All in all, WIS 175 is a nice non-freeway alternate to I-41. High speeds, nice scenery and rolling hills. I used it once driving north, as there was a truck accident near Lomira. I exited at WIS 60 and turned right on WIS 175, following it to its current terminus at US 151 just south of Fond du Lac.
Quote from: FightingIrish on January 16, 2025, 08:24:35 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on January 14, 2025, 05:19:32 PMGuess it depends. I saw a couple places where WI 175 is also signed as ALT I-41, so there might be an incentive to keep it.
Although, I found this oddity where an intersection had ALT I-41 signed in three places at a four-way stop.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4214142,-88.3753352,3a,61y,107.22h,83.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxb43WvSpgy8C49w-bp0weQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.882247880161373%26panoid%3Dxb43WvSpgy8C49w-bp0weQ%26yaw%3D107.2159762608544!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Wisconsin likes to sign nearby parallel routes as alternate interstates and other freeways, in case of closures, massive traffic jams, construction, etc. They are not considered official in reporting to the federal government - it's just a Wisconsin thing. And there could be several alternate routes as well - I-94 west of Milwaukee toward Madison has three of them. Alternate highways also have spurs connecting those routes to the main interstate (hence the weird directional signs). The system gets a bit too confusing if you think too much about it.
And yes, WIS 175 does carry the alternate routing for I-41/US 41 and US 45 (though US 45 branches off onto its own freeway in Richfield). There are many more ALT signs on the Washington County portion of WIS 175, which may be related to ongoing attempts to turn the road back to county control. That probably won't happen for a while, if at all.
The alt signage appears to be exclusive to Washington County, turning off on CTH-Q. South of there, there is another alternate that follows STH-100 and I-43. I would say this is in an attempt to sign alternates that can actually handle the traffic rather than signing them with the hope that they can be turned back in the future.
Side note that this is probably the only time that Google's tendency to document these alternates has been useful. ;-)
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 14, 2025, 04:40:02 PMWhenever this discussion comes up the consensus seems overwhelmingly no, usually with people citing US/state routes as better dependability for alternate routes if they are needed.
Minnesota as a contrasting example of a state that did turn back those redundant routes, tough to be sure if it makes a difference or not.
I'm not from not from and have never been in Wisconsin and have barely, if ever, been in its airspace. That said, what is the point of destroying that which has been created at great cost? If the cost of maintenance exceeds the value of the use, then sure, work out how to decommission the parallel at minimal cost. Until such time, keep on rolling!
`
Quote from: michravera on January 17, 2025, 01:17:03 AMQuote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 14, 2025, 04:40:02 PMWhenever this discussion comes up the consensus seems overwhelmingly no, usually with people citing US/state routes as better dependability for alternate routes if they are needed.
Minnesota as a contrasting example of a state that did turn back those redundant routes, tough to be sure if it makes a difference or not.
I'm not from not from and have never been in Wisconsin and have barely, if ever, been in its airspace. That said, what is the point of destroying that which has been created at great cost? If the cost of maintenance exceeds the value of the use, then sure, work out how to decommission the parallel at minimal cost. Until such time, keep on rolling!
`
Nothing is getting "destroyed" here. The roads still exist. The OP's original question may be a little broad, but there are stretches...such as US-12/WI-16 between the Dells and Black River Falls...where you can see the interstate from the state route. Relocating those routes to the interstate to free up highway mileage is not a bad question to ask, but I think there are very Wisconsin-specific reasons why the answer is "no."
Fictional?
Québec actually does the sensible thing in terms of roads for once, and the routes are followed by shield and not jurisdiction - though I will admit sometimes that signage is poor. Just in Québec City alone, QC 360 and 369 have turns that aren't signed. Also, the pavement quality can be poorer, though MTQ isn't that far better.
Anyways, Wisconsin might benefit from the "shield, not maintenance" thing, but there are cons to the idea as I mentioned above.
Certainly not US-12/WI-16. WI-175, maybe.
Quote from: thspfc on January 17, 2025, 08:26:40 AMCertainly not US-12/WI-16. WI-175, maybe.
Yeah traffic counts get pretty small north of Slinger. From there to Fond du Lac is only about 35 miles though, about 7-8 of which there are multiplexes with WI-28 and WI-67. But again, this doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2025, 09:56:46 AMQuote from: thspfc on January 17, 2025, 08:26:40 AMCertainly not US-12/WI-16. WI-175, maybe.
Yeah traffic counts get pretty small north of Slinger. From there to Fond du Lac is only about 35 miles though, about 7-8 of which there are multiplexes with WI-28 and WI-67. But again, this doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me.
Pehaps Wisconsin should look into the 'county/local maintained, but state marked' thing, sort of a mirror of the 'non chargeable interstate' highway thing.
Mike
Quote from: LilianaUwU on January 17, 2025, 07:38:15 AMQuébec actually does the sensible thing in terms of roads for once, and the routes are followed by shield and not jurisdiction
Although, oddly enough, QC 136 (the new one) ends where provincial jurisdiction ends, where A-720 did. I was hoping they'd extend it up Rue Notre-Dame and Rue Dickinson and take over Avenue Souligny to end at A-25 (which would have at least given us a silver lining to all this), but alas, they didn't. The real one ends at an odd place too.
Quote from: mgk920 on January 17, 2025, 12:52:27 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2025, 09:56:46 AMQuote from: thspfc on January 17, 2025, 08:26:40 AMCertainly not US-12/WI-16. WI-175, maybe.
Yeah traffic counts get pretty small north of Slinger. From there to Fond du Lac is only about 35 miles though, about 7-8 of which there are multiplexes with WI-28 and WI-67. But again, this doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me.
Pehaps Wisconsin should look into the 'county/local maintained, but state marked' thing, sort of a mirror of the 'non chargeable interstate' highway thing.
Mike
If there is an issue in funding maintenance, if Wisconsin has un-numbered state-maintained roads, maybe look into reverting some of those to the local jurisdiction, roads within city limits for example. Avoid doing something like I-465 with a dozen hidden concurrencies.
I'm pretty sure that part of it is due to WisDOT now using freeway "alternate" routes. 99% of those are routed onto state highways. I'm sure that it's related to maintenance and capacity. They can control the maintenance on state routes, but not county or city roads.
WisDOT also specifically has invested money into parallel routes (as County roads) to maintain emergency routing capability, one example being County G between Janesville and Beloit. This despite US-51 being only another mile away and (at the time) 4-laned.
I would be in favor of rerouting WI-26 out of Waupun and onto US-151. Is there some issue there? Is the city of Waupun unwilling to take the road or something? Now you say free up milage to use elsewhere is there some particular routes you had in mind? I know there is a millage cap of 12,000 miles but I beleive they are 600 miles under it so I don't know why there can't be some additional millage.
If STH 26 was going to be rerouted to bypass Waupun, it would have happened when the US 151 bypass was completed in 1962. Since it still goes through Waupun to this day, I don't see it ever being relocated.
Heck, WisDOT should also reroute WI 26 to follow recently concrete rebuilt Dodge County 'A' bypassing Juneau, WI. That is now far and away toe BEST county highway that I have driven in a long while and is a favored big-rig truck route!
Mike
Quote from: dvferyance on January 20, 2025, 04:48:36 PMI know there is a millage cap of 12,000 miles but I beleive they are 600 miles under it so I don't know why there can't be some additional millage.
I think they are only about 250 miles under. Anyway I think the simple answer is cost.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 21, 2025, 11:12:02 AMIf STH 26 was going to be rerouted to bypass Waupun, it would have happened when the US 151 bypass was completed in 1962. Since it still goes through Waupun to this day, I don't see it ever being relocated.
You could be right about that. I wonder if it's just because the city doesn't want to take the road. I am sure most traffic taking 26 probably uses 151 to bypass town anyways. This would be the one rerouting in the state I would be 100% in favor of.
Quote from: dvferyance on January 21, 2025, 01:37:26 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 21, 2025, 11:12:02 AMIf STH 26 was going to be rerouted to bypass Waupun, it would have happened when the US 151 bypass was completed in 1962. Since it still goes through Waupun to this day, I don't see it ever being relocated.
You could be right about that. I wonder if it's just because the city doesn't want to take the road. I am sure most traffic taking 26 probably uses 151 to bypass town anyways. This would be the one rerouting in the state I would be 100% in favor of.
The city already has the road but would lose the connecting highway aid that goes along with it.
Quote from: peterj920 on January 23, 2025, 01:35:54 AMQuote from: dvferyance on January 21, 2025, 01:37:26 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 21, 2025, 11:12:02 AMIf STH 26 was going to be rerouted to bypass Waupun, it would have happened when the US 151 bypass was completed in 1962. Since it still goes through Waupun to this day, I don't see it ever being relocated.
You could be right about that. I wonder if it's just because the city doesn't want to take the road. I am sure most traffic taking 26 probably uses 151 to bypass town anyways. This would be the one rerouting in the state I would be 100% in favor of.
The city already has the road but would lose the connecting highway aid that goes along with it.
That US 151/WI 26 interchange on Waupun's NE side is at the top of my list of 'overegineered' interchanges (as I mentioned in a prior thread here in AA Rads). It SHOULD have been a straight across street bridge crossing with no ramp connections.
WI 26 between there and the Dodge Co. 'A' intersection SW of Juneau, WI should become a lettered county highway or highways.
Mike
I could agree that the free-flow ramp on STH 26 northbound was overkill. Would the interchange just to the south (Exit 147) be considered overbuilt as well?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2025, 01:11:45 PMI could agree that the free-flow ramp on STH 26 northbound was overkill. Would the interchange just to the south (Exit 147) be considered overbuilt as well?
I would have WI 49 and its US 151 interchange be the main entrance into town from the east and north.
Mike
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2025, 01:11:45 PMI could agree that the free-flow ramp on STH 26 northbound was overkill. Would the interchange just to the south (Exit 147) be considered overbuilt as well?
Keep in mind that the upgraded 151 wasn't around when the 26 interchange was built - at that time it was still the WisDOT preferred route to Oshkosh.
That's true. Although the US 151 Waupun Bypass opened in 1962, it remained a two-lane highway until the 1990s. The STH 26 North interchange was constructed when the Waupun Bypass-to-Fond du Lac segment of US 151 was expanded to four lanes in the 2000s. Further southwest, the Columbus-to-Waupun Freeway Conversion Study was restarted this year: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/151/default.aspx.
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 29, 2025, 08:09:14 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2025, 01:11:45 PMI could agree that the free-flow ramp on STH 26 northbound was overkill. Would the interchange just to the south (Exit 147) be considered overbuilt as well?
Keep in mind that the upgraded 151 wasn't around when the 26 interchange was built - at that time it was still the WisDOT preferred route to Oshkosh.
But wasn't the upgraded 151 in the plans, and just a couple years away from reality, when the current WI-26 interchange was built? I thought they were both part of a long-term project to upgrade the entire corridor.
As far as alternates are concerned, County ES is signed as an I-43 alternate in Waukesha County. County R in Brown/Manitowoc Counties, CR, DL, and LL are all high quality county roads that didn't retain a state highway designation when I-43 was opened. There must have been a policy shift between the building of I-90/94 and I-43 that turned old alignments back to the counties.
There's no reason to think that Wis 175 along with the sections of US 12/Wis 16 parallel to an interstate wouldn't be able to handle interstate alternate designations.
One other note on the alternates. They're gone after heading north of Oshkosh on I-41 and north of Sheboygan on I-43.
Quote from: peterj920 on January 30, 2025, 02:26:47 AMAs far as alternates are concerned, County ES is signed as an I-43 alternate in Waukesha County. County R in Brown/Manitowoc Counties, CR, DL, and LL are all high quality county roads that didn't retain a state highway designation when I-43 was opened. There must have been a policy shift between the building of I-90/94 and I-43 that turned old alignments back to the counties.
There's no reason to think that Wis 175 along with the sections of US 12/Wis 16 parallel to an interstate wouldn't be able to handle interstate alternate designations.
One other note on the alternates. They're gone after heading north of Oshkosh on I-41 and north of Sheboygan on I-43.
Oshkosh city streets also cannot handle the detour traffic load when the I-41 Lake Butte des Morts causeway goes down, that has been proven several times over the past couple of decades. That is why I consider that crossing to be one of the, if not the, most major weak points in the entire transport system anywhere in the State of Wisconsin.
Mike
This is sort of like InDOT continuing to maintain a divided four lanes of US 52 southeast of Lafayette, IN, even though I-65 very closely parallels it most of the way from there to Indianapolis.
Mike
Quote from: peterj920 on January 30, 2025, 02:26:47 AMAs far as alternates are concerned, County ES is signed as an I-43 alternate in Waukesha County. County R in Brown/Manitowoc Counties, CR, DL, and LL are all high quality county roads that didn't retain a state highway designation when I-43 was opened. There must have been a policy shift between the building of I-90/94 and I-43 that turned old alignments back to the counties.
There's no reason to think that Wis 175 along with the sections of US 12/Wis 16 parallel to an interstate wouldn't be able to handle interstate alternate designations.
One other note on the alternates. They're gone after heading north of Oshkosh on I-41 and north of Sheboygan on I-43.
and north of WIS-16 on I-39 (with intermittent ones in Stevens Point with orange banners indicating temporary alts)
There are Alternate Interstate 39/94 signs on US 51 in Madison. There is also an Alternate US 18/151 on US 14 and CTH M.
Quote from: peterj920 on January 30, 2025, 02:26:47 AMAs far as alternates are concerned, County ES is signed as an I-43 alternate in Waukesha County. County R in Brown/Manitowoc Counties, CR, DL, and LL are all high quality county roads that didn't retain a state highway designation when I-43 was opened. There must have been a policy shift between the building of I-90/94 and I-43 that turned old alignments back to the counties.
There's no reason to think that Wis 175 along with the sections of US 12/Wis 16 parallel to an interstate wouldn't be able to handle interstate alternate designations.
One other note on the alternates. They're gone after heading north of Oshkosh on I-41 and north of Sheboygan on I-43.
In the case of CTH-ES (former WI-15), it was already a county highway when the "Alternate" program started. Based on the fact that ES is a heavily used suburban road, WisDOT is probably comfortable with the arrangement.
Quote from: mgk920 on January 30, 2025, 02:31:22 PMThis is sort of like InDOT continuing to maintain a divided four lanes of US 52 southeast of Lafayette, IN, even though I-65 very closely parallels it most of the way from there to Indianapolis.
Mike
Restriping it such that it becomes a two lane road along one of the carriageways would make the abandoned carriageway a massive target for graffiti artists. Which would not be well received in the rural areas the route passes through.
Quote from: thspfc on February 04, 2025, 09:34:56 AMQuote from: mgk920 on January 30, 2025, 02:31:22 PMThis is sort of like InDOT continuing to maintain a divided four lanes of US 52 southeast of Lafayette, IN, even though I-65 very closely parallels it most of the way from there to Indianapolis.
Mike
Restriping it such that it becomes a two lane road along one of the carriageways would make the abandoned carriageway a massive target for graffiti artists. Which would not be well received in the rural areas the route passes through.
Large sections of Old Route 66 have an abandoned carriageway and it's not attracting graffiti artists. Either nature is taking over or parts are repurposed into a bike path.
In the Litchfield Area, guardrails were placed at intersections so motorists can't access the abandoned roadway. They figure that was cheaper than removing the road altogether.
It's discretion of who maintains the roadway. Barron County took over Old US 53 between Cameron and Rice Lake. It continues to be maintained as a 4 lane roadway despite being close to the US 53 freeway.
Quote from: peterj920 on February 04, 2025, 09:39:37 PMQuote from: thspfc on February 04, 2025, 09:34:56 AMQuote from: mgk920 on January 30, 2025, 02:31:22 PMThis is sort of like InDOT continuing to maintain a divided four lanes of US 52 southeast of Lafayette, IN, even though I-65 very closely parallels it most of the way from there to Indianapolis.
Mike
Restriping it such that it becomes a two lane road along one of the carriageways would make the abandoned carriageway a massive target for graffiti artists. Which would not be well received in the rural areas the route passes through.
Large sections of Old Route 66 have an abandoned carriageway and it's not attracting graffiti artists. Either nature is taking over or parts are repurposed into a bike path.
In the Litchfield Area, guardrails were placed at intersections so motorists can't access the abandoned roadway. They figure that was cheaper than removing the road altogether.
It's discretion of who maintains the roadway. Barron County took over Old US 53 between Cameron and Rice Lake. It continues to be maintained as a 4 lane roadway despite being close to the US 53 freeway.
I like when old carriageways are converted to bike paths. Sure it happens sometimes, but graffiti on a bike path is generally few and far between.
I fully agree with the thought of turning the abandoned carriageway into a recreational pathway.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on February 05, 2025, 01:32:14 AMI fully agree with the thought of turning the abandoned carriageway into a recreational pathway.
:nod:
Mike
Carriageway? I didn't know we were British.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 06, 2025, 07:28:57 PMQuote from: mgk920 on February 05, 2025, 01:32:14 AMI fully agree with the thought of turning the abandoned carriageway into a recreational pathway.
:nod:
Mike
Carriageway? I didn't know we were British.
Got a better word for it? Just wait until we start referring to large trucks as 'Lorries'.
Mike
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2025, 01:11:45 PMI could agree that the free-flow ramp on STH 26 northbound was overkill. Would the interchange just to the south (Exit 147) be considered overbuilt as well?
The NB Wis 26 free flow ramp wasn't overkill. It perfectly handles the large amount of traffic that exits to go north on Wis 26.
However, the 4 lane road to nowhere was overkill and Wis 26 traffic shouldn't be merging and exiting off a 4 lane road with almost no traffic. That section was a white elephant project within the interchange.
Quote from: peterj920 on February 07, 2025, 06:59:07 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 23, 2025, 01:11:45 PMI could agree that the free-flow ramp on STH 26 northbound was overkill. Would the interchange just to the south (Exit 147) be considered overbuilt as well?
The NB Wis 26 free flow ramp wasn't overkill. It perfectly handles the large amount of traffic that exits to go north on Wis 26.
However, the 4 lane road to nowhere was overkill and Wis 26 traffic shouldn't be merging and exiting off a 4 lane road with almost no traffic. That section was a white elephant project within the interchange.
Since the ultimate goal was to encourage drivers to stay on 151, the free flow ramp was definitely overkill.
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 08, 2025, 11:36:52 AMSince the ultimate goal was to encourage drivers to stay on 151, the free flow ramp was definitely overkill.
When the ramp went in, that wasn't the ultimate goal or, at the very least, the ultimate goal was far enough into the future that they needed to get it done. That original intersection was pretty dangerous and had a history of bad accidents.
I don't think Michigan has any old state/us routes next to freeways, they usually get sent over to county control, with some hidden segments that are maintained by the state but unsigned.
Quote from: michiganguy123 on February 08, 2025, 01:18:14 PMI don't think Michigan has any old state/us routes next to freeways, they usually get sent over to county control, with some hidden segments that are maintained by the state but unsigned.
There's a handful - M-96 parallel to I-94 in Calhoun and Kalamazoo counties, M-54 paralleling I-75, M-43 alongside I-96, US-24 parallel to I-75 in Monroe County, and M-121 parallel to I-196.
Extensive Emergency route signage has been posted on parallel roadways along the busier interstates and freeways, because of the need for guidance when traffic backups happen on the freeways.
As a general rule, however, they try not to hold onto routes they don't need to, and not signing the parallel routes encourages use of the freeway.
Quote from: michiganguy123 on February 08, 2025, 01:18:14 PMI don't think Michigan has any old state/us routes next to freeways, they usually get sent over to county control, with some hidden segments that are maintained by the state but unsigned.
Michigan doesn't have many parallel routes because it decommissions more US highways than any other state east of the Mississippi. US 2, 10, 16, 25, 27. Can say the same about Minnesota. If that state can't decommission they will hide the route like US 52 is for a few hundred miles.
Personally, I would've truncated US 52 to Saint Paul, and downgraded 52 in North Dakota to ND 52 (Carrington-to-Canada).
Quote from: peterj920 on February 11, 2025, 01:04:52 AMQuote from: michiganguy123 on February 08, 2025, 01:18:14 PMI don't think Michigan has any old state/us routes next to freeways, they usually get sent over to county control, with some hidden segments that are maintained by the state but unsigned.
Michigan doesn't have many parallel routes because it decommissions more US highways than any other state east of the Mississippi. US 2, 10, 16, 25, 27. Can say the same about Minnesota. If that state can't decommission they will hide the route like US 52 is for a few hundred miles.
Minnesota then also hides concurrent US routes concurrent to the Interstate.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 11, 2025, 01:14:35 PMPersonally, I would've truncated US 52 to Saint Paul, and downgraded 52 in North Dakota to ND 52 (Carrington-to-Canada).
That's a good idea but I would have the Jamestown to Minot section as an extension of US 10. The rest west of Minot can be ND 52.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 11, 2025, 01:14:35 PMPersonally, I would've truncated US 52 to Saint Paul, and downgraded 52 in North Dakota to ND 52 (Carrington-to-Canada).
I thought US-52 ended in St. Paul until well after I moved to the Twin Cities.