U.S. 212 Historic Extension

[Molandfreak]

http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210/rec/9

I can't help but wonder if Minnesota was hoping Wisconsin would plan to extend U.S. 212 somewhere in 1934... Ending it in Stillwater wouldn't make any sense otherwise, and I believe that was the plan with the first U.S. 59 (which became U.S. 63 a year later).

Was WI 64 a very important road in the 1930s? Sure, it's endpoint at U.S. 41 would be a very logical point for a U.S. route to end (as would extending it into the UP on M-35 and ending it in Escanaba I do realize), but I have a feeling 29 was still the more important road by far...

What's even more cool to think about is if Wisconsin rolled with it and signed 212 on 64, I bet 212 would still exist there today, given Wisconsin's reluctance to get rid of U.S. routes on their original paths (the exception being U.S. 16, but I could see them actually fighting for this). Then, 12 and 212 would still cross paths (though 12 would be unsigned and there would be no exit )

[SEWIGuy]

http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210/rec/9

I can't help but wonder if Minnesota was hoping Wisconsin would plan to extend U.S. 212 somewhere in 1934... Ending it in Stillwater wouldn't make any sense otherwise, and I believe that was the plan with the first U.S. 59 (which became U.S. 63 a year later).

Was WI 64 a very important road in the 1930s? Sure, it's endpoint at U.S. 41 would be a very logical point for a U.S. route to end (as would extending it into the UP on M-35 and ending it in Escanaba I do realize), but I have a feeling 29 was still the more important road by far...

Yeah, WI-64 was, and still is a relatively minor route that while crossing the state, doesn't really go through any towns of significance.  Although it could be argued the same of US-8!!

WI-29 likely was the more important route.

[hobsini2]

http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210/rec/9

I can't help but wonder if Minnesota was hoping Wisconsin would plan to extend U.S. 212 somewhere in 1934... Ending it in Stillwater wouldn't make any sense otherwise, and I believe that was the plan with the first U.S. 59 (which became U.S. 63 a year later).

Was WI 64 a very important road in the 1930s? Sure, it's endpoint at U.S. 41 would be a very logical point for a U.S. route to end (as would extending it into the UP on M-35 and ending it in Escanaba I do realize), but I have a feeling 29 was still the more important road by far...

Yeah, WI-64 was, and still is a relatively minor route that while crossing the state, doesn't really go through any towns of significance.  Although it could be argued the same of US-8!!

WI-29 likely was the more important route.

I'm sure the cities of Merrill and Antigo appreciate the "less significance" moniker, even if it is true. lol

[The High Plains Traveler]

Minnesota's 1934 numbering had several odd aspects, from today's standpoint. Apparently, AASHO didn't immediately put the brakes on their initial extensions of U.S. routes. (Kind of like the Minnesota Highway Department said, "We'll extend it now and get concurrence and permission later.")  Iowa apparently never agreed with the U.S. 59 proposal, and even the 1934 Minnesota map shows its northern end at U.S. 61 in Lake City and not extending into Wisconsin. That even though it would have been a pretty good place for a U.S. 59. There is no evidence I've seen any extension of U.S. 212 beyond the St. Croix River into Wisconsin was ever envisioned, for the reasons outlined above. I have an official 1934 Wisconsin map, showing the Minnesota changes (actually, the original numbering plan not fully implemented that included a U.S. 208 where 210 was).

[I94RoadRunner]

http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210/rec/9

I can't help but wonder if Minnesota was hoping Wisconsin would plan to extend U.S. 212 somewhere in 1934... Ending it in Stillwater wouldn't make any sense otherwise, and I believe that was the plan with the first U.S. 59 (which became U.S. 63 a year later).

Was WI 64 a very important road in the 1930s? Sure, it's endpoint at U.S. 41 would be a very logical point for a U.S. route to end (as would extending it into the UP on M-35 and ending it in Escanaba I do realize), but I have a feeling 29 was still the more important road by far...

What's even more cool to think about is if Wisconsin rolled with it and signed 212 on 64, I bet 212 would still exist there today, given Wisconsin's reluctance to get rid of U.S. routes on their original paths (the exception being U.S. 16, but I could see them actually fighting for this). Then, 12 and 212 would still cross paths (though 12 would be unsigned and there would be no exit )

I think WI 29 to Green Bay would be a logical extension IMO. I think WisDOT eventually wants an E-W interstate to replace WI 29 though

[JREwing78]

US-212 on the WI-29 corridor (or some US-x12 or US-x10 route) would make a lot of sense; it's rather incredible that the direct Minneapolis - Wausau - Green Bay route never merited a US Highway route, especially considering the routing of US-8 and US-10.

US-8 could have easily been placed on the WI-29 corridor, and a US 4 slotted in on the current US-8 route. The logical extension into the UP would place US-2 on the current M-28 corridor, a US-202 on the Ironwood-Iron Mountain route, and US-4 eastward to St. Ignace.

I'm sure there's good historical reasons for the crazy, jacked-up current routing, but I'll instead wait for a future I-96 designation on the WI-29 corridor.

[NE2]

US-212 on the WI-29 corridor (or some US-x12 or US-x10 route) would make a lot of sense; it's rather incredible that the direct Minneapolis - Wausau - Green Bay route never merited a US Highway route, especially considering the routing of US-8 and US-10.

Long-distance traffic bound for the UP was presumably seen as more important than regional traffic going to Green Bay. US 8 does form part of the shortest reasonable route between Minneapolis and Montreal, for example. (And if you were coming from farther west, 10-210-2 worked well. Hell, if Canada were ours in 1926, we might have had a US 10 from Seattle to the Maritimes via Duluth-SSM.)

For reference, here are Wisconsin's federal aid highways in 1934: http://www.flickr.com/photos/uconnlibrariesmagic/8020427303/in/set-72157631613692074
Had US 212 been extended east and stuck to them, it would have ended at US 8 north of Amery.

A modern extension of US 212 could follow MN 62-55 to Hastings and eat all of WI 29.

Also: MN-95: U-8?

[I94RoadRunner]

US-212 on the WI-29 corridor (or some US-x12 or US-x10 route) would make a lot of sense; it's rather incredible that the direct Minneapolis - Wausau - Green Bay route never merited a US Highway route, especially considering the routing of US-8 and US-10.

Long-distance traffic bound for the UP was presumably seen as more important than regional traffic going to Green Bay. US 8 does form part of the shortest reasonable route between Minneapolis and Montreal, for example. (And if you were coming from farther west, 10-210-2 worked well. Hell, if Canada were ours in 1926, we might have had a US 10 from Seattle to the Maritimes via Duluth-SSM.)

For reference, here are Wisconsin's federal aid highways in 1934: http://www.flickr.com/photos/uconnlibrariesmagic/8020427303/in/set-72157631613692074
Had US 212 been extended east and stuck to them, it would have ended at US 8 north of Amery.

A modern extension of US 212 could follow MN 62-55 to Hastings and eat all of WI 29.

Also: MN-95: U-8?

I thought of this after. I think this is an even better routing for a US 212 extension ..... I think ending US 212 at I-41 would be sufficient though

[Molandfreak]

Also: MN-95: U-8?

I've thought the same thing since U.S. 8 no longer makes it to Minneapolis. Both U.S. 8 and MN 95 are very important regional routes, but does that extra little length make a U.S. 8 reroute worthwhile? It could violate the grid slightly and take over the majority of the important part of MN 23 then, too.

[froggie]

MnDOT sees existing US 8 as an INTERregional route (emphasis mine).  Aside from the segment between Cambridge and North Branch, MN 95 is not.

Nevermind that you have far more traffic from western Wisconsin heading down into the Twin Cities than you do heading over to St. Cloud.

[I94RoadRunner]

MnDOT sees existing US 8 as an INTERregional route (emphasis mine).  Aside from the segment between Cambridge and North Branch, MN 95 is not.

Nevermind that you have far more traffic from western Wisconsin heading down into the Twin Cities than you do heading over to St. Cloud.

I agree that US 8 should stay right where it is in Minnesota unless it is relocated to a parallel 4 lane facility. Probably not in my lifetime though. At least Wisconsin is planning an improved US 8 between US 53 and Minnesota .....