Talk:Wyoming/highway classification

Overuse of Trunk?

I really like what you've started here! I particularly like your justification for every trunk route; I may steal that for Nebraska. My only question is that are we eliminating the function of the primary road too much? Compare WY to similarly populated states like MT, SD, ID, and NE; there's a lot more trunk roads in WY. Thoughts? --Stretch Longfellow (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not familiar with NE or SD, but for ID I think there's a few key differences from WY that lead to having fewer trunk routes. In ID, the vast majority of large towns — every single one with the exceptions of Lewiston and Coeur d'Alene — are connected to each other directly by interstate highways. For connections between Ontario (OR), Boise, Twin Falls, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, and Salt Lake City (UT), the best routes in all permutations fully utilize interstate highways. And the center of the state is extremely remote, without a single town of note in a huge area. So there's really no need for many additional trunk routes, since the routes that would qualify as trunk based on importance are already interstate motorways.

This contrasts sharply with Wyoming, where interstates do not provide the best routes between most of the large towns and connections to other states. For example, the routes between Casper and Gillette, Cheyenne and Gillette, Casper and Jackson, or Salt Lake City (UT) and Casper do not follow interstates for at least a good portion of their length.

I think with the new trunk definition we also have to re-think the definition of primary. To use an example in Utah, I wouldn't have considered UT 12 as a primary route before the updated trunk guidance, as it pales in comparison to the most important routes through the state. But now that routes such as US 6 and US 40 are trunk in Utah, there's room to extend the primary definition to routes like this that previously would have been secondary: those that serve connections to mid-sized towns or provide alternate connections to larger towns.

Oregonian3 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see your point for many of them. Two that I think need a second look: US 30's arc west of Laramie, outside of some small villages, serves the same destinations as I 80, and similarly WY 387 between Casper and Wright is redundant with I 25 and WY 59 to serve Gilette. --Stretch Longfellow (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

So I'm the SD guy, and I just wanted to drop in and add my two cents. I'm not sure what the actual traffic count data says, but I think US 85 and WY 585 from Orin Junction to Sundance should be looked at as a trunk route (at least upgrade 585 to primary since US 85 in SD is not the through route at all). Maybe it's just my bias since I would go that way from Spearfish to Laramie a lot but it seemed like traffic didn't drop off as much north of Orin Junction. On WY 387, it should be trunk as that's the way from Gillette to Casper, going through Douglas is significantly out of the way. SD Mapman (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of the US 30 loop off of I-80 I completely agree with you. It's actually not even listed in the table on this page; looks like somebody went rogue and updated it to trunk without looking at this page. No reason at all for that road to be trunk.

With respect to WY 387, I don't think it's redundant with WY 59. It's over 30 minutes faster to take WY 387 than staying on WY 59 from Gillette to Casper (and also about 30 minutes faster than taking I-90 to I-25). I see both routes serving different connections: WY 59 serves the Cheyenne-Gillette route while WY 387 serves the Casper-Gillette route. And with no significant difference in quality between the roads, I think that WY 387 should stay trunk. Actually, WY 50 is actually faster than both routes between Casper and Gillette. But in this case WY 50 is more prone to winter closures with worse road quality and the time difference is minuscule versus staying in WY 387, so I don't think it serves as the best route.

For WY 585, I personally don't see Cheyenne (or Denver for that matter) to Spearfish as an important-enough connection to be trunk. Cheyenne to Rapid City absolutely is, but that's already served by the existing trunk routes. But I can see your argument there, and if others disagree then I wouldn't be strongly opposed to it being trunk either. It's absolutely at least primary though. The primary-secondary-tertiary classification in Wyoming is a giant mess at the moment and definitely needs significant work.

Oregonian3 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense, as long as 585 is upgraded to primary at least there's no argument from me. I think the US 30 bit is actually my fault from the pre-guidance days, it has one of the few divided expressway sections in Wyoming so I upgraded it to trunk like 6 years ago or something, someone must have extended it. I will say that it does serve as an "I-80 Alternate" whenever that section of interstate closes, so that might honestly be a reason to keep it trunk. SD Mapman (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Just looked and I did indeed change only the dual carriageway portion to trunk 6 years ago and then left it, seems like it's gone back and forth between trunk and primary since then, so sorry if I unintentionally caused trouble. SD Mapman (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:SD Mapman, I've gone ahead and made both changes: upgrading WY 585 and downgrading US 30. I actually downgraded US 30 between Walcott Junction and Medicine Bow all the way to secondary after I thought about it a bit. The only reason for people to take that section of highway is if they are traveling to either Hanna or Medicine Bow from the west. Neither town has a population of more than 1000 people, which in my view doesn't justify even a primary classification. In contrast, the section to the east of Medicine Bow forms part of a more important route route between Laramie and Casper — along with WY 487 — so I've kept that section as primary. It's probably not the best route between Laramie and Casper, but it's certainly a serviceable one. Oregonian3 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've also started the work of cleaning up the primary/secondary classification in Wyoming. Looks like whoever first did the classification there just made every US route at least primary and most state routes (with a few exceptions) secondary, which is quite an absurd choice and exactly what we're trying to avoid with this project. So there will certainly be lots of classification changes necessary. Oregonian3 (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I went to grad school at UW, and can confirm that 220/487/30/287 is the best route from Laramie to Casper. Rawlins and Cheyenne are a bit too far out of the way in either direction. I would keep the 30/287 segment between Wolcott Jct. and Medicine Bow as primary, since the section of I-80 between Wolcott and Laramie often closes in the winter (the Arlington area is the problem), and 30/287 serves as an alternate route with slightly less bad weather (see https://www.aaroads.com/west/us-030_wy.html/). I will say in the Upper Rockies/Plains area (Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana) from what I've seen the classification aligns with the administrative system fairly well, it's not like some states where the US route is often a glorified service road (*cough* Nebraska *cough*) or just a random road (see US 159 in Atchison County KS). If you'd like my input on anything, I've been to all 23 counties and have the most traveled highway mileage in the state per https://travelmapping.net. SD Mapman (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice, sounds like you have more local knowledge of the area than me then, and if you were to re-upgrade 30/287 there to primary then I certainly wouldn't revert you. I've been in some areas of the state (e.g. the US 85 corridor and the Jackson area), but haven't explored the entire state by any means. I'm definitely more familiar with Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Colorado, but those states' highway classifications don't need nearly as much work right now :)

I've gone through and given my best shot at making changes based on roadway connectivity, traffic counts, and roadway quality. It's certainly not perfect and could use more refinement from those with more local knowledge, but it's certainly better than it was before. Of note, I did also downgrade a few other US highway segments to secondary. Those segments are US 14 and US 16 where they form loops off of I-90 without serving any towns of note, the US 14A seasonal road (I don't think any seasonal roads should be higher than secondary without a very good reason), and the US 212 seasonal road. Also Wyoming sure has a lot of random state highway spurs to nowhere! I've downgraded quite a lot of those to tertiary since they serve absolutely nothing. Oregonian3 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, the only one I would revert back to primary would be the 14 loop between Sundance and Moorcroft, with an additional primary spur up WY 24 to Hulett. While there might not be that much there, it is where Devil's Tower National Monument is and the Hulett Ham 'n Jam is a primary event in the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. SD Mapman (talk) 17:57, 01 March 2023 (UTC)

That loop was definitely the downgrade that I was most on the fence about, since the traffic counts on it were much higher than the other loop to the east. I do think that primary spurs should be avoided if possible; do you think it would make sense to continue the primary classification on WY 24 all the way into South Dakota on SD 34 to Belle Fourche? There is a drop-off in traffic east of Hulett, but the counts are still higher than on most other secondary roads in the area. Oregonian3 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SD Mapman (talk) 01:20, 03 March 2023 (UTC)