News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

US-41 Interstate Conversion

Started by ssummers72, February 10, 2009, 09:43:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Fox 11 News

At the ribbon cutting event today, it was announced the interchange should open by 5am Saturday (July 28th).


Fox 11 News


DaBigE

Quote from: Fox 11 News on July 30, 2012, 09:33:04 AM
More about the opening, local reaction:
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/green_bay/mason-street-business-happy-bridge-has-re-opened

Gotta love those that confuse roundabouts with rotaries! :pan: :pan:  They may look similar, but they operate completely different.

I wonder if there was this much angst when traffic signals were new?
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

agentsteel53

I still, to this day, get them confused.  throw in "traffic circle", too.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

hbelkins

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:37:34 PM
I still, to this day, get them confused.  throw in "traffic circle", too.

Rotaries, roundabouts and traffic circles are all the same evil spawn of Satan.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

DaBigE

"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

agentsteel53

Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2012, 05:32:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:37:34 PM
I still, to this day, get them confused.  throw in "traffic circle", too.

Rotaries, roundabouts and traffic circles are all the same evil spawn of Satan.

the only problem I have with them is that I do not know whether traffic which has passed the point immediately to the right of me is going to exit (straight towards me), or swing across my path.  it is a very tough determination to make.  if you guess wrong, the result is either disastrous (collision) or major inefficiency (yielding to nobody - in heavy traffic, that may have been the only available slot for a while!)
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

DaBigE

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 05:42:58 PM
the only problem I have with them is that I do not know whether traffic which has passed the point immediately to the right of me is going to exit (straight towards me), or swing across my path.  it is a very tough determination to make.  if you guess wrong, the result is either disastrous (collision) or major inefficiency (yielding to nobody - in heavy traffic, that may have been the only available slot for a while!)

I wouldn't call that a major inefficiency...still much better than plugging things up with a collision. A major inefficiency I routinely see are people who wait for those on the other side of the roundabout, not immediately to their left. Basically, they wait for the roundabout to practically be empty before they will enter.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

agentsteel53

Quote from: DaBigE on July 30, 2012, 05:48:45 PM

I wouldn't call that a major inefficiency...still much better than plugging things up with a collision. A major inefficiency I routinely see are people who wait for those on the other side of the roundabout, not immediately to their left. Basically, they wait for the roundabout to practically be empty before they will enter.

I have not encountered that problem nearly as much. 

I've driven a lot of very heavy roundabouts in Europe, and it really is tricky having to guess when a car is going to exit and make room for me.  I have never guessed catastrophically wrong, but I'll bet there were people behind me thinking "why didn't he get in there??"
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

SSOWorld

you mean people who stop at Yield signs when no traffic is approaching in the right-of-way? :pan:
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

merrycilantro

Looking at the DOT's Website for Highway 41, it looks like the only options they're giving out for numbers are I-41, I-47, I-594 and I-643...wonder if they're dropping consideration for I-55/57 altogether. Though it appears as though if they can get the 41 designation (thru whatever talks with NC DOT), it would stretch all the way to the Illinois State Line. If that's the case, then hell, extend it south thru Chicago! I guess, what's the difference, right? as long as it's not an intrastate because let's face it--like we need another one of those. Something to give drivers a sense of "One Freeway to and from Chicago"...maybe IDOT (though after seeing it on here i must agree on the IDiOT) would be more agreeable to duplexing 41 with 94 for continuity purposes...then again, maybe not, given the fact that from the sounds of it they pretty much threw a fit when they found out we wanted them to bring I-55 up to GB.

All I can say is it better not get I-643, because no way should 41 be considered a child freeway to I-43, from Milwaukee to GB. That is a joke of an interstate, and 41 deserves a 2di over that. 594? eh...i'd rather see 41 or 47 (in that order) if we can't have 55...which of course makes the MOST sense. I still say we should sign it I-55 from Kenosha to GB and see what IDiOT does. What really can they do? I'd like to say they'd have no choice but to sign it the way we wanted it, but it is an uneducated statement.

gbgoose

#436
To elaborate more about the 41 upgrade - here's the PDF. 

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/neregion/41/docs/ex-pim201205all.pdf
From Wis DOT http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/neregion/41/public.htm

I'm curious if IDiOT has had a role in blocking I-55 through Chicago north to the state line. 

I agree with merrycilantro that the 3-DI interstates should not be used for 41.  I'd say go with I-41 first, I-47, if they decide on a 3-DI - then go with I-594.  643 should be dropped right off the bat.

Revive 755

But if we can't have new single state US routes, why should single state two digit interstates be allowed?

I second the notion for having WisDOT sign it as I-55 and eventually force IDOT and ISTHA to sign the extension.

I'm also curious WisDOT didn't considering simply extending I-894 north to Green Bay.

SSOWorld

What is it with WI and pointless concurrencies?
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

merrycilantro

Quote from: Revive 755 on August 02, 2012, 11:11:45 PM
But if we can't have new single state US routes, why should single state two digit interstates be allowed?

I second the notion for having WisDOT sign it as I-55 and eventually force IDOT and ISTHA to sign the extension.

I'm also curious WisDOT didn't considering simply extending I-894 north to Green Bay.

I-894 designation wouldn't work for 41, because for an even numbered 3di it's gotta connect at both ends to its parent Interstate (I'm sure there are exceptions or violations if you will, but for the most part, that's the general rule).

My question is, *has* the idea of I-55 being signed up to GB been blocked, or are we all just assuming so because we haven't heard anything about it (not to mention it's not even LISTED in WisDOT's Numbering List on the site mentioned above)?

And hey now, I wouldn't necessarily call them POINTLESS Concurrencies...though the I-39 extension...yeah...that was Illinois' fault to begin with though, if I'm not mistaken. IIRC, we were supposed to share 39 (or whatever the original # was supposed to be, along with 57. I do agree though, there'd be plenty of other ways to route 90 and 94 on their own respective alignments, if WisDOT (and the NIMBYs) would just oblige. Wis 29, for example. We could get rid of the Northern Leg of I-43 altogether, and just run 94 along that and then route it onto Wis29 to Eau Claire. Makes me wonder what those planners in the 40's and 50's were on...what kind of expansion they may have been expecting, or just even why they planned the freeways the way they did.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Revive 755 on August 02, 2012, 11:11:45 PM
But if we can't have new single state US routes, why should single state two digit interstates be allowed?


Well, philosophically I agree with you.  However they are fundamentally different numbering systems.  Interstates speak to a certain standard of freeway - and if those freeways exist within state boundaries, they are deserving of the designation.

US highways are simply state highways with a common numbering system.  So it makes no sense to have them within a state when a state number would suffice.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Master son on August 03, 2012, 06:43:01 AM
What is it with WI and pointless concurrencies?


If you want pointless concurrencies, you should see the original state highway map.  Oftentimes there would be four state highways signed on the same route.

Jordanah1

can someone mabey email someone from Illinois DOT, and ask if I55 has been blocked by them, it cant hurt to try, and im guessing either it will be a definite blocked, or an 'IDK' were they really just didnt have anything to do with it...
"Oshkosh"- "Oh, you mean like 'Oshkosh BGosh'?"

agentsteel53

Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 03, 2012, 11:08:35 AM
can someone mabey email someone from Illinois DOT, and ask if I55 has been blocked by them, it cant hurt to try, and im guessing either it will be a definite blocked, or an 'IDK' were they really just didnt have anything to do with it...

where did you learn to type? the toilet store?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

merrycilantro

That's actually not a bad idea...the worst they could do is ignore it...I'll do it and post whatever reply (should I get one) on here. Honestly, I would never have thought of that idea myself. I know, says a lot about me doesn't it?

Revive 755

This is the possibly second hand/trickle down info I got out of an IDOT employee today - will be interesting to see if merrycilantro gets a different answer.

1. The Feds have blocked the I-55 option for now.  Wisconsin may try again later.

2. I-55 was apparently going to be cosigned along I-90/I-94 and then along I-94.

Next few may just be the opinion of the employee:

3. Wisconsin just wants I-55 for advertising reasons; no point for Illinois to go along.

4. Sending I-55 north is an illogical routing - through traffic from the south should be using I-39 to Wisconsin (didn't seem wise to start arguing about not bringing I-43 down along US 51 to Blormal or how Chicago - Memphis would take I-57 over I-55.

5. Seem to be implied that IDOT had issues with having to pick a new number for the current section of I-55.

6. No point in extending I-55

7. Confusing to drivers to add another intestate designation along the Kennedy.

8.  I'm not sure I understood this part right: Seemed to be if IL 53 got extended up to the border (more of a straight north facility, not the north and then west along IL 120 and US 12 corridor), and Wisconsin built a new connecting facility, Illinois might be a tad more open to rerouting I-55.  Either that or IDOT is open to extending the I-355 designation into Wisconsin.

9. No point in extending I-55 north from Chicago.  It ends at Lake Shore Drive.  No reason for the I-55 designation to even go to Lake Shore Drive - better to end it at I-90/94.

mukade

Quote from: Revive 755 on August 03, 2012, 06:15:23 PM
4. Sending I-55 north is an illogical routing - through traffic from the south should be using I-39 to Wisconsin (didn't seem wise to start arguing about not bringing I-43 down along US 51 to Blormal or how Chicago - Memphis would take I-57 over I-55.

Well, that is pretty obvious. Why WisDOT can't see this one is beyond me.

What would they say about the more logical I-57 or I-65 numbers. That would tell the tale on if IDOT is a problem.

Revive 755

Given the tone I got, at least from the employee I was dealing with - seemed to be getting along the lines of 'why would anyone actually care about the numbering' - I would say IDOT is no-go on any existing numbering being extended. 

mukade

It sounds like you're right judging by the tone, but it would still be interesting to ask about other numbers anyway. IDOT obviously does care about numbers as there are many Interstates in Illinois - they have petitioned for and received many over the years.

Does the Wisconsin FHWA rep have any sway in this?

JREwing78

Quote from: merrycilantro on August 03, 2012, 07:52:41 AM
We could get rid of the Northern Leg of I-43 altogether, and just run 94 along that and then route it onto Wis29 to Eau Claire. Makes me wonder what those planners in the 40's and 50's were on...what kind of expansion they may have been expecting, or just even why they planned the freeways the way they did.

It could also get an I-96 designation. This actually would make sense as I-96 in Michigan terminates in Muskegon, which has the ferry to Milwaukee from there. I-96 would have a rather long N-S section posted E-W, but otherwise would do the trick nicely.



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.