I-41, An AASHTO Violation?

[SEWIGuy]

Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay.

At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.

Pfft.  It is not too long.  Look at it:  It is a spur, plain and simple.

Nah.  When I look at it, I don't see a spur at all. 

[dvferyance]

I-41 really makes the most sense fits into the gird perfectly. I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both. I thought that was the original plan but I guess they changed their minds at the last minute.

[Buck87]

I don't have any problem with I-41, as has been stated it fits the grid where it is and the freeway gets to keep the same number it's always been called.

Besides, where else was 41 going to be used in the grid? Doesn't seem to be all that much demand for another north-south 2di between 55 and 49/35...and if there ever is, 47 is still available for use

[kphoger]

I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

+1

[GeekJedi]

I-41 really makes the most sense fits into the gird perfectly. I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both. I thought that was the original plan but I guess they changed their minds at the last minute.

I agree that would make the most sense. I still think that will eventually happen. Most of the more "permanent" signs are I-41 only. I can see them phasing out the dual reassurance markers.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Interstate 41 designation is set in stone. I'm sure we all can think of other Interstates that are much greater violations to the Interstate System (and AASHTO) than Interstate 41.

[Super Mateo]

I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

[GeekJedi]

It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.

Not according to the officials of the cities along that route.

[SEWIGuy]

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Why?

[Bickendan]

I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Think of this one more as US 41 upgrading to an Interstate for the length of I-41 than being hidden ala US 52 in Minnesota.

[kphoger]

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Why?

In general, I too dislike hidden concurrencies, and the reason is that sometimes I'm following the lesser route long-distance.  As an example, imagine I'm driving with my family from Springfield or Branson (Missouri) up through Kansas City to Saint Joseph.  Pertinent map portion here.  We stop for gas and lunch in Harrisonville (a common place to stop along this particular route), and my wife takes over the driving.  I should be able to tell her "Just follow signs for US-71" and take a nap for a while.  But, if US-71 is hidden along the Interstate portions, then I can't do that.  I'd have to say "Follow signs for I-49, then US-71, then I-29."  How is that better?

And this isn't purely hypothetical.  My wife is from Branson.  For our honeymoon, we drove from Branson to a motel near the KC airport using these exact highways.  I drove the whole way, we didn't stop in Harrisonville, and I-49 wasn't designated yet at that time, though, but the point remains.  And just a couple of months ago, we drove in separate vehicles from the Plaza area of KC down to Branson (we had just bought a car in KC and were returning the one we'd borrowed from her sister in Branson).  My wife dislikes driving in unfamiliar cities and was literally driving the new car for the first time but, when we got on at Swope Pkwy, I was able to tell her on the phone to just follow signs for US-71 and then she was fine.  Hiding US-71 along the I-49 portion would have added a step and added to her stress.

But an exception could be made for like-numbered highways as, to me, it seems ridiculous to have both shields side-by-side for such a long stretch.  But, the more I think about it, the less I'm bothered by the 41/41 signed concurrency.  I'm coming around.  Honestly, I could go either way at this point.

[dvferyance]

I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?

[SEWIGuy]

I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?

Agreed.  I think they could have easily just eliminated US-41 from the IL border up to Green Bay and while some may have been confused early on, in the long run everyone would have been fine. 

[hotdogPi]

I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?

Agreed.  I think they could have easily just eliminated US-41 from the IL border up to Green Bay and while some may have been confused early on, in the long run everyone would have been fine.

Then US 41 would have a gap.

[Brandon]

It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.

Not according to the officials of the cities along that route.

It's all "Highway 41" to the Cheeseheads anyway.  Appleton, from Chicago (using Cheeseheadese): Take Highway 94 to Highway 41 north.

[GeekJedi]

It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.

Not according to the officials of the cities along that route.

It's all "Highway 41" to the Cheeseheads anyway.  Appleton, from Chicago (using Cheeseheadese): Take Highway 94 to Highway 41 north.

Exactly. In Wisconsin vernacular, everything is a "Highway". However, there seems to be the feeling with civic leaders across the country that there is some prestige tied to an Interstate route passing by their community. Whether or not that's valid is probably worthy of a different discussion. However, enough people thought that it made enough sense to make it all happen. That's good enough for me.

[SEWIGuy]

I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?

Agreed.  I think they could have easily just eliminated US-41 from the IL border up to Green Bay and while some may have been confused early on, in the long run everyone would have been fine.

Then US 41 would have a gap.

Yep.  Doesn't bother me.  Its the same number.

[SSOWorld]

It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.

Not according to the officials of the cities along that route.

It's all "Hwy 41" to the Cheeseheads anyway.  Appleton, from Chicago (using Cheeseheadese): Take Hwy 94 to Hwy 41 north.

FIFY 

[dvferyance]

I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?

Agreed.  I think they could have easily just eliminated US-41 from the IL border up to Green Bay and while some may have been confused early on, in the long run everyone would have been fine.

Then US 41 would have a gap.

So does US 12 in Minnesota as does some Us routes in Colorado no big deal.

[Rothman]

Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay.

At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.

Pfft.  It is not too long.  Look at it:  It is a spur, plain and simple.

Nah.  When I look at it, I don't see a spur at all. 

Sure it is.

I will carry this argument based upon subjective nonsense to its end!

[peterj920]

I don't understand all the controversy.  I-41 was already interstate compatible so signs were the only thing that needed to be added.  It carries more traffic than a lot of other interstates with many stretches that have 6 or more lanes.  I-41 falls between I-39 and I-43 fits the grid and AASHTO chose it.  They could have chose I-47, I-594, and I-643 so there were other options. 

As for US 41, there's no problem with it being concurrent with I-41.  Signs only appear on reassurance signs.  US 52 carries a very long concurrency with I-94 from St Paul, MN to Jamestown, ND and I don't hear anyone saying that US 52 needs to be truncated and have US 52 turn into a state highway in North Dakota.

[GeekJedi]

I don't understand all the controversy.  I-41 was already interstate compatible so signs were the only thing that needed to be added.  It carries more traffic than a lot of other interstates with many stretches that have 6 or more lanes.  I-41 falls between I-39 and I-43 fits the grid and AASHTO chose it.  They could have chose I-47, I-594, and I-643 so there were other options. 

As for US 41, there's no problem with it being concurrent with I-41.  Signs only appear on reassurance signs.  US 52 carries a very long concurrency with I-94 from St Paul, MN to Jamestown, ND and I don't hear anyone saying that US 52 needs to be truncated and have US 52 turn into a state highway in North Dakota.

Stop making sense.

[Rothman]

I don't understand all the controversy.  I-41 was already interstate compatible so signs were the only thing that needed to be added.  It carries more traffic than a lot of other interstates with many stretches that have 6 or more lanes.  I-41 falls between I-39 and I-43 fits the grid and AASHTO chose it.  They could have chose I-47, I-594, and I-643 so there were other options. 

The 3di options were better.

[The Ghostbuster]

How so?

[Rothman]

How so?

It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43.