US-41 Interstate Conversion

[ssummers72]

Here is an interesting article from Green Bay:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090208/GPG0101/902080755/1207/GPG01
Copy of Article follows:

When U.S. 41 is reclassified as an interstate highway, some area leaders hope it will be renamed Interstate 55.


On Monday the Howard Village Board will look at a resolution supporting the reclassification to I-55, which runs from New Orleans to the south side of Chicago, connecting through Memphis, Tenn., and St. Louis.

"I-55 would give us tremendous lift in terms of economic development," said the Howard village administrator, Joshua Smith, who drafted the resolution. "It's really an additional economic development tool for the Green Bay area."

The Brown County municipal issues committee – a group of administrators who meet monthly with Advance, the economic development arm of the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce – took a look at the resolution on Thursday, Smith said.

The idea for a joint resolution arose from worries that national transportation officials could choose to classify U.S. 41 as I-243 – making it a spur of I-43, which is located entirely in Wisconsin, said Fred Monique, vice president of economic development for Advance.

"We're thinking it's much better for both commercial and tourism marketing if we could have it reclassified to I-55," Monique said.

Ashwaubenon President Jerry Menne said he plans to take the resolution to the Village Board as soon as possible.

"I think it's a good idea, and it will encourage people to recognize Northeastern Wisconsin and bring people up here," Menne said.

Once Brown County communities approve the resolution, Monique said more regional support would be built before contacting the transportation officials in charge of reclassifying the highway.

In 2005, federal legislation authorized funding to Wisconsin to upgrade U.S. 41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay to meet interstate standards. That's the impetus for the planned expansion of U.S. 41 in coming years.

Most interstate highways are designated by one- or two-digit numbers: East to west routes carry even numbers that increase from south to north, and north to south routes carry odd numbers that increase from west to east.

Three-digit highway numbers such as I-794 in Milwaukee represent bypasses attached to a primary interstate highway, according to the state Department of Transportation.

[DAL764]

I-55? Aside from it being completely out of place between I-39 and I-43, how would those folks want to get I-55 into WI, co-sign it with I-94 (and/or perhaps I-294 as well) out of Chicago? Great idea, co-sign around 150 miles of existing interstate just so a 150-mile US highway can be resigned as an interstate. I-243 makes a whole lot more sense.

[DrZoidberg]

I agree with DAL, I-55 wouldn't make any sense, and there is no need to multiplex it with I-94 for that distance.  I-41, or even a 3-di I-243, would make more sense.  I'm curious what will become of US 41 in Wisconsin.  Could we see a US 41/I 41 multiplex?  WISDOT doesn't like to duplicate numbers....they already encountered this when WI 39 came within 25 miles of I 39.

[Revive 755]

While I think I-55 should somehow extend beyond Chicago, I don't think the US 41 corridor in Wisconsin is the best way.  That said, consigning I-55 with I-94 would make it easier to eventually shift I-94 onto any future Chicago-Madison freeway grade facility.

I-43 and I-39 are already out of place, and will probably be even more so should the Avenue of the Saints, US 67 or, US 63 corridors get an 2di designation some decade.

[Voyager]

No! US 41 is one of my favorite US highways!

[FLRoads]

...and mine.  Why must we continue to just extend existing numbers instead of creating new ones??

And why does US 41 need to be classified as an interstate anyway once its fully upgraded?  We have plenty of US highways that are interstate grade but not designated as such.  I say leave it be.

[mukade]

Not to rehash an old argument carried on in another forum, my opinion was that this improved road in Wisconsin should be an extension of I-65, I-57, or I-55. That is much more consistent with the original intent of the Interstate Highway System than creating a new short, disjointed route less than 100 miles away from where three other north-south routes terminate.

I suggested I-65 first because it seems like a more logical extension of 57 or 65, but 65 is a more important route of those two. Further, I would guess more people from Wisconsin head south toward Florida than Louisiana or Texas so again 57 or 65 seem more logical than I-55. An I-55 extension would look a little more disjointed and would have a poor Interstate to Interstate connection in Chicago unless it followed I-355 north of I-55 (and I-355 were extended northward). Nevertheless, the new road being an extension of I-55, I-57, or I-65 makes more sense to me than I-41.

As for it being US 41, I don't care for that. Down in Chicago, US 41 is a surface street. In places, it is two lanes, but is mainly very slow. A US number does not signify anything about the capacity or speed of a route. It is just an arbitrary designation.

[SSOWorld]

...and mine.  Why must we continue to just extend existing numbers instead of creating new ones??

And why does US 41 need to be classified as an interstate anyway once its fully upgraded?  We have plenty of US highways that are interstate grade but not designated as such.  I say leave it be.

One could have made the same argument about US 51 too 

[Scott5114]

We need to stop telling everyone about the difference between 2dis and 3dis. Dumb marketing jockeys appear to have found out about it and want to turn everything into a 2di.

[corco]

I'm totally up for renumbering I-43 north of Milwaukee as an extension of I-55 or I-65, but the US-41 freeway corridor is just not long enough to be a full fledged 2di

If it were me, I'd try to get the Tri-State (I-294) north of its current junction with I-55, renumber the rest of I-55 into Chicago as I-555, run I-55 up the Tri-State and then have it concurrent with I-94 to Milwaukee where it would then take over I-43. The old I-43 from Beloit to Milwaukee could become I-139 or something (that number is up for debate). Then number the US-41 freeway corridor as I-255

Nobody in Chicago cares about freeway numbers anyway so confusion would be minimized

[DrZoidberg]

Interesting idea, corco.  I agree that the US 41 freeway would be better off as a 3 di. 

I-139....I like that one!

[corco]

Under that plan I could even advocate putting the mainline I-55 on the US-41 corridor and putting I-255 on existing I-43. There's some value to giving Appleton a 2di designation, and I think it could benefit from one over Manitowoc/Sheboygan, but the solution is not to have both I-55 and I-43, or I-41 and I-43

[Voyager]

Why is this stickied?

[SSOWorld]

Why is this stickied?

I wanted to ask the same question - but I didn't want to step on any toes.

[njroadhorse]

I personally think it should be I-41 because then Appleton still gets its 2di route, and we won't have another ridiculously long 3di. 

[Terry Shea]

I'm totally up for renumbering I-43 north of Milwaukee as an extension of I-55 or I-65, but the US-41 freeway corridor is just not long enough to be a full fledged 2di

If it were me, I'd try to get the Tri-State (I-294) north of its current junction with I-55, renumber the rest of I-55 into Chicago as I-555, run I-55 up the Tri-State and then have it concurrent with I-94 to Milwaukee where it would then take over I-43. The old I-43 from Beloit to Milwaukee could become I-139 or something (that number is up for debate). Then number the US-41 freeway corridor as I-255

Nobody in Chicago cares about freeway numbers anyway so confusion would be minimized

Uh, way to speak for everyone in Illinois.  Come on now, why would you want to inconvenience and confuse a good portion of the people of Illinois and the people who travel through Illinois to get a 2-digit Interstate # that makes absolutely no sense for the region?  Furthermore, and maybe I'm being a bit naive here marketing wise, but how would giving a freeway a 2-digit Interstate # bring even $1 of economic development to the area?  I guess I could see where a new Interstate running between 2 major metropolitan areas could create somewhat of an economic boom for towns along the way, but I don't see where anyone is going to travel to Green Bay or slightly north of there just because just because the freeway has been given a major 2-digit Interstate designation instead of a minor 2-digit, a 3-digit, or remains with a US highway designation.  Meanwhile, any such plan would cost the state of Illinois a lot of money in re-signing their routes and updating various maps.  And the same could be said for Indiana in the case of I-65.

[DrZoidberg]

I think the logic behind giving it a "major" 2 di designation would be NAFTA traffic more than anything.  The driver could drive the same route from the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Superior.  Of course, that's just a theory as to why a major 2 di could be beneficial.

[SSOWorld]

well the Lake Buttes de Mortes causeway and several areas south of that got bumped to starting this year thanks to Obama's stimulus.

[Terry Shea]

I think the logic behind giving it a "major" 2 di designation would be NAFTA traffic more than anything.  The driver could drive the same route from the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Superior.  Of course, that's just a theory as to why a major 2 di could be beneficial.

Except for the fact that the future NAFTA Highway, I-69, doesn't go anywhere near Wisconsin or Lake Superior, and the freeway in question (US 41) won't get anywhere near the Canadian  border.  So I still don't see where any additional traffic is going to travel to northern Wisconsin regardless of what the highway number is.  IMO, people who want to visit northern Wisconsin will take the route no matter what the number is and people who otherwise wouldn't visit northern Wisconsin aren't going to do so just because it has a major 2-digit Interstate #.  I mean does anyone actually think about visiting a certain area based on whether it has a major 2-digit Interstate passing through it or not?

[Scott5114]

IMO, people who want to visit northern Wisconsin will take the route no matter what the number is and people who otherwise wouldn't visit northern Wisconsin aren't going to do so just because it has a major 2-digit Interstate #.  I mean does anyone actually think about visiting a certain area based on whether it has a major 2-digit Interstate passing through it or not?

I would wager a guess that quite a few of the people on this forum would. 

[mukade]

I don't recall anyone making an argument that more people would use an Interstate based on the number. The point was that the Interstate numbering system was based on having long routes with fewer numbers, not having short spurs everywhere. For example, look at I-75 north of Detroit and in Tennessee where highways that could have ended instead jog around in the interest of having long north-south routes.

This proposed route in Wisconsin is less than 100 miles north of where three existing north-south routes terminate.

[mightyace]

One place that where it has been stated that more people would use a highway if it had an interstate number is the pending extension of I-376 in PA.

[74/171FAN]

from mightyace: One place that where it has been stated that more people would use a highway if it had an interstate number is the pending extension of I-376 in PA.

The same has been stated for VA 895 as well.  Besides US 41 should be an unsigned 3di like I-595 in Maryland.

[Terry Shea]

I don't recall anyone making an argument that more people would use an Interstate based on the number. The point was that the Interstate numbering system was based on having long routes with fewer numbers, not having short spurs everywhere. For example, look at I-75 north of Detroit and in Tennessee where highways that could have ended instead jog around in the interest of having long north-south routes.

This proposed route in Wisconsin is less than 100 miles north of where three existing north-south routes terminate.

Did you read the article in the first post?  Here's a few quotes from the article:

"I-55 would give us tremendous lift in terms of economic development," said the Howard village administrator, Joshua Smith, who drafted the resolution. "It's really an additional economic development tool for the Green Bay area."

"We're thinking it's much better for both commercial and tourism marketing if we could have it reclassified to I-55," Monique said.

"I think it's a good idea, and it will encourage people to recognize Northeastern Wisconsin and bring people up here," Menne said.

That's cheesehead thinking for ya. 

[leifvanderwall]

After mulling it over, I think the proper interstate designation would be I-57. Why I-57? Because 57 can multiplex with I-94 and I-43 and can help get rid of I-894.  I would not change it to a  3di because it is just too long (like I-476 in PA). Also what I would do to is reroute US 41 onto Illinois 131, Wisc. 32, & Wisc. 57 from North Chicago to Green Bay.  I would have I-57 terminate where US 41 & US 141 separate north of Green Bay.