News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

US-41 Interstate Conversion

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

Previous topic - Next topic

TheHighwayMan3561

Or we could create a second I-45... :sombrero:  :sombrero:   :sombrero:  :sombrero:  :sombrero:  :sombrero:
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running


flowmotion

I think it would be beneficial for the North-South portion of I-94 to be signed with an odd-numbered N-S interstate. Don't Chicagoans say things like "Go north on the Kennedy"?

But, I-57 would be a better choice because you could get the whole Dan Ryan.

corco

#27
We lived in Chicago for 9 years and my Dad had to commute downtown every day.

To this day when talking about free-er-expressways he refers to "The East-West" (now the Reagan), "The Stevenson," "The Eisenhower," "The Dan Ryan," and "The Skyway"

If you asked him the freeway numbers he has absolutely no idea,  but the names are so well signed you don't need them. When I was driving across the country a few years ago, I called my Dad as we were heading from Milwaukee to South Bend Indiana to ask what the best route to take at that time of day (roughly 6:00 AM) was to get across, and he said "Take the Tri-State to the Edens to the Kennedy to the Dan Ryan to the Skyway to the Toll Road." To confirm I said "So...just stay on I-90 the whole way?"  He said "I'm not sure, just follow those names"

When I got clear out to freaking South Bend Indiana the mother of the girl whose house we were eating breakfast at on our way to New Hampshire said "How's construction doing on the Dan Ryan?"



SSOWorld

corco brings a good point - other than I-57, Chicagoland doesn't use #s.  I would not be surprised if they don't refer to I-355 and I-90 (NW tollway) by their appropriate names yet (Veterans Memorial and Jane Addams)
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.

Terry Shea

Quote from: Master son on April 06, 2009, 01:27:00 PM
corco brings a good point - other than I-57, Chicagoland doesn't use #s.  I would not be surprised if they don't refer to I-355 and I-90 (NW tollway) by their appropriate names yet (Veterans Memorial and Jane Addams)
And yet people passing through town have no idea what the freeway names mean.  I can tune into several different Chicago area AM radio stations and everytime I hear a traffic report I have no idea what highways or even sections of town they're referring to (unless they mention O'Hare or some equally obvious landmark).  They always refer to "the junction" but I'm not sure what this refers to.  I would assume that it's where I-90 and I-94 begin their multiplex but on which side of town?

SSOWorld

because of who they cater to - definitely not the tourists. :-D

and "the Junction" refers to the Edens/Kennedy interchange.
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.

Terry Shea

Quote from: Master son on April 06, 2009, 02:27:49 PM
because of who they cater to - definitely not the tourists. :-D

and "the Junction" refers to the Edens/Kennedy interchange.
Uh, numbers please.   :banghead:

Revive 755

Quotecorco brings a good point - other than I-57, Chicagoland doesn't use #s.  I would not be surprised if they don't refer to I-355 and I-90 (NW tollway) by their appropriate names yet (Veterans Memorial and Jane Addams)

Wait, when did I-355 change from North-South to Veterans Memorial?  I could have sworn the signs on I-80 just had "North Tollway" back in December, not some other name.

SSOWorld

November 2007, though the signs don't show it.
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.

mahaasma

Here's another link on the whole I-55 idea.  Repeats some stuff. . .but another person arguing that I-55 would actually be beneficial.  .  .

http://www.marketplacemagazine.com/blogs/blog2.php/2009/02/13/what-s-in-a-number

SSOWorld

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi9dXDM4YCE

Michael G. Koerner posted this on the Great Lakes Roads yahoo group:

Very interesting intentions - flyovers at WIS 29 (over a diamond with roundabouts to connect Shawano Ave (WIS 29 East) and Dousman Street) with the upgrading of the at-grade of WIS 29 in the adjacent area, having roundabouts at every interchange  :crazy: and rebuilding the I-43 Interchange (which is now a trumpet)  It also expands the capacity to 6 lanes standard.

Can you imagine Green Bay Packer fan traffic backed up into the roundabouts? :eyebrow: (I've went to five games.  US 41, WIS 172, and all the streets around there get backed up before and after games.  And Lombardi Ave isn't the only US 41 interchange to get heavy incoming/outgoing traffic.)

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.

Bryant5493

Check out my YouTube page (http://youtube.com/Bryant5493). I have numerous road videos of Metro Atlanta and other areas in the Southeast.

I just signed up on photobucket -- here's my page (http://s594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/Bryant5493).

leifvanderwall

In a response to a poster, I-94 from Milwaukee to Chicago should be I-57 or my I-1. I have I-41 expended all the way to Champaign now as a Chicago bypass. For more details , read my postings in Renumbering the Interstate system and Roads you would like to see in Fictional Highways. Leif Vanderwall

DrZoidberg

I looked through the postings, and don't recall seeing anything about this.

What if you route I-90 along I-94's current alignment from Chicago to Milwaukee and then from there to Madison?  It would (IMHO) make more sense to have Milwaukee served by an x0 versus Rockford.

I-94 could be routed along the Northwest Tollway (it would be a numbering violation for a while, until it meets I-90 again in Madison.) and then with I-39 back to it's original alignment.

I think the best idea for the US41 upgrade would still be I-41.  Just my opinion.
"By the way...I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar."

Big Dave

Let's let sleeping dogs lie and leave US 41 as US 41.  It's NOT going to bring more people to Green Bay or the Fox Valley; everyone who is going to go there already knows how to get there.  Hwy 41 already one of the busiest highway corridors in the state especially on a Friday going northbound or a Sunday going southbound, so it's obvious that it is being used enough without a blue and red shield.  The powers that be in the Green Bay area are just a little jealous that Wausau and Point pulled the wool over the eyes of the Feds with the whole I-39 thing.  Besides, the only think is which 41 is Interstate standard in in Green Bay is traffic jams. 

triplemultiplex

With all the ongoing construction and a forthcoming interstate designation, it's high time we had a thread for US 41 and it's upgrades in Wisconsin.
WisDOT's website: http://us41wisconsin.gov/

I see the upgrades through Oshkosh south of US 45 on a fairly regular basis.  2010 saw a lot of progress.
The new earthworks for the Lake Butte des Morts causeway are in.
Overpasses for Snell Rd, Butte des Morts Dr, Witzel Ave and CTH K were completed.
Shoulders have been paved out on the SB lanes between WI 21 and south of WI 26 so all traffic can be shifted into the SB lanes while the NB lanes are reconstructed next year.
Earthworks for the new free-flow interchange with US 45 are in on the west side of the interchange.  This includes completion of the bridge that will carry NB 45 -> SB 41 traffic over SB 45 -> SB 41.  Additionally, temporary bypass lanes for US 41 that will allow for the removal of existing bridges and earthworks are ready to go for the start of the 2011 construction season.
Haven't been past it recently, but stuff has been going down at the WI 76 interchange as well.

Meanwhile, the Green Bay upgrades have only just begun.  Only the Schnuering Rd interchange saw significant work this year.
This part of the project will see the rebuild of one system interchange (I-43) and the construction of another(WI 29).

On to the interstate chapter of US 41.
As we're all well aware, that transportation bill from 2006 provided for an interstate designation for US 41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay.  These big projects in Oshkosh and Green Bay will definitely make the "urban" sections of US 41 through the Fox Valley/Cities interstate worthy.  I feel we should document which stretches of US 41 are interstate-ready and which ones still need a median barrier or something.
I drive the Milwaukee - Oshkosh segment often enough to know what's what though there.  The corridor is good to go south of the US 41/45 split in Richfield (could use a new coat of blacktop, though  ;-) ).  US 41 is now interstate standard throughout Fond du Lac County with the completion of an interchange reconstruction in that county's namesake city.  We still need a few miles of cable barrier in Washington County and I'd really like to see the interchange with WI 144 modernized.  The folded diamond configuration SB is crappy and could easily be replaced with a conventional diamond without any new R/W.

The new interstate will doubtlessly benefit from the billion+ dollar project that will come out of the Zoo Interchange Study.  That will rebuild and expand everything south of Burleigh Ave.
I can't recall if the new interstate will end at I-43 or at the 41/141 split in Abrams.  If it's up to me, I'd say Abrams.

Now for the number debate.
The 06 transportation bill made reference to I-41.  This fits the grid as it exists perfectly, but of course, smacks historical precedent in the face with its identical concurrency with US 41.  As a result, many in our roadgeek community support the northern extension of a Chicagoland interstate like 55 or especially 57 in lieu of 41.
My own view of the situation reflects what some may consider a disrespect for the US Highway System.  I see US highways as a secondary numbering system that, in many cases, unnecessarily clutters our maps with long multiplexes and an undeserved importance for what amounts to a frontage road.  As such, I feel the interstate system should be dictating to the US highway system and not the reverse.  So in my opinion, we use I-41 and bend US 41 to accommodate it.  Whether that involves a long concurrency, a secret concurrency like I-94 and US 52 in Minnesota, or, ooh god forbid, a discontinuation, so be it.
I find it interesting, though, that the only reason this is an issue is because the United States is way wider than it is tall.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

SSOWorld

They also have to rework the WI 441/US 10 interchange in Menasha - it's missing several transitions (US 10 E to US 41 N is a key one.)
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.

mukade

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 03, 2010, 06:57:36 PM
Now for the number debate. The 06 transportation bill made reference to I-41.  This fits the grid as it exists perfectly...

Well, the problem is that existing I-39 and I-43 don't fit the grid. I-39 should have been I-53 or I-51, but different numbers were chosen so as to not have the numbering confusion with US highways. Adding yet another number will set in concrete this poor decision.

Also, looking at the original Interstate plan, there were few, if any stubs like I-41 would be. Going into greater Chicago are three north-south Interstate highways that have their northern terminus there (I-55, I-57, and I-65). Any of those three could be extended north. Extending any of these would have the benefit of giving the truly north-south route from Milwaukee to Chicago a north-south designation. The other thing to look at how to eliminate or minimize cost for interchanges where the existing routes would be diverted/extended - no one has the money to modify big freeway to freeway interchanges (such as I-294/I-55, for example). On that basis, only I-57 and I-65 designations make sense. If you go by the logic of extending an I-x5 major route, I-55 and I-65 make sense. If you want the most direct extension, I-57 makes the most sense. I assume the very best number would be the extending the route that most travellers in Wisconsin going south of Chicago ultimately take, but how could you really know that? To me, any of those three would be far better than I-41.

english si

Quote from: mukade on December 20, 2010, 03:37:12 PMWell, the problem is that existing I-39 and I-43 don't fit the grid.
How do they not?
QuoteAlso, looking at the original Interstate plan, there were few, if any stubs like I-41 would be.
I-41 won't be a stub?
QuoteGoing into greater Chicago are three north-south Interstate highways that have their northern terminus there (I-55, I-57, and I-65). Any of those three could be extended north.
At great cost of resigning a lot of routes. If you are so against I-41, because of US41, then why not I-47 or I-53 rather than doing masses of renumbering?
QuoteExtending any of these would have the benefit of giving the truly north-south route from Milwaukee to Chicago a north-south designation.
Which shows that the real problem was I-92 not being created, and the N-S road between Chicago and Millaukee not being a N-S number.
QuoteTo me, any of those three would be far better than I-41.
I-41 is the perfect number, given the current road network and means that you don't have to change the route number.

mukade

Quote from: english si on December 20, 2010, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: mukade on December 20, 2010, 03:37:12 PMWell, the problem is that existing I-39 and I-43 don't fit the grid.
How do they not?
I thought I explained it, but simply look at a map. I-35, which actually veers east at its north end, goes through Des Moines. I-45 goes from Galveston to Dallas. I-55 goes from New Orleans to Chicago. I-57 and I-65 end in Chicago. So why are I-39 and I-43, two relatively new highways designated the way they are? They don't fit there.

Quote from: english si on December 20, 2010, 03:51:10 PM
QuoteAlso, looking at the original Interstate plan, there were few, if any stubs like I-41 would be.
I-41 won't be a stub?
A highway going from Milwaukee to Green Bay won't be a stub? Look at I-35 in KC: it could have ended there and the highway north to Des Moines could have been I-39, for example. I-75 could have ended in Detroit or Port Huron, but rather, the original design favored long routes, not a myriad of short stubby ones.

Quote from: english si on December 20, 2010, 03:51:10 PM
QuoteGoing into greater Chicago are three north-south Interstate highways that have their northern terminus there (I-55, I-57, and I-65). Any of those three could be extended north.
At great cost of resigning a lot of routes.
I stated a number should be chosen where minimal cost (only signing) would be required. Placing new shields is not too expensive.

QuoteIf you are so against I-41, because of US41, then why not I-47 or I-53 rather than doing masses of renumbering?
I think you misunderstand. This is not about renumbering existing routes. I-39 and I-43 decisions are water under the bridge. It is about selecting the best number for a new Interstate highway. I don't think I-41 is silly like I-99, for example, just that other numbers are better and are more in keeping with the original numbering plan. I-39 (and I-43) in close proximity to I-65 shows bad numbering as does I-29 and I-49 lining up in KC. I-41 being far east of proposed I-49 is similarly, a bad numbering decision, IMO.

QuoteWhich shows that the real problem was I-92 not being created...
Absolutely agree. I-92 was in the original plan. Unlike the situation with the US 41 Interstate in Wisconsin, the two parts of I-94 don't line up and really don't make sense.

Revive 755

Quote from: mukade on December 20, 2010, 05:41:29 PM
Absolutely agree. I-92 was in the original plan. Unlike the situation with the US 41 Interstate in Wisconsin, the two parts of I-94 don't line up and really don't make sense.

Which numbering plan?  The ones I can find online still have I-94 going down through Chicago, but then have it going up and replacing I-196 and I-96.
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/numbering-1957.jpg

Quote from: mukadeno one has the money to modify big freeway to freeway interchanges (such as I-294/I-55, for example).

The Illinois Toll Authority seems to be looking at new big projects right now, so they could probably handle a redesign of the I-55/I-294 interchange (which could probably use a redesign without any numbering changes).

SEWIGuy

Well, this strikes at the heart of the necessity of a grid in the first place.  Honestly, I doubt most people fully understand the grid system as it stands, and in an era of GPS systems and Mapquest, one has to question how relevant it is.

english si

Quote from: mukade on December 20, 2010, 05:41:29 PMI think you misunderstand. This is not about renumbering existing routes. I-39 and I-43 decisions are water under the bridge. It is about selecting the best number for a new Interstate highway. I don't think I-41 is silly like I-99, for example, just that other numbers are better and are more in keeping with the original numbering plan. I-39 (and I-43) in close proximity to I-65 shows bad numbering as does I-29 and I-49 lining up in KC. I-41 being far east of proposed I-49 is similarly, a bad numbering decision, IMO.
I think you misunderstood me here - if you are against I-41, why extend an Interstate to (which is renumbering existing highways) from Chicago to Milwaukee to then use. Why not call it I-47 or I-53 (I realise that's taken) or something to give it an interstate number that doesn't cause the conflict. Of course, you'd screw up the grid and I-43, making it further east than a higher number.

Of course, in my mind making it I-41 would be the simplest renumbering, would fit the existing grid easiest and having US41 and I-41 together wouldn't be a problem and pretty much everything else will make it worse. Effectively treat it as an Interstate section of route 41.

NE2

Go British and make it US 41(I) :)
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Brandon

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 20, 2010, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: mukadeno one has the money to modify big freeway to freeway interchanges (such as I-294/I-55, for example).

The Illinois Toll Authority seems to be looking at new big projects right now, so they could probably handle a redesign of the I-55/I-294 interchange (which could probably use a redesign without any numbering changes).

It needs it, badly, IMHO.  A very outdated trumpet for the amount of traffic it carries; too close to the County Line Rd interchange (Exit 276); missing movements (I-55 Sbd to I-294 Sbd).

My idea:
1. Make the County Line Rd interchange a parclo facing away from the I-294 interchange - remove the ramps on the east side of the interchange.
2. High capacity ramps from Nbd I-55 to Nbd I-294 and Sbd I-294 to Sbd I-55.
3. Add in the missing movement (see above).
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg



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.