US-41 Interstate Conversion

[triplemultiplex]

In retrospect, it would've been nice to do I-92 between Chicagoland and Port Huron, bring 55 up all the way to Green Bay and end 94 in Milwaukee in the original plan.  I-39 would be I-47 to keep it different from US 51. Then we would now be discussing the addition of an I-53 for a Beloit-Milwaukee-Fox Cities interstate.  So yeah, in this universe, WI 15 would still exist as it did prior to the extension of I-43 to Beloit.

[mgk920]

In retrospect, it would've been nice to do I-92 between Chicagoland and Port Huron, bring 55 up all the way to Green Bay and end 94 in Milwaukee in the original plan.  I-39 would be I-47 to keep it different from US 51. Then we would now be discussing the addition of an I-53 for a Beloit-Milwaukee-Fox Cities interstate.  So yeah, in this universe, WI 15 would still exist as it did prior to the extension of I-43 to Beloit.

What is now I-43 was originally planned to be 'I-57' and supplant WI 57 between Milwaukee and Green Bay.  If you note the public trail along WI 57 between New Holstein and Kiel, WI, it was built on already-owned WisDOT ROW - existing WI 57 there is the northbound side of the never-built 'I-57' and even though it snakes through cornfields, the trail was built on the southbound side.

Mike

[mukade]

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

no 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).

The URL you show displays an error message. The draft Interstate numbering map that used to appear in Stephen Summers' old web site showed I-92 from Port Huron to Chicago. I-94 went from Milwaukee to Montana.

ISTHA may have money, but how are they getting it? Are they selling more bonds? Are they getting it from fining people $20-$50 per supposed "violation"? I think their history shows they are yet another corrupt Illinois governmental agency, but it might be that they are simply inept.

[mightyace]

http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/numbering-1957.jpg

The URL you show displays an error message. The draft Interstate numbering map that used to appear in Stephen Summers' old web site showed I-92 from Port Huron to Chicago. I-94 went from Milwaukee to Montana.

You have to cut and paste that link into a browser window/tab for it to work right.

Froggies map has both I-92 and I-94 starting in Detroit.  I-94 follows current I-96 and I-196 while I-92 follows current I-94.  As you see I-94 leaving Milwaukee, I assume it's continuous through Chicago.

[hobsini2]

I see no problem in having US 41 and I-41 exist in the same area.  You could even revive the old Business 41s in Fond du Lac, Oshkosh, and Appleton as US 41.  WI 175, which was at one point US 41, could also be US 41 again.
I would go even further and extend I-41 south into Chicago, follow IL 394 (always hated that one) and continue going south toward Terre Haute, Vincennes, Evansville, Hopkinsville, and Florence AL and end it in Pensacola FL.  This is for 2 reasons.  First, a new Hurricane relief route.  Second, I-x1 is SUPPOSED to be LONG.  I know it violates the precious grid (sarcasm) but it makes sense!  i would rather have a route number that makes sense despite violating the grid.  Proposed I-3 i think is a dumb number to use but they signed it into law (should be a Southern I-79).

[SEWIGuy]

I think WIDOT would rather decommission WI-175 than turn it back into a USH.  It really isn't worthy of a state highway designation right now.  I would simply have an unsigned duplex.  US-41 disappears at the WI/IL state line and reappears at the northern end of I-41.

[agentsteel53]

why does US-41 need an interstate shield again?  I thought US-74 was bad enough.

[mgk920]

I think WIDOT would rather decommission WI-175 than turn it back into a USH.  It really isn't worthy of a state highway designation right now.  I would simply have an unsigned duplex.  US-41 disappears at the WI/IL state line and reappears at the northern end of I-41.

I'm suggesting moving US 41 to replace WI 57 between Milwaukee and Green Bay (following I-43 to the Port Washington split), with present US 41 becoming 'I-57'.

Mike

[english si]

I thought US-74 was bad enough.

US74 is far worse - I-41 is simply an interstate upgrade of part of the US41 corridor, whereas I-74 is a road that multiplexes with US74 for a bit but is on a different corridor. Also it's way too-far south to be called I-74 and won't get joined up with the other section: they should have given it a free number in the 30s or something. At least I-41 fits the grid perfectly, even if, like I-74 it breaks the rules about same-state same-number US route and Interstate.

I-41/US41 is like the state route extensions, except that it's a US route extension and goes from both ends.

I've never understood why some roadgeeks find I_41 so abhorrent that they want to renumber hundreds (sometimes thousands) of miles of road to avoid having I-41 along US41. Perhaps as I'm used to things like the M23 running parallel to the A23, and the M40 paralleling the A40 from London to Oxford, before heading in different directions (north west to Birmingham and west to Cheltenham and beyond respectively), I'm rather open to the idea of even I-74/US74 type things. I buy the rule-breaking arguments against I-41, but cannot see how it is such a disaster as needing millions of dollars spend, and lots of confusion caused, by renumbering a load of major roads. Business routes are similar to having US41 remain on surface streets in Milwaukee as now, with I-41 on the freeway a bit to the west - two roads, same number, different colour shields, and it wouldn't be hard to just renumber US41 there anyway as it's not that long.

I can't see a logical, rational reason to not have I-41 along US41 if US41 is upgraded to interstate standards and will be signed as an interstate. You could argue that it could just be upgraded and signed as US41 and have a hidden I-41 designation or something, but if blue and red shields go up, can anyone suggest to me any practical reason (ie not "it breaks the rule") why they shouldn't have a number 41 on them? Confusion is a non-argument as, at worst, it'll be no worse than having a business loop and state route continuations. Large amounts of renumbering to get I-55 or I-57 up there is just a bit impractical.

[agentsteel53]

my question is not why interstate 41 is 41, but why it is interstate.  Not every freeway in the country needs a red, white, and blue shield!

[english si]

my question is not why interstate 41 is 41, but why it is interstate.  Not every freeway in the country needs a red, white, and blue shield!

Which I said was a perfectly valid argument. But why mention US74 being 'bad enough'?

[agentsteel53]

Which I said was a perfectly valid argument. But why mention US74 being 'bad enough'?

because it seems they randomly upgraded a US route to interstate shields.  To do something twice is worse than doing it once.

[english si]

but they didn't upgrade US74 to interstate - they upgraded a different corridor that happened to use part of US74. Add to that the multiplex of US and I- routes with the same number that '41 has and it confuses your point.

There's probably an example that would have made your point more obvious - US220, perhaps? In PA (I-99) and NC (I-73/74)!

[mightyace]

^^^

But, the part of US 220 that originally was designated I-99 was already interstate standard.

[hobsini2]

I personally have no problem what so ever with US 41 becoming I-41 since it fits reasonably into the current grid.  All I am saying is US 41 signage should either stay with the freeway or use WI 175 which years ago WAS US 41 to begin with.  And you can have 41 return to 27th Street in Milwaukee and drop 241.

[froggie]

my question is not why interstate 41 is 41, but why it is interstate.  Not every freeway in the country needs a red, white, and blue shield!

As a general rule, I agree.  But in this particular case, the Appleton/Fox Cities area (~140K pop, plus another 60K in nearby Oshkosh) is large enough to warrant Interstate access.

[SEWIGuy]

The reason that US-41 was dropped from 27th Street pretty much had everything to do with the fact that the Layton Boulevard neighborhood wanted any highway designation dropped from their street.  (Layton is essentially 27th Street between about National Ave. and Loomis Ave.)  The WI-241 designation and the WI-36 (Loomis) now begin at the same intersection.

So no, US-41 will not be moved back to 27th Street.

[triplemultiplex]

The reason that US-41 was dropped from 27th Street pretty much had everything to do with the fact that the Layton Boulevard neighborhood wanted any highway designation dropped from their street.  (Layton is essentially 27th Street between about National Ave. and Loomis Ave.)  The WI-241 designation and the WI-36 (Loomis) now begin at the same intersection.

So no, US-41 will not be moved back to 27th Street.

Close.
When WisDOT rebuilt Layton Blvd in the 90's they wanted to make some upgrades that would widen the street in a way that locals were opposed to.  Rather than get in big fight over what amounts to an unnecessary part of the numbered highway system in the area, WisDOT just reconstructed as-is and yanked US 41 (or any other potential state highway) off of Layton.  And so now we've got WI 241 and secret WI 341.


I came through Oshkosh earlier today and southbound traffic has been shifted over to make room for northbound traffic to share the southbound carriageway while the northbound carriageway is reconstructed.  The shift for northbound traffic is next week.  Tonight, the 9th Street interchange closes for reconstruction.  This follows the recent start of the long term closure for Schnuering Rd and it's interchange in De Pere.  This is just the start for 2011; it's going to be a busy year on US 41.

[mgk920]

Also, the interchanges at US 41/Breezewood-Bell (interchange 129) in Neenah and at US 41/9th Ave (interchange 117) in Oshkosh will be gong down for the summer within the next couple of weeks.  9th Ave may already be closed.  In both cases, the interchanges will be rebuilt as standard diamonds with roundabouts at their ramp intersections and the intersections between the cross roads and the adjacent frontage roads.  Breezewood-Bell is expected to reopen in October.

Further, this summer, US 41 will be getting auxiliary lanes in both directions between College Ave (WI 125 - interchange 137) and Wisconsin Ave (WI 96 - interchange 138) in Appleton, as well as northbound between Winchester Rd (interchange 133) and US 10/WI 441 (interchange 134) between Appleton and Neenah.

Agreed, it will be construction geek HEAVEN!

 



Mike

[hobsini2]

Yeah I am not looking forward to visiting my grandmother with all these closures in Oshkosh.  It was bad enough with Witzel Ave closed last summer.  Now 9th and WI 21 are slated for this summer.

[triplemultiplex]

Yeah I am not looking forward to visiting my grandmother with all these closures in Oshkosh.  It was bad enough with Witzel Ave closed last summer.  Now 9th and WI 21 are slated for this summer.

It's 9th and US 45 this year.  WI 21 is next year.

[kharvey10]

Yeah WisDOT didn't get their first option of the 141 alignment being I-57 because of the rumor that IDiOT did not want to sign a I-57/94 concurrency, which would had at the very least corrected the cardinal direction stupidity that is I-94 from Chicago to Milwaukee.  (Chicagoland residents would cared less about the renumbering, they call their highways by names anyway.)

You know that WisDOT isn't going to get their I-41 numbering nor will IDiOT.  That is how I-39 came into play.

[hobsini2]

The only exception to the named highway rule in Chicago is I-57.  It has been called by some older state maps the "West Leg of Dan Ryan Expy" but no one calls it that.

[mukade]

The only exception to the named highway rule in Chicago is I-57.  It has been called by some older state maps the "West Leg of Dan Ryan Expy" but no one calls it that.

Assuming Chicagoland instead of Chicago proper, I-80 west of the Tri-State also is not named, AFAIK.

[mukade]

Yeah WisDOT didn't get their first option of the 141 alignment being I-57 because of the rumor that IDiOT did not want to sign a I-57/94 concurrency, which would had at the very least corrected the cardinal direction stupidity that is I-94 from Chicago to Milwaukee.  (Chicagoland residents would cared less about the renumbering, they call their highways by names anyway.)

You know that WisDOT isn't going to get their I-41 numbering nor will IDiOT.  That is how I-39 came into play.

Although I-57 looks like the best route number on a map, judging by the control "city" (i.e. Indiana, not St. Louis, Joliet, or Kankakee) once in Chicago's northern suburbs, I bet more southbound drivers from Wisconsin going past Chicago actually go toward I-65 than I-55 or I-57. I would hate to see Illinois get yet another Interstate number, but if an existing route were to be extended, that probably makes the most sense from a thru traffic perspective. Comparing AADT, I-65 clearly carries the most traffic of the three routes south of Chicagoland. I-55 would probably be second best as a good number of Wisconsin drivers would be heading toward St. Louis and toward Texas. I still don't see I-57 as a heavily used interstate past Kankakee and down to Mt. Vernon where traffic from St. Louis joins.