US-41 Interstate Conversion

[rawmustard]

Here are a few threads found that could be merged into this one:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=350.0

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4865.0

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5006.0

The first link you mentioned definitely was warranted merging into this thread. The latter two are less so (especially the third which is about a specific incident, not about the US 41 upgrade in Wisconsin as a whole).

[mgk920]

A few more tidbits - Apparently, WisDOT is interested in US 41's 'promotion' I-route number extending southward to the Illinois state line via I-94.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/meetings-planned-for-highway-41-interstate-conversion-ke5cseg-151325935.html

BTW, I'll likely be at the PIM in Green Bay.

Mike

[Alps]

Here are a few threads found that could be merged into this one:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=350.0

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4865.0

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5006.0

The first link you mentioned definitely was warranted merging into this thread. The latter two are less so (especially the third which is about a specific incident, not about the US 41 upgrade in Wisconsin as a whole).

Looks like the first one has been merged. I'm less concerned when a thread has fallen off the first index page, because if people see a thread on their topic of interest, they're not going to keep looking back farther.

[sr641]

Bring on Interstate 41!

[kphoger]

Roads are nifty! 

[sr641]

Roads are nifty! 

Ya!

[NE2]

Broads are thrifty!

[merrycilantro]

I've been reading this thread for quite some time, and am looking forward to when US41 will finally become I-??. I apologize that you've probably heard all of this before--and read it--but being new to this site, well blogging in general, and being a budding roadgeek myself, I hope you all understand.

That being said...

That i know of, and can confirm through local newspapers and DOT documents, the numbers, as you all are aware, are 55, 57, 41, 65 and 243. IMHO, 243 would just be a slap in the face of the whole reason they're upgrading it to an I route in the first place. The reasoning behind it being economic development and what not, a "spur" interstate will not do that. Simply put. It just doesn't have the same power (for lack of better words) that a main 2di route would, i.e. 57. Not to mention something I'd read a few pages back, about less driver confusion only having to follow one number from Chicago to NE Wisconsin.

Rather than get into fictional ideas, realistically speaking let's assume they agree and throw out the 243 option (or any other one being a 3di), because you have auxiliary routes like WIS 441 in Appleton, WIS 172 in Green Bay and US 45 coming out of Oshkosh -as well as from Richfield split in the Milwaukee area to West Bend, that could all, in theory, eventually become spurs/3di's off of the main route, current US 41. And AFAIK, you can't have a spur off a spur--correct me if i'm wrong. Strictly looking at maps, as I am located in the Fond du Lac, WI area, it seems as though 55 does not seem likely. I know from experience that when I'm traveling anywhere where I have to go thru Chicago, I take 43 to 39 @ Beloit just to avoid the Chicago traffic. While it is a mainline, it may not be so realistic. 57? Definitely seems more feasable, it even looks like it would flow nicely from its current terminus, and just shoot up the Dan Ryan/Kennedy Expy (again, strictly looking at a map as i don't get to chicago often) I-65...that seems, to me at least, IMO, to be the better option, because 65 will take you all the way down south, whereas 57 will only take you midway between St. Louis and Memphis, roughly. A good Regional Freeway, no question. But it'd make more sense, if we're trying to encourage economic mobility, that we'd want to give the impression that we're moving things transcontinent. You think I65 you think "OK I'm going to Indy. I'm going to Louisville. Nashville. Birmingham. Ultimately, Mobile (and the Gulf). With 57, you'd be thinking "I've got Chicago...and...the rest of Illinois (my apologies if this offends, I merely phrase it like that to make a point. I know and am related to plenty of those "other Illinoisans"...my relation live in Minooka and refuse to acknowledge it as Chicago.)

I haven't quite looked enough at the map setup with I-65 from its current terminus to see if on map it would work to extend that designation through the Chicago area, but doesn't it make sense? It would also give I-65 more of a Chicago freeway feel (again, for lack of better words). I 65 ends, how many miles away from the Loop? Chicagoans, do you have a name for I 65 i.e. Kingery, Dan Ryan? If they extend 65 thru Chicago and up to Green Bay, I suppose there'd have to be one (not sure how the naming system works down there), but it would feel more like a route that would take you to Chicago, not just the outlying suburbs. I guess the only hurdle would be for WISDOT and the governing powers that be to cooperate not only with IDOT but Indiana's DOT (do you have a "cool" name like us in WI and IL in IN?) to accomplish. But, in my opinion, I believe that to be the best option. One further addition is that 55, 57, 65 and even 243 are all WIS state highways... at least, though, 65 is on the opposite end of the state whereas 55 and 57 are right in the heart of the designated route. Not even bothering with 243. IMO dumb idea. Just saying.

Once again i apologize for my wordy case for I-65. I assure you that any future posts will not be quite this long.

[mgk920]

The only real major upgrade that would be needed to use '65' would be at its terminus at I-90 - direct full-speed free-flow ramps, instead of the many circles of existing tight loop curves, between I-65 to the south and I-90 (Indiana Toll Road) to the west.  The ROW is there, all that's needed is the desire and the few millions of dollars of cash required to do the work.

Heck, I'd almost reroute I-94 to follow the Toll Road and Skyway instead of the Borman/Kingery/Bishop Ford/(south) Dan Ryan along with it.

See:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.648801,-87.454605&spn=0.295022,0.441513&t=m&z=11

and

http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.59054,-87.303543&spn=0.018456,0.027595&t=k&z=15

Mike

[mukade]

That is an interesting idea for I-94 that makes a lot of sense when/if they fix that substandard I-94/Toll Road interchange, but for I-65 to work, it would have to follow the Borman and Bishop Ford. The I-65/Borman interchange was recently rebuilt and is high speed/high volume as is the Kingery/Bishop Ford interchange. There would need to be an I-165 or something, but that is minor. Getting 65 on the entire north-south section of 94 would allow it to finally correctly be designated as a north-south route. The Borman/Kingery would have an east-west I-65 that is balanced by I-80 (and I-94 for now at least).

For Wisconsin, it would give it an I-x5 highway. On the negative side you would then have to get agreement with two other agencies, but I can't see that being too difficult.

[Alps]

And AFAIK, you can't have a spur off a spur--correct me if i'm wrong.

I-990 (NY).
I-795 (MD).
I-478, I-678, I-878 (NY).
Also look at San Jose. I'm done here.

[Jordanah1]

And AFAIK, you can't have a spur off a spur--correct me if i'm wrong.

no ones perfect, it is possible. I-370 spurs off of I-270 in the D.C. area...and there may be more...

[Takumi]

^I-695 in DC.

[NE2]

I-238 in CA. It's a spur of I-238.

[JREwing78]

I wouldn't move I-94 off its current alignment, but routing I-65 over the Tri-State Tollway would remove the need for its current I-294 designation. And unlike the other options, it would span the entire Tollway from end to end; I-55 and I-57 couldn't do that.

[merrycilantro]

And AFAIK, you can't have a spur off a spur--correct me if i'm wrong.

I-990 (NY).
I-795 (MD).
I-478, I-678, I-878 (NY).

Nice. I had no idea they even did that. Though what else makes sense, i suppose. Thanks for the info Steve & Jordanah1. In any case, these spurs off of spurs aren't close to 100+ miles long (although before I put my foot in my mouth again I will say To the Best of my Knowledge ), which US 41 is. It's going to serve 2 major metropolises in WI and 3 smaller metro areas in between, I'd say it deserves more than just a spur designation. But then again that's just me. Locals here just refer to it as "41" anyway, so even with the new number they'll still call it 41, even if they take the US41 designation off instead of cosigning it.

@mgk920, I see what you mean with the circles and tight loop curves referenced in your reply. I guess I never really zoomed that far in to see that. It had appeared to me that 65 flowed right into 90. I agree though that to reroute 65 onto the Borman and the Bishop Ford would be the way to go. The remainder of current I-65 north from the Borman to the Toll Road would make a decent spur (i.e. I-165). It would seem like a natural flow from Indiana into the Chicago area.

I do also like the idea of 65 taking over the Tri-state tollway. Very fitting.

I suppose it would seem (again this is strictly by looking off of Google Maps) that extending I-57 would be most cost efficient, as it appears not to affect so many roadways/interchanges. Not to mention I-43 from Milwaukee to Green Bay was supposed to be I-57 anyway. Because just as natural as the 65-80/94 flow seems, so is the flow from 57-90/94. 55 does not look like it will be easy to route it thru Chicago, and be able to maintain the major transcontinental status I understand it has. Its junctures with 355, 294 and even the Dan Ryan don't really make it look as free-flowing as 57. Although I'd like to see 65 extended, I'd place my bets on it being 57 straight thru.

It'd be easy enough to place the US41 designation onto the current WIS 57 to avoid the duplicate I-route/US designations, all the way to Green Bay. Then just designate 57 from Green Bay thru Door County via Sturgeon Bay as WIS-157, for example. Seems logical...but for the duplicate concern, i'd still have to go with I-65, as WIS 65 is far enough away.

One concern would be that WISDOT will take the "half-a**ed" approach, as they have done with US 151 in the Fond du Lac area with the bypass that was completed some years ago, and just slap I-243 signs on right next to US 41 and, as the infomercial goes, "Set it and forget it." Almost identical to what they did to US 51 with I-39. The other options have numbers in WI...so then if not 243, then 443, 643, 843. Just to save a buck. But none of the 3dis would spur economic development...it'll just be a bunch of blue signs with 3di numbers on it.

PS-I got it, there ARE such things as spurs of spurs Thank you all.

[Stratuscaster]

To use I-65, I don't know if I'd bother to re-route I-94 onto the IN Toll Road/Skyway - just from a users' perspective - it's familiar to people and it's been that way for a long time.

Yes, that would leave you with a triple-plex in 2 sections - 65/80/94 on the Kingery/Borman and 65/90/94 on the Ryan/Kennedy - but that's not so bad, is it?

If you have to have signs on the stretch between the Borman and the IN Toll Road, go with I-165 - I'd just as soon sign it as "To I-90/IN Toll Road" without a number.

I think I'd prefer I-65 over I-57, and I-57 over I-55. I-41 makes sense, but that gives you an intrastate Interstate. I-243 isn't that bad and makes sense, too.

The grid's already busted, so having I-65 (or 57, or 55) west of I-43 isn't much of an issue for me.

I don't think I would route I-65 on the Tri-State - at least, not to replace I-294. It's been I-294 since at least 1965 - again, ingrained in people's minds.

Once they build that I-57/I-294 interchange, you could route I-57 up the Tri-State. But it's not like the Tri-State needs an odd-number route to justify itself - it's been signed as N-S for as long as I can remember as I-294.

[mukade]

I wouldn't move I-94 off its current alignment, but routing I-65 over the Tri-State Tollway would remove the need for its current I-294 designation. And unlike the other options, it would span the entire Tollway from end to end; I-55 and I-57 couldn't do that.

That is true, but I-65 (or I-57) going through downtown Chicago mitigates the N-S I-94 problem from the Kingery (or Dan Ryan split) to Lake-Cook Rd. There is no expectation that the cardinal direction of a 3di will follow the even-odd number rule that should apply to a 2di.

Either way works, but in case you haven't noticed, the 100 mile N-S I-94 bugs me (and many others) so taking advantage of this unique opportunity of the Wisconsin US 41 upgrade  to solve a problem in Illinois would be nice.

[mukade]

If you have to have signs on the stretch between the Borman and the IN Toll Road, go with I-165 - I'd just as soon sign it as "To I-90/IN Toll Road" without a number.

If there were no interchange between the Borman and Toll Road, that would work, but there are really two - assuming you count the US 12/20 one. So I-165 would be better than a connector designation.

[SEWIGuy]

I wouldn't move I-94 off its current alignment, but routing I-65 over the Tri-State Tollway would remove the need for its current I-294 designation. And unlike the other options, it would span the entire Tollway from end to end; I-55 and I-57 couldn't do that.

That is true, but I-65 (or I-57) going through downtown Chicago mitigates the N-S I-94 problem from the Kingery (or Dan Ryan split) to Lake-Cook Rd. There is no expectation that the cardinal direction of a 3di will follow the even-odd number rule that should apply to a 2di.

Either way works, but in case you haven't noticed, the 100 mile N-S I-94 bugs me (and many others) so taking advantage of this unique opportunity of the Wisconsin US 41 upgrade  to solve a problem in Illinois would be nice.

It doesn't bother 95% of the travelling public, so leave it how it stands. 

[hobsini2]

Merrycilantro, i never really thought about having I-65 being routed onto the Tri-State around Chicago BUT i like that idea better than routing through the Loop. I think I would also keep the 294 signs on it as well since it is the only real bypass of Chicago. I know some might scoff at a co-signing for no other reason but that but that's "how I roll". LOL Essentially nothing would be changed with the existing routes in Chicagoland other than I-65 being added and a x65 for the connector to the Indiana Toll Rd.

[Stratuscaster]

Co-sign with I-294 would have course work - and for travelers outside the area it might be beneficial. Locals will never call it "I-65" or "65" and would just keep referring to it as "294". I think my overall idea was to keep I-65 toll-free. Not that there's any reasoning behind it - just because.

Regardless of the US12/20 interchange, the very short connector - in my mind - doesn't require an "I-165" designator. Although I suppose if I-190 for O'Hare gets an I-number (not that I agree with that either)...

[kphoger]

Co-sign with I-294 would have course work - and for travelers outside the area it might be beneficial. Locals will never call it "I-65" or "65" and would just keep referring to it as "294".

They won't call it 294.  They'll keep calling it the Tri-state.

[SSOWorld]

Agreed.  They refer to their freeways *cough* expressways and tollways by name, not number.

[merrycilantro]

It seems as though routing I-65 up I-294 (Tri State Tollway) would work well, it seems as though there are enough access points where travelers desiring to go to Chicago could get down to the Loop. This would, in theory, also alleviate additional traffic I'm sure routing I-65 through the Loop would do. Again, correct me if I am wrong about the access points, my only point of reference is Google Maps. On that end of the interstate, I guess it's just up to IDOT to see how willing they are to work with WISDOT and to what extent. I mean, either way, there would be a cosigned route with 90/94. Us Cheeseheads are used to that, we have 39/90/94 from Madison to Tomah. Travelers wanting to simply go through Chicago, I assume, will want to bypass Chicago anyway, so routing 65 with 294 would be a good fit, and on the Cheesehead side, it would do the same thing in the Milwaukee area, as it will follow the Airport and Zoo Freeways (I-894), and on a smaller scale, Appleton.

Does anybody happen to know how they figure out what the costs would be, for example, to sign 65 thru Chicago versus signing 57 or 55? I can only assume they'd want to do the cheaper of the two...On a more humorous note, WISDOT might have to offer a decent bribe to IDOT to get the ball rolling on that one...eh?...eh?...*crickets................

More to come later