Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SSOWorld]

That's not the Interstate you're looking for (will be a looooong time before 29 gets that due to the Elk Mound interchange with I-94)

[triplemultiplex]

I will summarize my impression from the PIM this May and say that Wisconsin will either get 55 or 41.
55 seemed to be the first pick of the DOT types and was the only Chicagoland interstate Illinois was even willing to consider.
41 seemed to be the first pick of the general public and still acceptable to DOT types.
Nobody liked the 3di alternatives; either new ones or 476-ing this thing with 894.
47 seemed like it was just there as an afterthought.

If there is going to be too much resistance to 55, then my money is on 41; my first choice given way the grid was messed up in this part of the continent.

[Stratuscaster]

Still think I-57 is a better choice. If they are just going to run I-55 up the Ryan/Kennedy/Edens anyway, may as well do that with I-57. It already funnels into I-94/Ryan "naturally" - 55 doesn't.

[hobsini2]

We could get rid of the Northern Leg of I-43 altogether, and just run 94 along that and then route it onto Wis29 to Eau Claire. Makes me wonder what those planners in the 40's and 50's were on...what kind of expansion they may have been expecting, or just even why they planned the freeways the way they did.

It could also get an I-96 designation. This actually would make sense as I-96 in Michigan terminates in Muskegon, which has the ferry to Milwaukee from there. I-96 would have a rather long N-S section posted E-W, but otherwise would do the trick nicely.

Frankly, I would rather see I-96 be extended northwest along US 31 from Muskegon to Ludington, then take the USS Badger Ferry to Manitowoc, upgrade Waldo Blvd to a freeway, use I-43 up to Green Bay, WIS 172 and US 41 freeways to bypass GB on the south and west to meet up with WIS 29. Then go west on 29 to I-94 at Elk Mound. This would eliminate a ton of miles and traffic for Detroit to Minneapolis traffic.

[NE2]

This would eliminate a ton of miles and traffic for Detroit to Minneapolis traffic.

It only saves 57 out of 690 miles per Google Maps. Taking the Muskegon-Milwaukee ferry is shorter (saving 70 miles) due to the diagonal of I-94.

[SEWIGuy]

Not to mention that it would be significantly longer time-wise...that the Badger ferry wouldn't be able to handle interstate level traffic and is closed during the winter....and you would be tearing up most of downtown Manitowoc. 

All for how much traffic that runs from Detroit to the Twin Cities?

[hobsini2]

Ah but by going up to Ludington-Manitowoc-Green Bay-Wausau instead, you miss the traffic of Northwest Indiana, Chicago, Milwaukee (or Rockford if you prefer I-90), and Madison.

Look at the population difference between Detroit and Minneapolis if you take I-96 as apposed to I-94/90.

I-94:
Michigan - Washtenaw, Jackson, Calhoun, Kalamazoo, Van Buren, and Berrien pop is 1,124,587.  I excluded counting Wayne County since both 94 and 96 are in it.
Indiana - La Porte, Porter, and Lake pop is 771,815.
Illinois - Cook and Lake pop is 5,898,137.
Wisconsin - Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Jefferson, Dane, Columbia, Sauk, Monroe, Jackson, Trempealeau, and Eau Claire pop is 2,609,548. I excluded Dunn County since both 94 and Wis 29 (my prop of I-96) are in it.
So going just on I-94, that is a total pop of 10,404,087.

Using I-90 between Chicago and Madison:
Illinois - Cook, Kane, McHenry, Boone, and Winnebago pop is 6,368,135.
Wisconsin - Rock and Dane pop is 648,404
Pop of I-90 segment is 7,016,539.
Total pop of I-94 with I-90 avoiding Milwaukee is 9,251,088.

I-96 + my proposal of I-96:
Michigan - Oakland, Livingston, Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Ionia, Kent, Ottawa, Muskegon, Oceana, and Mason pop is 3,005,156.
Wisconsin - Manitowoc, Brown, Shawano, Marathon, Clark and Chippewa pop is 602,566.
Total pop of 3,607,722.

That makes a difference of 6,796,365 fewer people from I-94 only and difference of 5,643,366 fewer people from I-94 via I-90.

So tell me again why this is a bad idea? Think big picture guys.

[NE2]

So tell me again why this is a bad idea?

OK, if you insist:

This would eliminate a ton of miles and traffic for Detroit to Minneapolis traffic.

It only saves 57 out of 690 miles per Google Maps. Taking the Muskegon-Milwaukee ferry is shorter (saving 70 miles) due to the diagonal of I-94.

[SEWIGuy]

So tell me again why this is a bad idea? Think big picture guys.

I did this already....

1. It would take too much time.  The boat takes five hours to cross the lake.
2. The boat is not big enough and is closed in the winter
3. Tearing up downtown Manitowoc to put in a freeway is a completely unnecessary idea.

[merrycilantro]

Here is the Response I got from IDOT:

Thank you for your email concerning conversion of US 41 to an Interstate in Wisconsin and possible numbering as I-55.  As you may be aware, extending the I-55 designation from Chicago north to Wisconsin would require concurrence of both states.  Illinois has declined Wisconsin’s offer to extend either I-55 or I-57 northward.  Since the Wisconsin Department of Transportation was the lead agency regarding the proposal, you might wish to contact them for further information concerning the US 41 conversion.  The following is a link to some contacts in Wisconsin as well as a link to their project public information site:  http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/neregion/41/contacts.htm     http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/neregion/41/public.htm

So, I guess, given that, I would have to agree that they'll probably sign it as I-41, and if that doesn't work then I-47. I guess for continuity purposes I would hope that somewhere down the Line, IDOT would do a southerly extension of 41 or 47 into Illinois...if it matters to the drivers thru Chicagoland at all.

I will, of course, be emailing WisDOT as suggested by the email, to get WisDOT's view on the whole ordeal. Details, of course, to come.

[mgk920]

And if there is no satisfaction in any circle, perhaps another Act of Congress would be in order.

 

Mike

[on_wisconsin]

Just sign it I-41, it fits our state grid and has public support.

[mukade]

Here is the Response I got from IDOT:

Thank you for your email concerning conversion of US 41 to an Interstate in Wisconsin and possible numbering as I-55.  As you may be aware, extending the I-55 designation from Chicago north to Wisconsin would require concurrence of both states.  Illinois has declined Wisconsin’s offer to extend either I-55 or I-57 northward.  Since the Wisconsin Department of Transportation was the lead agency regarding the proposal, you might wish to contact them for further information concerning the US 41 conversion.  The following is a link to some contacts in Wisconsin as well as a link to their project public information site:  http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/neregion/41/contacts.htm     http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/neregion/41/public.htm

A couple of things - other than not wanting to build far-fetched highways like I-73 and I-66 (extension), have states ever declined another state's request.

Taking another angle on this, one thing that used to motivate Illinois back in the 70s and 80s was getting a new Interstate route. That is when I-39, I-72, and I-88 came into being. While I-72 was built that designation published, I don't remember the I-39 designation being given before construction began (at least maps did not show it until late in the game). I-88 was a number given to Illinois 5. So if the current IDOT leadership has the same philosophy, someone should suggest I-65.

In other words, appeal to their pride. Adding another route might put Illinois into the lead for 2dis - or something like that. I forget if Pennsylvania, Texas, or Illinois leads that race at the moment. That could answer the "whats in it for me?" issue IDOT seems to have. Its a longshot, but pride is a often a more powerful factor than people think.

What's the worst that could happen?

[SEWIGuy]

My understanding is that IDOT only sought designations for IL-5 and US-51 because at the time the 65 mph speed limit was specifically limited to interstates.

[english si]

TX: 10 (10, 20, 27, 30, 35, 37, 40, 44 45, 69) with I-49 planned to just clip the state at Texarkana
IL: 12 (24, 39, 55, 57, 64 70 72, 74, 80, 88, 90, 94)
PA: 12 (70, 76, 78 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 90, 95 99)

So I-41, I-47 and I-65 options are needed in the 'most 2dis' biggus dikkus' contest.

A couple of things - other than not wanting to build far-fetched highways like I-73 and I-66 (extension), have states ever declined another state's request.

One hopes NY does it with I-99. Wasn't it mentioned upthread that WI wanted the US51 freeway in IL to be I-43, but IL vetoed it? And what happened to I-57 on what is now I-43 - another IL veto?

There's also the AZ/CA I-8/I-10/I-12 thing, where AZ said "do you mind if we have I-12 being the route to LA and I-10 being the route to SD?" CA said yes and then AZ changed it's mind.

[hobsini2]

My understanding is that IDOT only sought designations for IL-5 and US-51 because at the time the 65 mph speed limit was specifically limited to interstates.

You are correct. Illinois applied for interstate-ship for IL 5 and US 51 so that they could, under what was the law, have the rural speed limit on those highways as 65. If the interstate rule for higher speed limits was not around back then, it would be possible that both highways would have remain as IL 5 and US 51 similar to US 12 freeway in SE Wisconsin.  Interestingly enough, the IL 56 freeway west of Aurora never did get it's speed raised to 65 despite being mostly rural. BTW, don't speed on that freeway. the Sugar Grove cops patrol it very strictly.

[Revive 755]

^ But the IL 56 expressway does not have paved shoulders - don't all the other 65 mph routes in IL have the shoulders paved?

Second thing to consider is the speed limit on I-88 - if the section of I-88 that the expressway ties into is only posted at 55, IDOT is unlikely to up the speed limit on IL 56 in the name of consistency.

As to Illinois only making the East-West Tollway and the US 51 corridors into interstates to get them posted at 65 - other than extensions of existing facilities, I don't think there has been a brand new interstate number added in Illinois after 1996.  Sure there has not been a lot of freeway construction since then, but I don't think IDOT is going for intestate designations for IL 255 once that facility is completed.

[mukade]

IDOT is pretty proud of the place Illinois has with respect to Interstates. "Illinois, with 2,169.53 miles of interstate highways, ranks third in the nation in interstate miles; only Texas (3,233.45 miles) and California (2,455.74 miles) rank ahead of the Land of Lincoln. In Illinois...".

ILLINOIS INTERSTATES: CROSSROADS OF THE NATION from the Interstate system 50th anniversary project.

[hbelkins]

One hopes NY does it with I-99.

NY already has "Future I-99 corridor" signs on US 15 between Corning and the state line.

What NY should do is extend I-99 north along I-390 to at least the Thruway, if not I-490 in Rochester.

[Stratuscaster]

Second thing to consider is the speed limit on I-88 - if the section of I-88 that the expressway ties into is only posted at 55, IDOT is unlikely to up the speed limit on IL 56 in the name of consistency.

I-88 at the IL-56 freeway is posted at 65 - it drops down to 55 a bit east of there; I cannot recall if it's west or east of Orchard Road.

IMHO, until they rebuild the IL-56 expressway from the ground up, there's little reason to up the limit from 55 - that is one very rough stretch of road.

[Stratuscaster]

...someone should suggest I-65.

Now you have to get both Illinois AND Indiana to play ball.

If the quality of the US-41 route is said to be better than the existing I-43 route, then make US-41 into I-43 and make I-43 up the lakeshore into a 3DI.

[mukade]

Now you have to get both Illinois AND Indiana to play ball.

Indiana seems to be sort of doing that on the Borman - albeit in a weird way. See this post (although that could be a fluke).

Regardless, I don't recall Indiana ever not working with its neighbors.

[hobsini2]

Second thing to consider is the speed limit on I-88 - if the section of I-88 that the expressway ties into is only posted at 55, IDOT is unlikely to up the speed limit on IL 56 in the name of consistency.

I-88 at the IL-56 freeway is posted at 65 - it drops down to 55 a bit east of there; I cannot recall if it's west or east of Orchard Road.

IMHO, until they rebuild the IL-56 expressway from the ground up, there's little reason to up the limit from 55 - that is one very rough stretch of road.

It's a mile east of Orchard (near the Randall Rd bridge) where the 55 zone starts.

[hobsini2]

^ But the IL 56 expressway does not have paved shoulders - don't all the other 65 mph routes in IL have the shoulders paved?

Second thing to consider is the speed limit on I-88 - if the section of I-88 that the expressway ties into is only posted at 55, IDOT is unlikely to up the speed limit on IL 56 in the name of consistency.

As to Illinois only making the East-West Tollway and the US 51 corridors into interstates to get them posted at 65 - other than extensions of existing facilities, I don't think there has been a brand new interstate number added in Illinois after 1996.  Sure there has not been a lot of freeway construction since then, but I don't think IDOT is going for intestate designations for IL 255 once that facility is completed.

The last "new" interstate that I can think of was the conversion of IL 121 between Lincoln and Morton to I-155.

[on_wisconsin]

^
Thats cool, what about USH-41 in Wisconsin? Anyone have a new constuction update, how is the new US-45 interchange working?