US-41 Interstate Conversion

[Jordanah1]

off of the topic of US41 future signing, ill throw in a quick report of the progress in oshkosh.
the US41 southbound lanes are being poured from the north side of the Butte des morts causeway, all the way south to just north of the witzel overpass. from what i can see, all the concrete is poured for the US41-US45 interchange, and painting on the flyover is almost complete. i could see that interchange opening a few weeks ahead of schedual. the girders over US41 are all in place at the WI21 interchange, and the roundabouts are completely poured at the frontage roads accept for the red apron in the middle. traffic is even allowed to continue east in wi21 to the koller roundabout, and turn right on it. concrete is poured on the northbound lanes through the US45 interchange, and grading is largely complete up to the WI76 interchange. north of WI 76 however, they are still removing all of the old concrete.

[kphoger]

This would, in theory, also alleviate additional traffic...

I am not convinced that changing a number on a sign alleviates traffic.

[mgk920]

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

Well, I have no idea on actual costs, but I would think that from the standpoint of Illinois, the least signage work would be a toss-up between using '57' and '65' via the Skyway and Indiana Toll Road.

Mike

[kharvey10]

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

If they intend on signing to to Chicago, call it I-57 and piss off IDiOT in the process.  At least it will correct some of the cardinal direction screwups on I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee, and correct a mistake made over 40 years ago.  IDiOT balked at the first attempt cause they didn't want to spend the dough on signs and they're not entirely on the hook with the signage (ITHA).  With IDiOT allegedly broke as is and that new interchange at 294 due to be built, WisDOT can really extract dough from the IDiOT emergency fund. Truckers that heavily use the Chicago-New Orleans corridor see it as I-55 anyway.  I-55 won't work functionally cause the truckers would get off at I-39 in B-Normal and bypass Chicagoland - and that does not play into WisDOT plans at all.  WisDOT just needs to stick it to IDiOT; it appears that the ITHA doesn't give a care anyway.  People from Chicagoland know their expressways and tollways by name with a couple exceptions.

65 would been better off being signed up towards Michigan and it would been a more expensive signage option than I-57.

If they don't want to do the signage, just call it an even-numbered x43 and see how AASTHO and FHWA loves it.  Its unlikely that they will approve a 3di that is just as long as I-39 in Wisconsin.

[mukade]

65 would been better off being signed up towards Michigan and it would been a more expensive signage option than I-57.

No way I-65 could ever go to Michigan. Think about the ony two options: - option 1 would be to move I-65 designation to US 31. That will not ever happen under any circumstances. Option 2 would be to extend I-65 via I-94 and up I-196. If you did that, you would have the exact same situation as I-55 in Wisconsin - there is a much better alternative over it. In the case of Michigan, the far superior alternative is US 31 due south to Indy. No one from Michigan would ever follow an indirect I-65 routing like that (not to mention going thru all that congestion). Just as with the potential I-55 designation in Wisconsin, look at a map and you will see it is a non-starter.

In addition to I-57 being a relatively minor route, that would still leave a good chunk of I-94 going north and south with no odd number Interstate designation to balance it. As for I-57 being an alternate I-55, think about if more Wisconsin traffic goes toward New Orleans or points east and southeast. I bet it is the latter. If it is the latter, I-65 is the logical route. If it is the former, I-57 is.

[NE2]

There's already a better alternative to I-55... If I-55 went to Green Bay, it would simply serve Chicago as it serves St. Louis.

[mgk920]

65 would been better off being signed up towards Michigan and it would been a more expensive signage option than I-57.

No way I-65 could ever go to Michigan. Think about the ony two options: - option 1 would be to move I-65 designation to US 31. That will not ever happen under any circumstances. Option 2 would be to extend I-65 via I-94 and up I-196. If you did that, you would have the exact same situation as I-55 in Wisconsin - there is a much better alternative over it. In the case of Michigan, the far superior alternative is US 31 due south to Indy. No one from Michigan would ever follow an indirect I-65 routing like that (not to mention going thru all that congestion). Just as with the potential I-55 designation in Wisconsin, look at a map and you will see it is a non-starter.

In addition to I-57 being a relatively minor route, that would still leave a good chunk of I-94 going north and south with no odd number Interstate designation to balance it. As for I-57 being an alternate I-55, think about if more Wisconsin traffic goes toward New Orleans or points east and southeast. I bet it is the latter. If it is the latter, I-65 is the logical route. If it is the former, I-57 is.

Well...

...'I-65' could certainly go into Michigan.  Assuming that it is chosen as the I-route number for US 41 in Wisconsin, it could, conceivably, someday be extended farther northeastward along US 41 to about Powers, MI and then eastward along US 2 to end at I-75 near Saint Ignace, MI.



Mike

[mukade]

Doh!

Not sure about going east, but to Escanaba and Marquette, it actually could.

[Stratuscaster]

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

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

As one who lives here, I'll just say that they'll call it both - as we do today. What they wouldn't call it is "I-65" if it were to be routed that way.

[merrycilantro]

In reference: "Truckers that heavily use the Chicago-New Orleans corridor see it as I-55 anyway.  I-55 won't work functionally cause the truckers would get off at I-39 in B-Normal and bypass Chicagoland"

I see that point, they'd just take 39 north to 43 and 43 to Milwaukee.

I know quite a few people on here have basically indicated all signs point to 57, and as I review the maps I tend to see the "writing on the noise wall", pun intended. I assume it would be easier to slap 57 signs on the Dan Ryan and the Edens than to reconfigure signing for interchanges along the Borman and Tri-State. The second easiest option, it appears, is I-55, and slapping a 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 in front of the 55 on that last leg of the Stevenson. And actually, on second thought...switch that around. Less mileage and 4 interchanges vs an alternative of 8 to a dozen or so with the other options.

My reference to alleviating traffic, was merely that travelers who are not familiar to the Chicago Area who are merely driving through would presumably stay on the main route as opposed to bypassing. So travelers from Indy and south would stay on the 65 freeway(s) rather than bypass. Again, that is only speculative.

[Brandon]

Interestingly enough, I-65 would be easier to bring up than I-55.  I-65 has very nice higher-speed ramps from north to west and from east to south at the interchange with the Borman.

I-55 has very tight, 20mph ramps to do the same to either the Tri-State or the Ryan.

I-57 would be even easier as it has a high-speed connection at The Merge with the Bishop Ford to form the Ryan.

[mukade]

Regarding signage cost, how expensive would it be? Presumably, Wisconsin is planning new signage along I-94 anyway. In Indiana, they have the option of using the Indianapolis I-465 strategy for US 6 - that is putting up a sign at SR 51 saying something like "US 6 follow I-80 west to Exit 161". Then the US 6 shield could simply be replaced by an I-65 shield on all signs along the parts of the Borman that might carry I-65. No one wants to follow US 6 across the country anyway.

Illinois is where there is more problem - it has several new (mostly Clearview) signs all the way up with no room for an additional shield. That would run into some money regardless of an I-55, I-57, or I-65 designation. Then again, if IDOT had money to replace perfectly good signs simply for a new font...

Some web sites to see signs:
- Roads of the Mid-South & West - I-94
- Highway Explorer - I-94
- and of course Google Maps street view

Not that it would be my first choice, but replacing I-294 signs with I-65 ones would be the simplest option from a signage perspective.

[kharvey10]

TN got approval to put up I-69 signs around the same time as Mississippi but opted not to do so.  Where IDiOT put up the crapview depends on the interstate (there are some that have yet to see any new signs).  WisDOT knows that Illinois is broke.  If WisDOT can manage to get 55 or 57 extended on the US 41 freeway, this forces IDiOT one of two things:  either blow WisDOT off or pony up for new signs.  ITHA will likely follow suit with WisDOT, although not right away.  WisDOT is using I-94 corridor from Milwaukee to Chicago as their excuse.

WisDOT can extract the most money out of IDiOT by going with 57.  IDiOT and ITHA is in process of building that 57-294 interchange.  WisDOT also wants to stick a N/S interstate on the section of 94 from Chicago to Milwaukee so bad - they wanted to do this 40 years ago when they built I-43.  WisDOT is hoping that doing this would force IDiOT to beef up the I-39 corridor - a corridor with significant lobbying leverage with the transport industry (hint: truck traffic sometimes outnumber automobile traffic on the section of I-39 from Rockford to I-80 as it is cheaper for I-90 and I-94 truck traffic to use 39/80 combo to bypass Chicago than use I-294 due to less traffic and just 30 miles of toll roads to contend with).  WisDOT has already successfully forced ITHA to dump the Cherry Valley tollbooths plus widen the 39/90, and IDiOT to start planning a new I-39/US 20 interchange - all by getting approval for I-39 for the US 51 freeway 20 years ago.  The 39/90 widening is packaged with a total rebuild to some extent - a rebuild that WisDOT was going to do anyway. 

By going with I-57, it can force IDiOT and ITHA to push up that interchange with I-294 on a faster timeline.  It will likely force more work on the Dan Ryan, which is congested as it is and any fix on that is not cheap.  It could also force IDiOT downstate to beef up I-57 even faster as I-57 already got truck traffic in spots exceeding 30% of the AADT. 

If they went with I-55 (like some of those locals want) there are some major drawbacks.  First is that interchange with the Dan Ryan.  Single lane ramps as opposed to the multi-lane ramps at 94-57 interchange.  Upgrading the 90/94 and 55 interchange would be cost-prohibitive due to all the expensive development and railroad overpasses in the area.  Second drawback is what would they do with the stub left behind.  It will also encourage truckers to utilize I-39 and I-43 to get to Milwaukee which totally defeats WisDOT purpose of getting US 41 to interstate standards.  IDiOT could also put IL 53 north of I-90 on a fast track just to piss off WisDOT if they wanted to.

When IDiOT built I-39, WisDOT promptly got I-43 extended to I-90 and started beefing up their section of US 51.  It kept IDiOT from further extending I-39 to their intended target of I-57 because that would enable the truckers to avoid the well known ISP revenue enhancement corridor on I-55 in Springfield.

Its also possible that WisDOT plans could trigger some mass remumberings.  WisDOT sees an x43 as a slap to their face and IDiOT would love to see it get an x43 cause that means they don't have to spend a dime.  IDiOT could get really classy and switch around I-39, I-55, and/or I-57 - potentially setting off a chain reaction of outrage on both the local and political stage.  (IDiOT tried pulling off a renumbering stunt on two different occasions, first one the locals told them off and the second one IowaDOT told them no.)

Bottom line is that this will be a political firestorm.

[mukade]

I don't see how the Tri-state/I-57 interchange factors in. I also don't see how extending any number means widening other roads - whether that be on the Ryan or downstate. It would not generate any additional traffic whatsoever.

If WisDOT hates IDOT so much, then get INDOT involved to put even more pressure on IDOT and the Illinois Tollway. Also, even though IDOT may be broke, the Tollway is not. If I-65 were chosen and followed the Tri-State, IDOT would have less than 5 miles to worry about, right?

The I-55 alternative does not make any sense on any level - poor interchanges and would not follow established traffic patterns.

[kharvey10]

IDOT only would have to deal with 2 miles with the I-65 on the tri-state plan, which is not WisDOT intention.  WisDOT has every intent of going after IDiOT as they have pulled it off before.  WisDOT is pouring a lot of money on that north-south I-94 corridor, the ITHA recently widened it as well.  Therefore, WisDOT is using the I-94 corridor to "extend" one of the odd-numbered 2di that terminate in the Chicagoland area onto that US 41 freeway.

[InterstateNG]

Where IDiOT put up the crapview depends on the interstate (there are some that have yet to see any new signs).

My eyes are burning.

[on_wisconsin]

WisDOT has every intent of going after IDiOT.....

[Citation Needed] (sorry)

[kharvey10]

WisDOT has every intent of going after IDiOT.....

[Citation Needed] (sorry)

See I-43 and I-39 when they were planned.  Its a very long story.  But look at both their history.  WisDOT only throws their money on heavily used corridors.  IDiOT throws their money on corridors that are better off no-build while the corridors that desperately need the funds get shafted.  WisDOT sees the portion of I-94 from Milwaukee to Chicago and I-90 from the state line to Portage as north-south highways and so do the locals.  WisDOT attempted to try to fix the problem with I-94 way back in the 1970s by proposing "I-57" from Milwaukee to Green Bay (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bQkkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4hAEAAAAIBAJ&dq=interstate%2057&pg=5568%2C722965 ).  WisDOT had every intention of linking that with the Illinois section using I-94. IDiOT is formed in 1972.  Well, someone whined about WisDOT proposal and it ends up becoming I-43.

After the section from Milwaukee to Green Bay is built, WisDOT starts beefing up WIS 15 from Milwaukee to Beloit and attempts to make that I-43.  IDiOT was busy upgrading the US 51 from Rockford to I-80.  IDiOT wants US 51 upgraded into an interstate and there were some key political influence in the state house going on from a few local politicians.  WisDOT was hoping that AASTHO and FHWA would make that US 51 freeway into I-43 as well, but it fell through.  WisDOT starts beefing up their US 51 corridor in that same time frame and starts pushing it to be I-39 as well.  WisDOT gets it but doesn't sign it for a few years due to an interchange reconstruction project at I-90/94.  When that was done I-39 gets signed and ITHA goes along with it although not right away. 

Most of this was gotten from going through archives on some of the local newspapers, mainly the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

WisDOT wants a 2di if at all possible.  An x43 will be a slap on the wrist (Look at Arkansas with the I-49/I-540 mess they're in) and will defeat their original plan in correcting that cardinal direction issue between Chicago and Milwaukee.  With 3 odd numbered interstates having their northern end in Chicagoland, WisDOT got a prime opportunity to go at IDiOT.  They tried it in the early 1970s but didn't get their way.

Regardless this is how it will end up happening:  http://xxcheshiii-chanxx.deviantart.com/art/Troll-Face-190586335

[InterstateNG]

Unless someone that doesn't have a well-documented axe to grind with IDOT buttresses these claims, I find all of this far-fetched.

[Stratuscaster]

Been traveling between Illinois and Wisconsin for a number of decades, and despite the two major Interstates being marked "W-E" instead of "N-S" I've never gotten lost nor do I know of anyone else that has gotten lost because of it.

Not seeing where (other than relieving some folks' pet peeves about highways marked in incorrect cardinal directions due to a geographical issue) multi-plexing an odd Interstate number between Chicago and Milwaukee would solve any perceived problem or somehow magically bring peace to the world.

Remember what they did with US-66 in Illinois? It ran more N-S than W-E, so instead it got "CHICAGO" and "ST. LOUIS" directional markers. Label I-90 "MADISON" and "CHICAGO" and label I-94 "MILWAUKEE" and "CHICAGO".

Or better yet, leave them alone - that's what control cities are for.

If WisDOT absolutely MUST have another 2DI and can't get IL and IN to play ball, then use I-41 and be done with it. That is the simplest solution. Already precedent for 2-digit intrastate Interstates.

[merrycilantro]

I honestly had no idea the politics that went into the odd numbering the way it is between Wisconsin and Illinois. What exactly did Illinois want to do with their renumbering attempts? Were there any renumbering attempts made in any other Midwestern states?

I actually hope it does spark a whole renumbering storm, because the way it's setup now makes no sense. Maybe that's the OCD in me...OK Probably is. I guess we just hope that AASHTO picks the logical answer as opposed to the cheapest quick-fix they can.

Does the apparent animosity exist between WISDOT and ITHA as well, or is it just with IDOT? If the tensions aren't as bad, I could see them being more willing to spend the cash and run a 2di up the tollway system, though getting INDOT involved would help too, I would hope. I apologize for sounding naive, as i've said i'm just getting into this and am still unaware of things such as past politics, signage costs, etc.

[SEWIGuy]

After the section from Milwaukee to Green Bay is built, WisDOT starts beefing up WIS 15 from Milwaukee to Beloit and attempts to make that I-43.  IDiOT was busy upgrading the US 51 from Rockford to I-80.  IDiOT wants US 51 upgraded into an interstate and there were some key political influence in the state house going on from a few local politicians.  WisDOT was hoping that AASTHO and FHWA would make that US 51 freeway into I-43 as well, but it fell through.  WisDOT starts beefing up their US 51 corridor in that same time frame and starts pushing it to be I-39 as well.  WisDOT gets it but doesn't sign it for a few years due to an interchange reconstruction project at I-90/94.  When that was done I-39 gets signed and ITHA goes along with it although not right away. 

I'm not sure you are saying this correctly...I believe the order of things was this:

**I-43 signed from GB to Milwaukee
**WI-15, and US-51 in Illinois are upgraded to interstate status, WIDOT proposes I-43 for the entire corridor, but US-51 is completed first and IDOT gets its own number...I-39.
**I-43 is extended along WI-15
**I-39 is extended along US-15 in Wisconsin
**Illinois doesn't sign the I-39 extension for a number of years.

The point is that the entire duplex with I-39 and I-90 was completely unnecessary had AASHTO planned it right and IDOT would have gone along.  What should have resulted was a much shorter duplex of I-43 and I-90.

[sr641]

Thy should just call the US 41 freeway in Wisconsin, Interstate 41.

[US71]

They should just call the US 41 freeway in Wisconsin, Interstate 41.

That would violate the MUTCD.

[Alps]

They should just call the US 41 freeway in Wisconsin, Interstate 41.

That would violate the MUTCD.

Talk to I-74 in North Carolina. Where in the MUTCD does it prohibit Interstate and US highway numbers from being the same?