US-41 Interstate Conversion

[US71]

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?

Does it not? I thought it did.

[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?

Does it not? I thought it did.

AASHTO numbered the Interstates so as not to conflict. It's all on them, unless Congress overrules them. But the MUTCD is only for uniform traffic control devices, it doesn't matter what numbers go on the device.

[adt1982]

Illinois has had US 24 and I-24 for years...

[US71]

AASHTO numbered the Interstates so as not to conflict. It's all on them, unless Congress overrules them. But the MUTCD is only for uniform traffic control devices, it doesn't matter what numbers go on the device.

You are correct. I was thinking AASHTO, but wrote MUTCD.

[Alps]

AASHTO numbered the Interstates so as not to conflict. It's all on them, unless Congress overrules them. But the MUTCD is only for uniform traffic control devices, it doesn't matter what numbers go on the device.

You are correct. I was thinking AASHTO, but wrote MUTCD.

[NE2]

They're both federal highway numbers anyway.

[hbelkins]

Why would two border state transportation agencies hate each other the way Kim indicates Wisconsin and Illinois do?

And isn't I-47 available?

[mgk920]

Why would two border state transportation agencies hate each other the way Kim indicates Wisconsin and Illinois do?

And isn't I-47 available?

Yes, it is, but just like with '55', WI 47 intersects US 41 here in Appleton.  WI 47 is, regionally, a much more important highway than WI 55 is, too.

Mike

[Stratuscaster]

Precedent for "split" Interstates, too. Use I-45 - gives Wisconsin a 2DI and and an x5.

[hbelkins]

Precedent for "split" Interstates, too. Use I-45 - gives Wisconsin a 2DI and and an x5.

In that case, Wisconsin could use I-57 or I-65 and Illinois wouldn't have to change any signage.

[kharvey10]

Illinois has had US 24 and I-24 for years...

They're in different parts of the state - I-24 in Southern Illinois and US 24 in Central Illinois.

[merrycilantro]

Different locations, and also I-24 has a very short distance in Southern IL. This would be cosigning a U.S. 41/I-41 for a majority of its length in the state of WI.

We really could just sign it 57, or even 65 or 55 for that matter, since there are split interstates like that (in reference to the I-45). This region really doesn't need another INTRAstate Interstate. Though, if we DID sign it one of the 3 numbers, we'd just wait for IL (and possibly IN) to respond as well, which, if what I'm reading here is true, just might not ever happen. Though reading about AASHTO in regards to I-43 and I-39...almost makes me wonder if they, too, will just respond by slapping an x43 or x94 onto it and move onto the next project. Just goes back to the Wizard of Oz quote that fits pretty well in with politicians: "Sometimes people without brains do a lot of talking."

the only solution to comply with the federal rules on numbers would be to decommision US41 and sign it I-41, and then renumber the parts of US 41 north of Green Bay to the MI state line, and the portions from Milwaukee to the IL state line as state highways...which in my mind would take too much time/money. Unless they just decided screw it let's break the rules. Ya, i know, Captian Obvious...but even typing it out, it seems like a waste.

If there's anybody in the IL area that has IDOT inside information...I wonder what their thought process is, knowing WISDOT wants to do either of these possibilities. And if they're as at odds as it appears (based on this blog), i wonder which one we could get them to come to an agreement on. Maybe give them Kenosha as a thank you. Just kidding.

[SEWIGuy]

Precedent for "split" Interstates, too. Use I-45 - gives Wisconsin a 2DI and and an x5.

In that case, Wisconsin could use I-57 or I-65 and Illinois wouldn't have to change any signage.

I-57 would likely need to cause the massive renumbering of WI-57, which also runs from Milwaukee to Green Bay but along a different route.

I-55 would cause a similar renumbering, but I-65 wouldn't.  I-41 would probably just cause a renumbering of the "on-street" US-41 in the Milwaukee area and a re-route of the USH on I-94.

[mgk920]

Precedent for "split" Interstates, too. Use I-45 - gives Wisconsin a 2DI and and an x5.

In that case, Wisconsin could use I-57 or I-65 and Illinois wouldn't have to change any signage.

I-57 would likely need to cause the massive renumbering of WI-57, which also runs from Milwaukee to Green Bay but along a different route.

I-55 would cause a similar renumbering, but I-65 wouldn't.  I-41 would probably just cause a renumbering of the "on-street" US-41 in the Milwaukee area and a re-route of the USH on I-94.

For many years I begged and pleaded with the area WisDOT guys to reroute US 41 to follow I-894 and US 45 through Milwaukee County and reflag US 41 on the city streets as 'WI 175' as a way of ending navigational confusions for those unfamiliar with the area while transiting between Chicagoland and the Fox Valley - not just for Appleton and Oshkosh area locals who seldom leave their home towns but also for others like out of state OTR truck drivers who are unfamiliar with the area (it was always fun to give those directions out over a CB radio while near Milwaukee County on earlier roadtrips).

Mike

[kphoger]

Maybe we should all just admit that we're at the point that 3-digit numbers can no longer only serve short highways.

[rawmustard]

Maybe we should all just admit that we're at the point that 3-digit numbers can no longer only serve short highways.

I thought we admitted that when I-476 was extended along the Northeast Extension.

[sr641]

Why does it matter what US 41 is called? Anything it's called is going to break some kind of rule. Interstate 66 in Kentucky is going to break the rules. Just call US 41 in Wisconsin Interstate 41 and co-sign them from Milwaukee-Green Bay.

[bulldog1979]

the only solution to comply with the federal rules on numbers would be to decommision US41 and sign it I-41, and then renumber the parts of US 41 north of Green Bay to the MI state line, and the portions from Milwaukee to the IL state line as state highways...which in my mind would take too much time/money. Unless they just decided screw it let's break the rules. Ya, i know, Captian Obvious...but even typing it out, it seems like a waste.

Such a change would require Michigan's permission first, and I doubt that MDOT will want to change US 41's number through the UP. It could be downgraded to M-41 and retain the number, but again, AASHTO would require Michigan's consent. (Such a sticking point stalled the US 27 truncation out of Michigan when INDOT wasn't in on the application.)

[merrycilantro]

The I-476 in PA seems completely ridiculous. 476 would imply that its beginning and endpoint would be at I-76 and that it would be a bypass route. Now before I stick my foot in my mouth again, I am sure there are *plenty* of other Interstates, spurs, what have you, that follow the same ridiculousness. I wonder what the story is behind the numbering of that particular interstate. It would seem that PennDOT can't seem to make up their mind (or AASHTO, whichever...not leading to positive thoughts about a 2di for 41 in WI), given the status of that freeway. Though, with how many states seem to break the rules, so to speak (ahem...Pennsylvania, California, and well actually many places east of the Mississippi), what harm would it be, allowing Wisconsin to follow suit? Call it Devil's Advocate...that's just my simple-minded POV.

If WisDOT and/or AASHTO really wanted to be ambitious, they would build Wis29 up to Interstate standards, make THAT an X94 (like 840 around Nashville only on a larger scale), and move the 43 designation onto current US41, leaving the former WIS 15 from Milwaukee to Beloit as part of the 43 corridor. 1. But, that'd be for another Thread, as 1-it is fictional, and number 2-there's other options for that. I'll have to search if not create a thread on the Fictional Highways forum on that topic of WIS29.

Back to the subject of 41, so many upgraded or highways to be upgraded are connected to 41 that it would be a shame to slap the x43 designation on them. If any of the spurs from 41 or connector freeways were built up to interstate standards, they'd have a difficult time numbering them, and it'd just lead to further confusion.

bottom line--keep it a 2di.

[Alex]

The I-476 in PA seems completely ridiculous. 476 would imply that its beginning and endpoint would be at I-76 and that it would be a bypass route. Now before I stick my foot in my mouth again, I am sure there are *plenty* of other Interstates, spurs, what have you, that follow the same ridiculousness. I wonder what the story is behind the numbering of that particular interstate. It would seem that PennDOT can't seem to make up their mind (or AASHTO, whichever...not leading to positive thoughts about a 2di for 41 in WI), given the status of that freeway. Though, with how many states seem to break the rules, so to speak (ahem...Pennsylvania, California, and well actually many places east of the Mississippi), what harm would it be, allowing Wisconsin to follow suit? Call it Devil's Advocate...that's just my simple-minded POV.

They wanted the Blue Route (I-476) and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast Extension (PA-9) to have a common number to provide a seamless route between Philadelphia and Scranton.

The history of the 1996 signed extension can be found at http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-476_pa.html and www.pahighways.com/interstates/I476.html

[agentsteel53]

why did they choose 476 back in the day?  CA chose similar new numbers to the old when upgrading 7 to 710 and 11 to 110.  why not 976 for PA-9?

[TheStranger]

CA chose similar new numbers to the old when upgrading 7 to 710 and 11 to 110.

In that vein, I've always felt that I-5W becoming I-505 and I-580 was not coincidental, either.  (580, 5W before that, also happens to be on much of former US 50.)

[agentsteel53]

hadn't thought about 5W and 505/580; but yes, 50 to 580 is one that I had noted before as well.

[hobsini2]

Couple of things to address:
Masterson:
You are correct partially when it comes to the names of Chicagoland highways. More often than not, Tri-State is used in speaking terms however I don't know anyone who calls 90 the Jane Addams Tollway instead of the NW Tollway other than the news broadcasts. Same goes for 88 Reagan and 355 Veterans Tollways. To me they will always be the E-W Tollway and N-S Tollway. So in reality, yes and no.

The other point is someone had asked why would adding a number to an existing route change the traffic for such a route.

The point I and others were making about the specific interchanges where the current number would exit for the new number is the lack of RAMP capacity to handle such a change. For example, 55 at 294 and at 90/94. Both the northbound ramps are single lane ramps at 30 mph. Those ramps should be at least 2 lanes. That's the main reason why I would be against having 55 being extended north. 57 and 65 already have multilane merges heading north/west at 55 mph(which could also be safely taken at 65).

[kphoger]

however I don't know anyone who calls 90 the Jane Addams Tollway instead of the NW Tollway other than the news broadcasts. Same goes for 88 Reagan and 355 Veterans Tollways. To me they will always be the E-W Tollway and N-S Tollway. So in reality, yes and no.

And people call I-90 "The one that goes to Rockford, whatever the number is".