US-41 Interstate Conversion

[mukade]

Wow, what a bad list of potential route numbers. Are they pulling numbers out of the air? I-41 and I-47 would be barely better than a 3di and would result in yet another intrastate Interstate. Where did I-47 come from? At least I-41 fits between I-39 and I-43.

Wisconsin ranks 20th in population, and it does not have an I-x5. There are currently 5 states in the lower 48 without an I-x5 Interstate unless I missed some:

• North Dakota (48)
• South Dakota (46)
• Nebraska (38)
• West Virginia (37)
• Vermont (49)

(Arizona barely makes the list, I realize)

So on this basis, I-55 or I-65 make more sense with I-57 certainly being a better alternative than I-41 or I-47.

I think you could poll long distance southbound travelers from Green bay and Appleton to get a good idea where most go (and eliminate those not going through Chicago). That would be the best way to determine the best number, and let the chips fall where they may.

[merrycilantro]

I also would like to know where these numbers came from (except for 55 of course). I can't believe the DOT would promote breaking a rule like the repeat USH/Int numbering...and here we go again with the dang x43/x94s...they're messing with us now! They make public the information that AASHTO or whomever, is going to have FHWA coordinate with IDOT to get I-55 brought up from Chicago...what, did IDOT issue a negative response already or something? From the sounds of it, 55 sounded like a pretty done deal, basically just awaiting FHWA approval. OK just a little frustration. 47 wouldn't work though either because there is a WIS 47 that would intersect, just as WIS 55 will. And I agree, that would be JUST what WI needs is another Intrastate Interstate. To quote a former president, these people just need to brainificate.

I suppose, that just gives us more to talk about and make conjectures. Glad I didn't put more than a fake-money bet on I-55...yet...

Though I could be completely off base here and they just threw 47 out there (and maybe these x43/x94s too) for a backup...albeit MULTIPLE backups...Yeah let's hope for that. Because I mean really...From the Hale to the Zoo interchange, a duplex of 2 3di's? I'm sure it's been done before...but I am biased against 3di's so it makes it all better.

47......SMH!

[english si]

I can't believe the DOT would promote breaking a rule like the repeat USH/Int numbering.

I can't believe that such a rule is cared about, especially so passionately, in this case - given that the US route can easily be rerouted a short distance so as to be concurrent with the grid-fitting interstate number. As mentioned upthread by a local, it's called "the 41", so that doesn't have to change with such a number. It's a rule that says "Drivers are massive dumb asses", and while the I-74/US74 freeway split in NC could be confusing to such stupid drivers that can't tell the difference between the two different shields, sensible things like this with the Interstate and US route not intersecting, or splitting, but running concurrently, can't happen - not about navigation, or safety, but about anal-retentiveness.

The only problem with it is that you won't get IDOT to sign it, meaning it would be intrastate. I don't see how that would be a problem, anyway - a little bit with I-x43 (less so with I-x94). There's quite a few longish 3dis that could have been 2dis, but no complaints - I-555 could have been an I-22 extension, for instance. I don't hear those places on I-86 (both, though I know that there's some short bits in PA, like they matter), I-87, or I-88 (both), and so on complaining about their interstate only being intrastate - because they are on the network and that's what matters. Would this discussion be happening if I-43 went to Bloomington, as WiDOT planned, rather than I-39? probably not if there wasn't the "can't have I-41 due to the rule crowd".

Clearly the problem was in the beginning with I-94 being used from the start for the N-S interstate between Chicago and Milwaukee. It's annoying that Chicago has some N-S interstates end, and Milwaukee will have one start (probably at the IL line with I-41) - and an I-x5 number would give it some prestige. But if you read back in this thread, roadgeeks have tried to avoid I-55 - preferring I-57, or even I-65 to that number - I-57 has been the clear favourite number to extend from Chicago to Green Bay among roadgeeks and other numbers have been purely about WI57 needing renumbering.

[tchafe1978]

I don't get the whole fuss over what interstate number US 41 gets. It's not that big of a deal, really. If I had a choice, I'd make it I-41 and run it concurrent with US 41. I have friends in the Oshkosh area, and everyone there refers to the highway as "highway 41" or just "41". It would save a lot of confusion and a lot of having to renumber other highways if it just stayed as "41". ANybody who's using the highway already knows the quality of the road, so I don't see what difference a red, white, and blue sign will make, but that's just me.

[merrycilantro]

Regardless of the number, locals will always refer to Wisconsin's newest interstate as "41". It's what happened with the I-39 extension to Wausau. People continue to call it 51. That won't go away no matter what they number the freeway.

Here's my thing. When you have a US Highway, for a non-local, you never really know what to expect, really. You might have a 2 lane rural road, you might have an urban arterial going through a bustling downtown, or you might have a fully interstate-standard freeway. You just never know. (Like I said, unless you're a local and know better). Many people plan their road trips based on the Interstates to where they're going, because they know, hey, I'm getting at the very least, a 4 lane, divided freeway with limited access only at interchanges. Most people look to get from Point A to Point B in the quickest way possible, and they know they can do that with an Interstate. Even 4 lane divided highways with US Highway designation will downgrade into something less desirable for quick travel. Does not happen with Interstates. (Not considering the traffic aspect of it).

I do believe it will bring more traffic to the area, because it will put Fond du Lac, Oshkosh and Appleton on the map, so to speak. It'll also bring more truck traffic, regardless of any weight restrictions 41 currently has. All three of these towns have Walmarts, Targets, malls...and are the only 50,000+ cities not currently served by an interstate, save for Texas and California as I have read on here. As for economic benefits, that is not my area of expertise. One will simply have to check back with us in 5-10 years to see how we're doing. I hope it does spur more economic development; our state needs it (not that other states don't). So yes, having red white and blue shields on 41 will undoubtedly bring more traffic to the area, be it consumer, business or personal.

The grid system in this nation is completely screwed up. Especially east of the Mississippi River. I think the only thing that could solve this "numbering system crisis" (term used loosely), would be a *MASS* renumbering of every Interstate Freeway from LA to Boston. The Eisenhower Interstate System of the 40's and 50's is considered a mere skeleton compared to today's network of Interstate Freeways. I don't even know that Eisenhower himself envisioned it being as complex as it currently is. Be that as it may, the grid system can't really be perfect due to the shape of the nation. Look at all the x5 freeways, which are supposed to go from north to south as main trans-continent. OK...5-good. 15-good. 25-good...ish. Montana gets the shaft. 35-good. 45-what? it's only in Texas? How does that work. 55-good...ish. The Midwest doesn't end with Chicago. Wisconsin gets the shaft, as does the UP. but they get 75. 65-same concept. Michigan or Wisconsin get the shaft, depending on what way you look at it. 75-good. 85-what the hell were they thinking? 95-great.

And wouldn't it be nice to have one cohesive number going from Chicago north into Badgerland, through Milwaukee and the Fox Cities? "Grandpa, how do I get to your house?" "Well okay, you take 94 out of Chicago, up through Milwaukee, and then you take the 894 bypass till it turns into Highway 45, then follow that. It's gonna turn into Highway 41, but don't worry, you're on the same road. And you take that all the way to Appleton." as opposed to "Take 55 from Chicago all the way up." I'm not saying people are stupid, and that they don't have GPS, but if the Grandson is not familiar with the area, there could be a lot of confusion as opposed to just following the I-55 sign.

I say it is a slap in the face to turn it into a spur, 243, 594 or whatever, because the whole premise behind promoting 41 to an interstate is to bring economic business to the area (among other things). Let's assume this to be true, that it will in fact spur business and that this is how they think. What business will be like "Let's build over there on that spur?" The only type of economic business it'll bring will be from Milwaukee, because "Oh hey look there's a spur around the mainline 43!" Promoting it to 55, say, they'll bring business from not just Milwaukee but Chicago - one of the nation's leading economic centers - St Louis, Memphis and New Orleans. The same holds true for an Intrastate (41, 47, or whatever other number they threw out there). Making it a spur or an intrastate will only help locals, and we want to open Wisconsin's door to the rest of the nation. At least I *THINK* that's the goal here. If *ANYTHING* should be a spur, it should be US 53 from Superior to Eau Claire. Extend 535.

All it takes from IDOT is placement of signs on what are already interstate freeways. Slap a "55" sign next to 90, 94, 294, however you want to route it. Put the prison system to work to make the signs, not just in IL but in WI too. Wisconsin has enough prisoners, and I'm sure Illinois has its fair share too. They already make license plates. Boom. Cheap labor. done. (Shouldn't even pay them anyway...) Sure, some overhead signs will have to be amended and redone because there's currently no room for another shield.

What is the hold up? An argument over a number in an otherwise messed up grid system? Who cares! I know! But unless they're going to do a spur, any number they have will break someone's rule that you can't have a state/US highway with an Interstate number. Regardless of what's done in NC. Ironically enough, Wisconsin started the whole road numbering process, circa 1918 if my memory serves me correctly. What that has to do with this argument, I couldn't tell ya. But you look at the numbers we are throwing out there. 41 - US Highway. Rule breaker. 47 - WIS highway, which intersects the Interstate-to-be in question. Rule Breaker. 55, 57, 65, 243 - Rule breakers, WIS highways in the general vicinity. AND, none of them are even in the grid. (well besides 243 but as I have said I am anti- that number and any other 3di) You see what I am saying? There really isn't any other option, other than to slap Wisconsin in the face and say here here's a spur number. Deal with it and shut up. Sure, that'll give us the Interstate we want, but not for the purpose we want it for.

I should have gone to that meeting on the 23rd!!

[on_wisconsin]

Remember the only tangible evidence we have is that the AASHTO is strongly leaning toward I-55, maybe the folks who ran that exact PIM where not informed of the latest AASHTO meeting happenings.

[Brandon]

Remember the only tangible evidence we have is that the AASHTO is strongly leaning toward I-55, maybe the folks who ran that exact PIM where not informed of the latest AASHTO meeting happenings.

AASHTO can lean where they want.  It's getting IDOT do work with them that's the problem.  IDOT gave WisDOT the finger back when I-39 was numbered in 1988.  WisDOT wanted an I-43 extension, IDOT chose I-39 and signed it.  Wouldn't surprise me if IDOT did the same again.

[merrycilantro]

Remember the only tangible evidence we have is that the AASHTO is strongly leaning toward I-55, maybe the folks who ran that exact PIM where not informed of the latest AASHTO meeting happenings.

AASHTO can lean where they want.  It's getting IDOT do work with them that's the problem.  IDOT gave WisDOT the finger back when I-39 was numbered in 1988.  WisDOT wanted an I-43 extension, IDOT chose I-39 and signed it.  Wouldn't surprise me if IDOT did the same again.

Can they do that? I mean can a state agency argue and completely blow off a federal agency? Wouldn't there be repercussions for IDOT? Not saying I don't believe you, it just boggles my mind that IDOT would have the audacity to thumb its nose at 2 federal agencies.

[Mdcastle]

Roadgeeks and politicians may be passionate about this, but I guess I'm dubious as to whether businessess really make decisions on where to locate based on the color and shape and what and how many digits are on the signs on the nearby freeway. But having said that I'd like I-57. It's out of order but on the other hand the Dan Ryan, Kennedy, and part of the Tri-State could actually be signed north-south like the actual directions they go.

[Brandon]

Remember the only tangible evidence we have is that the AASHTO is strongly leaning toward I-55, maybe the folks who ran that exact PIM where not informed of the latest AASHTO meeting happenings.

AASHTO can lean where they want.  It's getting IDOT do work with them that's the problem.  IDOT gave WisDOT the finger back when I-39 was numbered in 1988.  WisDOT wanted an I-43 extension, IDOT chose I-39 and signed it.  Wouldn't surprise me if IDOT did the same again.

Can they do that? I mean can a state agency argue and completely blow off a federal agency? Wouldn't there be repercussions for IDOT? Not saying I don't believe you, it just boggles my mind that IDOT would have the audacity to thumb its nose at 2 federal agencies.

One Federal agency - FHWA.  AASHTO is not a Federal agency.  Plus, FHWA does not choose or approve numbering.  AASHTO does, and they've been given the finger by states before (Oklahoma and US-377 comes to mind).

Having gone back and forth to the Indiana Dunes yesterday, I believe I-65 is an even stronger candidate to go to Wisconsin than I-55, if an I-x5 must be used.  The ramps from eastbound I-80/94 to southbound I-65 and from northbound I-65 to westbound I-80/94 are both two-lanes.  Thus, routing I-65 over I-94 to Milwaukee would be fairly easy and require no reconstruction of any ramps.  All that would be needed is signage.  The short section from I-80/94 to US-12/20 could become I-165 (or I-665 for the anal since is does meet I-90 just before US-12/20).

[froggie]

Plus, FHWA does not choose or approve numbering.

Actually, yes they do.  FHWA has final approval on Interstate numbering/renumbering.  This is why AASHTO's decisions on such are always "Conditional Approval", pending a letter of approval by FHWA.

[mukade]

Having gone back and forth to the Indiana Dunes yesterday, I believe I-65 is an even stronger candidate to go to Wisconsin than I-55, if an I-x5 must be used.  The ramps from eastbound I-80/94 to southbound I-65 and from northbound I-65 to westbound I-80/94 are both two-lanes.  Thus, routing I-65 over I-94 to Milwaukee would be fairly easy and require no reconstruction of any ramps.  All that would be needed is signage.  The short section from I-80/94 to US-12/20 could become I-165 (or I-665 for the anal since is does meet I-90 just before US-12/20).

I hope you went to West Beach in the National Lakeshore. It is an amazing place so close to Chicago. When I lived up there, I would wonder why it was usually so empty, but I bet it was packed yesterday.

Back on subject, the I-65/Borman interchange construction cost something like $100M and took four years to build. As you said, it is two lanes between the highways both ways and has good merges. My brother who lives in Chicago says it is the second busiest interchange in the Chicago area (is that true?). The Borman Expressway is the defacto extension of I-65 as a large majority of traffic exits there.

Peeling back a layer, we know the upgraded highway in Wisconsin will get an Interstate designation, and we know that WisDOT wants that number to continue south into Illinois. Why it is a wider discussion is that it would affect Chicago and regional highway routings. I think what some people may be missing in this discussion is that both I-65 and I-57 would be "free" other than signage costs exactly as you said (e.g. no Dan Ryan and Kennedy widenings). Although I personally think the I-94 number from Milwaukee to Chicago is really stupid and confusing so I favor fixing that with this change, if money is the overriding issue, I-65 simply replacing I-294 would be the most inexpensive.

As your post suggests, for those who favor I-55, they need to consider the cost to upgrade either of the I-55 interchanges (either at I-94 or I-294). IDOT or ISTHA would be absolutely right to fight that plan so hopefully WisDOT carefully thinks this through. Exactly why does WisDOT favor the most expensive option for Illinois? And that would be for an illogical route that few people from Milwaukee and northward would use to travel south past Chicago.

This is a real opportunity where both the infrastructure is in place and the legitimate will of a state to extend a route is there. Yeah, it is a roadgeek's dream, but it just objectively makes sense.

[Jordanah1]

Here's my thing. When you have a US Highway, for a non-local, you never really know what to expect, really. You might have a 2 lane rural road, you might have an urban arterial going through a bustling downtown, or you might have a fully interstate-standard freeway. You just never know. (Like I said, unless you're a local and know better). Many people plan their road trips based on the Interstates to where they're going, because they know, hey, I'm getting at the very least, a 4 lane, divided freeway with limited access only at interchanges. Most people look to get from Point A to Point B in the quickest way possible, and they know they can do that with an Interstate. Even 4 lane divided highways with US Highway designation will downgrade into something less desirable for quick travel. Does not happen with Interstates. (Not considering the traffic aspect of it).


And wouldn't it be nice to have one cohesive number going from Chicago north into Badgerland, through Milwaukee and the Fox Cities? "Grandpa, how do I get to your house?" "Well okay, you take 94 out of Chicago, up through Milwaukee, and then you take the 894 bypass till it turns into Highway 45, then follow that. It's gonna turn into Highway 41, but don't worry, you're on the same road. And you take that all the way to Appleton." as opposed to "Take 55 from Chicago all the way up." I'm not saying people are stupid, and that they don't have GPS, but if the Grandson is not familiar with the area, there could be a lot of confusion as opposed to just following the I-55 sign.

well, wisconsin uses the same color line on its state maps for all freeways-interstate or not, but other maps dont.

google maps as you zoom in however, only has US41 marked as a freeway from Green Bay to oshkosh, no road at all marked south to fond du lac and milwaukee, and instead has US41 turns into WI44 going to ripon? idk wtf google thinks, but they are idiots...all i will say.

GPS's arent that great either, my ever so brilliant sister used a gps to get from green bay to appleton, and it told her to take I43 to US10, obviously a bad route choice, but of coarse she couldnt even folow those directions right, and called at midnight in sheboygan lol.... dont always trust gps's.

[SEWIGuy]

Would anyone require IDOT or ISTHA to upgrade either of the I-55 interchanges?  I mean, there are plenty of instances that are similar to the situation that Illinois would face with this right?  Unless you believe that the "traffic would follow the number," but do we have evidence that this occurs?  I can think of multiple incidents where I-94 is cut down to one lane in interchanges in both Wisconsin and Illinois for instance...

Anyway, I think the cheapest option would be I-57.  You don't have to re-route any interstates in Chicago...simply extend it northward from its current endpoint.  You would have to re-number WI-57 in Wisconsin, but you would need that with I-55 too.

[hbelkins]

Geez. A 3di isn't going to kill anyone. I don't hear Scranton, Wilkes-Barre or Allentown whining that the NE Extension got I-476 instead of a two-digit number.

[hobsini2]

Geez. A 3di isn't going to kill anyone. I don't hear Scranton, Wilkes-Barre or Allentown whining that the NE Extension got I-476 instead of a two-digit number.

The difference HB is the US 41 interstate is rougly going to be 120 miles with the likelyhood of WI 441 becoming a 3di.  I can't think of any instance where a 3di is the parent of another 3di. Calling it I-243 with I-443 or I-894 with I-494 for example is wrong. Besides, I-476 north of I-76 should be a odd number.  Even number 3dis unless they are a complete loop generally don't go more than 50 miles.

[mukade]

Geez. A 3di isn't going to kill anyone. I don't hear Scranton, Wilkes-Barre or Allentown whining that the NE Extension got I-476 instead of a two-digit number.

Well, I-99 and I-238 also don't kill anyone, but they are still very bad choices.

[mukade]

Would anyone require IDOT or ISTHA to upgrade either of the I-55 interchanges? 

If you have other options, why would you want to have this sub-optimal situation? If traffic isn't going to follow the route number when it changes roads, why would that be a good choice?

Anyway, I think the cheapest option would be I-57.  You don't have to re-route any interstates in Chicago...simply extend it northward from its current endpoint.  You would have to re-number WI-57 in Wisconsin, but you would need that with I-55 too.

I-57 obviously should be considered. It is a straight shot and really only signage would need to be changed. The question is whether or not it would be the best choice. Objectively, I-57 is a relatively minor Interstate (compared to I-55 and I-65) that hits no more major cities south of Chicago. It looks good on a map, though.

[SEWIGuy]

Would anyone require IDOT or ISTHA to upgrade either of the I-55 interchanges? 

If you have other options, why would you want to have this sub-optimal situation? If traffic isn't going to follow the route number when it changes roads, why would that be a good choice?

Anyway, I think the cheapest option would be I-57.  You don't have to re-route any interstates in Chicago...simply extend it northward from its current endpoint.  You would have to re-number WI-57 in Wisconsin, but you would need that with I-55 too.

I-57 obviously should be considered. It is a straight shot and really only signage would need to be changed. The question is whether or not it would be the best choice. Objectively, I-57 is a relatively minor Interstate (compared to I-55 and I-65) that hits no more major cities south of Chicago. It looks good on a map, though.

Well, you answered the question of "why would you want to have this sub-optimal situation" with your response below...I-57 is a relatively minor interstate.

I-55 and I-65 are major interstates...but they would require re-routing and new numbers in Chicago to make it work.

A 3di makes little sense.

An I-41 type choice doesn't make sense because of the intrastate issue, but that doesn't bother me as much as others.

So that means I-57.  As a benefit it also solves the I-94 N/S problem between Chicago and Milwaukee.  It would require renumbering of WI-57, but I think WIDOT could use that as an opportunity to get rid of a couple long duplexes.

[mukade]

Agreed on most of your points, but the reroutings of 55 and 65 would both be very short (<2 miles) to the point it is not an issue. I-65 would also have the addition complication of getting buy-in from another state.

Of all people leaving southbound from Appleton, Oshkosh, etc., where would more of them pass? Joliet, IL? Matteson, IL? Merrillville, IN? If they could be counted, that should at least be a factor in determining the number.

[on_wisconsin]

At this point as long as its not a god damn 3di I will be content. (So we can get back to talking about the physical construction going on...)

[hbelkins]

I can't think of any instance where a 3di is the parent of another 3di.

I-795 in Maryland says hello. So does I-990 in New York.

Well, I-99 and I-238 also don't kill anyone, but they are still very bad choices.

I-238, maybe, because there is no I-38 in California. But what else would you call a two-state interstate? I-99 is a more appropriate number for that route than any 3di.

As a benefit it also solves the I-94 N/S problem between Chicago and Milwaukee.  It would require renumbering of WI-57, but I think WIDOT could use that as an opportunity to get rid of a couple long duplexes.

How does it solve the I-94 problem? I-94 is still going to run from Chicago to Milwaukee, unless you want to supplant I-94 with I-55 or I-57 or I-65 and have two separate sections of I-94, one ending at Milwaukee and another beginning at Gary.

At this point as long as its not a god damn 3di I will be content. (So we can get back to talking about the physical construction going on...)

I finally looked at the map to see where this will run. It's another, longer, westerly route from Green Bay to Milwaukee. It doesn't deserve its own two-digit number. Any of the proposed numbers would break the grid, which seems to be a big sin for some, because I-55/57/65 would run west of I-43. A 3di would be perfectly fine. The ideal solution would be I-43E and I-43W if you have to have a two-digit number. But we know that won't happen.

[mukade]

I-99 is a more appropriate number for that route than any 3di.

If I-99 gets extended, perhaps. As it stands, I-99 is 86 miles and I-476 is 132 miles. The US 41 section in Wisconsin is 142 miles. It (or I-43) could conceivably be extended north at some point in the future.

How does it solve the I-94 problem? I-94 is still going to run from Chicago to Milwaukee, unless you want to supplant I-94 with I-55 or I-57 or I-65 and have two separate sections of I-94, one ending at Milwaukee and another beginning at Gary.

It mitigates the problem it if the top/first route number becomes the N-S one. For example, having northbound Edens, northbound Dan Ryan, etc. matching the cardinal direction posted would solve a lot of confusion. All people want is for it to match reality - nothing more. While what is I-94 should have been two routes as originally planned, it is far too late to change it now.

Any of the proposed numbers would break the grid, which seems to be a big sin for some, because I-55/57/65 would run west of I-43.

Technically, I-39 and I-43 broke the grid. I-45 and now I-49 are considerably further west than either of these. 55, 57, and 65 were there in Chicago a long time before 39 and 43 came into being. I think it is expected that most routes meander to a degree so that mitigates the sin, don't you think? I can't think of many that don't meander.

[Stratuscaster]

This "problem" with 94 through Chicago and Milwaukee has existed for decades - so long that it's actually not a problem, in my opinion. While there may be some that view it as a problem, there are plenty more that accept it for the oddity that it is.

Going from Chicagoland to Milwaukee? 94 (Or, 294 to 94 if you are out in the burbs.) If the BGS says "Indiana" you went the wrong way.
Going to Chicagoland to Madison? 90. If the BGS says "O'Hare", "Chicago", or "Indiana", you went the wrong way.
Going to Chicagoland to Green Bay? 94 to 43. If the signs say "Madison" or "Beloit", you went the wrong way.

For those in Wisconsin that think it's wrong to have I-94 WEST head north to Milwaukee, well that's why you have US 41 NORTH along for the ride.

If Wisconsin wants I-55 bad enough, let them pay to fix the Ryan/Stevenson interchange. If it even NEEDS to be fixed. The only thing that will change will be for the NEXT generation of drivers. The current and past generations know that 55 goes to Chicago and ends. Extending it will mean nothing to them, because if they were taking 55 from the south to get to Milwaukee or Green Bay, they would likely have gotten off on 294 north in the first place.

Compare Green Bay's population with Champaign-Urbana - I-57 would do just fine, even though it's only a "minor" interstate.

I don't think breaking the grid is really an issue for anyone but the roadgeek community. No one I know navigates based on the grid system.

Again, despite the length, a 3di makes the most sense here. I think that means it's automatically disqualified from contention. :lol:

I'll stop here - I think I've repeated myself enough.

[mgk920]

I can't think of any instance where a 3di is the parent of another 3di.

I-795 in Maryland says hello. So does I-990 in New York.

Well, I-99 and I-238 also don't kill anyone, but they are still very bad choices.

I-238, maybe, because there is no I-38 in California. But what else would you call a two-state interstate? I-99 is a more appropriate number for that route than any 3di.

As a benefit it also solves the I-94 N/S problem between Chicago and Milwaukee.  It would require renumbering of WI-57, but I think WIDOT could use that as an opportunity to get rid of a couple long duplexes.

How does it solve the I-94 problem? I-94 is still going to run from Chicago to Milwaukee, unless you want to supplant I-94 with I-55 or I-57 or I-65 and have two separate sections of I-94, one ending at Milwaukee and another beginning at Gary.

At this point as long as its not a god damn 3di I will be content. (So we can get back to talking about the physical construction going on...)

I finally looked at the map to see where this will run. It's another, longer, westerly route from Green Bay to Milwaukee. It doesn't deserve its own two-digit number. Any of the proposed numbers would break the grid, which seems to be a big sin for some, because I-55/57/65 would run west of I-43. A 3di would be perfectly fine. The ideal solution would be I-43E and I-43W if you have to have a two-digit number. But we know that won't happen.

US 41 is far, far busier than I-43 north of Milwaukee.  Remember that parts of US 41 already are or are currently being upgraded to six lanes - with some sections of the highway running over 100K AADT.

Why was I-43 completed 30+ years earlier?  It was cheaper and faster to do I-43 on a virgin ROW than it was to upgrade the already four-lanes non-freeway US 41, just like with I-5 v. US 99 in California's central valley.

Mike