US-41 Interstate Conversion

[triplemultiplex]

WisDOT only submitted I-41 so it's either that or wait until spring.  Unless they can dole out numbers without them being formally requested?  Didn't North Carolina experience that with I-285 or something?  I think I remember reading they submitted 185, but AASHTO said no, it should be even because it connects interstates; so bam, I-285.  Or am I skipping the part where NC resubmitted?

[NE2]

AASHTO's site seems to be bitrotting: http://route.transportation.org/Pages/NextScheduledMeeting.aspx
I wonder how long it'll take them to upload their annoying in-PDF links for today's meeting.

[on_wisconsin]

^
According to the agenda on this page the committee that deals with highway numbering did meet today.
http://aashtoannualmeeting.org/

[hobsini2]

I read what was in the Agenda and found a very interesting item. On Saturday, November 17 (yesterday), from 1 pm to 5 pm was this:

Bowling Tournament at AMF Bowling Alley–Buses depart from the Westin Hotel Lobby

I just find that amusing.

[english si]

You could do that, and then turn up for the 6:30-7:30 meeting on highway numbering.

[Fox 11 News]

AASHTO endorses Interstate 41:
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/green_bay/interstate-41-a-step-closer-to-reality

[triplemultiplex]

... and end at Russell Road in Illinois, where U.S. 41 and I-94 hookup just south of the border.

Say what?  That can't possibly be how this will be signed.  It makes no sense to have a new interstate multiplex on an existing one only to end at some service interchange.  I-41 should not be signed south of the Mitchell Interchange.

U.S. 41 runs from Copper Harbor, Michigan, to Miami, Florida. That designation will remain, including along this Wisconsin stretch after it becomes Interstate 41.

But will Wisconsin continue to sign it where it has been rendered moot by interstates?  WisDOT people told me they would be pulling US 41 off of city streets in Milwaukee to follow the Interstate corridor (94-894-45) through town.  That would make a "hidden" US 41 in Wisconsin more feasible.

[Stratuscaster]

Just like I-74 in NC/VA - it just magically stops and starts at the border.

And just like I-74 in NC, co-signed with US-74.

I hope the State of Wisconsin charges business that flock to the new I-41 something to pay for the $12M in signage.

[SEWIGuy]

... and end at Russell Road in Illinois, where U.S. 41 and I-94 hookup just south of the border.

Say what?  That can't possibly be how this will be signed.  It makes no sense to have a new interstate multiplex on an existing one only to end at some service interchange.  I-41 should not be signed south of the Mitchell Interchange.

It makes sense since US-41 continues from there southward.

[Fox 11 News]

WisDOT told us that US 41 will be concurrent to the Interstate; we asked about the GB/App/Osh/FDL corridor. Since Milwaukee isn't in our viewing area, we didn't ask the specifics of how the signage will be down Appleton Avenue, etc.

Judging by the map, the interstate will follow around the 45-894-94 path and I would guess (but did not verify) the in-city signage would continue. As I said, that wasn't our top concern.

As for Illinois, DOT says the signage will start "in that area" of Russell Road. It's a landmark interchange that people here are familiar with. Sounds as if if you are 41 North coming up, the I-41 signs will start where 41 hits 94. DOT was clear that I-41 will go to the border, which is what this shows:
http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/neregion/41/docs/map-ex3.pdf

[codyg1985]

If this is being co-signed with I-94 south of Milwaukee, what's the point of I-41 existing south of Milwaukee? Apologies if this has been discussed in this thread already.

[Big John]

If this is being co-signed with I-94 south of Milwaukee, what's the point of I-41 existing south of Milwaukee? Apologies if this has been discussed in this thread already.

What I could think of is route direction, as this segment is almost all directly north-south, but is signed as east-west for I-94.  Adding I-41 would give it an "equal" north-south designation to remove some confusion.

A second reason I could think of is to make it to the state line, so the exit numbers already on US 41 would not need to change.  But this could be more arbitrary as evidenced on I-69 in Indiana.

[codyg1985]

If this is being co-signed with I-94 south of Milwaukee, what's the point of I-41 existing south of Milwaukee? Apologies if this has been discussed in this thread already.

What I could think of is route direction, as this segment is almost all directly north-south, but is signed as east-west for I-94.  Adding I-41 would give it an "equal" north-south designation to remove some confusion.

A second reason I could think of is to make it to the state line, so the exit numbers already on US 41 would not need to change.  But this could be more arbitrary as evidenced on I-69 in Indiana.

After reading through this thread for the past hour and a half, I can see that IDOT certainly has earned the nickname IDiOT in this case. I would have rather seen I-65 extended since it would continue in a northwest direction unlike I-55 which would make a rather sharp turn due north and then northwest. I-57 would have good, too. If IDOT wanted to take their ball and go home, then WisDOT could sign I-57 or I-65 anyway and then the gap would become more obvious.

Yes signs cost money, and it may involve totally replacing BGS since there isn't anymore room on the signs for an additional interstate shield. However, if a neighboring state wants that interstate to come within its borders and AASHTO/FHWA approve, then I don't see why another state can come in and block it. It isn't like the state will lose federal funding if they don't sign the route, anyway.

I think using I-41 is a complete waste. While it does make sense because it is currently US 41 and locals refer to it as Highway 41 already, seeing another intrastate interstate along with pointless concurrencies just gives me indigestion. If IDOT isn't going to cooperate to sign I-55, I-57, or I-65, what's the chance of them signing I-41 when there is no southern I-41 to connect it to?

Plus, does anyone else find it hilarious that WisDOT is seeking advice from NCDOT and their brilliant plan to have I-74 signed with US 74? 

[mgk920]

I'm not thrilled with that number, either.  OTOH, I can see this being an impetus to reroute I-94 to replace I-294 around Chicagoland, with '41' to ultimately replace I-94 through the city and to end at I-80 in Lansing, IL, also removing US 41 from the city streets and LSD.  "[For US 41/follow I-41]".

Maybe we can also start some fantasy highway musings regarding US 41 through Indiana and on to I-24 at Hopkinsville, KY.



Also, none of the BGSes on US 41 in Wisconsin have any space reserved for a second shield like there is on the BGSes on US 71 (future I-49) in Missouri, so I also very strongly suspect that WisDOT will be doing the hidden-number thing with US 41, swapping the US 41 shields for I-route ones.

Further, was there any word on the fate of I-894?

Mike

[Alps]

I'm not thrilled with that number, either.  OTOH, I can see this being an impetus to reroute I-94 to replace I-294 around Chicagoland, with '41' to ultimately replace I-94 through the city and to end at I-80 in Lansing, IL, also removing US 41 from the city streets and LSD.  "[For US 41/follow I-41]".

Maybe we can also start some fantasy highway musings regarding US 41 through Indiana and on to I-24 at Hopkinsville, KY.



Also, none of the BGSes on US 41 in Wisconsin have any space reserved for a second shield like there is on the BGSes on US 71 (future I-49) in Missouri, so I also very strongly suspect that WisDOT will be doing the hidden-number thing with US 41, swapping the US 41 shields for I-route ones.

Further, was there any word on the fate of I-894?

Mike

I-894 remains intact.

[Revive 755]

Just like I-74 in NC/VA - it just magically stops and starts at the border.

And just like I-74 in NC, co-signed with US-74.

Except I-74 in NC breaks away from US 74 for a good distance before ending at the border.  And I-74 in NC was planned to go beyond the border at one point, unlike the Wisconsin I-41.  I'd put better odds on I-74 making it into West Virginia before I-41 would go into Illinois.

[hbelkins]

After reading through this thread for the past hour and a half, I can see that IDOT certainly has earned the nickname IDiOT in this case. I would have rather seen I-65 extended since it would continue in a northwest direction unlike I-55 which would make a rather sharp turn due north and then northwest. I-57 would have good, too. If IDOT wanted to take their ball and go home, then WisDOT could sign I-57 or I-65 anyway and then the gap would become more obvious.

Yes signs cost money, and it may involve totally replacing BGS since there isn't anymore room on the signs for an additional interstate shield. However, if a neighboring state wants that interstate to come within its borders and AASHTO/FHWA approve, then I don't see why another state can come in and block it. It isn't like the state will lose federal funding if they don't sign the route, anyway.

I think using I-41 is a complete waste. While it does make sense because it is currently US 41 and locals refer to it as Highway 41 already, seeing another intrastate interstate along with pointless concurrencies just gives me indigestion. If IDOT isn't going to cooperate to sign I-55, I-57, or I-65, what's the chance of them signing I-41 when there is no southern I-41 to connect it to?

There is no benefit to Illinois to sign any other interstate, be it 41 or 55 or 57 or 65, concurrently with I-94, and there's the cost of erecting the new signs. I don't think that's IDiOTic of them. I think that's rather prudent and being good stewards of taxpayer money.

If the new US 41 has to be an interstate, a 3di would work perfectly fine, protestations to the contrary by some here notwithstanding. Demanding that Illinois sign I-41 or any interstate extension to link to Wisconsin is about as idiotic as demanding that Virginia and West Virginia sign I-74 along I-77 all the way from the NC state line up to the north end of the tunnel at Bluefield.

FHWA gets the final say on an Interstate, so maybe they'll inject a little sanity and reason into this.

[mukade]

There is no benefit to Illinois to sign any other interstate, be it 41 or 55 or 57 or 65, concurrently with I-94, and there's the cost of erecting the new signs. I don't think that's IDiOTic of them. I think that's rather prudent and being good stewards of taxpayer money.

If the new US 41 has to be an interstate, a 3di would work perfectly fine, protestations to the contrary by some here notwithstanding. Demanding that Illinois sign I-41 or any interstate extension to link to Wisconsin is about as idiotic as demanding that Virginia and West Virginia sign I-74 along I-77 all the way from the NC state line up to the north end of the tunnel at Bluefield.

FHWA gets the final say on an Interstate, so maybe they'll inject a little sanity and reason into this.

Was there benefit to change Western Kentucky Parkway signs to I-69 ones? Why add the I-69 designation to US 59 in Houston? It costs money and made maps wrong, but sometimes you have to make changes to move forward to fix past errors or to improve situations.

While I can buy Illinois not signing anything now, properly defining a corridor (for example, to I-65, I-57, or I-55) should be perfectly fine. That is not a whole lot different than the piecemeal approach to signing I-69 - it stops and starts several times. BTW, Illinois is the state that signed Illinois 110 across the state and replaced a large number of good BGSs just to have Clearview signs. Prudent and good stewards?

I don't think many agree a 3di is a good idea.

[kharvey10]

I haven't seen TN put up any I-69 signs even though their neighbors in KY and MS have done so and they have approval to do so.

The final say of all this stuff is FHWA, which could tell IDOT and WisDOT "screw you" and set either 55 (unlikely given the mess it is in Chicagoland), 57 (more likely, that whole interstate is loaded with truck traffic from start to end), or 65 (not as likely given it would throw a third state into the mess).  I-74 in NC was set by federal law not by FHWA otherwise it would likely been a different number itself.  I doubt FHWA is going to approve the AASTHO recommendation, I have heard stories of the FHWA not going with the AASTHO at times (I-72 vs I-172 back in the mid 90s is a good example).  IDOT doesn't have to sign the changes that the FHWA approves if they don't want to.  Its just Illinois and Wisconsin has a long standing rivalry with just about everything.

[codyg1985]

One far-fetched scenario would be to build an outer bypass of Chicago west of the western suburbs, using the proposed Illiana Expressway, and then have it curve back east to end at I-94 at Kenosha, WI or Waukegan, IL, and number the bypass I-65. That might be a way to get IDOT or IESTA to warm up to the concept.

[InterstateNG]

I'm just glad that when final approval comes this interminable fucking argument about what number someone wants it to be will hopefully cease.

[hbelkins]

Was there benefit to change Western Kentucky Parkway signs to I-69 ones?

Yes, because it gets that vaunted red/white/blue Interstate shield on the route. An Interstate is an Interstate, whether it's I-xx or I-yxx.

Although I think there should have been a new-terrain route built between Paducah and Henderson for I-69, paralleling US 60. What Kentucky did was the functional equivalent of signing I-69 along US 41 and I-70.

[triplemultiplex]

I'm just glad that when final approval comes this interminable fucking argument about what number someone wants it to be will hopefully cease.

I admire your optimism.

OTOH, I can see this being an impetus to reroute I-94 to replace I-294 around Chicagoland, with '41' to ultimately replace I-94 through the city and to end at I-80 in Lansing, IL, also removing US 41 from the city streets and LSD.  "[For US 41/follow I-41]".

At least that's something that can be done with the pointless concurrency.

Personally, I find 41 to be the perfect number.  In the messed up version of the grid we have in this part of the continent, it fit's beautifully.  39 - 41 - 43; boom no problem.  Of course in my mind, I-41 would start at the Mitchell Interchange and end in Abrams.  Since they messed up in the past and didn't originally design I-55 to continue north to Milwaukee and Green Bay, I-41 is the most logical solution for this interstate.

The concurrency is silly.  I-94 has functioned just fine as a "north-south" east-west highway for decades.  The only reason for it was to possibly extend a Chicagoland interstate, but since that's not happening, it should be dropped from route.

[Jordanah1]

whos up for renumbering the whole damn country? we can solve virtually all the problems with the grid! it will cost alot of money, but its not like the federal government doesnt waste enough of our tax dollars on stupid shit anyways *cough*cough*solyndra*cough*. hell if they simply stopped funding planned parenthood, there might be enough to renumber the whole contry.

[kphoger]

No.  Illinois would still block it.