US-41 Interstate Conversion

[jprocknow]

Speaking of control cities, the Zoo has always been labeled for either the Fox Valley or Chicago as long as I've known it, so how is a new shield going to change that? 

My guess is that they won't be changed at all.

That would be curious, as their main reason for doing this is to seemingly "link" the Fox Valley with Chicago, so if the signs don't change, it's not "linked" any more than it already is now.
I'm not against the triplex and duplex if they make sense but they don't.  I'm more against the extra cost, as I've said.  And yes, I think it will be confusing, especially on the south leg of the bypass.

Speaking of control cities, the Zoo has always been labeled for either the Fox Valley or Chicago as long as I've known it, so how is a new shield going to change that?  Unless Chicago will be a control city in Green Bay now and vice versa.

Not entirely true. The Zoo is currently labeled for US 45 and Fond du Lac (technically not part of the Fox Valley). The new shield, in this case, will change quite a bit. The Marquette, OTOH, is labeled for Green Bay (via I-43).

True, I guess I've always considered FdL a Fox city.

[mgk920]

Speaking of control cities, the Zoo has always been labeled for either the Fox Valley or Chicago as long as I've known it, so how is a new shield going to change that? 

My guess is that they won't be changed at all.

For as long as I can remember, for NB US 45 (I-41), it has been 'Fond du Lac'.  I've always thought that 'Oshkosh' or 'Appleton' would be better.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

That would be curious, as their main reason for doing this is to seemingly "link" the Fox Valley with Chicago, so if the signs don't change, it's not "linked" any more than it already is now.
I'm not against the triplex and duplex if they make sense but they don't.  I'm more against the extra cost, as I've said.  And yes, I think it will be confusing, especially on the south leg of the bypass.

You are talking about what...a three mile section of the bypass with four exits that are almost entirely used by locals.  It really is only at these exits that a problem with the "north" and "south" concurrency could be a problem.  But that is why you keep I-894 to add the east and west.

Put it this way, there are other wrong way concurencies in Wisconsin.  (On the US-10 bypass of Waupaca and on the I-90/WI-11 concurrency outside of Janesville.)  I have not heard of any confusion issues with them.

[merrycilantro]

I guess I can see where Fond du Lac makes sense, it is the first bigger metro area that 41 goes thru (or around, as it were). They could do two and do Fond du Lac, Fox Valley (or Fox Cities)...we (as in Fond du Lac) must get roped in with the Fox Cities because we, like they, hug Lake Winnebago (Winneseptic as I like to refer to it) so it makes sense to just group us all in.

If anybody here is paying attention to the politics going on with the Commonwealth Company here in Fond du Lac...people around here are calling it New Chicago anyway...

[jprocknow]

That would be curious, as their main reason for doing this is to seemingly "link" the Fox Valley with Chicago, so if the signs don't change, it's not "linked" any more than it already is now.
I'm not against the triplex and duplex if they make sense but they don't.  I'm more against the extra cost, as I've said.  And yes, I think it will be confusing, especially on the south leg of the bypass.

You are talking about what...a three mile section of the bypass with four exits that are almost entirely used by locals.  It really is only at these exits that a problem with the "north" and "south" concurrency could be a problem.  But that is why you keep I-894 to add the east and west.

Put it this way, there are other wrong way concurencies in Wisconsin.  (On the US-10 bypass of Waupaca and on the I-90/WI-11 concurrency outside of Janesville.)  I have not heard of any confusion issues with them.

If nothing changes but adding a few signs (ramps don't change configurations), the locals will have no problem, sure.  But I-894 is hardly "almost entirely used by locals."  The exits, yes, more so, but now you've got to add new signs at the Hale and Mitchell (which are brand new, by the way).  Yes, maybe this won't be too confusing since again the ramps aren't changing, only the signs.  But wouldn't you agree that drivers don't need more signs to read in this day and age, they need less?
I'm not sure why you keep hammering on a point I've already said is not the main issue.  I'm not sure if you're missing my main issue and purposely avoiding it or not.  The cost of changing or revising signage on the whole corridor is $8-12 million.  I imagine most of that is from the Zoo north, both from simply a mileage standpoint and the fact that it's not currently an interstate.  But I know the cost of the Zoo and south is significant.  If you have a thought on this, I'd love to hear it, otherwise we'll have to agree to disagree and further discussion is likely pointless.

[Henry]

As for 'I-41 south of the Zoo', the I-94/US 41 <-> I-894 (includes I-43 in a wrong-way concurrency) <-> US 45 <-> US 41 corridor is an important routing for through traffic transiting Milwaukee County between Chicagoland the Fond du Lac/Oshkosh/Appleton area and it is not unusual for people to get lost trying to follow that logical corridor with all of its route numbering changes - ESPECIALLY since 'US 41' is on the major highway on either side of Milwaukee County.  Right now, US 41 still uses Milwaukee city streets in between.

Having the same number ('I-41') on that entire corridor unifies that corridor (something that I've been on WisDOT's back about since at least the late 1980s), with an added bonus that it now gives much of that north-south corridor a proper 'north-south' interstate highway number.  I-94 is signed as 'east-west' between Chicago and Milwaukee, yet another big navigational confusion.

Even though, on the surface, extending 'I-41' southward to at least the IL/WI state line makes little sense to someone from outside of the western Lake Michigan region, there is some good madness to that method.

Mike

However, there's no easy fix to the situation. I-41 could be extended to the Chicago metro area, where it could take over I-294, but then there'd be two Route 41's, which violates the numbering convention. And then again, you have I-24 and US 24 in IL. I-55 or I-57 would be a better fit for the Chicago-Milwaukee route, where it could then take over I-43, but what would become of the leftover piece that angles southwestward towards Beloit?

[SEWIGuy]

That would be curious, as their main reason for doing this is to seemingly "link" the Fox Valley with Chicago, so if the signs don't change, it's not "linked" any more than it already is now.
I'm not against the triplex and duplex if they make sense but they don't.  I'm more against the extra cost, as I've said.  And yes, I think it will be confusing, especially on the south leg of the bypass.

You are talking about what...a three mile section of the bypass with four exits that are almost entirely used by locals.  It really is only at these exits that a problem with the "north" and "south" concurrency could be a problem.  But that is why you keep I-894 to add the east and west.

Put it this way, there are other wrong way concurencies in Wisconsin.  (On the US-10 bypass of Waupaca and on the I-90/WI-11 concurrency outside of Janesville.)  I have not heard of any confusion issues with them.

If nothing changes but adding a few signs (ramps don't change configurations), the locals will have no problem, sure.  But I-894 is hardly "almost entirely used by locals."  The exits, yes, more so, but now you've got to add new signs at the Hale and Mitchell (which are brand new, by the way).  Yes, maybe this won't be too confusing since again the ramps aren't changing, only the signs.  But wouldn't you agree that drivers don't need more signs to read in this day and age, they need less?
I'm not sure why you keep hammering on a point I've already said is not the main issue.  I'm not sure if you're missing my main issue and purposely avoiding it or not.  The cost of changing or revising signage on the whole corridor is $8-12 million.  I imagine most of that is from the Zoo north, both from simply a mileage standpoint and the fact that it's not currently an interstate.  But I know the cost of the Zoo and south is significant.  If you have a thought on this, I'd love to hear it, otherwise we'll have to agree to disagree and further discussion is likely pointless.

I think the state should do what they think is best and sign accordingly.  That cost is minimal in the grand scheme of things.

[merrycilantro]

...and for all we know, I-41 May not end in Green Bay forever...the option is there to extend it should WisDOT and MDOT desire to. They could even "switcheroo" and duplex 41 and 43 to the Abrams Split and then flip I-41 onto US 141 and I-43 onto US 41...not saying they will but the option is there. You never can tell with WisDOT (winnie the pooh reference)

[jprocknow]

I think the state should do what they think is best and sign accordingly.  That cost is minimal in the grand scheme of things.

I, natch, disagree.  Imagine that!  I don't think any cost is worth signing an existing IH route, especially if it unceremoniously terminates in the middle of nowhere.

[SEWIGuy]

I think the state should do what they think is best and sign accordingly.  That cost is minimal in the grand scheme of things.

I, natch, disagree.  Imagine that!  I don't think any cost is worth signing an existing IH route, especially if it unceremoniously terminates in the middle of nowhere.

It doesn't terminate "in the middle of nowhere."  It terminates where US-41 separates from I-94 which gives it number continuity.  Obviously WIDOT finds that important.  You don't.

[jprocknow]

Number continuity is a brand new thing, only one place has it.  It was not something that was supposed to happen, due to the numbering rules/scheme.  I'd call an (partial) interchange in a very non-built up area the middle of nowhere, especially when AASHTO themselves said duplex should be held to a minimum and focus on major control points.  Green Bay and Milwaukee are, Milwaukee and Wadsworth, IL are not.  I'm quite sure you're not a WisDOT employee but you're quite the apologist for them for some reason.  I guess I don't have a finger on their pulse.
I don't know everything about IHs but I can't think of another one that ends like where IH41 is slated to at its SB terminus.  It's highly irregular, and for good reason.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/TEPPL%20All%20Documents%20Library/I-5m.pdf

[merrycilantro]

The way I see it, Illinois wouldn't allow the most sensible I-55 or I-57 to be brought up thru Chicago, so we brought the next best thing to them! Here you go, Illinois, take I-41 and shove it __ __ ___, basically...Tit-for-Tat, Karma, call it what you want but this passion against I-41 could really be driven at IDOT for their rejection of bringing 55 or 57 north.  And don't even get me started on the number grid. Other Places violate that grid, so why not us Cheeseheads?

[english si]

It doesn't terminate "in the middle of nowhere."  It terminates where US-41 separates from I-94 which gives it number continuity.  Obviously WIDOT finds that important.  You don't.

IDOT, surely? Though obviously WSDOT wanted all their US41(I) to be signed with I-41 to the border (and the n-s interstate from Green Bay to Illinois to eventually make it to I-90 at least, but they don't have a say).

I presume issues with US routes on tollways, and dealing with the ISTHA will mean that getting I-41 further south will be a bit more work than a submission to AASHTO (who felt it entirely above board), and some signs.

Number continuity is a brand new thing, only one place has it.

I believe the French didn't have numbers disappearing and reappearing in their imperial system, the first modern road numbering scheme (OK, there wasn't many duplexes). Number continuity is fairly foundational to the idea of numbering roads, especially in the USA where concurrent routes tend to be signed (rather than, say, the UK where they aren't so much).

I should point out that there are examples in both France and the Netherlands of A roads running concurrent so that one can reach the junction with the same-numbered N road (and France, unlike the Netherlands, has separate A and N numbering systems) and both date from some time ago.

It's not like US41 isn't signed rather a lot on I-94 between IL and Milwaukee - what's the difference between that 30+ mile stretch of double signing and one with blue signs saying '41'? And it's really not a long concurrency - especially compared others in the Midwest.

[merrycilantro]

Like 39/90/94...to name one from WI. And if research serves me correctly, Wisconsin is who started the whole numbering roads in the nation anyway, we can break our own rules...i severely paraphrase here.

[jprocknow]

Number continuity is a brand new thing, only one place has it.

I believe the French didn't have numbers disappearing and reappearing in their imperial system, the first modern road numbering scheme (OK, there wasn't many duplexes). Number continuity is fairly foundational to the idea of numbering roads, especially in the USA where concurrent routes tend to be signed (rather than, say, the UK where they aren't so much).

I should point out that there are examples in both France and the Netherlands of A roads running concurrent so that one can reach the junction with the same-numbered N road (and France, unlike the Netherlands, has separate A and N numbering systems) and both date from some time ago.

It's not like US41 isn't signed rather a lot on I-94 between IL and Milwaukee - what's the difference between that 30+ mile stretch of double signing and one with blue signs saying '41'? And it's really not a long concurrency - especially compared others in the Midwest.

Unless I misunderstood SEWIGuy, he's referring to number continuity in reference to US 41, meaning I-41 is concurrent with US 41 within Wisconsin and 0.9 miles in Illinois.  There is only one other example where a US highway is concurrent with an interstate of the same number.
Yes, US 41 is already signed on I-94.  That's my point.  Why sign it again?  US 41 is already N-S so you have your cardinal direction covered even if I-94 is E-W.  What's the difference?  Only spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and maybe more to put all those new shields down.  A cost the state/feds shouldn't have to spend.

[SEWIGuy]

Number continuity is a brand new thing, only one place has it.  It was not something that was supposed to happen, due to the numbering rules/scheme.  I'd call an (partial) interchange in a very non-built up area the middle of nowhere, especially when AASHTO themselves said duplex should be held to a minimum and focus on major control points.  Green Bay and Milwaukee are, Milwaukee and Wadsworth, IL are not.  I'm quite sure you're not a WisDOT employee but you're quite the apologist for them for some reason.  I guess I don't have a finger on their pulse.
I don't know everything about IHs but I can't think of another one that ends like where IH41 is slated to at its SB terminus.  It's highly irregular, and for good reason.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/TEPPL%20All%20Documents%20Library/I-5m.pdf

I'm not an apologist for WIDOT at all.  I have been critical of them on other issues before.  I just think this is a complete non-issue.  I understand their thinking to bring I-41 across the border to where US-41 diverges from I-94.  That entire corridor will be maintained as "Highway 41."  Furthermore the whole "numbering rules/scheme" issue to me is eye roll worthy.

If you are going to be upset at WIDOT, be upset about important things - such as why they aren't pushing harder to expand capacity on the interstate highways. 

[jprocknow]

Because they don't have money, which is because they're spending (likely) a million some dollars (or more) to unnecessarily sign this corridor which is already signed for a 41 N-S, which is once again my point.  I regret ever saying anything about the numbering grid!  They painted themselves into a corner with capacity by allowing properties to be built right up next to the interstates, ignored mass transit options, and failing to build proper alternate routes.   

[on_wisconsin]

Number continuity is a brand new thing, only one place has it.  It was not something that was supposed to happen, due to the numbering rules/scheme.  I'd call an (partial) interchange in a very non-built up area the middle of nowhere, especially when AASHTO themselves said duplex should be held to a minimum and focus on major control points.  Green Bay and Milwaukee are, Milwaukee and Wadsworth, IL are not.  I'm quite sure you're not a WisDOT employee but you're quite the apologist for them for some reason.  I guess I don't have a finger on their pulse.
I don't know everything about IHs but I can't think of another one that ends like where IH41 is slated to at its SB terminus.  It's highly irregular, and for good reason.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/TEPPL%20All%20Documents%20Library/I-5m.pdf

I just think this is a complete non-issue.  I understand their thinking to bring I-41 across the border to where US-41 diverges from I-94.  That entire corridor will be maintained as "Highway 41."  Furthermore the whole "numbering rules/scheme" issue to me is eye roll worthy.

If you are going to be upset at WIDOT, be upset about important things - such as why they aren't pushing harder to expand capacity on the interstate highways. 

Was just about to post something similar my self.

The whole I-41 numbering debate so overdone at this point. Congress's rubber stamp is the only thing keeping the shields from being uncovered.

[english si]

I can't imagine covering US41 shields with I-41 shield stickers would cost millions - even on the whole route, not just the I-94 concurrency. If they resigned the whole road, then that is not I-41's fault.

[jprocknow]

I can't imagine covering US41 shields with I-41 shield stickers would cost millions - even on the whole route, not just the I-94 concurrency. If they resigned the whole road, then that is not I-41's fault.

Believe it: http://dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/neregion/41/faq.htm#cost  I agree, it seems like a lot but it's true.

[Revive 755]

Number continuity is a brand new thing, only one place has it.

Few nitpicks:

1) Number continuity is not quite a new thing, as continuity was one of the reasons for US 66 between Chicago and LA.  Otherwise, I would think that separate numbers would have been used for many parts of the US 66 corridor.

2) There are other corridors in which a new designation has been recently added for number continuity:
   A) IA 27/MO 27 for the Avenue of the Saints Corridor
   B) IA 163 for the Burlington - Des Moines Corridor
   C) IL 110/MO 110 for the Chicago - Kansas City corridor

3) I'm pretty sure the original grander proposal for the I-73/I-74 routes were relying on number continuity.

[Jim920]

WisDOT could have done a boneheaded move like Texas (I-69) and make US-41 I43W, and the current I-43 becomes I-43E!

[jprocknow]

Yea, Texas is going a little crazy down there.  Don't forget I-2, all <50 miles of it down in that unconnected weed of signed interstates.  But I-43W and I-43E isn't a half bad idea now that you mention it.

[SEWIGuy]

Yea, Texas is going a little crazy down there.  Don't forget I-2, all <50 miles of it down in that unconnected weed of signed interstates.  But I-43W and I-43E isn't a half bad idea now that you mention it.

Cost of signage would even be greater though.

[jprocknow]

Now you're just trolling.