US-41 Interstate Conversion

[skluth]

It's not my bizarre rule, but thanks for playin'.

No one else holds to your rule that even 3dis must form a bypass. It is your rule (and yours alone) and it is bizarre.

Or can you provide a citation that WI441 would violate rules?

Even 3di's originally either bypassed or went through a city/metropolitan area and returned to an interstate, usually the same interstate. Examples of through even 3di's include 670 in KC and 279 in Pittsburgh (you can return to 79 via 376). Odd 3di's were originally spurs. These definitions seem to be less important as time goes on.

[GeekJedi]

No one else holds to your rule that even 3dis must form a bypass. It is your rule (and yours alone) and it is bizarre.

You are adorable with all that "bizarre" stuff.

While the "rule" has been less and less used, the original intent of an "even digit" 3di was to signify a "through" route (usually) around an urban area, and in many cases signifying a bypass. The "odd digit" 3di typically is used for spur routes off the parent interstate.

Since you obviously haven't been following along too closely (as evidenced by your "bizarre" remarks!) 441 is neither a "spur" nor a "bypass" or even "through route". It is a 99% local/regional road that does not serve anyone simply traveling through the area. Changing that route to an interstate would provide *zero* benefit to a traveler, as it doesn't take you to any substantial city or provide a bypass route around one.

It may walk and quack like a duck, but it isn't.

[english si]

Even 3di's originally either bypassed or went through a city/metropolitan area and returned to an interstate, usually the same interstate.

That's exactly my point - "went through a city/metropolitan area" is perfect valid for an even 3di. It is only GeekJedi who thinks it needs to serve through traffic to be an interstate.

GeekJedi - how much through traffic would something like I-244 (or more extreme I-444) in Tulsa see? Or I-235 in Des Moines? I-235 in Oklahoma City? They all function like a pair of spurs off the main interstate into downtown that run end on to each other. All longer, all more urban than their parents.

441 is similar, though doesn't get as close to downtown Appleton as the other routes get to the downtowns of their area, and is more about serving Harrison, Menasha, Combined Locks, Kimberly, etc (pop over 30k and that's without the parts of Appleton it serves better, which includes parts of downtown and would be another 30k). 30k is similar to Superior, which gets an odd 3di. Why, just because the freeway loops around and returns to its parent, should this area south of the Fox River not get a 3di if it wants one?

We're not talking about I-180 in IL that serves nothing of significance. We're talking about a freeway where WISDOT are looking at widening a significant amount of it as there's a lot of traffic.

I'm not fussed whether or not 441 is an Interstate or a State Route, but your arguments against I-441 are nonsense. Sure, it's a local distributing route, rather than a through route, but so are a lot of even interstates. Sure, it doesn't uniquely serve a large urban area, but similarly-populated areas often get spurs that only serve local traffic to put them on the Interstate network - why should this area get penalised because the freeway serving it is a loop?

[SSOWorld]

keep it civil folks. --sso

[GeekJedi]

why should this area get penalised because the freeway serving it is a loop?

You're missing my point.

Who exactly gets "penalized" because 441 stays signed as a state route? The only people who are in a tizzy about it are a few posters here. There has been zero demand from anyone in the area to change the shields out.

So I repeat: Why is it necessary other than "because"?

At any rate, I've beaten the subject to death. I'm sure nobody is going to convince anyone else of anything at this point. I've made my case. 

[hobsini2]

why should this area get penalised because the freeway serving it is a loop?

You're missing my point.

Who exactly gets "penalized" because 441 stays signed as a state route? The only people who are in a tizzy about it are a few posters here. There has been zero demand from anyone in the area to change the shields out.

So I repeat: Why is it necessary other than "because"?

At any rate, I've beaten the subject to death. I'm sure nobody is going to convince anyone else of anything at this point. I've made my case. 

To answer your question with a question, if 441 remains as a state highway, wouldn't federal (not state) funding be less of a priority to the feds as opposed to it being an interstate?

MGK, correct me if I am wrong but the road is in the process of being upgraded to interstate standards now. Correct?

So if it is being up to standard and is getting or will get federal funding, why not make it an interstate? Just my opinion on that.

[GeekJedi]

Thank you, hob. Now something like that makes total sense (the federal funding aspect). However, I don't believe there's a project to bring it up to interstate standards, just to re-do the interchange with I-41.

[Big John]

Thank you, hob. Now something like that makes total sense (the federal funding aspect). However, I don't believe there's a project to bring it up to interstate standards, just to re-do the interchange with I-41.

The project is that interchange up to the US 10 interchange in Appleton.  Bringing it to 3 lanes each way and flatten out the tight curves.

[GeekJedi]

According to this, there's nothing going on east of the interchange until at least 2016:

http://www.wisconsindot.gov/projects/neregion/441/index.htm

[Fox 11 News]

Perhaps the most interesting part of the 441 project isn't the designation, it's that the region get its first diverging diamond interchange:

http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/hwy-441-expansion-plan-includes-diverging-diamond/

[mgk920]

Although promoting WI 441 to a full interstate is not a major priority of WisDOT, their S.O.P. when building something like this is to do it, as much as possible, to interstate design standards.  This includes non-freeway rural 'expressways' such as WI 29 or US 18/151.  Yes, the current work on US 10/WI 441, including the six-laning east to just east of Oneida St, will be at full interstate standards.

I'm thinking that the part of WI 441 where it crosses the Fox River along the Appleton/Kimberly border is below standards for left shoulder width.  But that is a deficiency that has been 'grandfathered' elsewhere.  We'll have to see.

Mike

[hobsini2]

So is 441 already in most places up to interstate standards Mike? It's been a long time since I was on 441 but I think it was already east of US 10/Wis 47.

[GeekJedi]

Perhaps the most interesting part of the 441 project isn't the designation, it's that the region get its first diverging diamond interchange:

http://fox11online.com/2014/06/25/hwy-441-expansion-plan-includes-diverging-diamond/

Oooh. I missed that the first time around. That's pretty cool!

[The Ghostbuster]

Personally, I think the Interstate 41 designation should continue to the Abrams split.

[SSOWorld]

Personally, I think the Interstate 41 designation should continue to the Abrams split.

No.

The traffic up there wouldn't warrant it - nor does it terminate at a major highway or city.

[mgk920]

Well, even though traffic on the US 41/141 freeway between I-43 (Howard interchange) and the Abrams interchange (US 41/141 split) is certainly heavy enough to do most rural interstates proud (it's a lot busier than most people would realize just from studying maps of the area and may warrant upgrading to six lanes within my lifetime), I do agree that it does not warrant promotion to a full interstate - unless and until [fictional-fantasy highway musing]MDOT builds such a highway to supplant US 41 and US 2 between Menominee and I-75 at Saint Ignace[/fictional-fantasy highway musing].

Mike

[hobsini2]

Well, even though traffic on the US 41/141 freeway between I-43 (Howard interchange) and the Abrams interchange (US 41/141 split) is certainly heavy enough to do most rural interstates proud (it's a lot busier than most people would realize just from studying maps of the area and may warrant upgrading to six lanes within my lifetime), I do agree that it does not warrant promotion to a full interstate - unless and until [fictional-fantasy highway musing]MDOT builds such a highway to supplant US 41 and US 2 between Menominee and I-75 at Saint Ignace[/fictional-fantasy highway musing].

Mike

I like that idea of bending a divided highway toward Sault Ste Marie from Green Bay. hmm.

[triplemultiplex]

nor does it terminate at a major highway or city.

The 41-141 split strikes me as quite a major highway junction.

It makes sense to me to have I-41 end at Abrams, have US 141 start at Abrams and have US 41 "come out of Minnesota-style hiding" at Abrams.

[SSOWorld]

nor does it terminate at a major highway or city.

The 41-141 split strikes me as quite a major highway junction.

It makes sense to me to have I-41 end at Abrams, have US 141 start at Abrams and have US 41 "come out of Minnesota-style hiding" at Abrams.

Won't fly at FHWA.  Their idea of a major junction is an east-west route point.  But hell if they can do it with I-41 down to IL why not?

[Brandon]

nor does it terminate at a major highway or city.

The 41-141 split strikes me as quite a major highway junction.

It makes sense to me to have I-41 end at Abrams, have US 141 start at Abrams and have US 41 "come out of Minnesota-style hiding" at Abrams.

Won't fly at FHWA.  Their idea of a major junction is an east-west route point.  But hell if they can do it with I-41 down to IL why not?

Shit, name me the major east-west route point for the southern end of I-41?  And no, Russell Road does not count.

As far as I've seen, FHWA is inconsistent with respect to the numbering of interstates (see I-355 and I-155 in Illinois versus MO-370 as an example), and for the ending of interstates.

[merrycilantro]

The ball is in IDOT's court now, in terms of stretching 41 down into Chicagoland. And with a "desire to have the most interstates", or whatever it is, you'd *think* they'd actually do it, especially since they refused to extend us (Wisconsin) the olive branch that would have been I-55. Could be doable, from a sheer Google Maps Aerial View standpoint...I don't care how they do it, but they could if they wanted to (provided the funding were there). I kinda have to laugh at how IDOT wouldn't give us I-55, yet we gave them .9 miles of I-41...I don't know whether to take that as an in-your-face to IDOT, or as a peace offering of sorts...or what...

I'd actually like to know the logic behind IDOT's refusal to accommodate 55, yet acceptance of 41 "dipping its wick", as it were, in the precious Land of Lincoln...Like, was it strictly because of that "number of interstates" thing (tongue in cheek thinking "who's got the bigger..."), or something else. Something like maybe the following:

WisDOT - extend 55 up 94 and allow it to terminate in Green Bay, er no?
IDOT - NO. (wish i had a pic of that meme)
WisDOT - Fine then. We'll do our own thing... Rest of Wisconsin, take your pick, 47, 41, 643 or 594??
Rest of WI - Are you freakin kidding me?? 41 is 41, whether you have a different number on it. And we don't need any more Intrastates...41 or nothing.
WisDOT to IDOT - OK OK How about this? How's about we call it 41, break the grid, and the rules about numbering the same number as a state, AND give you a sliver of an interstate you can call your very own (Wisconsin's version maybe of Oceanfront Property in Arizona)
IDOT - You know you cheeseheads never quit!! Fine, get them off our back and sign 9 tenths of a mile in IL as this ridiculous 41 multiplex they want so bad...who knows, maybe we'll use it in the future....or maybe...IDEA...WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER INTERSTATE TO ADD TO THE LIST! All right WisDOT, you got your wish. Now it shall truly be an INTERstate.
(AFTER THE CALL...) Maybe now they'll shut up about that Chicago to Madison connection...

Perhaps I've had too much coffee today, I apologize for my dry sense of humor.

[bulldog1979]

Someone mentioned at the Madison meet this past weekend that WisDOT included the Illinois section of I-41 in their signing plans. The commenter said that IDOT is getting I-41 whether they wanted it or not because WisDOT is paying to sign it in Illinois.

[merrycilantro]

LOVE IT!!! So they won't give us I-55? Fine, we'll shove I-41 down their throats!!

[SSOWorld]

Someone mentioned at the Madison meet this past weekend that WisDOT included the Illinois section of I-41 in their signing plans. The commenter said that IDOT is getting I-41 whether they wanted it or not because WisDOT is paying to sign it in Illinois.

I think WisDOT handled the widing of the road into Illinois where ISHTA takes over as well.

[Brandon]

Someone mentioned at the Madison meet this past weekend that WisDOT included the Illinois section of I-41 in their signing plans. The commenter said that IDOT is getting I-41 whether they wanted it or not because WisDOT is paying to sign it in Illinois.

I think WisDOT handled the widing of the road into Illinois where ISHTA takes over as well.

It appears as if the widening to the border was carried out by ISTHA.  Their style of signage and mileposts are all over the place.