US 41 in Appleton, Menasha and Neenah, Wisconsin

[bugo]

What was the original routing of US 41 through this area? Where did the County OO bypass begin and end? Is I-41 going to go through this area? What are the chances of WI 441 becoming I-441? Could I-441 extend west of US 41?

[NE2]

Try Bessfart's site.

[bugo]

I don't trust that Michigoose.

[triplemultiplex]

Is I-41 going to go through this area? What are the chances of WI 441 becoming I-441? Could I-441 extend west of US 41?

The answers to these three questions are
Yes
Very high following completion of the big expansion project over Little Lake Butte des Morts & the rebuild of the system interchange, which is now ongoing.
There will probably be enough traffic to warrant full freeway conversion on US 10 in the coming decades so who knows?  Maybe someone in the Waupaca area will get that ol' interstate twitch...

[Big John]

There will probably be enough traffic to warrant full freeway conversion on US 10 in the coming decades so who knows?  Maybe someone in the Waupaca area will get that ol' interstate twitch...

The freeway segment here is already 4 US/state highways US 10/WI 22-49-54 (and unsigned County K) so someone who likes multiplexes may want a 5th sign if full freeway conversion is done west of Fremont.

[mgk920]

There will probably be enough traffic to warrant full freeway conversion on US 10 in the coming decades so who knows?  Maybe someone in the Waupaca area will get that ol' interstate twitch...

The freeway segment here is already 4 US/state highways US 10/WI 22-49-54 (and unsigned County K) so someone who likes multiplexes may want a 5th sign if full freeway conversion is done west of Fremont.

Hmm, a new thread idea - 'Interstate, US, state and county highways on same roadway'



Anyways, I'd have to check, but there is a 1927 Winnebago County highway map in the Oshkosh, WI Pvblic Library that I looked over a few years ago while doing some Yellowstone Trail historic route research and that was shortly after the original WI 15 became US 41.  In Neenah and Menasha, my belief is that the original post-WI 15 routing was modern-day County 'JJ' (Winneconne Ave), WI 114 (using Main St through downtown Menasha) and WI 47 into Appleton via Foster St to Onieda St - the original Memorial Dr (WI 47) Fox River bridge opened in 1924.  There is a lot local of 'word of mouth' on US 41 and/or WI 15 using County 'P' between Menasha and Appleton in the late 1910s/early 1920s, too, but maps of that era are somewhat hard to find.

It then crossed the Fox River into downtown Appleton via Oneida St (now 'Olde Oneida St'), turned east on College Ave (The Appleton Post-Crescent recently posted a 1929 photo of a part of E College Ave, the city's downtown 'main' street, after a midwinter snowstorm with a clearly visible US 41 marker on their FB page, a little more than four years after the highway was rerouted via Memorial Dr), north on Green Bay Rd and Leminwah St and then east on Wisconsin Ave (WI 96) towards Little Chute, ultimately following County 'D' from Wrightstown to De Pere.

US 41 was frequently rerouted between Oshkosh and De Pere from when WI 15 was first marked until the current freeway routing was established by the late 1960s.  The original two-lane Northland Ave (County 'OO') Appleton bypass routing was built in stages during the late 1930s and was used as US 41 until the current east-west freeway through Appleton's north side opened in 1960.  Its current routing in the Green Bay area was settled when its freeway through Ashwaubenon opened in 1974.

As for the western (north-south) part of the late 1930s US 41 Appleton bypass, it followed what was then called 'Westland Ave' (a tiny remnant US(I)-41 frontage road still carries that name), where US/I-41's northbound side is now located.  WI 15 (the westward Northland Ave extension) opened on a new-ROW in 1998.  If you examine air photos of the US(I)-41/WI 15 interchange, you can see the ghost grade of the original US 41 curve, which was maintained as the NB off-ramp until WI 15 was built.

Continuing southward, the late-1930s bypass replaced then WI 151 into Neenah, where it then used Green Bay Rd and the current freeway ROW southward to what is now WI 76 (then US 45) and intersection-turned south into Oshkosh.  The current US(I)-41 ROW south of there was established in the late 1940s.

For the routing that US 41 used before then to the south, see older maps that show 'WI 175' north of Fond du Lac and through Oshkosh.  That was the original, pre late-1940s US 41.

Mike

[mrose]

441 won't become an interstate until the bridge is finished. I'd be surprised if anything got put on US 10 unless it was upgraded all the way to Stevens Point.

[SSOWorld]

441 will not likely become an interstate at all.

[Molandfreak]

441 will not likely become an interstate at all.

Proof?

[Roadguy]

441 will not likely become an interstate at all.

Proof?

The legislation for truck weight exemptions only covers US 41, "If any segment of the United States Route 41 corridor, as described in section 1105(c)(57) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is designated as a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of such designation may continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement under subsection (a). "

441 does not seem like much of a truck route but US 10 which follows 441 from 41 to Oneida St is a higher use oversized, overweight truck route.  For these overweight trucks to continue using 441 if it were to be designated a 3di as I-441, it would need another piece of congressional legislation for an exemption.  Currently right now, the political willpower out there to push a bill through congress for a 4 mile exemption for a 3di route is very low.  There are higher priorities for them.

This is one of the reasons as well the DOT chose a DDI for the Oneida St interchange, easier for oversize vehicles to move through than the roundabout option that they had originally.

[Molandfreak]

441 will not likely become an interstate at all.

Proof?

The legislation for truck weight exemptions only covers US 41, "If any segment of the United States Route 41 corridor, as described in section 1105(c)(57) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is designated as a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of such designation may continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement under subsection (a). "

441 does not seem like much of a truck route but US 10 which follows 441 from 41 to Oneida St is a higher use oversized, overweight truck route.  For these overweight trucks to continue using 441 if it were to be designated a 3di as I-441, it would need another piece of congressional legislation for an exemption.  Currently right now, the political willpower out there to push a bill through congress for a 4 mile exemption for a 3di route is very low.  There are higher priorities for them.

This is one of the reasons as well the DOT chose a DDI for the Oneida St interchange, easier for oversize vehicles to move through than the roundabout option that they had originally.

What? Am I missing the point of the post or are you saying that it can't be an Interstate because it allows truck traffic to have a higher weight than what Interstate standards allow? The problem should definitely be the other way around for any route of the Interstate system, so what the heck is the point?

[Roadguy]

What? Am I missing the point of the post or are you saying that it can't be an Interstate because it allows truck traffic to have a higher weight than what Interstate standards allow? The problem should definitely be the other way around for any route of the Interstate system, so what the heck is the point?

That is exactly it, heavier trucks are allowed on non-interstate routes.  Only trucks up to 80k Lbs are allowed on interstates (This restriction is set by the federal government). On certain US and state routes (US 41 and WIS 441 are two of these routes) trucks up to 100k Lbs are allowed (This restriction is set by the state).  This is why they pushed for a congressional exemption to make sure those existing trucks over 80k lbs could keep using 41 once it was converted to an interstate.

[Molandfreak]

What? Am I missing the point of the post or are you saying that it can't be an Interstate because it allows truck traffic to have a higher weight than what Interstate standards allow? The problem should definitely be the other way around for any route of the Interstate system, so what the heck is the point?

That is exactly it, heavier trucks are allowed on non-interstate routes.  Only trucks up to 80k Lbs are allowed on interstates (This restriction is set by the federal government). On certain US and state routes (US 41 and WIS 441 are two of these routes) trucks up to 100k Lbs are allowed (This restriction is set by the state).  This is why they pushed for a congressional exemption to make sure those existing trucks over 80k lbs could keep using 41 once it was converted to an interstate.

That's really freaking nitpicky and I don't understand why on earth they would do that, but...

TRUCK U.S. 10 on WIS 114 (with removal of roundabouts) or another route in the area. Bamdone.

[GeekJedi]

Not gonna happen. WI-441 will very likely remain WI-441. There is simply no reason to jump through all the hoops just to put a pretty red, white, and blue sign on it.

[Brandon]

What? Am I missing the point of the post or are you saying that it can't be an Interstate because it allows truck traffic to have a higher weight than what Interstate standards allow? The problem should definitely be the other way around for any route of the Interstate system, so what the heck is the point?

That is exactly it, heavier trucks are allowed on non-interstate routes.  Only trucks up to 80k Lbs are allowed on interstates (This restriction is set by the federal government). On certain US and state routes (US 41 and WIS 441 are two of these routes) trucks up to 100k Lbs are allowed (This restriction is set by the state).  This is why they pushed for a congressional exemption to make sure those existing trucks over 80k lbs could keep using 41 once it was converted to an interstate.

Why are the Feds even involved in something as petty as a weight restriction?  That sounds like it's better for a state to deal with.  Especially when one considers that on non-Interstate routes they need to cooperate anyway on differing weight restrictions.  Of course, this is the same Federal government that thought it a good idea at one time to involve themselves in the business of setting speed limits.

[NE2]

Why are the Feds even involved in something as petty as a weight restriction?

Because they pay for the pavement the weight travels over... (I think even new Interstates get maintenance funds)

[Brandon]

Why are the Feds even involved in something as petty as a weight restriction?

Because they pay for the pavement the weight travels over... (I think even new Interstates get maintenance funds)

Even then, they don't exactly design them.  That's the state DOT (DOH, DOTD, etc).  Again, why do the Feds even need to be involved in a weight restriction?  IIRC, even with Interstates, they do vary between states.

[GeekJedi]

All that aside, WisDOT has never been in a hurry to make changes to routes for change's sake. The last big ones were I-43 (first to get the speed limit set to 65, then to create a larger intra-state route) and I-39 (that was pushed by everyone but WisDOT). Unless politicians push for it, I don't see them converting 441 to an Interstate.

[Brandon]

All that aside, WisDOT has never been in a hurry to make changes to routes for change's sake. The last big ones were I-43 (first to get the speed limit set to 65, then to create a larger intra-state route) and I-39 (that was pushed by everyone but WisDOT). Unless politicians push for it, I don't see them converting 441 to an Interstate.

Much agreed.  It's "Highway 441" and "Highway 41" to WisDOT anyway, regardless of what shield is on the sign.

[NE2]

Again, why do the Feds even need to be involved in a weight restriction?

Again, because they're putting up a bunch of cash.

[Molandfreak]

Not gonna happen. WI-441 will very likely remain WI-441. There is simply no reason to jump through all the hoops just to put a pretty red, white, and blue sign on it.

Why is there no reason? The reason for it is to get a streamlined system throughout the country. I hate the laziness behind the "oh, well we didn't get the funding/permission to sign this Interstate-like-numbered road as an actual Interstate, so we're just going to sign it as a state route instead" attitude. These routes usually make a lot of sense within the system, so why not put them in the freaking system? WI 441 was fine when it was just U.S. 41 through the area, but now it'll appear extremely lazy.

[I-39]

Couple of things

1. WisDOT specifically stated the following in the FAQ on the US 41 Interstate Conversion site:

I-41 allows for future Interstate loop or spur routes to be designated off of I-41

I don't see any other routes that could be designated an Interstate spur, and since they are currently upgrading major parts of WIS 441, all signs seem to be pointing to it becoming I-441 at some point.

2. I doubt US 10 becomes an Interstate, even if it gets upgraded to freeway all the way. They would have to find a way to build a freeway to freeway connection in Steven's Point, and WisDOT does not have any specific plans to do so (to my knowledge). The only other route I could see becoming an Interstate in WI would be WIS 29 when it is upgraded to full freeway between Green Bay and I-94/Elk Mound (that probably won't be for a while)

3. I-41/US 41 needs to be rebuilt and widened to six lanes between Appleton and Green Bay. Heck, I'd say the entire corridor between Milwaukee and Green Bay should be widened to six lanes, since most of the pavement on the corridor could use rebuilding.

[SSOWorld]

All that aside, WisDOT has never been in a hurry to make changes to routes for change's sake. The last big ones were I-43 (first to get the speed limit set to 65, then to create a larger intra-state route) and I-39 (that was pushed by everyone but WisDOT). Unless politicians push for it, I don't see them converting 441 to an Interstate.

Much agreed.  It's "Hwy 441" and "Hwy 41" to WisDOT anyway, regardless of what shield is on the sign.

FTFY!!

All kidding aside and whatever objections there may be, NE2 hit it right on the nail.  The Feds have a stake in the road financially and it does not matter who the fuck designed it or authorized it.  They have a say.  The question is, how MUCH of a say should they have?  They're justified in that they don't want their funding going towards shitty roads.

Well guess what... Stop spending on wars and build us some better roads will ya FEDS!!!????

[GeekJedi]

but now it'll appear extremely lazy.

To whom, exactly? The people using the road couldn't care less if the "441" has a state shield or an interstate shield. It's 441. Nothing about 20 year old route changes one iota with the signing of I-41 (which, by the way, will still be actively signed as US 41, again as a testament to how people use roads). The only people who truly care are a few people here, because "rules".

[GeekJedi]

Couple of things

1. WisDOT specifically stated the following in the FAQ on the US 41 Interstate Conversion site:

I-41 allows for future Interstate loop or spur routes to be designated off of I-41

I don't see any other routes that could be designated an Interstate spur, and since they are currently upgrading major parts of WIS 441, all signs seem to be pointing to it becoming I-441 at some point.

Just like I-39 and I-43 allow for spur or loop routes. If you want to go into specific wording, they didn't say to "allow WI-441 to become a loop route". So, it could be read either way. While it allows for such routes, it doesn't mean that there are plans to do it.