Wisconsin notes

[Revive 755]

Here is an interesting fact. Wisconsin is one of the few states in the country without an x5 interstate.

They could have fought harder or gone the congressional route to get I-55 or I-65 extended northward.

[The Ghostbuster]

Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

[Hobart]

Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.

[hobsini2]

Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.

Slight jiggling? Reconfiguring the 55/294 interchange for 3 lanes each way would be a bit more than Jiggling. If you wanted an x5 into Wisconsin, I-65 would be a slight jiggling comparatively. I too am sick and tired of people needing a "perfect grid".

[Rothman]

Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.

Citations needed for your rant.

[SEWIGuy]

The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.

West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.

Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

I think his answer was short for "not part of the standard interstate grid". Both AK and HI have non-traditional alphanumeric non-grid based numbering (which I'm sure you know), so it stands to reason that they obviously wouldn't have any "x5" interstate freeways.

There could be an I-H5 and an I-A5.

[triplemultiplex]

Slight jiggling? Reconfiguring the 55/294 interchange for 3 lanes each way would be a bit more than Jiggling. If you wanted an x5 into Wisconsin, I-65 would be a slight jiggling comparatively. I too am sick and tired of people needing a "perfect grid".

I reject the concept that one would need to reconfigure any interchanges in Chicago to route any interstate north of there.  Interchanges should be built to handle whatever the traffic needs to do, not what the route numbers are doing.  For Chicago, that always will mean interchanges favor traffic going to/from The Loop.  It is wholly appropriate for a route to "exit off itself" if that is what the traffic situation calls for.  No one bats an eye that I-94 "exits off itself" in downtown Milwaukee.  Because the primary flow of traffic calls for it.

I hate this obsession with making every freeway an interstate.

And I really dislike this ad absurdum argument that keeps coming up around here where people default to "Oh you just want to make EVERY freeway an interstate!" over every interstate proposal.  Like there's some sort of quota on interstates.  If I suggest that four freeways in Wisconsin would make logical 3di additions, that does not mean my position is to add interstate shields to every freakin' freeway in the world.

Frankly, I wish more states had the stones North Carolina does in being proactive in making useful additions to the interstate highway system.  I might like them to do a better job in some of their numbering choices, but I like that they are trying where most other places have given up.

[skluth]

Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.

I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.

[SEWIGuy]

Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

The only reason it didn't happen was because IDOT didn't want I-55 to go to the Illinois state line for some reason. They could have technically swapped it and made I-355 go to downtown Chicago, or made I-55 take over I-294 to the Wisconsin state line when reconstructing that interchange anyways.

Plus, the argument can be made that every north-south interstate in Wisconsin is out of sequence. I-43 used to be I-57, about 8 north-south interstates over. This would make I-55 a perfect candidate for US-41.

If you really think about it, the only reason I-43 isn't I-5x is because other states used those designations first, and we're left with the consequences that they set up for us years later. I-43 was the first travesty committed, especially considering its location physically above other I-5x numbers for most of it's routes.

The grid is not sacred, the grid will not stop civil engineers. I'd rather drive on one numbered road from point to point than have to have one road have seventeen different numbers to "save our precious grid". I think putting I-55 to Wisconsin is a simply grand idea, that IDOT shot down because it would require some slight jiggling around of the roadways.

Rant over. Peace.

I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.

Yeah I drive I-43 pretty much every day of the week, and I have never heard anyone complain about the number.  Do people thing that the citizens of Green Bay feel slighted that I-43 isn't I-55 or I-65?

As for the idea that someone would "rather drive on one numbered route from point to point," well most people do.  Most people who use I-43 are using it for local or regional travel.  They aren't coming up from south of downtown Milwaukee much less Chicago.  And even if they do, no one is confused that the numbers change even when the highway goes straight.

Too many people here want things to be numbered a certain way because it looks nice on a map.  And that's silly. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I suppose one should be grateful that Interstates 39, 41, and 43 were ever designated at all. After all, originally the Badger State was only to be the home of 2 mainline Interstate Highways, 90 and 94. It is interesting to imagine what it would be like if other corridors that weren't approved as Interstates had been, such as: US 18 (Prairie du Chien-to-Madison); US 53 (Eau Claire-to-Superior); STH-29 (Eau Claire-to-Green Bay); US 51 (Portage-to-Hurley, including existing Interstate 39 from Portage-to-Wausau); and possibly even US 12 (Wisconsin Dells-to-Madison. Source: http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/interstates.html.

[jakeroot]

The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.

West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.

Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

I think his answer was short for "not part of the standard interstate grid". Both AK and HI have non-traditional alphanumeric non-grid based numbering (which I'm sure you know), so it stands to reason that they obviously wouldn't have any "x5" interstate freeways.

There could be an I-H5 and an I-A5.

Not relevant, the point is that HI, AK, PR...they aren't part of the Interstate grid. So them having or lacking certain numbers is of very little consequence.

[Revive 755]

Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide)

Extending Interstate 55 (or 65) into Wisconsin was always a pipe dream. An interstate 55 extension would have been an out-of-numerical-sequence (not to mention the Interstate 55 north-to-Interstate 90/94 west interchange in Chicago is only one lane wide) and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy.

And having a long section of a north-south roadway signed as east-west is not lunacy?
[/quote]

[

]and extending Interstate 65 into Wisconsin would have been pure lunacy. The Interstate 41 designation for the US 41 corridor was always the best (and correct) designation. 47, 594, 643 or a not-proposed Interstate 894 extension weren't going to work as well.

[bulldog1979]

I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.

See the June 24, 1969, U.S. Route Numbering Subcommittee Agenda from AASHO. They confirmed the I-57 number for the Milwaukee—Green Bay freeway at that time. It was redesignated I-43 on June 25, 1974.

[SEWIGuy]

The only others being Nebraska ,Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota.

West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii as well.

Your right I missed West Virgina. Alaska and Hawaii technically don't count since they are not on the mainland.

So they're not states?

I think his answer was short for "not part of the standard interstate grid". Both AK and HI have non-traditional alphanumeric non-grid based numbering (which I'm sure you know), so it stands to reason that they obviously wouldn't have any "x5" interstate freeways.

There could be an I-H5 and an I-A5.

Not relevant, the point is that HI, AK, PR...they aren't part of the Interstate grid. So them having or lacking certain numbers is of very little consequence.

They are part of the interstate system.

[SEWIGuy]

I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.

See the June 24, 1969, U.S. Route Numbering Subcommittee Agenda from AASHO. They confirmed the I-57 number for the Milwaukee—Green Bay freeway at that time. It was redesignated I-43 on June 25, 1974.

But is that when it was going to be located closer to the WI-57 corridor?  When the location of the highway was moved closer to the lakeshore, WIDOT wanted the number changed.

[SEWIGuy]

And having a long section of a north-south roadway signed as east-west is not lunacy?

Nope.  It is not.

[mgk920]

The uncompleted Port Washington interchange was part of that 'I-57' legacy.  There are ghost ramp grades for an east-west freeway there,which was planned to connect the (I-43) US 141 freeway to the east and north east to continue westward and then curve southward to feed into the Stadium North freeway in Milwaukee. The straight through north-south course was to be I-43 (I-57) to the south to WI(I-)57 to the north.

Mike

[GeekJedi]

I am firmly on the side of leaving it all as-is. Numbering may have been important in the infancy of the system, but these days there are GPS systems, online maps, and major improvements in signing. It's getting to a point where it's pretty irrelevant how a road is signed, except for those who insist that roads be numbered in some exact, arbitrary way. If you ask 10 people what the numbering system for the Interstate and US Highway systems mean, 9 of them wouldn't know. If you asked those same people if a road like WI-441 should be signed as an interstate route, it's likely that 10 out of 10 wouldn't care.

[skluth]

I-43 was never called I-57. It was tentatively called I-57 by the media during the planning stages because one of the more popular options was the WI 57 corridor (WI 57 was already a four lane expressway from Plymouth to Random Lake), but once the interstate was finalized along the US 141 corridor it was designated I-43. By that time, US 141 had already been upgraded from the Marquette Interchange north past Port Washington.

There were promoters who wanted I-43 to be called I-55 or I-57 when the highway was hypothetical. But I don't recall any clamoring for such a designation after I-43 was assigned except by people on this board. Much of my family still lives in NE Wisconsin; I've never heard anyone in the last 40 years say I-43 should be any other number or even a conversation about highway numbers. The only thing that's universal is they all call I-43 "Highway 43" in standard Wisconsin tradition.

See the June 24, 1969, U.S. Route Numbering Subcommittee Agenda from AASHO. They confirmed the I-57 number for the Milwaukee—Green Bay freeway at that time. It was redesignated I-43 on June 25, 1974.

At the point the highway was approved, it was still hypothetical. Initial concepts often change as this one subsequently did. By the time they actually started building, it was I-43. So I-57 never existed in Wisconsin, unless you consider a highway on a piece of paper real.

[gr8daynegb]

I am firmly on the side of leaving it all as-is. Numbering may have been important in the infancy of the system, but these days there are GPS systems, online maps, and major improvements in signing. It's getting to a point where it's pretty irrelevant how a road is signed, except for those who insist that roads be numbered in some exact, arbitrary way. If you ask 10 people what the numbering system for the Interstate and US Highway systems mean, 9 of them wouldn't know. If you asked those same people if a road like WI-441 should be signed as an interstate route, it's likely that 10 out of 10 wouldn't care.

At this point realistically maybe I-39 is extended towards Tomahawk, but after that I wouldn't see much else being done.  Maybe I-41 extended to Abrams, 441 made I-441, and least of the maybe's WI-29 gets that upgrade if they ever may it freeway all the way from I-41 to I-94.......but those unlikely and nothing more than maybes at best.

[SEWIGuy]

I am firmly on the side of leaving it all as-is. Numbering may have been important in the infancy of the system, but these days there are GPS systems, online maps, and major improvements in signing. It's getting to a point where it's pretty irrelevant how a road is signed, except for those who insist that roads be numbered in some exact, arbitrary way. If you ask 10 people what the numbering system for the Interstate and US Highway systems mean, 9 of them wouldn't know. If you asked those same people if a road like WI-441 should be signed as an interstate route, it's likely that 10 out of 10 wouldn't care.

Exactly.

[The Ghostbuster]

I agree with gr8daynegb that Interstate 39 should be extended to US 8 north of Tomahawk, and with extending Interstate 41 to Abrams. The freeway upgrades to the STH 29 corridor between Interstates 94 and 41 will take decades, although I highly doubt STH 441 will ever become Interstate 441. I would be in favor of numbering all expressway/freeway exits that are currently unnumbered. Examples: The STH 11 Monroe Bypass; the STH 16/67 Oconomowoc Bypass; STH 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan; the STH 35 expressway between Hudson and River Falls; STH 57 northeast of Green Bay; US 45 between US 41/Interstate 41 and US 10 (including the STH 54 interchange along the New London Bypass); US 51 between McFarland and DeForest; the STH 119 Airport Spur; US 141 north of Abrams; the STH 175 Brewers Boulevard/Stadium North Freeway; and lastly, the STH 794 Lake Parkway (the numbers should be a continuation of Interstate 794's numbers and mileage).

[mgk920]

The public pathway that is along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built a few years ago on ROW that WisDOT already owned - it was to be the where the southbound side of where 'I-57' was to go and was acquired by WisDOT for that purpose.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

I wonder why STH 57 wasn't expanded to four lanes between CTH O just north of STH 23, and STH 32 just east of Kiel? Insufficient traffic counts? True, the STH 32/57 duplex into Kiel was expanded to four lanes way back in 1958, and the present-day Interstate 43-to-CTH O segment was expanded back in 1962, so the DOT had plenty of opportunities to make STH 57 a fully four-lane highway between Interstate 43 and STH 32. STH 32/57 between Kiel and DePere probably doesn't need to be expanded to four lanes, so maybe that portion of 57 further south didn't need to either.

[SEWIGuy]

Those four lane sections were built when it was the main route between Milwaukee and Green Bay. I take WI-57 between Chilton and De Pere pretty regularly.  There is usually little traffic, and the road is so flat and wide that passing is easy.