AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Great Lakes and Ohio Valley => Topic started by: ColossalBlocks on January 07, 2017, 12:06:04 PM

Title: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: ColossalBlocks on January 07, 2017, 12:06:04 PM
I've noticed that I-41 runs concurrent with US-41 for it's entire length. Isn't that an AASHTO violation?
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 07, 2017, 12:11:01 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on January 07, 2017, 12:06:04 PM
I've noticed that I-41 runs concurrent with US-41 for it's entire length. Isn't that an AASHTO violation?


AASHTO approved both the I-41 number, and the US-41 relocation, at the same meeting in November 2012.  So my guess is no.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Big John on January 07, 2017, 12:12:36 PM
With the precedent of I-74 in North Carolina concurrent with US 74, it was allowed.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Scott5114 on January 07, 2017, 01:14:34 PM
AASHTO once had a policy of trying to avoid US routes and Interstates in the same state, although even from the early days, there were some instances of this (US 24 and I-24 in IL, US 80 and I-80 in CA, etc.) It seems like in recent times AASHTO has acknowledged that the grid has gotten dense enough that some conflicts are unavoidable. Another recently added one is US 69 crossing the path of I-69.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: english si on January 07, 2017, 01:29:08 PM
And, unlike I-74 and US74, US41/I-41 is far less of a conflict: as they are entirely concurrent, the confusion of two routes with the same number that AASHTO sought to avoid doesn't exist. In fact it's less of a problem than I-69 and US69 merely intersecting, or even I-24 and US24 at opposite ends of Illinois.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 07, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
Remember that WISDOT preferred either I-55 or I-57 (I can't remember which), but Illinois didn't want the extension. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Big John on January 07, 2017, 01:47:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 07, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
Remember that WISDOT preferred either I-55 or I-57 (I can't remember which), but Illinois didn't want the extension. 
It was I-55 this time.  I-57 was the preference for I-43 from Milwaukee to Green Bay.  Illinois killed both proposals.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: LM117 on January 07, 2017, 01:54:12 PM
Quote from: Big John on January 07, 2017, 12:12:36 PM
With the precedent of I-74 in North Carolina concurrent with US 74, it was allowed.

I-74 was designated by Congress. AASHTO had no choice but to approve it's concurrency with US-74.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: peterj920 on January 09, 2017, 06:10:39 PM
Quote from: Big John on January 07, 2017, 01:47:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 07, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
Remember that WISDOT preferred either I-55 or I-57 (I can't remember which), but Illinois didn't want the extension. 
It was I-55 this time.  I-57 was the preference for I-43 from Milwaukee to Green Bay.  Illinois killed both proposals.

I-55 was never considered by WISDOT.  There were municipalities along I-41 in the Fox Valley that wanted I-55.  The alternatives were I-41, I-47, I-594, I-694 with WISDOT preferring I-41 which was selected.  I-41 fits the grid right between I-39 and I-43. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 09, 2017, 08:04:37 PM
What I really don't get is why it had to become an Interstate. What's wrong with keeping it US-41? It never crosses state lines anyways. I-43 is the faster and shorter route anyways, so having two interstates connecting the same two points is just confusing, IMO.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 09, 2017, 08:10:41 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 09, 2017, 08:04:37 PM
What I really don't get is why it had to become an Interstate. What's wrong with keeping it US-41? It never crosses state lines anyways. I-43 is the faster and shorter route anyways, so having two interstates connecting the same two points is just confusing, IMO.


It does cross a state line.  (And I-43 doesn't).  And I-41 is shorter to Green Bay if you are going from the west side of the Milwaukee suburbs. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: peterj920 on January 09, 2017, 09:24:52 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 09, 2017, 08:04:37 PM
What I really don't get is why it had to become an Interstate. What's wrong with keeping it US-41? It never crosses state lines anyways. I-43 is the faster and shorter route anyways, so having two interstates connecting the same two points is just confusing, IMO.

I-43 is the shorter route between Green Bay and Milwaukee, but a lot more people live along the I-41 corridor than the I-43 corridor.  Because of that, I-41 has more traffic than I-43 as I-41 is 6 lanes between Appleton and Oshkosh.  Appleton's metro area is almost as big as Green Bay and giving that area an interstate is why the designation was implemented.  The traffic is there and it was a freeway even before the I-41 designation. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Revive 755 on January 09, 2017, 09:37:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 09, 2017, 08:10:41 PM
It does cross a state line.  (And I-43 doesn't).

That wouldn't be hard to fix; just add a short multiplex with I-39 and I-90 down to the US 51 interchange just over the Illinois border.  Have it implied that it might get extended over a future upgrade of the semi-expressway IL 251. [/sarcasm]

More seriously, at least I-43 does not need a long multiplex just to get near a state line.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 10, 2017, 09:04:50 AM
Oops, I guess it does cross a state line. :pan: But I still believe routes like US-41 should be kept as US highways until their reach becomes more significant than one state(in the east).
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 09:58:51 AM
Disagree.  I think if it is an interstate worthy highway, it should be labelled as such.  The system is "interstate."  That doesn't mean every highway has to be.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: english si on January 10, 2017, 10:04:35 AM
Gotta love the classic 'Interstates shouldn't be intrastate' nonsense - interstate refers to the network, not necessarily the routes. Appleton, etc is worthy of being on that network.

As for the state line issue, it's really I-94 piggybacking on the '41 route rather than I-41 piggybacking on I-94 - and has been since I-94 was rerouted via Chicago as the numbering was tweaked. IL wanting I-55 to end in Chicago has meant that this north-south freeway between Chicago and Milwaukee has strangely had an east-west number as its main one for 50 years. But no longer, at least in WI and the northernmost mile of IL anyway!
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: hbelkins on January 10, 2017, 12:17:01 PM
It should have been a three-digit route. Period. End of discussion.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2017, 12:17:01 PM
It should have been a three-digit route. Period. End of discussion.


No it shouldn't have.  Period.  End of discussion.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: texaskdog on January 10, 2017, 12:33:46 PM
If you cannot tell the difference between the black/white & red/blue shields there is no hope for you.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 10, 2017, 12:47:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2017, 12:17:01 PM
It should have been a three-digit route. Period. End of discussion.


No it shouldn't have.  Period.  End of discussion.

Yes, it should have.  Period.  End of discussion.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on January 10, 2017, 01:05:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 10, 2017, 12:47:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2017, 12:17:01 PM
It should have been a three-digit route. Period. End of discussion.


No it shouldn't have.  Period.  End of discussion.

Yes, it should have.  Period.  End of discussion.
Let's not argue.
I-55 was proposed for what is now Interstate 41. Interstate 57 was I-43. Both proposals were killed by IDOT.
Your welcome.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2017, 01:05:31 PM
It should have been a zero-digit route.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F5%2F4032%2F4524557785_4acee79f25_z.jpg&hash=3637036760798526334760bcbcf0fc1f30e39131)
from http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-turnbull/4524557785
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 01:09:31 PM
There are 19 2dis shorter than I-41.

Should I-66, I-19, I-97, I-83, I-22, I-4 and I-37 be 3dis as well? 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 10, 2017, 01:19:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 01:09:31 PM
There are 19 2dis shorter than I-41.

Should I-66, I-19, I-97, I-83, I-22, I-4 and I-37 be 3dis as well? 

I-66, no.

I-19, possibly.

I-97, absolutely!  Been proposed many times on here.

I-83, heck no.

I-22, fine as is.

I-4, fine as is, doesn't come back and hit the same interstate like I-41 does with I-43.

I-37, possibly.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 01:09:31 PM
There are 19 2dis shorter than I-41.

Should I-66, I-19, I-97, I-83, I-22, I-4 and I-37 be 3dis as well? 

I-97 definitely should not be an interstate. Tell me if I'm wrong, but the only highway on your list that is completely multiplexed is I-22. The fact that I-41 is multiplexed along its entire route is not right to me. I think I-22 is okay though because it shortens interstate travel distance considerably.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 01:43:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 10, 2017, 01:19:03 PM
I-4, fine as is, doesn't come back and hit the same interstate like I-41 does with I-43.

Why does that matter?  They service two completely different groups of cities along their routes. 


Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PMTell me if I'm wrong, but the only highway on your list that is completely multiplexed is I-22. The fact that I-41 is multiplexed along its entire route is not right to me.


Uh...OK...why?  I-39 also comes pretty close to doing the same, but I don't see the point.

Interstate highways speak to a specific standard of highway and that helps with navigation.  Furthermore, since the highway has always been "Highway 41," the number made sense.

Complaints like the two above are simply technical and arcane. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: english si on January 10, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PMI-97 definitely should not be an interstate.
I can understand 3di rather than 2di, but it links a state capital to the state's largest city (and one of the biggest urban areas in the country).
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 01:43:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 10, 2017, 01:19:03 PM
I-4, fine as is, doesn't come back and hit the same interstate like I-41 does with I-43.
Why does that matter?  They service two completely different groups of cities along their routes.
That doesn't matter. I-94 shouldn't be an interstate west of Chicago as I-90 takes you to Madison and Montana.  :)
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2017, 04:02:43 PM
The US 41 corridor could have been numbered Interstate 47, 594 or 643, which were the other numbers considered. Given that Interstate 41 is east of 39 and west of 43, it would seem the 41 designation would be the logical designation for the corridor.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 10, 2017, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: english si on January 10, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PMI-97 definitely should not be an interstate.
I can understand 3di rather than 2di, but it links a state capital to the state's largest city (and one of the biggest urban areas in the country).
Stupid me! :banghead: I meant definitely shouldn't be a 2di.

In the case of I-39, eventually I would like to see US-51 north of US-8 downgraded to a 3dus highway, and then truncated in Bloomington, as it has effectively been replaced by I-39. That could be done for US-41 also, but I support that idea a whole lot less because I feel like US-41 does a lot more north of Green Bay than US-51 does north of US-8. So it would be more important to keep US-41 a continuous route. If US-41 in Wisconsin deserves to become an Interstate, why not WI-29?
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Big John on January 10, 2017, 05:19:54 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 05:13:57 PMIf US-41 in Wisconsin deserves to become an Interstate, why not WI-29?
Much of WI 29 between I-94 and I-41 aren't up to interstate standard, having at-grade intersections ion it.  Current traffic does not justify a full freeway conversion at this time.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Avalanchez71 on January 10, 2017, 05:40:13 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: english si on January 10, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PMI-97 definitely should not be an interstate.
I can understand 3di rather than 2di, but it links a state capital to the state's largest city (and one of the biggest urban areas in the country).
Stupid me! :banghead: I meant definitely shouldn't be a 2di.

In the case of I-39, eventually I would like to see US-51 north of US-8 downgraded to a 3dus highway, and then truncated in Bloomington, as it has effectively been replaced by I-39. That could be done for US-41 also, but I support that idea a whole lot less because I feel like US-41 does a lot more north of Green Bay than US-51 does north of US-8. So it would be more important to keep US-41 a continuous route. If US-41 in Wisconsin deserves to become an Interstate, why not WI-29?

The only precedence I can think of for this is US 127 formerly US 27 in Michigan.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: GaryV on January 10, 2017, 05:59:01 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 10, 2017, 05:40:13 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: english si on January 10, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PMI-97 definitely should not be an interstate.
I can understand 3di rather than 2di, but it links a state capital to the state's largest city (and one of the biggest urban areas in the country).
Stupid me! :banghead: I meant definitely shouldn't be a 2di.

In the case of I-39, eventually I would like to see US-51 north of US-8 downgraded to a 3dus highway, and then truncated in Bloomington, as it has effectively been replaced by I-39. That could be done for US-41 also, but I support that idea a whole lot less because I feel like US-41 does a lot more north of Green Bay than US-51 does north of US-8. So it would be more important to keep US-41 a continuous route. If US-41 in Wisconsin deserves to become an Interstate, why not WI-29?

The only precedence I can think of for this is US 127 formerly US 27 in Michigan.

And in reverse, US 12, formerly US 112 in Michigan.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: cjk374 on January 10, 2017, 07:21:45 PM
So I-41's endpoints are both on I-43? Well....then just change I-41 to I-43A so we can really have something to talk about.  :)  :-D  :cool:
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Big John on January 10, 2017, 07:29:44 PM
^^ The North end is by the north end of I-43, but the south end is just south of the Illinois state line on I-94.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Revive 755 on January 10, 2017, 08:19:46 PM
Quote from: Big John on January 10, 2017, 07:29:44 PM
^^ The North end is by the north end of I-43, but the south end is just south of the Illinois state line on I-94.

Nitpicking, but last time I drove that segment, the end I-41 assembly for southbound was actually north of the Illinois border - so NB I-41 is longer than SB I-41  :spin:
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 10, 2017, 10:38:28 PM
Quote from: Big John on January 10, 2017, 05:19:54 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 05:13:57 PMIf US-41 in Wisconsin deserves to become an Interstate, why not WI-29?
Much of WI 29 between I-94 and I-41 aren't up to interstate standard, having at-grade intersections ion it.  Current traffic does not justify a full freeway conversion at this time.
Sorry, my bad again :-/. I just came up with that example from a quick glance at Google Maps. I was posting from school, so I couldn't check my facts with my Rand McNally. :pan:
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: compdude787 on January 11, 2017, 01:41:26 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 10:38:28 PM
I just came up with that example from a quick glance at Google Maps. I was posting from school, so I couldn't check my facts with my Rand McNally. :pan:

Google Maps sometimes shows divided highways with at-grade intersections in the same color as freeways, so I understand your confusion.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2017, 03:26:43 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PM
Tell me if I'm wrong, but the only highway on your list that is completely multiplexed is I-22.

You're wrong.  US-78 leaves I-22 well before I-65 @ Exit 85.  Thus, the last ~10 miles of the route isn't multiplexed with anything.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: dcharlie on January 11, 2017, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2017, 03:26:43 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PM
Tell me if I'm wrong, but the only highway on your list that is completely multiplexed is I-22.

You're wrong.  US-78 leaves I-22 well before I-65 @ Exit 85.  Thus, the last ~10 miles of the route isn't multiplexed with anything.

That's interesting because this GSV shot clearly shows US 78 multiplexing with I-22 just East of Coalburg Rd.    https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5878616,-86.8452551,3a,75y,115.3h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssk_Pk0nSIC0OI-0SspDg-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Which means it does go all the way to I-65
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 11, 2017, 09:10:10 AM
Quote from: dcharlie on January 11, 2017, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2017, 03:26:43 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PM
Tell me if I'm wrong, but the only highway on your list that is completely multiplexed is I-22.

You're wrong.  US-78 leaves I-22 well before I-65 @ Exit 85.  Thus, the last ~10 miles of the route isn't multiplexed with anything.

That's interesting because this GSV shot clearly shows US 78 multiplexing with I-22 just East of Coalburg Rd.    https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5878616,-86.8452551,3a,75y,115.3h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssk_Pk0nSIC0OI-0SspDg-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Which means it does go all the way to I-65

That's weird, because I also just found a GSV shot showing exit 85 for US-78 to Birmingham. :confused:
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: dcharlie on January 11, 2017, 09:28:22 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 11, 2017, 09:10:10 AM
Quote from: dcharlie on January 11, 2017, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2017, 03:26:43 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PM
Tell me if I'm wrong, but the only highway on your list that is completely multiplexed is I-22.

You're wrong.  US-78 leaves I-22 well before I-65 @ Exit 85.  Thus, the last ~10 miles of the route isn't multiplexed with anything.

That's interesting because this GSV shot clearly shows US 78 multiplexing with I-22 just East of Coalburg Rd.    https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5878616,-86.8452551,3a,75y,115.3h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssk_Pk0nSIC0OI-0SspDg-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Which means it does go all the way to I-65

That's weird, because I also just found a GSV shot showing exit 85 for US-78 to Birmingham. :confused:

The date on that shot shows July 2016.  I think that was before I-22 was completed.  So that would explain Us-78's dual personalities.

Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: hbelkins on January 11, 2017, 10:36:56 AM
Quote from: dcharlie on January 11, 2017, 08:41:59 AM
That's interesting because this GSV shot clearly shows US 78 multiplexing with I-22 just East of Coalburg Rd.    https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5878616,-86.8452551,3a,75y,115.3h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssk_Pk0nSIC0OI-0SspDg-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Which means it does go all the way to I-65

Google Maps is wrong. (Which is not surprising...)

As for I-41, better routes to compare it with are I-476 and I-376 in Pennsylvania. If I-41 should be a 2di and not a 3di, then these two routes should also be 2dis.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Mrt90 on January 11, 2017, 10:41:37 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 09, 2017, 08:10:41 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 09, 2017, 08:04:37 PM
What I really don't get is why it had to become an Interstate. What's wrong with keeping it US-41? It never crosses state lines anyways. I-43 is the faster and shorter route anyways, so having two interstates connecting the same two points is just confusing, IMO.


It does cross a state line.  (And I-43 doesn't).  And I-41 is shorter to Green Bay if you are going from the west side of the Milwaukee suburbs.
Well, it's only for 0.9 miles (the distance from the US41 merge with I-94 in Illinois to the WI/IL border), and only in one direction (I-41 ends at the WI/IL border going south).

I think the real reason for the change was that it was thought to be more attractive for businesses to move to a location near an interstate highway.  And it sure makes giving directions from Kenosha to Fond du Lac and points north easier.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 11, 2017, 11:09:06 AM
Quote from: Mrt90 on January 11, 2017, 10:41:37 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 09, 2017, 08:10:41 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 09, 2017, 08:04:37 PM
What I really don't get is why it had to become an Interstate. What's wrong with keeping it US-41? It never crosses state lines anyways. I-43 is the faster and shorter route anyways, so having two interstates connecting the same two points is just confusing, IMO.


It does cross a state line.  (And I-43 doesn't).  And I-41 is shorter to Green Bay if you are going from the west side of the Milwaukee suburbs.
Well, it's only for 0.9 miles (the distance from the US41 merge with I-94 in Illinois to the WI/IL border), and only in one direction (I-41 ends at the WI/IL border going south).


Not according to AASHTO.  Here is the entry for Illinois from the link above.

"Begins at the Wisconsin/Illinois state border
following USH 41/IH-94 to the USH 41/IH-94
interchange south of Russell Road/County
Highway 19. Travels over an existing Interstate
and US Highways Southerly covering 0.9 and
ends at the USH 41/IH-94 interchange. IH-41 is
proposed to follow USH 41/IH-94 from the
Wisconsin/Illinois state border south to the USH
41/IH-94 interchange. No letter included showing
the member department has contacted FHWA.
AASHTO to prepare information letter to FHWA
headquarters and copying Illinois. South of
Russell Road/County Highway 19."
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Mrt90 on January 11, 2017, 11:31:21 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 11, 2017, 11:09:06 AM
Quote from: Mrt90 on January 11, 2017, 10:41:37 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 09, 2017, 08:10:41 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 09, 2017, 08:04:37 PM
What I really don't get is why it had to become an Interstate. What's wrong with keeping it US-41? It never crosses state lines anyways. I-43 is the faster and shorter route anyways, so having two interstates connecting the same two points is just confusing, IMO.


It does cross a state line.  (And I-43 doesn't).  And I-41 is shorter to Green Bay if you are going from the west side of the Milwaukee suburbs.
Well, it's only for 0.9 miles (the distance from the US41 merge with I-94 in Illinois to the WI/IL border), and only in one direction (I-41 ends at the WI/IL border going south).


Not according to AASHTO.  Here is the entry for Illinois from the link above.

"Begins at the Wisconsin/Illinois state border
following USH 41/IH-94 to the USH 41/IH-94
interchange south of Russell Road/County
Highway 19. Travels over an existing Interstate
and US Highways Southerly covering 0.9 and
ends at the USH 41/IH-94 interchange. IH-41 is
proposed to follow USH 41/IH-94 from the
Wisconsin/Illinois state border south to the USH
41/IH-94 interchange. No letter included showing
the member department has contacted FHWA.
AASHTO to prepare information letter to FHWA
headquarters and copying Illinois. South of
Russell Road/County Highway 19."
I drive that way every day on the way to work, and the end I-41 signs are at the state line.  That might just be a practical matter, though, because it might be confusing to people who don't know the difference between a US highway and an Interstate highway and are just looking for 41 to have end I-41 signs right at the exit for US41.

Either way, you are technically correct that I-41 does cross a state line, whether it's in only one direction or both ways.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: english si on January 11, 2017, 12:00:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2017, 10:36:56 AMAs for I-41, better routes to compare it with are I-476 and I-376 in Pennsylvania. If I-41 should be a 2di and not a 3di, then these two routes should also be 2dis.
The one problem with this is should. It's surely more a case of not should not.

There's no real reason why I-41, I-476, etc should not be 2dis, but by the same token, there's no real reason why they necessarily should be.

I-41 is a 2di because the numbering worked - the freeway was already referred to by that number, the number was free and fit the grid. The I-x76s were lengthy extensions of existing 3dis, and the grid is lacking 2di numbers in that part of the world (hence I-99 stealing one from elsewhere).
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2017, 03:19:08 PM
Granted, the Interstate 41 designation could have ended at the Zoo Interchange. It was designated to the US 41/Interstate 94 split just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois border so that portion of the North-South Freeway could have an Interstate designation that was signed north-south (its proper directional alignment), unlike Interstate 94, which has always been signed east-west.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Revive 755 on January 11, 2017, 06:03:48 PM
Quote from: english si on January 11, 2017, 12:00:32 PM
There's no real reason why I-41, I-476, etc should not be 2dis, but by the same token, there's no real reason why they necessarily should be.

I-41 is a 2di because the numbering worked - the freeway was already referred to by that number, the number was free and fit the grid. The I-x76s were lengthy extensions of existing 3dis, and the grid is lacking 2di numbers in that part of the world (hence I-99 stealing one from elsewhere).

Perhaps PennDOT wasn't trying that hard for a 2di for I-476 - they could have tried to duplicate I-85.  I'd bet North Carolina would have.  :biggrin:



As for the signed end for SB I-41:  Streetview - note the change in pavement and the welcome sign in the background (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4958143,-87.9506299,3a,75y,152.82h,85.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shLhhIrUjleZyAuTL9vYvBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 11, 2017, 08:30:42 PM
Quote from: english si on January 11, 2017, 12:00:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2017, 10:36:56 AMAs for I-41, better routes to compare it with are I-476 and I-376 in Pennsylvania. If I-41 should be a 2di and not a 3di, then these two routes should also be 2dis.
The one problem with this is should. It's surely more a case of not should not.

There's no real reason why I-41, I-476, etc should not be 2dis, but by the same token, there's no real reason why they necessarily should be.

I-41 is a 2di because the numbering worked - the freeway was already referred to by that number, the number was free and fit the grid. The I-x76s were lengthy extensions of existing 3dis, and the grid is lacking 2di numbers in that part of the world (hence I-99 stealing one from elsewhere).

One thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di. An argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 11, 2017, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 11, 2017, 08:30:42 PM
Quote from: english si on January 11, 2017, 12:00:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2017, 10:36:56 AMAs for I-41, better routes to compare it with are I-476 and I-376 in Pennsylvania. If I-41 should be a 2di and not a 3di, then these two routes should also be 2dis.
The one problem with this is should. It's surely more a case of not should not.

There's no real reason why I-41, I-476, etc should not be 2dis, but by the same token, there's no real reason why they necessarily should be.

I-41 is a 2di because the numbering worked - the freeway was already referred to by that number, the number was free and fit the grid. The I-x76s were lengthy extensions of existing 3dis, and the grid is lacking 2di numbers in that part of the world (hence I-99 stealing one from elsewhere).

One thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di. An argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.


It's fine as a 2di. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: andy3175 on January 11, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2017, 03:19:08 PM
Granted, the Interstate 41 designation could have ended at the Zoo Interchange. It was designated to the US 41/Interstate 94 split just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois border so that portion of the North-South Freeway could have an Interstate designation that was signed north-south (its proper directional alignment), unlike Interstate 94, which has always been signed east-west.

I agree with this logic. Interstate 41 offers a north-south designation for a north-south freeway, and it also overlaps the entire US 41 freeway segment from the state line north to Green Bay. So having I-41 extend over I-94 helps clarify the direction of the freeway since I-94 is signed east-west. Having an I-41 north-south route overlapping I-94 should help motorist navigation when looking at the reassurance route markers, since two of three route markers (I-41 and US 41) show north-south, which is the true direction of that particular segment of freeway.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Bickendan on January 12, 2017, 05:12:13 AM
So if I'm understanding this correctly, before I-41 becomes a thing, you have an east-west interstate running north-south, signed east-west (with bonus points for short jogs going the opposite direction signed) with the east-west exit numbers and mile markers. The fact that there's also a signed north-south highway (US 41) doesn't affect the equation at all.

Given I-94's alignment and need to go around Lake Michigan (as opposed to taking a ferry like US 10 does), this is confusing, but makes sense when you sort it all out. But it's still confusing to have a very long north-south freeway (which is, apparently, even named the North-South Freeway) being signed east-west.

I-41 is created, resolving the signed direction as a bonus, or perhaps as an intended benefit. I-41, as the available number, happens to match US 41, as a very happy coincidence, because it would enable an implied upgrade of US 41, with US 41 bookending both ends of I-41 -- sort of how CA 110 bookends I-110. Instead, US 41 stays signed instead of being 'upgraded' to I-41. No big issue; it still resolves the directional issue of the freeway, makes the freeway name match its signed direction. I-94, while still an east-west route, is 'subservient' on a true north-south highway.

That leaves one confusing aspect: The exit numbers. They're I-94's. Now, swapping these to I-41's, which should happen, as the implied hierarchy says I-41 is the more important route, isn't necessarily something that makes sense, for three reasons:
1. Cost to renumber.
2. Dependency the old exit numbers.
3. Related, confusion with a changeover to I-/US 41 exit numbers.
These three reasons perhaps aren't the best justifications to keep them, given that a few states have switched from sequential exits to mileage based exits, but for the moment, I'll ignore that. A switch over, however, would result in a sequence flip at the WI/IL border that would be amusing -- counting down from Milwaukee to 1 and counting up again from 1 going south once in Illinois. And no matter what, exit 1 in Illinois will remain exit 1 because it's the only mile I-41 is present on there, and it just happens to line up with I-94's, even though they're running in opposing directions. (The A and B sequence could flip, but that's inconsequential).

So currently, with I-41, we have a north-south freeway, signed north-south, named North-South, with east-west exit numbers and mileposts.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: english si on January 12, 2017, 10:20:45 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 11, 2017, 08:30:42 PMOne thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di.
Not at all. There's no reason why it should not be, other than lack of decent number (hence its crappy number). It crosses a state line and its longer than I-476 - that's both the key objections given to I-41 here.
QuoteAn argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Looks free-flowing to me! (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1551024,-77.0946065,16.04z?hl=en). ;)
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: DJStephens on January 12, 2017, 11:47:30 AM
Believe US - 220/I-99 has been connected to I-80 by use and double barreling of the pre-existing PA 26? super two stub that extended southward from I-80 towards State College.   The I-99 number was derived from the late Bud Shuster's whimsical nostalgia for a trolley street car line in the Altoona of his youth.   
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: hbelkins on January 12, 2017, 02:19:29 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 11, 2017, 08:30:42 PM

One thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di. An argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.

Nope. It was originally conceived to run between Cumberland, Md., and Corning, NY. Pennsylvania has decided not to build the route south of the turnpike; those APD funds were diverted to another project. And while I doubt that PTC will ever build a direct connection from the turnpike to I-99, the I-80 interchange will eventually be built.

I think I-99 should replace I-390, if not all the way into downtown Rochester, then at least to the thruway.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 12, 2017, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: english si on January 12, 2017, 10:20:45 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 11, 2017, 08:30:42 PMOne thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di.
Not at all. There's no reason why it should not be, other than lack of decent number (hence its crappy number). It crosses a state line and its longer than I-476 - that's both the key objections given to I-41 here.
QuoteAn argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Looks free-flowing to me! (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1551024,-77.0946065,16.04z?hl=en). ;)

As of right now it doesn't cross a state line, right? It only exists on two sides of a state line?

Does the wink signify that you understand I meant I-80 as its north end? :confused:
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Bickendan on January 13, 2017, 03:37:49 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 12, 2017, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: english si on January 12, 2017, 10:20:45 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 11, 2017, 08:30:42 PMOne thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di.
Not at all. There's no reason why it should not be, other than lack of decent number (hence its crappy number). It crosses a state line and its longer than I-476 - that's both the key objections given to I-41 here.
QuoteAn argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Looks free-flowing to me! (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1551024,-77.0946065,16.04z?hl=en). ;)

As of right now it doesn't cross a state line, right? It only exists on two sides of a state line?

Does the wink signify that you understand I meant I-80 as its north end? :confused:
So by this logic I-69 shouldn't be part of the Interstate system, taking this line of thought to the extreme absurdity.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: english si on January 13, 2017, 06:07:12 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 12, 2017, 04:39:02 PMAs of right now it doesn't cross a state line, right? It only exists on two sides of a state line?
True, but it's not being finished shouldn't stop it being an interstate.
QuoteDoes the wink signify that you understand I meant I-80 as its north end? :confused:
The whole "stay as US220" bit did suggest that, yes, given that half of it is along US15. But I actually added it as, without it, my post didn't convey my light-hearted tone in writing it and seemed more like a "you are wrong" than a "err, that's a bit of an uninformed kneejerk".
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: hobsini2 on January 13, 2017, 11:47:01 PM
Quote from: english si on January 10, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: billtm on January 10, 2017, 01:25:42 PMI-97 definitely should not be an interstate.
I can understand 3di rather than 2di, but it links a state capital to the state's largest city (and one of the biggest urban areas in the country).
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 01:43:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 10, 2017, 01:19:03 PM
I-4, fine as is, doesn't come back and hit the same interstate like I-41 does with I-43.
Why does that matter?  They service two completely different groups of cities along their routes.
That doesn't matter. I-94 shouldn't be an interstate west of Chicago as I-90 takes you to Madison and Montana.  :)
So in other words, fuck the link between Madison and Milwaukee and the very long link between Tomah and Billings via one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country in Minneapolis/St Paul, the largest city in North Dakota and the capital of North Dakota?
You're high.

And if you give me the argument of "needing to fit the grid", that is arcane and silly since there are tons of highways, not just interstates, that violate the precious grid.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: hobsini2 on January 13, 2017, 11:56:54 PM
Quote from: english si on January 12, 2017, 10:20:45 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 11, 2017, 08:30:42 PMOne thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di.
Not at all. There's no reason why it should not be, other than lack of decent number (hence its crappy number). It crosses a state line and its longer than I-476 - that's both the key objections given to I-41 here.
QuoteAn argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Looks free-flowing to me! (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1551024,-77.0946065,16.04z?hl=en). ;)
Pretty sure he was talking about the "interchange" with the Pennsylvania Tpk and I-70/76
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Altoona,+PA/@40.0512665,-78.5202108,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89cb91588ee54d01:0xaeb8592c07c6767d!8m2!3d40.5186809!4d-78.3947359
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: english si on January 14, 2017, 08:06:02 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on January 13, 2017, 11:47:01 PM
Quote from: english si on January 10, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 10, 2017, 01:43:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 10, 2017, 01:19:03 PM
I-4, fine as is, doesn't come back and hit the same interstate like I-41 does with I-43.
Why does that matter?  They service two completely different groups of cities along their routes.
That doesn't matter. I-94 shouldn't be an interstate west of Chicago as I-90 takes you to Madison and Montana.  :)
So in other words, fuck the link between Madison and Milwaukee and the very long link between Tomah and Billings via one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country in Minneapolis/St Paul, the largest city in North Dakota and the capital of North Dakota?
No - in other words, the "having two interstates connecting the same two points is just confusing, IMO. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19483.msg2198052#msg2198052)" anti-I-41 argument is a really stupid one. It was surely clear that I wasn't being serious - both from the outlandishness of my post, and the fact I put a :) at the end?

In other words, fuck fucking the link between Milwaukee and Appleton, etc and Green Bay just because I-43 is already running between Milwaukee and Green Bay

QuoteYou're high.
I would say you are high to think this was anything other than a joke aimed at the poorly-reasoned attacks on I-41 in this thread, means that my reducto ad absurdum falls foul of Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law), despite my using an emoticon that is meant to signify a lack of seriousness.

Oh, and ad hominem just shows that you are unable to engage with actual arguments.
QuoteAnd if you give me the argument of "needing to fit the grid", that is arcane and silly since there are tons of highways, not just interstates, that violate the precious grid.
And no one has said that I-41 needs to fit the grid. They have said it does, as a bonus argument for the number, having made another argument for it.

So straw man fallacy now.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: hobsini2 on January 13, 2017, 11:56:54 PMPretty sure he was talking about the "interchange" with the Pennsylvania Tpk and I-70/76
If he was, why didn't he mention that in his response to my post? You are now steel manning (putting words in the mouth of someone to make their argument better) people who share your dislike of I-41.

Come back when you have arguments that are not fallacious.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: hobsini2 on January 14, 2017, 08:54:41 AM
English, if that was subtle satire, it translates poorly in writing. I apologize. But where did I say anything about not liking I-41? I support it.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2017, 01:26:28 PM
Interstate 594? Interstate 643? An extension of Interstate 894? What 3-digit Interstate designation should it have had? The corridor is a bit long for a 3 digit Interstate designation, and yes I know Interstate 495 (Massachusetts) is almost 121 miles long, and Interstate 476 is about 132 miles long. The Interstate 41 designation seemed to be the most logical designation since it is east of 39 and west of 43. Yes, the numbering sequence of the Interstate Highway System isn't perfect, but neither is the US Highway System.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 14, 2017, 07:14:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2017, 01:26:28 PM
Interstate 594? Interstate 643? An extension of Interstate 894? What 3-digit Interstate designation should it have had? The corridor is a bit long for a 3 digit Interstate designation, and yes I know Interstate 495 (Massachusetts) is almost 121 miles long, and Interstate 476 is about 132 miles long. The Interstate 41 designation seemed to be the most logical designation since it is east of 39 and west of 43. Yes, the numbering sequence of the Interstate Highway System isn't perfect, but neither is the US Highway System.

Personally, I think that Interstate 643 would be a good number, as it is a parallel route to I-43. Regarding the US Highway System, I think that's a mess where its too late to solve the innumerable numbering/grid issues, but for the Interstate system there are just a few bad apples which have cropped up just recently, and if someone with enough power cares enough (which they won't :-D) to fix those problems, then the Interstate system can remain a relatively logical grid. What would be super nice though is if Congress would stop designating Interstates. :pan:
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
I-643 makes no sense.  It would have more traffic and serve larger population centers than it's "parent" would have.

And don't worry about "grid issues."  They aren't really issues.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: billtm on January 15, 2017, 11:03:01 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
I-643 makes no sense.  It would have more traffic and serve larger population centers than it's "parent" would have.

But its parent route would be the more direct route between the two major population centers along both routes.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 16, 2017, 08:55:04 AM
Quote from: billtm on January 15, 2017, 11:03:01 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
I-643 makes no sense.  It would have more traffic and serve larger population centers than it's "parent" would have.

But its parent route would be the more direct route between the two major population centers along both routes.


I'm not sure why that matters.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 08:21:32 AM


Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
I-643 makes no sense.

Sure it does (i.e., your statement implies that there are definite rules behind the numbering of 3dis when there are not).
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2017, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 08:21:32 AM


Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
I-643 makes no sense.

Sure it does (i.e., your statement implies that there are definite rules behind the numbering of 3dis when there are not).


Well that's true.  That's why I think a 2di, and the I-41 numbering, is completely appropriate.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 10:31:29 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2017, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 08:21:32 AM


Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
I-643 makes no sense.

Sure it does (i.e., your statement implies that there are definite rules behind the numbering of 3dis when there are not).


Well that's true.  That's why I think a 2di, and the I-41 numbering, is completely appropriate.
So, because the rules regarding 3dis are more like guidelines, make what is essentially a long spur a 2di?
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2017, 10:43:58 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 10:31:29 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 17, 2017, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 08:21:32 AM


Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
I-643 makes no sense.

Sure it does (i.e., your statement implies that there are definite rules behind the numbering of 3dis when there are not).


Well that's true.  That's why I think a 2di, and the I-41 numbering, is completely appropriate.
So, because the rules regarding 3dis are more like guidelines, make what is essentially a long spur a 2di?


Yep.  I'm not going to be a slave to the numbering guidelines or a grid.  I-41 has always made sense to me because the highway has always been 41.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: dvferyance on January 17, 2017, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Brandon on January 17, 2017, 05:37:05 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 17, 2017, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.

It's the same length as I-476.  That said, it's PennDOT and I-476.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 18, 2017, 08:11:38 AM


Quote from: dvferyance on January 17, 2017, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.

Pfft.  It is not too long.  Look at it:  It is a spur, plain and simple.

Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 18, 2017, 10:41:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2017, 08:11:38 AM


Quote from: dvferyance on January 17, 2017, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.

Pfft.  It is not too long.  Look at it:  It is a spur, plain and simple.




Nah.  When I look at it, I don't see a spur at all. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I-41 really makes the most sense fits into the gird perfectly. I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both. I thought that was the original plan but I guess they changed their minds at the last minute.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Buck87 on January 18, 2017, 01:10:55 PM
I don't have any problem with I-41, as has been stated it fits the grid where it is and the freeway gets to keep the same number it's always been called.

Besides, where else was 41 going to be used in the grid? Doesn't seem to be all that much demand for another north-south 2di between 55 and 49/35...and if there ever is, 47 is still available for use
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: kphoger on January 18, 2017, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

+1
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: GeekJedi on January 18, 2017, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I-41 really makes the most sense fits into the gird perfectly. I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both. I thought that was the original plan but I guess they changed their minds at the last minute.

I agree that would make the most sense. I still think that will eventually happen. Most of the more "permanent" signs are I-41 only. I can see them phasing out the dual reassurance markers.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:17:22 PM
The Interstate 41 designation is set in stone. I'm sure we all can think of other Interstates that are much greater violations to the Interstate System (and AASHTO) than Interstate 41.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: GeekJedi on January 18, 2017, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.

Not according to the officials of the cities along that route.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 18, 2017, 05:54:59 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.


Why?
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Bickendan on January 19, 2017, 02:49:40 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.
Think of this one more as US 41 upgrading to an Interstate for the length of I-41 than being hidden ala US 52 in Minnesota.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: kphoger on January 19, 2017, 11:01:56 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 18, 2017, 05:54:59 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.

Why?

In general, I too dislike hidden concurrencies, and the reason is that sometimes I'm following the lesser route long-distance.  As an example, imagine I'm driving with my family from Springfield or Branson (Missouri) up through Kansas City to Saint Joseph.  Pertinent map portion here. (https://goo.gl/maps/ojy139wrUi32)  We stop for gas and lunch in Harrisonville (a common place to stop along this particular route), and my wife takes over the driving.  I should be able to tell her "Just follow signs for US-71" and take a nap for a while.  But, if US-71 is hidden along the Interstate portions, then I can't do that.  I'd have to say "Follow signs for I-49, then US-71, then I-29."  How is that better?

And this isn't purely hypothetical.  My wife is from Branson.  For our honeymoon, we drove from Branson to a motel near the KC airport using these exact highways.  I drove the whole way, we didn't stop in Harrisonville, and I-49 wasn't designated yet at that time, though, but the point remains.  And just a couple of months ago, we drove in separate vehicles from the Plaza area of KC down to Branson (we had just bought a car in KC and were returning the one we'd borrowed from her sister in Branson).  My wife dislikes driving in unfamiliar cities and was literally driving the new car for the first time but, when we got on at Swope Pkwy, I was able to tell her on the phone to just follow signs for US-71 and then she was fine.  Hiding US-71 along the I-49 portion would have added a step and added to her stress.

But an exception could be made for like-numbered highways as, to me, it seems ridiculous to have both shields side-by-side for such a long stretch.  But, the more I think about it, the less I'm bothered by the 41/41 signed concurrency.  I'm coming around.  Honestly, I could go either way at this point.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.
Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 19, 2017, 02:15:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.
Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?


Agreed.  I think they could have easily just eliminated US-41 from the IL border up to Green Bay and while some may have been confused early on, in the long run everyone would have been fine. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: hotdogPi on January 19, 2017, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 19, 2017, 02:15:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.
Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?


Agreed.  I think they could have easily just eliminated US-41 from the IL border up to Green Bay and while some may have been confused early on, in the long run everyone would have been fine.

Then US 41 would have a gap.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Brandon on January 19, 2017, 04:34:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 18, 2017, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.

Not according to the officials of the cities along that route.

It's all "Highway 41" to the Cheeseheads anyway.  Appleton, from Chicago (using Cheeseheadese): Take Highway 94 to Highway 41 north.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: GeekJedi on January 19, 2017, 05:21:59 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 19, 2017, 04:34:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 18, 2017, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.

Not according to the officials of the cities along that route.

It's all "Highway 41" to the Cheeseheads anyway.  Appleton, from Chicago (using Cheeseheadese): Take Highway 94 to Highway 41 north.

Exactly. In Wisconsin vernacular, everything is a "Highway". However, there seems to be the feeling with civic leaders across the country that there is some prestige tied to an Interstate route passing by their community. Whether or not that's valid is probably worthy of a different discussion. However, enough people thought that it made enough sense to make it all happen. That's good enough for me.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 19, 2017, 05:42:28 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 19, 2017, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 19, 2017, 02:15:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.
Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?


Agreed.  I think they could have easily just eliminated US-41 from the IL border up to Green Bay and while some may have been confused early on, in the long run everyone would have been fine.

Then US 41 would have a gap.


Yep.  Doesn't bother me.  Its the same number.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SSOWorld on January 19, 2017, 09:05:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 19, 2017, 04:34:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 18, 2017, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.

Not according to the officials of the cities along that route.

It's all "Hwy 41" to the Cheeseheads anyway.  Appleton, from Chicago (using Cheeseheadese): Take Hwy 94 to Hwy 41 north.
FIFY  :sombrero:
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: dvferyance on January 21, 2017, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 19, 2017, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 19, 2017, 02:15:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 18, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 18, 2017, 11:35:34 AM
I just wish though US 41 would bee hidden along the route it's not really necessary to sign them both

In that case, they should have never commissioned I-41 in the first place.  It was a waste of time and money to change over all the signs and it doesn't do anything for the cities along the route.  It's not going to draw extra traffic, either, in this era of GPS driving.

I still hate the idea of US routes being hidden under Interstates.  No route should have long, unsigned segments.
Not unusual MNDOT doesn't sign US 12's duplex with I-94. Colorado has many US duplexes with interstates they don't sign. Because there are lots of them it would be way too much signage. Waht really makes no sense to my is why wisDOT still put up signs that say for US 41 follow I-41 when US 41 is still signed. It makes perfect sense it cuts down a cost for so many signs that aren't vitally needed. I would think a majority would agree with that. In this case you have 2 routes with the same number anyways so what confusion could that possibly cause?


Agreed.  I think they could have easily just eliminated US-41 from the IL border up to Green Bay and while some may have been confused early on, in the long run everyone would have been fine.

Then US 41 would have a gap.
So does US 12 in Minnesota as does some Us routes in Colorado no big deal.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 22, 2017, 01:30:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 18, 2017, 10:41:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2017, 08:11:38 AM


Quote from: dvferyance on January 17, 2017, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.

Pfft.  It is not too long.  Look at it:  It is a spur, plain and simple.




Nah.  When I look at it, I don't see a spur at all. 

Sure it is.

I will carry this argument based upon subjective nonsense to its end!
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: peterj920 on January 22, 2017, 03:26:56 AM
I don't understand all the controversy.  I-41 was already interstate compatible so signs were the only thing that needed to be added.  It carries more traffic than a lot of other interstates with many stretches that have 6 or more lanes.  I-41 falls between I-39 and I-43 fits the grid and AASHTO chose it.  They could have chose I-47, I-594, and I-643 so there were other options. 

As for US 41, there's no problem with it being concurrent with I-41.  Signs only appear on reassurance signs.  US 52 carries a very long concurrency with I-94 from St Paul, MN to Jamestown, ND and I don't hear anyone saying that US 52 needs to be truncated and have US 52 turn into a state highway in North Dakota.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: GeekJedi on January 22, 2017, 12:03:37 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 22, 2017, 03:26:56 AM
I don't understand all the controversy.  I-41 was already interstate compatible so signs were the only thing that needed to be added.  It carries more traffic than a lot of other interstates with many stretches that have 6 or more lanes.  I-41 falls between I-39 and I-43 fits the grid and AASHTO chose it.  They could have chose I-47, I-594, and I-643 so there were other options. 

As for US 41, there's no problem with it being concurrent with I-41.  Signs only appear on reassurance signs.  US 52 carries a very long concurrency with I-94 from St Paul, MN to Jamestown, ND and I don't hear anyone saying that US 52 needs to be truncated and have US 52 turn into a state highway in North Dakota.

Stop making sense. ;-)
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 23, 2017, 09:02:17 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on January 22, 2017, 03:26:56 AM
I don't understand all the controversy.  I-41 was already interstate compatible so signs were the only thing that needed to be added.  It carries more traffic than a lot of other interstates with many stretches that have 6 or more lanes.  I-41 falls between I-39 and I-43 fits the grid and AASHTO chose it.  They could have chose I-47, I-594, and I-643 so there were other options. 

The 3di options were better.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Bickendan on January 25, 2017, 04:37:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43. 
Same logic could almost be applied to I-17 or I-19, and I-19's shorter than I-41's 'standalone' section.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: sparker on January 25, 2017, 05:42:51 PM
At the risk of injecting my view into what appears to be an ongoing argument among various posters, I certainly don't see any point in substituting a relatively long 3di for a relatively short 2di except to satisfy the preference of that poster for "rules" that don't exist in statute nor in practice.  The Interstate system doesn't have the "just about anything goes" nature of the US network, where US 281 was always longer than its parent (a situation likely not anticipated back in the 1920's, when the system was being instituted).  If an Interstate route serves as a connector to or from a major traffic generator (and major ports of entry serve as such -- e.g. the I-19 rationale); or a connector between individual metro areas, then a trunk number, if one is available, would be appropriate.  It's not as if FHWA/AASHTO is playing "fantasy football" with the numbers, reserving them for corridors that may be built at a time TBD (increasingly unlikely); they're applying them as needed (see I-42).  Of course, there are exceptions like I-476, designated because nothing else was available in the area -- but by and large, the Interstate grid is holding up significantly better than the U.S. highway grid.

There are short U.S. 2dus routes (8, 46, 57, 73), but the grousing level seems to be much less regarding these than corresponding Interstates (OK, even I'll admit I-97's a bit pathetic!).  I-41 was probably the best of a bad lot of choices for the corridor on which it exists (blame '60's & '70's regional designation miscues for the dilemma), regardless of whether US 41 is "sunk" into the mix or not.  It's there, it's signed, it essentially does its job of giving a WI metro "swath" trunk Interstate access, and it's not going to go away -- a done deal.  Personally, I think they should have extended the I-designation up to the 41/141 split at Abrams, but that's certainly not my call (the HPC 57 inclusion in 2005's SAFETEA-LU ended the corridor at Green Bay, which likely carried the day regarding how far signage extended). 

"Interstate" functions as a trademark, not a requirement.  Always has, always will.       

 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 25, 2017, 09:23:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43. 


Yeah you keep saying this.  AASHTO disagrees.  You lose.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 25, 2017, 04:37:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43. 
Same logic could almost be applied to I-17 or I-19, and I-19's shorter than I-41's 'standalone' section.

Sure, why not.  Also, I-12.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 09:43:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 25, 2017, 09:23:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43. 


Yeah you keep saying this.  AASHTO disagrees.  You lose.

Never give up, never surrender!
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: slorydn1 on January 26, 2017, 02:11:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 25, 2017, 05:42:51 PM
At the risk of injecting my view into what appears to be an ongoing argument among various posters, I certainly don't see any point in substituting a relatively long 3di for a relatively short 2di except to satisfy the preference of that poster for "rules" that don't exist in statute nor in practice.  The Interstate system doesn't have the "just about anything goes" nature of the US network, where US 281 was always longer than its parent (a situation likely not anticipated back in the 1920's, when the system was being instituted).  If an Interstate route serves as a connector to or from a major traffic generator (and major ports of entry serve as such -- e.g. the I-19 rationale); or a connector between individual metro areas, then a trunk number, if one is available, would be appropriate.  It's not as if FHWA/AASHTO is playing "fantasy football" with the numbers, reserving them for corridors that may be built at a time TBD (increasingly unlikely); they're applying them as needed (see I-42).  Of course, there are exceptions like I-476, designated because nothing else was available in the area -- but by and large, the Interstate grid is holding up significantly better than the U.S. highway grid.

There are short U.S. 2dus routes (8, 46, 57, 73), but the grousing level seems to be much less regarding these than corresponding Interstates (OK, even I'll admit I-97's a bit pathetic!).  I-41 was probably the best of a bad lot of choices for the corridor on which it exists (blame '60's & '70's regional designation miscues for the dilemma), regardless of whether US 41 is "sunk" into the mix or not.  It's there, it's signed, it essentially does its job of giving a WI metro "swath" trunk Interstate access, and it's not going to go away -- a done deal.  Personally, I think they should have extended the I-designation up to the 41/141 split at Abrams, but that's certainly not my call (the HPC 57 inclusion in 2005's SAFETEA-LU ended the corridor at Green Bay, which likely carried the day regarding how far signage extended). 

"Interstate" functions as a trademark, not a requirement.  Always has, always will.       

 

This sums up my feelings on this pretty much word for word.


I mean, yeah, I once stumped for I-42 to be an odd I-x40 (340 came to mind) but that was because compared to I-41, I-42 (when completed) functions more like a spur off of I-40 than a standalone trunkline interstate.  That said, I didn't lose any sleep over the I-42 designation, and I-41 definitely has more of a standalone trunkline feel to it than I-42 will have here.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 26, 2017, 02:19:12 PM
Like I said before, there are plenty of Interstate designations that are likely bigger violations of AASHTO than Interstate 41. My examples: Interstate 99, Interstate 238, Interstates 73/74 in NC, Interstate 180 (WY), Interstates 69E, 69C, 69W.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: hbelkins on January 26, 2017, 09:52:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 25, 2017, 04:37:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43. 
Same logic could almost be applied to I-17 or I-19, and I-19's shorter than I-41's 'standalone' section.

Sure, why not.  Also, I-12.

12 should be 10 and that portion of 10 that 12 bypasses should be an x10.

An intrastate Interstate that connects to the same route at both ends should be a 3di.  But hey, maybe Pittsburgh should ask AASHTO and FHWA to redesignate I-376 and the eastern I-82 (and yes, I know that it connects to I-80 at its western terminus.) But I-41 being a 2di is just as logical as redesignating I-376 as a 2di would be.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: texaskdog on January 26, 2017, 11:19:35 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2017, 09:52:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 25, 2017, 04:37:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43. 
Same logic could almost be applied to I-17 or I-19, and I-19's shorter than I-41's 'standalone' section.

Sure, why not.  Also, I-12.

12 should be 10 and that portion of 10 that 12 bypasses should be an x10.

An intrastate Interstate that connects to the same route at both ends should be a 3di.  But hey, maybe Pittsburgh should ask AASHTO and FHWA to redesignate I-376 and the eastern I-82 (and yes, I know that it connects to I-80 at its western terminus.) But I-41 being a 2di is just as logical as redesignating I-376 as a 2di would be.

Exactly.  I also think routes like 10 should take the most logical route around a town instead of through it, like I-94 should follow the 694 routing through NE suburbs of Saint Paul.  Get more of the traffic OUT of the city.  If you want to go into the city then you have for example I-194
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 27, 2017, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2017, 09:52:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 25, 2017, 04:37:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 24, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
How so?
It is an intrastate spur that can easily be seen as a 3di off of I-43. 
Same logic could almost be applied to I-17 or I-19, and I-19's shorter than I-41's 'standalone' section.

Sure, why not.  Also, I-12.

12 should be 10 and that portion of 10 that 12 bypasses should be an x10.

An intrastate Interstate that connects to the same route at both ends should be a 3di.  But hey, maybe Pittsburgh should ask AASHTO and FHWA to redesignate I-376 and the eastern I-82 (and yes, I know that it connects to I-80 at its western terminus.) But I-41 being a 2di is just as logical as redesignating I-376 as a 2di would be.


That would be fine by me.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2017, 05:16:18 PM
I doubt Interstate 376 will be renumbered to a 2-digit Interstate, although I do find the proposition logical. 84.7 miles is quite lengthily for a 3 digit Interstate. As for Interstate 41, I think that was the correct number for the corridor.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: GaryV on January 27, 2017, 05:47:41 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2017, 05:16:18 PMAs for Interstate 41, I think that was the correct number for the corridor.
Correct number, just wrong (unneeded) shield.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: sparker on January 29, 2017, 03:19:14 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2017, 09:52:26 PM
12 should be 10 and that portion of 10 that 12 bypasses should be an x10.

Given the penchant for suffixed numbers during the first 1957-58 numbering iteration of the Interstate system, I'm surprised the 10/12 regional network in that part of LA wasn't originally dubbed "10S" and "10N".   
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 29, 2017, 08:50:20 AM
Pfft.  Leave I-376 alone.  It is a spur into a city from its parent route.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 29, 2017, 10:19:04 AM
And, leave I-10 and I-12 alone, too. They both serve their purposes. I-10 connects New Orleans to the most significant W-E Interstate highway; and I-12 serves as its bypass.

Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Rothman on January 29, 2017, 11:56:48 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 29, 2017, 10:19:04 AM
And, leave I-10 and I-12 alone, too. They both serve their purposes. I-10 connects New Orleans to the most significant W-E Interstate highway; and I-12 serves as its bypass.
Nah.  Change I-12 to I-810. :D
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: sparker on January 29, 2017, 08:55:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2017, 11:56:48 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 29, 2017, 10:19:04 AM
And, leave I-10 and I-12 alone, too. They both serve their purposes. I-10 connects New Orleans to the most significant W-E Interstate highway; and I-12 serves as its bypass.
Nah.  Change I-12 to I-810. :D

Yeah...spend a boatload of $$ re-signing a route that's been in existence for about 50 years and is ingrained in both local lore and the minds of every trucker traveling in that neck of the woods!  All joking aside, it's perfectly fine as is; if anyone wants to do another I-12 in TX or elsewhere (just peruse the I-14 thread!), they can knock themselves out! :colorful:
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: LoveFishChicken7577 on April 11, 2017, 09:51:34 PM
I think an exception can be made due to the fact that I-41 is really just a long freeway section of US-41. The regulation in reference here is meant to avoid confusion between US routes and Interstate routes. Given the fact that it is just a differently designated section of US-41, this confusion is nonexistent. If they weren't related in this way, it's likely that AASHTO wouldn't have been okay with keeping both routes concurrent and would've gone with a different number.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Darkchylde on April 11, 2017, 11:18:31 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 29, 2017, 03:19:14 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2017, 09:52:26 PM
12 should be 10 and that portion of 10 that 12 bypasses should be an x10.

Given the penchant for suffixed numbers during the first 1957-58 numbering iteration of the Interstate system, I'm surprised the 10/12 regional network in that part of LA wasn't originally dubbed "10S" and "10N".   
Considering how the Northshore's exploded in population since the Interstates were built, I'd argue they're of equal enough importance to be designated such now... but that's a topic for Fictional or Southeast, probably.

As to I-41, I don't like it. I really wish it would have been designated as an I-55 extension or as a 3di. But I don't see what other corridor likely to become an Interstate in the near future could have used that number instead.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: jwolfer on April 12, 2017, 12:38:57 AM
Quote from: Darkchylde on April 11, 2017, 11:18:31 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 29, 2017, 03:19:14 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2017, 09:52:26 PM
12 should be 10 and that portion of 10 that 12 bypasses should be an x10.

Given the penchant for suffixed numbers during the first 1957-58 numbering iteration of the Interstate system, I'm surprised the 10/12 regional network in that part of LA wasn't originally dubbed "10S" and "10N".   
Considering how the Northshore's exploded in population since the Interstates were built, I'd argue they're of equal enough importance to be designated such now... but that's a topic for Fictional or Southeast, probably.

As to I-41, I don't like it. I really wish it would have been designated as an I-55 extension or as a 3di. But I don't see what other corridor likely to become an Interstate in the near future could have used that number instead.
If i recall 12 was originally planned to be longer... Probably just kept original planning numbers...

10/12 is like 55/57. The x0 or x5 number went to the "big city". New Orleans and St Louis... Both cities were much more prominent in 1950 (no offense to civic boosters, my home city Jacksonville has been eclipsed by the upstart Orlando since 1970)

New Orleans has been eclipsed by Houston, Dallas and Atlanta as the most important Southern cities. 100 years ago the ONLY big city in the South was NO

St Louis has just lost a lot of prestige to sunbelt cities like Phoenix

LGMS428
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: sparker on April 12, 2017, 12:56:01 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on April 12, 2017, 12:38:57 AM
If i recall 12 was originally planned to be longer... Probably just kept original planning numbers...

LGMS428


IIRC, the original I-12 alignment veered ENE from its present routing somewhere near Covington, LA, and terminated at I-59 north of Picayune, MS.  This always surprised me, as it effectively prevented I-12 from being an efficient bypass of NO vis-a-vis I-10; perhaps at the time it was thought that there would be more commercial Texas-bound/originating traffic from & to I-59 than from eastward I-10, and this would save that traffic a few miles.  Obviously, by the time the original system was finalized circa '58, a change of mind had occurred. 
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2017, 04:13:52 PM
I still think the Interstate 41 designation is the right one for the corridor. That's the number that was chosen, and that's the number it will remain.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Flint1979 on August 09, 2017, 11:02:51 AM
I think this is the part of the country where the US highways and Interstate highways have issues where they use the same number which wasn't suppose to be allowed. This is why there is no I-50 or I-60 because those highways would travel through the same states as US 50 and US 60 do. I am not sure why they are allowing this to happen now though.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: Milwaukee, WY on August 09, 2017, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2017, 04:13:52 PM
I still think the Interstate 41 designation is the right one for the corridor. That's the number that was chosen, and that's the number it will remain.

I still would have personally preferred 55 or even 45. But it's all a moot point now anyways.
Title: Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 09, 2017, 11:51:50 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 09, 2017, 11:02:51 AM
I think this is the part of the country where the US highways and Interstate highways have issues where they use the same number which wasn't suppose to be allowed. This is why there is no I-50 or I-60 because those highways would travel through the same states as US 50 and US 60 do. I am not sure why they are allowing this to happen now though.


It's been in place for awhile now and I doubt it has caused a single bit of confusion - mostly since US-41 and I-41 are the same highway.