US-41 Interstate Conversion

[StogieGuy7]

Honestly, why should Illinois have to spend the money to install new signage for something that would not benefit them in any way, when Wisconsin will gain the same benefit no matter what interstate route number is posted on the new road?

That's why I think this "it has to be a two-digit number" argument is totally foolish. An interstate is an interstate, if it's I-xx or I-xxx.

Don't worry about IL, such an expenditure is a mere drop in the bucket when compared with the millions (billions) that Chicago pols piss away every single year. 

[mgk920]

Another version of the story:
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/green_bay/interstate-name-for-highway-41-coming-soon

DOT told Fox 11 that it submitted just 41. If that's rejected then, then I47, I643 and I594 would be part of talks - but right now they submitted only I-41.

IMHO, this puts the ball in AASHTO's court and if they don't like it, they could also very well pick a logical extension of an existing 2di and say "Tough!" to IDOT.



Mike

[Revive 755]

I'm curious why Illinois blocked the I-55 or I-57 initial wish from Wisconsin.  Money?  Hassle of signage and re-routing? 

Check in this thread around https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=350.msg165934#msg165934

[merrycilantro]

Having just read this news, I must ask: Does anybody know how North Carolina got approved to run the I-74/US 74 concurrency? I assume WisDOT did its research and talked with them...but I'm just curious to know the circumstances that led AASHTO to approve it. I know it won't make a difference to people either way, but I'm sort of hoping for this to blow up. Scenario: AASHTO denies I-41 and somehow enforces the I-55 solution (I thought that was a dead topic but read it in the Appleton Post Crescent article), THAT'D be great to see AASHTO knock IDiOT down a peg or three. Or nine. Not sure where each is on the heirarchy of things but still, in my little pea brain I think that would be great.

Nothing says "New and Improved", or "Interstate Branded Road - DRIVE ME!" like a new number. Recycling 41 is just kinda...for lack of better words, lame. But, the main objective of upgrading it to an interstate will have been acheived, so what does it matter really? Right?

[hbelkins]

Having just read this news, I must ask: Does anybody know how North Carolina got approved to run the I-74/US 74 concurrency? I assume WisDOT did its research and talked with them...but I'm just curious to know the circumstances that led AASHTO to approve it. I know it won't make a difference to people either way, but I'm sort of hoping for this to blow up. Scenario: AASHTO denies I-41 and somehow enforces the I-55 solution (I thought that was a dead topic but read it in the Appleton Post Crescent article), THAT'D be great to see AASHTO knock IDiOT down a peg or three. Or nine. Not sure where each is on the heirarchy of things but still, in my little pea brain I think that would be great.

AASHTO can't enforce jack crap. AASHTO can award the I-55 or I-57 number to the upgraded US 41 in Wisconsin, and Illinois is under no obligation whatsoever to erect new signage on existing interstates on its side of the border.

[InterstateNG]

I don't understand the churlish desire to stick it to not one, but two transportation authorities in a different state.  Whatever gets you through the day I guess.

[triplemultiplex]

I love it!  Imagine the lunacy of having a new interstate number that actually fits in the grid where it's supposed to.   You're damn right, I-41!  Y'all can't see, but I just did a little dance to celebrate me getting exactly what I wanted for once in a new interstate.  I've been putting I-41 shields on my play maps since I was like 10 because I liked how it fit the grid and understood the supremacy of interstates over US routes.

It seems likely that WisDOT wouldn't have bothered submitting 41 unless they had some confidence that AASHTO would approve.  They told me at a PIM that they were going to talk with North Carolina about the 74/74 thing.  Objectively, I think WisDOT has a better case for I-41 than North Carolina ever did for I-74.  Because that interstate will never connect to the original, they effectively created a duplicate I-74 way out of the grid and on top of a same-numbered US highway.  I-41 is not a duplicate and it fits the grid easily.  And as I've said before, interstates trump US highways.  No US route should stand in the way of numbering interstates anywhere.

Now I fully expect 3di's in Appleton and Green Bay by the end of the decade.  I-441 in Appleton once the new Bridgeview Interchange is done and an even x43 in Green Bay for WI 172.  643 was a terrible option for the whole corridor, but to close the freeway loop in Green Bay; that would work just fine for me.

As for the signage situation; I like just going 'stealth' with US 41 and not signing it south of Abrams (er, I mean) Green Bay in Wisconsin (ala US 52/I-94 in Minnesota).  But whatever, I'll take the dual signage if that's what happens.
Highway 41/41; the highway so nice, they named it twice!

[mgk920]

Having just read this news, I must ask: Does anybody know how North Carolina got approved to run the I-74/US 74 concurrency? I assume WisDOT did its research and talked with them...but I'm just curious to know the circumstances that led AASHTO to approve it. I know it won't make a difference to people either way, but I'm sort of hoping for this to blow up. Scenario: AASHTO denies I-41 and somehow enforces the I-55 solution (I thought that was a dead topic but read it in the Appleton Post Crescent article), THAT'D be great to see AASHTO knock IDiOT down a peg or three. Or nine. Not sure where each is on the heirarchy of things but still, in my little pea brain I think that would be great.

AASHTO can't enforce jack crap. AASHTO can award the I-55 or I-57 number to the upgraded US 41 in Wisconsin, and Illinois is under no obligation whatsoever to erect new signage on existing interstates on its side of the border.

That's why I kind of do like how WisDOT is throwing the ball into AASHTO's court (see my above post).  If AASHTO doesn't like '41' for it, they can instead lay hands upon US 41 and proclaim it, for example, to be 'I-65', with the 'I-65' number to then follow I-90 and 94 through Chicagoland - with neither IDOT nor the Indiana Toll Road concessioner being under any obligation to change their respective signs.  It would be marked southward to the WI-IL state line and it would then just simply resume in Gary, IN.

EVENTUALLY . . . the gap in signage will be filled in.

Mike

[on_wisconsin]

I don't understand the churlish desire to stick it to not one, but two transportation authorities in a different state.  Whatever gets you through the day I guess.

Wisconsin vs. Illinois is a BIG long standing rivalry in the midwest.

[InterstateNG]

How provincial.

[mukade]

That's why I kind of do like how WisDOT is throwing the ball into AASHTO's court (see my above post).  If AASHTO doesn't like '41' for it, they can instead lay hands upon US 41 and proclaim it, for example, to be 'I-65', with the 'I-65' number to then follow I-90 and 94 through Chicagoland - with neither IDOT nor the Indiana Toll Road concessioner being under any obligation to change their respective signs.  It would be marked southward to the WI-IL state line and it would then just simply resume in Gary, IN.

EVENTUALLY . . . the gap in signage will be filled in.

Mike

Although the following picture means nothing (esp. because it is eastbound only), it is interesting that INDOT added I-65 to the Cline Avenue sign at the Borman. I guess this was done this year.

[Brandon]

I don't understand the churlish desire to stick it to not one, but two transportation authorities in a different state.  Whatever gets you through the day I guess.

Wisconsin vs. Illinois is a BIG long standing rivalry in the midwest.

Cheesehead vs. FIB.

[Revive 755]

Having just read this news, I must ask: Does anybody know how North Carolina got approved to run the I-74/US 74 concurrency? I assume WisDOT did its research and talked with them...but I'm just curious to know the circumstances that led AASHTO to approve it.

It seems I-74/US 74 in North Carolina grew out of federal legislation.  See http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-074.html and http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-074_nc.html

Part of me hopes the I-41 number gets rejected by AAHSTO, as it does start a bad precedent.  For example, should the US 50 corridor get upgraded between I-44 and I-470 in Missouri to interstate standards, should it become I-50?  What is to keep other agencies in the future from not just using identical numbers of US routes that are upgraded?

Although the following picture means nothing (esp. because it is eastbound only), it is interesting that INDOT added I-65 to the Cline Avenue sign at the Borman. I guess this was done this year.

Unless there is secret plotting going on between Indiana and Wisconsin, I'd lean towards that shield being an error since it is not on the next sign and it is on NB IN 912.  It's possible it could have been added for guidance without the "TO" but it seems like overkill.

[mukade]

Unless there is secret plotting going on between Indiana and Wisconsin, I'd lean towards that shield being an error since it is not on the next sign and it is on NB IN 912.  It's possible it could have been added for guidance without the "TO" but it seems like overkill.

I also have a difficult time envisioning an evil highway cabal in Indianapolis and Madison, but what it does show is that the Borman is a logical extension of I-65. More than half the traffic from I-65 NB funnels into the Borman and the AADT of I-65 south of the Borman rivals that of the Borman east of I-65 although truck traffic is significantly heavier on the Borman.

Still, this I-65 shield at Cline Avenue is a weird thing as the southbound sign also has the I-65 shield. It does not just get there. Regular "TO" I-65 signs erected on sign poles would be perfectly understandable at all entrances on the Borman. So why it is there remains a mystery to me.

[NE2]

It's just lazy implied 'to'. Nothing to see here.

[triplemultiplex]

Part of me hopes the I-41 number gets rejected by AAHSTO, as it does start a bad precedent.  For example, should the US 50 corridor get upgraded between I-44 and I-470 in Missouri to interstate standards, should it become I-50?  What is to keep other agencies in the future from not just using identical numbers of US routes that are upgraded?

How many other places would the I/US duplication prevent the violation of the interstate grid?  There are plenty of other numbers available to use in this Missouri example.  On US 41 you've got I-39 to your west and I-43 to your east.  Logically, 41 is the Interstate number to use.  This is a unique situation in Wisconsin that won't be found anywhere else in the country.  So I don't think one should be afraid of this as a precedent that will be repeated everywhere.  There are just these stupid, Congressional-numbered ones like I-74 and I-69 that cause trouble.

But I return to my biggest point that Interstates trump US routes.

[Revive 755]

^ WisDOT seems intent on getting the new interstate number down to the Illinois border along I-94, which would have I-41 going east of I-43.

And if interstates really did trump US routes, there'd probably already be an I-50 or I-60 out there.  Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia could have easily gone with I-60 instead of I-64.

[SSOWorld]

... There are just these stupid, Congressional-numbered ones like I-74 and I-69 that cause trouble.

Least of not all I-99

[SEWIGuy]

Part of me hopes the I-41 number gets rejected by AAHSTO, as it does start a bad precedent.  For example, should the US 50 corridor get upgraded between I-44 and I-470 in Missouri to interstate standards, should it become I-50?  What is to keep other agencies in the future from not just using identical numbers of US routes that are upgraded?

How many other places would the I/US duplication prevent the violation of the interstate grid?  There are plenty of other numbers available to use in this Missouri example.  On US 41 you've got I-39 to your west and I-43 to your east.  Logically, 41 is the Interstate number to use.  This is a unique situation in Wisconsin that won't be found anywhere else in the country.  So I don't think one should be afraid of this as a precedent that will be repeated everywhere.  There are just these stupid, Congressional-numbered ones like I-74 and I-69 that cause trouble.

But I return to my biggest point that Interstates trump US routes.

As you mention, this situation is unique to Wisconsin because not only does it fit the grid perfectly...except south of Milwaukee...but it is the same exact number of the USH.  Since pretty much everyone knows the highway as "Highway 41," all you are doing is replacing black and white signs with red, white and blue ones. 

An unsigned duplex between the Mitchell Interchange, or even better the IL border, and I-43 at Green Bay will confuse no one.  It will get roadgeeks fired up, but since that represents about 1% of the travelling public, they really shouldn't care about that opinion.

[SSOWorld]

There is one problem I have with the alternatives (http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/neregion/41/docs/ex-pim201205all.pdf) why in God's name does WisDOT want to sign I-41 all the way to the IL state line???? 

It should be signed to I-43 at the Hale and that's it!  And while they're at it, just lose I-894 because it will be redundant.

Of course WisDOT loves to sign useless concurrencies - just look at WIS 34 and WIS 13 at Wisconsin Rapids.

[Big John]

There is one problem I have with the alternatives (http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/neregion/41/docs/ex-pim201205all.pdf) why in God's name does WisDOT want to sign I-41 all the way to the IL state line???? 

It should be signed to I-43 at the Hale and that's it!  And while they're at it, just lose I-894 because it will be redundant.

Of course WisDOT loves to sign useless concurrencies - just look at WIS 34 and WIS 13 at Wisconsin Rapids.

One reason I see is to keep the exit numbers the same as they are, so WisDOT and adjoining businesses don't need to change the references.

[SEWIGuy]

There is one problem I have with the alternatives (http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/neregion/41/docs/ex-pim201205all.pdf) why in God's name does WisDOT want to sign I-41 all the way to the IL state line???? 

It should be signed to I-43 at the Hale and that's it!  And while they're at it, just lose I-894 because it will be redundant.

Of course WisDOT loves to sign useless concurrencies - just look at WIS 34 and WIS 13 at Wisconsin Rapids.

You are right about the I-41 to the IL line.  The only reason I think they would do that is because they are going to keep US-41 as a unsigned concurrency. 

[Mdcastle]

Speaking as an out-of-town motorist who drives in the area occasionally, I really wish they'd overlay a north south 2di on top of I-94 from Milwaukee to Chicago, or else break the rules and just sign it north and south. I'm driving in the area knowing I want to go north, and it's not immediately obvious whether I want "east" or "west".

[Jordanah1]

There is one problem I have with the alternatives (http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/neregion/41/docs/ex-pim201205all.pdf) why in God's name does WisDOT want to sign I-41 all the way to the IL state line???? 

It should be signed to I-43 at the Hale and that's it!  And while they're at it, just lose I-894 because it will be redundant.

Of course WisDOT loves to sign useless concurrencies - just look at WIS 34 and WIS 13 at Wisconsin Rapids.

it should be signed not to the hale but to the mitchel interchange, because it needs to be the "from here to green bay via fox cities" route, if you didnt sign it to the mitchel, signage at the mitchel would end up saying "I-43 to I-41" when it could just say "I-41". you have have a situation were signage would say something like this:
"I-43 south to I-41 north, to green bay" and "I-43 north to green bay, I-94 west"
it would be very confusing. unless i read something wrong here.
i would agree with losing I-894 though, and even going as far as routing I-94 from the mitchell interchange to the zoo interchange via the hale interchange, and signing I-43 by itself for the north-south part, and signing I-794 from the zoo interchange all the way through the marquette interchange.

[Brandon]

Speaking as an out-of-town motorist who drives in the area occasionally, I really wish they'd overlay a north south 2di on top of I-94 from Milwaukee to Chicago, or else break the rules and just sign it north and south. I'm driving in the area knowing I want to go north, and it's not immediately obvious whether I want "east" or "west".

ISTHA used to sign the Tri-State there as North-South (but East-West on the I-94 reassurance signs).

This concept of I-41 and US-41 got me thinking about the early proposals for the interstate system.  Why did we need to choose an entirely new system anyway, in an opposite direction from the US-system?  Might it not be better if the two systems were concurrent, and freeway stretches of US-routes were signed with the red-white-blue shield, i.e. US-41 and I-41?