News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 894

Started by Chrysler375Freeway, October 21, 2021, 03:41:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SEWIGuy

Quote from: thspfc on October 22, 2021, 08:40:43 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 22, 2021, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 22, 2021, 11:39:41 AM
Oh here we go again. This has been discussed like 85 times before. And I will say it again why not truncate I-41 to the zoo? The duplex down to the Illinois state line is unnecessary and everyone calls that part I-94. South of the zoo it can be signed as US-41.

^^^

This 100000x

This wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the duplex of I-41 down to the state line. I don't even really get the point of why they did that.
Presumably because US-41 continues along I-94 to the border, and WISDOT wants to supersede all of US-41 south of Green Bay with I-41.

Yep.  This exactly.  They simply substituted the US-41 shields with I-41.  And this bothers no one but pendantic roadgeeks.


US 12 fan

It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.

SkyPesos

Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.
How would a different route number saved the number of signs? I-41 could use less signs if they chose to.

US 12 fan

(How would a different route number saved the number of signs? I-41 could use less signs if they chose to.)

I'm talking about before they made the decision. The other routes were shorter and it stands to reason there would have been a need for fewer signs because they wouldn't have needed to update the signs in Racine and Kenosha County. 

thspfc

#29
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 04:33:16 PM
(How would a different route number saved the number of signs? I-41 could use less signs if they chose to.)

I'm talking about before they made the decision. The other routes were shorter and it stands to reason there would have been a need for fewer signs because they wouldn't have needed to update the signs in Racine and Kenosha County.
They didn't NEED to update the signs south of the Zoo Interchange. If it were me, I would not have posted all-new I-41 shields along that stretch. To be honest, if I had the opportunity to redo everything from scratch, I would truncate US-41 to Rosecrans, IL. US-141 would take over US-41 between 141's current northern terminus and 41's current northern terminus at Copper Harbor.  WI-22 would take over between Oconto and Marinette. M-28 would be alone between Marquette and where it currently splits off US-41. The 11 miles between US-141 at Abrams and WI-22 at Oconto would become a 3 digit Wisconsin route. The rest (between Menominee and M-28 at Harvey) would become a new MI state route.

Of course, that is all hypothetical, and there is no point in doing any of that now.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.

Lol. How much did it really cost in extra signage?  A relative drop in the bucket.

Big John

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 23, 2021, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.

Lol. How much did it really cost in extra signage?  A relative drop in the bucket.
Hardly.  The  cost was between $5M to $7M.  https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/us41interstate/faqs.aspx

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Big John on October 23, 2021, 09:04:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 23, 2021, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.

Lol. How much did it really cost in extra signage?  A relative drop in the bucket.
Hardly.  The  cost was between $5M to $7M.  https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/us41interstate/faqs.aspx

The vast majority of which would have been incurred regardless of the number chosen.

SEWIGuy

Let's look at this logically.

Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange.  Now what would you have done with US-41?  Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee?  Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?)  Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.

This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense.  You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion.  You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing.  And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.

Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless.  This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.

thspfc

I agree that the I-41 number is most logical, however, if I had to pick a different number, it would be I-55.

I-39

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.

Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange.  Now what would you have done with US-41?  Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee?  Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?)  Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.

This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense.  You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion.  You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing.  And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.

Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless.  This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.

I agree with your overall point, but aren't US 41 shields still displayed along the I-41 routing? I see them when I'm on that route.

SkyPesos

The I-41 number reminds me of roads in Australia, where the "M" prefix is pretty much an "A" prefix highway at freeway grade. Similar case with I-41 and US 41.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: I-39 on October 24, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.

Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange.  Now what would you have done with US-41?  Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee?  Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?)  Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.

This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense.  You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion.  You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing.  And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.

Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless.  This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.

I agree with your overall point, but aren't US 41 shields still displayed along the I-41 routing? I see them when I'm on that route.


Yes as reassurance markers and that's about it.  And those really aren't needed.

Crash_It

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.

Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange.  Now what would you have done with US-41?  Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee?  Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?)  Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.

This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense.  You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion.  You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing.  And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.

Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless.  This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.


They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.

Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange.  Now what would you have done with US-41?  Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee?  Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?)  Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.

This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense.  You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion.  You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing.  And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.

Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless.  This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.


They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.


1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.

2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.

3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate.  Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.

SkyPesos

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
Guess MDOT disagrees with you too then. But hey, we disagree with them on a lot of things already, including E-ZPass implementation :bigass:

SEWIGuy

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 24, 2021, 07:54:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
Guess MDOT disagrees with you too then. But hey, we disagree with them on a lot of things already, including E-ZPass implementation :bigass:


I think a LOT of DOTs disagree with me.  And that's probably good.

I-39

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.

So that means you'll support WIS 29 becoming I-96 when the corridor becomes a full freeway across the state.........   :bigass:

Crash_It

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.

Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange.  Now what would you have done with US-41?  Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee?  Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?)  Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.

This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense.  You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion.  You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing.  And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.

Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless.  This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.


They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.


1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.

2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.

3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate.  Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.

With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: I-39 on October 24, 2021, 11:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.

So that means you'll support WIS 29 becoming I-96 when the corridor becomes a full freeway across the state.........   :bigass:


Most definitely. 

froggie

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2021, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 24, 2021, 11:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.

So that means you'll support WIS 29 becoming I-96 when the corridor becomes a full freeway across the state.........   :bigass:


Most definitely. 

Let's see that happen first...

SkyPesos

Quote from: Crash_It on October 25, 2021, 01:22:28 AM
With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.
Also "I-364" and "I-370" in the St Louis area, and "I-470" in Denver. So many state route freeways signed like a 3di (think there's already a thread about this).

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Crash_It on October 25, 2021, 01:22:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.

Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange.  Now what would you have done with US-41?  Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee?  Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?)  Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.

This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense.  You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion.  You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing.  And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.

Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless.  This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.


They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.


1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.

2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.

3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate.  Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.

With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.


Well I did say "of significant length," and I don't think IL-394 falls into that category.  I was intentionally vague with that description, but I am thinking for 2dis, about 75-100 miles or more.  (Not saying those less than that figure SHOULDN'T be interstates.)

I-39

Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2021, 02:06:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2021, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 24, 2021, 11:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
2. I disagree with you.  I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.

So that means you'll support WIS 29 becoming I-96 when the corridor becomes a full freeway across the state.........   :bigass:


Most definitely. 

Let's see that happen first...

It will. Not for a while, but it will. You probably could even make the case for the Green Bay to Wausau segment going full freeway right now, but I would say US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac should be a bigger priority.

froggie

Presuming you haven't read the other Wisconsin threads where major projects are in increasingly smaller frequency due to funding (or lack thereof) and focused on the EXISTING Interstates where they are way overdue.  Wisconsin shot itself in the foot when they stopped indexing their gas tax several years ago.

I doubt you'll see a freeway-grade WI 29 (let alone Interstate) in YOUR lifetime, let alone mine...



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.