Plain green “Wisconsin” signs at the border

[J N Winkler]

Does NCHRP 350 apply to STH-67 and STH-80?

Yes.  WisDOT is applying NCHRP 350 standards to all state highways and state-let contracts, so besides WisDOT's own system, it should also apply to work it handles on city streets and county highways.

Well, that's what I get for only reading the first sentence of that paragraph before asking the question...

Before I answered your follow-up, I actually didn't know that FHWA requires NCHRP 350-compliant hardware only on the NHS.  It seems WisDOT is acting on its own initiative to extend that mandate more widely.

This said, STH 26 still has a surviving cutout welcome sign as of StreetView taken this month.  I've also casually explored about three-quarters of Wisconsin's land border, clockwise from roughly Beloit to Iron River, without finding a single instance of the new outline sign.  I-94 uses I2-1 (just the word "Wisconsin") even though it is a major crossing.

[SEWIGuy]

Does NCHRP 350 apply to STH-67 and STH-80?

Yes.  WisDOT is applying NCHRP 350 standards to all state highways and state-let contracts, so besides WisDOT's own system, it should also apply to work it handles on city streets and county highways.

Well, that's what I get for only reading the first sentence of that paragraph before asking the question...

Before I answered your follow-up, I actually didn't know that FHWA requires NCHRP 350-compliant hardware only on the NHS.  It seems WisDOT is acting on its own initiative to extend that mandate more widely.

This said, STH 26 still has a surviving cutout welcome sign as of StreetView taken this month.  I've also casually explored about three-quarters of Wisconsin's land border, clockwise from roughly Beloit to Iron River, without finding a single instance of the new outline sign.  I-94 uses I2-1 (just the word "Wisconsin") even though it is a major crossing.

To be clear, that's the IL-26/WI-69 border crossing.

[mgk920]

Related to the topic of Wisconsin border crossing signs, the sign on the border for I-41/94 has been missing for a few years now I think. I've wanted to reach out to WisDOT to have them replace it, but I haven't gotten around to it (much like they haven't gotten around to reinstalling one).

There haven't been DOT state line signs at that state line crossing in either direction for as long as I can remember.  The best that I can remember, the line was just south of the lottery billboard on the southbound side and was right about at a speed limit sign on the northbound side.  More recently, after the eight lane upgrades in Wisconsin, the 'Illinois' sign on the southbound side is very slightly (well less than a meter) inside of Wisconsin and the overhead weigh station sign on the northbound side is a couple of meters in Wisconsin, but there is no 'Wisconsin' sign at the state line.

Mike

[Stephane Dumas]

These plain green sign, remind me of this one just north of the Quebec-Vermont border on PQ-235. https://goo.gl/maps/iaDG69NtbMaDGPf99  The GSV shot was taken in 2011, I don't know if that sign is still there.

[JoePCool14]

Related to the topic of Wisconsin border crossing signs, the sign on the border for I-41/94 has been missing for a few years now I think. I've wanted to reach out to WisDOT to have them replace it, but I haven't gotten around to it (much like they haven't gotten around to reinstalling one).

There haven't been DOT state line signs at that state line crossing in either direction for as long as I can remember.  The best that I can remember, the line was just south of the lottery billboard on the southbound side and was right about at a speed limit sign on the northbound side.  More recently, after the eight lane upgrades in Wisconsin, the 'Illinois' sign on the southbound side is very slightly (well less than a meter) inside of Wisconsin and the overhead weigh station sign on the northbound side is a couple of meters in Wisconsin, but there is no 'Wisconsin' sign at the state line.

Mike

The Welcome to Illinois sign is still there, and also has a plaque with "Lake County" on it. That one is IDOT-maintained, or at least it should be. I think you're right that it's slightly in Wisconsin though. Interesting.

[SSOWorld]

Related to the topic of Wisconsin border crossing signs, the sign on the border for I-41/94 has been missing for a few years now I think. I've wanted to reach out to WisDOT to have them replace it, but I haven't gotten around to it (much like they haven't gotten around to reinstalling one).

There haven't been DOT state line signs at that state line crossing in either direction for as long as I can remember.  The best that I can remember, the line was just south of the lottery billboard on the southbound side and was right about at a speed limit sign on the northbound side.  More recently, after the eight lane upgrades in Wisconsin, the 'Illinois' sign on the southbound side is very slightly (well less than a meter) inside of Wisconsin and the overhead weigh station sign on the northbound side is a couple of meters in Wisconsin, but there is no 'Wisconsin' sign at the state line.

Mike

The Welcome to Illinois sign is still there, and also has a plaque with "Lake County" on it. That one is IDOT-maintained, or at least it should be. I think you're right that it's slightly in Wisconsin though. Interesting.

Further north into the state? End I-41. So IDOT is not signing a single mile of I-41. (Except for an APL sign on 94, a "through traffic go here" sign on US-41 prior to the merge, and the NB ramp off Russell Road - all installed by ISTHA, but the road itself was built by WisDOT to Russell Road)

Take a clear look at the south face of the Hwy ML overpass, you will find your welcome "sign".  Still a bit in for one

[dvferyance]

Related to the topic of Wisconsin border crossing signs, the sign on the border for I-41/94 has been missing for a few years now I think. I've wanted to reach out to WisDOT to have them replace it, but I haven't gotten around to it (much like they haven't gotten around to reinstalling one).

There haven't been DOT state line signs at that state line crossing in either direction for as long as I can remember.  The best that I can remember, the line was just south of the lottery billboard on the southbound side and was right about at a speed limit sign on the northbound side.  More recently, after the eight lane upgrades in Wisconsin, the 'Illinois' sign on the southbound side is very slightly (well less than a meter) inside of Wisconsin and the overhead weigh station sign on the northbound side is a couple of meters in Wisconsin, but there is no 'Wisconsin' sign at the state line.

Mike

The Welcome to Illinois sign is still there, and also has a plaque with "Lake County" on it. That one is IDOT-maintained, or at least it should be. I think you're right that it's slightly in Wisconsin though. Interesting.

Further north into the state? End I-41. So IDOT is not signing a single mile of I-41. (Except for an APL sign on 94, a "through traffic go here" sign on US-41 prior to the merge, and the NB ramp off Russell Road - all installed by ISTHA, but the road itself was built by WisDOT to Russell Road)

Take a clear look at the south face of the Hwy ML overpass, you will find your welcome "sign".  Still a bit in for one

Why would Illinois sign it? I-41 should end at the zoo anyways.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 41 was likely designated to the Interstate 94/US 41 split to retain the existing mileposts and exit numbers north of the Zoo Interchange: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-041/#google_vignette. It also doesn't hurt that a north-south Interstate designation is signed on a freeway that runs in a north-south trajectory (hence the 41/94 duplex).

[SSOWorld]

Interstate 41 was likely designated to the Interstate 94/US 41 split to retain the existing mileposts and exit numbers north of the Zoo Interchange: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-041/#google_vignette. It also doesn't hurt that a north-south Interstate designation is signed on a freeway that runs in a north-south trajectory (hence the 41/94 duplex).

the mileposts are US-45's So whatever was done with I-41 didn't matter.  Wisconsin's mile posting system outside 90, 94 and maybe 43 is seriously fucked up anyway. 39 doesn't use its own mileposting system due to its late arrival, it uses US-51's - and that is skewed because 51 baled on the route prior to the interstates.

[Big John]

^^ I-43 from Milwaukee to Green Bay had its ownset of mile markers.  Then when WI 15 was changed to I-43, the markers were changed to reflect the new start of I-43 by Beloit.

[Molandfreak]

Why aren't they using this design instead of the bland green one? It's outrageous they even have to change them in the first place...

[SEWIGuy]

Interstate 41 was likely designated to the Interstate 94/US 41 split to retain the existing mileposts and exit numbers north of the Zoo Interchange: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-041/#google_vignette. It also doesn't hurt that a north-south Interstate designation is signed on a freeway that runs in a north-south trajectory (hence the 41/94 duplex).

It was designated to where it was to "connect"  with US-41 across the border. It is signed by Illinois where US-41 meets the interstate. Regardless, ending at the Zoo makes no sense cause you'd have to sign US-41 at that point anyway. Might as well keep it an interstate.

[midwesternroadguy]

Those wooden signs look real dated IMO.

They're a classic.  Sometimes it's not worth changing a sense of place just for an updated look.

Look at Minnesota.  They changed their state welcome signs in the '80s to those god awful, simplistic, modern ones that MNDOT landscape architects referred to as the "big uglies" .  Now they have something somewhat better, even if the font is a bit swirly.  My point is that to change something just to change it, isn't always an improvement. 

[SEWIGuy]

Those wooden signs look real dated IMO.

They're a classic.  Sometimes it's not worth changing a sense of place just for an updated look.

Look at Minnesota.  They changed their state welcome signs in the '80s to those god awful, simplistic, modern ones that MNDOT landscape architects referred to as the "big uglies" .  Now they have something somewhat better, even if the font is a bit swirly.  My point is that to change something just to change it, isn't always an improvement. 

They're classic - and ugly. A 3 year old's drawing would be better.

[GeekJedi]

Those wooden signs look real dated IMO.

They're a classic.  Sometimes it's not worth changing a sense of place just for an updated look.

Look at Minnesota.  They changed their state welcome signs in the '80s to those god awful, simplistic, modern ones that MNDOT landscape architects referred to as the "big uglies" .  Now they have something somewhat better, even if the font is a bit swirly.  My point is that to change something just to change it, isn't always an improvement. 

They're classic - and ugly. A 3 year old's drawing would be better.

This forum is literally filled with people complaining about ugly new state entrance signs (see also: Indiana). I can almost guarantee that any new "design by committee" sign would be even more awful.

[Molandfreak]

The wooden signs are rustic and embrace Wisconsin's woodland landscape. I really like them! They're a heck of a lot better than an unceremonious green sign with just the word "Wisconsin."

[dvferyance]

Just came back from the UP and I can confirm the sign on 141 coming into to Wisconsin is still there as of September 2023.

[dvferyance]

Interstate 41 was likely designated to the Interstate 94/US 41 split to retain the existing mileposts and exit numbers north of the Zoo Interchange: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-041/#google_vignette. It also doesn't hurt that a north-south Interstate designation is signed on a freeway that runs in a north-south trajectory (hence the 41/94 duplex).

It was designated to where it was to "connect"  with US-41 across the border. It is signed by Illinois where US-41 meets the interstate. Regardless, ending at the Zoo makes no sense cause you'd have to sign US-41 at that point anyway. Might as well keep it an interstate.

US 41 is already signed south of the zoo.

[SEWIGuy]

Interstate 41 was likely designated to the Interstate 94/US 41 split to retain the existing mileposts and exit numbers north of the Zoo Interchange: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-041/#google_vignette. It also doesn't hurt that a north-south Interstate designation is signed on a freeway that runs in a north-south trajectory (hence the 41/94 duplex).

It was designated to where it was to "connect"  with US-41 across the border. It is signed by Illinois where US-41 meets the interstate. Regardless, ending at the Zoo makes no sense cause you'd have to sign US-41 at that point anyway. Might as well keep it an interstate.

US 41 is already signed south of the zoo.

No sh*t. That's my point. There is no reason to end I-41 there because US-41 would be signed anyway.

[dvferyance]

Interstate 41 was likely designated to the Interstate 94/US 41 split to retain the existing mileposts and exit numbers north of the Zoo Interchange: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-041/#google_vignette. It also doesn't hurt that a north-south Interstate designation is signed on a freeway that runs in a north-south trajectory (hence the 41/94 duplex).

It was designated to where it was to "connect"  with US-41 across the border. It is signed by Illinois where US-41 meets the interstate. Regardless, ending at the Zoo makes no sense cause you'd have to sign US-41 at that point anyway. Might as well keep it an interstate.

US 41 is already signed south of the zoo.

No sh*t. That's my point. There is no reason to end I-41 there because US-41 would be signed anyway.

So what's the point of signing both? Everyone still calls it I-94 anyways.

[GeekJedi]

Interstate 41 was likely designated to the Interstate 94/US 41 split to retain the existing mileposts and exit numbers north of the Zoo Interchange: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-041/#google_vignette. It also doesn't hurt that a north-south Interstate designation is signed on a freeway that runs in a north-south trajectory (hence the 41/94 duplex).

It was designated to where it was to "connect"  with US-41 across the border. It is signed by Illinois where US-41 meets the interstate. Regardless, ending at the Zoo makes no sense cause you'd have to sign US-41 at that point anyway. Might as well keep it an interstate.

US 41 is already signed south of the zoo.

No sh*t. That's my point. There is no reason to end I-41 there because US-41 would be signed anyway.

So what's the point of signing both? Everyone still calls it I-94 anyways.

For consistency. While everyone calls it 94 now, that will fade as people will forget that I-41 is a new interstate. People growing up around or moving to the area don't know the US/I-41 story, so this will be more logical for them.

[Molandfreak]

Interstate 41 was likely designated to the Interstate 94/US 41 split to retain the existing mileposts and exit numbers north of the Zoo Interchange: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-041/#google_vignette. It also doesn't hurt that a north-south Interstate designation is signed on a freeway that runs in a north-south trajectory (hence the 41/94 duplex).

It was designated to where it was to "connect"  with US-41 across the border. It is signed by Illinois where US-41 meets the interstate. Regardless, ending at the Zoo makes no sense cause you'd have to sign US-41 at that point anyway. Might as well keep it an interstate.

US 41 is already signed south of the zoo.

No sh*t. That's my point. There is no reason to end I-41 there because US-41 would be signed anyway.

So what's the point of signing both? Everyone still calls it I-94 anyways.

For consistency. While everyone calls it 94 now, that will fade as people will forget that I-41 is a new interstate. People growing up around or moving to the area don't know the US/I-41 story, so this will be more logical for them.

I'm not so sure about that. I-39 is still second fiddle to I-90 in most minds after 30 years.

[SEWIGuy]

If I-41 wasn't extended to Illinois, US-41 would be signed instead. It really is harmless and not a big deal.

[CtrlAltDel]

Those wooden signs look real dated IMO.

They're a classic.  Sometimes it's not worth changing a sense of place just for an updated look.

Look at Minnesota.  They changed their state welcome signs in the '80s to those god awful, simplistic, modern ones that MNDOT landscape architects referred to as the "big uglies" .  Now they have something somewhat better, even if the font is a bit swirly.  My point is that to change something just to change it, isn't always an improvement. 

They're classic - and ugly. A 3 year old's drawing would be better.

That might be extreme:

[SEWIGuy]

Those wooden signs look real dated IMO.

They're a classic.  Sometimes it's not worth changing a sense of place just for an updated look.

Look at Minnesota.  They changed their state welcome signs in the '80s to those god awful, simplistic, modern ones that MNDOT landscape architects referred to as the "big uglies" .  Now they have something somewhat better, even if the font is a bit swirly.  My point is that to change something just to change it, isn't always an improvement. 

They're classic - and ugly. A 3 year old's drawing would be better.

That might be extreme:

Brutal.