When one state has to clean up another state's mess

[MantyMadTown]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.

[paulthemapguy]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.

If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number.  I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.

[vdeane]

Plus we wouldn't have a useless overlap with between I-41 and I-94.

[Chris19001]

Best example I can think of is Pennsylvania having to connect I-95 to the PA Turnpike because New Jersey didn't built its portion of I-95.

NJ's had to clean up PA's mess on other occasions, such as when I-76 (then known as I-80S) in NJ went thru Camden and across the Ben Franklin Bridge.  Because PA didn't get their portion of I-76 thru the city constructed, NJ changed their route designation to take I-76 across the Walt Whitman and connected it with what PennDOT did build.  (Eventually the old I-76 became I-676)

How about Delaware and New Jersey having to build the Northeast Corridor freeway bypass of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in the first place?  New Jersey Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge.

No other state and major metro area got this kind of a benefit.

The NJ Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge (US 40) were built before there was even an interstate system to speak of.  NJ was basically relieving the traffic off of US 1 in NJ.  It wasn't really intended to bypass Philly.

I-295 in Delaware simply connected US 40 with their portion of I-95.

Now US202 on the other hand...  PA really dropped the ball with section 900 not being done to connect New Hope and Doylestown.  NJ has a freeway going over a toll bridge and having to loop back to a congested 2 lane road because PA never had the appetite for the Piedmont Expressway.  That would have formed a nice bypass for traffic away from the I-95 and I-78 corridors which today would likely have been upgraded further by NJ.  (Also assuming section 700 of 202 also was completed with a freeway connection to PA-309)

[tribar]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

How is I-65 IDOT's problem?

[MantyMadTown]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.

If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number.  I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.

The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.

[kphoger]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

How is I-65 IDOT's problem?

* crickets *

[MantyMadTown]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

How is I-65 IDOT's problem?

I-65 ends in Indiana. I don't see how Illinois would be involved with I-65.

[hbelkins]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.

If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number.  I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.

The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.

In what way? What other major N-S corridor west of there would you put 35 on so as to give it a different x5 number?

[MantyMadTown]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.

If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number.  I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.

The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.

In what way? What other major N-S corridor west of there would you put 35 on so as to give it a different x5 number?

It's the fact that I-35 pushes so far east when you go north from Wichita. You also have I-45 and I-49 in the South that are west of I-39, I-41, and I-43 in the Midwest.

[ilpt4u]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

How is I-65 IDOT's problem?

I-65 ends in Indiana. I don't see how Illinois would be involved with I-65.

IDOT is not at present.

But if IDOT was not willing to extend I-55 or I-57 to Wisconsin, I have a good feeling they certainly would not want to extend I-65 thru Chicagoland in IL to Wisconsin. InDOT would also had to be in on it, but pushing it a few more miles over the Indiana Toll Road would not be a huge signage undertaking

Hence, we end up with I-41 and I-43, when the Northern Termini of I-55, I-57, and I-65 are not far removed from the WI border

[sparker]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.

If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number.  I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.

The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.

In what way? What other major N-S corridor west of there would you put 35 on so as to give it a different x5 number?

It's the fact that I-35 pushes so far east when you go north from Wichita. You also have I-45 and I-49 in the South that are west of I-39, I-41, and I-43 in the Midwest.

Theoretically, I-35 could have simply replaced I-29, with the portion of I-35 north of KC becoming I-45 -- if Houston interests had not lobbied to be on a I-x5 back circa 1956-57; the current I-45 could have easily been I-39.  That would have made the overall Midwest grid considerably more workable.  The problem was that during the publicity push regarding the system back in the mid-'50's the concept of routes ending in "0" or "5" being singled out -- and "oversold" -- as primary numbers in relation to the other trunk routes resulted in cities competing for -- and subsequently complaining about -- places directly on those "primary" routes.  This led to such configurations as I-80S serving Philadelphia and I-80N doing likewise for Portland, OR (both have obviously been "corrected" since).  That ad hoc dual-ranking system contributed to a sizeable number of grid issues that were only partially resolved by the late-70's push to eliminate suffixed numbers. 

[MantyMadTown]

How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago

I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...

I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.

If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number.  I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.

The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.

In what way? What other major N-S corridor west of there would you put 35 on so as to give it a different x5 number?

It's the fact that I-35 pushes so far east when you go north from Wichita. You also have I-45 and I-49 in the South that are west of I-39, I-41, and I-43 in the Midwest.

Theoretically, I-35 could have simply replaced I-29, with the portion of I-35 north of KC becoming I-45 -- if Houston interests had not lobbied to be on a I-x5 back circa 1956-57; the current I-45 could have easily been I-39.  That would have made the overall Midwest grid considerably more workable.  The problem was that during the publicity push regarding the system back in the mid-'50's the concept of routes ending in "0" or "5" being singled out -- and "oversold" -- as primary numbers in relation to the other trunk routes resulted in cities competing for -- and subsequently complaining about -- places directly on those "primary" routes.  This led to such configurations as I-80S serving Philadelphia and I-80N doing likewise for Portland, OR (both have obviously been "corrected" since).  That ad hoc dual-ranking system contributed to a sizeable number of grid issues that were only partially resolved by the late-70's push to eliminate suffixed numbers.

I wonder if we can fix the grid numbering system now?

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Unless the entire network in the Midwest is comprehensively reworked, designation-wise, all that can be done is to muddle through with numbers that are decidedly not "grid-perfect" (like I-47 or I-51 for the AOS) but "sort of" fit into the general pattern.  Just remember that we roadgeeks tend to be a bit more anal about such things than the average traveler. 

Forget it, Jake....it's just Wisconsin!  (apologies to screenwriter Robert Towne)

[hbelkins]

I-41 should have been a 3di anyway.

[GaryV]

I-41 should have been a 3di anyway.

I-41 should have been US-41 anyway.

[MantyMadTown]

I-41 should have been a 3di anyway.

I-41 should have been US-41 anyway.

No and no. I-41 is fine the way it is, as a 2di.

[vdeane]

No and no. I-41 is fine the way it is, as a 2di.

It ends in an overlap with I-94.  That is by definition not fine.

[MantyMadTown]

No and no. I-41 is fine the way it is, as a 2di.

It ends in an overlap with I-94.  That is by definition not fine.

Then it can be shortened. It was planned to end where US 41 splits off from I-94 in Illinois, and I'm perfectly fine with that, but if you have a problem with it then I would suggest ending it where it merges at the I-43/I-894 interchange and eliminating I-894. I wasn't trying to argue over where it should end, however. I still think I-41 should at least exist between Milwaukee and Green Bay.

[MikieTimT]

I noticed that McDonald County's population hasn't exploded like the Arkansas counties have. Is that merely a function of the poor transportation system, or are there real economic advantages to living in Arkansas vs. Missouri?

McDonald County was pretty depressed last I saw (about nine years ago, don't hold me to it) Terrain can be a factor. There's also a few canoe streams of significance for the area in and around Noel. I've seen jaw dropping poverty near there (makes you want to just question everything; including your own issues.) Oklahoma is right next door as is Arkansas, so people want to head there.

Terrain is assuredly a factor, plus McDonald County for the most part is pretty much just canoe floating enterprises until you get north of Pineville.  Wal-Mart has put a remote data center up there at Jane, which pretty much has grown into Bella Vista at this point.  The Bella Vista Bypass will ultimately likely head straight south once another 2 lanes of I-49 get added on and saturated in the metropolitan area of NWA.  The current 6 laning projects should be wrapped up in 2020, right about the time another 2 lanes will be needed given the current growth rate of the area.  There was a study back in 2011 about the feasibility for a Western Beltway to bypass the development along I-49, and it pretty much connects up to the Bella Vista Bypass where it bends back east.

[PHLBOS]

Now US202 on the other hand...  PA really dropped the ball with section 900 not being done to connect New Hope and Doylestown.  NJ has a freeway going over a toll bridge and having to loop back to a congested 2 lane road because PA never had the appetite for the Piedmont Expressway.

NIMBYs along that corridor was what killed that expressway.  As a matter of fact, the very reason why the US 202 Parkway between Doylestown & Montgomeryville came to be rather than the originally-planned expressway, was due to then-Gov. Rendell siding with the NIMBYs that resided north of that corridor.  Those that lived along the corridor actually wanted the expressway.  The northern NIMBYs' fear was that if that the existing Doylestown Bypass was extended to the south as an expressway; an northern extension would've been more inevitable.

That would have formed a nice bypass for traffic away from the I-95 and I-78 corridors which today would likely have been upgraded further by NJ.  (Also assuming section 700 of 202 also was completed with a freeway connection to PA-309)

Had the 202 corridor in PA been an all-expressway corridor; it would've acted as an outer bypass for the Greater Philadelphia area similar to I-287 with respect to the Metropolitan NYC area  and I-495 with respect to the Greater Boston area.

[Beltway]

Had the 202 corridor in PA been an all-expressway corridor; it would've acted as an outer bypass for the Greater Philadelphia area similar to I-287 with respect to the Metropolitan NYC area  and I-495 with respect to the Greater Boston area.

New Jersey would have had to build a freeway US-202 between the New Hope bridge and I-287, in order for that to happen.

[ipeters61]

Had the 202 corridor in PA been an all-expressway corridor; it would've acted as an outer bypass for the Greater Philadelphia area similar to I-287 with respect to the Metropolitan NYC area  and I-495 with respect to the Greater Boston area.

New Jersey would have had to build a freeway US-202 between the New Hope bridge and I-287, in order for that to happen.

At least US-202 in New Jersey (up to I-287, never been north of there on 202) flows a lot better than US-202 in Pennsylvania, in my experience.

[Beltway]

At least US-202 in New Jersey (up to I-287, never been north of there on 202) flows a lot better than US-202 in Pennsylvania, in my experience.

It is a 4-lane divided highway with at least some access management.

The portions in question in PA have 2 lanes and no access management.

[ipeters61]

At least US-202 in New Jersey (up to I-287, never been north of there on 202) flows a lot better than US-202 in Pennsylvania, in my experience.

It is a 4-lane divided highway with at least some access management.

The portions in question in PA have 2 lanes and no access management.

I'm well aware, driven both roads plenty of times and US-202 in PA is absolutely infuriating to drive (I did Norristown-Doylestown every day for a month).  A 40 MPH speed limit is not suited for through traffic (especially when the lights are timed to reduce the flow of traffic).