What was the original routing of US 41 through this area? Where did the County OO bypass begin and end? Is I-41 going to go through this area? What are the chances of WI 441 becoming I-441? Could I-441 extend west of US 41?
Try Bessfart's site.
I don't trust that Michigoose.
Quote from: bugo on April 02, 2015, 06:12:57 AM
Is I-41 going to go through this area? What are the chances of WI 441 becoming I-441? Could I-441 extend west of US 41?
The answers to these three questions are
Yes
Very high following completion of the big expansion project over Little Lake Butte des Morts & the rebuild of the system interchange, which is now ongoing.
There will probably be enough traffic to warrant full freeway conversion on US 10 in the coming decades so who knows? Maybe someone in the Waupaca area will get that ol' interstate twitch...
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2015, 09:25:52 AM
There will probably be enough traffic to warrant full freeway conversion on US 10 in the coming decades so who knows? Maybe someone in the Waupaca area will get that ol' interstate twitch...
The freeway segment here is already 4 US/state highways US 10/WI 22-49-54 (and unsigned County K) so someone who likes multiplexes may want a 5th sign if full freeway conversion is done west of Fremont. :spin:
Quote from: Big John on April 02, 2015, 09:35:28 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2015, 09:25:52 AM
There will probably be enough traffic to warrant full freeway conversion on US 10 in the coming decades so who knows? Maybe someone in the Waupaca area will get that ol' interstate twitch...
The freeway segment here is already 4 US/state highways US 10/WI 22-49-54 (and unsigned County K) so someone who likes multiplexes may want a 5th sign if full freeway conversion is done west of Fremont. :spin:
Hmm, a new thread idea - 'Interstate, US, state and county highways on same roadway'
:nod:
Anyways, I'd have to check, but there is a 1927 Winnebago County highway map in the Oshkosh, WI Pvblic Library that I looked over a few years ago while doing some Yellowstone Trail historic route research and that was shortly after the original WI 15 became US 41. In Neenah and Menasha, my belief is that the original post-WI 15 routing was modern-day County 'JJ' (Winneconne Ave), WI 114 (using Main St through downtown Menasha) and WI 47 into Appleton via Foster St to Onieda St - the original Memorial Dr (WI 47) Fox River bridge opened in 1924. There is a lot local of 'word of mouth' on US 41 and/or WI 15 using County 'P' between Menasha and Appleton in the late 1910s/early 1920s, too, but maps of that era are somewhat hard to find.
It then crossed the Fox River into downtown Appleton via Oneida St (now 'Olde Oneida St'), turned east on College Ave (The Appleton Post-Crescent recently posted a 1929 photo of a part of E College Ave, the city's downtown 'main' street, after a midwinter snowstorm with a clearly visible US 41 marker on their FB page, a little more than four years after the highway was rerouted via Memorial Dr), north on Green Bay Rd and Leminwah St and then east on Wisconsin Ave (WI 96) towards Little Chute, ultimately following County 'D' from Wrightstown to De Pere.
US 41 was frequently rerouted between Oshkosh and De Pere from when WI 15 was first marked until the current freeway routing was established by the late 1960s. The original two-lane Northland Ave (County 'OO') Appleton bypass routing was built in stages during the late 1930s and was used as US 41 until the current east-west freeway through Appleton's north side opened in 1960. Its current routing in the Green Bay area was settled when its freeway through Ashwaubenon opened in 1974.
As for the western (north-south) part of the late 1930s US 41 Appleton bypass, it followed what was then called 'Westland Ave' (a tiny remnant US(I)-41 frontage road still carries that name), where US/I-41's northbound side is now located. WI 15 (the westward Northland Ave extension) opened on a new-ROW in 1998. If you examine air photos of the US(I)-41/WI 15 interchange, you can see the ghost grade of the original US 41 curve, which was maintained as the NB off-ramp until WI 15 was built.
Continuing southward, the late-1930s bypass replaced then WI 151 into Neenah, where it then used Green Bay Rd and the current freeway ROW southward to what is now WI 76 (then US 45) and intersection-turned south into Oshkosh. The current US(I)-41 ROW south of there was established in the late 1940s.
For the routing that US 41 used before then to the south, see older maps that show 'WI 175' north of Fond du Lac and through Oshkosh. That was the original, pre late-1940s US 41.
Mike
441 won't become an interstate until the bridge is finished. I'd be surprised if anything got put on US 10 unless it was upgraded all the way to Stevens Point.
441 will not likely become an interstate at all.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 02, 2015, 04:32:42 PM
441 will not likely become an interstate at all.
Proof?
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 02, 2015, 05:26:47 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 02, 2015, 04:32:42 PM
441 will not likely become an interstate at all.
Proof?
The legislation for truck weight exemptions only covers US 41, "If any segment of the United States Route 41 corridor, as described in section 1105(c)(57) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is designated as a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of such designation may continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement under subsection (a). "
441 does not seem like much of a truck route but US 10 which follows 441 from 41 to Oneida St is a higher use oversized, overweight truck route. For these overweight trucks to continue using 441 if it were to be designated a 3di as I-441, it would need another piece of congressional legislation for an exemption. Currently right now, the political willpower out there to push a bill through congress for a 4 mile exemption for a 3di route is very low. There are higher priorities for them.
This is one of the reasons as well the DOT chose a DDI for the Oneida St interchange, easier for oversize vehicles to move through than the roundabout option that they had originally.
Quote from: Roadguy on April 02, 2015, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 02, 2015, 05:26:47 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 02, 2015, 04:32:42 PM
441 will not likely become an interstate at all.
Proof?
The legislation for truck weight exemptions only covers US 41, "If any segment of the United States Route 41 corridor, as described in section 1105(c)(57) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is designated as a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of such designation may continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement under subsection (a). "
441 does not seem like much of a truck route but US 10 which follows 441 from 41 to Oneida St is a higher use oversized, overweight truck route. For these overweight trucks to continue using 441 if it were to be designated a 3di as I-441, it would need another piece of congressional legislation for an exemption. Currently right now, the political willpower out there to push a bill through congress for a 4 mile exemption for a 3di route is very low. There are higher priorities for them.
This is one of the reasons as well the DOT chose a DDI for the Oneida St interchange, easier for oversize vehicles to move through than the roundabout option that they had originally.
What? Am I missing the point of the post or are you saying that it can't be an Interstate because it allows truck traffic to have a
higher weight than what Interstate standards allow? The problem should definitely be the other way around for any route of the Interstate system, so what the heck is the point?
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 02, 2015, 10:47:02 PM
What? Am I missing the point of the post or are you saying that it can't be an Interstate because it allows truck traffic to have a higher weight than what Interstate standards allow? The problem should definitely be the other way around for any route of the Interstate system, so what the heck is the point?
That is exactly it, heavier trucks are allowed on non-interstate routes. Only trucks up to 80k Lbs are allowed on interstates (This restriction is set by the federal government). On certain US and state routes (US 41 and WIS 441 are two of these routes) trucks up to 100k Lbs are allowed (This restriction is set by the state). This is why they pushed for a congressional exemption to make sure those existing trucks over 80k lbs could keep using 41 once it was converted to an interstate.
Quote from: Roadguy on April 02, 2015, 10:58:06 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 02, 2015, 10:47:02 PM
What? Am I missing the point of the post or are you saying that it can't be an Interstate because it allows truck traffic to have a higher weight than what Interstate standards allow? The problem should definitely be the other way around for any route of the Interstate system, so what the heck is the point?
That is exactly it, heavier trucks are allowed on non-interstate routes. Only trucks up to 80k Lbs are allowed on interstates (This restriction is set by the federal government). On certain US and state routes (US 41 and WIS 441 are two of these routes) trucks up to 100k Lbs are allowed (This restriction is set by the state). This is why they pushed for a congressional exemption to make sure those existing trucks over 80k lbs could keep using 41 once it was converted to an interstate.
That's really freaking nitpicky and I don't understand why on earth they would do that, but...
TRUCK U.S. 10 on WIS 114 (with removal of roundabouts) or another route in the area. Bamdone.
Not gonna happen. WI-441 will very likely remain WI-441. There is simply no reason to jump through all the hoops just to put a pretty red, white, and blue sign on it.
Quote from: Roadguy on April 02, 2015, 10:58:06 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 02, 2015, 10:47:02 PM
What? Am I missing the point of the post or are you saying that it can't be an Interstate because it allows truck traffic to have a higher weight than what Interstate standards allow? The problem should definitely be the other way around for any route of the Interstate system, so what the heck is the point?
That is exactly it, heavier trucks are allowed on non-interstate routes. Only trucks up to 80k Lbs are allowed on interstates (This restriction is set by the federal government). On certain US and state routes (US 41 and WIS 441 are two of these routes) trucks up to 100k Lbs are allowed (This restriction is set by the state). This is why they pushed for a congressional exemption to make sure those existing trucks over 80k lbs could keep using 41 once it was converted to an interstate.
Why are the Feds even involved in something as petty as a weight restriction? That sounds like it's better for a state to deal with. Especially when one considers that on non-Interstate routes they need to cooperate anyway on differing weight restrictions. Of course, this is the same Federal government that thought it a good idea at one time to involve themselves in the business of setting speed limits.
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2015, 03:02:15 PM
Why are the Feds even involved in something as petty as a weight restriction?
Because they pay for the pavement the weight travels over... (I think even new Interstates get maintenance funds)
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2015, 03:05:18 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2015, 03:02:15 PM
Why are the Feds even involved in something as petty as a weight restriction?
Because they pay for the pavement the weight travels over... (I think even new Interstates get maintenance funds)
Even then, they don't exactly design them. That's the state DOT (DOH, DOTD, etc). Again, why do the Feds even need to be involved in a weight restriction? IIRC, even with Interstates, they do vary between states.
All that aside, WisDOT has never been in a hurry to make changes to routes for change's sake. The last big ones were I-43 (first to get the speed limit set to 65, then to create a larger intra-state route) and I-39 (that was pushed by everyone but WisDOT). Unless politicians push for it, I don't see them converting 441 to an Interstate.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 03:11:54 PM
All that aside, WisDOT has never been in a hurry to make changes to routes for change's sake. The last big ones were I-43 (first to get the speed limit set to 65, then to create a larger intra-state route) and I-39 (that was pushed by everyone but WisDOT). Unless politicians push for it, I don't see them converting 441 to an Interstate.
Much agreed. It's "Highway 441" and "Highway 41" to WisDOT anyway, regardless of what shield is on the sign.
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2015, 03:08:30 PM
Again, why do the Feds even need to be involved in a weight restriction?
Again, because they're putting up a bunch of cash.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 02:56:29 PM
Not gonna happen. WI-441 will very likely remain WI-441. There is simply no reason to jump through all the hoops just to put a pretty red, white, and blue sign on it.
Why is there no reason? The reason
for it is to get a streamlined system throughout the country. I hate the laziness behind the "oh, well we didn't get the funding/permission to sign this Interstate-like-numbered road as an actual Interstate, so we're just going to sign it as a state route instead" attitude. These routes usually make a lot of sense within the system, so why not
put them in the freaking system? WI 441 was fine when it was just U.S. 41 through the area, but now it'll appear extremely lazy.
Couple of things
1. WisDOT specifically stated the following in the FAQ on the US 41 Interstate Conversion site:
I-41 allows for future Interstate loop or spur routes to be designated off of I-41
I don't see any other routes that could be designated an Interstate spur, and since they are currently upgrading major parts of WIS 441, all signs seem to be pointing to it becoming I-441 at some point.
2. I doubt US 10 becomes an Interstate, even if it gets upgraded to freeway all the way. They would have to find a way to build a freeway to freeway connection in Steven's Point, and WisDOT does not have any specific plans to do so (to my knowledge). The only other route I could see becoming an Interstate in WI would be WIS 29 when it is upgraded to full freeway between Green Bay and I-94/Elk Mound (that probably won't be for a while)
3. I-41/US 41 needs to be rebuilt and widened to six lanes between Appleton and Green Bay. Heck, I'd say the entire corridor between Milwaukee and Green Bay should be widened to six lanes, since most of the pavement on the corridor could use rebuilding.
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2015, 03:17:39 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 03:11:54 PM
All that aside, WisDOT has never been in a hurry to make changes to routes for change's sake. The last big ones were I-43 (first to get the speed limit set to 65, then to create a larger intra-state route) and I-39 (that was pushed by everyone but WisDOT). Unless politicians push for it, I don't see them converting 441 to an Interstate.
Much agreed. It's "Hwy 441" and "Hwy 41" to WisDOT anyway, regardless of what shield is on the sign.
FTFY!! :bigass:
All kidding aside and whatever objections there may be, NE2 hit it right on the nail. The Feds have a stake in the road financially and it does not matter who the fuck designed it or authorized it. They have a say. The question is, how MUCH of a say should they have? They're justified in that they don't want their funding going towards shitty roads.
Well guess what... Stop spending on wars and build us some better roads will ya FEDS!!!????
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 03, 2015, 04:53:58 PM
but now it'll appear extremely lazy.
To whom, exactly? The people using the road couldn't care less if the "441" has a state shield or an interstate shield. It's 441. Nothing about 20 year old route changes one iota with the signing of I-41 (which, by the way, will still be actively signed as US 41, again as a testament to how people use roads). The only people who truly care are a few people here, because "rules".
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 03, 2015, 05:38:16 PM
Couple of things
1. WisDOT specifically stated the following in the FAQ on the US 41 Interstate Conversion site:
I-41 allows for future Interstate loop or spur routes to be designated off of I-41
I don't see any other routes that could be designated an Interstate spur, and since they are currently upgrading major parts of WIS 441, all signs seem to be pointing to it becoming I-441 at some point.
Just like I-39 and I-43 allow for spur or loop routes. If you want to go into specific wording, they didn't say to "allow WI-441 to become a loop route". So, it could be read either way. While it allows for such routes, it doesn't mean that there are plans to do it.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 03, 2015, 05:38:16 PM
Couple of things
1. WisDOT specifically stated the following in the FAQ on the US 41 Interstate Conversion site:
I-41 allows for future Interstate loop or spur routes to be designated off of I-41
I don't see any other routes that could be designated an Interstate spur, and since they are currently upgrading major parts of WIS 441, all signs seem to be pointing to it becoming I-441 at some point.
Just like I-39 and I-43 allow for spur or loop routes. If you want to go into specific wording, they didn't say to "allow WI-441 to become a loop route". So, it could be read either way. While it allows for such routes, it doesn't mean that there are plans to do it.
Yes, they didn't specifically say they would, but I am just saying that it seems like a good possibility for the future. If they weren't thinking about making it I-441, then I doubt WisDOT would be spending the money to upgrade the road between I-41 and Oneida Street (including putting in high speed ramps at the I-41/WIS 441/US 10 interchange)
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
Good points. Never say never, but only time will tell if WisDOT will change it. The only other major route I could see being renumbered (replaced) with an Interstate is WIS 29 when that becomes a full freeway (which WisDOT stated in planning documents that is a possibility).
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 03, 2015, 05:38:16 PM
Couple of things
1. WisDOT specifically stated the following in the FAQ on the US 41 Interstate Conversion site:
I-41 allows for future Interstate loop or spur routes to be designated off of I-41
I don't see any other routes that could be designated an Interstate spur, and since they are currently upgrading major parts of WIS 441, all signs seem to be pointing to it becoming I-441 at some point.
Just like I-39 and I-43 allow for spur or loop routes. If you want to go into specific wording, they didn't say to "allow WI-441 to become a loop route". So, it could be read either way. While it allows for such routes, it doesn't mean that there are plans to do it.
I can also someday see a push to reflag the US 45 West Bend Spur as (for lack of a better number) 'I-541'. Ditto WI 172 east of US(I)-41 ('I-243'?). There are already signs on the BGSes on US(I)-41 leading up to it (Ashwaubenon Interchange) that say "TO/I-43". :-P
Mike
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
I agree, WisDOT's been planning these upgrades for many years, especially seeing as the current substandard four-lane bridge carries an AADT of about 80K.
:-o
Mike
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
None of those instances involve a number akin to a true 3 digit interstate, so that argument is waaaaaayyyyyyyyy invalid.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 03:32:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
None of those instances involve a number akin to a true 3 digit interstate, so that argument is waaaaaayyyyyyyyy invalid.
Numbers are irrelavent - it's the location of and the role of the road that matters. Argument valid.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 03:32:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
None of those instances involve a number akin to a true 3 digit interstate, so that argument is waaaaaayyyyyyyyy invalid.
What instances are you talking about?
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 04, 2015, 06:15:48 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 03:32:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
None of those instances involve a number akin to a true 3 digit interstate, so that argument is waaaaaayyyyyyyyy invalid.
Numbers are irrelavent - it's the location of and the role of the road that matters. Argument valid.
It still stands that none of them are full beltways. Not to mention that none of the freeways (except the Madison beltway) really serve a function that warrants an upgrade, at least in their current form.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 10:17:16 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 04, 2015, 06:15:48 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 03:32:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
None of those instances involve a number akin to a true 3 digit interstate, so that argument is waaaaaayyyyyyyyy invalid.
Numbers are irrelavent - it's the location of and the role of the road that matters. Argument valid.
It still stands that none of them are full beltways. Not to mention that none of the freeways (except the Madison beltway) really serve a function that warrants an upgrade, at least in their current form.
The Madison Beltline will never get, nor does it need, a three digit Interstate. It already carries a number of high-quality US Highways.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 10:24:32 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 10:17:16 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 04, 2015, 06:15:48 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 03:32:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
None of those instances involve a number akin to a true 3 digit interstate, so that argument is waaaaaayyyyyyyyy invalid.
Numbers are irrelavent - it's the location of and the role of the road that matters. Argument valid.
It still stands that none of them are full beltways. Not to mention that none of the freeways (except the Madison beltway) really serve a function that warrants an upgrade, at least in their current form.
The Madison Beltline will never get, nor does it need, a three digit Interstate. It already carries a number of high-quality US Highways.
If the northern connection is ever finished, then that at least should get an interstate designation. Not to mention that unfamiliar drivers will know how to follow the freeway if it's upgraded in full.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 03:32:58 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 03, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 03, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
That was on the books for a while, and unrelated to the I-41 changes. In fact, the high-speed ramps have been in the planning stages long before I-41 was even a thing. So again, it's certainly possible, but WisDOT has a history of leaving well enough alone when it comes to route renumbering - especially in a situation where there aren't any governmental bodies asking for it to happen.
Exactly. There are a number of instances where WIDOT most certainly could have renumbered to a 3di and have chosen not to. I don't see it happening here either.
None of those instances involve a number akin to a true 3 digit interstate, so that argument is waaaaaayyyyyyyyy invalid.
So your argument is that just because it would be the same number, that WIDOT will change WI-441 to I-441 even though they have shown no real desire to implement 3dis previously?
I doubt it. They aren't going to go through the effort.
Quote from: SEWIGuyshown no real desire to implement 3dis previously?
Quit that obvious nonsense. They have. Otherwise none of the x94s would exist.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuyshown no real desire to implement 3dis previously?
Quit that obvious nonsense. They have. Otherwise none of the x94s would exist.
Those were implemented at the birth of the interstate system. Name any in Wisconsin that came after 1970? Hint: None.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 12:00:00 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuyshown no real desire to implement 3dis previously?
Quit that obvious nonsense. They have. Otherwise none of the x94s would exist.
Those were implemented at the birth of the interstate system. Name any in Wisconsin that came after 1970? Hint: None.
Yawn. What makes you people think that fact means that they will never do it again? Just like Minnesota, the reason why no additions have been made is that there have been minimal freeways built that would make sense in the system. I-441 should happen because it's a beltway that would make sense in the system.
I agree Moland that I-441 is the most likely candidate. However, They could have I-x90 or I-x94 on Wis 30 and I-x94 on Wis 119 ages ago.
But don't worry my friend. I do designate 441 in the Interstate plan revision I am in the middle of doing. It's been about 2 years since I did the original Interstate plan. Stay tuned. I should have it up in a month or so.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 12:00:00 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuyshown no real desire to implement 3dis previously?
Quit that obvious nonsense. They have. Otherwise none of the x94s would exist.
Those were implemented at the birth of the interstate system. Name any in Wisconsin that came after 1970? Hint: None.
Well, what routes (that are freeways and are full beltways) could have become 3-digit Interstates after 1970? Not really any. For the first time in a long time, a full beltway freeway that connects (on both ends) to the same two digit Interstate actually exists in Wisconsin. That is WIS 441. I think it is very plausible that they will change it to I-441 at some point. Maybe not right away, but eventually. Elevating it from a state route number to an Interstate will help with commerce and tourism.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 12:18:40 PM
Yawn. What makes you people think that fact means that they will never do it again? Just like Minnesota, the reason why no additions have been made is that there have been minimal freeways built that would make sense in the system. I-441 should happen because it's a beltway that would make sense in the system.
Probably the same thing that makes you think that it makes sense to change the sign on an existing highway because it bothers you. ;)
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
Elevating it from a state route number to an Interstate will help with commerce and tourism.
That's the argument that I don't understand. How will changing the color of a shield on a 10 mile stretch of road help commerce and tourism?
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 01:35:45 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
Elevating it from a state route number to an Interstate will help with commerce and tourism.
That's the argument that I don't understand. How will changing the color of a shield on a 10 mile stretch of road help commerce and tourism?
For the same reasons US 41 is being changed to I-41, it elevates the quality of the roadway. People don't always associate state routes with high-quality freeways, but they do with Interstates.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:38:27 PM
For the same reasons US 41 is being changed to I-41, it elevates the quality of the roadway. People don't always associate state routes with high-quality freeways, but they do with Interstates.
I get the US 41/I-41 argument - that's a substantial piece of highway. 441 is a 10 mile loop though, one that doesn't really act as a bypass of anything...it's more of an "alternate" route. There is no economic case to be made for spending the money to re-sign it. In the age of GPS and Google Maps, this only makes sense for road fans who insist that DOT's should follow numbering to the "letter" whether or not it really makes a significant difference.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 01:43:28 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:38:27 PM
For the same reasons US 41 is being changed to I-41, it elevates the quality of the roadway. People don't always associate state routes with high-quality freeways, but they do with Interstates.
I get the US 41/I-41 argument - that's a substantial piece of highway. 441 is a 10 mile loop though, one that doesn't really act as a bypass of anything...it's more of an "alternate" route. There is no economic case to be made for spending the money to re-sign it. In the age of GPS and Google Maps, this only makes sense for road fans who insist that DOT's should follow numbering to the "letter" whether or not it really makes a significant difference.
So in other words, no three digit Interstate should ever be designated again anywhere? That is basically what I am getting from this.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 01:35:45 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
Elevating it from a state route number to an Interstate will help with commerce and tourism.
That's the argument that I don't understand. How will changing the color of a shield on a 10 mile stretch of road help commerce and tourism?
For the same reasons US 41 is being changed to I-41, it elevates the quality of the roadway. People don't always associate state routes with high-quality freeways, but they do with Interstates.
Yeah exactly. With WIS 441 and I-41, people are most likely going to assume that the state route is a surface route related to the interstate. With I-441, there will be no mistaking it for a good quality freeway.
You still haven't told us *why* it needs to be "known" as a "good quality freeway". It's generally used as a route by locals, and every GPS I've ever known shows it as a highway.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:49:06 PM
So in other words, no three digit Interstate should ever be designated again anywhere? That is basically what I am getting from this.
No, in other words not every freeway off of an interstate needs to be a 3di just because.
More importantly, we have plenty of other things we need to be spending our state's transportation budget on instead of paying for sign swaps because of some mental guideline that we can't seem to see past.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 02:04:17 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:49:06 PM
So in other words, no three digit Interstate should ever be designated again anywhere? That is basically what I am getting from this.
No, in other words not every freeway off of an interstate needs to be a 3di just because.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 02:07:52 PM
More importantly, we have plenty of other things we need to be spending our state's transportation budget on instead of paying for sign swaps because of some mental guideline that we can't seem to see past.
The cost of replacing the signs would be very minimal, so that is not an issue. Wisconsin wastes far more money on constructing pointless freeways/expressways and bypasses (like US 10 west of Steven's Point, WIS-26 between Janesville and Watertown, etc). I agree that not every freeway needs a three digit Interstate spur, but by your logic, every roadway that was elevated from a state route to a three digit Interstate was pointless. And going back to what I was saying before, WisDOT did state that I-41 allows for future spurs. I'm not sure why they would put that in the FAQ if they thought I-41 was to never get a spur.
I'm not saying they *shouldn't* sign it as I-441, I am just saying that I doubt it will happen. I guess they could now decide to label US-45 to West Bend as a Spur and WI-173 as a loop as well.
I just won't believe it until I see it.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 04, 2015, 02:51:28 PM
I'm not saying they *shouldn't* sign it as I-441, I am just saying that I doubt it will happen. I guess they could now decide to label US-45 to West Bend as a Spur and WI-173 as a loop as well.
I just won't believe it until I see it.
Now those, I don't think need a spur route. US 45 is already a high quality US highway and it does not connect back to I-41. The only reason why converting WIS 441 to I-441 would make sense is because it is a business loop and it connects to I-41 on both ends.
I wouldn't call it a "business loop". It's just a bypass for the south and east side of Appleton. But it should be designated as I-441 when I-41 is officially signed.
The West Bend Frwy is perfectly fine remaining just as US 45.
I just wish in the signing process that roads that are expressways and freeways that aren't designated as Interstates would have some kind of indication of the condition of the road since a US highway or state highway can range so vastly.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 02:56:39 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 04, 2015, 02:51:28 PM
I'm not saying they *shouldn't* sign it as I-441, I am just saying that I doubt it will happen. I guess they could now decide to label US-45 to West Bend as a Spur and WI-173 as a loop as well.
I just won't believe it until I see it.
Now those, I don't think need a spur route. US 45 is already a high quality US highway and it does not connect back to I-41. The only reason why converting WIS 441 to I-441 would make sense is because it is a business loop and it connects to I-41 on both ends.
Actually I think US-45 as a Spur route makes sense. You mentioned earlier the supposed economic impact value of a red, white and blue shield. The Jackson and West Bend areas have benefited greatly from the US-45 freeway. Could they benefit even further if it were I-341?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 04, 2015, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 02:56:39 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 04, 2015, 02:51:28 PM
I'm not saying they *shouldn't* sign it as I-441, I am just saying that I doubt it will happen. I guess they could now decide to label US-45 to West Bend as a Spur and WI-173 as a loop as well.
I just won't believe it until I see it.
Now those, I don't think need a spur route. US 45 is already a high quality US highway and it does not connect back to I-41. The only reason why converting WIS 441 to I-441 would make sense is because it is a business loop and it connects to I-41 on both ends.
Actually I think US-45 as a Spur route makes sense. You mentioned earlier the supposed economic impact value of a red, white and blue shield. The Jackson and West Bend areas have benefited greatly from the US-45 freeway. Could they benefit even further if it were I-341?
Maybe, but it already carries the US 45 designation. The thing about designating WIS 441 as I-441 would be that it would
replace WIS 441, not be signed concurrently. I only believe a spur should be designated if it's a replacement for a route number, not in addition to it (hence, why I am opposed to designating the Madison Beltline an Interstate spur)
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 04, 2015, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 02:56:39 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 04, 2015, 02:51:28 PM
I'm not saying they *shouldn't* sign it as I-441, I am just saying that I doubt it will happen. I guess they could now decide to label US-45 to West Bend as a Spur and WI-173 as a loop as well.
I just won't believe it until I see it.
Now those, I don't think need a spur route. US 45 is already a high quality US highway and it does not connect back to I-41. The only reason why converting WIS 441 to I-441 would make sense is because it is a business loop and it connects to I-41 on both ends.
Actually I think US-45 as a Spur route makes sense. You mentioned earlier the supposed economic impact value of a red, white and blue shield. The Jackson and West Bend areas have benefited greatly from the US-45 freeway. Could they benefit even further if it were I-341?
Maybe, but it already carries the US 45 designation. The thing about designating WIS 441 as I-441 would be that it would replace WIS 441, not be signed concurrently. I only believe a spur should be designated if it's a replacement for a route number, not in addition to it (hence, why I am opposed to designating the Madison Beltline an Interstate spur)
With the northern I-37, the Beltline wouldn't be an Interstate spur or loop. lol
What I keep reading here is "it makes sense". To whom? My parents live in Neenah, and this will make absolutely no difference in their lives. It will make no difference to the person plugging the destination address in a GPS and gets routed through there. It will make no difference to anyone traveling past Appleton as it's not really a "bypass" and saves no significant time. So again, what is the reasoning?
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 01:35:45 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
Elevating it from a state route number to an Interstate will help with commerce and tourism.
That's the argument that I don't understand. How will changing the color of a shield on a 10 mile stretch of road help commerce and tourism?
For the same reasons US 41 is being changed to I-41, it elevates the quality of the roadway.
Posting a sign improves the quality of the pavement? What is your hypothesis for this theory?
Quote
don't always associate state routes with high-quality freeways, but they do with Interstates.
There are plenty of interstates I could list that are far from high quality freeways.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 08:24:01 PM
What I keep reading here is "it makes sense". To whom? My parents live in Neenah, and this will make absolutely no difference in their lives. It will make no difference to the person plugging the destination address in a GPS and gets routed through there. It will make no difference to anyone traveling past Appleton as it's not really a "bypass" and saves no significant time. So again, what is the reasoning?
Ok then, by that logic, why does ANY Interstate spur exist? Heck, why does US 41 even need an Interstate? It survived many years without being an Interstate (it wasn't even a full freeway until about 15 or so years ago) and Green Bay is already serviced by I-43, so it's not like Green Bay needs to be serviced by another Interstate. It certainly makes no difference to people using GPS.............
Quote from: bugo on April 04, 2015, 08:39:01 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 01:35:45 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
Elevating it from a state route number to an Interstate will help with commerce and tourism.
That's the argument that I don't understand. How will changing the color of a shield on a 10 mile stretch of road help commerce and tourism?
For the same reasons US 41 is being changed to I-41, it elevates the quality of the roadway.
Posting a sign improves the quality of the pavement? What is your hypothesis for this theory?
Quote
don't always associate state routes with high-quality freeways, but they do with Interstates.
There are plenty of interstates I could list that are far from high quality freeways.
Elevating a route to Interstate status forces any future reconstruction to be up to Interstate standards. So of course there are many Interstates that may not be high quality freeway, but any future reconstruction along those routes would force it to become high quality freeway, since it is an Interstate and Interstates have the highest standards when it comes to construction.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 04, 2015, 08:40:54 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 08:24:01 PM
What I keep reading here is "it makes sense". To whom? My parents live in Neenah, and this will make absolutely no difference in their lives. It will make no difference to the person plugging the destination address in a GPS and gets routed through there. It will make no difference to anyone traveling past Appleton as it's not really a "bypass" and saves no significant time. So again, what is the reasoning?
Ok then, by that logic, why does ANY Interstate spur exist? Heck, why does US 41 even need an Interstate? It survived many years without being an Interstate (it wasn't even a full freeway until about 15 or so years ago) and Green Bay is already serviced by I-43, so it's not like Green Bay needs to be serviced by another Interstate. It certainly makes no difference to people using GPS.............
The original purpose of even 3dis were to provide alternate routes to driving through the middle of a big city. I-894 accomplishes this. I-294 in Illinois does too. WI-441 doesn't do this. I-41 doesn't go through Appleton's center. It goes around downtown, just like WI-441.
Tell that to I-244 through Tulsa, I-490 through Rochester, NY.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 08:24:01 PM
What I keep reading here is "it makes sense". To whom? My parents live in Neenah, and this will make absolutely no difference in their lives. It will make no difference to the person plugging the destination address in a GPS and gets routed through there. It will make no difference to anyone traveling past Appleton as it's not really a "bypass" and saves no significant time. So again, what is the reasoning?
You are simply not opening your mind to understanding our position on the matter. Read our posts. Until then I'm done trying to argue with the worst of NIMBYism: no change for the sake of no change.
You know, WisDOT is going to end up replacing nearly half the signage on WI 441 anyway as part of the massive expansion/reconstruction project, so it would be an easy opportunity for promotion.
I am of the opinion that all loop/belt freeways should be interstates since they provide an important national function as obvious alternative freeway routes for inter-regional traffic. And in some metro areas they provide direct interstate access to large suburbs.
WI 441 is a small-scale version of what's wrong with TN 840, CO 470 and a couple of Phoenix's loops, as examples.
This last point may be subjective, but I feel like having a 3di "legitimizes" an interstate route. Not as if a lack of any makes an interstate less important, but having one really drives home that this is an important corridor; so important that it needs a spur and/or a loop to properly serve the area.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 04, 2015, 09:25:04 PM
You know, WisDOT is going to end up replacing nearly half the signage on WI 441 anyway as part of the massive expansion/reconstruction project, so it would be an easy opportunity for promotion.
I am of the opinion that all loop/belt freeways should be interstates since they provide an important national function as obvious alternative freeway routes for inter-regional traffic. And in some metro areas they provide direct interstate access to large suburbs.
WI 441 is a small-scale version of what's wrong with TN 840, CO 470 and a couple of Phoenix's loops, as examples.
This last point may be subjective, but I feel like having a 3di "legitimizes" an interstate route. Not as if a lack of any makes an interstate less important, but having one really drives home that this is an important corridor; so important that it needs a spur and/or a loop to properly serve the area.
Exactly! Well said!
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 04, 2015, 09:20:53 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 04, 2015, 08:24:01 PM
What I keep reading here is "it makes sense". To whom? My parents live in Neenah, and this will make absolutely no difference in their lives. It will make no difference to the person plugging the destination address in a GPS and gets routed through there. It will make no difference to anyone traveling past Appleton as it's not really a "bypass" and saves no significant time. So again, what is the reasoning?
You are simply not opening your mind to understanding our position on the matter. Read our posts. Until then I'm done trying to argue with the worst of NIMBYism: no change for the sake of no change.
It has nothing to do with NIMBYism. And I think you are smart enough to know that.
Whatever it may be, I-441 will not be happening anytime soon. It was enough to see I-41 happen because politicians spoke-up. FHWA and AASHTO are not interested in seeing more Interstates being designated and the fact is...
a road is a road is a road is a road is a road is a road is a road is a road is a road.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 05, 2015, 01:41:30 AM
Whatever it may be, I-441 will not be happening anytime soon. It was enough to see I-41 happen because politicians spoke-up. FHWA and AASHTO are not interested in seeing more Interstates being designated and the fact is...
a road is a road is a road is a road is a road is a road is a road is a road is a road.
If there is a push by local businesses and politicians, I could easily see 441 be designated as an Interstate.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 04, 2015, 09:25:04 PM
You know, WisDOT is going to end up replacing nearly half the signage on WI 441 anyway as part of the massive expansion/reconstruction project, so it would be an easy opportunity for promotion.
I am of the opinion that all loop/belt freeways should be interstates since they provide an important national function as obvious alternative freeway routes for inter-regional traffic. And in some metro areas they provide direct interstate access to large suburbs.
WI 441 is a small-scale version of what's wrong with TN 840, CO 470 and a couple of Phoenix's loops, as examples.
This last point may be subjective, but I feel like having a 3di "legitimizes" an interstate route. Not as if a lack of any makes an interstate less important, but having one really drives home that this is an important corridor; so important that it needs a spur and/or a loop to properly serve the area.
And let's not forget that Appleton is not the only city in the area with traffic that 441 serves as an alternate. If I was coming from Oshkosh on 41, if I wanted to avoid Downtown Neenah and Downtown Menasha to get east on 114 or 10, 441 would be the way to do it.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 05, 2015, 02:12:36 PM
If there is a push by local businesses and politicians, I could easily see 441 be designated as an Interstate.
I totally agree. WisDOT didn't push for I-41, the local businesses and politicians did. Had they not, we'd still be driving along US 41 for the next several years. WisDOT won't push for I-441 either, but will do it if the local residents and governments ask. It's one of the things I appreciate about WisDOT - they take a pragmatic "technical" approach to upgrades instead of slapping on new signs because they can. They seem to understand that renumbering for renumbering's sake is not the best approach to managing a network of roads.
However, they do go out of their way to accomodate local biz and governments, as they should.
But this wouldn't be a renumbering. I'm usually against slapping up interstate signs just because a road is a freeway, but this one wouldn't cause any confusion or address changes because it's the same number. Since it is Wisconsin, maybe it would be dual signed I-441/WI 441.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 05, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 04, 2015, 09:25:04 PM
You know, WisDOT is going to end up replacing nearly half the signage on WI 441 anyway as part of the massive expansion/reconstruction project, so it would be an easy opportunity for promotion.
I am of the opinion that all loop/belt freeways should be interstates since they provide an important national function as obvious alternative freeway routes for inter-regional traffic. And in some metro areas they provide direct interstate access to large suburbs.
WI 441 is a small-scale version of what's wrong with TN 840, CO 470 and a couple of Phoenix's loops, as examples.
This last point may be subjective, but I feel like having a 3di "legitimizes" an interstate route. Not as if a lack of any makes an interstate less important, but having one really drives home that this is an important corridor; so important that it needs a spur and/or a loop to properly serve the area.
And let's not forget that Appleton is not the only city in the area with traffic that 441 serves as an alternate. If I was coming from Oshkosh on 41, if I wanted to avoid Downtown Neenah and Downtown Menasha to get east on 114 or 10, 441 would be the way to do it.
If nothing else, WI 441 is more of a bypass/alternate for Menasha and Neenah than it is for Appleton, for which it is more of an 'access facilitator' (ditto for the eastern suburbs south of the Fox River). I use US10/WI 441 a LOT in getting to and from my place in the downtown Appleton area from the southwest.
I have been pushing WisDOT for major US 10 upgrades east of Appleton, including rerouting it to follow County 'CE' east from WI 441 and then towards Forest Junction, for many years now, essentially completing its bypass of Appleton, too.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on April 06, 2015, 01:37:49 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 05, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 04, 2015, 09:25:04 PM
You know, WisDOT is going to end up replacing nearly half the signage on WI 441 anyway as part of the massive expansion/reconstruction project, so it would be an easy opportunity for promotion.
I am of the opinion that all loop/belt freeways should be interstates since they provide an important national function as obvious alternative freeway routes for inter-regional traffic. And in some metro areas they provide direct interstate access to large suburbs.
WI 441 is a small-scale version of what's wrong with TN 840, CO 470 and a couple of Phoenix's loops, as examples.
This last point may be subjective, but I feel like having a 3di "legitimizes" an interstate route. Not as if a lack of any makes an interstate less important, but having one really drives home that this is an important corridor; so important that it needs a spur and/or a loop to properly serve the area.
And let's not forget that Appleton is not the only city in the area with traffic that 441 serves as an alternate. If I was coming from Oshkosh on 41, if I wanted to avoid Downtown Neenah and Downtown Menasha to get east on 114 or 10, 441 would be the way to do it.
If nothing else, WI 441 is more of a bypass/alternate for Menasha and Neenah than it is for Appleton, for which it is more of an 'access facilitator' (ditto for the eastern suburbs south of the Fox River). I use US10/WI 441 a LOT in getting to and from my place in the downtown Appleton area from the southwest.
I have been pushing WisDOT for major US 10 upgrades east of Appleton, including rerouting it to follow County 'CE' east from WI 441 and then towards Forest Junction, for many years now, essentially completing its bypass of Appleton, too.
Mike
And I would also favor that Mike.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 06, 2015, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 06, 2015, 01:37:49 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 05, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 04, 2015, 09:25:04 PM
You know, WisDOT is going to end up replacing nearly half the signage on WI 441 anyway as part of the massive expansion/reconstruction project, so it would be an easy opportunity for promotion.
I am of the opinion that all loop/belt freeways should be interstates since they provide an important national function as obvious alternative freeway routes for inter-regional traffic. And in some metro areas they provide direct interstate access to large suburbs.
WI 441 is a small-scale version of what's wrong with TN 840, CO 470 and a couple of Phoenix's loops, as examples.
This last point may be subjective, but I feel like having a 3di "legitimizes" an interstate route. Not as if a lack of any makes an interstate less important, but having one really drives home that this is an important corridor; so important that it needs a spur and/or a loop to properly serve the area.
And let's not forget that Appleton is not the only city in the area with traffic that 441 serves as an alternate. If I was coming from Oshkosh on 41, if I wanted to avoid Downtown Neenah and Downtown Menasha to get east on 114 or 10, 441 would be the way to do it.
If nothing else, WI 441 is more of a bypass/alternate for Menasha and Neenah than it is for Appleton, for which it is more of an 'access facilitator' (ditto for the eastern suburbs south of the Fox River). I use US10/WI 441 a LOT in getting to and from my place in the downtown Appleton area from the southwest.
I have been pushing WisDOT for major US 10 upgrades east of Appleton, including rerouting it to follow County 'CE' east from WI 441 and then towards Forest Junction, for many years now, essentially completing its bypass of Appleton, too.
Mike
And I would also favor that Mike.
'CE' dead-ends at County Rd. 'D' in the Town of Holland. I suppose US10 could be re-routed along 'CE' to 'D' and then south on 'D' to the current US10. I would rather see it re-routed along County Rd. 'KK' to WIS57 in Forest Junction, where it would meet up with the current US10. That is the route I typically take when driving from Appleton to Manitowoc.
Quote from: TriCountyExpressway on May 07, 2015, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 06, 2015, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 06, 2015, 01:37:49 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 05, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 04, 2015, 09:25:04 PM
You know, WisDOT is going to end up replacing nearly half the signage on WI 441 anyway as part of the massive expansion/reconstruction project, so it would be an easy opportunity for promotion.
I am of the opinion that all loop/belt freeways should be interstates since they provide an important national function as obvious alternative freeway routes for inter-regional traffic. And in some metro areas they provide direct interstate access to large suburbs.
WI 441 is a small-scale version of what's wrong with TN 840, CO 470 and a couple of Phoenix's loops, as examples.
This last point may be subjective, but I feel like having a 3di "legitimizes" an interstate route. Not as if a lack of any makes an interstate less important, but having one really drives home that this is an important corridor; so important that it needs a spur and/or a loop to properly serve the area.
And let's not forget that Appleton is not the only city in the area with traffic that 441 serves as an alternate. If I was coming from Oshkosh on 41, if I wanted to avoid Downtown Neenah and Downtown Menasha to get east on 114 or 10, 441 would be the way to do it.
If nothing else, WI 441 is more of a bypass/alternate for Menasha and Neenah than it is for Appleton, for which it is more of an 'access facilitator' (ditto for the eastern suburbs south of the Fox River). I use US10/WI 441 a LOT in getting to and from my place in the downtown Appleton area from the southwest.
I have been pushing WisDOT for major US 10 upgrades east of Appleton, including rerouting it to follow County 'CE' east from WI 441 and then towards Forest Junction, for many years now, essentially completing its bypass of Appleton, too.
Mike
And I would also favor that Mike.
'CE' dead-ends at County Rd. 'D' in the Town of Holland. I suppose US10 could be re-routed along 'CE' to 'D' and then south on 'D' to the current US10. I would rather see it re-routed along County Rd. 'KK' to WIS57 in Forest Junction, where it would meet up with the current US10. That is the route I typically take when driving from Appleton to Manitowoc.
I'm proposing that US 10 follow a cross-county new ROW southeastward from where County 'CE' curves due eastward SE of Kaukauna, then eastward a bit after crossing into Calumet County, then curving southeastward just east of an interchange with County 'D' to then feed into the N-S part of existing US 10 on the east side of the Forest Junction area. This as a 'super two' freeway/expressway on an upgradable four-lanes ROW.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 08, 2015, 05:55:33 AM
Quote from: TriCountyExpressway on May 07, 2015, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 06, 2015, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 06, 2015, 01:37:49 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 05, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 04, 2015, 09:25:04 PM
You know, WisDOT is going to end up replacing nearly half the signage on WI 441 anyway as part of the massive expansion/reconstruction project, so it would be an easy opportunity for promotion.
I am of the opinion that all loop/belt freeways should be interstates since they provide an important national function as obvious alternative freeway routes for inter-regional traffic. And in some metro areas they provide direct interstate access to large suburbs.
WI 441 is a small-scale version of what's wrong with TN 840, CO 470 and a couple of Phoenix's loops, as examples.
This last point may be subjective, but I feel like having a 3di "legitimizes" an interstate route. Not as if a lack of any makes an interstate less important, but having one really drives home that this is an important corridor; so important that it needs a spur and/or a loop to properly serve the area.
And let's not forget that Appleton is not the only city in the area with traffic that 441 serves as an alternate. If I was coming from Oshkosh on 41, if I wanted to avoid Downtown Neenah and Downtown Menasha to get east on 114 or 10, 441 would be the way to do it.
If nothing else, WI 441 is more of a bypass/alternate for Menasha and Neenah than it is for Appleton, for which it is more of an 'access facilitator' (ditto for the eastern suburbs south of the Fox River). I use US10/WI 441 a LOT in getting to and from my place in the downtown Appleton area from the southwest.
I have been pushing WisDOT for major US 10 upgrades east of Appleton, including rerouting it to follow County 'CE' east from WI 441 and then towards Forest Junction, for many years now, essentially completing its bypass of Appleton, too.
Mike
And I would also favor that Mike.
'CE' dead-ends at County Rd. 'D' in the Town of Holland. I suppose US10 could be re-routed along 'CE' to 'D' and then south on 'D' to the current US10. I would rather see it re-routed along County Rd. 'KK' to WIS57 in Forest Junction, where it would meet up with the current US10. That is the route I typically take when driving from Appleton to Manitowoc.
I'm proposing that US 10 follow a cross-county new ROW southeastward from where County 'CE' curves due eastward SE of Kaukauna, then eastward a bit after crossing into Calumet County, then curving southeastward just east of an interchange with County 'D' to then feed into the N-S part of existing US 10 on the east side of the Forest Junction area. This as a 'super two' freeway/expressway on an upgradable four-lanes ROW.
:nod:
Mike
But how much of US-10's traffic is through traffic? (ie, coming to Appleton from the west and continuing on to Brillion or Manitowoc, and vice versa?) In looking at the traffic count maps, it looks like most of the traffic on CE, and on the US-10 south of WI-441, is local.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 08, 2015, 09:49:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 08, 2015, 05:55:33 AM
Quote from: TriCountyExpressway on May 07, 2015, 04:42:26 PM
'CE' dead-ends at County Rd. 'D' in the Town of Holland. I suppose US10 could be re-routed along 'CE' to 'D' and then south on 'D' to the current US10. I would rather see it re-routed along County Rd. 'KK' to WIS57 in Forest Junction, where it would meet up with the current US10. That is the route I typically take when driving from Appleton to Manitowoc.
I'm proposing that US 10 follow a cross-county new ROW southeastward from where County 'CE' curves due eastward SE of Kaukauna, then eastward a bit after crossing into Calumet County, then curving southeastward just east of an interchange with County 'D' to then feed into the N-S part of existing US 10 on the east side of the Forest Junction area. This as a 'super two' freeway/expressway on an upgradable four-lanes ROW.
:nod:
Mike
But how much of US-10's traffic is through traffic? (ie, coming to Appleton from the west and continuing on to Brillion or Manitowoc, and vice versa?) In looking at the traffic count maps, it looks like most of the traffic on CE, and on the US-10 south of WI-441, is local.
IMHO, the biggest interest here is in getting US 10 *OFF* of its current routing east of Appleton, which is very convoluted and increasingly congested, and onto a better, more direct and less congested routing. Yes, most of the traffic is local and this local area is fast developing. The current US 10 routing is quickly transitioning from a speedy access into the metro area and into part of a network of major urban/suburban arterials.
Mike
Traffic count maps are one thing. It's another if you are using it on a regular basis. I have been on US 10 between Appleton and Manitowoc several times in the last couple years. It is a very busy road for the current capacity especially in the summer.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 09, 2015, 07:05:48 AM
Traffic count maps are one thing. It's another if you are using it on a regular basis. I have been on US 10 between Appleton and Manitowoc several times in the last couple years. It is a very busy road for the current capacity especially in the summer.
Yea, I look upon that part of US 10 in the exact same way that I do WI 23 between FdL and Sheboygan.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 09, 2015, 11:11:40 AM
Yea, I look upon that part of US 10 in the exact same way that I do WI 23 between FdL and Sheboygan.
Mike
This section will be treated similar to WI 21 west of Omro with passing lanes constructed at certain intervals to allow for passing. There is a project scheduled to add these but I am unsure what year it will be done.
The closed ramps at College Ave & I41 in Grand Chute reopened last night - about a day ahead of what DOT had announced.
Quote from: Fox 11 News on May 14, 2015, 01:27:01 PM
The closed ramps at College Ave & I41 in Grand Chute reopened last night - about a day ahead of what DOT had announced.
For those in here who are unaware, when newsguys say 'Grand Chute', think 'unincorporated township area that would be Appleton's west side if Wisconsin had a better municipal boundary law'.
Mike
^^
Most populous unincorporated township in the state, if I'm not mistaken.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 14, 2015, 02:45:28 PM
^^
Most populous unincorporated township in the state, if I'm not mistaken.
I believe that you are correct.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2015, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: Fox 11 News on May 14, 2015, 01:27:01 PM
The closed ramps at College Ave & I41 in Grand Chute reopened last night - about a day ahead of what DOT had announced.
For those in here who are unaware, when newsguys say 'Grand Chute', think 'unincorporated township area that would be Appleton's west side if Wisconsin had a better municipal boundary law'.
Mike
Or would be Appleton's west side, if, when Fox River Mall was built, the city had embraced the project and tried to/agreed to annex the land then instead of fighting it tooth & nail.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 14, 2015, 02:45:28 PM
^^
Most populous unincorporated township in the state, if I'm not mistaken.
According to the 2010 Census, it had a population of 20,919.
The only other unincorporated towns with population >10,000 are Harrison in Calumet County and Lisbon in Waukesha County. And both of those are just over 10,000.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 14, 2015, 08:08:10 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 14, 2015, 02:45:28 PM
^^
Most populous unincorporated township in the state, if I'm not mistaken.
According to the 2010 Census, it had a population of 20,919.
The only other unincorporated towns with population >10,000 are Harrison in Calumet County and Lisbon in Waukesha County. And both of those are just over 10,000.
Menasha Twp. (Winnebago County) should be in the 18K range and most of Harrison is now a highly contentious incorporated village. Menasha (City), Kaukauna and Sherwood are bitterly fighting their attempt to merge the remaining township into that new village by 'gaming' a state law that was intended to make it easier to settle borders between existing central cities and surrounding townships.
Quote from: Fox 11 News on May 14, 2015, 05:06:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2015, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: Fox 11 News on May 14, 2015, 01:27:01 PM
The closed ramps at College Ave & I41 in Grand Chute reopened last night - about a day ahead of what DOT had announced.
For those in here who are unaware, when newsguys say 'Grand Chute', think 'unincorporated township area that would be Appleton's west side if Wisconsin had a better municipal boundary law'.
Mike
Or would be Appleton's west side, if, when Fox River Mall was built, the city had embraced the project and tried to/agreed to annex the land then instead of fighting it tooth & nail.
Long before then - the township had its own sewer and water service (buying water from the city) in that area at least a decade before the mall was announced. The city was essentially powerless to do anything about that by then. Remember, too, that at that time, the township was very bitter over the city having just annexed a bunch of land along College Ave out to and including the Taco Bell (the current city limits) and there was a court battle under way over an attempt by the City to annex farther out along the north side of College Ave to include what is now the plaza with HuHot, Cherry Berry and so forth (then the Elm Tree Bakery).
A failed attempt to incorporate that part of the township into a village happened about then, too.
OTOH, had the City Council agreed to annex the Legion hall when they petitioned it back in *1957*, when they were the only business on that whole part of the then newly opened College Ave (WI 125).... The Aldermen saw the writing on the wall back then but read it wrong, thinking that not annexing the land would prevent the area from growing in that direction, as was an effective planning tool until about that time under Wisconsin law. The City was straining under the weight of its explosive growth and development at the height of the post-WWII Baby Boom at that time.
That said, IMHO, the best thing that could happen to the metro area would be for it to be reorganized as one city under a neutral name, one mayor, one city council, one bureaucracy, etc - and even then, it would be less populous than two of the state's existing cities.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2015, 08:20:27 PM
That said, IMHO, the best thing that could happen to the metro area would be for it to be reorganized as one city under a neutral name, one mayor, one city council, one bureaucracy, etc - and even then, it would be less populous than two of the state's existing cities.
Applenashakauna? Or just Appleton, with 180,000 people?
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 14, 2015, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2015, 08:20:27 PM
That said, IMHO, the best thing that could happen to the metro area would be for it to be reorganized as one city under a neutral name, one mayor, one city council, one bureaucracy, etc - and even then, it would be less populous than two of the state's existing cities.
Applenashakauna? Or just Appleton, with 180,000 people?
Something like 'City of Fox Valley'. It would be about 230K. The existing City of Appleton would control about a third of the resulting city's city council.
Mike
Quote from: Fox 11 News on May 14, 2015, 01:27:01 PM
The closed ramps at College Ave & I41 in Grand Chute reopened last night - about a day ahead of what DOT had announced.
Good to know since I have to take my Uncle to Outagamie Co Airport next weekend.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2015, 11:56:50 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 14, 2015, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2015, 08:20:27 PM
That said, IMHO, the best thing that could happen to the metro area would be for it to be reorganized as one city under a neutral name, one mayor, one city council, one bureaucracy, etc - and even then, it would be less populous than two of the state's existing cities.
Applenashakauna? Or just Appleton, with 180,000 people?
Something like 'City of Fox Valley'. It would be about 230K. The existing City of Appleton would control about a third of the resulting city's city council.
Mike
I like the idea of a conglomerate but not one for the whole metro. Here's what I would do. Appleton can absorb Greenville, Grand Chute, Mackville and Harrison. Neenah and Menasha becomes one. Kimberly, Combined Locks, and Little Chute become one. And Kaukauna on it's own. There. I made 11 cities and towns into 4 cities.
Quote from: Fox 11 News on May 14, 2015, 01:27:01 PM
The closed ramps at College Ave & I41 in Grand Chute reopened last night - about a day ahead of what DOT had announced.
Speaking of the College Ave./I-41 interchange, a few months ago, a reflective yellow border was applied to the backplates of the traffic lights at that intersection, as well as a couple of others along College Ave. in Grand Chute. Today, I was driving through Neenah on Commercial St./WIS-114 and noticed that that same reflective border was being applied to lights at the Main St. intersection as well. I am wondering, is this a WISDOT directive for state/US highways that run on surface streets? I have never seen this in Wisconsin, except for those two places I mentioned.
It looks like the FHWA did a study on these reflective backplates in South Carolina. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/casestudies/fhwasa09011/
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 20, 2015, 02:44:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2015, 11:56:50 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 14, 2015, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2015, 08:20:27 PM
That said, IMHO, the best thing that could happen to the metro area would be for it to be reorganized as one city under a neutral name, one mayor, one city council, one bureaucracy, etc - and even then, it would be less populous than two of the state's existing cities.
Applenashakauna? Or just Appleton, with 180,000 people?
Something like 'City of Fox Valley'. It would be about 230K. The existing City of Appleton would control about a third of the resulting city's city council.
Mike
I like the idea of a conglomerate but not one for the whole metro. Here's what I would do. Appleton can absorb Greenville, Grand Chute, Mackville and Harrison. Neenah and Menasha becomes one. Kimberly, Combined Locks, and Little Chute become one. And Kaukauna on it's own. There. I made 11 cities and towns into 4 cities.
Combined Locks, Kimberly and Little Chute already share the same police agency, called 'Fox Valley Metro Police' and when the police merger discussions were under way in the 1990s, Kaukauna was invited to join in, but declined. Combined Locks originally declined, but joined FVM sometime during the '00s.
Menasha and Neenah (Cities) merged their fire departments about 20 years ago, too, and it has been working out well beyond expectations. The Neenah-Menasha Fire Department also has a joint first response pact with Appleton - about as close as two departments can get to each other without formally merging - where the station closest to the fire goes first, regardless of which of the three munis the fire is in. IIRC, Appleton also has such a pact with Grand Chute Township.
Appleton and Grand Chute Township seriously studied merging their police departments a few years ago, but, fearing a 'loss of identity' (a *VERY* shallow reason, IMHO), the township backed out late in the proceedings.
If I had to reduce the metro to no less than three munis, I would do these three:
- Menasha (City), Menasha (Township south of US 10 west of Little Lake Butte des Morts and excluding the Palisades and east Valley Fair areas east of Little Lake Butte des Morts), Neenah (City), Neenah (Township), Harrison Township (areas in the Menasha boundary agreement area plus the Waverly Beach area);
- Appleton, Grand Chute Township, Greenville Township, Center Township (Mackville area), Menasha (Township areas excluded above), Buchanon Township (areas west of WI 441), Harrison Township (areas in the Appleton boundary agreement area);
- Combined Locks, Kimberly, Little Chute, Kaukauna (City), Kaukauna (Township), Harrison (excluding the areas described above), Sherwood, Buchanon Township (areas between WI 441 and Kaukauna), Vandenbroek Township. The heavily developed northern part of this area is often locally referred to as 'The Heart of the Valley'.
My 'City of Fox Valley' would include all of the areas described above minus Kaukauna (Township) but including Clayton Township (Winnebago County) and the Winchester area.
Mike
:clap: I could go for that too. But either way, it can be done into a couple of cities.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 21, 2015, 12:12:40 AM
Menasha and Neenah (Cities) merged their fire departments about 20 years ago, too, and it has been working out well beyond expectations.
Growing up, my dad always referred to it as Neenah/Menasha, so I naïvely thought it was one municipality with an "odd" name. :pan:
Quote from: DaBigE on May 25, 2015, 01:04:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 21, 2015, 12:12:40 AM
Menasha and Neenah (Cities) merged their fire departments about 20 years ago, too, and it has been working out well beyond expectations.
Growing up, my dad always referred to it as Neenah/Menasha, so I naïvely thought it was one municipality with an "odd" name. :pan:
I wouldn't be surprised if someday they do merge to become Neenah-Menasha just like Wilkes-Barre and Winston-Salem.
I think the State of Wisconsin could encourage a lot more consolidation with its governmental entities. School districts included.
It would be nice if some of the Balkanized suburbs around Milwaukee combined services like the Fox Valley cities do. The only cooperation of note is the north shore fire department. I know there was some talk of a south metro fire department combining Greenfield, Franklin, Oak Creek, and West Allis, but it went nowhere.
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 27, 2015, 12:04:44 AM
It would be nice if some of the Balkanized suburbs around Milwaukee combined services like the Fox Valley cities do. The only cooperation of note is the north shore fire department. I know there was some talk of a south metro fire department combining Greenfield, Franklin, Oak Creek, and West Allis, but it went nowhere.
Doesn't the Village of West Milwaukee buy their fire service from the City of Milwaukee?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 27, 2015, 12:23:31 PM
Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on May 27, 2015, 12:04:44 AM
It would be nice if some of the Balkanized suburbs around Milwaukee combined services like the Fox Valley cities do. The only cooperation of note is the north shore fire department. I know there was some talk of a south metro fire department combining Greenfield, Franklin, Oak Creek, and West Allis, but it went nowhere.
Doesn't the Village of West Milwaukee buy their fire service from the City of Milwaukee?
Mike
You're right. Forgot about that one.
I grew up in Brillion and was always annoyed with US 10 when driving to Appleton. In 2006 the curves were flattened around Forest Jct. At the PIM, I asked if there were any plans to make US 10 4 lanes, and they said if there were plans in the future, that flattening project would be a waste of money. There is a study of WIS 114 to make it 4 lanes between US 10 and Sherwood since that area continues to grow. Improvements are being studied on Onedia St and the current 4 lane segment of US 10. It was on the WisDOT website, but has since been removed so I don't know if it's still being pursued.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 29, 2015, 01:14:36 AM
I grew up in Brillion and was always annoyed with US 10 when driving to Appleton. In 2006 the curves were flattened around Forest Jct. At the PIM, I asked if there were any plans to make US 10 4 lanes, and they said if there were plans in the future, that flattening project would be a waste of money. There is a study of WIS 114 to make it 4 lanes between US 10 and Sherwood since that area continues to grow. Improvements are being studied on Onedia St and the current 4 lane segment of US 10. It was on the WisDOT website, but has since been removed so I don't know if it's still being pursued.
Over the past several years, I've been pushing WisDOT to begin planning for a full reroute of US 10 to have it run eastward from WI 441 in Appleton along County 'CE" to the curve southeast of Kaukauna, then countinue cross-country on a new ROW past Hollandtown to the curve on the NE edge of Forest Junction.
Mike