Interstate 894 is signed and exists, yet it's completely concurrent with two 2di interstates. Wouldn't that justify its decommissioning? Or is it too important to be decommissioned?
The number has been around for a long time and everyone refers to it as I-894. Frankly, though it is concurrent with I-41 for its entire length, the segment of it that is named the Zoo Freeway is least known as I-41 - if you ask 100 Milwaukee area residents to name the routes that run along the Zoo Freeway, I bet most would say I-894, US-45, and then finally I/US-41.
So it still exists for familiarity reasons despite being concurrent and cosigned with two other interstates?
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 04:06:34 PM
So it still exists for familiarity reasons despite being concurrent and cosigned with two other interstates?
You'll find this around the country. Boston folks still say "route 128". Houstonians still use US-59 (though that is more recent). People in St. Louis still say Highway 40, instead of I-64.
Habits die hard.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on October 21, 2021, 04:10:14 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 04:06:34 PM
So it still exists for familiarity reasons despite being concurrent and cosigned with two other interstates?
You'll find this around the country. Boston folks still say "route 128". Houstonians still use US-59 (though that is more recent). People in St. Louis still say Highway 40, instead of I-64.
Habits die hard.
"ALT 7" in the Albany area drives me nuts.
I-894 has existed for decades, and adheres to the Interstate 'bypass' rule of even # 3di's. Same reason the DC Capitol Beltway got I-495 restored, even with 95 concurrency.
Quote from: US20IL64 on October 21, 2021, 05:06:02 PM
I-894 has existed for decades
Hence the "old habits" mentioned earlier in the thread.
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 03:41:42 PM
Interstate 894 is signed and exists, yet it's completely concurrent with two 2di interstates. Wouldn't that justify its decommissioning? Or is it too important to be decommissioned?
I-41 doesn't exist - below I-94 at the zoo.
WisDOT had a release back in 2015 or so explaining why I-894 was not going to be removed (the familiarity as mentioned, as well as maintaining a clear marked bypass for I-94).
I'd argue Wisconsin as the king of multiplexes has *worse* examples of stuff that could be removed.
I-94 have a better Milwaukee bypass than I-894: I-90 :sombrero:
If it were up to me, I-894 wouldn't need to exist as I-94 would end in Milwaukee and the Michigan segment of I-94 would become I-92. Then I-41 could be extended on the Edens.
Quote from: I-39 on October 21, 2021, 09:21:59 PM
If it were up to me, I-894 wouldn't need to exist as I-94 would end in Milwaukee and the Michigan segment of I-94 would become I-92. Then I-41 could be extended on the Edens.
Why I-41 instead of I-57 or I-65, if you're going to be eliminating the Chicago-Milwaukee portion of I-94? The whole reason why I-41 exists is because IDOT was being a [insert choice word here] when Wisconsin wanted one of the three N-S interstates that end in Chicago extended northward.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 21, 2021, 09:24:08 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 21, 2021, 09:21:59 PM
If it were up to me, I-894 wouldn't need to exist as I-94 would end in Milwaukee and the Michigan segment of I-94 would become I-92. Then I-41 could be extended on the Edens.
Why I-41 instead of I-57 or I-65, if you're going to be eliminating the Chicago-Milwaukee portion of I-94? The whole reason why I-41 exists is because IDOT was being a [insert choice word here] when Wisconsin wanted one of the three N-S interstates that end in Chicago extended northward.
I guess that would work too, though one of those running up the I-43 corridor would make more sense. I don't have a problem with I-41 though, except for the part where it multiplexes I-94.
Oh here we go again. This has been discussed like 85 times before. And I will say it again why not truncate I-41 to the zoo? The duplex down to the Illinois state line is unnecessary and everyone calls that part I-94. South of the zoo it can be signed as US-41.
I-894 is Michael Bolton's character in Office Space, asking why he should have to change his name because of I-41
894 is redundant; it should be removed. The 'bypass' rationale doesn't hold water for me. It's just useless nostalgia clutter.
It would be like if OKC retained the part of I-240 subsumed by I-44.
If it were up to me, all those 894 signs would be on eBay.
I-894 is fine and makes sense because it is an actual bypass of I-94. It should stay as is.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 22, 2021, 01:34:22 PM
894 is redundant; it should be removed. The 'bypass' rationale doesn't hold water for me. It's just useless nostalgia clutter.
It would be like if OKC retained the part of I-240 subsumed by I-44.
If it were up to me, all those 894 signs would be on eBay.
Speaking of 240, Oklahoma is going to extend 240 along 44, 152, the John Kilpatrick Turnpike, the Turner Turnpike (44), the Kickapoo Turnpike, and 40 and basically turning it into a beltway around the OKC metro. Meaning's it's likely to follow 44 twice, with one follow being a wrong-way concurrency. But that's a topic for the Mid-South forum, which means I'm not diving too deep into that here.
Changing all the highway signs in Chicago land, for rural WI to get 55 and 57, was a "no-go", I say. Too much $$. :pan: Many more drivers here, also.
You got 43 and 41, 20-30 years too late, so we kept our 55 and 57 ends. :bigass:
And, for the hundredth time, 894 is fine as is. Agree that it's "too important". The Interstate system specifies bypasses of principle routes, and 94 supersedes 41 and 43. i.e. Don't mess with it!
All the "but they shoulda" well they didn't and glad did so! :cool:
Quote from: US20IL64 on October 22, 2021, 03:18:23 PM
Changing all the highway signs in Chicago land, for rural WI to get 55 and 57, was a "no-go", I say. Too much $$. :pan: Many more drivers here, also.
You got 43 and 41, 20-30 years too late, so we kept our 55 and 57 ends. :bigass:
And, for the hundredth time, 894 is fine as is. Agree that it's "too important". The Interstate system specifies bypasses of principle routes, and 94 supersedes 41 and 43. i.e. Don't mess with it!
All the "but they shoulda" well they didn't and glad did so! :cool:
I-57's south end is set to change, but there are already threads on that in the Mid-South forum, meaning I'm not diving too deep into the planned extension here.
I think I 41 is the useless one. Doesn't even need to exist. Why can't there be a consistent non interstate freeway for a change?
Quote from: dvferyance on October 22, 2021, 11:39:41 AM
Oh here we go again. This has been discussed like 85 times before. And I will say it again why not truncate I-41 to the zoo? The duplex down to the Illinois state line is unnecessary and everyone calls that part I-94. South of the zoo it can be signed as US-41.
^^^
This 100000x
This wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the duplex of I-41 down to the state line. I don't even really get the point of why they did that.
It was either this, I-47, I-594, or I-643. I-47 would have ended at the Mitchell Field Interchange and I was hoping they would have used that one. I-594 would have ended at the Zoo Interchange and I-643 would have ended at the Hale Interchange. I have to admit that I-894 is pretty much superfluous at this point and they should have gotten rid of it.
Besides I-41, I-47, I-594, I-643 or a I-55, 57 or 65 extension, was there an option to keep it as US 41? Be like Michigan in this one with a long-distance US route freeway.
Quote from: I-39 on October 22, 2021, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 22, 2021, 11:39:41 AM
Oh here we go again. This has been discussed like 85 times before. And I will say it again why not truncate I-41 to the zoo? The duplex down to the Illinois state line is unnecessary and everyone calls that part I-94. South of the zoo it can be signed as US-41.
^^^
This 100000x
This wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the duplex of I-41 down to the state line. I don't even really get the point of why they did that.
Presumably because US-41 continues along I-94 to the border, and WISDOT wants to supersede all of US-41 south of Green Bay with I-41.
Quote from: thspfc on October 22, 2021, 08:40:43 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 22, 2021, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 22, 2021, 11:39:41 AM
Oh here we go again. This has been discussed like 85 times before. And I will say it again why not truncate I-41 to the zoo? The duplex down to the Illinois state line is unnecessary and everyone calls that part I-94. South of the zoo it can be signed as US-41.
^^^
This 100000x
This wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the duplex of I-41 down to the state line. I don't even really get the point of why they did that.
Presumably because US-41 continues along I-94 to the border, and WISDOT wants to supersede all of US-41 south of Green Bay with I-41.
Yep. This exactly. They simply substituted the US-41 shields with I-41. And this bothers no one but pendantic roadgeeks.
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.
How would a different route number saved the number of signs? I-41 could use less signs if they chose to.
(How would a different route number saved the number of signs? I-41 could use less signs if they chose to.)
I'm talking about before they made the decision. The other routes were shorter and it stands to reason there would have been a need for fewer signs because they wouldn't have needed to update the signs in Racine and Kenosha County.
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 04:33:16 PM
(How would a different route number saved the number of signs? I-41 could use less signs if they chose to.)
I'm talking about before they made the decision. The other routes were shorter and it stands to reason there would have been a need for fewer signs because they wouldn't have needed to update the signs in Racine and Kenosha County.
They didn't NEED to update the signs south of the Zoo Interchange. If it were me, I would not have posted all-new I-41 shields along that stretch. To be honest, if I had the opportunity to redo everything from scratch, I would truncate US-41 to Rosecrans, IL. US-141 would take over US-41 between 141's current northern terminus and 41's current northern terminus at Copper Harbor. WI-22 would take over between Oconto and Marinette. M-28 would be alone between Marquette and where it currently splits off US-41. The 11 miles between US-141 at Abrams and WI-22 at Oconto would become a 3 digit Wisconsin route. The rest (between Menominee and M-28 at Harvey) would become a new MI state route.
Of course, that is all hypothetical, and there is no point in doing any of that now.
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.
Lol. How much did it really cost in extra signage? A relative drop in the bucket.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 23, 2021, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.
Lol. How much did it really cost in extra signage? A relative drop in the bucket.
Hardly. The cost was between $5M to $7M. https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/us41interstate/faqs.aspx
Quote from: Big John on October 23, 2021, 09:04:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 23, 2021, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on October 23, 2021, 11:40:23 AM
It's not just about road geeks. It would have saved money to go with either I-47, I-594, or I-643 because they would have needed less signs. And they could have used the money saved on another project, depending on the project.
Lol. How much did it really cost in extra signage? A relative drop in the bucket.
Hardly. The cost was between $5M to $7M. https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/us41interstate/faqs.aspx
The vast majority of which would have been incurred regardless of the number chosen.
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
I agree that the I-41 number is most logical, however, if I had to pick a different number, it would be I-55.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
I agree with your overall point, but aren't US 41 shields still displayed along the I-41 routing? I see them when I'm on that route.
The I-41 number reminds me of roads in Australia, where the "M" prefix is pretty much an "A" prefix highway at freeway grade. Similar case with I-41 and US 41.
Quote from: I-39 on October 24, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
I agree with your overall point, but aren't US 41 shields still displayed along the I-41 routing? I see them when I'm on that route.
Yes as reassurance markers and that's about it. And those really aren't needed.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate. Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
Guess MDOT disagrees with you too then. But hey, we disagree with them on a lot of things already, including E-ZPass implementation :bigass:
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 24, 2021, 07:54:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
Guess MDOT disagrees with you too then. But hey, we disagree with them on a lot of things already, including E-ZPass implementation :bigass:
I think a LOT of DOTs disagree with me. And that's probably good.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
So that means you'll support WIS 29 becoming I-96 when the corridor becomes a full freeway across the state......... :bigass:
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate. Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.
With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.
Quote from: I-39 on October 24, 2021, 11:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
So that means you'll support WIS 29 becoming I-96 when the corridor becomes a full freeway across the state......... :bigass:
Most definitely.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2021, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 24, 2021, 11:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
So that means you'll support WIS 29 becoming I-96 when the corridor becomes a full freeway across the state......... :bigass:
Most definitely.
Let's see that happen first...
Quote from: Crash_It on October 25, 2021, 01:22:28 AM
With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.
Also "I-364" and "I-370" in the St Louis area, and "I-470" in Denver. So many state route freeways signed like a 3di (think there's already a thread about this).
Quote from: Crash_It on October 25, 2021, 01:22:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate. Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.
With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.
Well I did say "of significant length," and I don't think IL-394 falls into that category. I was intentionally vague with that description, but I am thinking for 2dis, about 75-100 miles or more. (Not saying those less than that figure SHOULDN'T be interstates.)
Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2021, 02:06:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2021, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 24, 2021, 11:53:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
So that means you'll support WIS 29 becoming I-96 when the corridor becomes a full freeway across the state......... :bigass:
Most definitely.
Let's see that happen first...
It will. Not for a while, but it will. You probably could even make the case for the Green Bay to Wausau segment going full freeway right now, but I would say US 151 between Madison and Fond du Lac should be a bigger priority.
Presuming you haven't read the other Wisconsin threads where major projects are in increasingly smaller frequency due to funding (or lack thereof) and focused on the EXISTING Interstates where they are way overdue. Wisconsin shot itself in the foot when they stopped indexing their gas tax several years ago.
I doubt you'll see a freeway-grade WI 29 (let alone Interstate) in YOUR lifetime, let alone mine...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2021, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 25, 2021, 01:22:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate. Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.
With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.
Well I did say "of significant length," and I don't think IL-394 falls into that category. I was intentionally vague with that description, but I am thinking for 2dis, about 75-100 miles or more. (Not saying those less than that figure SHOULDN'T be interstates.)
Agree, but some long corridors are fine as US Highways. US 151 is an example that is often thrown around for an Interstate designation when the corridor becomes a freeway between Fond du Lac and Madison (and even Madison to Dubuque), but I think it's fine as US 151. Compared to turning WIS 29 into I-96, which would benefit the corridor in the same way that converting WIS 15 to I-43 in the late 80s did, I don't think there would be a similar benefit for US 151.
Quote from: I-39 on October 26, 2021, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2021, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 25, 2021, 01:22:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate. Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.
With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.
Well I did say "of significant length," and I don't think IL-394 falls into that category. I was intentionally vague with that description, but I am thinking for 2dis, about 75-100 miles or more. (Not saying those less than that figure SHOULDN'T be interstates.)
Agree, but some long corridors are fine as US Highways. US 151 is an example that is often thrown around for an Interstate designation when the corridor becomes a freeway between Fond du Lac and Madison (and even Madison to Dubuque), but I think it's fine as US 151. Compared to turning WIS 29 into I-96, which would benefit the corridor in the same way that converting WIS 15 to I-43 in the late 80s did, I don't think there would be a similar benefit for US 151.
Even if US-151 between Dubuque and Madison becomes a full freeway, I still don't think it would be fit for an Interstate designation because of all the sharp curves and steep hills - there's a 7% maximum grade rule for Interstate highways, and that stretch of US-151 probably has a few 8+% grade hills.
Quote from: thspfc on October 26, 2021, 07:26:40 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 26, 2021, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2021, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 25, 2021, 01:22:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate. Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.
With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.
Well I did say "of significant length," and I don't think IL-394 falls into that category. I was intentionally vague with that description, but I am thinking for 2dis, about 75-100 miles or more. (Not saying those less than that figure SHOULDN'T be interstates.)
Agree, but some long corridors are fine as US Highways. US 151 is an example that is often thrown around for an Interstate designation when the corridor becomes a freeway between Fond du Lac and Madison (and even Madison to Dubuque), but I think it's fine as US 151. Compared to turning WIS 29 into I-96, which would benefit the corridor in the same way that converting WIS 15 to I-43 in the late 80s did, I don't think there would be a similar benefit for US 151.
Even if US-151 between Dubuque and Madison becomes a full freeway, I still don't think it would be fit for an Interstate designation because of all the sharp curves and steep hills - there's a 7% maximum grade rule for Interstate highways, and that stretch of US-151 probably has a few 8+% grade hills.
True, but like I said, it doesn't need to be an Interstate. It is fine as US 151, and the Dubuque to Madison segment is probably even further away than WIS 29 in becoming full freeway.
Quote from: I-39 on October 26, 2021, 07:16:31 PM
<quotes trimmed>
Agree, but some long corridors are fine as US Highways. US 151 is an example that is often thrown around for an Interstate designation when the corridor becomes a freeway between Fond du Lac and Madison (and even Madison to Dubuque), but I think it's fine as US 151. Compared to turning WIS 29 into I-96, which would benefit the corridor in the same way that converting WIS 15 to I-43 in the late 80s did, I don't think there would be a similar benefit for US 151.
WIS 15 became I-43 because to be a 65 mph road required the red-white-and-blue shield at the time - like the designations in Illinois (155 and 88). US-51 to Wausau got lucky because an amendment to the 65 rule allowed additional freeways to get it on certain conditions.
Very good discussion so far.
I'm in the camp of leaving the I-894 designation. Even though it is subsumed by I-41, it is still well known to travelers as the Milwaukee bypass highway.
What is needed along the corridor are better signage for control cities to guide people along the bypass. This should be done on the big green signs along the highways and at the three key interchanges that I-894 passes through. This should also be done at the cross street on-ramps, where now al you have are small roadsign signs for 41N/43S/894W ro 41S/43N/894E. At a moment's notice, it will be hard to keep up with this, especially given the confusion of the wrong-way 41/43 multiplex.
The signs at the Zoo Interchange seem very good, as they list all apppropriate highways. (All pointing south). The proper signs also put in "Bypass" (although my preference would be "Milwaukee Bypass") and have an airport symbol. Most importantly, Chicago is the control.
The stretch between Zoo and 43 should have control cities signed from cross-street on-ramps. Southbound should be Chicago. Northbound should be both Madison and Fond du Lac. (Madison is the primary control where there is only room for one). 894 should be signed north/south on this section, not east/west.
The signs at the 43 interchange should have 41 south, 43 north, and 894 east for one direction and 41/894/45 north in the other direction. The signs for 41S/43N/894E should also include an airplane logo. The control city for 41S/43N/894E is properly Chicago if coming from the direction of Zoo, but it should list both Chicago and Milwaukee if coming from 43 NB. The control cities for 41/894/45 north are properly listed as Fond du Lac and Madison, but the controls need to be listed on signs coming from the airport as well. (The signs are only seen when coming from 43 N.)
The stretch between the Airport Interchange and 43 should have control cities signed from cross-street on-ramps. Eastbound should be Milwaukee and Chicago, with Milwaukee as the primary control. Westbound should be both Madison and Beloit. (Madison is the primary control where there is only room for one). The control cities are really important here as each of the three highways signed has a different compass direction.
Finally, at the Airport interchange, care must be taken that each highway have a cardinal direction posted. The controlled cities as currently signed here seem appropriate (Beloit signed on the exit from 94 EB and Fond du Lac/Madison signed on the exit from 94 WB). The only thing I would add are signs for "BYPASS" (or "Milwauikee Bypass") in a similar manner as signed from the Zoo Interchange.
Quote from: I-39 on October 26, 2021, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2021, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 25, 2021, 01:22:28 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on October 24, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 24, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Let's look at this logically.
Let's say they chose I-47 that ends at the Zoo Interchange. Now what would you have done with US-41? Would you have co-signed it the entire way between Green Bay and Milwaukee? Would you have kept it on the former routing through Milwaukee? (exiting at Appleton Avenue then running with I-94 through downtown?) Would you have run it along I-894, which means you are duplexing a "41" along that highway anyway, just one with black and white shield instead of red, white and blue ones.
This is why I-41 on its current routing always made sense. You can "hide" US-41 when the highway is an interstate only to have it re-emerge on either end, causing little confusion. You fix the bad US-41 routing on the north side of Milwaukee, which actually WAS confusing. And you sign a north/south highway as north and south between Chicago and Milwaukee instead of the east west signage of I-94 only.
Swapping out signs was going to incur a cost regardless. This way they would able to avoid and/or fix multiple problems anyway.
They could've done all of that by just routing US41 onto the current routing it's on. They didn't need to make it an interstate. Not every freeway has to be an interstate. We don't have many non-interstate freeways here in the Midwest because of this.
1. WIDOT didn't have a choice since the designation was part of a highway funding bill.
2. I disagree with you. I think every interstate compatible freeway of significant length should be designated an interstate.
3. It's absolutely fine as an interstate. Only roadgeeks care about the "problems" outlined in this topic.
With that analogy, then IL394 would be designated as I394. There should be some non interstate freeways. CA and MN kinda have the right idea with it, although parts of MN5 and MN100 go onto I494.
Well I did say "of significant length," and I don't think IL-394 falls into that category. I was intentionally vague with that description, but I am thinking for 2dis, about 75-100 miles or more. (Not saying those less than that figure SHOULDN'T be interstates.)
Agree, but some long corridors are fine as US Highways. US 151 is an example that is often thrown around for an Interstate designation when the corridor becomes a freeway between Fond du Lac and Madison (and even Madison to Dubuque), but I think it's fine as US 151. Compared to turning WIS 29 into I-96, which would benefit the corridor in the same way that converting WIS 15 to I-43 in the late 80s did, I don't think there would be a similar benefit for US 151.
If US-151 becomes a full freeway between Madison and Fond du Lac, I would like it to become a 3di (I-239), with US-151 truncated back to Dodgeville, WI-55 extended to I-41, and some new state highway running between WI-55 and Manitowoc. But this will never happen.
I don't think it will ever be interstate compatible between Madison and Dubuque.
Quote from: mrsman on October 27, 2021, 10:38:33 AM
Very good discussion so far.
...
The stretch between Zoo and 43 should have control cities signed from cross-street on-ramps. Southbound should be Chicago. Northbound should be both Madison and Fond du Lac. (Madison is the primary control where there is only room for one). 894 should be signed north/south on this section, not east/west.
...
The stretch between the Airport Interchange and 43 should have control cities signed from cross-street on-ramps. Eastbound should be Milwaukee and Chicago, with Milwaukee as the primary control. Westbound should be both Madison and Beloit. (Madison is the primary control where there is only room for one). The control cities are really important here as each of the three highways signed has a different compass direction.
So I agree with you for the most part, except for these two paragraphs. I don't like the idea of control cities on the I-894 exits for the most part because traffic for the most part is local and not accessing the highway for a longer distance trip.
But I particularly don't like the suggestion of Milwaukee as a control city on the E/W portion of I-894 because BOTH directions lead you to different parts of Milwaukee. (For instance, the Milwaukee County Zoo is in Milwaukee, and there is a whole office / industrial complex further north on I-41.)
You could say "Downtown Milwaukee" or even simply "Downtown" instead.
Quote from: I-39 on October 26, 2021, 09:25:53 PM
True, but like I said, it doesn't need to be an Interstate. It is fine as US 151, and the Dubuque to Madison segment is probably even further away than WIS 29 in becoming full freeway.
In terms of percentage of that total length, you'll see more freeway sooner on the 151 segment in question.
Freeway conversion east of Dodgeville will probably see significant progress this decade as Madison keeps sprawling and the at-grade intersections increasingly become a liability.
Back to 894, I don't think the locals will stress that number going away. People are dumb, but they're also not idiots.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 27, 2021, 03:55:33 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 26, 2021, 09:25:53 PM
True, but like I said, it doesn't need to be an Interstate. It is fine as US 151, and the Dubuque to Madison segment is probably even further away than WIS 29 in becoming full freeway.
In terms of percentage of that total length, you'll see more freeway sooner on the 151 segment in question.
Freeway conversion east of Dodgeville will probably see significant progress this decade as Madison keeps sprawling and the at-grade intersections increasingly become a liability.
Back to 894, I don't think the locals will stress that number going away. People are dumb, but they're also not idiots.
Only the US 151 segment between Verona and Dodgeville would the freeway conversion happen. Dodgeville to Dubuque is probably further off than WIS 29.
I'm actually baffled they haven't done the short segment between Verona and Mt. Horeb, all they have to do is construct some frontage roads and close off a few intersections. No new interchanges or overpasses required. With the growth of Epic and the West side of Verona in general, it seems like a low hanging fruit.
Then again, if it were up to me, in addition to the Interstate reconstruction/expansion, WisDOT should in the next decade prioritize freeway conversion on US 151 between Columbus and Waupun, Verona and Dodgeville and WIS 29 between Pittsfield and Bonduel.
Quote from: I-39 on October 27, 2021, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 27, 2021, 03:55:33 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 26, 2021, 09:25:53 PM
True, but like I said, it doesn't need to be an Interstate. It is fine as US 151, and the Dubuque to Madison segment is probably even further away than WIS 29 in becoming full freeway.
In terms of percentage of that total length, you'll see more freeway sooner on the 151 segment in question.
Freeway conversion east of Dodgeville will probably see significant progress this decade as Madison keeps sprawling and the at-grade intersections increasingly become a liability.
Back to 894, I don't think the locals will stress that number going away. People are dumb, but they're also not idiots.
Only the US 151 segment between Verona and Dodgeville would the freeway conversion happen. Dodgeville to Dubuque is probably further off than WIS 29.
I'm actually baffled they haven't done the short segment between Verona and Mt. Horeb, all they have to do is construct some frontage roads and close off a few intersections. No new interchanges or overpasses required. With the growth of Epic and the West side of Verona in general, it seems like a low hanging fruit.
Then again, if it were up to me, in addition to the Interstate reconstruction/expansion, WisDOT should in the next decade prioritize freeway conversion on US 151 between Columbus and Waupun, Verona and Dodgeville and WIS 29 between Pittsfield and Bonduel.
I am surprised they won't even close off the connector road to Hwy J. It's grade seperated but there is a connector road that creates an at grade intersection. Makes the underpass kind of pointless.
I'm on the fence with the 894 designation. I understand that I'm a road geek so I pay more attention to this than many people, and I've lived in the Milwaukee area for most of my 51 years on this planet. I do believe that 894 is superfluous at this point, but it has been that forever and there's something to be said for consistency. On the other hand, if we were to rip off the band-aid and just fix everything, I'd remove it, and additionally move 43 to run North on 894 to 94 East instead of 894 East, fixing the now awkward stretch of a North and a Southbound interstate.
Again most people wouldn't care, and the only reason to do it is to make the road geeks happy.
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 28, 2021, 11:56:03 AM
I'm on the fence with the 894 designation. I understand that I'm a road geek so I pay more attention to this than many people, and I've lived in the Milwaukee area for most of my 51 years on this planet. I do believe that 894 is superfluous at this point, but it has been that forever and there's something to be said for consistency. On the other hand, if we were to rip off the band-aid and just fix everything, I'd remove it, and additionally move 43 to run North on 894 to 94 East instead of 894 East, fixing the now awkward stretch of a North and a Southbound interstate.
Again most people wouldn't care, and the only reason to do it is to make the road geeks happy.
I disagree with the bolded. First, the I-894 east/west routing is the quickest through route for I-43. Second, the Zoo Interchange is already the busiest in the state and you would be dumping more traffic onto the overloaded I-94.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 28, 2021, 02:24:52 PM
Second, the Zoo Interchange is already the busiest in the state and you would be dumping more traffic onto the overloaded I-94.
There is an assumption in there that I-43 sees anything close to a large amount of thru traffic, which it does not. I-43 is really two functionally different interstates stitched together. While I agree this I-43 reroute that was just pitched isn't a great idea, it's not for this reason particular reason. The distance is the more overriding factor.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 28, 2021, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 28, 2021, 02:24:52 PM
Second, the Zoo Interchange is already the busiest in the state and you would be dumping more traffic onto the overloaded I-94.
There is an assumption in there that I-43 sees anything close to a large amount of thru traffic, which it does not. I-43 is really two functionally different interstates stitched together. While I agree this I-43 reroute that was just pitched isn't a great idea, it's not for this reason particular reason. The distance is the more overriding factor.
I get that.
I get all of that.
If the Interstate 894 designation was removed, the mile markers and exit numbers would have to be renumbered. The exits would probably be numbered 28-38 to match the existing exit sequence north of the Zoo Interchange, though an 894 removal should have the exit numbered between 33 and 43 (if using Interstate 41's mileage from the Illinois/Wisconsin border, with all numbers north of the Zoo Interchange being increased by 5 digits). If 894 was going to be removed, it would have happened in 2015 when Interstate 41 was commissioned.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2021, 02:54:36 PM
If the Interstate 894 designation was removed, the mile markers and exit numbers would have to be renumbered. The exits would probably be numbered 28-38 to match the existing exit sequence north of the Zoo Interchange, though an 894 removal should have the exit numbered between 33 and 43 (if using Interstate 41's mileage from the Illinois/Wisconsin border, with all numbers north of the Zoo Interchange being increased by 5 digits). If 894 was going to be removed, it would have happened in 2015 when Interstate 41 was commissioned.
Yeah, it's a hassle. But ultimately not that big a deal. States do this all the time. It's less frequent and more costly with interstates compared to US and state (plus CTH in WI) routes, but it has been done. Locals will still call it 894 just like they still say Highway 40 in St Louis and I still refer to I-90 in Illinois as the Northwest Tollway.
Quote from: skluth on October 29, 2021, 09:12:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2021, 02:54:36 PM
If the Interstate 894 designation was removed, the mile markers and exit numbers would have to be renumbered. The exits would probably be numbered 28-38 to match the existing exit sequence north of the Zoo Interchange, though an 894 removal should have the exit numbered between 33 and 43 (if using Interstate 41's mileage from the Illinois/Wisconsin border, with all numbers north of the Zoo Interchange being increased by 5 digits). If 894 was going to be removed, it would have happened in 2015 when Interstate 41 was commissioned.
Yeah, it's a hassle. But ultimately not that big a deal. States do this all the time. It's less frequent and more costly with interstates compared to US and state (plus CTH in WI) routes, but it has been done. Locals will still call it 894 just like they still say Highway 40 in St Louis and I still refer to I-90 in Illinois as the Northwest Tollway.
Even though removing the 894 shields wouldn't be a large project, it still needs to be justified. I wouldn't throw a dollar bill into a river because "it's just a dollar". And at this time there is no reason to change anything about I-894.
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2021, 09:11:27 AM
Quote from: skluth on October 29, 2021, 09:12:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2021, 02:54:36 PM
If the Interstate 894 designation was removed, the mile markers and exit numbers would have to be renumbered. The exits would probably be numbered 28-38 to match the existing exit sequence north of the Zoo Interchange, though an 894 removal should have the exit numbered between 33 and 43 (if using Interstate 41's mileage from the Illinois/Wisconsin border, with all numbers north of the Zoo Interchange being increased by 5 digits). If 894 was going to be removed, it would have happened in 2015 when Interstate 41 was commissioned.
Yeah, it's a hassle. But ultimately not that big a deal. States do this all the time. It's less frequent and more costly with interstates compared to US and state (plus CTH in WI) routes, but it has been done. Locals will still call it 894 just like they still say Highway 40 in St Louis and I still refer to I-90 in Illinois as the Northwest Tollway.
Even though removing the 894 shields wouldn't be a large project, it still needs to be justified. I don't throw a dollar bill into a river because "it's just a dollar". And at this time there is no reason to change anything about I-894.
Yep. Not confusing anyone. Just multiplexed for its entire route, which has been the case for 30 years anyway.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 30, 2021, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2021, 09:11:27 AM
Quote from: skluth on October 29, 2021, 09:12:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2021, 02:54:36 PM
If the Interstate 894 designation was removed, the mile markers and exit numbers would have to be renumbered. The exits would probably be numbered 28-38 to match the existing exit sequence north of the Zoo Interchange, though an 894 removal should have the exit numbered between 33 and 43 (if using Interstate 41's mileage from the Illinois/Wisconsin border, with all numbers north of the Zoo Interchange being increased by 5 digits). If 894 was going to be removed, it would have happened in 2015 when Interstate 41 was commissioned.
Yeah, it's a hassle. But ultimately not that big a deal. States do this all the time. It's less frequent and more costly with interstates compared to US and state (plus CTH in WI) routes, but it has been done. Locals will still call it 894 just like they still say Highway 40 in St Louis and I still refer to I-90 in Illinois as the Northwest Tollway.
Even though removing the 894 shields wouldn't be a large project, it still needs to be justified. I don't throw a dollar bill into a river because "it's just a dollar". And at this time there is no reason to change anything about I-894.
Yep. Not confusing anyone. Just multiplexed for its entire route, which has been the case for 30 years anyway.
I can't believe it's been that long already! I still sometimes catch myself calling it Hwy 15. Of course I caught myself calling the Les Paul Pkwy Hwy A the other day. Funny how age does that to you!
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 30, 2021, 01:35:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 30, 2021, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2021, 09:11:27 AM
Quote from: skluth on October 29, 2021, 09:12:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2021, 02:54:36 PM
If the Interstate 894 designation was removed, the mile markers and exit numbers would have to be renumbered. The exits would probably be numbered 28-38 to match the existing exit sequence north of the Zoo Interchange, though an 894 removal should have the exit numbered between 33 and 43 (if using Interstate 41's mileage from the Illinois/Wisconsin border, with all numbers north of the Zoo Interchange being increased by 5 digits). If 894 was going to be removed, it would have happened in 2015 when Interstate 41 was commissioned.
Yeah, it's a hassle. But ultimately not that big a deal. States do this all the time. It's less frequent and more costly with interstates compared to US and state (plus CTH in WI) routes, but it has been done. Locals will still call it 894 just like they still say Highway 40 in St Louis and I still refer to I-90 in Illinois as the Northwest Tollway.
Even though removing the 894 shields wouldn't be a large project, it still needs to be justified. I don't throw a dollar bill into a river because "it's just a dollar". And at this time there is no reason to change anything about I-894.
Yep. Not confusing anyone. Just multiplexed for its entire route, which has been the case for 30 years anyway.
I can't believe it's been that long already! I still sometimes catch myself calling it Hwy 15. Of course I caught myself calling the Les Paul Pkwy Hwy A the other day. Funny how age does that to you!
I know the feeling. I too have occasionally called the I-43 extension Wis 15. And I usually refer to I-39 north of Portage as Hwy 51.