AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?  (Read 11549 times)

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1223
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 08:40:06 PM
    • AARoads
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2017, 11:22:47 PM »

Granted, the Interstate 41 designation could have ended at the Zoo Interchange. It was designated to the US 41/Interstate 94 split just south of the Wisconsin/Illinois border so that portion of the North-South Freeway could have an Interstate designation that was signed north-south (its proper directional alignment), unlike Interstate 94, which has always been signed east-west.

I agree with this logic. Interstate 41 offers a north-south designation for a north-south freeway, and it also overlaps the entire US 41 freeway segment from the state line north to Green Bay. So having I-41 extend over I-94 helps clarify the direction of the freeway since I-94 is signed east-west. Having an I-41 north-south route overlapping I-94 should help motorist navigation when looking at the reassurance route markers, since two of three route markers (I-41 and US 41) show north-south, which is the true direction of that particular segment of freeway.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2152
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:52 AM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2017, 05:12:13 AM »

So if I'm understanding this correctly, before I-41 becomes a thing, you have an east-west interstate running north-south, signed east-west (with bonus points for short jogs going the opposite direction signed) with the east-west exit numbers and mile markers. The fact that there's also a signed north-south highway (US 41) doesn't affect the equation at all.

Given I-94's alignment and need to go around Lake Michigan (as opposed to taking a ferry like US 10 does), this is confusing, but makes sense when you sort it all out. But it's still confusing to have a very long north-south freeway (which is, apparently, even named the North-South Freeway) being signed east-west.

I-41 is created, resolving the signed direction as a bonus, or perhaps as an intended benefit. I-41, as the available number, happens to match US 41, as a very happy coincidence, because it would enable an implied upgrade of US 41, with US 41 bookending both ends of I-41 -- sort of how CA 110 bookends I-110. Instead, US 41 stays signed instead of being 'upgraded' to I-41. No big issue; it still resolves the directional issue of the freeway, makes the freeway name match its signed direction. I-94, while still an east-west route, is 'subservient' on a true north-south highway.

That leaves one confusing aspect: The exit numbers. They're I-94's. Now, swapping these to I-41's, which should happen, as the implied hierarchy says I-41 is the more important route, isn't necessarily something that makes sense, for three reasons:
1. Cost to renumber.
2. Dependency the old exit numbers.
3. Related, confusion with a changeover to I-/US 41 exit numbers.
These three reasons perhaps aren't the best justifications to keep them, given that a few states have switched from sequential exits to mileage based exits, but for the moment, I'll ignore that. A switch over, however, would result in a sequence flip at the WI/IL border that would be amusing -- counting down from Milwaukee to 1 and counting up again from 1 going south once in Illinois. And no matter what, exit 1 in Illinois will remain exit 1 because it's the only mile I-41 is present on there, and it just happens to line up with I-94's, even though they're running in opposing directions. (The A and B sequence could flip, but that's inconsequential).

So currently, with I-41, we have a north-south freeway, signed north-south, named North-South, with east-west exit numbers and mileposts.
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2972
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 06:00:52 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2017, 10:20:45 AM »

One thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di.
Not at all. There's no reason why it should not be, other than lack of decent number (hence its crappy number). It crosses a state line and its longer than I-476 - that's both the key objections given to I-41 here.
Quote
An argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Looks free-flowing to me!. ;)
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 10:24:33 AM by english si »
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 292
  • Location: Dona Ana New Mexico USA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2017, 02:51:00 AM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #53 on: January 12, 2017, 11:47:30 AM »

Believe US - 220/I-99 has been connected to I-80 by use and double barreling of the pre-existing PA 26? super two stub that extended southward from I-80 towards State College.   The I-99 number was derived from the late Bud Shuster's whimsical nostalgia for a trolley street car line in the Altoona of his youth.   
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10685
  • Celebrating another day that Hillary isn't prez.

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 04:18:47 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #54 on: January 12, 2017, 02:19:29 PM »


One thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di. An argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.

Nope. It was originally conceived to run between Cumberland, Md., and Corning, NY. Pennsylvania has decided not to build the route south of the turnpike; those APD funds were diverted to another project. And while I doubt that PTC will ever build a direct connection from the turnpike to I-99, the I-80 interchange will eventually be built.

I think I-99 should replace I-390, if not all the way into downtown Rochester, then at least to the thruway.
Logged

billtm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 317
  • Age: 18
  • Location: West Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: September 26, 2017, 11:36:24 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #55 on: January 12, 2017, 04:39:02 PM »

One thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di.
Not at all. There's no reason why it should not be, other than lack of decent number (hence its crappy number). It crosses a state line and its longer than I-476 - that's both the key objections given to I-41 here.
Quote
An argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Looks free-flowing to me!. ;)

As of right now it doesn't cross a state line, right? It only exists on two sides of a state line?

Does the wink signify that you understand I meant I-80 as its north end? :confused:
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2152
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:52 AM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2017, 03:37:49 AM »

One thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di.
Not at all. There's no reason why it should not be, other than lack of decent number (hence its crappy number). It crosses a state line and its longer than I-476 - that's both the key objections given to I-41 here.
Quote
An argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Looks free-flowing to me!. ;)

As of right now it doesn't cross a state line, right? It only exists on two sides of a state line?

Does the wink signify that you understand I meant I-80 as its north end? :confused:
So by this logic I-69 shouldn't be part of the Interstate system, taking this line of thought to the extreme absurdity.
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2972
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 06:00:52 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2017, 06:07:12 AM »

As of right now it doesn't cross a state line, right? It only exists on two sides of a state line?
True, but it's not being finished shouldn't stop it being an interstate.
Quote
Does the wink signify that you understand I meant I-80 as its north end? :confused:
The whole "stay as US220" bit did suggest that, yes, given that half of it is along US15. But I actually added it as, without it, my post didn't convey my light-hearted tone in writing it and seemed more like a "you are wrong" than a "err, that's a bit of an uninformed kneejerk".
Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2079
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: September 17, 2017, 08:07:03 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2017, 11:47:01 PM »

I-97 definitely should not be an interstate.
I can understand 3di rather than 2di, but it links a state capital to the state's largest city (and one of the biggest urban areas in the country).
I-4, fine as is, doesn't come back and hit the same interstate like I-41 does with I-43.
Why does that matter?  They service two completely different groups of cities along their routes.
That doesn't matter. I-94 shouldn't be an interstate west of Chicago as I-90 takes you to Madison and Montana.  :)
So in other words, fuck the link between Madison and Milwaukee and the very long link between Tomah and Billings via one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country in Minneapolis/St Paul, the largest city in North Dakota and the capital of North Dakota?
You're high.

And if you give me the argument of "needing to fit the grid", that is arcane and silly since there are tons of highways, not just interstates, that violate the precious grid.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 11:59:22 PM by hobsini2 »
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2079
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: September 17, 2017, 08:07:03 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2017, 11:56:54 PM »

One thing I think most of us can agree upon is that I-99 should not be a 2di.
Not at all. There's no reason why it should not be, other than lack of decent number (hence its crappy number). It crosses a state line and its longer than I-476 - that's both the key objections given to I-41 here.
Quote
An argument can even be made that it should just stay as US-220, because it isn't even connected to the Interstate highway system in a free-flowing manner.
Looks free-flowing to me!. ;)
Pretty sure he was talking about the "interchange" with the Pennsylvania Tpk and I-70/76
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Altoona,+PA/@40.0512665,-78.5202108,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89cb91588ee54d01:0xaeb8592c07c6767d!8m2!3d40.5186809!4d-78.3947359
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2972
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 06:00:52 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2017, 08:06:02 AM »

I-4, fine as is, doesn't come back and hit the same interstate like I-41 does with I-43.
Why does that matter?  They service two completely different groups of cities along their routes.
That doesn't matter. I-94 shouldn't be an interstate west of Chicago as I-90 takes you to Madison and Montana.  :)
So in other words, fuck the link between Madison and Milwaukee and the very long link between Tomah and Billings via one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country in Minneapolis/St Paul, the largest city in North Dakota and the capital of North Dakota?
No - in other words, the "having two interstates connecting the same two points is just confusing, IMO." anti-I-41 argument is a really stupid one. It was surely clear that I wasn't being serious - both from the outlandishness of my post, and the fact I put a :) at the end?

In other words, fuck fucking the link between Milwaukee and Appleton, etc and Green Bay just because I-43 is already running between Milwaukee and Green Bay

Quote
You're high.
I would say you are high to think this was anything other than a joke aimed at the poorly-reasoned attacks on I-41 in this thread, means that my reducto ad absurdum falls foul of Poe's law, despite my using an emoticon that is meant to signify a lack of seriousness.

Oh, and ad hominem just shows that you are unable to engage with actual arguments.
Quote
And if you give me the argument of "needing to fit the grid", that is arcane and silly since there are tons of highways, not just interstates, that violate the precious grid.
And no one has said that I-41 needs to fit the grid. They have said it does, as a bonus argument for the number, having made another argument for it.

So straw man fallacy now.  :rolleyes:

Pretty sure he was talking about the "interchange" with the Pennsylvania Tpk and I-70/76
If he was, why didn't he mention that in his response to my post? You are now steel manning (putting words in the mouth of someone to make their argument better) people who share your dislike of I-41.

Come back when you have arguments that are not fallacious.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 08:24:44 AM by english si »
Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2079
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: September 17, 2017, 08:07:03 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2017, 08:54:41 AM »

English, if that was subtle satire, it translates poorly in writing. I apologize. But where did I say anything about not liking I-41? I support it.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2932
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 06:26:55 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2017, 09:17:15 AM »

Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1696
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 05:58:11 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2017, 01:26:28 PM »

Interstate 594? Interstate 643? An extension of Interstate 894? What 3-digit Interstate designation should it have had? The corridor is a bit long for a 3 digit Interstate designation, and yes I know Interstate 495 (Massachusetts) is almost 121 miles long, and Interstate 476 is about 132 miles long. The Interstate 41 designation seemed to be the most logical designation since it is east of 39 and west of 43. Yes, the numbering sequence of the Interstate Highway System isn't perfect, but neither is the US Highway System.
Logged

billtm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 317
  • Age: 18
  • Location: West Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: September 26, 2017, 11:36:24 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2017, 07:14:32 PM »

Interstate 594? Interstate 643? An extension of Interstate 894? What 3-digit Interstate designation should it have had? The corridor is a bit long for a 3 digit Interstate designation, and yes I know Interstate 495 (Massachusetts) is almost 121 miles long, and Interstate 476 is about 132 miles long. The Interstate 41 designation seemed to be the most logical designation since it is east of 39 and west of 43. Yes, the numbering sequence of the Interstate Highway System isn't perfect, but neither is the US Highway System.

Personally, I think that Interstate 643 would be a good number, as it is a parallel route to I-43. Regarding the US Highway System, I think that's a mess where its too late to solve the innumerable numbering/grid issues, but for the Interstate system there are just a few bad apples which have cropped up just recently, and if someone with enough power cares enough (which they won't :-D) to fix those problems, then the Interstate system can remain a relatively logical grid. What would be super nice though is if Congress would stop designating Interstates. :pan:
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 795
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM »

I-643 makes no sense.  It would have more traffic and serve larger population centers than it's "parent" would have.

And don't worry about "grid issues."  They aren't really issues.
Logged

billtm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 317
  • Age: 18
  • Location: West Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: September 26, 2017, 11:36:24 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #66 on: January 15, 2017, 11:03:01 PM »

I-643 makes no sense.  It would have more traffic and serve larger population centers than it's "parent" would have.

But its parent route would be the more direct route between the two major population centers along both routes.
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 795
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2017, 08:55:04 AM »

I-643 makes no sense.  It would have more traffic and serve larger population centers than it's "parent" would have.

But its parent route would be the more direct route between the two major population centers along both routes.


I'm not sure why that matters.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2932
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 06:26:55 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2017, 08:21:32 AM »



I-643 makes no sense.

Sure it does (i.e., your statement implies that there are definite rules behind the numbering of 3dis when there are not).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 795
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2017, 09:52:54 AM »



I-643 makes no sense.

Sure it does (i.e., your statement implies that there are definite rules behind the numbering of 3dis when there are not).


Well that's true.  That's why I think a 2di, and the I-41 numbering, is completely appropriate.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2932
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 06:26:55 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #70 on: January 17, 2017, 10:31:29 AM »



I-643 makes no sense.

Sure it does (i.e., your statement implies that there are definite rules behind the numbering of 3dis when there are not).


Well that's true.  That's why I think a 2di, and the I-41 numbering, is completely appropriate.
So, because the rules regarding 3dis are more like guidelines, make what is essentially a long spur a 2di?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 795
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #71 on: January 17, 2017, 10:43:58 AM »



I-643 makes no sense.

Sure it does (i.e., your statement implies that there are definite rules behind the numbering of 3dis when there are not).


Well that's true.  That's why I think a 2di, and the I-41 numbering, is completely appropriate.
So, because the rules regarding 3dis are more like guidelines, make what is essentially a long spur a 2di?


Yep.  I'm not going to be a slave to the numbering guidelines or a grid.  I-41 has always made sense to me because the highway has always been 41.
Logged

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 733
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: October 09, 2017, 04:20:50 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2017, 01:58:00 PM »

Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8684
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 05:54:15 AM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2017, 05:37:05 PM »

Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.

It's the same length as I-476.  That said, it's PennDOT and I-476.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2932
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 06:26:55 PM
Re: I-41, An AASHTO Violation?
« Reply #74 on: January 18, 2017, 08:11:38 AM »



Methinks English Si is taking this far too seriously.  Good arguments for interstate numbering?  It is like arguing over whether you think Starry Night is a good painting.  The criteria are mushy at best.

That said, I-41 should have been a 3di between Milwaukee and Green Bay. :D
At 132 miles long that's way too long to be a 3di even I-135 in Kansas which could be a 2di isn't that long.

Pfft.  It is not too long.  Look at it:  It is a spur, plain and simple.

Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

 


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