AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Great Lakes and Ohio Valley => Topic started by: N9JIG on August 15, 2010, 06:05:23 PM

Title: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: N9JIG on August 15, 2010, 06:05:23 PM
On the way someplace today I saw some new signs on I-88 just west of I-355 near Downers Grove, IL that have a regular "IL-110" marker with a banner above that shows a red and blue stylized "CKC" alongside the normal I-88 reassurance marker. I only saw 2 in each direction west of I-355 but did not go east to see if there were any more.

Weirdly, since this is an ITHA road, these signs bore IDOT markings on them.

The CKC banner leads me to guess that they are there to promote some sort of Chicago to Kansas City highway initiative, perhaps to gain favor for a Stimulus grant?

See pics at http://www.n9jig.com/101-120.html#il110

--
Rich Carlson, N9JIG

Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: N9JIG on August 15, 2010, 06:18:08 PM
A little more searching and I found my own answer!

Chicago-Kansas City Expressway a reality after six-decade effort (Quincy Herald-Whig)
Published: 6/30/2010 | Updated: 7/23/2010
By DOUG WILSON
Herald-Whig Senior Writer

The long-envisioned Chicago-Kansas City Expressway is now officially established as a new national transportation corridor.
A joint resolution approved by the Illinois House and Senate:
* Officially recognizes the corridor.
* Identifies the routes that form the Illinois portion of the C-KC.
* Authorizes a C-KC logo.
* Declares Route 110 to be an additional common designation for the routes that form the corridor.
* Directs that signs with the Route 110 and C-KC logo be installed along the corridor to assist motorists and promote marketing efforts.

(Read the rest at http://www.whig.com/story/news/C-KC-063010)
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on August 15, 2010, 09:53:01 PM
You got it ! There is a nother post . It is in General highways because it streaches over such a large area There is an up date under Missouri Highways !

If its just West of 355 it means it must run West to Quad cities Does it run east to IKE?

IDOT hanst posted then dowm here yet on 74,34 ,67 or 336!

If you saw it it did its job You made a Quincy Publisher very Happy
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on August 16, 2010, 05:19:25 PM
Quote from: From resolution textRESOLVED, That suitable copies of this resolution be delivered to the Secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Director of the Missouri Department of Transportation, the Executive Director of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, and the Mayors of Chicago, the Quad-Cities, Galesburg, Monmouth, Macomb, and Quincy.

Is it just simple government courtesy to give a copy of such a resolution to MoDOT, or are they expecting MoDOT to extend the 110 corridor westward?  The latter would require the existing MO 110 from US 67 to MO 21 at De Soto to be renumbered.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on August 16, 2010, 09:36:04 PM
The legeslation says IL 110 does run along the Ike.

"RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE NINETY-SIXTH GENERAL 
17  ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
18  CONCURRING HEREIN, that we designate Interstate 290 to 
19  Interstate 88, Interstate 88 to Interstate 80, the portions of 
20  Interstate 80 from Interstate 88 to Interstate 74, Interstate 
21  74 to Galesburg, U.S. Route 34 to Monmouth, U.S. Route 67 to 
22  Macomb, Illinois 336 to Interstate 172 at Quincy, Interstate 




  09600SJ0118 Enrolled - 2 - LRB096 21705 GRL 39304 r



1  172 to Interstate 72, and Interstate 72 to the crossing of the 
2  Mississippi River at Hannibal, Missouri as the Illinois portion 
3  of the Chicago - Kansas City Expressway and marked concurrently 
4  with the existing route numbers as Illinois Route 110; and be 
5  it further  "


The question is will IL 110 markers show up along I-290 during or after construction...or at all...
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on August 16, 2010, 10:54:02 PM
They arent on 34 67 336 yet!
They Should have told MO but that doesnt mean they did.
Some older Stories indicated it was 55 to 80 This is actually about a mile lomger However if the IKE is made 8 lanes it will be much nicer drive than 80/55.
If IDOT added passing lanes to 34 between Galesburg and 80 it would be a good alternate as well about 11 miles shorter
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: N9JIG on August 17, 2010, 06:32:21 AM
I wonder what the significance of 110 is to the route?
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on August 17, 2010, 06:15:28 PM
Quote from: 3467 on August 16, 2010, 10:54:02 PM
They arent on 34 67 336 yet!
They Should have told MO but that doesnt mean they did.
Some older Stories indicated it was 55 to 80 This is actually about a mile lomger However if the IKE is made 8 lanes it will be much nicer drive than 80/55.
If IDOT added passing lanes to 34 between Galesburg and 80 it would be a good alternate as well about 11 miles shorter


In the overview of the legislation it mentions I-55 and I-80 from Chicago, which threw me for a loop until I read the full text and found the actual route.

Next thought is over the next few years will the IL 110 sheilds start being added to the BGS's at like I-39 & I-88, I-80 & I-74/280, etc...
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on August 17, 2010, 09:45:03 PM
I dont think many roads have had as many designations as 88 . I was told it was a great truck free alternate to 80 back in 1980 and it was Back then the Stevenson was usually and easier drive than the IKE I know now that is not always the case. The downside back then was the ridiculous 55 speed limit .
Now with 8 lanes through DuPage county It is the better drive
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: N9JIG on August 17, 2010, 10:12:32 PM
Quote from: 3467 on August 17, 2010, 09:45:03 PM
I dont think many roads have had as many designations as 88 . I was told it was a great truck free alternate to 80 back in 1980 and it was Back then the Stevenson was usually and easier drive than the IKE I know now that is not always the case. The downside back then was the ridiculous 55 speed limit .
Now with 8 lanes through DuPage county It is the better drive

Let's see, off the top of my head it has been (in whole or part):

Toll US-30
IL-190
IL-5
I-88
IL-56
E-W Tollway
Reagan Tollway

In the Chicago area it really doesn't compete with I-80, they are far enough apart for local traffic to require one or the other. In the larger scheme of interstate travel one does have a choice to make when traveling between Indiana and the Quad Cities. During weather events I-88 is usually going to be better plowed that I-80 and it travels thru lesser populated areas west of Aurora (thus less local traffic) while I-80 has more choices for services and local access.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on August 17, 2010, 10:58:18 PM
I forgot Toll 30 Now I think that would be allowed.
Do you remeber the Illinois research and Development Highway (because of Fermilab and Ammaco research lab)?
There was also the empty nickle

IDOT did an Origen Destination Study on 88 I responded I dont know what the results were It was IDOT not the Tollway

80 had one of teh worst traffic messes in Illinois during one freak snowstorm with stuck trucks It ran from IL 78 to Morris and stragly no one but pizza delivery pepole thoght to get off on US 6 or US 34 which were open 88 had no problems but the Message boards at the QCs or the Chicago area never thought to point out 80 was amess and could be easily avoided
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on August 23, 2010, 10:44:12 AM
Drove I-88 from I-355 to I-80 yest.  Shields at along WB at every on ramp on the main line.  EB shields same except in Kane & Dupage Counties.  No shields on the IDOT portion of I-88 only the ISTHA portion.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 23, 2010, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: N9JIG on August 17, 2010, 06:32:21 AM
I wonder what the significance of 110 is to the route?

Maybe a random number they chosen by luck to identify the Chicago-Kansas City route. Just like IA Dot did with their gap of Avenue of the Saints with IA-27.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on August 23, 2010, 11:47:58 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 23, 2010, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: N9JIG on August 17, 2010, 06:32:21 AM
I wonder what the significance of 110 is to the route?

Maybe a random number they chosen by luck to identify the Chicago-Kansas City route. Just like IA Dot did with their gap of Avenue of the Saints with IA-27.

I thought 27 was chosen for the Avenue of the Saints because it was the lowest number available for Iowa, Missouri, and maybe Minnesota?

Since IL 11 is available, it should have been used for the CKC route over IL 110.  Or if the route number is to eventually extend into Missouri, why not IL 88, with the section on I-88 only being signed as the interstate?
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on August 24, 2010, 12:29:13 AM
or just sign the Macomb to I-88 portions IL 336.  I know be fore anyone says anything that the plans for the IL 336 extention from Macomb to Peoria are named that, but they can be re-numbered.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: bugo on August 24, 2010, 12:30:57 AM
Quote from: rmsandw on August 24, 2010, 12:29:13 AM
or just sign the Macomb to I-88 portions IL 336.  I know be fore anyone says anything that the plans for the IL 336 extention from Macomb to Peoria are named that, but they can be re-numbered.

Why not sign the whole thing US 336?  It would fit in the system and would seem more "important" than a state route.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 24, 2010, 08:30:25 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 23, 2010, 11:47:58 PM
I thought 27 was chosen for the Avenue of the Saints because it was the lowest number available for Iowa, Missouri, and maybe Minnesota?
The AOTS designation in MN is just I-35. MN 27 was already in use as a moderately important east-west corridor in central Minnesota.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on August 29, 2010, 06:54:50 PM
Today I ventured the portion of IL 110 from I-355 to the eastern end, Circle Interchange-Chicago.  IL 110 is only signed along the tollway portion.  The last EB shield is after IL 83.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on September 02, 2010, 02:33:02 PM
http://www.galesburg.com/news/x861576179/Forgottonia-put-on-the-map
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 02, 2010, 02:50:22 PM
Is this really the routing that someone would take from Chicago to Kansas City?  Even if the corridor is improved to interstate standards, wouldn't I-55 to Springfield and I-72 be quicker anyway?
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Brandon on September 02, 2010, 03:02:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 02, 2010, 02:50:22 PM
Is this really the routing that someone would take from Chicago to Kansas City?  Even if the corridor is improved to interstate standards, wouldn't I-55 to Springfield and I-72 be quicker anyway?

That's my thoughts.  As it was, when I drove there last year, I took I-80 to I-35.  But, given Illinois politics, we're lucky we're even near The Twilight Zone.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on September 02, 2010, 11:43:22 PM
I could see the routing follow the finish of IL 336 from Macomb to Peoria and then maybe up IL 29 to I-180, to I-80 east...or along the U.S. 24 or IL 116 corridor east of Peoria to I-55 as a more direct routing vs. I-72 to I-55.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: SEWIGuy on September 03, 2010, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: rmsandw on September 02, 2010, 11:43:22 PM
I could see the routing follow the finish of IL 336 from Macomb to Peoria and then maybe up IL 29 to I-180, to I-80 east...or along the U.S. 24 or IL 116 corridor east of Peoria to I-55 as a more direct routing vs. I-72 to I-55.


Yeah, but what's the point of building an entirely new corridor that parallels the I-55 corridor just 50 miles to the east.  Let's face it, the only reason they are doing this is to get upgrades to a corridor that may never really carry Chicago to KC traffic, but may serve some important local needs. 
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on September 03, 2010, 12:35:54 PM
 It makes it easy to give directions to Chicago "Take the 110"
It Helps the local area.And I think its an alternate to the busier truck routes. That is why they picked the Tollway not I-80
It is only 6 miles longer than the Peoria area routes
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on September 12, 2010, 06:45:40 PM
Went MO/IL line to Roseville today.  IL 110 is only signed from the Hancock/Mc Donough County Line to Macomb along IL 336. Then the first NB marker on U.S. 67 is at Good Hope at IL 9.  Then with each U.S. 67 shield up to Roseville. 

Side note, first time I have seen this in Illinois.  Mc Donough County Highway 8 is signed with IL 336 as it runs together for about a quarter mile.  Only place I have seen a state highway and county highway signed together on the same highway.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on September 12, 2010, 08:50:44 PM
You are right about the county highway and no 110 on the turns in Macomb. I was in QC and 110 is on 88,74 and 34 BUT not on the 88/80 jct or the 34/74 jct . It really needs to be signed at those directional changes along with Macomb(and I assume the IKE/88 merge).
I also did more math. It is longer than 55/72 but shorter than 55/70 and 80/35. Using US 34 or the Peoria roting would each save about 10 miles but would defeat the purpose of avoiding 80 and 55 . A pupose which I am sure explains the enthusiasm of the Illinois Tollway !
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on September 12, 2010, 09:19:19 PM
I was going from home in Southern Will County to Columbia, MO.  Yesturday I went 55 to 72 to 24 to 63 with stopping twice to feed the family it was about 7 hours.  Coming home today via Peoria vs Springfield (63, 24, 72, 172, 336, 136, 67, 116, 474, 74, 55) it was 6 1/2 and also less gas.  I forgot to trip my milage but shocked me.  Next trip I think I am going to time 55, 24, 116, 29, 474, 24, 9, 41, 136, 336, 172, 72, 24, 63.  Alot more roads, but a bit more straight line.  For two reasons, different view along the way, and to see time.

For the 110 signs, there are none on any of the turns.  The first NB shield is after IL 61.  Also, that same intersection of the last SB shield.  Using google maps there is aprox. a 12 mile gap between 110 signs, and a change to two different highways.

One or more of the newspaper articles that have had links post before mentioned the $$ that it cost to put of the current 110 shields.  If they wanted to get a corridor established, you would think that they would atleast get more of the "CKC" banners up, if they didn't have enough money for the 110 shields along the whole way, and just sign it like the ATS banners along U.S. 61.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on September 12, 2010, 10:06:10 PM
I dont like any of those Peoria routes. The only one I like is US 24 from 474 to 172 @ Quincy . You can enjoy the 4 lane ROW to IL 9 and a lot has been repaved after that you have a very low volume road and you can see Mt Sterling reconstruct 24 as a 3 lane and its recently cleaned up downtown as well as contruction on the Ripely Bridge .
I might also suggest MO 19 and US 54. MO is planning to make it a continuous 3 lane with an alternating passing lane.

To avoid Peoria I would suggest 80 to exit 45 and take 34 . It saves 10 miles Volumes are low even through Kewanee and its well marked. I havnt timed it but Kewanee through town is about Macomb and probably less than the Monmouth ByPass these days

I could suggest some really exotic routes that would make you think you were no longer in Illinois too
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on September 12, 2010, 10:36:47 PM
I have done the Kewanne past, the problem is getting from I-80 through Morris...never been to fond of the town...personal thing...

This summer on one trip I did U.S. 54 to MO 19 and up to Hannibal...again, wasn't to impressed...liked the drive on 63 and 24 better. 

I agree, the route via Peoria are not good.  Without a complete loop around the metro, you have to go into downtown or along the Tazewell riverfront to get from SW to NE or go 74 to 117 to 24 or 116...or 74 to 55 if you are going SW to NE around Peoria.

If you were going directly from Hannibal/Quincy to the city, Galesburg-Kewanee path is better.  To the far SW suburbs, Peoria or Springfield are still better options.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on September 12, 2010, 10:59:00 PM
Yes I see your point. Interesting on Morris I actually had a fondness for Minooka at least the old Phillips 66 station.

You might try 55 to 74 at Bloomington and take 474 to US 24. I am curious to see how 54 works out It might be a good model for 34 or 67 north of Monmouth. Both a wide enough inparts allready to add a passing lane if you cut the shoulder size. If 55 can go without one I think these low volume roads would be OK

Peoria ring road is under some vague study but I really think it belongs in fantasy -just too expensive maybe 2 billion for what traffic it would carry. My hunch is the others Peoria routes end up that way too
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on September 22, 2010, 09:29:16 PM
As of Monday, IL 110 is signed on WB I-72 to the Mississippi River Bridge; it has not been added to the overhead signs yet at the I-172 interchange.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on September 22, 2010, 10:20:25 PM
It isnt on any of the overhead signs. This is strange because there is a junction sign at 34/74 but not ON 74 where it is needed. There is a junction sign at the north and south Monmouth bypass,yet no direction at the 88/80 jumction where 110 change direction!

It really belongs on the IKE Kansas City looks better than "West Suburbs"
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on September 22, 2010, 11:01:28 PM
^ It also really needs to be on the overhead signs for the turn onto US 136 in Macomb, or at least have some temporary ground level shields erected, as had been done with the I-255/US 50 multiplex in Illinois.

Also, instead of using the CKC logo all the time instead of a direction banner for IL 110, maybe "Chicago" and "Kansas City" tabs should be used instead.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on September 22, 2010, 11:23:52 PM
Yes Fully Agree. There is plenty of empty space on the Maomb overheads
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on September 26, 2010, 01:23:12 AM
At Macomb it makes two turns without any signage, atleast as of Sept 12, this year.  When you go from 336 to 136 then 136 to 67
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on September 26, 2010, 12:03:03 PM
Yes you are right . I had a retired couple ask me for directions last week. They were following 110 to Kansas City . I asked why they picked me. " I looked like I knew roads"

Someone needs to write the Quincy Herald Whig to get proper signing.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on October 01, 2010, 10:01:53 PM
Went up the route again today from MO line to Galesburg.  Signed from MO line to the Adams/Hancock County Line.  Did not see 110 marked in Hancock County.  Junction markers in Mc Donough/Warren/Knox/Henry Counties on the side roads, but I didn't exit at each intersection to verify each one.

At Monmouth the four-way signing of U.S. 34/67; IL 110/164 is an interesting set-up.

No markers to let you know when IL 110 changes directions and roadways yet.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on January 15, 2011, 08:47:25 PM
Directional signs at the Quad Cities ramps are up but not at the 74/34 junction or downtowm Macomb yet. Was the IKE ever signed?

I wil add to previous commentators that the IKE should be I-88. In Qaud Cities 88 should be extended along existing 80 to I-380 and replace 380 & US 20 to I-35 . I-280 should be 80 . The 80 strerch between 80 and 88 should be 188 and that should extend down 74 and 34 to Monmouth
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hobsini2 on February 16, 2011, 03:25:10 PM
As of the beginning of January, i have seen a couple of 110 signs along the Ike (290) EAST of the Hillside Strangler and then a couple more times east of Harlem Ave. Still no indication as to where 110 goes if you go West on 290 to the 88 jct.  Real bad signing.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on February 17, 2011, 10:58:19 PM
As of 2/16/2011:
* IL 110 is signed using stand-alone shields on WB I-72 at I-172.

* The CKC banner has been added above many, if not all, of the westbound US 36 shields in Missouri between the Mississippi River and at least the eastern interchange with US 24.  There are CKC banners above most if not all of the US 36 shields on WB US 24 approaching the interchange.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on February 17, 2011, 11:13:21 PM
I guess we need just the directional signing at the IKE 88 merge 74 and 34 and downtown Macomb.
Id like to see KC on the IKE instead of West Suburbs to Match St Louis on the Stevenson.
I would like to see the IKE as 88 and 88 go into Iowa and 80 replace 280 at the QC AND 188 rund down to Monmouth. But we all have many wants
My wife wants it CKC on the way from Chicago to KC and reversed on the other side of the road to KCC
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: NE2 on February 18, 2011, 01:24:19 AM
Is this route actually better than 55-72-36-35? Google gives 539 miles for CKC vs. 513 for 55-72-36-35 (and 528 for 88-80-35). The only benefit I can see would be avoiding some of the cities along the way.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on February 18, 2011, 10:28:20 AM
Purpose was to coax some traffic off 80 and 55. That is why they didnt wait for potentail routes through Peoria or say US 34 which would have alos been about 9 miles shorter.
I gave directions to a retired couple in Macomb who were following it and it avoids the trucks as well
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on February 18, 2011, 02:29:59 PM
Going from Columbia, MO to Will County, IL...we have done 55 to 72 into Missouri, and we also have done 55 to 74 to 474 to 116 to 67 (CKC) then follow CKC the rest of the way into MO and it actually seemed faster...had to make a few stops for fuel and food so timing was not a good judge, but still seemed faster.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on February 18, 2011, 11:07:19 PM
I am sure you did and you are in Will County. I would Imagine if you are anywhere north of that the 88/110 route is even quicker
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on February 22, 2011, 02:52:34 PM
http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1027117951/Multi-vehicle-accident-snarls-I-80-traffic-this-morning
This is why IDOT wants to move some cars off 55 and 80. This is just the most recent long closure. 88 and all 110 held up better during the recent bliazzard
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Brandon on February 22, 2011, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: 3467 on February 22, 2011, 02:52:34 PM
http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1027117951/Multi-vehicle-accident-snarls-I-80-traffic-this-morning
This is why IDOT wants to move some cars off 55 and 80. This is just the most recent long closure. 88 and all 110 held up better during the recent bliazzard

This is why both I-80 and I-55 need widening, and IDiOT needs to get its snowplowing / ice removal act together better (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110221/news/702219838/).
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on February 22, 2011, 05:50:24 PM
Brandon this is the agency that told Vandalia it must have a 200 million dollar bypass for a raod that carries 3000 vpd instead of just improving the flow through town..........This is the agancy that once said to me"if we had improved the existing road people wouldnt demand a 4 lane freeway/expressway"and is not clever wnough to say would you take a 3 lane or some passing lanes or 4 11 foot lanes so we can widen 80.........The agency that cant see that 88 makes more sense than 290 .......Oh well...you know I think you have another name for them
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kharvey10 on February 22, 2011, 10:32:53 PM
And its why trucks are favoring I-39 and I-57, not I-55 to skip Chicagoland and St. Louis.  IDiOT is spending big bucks in widening the latter route through Southern Illinois, with the segment in Mt. Vernon coming as soon as 2013.

I did a variation of this route, using I-88, I-39, and I-55 going from Chicago to St. Louis before.  I would rather do I-57 into Chicagoland.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hobsini2 on February 25, 2011, 07:30:18 AM
This is also the same agency that "bowed" to Mayor Daley Sr when the Ike was being built through the near west suburbs.  As legend has it, Daley said, "He was going to make it a bitch for them to get back into the city." thus creating the Hillside Strangler on the Ike.  This was when a lot of corporations were moving their headquarters out to places like Schaumburg, such as Motorla, Ameritech and eventually Sears.  IDOT will crumble to power all the time.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rmsandw on March 29, 2011, 11:17:43 AM
Came home from Mid-Missouri last nite via 72/36.  Wishing now I would have stopped and got a picture of this, but since the IL 110 shields started going up alomst a year ago none had a direction banner.  For the most part this isn't an issue.  Except on WB I-72/U.S. 36 at the I-172/IL 110 interchange as the road splits for the left lanes to go to Quincy via I-172/IL 110 and the right lanes to goto Missouri via I-72/U.S. 36/IL 110 signs are now posted on the overhead sign posts "CKC/IL 110/up arrow". 

Which is true, both ramps take you to IL 110 (left is north/east IL 110; right is south/west IL 110).
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kharvey10 on April 02, 2011, 10:55:27 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 25, 2011, 07:30:18 AM
This is also the same agency that "bowed" to Mayor Daley Sr when the Ike was being built through the near west suburbs.  As legend has it, Daley said, "He was going to make it a bitch for them to get back into the city." thus creating the Hillside Strangler on the Ike.  This was when a lot of corporations were moving their headquarters out to places like Schaumburg, such as Motorla, Ameritech and eventually Sears.  IDOT will crumble to power all the time.

IDiOT has crumbled to power in the Metro-East area all the time.  Exit 2 on IL 255 was an overpass originally designed to cross a ditch, IDiOT added the interchange to keep trucks off the 270/111 interchange due to a major trucking distribution center.  Well that interchange is rarely used from what I know of, I hardly ever see traffic on it when I drive in that area.

Another example was when one of the approach spans of a Kaskaskia River bridge needed to be replace.  IDiOT was going to shut the bridge down to replace it, but this power company was building a power plant about 15 miles away in a neighboring county and used that bridge a lot.  That company ponied up about $500k to 1M of their own money.  Well, the bridge remained open during that replacement and IDiOT built a temporary bypass in someone farm field for traffic.

Development in Fairview Heights area finally caused IDiOT to widen 64 to O'Fallon back in 2004.  Up to that point, there was always a chokepoint between 255 to 159, first due to the hill where traffic went down to 2 lanes in each direction, and the second due to traffic trying to exit on 159.  The exit for 159 was originally a diamond the loop ramp was added in the late 90s.  The rumor mill now is that the businesses trying to sweet talk IDiOT of adding another loop ramp to that interchange.

And the locals are known to tell IDiOT off too.  Some of the best known examples include Highway 50 in St. Clair County, and they literally told them to f off on any intention of renumbering of a section of 270 near Glen Carbon back in the late 70s.  Its not just the politicians and corporations that IDiOT has to put up with, its the entire taxpayer base.  I lost track of so many examples of locals giving IDiOT some major heat.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: ShawnP on April 03, 2011, 10:37:49 AM
I think I-64 was widened from 04-06 as one of the worst accidents I ever saw was in the lane next to me on a morning drive thru the construction area in March of 06. Well it was a drive from KC to Pensacola and back.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on May 30, 2011, 05:39:20 PM
The 110 Directional signs are up at the I-74/34 junction and another sign is up just past the interchange. Only downtown Macomb is left.
There was a debate on another thread about letting roads that are high type but not of interstate design carry the interstate designation. I suggested that the IL 110 and iowa 27 for the Avenue of the Saints would be a good option instead.
I suggested that there be minimum design standards  for rural areas that include four lane divided ,4 lane undivided or 3 lane depending on traffic volumes
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Alex on June 04, 2011, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: 3467 on May 30, 2011, 05:39:20 PM
The 110 Directional signs are up at the I-74/34 junction and another sign is up just past the interchange. Only downtown Macomb is left.
There was a debate on another thread about letting roads that are high type but not of interstate design carry the interstate designation. I suggested that the IL 110 and iowa 27 for the Avenue of the Saints would be a good option instead.
I suggested that there be minimum design standards  for rural areas that include four lane divided ,4 lane undivided or 3 lane depending on traffic volumes

Saw consistent trailblazers for IL-110 from US 34 northward on I-74 to the I-80/88 junction. You have to go beyond Exit 2 on I-88 east to see a IL-110 shield though.

They replaced the overheads attached to the US 34 overpasses over I-74 with new Clearview-based panels. Signs must have been designed before IL-110 was approved, as the panel from I-74 west to US 34/IL 110 west omit the CKC designation.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hbelkins on June 05, 2011, 12:15:25 AM
Within the next week I should have my photos up of my trip through the area recently, which includes the IL 110 signs on I-72 and I-172.

These are now up on my Flickr page, accessible via http://www.millenniumhwy.net/roadtrips.html
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hobsini2 on June 19, 2011, 06:09:49 PM
Last week when i was coming home from my storm chase trip taking I-35 from KC, there where a couple of "CKC" signs in place on the reassurance I-35 markers and only 1 at the US 36 interchange.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on June 19, 2011, 09:56:27 PM
34/74 clearview signs were up before 110
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on January 04, 2012, 08:30:53 PM
According to the Quincy paper today, Missouri is now going to have either two MO 110s or be renumbering the one in Jefferson County:
http://www.whig.com/story/16448520/missouri-agrees-to-install-full-package-of-chicago-to-kansas-city-expressway-signs-clearing-the-way-for-promotion-of-the-route (http://www.whig.com/story/16448520/missouri-agrees-to-install-full-package-of-chicago-to-kansas-city-expressway-signs-clearing-the-way-for-promotion-of-the-route)
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hbelkins on January 05, 2012, 11:52:34 AM
So there's going to be a bi-state numbered route that, for its entirety, is co-signed with other routes? That's about idiotic.  :banghead:

If that's going to be done, it would make more sense to sign it a US route rather than as IL 110 and MO 110. And kill the route numbers that, in their entirety, would be dual signed with 110. (I'm looking at you, I-172.)
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kphoger on January 05, 2012, 12:00:32 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 19, 2011, 06:09:49 PM
Last week when i was coming home from my storm chase trip taking I-35 from KC, there where a couple of "CKC" signs in place on the reassurance I-35 markers and only 1 at the US 36 interchange.

I've seen these the last few times we drove to/from Minnesota.  I assumed CKC meant Cameron - Kansas CIty, because that's the only stretch where I've seen them, and because that's the most heavily trafficked portion between K.C. and Des Moines.  Man, it could really stand to be six lanes for at least part of that.....and I-35/80 through the north side of Des Moines could stand to be about 44 lanes.....
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on January 05, 2012, 10:57:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2012, 11:52:34 AM
So there's going to be a bi-state numbered route that, for its entirety, is co-signed with other routes? That's about idiotic.  :banghead:

If that's going to be done, it would make more sense to sign it a US route rather than as IL 110 and MO 110. And kill the route numbers that, in their entirety, would be dual signed with 110. (I'm looking at you, I-172.)

I doubt Quincy would let I-172 disappear quietly.

Thinking about the addition of MO 110 for the CKC route, I'm surprised MoDOT is actually going along with adding the number, given that the Avenue of the Saints route (MO 27) didn't get co-signed all the way down to St. Louis with US 61 and US 40.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: bugo on January 06, 2012, 12:52:38 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2012, 11:52:34 AM
So there's going to be a bi-state numbered route that, for its entirety, is co-signed with other routes? That's about idiotic.  :banghead:

If that's going to be done, it would make more sense to sign it a US route rather than as IL 110 and MO 110. And kill the route numbers that, in their entirety, would be dual signed with 110. (I'm looking at you, I-172.)

They're not going to decommission an interstate for that reason.  It just isn't happening.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on January 06, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
The same guy that fought for the 110 designation pushed for the Interstate designation.That would be Tom Oakley who owns the newspaper,radio station and TV station. It may be a small market but he is a road enthusiast and makes his endorsements based on roads.
So Bugo is right It aint happening
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on April 16, 2012, 09:18:02 PM
Article in the Chillicothe (MO) paper has a photo with a new US 36/MO 110 assembly:
http://www.chillicothenews.com/news/x876171298/New-signage-promotes-corridor (http://www.chillicothenews.com/news/x876171298/New-signage-promotes-corridor)
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: bugo on April 16, 2012, 11:16:42 PM
Does anyone know where the west end of MO 110 will be?  I-70?  I-29?  I-670?  I-435?  The Kansas border?
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Stratuscaster on April 17, 2012, 09:53:40 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 16, 2012, 09:18:02 PM
Article in the Chillicothe (MO) paper has a photo with a new US 36/MO 110 assembly:
http://www.chillicothenews.com/news/x876171298/New-signage-promotes-corridor (http://www.chillicothenews.com/news/x876171298/New-signage-promotes-corridor)
Article is wrong, it would seem.

Quote
The expressway connecting Chicago to Kansas City is being named Route 110, and the path is 532 miles long. The route is all four-lane and consists of portions of Interstate 35 (from Kansas City to Cameron), U.S. 36 (from Cameron to Hannibal), Interstate 72/U.S. 36 (from Hannibal to Springfield, Ill.), and Interstate 55 (from Springfield, Ill., to Chicago).
IL-110 doesn't go to Springfield, and doesn't run with I-55 either.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on April 17, 2012, 10:29:15 PM
It was specifically designed to avoid both 55 and 80. I will try to get the mialgae comparisons for different routes sometime
I recall last week there was another incident that caused massive delays on 80 around IL 47. It was really designed for cars to avoid big trucks but I swear I am seeing a higher volume of trucks since it was completed as 4 lane and desginated 110
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Brandon on April 17, 2012, 10:51:15 PM
Quote from: 3467 on April 17, 2012, 10:29:15 PM
It was specifically designed to avoid both 55 and 80. I will try to get the mialgae comparisons for different routes sometime
I recall last week there was another incident that caused massive delays on 80 around IL 47. It was really designed for cars to avoid big trucks but I swear I am seeing a higher volume of trucks since it was completed as 4 lane and desginated 110

The big trucks will use anything that potentially saves them time (and therefore money).  By using IL-110, they can avoid the massive amount of trucks at the I-55/80 interchange due to the two massive intermodal yards nearby.  We'll go near these on Saturday, on the tour.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on June 25, 2012, 07:14:44 PM
Some thoughts on the CKC designation. In general, I'm opposed to concurrent routes that don't separate after a reasonable interval toward different designations. And thus I'm certainly opposed to routes that only exist as concurrencies. On our recent trip to Illinois, though, I found on my return that following the CKC provided a good routing to the west from Rockford that allowed me to avoid I-80 or I-70. Yes, I understand I could have (and did) derived the route without a continuous marking, it helped with navigation. I think it does provide a useful alternate route between its designated terminal cities that is worthy of marking, given the traffic issues with I-55 and 70. U.S. 36 is a great route across Missouri as long as you're willing to accept the slightly lower speed limit. After battling the sea of trucks on I-80 across Nebraska and Iowa going out, this was a welcome change.

And while I have heard complaints about the clunky way MoDOT has signed the route at highway entrances by grafting the route markers to the side of the signs, at least they are marked. IDOT only posts directional changes of the route on standalone signs just prior to highway exits. Also, in the segment where we were following EB I-74 (but actually going south), the reassurance markes for IL-110 lacked a WB directional banner. Missouri included directional banners with all its posted signs.  Not limited to the CKC topic, another problem Illinois has is that on continuous expressway segments that gain a concurrent route following which the original route exits - like where WB U.S. 34 picks up U.S. 67 and then exits from the expressway that bypasses Monmouth, only the exiting route is shown. The straight-ahead route and its destination are not.

My own preference would have been to avoid an actual random route number and instead to have included the CKC logo on the state route markers where the number would otherwise go. On maps, it would be shown as state route CKC much like the Old San Antonio Road (OSR) marking in Texas.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: bugo on June 25, 2012, 08:31:39 PM
If I were going from KC to Hannibal, I would take I-70 to US 54 to MO 19 to US 61.

The MO 110 idea is ridiculous.  It would have been better had this route been a US route.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: US71 on June 25, 2012, 10:20:59 PM
Quote from: bugo on April 16, 2012, 11:16:42 PM
Does anyone know where the west end of MO 110 will be?  I-70?  I-29?  I-670?  I-435?  The Kansas border?

Bryant St along I-35, just southwest of I-435.

Also: where 110/CKC is posted along I-35, I-35 is not

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7278%2F7447347016_07d27bf093_z_d.jpg&hash=b46c6b3e933a664e4efe91cc14d2cddf189d8748)
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on June 25, 2012, 10:33:58 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 25, 2012, 08:31:39 PM
If I were going from KC to Hannibal, I would take I-70 to US 54 to MO 19 to US 61.

The MO 110 idea is ridiculous.  It would have been better had this route been a US route.
You're closer to that area than I am, but from what I hear about I-70 from KC to STL (which I admittedly have not been on), it's a truck-clogged mess. Having driven over 400 miles on I-80 on the same trip, I was anxious to avoid that kind of road. Next trip to Minnesota, my first stop on this trip, I will try to avoid I-80 as much as I can because of the heavy truck traffic.

I would only support a U.S. route if it is mainly routed over roads on which it is the sole designation. But, as described above, I kind of like the named multi-route designation as long as this concept is not overdone. I wish the signage had been better.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hobsini2 on June 25, 2012, 10:56:25 PM
I have taken both 36-35 and 55-70 between Springfield IL and Kansas City. I find that it is quicker to get across MO on 36 than 70 even though parts of 36 are still being widened. Too much traffic on 70. However I still find the best way to get between Chicago and KC is 88W-80W-35S thru Des Moines.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on June 25, 2012, 11:25:59 PM
I was asked by a motorcyclist in Macomb the other day if he was heading in the right direction for Hannibal. I told him to just follow the 110 .
I think people are trying out the route.
There would be a couple of shorter routes in Illinois (34 11 miles and 336 if ever built through Peoria 7 miles) but those all use 80. The purpose is to avoid 80,70 and 55. I am not one to try a motorcycle trip but I would really not want to be one on those 3 routes
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kphoger on June 26, 2012, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: US71 on June 25, 2012, 10:20:59 PM
Also: where 110/CKC is posted along I-35, I-35 is not

Well, it's not like they took down the actual I-35 shields.  They just erected additional ones.  At least, from what I've seen.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: US71 on June 26, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 26, 2012, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: US71 on June 25, 2012, 10:20:59 PM
Also: where 110/CKC is posted along I-35, I-35 is not

Well, it's not like they took down the actual I-35 shields.  They just erected additional ones.  At least, from what I've seen.

The only 35 signs I saw were Mileposts, as of 6-17. The side roads have 35 signs, just none along 35 itself.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8028%2F7417260976_6483019481_z_d.jpg&hash=4e4d6ba1c7eba5f0a4d2b6e936ea0221b454c033)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7128%2F7417261720_69e8e96e9a_z_d.jpg&hash=ca4897dddd1baa5935ab35027d38b81d75eed6ee)
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 11:04:50 AM
Where's the west end of 110?
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: US71 on June 26, 2012, 12:52:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 11:04:50 AM
Where's the west end of 110?

Just south of 435 on I-35 at Bryant St. There is a small END CKC  MO 110 assembly on a bridge support. I didn't see it soon enough to get a photo, so I'll have to look again next time I'm up that way (probably December)
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kphoger on June 26, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 26, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 26, 2012, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: US71 on June 25, 2012, 10:20:59 PM
Also: where 110/CKC is posted along I-35, I-35 is not

Well, it's not like they took down the actual I-35 shields.  They just erected additional ones.  At least, from what I've seen.

The only 35 signs I saw were Mileposts, as of 6-17. The side roads have 35 signs, just none along 35 itself.

Are you kidding me??  Am I reading this right:  MoDOT actually took down the I-35 shields??  I mean.... ASDJILFBSDFJBD!! [there is no appropriate emoticon for my feeling]
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: US71 on June 26, 2012, 10:30:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 26, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
Are you kidding me??  Am I reading this right:  MoDOT actually took down the I-35 shields??  I mean.... ASDJILFBSDFJBD!! [there is no appropriate emoticon for my feeling]

To my knowledge, yes, they removed the I-35 shields on the CKC overlap. I left a message (and photo) on the MoDOT's KC Region Facebook page, but no one has responded. I may have to write them about this.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on June 26, 2012, 11:28:41 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 25, 2012, 10:20:59 PM
Also: where 110/CKC is posted along I-35, I-35 is not

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7278%2F7447347016_07d27bf093_z_d.jpg&hash=b46c6b3e933a664e4efe91cc14d2cddf189d8748)

Older assembly in the same area from streetview:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.260902,-94.449248&spn=0.028144,0.066047&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.260589,-94.449348&panoid=Mdyjh57CZSiq3cp6YJFJPg&cbp=12,213.33,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.260902,-94.449248&spn=0.028144,0.066047&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.260589,-94.449348&panoid=Mdyjh57CZSiq3cp6YJFJPg&cbp=12,213.33,,0,0)

I don't understand why MoDOT would suddenly stop completely signing multiplexes; if anything should be hiding there, it should be US 69.

Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kphoger on June 27, 2012, 09:43:05 AM
I remember seeing old stand-alone I-35 shields (sometimes paired with another highway), as well as new stand-alone 110/CKC shields.  I remember thinking it was strange that they were not mounted together.  But, if the plan was to remove the I-35 signs, I guess it makes sense.  The last time I drove through there was February.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: US71 on June 27, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 27, 2012, 09:43:05 AM
I remember seeing old stand-alone I-35 shields (sometimes paired with another highway), as well as new stand-alone 110/CKC shields.  I remember thinking it was strange that they were not mounted together.  But, if the plan was to remove the I-35 signs, I guess it makes sense.  The last time I drove through there was February.

I think it's a dumb idea, myself.  This is something I expect from AHTD, not MoDOT.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rte66man on July 03, 2012, 10:33:09 AM
Quote from: US71 on June 27, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 27, 2012, 09:43:05 AM
I remember seeing old stand-alone I-35 shields (sometimes paired with another highway), as well as new stand-alone 110/CKC shields.  I remember thinking it was strange that they were not mounted together.  But, if the plan was to remove the I-35 signs, I guess it makes sense.  The last time I drove through there was February.

I think it's a dumb idea, myself.  This is something I expect from AHTD, not MoDOT.

Maybe MODOT is finally recognizing that stretch is substandard and not worthy of an Interstate shield??  <dodging brickbats>

rte66man
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kphoger on July 03, 2012, 10:47:01 AM
Driving from KC, why would a person choose to cut north from Hannibal to [toll] I-88, rather than continue east to [free] I-55?  In my experience, heavy traffic is less of a problem on I-55 than on I-80, so there would be less reason to avoid it.  Going the I-55 way is also about 25 miles shorter than taking the CKC up to I-88.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on July 23, 2012, 11:03:27 PM
http://www.whig.com/story/19081439/macomb-bypass-supporters-hope-to-accelerate-paving-project
http://www.mcdonoughvoice.com/news/x1073620519/Macomb-stands-firm-on-bypass-design

A little feud over the Macomb bypass(which would only carry about 1-2000vpd)
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kphoger on November 06, 2012, 06:51:38 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 26, 2012, 10:30:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 26, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
Are you kidding me??  Am I reading this right:  MoDOT actually took down the I-35 shields??  I mean.... ASDJILFBSDFJBD!! [there is no appropriate emoticon for my feeling]

To my knowledge, yes, they removed the I-35 shields on the CKC overlap. I left a message (and photo) on the MoDOT's KC Region Facebook page, but no one has responded. I may have to write them about this.

I just drove route from KC to Chillicothe, and realized it's no big deal if the I-35 reassurance markers aren't there anymore, since I-35 is signed on the mileposts every 0.2 miles the entire way.  It would be pretty hard to miss the fact that you're on I-35...
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on January 12, 2013, 10:52:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 26, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
Are you kidding me??  Am I reading this right:  MoDOT actually took down the I-35 shields??  I mean.... ASDJILFBSDFJBD!! [there is no appropriate emoticon for my feeling]
The January 9 weekly road crew chat on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website indicates that MoDOT may be up to the same interstate shield removing shenanigans on I-44 west of I-270, and may only be having reassurance shields for US 50 now.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: adt1982 on January 13, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 12, 2013, 10:52:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 26, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
Are you kidding me??  Am I reading this right:  MoDOT actually took down the I-35 shields??  I mean.... ASDJILFBSDFJBD!! [there is no appropriate emoticon for my feeling]
The January 9 weekly road crew chat on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website indicates that MoDOT may be up to the same interstate shield removing shenanigans on I-44 west of I-270, and may only be having reassurance shields for US 50 now.

I still don't see how this makes any sense.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Stratuscaster on January 13, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
Could it be that the overhead BGS'/pull-throughs are deemed sufficient for the mainline Interstate, while the duplexed routes get the roadside assurance markers?
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kphoger on January 14, 2013, 10:59:28 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 13, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
Could it be that the overhead BGS'/pull-throughs are deemed sufficient for the mainline Interstate, while the duplexed routes get the roadside assurance markers?

As I said:  I-35, at least, is marked on mileposts every 0.2 miles for the entire length of the CKC portion.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: adt1982 on January 16, 2013, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2013, 10:59:28 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 13, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
Could it be that the overhead BGS'/pull-throughs are deemed sufficient for the mainline Interstate, while the duplexed routes get the roadside assurance markers?
As I said:  I-35, at least, is marked on mileposts every 0.2 miles for the entire length of the CKC portion.

That's it.  Here's their answer.

Last week I had a question about why the I-44 shields were being removed from the posts. The reason is that we have an I-44 shield on the new mile marker signs. We post a mile marker every two-tenths mile. On that marker it has the I-44 shield and which direction you are going in. These mile markers are designed to help motorists when calling 911 give their location to emergency responders. Overall we are trying to reduce our sign inventory so the decision was made that we don't need the I-44 shield on the mile marker and on an additional sign post. There are portions of I-44 that are also designed US Route 50 and that is why you still see that sign by itself along the side of the road.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hobsini2 on January 16, 2013, 09:42:58 PM
I'm sorry but I think that is a really cheap and dumb reason for not having a "normal" size I-35 or I-44 sign after each exit like every other interstate highway in the country.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Stratuscaster on January 16, 2013, 10:20:45 PM
I wonder which signs are more apt to get taken out by accidents and snowplows and whatnot - mile markers or the roadside assurance markers?

Know another way to reduce your sign inventory? Uni-signs.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on January 16, 2013, 11:03:42 PM
I wonder if one could get FHWA to force MoDOT to resign the affected sections of I-44 and I-35?

EDIT:  I wonder how long before MoDOT goes with this policy on I-49?  The whole thing is cosigned with US 71.

Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Brandon on January 17, 2013, 12:17:25 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 16, 2013, 10:20:45 PM
I wonder which signs are more apt to get taken out by accidents and snowplows and whatnot - mile markers or the roadside assurance markers?

Know another way to reduce your sign inventory? Uni-signs.

A tried and true approach by WisDOT.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2013, 12:58:33 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 16, 2013, 10:20:45 PM
Know another way to reduce your sign inventory? Uni-signs.

not by total area, which is fairly linear to cost/space occupied in the warehouse/etc.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hbelkins on January 17, 2013, 02:16:23 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2013, 12:58:33 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 16, 2013, 10:20:45 PM
Know another way to reduce your sign inventory? Uni-signs.

not by total area, which is fairly linear to cost/space occupied in the warehouse/etc.

I think by "inventory" they mean signs that the DOT owns out in the field.

My office has been removing route markers in certain places. I think it's a poor practice. Reading this thread, now I know what they've been talking about in monthly reports when they refer to "sign inventory reduction." All this while I thought they were getting rid of uninstalled signs in our Traffic garage.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: rarnold on January 17, 2013, 09:16:10 PM
I know the mile markers have shields on them, but they are called reassurance markers for a reason. Since they are an Interstate Highway, the roads should be signed in the same way state to state, including reassurance markers.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Revive 755 on January 21, 2013, 09:46:31 PM
Recent travels reveal that MoDOT has removed an eastbound I-44 shield between I-270 and US 61-67.  The assembly that used to be on the section:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=sunset+hills,+mo&hl=en&ll=38.555314,-90.416054&spn=0.003545,0.008256&sll=41.917096,-88.760605&sspn=0.433787,1.056747&hnear=Sunset+Hills,+St+Louis,+Missouri&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.555226,-90.416226&panoid=9cjkV9H1f7yGlT3sbM37pQ&cbp=12,88.24,,0,14.5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=sunset+hills,+mo&hl=en&ll=38.555314,-90.416054&spn=0.003545,0.008256&sll=41.917096,-88.760605&sspn=0.433787,1.056747&hnear=Sunset+Hills,+St+Louis,+Missouri&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.555226,-90.416226&panoid=9cjkV9H1f7yGlT3sbM37pQ&cbp=12,88.24,,0,14.5)

Now the US 50 shield is where the I-44 shield was, and there is empty bracket where the US 50 shield used to be.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: Alex on January 22, 2013, 05:43:27 PM
Quote from: adt1982 on January 16, 2013, 12:09:52 PM

That's it.  Here's their answer.

Last week I had a question about why the I-44 shields were being removed from the posts. The reason is that we have an I-44 shield on the new mile marker signs. We post a mile marker every two-tenths mile. On that marker it has the I-44 shield and which direction you are going in. These mile markers are designed to help motorists when calling 911 give their location to emergency responders. Overall we are trying to reduce our sign inventory so the decision was made that we don't need the I-44 shield on the mile marker and on an additional sign post. There are portions of I-44 that are also designed US Route 50 and that is why you still see that sign by itself along the side of the road.

As hobsini2 wrote, that is dumb logic. If you are going to remove a shield to cut down on the inventory (what is 20-30 mainline shields in the grand scheme of things anyway?), drop the US 50 marker. US 50 is overlapped with freeways east from near Union to O'Fallon, IL; it is obviously depreciated. Is anyone actively referring to it as the primary route on the freeways it shares? Will the same logic apply to I-270 or I-255 where it shares pavement with US 50?

Either way I am glad I photographed the I-44/US 50 westbound overlap in May of last year.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: akotchi on January 22, 2013, 10:50:21 PM
I thought this practice rather strange, so I looked in the MUTCD to see the language for the reassurance markers.  Section 2E.38 indicates that they "should" be placed as part of the post-interchange sequence.  Later in the section, it also says that in the event that there is not adequate space between interchanges, the reassurance marker "may" be removed if the route number is contained on the pull-through sign.

Still seems like a stretch to apply in these cases, based on my understanding of the posts above . . .
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on July 14, 2013, 10:18:02 PM
http://www.whig.com/story/22833270/macomb-bypass-grading-project-ready-to-begin
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 16, 2013, 07:26:19 PM
I've had the 'pleasure' of seeing this route of redundancy in person the last couple days along I-88.  I just had to chuckle and roll my eyes.  It's like Illinois is trying to justify all that four lane expansion between Quincy and Galesburg.
I'm sure it's working wonderfully...
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: ajlynch91 on December 26, 2014, 12:20:09 PM
Sorry to bring up an old topic, just wanted to share some of the (many) things I don't like about this number.

If one is traveling on I-88 WB just west of Aurora, IL-56 shares pavement for a few miles. This used to be signed as such on I-88 but no longer does, yet the Tollway feels the need to sign 110. So IL-56 has about a three mile stretch that isn't signed as such.

There's already a MO-110, and as of August was still signed near De Soto, MO. Never mind that the road is already signed as I's 290, 88, 74, US 67 and 34, and IL-336 and there's never been a need for single number. And if there was such a need, why couldn't 336 do just as good of a job without having to duplicate the number in Missouri?

I also can't stand the "CKC" above all the 110 signs. At least in the Chicago area, there aren't ANY signs with a WEST or EAST designation, which I suppose isn't a problem given how the road is nothing but concurrencies anyway.

My personal opinion is if you're going to promote the 110 designation, even though it doesn't seem like they really are, you could eliminate the duplicate I-88 and just use 110 there. It would a bit of legitimacy to this route, but not much.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on December 26, 2014, 02:03:54 PM
http://www.westerncourier.com/news/bypass-to-affect-business/article_d5597fa6-7eff-11e4-a30e-1f02c05cbff0.html

Forgot to update you ...But there is money for paving for 2 lanes I am not clear if there will be a couple of at grade intersections for a while. It is far out of town and will hurt Macomb . I just went by Jacksonville on the new part of 67 yesterday and you can hardly tell there is a town there. The real priority is the Beardstown Bridge which has a 15 ton weight restriction . The good news is Tom Oakley is working on 67 now . Why Because Tom Oakley owns 2 TV stations and  newspaper and he gets his roads and Quincy Macomb was his baby and so was the 110 . That is  why Quincy Macomb is also named after him .
The 110 is about 20 miles longer than 55-72. which I think is the shortest. I have not done the math to see how it compares to 80/35 and 55/70 . I did compare it to 34 from 80 ( about 11 miles longer) Or the 4 lanes under study through Peoria 29 and 336 its only 9 miles longer than that one. Anyway that is where the 110 comes from .
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on December 26, 2014, 02:47:10 PM
Ok had time to do math . Did it the old  way with paper maps.
CKC is 527.561 (OK took that from the Wikipedia site) You can save 11 miles taking 80/34 to Galesburg instead of 88 and you can save 9 by taking 80/180/29 and the still fictional 336 to Macomb. You would not save as much using the existing routes today just letting you think about the worth of building 85 miles of 4 lane@6 million a mile.

55-70 is 542
80-35 is 550 You would save 12 by taking 88 to 80
Found another short cut if you want some 2 lane in Illinois and Iowa
80-34 -35 is 520
Finally the shortest is
55-72-36 499
The argument for CKC is that its a route that avoids 80 and 55 and 70 Sort of a Chicago-KC Parkway
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 02:15:53 PM
You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 02:15:53 PM
You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.

This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Please look at the age of the thread, and then ask yourself if you're actually planning to contribute something new and informative to the conversation that fizzled out years ago.  If not, then just leave it dead.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: 3467 on May 18, 2018, 08:16:45 PM
Since its revived...the 110 336 Macomb bypass will open by June 1 and the 34 freeway is closed and diverted for the summer on to IL 164
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 02:15:53 PM
You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago—Kansas City highway thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22708.0) currently active. He even replied in it, too.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2018, 08:36:27 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 02:15:53 PM
You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago—Kansas City highway thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22708.0) currently active. He even replied in it, too.


He probably just forgot what regional board he was on since the other one is active.  Give the guy a break.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hbelkins on May 19, 2018, 06:03:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2018, 08:36:27 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 02:15:53 PM
You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago—Kansas City highway thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22708.0) currently active. He even replied in it, too.


He probably just forgot what regional board he was on since the other one is active.  Give the guy a break.

Agreed. This isn't the worst thread resurrection I've seen.
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: abefroman329 on May 20, 2018, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2018, 06:03:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2018, 08:36:27 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 02:15:53 PM
You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago—Kansas City highway thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22708.0) currently active. He even replied in it, too.


He probably just forgot what regional board he was on since the other one is active.  Give the guy a break.

Agreed. This isn't the worst thread resurrection I've seen.

What's the worst thread resurrection you've seen?
Title: Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
Post by: hotdogPi on May 20, 2018, 09:27:26 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 20, 2018, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2018, 06:03:28 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2018, 08:36:27 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2018, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 02:15:53 PM
You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago—Kansas City highway thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22708.0) currently active. He even replied in it, too.


He probably just forgot what regional board he was on since the other one is active.  Give the guy a break.

Agreed. This isn't the worst thread resurrection I've seen.

What's the worst thread resurrection you've seen?

webny99 resurrected a thread from January 2009 (the month the forum began) just to show that he could.