We've all poked fun at I-180 at some point. But it's actually an intriguing situation with very little precedent. What will IDOT do when it needs to be resurfaced/needs bridges replaced, etc.? Sinking money and time into what is effectively a useless freeway would be stupid, but it also costs money and time to demolish it. The most likely choice seems to be demolishing one of the carriageways and making the other a realigned IL-26/county road. What are some other options?
One alternative is just to kill the E-W leg and downgrade it to IL 71, since the N-S portion is part of the marked route between Peoria and I-80.
A downgrade to I-180 is probably at least 20 years down the road; IDOT is in the process of redecking the bridges over the Illinois River. It's probably cheaper to continue maintenance on the existing roadway than to demolish and downgrade.
If IDOT was flush with funding, 4-laning IL-29 between the end of I-180 and Peoria would make the route considerably more useful. But north of Sparland current traffic levels are well below even the point 4-laning makes sense. By traffic counts, I have an easier time making a case for a 4-lane US-20 between Freeport and Galena than I do a 4-lane IL-29.
Of course, we have IL-110 as precedent for a "Build it and they will come" attitude to building roadways (based on traffic numbers, they haven't come). If a politician with some cloud got it in their head it was worth the effort to 4-lane, it might happen. But I'm not holding my breath.
Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?
Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2021, 09:02:51 PM
Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?
Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.
It'd still require a bridge, the river makes a bend.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 11, 2021, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2021, 09:02:51 PM
Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?
Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.
It'd still require a bridge, the river makes a bend.
Not necessarily. It could come from the east from I-39.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 11, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 11, 2021, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2021, 09:02:51 PM
Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?
Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.
It'd still require a bridge, the river makes a bend.
Not necessarily. It could come from the east from I-39.
I-39 wasn't around when I-180 was built.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2021, 09:02:51 PM
Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?
Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.
I-80 doesn't cross the river until Joliet, 80 miles to the east. Since the steel mill was south/east of the river, I-180 had to cross the river to reach it...
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2021, 09:02:51 PM
Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?
I suspect IDOT had long term plans to connect I-180 (or whatever designation it would have been) to Peoria. No reason to build that high-speed T interchange if there weren't future plans to continue the Interstate south.
SM-G991U
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 11, 2021, 09:32:36 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 11, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 11, 2021, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2021, 09:02:51 PM
Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?
Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.
It'd still require a bridge, the river makes a bend.
Not necessarily. It could come from the east from I-39.
I-39 wasn't around when I-180 was built.
Well, there's that.
Due to the heavy traffic volumes on this stretch of road, IDOT should strongly consider 8-laning the segment within the next decade. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by approximately 420% by 2030.
Oh you wanted serious? In that case, they could go for a super cheap solution by converting it to a super-2. They could use existing ramps by building crossovers and leaving the old alignment on the other side to rot. And since they're redecking the Illinois River bridge, have it expand back out just for that.
And obviously if possible, remove the I-180 designation and replace it with IL-180.
IDOT is redeeming the bridges now so it's not going anywhere. The history of it is in another thread. . FHWA wanted some sort of South extension was part of the cover and 39 was being planned at that time.
At this point, keep it as is.
It would be more trouble than it's worth to change anything.
You are not getting a lot of wear and tear on the road due to traffic, only weather, so it should stay in reasonable shape if maintained.
IDOT recently cancelled the planning on the East Peoria Bypass which was looking at the viability of bringing more traffic across the Illinois River farther north and connecting it with IL-29.
This "might" have been a way to get more pass through traffic to use IL-29 and by extension I-180.
With recent population growth to the east of Peoria (Washington. Morton etc.) IDOT was checking to see if there was enough demand to warrant a ROW.
The initial studies showed no local interest or traffic to support the work on the east side,
Only Chillicothe on the west bank of the Illinois River was in favor.
Also it's shorter to take 74 and 55 from most of the Peoria area to Chicago. That includes 24 the 4 lane that is being built to Canton. The Peoria area routes seem to have resolved themselves.
Quote from: 3467 on October 12, 2021, 10:48:28 AM
Also it's shorter to take 74 and 55 from most of the Peoria area to Chicago. That includes 24 the 4 lane that is being built to Canton. The Peoria area routes seem to have resolved themselves.
Though aren't you going a bit south before going back north with this routing?
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 12, 2021, 11:23:47 AM
Quote from: 3467 on October 12, 2021, 10:48:28 AM
Also it's shorter to take 74 and 55 from most of the Peoria area to Chicago. That includes 24 the 4 lane that is being built to Canton. The Peoria area routes seem to have resolved themselves.
Though aren't you going a bit south before going back north with this routing?
You can make up a lot of time zipping along I-74 at 70mph+ with no stoplights or speed zones, to offset the difference in mileage. Google shows a 6 minute saving on using I-55 to I-74 between Chicago and Peoria vs. the more direct I-55 and IL 116.
I was peripherally involved in the Phase I studies for the Chicago-Peoria expressway. There were several different alignments studied including roughly following US 24 and IL 116 to the East Peoria area, following IL 71 from I-39 to IL 29 and then going south to Peoria, and IL 29 from I-80 to Peoria via I-180 and IL 29. Ultimately the IL 29 corridor was chosen (that would make use of most of I-180's length for the I-80 connection), and IDOT has a federally approved EIS study for it at https://idot.illinois.gov/projects/il-29-project-study, but there has been little to no effort to move the project forward after the study was completed.
The ability to use a 4-lane IL 29 as a future Peoria connection, however unlikely today, may be one of the factors dissuading IDOT from removing lanes on I-180.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 12, 2021, 11:23:47 AM
Quote from: 3467 on October 12, 2021, 10:48:28 AM
Also it's shorter to take 74 and 55 from most of the Peoria area to Chicago. That includes 24 the 4 lane that is being built to Canton. The Peoria area routes seem to have resolved themselves.
Though aren't you going a bit south before going back north with this routing?
Not that much and it's an all Interstate route.
I def would not mind it being integrated to be the true I-80 to Peoria route, but as many say above it might be too expensive to downgrade at this point.
I'd say hook it up to IL-6 and create that Interstate to Peoria, so the construction of I-180 in the past wasn't a TOTAL waste...Destroying it will have a hefty cost in itself, even compared to continuing maintenance. Either complete that route to Peoria or keep it as is, if that expansion is too expensive.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 15, 2021, 10:31:44 AM
I'd say hook it up to IL-6 and create that Interstate to Peoria, so the construction of I-180 in the past wasn't a TOTAL waste...Destroying it will have a hefty cost in itself, even compared to continuing maintenance. Either complete that route to Peoria or keep it as is, if that expansion is too expensive.
The approved EIS was a freeway from IL 6 to just north of Chillicothe, then an expressway with at-grade intersections from there to I-180 with the exception of interchanges at Sparland and Henry.
Quote from: Rick Powell on October 15, 2021, 12:20:33 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 15, 2021, 10:31:44 AM
I'd say hook it up to IL-6 and create that Interstate to Peoria, so the construction of I-180 in the past wasn't a TOTAL waste...Destroying it will have a hefty cost in itself, even compared to continuing maintenance. Either complete that route to Peoria or keep it as is, if that expansion is too expensive.
The approved EIS was a freeway from IL 6 to just north of Chillicothe, then an expressway with at-grade intersections from there to I-180 with the exception of interchanges at Sparland and Henry.
Sounds like something Iowa would do. I'm into it! I wonder if they'd number it as an extension of 336, and perhaps scrap the I-180 designation. The IL-71 extension can take over the east-west section of I-180 east of the stack interchange.
I doubt there will be a 336. IDOT is 4 laning 24 instead.
Quote from: 3467 on October 15, 2021, 12:52:03 PM
I doubt there will be a 336. IDOT is 4 laning 24 instead.
Agreed. There shouldn't have been IL-336 from Quincy to Macomb in the first place.
Quote from: 3467 on October 15, 2021, 12:52:03 PM
I doubt there will be a 336. IDOT is 4 laning 24 instead.
IL 336 should be decommissioned, now that the "independent" Peoria-Macomb segment is all but dead
As it stands, 336 is 100% concurrent with IL 110/CKC
Quote from: I-39 on October 15, 2021, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: 3467 on October 15, 2021, 12:52:03 PM
I doubt there will be a 336. IDOT is 4 laning 24 instead.
Agreed. There shouldn't have been IL-336 from Quincy to Macomb in the first place.
I am sure in some EIS from 1967 it had a rationale.
It did. It was to justify 180 because the original supplemental freeway system did not have that corridor. I ha be thought of doing a summary of each corridor and what happened.
Then it became part of the CKC but it would save only 10 miles over the 110. 4 landing 34 through Galesburg would save more.
Then Canton and Bushnell wanted a 4 lane but not a 336 virtual freeway. Bushnell wanted it 3 lane through town like Good Hope. Canton just to Peoria. 24 does that and makes 9 the route. It seems everyone is happier.
And Yes dump the 336 number a useless concurrency.
Quote from: 3467 on October 16, 2021, 05:43:07 PM
It did. It was to justify 180 because the original supplemental freeway system did not have that corridor. I ha be thought of doing a summary of each corridor and what happened.
Then it became part of the CKC but it would save only 10 miles over the 110. 4 landing 34 through Galesburg would save more.
Then Canton and Bushnell wanted a 4 lane but not a 336 virtual freeway. Bushnell wanted it 3 lane through town like Good Hope. Canton just to Peoria. 24 does that and makes 9 the route. It seems everyone is happier.
And Yes dump the 336 number a useless concurrency.
Actually, 110 is the useless concurrency.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 16, 2021, 07:46:27 PM
Quote from: 3467 on October 16, 2021, 05:43:07 PM
It did. It was to justify 180 because the original supplemental freeway system did not have that corridor. I ha be thought of doing a summary of each corridor and what happened.
Then it became part of the CKC but it would save only 10 miles over the 110. 4 landing 34 through Galesburg would save more.
Then Canton and Bushnell wanted a 4 lane but not a 336 virtual freeway. Bushnell wanted it 3 lane through town like Good Hope. Canton just to Peoria. 24 does that and makes 9 the route. It seems everyone is happier.
And Yes dump the 336 number a useless concurrency.
Actually, 110 is the useless concurrency.
But if 336 were decommissioned, that actually makes the 110 number at least partially sensible...
110 seems like a useless route number in both MO and IL to me. Is 3 route numbers (35, 36, 55) too much to remember for driving between KC and Chicago, that one three digit one is needed?
State route Interstates are sort of a thing. 27 is the Avenue is Saints in Iowa and Missouri. There are a few others like Illinois and Iowa 64.
On the other hand there is Iowa 163 that runs from Burlington to the state line and ends.If Illinois carries it say to 80 there could be a quint plex? On the Monmouth by pass.
Quote from: edwaleni on October 16, 2021, 01:51:49 PM
I am sure in some EIS from 1967 it had a rationale.
There was no such thing as an EIS in 1967, at least in the form we know today. EISs were the spawn of Nixon's National Environmental Protection Act of 1969. One reason IDOT was able to squeak I-180 in was the fact that the project development preceded NEPA and it's requirements for disclosure of impacts and public involvement by a year or so.
How much does it really cost to maintain this road with so little traffic?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 17, 2021, 01:00:45 AM
How much does it really cost to maintain this road with so little traffic?
It may not get significant traffic, but it's still subject to frost/freeze cycles and wildly swinging temperatures. So, less than I-80, certainly, and certainly less than the cost to downgrade to a 2-lane. But it's probably comparable to 2 2-lane roadways of average traffic.
What will compel a downgrade is having to rebuild bridges or perform a complete ground up rebuild of the roadbed. But that's likely a ways off with so little traffic beating it up - at least another 30 years.
SM-G991U
The bridges are being redecked now and that would be the biggest expense so it will be around for a long time.
There is an 80 overpass in a low low volume township road closed. I wonder if we will see some of those overpasses removed months future.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
110 seems like a useless route number in both MO and IL to me. Is 3 route numbers (35, 36, 55) too much to remember for driving between KC and Chicago, that one three digit one is needed?
Or 70-270-55?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2021, 09:10:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
110 seems like a useless route number in both MO and IL to me. Is 3 route numbers (35, 36, 55) too much to remember for driving between KC and Chicago, that one three digit one is needed?
Or 70-270-55?
I think the US 36 routing is preferred by most as it bypasses the entire St Louis metro area. I-70 in St Charles County can get pretty ugly in traffic even outside of peak hours sometimes.
Quote from: Rick Powell on October 16, 2021, 10:59:47 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on October 16, 2021, 01:51:49 PM
I am sure in some EIS from 1967 it had a rationale.
There was no such thing as an EIS in 1967, at least in the form we know today. EISs were the spawn of Nixon's National Environmental Protection Act of 1969. One reason IDOT was able to squeak I-180 in was the fact that the project development preceded NEPA and it's requirements for disclosure of impacts and public involvement by a year or so.
I was being sorta sarcastic. What I really meant to say was that somewhere in some time frame there was a document (or group there of) that showed why it was needed at that point in time.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 17, 2021, 09:39:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2021, 09:10:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
110 seems like a useless route number in both MO and IL to me. Is 3 route numbers (35, 36, 55) too much to remember for driving between KC and Chicago, that one three digit one is needed?
Or 70-270-55?
I think the US 36 routing is preferred by most as it bypasses the entire St Louis metro area. I-70 in St Charles County can get pretty ugly in traffic even outside of peak hours sometimes.
I know there are driveways and cross roads and stuff but isn't US-36 at least four laned and 65 mph the entire route across Missouri?
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 18, 2021, 05:37:34 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 17, 2021, 09:39:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2021, 09:10:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
110 seems like a useless route number in both MO and IL to me. Is 3 route numbers (35, 36, 55) too much to remember for driving between KC and Chicago, that one three digit one is needed?
Or 70-270-55?
I think the US 36 routing is preferred by most as it bypasses the entire St Louis metro area. I-70 in St Charles County can get pretty ugly in traffic even outside of peak hours sometimes.
I know there are driveways and cross roads and stuff but isn't US-36 at least four laned and 65 mph the entire route across Missouri?
Yes. Not limited access, but it is 4 lane now all the way to St Joseph, MO.
I did the major route distances once and it is the shortest.
Western IL [aka "Forgottonia"] complained of "no Interstates = no progress here" for years, so I-72 and 172 were given to them. Same with IL-336 and the IL 110 route.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 18, 2021, 05:37:34 AM
I know there are driveways and cross roads and stuff but isn't US-36 at least four laned and 65 mph the entire route across Missouri?
Even when the four laning was finished, US 36 was not 65 all the way across Missouri:
1) First there's the lousy 55 mph stretch through Hannibal. (https://goo.gl/maps/MVpnofR6WrAyFgyr9)
2) Down to 45 in Cameron and now up to three stoplights, (https://goo.gl/maps/nEPGfQeNCbbiiXQF6) then a questionable 55 mph stretch (https://goo.gl/maps/TkvGy6EoFUQB816LA) that drags on (https://goo.gl/maps/62chcPRxqrez2u5s5).
3) Then down to 55 again through St. Joseph (https://goo.gl/maps/VbjrcPJrY3LY48k16) with a 45 mph stretch near the signalized ramps with I-229. (https://goo.gl/maps/USQoprvYCZ5RgL4P7)
Might also be a couple more sections less than 65 if if there have been safety problems near some of the other towns (been a while since I've used it).
Still a viable and usually more reliable alternative to I-70 IMHO.
Just out of idle curiosity, how much does it cost in general to dig up a mile of interstate? I can't imagine that it's all that much relatively speaking, compared to replacing it, but it still seems like a fairly big job. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have left that bit if I-44 in Tulsa when they moved it to reach the Creek Turnpike.
Quote from: US20IL64 on October 18, 2021, 02:33:22 PM
Western IL [aka "Forgottonia"] complained of "no Interstates = no progress here" for years, so I-72 and 172 were given to them. Same with IL-336 and the IL 110 route.
And if they really want to complete the puzzle, maybe just extend I-172 to Galesburg along the IL-336 and US 67/34 corridors. Not that there is a traffic need for that.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 17, 2021, 09:39:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2021, 09:10:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
110 seems like a useless route number in both MO and IL to me. Is 3 route numbers (35, 36, 55) too much to remember for driving between KC and Chicago, that one three digit one is needed?
Or 70-270-55?
I think the US 36 routing is preferred by most as it bypasses the entire St Louis metro area. I-70 in St Charles County can get pretty ugly in traffic even outside of peak hours sometimes.
The worst of St Chuck can be bypassed by MO 370 though I-70 can get ugly around Wentzville. Unfortunately, it doesn't bypass the mess on I-270 in North St Louis County which has several potential bottlenecks depending on time of day; US 67, I-170, MO 367, and worst of all the Chain of Rocks Bridge over the Mississippi. I've also hit rush hour jams in Columbia, MO. As a former STL resident, I heartily endorse the I-35/US 36/I-55 option as the better choice even with the stoplights in Cameron and Hannibal.
Quote from: skluth on October 19, 2021, 05:47:49 PM
As a former STL resident, I heartily endorse the I-35/US 36/I-55 option as the better choice even with the stoplights in Cameron and Hannibal.
US 36 is a full freeway through Hannibal (at least until Hannibal annexes west of US 24).
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 19, 2021, 10:26:06 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 19, 2021, 05:47:49 PM
As a former STL resident, I heartily endorse the I-35/US 36/I-55 option as the better choice even with the stoplights in Cameron and Hannibal.
US 36 is a full freeway through Hannibal (at least until Hannibal annexes west of US 24).
Oops. I'm used to going through Hannibal on US 61 which along with Waterloo has the stoplights on the Avenue of the Saints. Forgot about that tiny extension of I-72 into Missouri.