Is the U.S 20 freeway between Freeport and Galena necessary?

[3467]

The Dubuqe Post from the other thread

« Reply #12 on: Today at 04:33:51 PM »

ReplyQuote



Going on a tangent off the original topic, I do know that the city of Dubuque is working on the "Southwest Arterial" to complement the Northwest Arterial in place. This fills in a small portion of the gap in what is planned to be something of an expressway.

http://www.cityofdubuque.org/1225/Southwest-Arterial-Project

That being said, this does not solve the great problem of crossing the remaining landscape and is not signed to be US 20

[3467]

74 -its hoped that its starts in 5 years
Beardstown was the most popular and least expensive design maybe a first for IDOT. IDOT likes access control near all its new bridges. There are only 2 other interchanges on the route -One at IL 104 and US 24 and no other major structures . The Jerseyville bypass is probably the only other big project after the bridge. After its done there is only one other interchange and one RR overpass on the rest of the route

[I-39]

Everything you just said is right. ex the trucks I have been on 20 in Iowa and there are no trucks there . #4 carries more trucks . When flood closed the 80 bridge  over the Cedar river Iowa made 20 the official detour . No one took it They too 163 /34 from Des Moines or 218/27 from Iowa city . 34 became inaccessible between Monmouth and Burlington and I suspect even on the Iowa 4 lane segments. it was true freeway level traffic. none of which exists in and of the reaming supplemental corridors. Even 30 has more trucks . I think 3 lanes would easily handle the trucks using the corridor.
That said Adam every other point is spot on
BTW there is an interesting post about the Northwest and Southwest Arterials in Dubuque in the IDOT district thread Maybe they meant to post here?

I'm not quite understanding you here. Do you agree that ultimately the freeway should be built, or not? Or do you just oppose it because of cost?

Again, I would like to see the freeway built ultimately, but if it will not connect to Iowa, I do not believe it is worth it to pursue. BTW, I have driven the corridor and I do NOT believe passing lanes would be adequate long term, I saw a lot of heavy traffic. Plus, they need to get the traffic out of historic downtown Galena, which is why I believe a freeway bypass of Galena should be built regardless of what happens with the rest of the corridor.

As to your point about people not using 20 as the detour, it is probably because of this segment why they don't use it, it is a lot more curvy and sharp than 34, which is more flat and direct. 

I think this would be a reasonable compromise: map the corridor for freeway, but build an expressway and then covert it to freeway if traffic needs it.

[I-39]

The Dubuqe Post from the other thread

« Reply #12 on: Today at 04:33:51 PM »

ReplyQuote



Going on a tangent off the original topic, I do know that the city of Dubuque is working on the "Southwest Arterial" to complement the Northwest Arterial in place. This fills in a small portion of the gap in what is planned to be something of an expressway.

http://www.cityofdubuque.org/1225/Southwest-Arterial-Project

That being said, this does not solve the great problem of crossing the remaining landscape and is not signed to be US 20

Yeah, I saw this a while back. This has nothing to do with the U.S 20 corridor. It only has to do with connecting to industrial parks in Dubuque.

[I-39]

74 -its hoped that its starts in 5 years
Beardstown was the most popular and least expensive design maybe a first for IDOT. IDOT likes access control near all its new bridges. There are only 2 other interchanges on the route -One at IL 104 and US 24 and no other major structures . The Jerseyville bypass is probably the only other big project after the bridge. After its done there is only one other interchange and one RR overpass on the rest of the route

The Jerseyville bypass will be a freeway correct? And where will the other interchange be? Will the rest of the bypasses on 67 have at-grade crossings?

[pianocello]

If I may jump in here, I would say a US 20 freeway isn't necessary. Expressway, probably, given the amount of tourism that Galena gets, but a freeway is probably overkill.

I don't see 20 as being a long-range alternative to I-80, even if it were upgraded to full freeway into Iowa. It's simply too far away, so the only traffic it could conceivably get is traffic toward Waterloo and Dubuque that already uses 20 now.

Re: I-74 bridge, it is in the plans to begin construction in 2017 and finish in either 2020 or 2021 (that is, unless Rauner cut funding for that, too). Although I'm not sure how that fits into the US 20 discussion...

For the record, I have never driven the stretch in question, and I am in full support of a Dubuque southern bypass if it were feasible. As it stands now, I would be okay with just eliminating about half of the stoplights on the current expressways through town.

[I-39]

If I may jump in here, I would say a US 20 freeway isn't necessary. Expressway, probably, given the amount of tourism that Galena gets, but a freeway is probably overkill.

I don't see 20 as being a long-range alternative to I-80, even if it were upgraded to full freeway into Iowa. It's simply too far away, so the only traffic it could conceivably get is traffic toward Waterloo and Dubuque that already uses 20 now.

Re: I-74 bridge, it is in the plans to begin construction in 2017 and finish in either 2020 or 2021 (that is, unless Rauner cut funding for that, too). Although I'm not sure how that fits into the US 20 discussion...

For the record, I have never driven the stretch in question, and I am in full support of a Dubuque southern bypass if it were feasible. As it stands now, I would be okay with just eliminating about half of the stoplights on the current expressways through town.

I would be open to building an expressway like Wisconsin did with U.S 151 between Dubuque and Madison, although they want to covert that to freeway eventually.

We mentioned 74 because we were talking about bridges that need to be done before building yet another crossing.

BTW, why would you support a bypass of Dubuque like I mentioned if you don't support a freeway? That would be the whole purpose of constructing it.

[3467]

Jerseyville will be a freeway Interchange @16 and partials at the north and south and 2 rail crossings. that's why its expensive . Only other interchange is IL 108 @ Carrolton
I have driven 20 and the expense makes it unviable because it wont be upgraded . I support Galena bypass and making the rest 3 lanes . IDOT is doing that with IL 2 which is  busier

[cwm1276]

They have gone on the record saying most of the existing alignment cannot be improved to 4 lanes and passing lanes would not be adequate. Perhaps it's time to downgrade it to a less costly expressway, although they have stated they don't want the congestion that will come without full access control.

I suspect it will be at least 30-50 years before having side road access would be a liability on a Galena-Freeport expressway. Also, aside from the stoplight at Winnebago (which should be replaced with an overpass), the existing expressway stretch between Freeport and Rockford is adequate, and will be for at least a couple decades to come.

I wouldn't get excited about a southern Dubuque bypass or another Mississippi connection until Illinois can at least 4-lane US-20 to Galena. Without that, the traffic to justify Dubuque widening/expansion simply won't be there.

I agree, they have to put in the four lanes between Freeport and Galena before building a new four lane bridge on either a bypass or upgrading the existing route. I was just demonstrating with the map an alignment they'd probably have to do if they decided to build a freeway into Iowa.

IDOT insists building it as a freeway is necessary here, they've done the studies. I agree this should be built as a freeway. Because of the vast amount of truck traffic that would result from building this (remember, this could be a viable alternative route for I-80), it is probably better to build full access control (freeway) so higher speed limits could be posted. Plus, with commercial development along major corridors, it is better to have full access control so as no signalized intersections pop up (like in Winnebago).

The real issues here are cost and connectivity, building a freeway is a lot more expensive, and this has been sitting on the shelve for 20 or so years (even longer if you count the original supplemental freeway proposal). How much longer will we have to wait? Probably a while. Building an expressway would bring the cost down a bit, but since it would still have to be on a new alignment, it would still be expensive. Also, if the freeway will not connect to Iowa, what good will building a freeway do if you have to slow down in Dubuque because of stoplights, lower speed limits, at-grade crossings, etc?

The expressway section between Freeport and Rockford would only be converted to freeway AFTER the Freeport to Galena freeway is built. Even the Freeport to Rockford section may be tricky though, because a lot of development exists on the existing alignment, some re-routing or business relocations would have to take place to put in the interchanges, overpasses, frontage roads, etc. 

Another Stop light is planned for Lena at 73.  I think this project should have been done 20 years ago, but it won't get done until traffic is stop and go from the Freeport bypass to Galena.  Once that light is installed in Lena, traffic will slow down with trucks trying to climb the hill at 73.

[pianocello]

BTW, why would you support a bypass of Dubuque like I mentioned if you don't support a freeway? That would be the whole purpose of constructing it.

Let me clarify. I would support a 4-lane expressway bypass of Dubuque, one that is similar in nature to US-61 north of DeWitt or US 20 between Manchester and the western part of Dubuque. In my eyes, an expressway with intersections is adequate, as long as it doesn't have any stoplights, stop signs, or railroad crossings.

[I-39]

BTW, why would you support a bypass of Dubuque like I mentioned if you don't support a freeway? That would be the whole purpose of constructing it.

Let me clarify. I would support a 4-lane expressway bypass of Dubuque, one that is similar in nature to US-61 north of DeWitt or US 20 between Manchester and the western part of Dubuque. In my eyes, an expressway with intersections is adequate, as long as it doesn't have any stoplights, stop signs, or railroad crossings.

As I said, I'd support building a four lane expressway like U.S 151 between Madison and Dubuque. Build the initial divided expressway and upgrade to freeway later IF traffic needs it.

[JREwing78]

Building an expressway would bring the cost down a bit, but since it would still have to be on a new alignment, it would still be expensive. Also, if the freeway will not connect to Iowa, what good will building a freeway do if you have to slow down in Dubuque because of stoplights, lower speed limits, at-grade crossings, etc?

From a safety standpoint, an expressway section of US-20 between Galena and Freeport would be a dramatic improvement over what exists now. It's the section that hampers mobility and economic development the most between the Dubuque area and Chicago. I agree that a freeway is unnecessary here.

I disagree with the idea that a Galena-Freeport expressway is worthless without a southern US-20 bypass around Dubuque. The traffic numbers simply aren't there, the accident statistics aren't there, and the political will isn't there. Compared to the horribly substandard 2-lane US-20 east of Galena, US-20 through Dubuque works well enough as is. When it stops working, they can punch through an additional lane each way and frontage roads - the worst stretch of about 4 miles through Dubuque has sufficient space on each side without taking a large number of businesses.

The biggest bottleneck is the Julien Dubuque bridge. Add a second span, and it would cover traffic demands on US-20 to and from Dubuque for at least the next 50 years.

[I-39]

Building an expressway would bring the cost down a bit, but since it would still have to be on a new alignment, it would still be expensive. Also, if the freeway will not connect to Iowa, what good will building a freeway do if you have to slow down in Dubuque because of stoplights, lower speed limits, at-grade crossings, etc?

From a safety standpoint, an expressway section of US-20 between Galena and Freeport would be a dramatic improvement over what exists now. It's the section that hampers mobility and economic development the most between the Dubuque area and Chicago. I agree that a freeway is unnecessary here.

I disagree with the idea that a Galena-Freeport expressway is worthless without a southern US-20 bypass around Dubuque. The traffic numbers simply aren't there, the accident statistics aren't there, and the political will isn't there. Compared to the horribly substandard 2-lane US-20 east of Galena, US-20 through Dubuque works well enough as is. When it stops working, they can punch through an additional lane each way and frontage roads - the worst stretch of about 4 miles through Dubuque has sufficient space on each side without taking a large number of businesses.

The biggest bottleneck is the Julien Dubuque bridge. Add a second span, and it would cover traffic demands on US-20 to and from Dubuque for at least the next 50 years.

I think you misunderstood me, I said a U.S 20 freeway is worthless without a southern Dubuque bypass. An expressway would be just fine. As I said, they ought to build the Freeport to Galena segment similar to the U.S 151 expressway in Wisconsin between Dubuque and Madison. Build the expressway and convert it to freeway later IF traffic warrants it.

[I-39]

Ok, to give this a boost again, it's time for Illinois to get real here. With Iowa completing it's four laning of US 20 across the entire state within the next couple of years, the Galena to Freeport and the Mississippi River crossing will be the two remaining two-lane sections that still need widening. It's time to get going here.

Just scale back the roadway to an expressway to save money on interchanges and overpasses (but keep the Galena bypass as a freeway). I think just an expressway would be more than adequate, but I may put an interchange or two at the major junctions in Lena (at IL-73) and Stockton (IL-78) to control development. There is no way IDOT will ever get the $1 billion+ it needs to build this segment as a full freeway. 

IDOT should follow the model WisDOT did with US 151.

[mrsman]

Most rural areas do not need a full interstate quality freeway.

The best example of a proper expressway that I can think of is US 101 in central CA.  It's a freeway (doesn't quite meet interstate standards) as it passes through major cities, but along most of its routing is a 4-lane surface expressway.  There is occasional cross-traffic, but no traffic lights.  The roadway maintains a 65 MPH speed limit throughout the expressway sections.

[SSOWorld]

Ok, to give this a boost again, it's time for Illinois to get real here. With Iowa completing it's four laning of US 20 across the entire state within the next couple of years, the Galena to Freeport and the Mississippi River crossing will be the two remaining two-lane sections that still need widening. It's time to get going here.

Just scale back the roadway to an expressway to save money on interchanges and overpasses (but keep the Galena bypass as a freeway). I think just an expressway would be more than adequate, but I may put an interchange or two at the major junctions in Lena (at IL-73) and Stockton (IL-78) to control development. There is no way IDOT will ever get the $1 billion+ it needs to build this segment as a full freeway. 

IDOT should follow the model WisDOT did with US 151.

IDOT will not do a thing now as their budget was frozen.

[I-39]

Ok, to give this a boost again, it's time for Illinois to get real here. With Iowa completing it's four laning of US 20 across the entire state within the next couple of years, the Galena to Freeport and the Mississippi River crossing will be the two remaining two-lane sections that still need widening. It's time to get going here.

Just scale back the roadway to an expressway to save money on interchanges and overpasses (but keep the Galena bypass as a freeway). I think just an expressway would be more than adequate, but I may put an interchange or two at the major junctions in Lena (at IL-73) and Stockton (IL-78) to control development. There is no way IDOT will ever get the $1 billion+ it needs to build this segment as a full freeway. 

IDOT should follow the model WisDOT did with US 151.

IDOT will not do a thing now as their budget was frozen.

True, but when/if they ever get back to normal, they need to scale this project back, a freeway is not going to happen

[Revive 755]

I think you misunderstood me, I said a U.S 20 freeway is worthless without a southern Dubuque bypass.

And why does everything have to be build the whole corridor at once, not built parts now and upgrade the other section later?  The latter approach is more realistic given funding.  Additionally, if US 20 was to be upgraded with a gap in Dubuque, it would put more pressure on Iowa to find a solution.

Furthermore there are many cases where to allow for proper upgrading later, FHWA requires the initial studies to consider both the interim and ultimate projects.

[I-39]

I think you misunderstood me, I said a U.S 20 freeway is worthless without a southern Dubuque bypass.

And why does everything have to be build the whole corridor at once, not built parts now and upgrade the other section later?  The latter approach is more realistic given funding.  Additionally, if US 20 was to be upgraded with a gap in Dubuque, it would put more pressure on Iowa to find a solution.

Furthermore there are many cases where to allow for proper upgrading later, FHWA requires the initial studies to consider both the interim and ultimate projects.

1. That was an old post from February, I no longer believe a full freeway is necessary between Galena and Freeport, I would rather them do just an expressway with interchanges only at the major junctions (if even that). Downgrading this to an expressway would bring the cost down

2. I never said anything about building it all at once, I was saying in that quote that it is pointless to build a full interstate-standard freeway on US 20 between Galena and Freeport if the freeway will not continue into Iowa. I am not sure what the exact plans are for widening the Julien Dubuque Bridge, but it sounds like it will not be rebuilt into a fully access controlled freeway (like the US 151 bridge). I believe it would be too hard to build a freeway on some of the current alignment west of Galena, so I suggested building a new bridge south of Dubuque and bypassing the town altogether. Now, that would be tremendously costly (probably even more than the Freeport to Galena freeway), so I highly doubt that will ever happen.

Just widen the bridge to four lanes and put in an expressway between Freeport and Galena and call it a day...........

[ET21]

Mmhmm...