News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Champaign newspaper article on I-57/I-74 interchange

Started by Revive 755, February 19, 2014, 09:48:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Revive 755

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2014-02-19/updated-start-i-5774-work-least-6-years-away.html

There's a pdf file linked to the article showing the five build alternatives, which are:

1) Full stack

2) Cloverstack with flyovers for the I-74 to I-57 left turns, and large loops that pass under the EB I-74 to SB I-57 and WB I-74 to SB I-57 ramps.

3) Same as #2 but using turbine type ramps for the EB I-74 to NB I-57 and WB I-74 to SB I-57 ramps

4) Full turbine with the right turn ramps passing under the left turn ramps

5) Stack/Turbine hybrid - kind of resembles I-81 at US 22/US 322 in Harrisburg, PA

(Edited due to difficulties with posting)


Brandon

Knowing IDOT, they'll rule out the full stack.  There are zero in the entire state.  I think IDOT is somewhat allergic to them.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton, "Game of Thrones"

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg, "Monty Python's Life of Brian"

froggie

I don't see where there'd be a need for a full stack at this location.  Just not the traffic volume to justify it.

I'd think #2 or #3 would be appropriate (I'd lean towards #2 personally).  Though 40mph loop ramps seems like overkill.  Should be fine with 30 or 35, which would furthe reduce the footprint (and ROW needs/cost).  Easier and cheaper (due to ROW costs) to add appropriate acceleration lane on the loop merge than it is to build a wider loop.


hobsini2

I don't recall what the classification of interchange it is for the Northwest Tollway at the Tri State Tollway but I could see that working at that interchange.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Revive 755

^ I-90 at I-294 is a modified cloverstack since WB I-90 to SB I-294 and NB I-294 to EB I-90 are handled via I-190.

mgk920

#5
I've never liked that entire I-57/72/74 layout, especially with how I-72 dumps directly onto those Champaign city streets that were never originally laid out as major streets.  It may have made more sense back when it was built, but local area growth since then has rendered it obsolete - that layout creates too much of an unnatural 'break' in the fabric of the local street system at the interstates.

I would rethink that entire area, perhaps ending I-72 at a directional 'T' with I-57, removing that street feed, or at least losing the cloverleaf loops for those interstate-to-interstate turns.

I also like the idea for flyovers for the I-74 to I-57 left turns, leaving the other two left turns as loops.  A full stack is overkill there.

Mike

hobsini2

MGK, 72 was to supplant Ill 10 between Centerville and Champaign. The ramps going in and out of Champaign is the only legit exit for I-57 to Downtown and the U of I campus.  And the reason that Ill 10 does not have an exit is because of the railroad along the south and not enough room on the north for a folded diamond because of I-72. That's why it is how it is.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

hobsini2

I don't think anyone has done a redo of this series of interchanges in the fictional section. I will work on it.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

US 41

I think there should be an Option 6: Do Nothing. Option 6 is what IDOT should do.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

Joe The Dragon

Quote from: US 41 on February 22, 2014, 05:14:49 PM
I think there should be an Option 6: Do Nothing. Option 6 is what IDOT should do.
and move the funds up to the Chicago area that needs road upgrades

triplemultiplex

Just slap some C/D lanes on 74 and 57 and call it good.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

hobsini2

I agree with the CD lanes on 57 starting just north of Kirby Ave and ending north of Olympian Dr. BTW, one change I absolutely would make is the SB entrance ramp from Olympian on to 57. I would make the SB side a folded diamond to give more room for merging traffic fighting traffic that wants 74 or 72.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

DevalDragon

They tend to stay away from bridges as much as practicable in the north - the only reason I can think of is they are a bit hard to plow and salt in the winter

Quote from: Brandon on February 19, 2014, 10:29:43 PM
Knowing IDOT, they'll rule out the full stack.  There are zero in the entire state.  I think IDOT is somewhat allergic to them.

Brandon

Quote from: DevalDragon on March 29, 2014, 02:44:43 AM
They tend to stay away from bridges as much as practicable in the north - the only reason I can think of is they are a bit hard to plow and salt in the winter

Quote from: Brandon on February 19, 2014, 10:29:43 PM
Knowing IDOT, they'll rule out the full stack.  There are zero in the entire state.  I think IDOT is somewhat allergic to them.

No, it's an IDOT thing.  MDOT uses full 4-level stacks in Detroit.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton, "Game of Thrones"

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg, "Monty Python's Life of Brian"

Revive 755

Dusting off this thread . . .

From the updated report(13 MB pdf), IDOT has decided on the cloverstack alternative with flyovers for the I-74 to I-57 movements.

Rick Powell

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 27, 2015, 09:21:16 PM
Dusting off this thread . . .

From the updated report(13 MB pdf), IDOT has decided on the cloverstack alternative with flyovers for the I-74 to I-57 movements.

Engineering firm CMT of Springfield was just selected to do the contract plans for the interchange. 

golden eagle

Quote from: hobsini2 on February 22, 2014, 03:49:59 PM
MGK, 72 was to supplant Ill 10 between Centerville and Champaign. The ramps going in and out of Champaign is the only legit exit for I-57 to Downtown and the U of I campus.  And the reason that Ill 10 does not have an exit is because of the railroad along the south and not enough room on the north for a folded diamond because of I-72. That's why it is how it is.

Given that 72 ends just east of 57, was there ever any intent to extend it further east?

captkirk_4

Quote from: golden eagle on December 24, 2015, 02:09:51 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 22, 2014, 03:49:59 PM
MGK, 72 was to supplant Ill 10 between Centerville and Champaign. The ramps going in and out of Champaign is the only legit exit for I-57 to Downtown and the U of I campus.  And the reason that Ill 10 does not have an exit is because of the railroad along the south and not enough room on the north for a folded diamond because of I-72. That's why it is how it is.

Given that 72 ends just east of 57, was there ever any intent to extend it further east?

It's a pretty quiet highway, not a whole lot of traffic on the run to Springfield from Champaign. You rarely ever hear a thing on the CB. Going east you'd have to tear up a lot of real estate from the Schnucks through town to make it impossible to justify for such a low traffic highway. Hypothetically with funding it could start up again at Danville and run to Toledo through Lafayette and Ft Wayne. Traffic headed from Central Illinois to the Northeast has absolutely no diagonal highway options in Indiana. I went from Champaign to that Crane Sanctuary north of Rensellear and it was an ungodly slow process of 90 degree turns on two lane highways going nearly double the distance as the crow flies. Getting to Lafayette is horrendous from Champaign, also no direct route and all two lane highways where some old geezer driving 53 mph holds a whole column of cars waiting to get around it when the rare opportunity to pass occurs due to heavy traffic in the other direction as well.

I do hope they get around to getting that new interchange done as it is a recipe for disaster where the slow heavy traffic coming together where SB I57 gets off to go to Urbana on I74 merging with all the EB I74 traffic to I57 SB. The area up on the bridge with NB I57 merging with EB 74 can also be heavy as well. Those vehicles come around a very narrow 25mph turn and have almost no space to pick up speed to merge with 70mph traffic while also contenting with traffic jumping right in front of them to get off at 25mph. The put up a bunch of electronic text signs on both interstates about 5 miles out that will probably be used to advice of the situation when construction finally starts.

I-39

Bumping this up, it looks like construction will commence sometime in the 2017-2023 time frame, IDOT added it to their multi year program.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2016-05-30/idot-planning-upgrade-i-57i-74-interchange.html

It looks like they decided on a semi-directional with some flyover ramps (per the IDOT website), but they putting the flyovers on non-essential movements (such as EB I-74 to NB I-57 and WB I-74 to SB I-57, etc)

paulthemapguy

Quote from: I-39 on May 31, 2016, 05:31:01 PM
Bumping this up, it looks like construction will commence sometime in the 2017-2023 time frame, IDOT added it to their multi year program.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2016-05-30/idot-planning-upgrade-i-57i-74-interchange.html

It looks like they decided on a semi-directional with some flyover ramps (per the IDOT website), but they putting the flyovers on non-essential movements (such as EB I-74 to NB I-57 and WB I-74 to SB I-57, etc)

I'm assuming that's a typo in the last paragraph?  Did they mean 2023? 
QuoteIDOT said more funding is needed, however. Today, 79 percent of highways and 92 percent of bridges maintained by the agency are in acceptable condition. After 2013, just 61 percent of highways and 86 percent of bridges will be considered acceptable, it said.

I used this interchange to drive to/from college for 4 years so, here's the anecdotal/in-situ knowledge I have.  First, I-74 east of 57 gets a lot of traffic coming from I-57 because people use 74 as a spur route to the Champaign-Urbana exits farther east (mainly Cunningham, Lincoln, Neil and Prospect).  So in my opinion, attempts to increase efficiency should be focused on ramps connecting to the east leg of I-74.  Think of I-74 east of I-57 to US45 as a "I-157" of sorts.
Second, priority may be taken away from ramps connecting the north and west legs of the interchange, because I don't see many drivers utilizing those two ramps.
Third, the US150 overpass and the Mattis Ave overpasses may create constraints on what we can design.  That's a nice triangle of land to the east, though.

I wonder if anyone has envisioned designs of their own for this?  Anyone have any of their own ideas of what they should do here?  I'm hoping these 5 suggestions in the OP aren't the only designs considered--they're pretty short-sighted as of that article's inception, IMO.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 383/425. Only 42 route markers remain!

froggie

I always saw WB 74 to SB 57 (and the reciprocal) as the primary movements at that interchange, so I'm not sure where "I-39" goes calling it a non-essential movement.  That one's very essential.

For designs such as this, having flyovers in "opposite corners" works better operationally because the two remaining loop ramps don't have weave conflicts.  They probably went with this design because, as I noted above, WB-SB *IS* the big movement, so EB-NB gets a flyover by association in order to eliminate the weaves.

US 41

Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2016, 07:54:50 AM
I always saw WB 74 to SB 57 (and the reciprocal) as the primary movements at that interchange, so I'm not sure where "I-39" goes calling it a non-essential movement.  That one's very essential.

For designs such as this, having flyovers in "opposite corners" works better operationally because the two remaining loop ramps don't have weave conflicts.  They probably went with this design because, as I noted above, WB-SB *IS* the big movement, so EB-NB gets a flyover by association in order to eliminate the weaves.


This is absolutely correct. W74 to S57 is the primary movement for two big reasons. The big one being that local Champaign / Urbana traffic uses the interstates to navigate around the cities. The second one being that traffic from Danville, IL and Indiana wanting to go to Decatur and Springfield have to go south on I-57 to get to I-72.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

captkirk_4

Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 02, 2016, 09:46:07 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 31, 2016, 05:31:01 PM
Bumping this up, it looks like construction will commence sometime in the 2017-2023 time frame, IDOT added it to their multi year program.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2016-05-30/idot-planning-upgrade-i-57i-74-interchange.html

It looks like they decided on a semi-directional with some flyover ramps (per the IDOT website), but they putting the flyovers on non-essential movements (such as EB I-74 to NB I-57 and WB I-74 to SB I-57, etc)

I'm assuming that's a typo in the last paragraph?  Did they mean 2023? 
QuoteIDOT said more funding is needed, however. Today, 79 percent of highways and 92 percent of bridges maintained by the agency are in acceptable condition. After 2013, just 61 percent of highways and 86 percent of bridges will be considered acceptable, it said.

I used this interchange to drive to/from college for 4 years so, here's the anecdotal/in-situ knowledge I have.  First, I-74 east of 57 gets a lot of traffic coming from I-57 because people use 74 as a spur route to the Champaign-Urbana exits farther east (mainly Cunningham, Lincoln, Neil and Prospect).  So in my opinion, attempts to increase efficiency should be focused on ramps connecting to the east leg of I-74.  Think of I-74 east of I-57 to US45 as a "I-157" of sorts.
Second, priority may be taken away from ramps connecting the north and west legs of the interchange, because I don't see many drivers utilizing those two ramps.
Third, the US150 overpass and the Mattis Ave overpasses may create constraints on what we can design.  That's a nice triangle of land to the east, though.

I wonder if anyone has envisioned designs of their own for this?  Anyone have any of their own ideas of what they should do here?  I'm hoping these 5 suggestions in the OP aren't the only designs considered--they're pretty short-sighted as of that article's inception, IMO.

Read the Idot link, they spent months with machines tabulating traffic and the EB74 to SB57 by a large margin was the heaviest used of the bunch. Lots of people shop at the retail district on 74 and go around that bend to head out to the west part of the town on 57. Prospect Ave is hellish traffic and dangerously narrow between Bradley and Kirby, too narrow in my opinion to be safe, 4 lanes crammed into a narrow right of way that is more typical of two lane highways with a 3rd left turn lane in the middle. People avoid these roads by taking 57 to the SW part of town. This heavy traffic conflicts with the SB57 to EB74 traffic on that short 25mph merge lane. The non flyovers are also to be changed quite a bit, in the engineering design the old small 25mph loop is to have it's radius dramatically enhanced to a much larger, higher speed circle where they emerge onto 74 without any exiting traffic to contend with anymore. If you look at the official report, the bridges on Mattis crossing both 57 and 74, highway 150, and Staley Rd are to be completely redone and lengthened for the wider right of ways as one of the first phases of the project.

froggie

^ Assuming you meant WB 74 to SB 57, not EB 74 to SB 57.

I-39

Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2016, 07:54:50 AM
I always saw WB 74 to SB 57 (and the reciprocal) as the primary movements at that interchange, so I'm not sure where "I-39" goes calling it a non-essential movement.  That one's very essential.

For designs such as this, having flyovers in "opposite corners" works better operationally because the two remaining loop ramps don't have weave conflicts.  They probably went with this design because, as I noted above, WB-SB *IS* the big movement, so EB-NB gets a flyover by association in order to eliminate the weaves.

When I was saying non-essential movements, I was primarily referring to EB I-74 to NB I-57. That one is not needed. 

They really should be constructing a flyover from NB I-57 to WB I-74. I'm shocked they are not.



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