It's time to start a topic about this. A massive hot-button issue in the Joliet, Illinois, area is the notoriously decrepit Des Plaines River bridge in the heart of Joliet. An infamous bridge inspection last year revealed a rating of 6 out of 100 (anything below 30 is a critical failure requiring immediate repairs). Repairs were made last summer to keep the bridge standing, but the clear need for a reconstruction of the bridges is definitely there.
The reconstruction project is a 16-mile long section of I-80 from Ridge Road in Minooka to the US Route 30 interchange in New Lenox, which is currently being rebuilt. The bridge is only part of the project, which encompasses the bridge, a section of mainline pavement also in dire need of repair, and outdated interchange designs that could really use some reconfiguration. The project website is available for the public to view here: http://i-80will.com/
I viewed a presentation (a 30-minute video) on the Phase I process of the project. I'm trying to find a link to that presentation that anyone can view, but I haven't been successful yet.
Because of the scope and prominence of this project, the eventual price tag is forecasted to be around 1.0-1.1 billion dollars. Check out the website for now, and I'll see if I can get some more links to information for roadgeek comment. It looks like the new bridges will be twin bridges about 300 feet north of the current bridge locations. The proposed alterations to interchange ramp configurations I found to be surprisingly intriguing. I may take screenshots of the video I can view to show stuff like this. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Other info you'd like to see about this?
Will tolling come up as an way to pay for it?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 06, 2021, 03:06:43 PM
Will tolling come up as an way to pay for it?
I don't think so.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2021, 02:15:45 PM
It's time to start a topic about this. A massive hot-button issue in the Joliet, Illinois, area is the notoriously decrepit Des Plaines River bridge in the heart of Joliet. An infamous bridge inspection last year revealed a rating of 6 out of 100 (anything below 30 is a critical failure requiring immediate repairs). Repairs were made last summer to keep the bridge standing, but the clear need for a reconstruction of the bridges is definitely there.
The reconstruction project is a 16-mile long section of I-80 from Ridge Road in Minooka to the US Route 30 interchange in New Lenox, which is currently being rebuilt. The bridge is only part of the project, which encompasses the bridge, a section of mainline pavement also in dire need of repair, and outdated interchange designs that could really use some reconfiguration. The project website is available for the public to view here: http://i-80will.com/
I viewed a presentation (a 30-minute video) on the Phase I process of the project. I'm trying to find a link to that presentation that anyone can view, but I haven't been successful yet.
Because of the scope and prominence of this project, the eventual price tag is forecasted to be around 1.0-1.1 billion dollars. Check out the website for now, and I'll see if I can get some more links to information for roadgeek comment. It looks like the new bridges will be twin bridges about 300 feet north of the current bridge locations. The proposed alterations to interchange ramp configurations I found to be surprisingly intriguing. I may take screenshots of the video I can view to show stuff like this. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Other info you'd like to see about this?
This repair and replacement is already on the books to happen in the next season or following one at the latest
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 06, 2021, 03:06:43 PM
Will tolling come up as an way to pay for it?
Nope, this is supposed to be the flagship project of the big infrastructure bill Priztker signed last year. All IDOT
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2021, 02:15:45 PM
It's time to start a topic about this. A massive hot-button issue in the Joliet, Illinois, area is the notoriously decrepit Des Plaines River bridge in the heart of Joliet. An infamous bridge inspection last year revealed a rating of 6 out of 100 (anything below 30 is a critical failure requiring immediate repairs). Repairs were made last summer to keep the bridge standing, but the clear need for a reconstruction of the bridges is definitely there.
The reconstruction project is a 16-mile long section of I-80 from Ridge Road in Minooka to the US Route 30 interchange in New Lenox, which is currently being rebuilt. The bridge is only part of the project, which encompasses the bridge, a section of mainline pavement also in dire need of repair, and outdated interchange designs that could really use some reconfiguration. The project website is available for the public to view here: http://i-80will.com/
I viewed a presentation (a 30-minute video) on the Phase I process of the project. I'm trying to find a link to that presentation that anyone can view, but I haven't been successful yet.
Because of the scope and prominence of this project, the eventual price tag is forecasted to be around 1.0-1.1 billion dollars. Check out the website for now, and I'll see if I can get some more links to information for roadgeek comment. It looks like the new bridges will be twin bridges about 300 feet north of the current bridge locations. The proposed alterations to interchange ramp configurations I found to be surprisingly intriguing. I may take screenshots of the video I can view to show stuff like this. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Other info you'd like to see about this?
The presentation video for the I-80 work in Joliet can be pulled up here:
http://i-80will.com/images/Presentations/I80%20presentation%20FINAL.mp4 (http://i-80will.com/images/Presentations/I80%20presentation%20FINAL.mp4)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 06, 2021, 03:55:27 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 06, 2021, 03:06:43 PM
Will tolling come up as an way to pay for it?
I don't think so.
The project is fully funded by the Rebuild Illinois capital improvement plan and is in IDOT's current Multi-Year Program. There are 3 roadway design sections plus the river bridge design section (which I am part of), and one of the roadway section consultants is also the program manager over the entire stretch.
I thought I read in the Chicago Tribune about President Biden's Infrastructure Plan that IDOT may use that money to pay for the Interstate 80 bridge. Doing so would free up the 1 Billion allocated for the I-80 project to other projects in the state.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on April 07, 2021, 01:27:26 PM
I thought I read in the Chicago Tribune about President Biden's Infrastructure Plan that IDOT may use that money to pay for the Interstate 80 bridge. Doing so would free up the 1 Billion allocated for the I-80 project to other projects in the state.
This is the article, referring to a competitive bridge replacement grant program that IDOT could potentially apply for. The good news is that the Des Plaines bridges are funded regardless of whether IDOT successfully applies for the grant. Also, the federal infrastructure plan is not finalized either, and the grant and funding programs may not look the same when passed as envisioned today.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-prem-chicago-illinois-transportation-infrastructure-joe-biden-20210402-jwc6fjfoqzae7fgulpzxwnddg4-story.html
I have some really bad news for everyone waiting on this Biden Administration "Infrastructure Plan".
Less than 5% is actually designated for highways. The majority of the proposed bill is for social programs and climate change abatement.
Biden would allocate $180 billion to research and development. That includes yet more funding for climate causes, with $35 billion for climate research and development alone. It's part of his efforts to reverse a long trend of declining federal money going to R&D.
Half of the $40 billion allocated for upgrading research infrastructure would go to Historically Black College and Universities (HBCUs), as well as Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). HBCUs and MSIs would also get $10 billion – and an additional $15 billion for creating over 200 centers at them to serve as research incubators.
The package would direct $400 billion towards home and community care for the elderly and disabled, expanding both access to services and benefits for workers in the space.
Biden proposed a $100 billion investment in broadband to ensure it reaches 100% coverage across the country while promoting price transparency.
Biden wants to invest $400 billion to strengthen and protect American businesses. The infrastructure bill builds on the president's "buy American" executive order in January and would encourage and promote domestic production of goods.
The housing sector can expect massive improvements from Biden's $300 billion investment to revamp homes, schools, and federal buildings across the country. 500,000 homes would be built and rehabilitated for low- and middle-income homebuyers, and jobs would be created to build 1 million affordable and accessible housing options.
Biden's plan would update community college infrastructure and invest $28 billion to modernize Veterans Affairs clinics and hospitals and promote more sustainable federal buildings.
So how much for transportation?
Put $621 billion into transportation infrastructure such as bridges, roads, public transit, ports, airports and electric vehicle development
So what does that 5% get you?
Among the administration's goals, it aims to revamp 20,000 miles of roads and highways and repair 10,000 bridges. The proposal calls to build a national network of 500,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2030 and replace 50,000 diesel public transit vehicles.
Also in that 5% is the Federal Government making large wholesale purchases to replace most of their ICE fleet with EV's and increase funding for Amtrak to revamp services regionally and nationally.
Honestly with the money left the only thing those roads and highways will get is a fresh coat of stripe paint.
It has an extra 100 plus billion for roads in top of the existing highway bill which is supposed to be extended as well this year.
I will not venture into the politics of the rest of the bill
Btw. A little math if Illinois got the same proportion as it does under the highway formula it would be an extra 400 to 500 million a year for 8 years.
5% of what now? Seems to be way more than 5% from the description.
Isn't the bill $2 trillion or something crazy high like that? If $600 billion is being spent on actual infrastructure, that's more than 5% (it's around 31%). Not commenting on the bill in general, just doing some maths.
Yes it's 2 trillion and 600 billion is infrastructure. I bothered to download the actual fact sheet. They did it like that because a lot of the details will be negotiated.
There are lots of incentives for electric cars medical manufacturing in the U.S. And promotion of other US. manufacturing
It's an infrastructure and U.S manufacturing bill.. My source is the plan itself. I don't know what the source above is.
Quote
in·fra·struc·ture
/ˈinfrəˌstrək(t)SHər/
noun
noun: infrastructure; plural noun: infrastructures
the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.
The 5% figure that has been quoted is taking the $100 billion specifically earmarked for roads and bridges and dividing by the $2 trillion total.
If you actually read the definition of the word infrastructure, far, far more than 5% of this bill easily fits the definition.
Anybody who quotes the 5% figure to you is either deliberately lying to try and erode support for the bill or is too stupid to understand the definition of the word.
Right cabiness 42. And this is an extra hundred billion over the regular road funding. That bill is up later this year.
Quote from: Rothman on April 08, 2021, 12:44:24 AM
5% of what now? Seems to be way more than 5% from the description.
Thank you.
Also, transportation infrastructure is not the only kind of infrastructure. So it isn't a misleading title even if only 5% of the funding goes to
transportation infrastructure. Not that I know a lot about it.
The 10-minute presentation isn't the same as the 30-minute presentation I watched. The presentation I watched (trying to find a link) shed some light on the interchange modifications:
I-80 at I-55 will have a SB-to-EB flyover ramp (or "fly-under" since it will go under I-80 and over I-55) and a widened NB-to-EB ramp with C/D lanes between I-55 and the Houbolt exit (127). It might not seem that many people would leave a SSW-oriented highway to go back ENE, but a lot of people come from IL-59 to get to I-80 eastbound. The reverse of this overall movement (WB I-80 to IL-59 NB) is already easy with the extra C/D lane on NB I-55, but the current configuration creates weave issues for all the traffic going from SB IL-59 to EB I-80.
I-80 at IL-7 is to become a classic Parclo A4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_cloverleaf_interchange#A4) (very similar to the I-80/US45 interchange farther east (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5519586,-87.8567823,15.46z?hl=en), with directional onramps and offramps that meet IL-7 at signals. This will eliminate the horrible weaving issues created by people going from WB I-80 to WB McDonough Street, a common overall movement complicated by McDonough Street's close proximity to the interstate ramps.
I-80 at Center Street (exit 131) will become an at-grade interchange. Although it's currently a neat directional-flow interchange with 3/4 access, it's very overbuilt for the low volumes on Center Street and Meadow Avenue. The northern half of the interchange will have the classic diamond design, and the southern half will be a pair of ramps in the southwest quadrant of the interchange (half of what I call a "fountain interchange").
Here's an odd one: I-80 at Chicago Street (exit 132) will become a full "fountain interchange" (folded diamond), with ramps in the northwest and southwest quadrants, but with a twist. The twist will be a jughandle for NB-to-WB traffic, that splits off of NB Chicago Street (IL-53/US52) south of the freeway, and connects with the at-grade junction, with the WB I-80 ramps, on the N side of I-80. Vehicles, including a LOT of trucks, become backed up on NB I-80 trying to make the left turn onto I-80 EAST, though--this design doesn't remedy this situation. The railroad underpass immediately to the east limits the options available to help NB-to-EB traffic, but we do still need a solution for NB-to-EB trucks*. At least this jughandle will likely be a better alternative to the VERY tight cloverleaf ramp that exists there currently.
That solution for NB-to-EB trucks might come in the form of the new Laraway/Houbolt bridge, slated to begin construction this spring. But I don't have faith that truckers will follow local, county, and state guidance to use that bridge, instead of the Google directions that will likely take them down Laraway and IL-53 north to eastbound I-80. This new bridge is a separate private project--what ISN'T a separate project is the reconfiguration of the Houbolt interchange to a diverging diamond.
"A billion here, a billion there....pretty soon we will get to talking about real money"
Why buy only one when you can buy two for twice the price?
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 08, 2021, 11:51:18 AM
Also, transportation infrastructure is not the only kind of infrastructure. So it isn't a misleading title even if only 5% of the funding goes to transportation infrastructure. Not that I know a lot about it.
Yeah, it also includes funding to replace lead pipes in city water systems. Not transportation, but that's clearly infrastructure. Also provides funding for broadband Internet access in rural areas, which is a newer type of infrastructure, but still infrastructure.
Images from the presentation I saw showing the reconfigured interchanges as a result of the project:
I-55 at I-80 with the new flyover ramp from southbound I-55 to eastbound I-80:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113913988_a63b1fafcc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLaR7)
Int1 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLaR7) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
I-55 at IL-7 as a new Parclo A4:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113913918_61c97488d3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLaPU)
Int2 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLaPU) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
I-55 at Center Street as a half-folded diamond:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113760809_e1762a6106_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSKoj6)
Int3 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSKoj6) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
I-55 at IL-53 with the NB-to-WB jughandle along the railroad tracks:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51114005381_680247f86f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLD1R)
Int4 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLD1R) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 13, 2021, 02:39:45 PM
Images from the presentation I saw showing the reconfigured interchanges as a result of the project:
I-55 at I-80 with the new flyover ramp from southbound I-55 to eastbound I-80:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113913988_a63b1fafcc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLaR7)
Int1 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLaR7) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
I-55 at IL-7 as a new Parclo A4:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113913918_61c97488d3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLaPU)
Int2 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLaPU) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
I-55 at Center Street as a half-folded diamond:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113760809_e1762a6106_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSKoj6)
Int3 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSKoj6) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
I-55 at IL-53 with the NB-to-WB jughandle along the railroad tracks:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51114005381_680247f86f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLD1R)
Int4 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLD1R) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
In the first pic, while I like the idea of having a flyover for SB-EB traffic, I'd strongly prefer making the whole thing into a full stack, or even a turbine.
The last pic is very interesting in that it has a NJ-style jughandle for NB (on IL 53) to SB (on I-55) traffic. It's actually a great concept because it would eliminate a direct left turn onto the ramp itself and thus reduce the amount of backups at the second light. Quick question: are there any other freeway interchanges that use this particular design, or will this be the first of its kind?
Quote from: Henry on April 14, 2021, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 13, 2021, 02:39:45 PM...snip...
In the first pic, while I like the idea of having a flyover for SB-EB traffic, I'd strongly prefer making the whole thing into a full stack, or even a turbine.
The last pic is very interesting in that it has a NJ-style jughandle for NB (on IL 53) to SB (on I-55) traffic. It's actually a great concept because it would eliminate a direct left turn onto the ramp itself and thus reduce the amount of backups at the second light. Quick question: are there any other freeway interchanges that use this particular design, or will this be the first of its kind?
Full stack? In Illinois?
Unheard of!!!
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2021, 12:14:02 PM
Full stack? In Illinois?
Unheard of!!!
Indeed. We only speak in cloverleaf.
Quote from: Henry on April 14, 2021, 10:50:06 AM
Quick question: are there any other freeway interchanges that use this particular design, or will this be the first of its kind?
I dunno, the jug-handle intersection at 65th and Harlem Avenue in Bedford Park IL is not a freeway interchange, but accomplishes pretty much the same thing.
tinyurl.com/ynj78cj4
I wondered if the current "spaghetti interchange" at Center Street was planned for some bigger plans like a cancelled north-south freeway?
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 14, 2021, 05:18:30 PM
I wondered if the current "spaghetti interchange" at Center Street was planned for some bigger plans like a cancelled north-south freeway?
If there was such a cancelled freeway it likely died fairly early - nothing comes up in many of the transportation plans for both Chicagoland and the few I can recall for Joliet (very open to someone proving me wrong on this).
All I ever found for Will was the Foxway and various incarnations of the Illiana.
Most of the 60s plan was in Cook and Chicago opposed all but the crosstown and Daley was never big on that either.
The actual adopted plan was for 95 and it included most of the projects either being built or cancelled for good.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 14, 2021, 05:18:30 PM
I wondered if the current "spaghetti interchange" at Center Street was planned for some bigger plans like a cancelled north-south freeway?
The easy answer is "No".
It was due to the requirements for the City of Rockdale. ( Pop. 2000 )
The little known town sits between I-80 and the Des Plaines River south of Joliet.
The main drag out of Joliet going south was US-6 (Railroad Street/Channahon Road) which was cut off from Rockdale by several railroads, the I&M Canal and West Park Ravine
To service Rockdale, pre I-80 Larkin Ave and Center Street were connected by Meadow Avenue. (Larkin has since been extended to US-6)
Looking at it today it seems illogical to put such extensive cloverleafs to serve such a little town.
Because of that I would surmise that IDOT at one time was going to bring US 6 over the Rock Island railroad and connect it to Meadow Ave/Center Street.
Instead they only extended Larkin Ave to US 6 in 1973.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 14, 2021, 05:18:30 PM
I wondered if the current "spaghetti interchange" at Center Street was planned for some bigger plans like a cancelled north-south freeway?
I doubt it. The interchange was designed by Casler and Stapleton of Jacksonville IL and is probably the first 3-level interchange designed in the state. I remember talking to an old timer about why they didn't do a traditional diamond there years ago, but don't recall what he told me.
I thought we had a thread before on how how potentially under powered the redesign of the I-80/I-55 interchange is? I-57 at I-74 in Champaign will have more semi-direct ramps than it. At the least NB I-55 and WB I-80 should get C-D roadways.
That I-55 / 80 one to me seems idiotic. A EB-80 to NB 55 is needed way more.
Quote from: inkyatari on April 17, 2021, 09:08:36 PM
That I-55 / 80 one to me seems idiotic. A EB-80 to NB 55 is needed way more.
55/80 seems like a really good place for Illinois's first Full Stack, ain't gonna lie
Quote from: inkyatari on April 17, 2021, 09:08:36 PM
That I-55 / 80 one to me seems idiotic. A EB-80 to NB 55 is needed way more.
That's the one I'd use. Fortunately, with the current design, the back to back loop entrance>exit on EB I-80 would be gone with the removal of the SW loop ramp. It's like Frogger to get in there sometimes to catch the second ramp.
Just to help facilitate the discussion, here is the AADT of the ramps:
(https://i.imgur.com/Fujdzxv.png)
It does seem weird that the the flyover is going with second highest ramp. Have they explained why they decided that? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because it comes after the ramp with 6,600 and before the ramp with 10,100, and so removing it gets rid of the most weaving.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 18, 2021, 11:18:41 PM
It does seem weird that the the flyover is going with second highest ramp. Have they explained why they decided that? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because it comes after the ramp with 6,600 and before the ramp with 10,100, and so removing it gets rid of the most weaving.
I kind of already explained it. It makes more sense when you consider the interchange in tandem with the one to the north leading to IL-59. See below.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 08, 2021, 11:51:18 AM
I-80 at I-55 will have a SB-to-EB flyover ramp (or "fly-under" since it will go under I-80 and over I-55) and a widened NB-to-EB ramp with C/D lanes between I-55 and the Houbolt exit (127). It might not seem that many people would leave a SSW-oriented highway to go back ENE, but a lot of people come from IL-59 to get to I-80 eastbound. The reverse of this overall movement (WB I-80 to IL-59 NB) is already easy with the extra C/D lane on NB I-55, but the current configuration creates weave issues for all the traffic going from SB IL-59 to EB I-80.
With that said, EB-to-NB could get a flyover, too. But keeping the EB-to-NB entry point onto I-55 NB farther south means fewer weave issues with northbound people trying to get to the right to exit onto IL-59. With an EB-to-NB flyover entering NB I-55 north of the crossing, you'd have EB-to-NB and WB-to-NB traffic weaving with NB-to-IL59 traffic, all in a short stretch. The SB-to-EB flyover picks up traffic that just entered SB I-55 from the IL-59 onramp on the right, and allows that traffic to stay in a C/D lane it will use to access the new flyover exiting to the right, eliminating some weaving. The WB-to-NB-to-IL59 movement is already set up with a NB C/D lane that keeps things moving smoothly. IDOT wants a SB counterpart to that (IL59-to-SB-to-EB) with a C/D lane people can just stay in.
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 17, 2021, 09:12:27 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on April 17, 2021, 09:08:36 PM
That I-55 / 80 one to me seems idiotic. A EB-80 to NB 55 is needed way more.
55/80 seems like a really good place for Illinois's first Full Stack, ain't gonna lie
Yup. Wisconsin would have built one here twenty years ago. Or something similar. There's plenty of room.
Quote from: skluth on April 19, 2021, 01:40:10 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 17, 2021, 09:12:27 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on April 17, 2021, 09:08:36 PM
That I-55 / 80 one to me seems idiotic. A EB-80 to NB 55 is needed way more.
55/80 seems like a really good place for Illinois's first Full Stack, ain't gonna lie
Yup. Wisconsin would have built one here twenty years ago. Or something similar. There's plenty of room.
Missouri would have, too, pretty sure
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 19, 2021, 01:47:02 AM
Quote from: skluth on April 19, 2021, 01:40:10 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 17, 2021, 09:12:27 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on April 17, 2021, 09:08:36 PM
That I-55 / 80 one to me seems idiotic. A EB-80 to NB 55 is needed way more.
55/80 seems like a really good place for Illinois's first Full Stack, ain't gonna lie
Yup. Wisconsin would have built one here twenty years ago. Or something similar. There's plenty of room.
Missouri would have, too, pretty sure
I'm sure at least half of other states would've already. Illinois just doesn't work like that, and likely never will.
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
IDK - those over-powered Directional Ys in E St Louis (both signed Exit 1 for Tudor Ave and IL 3 South) are a bit too efficient - overbuilt for freeways that never happened, and both completely underutilized
Granted, ISTHA and not IDOT, but the I-88/I-355 interchange is almost like a Full Stack, it is just split in two by the parallel carriageways segment
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 19, 2021, 09:36:03 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
IDK - those over-powered Directional Ys in E St Louis (both signed Exit 1 for Tudor Ave and IL 3 South) are a bit too efficient - overbuilt for freeways that never happened, and both completely underutilized
Granted, ISTHA and not IDOT, but the I-88/I-355 interchange is almost like a Full Stack, it is just split in two by the parallel carriageways segment
I never thought the IL 3 South interchange was overbuilt; there was a definite need for traffic to flow smoothly in both directions between IL 3 and the PSB. Tudor Avenue is just part of early plans that never happened. I never thought I-155 would happen. The three-way stack NW of Lincoln went unused for over a decade. I think a lot of people forget that back in the day IDOT had some forward-thinking planners.
Quote from: skluth on April 21, 2021, 05:53:22 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 19, 2021, 09:36:03 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
IDK - those over-powered Directional Ys in E St Louis (both signed Exit 1 for Tudor Ave and IL 3 South) are a bit too efficient - overbuilt for freeways that never happened, and both completely underutilized
Granted, ISTHA and not IDOT, but the I-88/I-355 interchange is almost like a Full Stack, it is just split in two by the parallel carriageways segment
I never thought the IL 3 South interchange was overbuilt; there was a definite need for traffic to flow smoothly in both directions between IL 3 and the PSB. Tudor Avenue is just part of early plans that never happened. I never thought I-155 would happen. The three-way stack NW of Lincoln went unused for over a decade. I think a lot of people forget that back in the day IDOT had some forward-thinking planners.
I agree. By 1942 they already had all the railroads raised for several planned Chicago suburban freeways.
By 1973 they got their budgets chopped at the knees and have struggled since.
Behind the Illinois DNR, I think IDOT is the largest undeveloped land owner in Illinois.
Stack interchanges in IL never go above 3 levels - Iowa and Indy too.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 26, 2021, 09:16:44 PM
Stack interchanges in IL never go above 3 levels - Iowa and Indy too.
* I-55 at I-64, I-70, and IL 3 in East St. Louis reaches four levels (https://goo.gl/maps/6HmJTPo8NRYvmRnr6)
* I-55 at the MLK Bridge ramps gets close to four levels (https://goo.gl/maps/goDLMkfHNXKTkEdZA)
* I-55 at the Tudor Avenue - Piggott Avenue ramps has four levels (railroad, I-55, Piggott Avenue to SB I-55, SB I-55 to Tudor Avenue) (https://goo.gl/maps/iqMEEmFhC3HPJBsS6)
* The East Mixmaster in Des Moines is (was?) planned to go near, if not reach four levels. (https://iowadot.gov/pim/documents/102617PolkI35-80-235PD1.pdf)
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 26, 2021, 10:40:15 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 26, 2021, 09:16:44 PM
Stack interchanges in IL never go above 3 levels - Iowa and Indy too.
* I-55 at I-64, I-70, and IL 3 in East St. Louis reaches four levels (https://goo.gl/maps/6HmJTPo8NRYvmRnr6)
* I-55 at the MLK Bridge ramps gets close to four levels (https://goo.gl/maps/goDLMkfHNXKTkEdZA)
* I-55 at the Tudor Avenue - Piggott Avenue ramps has four levels (railroad, I-55, Piggott Avenue to SB I-55, SB I-55 to Tudor Avenue) (https://goo.gl/maps/iqMEEmFhC3HPJBsS6)
* The East Mixmaster in Des Moines is (was?) planned to go near, if not reach four levels. (https://iowadot.gov/pim/documents/102617PolkI35-80-235PD1.pdf)
I-55 at the I-64/70 bump is missing some movements - that is why it is not a full 4-level stack. It is about the closest thing in IL that I know of, tho
Ramps that go to/from the Mississippi River (to/from the PSB and the Stan Span) don't exist
Quote from: skluth on April 21, 2021, 05:53:22 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 19, 2021, 09:36:03 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
IDK - those over-powered Directional Ys in E St Louis (both signed Exit 1 for Tudor Ave and IL 3 South) are a bit too efficient - overbuilt for freeways that never happened, and both completely underutilized
Granted, ISTHA and not IDOT, but the I-88/I-355 interchange is almost like a Full Stack, it is just split in two by the parallel carriageways segment
I never thought the IL 3 South interchange was overbuilt; there was a definite need for traffic to flow smoothly in both directions between IL 3 and the PSB. Tudor Avenue is just part of early plans that never happened. I never thought I-155 would happen. The three-way stack NW of Lincoln went unused for over a decade. I think a lot of people forget that back in the day IDOT had some forward-thinking planners.
When the I-55/I-70 combo was being planned, East St Louis had a population of 82,000 and was growing at a 8% clip per annum.
Before the Poplar Street Bridge was built, the direct auto route was the MacArthur Bridge which was a treacherous tolled 2 lane affair that ran on top of the rail bridge.
Due to a large number of rail yards, it was very hard for EStL residents to reach the city short of driving up to the other bridges (like the Eads) or in Venice and Madison.
The McKinley Bridge had been converted from an interurban bridge to a shared auto/rail bridge to help with the traffic backups. And yes, in the 1950's the backups in East St Louis were notorious to cross the river.
So the large exit ramps at Tudor and Piggott were no doubt put in place to help the residents get across the river toll free and without the large backups for the MacArthur.
After the road was built, East St Louis fell off the face of the earth and started a 24% per year fall in population. Today, its 24,000.
Some might say the road caused the drain. Others say different.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
Says the person who's state has a majority of it's highways in need of resurfacing or reconstruction
Quote from: Crash_It on May 22, 2021, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
Says the person who's state has a majority of it's highways in need of resurfacing or reconstruction
Illinois is the only state I have ever seen a warning for "EXTREME ROUGH ROAD". Don't pretend IDOT is whollly superior to WisDOT or any DOT.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 22, 2021, 07:33:42 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 22, 2021, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
Says the person who's state has a majority of it's highways in need of resurfacing or reconstruction
Illinois is the only state I have ever seen a warning for "EXTREME ROUGH ROAD". Don't pretend IDOT is whollly superior to WisDOT or any DOT.
Quit blaming the DOT's. It's about the money, so blame the legislatures who have been starving their DOT's of funding to prop up public service pensions.
DOT's can do really great things when they have good, properly funded budgets. But when you are given nothing but maintenance level type of funding for years and years, the DOT's can only respond in kind.
Quote from: edwaleni on May 23, 2021, 01:54:22 PM
Quit blaming the DOT's. It's about the money, so blame the legislatures who have been starving their DOT's of funding to prop up public service pensions.
DOT's can do really great things when they have good, properly funded budgets. But when you are given nothing but maintenance level type of funding for years and years, the DOT's can only respond in kind.
Yet I see a cash-strapped MoDOT still getting a decent amount done (though they do have some very questionable interchanges lately). There may be more to the issue than just funding.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 22, 2021, 07:33:42 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 22, 2021, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
Says the person who's state has a majority of it's highways in need of resurfacing or reconstruction
Illinois is the only state I have ever seen a warning for "EXTREME ROUGH ROAD". Don't pretend IDOT is whollly superior to WisDOT or any DOT.
At least there's the decency to warn, unlike other states that would just throw you into the mess for miles on end
Quote from: Crash_It on May 27, 2021, 03:24:49 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 22, 2021, 07:33:42 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on May 22, 2021, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 19, 2021, 09:21:36 PM
In Illinois, an efficient Interchange never happens
Says the person who's state has a majority of it's highways in need of resurfacing or reconstruction
Illinois is the only state I have ever seen a warning for "EXTREME ROUGH ROAD". Don't pretend IDOT is whollly superior to WisDOT or any DOT.
At least there's the decency to warn, unlike other states that would just throw you into the mess for miles on end
In some parts of the US, bumpy roads are considered a natural speed limiter. Which reduces the need for speed control by officers. Double savings bonus!
My problem with IDOT isn't so much the poor roads, though that is a problem, but it's more so when they do actually do things, they do a terrible, cheap job and let things deteriorate.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 29, 2021, 08:42:52 PM
My problem with IDOT isn't so much the poor roads, though that is a problem, but it's more so when they do actually do things, they do a terrible, cheap job and let things deteriorate.
I also am going to add that they have "misplaced" priorities. For instance, I noticed that IDOT is doing a project to replace the lighting structures (with out of place looking davit style poles) at Coal City Rd and I-55 near Diamond and Braidwood, which happens to be an interchange with perfectly sufficient lighting (a simple replacement of the lamps with LED on the existing lighting structures would have sufficed). Yet, just a couple of miles up I-55 is an interchange at IL 129 needing a bridge replacement to rebuild it as complete. Heck, the IL 53 interchange in Gardner about 10 miles down would be a better candidate for a full lighting replacement as it has more sporadic and that cheap weathered steel looking lighting that IDOT uses downstate more. I should also point out the pavement condition of I-55 through Will County as a whole. Again, why replace lighting at one select interchange that didn't need replacement (with a style I personally am not a fan of, but that's another thing altogether), when there is a laundry list of much more pressing needs along the corridor within the vicinity.
And then, of course, I have been looking at the designs of the I-80 through Joliet rebuild, and I just shake my head in disgust (a lane drop West of US 30 only to pick up a lane again closer to the Des Plaines River bridge). Ugh, PLEASE, convert this stretch over to the Tollway and let them do it... at least I know it'll be done right then! I won't mind paying a fee to use that.
Are you seriously implying that if they didn't do the lighting project, they could afford the bridge replacement? That's demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is involved with getting those types of projects going.
Prioritizing a capital project program is very intricate. DOTs and other transportation agencies use models to get the best bang for their buck given available funding. What happens is a few big projects can eat up the funds for a particular year and you're left with the rest which gets spread around smaller projects.
Doing a lighting project when a bridge may need to be replaced is no implication that an agency's priorities are out of whack.
If another lighting project would have been a better candidate is a question for the agency.
Quote from: Rothman on May 31, 2021, 01:43:48 PM
Are you seriously implying that if they didn't do the lighting project, they could afford the bridge replacement? That's demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is involved with getting those types of projects going.
Prioritizing a capital project program is very intricate. DOTs and other transportation agencies use models to get the best bang for their buck given available funding. What happens is a few big projects can eat up the funds for a particular year and you're left with the rest which gets spread around smaller projects.
Doing a lighting project when a bridge may need to be replaced is no implication that an agency's priorities are out of whack.
If another lighting project would have been a better candidate is a question for the agency.
I don't pretend to know everything that goes into it at a DOT, especially when funding and cost priorities are given, so I appreciate you giving me this insight. What you are saying makes sense. However, I am just merely stating the optics of what I am seeing and what seems to be a pattern for IDOT in general, for which I can give plenty of other examples. Again, as I mentioned, if you're going to do a lower cost lighting project, why not at least do it where there is more of a need? I gave one such example in my post (a couple of exits down). From the optics of it, it just begs the question, cost aside, "why are you 'fixing' something here that seems fine when there are clearly other needs along this same corridor that are notable issues, or at least somewhere else where this 'fix' could be more beneficial"?
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 31, 2021, 02:41:33 PM
Again, as I mentioned, if you're going to do a lower cost lighting project, why not at least do it where there is more of a need? I gave one such example in my post (a couple of exits down).
One factor is that projects at IDOT are programmed by district. The IL 53 interchange is the domain of IDOT District 3 and the IL 113 Coal City interchange is District 1. IDOT has tried to program its projects more uniformly and with a more orderly rationale with its recently enacted TAMP asset management plan, but still there is flexibility in programming where the people closest to the issues in each District help make the calls on what is fixed and to what extent.
Quote from: Rick Powell on May 31, 2021, 05:54:49 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 31, 2021, 02:41:33 PM
Again, as I mentioned, if you're going to do a lower cost lighting project, why not at least do it where there is more of a need? I gave one such example in my post (a couple of exits down).
One factor is that projects at IDOT are programmed by district. The IL 53 interchange is the domain of IDOT District 3 and the IL 113 Coal City interchange is District 1. IDOT has tried to program its projects more uniformly and with a more orderly rationale with its recently enacted TAMP asset management plan, but still there is flexibility in programming where the people closest to the issues in each District help make the calls on what is fixed and to what extent.
Point taken, and we can go into a whole other topic on just how IDOT programs its costs and projects. Actually getting back to I-80, this is clearly seen on the portion from Minooka West to Morris where the pavement has for nearly 20 years been setup for an eventual 3rd lane each way while the portion through Western Will County pathetically has sat at 2 lanes each way (and the project plans for this rebuild don't give me much confidence that they actually are going to properly fix the capacity issues).
Lots of pretty significant projects happening on I-80 in Illinois and a new website has been launched for the projects in Will County:
https://www.i80will.org/
(Disclaimer) Many of my colleagues are involved in the design plans for the Des Plaines river crossing.
IDOT just received their Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the NEPA study of the I-80 reconstruction. They probably figured it was time to concentrate on the design and construction phases with a re-tooled website. The old website, I80will.com is still linked at the new one [the only difference in the websites addresses is replacing the .com with .org for the new one].
Driving thru the zone a few times in the last week, the US 30 interchange is essentially complete, and the bridges from Richards Street east are coming along nicely, with some of the new pavement and barriers in place and in use with the staged construction. Still, it's an area best avoided if you are in a hurry, as there are weekend lane shutdowns and the usual disruptions from "looky-loo's" and crashes in the construction zone that often slow traffic to a crawl.