AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: US-50 Lebanon Bypass  (Read 2044 times)

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1335
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 10:37:21 PM
US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« on: August 30, 2021, 08:28:35 AM »

This probably won't have a lot of posting action at the beginning as it is just starting its final engineering phase.

But as I reading the program funding report for this project, I noticed over $300,000 programmed for "railroad flagger".

The proposed bypass route will cross over the CSX Illinois Sub between Summerfield and IL-4 Lebanon.

But there doesn't appear to be a large amount of funding for land acquisition.

IDOT already owns enough ROW from Summerfield west to IL-4 to build a 4 lane limited access facility, but I don't think that is what will occur.

They even own the land on the east side of IL-4 to build off ramps.

But going back to the program funding sheet, it appears they are going to build a 2 lane facility with a bridge over the CSX ROW east of Lebanon. End the new ROW and IL-4 and force traffic into IL-4 to jog north of the CSX tracks at ground level to rejoin the original US-50.

This is where I have questions about the need of a flagger.

This CSX route is currently exempt from crossing signals because it is out of service from Caseyville to Shattuc. The signals are turned and the rails are cut.

CSX was storing cars on this line and would put the rails back in for a week or two to shuffle cars in and out and then cut the tracks again.

But the Illinois Commerce Commission bawled them out because the towns along the line got tired of CSX flaggers coming out every 3 months for these movements which by rule can only move at 10 mph.

So CSX recut the lines and nothing pass through here anymore. So why the flagger? And why $300,000 to provide one? Am I missing something here?

Also IDOT programmed a bunch of dollars to reconstruct the current interchange of IL-4 and US-50 south of Lebanon.

This was needed regardless as they meet right next to the railroad and IDOT wants to put in traffic lights (it's a 3 way stop sign right now) and lots of trucks cross the tracks at ground level.

So here is where I struggle. IDOT will spend a few million bridging traffic over the tracks east of town, just to have them recross the same set of tracks south of town.

I haven't seen the final ROW maps, but wouldn't have been better to simply elevate IL-4 over both the new US-50 and the CSX railroad tracks at the same time?

Make US-50 exit to a new IL-4 overpass and put in a circle ramp for traffic to reach the current (and old) US-50?

This way no trucks have to cross the CSX tracks when they go back into service (they will eventually).

I am only gleaning this from what I found in the funding reports, but it appears they aren't spending very strategically here.

As soon as IDOT gets more engineering reporting up and some ROW maps, I willpost.

Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1476
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 06:31:46 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2021, 10:15:00 AM »

I think it's also a sign it will remain 2 lanes throughout..
I have seen the 2 lane reconstruction of 67 .It's impressive . The bid came in low and the contractor is wasting no time.
It also would take little more in his to make it 3 lanes or even 4 undivided. But IDOT has religious objections I guess.
Look forward to your description of the construction.
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Last Login: December 03, 2021, 10:51:31 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2021, 10:20:45 PM »

This CSX route is currently exempt from crossing signals because it is out of service from Caseyville to Shattuc. The signals are turned and the rails are cut.

CSX was storing cars on this line and would put the rails back in for a week or two to shuffle cars in and out and then cut the tracks again.

But the Illinois Commerce Commission bawled them out because the towns along the line got tired of CSX flaggers coming out every 3 months for these movements which by rule can only move at 10 mph.

So CSX recut the lines and nothing pass through here anymore. So why the flagger? And why $300,000 to provide one? Am I missing something here?

While the line is inactive, it is still CSX property.  CSX can require a flagger until the line is fully abandoned and the property goes to another landowner.

So here is where I struggle. IDOT will spend a few million bridging traffic over the tracks east of town, just to have them recross the same set of tracks south of town.

I haven't seen the final ROW maps, but wouldn't have been better to simply elevate IL-4 over both the new US-50 and the CSX railroad tracks at the same time?

I'm not sure I'm picturing this right - the bypass is intersecting IL 4 south of the CSX line?  If so, I think the expectation is most traffic will proceed from the bypass down IL 4 to I-64, rather than using US 50.  I wouldn't rule out IDOT even having a plan to eventually reroute US 50 down IL 4 to I-64.

This way no trucks have to cross the CSX tracks when they go back into service (they will eventually).

I'm not so sure that line will come back, short of it being sold to another railroad.  Not seeing a whole of of potential customers on that line.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1335
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 10:37:21 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2021, 10:31:10 AM »

This CSX route is currently exempt from crossing signals because it is out of service from Caseyville to Shattuc. The signals are turned and the rails are cut.

CSX was storing cars on this line and would put the rails back in for a week or two to shuffle cars in and out and then cut the tracks again.

But the Illinois Commerce Commission bawled them out because the towns along the line got tired of CSX flaggers coming out every 3 months for these movements which by rule can only move at 10 mph.

So CSX recut the lines and nothing pass through here anymore. So why the flagger? And why $300,000 to provide one? Am I missing something here?

While the line is inactive, it is still CSX property.  CSX can require a flagger until the line is fully abandoned and the property goes to another landowner.

So here is where I struggle. IDOT will spend a few million bridging traffic over the tracks east of town, just to have them recross the same set of tracks south of town.

I haven't seen the final ROW maps, but wouldn't have been better to simply elevate IL-4 over both the new US-50 and the CSX railroad tracks at the same time?

I'm not sure I'm picturing this right - the bypass is intersecting IL 4 south of the CSX line?  If so, I think the expectation is most traffic will proceed from the bypass down IL 4 to I-64, rather than using US 50.  I wouldn't rule out IDOT even having a plan to eventually reroute US 50 down IL 4 to I-64.

This way no trucks have to cross the CSX tracks when they go back into service (they will eventually).

I'm not so sure that line will come back, short of it being sold to another railroad.  Not seeing a whole of of potential customers on that line.

Definitely possible that IDOT may just run US-50 down IL-4 to I-64 in some future. With the airport down there, they might change their minds.

The "original" plan was US-50 to turn east at Air Mobility Drive after getting off I-64 and keep the highway south of the tracks. That is why there is a IDOT depot just north of the exit. That was stub land to be used for the new ROW and was converted to a depot when the line was defunded.  The older ROW north of the tracks is rife with driveways, business entries and mailboxes. IDOT owns land at IL-4 to support a trumpet on the south side of the tracks. However with IDOT having dropped the protected ROW for IL-158 (Air Mobility Drive) maybe have given up completely in connecting US-50 there as a controlled access facility.

As for the CSX Illinois Sub. CSX will not sell it. They had offers. They are still running maintenance trucks on the line to keep it up to snuff.  They are waiting for the MacArthur Bridge in St Louis to finish its long awaited rehabilitation. Since the St Louis Sub fulfills connection traffic for now, they are in no rush to bring it back on and pay taxes. UP definitely wants to use it between EStL and Salem as a way to move Chicago bound traffic over to the former C&EI. Flora to Vincennes has enough online business to support it, its over in Indiana between Mitchell and Seymour that is most likely to get pulled. The 2 tunnels can't take super stack containers in/out Queensgate.

When UP gets their container routes back in alignment through St Louis, the Illinois Sub will come back online for container/perishables going to the southeast (turn at Vincennes) that can;'t go via Memphis.

And finally on flaggers, if the line is out of service, the railroad has to provide the flaggers anyway if they choose to use it. If CSX notified IDOT they plan to restore service during the construction time window, then IDOT has to pay for full time flaggers.  Now just because CSX told IDOT that doesn't mean it will happen. ATSF told IDOT they were going to electrify their line and I-39 had to have adequate bridge clearance for catenary.  40 years later BNSF has no plans to electrify the line.
Logged

Bobboau

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2
  • Location: Southern Illinois
  • Last Login: November 02, 2021, 05:20:13 AM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2021, 04:20:46 AM »

Does anyone have any more information on this bypass? I live near by and I am extremely eager to see it built as are many of my neighbors. Is there a schedule or something somewhere than might suggest when construction will start, or what other projects are in queue before it?
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1335
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 10:37:21 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2021, 11:17:15 AM »

Does anyone have any more information on this bypass? I live near by and I am extremely eager to see it built as are many of my neighbors. Is there a schedule or something somewhere than might suggest when construction will start, or what other projects are in queue before it?

The budget was approved. It was going through final updates.

Last I looked, no engineering plans have been put out by IDOT that I have seen.

I will take a look.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1335
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 10:37:21 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2021, 02:05:04 PM »

Here is a parcel view of the ROW. IDOT has owned this land since 1972.

Logged

Bobboau

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2
  • Location: Southern Illinois
  • Last Login: November 02, 2021, 05:20:13 AM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2021, 12:46:29 AM »

Last I looked, no engineering plans have been put out by IDOT that I have seen.

where do you find this? would like to keep tabs on it if possible.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1335
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 10:37:21 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2021, 09:30:23 AM »

Last I looked, no engineering plans have been put out by IDOT that I have seen.

where do you find this? would like to keep tabs on it if possible.

Go to the website for St Clair County, Illlinois.

Then go to their parcel viewer. When you click on a parcel, it tells you who the owner is.

https://www.co.st-clair.il.us/parcels-and-maps

You can find all sorts of little gems in these parcel viewers.

Like IDOT owns the land to extend Air Mobility Drive all the way to Mascoutah Ave, even though it ends at Carlye Ave.

Lebanon, Illinois has incorporated a small strip of land south of US 50 all the way to I-64, no doubt to offset Mascoutah.

IDOT only bought enough land to 4 lane IL-15 to Peabody Road north of Freeburg.



Logged

Rick Powell

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 590
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 08:51:39 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2021, 12:58:13 AM »

ATSF told IDOT they were going to electrify their line and I-39 had to have adequate bridge clearance for catenary.  40 years later BNSF has no plans to electrify the line.

My late dad was involved in that negotiation. When IDOT called their bluff, ATSF admitted they didn't have a firm plan for electrification in place, and the requested 26 feet clearance was reduced to the standard 23 feet for the twin I-39 bridges over the now-BNSF south of Wenona. With the push to electrify all modes of transportation, I think the rail industry will be the last to jump. There has been some progress in battery electric locomotives, but the range is horrible for line haul type operations. I'm not aware of any freight RR that has serious plans of adding catenary and electric locomotives to their physical plant. Anacostia & Pacific even runs diesel locomotives on the South Shore and the Long Island for its freight operations where catenary is in place now for electric commuter trains.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1335
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 10:37:21 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2021, 03:52:06 PM »

ATSF told IDOT they were going to electrify their line and I-39 had to have adequate bridge clearance for catenary.  40 years later BNSF has no plans to electrify the line.

My late dad was involved in that negotiation. When IDOT called their bluff, ATSF admitted they didn't have a firm plan for electrification in place, and the requested 26 feet clearance was reduced to the standard 23 feet for the twin I-39 bridges over the now-BNSF south of Wenona. With the push to electrify all modes of transportation, I think the rail industry will be the last to jump. There has been some progress in battery electric locomotives, but the range is horrible for line haul type operations. I'm not aware of any freight RR that has serious plans of adding catenary and electric locomotives to their physical plant. Anacostia & Pacific even runs diesel locomotives on the South Shore and the Long Island for its freight operations where catenary is in place now for electric commuter trains.

Wabtec just released their FLXDrive battery-electric locomotive.

Pulls 430,000 pounds, up to 75 mph for 350 miles.  Uses regenerative braking.

21,000 Li-ion cells.

Was ordered by CN yesterday.  You will mostly see them in either the LA Basin where California is issuing grants to buy them or in the east.

BNSF is a development partner but they haven't announced a purchase yet. When inserted between 2 Tier 4 locos, it saved about 6200 gallons of diesel.

The current model puts out 2.4Mwh, the next generation model yet to come will put out 6Mwh.
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Last Login: December 03, 2021, 10:51:31 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2021, 10:52:08 PM »

Like IDOT owns the land to extend Air Mobility Drive all the way to Mascoutah Ave, even though it ends at Carlye Ave.

Possibly land bought back when the Gateway Connector was proposed?

I seem to recall reading that IDOT was going to start the environmental process for the Air Mobility Drive extension to IL 177 soon.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1335
  • Last Login: December 04, 2021, 10:37:21 PM
Re: US-50 Lebanon Bypass
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2021, 11:47:14 AM »

Like IDOT owns the land to extend Air Mobility Drive all the way to Mascoutah Ave, even though it ends at Carlye Ave.

Possibly land bought back when the Gateway Connector was proposed?

I seem to recall reading that IDOT was going to start the environmental process for the Air Mobility Drive extension to IL 177 soon.

I assume this is what is left of that connector project.

Logged

 


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.