Iowa Interstate 880

[ethanhopkin14]

I have never been to Iowa or the Omaha area but was perusing the googs and saw the former I-680 was renumbered I-880 to avoid driver confusion.  Now, I am a bit ignorant to things, but I don't really understand how that keeps down confusion when you are detoured off I-29 to use I-880 and I-80 as your way to Council Bluffs.  I figured having it numbered I-680 does the exact same thing.  Can someone explain this to me?

I feel like a lot of times states renumber (or truncate) designations for "driver confusion", I have a hard time understanding the logic. 

[Bobby5280]

I saw no issue with the previous configuration where they overlapped I-680 onto I-29. If anything, I think adding an additional I-880 route number into that combo would do more to confuse thru traffic taking I-680 to avoid downtown Omaha. Previously I-680 ran along the entire length of that bypass route. Now there are 3 different numbered Interstates to take to do essentially the same thing.

At least this "I-880" route has a couple exits along it and has some significant length. It's not like I-865 in Indianapolis; that one has no exits. It really only functions as a couple exit ramps between I-465 & I-74. "I-270 Spur" in the DC metro appears more worthy of having its own Interstate number, yet it's signed as some kind of lesser route.

[triplemultiplex]

Resigning was cheaper than raising the grade of 680 so it doesn't flood out.
Apparently, Iowa plans on 680 getting flooded so often in the future that it doesn't pay for it to be a continuous route all the way back to I-80?

That's my interpretation of how the change went down.

[ethanhopkin14]

Resigning was cheaper than raising the grade of 680 so it doesn't flood out.
Apparently, Iowa plans on 680 getting flooded so often in the future that it doesn't pay for it to be a continuous route all the way back to I-80?

That's my interpretation of how the change went down.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  I thought it was I-29 that flooded (south of the 680 split) because it hugged the Missouri River.  The rest of 680 would be irrelevant for this exercise.  Am I understanding wrong?

[triplemultiplex]

Pretty sure it was 680 that was underwater on the Iowa side of the river...
Looking it up, it looks like we're both right.

680 was completely swamped from the 29 south interchange west to almost the bridge.
And portions of 29 were under water both directions from the 680 west interchange.

680 got it worse with water flowing over the highway and completely destroying the pavement.

[SD Mapman]

I saw no issue with the previous configuration where they overlapped I-680 onto I-29. If anything, I think adding an additional I-880 route number into that combo would do more to confuse thru traffic taking I-680 to avoid downtown Omaha. Previously I-680 ran along the entire length of that bypass route. Now there are 3 different numbered Interstates to take to do essentially the same thing.

At least this "I-880" route has a couple exits along it and has some significant length. It's not like I-865 in Indianapolis; that one has no exits. It really only functions as a couple exit ramps between I-465 & I-74. "I-270 Spur" in the DC appears more worthy of having its own Interstate number, yet it's signed as some kind of lesser route.

The idea, at least as I remember from the press releases at the time, was that when IowaDOT announced that I-680 was closed due to flooding, people avoided ALL of 680, not just the river bottoms part. The redesignation to I-880 was so you could specify exactly which area had closures without confusing motorists. Additionally, they were originally separate routes (I-880 was I-80N before it became part of I-680).

Resigning was cheaper than raising the grade of 680 so it doesn't flood out.
Apparently, Iowa plans on 680 getting flooded so often in the future that it doesn't pay for it to be a continuous route all the way back to I-80?

That's my interpretation of how the change went down.

That would require about 2-3 miles worth of embankments on I-680, which would hydraulically change the flood path of any potential Missouri floodwaters in unexpected ways. Also, they'd probably have to raise I-29, which would be even more embankments. The smarter idea would have been to just not build the interstates in the river bottoms in the first place, but that didn't happen.

[triplemultiplex]

The best solution is for a couple more bridge segments across the floodplain so large floods are not 'impounded' by the earthen embankment the way the last big flood was.
Part of crossing a river includes crossing it's floodplain so if you don't give the river enough room to flood, it'll make room.

It seems to me like back when they were first building interstates, designers tended to low-ball the spans they'd need over rivers because landfill is cheaper than bridge.   The result was an economical crossing, but one that restricts the floodplain in a way that increases stream velocity under the span.  More velocity = more energy for erosion.  (Which, as an angler, usually makes for a decent fishing spot just downstream from a bridge since the river scours a deep spot that fish like.  Though with low gradient streams like out in Nebraska, the river will scour a hole during a flood, but fill it right back in with sediment as the flood abates and energy levels drop.)

Long story short, bring up the grade on I-680 in Iowa and provide more openings to pass floodwaters.

[J N Winkler]

Given all the reports of levee breaks that crop up when the Missouri floods between Sioux City and Kansas City, I wonder about the adequacy of investment in flood control in general.  At least in southwestern Iowa, the floodworks are in the hands of small local flood control boards, and I can see them not having the resources to ensure I-29 and I-680 stay open.

[The Ghostbuster]

As you all probably know, Interstate 880 was Interstate 80N until 1973, Interstate 680 until 2019, and Interstate 880 now. It probably should have been renumbered to 880 in 1973; either that or it should have stayed Interstate 680.

[ethanhopkin14]

The idea, at least as I remember from the press releases at the time, was that when IowaDOT announced that I-680 was closed due to flooding, people avoided ALL of 680, not just the river bottoms part. The redesignation to I-880 was so you could specify exactly which area had closures without confusing motorists. Additionally, they were originally separate routes (I-880 was I-80N before it became part of I-680).

This, sadly, is the most feasible explanation to the number change.  I often underestimate the stupidity of the average person.

[Revive 755]

As you all probably know, Interstate 880 was Interstate 80N until 1973, Interstate 680 until 2019, and Interstate 880 now. It probably should have been renumbered to 880 in 1973; either that or it should have stayed Interstate 680.

Or it should have stayed I-680 with the southern section of I-680 becoming I-629 

[skluth]

Given all the reports of levee breaks that crop up when the Missouri floods between Sioux City and Kansas City, I wonder about the adequacy of investment in flood control in general.  At least in southwestern Iowa, the floodworks are in the hands of small local flood control boards, and I can see them not having the resources to ensure I-29 and I-680 stay open.

I worry about the merits of levees for flood control generally. Without allowing for high water to flood the floodplains, the flooding simply moves downriver to more populated areas around Kansas City and St Louis. Downtown St Charles frequently floods as do the smaller downtowns of Grafton and Alton IL (floodwaters from the Missouri frequently flow slightly upstream from the Missouri/Mississippi confluence) and older neighborhoods of St Louis. It makes sense to have flood control in more densely populated places along riverbanks like downtown St Louis. It makes far less sense to have levees and highway embankments so high as to push flooding downstream in farmland. Farmers and those who moved into floodplains because they like being near the river won't like it but flooding was an acceptable if inconvenient fact of life when Americans first started farming the incredibly fertile river floodplains in the 1800s.

[iowahighways]

Previous thread about the I-680 to I-880 changeover: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25812.0

Side note: The Omaha World-Herald on February 9, 1974, published a photo of the signs that existed at the time of the I-80N to I-680 changeover ("North Omaha" wouldn't be added as a destination until sometime after the rest of I-680 west of I-29 was completed):

[mrose]

For years on our trips back to Lincoln, we would occasionally use the entire length of I-680 as an Omaha bypass, though I'm not sure if that was the intent when both of them were built. I always thought it was strange that 680 didn't just arc across back to I-80, but I guess the (880) leg was built and completed much earlier.

All things being equal, it was a few miles longer than just staying on I-80, but this was at a time when I-80 through Omaha seemed like it was eternally under construction.

The (880) leg almost never had traffic on it, to my recollection.

[US 89]

Previous thread about the I-680 to I-880 changeover: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25812.0

Side note: The Omaha World-Herald on February 9, 1974, published a photo of the signs that existed at the time of the I-80N to I-680 changeover ("North Omaha" wouldn't be added as a destination until sometime after the rest of I-680 west of I-29 was completed):

That’s so Dakota of them.

[paulthemapguy]

I really didn't understand the need for a renumbering. I especially don't understand why Iowa used up all their even x80's so that no additional ones can be signed in the future. 429, 629, and 829 are all unused!

[zzcarp]

I really didn't understand the need for a renumbering. I especially don't understand why Iowa used up all their even x80's so that no additional ones can be signed in the future. 429, 629, and 829 are all unused!

I'd assert they chose the last remaining even x80 since the freeway has been derivative of I-80 since its opening (I-80N, I-680, and now I-880). I agree that an x29 may have been a better choice, especially since (now) I-880 is the detour route for I-29 around Council Bluffs.

As a cross-country traveler, I think it made more sense when it was all I-680 so it could function as a full Omaha bypass loop. However, if the location of the flooding closures caused confusion, well, they should take local preferences into account over someone like me who sees it at most a handful of times a year.

[Hobart]

I really didn't understand the need for a renumbering. I especially don't understand why Iowa used up all their even x80's so that no additional ones can be signed in the future. 429, 629, and 829 are all unused!

I'd assert they chose the last remaining even x80 since the freeway has been derivative of I-80 since its opening (I-80N, I-680, and now I-880). I agree that an x29 may have been a better choice, especially since (now) I-880 is the detour route for I-29 around Council Bluffs.

As a cross-country traveler, I think it made more sense when it was all I-680 so it could function as a full Omaha bypass loop. However, if the location of the flooding closures caused confusion, well, they should take local preferences into account over someone like me who sees it at most a handful of times a year.

I agree on the confusion part; if it's confusing enough to change a number on a 50 year old highway, its probably worth changing.

It also makes me giddy in a way... There are two states to exhaust all possible loop 3DIs in a state for I-80... first is California, which used every number; second is, out of every state and population center, Iowa. The state with some corn.

[ethanhopkin14]

I really didn't understand the need for a renumbering. I especially don't understand why Iowa used up all their even x80's so that no additional ones can be signed in the future. 429, 629, and 829 are all unused!

I'd assert they chose the last remaining even x80 since the freeway has been derivative of I-80 since its opening (I-80N, I-680, and now I-880). I agree that an x29 may have been a better choice, especially since (now) I-880 is the detour route for I-29 around Council Bluffs.

As a cross-country traveler, I think it made more sense when it was all I-680 so it could function as a full Omaha bypass loop. However, if the location of the flooding closures caused confusion, well, they should take local preferences into account over someone like me who sees it at most a handful of times a year.

I agree on the confusion part; if it's confusing enough to change a number on a 50 year old highway, its probably worth changing.

It also makes me giddy in a way... There are two states to exhaust all possible loop 3DIs in a state for I-80... first is California, which used every number; second is, out of every state and population center, Iowa. The state with some corn.

Yeah, but.....All but the new I-880 get help from other states.  I feel like it kinda cheapens the deal a bit when the 3di in question is an extension of the interstate from another state when that other state has the city in which the populated center of the region belongs to, in it.  It goes in the books as a touchdown for your state, but it really should be more of an assist.

[pianocello]

It also makes me giddy in a way... There are two states to exhaust all possible loop 3DIs in a state for I-80... first is California, which used every number; second is, out of every state and population center, Iowa. The state with some corn.

Yeah, but.....All but the new I-880 get help from other states.  I feel like it kinda cheapens the deal a bit when the 3di in question is an extension of the interstate from another state when that other state has the city in which the populated center of the region belongs to, is in it.  It goes in the books as a touchdown for your state, but it really should be more of an assist.

Hey, I'll take it... A screen pass from midfield with a run into the end zone still counts as a 50-yard TD pass even if it's the receiver and blockers doing all the work 

[ethanhopkin14]

Hey, I'll take it... A screen pass from midfield with a run into the end zone still counts as a 50-yard TD pass even if it's the receiver and blockers doing all the work 

This does go into a frequently visited subject by myself.  The amount of 3dis that exist in a state because they got "help" from another state. 

West Virgina's only 3di (I-470) may be a bypass for the West Virgina city involved and is mostly in West Virgina but smells like it would not have existed had Ohio not come up to them and said, "we are building an interstate bypass here...you will comply."  I mean, it's number in West Virgina is totally predicated on what available numbers are left out of Ohio's I-X70s.   

If El Paso could get ion the move and plan an I-210 bypass, then they could force New Mexico to actually have a 3di (preferred alignment is north of Chaparral, NM)!!

[The Ghostbuster]

I think the closest El Paso could get to getting an "Interstate 210" , would be to renumber TX Loop 375 to 210.  A Fictional Highways idea if there ever was one!