I-180 in Illinois: a serious thread

[thspfc]

We've all poked fun at I-180 at some point. But it's actually an intriguing situation with very little precedent. What will IDOT do when it needs to be resurfaced/needs bridges replaced, etc.? Sinking money and time into what is effectively a useless freeway would be stupid, but it also costs money and time to demolish it. The most likely choice seems to be demolishing one of the carriageways and making the other a realigned IL-26/county road. What are some other options?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

One alternative is just to kill the E-W leg and downgrade it to IL 71, since the N-S portion is part of the marked route between Peoria and I-80.

[JREwing78]

A downgrade to I-180 is probably at least 20 years down the road; IDOT is in the process of redecking the bridges over the Illinois River. It's probably cheaper to continue maintenance on the existing roadway than to demolish and downgrade.

If IDOT was flush with funding, 4-laning IL-29 between the end of I-180 and Peoria would make the route considerably more useful. But north of Sparland current traffic levels are well below even the point 4-laning makes sense. By traffic counts, I have an easier time making a case for a 4-lane US-20 between Freeport and Galena than I do a 4-lane IL-29.

Of course, we have IL-110 as precedent for a "Build it and they will come" attitude to building roadways (based on traffic numbers, they haven't come). If a politician with some cloud got it in their head it was worth the effort to 4-lane, it might happen. But I'm not holding my breath.

[hbelkins]

Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?

Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.

[Flint1979]

Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?

Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.

It'd still require a bridge, the river makes a bend.

[CtrlAltDel]

Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?

Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.

It'd still require a bridge, the river makes a bend.

Not necessarily. It could come from the east from I-39.

[Flint1979]

Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?

Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.

It'd still require a bridge, the river makes a bend.

Not necessarily. It could come from the east from I-39.

I-39 wasn't around when I-180 was built.

[Mapmikey]

Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?

Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.

I-80 doesn't cross the river until Joliet, 80 miles to the east.  Since the steel mill was south/east of the river, I-180 had to cross the river to reach it...

[JREwing78]

Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?

I suspect IDOT had long term plans to connect I-180 (or whatever designation it would have been) to Peoria. No reason to build that high-speed T interchange if there weren't future plans to continue the Interstate south.

SM-G991U

[CtrlAltDel]

Why was it built on the west side of the river, requiring a bridge, instead of on the east side?

Also, I saw a video recently that attempted to make the case that I-180 isn't flat.

It'd still require a bridge, the river makes a bend.

Not necessarily. It could come from the east from I-39.

I-39 wasn't around when I-180 was built.

Well, there's that.

[JoePCool14]

Due to the heavy traffic volumes on this stretch of road, IDOT should strongly consider 8-laning the segment within the next decade. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by approximately 420% by 2030.

Oh you wanted serious? In that case, they could go for a super cheap solution by converting it to a super-2. They could use existing ramps by building crossovers and leaving the old alignment on the other side to rot. And since they're redecking the Illinois River bridge, have it expand back out just for that.

And obviously if possible, remove the I-180 designation and replace it with IL-180.

[3467]

IDOT  is redeeming the bridges now so it's not going anywhere. The history of it is in another thread. . FHWA wanted some sort of South extension was part of the cover and 39 was being planned at that time.

[GreenLanternCorps]

At this point, keep it as is.

It would be more trouble than it's worth to change anything.

You are not getting a lot of wear and tear on the road due to traffic, only weather, so it should stay in reasonable shape if maintained.

[edwaleni]

IDOT recently cancelled the planning on the East Peoria Bypass which was looking at the viability of bringing more traffic across the Illinois River farther north and connecting it with IL-29.

This "might" have been a way to get more pass through traffic to use IL-29 and by extension I-180.

With recent population growth to the east of Peoria (Washington. Morton etc.) IDOT was checking to see if there was enough demand to warrant a ROW.

The initial studies showed no local interest or traffic to support the work on the east side,

Only Chillicothe on the west bank of the Illinois River was in favor.

[3467]

Also it's shorter to take 74 and 55 from most of the Peoria area to Chicago. That includes 24 the 4 lane that is being built to Canton. The Peoria area routes seem to have resolved themselves.

[SkyPesos]

Also it's shorter to take 74 and 55 from most of the Peoria area to Chicago. That includes 24 the 4 lane that is being built to Canton. The Peoria area routes seem to have resolved themselves.

Though aren't you going a bit south before going back north with this routing?

[Rick Powell]

Also it's shorter to take 74 and 55 from most of the Peoria area to Chicago. That includes 24 the 4 lane that is being built to Canton. The Peoria area routes seem to have resolved themselves.

Though aren't you going a bit south before going back north with this routing?

You can make up a lot of time zipping along I-74 at 70mph+ with no stoplights or speed zones, to offset the difference in mileage. Google shows a 6 minute saving on using I-55 to I-74 between Chicago and Peoria vs. the more direct I-55 and IL 116.

I was peripherally involved in the Phase I studies for the Chicago-Peoria expressway. There were several different alignments studied including roughly following US 24 and IL 116 to the East Peoria area,  following IL 71 from I-39 to IL 29 and then going south to Peoria, and IL 29 from I-80 to Peoria via I-180 and IL 29. Ultimately the IL 29 corridor was chosen (that would make use of most of I-180's length for the I-80 connection), and IDOT has a federally approved EIS study for it at https://idot.illinois.gov/projects/il-29-project-study, but there has been little to no effort to move the project forward after the study was completed.

The ability to use a 4-lane IL 29 as a future Peoria connection, however unlikely today, may be one of the factors dissuading IDOT from removing lanes on I-180.

[Flint1979]

Also it's shorter to take 74 and 55 from most of the Peoria area to Chicago. That includes 24 the 4 lane that is being built to Canton. The Peoria area routes seem to have resolved themselves.

Though aren't you going a bit south before going back north with this routing?

Not that much and it's an all Interstate route.

[ET21]

I def would not mind it being integrated to be the true I-80 to Peoria route, but as many say above it might be too expensive to downgrade at this point.

[paulthemapguy]

I'd say hook it up to IL-6 and create that Interstate to Peoria, so the construction of I-180 in the past wasn't a TOTAL waste...Destroying it will have a hefty cost in itself, even compared to continuing maintenance.  Either complete that route to Peoria or keep it as is, if that expansion is too expensive.

[Rick Powell]

I'd say hook it up to IL-6 and create that Interstate to Peoria, so the construction of I-180 in the past wasn't a TOTAL waste...Destroying it will have a hefty cost in itself, even compared to continuing maintenance.  Either complete that route to Peoria or keep it as is, if that expansion is too expensive.

The approved EIS was a freeway from IL 6 to just north of Chillicothe, then an expressway with at-grade intersections from there to I-180 with the exception of interchanges at Sparland and Henry.

[paulthemapguy]

I'd say hook it up to IL-6 and create that Interstate to Peoria, so the construction of I-180 in the past wasn't a TOTAL waste...Destroying it will have a hefty cost in itself, even compared to continuing maintenance.  Either complete that route to Peoria or keep it as is, if that expansion is too expensive.

The approved EIS was a freeway from IL 6 to just north of Chillicothe, then an expressway with at-grade intersections from there to I-180 with the exception of interchanges at Sparland and Henry.

Sounds like something Iowa would do.  I'm into it!  I wonder if they'd number it as an extension of 336, and perhaps scrap the I-180 designation.  The IL-71 extension can take over the east-west section of I-180 east of the stack interchange.

[3467]

I doubt there will be a 336. IDOT  is 4 laning 24 instead.

[I-39]

I doubt there will be a 336. IDOT  is 4 laning 24 instead.

Agreed. There shouldn't have been IL-336 from Quincy to Macomb in the first place.

[ilpt4u]

I doubt there will be a 336. IDOT  is 4 laning 24 instead.

IL 336 should be decommissioned, now that the "independent"  Peoria-Macomb segment is all but dead

As it stands, 336 is 100% concurrent with IL 110/CKC