What does the future look like for I-72 to be built across Missouri to either Macon or Cameron? I haven't seen any news since the last of the six counties figured out the local taxes to pay to widen US 36 to freeway grade. All the information I've found is several years old and MoDOT's website is no help.
It would be a waste. Intersections like this (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.686912,-91.586237&spn=0.023547,0.049567&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.686871,-91.58631&panoid=NEbATohN1Tsdx8lIHUOaKw&cbp=12,56.03,,0,6.67) aren't hurting anyone.
Agreed. We took US 36 from Hannibal to Cameron a couple summers ago and there was little if anything that seemed to need any upgrades. Probably just about as fast and a much more pleasant/less stressful drive than I-70 across Missouri.
At the very least the section through Cameron needs to have the stoplight just east of I-35 removed. Depending upon traffic growth, the I-35 interchange may need to be upgraded at some point.
If I-70 is tolled, then I don't see any upgrades happening to US 36 in Missouri. In fact, it may be tolled too, to discourage diversion from I-70.
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 02, 2015, 09:58:51 PM
If I-70 is tolled, then I don't see any upgrades happening to US 36 in Missouri. In fact, it may be tolled too, to discourage diversion from I-70.
Tolling 36 would be an enormously expensive undertaking. I don't see that happening.
I would normally agree because the cost of the toll would never justify the upgrade to I-72 ...But even though this is now part of the IL 53 Tollway Lake County Illinois did think about building and arterial toll Road ,,,so tolls could show up on an expressway someday
http://www.120now.com/
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-29, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
One thing that needs to be done regardless is for the highway to be graded properly, especially in Linn County. Linn County widened U.S. 36 before anyplace else in northern Missouri, but all they did was build a new set of lanes alongside the original alignment, so they ended up with the new set of lanes being properly graded and relatively flat while the original alignment followed the lay of the land. The most glaring example of this is between Marceline and the Macon County line, where the westbound lanes are nice and flat, but the eastbound lanes are a roller coaster. There's a similar effect on U.S. 63 in Macon County between Macon and the Randolph County line, though the lay of the land there isn't quite as dissected as it is in eastern Linn County.
Basically, MoDOT needs to eliminate the roller coaster rides on some of their four-lane highways.
I like "roller coaster" dual highways, as long as they're not too extreme, and as long as the new roadway swaps sides at reasonable intervals. That's as a motorist and a taxpayer: IMO, Georgia has spent way too much money on flattening out highways that could've been left as it. Besides, this (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brookfield,+MO/@39.759954,-92.913306,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x87c287dd689d3e35:0x7673e8a79ab8beab) looks rather badass, IMO.
Virginia has been doing this practice for years. You will find many places where one side is a roller coaster while the other is a smooth flat ride. Even where US 301 is frontage road to I-95 between Jarrat and Petersburg you will see its is ver wavy, but before I-95 when there was a NB carriageway where the I-95 southbound lanes are now, it was flat.
Also in Cullman, AL US 278 is also half and half with one side hilly and the other flat as a pancake.
Quote from: Gnutella on January 19, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-29, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
One thing that needs to be done regardless is for the highway to be graded properly, especially in Linn County. Linn County widened U.S. 36 before anyplace else in northern Missouri, but all they did was build a new set of lanes alongside the original alignment, so they ended up with the new set of lanes being properly graded and relatively flat while the original alignment followed the lay of the land. The most glaring example of this is between Marceline and the Macon County line, where the westbound lanes are nice and flat, but the eastbound lanes are a roller coaster. There's a similar effect on U.S. 63 in Macon County between Macon and the Randolph County line, though the lay of the land there isn't quite as dissected as it is in eastern Linn County.
Basically, MoDOT needs to eliminate the roller coaster rides on some of their four-lane highways.
That's the classic "Missouri Expressway".
It's not going to happen.
Quote from: bugo on January 20, 2015, 02:39:30 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on January 19, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-29, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
One thing that needs to be done regardless is for the highway to be graded properly, especially in Linn County. Linn County widened U.S. 36 before anyplace else in northern Missouri, but all they did was build a new set of lanes alongside the original alignment, so they ended up with the new set of lanes being properly graded and relatively flat while the original alignment followed the lay of the land. The most glaring example of this is between Marceline and the Macon County line, where the westbound lanes are nice and flat, but the eastbound lanes are a roller coaster. There's a similar effect on U.S. 63 in Macon County between Macon and the Randolph County line, though the lay of the land there isn't quite as dissected as it is in eastern Linn County.
Basically, MoDOT needs to eliminate the roller coaster rides on some of their four-lane highways.
That's the classic "Missouri Expressway".
Or Virginia Twinning, as it is also known.
Alabama also did that along US 72 between Scottsboro and Stevenson. And Mississippi did it along US 72 between Corinth and Burnsville.
Quote from: Gnutella on January 19, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-29, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
One thing that needs to be done regardless is for the highway to be graded properly, especially in Linn County. Linn County widened U.S. 36 before anyplace else in northern Missouri, but all they did was build a new set of lanes alongside the original alignment, so they ended up with the new set of lanes being properly graded and relatively flat while the original alignment followed the lay of the land. The most glaring example of this is between Marceline and the Macon County line, where the westbound lanes are nice and flat, but the eastbound lanes are a roller coaster. There's a similar effect on U.S. 63 in Macon County between Macon and the Randolph County line, though the lay of the land there isn't quite as dissected as it is in eastern Linn County.
Basically, MoDOT needs to eliminate the roller coaster rides on some of their four-lane highways.
So they need to spend billions on roads that are not deficient because you don't like driving on rolling hills?
I hope you never have budgeting authority at a DOT
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 14, 2014, 08:41:59 PM
At the very least the section through Cameron needs to have the stoplight just east of I-35 removed. Depending upon traffic growth, the I-35 interchange may need to be upgraded at some point.
Just as long as that doesn't mean the destruction of the Sinclair station. It's practically a national landmark!
I could see it happening eventually (and it should, to get some of the traffic off of I-70), but not for a while. I think it is in the long-term plans, but there is no specific timetable. The road seems to be sufficient for now as it is. The upgrade to I-72 will probably happen gradually like upgrading U.S 71 to I-49. They'll simply close off access points and build grade-separations when intersections become to dangerous.
Of course, with MoDOT budget woes, don't expect any upgrades anytime soon.
US 71 to I-49 was not all that gradual, once they decided to close the remaining at-grades.
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 08:33:08 PM
US 71 to I-49 was not all that gradual, once they decided to close the remaining at-grades.
The upgrade happened slowly over the years, one interchange at a time. I remember when the freeway ended at Jasper and you had to go through Carthage.
The upgrade to a good four-lane (which US 36 is now) was gradual. The final conversion to I-49 was all at once.
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 09:59:49 PM
The upgrade to a good four-lane (which US 36 is now) was gradual. The final conversion to I-49 was all at once.
There were what, 3 or 4 at grades removed after MoDOT announced the designation?
15 new overpasses, plus more at-grades simply closed with frontage road access: http://www.modot.org/southwest/major_projects/I-49/I-49Conversion.htm
Quote from: kphoger on February 07, 2015, 02:57:51 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 14, 2014, 08:41:59 PM
At the very least the section through Cameron needs to have the stoplight just east of I-35 removed. Depending upon traffic growth, the I-35 interchange may need to be upgraded at some point.
Just as long as that doesn't mean the destruction of the Sinclair station. It's practically a national landmark!
I've wondered for a while how interchanges in that area would be handled. I'm pretty sure the rules say it needs to be taken to Fictional Highways, so: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.msg2041091#msg2041091
If I-70 gets that proposed tolling thing to become a reality, there will be more and more trucks using US 36. The running joke would be how fast 36 is upgraded into I-72 when I-70 in Missouri get tolled.
Quote from: Gnutella on January 19, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-229, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
FTFY :poke:
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 14, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on January 19, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-229, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
FTFY :poke:
WTF would be the point? I've driven US-36 between I-29 and I-229. It's not exactly interstate-standard, especially at I-229. It also would take a lot to upgrade properly.
Quote from: adt1982 on January 03, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 02, 2015, 09:58:51 PM
If I-70 is tolled, then I don't see any upgrades happening to US 36 in Missouri. In fact, it may be tolled too, to discourage diversion from I-70.
Tolling 36 would be an enormously expensive undertaking. I don't see that happening.
I don't even think you're allowed to toll a us highway by rule i thought they must always be the free alternate
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 16, 2015, 11:43:59 AM
I don't even think you're allowed to toll a us highway by rule i thought they must always be the free alternate
US 51 is tolled in northern Illinois where it is concurrent with I-39/90.
Quote from: Big John on March 16, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 16, 2015, 11:43:59 AM
I don't even think you're allowed to toll a us highway by rule i thought they must always be the free alternate
US 51 is tolled in northern Illinois where it is concurrent with I-39/90.
Yep. Between Exits 3 and 17 (yes, ISTHA has exit numbers now). The free alternate is IL-251, a four-lane and divided highway (north of downtown Rockford).
Quote from: Brandon on March 16, 2015, 12:48:12 PM
Quote from: Big John on March 16, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 16, 2015, 11:43:59 AM
I don't even think you're allowed to toll a us highway by rule i thought they must always be the free alternate
US 51 is tolled in northern Illinois where it is concurrent with I-39/90.
Yep. Between Exits 3 and 17 (yes, ISTHA has exit numbers now). The free alternate is IL-251, a four-lane and divided highway (north of downtown Rockford).
So I guess the rule, if there really is one, is just another state road of any kind parallel that's free?
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 16, 2015, 11:43:59 AM
Quote from: adt1982 on January 03, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 02, 2015, 09:58:51 PM
If I-70 is tolled, then I don't see any upgrades happening to US 36 in Missouri. In fact, it may be tolled too, to discourage diversion from I-70.
Tolling 36 would be an enormously expensive undertaking. I don't see that happening.
I don't even think you're allowed to toll a us highway by rule i thought they must always be the free alternate
I believe that even if they do toll I-70, US 36 will not be tolled along with it, because two parallel tolled highways would never be allowed within a certain distance of each other (see the IN Toll Road as a prime example).
Quote from: Henry on March 16, 2015, 12:50:57 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 16, 2015, 11:43:59 AM
Quote from: adt1982 on January 03, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 02, 2015, 09:58:51 PM
If I-70 is tolled, then I don't see any upgrades happening to US 36 in Missouri. In fact, it may be tolled too, to discourage diversion from I-70.
Tolling 36 would be an enormously expensive undertaking. I don't see that happening.
I don't even think you're allowed to toll a us highway by rule i thought they must always be the free alternate
I believe that even if they do toll I-70, US 36 will not be tolled along with it, because two parallel tolled highways would never be allowed within a certain distance of each other (see the IN Toll Road as a prime example).
That's only because of an agreement between InDOT and the lessee of the Toll Road. A better example would be the Northwest Tollway (I-90) and the East-West Tollway (I-88) in Illinois between the Tri-State (I-294) and I-39. Both toll, and both fairly close to each other.
Two stretches of US 412 are tolled.
Quote from: Brandon on March 16, 2015, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 16, 2015, 12:50:57 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 16, 2015, 11:43:59 AM
Quote from: adt1982 on January 03, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 02, 2015, 09:58:51 PM
If I-70 is tolled, then I don't see any upgrades happening to US 36 in Missouri. In fact, it may be tolled too, to discourage diversion from I-70.
Tolling 36 would be an enormously expensive undertaking. I don't see that happening.
I don't even think you're allowed to toll a us highway by rule i thought they must always be the free alternate
I believe that even if they do toll I-70, US 36 will not be tolled along with it, because two parallel tolled highways would never be allowed within a certain distance of each other (see the IN Toll Road as a prime example).
That's only because of an agreement between InDOT and the lessee of the Toll Road. A better example would be the Northwest Tollway (I-90) and the East-West Tollway (I-88) in Illinois between the Tri-State (I-294) and I-39. Both toll, and both fairly close to each other.
As are the Tri-State and I 355.
MO could toll it a an arterial now with tolling technology and upgrade it or not upgrade it
http://www.120now.com/
There is no federal problem like I-70 which needs fed approval . I don't know what if any state approval it would need
Quote from: 3467 on March 17, 2015, 11:23:25 PM
MO could toll it a an arterial now with tolling technology and upgrade it or not upgrade it
Pretty sure they can't without federal approval if federal funds were used to build it.
Mo paid for most of the 4 lane upgrade -some was from a local sales tax I recall. The original road who knows . Most of Illinois roads the main paved corridors were paid for and numbered under the state bond issues . I don't know about MO
Practically speaking I just don't see the feds caring -The way things are going I suspect they would declare it innovative financing
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/fact_sheets/tolling_programs.aspx
It is on the Federal aid system but looks like a lot of options for tolls now .
Quote from: 3467 on March 18, 2015, 11:26:48 PM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/fact_sheets/tolling_programs.aspx
It is on the Federal aid system but looks like a lot of options for tolls now .
The only one I see that might apply to US 36 is "reconstruction of highways (non-Interstate only)". So I guess they could toll it to pay for improvements, as if they're needed.
Quote from: 3467 on March 17, 2015, 11:23:25 PM
and upgrade it or not upgrade it
When did MoDOT start subcontracting to alanDOT?
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 20, 2015, 06:50:54 AM
Quote from: bugo on January 20, 2015, 02:39:30 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on January 19, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-29, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
One thing that needs to be done regardless is for the highway to be graded properly, especially in Linn County. Linn County widened U.S. 36 before anyplace else in northern Missouri, but all they did was build a new set of lanes alongside the original alignment, so they ended up with the new set of lanes being properly graded and relatively flat while the original alignment followed the lay of the land. The most glaring example of this is between Marceline and the Macon County line, where the westbound lanes are nice and flat, but the eastbound lanes are a roller coaster. There's a similar effect on U.S. 63 in Macon County between Macon and the Randolph County line, though the lay of the land there isn't quite as dissected as it is in eastern Linn County.
Basically, MoDOT needs to eliminate the roller coaster rides on some of their four-lane highways.
That's the classic "Missouri Expressway".
Or Virginia Twinning, as it is also known.
Alabama also did that along US 72 between Scottsboro and Stevenson. And Mississippi did it along US 72 between Corinth and Burnsville.
WisDOT did that on a lengthy part of WI 57 south of Plymouth, WI back in the 1950s or 1960s. They have since rebuilt the highway's original northbound side to match the newer, much flatter southbound side (done during the late 1990s or early 2000s). One can also notice that effect, but to a much more subtle extent, on US(I)-41 in the area just south of WI 28.
As for the here and there upgrades of US 71 (now I-49), that is an 'S.O.P.' thing with WisDOT (see US(I)-41, WI 29, etc). US 41 (south of about Neenah to metro Milwaukee, especially) was built on its existing grade as a two-lane rural highway in the late 1940s and has been steadily upgraded to now full interstate standards ever since.
Mike
Dusting off this topic based on a recent article news article expressing a desire to move the western terminus of I-72 a little farther west:
Hannibal Courier-Post: Interstate designation makes Marion County transportation priority list (http://www.hannibal.net/article/20160220/NEWS/160218807/?Start=1)
Cool. Slowly making its way westward. :)
I wonder how much work they have to do before it becomes an interstate. Google Maps shows that stretch as a freeway.
That area (Hannibal) was one of a handful of counties to vote for a boost in the MO state fuel tax increase that failed in the early 00's. They should get the designation.
While I-72 may or may not make it all the way across the state, at least this is a start. And it would be a great shunpike between Kansas City and St. Louis if I-70 ever gets tolled, which will not happen now (but just in case it does).
Maybe it will put pressure to upgrade the remaining portions to Interstate 72 if/when the Missouri Transportation funding issues are fixed. Seriously, it should happen at some point (I-72 extended to I-35 or I-29).
It isn't a bad ride right now. Just nothing really along it for truck stops/parking. Put some parking areas on it and you will have a nice bypass of 70 going on for trucks.
It seems like without interstate upgrades US 36 would be a good alternative to I-70 since it is four lanes across the state.
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 24, 2016, 07:25:12 AM
It seems like without interstate upgrades US 36 would be a good alternative to I-70 since it is four lanes across the state.
I've used it just like that. Using what should be the CKC freeway. not whatever 110 does
If I had my way, Interstate 72 would go all the way across Missouri, and would also follow the short US 36 freeway in Kansas, just west of St. Joseph.
If I-72 continues west to St. Joseph, it could provide added connectivity to points westward on I-80, via I-29 north and NE-2 west to Lincoln, Neb. An additional long-term stretch goal might be to upgrade that stretch of NE-2 to Interstate standards and extend the I-72 designation westward to Lincoln.
I would actually work it to where it ends at 70 near Topeka. Form a northern bypass of the KC Area. It would be quite a Masterpiece of civil engineering for KC.
I-72 could be extended from St. Joseph to US 81 in Belleville. US 81 is 4-lanes south to Salina, and the road is 4-lanes north to York.That would provide some relief to I-29, I-70 and I-80, possibly to the chagrin of Omaha/Lincoln and Kansas City/Topeka.
However, since we here in Kansas couldn't rub two nickels together for a transportation budget, and their are other projects that have been put on the back burner, this is most assuredly pie in the sky.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 24, 2016, 05:31:10 PM
I would actually work it to where it ends at 70 near Topeka. Form a northern bypass of the KC Area. It would be quite a Masterpiece of civil engineering for KC.
There is already a southern bypass of the KC area--the last remaining segment of it is scheduled to open later this year. Why does there need to be a northern bypass? Shouldn't one east-west bypass and one north-south bypass suffice?
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 24, 2016, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 24, 2016, 05:31:10 PM
I would actually work it to where it ends at 70 near Topeka. Form a northern bypass of the KC Area. It would be quite a Masterpiece of civil engineering for KC.
There is already a southern bypass of the KC area--the last remaining segment of it is scheduled to open later this year. Why does there need to be a northern bypass? Shouldn't one east-west bypass and one north-south bypass suffice?
I'm curious, what are these bypasses? Are you talking about 435?
All those I-72 termini (St. Joseph, Topeka, Lincoln) are good choices, but shouldn't they be discussed further in Fictional Highways?
Yes Henry, this should be in Fictional Highways. It's unlikely Interstate 72 will go any further west anytime soon.
Quote from: mvak36 on February 25, 2016, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 24, 2016, 10:33:22 PM
There is already a southern bypass of the KC area--the last remaining segment of it is scheduled to open later this year. Why does there need to be a northern bypass? Shouldn't one east-west bypass and one north-south bypass suffice?
I'm curious, what are these bypasses? Are you talking about 435?
Regarding the southern bypass, I'm referring to the combination of K-10 (with the new freeway section opening this year, and the freeway upgrade from the Super 2 Expressway expected in the coming years), the southern leg of I-435, and I-470 (Missouri). Those three highways comprise Kansas City's east-west bypass. Before K-10 became an effective part of the bypass (the long-existing surface street portion has many traffic signals), I-435 and I-470 did not make a good east-west bypass, because using the western leg of I-435 to depart from or re-join I-70 involves going significantly far north (into Leavenworth and Wyandotte Counties in Kansas) before going back south.
The southern and eastern legs of I-435 comprise Kansas City's best north-south bypass for I-35 traffic.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 25, 2016, 09:18:18 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on February 25, 2016, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 24, 2016, 10:33:22 PM
There is already a southern bypass of the KC area--the last remaining segment of it is scheduled to open later this year. Why does there need to be a northern bypass? Shouldn't one east-west bypass and one north-south bypass suffice?
I'm curious, what are these bypasses? Are you talking about 435?
Regarding the southern bypass, I'm referring to the combination of K-10 (with the new freeway section opening this year, and the freeway upgrade from the Super 2 Expressway expected in the coming years), the southern leg of I-435, and I-470 (Missouri). Those three highways comprise Kansas City's east-west bypass. Before K-10 became an effective part of the bypass (the long-existing surface street portion has many traffic signals), I-435 and I-470 did not make a good east-west bypass, because using the western leg of I-435 to depart from or re-join I-70 involves going significantly far north (into Leavenworth and Wyandotte Counties in Kansas) before going back south.
The southern and eastern legs of I-435 comprise Kansas City's best north-south bypass for I-35 traffic.
Ok. That's what i sort of figured (didn't think about the K-10 and I-470).
They are good bypasses, except during rush hour because of the Grandview Triangle.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 24, 2016, 03:49:11 PM
If I had my way, Interstate 72 would go all the way across Missouri, and would also follow the short US 36 freeway in Kansas, just west of St. Joseph.
Would it then follow US 59 and Kansas Route 4 to Topeka? That seems to be the best route from what I can see.
Driving up to Des Moines today, I realized that if 72 ever gets extended to Cameron, I think 35 would need to be 3 lanes each from 435 to the I-72 intersection. There was decent traffic all the way from 435 to about exit 26 (Kearney). IMO, the traffic will only increase if 72 does get to Cameron.
That being said, it is a long ways away from becoming reality. Just something I noticed.
I'm pretty sure I-70 would be widened to 3 lanes each way between Wentzville and Blue Springs before I-35 gets widened to Cameron.
Yeah. I think I-70 will get widened before I-72 ever even gets to Cameron.
Quote from: mvak36 on February 28, 2016, 10:49:23 PM
Driving up to Des Moines today, I realized that if 72 ever gets extended to Cameron, I think 35 would need to be 3 lanes each from 435 to the I-72 intersection. There was decent traffic all the way from 435 to about exit 26 (Kearney). IMO, the traffic will only increase if 72 does get to Cameron.
That being said, it is a long ways away from becoming reality. Just something I noticed.
This may be true, assuming that a lot of traffic going east on 70 would choose 72 as an alternate. But is that a reasonable assumption to make? KC people are probably aware of the I-35-US36 route. Will the upgrade of US36 to I-72 cause
that many people to choose that route instead of what they were already going to do? (If not, the upgrade of I-35 isn't necessary, but also the upgrade to I-72 isn't necessary either in the first place lol)
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 01, 2016, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on February 28, 2016, 10:49:23 PM
Driving up to Des Moines today, I realized that if 72 ever gets extended to Cameron, I think 35 would need to be 3 lanes each from 435 to the I-72 intersection. There was decent traffic all the way from 435 to about exit 26 (Kearney). IMO, the traffic will only increase if 72 does get to Cameron.
That being said, it is a long ways away from becoming reality. Just something I noticed.
This may be true, assuming that a lot of traffic going east on 70 would choose 72 as an alternate. But is that a reasonable assumption to make? KC people are probably aware of the I-35-US36 route. Will the upgrade of US36 to I-72 cause that many people to choose that route instead of what they were already going to do? (If not, the upgrade of I-35 isn't necessary, but also the upgrade to I-72 isn't necessary either in the first place lol)
Knowing MoDOT's financial woes, don't expect much of an upgrade anytime soon. However, I would say, at the very least, MoDOT should upgrade the interchange between I-35 and US 36. There is WAY too much traffic for that to be a simple diamond, and then with a stoplight in the vicinity. I understand that the businesses there might protest, but travelers would greatly benefit from this interchange being upgraded, and having this upgrade already in place would be a great first step to an upgraded US 36/Future I-72 in North Central Missouri. Down the line, this would be a worthwhile interstate upgrade, but I think Missouri has other things on the table the should be given higher priority (such as expanding perennially clogged I-70).
Quote from: ChiMilNet on March 02, 2016, 10:52:56 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 01, 2016, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on February 28, 2016, 10:49:23 PM
Driving up to Des Moines today, I realized that if 72 ever gets extended to Cameron, I think 35 would need to be 3 lanes each from 435 to the I-72 intersection. There was decent traffic all the way from 435 to about exit 26 (Kearney). IMO, the traffic will only increase if 72 does get to Cameron.
That being said, it is a long ways away from becoming reality. Just something I noticed.
This may be true, assuming that a lot of traffic going east on 70 would choose 72 as an alternate. But is that a reasonable assumption to make? KC people are probably aware of the I-35-US36 route. Will the upgrade of US36 to I-72 cause that many people to choose that route instead of what they were already going to do? (If not, the upgrade of I-35 isn't necessary, but also the upgrade to I-72 isn't necessary either in the first place lol)
Knowing MoDOT's financial woes, don't expect much of an upgrade anytime soon. However, I would say, at the very least, MoDOT should upgrade the interchange between I-35 and US 36. There is WAY too much traffic for that to be a simple diamond, and then with a stoplight in the vicinity. I understand that the businesses there might protest, but travelers would greatly benefit from this interchange being upgraded, and having this upgrade already in place would be a great first step to an upgraded US 36/Future I-72 in North Central Missouri. Down the line, this would be a worthwhile interstate upgrade, but I think Missouri has other things on the table the should be given higher priority (such as expanding perennially clogged I-70).
I agree with everything you guys said. I don't think that it is going to happen anytime soon. I was thinking about the very, very distant future when I wrote that.
I would like to see 70 become three lanes first before even worrying about 72 being expanded across the state (though it would be nice if they did :D). I also want to see MODOT finish I-49 near the Arkansas border.
Quote from: mvak36 on March 03, 2016, 09:07:58 AM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on March 02, 2016, 10:52:56 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 01, 2016, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on February 28, 2016, 10:49:23 PM
Driving up to Des Moines today, I realized that if 72 ever gets extended to Cameron, I think 35 would need to be 3 lanes each from 435 to the I-72 intersection. There was decent traffic all the way from 435 to about exit 26 (Kearney). IMO, the traffic will only increase if 72 does get to Cameron.
That being said, it is a long ways away from becoming reality. Just something I noticed.
This may be true, assuming that a lot of traffic going east on 70 would choose 72 as an alternate. But is that a reasonable assumption to make? KC people are probably aware of the I-35-US36 route. Will the upgrade of US36 to I-72 cause that many people to choose that route instead of what they were already going to do? (If not, the upgrade of I-35 isn't necessary, but also the upgrade to I-72 isn't necessary either in the first place lol)
Knowing MoDOT's financial woes, don't expect much of an upgrade anytime soon. However, I would say, at the very least, MoDOT should upgrade the interchange between I-35 and US 36. There is WAY too much traffic for that to be a simple diamond, and then with a stoplight in the vicinity. I understand that the businesses there might protest, but travelers would greatly benefit from this interchange being upgraded, and having this upgrade already in place would be a great first step to an upgraded US 36/Future I-72 in North Central Missouri. Down the line, this would be a worthwhile interstate upgrade, but I think Missouri has other things on the table the should be given higher priority (such as expanding perennially clogged I-70).
I agree with everything you guys said. I don't think that it is going to happen anytime soon. I was thinking about the very, very distant future when I wrote that.
I would like to see 70 become three lanes first before even worrying about 72 being expanded across the state (though it would be nice if they did :D). I also want to see MODOT finish I-49 near the Arkansas border.
I have yet to drive I-49 in SW Missouri, but just looking at a map, it's obvious this should be a priority for MoDOT to get done. It feels that, outside of the St. Louis District, a lot of MoDOT highway needs seem to get neglected. I'm actually rather surprised how long it took to even get US 36 four laned across the state, and I'm amazed by the inadequacy of the interchange between US 36 and I-35 at this point.
The problem with I-72 is that the western end (Cameron) is part of the CKC. Sure, it's a nice alternative. But, in Missouri there is a lot of traffic heading further west. Those wanting into I-70 in Kansas are going to take I-35, but there's a lot of traffic capable of taking I-74 to I-72 to I-29 to NE2 to I-80 and avoiding the extra mileage through the Quad Cities, Des Moines, and Omaha on I-80, or avoiding St. Louis and KC metro areas on I-70. I've driven west on I-74, I-72, US 36, I-80, NE2 (also taken US36 all the way across to Colorado once, which is a great road through Kansas given its traffic).
So, starting I-72 at I-35 just means that any further extension will require resigning of exits and mile markers. And probably won't make the interchange 'extendable', such as a spur north or south to I-35 with a trumpet, leaving US36 travelers forced to get back off at the old road, or take the old road straight through, rather than a full interchange and new alignment bypass of Cameron for further US 36 travelers.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on March 12, 2016, 01:08:05 AM...I'm amazed by the inadequacy of the interchange between US 36 and I-35 at this point.
Having used that interchange last October, one major obstacle to getting that interchange redesigned is a railroad bridge immediately to the south. The railroad bridge would need to be replaced before any work can be done to improve the interchange.
Quote from: Gnutella on March 15, 2016, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on March 12, 2016, 01:08:05 AM...I'm amazed by the inadequacy of the interchange between US 36 and I-35 at this point.
Having used that interchange last October, one major obstacle to getting that interchange redesigned is a railroad bridge immediately to the south. The railroad bridge would need to be replaced before any work can be done to improve the interchange.
It looks like the railroad is already defunct, doesn't it? Take a look: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7492002,-94.2198173,1744m/data=!3m1!1e3
In this case, we just need to get going with the bridge demolition!
I don't think we're going to be seeing any Interstate upgrades to US 36 until the I-70 rebuild mess is solved and Missouri DOT fixes it's funding crisis, which at the rate it is going, will be another 15-20 years (bare minimum).
Seriously Missouri, you need to get going!
IMO, I just think that people going to/from Kansas City need to learn about the easter egg that is the US36 expressway. I think the creation of state route 110 was an attempt at a wake-up call, like "HEY KC! THERE'S ANOTHER HIGHWAY UP HERE TOO! USE THAT ONE!"
Maybe once the IL336 expressway is completed, there might be a little more usage of US36 in MO?
I've driven US 36 across northern Missouri countless times. The interchange with I-35 at Cameron needs an upgrade, but other than that... the road functions perfectly fine as it is. There is no need to convert it into an interstate. The benefit of converting every little at-grade to an interchange would in no way justify the enormous cost.
Even if MoDOT had the money to spend (which it doesn't, and won't anytime soon) converting US 36 to I-72 all the way across the state should still be pretty low on the priority list.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:16:46 PM
IMO, I just think that people going to/from Kansas City need to learn about the easter egg that is the US36 expressway. I think the creation of state route 110 was an attempt at a wake-up call, like "HEY KC! THERE'S ANOTHER HIGHWAY UP HERE TOO! USE THAT ONE!"
Maybe once the IL336 expressway is completed, there might be a little more usage of US36 in MO?
IL 336 might help a little with Peoria-KC traffic, but even now they have I-155 to I-55 to I-72 to US 36. Quad Cities has I-80 to I-35 as well as a 336 alternate, which to access they have to negotiate the expressway-grade US 67 to get to the expressway-grade 336 (I'd think most truckers would rather take the interstate). I still think most long distance Chicago-KC truckers find the I-55 to I-72 to US 36 route more appealing than paying the tolls on I-88 and driving the more circuitous route to Quincy.
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 26, 2016, 03:14:36 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:16:46 PM
IMO, I just think that people going to/from Kansas City need to learn about the easter egg that is the US36 expressway. I think the creation of state route 110 was an attempt at a wake-up call, like "HEY KC! THERE'S ANOTHER HIGHWAY UP HERE TOO! USE THAT ONE!"
Maybe once the IL336 expressway is completed, there might be a little more usage of US36 in MO?
IL 336 might help a little with Peoria-KC traffic, but even now they have I-155 to I-55 to I-72 to US 36. Quad Cities has I-80 to I-35 as well as a 336 alternate, which to access they have to negotiate the expressway-grade US 67 to get to the expressway-grade 336 (I'd think most truckers would rather take the interstate). I still think most long distance Chicago-KC truckers find the I-55 to I-72 to US 36 route more appealing than paying the tolls on I-88 and driving the more circuitous route to Quincy.
I think the IL-336 expressway is a complete waste and should not have been built. They should have routed "IL-110" over the I-55 to I-72/US 36 route as the Chicago to Kansas City Expressway.
Quote from: I-39 on March 28, 2016, 08:54:38 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 26, 2016, 03:14:36 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:16:46 PM
IMO, I just think that people going to/from Kansas City need to learn about the easter egg that is the US36 expressway. I think the creation of state route 110 was an attempt at a wake-up call, like "HEY KC! THERE'S ANOTHER HIGHWAY UP HERE TOO! USE THAT ONE!"
Maybe once the IL336 expressway is completed, there might be a little more usage of US36 in MO?
IL 336 might help a little with Peoria-KC traffic, but even now they have I-155 to I-55 to I-72 to US 36. Quad Cities has I-80 to I-35 as well as a 336 alternate, which to access they have to negotiate the expressway-grade US 67 to get to the expressway-grade 336 (I'd think most truckers would rather take the interstate). I still think most long distance Chicago-KC truckers find the I-55 to I-72 to US 36 route more appealing than paying the tolls on I-88 and driving the more circuitous route to Quincy.
I think the IL-336 expressway is a complete waste and should not have been built. They should have routed "IL-110" over the I-55 to I-72/US 36 route as the Chicago to Kansas City Expressway.
I completely agree, and I have actually used this route before. I imagine some of the thought may be twofold to divert traffic from the already busy I-55 corridor, and to use it as a "funding mechanism" to get the IL-336 expressway built for Western Illinois/Quincy area. However, I would have to believe it is a fair amount quicker to use the route via Springfield as it is fully interstate in Illinois, and, with the exception of the one annoying stoplight near Cameron (which I have already made known my thoughts about), has virtually no stops. Also, using this route just makes more sense to tie in US 36 as a future I-72 in Missouri, in my opinion.
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
For now, yes. But eventually (maybe in 15-20 years), it ought to be reconsidered. It definitely should not be a high priority though, much more important things throughout the state need to be done first.
If I-70 ends up being tolled as part of its rebuild, expect to see much more traffic on US 36 between I-35 and Hannibal.
Quote from: I-39 on May 15, 2016, 06:52:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
For now, yes. But eventually (maybe in 15-20 years), it ought to be reconsidered. It definitely should not be a high priority though, much more important things throughout the state need to be done first.
If I-70 ends up being tolled as part of its rebuild, expect to see much more traffic on US 36 between I-35 and Hannibal.
Totally agreed that US 36 can mostly function as is, with some spot upgrades here and there. The only major one that is badly needed, as I have said in previous posts, is an upgrade of the interchange at I-35 and removal of that stoplight right before it. Agreed also that Missouri had more pressing transportation needs such as improving I-70, finishing I-49, and building the Hannibal bypass for US 61.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 15, 2016, 10:38:50 PM
Totally agreed that US 36 can mostly function as is, with some spot upgrades here and there. The only major one that is badly needed, as I have said in previous posts, is an upgrade of the interchange at I-35 and removal of that stoplight right before it. Agreed also that Missouri had more pressing transportation needs such as improving I-70, finishing I-49, and building the Hannibal bypass for US 61.
Also, finishing US 67 to four lanes between MO 158 and the Arkansas state line, as well as converting the entire US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the Arkansas state line to Interstate 57. I think it is more likely we'll see that done before US 36 is converted to I-72.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
Preserving and acquiring ROW at intersections should be pursued so upgrading could be done in the future. Better than having to pay a lot more for it in the future. US 36 seems to have a lot of similarities with the US 20 corridor in Iowa, which likely sees similar traffic loads and use patterns.
Quote from: DJStephens on May 29, 2016, 07:50:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
Preserving and acquiring ROW at intersections should be pursued so upgrading could be done in the future. Better than having to pay a lot more for it in the future. US 36 seems to have a lot of similarities with the US 20 corridor in Iowa, which likely sees similar traffic loads and use patterns.
Is this what you are referring to? Just east of New Cambria:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7090/26733754223_ea1902b81f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GJntJX)2016-05-29_20-51-07 (https://flic.kr/p/GJntJX) by rte66man (https://www.flickr.com/photos/rte66man/), on Flickr
It looks as as If MO is already doing this.
Quote from: rte66man on May 29, 2016, 09:57:12 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on May 29, 2016, 07:50:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
Preserving and acquiring ROW at intersections should be pursued so upgrading could be done in the future. Better than having to pay a lot more for it in the future. US 36 seems to have a lot of similarities with the US 20 corridor in Iowa, which likely sees similar traffic loads and use patterns.
Is this what you are referring to? Just east of New Cambria:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7090/26733754223_ea1902b81f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GJntJX)2016-05-29_20-51-07 (https://flic.kr/p/GJntJX) by rte66man (https://www.flickr.com/photos/rte66man/), on Flickr
It looks as as If MO is already doing this.
The main problem I see are the driveways connected to the possibly-future highway.
Quote from: rte66man on May 29, 2016, 09:57:12 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on May 29, 2016, 07:50:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
Preserving and acquiring ROW at intersections should be pursued so upgrading could be done in the future. Better than having to pay a lot more for it in the future. US 36 seems to have a lot of similarities with the US 20 corridor in Iowa, which likely sees similar traffic loads and use patterns.
Is this what you are referring to? Just east of New Cambria:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7090/26733754223_ea1902b81f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GJntJX)2016-05-29_20-51-07 (https://flic.kr/p/GJntJX) by rte66man (https://www.flickr.com/photos/rte66man/), on Flickr
It looks as as If MO is already doing this.
Ha! Everything in that image that's south of U.S. 36 and west of the Chariton River is owned by my great uncle! :)
The Hannibal newspaper is reporting that FHWA denied a request to extend the I-72 designation west to the eastern intersection of US 36 and US 24.
http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied (http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied)
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 06, 2017, 06:45:43 PM
The Hannibal newspaper is reporting that FHWA denied a request to extend the I-72 designation west to the eastern intersection of US 36 and US 24.
http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied (http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied)
Quote"One of the things that they talked about was that interstates begin and end at another interstate. Currently where I-72 ends in Hannibal is at U.S. 61," he said.
Ugh. The rule is that it must end at an arterial, not an Interstate.
[edit]Sort of: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm#appa
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
What was the reason for US 36 now I-72 to be a full freeway west of Springfield IL? Seems to me the Illinois section is pretty much the same from the Missouri section.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 07, 2017, 04:55:55 PM
What was the reason for US 36 now I-72 to be a full freeway west of Springfield IL? Seems to me the Illinois section is pretty much the same from the Missouri section.
Most of US 36 across was Missouri was an upgrade/twinning of the existing road, while most of I-72 west of I-55 in Illinois is new alignment (only I-172 to the IL 106 interchange/Exit 1 and a brief section west of the Barry interchange (Exit 20) appear to have been next to or upgraded from existing US 36 - though as I edit this post again, I think part of the Springfield bypass between Wabash and I-55 might have been originally built to lower standards and later upgraded to a full freeway).
As to expressway versus freeway for Illinois, I would lean/speculate towards it being due to how long the corridor was planned for, freeways being more of the thing to built back in the day compared to expressways, and due to Illinois having more money to build corridors back in the day. IIRC Missouri did have a full freeway for US 36 at least partway across the state back in one of the 1970 transportation plans.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 07, 2017, 07:19:45 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 07, 2017, 04:55:55 PM
What was the reason for US 36 now I-72 to be a full freeway west of Springfield IL? Seems to me the Illinois section is pretty much the same from the Missouri section.
Most of US 36 across was Missouri was an upgrade/twinning of the existing road, while most of I-72 west of I-55 in Illinois is new alignment (only I-172 to the IL 106 interchange/Exit 1 and a brief section west of the Barry interchange (Exit 20) appear to have been next to or upgraded from existing US 36 - though as I edit this post again, I think part of the Springfield bypass between Wabash and I-55 might have been originally built to lower standards and later upgraded to a full freeway).
As to expressway versus freeway for Illinois, I would lean/speculate towards it being due to how long the corridor was planned for, freeways being more of the thing to built back in the day compared to expressways, and due to Illinois having more money to build corridors back in the day. IIRC Missouri did have a full freeway for US 36 at least partway across the state back in one of the 1970 transportation plans.
Not sure of the relationship between the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA), but does anyone know if ISTHA subsidizes IDOT projects in years when Illinois' toll roads end up with budget surpluses? Would that explain why Illinois went on an interstate building binge in the 1990s, to include completing the I-72 bridge over the Mississippi River (jointly with Missouri)?
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 08, 2017, 12:56:34 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 07, 2017, 07:19:45 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 07, 2017, 04:55:55 PM
What was the reason for US 36 now I-72 to be a full freeway west of Springfield IL? Seems to me the Illinois section is pretty much the same from the Missouri section.
Most of US 36 across was Missouri was an upgrade/twinning of the existing road, while most of I-72 west of I-55 in Illinois is new alignment (only I-172 to the IL 106 interchange/Exit 1 and a brief section west of the Barry interchange (Exit 20) appear to have been next to or upgraded from existing US 36 - though as I edit this post again, I think part of the Springfield bypass between Wabash and I-55 might have been originally built to lower standards and later upgraded to a full freeway).
As to expressway versus freeway for Illinois, I would lean/speculate towards it being due to how long the corridor was planned for, freeways being more of the thing to built back in the day compared to expressways, and due to Illinois having more money to build corridors back in the day. IIRC Missouri did have a full freeway for US 36 at least partway across the state back in one of the 1970 transportation plans.
Not sure of the relationship between the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA), but does anyone know if ISTHA subsidizes IDOT projects in years when Illinois' toll roads end up with budget surpluses? Would that explain why Illinois went on an interstate building binge in the 1990s, to include completing the I-72 bridge over the Mississippi River (jointly with Missouri)?
No. ISTHA does not subsidize IDOT.
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2017, 07:09:49 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 06, 2017, 06:45:43 PM
The Hannibal newspaper is reporting that FHWA denied a request to extend the I-72 designation west to the eastern intersection of US 36 and US 24.
http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied (http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied)
Quote"One of the things that they talked about was that interstates begin and end at another interstate. Currently where I-72 ends in Hannibal is at U.S. 61," he said.
Ugh. The rule is that it must end at an arterial, not an Interstate.
[edit]Sort of: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm#appa
Hm. For I-86, I believe only one end of the interstate had to end at an interstate for designation.
Seems to confirm that different FHWA Division Offices play by different rules.
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2017, 07:53:45 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2017, 07:09:49 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 06, 2017, 06:45:43 PM
The Hannibal newspaper is reporting that FHWA denied a request to extend the I-72 designation west to the eastern intersection of US 36 and US 24.
http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied (http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied)
Quote"One of the things that they talked about was that interstates begin and end at another interstate. Currently where I-72 ends in Hannibal is at U.S. 61," he said.
Ugh. The rule is that it must end at an arterial, not an Interstate.
[edit]Sort of: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm#appa
Hm. For I-86, I believe only one end of the interstate had to end at an interstate for designation.
Seems to confirm that different FHWA Division Offices play by different rules.
Normally, to qualify for interstate designation, one end must connect to an interstate as long as the other end connects to a road that is part of the National Highway System (which includes interstate, US and some state routes). Congress changed the law to allow interstate-grade freeway segments to be designated as interstates even if they don't yet (but are planned to within 25 years of designation) connect to another interstate. The law was changed to accommodate the designation of completed sections of I-69 that don't connect to the larger interstate network (mainly in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, but it also applies to other areas as well).
Since US36 is a part of the NHS, why couldn't they just have it end at the US24 intersection? Do they have to make all of 36 from Hannibal to Cameron interstate standard before they can designate it as I-72?
Maybe you should ask Missouri's DOT that question.
Quote from: mvak36 on February 08, 2017, 11:05:42 AM
Since US36 is a part of the NHS, why couldn't they just have it end at the US24 intersection? Do they have to make all of 36 from Hannibal to Cameron interstate standard before they can designate it as I-72?
Upgrading US-36 to interstate standards between Hannibal and Cameron is currently not on MoDOT's radar screen, since there's no money to pay for the upgrade. If my memory serves me correctly, the most recent effort to fund the extension of I-72 along the US-36 corridor was a ballot measure in the seven counties through which I-72 would eventually pass, which IIRC was in the 2011 timeframe that would have imposed a sales tax increase in each of the affected counties to complete the upgrades required to designate US-36 as I-72. The stipulation for the ballot measure to be enacted was voters in all seven counties within the proposed I-72 corridor had to approve the ballot measure. My recollection is that the ballot measure had more than enough total votes in favor of the tax increase, but ultimately failed because voters in Ralls County voted in opposition (US-36/Proposed I-72 only has about 1/2 mile total length in Ralls County, but the ballot measure still required approval from Ralls County voters to pass).
Well, we might see some movement in the foreseeable future to get I-72 extended to the US 24 interchange west of Hannibal, which would lengthen the interstate by about 7 miles from its present terminus at US-61. Marion County had added this extension to its list of high priority highway projects as of February 2016, which will hopefully see it move up in the food chain for funding.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 08, 2017, 10:20:37 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on February 08, 2017, 11:05:42 AM
Since US36 is a part of the NHS, why couldn't they just have it end at the US24 intersection? Do they have to make all of 36 from Hannibal to Cameron interstate standard before they can designate it as I-72?
Upgrading US-36 to interstate standards between Hannibal and Cameron is currently not on MoDOT's radar screen, since there's no money to pay for the upgrade. If my memory serves me correctly, the most recent effort to fund the extension of I-72 along the US-36 corridor was a ballot measure in the seven counties through which I-72 would eventually pass, which IIRC was in the 2011 timeframe that would have imposed a sales tax increase in each of the affected counties to complete the upgrades required to designate US-36 as I-72. The stipulation for the ballot measure to be enacted was voters in all seven counties within the proposed I-72 corridor had to approve the ballot measure. My recollection is that the ballot measure had more than enough total votes in favor of the tax increase, but ultimately failed because voters in Ralls County voted in opposition (US-36/Proposed I-72 only has about 1/2 mile total length in Ralls County, but the ballot measure still required approval from Ralls County voters to pass).
Well, we might see some movement in the foreseeable future to get I-72 extended to the US 24 interchange west of Hannibal, which would lengthen the interstate by about 7 miles from its present terminus at US-61. Marion County had added this extension to its list of high priority highway projects as of February 2016, which will hopefully see it move up in the food chain for funding.
I'm not expecting them to extend 72 up to Cameron anytime soon either. I was just surprised to see the rule that it had to end at an interstate.
Quote from: mvak36 on February 09, 2017, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 08, 2017, 10:20:37 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on February 08, 2017, 11:05:42 AM
Since US36 is a part of the NHS, why couldn't they just have it end at the US24 intersection? Do they have to make all of 36 from Hannibal to Cameron interstate standard before they can designate it as I-72?
Upgrading US-36 to interstate standards between Hannibal and Cameron is currently not on MoDOT's radar screen, since there's no money to pay for the upgrade. If my memory serves me correctly, the most recent effort to fund the extension of I-72 along the US-36 corridor was a ballot measure in the seven counties through which I-72 would eventually pass, which IIRC was in the 2011 timeframe that would have imposed a sales tax increase in each of the affected counties to complete the upgrades required to designate US-36 as I-72. The stipulation for the ballot measure to be enacted was voters in all seven counties within the proposed I-72 corridor had to approve the ballot measure. My recollection is that the ballot measure had more than enough total votes in favor of the tax increase, but ultimately failed because voters in Ralls County voted in opposition (US-36/Proposed I-72 only has about 1/2 mile total length in Ralls County, but the ballot measure still required approval from Ralls County voters to pass).
Well, we might see some movement in the foreseeable future to get I-72 extended to the US 24 interchange west of Hannibal, which would lengthen the interstate by about 7 miles from its present terminus at US-61. Marion County had added this extension to its list of high priority highway projects as of February 2016, which will hopefully see it move up in the food chain for funding.
I'm not expecting them to extend 72 up to Cameron anytime soon either. I was just surprised to see the rule that it had to end at an interstate.
The actual rule is that the interstate segment must end at a
NHS route, not specifically another Interstate -- but, unfortunately, US 24 between US 36 and US 61 is not on the NHS network, so it's possible that an western extension of I-72 to that point may be rejected by AASHTO and/or FHWA for that reason.
Quote from: sparker on February 10, 2017, 05:39:32 PM
unfortunately, US 24 between US 36 and US 61 is not on the NHS network
It is now, since it's a principal arterial.
Quote from: NE2 on February 10, 2017, 08:09:34 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 10, 2017, 05:39:32 PM
unfortunately, US 24 between US 36 and US 61 is not on the NHS network
It is now, since it's a principal arterial.
Then the NHS Missouri map I accessed earlier today should have been updated; it shows it as a connector (black line) rather than a designated NHS/STRAHNET route red/green.
Quote from: sparker on February 11, 2017, 01:36:37 AM
Then the NHS Missouri map I accessed earlier today should have been updated; it shows it as a connector (black line) rather than a designated NHS/STRAHNET route red/green.
Try this one (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/missouri/mo_Missouri.pdf) then; if a route is not some form of NHS route, it is not shown at all.
Quote from: sparker on February 11, 2017, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 10, 2017, 08:09:34 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 10, 2017, 05:39:32 PM
unfortunately, US 24 between US 36 and US 61 is not on the NHS network
It is now, since it's a principal arterial.
Then the NHS Missouri map I accessed earlier today should have been updated; it shows it as a connector (black line) rather than a designated NHS/STRAHNET route red/green.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/missouri/mo_Missouri.pdf
Black lines are "MAP-21 NHS Principal Arterials".
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qanhs.cfm
"Yes, principal arterial routes that are not currently on the NHS before October 1, 2012, will automatically be added to the NHS provided the principal arterials connect to the NHS."
Even then, what's the point of extending the Interstate designation a few miles west of the current terminus?
I still don't think that US 36 across Missouri needs to be converted into a full-freeway. There are bypasses of the towns, grade-separated interchanges at major routes, and the at-grade intersections at minor routes aren't problematic. When I drove the route, it was very lightly traveled, and even a doubling of traffic volumes wouldn't create issues sufficient to spending big bucks to upgrade it to a full freeway.
Perhaps states should come up with some sort of new uniform route marker that is shield-shaped, but does not duplicate the existing Interstate marker, and color it red and blue and post it along routes it wants to have designated as an interstate (or for surface expressways like US 36). For Missouri, it would be a fifth class of highways (lettered supplemental, state-shaped state route, US and Interstate); for Kentucky, it would be a fourth class (circle/oval state, US and Interstate). Either let AASHTO administer it, or if it involves just two bordering states, let them figure it out.
Missouri could post US 36 as this class of highway and number it 72, and co-sign it with US 36 and CKC 110.
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2017, 11:01:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 11, 2017, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 10, 2017, 08:09:34 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 10, 2017, 05:39:32 PM
unfortunately, US 24 between US 36 and US 61 is not on the NHS network
It is now, since it's a principal arterial.
Then the NHS Missouri map I accessed earlier today should have been updated; it shows it as a connector (black line) rather than a designated NHS/STRAHNET route red/green.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/missouri/mo_Missouri.pdf
Black lines are "MAP-21 NHS Principal Arterials".
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qanhs.cfm
"Yes, principal arterial routes that are not currently on the NHS before October 1, 2012, will automatically be added to the NHS provided the principal arterials connect to the NHS."
My bad! -- forgot about the MAP-21 codicil re connectors. At least that's
one less obstacle to the first "baby step" in getting I-72 completed across MO. If that happened, it might eclipse the rationale for the gratuitous CKC 110 crap (one can hope!). Still, it'll be a long, long slog.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 11, 2017, 12:13:53 PM
Even then, what's the point of extending the Interstate designation a few miles west of the current terminus?
The western terminus would then be at the last interchange on the freeway.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 11, 2017, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 11, 2017, 12:13:53 PM
Even then, what's the point of extending the Interstate designation a few miles west of the current terminus?
The western terminus would then be at the last interchange on the freeway.
The US 36/US 24 (east) junction is also the approximate location of the long-delayed Hannibal bypass for the Avenue of the Saints corridor (relocated US 61). If that facility is constructed, it would be a most appropriate place for an interim I-72 terminus.
I wonder if there is an unwillingness to designate US 36 to I-72 due to the farm equipment that use the road? During planting and harvesting seasons, MDOT puts out warning signs about tractors being on the road.
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on February 12, 2017, 08:52:55 AM
I wonder if there is an unwillingness to designate US 36 to I-72 due to the farm equipment that use the road? During planting and harvesting seasons, MDOT puts out warning signs about tractors being on the road.
That's a recurring issue in all Interstate/freeway upgrades in rural territory (check out the I-555 controversies in AR). Some states, such as TX, just slap down frontage roads alongside freeway lanes; others make different arrangements (connectors to other roads, new parallel arterials, etc.). This problem is particularly apparent where the existing divided highway has been "twinned" -- using the extant 2-lane road and just constructing a parallel carriageway for the opposite direction, which usually retains the private access points on the original roadway; here in CA, a prime example is CA 152 between Los Banos and CA 99. Except for a couple of access-limited sections near Chowchilla and the CA 59 and CA 33 junctions, this is a twinned facility -- and despite the newer roadway displaying the visible characteristics of a set of freeway lanes, private access to
both directions remains (albeit without median crossings for the most part). It's usually not politically feasible to limit access to an existing route without making access modifications that substantially drive up the cost af any upgrade project. Most twinnings were originally done to increase capacity and promote increased safety -- and that was the most cost-effective way to do so -- which is one of the reasons why Interstate-level upgrades pose serious fiscal problems for state DOT's.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 11, 2017, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 11, 2017, 12:13:53 PM
Even then, what's the point of extending the Interstate designation a few miles west of the current terminus?
The western terminus would then be at the last interchange on the freeway.
Exactly, instead of ending mid-steam at a seemingly random point on the freeway (even if it is a US Highway), it would end at a natural split and change in the type of road being driven, and also at a US Highway.
Also there is a "branding" issue here. "Just off I-72" says more to the public than "Just off the US 36 freeway".
What did MODOT do about farm equipment on I-49? There are certainly no continuous frontage roads.
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2017, 03:55:12 PM
What did MODOT do about farm equipment on I-49? There are certainly no continuous frontage roads.
I don't think I-49 crosses any streams major enough to cause an appreciable detour should a vehicle be disallowed from it. (This is a guess from memory; you may be able to find a counter-example.)
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2017, 03:55:12 PM
What did MODOT do about farm equipment on I-49? There are certainly no continuous frontage roads.
The times I've driven US 71 pre-Interstate upgrade there seemed to be enough local roads to serve as alternative access to the properties along the facility. IIRC, there was little or no driveway access to the then-expressway (likely why the Interstate conversion was not a particularly long drawn-out process).
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 24, 2016, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 24, 2016, 05:31:10 PM
I would actually work it to where it ends at 70 near Topeka. Form a northern bypass of the KC Area. It would be quite a Masterpiece of civil engineering for KC.
There is already a southern bypass of the KC area--the last remaining segment of it is scheduled to open later this year. Why does there need to be a northern bypass? Shouldn't one east-west bypass and one north-south bypass suffice?
I just drove this route across US36 down to I-70 across Kansas and there sort of is a northern bypass of KC. M-152 goes across the north side over to I-435 south into Kansas to meet up with I-70 completely avoiding the downtown area. The problem is about a mile and a half is not finished as an expressway. Right by 35 M-152 runs in front of a mall and has a couple stoplights, but other than a 30 second red, you get right going and it was a fairly easy bypass of the town. The biggest improvement to the route would be to get rid of the stoplights at Cameron and build a better interchange particularly for US36 Westbound to I-35 Southbound and I-35 Northbound to US36 Eastbound. Other than that there are no stoplights at all on the route. Only wish the speed limit was 70 so you could go a little faster and in some spots one direction of traffic is built on a 90 year old right of way that hasn't been leveled smooth by bulldozers and is rolling up and down like a roller coaster. As for the speeds I did not see a single cop on the route, I-70 on the other hand usually has a trooper in the middle every 10 miles.
Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 07, 2020, 08:55:25 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 24, 2016, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 24, 2016, 05:31:10 PM
I would actually work it to where it ends at 70 near Topeka. Form a northern bypass of the KC Area. It would be quite a Masterpiece of civil engineering for KC.
There is already a southern bypass of the KC area--the last remaining segment of it is scheduled to open later this year. Why does there need to be a northern bypass? Shouldn't one east-west bypass and one north-south bypass suffice?
I just drove this route across US36 down to I-70 across Kansas and there sort of is a northern bypass of KC. M-152 goes across the north side over to I-435 south into Kansas to meet up with I-70 completely avoiding the downtown area. The problem is about a mile and a half is not finished as an expressway. Right by 35 M-152 runs in front of a mall and has a couple stoplights, but other than a 30 second red, you get right going and it was a fairly easy bypass of the town. The biggest improvement to the route would be to get rid of the stoplights at Cameron and build a better interchange particularly for US36 Westbound to I-35 Southbound and I-35 Northbound to US36 Eastbound. Other than that there are no stoplights at all on the route. Only wish the speed limit was 70 so you could go a little faster and in some spots one direction of traffic is built on a 90 year old right of way that hasn't been leveled smooth by bulldozers and is rolling up and down like a roller coaster. As for the speeds I did not see a single cop on the route, I-70 on the other hand usually has a trooper in the middle every 10 miles.
I have used this route to visit family in KC, and I do like it as an alternative option to either I-70 or I-80 through Iowa (both are bad news). The stoplight at Cameron needs to go, and that interchange at I-35 badly needs an upgrade, at least in certain directions. As far as the sections that are still not leveled, you can tell MODOT added the second carriageway for the 4 laning, and did it as cheaply as they could (this is most prevalent in the Eastern portion of the state West of where US 24 splits off). Reminds me of US 20 in far NW Illinois between Dubuque and Galena (at least Missouri completed the 4 laning of the whole highway, and it doesn't slow down through a bunch of towns). Overall, it's an efficient route, and I think one that Google Maps even recommends a lot. A lot less truck traffic alone makes it a more pleasurable drive. That said, MODOT would be wise to upgrade as much as possible to Interstate before tackling any major I-70 rebuilds. While at it, also complete a US 63 bypass of Macon. That way there is at least a mostly non-stop route from Columbia and Jeff City to US 36 (and Kirksville for that matter), to make it more viable as an alternative from there (future I-570 anyone, or too fictional???).
Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 07, 2020, 08:55:25 AM
Right by 35 M-152 runs in front of a mall and has a couple stoplights, but other than a 30 second red, you get right going and it was a fairly easy bypass of the town.
Four stoplights, not counting the ones at the I-35 interchange itself. And trust me, they're not always just a 30-second wait. Sometimes it's a quick trip through there, sometimes you get stuck at multiple lights for a while.
Quote from: kphoger on August 07, 2020, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 07, 2020, 08:55:25 AM
Right by 35 M-152 runs in front of a mall and has a couple stoplights, but other than a 30 second red, you get right going and it was a fairly easy bypass of the town.
Four stoplights, not counting the ones at the I-35 interchange itself. And trust me, they're not always just a 30-second wait. Sometimes it's a quick trip through there, sometimes you get stuck at multiple lights for a while.
Are the plans to grade separate the intersection with Shoal Creek Parkway? I see a doctors office has already been built on one corner. I don't want it to turn into another lost opportunity.
Also, Are the plans to widen 35 through there? I was disappointed when MoDOT fixed the interchange at US69 but didn't build extra lanes. That stretch of 35 is coming up on its 60th birthday.
Quote from: rte66man on August 07, 2020, 09:04:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 07, 2020, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 07, 2020, 08:55:25 AM
Right by 35 M-152 runs in front of a mall and has a couple stoplights, but other than a 30 second red, you get right going and it was a fairly easy bypass of the town.
It's not Michigan, but I know what you mean. :P
Quote from: rte66man on August 07, 2020, 09:04:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 07, 2020, 09:47:56 AM
Four stoplights, not counting the ones at the I-35 interchange itself. And trust me, they're not always just a 30-second wait. Sometimes it's a quick trip through there, sometimes you get stuck at multiple lights for a while.
Are the plans to grade separate the intersection with Shoal Creek Parkway? I see a doctors office has already been built on one corner. I don't want it to turn into another lost opportunity.
Not that I know of, but there's
no good reason not to use Michigan Lefts in this whole stretch and get all the signals down to two phases each: https://goo.gl/maps/u1uk63ziMN6fg5v4A
Quote from: rte66man on August 07, 2020, 09:04:07 PM
Also, Are the plans to widen 35 through there? I was disappointed when MoDOT fixed the interchange at US69 but didn't build extra lanes. That stretch of 35 is coming up on its 60th birthday.
Fixed which interchange at US 69? Did they get rid of this abysmal left entrance ramp yet? https://goo.gl/maps/VPBW47Tw3WYW1gbv6
***
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 07, 2020, 10:55:49 PM
...but there's no good reason not to use Michigan Lefts in this whole stretch and get all the signals down to two phases each: https://goo.gl/maps/u1uk63ziMN6fg5v4A
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 07, 2020, 10:55:49 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 07, 2020, 09:04:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 07, 2020, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 07, 2020, 08:55:25 AM
Right by 35 M-152 runs in front of a mall and has a couple stoplights, but other than a 30 second red, you get right going and it was a fairly easy bypass of the town.
It's not Michigan, but I know what you mean. :P
That's not a good reason!
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 07, 2020, 10:55:49 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 07, 2020, 09:04:07 PM
Also, Are the plans to widen 35 through there? I was disappointed when MoDOT fixed the interchange at US69 but didn't build extra lanes. That stretch of 35 is coming up on its 60th birthday.
Fixed which interchange at US 69? Did they get rid of this abysmal left entrance ramp yet? https://goo.gl/maps/VPBW47Tw3WYW1gbv6
The one at Liberty Parkway in Pleasant Valley:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2169241,-94.4770211,1030m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: rte66man on August 08, 2020, 08:11:51 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 07, 2020, 10:55:49 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 07, 2020, 09:04:07 PM
Also, Are the plans to widen 35 through there? I was disappointed when MoDOT fixed the interchange at US69 but didn't build extra lanes. That stretch of 35 is coming up on its 60th birthday.
Fixed which interchange at US 69? Did they get rid of this abysmal left entrance ramp yet? https://goo.gl/maps/VPBW47Tw3WYW1gbv6
The one at Liberty Parkway in Pleasant Valley:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2169241,-94.4770211,1030m/data=!3m1!1e3
I honestly wasn't familiar with that one, because I seldom drive up that way, except when I'm going straight through on I-35. But good fix! The former left entrances I see on Historic Aerials also look pretty crappy.
I hope the I-35/US 69/Vivion Roard interchange is next on the to-do list. I think safety fixes like that should be prioritized ahead of widenings. If you want to do that one on the cheap, you could just close the ramp altogether and tell southbound traffic to take Brighton Avenue to Winn Road, although you might get push-back from people who live on those roads. So maybe you could make it work if you invest in some physical traffic calming, but then you're raising the project cost again, at which point, you really have to ask, which solution has more bang for the buck? Yeah, I'm bordering on Fictional Highways territory again. Sorry if that's annoying. But that interchange is annoying, too.
Missouri has other priorities. Hannibal Bypass, US-57 Extension, Bella Vista Bypass, just to name a few. But if it makes you feel better, the mile markers in Hannibal for I-72 are tied to a future route to Cameron with I-35.
Due to funding priorities, upgrading US 36 between Macon and Hannibal was a low-priority project and was officially tabled by MoDOT. MoDOT committed to constructing the four-lane highway as a non-interstate expressway only if the five counties served by US 36 east of Macon would contribute half of the $100 million cost.
I guess they came up with the dough eventually.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on August 07, 2020, 09:12:36 AM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 07, 2020, 08:55:25 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 24, 2016, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 24, 2016, 05:31:10 PM
I would actually work it to where it ends at 70 near Topeka. Form a northern bypass of the KC Area. It would be quite a Masterpiece of civil engineering for KC.
There is already a southern bypass of the KC area--the last remaining segment of it is scheduled to open later this year. Why does there need to be a northern bypass? Shouldn't one east-west bypass and one north-south bypass suffice?
I just drove this route across US36 down to I-70 across Kansas and there sort of is a northern bypass of KC. M-152 goes across the north side over to I-435 south into Kansas to meet up with I-70 completely avoiding the downtown area. The problem is about a mile and a half is not finished as an expressway. Right by 35 M-152 runs in front of a mall and has a couple stoplights, but other than a 30 second red, you get right going and it was a fairly easy bypass of the town. The biggest improvement to the route would be to get rid of the stoplights at Cameron and build a better interchange particularly for US36 Westbound to I-35 Southbound and I-35 Northbound to US36 Eastbound. Other than that there are no stoplights at all on the route. Only wish the speed limit was 70 so you could go a little faster and in some spots one direction of traffic is built on a 90 year old right of way that hasn't been leveled smooth by bulldozers and is rolling up and down like a roller coaster. As for the speeds I did not see a single cop on the route, I-70 on the other hand usually has a trooper in the middle every 10 miles.
I have used this route to visit family in KC, and I do like it as an alternative option to either I-70 or I-80 through Iowa (both are bad news). The stoplight at Cameron needs to go, and that interchange at I-35 badly needs an upgrade, at least in certain directions. As far as the sections that are still not leveled, you can tell MODOT added the second carriageway for the 4 laning, and did it as cheaply as they could (this is most prevalent in the Eastern portion of the state West of where US 24 splits off). Reminds me of US 20 in far NW Illinois between Dubuque and Galena (at least Missouri completed the 4 laning of the whole highway, and it doesn't slow down through a bunch of towns). Overall, it's an efficient route, and I think one that Google Maps even recommends a lot. A lot less truck traffic alone makes it a more pleasurable drive. That said, MODOT would be wise to upgrade as much as possible to Interstate before tackling any major I-70 rebuilds. While at it, also complete a US 63 bypass of Macon. That way there is at least a mostly non-stop route from Columbia and Jeff City to US 36 (and Kirksville for that matter), to make it more viable as an alternative from there (future I-570 anyone, or too fictional???).
42% of the eastern rural portion of US 36 in Missouri was paid for by a 1/2 cent tax on locals (https://en.linkfang.org/wiki/Interstate_72) because the state couldn't afford to pay for all of it. They didn't have the funds to pay for a better highway. We're lucky it's not still two lanes.
One improvement I'd like to see along this corridor would be rest areas with large bathrooms. This route only has one decent travel center in the Loves near Macon. Loves is a consistent clean bathroom chain. I hate going to some old run down gas station and finding a single unisex bathroom where you have to wait, or even if they have two bathrooms they are single occupancy with locked doors. An upgrade to Interstate designation also brings the rest areas although there doesn't seem to be many on I-72 in Illinois besides a single stop just east of Decatur. Kansas has very frequent rest areas along I-70 which is nice if you take a prescription diuretic.
Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 16, 2020, 02:27:04 PM
One improvement I'd like to see along this corridor would be rest areas with large bathrooms. This route only has one decent travel center in the Loves near Macon. Loves is a consistent clean bathroom chain. I hate going to some old run down gas station and finding a single unisex bathroom where you have to wait, or even if they have too bathrooms they are single occupancy with locked doors. An upgrade to Interstate designation also brings the rest areas although there doesn't seem to be many on I-72 in Illinois besides a single stop just east of Decatur. Kansas has very frequent rest areas along I-70 which is nice if you take a prescription diuretic.
More rest areas would be nice, but with a grand total of none along I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City, and just 1 set on all of I-35 in MO, something tells me we won't see any new rest areas in the state (including US 36 (future I-72?) anytime soon.
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on August 17, 2020, 11:33:12 AM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 16, 2020, 02:27:04 PM
One improvement I'd like to see along this corridor would be rest areas with large bathrooms. This route only has one decent travel center in the Loves near Macon. Loves is a consistent clean bathroom chain. I hate going to some old run down gas station and finding a single unisex bathroom where you have to wait, or even if they have too bathrooms they are single occupancy with locked doors. An upgrade to Interstate designation also brings the rest areas although there doesn't seem to be many on I-72 in Illinois besides a single stop just east of Decatur. Kansas has very frequent rest areas along I-70 which is nice if you take a prescription diuretic.
More rest areas would be nice, but with a grand total of none along I-49 between Joplin and Kansas City, and just 1 set on all of I-35 in MO, something tells me we won't see any new rest areas in the state (including US 36 (future I-72?) anytime soon.
I-49 does have one close to Pineville where it tails off to US-71 until the BVB is completed. There's enough commercial options between KC and Joplin to reduce the need for a rest area. I always wind up stopping at Lamar as there's a SuperCenter there right off the exit with as cheap of gas as I'll find on the trip, and it's close to leg stretching/bladder emptying distance too. Missouri does seem to be a little strapped for cash, so niceties like rest areas likely are off the agenda for a while.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 15, 2016, 10:38:50 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 15, 2016, 06:52:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.
For now, yes. But eventually (maybe in 15-20 years), it ought to be reconsidered. It definitely should not be a high priority though, much more important things throughout the state need to be done first.
If I-70 ends up being tolled as part of its rebuild, expect to see much more traffic on US 36 between I-35 and Hannibal.
Totally agreed that US 36 can mostly function as is, with some spot upgrades here and there. The only major one that is badly needed, as I have said in previous posts, is an upgrade of the interchange at I-35 and removal of that stoplight right before it. Agreed also that Missouri had more pressing transportation needs such as improving I-70, finishing I-49, and building the Hannibal bypass for US 61.
Well at least they have I-49 out of the way. Might've taken them two years to finish it, which is funny because Arkansas finished their section a while before Missouri even started, but now they can hopefully prioritize over I-70 and the long-wanted Hannibal Bypass.
A relative of mine had to travel from Indy to a farm near Cameron, Missouri and I suggested they try the US36/I-72 combo.
They ended up going there via I-70 due to a stop they had to make but they *did* do the US-36/I-72 route going back east.
I asked him how it went and he said it was the smoothest drive he had been on. Even though Google wants you to take I-72 up to I-74 at Champaign, then I-74 back down to Indy, he decided to get off at Decatur and take US-36 the rest of the way.
Other than the urban traffic in Decatur, and the lower speed limit east of there being 2 lane, he said it was actually very straight forward.
Could he have made better time? Perhaps.
Decatur is looking at a south bypass for access to their airport which would connect to US-36 and avoid the downtown. (Discussed in a different thread)
I asked him he thought making US-36 in Missouri an interstate would have improved his travel time and he didn't think so.
Everyone was traveling at above interstate speed limits most of the way anyway, so he said the impact would have been negligible.
^ I still do not understand Missouri's reluctance in increasing the speed limit along US-36 from 65 mph to 70 mph for most of the route. It's comparable to other 70 mph routes in the state that are non-limited-access, four lane divided, and would allow it to have the exact same speed limit as I-70, making it a more attractive option.
^ Missouri just doesn't seem to like going to 70 on many expressways. US 60 east of Poplar Bluff certainly ought to be 70 - especially east of Dexter - but is only 65.
I seem to recall reading some of the expressways in Missouri were posted at 70 to avoid having the legislature set the speed limits.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2022, 05:58:02 PM
^ I still do not understand Missouri's reluctance in increasing the speed limit along US-36 from 65 mph to 70 mph for most of the route. It's comparable to other 70 mph routes in the state that are non-limited-access, four lane divided, and would allow it to have the exact same speed limit as I-70, making it a more attractive option.
It might be a matter of what's written into law in Missouri. Speed limits in many states are assigned to different road categories by law. Out here in New Mexico, for example, state law allows for a maximum speed limit of 75 mph on freeways and certain divided highways that meet specified criteria, while the law requires a lower limit for other divided highways that don't qualify for the 75 mph limit; 40 mph on urban arterials; 25 mph in residential zones, and so-on. Thus, the state DOT doesn't have a whole lot of say in posting a higher limit than what's prescribed by law. If they want to post a road at a higher limit, they would need the state legislature to approve a change to the speed law allowing for the higher speed limit on that road.
I don't know a whole lot about Missouri's traffic laws and how they relate to speed limits, but I would wager a guess that allowing a higher speed limit on non-limited access divided highways would require approval from the state legislature, not just the DOT performing engineering studies and changing out speed limit signs.
From what I have seen, several sections of US 36 across Missouri (especially from Macon to Hannibal) hint at a possible expansion of I-72 in the future, but nothing has been announced/confirmed yet. Most of the route that could be extended (sooner than later) is between New Cambria and Hannibal. Of the roughly 157 miles between Hannibal and Cameron (the future western terminus, based on Exit 157 in Hannibal), about 41 miles are actually at Interstate standards, about 26% of the route. However, there are many glaring issues keeping MoDOT from extending 72.
Issues with 36 (as of right now):
(1) There are a metric TON of county roads and/or driveways that connect back to 36. Most of these have long enough driveways to the point where they could be connected back to outer roads at some point, but there are a few houses/businesses, such as the Eagle's Nest Café south of Meadville, that lie right next to the highway. These are all over the highway but are especially bad between Chillicothe and Brookfield. These would either need to be demolished, or (the more likely option) 36 needs to have its original road destroyed and repaved. :meh:
(2) The aforementioned "roller-coaster" highways. When 36 was being constructed to 4-lane divided standards, the original route just had extra lanes added to make it divided. This means the original, non-interstate-standard road still exists in some parts. These would have to be rebuilt.
(3) About 4 miles of 36 between Macon and Clarence need outer shoulder expansion on the westbound side. The shoulder is not wide enough to be at interstate standards.
(4) 36 between Clarence and Monroe City parallels a railroad, which could make construction of required interchanges nearly impossible (assuming MoDOT is unwilling to repave 36 to make room for new interchanges).
Pros of Extending 72 to Cameron:
- Would relieve traffic off of Interstate 70 between Kansas City and Saint Louis. Seriously, this route is usually very busy, and I think that merely signing 36 as Interstate 72 would bring a surprising amount of new traffic to the road.
- As cited by the city of Hannibal, 72 being extended would bring tourism and economic benefits to all major cities on the route (Cameron, Hamilton, Chillicothe, Brookfield, Macon, Shelbina, Monroe City, and obviously, Hannibal).
- The intersections on the route would be destroyed, preventing (or at least decreasing) the number of potential accidents that may occur as a result of 36 being at 65MPH.
- Speaking of speed limits, 36 would see an increase from 65 to 70MPH.
- Potential recognition of the Chicago-Kansas City Expressway, a route that, from what I have seen, goes largely unrecognized (with the exception of road geeks that of course know about it).
Cons of Extending 72 to Cameron:
- This would be a somewhat costly project. Missouri doesn't seem to be able to provide much of a Transportation budget (our roads SUCK :banghead:)
- This would take a lot of land from farmers, who likely won't be happy about not only their loss of land, but loss of direct access to a route that runs directly in front of their house.
- Most people would see this to be useless and a waste of money, considering Missouri has far more important matters to deal with.
I think if Missouri does extend Interstate 72 at some point, it will be slowly, and probably in parts. 72 would probably firstly see expansion to the US 24 exit south of Palmyra. From there, it would likely be slowly expanded toward Shelbina and Macon. From here, it would slowly be expanded west to Cameron over time. As much as myself and (most of) you all would like to see this route, the sad truth is that it is highly unlikely that MoDOT expands it anytime soon. It would take a huge event (such as I-70 being tolled) for them to expand. Although, if they do expand 72, it would be really nice to finally have a direct route from Kansas City to western Illinois. :biggrin:
Maybe Exit 157 should have been numbered Exit 191 (based on the mileage of US 36). That way, Interstate 72 (present and future) could end in Hannibal, Cameron, or St. Joseph. Of course, US 36 would have to be up to freeway (and Interstate) standards before the 72 designation could be extended westward.
It's possible but not likely. Would be cool to see, but I don't think there are any interchanges on 36 between St. Joseph and Cameron, so it would add a significant cost to the upgrade.
My guess is that this won't become MODOT's main focus point until I-57 is completed to AR, in conjunction with that state's completion of its own sections. And even then, given the slow progress on I-57, many of us will not live to see I-72's extension across the state (even if it only reaches Cameron instead of St. Joseph) become a reality.
IMO, Missouri's priority needs to be widening I-70 to 6 lanes between St. Louis and Kansas City.
Quote from: Interstate Carl on March 21, 2023, 04:49:16 PM
(2) The aforementioned "roller-coaster" highways. When 36 was being constructed to 4-lane divided standards, the original route just had extra lanes added to make it divided. This means the original, non-interstate-standard road still exists in some parts. These would have to be rebuilt.
I've been on several interstates where the older side retains a roller-coaster appearance while the newer side is much smoother. I don't see that as an issue.
I agree with the others that I-57 and a six-lane I-70 are both higher priorities for MODOT over a "good enough" US 36 becoming I-72. I'd say improving US 50 and US 63 to four lanes across Missouri would also be higher priorities than a cross-state I-72 at this point. Especially with most of Missouri's northern counties stagnant or shrinking in the last census. (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2022/comm/where-counties-are-growing.pdf)
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2023, 10:00:37 PM
IMO, Missouri's priority needs to be widening I-70 to 6 lanes between St. Louis and Kansas City.
I-44 would like to have a word...
Quote from: MikieTimT on March 22, 2023, 11:00:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2023, 10:00:37 PM
IMO, Missouri's priority needs to be widening I-70 to 6 lanes between St. Louis and Kansas City.
I-44 would like to have a word...
That route too.
Bottom line - I-44 and I-70 widenings are higher priorities, along with completion of I-57 (at least the two lane portion south of Poplar Bluff - the US-60 portion is 4 lanes divided / limited access (with intersections) and is less a priority, but should be complete at some point for basic continuity of the I-57 system)
As far as US-36 / "I-72" , I feel like eliminating all of the traffic signals (if there are any along the route?) and raising the speed limit to 70 mph consistently would be adequate. It would function as an interstate highway with the same speed limit, just with less traffic and intersections. As intersections and access control become problematic, they could be addressed.
But being a high value alternative route to the clogged I-70, bumping the speed limit to match that of I-70 (70 mph), and providing free-flow would make it more attractive, IMO. Honestly, with a 70 mph posted, one could more realistically maintain 5-10 mph over more consistently on US-36 than on I-70 due to the sheer amount of trucks and micropassing.
There is precedent for 70 mph speed limits on four lane divided highways in Missouri... a number of routes already boast this limit. I don't see why it can't be applied to not only US-36, but also US-60, US-67, etc. It would provide equal travel speeds to the interstates, and potentially help divert some traffic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2023, 11:56:42 AM
As far as US-36 / "I-72" , I feel like eliminating all of the traffic signals (if there are any along the route?) ...
AFAIK, the only stoplights between I-35 and I-72 are the ones in Cameron itself.
The only three stoplights between I-35 and Hannibal are the two on the 35 exit, and the one at Bob F. Griffin Road.
I think I posted on this earlier.
I asked my cousin who had to drive back to Indianapolis from western Missouri if he would take US36/I-72 through instead of I-70.
He said the average speed on US36 all the way across was 70+ mph with a few minor slowdowns here and there, but many people were driving faster.
I asked him if there would be any benefit of going to an interstate format and he said "practicially none".
So I posit back to this audience, other than some noted safety and geometry issues in certain places, time to distance does *not* appear to be an issue with US36 across Missouri, even with the posted limits.
Why would MoDOT spend the money?
Quote from: edwaleni on March 22, 2023, 11:12:07 PM
I think I posted on this earlier.
I asked my cousin who had to drive back to Indianapolis from western Missouri if he would take US36/I-72 through instead of I-70.
He said the average speed on US36 all the way across was 70+ mph with a few minor slowdowns here and there, but many people were driving faster.
I asked him if there would be any benefit of going to an interstate format and he said "practicially none".
So I posit back to this audience, other than some noted safety and geometry issues in certain places, time to distance does *not* appear to be an issue with US36 across Missouri, even with the posted limits.
Why would MoDOT spend the money?
I wouldn't mind if it's an interstate but it works fine in its current configuration.
The only thing I wish they would fix, if they had the money, would be the eastbound carriageway at this location (https://goo.gl/maps/5vXdabWeNcJfhWwp6) so that it goes over the railroad. It's more of a pet peeve of mine than anything. It's not needed right away, if ever.
Once again ... not everything needs to be a freeway (interstate) to function as a good through route.
Quote from: edwaleni on March 22, 2023, 11:12:07 PM
So I posit back to this audience, other than some noted safety and geometry issues in certain places, time to distance does *not* appear to be an issue with US36 across Missouri, even with the posted limits.
Why would MoDOT spend the money?
So they can finally take down the CKC signs? :-P
Quote from: kphoger on March 23, 2023, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 22, 2023, 11:12:07 PM
So I posit back to this audience, other than some noted safety and geometry issues in certain places, time to distance does *not* appear to be an issue with US36 across Missouri, even with the posted limits.
Why would MoDOT spend the money?
So they can finally take down the CKC signs? :-P
Probably could. I asked a few truckers about 10-12 years ago if they had a load to take from CHI to KC would they use the CKC?
Definitely not scientific or universal but in my brief survey they all said no.
I asked why, something about "no company service or relief on the route".
I took that to mean if they had a breakdown, a mass tire event, or a driver problem, the route was too far off the beaten path to deal with it promptly.
That may not be the case today.
The MO portion of the CKC route makes sense. The IL route taking IL 110/336 thru Western IL is the head scratcher...I-55/US 66 to I-72/US 36 is the better IL routing, just not the politically saavy one
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 23, 2023, 11:16:50 PM
The MO portion of the CKC route makes sense. The IL route taking IL 110/336 thru Western IL is the head scratcher...I-55/US 66 to I-72/US 36 is the better IL routing, just not the politically saavy one
Exactly. I'd totally take the CKC from here on my way to Chicago–but only as far as Hannibal. From that point, it would be over to Springfield and up through Pontiac. Therefore, to me, the CKC designation is meaningless, because I would think of that route as {I-35 → US-36 → I-55}, not as {CKC → I-72 → I-55}.
[/rant]
CKC is a joke. It's not even the fastest way going west from Chicago as it follows I-88 and not I-80 to get to the I-74/80 interchange SE of the Quad Cities. Appropriately for that part of the country, it's a whole lotta pork.
Quote from: skluth on March 24, 2023, 10:44:12 AM
CKC is a joke. It's not even the fastest way going west from Chicago as it follows I-88 and not I-80 to get to the I-74/80 interchange SE of the Quad Cities. Appropriately for that part of the country, it's a whole lotta pork.
Between downtown Chicago and the I-74/I-80 interchange, I-88 is 163 miles, and I-55 / I-80 is 162 miles. That segment isn't the problem.
Quote from: edwaleni on March 23, 2023, 10:07:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 23, 2023, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 22, 2023, 11:12:07 PM
So I posit back to this audience, other than some noted safety and geometry issues in certain places, time to distance does *not* appear to be an issue with US36 across Missouri, even with the posted limits.
Why would MoDOT spend the money?
So they can finally take down the CKC signs? :-P
Probably could. I asked a few truckers about 10-12 years ago if they had a load to take from CHI to KC would they use the CKC?
Definitely not scientific or universal but in my brief survey they all said no.
I asked why, something about "no company service or relief on the route".
I took that to mean if they had a breakdown, a mass tire event, or a driver problem, the route was too far off the beaten path to deal with it promptly.
That may not be the case today.
From what I remember the last time I was on it there was a new (2017) Love's about halfway across Missouri, there might be more now.
Sprjus is right. The DOC is really the Chicago Quincy .The who Chicago Quincy Peoria issue has been going on since the beginning of the supplemental freeway system . If you want in-depth about it I will post some more in Downstate notes under Great Lakes.
Nearby Missouri is beginning a new study of US 54 . A mix of passing lanes and it shared 4 over the 55 miles .
Let me give you a summary of you dont want to go through the arcane details of downstate Illinois. The CKC is a result of studies on How to get from Chicago to Peoria Quincy . None save miles . The shortest route is 55 72.
But close is not CKC but IL 78 US 34 I mention that because a big stretch could be turned into Missouri shared 4 by repainting lines.It fits 9.28 miles off the 328 VIC
But 72 is shortest. 304.
Shared 4?
MoDOT has recently taken a study to see what a US 61 bypass around Hannibal would look like. While it is still in its early stages of development, feedback was positive, and this might give potential reason to extend 72 west by just a few miles?? A few years back, it was proposed for 72 to be extended to the US 24 exit. Assuming US 61 also gets routed to follow that exit, it could serve as a better end to Interstate 72 (at least for now).
Side note: At the same exit, there is a random Interstate 72 shield, despite the fact that 72 ends 6 miles east of the exit.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6941935,-91.5048873,3a,26.1y,5.1h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKmTR4dvnjvtmzk7pQUXPvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6941935,-91.5048873,3a,26.1y,5.1h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKmTR4dvnjvtmzk7pQUXPvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
(https://dpv85fgkqesen.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/large_horizontal/public/2022-08/Hannibal%20Expressway%20Study%20Area.png.jpg?itok=kcriSxB1)
This image demonstrates what the bypass may look like.
I think the 72 designation should go to the US 24 interchange. Is that 6-mile stretch fully up to Interstate Standards?
Yes I believe it is. The only thing left for MoDOT to do is increase the speed limit in the rural parts to 70MPH, as well as numbering these exits:
- Veterans Road (Exit 154)
- Shinn Lane (Exit 153)
- US 24 (Exit 149, the exit that may hold future 61)
The only other issue I could find was the Bear Creek Bridge, which doesn't have adequate shoulder room. :-/
Quote from: Interstate Carl on March 26, 2023, 03:33:07 PM
The only thing left for MoDOT to do is increase the speed limit in the rural parts to 70MPH
Unless MoDOT increases the speed limit to 70 mph along the entire highway between Hannibal and I-35 (which they should), I don't see them raising for just a few miles on the freeway part only.
Quote
Unless MoDOT increases the speed limit to 70 mph along the entire highway between Hannibal and I-35 (which they should), I don't see them raising for just a few miles on the freeway part only.
It is absolutely a good idea, but MoDOT wouldn't do it for the life of themselves. :banghead:
Shared 4 is a Missouri term for alternating passing lanes.
Quote from: Interstate Carl on March 26, 2023, 04:36:44 PM
Quote
Unless MoDOT increases the speed limit to 70 mph along the entire highway between Hannibal and I-35 (which they should), I don't see them raising for just a few miles on the freeway part only.
It is absolutely a good idea, but MoDOT wouldn't do it for the life of themselves. :banghead:
Too many rural cross roads. People already driving 70+ today with the current posting.
From a planning and liability perspective, I am not surprised they are keeping it down.
Quote from: edwaleni on March 26, 2023, 10:51:27 PM
Too many rural cross roads.
What are the traffic volumes on them? How much conflict exists between US-36 and the side streets?
QuotePeople already driving 70+ today with the current posting.
Raising a speed limit isn't going to cause people to drive 5-10 mph faster. It's been proven time and time again it would bring it more in line with the 85th percentile speeds and at most speeds would go up 1-2 mph on average.
How come the highways to the capital can have a 70 mph limit, but not US-36? Politically motivated much?
Quote
From a planning and liability perspective, I am not surprised they are keeping it down.
A speed study would help determine the best speed for the road. A 70 mph limit would make it a more attractive alternative given it would boast the same speed as I-70.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 24, 2023, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: skluth on March 24, 2023, 10:44:12 AM
CKC is a joke. It's not even the fastest way going west from Chicago as it follows I-88 and not I-80 to get to the I-74/80 interchange SE of the Quad Cities. Appropriately for that part of the country, it's a whole lotta pork.
Between downtown Chicago and the I-74/I-80 interchange, I-88 is 163 miles, and I-55 / I-80 is 162 miles. That segment isn't the problem.
It is when a large portion of the I-88 segment is tolled as opposed to the untolled I-80 segment.
Quote from: Interstate Carl on March 26, 2023, 03:02:07 PM
(https://dpv85fgkqesen.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/large_horizontal/public/2022-08/Hannibal%20Expressway%20Study%20Area.png.jpg?itok=kcriSxB1)
This image demonstrates what the bypass may look like.
Gotta go with that furthest west option. Mostly because there's already a footprint for a full cloverleaf at US 36 and US 24, so that'll be way more economical. In addition to that, it keeps the highway up on the plateau so there's no real terrain to deal with.
Quote from: skluth on March 27, 2023, 11:51:15 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 24, 2023, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: skluth on March 24, 2023, 10:44:12 AM
CKC is a joke. It's not even the fastest way going west from Chicago as it follows I-88 and not I-80 to get to the I-74/80 interchange SE of the Quad Cities. Appropriately for that part of the country, it's a whole lotta pork.
Between downtown Chicago and the I-74/I-80 interchange, I-88 is 163 miles, and I-55 / I-80 is 162 miles. That segment isn't the problem.
It is when a large portion of the I-88 segment is tolled as opposed to the untolled I-80 segment.
But having a toll doesn't make it any slower, as you initially claimed. I-88 may be a useful alternative if I-80 is ever congested.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 27, 2023, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: Interstate Carl on March 26, 2023, 03:02:07 PM
(https://dpv85fgkqesen.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/large_horizontal/public/2022-08/Hannibal%20Expressway%20Study%20Area.png.jpg?itok=kcriSxB1)
This image demonstrates what the bypass may look like.
Gotta go with that furthest west option. Mostly because there's already a footprint for a full cloverleaf at US 36 and US 24, so that'll be way more economical. In addition to that, it keeps the highway up on the plateau so there's no real terrain to deal with.
One of the center routes follows a former Burlington (CB&Q) rail ROW that connected Palmyra and downtown Hannibal.
Quote from: edwaleni on March 27, 2023, 02:42:39 PM
One of the center routes follows a former Burlington (CB&Q) rail ROW that connected Palmyra and downtown Hannibal.
I noticed that. And that would be my second choice if I'm denied my "preferred alternative". It also has the advantage of fewer agricultural impacts than the western alignment I like. Seems like that will be part of the conversation in that area.
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 20, 2015, 06:50:54 AM
Quote from: bugo on January 20, 2015, 02:39:30 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on January 19, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-29, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
One thing that needs to be done regardless is for the highway to be graded properly, especially in Linn County. Linn County widened U.S. 36 before anyplace else in northern Missouri, but all they did was build a new set of lanes alongside the original alignment, so they ended up with the new set of lanes being properly graded and relatively flat while the original alignment followed the lay of the land. The most glaring example of this is between Marceline and the Macon County line, where the westbound lanes are nice and flat, but the eastbound lanes are a roller coaster. There's a similar effect on U.S. 63 in Macon County between Macon and the Randolph County line, though the lay of the land there isn't quite as dissected as it is in eastern Linn County.
Basically, MoDOT needs to eliminate the roller coaster rides on some of their four-lane highways.
That's the classic "Missouri Expressway".
Or Virginia Twinning, as it is also known.
Alabama also did that along US 72 between Scottsboro and Stevenson. And Mississippi did it along US 72 between Corinth and Burnsville.
And along US-49 from Jackson through Hattiesburg, to Gulfport.
Hence the name "Virginia Twinning" - Virginia is notorious for this all across the state, which leads to a lack of high quality expressways in terms of cross section... a lot of 60 mph divided highways do exist crisscrossing the state which is useful - but there is no high standard. Roller coaster rides, no shoulders, blind curves / hills, etc.
Not all are bad though - many are still alright. US-460 between Roanoke and Petersburg, for example, is largely smooth, though a few areas do exist with lots of short hills. The area around Lynchburg gets quite crowded outside the limited access portion, and ought to be fully upgraded some miles both east and west to full freeway and rebuilt geometry.
Newer editions do feature a full rebuild to create a proper cross section with shoulders, higher design speed (in theory - still limited to 60 mph posted by law), gentler corners, etc. See new portions of US-58. Most divided highways were constructed in the 1960s - 1970s though, so the new editions are few and far in between.
I think I'm the originator of that term "Virginia Twinning," back on MTR.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 29, 2023, 12:23:39 PM
I think I'm the originator of that term "Virginia Twinning," back on MTR.
Sounds like something a redneck might be accused of...
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 28, 2023, 08:52:09 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 20, 2015, 06:50:54 AM
Quote from: bugo on January 20, 2015, 02:39:30 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on January 19, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
If they ever upgrade U.S. 36 to I-72 in Missouri, then it needs to end at I-29, not I-35. That way, St. Joseph will be served by two Interstates.
One thing that needs to be done regardless is for the highway to be graded properly, especially in Linn County. Linn County widened U.S. 36 before anyplace else in northern Missouri, but all they did was build a new set of lanes alongside the original alignment, so they ended up with the new set of lanes being properly graded and relatively flat while the original alignment followed the lay of the land. The most glaring example of this is between Marceline and the Macon County line, where the westbound lanes are nice and flat, but the eastbound lanes are a roller coaster. There's a similar effect on U.S. 63 in Macon County between Macon and the Randolph County line, though the lay of the land there isn't quite as dissected as it is in eastern Linn County.
Basically, MoDOT needs to eliminate the roller coaster rides on some of their four-lane highways.
That's the classic "Missouri Expressway".
Or Virginia Twinning, as it is also known.
Alabama also did that along US 72 between Scottsboro and Stevenson. And Mississippi did it along US 72 between Corinth and Burnsville.
And along US-49 from Jackson through Hattiesburg, to Gulfport.
SD has a stretch of I-90 like that between Wall and Cactus Flat. I was hoping they'd do regrades when the time came to repave the road but they opted for the cheapskate option of asphalt paving as-is.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2023, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 27, 2023, 11:51:15 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 24, 2023, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: skluth on March 24, 2023, 10:44:12 AM
CKC is a joke. It's not even the fastest way going west from Chicago as it follows I-88 and not I-80 to get to the I-74/80 interchange SE of the Quad Cities. Appropriately for that part of the country, it's a whole lotta pork.
Between downtown Chicago and the I-74/I-80 interchange, I-88 is 163 miles, and I-55 / I-80 is 162 miles. That segment isn't the problem.
It is when a large portion of the I-88 segment is tolled as opposed to the untolled I-80 segment.
But having a toll doesn't make it any slower, as you initially claimed. I-88 may be a useful alternative if I-80 is ever congested.
Minimally longer is still longer. Add in the toll, especially for those who don't have Illinois-compatible transponders, it takes even more time. Be as pedantic as you want, it doesn't change that CKC is longer.
Quote from: skluth on March 31, 2023, 12:19:37 PM
Minimally longer is still longer.
That's immediately from downtown Chicago. It could easily vary depending on where in the entire metropolitan area you're coming from. For some, I-80 might be 5 or 10 more miles. I-88 can't just be thrown out as any viable west route.
QuoteAdd in the toll, especially for those who don't have Illinois-compatible transponders, it takes even more time.
This would be true for some, yes. Illinois is compatible with E-ZPass, so for local traffic westbound, or anyone east, it wouldn't add anything. It could be problematic for states like Kansas, which is an issue I agree, and more reason E-ZPass needs to become interoperable with the Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas system.
QuoteBe as pedantic as you want, it doesn't change that CKC is longer.
I completely agree for south of the Quad Cities. But the portion between Chicago and the Quad Cities is a 50/50 tossup between I-80 and I-88. They are both perfectly viable routes that provide similar travel times and redundancy to each other. Yes, I-80 may be the preferred simply due to no toll, but once accident, I-88 is the way to go. For someone living closer to the I-88 corridor, I-80 is out of the way. There's no one "best" option overall. Obviously for long-haul traffic, I-80 avoids the city so it's the best route, but for traffic originating in the metropolitan area, you can't just dismiss I-88.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2023, 01:39:03 PM
This would be true for some, yes. Illinois is compatible with E-ZPass, so for local traffic westbound, or anyone east, it wouldn't add anything. It could be problematic for states like Kansas, which is an issue I agree, and more reason E-ZPass needs to become interoperable with the Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas system.
For what it's worth... I live in Kansas and, when I've considered driving to the west suburbs of Chicago, the only two routes I've ever really considered are I-35→US-36→I-55 and I-35→I-80→I-88. With cash tolls going bye-bye in Illinois, I stopped considering the latter. Even with a likely destination in the Glen Ellyn area or the O'Hare area, I would use Route 53 or Route 83 to make my way north from I-55.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2023, 01:46:55 AM
Hence the name "Virginia Twinning" - Virginia is notorious for this all across the state, which leads to a lack of high quality expressways in terms of cross section... a lot of 60 mph divided highways do exist crisscrossing the state which is useful - but there is no high standard. Roller coaster rides, no shoulders, blind curves / hills, etc.
Newer editions do feature a full rebuild to create a proper cross section with shoulders, higher design speed (in theory - still limited to 60 mph posted by law), gentler corners, etc. See new portions of US-58. Most divided highways were constructed in the 1960s - 1970s though, so the new editions are few and far in between.
There is? currently a "twinning" project on US - 58 in western of Virginia, is there not? Did recently view a You Tube video on it, the video portrayed early stages, of clearing and grubbing. Hard to tell if they were going to go with a full 60 foot median and higher standards. Aside from improved horizontal and vertical curvatures. Guessing no access control or interchanges are planned on the stretch, am guessing vehicle counts are too low.
Quote from: DJStephens on April 02, 2023, 10:37:08 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2023, 01:46:55 AM
Hence the name "Virginia Twinning" - Virginia is notorious for this all across the state, which leads to a lack of high quality expressways in terms of cross section... a lot of 60 mph divided highways do exist crisscrossing the state which is useful - but there is no high standard. Roller coaster rides, no shoulders, blind curves / hills, etc.
Newer editions do feature a full rebuild to create a proper cross section with shoulders, higher design speed (in theory - still limited to 60 mph posted by law), gentler corners, etc. See new portions of US-58. Most divided highways were constructed in the 1960s - 1970s though, so the new editions are few and far in between.
There is? currently a "twinning" project on US - 58 in western of Virginia, is there not? Did recently view a You Tube video on it, the video portrayed early stages, of clearing and grubbing. Hard to tell if they were going to go with a full 60 foot median and higher standards. Aside from improved horizontal and vertical curvatures. Guessing no access control or interchanges are planned on the stretch, am guessing vehicle counts are too low.
There is currently a project ongoing to widen 7.4 miles of US-58 over Lovers Leap, yes. It will not be up to full standards, median width will be around 18 ft and will vary between either paved with a barrier, or a raised curb and gutter in some areas. One middle section will feature a "split roadway" where the existing roadway will become one direction, and a new alignment will be the other direction.
Outside shoulder widths will vary from 4 to 8 ft.
The eastern side of the project, outside the mountain, it will be a paved 4 ft median with no barrier... basically no median. Just four lanes divided by a yellow line. I'm not sure why they wouldn't even go with a center turn lane.
Reduced design standards were definitely used on this particular project. Segments of US-58 to the west were widened / relocated around 10 years ago and have a typical section of 8 ft paved outside shoulders, 4 ft paved inside shoulders, and a 40 ft grassy median. They are posted at 60 mph and can easily be traversed at 70 mph. This mountain segment will probably be 45-55 mph and more designed toward its speed.
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/route-58-widening---lovers-leap-in-patrick-county-ppta-project.asp
Good news for this situation:
MoDOT has officially approved a 2.5 million dollar study that would extend I-72 all the way to Saint Joseph. Nothing is confirmed yet (and if you ask me, nothing will probably come of this, at least any time soon), but this is good news for those rooting for 72's extension.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-new-interstate (https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-new-interstate)
Quote from: Interstate Carl on May 27, 2023, 05:11:11 PM
Good news for this situation:
MoDOT has officially approved a 2.5 million dollar study that would extend I-72 all the way to Saint Joseph. Nothing is confirmed yet (and if you ask me, nothing will probably come of this, at least any time soon), but this is good news for those rooting for 72's extension.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-new-interstate (https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-new-interstate)
And everyone always thought that Missouri, if they even did anything, would only extend it to Cameron, due to the Mile 157 marker in Hannibal. Neat to know.
Remember, a study simply collects an overall set of data from point A to point B. Once the data is collected they determine if they should fund any further efforts.
If the data doesn't support any action, then nothing will happen.
I haven't seen any AADT stats for US-36 west of Hannibal. If someone has a link available please post.
I am not aware of any major safety issues either.
Also of note, some studies are politically driven. Recent "action" in SW and SE Missouri maybe prompting politicos in northern Missouri to see if they can get access to the money pie.
Studies as such, even the conclusions maybe somewhat obvious, are ways to tamper the politics in Columbia.
The State Senate President is from Moberly and pretty much said if you want 70 I get 72 based on one of the articles.
Quote from: edwaleni on May 27, 2023, 09:57:57 PMI haven't seen any AADT stats for US-36 west of Hannibal. If someone has a link available please post.
MoDOT has an interactive traffic count map here:
https://www.modot.org/traffic-volume-maps
It shows
one-way AADTs for US 36 generally in the 5000 VPD range in rural areas, varying from about 2500 VPD near Shelbina to over 8000 VPD near Macon. Two-way AADTs are generally double these, meaning that nearly all of the US 36 corridor meets the 10,000 VPD threshold for widening to four-lane divided.
Quote from: edwaleni on May 27, 2023, 09:57:57 PMI am not aware of any major safety issues either.
US 36 runs through rolling topography and was built by adding a new carriageway parallel to the existing two-lane highway without reconstructing the latter. There are therefore numerous intersections with limited sight distance.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 28, 2023, 01:12:25 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on May 27, 2023, 09:57:57 PMI haven't seen any AADT stats for US-36 west of Hannibal. If someone has a link available please post.
MoDOT has an interactive traffic count map here:
https://www.modot.org/traffic-volume-maps
It shows one-way AADTs for US 36 generally in the 5000 VPD range in rural areas, varying from about 2500 VPD near Shelbina to over 8000 VPD near Macon. Two-way AADTs are generally double these, meaning that nearly all of the US 36 corridor meets the 10,000 VPD threshold for widening to four-lane divided.
Quote from: edwaleni on May 27, 2023, 09:57:57 PMI am not aware of any major safety issues either.
US 36 runs through rolling topography and was built by adding a new carriageway parallel to the existing two-lane highway without reconstructing the latter. There are therefore numerous intersections with limited sight distance.
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. As for safety, yes I am aware of the topography and some of the compromising road alignments they accepted, but I was thinking of a website that tracked wrecks, accidents and fatalities so that a per mile or a particular point in US-36 could be identified as a major safety problem. As I follow the Missouri press for highway announcements, I have not read of any articles highlighting it.
There is an article link at the top of the page.
Quote from: Interstate Carl on May 27, 2023, 05:11:11 PM
Good news for this situation:
MoDOT has officially approved a 2.5 million dollar study that would extend I-72 all the way to Saint Joseph. Nothing is confirmed yet (and if you ask me, nothing will probably come of this, at least any time soon), but this is good news for those rooting for 72's extension.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-new-interstate (https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-new-interstate)
I think St. Joseph is the more logical terminus over Cameron, and with most of US 36 being an expressway already, it really shouldn't take too much to make it I-72 either.
Quote from: Interstate Carl on March 21, 2023, 04:49:16 PM
From what I have seen, several sections of US 36 across Missouri (especially from Macon to Hannibal) hint at a possible expansion of I-72 in the future, but nothing has been announced/confirmed yet. Most of the route that could be extended (sooner than later) is between New Cambria and Hannibal.
I think if Missouri does extend Interstate 72 at some point, it will be slowly, and probably in parts.
Maybe first to a Hannibal Bypass (rerouted US 61) and then second further west to US 63 at a new Macon bypass?
Technically, looking at US-36 even farther west, KDOT (Kansas) owns the ROW to facilitate an interstate highway all the way to Hiawatha. It's even 4 lane west of Marysville in west-central Kansas, which make no sense to me.
So it's technically possible in some galaxy far, far away I-72 could reach Kansas. How about that Dorothy?
I've never been to Kansas, let alone along any portion of the US 36 corridor (Estes Park, CO to Uhrichsville, OH). However, I doubt the US 36 corridor between Hiawatha and Wathena needs to be expanded to four lanes, let alone become an Interstate Highway. In fact, I am highly skeptical that Interstate 72 will ever be extended. At least not anytime soon.
While it may be physically possible to upgrade US-36 to Interstate standards (and even label it as I-72) I don't expect such a thing happening any time soon. The divided highway has some stretches of limited access, but still has lots of at-grade intersections. It would cost a heck of a lot to deal with that even without buying extra ROW.
Missouri has some other corridors I suspect would be higher priorities for future upgrades. US-61 going North out of St Louis would be one. US-67 South of St Louis to Poplar Bluff is another. Then there's US-50 from Kansas City to Jefferson City. I don't expect any of those routes to get fully upgraded to Interstate quality. But I think those routes will get more freeway exits over time than US-36.
Quote from: edwaleni on May 30, 2023, 07:47:26 PM
Technically, looking at US-36 even farther west, KDOT (Kansas) owns the ROW to facilitate an interstate highway all the way to Hiawatha. It's even 4 lane west of Marysville in west-central Kansas, which make no sense to me.
So it's technically possible in some galaxy far, far away I-72 could reach Kansas. How about that Dorothy?
What I hope Kansas looks at is building a 4-lane connection heading southwest from Wathena, bypassing Atchison, and more or less following KS4 to Topeka. You would have a true KC and STL bypass with that.
Quote from: edwaleni on May 30, 2023, 07:47:26 PM
So it's technically possible in some galaxy far, far away I-72 could reach Kansas. How about that Dorothy?
Getting US 36 through St. Joseph up to interstate standards would get interesting.
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 31, 2023, 10:32:50 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on May 30, 2023, 07:47:26 PM
So it's technically possible in some galaxy far, far away I-72 could reach Kansas. How about that Dorothy?
Getting US 36 through St. Joseph up to interstate standards would get interesting.
True. Between Southwest Parkway to I-229 is some stuff from the late 50's - early 60's. A lot of those ramps would probably have to be removed or consolidated.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 30, 2023, 11:18:44 PM
While it may be physically possible to upgrade US-36 to Interstate standards (and even label it as I-72) I don't expect such a thing happening any time soon. The divided highway has some stretches of limited access, but still has lots of at-grade intersections. It would cost a heck of a lot to deal with that even without buying extra ROW.
Missouri has some other corridors I suspect would be higher priorities for future upgrades. US-61 going North out of St Louis would be one. US-67 South of St Louis to Poplar Bluff is another. Then there's US-50 from Kansas City to Jefferson City. I don't expect any of those routes to get fully upgraded to Interstate quality. But I think those routes will get more freeway exits over time than US-36.
I agree other Missouri highways need more than US 36 does right now. However, US 67 south between Festus and Poplar Bluff is mostly quite good. About the only real is is the first few miles out of Festus. The I-55/US 67 interchange desperately needs a flyover ramp from NB US 67 to NB I-55 and a grade separated Highway CC like in this diagram (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/I-55_PM%203_Boards%20Final%20Version_Optimized_Page_5.pdf). An interchange or Michigan lefts at Victoria Road may also be needed in the near future. But otherwise, it's a pretty nice drive until almost the Arkansas border.
A six lane I-70 and I-44 should be higher priorities than anything with US 36. Also, US 63 south of Jeff City and all of US 50 should be four lane expressways which was promised back in the 90s. A better rail route between KC and STL should also be a higher priority than upgrading US 36. I-72 across the state is clearly a nice-to-have idea but I don't see the point in anything but incremental improvements.
Quote from: skluth on June 01, 2023, 01:46:31 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 30, 2023, 11:18:44 PM
While it may be physically possible to upgrade US-36 to Interstate standards (and even label it as I-72) I don't expect such a thing happening any time soon. The divided highway has some stretches of limited access, but still has lots of at-grade intersections. It would cost a heck of a lot to deal with that even without buying extra ROW.
Missouri has some other corridors I suspect would be higher priorities for future upgrades. US-61 going North out of St Louis would be one. US-67 South of St Louis to Poplar Bluff is another. Then there's US-50 from Kansas City to Jefferson City. I don't expect any of those routes to get fully upgraded to Interstate quality. But I think those routes will get more freeway exits over time than US-36.
I agree other Missouri highways need more than US 36 does right now. However, US 67 south between Festus and Poplar Bluff is mostly quite good. About the only real is is the first few miles out of Festus. The I-55/US 67 interchange desperately needs a flyover ramp from NB US 67 to NB I-55 and a grade separated Highway CC like in this diagram (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/I-55_PM%203_Boards%20Final%20Version_Optimized_Page_5.pdf). An interchange or Michigan lefts at Victoria Road may also be needed in the near future. But otherwise, it's a pretty nice drive until almost the Arkansas border.
A six lane I-70 and I-44 should be higher priorities than anything with US 36. Also, US 63 south of Jeff City and all of US 50 should be four lane expressways which was promised back in the 90s. A better rail route between KC and STL should also be a higher priority than upgrading US 36. I-72 across the state is clearly a nice-to-have idea but I don't see the point in anything but incremental improvements.
Not to get this thread off the highway, but I agree on I-44. Still way too many legacy US-66 geometry issues in various places. They have done a good job over the years in resolving many of them, but I will save any other feedback for the I-44 thread.
Crossposting from the I-72 thread in fictional, because this is real world:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-could-be-poised-to-gain-another-interstate-highway/article_89373b7a-f987-11ed-985d-6be7252aa846.html
^
Quote from: Interstate Carl on May 27, 2023, 05:11:11 PM
Good news for this situation:
MoDOT has officially approved a 2.5 million dollar study that would extend I-72 all the way to Saint Joseph. Nothing is confirmed yet (and if you ask me, nothing will probably come of this, at least any time soon), but this is good news for those rooting for 72's extension.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-new-interstate (https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-new-interstate)
Quote from: splashflash on May 29, 2023, 09:17:40 PM
Quote from: Interstate Carl on March 21, 2023, 04:49:16 PM
From what I have seen, several sections of US 36 across Missouri (especially from Macon to Hannibal) hint at a possible expansion of I-72 in the future, but nothing has been announced/confirmed yet. Most of the route that could be extended (sooner than later) is between New Cambria and Hannibal.
I think if Missouri does extend Interstate 72 at some point, it will be slowly, and probably in parts.
Maybe first to a Hannibal Bypass (rerouted US 61) and then second further west to US 63 at a new Macon bypass?
I could be wrong, but I don't think they will need to build a new bypass around Macon. Most of the existing roadway (with upgrades to interstate standards) would be fine for I-72. They'd have to figure out what to do in the Cameron area. Maybe a bypass would be needed there, but I guess it's possible they could convert the existing US36 to interstate standards.
If the US 36 corridor is eventually upgraded to Interstate Standards, it will be a drawn-out long-term process. It's not like Interstate 72 will be extended overnight, or even within the next 5-10 years.
Quote from: mvak36 on June 05, 2023, 02:25:08 PM
Quote from: splashflash on May 29, 2023, 09:17:40 PM
Maybe first to a Hannibal Bypass (rerouted US 61) and then second further west to US 63 at a new Macon bypass?
I could be wrong, but I don't think they will need to build a new bypass around Macon. Most of the existing roadway (with upgrades to interstate standards) would be fine for I-72.
The bypass at Macon would be for US 63. US 36 in Macon west of existing US 63 appears to be a full freeway. East of US 63 US 36 goes down to an expressway that has fairly limited access that doesn't look to hard to close or grade separate. US 63 has a long, slow route through Macon that would be very costly to upgrade to connect the expressway segments on either side of Macon.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 05, 2023, 02:59:13 PM
If the US 36 corridor is eventually upgraded to Interstate Standards, it will be a drawn-out long-term process. It's not like Interstate 72 will be extended overnight, or even within the next 5-10 years.
Correct. I-49 took more than a decade to go from planning to construction, and longer still to reach completion. Even if the study comes out next year and says it's a slam-dunk, and even with all the upgrades that have already been done to the highway, I-72 won't be completed until
at least 2040.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 05, 2023, 10:18:49 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on June 05, 2023, 02:25:08 PM
Quote from: splashflash on May 29, 2023, 09:17:40 PM
Maybe first to a Hannibal Bypass (rerouted US 61) and then second further west to US 63 at a new Macon bypass?
I could be wrong, but I don't think they will need to build a new bypass around Macon. Most of the existing roadway (with upgrades to interstate standards) would be fine for I-72.
The bypass at Macon would be for US 63. US 36 in Macon west of existing US 63 appears to be a full freeway. East of US 63 US 36 goes down to an expressway that has fairly limited access that doesn't look to hard to close or grade separate. US 63 has a long, slow route through Macon that would be very costly to upgrade to connect the expressway segments on either side of Macon.
Ah ok. That makes more sense. My mistake. I misunderstood what splashflash was saying. :pan:
I know I've asked the question before about why US-36 is not 70 mph, but I'm now realizing and finding it interesting that US-63 is 70 mph as a four lane divided highway going north south in the area, but this route (US-36) is only 65 mph.
I feel like one of the most logical steps towards promoting the US-36 corridor would be raising the speed limit between I-29 and Hannibal to 70 mph where safe, giving it the same speed limit as the interstate it's providing relief to (I-70).
^ IIRC MoDOT doesn't like posting expressways at 70, with some of the exceptions being due to political pressure.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 06, 2023, 10:04:17 PM
^ IIRC MoDOT doesn't like posting expressways at 70, with some of the exceptions being due to political pressure.
I'm surprised there's not any, especially given US-36 serving as an alternate to I-70. A higher speed limit would make the route more attractive potentially, being able to cruise at 70 mph all the way to I-35 without major costly upgrades.
What is the speed limit on US 36 currently? 65 MPH?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 07, 2023, 10:47:30 AM
What is the speed limit on US 36 currently? 65 MPH?
That's what it looks like in rural areas.
https://goo.gl/maps/ykvQ383yNLBTtbbw7 (https://goo.gl/maps/ykvQ383yNLBTtbbw7)
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 07, 2023, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 07, 2023, 10:47:30 AM
What is the speed limit on US 36 currently? 65 MPH?
That's what it looks like in rural areas.
https://goo.gl/maps/ykvQ383yNLBTtbbw7 (https://goo.gl/maps/ykvQ383yNLBTtbbw7)
Yes, max speed is 65 on US 36 except for right around the I-35 interchange at Cameron, west of I-29 in St. Joseph, and in the Hannibal area.
The reason for the 65 mph could be the farm equipment that still uses US 36 to get back and forth to the fields.
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on June 09, 2023, 02:50:39 PM
The reason for the 65 mph could be the farm equipment that still uses US 36 to get back and forth to the fields.
Does this not happen on US-63, which is also a non-limited-access four lane divided highway?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 09, 2023, 03:33:45 PM
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on June 09, 2023, 02:50:39 PM
The reason for the 65 mph could be the farm equipment that still uses US 36 to get back and forth to the fields.
Does this not happen on US-63, which is also a non-limited-access four lane divided highway?
US 63 goes through Jefferson City which means legislators drive that way to get to the capital. Which recalls this recent post:
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 06, 2023, 10:04:17 PM
^ IIRC MoDOT doesn't like posting expressways at 70, with some of the exceptions being due to political pressure.
^ MO 7 from a little east of I-49 to the far western outskirts of Clinton is also posted at 70.
US 60 east of Poplar Bluff to Sikeston should mostly be 70 as well IMHO (and 75 when finally upgraded to a full freeway).
Quote from: skluth on June 09, 2023, 06:37:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 09, 2023, 03:33:45 PM
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on June 09, 2023, 02:50:39 PM
The reason for the 65 mph could be the farm equipment that still uses US 36 to get back and forth to the fields.
Does this not happen on US-63, which is also a non-limited-access four lane divided highway?
US 63 goes through Jefferson City which means legislators drive that way to get to the capital. Which recalls this recent post:
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 06, 2023, 10:04:17 PM
^ IIRC MoDOT doesn't like posting expressways at 70, with some of the exceptions being due to political pressure.
That's crazy the speed limit is higher, not because of design or functional class (limited access, no access control, divided, undivided, etc.), but solely political. Both routes are more than capable of a 70 mph posted speed limit.
The governor signed the budget today which will pave the way for widening I-70 across the state, but he vetoed the $2.5 million set aside for studying extending I-72 across the state. In addition, he vetoed funding for studying expansion of I-44 and making safety improvements to U.S. 63.
QuoteBut, Parson vetoed $28 million to study a widening of Interstate 44, as well as similar projects seeking to improve traffic flow near Hannibal and on U.S. Route 63 near Cabool. They had been inserted into the spending blueprint to win votes from rural lawmakers who don't represent districts near I-70.
The governor also cut $2.5 million to study the conversion of U.S. Route 36, an east-west route across northern Missouri, to interstate highway status.
While spending down some of the state's more than $6 billion surplus was a priority for lawmakers before normal budgetary pressures begin to return, Parson said some of the legislative earmarks placed in the blueprint should be handled by local governments.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/parson-cuts-more-than-a-half-billion-dollars-from-massive-missouri-state-budget/article_4d28a1d4-1794-11ee-8003-3fa0a44f8907.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
Why? Both are reasonable items to study, at the very least I-44.
How would local governments handle things like studying I-44 and US 36/I-72? Those roads cross the entire state!
I'm surprised at the disparity in cost of the two vetoed studies, $28M for I-44 compared to $2.5M for I-72. It makes me wonder if the I-44 study may not have been vetoed if the cost were closer the $2.5M figure because parts of I-44 seriously need widening. I can see the I-72 study being cancelled as it's more a feel-good study for Northern Missouri; no chance I-72 happens in the next ten years though incremental improvements (like better traffic flow around Cameron) could happen without an I-72 study. I don't know what was vetoed concerning improved traffic flow around Hannibal. If it was just something like improved stop light timing I'd have vetoed it too. Hannibal needs a bypass, at least one connecting US 61 south of town to US 36 west of town; traffic could still use US 36 and US 24 as they currently exist even with the diamond interchange where the two highways meet. It would beat having to go through Hannibal. The slowdown isn't that bad in a car though it seems every time I went through Hannibal since the AotS opened there was another stop light. But all that stopping and starting must suck for truck drivers.
Quote from: skluth on July 01, 2023, 12:07:48 PM
I'm surprised at the disparity in cost of the two vetoed studies, $28M for I-44 compared to $2.5M for I-72. It makes me wonder if the I-44 study may not have been vetoed if the cost were closer the $2.5M figure because parts of I-44 seriously need widening. I can see the I-72 study being cancelled as it's more a feel-good study for Northern Missouri; no chance I-72 happens in the next ten years though incremental improvements (like better traffic flow around Cameron) could happen without an I-72 study. I don't know what was vetoed concerning improved traffic flow around Hannibal. If it was just something like improved stop light timing I'd have vetoed it too. Hannibal needs a bypass, at least one connecting US 61 south of town to US 36 west of town; traffic could still use US 36 and US 24 as they currently exist even with the diamond interchange where the two highways meet. It would beat having to go through Hannibal. The slowdown isn't that bad in a car though it seems every time I went through Hannibal since the AotS opened there was another stop light. But all that stopping and starting must suck for truck drivers.
The Hannibal Bypass study is already underway and active. There are 3 routes they are looking at and somewhere in AARoads, there was a brief discussion on it. I remember posting on it some time ago.
I suspect, but I haven't read it, the scope of the I-44 study was much broader than the I-72 conversion study and may account for the higher cost of it.
Not to get off topic, but I seriously believe I-44 needs a rethink in several places. Legacy geometry, cost cutting decisions in the late 60's/early 70's by simply reusing US-66 ROW in places. Valleys that were difficult (or expensive) to cross so they made massive cliffside cuts to make the bridges smaller. Newer pre-cast bridge tech make bridges much cheaper to build and maintain than the common steel spans of the 60's/70's. I would love to run a computer based analysis on that route and see what it comes up with based on current material costs and labor rates.
Compared to the study costs of the I-81 Viaduct, the cost seems reasonable for I-44, especially given its sections up in Saint Louis.
I don't think it's fair to compare the I-81 project studies to a midwestern state with much lower infrastructure costs than a place like New York. The I-81 study again was a joke. The tunnel option should have been chosen as a long term project with ROW preserved for the portals and such. The elevated rebuild was unlikely given NYDOTs anti freeway stance. So how many millions of dollars did we waste to study a project to get alternatives when we knew all along what they were going to choose anyways? Just gotta go through these motions.
Even if the study was legit which I don't buy, I don't find it comparable to studying rural portions of I-44 in Missouri.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 02, 2023, 02:53:57 AM
I don't think it's fair to compare the I-81 project studies to a midwestern state with much lower infrastructure costs than a place like New York. The I-81 study again was a joke. The tunnel option should have been chosen as a long term project with ROW preserved for the portals and such. The elevated rebuild was unlikely given NYDOTs anti freeway stance. So how many millions of dollars did we waste to study a project to get alternatives when we knew all along what they were going to choose anyways? Just gotta go through these motions.
Even if the study was legit which I don't buy, I don't find it comparable to studying rural portions of I-44 in Missouri.
Your opinion on the tunnel certainly was not supported by not one, but two major studies.
The I-81 studies cost upwards of $60m, due to the public pressure to do the second tunnel study.
$60m for a relatively short piece of infrastructure in a compact urban area verses $29m for a comprehensive study of an Interstate the passes through a diagonal length of Missouri in varied urban and rural settings? Bargain.
I wonder about downstream consequences in terms of support for I-70 improvements from legislators who don't represent districts overlapping that corridor. Why should they vote to expand that highway when the governor is just going to exercise his line-item veto on their own priorities?
Quote from: Rothman on July 02, 2023, 09:04:00 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 02, 2023, 02:53:57 AM
I don't think it's fair to compare the I-81 project studies to a midwestern state with much lower infrastructure costs than a place like New York. The I-81 study again was a joke. The tunnel option should have been chosen as a long term project with ROW preserved for the portals and such. The elevated rebuild was unlikely given NYDOTs anti freeway stance. So how many millions of dollars did we waste to study a project to get alternatives when we knew all along what they were going to choose anyways? Just gotta go through these motions.
Even if the study was legit which I don't buy, I don't find it comparable to studying rural portions of I-44 in Missouri.
Your opinion on the tunnel certainly was not supported by not one, but two major studies.
The I-81 studies cost upwards of $60m, due to the public pressure to do the second tunnel study.
$60m for a relatively short piece of infrastructure in a compact urban area verses $29m for a comprehensive study of an Interstate the passes through a diagonal length of Missouri in varied urban and rural settings? Bargain.
So it seems the tunnel clearly was interested in a tunnel. You also always love to leave out what I've mentioned multiple times is that my tunnel proposal DOES NOT BUILD THE TUNNEL NOW. It leaves ROW for future portals, TBM staging area, and anything else that would come with it like ventilation stacks. In the meantime the surface boulevard is built. The tunnel can come in the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s, just leave the option open for the future. I don't bank on the downfall of towns not ever needing better and bigger infrastructure in the future. I understand there are pressing issues NYDOT needs to focus on other than a tunnel under Syracuse right now.
Also, I'll agree to disagree with comparing a New York City to a rural area in Missouri. But I like to keep an open mind. Why would a study of a rural portion of I-44 in Missouri cost $28 million?
Forget about Interstate 81 in Syracuse, anything about that is for this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18020.1375. Stick to the thread topic which is "Future of I-72 in Missouri?"
Well I-72 in Missouri isn't happening anytime soon so what is there to talk about? Furthermore that project in NY was brought up because someone compared its studies to one in Missouri which genuinely thought they were being sarcastic in the I-70 Missouri thread but I guess not.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 02, 2023, 04:32:06 PM
Forget about Interstate 81 in Syracuse, anything about that is for this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18020.1375. Stick to the thread topic which is "Future of I-72 in Missouri?"
I'd go as far to say we were still on topic since we mentioned how Parson had vetoed the 2.5 million study allocated towards a possible I-72 extension to St. Joseph and at the same time a 28 million dollar study for I-44, details in the thread, not elaborating, and it brought up the topic of absurd study fund allocating, especially for I-81 (which is what you didn't want talked about here) "needing" 60 million for a second tunnel study, and kind've for I-44, but given where it is compared to the much more rural I-72 throughout all of the flattest plains Missouri has to offer, I personally don't think it's as extreme as people market it to be, so I'd say we're doing just fine. :pan:
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 02, 2023, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 02, 2023, 09:04:00 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 02, 2023, 02:53:57 AM
I don't think it's fair to compare the I-81 project studies to a midwestern state with much lower infrastructure costs than a place like New York. The I-81 study again was a joke. The tunnel option should have been chosen as a long term project with ROW preserved for the portals and such. The elevated rebuild was unlikely given NYDOTs anti freeway stance. So how many millions of dollars did we waste to study a project to get alternatives when we knew all along what they were going to choose anyways? Just gotta go through these motions.
Even if the study was legit which I don't buy, I don't find it comparable to studying rural portions of I-44 in Missouri.
Your opinion on the tunnel certainly was not supported by not one, but two major studies.
The I-81 studies cost upwards of $60m, due to the public pressure to do the second tunnel study.
$60m for a relatively short piece of infrastructure in a compact urban area verses $29m for a comprehensive study of an Interstate the passes through a diagonal length of Missouri in varied urban and rural settings? Bargain.
So it seems the tunnel clearly was interested in a tunnel. You also always love to leave out what I've mentioned multiple times is that my tunnel proposal DOES NOT BUILD THE TUNNEL NOW. It leaves ROW for future portals, TBM staging area, and anything else that would come with it like ventilation stacks. In the meantime the surface boulevard is built. The tunnel can come in the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s, just leave the option open for the future. I don't bank on the downfall of towns not ever needing better and bigger infrastructure in the future. I understand there are pressing issues NYDOT needs to focus on other than a tunnel under Syracuse right now.
Also, I'll agree to disagree with comparing a New York City to a rural area in Missouri. But I like to keep an open mind. Why would a study of a rural portion of I-44 in Missouri cost $28 million?
Dear heavens, we're talking the entire length of I-44, which is not all rural, so the comparison is quite apt.
In terms of your unique tunnel proposal, it belongs in Fictional Highways and I'll not address it fully here. Leaving that much ROW available and empty for future portals in the middle of downtown Syracuse? Talk about something that should be considered possibly sarcastic...
I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that. You aren't worth debating on this issue.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 02, 2023, 07:50:02 PM
I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that. You aren't worth debating on this issue.
Yep, putting your own back-of-the-envelope proposal up against the findings of the studies that actually were done based upon all sorts of data...not worth it.
Flounce away, Scarlett O'Hara.
At this point, I'd be shocked if this happened. So much cost to upgrade US 36 into I-72 for little benefit. The Highway isn't even graded properly in some areas. I-57 is needed more right now.
Quote from: I-39 on July 16, 2023, 09:44:00 AM
At this point, I'd be shocked if this happened. So much cost to upgrade US 36 into I-72 for little benefit. The Highway isn't even graded properly in some areas. I-57 is needed more right now.
IDOT would love it. I-72 from Springfield to Hannibal fails the benchmarks for interstate highway justifications.
It would provide cover for their error of not keeping it as US-36.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 16, 2023, 09:43:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 16, 2023, 09:44:00 AM
At this point, I'd be shocked if this happened. So much cost to upgrade US 36 into I-72 for little benefit. The Highway isn't even graded properly in some areas. I-57 is needed more right now.
IDOT would love it. I-72 from Springfield to Hannibal fails the benchmarks for interstate highway justifications.
It would provide cover for their error of not keeping it as US-36.
I'm not sure IDOT really cares that much... as far as they're aware, I-72 spans the state and does its job. What Missouri does is up to Missouri.
IDOT used to care before it was 4 lane . I heard them complain because Missouri like Iowa would ask us for 4 lane connections. Now I dont think they do. It does meet current Interstate regulations the metro area stuff was dropped.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 16, 2023, 09:43:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 16, 2023, 09:44:00 AM
At this point, I'd be shocked if this happened. So much cost to upgrade US 36 into I-72 for little benefit. The Highway isn't even graded properly in some areas. I-57 is needed more right now.
IDOT would love it. I-72 from Springfield to Hannibal fails the benchmarks for interstate highway justifications.
It would provide cover for their error of not keeping it as US-36.
What benchmarks are you talking about?
If traffic on US-36 doubled, the justification for a rebuild to full Interstate standard freeway would start making sense. But it's just not that busy of a road yet.
Completion of 4-laning of US-50 would be a better place to put funding for I-70 construction traffic relief.
They would get a lot more traffic if they raised the speed limit on most of it to 70ph as that would cause a lot of the navigation apps to then recommend it to drivers as the shortest route. It's virtually empty across, plus I saw no cops unlike 70 which has two bears in the median with radar watching both directions every 10 miles across the state. Even if it took longer it's a lot more relaxing not having that traffic around.
Ideally with money it would be I-72 all the way from Hannibal to St. Joseph continuing up to run concurrent with Nebraska 2 all the way from I 29 to Lincoln where it could merge with I-80. Then a Danville IL to Lafayette IN new freeway to connect to the Hoosier Heartland extending I-72 all the way up to Toledo. Could be a great way for cross country traffic to avoid the bottleneck at the bottom of Lake Michigan.
Quote from: captkirk_4 on July 21, 2023, 03:25:06 PM
They would get a lot more traffic if they raised the speed limit on most of it to 70ph as that would cause a lot of the navigation apps to then recommend it to drivers as the shortest route. It's virtually empty across, plus I saw no cops unlike 70 which has two bears in the median with radar watching both directions every 10 miles across the state. Even if it took longer it's a lot more relaxing not having that traffic around.
I agree, and I understand in a lot of states where state laws do not permit. But Missouri has countless examples of 70 mph on non-limited-access divided highways, including US-63 which intersects US-36. US-63 is 70 mph while US-36 is still only 65 mph.
If they wanted to get more traffic re-routing from I-70, then they need to make the speed limit equivalent so that it is competitive and can offer the same speeds.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2023, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on July 21, 2023, 03:25:06 PM
They would get a lot more traffic if they raised the speed limit on most of it to 70ph as that would cause a lot of the navigation apps to then recommend it to drivers as the shortest route. It's virtually empty across, plus I saw no cops unlike 70 which has two bears in the median with radar watching both directions every 10 miles across the state. Even if it took longer it's a lot more relaxing not having that traffic around.
I agree, and I understand in a lot of states where state laws do not permit. But Missouri has countless examples of 70 mph on non-limited-access divided highways, including US-63 which intersects US-36. US-63 is 70 mph while US-36 is still only 65 mph.
If they wanted to get more traffic re-routing from I-70, then they need to make the speed limit equivalent so that it is competitive and can offer the same speeds.
As I posted earlier, my cousin recently traversed the entire US-36 route across Missouri and the average speed was 70+. Typically 75, and a minority near 80.
So I don't think its the lack of a I number that is limiting the speeds.
As for extending it east, it most definitely ends at downtown Champaign, Illinois, so I don't think doing overlay gymnastics will help. But your idea of a better connection to US-24 (Heartland) to reach Toledo via Fort Wayne might have some merit.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2023, 04:00:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2023, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on July 21, 2023, 03:25:06 PM
They would get a lot more traffic if they raised the speed limit on most of it to 70ph as that would cause a lot of the navigation apps to then recommend it to drivers as the shortest route. It's virtually empty across, plus I saw no cops unlike 70 which has two bears in the median with radar watching both directions every 10 miles across the state. Even if it took longer it's a lot more relaxing not having that traffic around.
I agree, and I understand in a lot of states where state laws do not permit. But Missouri has countless examples of 70 mph on non-limited-access divided highways, including US-63 which intersects US-36. US-63 is 70 mph while US-36 is still only 65 mph.
If they wanted to get more traffic re-routing from I-70, then they need to make the speed limit equivalent so that it is competitive and can offer the same speeds.
As I posted earlier, my cousin recently traversed the entire US-36 route across Missouri and the average speed was 70+. Typically 75, and a minority near 80.
So I don't think its the lack of a I number that is limiting the speeds.
As for extending it east, it most definitely ends at downtown Champaign, Illinois, so I don't think doing overlay gymnastics will help. But your idea of a better connection to US-24 (Heartland) to reach Toledo via Fort Wayne might have some merit.
But the problem is a lot of people don't know about this route and the only way they will find out is if they type their destination on their phone and their maps app suggests this as the fastest route which the software computes by assuming you drive the speed limit. Trucking companies too set the computer on the truck with a speed limit according to the route. For instance when driving from Fort Wayne to Champaign my phone suggested driving all the way down to Indianapolis on 69 then over on 74 instead of using the four lane US24 Hoosier Heartland direct to Lafayette which has little traffic. It of course sets a silly 60 speed limit for that empty stretch which no one drives. But my phone's software would have me go through that crazy rush hour traffic on I-465 in Indianapolis as opposed to taking a known four lane state route with lower speed limits and much shorter mileage.
Quote from: captkirk_4 on July 24, 2023, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2023, 04:00:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2023, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on July 21, 2023, 03:25:06 PM
They would get a lot more traffic if they raised the speed limit on most of it to 70ph as that would cause a lot of the navigation apps to then recommend it to drivers as the shortest route. It's virtually empty across, plus I saw no cops unlike 70 which has two bears in the median with radar watching both directions every 10 miles across the state. Even if it took longer it's a lot more relaxing not having that traffic around.
I agree, and I understand in a lot of states where state laws do not permit. But Missouri has countless examples of 70 mph on non-limited-access divided highways, including US-63 which intersects US-36. US-63 is 70 mph while US-36 is still only 65 mph.
If they wanted to get more traffic re-routing from I-70, then they need to make the speed limit equivalent so that it is competitive and can offer the same speeds.
As I posted earlier, my cousin recently traversed the entire US-36 route across Missouri and the average speed was 70+. Typically 75, and a minority near 80.
So I don't think its the lack of a I number that is limiting the speeds.
As for extending it east, it most definitely ends at downtown Champaign, Illinois, so I don't think doing overlay gymnastics will help. But your idea of a better connection to US-24 (Heartland) to reach Toledo via Fort Wayne might have some merit.
But the problem is a lot of people don't know about this route and the only way they will find out is if they type their destination on their phone and their maps app suggests this as the fastest route which the software computes by assuming you drive the speed limit. Trucking companies too set the computer on the truck with a speed limit according to the route. For instance when driving from Fort Wayne to Champaign my phone suggested driving all the way down to Indianapolis on 69 then over on 74 instead of using the four lane US24 Hoosier Heartland direct to Lafayette which has little traffic. It of course sets a silly 60 speed limit for that empty stretch which no one drives. But my phone's software would have me go through that crazy rush hour traffic on I-465 in Indianapolis as opposed to taking a known four lane state route with lower speed limits and much shorter mileage.
It would have to be fleshed out in fictional, but a simple north bypass of Lafayette to reach the IN-63/US-41 split would probably complete the route.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 24, 2023, 09:55:36 PM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on July 24, 2023, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2023, 04:00:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2023, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: captkirk_4 on July 21, 2023, 03:25:06 PM
They would get a lot more traffic if they raised the speed limit on most of it to 70ph as that would cause a lot of the navigation apps to then recommend it to drivers as the shortest route. It's virtually empty across, plus I saw no cops unlike 70 which has two bears in the median with radar watching both directions every 10 miles across the state. Even if it took longer it's a lot more relaxing not having that traffic around.
I agree, and I understand in a lot of states where state laws do not permit. But Missouri has countless examples of 70 mph on non-limited-access divided highways, including US-63 which intersects US-36. US-63 is 70 mph while US-36 is still only 65 mph.
If they wanted to get more traffic re-routing from I-70, then they need to make the speed limit equivalent so that it is competitive and can offer the same speeds.
As I posted earlier, my cousin recently traversed the entire US-36 route across Missouri and the average speed was 70+. Typically 75, and a minority near 80.
So I don't think its the lack of a I number that is limiting the speeds.
As for extending it east, it most definitely ends at downtown Champaign, Illinois, so I don't think doing overlay gymnastics will help. But your idea of a better connection to US-24 (Heartland) to reach Toledo via Fort Wayne might have some merit.
But the problem is a lot of people don't know about this route and the only way they will find out is if they type their destination on their phone and their maps app suggests this as the fastest route which the software computes by assuming you drive the speed limit. Trucking companies too set the computer on the truck with a speed limit according to the route. For instance when driving from Fort Wayne to Champaign my phone suggested driving all the way down to Indianapolis on 69 then over on 74 instead of using the four lane US24 Hoosier Heartland direct to Lafayette which has little traffic. It of course sets a silly 60 speed limit for that empty stretch which no one drives. But my phone's software would have me go through that crazy rush hour traffic on I-465 in Indianapolis as opposed to taking a known four lane state route with lower speed limits and much shorter mileage.
It would have to be fleshed out in fictional, but a simple north bypass of Lafayette to reach the IN-63/US-41 split would probably complete the route.
I've driven that route from Toledo to Champaign a few times, and yes, the problem is the connection from the Heartland Corridor/Ind 25 to I-74. The traffic in Lafayette is surprisingly heavy, and there is no easy, direct route to I-74. It adds considerably more time than it would appear on a map. I probably wouldn't drive south to Indianapolis, but for big rigs or people unfamiliar with Lafayette, that route might end up being as fast or faster. US 24/Ind 25, the Heartland Corridor, also has quite a few traffic lights and stops along the way, which thankfully keeps most of the through-truck traffic away. Also, I frequently cannot get a Verizon signal along the upper Wabash Valley, I'm not sure why.
I do agree, though, that an I-72 extension from Champaign, through/around Lafayette and upgrading the Heartland Corridor would be beneficial to regional and national traffic.
A topic in Fictional has been added to discuss the "I-72 East to Indiana" subject more in depth.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33560.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33560.0)
They probably only extended Interstate 72 a short distance into Missouri to eliminate Interstate 72 ending at Interstate 172's southern terminus, as it did originally.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 25, 2023, 01:55:09 PM
They probably only extended Interstate 72 a short distance into Missouri to eliminate Interstate 72 ending at Interstate 172's southern terminus, as it did originally.
With all the crap that Arkansas went through back in the 90's attempting to designate I-49 and had to settle for another I-540 segment leading to the exit number/mile marker cluster that it has in the northern half of the state, I'm surprised AASHTO even allowed the designation of I-72 anywhere west of Springfield as it doesn't terminate at another Interstate connected to the system. In keeping with their typical policy, all should have been I-172 from Springfield to Hickory Grove until there was actual forward movement in Missouri to connect to at least Cameron.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 16, 2023, 09:43:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 16, 2023, 09:44:00 AM
At this point, I'd be shocked if this happened. So much cost to upgrade US 36 into I-72 for little benefit. The Highway isn't even graded properly in some areas. I-57 is needed more right now.
IDOT would love it. I-72 from Springfield to Hannibal fails the benchmarks for interstate highway justifications. It would provide cover for their error of not keeping it as US-36.
Believe I-72 in west central Illnois was a "bone" thrown to "Forgottonia" lawmakers. Believe it does meet standards, in terms of geometrics, shoulder width, etc. There is a section, where the median narrows and there is jersey barrier in the median out in the middle of nowhere. Likely where it was routed through someones' farm. Anyone know the backstory on that?
The Interstate 172 designation was originally approved for the US 36 corridor between Exit 4 and Exit 97AB in 1991. It was later approved as an extension of Interstate 72 in 1995, and the 172 designation was approved for its present location. The new Mark Twain Memorial Bridge opened on September 16, 2000, completing 72 to its current western terminus at US 61.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 26, 2023, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 16, 2023, 09:43:45 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 16, 2023, 09:44:00 AM
At this point, I'd be shocked if this happened. So much cost to upgrade US 36 into I-72 for little benefit. The Highway isn't even graded properly in some areas. I-57 is needed more right now.
IDOT would love it. I-72 from Springfield to Hannibal fails the benchmarks for interstate highway justifications. It would provide cover for their error of not keeping it as US-36.
Believe I-72 in west central Illnois was a "bone" thrown to "Forgottonia" lawmakers. Believe it does meet standards, in terms of geometrics, shoulder width, etc. There is a section, where the median narrows and there is jersey barrier in the median out in the middle of nowhere. Likely where it was routed through someones' farm. Anyone know the backstory on that?
I would surmise this is a crossover point in case one of the Illinois River bridges goes out of service. They are not co-joined at the river but two distinct bridge spans. The jersey barriers are not permanently installed but actually anchored with water barrels at each end. The medians on the east side of the river are also non standard west of IL-100, but not co-joined like the west side is.
let's be honest, this will likely never be built in Missouri and its use in Missouri is dubious at best.
I don't expect the US 36 corridor to be upgraded into an extension of Interstate 72 anytime soon. However, if the DOT and state politicians want the upgrade badly enough, I'm sure they will try to find a way to make it happen.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 27, 2023, 05:14:55 PM
I don't expect the US 36 corridor to be upgraded into an extension of Interstate 72 anytime soon. However, if the DOT and state politicians want the upgrade badly enough, I'm sure they will try to find a way to make it happen.
There's political interest in the project and enough political will to get it passed in the legislature, but the governor has a line-item veto and struck the funds to do a study, along with funds to study widening I-44.
Quote from: MikieTimT on July 26, 2023, 07:58:48 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 25, 2023, 01:55:09 PM
They probably only extended Interstate 72 a short distance into Missouri to eliminate Interstate 72 ending at Interstate 172's southern terminus, as it did originally.
With all the crap that Arkansas went through back in the 90's attempting to designate I-49 and had to settle for another I-540 segment leading to the exit number/mile marker cluster that it has in the northern half of the state, I'm surprised AASHTO even allowed the designation of I-72 anywhere west of Springfield as it doesn't terminate at another Interstate connected to the system. In keeping with their typical policy, all should have been I-172 from Springfield to Hickory Grove until there was actual forward movement in Missouri to connect to at least Cameron.
What policy is that? The only 3-digit interstate that is essentially an extension of its parent is I-345, and that really should have just been I-45
all the way to the Oklahoma state line to begin with.
I-72 is just fine the way it is.
Also still waiting to hear about the supposed "benchmarks for Interstate highway justifications".....
Heh. It's not AASHTO's policy, but FHWA's policy regarding having Interstate designations have at least one end terminating at another Interstate, in the name of it preserving the system part of the Interstate Highway System (therefore, I-72 is quite compliant). This has been an issue with the NY 17/I-86 conversion.
My perception is that the policy is inconsistently enforced from one FHWA division to another.
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 27, 2023, 08:47:37 PM
What policy is that? The only 3-digit interstate that is essentially an extension of its parent is I-345, and that really should have just been I-45 all the way to the Oklahoma state line to begin with.
I-345 isn't a good comparison as it is a number change on a straight through movement in an interchange. I-72 east of Springfield and the freeway west of Springfield require using about 5 miles of I-55 for the connection. So if I-172 was used for the route towards Hannibal, it would either need to be disconnected from I-72 or either I-172 or I-72 would need to have an overlap along I-55 for the connection.
If the freeway leading west from Springfield was to be a 3di, it should have been an odd I-x55. Not that I have an issue with the use of I-72 for it.
Study is a bit dated. but it was the best I could find. Truck percentage is 22.4%
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53076381731_5d3599f850_c.jpg)
Here is the original AASHTO report on US-36 in 1991.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53076598284_b3e81fc263_c.jpg)
Here are the revisions made in 1996 by AASHTO
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53076811725_d5d48cf037_c.jpg)
CHILLICOTHE SENATOR SKEPTICAL ABOUT POSSIBLY CONVERTING U.S. HIGHWAY 36 INTO INTERSTATE 72
https://www.missourinet.com/2023/06/08/chillicothe-senator-skeptical-about-possibly-converting-u-s-highway-36-into-interstate-72/ (https://www.missourinet.com/2023/06/08/chillicothe-senator-skeptical-about-possibly-converting-u-s-highway-36-into-interstate-72/)
by Anthony Morabith | Jun 8, 2023 | Legislature, News, Politics / Govt, Transportation
(https://i0.wp.com/cdn.missourinet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Rep.-Rusty-Black-February-2018-e1686176875284.jpg?resize=800%2C450&ssl=1)
A budget item that awaits a decision from Gov. Mike Parson focuses on highway infrastructure. If approved, a $2.5 million engineering study would determine the worth of turning U.S. Highway 36 into Interstate 72 in Missouri.
Sen. Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, said that he supports the study.
"There are people on both sides of that issue that I represent that nothing would make them happier for transportation, for they believe bringing people to our area, for tourism, etc. than having Interstate 72 go completely across the northern part of our state," he said.
However, Black is concerned for the farmers in his district who cross the highway to transport their farm equipment from one field to another.
"There are other people that move agricultural products, equipment, etc. through this monstrous corn/soybean belt up here that are going to be upset if the limited access makes it very, very difficult for them to perform their daily operation of farming/producing the food that has produced in our area." he explained.
The upside to converting into an interstate is that it could relieve traffic on I-70 when it's being widened. If Missouri gets to a point where it does decide to convert the highway, he speculates it will be more than a decade down the road.
"Looking at things today, not being able to see what's in the future, my guess is, priority wise, with the amount of commerce that goes across I-70, it's going to be first," according to Sen. Black. "Some people putting numbers in front of me (say) that there's more commerce travel on I-44 than there is I-70. My guess is I-44 would be next."
U.S. Highway 36 runs from St. Joseph to Hannibal, where Interstate 72 dead ends.
Quincy Herald-Whig in 2017.
https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html (https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html)
The Missouri Department of Transportation's request that interstate status along I-72/U.S. 36 be extended from Hannibal to the junction with U.S. 24 has been denied -- for now.
The Federal Highway Administration recently cited rules that would prevent it from terminating an interstate highway at the junction most people identify with the Rocket truck stop. Interstates almost always hook up with other interstates, and U.S. 24 doesn't qualify.
There's a little irony in that decision, because I-72 crosses the I-72 Mark Twain Bridge at Hannibal and then connects with U.S. 61, which is not an interstate.
However, U.S. 61 was the best alternative available when the Mark Twain Bridge opened in September 2000.
I-72 crosses Illinois and was completed in 1991. However, there was no hope at that time of considering the old Mark Twain Memorial Bridge an interstate structure. The 1936-era bridge only had two narrow lanes.
But by the time the new bridge was completed, Hannibal had a new entryway that was designed to meet interstate standards. It had no at-grade crossings, wide lanes, medians and shoulders, was designed for higher speeds and had sloping pavement to shed rain water.
With a new bridge that met interstate standards, the Federal Highway Administration agreed to allow I-72 designation to U.S. 61, about 1.75 miles west of the bridge.
Last September, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission formally requested -- on behalf of the Hannibal community -- that I-72 be extended another 6 miles west to the U.S. 24 junction. Hannibal businessman Tom Boland, a former chairman of the commission, said the interstate designation would help highlight the highway's general design and could prove helpful for the city's economic development efforts.
Thomas A. Oakley of the Tri-State Development Summit's steering committee showed aerial photos of the highway to the commission as it met in Hannibal on Sept. 1.
"There is substantial vacant ground on both sides of the highway for restaurants, additional motels, retail, manufacturing, distribution, hospital and clinic expansion, as well as the newly approved certified industrial park," Oakley said.
Kevin James, assistant district engineer for the MoDOT's Northeast District, said the denial letter was fairly short. It didn't help that there are no long-range plans for upgrading U.S. 36 from expressway standards to interstate standards.
It would be costly to create overpasses and interchanges at numerous crossroads along U.S. 36. Many of the smaller bridges don't have shoulders, and a few other design features would have to be addressed.
There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said.
When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.
It would have been nice if the study for the Hannibal bypass would have been approved but that was also vetoed by the governor.
https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/rpt/HB19vl.pdf
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
Quincy Herald-Whig in 2017.
https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html (https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html)
The Missouri Department of Transportation's request that interstate status along I-72/U.S. 36 be extended from Hannibal to the junction with U.S. 24 has been denied -- for now.
The Federal Highway Administration recently cited rules that would prevent it from terminating an interstate highway at the junction most people identify with the Rocket truck stop. Interstates almost always hook up with other interstates, and U.S. 24 doesn't qualify.
This does not make any logical sense. The FHWA allows interstate highways to connect with logical termini, and US-24, being a US highway, is a logical terminus. I-72 does connect with an interstate highway in the eastern half, both with I-55 and I-57.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2023, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
Quincy Herald-Whig in 2017.
https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html (https://www.whig.com/archive/article/i-72-expansion-near-hannibal-on-hold-for-now/article_fdd17617-ac65-5b75-ac6f-fece25542660.html)
The Missouri Department of Transportation's request that interstate status along I-72/U.S. 36 be extended from Hannibal to the junction with U.S. 24 has been denied -- for now.
The Federal Highway Administration recently cited rules that would prevent it from terminating an interstate highway at the junction most people identify with the Rocket truck stop. Interstates almost always hook up with other interstates, and U.S. 24 doesn't qualify.
This does not make any logical sense. The FHWA allows interstate highways to connect with logical termini, and US-24, being a US highway, is a logical terminus. I-72 does connect with an interstate highway in the eastern half, both with I-55 and I-57.
My main argument would be, "What's the more logical terminus, US 61 or US 24?" Thinking about it, would it really make sense to slap shields and exit numbers for 6 miles to an exit out in the middle of nowhere, or would it make more sense to not do all of that and instead end it inside of a town? I-72 connects with I-55 and I-57 in the east, but it connects nowhere in the west, which was why I-35 was the plan from the start, but they're not getting there anytime soon, so might as well pick the best spot. And besides, US 61 bisects the interstate, while US 24 serves its purpose by joining the expressway westward and splitting eastward compass North. US 61 is also a major thoroughfare for cities like the Quad Cities, St. Louis, and it carries the Avenue of the Saints, which channels drivers to St. Paul, and it carries a lot of truck traffic. US 24 arguably doesn't do a lot in that department. It goes to Quincy, and so does I-172. Now if the Hannibal Bypass was finished, then yes, end I-72 over at the bypass. That's where the traffic flow is.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said. When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.
The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor. Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal. Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated. Now is that correct? Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade. Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said. When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.
The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor. Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal. Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated. Now is that correct? Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade. Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?
I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.
Quote from: mvak36 on July 28, 2023, 10:43:13 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said. When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.
The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor. Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal. Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated. Now is that correct? Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade. Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?
I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.
I think they were talking about the number of traffic lights on the entire Avenue of the Saints. If there are two, I can't find them in Missouri or Iowa where parts of the route are non-interstate.
I don't think these decisions are being driven by anyone in the Beltway, but strictly from the state house in Jeff City.
I feel like the need to improve I-70 is probably sucking the wind out of some other projects. It's a big deal financially for Missouri.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said. When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.
The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor. Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal. Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated. Now is that correct? Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade. Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?
Only one I can even think of is the overhead lights at the B/E intersection with US 61 north of Troy. I'm not even sure if that counts.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 12:03:12 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on July 28, 2023, 10:43:13 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said. When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.
The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor. Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal. Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated. Now is that correct? Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade. Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?
I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.
I think they were talking about the number of traffic lights on the entire Avenue of the Saints. If there are two, I can't find them in Missouri or Iowa where parts of the route are non-interstate.
The two are north of US 20 in Cedar Falls.
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 28, 2023, 07:27:23 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 12:03:12 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on July 28, 2023, 10:43:13 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said. When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.
The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor. Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal. Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated. Now is that correct? Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade. Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?
I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.
I think they were talking about the number of traffic lights on the entire Avenue of the Saints. If there are two, I can't find them in Missouri or Iowa where parts of the route are non-interstate.
The two are north of US 20 in Cedar Falls.
Thanks, Viking Road and Greenhill Road in Cedar Falls.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 12:03:12 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on July 28, 2023, 10:43:13 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 28, 2023, 01:40:33 AM
There is some hope that the interstate designation might be granted to (US 36), W to the U.S. 24 junction if the Hannibal Expressway route gets completed from the Rocket to a junction with U.S. 61 to the south of Hannibal. A 2007 study on the expressway estimated costs of the project at $38 million.
The Hannibal Expressway is seen as a safety issue. Hundreds of heavy trucks pass along the Avenue of the Saints, and Hannibal has seven sets of traffic signals. There are only two other traffic signals along the entire 580-mile length of the highway that links St. Louis to St. Paul, Minn.
"A lot of our stakeholders want the interstate status," James said. When other road improvements occur, the six-mile expansion of I-72 might win federal approval.
The rejection of the application might tie into current political climates, the absurdity of it all, and the current transportation secretary, the former South Bend mayor. Am guessing the "Hannibal Expressway" refers to the proposed US 61 bypass of Hannibal. Only nine traffic lights on the entire "Avenue of the Saints" the article stated. Now is that correct? Was under impression that while large parts of AotS are four laned, not a great deal is Interstate grade. Any truth to that statement, about the two signals outside of Hannibal?
I remember the 2 in Cameron (at the I-35 interchange and the intersection just to the east of it). I haven't been on the road in about 6 years though so I can't remember if there were any more.
I think they were talking about the number of traffic lights on the entire Avenue of the Saints. If there are two, I can't find them in Missouri or Iowa where parts of the route are non-interstate.
I don't think these decisions are being driven by anyone in the Beltway, but strictly from the state house in Jeff City.
I feel like the need to improve I-70 is probably sucking the wind out of some other projects. It's a big deal financially for Missouri.
That is my bad. I had a total brain fart on that one. :pan: