Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChiMilNet]

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.

[hbelkins]

No reason whatsoever to upgrade US 36 west of Hannibal to a full freeway. It functions fine as it is.

[I-39]

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.

[ChiMilNet]

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.

[I-39]

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.

[DJStephens]

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.   

[rte66man]

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:

2016-05-29_20-51-07 by rte66man, on Flickr

It looks as as If MO is already doing this.

[CobaltYoshi27]

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:

2016-05-29_20-51-07 by 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.

[Gnutella]

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:

2016-05-29_20-51-07 by 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!

[Revive 755]

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

[NE2]

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

"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

[dvferyance]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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)? 

[Brandon]

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.

[Rothman]

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

"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.

[abqtraveler]

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

"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).

[mvak36]

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?

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe you should ask Missouri's DOT that question.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[mvak36]

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.

[sparker]

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.

[NE2]

unfortunately, US 24 between US 36 and US 61 is not on the NHS network

It is now, since it's a principal arterial.

[sparker]

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. 

[Revive 755]

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 then; if a route is not some form of NHS route, it is not shown at all.