News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Chicago-Kansas City Expressway

Started by MantyMadTown, April 26, 2018, 01:12:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

hbelkins

Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 12:38:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2018, 12:23:10 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 30, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
I am afraid I-70 has become the project that is "too big to start."

I think they could do it piecemeal and widen certain sections here and there like other states do with their interstates. I don't know why they want to do the whole thing at once.

Kentucky has done the same thing with I-65 and is taking this approach to I-75 as well.

You meant that they did it piecemeal right?

Yes, in small segments. The final segment of I-65 is supposed to open up later this year.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.


mvak36

Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2018, 02:19:06 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 12:38:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2018, 12:23:10 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 30, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
I am afraid I-70 has become the project that is "too big to start."

I think they could do it piecemeal and widen certain sections here and there like other states do with their interstates. I don't know why they want to do the whole thing at once.

Kentucky has done the same thing with I-65 and is taking this approach to I-75 as well.

You meant that they did it piecemeal right?

Yes, in small segments. The final segment of I-65 is supposed to open up later this year.

Sorry to get off-topic from the thread, but are they planning on widening I-75 statewide too? How far have they gotten so far?
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

J N Winkler

Nebraska also widened I-80 between Omaha and Lincoln in a series of relatively small contracts that took about 12 years total to finish.  In Missouri's case part of the problem is that I-70 was built too cheaply, with a median right at the 40 ft minimum and outer roads too close to the carriageways.  I-70 is also already very congested even in rural areas because the widening has been deferred too long.  These factors make it difficult to stage construction in such a way that current capacity is maintained while a new facility is built with a much wider median and more lateral clearance to outer roads.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

bugo

Missouri doesn't give a fuck about I-57. It isn't on their priority list, and isn't nearly as important to them as several other roads. I doubt it will be connected in any of our lifetimes. That's why they should have called it I-30.

skluth

Quote from: bugo on April 30, 2018, 04:09:35 PM
Missouri doesn't give a fuck about I-57. It isn't on their priority list, and isn't nearly as important to them as several other roads. I doubt it will be connected in any of our lifetimes. That's why they should have called it I-30.

I agree. Missouri might four-lane US 67 to the Arkansas state line if Arkansas ever four-lanes US 67 north of Pocahontas. That's might. But as screwed up as this state is right now financially, I wouldn't count on it even then.

bugo

The best that we can hope for is an upgraded US 67 4 lane expressway on the current alignment. They have no desire or will or funds to build a freeway on a new location. I-57 will have a gap in it for many decades.

Revive 755

Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 09:09:07 AM
If they do anything with the US61 corridor, the first thing built will be the Hannibal Bypass (regardless of whether or not it will be part of an interstate). The city and Marion county have it as part of their wish list: http://www.whig.com/20180305/marion-county-commission-again-lists-hannibal-bypass-as-top-transportation-priority#

There's more upgrades being completed on the southern end near Wentzville.  IIRC the latest is an interchange at Route P in St. Charles County, which based on the older plans would only leave one more interchange at Route W to be built, plus a lot of outer roads.  Though I am not ruling out there will be more interchanges than what I think was planned.

Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 30, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
I am afraid I-70 has become the project that is "too big to start."

I think they could do it piecemeal and widen certain sections here and there like other states do with their interstates. I don't know why they want to do the whole thing at once.

I thought MoDOT was going to try and piecemeal it now -weren't they going for a grant to start widening west of US 61 at Wentzville, though only to six lanes instead of the once planned eight?

sparker

Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 30, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
I am afraid I-70 has become the project that is "too big to start."

I think they could do it piecemeal and widen certain sections here and there like other states do with their interstates. I don't know why they want to do the whole thing at once.

To quote what has become a cliché:  Q: How do you eat an elephant?  A:  One bite at a time!  If I were MODOT, this is the approach I'd take; cut it into 15-mile improvement stretches alternating from each end and finishing up at the Missouri River bridge near Boonville. 

mvak36

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 30, 2018, 10:16:14 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 09:09:07 AM
If they do anything with the US61 corridor, the first thing built will be the Hannibal Bypass (regardless of whether or not it will be part of an interstate). The city and Marion county have it as part of their wish list: http://www.whig.com/20180305/marion-county-commission-again-lists-hannibal-bypass-as-top-transportation-priority#

There's more upgrades being completed on the southern end near Wentzville.  IIRC the latest is an interchange at Route P in St. Charles County, which based on the older plans would only leave one more interchange at Route W to be built, plus a lot of outer roads.  Though I am not ruling out there will be more interchanges than what I think was planned.

Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 30, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
I am afraid I-70 has become the project that is "too big to start."

I think they could do it piecemeal and widen certain sections here and there like other states do with their interstates. I don't know why they want to do the whole thing at once.

I thought MoDOT was going to try and piecemeal it now -weren't they going for a grant to start widening west of US 61 at Wentzville, though only to six lanes instead of the once planned eight?
Yes. They are trying to get that grant now. But before that they were talking about doing the whole thing at once. I suppose if that sales tax increase passed in 2014, it would have probably been done by now.


iPhone
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

MantyMadTown

Quote from: bugo on April 30, 2018, 04:09:35 PM
Missouri doesn't give a fuck about I-57. It isn't on their priority list, and isn't nearly as important to them as several other roads. I doubt it will be connected in any of our lifetimes. That's why they should have called it I-30.

Why would they call it I-30? I-57 is a north-south highway and it doesn't go anywhere near I-40 or I-20. It's north of both of them.
Forget the I-41 haters

In_Correct

#35
Quote from: sparker on April 30, 2018, 10:40:28 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on April 30, 2018, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 30, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
I am afraid I-70 has become the project that is "too big to start."

I think they could do it piecemeal and widen certain sections here and there like other states do with their interstates. I don't know why they want to do the whole thing at once.

To quote what has become a cliché:  Q: How do you eat an elephant?  A:  One bite at a time!  If I were MODOT, this is the approach I'd take; cut it into 15-mile improvement stretches alternating from each end and finishing up at the Missouri River bridge near Boonville.

Or perhaps they can start at the bridge and get the more difficult areas over and done with.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

hbelkins

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 01, 2018, 01:52:05 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 30, 2018, 04:09:35 PM
Missouri doesn't give a fuck about I-57. It isn't on their priority list, and isn't nearly as important to them as several other roads. I doubt it will be connected in any of our lifetimes. That's why they should have called it I-30.

Why would they call it I-30? I-57 is a north-south highway and it doesn't go anywhere near I-40 or I-20. It's north of both of them.

Because I-30 is a logical number for the extension of a freeway leading out of Little Rock and will probably never be a full freeway all the way to Sikeston.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

J N Winkler

Quote from: sparker on April 30, 2018, 10:40:28 PMTo quote what has become a cliché:  Q: How do you eat an elephant?  A:  One bite at a time!  If I were MODOT, this is the approach I'd take; cut it into 15-mile improvement stretches alternating from each end and finishing up at the Missouri River bridge near Boonville.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, etc.  Personally, I think I would work outward not just from Kansas City and St. Louis, but also from Columbia, and tackle Mineola Hill and any segments currently posted with reduced advisory speeds before I started work on any of the other rural segments.  This front-loads congestion relief.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

dvferyance

Quote from: hbelkins on May 01, 2018, 09:13:57 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 01, 2018, 01:52:05 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 30, 2018, 04:09:35 PM
Missouri doesn't give a fuck about I-57. It isn't on their priority list, and isn't nearly as important to them as several other roads. I doubt it will be connected in any of our lifetimes. That's why they should have called it I-30.

Why would they call it I-30? I-57 is a north-south highway and it doesn't go anywhere near I-40 or I-20. It's north of both of them.
Other than the last few miles of US 67 it's all 4 lane with portion of it being a freeway. Many of the at grade intersections could just be culd du saced for a minimal expense. It may be years away but I do see it happening maybe not until 2030 or so

Because I-30 is a logical number for the extension of a freeway leading out of Little Rock and will probably never be a full freeway all the way to Sikeston.

Bobby5280

Quote from: hbelkinsBecause I-30 is a logical number for the extension of a freeway leading out of Little Rock and will probably never be a full freeway all the way to Sikeston.

If the freeway is only to be a long spur ending at a random place in NE Arkansas the road ought to have a 3-digit number rather than carry a major Interstate route designation. Call it I-140 or whatever. The existing US-67 freeway doesn't even run directly into I-30. Both it and I-30 dead end into I-40 at different exits in North Little Rock.

hotdogPi

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2018, 12:39:42 PM
If the freeway is only to be a long spur ending at a random place in NE Arkansas the road ought to have a 3-digit number rather than carry a major Interstate route designation.

How does this differ from I-35 north of Minneapolis, I-39 north of I-90, I-96 west of Grand Rapids, and I-45 south of Houston?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

webny99

Quote from: 1 on May 01, 2018, 02:05:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2018, 12:39:42 PM
If the freeway is only to be a long spur ending at a random place in NE Arkansas the road ought to have a 3-digit number rather than carry a major Interstate route designation.
How does this differ from I-35 north of Minneapolis, I-39 north of I-90, I-96 west of Grand Rapids, and I-45 south of Houston?

There are no major destinations beyond the end of any of those. There are major destinations beyond NE Arkansas, so the interstate should either (a) become a 3di, or (b) provide a through interstate connection to points north.

Bobby5280

Quote from: 1How does this differ from I-35 north of Minneapolis, I-39 north of I-90, I-96 west of Grand Rapids, and I-45 south of Houston?

Geographic boundaries in the case of I-96 and I-45. I-96 in Michigan is an East-West interstate. It ends just short of Lake Michigan at the US-31 freeway. It can't realistically go any farther West. I-45 South of Houston ends in Galveston at the freaking Gulf of Mexico.

I-39 is not a major interstate. Its number doesn't end in a "5" or "0," unlike I-30. By the way, I am not at all a fan of the I-39 routing into Wisconsin, or even the designation of I-39 in Illinois for that matter. Something like I-53 would have made a LOT more sense than the stupid choice of I-39. The I-39 spur in Wisconsin could have been a long 3-digit Interstate, just like long 3-digit Interstates like I-135 in Kansas or I-390 in New York. Under current rules the only way the I-39 designation could be extended farther north is if US-51 was converted to Interstate quality clear up to Ironwood where US-51 meets US-2.

In the case of the North terminus of I-35, it does meet the far Western end of Lake Superior in Duluth. Thunder Bay, Ontario is the only destination of any significance past Duluth on route 61. The Thunder Bay metro has 120,000 people. That's not really big enough to justify upgrading 150 miles of mostly 2-lane state highway (and 30 miles more in Ontario) to freeway quality.

hbelkins

The discussion was what would be a more appropriate number for the interstate between Little Rock and Sikeston, I-30 or I-57. Jeremy's point was that the freeway will extend farther northeast of Little Rock than it will southwest of Sikeston, so therefore I-30 would be a more appropriate number for the extension than I-57, since there will be more to extend I-30 on than there will be I-57. I don't necessarily agree, but I think his premise is logical.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Lyon Wonder

Quote from: hbelkins on May 01, 2018, 03:32:16 PM
The discussion was what would be a more appropriate number for the interstate between Little Rock and Sikeston, I-30 or I-57. Jeremy's point was that the freeway will extend farther northeast of Little Rock than it will southwest of Sikeston, so therefore I-30 would be a more appropriate number for the extension than I-57, since there will be more to extend I-30 on than there will be I-57. I don't necessarily agree, but I think his premise is logical.

The only other I-number alternatives to I-57 north of Little Rock to Walmut Ridge would be I-51 or I-53 or a 3DI such as I-140.  I think a 3DI would have made since for the corridor too since I can't see MO extending I-57 to the AR border anytime soon. 

Bobby5280

#45
If the choice was up to me, I would temporarily designate the US-67 freeway from North Little Rock to Walnut Ridge as I-140 or some other odd I-x40 marker (except for I-540). Such a designation would be appropriate for all interests.

Still, I don't have all that much of a problem with I-57 being applied to that route. The designation throws down the proverbial gauntlet, opens the can of worms and clearly declares that road should connect with the existing I-57 ending in Sikeston. It will be an obvious gap on road maps for all to see. It might help create political pressure to bridge the gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston to make the two separate I-57 roads into one continuous Interstate highway. Hell, I'm all for that. You're not going to get that kind of play with dead-ending I-30 at the corner of what could potentially be an intersection with an extended I-555.

MantyMadTown

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2018-02-26/plans-unveiled-to-extend-i-57-into-arkansas

Oh I see. Anyway for it to be called an extension of I-57 it should logically also include the portion of US 67/US 60 in Missouri. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense as it would just end as a spur in Arkansas without any connection to another interstate on its northeastern end. I can only see that freeway making sense as an extension of I-30 or a spur of it.

Why are we talking about the Arkansas freeway extension on this thread anyway? I thought the topic of this thread was supposed to be about the routes between Chicago and Kansas City.
Forget the I-41 haters

txstateends

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 02, 2018, 02:10:43 AM
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2018-02-26/plans-unveiled-to-extend-i-57-into-arkansas

Oh I see. Anyway for it to be called an extension of I-57 it should logically also include the portion of US 67/US 60 in Missouri. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense as it would just end as a spur in Arkansas without any connection to another interstate on its northeastern end. I can only see that freeway making sense as an extension of I-30 or a spur of it.

Why are we talking about the Arkansas freeway extension on this thread anyway? I thought the topic of this thread was supposed to be about the routes between Chicago and Kansas City.

Ahhh, welcome to the land where topics are like curvy roads, their direction doesn't stay the same for long.  😎
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

hbelkins

Quote from: txstateends on May 02, 2018, 06:53:10 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 02, 2018, 02:10:43 AM
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2018-02-26/plans-unveiled-to-extend-i-57-into-arkansas

Oh I see. Anyway for it to be called an extension of I-57 it should logically also include the portion of US 67/US 60 in Missouri. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense as it would just end as a spur in Arkansas without any connection to another interstate on its northeastern end. I can only see that freeway making sense as an extension of I-30 or a spur of it.

Why are we talking about the Arkansas freeway extension on this thread anyway? I thought the topic of this thread was supposed to be about the routes between Chicago and Kansas City.

Ahhh, welcome to the land where topics are like curvy roads, their direction doesn't stay the same for long.  😎

Best I can tell, it took this turn when discussing where conversion of US 36 to a full freeway would fall in Missouri's priority hierarchy.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

sparker

Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: txstateends on May 02, 2018, 06:53:10 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 02, 2018, 02:10:43 AM
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2018-02-26/plans-unveiled-to-extend-i-57-into-arkansas

Oh I see. Anyway for it to be called an extension of I-57 it should logically also include the portion of US 67/US 60 in Missouri. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense as it would just end as a spur in Arkansas without any connection to another interstate on its northeastern end. I can only see that freeway making sense as an extension of I-30 or a spur of it.

Why are we talking about the Arkansas freeway extension on this thread anyway? I thought the topic of this thread was supposed to be about the routes between Chicago and Kansas City.

Ahhh, welcome to the land where topics are like curvy roads, their direction doesn't stay the same for long.  😎

Best I can tell, it took this turn when discussing where conversion of US 36 to a full freeway would fall in Missouri's priority hierarchy.

Uhh....sorry about that -- but I thought, given MO's current fiscal status, that a CKC discussion would be incomplete without some notion of how that corridor would fare against other state priorities.  But any nascent Interstate corridor involving MO has so far involved other states as well (although the "stub end" of I-72 into MO has been around for quite some time) -- so thread "drift" is almost inevitable, given that the state abuts other thread regions that contain portions of most project corridors (I-49 & 57, etc.).  But getting back to the CKC -- extending I-72 (barely) into MO seemed to be a funding-related vehicle for getting the then-new Mississippi River freeway bridge built.  Nevertheless, even then it was a bit odd that the exit number 157, indicating a route termination at I-35 near Cameron, was applied to this route when US 36 extended another 30-odd miles west to I-29/St. Joseph.  The Cameron termination would indicate that the basic CKC concept was in play over a decade ago but tied to an I-72 westward extension that just proved not to be fiscally feasible in the near term -- so the alternate MSR 110 "expressway" was hatched in conjunction with W. IL interests to keep the concept alive for the time being (although as an efficient through route it's a bit lacking) while providing a location for Illinois-sited roadside businesses to plop down their outlets.   Keeping it an expressway for the most part allows considerably more direct access to these businesses -- and, of course, this aspect of the corridor spills over onto its US 36 segment as well.  It'll be interesting over the next decade or so to see if such a game plan has worked -- and whether it will forestall future Interstate development.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.