Deleted
I think the current highway is good as is. There doesn't appear to be that much traffic on it and in the hilly areas there are the keep right except to pass areas (1 lane downhill, 2 uphill).
Upgrading it to a decent expressway like US 151 in Wisconsin, US 61 in Iowa, or Ill 110 in Western Illinois (meaning frontage roads, interchanges at busy intersections, and short freeways around towns) could help draw some traffic off I-80. You'd also have to upgrade 20 through Dubuque to freeway (a new bridge across the Mississippi plus Dubuque bypass would likely cost more than upgrading the current alignment between Freeport and Dubuque to freeway).
Yes!
I mean, no!
I mean...
I think it would help the depresses economy for the region. Is it worth it? I would have to ask that about a lot of illinois highway projects did not return much. I think the same about all the highway construction in western illinois. I hear you post that Macomb needs multiple freeways but Freeport does not deserve one for the same reasons as Macomb?
I could see both towns served only with better bypasses and expressway sections.
How does Macomb not have Interstate access (via Galesburg)? It may not have it in all directions via four-lane roads, but how many relatively minor county seats do?
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 08:30:47 PM
How does Macomb not have Interstate access (via Galesburg)? It may not have it in all directions via four-lane roads, but how many relatively minor county seats do?
The only reason I keep mentioning Macomb is that is where Western Illinois University is. And Galesburg is an hour away. It's not so much Macomb in of itself, it's the general West Central Illinois area (between I-72 to the south and Galesburg to the north) that is bereft of major highway access. I'd be fine with IDOT building a freeway or at least a high quality expressway with minimal at-grade intersections along U.S 67 between Macomb and Godfrey and leave it at that. Forget the IL-336 nonsense, U.S 67 is where they need to focus on.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 07, 2015, 08:41:23 PM
The only reason I keep mentioning Macomb is that is where Western Illinois University is. And Galesburg is an hour away.
I don't see your point. What four-lane construction would put Macomb less than an hour from an Interstate?
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 08:47:11 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 07, 2015, 08:41:23 PM
The only reason I keep mentioning Macomb is that is where Western Illinois University is. And Galesburg is an hour away.
I don't see your point. What four-lane construction would put Macomb less than an hour from an Interstate?
My point is Western Illinois in general (not just Macomb) would've been better off with a north-south Interstate highway providing better connectivity for the communities in the region. There is a reason this area is called "Forgottonia", they've suffered economically from a lack of highway access. Of course, I-72 helped, but that is an east-west, not north-south. At this point, the priority in this region should be upgrading U.S 67 to an expressway and that is it, enough of this IL-336 nonsense.
Western Illinois in general is a bunch of small towns that would be better off if everyone moved elsewhere. There, I said it.
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 09:07:00 PM
Western Illinois in general is a bunch of small towns that would be better off if everyone moved elsewhere. There, I said it.
Well, that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.
Anyway, lets get back to the topic at hand. The proposed U.S 20 freeway between Freeport and Galena.
Quote from: US 41 on February 07, 2015, 01:48:24 PM
I think the current highway is good as is. There doesn't appear to be that much traffic on it and in the hilly areas there are the keep right except to pass areas (1 lane downhill, 2 uphill).
The current highway is not adequate. Galena needs a bypass, and there are a few long stretches between the three lane sections where passing is impossible due to the amount of traffic in the summer months.
Additionally, since US 20 is an expressway across most of Iowa, the gap between Dubuque and Freeport should be filled to provide another option for traffic trying to avoid I-80 across Iowa and I-90 through Wisconsin.
EDIT:Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 09:07:00 PM
Western Illinois in general is a bunch of small towns that would be better off if everyone moved elsewhere. There, I said it.
Per Google:
Macomb: 19,278 (2010)
Monmouth: 9,446 (2010)
Galesburg: 32,179 (2010)
Jacksonville: 19,446 (2010)
Quincy: 40,688 (2010)
Canton: 14,703 (2010)
Seem big enough to remain to me.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 07, 2015, 09:31:32 PM
Quote from: US 41 on February 07, 2015, 01:48:24 PM
I think the current highway is good as is. There doesn't appear to be that much traffic on it and in the hilly areas there are the keep right except to pass areas (1 lane downhill, 2 uphill).
The current highway is not adequate. Galena needs a bypass, and there are a few long stretches between the three lane sections where passing is impossible due to the amount of traffic in the summer months.
Additionally, since US 20 is an expressway across most of Iowa, the gap between Dubuque and Freeport should be filled to provide another option for traffic trying to avoid I-80 across Iowa and I-90 through Wisconsin.
The problem is, if/when the Freeport to Galena section is built, then they are going to have to figure out what to do with the Mississippi River bridge. If the long-term goal is to make U.S 20 fully access controlled between Rockford and Interstate 35 (which I'm not sure if that is so, but from all external appearances, it sure looks like it), then they are going to have to bypass Dubuque to the south, since the current U.S 20 bridge corridor cannot be rebuilt/upgraded to freeway standards. If they bypass Dubuque, that will cost a ton of $$$$, so who knows what will happen there
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 07, 2015, 09:51:57 PM
they are going to have to bypass Dubuque to the south, since the current U.S 20 bridge corridor cannot be rebuilt/upgraded to freeway standards.
Why not? There's one intersection at the end of the bridge that could easily become an overpass, then a short freeway, then a commercial area that already has intermittent frontage roads.
I don't believe that the "big picture" plan is to make US 20 completely controlled access. However, US 20 from Freeport through Galena in the summer months is crowded and dangerous. I lived in that area many moons ago, and there are some fairly dangerous segments, such as Stockton to Galena. Getting through Galena on a summer weekend can be a challenge as well.
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 07, 2015, 10:01:49 PM
I don't believe that the "big picture" plan is to make US 20 completely controlled access. However, US 20 from Freeport through Galena in the summer months is crowded and dangerous. I lived in that area many moons ago, and there are some fairly dangerous segments, such as Stockton to Galena. Getting through Galena on a summer weekend can be a challenge as well.
The Galena to Freeport segment will be fully access controlled. I have heard rumors (but again, I cannot verify and don't know for sure) that U.S 20 may be converted to freeway between Freeport and Rockford if the Freeport to Galena section is built. If so, that would leave the section west of the proposed IL-84 interchange the only segment not fully access-controlled (which some parts of that expressway segment need fixing/realignment). And the existing bridge over the Mississippi cannot be widened and converted to freeway, there are too many houses on the East Dubuque side that would lose access.
The best thing to do would be to have U.S 20 continue straight when it hits Higley Dr, just east of Peosta in Iowa. It would bypass Dubuque to the far south, crossing U.S 61 and 52, cross the Mississippi River and then reconnect with the existing alignment in Illinois southeast of East Dubuque, just west of that half interchange, half at-grade intersection at Menominee Road. Of course, this will cost a fortune and will never happen, but it's the only way U.S 20 can be fully access controlled.
I will give some 20 background. IDOT has a lot of power in district engineers and Dist 2s made the 20 freeway his personal project. When he retired it was no longer the states big project 336 was because the head of Quincy newspapers made it his. Here is the Good news Tom Oakley has just taken over Corridor 67 so 755 and Adam work will continue on 67 when there is money again (whenever that will be)
There is a study on how to finance 20 because its cost is so high up to 20 million a mile. It is not worth that . Illinois needs to get real. I think expanding the 3 lanes for the length plus a Galena Bypass would do the job, The extra costs to make the rest of 20 a freeway with no hope of a freeway in Dubuque makes a freeway segment pointless in my opinion.. The 3 lane could be built for 80 million plus 100 million for the bypass as opposed to nearly a billion for the 47 mile freeway
I repeat my question: how is it impossible to upgrade US 20 through Dubuque to a freeway?
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 10:48:22 PM
I repeat my question: how is it impossible to upgrade US 20 through Dubuque to a freeway?
And I'll repeat my answer. There are too many homes/businesses (particularly on the Illinois side in East Dubuque) that would lose access and there really isn't a lot of ROW to do so.
East Dubuque may be a little harder, but Dubuque itself looks pretty trivial. An elevated freeway over the railroad in East Dubuque would be much easier than a whole new bypass alignment.
A freeway US 20 from Rockford to Galena looks like a potential future I-590 or I-139, or even an eastern I-82 if freeway construction is extended west to Dubuque and connected to the US 20 freeway alignment in Iowa.
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 11:30:03 PM
East Dubuque may be a little harder, but Dubuque itself looks pretty trivial. An elevated freeway over the railroad in East Dubuque would be much easier than a whole new bypass alignment.
Still would have to destroy too many houses, there is simply not enough room. It would have to be bypassed somehow.
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on February 08, 2015, 02:00:19 AM
A freeway US 20 from Rockford to Galena looks like a potential future I-590 or I-139, or even an eastern I-82 if freeway construction is extended west to Dubuque and connected to the US 20 freeway alignment in Iowa.
It likely only becomes an Interstate if it is connected directly to the freeway in Iowa, and I-82 wouldn't work because I-88 is to the south. They'd also have to convert the segment between Rockford and Freeport to freeway and I'm not sure if that is officially in IDOT plans (assuming they build the Freeport to Galena as a freeway).
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 01:21:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 11:30:03 PM
East Dubuque may be a little harder, but Dubuque itself looks pretty trivial. An elevated freeway over the railroad in East Dubuque would be much easier than a whole new bypass alignment.
Still would have to destroy too many houses, there is simply not enough room. It would have to be bypassed somehow.
What houses? All of them in the block bounded by 5th-Wall-6th and the railroad have been torn down since 2005 (street view shows it's now state property - are they planning something here?). All that remains on the south side of US 20 is two gas stations and the railroad.
Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2015, 01:30:32 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 01:21:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 11:30:03 PM
East Dubuque may be a little harder, but Dubuque itself looks pretty trivial. An elevated freeway over the railroad in East Dubuque would be much easier than a whole new bypass alignment.
Still would have to destroy too many houses, there is simply not enough room. It would have to be bypassed somehow.
What houses? All of them in the block bounded by 5th-Wall-6th and the railroad have been torn down since 2005 (street view shows it's now state property - are they planning something here?). All that remains on the south side of US 20 is two gas stations and the railroad.
The houses southeast of where you were saying along Sinsinawa Ave (U.S 20). If they aren't going to be torn down, they will lose access to U.S 20. There is not enough room for a frontage road. I don't really understand how you would fit a freeway in there, it would be VERY tight. Plus, there is not enough ROW on some of the intersections on the Iowa side for interchanges and a frontage road.
If the bridge is built in this area, it will not be a limited access freeway.
IDOT did list 2 engineering studies for Rockford Freeport and Galena -East Dubuque. I don't think they were ever completed
Dist 2 now has a study to improve IL 2 from Byron to Rockford. It looks like reconstruct with some passing lanes. Perhaps the model to wrap up US 20?
Quote from: 3467 on February 08, 2015, 03:57:02 PM
IDOT did list 2 engineering studies for Rockford Freeport and Galena -East Dubuque. I don't think they were ever completed
Dist 2 now has a study to improve IL 2 from Byron to Rockford. It looks like reconstruct with some passing lanes. Perhaps the model to wrap up US 20?
It may have to end up being that way. Of course, the Galena bypass should be constructed as originally planned regardless of what is done with the rest of the corridor.
I favor the freeway hands down, but if it cannot be connected to the U.S 20 freeway in Iowa, it is not worth building it. They should figure out what to do with the Mississippi River crossing before continuing any further on the Freeport to Galena segment.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 03:45:09 PM
I don't really understand how you would fit a freeway in there, it would be VERY tight.
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 11:30:03 PM
An elevated freeway over the railroad in East Dubuque would be much easier than a whole new bypass alignment.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 03:45:09 PM
Plus, there is not enough ROW on some of the intersections on the Iowa side for interchanges and a frontage road.
There's not enough ROW for a bypass either, because there's no ROW at all. So nerr. But all that would need to be taken to add frontage roads would be a few pieces of parking lots.
Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2015, 04:26:06 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 03:45:09 PM
I don't really understand how you would fit a freeway in there, it would be VERY tight.
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 11:30:03 PM
An elevated freeway over the railroad in East Dubuque would be much easier than a whole new bypass alignment.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 03:45:09 PM
Plus, there is not enough ROW on some of the intersections on the Iowa side for interchanges and a frontage road.
There's not enough ROW for a bypass either, because there's no ROW at all. So nerr. But all that would need to be taken to add frontage roads would be a few pieces of parking lots.
I'm talking about a far southern bypass, it would intersect with the existing U.S 20 east of Peosta and run straight east, crossing just north of the U.S 61/151 interchange near the Dubuque Regional Airport and cross the Mississippi, rejoining U.S 20 just west of Menominee Road. Yes, it would be much more costly, but it is the only way you could build a proper freeway through the Dubuque area.
I just explained how you could build a "proper" freeway with minimal takings. Is your ISP censoring me? Or is it a PEBCAK?
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/projects/il-2-byron-to-beltline-road
Based on the CAG meetings this is all about curves passing and turn lanes-the very things that solve US 20.
I will also link the other district 2 Study Do we need this one?
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/projects/us-30-fulton-to-rock-falls
Plus this Bridge needs to be replaced
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/projects/us-52-il-64-over-the-mississippi-river
Iowa is going to 4 lane some more sections. It is also going to finish 4 laning 20 in Western Iowa and 61 in Eastern if it ever gets the money . Any other projects are really fictional at this point
Illinois complained for years about Mo on US 36 and Indiana on the Illiana yet is constantly trashes Iowa who builds some roads 20-30 and 34 . You can read the cryptic comments in the review of public comments . It mentions most support comes from another state
Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2015, 04:39:42 PM
I just explained how you could build a "proper" freeway with minimal takings. Is your ISP censoring me? Or is it a PEBCAK?
I understand what you said, but as I said, I looked at the corridor and there is simply not enough ROW for frontage roads, elevated freeway, interchanges, grade separations, etc. And I am talking about the entire corridor between Camillus Dr and Wall St. There would be too much opposition, so they'd have to bypass the town, however, that will likely not happen either because it is too expensive.
As such, I doubt the freeway will continue west of IL-84.
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/IDOT-Projects/District-2/US-30-Fulton-to-Rock-Falls/files/US30-CAGMeetingMinutes-Jan2015(Hudson-Volkert-Final).pdf
Really interesting read from just last month A community debates a bypass
Quote from: 3467 on February 08, 2015, 05:00:58 PM
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/IDOT-Projects/District-2/US-30-Fulton-to-Rock-Falls/files/US30-CAGMeetingMinutes-Jan2015(Hudson-Volkert-Final).pdf
Really interesting read from just last month A community debates a bypass
This is not a necessary highway. They need to focus on other corridors first.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 04:50:53 PM
I understand what you said, but as I said, I looked at the corridor and there is simply not enough ROW for frontage roads, elevated freeway, interchanges, grade separations, etc. And I am talking about the entire corridor between Camillus Dr and Wall St. There would be too much opposition, so they'd have to bypass the town, however, that will likely not happen either because it is too expensive.
The US 20 freeway out by Manchester, IA is 120 feet wide from shoulder edge to shoulder edge, and that includes a 50 foot median that's not necessary in an urban setting. The combined right-of-way of the parallel railroad and surface US 20 in East Dubuque is 160 feet. That's more than enough room for an elevated structure. It wouldn't be the prettiest thing, but neither would the scar caused by a bypass through the hills south of Dubuque.
Another potential solution would be to buy out the auto repair place across the tracks near Timmerman Drive, then shift the railroad a bit to the southwest and put the freeway at ground level in the space currently occupied by the eastbound lanes and the new space created by moving the railroad.
Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2015, 05:08:16 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 08, 2015, 04:50:53 PM
I understand what you said, but as I said, I looked at the corridor and there is simply not enough ROW for frontage roads, elevated freeway, interchanges, grade separations, etc. And I am talking about the entire corridor between Camillus Dr and Wall St. There would be too much opposition, so they'd have to bypass the town, however, that will likely not happen either because it is too expensive.
The US 20 freeway out by Manchester, IA is 120 feet wide from shoulder edge to shoulder edge, and that includes a 50 foot median that's not necessary in an urban setting. The combined right-of-way of the parallel railroad and surface US 20 in East Dubuque is 160 feet. That's more than enough room for an elevated structure. It wouldn't be the prettiest thing, but neither would the scar caused by a bypass through the hills south of Dubuque.
Another potential solution would be to buy out the auto repair place across the tracks near Timmerman Drive, then shift the railroad a bit to the southwest and put the freeway at ground level in the space currently occupied by the eastbound lanes and the new space created by moving the railroad.
I guess, I don't know, there is no easy answer here. Like I said, I'm not sure if the state will go for either of the options. I'd say it is fairly likely they just make it a non-freeway four lane arterial and leave it at that.
This is getting into fictional territory, but I-180 should be decommissioned and reuse its number by renumbering I-88 into a new I-180 which, IMO, makes much better use of that number. This frees up the "I-88" number for a potential future freeway upgrade of US 20 west of Rockford to the currant US 20 freeway in Iowa. Of course I-82 is another alternative number for this corridor too.
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on February 12, 2015, 07:48:57 PM
This is getting into fictional territory, but I-180 should be decommissioned and reuse its number by renumbering I-88 into a new I-180 which, IMO, makes much better use of that number. This frees up the "I-88" number for a potential future freeway upgrade of US 20 west of Rockford to the currant US 20 freeway in Iowa. Of course I-82 is another alternative number for this corridor too.
There will be no Interstate designation for U.S 20 unless it is properly connected to the freeway in Iowa. I don't think when I-88 was designated, they were anticipating the U.S 20 corridor to be upgraded to freeway.
A bypass would mean a faster route from Rockford to Dubuque, but you'd be harming the local economies of Stockton, Eleroy, Woodbine, Elizabeth, and Galena. Granted some of these towns are very small or have popularity like Galena, but these towns live off of the travelers that goes through them.
As NE stated earlier, where are you going to put a bypass??? There is no good ROW unless you want to start cutting into farmland or begin blasting hillsides to expand the current US-20.
What sucks with our current governor is that a proposal to reopen the Chicago-Rockford Amtrak service is on hold due to his "crackdown" on state spending. There were plans to eventually reopen the old route that goes into Galena and eventually add in Dubuque down the line.
Quote from: ET21 on February 14, 2015, 12:20:57 PM
A bypass would mean a faster route from Rockford to Dubuque, but you'd be harming the local economies of Stockton, Eleroy, Woodbine, Elizabeth, and Galena. Granted some of these towns are very small or have popularity like Galena, but these towns live off of the travelers that goes through them.
As NE stated earlier, where are you going to put a bypass??? There is no good ROW unless you want to start cutting into farmland or begin blasting hillsides to expand the current US-20.
What sucks with our current governor is that a proposal to reopen the Chicago-Rockford Amtrak service is on hold due to his "crackdown" on state spending. There were plans to eventually reopen the old route that goes into Galena and eventually add in Dubuque down the line.
I am talking about putting a bypass starting west of Galena straight west into Iowa, connecting into the freeway in Delaware, instead of routing the highway through Dubuque, where there is limited ROW for a freeway. They have already decided they want to build the freeway between Freeport and Galena, funding is the only obstacle to construction.
My point is, is it worth it to build the U.S 20 freeway between Freeport and Galena if it won't be connected into the freeway in Iowa? I say no. I support the construction of the freeway, but only if the entire corridor is upgraded (i.e building the freeway into Iowa AND upgrading the expressway section between Rockford and Freeport to freeway, which I have heard at least the latter may happen if/when the Freeport to Galena section is built, but I cannot verify that).
I know the in the 1990s and into at least the early '00s', IDOT was considering a tunnel through one of those ridges for part of that new highway. Is that still part of the plan?
I never saw a map of that route option, BTW.
Mike
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/projects/US20-Freeport
IDOT missed October for the Funding study......
You can see the alignments in the Details section.
The EIS have a lot of the history of the alternates you might see if the tunnel is in them
Quote from: 3467 on February 07, 2015, 10:40:15 PM
I will give some 20 background. IDOT has a lot of power in district engineers and Dist 2s made the 20 freeway his personal project. When he retired it was no longer the states big project 336 was because the head of Quincy newspapers made it his. Here is the Good news Tom Oakley has just taken over Corridor 67 so 755 and Adam work will continue on 67 when there is money again (whenever that will be)
There is a study on how to finance 20 because its cost is so high up to 20 million a mile. It is not worth that . Illinois needs to get real. I think expanding the 3 lanes for the length plus a Galena Bypass would do the job, The extra costs to make the rest of 20 a freeway with no hope of a freeway in Dubuque makes a freeway segment pointless in my opinion.. The 3 lane could be built for 80 million plus 100 million for the bypass as opposed to nearly a billion for the 47 mile freeway
Thanks for the update. It will be interesting to see how much time passes before anything else happens.
I wonder what was in the funding study -Tolls? Most downstate expressway projects are running 6 million a mile. This one is coming in near 20 because of the landscape
I exclude projects like the 67 Beardstown Br because it has to be replaced anyway but all of the other 270 miles under study come in about 1.7 billion if built today (maybe a little less asphalt should be down) . 20 would be nearly a billion for 47 miles
Quote from: 3467 on February 15, 2015, 10:48:22 PM
I wonder what was in the funding study -Tolls? Most downstate expressway projects are running 6 million a mile. This one is coming in near 20 because of the landscape
I exclude projects like the 67 Beardstown Br because it has to be replaced anyway but all of the other 270 miles under study come in about 1.7 billion if built today (maybe a little less asphalt should be down) . 20 would be nearly a billion for 47 miles
It is also coming in at 20 Million a mile because of the type of road: freeway. An expressway would cost a little less, but still expensive.
They have gone on the record saying most of the existing alignment cannot be improved to 4 lanes and passing lanes would not be adequate. Perhaps it's time to downgrade it to a less costly expressway, although they have stated they don't want the congestion that will come without full access control.
Regardless of what happens, the Galena bypass should be constructed as planned.
By the way, here is a map I made regarding a hypothetical bypass for Dubuque. I feel this would be the only viable route for a U.S 20 freeway connecting Illinois and Iowa, but I doubt something like this would be considered due to the high cost/environmental impact
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs28.postimg.org%2Fn6png0ust%2FScreen_Shot_2015_02_16_at_11_12_18_AM.png&hash=1c797db0c4f57293ccfe3176a8cddeea0d92ab41)
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 16, 2015, 10:34:49 AM
They have gone on the record saying most of the existing alignment cannot be improved to 4 lanes and passing lanes would not be adequate. Perhaps it's time to downgrade it to a less costly expressway, although they have stated they don't want the congestion that will come without full access control.
I suspect it will be at least 30-50 years before having side road access would be a liability on a Galena-Freeport expressway. Also, aside from the stoplight at Winnebago (which should be replaced with an overpass), the existing expressway stretch between Freeport and Rockford is adequate, and will be for at least a couple decades to come.
I wouldn't get excited about a southern Dubuque bypass or another Mississippi connection until Illinois can at least 4-lane US-20 to Galena. Without that, the traffic to justify Dubuque widening/expansion simply won't be there.
The District Engineer at the time had to say that to get a positive ROD from the FHWA if they told the truth even FHWA might have noticed and said why not and expressway or some passing lanes? They should have anyway because half of the route is under 5000 vpd Most of the sections that warrant widening are in Galena. Once again we get back to passing lane expansion and a Galena bypass.........I don't see another billion dollar bridge coming. Illinois has to fix 74 and 52 with Iowa as well as Beardstown and Meridosia and now Quincy
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 16, 2015, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 16, 2015, 10:34:49 AM
They have gone on the record saying most of the existing alignment cannot be improved to 4 lanes and passing lanes would not be adequate. Perhaps it's time to downgrade it to a less costly expressway, although they have stated they don't want the congestion that will come without full access control.
I suspect it will be at least 30-50 years before having side road access would be a liability on a Galena-Freeport expressway. Also, aside from the stoplight at Winnebago (which should be replaced with an overpass), the existing expressway stretch between Freeport and Rockford is adequate, and will be for at least a couple decades to come.
I wouldn't get excited about a southern Dubuque bypass or another Mississippi connection until Illinois can at least 4-lane US-20 to Galena. Without that, the traffic to justify Dubuque widening/expansion simply won't be there.
I agree, they have to put in the four lanes between Freeport and Galena before building a new four lane bridge on either a bypass or upgrading the existing route. I was just demonstrating with the map an alignment they'd probably have to do if they decided to build a freeway into Iowa.
IDOT insists building it as a freeway is necessary here, they've done the studies. I agree this
should be built as a freeway. Because of the vast amount of truck traffic that would result from building this (remember, this could be a viable alternative route for I-80), it is probably better to build full access control (freeway) so higher speed limits could be posted. Plus, with commercial development along major corridors, it is better to have full access control so as no signalized intersections pop up (like in Winnebago).
The real issues here are cost and connectivity, building a freeway is a lot more expensive, and this has been sitting on the shelve for 20 or so years (even longer if you count the original supplemental freeway proposal). How much longer will we have to wait? Probably a while. Building an expressway would bring the cost down a bit, but since it would still have to be on a new alignment, it would still be expensive. Also, if the freeway will not connect to Iowa, what good will building a freeway do if you have to slow down in Dubuque because of stoplights, lower speed limits, at-grade crossings, etc?
The expressway section between Freeport and Rockford would only be converted to freeway AFTER the Freeport to Galena freeway is built. Even the Freeport to Rockford section may be tricky though, because a lot of development exists on the existing alignment, some re-routing or business relocations would have to take place to put in the interchanges, overpasses, frontage roads, etc.
Quote from: 3467 on February 16, 2015, 09:48:48 PM
The District Engineer at the time had to say that to get a positive ROD from the FHWA if they told the truth even FHWA might have noticed and said why not and expressway or some passing lanes? They should have anyway because half of the route is under 5000 vpd Most of the sections that warrant widening are in Galena. Once again we get back to passing lane expansion and a Galena bypass.........I don't see another billion dollar bridge coming. Illinois has to fix 74 and 52 with Iowa as well as Beardstown and Meridosia and now Quincy
The 4 lanes will happen one way or another, the leaders in the area want it, and whether or not they decide to downgrade it to expressway remains to be seen. I do believe when it is built, it will open up the floodgates and traffic will increase significantly (it will be an alternative to I-80).
I believe construction on the 74 bridge will start in 4-5 years? And I think the Beardstown bridge ought to be scaled back, are the interchanges on either side necessary?
Everything you just said is right. ex the trucks I have been on 20 in Iowa and there are no trucks there . #4 carries more trucks . When flood closed the 80 bridge over the Cedar river Iowa made 20 the official detour . No one took it They too 163 /34 from Des Moines or 218/27 from Iowa city . 34 became inaccessible between Monmouth and Burlington and I suspect even on the Iowa 4 lane segments. it was true freeway level traffic. none of which exists in and of the reaming supplemental corridors. Even 30 has more trucks . I think 3 lanes would easily handle the trucks using the corridor.
That said Adam every other point is spot on
BTW there is an interesting post about the Northwest and Southwest Arterials in Dubuque in the IDOT district thread Maybe they meant to post here?
The Dubuqe Post from the other thread
« Reply #12 on: Today at 04:33:51 PM »
ReplyQuote
Going on a tangent off the original topic, I do know that the city of Dubuque is working on the "Southwest Arterial" to complement the Northwest Arterial in place. This fills in a small portion of the gap in what is planned to be something of an expressway.
http://www.cityofdubuque.org/1225/Southwest-Arterial-Project
That being said, this does not solve the great problem of crossing the remaining landscape and is not signed to be US 20
74 -its hoped that its starts in 5 years
Beardstown was the most popular and least expensive design maybe a first for IDOT. IDOT likes access control near all its new bridges. There are only 2 other interchanges on the route -One at IL 104 and US 24 and no other major structures . The Jerseyville bypass is probably the only other big project after the bridge. After its done there is only one other interchange and one RR overpass on the rest of the route
Quote from: 3467 on February 16, 2015, 10:22:25 PM
Everything you just said is right. ex the trucks I have been on 20 in Iowa and there are no trucks there . #4 carries more trucks . When flood closed the 80 bridge over the Cedar river Iowa made 20 the official detour . No one took it They too 163 /34 from Des Moines or 218/27 from Iowa city . 34 became inaccessible between Monmouth and Burlington and I suspect even on the Iowa 4 lane segments. it was true freeway level traffic. none of which exists in and of the reaming supplemental corridors. Even 30 has more trucks . I think 3 lanes would easily handle the trucks using the corridor.
That said Adam every other point is spot on
BTW there is an interesting post about the Northwest and Southwest Arterials in Dubuque in the IDOT district thread Maybe they meant to post here?
I'm not quite understanding you here. Do you agree that ultimately the freeway should be built, or not? Or do you just oppose it because of cost?
Again, I would like to see the freeway built ultimately, but if it will not connect to Iowa, I do not believe it is worth it to pursue. BTW, I have driven the corridor and I do NOT believe passing lanes would be adequate long term, I saw a lot of heavy traffic. Plus, they need to get the traffic out of historic downtown Galena, which is why I believe a freeway bypass of Galena should be built regardless of what happens with the rest of the corridor.
As to your point about people not using 20 as the detour, it is probably because of this segment why they don't use it, it is a lot more curvy and sharp than 34, which is more flat and direct.
I think this would be a reasonable compromise: map the corridor for freeway, but build an expressway and then covert it to freeway if traffic needs it.
Quote from: 3467 on February 16, 2015, 10:26:58 PM
The Dubuqe Post from the other thread
« Reply #12 on: Today at 04:33:51 PM »
ReplyQuote
Going on a tangent off the original topic, I do know that the city of Dubuque is working on the "Southwest Arterial" to complement the Northwest Arterial in place. This fills in a small portion of the gap in what is planned to be something of an expressway.
http://www.cityofdubuque.org/1225/Southwest-Arterial-Project
That being said, this does not solve the great problem of crossing the remaining landscape and is not signed to be US 20
Yeah, I saw this a while back. This has nothing to do with the U.S 20 corridor. It only has to do with connecting to industrial parks in Dubuque.
Quote from: 3467 on February 16, 2015, 10:31:44 PM
74 -its hoped that its starts in 5 years
Beardstown was the most popular and least expensive design maybe a first for IDOT. IDOT likes access control near all its new bridges. There are only 2 other interchanges on the route -One at IL 104 and US 24 and no other major structures . The Jerseyville bypass is probably the only other big project after the bridge. After its done there is only one other interchange and one RR overpass on the rest of the route
The Jerseyville bypass will be a freeway correct? And where will the other interchange be? Will the rest of the bypasses on 67 have at-grade crossings?
If I may jump in here, I would say a US 20 freeway isn't necessary. Expressway, probably, given the amount of tourism that Galena gets, but a freeway is probably overkill.
I don't see 20 as being a long-range alternative to I-80, even if it were upgraded to full freeway into Iowa. It's simply too far away, so the only traffic it could conceivably get is traffic toward Waterloo and Dubuque that already uses 20 now.
Re: I-74 bridge, it is in the plans to begin construction in 2017 and finish in either 2020 or 2021 (that is, unless Rauner cut funding for that, too). Although I'm not sure how that fits into the US 20 discussion...
For the record, I have never driven the stretch in question, and I am in full support of a Dubuque southern bypass if it were feasible. As it stands now, I would be okay with just eliminating about half of the stoplights on the current expressways through town.
Quote from: pianocello on February 16, 2015, 10:50:35 PM
If I may jump in here, I would say a US 20 freeway isn't necessary. Expressway, probably, given the amount of tourism that Galena gets, but a freeway is probably overkill.
I don't see 20 as being a long-range alternative to I-80, even if it were upgraded to full freeway into Iowa. It's simply too far away, so the only traffic it could conceivably get is traffic toward Waterloo and Dubuque that already uses 20 now.
Re: I-74 bridge, it is in the plans to begin construction in 2017 and finish in either 2020 or 2021 (that is, unless Rauner cut funding for that, too). Although I'm not sure how that fits into the US 20 discussion...
For the record, I have never driven the stretch in question, and I am in full support of a Dubuque southern bypass if it were feasible. As it stands now, I would be okay with just eliminating about half of the stoplights on the current expressways through town.
I would be open to building an expressway like Wisconsin did with U.S 151 between Dubuque and Madison, although they want to covert that to freeway eventually.
We mentioned 74 because we were talking about bridges that need to be done before building yet another crossing.
BTW, why would you support a bypass of Dubuque like I mentioned if you don't support a freeway? That would be the whole purpose of constructing it.
Jerseyville will be a freeway Interchange @16 and partials at the north and south and 2 rail crossings. that's why its expensive . Only other interchange is IL 108 @ Carrolton
I have driven 20 and the expense makes it unviable because it wont be upgraded . I support Galena bypass and making the rest 3 lanes . IDOT is doing that with IL 2 which is busier
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 16, 2015, 10:08:52 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 16, 2015, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 16, 2015, 10:34:49 AM
They have gone on the record saying most of the existing alignment cannot be improved to 4 lanes and passing lanes would not be adequate. Perhaps it's time to downgrade it to a less costly expressway, although they have stated they don't want the congestion that will come without full access control.
I suspect it will be at least 30-50 years before having side road access would be a liability on a Galena-Freeport expressway. Also, aside from the stoplight at Winnebago (which should be replaced with an overpass), the existing expressway stretch between Freeport and Rockford is adequate, and will be for at least a couple decades to come.
I wouldn't get excited about a southern Dubuque bypass or another Mississippi connection until Illinois can at least 4-lane US-20 to Galena. Without that, the traffic to justify Dubuque widening/expansion simply won't be there.
I agree, they have to put in the four lanes between Freeport and Galena before building a new four lane bridge on either a bypass or upgrading the existing route. I was just demonstrating with the map an alignment they'd probably have to do if they decided to build a freeway into Iowa.
IDOT insists building it as a freeway is necessary here, they've done the studies. I agree this should be built as a freeway. Because of the vast amount of truck traffic that would result from building this (remember, this could be a viable alternative route for I-80), it is probably better to build full access control (freeway) so higher speed limits could be posted. Plus, with commercial development along major corridors, it is better to have full access control so as no signalized intersections pop up (like in Winnebago).
The real issues here are cost and connectivity, building a freeway is a lot more expensive, and this has been sitting on the shelve for 20 or so years (even longer if you count the original supplemental freeway proposal). How much longer will we have to wait? Probably a while. Building an expressway would bring the cost down a bit, but since it would still have to be on a new alignment, it would still be expensive. Also, if the freeway will not connect to Iowa, what good will building a freeway do if you have to slow down in Dubuque because of stoplights, lower speed limits, at-grade crossings, etc?
The expressway section between Freeport and Rockford would only be converted to freeway AFTER the Freeport to Galena freeway is built. Even the Freeport to Rockford section may be tricky though, because a lot of development exists on the existing alignment, some re-routing or business relocations would have to take place to put in the interchanges, overpasses, frontage roads, etc.
Another Stop light is planned for Lena at 73. I think this project should have been done 20 years ago, but it won't get done until traffic is stop and go from the Freeport bypass to Galena. Once that light is installed in Lena, traffic will slow down with trucks trying to climb the hill at 73.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 16, 2015, 10:58:28 PM
BTW, why would you support a bypass of Dubuque like I mentioned if you don't support a freeway? That would be the whole purpose of constructing it.
Let me clarify. I would support a 4-lane expressway bypass of Dubuque, one that is similar in nature to US-61 north of DeWitt or US 20 between Manchester and the western part of Dubuque. In my eyes, an expressway with intersections is adequate, as long as it doesn't have any stoplights, stop signs, or railroad crossings.
Quote from: pianocello on February 17, 2015, 11:11:22 AM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 16, 2015, 10:58:28 PM
BTW, why would you support a bypass of Dubuque like I mentioned if you don't support a freeway? That would be the whole purpose of constructing it.
Let me clarify. I would support a 4-lane expressway bypass of Dubuque, one that is similar in nature to US-61 north of DeWitt or US 20 between Manchester and the western part of Dubuque. In my eyes, an expressway with intersections is adequate, as long as it doesn't have any stoplights, stop signs, or railroad crossings.
As I said, I'd support building a four lane expressway like U.S 151 between Madison and Dubuque. Build the initial divided expressway and upgrade to freeway later IF traffic needs it.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 16, 2015, 10:08:52 PMBuilding an expressway would bring the cost down a bit, but since it would still have to be on a new alignment, it would still be expensive. Also, if the freeway will not connect to Iowa, what good will building a freeway do if you have to slow down in Dubuque because of stoplights, lower speed limits, at-grade crossings, etc?
From a safety standpoint, an expressway section of US-20 between Galena and Freeport would be a dramatic improvement over what exists now. It's the section that hampers mobility and economic development the most between the Dubuque area and Chicago. I agree that a freeway is unnecessary here.
I disagree with the idea that a Galena-Freeport expressway is worthless without a southern US-20 bypass around Dubuque. The traffic numbers simply aren't there, the accident statistics aren't there, and the political will isn't there. Compared to the horribly substandard 2-lane US-20 east of Galena, US-20 through Dubuque works well enough as is. When it stops working, they can punch through an additional lane each way and frontage roads - the worst stretch of about 4 miles through Dubuque has sufficient space on each side without taking a large number of businesses.
The biggest bottleneck is the Julien Dubuque bridge. Add a second span, and it would cover traffic demands on US-20 to and from Dubuque for at least the next 50 years.
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 18, 2015, 12:00:02 AM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 16, 2015, 10:08:52 PMBuilding an expressway would bring the cost down a bit, but since it would still have to be on a new alignment, it would still be expensive. Also, if the freeway will not connect to Iowa, what good will building a freeway do if you have to slow down in Dubuque because of stoplights, lower speed limits, at-grade crossings, etc?
From a safety standpoint, an expressway section of US-20 between Galena and Freeport would be a dramatic improvement over what exists now. It's the section that hampers mobility and economic development the most between the Dubuque area and Chicago. I agree that a freeway is unnecessary here.
I disagree with the idea that a Galena-Freeport expressway is worthless without a southern US-20 bypass around Dubuque. The traffic numbers simply aren't there, the accident statistics aren't there, and the political will isn't there. Compared to the horribly substandard 2-lane US-20 east of Galena, US-20 through Dubuque works well enough as is. When it stops working, they can punch through an additional lane each way and frontage roads - the worst stretch of about 4 miles through Dubuque has sufficient space on each side without taking a large number of businesses.
The biggest bottleneck is the Julien Dubuque bridge. Add a second span, and it would cover traffic demands on US-20 to and from Dubuque for at least the next 50 years.
I think you misunderstood me, I said a U.S 20
freeway is worthless without a southern Dubuque bypass. An expressway would be just fine. As I said, they ought to build the Freeport to Galena segment similar to the U.S 151 expressway in Wisconsin between Dubuque and Madison. Build the expressway and convert it to freeway later
IF traffic warrants it.
Ok, to give this a boost again, it's time for Illinois to get real here. With Iowa completing it's four laning of US 20 across the entire state within the next couple of years, the Galena to Freeport and the Mississippi River crossing will be the two remaining two-lane sections that still need widening. It's time to get going here.
Just scale back the roadway to an expressway to save money on interchanges and overpasses (but keep the Galena bypass as a freeway). I think just an expressway would be more than adequate, but I may put an interchange or two at the major junctions in Lena (at IL-73) and Stockton (IL-78) to control development. There is no way IDOT will ever get the $1 billion+ it needs to build this segment as a full freeway.
IDOT should follow the model WisDOT did with US 151.
Most rural areas do not need a full interstate quality freeway.
The best example of a proper expressway that I can think of is US 101 in central CA. It's a freeway (doesn't quite meet interstate standards) as it passes through major cities, but along most of its routing is a 4-lane surface expressway. There is occasional cross-traffic, but no traffic lights. The roadway maintains a 65 MPH speed limit throughout the expressway sections.
Quote from: I-39 on July 06, 2015, 12:13:36 PM
Ok, to give this a boost again, it's time for Illinois to get real here. With Iowa completing it's four laning of US 20 across the entire state within the next couple of years, the Galena to Freeport and the Mississippi River crossing will be the two remaining two-lane sections that still need widening. It's time to get going here.
Just scale back the roadway to an expressway to save money on interchanges and overpasses (but keep the Galena bypass as a freeway). I think just an expressway would be more than adequate, but I may put an interchange or two at the major junctions in Lena (at IL-73) and Stockton (IL-78) to control development. There is no way IDOT will ever get the $1 billion+ it needs to build this segment as a full freeway.
IDOT should follow the model WisDOT did with US 151.
IDOT will not do a thing now as their budget was frozen.
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 06, 2015, 01:23:21 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 06, 2015, 12:13:36 PM
Ok, to give this a boost again, it's time for Illinois to get real here. With Iowa completing it's four laning of US 20 across the entire state within the next couple of years, the Galena to Freeport and the Mississippi River crossing will be the two remaining two-lane sections that still need widening. It's time to get going here.
Just scale back the roadway to an expressway to save money on interchanges and overpasses (but keep the Galena bypass as a freeway). I think just an expressway would be more than adequate, but I may put an interchange or two at the major junctions in Lena (at IL-73) and Stockton (IL-78) to control development. There is no way IDOT will ever get the $1 billion+ it needs to build this segment as a full freeway.
IDOT should follow the model WisDOT did with US 151.
IDOT will not do a thing now as their budget was frozen.
True, but when/if they ever get back to normal, they need to scale this project back, a freeway is not going to happen
Quote from: I-39 on February 18, 2015, 10:00:54 AM
I think you misunderstood me, I said a U.S 20 freeway is worthless without a southern Dubuque bypass.
And why does everything have to be build the whole corridor at once, not built parts now and upgrade the other section later? The latter approach is more realistic given funding. Additionally, if US 20 was to be upgraded with a gap in Dubuque, it would put more pressure on Iowa to find a solution.
Furthermore there are many cases where to allow for proper upgrading later, FHWA requires the initial studies to consider both the interim and ultimate projects.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 07, 2015, 06:16:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 18, 2015, 10:00:54 AM
I think you misunderstood me, I said a U.S 20 freeway is worthless without a southern Dubuque bypass.
And why does everything have to be build the whole corridor at once, not built parts now and upgrade the other section later? The latter approach is more realistic given funding. Additionally, if US 20 was to be upgraded with a gap in Dubuque, it would put more pressure on Iowa to find a solution.
Furthermore there are many cases where to allow for proper upgrading later, FHWA requires the initial studies to consider both the interim and ultimate projects.
1. That was an old post from February, I no longer believe a full freeway is necessary between Galena and Freeport, I would rather them do just an expressway with interchanges only at the major junctions (if even that). Downgrading this to an expressway would bring the cost down
2. I never said anything about building it all at once, I was saying in that quote that it is pointless to build a full interstate-standard freeway on US 20 between Galena and Freeport if the freeway will not continue into Iowa. I am not sure what the exact plans are for widening the Julien Dubuque Bridge, but it sounds like it will not be rebuilt into a fully access controlled freeway (like the US 151 bridge). I believe it would be too hard to build a freeway on some of the current alignment west of Galena, so I suggested building a new bridge south of Dubuque and bypassing the town altogether. Now, that would be tremendously costly (probably even more than the Freeport to Galena freeway), so I highly doubt that will ever happen.
Just widen the bridge to four lanes and put in an expressway between Freeport and Galena and call it a day...........
Mmhmm...