I've posted several topics over the last month or so about various projects (U.S 20, 30, 34, 51, 67, IL-29, 336, etc) and IDOT's proposals to make them into 4 lane expressways/freeways, and often times, I see people respond with things like "all it needs is passing lanes" or "this is not worth it", etc.
So I want to pose the question, outside of Chicagoland, what Illinois corridors (if any) DO need upgrading to 4 lanes or other improvements (outside of just passing lanes) in your opinion.
US 20 Galena bypass and I will include continuous passing lanes not just sporadic because that is a major upgrade -150 million
US 30 What the locals want Improvements in Morrison and to the existing route
US 34 West of Monmouth complete 4 lane expressway US 34 East of Galesburg continuous passing lanes 150m
US 67 North of Monmouth Cont Passing lanes and south 4 lane expressway 700 m
The Peoria routes 29 Cont PL IL 9 the same No Ring road
US 51 4 lane expressway to I-70 Improved 2 lane south
US 50 the Leb bypass and 23 miles 4 lane expressway and keep rest of ROW in case IN does something
IL 127 4 lane expressway
Other bypass like Decatur or Rockford or Gateway are dreams not ever going to happen
I would do a statewide study to see what improvements other routes needed or could be built but I think I have got most of the major routes and I would fix the bridges
^^ How much of US-50, total, should be four-laned?
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 17, 2015, 11:13:06 PM
I've posted several topics over the last month or so about various projects (U.S 20, 30, 34, 51, 67, IL-29, 336, etc) and IDOT's proposals to make them into 4 lane expressways/freeways, and often times, I see people respond with things like "all it needs is passing lanes" or "this is not worth it", etc.
So I want to pose the question, outside of Chicagoland, what Illinois corridors (if any) DO need upgrading to 4 lanes or other improvements (outside of just passing lanes) in your opinion.
It's on the edge of Chicagoland and some would say it defines its western border, but there is a combined push by the counties it runs through (McHenry, Kane, Kendall and Grundy) to get IL 47 4-laned from I-55 to near the WI state line. Except for the section between I-88 and I-90, and the section from Southmor Road (south of Morris) to I-55, IDOT is in planning or construction for all of it, and Grundy County is pushing IDOT to start looking at the stretch from Southmor Road to I-55.
Oh, yeah! IL-47, for sure. You're right, though: it's pushing the definition of Chicagoland.
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 08:40:41 AM
Oh, yeah! IL-47, for sure. You're right, though: it's pushing the definition of Chicagoland.
Considering that the part from US-30 northward is in District 1, and the Kendall County and Grundy County parts are in suburbanizing areas (Yorkville, Morris), it is in Chicagoland. However, that said, District 3 is busy widening IL-47 from I-80 north to US-30. It is already four lanes from IL-71 through most of Yorkville (Somonauk Street). it is under the knife from Somonauk Street north to north of US-34. Next on the list, as far as I know, is the part south of IL-71. IDOT has already done the utility relocations between there and the north end of Morris.
Nothing is needed south of Dwight (except a 70-mph speed limit to match reality), but I don't remember what 47 is like between Dwight and Morris.
Ok, I'll throw in my 2 cents here. What corridors really need improvement outside of Chicago? I only believe the "big three" corridors (U.S 20, 51, 67) need four lane improvements really, everything else is fine or just needs passing lanes.
U.S 20: Galena bypass and expressway rest of way
U.S 51: New freeway on western alignment from Bloomington to Decatur. South of Decatur: bypass of Pana and passing lanes south to Centralia
U.S 67: expressway from Monmouth to Godfrey (including an improved Macomb bypass that does not tie back into existing alignment until north of Good Hope)
And for the record, I agree 10000000% about IL-47 needing widening, but that is borderline Chicagoland so I didn't count that. IL-47 needs widening from Woodstock to I-80, especially the section between Yorkville and Huntley.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 10:17:42 AM
bypass of Pana
:clap: Yes! And let's put one around Vandalia while we're at it.
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 10:21:49 AM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 10:17:42 AM
bypass of Pana
:clap: Yes! And let's put one around Vandalia while we're at it.
Vandalia doesn't want one, they want the existing route upgraded, and IDOT can't seem to agree upon a route. It really doesn't need 4 lanes south of Vandalia anyway.
I-74 in the Quad Cities, especially the bridge, has needed upgrades for decades now.
In Peoria, I-74's four-lane bridge over the Illinois seems too narrow in theory IMO, but I've never experienced problems with it, so it's probably not needed.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 10:53:20 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 10:21:49 AM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 10:17:42 AM
bypass of Pana
:clap: Yes! And let's put one around Vandalia while we're at it.
Vandalia doesn't want one, they want the existing route upgraded, and IDOT can't seem to agree upon a route. It really doesn't need 4 lanes south of Vandalia anyway.
The Preferred Alternative in the EIS uses I-70 to the west a few miles and then drops down to the southeast where it rejoins US 51 several miles south of V-town. South of Vandalia is a huge flood plain that will be expensive to cross no matter where the route goes. I don't think expanding US 51 through town was ever seriously looked at...a 5-lane section on existing alignment would wipe out a lot of buildings. They did look at a shift to the east, going along the east edge of town to line up with the southern section of US 51, but again, there were probably too many complications, and the city didn't like that one either.
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 09:57:24 AM
Nothing is needed south of Dwight (except a 70-mph speed limit to match reality), but I don't remember what 47 is like between Dwight and Morris.
I go through there many times a year as it is on the way between our house and daughter's. It is pretty busy north of IL 113, but there are no real capacity issues, just the normal safety issues you get with a 2 lane road with lots of impatient people wanting to pass. Thru Mazon, there is a busy BNSF railroad crossing, but no stoplight. The only traffic signals are at Southmor Road and Pine Bluff Road, up near Morris (where it is already 4 lane), and there are no stop signs on the main route. When I was at IDOT and the Illinois River bridge project was being studied, the feds wanted IL 47 widened all the way from the bridge at Morris to IL 113 as it was the most logical termini for a lane drop, but IDOT convinced them to end the 4 lane section at Southmor Road instead. Looking back I think extending it to IL 113 would have been better...there are probably 10k vehicles a day on that section now and there will be more trucks coming west out of the new intermodal terminal in Wilmington.
Quote from: Rick Powell on February 18, 2015, 01:47:02 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 10:53:20 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 10:21:49 AM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 10:17:42 AM
bypass of Pana
:clap: Yes! And let's put one around Vandalia while we're at it.
Vandalia doesn't want one, they want the existing route upgraded, and IDOT can't seem to agree upon a route. It really doesn't need 4 lanes south of Vandalia anyway.
The Preferred Alternative in the EIS uses I-70 to the west a few miles and then drops down to the southeast where it rejoins US 51 several miles south of V-town. South of Vandalia is a huge flood plain that will be expensive to cross no matter where the route goes. I don't think expanding US 51 through town was ever seriously looked at...a 5-lane section on existing alignment would wipe out a lot of buildings. They did look at a shift to the east, going along the east edge of town to line up with the southern section of US 51, but again, there were probably too many complications, and the city didn't like that one either.
I would have rather they built it along the original U.S 51 supplemental freeway alignment, but then again, I don't even believe this should be built at all south of Pana.
Quote from: Rick Powell on February 18, 2015, 01:54:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 09:57:24 AM
Nothing is needed south of Dwight (except a 70-mph speed limit to match reality), but I don't remember what 47 is like between Dwight and Morris.
I go through there many times a year as it is on the way between our house and daughter's. It is pretty busy north of IL 113, but there are no real capacity issues, just the normal safety issues you get with a 2 lane road with lots of impatient people wanting to pass. Thru Mazon, there is a busy BNSF railroad crossing, but no stoplight. The only traffic signals are at Southmor Road and Pine Bluff Road, up near Morris (where it is already 4 lane), and there are no stop signs on the main route. When I was at IDOT and the Illinois River bridge project was being studied, the feds wanted IL 47 widened all the way from the bridge at Morris to IL 113 as it was the most logical termini for a lane drop, but IDOT convinced them to end the 4 lane section at Southmor Road instead. Looking back I think extending it to IL 113 would have been better...there are probably 10k vehicles a day on that section now and there will be more trucks coming west out of the new intermodal terminal in Wilmington.
Ugh. Leave it to IDOT to do things half-assed and cheap. And people (even on this forum) wonder how they get the moniker "IDiOT". This is a prime example. Even the Feds knew better and IDOT still went for cheap.
The Rockford Bypass should really be 3 lanes in each direction, from the IL-2 interchange east to the I-39 / 90 interchange. And obviously, the US-20 / I-39 interchange should probably be revamped.
Quote from: sandwalk on February 18, 2015, 02:32:43 PM
The Rockford Bypass should really be 3 lanes in each direction, from the IL-2 interchange east to the I-39 / 90 interchange. And obviously, the US-20 / I-39 interchange should probably be revamped.
Yes, most definitely. IDOT has plans to reconstruct the main ramp movements to widen them to 2 lanes instead of a single lane, and they have plans to reconstruct and widen the bypass to six lanes between IL-2 and the I-90/39 Cherry Valley Interchange. However, I feel that doesn't go far enough
What really needs to be done there is I-39/U.S 51 needs to be realigned to head straight north and traffic going westbound on U.S 20 needs to exit I-39/U.S 51 southbound. Like this map below.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs18.postimg.org%2Fo8tocosu1%2FScreen_Shot_2015_02_18_at_1_58_19_PM.png&hash=e22952b15db2809fd1e0a0203628ea2a1ebf73a1)
Unfortunately, this will not be possible because of the high impacts to residential areas (not to mention some environmental impacts), but this is what really needs to be done to improve traffic flow. As part of this, I would reconstruct and widen I-39 to six lanes between the Cherry Valley Interchange and Baxter Road.
Since I-39 is a major bypass of Chicago to Wisconsin/Central IL, 3 lanes would probably be needed pretty soon. I've noticed in the years I've driven it traffic has increased. I can't say how bad traffic is south of I-80, but maybe 3 lanes between I-80 and US-20
39 there is not exactly busting at the seams.
Quote from: ET21 on February 18, 2015, 03:49:40 PM
I can't say how bad traffic is south of I-80, but maybe 3 lanes between I-80 and US-20
I-39 between I-80 and US 20 has half of the traffic volume of I-80 between Joliet and Morris. I-80 is still 4 lane, but might get an extra lane in each direction within the next 10 years, if all the studies continue and funding is found. I-39 is not on anybody's radar, and probably won't be expanded for another several decades.
Quote from: Rick Powell on February 18, 2015, 07:01:48 PM
Quote from: ET21 on February 18, 2015, 03:49:40 PM
I can't say how bad traffic is south of I-80, but maybe 3 lanes between I-80 and US-20
I-39 between I-80 and US 20 has half of the traffic volume of I-80 between Joliet and Morris. I-80 is still 4 lane, but might get an extra lane in each direction within the next 10 years, if all the studies continue and funding is found. I-39 is not on anybody's radar, and probably won't be expanded for another several decades.
Maybe not to I-80, but according to this article, they are going to begin considering widening to three lanes in the general Rockford area. I wouldn't be surprised if the section between I-90 and I-88 was widened to six lanes within the next 10-15 years.
http://www.rrstar.com/article/20141115/News/141119648
With all those companies possibly opening up shop along the corridor, I'm surprised Decatur is not pushing to build an extension of I-39 so they can get in on some of this too.
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 03:05:03 PM
What really needs to be done there is I-39/U.S 51 needs to be realigned to head straight north and traffic going westbound on U.S 20 needs to exit I-39/U.S 51 southbound. Like this map below.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs18.postimg.org%2Fo8tocosu1%2FScreen_Shot_2015_02_18_at_1_58_19_PM.png&hash=e22952b15db2809fd1e0a0203628ea2a1ebf73a1)
I'm not sure what problem that change in interchange design solves. If you've 6-laned I-39/US-20 and add the additional lanes through the existing interchange, you've solved most of the problem right there. Clean up the geometry from the aborted highway extension northward, and you fix the rest of the problem.
The biggest problem, IMHO, is that short-spaced Cherry Valley interchange. Traffic from EBD Harrison Ave or WBD US-20 to NBD I-39/90 has to weave with traffic on NBD I-39/EBD US-20 wanting to take EBD I-90.
You also have traffic from WBD I-90 having to weave with SBD I-39 traffic trying to exit for WBD Harrison/EBD US-20.
Separating traffic from WBD I-90/to EBD I-90 from the other traffic would solve a lot of problems.
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 18, 2015, 09:22:40 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 03:05:03 PM
What really needs to be done there is I-39/U.S 51 needs to be realigned to head straight north and traffic going westbound on U.S 20 needs to exit I-39/U.S 51 southbound. Like this map below.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs18.postimg.org%2Fo8tocosu1%2FScreen_Shot_2015_02_18_at_1_58_19_PM.png&hash=e22952b15db2809fd1e0a0203628ea2a1ebf73a1)
I'm not sure what problem that change in interchange design solves. If you've 6-laned I-39/US-20 and add the additional lanes through the existing interchange, you've solved most of the problem right there. Clean up the geometry from the aborted highway extension northward, and you fix the rest of the problem.
The biggest problem, IMHO, is that short-spaced Cherry Valley interchange. Traffic from EBD Harrison Ave or WBD US-20 to NBD I-39/90 has to weave with traffic on NBD I-39/EBD US-20 wanting to take EBD I-90.
You also have traffic from WBD I-90 having to weave with SBD I-39 traffic trying to exit for WBD Harrison/EBD US-20.
Separating traffic from WBD I-90/to EBD I-90 from the other traffic would solve a lot of problems.
The reason I propose this is:
1. Most traffic in that corridor are using I-39/U.S 51, not U.S 20, so the current configuration makes no sense about exiting U.S 20 WB to get on I-39 SB. I'm not totally convinced simply rebuilding the ramps to two lanes will solve the entire problem. Using through lanes would be better, especially with all the traffic the route is getting (see the article below)
2. The proposed improvements by IDOT don't address the traffic moving from NB I-39 to WB U.S 20 and from EB U.S 20 to SB I-39. It appears IDOT has long range plans to upgrade U.S 20 to a freeway (this is still the plan as of 2015) between Rockford and Dubuque. If that happens, traffic will increase on U.S 20 and they'll need to deal with the aforementioned movements on the interchange. There is limited ROW to do anything with the current configuration. This configuration would allow for smoother traffic flow through the area
See the proposed improvements here: http://www.idot.illinois.gov/projects/I39US20 (http://www.idot.illinois.gov/projects/I39US20)
A article titled "Truck traffic takes its toll on I-39": http://www.rrstar.com/article/20141115/News/141119648 (http://www.rrstar.com/article/20141115/News/141119648)
I think 6 lanes to 88 would do it . Also IDOTs improvements to IL 2 might keep some cars on that route.
I only kept 51 and expressway to keep Adam happy since he doesn't care make it 3 lanes too. I kept the 4 lane expressway that was under study from Olney to IL 1 and 127 because southern Illinois just whines so much if they don't get something ..so give the 50 miles of expressway ....We are "saving" a lot elsewhere. I will admit to ripping off Mop and WI who are planning this for their lesser used arterials
I have a total of 6 miles of freeway @ Galena about 100 million
70 more miles of mostly expressway on 67 100 million for bridge 400 million for the rest
maybe 30 million more for expressway on US 51 and 50 million on US 34
200 million for the 50 miles of southern Illinois expressway
I come up with about 240 miles of 3 lane for the rest -How much is that? IDOT just added 6 feet of road for 150,000 a mile on 116 so for a 12 foot lane it would be twice that . I wont count other needed widen amd resurfacings because those should come from maintenance not expansion so ....72 million
At that price double it any other state would and people would be happy Truckers happy but not Illinois so that makes my 900 million plan is fantasy unlike IDioTs multi billion dollar one
Quote from: 3467 on February 18, 2015, 10:09:24 PM
I think 6 lanes to 88 would do it . Also IDOTs improvements to IL 2 might keep some cars on that route.
I only kept 51 and expressway to keep Adam happy since he doesn't care make it 3 lanes too. I kept the 4 lane expressway that was under study from Olney to IL 1 and 127 because southern Illinois just whines so much if they don't get something ..so give the 50 miles of expressway ....We are "saving" a lot elsewhere. I will admit to ripping off Mop and WI who are planning this for their lesser used arterials
I have a total of 6 miles of freeway @ Galena about 100 million
70 more miles of mostly expressway on 67 100 million for bridge 400 million for the rest
maybe 30 million more for expressway on US 51 and 50 million on US 34
200 million for the 50 miles of southern Illinois expressway
I come up with about 240 miles of 3 lane for the rest -How much is that? IDOT just added 6 feet of road for 150,000 a mile on 116 so for a 12 foot lane it would be twice that . I wont count other needed widen amd resurfacings because those should come from maintenance not expansion so ....72 million
At that price double it any other state would and people would be happy Truckers happy but not Illinois so that makes my 900 million plan is fantasy unlike IDioTs multi billion dollar one
Frankly, I'd rather see Improvements to the U.S 51 and 67 corridors before U.S 20
I would be fine with the following:
U.S 20: I'd be fine with a Galena bypass and a three lane segment the rest of the way
U.S 51: rebuild the segment between Bloomington and Decatur into a southern extension of I-39 (on a new alignment: see my proposal in the I-39/FAP 412 History) to give Decatur better connectivity to points north (to help businesses and potentially attract new ones). South of Decatur, bypass Pana and then construct the rest with passing lanes.
I-39: Rebuild and widen to six lanes between Rockford and I-88. Figure out something to do with the U.S 20 interchange (whether that be realign or upgrade existing, most likely the latter)
U.S 67: 4 lane expressway from Monmouth to Alton. Build a new bypass southeast of Monmouth to tie 67 into the 34 freeway to Galesburg and combine the Macomb and Good Hope bypass. End IL-336 at U.S 67 and don't extend it to Peoria.
Everything else is fine with just passing lanes
IDOT had a plan to upgrade the Monmouth Bypass I would go with that one Less expensive than a new bypass . Interchange @164 Interchange just west of Main with frontage road connections from Main to 11th street . There is room for overpasses and finally an interchange north of Broadway 164 west
Quote from: 3467 on February 18, 2015, 10:36:40 PM
IDOT had a plan to upgrade the Monmouth Bypass I would go with that one Less expensive than a new bypass . Interchange @164 Interchange just west of Main with frontage road connections from Main to 11th street . There is room for overpasses and finally an interchange north of Broadway 164 west
What happened to the plan? It seems pretty tight to upgrade to freeway. Too many businesses destroyed, but if they had a plan, I'd rather do that.
It was part of the plan to Burlington -A freeway option was considered -I don't think its in the 34 EIS which is linked above but it was some photos with the interchanges and its very doable still, It wouldn't take a single business and they were all just tight diamonds and over passes. 3 tight diamonds 3 overpasses . Maine wouldn't need to be 5 lane it could be 3 lane to match the 67 3lane that is under construction to Farm King road now . That would allow all the business to remain. The frontage roads are pretty much there now . The big problem was the BN spur line but its gone now.
What is the cost of a 2 lane overpass and a tight diamonds?
There are some interesting things with 34 west . The Army Corps has relented somewhat on the need to elevate the stretch form the Biggsville bypass to Burlington so IDOT is in Phase 1 again on that again Maybe somebody like Rick Powell know more about that . If that isn't viable my guess is 34 is over . I included its completion in my list along with those 2 southern IL projects. Those are the only differences in our plans ( and I really think those should be 3 lanes as well
I would finally add that all these route could be expanded into Texas expressways in the future and of course turn lanes could be added too I don't think any will ever need to be Illinois has stretches of Texas expressway on IL 1 near Danville and IL 50 near Peotone both carry more traffic than ANY of these routes with no problems I know of
If I had limited passing lanes on 34 East I would put a mile long southbound out of Kewanee and a one mile northbound from IL 93. I would put a 2 mile west bound toward Galva from IL 78 and then a 2 mile eastbound outside Galva
On 67 North I would add a southbound from Boden to near Viola. I would extend the existing North @ Boden to Preemption . I would fix the Curves @ Preemption. I would then add one more northbound lane in Rock Island count for 2 miles. I think this was the original plan and then IDOT changed its mind
Quote from: 3467 on February 18, 2015, 10:58:25 PM
It was part of the plan to Burlington -A freeway option was considered -I don't think its in the 34 EIS which is linked above but it was some photos with the interchanges and its very doable still, It wouldn't take a single business and they were all just tight diamonds and over passes. 3 tight diamonds 3 overpasses . Maine wouldn't need to be 5 lane it could be 3 lane to match the 67 3lane that is under construction to Farm King road now . That would allow all the business to remain. The frontage roads are pretty much there now . The big problem was the BN spur line but its gone now.
What is the cost of a 2 lane overpass and a tight diamonds?
There are some interesting things with 34 west . The Army Corps has relented somewhat on the need to elevate the stretch form the Biggsville bypass to Burlington so IDOT is in Phase 1 again on that again Maybe somebody like Rick Powell know more about that . If that isn't viable my guess is 34 is over . I included its completion in my list along with those 2 southern IL projects. Those are the only differences in our plans ( and I really think those should be 3 lanes as well
I would finally add that all these route could be expanded into Texas expressways in the future and of course turn lanes could be added too I don't think any will ever need to be Illinois has stretches of Texas expressway on IL 1 near Danville and IL 50 near Peotone both carry more traffic than ANY of these routes with no problems I know of
Interesting. Well, they should upgrade the Monmouth bypass to freeway for this reason.
I see a small possibility (but I stress, this would NOT be a high priority right now), of possibly tying the existing IL-336 into U.S 67 north of Macomb and connecting it with the U.S 34 freeway to Galesburg. If the rest of the U.S 67 (Between Monmouth and Macomb) and IL-336 (between Macomb and Quincy) were to be converted to freeway, I could see them extending Interstate 172 along that alignment, thereby giving the three biggest Western Illinois cities (Galesburg, Macomb, Quincy) Interstate access. Other than some realignments in the Macomb/Good Hope area, most of this could use the existing route. This would be in lieu of building the IL-336 Macomb to Peoria. Not a high priority, but something to think about for the future.
Of course, this would not replace the need to expand U.S 67 south of Macomb.
Adam have you been here lately? . There have been threads on it . The route is labeled 110 from KC to Chicago It goes up 74 to 88 to the IKE and it all could be upgraded The Macomb east bypass is graded Good Hope has a bypass design of ever needed . It isn't yet Id finish the south route first
Back to IL 47 clearly that is needed but I considered it a Chicago area Project . I would expect some passing lanes will have to be added on other northern IL rotes near the metro like US 34 and IL 64 at some point
Cost Question are my costs right ?
Rural Freeway 10-20 million
Rural expressway 6-10 million
Reconstruct and resurface 2 lane with a passing lane 300,000 to 1,5 million
Quote from: 3467 on February 18, 2015, 11:33:59 PM
Adam have you been here lately? . There have been threads on it . The route is labeled 110 from KC to Chicago It goes up 74 to 88 to the IKE and it all could be upgraded The Macomb east bypass is graded Good Hope has a bypass design of ever needed . It isn't yet Id finish the south route first
Back to IL 47 clearly that is needed but I considered it a Chicago area Project . I would expect some passing lanes will have to be added on other northern IL rotes near the metro like US 34 and IL 64 at some point
Cost Question are my costs right ?
Rural Freeway 10-20 million
Rural expressway 6-10 million
Reconstruct and resurface 2 lane with a passing lane 300,000 to 1,5 million
Yes, I would say those are about right (the costs), maybe a little more or less depending on the terrain (for example, it would cost more to build a freeway/expressway in the rolling hills of northwestern Illinois than it would along U.S 51 or 67).
Yes, I know about the Chicago-Kansas City Expressway, and this would make it a more attractive. Even if they left it as an expressway. I don't like the Macomb bypass as currently planned. It is basically going to be a big C around Macomb and rejoin the existing U.S 67 on the north side of Macomb. What needs to happen is the U.S 67 portion of the bypass should continue north until past Good Hope and rejoin the existing alignment north of Good Hope. IL-336 can end at a system interchange with U.S 67 northeast of the City.
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/transportation-management/featured-projects/index
I was reviewing the list to see if we missed anything and I see this Alton Godfrey connector. The 100 million allocated should be spent on 67
I cant think of any other capacity additions to the downstate interstates not mentioned here except the 39 stretch north of 88 and the 39-55 stretch of 80 mentioned by Rick Powell. And Yep on your points Adam
Quote from: 3467 on February 18, 2015, 11:45:51 PM
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/transportation-management/featured-projects/index
I was reviewing the list to see if we missed anything and I see this Alton Godfrey connector. The 100 million allocated should be spent on 67
I cant think of any other capacity additions to the downstate interstates not mentioned here except the 39 stretch north of 88 and the 39-55 stretch of 80 mentioned by Rick Powell. And Yep on your points Adam
On I-39, all that needs to be done is widening between Cherry Valley Interchange and I-88 and an extension to I-72 in Decatur. It does not need any capacity improvements between Rochelle and Bloomington-Normal.
I believe they want to widen I-57 between I-64 and I-24, some of the bridges in that segment are wide enough for a third lane. But I cannot think of any other downstate Interstate widening proposals/projects.
If they were to extend I-39 to Decatur hypothetically, they would need to widen I-72 in the Decatur area as well as I-74 east from I-55 to east of the existing U.S 51 interchange.
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 04:42:20 PM
39 there is not exactly busting at the seams.
Yet during rush hours I see heavy traffic between 20 and 88, especially truck traffic. Like I said, it's not urgent right now but in 10-15 years it may need an upgrade.
I-55/72 around Springfield really needs a 3rd lane in each direction.
Quote from: ET21 on February 21, 2015, 11:51:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 04:42:20 PM
39 there is not exactly busting at the seams.
Yet during rush hours I see heavy traffic between 20 and 88, especially truck traffic. Like I said, it's not urgent right now but in 10-15 years it may need an upgrade.
6 lanes are not need yet. I would say the US20/I39 area is needed soon and possibly work around 88 to help manage the weaving traffic. Both ends work should accommodate a 6 lane I39.
Quote from: cwm1276 on February 22, 2015, 09:16:39 AM
Quote from: ET21 on February 21, 2015, 11:51:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 04:42:20 PM
39 there is not exactly busting at the seams.
Yet during rush hours I see heavy traffic between 20 and 88, especially truck traffic. Like I said, it's not urgent right now but in 10-15 years it may need an upgrade.
6 lanes are not need yet. I would say the US20/I39 area is needed soon and possibly work around 88 to help manage the weaving traffic. Both ends work should accommodate a 6 lane I39.
six lanes will be needed on I-39 between I-88 and the Cherry Valley Interchange within 10 years
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 18, 2015, 11:56:43 PM
I believe they want to widen I-57 between I-64 and I-24, some of the bridges in that segment are wide enough for a third lane. But I cannot think of any other downstate Interstate widening proposals/projects.
Some of I-57 in the Marion area is already 6 lanes. Looked like they were getting ready to do more last month when we went thru there on a trip.
I drive to 88 on 39 daily. In 10 years it would need 6 lanes. Currently it needs works at 20 and 88. The U.S. 20 bypass section needed it 5 years ago.
Quote from: cwm1276 on February 23, 2015, 09:20:19 AM
I drive to 88 on 39 daily. In 10 years it would need 6 lanes. Currently it needs works at 20 and 88. The U.S. 20 bypass section needed it 5 years ago.
Wait 15 more years for that. IDOT is usually 20 years behind. X-(