AARoads Forum

When I was looking at Google Maps around the Chicago area, I found that Interstate 290 in Chicago was part of what I discovered to be the "Chicago-Kansas City Expressway". Out of curiosity I looked it up to see what it was, and I found that the route turned out to be a mish-mash of highways throughout Illinois and Missouri. Ever since learning about this new route I've been fascinated with ways to drive to Kansas City. Is this a popular route? Would anyone recommend taking this route to drive there?

I like the initiative behind it (create a route between Chicago and Kansas City while avoiding heavy traffic along currently established highways); however, I hope there will be some improvements made to the route to make it a viable option to drive to Kansas City in the future.

I was thinking that the portion in western Illinois (from Quincy to Galesburg) should be listed under a single route designation (the entire route in Illinois is listed as IL 110; however it is not very prevalent when you look at a map), as the route shows up as the several highways that make up its length, rather than a single unifying highway designation.

I am also wondering about a potential upgrade of US 36 in Missouri (which forms the bulk of the CKC in Missouri) to interstate standards, possibly acommodating an extension of I-72 in the future. What would be the feasability of doing that?

There could also potentially be some flyover ramps at the interchanges with the interstates to allow easier access for vehicles traveling the route.

Hopefully this roadway will become an important highway in the future. I hope that it will alleviate traffic along the major corridors of I-55, I-80, and I-70, and bring development to the areas served.

The CKC is IL/MO 110 in both states.

Basically, it was the State of IL throwing a bone, in terms of IDOT money, to the West-Central part of the state, which is mostly void of Interstates.

Unless there is awful traffic or wrecks, I-55 to I-72/US 36 in Springfield, over to I-35 in MO and down to KC is probably the best route, and IMHO should have been designated the CKC route

IDOT and MoDOT were/are trying to get CKC traffic off of I-80/I-35 thru Iowa or I-55/I-70 thru STL that is traveling between the cities

It takes the far Western route thru IL, because Politically, it was easier to sell to add another route in a part of the state that is underserved for Long Distance Auto Routes, especially since the AOTS ended up using the MO/IA route, not the route between STL and the Quad Cities in IL/US 67 on its journey up to MSP

Older discussion on the CKC from the Great Lakes Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3301.0

Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

That's minor.  I'd settle for getting rid of the signals in Cameron, Missouri.

Quote from: Brandon on April 26, 2018, 01:17:59 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

That's minor.  I'd settle for getting rid of the signals in Cameron, Missouri.

Those aren't that bad to be honest. It's not too busy in that area anyways. Those are probably there to stay unless it is decided to convert the road to interstate standards.

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

I'm guessing that US 36 in Missouri takes a similar form as WIS 29 in Wisconsin: a major four lane expressway that carries traffic across the state, but not so much that it justifies being a freeway for the entire route.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 26, 2018, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

I'm guessing that US 36 in Missouri takes a similar form as WIS 29 in Wisconsin: a major four lane expressway that carries traffic across the state, but not so much that it justifies being a freeway for the entire route.

Every time that I've seen Big Rig Steve drive US 36 across parts of Missouri, it was never all that busy.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on April 26, 2018, 11:25:44 PM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 26, 2018, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

I'm guessing that US 36 in Missouri takes a similar form as WIS 29 in Wisconsin: a major four lane expressway that carries traffic across the state, but not so much that it justifies being a freeway for the entire route.

Every time that I've seen Big Rig Steve drive US 36 across parts of Missouri, it was never all that busy.

Mike

Yeah it really isn't the times I have driven it.


iPhone

Quote from: ilpt4u on April 26, 2018, 07:34:54 AM
Unless there is awful traffic or wrecks, I-55 to I-72/US 36 in Springfield, over to I-35 in MO and down to KC is probably the best route

Given that I live in Madison, I would probably take 151, 380, and 80 to get to I-35, so if I wanted to take 55 to 72/36 to I-35, I would have to take I-39 first, and it would be a much longer route (over an hour longer). However, lots of routes I looked at from Chicago and Madison involve taking US 36, so I'm guessing it's a good route.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 26, 2018, 11:54:30 PM
Given that I live in Madison, I would probably take 151, 380, and 80 to get to I-35

Is that a better route than 151 to 20?

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

It probably won't take much to build it to Interstate standards.

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

A rail crossing? A wider tunnel? Or a matching bridge?

Quote from: In_Correct on April 27, 2018, 12:06:05 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

It probably won't take much to build it to Interstate standards.

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

A rail crossing? A wider tunnel? Or a matching bridge?

I think they should build a bridge over the rail line for the eastbound direction.


iPhone

Quote from: In_Correct on April 27, 2018, 12:06:05 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

It probably won't take much to build it to Interstate standards.

Well the exit numbering seems to indicate MoDOT wants to take I-72 over to Cameron...

Also there's a local Hannibal group trying to extend I-72 to the US 24 trumpet interchange: http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied (http://www.hannibal.net/news/20170206/extended-interstate-designation-denied)

Quote from: In_Correct on April 27, 2018, 12:06:05 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM
As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

A rail crossing? A wider tunnel? Or a matching bridge?

Given the stubs at the interchange to the west, I am guessing over with a new set of WB lanes being constructed and EB traffic being moved to the current WB lanes.  With a couple large retaining walls they could save on ROW and build new EB lanes over the railroad in the current median.

^ Moot point since land pattens suggest they already own enough ROW on the north side of the WB lanes.

I would not object to US 36 being upgraded to a full freeway, largely because the current expressway was developed by laying down a second carriageway while carrying out no meaningful upgrades to the existing one, which has many blind hills.  I am aware, of course, that Missouri has no money even for projects that take significantly higher priority than this.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 29, 2018, 12:08:59 PM
I would not object to US 36 being upgraded to a full freeway, largely because the current expressway was developed by laying down a second carriageway while carrying out no meaningful upgrades to the existing one, which has many blind hills.  I am aware, of course, that Missouri has no money even for projects that take significantly higher priority than this.

At this point, MO has a significant backlog of "wants", some in the Interstate-expansion field -- but scant $$ to do any of them, much less several.  Given the fact that some of these concepts, particularly projects that cross state lines, have some political pressure added to their portfolios, I'd venture that MODOT will prioritize as follows:

(1) The completion of I-49 down to the AR state line to meet their Bella Vista facility.
(2) I-57 from the AR state line to I-55 at Sikeston using the Poplar Bluff freeway bypass.
(3) I'd rank this as a tie between extending I-72 over US 36 to Cameron or even St. Joseph, or:
     Finishing up the Avenue of the Saints (US 61/MO 27) as a full freeway facility, including a N-S Hannibal bypass.

Regarding (3) above -- unless a windfall occurs, one or the other will be undertaken in time -- but likely the other will be "back-burnered" until such time as funding can be eked out, likely several decades down the line. 

Quote from: sparker on April 29, 2018, 09:06:07 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 29, 2018, 12:08:59 PM
I would not object to US 36 being upgraded to a full freeway, largely because the current expressway was developed by laying down a second carriageway while carrying out no meaningful upgrades to the existing one, which has many blind hills.  I am aware, of course, that Missouri has no money even for projects that take significantly higher priority than this.

At this point, MO has a significant backlog of "wants", some in the Interstate-expansion field -- but scant $$ to do any of them, much less several.  Given the fact that some of these concepts, particularly projects that cross state lines, have some political pressure added to their portfolios, I'd venture that MODOT will prioritize as follows:

(1) The completion of I-49 down to the AR state line to meet their Bella Vista facility.
(2) I-57 from the AR state line to I-55 at Sikeston using the Poplar Bluff freeway bypass.
(3) I'd rank this as a tie between extending I-72 over US 36 to Cameron or even St. Joseph, or:
     Finishing up the Avenue of the Saints (US 61/MO 27) as a full freeway facility, including a N-S Hannibal bypass.

Regarding (3) above -- unless a windfall occurs, one or the other will be undertaken in time -- but likely the other will be "back-burnered" until such time as funding can be eked out, likely several decades down the line.

I think there is probably a 1a in your list above and that's the three-laning of I-70 statewide. Regarding number 2, I don't think I have heard anything about people from Poplar Bluff wanting an interstate through there. Most of what I heard is from Arkansas. But I suppose if they wanted it, now would be a good time to lobby their representatives since the Speaker of the House is from there.

Regarding the 3+3 concept for I-70 -- I was thinking of plans for new Interstate mileage rather than enhancement of existing ones -- although as a funding attractor, any I-70 project would be indeed formidable.   The rationale for the I-57 designation effort in AR was partially based upon much of the MO corridor mileage being either built (Poplar Bluff bypass) or upgradeable without significant ROW aquisition (US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55).  It would be naive for anyone to think than MODOT is unaware of the longer-range plans for that corridor -- although given their current fiscal situation it's not difficult to picture them dodging the issue in the near term.   

Quote from: sparker on April 30, 2018, 03:02:02 AM
Regarding the 3+3 concept for I-70 -- I was thinking of plans for new Interstate mileage rather than enhancement of existing ones -- although as a funding attractor, any I-70 project would be indeed formidable.   The rationale for the I-57 designation effort in AR was partially based upon much of the MO corridor mileage being either built (Poplar Bluff bypass) or upgradeable without significant ROW aquisition (US 60 between Poplar Bluff and I-55).  It would be naive for anyone to think than MODOT is unaware of the longer-range plans for that corridor -- although given their current fiscal situation it's not difficult to picture them dodging the issue in the near term.

Ah ok. I misunderstood your first post. My mistake.

I don't think the Missouri part of the I-57 corridor will be too bad. The issue will be with the funding like you said.

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#

I am afraid I-70 has become the project that is "too big to start."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

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 (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.  😎

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 (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.

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 (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.

I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 12:39:54 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 06:58:13 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 12:39:54 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

I drove the Quad Cities-Hannibal segment a few years ago on a trip back from Wisconsin. It's a nice, leisurely, low-traffic ride south of Galesburg, with the emphasis on leisurely. It should be non-stop once the Macomb bypass is completed, but Illinois won't eliminate those stupid lights around Monmouth which will discourage truckers and other travellers from prioritizing it on long hauls.

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 06:58:13 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 12:39:54 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

That (55>72>36>35) would seem to be the optimal commercial Chicago-KC route to avoid both St. Louis-area traffic and any potential slowdowns in the Quad Cities or Des Moines area on 80>35.  The CKC/110 alignment appears to be, plain & simple, a way to connect several small towns in western IL in order to snag some of the travel-related pass-through $$ for them.  It certainly isn't the shortest way to get from point A to point B! 

This is an internet forum. Thread drift is going to happen. Don't worry about it, it isn't a big deal.

Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:01:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 06:58:13 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 12:39:54 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

That (55>72>36>35) would seem to be the optimal commercial Chicago-KC route to avoid both St. Louis-area traffic and any potential slowdowns in the Quad Cities or Des Moines area on 80>35.  The CKC/110 alignment appears to be, plain & simple, a way to connect several small towns in western IL in order to snag some of the travel-related pass-through $$ for them.  It certainly isn't the shortest way to get from point A to point B!

I was mostly just talking about the possibility of turning US 36 into an extension of I-72. The conversion of the Illinois part of the route is just a side note. Making it an actual freeway would certainly make the route more legitimate and increase traffic along the route. Still, it looks like 55 to 72 to 36 to 35 is the best route. In that case all of the other roads are interstates except for US 36. Upgrading that would make it a better route, instead of the other alignment.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 04, 2018, 01:56:46 AM

Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:01:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 06:58:13 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 12:39:54 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

That (55>72>36>35) would seem to be the optimal commercial Chicago-KC route to avoid both St. Louis-area traffic and any potential slowdowns in the Quad Cities or Des Moines area on 80>35.  The CKC/110 alignment appears to be, plain & simple, a way to connect several small towns in western IL in order to snag some of the travel-related pass-through $$ for them.  It certainly isn't the shortest way to get from point A to point B!

I was mostly just talking about the possibility of turning US 36 into an extension of I-72. The conversion of the Illinois part of the route is just a side note. Making it an actual freeway would certainly make the route more legitimate and increase traffic along the route. Still, it looks like 55 to 72 to 36 to 35 is the best route. In that case all of the other roads are interstates except for US 36. Upgrading that would make it a better route, instead of the other alignment.

Well....since there doesn't seem to be anything in the air regarding Interstate conversion of the IL 336, US 67, and US 34 portions of the CKC, it would seem that the only currently non-Interstate segment to even warrant consideration is, simply, US 36 from Cameron to Hannibal as I-72.  However, such a conversion would be a long-term, even leisurely, process, even though there are a few segments of full freeway along that stretch.  Most of the current divided facility has gotten that way through the twinning process; the original alignment, regardless of travel direction, still has plenty of private access points that would have to be either bypassed by deploying an additional set of lanes or by installing frontage roads and/or "joists" over to local surface roads.  Either way, it won't be the easiest process and will inevitably disrupt farm and town access to US 36 during any construction effort.  But first MO needs to find the funding to do anything -- and this corridor is, in all likelihood, somewhere down the priority queue.  In the long haul, a western I-72 extension is a possibility -- but don't hold your breath; it won't be anytime soon.   

Quote from: sparker on May 04, 2018, 02:21:37 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 04, 2018, 01:56:46 AM

Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:01:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 06:58:13 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 12:39:54 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

That (55>72>36>35) would seem to be the optimal commercial Chicago-KC route to avoid both St. Louis-area traffic and any potential slowdowns in the Quad Cities or Des Moines area on 80>35.  The CKC/110 alignment appears to be, plain & simple, a way to connect several small towns in western IL in order to snag some of the travel-related pass-through $$ for them.  It certainly isn't the shortest way to get from point A to point B!

I was mostly just talking about the possibility of turning US 36 into an extension of I-72. The conversion of the Illinois part of the route is just a side note. Making it an actual freeway would certainly make the route more legitimate and increase traffic along the route. Still, it looks like 55 to 72 to 36 to 35 is the best route. In that case all of the other roads are interstates except for US 36. Upgrading that would make it a better route, instead of the other alignment.

Well....since there doesn't seem to be anything in the air regarding Interstate conversion of the IL 336, US 67, and US 34 portions of the CKC, it would seem that the only currently non-Interstate segment to even warrant consideration is, simply, US 36 from Cameron to Hannibal as I-72.  However, such a conversion would be a long-term, even leisurely, process, even though there are a few segments of full freeway along that stretch.  Most of the current divided facility has gotten that way through the twinning process; the original alignment, regardless of travel direction, still has plenty of private access points that would have to be either bypassed by deploying an additional set of lanes or by installing frontage roads and/or "joists" over to local surface roads.  Either way, it won't be the easiest process and will inevitably disrupt farm and town access to US 36 during any construction effort.  But first MO needs to find the funding to do anything -- and this corridor is, in all likelihood, somewhere down the priority queue.  In the long haul, a western I-72 extension is a possibility -- but don't hold your breath; it won't be anytime soon.

Which side is the original carriageway and which side is the new carriageway? I have a difficult time determining it.

Quote from: In_Correct on May 04, 2018, 10:16:37 AMWhich side is the original carriageway and which side is the new carriageway? I have a difficult time determining it.

It varies from one side to the other.  I have driven the US 36 route twice and my recollection is that it changes side about five to seven times between Cameron and Hannibal.

Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:01:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 06:58:13 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 12:39:54 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

That (55>72>36>35) would seem to be the optimal commercial Chicago-KC route to avoid both St. Louis-area traffic and any potential slowdowns in the Quad Cities or Des Moines area on 80>35.  The CKC/110 alignment appears to be, plain & simple, a way to connect several small towns in western IL in order to snag some of the travel-related pass-through $$ for them.  It certainly isn't the shortest way to get from point A to point B!

That's probably true, although it's just as simple to go I-80 > I-35 via Des Moines. Slightly longer, but all freeway. Any route south on I-55 needs an improved way around Springfield, IL. The I-55/72 duplex around the city can be quite busy.

Quote from: skluth on May 04, 2018, 01:35:01 PM

Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:01:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 06:58:13 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 12:39:54 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on May 02, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it become an interstate all the way to St. Joseph but the realist in me is saying it probably won't happen for a while.

That would be awesome. Maybe they will in the future if traffic increases and the CKC Expressway becomes a popular route. I wonder how this would affect the Illinois portion of the route. Maybe they'll upgrade that part of the route into an interstate as well. If it's well-traveled and needs upgrading.

LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

That (55>72>36>35) would seem to be the optimal commercial Chicago-KC route to avoid both St. Louis-area traffic and any potential slowdowns in the Quad Cities or Des Moines area on 80>35.  The CKC/110 alignment appears to be, plain & simple, a way to connect several small towns in western IL in order to snag some of the travel-related pass-through $$ for them.  It certainly isn't the shortest way to get from point A to point B!

That's probably true, although it's just as simple to go I-80 > I-35 via Des Moines. Slightly longer, but all freeway. Any route south on I-55 needs an improved way around Springfield, IL. The I-55/72 duplex around the city can be quite busy.

True -- but as with any metro area around 200K+, morning and afternoon rush hours are to be avoided.  Once out of Chicagoland, it's probably a wash as to the potential chokepoints are along the 80>35 route (Quad City, Des Moines, Iowa City during happy hour!) vs. Bloomington/Normal and Springfield via the 55>72 etc. routing.  IIRC, the Springfield route is a bit shorter in terms of strict mileage (especially if I-80 is used to "shunpike" I-88); I certainly haven't traveled each corridor in order to derive a comparison; I'll leave that assessment to more frequent regional travelers.  And I'm sure speed limits for an all-Interstate corridor would be somewhat more favorable than on a basic rural 4-lane facility; again, posters from Central should chime in on these factors. 

Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:01:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 06:58:13 AM
LOL!  In Illinois, it's easier to use I-55 and I-72 rather than the convoluted route the CKC takes through the state.

That (55>72>36>35) would seem to be the optimal commercial Chicago-KC route to avoid both St. Louis-area traffic and any potential slowdowns in the Quad Cities or Des Moines area on 80>35.  The CKC/110 alignment appears to be, plain & simple, a way to connect several small towns in western IL in order to snag some of the travel-related pass-through $$ for them.  It certainly isn't the shortest way to get from point A to point B! 

The only real advantage is if I-88 is a better entry/exit point for you than I-55.  That might be the case for people who live in or are driving to Aurora.  But I-55 would likewise be better for, well, pretty much everywhere else in Chicagoland.  Plus, 55 is free and 88 is not.

I actually used to go I-55 to Springfield, I-72 to Pittsfield, US-54 to Kingdom City, and then I-70 to KC.  That was my preferred Saint Louis bypass.  Truth be told, it was more common that I was driving US-54 all the way down to Macks Creek, because my more frequent destination was Branson rather than KC.

The CKC was a desperate attempt to try and justify spending money on the upgrade of IL-336 to a rural expressway.  Nobody traveling between Chicago and Kansas City is using IL-336 to reach their destination.  And if they were, they wouldn't need to sign this IL-110 insanity.

Quote from: kphoger on May 04, 2018, 04:28:17 PM
I actually used to go I-55 to Springfield, I-72 to Pittsfield, US-54 to Kingdom City, and then I-70 to KC.  That was my preferred Saint Louis bypass.  Truth be told, it was more common that I was driving US-54 all the way down to Macks Creek, because my more frequent destination was Branson rather than KC.

Back in 2002, I drove from Kansas City to Boardman, OH via Pittsburgh. I took the opportunity to do some sightseeing, and I took I-70 east to US 54 east to MO 19 north to US 61 north to I-72 east to I-74 east to I-70 east to Pittsburgh. It wasn't a bad route and it beat driving through St Louis. Coming back I took I-70 west to I-71 south to I-64 west to I-70 west. It was one of those monumental roadtrips that I will never forget.

Quote from: mgk920 on April 26, 2018, 11:25:44 PM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 26, 2018, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 26, 2018, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
Is there anything that justifies the conversion of US 36 between Hannibal and I-35 to a full freeway? I sure don't see it. It's a four-lane arterial route with limited-access sections in many places, including bypasses of the towns it passes by. Granted, I've only driven it once, but traffic seemed to be light and flowing freely across the corridor.

Again I say ... not every four-lane needs to be a freeway built to Interstate standards (I'm looking at you, US 31 in Indiana and US 220 in Virginia.)

As of now, probably not. But, in the future, if the truck traffic and traffic in general increases, then possibly. For the most part it has interchanges at the major intersections. So maybe a few more interchanges here and there if the need warrants it. Also, maybe fixing stuff like this (https://goo.gl/maps/xrJjWq86Xgp).

I'm guessing that US 36 in Missouri takes a similar form as WIS 29 in Wisconsin: a major four lane expressway that carries traffic across the state, but not so much that it justifies being a freeway for the entire route.

Every time that I've seen Big Rig Steve drive US 36 across parts of Missouri, it was never all that busy.

Mike

Am i big rig steve? I drive a big rig, and i do drive US36...it is never busy.

A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

It's six lanes south of town as well.  The scuttlebutt is that the politicians wanted to make it easier to get to Springfield but didn't care about going around Springfield.  Knowing Illinois, it's not unlikely.

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

I always thought the wider the median the better.  :confused:

Quote from: In_Correct on May 08, 2018, 09:55:43 AM

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

I always thought the wider the median the better.  :confused:

In a lot of rural areas, there's a wide median without any type of physical barrier separating the carriageways; the original consideration was that the distance (often approaching 100 feet) provided ample space for a vehicle to correct itself.  Smaller distances invariably involved cable barriers, thrie-beams, and K-rails.  Some states have been retrofitting barriers into even wide rural medians, particularly when instances of vehicle crossover have resulted in severe collisions.  This is true for both Interstate and non-Interstate freeways; most of CA 99, the older section of which featured linear banks of oleander bushes (which don't need much in the way of care or watering) in the median to act as both a separator and a buffer, now have either cables running down both sides of the trunks or even thrie-beams a few feet inboard from the inside of the lanes. 

In the case of "twinned" facilities, more often than not there's little if any barriers actually separating the directions -- particularly if one direction still functions as local access.  In the event of upgrade, many DOT's have elected to simply add a second new carriageway and convert the original road into frontage; although quite a bit more $$ upfront, it generally has the effect of forestalling any political issues regarding lack of local access.

Quote from: sparker on May 08, 2018, 05:46:21 PM

Quote from: In_Correct on May 08, 2018, 09:55:43 AM

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

I always thought the wider the median the better.  :confused:

In a lot of rural areas, there's a wide median without any type of physical barrier separating the carriageways; the original consideration was that the distance (often approaching 100 feet) provided ample space for a vehicle to correct itself.  Smaller distances invariably involved cable barriers, thrie-beams, and K-rails.  Some states have been retrofitting barriers into even wide rural medians, particularly when instances of vehicle crossover have resulted in severe collisions.  This is true for both Interstate and non-Interstate freeways; most of CA 99, the older section of which featured linear banks of oleander bushes (which don't need much in the way of care or watering) in the median to act as both a separator and a buffer, now have either cables running down both sides of the trunks or even thrie-beams a few feet inboard from the inside of the lanes. 

In the case of "twinned" facilities, more often than not there's little if any barriers actually separating the directions -- particularly if one direction still functions as local access.  In the event of upgrade, many DOT's have elected to simply add a second new carriageway and convert the original road into frontage; although quite a bit more $$ upfront, it generally has the effect of forestalling any political issues regarding lack of local access.

You mean like U.S. 36 to Hiawatha?

Quote from: In_Correct on May 10, 2018, 05:45:58 AM

Quote from: sparker on May 08, 2018, 05:46:21 PM

Quote from: In_Correct on May 08, 2018, 09:55:43 AM

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

I always thought the wider the median the better.  :confused:

In a lot of rural areas, there's a wide median without any type of physical barrier separating the carriageways; the original consideration was that the distance (often approaching 100 feet) provided ample space for a vehicle to correct itself.  Smaller distances invariably involved cable barriers, thrie-beams, and K-rails.  Some states have been retrofitting barriers into even wide rural medians, particularly when instances of vehicle crossover have resulted in severe collisions.  This is true for both Interstate and non-Interstate freeways; most of CA 99, the older section of which featured linear banks of oleander bushes (which don't need much in the way of care or watering) in the median to act as both a separator and a buffer, now have either cables running down both sides of the trunks or even thrie-beams a few feet inboard from the inside of the lanes. 

In the case of "twinned" facilities, more often than not there's little if any barriers actually separating the directions -- particularly if one direction still functions as local access.  In the event of upgrade, many DOT's have elected to simply add a second new carriageway and convert the original road into frontage; although quite a bit more $$ upfront, it generally has the effect of forestalling any political issues regarding lack of local access.

You mean like U.S. 36 to Hiawatha?

Not really; US 36 from west of Hiawatha to east of Troy is a combination of a "super-2" freeway and rural expressway -- some at-grade cross traffic but no private access.  It appears that the Hiawatha bypass itself is new-terrain construction.  This facility is expandable; there is room for a 2nd carriageway north of the existing one -- but it looks like it'll be a relatively narrow (40' or less) median, which means that some sort of physical barrier would likely be a part of any expansion effort. 

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

There is a study underway to widen the 55/72 multiplex to 6 lanes. The IL 4 "western bypass" which is sort of an arterial expressway was originally thought to take some of the traffic off of the eastern interstate route, but it hasn't happened so much in real life.

Quote from: Rick Powell on May 11, 2018, 01:17:04 PM

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

There is a study underway to widen the 55/72 multiplex to 6 lanes. The IL 4 "western bypass" which is sort of an arterial expressway was originally thought to take some of the traffic off of the eastern interstate route, but it hasn't happened so much in real life.

Getting clogged with stoplights serving a series of suburban strip malls and subdivisions has a way of discouraging through traffic

Quote from: skluth on May 11, 2018, 02:23:24 PM

Quote from: Rick Powell on May 11, 2018, 01:17:04 PM

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

There is a study underway to widen the 55/72 multiplex to 6 lanes. The IL 4 "western bypass" which is sort of an arterial expressway was originally thought to take some of the traffic off of the eastern interstate route, but it hasn't happened so much in real life.

Getting clogged with stoplights serving a series of suburban strip malls and subdivisions has a way of discouraging through traffic

Re the 55/72 multiplex: 6 general-purpose lanes would be an absolute minimum for that stretch of road (been on it several times); adding at least slip lanes between the interchanges would be a definite help.  Let's hope the plans also include an interchange revamp for the north/east 55-72 junction (get rid of the tight loop on WB 72). 

Quote from: sparker on May 11, 2018, 03:57:32 PM
Re the 55/72 multiplex: 6 general-purpose lanes would be an absolute minimum for that stretch of road (been on it several times); adding at least slip lanes between the interchanges would be a definite help.

Been on it when there was a wreck.  God help you then!

I had a handheld CB in the car back then, and one of the truckers was broadcasting a suggestion to get off I-55 SB and find your way to Bus-55 instead.  That might have been OK, if only every other trucker didn't also take the suggestion and clog up Bus-55 too...

Quote from: hbelkins on April 27, 2018, 10:32:24 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 26, 2018, 11:54:30 PM
Given that I live in Madison, I would probably take 151, 380, and 80 to get to I-35

Is that a better route than 151 to 20?

Either way has its drawbacks.

Traffic in general on 80 is pretty heavy in Iowa, especially Newton-Des Moines. Traffic between Ames and Des Moines on 35 though is just awful. There are plans to six-lane the remaining 20 miles but that's awhile off.

The nice thing about 80 is you can bypass Des Moines on 5/65 if you'd like. Smooth sailing to 35.

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 01:46:34 PM
Traffic between Ames and Des Moines on 35 though is just awful. There are plans to six-lane the remaining 20 miles but that's awhile off.

I really, really wish they'd just do this already. I encounter a slowdown just about every time I'm driving south through Ames, right around the US-30 interchange.

Also, the 5 mph speed limit reduction to 65 mph through Ames is ridiculous. I just... what? I don't get the point, and a lot of people (myself included) just ignore it.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:04:13 PM

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 01:46:34 PM
Traffic between Ames and Des Moines on 35 though is just awful. There are plans to six-lane the remaining 20 miles but that's awhile off.

I really, really wish they'd just do this already. I encounter a slowdown just about every time I'm driving south through Ames, right around the US-30 interchange.

Also, the 5 mph speed limit reduction to 65 mph through Ames is ridiculous. I just... what? I don't get the point, and a lot of people (myself included) just ignore it.

It's the same on I-80 through Iowa City, if I recall. My old man was pulled over because he didn't realize the drop off in speed limit. The cop was good to let him off with a warning (something tells me he is not the first person that's happened to), but that is just ridiculous! I mean, if there are tollways now in the Chicago Area that maintain a 70 MPH speed limit, shouldn't Iowa just keep it as is? Also, you could make an argument for them to raise the speed limit in that state to 75 MPH anyway.

Quote from: sparker on May 08, 2018, 05:46:21 PM
In a lot of rural areas, there's a wide median without any type of physical barrier separating the carriageways; the original consideration was that the distance (often approaching 100 feet) provided ample space for a vehicle to correct itself.  Smaller distances invariably involved cable barriers, thrie-beams, and K-rails.  Some states have been retrofitting barriers into even wide rural medians, particularly when instances of vehicle crossover have resulted in severe collisions.  This is true for both Interstate and non-Interstate freeways; most of CA 99, the older section of which featured linear banks of oleander bushes (which don't need much in the way of care or watering) in the median to act as both a separator and a buffer, now have either cables running down both sides of the trunks or even thrie-beams a few feet inboard from the inside of the lanes. 

Accident analysis studies have generally shown that 30 feet is ample width for an errant vehicle to recover safely, statistically very few vehicles need more than that.  A graded median 50 feet wide can do that without needing any guardrail, and have gradual enough slopes that it won't cause a vehicle to roll over.  A graded median needs enough slope to the center to establish adequate drainage.  A 30 or 40 foot wide median tends to have slopes that are too steep to provide a safe recovery zone.

Putting a guardrail in the middle of a 50 foot median will prevent the very rare instance of a car crossing the median, but that also means that there is just 25 feet of recovery space before the car hits the guardrail.  Just because a rare vehicle crosses the median doesn't mean that it will collide with another vehicle.

Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 19, 2018, 09:12:49 AM
It's the same on I-80 through Iowa City, if I recall. My old man was pulled over because he didn't realize the drop off in speed limit. The cop was good to let him off with a warning (something tells me he is not the first person that's happened to), but that is just ridiculous! I mean, if there are tollways now in the Chicago Area that maintain a 70 MPH speed limit, shouldn't Iowa just keep it as is? Also, you could make an argument for them to raise the speed limit in that state to 75 MPH anyway.

I have never seen a cop patrolling the Ames 65 mph section. Not to say it doesn't happen, I've just been fortunate to never witness it.

There's been multiple proposed bills in the Iowa legislature to raise it to 75, but none of them have ever gone anywhere, sadly.

Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 19, 2018, 09:12:49 AM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:04:13 PM
I really, really wish they'd just do this already. I encounter a slowdown just about every time I'm driving south through Ames, right around the US-30 interchange.

Also, the 5 mph speed limit reduction to 65 mph through Ames is ridiculous. I just... what? I don't get the point, and a lot of people (myself included) just ignore it.

It's the same on I-80 through Iowa City, if I recall. My old man was pulled over because he didn't realize the drop off in speed limit. The cop was good to let him off with a warning (something tells me he is not the first person that's happened to), but that is just ridiculous! I mean, if there are tollways now in the Chicago Area that maintain a 70 MPH speed limit, shouldn't Iowa just keep it as is? Also, you could make an argument for them to raise the speed limit in that state to 75 MPH anyway.

At least for Ames and Iowa City you actually see more of the city. I-80 through the Quad Cities on the Iowa side is mostly farmland, yet still gets posted at 65.  They make I-280 more tempting since it stays at 70 on the Illinois side.

As for the Illinois Tollways, only I-90 is currently posted at 70 well into Chicagoland.  I halfway expect the start of the section posted at 70 to be moved back west given the recurring congestion around Schaumburg - westbound in particular seems to have a recurring evening backup from I-290 to Roselle Road.

Quote from: Revive 755 on May 19, 2018, 10:09:25 AM

Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 19, 2018, 09:12:49 AM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:04:13 PM
I really, really wish they'd just do this already. I encounter a slowdown just about every time I'm driving south through Ames, right around the US-30 interchange.

Also, the 5 mph speed limit reduction to 65 mph through Ames is ridiculous. I just... what? I don't get the point, and a lot of people (myself included) just ignore it.

It's the same on I-80 through Iowa City, if I recall. My old man was pulled over because he didn't realize the drop off in speed limit. The cop was good to let him off with a warning (something tells me he is not the first person that's happened to), but that is just ridiculous! I mean, if there are tollways now in the Chicago Area that maintain a 70 MPH speed limit, shouldn't Iowa just keep it as is? Also, you could make an argument for them to raise the speed limit in that state to 75 MPH anyway.

At least for Ames and Iowa City you actually see more of the city. I-80 through the Quad Cities on the Iowa side is mostly farmland, yet still gets posted at 65.  They make I-280 more tempting since it stays at 70 on the Illinois side.

As it is now, Iowa's 70 MPH speed limit only applies to Interstate highways outside of urban areas of less than 50,000 people. Both Iowa City and Ames have over 50,000, especially when classes at Iowa and Iowa State are in session. I-80 also goes through the city limits of Davenport and Bettendorf, hence the posted speed limit being 65.

Since both threads live I will post updates here. Missouri legislature put a gas tax on the ballot again.Illinois won't have a capital Bill until next year at the earliest. But Macomb bypass will open by June 1 however the US 34 Freeway is closed until fall and traffic is on Illinois 164 which is old 34.

I have followed the CKC talk since it was first publicized in Chicago back in the 1970's.

It honestly serves 2 purposes.

Trucking Lobby
Serving "Forgottonia" a nickname for western IL

When IDOT announced they could not get funding for the CKC in 1979, a private toll road just for trucks was proposed. Several entities lobbied for that but DOT would not grant them the needed legal rights (similar to a railroad) and the effort died. Plus back then public-private ventures on highways was not in vogue.

So the current CKC is a total compromise that does not do a good job of serving trucks or western IL industry.

But its current form does meet an IL goal of having an interstate quality road within so many miles of every town.

As far as Missouri goes, they really need to get the Bella Vista bypass resolved before messing with any CKC stuff. I recently saw interviews of ARDOT officials and they said they are trying to help MoDOT with the funding gaps.

Leave CKC as is. I have been across Missouri and its fine for now.

Quote from: sparker on May 11, 2018, 03:57:32 PM

Quote from: skluth on May 11, 2018, 02:23:24 PM

Quote from: Rick Powell on May 11, 2018, 01:17:04 PM

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

There is a study underway to widen the 55/72 multiplex to 6 lanes. The IL 4 "western bypass" which is sort of an arterial expressway was originally thought to take some of the traffic off of the eastern interstate route, but it hasn't happened so much in real life.

Getting clogged with stoplights serving a series of suburban strip malls and subdivisions has a way of discouraging through traffic

Re the 55/72 multiplex: 6 general-purpose lanes would be an absolute minimum for that stretch of road (been on it several times); adding at least slip lanes between the interchanges would be a definite help.  Let's hope the plans also include an interchange revamp for the north/east 55-72 junction (get rid of the tight loop on WB 72). 

The problem with 55/72 around Springfield is that it uses the original US 66 bypass of Springfield.  They can't do 6 lanes without a ton of work.  The curve at Stevenson Drive near the CWLP power plant will be a chokepoint.

Quote from: iowahighways on May 19, 2018, 10:52:51 AM
As it is now, Iowa's 70 MPH speed limit only applies to Interstate highways outside of urban areas of less than 50,000 people. Both Iowa City and Ames have over 50,000, especially when classes at Iowa and Iowa State are in session. I-80 also goes through the city limits of Davenport and Bettendorf, hence the posted speed limit being 65.

I did not know that. However, let me just say, bluntly and inelegantly, that that law is retarded. IMO there's no good, practical reason I should need to slow down 5 mph through those areas. Neither traffic volume nor highway geometry dictate the necessity of the speed reduction in any of those aforementioned places.

Quote from: adt1982 on May 19, 2018, 12:11:46 PM

Quote from: sparker on May 11, 2018, 03:57:32 PM

Quote from: skluth on May 11, 2018, 02:23:24 PM

Quote from: Rick Powell on May 11, 2018, 01:17:04 PM

Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
A couple of thangz:


1. The I-55/I-72 multiplex in Springfield needs to be widened to six lanes. It's weird how I-55 is six lanes from Lincoln all the way down to near Springfield, but then narrows to four lanes in time for I-72 to tie in.

2. If U.S. 36 in Missouri is going to be upgraded to I-72, then MODOT will have to properly grade several segments that weren't when the highway was twinned, like the eastbound lanes east of Marceline and the westbound lanes west of Cameron.

There is a study underway to widen the 55/72 multiplex to 6 lanes. The IL 4 "western bypass" which is sort of an arterial expressway was originally thought to take some of the traffic off of the eastern interstate route, but it hasn't happened so much in real life.

Getting clogged with stoplights serving a series of suburban strip malls and subdivisions has a way of discouraging through traffic

Re the 55/72 multiplex: 6 general-purpose lanes would be an absolute minimum for that stretch of road (been on it several times); adding at least slip lanes between the interchanges would be a definite help.  Let's hope the plans also include an interchange revamp for the north/east 55-72 junction (get rid of the tight loop on WB 72). 

The problem with 55/72 around Springfield is that it uses the original US 66 bypass of Springfield.  They can't do 6 lanes without a ton of work.  The curve at Stevenson Drive near the CWLP power plant will be a chokepoint.

IDOT has it on their website as a project, but the dedicated site for planning (www.i55springfield.com) updates gets a 404.

I was reading recently that there are so many constituencies fighting for so few dollars that other than repairs, nothing will happen around Springfield for a long time.

Quote from: adt1982 on May 19, 2018, 12:11:46 PM
The problem with 55/72 around Springfield is that it uses the original US 66 bypass of Springfield.

Dirksen Parkway and Stevenson Drive?

Quote from: NE2 on May 19, 2018, 12:34:43 PM

Quote from: adt1982 on May 19, 2018, 12:11:46 PM
The problem with 55/72 around Springfield is that it uses the original US 66 bypass of Springfield.

Dirksen Parkway and Stevenson Drive?

Dirksen Parkway is the actual original US66 bypass. Then a new bypass was built to the east of Dirksen which is now I-55 and connected the 6th Street expressway to go south.  You can still see the original expressway on the west side of I-55 right after you cross Lake Springfield.

There are other issues, but I would digress from the thread title.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:54 PM

Quote from: iowahighways on May 19, 2018, 10:52:51 AM
As it is now, Iowa's 70 MPH speed limit only applies to Interstate highways outside of urban areas of less than 50,000 people. Both Iowa City and Ames have over 50,000, especially when classes at Iowa and Iowa State are in session. I-80 also goes through the city limits of Davenport and Bettendorf, hence the posted speed limit being 65.

I did not know that. However, let me just say, bluntly and inelegantly, that that law is retarded. IMO there's no good, practical reason I should need to slow down 5 mph through those areas. Neither traffic volume nor highway geometry dictate the necessity of the speed reduction in any of those aforementioned places.

Air quality issues, perhaps? In Tennessee, I-75's speed limit drops just as soon as you enter Knox County from the north, although the area is still very rural and you don't start reaching development until several miles farther south.

No urban air quality is better than rural in Iowa because of all the hog farms.Its just Iowa just like Illinois is going to have the 2 lane Macomb bypass freeway at 55.

Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 19, 2018, 09:12:49 AM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 18, 2018, 10:04:13 PM

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 18, 2018, 01:46:34 PM
Traffic between Ames and Des Moines on 35 though is just awful. There are plans to six-lane the remaining 20 miles but that's awhile off.

I really, really wish they'd just do this already. I encounter a slowdown just about every time I'm driving south through Ames, right around the US-30 interchange.

Also, the 5 mph speed limit reduction to 65 mph through Ames is ridiculous. I just... what? I don't get the point, and a lot of people (myself included) just ignore it.

It's the same on I-80 through Iowa City, if I recall. My old man was pulled over because he didn't realize the drop off in speed limit. The cop was good to let him off with a warning (something tells me he is not the first person that's happened to), but that is just ridiculous! I mean, if there are tollways now in the Chicago Area that maintain a 70 MPH speed limit, shouldn't Iowa just keep it as is? Also, you could make an argument for them to raise the speed limit in that state to 75 MPH anyway.

Iowa was super late in the game bumping the speed limit to 70. For perspective: When we moved to 70, SD was already at 75 and MN was considering it too. Now MN is at 75, SD is at 80, and we're...at least 3 years from 75.

Also, IC cops are the worst.

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 24, 2018, 10:15:40 AM
Now MN is at 75

Haha, I wish. (Still only 70 in Minnesota.)

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 24, 2018, 11:33:51 AM

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 24, 2018, 10:15:40 AM
Now MN is at 75

Haha, I wish. (Still only 70 in Minnesota.)

Meanwhile, traffic on I-35 south of the Cities goes 81 mph anyway.

Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2018, 01:10:54 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 24, 2018, 11:33:51 AM

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 24, 2018, 10:15:40 AM
Now MN is at 75

Haha, I wish. (Still only 70 in Minnesota.)

Meanwhile, traffic on I-35 south of the Cities goes 81 mph anyway.

Can confirm. ;-)

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 24, 2018, 10:15:40 AM
Iowa was super late in the game bumping the speed limit to 70. For perspective: When we moved to 70, SD was already at 75 and MN was considering it too. Now MN is at 75, SD is at 80, and we're...at least 3 years from 75.

Also, IC cops are the worst.

Late in the game?  Your neighbors to the east were a bit later.

Quote from: Brandon on May 25, 2018, 11:51:23 AM

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 24, 2018, 10:15:40 AM
Iowa was super late in the game bumping the speed limit to 70. For perspective: When we moved to 70, SD was already at 75 and MN was considering it too. Now MN is at 75, SD is at 80, and we're...at least 3 years from 75.

Also, IC cops are the worst.

Late in the game?  Your neighbors to the east were a bit later.

Those said neighbors need to get some 75 action going. I-90, I-88, I-39, I-80, I-55, I-57, I-74, I-72, I-70, I-64, I-24 all have sections that justify 75 MPH Speed Limits

Do IDOT & ISTHA have the authority to raise the Limits, or do they need approval from the IL Legislature?

Quote from: ilpt4u on May 26, 2018, 02:01:28 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 25, 2018, 11:51:23 AM

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on May 24, 2018, 10:15:40 AM
Iowa was super late in the game bumping the speed limit to 70. For perspective: When we moved to 70, SD was already at 75 and MN was considering it too. Now MN is at 75, SD is at 80, and we're...at least 3 years from 75.

Also, IC cops are the worst.

Late in the game?  Your neighbors to the east were a bit later.

Those said neighbors need to get some 75 action going. I-90, I-88, I-39, I-80, I-55, I-57, I-74, I-72, I-70, I-64, I-24 all have sections that justify 75 MPH Speed Limits

Do IDOT & ISTHA have the authority to raise the Limits, or do they need approval from the IL Legislature?

It's solely a state decision. They just cant exceed any federal standards or risk losing their highway funding.

Quote from: ilpt4u on May 26, 2018, 02:01:28 PM
Do IDOT & ISTHA have the authority to raise the Limits, or do they need approval from the IL Legislature?

Tthey would need the Illinois statutes to be rewritten by Legislature, as they currently specify a maximum of 70.

Driving on the C-KC corridor will be more bearable now since the IL-336 bypass around Macomb is now open to traffic.  The bypass is only a "super 2" since what's supposed to be southbound lanes haven't been paved yet.

http://tspr.org/post/macomb-bypass-now-open-traffic (http://tspr.org/post/macomb-bypass-now-open-traffic)

How is IL 336 going to run between its current end at US 67 to the US 67 expressway north of Good Hope? Will it cross 67 just north of Macomb, then turn north, bypass Good Hope to the east then veer into the current expressway just north of Good Hope?

I thought IL 336 was destined to end @ I-474 in Peoria, utilizing the unnumbered 4 lane freeway @ 474 Exit 3A that presently serves as a long ramp from 474 to IL 116

That route is supposed to connect to the new Macomb Bypass @ US 67, I believe

From billburmaster.com
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Fimages%2F336_mactopeo_022005.jpg&hash=a48a8a842a15749b4a045e34516ea7126c166cc1)

Quote from: ilpt4u on June 03, 2018, 06:27:12 PM
I thought IL 336 was destined to end @ I-474 in Peoria, utilizing the unnumbered 4 lane freeway @ 474 Exit 3A that presently serves as a long ramp from 474 to IL 116

That route is supposed to connect to the new Macomb Bypass @ US 67, I believe

From billburmaster.com
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Fimages%2F336_mactopeo_022005.jpg&hash=a48a8a842a15749b4a045e34516ea7126c166cc1)

IIRC, that plan was proposed in the early 2000's but postponed indefinitely until funding is identified.  But the corridor's existence indicates just why both 110 and 336 are co-signed on the segment between Quincy and Macomb (plainly the corridors' point of divergence).

Yup, no funding, and doubtful Tolls would pay for it, either. And with the State of IL financial situation, who knows if/when this corridor will be realized

It is still planned, and the first mile or two in Peoria has already been built. Plenty more miles needed to bridge the gap between Peoria and Macomb

I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why US 136 wasn't rerouted to the IL 336 bypass of Colchester. It follows the expressway then hops off and follows the old route from Tennessee to just east of Colchester. It would make more sense to follow 336 all the way.

Quote from: bugo on June 04, 2018, 10:18:33 PM
I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why US 136 wasn't rerouted to the IL 336 bypass of Colchester. It follows the expressway then hops off and follows the old route from Tennessee to just east of Colchester. It would make more sense to follow 336 all the way.

No promise of satisfaction, but I would assume US 136 stays on the Thru Town Route, as it was before the Bypass, and the 336 Peoria-Quincy and 110 CKC are routed on the new Bypass, as an Express/Bypass around the towns

Not to muddy the waters but IDOT long term plans include a US67 bypass of Macomb on the east side.

It will intersect north of Macomb where the west bypass meets the existing US67 today.

So if IL-336 does come to a reality in our lifetime between Peoria and Macomb, I would assume it would intersect with US67 east of Macomb and bypass to the north to join the existing IL-336.

Quote from: bugo on June 04, 2018, 10:18:33 PM
I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why US 136 wasn't rerouted to the IL 336 bypass of Colchester. It follows the expressway then hops off and follows the old route from Tennessee to just east of Colchester. It would make more sense to follow 336 all the way.

Not sure if this meets your needs, but re-routing a federal highway would require renumbering the mileage markers from Dillsburg IL to Keokuk IA. All because a bypass would add 2, maybe 3 miles?

Seems kind of straight forward to me.

Quote from: edwaleni on June 05, 2018, 06:26:49 PM

Quote from: bugo on June 04, 2018, 10:18:33 PM
I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why US 136 wasn't rerouted to the IL 336 bypass of Colchester. It follows the expressway then hops off and follows the old route from Tennessee to just east of Colchester. It would make more sense to follow 336 all the way.

Not sure if this meets your needs, but re-routing a federal highway would require renumbering the mileage markers from Dillsburg IL to Keokuk IA. All because a bypass would add 2, maybe 3 miles?

Seems kind of straight forward to me.

Not really. They reroute highways all the time. And this is technically an AASHTO violation as the US routes are supposed to follow the best route between two points.

Quote from: bugo on June 06, 2018, 12:59:25 AM

Quote from: edwaleni on June 05, 2018, 06:26:49 PM

Quote from: bugo on June 04, 2018, 10:18:33 PM
I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why US 136 wasn't rerouted to the IL 336 bypass of Colchester. It follows the expressway then hops off and follows the old route from Tennessee to just east of Colchester. It would make more sense to follow 336 all the way.

Not sure if this meets your needs, but re-routing a federal highway would require renumbering the mileage markers from Dillsburg IL to Keokuk IA. All because a bypass would add 2, maybe 3 miles?

Seems kind of straight forward to me.

Not really. They reroute highways all the time. And this is technically an AASHTO violation as the US routes are supposed to follow the best route between two points.

The whole City of Indy is an AASHTO violation then...US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421 routing on the Beltway is not the best route between 2 points

Quote from: edwaleni on June 05, 2018, 06:26:49 PM

Quote from: bugo on June 04, 2018, 10:18:33 PM
I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why US 136 wasn't rerouted to the IL 336 bypass of Colchester. It follows the expressway then hops off and follows the old route from Tennessee to just east of Colchester. It would make more sense to follow 336 all the way.

Not sure if this meets your needs, but re-routing a federal highway would require renumbering the mileage markers from Dillsburg IL to Keokuk IA. All because a bypass would add 2, maybe 3 miles?

Seems kind of straight forward to me.

Two words: Milepost equation.

Quote from: ilpt4u on June 06, 2018, 01:35:20 AM
The whole City of Indy is an AASHTO violation then...US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421 routing on the Beltway is not the best route between 2 points

AASHTO considers a freeway to be a better route than a more direct surface alignment.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 01:52:50 AM

Quote from: ilpt4u on June 06, 2018, 01:35:20 AM
The whole City of Indy is an AASHTO violation then...US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421 routing on the Beltway is not the best route between 2 points

AASHTO considers a freeway to be a better route than a more direct surface alignment.

Maybe some of the time. Certainly not all the time.

Tho there are plenty of counter-examples. US 41 vs the Pennyrile Pkwy, US 231 vs the Natcher Pkwy, US 62 vs both the Western KY and Bluegrass Pkwys (sure, the KY Pkwys used to be Toll Roads, but not anymore), US 40 vs I-70 for a good portion of their respective lenghts

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

AASHTO considers a freeway route to be a better route than a surface route. That does not mean that it is, in actuality, the best route to take. However, they will approve a move of a US route to a freeway, if a state applies to do so, under the assumption this is a better route. If a US route follows a surface route, and the state does not apply to move the US route to an available freeway, AASHTO will not have an opinion because nothing is brought to them to approve or reject. AASHTO will usually reject a move of a US route from a freeway to a surface route.

Someone at AASHTO should have realized that I-65 is a better route for US 31 through Indy than I-465 around halfway.

Quote from: bugo on June 04, 2018, 10:18:33 PM
I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why US 136 wasn't rerouted to the IL 336 bypass of Colchester. It follows the expressway then hops off and follows the old route from Tennessee to just east of Colchester. It would make more sense to follow 336 all the way.

I wonder if it's a bargaining chip. Illinois saying we'll remove this highway from the national road network in exchange for adding something else. I don't know AASHTO's rules regarding highway responsibility and maintenance.

Quote from: skluth on June 06, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
I don't know AASHTO's rules regarding highway responsibility and maintenance.

There are none.

Quote from: bugo on June 04, 2018, 10:18:33 PM
I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why US 136 wasn't rerouted to the IL 336 bypass of Colchester. It follows the expressway then hops off and follows the old route from Tennessee to just east of Colchester. It would make more sense to follow 336 all the way.

Wonder if this one of those things that IDOT is just dragging its feet on?

I drove a segment of US 136 across Illinois several years ago, and I remember construction paralleling that route somewhere along the line. I'm presuming that's what's being discussed here.

I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep a US route on an older alignment if a new alignment has a state route number.

In a case like US 460 in Kentucky, I can understand why the US route hasn't been put on the new four-lane alignment yet because it has not been finished. I actually don't look for US 460 to go onto the under-construction Corridor Q until the entire route is finished between Pikeville and Grundy. I don't even think it will be signed when the route is completed to Elkhorn City.

Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2018, 11:38:29 AM
Someone at AASHTO should have realized that I-65 is a better route for US 31 through Indy than I-465 around halfway.

US 52 as well for I-65 vs I-465

I-70 is a better choice for US 40 and US 36 vs I-465 as well

US 421 using I-465, I am ok with

Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2018, 02:02:01 PM

Quote from: skluth on June 06, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
I don't know AASHTO's rules regarding highway responsibility and maintenance.

There are none.

Thanks. I had wondered if the federal government limited the number of road miles they would help maintain much like some states limit total number of state-maintained highway miles. (E.g., Wisconsin limits their support to highways to something like 12K miles in their state law.)

Quote from: skluth on June 07, 2018, 10:43:39 AM

Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2018, 02:02:01 PM

Quote from: skluth on June 06, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
I don't know AASHTO's rules regarding highway responsibility and maintenance.

There are none.

Thanks. I had wondered if the federal government limited the number of road miles they would help maintain much like some states limit total number of state-maintained highway miles. (E.g., Wisconsin limits their support to highways to something like 12K miles in their state law.)

Keep in mind that AASHTO is not a regulatory agency like FHWA. It's a voluntary organization of state DOTs and has no enforcement power.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2018, 03:27:40 PM
Keep in mind that AASHTO is not a regulatory agency like FHWA. It's a voluntary organization of state DOTs and has no enforcement power.

Right. Its power lies in harnessing the unchecked rage of roadgeeks and channeling it into nonsensical interstates in North Carolina.

Quote from: Highway63 on June 12, 2018, 05:47:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2018, 03:27:40 PM
Keep in mind that AASHTO is not a regulatory agency like FHWA. It's a voluntary organization of state DOTs and has no enforcement power.

Right. Its power lies in harnessing the unchecked rage of roadgeeks and channeling it into nonsensical interstates in North Carolina.

The only problem is that FHWA, which does have regulatory power, often simply rubber-stamps the AASHTO/SCOURN decisions.  I guess they figure that the more they can "farm out" to other entities, the less work they have to do!

Quote from: Highway63 on June 12, 2018, 05:47:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2018, 03:27:40 PM
Keep in mind that AASHTO is not a regulatory agency like FHWA. It's a voluntary organization of state DOTs and has no enforcement power.

Right. Its power lies in harnessing the unchecked rage of roadgeeks and channeling it into nonsensical interstates in North Carolina.

It is listed in the DSM-V as "Interstate insanity".

Found this old thread to let you know the section to Peoria is pretty much dead. Canton IL cut a deal to 4 lane US 24 instead so there would have to be a new study between there and Macomb. More details in Southern Illinois notes in Ohio Valley of anyone cares. ....

Quote from: Beltway on June 12, 2018, 06:16:20 PM

Quote from: Highway63 on June 12, 2018, 05:47:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2018, 03:27:40 PM
Keep in mind that AASHTO is not a regulatory agency like FHWA. It's a voluntary organization of state DOTs and has no enforcement power.

Right. Its power lies in harnessing the unchecked rage of roadgeeks and channeling it into nonsensical interstates in North Carolina.

It is listed in the DSM-V as "Interstate insanity".

Does the DSM say that cannabis smoke is infested with demons?

Quote from: bugo on March 25, 2020, 07:15:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on June 12, 2018, 06:16:20 PM

Quote from: Highway63 on June 12, 2018, 05:47:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2018, 03:27:40 PM
Keep in mind that AASHTO is not a regulatory agency like FHWA. It's a voluntary organization of state DOTs and has no enforcement power.

Right. Its power lies in harnessing the unchecked rage of roadgeeks and channeling it into nonsensical interstates in North Carolina.

It is listed in the DSM-V as "Interstate insanity".

Does the DSM say that cannabis smoke is infested with demons?

The psychiatric profession by and large doesn't believe in anything in the supernatural or in parapsychology.

Interestingly, Carl Jung, one of the major founders of psychiatry, was deeply into the occult.

Jung had an apparent interest in the paranormal and occult. For decades he attended seances and claimed to have witnessed "parapsychic phenomena". Initially he attributed these to psychological causes, even delivering a 1919 lecture in England for the Society for Psychical Research on "The Psychological Foundations for the belief in spirits". However, he began to "doubt whether an exclusively psychological approach can do justice to the phenomena in question" and stated that "the spirit hypothesis yields better results".

Jung's ideas about the paranormal culminated in "synchronicity", his idea that meaningful connections in the world manifest through coincidence with no apparent causal link. What he referred to as "acausal connecting principle". Despite his own experiments failing to confirm the phenomenon he held on to the idea as an explanation for apparent ESP. As well as proposing it as a functional explanation for how the I-Ching worked, although he was never clear about how synchronicity worked.
-- Wikipedia

Quote from: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 07:46:53 PM

Quote from: bugo on March 25, 2020, 07:15:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on June 12, 2018, 06:16:20 PM

Quote from: Highway63 on June 12, 2018, 05:47:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2018, 03:27:40 PM
Keep in mind that AASHTO is not a regulatory agency like FHWA. It's a voluntary organization of state DOTs and has no enforcement power.

Right. Its power lies in harnessing the unchecked rage of roadgeeks and channeling it into nonsensical interstates in North Carolina.

It is listed in the DSM-V as "Interstate insanity".

Does the DSM say that cannabis smoke is infested with demons?

The psychiatric profession by and large doesn't believe in anything in the supernatural or in parapsychology.

Interestingly, Carl Jung, one of the major founders of psychiatry, was deeply into the occult.

Jung had an apparent interest in the paranormal and occult. For decades he attended seances and claimed to have witnessed "parapsychic phenomena". Initially he attributed these to psychological causes, even delivering a 1919 lecture in England for the Society for Psychical Research on "The Psychological Foundations for the belief in spirits". However, he began to "doubt whether an exclusively psychological approach can do justice to the phenomena in question" and stated that "the spirit hypothesis yields better results".

Jung's ideas about the paranormal culminated in "synchronicity", his idea that meaningful connections in the world manifest through coincidence with no apparent causal link. What he referred to as "acausal connecting principle". Despite his own experiments failing to confirm the phenomenon he held on to the idea as an explanation for apparent ESP. As well as proposing it as a functional explanation for how the I-Ching worked, although he was never clear about how synchronicity worked.
-- Wikipedia

Synchronicity may not be explainable -- but at least it was a very listenable Police album!

Quote from: 3467 on March 25, 2020, 01:11:16 PM
Found this old thread to let you know the section to Peoria is pretty much dead. Canton IL cut a deal to 4 lane US 24 instead so there would have to be a new study between there and Macomb. More details in Southern Illinois notes in Ohio Valley of anyone cares. ....

The agreement is to 4 lane US-24 only as far as Banner.

I haven't seen any plans or contracts issued to further upgrade IL-9 the rest of the way to Canton.

However after the US-24 upgrade is done and it pushes more traffic that way, I would suspect, a few improvements on IL-9 will follow in the coming years.

As for the future of IL-336 west of Peoria, it probably will not make it all the way to Macomb, but I would surmise the planned improvements will get to Farmington eventually, if anything to get that silly stub to be more effective.

Farmington is pretty noisy and is the reason the Union Pacific ROW has been banked for future use. I predict a repeat when the funding plate gets passed around again.

Sometime around 2030 or 2035 it will all come to a head again.

Quote from: sparker on March 26, 2020, 01:45:44 PM
Synchronicity may not be explainable -- but at least it was a very listenable Police album!

Carl Jung also was renowned for promulgating theories about "archetypes" and the "collective unconscious."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype#Jungian_archetypes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious