Similar to the Most lightest traveled interstate in your state (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26933.0) thread, what is the lightest traveled freeway segment in your state?
Maybe the segment of Golden State Boulevard in Fresno (Old US 99) between Cherry Avenue and modern CA 99. That small stub freeway is so light on traffic a homeless encampment has popped up on the northbound shoulder.
If Parkways count, then it probably would have been the far western end of the Lake Ontario State Parkway, before it (permanently?) closed a few years ago.
Hmm. For MN might be the US 169 freeway bypass of Princeton or the MN 23 bypass of Paynesville, but those are pure guesses based on my travel history. Someone else can look up the actual AADT numbers.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 22, 2020, 06:59:06 PM
I-94 between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, 3 vehicles per day.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 22, 2020, 10:54:24 PM
Someone else can look up the actual AADT numbers.
Yeah, I guess so.
Quote from: webny99 on May 22, 2020, 10:49:18 PM
If Parkways count, then it probably would have been the far western end of the Lake Ontario State Parkway, before it (permanently?) closed a few years ago.
Actually, no. Robert Moses State Parkway spur has a lower AADT. That basically only serves Fort Niagara State Park. A little under 500/day.
Least-traveled Interstate is I-81 on Wellesley Island with 4300. That is the least traveled non-parkway freeway in the state, beating I-81 in Allegany County by 1000.
In Michigan, it's I-75 between exits 359 and 373 with an AADT of 4,456.
Honorable mentions go to (freeway stretches below 10,000):
I-75 exits 373-378: 4,694
I-75 exits 378-380: 5,081
US-23 Standish spur connecting I-75 to M-13: 5,412
I-75 exits 352-359: 5,442
BUS US-131 (Kalamazoo) US-131 exit 44-Douglas Ave: 6,170
I-75 exits 344-345: 6,557
I-75 exits 380-386: 6,570
US-127 exits 189-194: 6,621
I-75 exits 392-394: 6,659
I-75 exits 348-352: 6,796
US-127 exits 170-176: 6,912
US-10 exits 82-85: 7,076
US-31 exits 166-170: 7,437
I-75 exits 345-348: 7,444
I-75 exits 386-392: 8,022
I-75 exits 239-244: 8,110
US-131 exits 183-191: 8,266
US-31 exits 22-24: 8,583
US-131 exit 191-end of freeway: 8,721
US-131 exits 180-183: 8,725
I-75 exits 227-239: 8,785
US-127 exits 194-201: 9,283
US-31 exits 154-158: 9,634
US-127 exits 176-189: 9,699
Going out on a limb for Colorado, I would say I-70 between Loma/CO-139 and the Utah Line.
Quote from: cl94 on May 22, 2020, 11:39:05 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 22, 2020, 10:49:18 PM
If Parkways count, then it probably would have been the far western end of the Lake Ontario State Parkway, before it (permanently?) closed a few years ago.
Actually, no. Robert Moses State Parkway spur has a lower AADT. That basically only serves Fort Niagara State Park. A little under 500/day.
The end of the LOSP has an AADT of 551, so very comparable. The difference is that the LOSP is functionally a freeway, while the Fort Niagara Spur isn't. It's basically a glorified interchange.
Quote from: cl94 on May 22, 2020, 11:39:05 PM
Least-traveled Interstate is I-81 on Wellesley Island with 4300. That is the least traveled non-parkway freeway in the state, beating I-81 I-86 in Allegany County by 1000.
FTFY. Can't believe I didn't think of that segment of I-81!
US 219 south of Springville is also in the running, but comes up short with an AADT of about 5100.
Quote from: thenetwork on May 23, 2020, 10:57:22 AM
Going out on a limb for Colorado, I would say I-70 between Loma/CO-139 and the Utah Line.
Close, but no cigar. Your segment is 8300 while I-76 between Ovid and Julesburg is 7800.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on May 23, 2020, 12:37:19 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 23, 2020, 10:57:22 AM
Going out on a limb for Colorado, I would say I-70 between Loma/CO-139 and the Utah Line.
Close, but no cigar. Your segment is 8300 while I-70 between Ovid and Julesburg is 7800.
Chris
You mean I-76?
For Virginia my guess would be VA-895, a troubled toll road near Richmond that I believe has around 4,000 AADT. However if they count, it could also theoretically be one of the newer US-58 bypasses, perhaps the Hillsville or Stuart one.
For Illinois, it has to be the entirety of I-180.
http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/gai.htm?mt=aadt
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 23, 2020, 09:59:04 PM
For Virginia my guess would be VA-895, a troubled toll road near Richmond that I believe has around 4,000 AADT. However if they count, it could also theoretically be one of the newer US-58 bypasses, perhaps the Hillsville or Stuart one.
VA-895 has around 7,600 AADT between Laburnum Ave and I-295. West of Laburnum Ave to I-95, it's about 15,000 AADT.
In South Hampton Roads, the tolled segment of VA-168 drops to around 10,000 AADT between Hillcrest Pkwy and Gallbush Rd. North of the toll portion, it jumps to 37,000 AADT. South of the toll portion, it jumps to 26,000 AADT. Paralleling the toll road, Business VA-168 carries between 15,000 and 21,000 AADT.
VDOT does not have traffic counts available for the US-58 Hillsville Bypass, but considering US-58 west of it carries 2,000 AADT, I'd say it's quite low. Not sure if it's the lowest, but in the top 10. The US-58 Stuart Bypass is not a freeway. It has one interchange with VA-1025, though otherwise there's at-grade intersections on either side. Either way, 3,700 AADT.
Here's something... out of all these lightest traveled segments, what would be the lightest traveled freeway segment in the country?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 12:24:03 AM
Here's something... out of all these lightest traveled segments, what would be the lightest traveled freeway segment in the country?
I-180 across the Illinois River has an AADT of 1975. Anything lower?
I'm not totally sure, but I would guess that it would be the MA 57 freeway.
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 23, 2020, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on May 23, 2020, 12:37:19 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 23, 2020, 10:57:22 AM
Going out on a limb for Colorado, I would say I-70 between Loma/CO-139 and the Utah Line.
Close, but no cigar. Your segment is 8300 while I-70 between Ovid and Julesburg is 7800.
Chris
You mean I-76?
Yes, I-76 just before Julesburg. Though I was surprised by I-70's low numbers at the Utah line.
The lowest I can find in Georgia is the eastern half of the US 84 Bainbridge bypass at 8840 AADT. I think it's the only one under 10k in the state.
From what I've seen, it's I-70 between I-81 at Hagerstown and the I-68 split.
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 23, 2020, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on May 23, 2020, 12:37:19 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 23, 2020, 10:57:22 AM
Going out on a limb for Colorado, I would say I-70 between Loma/CO-139 and the Utah Line.
Close, but no cigar. Your segment is 8300 while I-70 between Ovid and Julesburg is 7800.
Chris
You mean I-76?
Yep. Fixed my post. Quick typing on my phone.
Chris
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 12:24:03 AM
Here's something... out of all these lightest traveled segments, what would be the lightest traveled freeway segment in the country?
With several of NY's parkways having AADT's under 1000, we kind of need to know whether those count or not before determining an answer.
Quote from: webny99 on May 24, 2020, 09:57:04 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 12:24:03 AM
Here's something... out of all these lightest traveled segments, what would be the lightest traveled freeway segment in the country?
With several of NY's parkways having AADT's under 1000, we kind of need to know whether those count or not before determining an answer.
I would count them if they are fully limited access.
CA-13 the Warren Freeway would have to be lightly traveled among state route freeways in California.
Quote from: webny99 on May 24, 2020, 09:57:04 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 12:24:03 AM
Here's something... out of all these lightest traveled segments, what would be the lightest traveled freeway segment in the country?
With several of NY's parkways having AADT's under 1000, we kind of need to know whether those count or not before determining an answer.
If they're built to freeway standards - limited access, no intersecting roads, interchanges / overpasses, etc. - then yes they would count.
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2020, 10:47:49 AM
CA-13 the Warren Freeway would have to be lightly traveled among state route freeways in California.
CA 77 definitely has it beat. But then again how many people realize CA 77 exists much less is a freeway?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2020, 12:24:43 PM
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2020, 10:47:49 AM
CA-13 the Warren Freeway would have to be lightly traveled among state route freeways in California.
CA 77 definitely has it beat. But then again how many people realize CA 77 exists much less is a freeway?
Also CA-77 was supposed to be an alternate to CA-24 and I-580 if it was to be expanded and connect to I-680 or to Vasco Road if it was built.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 11:43:11 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 24, 2020, 09:57:04 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 12:24:03 AM
Here's something... out of all these lightest traveled segments, what would be the lightest traveled freeway segment in the country?
With several of NY's parkways having AADT's under 1000, we kind of need to know whether those count or not before determining an answer.
If they're built to freeway standards - limited access, no intersecting roads, interchanges / overpasses, etc. - then yes they would count.
OK, well the LOSP from Lakeside Beach to Hamlin Beach counts then, as long you're OK with winter road closures and the standard commercial vehicle ban. Here's a street view sample (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3609414,-77.9946629,3a,75y,65.36h,81.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4T-6M1uWKAczhW7pkRzk8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1). 551 is the lowest AADT on that stretch.
What is the point of the closure and ban? Also the 55 mph limit? It appears it's built to 65 mph interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 06:03:10 PM
What is the point of the closure and ban? Also the 55 mph limit? It appears it's built to 65 mph interstate standards.
Before webny99 answers, I want to see if my guess of "lake effect snow" is the reason.
Quote from: SectorZ on May 24, 2020, 06:09:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 06:03:10 PM
What is the point of the closure and ban? Also the 55 mph limit? It appears it's built to 65 mph interstate standards.
Before webny99 answers, I want to see if my guess of "lake effect snow" is the reason.
Yes, it's some combination of the low traffic and the funds being saved by not maintaining it in the snowy winter months. The pavement had also deteriorated to such an extent that it was almost un-driveable even in summer, much less winter, so there was really no point in keeping it open, and I guess the winter closures stuck once they finally got it paved.
As far as the speed limit, I stand to be corrected but I don't think 65 mph can be posted on NY parkways. The shoulders, accel and decel lanes, and underpasses don't usually meet interstate standards. This stretch in particular has mostly overpasses instead of underpasses, and regular diamonds instead of folded ones, so it's not as obvious. But once you get closer to Rochester, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3187454,-77.7284937,3a,75y,172.57h,75.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2158rgTrsMIKKfjQWiSulg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) becomes the norm, so you can see how that's definitely not 65 mph-worthy.
Parkways cannot have 65 in New York. Has nothing to do with snow. The Lake Ontario State Parkway isn't a freeway, either. It's only expressway grade with several at-grade intersections.
This appears to have an interstate cross section (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3651194,-78.0366005,3a,47y,117.9h,84.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Zx_GQaY-cIwdKsDOiSodw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1). 12 foot lanes, 8-10 foot right paved shoulder, 3-4 foot left paved shoulder.
Even over the bridges (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3607065,-77.996317,3a,39.5y,83.28h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9MgLdjkJMk18Se8M5d7xvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1).
Decent acceleration lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3550456,-77.9407993,3a,46.9y,105.26h,82.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgEfRqYsmGPrVnBhnMfqF7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1).
This combined with very low traffic volumes, the speed limit should be at least 65 mph on at minimum the freeway segments. The expressway portions could handle 65 mph as well, though it would not be permitted as it's not a freeway.
The typical section of the freeway segments (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3733229,-78.0960752,3a,45.1y,290.35h,82.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4f_b4vjmGD1g_e8oIQRRTA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1). If one was driving on this road with no other traffic (doesn't appear to ever be any), one could easily get up to 75 or 80 mph. 55 mph is simply artificially low.
Quote from: cl94 on May 24, 2020, 06:57:33 PM
The Lake Ontario State Parkway isn't a freeway, either. It's only expressway grade with several at-grade intersections.
The western most 16 miles is built to full freeway standards. Wide median, 12 foot lanes, 8-10 foot right paved shoulder, 3-4 foot left paved shoulder. No at-grade intersections with overpasses and interchanges.
Either I-10 or I-20 near where they intersect probably wins for Texas.
However, if TX-255 is considered a freeway between US 83 and I-35 (I think of it as a super 2), then that might possibly be a winner. :hmmm:
Parts of TX-130 could be up there, too.
Quote from: webny99 on May 24, 2020, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 24, 2020, 06:09:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2020, 06:03:10 PM
What is the point of the closure and ban? Also the 55 mph limit? It appears it's built to 65 mph interstate standards.
Before webny99 answers, I want to see if my guess of "lake effect snow" is the reason.
Yes, it's some combination of the low traffic and the funds being saved by not maintaining it in the snowy winter months. The pavement had also deteriorated to such an extent that it was almost un-driveable even in summer, much less winter, so there was really no point in keeping it open, and I guess the winter closures stuck once they finally got it paved.
As far as the speed limit, I stand to be corrected but I don't think 65 mph can be posted on NY parkways. The shoulders, accel and decel lanes, and underpasses don't usually meet interstate standards. This stretch in particular has mostly overpasses instead of underpasses, and regular diamonds instead of folded ones, so it's not as obvious. But once you get closer to Rochester, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3187454,-77.7284937,3a,75y,172.57h,75.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2158rgTrsMIKKfjQWiSulg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) becomes the norm, so you can see how that's definitely not 65 mph-worthy.
The closure is just money. It costs money to run plows, and few people drive that section of road.
The commercial vehicle ban is likely due to pavement. Commercial vehicles were actually allowed on the Orleans County section until sometime in the last decade.
Last I checked, the paving only went through NY 237. West of there hasn't been done yet. I think I remember reading something about a study to reduce it to a super-2.
Quote from: cl94 on May 24, 2020, 06:57:33 PM
Parkways cannot have 65 in New York. Has nothing to do with snow. The Lake Ontario State Parkway isn't a freeway, either. It's only expressway grade with several at-grade intersections.
The only at-grades are between Hamlin Beach and Greece. The western section is also more modern; the original terminus of the parkway was Hamlin Beach.
LOSP was originally suppose to go to Niagara Falls. I'm guessing that the western end doesn't see much traffic because of A) The condition of the road and B) It's a highway to nowhere pretty much since it was never built as planned. So closing it in the winter makes some sense.
As for the ban, aren't all parkways in New York like that? I've never known of commercial traffic being allowed on the parkways.
Generally, yes (although if you count the Grand Central Parkway as going to the Triboro, the I-278 overlap also allows trucks). However, this is what signage looked like a decade ago (http://nysroads.com/photos-test.php?route=losp&state=NY&file=100_2767.JPG).
Yes, they have been looking at demoting the western bit of the LOSP to a super 2. Given the traffic counts, it's probably not a bad idea and would allow them to not maintain half of the road. Or they could use parks funds to make the disused side a shared-use path or something similar to the RMSP...er, Niagara Scenic Parkway.
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2020, 08:31:22 PM
Generally, yes (although if you count the Grand Central Parkway as going to the Triboro, the I-278 overlap also allows trucks). However, this is what signage looked like a decade ago (http://nysroads.com/photos-test.php?route=losp&state=NY&file=100_2767.JPG).
NY 272 was a funny spot to make commercial traffic exit. NY 19 would have made more sense, although I guess if they wanted an
actual exit, NY 272 was the last chance given that the Hamlin exit is unviable as a truck route (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.3550964,-77.9490889/Hamlin,+New+York+14464/@43.3542836,-77.9487633,16.25z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d41d99b0c7a6fd:0xbabe1539d4958b54!2m2!1d-77.9478221!2d43.352211!3e0) to say the least.
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 24, 2020, 10:13:36 PM
Either I-10 or I-20 near where they intersect probably wins for Texas.
However, if TX-255 is considered a freeway between US 83 and I-35 (I think of it as a super 2), then that might possibly be a winner. :hmmm:
Parts of TX-130 could be up there, too.
On the southern half of TX 130, there are five-digit numbers north of Lockhart, but that includes the "frontage roads" carrying US 183. Given that it's a free-flowing road with no stops and no tolls, it probably carries quite a bit of that. Southeast of Lockhart they report numbers in the 7,000 to 8,000 range. I-10 west of Fort Stockton is the winner. In a non-exhaustive search, I found a point with a count of 5,239. From US 67 south to Balmorhea the numbers are below 6,000.
I don't count a super-2 as a freeway. TX 255 has a point with a count of 1,284. It really isn't even a super-2, it's a rural two-lane highway with a couple of divided sections and plenty of grade crossings. It has only one grade separation independent of I-35, at US 83. I-169 might be a contender. It's count is close to 17,000, but it's a toll road with free frontage roads, so I don't know how much traffic the freeway carries. The aerial photography is from 2017, before the road was opened, so that doesn't give any clues. It was Street Viewed last year. That shows little traffic on any of it, but what's there seems to be about evenly divided between freeway and frontage roads.
Quote from: wxfree on May 25, 2020, 11:12:28 PM
It really isn't even a super-2, it's a rural two-lane highway with a couple of divided sections and plenty of grade crossings. It has only one grade separation independent of I-35, at US 83.
It's a super 2. High quality design, full paved shoulders, high speed, etc.
Super 2 does not mean 2 lane freeway.
CT 349. Clarence B. Sharp Highway.
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2020, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2020, 12:24:43 PM
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2020, 10:47:49 AM
CA-13 the Warren Freeway would have to be lightly traveled among state route freeways in California.
CA 77 definitely has it beat. But then again how many people realize CA 77 exists much less is a freeway?
Also CA-77 was supposed to be an alternate to CA-24 and I-580 if it was to be expanded and connect to I-680 or to Vasco Road if it was built.
To that end, CA 244 would also be a strong contender out by Sacramento. That's another planned freeway with a somehow constructed small segment.
Quote from: webny99 on May 25, 2020, 10:13:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2020, 08:31:22 PM
Generally, yes (although if you count the Grand Central Parkway as going to the Triboro, the I-278 overlap also allows trucks). However, this is what signage looked like a decade ago (http://nysroads.com/photos-test.php?route=losp&state=NY&file=100_2767.JPG).
NY 272 was a funny spot to make commercial traffic exit. NY 19 would have made more sense, although I guess if they wanted an actual exit, NY 272 was the last chance given that the Hamlin exit is unviable as a truck route (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.3550964,-77.9490889/Hamlin,+New+York+14464/@43.3542836,-77.9487633,16.25z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d41d99b0c7a6fd:0xbabe1539d4958b54!2m2!1d-77.9478221!2d43.352211!3e0) to say the least.
I assume pavement construction has something to do with it. The section west of Hamlin Beach is newer and constructed to more modern standards. The sections to the east are older, and the pavement wasn't constructed to handle heavy loads. It's not just bridge clearances that prevent the parkways from having trucks.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2020, 11:16:22 PM
Quote from: wxfree on May 25, 2020, 11:12:28 PM
It really isn't even a super-2, it's a rural two-lane highway with a couple of divided sections and plenty of grade crossings. It has only one grade separation independent of I-35, at US 83.
It's a super 2. High quality design, full paved shoulders, high speed, etc.
Super 2 does not mean 2 lane freeway.
http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#95
Quote from: vdeane on May 26, 2020, 12:34:23 PM
http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#95
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/rdw/super_2_highways.htm
QuoteA Super 2 highway is where a periodic passing lane is added to a two-lane rural highway to allow passing of slower vehicles and the dispersal of traffic platoons. The passing lane will alternate from one direction of travel to the other within a section of roadway allowing passing opportunities in both directions. A Super 2 project can be introduced on an existing two-lane roadway where there is a significant amount of slow moving traffic, limited sight distance for passing, and/or the existing traffic volume has exceeded the two-lane highway capacity, creating the need for vehicles to pass on a more frequent basis.
https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/4678/super-2-fact-sheet.pdf
QuoteWhat is a Super 2?
A Super 2 is a two-lane highway that has wider paved shoulders and passing lanes about every five miles, or as needed based on the specific conditions of the highway. Determining the length and spacing of the passing lanes requires considering many different features of the roadway, including the traffic volume, the number of trucks, the terrain, and the types of access points along the highway. The passing lanes generally alternate between the two directions of traffic. Super 2s are most often found in more rural areas and have some level of access control, which means there are a limited number of driveways and roads directly connected to the highway.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_M15_N1_chap3_128300_7.pdf
QuoteA Super 2 highway is a concept wherein additional passing opportunities are available to the motorist. The example of a typical section for a Super 2 is two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes with full 10-foot (3.4-m) paved shoulders on either side. This allows slower-moving vehicles to move to the right to allow others to pass. Though this roadway section has not been implemented in Michigan, it has application under the right circumstances. At issue with this roadway type would be how much to limit access to control the number of driveways in conflict with relatively high-speed travel.
A Super 2 can also be a two-lane road where a third lane is added in certain areas to provide safe bypass zones and to eliminate interference with slow moving vehicles. The bypass lane should be a minimum of 0.25 miles (0.4 km) long with the optimal length being 0.5 to 1.0 miles (0.8 to 1.6 km). The added lane should be as wide as the lanes of the two-lane highway. The shoulder should be a minimum of four feet wide (1.2 m). Signs placed in advance of each lane addition alert drivers of both slow moving vehicles and following vehicles can prepare to make effective use of the added lane. Signage should also be placed at the beginning of the lane addition taper to assure that the slower-moving traffic keeps to the right.2 (see Figure 3-3 for a photo of a passing lane).
http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/PDF_Files/Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Investment%20and%20the%20Kansas%20Economy%20Final%2011-12-08.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_two
QuoteA super two highway is a two‐lane road built to high standards, typically including partial control of access, occasional passing lanes and hard shoulders. It is often built for eventual conversion to freeway or at least divided highway status once traffic volumes rise.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/30/super-two-highways-considered-for-stretching-road-/
QuoteLINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - Road planners are considering "super two" highways as a way to stretch Nebraska's highway dollars.
The two-lane highways have wider shoulders and an extra passing lane every five miles or so.
Nebraska Roads Department engineers have said the design could increase traffic flow at less than half the price of a new four-lane highway: about $1.5 million per mile instead of $4 million per mile.
[...]
"Instead of the stark choice of either upgrading a two-lane road to a four-lane highway or providing no improvement at all, sometimes a Super 2 highway could provide an intermediate improvement with better paved shoulders and passing lanes every five miles," Schneweis said.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 26, 2020, 01:01:53 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 26, 2020, 12:34:23 PM
http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#95
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/rdw/super_2_highways.htm
QuoteA Super 2 highway is where a periodic passing lane is added to a two-lane rural highway to allow passing of slower vehicles and the dispersal of traffic platoons. The passing lane will alternate from one direction of travel to the other within a section of roadway allowing passing opportunities in both directions. A Super 2 project can be introduced on an existing two-lane roadway where there is a significant amount of slow moving traffic, limited sight distance for passing, and/or the existing traffic volume has exceeded the two-lane highway capacity, creating the need for vehicles to pass on a more frequent basis.
https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/4678/super-2-fact-sheet.pdf
QuoteWhat is a Super 2?
A Super 2 is a two-lane highway that has wider paved shoulders and passing lanes about every five miles, or as needed based on the specific conditions of the highway. Determining the length and spacing of the passing lanes requires considering many different features of the roadway, including the traffic volume, the number of trucks, the terrain, and the types of access points along the highway. The passing lanes generally alternate between the two directions of traffic. Super 2s are most often found in more rural areas and have some level of access control, which means there are a limited number of driveways and roads directly connected to the highway.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_M15_N1_chap3_128300_7.pdf
QuoteA Super 2 highway is a concept wherein additional passing opportunities are available to the motorist. The example of a typical section for a Super 2 is two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes with full 10-foot (3.4-m) paved shoulders on either side. This allows slower-moving vehicles to move to the right to allow others to pass. Though this roadway section has not been implemented in Michigan, it has application under the right circumstances. At issue with this roadway type would be how much to limit access to control the number of driveways in conflict with relatively high-speed travel.
A Super 2 can also be a two-lane road where a third lane is added in certain areas to provide safe bypass zones and to eliminate interference with slow moving vehicles. The bypass lane should be a minimum of 0.25 miles (0.4 km) long with the optimal length being 0.5 to 1.0 miles (0.8 to 1.6 km). The added lane should be as wide as the lanes of the two-lane highway. The shoulder should be a minimum of four feet wide (1.2 m). Signs placed in advance of each lane addition alert drivers of both slow moving vehicles and following vehicles can prepare to make effective use of the added lane. Signage should also be placed at the beginning of the lane addition taper to assure that the slower-moving traffic keeps to the right.2 (see Figure 3-3 for a photo of a passing lane).
http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/PDF_Files/Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Investment%20and%20the%20Kansas%20Economy%20Final%2011-12-08.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_two
QuoteA super two highway is a two‐lane road built to high standards, typically including partial control of access, occasional passing lanes and hard shoulders. It is often built for eventual conversion to freeway or at least divided highway status once traffic volumes rise.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/30/super-two-highways-considered-for-stretching-road-/
QuoteLINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - Road planners are considering "super two" highways as a way to stretch Nebraska's highway dollars.
The two-lane highways have wider shoulders and an extra passing lane every five miles or so.
Nebraska Roads Department engineers have said the design could increase traffic flow at less than half the price of a new four-lane highway: about $1.5 million per mile instead of $4 million per mile.
[...]
"Instead of the stark choice of either upgrading a two-lane road to a four-lane highway or providing no improvement at all, sometimes a Super 2 highway could provide an intermediate improvement with better paved shoulders and passing lanes every five miles," Schneweis said.
This is a roadgeek forum. We use terms in the roadgeek way.
Super 2 != 2 lane freeway, even among roadgeeks. There's a reason they are different terms. A super 2 is more of an expressway-grade 2 lane road with restricted access, but not fully limited.
I regard a "super-2" as being a two-lane freeway, such as the Mountain Parkway's two-lane portion. No at-grades.
I haven't looked up traffic counts for all of Kentucky's freeways, but I know the segment of the Mountain Parkway with the lowest traffic counts is the segment between exits 43 and 57 in Wolfe County, which is the last portion scheduled to be widened to four lanes.
I'm probably dead wrong on this, but for NC, I would guess either 40 between Asheville and Hickory, or maybe the freeway sections of 74 from Columbus to Rockingham?
EDIT-just thought of the Faircloth Freeway in Clinton. That would have to be the winner for NC. That or the freeway sections of future I-87 between Williamston and Elizabeth City
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on May 26, 2020, 02:49:26 PM
I'm probably dead wrong on this, but for NC, I would guess either 40 between Asheville and Hickory, or maybe the freeway sections of 74 from Columbus to Rockingham?
EDIT-just thought of the Faircloth Freeway in Clinton. That would have to be the winner for NC. That or the freeway sections of future I-87 between Williamston and Elizabeth City
The Faircloth Frwy segment has about 5,000 AADT.
The US-17 freeway segments have 8,000 - 10,000 AADT with 13,000 AADT on the Elizabeth City bypass.
I-40 between Asheville and Hickory has 35,000 - 45,000 AADT. Not even close to the lightest traveled.
US-74 between Columbus and Charlotte has 17,000 - 21,000 AADT.
Without looking at AADT figures, I'd "guesstimate" that the lightest traveled in Northern California would likely include:
(1) US 101 northeast of Crescent City.
(2) CA 29 near Lakeport in Lake County.
(3) CA 20/49 through Nevada City.
I-476 north of Keyser Ave has an average AADT of ~8000, IIRC.
Jumping in on the discussion to say that a Super-2 doesn't have to have interchanges or be divided. It has more to do with the standards to which it's built, shoulder width, ROW, and so on. NY 104 from Williamson to Wolcott is definitely a Super-2 IMO, even though it has no exits except for one half-diamond at Wolcott.
Quote from: sparker on May 26, 2020, 05:34:06 PM
Without looking at AADT figures, I'd "guesstimate" that the lightest traveled in Northern California would likely include:
(1) US 101 northeast of Crescent City.
(2) CA 29 near Lakeport in Lake County.
(3) CA 20/49 through Nevada City.
What does CA 132 pull around the Tracy Area?
For CT, other than the obvious CT 11; other candidates include CT 25 north of the Merritt, US 7 north of the Federal Rd exit, CT 8 between Torrington and Winsted, all of CT 40, and the US 6 Willimantic Bypass.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2020, 09:35:11 PM
For CT, other than the obvious CT 11; other candidates include CT 25 north of the Merritt, US 7 north of the Federal Rd exit, CT 8 between Torrington and Winsted, all of CT 40, and the US 6 Willimantic Bypass.
What about CT 695?
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
Quote from: sparker on May 26, 2020, 05:34:06 PM
Without looking at AADT figures, I'd "guesstimate" that the lightest traveled in Northern California would likely include:
(1) US 101 northeast of Crescent City.
(2) CA 29 near Lakeport in Lake County.
(3) CA 20/49 through Nevada City.
US 101 at Washington Blvd, AADT back 15,300. Ahead 10,700.
North of the US 199 split, 101 is no longer a freeway.
CA 29 at Park Way in North Lakeport AADT back 12,500. Ahead 10,200.
CA 20 Broad Street, Nevada City AADT back 25,200. Ahead 17,100.
Here's one: CA 299 in Blue Lake, Humbolt County, at Glendale AADT back 11,000. Ahead 10,000.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
It probably depends where in Peoria and where in Chicago more than traffic conditions.
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2020, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
It probably depends where in Peoria and where in Chicago more than traffic conditions.
When I lived in Peoria (briefly), to get to Chicagoland I usually used US 24 or IL 116 to get to I-55
I'm starting to wonder if whether one considers a "super-2" to be a freeway or not is largely based on whether or not one was familiar with the roadgeek community during the MTR days.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
I can guarantee you, from having driven I-180 often enough to make it count, that very little Chicago-Peoria traffic goes via I-180. I've used it to get to the west side of Peoria from Joliet, but it's more common for traffic to leave I-80 at I-39 and then cut down to IL-17 and IL-89 to IL-116, if miles are a factor. If it's just speed, then I-55 to I-74 is far more common. As it is, there's not a lot of traffic that goes from Chicago to Peoria and vice versa. It's almost as if they're in different states, worlds even.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
Going to I-180 is an indirect route in the first place. Taking I-39 to IL-18 west to IL-89 south to IL-116 is a much more direct route. Taking I-55 to I-74 is probably quicker. But taking I-180 you go straight west then I-80 tilts to the north a little making you go further out of your way then you'd have to go south and then real with IL-29 after Hennepin.
I doubt anyone going between Chicago and Peoria is taking that route and as Brandon said there isn't much traffic going between them.
PA (per PennDOT 2018 map):
I-476 north of Keyser Ave 7,500
US 219 south of Somerset 3,500
US 291 north of US 22 5,000
PA 8 freeway north of I-80 7,200
PA 576 TOLL full length 6,200
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 27, 2020, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2020, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
It probably depends where in Peoria and where in Chicago more than traffic conditions.
When I lived in Peoria (briefly), to get to Chicagoland I usually used US 24 or IL 116 to get to I-55
Those are two good routes. I-74 kind of takes you out of the way going towards Bloomington.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 27, 2020, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2020, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
It probably depends where in Peoria and where in Chicago more than traffic conditions.
When I lived in Peoria (briefly), to get to Chicagoland I usually used US 24 or IL 116 to get to I-55
Those are two good routes. I-74 kind of takes you out of the way going towards Bloomington.
Except that I-74 is all freeway. The other routes have sizable two-lane sections.
Here's a take from Google on the travel times and routes: https://goo.gl/maps/FvBoLqkgEySCPWmL6
1 hour 54 minutes to use I-80, I-39, IL-18, and IL-26.
2 hours 2 minutes to use either I-55 to IL-116 or I-55 to I-74.
Quote from: Brandon on May 27, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 27, 2020, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2020, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
It probably depends where in Peoria and where in Chicago more than traffic conditions.
When I lived in Peoria (briefly), to get to Chicagoland I usually used US 24 or IL 116 to get to I-55
Those are two good routes. I-74 kind of takes you out of the way going towards Bloomington.
Except that I-74 is all freeway. The other routes have sizable two-lane sections.
Here's a take from Google on the travel times and routes: https://goo.gl/maps/FvBoLqkgEySCPWmL6
1 hour 54 minutes to use I-80, I-39, IL-18, and IL-26.
2 hours 2 minutes to use either I-55 to IL-116 or I-55 to I-74.
I think I would opt for I-74 considering that it's all freeway. The other two roads probably have a 55 mph speed limit max.
I think currently though isn't I-74 under construction in some areas between Bloomington and Peoria?
Also isn't it closer to 3 hours than 2?
As a matter of fact Google doesn't even tell you to take I-180 to get between Chicago and Hennepin. It tells you to take I-55 south to I-80 west to I-39 south to IL-71 west. So how's this route going to see any Peoria to Chicago traffic?
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 03:53:55 PM
As a matter of fact Google doesn't even tell you to take I-180 to get between Chicago and Hennepin. It tells you to take I-55 south to I-80 west to I-39 south to IL-71 west. So how's this route going to see any Peoria to Chicago traffic?
Just because Google does not list it as an option does not mean it may not be used. I'm not saying it's a preferred or primary route by any means, but it could see some of that traffic here and there as an alternate. The mileage is shorter than the interstate, and the time is only a few more minutes. It's not "out of the way".
At least until the new bridge is completed, the west leg of IN 912 will be the lightest traveled, being that the EB lanes are closed.
The reason that I-180 is too far west is because it's an indirect route. It wasn't built to be a Chicago to Peoria route and there isn't much of a demand for one either.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 05:35:31 PM
The reason that I-180 is too far west is because it's an indirect route.
Except that I-55 and I-74 is actually more mileage than I-180.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 06:25:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 05:35:31 PM
The reason that I-180 is too far west is because it's an indirect route.
Except that I-55 and I-74 is actually more mileage than I-180.
I-55 to I-74 is all freeway. Anything combined with taking I-180 is not.
Yes, but I-180 is not an "indirect" route.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 06:53:24 PM
Yes, but I-180 is not an "indirect" route.
Let's see, your going west on I-80 you pass I-39, what would be the point in that? You keep going west even a bit north before getting to I-180 and making any progress south how is it not an indirect route? You go the whole length west then have to go south then after I-180 ends your on a two lane state highway the rest of the way. I-39 to either IL-116 or US-24 makes more sense than going to I-180.
I've driven from Chicago to Peoria and vice versa a few times and using I-180 never entered my mind and I knew it was there. I'd take I-55 to I-74 myself.
Best guess that the lightest traveled freeway in Louisiana is somewhere on I-49 between Alexandria and Shreveport.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 03:45:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 27, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 27, 2020, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2020, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
It probably depends where in Peoria and where in Chicago more than traffic conditions.
When I lived in Peoria (briefly), to get to Chicagoland I usually used US 24 or IL 116 to get to I-55
Those are two good routes. I-74 kind of takes you out of the way going towards Bloomington.
Except that I-74 is all freeway. The other routes have sizable two-lane sections.
Here's a take from Google on the travel times and routes: https://goo.gl/maps/FvBoLqkgEySCPWmL6
1 hour 54 minutes to use I-80, I-39, IL-18, and IL-26.
2 hours 2 minutes to use either I-55 to IL-116 or I-55 to I-74.
I think I would opt for I-74 considering that it's all freeway. The other two roads probably have a 55 mph speed limit max.
Just because US 24 and IL 116 and other 2 lane rural roads in Central IL have (severly underposted, imho) 55 mph speed limits doesn't mean traffic drives at 55
When it Rural areas (NOT in small town segments) it is perfectly safe to drive over 55 mph. I typically easily beat the 74-55 Bloomington route timewise going via 116 or 24
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2020, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2020, 12:24:43 PM
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2020, 10:47:49 AM
CA-13 the Warren Freeway would have to be lightly traveled among state route freeways in California.
CA 77 definitely has it beat. But then again how many people realize CA 77 exists much less is a freeway?
Also CA-77 was supposed to be an alternate to CA-24 and I-580 if it was to be expanded and connect to I-680 or to Vasco Road if it was built.
Thanks to you and Max for prompting me to look this up! My grandfather mentioned once that the Division of Highways once discussed replacing the railroad by their house with a freeway and him not liking the idea much. I didn't know that it was to have been CA 77 or that a stub of it had been built.
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 27, 2020, 07:58:32 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 03:45:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 27, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 27, 2020, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2020, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2020, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 26, 2020, 10:48:52 PM
I won't debate the super 2 but the Macomb Illinois bypass is a 2 lane freeway and it has not been around long enough for a traffic count but having traveled both Interstate 180 and the bypass I bet it's slightly lower.
I-180 at least probably gets some Chicago-Peoria traffic.
I don't think that anyone is going to drive that far west to get between Chicago and Peoria.
I-55 to I-74 - 2 hours, 42 minutes; 167 miles
I-55 to I-80 to I-180 to IL-29 - 2 hours, 45 minutes; 164 miles
Probably not the most optimal routing, but it's not "that far west". Depending on traffic on I-55, it might be the preferred routing.
It probably depends where in Peoria and where in Chicago more than traffic conditions.
When I lived in Peoria (briefly), to get to Chicagoland I usually used US 24 or IL 116 to get to I-55
Those are two good routes. I-74 kind of takes you out of the way going towards Bloomington.
Except that I-74 is all freeway. The other routes have sizable two-lane sections.
Here's a take from Google on the travel times and routes: https://goo.gl/maps/FvBoLqkgEySCPWmL6
1 hour 54 minutes to use I-80, I-39, IL-18, and IL-26.
2 hours 2 minutes to use either I-55 to IL-116 or I-55 to I-74.
I think I would opt for I-74 considering that it's all freeway. The other two roads probably have a 55 mph speed limit max.
Just because US 24 and IL 116 and other 2 lane rural roads in Central IL have (severly underposted, imho) 55 mph speed limits doesn't mean traffic drives at 55
When it Rural areas (NOT in small town segments) it is perfectly safe to drive over 55 mph. I typically easily beat the 74-55 Bloomington route timewise going via 116 or 24
Those are the kind of roads where if the speed limit is 55 you can push the envelope a little bit but will get stuck behind someone doing 53 mph.
Quote from: kkt on May 27, 2020, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2020, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2020, 12:24:43 PM
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2020, 10:47:49 AM
CA-13 the Warren Freeway would have to be lightly traveled among state route freeways in California.
CA 77 definitely has it beat. But then again how many people realize CA 77 exists much less is a freeway?
Also CA-77 was supposed to be an alternate to CA-24 and I-580 if it was to be expanded and connect to I-680 or to Vasco Road if it was built.
Thanks to you and Max for prompting me to look this up! My grandfather mentioned once that the Division of Highways once discussed replacing the railroad by their house with a freeway and him not liking the idea much. I didn't know that it was to have been CA 77 or that a stub of it had been built.
The original CA 77 plans had it meeting up with the equally arcane CA 93 freeway somewhere near the south end of Orinda, multiplexing with it for a mile or two, then shooting north across CA 24 in Lafayette, turning east in Pleasant Hill, crossing I-680 and ending at CA 242 in Concord. IIRC early on it was cut back to I-680 when Buchanan Field extended its runway across the projected path (no formal route was ever adopted). Even by the standards of the day, it's difficult to see the need -- or even local acceptance -- of that rather extensive freeway network in those tony East Bay 'burbs! Someone in D4 (or more likely the state legislature) had stars in their eyes. I'm surprised the corridor plans lasted as long as they did! And after the local freeway revolts including the deletion of the CA 238 freeway through Hayward and Fremont, the city portion across Oakland was effectively dead in the water as well. CA 77 just didn't have a chance -- would be nice to see the number reused somewhere else more viably (with the current Caltrans priorities,
that's only a razor-thin chance as well).