Specifically, who designed the interchange in the first place? This isn't a snarky question. I want to know if the Iowa and Illinois DOTs worked together on it, or if Illinois designed it, or if it was handed down from the Feds. I know it's a really old interchange from before the stack.
(Edited to add: I know this might belong more in Great Lakes, but it at least involves Iowa, and most of Illinois acts like the Quad Cities is Iowa anyway)
Please clarify, "The Big X" is also the name of an intersection in Medford, Oregon.
Quote from: edwaleni on March 28, 2025, 04:08:43 PMPlease clarify, "The Big X" is also the name of an intersection in Medford, Oregon.
He's talking about the cloverleaf interchange of I-80, I-74, and I-280 on the southeast side of the Quad Cities.
Quote from: kphoger on March 28, 2025, 04:14:08 PMQuote from: edwaleni on March 28, 2025, 04:08:43 PMPlease clarify, "The Big X" is also the name of an intersection in Medford, Oregon.
He's talking about the cloverleaf interchange of I-80, I-74, and I-280 on the southeast side of the Quad Cities.
This is correct. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
Quote from: Mav94 on March 28, 2025, 03:31:03 PMSpecifically, who designed the interchange in the first place? This isn't a snarky question. I want to know if the Iowa and Illinois DOTs worked together on it, or if Illinois designed it, or if it was handed down from the Feds. I know it's a really old interchange from before the stack.
(Edited to add: I know this might belong more in Great Lakes, but it at least involves Iowa, and most of Illinois acts like the Quad Cities is Iowa anyway)
I don't have a lot of the back history, but in the time frame of its construction the Feds wouldn't have had as much input as they would in the present day, and I'm not sure Iowa would have had much of any design influence since the interchange is not at or near the state line (although they did have influence with AASHTO in the original Interstate route numbering through the Quad Cities and continued to do so whenever re-numbering came up). It was likely mostly a collaboration of the District and central Bureau of Design, with Federal approval. The Wikipedia article on the Big X goes into some detail of what happened and why on the route numbering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_X_(interchange)
I think the better question is why this interchange is a cloverleaf and not something similar to I-80 at I-57, or at least the 3 loop/one direct ramp design used for I-72 at US 36 and US 51;I-55 at I-70 and I-270; I-55 at I-72 at 6th Street; and formerly for I-80 at I-94 and IL 394.
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 28, 2025, 06:03:34 PMQuote from: Mav94 on March 28, 2025, 03:31:03 PMSpecifically, who designed the interchange in the first place? This isn't a snarky question. I want to know if the Iowa and Illinois DOTs worked together on it, or if Illinois designed it, or if it was handed down from the Feds. I know it's a really old interchange from before the stack.
(Edited to add: I know this might belong more in Great Lakes, but it at least involves Iowa, and most of Illinois acts like the Quad Cities is Iowa anyway)
I don't have a lot of the back history, but in the time frame of its construction the Feds wouldn't have had as much input as they would in the present day, and I'm not sure Iowa would have had much of any design influence since the interchange is not at or near the state line (although they did have influence with AASHTO in the original Interstate route numbering through the Quad Cities and continued to do so whenever re-numbering came up). It was likely mostly a collaboration of the District and central Bureau of Design, with Federal approval. The Wikipedia article on the Big X goes into some detail of what happened and why on the route numbering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_X_(interchange)
They really should have both gone straight through the interchange with the interstate through the Quad Cities being a 3di. I-74 would have just ended at the interchange northwest of Davenport.
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 28, 2025, 06:03:34 PMQuote from: Mav94 on March 28, 2025, 03:31:03 PMSpecifically, who designed the interchange in the first place? This isn't a snarky question. I want to know if the Iowa and Illinois DOTs worked together on it, or if Illinois designed it, or if it was handed down from the Feds. I know it's a really old interchange from before the stack.
(Edited to add: I know this might belong more in Great Lakes, but it at least involves Iowa, and most of Illinois acts like the Quad Cities is Iowa anyway)
I don't have a lot of the back history, but in the time frame of its construction the Feds wouldn't have had as much input as they would in the present day, and I'm not sure Iowa would have had much of any design influence since the interchange is not at or near the state line (although they did have influence with AASHTO in the original Interstate route numbering through the Quad Cities and continued to do so whenever re-numbering came up). It was likely mostly a collaboration of the District and central Bureau of Design, with Federal approval. The Wikipedia article on the Big X goes into some detail of what happened and why on the route numbering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_X_(interchange)
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during those early discussions about numbering ...
Seems like the root of the problem is both I-80 and I-74 make 90 degree turns at their Illinois junction and Illinois (understandably) wanted to avoid (and probably still wants to avoid) the cost of building flyover ramps at the Big X. I know Google Maps sends eastbound through traffic on I-80 onto I-280, and Iowa advises drivers wanting to take I-74 to Peoria to stay on I-80 until the second junction. I suppose it could put up signs approaching the northwest junction advising Chicago-bound traffic to take I-280 instead, just to make it "official." If renumbering the highways was ever going to happen, it already would have.
Quote from: Mav94 on March 29, 2025, 04:46:49 PMQuote from: Rick Powell on March 28, 2025, 06:03:34 PMQuote from: Mav94 on March 28, 2025, 03:31:03 PMSpecifically, who designed the interchange in the first place? This isn't a snarky question. I want to know if the Iowa and Illinois DOTs worked together on it, or if Illinois designed it, or if it was handed down from the Feds. I know it's a really old interchange from before the stack.
(Edited to add: I know this might belong more in Great Lakes, but it at least involves Iowa, and most of Illinois acts like the Quad Cities is Iowa anyway)
I don't have a lot of the back history, but in the time frame of its construction the Feds wouldn't have had as much input as they would in the present day, and I'm not sure Iowa would have had much of any design influence since the interchange is not at or near the state line (although they did have influence with AASHTO in the original Interstate route numbering through the Quad Cities and continued to do so whenever re-numbering came up). It was likely mostly a collaboration of the District and central Bureau of Design, with Federal approval. The Wikipedia article on the Big X goes into some detail of what happened and why on the route numbering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_X_(interchange)
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during those early discussions about numbering ...
Seems like the root of the problem is both I-80 and I-74 make 90 degree turns at their Illinois junction and Illinois (understandably) wanted to avoid (and probably still wants to avoid) the cost of building flyover ramps at the Big X. I know Google Maps sends eastbound through traffic on I-80 onto I-280, and Iowa advises drivers wanting to take I-74 to Peoria to stay on I-80 until the second junction. I suppose it could put up signs approaching the northwest junction advising Chicago-bound traffic to take I-280 instead, just to make it "official." If renumbering the highways was ever going to happen, it already would have.
Chicago bound traffic usually takes I-88.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 29, 2025, 05:28:07 PMChicago bound traffic usually takes I-88.
I am sure a lot of it does since it's more of a direct route, at least to the west and north sides. There is always a subset of shunpikers who avoid tolls even though the entire route from the Quad Cities into the Ike costs less than $5 one-way for 2-axles with I-Pass.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 28, 2025, 09:57:27 PMI think the better question is why this interchange is a cloverleaf and not something similar to I-80 at I-57, or at least the 3 loop/one direct ramp design used for I-72 at US 36 and US 51;I-55 at I-70 and I-270; I-55 at I-72 at 6th Street; and formerly for I-80 at I-94 and IL 394.
With few exceptions, cloverleafs were the preferred freeway-to-freeway option in the early 60s when that section of I-80 was built and opened. On a side note, I remember talking to an old timer who was in the land acquisition department a few years earlier who tried to get IDOT to consider a more substantial interchange at I-80 and I-55 in the late 50s and was rebuffed; it has taken over 60 years to add a single flyover ramp to that interchange, which is now under reconstruction. The Big X cloverleaf was improved in the late 90's with more gentle ramp curves.
Not the Big X, but when the I-80/88 interchange is redone as part of the replacement of the Mississippi River bridge project, a flyover from EB 80 to EB 88 will be constructed. So I think IDOT is well aware that the cloverleafs are problems, but its just a cost issue to replace or upgrade them.
As for the numbering, that's obviously not going to change now. Clearly Iowa's preference for I-80 staying on its current path dates back to when having mainline interstates was a point of pride and seen as an economic driver. (Ironically Iowa has done very little along I-80 in the Quad Cities until recently though.) Prior to living here, if I ever stopped along I-80 on my way through, it was just to get gas.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2025, 08:00:55 AMNot the Big X, but when the I-80/88 interchange is redone as part of the replacement of the Mississippi River bridge project, a flyover from EB 80 to EB 88 will be constructed. So I think IDOT is well aware that the cloverleafs are problems, but its just a cost issue to replace or upgrade them.
I'd agree with that. I-57 and I-74 in Champaign is getting a similar treatment. Even when implementing a "half stack" instead of a fully directional interchange, the conflicting movements of loop entrance and loop exit ramps are eliminated.
Btw, I kinda like the I-80N and I-80S idea. Either run I-74 like it is now or have a 3di run through the cities.
I was in the Quad Cities today. I took the 74 280 cloverleaf today.
I thought you might enjoy the ancient history . There was the 1947 original interstate plan and the 1953 original turnpike plan which I finally found. Illinois was giving up on the feds by 1953 and turned to the tollway.
Their roads were somewhat different . They originally combine 80 and 88 . The East West begins at the 67 junction in Milan and follows now Illinois 5'it turns North near the current junction where it could meet a future 80 or Iowa turnpike and a turnpike heading south . They cleverly routed it to be 10 miles shorter than the now existing routes.
The last numbering fight began just before 5 became 88. I suggest and did to District 2 if it ever comes up to continue 88 to Iowa and neck let them run it up 380.
280 becomes 80. And keep 74 though town because that beautiful bridge warrants a 2di.
As for the Iowa use 80 to 74 they should have dropped that after the bridge was done because it's a better drive.
Maybe the early 1990s plan to renumber Interstate 280 as part of Interstate 80, renumber Interstate 80 to Interstate 74 (the portion between 280's western and eastern terminus), and renumber Interstate 74 to Interstate 174 (from its western terminus at Interstate 74 south to its junction with Interstate 280) should have been implemented. Sure, exit renumbering would have been necessary (except on the new 174), but I think it would have certainly cleared up confusion.
Quote from: 3467 on March 30, 2025, 08:38:52 PMThe last numbering fight began just before 5 became 88. I suggest and did to District 2 if it ever comes up to continue 88 to Iowa and neck let them run it up 380.
280 becomes 80. And keep 74 though town because that beautiful bridge warrants a 2di.
As for the Iowa use 80 to 74 they should have dropped that after the bridge was done because it's a better drive.
They don't care that it's a "better drive." They just don't want through traffic going through town and taking the cloverleaf where I-74 meets I-280.
It's Iowa making the suggestion not Illinois . It has nothing to do with the Interchange . They posted it during bridge construction. It's better than taking the miserable 80 bridge that has to be replaced.
Quote from: 3467 on March 30, 2025, 10:13:23 PMIt's Iowa making the suggestion not Illinois . It has nothing to do with the Interchange . They posted it during bridge construction. It's better than taking the miserable 80 bridge that has to be replaced.
Well they have since taken that down. The sign is still in place by the I-74/I-80 interchange recommending trough traffic take I-80 - which is smart.
Quote from: Mav94 on March 28, 2025, 03:31:03 PMSpecifically, who designed the interchange in the first place? This isn't a snarky question. I want to know if the Iowa and Illinois DOTs worked together on it, or if Illinois designed it, or if it was handed down from the Feds. I know it's a really old interchange from before the stack.
One thing to keep in mind that hasn't been mentioned yet: Iowa and Illinois agreed to build the I-80 bridge in Le Claire before the I-280 bridge. At the time, there were no river crossings between Bettendorf/Moline and Clinton, while Davenport and Rock Island were already connected via the Centennial and Arsenal bridges.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2025, 09:20:57 PMMaybe the early 1990s plan to renumber Interstate 280 as part of Interstate 80, renumber Interstate 80 to Interstate 74 (the portion between 280's western and eastern terminus), and renumber Interstate 74 to Interstate 174 (from its western terminus at Interstate 74 south to its junction with Interstate 280) should have been implemented. Sure, exit renumbering would have been necessary (except on the new 174), but I think it would have certainly cleared up confusion.
Incidentally, a year after the FHWA shot down Illinois' proposal, the Quad-City Times published a proposal to overhaul the Big X. This clipping was from their August 27, 1994 issue (https://www.newspapers.com/article/quad-city-times-quad-city-times-82719/33360396/). Aside from the westbound I-80 ramp being rebuilt in the late 1990s, nothing has changed.
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=1878946&id=306957247&clippingId=33360396&width=820&height=1011&crop=2024_2665_1868_2304&rotation=0)
Would converting The Big X into a stack interchange have been sufficient? Or do the traffic counts not warrant such an interchange reconfiguration?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 01, 2025, 06:47:25 PMWould converting The Big X into a stack interchange have been sufficient? Or do the traffic counts not warrant such an interchange reconfiguration?
Something of this scale usually is spurred by reducing crashes, if there aren't serious operational issues. The traffic counts at the Big X are actually a little lighter than I-39/I-80 to the east which has a similar cloverleaf to the current version of the Big X. Other than the long range add-lanes to I-80, the 39/80 interchange isn't on IDOT's radar as it is functioning OK; I'm not sure if there are any long-range plans with the Big X but other than the undesirable ramp moves for through I-80 traffic, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a high priority. The I-74/I-57 interchange that is getting two flyovers had a history of overturning semi's and crashes and somewhat higher traffic counts than the Big X or 39/80.
Quote from: Rick Powell on April 01, 2025, 09:25:56 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 01, 2025, 06:47:25 PMWould converting The Big X into a stack interchange have been sufficient? Or do the traffic counts not warrant such an interchange reconfiguration?
Something of this scale usually is spurred by reducing crashes, if there aren't serious operational issues. The traffic counts at the Big X are actually a little lighter than I-39/I-80 to the east which has a similar cloverleaf to the current version of the Big X. Other than the long range add-lanes to I-80, the 39/80 interchange isn't on IDOT's radar as it is functioning OK; I'm not sure if there are any long-range plans with the Big X but other than the undesirable ramp moves for through I-80 traffic, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a high priority. The I-74/I-57 interchange that is getting two flyovers had a history of overturning semi's and crashes and somewhat higher traffic counts than the Big X or 39/80.
I personally think I-39/88 is worse than the Big X as well.
Speaking as an outsider, why did renumbering I-74 & 80 get rejected? Was it because of the I-174?
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 01, 2025, 10:10:16 PMSpeaking as an outsider, why did renumbering I-74 & 80 get rejected? Was it because of the I-174?
No, the Iowa legislature passed a bill at some point banning the renumbering of the interstates within the Quad Cities.
Quote from: iowahighways on April 01, 2025, 05:30:44 PM(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=1878946&id=306957247&clippingId=33360396&width=820&height=1011&crop=2024_2665_1868_2304&rotation=0)
Wow! So this was actually proposed 30 years ago? Seems like the perfect time to do it is now, since the Champaign cloverleaf is getting worked on as of this post.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2025, 10:14:25 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on April 01, 2025, 10:10:16 PMSpeaking as an outsider, why did renumbering I-74 & 80 get rejected? Was it because of the I-174?
No, the Iowa legislature passed a bill at some point banning the renumbering of the interstates within the Quad Cities.
Judging by the article from
@iowahighways , related more to business interests I presume. In reality, does I-80 traffic ricochet, or do they just continue onto I-74/280?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 01, 2025, 09:32:02 PMI personally think I-39/88 is worse than the Big X as well.
As far as traffic, you are correct...about 15% more vehicles go thru the I-39/88 cloverleaf than the Big X.
The irony in all of this is how GPS is already routing eastbound I-80 traffic not headed for Chicago onto I-280.
Quote from: Rick Powell on April 01, 2025, 11:52:20 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on April 01, 2025, 09:32:02 PMI personally think I-39/88 is worse than the Big X as well.
As far as traffic, you are correct...about 15% more vehicles go thru the I-39/88 cloverleaf than the Big X.
I-39 @ I-80 also has greater overall traffic than the "Big X".
But the Big X boasts the highest levels of turning traffic; 4100 vpd in the S to E movement, and 4700 vpd in the W to N movement. The N to W movement (1700 vpd) and E to S movement (2050 vpd) doesn't really seem to warrant separation, except that it's becoming the movement for through traffic to stay on I-74. Otherwise, a modestly wider NBD bridge deck to separate the turning movements would probably suffice.
I-39 @ I-88 will warrant it's own flyovers; the S to E and E to N movements are at 3300 vpd and 3000 vpd, respectively. The W to S and N to W movements carry minimal traffic by comparison. If and when it's warranted, ISHTA could barrier-separate the turning traffic from the WBD mainline to address conflicts.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 03, 2025, 11:33:41 PMBut the Big X boasts the highest levels of turning traffic; 4100 vpd in the S to E movement, and 4700 vpd in the W to N movement. The N to W movement (1700 vpd) and E to S movement (2050 vpd) doesn't really seem to warrant separation, except that it's becoming the movement for through traffic to stay on I-74. Otherwise, a modestly wider NBD bridge deck to separate the turning movements would probably suffice.
I-39 @ I-88 will warrant it's own flyovers; the S to E and E to N movements are at 3300 vpd and 3000 vpd, respectively. The W to S and N to W movements carry minimal traffic by comparison. If and when it's warranted, ISHTA could barrier-separate the turning traffic from the WBD mainline to address conflicts.
The Feds would rather the change in direction on a marked Interstate route be handled by a curve in the mainline rather than a ramp, especially a tight loop ramp. That's the main reason for the previous concept in iowahighways' post where the design essentially accomplishes that for the change of direction for both I-74 and I-80.
Quote from: JREwing78 on April 03, 2025, 11:33:41 PMQuote from: Rick Powell on April 01, 2025, 11:52:20 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on April 01, 2025, 09:32:02 PMI personally think I-39/88 is worse than the Big X as well.
As far as traffic, you are correct...about 15% more vehicles go thru the I-39/88 cloverleaf than the Big X.
I-39 @ I-80 also has greater overall traffic than the "Big X".
But the Big X boasts the highest levels of turning traffic; 4100 vpd in the S to E movement, and 4700 vpd in the W to N movement. The N to W movement (1700 vpd) and E to S movement (2050 vpd) doesn't really seem to warrant separation, except that it's becoming the movement for through traffic to stay on I-74. Otherwise, a modestly wider NBD bridge deck to separate the turning movements would probably suffice.
I-39 @ I-88 will warrant it's own flyovers; the S to E and E to N movements are at 3300 vpd and 3000 vpd, respectively. The W to S and N to W movements carry minimal traffic by comparison. If and when it's warranted, ISHTA could barrier-separate the turning traffic from the WBD mainline to address conflicts.
A bit of a rant here...
But that would require IDOT to actually do something to fix traffic, and without being pushed by some outside force, they don't seem to do much. It took a state representative to force IDOT to finally widen I-55 from Weber Road south to I-80. IDOT, in its infinite wisdom, still considers I-55 south of Weber to be a "rural section". Certain municipalities there used to schedule meetings (at the municipality) at 4 pm deliberately to drive home the point to IDOT officials that something needed to be done. It also took at least two tries before IDOT finally figured out it would be smarter to rebuild I-80 through Joliet as six consistent lanes instead of the asinine widening and shrinking they had previously proposed.
Working on I-39 and I-88 would also require IDOT to actually work with another agency in the state, which is something they seem reluctant to do. Note how long the I-90/I-290/IL-53 interchange, with its much higher traffic counts, and turning traffic counts, has languished due to IDOT's lack of cooperation. As it was, ISHTA had to finally go it alone with minimal assistance from IDOT to rebuild the I-294/I-290/I-88 interchange. IDOT would rather spend on some stupid Kennedy Expressway repaving job (let's call it was it was - it made no major reconfigurations or changes) that fix ay traffic issue outside the Tri-State.
/rant
Quote from: Brandon on April 05, 2025, 07:29:16 AMIDOT would rather spend on some stupid Kennedy Expressway repaving job (let's call it was it was - it made no major reconfigurations or changes) that fix ay traffic issue outside the Tri-State.
/rant
Hmm. They're starting/stopping the six-laning of I-57 at Marion instead of extending it all the way down to I-24. You could be on to something.
The missing I in their name?
Quote from: Mav94 on April 05, 2025, 08:54:09 AMHmm. They're starting/stopping the six-laning of I-57 at Marion instead of extending it all the way down to I-24. You could be on to something.
I see I-57 I-24 to 0.7 MI S of IL 13 in Marion additional lanes in the FY 2025 program for $45 million. p. 9-4.
https://idot.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/idot/documents/transportation-system/reports/opp/hip/2025%20Internet%20MYP%20Highways%20Book%20List.pdf
Quote from: Mav94 on April 05, 2025, 08:54:09 AMHmm. They're starting/stopping the six-laning of I-57 at Marion instead of extending it all the way down to I-24. You could be on to something.
Having lived in Herrin... Hmm... I didn't remember I-57 being as busy south of Marion as it is north of Marion. But now I'm looking at the AADT map, and I see that it is. Yeah, that is weird.
Quote from: Rick Powell on April 05, 2025, 10:54:37 AMQuote from: Mav94 on April 05, 2025, 08:54:09 AMHmm. They're starting/stopping the six-laning of I-57 at Marion instead of extending it all the way down to I-24. You could be on to something.
I see I-57 I-24 to 0.7 MI S of IL 13 in Marion additional lanes in the FY 2025 program for $45 million. p. 9-4.
https://idot.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/idot/documents/transportation-system/reports/opp/hip/2025%20Internet%20MYP%20Highways%20Book%20List.pdf
Well, that's good. The weave on northbound I-57 between I-24 and the IL 148 exit can be really hairy. It's not like anybody is trying to get to the airport or Lake of Egypt ...
Quote from: Rick Powell on April 05, 2025, 10:54:37 AMI see I-57 I-24 to 0.7 MI S of IL 13 in Marion additional lanes in the FY 2025 program for $45 million. p. 9-4.
https://idot.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/idot/documents/transportation-system/reports/opp/hip/2025%20Internet%20MYP%20Highways%20Book%20List.pdf
Yeah, I was going to say: the rest of the stretch north to Mount Vernon is already being widened, so I'd be pretty surprised if the widening isn't planned to eventually extend south to I-24 as well.
Quote from: kphoger on April 05, 2025, 03:02:50 PMHaving lived in Herrin... Hmm... I didn't remember I-57 being as busy south of Marion as it is north of Marion. But now I'm looking at the AADT map, and I see that it is. Yeah, that is weird.
On the other hand, Marion isn't exactly a large destination city. It makes sense that I-24 would be the start/endpoint of where a widening is warranted.
Quote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:02:54 PMOn the other hand, Marion isn't exactly a large destination city. It makes sense that I-24 would be the start/endpoint of where a widening is warranted.
There is a truly surprising amount of traffic between St. Louis and Nashville via I-64, I-57, and I-24. So much so that there's advance signage for I-64 on northbound I-57 just north of the I-24 terminus, and at the IL 127 exit on eastbound I-64, the sign specifies "Nashville IL."
Quote from: Mav94 on April 05, 2025, 09:13:37 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:02:54 PMOn the other hand, Marion isn't exactly a large destination city. It makes sense that I-24 would be the start/endpoint of where a widening is warranted.
There is a truly surprising amount of traffic between St. Louis and Nashville via I-64, I-57, and I-24. So much so that there's advance signage for I-64 on northbound I-57 just north of the I-24 terminus, and at the IL 127 exit on eastbound I-64, the sign specifies "Nashville IL."
Yeah, and the utility of this corridor extends well beyond St. Louis and Nashville in both directions. Kansas City-Atlanta would use this same route.
And... I just ran Google Maps directions for Miami to Denver just for fun. And what do you know?
Recommended route:
I-95 > Fla's Tpke > I-75 >
I-24 > I-57 > I-64 > I-70.
Wow.
Quote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:39:00 PMAnd... I just ran Google Maps directions for Miami to Denver just for fun. And what do you know?
Recommended route:
I-95 > Fla's Tpke > I-75 > I-24 > I-57 > I-64 > I-70.
Wow.
Maybe if something would get done about that missing link between I-24 at Paducah and the US 60 corridor in Missouri (Per Google 30 hr/2,104 miles versus the 29 hours/2,070 miles via St. Louis, plus with the bonus of not dealing with St. Louis traffic and I-70 across Missouri).
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 05, 2025, 10:57:25 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:39:00 PMAnd... I just ran Google Maps directions for Miami to Denver just for fun. And what do you know?
Recommended route:
I-95 > Fla's Tpke > I-75 > I-24 > I-57 > I-64 > I-70.
Wow.
Maybe if something would get done about that missing link between I-24 at Paducah and the US 60 corridor in Missouri (Per Google 30 hr/2,104 miles versus the 29 hours/2,070 miles via St. Louis, plus with the bonus of not dealing with St. Louis traffic and I-70 across Missouri).
That's only 34 miles difference.
57 between Marion/24 and Mt Vernon/64 is getting the 6-laning it needs. As mentioned the Nashville/SE points to St Louis/NW points use this routing, and of course Chicago/NE to Memphis (or Little Rock :colorful: )/SW also use this routing. Since 24 ends at 57 instead of continuing west/northwest towards St Louis or I-255, the two diagonal corridors overlap here, hence the needed extra capacity on this stretch
Even get some Chicagoland or Wisconsin->Nashville and SE traffic using the 57/24 routing since it avoids 80/94/Borman, Indianapolis, and Louisville and the bridge toll
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 06, 2025, 09:12:00 AM57 between Marion/24 and Mt Vernon/64 is getting the 6-laning it needs. As mentioned the Nashville/SE points to St Louis/NW points use this routing, and of course Chicago/NE to Memphis (or Little Rock :colorful: )/SW also use this routing. Since 24 ends at 57 instead of continuing west/northwest towards St Louis or I-255, the two diagonal corridors overlap here, hence the needed extra capacity on this stretch
Even get some Chicagoland or Wisconsin->Nashville and SE traffic using the 57/24 routing since it avoids 80/94/Borman, Indianapolis, and Louisville and the bridge toll
That is definitely the best route to Nashville from around the Madison area.
If I am in Milwaukee or Chicago, I-65 is usually the fastest. But if I have time, I'm taking US-41 south. It takes longer but is generally a very easy drive.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 05, 2025, 10:57:25 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:39:00 PMAnd... I just ran Google Maps directions for Miami to Denver just for fun. And what do you know?
Recommended route:
I-95 > Fla's Tpke > I-75 > I-24 > I-57 > I-64 > I-70.
Wow.
Maybe if something would get done about that missing link between I-24 at Paducah and the US 60 corridor in Missouri (Per Google 30 hr/2,104 miles versus the 29 hours/2,070 miles via St. Louis, plus with the bonus of not dealing with St. Louis traffic and I-70 across Missouri).
Plenty of traffic already uses IL 146 as a shortcut between I-24 and I-57, which currently turns into US 60 at Sikeston, MO, or between I-24 and I-55. (It would be shorter just to take US 60 out of Paducah, but the Cairo bridges are not to everyone's taste.)
Quote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:02:54 PMMarion isn't exactly a large destination city.
No, but Carbondale
is a big destination.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 05, 2025, 10:57:25 PMMaybe if something would get done about that missing link between I-24 at Paducah and the US 60 corridor in Missouri
Hey man, US-62 → KY-286 → KY-121 to Wickliffe and then the steel truss bridges across both the Ohio and Mississippi: that's a really nice drive! Done it several times. Although, some of the
steep drops down into open drainage (https://maps.app.goo.gl/hkMa76CeUAq2sNdt7) can be a bit scary when the roads are icy. Personally, I'm partial to the slightly longer
Tick Ridge Road (https://maps.app.goo.gl/TDXqze8eRFuPbYaK9).
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2025, 09:06:02 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:02:54 PMMarion isn't exactly a large destination city.
No, but Carbondale is a big destination.
Not to mention that there's 80,000-100,000 people in the continuous development along IL 13 between Murphysboro and Marion, and hundreds of vacation cabins in Jackson, Johnson, and Williamson counties.
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2025, 09:06:02 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:02:54 PMMarion isn't exactly a large destination city.
No, but Carbondale is a big destination.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 05, 2025, 10:57:25 PMMaybe if something would get done about that missing link between I-24 at Paducah and the US 60 corridor in Missouri
Hey man, US-62 → KY-286 → KY-121 to Wickliffe and then the steel truss bridges across both the Ohio and Mississippi: that's a really nice drive!
Except KY 286 is signed for local traffic only. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iNdjP7A78P8YSh657)
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 07, 2025, 10:37:27 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 07, 2025, 09:06:02 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 05, 2025, 09:02:54 PMMarion isn't exactly a large destination city.
No, but Carbondale is a big destination.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 05, 2025, 10:57:25 PMMaybe if something would get done about that missing link between I-24 at Paducah and the US 60 corridor in Missouri
Hey man, US-62 → KY-286 → KY-121 to Wickliffe and then the steel truss bridges across both the Ohio and Mississippi: that's a really nice drive!
Except KY 286 is signed for local traffic only. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iNdjP7A78P8YSh657)
Is it enforced or enforceable?
Well this thread certainly went off the rails, lol. tan(this thread) = 75%
I would love to see some flyover ramps connecting NB74 to WB74 and SB80 to EB80, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I think that's the main conclusion to draw here.
When passing through the QC going westward, I may divert onto 80 or stay straight on 280. Coming east, I almost always use 280 to avoid the sudden cloverleaf. I think people know how to make these maneuvers with minimal slowdown if they're passing through, and this adaptation has lessened the need for flyover ramps to help people match route numbers.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 09, 2025, 11:24:30 AMWell this thread certainly went off the rails, lol. tan(this thread) = 75%
I would love to see some flyover ramps connecting NB74 to WB74 and SB80 to EB80, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I think that's the main conclusion to draw here.
When passing through the QC going westward, I may divert onto 80 or stay straight on 280. Coming east, I almost always use 280 to avoid the sudden cloverleaf. I think people know how to make these maneuvers with minimal slowdown if they're passing through, and this adaptation has lessened the need for flyover ramps to help people match route numbers.
I would suggest taking I-280 in either direction. In my experience, much less traffic and trucks. And you don't have to deal with the I-88 traffic merging in just before crossing those narrow bridges across the Mississippi.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 09, 2025, 11:24:30 AMWell this thread certainly went off the rails, lol. tan(this thread) = 75%
I would love to see some flyover ramps connecting NB74 to WB74 and SB80 to EB80, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I think that's the main conclusion to draw here.
When passing through the QC going westward, I may divert onto 80 or stay straight on 280. Coming east, I almost always use 280 to avoid the sudden cloverleaf. I think people know how to make these maneuvers with minimal slowdown if they're passing through, and this adaptation has lessened the need for flyover ramps to help people match route numbers.
Yeah, I think we can call this situation another GPS
de facto renumbering/rerouting. And honestly I think that's okay, it saves Illinois a lot of money.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 09, 2025, 11:28:05 AMQuote from: paulthemapguy on April 09, 2025, 11:24:30 AMWell this thread certainly went off the rails, lol. tan(this thread) = 75%
I would love to see some flyover ramps connecting NB74 to WB74 and SB80 to EB80, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I think that's the main conclusion to draw here.
When passing through the QC going westward, I may divert onto 80 or stay straight on 280. Coming east, I almost always use 280 to avoid the sudden cloverleaf. I think people know how to make these maneuvers with minimal slowdown if they're passing through, and this adaptation has lessened the need for flyover ramps to help people match route numbers.
I would suggest taking I-280 in either direction. In my experience, much less traffic and trucks. And you don't have to deal with the I-88 traffic merging in just before crossing those narrow bridges across the Mississippi.
That's basically what I do. Sometimes westbound I'll use 80 instead just to get to the Love's off Iowa 130. It's less of a hassle getting in and out, compared to the chaos at the Walcott exit.
Anyone know how far the existing grade-separated bridges are into their lifespan at the Big X? It seems to me that if money is the issue, IDOT could simply wait until they reach the end of their lifespan to redesign the interchange. Rather than simply building flyovers to complete the high-speed thru movements, the existing thru movements could become flyovers while both roadways could be realigned to create high-speed curves for both I-74 and I-80.
I also don't like the interchange near the airport, but being a lay person who has not had extensive experience driving in the Quad Cities, I can't say for sure what would be a good redesign there. Are the properties along South Shore Drive expendable?
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 09, 2025, 10:52:35 PMAnyone know how far the existing grade-separated bridges are into their lifespan at the Big X? It seems to me that if money is the issue, IDOT could simply wait until they reach the end of their lifespan to redesign the interchange. Rather than simply building flyovers to complete the high-speed thru movements, the existing thru movements could become flyovers while both roadways could be realigned to create high-speed curves for both I-74 and I-80.
From IDOT bridge inventory- the southbound is in better shape than the northbound. Original construction 1961, reconstructed in 1988.
I-80 NB over I-74
Sufficiency Rating 59.8
Deck:5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS
Superstructure:4 POOR CONDITION - ADVANCED DETERIORATION
Substructure:5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS
I-80 SB over I-74
Sufficiency Rating 77.3
Deck:6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION
Superstructure:6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION
Substructure:5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2025, 09:06:02 AMHey man, US-62 → KY-286 → KY-121 to Wickliffe and then the steel truss bridges across both the Ohio and Mississippi: that's a really nice drive!
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 07, 2025, 10:37:27 PMExcept KY 286 is signed for local traffic only. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iNdjP7A78P8YSh657)
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 09, 2025, 12:47:38 AMIs it enforced or enforceable?
It appears to be intended to prohibit through truck traffic.
https://www.facebook.com/100077422195378/videos/397768123227771/
https://www.overdriveonline.com/regulations/article/15636089/ky-cracks-down-on-trucks-on-rural-roads-mexico-texas-spat-over-inspections-at-border
But what about a
passenger vehicle that's not "local traffic"? For example, last time I drove KY-286, I was headed home to Wichita in a car I'd just bought in Lebanon, TN.