As far as I can tell I cannot find any previous mention of this on aaroads or the 3di websites...
Illinois submitted a request to rearrange the interstates in Quad Cities in 1991...280 eliminated, 74 and 80 rerouted, 174 created
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1991_07_16.pdf
It is 6 pages from the bottom.
iowa declined to request the same, so it didn't go anywhere.
Mapmikey
It's on the I-280 page: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aaaroads.com+%22interstate+174%22
The AASHTO decisions are available back to 1989: http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Illinois should have suggested using I-88 instead of 280 for 80 but both states are stupid over this
80 should replace 280 ,74 should remain as is. Iowa should be offered 88 to 380 replace it and follow US 20 to 35 since they love the 2di over the 3di. The stub from 88 should become 188 and run down to Monmouth for a concurrancy with the 110 resulting is estatic joy in Quincy
Quote from: 3467 on March 14, 2013, 09:40:47 PM
Illinois should have suggested using I-88 instead of 280 for 80 but both states are stupid over this
80 should replace 280 ,74 should remain as is. Iowa should be offered 88 to 380 replace it and follow US 20 to 35 since they love the 2di over the 3di. The stub from 88 should become 188 and run down to Monmouth for a concurrancy with the 110 resulting is estatic joy in Quincy
Whoa chief. I-88 being extended to overtake I-380? You do notice that in the overall scheme of things, you would have 88 zig zaging by doing this, right?
We also have it referenced on the Interstate 280 Iowa/Illinois page (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-280_ilia.html) on the Iguide.
Out of all the possible ways to eliminate the "bump" of I-74 and I-80 near Colona, this makes the most sense to me. Iowa shouldn't have the need to complain about the lack of traffic on current I-80, because there would still be a 2di there.
Quote from: 3467 on March 14, 2013, 09:40:47 PM
Illinois should have suggested using I-88 instead of 280 for 80 but both states are stupid over this
80 should replace 280 ,74 should remain as is. Iowa should be offered 88 to 380 replace it and follow US 20 to 35 since they love the 2di over the 3di. The stub from 88 should become 188 and run down to Monmouth for a concurrancy with the 110 resulting is estatic joy in Quincy
US 20 would be better as a new I-82 or I-84 since there is the chance the corridor could get extended to I-39 at Rockford in the far future.
Since the split routes may be returning with I-69 in Texas, maybe Illinois should try for I-80N/I-80S?
I kind of think I-80 belongs where it is. Aside from the cloverleaf turn it seems to be the better through route having the rest areas and seemed to be straighter. How about terminating I-74 at the cloverleaf and the north south stretch becomes I-580.
Quote from: Mdcastle on March 17, 2013, 10:17:54 PM
I kind of think I-80 belongs where it is. Aside from the cloverleaf turn it seems to be the better through route having the rest areas and seemed to be straighter. How about terminating I-74 at the cloverleaf and the north south stretch becomes I-580.
Oh but that would be too easy. lol And Iowa would bitch about losing a 2di for a 3di.
Quote from: Mdcastle on March 17, 2013, 10:17:54 PM
I kind of think I-80 belongs where it is. Aside from the cloverleaf turn it seems to be the better through route having the rest areas and seemed to be straighter. How about terminating I-74 at the cloverleaf and the north south stretch becomes I-580.
I'd personally do that route as I-880, since it does connect with I-280 on the other side. I frankly have no idea why they thought it was necessary to extend I-74 through the Quad Cities to end on the other side. At least on eastbound I-80 at I-74 in Iowa, they no longer tell you that's the exit for Peoria when the way you get there is straight ahead.
We've made many trips through the area, starting on I-80 and transferring to I-74 for the drive to Galesburg. The way to do it is to not make any turns and let the numbers change, but it always confused my mother seeing Peoria as the control city and telling her not to turn there.
^^ We usually use I-280 through there going between points west and Joliet. The only reason to use I-80 through the Quads is to use the rest area on I-80. I do wish there was one on I-280.
Quote from: DandyDan on March 28, 2013, 06:50:20 AM
Quote from: Mdcastle on March 17, 2013, 10:17:54 PM
I kind of think I-80 belongs where it is. Aside from the cloverleaf turn it seems to be the better through route having the rest areas and seemed to be straighter. How about terminating I-74 at the cloverleaf and the north south stretch becomes I-580.
I'd personally do that route as I-880, since it does connect with I-280 on the other side. I frankly have no idea why they thought it was necessary to extend I-74 through the Quad Cities to end on the other side. At least on eastbound I-80 at I-74 in Iowa, they no longer tell you that's the exit for Peoria when the way you get there is straight ahead.
But then Iowa is out of even x80's - IMHO I-880 should be held in reserve.
Could go with I-580, but have a short multiplex with I-80, then take the I-580 designation up the US 61 freeway to end at US 30. At least this way US 61 could be posted at 70 instead of 65.
These roads are confusing. My destination is usually Moline, so I'm often "transferring" from 80 onto 74. I think (ignoring political issues) that I-80 should be rerouted over the current I-280 and I-74 should be on the current I-80 from their bump to where I-280 ends. Having them cross near Colona is better than having to follow cloverleaf ramps (and both routes do this). As far as that stretch of I-74 leading north from the airport, it's not long enough to need an interstate number. It can just all be US 6, unless there's some reason US 6 has to be on Kimberly.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 28, 2013, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on March 28, 2013, 06:50:20 AM
Quote from: Mdcastle on March 17, 2013, 10:17:54 PM
I kind of think I-80 belongs where it is. Aside from the cloverleaf turn it seems to be the better through route having the rest areas and seemed to be straighter. How about terminating I-74 at the cloverleaf and the north south stretch becomes I-580.
I'd personally do that route as I-880, since it does connect with I-280 on the other side. I frankly have no idea why they thought it was necessary to extend I-74 through the Quad Cities to end on the other side. At least on eastbound I-80 at I-74 in Iowa, they no longer tell you that's the exit for Peoria when the way you get there is straight ahead.
But then Iowa is out of even x80's - IMHO I-880 should be held in reserve.
Could go with I-580, but have a short multiplex with I-80, then take the I-580 designation up the US 61 freeway to end at US 30. At least this way US 61 could be posted at 70 instead of 65.
It would have to be I-580 anyway, according to how IDOT does even/odd 3dis. With IDOT, if it doesn't return to its parent, it gets an odd first number (I-155, I-355 as opposed to I-280 with I-74, I-294 with I-80).
Eliminate I-280, run the interstates that "bump" straight through that cloverleaf, change the number of I-74 through downtown to I-274. Problem solved.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 15, 2013, 09:05:02 AM
Quote from: 3467 on March 14, 2013, 09:40:47 PM
Illinois should have suggested using I-88 instead of 280 for 80 but both states are stupid over this
80 should replace 280 ,74 should remain as is. Iowa should be offered 88 to 380 replace it and follow US 20 to 35 since they love the 2di over the 3di. The stub from 88 should become 188 and run down to Monmouth for a concurrancy with the 110 resulting is estatic joy in Quincy
Whoa chief. I-88 being extended to overtake I-380? You do notice that in the overall scheme of things, you would have 88 zig zaging by doing this, right?
As long as the I-88 designation extends beyond a state line, I support it.
Otherwise it should be demoted back to IL-5, with IL-40 being re-numbered back to IL-88.