Eliminating an interstate?

[hbelkins]

http://newstrib.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=232&ArticleID=45768

Apparently the feds are proposing reducing I-180 in Illinois to two lanes. There aren't a lot of details in this story.

I know 180 gets a bad rap here, but what would be the justification or rationale for this? What would it accomplish?

And are there any other interstates that have been eliminated in this way?

[GCrites]

I think that newspaper site only lets non-subscribers read articles that are 1 or 2 days old.

[Mr. Matté]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:udt0D7cabQEJ:newstrib.com/main.asp%3FSectionID%3D2%26SubSectionID%3D232%26ArticleID%3D45768+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[froggie]

I think that newspaper site only lets non-subscribers read articles that are 1 or 2 days old.

I was able to read the article.

As to the subject, it's likely because I-180 sees an EXTREMELY SMALL volume of traffic and, given that I-180 is getting close to where it'll need reconstruction, it's more cost-effective to the state to drop it to 2 lanes.

[iBallasticwolf2]

I think that newspaper site only lets non-subscribers read articles that are 1 or 2 days old.

I was able to read the article.

As to the subject, it's likely because I-180 sees an EXTREMELY SMALL volume of traffic and, given that I-180 is getting close to where it'll need reconstruction, it's more cost-effective to the state to drop it to 2 lanes.

If the IL 6 freeway had been connected I-180 I-180 may have seen more traffic.

[SSOWorld]

Right - in IL-annoy-ed?

I-180 was built due to some weapons plant, now that plant's not there and it's an Interstate to nowhere.  If the money's spent to reconstruct - there's no point in a four-lane in the eastern leg of it.

[iBallasticwolf2]

If the money's spent to reconstruct - there's no point in a four-lane in the eastern leg of it.

I recall seeing suggestions to turn the road into a 4 lane expressway from I-80 IL 29 and make the Illinois River Bridge 2 lanes. It would probably be a good idea since that bridge doesn't have shoulders with 4 lanes.

[TEG24601]

They certainly need to keep the ROW, because you never know what the future holds, but if they are going to reduce the roadway, they need to keep it 3 lanes at least, to allow for a passing lane.

[iBallasticwolf2]

They certainly need to keep the ROW, because you never know what the future holds, but if they are going to reduce the roadway, they need to keep it 3 lanes at least, to allow for a passing lane.

I don't think each carriageway is wide enough to be 3 lanes, especially if you want shoulders. Considering I-180 might need reconstruction soon if it is shrank down to 2 lanes it could be repaved to allow for a wider carriageway to at least have 2 lanes with shoulders. (Passing lanes are not super-common in the US unlike in Europe.)

[GCrites]

I think that newspaper site only lets non-subscribers read articles that are 1 or 2 days old.

I was able to read the article.

It does now work for me.

[US 41]

I actually like the idea. It seems pointless to just keep maintaining something that doesn't get all that much traffic. If Hennepin wants to save their interstate maybe tolling it would be a reasonable option.

[Rothman]

Yeah, here's another vote for downgrading it.  If anything, downgrading way underutilized facilities should be pursued more often in general.

[vtk]

Sure, downgrade it to a Super 2. Then we'll have two I-180s that fall noticeably short of Interstate standards.

[bulldog1979]

There are proposals to convert I-375 in Detroit. Some of them involve conversion to a boulevard, but it's possible that a super short freeway stub would exist coming off the interchange to the first intersection. So depending on how things are defined on paper, I-375 could still exist on paper, or it could be completely decommissioned.

[Stratuscaster]

The locals that have been working to promote businesses to that area use the rail facilities and I-180 as big draws and are just now starting to get some momentum.

Kill the 4 lanes and you potentially kill that momentum, too.

That said, I'm not totally against the idea of eliminating under-used assets. But would they still be talking about this if they ever made that connection with Peoria?

[Henry]

I-170 in Baltimore is a prime example of this. For years, there was a long stub to the west that never led to anywhere, and it was eventually torn down and the ramps made shorter. Of course, US 40 now runs on that freeway section.

[froggie]

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, and going back to the OP's question, there's a short section of I-295 in DC that was eliminated by a downgrading.

[Bitmapped]

They're not Interstates, but Ohio has downgraded some stretches of 4-lane road:
- US 33 near Russells Point had a brief section of a second carriageway abandoned
- temporary I-70/SR 158 near Kirkersville was reduced to 1 carriageway when the rest of I-70 was opened to the West
- old US 30 southwest of Orrville has been through a couple configurations since new US 30 was built. At one point, all traffic was on one carriageway but I think it's now 2 one-lane carriageways, with the second lane on each side closed

Also, in Maryland:
- part of a second carriageway (including a major bridge) on MD 144 east of Frederick was closed

If you have really low volume roads and there are good passing opportunities with just 2 lanes, I can see some point to not spending the money to maintain a second roadway.  But you shouldn't do that and call it an Interstate.

[Sykotyk]

I drove I-180 once. It really never needed to be built. Had it continued south to Peoria and Route 6, that'd be different (that's the way I drove it). Otherwise, it's just a waste. And if it's near the end of its life, they can keep the ROW and just repave/rebuild one carriageway.

[Zzonkmiles]

When I-85 through Greenville in SC got rerouted and the old I-85 there became I-85 Business, did a similar decommissioning/construction happen?

[triplemultiplex]

When I-85 through Greenville Spartanburg in SC got rerouted and the old I-85 there became I-85 Business, did a similar decommissioning/construction happen?

No, but that is a different situation.  Old I-85 (now Bus I-85) is a busy urban artery.  I-180 is a dead-end spur in the (relative) middle of nowhere.

[Revive 755]

There have been occasional articles in the St. Joesph, Missouri paper indicating that I-229 may be downgraded due to low traffic volumes and to avoid having to reconstruct the double-deck section along the riverfront.

[SteveG1988]

The steel plant closed shortly after the road was finished. It is now open again.

[Buffaboy]

Honestly, with the political dynamics in the city, I wouldn't be surprised if I-190 in Buffalo gets converted into a boulevard in the next 10 years. I will revisit this post in 10 years and let everyone know how it worked out.

[Henry]

When I-85 through Greenville Spartanburg in SC got rerouted and the old I-85 there became I-85 Business, did a similar decommissioning/construction happen?

No, but that is a different situation.  Old I-85 (now Bus I-85) is a busy urban artery.

Three other situations come to mind: I-85 Greensboro, I-40 Winston-Salem and I-80 Sacramento. After these Interstates were rerouted, their old alignments became Business Loop freeways.