Iowa says US-20 is too dangerous in Illinois

[3467]

51 was cancelled in the Federal Register last year it's over. Pana is under the old EIS. The magazine they would not fight a bypass but didn't want it. So looks like IDOT  just dropped it all. As Edwaleni said.

[edwaleni]

But this plan had the I-88 to I-80 section as an expressway as well. Plus, wasn't the "expressway" option between Oglesby and Normal going to include interchanges at major junctions anyway?

Anyway, it's a travesty US 20 is still not four-laned decades later.

I-88 to I-80: back in the early 70s I was on a crew that did the soil borings for many of the bridges in La Salle County north of I-80. I-39 got built pretty much in line where we drilled as a freeway. Our preliminary work was before the 1976 report came out, and there had to have been plan prep going on for the Mendota area in the later 70s since the section north of US 34 was built and opened up in 1984. So, I am guessing IDOT willfully ignored the findings of the report for I-39 between I-88/I-80 for whatever reason.

Oglesby-Normal: I can't recall out of memory which junctions would have been at-grade and which ones would have had full interchanges in the expressway versions. There were many sub-alignments that were looked at. Probably US 24 was a full interchange due to its proximity to the railroad. I doubt places like Tonica would have warranted a full interchange in the expressway version, but not sure.

Wasn't there still an active railroad on that ROW at the time? Or was that south of Rockford? I remember many parts of 51/39 were built on former railroad ROW.

[I-39]

But this plan had the I-88 to I-80 section as an expressway as well. Plus, wasn't the "expressway" option between Oglesby and Normal going to include interchanges at major junctions anyway?

Anyway, it's a travesty US 20 is still not four-laned decades later.

I-88 to I-80: back in the early 70s I was on a crew that did the soil borings for many of the bridges in La Salle County north of I-80. I-39 got built pretty much in line where we drilled as a freeway. Our preliminary work was before the 1976 report came out, and there had to have been plan prep going on for the Mendota area in the later 70s since the section north of US 34 was built and opened up in 1984. So, I am guessing IDOT willfully ignored the findings of the report for I-39 between I-88/I-80 for whatever reason.

Oglesby-Normal: I can't recall out of memory which junctions would have been at-grade and which ones would have had full interchanges in the expressway versions. There were many sub-alignments that were looked at. Probably US 24 was a full interchange due to its proximity to the railroad. I doubt places like Tonica would have warranted a full interchange in the expressway version, but not sure.

This report talks about some of the alignments, perhaps it will jog your memory.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_JU1AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

Looks like interchanges were going to be placed at almost every junction that ended up getting one on I-39. My guess is had the expressway gone through, there would have eventually been a push to make it a freeway as there would've been a lot of accidents.

[I-39]

51 was cancelled in the Federal Register last year it's over. Pana is under the old EIS. The magazine they would not fight a bypass but didn't want it. So looks like IDOT  just dropped it all. As Edwaleni said.

It never was needed south of Decatur to begin with. I'm surprised it made it as far as it did.

[Rick Powell]

Wasn't there still an active railroad on that ROW at the time? Or was that south of Rockford? I remember many parts of 51/39 were built on former railroad ROW.

There was an active north-south rail line from Mendota to Decatur paralleling US 51 until the mid-80s (the old Illinois Central "Gruber Line", the first land-grant railroad in the US and the longest in the world when it was built, stretching from Galena to Cairo with a branch from Centralia to the then-growing city of Chicago. Everything north of Centralia and south of Freeport was removed except for little bits here and there. I was following a crew that was removing the old crossings on state highways in 1987. If the RR had been abandoned 10 years earlier, alignments using the old roadbed might have been considered. I-39 does use the old US 51 in a few places, at Hudson Road north of Normal being one.

[Rick Powell]

Looks like interchanges were going to be placed at almost every junction that ended up getting one on I-39. My guess is had the expressway gone through, there would have eventually been a push to make it a freeway as there would've been a lot of accidents.

Yep, the expressway alternative E-85 had planned interchanges at every location where they were eventually built as a freeway, except US 51 south of Oglesby. I'm sure there would have been some additional crashes with the at-grade crossings, although most of the cross roads not at an interchange are pretty lightly travelled now. Other than omitting about 13 extra overhead bridges, the expressway version didn't really save that much construction from what I see. I remember a few local roads getting a re-paving job to offset the road closures, but not a great expense in the grand scheme of things.

[3467]

I think it got the Interstate designation before South of Oglesby was to be a freeway.

Also the original routing was something . In the December 66 plan it ran Rockford to Dixon South to Peoria and down 121 to Decatur.. They had a freeway along 24 too.
That particular routing took it by a steel plant and was the Kerner  curve and led to the famed Interstate 180.

[I-39]

Back to US 20.

So now that the EIS has expired, if they were to scale back the previous freeway plans and make it closer to say, what IL-336 is, would they have to redo the entire EIS from scratch or could they just simply update the existing one?

Now that the legislature passed the gas tax increase with indexing and with the transportation lockbox amendment in place, theoretically, a four lane US 20 is more feasible now.

[3467]

I would think and Rick Powell really knows they would all have to start from scratch.
The 336 is upended by US 24. Why wouldn't 24 and some improvements in Illinois 9 be enough? They are.
20 Purpose and need projected much higher traffic. .

I wonder if 67 would too with a floodplain issue. Those have become a real issue
Like I said Rick Powell could really tell us.
Right now I think the few miles of 34 near Monmouth and 67 from Jerseyville to the 4 lane and possibly 127 south of Pickneyville are the only ones that might still be valid.

[I-39]

I would think and Rick Powell really knows they would all have to start from scratch.
The 336 is upended by US 24. Why wouldn't 24 and some improvements in Illinois 9 be enough? They are.
20 Purpose and need projected much higher traffic. .

I wonder if 67 would too with a floodplain issue. Those have become a real issue
Like I said Rick Powell could really tell us.
Right now I think the few miles of 34 near Monmouth and 67 from Jerseyville to the 4 lane and possibly 127 south of Pickneyville are the only ones that might still be valid.

I was using the style of highway 336 is as an example of what they should do on US 20, a four lane at grade divided highway with an interchange at any intersection projected to need a stop light.

I do not believe 336 or 29 should be built any further.

[ilpt4u]

I was using the style of highway 336 is as an example of what they should do on US 20, a four lane at grade divided highway with an interchange at any intersection projected to need a stop light.

I do not believe 336 or 29 should be built any further.

Illinois State Route 336 should be decommissioned, since its independent/non-multiplexed segment between Macomb and Peoria is basically cancelled

The rest of the route from I-172 to Macomb is multiplexed with IL 110/CKC, and we all know Illinois isn't decommissioning 110

[3467]

Agree on 336 number.

[edwaleni]

I was using the style of highway 336 is as an example of what they should do on US 20, a four lane at grade divided highway with an interchange at any intersection projected to need a stop light.

I do not believe 336 or 29 should be built any further.

Illinois State Route 336 should be decommissioned, since its independent/non-multiplexed segment between Macomb and Peoria is basically cancelled

The rest of the route from I-172 to Macomb is multiplexed with IL 110/CKC, and we all know Illinois isn't decommissioning 110

IDOT still has the corridor protected from Peoria to the west side of Canton. US-67 is protected on the east side of Macomb. When they release the protection, then I will know its kaput.

As for US-20:

The IDOT Office of Planning and Programming classifies US Route 20 as a Major Arterial Highway within the rural State highway system. In general, this means the route connects large towns or cities, "long-distance trip"  traffic generators, and integrates interstate and intercounty services, while providing a high degree of mobility at high operating speeds and direct routing for long trips.

The proposed project is needed to complete the missing four-lane section on US Route 20 between Illinois Route 84 northwest of Galena and the Freeport Bypass. Upon completion of this project and the Mississippi Bridge at Dubuque, US Route 20 would have continuous four-lane capacity through northwestern Illinois and northern Iowa from Rockford to Waterloo.

Seems to indicate that IDOT is expecting at some future time a new bridge over the Mississippi.

Record of Decision.

https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/IDOT-Projects/District-2/US-20-Galena-Bypass/files/US%2020%20Rod.pdf

[I-39]

I was using the style of highway 336 is as an example of what they should do on US 20, a four lane at grade divided highway with an interchange at any intersection projected to need a stop light.

I do not believe 336 or 29 should be built any further.

Illinois State Route 336 should be decommissioned, since its independent/non-multiplexed segment between Macomb and Peoria is basically cancelled

The rest of the route from I-172 to Macomb is multiplexed with IL 110/CKC, and we all know Illinois isn't decommissioning 110

IDOT still has the corridor protected from Peoria to the west side of Canton. US-67 is protected on the east side of Macomb. When they release the protection, then I will know its kaput.

As for US-20:

The IDOT Office of Planning and Programming classifies US Route 20 as a Major Arterial Highway within the rural State highway system. In general, this means the route connects large towns or cities, "long-distance trip"  traffic generators, and integrates interstate and intercounty services, while providing a high degree of mobility at high operating speeds and direct routing for long trips.

The proposed project is needed to complete the missing four-lane section on US Route 20 between Illinois Route 84 northwest of Galena and the Freeport Bypass. Upon completion of this project and the Mississippi Bridge at Dubuque, US Route 20 would have continuous four-lane capacity through northwestern Illinois and northern Iowa from Rockford to Waterloo.

Seems to indicate that IDOT is expecting at some future time a new bridge over the Mississippi.

Record of Decision.

https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/IDOT-Projects/District-2/US-20-Galena-Bypass/files/US%2020%20Rod.pdf

Maybe, but there hasn't been any move on this project in quite a while. Also, there are no indications anywhere about a new bridge. The existing bridge will have to be replaced at some point, so when the time comes, simply replace it with a four lane bridge similar to the US 151 bridge, except modernized.

[edwaleni]

I was using the style of highway 336 is as an example of what they should do on US 20, a four lane at grade divided highway with an interchange at any intersection projected to need a stop light.

I do not believe 336 or 29 should be built any further.

Illinois State Route 336 should be decommissioned, since its independent/non-multiplexed segment between Macomb and Peoria is basically cancelled

The rest of the route from I-172 to Macomb is multiplexed with IL 110/CKC, and we all know Illinois isn't decommissioning 110

IDOT still has the corridor protected from Peoria to the west side of Canton. US-67 is protected on the east side of Macomb. When they release the protection, then I will know its kaput.

As for US-20:

The IDOT Office of Planning and Programming classifies US Route 20 as a Major Arterial Highway within the rural State highway system. In general, this means the route connects large towns or cities, "long-distance trip"  traffic generators, and integrates interstate and intercounty services, while providing a high degree of mobility at high operating speeds and direct routing for long trips.

The proposed project is needed to complete the missing four-lane section on US Route 20 between Illinois Route 84 northwest of Galena and the Freeport Bypass. Upon completion of this project and the Mississippi Bridge at Dubuque, US Route 20 would have continuous four-lane capacity through northwestern Illinois and northern Iowa from Rockford to Waterloo.

Seems to indicate that IDOT is expecting at some future time a new bridge over the Mississippi.

Record of Decision.

https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/IDOT-Projects/District-2/US-20-Galena-Bypass/files/US%2020%20Rod.pdf

Maybe, but there hasn't been any move on this project in quite a while. Also, there are no indications anywhere about a new bridge. The existing bridge will have to be replaced at some point, so when the time comes, simply replace it with a four lane bridge similar to the US 151 bridge, except modernized.

This is one of the discussions over in the Iowa threads. IDOT has land protected for a future bridge near Whisky Hollow in the Illinois side. I always thought the future US-20 Expressway was crossing south of Dubuque to line up with a future Dubuque US-20 Bypass on the Iowa side.  When the SW Arterial (US-52) was approved on the Iowa side the planned termination at US-52 will be in alignment across the Mississippi from Whisky Hollow on the Illinois side. I can't imagine they would spend all the money for a 4 lane Julien Dubuque bridge replacement when they can't/won't upgrade US-20 through the town center. In other words why raise capacity for a bridge that crosses into several traffic lights in the city center? Doesn't make sense.

Also the size of those bridges/exits IowaDOT built for that arterial are way more significant than what a simple bypass would contain. It looks like it was being designed for something that would be more significant in the future. Just saying.

[I-39]

I was using the style of highway 336 is as an example of what they should do on US 20, a four lane at grade divided highway with an interchange at any intersection projected to need a stop light.

I do not believe 336 or 29 should be built any further.

Illinois State Route 336 should be decommissioned, since its independent/non-multiplexed segment between Macomb and Peoria is basically cancelled

The rest of the route from I-172 to Macomb is multiplexed with IL 110/CKC, and we all know Illinois isn't decommissioning 110

IDOT still has the corridor protected from Peoria to the west side of Canton. US-67 is protected on the east side of Macomb. When they release the protection, then I will know its kaput.

As for US-20:

The IDOT Office of Planning and Programming classifies US Route 20 as a Major Arterial Highway within the rural State highway system. In general, this means the route connects large towns or cities, "long-distance trip"  traffic generators, and integrates interstate and intercounty services, while providing a high degree of mobility at high operating speeds and direct routing for long trips.

The proposed project is needed to complete the missing four-lane section on US Route 20 between Illinois Route 84 northwest of Galena and the Freeport Bypass. Upon completion of this project and the Mississippi Bridge at Dubuque, US Route 20 would have continuous four-lane capacity through northwestern Illinois and northern Iowa from Rockford to Waterloo.

Seems to indicate that IDOT is expecting at some future time a new bridge over the Mississippi.

Record of Decision.

https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/IDOT-Projects/District-2/US-20-Galena-Bypass/files/US%2020%20Rod.pdf

Maybe, but there hasn't been any move on this project in quite a while. Also, there are no indications anywhere about a new bridge. The existing bridge will have to be replaced at some point, so when the time comes, simply replace it with a four lane bridge similar to the US 151 bridge, except modernized.

This is one of the discussions over in the Iowa threads. IDOT has land protected for a future bridge near Whisky Hollow in the Illinois side. I always thought the future US-20 Expressway was crossing south of Dubuque to line up with a future Dubuque US-20 Bypass on the Iowa side.  When the SW Arterial (US-52) was approved on the Iowa side the planned termination at US-52 will be in alignment across the Mississippi from Whisky Hollow on the Illinois side. I can't imagine they would spend all the money for a 4 lane Julien Dubuque bridge replacement when they can't/won't upgrade US-20 through the town center. In other words why raise capacity for a bridge that crosses into several traffic lights in the city center? Doesn't make sense.

Also the size of those bridges/exits IowaDOT built for that arterial are way more significant than what a simple bypass would contain. It looks like it was being designed for something that would be more significant in the future. Just saying.

That is a good point, but again, why did they curve the arterial NW rather than connecting it straight west to meet US 20 at Swiss Valley Road? That just doesn't make sense.

IDOT is going to need to give US 20 some attention in the coming years.

[3467]

There was never anything about a new bridge in any study . Oh btw I have the Feas. Study and that was an expressway. When the district engineer pushed freeway in the EIS it just backfired.
Push for more passing lanes it's the most we can hope for
Also where did you find what's under corridor protection?

[triplemultiplex]

In other words why raise capacity for a bridge that crosses into several traffic lights in the city center? Doesn't make sense.

Because most of the traffic is going into Dubuque maybe?

[Rick Powell]

I would think and Rick Powell really knows they would all have to start from scratch.
The 336 is upended by US 24. Why wouldn't 24 and some improvements in Illinois 9 be enough? They are.
20 Purpose and need projected much higher traffic. .

I wonder if 67 would too with a floodplain issue. Those have become a real issue
Like I said Rick Powell could really tell us.
Right now I think the few miles of 34 near Monmouth and 67 from Jerseyville to the 4 lane and possibly 127 south of Pickneyville are the only ones that might still be valid.

I don't know as much as you think, LOL! But basically the amount of re-evaluation required by the feds boils down to three things:
1) how much has changed in the external environment since the original approval. Both built and natural. Elements like population/employment, wetlands and special waste tend to shift over time, and protected species are added and occasionally removed.
2) how much the planned improvement has changed (if it has been re-designed in any way) which would alter the way the project impacts the environment.
3) how the permitting regulations have changed. This mostly hinges on whether the previous planned mitigation is enough, or more or different is needed.

Some projects can get by with a cursory technical re-evaluation while others rise to the level of a Supplemental EIS. If both the nature of the project and the surrounding environment have changed enough, might be better to start from scratch.

[I-39]

I would think and Rick Powell really knows they would all have to start from scratch.
The 336 is upended by US 24. Why wouldn't 24 and some improvements in Illinois 9 be enough? They are.
20 Purpose and need projected much higher traffic. .

I wonder if 67 would too with a floodplain issue. Those have become a real issue
Like I said Rick Powell could really tell us.
Right now I think the few miles of 34 near Monmouth and 67 from Jerseyville to the 4 lane and possibly 127 south of Pickneyville are the only ones that might still be valid.

I don't know as much as you think, LOL! But basically the amount of re-evaluation required by the feds boils down to three things:
1) how much has changed in the external environment since the original approval. Both built and natural. Elements like population/employment, wetlands and special waste tend to shift over time, and protected species are added and occasionally removed.
2) how much the planned improvement has changed (if it has been re-designed in any way) which would alter the way the project impacts the environment.
3) how the permitting regulations have changed. This mostly hinges on whether the previous planned mitigation is enough, or more or different is needed.

Some projects can get by with a cursory technical re-evaluation while others rise to the level of a Supplemental EIS. If both the nature of the project and the surrounding environment have changed enough, might be better to start from scratch.

In the case of US 20, I don't think too much has changed that would require a whole scale change. Maybe if they scale it back to an at-grade expressway they'll need to change more throughly.

[3467]

From what I read of the U.S. 30 project they had to do an SEIS because of floodplain rule changes same with 34. Neither stopped project but sort of did because of huge cost increase.
I really think they would have to start from scratch.

[edwaleni]

I would think and Rick Powell really knows they would all have to start from scratch.
The 336 is upended by US 24. Why wouldn't 24 and some improvements in Illinois 9 be enough? They are.
20 Purpose and need projected much higher traffic. .

I wonder if 67 would too with a floodplain issue. Those have become a real issue
Like I said Rick Powell could really tell us.
Right now I think the few miles of 34 near Monmouth and 67 from Jerseyville to the 4 lane and possibly 127 south of Pickneyville are the only ones that might still be valid.

I don't know as much as you think, LOL! But basically the amount of re-evaluation required by the feds boils down to three things:
1) how much has changed in the external environment since the original approval. Both built and natural. Elements like population/employment, wetlands and special waste tend to shift over time, and protected species are added and occasionally removed.
2) how much the planned improvement has changed (if it has been re-designed in any way) which would alter the way the project impacts the environment.
3) how the permitting regulations have changed. This mostly hinges on whether the previous planned mitigation is enough, or more or different is needed.

Some projects can get by with a cursory technical re-evaluation while others rise to the level of a Supplemental EIS. If both the nature of the project and the surrounding environment have changed enough, might be better to start from scratch.

In the case of US 20, I don't think too much has changed that would require a whole scale change. Maybe if they scale it back to an at-grade expressway they'll need to change more throughly.

All it takes is one member of the Illinois Congressional Delegation to tag it to the next spending bill. The last Covid spending bill had more than the expressway cost for US-20 going to foreign countries for "social behavior examinations" and other frivolous expenditures.

[3467]

The republicans got rid of the earmarks and the democrats never went back so it's not going to happen.

[3467]

There are Build Grants. I think they are still called that. Check out a Better 54 they tried for a 3 lane route 54.
Those don't require IDOT  but I think you need a town or county to sign on.

[edwaleni]

There are Build Grants. I think they are still called that. Check out a Better 54 they tried for a 3 lane route 54.
Those don't require IDOT  but I think you need a town or county to sign on.

There is a grant provision in the COVID Relief Act of 2020

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) funds are available until Sept. 30, 2024.

But it is only to pay employees and contractors to maintain roads and only for cities of less than 200,000.

As for the 2021 Omnibus Spending Bill.

Provides $49.1 billion for the Federal Highway Administration, $166 million below 2020 levels, most
of which ($46.4 billion) is sub-allocated to states and local governments as part of the federal-aid
highway program and is consistent with the one-year extension of the FAST Act at FY 2020 funding
levels. $2 billion is set aside for discretionary Highway Infrastructure Programs, $166 million below FY
2020.