Lightest Traveled Freeway Segment in Your State

[Flint1979]

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.

[sprjus4]

Yes, but I-180 is not an "indirect" route.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Best guess that the lightest traveled freeway in Louisiana is somewhere on I-49 between Alexandria and Shreveport.

[ilpt4u]

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

[kkt]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[sparker]

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).