AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?  (Read 47797 times)

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3718
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 10:42:43 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #100 on: January 21, 2013, 09:46:31 PM »

Recent travels reveal that MoDOT has removed an eastbound I-44 shield between I-270 and US 61-67.  The assembly that used to be on the section:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=sunset+hills,+mo&hl=en&ll=38.555314,-90.416054&spn=0.003545,0.008256&sll=41.917096,-88.760605&sspn=0.433787,1.056747&hnear=Sunset+Hills,+St+Louis,+Missouri&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.555226,-90.416226&panoid=9cjkV9H1f7yGlT3sbM37pQ&cbp=12,88.24,,0,14.5

Now the US 50 shield is where the I-44 shield was, and there is empty bracket where the US 50 shield used to be.
Logged

Alex

  • Webmaster
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4809
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 03:38:39 AM
    • AARoads
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #101 on: January 22, 2013, 05:43:27 PM »


That's it.  Here's their answer.

Last week I had a question about why the I-44 shields were being removed from the posts. The reason is that we have an I-44 shield on the new mile marker signs. We post a mile marker every two-tenths mile. On that marker it has the I-44 shield and which direction you are going in. These mile markers are designed to help motorists when calling 911 give their location to emergency responders. Overall we are trying to reduce our sign inventory so the decision was made that we don't need the I-44 shield on the mile marker and on an additional sign post. There are portions of I-44 that are also designed US Route 50 and that is why you still see that sign by itself along the side of the road.

As hobsini2 wrote, that is dumb logic. If you are going to remove a shield to cut down on the inventory (what is 20-30 mainline shields in the grand scheme of things anyway?), drop the US 50 marker. US 50 is overlapped with freeways east from near Union to O'Fallon, IL; it is obviously depreciated. Is anyone actively referring to it as the primary route on the freeways it shares? Will the same logic apply to I-270 or I-255 where it shares pavement with US 50?

Either way I am glad I photographed the I-44/US 50 westbound overlap in May of last year.

akotchi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 739
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Fairless Hills, PA
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 09:35:13 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #102 on: January 22, 2013, 10:50:21 PM »

I thought this practice rather strange, so I looked in the MUTCD to see the language for the reassurance markers.  Section 2E.38 indicates that they "should" be placed as part of the post-interchange sequence.  Later in the section, it also says that in the event that there is not adequate space between interchanges, the reassurance marker "may" be removed if the route number is contained on the pull-through sign.

Still seems like a stretch to apply in these cases, based on my understanding of the posts above . . .
Logged
Overhead Guide Signs:  The Traffic Engineer's Only True Canvas.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1041
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 07:33:23 PM
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2219
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 09:09:54 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #104 on: July 16, 2013, 07:26:19 PM »

I've had the 'pleasure' of seeing this route of redundancy in person the last couple days along I-88.  I just had to chuckle and roll my eyes.  It's like Illinois is trying to justify all that four lane expansion between Quincy and Galesburg.
I'm sure it's working wonderfully...
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

ajlynch91

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 155
  • Age: 28
  • Location: On the road from Bolingbrook to Libertyville, IL
  • Last Login: September 30, 2017, 09:18:46 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #105 on: December 26, 2014, 12:20:09 PM »

Sorry to bring up an old topic, just wanted to share some of the (many) things I don't like about this number.

If one is traveling on I-88 WB just west of Aurora, IL-56 shares pavement for a few miles. This used to be signed as such on I-88 but no longer does, yet the Tollway feels the need to sign 110. So IL-56 has about a three mile stretch that isn't signed as such.

There's already a MO-110, and as of August was still signed near De Soto, MO. Never mind that the road is already signed as I's 290, 88, 74, US 67 and 34, and IL-336 and there's never been a need for single number. And if there was such a need, why couldn't 336 do just as good of a job without having to duplicate the number in Missouri?

I also can't stand the "CKC" above all the 110 signs. At least in the Chicago area, there aren't ANY signs with a WEST or EAST designation, which I suppose isn't a problem given how the road is nothing but concurrencies anyway.

My personal opinion is if you're going to promote the 110 designation, even though it doesn't seem like they really are, you could eliminate the duplicate I-88 and just use 110 there. It would a bit of legitimacy to this route, but not much.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1041
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 07:33:23 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #106 on: December 26, 2014, 02:03:54 PM »

http://www.westerncourier.com/news/bypass-to-affect-business/article_d5597fa6-7eff-11e4-a30e-1f02c05cbff0.html

Forgot to update you ...But there is money for paving for 2 lanes I am not clear if there will be a couple of at grade intersections for a while. It is far out of town and will hurt Macomb . I just went by Jacksonville on the new part of 67 yesterday and you can hardly tell there is a town there. The real priority is the Beardstown Bridge which has a 15 ton weight restriction . The good news is Tom Oakley is working on 67 now . Why Because Tom Oakley owns 2 TV stations and  newspaper and he gets his roads and Quincy Macomb was his baby and so was the 110 . That is  why Quincy Macomb is also named after him .
The 110 is about 20 miles longer than 55-72. which I think is the shortest. I have not done the math to see how it compares to 80/35 and 55/70 . I did compare it to 34 from 80 ( about 11 miles longer) Or the 4 lanes under study through Peoria 29 and 336 its only 9 miles longer than that one. Anyway that is where the 110 comes from .
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1041
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 07:33:23 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #107 on: December 26, 2014, 02:47:10 PM »

Ok had time to do math . Did it the old  way with paper maps.
CKC is 527.561 (OK took that from the Wikipedia site) You can save 11 miles taking 80/34 to Galesburg instead of 88 and you can save 9 by taking 80/180/29 and the still fictional 336 to Macomb. You would not save as much using the existing routes today just letting you think about the worth of building 85 miles of 4 lane@6 million a mile.

55-70 is 542
80-35 is 550 You would save 12 by taking 88 to 80
Found another short cut if you want some 2 lane in Illinois and Iowa
80-34 -35 is 520
Finally the shortest is
55-72-36 499
The argument for CKC is that its a route that avoids 80 and 55 and 70 Sort of a Chicago-KC Parkway
Logged

WhitePoleRD

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 62
  • Location: Iowa
  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 05:18:51 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #108 on: May 18, 2018, 02:15:53 PM »

You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
Logged
You take the high road, I'll take the low road and I'll be in Iowa before ye.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10765
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 02:59:44 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #109 on: May 18, 2018, 03:06:18 PM »

You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.

This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Please look at the age of the thread, and then ask yourself if you're actually planning to contribute something new and informative to the conversation that fizzled out years ago.  If not, then just leave it dead.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1041
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 07:33:23 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #110 on: May 18, 2018, 08:16:45 PM »

Since its revived...the 110 336 Macomb bypass will open by June 1 and the 34 freeway is closed and diverted for the summer on to IL 164
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4133
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 07:35:04 AM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #111 on: May 18, 2018, 10:47:31 PM »

You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago–Kansas City highway thread currently active. He even replied in it, too.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 10:49:37 PM by MNHighwayMan »
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1135
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 02:42:13 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #112 on: May 19, 2018, 08:36:27 AM »

You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago–Kansas City highway thread currently active. He even replied in it, too.


He probably just forgot what regional board he was on since the other one is active.  Give the guy a break.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13649
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:09:22 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #113 on: May 19, 2018, 06:03:28 PM »

You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago–Kansas City highway thread currently active. He even replied in it, too.


He probably just forgot what regional board he was on since the other one is active.  Give the guy a break.

Agreed. This isn't the worst thread resurrection I've seen.
Logged

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3151
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: April 29, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #114 on: May 20, 2018, 09:25:18 PM »

You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago–Kansas City highway thread currently active. He even replied in it, too.


He probably just forgot what regional board he was on since the other one is active.  Give the guy a break.

Agreed. This isn't the worst thread resurrection I've seen.

What’s the worst thread resurrection you’ve seen?
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7313
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 07:14:43 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #115 on: May 20, 2018, 09:27:26 PM »

You don't want to take 34 from Ottumwa to 35. It's a snail trail.
This was resurrecting a 3½-year-old thread without adding any meaningful content.
Bad practice.

Especially considering that there's another Chicago–Kansas City highway thread currently active. He even replied in it, too.


He probably just forgot what regional board he was on since the other one is active.  Give the guy a break.

Agreed. This isn't the worst thread resurrection I've seen.

What’s the worst thread resurrection you’ve seen?

webny99 resurrected a thread from January 2009 (the month the forum began) just to show that he could.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚14⒈159
NH 27, 111A(E); NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A; CT 32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.