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 47846 times)

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2010, 08:50:44 PM »

You are right about the county highway and no 110 on the turns in Macomb. I was in QC and 110 is on 88,74 and 34 BUT not on the 88/80 jct or the 34/74 jct . It really needs to be signed at those directional changes along with Macomb(and I assume the IKE/88 merge).
I also did more math. It is longer than 55/72 but shorter than 55/70 and 80/35. Using US 34 or the Peoria roting would each save about 10 miles but would defeat the purpose of avoiding 80 and 55 . A pupose which I am sure explains the enthusiasm of the Illinois Tollway !
Logged

rmsandw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Braidwood, IL
  • Last Login: October 31, 2016, 04:02:35 PM
    • "Roads of the Mid-South & West"
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2010, 09:19:19 PM »

I was going from home in Southern Will County to Columbia, MO.  Yesturday I went 55 to 72 to 24 to 63 with stopping twice to feed the family it was about 7 hours.  Coming home today via Peoria vs Springfield (63, 24, 72, 172, 336, 136, 67, 116, 474, 74, 55) it was 6 1/2 and also less gas.  I forgot to trip my milage but shocked me.  Next trip I think I am going to time 55, 24, 116, 29, 474, 24, 9, 41, 136, 336, 172, 72, 24, 63.  Alot more roads, but a bit more straight line.  For two reasons, different view along the way, and to see time.

For the 110 signs, there are none on any of the turns.  The first NB shield is after IL 61.  Also, that same intersection of the last SB shield.  Using google maps there is aprox. a 12 mile gap between 110 signs, and a change to two different highways.

One or more of the newspaper articles that have had links post before mentioned the $$ that it cost to put of the current 110 shields.  If they wanted to get a corridor established, you would think that they would atleast get more of the "CKC" banners up, if they didn't have enough money for the 110 shields along the whole way, and just sign it like the ATS banners along U.S. 61.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2010, 10:06:10 PM »

I dont like any of those Peoria routes. The only one I like is US 24 from 474 to 172 @ Quincy . You can enjoy the 4 lane ROW to IL 9 and a lot has been repaved after that you have a very low volume road and you can see Mt Sterling reconstruct 24 as a 3 lane and its recently cleaned up downtown as well as contruction on the Ripely Bridge .
I might also suggest MO 19 and US 54. MO is planning to make it a continuous 3 lane with an alternating passing lane.

To avoid Peoria I would suggest 80 to exit 45 and take 34 . It saves 10 miles Volumes are low even through Kewanee and its well marked. I havnt timed it but Kewanee through town is about Macomb and probably less than the Monmouth ByPass these days

I could suggest some really exotic routes that would make you think you were no longer in Illinois too
Logged

rmsandw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Braidwood, IL
  • Last Login: October 31, 2016, 04:02:35 PM
    • "Roads of the Mid-South & West"
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2010, 10:36:47 PM »

I have done the Kewanne past, the problem is getting from I-80 through Morris...never been to fond of the town...personal thing...

This summer on one trip I did U.S. 54 to MO 19 and up to Hannibal...again, wasn't to impressed...liked the drive on 63 and 24 better. 

I agree, the route via Peoria are not good.  Without a complete loop around the metro, you have to go into downtown or along the Tazewell riverfront to get from SW to NE or go 74 to 117 to 24 or 116...or 74 to 55 if you are going SW to NE around Peoria.

If you were going directly from Hannibal/Quincy to the city, Galesburg-Kewanee path is better.  To the far SW suburbs, Peoria or Springfield are still better options.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2010, 10:59:00 PM »

Yes I see your point. Interesting on Morris I actually had a fondness for Minooka at least the old Phillips 66 station.

You might try 55 to 74 at Bloomington and take 474 to US 24. I am curious to see how 54 works out It might be a good model for 34 or 67 north of Monmouth. Both a wide enough inparts allready to add a passing lane if you cut the shoulder size. If 55 can go without one I think these low volume roads would be OK

Peoria ring road is under some vague study but I really think it belongs in fantasy -just too expensive maybe 2 billion for what traffic it would carry. My hunch is the others Peoria routes end up that way too
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3723
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 12:28:35 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2010, 09:29:16 PM »

As of Monday, IL 110 is signed on WB I-72 to the Mississippi River Bridge; it has not been added to the overhead signs yet at the I-172 interchange.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2010, 10:20:25 PM »

It isnt on any of the overhead signs. This is strange because there is a junction sign at 34/74 but not ON 74 where it is needed. There is a junction sign at the north and south Monmouth bypass,yet no direction at the 88/80 jumction where 110 change direction!

It really belongs on the IKE Kansas City looks better than "West Suburbs"
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3723
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 12:28:35 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2010, 11:01:28 PM »

^ It also really needs to be on the overhead signs for the turn onto US 136 in Macomb, or at least have some temporary ground level shields erected, as had been done with the I-255/US 50 multiplex in Illinois.

Also, instead of using the CKC logo all the time instead of a direction banner for IL 110, maybe "Chicago" and "Kansas City" tabs should be used instead.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2010, 11:23:52 PM »

Yes Fully Agree. There is plenty of empty space on the Maomb overheads
Logged

rmsandw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Braidwood, IL
  • Last Login: October 31, 2016, 04:02:35 PM
    • "Roads of the Mid-South & West"
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2010, 01:23:12 AM »

At Macomb it makes two turns without any signage, atleast as of Sept 12, this year.  When you go from 336 to 136 then 136 to 67

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2010, 12:03:03 PM »

Yes you are right . I had a retired couple ask me for directions last week. They were following 110 to Kansas City . I asked why they picked me. " I looked like I knew roads"

Someone needs to write the Quincy Herald Whig to get proper signing.
Logged

rmsandw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Braidwood, IL
  • Last Login: October 31, 2016, 04:02:35 PM
    • "Roads of the Mid-South & West"
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2010, 10:01:53 PM »

Went up the route again today from MO line to Galesburg.  Signed from MO line to the Adams/Hancock County Line.  Did not see 110 marked in Hancock County.  Junction markers in Mc Donough/Warren/Knox/Henry Counties on the side roads, but I didn't exit at each intersection to verify each one.

At Monmouth the four-way signing of U.S. 34/67; IL 110/164 is an interesting set-up.

No markers to let you know when IL 110 changes directions and roadways yet.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #37 on: January 15, 2011, 08:47:25 PM »

Directional signs at the Quad Cities ramps are up but not at the 74/34 junction or downtowm Macomb yet. Was the IKE ever signed?

I wil add to previous commentators that the IKE should be I-88. In Qaud Cities 88 should be extended along existing 80 to I-380 and replace 380 & US 20 to I-35 . I-280 should be 80 . The 80 strerch between 80 and 88 should be 188 and that should extend down 74 and 34 to Monmouth
Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2173
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: August 18, 2019, 12:44:17 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2011, 03:25:10 PM »

As of the beginning of January, i have seen a couple of 110 signs along the Ike (290) EAST of the Hillside Strangler and then a couple more times east of Harlem Ave. Still no indication as to where 110 goes if you go West on 290 to the 88 jct.  Real bad signing.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3723
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 12:28:35 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2011, 10:58:19 PM »

As of 2/16/2011:
* IL 110 is signed using stand-alone shields on WB I-72 at I-172.

* The CKC banner has been added above many, if not all, of the westbound US 36 shields in Missouri between the Mississippi River and at least the eastern interchange with US 24.  There are CKC banners above most if not all of the US 36 shields on WB US 24 approaching the interchange.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2011, 11:13:21 PM »

I guess we need just the directional signing at the IKE 88 merge 74 and 34 and downtown Macomb.
Id like to see KC on the IKE instead of West Suburbs to Match St Louis on the Stevenson.
I would like to see the IKE as 88 and 88 go into Iowa and 80 replace 280 at the QC AND 188 rund down to Monmouth. But we all have many wants
My wife wants it CKC on the way from Chicago to KC and reversed on the other side of the road to KCC
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13898
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: November 15, 2019, 10:58:36 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2011, 01:24:19 AM »

Is this route actually better than 55-72-36-35? Google gives 539 miles for CKC vs. 513 for 55-72-36-35 (and 528 for 88-80-35). The only benefit I can see would be avoiding some of the cities along the way.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2011, 10:28:20 AM »

Purpose was to coax some traffic off 80 and 55. That is why they didnt wait for potentail routes through Peoria or say US 34 which would have alos been about 9 miles shorter.
I gave directions to a retired couple in Macomb who were following it and it avoids the trucks as well
Logged

rmsandw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Braidwood, IL
  • Last Login: October 31, 2016, 04:02:35 PM
    • "Roads of the Mid-South & West"
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2011, 02:29:59 PM »

Going from Columbia, MO to Will County, IL...we have done 55 to 72 into Missouri, and we also have done 55 to 74 to 474 to 116 to 67 (CKC) then follow CKC the rest of the way into MO and it actually seemed faster...had to make a few stops for fuel and food so timing was not a good judge, but still seemed faster.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2011, 11:07:19 PM »

I am sure you did and you are in Will County. I would Imagine if you are anywhere north of that the 88/110 route is even quicker
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2011, 02:52:34 PM »

http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1027117951/Multi-vehicle-accident-snarls-I-80-traffic-this-morning
This is why IDOT wants to move some cars off 55 and 80. This is just the most recent long closure. 88 and all 110 held up better during the recent bliazzard
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10469
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 08:04:15 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2011, 03:14:42 PM »

http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1027117951/Multi-vehicle-accident-snarls-I-80-traffic-this-morning
This is why IDOT wants to move some cars off 55 and 80. This is just the most recent long closure. 88 and all 110 held up better during the recent bliazzard

This is why both I-80 and I-55 need widening, and IDiOT needs to get its snowplowing / ice removal act together better.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Free HK.  F the PRC.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1047
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 09:54:48 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2011, 05:50:24 PM »

Brandon this is the agency that told Vandalia it must have a 200 million dollar bypass for a raod that carries 3000 vpd instead of just improving the flow through town..........This is the agancy that once said to me"if we had improved the existing road people wouldnt demand a 4 lane freeway/expressway"and is not clever wnough to say would you take a 3 lane or some passing lanes or 4 11 foot lanes so we can widen 80.........The agency that cant see that 88 makes more sense than 290 .......Oh well...you know I think you have another name for them
Logged

kharvey10

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 276
  • Location: Wood River - Mt. Vernon
  • Last Login: November 05, 2016, 12:55:34 AM
    • 270 Chain of Rocks
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2011, 10:32:53 PM »

And its why trucks are favoring I-39 and I-57, not I-55 to skip Chicagoland and St. Louis.  IDiOT is spending big bucks in widening the latter route through Southern Illinois, with the segment in Mt. Vernon coming as soon as 2013.

I did a variation of this route, using I-88, I-39, and I-55 going from Chicago to St. Louis before.  I would rather do I-57 into Chicagoland.
Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2173
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: August 18, 2019, 12:44:17 PM
Re: New Chicago-Kansas City initiative?
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2011, 07:30:18 AM »

This is also the same agency that "bowed" to Mayor Daley Sr when the Ike was being built through the near west suburbs.  As legend has it, Daley said, "He was going to make it a bitch for them to get back into the city." thus creating the Hillside Strangler on the Ike.  This was when a lot of corporations were moving their headquarters out to places like Schaumburg, such as Motorla, Ameritech and eventually Sears.  IDOT will crumble to power all the time.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

 


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.