Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[3467]

Biggsville bypass was due to pressure from now Ag Secretary John Sullivan. IDOT has been trying to cancel it since the Corps too them they could not build a dam in the floodplain . That is what a 4 lane 34 would become. The cost to elevate it and allow the water to flow would cost 200 million.
The CKC exists because the owner of a bunch of newspapers and tv stations wanted it.
I traveled both 34 and Macomb bypass recently . Neither is all that busy especially the bypass.

[edwaleni]

I looked on the Senate committee site and could not find any . There are the Peoria area projects 29 and 336 .as well as 67.
They had another meeting in Southern Illinois and no mention of 50or 51just the 127 project.

Would like to see those minutes also.

Only the 127 upgrade aka Murphysboro-Columbia possible Expressway upgrade? Or another 127 project? Tho its really only 127 from Murphy to Pinckneyville. From there it makes its way NW over to Columbia. One of the routings may be straight up 127 to I-64 @ Nashville, IL

Other Southern IL projects possibly coming include the I-57 continued 6 Lane expansion, north of Marion towards Mt Vernon; I believe a new Ohio River Bridge in Cairo for US 51/60/62 is also eventually coming, maybe; The Shawnee Expressway/Parkway to build a 4 Lane Highway from IL 146/IL 3 Southern Junction near East Cape Girardeau east to at least I-57, and possibly even I-24

And while not road, Water Infrastructure would be nice, as it was quite disruptive last year when the main water pipe leaving Rend Lake was damaged - it is the fresh water source for a decent portion of Southern IL

Kentucky DOT is the lead agency for the Cairo Bridge project and last I checked Illinois has met the funding requirement for their share.  Since Kentucky insists on maintaining a state line right on the Illinois shore line, this means they have to pay the most for the bridges.

I doubt Illinois will do any further improvements east of Cape Girardeau. I kid you not, there are no gas stations on the Illinois side of the river unless you drive all the way down to Olive Branch to the south or over to Anna-Jonesboro in the north. And going farther north, there is one station in Grand Tower and then you have to go to Murphysboro.  So if IDOT improves the road, it will simply facilitate more people to drive to Missouri to get gas and what ever.

[ilpt4u]

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/projects/shawnee-parkway

[3467]

I just wondered if anyone heard anything recently on any of the surviving projects in the list. That would be US routes 20 67 and 51 and Illinois 29 and 336 and 127. Covered 127 and I submitted a comment to keep corridor protection along 67 to preserve the 4  lane option. That has to be reviewed every ten years. If lost it really would be the end of a 4 lane option.

[3467]

I see that too . I found stories on the end of 66 but not the parkway. The link is dead to the parkway page link. That is why I was wondering what if anything is going on with other projects. I am sure Gateway is dead as is Alton Godfrey and US 30 in Whiteside county. And of course Prairie Parkway. Route 53 Illiana and the mid city translates exist  on life support in On to 2050.

[I-39]

Still baffled why US 51 between Bloomington to Decatur section wasn’t built to Interstate standards. The expressway they ended up putting there was inadequate and poorly built IMO. Decatur really missed out big time on a N/S Interstate connection.

Had they bit the bullet and done that, there may have been more pressure to finish the freeway to Salam. The I-39/FAP 412 corridor was probably the one supplemental freeway that needed to be constructed in its entirety as a freeway, but short sightedness in the 70s/80s doomed it.

The 1980 study said:

A 1980 IDOT study determined that four-lane construction was not warranted based on traffic volumes and existing capacity;

But they settled on a non-interstate plan as a compromise because the business and road safety studies warranted it. (just not the volumes)

That was for US 51 south of Decatur. I am talking about US 51 between Bloomington and Decatur, which was originally suppose to be built to interstate standards on an alignment west of the existing one just how US 51 (later I-39) was between Rockford and Bloomington. In the late 1970's, early 1980's, funding woes and opposition (i.e, short-sighted leadership) led to them abandoning an Interstate on this segment and going with upgrading the existing US 51 to a four lane expressway.

Had they gone Interstate between Bloomington and Decatur, there might have been pressure to continue the interstate to Salem later on (in the 2000s), instead of the expressway alternative they went with.

[Crash_It]

You missed the percentages of poor condition roads the states have. ISTHA is included but isn't significant enough to skew it. Wisconsin roads are worse, large portions of US12 and I43 through Walworth County are pothole ridden or otherwise not smooth. I41 between Milwaukee and Fon Du Lac is also in unsatisfactory condition, can't find a similar stretch of deterioration in IL. Such may even be resurfaced this year.

Then post the percentages.  And you obviously haven't driven I-55 or I-80 through Joliet much.

It's right there on the site


Percentage in poor condition

Illinois - 19% (up from 18.8)
Indiana - 12% (down from 24%, this was a shocker)
Michigan and Missouri - 23%
Wisconsin - 28% (down from 47%)

I've driven I55 down to Springfield last summer and didn't see any large scale deterioration. I also drove it this past February and did see a few potholes in between the middle and left lanes here and there but nothing as bad as US12 in Walworth County WI or I41 from Tosa to the Lac.

[3467]

Yes you are right. I have a copy of the report for US 51 south of Decatur. It mentioned the continuity . But someone wrote that was not occurring no through traffic around Decatur. The traffic pattern for trucks was forming them and it was a 74 39 and even 57 . The report recommended 4 lane to Pana  and Centralia to 64. It said the rest could go through town and be 4 lanes in the rural area as needed. The current EIS  is trying to argue the through route argument sort of to justify a big expense on a low volume road.

[Rick Powell]

That was for US 51 south of Decatur. I am talking about US 51 between Bloomington and Decatur, which was originally suppose to be built to interstate standards on an alignment west of the existing one just how US 51 (later I-39) was between Rockford and Bloomington. In the late 1970's, early 1980's, funding woes and opposition (i.e, short-sighted leadership) led to them abandoning an Interstate on this segment and going with upgrading the existing US 51 to a four lane expressway.

Well, there is a little "freeway" feel at the US 136 interchange in Heyworth! And when I was at IDOT District 3, I had a few conversations with my compatriots in District 5 where they wish they'd been allowed to put interchanges rather than stoplights around Clinton. The traffic is a pretty steady 10k to 12k/day along the whole corridor from Decatur to Bloomington; it drops off a little at the Clinton bypass from "old" US 51 picking up a lot of the local traffic.

South of Decatur, the traffic is modestly heavy for a rural section but it drops off at Macon and again at Moweaqua, and is probably in the 3-4k/day range through most of the route south to Centralia.

[inkyatari]

I've driven I55 down to Springfield last summer and didn't see any large scale deterioration. I also drove it this past February and did see a few potholes in between the middle and left lanes here and there but nothing as bad as US12 in Walworth County WI or I41 from Tosa to the Lac.

Then you didn't drive I-55 between Bolingbrook and the Des Plaines river.  I drive this every single day, and the deterioration is off the charts. It started deteriorating within months of the road being expanded from 4 lanes to six.

[edwaleni]

Still baffled why US 51 between Bloomington to Decatur section wasn’t built to Interstate standards. The expressway they ended up putting there was inadequate and poorly built IMO. Decatur really missed out big time on a N/S Interstate connection.

Had they bit the bullet and done that, there may have been more pressure to finish the freeway to Salam. The I-39/FAP 412 corridor was probably the one supplemental freeway that needed to be constructed in its entirety as a freeway, but short sightedness in the 70s/80s doomed it.

The 1980 study said:

A 1980 IDOT study determined that four-lane construction was not warranted based on traffic volumes and existing capacity;

But they settled on a non-interstate plan as a compromise because the business and road safety studies warranted it. (just not the volumes)

That was for US 51 south of Decatur. I am talking about US 51 between Bloomington and Decatur, which was originally suppose to be built to interstate standards on an alignment west of the existing one just how US 51 (later I-39) was between Rockford and Bloomington. In the late 1970's, early 1980's, funding woes and opposition (i.e, short-sighted leadership) led to them abandoning an Interstate on this segment and going with upgrading the existing US 51 to a four lane expressway.

Had they gone Interstate between Bloomington and Decatur, there might have been pressure to continue the interstate to Salem later on (in the 2000s), instead of the expressway alternative they went with.

Remember the 3 point criteria IDOT uses:

- Volumes
- Business Need
- Safety

The Bloomington-Decatur route is what the 1980 study referenced.

- Inadequate traffic to justify full interstate standards
- Adequate business and safety needs to justify a 4 lane application

So the compromise was a 4 lane full access highway. (not a limited access interstate)

In the subsequent studies south of Decatur to Pana, Vandalia and on to I-64 south of Centralia, only Centralia to I-64 passed the volume sniff test. Vandalia to Sandoval didn't pass the volume or business need test, only safety for farm equipment.

[3467]

I have the 1987 Planning Study US 51 Decatur to 64 .It said 51 should ultimately be 4 lanes but to Pana and Centralia should be done first. It also said 4 lanes for volume is 7200. They projected Pana Vandalia might be 6000 by 2010 and South it would be under 5000. Sure is. Parts are only 2400. None of the remaining corridors understudy have any long Stevens above that and many are declining.
That is why the draft EIS focuses only on an economic development aspect. That is why the Vandalia meetings were  so contentious. The locals did not want another bypass but the consultants said they needed one to justify it. I have one seen a Draft not a Final so maybe a stealth cancellation.

[edwaleni]

I have the 1987 Planning Study US 51 Decatur to 64 .It said 51 should ultimately be 4 lanes but to Pana and Centralia should be done first. It also said 4 lanes for volume is 7200. They projected Pana Vandalia might be 6000 by 2010 and South it would be under 5000. Sure is. Parts are only 2400. None of the remaining corridors understudy have any long Stevens above that and many are declining.
That is why the draft EIS focuses only on an economic development aspect. That is why the Vandalia meetings were  so contentious. The locals did not want another bypass but the consultants said they needed one to justify it. I have one seen a Draft not a Final so maybe a stealth cancellation.

In the post 2010 hearing I saw the 4 options presented by IDOT.

The analysis says the work has to include the Vandalia Correctional Facility on the north end and terminates near the abandoned Illinois Central railroad ROW on the south end.

The current EIS shows a proposed route west of Vandalia which crosses the Kaskaskia River south of town, and intersects I-70. Then to reach US-51 North, you have two choices, go through town the old way, or hit a ramp west of town to get on I-70 East to reach the existing US-51 exit ramps.  This seems incredibly wasteful to me.

I found this proposal to the east:

http://www.us51eis-idot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/20101026_EB-Shift_36x48.pdf

Which takes the least amount of farmland, takes no existing homes. The city sewage ponds would have to be shifted.  Still allows access to all businesses in town either by an exit on US40, by I-70 or by old-51 on the north side.  The only demerit of the EB route is that it will have to be elevated, either by pylon or by aggregate to meet 100 year rains since it essentially resides right on top of the Kaskaskia River.

[3467]

On I agree with you. I just can't see it ever built. The CAG  notes indicated that most opposed any bypass and the news articles indicated hostility. The consultants said a bypass was needed to justify the contrived Purpose and Need.

[3467]

Does anyone remember a plan for tollways statewide in Illinois from the fifties? I also recall a map posted here that showed the Folks at building a road showing a route near US 30 in Whiteside county. I went through all the posts and could not find these.

[Revive 755]

I found this proposal to the east:

http://www.us51eis-idot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/20101026_EB-Shift_36x48.pdf

I think the design shown for the interchange with I-70 is a giveaway this design was not that serious - too many flyovers.

[I-39]

Still baffled why US 51 between Bloomington to Decatur section wasn’t built to Interstate standards. The expressway they ended up putting there was inadequate and poorly built IMO. Decatur really missed out big time on a N/S Interstate connection.

Had they bit the bullet and done that, there may have been more pressure to finish the freeway to Salam. The I-39/FAP 412 corridor was probably the one supplemental freeway that needed to be constructed in its entirety as a freeway, but short sightedness in the 70s/80s doomed it.

The 1980 study said:

A 1980 IDOT study determined that four-lane construction was not warranted based on traffic volumes and existing capacity;

But they settled on a non-interstate plan as a compromise because the business and road safety studies warranted it. (just not the volumes)

That was for US 51 south of Decatur. I am talking about US 51 between Bloomington and Decatur, which was originally suppose to be built to interstate standards on an alignment west of the existing one just how US 51 (later I-39) was between Rockford and Bloomington. In the late 1970's, early 1980's, funding woes and opposition (i.e, short-sighted leadership) led to them abandoning an Interstate on this segment and going with upgrading the existing US 51 to a four lane expressway.

Had they gone Interstate between Bloomington and Decatur, there might have been pressure to continue the interstate to Salem later on (in the 2000s), instead of the expressway alternative they went with.

Remember the 3 point criteria IDOT uses:

- Volumes
- Business Need
- Safety

The Bloomington-Decatur route is what the 1980 study referenced.

- Inadequate traffic to justify full interstate standards
- Adequate business and safety needs to justify a 4 lane application

So the compromise was a 4 lane full access highway. (not a limited access interstate)

In the subsequent studies south of Decatur to Pana, Vandalia and on to I-64 south of Centralia, only Centralia to I-64 passed the volume sniff test. Vandalia to Sandoval didn't pass the volume or business need test, only safety for farm equipment.

Where do you see this? The 1980 study was looking at US 51 south of Decatur. North of Decatur was already in the latter planning stages/construction.

The Bloomington to Decatur segment was planned in the 1970s along with the Rockford to Normal segment. It was scaled back by 1978 or so to an expressway using the existing ROW due to concerns about farmland being taken out of production (Rick Powell, do you remember anything about this?). If they had waited a decade and used the design standards that were used between Oglesby and Normal, I wonder if they would’ve gone interstate on the Bloomington to Decatur segment?

[3467]

That is right the planning study was South and 1987. Construction started Bloomington Decatur right about the time the supplementary freeway were being reviewed. I have never seen a study of EIS of Bloomington Decatur. The EIS for  80 to Bloomington was 1985. Some of these show up digitized when you Google them.

[I-39]

That is right the planning study was South and 1987. Construction started Bloomington Decatur right about the time the supplementary freeway were being reviewed. I have never seen a study of EIS of Bloomington Decatur. The EIS for  80 to Bloomington was 1985. Some of these show up digitized when you Google them.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5c1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=US+51+bloomington+to+decatur+EIS&source=bl&ots=swpNXLVehP&sig=ACfU3U1b-s9o1C5YbTGWrN0Ma9P6V-RDOg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiokYKG0tjhAhVmdt8KHW1MC14Q6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here’s some stuff

[Rick Powell]

The Bloomington to Decatur segment was planned in the 1970s along with the Rockford to Normal segment. It was scaled back by 1978 or so to an expressway using the existing ROW due to concerns about farmland being taken out of production (Rick Powell, do you remember anything about this?). If they had waited a decade and used the design standards that were used between Oglesby and Normal, I wonder if they would’ve gone interstate on the Bloomington to Decatur segment?

I am not sure about farmland preservation being an issue on the Bloomington to Decatur segment (although I read USEPA's comments on the "bypass" alternatives vs. the "in town" alignments and they seemed to acknowledge the trade off in farm impacts vs. noise impacts depending on which alignment was chosen). But I do know that the Oglesby to Normal freeway section was designed with a 54 foot median and bridges with no center pier, in part to reduce the required farm acreage. The Bloomington - Decatur expressway was mostly a cost-saving move to get it done within the remaining statewide highway budget, from what I have gathered, although we did sneak in that US 136 interchange. A full access control probably wouldn't have taken that much more land, except for overhead structures every mile or two.

I worked on the in-house design plans for the first 4-lane segment going south of I-74; it must have been 1978 or 79; and was at the opening ceremony at Heyworth in the late 80s. I suspect that the segment I worked on pre-dated the EIS referenced above, since we were already doing final design well before 1981, and it was built well before the remaining sections to the south. Or maybe we were working on it so that it could be let shortly after the EIS was approved, since this segment had no alternatives.

The section through Clinton was considered for an in-town "one way couple" similar to Business 51 through Bloomington-Normal, but ultimately the west bypass was built with at-grade intersections.

[3467]

Love hearing the real story.

[kphoger]

I do know that the Oglesby to Normal freeway section was designed with a 54 foot median and bridges with no center pier, in part to reduce the required farm acreage.

Thank you for this info.  It sheds some light on a discussion we had a year ago.

[Rick Powell]

I do know that the Oglesby to Normal freeway section was designed with a 54 foot median and bridges with no center pier, in part to reduce the required farm acreage.

Thank you for this info.  It sheds some light on a discussion we had a year ago.

Here's some trivia that will appeal to a few armchair structural engineers. The no-pier bridges on I-39 were designed by the late Wei Hsiong, and have a series of counterweights and rods in the vaulted abutments on either side to counterbalance the span. No one knows "what" will happen when the concrete bridge decks will eventually be replaced, but it will probably not be easy to do them half-at-a-time given their unusual method of support. Other than I-39, there is one other specimen of this type of bridge, at River Road over I-57 in Kankakee.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0919426,-87.8347348,3a,75y,172.51h,97.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZJSVP8IN7p35jlSgLU_vgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[kphoger]

That will no doubt be of interest to my friend who designs bridges for a living.  What is your source material?

[inkyatari]

I do know that the Oglesby to Normal freeway section was designed with a 54 foot median and bridges with no center pier, in part to reduce the required farm acreage.

Thank you for this info.  It sheds some light on a discussion we had a year ago.

Here's some trivia that will appeal to a few armchair structural engineers. The no-pier bridges on I-39 were designed by the late Wei Hsiong, and have a series of counterweights and rods in the vaulted abutments on either side to counterbalance the span. No one knows "what" will happen when the concrete bridge decks will eventually be replaced, but it will probably not be easy to do them half-at-a-time given their unusual method of support. Other than I-39, there is one other specimen of this type of bridge, at River Road over I-57 in Kankakee.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0919426,-87.8347348,3a,75y,172.51h,97.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZJSVP8IN7p35jlSgLU_vgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I lived in K3 for a while, and whenever I passed that bridge, I always thought something was wrong, but could never place my finger on it.