IA: Interstate 880 (Iowa)

[CharlotteAllisonCDTG]

The portion of Interstate 680 in Iowa, from I-29 to I-80, was recently redesignated as I-880. I'm not sure if I-680 will be truncated out of the state or not.

[rickmastfan67]

I am not finding any info on this.  Can you please provide proof that this indeed happened?

[Highway63]

??

[rickmastfan67]

All I've found is this 'draft' on Wikipedia talking about it.  And I'm not fully trusting it, especially without any press releases.  Something this big has to have something online, and I can find nothing.

[neroute2]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413

I'm not sure if I-680 will be truncated out of the state or not.

If it was truncated to the state line, what would the part west of I-29 become?

[Highway63]

wtf

(so of course I'd fired off an e-mail to my DOT contact between my first and second posts on this thread...)

next Q: Who is "Fredddie" and how do they have access to AASHTO agendas before they happen?

[yakra]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413

Interesting that this is stored on amazon's server. I can't find a link to it on route.transportation.org.

[rschen7754]

It is publicly available online. I don't know how much detail I should go into because I worry that AASHTO might put it under authentication next time.

[yakra]

While it does look legit, I can't verify that it is. I'd like to see it linked from an official source, and have something more authoritative than one guy on Wikipedia.

I don't know how much detail I should go into because I worry that AASHTO might put it under authentication next time.

Is this something that's only supposed to be available to those on the inside, and AASHTO's website has yet to be updated for the public?

[si404]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413

Interesting that this is stored on amazon's server. I can't find a link to it on route.transportation.org.

not really. What's interesting is that we found it before the link.

Amazon servers have a load of stuff on them on behalf of others. Governmental bodies tend to use it.

As for the lack of link, we're always waiting some time for it to be posted.

And we can wait - there's no need to change stuff until signed. Normally we put the AASHTO meeting stuff in the 6 month outlook, not the updates.

[Highway63]

This is the first thing in recent history the Iowa DOT has done in an application to AASHTO that had no obvious prior indicators. Of course, everything else involved active/immediate future construction. This is the first change to interstates in Iowa in 35 years.

The October Iowa DOT letting had no contracts for anything like this. That means any relevant sign contract won't be out until mid-November at the earliest, which then raises the issue of winter.

We're talking about changing basically every BGS on 28 miles of road AND all interchange signs at three diamond exits AND re-mile-marking 13 miles.

The week between Christmas and New Year's at lightning speed, maybe. Next March/April more likely, IMO. I'm not touching anything until there's confirmation in the field. (Unfortunately, it's not going to be me doing that first-hand. I am very glad I took some necessary pictures in summer.)

[si404]

It's not the first change in 35 years. ~35 minutes more like assuming they did the routes in the order listed). 

The breaking of the I-29/80 concurrency was the change beforehand.

[Highway63]

The I-29/I-80 thing is about separating the newly opened dual-divided freeway, which was built over the same place as the existing four-lane, so I wouldn't see it on the same level.

Speaking of, though: Should I handle that in some manner? Right now I-29 and I-80 have a concurrency. The split puts I-80 on the inner "Express" lanes and I-29 with "Local" lanes (also signed as I-80). It can be argued that if one travels I-29 through, they were never "on" I-80, and vice versa.

I can do nothing, mark the two exits in the middle as "closed" on I-80 (since, if you are traveling the Express, you can't take them), or twiddle some coordinates to break the concurrency.

[froggie]

Will there be ramps that allow one to approach on one route (i.e. 29), use the other's carriageway through the commons (80), then go back to the original route (29) at the other end?

If so, then my answer would be "do nothing".  This would appear to be an example where keeping it simple would be better than maintaining explicit accuracy.

From how it currently appears in mapping and imagery, it looks like the answer going northbound/westbound is "yes".  That said, if the answer to my original question is "no" for eastbound/southbound, then "do nothing" may not be a solution.

On the flip side, we do have precedents one state north with 35W/62 and 35W/94 being separated entirely despite their "commons" sections.  Though in both of those cases, it is not possible to swap from one route to the other and back through the commons in both directions.

[yakra]

The split puts I-80 on the inner "Express" lanes and I-29 with "Local" lanes (also signed as I-80). It can be argued that if one travels I-29 through, they were never "on" I-80, and vice versa.

I will argue such. Methinks, track them separately and give travelers the option to clinch one and not the other should they so choose.

I can do nothing, mark the two exits in the middle as "closed" on I-80 (since, if you are traveling the Express, you can't take them), or twiddle some coordinates to break the concurrency.

Agreed, on both counts. Twiddling exits 49 & 50 on only I-29 by 0.000001° will keep I-80 & US6 concurrent, and break I-29's concurrency with them.