IA: I-80 Express/Local configuration (w/ I-29)

[rickmastfan67]

First of all, I think this is pretty much like ON-401 in the Toronto area with it's C/D lanes, expect it's smaller and has a few extra routes in play.

With the way the signage is, they call the C/D lanes that only have I-29 on them, as 'I-80 LOCAL' too. And here's the signage from I-29 NB stating the same thing.  As well as I-29 SB.

Meaning, marking the exits as 'closed' in I-80's file is not logical.  Plus, at the exits themselves, the on-ramps fully mentioned I-80 in addition to I-29, though lacking US-6.

So, I would re-enable the multiplex between all 3 routes here.

==

On a side note, I would also fix the location of I-80 Exit 4/I-29 Exit 48, as that's well south of the main part of the interchange there.

[the_spui_ninja]

Found the old discussion on this: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2609.msg10726#msg10726

Plus, at the exits themselves, the on-ramps fully mentioned I-80 in addition to I-29, though lacking US-6.

That's because they finished the 80-29 project before US 6 was rerouted onto the interstates. Currently, due to the lack of signage, it's ambiguous as to what set of lanes US 6 is on.

[Highway63]

I'll take spui_ninja's part first. The good news is, we know exactly where US 6 is supposed to be! It was laid out in the Fall 2019 AASHTO meeting!

This request pertains to the relocation of U.S. 6, in the city of Council Bluffs. Construction of a new dual divided configuration in Council Bluffs has separated I-80 and I- 29 through traffic. U.S. 6 through traffic is now carried on the inside I-80 express lanes of this new configuration from the I- 80/I-29 West Systems Interchange to the I-80/I-29 East Systems Interchange. This new dual divided alignment will expedite U.S. 6 freight traffic through the Council Bluffs area with the separation of local and through traffic.

But, as spui_ninja also points out, the project was finished before US 6 was rerouted, and they're not going to take down brand-new (and very large!) BGSs.

At this sign, "East 6" would go with "Express 80 East / Des Moines." This sign on Express 80 WB for Exit 1A would have "North 29 West 6".

This assembly at the other end on WB 80 has space for a "6" marker to be added to the Express panel.

It's not a great routing, but it is officially delineated. There is, IMO, a better solution for the metro area that involves swapping US 6 and 275 between I-29 and NE 31, but it will never happen.

[Highway63]

I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're suggesting here: That not only should the two exits on the segment in question be reopened on I-80, but that the lanes with I-29 NOT be separated? (i.e. have intentionally misaligned coordinates)

If someone follows the Express lanes through, technically they did not use I-29 pavement. But it is a relatively short segment, and there is the one exit to old 192 from westbound 80.

[yakra]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-cent_piece_(United_States)

I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're suggesting here: That not only should the two exits on the segment in question be reopened on I-80,

If one decides to include the express lanes as a legitimate part of I-80 (like NJ I-78), I'd lean toward removing the * and marking the exits as open.

but that the lanes with I-29 NOT be separated? (i.e. have intentionally misaligned coordinates)

If someone follows the Express lanes through, technically they did not use I-29 pavement.

For this reason, I'd separate the alignments, and break the concurrency. Reminds me of all the fun I had with US6 & MA79/138 in Fall River (speaking of which... oh boy).
This gives the traveler the option of deciding whether or not they've clinched I-29, and .listing it separately.

My usual M.O. is to break concurrencies with hidden points, which leaves the "intersecting/concurrent routes" links in the HB enabled.
Misaligning the coords could work here if you decide I-80 & 29 aren't concurrent here, because officially only on express lanes, and decide to forego the HB links.
Or, if you decide that I-80 & 29 are concurrent because I-80 local, and decide to enable the links, hidden points are the ticket.

But it is a relatively short segment, and there is the one exit to old 192 from westbound 80.

IMO, that merges into I-29 and then leaves from there to South Expressway.
Ahem, excuse me -- I-80 Local!

[Highway63]

Here's what I'm thinking:

• I-29 and I-80 will not have concurrent points at the two middle exits, just slightly off
• US 6 will be aligned with I-80 east of Exit 1.
• I-29 exits 49 and 50 will be marked as open/not closed on I-80 and US 6.

I believe this is probably the easiest solution, as who knows when or even if US 6 will ever be added to the BGSs.