Iowa Highway Ends (etc.)

After considering the possibilities for upgrading the two-lane stretch of US 30 between Lisbon and De Witt, the DOT appears to be settling on…a two-lane stretch of US 30 between Lisbon and De Witt.

In a public meeting on the planning study last week (handout) (large PDF), the future for this corridor will be a Super-2. This is a regular two-lane road with frequent passing lanes. The rebuilt US 169 between Humboldt and Fort Dodge is a recent example. The only segment that might be relocated later is the diagonal past Mechanicsville, which I think should be a grade-for-four-pave-for-two if not an outright extension of the four-lane opening this year.

The Clinton County supervisors are furious at this outcome.

Or, contra my post from May 2018, Wapello bypass plans UN-finalized. It appears I jumped the gun.

Completion of the last four-lane stretch of US 61 in Iowa outside Keokuk has been notable for the unwillingness of the two towns along the route, Mediapolis and Wapello, to take the state’s offer of only one interchange access point.

In the latest wrinkle, as reported by the Burlington Hawk Eye, the DOT proposed a “slip ramp” at the south end of the Wapello bypass. Instead of a dead end at the point the four-lane leaves the existing road, there would be a northbound-off southbound-on pairing. At the same time, two gravel roads would be severed along the bypass route and one road that was going to be closed will instead get a bridge, differences from the December 2017 EIS and May 2018 plan.

The city tried to one-up the half-a-loaf compromise by offering to pay for a full diamond interchange, but the state won’t allow it.

Look closely and you can see that the proposed four-lane is the third routing of US 61 south of Wapello. Besides the current road, the curves on J Avenue just to the east give away that that was used until 1932. It’s fitting, in a way, that the last part of original US 61 to be paved will be the last part to be four-laned about a century later.

Last month the Iowa DOT had a meeting in Ottumwa to talk about plans for US 34 through the city. Part of it is urban arterial, part of it is super-early freeway style. There are three suggested paths forward (PDFs):

• Status quo with more turn lanes, median crossovers blocked, and a SPUI at Vine Street. The SPUI may seem like overbuilding for an exit to a street that immediately dead-ends one way, but Vine is the closest connection to the John Deere Ottumwa Works.
• Remove the existing interchanges and convert the areas into at-grade intersections. This would move mainline 34 into the ramp areas at the Church/Jefferson combo exit, creating a large median and space for vehicles to stop in the middle of the intersection. No bridge maintenance, but 34 wouldn’t have a free flow anymore.
• INSTALL ALL THE ROUNDABOUTS, including a double at Church/Jefferson that gives me headaches just looking at it.

The composite report (PDF) lists the pros and cons (“roundabouts are evil” is omitted in the pros for the first two and cons for the third) and says the earliest this could start happening is the late 2020s.

About a month ago in Missouri Valley the Iowa DOT updated its plans for construction of a future bypass. Story here. Extremely bells-and-whistles, overproduced online meeting here. (Just because it’s an “online meeting” doesn’t mean you can’t give us a PDF. Really.) Please note that the map with the news story is NOT the pairing of the two alternatives, but rather one accepted and one rejected. The orange line remains under consideration, as does a modified version of the purple line (that goes a bit farther south around the city).

Both alternatives stay close to the town and railroad. The main difference between the two options is how soon the bypass rejoins existing US 30 to the northeast. Construction would not begin until the second half of the 2020s.

Either way, the Iowa Welcome Center/Harrison County Historical Village/Lincoln Highway interpretive site will remain on 30, because it’s right at the end of the longer bypass alternative.