I-80/I-680/West Center/I-L-Q Interchange

[mrsticka]

How often do you go through there? Ever had any problems? Or is it usually smooth sailing?

[Brad]

I go through there a lot. While every road has an occasional problem, Southbound 680 to Eastbound 80 is the only part that ever has more frequent problems (but still not a lot). It’s usually someone going way too fast around the curve and losing control. Otherwise it’s mostly smooth sailing.

[mrsticka]

When I lived in Omaha back in the mid-to-late 80's and early 90's, that area was much different. The collector/distributor roads for the L Street exit did not go up to the I-680 interchange. That was just a plain tri-level interchange. West Center Road felt like it was so far apart from it. Not anymore.

[Busguy2010]

Every single time I come back to town from the west, there is always a huge backup that goes from essentially pacific street to just south of Q street, talking about 4:00ish. So I've since found out a real slick way around that that I didn't know before. You can exit as if you're going to get off on L street, and just use the auxiliary lanes to go through to get back onto 680. It almost feels unfair how many stopped cars you pass with that trick. I swear you didn't used to be able to pass through after L, but I could have just not known.

[almighty_tuna]

Commuters stuck in traffic hate this one weird trick

[mrsticka]

On westbound I-80, exit 445 (West Center Road, I-L-Q Streets) is before exit 446 (I-680). Does anybody find that odd?

[BRoss]

On westbound I-80, exit 445 (West Center Road, I-L-Q Streets) is before exit 446 (I-680). Does anybody find that odd?

I doubt many people in the city pay attention to exit numbers. It's more about what street it is.

[almighty_tuna]

On westbound I-80, exit 445 (West Center Road, I-L-Q Streets) is before exit 446 (I-680). Does anybody find that odd?

ILQ splits off 80WB before 680 does. Seems logical to me.

[Omaha Cowboy]

On westbound I-80, exit 445 (West Center Road, I-L-Q Streets) is before exit 446 (I-680). Does anybody find that odd?

I doubt many people in the city pay attention to exit numbers. It's more about what street it is.

Exactly- 84th, 72nd, 60th etc.. Those of us who live in the city and are familiar with it, care about what street the exit is on, not the exit number..

Of course it’s different when traveling by car to another area- especially one you’re unfamiliar with..then the exit number is totally relevant and paid attention to…

Ciao..LiO…Peace

[nebugeater]

In almost all cases the exit number corresponds with the mile marker number

[Omaha Cowboy]

In almost all cases the exit number corresponds with the mile marker number

That too…

Ciao..LiO…Peace

[Original]

I live off west Dodge and the office is off the I Street exchange, so I go through part of this frequently. I think it's fine for regular drivers of the road, and I don't know that there is a solution for clarity that isn't get rid of the (already limited) I/Q interchanges, greatly sacrificing traffic flow.

It is not the most straight-forward to navigate when you are unfamiliar, but once you have done it a bit, it's not a big problem. To me the worst part is dealing with other drivers who are unprepared for which lane they should be in, or are not paying attention, and get into a right-most, specific lane (say the 680/Center to west-bound I Street exit lane) but then actually want to be in the east bound exit lane and drive straight into it instead of signally or properly merging from the lane that also carries traffic to L East. Or realize you can stay in the left-most lane on the SB680 -> I-L-Q Connector and merge onto I-L-Q and not cause a rubberband when you slow down to let someone from the Center on ramp who wants to be on 680, you can just go past them and let them zipper in, there is enough space.

Busguy is correct, you can use the connector road when it is really busy, but if too many people do that, it just makes it worse for everyone.

I wish people could better read the (I think fairly clear) signage that instructs them how the road flows.

[mrsticka]

There wasn't always an exit to Q Street. It wasn't built until 1989-90. There was always an exit to I Street, but it only went right. There was no left turn lane. And there was an onramp to eastbound I-80 from I Street, but it was only directional from the east. No left turn access for it. I guess when that interchange was built back in the late 50's/early 60's, they thought I Street would have more traffic than Q. Boy, were they wrong.

[BRoss]

I guess when that interchange was built back in the late 50's/early 60's, they thought I Street would have more traffic than Q. Boy, were they wrong.

It might be that they originally built the I Street interchange for the Western Electric plant. That would make sense for why they only had an exit going west and entrance going east.

[Busguy2010]

How could I forget this frustrating bit... It's not often that I go out west on L, maybe two, three times a year, long enough between to forget which lane I need to be in. But I approach from the north on 680. Almost every time, maybe it's just me and I miss the signs, but I miss the exit for I/L/Q and get funneled to I-80 west, causing me to have to go all the way to Harrison. It's quite a detour. I don't know what it is, the signs kinda make it seem like the exit for the I/L/Q lanes is just an exit for West Center when going south on 680.

On that note, it kinda seems unnecessary to have the auxiliary lanes separate from the rest of I-80. Maybe I'm missing it, can anybody figure out what the solution is or was meant to be? To me it would have made more sense to just have the extra two lanes as a part of I-80

[damonhynes]

On that note, it kinda seems unnecessary to have the auxiliary lanes separate from the rest of I-80. Maybe I'm missing it, can anybody figure out what the solution is or was meant to be? To me it would have made more sense to just have the extra two lanes as a part of I-80

Its goal was to eliminate the number of merges onto what purportedly is the 'high-speed' I-80. Of course, the addition of the Harrison/Giles exit put paid to that goal. Unintended consequences and all.

The idea is sound, that's what IDOT used for I-29/I-80.

[TransitOriented]

The highway bridges would have to be completely rebuilt to accommodate the extra lanes on I80

https://goo.gl/maps/UyJTG2DBUw2it4oN7

[cchandler790]

The Harrison exit always backs up traffic there, I heard from NDOT that they would be adding an exit-only lane for the Harrison exit to limit the backup, which would require expanding the bridge over Papillion Creek. For example, the Gretna highway 370 exit has an exit-only lane.

[mrsticka]

The I and L Street bridges over I-80 are 60+ years old. They're the same ones from when I-80 was originally built back in the late 50's/early 60's.

I remember when Q Street was only 2 lanes above I-80. It was similar to the I Street bridge. Then around 1993, they tore it up, widened Q Street to 4 lanes and built the bridge that's there today.

[GenX]

The Harrison exit always backs up traffic there, I heard from NDOT that they would be adding an exit-only lane for the Harrison exit to limit the backup, which would require expanding the bridge over Papillion Creek. For example, the Gretna highway 370 exit has an exit-only lane.

There are already bridge piers in place for the added lane. All they essentially gotta do is just add the girders and pave it.

[GenX]

Has anyone noticed there are two ways to get on 80 EB/680 NB from eastbound L? You can either take the loop on the right or the left turn lanes just ahead on the left. I kinda prefer going with the left turn due to the protected turn.

[BRoss]

Has anyone noticed there are two ways to get on 80 EB/680 NB from eastbound L? You can either take the loop on the right or the left turn lanes just ahead on the left. I kinda prefer going with the left turn due to the protected turn.

Ultimately the loops will go away and this interchange will be converted to a DDI. At least according to the MTIS report from a few years ago.

[riceweb]

That seems like a project that would never be prioritized IMO. There's just too many other things that we could do instead of reconfiguring an interchange that has no need to be replaced.

[BRoss]

That seems like a project that would never be prioritized IMO. There's just too many other things that we could do instead of reconfiguring an interchange that has no need to be replaced.

I think it's many years away, like when the bridge is EOL.

[Louie]

That seems like a project that would never be prioritized IMO. There's just too many other things that we could do instead of reconfiguring an interchange that has no need to be replaced.

I think it's many years away, like when the bridge is EOL.

That will be at least a few decades out, no?

[BRoss]

That seems like a project that would never be prioritized IMO. There's just too many other things that we could do instead of reconfiguring an interchange that has no need to be replaced.

I think it's many years away, like when the bridge is EOL.

That will be at least a few decades out, no?

The MTIS stretches beyond 2040. This project is proposed to be around 2037-2038. There will be intermediate projects in the next few years to add lanes west of the interchange.

[riceweb]

That's probably a reasonable timeframe. I'm guessing most of the interstate bridges will need some major work within 15 years?

[mrsticka]

When I lived in Omaha back in the 80's and early 90's, that area looked a lot different. The collector/distributor lanes were only for the L Street exit since it was a cloverleaf interchange. They didn't extend up to I-680. If you lived in Omaha back then, surely you'll know what I'm talking about.

Then in the mid-90's, they redid that whole area. They extended the C/D roads up to I-680 and the West Center Road exit. Now it's one big whole interchange.

[remline]

Why is the highlighted ramp closed? I think it has been closed for about 15 years.

[almighty_tuna]

IIRC it was causing more traffic problems than it solved with people would would try and circumvent the 80 -> 680 exit traffic by scooting down the Center street exit and not actually taking the loop to Center.

[BuildTaller]

IIRC it was causing more traffic problems than it solved with people would would try and circumvent the 80 -> 680 exit traffic by scooting down the Center street exit and not actually taking the loop to Center.

I was a daily circumventer. There were many others that did the same.

[BRoss]

IIRC it was causing more traffic problems than it solved with people would would try and circumvent the 80 -> 680 exit traffic by scooting down the Center street exit and not actually taking the loop to Center.

To add to this - despite there being no need for that stretch, NDOT has said they want it to remain so they have options for construction closures / wrecks. And they have opened it sometime in the last few years or so for some construction they were doing.

I have wanted to see them take it out or do something that doesn't make it look under construction all the time with the orange barrels out there. They really should put those movable concrete walls they use with construction...but then they'd need to bring a fork lift or something to move them in the case of an accident instead of police or NDOT workers being able to move them by hand.

[nebugeater]

IIRC it was causing more traffic problems than it solved with people would would try and circumvent the 80 -> 680 exit traffic by scooting down the Center street exit and not actually taking the loop to Center.

To add to this - despite there being no need for that stretch, NDOT has said they want it to remain so they have options for construction closures / wrecks. And they have opened it sometime in the last few years or so for some construction they were doing.

I have wanted to see them take it out or do something that doesn't make it look under construction all the time with the orange barrels out there. They really should put those movable concrete walls they use with construction...but then they'd need to bring a fork lift or something to move them in the case of an accident instead of police or NDOT workers being able to move them by hand.

A locked, powered crossing gate like those at many interstate access points (used mostly for weather closings) would be a good compromise. Much more permanent and no need to mobilize a forklift if needing to be opened with short notice due to an accident

[remline]

I was a daily circumventer. There were many others that did the same.

I was also a frequent circumventer. That is why I miss the ramp.

To add to this - despite there being no need for that stretch, NDOT has said they want it to remain so they have options for construction closures / wrecks. And they have opened it sometime in the last few years or so for some construction they were doing.

Thank you for this additional insight. That makes good sense.