Eisenhower Expressway was I-90 in '77. Why did it change?

[GeekJedi]

Of course. He loves the attention. Not only that, it's a duplicate post.

[dzlsabe]

Read this numerous times.... 

http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

And it gets worse every time.

Imagine doing this and NOTHING gets better? In ten years. Kinda like the Mannheim project.

To NOT reanalyze the scope and size of the "study area" on pg. 41(46) is asinine.

First, its not "my" plan and I dont go by Christ. This is IDOTs EIS for their IKE widening proposal. Which I question on its face whether it will accomplish anything after years of disruption and expense. Then, if one reads the study (careful, its 71 pages), the "alternatives" have glaring omissions because the study area is a bit shy, neglecting at least two other known study areas that would/could seriously affect the conclusions reached on this project.

The width of Cermak to North Av is not sufficient. Avoiding the Strangler is myopic. And this...

http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co   

Many of the EIS maps show I-88 paralleling Mannheim. While Im sure its just a typo, should be I-294, its a BIG Fing typo that shows a general lack of attention to detail.

Any "attention" from out-of-state, mouth-breathing, know-it-alls, whose only mission seems to be to obfuscate (and some to jack their post #s with blather) this huge local issue that does not affect them whatsoever is not welcome or encouraged.

[ET21]

Why are you quoting yourself?

[SEWIGuy]

Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

You could move both highways to different routes and it would have negligible, if any, difference in traffic.

[dzlsabe]

Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

You could move both highways to different routes and it would have negligible, if any, difference in traffic.

http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx OR   http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co 

You did read I want to move I-90 to this right?    Lookin' for a few notches above and beyond negligible.

[GeekJedi]

Any "attention" from out-of-state, mouth-breathing, know-it-alls, whose only mission seems to be to obfuscate (and jack their post #s) this huge local issue that does not affect them whatsoever is not welcome or encouraged.

Fortunately you're the only one who thinks it's not welcome or encouraged, so it doesn't really matter. And, unlike you, I couldn't care less about my post count (unlike some who try to jack it by posting the exact same reply in two completely dead threads). But thanks for finally admitting that I know it all. It's about time.

As for it being a local issue, so what? I use the roads too. So move on.

Cheers!

[dzlsabe]

yawn

Isnt it time to roll up those sidewalks in Wherethefami WI? Wait, do they have sidewalks?

[GeekJedi]

yawn

Get that post count up!

Anyway, moving on to more important things...

[SEWIGuy]

Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

You could move both highways to different routes and it would have negligible, if any, difference in traffic.

http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx
You did read I want to move I-90 to this right? Lookin' for a few notches beyond negligible.

LOL...sure.  But its completely unfeasible.  Might as well invest the $$ you need to build that into inventing flying cars.

[The Ghostbuster]

Personally I think the Eisenhower Expressway should have been Interstate 290 to begin with. Or was the former state highway 194 not up to Interstate Standards before then?

[Brandon]

Personally I think the Eisenhower Expressway should have been Interstate 290 to begin with. Or was the former state highway 194 not up to Interstate Standards before then?

I don't think much changed on either the Kennedy Expressway or the Northwest Tollway between 1958 and 1979.  The oddball routing of I-90 is still a mystery to me, and makes no sense.  Why route a major interstate through the ramps at the Circle Interchange when the current route is far more direct?  It's the same with the early routings of I-90 and I-94 in the south suburbs and NW Indiana.  Why have both I-90 and I-94 switch places at the Burns Harbor Interchange?

[NE2]

I-90 on the Ike was a holdover from the original idea for the Interstates in which the feds wanted to avoid toll roads as much as possible.

[dzlsabe]

Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

You could move both highways to different routes and it would have negligible, if any, difference in traffic.

http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx
You did read I want to move I-90 to this right? Lookin' for a few notches beyond negligible.

LOL...sure.  But its completely unfeasible.  Might as well invest the $$ you need to build that into inventing flying cars.

Alright George Jetson, lets try and keep it in perspective.

Two new tunnels under the Hudson...$20B...I dont have a problem, shoulda been started long ago.

New Hackensack Bridge? $1B...Is this shovel-ready?

Carplanes? You guys in WI have plenty of open road and the govcadet that might be able to pull off that prototype. Await a cost/feasibility estimate. Id think a new (old) passenger rail line from MSP-EUC-MSN-ORD would be a better choice, but WTF do I know?

Hypotenuse (the NOT well studied 16-mile) road/rail corridor? http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co 

Probably $4B? minimum in 10 years (more like 20 at OUR rate). Add another B to get a good start on MidCity Transitway. What ELSE is gonna turn Cinderella Chicago around? Add GDP and population points to the city/MSA/region. And resolve a ton of road & rail problems. Maybe even the WHOLE Fing COUNTRY gets a boost someday. The worst zip codes in the region are within a mile or two of I-90 from Gary to Cicero.

The IKE widening EIS gets crazier every time I read it. What IF (big if) we do whats proposed, spend the time, disruption, expense...and NOTHING gets better? If anything, Id rather see a dome over that hole in the ground from OP to 25th?...quieter, weather-proof, way less maintenance....

Half a runway at MDW? A $1B?

Dont think ANY of this is outrageous or insurmountable.

 

[quickshade]

Considering they haven't even released exact plans yet i'd say its a bit early to be this worried.

[Henry]

I know this is veering toward Fictional, but I think they should go ahead and extend I-88 east from where it meets I-290 and I-294 east to the Circle Interchange. The part north of there can remain I-290, so why not?

[Joe The Dragon]

I know this is veering toward Fictional, but I think they should go ahead and extend I-88 east from where it meets I-290 and I-294 east to the Circle Interchange. The part north of there can remain I-290, so why not?

why not route I-290 over the EOE? and extend I-355 to lake cook / IL-120?

[I-39]

I have never quite understood the continued existence of I-290. I agree it should be decommissioned and replaced with I-88 between Hillside and the Circle and I-355 between Itasca and I-90 (and then I-355 could get extended up to Grayslake/I-94 if the Tollway gets some sense knocked into them and they build the 53 extension as a six lane Interstate). Then the "Eisenhower extension" gets renumbered as I-288.

The only reason this is not so is because I-88 and I-355 didn't exist in the late 1970's when the I-90 relocation took place.

[I-39]

Personally I think the Eisenhower Expressway should have been Interstate 290 to begin with. Or was the former state highway 194 not up to Interstate Standards before then?

I don't think much changed on either the Kennedy Expressway or the Northwest Tollway between 1958 and 1979.  The oddball routing of I-90 is still a mystery to me, and makes no sense.  Why route a major interstate through the ramps at the Circle Interchange when the current route is far more direct?  It's the same with the early routings of I-90 and I-94 in the south suburbs and NW Indiana.  Why have both I-90 and I-94 switch places at the Burns Harbor Interchange?

If I had to guess, they routed I-90 along the skyway and I-94 along the Kingery/Borman because it was more direct from the angles they were coming. Since the I-90/94 interchange in Burns Harbor is not direct, maybe they thought it would be less confusing? I don't know..........

[dzlsabe]

I know this is veering toward Fictional, but I think they should go ahead and extend I-88 east from where it meets I-290 and I-294 east to the Circle Interchange. The part north of there can remain I-290, so why not?

Like this?   http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx

OR even better?   http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co   

The north part of Hypotenuse plan and I-55 would basically parallel the Ike and give an option into South Loop as well as the major target, the Skyway split..

     

[GeekJedi]

I know this is veering toward Fictional

Like this?   http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx

     

No. That is totally fictional. And beaten to death at this point.

[I-39]

I know this is veering toward Fictional, but I think they should go ahead and extend I-88 east from where it meets I-290 and I-294 east to the Circle Interchange. The part north of there can remain I-290, so why not?

Like this?   http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx

   

Enough with the Hypotenuse......... it is a stupid idea and it will never happen. It's more likely I-39 gets extended into southern Illinois before the Hypotenuse would ever happen. Even if they wanted to build it, you can't just use RR ROW, that is protected by Federal Interstate commerce laws. Look at what is happening with the EOWA, Canadian Pacific is fighting ISTHA over the West Bypass ROW. Imagine the legal fights with the railroads here.

Please someone lock this thread. 

[The Ghostbuster]

Although I am not an administrator, I agree the hypotenuse will only be constructed in Fictional Highways.

[dzlsabe]

Considering they haven't even released exact plans yet i'd say its a bit early to be this worried.

"They" really haven't released EXACT new plans for FIFTY+fn years. When would be a good time?
Havent had a good, full speed iceberg ramming for a century, but this is close.

[amroad17]

Because Illinois requested it and AASHTO approved it. 

END OF THREAD!

[Sykotyk]

Want to shift traffic away from the crowded center of the city? Remove the tolls from I-294 and put them up through town. The amount of through traffic that HAS to be there will stay. Those looking for the cheaper route will bypass around the suburbs as much as possible.

I know when I drive through Chicago, I've gone straight through every time rather than I-294 unless I was hitting downtown at near rush hour.