News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn

Started by peterj920, August 31, 2015, 12:35:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

quickshade

The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.


Mrt90

Quote from: quickshade on September 03, 2015, 11:12:35 AM
The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.
Do you know what route is planned for the Richmond bypass?  That part of the state (Richmond/Spring Grove/Johnsburg) seems to be booming right now, so I hope they don't wait too long until more subdivisions get put in and then those people don't want a highway near their homes.  Because that seems to happen all too often in northeastern Illinois.

Joe The Dragon

Quote from: quickshade on September 03, 2015, 11:12:35 AM
The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.
they can toll the Richmond bypass and find a way to tie it into the IL-120 / IL-53 work.

quickshade

I know the state owns a whole bunch of land in McHenry county, and I believe that the FAP 420 route was the most favorable option as that was the one that had the least impact on environment and cost. This was the ROW that the state got to build 53 in the first place many years ago. However where it goes after it connects back into the 12/31 intersection is anyones guess. If 53 does get extended to 120 you have to question what they would do next. I know the state had land set aside 20 years ago but I can't see how they would build it now considering the buildup the area has gone through in the past 20 years. I know there are plans around on 31 bypasses, 120 bypasses and such but I have a feeling until 53 is set in stone (construction started) none of these plans will be dusted off.


GeekJedi

Last I heard, there wasn't going to be a Richmond Bypass. At least not one in the traditional sense. It got shot down pretty quickly at the city and county levels.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

Joe The Dragon

Quote from: quickshade on September 03, 2015, 05:47:06 PM
I know the state owns a whole bunch of land in McHenry county, and I believe that the FAP 420 route was the most favorable option as that was the one that had the least impact on environment and cost. This was the ROW that the state got to build 53 in the first place many years ago. However where it goes after it connects back into the 12/31 intersection is anyones guess. If 53 does get extended to 120 you have to question what they would do next. I know the state had land set aside 20 years ago but I can't see how they would build it now considering the buildup the area has gone through in the past 20 years. I know there are plans around on 31 bypasses, 120 bypasses and such but I have a feeling until 53 is set in stone (construction started) none of these plans will be dusted off.
some where near mccullom lake road??

really no way to bypass fox lake with a  big / long bridge so more of a near IL-120 till McHenry route. Maybe can do a solon mills bypass / 4 laning of US12 up to it.

also 31 needs 4 lanes from mchenry to richmound and McHenry to crystal lake. randall rd / james rakow road maybe 3 lanes each way from 31 to I-90 with wided I-90 bridge.

randall rd should have been a interstate / toll road. Near Il-47 huntley still has some room to punch something though. Long term maybe some there linked to US-12 freeway in WI all the way down to I-80 with an eoe link along us 20

I-39

The EPA (or some environmental group) is not allowing the Richmond Bypass to link directly into the US 12 interchange in Genoa City because there are some wetlands just south of it. It's kind of ridiculous :rolleyes:

As for the rest of the FAP 420 right-of-way, nothing will ever be built along it because it routes through Glacial Park and Volo Blog, two extremely sensitive conservation areas. And they can't really route around it at this point without destroying a ton of development. So in short, the Richmond-Waukegan Expressway will never be built.

As such, WisDOT does not need to continue the Interstate-grade freeway along the US 12 corridor between Elkhorn and Whitewater. An expressway or upgrading the existing route will do.

Joe The Dragon

Quote from: I-39 on September 04, 2015, 03:44:09 PM
The EPA (or some environmental group) is not allowing the Richmond Bypass to link directly into the US 12 interchange in Genoa City because there are some wetlands just south of it. It's kind of ridiculous :rolleyes:

As for the rest of the FAP 420 right-of-way, nothing will ever be built along it because it routes through Glacial Park and Volo Blog, two extremely sensitive conservation areas. And they can't really route around it at this point without destroying a ton of development. So in short, the Richmond-Waukegan Expressway will never be built.

As such, WisDOT does not need to continue the Interstate-grade freeway along the US 12 corridor between Elkhorn and Whitewater. An expressway or upgrading the existing route will do.

we can vote trump and he can make it so the states have more control over this EPA stuff. Also the found a way to build the I-355 ext in some environmental areas.

also why not double desk some roads / pull an EOE and trun an old free road in to a toll road + some frontage roads?

iBallasticwolf2

Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

mgk920

As I mentioned in another thread, how possible would it be to do something like the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline (US 12/18) in those places?

Mike

GeekJedi

Quote from: Joe The Dragon on September 04, 2015, 09:52:56 PM
we can vote trump and he can make it so the states have more control over this EPA stuff.

That won't make a bit of difference. It won't be like people will all of a sudden be willing to tear up wetlands because they can.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

GeekJedi

Quote from: mgk920 on September 04, 2015, 11:55:39 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, how possible would it be to do something like the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline (US 12/18) in those places?

Mike

Guessing pretty difficult. The Yahara marsh bridging was done in a much different time. Something like that would be difficult to pull off today, unless it was an absolutely critical project. I don't see US-12 as being that important.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

quickshade

#37
See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.

Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.

Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.

31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.

To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?

I-39

Quote from: quickshade on September 05, 2015, 12:29:31 PM
See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.

Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.

Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.

31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.

To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?

I do not disagree that the FAP 420 corridor should have been built, but I am saying now it would be almost impossible for it to be built, because the mapped ROW crosses two state conservation areas and there is no way they could get a permit to build through those areas. At this point, it is too late to build around the conservation areas because there's too much development.

FAP 420 is dead, forever. We'll just have to live with it.

I-90

#39
Quote from: I-39 on September 05, 2015, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: quickshade on September 05, 2015, 12:29:31 PM
See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.

Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.

Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.

31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.

To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?

I do not disagree that the FAP 420 corridor should have been built, but I am saying now it would be almost impossible for it to be built, because the mapped ROW crosses two state conservation areas and there is no way they could get a permit to build through those areas. At this point, it is too late to build around the conservation areas because there's too much development.

FAP 420 is dead, forever. We'll just have to live with it.
Maybe maybe not if it were dead all of the row for the corridor would be covered with houseing developments

skluth

Are the wetlands in question just the small area straddling the state border? If so, that area can be easily avoided. It would require some inventive interchange design. But it could be done.

Revive 755

Quote from: I-90 on April 13, 2017, 08:04:23 AM
Maybe maybe not if it were dead all of the row for the corridor would be covered with houseing developments

I second this - it's not completely dead until IDOT sells all of the ROW.

Quote from: skluth on April 15, 2017, 06:05:45 PM
Are the wetlands in question just the small area straddling the state border? If so, that area can be easily avoided. It would require some inventive interchange design. But it could be done.

Based on a previous thread on this topic (with nonfunctional links), it appears the wetlands were not going to be easy to get around.

mgk920

Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?

Also, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings.  Would that be possible?

Mike

Revive 755

Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PM
Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?

IIRC there were a couple alternatives to the east of Richmond, but there were still enough wetlands to the east to be a problem.

Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PMAlso, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings.  Would that be possible?

Mike

There would still be the impacts during construction, but I think the main issue would be with the permitting agencies.

hobsini2

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 16, 2017, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PM
Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?

IIRC there were a couple alternatives to the east of Richmond, but there were still enough wetlands to the east to be a problem.

Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PMAlso, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings.  Would that be possible?

Mike

There would still be the impacts during construction, but I think the main issue would be with the permitting agencies.

Yes the east ideas would be a bigger problem due to Elizabeth Lake and the Elizabeth Lake Nature Preserve east of town.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4710843,-88.3117106,10461m/data=!3m1!1e3

The west wetlands area in question are between the end of the freeway and Ill 173 and west to Keystone Rd. I believe that creek is the Nippersink Creek which connects Powers Lake with the Chain of Lakes area by Fox Lake.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

JREwing78

Quote from: I-39 on November 26, 2020, 09:45:45 AM
Ok, so far I've seen both four lanes is needed on US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater, yet, US 12 can do with a new super 2 initially. Which is it?

Traffic headed directly for Whitewater would follow the new road, pulling traffic off the old routing (which would likely remain Hwy 67). There's not enough traffic that the "corner cut" and the existing road would independently need 4 travel lanes.

WisDOT would be stupid not to purchase ROW for 4 travel lanes on the "corner cut" alignment if and when they build it. But it's only going to see about 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day initially, which a 2-lane highway is perfectly capable of handling.

hobsini2

I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

mgk920

Quote from: JREwing78 on November 26, 2020, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 26, 2020, 09:45:45 AM
Ok, so far I've seen both four lanes is needed on US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater, yet, US 12 can do with a new super 2 initially. Which is it?

Traffic headed directly for Whitewater would follow the new road, pulling traffic off the old routing (which would likely remain Hwy 67). There's not enough traffic that the "corner cut" and the existing road would independently need 4 travel lanes.

WisDOT would be stupid not to purchase ROW for 4 travel lanes on the "corner cut" alignment if and when they build it. But it's only going to see about 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day initially, which a 2-lane highway is perfectly capable of handling.

IMHO, the east-west part of the corner cut 'old road' should also be retained and remarked as a westward extension of WI 20.  Could this 'WI 20' then be further extended westward to replace Rock County 'N'?

Mike

JREwing78

Quote from: mgk920 on November 26, 2020, 03:21:45 PM
IMHO, the east-west part of the corner cut 'old road' should also be retained and remarked as a westward extension of WI 20.  Could this 'WI 20' then be further extended westward to replace Rock County 'N'?

Seems logical to me. County N definitely has the traffic load (relative to other area roadways) to justify being a state highway. It's the most direct connection to Madison via I-39/90.

SEWIGuy

The problem with "cutting the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater, is that a good portion of the US-12 traffic is heading for vacation destinations between Elkhorn and WI-20.  I have driven that stretch dozens of times, and traffic drops off considerably just prior to the intersection with WI-20.  If you look at the interactive traffic map, you go from about 10-12k per day, down to 7-8k. 

So I am not sure what a new terrain route would actually accomplish when you consider the cost.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.