I-90/I-290/IL-53 Schaumburg Interchange Reconstruction?

Started by I-39, October 08, 2014, 10:27:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

I-39

Does anyone know why the Illinois Tollway scrapped (or put on hold) plans to rebuild the I-90/I-290/IL-53 interchange in Schaumburg?

I know it was proposed a few years back in the "Congestion-Relief Program II" that was ultimately scrapped (portions of it moving into "Move Illinois", i.e I-57/294 interchange), but for whatever reason, it was not included in the I-90 rebuilding and widening project.

That interchange really needs to be rebuilt. What happened?


sipes23

I don't know, but please save this for after the I-90 widening is done. Please. Please.

It needs it badly, but the construction on 90...

JREwing78

#2
The construction on I-90 has cause me to take some rather unorthodox routes between Janesville and points east:

- I-39 -> I-88 -> I-394 I-355 -> I-80
or I-39 -> I-88 -> I-294 -> I-80
(My typical course. It's 20 miles out of my way, and I still pay tolls.)

- US-14 -> I-43 -> US-12 -> Hwy 50 -> I-94 -> I-294
(55mph speed limit on US-14 and Hwy 50 is a bummer)

- I-39 -> I-80
(You burn up in fuel what you save in tolls)

- US-14 -> I-43 -> US-12 -> IL 53 -> I-290 -> I-294
(Not as horrible as I expected. Best done outside of rush hour.)

- I-39/90 -> US-20 -> Elgin-O'Hare -> I-290
(Haven't tried this one yet. Hopefully, I won't have to)


Now (in theory), after the 37 miles from Rockford to Elgin are completed, I have another option:
- I-39/90 -> I-90 -> IL-34 -> US-20 -> IL 390 (Elgin-O'Hare) -> I-290

I'll be testing this one over Thanksgiving (assuming I-90 construction is done) to see if it's any improvement over I-39 -> I-88.

Revive 755

Quote from: sipes23 on October 08, 2014, 07:36:05 PM
I don't know, but please save this for after the I-90 widening is done. Please. Please.

It needs it badly, but the construction on 90...

Based on rumors . . .

1) Cost

2) The need to coordinate with FHWA for improvements along I-290.  Also, the need for state and/or federal funding for some of the cost, which would require a more stringent environmental process.

3) Changes to the I-90/IL 53/I-290 cloverleaf would probably require changes to the nearby interchanges with IL 62/Algonquin Road, Woodfield Road, and IL 72/Higgins Road, driving the cost up more.

4) Schaumburg got picky about the aesthetics for a new interchange and started objecting to have 'unsightly' flyovers (this is probably the biggest rumor of the bunch).

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 08, 2014, 08:12:34 PM
The construction on I-90 has cause me to take some rather unorthodox routes between Janesville and points east:

I think some of your route numbers are off, or you've discovered a couple of wormholes.

Joe The Dragon

http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48742/2007-10-31-I-90-LAMP-EXEC-SUMMARY.pdf

Please note that the concept plan between Roselle Road and Meacham Road contained in this report is currently being revised (June-July 2011) for inclusion in the current Tollway I-90 planning. The revised concept is anticipated to provide completed access at Roselle Road and new access at Meacham Road, with all new ramps to and from extended C-D roadways. All improvements are proposed to occur between Roselle Road and Meacham Road to avoid involvement of the I-90 & IL Route 53/I-290 system interchange.

Henry

Quote from: Revive 755 on October 08, 2014, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: sipes23 on October 08, 2014, 07:36:05 PM
I don't know, but please save this for after the I-90 widening is done. Please. Please.

It needs it badly, but the construction on 90...

Based on rumors . . .

1) Cost

2) The need to coordinate with FHWA for improvements along I-290.  Also, the need for state and/or federal funding for some of the cost, which would require a more stringent environmental process.

3) Changes to the I-90/IL 53/I-290 cloverleaf would probably require changes to the nearby interchanges with IL 62/Algonquin Road, Woodfield Road, and IL 72/Higgins Road, driving the cost up more.

4) Schaumburg got picky about the aesthetics for a new interchange and started objecting to have 'unsightly' flyovers (this is probably the biggest rumor of the bunch).
The first three I can believe, but the fourth I disagree with. If they didn't want those unsightly flyovers that would likely hint at a stack interchange, why don't they just rebuild the thing as a turbine (a la Circle Interchange) and get it over with?
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Revive 755

#6
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 08, 2014, 11:35:00 PM
http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48742/2007-10-31-I-90-LAMP-EXEC-SUMMARY.pdf

That report has definitely been revised with respect to the I-90 corridor:

* The Barrington Road interchange is to be a SPUI

* Roselle Road is to be full access by a combination of a 3/4 diamond and a WB entrance ramp from Central Road (Map from the Tollway's website)

* Pretty sure the C-D concept between Roselle and Meacham is not being built.

* The C-D Road for WB I-90 around the Meacham/I-290 area has been shifted so the ramps to/from WB I-90 and Meacham will be between the mainlanes and the C-D Road.  Also, there will not be access from the C-D road to the Meacham exit (so traffic from I-290 and IL 53 will not be able to access Meacham Road).

I-90

Quote from: I-39 on October 08, 2014, 10:27:20 AM
Does anyone know why the Illinois Tollway scrapped (or put on hold) plans to rebuild the I-90/I-290/IL-53 interchange in Schaumburg?

I know it was proposed a few years back in the "Congestion-Relief Program II" that was ultimately scrapped (portions of it moving into "Move Illinois", i.e I-57/294 interchange), but for whatever reason, it was not included in the I-90 rebuilding and widening project.

That interchange really needs to be rebuilt. What happened?
I don't know but Its probably too costly plus it would had to also reconstruct meacham Algonquin and Higgins

Joe The Dragon

Quote from: I-90 on April 12, 2017, 05:10:39 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 08, 2014, 10:27:20 AM
Does anyone know why the Illinois Tollway scrapped (or put on hold) plans to rebuild the I-90/I-290/IL-53 interchange in Schaumburg?

I know it was proposed a few years back in the "Congestion-Relief Program II" that was ultimately scrapped (portions of it moving into "Move Illinois", i.e I-57/294 interchange), but for whatever reason, it was not included in the I-90 rebuilding and widening project.

That interchange really needs to be rebuilt. What happened?
I don't know but Its probably too costly plus it would had to also reconstruct meacham Algonquin and Higgins

I-290 / I-294 and I-55 / I-294 needs more work and Idot needs to be able to kick in for there part.

I-90


I-39

Quote from: I-90 on May 24, 2017, 08:20:14 PM
rough sketch


Nice, but I don't think there would be enough ROW for that. Plus, really only the NB I-290/IL-53 to WB I-90 and SB IL-53 to EB I-90 need flyovers.

ChiMilNet

Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:52:01 PM
Quote from: I-90 on May 24, 2017, 08:20:14 PM
rough sketch


Nice, but I don't think there would be enough ROW for that. Plus, really only the NB I-290/IL-53 to WB I-90 and SB IL-53 to EB I-90 need flyovers.

Just from looking at that and knowing the area, the NW quadrant of that interchange would take out at least half an apartment complex. Great idea in theory, but as I-39 said, at this point, just the two movements with flyovers would make a world of difference. The only thing I'll add to that is a slip ramp directly to Golf Road from I-90 East (yes, this would take out the Joe's Crab Shack, but I think one property is a small price to pay).

I-39

Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 24, 2017, 11:09:15 PM
(yes, this would take out the Joe's Crab Shack, but I think one property is a small price to pay).

NO! Not Joe's Crab Shack! The horror!  :wow:

dvferyance

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 08, 2014, 08:12:34 PM
The construction on I-90 has cause me to take some rather unorthodox routes between Janesville and points east:

- I-39 -> I-88 -> I-394 I-355 -> I-80
or I-39 -> I-88 -> I-294 -> I-80
(My typical course. It's 20 miles out of my way, and I still pay tolls.)

- US-14 -> I-43 -> US-12 -> Hwy 50 -> I-94 -> I-294
(55mph speed limit on US-14 and Hwy 50 is a bummer)

- I-39 -> I-80
(You burn up in fuel what you save in tolls)

- US-14 -> I-43 -> US-12 -> IL 53 -> I-290 -> I-294
(Not as horrible as I expected. Best done outside of rush hour.)

- I-39/90 -> US-20 -> Elgin-O'Hare -> I-290
(Haven't tried this one yet. Hopefully, I won't have to)


Now (in theory), after the 37 miles from Rockford to Elgin are completed, I have another option:
- I-39/90 -> I-90 -> IL-34 -> US-20 -> IL 390 (Elgin-O'Hare) -> I-290

I'll be testing this one over Thanksgiving (assuming I-90 construction is done) to see if it's any improvement over I-39 -> I-88.
US 12 is a horrible route through Lake and McHenry counties. Tried it once never again way too many stop lights. I know it will never be a full freeway but at least some upgrades would be nice.

The Ghostbuster

What upgrades to US 12 would you personally suggest, dvferyance?

Brandon

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2017, 02:54:05 PM
What upgrades to US 12 would you personally suggest, dvferyance?

How about synchronizing the fucking signals and banning Lake Zurich from having red light cameras on the road?  Just for starters.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

quickshade

You can't save 12, my friend keeps telling me that 53 is a waste of time and to improve 12, but the area is to built up, to much shopping traffic to ever be able to time the lights properly and the cost to add a third lane is never going to be approved. 20 years ago I would have said maybe, but now it just can't happen. Not to mention Lake Cook road can't be fixed either so there are still flaws even if you could fix these issues.


You want to fix the traffic problem. Build 53 and get the people who are trying to get to I90/290/53/Schaumburg an easy access path and leave 12 as what it is. Traffic corridor to go shopping and local access in the area.

Revive 755

Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:52:01 PM
Nice, but I don't think there would be enough ROW for that. Plus, really only the NB I-290/IL-53 to WB I-90 and SB IL-53 to EB I-90 need flyovers.

I think there's going to be ROW impacts in the northwest quadrant of that interchange for any improvement that installs a non-loop NB to WB movement, as well as at least minor acquisition for the SE quadrant.  Probably one of the reasons a cost of $1 billion is usually thrown around for fixing this interchange.

Quote from: quickshade on May 25, 2017, 05:50:15 PM
You can't save 12, my friend keeps telling me that 53 is a waste of time and to improve 12, but the area is to built up, to much shopping traffic to ever be able to time the lights properly and the cost to add a third lane is never going to be approved. 20 years ago I would have said maybe, but now it just can't happen. Not to mention Lake Cook road can't be fixed either so there are still flaws even if you could fix these issues.

You want to fix the traffic problem. Build 53 and get the people who are trying to get to I90/290/53/Schaumburg an easy access path and leave 12 as what it is. Traffic corridor to go shopping and local access in the area.

How about forgetting both the IL 53 extension and US 12 and work on getting a couple more north-south corridors improved, such as a Quentin - Fairfield Corridor and upgrades to IL 83?

US 12 can at least have a few six lane portions pieced together by stringing together a few of the right turns lanes into a third lane.  Plus if McHenry County can manage to widen Randall to have four through lanes plus dual left turns, I don't think widening US 12 to six lanes would be impossible.  I see Lake County eventually started the studies that result in improvements to US 12 - right now for big projects though the County seems to be focused on US 45, then it appears they will turn to US 41.

Joe The Dragon

Quote from: Revive 755 on May 25, 2017, 09:47:13 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 08:52:01 PM
Nice, but I don't think there would be enough ROW for that. Plus, really only the NB I-290/IL-53 to WB I-90 and SB IL-53 to EB I-90 need flyovers.

I think there's going to be ROW impacts in the northwest quadrant of that interchange for any improvement that installs a non-loop NB to WB movement, as well as at least minor acquisition for the SE quadrant.  Probably one of the reasons a cost of $1 billion is usually thrown around for fixing this interchange.

Quote from: quickshade on May 25, 2017, 05:50:15 PM
You can't save 12, my friend keeps telling me that 53 is a waste of time and to improve 12, but the area is to built up, to much shopping traffic to ever be able to time the lights properly and the cost to add a third lane is never going to be approved. 20 years ago I would have said maybe, but now it just can't happen. Not to mention Lake Cook road can't be fixed either so there are still flaws even if you could fix these issues.

You want to fix the traffic problem. Build 53 and get the people who are trying to get to I90/290/53/Schaumburg an easy access path and leave 12 as what it is. Traffic corridor to go shopping and local access in the area.

How about forgetting both the IL 53 extension and US 12 and work on getting a couple more north-south corridors improved, such as a Quentin - Fairfield Corridor and upgrades to IL 83?

US 12 can at least have a few six lane portions pieced together by stringing together a few of the right turns lanes into a third lane.  Plus if McHenry County can manage to widen Randall to have four through lanes plus dual left turns, I don't think widening US 12 to six lanes would be impossible.  I see Lake County eventually started the studies that result in improvements to US 12 - right now for big projects though the County seems to be focused on US 45, then it appears they will turn to US 41.

what about an super street and or more frontage roads and less lights? Some areas can get u-turn bays with no lights and there is room with 2 lanes each way to fit that in.

US 12 has seen very little at least 120 got winded from us 12 to McHenry some time in 1990-1995?

cwm1276

How big of a difference will the Meacham and Roselle Interchanges change traffic flows?  From the west I for sure would consider Roselle to get to Ikea or the mall instead of using the 53/290 interchange.

If you diverted that traffic to those interchanges then the 53/290 northbound to 90 westbound ramp could possibly start farther south not allowing the ramp from Woodfield road to have access to 90 west.  That would give most distance to get the elevation for crossing 53 before reaching 90 to hopefully avoid the apartment complex.

ChiMilNet

Quote from: cwm1276 on May 26, 2017, 07:33:12 PM
How big of a difference will the Meacham and Roselle Interchanges change traffic flows?  From the west I for sure would consider Roselle to get to Ikea or the mall instead of using the 53/290 interchange.

If you diverted that traffic to those interchanges then the 53/290 northbound to 90 westbound ramp could possibly start farther south not allowing the ramp from Woodfield road to have access to 90 west.  That would give most distance to get the elevation for crossing 53 before reaching 90 to hopefully avoid the apartment complex.

I will say, from the East, the Meacham interchange is a very welcome addition and well worth the toll. I don't think the Roselle Road interchange has quite as much caught on, at least based on the traffic I am seeing still getting on I-290 an exiting at Woodfield around there. However, until IDOT AT LEAST adds a full auxiliary lane to that movement, there will continue to be backups. I know widening the bridge would be required, but it could do wonders.

I actually think your idea about the Woodfield Road and IL53/290 to WB I-90 ramp is a good idea, especially with the Meacham Road interchange now open. If people want to avoid the extra toll, get on at Higgins Road!

Revive 755

^ You would probably overload the Higgins/I-290 interchange as well as the Golf/Meacham intersection and turn Schaumburg against any improvements with both the perceived impacts to the Woodfield area and the aesthetics of a long elevated ramp.  IDOT would probably frown on the idea as well due to winter maintenance issues with a longer bridge.

I-39

How could auxiliary lanes even be added? I don't think the Meacham Road bridge (or even the Roselle Road bridge) was designed to accommodate future improvements to the I-290/IL-53 interchange unfortunately.



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.