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

Started by dzlsabe, October 27, 2015, 10:10:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

dzlsabe

Why was the IKE and its extension called I-90 until 1978??

The short answer seems to be that "federal regulations" changed.

I believe a map with a big red line going from the Skyway, turning a right angle at Circle, going west on the Ike and ultimately to Schaumburg, made transport officials uneasy with TWO honkin' right angles. Right angles just beg the hypotenuse question. The big kahuna being a line from the Skyway to the Strangler. Somebody suggested it. Eyes rolled at the craziness. In 1975 or so, it may not have been necessary, an expensive extravagance. Cheapest, easiest way to eliminate the problem...route I-90 on the Kennedy. Just change the signs. Brilliant. :cheers: Problem solved. No right angles on that map. Regulations changed.

Today I read were #1 at something. The Kennedy is the most congested. Im thinking draft pick. So current I-90 (and 94) needs to be LESS congested?

But with major bottlenecks on the Ryan, Byrnecircle, Ike and Strangler everyday, the Hypotenuse needs another look. See topic in fictional.

The Crosstown plan started to get the south section (I-55 and Cicero to Skyway) close, but going north adjacent to Cicero Av. to Edens rightly killed it. Several times.

OR?

Heres the MAP  http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx OR this even?   http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave:


The major traffic problems weve faced in Chicago and Cook County for the past FIFTY+ years dont seem to be getting resolved anytime soon. I believe a HUGE part of that is the lack of "Hypotenuse", a sixteen mile, what surely will have to be a Tollway now, between the  #1 clusterF in the country, the Hillside Strangler and the Skyway split in Englewood. The only route at present, is going down the Ike, through Byrnecircle, then down the north part of the Ryan. A 22-mile trek that, while "free", is hardly that when the sun is up anyway. So building the Hypo would cut six miles off that trip. But, theres a FOUR mile FREE bonus!! It would shorten a drive from Schaumburg to Gary, presently 60+ miles, to FIFTY because it eliminates the "curvature" of the Kennedy or the Tri-state. amazingly making Indianapolis and Madison ten miles closer, even Seattle and Boston. Interstate traffic would appreciate an option to Chicagos forever crowded "freeways". :spin: THE Hypo is more like five or six. The Ike and N Ryan is one. US 12 & 20 is another. I-55 & Cicero to the Skyway split, too. Any surface street within a mile or two really. And an improved rail corridor?

The "problem" actually started in the 1850s, with the explosion of Chicagos population from a dot on the map to one of the fastest growing cities on the planet for decades and the numerous RRs terminating/originating here, mostly on the southside. Then the Civil War, that FIRE, two world wars, Chicagos illustrious history. How could planning ever be properly done? South Chicago Ave and present day Skyway and old IC (now CN) and NS RRs started to get the SE-NW thing going, but there was never really any plan to continue on that vector. Maybe the ill-fated Crosstown (I-494)? The south part made some sense, NO way the north. Ideally, US 12 & 20 should have taken a diagonal through town instead of the long, present-day EW-NS path.


Of course, youve read the Kennedy (Is 90/94) is the #1 Interstate mess in the country. Its time for I-90 to move out. Its been eating the groceries and not paying the rent for 38? years now. And before that, it was on the Ike. You can see it from space, its as plain as the nose on your face. No more 90/94.

Heres some distance calculations and shots of what it might look like.

https://imgur.com/CwPU7Ox                             https://imgur.com/IAt9KVf 

        https://imgur.com/gallery/ulBjx/new   


Texas A&M Transport Institute estimates congestion costs us over $7B per year around here in lost productivity and "diminished quality of life". Yeah? Add increased pollution, lack of business creation and retention, smaller tax base, underfunded schools, no jobs, crime and gun violence, then becoming the media "poster-child" for all of that...$7B sounds low. :eyebrow:

Whats missing??

     https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8337329,-87.7319639,11z

Have some fun. Click above, go to satellite, zoom in and follow the route. From the Strangler, follow CN rail SE to Berwyn, over Cicero Av. crossing the SanShip Canal, I-55, and Pulaski, along BNSFs Corwith railyard, then east along 49th. Over Western, turning south along CSXs railyard. Then a turn east at the ROW north of 59th. Follow from Damen to Halsted, then turn SE follow till ya cross the Ryan, adjacent to the NS tracks and merge into the Skyway. Thats it!  :hmmm:


Connecting ramps/work zone
At Strangler: WB to 290 (or the "new" I-90), N294, 88. Really liking the flyover I-294 idea, that would include a ramp from E88 & N294 and get rid of the slow oval ramp. EB from 290 & 88 (294 already merged). Work Zone  1
Mannheim: WB exit, EB enter. Zone 2
Harlem: WB exit, EB enter. Zone 2
Cicero: WB enter & exit EB exit. Zone 2
I-55: from N55 to EB, from S55 to WB maybe. Zone 3
Archer, Western & 49th: Probably WB exit to Archer, EB enter. Maybe a free frontage to/from Western with WB enter, EB exit. Zone 4
59th & Western: WB exit, EB enter. Zone 5
At Ryan: WB enter from State St. EB exit at Yale cross 63rd to SB Ryan. Zone 6
Cross Ryan, merge with Skyway. Zone 6

Sixteen miles, MINIMAL neighborhood disruption. Only two areas that have any residential.

59th around Englewood? The high school is yards away from four NS tracks, so some of that would need to be rebuilt, maybe in the parking lot, and the parking lot could move under the new highway. Theres twenty homes that would probably have to go, and twenty more that would be close, but then its just two junkyards, two strip malls, a few commercials that could probably all stay.

Berwyn to Westchester has minimal residential destruction. Mostly its "AIMBY" already a major railroad yards away from my garage or backyard. Probably twenty of those. So the property wouldnt need to be destroyed, but theres a monstrosity there now. If ya' couldnt handle it, find a new home. It would be bought for you and somebody would like the old one. After that just a bunch of parking lots and truck yards.

New grade-separations along CN rails in this area would include Riverside Dr., Harlem (IL43), 26th St., Veterans Dr., Hainesworth , DesPlaines Av, Cermak, First Av.(IL171), 17th Av., Oak Ridge Av., Harrison St., and Wolf Rd.

Heres a recent Tribune article describing an $8B rail bypass plan??  www.greatlakesbasin.net
   
   http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-illinois-rail-line-0322-biz-20160318-story.html

Why not just build the few miles of rails needed between CN & BNSF in Cicero and CSX and NSX in Englewood?

As six of seven Class 1 RRs, numerous short lines, METRA and AMTRAK collide here everyday, grade-separated rail lines along the same Hypo route would enable the RRs to get thru town in an hour, instead of days. The old IC (now CN) RR line can be seen briefly at the Strangler. Thats the vector.

Whats an alternative?? Widen the IKE?
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

It could take TEN years and cost $4B? Not insurmountable for a region that has a $550B a YEAR GDP. In NYC thats pocket change. A public-private partner-ship (PPP) would be needed to fund a project like this which would have to include IDOT, ISTHA, CMAP, Federal & CMAQ funds, CREATE (www.createprogram.org/proj_map2.htm), state, county, city, the RRs, construction contractors, tollway funders...even the bastards that stole (then sold for 50% profit?) the Skyway rights. :spin: Yes it would be like nailing jello to a wall. This is like a chess game, jigsaw puzzle, and crossword rolled into one.

As always, I maintain that federal fuel taxes need a modest increase, as they havent been raised since 1993, havent even kept up with inflation. Maybe a small tax (pennies per gallon) on railroad or off-road diesel to help finance more CREATE type projects. Everyone agrees that more infrastructure spending is a great idea...why are our legislators unable to get this done? It looks like very cheap fuel for the next TEN YEARS? :poke:

We also need to take a look at the give/get in the FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND. Illinois is one of many industrial states that dont get what they put in. In IL its like 97%. And then Springfield only gives IDOT D1 (six county metro area, 65% population & 75% GDP) 45% of those funds, the rest of the state gets 55%?? So does that mean for every dollar D1 gives, we get 43 cents? :pan: I still dont know how the numbers pan out and CMAP isnt sure either.

The GDP of the SEVEN Chicagoland counties is equal to Ohios OR almost New Jersey. By comparison, the rest of IL is about Kentucky on a good year.

Heres this years version of "Chicago traffic woes" story...Note the maps on page two.


http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775

Maybe if it gets worse, well get some kind of "draft pick"? Hypotenuse would relieve, maybe eliminate those FIVE, and maybe help a few others. Think about it. At the Strangler, FOUR major Interstates (Is 290, N&S 294 & 88 with six lanes) merge into ONE four-lane. With IL 38, 56, 64, US 12, 20, 45 all giving a boost. The Ryan has ultimately FOUR into ONE as well(Is 57, 94, then 90 & 55), all finally meeting up at Byrnecircle. If we could connect or give options to these EIGHT routes with one sixteen mile $4B Tollway, that would be a major triumph in ten years. Kill five zombie pteradactyls with one gigantic, 16-mile hunk of concrete and steel FOREVER.

Construction techniques for the "last link" in I-70 finished 25 years ago that may be useful for building Hypotenuse, the "last link" in I-90. But NO mountain canyon, just boring railyards and ROWs, a half-mile of some pretty sparse Chicago neighborhood. Still would be beautiful. I watched Glenwood Canyon construction in the eighties. :wave:

https://youtu.be/LNqcNH7ez4k


Answers price list:
Answers............................................. $1.00
Answers (requiring thought)................... $2.00
Answers (correct)................................ $3.00
Dumb looks .................................STILL FREE!
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:


Stratuscaster

Because that was the original routing of I-90.

The Ike was built as I-90 between 1955 and 1960, and extended from the Tri-State to Schaumburg by 1972.

Prior to the extension, I-90 was routed onto the Tri-State between the Ike and the Rosemont interchange with the NW Tollway.

I-90's original routing was on the Eisenhower, the Dan Ryan, the Calumet (Bishop Ford), and Kingery Expressways. It was later swapped with I-94 onto to the Skyway and IN Toll Road after 1962.

Brandon

Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 30, 2015, 11:57:55 PM
Because that was the original routing of I-90.

The Ike was built as I-90 between 1955 and 1960, and extended from the Tri-State to Schaumburg by 1972.

Prior to the extension, I-90 was routed onto the Tri-State between the Ike and the Rosemont interchange with the NW Tollway.

I-90's original routing was on the Eisenhower, the Dan Ryan, the Calumet (Bishop Ford), and Kingery Expressways

Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I-90 at the time switched from the Toll Road to the Borman, then to the Calumet, merged smoothly onto the Ryan, but went through one lane at the Circle to the Ike, then again to the Tri-State, then onto the Northwest Tollway.  Then, later, it was sent through a loop in Schaumburg!  Toll Road -> Skyway -> Ryan -> Kennedy -> Northwest Tollway is a smooth and easy transition befitting a major interstate.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

dzlsabe

Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2015, 01:10:06 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 30, 2015, 11:57:55 PM
Because that was the original routing of I-90.

The Ike was built as I-90 between 1955 and 1960, and extended from the Tri-State to Schaumburg by 1972.

Prior to the extension, I-90 was routed onto the Tri-State between the Ike and the Rosemont interchange with the NW Tollway.

I-90's original routing was on the Eisenhower, the Dan Ryan, the Calumet (Bishop Ford), and Kingery Expressways

Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I-90 at the time switched from the Toll Road to the Borman, then to the Calumet, merged smoothly onto the Ryan, but went through one lane at the Circle to the Ike, then again to the Tri-State, then onto the Northwest Tollway.  Then, later, it was sent through a loop in Schaumburg!  Toll Road -> Skyway -> Ryan -> Kennedy -> Northwest Tollway is a smooth and easy transition befitting a major interstate.
Thats the point! We have been finding ways to conjoin I-90 with what ever is convenient, instead of taking a serious look at the map. The version of the Ike I-90 making a right angle onto the Ryan just begs the hypotenuse question.
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

Stratuscaster

I think I-90 was signed onto whatever was built at the time in Illinois to get it across the country as planned - and once the rest of the roads were done, straightened out to where it's signed today.

As noted in another thread, back in the early days of planning this all out, everything was Chicago-centric. Seems like no real thought was given to vehicle traffic looking to bypass Chicago at that time until the Tri-State. That's your reason for no hypotenuse - the Tri-State was the solution.

Revive 755

Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2015, 01:10:06 AM
Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I would not rule out that there was a dream of switching I-90 from the NW Tollway to the US 12-IL 53 corridor had the latter been completed.  Alternatively (and more speculatively), many maps before 1970 had the Elgin O'Hare tying into the current I-290 interchange with I-355.  There could have been a long-range dream of taking the Elgin O'Hare west and eventually reconnecting with the NW Tollway, and rerouting I-90 onto that new corridor.

I-39

Quote from: Revive 755 on October 31, 2015, 07:18:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2015, 01:10:06 AM
Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I would not rule out that there was a dream of switching I-90 from the NW Tollway to the US 12-IL 53 corridor had the latter been completed.  Alternatively (and more speculatively), many maps before 1970 had the Elgin O'Hare tying into the current I-290 interchange with I-355.  There could have been a long-range dream of taking the Elgin O'Hare west and eventually reconnecting with the NW Tollway, and rerouting I-90 onto that new corridor.

I believe that was the plan to run I-90 up what is now known as the FAP 342 and FAP 420 corridors (the IL-53 extension) through Lake and McHenry to the US 12 freeway in Wisconsin, but it was rejected as they didn't want a free route duplicating a toll road.

dzlsabe

#7
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 31, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I think I-90 was signed onto whatever was built at the time in Illinois to get it across the country as planned - and once the rest of the roads were done, straightened out to where it's signed today.

As noted in another thread, back in the early days of planning this all out, everything was Chicago-centric. Seems like no real thought was given to vehicle traffic looking to bypass Chicago at that time until the Tri-State. That's your reason for no hypotenuse - the Tri-State was the solution.
Exactly. We can rearrange the signs forever. Bottom line...we are still a bit short of some critical concrete and steel and our five or six major bottlenecks are the proof. And no amount of widening or bypassing seems to have any effect other than more exurban sprawl. So its back to the drawing board.
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

The Ghostbuster

I always found it weird that Chicago has a recently added State Highway 390 and a State Highway 394, as well as former State Highways 190, 194, and 594, with no original intentions of making any of them Interstates.

Joe The Dragon

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2015, 04:46:04 PM
I always found it weird that Chicago has a recently added State Highway 390 and a State Highway 394, as well as former State Highways 190, 194, and 594, with no original intentions of making any of them Interstates.

IL-390 may become one or change to Toll IL-390

IL-394 called I-394 on signs in error maybe come one if they build the 3rd airport.

Stratuscaster

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 01, 2015, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 31, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I think I-90 was signed onto whatever was built at the time in Illinois to get it across the country as planned - and once the rest of the roads were done, straightened out to where it's signed today.

As noted in another thread, back in the early days of planning this all out, everything was Chicago-centric. Seems like no real thought was given to vehicle traffic looking to bypass Chicago at that time until the Tri-State. That's your reason for no hypotenuse - the Tri-State was the solution.
Exactly. We can rearrange the signs forever. Bottom line...we are still a bit short of some critical concrete and steel and our five or six major bottlenecks are the proof. And no amount of widening or bypassing seems to have any effect other than more exurban sprawl. So its back to the drawing board.
My point was that the signage wasn't changed to eliminate bottlenecks or backups - that wasn't the intent.

One can easily see why and where certain areas are bottlenecks - and it's usually a matter of a design that worked well at one point in time that no longer does because the amount of traffic has increased.

The Eisenhower backs up where capacity drops from 4 lanes down to 3, and it eases up when capacity increases again from 3 to 4 lanes.

The NB Dan Ryan to WB Eisenhower backs up because of a severe lack of capacity (in this case, a single lane to handle ALL the traffic) further constrained by the physical area the capacity must fit into.

The NB Tri-State to WB Eisenhower also backs up because of a severe lack of capacity (again, ONE lane) and a constrained space to work with.

Identifying the problem is pretty easy. Coming up with an acceptable solution that all involved parties can agree on and that can be paid for? Not so much.

Stratuscaster

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2015, 04:46:04 PM
I always found it weird that Chicago has a recently added State Highway 390 and a State Highway 394, as well as former State Highways 190, 194, and 594, with no original intentions of making any of them Interstates.
IL-394 wasn't recently added - it's been around since 1964.

None of those routes really NEEDED to be an Interstate, since they primarily served intrastate traffic.

The Ghostbuster

I said IL-390 was recently added, not IL-394.

Stratuscaster

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 03, 2015, 03:48:51 PM
I said IL-390 was recently added, not IL-394.
Actually, what you said was "I always found it weird that Chicago has a recently added State Highway 390 and a State Highway 394" - the "and" making it appear to me that you said BOTH 390 and 394 were added.

"I always found it weird that Chicago has IL-394, and now the recently added IL-390..."

dzlsabe

Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 02, 2015, 10:49:43 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 01, 2015, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 31, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I think I-90 was signed onto whatever was built at the time in Illinois to get it across the country as planned - and once the rest of the roads were done, straightened out to where it's signed today.

As noted in another thread, back in the early days of planning this all out, everything was Chicago-centric. Seems like no real thought was given to vehicle traffic looking to bypass Chicago at that time until the Tri-State. That's your reason for no hypotenuse - the Tri-State was the solution.
Exactly. We can rearrange the signs forever. Bottom line...we are still a bit short of some critical concrete and steel and our five or six major bottlenecks are the proof. And no amount of widening or bypassing seems to have any effect other than more exurban sprawl. So its back to the drawing board.
My point was that the signage wasn't changed to eliminate bottlenecks or backups - that wasn't the intent.

One can easily see why and where certain areas are bottlenecks - and it's usually a matter of a design that worked well at one point in time that no longer does because the amount of traffic has increased.

The Eisenhower backs up where capacity drops from 4 lanes down to 3, and it eases up when capacity increases again from 3 to 4 lanes.

The NB Dan Ryan to WB Eisenhower backs up because of a severe lack of capacity (in this case, a single lane to handle ALL the traffic) further constrained by the physical area the capacity must fit into.

The NB Tri-State to WB Eisenhower also backs up because of a severe lack of capacity (again, ONE lane) and a constrained space to work with.

Identifying the problem is pretty easy. Coming up with an acceptable solution that all involved parties can agree on and that can be paid for? Not so much.
I think weve identified the problem. And an acceptable solution that can be paid for. All parties involved? Not so much.
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

noelbotevera


Brandon

Quote from: NE2 on November 22, 2015, 04:07:11 PM
what is going on here

We got a kook.  Read the other, similar threads for your amusement.  :biggrin:
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

midwesternroadguy

Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2015, 01:10:06 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 30, 2015, 11:57:55 PM
Because that was the original routing of I-90.

The Ike was built as I-90 between 1955 and 1960, and extended from the Tri-State to Schaumburg by 1972.

Prior to the extension, I-90 was routed onto the Tri-State between the Ike and the Rosemont interchange with the NW Tollway.

I-90's original routing was on the Eisenhower, the Dan Ryan, the Calumet (Bishop Ford), and Kingery Expressways

Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I-90 at the time switched from the Toll Road to the Borman, then to the Calumet, merged smoothly onto the Ryan, but went through one lane at the Circle to the Ike, then again to the Tri-State, then onto the Northwest Tollway.  Then, later, it was sent through a loop in Schaumburg!  Toll Road -> Skyway -> Ryan -> Kennedy -> Northwest Tollway is a smooth and easy transition befitting a major interstate.

I assume the logic of the original numbering scheme was to have I-90 and 94 conform to the national numbering grid by having I-94 north of I-90.  As illogical as that routing and connections at interchanges may have been, I routinely follow the original I-90 routing from Schaumburg to South Holland to Lake Station many times to avoid the tolls. 

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.
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

pianocello

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 24, 2015, 01:52:43 AM
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.

This might just be a me vs. you thing, but I think it makes mores sense to route a route highway along the route path that is the most direct and has the fewest "slow" ramps, or the longest free-flowing stretch, no matter how congested that route path may be. This way, if traffic was free-flowing (I've heard it happens every once in a while on the Kennedy), the route highway would be routed along the fastest possible route path. Of course in this case, traffic isn't free-flowing on the Kennedy most of the time, and it turns out some of the time the fastest route path is along the Eisenhower. Still, I like to idealize situations when it comes to route numbering.

I realize this is your main argument for why 90 should be rerouted along the Eisenhower in hopes of taking some of the congestion off of the Kennedy. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

Side note: upon rereading this, I realize I used the word "route" too much and in three different contexts. I hope I made myself a bit clearer.
Davenport, IA -> Valparaiso, IN -> Ames, IA -> Orlando, FL -> Gainesville, FL -> Evansville, IN

dzlsabe

I dont think I-90 should be rerouted to the Ike. That wont accomplish a thing. I said, that until 1978 it WAS routed on the Ike. But that path had two right angles, one at Schaumburg and the BIG, HONKIN one at the Byrnecircle. Right angles just beg the hypotenuse question. (See Hypotenuse in fictional) But the easiest, cheapest thing to do back then was to just MAKE A BUNCH OF NEW ROAD SIGNS and reroute I-90 to the Kennedy. There. PROBLEM SOLVED! Or NOT.  :cheers: :rofl:

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775

In the mid-'70s, the Crosstown was looked at over and over. While I believe they were on the right track (no pun intended) on the south part from I-55 and Cicero Av to the Skyway, going north along Cicero and paralleling the Kennedy just wasnt cuttin' it on many levels. So they blew the whole thing off. Now FIFTY plus years later, the Ryan, Ike and Kennedy are usually a daily mess, widening and bypasses arent doing it. So whats left? The south section of the Crosstown along a straighter alignment to the Skyway. And going NW to jump the Strangler. Then I-90 has the best, shortest, fastest way thru the area, taking pressure off the bottlenecks. 
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

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.

ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

TheHighwayMan3561

Christ, you bumped this after five months just to create another place to vouch for your plan?
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running



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.