Route 53 extension gets some attention from tollway (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=396829)
QuoteLake County officials will present a united front Thursday as the decades-old idea to extend Route 53 north from Lake-Cook Road resurfaces as a topic of discussion.
Whether more talk will ultimately translate into action is uncertain. But the Illinois Toll Highway Authority's interest in revisiting the controversial plan gives Lake County leaders another chance to show support.
The big question is, can they get past the morons who run Long Grove?
Can anyone in the Chicago area go to the Tollway Board meeting? it sounds interesting something that road geeks would enjoy.
Clearly if thye cant make money thye cant pursue it but I really do think it would help if road supporters could show up to these things
Quote from: 3467 on July 28, 2010, 09:18:44 PM
Can anyone in the Chicago area go to the Tollway Board meeting? it sounds interesting something that road geeks would enjoy.
The article said it was a public presentation, so anyone could attend if they wanted. I know I've tried to attend public meetings whenever the timing works and the project interests me.
Speaking of which, Route 53 extension backers rally tollway (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=397365).
If the Illinois tollway is feeling like the popular kid in class these days, it's small wonder.
QuoteThursday, Lake County leaders lobbied Illinois State Toll Highway Authority directors to take under their wing the extension of Route 53, joining a crowd of other communities asking the agency to adopt particular projects. ... The tollway is in the midst of reviewing what new construction projects to undertake. Some options include the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway and western bypass, Tri-State and I-57 interchange, and Prairie Parkway connecting I-88 and I-80 in the far western suburbs. Officials expect to make a decision later this year.
Take note that almost everyone is for the Illinois 53 extension except Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-29/news/ct-met-tollway-0730-20100729_1_new-tollway-tollway-system-jane-addams-memorial-tollway
This is the Tribs Story. I do not see any Federal problems on Endngered Species. There is only a NIMBY (Long Grove) Problem not an Envirnmental problem. It would end in a very inventive Toll Arterial that Lake County came up withso it will not cause a problem with the only serious problem the Volo Bog
I take issue with another element in these stories. The so called list of projects. That is true of IDOT, but in Illinois either the toll road makes money and can be built or its not yet viable and land will be protected, hopefully. I think that is what will happen with the Prairie Parkway and perhaps the Illiana. I think 53 and the Elgin Ohare are now viable.
The Freeway notice signe in the Daily Herald story was a common sight in Illinois . It wasnt from just the supplemental freeway program but was an innoative acess control plan that IDOT of course foolishly abandoned
^^
The Illiana and Prairie Parkway are viable now as well. The current plans for the Illiana have it meeting I-55 near the largest intermodal yard in the region (one that's only going to grow in a couple of years). The Prairie Parkway is a much needed bypass of Plainfield, Yorkville, and Aurora between I-80 and I-88. It'll be used by cars and trucks as soon as it's built. Might even relieve I-355 and I-294.
http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Transportation/PlansandStudies.htm
This is Lake countys plan for the arterial road tie in . IL 52 looks like it will be a very innovative project.
The PP combined with the Illiana makes even more sense. I wonder if they can be directly connected or will use 80 and 55 ?
Are there any other projects being pitched to the Toll Authority?
For the IL-120 upgrades, maybe they should be inspired a bit from the upgrades of Kystone Ave once known as IN-431 in NE Indianapolis. Instead of intersections, some small diamonds interchange with "dogbone" roundabouts to link the ramps and local streets should be studied as well.
QuoteMight even relieve I-355 and I-294.
And would probably open up even more of the IL 47-and-west area to sprawl. The same sprawl that has already made IL 47 a signal-clogged PITA.
Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2010, 09:13:14 PM
QuoteMight even relieve I-355 and I-294.
And would probably open up even more of the IL 47-and-west area to sprawl. The same sprawl that has already made IL 47 a signal-clogged PITA.
Too late, Adam, the sprawl is already there. People seem to forget that the sprawl comes first, then the roads to actually handle the traffic.
Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2010, 08:44:42 AM
Too late, Adam, the sprawl is already there. People seem to forget that the sprawl comes first, then the roads to actually handle the traffic.
nah, in a lot of cases, the road comes first. look at I-10 approaching Houston from the west, for instance. I've seen a video from 1985 where it's all farmland until very close to the city (about Beltway 8, even) and today of course it's all businesses and billboards all the way out well past Katy.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2010, 10:04:35 AM
Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2010, 08:44:42 AM
Too late, Adam, the sprawl is already there. People seem to forget that the sprawl comes first, then the roads to actually handle the traffic.
nah, in a lot of cases, the road comes first. look at I-10 approaching Houston from the west, for instance. I've seen a video from 1985 where it's all farmland until very close to the city (about Beltway 8, even) and today of course it's all businesses and billboards all the way out well past Katy.
I take it you've never been to the western half of Lake County, IL. No freeways of any kind, but sprawl everywhere.
Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2010, 11:23:12 AM
I take it you've never been to the western half of Lake County, IL. No freeways of any kind, but sprawl everywhere.
I probably have, but I tend not to remember the sprawl I've been through. I've only got so many brain cells; I'm not gonna waste them on
that!
Do they have any ROW acquired...or even mapped? The cost of that alone would be astronomical.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2010, 04:23:17 PM
Do they have any ROW acquired...or even mapped? The cost of that alone would be astronomical.
IIRC, the ROW is mostly accquired and/or protected. The road is mostly mapped.
From Lake County:
Map (http://www.lakecountyil.gov/route53/Documents/IL53Map.pdf)
Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2010, 11:23:12 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2010, 10:04:35 AM
Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2010, 08:44:42 AM
Too late, Adam, the sprawl is already there. People seem to forget that the sprawl comes first, then the roads to actually handle the traffic.
nah, in a lot of cases, the road comes first. look at I-10 approaching Houston from the west, for instance. I've seen a video from 1985 where it's all farmland until very close to the city (about Beltway 8, even) and today of course it's all businesses and billboards all the way out well past Katy.
I take it you've never been to the western half of Lake County, IL. No freeways of any kind, but sprawl everywhere.
In that vein, while there are freeways along the edges of Citrus Heights and Arden in the Sacramento area, the core portions of both communities do not have any freeways running through - but were heavily developed as suburbs!
Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2010, 04:39:07 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 02, 2010, 04:23:17 PM
Do they have any ROW acquired...or even mapped? The cost of that alone would be astronomical.
IIRC, the ROW is mostly accquired and/or protected. The road is mostly mapped.
From Lake County:
Map (http://www.lakecountyil.gov/route53/Documents/IL53Map.pdf)
The IL 53 ROW in Lake County is very easily traceable on Goggle and Bing aerial images. Especially, check where it crosses that subdivision on the west side of Mundelein - the developer was arrogantly building away when IDOT issued him a 'STOP WORK' order for the part that was on the planned/mapped ROW. This was likely in the mid-late 1980s.
Further on, the preserved ROW for the planned US 12 freeway/tollway (extended from the IL 120 west leg) to Wisconsin is emerging in McHenry as the city grows northward, it is also easily visible on those aerial images.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 04, 2010, 12:56:47 AM
The IL 53 ROW in Lake County is very easily traceable on Goggle and Bing aerial images. Especially, check where it crosses that subdivision on the west side of Mundelein - the developer was arrogantly building away when IDOT issued him a 'STOP WORK' order for the part that was on the planned/mapped ROW. This was likely in the mid-late 1980s.
Further on, the preserved ROW for the planned US 12 freeway/tollway (extended from the IL 120 west leg) to Wisconsin is emerging in McHenry as the city grows northward, it is also easily visible on those aerial images.
Mike
Exactly. These folks who build near these routes, and then complain that they will be built, are either woefully ignorant of everything around them as it is obvious a freeway will go there one day or woefully stupid as they believe it won't be built. Either way, they should know better.
http://www.goto2040.org/projectlist/
IL 53 is the top road project. Looks like all tolls. Nothing on arterials Just a funding number. Kane,Lake McHenry and Will have county plans with arterial wish lists.
IDOT is studying very few routes (IL 31 in McHenry and US 45 and IL 83,131,137 and 173 in Lake)
Quote from: 3467 on August 17, 2010, 11:45:03 PM
http://www.goto2040.org/projectlist/
IL 53 is the top road project. Looks like all tolls. Nothing on arterials Just a funding number. Kane,Lake McHenry and Will have county plans with arterial wish lists.
IDOT is studying very few routes (IL 31 in McHenry and US 45 and IL 83,131,137 and 173 in Lake)
*VERRRRRRRRY INTERESTING!*
http://www.goto2040.org/scenario/default.aspx?id=15601
:cheers:
Mike
http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Transportation/Home.htm
I will try to find the other counties maybe somone can combine the post. I have seen Dekalb,Kankakee and Kendall but I dont recall specific projects. I have never seen anything from Cook or DuPage. City of Chicago plans are all in 2040. MidCity Tranitway may be a road for Busses and Trucks in the old Crosstown Corridor.
Click on the 2020 plan and a pdf will pop up I expect it will be the one with IL 53 now . Lakecounty Passage is a great traffic site . Agood Model
Post Merge: August 18, 2010, 10:12:48 PM
http://www.co.kane.il.us/DOT/publications.aspx
Kane County 2030 includes state and local roads under publications
Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 06:59:59 PM
http://www.co.mchenry.il.us/departments/dot/Pages/index.aspx
McHenry
Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 06:59:59 PM
http://projects.ch2m.com/willcounty/DesktopDefault.aspx
Last But not least Will County
The extension as "a 21st Century urban highway"?
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040/capital-projects (http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040/capital-projects) (scroll down about 3/4 of the page)
I really see this being a decent alternative to the existing Tri-State/Lake Cook Road route.[/sarcasm]
Arguably better than it not getting built at all.
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page?_pageid=133,1399546&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
The tollway studies of IL 53,Illiana,Prarie Parkway,Elgin Ohare and possible new interchanges. Beyond that I count only 7 add lanes projects in Lake and Mc Henry counties and US 34 in Kendall and DeKalb as under study so we need to hope teh Tollway finds these viable.
There is nothing downstate here but there just is not enough traffic volume
Quote from: 3467 on May 14, 2011, 09:35:03 PM
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page?_pageid=133,1399546&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
The tollway studies of IL 53,Illiana,Prarie Parkway,Elgin Ohare and possible new interchanges. Beyond that I count only 7 add lanes projects in Lake and Mc Henry counties and US 34 in Kendall and DeKalb as under study so we need to hope teh Tollway finds these viable.
There is nothing downstate here but there just is not enough traffic volume
At this point, I would give anything to see everything mentioned above get built.
If ISTHA can sell the bonds they can build the roads. IDOT should then easily be able to finish these limited arterial projects and add some more
ISTHA did study a Chicago/KC route. Now we have the 110 of which I-88 is part. They also studied the I-24 extension discussed in the Fictional highways.
There is the US 20 freeway study that is moribund because of cost but at 4000 vpd a tollways does not look viable. I alos dont see the wish list bypasses of McHenry county,Rockford Peoria,Bloomington or Decatur making the cut either
Any suggestions for the route numbers if the tollway builds all these routes?
Recent forums held by the ISTHA. In New Lenox, they're in favor of the toll increase, and up north...
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110819/news/708199671/
Lots of folks in favor of the IL-53 extension.
Quote from: Brandon on August 20, 2011, 08:22:16 PM
Recent forums held by the ISTHA. In New Lenox, they're in favor of the toll increase, and up north...
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110819/news/708199671/
Lots of folks in favor of the IL-53 extension.
The IL 53 north freeway/tollway extension has always been a very popular idea with the public throughout Lake County - EXCEPT in the ultra-hoity-toity Village of Long Grove. Long Grove is the first muni off of the end of the existing IL 53 freeway at Lake-Cook Rd, accounts for about two sections worth of its ROW and is heavily populated with ultra-well-off NIMBYs and lawyers. If not for Long Grove, this highway would likely have been built in the 1970s.
And to boot, nearly all of its ROW is intact and clear and the entire corridor, including the IL 120 part, is easily visible in high-res aerial images of the area.
Mike
^^ Personally, I favor sticking it to Long Grove where it hurts and boycotting the shops there until they change their minds to be in favor of the extension.
Quote from: Brandon on August 20, 2011, 09:41:50 PM
^^ Personally, I favor sticking it to Long Grove where it hurts and boycotting the shops there until they change their minds to be in favor of the extension.
Tunnel the whole thing under Long Grove :)
Quote from: ftballfan on August 20, 2011, 09:59:04 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 20, 2011, 09:41:50 PM
^^ Personally, I favor sticking it to Long Grove where it hurts and boycotting the shops there until they change their minds to be in favor of the extension.
Tunnel the whole thing under Long Grove :)
Nah, I favor paving the whole of Long Grove. The only question is, concrete or asphalt? :evilgrin:
Concrete,Asphalt is better for a lower volume road.
Sounds like it is really funded here but they have to jump a few final hoops
I think its just ISTHA being conservative,which they are,on the outher belt projects
Quote from: ftballfan on August 20, 2011, 09:59:04 PM
Tunnel the whole thing under Long Grove :)
I don't think the soil is good enough for much other than a cut and cover design.
http://capitolfax.com/2011/08/22/chicago-to-sue-downstate-tax-havens/#comments
This is confusing . I read the Herald stories and it seemed like the Tollway would have the money to build 53 before 15 years but Morris a board member says it wont and he wont vote for the toll increase. I think he makes good points Smaller increase and more bonding later as the plan advances
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/on-route-53-in-lake-county-ill-cooperation-gets-the-job-done.html
Quote from: 3467 on February 19, 2012, 04:06:30 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/on-route-53-in-lake-county-ill-cooperation-gets-the-job-done.html
A four-lane 45mph parkway? They're fucked in the head! IL-53 needs six lanes and a higher speed limit.
http://www.lakecountyil.gov/TRANSPORTATION/Pages/PlansandStudies.aspx
This parkway would feed into the Central Lake Parkway: A tolled arterial.Its here along with Lots of 53 links
What those NIMBYs are trying to do will be functionally obsolete from the very day it opens, if it's built like that.
:banghead:
I agree, build it as a six-lane interstate-compatible tollway from the start - and yes, it can be dressed up to fit in.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on February 20, 2012, 02:57:00 AM
What those NIMBYs are trying to do will be functionally obsolete from the very day it opens, if it's built like that.
:banghead:
I agree, build it as a six-lane interstate-compatible tollway from the start - and yes, it can be dressed up to fit in.
Mike
Depends on the toll rates. Congestion Pricing could keep the road clear for 45 mph driving without jams, but make it a somewhat expensive trip. There are probably plenty of people in Lake County who would pay the going rate.
If I want to drive a 45 mph highway in Lake County, I would drive on US 12 Rand Rd. 4 lane divided highway with more than 30 stoplights in Lake County until you get north of Wauconda before having a 55 zone. This is one of the dumbest ideas to come from these people. And it's not like they didn't know about the corridor when most of those houses were built in the last housing boom. Back in 1999, my family nearly moved to Round Lake. Even 20 years before that, the 53 tollway was proposed. The corridor has not changed much in 30 some years.
Screw the NIMBYs! Give me my 6 lane highway to eventually connect to the US 12 freeway in Wisconsin like it should have been built 30 years ago. And forget about "congestion pricing" for this corridor too. ORT is just fine.
^ The current IL 83 corridor between Arlington Heights Road and US 45 would be a better example as it is closer to where the proposed 53 corridor, is four lanes divided, posted at 45 (but with most traffic at 50 to 55), and with a fair number of stoplights.
Given how fast traffic goes on US 41/Lake Shore Drive, I would expect any facility designed for 45 mph to have limited compliance and possible safety issues.
Found some of the committee meeting stuff finally
http://www.illinoistollway.com/construction-and-planning/community-outreach/illinois-route-53-120-blue-ribbon-advisory-council (http://www.illinoistollway.com/construction-and-planning/community-outreach/illinois-route-53-120-blue-ribbon-advisory-council)
In the meeting summary for September, it is mentioned that whether to toll the existing 53 freeway if a build alternative is pursued is undecided.
February seems to be the most detailed meeting:
http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-02-09_FINAL_Route+53+Workshop_all-polling-results_compressed.pdf (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-02-09_FINAL_Route+53+Workshop_all-polling-results_compressed.pdf)
Comments
1) Most of the maps for the parkway/arterial alternatives appear to have a stoplight for where IL 120 crosses under IL 21 - I hope that's just an error, and not a sign that the current interchange would be changed to an at grade design.
2) Since when 60 mph the freeway speed around Chicagoland? They should be either using the speed it would be posted at (55 mph), or the speed almost everyone drives (70 or 75 mph).
3) Only four through lanes (2x2) under either freeway scenario? :banghead: Should be at least six to start, with provisions for upgrading to eight or ten lanes. Granted there could be concerns about overloading the existing freeway south of Lake Cook Road, but I'm sure that will happen even with the no build option.
4) Too much of a land use focus - by the time any dirt gets turned for any alternative, most of the good ground near the highway is likely to be developed already.
5) I question the drainage and cross sections shown for the freeway alternatives. Something wrong with using a closed center median with a jersey barrier to reduce ROW width, and having the ground water infiltration along the outer shoulders?
Draft of the committee report is up:
http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-04-13_Council-Resolution-Apr13.pdf (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-04-13_Council-Resolution-Apr13.pdf)
Add another toll plaza on I-94 at the Wisconsin border, plus tolls for the IL 173 ramps (whose traffic just came through the Waukegan Plaza)? I'm sure this financing option would do wonders for traffic on US 45, IL 131, and that western frontage road for I-94.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 16, 2012, 10:32:46 PM
Draft of the committee report is up:
http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-04-13_Council-Resolution-Apr13.pdf (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-04-13_Council-Resolution-Apr13.pdf)
Add another toll plaza on I-94 at the Wisconsin border, plus tolls for the IL 173 ramps (whose traffic just came through the Waukegan Plaza)? I'm sure this financing option would do wonders for traffic on US 45, IL 131, and that western frontage road for I-94.
I'd love to have some of what these people are smoking!
:banghead:
Four lanes in a reduced-speed parkway? It will be *OBSOLETE*, totally traffic-clogged on the day it opens!
Try again!
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on April 17, 2012, 12:47:15 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 16, 2012, 10:32:46 PM
Draft of the committee report is up:
http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-04-13_Council-Resolution-Apr13.pdf (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-04-13_Council-Resolution-Apr13.pdf)
Add another toll plaza on I-94 at the Wisconsin border, plus tolls for the IL 173 ramps (whose traffic just came through the Waukegan Plaza)? I'm sure this financing option would do wonders for traffic on US 45, IL 131, and that western frontage road for I-94.
I'd love to have some of what these people are smoking!
:banghead:
Four lanes in a reduced-speed parkway? It will be *OBSOLETE*, totally traffic-clogged on the day it opens!
Try again!
Mike
This is wrong on so many levels! 45 mph might work on Lake Shore Drive or any other four-lane arterial, but on a limited-access parkway, it's just unacceptable. Raise it to 55, 60 or whatever the lowest speed limit is for limited-access highways in IL, and then maybe I'll think about it.
Unfortunately, the minimum speed limit on a limited access highway is 45. So, by law, the speed limit is "acceptable" by IDiOT standards.
I still believe this should be a tollway like the Tri State but with 60 mph speed limit and some interchanges (Lake Cook, IL 22, IL 60-83 or Midlothian Rd, IL 176, new IL 120).
At four lanes and 45mph, the parkway will become a parking lot at rush hour. Off-peak, no one will pay any heed to the 45 mph limit. It will be just as ignored as the current 55mph limits on the expressways and tollways.
Even on LSD, 45mph fails. Most folks go 60.
Only Scenarios D & E work, and the managed transit lane of E is a joke in an area with development as scattered as Lake County.
Quote from: Brandon on April 17, 2012, 10:11:03 PM
At four lanes and 45mph, the parkway will become a parking lot at rush hour. Off-peak, no one will pay any heed to the 45 mph limit. It will be just as ignored as the current 55mph limits on the expressways and tollways.
Even on LSD, 45mph fails. Most folks go 60.
Only Scenarios D & E work, and the managed transit lane of E is a joke in an area with development as scattered as Lake County.
I absolutely agree.
According to a toll authority employee, the parkway for IL 53 is likely to have a truck ban. Due to the ban (apparently trucks are a good revenue source) and the design (four lanes instead of six), a local tax option would probably be necessary to finance it.
Remember that when the first part of I-355 opened north of I-55 (late 1980s), it was four lanes. Due to traffic, it was upgraded to six lanes a couple of years later.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on April 19, 2012, 02:03:56 AM
Remember that when the first part of I-355 opened north of I-55 (late 1980s), it was four lanes. Due to traffic, it was upgraded to six lanes a couple of years later.
Mike
While that is true, the ISTHA actually did a smart thing by making the bridges wide enough for 6 when 355 was originally built in 1989. There was also no truck ban either.
I haven't driven through the area in a while so I'm unaware if this is old news, but I was on I-80 WB near Joliet approaching I-355 NB. The control city for NB 355 was 'Rockford' (instead of West Suburbs). I thought that was pretty interesting (and confusing for some, I suppose). However, Rockford was my destination so the control city designation made sense to me....so maybe a lot of travelers do use I-80/I-355/I-290 to bypass downtown Chicago (and the Tri-State).
I wonder if the control city will change if/when IL-53 is built????
Quote from: sandwalk on April 20, 2012, 08:49:10 PM
I haven't driven through the area in a while so I'm unaware if this is old news, but I was on I-80 WB near Joliet approaching I-355 NB. The control city for NB 355 was 'Rockford' (instead of West Suburbs). I thought that was pretty interesting (and confusing for some, I suppose). However, Rockford was my destination so the control city designation made sense to me....so maybe a lot of travelers do use I-80/I-355/I-290 to bypass downtown Chicago (and the Tri-State).
I wonder if the control city will change if/when IL-53 is built????
I doubt it. "Rockford" seems to be IDOT's control for I-355 at I-80. The ISTHA control seems to be "West Suburbs". The newer signs there on I-80 were installed by IDOT, and the older ones (in spite of the exit numbers) were installed by ISTHA. You can tell from the stroke width on the word "EXIT" and on the number. ISTHA's are narrower than IDOT's.
What I guess you probably would see as the control cities at the I-90 jct if/when 53 is extended would be Lake Geneva, Milwaukee, Waukegan, and/or Madison.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120507/news/705079911/
Tolling existing 53 is part of the plan. I hope it sppeds it up and for that matter I am with Brandon Toll them all end IDOT
Quote from: 3467 on May 08, 2012, 05:19:49 PM
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120507/news/705079911/
Tolling existing 53 is part of the plan. I hope it sppeds it up and for that matter I am with Brandon Toll them all end IDOT
Article is behind a pay-wall....
:banghead:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 08, 2012, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 08, 2012, 05:19:49 PM
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120507/news/705079911/
Tolling existing 53 is part of the plan. I hope it sppeds it up and for that matter I am with Brandon Toll them all end IDOT
Article is behind a pay-wall....
Mike
I'm able to read the whole thing... It's the same as Brandon discussed at the meet though.
http://capitolfax.com/2012/05/08/morning-shorts-831/
Maybe you can avoid the pay wall through this link. The story describes how parts of existing free freeways will end up being part of tolled freeways in order to make them viabale projects.
The article does not mention how fast this would speed up route 53
Here is a new planning report for Route 53 extension into Lake County. It is written by consultants for the Illinois Tollway.
http://www.frego.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Council-Resolution-May9.pdf (http://www.frego.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Council-Resolution-May9.pdf)
I hope they go for Scenario E, which call for 3 lanes in each direction and a travel speed of 60 MPH.
I live near Route 53 and Lake Cook Road. Rush hour traffic is horrendous in this area.
It looks to me like a fancy-printed repeat of what was being discussed upthread. Yes, anything less than 'E' will be functionally obsolete on the day that it opens, especially if the numbers given (actual counts of 100K+ AADT on the current IL 53 extension at Lake-Cook Rd) is correct. Usually about 50K is the threshold for considering six-lane upgrades.
Remember that the Netherlands went all-in for the 'induced demand'/'let's not build what we need to prevent people from using their cars in order to save the environment' fallacy from the late 1970s though the 1990s and are now paying for it BIG TIME - they're laying out billions of Euros per year now playing 'catch up' with their highway system and have at least a decade to go before they will be mostly done.
Also, if you agree with us on these points, by all means - contact the ISTHA and let them know!
Mike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/grayslake/chi-council-urges-tollway-to-built-highway-53-extension-in-lake-county-20120628,0,3065663.story
Looks like a done deal to me so they can start it before 2020 or another toll hike
It sorta sounds like a longer, tolled version of the Keystone Parkway in Carmel Indiana.
limited to 4 lanes, 45MPH? i didnt know flatlanders could be so stupid.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on June 28, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
limited to 4 lanes, 45MPH? i didnt know flatlanders could be so stupid.
1. It'll be outdated the minute it opens. Watch for massive traffic backups and widening within two years.
2. No one will pay any heed to the asinine 45 mph limit.
It should be 6 lanes and 60 mph thru Lake County. I think IDiOT has influenced ISTHA.
I suspect the plan is to get the thing jammed in there, get people using it, tick them off with the congestion and low speed limits, and then get approval to put in upgrades. It's pretty savvy when you think about it.
^ Might work for the IL 120 portions, but I would not be surprised if ISHTA ends up signing some sort of long term agreement with Long Grove and/or Hawthorne Woods that prevents any easy fixes.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 10, 2012, 08:09:10 PM
^ Might work for the IL 120 portions, but I would not be surprised if ISHTA ends up signing some sort of long term agreement with Long Grove and/or Hawthorne Woods that prevents any easy fixes.
Fuck Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. In fact, I favor a full boycott of everyone of Long Grove's downtown area until the assholes get the point that IL-53 needs to be built, and built properly.
Quote from: Brandon on July 10, 2012, 10:51:57 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 10, 2012, 08:09:10 PM
^ Might work for the IL 120 portions, but I would not be surprised if ISHTA ends up signing some sort of long term agreement with Long Grove and/or Hawthorne Woods that prevents any easy fixes.
Fuck Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. In fact, I favor a full boycott of everyone of Long Grove's downtown area until the assholes get the point that IL-53 needs to be built, and built properly.
Brandon coming with the heat! I love it. Stick it to the man. In all seriousness, 53 has been long proposed (at least ever since I moved here in the early 80s) and people who moved into the area in the last 20 years IMO have no say or gripe to complain about because they knew it was coming.
Since I used to live near the area of the Illinois 53 extension I am here to suggest good tactics to use when building this highway. Even if trees have to be cut down trees in the way of the Illinois 53 highway, I think there is still a need on replacing those trees. Maybe if trees and plants get erected into the ground along the highway, It could block pollution from spreading around the area, for example Long Grove is a small village in Illinois and a peace and quiet town and a forest like area with lots of trees and not a lot of pollution and if the noise level could be kept down there would be a need for strong sound barriers along the highway where homes are near because then the noise level of traffic would be kept down. The highway would extend from Lake Cook Road North to the future IL-120 bypass and then follow along the 120 bypass going west untill 120 ends at U.S.12/Illinois 59 and then Illinois 53 would continue and follow along U.S. 12 and meet with the current
freeway in Genoa City in Wisconsin and then U.S. 12 through Fox lake to Genoa City would become U.S. 12 Business.
Cam the design is done and I would say the deal is done. You can look at the designslinked in this post The road is elevated so wetlands are not destroyed. Its expensive but after all these years I think it will be built soon rather than later.
Unlike others projects it all takes place in one county and IDOT and Pat Quinn are not involved
If that road is built like is described above, it will be obsolete the day it opens. The next question would then be - 'How long before it is upgraded?'.
:no:
Mike
Mike as I read the plan it wont be because as a new road ISTHA cam raise or lower prices to keep the volume they want which is a slow moving free flow. This is going to be a project we want to keep and eye for issues of congestion pricing and unique design.
It was almost more unique because the IL 120 part was planned as a tolled arterial not a tolled freeway.
so you just toll the road untill it becomes more inconvinient than the already congested local roads are now? what is the point of building it then? i dont have a problem with it being an extension of the illinois toll road system, although i personaly hate toll roads, but to build an inadequite arterial were a high powered urban freeway is badly needed is just a stupid waste of money.
I read it as ISTHA will toll it so it doesnt become congested. It will be expensive but not so expenive that traffic is moving at 70....more like 55-60( ten miles over the posted).
I really think the 45 is to pacify Long Grove like Lake Shore Drives 45 in Chicago.
I will admit its just hunches but ISTHA is not stupid
Quote from: 3467 on August 19, 2012, 05:03:15 PM
I read it as ISTHA will toll it so it doesnt become congested. It will be expensive but not so expenive that traffic is moving at 70....more like 55-60( ten miles over the posted).
I really think the 45 is to pacify Long Grove like Lake Shore Drives 45 in Chicago.
I will admit its just hunches but ISTHA is not stupid
Yeah but we all know that other than the Oak St curve and the section between Monroe and Roosevelt, traffic on Lake Shore Dr usually is going about 55-60 mph in the 45. Hell I have even seen some of those crotch rockets whiz by at like 80.
Yep and it will be on Route 53 especially if volume is kept low with too high a toll. I see it as PR just like LSD is PR ,though i did get caught there late one night many years ago...
PR?
Public realtions. We are going to build a 4 lane 15 mile long road with no traffic lights high tolls and no 35mph curves........and everyone is going to drive 45 MPH
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/grayslake_gurnee_round_lake/chi-highway-53-120-extension-contract-20130220,0,6757713.story
omg, they're still talking about building a stupid parkway? SMH...
^ I think there will be talk about a parkway design until there is a change in power in Springfield that also purges the toll authority of its current leadership.
IMHO, there should be a comparison of the parkway design versus upgrading IL 83 to a six lane superstreet - though getting the superstreet park as unlikely as getting the parkway back to a full 65 mph tolled freeway design.
http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Transportation/Pages/default.aspx
2020 plan under plans,studies on left did just that It required more road widenings that IDOT and Lake County cant afford . Springfield needs an enema but that wont change this
^ Those maps need to be remade; it seems half the projects have fallen off/decided against (the I-94 interchange at Washington Street, widening IL 83 to four lanes from IL 132 into Antioch for example) or are so dormant they won't be done until 2035.
Yes Lake count has never updated its plan. I think Will and Kane did and maybe Mchenry. I have never seen one for Cook or Dupage
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 24, 2013, 01:40:43 PM
^ Those maps need to be remade; it seems half the projects have fallen off/decided against (the I-94 interchange at Washington Street, widening IL 83 to four lanes from IL 132 into Antioch for example) or are so dormant they won't be done until 2035.
Yeah, that happens when the state is broker than Greece. I have a feeling a lot of IDOT projects will be much delayed in the coming years. :banghead:
Dusting off this topic . . .
To partly pay for the IL 53 extension, the Toll Authority is considering bringing back the Deerfield Toll Plaza. See http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/6270345/2014+09++03_IL53_120-TollingMFTWorkingGroup_APPROVEDMeetingMinutes (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/6270345/2014+09++03_IL53_120-TollingMFTWorkingGroup_APPROVEDMeetingMinutes)
and where will they fit in a new Deerfield Toll Plaza + maybe Deerfield road on ramp fly over to I-94.
4 inner lanes for I-94 (free pass) + 1 Deerfield road on ramp flyover? and 3-4 each way for I-294 high speed toll + cash lanes there?
Maybe split toll?
what about some kind of ticket system for that part of I-94 / I-294?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on November 05, 2014, 10:16:49 PM
and where will they fit in a new Deerfield Toll Plaza + maybe Deerfield road on ramp fly over to I-94.
Almost certainly it will be electronic tolling only.
ETC only on mainline? why just do a full ETR 407 then for the full IL toll way system?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on November 05, 2014, 11:07:59 PM
ETC only on mainline? why just do a full ETR 407 then for the full IL toll way system?
I daresay that something like that is in the cards sooner or later.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on November 06, 2014, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on November 05, 2014, 11:07:59 PM
ETC only on mainline? why just do a full ETR 407 then for the full IL toll way system?
I daresay that something like that is in the cards sooner or later.
It's coming closer with the new I-57/I-294 interchange. As 85-90% of tollway users use I-Pass (aka E-Z Pass), it's pretty much easy to do. At least ISTHA allows non-I-Pass users to pay online unlike the 407-ETR.
Quote from: Brandon on November 06, 2014, 05:03:21 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on November 06, 2014, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on November 05, 2014, 11:07:59 PM
ETC only on mainline? why just do a full ETR 407 then for the full IL toll way system?
I daresay that something like that is in the cards sooner or later.
It's coming closer with the new I-57/I-294 interchange. As 85-90% of tollway users use I-Pass (aka E-Z Pass), it's pretty much easy to do. At least ISTHA allows non-I-Pass users to pay online unlike the 407-ETR.
The Elgin O'hare will be an ETR starting in 2016. Perhaps this will help us get used to the IL 53 extension being an ETR.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141120/news/141129807/ (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141120/news/141129807/)
Though, I wouldn't pay to go 35 mph with stop lights and tolls on the 120 bypass when I can go 55 mph on "old Rt 120" and Peterson Rd for free. That seems to be the option chosen by the Blue Ribbon Advisory Council, they chose option B.
Edit: It appears as of April 2012, a hybrid of option B and option E has been selected.
Hybrid alternative on page 16
http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-04-13_Council-Resolution-Apr13.pdf (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-04-13_Council-Resolution-Apr13.pdf)
Starts on page 30.
http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-02-09_FINAL_Route+53+Workshop_all-polling-results_compressed.pdf (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-02-09_FINAL_Route+53+Workshop_all-polling-results_compressed.pdf)
Option A: IL 53 - four lane undivided artery, outer paved shoulder, speed limit 35 mph, stop lights, stop signs, round abouts, and interchanges, no tolls. Replace Lake Cook Rd interchange with a stop light.
Interchange at Lake Cook Rd: No. Replaced with a stop light.
Intersection at Hicks Rd: Undetermined. Could be stop sign or round about.
Intersection at Long Grove Rd: Stop light.
Intersection at Cuba Rd: Undetermined. Could be stop sign or round about.
Intersection at IL 22: Stop light.
Intersection at Old McHenry Rd: Stop light.
Intersection at Gilmer Rd: Stop light.
Intersection with CN line: At grade.
Intersection at Midlothian Rd: Stop light.
Intersection at IL 83 / IL 60: Stop light.
Intersection at Hawley St: Stop light.
Intersection at IL 176: Stop light.
Intersection at Winchester Rd: Undetermined. Could be stop sign or round about.
Interchange at IL 120: Yes.
IL 120 - four lane undivided artery, outer paved shoulder, speed limit 35 mph, stop lights, stop signs, round abouts, and interchanges, no tolls. Replace IL 21 interchange with a stop light.
Interchange at IL 53: Yes.
Interchange at Allegheny Rd: Yes.
Interchange at I-94: Yes.
Intersection at IL 21: Stop light.
Intersection at Hunt Club Rd.: Stop light.
Intersection at Almond Rd: Undetermined. Stop sign or round about.
Intersection at U.S. 45: Stop light.
Intersection at CN line: At grade.
Intersection at Metra line: At grade.
Intersection at "Old Rt 120": Stop light.
Intersection at Fairfield Rd: Stop light.
Intersection at Wilson Rd: Stop light.
Intersection at Fish Lake Rd: Undetermined. Currently a stop light. Could become a round about.
Intersection at IL 60: Undetermined. Currently a stop light. Could become a round about.
Intersection at Gilmer Rd: Undetermined. Currently a stop light. Could become a round about.
Intersection at U.S. 12: Stop light.
Option B: IL 53 - four lane divided parkway, speed limit 45 mph, access at interchanges only, tolled.
Same interchanges and grade separations as option E.
IL 120 from west of Hainesville Rd to west of U.S. 45 - four lane divided parkway, outer paved shoulder, no inner shoulder, speed limit 45 mph, access at interchanges only, tolled.
Interchange with Allegheny Rd: Yes.
Intersection with CN line: Grade separated.
Intersection with Metra line: Grade separated.
IL 120 from west of Hainesville Rd to U.S. Rt. 12 and west of Almond Rd to I-94 - widen existing artery to four lanes undivided, construct new artery section east of U.S. 45 to connect to existing IL 120 artery, outer paved shoulder, no inner shoulder, speed limit 35 mph, undivide existing divided highway, replace IL 21 interchange with a stop light, stop lights, stop lights, round abouts, unlimited access, untolled.
Interchange with U.S. 45: No. Stop light instead.
Intersection with Almond Rd: Undetermined. Stop sign or round about.
Interchange with Huntclub Rd: No. Stop light instead.
Interchange with IL 21: No. Stop light instead.
Interchange with I-94: Yes.
Option C: IL 53 - four lane divided parkway, outer paved shoulder, no inner shoulder, speed limit 45 mph, access at interchanges only, tolled.
Same interchanges and grade separations as option E.
IL 120 - four lane divided parkway, outer paved shoulder, no inner shoulder, speed limit 45 mph, access at interchanges only, tolled.
Same interchanges and grade separations as option E.
Option D: IL 53 - four lane expressway, paved inner and outer shoulders, speed limit 60 mph, access at interchanges only, tolled.
Same interchanges and grade separations as option E.
IL 120 - four lane expressway, paved inner and outer shoulders, speed limit 60 mph, access at interchanges only, tolled.
Same interchanges and grade separations as option E.
Option E: IL 53 - six lane expressway with the inner lane in each direction being managed for Pace bus service and or HOV lane, paved inner and outer shoulders, speed limit 60 mph, access at interchanges only, tolled.
Interchange with Lake Cook Rd: Yes
Interchange with IL 22: Yes
Interchange with Midlothian Rd: Yes
Interchange with Peterson Rd: Yes
Interchange with IL 53 - IL 120 junction: Yes
All rail roads grade separated: Yes.
All other cross roads grade separated: Yes.
IL 120 - six lane expressway with the inner lane in each direction being managed for Pace bus service and or HOV lane, paved inner and outer shoulders, speed limit 60 mph, access at interchanges only, tolled.
Interchange with U.S. 45: Yes
Interchange with Huntclub Rd: Yes
Interchange with IL 21: Yes
Interchange with I-94: Yes
Interchange with Allegheny Rd: Yes
Interchange with Fairfield Rd: Yes
Interchange with Wilson Rd: Yes
Interchange with U.S. 12: Yes
All rail roads grade separated: Yes
All cross roads grade separated: Yes
I think lowering the speed limit from what is currently 55 mph to 35 mph is idiotic, as well as replacing the interchange with IL 21 with a stop light and undividing the divided section of IL 120. The most idiotic suggestion of all is replacing the Lake Cook Rd interchange with a stop light, an intersection that handles over 100,000 vehicles a day,about the volume handled by the 8 lane Tri State tollway. Putting stop lights on a road that carries over 100,000 vehicles a day would be like putting stop lights on the Tri State tollway.
I'd rather see it not get built if option B is what gets built.
I think the hybrid alternative is better to build then nothing and perhaps can be upgraded to full 6 lane expressway in the future. I suppose you could bulldoze round abouts and build an expressway at a later time, but it would have been cheaper to just build it as a 6 lane expressway in the first place.
The hybrid alternative (B and E):IL 53: Tolled 4 lane parkway with a speed limit of 45 mph with right of way reserved to add a managed transit lane in the future for PACE bus service and or HOV lane. Access at interchanges only. All interchanges and grade separations of option E. Will have a wide grassy median in rural areas and will have a narrow concrete median going through Mundelein. Unknown if the section through Mundelein will have shoulders.
IL 120 from west of Alleghenny Rd to east of U.S. 45: Same design as IL 53 above.
Limited bypass option for IL 120 west of Alleghenny Rd: IL 120 tollway parallels and then joins with "old Rt 120" without crossing squaw creek. Split couplet at grade roadway has a speed limit of 45 mph and only 4 lanes as it winds through the oak savanah to the south of "old Rt 120" in Hainesville. Crossing Squaw creek is avoided. Existing artery is converted to an at grade 4 lane divided parkway with a speed limit of 45 mph, with undetermined at grade intersections that could be stop lights, stop signs, or round abouts, until west of Wilson Rd. No modifications to existing 4 lane divided artery west of Wilson Rd.
Interchange with U.S. 12: No. Stop light.
Grade separation with Gilmer Rd: No. Stop light.
Grade separation with IL 60: No. Stop light.
Grade separation with Fish Lake Rd: No. Stop light.
Interchange with Wilson Rd: No. Undetermined at grade intersection.
Interchange with Fairfield Rd: No. Undetermined at grade intersection.
Cedar Lake Rd: Undetermined at grade intersection.
Bacon Rd: Undetermined at grade intersection.
Interchange with "old Rt 120": Undetermined.
Interchange with Alleghenny Rd: Yes.
West bypass option for IL 120 west of Alleghenny Rd: Divided tolled 4 lane parkway crosses Squaw Creek wetlands on causeways. Involves aquiring ROW from a subdivision next to Campbell Airport. The road goes right through the middle of that subdivision paralleling Campbell Airport. Section parallel to Campbell Airport is divided tolled 4 lane parkway below grade with a wide grassy median. Joins existing artery west of Fairfield Rd. West of Fairfield Rd, existing 2 lane artery is converted into a divided tolled 4 lane parkway below grade with a wide grassy median, until west of Wilson Rd. No modifications to existing 4 lane divided artery west of Wilson Rd.
Interchange with U.S. 12: No. Stop light.
Grade separation with Gilmer Rd: No. Stop light.
Grade separation with IL 60: No. Stop light.
Grade separation with Fish Lake Rd: No. Stop light.
Interchange with "old Rt 120": Undetermined.
Interchange with Wilson Rd: Undetermined.
Interchange with Fairfield Rd: Undetermined.
Cedar Lake Rd: No access. Undetermined if will be grade separated or cul-desacked.
Bacon Rd: No access. Undetermined if will be grade separated or cul-desacked.
Interchange with Alleghenny Rd: Yes.
just build Option D if a 6 lane ROW costs to much / ect.
Also 60? should be 70. But 45 for Option C?? when us 12 has 50-55 parts with lights and drive ways?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 07, 2015, 08:17:03 PM
just build Option D if a 6 lane ROW costs to much / ect.
Edited my post. It looks like the plan is to build a 4 lane with ROW for 6 lanes, at least for the IL 53 section. The IL 120 section is still a mess with the hybrid of B and E.
Still looking at 45 MPH?? will the cops give a damn? let you do 55-60? 60-65? 70? (like how they let you do 70 on the other 55 toll ways and Interstates)
What about I-94 and IL-120 will that be changed?
Wasn't I-355 (I-80 to I-290) built as 'Option D' and upgraded to six lanes after only a couple of years?
If so, that's the way that I'd go and it is a *huge* improvement on those dippy 'Parkway' options.
:thumbsup:
And even with interstate-compatibility, it certainly can be designed to compliment its surroundings.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on March 08, 2015, 12:53:53 AM
Wasn't I-355 (I-80 to I-290) built as 'Option D' and upgraded to six lanes after only a couple of years?
Mike
Sections are up to 8 lanes now, mainly by the Army Trail toll plaza and between I-88 and I-55
Quote from: ET21 on March 08, 2015, 06:07:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 08, 2015, 12:53:53 AM
Wasn't I-355 (I-80 to I-290) built as 'Option D' and upgraded to six lanes after only a couple of years?
Mike
Sections are up to 8 lanes now, mainly by the Army Trail toll plaza and between I-88 and I-55
It was late when I posted that, I meant 'I-55 to I-290'. OTOH, I do see that you replied based on that assumption.
:-P
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on March 10, 2015, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: ET21 on March 08, 2015, 06:07:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 08, 2015, 12:53:53 AM
Wasn't I-355 (I-80 to I-290) built as 'Option D' and upgraded to six lanes after only a couple of years?
Mike
Sections are up to 8 lanes now, mainly by the Army Trail toll plaza and between I-88 and I-55
It was late when I posted that, I meant 'I-55 to I-290'. OTOH, I do see that you replied based on that assumption.
:-P
Mike
It's why the I-80 to I-55 section was built as 6 lanes to begin with. ISTHA learned their lesson on the other part of I-355. It's also why Option E is the only really acceptable option. Until Long Grove gets a reality check, I favor boycotting any business there.
o'plaine road also needs a interchange as well.
Quote from: mgk920 on March 10, 2015, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: ET21 on March 08, 2015, 06:07:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 08, 2015, 12:53:53 AM
Wasn't I-355 (I-80 to I-290) built as 'Option D' and upgraded to six lanes after only a couple of years?
Mike
Sections are up to 8 lanes now, mainly by the Army Trail toll plaza and between I-88 and I-55
;-)
It was late when I posted that, I meant 'I-55 to I-290'. OTOH, I do see that you replied based on that assumption.
:-P
Mike
Tollway press release regarding committee recommended funding plan for IL 53 extension (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/d28f2cc5-4fc3-4a25-bc3a-a8774d6f9bc6)
A few things I've learned from people 'in the know'-
The 45mph limit will be enforced by the design of the roadway itself. Two 12-ft lanes in each direction likely with only an 8-ft right shoulder, if any shoulder at all (think the new Irving Park Rd/IL19 through O'Hare), and either a center median/bioswale or a concrete median with no left shoulder. The road will also wind and bend to avoid trees and other natural features, and won't use standard geometric design standards for access points, of which there are few. This was a major concession to Long Grove and helped get them on board.
The 45mph limit is also pretty much the biggest contributor to low road-noise predictions. Raise the limit to 60mph and the noise levels would be too great to be blocked by a berm, and more importantly, look bad on village planning documents.
The 45mph limit is a ruse to get the damn thing finally started, and I say kudos. They will eventually design a nice parkway with a 50-60mph limit; it can be done. IDOT and and the TollBois know this. By this summer the entire 355/290 corridor from 55 to 90 will be signed 60mph limit, and the Tri-State at IL120 will be 65mph. Let em build a cheap meandering 4-lane parkway; get it DONE already, and with certain design allowances it can be easily upgraded in the future.
Then the entire corridor, from 94 south to 80, can be given an I-53 designation, or be a southern continuation of new I-41. But that's another story.
But how can they do 45 When US12 has 55 parts and that is with cross traffic and lights?
also at lake cook road Will that part till I-290 go to 60 or higher? giveing the road an 55 (more like a real limit of 65-70+) down to 45? in a very fast way? How much will be put into that 45? as seems like LSD traffic goes way over the limits on that road with a lot of cop slack.
About Chicagoland speed limits- the IL State Police have acknowledged they don't pull over drivers going up to 10mph over the posted speed limits. So the 'real' limits in a 55mph zone is 65mph, 60mph is 70, etc. This is why the posted limits on suburban tollways will NEVER be 70mph; police would either have to pull over and ticket many more drivers, or tolerate a 'real' 80mph limit, which is unacceptable.
Look into the Merritt Parkway in CT; this is they type of parkway Lake County envisions. If built as a parkway (which is still not a done deal) the 'real' limit will be 55mph, slower than an interstate, but that's not what it is. Parkways ARE slower, but once a parkway exists, it's just a matter of adding shoulders and straightening out a few curves. A winding 55mph parkway is a lot better than nothing, and we ALL know the low limit won't last.
Quote from: premier707 on March 23, 2015, 01:54:07 PM
About Chicagoland speed limits- the IL State Police have acknowledged they don't pull over drivers going up to 10mph over the posted speed limits. So the 'real' limits in a 55mph zone is 65mph, 60mph is 70, etc. This is why the posted limits on suburban tollways will NEVER be 70mph; police would either have to pull over and ticket many more drivers, or tolerate a 'real' 80mph limit, which is unacceptable.
Look into the Merritt Parkway in CT; this is they type of parkway Lake County envisions. If built as a parkway (which is still not a done deal) the 'real' limit will be 55mph, slower than an interstate, but that's not what it is. Parkways ARE slower, but once a parkway exists, it's just a matter of adding shoulders and straightening out a few curves. A winding 55mph parkway is a lot better than nothing, and we ALL know the low limit won't last.
The road needs to be six lanes and built to Interstate standards, anything less will not adequately address the problem. The current parkway design would not allow for a higher speed limit than 45 mph
On the last page of the release under About Move Illinois.......Illiana Expressway and other emerging projects"
What might those be?. They aren't in the 2040 plan. Is the Tollway looking at something we have all missed or just keeping its options open on something like the Prairie Parkway
I would guess just keeping options open, but there are a few projects I believe they will pursue; at some point the city of Chicago will sell the ROW in the old Crosstown corridor. The city could sell the ROW to the toll authority, who could then build a super-2 (really a series of high-speed ramps) with only system interchanges at 90/94, 290, 55, Midway, and 57. Corridor development costs could be shared with the city, who would likely build a CTA line in the median or elevated over the mainline. The corridor is 50-100ft wide, enough for 4 lanes, albeit not at current interstate standards. It could be promoted as a downtown bypass for longer-distance travel and would be a big revenue generator, and likely congestion priced. This would be a long way off, 2030s at the earliest.
Other possibilities I could see are reconstructing the Palatine Rd. corridor from IL53 to 294 as a toll parkway a'la the proposed 53/120 project. Or perhaps a re-aligned western IL390 extension through a utility corridor west from its endpoint and south to Stearns Rd across the Fox River towards St. Charles. The western terminus of IL390 is in flux and currently unknown, a major reason why it was designated a state route and not an interstate (it is also a bureaucratic asspain to convert a free interstate to a tolled one, although it can be done). The toll authority could also be plotting a Fox Valley tollway. The recording of the centerline was cancelled in the early 90s, a big reason why the IL390 endpoint remains unclear. FAP 420 (US12 upgrade/bypass connecting Genoa City, WI to the proposed western terminus of 53/120) is yet another possibility, but was likely hindered by much of the surrounding area receiving federal environmental protection.
But regarding the Illiana, I believe it's DOA. The energy and money associated with its development will (hopefully) be focused on the 53/120 project.
And within a decade of opening 53/120 WILL be a six-lane interstate; by building a four-lane parkway the tollway will (finally!) get a limited-access road built, and within a few years, Lake County residents (and bondholders) will demand an upgrade, with perhaps a few 45mph 'speed zones' in residential areas. There is already talk of having a 55mph limit until north of Midlothian Rd. The 53/120 planners have already acknowledged room for 2 additional lanes will be reserved in the ROW, which makes adding lanes no big deal. Eventually the entire corridor from 94 to 80 will get a single interstate designation and all will be right with the world.
I think you are right on the crosstown and EOE extensions. Palatine is interesting too. I don't see the road to Wisconsin as much as we all like it the Richmond bypass was canned in the EIS process so IL 53 is not likely there But I really think you are spot on ..on the rest
I too think Illiana is gone
I wondered if they would be involved in the downstate freeways Only 4 are under study and 2 Peoria bypass and US 20 have considered tolling. The other 2 Bloomington and Decatur are way way off Also Missouri has considered help from out of state for I-70
Speaking of tolling existing roads ...Tolling IL 53 from 90 north was in the original plan . It wasn't an original interstate so it doesn't need congressional approval just state and FHWA . There are several non original interstates in Illinois like 39 I have to wonder if the Tollway is looking at them. A project like 20 would interest them if they could grab 39. Sorry for the speculation but they sure left the door open and these are all things on present and past wish lists
IL394 is another possibility for tolling maybe. I also think the toll authority is looking at old IDOT plans from the 90s-00s. The Palatine Rd upgrade was in those plans, as was a connector between 290 and 55 near the Western Ave corridor.
Another big project for them is a new 90/290/IL53 interchange in Schaumburg. It is easily a $1billon project, but some revenues could be realized by tolling new Woodfield-area access from 90. They could also take over construction of the Cumberland flyover from IDOT and toll drivers coming in off 190 to exit at Cumberland.
I recall the Western Ave idea . An IKE Stevenson connector. I hope you are right Need some vision in this state.
There are also the HOT lanes on Stevenson and IKE
Also the west end of Kennedy was not an original chargeable interstate
Quote from: 3467 on March 24, 2015, 12:20:30 AM
I think you are right on the crosstown and EOE extensions. Palatine is interesting too. I don't see the road to Wisconsin as much as we all like it the Richmond bypass was canned in the EIS process so IL 53 is not likely there But I really think you are spot on ..on the rest
Regarding the US 12 Richmond, IL bypass - if and when the need becomes sufficiently acute, the Congressional will will be there (See: 'MN 36/WI 64 Saint Croix River bridge').
:nod:
Mike
The west end of the Kennedy...sigh. I drive that thing almost daily. It's pretty much original and never been reconstructed since it opened in 1960. IDOT has a plan to add an extra lane in both directions between Cumberland and Harlem and add C/D lanes at Cumberland, but it's not enough. The Harlem CTA station would have to be demolished and rebuilt. The huge structure at Milwaukee and the RR has no room for expansion. It would be billions and billions to bring that thing up to standards. The only way I could see the tollway doing something on the Kennedy is to somehow depress the el tracks in the median into a new subway, and extend the reversible lanes from 94 to 190/Jane Addams. Even that would be billions, and the tollway would likely end up tolling the entire reversible segment from Ohio St to O'Hare.
Quote from: premier707 on March 24, 2015, 12:37:16 AM
IL394 is another possibility for tolling maybe. I also think the toll authority is looking at old IDOT plans from the 90s-00s. The Palatine Rd upgrade was in those plans, as was a connector between 290 and 55 near the Western Ave corridor.
Another big project for them is a new 90/290/IL53 interchange in Schaumburg. It is easily a $1billon project, but some revenues could be realized by tolling new Woodfield-area access from 90. They could also take over construction of the Cumberland flyover from IDOT and toll drivers coming in off 190 to exit at Cumberland.
They may toll IL-53 from I-90 as well.
Palatine Rd upgrade can be done as well but a parkway way? when they just need a few more overpasses? I can see more overpasses with out having to knock down any business / homes.
Quote from: premier707 on March 24, 2015, 12:51:23 AM
The west end of the Kennedy...sigh. I drive that thing almost daily. It's pretty much original and never been reconstructed since it opened in 1960. IDOT has a plan to add an extra lane in both directions between Cumberland and Harlem and add C/D lanes at Cumberland, but it's not enough. The Harlem CTA station would have to be demolished and rebuilt. The huge structure at Milwaukee and the RR has no room for expansion. It would be billions and billions to bring that thing up to standards. The only way I could see the tollway doing something on the Kennedy is to somehow depress the el tracks in the median into a new subway, and extend the reversible lanes from 94 to 190/Jane Addams. Even that would be billions, and the tollway would likely end up tolling the entire reversible segment from Ohio St to O'Hare.
They can add aux lanes in some places as well with out needing to mess with the CTA. By Harlem they just need to cut part of the parking lot / storage room? / power room? and remove the loop ramp. Or just have 4 lanes with no shoulder.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 24, 2015, 09:53:39 AM
Quote from: premier707 on March 24, 2015, 12:37:16 AM
IL394 is another possibility for tolling maybe. I also think the toll authority is looking at old IDOT plans from the 90s-00s. The Palatine Rd upgrade was in those plans, as was a connector between 290 and 55 near the Western Ave corridor.
Another big project for them is a new 90/290/IL53 interchange in Schaumburg. It is easily a $1billon project, but some revenues could be realized by tolling new Woodfield-area access from 90. They could also take over construction of the Cumberland flyover from IDOT and toll drivers coming in off 190 to exit at Cumberland.
They may toll IL-53 from I-90 as well.
Palatine Rd upgrade can be done as well but a parkway way? when they just need a few more overpasses? I can see more overpasses with out having to knock down any business / homes.
What about an IL-83 upgrade as well? Maybe same toll pricing as I-355 / I-294
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10104.msg238730#msg238730
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 24, 2015, 09:58:08 AM
They can add aux lanes in some places as well with out needing to mess with the CTA. By Harlem they just need to cut part of the parking lot / storage room? / power room? and remove the loop ramp. Or just have 4 lanes with no shoulder.
The biggest single problem on the Kennedy is the huge concrete structure at Milwaukee Ave and the Metra. It is a 3-level complex with 3 lanes in each direction with very narrow shoulders inside the structure. It is a behemoth and would cost billions to demolish and reconstruct. If extra lanes were added they'd have to begin/end by Foster and would just move bottlenecks a few miles east. And at Harlem there is no room for a 4th lane even with no shoulders. The whole thing is quite a relic.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 24, 2015, 10:01:55 AM
They may toll IL-53 from I-90 as well.
Palatine Rd upgrade can be done as well but a parkway way? when they just need a few more overpasses? I can see more overpasses with out having to knock down any business / homes.
What about an IL-83 upgrade as well? Maybe same toll pricing as I-355 / I-294
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10104.msg238730#msg238730
[/quote]
They WILL toll IL53 all the way to 90. The Palatine corridor was studied a few times in the 90s. There IS room for either a 6-lane interstate, or a 4-lane parkway with a 3-lane access/frontage road. ROW would be needed, for toll installation and drainage/retention areas. If the 53/120 parkway goes through I'd expect this to be their next big project.
An IL83 upgrade is another possibility; the corridor from 290 to 90 was studied during the EOE studies; an IL83 upgrade was an alternative to the bypass/490. I believe Elk Grove put the kibash on that, and would continue to oppose it, although I suppose there would be a market for a tollway going from IL390 south past 290 into Oak Brook.
Quote from: premier707 on March 24, 2015, 10:17:31 PM
They may toll IL-53 from I-90 as well.
The last I heard from a very good source, none of the Cook County portion of IL-53 will be tolled to help pay for the extension into Lake County. Any additional revenue streams needed to pay for this would be raised entirely in Lake County.
Quote from: premier707 on March 24, 2015, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 24, 2015, 10:01:55 AM
They may toll IL-53 from I-90 as well.
Palatine Rd upgrade can be done as well but a parkway way? when they just need a few more overpasses? I can see more overpasses with out having to knock down any business / homes.
What about an IL-83 upgrade as well? Maybe same toll pricing as I-355 / I-294
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10104.msg238730#msg238730
They WILL toll IL53 all the way to 90. The Palatine corridor was studied a few times in the 90s. There IS room for either a 6-lane interstate, or a 4-lane parkway with a 3-lane access/frontage road. ROW would be needed, for toll installation and drainage/retention areas. If the 53/120 parkway goes through I'd expect this to be their next big project.
An IL83 upgrade is another possibility; the corridor from 290 to 90 was studied during the EOE studies; an IL83 upgrade was an alternative to the bypass/490. I believe Elk Grove put the kibash on that, and would continue to oppose it, although I suppose there would be a market for a tollway going from IL390 south past 290 into Oak Brook.
[/quote]
Not just Oak Brook but till 63rd st. Right now the IL-83 / IL-390 interchange is planed with lights. IL-390 to I-290 on IL-83 can be done as with RIRO + a few overpasses + some extend local roads.
bryn mawr ave to Edgewood ave, marshalll rd to forster ave, (are all most linked and would take very little to link up) white pine rd to frontage rd (are all most linked and would take very little to link up) extend frontage rd as well.
The plans for the IL-83 alt was mostly an upper deck (like the west dodge expressway) for I-490 on top of IL-83 any one have a link to them?
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 25, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: premier707 on March 24, 2015, 10:17:31 PM
They may toll IL-53 from I-90 as well.
The last I heard from a very good source, none of the Cook County portion of IL-53 will be tolled to help pay for the extension into Lake County. Any additional revenue streams needed to pay for this would be raised entirely in Lake County.
Well they can also use tolls to widen IL-53 / pay for a new inter change at I-90
That parkway is badly needed. I say BUILD IT NOW!!!
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 25, 2015, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 25, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: premier707 on March 24, 2015, 10:17:31 PM
They may toll IL-53 from I-90 as well.
The last I heard from a very good source, none of the Cook County portion of IL-53 will be tolled to help pay for the extension into Lake County. Any additional revenue streams needed to pay for this would be raised entirely in Lake County.
Well they can also use tolls to widen IL-53 / pay for a new inter change at I-90
They should be rebuilding the I-90/I-290/IL-53 interchange right now as we speak. It absolutely 100% baffles me why this work was not included in the Move Illinois Program.
Quote from: adamlanfort on March 25, 2015, 01:34:41 PM
They should be rebuilding the I-90/I-290/IL-53 interchange right now as we speak. It absolutely 100% baffles me why this work was not included in the Move Illinois Program.
It is a shockingly deficient interchange. The only reason is money. The tollway is reconstructing the entire east end of 90 at pretty much the same cost as that one interchange. They will likely do some minimal work like realigning the ramps a tiny bit (as they are with the IL31 interchange) but any real work like more lanes and flyovers would be at least a billion dollars. Schaumburg did commission a design in 2007 and its on the tollway website. The longer the tollway waits, the more $ Schaumburg will contribute. Any real improvement would also require cash and co-operation with IDOT, both of which are in short supply.
One Idea that I saw was to toll IL-53 to help pay for the interchange
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 26, 2015, 09:49:30 AM
One Idea that I saw was to toll IL-53 to help pay for the interchange
Absolutely, IL53 north of 90 WILL be tolled (this is a DONE DEAL), and the likely budget for the 53/120 parkway does not contain any funds to upgrade the Schaumburg interchange. But the limited-access road known as IL53 from 90 to Lake Cook WILL be tolled and rehabbed much like was done with the old EOE.
Quote from: premier707 on March 26, 2015, 06:14:10 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 26, 2015, 09:49:30 AM
One Idea that I saw was to toll IL-53 to help pay for the interchange
Absolutely, IL53 north of 90 WILL be tolled (this is a DONE DEAL), and the likely budget for the 53/120 parkway does not contain any funds to upgrade the Schaumburg interchange. But the limited-access road known as IL53 from 90 to Lake Cook WILL be tolled and rehabbed much like was done with the old EOE.
Source that says tolling the existing IL-53 is a done deal? Cause I sure as heck haven't heard anything!
Quote from: premier707 on March 26, 2015, 06:14:10 PM
Absolutely, IL53 north of 90 WILL be tolled (this is a DONE DEAL), and the likely budget for the 53/120 parkway does not contain any funds to upgrade the Schaumburg interchange. But the limited-access road known as IL53 from 90 to Lake Cook WILL be tolled and rehabbed much like was done with the old EOE.
Source? Last I heard from the local papers was tolling IL 53 from I-90 to Lake Cook Road was under consideration but had opposition from the local agencies along the freeway. IIRC it was determined that it would be too costly to add an extra lane to the current IL 53 freeway similar to how the EOE is getting rehabbed with an extra lane.
707 you seem to have inside sources and what you say makes sense. I know supporters of US 20 and maybe the Peoria ring road came looking for help to the Toll Authority . Do you know what happened. IDOT mentions a funding study that was supposed to be done but October for US 20 that has never come out.
Source that says tolling the existing IL-53 is a done deal?
Well, it's a done deal if the parkway is to be built. It would greatly help with bond issuance and overall revenue.
Last I heard from the local papers was tolling IL 53 from I-90 to Lake Cook Road was under consideration but had opposition from the local agencies along the freeway. IIRC it was determined that it would be too costly to add an extra lane to the current IL 53 freeway similar to how the EOE is getting rehabbed with an extra lane.
Local agencies DO oppose the move....to a point. Schaumburg's tepid opposition would evaporate if the 290/90/IL53 interchange and the IL62 interchange remain free. Tolling likely wouldn't begin until north of Kirchoff, to also bring Rolling Meadows on board; this whole stretch of 53/290 from Kirchoff south to IL72 will be reconstructed whenever the Schaumburg interchange is rebuilt (likely by IDOT and Schaumburg, and definitely after the Circle/Jane Byrne is completed, but who knows). In terms of possible existing IL53 widening, it would likely be in the fashion of the most-recent Stevenson Expy reconstruction; 3 lanes in each direction with an improved and widened left shoulder for bus traffic and a future carpool lane. Auxiliary lanes would be added between higher-volume interchanges, but 4 lanes in each direction would be excessive and would likely overload the new parkway and Lake Cook.
707 you seem to have inside sources and what you say makes sense. I know supporters of US 20 and maybe the Peoria ring road came looking for help to the Toll Authority . Do you know what happened. IDOT mentions a funding study that was supposed to be done but October for US 20 that has never come out.
I have lived in Chicagoland a very long time, and I know a few people from the relevant agencies, both past and present. Nothing is carved in stone, however, especially with a broke state and a new administration. IDOT is broke like the rest of the state. The tollway, however, is not, mostly because they established a few corridors (Tri-State, Reagan, and Jane Addams) and let it establish itself for decades before expanding. The tollway will not likely invest any real dollars into a roadway that doesn't feed into this original system. For the tollway to get involved in US20 it would have to begin at the Jane Addams, but that would be a very long-term prospect. Same for any Peoria projects. It's on their radar, but won't be practical for them for many many years.
The most recent studies/committees regarding the IL53 extension have been the first, best chance at construction of a roadway since the corridor was first identified in the 60s (BTW the committee also supports, nay, assumes, that IL53 south to 90 will be tolled). The tollway is likely looking for post-2020 projects after Move Illinois winds down. The 53/120 parkway and central Tri-State rebuild would be the next big projects on their list. The future depends somewhat on Gov. Rauner; if he supports a gas-tax expansion in Lake County, enough funds could be amassed to either a) rebuild the 90/290/IL53 interchange OR b) leave current IL53 toll-free. If Rauner vetoes a gas-tax expansion, there may not be enough votes to override, and funding would be much more dependent on tolling IL53 and expanding them in Lake County, with a new mainline plaza at Lake-Cook being a possibility.
Quote from: premier707 on March 29, 2015, 04:55:01 AM
Source that says tolling the existing IL-53 is a done deal?
Well, it's a done deal if the parkway is to be built. It would greatly help with bond issuance and overall revenue.
Last I heard from the local papers was tolling IL 53 from I-90 to Lake Cook Road was under consideration but had opposition from the local agencies along the freeway. IIRC it was determined that it would be too costly to add an extra lane to the current IL 53 freeway similar to how the EOE is getting rehabbed with an extra lane.
Local agencies DO oppose the move....to a point. Schaumburg's tepid opposition would evaporate if the 290/90/IL53 interchange and the IL62 interchange remain free. Tolling likely wouldn't begin until north of Kirchoff, to also bring Rolling Meadows on board; this whole stretch of 53/290 from Kirchoff south to IL72 will be reconstructed whenever the Schaumburg interchange is rebuilt (likely by IDOT and Schaumburg, and definitely after the Circle/Jane Byrne is completed, but who knows). In terms of possible existing IL53 widening, it would likely be in the fashion of the most-recent Stevenson Expy reconstruction; 3 lanes in each direction with an improved and widened left shoulder for bus traffic and a future carpool lane. Auxiliary lanes would be added between higher-volume interchanges, but 4 lanes in each direction would be excessive and would likely overload the new parkway and Lake Cook.
They should have EOE like tolling (With some free links at 290/90/IL53/IL62 interchange) I think some links will be free at I-290 / EOE.
They also need some kind of ETC virtual ticket system (where if you a pay a toll at gate X and then with X time the toll at gate Y is a lower rate or free) or EOE like tolling on all roads. OR just do a full ETR 407.
I have seen survey crews at work along 120 from Fish Lake Rd to just west of Hainseville Rd for about the past month, until now I stopped seeing them. That would appear to be the alignment upgrading the existing 120 alignment to a parkway just west of Hainseville Rd that was surveyed. I have not also seen survey crews where the 53 ROW crosses streets, but then again, that's a small location to quickly survey where the 53 ROW crosses streets compared to several miles on 120 so that's probably why I didn't see them surveying there. Or maybe the Illinois Tollway is using the existing 53 ROW surveys and they only hired the engineering firm to survey on 120.
Also, in other news, Hawthorn Woods is throwing a temper tantrum (nothing new) and wants all planning for the 53/120 project to stop until the blue ribbon advisory council starts over and makes a new resolution with a new alignment. Hawthorn Woods complains that building the road elevated over wetlands would create noise pollution due to it being elevated, so suggests that an alignment should be chosen that does not cross wetlands so the road is not required to be elevated.
http://patch.com/illinois/lakezurich/hawthorn-woods-seeks-change-conversation-route-53-discussion (http://patch.com/illinois/lakezurich/hawthorn-woods-seeks-change-conversation-route-53-discussion)
^^ Screw Hawthorn Woods. Between them and Long Grove, they've been the assholes holding up the construction of this road for decades.
Did you see the Trib story of last week? It looks like Tolling north of 90 is out and the usual crowd and more are trying to block it on fiscal grounds so who knows if anything will ever be done in this state again
Quote from: Brandon on April 21, 2015, 06:29:40 AM
^^ Screw Hawthorn Woods. Between them and Long Grove, they've been the assholes holding up the construction of this road for decades.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: to you Brandon. HW and LG have been bastards. And you know that places such as Lake Zurich, Libertyville and Grayslake have been trying to get relief for their local roads.
Quote from: 3467 on April 21, 2015, 09:47:12 AM
Did you see the Trib story of last week? It looks like Tolling north of 90 is out and the usual crowd and more are trying to block it on fiscal grounds so who knows if anything will ever be done in this state again
Unless it is built with at least six lanes and to Interstate standards, it's not going to do anything. This parkway is an absolute joke.
Looking on the brightside assuming :no: 53 is actually built (what else can we do but hope and be positive :awesomeface:), what do you guys think should happen with the Lake Cook Rd interchange, now that its established that the existing 53 won't be tolled so alot of traffic will still exit at Lake Cook to avoid paying the congestion charge?
It appears that when the 53 spur was built in the 80s it was never intended for 100,000 vehicles a day to use the Lake Cook interchange. It appears a diamond interchange with a circular ramp from Wb Lake Cook to Sb 53 was planned.
Look at Dundee Rd (where the expressway used to end). It appears that it had the same interchange that Lake Cook has currently, with the ramp from the Nb terminus of 53 to Wb Dundee converted into a ramp that folds around the circular ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dundee+Rd,+Illinois/@42.1391972,-88.0060112,629m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fbb5f4f889029:0x3fbfe5967b001d5 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dundee+Rd,+Illinois/@42.1391972,-88.0060112,629m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fbb5f4f889029:0x3fbfe5967b001d5)
I think Lake Cook needs to be completely rebuilt from Arlington Heights Rd to Rt 12. Not enough capacity, even with the 53 extension built, due to traffic will exit to avoid paying the congestion charge. Also, currently too much weaving on Lake Cook from traffic exiting Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook forced to weave over out of right lane must turn right dual right turn lanes. In addition to weaving from traffic turning left onto Eb Lake Cook from Sb 12, staying in the left lane on Lake Cook, and then traffic backs up as traffic attempts to merge into the right lane to enter the 53 Sb ramp.
Widen from 4 through lanes to 6 through lanes from Arlington Heights Rd to just east of the interchange with 53.
Rebuild the bridge over 53 as 6 lanes wide with collector - distributor lanes separated by a narrow 3 inch concrete median of the style found on Palatine Road. 2 through lanes in each direction and one local lane in each direction.
Rebuild the bridge over the lake as 7 lanes wide with collector - distributor lanes separated by a narrow 3 inch concrete median of the style found on Palatine Road. 2 through lanes in each direction, one Eb local lane, and two Wb local lanes. Essentially, the Wb "local lanes" are actually express lanes because they don't stop at the lights at either Hicks Rd or Rt 12, which will be explained below.
Inbetween the bridge over the lake and the bridge over 53, widen from 4 lanes to 2 through lanes in each direction, one Eb local lane, and two Wb local lanes. Traffic from the local lanes may not enter the through lanes. Traffic from the through lanes may not enter the local lanes. No turns other than right turns allowed into and out of the local lanes. No right turns allowed in the through lanes. Left turns allowed in the Wb through lanes. Left turns not allowed in the Eb through lanes, as will be explained below.
At the intersection of Hicks Rd with Lake Cook, time the signals and restrict access to make the Wb local lane function as a continuous green T intersection. Eliminate Hicks Rd cross traffic and convert the Wb through lanes into a seagull intersection. Left turns from Nb Hicks Rd enter the through lanes of Lake Cook but have no access to the local lanes of Lake Cook, so essentially the traffic flow is dual left turn lanes merging from the left onto Lake Cook. Remove the ability to make a left turn from Sb Hicks Rd onto Eb Lake Cook. All traffic on Sb Hicks Rd must merge into the the Wb local lane on Lake Cook. Allow U-turns at the intersection of Lake Cook and 12. This makes the intersection of Hicks and Lake Cook function as a through-U-turn intersection as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe7%2FSeagull_Continuous-Green-T_Turbo-T_Intersection_right_hand_traffic.svg&hash=23a9b0877948978c8a7e47ba3ed5d1ac5c1ef01e)
Widen Rt 12 from 6 total lanes to 8 total lanes at the intersection with Lake Cook. Demolish the strip club / Cash For Gold / smoke shop / what ever it is next to provide right of way. 4 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, dual left turn lanes on Eb Rt 12, and 2 Eb through lanes on Rt 12.
Widen Rt 12 from 5 total lanes to 8 total lanes at the intersection with Plum Grove Rd. Demolish small houses along Rt 12 that aren't generating sales tax revenue to provide right of way. 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, 2 Wb local lanes on Rt 12, 3 Eb lanes on Rt 12, and one left turn lane on Rt 12. Concrete barriers end northwest of Plum Grove Road and the 2 Wb local lanes merge into 3 Wb through lanes.
Widen Rt 12 from 5 total lanes to 7 total lanes at the intersection with Long Grove Rd. There is room on the grassy embankment to the north of 12 along the shopping center. Have the Wb Rt 12 right most 3rd lane be a right turn must turn right lane into Long Grove Rd. After Long Grove Rd heading Eb on Rt 12, have a 3rd lane begin. 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, 3 Eb through lanes on Rt 12, one left turn lane on Rt 12, and one right turn lane on Rt 12.
The two local lanes of Wb Lake Cook merge onto Wb Rt 12, with a merge instead of a red light, allowing free flowing traffic.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trafficsign.us%2F650%2Fwarn%2Fw4-6.gif&hash=16c66b87ab5008051be4344ea4e8f6157e067ca9)
Widen the ramp off of Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook from one lane to two lanes.
There is already a continuous green T intersection with Old Hicks Rd, Lake Cook Rd, and the ramp off of Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook.
Convert Plum Grove Rd. and Rt 12 into a continous green T intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffe%2FFlorida_CGTL_Road_Sign_%28Continuous_Green_Trough_Lane%29.svg%2F220px-Florida_CGTL_Road_Sign_%28Continuous_Green_Trough_Lane%29.svg.png&hash=2b1ba30fefe1f64c9921d53fa3bcbb5c8111ede6)
Example driving from Rt 53 Nb to Rt 12 Wb:
(1) Take the ramp for Wb Lake Cook Rd.
(2) You keep going through the continuous green arrow at Old Hicks Rd.)
(3) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Hicks Rd.
(4) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Rt 12.
(5) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Plum Grove Rd.
(6) You merge into the 3 Wb through lanes on Rt 12 northwest of Plum Grove Rd.
(7) You merge left into the 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12 approaching Long Grove Road to avoid entering the right turn lane.
(8) You stop at the light for Long Grove Road.
This would be good as an alternative to the 53 extension that may never be built, but it would be good to have even with the 53 extension built, due to the congestion pricing that would cause drivers to exit at Lake Cook.
The Dundee Rd interchange prior to the extension to Lake-Cook was not the same way the current Lake-Cook was. It was a "diamond" but with the WB to SB traffic exiting Dundee on the current NB ramp. At the bottom of the ramp, it crossed over into the current SB lanes.
Quote from: dietermoreno on April 27, 2015, 10:44:34 PM
Looking on the brightside assuming :no: 53 is actually built (what else can we do but hope and be positive :awesomeface:), what do you guys think should happen with the Lake Cook Rd interchange, now that its established that the existing 53 won't be tolled so alot of traffic will still exit at Lake Cook to avoid paying the congestion charge?
It appears that when the 53 spur was built in the 80s it was never intended for 100,000 vehicles a day to use the Lake Cook interchange. It appears a diamond interchange with a circular ramp from Wb Lake Cook to Sb 53 was planned.
Look at Dundee Rd (where the expressway used to end). It appears that it had the same interchange that Lake Cook has currently, with the ramp from the Nb terminus of 53 to Wb Dundee converted into a ramp that folds around the circular ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dundee+Rd,+Illinois/@42.1391972,-88.0060112,629m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fbb5f4f889029:0x3fbfe5967b001d5 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dundee+Rd,+Illinois/@42.1391972,-88.0060112,629m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fbb5f4f889029:0x3fbfe5967b001d5)
I think Lake Cook needs to be completely rebuilt from Arlington Heights Rd to Rt 12. Not enough capacity, even with the 53 extension built, due to traffic will exit to avoid paying the congestion charge. Also, currently too much weaving on Lake Cook from traffic exiting Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook forced to weave over out of right lane must turn right dual right turn lanes. In addition to weaving from traffic turning left onto Eb Lake Cook from Sb 12, staying in the left lane on Lake Cook, and then traffic backs up as traffic attempts to merge into the right lane to enter the 53 Sb ramp.
Widen from 4 through lanes to 6 through lanes from Arlington Heights Rd to just east of the interchange with 53.
Rebuild the bridge over 53 as 6 lanes wide with collector - distributor lanes separated by a narrow 3 inch concrete median of the style found on Palatine Road. 2 through lanes in each direction and one local lane in each direction.
Rebuild the bridge over the lake as 7 lanes wide with collector - distributor lanes separated by a narrow 3 inch concrete median of the style found on Palatine Road. 2 through lanes in each direction, one Eb local lane, and two Wb local lanes. Essentially, the Wb "local lanes" are actually express lanes because they don't stop at the lights at either Hicks Rd or Rt 12, which will be explained below.
Inbetween the bridge over the lake and the bridge over 53, widen from 4 lanes to 2 through lanes in each direction, one Eb local lane, and two Wb local lanes. Traffic from the local lanes may not enter the through lanes. Traffic from the through lanes may not enter the local lanes. No turns other than right turns allowed into and out of the local lanes. No right turns allowed in the through lanes. Left turns allowed in the Wb through lanes. Left turns not allowed in the Eb through lanes, as will be explained below.
At the intersection of Hicks Rd with Lake Cook, time the signals and restrict access to make the Wb local lane function as a continuous green T intersection. Eliminate Hicks Rd cross traffic and convert the Wb through lanes into a seagull intersection. Left turns from Nb Hicks Rd enter the through lanes of Lake Cook but have no access to the local lanes of Lake Cook, so essentially the traffic flow is dual left turn lanes merging from the left onto Lake Cook. Remove the ability to make a left turn from Sb Hicks Rd onto Eb Lake Cook. All traffic on Sb Hicks Rd must merge into the the Wb local lane on Lake Cook. Allow U-turns at the intersection of Lake Cook and 12. This makes the intersection of Hicks and Lake Cook function as a through-U-turn intersection as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe7%2FSeagull_Continuous-Green-T_Turbo-T_Intersection_right_hand_traffic.svg&hash=23a9b0877948978c8a7e47ba3ed5d1ac5c1ef01e)
Widen Rt 12 from 6 total lanes to 8 total lanes at the intersection with Lake Cook. Demolish the strip club / Cash For Gold / smoke shop / what ever it is next to provide right of way. 4 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, dual left turn lanes on Eb Rt 12, and 2 Eb through lanes on Rt 12.
Widen Rt 12 from 5 total lanes to 8 total lanes at the intersection with Plum Grove Rd. Demolish small houses along Rt 12 that aren't generating sales tax revenue to provide right of way. 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, 2 Wb local lanes on Rt 12, 3 Eb lanes on Rt 12, and one left turn lane on Rt 12. Concrete barriers end northwest of Plum Grove Road and the 2 Wb local lanes merge into 3 Wb through lanes.
Widen Rt 12 from 5 total lanes to 7 total lanes at the intersection with Long Grove Rd. There is room on the grassy embankment to the north of 12 along the shopping center. Have the Wb Rt 12 right most 3rd lane be a right turn must turn right lane into Long Grove Rd. After Long Grove Rd heading Eb on Rt 12, have a 3rd lane begin. 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, 3 Eb through lanes on Rt 12, one left turn lane on Rt 12, and one right turn lane on Rt 12.
The two local lanes of Wb Lake Cook merge onto Wb Rt 12, with a merge instead of a red light, allowing free flowing traffic.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trafficsign.us%2F650%2Fwarn%2Fw4-6.gif&hash=16c66b87ab5008051be4344ea4e8f6157e067ca9)
Widen the ramp off of Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook from one lane to two lanes.
There is already a continuous green T intersection with Old Hicks Rd, Lake Cook Rd, and the ramp off of Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook.
Convert Plum Grove Rd. and Rt 12 into a continous green T intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffe%2FFlorida_CGTL_Road_Sign_%28Continuous_Green_Trough_Lane%29.svg%2F220px-Florida_CGTL_Road_Sign_%28Continuous_Green_Trough_Lane%29.svg.png&hash=2b1ba30fefe1f64c9921d53fa3bcbb5c8111ede6)
Example driving from Rt 53 Nb to Rt 12 Wb:
(1) Take the ramp for Wb Lake Cook Rd.
(2) You keep going through the continuous green arrow at Old Hicks Rd.)
(3) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Hicks Rd.
(4) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Rt 12.
(5) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Plum Grove Rd.
(6) You merge into the 3 Wb through lanes on Rt 12 northwest of Plum Grove Rd.
(7) You merge left into the 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12 approaching Long Grove Road to avoid entering the right turn lane.
(8) You stop at the light for Long Grove Road.
This would be good as an alternative to the 53 extension that may never be built, but it would be good to have even with the 53 extension built, due to the congestion pricing that would cause drivers to exit at Lake Cook.
your plan has some local access issues to deal with maybe some of kind super street / RIRO setup with U-trun bays with some over passes.
The rest of US12 needs 3 lanes each way or more to lake zurich (maybe RIRO / 1-2 overpasses) though lake Zurich 3 lanes each way with RIRO with U-truns / limited cross streets (little to no room for overpasses) out side of lake Zurich to IL-59 3 or 2 lanes each way with RIRO U-trun bays no cross streets or drive ways. (more room for overpasses) Though wauconda 2 lanes with aux lanes or 3 lanes each way make cook st RIRO only. Overpass at bonner rd or RIRO with U-turn bays.
bonner rd to IL-120 maybe 3 lanes each way with RIRO no cross streets or drive ways.
That gives you part of IL-120 / IL-53 and with Palatine Road upgrade full grade separation from IL-53 to I-294 will kind of fill parts of the other side. (may be needed any ways with IL-120 / IL-53 build out.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 29, 2015, 08:16:57 PM
Quote from: dietermoreno on April 27, 2015, 10:44:34 PM
Looking on the brightside assuming :no: 53 is actually built (what else can we do but hope and be positive :awesomeface:), what do you guys think should happen with the Lake Cook Rd interchange, now that its established that the existing 53 won't be tolled so alot of traffic will still exit at Lake Cook to avoid paying the congestion charge?
It appears that when the 53 spur was built in the 80s it was never intended for 100,000 vehicles a day to use the Lake Cook interchange. It appears a diamond interchange with a circular ramp from Wb Lake Cook to Sb 53 was planned.
Look at Dundee Rd (where the expressway used to end). It appears that it had the same interchange that Lake Cook has currently, with the ramp from the Nb terminus of 53 to Wb Dundee converted into a ramp that folds around the circular ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dundee+Rd,+Illinois/@42.1391972,-88.0060112,629m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fbb5f4f889029:0x3fbfe5967b001d5 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dundee+Rd,+Illinois/@42.1391972,-88.0060112,629m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fbb5f4f889029:0x3fbfe5967b001d5)
I think Lake Cook needs to be completely rebuilt from Arlington Heights Rd to Rt 12. Not enough capacity, even with the 53 extension built, due to traffic will exit to avoid paying the congestion charge. Also, currently too much weaving on Lake Cook from traffic exiting Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook forced to weave over out of right lane must turn right dual right turn lanes. In addition to weaving from traffic turning left onto Eb Lake Cook from Sb 12, staying in the left lane on Lake Cook, and then traffic backs up as traffic attempts to merge into the right lane to enter the 53 Sb ramp.
Widen from 4 through lanes to 6 through lanes from Arlington Heights Rd to just east of the interchange with 53.
Rebuild the bridge over 53 as 6 lanes wide with collector - distributor lanes separated by a narrow 3 inch concrete median of the style found on Palatine Road. 2 through lanes in each direction and one local lane in each direction.
Rebuild the bridge over the lake as 7 lanes wide with collector - distributor lanes separated by a narrow 3 inch concrete median of the style found on Palatine Road. 2 through lanes in each direction, one Eb local lane, and two Wb local lanes. Essentially, the Wb "local lanes" are actually express lanes because they don't stop at the lights at either Hicks Rd or Rt 12, which will be explained below.
Inbetween the bridge over the lake and the bridge over 53, widen from 4 lanes to 2 through lanes in each direction, one Eb local lane, and two Wb local lanes. Traffic from the local lanes may not enter the through lanes. Traffic from the through lanes may not enter the local lanes. No turns other than right turns allowed into and out of the local lanes. No right turns allowed in the through lanes. Left turns allowed in the Wb through lanes. Left turns not allowed in the Eb through lanes, as will be explained below.
At the intersection of Hicks Rd with Lake Cook, time the signals and restrict access to make the Wb local lane function as a continuous green T intersection. Eliminate Hicks Rd cross traffic and convert the Wb through lanes into a seagull intersection. Left turns from Nb Hicks Rd enter the through lanes of Lake Cook but have no access to the local lanes of Lake Cook, so essentially the traffic flow is dual left turn lanes merging from the left onto Lake Cook. Remove the ability to make a left turn from Sb Hicks Rd onto Eb Lake Cook. All traffic on Sb Hicks Rd must merge into the the Wb local lane on Lake Cook. Allow U-turns at the intersection of Lake Cook and 12. This makes the intersection of Hicks and Lake Cook function as a through-U-turn intersection as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe7%2FSeagull_Continuous-Green-T_Turbo-T_Intersection_right_hand_traffic.svg&hash=23a9b0877948978c8a7e47ba3ed5d1ac5c1ef01e)
Widen Rt 12 from 6 total lanes to 8 total lanes at the intersection with Lake Cook. Demolish the strip club / Cash For Gold / smoke shop / what ever it is next to provide right of way. 4 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, dual left turn lanes on Eb Rt 12, and 2 Eb through lanes on Rt 12.
Widen Rt 12 from 5 total lanes to 8 total lanes at the intersection with Plum Grove Rd. Demolish small houses along Rt 12 that aren't generating sales tax revenue to provide right of way. 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, 2 Wb local lanes on Rt 12, 3 Eb lanes on Rt 12, and one left turn lane on Rt 12. Concrete barriers end northwest of Plum Grove Road and the 2 Wb local lanes merge into 3 Wb through lanes.
Widen Rt 12 from 5 total lanes to 7 total lanes at the intersection with Long Grove Rd. There is room on the grassy embankment to the north of 12 along the shopping center. Have the Wb Rt 12 right most 3rd lane be a right turn must turn right lane into Long Grove Rd. After Long Grove Rd heading Eb on Rt 12, have a 3rd lane begin. 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12, 3 Eb through lanes on Rt 12, one left turn lane on Rt 12, and one right turn lane on Rt 12.
The two local lanes of Wb Lake Cook merge onto Wb Rt 12, with a merge instead of a red light, allowing free flowing traffic.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trafficsign.us%2F650%2Fwarn%2Fw4-6.gif&hash=16c66b87ab5008051be4344ea4e8f6157e067ca9)
Widen the ramp off of Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook from one lane to two lanes.
There is already a continuous green T intersection with Old Hicks Rd, Lake Cook Rd, and the ramp off of Nb 53 onto Wb Lake Cook.
Convert Plum Grove Rd. and Rt 12 into a continous green T intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffe%2FFlorida_CGTL_Road_Sign_%28Continuous_Green_Trough_Lane%29.svg%2F220px-Florida_CGTL_Road_Sign_%28Continuous_Green_Trough_Lane%29.svg.png&hash=2b1ba30fefe1f64c9921d53fa3bcbb5c8111ede6)
Example driving from Rt 53 Nb to Rt 12 Wb:
(1) Take the ramp for Wb Lake Cook Rd.
(2) You keep going through the continuous green arrow at Old Hicks Rd.)
(3) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Hicks Rd.
(4) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Rt 12.
(5) You keep going through the continous green arrow at Plum Grove Rd.
(6) You merge into the 3 Wb through lanes on Rt 12 northwest of Plum Grove Rd.
(7) You merge left into the 2 Wb through lanes on Rt 12 approaching Long Grove Road to avoid entering the right turn lane.
(8) You stop at the light for Long Grove Road.
This would be good as an alternative to the 53 extension that may never be built, but it would be good to have even with the 53 extension built, due to the congestion pricing that would cause drivers to exit at Lake Cook.
your plan has some local access issues to deal with maybe some of kind super street / RIRO setup with U-trun bays with some over passes.
The rest of US12 needs 3 lanes each way or more to lake zurich (maybe RIRO / 1-2 overpasses) though lake Zurich 3 lanes each way with RIRO with U-truns / limited cross streets (little to no room for overpasses) out side of lake Zurich to IL-59 3 or 2 lanes each way with RIRO U-trun bays no cross streets or drive ways. (more room for overpasses) Though wauconda 2 lanes with aux lanes or 3 lanes each way make cook st RIRO only. Overpass at bonner rd or RIRO with U-turn bays.
bonner rd to IL-120 maybe 3 lanes each way with RIRO no cross streets or drive ways.
That gives you part of IL-120 / IL-53 and with Palatine Road upgrade full grade separation from IL-53 to I-294 will kind of fill parts of the other side. (may be needed any ways with IL-120 / IL-53 build out.
Even without tolls, I say that IL 53 needs to be upgraded to at least a superstreet with RIRO access. And as for the extension itself, never say never. The Illiana is also on the backburner along with this, but highways get delayed for many years before finally getting built. The ICC is a perfect example of this.
Given that it appears Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods will oppose even the parkway version, I really don't understand why Lake County has not started developing a Plan B consisting of widening a few north-south roads to six lanes. Possibly the Arlington Heights Road/IL 83 corridor, US 12/Quentin Road/Fairfield Road (with a new connector that is grade separated from the CN Railroad), and one other north-south corridor between US 12 and I-94.
^^ I think everyone should boycott Long Grove and it's so-called village until they get the point.
Just build the fucking freeway. No tolls, at least 6 lanes and at least 55mph. No stop lights either. Who cares what Long Grove thinks? It would be different if it were blowing through downtown but it's not.
Quote from: tribar on May 02, 2015, 11:37:35 PM
Just build the fucking freeway. No tolls, at least 6 lanes and at least 55mph. No stop lights either. Who cares what Long Grove thinks? It would be different if it were blowing through downtown but it's not.
65-70 MPH would be even better if you ask me.
Quote from: dave069 on May 03, 2015, 08:15:56 PM
Quote from: tribar on May 02, 2015, 11:37:35 PM
Just build the fucking freeway. No tolls, at least 6 lanes and at least 55mph. No stop lights either. Who cares what Long Grove thinks? It would be different if it were blowing through downtown but it's not.
65-70 MPH would be even better if you ask me.
I agree but I'm content with 55.
Would Lake County DOT have enough funds with a Lake County gas tax and Lake County Challenge Program bonds to construct a Super-2 from Midlothian Rd to Peterson Rd?
This bypasses Mundlein, and gets something built while Hawthorn Woods has the Illinois Tollway in a cage.
I looked at both the sattelite map and normal map of Mundelein on Google Maps, and it appears that Hawthorn Woods village limits begin on the south side of Midlothian Rd at FAP 342 and Midlothian Rd,and the north side of Midlothian Rd at FAP 342 and Midlothian Rd is unincorporated.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mundelein,+IL/@42.3031816,-88.0235893,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x880f977abfc96039:0x54b86999b33b553 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mundelein,+IL/@42.3031816,-88.0235893,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x880f977abfc96039:0x54b86999b33b553)
So, Hawthorn Woods can (AND WILL) hold an interchange with Midlothian hostage the same that they are holding the interchange with Rt 22 hostage.
So the Super-2 Mundelein bypass would have to have an at grade intersection with Midlothian, which would make most sense to be a traditional signalized intersection to reduce cost and since the plan is to build an interchange eventually.
build one carriageway 2+1. One lane in each direction at all times. An alternating passing lane. Grade separations with no access with all intersecting streets other than Peterson and Midlothian. Soft shoulder. below grade. Trees and multi-use path on one side of the road. Planting the trees now gives more time for them to grow tall to provide a noise barrier, and we know the trees will grow very tall before Hawthorn Woods allows the tollway to be built. The southbound lane becomes the inner lane of the northbound lanes when the tollway is built. The passing lane becomes the outer lane of the northbound lanes when the tollway is built. The northbound lane becomes the paved outer shoulder of the northbound carriageway when the tollway is built. Also, the paved outer shoulder could become a third lane and have no shoulders when it is approved to widen the tollway from 4 lanes to 6 lanes.
Partial clover leaf interchange with Peterson with the Super-2 transitioning to a Super-4 just south of Peterson.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fnj_33%2Fsuper2.jpg&hash=b8fc6104422d9b8077397fc4cae071b24d4e29b4)
Realign IL Rt 83.
No access at IL 176, IL 83-IL 60, Hawley St, and the residential streets crossed.
The residential streets crossed don't need bridges, cul-de-sack them instead.
Underpass at IL 176, IL 83-IL 60, and Hawley St.
It might look similar to this video of this US 12 super-2 in Minnesota:
Would this actually be a Super-2, or would this really be a few miles long undivided pair of ramps from Peterson to Midlothian, since there are no other at grade intersections and Super-2's allow at grade intersections with minor streets and minor access points?
Quote from: dietermoreno on June 11, 2015, 09:09:42 PM
Would Lake County DOT have enough funds with a Lake County gas tax and Lake County Challenge Program bonds to construct a Super-2 from Midlothian Rd to Peterson Rd?
Given the number of other projects Lake County has underway (the Washington Street and Peterson Road corridors come to mind) or is planning (such as building the US 45 Milburn Bypass for IDOT, and a major project for Wadsworth at US 41 that could include a grade separation), I would lean towards no. However, if Lake County would put a lot of other projects on hold, it might be possible.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 11, 2015, 10:38:58 PM
Quote from: dietermoreno on June 11, 2015, 09:09:42 PM
Would Lake County DOT have enough funds with a Lake County gas tax and Lake County Challenge Program bonds to construct a Super-2 from Midlothian Rd to Peterson Rd?
Given the number of other projects Lake County has underway (the Washington Street and Peterson Road corridors come to mind) or is planning (such as building the US 45 Milburn Bypass for IDOT, and a major project for Wadsworth at US 41 that could include a grade separation), I would lean towards no. However, if Lake County would put a lot of other projects on hold, it might be possible.
So, I drove by the ROW just the other day in Hawthorn Woods. Seriously, I just don't get what their big fuss is about! It would not cause any major harm to the area, and the roads in that area are just a pain to traverse. As far as a super two, I say build big or go home! Rarely does anything in Illinois ever get fully implemented if only partially done (see Palatine Road), or if it does, it takes about 20 years to finally proceed and start to finish (see Elgin-O'Hare Expressway/Tollway). Also, while driving up Rand Road (US Route 12), it was quite obvious to me that there is NO WAY people are going to merely go 45 MPH on any parkway extension. Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods need a reality check, and fast!
IF the Illinois 53 extension is built as this "21st century urban tolled parkway" with a 45 mph speed limit, it is going to create a huge hazard for people coming off the high speed IL-53 south of Lake Cook Road. People are going to have to slam on the breaks. There will be accidents, I guarantee it.
I hope the new Tollway board members have some sense in them and make this committee go back and revise it to a six lane conventional tollway before it's too late.
I don't envision folks passing Lake-Cook Road and then slamming on their brakes - that seems a bit silly. That's like saying that people traveling east on I-88 are slamming on their brakes when they pass Orchard Road, where the limit drops from 65 to 55. They aren't.
On just about any class of road there are advance warning signs of the speed limit drop. If you as a driver are slamming on your brakes at that point - you should be paying more attention.
I was saying that mostly figuratively, but I there may be some accidents regardless.
However, one thing's for sure is there WILL be significant backups, since the road will only be 4 lanes.
Charge high enough tolls and that won't be the case, Lake County can have its own Highway 407! At what point does the road as it is designed become obsolete I wonder? Given that I drive route 83 relatively quickly between 53 and 60 on a daily basis (and much faster than 45 mph), if it isn't going to be built to freeway standards, I don't see it being worth building in my humble opinion.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on June 23, 2015, 12:39:48 AM
Charge high enough tolls and that won't be the case, Lake County can have its own Highway 407! At what point does the road as it is designed become obsolete I wonder? Given that I drive route 83 relatively quickly between 53 and 60 on a daily basis (and much faster than 45 mph), if it isn't going to be built to freeway standards, I don't see it being worth building in my humble opinion.
Charging high tolls is not the point of the extension though. The extension is supposed to help the local road congestion. Not burden it.
Precisely my point. The facility that's currently proposed (the four lane parkway) Won't be able to fulfill its goal because it likely won't be able to handle the volume, pricey tolls reduce congestion but then do little if anything for the roads around it...
So you do want the problem in Lake County to remain in place? Even if the extension is built as a 45 mph parkway with ORT lanes, the flow of traffic would be better on the Tollway regardless of how small the toll is. But if you make the toll quite expensive, you don't fix anything of the current problems.
Remember that 4 lanes with no stop lights from Lake Cook Rd to Peterson Rd in rush hour - or even 2 lanes - is better than 4 lanes with stop lights. Imagine if Rt 12 was built to freeway standards from Lake Cook to 120, that's the improved travel.
http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-06_FinalCouncilSummaryReport_web.pdf (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-06_FinalCouncilSummaryReport_web.pdf)
I was re-reading the report today and I noticed how little of difference cost-wise it is to building this parkway (option C) and building it as a six lane expressway (third lane would be managed transit) (option E).
It's not perfect, but if this is going to be built, option E is the only one that makes sense. It's the closest thing to an Interstate that it will get.
The question I have is, will it ever be constructed?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 07, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
The question I have is, will it ever be constructed?
Not with the current regime in Illinois
I'm not sure if it means anything, but the document graphics seem to imply that alternatives C through E all use the same ROW.
It appears from the graphics that additional pavement would be taking away from the grassy median, down to alternative E would have a jersey barrier.
So hypothetically alternative C could be upgraded to alternatives D or E just by widening within the grassy median.
Does anyone know what is the difference between "managed transit lane" and Pace bus on shoulders program?
I assumed it meant an HOV lane shared with buses when capacity is available to allow cars to use the bus lane, but perhaps not?
What would be the point of building alternative E over building alternative D if the buses could just use the inner shoulder?
I think we need an alternative F: 6 general purpose lanes and Pace bus on shoulders program.
The cost and environmental impact of alternatives D and E are almost the same so it makes sense to just build at least alternative E, or even better send this plan back to the brac and make them come up with an alternative F.
The same argument could be made for the Eisenhower rebuild and widen: transit lanes and HOV lanes would help the environment the most, however an additional general purpose lane in each direction would help the most people, at least that is from a traffic volume perspective, ignoring air pollution, assuming that induced demand would even occur.
The converse argument could be: the most environmentally friendly road is to build no road, however, if we take into account air pollution from vehicles stuck in congestion, it could actually be more environmentally friendly to build the road from an air pollution stand point.
Quote from: ET21 on August 07, 2015, 05:04:52 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 07, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
The question I have is, will it ever be constructed?
Not with the current regime in Illinois
Which is why I'm glad I moved away! The way they run things is an absolute joke, especially when dealing with Chicago.
Quote from: dietermoreno on August 10, 2015, 10:39:17 PM
I'm not sure if it means anything, but the document graphics seem to imply that alternatives C through E all use the same ROW.
It appears from the graphics that additional pavement would be taking away from the grassy median, down to alternative E would have a jersey barrier.
So hypothetically alternative C could be upgraded to alternatives D or E just by widening within the grassy median.
Does anyone know what is the difference between "managed transit lane" and Pace bus on shoulders program?
I assumed it meant an HOV lane shared with buses when capacity is available to allow cars to use the bus lane, but perhaps not?
What would be the point of building alternative E over building alternative D if the buses could just use the inner shoulder?
I think we need an alternative F: 6 general purpose lanes and Pace bus on shoulders program.
The cost and environmental impact of alternatives D and E are almost the same so it makes sense to just build at least alternative E, or even better send this plan back to the brac and make them come up with an alternative F.
The same argument could be made for the Eisenhower rebuild and widen: transit lanes and HOV lanes would help the environment the most, however an additional general purpose lane in each direction would help the most people, at least that is from a traffic volume perspective, ignoring air pollution, assuming that induced demand would even occur.
The converse argument could be: the most environmentally friendly road is to build no road, however, if we take into account air pollution from vehicles stuck in congestion, it could actually be more environmentally friendly to build the road from an air pollution stand point.
I'm not sure if the third lane on option E would be available for cars or not. But frankly, it needs to be built with six general lanes and wide shoulders for transit, just as I-90 was rebuilt between Rockford and Elgin. Then sign it as a northern extension of I-355.
If the NIMBYS don't like it, TOO BAD! This is a desperately needed link for the region.
That would make sense. End I-290 at 355 and have the road from I-80 to Lake Cook signed as I-355, then make the Parkway IL-355 and move IL-53 back to Hicks Rd.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on August 14, 2015, 02:29:20 PM
That would make sense. End I-290 at 355 and have the road from I-80 to Lake Cook signed as I-355, then make the Parkway IL-355 and move IL-53 back to Hicks Rd.
The parkway or what ever needs to be I-355 or I-xxx. if not an interstate why not TOLL US-12? with the IL-120 part being Toll IL-120/
over lap I-290 to where it is now or route it over the EOE.
Then I-290 wouldn't meet it's parent at both ends.
The parkway doesn't NEED to be an Interstate, and with the low speed limit shouldn't be either, IMHO.
IL-53 would be fine, as it is today.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on August 14, 2015, 09:22:58 PM
Then I-290 wouldn't meet it's parent at both ends.
The parkway doesn't NEED to be an Interstate, and with the low speed limit shouldn't be either, IMHO.
IL-53 would be fine, as it is today.
The parkway likey will not be build with that low of an limit when other near by roads have higher limits even roads in more build up areas. Also like the other toll roads no one will be going that slow. Also to have it toll don't that they have to have to a free named route with the same number.
as for I-290 build the EOE to Elgin bypass and then some kind of link back.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 15, 2015, 09:36:21 PM
The parkway likey will not be build with that low of an limit when other near by roads have higher limits even roads in more build up areas. Also like the other toll roads no one will be going that slow. Also to have it toll don't that they have to have to a free named route with the same number.
as for I-290 build the EOE to Elgin bypass and then some kind of link back.
The speeds of other nearby roads is pretty much irrelevant when setting speed limits. Design speed and (to a decent extent) local politics plays a big part. In Wisconsin, US-12 from Middleton to Sauk City is 55, even though it could easily be signed 65, and I-39/90/94 nearby is 70. The reason for the 55 speed limit is because that's what the local politicians and "special interest" groups demanded.
And no, you do not have to have a nearby "free" route with the same number. That's an old, outdated rule.
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 16, 2015, 09:29:42 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 15, 2015, 09:36:21 PM
The parkway likey will not be build with that low of an limit when other near by roads have higher limits even roads in more build up areas. Also like the other toll roads no one will be going that slow. Also to have it toll don't that they have to have to a free named route with the same number.
as for I-290 build the EOE to Elgin bypass and then some kind of link back.
The speeds of other nearby roads is pretty much irrelevant when setting speed limits. Design speed and (to a decent extent) local politics plays a big part. In Wisconsin, US-12 from Middleton to Sauk City is 55, even though it could easily be signed 65, and I-39/90/94 nearby is 70. The reason for the 55 speed limit is because that's what the local politicians and "special interest" groups demanded.
And no, you do not have to have a nearby "free" route with the same number. That's an old, outdated rule.
You could say the "special interest" groups *cough cough* insurance companies *cough cough*
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 14, 2015, 05:14:01 PM
The parkway or what ever needs to be I-355 or I-xxx. if not an interstate why not TOLL US-12? with the IL-120 part being Toll IL-120/
over lap I-290 to where it is now or route it over the EOE.
You can't toll federal highways, and the EOE would need to connect to its parent I-90 west of Elgin to be signed as I-290.
Also, it could confuse drivers unnecessarily having EOE signed as IL-390 east of I-355 and signed as I-290 west of IL-390. That would additionally require multiplexing I-355 and I-290 together between the Eisenhower Extenstion and the EOE.
Also, moving IL-53 back to Hicks Road but then having signs saying "Toll IL-53" north of Lake Cook Road would confuse drivers.
IL-53 is fine signed as is. Its the IL-53 extension, not the I-355 north extension. Maybe in the future if the Elgin bypass is extended as interstate standards from the EOE to I-90, but let's not get our hopes up that that will happen soon. There is a reason to extend the Elgin bypass east to meet the EOE, but there isn't really any reason to extend the Elgin bypass west to meet I-90. There are no commuters (at least a significant enough toll revenue) west of Randall Road that would use an extension of the Elgin bypass west to I-90. U.S. 20 is fast in rush hour west of Randall Road even at only 2 lanes so there is no need to upgrade to interstate standards.
It would make slightly more sense perhaps to copy the I-295 beltway in Jacksonville, FL, and keep the state roads as hidden unsigned numbers once the roads get approval to become interstates, and then sign as I-294 WEST BELTWAY from IL-120 and I-94 to IL-53 and IL-120 to IL-290 and EOE to EOE and I-294. Then sign the existing I-294 as I-294 EAST BELTWAY.
However, there is a problem with this idea: I-94 is east of the existing I-294. The solution is for I-94 and I-294 to swap numbers so we can have a west beltway and an east beltway with I-94 in the middle on the existing I-294. That really makes the most sense for out of state drivers trying to bypass Chicago that just stay on the same I-94 from Gary to Kenosha.
There is precedent in Chicago for a faster state road tollway and a slower interstate highway running through the city to swap numbers and add a two to the original interstate number, with the Eisenhower and the Northwest Tollway / Kennedy (not sure if the Kennedy even was ever signed east of the Northwest Tollway terminus before the number swap) swapping numbers.
IMHO, this "east/west beltway" thing would just create confusion.
The primary focus for this extension is for local area traffic, not necessarily as any kind of interstate or bypass.
Quote from: dietermoreno on August 16, 2015, 03:07:41 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 14, 2015, 05:14:01 PM
The parkway or what ever needs to be I-355 or I-xxx. if not an interstate why not TOLL US-12? with the IL-120 part being Toll IL-120/
over lap I-290 to where it is now or route it over the EOE.
Also, it could confuse drivers unnecessarily having EOE signed as IL-390 east of I-355 and signed as I-290 west of IL-390. That would additionally require multiplexing I-355 and I-290 together between the Eisenhower Extenstion and the EOE.
multiplexing for 1 exit
The main Elgin-O'Hare (IL-390) will never become I-390 because it does not tie into I-90 anywhere. The existing Elgin Bypass freeway would need significant upgrades to make it an Interstate-standard freeway. Plus, IDOT has stated the section of US 20 between the Elgin Bypass and the EOWA (when it is extended to North Ave) will not become a fully access controlled freeway.
IF the new Tollway board has ANY sense in them and revises the IL-53 extension back to a proper six lane tollway, then it should be signed as a northern extension of I-355 and I-290 should end in Itasca at the I-355 junction. Frankly, the I-355 designation should run up to I-90 now because the through lanes at the I-290/I-355 junction are a direct continuation of the I-355 corridor (you have to exit I-355 NB/SB to get onto I-290 EB). I understand I-290 existed before I-355, so that is why it is the way it is, but if what I described above happens, that should change.
A three digit does not have to meet it's parent at both ends. There are plenty of examples where this is not the case.
Quote from: I-39 on August 16, 2015, 07:56:06 PM
The main Elgin-O'Hare (IL-390) will never become I-390 because it does not tie into I-90 anywhere.
Didn't stop I-370 (MD), I-380 (CA), I-580 (NY), I-980 (CA), and I-990 (NY) from getting interstate numbers. Of course, this being Illinois and given IDOT's willingness to make up silly rules . . .
Maybe the EOE should have been an IL x94. There will probably be enough trailblazers along the Western Bypass from I-294 to the point of almost having a useless multiplex, similar to how EB I-290 has trailblazers for I-355 at all but the Biesterfield Road interchange.
Stupid question, but couldn't the ISTHA just buy more land on each side of the existing IDOT ROW to have the parkway environmental features while having an interstate standard 6 lane tollway with wide inner shoulders for Pace-bus-on-shoulder?
I don't see how sprawling subdivisions are any more environmentally friendly than a 6 lane interstate. Hawthorn Woods doesn't understand this.
Quote from: dietermoreno on August 16, 2015, 08:13:57 PM
Stupid question, but couldn't the ISTHA just buy more land on each side of the existing IDOT ROW to have the parkway environmental features while having an interstate standard 6 lane tollway with wide inner shoulders for Pace-bus-on-shoulder?
I don't see how sprawling subdivisions are any more environmentally friendly than a 6 lane interstate. Hawthorn Woods doesn't understand this.
I believe most of the existing ROW could support six lanes with wide shoulders for buses, just like I-90 between Rockford and Elgin. Perhaps they'd need wider ROW through some of the Mundelein subdivisions, but I'm not sure exactly how much right of way is owned.
Amen to your second point. Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods are being complete hypocrites when they cry about destroying wetlands and open space with the IL-53 extension, yet, they went ahead and built MANY developments over wetlands and open space over the years.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html)
The drama continues...........................
Quote from: I-39 on August 19, 2015, 06:03:12 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html)
The drama continues...........................
I think you have to be a subscriber in order to read this.
Google "highway 53 lake zurich" then click on the news tab
I don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't like the idea of a roadway being forced down people's throats if the residents of those 4 towns down want it. For all we know, a big chunk of them moved there cause they didn't want high development and higher capacity roadways.
Quote from: WarrenWallace on August 19, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't like the idea of a roadway being forced down people's throats if the residents of those 4 towns down want it. For all we know, a big chunk of them moved there cause they didn't want high development and higher capacity roadways.
They aren't demolishing any houses for it though. I don't even think it goes near that many houses. This roadway is desperately needed in Lake County. Sometimes you have to take one for the team.
Quote from: I-39 on August 19, 2015, 06:03:12 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html)
The drama continues...........................
Joe "Hypocrite" Mancino is a major asshole.
Quote from: WarrenWallace on August 19, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't like the idea of a roadway being forced down people's throats if the residents of those 4 towns down want it. For all we know, a big chunk of them moved there cause they didn't want high development and higher capacity roadways.
The area is already highly developed. Anyone telling you it will cause high development obviously hasn't seen the sprawl, or is in total denial of the sprawl that is Hawthorn Woods and the other municipalities up there.
Anyway, the corridor has no development in it, and it's already protected, ready for the building, and has been for decades!
This whole thing is a bunch of bullshit. We live in America which means we use democracy to solve our problems. So why despite the fact that a majority of communities that are along this route are for the highway, is the whole thing allowed to be held up by two or three towns?
Because we live in America, which gives people the right to partake in legal shenanigans to block or at least delay something they don't like just long enough for them to die and not have to worry about it anymore.
I don't travel in that area enough to really take a side. I do what I've always done - Lake-Cook to Hicks to 83 and continue north.
Quote from: WarrenWallace on August 19, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't like the idea of a roadway being forced down people's throats if the residents of those 4 towns down want it. For all we know, a big chunk of them moved there cause they didn't want high development and higher capacity roadways.
The extension of route 53 has been discussed for years. Almost everyone that lives anywhere near the proposed route bought their homes knowing that it was near the proposed route. If you look at a map of the proposed corridor, you can see the path that has already been set aside. Now the argument seems to have turned to the path across the wetlands.
Mrt90 is right. It was being discussed way back in 1990 when I left the area.
By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?
Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:02:35 PM
By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?
Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.
Where would it hook up to I 94? Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?
Quote from: tribar on August 20, 2015, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:02:35 PM
By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?
Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.
Where would it hook up to I 94? Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?
It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on August 20, 2015, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:02:35 PM
By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?
Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.
Where would it hook up to I 94? Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?
It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.
Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.
Quote from: tribar on August 19, 2015, 06:59:35 PM
This whole thing is a bunch of bullshit. We live in America which means we use democracy to solve our problems. So why despite the fact that a majority of communities that are along this route are for the highway, is the whole thing allowed to be held up by two or three towns?
So who gets to vote in your democracy? The towns where you want the highway built say no. The entire state of Illinois which can't afford it would probably say no. You can't say the majority want it when it's a handpicked majority.
Quote from: mrsman on August 24, 2015, 06:02:19 AM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on August 20, 2015, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:02:35 PM
By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?
Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.
Where would it hook up to I 94? Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?
It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.
Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.
Fair point, but then IDOT would need to re-designate I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 turnoff as I-355, and I don't think they want to do that (they'd probably argue I-290 won't meet it's parent at both ends, which is stupid). Honestly, that should be done anyway, since the through lanes are for I-355 at the I-290/355 interchange in Itasca.
It already IS a "known designation". Longtime locals call it "53/355", back from when the freeway WAS IL-53 all the way down to Army Trail.
Even when IL-53 got pushed off to Rohlwing Road, locals and traffic reports STILL referred to the freeway as "53" - just like the "Post Office" hasn't been the "Post Office" for decades, but it's still called the "Post Office."
(Although, for whatever reason, traffic reporters really seem to be pushing the "Byrne Interchange" over "The Circle.")
FWIW, I have no issue with I-355 being signed up to I-90 as an assist to non-locals.
Quote from: I-39 on August 27, 2015, 09:53:17 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 24, 2015, 06:02:19 AM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on August 20, 2015, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:02:35 PM
By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?
Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.
Where would it hook up to I 94? Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?
It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.
Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.
Fair point, but then IDOT would need to re-designate I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 turnoff as I-355, and I don't think they want to do that (they'd probably argue I-290 won't meet it's parent at both ends, which is stupid). Honestly, that should be done anyway, since the through lanes are for I-355 at the I-290/355 interchange in Itasca.
Well, they can do what they did with I-294's concurrency with I-80 and create one for I-290 and I-355. That way, I-290 can still have both ends at its parent, while I-355 continues further north.
Quote from: Henry on August 28, 2015, 12:06:51 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 27, 2015, 09:53:17 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 24, 2015, 06:02:19 AM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on August 20, 2015, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:02:35 PM
By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?
Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.
Where would it hook up to I 94? Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?
It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.
Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.
Fair point, but then IDOT would need to re-designate I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 turnoff as I-355, and I don't think they want to do that (they'd probably argue I-290 won't meet it's parent at both ends, which is stupid). Honestly, that should be done anyway, since the through lanes are for I-355 at the I-290/355 interchange in Itasca.
Well, they can do what they did with I-294's concurrency with I-80 and create one for I-290 and I-355. That way, I-290 can still have both ends at its parent, while I-355 continues further north.
Or just end the I-290 designation in Itasca. There is no reason for I-290 to head back up to I-90, the only reason it does is I-355 didn't exist yet when it was signed in the late 1970's.
Quote from: I-39 on August 28, 2015, 03:11:40 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 28, 2015, 12:06:51 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 27, 2015, 09:53:17 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 24, 2015, 06:02:19 AM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: tribar on August 20, 2015, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 20, 2015, 07:02:35 PM
By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?
Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.
Where would it hook up to I 94? Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?
It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.
Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.
Fair point, but then IDOT would need to re-designate I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 turnoff as I-355, and I don't think they want to do that (they'd probably argue I-290 won't meet it's parent at both ends, which is stupid). Honestly, that should be done anyway, since the through lanes are for I-355 at the I-290/355 interchange in Itasca.
Well, they can do what they did with I-294's concurrency with I-80 and create one for I-290 and I-355. That way, I-290 can still have both ends at its parent, while I-355 continues further north.
Or just end the I-290 designation in Itasca. There is no reason for I-290 to head back up to I-90, the only reason it does is I-355 didn't exist yet when it was signed in the late 1970's.
Or just eliminate it all together. I-88 goes to the Circle, I-355 goes to Lake-Cook Road, and I-188 takes up the remnant 8 miles from Itasca to Hillside. It actually makes more sense when one looks at the "through" movements at both the I-290/355 and I-88/290 interchanges.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. In my opinion, just because a road doesn't meet it's parent at both ends doesn't mean it doesn't function as a bypass. I-290 is a perfect example of this as it's logical endpoint is between Addison and Itasca at I-355. 355 should continue all the way up to Lake Cook. For that matter, I-294 should end at I-80. There's no point in having useless concurrences in my opinion.
I don't see a reason to eliminate the existing signage for I-290 or I-294 (or I-88) - it's not broken.
In the case of I-294 over I-80 - remove the I-294 shields and you likely end up replacing them with "TO I-94 / TO I-294" shields. You gained nothing.
Even if it were built as a six lane expressway, they'd probably just leave this corridor as IL-53.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on September 05, 2015, 01:30:06 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. In my opinion, just because a road doesn't meet it's parent at both ends doesn't mean it doesn't function as a bypass. I-290 is a perfect example of this as it's logical endpoint is between Addison and Itasca at I-355. 355 should continue all the way up to Lake Cook. For that matter, I-294 should end at I-80. There's no point in having useless concurrences in my opinion.
I've always thought that I-294 and the toll road should end at I-80. I'm pro toll road, but in this case it seems kind of like a rip off. It costs $1.10 just to drive 5 miles. I guess it's a big money maker for the Illinois Toll Road.
Quote from: US 41 on September 08, 2015, 11:35:36 AM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on September 05, 2015, 01:30:06 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. In my opinion, just because a road doesn't meet it's parent at both ends doesn't mean it doesn't function as a bypass. I-290 is a perfect example of this as it's logical endpoint is between Addison and Itasca at I-355. 355 should continue all the way up to Lake Cook. For that matter, I-294 should end at I-80. There's no point in having useless concurrences in my opinion.
I've always thought that I-294 and the toll road should end at I-80. I'm pro toll road, but in this case it seems kind of like a rip off. It costs $1.10 just to drive 5 miles. I guess it's a big money maker for the Illinois Toll Road.
Considering that ISTHA built that section well before I-80 was even connected to it, your idea is moot.
Let's get back to discussing the Illinois 53 Extension, and leave the other stuff for other threads.
Quote from: Brandon on September 08, 2015, 01:39:18 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 08, 2015, 11:35:36 AM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on September 05, 2015, 01:30:06 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. In my opinion, just because a road doesn't meet it's parent at both ends doesn't mean it doesn't function as a bypass. I-290 is a perfect example of this as it's logical endpoint is between Addison and Itasca at I-355. 355 should continue all the way up to Lake Cook. For that matter, I-294 should end at I-80. There's no point in having useless concurrences in my opinion.
I've always thought that I-294 and the toll road should end at I-80. I'm pro toll road, but in this case it seems kind of like a rip off. It costs $1.10 just to drive 5 miles. I guess it's a big money maker for the Illinois Toll Road.
Considering that ISTHA built that section well before I-80 was even connected to it, your idea is moot.
IMO, traffic flow would improve if the tolls were removed on I-80 and they reconfigured the I-80/294 interchange to have I-80 use through lanes rather than having to exit I-294 NB to get to I-80 WB.
But back to IL-53....
I founded this article from the Chicago Tribune from Tollroadsnews http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-sept-21-2015#10 the Sierra Club stepped in.....*sighs*... (note then the link go to an archived copy located on Archive.is
https://archive.is/4bRjy
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 22, 2015, 08:24:44 AM
I founded this article from the Chicago Tribune from Tollroadsnews http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-sept-21-2015#10 the Sierra Club stepped in.....*sighs*... (note then the link go to an archived copy located on Archive.is
https://archive.is/4bRjy
Surely they must be friends with the mayor of Hawthorn Woods? (based on the fact that he is very highly opposed to the extension himself)
Quote from: Henry on September 22, 2015, 11:29:16 AM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 22, 2015, 08:24:44 AM
I founded this article from the Chicago Tribune from Tollroadsnews http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-sept-21-2015#10 the Sierra Club stepped in.....*sighs*... (note then the link go to an archived copy located on Archive.is
https://archive.is/4bRjy
Surely they must be friends with the mayor of Hawthorn Woods? (based on the fact that he is very highly opposed to the extension himself)
If they are going to oppose whatever is put out, then might as well revise the project to a six lane tolled expressway (Option E in the Final Report). It will generate more revenue than the parkway.
As far as I know this is on the TODO list, not the what if list. So after I90 is wrapped up next year and 390 the year after this will become the focus and I just don't see it getting derailed as easily as the last 30 years. They can drum up as much support against it as they want, but the voters have spoken and they will speak again and unless they want to fight some messy lawsuit I just don't think they can win.
Quote from: quickshade on September 22, 2015, 10:47:32 PM
As far as I know this is on the TODO list, not the what if list. So after I90 is wrapped up next year and 390 the year after this will become the focus and I just don't see it getting derailed as easily as the last 30 years. They can drum up as much support against it as they want, but the voters have spoken and they will speak again and unless they want to fight some messy lawsuit I just don't think they can win.
I hope you're right.
Quote from: I-39 on September 22, 2015, 04:41:58 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 22, 2015, 11:29:16 AM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 22, 2015, 08:24:44 AM
I founded this article from the Chicago Tribune from Tollroadsnews http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-sept-21-2015#10 the Sierra Club stepped in.....*sighs*... (note then the link go to an archived copy located on Archive.is
https://archive.is/4bRjy
Surely they must be friends with the mayor of Hawthorn Woods? (based on the fact that he is very highly opposed to the extension himself)
If they are going to oppose whatever is put out, then might as well revise the project to a six lane tolled expressway (Option E in the Final Report). It will generate more revenue than the parkway.
I could see that, but I'm afraid that nothing will appease them with the exception of the No-Build alternative.
Quote from: tribar on September 22, 2015, 10:51:09 PM
Quote from: quickshade on September 22, 2015, 10:47:32 PM
As far as I know this is on the TODO list, not the what if list. So after I90 is wrapped up next year and 390 the year after this will become the focus and I just don't see it getting derailed as easily as the last 30 years. They can drum up as much support against it as they want, but the voters have spoken and they will speak again and unless they want to fight some messy lawsuit I just don't think they can win.
I hope you're right.
I'm sure that they will lose.
Quote from: Henry on September 23, 2015, 01:39:40 PM
I'm sure that they will lose.
I don't know that I'd take that bet. The figurative road is littered with projects killed by lawsuits that people were "sure that they will lose". If history has taught us anything, it's that for better or worse transportation projects are no longer pushed from the regional level onto the local municipalities.
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 23, 2015, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 23, 2015, 01:39:40 PM
I'm sure that they will lose.
I don't know that I'd take that bet. The figurative road is littered with projects killed by lawsuits that people were "sure that they will lose". If history has taught us anything, it's that for better or worse transportation projects are no longer pushed from the regional level onto the local municipalities.
They will lose this fight, because not just the traditional people will join the opposition, but the people who are opposed to the new taxes that will be levied to help pay for it will join as well.
Well if it ends up being tolled and they are using the Move Illinois funds. And the voters did speak when they ran the question a few years back to gather data on how people felt about the project. It won by a wide margin.
Quote from: quickshade on September 24, 2015, 10:07:43 PM
Well if it ends up being tolled and they are using the Move Illinois funds. And the voters did speak when they ran the question a few years back to gather data on how people felt about the project. It won by a wide margin.
It was agreed to be under the purview of the ISTHA back in the 1980s - everyone there expects it to be a tollway.
Mike
Can someone who has a Tribune subscription please copy and paste the text in here please? Thanks.
Edit: Found out that the shortened url was there for a reason.
Not that we don't already know what the article is about. The same story for the past 30 years.
Stupid question: Why was the IL Rt 83 realignment not included in the Lake County Challenge Program bond 4 laning of Peterson Rd and Rt 83 near Peterson Rd?
The bridge over the train tracks didn't need to be built yet, but the intersection of Peterson and 83 could have been moved to its proposed realignment instead of just widening the intersection at its existing alignment.
The Village of Grayslake wanted a partial cloverleaf interchange at Rt 53 and Peterson Rd, taking up the two southern quadrants of the interchange, likely due to there being a landfill to the north.
I doubt there would be a point now of realigning Rt 83 further south than the bridge that will connect Atkinson Rd to the existing Rt 83.
So now there probably wouldn't be enough room for a partial clover leaf. Maybe a tight diamond.
Looks like Lake County DOT apparently wasn't interested in realigning the intersection of Peterson and 83. Grayslake in 2014 said that were waiting on an IDOT project, but it looks like Lake County DOT did the intersection improvement without waiting for IDOT. Alot of things seem this "backwards" way in Lake County. "backwards" as in the county roads are better than the state roads, and waiting for IDOT takes so long that the county gives up and does its own plans.
More drama in fight over the Illinois 53 extension. Here is an article from the Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-route-53-extension-met-20151029-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-route-53-extension-met-20151029-story.html)
The battle lines have formed again in the decades-old controversy over extending a key artery, Illinois Route 53, north through Lake County. This time the fight has stirred attention well beyond the county's borders.
A key question looms on whether the Illinois Tollway should spend nearly $6 million for an environmental impact study on the feasibility of the controversial project.
That study, if favorable, could serve to greenlight a much more costly decision by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority board: Should the agency build a proposed $2.65 billion tollway that would cost more to drive per mile than anywhere else in the entire system?
An advisory committee recommended in March that Lake County residents bear a major share of the construction costs, with a new county gas tax and creation of a special taxing district. But the project's cost would be shared by everyone who uses the tollway system.
Supporters and opponents of the project have become increasingly vocal in recent months, turning out at Tollway board meetings to present their arguments.
Hawthorn Woods resident Vanessa Griffin told the Tollway board last week that constructing the highway would disrupt the environment and harm "a beautiful, calm, quiet, nature-soaked community."
Evan Craig, representing the Sierra Club, said the extension would destroy portions of the county's valuable wetlands. Furthermore, the project would result in Lake County "taxing itself to help pay for its own demise," the Vernon Hills resident said.
Disharmony spreads over Route 53 plan
Disharmony spreads over Route 53 plan
But Jeffrey Berman, a Buffalo Grove village trustee, countered that plans call for wetland protections and restoration of natural resources, with innovative stormwater management techniques to minimize environmental impact.
After 40 years of debate, "it's time to move forward with this critical infrastructure project that will mitigate congestion and drive renewed economic opportunity" in the county, Berman said.
Foes have organized to oppose the project. More than 100 project opponents rallied Sept. 20 at the Heron Creek Forest Preserve in Lake Zurich. Proponents have mobilized as well and recently issued a new survey of county residents that they say bolsters their case.
But three years after a special Blue Ribbon Advisory Council proclaimed that it had achieved a consensus on how the proposed "21st century urban highway" should look, Lake County communities appear to be engaged in a civil war over the issue.
The advisory council called for not only extending Route 53 north through Lake County, as originally intended, but creating a broader corridor also encompassing Route 120, which runs east-west across the county.
5 Lake County towns unite against Route 53 planning process
5 Lake County towns unite against Route 53 planning process
The plan envisions extending existing Route 53 for 12.5 miles north from Lake-Cook Road to Grayslake. There, it would form a "T" with a 12-mile stretch of Route 120, which would also be upgraded.
The new Route 53/120 corridor would be unlike the rest of the tollway system, a "parkway" limited to four lanes and a 45-mph speed limit. Advocates describe it as "a modern boulevard with a small footprint to protect the natural environment and preserve the character of Lake County."
If the extension is built, it could be the most expensive tollway to drive in the Chicago area, with a base toll of 20 cents per mile. Tollway users currently pay an average of 6 cents per mile.
Working with the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, a county-led Land Use Committee recently completed a draft document for the corridor. This month, CMAP conducted two open houses to elicit public comment on the document.
A comprehensive plan created by CMAP, the official planning agency for the Chicago area, lists the Route 53/120 corridor project as its highest priority, citing performance measures that show it as "ranking highest among all projects in its effect on regionwide congestion."
The Land Use Committee is scheduled to meet next Nov. 5 and may sign off on the 170-page draft plan. The document is heavy on statistics and maps, but as of this week, still lacks an executive summary containing specific recommendations.
The draft does conclude that the Route 53/120 corridor "will be a catalyst for economic development" in Lake County.
In June, leaders in Hawthorn Woods, Kildeer, Long Grove, Mundelein and Round Lake, which contend they will be the most directly affected by the highway, wrote to the Tollway expressing concern with the project's planning process.
Hawthorn Woods contends that the advisory council's report is flawed. The panel "did not include a single community in the path of the proposed Route 53 as members," the village wrote in a comment on the Land Use plan.
"Residents in this part of the county located their homes here to avoid maximum build-out of land, high density development, and commercialization of farms with industrial centers, shopping centers, and multi-story employment centers," the letter stated.
Their letter was quickly followed by one in support of the project by leaders in 40 other municipalities. Those officials asked Tollway Chairman Bob Schillerstrom and three new board members – all appointed by Gov. Bruce Rauner – for their "continued support with the next engineering and environmental studies required to keep this project moving forward."
Tollway officials say they anticipate the authority's board will make a decision on whether to authorize an environmental impact study at the agency's Dec. 17 meeting.
That's the day that the Tollway is scheduled to approve the agency's 2016 budget, which includes $5.8 million for planning studies for "emerging projects."
Tollway Executive Director Greg Bedalov, addressing the Transportation Management Association of Lake-Cook last week, said the agency will be "looking more critically" at the project before making a decision.
Lake County Chairman Aaron Lawlor, who has championed the project and co-chaired the land use panel, told the association that the project has a "tremendous amount of support" throughout the county and urged the Tollway to proceed with an environmental impact study.
One alternative that some have suggested, widening some 56 miles of existing arterial highways, would cost an estimated $2.8 billion, more than the proposed Route 53/120 project, Lawlor said.
Furthermore, there is no source of funds for this work, unlike the "more certain future" that is offered by the Tollway, Lawlor said.
An analysis by the development group Lake County Partners determined that the Route 53-120 corridor project would generate $17 billion to $19 billion in economic impact and create 25,000 to 30,000 jobs, Lawlor said.
"When you look at all the alternatives," Lawlor said, "the project is less costly, it has more environmental benefits, and it leverages the collective will of our mayors, economic development professionals and environmental leaders to work together in a collaborative manner for smart growth."
I think they have a plan that conserves the environment, increases traffic flow and decrease congestion for many in both Lake and McHenry county. Although I don't agree with the parkway build option overall the plan is solid and I would venture to guess since the tollway is committed to improving the network of roads and the huge majority that support the project these towns will just have to learn to deal with it. 30 years they have known this was going to happen, time to just deal with it.
Quote from: quickshade on November 01, 2015, 10:40:38 AM
I think they have a plan that conserves the environment, increases traffic flow and decrease congestion for many in both Lake and McHenry county. Although I don't agree with the parkway build option overall the plan is solid and I would venture to guess since the tollway is committed to improving the network of roads and the huge majority that support the project these towns will just have to learn to deal with it. 30 years they have known this was going to happen, time to just deal with it.
They just need to drop the 45 part of it and maybe make it 3 lanes.
A new study has gotten approval for the eventual expansion. 12.5 miles would be added between lake cook and IL-120. IL-120 would be upgraded and have a T junction constructed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-tollway-route-53-met-20151208-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-tollway-route-53-met-20151208-story.html)
Quote from: ET21 on December 10, 2015, 09:00:20 AM
A new study has gotten approval for the eventual expansion. 12.5 miles would be added between lake cook and IL-120. IL-120 would be upgraded and have a T junction constructed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-tollway-route-53-met-20151208-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-tollway-route-53-met-20151208-story.html)
No 45 BS when us-12 has faster speeds with lights.
Also in schaumburg IL there are LOCAL ROADS with 45.
Well, that's a start. But there will still be opponents who will try to stop the proposal dead in its tracks yet again! (i.e. Hawthorn Woods)
Somehow, I doubt even this study will lead to construction of the route.
Quote from: Henry on December 10, 2015, 01:15:43 PM
Well, that's a start. But there will still be opponents who will try to stop the proposal dead in its tracks yet again! (i.e. Hawthorn Woods)
Hawthorn Woods and Long Grove are the main opponents, even though by the looks of the Facebook article the public wants it built now. The mayor is quoted saying "This will profoundly change my village", emphasis on the my. What a prick lol
I doubt funding will be availble until after Move Illinois wraps up in 2026.
With the latest transportation bill being passed and this project being listed at least to be studied I don't see how it would take 10 more years before they final decide to fund it.
What transportation bill being passed? I thought the road would mostly be funded by ISTHA ,Lake County, system wide toll increases and or modifications to toll collection points, a Lake county gas tax, and a Tax Increment Financing District, with the over a billion funding shortfall having no funding sources determined yet.
The federal bill just passed last week. 7.5 Billion over the next 5 years for Illinois roadways alone. It seems IDOT is going to come out with a long range plan on what's coming up in the next 5 years.
Honestly they should put up money for the route 120 improvements and let the tollway handle the 53 extension. If both agreed to fund those projects I don't see how it could get delayed. Of course this is Illinois we are talking.
The IL 53 extension has now moved on to the Environmental Impact Study. This is estimated to take four to five years and cost 40 to 50 million dollars.
Also, the mayor of Hawthorn Grove plans to file law suits.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-tollway-route-53-met-20151208-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-tollway-route-53-met-20151208-story.html)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-rutter-route-53-st-0102-20151231-column.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-rutter-route-53-st-0102-20151231-column.html)
So pessimistically, if the study takes five years to complete and starts now, and is followed by two years of arbitration before a record of decision is given, and the tollway does not have contracts lined up until two years after that before utility removal begins, then utility removal will not begin until January 2025. So almost a decade more to go being pessimistic.
So pessimistically, if the construction takes as long as the EOWA and takes 12 years built in segments, then construction of all IL -53 - IL -120 tollway segments will not be complete until 2037. So more than two more decades to go being pessimistic.
That does not sound pessimistic to me. That sounds accurate.
Makes me wonder if there will be an AARoads forum 21 years from now. :ded: :spin:
Quote from: dietermoreno on February 05, 2016, 07:13:38 PM
The IL 53 extension has now moved on to the Environmental Impact Study. This is estimated to take four to five years and cost 40 to 50 million dollars.
Also, the mayor of Hawthorn Grove plans to file law suits.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-tollway-route-53-met-20151208-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-tollway-route-53-met-20151208-story.html)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-rutter-route-53-st-0102-20151231-column.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-rutter-route-53-st-0102-20151231-column.html)
So pessimistically, if the study takes five years to complete and starts now, and is followed by two years of arbitration before a record of decision is given, and the tollway does not have contracts lined up until two years after that before utility removal begins, then utility removal will not begin until January 2025. So almost a decade more to go being pessimistic.
So pessimistically, if the construction takes as long as the EOWA and takes 12 years built in segments, then construction of all IL -53 - IL -120 tollway segments will not be complete until 2037. So more than two more decades to go being pessimistic.
I'd like to know how it takes 5 years to do an EIS? Is this just to try to appease Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods??? Seriously, have them drive during a normal weekday through Lake County (especially those areas). I think they'll come to a consensus rather quickly with that on an EIS! Seriously, do they take fumes from cars just sitting into account? Economically and environmentally, I just fail to see how holding this up could do any good. Everyone has cited the costs of this project, yet waiting is only going to make that go up!
And probably in the end, the extension won't be built.
I've changed my mind. I now fully support tolling the existing IL-53 between I-90 and Lake Cook Road to help pay for this extension. Tolling that segment could also help pay for needed reconstruction on that segment as well as reconstruction/reconfiguration of the I-90/I-290/IL-53 system interchange.
It really is the only logical solution to help pay for the gap in funding. I don't know how else they would do it.
However, I still think the extension needs to be built as a six lane expressway.
Quote"To promote an informed and transparent discussion about the Illinois Route 53/120 Project, the Illinois
Tollway and the Illinois Department of Transportation are undertaking an environmental impact
statement to provide a thorough evaluation detailing a full range of alternatives and the impacts of
each," said Illinois Tollway Executive Director Greg Bedalov. "This process will ensure a
comprehensive review of environmental sensitivities and regional traffic mobility impacts and that
community engagement is included as part of this project."
From yesterdays press release http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c)
Quote from: ChiMilNet on February 06, 2016, 11:39:15 AM
I'd like to know how it takes 5 years to do an EIS? Is this just to try to appease Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods???
More likely it is to do a very thorough EIS so the EIS holds up to the inevitable court challenges by Long Grove, Hawthorne Woods, and the miscellaneous environmental groups. They will probably have to do a decent amount of alternative analysis, including upgrades to the existing roads versus a new facility, as well as verify the alignment that is currently having ROW protected is actually the best one. There are also the wetland impacts to be looked at, especially since they have recently doomed many other projects such as the Richmond (IL) Bypass and could easily wipe out the IL 53 extension.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 02, 2016, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on February 06, 2016, 11:39:15 AM
I'd like to know how it takes 5 years to do an EIS? Is this just to try to appease Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods???
More likely it is to do a very thorough EIS so the EIS holds up to the inevitable court challenges by Long Grove, Hawthorne Woods, and the miscellaneous environmental groups. They will probably have to do a decent amount of alternative analysis, including upgrades to the existing roads versus a new facility, as well as verify the alignment that is currently having ROW protected is actually the best one. There are also the wetland impacts to be looked at, especially since they have recently doomed many other projects such as the Richmond (IL) Bypass and could easily wipe out the IL 53 extension.
So, in short, the answer to the second part of my question is "yes". So sad, because I honestly just think of the wasted time and money to all parties involved, including Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. Being someone who lives near where the extension would be build (but on the Cook County side, luckily), I just fail to see how these towns can look at the development that is coming (it's already there), and determine that nothing should be done. I know there are wetlands, but I would have to think fumes from stalled cars also contribute to environmental concerns. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 02, 2016, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on February 06, 2016, 11:39:15 AM
I'd like to know how it takes 5 years to do an EIS? Is this just to try to appease Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods???
More likely it is to do a very thorough EIS so the EIS holds up to the inevitable court challenges by Long Grove, Hawthorne Woods, and the miscellaneous environmental groups. They will probably have to do a decent amount of alternative analysis, including upgrades to the existing roads versus a new facility, as well as verify the alignment that is currently having ROW protected is actually the best one. There are also the wetland impacts to be looked at, especially since they have recently doomed many other projects such as the Richmond (IL) Bypass and could easily wipe out the IL 53 extension.
and they need to get past the 45 MPH part. When other roads are higher.
Now can they build IL-120 part with out Long Grove, Hawthorne Woods
Quote from: quickshade on April 02, 2016, 12:07:59 PM
Quote"To promote an informed and transparent discussion about the Illinois Route 53/120 Project, the Illinois
Tollway and the Illinois Department of Transportation are undertaking an environmental impact
statement to provide a thorough evaluation detailing a full range of alternatives and the impacts of
each," said Illinois Tollway Executive Director Greg Bedalov. "This process will ensure a
comprehensive review of environmental sensitivities and regional traffic mobility impacts and that
community engagement is included as part of this project."
From yesterdays press release http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c)
Does this mean the six lane expressway is still on the table?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 02, 2016, 03:27:04 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 02, 2016, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on February 06, 2016, 11:39:15 AM
I'd like to know how it takes 5 years to do an EIS? Is this just to try to appease Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods???
More likely it is to do a very thorough EIS so the EIS holds up to the inevitable court challenges by Long Grove, Hawthorne Woods, and the miscellaneous environmental groups. They will probably have to do a decent amount of alternative analysis, including upgrades to the existing roads versus a new facility, as well as verify the alignment that is currently having ROW protected is actually the best one. There are also the wetland impacts to be looked at, especially since they have recently doomed many other projects such as the Richmond (IL) Bypass and could easily wipe out the IL 53 extension.
and they need to get past the 45 MPH part. When other roads are higher.
Now can they build IL-120 part with out Long Grove, Hawthorne Woods
I don't see why not. 120 needs to be widened even without the 53 extension.
Quote from: I-39 on April 02, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: quickshade on April 02, 2016, 12:07:59 PM
Quote"To promote an informed and transparent discussion about the Illinois Route 53/120 Project, the Illinois
Tollway and the Illinois Department of Transportation are undertaking an environmental impact
statement to provide a thorough evaluation detailing a full range of alternatives and the impacts of
each," said Illinois Tollway Executive Director Greg Bedalov. "This process will ensure a
comprehensive review of environmental sensitivities and regional traffic mobility impacts and that
community engagement is included as part of this project."
From yesterdays press release http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c)
Does this mean the six lane expressway is still on the table?
Yes, This study will determine which option is best suited to help move traffic through the area and less likely to affect the environment. It will study all options and will make a recommendation on the one that will have the best benefits to the economy, traffic, future development and of course the environment. It will go out to bid with the study starting this fall. I'd expect the study to take 2-3 years maybe 3-4 depending on how much data they want to have. From there all the options will be presented most likely to the board and then the community.
I'd expect another 2 year process to finalize the choice, acquire any land rights and most likely another 2 years to finalize everything else and send it out to bid. 6-8 years would be my best guess before construction would begin. If any lawsuits come up, 8-10 years. 2022-2026 would be estimated start date. Imagine whole project finished by 2030-32.
Of course i'm be optimistic, but it seems Lake County is really pushing this. I've had a few people tell me that this is "going to happen" regardless of what any does to try and stop it and that they are ready to commit full resources to the project after the study. And i've been hearing some people that have mentioned it here and there for the past few years talk like it's going to happen.
Quote from: quickshade on April 02, 2016, 08:51:18 PM
Quote from: I-39 on April 02, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: quickshade on April 02, 2016, 12:07:59 PM
Quote"To promote an informed and transparent discussion about the Illinois Route 53/120 Project, the Illinois
Tollway and the Illinois Department of Transportation are undertaking an environmental impact
statement to provide a thorough evaluation detailing a full range of alternatives and the impacts of
each," said Illinois Tollway Executive Director Greg Bedalov. "This process will ensure a
comprehensive review of environmental sensitivities and regional traffic mobility impacts and that
community engagement is included as part of this project."
From yesterdays press release http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c)
Does this mean the six lane expressway is still on the table?
Yes, This study will determine which option is best suited to help move traffic through the area and less likely to affect the environment. It will study all options and will make a recommendation on the one that will have the best benefits to the economy, traffic, future development and of course the environment. It will go out to bid with the study starting this fall. I'd expect the study to take 2-3 years maybe 3-4 depending on how much data they want to have. From there all the options will be presented most likely to the board and then the community.
I'd expect another 2 year process to finalize the choice, acquire any land rights and most likely another 2 years to finalize everything else and send it out to bid. 6-8 years would be my best guess before construction would begin. If any lawsuits come up, 8-10 years. 2022-2026 would be estimated start date. Imagine whole project finished by 2030-32.
Of course i'm be optimistic, but it seems Lake County is really pushing this. I've had a few people tell me that this is "going to happen" regardless of what any does to try and stop it and that they are ready to commit full resources to the project after the study. And i've been hearing some people that have mentioned it here and there for the past few years talk like it's going to happen.
I hope your right. However, I hope they realize that anything less than a six lane expressway will not solve the problem. This parkway nonsense has got to stop. The point of the IL-53 extension was to provide Lake County with another HIGH SPEED roadway. If I want a 45 mph four lane road, I'll take US 12.
Quote from: I-39 on April 02, 2016, 10:08:38 PM
Quote from: quickshade on April 02, 2016, 08:51:18 PM
Quote from: I-39 on April 02, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: quickshade on April 02, 2016, 12:07:59 PM
Quote"To promote an informed and transparent discussion about the Illinois Route 53/120 Project, the Illinois
Tollway and the Illinois Department of Transportation are undertaking an environmental impact
statement to provide a thorough evaluation detailing a full range of alternatives and the impacts of
each," said Illinois Tollway Executive Director Greg Bedalov. "This process will ensure a
comprehensive review of environmental sensitivities and regional traffic mobility impacts and that
community engagement is included as part of this project."
From yesterdays press release http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/04bb84cf-9cd2-4ea6-b80e-ee463f26643c)
Does this mean the six lane expressway is still on the table?
Yes, This study will determine which option is best suited to help move traffic through the area and less likely to affect the environment. It will study all options and will make a recommendation on the one that will have the best benefits to the economy, traffic, future development and of course the environment. It will go out to bid with the study starting this fall. I'd expect the study to take 2-3 years maybe 3-4 depending on how much data they want to have. From there all the options will be presented most likely to the board and then the community.
I'd expect another 2 year process to finalize the choice, acquire any land rights and most likely another 2 years to finalize everything else and send it out to bid. 6-8 years would be my best guess before construction would begin. If any lawsuits come up, 8-10 years. 2022-2026 would be estimated start date. Imagine whole project finished by 2030-32.
Of course i'm be optimistic, but it seems Lake County is really pushing this. I've had a few people tell me that this is "going to happen" regardless of what any does to try and stop it and that they are ready to commit full resources to the project after the study. And i've been hearing some people that have mentioned it here and there for the past few years talk like it's going to happen.
I hope your right. However, I hope they realize that anything less than a six lane expressway will not solve the problem. This parkway nonsense has got to stop. The point of the IL-53 extension was to provide Lake County with another HIGH SPEED roadway. If I want a 45 mph four lane road, I'll take US 12.
US-12 has 50-55 parts. Now will there be some kind of US-12 upgrade as an alt?
Lake County Chairman changes stance on IL 53 extension
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160516/news/160519062/
Quote from: Rick Powell on May 16, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
Lake County Chairman changes stance on IL 53 extension
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160516/news/160519062/
In other words, it's almost officially dead forever. Great...........
the 45 mph parkway part needs to die.
But I think an toll road is better then upgrading us12, IL-83, IL-60 and IL-120.
Wonder how much money Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods threw at him.
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2016, 08:56:17 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on May 16, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
Lake County Chairman changes stance on IL 53 extension
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160516/news/160519062/
In other words, it's almost officially dead forever. Great...........
Maybe, maybe not.
Long Grove and Hawthorne woods are shooting themselves in the foot with this NIMBY.
First, Lake county doesn't levy a 4 cent per gallon gas tax like Dupage and Kane county do-Lake county doesn't levy a tax at all.
Two, if this highway was built, I'd imagine it would be mildly successful as it's in a prime location. If the area gets built up with tons of industrial and commercial complexes, the tax revenue would be astounding.
Third, I'll point to the Virginia Dulles Greenway/626. Built 30 years ago. Look at it now, Greenway has extremely high toll-close to $5-6 just to be on it, and Virginia 626 has $3-4 toll. Toll prices are ridiculous, but what's amazing is the number of industrial/commercial lots that have been built in 30 years time.
"environmentally conscious planning" heh, tell those to the bafoons in Long grove with their 1-2 acre lots.
Quote from: johndoe780 on May 16, 2016, 11:19:32 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2016, 08:56:17 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on May 16, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
Lake County Chairman changes stance on IL 53 extension
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160516/news/160519062/
In other words, it's almost officially dead forever. Great...........
Maybe, maybe not.
Long Grove and Hawthorne woods are shooting themselves in the foot with this NIMBY.
First, Lake county doesn't levy a 4 cent per gallon gas tax like Dupage and Kane county do-Lake county doesn't levy a tax at all.
Two, if this highway was built, I'd imagine it would be mildly successful as it's in a prime location. If the area gets built up with tons of industrial and commercial complexes, the tax revenue would be astounding.
Third, I'll point to the Virginia Dulles Greenway/626. Built 30 years ago. Look at it now, Greenway has extremely high toll-close to $5-6 just to be on it, and Virginia 626 has $3-4 toll. Toll prices are ridiculous, but what's amazing is the number of industrial/commercial lots that have been built in 30 years time.
"environmentally conscious planning" heh, tell those to the bafoons in Long grove with their 1-2 acre lots.
This highway, if built properly, would be very well used. In fact, I think they are severely underestimating how big it would be.
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2016, 11:43:42 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on May 16, 2016, 11:19:32 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2016, 08:56:17 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on May 16, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
Lake County Chairman changes stance on IL 53 extension
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160516/news/160519062/
In other words, it's almost officially dead forever. Great...........
Maybe, maybe not.
Long Grove and Hawthorne woods are shooting themselves in the foot with this NIMBY.
First, Lake county doesn't levy a 4 cent per gallon gas tax like Dupage and Kane county do-Lake county doesn't levy a tax at all.
Two, if this highway was built, I'd imagine it would be mildly successful as it's in a prime location. If the area gets built up with tons of industrial and commercial complexes, the tax revenue would be astounding.
Third, I'll point to the Virginia Dulles Greenway/626. Built 30 years ago. Look at it now, Greenway has extremely high toll-close to $5-6 just to be on it, and Virginia 626 has $3-4 toll. Toll prices are ridiculous, but what's amazing is the number of industrial/commercial lots that have been built in 30 years time.
"environmentally conscious planning" heh, tell those to the bafoons in Long grove with their 1-2 acre lots.
This highway, if built properly, would be very well used. In fact, I think they are severely underestimating how big it would be.
Someone please tell people to stop giving in to Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. Golden opportunity is just being wasted here! However, I'm glad the Tollway is still sticking with it, and here's hoping their study actually concludes what most of us know... it should be built, and built to Interstate standards at 65 MPH.
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2016, 11:43:42 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on May 16, 2016, 11:19:32 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2016, 08:56:17 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on May 16, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
Lake County Chairman changes stance on IL 53 extension
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160516/news/160519062/
In other words, it's almost officially dead forever. Great...........
Maybe, maybe not.
Long Grove and Hawthorne woods are shooting themselves in the foot with this NIMBY.
First, Lake county doesn't levy a 4 cent per gallon gas tax like Dupage and Kane county do-Lake county doesn't levy a tax at all.
Two, if this highway was built, I'd imagine it would be mildly successful as it's in a prime location. If the area gets built up with tons of industrial and commercial complexes, the tax revenue would be astounding.
Third, I'll point to the Virginia Dulles Greenway/626. Built 30 years ago. Look at it now, Greenway has extremely high toll-close to $5-6 just to be on it, and Virginia 626 has $3-4 toll. Toll prices are ridiculous, but what's amazing is the number of industrial/commercial lots that have been built in 30 years time.
"environmentally conscious planning" heh, tell those to the bafoons in Long grove with their 1-2 acre lots.
This highway, if built properly, would be very well used. In fact, I think they are severely underestimating how big it would be.
I agree with you 100%. If this highway is built to interstate grade, the amount of commercial and industrial taxes could pay for this highway several times over the course of 20-30 years.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160517/news/160518840/
Thank God the tollway director is still on for the study, and hopefully, Rauner is too. If these citizens of Hawthrone woods and long grove wish to preserve their rural presence, perhaps they should move a bit more west, such as Mchenry county or kane county.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 17, 2016, 09:42:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2016, 11:43:42 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on May 16, 2016, 11:19:32 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 16, 2016, 08:56:17 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on May 16, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
Lake County Chairman changes stance on IL 53 extension
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160516/news/160519062/
In other words, it's almost officially dead forever. Great...........
Maybe, maybe not.
Long Grove and Hawthorne woods are shooting themselves in the foot with this NIMBY.
First, Lake county doesn't levy a 4 cent per gallon gas tax like Dupage and Kane county do-Lake county doesn't levy a tax at all.
Two, if this highway was built, I'd imagine it would be mildly successful as it's in a prime location. If the area gets built up with tons of industrial and commercial complexes, the tax revenue would be astounding.
Third, I'll point to the Virginia Dulles Greenway/626. Built 30 years ago. Look at it now, Greenway has extremely high toll-close to $5-6 just to be on it, and Virginia 626 has $3-4 toll. Toll prices are ridiculous, but what's amazing is the number of industrial/commercial lots that have been built in 30 years time.
"environmentally conscious planning" heh, tell those to the bafoons in Long grove with their 1-2 acre lots.
This highway, if built properly, would be very well used. In fact, I think they are severely underestimating how big it would be.
Someone please tell people to stop giving in to Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. Golden opportunity is just being wasted here! However, I'm glad the Tollway is still sticking with it, and here's hoping their study actually concludes what most of us know... it should be built, and built to Interstate standards at 65 MPH.
70 MPH build (but under posted at 60-65 for at least part of it)
Richmond part as well.
More background on recent IL 53 news.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160523/news/160529608/
Is it possible that the 120 bypass could be done without the 53 extension? Has there been a lot of opposition to it or is it simply a matter of money? Even without the extra traffic from 53, this bypass is still needed, as getting through Grayslake is a nightmare, even during non peak hours.
Quote from: tribar on July 16, 2016, 07:44:00 PM
Is it possible that the 120 bypass could be done without the 53 extension? Has there been a lot of opposition to it or is it simply a matter of money? Even without the extra traffic from 53, this bypass is still needed, as getting through Grayslake is a nightmare, even during non peak hours.
Maybe it is time to start looking at these two segments as separate projects. It would be nice to have some type of uninterrupted access tollway going to NW Lake County. That area desperately does need it. They could always leave the accommodation for the IL 53 Extension/Connection if needed. Actually, the IL 120 bypass probably could be done way cheaper by itself.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 17, 2016, 11:26:55 AM
Quote from: tribar on July 16, 2016, 07:44:00 PM
Is it possible that the 120 bypass could be done without the 53 extension? Has there been a lot of opposition to it or is it simply a matter of money? Even without the extra traffic from 53, this bypass is still needed, as getting through Grayslake is a nightmare, even during non peak hours.
Maybe it is time to start looking at these two segments as separate projects. It would be nice to have some type of uninterrupted access tollway going to NW Lake County. That area desperately does need it. They could always leave the accommodation for the IL 53 Extension/Connection if needed. Actually, the IL 120 bypass probably could be done way cheaper by itself.
yep they should look at them as separate projects because I didn't heard of opposition against the bypass (not sure)
Based on what I know, which isn't much, the 120 Bypass does not NEED to be part of the IL 53 Extension project. However I believe the current design hinges on it being built. Given how intertwined planning and design have been for the project, I believe to spin it off into a separate project isn't something either IDOT or the Tollway (or LCDOT, for that matter) want to do at this point, since they'd be taking several steps back, but doing so might get it built quicker than 53.
I blame some of the problem on LCDOT themselves. They complain about lack of funding, but they can very well raise their gas tax (currently at 0 cents per gallon) to anywhere up to 4 cents per gallon.
Dupage, Mchenry, and kane all levy 4 cents per gallon.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-lake-county-traffic-getting-around-0515-20170514-story.html
QuoteLake County has many beauties – the lakes, the forest preserves, the antiques stores.
But one place you don't want to be is on Illinois Route 120 during rush hour, when congestion causes major backups on the partly two-lane highway that runs east/west through the center of the county.
Widening and realigning parts of Route 120 are part of a long-discussed proposal to extend Illinois Route 53 north to Lake County and turn it into a T-shaped tollway, with Route 120 at the top.
But the 53/120 plan appears to be ailing. Key supporters have backed out. The Illinois Tollway voted in December 2015 to spend up to $50 million for a comprehensive environmental study, but nothing has happened.
Probably because they secretly canceled it
QuoteMeanwhile, communities along Route 120, also known as Belvidere Road, have grown tired of waiting. The county's population has almost doubled in the past 50 years, and a road that had served a mostly rural area is now a key suburban connection. Local officials want to work with federal, state and county leaders to fix the troubled route soon, regardless of whether the ambitious Route 53 component ever happens.
"I think 120 is the number one priority that Lake County needs," said Lake County Board Chair Aaron Lawlor, who dropped his support for the Route 53 expansion last year. "That's the number one project that's been held hostage by 53 in the last 50 years."
WHY DIDENT LAKE COUNTY LOOK IL 53 AND IL 120 AS SEPERATE PROGICTS? Lake County has many beauties – the lakes, the forest preserves, the antiques stores.
But one place you don't want to be is on Illinois Route 120 during rush hour, when congestion causes major backups on the partly two-lane highway that runs east/west through the center of the county.
Widening and realigning parts of Route 120 are part of a long-discussed proposal to extend Illinois Route 53 north to Lake County and turn it into a T-shaped tollway, with Route 120 at the top.
But the 53/120 plan appears to be ailing. Key supporters have backed out. The Illinois Tollway voted in December 2015 to spend up to $50 million for a comprehensive environmental study, but nothing has happened.
Meanwhile, communities along Route 120, also known as Belvidere Road, have grown tired of waiting. The county's population has almost doubled in the past 50 years, and a road that had served a mostly rural area is now a key suburban connection. Local officials want to work with federal, state and county leaders to fix the troubled route soon, regardless of whether the ambitious Route 53 component ever happens.
"I think 120 is the number one priority that Lake County needs," said Lake County Board Chair Aaron Lawlor, who dropped his support for the Route 53 expansion last year. "That's the number one project that's been held hostage by 53 in the last 50 years."
MAP: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-5918c2d8%2Fturbine%2Fct-met-route-53-map-20170514%2F650%2F650x366&hash=46ec0d23c47b402a21444142f11206d63e3625df)
Grayslake Village Manager Mike Ellis said he did not have an opinion on Route 53. "My concern is 120 and what can be done," Ellis said.
Grayslake and the communities of Lakemoor, Volo, Round Lake, Round Lake Park and Hainesville got together to come up with a consensus list of Belvidere Road improvements. Ellis said the communities want to focus local and state leaders' attention on Route 120.
"It's a long road to get to the road," Ellis said. "The quicker we can get these specific improvements on people's minds, the better."
State Sen. Melinda Bush, D-Grayslake, said her office will hold meetings over the summer with the Illinois Department of Transportation, road builders and other stakeholders about Route 120.
"These are improvements that have needed to be done in the last 20 years," Bush said.
The communities' "capacity plan" points to the fact that long backups form during rush hour on sections of Route 120 between Almond Road and Route 12. This will get worse, with future traffic volumes projected to rise up to 65 percent between now and 2040, according to the plan.
Besides widening some sections, the plan suggests other improvements to aid traffic flow, such as right turn lanes at some intersections and creating a road/rail grade separation at the 120/Illinois Route 83 intersection in Grayslake. The total cost of the proposed improvements is $60.53 million.
"It would cure 75 percent of the congestion," said Bill Morris, a former Tollway board member. "It would lose all the momentum of the politicians for I-53."
By comparison, the total cost of the 53/120 project, which would involve building an entirely new north/south road, would be up to $2.65 billion.
IDOT spokeswoman Gianna Urgo said the agency does not have any plans to widen or reroute Route 120 separate from Route 53 extension plans, though it is doing resurfacing and bridge rehabilitation projects, while making intersection improvements and installing traffic signals at Route 120 and Hainesville Road.
QuoteThe Route 53 extension has been part of regional transportation planning since the 1960s, but it also has been the subject of intense debate, with opponents expressing concern about its impact on wetlands and its high costs.
The proposed project would extend Route 53 in Cook County north to Route 120, while widening and creating a bypass for portions of Route 120, for about 25 miles of new or improved road.
A Blue Ribbon Advisory Council made up of public officials and representatives from business, labor, planning and environmental groups was created in 2011. It favored a four-lane boulevard with a maximum speed of 45 miles per hour and a number of environmental features.
Under the Council's framework, the road could be funded with tolls of 20 cents per mile – about three times the Tollway average – a 4 cent per gallon fuel tax and a capture of real estate tax revenue. Tollway spokesman Dan Rozek noted that the Tollway does not fund projects with increased gas taxes or future real estate tax revenue captures, and any discussion on future funding sources would be premature.
The Council's two co-chairs have withdrawn their support for the plan – Lawlor last year and George Ranney last month.
"I believe the project is functionally dead," said Lawlor, noting its high costs.
Ranney said in a statement that at a time when state finances continue to deteriorate, Lake County needs to consider other alternatives. He noted that new demographic trends suggest fewer new suburban households and a decline in car ownership among young people, along with driverless cars may make roads like Route 53 "quite different" by the time the road is built.
"It is time for the Tollway to reform the entire road planning process and accept that a costly and environmentally destructive 53-120 highway extension through Lake County is neither supported nor feasible," Ranney wrote.
In April, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy organization, included the proposed extension in its list of the country's most wasteful highway boondoggles.
But the extension has fans, among them the Illinois Economic Policy Institute, a think tank whose board members include representatives of the construction industry and labor unions. The Institute issued a report late last month arguing that the extension would add jobs and improve quality of life for Lake County residents.
The Institute also did a poll, which found that 66 percent of 400 voters surveyed favored the extension – support that only dropped two percentage points when voters were told the cost.
Fox Lake Mayor Donny Schmit said in an email that he favors the extension, and thinks it will help development.
"It seems that the opposition and support for the extension is geographical," wrote Schmit. "Those in the path of the extension are opposed and those at the terminus are in favor."
One opponent in the path is Hawthorn Woods Mayor Joe Mancino, who said the extension would actually increase traffic by bringing new development and more cars. His other objection is that the road would be built through an environmentally sensitive area – the Indian Creek Wetland Complex.
Rozek said that the Tollway has heard from consultants interested in preparing an environmental impact study, though there is currently no timetable for one.
The Tollway, meanwhile, is focused the $4 billion planned widening of I-294, which was approved by the Tollway Board last month.
Volo Village President Stephen Henley said both a Route 53 extension and Route 120 improvements would be an economic boon for the region, but, "If we're not going to have 53, we want to have 120."
what about O'Plaine / IL 120 under / overpass??
IL 120 / I-94 full interchange ?
US 12 upgrades???
Just goes to show what a big pain in the ass this really is.
These people need to get their head out of the sand and stop perpetuating the delusion that "improving existing roads" will solve the problem. The reason for the congestion in Lake County is that there is massive sprawl and no freeways/tollways in the central and western portions of the county (as well as Eastern McHenry) to direct traffic to. Arterials with stoplights slow down traffic. Lake County needs a free-flowing roadway to get traffic off the congested arterials.
Sadly, it looks like the Route 53 extension is dead. And traffic will suffer for decades to come as a result.
Quote from: I-39 on May 17, 2017, 01:09:10 PM
These people need to get their head out of the sand and stop perpetuating the delusion that "improving existing roads" will solve the problem. The reason for the congestion in Lake County is that there is massive sprawl and no freeways/tollways in the central and western portions of the county (as well as Eastern McHenry) to direct traffic to. Arterials with stoplights slow down traffic. Lake County needs a free-flowing roadway to get traffic off the congested arterials.
Sadly, it looks like the Route 53 extension is dead. And traffic will suffer for decades to come as a result.
Certain groups wanted it...now they got it. They'll spend the next 20 years doing their damndest to rewrite the story and say it isn't their fault. Of course no one will believe them...and in the meantime, the sprawl continues.
Quote from: DeaconG on May 17, 2017, 02:31:18 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 17, 2017, 01:09:10 PM
These people need to get their head out of the sand and stop perpetuating the delusion that "improving existing roads" will solve the problem. The reason for the congestion in Lake County is that there is massive sprawl and no freeways/tollways in the central and western portions of the county (as well as Eastern McHenry) to direct traffic to. Arterials with stoplights slow down traffic. Lake County needs a free-flowing roadway to get traffic off the congested arterials.
Sadly, it looks like the Route 53 extension is dead. And traffic will suffer for decades to come as a result.
Certain groups wanted it...now they got it. They'll spend the next 20 years doing their damndest to rewrite the story and say it isn't their fault. Of course no one will believe them...and in the meantime, the sprawl continues.
Thank you Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. Of course, these are the same communities that will now fight tooth and nail every attempt to widen roadways through their towns. You can't win with these places. They think they are in the country, and they haven't been for about 40-50 years now.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 18, 2017, 06:02:41 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on May 17, 2017, 02:31:18 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 17, 2017, 01:09:10 PM
These people need to get their head out of the sand and stop perpetuating the delusion that "improving existing roads" will solve the problem. The reason for the congestion in Lake County is that there is massive sprawl and no freeways/tollways in the central and western portions of the county (as well as Eastern McHenry) to direct traffic to. Arterials with stoplights slow down traffic. Lake County needs a free-flowing roadway to get traffic off the congested arterials.
Sadly, it looks like the Route 53 extension is dead. And traffic will suffer for decades to come as a result.
Certain groups wanted it...now they got it. They'll spend the next 20 years doing their damndest to rewrite the story and say it isn't their fault. Of course no one will believe them...and in the meantime, the sprawl continues.
Thank you Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. Of course, these are the same communities that will now fight tooth and nail every attempt to widen roadways through their towns. You can't win with these places. They think they are in the country, and they haven't been for about 40-50 years now.
I didn't really like il 53 extension mainly because to it being a 45 mph parkway
Quote from: I-90 on May 18, 2017, 06:18:20 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 18, 2017, 06:02:41 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on May 17, 2017, 02:31:18 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 17, 2017, 01:09:10 PM
These people need to get their head out of the sand and stop perpetuating the delusion that "improving existing roads" will solve the problem. The reason for the congestion in Lake County is that there is massive sprawl and no freeways/tollways in the central and western portions of the county (as well as Eastern McHenry) to direct traffic to. Arterials with stoplights slow down traffic. Lake County needs a free-flowing roadway to get traffic off the congested arterials.
Sadly, it looks like the Route 53 extension is dead. And traffic will suffer for decades to come as a result.
Certain groups wanted it...now they got it. They'll spend the next 20 years doing their damndest to rewrite the story and say it isn't their fault. Of course no one will believe them...and in the meantime, the sprawl continues.
Thank you Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. Of course, these are the same communities that will now fight tooth and nail every attempt to widen roadways through their towns. You can't win with these places. They think they are in the country, and they haven't been for about 40-50 years now.
I didn't really like il 53 extension mainly because to it being a 45 mph parkway
I agree, and sadly, it was that "compromise" that ultimately killed it. Had they left the proposal as a six lane 65 MPH tollway, it would have had more widespread support, aside from Long Grove who wasn't going to support it no matter what.
What a four lane parkway looks like:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ct.gov%2Fdot%2Flib%2Fdot%2Fwheels-merritt-parkway-blogspan.jpg&hash=59bbbea3e6d33ef7681a5a0fa506fff4e0610066)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fgeorgia999%2Ftruman_pkwy_nb_exit_012_01.jpg&hash=da1eb987d5f750ac660b154c581a9e02c9b7ad7e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/indiana999/university_pkwy_nb_app_upper_mt_vernon_rd.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/midwest/i-164_sb_exit_000_01.jpg)
Truck ban probably
https://capitolfax.com/2017/05/19/groups-on-both-sides-trying-to-fill-the-void-of-information-on-controversial-rt-53-extension/
QuoteThis spring marks five years since backers of the Route 53 extension allowed themselves to feel a sense of optimism following the release of a Blue Ribbon Advisory Council report which endorsed construction of a four-lane "modern parkway" with a 45-mph maximum speed and a "context sensitive" design. [...]
But even without taking sides, it's fair to say that momentum on the Route 53 project – to use a generic name for what would actually be a Route 53 extension from Long Grove to Grayslake and a Route 120 bypass around Grayslake – is not moving in the direction of seeing the roadway turning its first spade of dirt [...]
It's also fair to observe that, if there is a current void of information regarding any progress toward Route 53 becoming reality, opponents of Route 53 have been filling it with their messaging. Periodic protests and public statements against the whole idea were echoed Tuesday with the release of a report from the consumer-watchdog United States Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), which included Route 53/120 on its third somewhat-annual list of "Highway Boondoggles" around the country.
"Year after year, state and local governments propose billions of dollars' worth of new and expanded highways that often do little to reduce congestion or address real transportation challenges, while diverting scarce funding from infrastructure repairs and 21st century transportation priorities," the report states, swinging for the fences.
"These projects, some originally proposed decades ago, double down on the failed transportation strategies of the past while causing harm to local communities and absorbing scarce transportation dollars."
* Press release...
The Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association (IRTBA) today launched a major cable, radio, and digital ad campaign supporting the Illinois Route 53 expansion project.
The campaign features IRTBA's first television advertisement of the year. "Works" highlights the significant benefits the Route 53 expansion project will bring to Lake County.
In addition to reducing congestion and traffic, saving the average commuter 20 hours per month, the Route 53 project will boost the Lake County economy by creating up to 30,000 new full-time jobs without harming the environment.
"The Route 53 project will enhance the quality of life for residents of Lake County by creating new full-time jobs and reducing traffic so residents have more time to spend with their families," IRTBA President & CEO Michael Sturino said.
Quote8 Comments »
- Northsider - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 1:39 pm:
The ad itself, C. It's an average advocacy spot.
The content is, well, two initials. A major highway expansion that won't hurt the environment? Please; that's utter nonsense.
Besides, induced demand will choke the 53 extension – just like it will the Toll Authority's widening of the Tri-State and the Illiana (God forbid it should ever be built).
The better, smarter options are to invest in transit and making it easier for people to get around without cars. Even more importantly, reduce sprawl by ending the spatial mismatch of jobs and homes; change suburban zoning codes that force the segregation of housing, retail/commercial and other uses.
More highways = more traffic = more pollution.
- Responsa - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 1:47 pm:
Failure to adequately gauge and plan for the traffic patterns, population shift trends and economic engines of the future has been a frequent mistake both by regional entities and local governments. The Gary Airport pipe dream of course was a boondoggle of the first order and recognized as such by any sentient being. This Lake County Route 53 extension on the other hand does not really seem to fall into the boondoggle category.
- phocion - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 1:57 pm:
CMAP put Route 53 extension at the top of its high priority projects. This is an agency that fought the Illiana tooth and nail, so their endorsement of 53 means a lot more than the typical PIRG knee-jerk reaction against any highway construction. Lake County needs this project if it expects to remain competitive.
- Not It - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:00 pm:
Lake County's transportation infrastructure is abysmal, stemming from Senator Geo Karris not allowing the county to be included in a county motor fuel tax.
- cover - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:03 pm:
I'm with Northsider.
- DuPage - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:49 pm:
-@ Northsider - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 1:39 pm:
===More highways = more traffic = more pollution.===
No. Not enough highways = traffic jams and stop and go traffic = more pollution.
More highways where needed = less stop and go = less pollution.
Cars give off more pollution stopping and starting then traveling at a steady speed.
- Realistic out west - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:52 pm:
It's great Northsider walks to work, is a great seamstress who has cotton and wool along with food grown in his back yard, on top of outstanding carpentry skills to build his housing from the trees he cut from his back yard for his crops, because he obviously is self sustaining. Me, I live west nowhere near transit, don't grow my own food and buy my clothes and can't operate a hammer. I also have friends around the 9-county area, shop from brick and mortar to invigorate the economy and love the freedom of my car but hate to sit in idling traffic incfreasing polution.
- Amalia - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:22 pm:
Add a solid B. transit planning like this— more please! the take public transportation and ride a bike crowd does not seem to understand that the core of jobs in the Chicago area has been moving north and west of O'Hare for quite some time now and there is a strong need to get to the jobs. this addresses that need. People want the freedom of a car. People also need to move easily to doctors appointments and for some conditions, staying out of public transportation is a must. I avoid driving in central Chicago as much as possible because of all the goofy parking lane, bus platform, and bike lane approach that has stalled commerce in the form of car movement.someone smart should look at bottlenecks and address them. the public would be thrilled. traffic flowing well would not just reduce time wasted, but anxiety and rode rage.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-moran-route-120-morris-st-0520-20170519-story.html
QuoteThe last time I remember seeing former state senator/Waukegan mayor/Illinois Tollway board member Bill Morris, it was in September of 2015 at a Liveable Lake County event that focused on one of his historically favorite topics: Opposition to the Route 53 extension.
The last time I got an email from Bill Morris, it was this week after I wrote a column on Wednesday, May 17, about a sidebar to that topic: The construction of a Route 120 bypass, which would come with a Route 53 extension.
"I appreciate your column on Route 120/53," he began, "since it opens the door to outline the common sense plan for Route 120, not the 1950s plan that is outdated as gas guzzling cars."
For the uninitiated, Route 120 is one of Lake County's key east-west arterials. Considering it runs the entire length of the county and then some, it could be argued that it is the most important east-west roadway, but what is beyond argument is that Route 120 goes to hell between Wildwood and Lakemoor, where it narrows to two lanes for nine long miles.
QuoteThe Long Grove-to-Grayslake Route 53 extension that has been talked about since America liked Ike would include a four-lane Route 120 roughly between Almond Road and Route 12, running on a path parallel to and south of the current roadway.
As you might have gathered from the earlier quote, Bill Morris is no fan of either idea, and not just because the whole package would cost in the neighborhood of $2.65 billion. His basic argument: Route 120 needs to go it alone – and not be constrained by the bypass design.
Quote"There is NO need to re-route Route 120 from Wildwood a bit south through the Almond Marsh and behind the Jewel Store in Grayslake and about 1/2 mile south of existing Route 120 near the Madrona (Village) neighborhood just west of Hainesville with a new $400 million highway.
"The concept of relocating highways for hundreds of millions of dollars and then leaving the old highway in service doubling the cost to maintain both, etc. is just simply outdated and not affordable and environmentally damaging."
QuoteThe last time I remember seeing former state senator/Waukegan mayor/Illinois Tollway board member Bill Morris, it was in September of 2015 at a Liveable Lake County event that focused on one of his historically favorite topics: Opposition to the Route 53 extension.
The last time I got an email from Bill Morris, it was this week after I wrote a column on Wednesday, May 17, about a sidebar to that topic: The construction of a Route 120 bypass, which would come with a Route 53 extension.
"I appreciate your column on Route 120/53," he began, "since it opens the door to outline the common sense plan for Route 120, not the 1950s plan that is outdated as gas guzzling cars."
For the uninitiated, Route 120 is one of Lake County's key east-west arterials. Considering it runs the entire length of the county and then some, it could be argued that it is the most important east-west roadway, but what is beyond argument is that Route 120 goes to hell between Wildwood and Lakemoor, where it narrows to two lanes for nine long miles.
The Long Grove-to-Grayslake Route 53 extension that has been talked about since America liked Ike would include a four-lane Route 120 roughly between Almond Road and Route 12, running on a path parallel to and south of the current roadway.
As you might have gathered from the earlier quote, Bill Morris is no fan of either idea, and not just because the whole package would cost in the neighborhood of $2.65 billion. His basic argument: Route 120 needs to go it alone – and not be constrained by the bypass design.
"There is NO need to re-route Route 120 from Wildwood a bit south through the Almond Marsh and behind the Jewel Store in Grayslake and about 1/2 mile south of existing Route 120 near the Madrona (Village) neighborhood just west of Hainesville with a new $400 million highway.
"The concept of relocating highways for hundreds of millions of dollars and then leaving the old highway in service doubling the cost to maintain both, etc. is just simply outdated and not affordable and environmentally damaging."
Instead, Morris agreed with some of my suggested upgrades to Route 120 and surrounding roadways, and had some suggestions of his own, springboarding off of concepts in a $60.53 million package detailed earlier this week in a Chicago Tribune report.
"The lion's share of the congestion problems on Route 120 can be resolved using the existing right of way with additional lanes, larger and longer turning bays, (and) an underpass at Route 120 and Route 83 where the railroad tracks create a massive, frustrating and dangerous bottleneck for people going to and coming home from work.
"The first step is the roughly $60 million plan which would widen and create turning bays along existing Route 120 from Wildwood (Almond Road) west to Alleghany (Road), including an underpass at the Route 120 and 83 railroad tracks. Even though the underpass would absorb the lion's share of the cost, this budget would likely allow some land and turning bay additions west of Alleghany.
"The second step would be to address Route 120 west of Alleghany to Fish Lake Road in Volo. This phase would likely include an underpass and reconfiguration on Route 120 at the Metra tracks in Hainesville just west of Hainesville Road. Back-of-the-envelope numbers on this have not yet been developed, but would likely be a bit less than the first phase."
Yes, Morris would like to see not one but two railroad underpasses. Even as narrow as Route 120's footprint is through Grayslake, go visit Rollins Road at Route 83 in Round Lake Beach if you want to see how dramatically even one underpass can change the traffic culture in a overloaded area.
Morris wrapped up his thoughts by recalling that Route 120 was once "the subject of grand plans for a Waukegan-Richmond-Lake Geneva Expressway." He maintains that in 2017, even basic upgrades like additional turn lanes – have you ever crawled through the nearly turn-lane devoid intersection of Route 120 and Hainesville Road? – could make a world of difference.
"Now, we have a reasonable plan that has a realistic price tag and would serve central Lake County well for the next 50 years or more," he wrote. "Let's hope our Lake-McHenry County Legislators of both parties can come together and make upgrading Route 120 their joint highest priority, just as our Legislators did in the late 1960s and 1970s to secure funding to purchase the Chain of Lakes State Park and build the Waukegan marina."
danmoran@tribpub.com
Twitter @NewsSunDanMoran
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-moran-route-120-improvements-st-0517-20170516-story.html
QuoteIf you've lived in central Lake County long enough, you've seen the vacant corridors of land set aside – in some cases, directly through subdivisions like Cambridge West in Mundelein – for a Route 53 extension that has never filled, and might never fill, the gaps.
While Route 53's empty promises are conspicuous for motorists driving by them on Route 60/83 or Hawley Street, there's another corridor of highway-wide land that also carves its way through a neighborhood but is more hidden from the general public: The would-be path of the Route 120 bypass through the Madrona Village subdivision in Round Lake.
Running east-west a little less than a half-mile south of the existing Route 120, this hallway of overgrown grass and dandelions is overseen by the backyards of about 60 homes built in the 21st century, or on the far end of the generational debate over what everyone simply calls "Route 53."
As pointed out previously in this space, it is most accurate to refer to that (officially estimated) $2.3 billion to $2.65 billion proposal as the Route 53/120 project, because it would involve not only a north-south extension of Route 53 from Long Grove to Grayslake but also an east-west bypass for Route 120 from Wildwood to Volo.
QuoteAs duly noted by a Chicago Tribune report this month, central Lake County leaders are pushing to do something about Route 120 even if Route 53 really is dead before arrival. If you have ever been on eastbound Route 120 between Cedar Lake Road and Mill Road during the morning rush or westbound between Route 45 and Hainesville Road during the evening rush, you know of what they speak.
And, more importantly, you have to be rooting for some kind of improvement. Any kind of improvement. The only question: Do we go big or go with something doable?
QuoteAccording to the Tribune, a more current package of improvements for Route 120 is estimated at $60.53 million, which would include a grade separation for the CN tracks, which sit just west of the disastrous intersection of Routes 120 and 83.
Considering that a grade separation at the CN tracks a mile-and-a-half up the line at Washington Street cost $35 million in 2015 dollars, we can assume a good chunk of that $60-plus million would be devoted to one task.
As someone who is often stuck on Route 120 on not only weekdays but also perfectly dry weekends, my solution – if money and private-property and wetland concerns were not insurmountable objects – would involve some combination of the following:
Put in a railroad bridge over Route 120 for the CN tracks: Duh, as the Young People have said since at least the 1970s.
Connect Atkinson Road with Route 83 in Grayslake: Atkinson was extended one whole half-mile from Route 120 to Route 137 in 2013, which is great, but real relief for the Route 120/83 intersection would allow truck traffic to use Atkinson to avoid that crossroad entirely and get to Route 83 south of the CN tracks.
Connect Lake Street to Alleghany Road in Grayslake: Lake Street is the gateway to the Milwaukee District North Metra station, but it basically dead-ends there, forcing south and westbound traffic to head back to Route 120 or meander through a nearby subdivision. A safe link west to Alleghany would take a chunk of commuter traffic off Route 120.
Extend Hainesville Road south to connect with something other than just Route 120 in Hainesville: As it is, you have a T-intersection that is mobbed with traffic nearly seven days a week.
Extend Townline Road in Round Lake east from Amarias Drive to Alleghany: Three different subdivisions with hundreds if not thousands of cars would have direct, non-Route 120 access to both the Grayslake Metra station or to the Tri-State Tollway via the recently improved Peterson Road on the south.
As for that aforementioned corridor of land in Round Lake that waits in vain to accommodate a bypass, many things have been built near it during the years of waiting, including a K-through-8 school and several parks. Public projects that hesitate can be lost.
Even projects that would have fewer property and environmental hurdles to jump would still have to come up with the funding in a state that is in a bit of a financial pickle. If the Route 53 concept is in the same limbo it's always been in, Route 120 might be right there with it.
It looks like the Tollway doesn't think this is quite dead yet. Very interesting, and I did not expect to see this given the recent developments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-tollway-committee-approves-25million-study-route-53-20170522-story.html
QuoteAn Illinois Tollway board committee on Monday approved spending $25 million to study a long-debated and controversial extension of Illinois Route 53 north into Lake County.
The Customer Service and Planning Committee recommended awarding the environmental impact study project to two engineering firms – CH2M Hill and Knight E/A Inc., based in Englewood, Colo., and Chicago, respectively. Both have worked with the Tollway before.
The contract will go before the full Tollway board for a vote Thursday, when it is likely to be approved.
Board Chair Robert Schillerstrom said in a statement Monday that the analysis will provide a "fact based evaluation on alternatives that achieve the most congestion relief while balancing environmental impact."
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 23, 2017, 09:46:51 PM
It looks like the Tollway doesn't think this is quite dead yet. Very interesting, and I did not expect to see this given the recent developments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-tollway-committee-approves-25million-study-route-53-20170522-story.html
QuoteAn Illinois Tollway board committee on Monday approved spending $25 million to study a long-debated and controversial extension of Illinois Route 53 north into Lake County.
The Customer Service and Planning Committee recommended awarding the environmental impact study project to two engineering firms – CH2M Hill and Knight E/A Inc., based in Englewood, Colo., and Chicago, respectively. Both have worked with the Tollway before.
The contract will go before the full Tollway board for a vote Thursday, when it is likely to be approved.
Board Chair Robert Schillerstrom said in a statement Monday that the analysis will provide a "fact based evaluation on alternatives that achieve the most congestion relief while balancing environmental impact."
Will trump kill the EPA and maybe then we can get an Richmond bypass as well? How much they pull in with that at $0.25-$0.50 I-PASS cars?
Can we get a us-12 plan B?
Between this and the Illiana (Burnham) Expressway, I'd be pleasantly surprised if either one got built out eventually.
In its current, four lane, 45mph "parkway" "livable" design, it cannot meet the requirements the road faces to ease congestion and promote economic development in the western part of Lake County. It's pure fantasy. Until the project is redesigned to a 6 lane freeway with a minimum 60 mph speed, I can't support the county hiking gas taxes, further tolling the Tri-State, and most ridiculously, taking property tax dollars from municipalities and business along the new road to pay for it. Lake County has far more pressing concerns, in my opinion, like the aforementioned 120, and all the other two lane state routes that are nearly impassable for 12 hours of the day due to a combination of two lane roads, and the ridiculous number of level crossings in the county.
The question is, if they built it as a proper six lane tollway, would it generate enough revenue to pay for itself? I've heard people claim it won't.
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 09:45:58 PM
The question is, if they built it as a proper six lane tollway, would it generate enough revenue to pay for itself? I've heard people claim it won't.
I'm sure a lot of those people come from Hawthorne Woods and Long Grove. Truly, the way it would be most profitable ever is if they ever actually finished the Richmond Bypass as well, on top of making it a true Interstate grade tollway.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on May 24, 2017, 05:09:21 PM
In its current, four lane, 45mph "parkway" "livable" design, it cannot meet the requirements the road faces to ease congestion and promote economic development in the western part of Lake County. It's pure fantasy. Until the project is redesigned to a 6 lane freeway with a minimum 60 mph speed, I can't support the county hiking gas taxes, further tolling the Tri-State, and most ridiculously, taking property tax dollars from municipalities and business along the new road to pay for it. Lake County has far more pressing concerns, in my opinion, like the aforementioned 120, and all the other two lane state routes that are nearly impassable for 12 hours of the day due to a combination of two lane roads, and the ridiculous number of level crossings in the county.
PREACH
If this isn't a full-blown expressway, then forget it. Screw the NIMBYs.
IL 120 isn't the only E-W road in that area that's overloaded. IL 22 and Lake-Cook Road are both horrible as well.
QuoteThe Illinois Tollway board on Thursday unanimously approved spending $25 million for an environmental impact study on a long-discussed proposed extension of Route 53 from Cook County into Lake County.
The 8-0 vote came after more than two hours of comments from people for and against the controversial project. Representatives from several construction companies spoke in favor of the study, saying the extension would bring jobs and relieve congestion in a growing region. Environmental groups and officials from the suburbs of Hawthorn Woods and Long Grove spoke against, noting the extension's projected $2.65 billion cost and its potential negative impact on wetlands.
The contract to study the extension was awarded to two engineering firms – CH2M Hill and Knight E/A Inc., based in Englewood, Colo., and Chicago, respectively. Both have worked with the Tollway before.
Board chairman Robert Schillerstrom said the study, which is expected to take three to five years, will provide a fact-based evaluation on alternatives that will achieve the most congestion relief for the region while balancing environmental impacts.
"Every day, Lake and McHenry County families and businesses are faced with traffic congestion that means time away from their families and lost productivity at work," said Schillerstrom in a statement. "The region needs a comprehensive, long-term solution to reduce traffic gridlock."
Discussed since the 1960s, the proposed project would create a T-shaped tollway, with an extended Route 53 making up the north/south portion and a widened Illinois Route 120 creating the top east/west portion, for about 25 miles of new and improved roads. The Route 53 extension would run from suburban Arlington Heights to Grayslake.
Quote"Every day, Lake and McHenry County families and businesses are faced with traffic congestion that means time away from their families and lost productivity at work," said Schillerstrom in a statement. "The region needs a comprehensive, long-term solution to reduce traffic gridlock."
Discussed since the 1960s, the proposed project would create a T-shaped tollway, with an extended Route 53 making up the north/south portion and a widened Illinois Route 120 creating the top east/west portion, for about 25 miles of new and improved roads. The Route 53 extension would run from suburban Arlington Heights to Grayslake.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-5918c2d8%2Fturbine%2Fct-met-route-53-map-20170514%2F650%2F650x366&hash=46ec0d23c47b402a21444142f11206d63e3625df)
QuoteThe proposal has already seen three previous environmental impact studies. A blue ribbon advisory council formed in 2011 of public officials and representatives from business, environmental and other interest groups favored a four-lane boulevard with a maximum speed of 45 mph and a number of environmental features.
The planning has never gotten to shovels in the ground, and some key backers have withdrawn their support, including the two council co-chairs, George Ranney and Lake County Board Chair Aaron Lawlor. Some Lake County officials have turned their attention to pushing for improvements to congested Route 120, whether or not the 53 extension ever happens.
QuoteFormer Tollway board member Bill Morris of Grayslake told the Tollway board that Lake County is being held prisoner by the Route 53 proposal, which has delayed other needed projects like Route 120 and Route 83 improvements.
"Please let us out of Route 53 prison," said Morris.
The Tollway board heard from multiple proponents of the extension on Thursday and also received 250 letters in favor of the environmental impact study, as opposed to 60 letters against.
Among those writing in favor was Leon Rockingham, Jr., mayor of North Chicago and chair of the Lake Council of Mayors. Rockingham noted that the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning has listed the project as a priority in their "Go to 2040" regional plan.
"Of all the capital projects in the region, it appears that this one has the largest congestion reduction benefits and the largest economic impact," Rockingham wrote. He noted that congestion and travel times continue to increase in the region, with studies showing a 98-minute commute from Grayslake to Schaumburg.
"It's no secret that traffic congestion is only going to get worse," said Illinois Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure Council Executive Director Ben Brockschmidt, in a statement. "Reducing congestion is not only good for the environment, it's also good for economic development."
Long Grove President Bill Jacob told the board that the extension would increase traffic on already strained east/west routes in the region and attract unwanted sprawl.
Last month, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy organization, included the proposed Route 53 extension in its list of the country's most wasteful highway boondoggles.
Livable Lake County, a coalition that opposes the extension, has charged that moving ahead with the project violates the Illinois Tollway Act, in part because there is no Lake County representative on the board.
Backers for the project include the Illinois Economic Policy Institute, a think tank whose board members include representatives of the construction industry and labor unions. The institute did a poll last month, which found that 66 percent of 400 voters favored the extension.
Under the blue ribbon advisory council's framework, the road could be funded with tolls of 20 cents per mile – about three times the Tollway average – a 4 cent per gallon fuel tax and a capture of real estate tax revenues.
Tollway board member and Elk Grove Village President Craig Johnson said the study would allow those with questions and concerns about the extension to be part of the discussion.
"We will guarantee you are part of the process," said Johnson, who noted that the study may conclude that the extension should not be built.
we don't need an sub par IL-120 upgrade now maybe an US-12 and IL-120 upgrade in place of the an IL-53 / IL-120 tollway.
QuoteAfter years of angst over whether to extend Route 53 north into Lake County, the Illinois tollway moved with dizzying speed last week approving a $25 million study of the project. But while the board's vote took seconds, there were hours of fraught testimony from environmentalists fearful of pollution, residents worried about losing their homes, commuters sick of sitting in traffic and construction industry representatives lobbying for jobs.
QuoteHere are five take-aways from a momentous week:
1. Promising to pay for the extension could be a game-changer.
Unlike his predecessors, Chairman Bob Schillerstrom pledged that if Route 53 is extended, the tollway will pay for the whole shebang. That means no unpopular 4-cent gas tax or special taxing districts in Lake County floated to subsidize the pricey parkway.
QuoteAfter years of angst over whether to extend Route 53 north into Lake County, the Illinois tollway moved with dizzying speed last week approving a $25 million study of the project.
ADVERTISING
But while the board's vote took seconds, there were hours of fraught testimony from environmentalists fearful of pollution, residents worried about losing their homes, commuters sick of sitting in traffic and construction industry representatives lobbying for jobs.
Proposed Route 53 extension
graphic
Proposed Route 53 extension
Here are five take-aways from a momentous week:
1. Promising to pay for the extension could be a game-changer.
Unlike his predecessors, Chairman Bob Schillerstrom pledged that if Route 53 is extended, the tollway will pay for the whole shebang. That means no unpopular 4-cent gas tax or special taxing districts in Lake County floated to subsidize the pricey parkway.
"We're not contemplating in any way raising tolls," Schillerstrom said. "We don't rely on any local taxes, any state taxes or any federal taxes. We are a 100 percent user fee entity."
So would no gas tax sweeten the deal for opponents?
"I don't believe so," Lake County Board member Diane Hewitt said. For her constituents, the extension "is so far removed they'll never use it."
However, board member Paul Frank thinks "obviously a gas tax might alleviate concerns of some of the folks who are against it."
2. The bottom line is cost.
The latest toll road under construction is Route 390, an extension of the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway. Tolls on it are 20 cents a mile compared to the 6-cent average elsewhere, reflecting the project's costs.
Asked if the tollway would charge 20 cents a mile on a new Route 53, Schillerstrom said, "there's no way I can speculate on that at this point. The first issue is -- is the road going to be built."
And if the answer is "yes," you can be sure the next question will be -- how do you pay for it?
3. Being inclusive could be elusive.
The tollway said it's "committed to working with elected officials, communities and key stakeholders in an inclusive" process. That will be tough as battle lines stretch from Lake to McHenry counties.
It's important to know the board's decision diverges from previous tollway leaders' cultivation of a blue-ribbon committee's plan for a 45-mph, nature-friendly, four-lane parkway up to Route 120 that was hamstrung by a staggering $2 billion or so shortfall.
From a straw poll with 11 Lake County Board members who responded, six wanted the extension and five didn't.
"The bottom line is something needs to be done," board member Thomas Weber said. "People want to be able to get to where they're going without the headache of traffic jams."
Meanwhile board member Steve Carlson calls the $25 million "wasted" and predicts "there's no way a majority on the county board will support the Route 53 extension."
Towns that could lose land and homes and environmental groups seeking to protect fragile wetlands and species are digging in.
"With a price tag of over $100 million per mile, and considering the extended Route 53's environmental impact, I now favor less expensive expansions of existing corridors," Mundelein Mayor Steve Lentz said.
Equally determined are Buffalo Grove residents close to Route 53's terminus near Lake-Cook Road who want to stop traffic spilling out into their community.
"Anyone who drives in the area can attest to the fact we are already in the midst of a transportation and traffic congestion crisis," Village Trustee Jeffrey Berman said.
4. The tollway now owns a political hot potato.
For some years, the agency kept the Route 53 extension at arm's length, providing staff, consultants and funding for plans but not committing wholly to the project.
Now with $25 million at stake, that's changed.
Lake County Chairman Aaron Lawlor, who opposes the extension, said Friday that "it's not a decision of local officials -- it's a tollway project. It will be decided on by the tollway and, by proxy, the governor."
Former Lake County Chairman David Stolman agreed. "If there's to be a road, they'll be the ones who decide what it looks like."
Schillerstrom has promised the consultants will consider the 45-mph, four-lane parkway vision and deliver a "solution that values congestion relief and environmental stewardship."
That's a lot to deliver, and many will be keeping tabs.
"I would be vehemently opposed to a traditional roadway," Lawlor said.
5. Commuting in Lake County is relative.
Several Lake County speakers at tollway meetings last week described dystopian commutes leaving home at the crack of dawn to make it to work on time.
Hawthorn Woods Mayor Joseph Mancino, however, noted his trip to the tollway headquarters in Downers Grove was 46 minutes.
- Got a Lake County travel story? An opinion on the Route 53 extension? Drop me an email at mpyke@dailyherald.com.
More bickering....... Just build it as a six lane tollway and be done with it.
Quote from: I-39 on May 31, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
More bickering....... Just build it as a six lane tollway and be done with it.
how do you want to work the us-12 end? 120 overpass in place? FAP-420? hug the edge of the volo auto museum?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 01, 2017, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 31, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
More bickering....... Just build it as a six lane tollway and be done with it.
how do you want to work the us-12 end? 120 overpass in place? FAP-420? hug the edge of the volo auto museum?
Nothing can be done. Too much development and sensitive wetlands.
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 12:43:42 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 01, 2017, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 31, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
More bickering....... Just build it as a six lane tollway and be done with it.
how do you want to work the us-12 end? 120 overpass in place? FAP-420? hug the edge of the volo auto museum?
Nothing can be done. Too much development and sensitive wetlands.
Yea, sadly, it will ultimately end up as bodged together upgrades of existing roads that ultimately becomes a single cohesive major highway.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 02:56:34 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 12:43:42 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 01, 2017, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 31, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
More bickering....... Just build it as a six lane tollway and be done with it.
how do you want to work the us-12 end? 120 overpass in place? FAP-420? hug the edge of the volo auto museum?
Nothing can be done. Too much development and sensitive wetlands.
Yea, sadly, it will ultimately end up as bodged together upgrades of existing roads that ultimately becomes a single cohesive major highway.
Mike
I was referring to the FAP 420 corridor west of US 12. The regular IL-53/120 extension can and should be built, but it will cause a bottleneck in western Lake County since FAP 420 can't be built.
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 03:28:13 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2017, 02:56:34 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 12:43:42 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 01, 2017, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 31, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
More bickering....... Just build it as a six lane tollway and be done with it.
how do you want to work the us-12 end? 120 overpass in place? FAP-420? hug the edge of the volo auto museum?
Nothing can be done. Too much development and sensitive wetlands.
Yea, sadly, it will ultimately end up as bodged together upgrades of existing roads that ultimately becomes a single cohesive major highway.
Mike
I was referring to the FAP 420 corridor west of US 12. The regular IL-53/120 extension can and should be built, but it will cause a bottleneck in western Lake County since FAP 420 can't be built.
That's what I was thinking of.
Mike
they need to overpass US-12 at volo. They can do in place of IL-120 right where it is.
QuoteIt's summer, and one of the season's many aspects is car travel. On the fun side, road trips are an important and memorable part of family vacation plans. The downside is what's experienced when undertaking those road trips or simply running errands locally: traffic and construction.
Traffic is the annual summer ritual.
Communities across the country deal with similar problems and work to find solutions pertinent to the specific vehicular constraints of any given area. Here in Lake County, we are no different. With the county evolving from what was once a sleepy rural weekend vacation getaway for nearby city dwellers into a vibrant busy network of full-time communities, traffic has become a major challenge. Adding to thatchallenge is public transportation, so well-oiled in the city and on many suburban routes, is spotty and inconsistent with inter-county service. That in turn leads to more cars on the road.
There have been roadway expansion projects that have proved helpful. The improvements to Buffalo Grove Road and Route 22 are examples of good efforts to move traffic through as efficiently as possible, without major devastation to the surrounding area. In addition, one of the new darlings of road improvement projects are roundabouts like the the one at Riverwoods and Everett roads. What had been a four-way stop that often caused major back-ups along both roads is now a traffic roundabout, intended to move traffic along while still employing rules of the road.
Personally, I don't see how roundabouts aren't an accident waiting to happen. With many drivers not feeling the need to stop or even slow down at a stop sign, giving them the power to proceed if safe and trusting them to adequately decipher what "safe" is sounds dangerous to me. However, experts swear by the effectiveness of these quaint little traffic rounds, and with the reduced accident statistics as well, who am I to question. If it works and is safe, then let's go for it.
Another much larger potential project fraught with controversy is the Route 53 extension that has been a subject of discussion for more than two decades. Recently, the Illinois Tollway Board of Directors decided to fund a $25 million study to explore the viability and need for an extension of the expressway north to Route 120
Some communities and politicians are in favor, and some are adamantly opposed. Others, like myself, see both the potential benefits and drawbacks. The project almost seemed dead recently, with more vocal opposition taking the forefront in the media. However, apparently the Tollway Board thinks there's enough support and a big enough need to fund an expensive study. While it's never a joy to spend money on intangibles like trying to decipher whether a roadway will be a benefit or boondoggle, traffic and quality of life seem important enough to justify further exploration of the subject before making a ruling.
We've waited this long. It seems that we can hang a little longer to be sure the right decision is made based on the objective facts gathered in the study.
I still don't think anything will come of this renewed effort. Time will tell!
(https://www.palatineroad.com/Route_53_Extension/MAP_Proposed_Chicago_Madison_Freeway_1956.png)
I found this while researching chicago's planned freeways
Quote from: I-90 on June 11, 2017, 04:51:52 PM
(https://www.palatineroad.com/Route_53_Extension/MAP_Proposed_Chicago_Madison_Freeway_1956.png)
I found this while researching chicago's planned freeways
And I believe I-90 was originally going to run up that corridor as it was going to be the primary Chicago-Madison route, but since the US Government had a policy that prohibited duplication of existing toll roads at the time, this never came to pass.
Any updates on this? This needs to happen as a fully controlled access facility!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 06, 2019, 06:39:28 PM
Any updates on this? This needs to happen as a fully controlled access facility!
It needed to happen 40 years ago. This is now a 2nd generation pissing contest. Construction was supposed to start in the late 1970s, but the rich folks kept shooting it down.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 06, 2019, 08:30:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 06, 2019, 06:39:28 PM
Any updates on this? This needs to happen as a fully controlled access facility!
It needed to happen 40 years ago. This is now a 2nd generation pissing contest. Construction was supposed to start in the late 1970s, but the rich folks kept shooting it down.
I will say it again.... all the reasons that were against this road in 1974 dont exist anymore.
in 1974, that area was pretty rural and bucolic, but since it exploded with development in the 90's, there is absolutely nothing rural anymore.
its chock full of subdivisions, golf courses, strip malls and industry.
People were against I-355 back in the mid 80's but once they designed the road with input, it opened with one lawsuit (Arboretum) but way less fuss.
its no longer about sprawl, because it already came without the highway.
Based on IDOT Contract 62H39 (http://apps.dot.illinois.gov/eplan/desenv/030819/083-62H39/PLANS/PL-62H39-083.pdf) from the March 2019 Letting, they are still demolishing buildings in the possible corridor.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7849/47280647262_d0b8433a06_z.jpg)
The areas in yellow are the "wetlands" that is causing some of the issues. The largest one is between Kildeer and Long Grove. Long Grove has been the most vocal in blocking the road.
The black line is the ROW. Reddish line is where development was in the late 1970's. The blue lines are where development has been allowed to flourish in or around the same wetlands.
What you see is that the local municipalities allowed developers to modify the surrounding wetlands and built ponds, lakes and other drainage actions, but left the majority of the remaining wetlands on IDOT ROW or where IDOT ROW crossed over the defined space. Which in a sense placed all the onus on wetlands preservation on the state highway entity.
Some of the wetlands were preserved as county parks or forest preserves, which is exactly what they should have done the entire length of the ROW to not only preserve a buffer with the highway but also provide adequate remedial land for any wetland that would have to be consumed in the building of the highway. Looking closer, you can even see where IDOT bought empty parcels from developers to preserve the ROW. Many of the cul-de-sacs have no houses built on them.
It has been proven over and over again that planned correctly, wetlands can be restored post a construction event.
The City of Kildeer at one time was one large wetland. There were massive lawsuits over its development in the late 50's and 60's and believe it or not they used field septics for sewage in this wetland area, which caused nothing but problems. The Village of Long Grove on the other side of the ROW fought Kildeer on their actions and only incorporated as a village to fight off developers of the area. (Kildeer later had the IL-EPA pay for an all new sewage system)
Ever since Long Grove has had a culture of anti-development and always will.
So you see this quibble over the ROW that IDOT wants to use goes way back further than 1973. The noise over wetlands is just that now, a lot of noise for an issue that just doesn't exist anymore.
If Lake County was really serious about wetland control, they wouldn't allowed impingement by all of the surrounding towns.
The Jeannie is out of the bottle and there is nothing Long Grove can do anymore. They should be yelling at Lake County, not IDOT.
I rather liked how Virginia handled not disturbing wetlands along US 17 in Chesapeake. They built a low long bridge which allowed wildlife to pass underneath the bridge. Many drivers probably don't even notice they're on a bridge. I-10 west of New Orleans is similar. It's more expensive than a surface roadway, but I think it can be a reasonable compromise
Quote from: skluth on March 11, 2019, 04:57:24 PM
I rather liked how Virginia handled not disturbing wetlands along US 17 in Chesapeake. They built a low long bridge which allowed wildlife to pass underneath the bridge. Many drivers probably don't even notice they're on a bridge. I-10 west of New Orleans is similar. It's more expensive than a surface roadway, but I think it can be a reasonable compromise
Ditto the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline.
Mike
Here is another example of the somewhat poor planning on the I-53 Extension in Lake County.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7865/47346470172_2689d93d5a_b.jpg)
This example is in Mundelein.
The city permitted this development, and so IDOT had to come in and purchase the lots from the developer to preserve the ROW. As you can see, there is a house on Brentwood Drive whose property will have to be reclaimed as his property line protrudes 30% in to the ROW.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4872/32457443777_cf5b37b5cc_c.jpg)
^^^Oh, no. No, no, no...this is a clown car of epic proportions.
Headline in the Daily Herald yesterday: "Lake County shifts transportation plan away from Route 53 extension".
More noise about improving the existing streets and looking for other transportation modes.
Mass transit works very nicely getting people in and out of downtown Chicago, especially with rush hour schedules, but is very inconvenient otherwise.
I'd still like to see this highway connect with US 12 at the Cheddar Curtain. It would take a lot of cars OFF those surface streets and reduce congestion in Lake County. Something tells me that everything developable in Lake County is going to be developed whether Route 53 is extended or not.
I saw the new Folks at head said he has an open mind. CMAP downgraded it too. It's on a possible future list that contains the crosstown and illiana.
One of the problems is much to my surprise the tollway just could not get folks to cover the whole cost.
The following appears to be the document referenced in Lake County shifting away from the IL 53 extension: https://lakecounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7424168&GUID=D202FDD5-B4F1-45D3-9133-8AB83D368A50 (https://lakecounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7424168&GUID=D202FDD5-B4F1-45D3-9133-8AB83D368A50).
Quote from: Konza on July 11, 2019, 05:41:17 PM
Headline in the Daily Herald yesterday: "Lake County shifts transportation plan away from Route 53 extension".
More noise about improving the existing streets and looking for other transportation modes.
Mass transit works very nicely getting people in and out of downtown Chicago, especially with rush hour schedules, but is very inconvenient otherwise.
I'd still like to see this highway connect with US 12 at the Cheddar Curtain. It would take a lot of cars OFF those surface streets and reduce congestion in Lake County. Something tells me that everything developable in Lake County is going to be developed whether Route 53 is extended or not.
US-12 can use some widening and / or parts made into RIRO with u-turn bays.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on July 11, 2019, 11:47:42 PM
Quote from: Konza on July 11, 2019, 05:41:17 PM
Headline in the Daily Herald yesterday: "Lake County shifts transportation plan away from Route 53 extension".
More noise about improving the existing streets and looking for other transportation modes.
Mass transit works very nicely getting people in and out of downtown Chicago, especially with rush hour schedules, but is very inconvenient otherwise.
I'd still like to see this highway connect with US 12 at the Cheddar Curtain. It would take a lot of cars OFF those surface streets and reduce congestion in Lake County. Something tells me that everything developable in Lake County is going to be developed whether Route 53 is extended or not.
US-12 can use some widening and / or parts made into RIRO with u-turn bays.
The next best thing would be to make US 12 into some freeway/expressway combo to connect to the existing freeway that starts just across the state line. As far as IL 53 goes, pretty soon it will be damn near impossible to extend, if the forthcoming developments do come to pass.
RIRO might be too innovative for IDOT like continuous passing lanes.
Today the ISTHA announced they are suspending the environmental study.
Can't see them starting to sell off the right of way they've banked, though.
Politics in Lake County have shifted a bit to the left; you'll note the recent controversy surrounding the cancellation of Civil War Days. Not to mention the election of a Democrat Governor, who controls appointments to the ISTHA board. Should either the Lake County Board or the Governorship shift back to the right, expect this to get another look.
Quote from: 3467 on July 12, 2019, 10:54:27 AM
RIRO might be too innovative for IDOT like continuous passing lanes.
There are some RIROs along the Kingery, are there not?
Heck, IDOT put a Michigan Left on IL 13 east of Marion, though in a relatively rural spot
That said, it would be very tight to do any substantial upgrades to existing US 12 from IL 53, or even Lake-Cook Rd, up to Wisc. I'm not seeing a "Keystoning" here. Even trying to get it to Palatine Rd level would require more ROW for the Outer Roadways
https://capitolfax.com/2019/07/12/route-53-extension-battle-appears-to-end-after-nearly-three-generations/
Lake county dumbasses.
The IL-53 extension was probably never going to be built anyway. Perhaps it is for the best.
It would be interesting to see what the results would be if they were to have another referendum on the Route 53 extension in Lake County. Last time they did, the results came down overwhelmingly in favor of building the Route 53 extension.
There have always been very vocal opponents- notably Hawthorn Woods and Long Grove, but the rest of the county wanted this road built.
Now the County Board (with three newly elected Democrats) is no longer behind the project, and the ISTHA is under the control of a Chicago Democrat Governor. While I don't think Republicans will be in the majority in the state any time soon, the pendulum could swing back.
You have to wonder if the voters who changed the composition of the County Board knew they new members' stance on the Route 53 extension. Sometimes when you "throw the bums out", you just end up with a different set of bums.
It was not a secret someone on the blog I linked to said 53 was dead the day after the election. Lake County has not been growing and all of metro Chicago has shifted blue..
WBBM radio mentioned the new tools at chair who was a housing authority chair and stated it was not just opposition but the road would not find itself.
I wonder what will happen to the ROW.
I think we can answer another old thread. The freeway era is over in metro Chicago and all Illinois unless there is a push to revive US 20.
Also the previous Lake County Board President a Republican flip flopped on it last year.
Quote from: 3467 on July 12, 2019, 03:34:38 PM
https://capitolfax.com/2019/07/12/route-53-extension-battle-appears-to-end-after-nearly-three-generations/
IMHO they should have continued the study or at least done a more general study on building the extension versus other arterial improvements such as six laning US 12, six laning IL 83, and whatever improvement Lake Cook Road needs to better handle the current end of the freeway.
Unless they go all the way with selling all the acquired landing or converted it to 4F uses, I'm not making a definite call on dormant versus dead yet.
Quote from: 3467 on July 12, 2019, 08:23:56 PM
It was not a secret someone on the blog I linked to said 53 was dead the day after the election. Lake County has not been growing and all of metro Chicago has shifted blue..
WBBM radio mentioned the new tools at chair who was a housing authority chair and stated it was not just opposition but the road would not find itself.
I wonder what will happen to the ROW.
I think we can answer another old thread. The freeway era is over in metro Chicago and all Illinois unless there is a push to revive US 20.
From my vantage point, many of those who would have voted the other way had gotten fed up with the whole Illinois thing and fled the state. Just like with California, but not to that extent (yet).
It's a sad statement.
Mike
Daily Herald had a story on the land issue. 53 million spent for a thousand acres.No decisions but the options were keep it 4 f or sell.
This morning they had a nice history.
I checked the last CMAP plan update. Only the Illiana and crosstown have any hope. There is the renewed airport push so Illiana has a chance.
I give them both 2 chances.
As for everything else North of 80 slim chance of 20 and the arterial widening in CMAP.
I will try to link next week if no one else has.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 12, 2019, 11:24:47 PM
Quote from: 3467 on July 12, 2019, 03:34:38 PM
https://capitolfax.com/2019/07/12/route-53-extension-battle-appears-to-end-after-nearly-three-generations/
IMHO they should have continued the study or at least done a more general study on building the extension versus other arterial improvements such as six laning US 12, six laning IL 83, and whatever improvement Lake Cook Road needs to better handle the current end of the freeway.
Unless they go all the way with selling all the acquired landing or converted it to 4F uses, I'm not making a definite call on dormant versus dead yet.
Why continue the study? It's dead. Bury it, sell the property and use the money elsewhere. Continuing to spend money on it is a waste.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 13, 2019, 04:12:19 AM
Quote from: 3467 on July 12, 2019, 08:23:56 PM
It was not a secret someone on the blog I linked to said 53 was dead the day after the election. Lake County has not been growing and all of metro Chicago has shifted blue..
WBBM radio mentioned the new tools at chair who was a housing authority chair and stated it was not just opposition but the road would not find itself.
I wonder what will happen to the ROW.
I think we can answer another old thread. The freeway era is over in metro Chicago and all Illinois unless there is a push to revive US 20.
From my vantage point, many of those who would have voted the other way had gotten fed up with the whole Illinois thing and fled the state. Just like with California, but not to that extent (yet).
It's a sad statement.
The Chicago metropolitan area is growing.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 13, 2019, 11:27:27 AM
Why continue the study? It's dead. Bury it, sell the property and use the money elsewhere. Continuing to spend money on it is a waste.
I don't believe there's been a real good study on any arterial improvements versus the IL 53 extension. These would probably be looked at during a proper EIS process, and the data could be good for getting other piecemeal improvements funded, possibly via the CMAQ route.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 13, 2019, 11:31:18 AM
The Chicago metropolitan area is growing.
Isn't the rate slowing down?
"After six decades, the record is clear: Grassroots opposition to the project is staunch; money to build it is too scarce; and the irreparable damage it would inflict on Lake County's treasured, but fragile, natural areas is severe."
If they were so worried about Lake County's "fragile natural areas" they wouldn't have allowed mass development zoning in the area to begin with.
They speak with forked tongue. If they truly valued the environment, they wouldn't have allowed so many people to move there.
Can't have it both ways.
This may soothe peoples social justice consciences, but it won't deal with a core issue of transportation in the NW Metro.
Besides, people are leaving Illinois anyway (a little over 10,000 annually). People in Inverness are having problems selling their houses due to the crippling real estate taxes. Double the income tax, double the fuel tax.
So long Illinois!
Really the extension isn't necessary. It was a good decision and they should finally let it die.
^ At least a partial extension is necessary - the existing termni at Lake Cook does not work well during peak hours, and I wouldn't call the adjacent major intersections on Lake Cook at IL 53, US 12, and Arlington Heights Road efficient during off peak hours either. The first two already have dual lefts and rights for the WB-NB and SB-EB movements.
I can agree with that. But there doesn't need to be a significant four lane extension beyond the current set up. By and large it works fine even during heavy traffic times.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 13, 2019, 07:53:28 PM
"After six decades, the record is clear: Grassroots opposition to the project is staunch; money to build it is too scarce; and the irreparable damage it would inflict on Lake County's treasured, but fragile, natural areas is severe."
If they were so worried about Lake County's "fragile natural areas" they wouldn't have allowed mass development zoning in the area to begin with.
They speak with forked tongue. If they truly valued the environment, they wouldn't have allowed so many people to move there.
Can't have it both ways.
This may soothe peoples social justice consciences, but it won't deal with a core issue of transportation in the NW Metro.
Besides, people are leaving Illinois anyway (a little over 10,000 annually). People in Inverness are having problems selling their houses due to the crippling real estate taxes. Double the income tax, double the fuel tax.
So long Illinois!
Well said.
I'm quite pleased that I sold my home in 847 before Sears went belly-up.
Let them spend their money for the benefit of the public employees unions.
Let's have more Pace buses with no riders.
By all means, let's further subsidize the CTA.
It is said that people get the government they deserve, and that's reason number one that I no longer live in Illinois.
I can tell a lot of people never drove 12 daily, I did and would have to plan my start and leave times around rush hour because it could take an hour from Waconda to Palatine. There were plenty of days I stayed at work an extra hour to avoid traffic. Thankfully I moved out to northwest Illinois with a new job and don't have to travel 12 anymore. However I did recently visit some friends and they have built 3 new strip malls buy the Whole Foods and I sat in lines of traffic going in and out of all the malls around there. And this was during the day, not even rush hour. If 53 were built I could have cut 15-20 minutes off my drive and not had a headache with having to deal with that much traffic and red lights.
I don't understand how people can just wave this off, but then I remember the people didn't wave it off, they voted clearly for the plan, the political and rich people have shut this project down.
Quote from: quickshade on July 14, 2019, 11:18:33 AM
I can tell a lot of people never drove 12 daily, I did and would have to plan my start and leave times around rush hour because it could take an hour from Waconda to Palatine. There were plenty of days I stayed at work an extra hour to avoid traffic. Thankfully I moved out to northwest Illinois with a new job and don't have to travel 12 anymore. However I did recently visit some friends and they have built 3 new strip malls buy the Whole Foods and I sat in lines of traffic going in and out of all the malls around there. And this was during the day, not even rush hour. If 53 were built I could have cut 15-20 minutes off my drive and not had a headache with having to deal with that much traffic and red lights.
I don't understand how people can just wave this off, but then I remember the people didn't wave it off, they voted clearly for the plan, the political and rich people have shut this project down.
Driven it hundreds of times. It's largely fine the way it is.
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
Quote from: quickshade on July 14, 2019, 11:18:33 AM
I can tell a lot of people never drove 12 daily, I did and would have to plan my start and leave times around rush hour because it could take an hour from Waconda to Palatine. There were plenty of days I stayed at work an extra hour to avoid traffic. Thankfully I moved out to northwest Illinois with a new job and don't have to travel 12 anymore. However I did recently visit some friends and they have built 3 new strip malls buy the Whole Foods and I sat in lines of traffic going in and out of all the malls around there. And this was during the day, not even rush hour. If 53 were built I could have cut 15-20 minutes off my drive and not had a headache with having to deal with that much traffic and red lights.
I don't understand how people can just wave this off, but then I remember the people didn't wave it off, they voted clearly for the plan, the political and rich people have shut this project down.
Driven it hundreds of times. It's largely fine the way it is.
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
I've driven it off rush hour. 12's a piece of crap from another era. If IDOT would ever see the light, one could make it more like Telegraph around Metro Detroit, & it would actually function as a road.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
A properly designed extension without excessive tolls would likely have several thousand users each day - I would not call that a few.
And one should not have to live in Cook County when a slightly better quality of life (excluding transportation options) is available in the other counties.
And I third the notion that US 12 is not fine - it needs to be at least six lanes for much of its length, needs fewer stoplights (many of which have red light cameras), more outer roads, and a bypass of the congested, slow section through Fox Lake.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
A properly designed extension without excessive tolls would likely have several thousand users each day - I would not call that a few.
And one should not have to live in Cook County when a slightly better quality of life (excluding transportation options) is available in the other counties.
And I third the notion that US 12 is not fine - it needs to be at least six lanes for much of its length, needs fewer stoplights (many of which have red light cameras), more outer roads, and a bypass of the congested, slow section through Fox Lake.
Route 12 absolutely needs 3 lanes each way up through Fox Lake, and then 2 lanes to the WI border. I still feel it would be easier to get consensus on the IL 120 Bypass. If that were at least built and connected to Route 12, this would leave open the possibility of connecting to the freeway over the state line in WI still at a future date. 53, even though many would still make a strong argument to have it built, seems to be dead thanks to Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. The state needs to start picking up the slack on 12... I would look a bit at what they did with North Ave in DuPage County, though maybe not with quite the super wide median.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
A properly designed extension without excessive tolls would likely have several thousand users each day - I would not call that a few.
And one should not have to live in Cook County when a slightly better quality of life (excluding transportation options) is available in the other counties.
And I third the notion that US 12 is not fine - it needs to be at least six lanes for much of its length, needs fewer stoplights (many of which have red light cameras), more outer roads, and a bypass of the congested, slow section through Fox Lake.
Maybe we should just build it right to your driveway so you can get anywhere with minimal inconvenience. Because God forbid you actually are inconvenienced when YOU decided to move a significant distance from work.
US-12 is largely fine the way it is. Extending the tollway was always overkill.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
A properly designed extension without excessive tolls would likely have several thousand users each day - I would not call that a few.
And one should not have to live in Cook County when a slightly better quality of life (excluding transportation options) is available in the other counties.
And I third the notion that US 12 is not fine - it needs to be at least six lanes for much of its length, needs fewer stoplights (many of which have red light cameras), more outer roads, and a bypass of the congested, slow section through Fox Lake.
Maybe we should just build it right to your driveway so you can get anywhere with minimal inconvenience. Because God forbid you actually are inconvenienced when YOU decided to move a significant distance from work.
US-12 is largely fine the way it is. Extending the tollway was always overkill.
How so?
So was extending I-355 overkill too?
Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 14, 2019, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
A properly designed extension without excessive tolls would likely have several thousand users each day - I would not call that a few.
And one should not have to live in Cook County when a slightly better quality of life (excluding transportation options) is available in the other counties.
And I third the notion that US 12 is not fine - it needs to be at least six lanes for much of its length, needs fewer stoplights (many of which have red light cameras), more outer roads, and a bypass of the congested, slow section through Fox Lake.
Route 12 absolutely needs 3 lanes each way up through Fox Lake, and then 2 lanes to the WI border. I still feel it would be easier to get consensus on the IL 120 Bypass. If that were at least built and connected to Route 12, this would leave open the possibility of connecting to the freeway over the state line in WI still at a future date. 53, even though many would still make a strong argument to have it built, seems to be dead thanks to Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. The state needs to start picking up the slack on 12... I would look a bit at what they did with North Ave in DuPage County, though maybe not with quite the super wide median.
or they can pull an West Dodge Expressway and stack up parts of us-12
Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 14, 2019, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
A properly designed extension without excessive tolls would likely have several thousand users each day - I would not call that a few.
And one should not have to live in Cook County when a slightly better quality of life (excluding transportation options) is available in the other counties.
And I third the notion that US 12 is not fine - it needs to be at least six lanes for much of its length, needs fewer stoplights (many of which have red light cameras), more outer roads, and a bypass of the congested, slow section through Fox Lake.
Route 12 absolutely needs 3 lanes each way up through Fox Lake, and then 2 lanes to the WI border. I still feel it would be easier to get consensus on the IL 120 Bypass. If that were at least built and connected to Route 12, this would leave open the possibility of connecting to the freeway over the state line in WI still at a future date. 53, even though many would still make a strong argument to have it built, seems to be dead thanks to Long Grove and Hawthorne Woods. The state needs to start picking up the slack on 12... I would look a bit at what they did with North Ave in DuPage County, though maybe not with quite the super wide median.
Randall road could be been something much better.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 02:47:43 PM
Maybe we should just build it right to your driveway so you can get anywhere with minimal inconvenience. Because God forbid you actually are inconvenienced when YOU decided to move a significant distance from work.
I am not the only one who would use such an extension of IL 53. It would probably pick up some traffic which otherwise uses I-94 and I-294 currently. It would be very useful for a number of non-work trips, particularly for events at the Lake County Fairgrounds.
I can't imagine how much inconvenience upgrading and widening US 12 in Lake and McHenry Counties would cause. How many years would it take?
The 53 extension would be a new terrain highway, so most of the construction would take place on said new terrain, and most of that new terrain is already owned by government agencies. It would pull traffic off of existing roads- not add to it.
When was this highway first proposed? How many people lived in Lake County then? How many people live there now?
Following the dictates of those who shout the loudest often has its perils...
Sadly, I think it's safe to say the idea of a N/S controlled access highway in central/western Lake County and Eastern McHenry is dead forever at this point.
The best you could hope for is maybe getting rid of some lights off 12 . 39 is right. It is over. I will try to find links on its history.
It's old but it and the supplementary freeway assumed a much higher population.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
Quote from: quickshade on July 14, 2019, 11:18:33 AM
I can tell a lot of people never drove 12 daily, I did and would have to plan my start and leave times around rush hour because it could take an hour from Waconda to Palatine. There were plenty of days I stayed at work an extra hour to avoid traffic. Thankfully I moved out to northwest Illinois with a new job and don't have to travel 12 anymore. However I did recently visit some friends and they have built 3 new strip malls buy the Whole Foods and I sat in lines of traffic going in and out of all the malls around there. And this was during the day, not even rush hour. If 53 were built I could have cut 15-20 minutes off my drive and not had a headache with having to deal with that much traffic and red lights.
I don't understand how people can just wave this off, but then I remember the people didn't wave it off, they voted clearly for the plan, the political and rich people have shut this project down.
Driven it hundreds of times. It's largely fine the way it is.
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
Not all of us can afford to live in Cook County because of the high taxes and outrageous house prices. Much like a majority of people who commute to work. Tired of this well you chose to live there it's your fault. Not all of us are lucky enough to live right next to their work.
Quote from: quickshade on July 15, 2019, 09:51:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
Quote from: quickshade on July 14, 2019, 11:18:33 AM
I can tell a lot of people never drove 12 daily, I did and would have to plan my start and leave times around rush hour because it could take an hour from Waconda to Palatine. There were plenty of days I stayed at work an extra hour to avoid traffic. Thankfully I moved out to northwest Illinois with a new job and don't have to travel 12 anymore. However I did recently visit some friends and they have built 3 new strip malls buy the Whole Foods and I sat in lines of traffic going in and out of all the malls around there. And this was during the day, not even rush hour. If 53 were built I could have cut 15-20 minutes off my drive and not had a headache with having to deal with that much traffic and red lights.
I don't understand how people can just wave this off, but then I remember the people didn't wave it off, they voted clearly for the plan, the political and rich people have shut this project down.
Driven it hundreds of times. It's largely fine the way it is.
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
Not all of us can afford to live in Cook County because of the high taxes and outrageous house prices. Much like a majority of people who commute to work. Tired of this well you chose to live there it's your fault. Not all of us are lucky enough to live right next to their work.
Then get a new job.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 15, 2019, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: quickshade on July 15, 2019, 09:51:54 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
Quote from: quickshade on July 14, 2019, 11:18:33 AM
I can tell a lot of people never drove 12 daily, I did and would have to plan my start and leave times around rush hour because it could take an hour from Waconda to Palatine. There were plenty of days I stayed at work an extra hour to avoid traffic. Thankfully I moved out to northwest Illinois with a new job and don't have to travel 12 anymore. However I did recently visit some friends and they have built 3 new strip malls buy the Whole Foods and I sat in lines of traffic going in and out of all the malls around there. And this was during the day, not even rush hour. If 53 were built I could have cut 15-20 minutes off my drive and not had a headache with having to deal with that much traffic and red lights.
I don't understand how people can just wave this off, but then I remember the people didn't wave it off, they voted clearly for the plan, the political and rich people have shut this project down.
Driven it hundreds of times. It's largely fine the way it is.
No one made you live an hour from work. Just can't pave something to make it easy for a few people.
Not all of us can afford to live in Cook County because of the high taxes and outrageous house prices. Much like a majority of people who commute to work. Tired of this well you chose to live there it's your fault. Not all of us are lucky enough to live right next to their work.
Then get a new job.
Yeah that's so easy to do.
They need to extend this freeway and that person telling others not to live an hour away from work and to get a new job needs to get their head out of their ass. I hope this freeway is eventually extended.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 16, 2019, 03:46:23 AM
They need to extend this freeway and that person telling others not to live an hour away from work and to get a new job needs to get their head out of their ass. I hope this freeway is eventually extended.
My head is completely out of my ass. Sorry but the freeway isn't needed. Paving everything doesn't solve problems.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 16, 2019, 03:46:23 AM
They need to extend this freeway and that person telling others not to live an hour away from work and to get a new job needs to get their head out of their ass. I hope this freeway is eventually extended.
I remember people who live in Vallejo, but work in SF complaining about their work/life balance. That they spent too much of their time commuting to and from their job, that they didn't get to spend times with their family.
I suggested he move closer to his job, or get a job closer to where he live and he got all enraged with me.
Gave me this large baloney about how there were no jobs that made that kind of money where he lived.
I told him you get the work/life balance you deserve. He
chose to live in Vallejo when his job was in the city.
What do you want? Time with your family, or life with a bigger bank account.
I get baffled by people who move 30, 40 even 60 miles from their work to take advantage of a more rural, ex-urban life, then bellyache about how they don't have any work/life balance because the commute is too long.
If you want to live in Lake Zurich or Grayslake, but work in Schaumburg, where taking public transport is near impossible, then you need to be comfortable with the fact you don't have an expressway on your Google Map and its going to take some time.
You should have moved closer to your work or somewhere public or toll highways were more accessible.
Personally, I think the road should be extended because its the right thing to do based on the current regional transportation needs, the reasons given for not building it are total bs.
But if you want the road built because you want to reduce your driving commute to work, you probably chose the wrong place to live to begin with.
Disconnect the IL-120 project from this and try to build that.
FAP 420 !
Looks like they are dusting off old 120 ideas.
Quote from: inkyatari on July 16, 2019, 11:37:39 AM
Disconnect the IL-120 project from this and try to build that.
That'd be a start
https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/draft/mobility/regionally-significant-projects
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190712/as-tollway-ends-route-53-extension-study-now-the-question-do-what-with-that-lake-county-land
https://patch.com/illinois/buffalogrove/route-53-extension-project-effectively-dead
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190712/proposed-route-53-extension-has-long-history
Finally the requested history
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 16, 2019, 09:35:42 AM
Paving everything doesn't solve problems.
Paving one six lane freeway, particularly one for which a lot of the ROW is already owned would be much easier than paving multiple other roads needing widening or other upgrades in its absence.
IMHO, nearly all of the fault for the hour+ long commutes ('drive to afford') are local zoning laws in those suburbs that effectively prohibit 'live near your work'. The farthest along in addressing this Chicagoland quandary is the City of Chicago and the truly massive market rate high-rise residential buildings that have been going up throughout their downtown and near-downtown areas for many years now.
Mike
There was a blurb on WBBM yesterday, and I see today the Daily Herald has an article entitled "Thousands of drivers are cutting through Long Grove to avoid congestion. Residents don't like it."
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 06, 2019, 05:48:41 PM
There was a blurb on WBBM yesterday, and I see today the Daily Herald has an article entitled "Thousands of drivers are cutting through Long Grove to avoid congestion. Residents don't like it."
Serves the fucking NIMBYs of Long Grove right. Fuck them, they made the congestion, they can live with it.
Quote from: Brandon on December 06, 2019, 06:32:06 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 06, 2019, 05:48:41 PM
There was a blurb on WBBM yesterday, and I see today the Daily Herald has an article entitled "Thousands of drivers are cutting through Long Grove to avoid congestion. Residents don't like it."
Serves the fucking NIMBYs of Long Grove right. Fuck them, they made the congestion, they can live with it.
Much agreed. Either you get a new highway that actually takes people off the roads or you get those people driving through your town. If people need to drive somewhere they're going to drive somewhere and drive wherever they need to.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 06, 2019, 05:48:41 PM
There was a blurb on WBBM yesterday, and I see today the Daily Herald has an article entitled "Thousands of drivers are cutting through Long Grove to avoid congestion. Residents don't like it."
Oh waaaaaaaa, everyone else gets to deal with traffic they can too. Maybe if they had taken a better look at 53 extending.... :awesomeface: :popcorn:
Too bad, so sad, sucks to be them.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 06, 2019, 05:48:41 PM
There was a blurb on WBBM yesterday, and I see today the Daily Herald has an article entitled "Thousands of drivers are cutting through Long Grove to avoid congestion. Residents don't like it."
I'm surprised that they don't just ban turns onto those roads at certain times of the day (see link) which you see all over the place in Lake County, IL to stop people from cutting through neighborhoods.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2819235,-87.8800593,3a,15y,180.46h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgB6oecktviKvUlhKQtjXww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Quote from: ET21 on December 09, 2019, 09:11:26 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 06, 2019, 05:48:41 PM
There was a blurb on WBBM yesterday, and I see today the Daily Herald has an article entitled "Thousands of drivers are cutting through Long Grove to avoid congestion. Residents don't like it."
Oh waaaaaaaa, everyone else gets to deal with traffic they can too. Maybe if they had taken a better look at 53 extending.... :awesomeface: :popcorn:
As Nelson Muntz might said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
Quote from: Mrt90 on December 09, 2019, 10:33:35 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 06, 2019, 05:48:41 PM
There was a blurb on WBBM yesterday, and I see today the Daily Herald has an article entitled "Thousands of drivers are cutting through Long Grove to avoid congestion. Residents don't like it."
I'm surprised that they don't just ban turns onto those roads at certain times of the day (see link) which you see all over the place in Lake County, IL to stop people from cutting through neighborhoods.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2819235,-87.8800593,3a,15y,180.46h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgB6oecktviKvUlhKQtjXww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
turn them into private roads. last time i checked they're public roads, people cutting through are just using a road they also paid for. :-D
Here is another old thread ....The legislature passed a bill to create as task force to determine what to do with the land.
Daily Herald behind paywall . Tribune wasn't but very short mentions the task force and a push to make it a trail.
Ah yes a trail will do the trick. Another affluent white community is too good for a freeway yet again.
Quote from: 3467 on June 14, 2021, 05:31:32 PM
Here is another old thread ....The legislature passed a bill to create as task force to determine what to do with the land.
Daily Herald behind paywall . Tribune wasn't but very short mentions the task force and a push to make it a trail.
What a slap in the face to anyone with half a brain. At least build a new arterial for goodness sake!
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:48:15 PM
Quote from: 3467 on June 14, 2021, 05:31:32 PM
Here is another old thread ....The legislature passed a bill to create as task force to determine what to do with the land.
Daily Herald behind paywall . Tribune wasn't but very short mentions the task force and a push to make it a trail.
What a slap in the face to anyone with half a brain. At least build a new arterial for goodness sake!
I have the next big thing. Park N Walk. Build a garage so everyone at one end of the trail can park and walk to trail to commute.
The picture shows a gravel road . I was thinking yes a long gravel road for the trail.
Quote from: 3467 on June 14, 2021, 05:31:32 PM
Here is another old thread ....The legislature passed a bill to create as task force to determine what to do with the land.
Daily Herald behind paywall . Tribune wasn't but very short mentions the task force and a push to make it a trail.
Sure, build a trail.
A six lane trail with exits for your electric bikes. :)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:48:15 PM
What a slap in the face to anyone with half a brain. At least build a new arterial for goodness sake!
Really should be using some of the corridor for another north-south arterial. Central Lake County could use something that is not a diagonal for most of its route (like Old McHenry, Gilmer, Midlothian Roads) or has a slow stretch through a business district (US 45 through Mundelein, IL 21 through Libertyville).
(edited for spelling)
Would it be possible to expand existing IL 53 from two to four lanes between Lake Cook Rd and IL 83 as a way in lieu of extending the IL 53 freeway? Or would that be shot down just like the freeway proposal was?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2021, 07:29:28 PM
Would it be possible to expand existing IL 53 from two to four lanes between Lake Cook Rd and IL 83 as a way in lieu of extending the IL 53 freeway? Or would that be shot down just like the freeway proposal was?
That would be shot down because of the NIMBYs in Long Grove. Long Grove is right at the end of the current 53 expressway.
^ Even if existing IL 53 was four-laned between Lake Cook and Old McHenry Road, it wouldn't deal with the issues on Lake Cook Road and US 12. Based on conditions without an extension of IL 53 as a freeway:
* Lake Cook needs at least six lanes between US 12 and at least Arlington Heights Road. It would also help to somehow get rid of the stoplight at Old Hicks Road.
* EB Lake Cook needs a dual left to NB Arlington Heights Road (in the pre-Covid days it could take three cycles to get through on a weekend).
* EB (SB) US 12 needs either a triple left to EB Lake Cook, if not a displaced left turn/CFI design.
US 12 needs to be 3 lanes each way
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 16, 2021, 08:17:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2021, 07:29:28 PM
Would it be possible to expand existing IL 53 from two to four lanes between Lake Cook Rd and IL 83 as a way in lieu of extending the IL 53 freeway? Or would that be shot down just like the freeway proposal was?
That would be shot down because of the NIMBYs in Long Grove. Long Grove is right at the end of the current 53 expressway.
I have always said that the part through Long Grove should be below ground level and then covered with a park.
They would never know the difference once it was done.
lakecountyil.gov/4433/Regional-Transportation -Studies
They have all 300 MB of the study. It's like a passive aggressive swipe at Long Grove from the rest of the county. They have updated the site lots of studies and some OD studies.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 17, 2021, 09:39:34 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 16, 2021, 08:17:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2021, 07:29:28 PM
Would it be possible to expand existing IL 53 from two to four lanes between Lake Cook Rd and IL 83 as a way in lieu of extending the IL 53 freeway? Or would that be shot down just like the freeway proposal was?
That would be shot down because of the NIMBYs in Long Grove. Long Grove is right at the end of the current 53 expressway.
I have always said that the part through Long Grove should be below ground level and then covered with a park.
They would never know the difference once it was done.
Then they would cry, "But...... But....... the groundwater will get poisoned!"
They'll always find some excuse to oppose it.
I wonder if Lake will revive their 120 plan.
A quick look at the Trii County plan seems to show we are back at no build so nothing more than the projects in the no build map. Most of those will happen but nothing on 12. That and an arterial alternate were in this study.
Lake may luck out with more remote work. And losers population growth.
Quote from: 3467 on June 17, 2021, 12:33:09 PM
I wonder if Lake will revive their 120 plan.
A quick look at the Trii County plan seems to show we are back at no build so nothing more than the projects in the no build map. Most of those will happen but nothing on 12. That and an arterial alternate were in this study.
Lake may luck out with more remote work. And losers population growth.
I agree that if the IL-53 Extension is blown up, Lake should still do the work on east-west connectivity.
There is a very definite need for this.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 20, 2021, 11:29:20 PM
Quote from: 3467 on June 17, 2021, 12:33:09 PM
I wonder if Lake will revive their 120 plan.
A quick look at the Trii County plan seems to show we are back at no build so nothing more than the projects in the no build map. Most of those will happen but nothing on 12. That and an arterial alternate were in this study.
Lake may luck out with more remote work. And losers population growth.
I agree that if the IL-53 Extension is blown up, Lake should still do the work on east-west connectivity.
There is a very definite need for this.
Indeed, but it's not going to significantly help unless it's a freeway.
The 378 MB Tri County Access report is interesting. They looked at almost any alternative and were working on the tollway and 2 major arterial ideas. Since they left us with something it's not fully fictional but I don't see how Barrington would have gone for a 6 lane IL 59.
The spur to McHenry county never made the cut.
They focus a lot on arterial lanes but access controls seem to be something that would have a bigger impact in many cases.
^ I'm just starting to look over the slow to download Tri-County Access Report but there are a few questionable things already standing out, some of which are hopefully answered later in the report:
1) The no-build is missing several projects that were underway in 2019. A small sample:
* The Randall Road widening and intersection improvements at Algonquin Road
* Nothing for Longmeadow Parkway - a new bridge and corridor over the Fox River is not regionally significant? Seems at least as significant as the IL 60 - IL 83 - US 45 corridor widening from the western IL 60 - IL 83 intersection to east of IL 21 as well as the widening of IL 62 through Barrington Hills.
* The IL 19 widening from east of IL 59 to west of Bartlett Road
* The Woodfield Road rebuild with intersection improvements at I-290.
* Is there another widening coming for I-94 north of the Wisconsin border? I thought it has been a few years since the last one was completed up to Kenosha.
2) The initial range of alternatives seems lacking:
* No consideration for upgrading US 12 and using it for the extension, when six-laning IL 59 through Barrington was considered?
* Seems like an alternative for creating new arterial corridors with a few pieces of new construction is absent. One that comes to mind is trying to create a single corridor using Quentin Road and Fairfield Road.
* Why is widening US 12 all the way to IL 31 considered, but the IL 120 expressway stops at US 12 near Volo?
I think 19 might be out of the map. It seems the excised a western Elgin Ohare out of the study area. Maybe because they will or did study that?
I agree on the rest.
Also noticed despite the public's noting the McHenry connection the tollway never looked at it. That would support the idea the tollway never considered it viable.I
There is other fun stuff. Comments like can you get competent people to do demographics not CMAP.
I've been to Long Grove. They're so proud of their covered bridge. Big deal, Parke County, Indiana has 20 of them.
Quote from: Finrod on July 05, 2021, 01:24:24 AM
I've been to Long Grove. They're so proud of their covered bridge. Big deal, Parke County, Indiana has 20 of them.
Yeah plus the bridge isn't even close to the highway. Ultimately, tho, it's the rich people in Long Grove who don't want a major highway near their homes, and who are still clinging onto a time when Long Grove was an actual destination instead of a ghost town decades ago. The Christmas season there was cool as a kid, but c'mon, folks, it's not like a highway somewhere in the general vicinity is gonna drive even more people away. If it weren't for NIMBY Long Grovers it would have been up and a rather old freeway by now.
Also as far as I'm aware, 53 was supposed to be part of a major Madison-Chicago freeway at one point, connecting to US12 in Wisconsin. And if it were built, Chicagoland would have two complete ringways. Boston almost has three complete ringways, so I think two is more than conservative enough in terms of highway placement for such a big city. In addition to the FAP342 for the 53/120 project having been acquired already, IDOT also has FAP420 around Richmond.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 22, 2021, 11:09:14 PM
* Why is widening US 12 all the way to IL 31 considered, but the IL 120 expressway stops at US 12 near Volo?
My assumption is that they anticipate it'll end up being necessary in the long-run anyway, even if they do build the freeway all the way from Lake Cook to 12 at the border. And it'll be helpful in the event that they do end up building that FAP420 Richmond Bypass. Plus 5-laning 12 until right before Richmond might make building the Richmond Bypass more politically feasible, I suspect, tho that remains to be seen. Either way 5-laning 12 is a fine enough stopgap, but I hardly think it's solid a long-term solution. The second ringway needs to be finished, and there needs to be a way to get between 53 and I-94 besides that joke of an arterial on Palatine road or the Lake-Cook strangler.
If they can get the Richmond Bypass and existing 53/120 project built, I think a "Lakelands Pkwy" or some kind of Volo/McHenry Bypass connecting those roads becomes more politically possible. And I think there are some places it could be routed as long as you don't much mind taking down some McMansions.
I'm usually someone who supports building more transit instead of highways in Chicagoland, but this is one of the very few projects I think
needs to be built. I get the impulse not to build new big roads, but if we're gonna call it quits on building new highways let's please just complete the outer ringway and get another highway to distribute traffic to Wisconsin onto first. Finish what we started, then call it a wrap for the rest of the '20s. I think that's a reasonable compromise.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
And I third the notion that US 12 is not fine - it needs to be at least six lanes for much of its length, needs fewer stoplights (many of which have red light cameras), more outer roads, and a bypass of the congested, slow section through Fox Lake.
Consider it "fourthed." I don't think they could get rid of many of the lights south of Miller Rd, but it does need to be rebuilt. I constantly drive that road and it's hellish at times. Have you all ever driven Hwy 13 downstate? I have a handful of times. Driving that thing feels like being in a well oiled machine, I think it's so well designed, especially now that it's six lanes all the way to Carbondale.
12 needs to be a bit more like 13. Make 12 a 6-lane arterial between Palatine and Miller Rds, then make it a 55mph expressway north till the light at 120. I wonder if they could get away with converting the lights at Bonner Rd and Old Rand Rd in Wauconda to J-turns? Plus I've been fantasizing about IDOT converting the Old McHenry light to a trumpet sometime in the long-run. And there needs to be an auxiliary lane on the northbound side at the interchange between 59 and 176 like there is on the southbound side. They're resurfacing it now as I type, but once it gets the end of its life cycle all this stuff needs to be done.
IL-53 could be a partial underground expressway around Long Grove and then put a park on top of it.
There are always answers, but Illinois being broke, and ISTHA not going to spend more than they have to collect the revenue leads to these types of stalemates.
It cost a lot but there is precedent for this nationally. I-90 on Mercer Island is one. They did a cut away, built the road then covered it. People a block away don't even know a highway is there.
What Illinois is really afraid of is that if they placate Long Grove, then *everyone* on the route will want to be placated and while that is possible its just not feasible.
Palatine road has the ROW to do something to make it better.
Quote from: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 12:51:34 AM
Quote from: Finrod on July 05, 2021, 01:24:24 AM
I've been to Long Grove. They're so proud of their covered bridge. Big deal, Parke County, Indiana has 20 of them.
Yeah plus the bridge isn't even close to the highway. Ultimately, tho, it's the rich people in Long Grove who don't want a major highway near their homes, and who are still clinging onto a time when Long Grove was an actual destination instead of a ghost town decades ago. The Christmas season there was cool as a kid, but c'mon, folks, it's not like a highway somewhere in the general vicinity is gonna drive even more people away. If it weren't for NIMBY Long Grovers it would have been up and a rather old freeway by now.
Also as far as I'm aware, 53 was supposed to be part of a major Madison-Chicago freeway at one point, connecting to US12 in Wisconsin. And if it were built, Chicagoland would have two complete ringways. Boston almost has three complete ringways, so I think two is more than conservative enough in terms of highway placement for such a big city. In addition to the FAP342 for the 53/120 project having been acquired already, IDOT also has FAP420 around Richmond.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 22, 2021, 11:09:14 PM
* Why is widening US 12 all the way to IL 31 considered, but the IL 120 expressway stops at US 12 near Volo?
My assumption is that they anticipate it'll end up being necessary in the long-run anyway, even if they do build the freeway all the way from Lake Cook to 12 at the border. And it'll be helpful in the event that they do end up building that FAP420 Richmond Bypass. Plus 5-laning 12 until right before Richmond might make building the Richmond Bypass more politically feasible, I suspect, tho that remains to be seen. Either way 5-laning 12 is a fine enough stopgap, but I hardly think it's solid a long-term solution. The second ringway needs to be finished, and there needs to be a way to get between 53 and I-94 besides that joke of an arterial on Palatine road or the Lake-Cook strangler.
If they can get the Richmond Bypass and existing 53/120 project built, I think a "Lakelands Pkwy" or some kind of Volo/McHenry Bypass connecting those roads becomes more politically possible. And I think there are some places it could be routed as long as you don't much mind taking down some McMansions.
I'm usually someone who supports building more transit instead of highways in Chicagoland, but this is one of the very few projects I think needs to be built. I get the impulse not to build new big roads, but if we're gonna call it quits on building new highways let's please just complete the outer ringway and get another highway to distribute traffic to Wisconsin onto first. Finish what we started, then call it a wrap for the rest of the '20s. I think that's a reasonable compromise.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
And I third the notion that US 12 is not fine - it needs to be at least six lanes for much of its length, needs fewer stoplights (many of which have red light cameras), more outer roads, and a bypass of the congested, slow section through Fox Lake.
Consider it "fourthed." I don't think they could get rid of many of the lights south of Miller Rd, but it does need to be rebuilt. I constantly drive that road and it's hellish at times. Have you all ever driven Hwy 13 downstate? I have a handful of times. Driving that thing feels like being in a well oiled machine, I think it's so well designed, especially now that it's six lanes all the way to Carbondale.
12 needs to be a bit more like 13. Make 12 a 6-lane arterial between Palatine and Miller Rds, then make it a 55mph expressway north till the light at 120. I wonder if they could get away with converting the lights at Bonner Rd and Old Rand Rd in Wauconda to J-turns? Plus I've been fantasizing about IDOT converting the Old McHenry light to a trumpet sometime in the long-run. And there needs to be an auxiliary lane on the northbound side at the interchange between 59 and 176 like there is on the southbound side. They're resurfacing it now as I type, but once it gets the end of its life cycle all this stuff needs to be done.
Maybe make parts of it RIRO (remove some lights) with an few U-turn bays
Quote from: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 12:51:34 AM
The second ringway needs to be finished, and there needs to be a way to get between 53 and I-94 besides that joke of an arterial on Palatine road or the Lake-Cook strangler.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one that thinks this. Palatine and Lake-Cook are not good enough connectors. Lake-Cook Road is improving with the construction in Buffalo Grove/Wheeling, and east of there is okay, but there really needs to be a proper expressway. Lake-Cook Road would be better if the speed limit was increased to at least 55, but we can't have that now can we? :banghead:
Palatine Road could be improved if the intersections with Wheeling, Windsor, and Schoenbeck (and I suppose also with Kennicott) were converted to be similar to the Elmhurst interchange, with a skinny diamond, no traffic lights. The intersections with Rand and Arlington Heights could be improved if some Michigan lefts were implemented to cut down on the signal phases. Of course, none of this will probably ever happen.
I also completely agree with US-12 needing improvements. I can't even count the number of signals that there are from the Wisconsin border to Lake-Cook Road. 6-laning, cutting down on minor signals, and implementing some Michigan lefts would help.
Quote from: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 12:51:34 AM
Consider it "fourthed." I don't think they could get rid of many of the lights south of Miller Rd, but it does need to be rebuilt. I constantly drive that road and it's hellish at times. Have you all ever driven Hwy 13 downstate? I have a handful of times. Driving that thing feels like being in a well oiled machine, I think it's so well designed, especially now that it's six lanes all the way to Carbondale.
12 needs to be a bit more like 13. Make 12 a 6-lane arterial between Palatine and Miller Rds, then make it a 55mph expressway north till the light at 120. I wonder if they could get away with converting the lights at Bonner Rd and Old Rand Rd in Wauconda to J-turns? Plus I've been fantasizing about IDOT converting the Old McHenry light to a trumpet sometime in the long-run. And there needs to be an auxiliary lane on the northbound side at the interchange between 59 and 176 like there is on the southbound side. They're resurfacing it now as I type, but once it gets the end of its life cycle all this stuff needs to be done.
As a forum poster who presently lives in Jackson County and earlier in life lived in McHenry County, I'm not sure comparing US 12 to IL 13 is a fair comparison - whole different animal up there in western Lake County and McHenry County versus Jackson and Williamson Counties
IL 13 has its own issues, mainly all the lights thru Carbondale and Marion (helped a little now that IDOT D9 ran Fiber along 13 thru Carbondale to sync the lights - much easier to get thru town now on either all greens or only getting one Red light. Overall, tho, Harrisburg to Murphysboro is an easier drive than US 12 thru Lake and McHenry Counties
IL 13 isn't quite 6 Laned all the way between Marion and Carbondale yet - the section over Crab Orchard Lake between Carterville and Carbondale is the last remaining bit still 4 Lane, and it is a noticeable choke point, especially at peak/rush hour
D9 has experimented with J-Turns/Michigan Lefts/whatever they are called now, as there are a couple on IL 13 on the east side of Marion. IDOT is supposed to be adding a couple more north of Murphysboro along IL 13/127
I specifically omitted discussing the Wolf Creek Rd Overpass/Interchange that was added to IL 13 near Carterville a few years back...I still call it the Bridge to Nowhere. I feel like most Carterville traffic still uses Division St at the stoplight, that is still there. Oh well
Just a reminder that the full FAP 420 can't be built due to Glacial Park and Volo Bog, two federally protected areas. There is no room to reroute around at this point.
I'll say it again the IL-53 extension should have been part of Move Illinois instead of the EOWA, which really isn't needed until a western access point is constructed at O'Hare.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 12, 2021, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 12:51:34 AM
The second ringway needs to be finished, and there needs to be a way to get between 53 and I-94 besides that joke of an arterial on Palatine road or the Lake-Cook strangler.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one that thinks this.
Likewise, I was hoping I wasn't alone there.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 12, 2021, 12:49:26 PM
I also completely agree with US-12 needing improvements. I can't even count the number of signals that there are from the Wisconsin border to Lake-Cook Road. 6-laning, cutting down on minor signals, and implementing some Michigan lefts would help.
Yeah six lanes is necessary south of Miller Rd. Four lanes is fine north of there as long as they nab those three stoplights before 120. The Ela Rd intersection is one that should just be an overpass over 12 with access to 12 via 22. Now I'm actually not someone who thinks there needs to be a Fox Lake bypass, I think 12 is fine as it is thru Fox Lake for the most part,
as long as they eventually build a tollway/freeway alternative connecting the 12 freeway in Wisconsin to the 53 extension.
Quote from: I-39 on July 12, 2021, 06:45:09 PM
Just a reminder that the full FAP 420 can't be built due to Glacial Park and Volo Bog, two federally protected areas. There is no room to reroute around at this point.
They still do have the ROW thru North Branch, around Richmond, between the border and the 12/31 intersection tho right? It's not ideal but a Richmond Bypass would be much better than nothing. I also heard talk of 5-laning 12 from Fox Lake to 31, which though not ideal is a decent stopgap solution, especially if accompanied by those improvements on 12. Though I sometimes wonder whether they could get away with "upgrading" Pioneer Rd thru Glacial Park to a divided highway. They probably wouldn't get approval but they could always ask. :biggrin:
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 12, 2021, 01:58:43 PM
I specifically omitted discussing the Wolf Creek Rd Overpass/Interchange that was added to IL 13 near Carterville a few years back...I still call it the Bridge to Nowhere. I feel like most Carterville traffic still uses Division St at the stoplight, that is still there. Oh well
When I saw that my thought was :confused: . I remember reading a release that it was meant to give better access between businesses on either side of 13? So why not just build an overpass without an interchange? That's a decision I don't think I personally would have made.
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 12, 2021, 01:58:43 PM
IL 13 isn't quite 6 Laned all the way between Marion and Carbondale yet - the section over Crab Orchard Lake between Carterville and Carbondale is the last remaining bit still 4 Lane, and it is a noticeable choke point, especially at peak/rush hour
Last I was there a month or two ago, they were rebuilding the bridges and roadways to finally widen it to 3 lanes in each direction. By the time the present project is done it'll be three lanes each direction from Carbondale to the Interstate. After that they're due to start improvement on the local roads that connect to 13. It was supposed to be done by 2020 EoY but oh well.
https://idot.illinois.gov/projects/il-13-carb-to-carter (https://idot.illinois.gov/projects/il-13-carb-to-carter)
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 12, 2021, 01:58:43 PM
As a forum poster who presently lives in Jackson County and earlier in life lived in McHenry County, I'm not sure comparing US 12 to IL 13 is a fair comparison - whole different animal up there in western Lake County and McHenry County versus Jackson and Williamson Counties
IL 13 has its own issues, mainly all the lights thru Carbondale and Marion (helped a little now that IDOT D9 ran Fiber along 13 thru Carbondale to sync the lights - much easier to get thru town now on either all greens or only getting one Red light. Overall, tho, Harrisburg to Murphysboro is an easier drive than US 12 thru Lake and McHenry Counties
Yeah that's a point well taken. 12 has nothing like the Carbondale one-way couple as an example. 12 was originally built in the '30s as an expressway, and to this day I think it has a couple features between Miller Rd and 120 more reminiscent of Wis-26 than of traditional arterials like 13. And to be sure the stoplights in Carbondale can be killer. That said, I do still think there are lessons to be learned from 13 that can be applied to 12, as well as a few important similarities. They're both regional arterials that move a lot of traffic to and from the freeway network, for one. And ultimately every roadway is going to have its share problems, there are no perfect solutions.
Before I forget about the subject of 13 tho, something that I think a lot of other DOTs could learn from is how IDOT used the 13 project as a catalyst to improve local roads. A lot of other states would have put in an overbuilt expressway that would have just made the traffic pattern more inefficient, then neglected local roads. The arterial approach saves money on the main highway itself, but
requires that you use those savings to improve local roads in a holistic way, in order for the arterial to work. To some that would have been a downside to that approach. Not that I have a poster of Omar Osman with lipstick marks on my bedroom wall or anything, I just think IDOT has its moments.
Quote from: galacticskyway on July 12, 2021, 09:36:31 PM
Last I was there a month or two ago, they were rebuilding the bridges and roadways to finally widen it to 3 lanes in each direction. By the time the present project is done it'll be three lanes each direction from Carbondale to the Interstate. After that they're due to start improvement on the local roads that connect to 13. It was supposed to be done by 2020 EoY but oh well.
https://idot.illinois.gov/projects/il-13-carb-to-carter (https://idot.illinois.gov/projects/il-13-carb-to-carter)
Quote from: IDOTPhase III (Construction) consists of the actual construction of the project. We are currently in the design, land acquisition, and construction phase. Giant City to Reed Station Road is funded and under construction in 2019. As of 2019, design, land acquisition and construction is unfunded for Reed Station to Shawnee Trail.
D9 and ET Simonds (probably IDOT's top paving contractor in SoIL) have been working on the Giant City to Reed Station Road segment for the last couple of years - Eastbound is done on that segment, Westbound is being worked on immediately at the Reed Station Road interchange area to add the 3rd lane (why this wasn't done while the segment further west into Carbondale was being done...who knows?)
The segment east from Reed Station Road, across Crab Orchard Lake, to Shawnee Trail south of Cambria is unfunded, according to that IDOT project website, and no work has begun to expand the IL 13 bridges over Crab Orchard Lake, or any of that last 4 lane segment
I have a sneaking feeling that last section won't be finalized and built until the Casino at Walker's Bluff is well into construction progress and closer to opening. That segment of IL 13 and some local roads will need some work and expansion if Walker's Bluff is to be a bigger attraction with a Casino Resort, moreso than the Winery & Banquet Center it is now
End of the Southern Illinois aside...back to IL 53 and Western Lake County/McHenry County area up in the Northern and Northwestern Suburban areas
12 was the main option to the extension and now is the only. Also as 39 days 420 is not viable.The Tri County report is a good read. They asked participants to go Fitzowl on roads and transit. They drew as many lines as the old 71 map. But months end it was 12 and 53.
Quote from: I-39 on July 12, 2021, 06:45:09 PM
Just a reminder that the full FAP 420 can't be built due to Glacial Park and Volo Bog, two federally protected areas. There is no room to reroute around at this point.
There's plenty of room to get around those two areas. The development is much less dense than areas with even more ROW intensive projects such as the US 14 grade separation in Barrington.
EDIT: A park is not always an absolute barrier either. Longmeadow Parkway went through at least one.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 12, 2021, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 12, 2021, 06:45:09 PM
Just a reminder that the full FAP 420 can't be built due to Glacial Park and Volo Bog, two federally protected areas. There is no room to reroute around at this point.
There's plenty of room to get around those two areas. The development is much less dense than areas with even more ROW intensive projects such as the US 14 grade separation in Barrington.
EDIT: A park is not always an absolute barrier either. Longmeadow Parkway went through at least one.
Where do you go around? There is development in a lot of places surrounding Glacial Park and Volo Bog. If it was that easy, the road would've been built by now. Even in the 1990s when the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension was being proposed, officials didn't seem to keen on building it.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1995-08-25-9508250243-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1995-08-25-9508250243-story.html)
Furthermore, when the tollway got the authorization to build the IL-53 extension (including the Richmond leg) in the early 90s, the tollway didn't even request for the Richmond leg to be approved.
https://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/ii940227.html (https://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/ii940227.html)
Unlike the main IL-53 extension, the Richmond leg does indeed face legit environmental complications. All in all, I'm not really sure what could be done there to fix US 12 north to Wisconsin.
Quote from: I-39 on July 12, 2021, 11:04:16 PM
Where do you go around? There is development in a lot of places surrounding Glacial Park and Volo Bog.
There's development but it's not super dense. If someone really wanted to get the US 12 freeway into Illinois, they could probably find a way. Look how much has been demolished around O'Hare for various improvements. IL 390 wasn't exactly impact free.
Quote from: I-39 on July 12, 2021, 11:04:16 PMIf it was that easy, the road would've been built by now.
If "easy to build" was the only criteria for building most roads, many more roads would have been built in the suburbs years ago,along with a few more of the supplemental freeways in Illinois. Being "easy to build" didn't exactly help the South Surburban corridor get built.
Would long viaduct bridging, like with the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline, work here? If it gets to the point of a critical need, an Act of Congress, like with the Stillwater Bridge, is a possibility.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 13, 2021, 10:17:02 PM
Would long viaduct bridging, like with the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline, work here? If it gets to the point of a critical need, an Act of Congress, like with the Stillwater Bridge, is a possibility.
Mike
Yes a long viaduct bridge like the Belt Line would work. The problem is the NIMBYs.
It seems to me that the long bridge over the Yahara Marsh wouldn't stand much of a chance today. It barely was approved 35 years ago.
I think they only got the Yahara Viaduct because the alternative was to tear down almost everything along what is now Broadway.
I think it would be funny to build the 53 extension right up to the Long Meadow city line and have it abruptly stop and dump all its traffic onto two lane roads. :-D
As for Yolo Bog, just blast through a few of the clone-homes and that golf course instead. Problem solved.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 13, 2021, 10:09:59 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 12, 2021, 11:04:16 PM
Where do you go around? There is development in a lot of places surrounding Glacial Park and Volo Bog.
There's development but it's not super dense. If someone really wanted to get the US 12 freeway into Illinois, they could probably find a way. Look how much has been demolished around O'Hare for various improvements. IL 390 wasn't exactly impact free.
Quote from: I-39 on July 12, 2021, 11:04:16 PMIf it was that easy, the road would've been built by now.
If "easy to build" was the only criteria for building most roads, many more roads would have been built in the suburbs years ago,along with a few more of the supplemental freeways in Illinois. Being "easy to build" didn't exactly help the South Surburban corridor get built.
My point about being easy was that if there was an easy solution to route around, it would've been done by now. The fact is if you look at the landscape in eastern McHenry around the FAP 420 ROW, it is full of conservation areas, lakes and semi dense developments along the Fox Chain O Lakes. Again, if they were skeptical about building the Richmond leg 30 years ago, imagine what opposition there would be now.
There is no excuse as to why the main IL-53 extension from Lake Cook to Grayslake can't be built, but the Richmond leg ship unfortunately sailed long ago. They are just gonna have to find a way to improve US 12.
^ There's a difference between easy to build and a motivated DOT/Toll Authority working to build the project, the latter of which is lacking for the corridor.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2021, 10:18:02 PM
^ There's a difference between easy to build and a motivated DOT/Toll Authority working to build the project, the latter of which is lacking for the corridor.
Even if they were motivated, there are still environmental issues which they wouldn't get clearance for (they've consistently said this), plus the massive amount of $$$ it would cost to build at this point would be an obstacle (it would be way more than the main IL-53 extension would cost).
Any dreams of FAP 420 died in the mid-90s IMO.
Way back, should have connected the 53 X-way to IL 83 to near Buffalo Grove.
At least put in 4 lane IL 120, please, :paranoid: