From today's Joliet Herald News
New road for Prairie Parkway funds?
Congressman says money better spent on other roads
Recommend (6) Comments
April 3, 2009
By CHRISTINE S. MOYER cmoyer@scn1.com
Funds that had been earmarked for the proposed Prairie Parkway might be diverted to other Fox Valley roads.
U.S. Rep. Bill Foster, D-Geneva, said this week that the federal money for the proposed highway might be better spent on other road projects. Diverting the earmarked funds, however, would need approval from Congress.
"There is a near consensus in the area, the first priority for money being spent on roads is probably not in that (Prairie Parkway) corridor but rather beefing up the existing north-south corridors and so on," Foster said this week at a transportation gathering in Washington, D.C.
Foster's communications director, Shannon O'Brien, added Thursday, "We believe we can do more immediate good for the 14th (Congressional District) if we are able to reprogram the money to higher priority projects."
Those priorities should be Route 47 and the surrounding network of roads, according to Prairie Parkway opponent state Sen. Chris Lauzen, R-Aurora.
Lauzen was pleased with Foster's announcement, describing it as responsive to the overwhelming number of residents who disapprove of the project.
However, Lauzen is concerned about how the congressman will handle the roughly $207 million already earmarked for the Prairie Parkway.
"It would be just a clever political maneuver if he allows the current funding to go through," Lauzen said.
The proposed 37-mile highway, connecting Interstate 80 and 88, through Kane, Kendall and Grundy counties, has been touted as a way to ease traffic congestion and create much-needed jobs.
Opposing the 'sprawlway'
Opponents, however, have argued the parkway would wipe out hundreds of acres of farmland and trees, while also uprooting homes along the way. The opposition has pushed for large-scale improvements to Route 47 as a more effective option.
"We're excited. This is something we've been working for," said Chrisi Vineyard, who vocally opposed the Prairie Parkway along with the Citizens Against the Sprawlway group.
Vineyard said she and other opponents of the project have been talking to Foster about their concerns with this project since he was elected. In fact, the group has another meeting scheduled for next week.
"I'm glad he's stepping up to the plate," Vineyard said.
Last week, Citizens Against the Sprawlway and Friends of the Fox River filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Chicago against the Federal Highway Administration, alleging the agency violated federal law in how it approved the Prairie Parkway project.
Land already purchased
So far, the Illinois Department of Transportation has acquired around 250 of the needed 2,500 properties in the Prairie Parkway's path, said Rick Powell, IDOT's project manager.
A portion of that property is homes, Powell said, while the remainder is large tracks of open land.
"Our main focus right now," he said, "is engineering and land acquisition."
But not large-scale acquisitions, Powell clarified, just "selected properties here and there."
A little more than $59 million has already been spent on the project. Money is only available to construct the first portion between Route 71 and Route 34 in Kendall County.
Powell noted that IDOT has also been working with Foster in identifying alternate projects.
Should the congressman re-direct the Prairie Parkway funding, Powell said the project wouldn't completely disappear.
"We wouldn't totally kill the project and get rid of the court order of protection," he said. "But we would just move (at) a slower pace on it."
Kendall chairman's support
Kendall County Board Chairman Anne Vickery is among the Prairie Parkway's biggest cheerleaders.
Vickery insisted that just constructing the parkway would directly and indirectly bring 28,000 jobs to the area, not to mention easing congested Fox Valley roadways.
She is hopeful that the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority will take on the Prairie Parkway. The tollway board is currently studying the project.
"We're really hoping that the congressman is going to step up to the plate and give his support toward this," Vickery said. "The needs are not only for transportation, but also the jobs" that would be created.
Interesting article about the Prairie Parkway. I actually had to do some cartographic research for this proposed facility as part of my research for the Kendall County area when I worked at a mapping company last year. The route is actually shown as proposed on GMJ maps, though the proposed route is arbitrarily shown and not in its final corridor alignment. From what I seen of the sprawl in Kendall County, I am not surprised that the route is needed but I am also not surprised that it is meeting opposition either. People don't mind living in sprawl neighborhoods and commuting on clogged arterials to get from point A to point B as long as they don't have to have a high speed limited access highway going near or through their neighborhood.
I was disapointed when they chose the sothern connection to I-80 to be at Minooka. What I would have liked to see is it connect to I-80 near Saratoga Road west of Morris, and have a clover leaf interchange and end at a stop light at U.S. 6 giving Morris a second interchange on I-80. The growth in Morris is going west, not east so the Brisbin Road interchange will do nothign to help the horrid traffic issues on west U.S. 6. in Morris. Plus, from the hopefull road geek in me, a BUSN Loop I-80 from that non exisitant interchange along U.S. 6 to Brisbin Road. It could work from the Seneca exit (MP 105) along U.S. 6 to Brisbin Road.
Just recently, I extended my I-41 southward to follow Illinois 47 and reading about the Prairie Pkwy. told me I was on the right track. The suburban Chicago area is growing all the time and it seems that I-355 and I-294 have not been able to help the western suburbs as far as congestion goes and maybe I-39 is not enough.
If it ever goes through, stress ever...It would help. Combine that with the Illinana Expressway that should go from I-55 west of Elwood straight east to I-65 would help. You could exit I-88 and head south to I-80 jump over to I-55 on I-80 and then south to the Illiana and catch I-65 and avoid most of Chicago's congestion.
Considering the inability to coordinate traffic lights in Chicagoland, they need another north-south freeway grade facility farther out than I-355.
Also, if the area is going to explode with population growth like they say it's going to, it needs to go north to I-90 as well as connecting to the proposed Illiana Expressway.
Quote from: Chicagosuburban on July 17, 2011, 06:09:47 PM
Also, if the area is going to explode with population growth like they say it's going to, it needs to go north to I-90 as well as connecting to the proposed Illiana Expressway.
Agreed, or otherwise, IL-47 will become more of a quagmire than it already is.
Call Kane county. The I-88 to I-90 section was in the 2010 CATS plan until Kane county said it did not want it.
Quote from: 3467 on July 17, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
Call Kane county. The I-88 to I-90 section was in the 2010 CATS plan until Kane county said it did not want it.
Kane has its head up its ass in denial. They're growing, but want the western part of the county to maintain its "rural character". Kendall understands that the growth is coming, like it or not, so unlike Lake County and McHenry County, it is best to be prepared.
Think of it this way. Kane County will continue to have traffic problems until 47 at the least is 4 laned unless the Prairie Pkwy is built. Some of us remember the "good old days" of Randall Rd. You used to be able to go between Elgin and Aurora with only 4 lights. Now it is full of strip malls and lights. That will be 47 very soon if the Pkwy does not get built.
If anyone get ambitious...It might be worthwhile to see if Dekalb county is interested . It would only be 5 miles west of the old proposed corridor and it would serve more populated areas.The 1-88 /Illiana tie in is multiplexed as well so why not avoid Kane and make all the projects more viable by connecting 1-90 to 1-65.
I think it would warrent a 2di but maybe that one is for fictional highways since this on isnt on the drawing board anymore.
Although unlike most posts in fictional highways this one was real and could easily be real if citizens and Dekalb asked the Tollway
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 18, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
Think of it this way. Kane County will continue to have traffic problems until 47 at the least is 4 laned unless the Prairie Pkwy is built. Some of us remember the "good old days" of Randall Rd. You used to be able to go between Elgin and Aurora with only 4 lights. Now it is full of strip malls and lights. That will be 47 very soon if the Pkwy does not get built.
Been down near Yorkville and Aurora? IL-47 is already that bad. From the south end of Yorkville (IL-71) through to I-88 it is nothing but stop-and-go signals and traffic with houses, strip malls, and a waterpark.
Quote from: Brandon on July 18, 2011, 09:30:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 18, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
Think of it this way. Kane County will continue to have traffic problems until 47 at the least is 4 laned unless the Prairie Pkwy is built. Some of us remember the "good old days" of Randall Rd. You used to be able to go between Elgin and Aurora with only 4 lights. Now it is full of strip malls and lights. That will be 47 very soon if the Pkwy does not get built.
Been down near Yorkville and Aurora? IL-47 is already that bad. From the south end of Yorkville (IL-71) through to I-88 it is nothing but stop-and-go signals and traffic with houses, strip malls, and a waterpark.
Yes, I've been there, I've seen it, and that will continue to creep northward, so the Parkway needs to be built.
Of course i have. You do know that i am a professional chauffuer don't you? I found myself taking someone to Millington IL of all places yesterday. Anyway, when i mentioned 47, i was talking about the stretch between Morris and Huntley.
The fate of IL-47 looks to mimic the fate of Randall Road before it, and that of IL-59 before that.
Widening IL-47 isn't all that much of a better idea than the Prairie Parkway, in that you make likely need to obtain even more existing houses and business to make it happen.
Agree that the southern end of the PP should have been farther west on I-80.
I recall one map I had drawn up years ago that I no longer can find - essentially went from US-12 at the IL/WI border, connected with the proposed Prairie Parkway at I-90, followed it down to I-80, and then hooked up with the proposed Illiana Expressway, then headed back up to meet I-80/90 around South Bend, IN. I don't think I assigned one number to it all, but the stretch from I-80 near I-55 to South Bend I had called I-380 at the time - although perhaps I-480 makes more sense.
I have recently traveled on the new stretch of IL 59 that was 4-laned between Shorewood and Plainfield, and it is already full of development like Randall Road. It was the last barren section of IL 59 until a few years ago.
IL 47 will be reconstructed through Yorkville starting next year. You might want to avoid that area for the next 2 years if possible! Just drove through the section under construction at Huntley and it is a gigantic mess, with 2 mile-long traffic backups and stoppages during the day.
IDOT has studies going on to widen IL 47 through Woodstock, between Huntley and Woodstock, and from I-88 to I-80 in sections (omitting Yorkville where studies are complete and construction bids will occur late this year). I doubt it will fill up like Randall or IL 59 anytime soon (a lot of it is still farmland), but you can count on more traffic lights and development where there is access to water and sewer services.
It will be interesting to see what happens to traffic in the 2-lane Kane County bottleneck of IL 47 when Grundy, Kendall and McHenry counties' sections are all 4-laned.
^^
Failing new-ROW freeways/tollways in those areas, could we someday conceivably see some of these arterials ultimately being upgraded in the manner of Texas or metro Detroit freeways?
Mike
^ Very improbable, given the medievalism being embraced by the Chicagoland MPO, which wants a boulevard for the IL 53 extension (which already has a lot of the ROW purchased).
EDIT: I'm also thinking that if this was going to happen in Chicagoland, the toll authority would be looking at one of these Texas freeway designs for the IL 59 corridor.
Quote from: Rick Powell on July 23, 2011, 08:19:47 PM
I have recently traveled on the new stretch of IL 59 that was 4-laned between Shorewood and Plainfield, and it is already full of development like Randall Road. It was the last barren section of IL 59 until a few years ago.
You haven't been around here for a long time then. IL-59 was full of development for years BEFORE it was widened. In fact, there's been massive development along there for over a decade now. IDOT is one of the slowest when it comes to widening anything. Theodore, Black, Caton Farm, et.al. were all wider than 59, but of course, they're either county or municipal. Here in Will County, we've learned to trust that IDOT will always be well behind the curve.
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2011, 12:45:11 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on July 23, 2011, 08:19:47 PM
I have recently traveled on the new stretch of IL 59 that was 4-laned between Shorewood and Plainfield, and it is already full of development like Randall Road. It was the last barren section of IL 59 until a few years ago.
You haven't been around here for a long time then. IL-59 was full of development for years BEFORE it was widened. In fact, there's been massive development along there for over a decade now. IDOT is one of the slowest when it comes to widening anything. Theodore, Black, Caton Farm, et.al. were all wider than 59, but of course, they're either county or municipal. Here in Will County, we've learned to trust that IDOT will always be well behind the curve.
You are right, I went to Joliet Jr College in the late 80's and spent a lot of time commuting thru and exploring Shorewood, and it was not booming yet. My new job has me commuting to Joliet, and I followed the IL 59 construction when it was going on. Things had really filled in by then.
As to your comment about IDOT being behind the curve, maybe with widening existing roads - they are a pain with all the existing homes, utilities, etc. to move out of the way. However, IDOT has tried to plan roads ahead of the curve like IL 53 north extension and Prairie Parkway, and been met with stiff opposition...or in the case of the Fox Valley Freeway, forced to completely drop its plans.
Just remember how long WE were promised the widening of I-55 from Veterans Pkwy (old name - Naperville Rd) to I-80. That took IDOT over 15 years. In the meantime, development in western Bolingbrook, western Romeoville, Plainfield, and southern Naperville skyrocketed in the 90s and early 2000s. I am probably one of the few who still remember what is now Weber Rd then Williams Rd being a gravel road along with 111th St. When Weber was widened and paved to 4 lanes (prior to the I-55 exit being there), there was only a light at Renwick Rd and Caton Farm Rd before you were in Joliet. It used to be an easy 14-16 minutes now that is easily 30 minutes due to the congestion and development.
^^ I remember when Weber was widened from gravel in some parts to four lanes. The only point where it narrowed was the old bridge over I-55. Then the interchange was built. Used to be able to drive Weber in about 10-12 minutes from 30 to 55 if you could hit all the signals green.
That's what i was talking about Brandon. The good old days. hehe
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/us/21cncexurban.html?ref=us
I think this is why the ISTHA is being cautious on the PP/Illiana. In this case ist fine the ROW is being protected unlike teh Fox Valley Freeway and almost every other project ex the Elgin Ohare and Rt 53.
I still think there should be a 4 lane tollway on the Crosstown ROW too. Nonthesless in the ridculous no build environment we live in These 2 new tollways plus a10 lane Tri-State,6-8 lane 90 and new intercahnges is pretty good
^^ That is temporary. We have two huge intermodal yards near the west end of what will be the Illiana and the south end of the PP. To not build them will be a major mistake, but I highly doubt a local New York paper even understands the dynamics of Chicago suburbs.
It was written in downtown Chicago by WTTW probably and they probably dont understand Chicagos exurbs (or downstate) anymore than a New Yorker.
That said the hosuing crisis especially in exurbs and former hot markest shows no signs of abating so it could be a lomg time before the boom returns. With the sole exception of the 88 extension ISTHA has been very conservative in its construction. I am sure they will get built and I am sure it will be by ISTHA. I just think they will be in the next 15 year plan
Is there a map of this proposed highway (as well as the Fox River one too) out there somewhere?
http://www.dot.state.il.us/projects.html
Its under District 3 here and the Tollway has their plan on its website
Don't look now, but a Prairie Parkway story will be on 60 Minutes this Sunday.
http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/8761316-418/prairie-parkway-part-of-60-minutes-report-sunday.html
I hope it's balanced instead of giving all the time to the anti-Parkway minority.
The FHWA reversed its approval for the Prairie Parkway (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-feds-withdraw-approval-for-prairie-parkway-20120823,0,643382.story) as part of an agreement ending litigation. Improvements to existing roads and bridges will be made, including a widening of Route 47 that was to be made under the original project. (I can imagine Brandon fuming right now. :D)
Quote from: rawmustard on August 23, 2012, 03:57:55 PM
The FHWA reversed its approval for the Prairie Parkway (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-feds-withdraw-approval-for-prairie-parkway-20120823,0,643382.story) as part of an agreement ending litigation. Improvements to existing roads and bridges will be made, including a widening of Route 47 that was to be made under the original project. (I can imagine Brandon fuming right now. :D)
It is, IMHO, very short-sighted. IL-47 widening is needed, but it goes right through the middle of Yorkville.
Highway 34 is being widened out to Sandwich already so there was nothing gained here.
The IL 53 EIS was dropped by the Feds too and the ISTHA will have to do a new one . If IDOT keeps the land ISTHA can revive it but it will have to statr from scratch.
If there is any balking in Indiana over the Illiana though i could both off the table for a long long time.Will county does have authorization of its own toll operation so that may be the last hopr of the Illiana
There should be something in the federal regsiter at some point that may tell us more
Quote from: 3467 on August 23, 2012, 09:31:52 PM
The IL 53 EIS was dropped by the Feds too and the ISTHA will have to do a new one . If IDOT keeps the land ISTHA can revive it but it will have to statr from scratch.
The ISTHA does not need to do an EIS if they do not utilize any federal funding for a project. They do have an internal environmental process for project development, and they do need to get all the federal and state permits relating to wetlands, river crossings, impacts to federally listed species, etc. regardless. ISTHA usually does not initiate enviro studies on its own on this scale, though. Most of its big "new construction" projects were taken through the enviro process by IDOT, whpch has dozens of in-house specialists and consultants on hand who do this kind of work. That's why IL 355 south extension and now Elgin OHare West Bypass were led by IDOT, and then handed over to ISTHA. The Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail project has also benefitted from many of the highway planning and land acquisition experts at IDOT who were pressed into service to assist the rail effort.
Quote from: Rick Powell on August 23, 2012, 10:07:20 PM
Quote from: 3467 on August 23, 2012, 09:31:52 PM
The IL 53 EIS was dropped by the Feds too and the ISTHA will have to do a new one . If IDOT keeps the land ISTHA can revive it but it will have to statr from scratch.
The ISTHA does not need to do an EIS if they do not utilize any federal funding for a project.
That certainly looks bad to basically do an end-run around the NEPA EIS process after having it be rejected on a project.
The land for Illinois 53 was always kept from development. I guess we will know if there is really no future for the PP if the corridor protection is dropped?
895-I bet they have to redo it because federal funds were used in land aquistion. I have the EIS for 355 and like Rick Powell said IDOT did it for the Toll Authority. Iit was because the land was aquired by IDOT over many years. ISTHA got the wetlands permits and elevated the road more to avoid hitting any endnagered Hinds Emerald Dragonflies.
Quote from: 3467 on August 23, 2012, 10:44:31 PM
The land for Illinois 53 was always kept from development. I guess we will know if there is really no future for the PP if the corridor protection is dropped?
Under IL law every corridor protection needs to be reviewed every 10 years under a sunset provision. Prairie Parkway's comes up in 2017. The Gateway Corridor around the IL side of St. Louis will become due sometime in the next few years. IL 336 from Peoria to Macomb is in the process of initiating a corridor protection. There are a few others around the state, nothing as major as these three.
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2012, 10:38:37 PM
That certainly looks bad to basically do an end-run around the NEPA EIS process after having it be rejected on a project.
It didn't sound like the EIS was rejected, more of IDOT and the feds lost interest in building the facility and didn't want to fight for it in the courts.
IMHO, this is just a repeat of not building the Fox Valley Corridor. IL 47 will get more development along it and more stoplights - and maybe some new freeway or tollway will be under consideration near IL 23 (at least if Chicagoland grows that far west and the next north-south corridor considered after the Prairie Parkway falls through, there's I-39 already in place to the west). If anything, the funds should be redirected to more immediate improvements to IL 47, but the corridor left preserved until either IDOT or ISHTA redevelops interest in the facility.
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2012, 10:38:37 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on August 23, 2012, 10:07:20 PM
Quote from: 3467 on August 23, 2012, 09:31:52 PM
The IL 53 EIS was dropped by the Feds too and the ISTHA will have to do a new one . If IDOT keeps the land ISTHA can revive it but it will have to statr from scratch.
The ISTHA does not need to do an EIS if they do not utilize any federal funding for a project.
That certainly looks bad to basically do an end-run around the NEPA EIS process after having it be rejected on a project.
That is not how IL 53 went down. IDOT did a Draft EIS and did not take it to the next step, and it became an outdated study. The whole NEPA proccess is predicated on the use of federal funds, and each responsible federal agency has its own set of rules on what is needed in the EIS. Different requirements for rail, highway, hydroelectric dam or what have you. If a project is privately or state funded, and it is of the scope of an IL 53 extension, it's not like they will be able to just put together a quick set of blueprints and set the dozers free. The range of permits and doing studies to see what's there and how to mitigate it would be of a similar scale of doing an EIS, just without the particularly prescribed federal process for an EIS for whatever mode or improvement. California has done lots of large scale projects with state-only $ and their environmental process is very similar to a federal EIS.
Quote from: 3467 on August 23, 2012, 11:00:18 PM
895-I bet they have to redo it because federal funds were used in land aquistion. I have the EIS for 355 and like Rick Powell said IDOT did it for the Toll Authority. Iit was because the land was aquired by IDOT over many years. ISTHA got the wetlands permits and elevated the road more to avoid hitting any endnagered Hinds Emerald Dragonflies.
I am fairly sure the IL 53 corridor was bought with state only funds...the feds are very reluctant to expend $ on land acquisition before a Record of Decision on a Final EIS...it has to be very special circumstances.
With the corridor preserved the tollway can build it when it makes financial sense to them. I suspect the ROD was only pulled because of the litigation. US 20 has been dormant even longer and the ROD has not been pulled though the EIS would have to be updated if the project were revived unless it is revived by the tollway by some miracle.I think IL 29 is also dormant
I went to this public hearing tonight on the 10-year review of the Prairie Parkway corridor protection. When the corridor protection was first presented to the public in 2001, there was a line out the door of the meeting place and I think 900 people showed up. Tonight, I came about an hour into the meeting and I was the sixth person through the door. No idea what IDOTs intention is with the corridor protection, but they are accepting public comments until November 17. They stressed that there is nothing remotely in the works for advancing the project at this time, this is strictly about whether they should continue to protect the corridor. IDOT has not bought any property in it for about 10 years.
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/IDOT-Projects/District-3/Prarie-Parkway-Corridor/files/Prairie%20Parkway%20Corridor%20Public%20Hearing%20Notice%202017.pdf
Does IDOT own most of the ROW?
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 03, 2017, 07:18:10 AM
Does IDOT own most of the ROW?
They bought some of it around where the I-80 and US 34 interchanges would be, and where it would cross the Fox River, but most of it is still owned by the private landowners up and down the corridor. FWIW, the land around US 34 was probably the property most under threat of development at the time. IDOT did add lanes to US 34 using some of the Prairie Parkway funding, and the median widens out where the interchange would go, but they didn't do anything obvious like put in ramp stubs.
Well, what's the use of continuing to own land for a corridor that may never be built?
Quote from: Henry on November 03, 2017, 10:05:23 AM
Well, what's the use of continuing to own land for a corridor that may never be built?
That's a good question. IDOT does make some money from renting out land for farming, and a few houses that have renters on the property it owns. At one time, Kendall County, IL was the fastest-growing county in the US. Kane and Kendall remain two of the few counties in IL that have any growth at all, but it's nothing like it was 10-15 years ago.
Kind of a side question here, but how much are the state's budget (and long-term obligation) problems affecting both IDOT and the potential growth of the region?
Quote from: froggie on November 03, 2017, 10:17:11 AM
Kind of a side question here, but how much are the state's budget (and long-term obligation) problems affecting both IDOT and the potential growth of the region?
It's really a mixed bag.
1. Downtown Chicago is booming. I read somewhere that there are a near-record number of construction cranes reaching in the air for high-rise construction in the Loop and the north side. My son-in-law is a union carpenter and these type of projects are his bread and butter.
2. Last election, voters approved a "transportation lockbox" amendment by a 4 to 1 margin that kept gas taxes from being diverted. However, the most recent budget (the first one passed in 2+ years) took some transit money from the general fund and it is now coming out of transportation, and the result was a net loss to the counties of MFT funds, at least for this year.
3. Many people are clamoring for a state capital construction bill, but there is unprecedented political gridlock in the state. Some trial balloons have been floated about increasing the gas tax to pay for it, but nothing has stuck.
4. There was a very unpopular soda tax instituted in Cook County, and the county board had to walk it back by a 15-to-1 vote. The shortage of funding for general obligations, as well as city, county and pension funding, is in diametric opposition to a "taxed enough already" public sentiment that now extends across political lines.
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 03, 2017, 10:41:12 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 03, 2017, 10:17:11 AM
Kind of a side question here, but how much are the state's budget (and long-term obligation) problems affecting both IDOT and the potential growth of the region?
It's really a mixed bag.
1. Downtown Chicago is booming. I read somewhere that there are a near-record number of construction cranes reaching in the air for high-rise construction in the Loop and the north side. My son-in-law is a union carpenter and these type of projects are his bread and butter. However, there is not really a corresponding population boom; a lot of black-majority wards are losing population to the suburbs and out-of-state ex-migration, countering any growth in the gentrifying neighborhoods.
2. Last election, voters approved a "transportation lockbox" amendment by a 4 to 1 margin that kept gas taxes from being diverted. However, the most recent budget (the first one passed in 2+ years) took some transit money from the general fund and it is now coming out of transportation, and the result was a net loss to the counties of MFT funds, at least for this year.
3. Many people are clamoring for a state capital construction bill, but there is unprecedented political gridlock in the state. Some trial balloons have been floated about increasing the gas tax to pay for it, but nothing has stuck.
4. There was a very unpopular soda tax instituted in Cook County, and the county board had to walk it back by a 15-to-1 vote. The shortage of funding for general obligations, as well as city, county and pension funding, is in diametric opposition to a "taxed enough already" public sentiment that now extends across political lines.
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 03, 2017, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 03, 2017, 07:18:10 AM
Does IDOT own most of the ROW?
They bought some of it around where the I-80 and US 34 interchanges would be, and where it would cross the Fox River, but most of it is still owned by the private landowners up and down the corridor. FWIW, the land around US 34 was probably the property most under threat of development at the time. IDOT did add lanes to US 34 using some of the Prairie Parkway funding, and the median widens out where the interchange would go, but they didn't do anything obvious like put in ramp stubs.
What's the opposition to the prairie parkway? Not in my farm? /s
Build it. Look at I-80 and Will County's recent industrial construction boon.
But if they won't seriously consider building the prairie parkway then they should at least consider 6 laning I-39 from I-80 to Rockford expand it south to Salem to take the load off interstates closer to Chicago metro.
As far as western development, it's still there. Millennials like living in dense areas though, but it appears that once they have kids they just come back to the suburbs/exurbs.
It looks like the Trump administration is considering a 7-10 cent gas tax increase. Now that Illinois has that lockbox in place, why not add a corresponding 5-10 cent increase as well? Heck, gas prices went up 30 cents a gallon due to "fall refinery changes."
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 03, 2017, 11:01:13 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 03, 2017, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 03, 2017, 07:18:10 AM
Does IDOT own most of the ROW?
They bought some of it around where the I-80 and US 34 interchanges would be, and where it would cross the Fox River, but most of it is still owned by the private landowners up and down the corridor. FWIW, the land around US 34 was probably the property most under threat of development at the time. IDOT did add lanes to US 34 using some of the Prairie Parkway funding, and the median widens out where the interchange would go, but they didn't do anything obvious like put in ramp stubs.
What's the opposition to the prairie parkway? Not in my farm? /s
Build it. Look at I-80 and Will County's recent industrial construction boon.
But if they won't seriously consider building the prairie parkway then they should at least consider 6 laning I-39 from I-80 to Rockford expand it south to Salem to take the load off interstates closer to Chicago metro.
As far as western development, it's still there. Millennials like living in dense areas though, but it appears that once they have kids they just come back to the suburbs/exurbs.
It looks like the Trump administration is considering a 7-10 cent gas tax increase. Now that Illinois has that lockbox in place, why not add a corresponding 5-10 cent increase as well? Heck, gas prices went up 30 cents a gallon due to "fall refinery changes."
There isn't enough traffic on I-39 right now. Expanding it to three lanes would be a waste.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 03, 2017, 12:42:05 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 03, 2017, 11:01:13 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 03, 2017, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 03, 2017, 07:18:10 AM
Does IDOT own most of the ROW?
They bought some of it around where the I-80 and US 34 interchanges would be, and where it would cross the Fox River, but most of it is still owned by the private landowners up and down the corridor. FWIW, the land around US 34 was probably the property most under threat of development at the time. IDOT did add lanes to US 34 using some of the Prairie Parkway funding, and the median widens out where the interchange would go, but they didn't do anything obvious like put in ramp stubs.
What's the opposition to the prairie parkway? Not in my farm? /s
Build it. Look at I-80 and Will County's recent industrial construction boon.
But if they won't seriously consider building the prairie parkway then they should at least consider 6 laning I-39 from I-80 to Rockford expand it south to Salem to take the load off interstates closer to Chicago metro.
As far as western development, it's still there. Millennials like living in dense areas though, but it appears that once they have kids they just come back to the suburbs/exurbs.
It looks like the Trump administration is considering a 7-10 cent gas tax increase. Now that Illinois has that lockbox in place, why not add a corresponding 5-10 cent increase as well? Heck, gas prices went up 30 cents a gallon due to "fall refinery changes."
There isn't enough traffic on I-39 right now. Expanding it to three lanes would be a waste.
Between I-80 and the IL/WI line???? I think there is enough to justify 3 laning tbh. South of I-80 it drops off big time
Quote from: ET21 on November 03, 2017, 02:29:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 03, 2017, 12:42:05 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 03, 2017, 11:01:13 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 03, 2017, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 03, 2017, 07:18:10 AM
Does IDOT own most of the ROW?
They bought some of it around where the I-80 and US 34 interchanges would be, and where it would cross the Fox River, but most of it is still owned by the private landowners up and down the corridor. FWIW, the land around US 34 was probably the property most under threat of development at the time. IDOT did add lanes to US 34 using some of the Prairie Parkway funding, and the median widens out where the interchange would go, but they didn't do anything obvious like put in ramp stubs.
What's the opposition to the prairie parkway? Not in my farm? /s
Build it. Look at I-80 and Will County's recent industrial construction boon.
But if they won't seriously consider building the prairie parkway then they should at least consider 6 laning I-39 from I-80 to Rockford expand it south to Salem to take the load off interstates closer to Chicago metro.
As far as western development, it's still there. Millennials like living in dense areas though, but it appears that once they have kids they just come back to the suburbs/exurbs.
It looks like the Trump administration is considering a 7-10 cent gas tax increase. Now that Illinois has that lockbox in place, why not add a corresponding 5-10 cent increase as well? Heck, gas prices went up 30 cents a gallon due to "fall refinery changes."
There isn't enough traffic on I-39 right now. Expanding it to three lanes would be a waste.
Between I-80 and the IL/WI line???? I think there is enough to justify 3 laning tbh. South of I-80 it drops off big time
The OP said between I-80 and Rockford. And no I don't think there is enough traffic. Eventually between US-20 and I-88 as a first step, but that is still a ways off.
In looking at an IL traffic count map:
I-39/90 just south of Beloit: 48-52,000
I-39/90 just north of Rockford: 58-62,000
I-39 between US-20 and I-88: 28-32,000
I-39 between I-88 and I-80: 15-19,000
Between I-80 and Bloomington is about the same as between I-88 and I-80
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 03, 2017, 02:57:21 PM
The OP said between I-80 and Rockford. And no I don't think there is enough traffic. Eventually between US-20 and I-88 as a first step, but that is still a ways off.
In looking at an IL traffic count map:
I-39/90 just south of Beloit: 48-52,000
I-39/90 just north of Rockford: 58-62,000
I-39 between US-20 and I-88: 28-32,000
I-39 between I-88 and I-80: 15-19,000
Between I-80 and Bloomington is about the same as between I-88 and I-80
I don't travel much on I-39 north of Mendota, but I am a frequent traveler from there to B-N. Not aware of any capacity issues in that stretch, it's a less stressful trip than I-80.
For comparison purposes, I-80 between I-39 and IL 47 in Morris is 27k-32k, and jumps up to 37k east of Morris and 54k east of Minooka. From I-39 to Morris the 4-lane section usually works OK, and I am relatively unimpeded in my morning and evening commute. There is a noticeable pinch in traffic east of Morris where it could stand a lane addition, and even more east of Minooka where it absolutely could use one from all the commuters to/from the east and trucks serving logistics warehouses. By these standards, I think I-39 is OK as is south of Rockford, but on "watch" status north of I-88 over the next decade or two.
On Friday and Saturday nights, particularly in the summer. The section of I-39 between US 20 and I-88 could definitely use a 3rd lane. I'm on that about once a month and driving it makes my blood pressure go up!
Quote from: dcharlie on November 03, 2017, 03:49:17 PM
On Friday and Saturday nights, particularly in the summer. The section of I-39 between US 20 and I-88 could definitely use a 3rd lane. I'm on that about once a month and driving it makes my blood pressure go up!
Hence why I think it could use it from I-80 to Rockford. Yeah it's not justified for the winter months, but spring and summer are quite busy.
I used to live south of I-88 and it cleared up quite a bit there. So didn't think it was needed then. But have not traveled it for a few years
Question: do any of the current GPS systems or apps specify an I-80/I-39 routing as an effective bypass of greater Chicago for IN-WI (and vice-versa) travel? One might reasonably guess that the greater I-39 traffic counts north of I-80 may in some part be attributable to this sort of "prompting".
Quote from: sparker on November 03, 2017, 06:05:17 PM
Question: do any of the current GPS systems or apps specify an I-80/I-39 routing as an effective bypass of greater Chicago for IN-WI (and vice-versa) travel? One might reasonably guess that the greater I-39 traffic counts north of I-80 may in some part be attributable to this sort of "prompting".
If you are going say from Madison to Indianapolis, most GPS systems send you to Chicagoland. They should. It is shorter distance-wise and (usually) time-wise.
Although intuitively it would seem like the I-39/74 route's biggest strength would be as a big outer belt around Chicago, as SEWI points out, it's about an hour longer from Mad City to Indy than doing the I-90/294/80/65 routing (at least with a quick goog check). I-55/I-39/I-43 is about the same as I-55/294/94 going from St. Louis to Milwaukee. I-39 really shines as part of the Quad Cities/Milwaukee trip which might explain the heavier ADT from I-88 to Rockford as compared to I-39 south of 88 - but is about even with a US 151/I-94 routing from Iowa City and Points west to Milwaukee. It is probably part of any logical route from Madison WI to points south like St. Louis or Memphis. Of course, most routings using I-39 are a fairly predictable trip...anything around Chicago can blow up with traffic at various times.
Don't forget that for much of the past 4+ years, I-90 between Rockford and Chicagoland was under construction in one form or another. I spent a lot of time on I-88 and I-39 to avoid the mess; it was generally not faster but was a lot less stressful (two not-quite-10' lanes with no shoulder with semis 6 inches off your mirror? F*** that!)
Ditto for my trip to Cincinnati via Indianapolis - I-90 to I-294 to I-80/94 to I-65 frequently was not much (if any) faster and way more stressful. I-39 to I-74 is a far calmer trip.
I've never had GPS suggest I-39 as a *faster* trip, but on a 7 hour drive, a half-hour each way wasn't that big of a deal.
Quote from: sparker on November 03, 2017, 06:05:17 PM
Question: do any of the current GPS systems or apps specify an I-80/I-39 routing as an effective bypass of greater Chicago for IN-WI (and vice-versa) travel? One might reasonably guess that the greater I-39 traffic counts north of I-80 may in some part be attributable to this sort of "prompting".
Southern IL to Milwaukee and points North, Google Maps prefers I-57 to either I-294 or I-94 in Chicago and then North as its primary option, but the secondary is either US 51 or I-57/I-74 to I-39 and then I-43 back over toward Milwaukee, and the time difference is negligible
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 03, 2017, 08:43:13 PM
Although intuitively it would seem like the I-39/74 route's biggest strength would be as a big outer belt around Chicago, as SEWI points out, it's about an hour longer from Mad City to Indy than doing the I-90/294/80/65 routing (at least with a quick goog check). I-55/I-39/I-43 is about the same as I-55/294/94 going from St. Louis to Milwaukee. I-39 really shines as part of the Quad Cities/Milwaukee trip which might explain the heavier ADT from I-88 to Rockford as compared to I-39 south of 88 - but is about even with a US 151/I-94 routing from Iowa City and Points west to Milwaukee. It is probably part of any logical route from Madison WI to points south like St. Louis or Memphis. Of course, most routings using I-39 are a fairly predictable trip...anything around Chicago can blow up with traffic at various times.
Indianapolis, Indiana
Madison, Wisconsin
Google Maps routing data
I-65, I-80, I-294, I-90
334 miles and 5 hr 7min
I-74, I-39, I-90
374 miles and 5 hr 34 min
Given the fact that the I-39 route completely bypasses the Chicago area and a very busy segment of I-65 and the Tri-State Tollway and 3/4 of the Northwest Tollway, I would say it is attractive even with the added distance and time shown above. If I went to visit my sister in Madison I would definitely favor the I-39 route over the Chicago route.
I really don't mind using tollroads when they are needed for the best routing, but if there is a feasible toll-free alternative then I would much rather avoid the tolls.
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 03, 2017, 08:43:13 PM
Of course, most routings using I-39 are a fairly predictable trip...anything around Chicago can blow up with traffic at various times.
Actually it seems fairly predictable that one will loose time trying to enter southbound I-294 from eastbound I-290.
Quote from: Beltway on November 04, 2017, 12:25:28 AM
Indianapolis, Indiana
Madison, Wisconsin
Google Maps routing data
I-65, I-80, I-294, I-90
334 miles and 5 hr 7min
I-74, I-39, I-90
374 miles and 5 hr 34 min
Given the fact that the I-39 route completely bypasses the Chicago area and a very busy segment of I-65 and the Tri-State Tollway and 3/4 of the Northwest Tollway, I would say it is attractive even with the added distance and time shown above.
I think by the time all of the bottlenecks in Chicagoland are factored in, the I-39 routing is probably the same amount of time as going through Chicagoland. The only bottleneck on I-39 is the ramp where I-39 splits off from US 20 on the south side of Rockford. Going through Chicagoland there's I-90 at I-290, I-290 between IL 72 and I-355 on weekday afternoons (including outside of rush hour anymore), then however far the ramp onto I-294 from EB I-290 has queued up.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 04, 2017, 10:19:37 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 03, 2017, 08:43:13 PM
Of course, most routings using I-39 are a fairly predictable trip...anything around Chicago can blow up with traffic at various times.
Actually it seems fairly predictable that one will loose time trying to enter southbound I-294 from eastbound I-290.
Quote from: Beltway on November 04, 2017, 12:25:28 AM
Indianapolis, Indiana
Madison, Wisconsin
Google Maps routing data
I-65, I-80, I-294, I-90
334 miles and 5 hr 7min
I-74, I-39, I-90
374 miles and 5 hr 34 min
Given the fact that the I-39 route completely bypasses the Chicago area and a very busy segment of I-65 and the Tri-State Tollway and 3/4 of the Northwest Tollway, I would say it is attractive even with the added distance and time shown above.
I think by the time all of the bottlenecks in Chicagoland are factored in, the I-39 routing is probably the same amount of time as going through Chicagoland. The only bottleneck on I-39 is the ramp where I-39 splits off from US 20 on the south side of Rockford. Going through Chicagoland there's I-90 at I-290, I-290 between IL 72 and I-355 on weekday afternoons (including outside of rush hour anymore), then however far the ramp onto I-294 from EB I-290 has queued up.
I have taken the drive from the Indianapolis area to southern Wisconsin at least two dozen times. I will be taking it again in just over a week. The Chicago route is almost always faster. Depending on the time, the bottlenecks rarely add 20 minutes to the trip and the flow of traffic is faster.
Going through Chicagoland is insane Monday through Friday unless it's in the middle of the night. When I go to Michigan on a weekday coming up from downstate Illinois, I don't even mess with Chicagoland anymore. I take US24 across to I-69 at Ft. Wayne. Even when the time is faster you have to deal with so many cars you're lucky to have that two second buffer between the one your following, and if you do someone will fly into the gap right in front of you. Forget about using the cruise control. I-74 to I-39 on the other hand is a relaxing bypass without too much traffic. Just set the cruise control and sit back.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 05, 2017, 09:03:35 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 04, 2017, 10:19:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 04, 2017, 12:25:28 AM
Indianapolis, Indiana
Madison, Wisconsin
Google Maps routing data
I-65, I-80, I-294, I-90
334 miles and 5 hr 7min
I-74, I-39, I-90
374 miles and 5 hr 34 min
Given the fact that the I-39 route completely bypasses the Chicago area and a very busy segment of I-65 and the Tri-State Tollway and 3/4 of the Northwest Tollway, I would say it is attractive even with the added distance and time shown above.
I think by the time all of the bottlenecks in Chicagoland are factored in, the I-39 routing is probably the same amount of time as going through Chicagoland. The only bottleneck on I-39 is the ramp where I-39 splits off from US 20 on the south side of Rockford. Going through Chicagoland there's I-90 at I-290, I-290 between IL 72 and I-355 on weekday afternoons (including outside of rush hour anymore), then however far the ramp onto I-294 from EB I-290 has queued up.
I have taken the drive from the Indianapolis area to southern Wisconsin at least two dozen times. I will be taking it again in just over a week. The Chicago route is almost always faster. Depending on the time, the bottlenecks rarely add 20 minutes to the trip and the flow of traffic is faster.
The Google Maps algorithm says 27 minutes faster, on a trip of over 5 hours. Given the amount of tolls and urbanization on that route as well as very high traffic on the rural sections of I-65, the extra time and miles would be worth it to bypass all that, IMHO.
The difference between driving through Chicagoland to save a few minutes or a less stressful drive utilizing routes like I-39 and I-74 is whether you consider driving a competitive sport.
Quote from: skluth on November 07, 2017, 03:59:22 AM
The difference between driving through Chicagoland to save a few minutes or a less stressful drive utilizing routes like I-39 and I-74 is whether you consider driving a competitive contact sport.
FIFY. They like playing real bumper cars here.
For the past three years I've been driving to a tennis tournament in Cincinnati from Wisconsin every August. I've used I-39 and I-74 every time to avoid the Chicago metro, and been happy every time to have a predictable, relaxed drive free from traffic jam worries and to not pay tolls.
Someone needs to put signs up around Indianapolis that reads "Heading to the NW? Use I-74 to I-39 to avoid Chicago."
If I had the money, I'd be the bastard to do it.
Quote from: inkyatari on November 07, 2017, 09:22:41 AM
Someone needs to put signs up around Indianapolis that reads "Heading to the NW? Use I-74 to I-39 to avoid Chicago."
If I had the money, I'd be the bastard to do it.
As long as it says "Even though it's a longer route and will take you more time" I'm good with it.
Quote from: invincor on November 07, 2017, 09:11:27 AM
For the past three years I've been driving to a tennis tournament in Cincinnati from Wisconsin every August. I've used I-39 and I-74 every time to avoid the Chicago metro, and been happy every time to have a predictable, relaxed drive free from traffic jam worries and to not pay tolls.
Nothing wrong with going by way of Chicago if you have some business there also, or just want to drive by that enormous and high downtown. I have some relatives in the Chicago area. But if I have no specific business there on a particular trip, then I will take the outer bypass of I-74 and I-39.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 07, 2017, 09:27:00 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 07, 2017, 09:22:41 AM
Someone needs to put signs up around Indianapolis that reads "Heading to the NW? Use I-74 to I-39 to avoid Chicago."
If I had the money, I'd be the bastard to do it.
As long as it says "Even though it's a longer route and will take you more time" I'm good with it.
Quote from: Beltway on November 07, 2017, 10:49:54 AM
Quote from: invincor on November 07, 2017, 09:11:27 AM
For the past three years I've been driving to a tennis tournament in Cincinnati from Wisconsin every August. I've used I-39 and I-74 every time to avoid the Chicago metro, and been happy every time to have a predictable, relaxed drive free from traffic jam worries and to not pay tolls.
Nothing wrong with going by way of Chicago if you have some business there also, or just want to drive by that enormous and high downtown. I have some relatives in the Chicago area. But if I have no specific business there on a particular trip, then I will take the outer bypass of I-74 and I-39.
If one's WI (or farther NW) origin or destination is anywhere but the eastern slice of the state (Milwaukee and on up the west shore of L. Michigan) -- or there's no chance one can pick & choose the day of the week -- or even the time of the day -- when Chicagoland would have to be crossed -- then I-39 and its connectors, particularly I-74, would seem to be the most optimal way to go east except for N. Indiana (S. Bend and environs) and Michigan destinations; I would think that I-39 to I-80 -- and taking your chances on the Borman -- would be preferable to detouring much further south (unless you like, and can fit, time-wise, a bucolic drive across N. IL and IN as part of the trip). Unfortunately, the plain fact is that Chicago is located in a place that is difficult to avoid when it comes to locations north of its latitude, and that all the alternatives not involving points well to the west and south are sub-optimal at best.
That brings us back full circle to the original point of this thread -- the Prairie Parkway, which a number of us have conflated with the notorious Illiana proposal as a mid-distance alternative to both Chicago congestion and the prospects of taking the "long way around" via I-39 and friends. It's just too bad that this or any bypass proposal has fallen by the wayside due to lack of political support, lack of funding, or both. The problem is that Chicago folks aren't particularly interested in supporting anything that avoids their area; and except for tolls -- which would only partially accrue to them in any case -- haven't figured a way to realistically monetize such a bypass concept. And neither IDOT nor ISTHA wishes to stick their neck out on behalf of a project without regional consensus -- a project which, while connecting the outer exurban reaches, would primarily be of benefit to travelers from out of the region. Absent
real or
perceived benefit to the Chicago area itself, Prairie/Illiana/whatever is likely, for the foreseeable future, dead in the water!