The Eisenhower extension. Building I-290 between I-88/294 and the northern terminus of I-355 was a terrible idea. It created the Hillside Strangler.
Hindsight is 20/20, but a better idea would have been to build what is now the Elgin O'Hare West Access from the beginning, and use that as a connector for people wanting to get to what is now I-290/IL-53 from I-294.
The biggest problem is that you have five lanes merging down to three. Three of the lanes are from the Extension, two of the lanes are from the East-West Tollway, and then there's additional traffic from Roosevelt Road and the Tri-State Tollway. Altogether, it's quite the clusterfuck.
Weren't they doing a study on expanding Eisenhower to 8 lanes (and maybe express lanes) along with the blue line extension to Mannheim?
Maybe it'll actually get done in 20-30 years...
Quote from: I-39 on June 03, 2015, 04:53:27 PM
The Eisenhower extension. Building I-290 between I-88/294 and the northern terminus of I-355 was a terrible idea. It created the Hillside Strangler.
Sure. And the ramp from SB I-294 to the EB Eisenhower would need to be how many lanes to avoid becoming a bottleneck itself?
Quote from: I-39 on June 03, 2015, 04:53:27 PMHindsight is 20/20, but a better idea would have been to build what is now the Elgin O'Hare West Access from the beginning, and use that as a connector for people wanting to get to what is now I-290/IL-53 from I-294.
And the bottleneck on the Eisenhower east of I-294 would still remain, and/or the bottleneck on the Kennedy between I-190 and I-94 would be even worse than the misery it is today.
The 1939 and 1946 Expressway plans for Chicagoland and the 1962 and 1971 Transportation plans included a North Avenue facility that was never built, which might have done more for the Hillside Strangler than not building the Eisenhower Extension.
Quote from: johndoe780 on June 03, 2015, 09:08:49 PM
Weren't they doing a study on expanding Eisenhower to 8 lanes (and maybe express lanes) along with the blue line extension to Mannheim?
Maybe it'll actually get done in 20-30 years...
It's good till about Mannheim from I-294. By 2025 I-294 should have better interchanges and maybe 5 lanes each way
Eisenhower needs at least 4 each way + AUX from Mannheim to I-94/I-90
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 03, 2015, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on June 03, 2015, 09:08:49 PM
Weren't they doing a study on expanding Eisenhower to 8 lanes (and maybe express lanes) along with the blue line extension to Mannheim?
Maybe it'll actually get done in 20-30 years...
It's good till about Mannheim from I-294. By 2025 I-294 should have better interchanges and maybe 5 lanes each way
Eisenhower needs at least 4 each way + AUX from Mannheim to I-94/I-90
Agreed.
You're forgetting by 2025, EOE will also dump more cars on 290/294 as well. I say 290 needs to be at least 8 lanes in each direction plus 2 reversible express lanes like on the Kennedy. I see no reason why there shouldn't be express lanes from Mannheim all the way to say Damen ave.
Quoteat least 8 lanes in each direction
Good luck finding the right-of-way and funding for that...
Quote from: johndoe780 on June 04, 2015, 10:36:17 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 03, 2015, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on June 03, 2015, 09:08:49 PM
Weren't they doing a study on expanding Eisenhower to 8 lanes (and maybe express lanes) along with the blue line extension to Mannheim?
Maybe it'll actually get done in 20-30 years...
It's good till about Mannheim from I-294. By 2025 I-294 should have better interchanges and maybe 5 lanes each way
Eisenhower needs at least 4 each way + AUX from Mannheim to I-94/I-90
Agreed.
You're forgetting by 2025, EOE will also dump more cars on 290/294 as well. I say 290 needs to be at least 8 lanes in each direction plus 2 reversible express lanes like on the Kennedy. I see no reason why there shouldn't be express lanes from Mannheim all the way to say Damen ave.
Even in a very large city like Chicago, it would be a very expensive undertaking! If you made I-290 8 lanes each way, you might as well re-rebuild the Circle Interchange just to accommodate that.
Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2015, 12:04:34 PM
Quoteat least 8 lanes in each direction
Good luck finding the right-of-way and funding for that...
True, but the problem is very real and evident during most of the day since 290 is more of a parking lot than a highway.
I think more of a problem will come to be Oak Park and the NIMBYers who whine about 290 yet the highway was built before most of these guys were born. Eisenhower is currently carrying twice as many cars than it was designed to (era 50s construction.)
Now I don't want to vent too much on politics, but thankfully we have someone with a decent IQ and is willing to get rid of this silly prevailing wage law and bring in competitively priced bids.
Quote from: johndoe780 on June 04, 2015, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2015, 12:04:34 PM
Quoteat least 8 lanes in each direction
Good luck finding the right-of-way and funding for that...
True, but the problem is very real and evident during most of the day since 290 is more of a parking lot than a highway.
I think more of a problem will come to be Oak Park and the NIMBYers who whine about 290 yet the highway was built before most of these guys were born. Eisenhower is currently carrying twice as many cars than it was designed to (era 50s construction.)
Now I don't want to vent too much on politics, but thankfully we have someone with a decent IQ in office and is willing to get rid of this silly prevailing wage law and bring in competitively priced bids.
Quote from: johndoe780 on June 04, 2015, 12:53:12 PM
Now I don't want to vent too much on politics, but thankfully we have someone with a decent IQ and is willing to get rid of this silly prevailing wage law and bring in competitively priced bids.
I'm sure the big road building companies will happily pass the savings on to the taxpayer rather than pocket the difference.
:pan:
Quote from: johndoe780 on June 04, 2015, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2015, 12:04:34 PM
Quoteat least 8 lanes in each direction
Good luck finding the right-of-way and funding for that...
True, but the problem is very real and evident during most of the day since 290 is more of a parking lot than a highway.
I think more of a problem will come to be Oak Park and the NIMBYers who whine about 290 yet the highway was built before most of these guys were born. Eisenhower is currently carrying twice as many cars than it was designed to (era 50s construction.)
Now I don't want to vent too much on politics, but thankfully we have someone with a decent IQ and is willing to get rid of this silly prevailing wage law and bring in competitively priced bids.
Oak Park was the big problem when the expressway was first built. There is a reason why those two fucking left exits exist at Harlem and Austin.
Rail roads are in the way
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 04, 2015, 03:46:02 PM
Rail roads are in the way
That didn't stop the Stevenson from being built with proper right side exits, and the Blue Line was added after the expressway was built.
I still think if the Eisenhower extension didn't exist, the I-88/294 interchange could have been built properly with better traffic flow.
Also, because of it's close proximity to this system interchange, IL-38 should not have an interchange with I-294/290. Eliminating that would help free up lanes for through traffic on I-294/290/88
The IKE needs a massive Katy Freeway esque upgrade. It needs at least 7-8 lanes in each direction (find the room), reversible or HOT lanes. Eliminate the left exits as well. Put the Blue Line underground. It's embarrassing that a great city like Chicago is served by this clusterfuck. It's not the 50s anymore.
Quote from: I-39 on June 04, 2015, 07:13:15 PM
Also, because of it's close proximity to this system interchange, IL-38 should not have an interchange with I-294/290. Eliminating that would help free up lanes for through traffic on I-294/290/88
You may as well add in the fact that IL-38 also becomes a temp expressway between 294 and Summit Ave, with exits to IL-83, IL-56, and York Road, further fueling your bottleneck. If this was SimCity (I wish it was this easy), I'd bulldoze and completely re-design the interchange.
And of course the interchange would be better if the extension didn't exist. 290 would just become 88 and vice versa, with stub ramps to N/S 294. However, you'd lose a nice route into the western and northwestern suburbs. Just think how Schaumburg and Woodfield would be without 290. It's bad now with the massive interstate lol
Quote from: Brandon on June 04, 2015, 02:38:19 PM
Oak Park was the big problem when the expressway was first built. There is a reason why those two fucking left exits exist at Harlem and Austin.
Aren't those supposed to be coming out in the nearish future?
Quote from: tribar on June 04, 2015, 10:16:16 PM
The IKE needs a massive Katy Freeway esque upgrade. It needs at least 7-8 lanes in each direction (find the room), reversible or HOT lanes. Eliminate the left exits as well. Put the Blue Line underground. It's embarrassing that a great city like Chicago is served by this clusterfuck. It's not the 50s anymore.
It probably wouldn't hurt anything to bury the whole of the blue line from O'Hare to Forest Park. Who knows how much that would cost though.
Quote from: ET21 on June 05, 2015, 12:07:18 PM
And of course the interchange would be better if the extension didn't exist. 290 would just become 88 and vice versa, with stub ramps to N/S 294. However, you'd lose a nice route into the western and northwestern suburbs. Just think how Schaumburg and Woodfield would be without 290. It's bad now with the massive interstate lol
That's where the EOWA would step in. As I stated in the first post, The Elgin-O'Hare Expressway could have be an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension. It is not that far north from the extension, and it would effectively serve the same purpose. Traffic would get on the EOWA several miles north of the Hillside Strangler, eliminating a bottleneck.
The Interstate would still exist in Schaumburg, as what is now I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 split off already existed before the Eisenhower extension was constructed.
Quote from: ET21 on June 05, 2015, 12:07:18 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 04, 2015, 07:13:15 PM
Also, because of it's close proximity to this system interchange, IL-38 should not have an interchange with I-294/290. Eliminating that would help free up lanes for through traffic on I-294/290/88
You may as well add in the fact that IL-38 also becomes a temp expressway between 294 and Summit Ave, with exits to IL-83, IL-56, and York Road, further fueling your bottleneck. If this was SimCity (I wish it was this easy), I'd bulldoze and completely re-design the interchange.
And of course the interchange would be better if the extension didn't exist. 290 would just become 88 and vice versa, with stub ramps to N/S 294. However, you'd lose a nice route into the western and northwestern suburbs. Just think how Schaumburg and Woodfield would be without 290. It's bad now with the massive interstate lol
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Did you not read my post about the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway being an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension? If you build the west bypass and the portion between the present day I-290 and the west side of O'Hare, then that would be used for traffic. It's only a little bit north of the current Eisenhower extension. This would allow traffic heading that way to get on further north, alleviating the congestion at the Hillside Strangler.
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Did you not read my post about the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway being an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension? If you build the west bypass and the portion between the present day I-290 and the west side of O'Hare, then that would be used for traffic. It's only a little bit north of the current Eisenhower extension. This would allow traffic heading that way to get on further north, alleviating the congestion at the Hillside Strangler.
Yes. So more traffic on 294 AND the Kennedy to get to the EOE is ok with you? That's what would happen in reality. Not to mention the added traffic on Irving Park, Higgins, and North Ave to avoid the congested interstates.
Bad idea.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Did you not read my post about the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway being an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension? If you build the west bypass and the portion between the present day I-290 and the west side of O'Hare, then that would be used for traffic. It's only a little bit north of the current Eisenhower extension. This would allow traffic heading that way to get on further north, alleviating the congestion at the Hillside Strangler.
Yes. So more traffic on 294 AND the Kennedy to get to the EOE is ok with you? That's what would happen in reality. Not to mention the added traffic on Irving Park, Higgins, and North Ave to avoid the congested interstates.
Bad idea.
Add a fifth lane on I-294 between I-290 and the EOWA and it would not be much of a problem. It's not that far of a distance.
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:30:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Did you not read my post about the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway being an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension? If you build the west bypass and the portion between the present day I-290 and the west side of O'Hare, then that would be used for traffic. It's only a little bit north of the current Eisenhower extension. This would allow traffic heading that way to get on further north, alleviating the congestion at the Hillside Strangler.
Yes. So more traffic on 294 AND the Kennedy to get to the EOE is ok with you? That's what would happen in reality. Not to mention the added traffic on Irving Park, Higgins, and North Ave to avoid the congested interstates.
Bad idea.
Add a fifth lane on I-294 between I-290 and the EOWA and it would not be much of a problem. It's not that far of a distance.
That's going to happen anyway. Part of the reason for doubling the tolls a few years ago was to make 294 10 lanes between O'hare and 95th street.
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:30:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Did you not read my post about the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway being an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension? If you build the west bypass and the portion between the present day I-290 and the west side of O'Hare, then that would be used for traffic. It's only a little bit north of the current Eisenhower extension. This would allow traffic heading that way to get on further north, alleviating the congestion at the Hillside Strangler.
Yes. So more traffic on 294 AND the Kennedy to get to the EOE is ok with you? That's what would happen in reality. Not to mention the added traffic on Irving Park, Higgins, and North Ave to avoid the congested interstates.
Bad idea.
Add a fifth lane on I-294 between I-290 and the EOWA and it would not be much of a problem. It's not that far of a distance.
There would still be more traffic on the Kennedy.
Your logic is quite idiotic.
Quote from: tribar on June 07, 2015, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:30:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Did you not read my post about the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway being an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension? If you build the west bypass and the portion between the present day I-290 and the west side of O'Hare, then that would be used for traffic. It's only a little bit north of the current Eisenhower extension. This would allow traffic heading that way to get on further north, alleviating the congestion at the Hillside Strangler.
Yes. So more traffic on 294 AND the Kennedy to get to the EOE is ok with you? That's what would happen in reality. Not to mention the added traffic on Irving Park, Higgins, and North Ave to avoid the congested interstates.
Bad idea.
Add a fifth lane on I-294 between I-290 and the EOWA and it would not be much of a problem. It's not that far of a distance.
There would still be more traffic on the Kennedy.
Your logic is quite idiotic.
Bingo! :thumbsup:
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 08:18:03 PM
Quote from: tribar on June 07, 2015, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:30:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Did you not read my post about the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway being an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension? If you build the west bypass and the portion between the present day I-290 and the west side of O'Hare, then that would be used for traffic. It's only a little bit north of the current Eisenhower extension. This would allow traffic heading that way to get on further north, alleviating the congestion at the Hillside Strangler.
Yes. So more traffic on 294 AND the Kennedy to get to the EOE is ok with you? That's what would happen in reality. Not to mention the added traffic on Irving Park, Higgins, and North Ave to avoid the congested interstates.
Bad idea.
Add a fifth lane on I-294 between I-290 and the EOWA and it would not be much of a problem. It's not that far of a distance.
There would still be more traffic on the Kennedy.
Your logic is quite idiotic.
Bingo! :thumbsup:
How? What would change? If I am heading west on I-290, how would taking I-294 to the EOWA be much different than the Eisenhower extension?
The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is the extremely large number of people who are unable or unwilling to utilize public transportation.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 08, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is the extremely large number of people who are unable or unwilling to utilize public transportation.
I find it to be the idiots who live in Oak Park, Forest Park, etc. who jump on 290 and get off the next exit.
If it was up to me, close all exits from Mannheim to Damen ave.
QuoteI find it to be the idiots who live in Oak Park, Forest Park, etc. who jump on 290 and get off the next exit.
Which is largely the reason why the Eisenhower was one of the first freeways in the country to get ramp meters...
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:30:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
Not to mention if you get rid of the I-290 extension between I-294 and I-355 how many MORE cars would be added to the Kennedy and NW Tollway. That really is a bad thought I-39.
Did you not read my post about the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway being an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension? If you build the west bypass and the portion between the present day I-290 and the west side of O'Hare, then that would be used for traffic. It's only a little bit north of the current Eisenhower extension. This would allow traffic heading that way to get on further north, alleviating the congestion at the Hillside Strangler.
Yes. So more traffic on 294 AND the Kennedy to get to the EOE is ok with you? That's what would happen in reality. Not to mention the added traffic on Irving Park, Higgins, and North Ave to avoid the congested interstates.
Bad idea.
Add a fifth lane on I-294 between I-290 and the EOWA and it would not be much of a problem. It's not that far of a distance.
In the works planing to start 2016 build out around 2020 same time as EOWA. The interchanges at I-88 / I-290 and I-55 need changes.
Quote from: I-39 on June 05, 2015, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: ET21 on June 05, 2015, 12:07:18 PM
And of course the interchange would be better if the extension didn't exist. 290 would just become 88 and vice versa, with stub ramps to N/S 294. However, you'd lose a nice route into the western and northwestern suburbs. Just think how Schaumburg and Woodfield would be without 290. It's bad now with the massive interstate lol
That's where the EOWA would step in. As I stated in the first post, The Elgin-O'Hare Expressway could have be an alternative to building the Eisenhower extension. It is not that far north from the extension, and it would effectively serve the same purpose. Traffic would get on the EOWA several miles north of the Hillside Strangler, eliminating a bottleneck.
The Interstate would still exist in Schaumburg, as what is now I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 split off already existed before the Eisenhower extension was constructed.
So if we went with your plan, we would need to consider all that I-290 extension traffic being shunted onto an already heavily traversed 294 or as hobsini said, the already bad Kennedy and NW tollway and the EOWA. :clap: :clap:
What you should do is create a map to visualize your "vision" of the Hillside
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 08, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is the extremely large number of people who are unable or unwilling to utilize public transportation.
From Forest Park on, the area is a transit-rich environment, but ridership traffic drops off on the rapid transit on the west past the UIC complex. For reverse commuters, a transit trip often takes 2-3 times what a trip in a car would take due to the multiple transfers and waiting needed. I have conscientiously tried to use transit in my business in the area, and sometimes it works for me, and sometimes not. I find most people using the Ike are doing it because there is just not another good or feasible solution for them, although there are some people who feel the need to squeeze into a parking space downtown when Metra would've gotten them there just the same and with less hassle and cost.
I've always wanted a flyover from the northbound Tri-State onto westbound I-290. I hate that loop ramp.
But I suppose when the new O'Hare bypass is built I can just use that instead.
Quote from: HandsomeRob on June 11, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
I've always wanted a flyover from the northbound Tri-State onto westbound I-290. I hate that loop ramp.
Much agreed, and it is needed even with the O'Hare Bypass. If I'm going to Elmhurst, I'll exit at Roosevelt and go up York Road instead. It's faster some days.
I'll third the need for a flyover from the NB Tri-State to WB I-290, but I think the current loop might work a tiny amount better if there was another exit off the NB Tri-State between WB I-290 and the Balmoral Exit. Perhaps to North Avenue or one to Grand Avenue. Even when I-490 is completed, there will still be a large gap in access to the Tri-State between I-290 and Franklin Avenue.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 11, 2015, 05:29:14 PM
I'll third the need for a flyover from the NB Tri-State to WB I-290, but I think the current loop might work a tiny amount better if there was another exit off the NB Tri-State between WB I-290 and the Balmoral Exit. Perhaps to North Avenue or one to Grand Avenue. Even when I-490 is completed, there will still be a large gap in access to the Tri-State between I-290 and Franklin Avenue.
I'll fourth the flyover and second another exit at North Ave
Everyone gets a flyover!
While we are at it, I have always thought that SB 294 to WB 88 and EB 290 to SB 294 ramps should be moved. So this would be my fix. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg569%2Fhobsini2%2Fff5415e1-f022-4254-8069-e2d142e94d07_zpsbeylkdva.png&hash=764455139c3e55e0132a901ff631ade5eefc3623) (http://s1244.photobucket.com/user/hobsini2/media/ff5415e1-f022-4254-8069-e2d142e94d07_zpsbeylkdva.png.html)
Green is the Tollway.
Blue is the Freeway.
Gray is major roads.
Red is closure of old ramps.
Orange is the new ramps.
^^ I very much like. I'd make a few modifications:
1. Straighten out the WB 290 to NB 294 ramp as you now have the room.
2. Change the St Charles Rd exit on 290 to a SPUI. Those loops are nothing but trouble there.
3. With the room from the SPUI, ramps could be added for SB 294 to St Charles Rd and St Charles Rd to NB 294.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.msg236182#msg236182
Has some ideas for the same area.
Quote from: Brandon on June 14, 2015, 06:03:31 PM
^^ I very much like. I'd make a few modifications:
1. Straighten out the WB 290 to NB 294 ramp as you now have the room.
2. Change the St Charles Rd exit on 290 to a SPUI. Those loops are nothing but trouble there.
3. With the room from the SPUI, ramps could be added for SB 294 to St Charles Rd and St Charles Rd to NB 294.
The new ramp from I-88 to I-290 flyover is not needed the old ramp can be used
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on June 14, 2015, 07:32:47 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 14, 2015, 06:03:31 PM
^^ I very much like. I'd make a few modifications:
1. Straighten out the WB 290 to NB 294 ramp as you now have the room.
2. Change the St Charles Rd exit on 290 to a SPUI. Those loops are nothing but trouble there.
3. With the room from the SPUI, ramps could be added for SB 294 to St Charles Rd and St Charles Rd to NB 294.
The new ramp from I-88 to I-290 flyover is not needed the old ramp can be used
Joe:
The traffic from 88 EBto 290 WBcurrently uses the loop from NB 294 to 290 WB. This eliminates that loop ramp altogether.
Brandon:
I considered that but having the current configuration would not affect traffic to be any worse. And adding a exit on 294 for St Charles Rd would have the same kind congestion problem that's on Highland Ave at Butterfield and I-88 with those series of lights so close.
The link from I-88 to I-294 can have the old one tie into the new flyover.
Why? All you are doing is adding more construction to a current flow that works well and is already marked for 2 lanes. The problem is not the EB 88 to NB 294 ramp.
I can work on a few alts to your plan.
The main problem is the "missing link" in I-90, a sixteen mile flyover tollway bridge from Hillside to the Skyway in Englewood. :pan:
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 24, 2015, 02:12:54 PM
The main problem is the "missing link" in I-90, a sixteen mile tollway bridge from Hillside to the Skyway in Englewood.
Explain, please - since I-90 doesn't exist in Hillside anymore.
Google Map Chicago. You can see it from space. :confused: The gist of it...hold your right hand so that your index finger and thumb are 90*. The tip of your index is Hillside (A), your hand downtown (C), your thumb tip, the Skyway (B). Thats the 22 miles it takes today. The distance of the hypotenuse is just sixteen miles, a six mile shortcut. Hopefully in ten years or so that could be a reality. Just doing that relieves the Strangler, bypasses the Ike, the Byrne Circle and the Ryan, three major-league bottlenecks. And gives potential Kennedy users an option. Then theres a FREE FOUR MILE BONUS :spin: because it takes out the curvature of the Kennedy and the Tri-State. This is the straighest line between Schaumburg and Gary, a SIXTY plus trip today, in the future could be FIFTY! :clap:
I opened up Google Maps. My starting point is just north of the I-90/I-39 junction in Rockford. My ending point is on I-90, just east of the I-80/90/94 junction.
I-90/I-290/I-294/I-94/I-90: 1:51, 118 miles
I-90/I-290/I-355/I-80/I-90: 1:58, 131 miles
I-39/I-88/I-294/I-94/I-90: 1:59, 137 miles
I-39/I-88/I-355/I-80/I-90: 2:01, 140 miles
I-90/I-290/I-90: 2:08, 119 miles
I-90 alone: 2:19, 113 miles
For traffic heading east past Chicago, the known problem is Chicago itself. Making use of the existing bypasses around the city is what such traffic uses today. The shortest route time-wise saves up to 30 minutes while only adding 5 miles.
I believe that the local traffic with Chicago as it's destination is the source of most of the traffic and delays, not the Interstate traffic.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 11, 2015, 05:29:14 PM
I'll third the need for a flyover from the NB Tri-State to WB I-290, but I think the current loop might work a tiny amount better if there was another exit off the NB Tri-State between WB I-290 and the Balmoral Exit. Perhaps to North Avenue or one to Grand Avenue. Even when I-490 is completed, there will still be a large gap in access to the Tri-State between I-290 and Franklin Avenue.
I think a Grand Avenue exit / IL-19 is part of the I-490 plan.
Here's my attempt at a fix:
I-290 instead multiplexes with I-294 between I-88 and the I-290 split (Exits 31A-B and Exit 33, respectively). It will only run parallel north of the I-290/I-294 split. I propose a six/seven level stack interchange for both splits plus frontage roads for I-290 (between exits 5 and 17) and I-294 (exits 22 to 40).
I-88 ends at the exit 31A-B split on I-294 (explaining the six level stack). There will be connections to both I-290 and I-294.
IL 38 gets truncated to I-294. I-88 connection is made by moving the York Road interchange.
The I-294 connection further south to I-88 is wiped out (also explaining the six level stack), to make up for it, I-88 and I-294 get an interchange at Cermak Road. If needed, they can also connect via IL 83.
You can see it from space. Its as plain as the nose on your face. No more 90/94.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.6877653,-87.5217865/42.0608828,-88.0542571/@41.807807,-87.7109969,11z/data=!4m2!4
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 30, 2015, 04:31:52 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.6877653,-87.5217865/42.0608828,-88.0542571/@41.807807,-87.7109969,11z/data=!4m2!4
Still doesn't address the traffic patterns of people driving between the Elmhurst area and the Loop.
Quote from: Brandon on October 30, 2015, 05:30:17 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 30, 2015, 04:31:52 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.6877653,-87.5217865/42.0608828,-88.0542571/@41.807807,-87.7109969,11z/data=!4m2!4
Still doesn't address the traffic patterns of people driving between the Elmhurst area and the Loop.
Giving another option at the Strangler and taking some traffic OFF the Ike would address that, wouldnt it? :no:
More realistic than an eight-laned IKE.
The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is that there is none...they all add to the what could be the worst supercollider in the country. Should we start a poll? It gets my vote.
You can come from the north on I-294. Also the NW on I-290 that has had traffic from IL64 (North Av) and US20 (Lake St) recently added. Remember this road was called I-90 till 1978. From the west and SW, I-88 with adds from IL56 and IL38. The ramp from IL38 is closed by mid-afternoon cuz traffic is already bad and gonna get worse. Then from the south on I-294. Thats FOUR interstates and the adds from numerous (at least five?) state and US routes into ONE. Your ONLY option (if you didnt go south or north 294) is due east on the IKE I-290 for a maximum of fifteen miles, right into downtown. In a mile, the load from US12, 20 and 45 (Mannheim) wont help. And NO amount of widening or thickening of the Ike is really possible. Enjoy! NO improvement expected! EVER.
Those familiar with this area have no doubt seen the the RR that appears briefly just south of the Strangler. Thats the old IC (now CN) that is headed on a vector for sixteen miles toward a little known road called the Skyway (I-90). This road accomplishes (along with I-80) the feat of getting around that big toll booth and pinch-point known as Lake Michigan. This is the basis for a corridor (see Hypotenuse in fictional) that appears to be the only viable relief of the Strangler...in TWENTY years maybe.
The problem with the Hillside Strangler is that expanding the Eisenhower is a damn-near impossible proposition. Yep, that's right. A city with an eastern shoreline, whose suburban commuters thus all come from some direction with a westerly component, can't expand the freeway stemming straight to the west, owing to some huge challenges in the way. :banghead:
I used to commute to the city from the Aurora area. Driving was never an option. My only hope was to take the train. West of the strangler, I-88 is 4 lanes in each direction, and I-290 is three. So that's 7 lanes whittled down to just 3. We could widen the Eisenhower to 5 in each direction and it still might not be enough.
If you look on Streetview, most of the freeway (in the city anyway) is below ground-level, with residential streets along the immediate sides. Widening to add more lanes means taking out those sidestreets and cutting them down by 8-10 feet. We're pretty much limited to building upward or downward. In another discussion, I read that the railroad bridges around Forest Park are a limiting factor in widening/elevating the highway. Getting around the tracks would be a nightmare (one of many).
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.874143,-87.8118301,3a,75y,270.4h,78.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIby7P-iTwEu8kFA8SajGGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I saw the suggestion in another thread of pulling a "dodge freeway" sort of situation- if there was ever a place to try that approach again, it's along the Eisenhower imo.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 18, 2016, 08:31:35 AM
The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is that there is none...they all add to the what could be the worst supercollider in the country. Should we start a poll? It gets my vote.
You can come from the north on I-294. Also the NW on I-290 that has had traffic from IL64 (North Av) and US20 (Lake St) recently added. Remember this road was called I-90 till 1978. From the west and SW, I-88 with adds from IL56 and IL38. The ramp from IL38 is closed by mid-afternoon cuz traffic is already bad and gonna get worse. Then from the south on I-294. Thats FOUR interstates and the adds from numerous (at least five?) state and US routes into ONE.
The math does not quite work. There has only been three interstates present at the Strangler at the same time. Any truly through traffic on US 20 would more than likely use I-355 to switch to I-290 back near Itasca. Similarly, any through traffic on IL 56 would more than likely get on I-88 much farther west.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 18, 2016, 08:31:35 AMYour ONLY option (if you didnt go south or north 294) is due east on the IKE I-290 for a maximum of fifteen miles, right into downtown.
There's always the parkway-like IL 171 down to I-55, which from checking Google as I type indicates this route only adds ~6 minutes and 4.3 miles.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 18, 2016, 08:31:35 AMIn a mile, the load from US12, 20 and 45 (Mannheim) wont help. And NO amount of widening or thickening of the Ike is really possible. Enjoy! NO improvement expected! EVER.
So IDOT probably adding a HOT or other managed lane suddenly does count as an improvement. Study webpage. (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/)
Those familiar with this area have no doubt seen the the RR that appears briefly just south of the Strangler. Thats the old IC (now CN) that is headed on a vector for sixteen miles toward a little known road called the Skyway (I-90). This road accomplishes (along with I-80) the feat of getting around that big toll booth and pinch-point known as Lake Michigan. This is the basis for a corridor (see Hypotenuse in fictional) that appears to be the only viable relief of the Strangler...in TWENTY years maybe.[/quote]
This alternative is about as fictional as adding two additional levels to I-290 with additional lanes.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 18, 2016, 05:30:31 PM
This alternative is about as fictional as adding two additional levels to I-290 with additional lanes.
Which, bizarrely enough, might actually make the Ike bearable. However, I don't think it would fly well in Oak Park.
The Hypotenuse "suggestion" is certainly LESS fictional than "thickening" the IKE a logistical, engineering, near impossibility that MAY not resolve the problem. Lets not make the IKE even MORE unbearable for the next twenty years. NO, that would not "fly well" in OP or anywhere along the route.
The "beauty" of Hypo is that it actually would divert some traffic from the Strangler/Ike and the N Ryan, but also the traffic from a point at the N Stevenson and Cicero Av and the N Ryan (ie S part of "old Crosstown"). Someday, in ten, no twenty years. And it could attract financing from an eight? party PPP that would have to be involved. Thickening the IKE would/could get the $Bs in financing from IDOT only. Thats fictional.
Realize that there are knuckleheads planning a new $100B canal through Nicaragua. They must assume that RRs and the roads in Chicagoland will remain status quo.
We can argue about the math "not quite working" or that maybe the math almost works, or after studies and super-computer modeling, who knows...maybe the math does work. Sure has to be considered.
WB Strangler doesnt really have huge problems as the Ike splits into four + options. EB IS the huge problem where four + merge into ONE freeway. The SB Tri-state is not an option for most.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 18, 2016, 05:30:31 PM
The math does not quite work. There has only been three interstates present at the Strangler at the same time. Any truly through traffic on US 20 would more than likely use I-355 to switch to I-290 back near Itasca. Similarly, any through traffic on IL 56 would more than likely get on I-88 much farther west.
I think the 5 was referring to the branches stemming from that point (so I-294 and I-290 count as two). But this is absolutely correct. US and State highways should just be considered as surface roads. The ones paralleling I-88/280 won't be carrying commuters to the city except as a last resort. The busiest suburban surface roads tend to be the ones leading to an entrance onto the expressways (one example is the need for revamping IL59 near I-88 and constructing the recently-opened DDI).
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 18, 2016, 05:30:31 PM
There's always the parkway-like IL 171 down to I-55, which from checking Google as I type indicates this route only adds ~6 minutes and 4.3 miles.
It's only parkway-like for the southernmost mile before I-55. Not that great of an asset, unfortunately.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 18, 2016, 05:30:31 PM
So IDOT probably adding a HOT or other managed lane suddenly does count as an improvement. Study webpage. (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/)
This is only Phase I, so don't get your hopes up THAT much...Though I am pleased they are at least investing in trying to find a way to handle this mess! *cheers* more lanes! more lanes! more lanes! But the focus may shift toward boosting mass transit (or making a new highway entirely? doubtful though).
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 19, 2016, 01:17:59 AM
The Hypotenuse "suggestion" is certainly LESS fictional than "thickening" the IKE a logistical, engineering, near impossibility that MAY not resolve the problem.
Is the Hypotenuse appear in any CMAP plans, other transportation documents by IDOT, ISTHA, or one of the surrounding towns, or recent news articles? If not, it is just a fictional as adding additional levels to I-290.
As to adding additional levels to I-290, if TXDOT can add an additional level to I-635, and Wisconsin could seriously consider switching part of I-94 to a two level design, it is certainly not an engineering impossibility to add a second level to I-290, and have tolls on the new level.
Just curious, is "Hillside Strangler" a term in common usage, or just here?
I keep hearing that line from "Midnight Rambler" every time I read it.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 10:20:33 PM
Just curious, is "Hillside Strangler" a term in common usage, or just here?
I keep hearing that line from "Midnight Rambler" every time I read it.
I learned the term from my mom who grew up on the North side. There is some colloquial usage around here, but I wouldn't say it's super-widespread.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 19, 2016, 09:50:13 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 19, 2016, 01:17:59 AM
The Hypotenuse "suggestion" is certainly LESS fictional than "thickening" the IKE a logistical, engineering, near impossibility that MAY not resolve the problem.
Is the Hypotenuse appear in any CMAP plans, other transportation documents by IDOT, ISTHA, or one of the surrounding towns, or recent news articles? If not, it is just a fictional as adding additional levels to I-290.
As to adding additional levels to I-290, if TXDOT can add an additional level to I-635, and Wisconsin could seriously consider switching part of I-94 to a two level design, it is certainly not an engineering impossibility to add a second level to I-290, and have tolls on the new level.
Well NO it dosent! And thats the point. Why add lanes or TRY to thicken the IKE to get to downtown when the bulls-eye is the Skyway? (By Skyway, I mean the split/merge with Ryan) Total CHAOS (many, myself included think the IKE and the Kennedy for that matter, the Tri-state not far off. is there already) if step two precedes step one.. The N Stevenson and the Hypo suggestion would provide a good alternative to bypassing the IKE. Then MAYBE, rebuilding IKE would start to be realistic in TWENTY years.. No more 90/94 is step one.
HOLY CRAP PARCLO B4
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 19, 2016, 11:22:26 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 10:20:33 PM
Just curious, is "Hillside Strangler" a term in common usage, or just here?
I keep hearing that line from "Midnight Rambler" every time I read it.
I learned the term from my mom who grew up on the North side. There is some colloquial usage around here, but I wouldn't say it's super-widespread.
I know the term since I grew up less than a mile away from it. Like Paul says, it's not super-widespread, but as far as I'm aware, there is no other term for the junction.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 20, 2016, 01:04:42 AM
Well NO it dosent! And thats the point. Why add lanes or TRY to thicken the IKE to get to downtown when the bulls-eye is the Skyway?
It's not.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 20, 2016, 02:54:29 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 20, 2016, 01:04:42 AM
Well NO it dosent! And thats the point. Why add lanes or TRY to thicken the IKE to get to downtown when the bulls-eye is the Skyway?
It's not.
So what IS?
IDOT is spending millions to double-lane a flyover at the Byrne Circle between right-angle Ryan & Ike (I-90 until 1978). Results remain to be seen, but I dont expect huge improvement there.
All interstate traffic west of the lake has two choices, "free" I-80 & 94 or $$ I-90.
At the Strangler, two choices. The usually, really bad, "free" one going due east on the IKE or south on $$ Tri-state to 80. A new SE option needs to be on the table.
Most of this discussion needs to be moved to fictional, but anyway . . .
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 20, 2016, 08:39:11 PM
So what IS?
There is rarely one bullseye when it comes to transportation, but there is probably more traffic going to the Loop than going to the Skyway.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 20, 2016, 08:39:11 PMIDOT is spending millions to double-lane a flyover at the Byrne Circle between right-angle Ryan & Ike (I-90 until 1978). Results remain to be seen, but I dont expect huge improvement there.
There has already been some improvements in the operation of that ramp since the 'cut the line' lane was closed along with the ramp to EB Congress Parkway.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 20, 2016, 08:39:11 PMAll interstate traffic west of the lake has two choices, "free" I-80 & 94 or $$ I-90.
Where the Toll I-90 or free I-80/I-94 are the only options, the Hypotenuse would not help. At the scale for considering the hypotenuse, you have four options:
1) I-90/Skyway, I-90/I-94, I-290; Tolls: At least $4.50, will be higher due to the tolls in Indiana to access the Skyway
2) I-80/I-94, I-94, I-90/I-94, I-290; Tolls: $0
3) I-80/I-94, I-80/I-294, I-294, I-290; Tolls: $2.25
4) I-80/I-94, I-80/I-294, I-80, I-355; Tolls: $4.40
Any new tollway would certainly not be cheaper than using I-294 or I-355.
At the Strangler, two choices. The usually, really bad, "free" one going due east on the IKE or south on $$ Tri-state to 80. A new SE option needs to be on the table.
[/quote]
Lets add some math to the geometry. All distances (miles) from/to IN line to/from Strangler.
Time at 40 mph approx. Double for 20 mph.
1) Skyway, Ryan, Ike..29 44 min
2) I-80, Ford, Ryan, Ike..41 60
3) I-80, Tri-state..34 50
4) I-80, I-355(to I-290) ..53 (add 9 to come east to Strangler) 90+ min
5) ** Skyway & Hypotenuse..23 35 min.
Adds to get to Lake Station IN where I-80/94 (16 m) meet I-90 (22) from IL line.
**Theoretical, hypothetical, for test purposes ONLY.
Time is money. Distance is fatigue on personnel, equipment, fuel expense, life, profit.
yawn
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 21, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
Lets add some math to the geometry. All distances (miles) from/to IN line to/from Strangler.
Time at 40 mph approx. Double for 20 mph.
1) Skyway, Ryan, Ike..29 44 min
2) I-80, Ford, Ryan, Ike..41 60
3) I-80, Tri-state..34 50
4) I-80, I-355(to I-290) ..53 (add 9 to come east to Strangler) 90+ min
5) ** Skyway & Hypotenuse..23 35 min.
Adds to get to Lake Station IN where I-80/94 (16 m) meet I-90 (22) from IL line.
**Theoretical, hypothetical, for test purposes ONLY.
The numbers listed are suspect. Per Google, from the west end of the service area on the Indiana Toll Road to about the point where traffic from the NB I-294 loop ramp can change lanes on I-290 is 51.8 miles via I-294 and 50.7 miles via the Skyway and I-290.
Again using Google, from the west end of the service area on the Indiana Toll Road to the merge of the Skyway with the Ryan is 29.1 miles via the Skyway or 35 miles via I-94. For an impacts be darned version of the hypotenuse, I get a length of ~16 miles, which would make the Skyway - Hypotenuse route have a total distance of 45.1 miles, and 51 miles for an I-94 - Hypotenuse route. For a version of the Hypotenuse that is somewhat realistic (not slicing across neighborhoods between I-55 and I-94 but going more with the grid), the distance between the Skyway - Ryan merge and the west side of the Strangler on I-290 is ~18.3 miles, for a total of 47.4 for a Skyway - Hypotenuse route or 53.3 miles for an I-94 - Hypotenuse route. The distance savings is nowhere near enough to justify the cost and disruptions of a new highway.
Additionally, restricting the speed to 40 on all of the routes used is not realistic and would not hold up if done for an actual EIS. This restriction unrealistically inflates the benefits of using a toll road with a 45 mph speed limit against a slightly longer facility with higher speed limits.
Furthermore, if one was going to use I-355 and then go back east to the Strangler, one would use I-88, not go up I-355 to I-290 (barring one trying to clinch part of I-290 or I-355).
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 21, 2016, 01:25:59 PMTime is money. Distance is fatigue on personnel, equipment, fuel expense, life, profit.
Where's the mention of 4F impacts (a highway does not have to take land from a park to be considered to have impacts) and the community impacts?
This project is fictional. Very, very fictional.
These are the maps used. Dont see any real problems with the distances listed. I went from Strangler to the state line and then to Lake Station. If different parameters are used , obviously numbers will change If there are any, they will be corrected. What other speed would you like? 40 mph seems reasonable. The only "slicing" across "neighborhoods" is a 12-block stretch between Damen and Halsted then to the Skyway, adjacent to an existing, but abandoned RR ROW. Pretty Fing sparse.
"4F"s?? How is that going to be done before corridor and feasibility studies, alignment possibilities?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8337329,-87.7319639,11z
http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 06:36:43 PM
These are the maps used. Dont see any real problems with the distances listed. I went from Strangler to the state line and then to Lake Station. If different parameters are used , obviously numbers will change If there are any, they will be corrected. What other speed would you like? 40 mph seems reasonable.
The speed selected is too arbitrary and only serves to skew the results; it would not hold up for an environmental/design study.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 06:36:43 PMThe only "slicing" across "neighborhoods" is a 12-block stretch between Damen and Halsted then to the Skyway, adjacent to an existing, but abandoned RR ROW. Pretty Fing sparse.
It's not sparse enough when angling between the Skyway and the abandoned railroad corridor near Halsted,
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 06:36:43 PM"4F"s?? How is that going to be done before corridor and feasibility studies, alignment possibilities?
It's called 'fatal flaw' screening; something done fairly early in the environmental study process. Just from the proposal map I see takings from at least seven parks. This fictional proposal has enough fatal flaws that it would not make it very far into the study process before being abandoned.
What speed is not too arbitrary? Care to name the at least seven parks and the fatal flaws? Theres like five houses in the 1/2 mile stretch between the Skyway and Halsted. How much more "sparse" could it be?
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 08:15:42 PMWhat speed is not too arbitrary?
One that considers the actual operating speeds of the facilities to be relieved by the proposed facility. Restricting the Tri-State to a speed lower than is actually posted and operating at most of the time would not hold as it rules out any operational improvements to the Tri-State that would have a better benefit cost ratio and less impacts than a new terrain facility.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 08:15:42 PM
Care to name the at least seven parks and the fatal flaws?
1) Gladstone Park
2) Pioneer Park
3) Schroeder Park
4) Millers Meadow Forest Preserve
5) Commons Park
6) Veterans Park
7) Patriots Park
8) Manor Park
As for fatal flaws, the 4F impacts, environmental justice issues on the eastern end, trying to bring another freeway into the already congested and difficult to sign Strangler, excessive impacts to railroads, community disruption, and excessive cost. I am not even going to waste time checking for other social impacts, school district impacts, historic site/district impacts, and special waste concerns.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 08:15:42 PMTheres like five houses in the 1/2 mile stretch between the Skyway and Halsted. How much more "sparse" could it be?
There are a lot more than five houses in the half mile stretch. They do not have to be directly acquired for a freeway to be considered impacted.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 22, 2016, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 08:15:42 PMWhat speed is not too arbitrary?
One that considers the actual operating speeds of the facilities to be relieved by the proposed facility. Restricting the Tri-State to a speed lower than is actually posted and operating at most of the time would not hold as it rules out any operational improvements to the Tri-State that would have a better benefit cost ratio and less impacts than a new terrain facility.
The tri-state has an un posted real speed limit of 70-75.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 22, 2016, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 08:15:42 PMWhat speed is not too arbitrary?
One that considers the actual operating speeds of the facilities to be relieved by the proposed facility. Restricting the Tri-State to a speed lower than is actually posted and operating at most of the time would not hold as it rules out any operational improvements to the Tri-State that would have a better benefit cost ratio and less impacts than a new terrain facility.
And that would be accomplished HOW? More studies and models would need to determine that.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 08:15:42 PM
Care to name the at least seven parks and the fatal flaws?
These following parks are adjacent to a pre-existing Class 1 railroad or yard, within yards in most cases of the ROW. Certainly some minimal impact will occur. "N" indicates a park on the north side of the ROW, so some issues with sunlight will occur later in the day on the south end of the park.
Westchester to Berwyn :
1) Gladstone Park N
2) Pioneer Park N
3) Schroeder Park N
3a) Sunnywood Park
4) Millers Meadow Forest Preserve separated by 1st Av Cutoff
4a) Riverside Golf Club
5) Commons Park
6) Veterans Park
7) Patriots Park
8) Manor Park
In Chicago:
9) Walnut Park
10) Oakley Park on 50th St TOTAL DESTRUCTION (There, is that better?)
11) Micek Park
12) Hermitage Park
As for fatal flaws, the 4F impacts, environmental justice issues on the eastern end, trying to bring another freeway into the already congested and difficult to sign Strangler, excessive impacs to railroads, community disruption, and excessive cost. I am not even going to waste time checking for other social impacts, school district impacts, historic site/district impacts, and special waste concerns.
Environmental justice issues would be?
Bringing another freeway that would flyover the Strangler would relieve congestion, not add to it.
"Excessive" railroad impacts, like grade-separation, added capacity, faster trips, added revenue streams?
Community disruption...certainly during construction.
Excessive cost? More bang for the buck than a lot of other proposals seen on these forums actually.
"Social impacts" like better transport and logistic options in the area lead to business and industry attraction/retention and jobs. In an area that sorely needs that.
School districts? Englewood HS is a stones-throw from four NSRR tracks. Some impact, no doubt.
Everything else has answers.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 22, 2016, 08:15:42 PMTheres like five houses in the 1/2 mile stretch between the Skyway and Halsted. How much more "sparse" could it be?
There are a lot more than five houses in the half mile stretch. They do not have to be directly acquired for a freeway to be considered impacted.
Not many more, its pretty sparse. What is the trade-off for a project that could/would affect 100Ks of rail and road trips a day?
All in all, I dont see the deal-breaker or "fatal flaw". The Strangler and many other road and rail problems are related to this missing corridor.
Call it a BELTWAY. The Strangler, Ike and N Ryan could use one. The southside could use one on the north, the northside could use one on the south. Three beltways, one road. Four lanes would probably suffice between Cicero and the Strangler, Cicero to the Skyway split would more than likely require six
Had a chance to revisit the Strangler today. WB on 290 was decent, but by early afternoon EB was not looking good, and sure enough, on the return an hour later, EB was at a crawl just south of North Av. So we exited on North.
I think most everyone agrees that EB 290 south of North needs four lanes (is there enough room under St. Charles to add another lane?) and a double lane exit to SB 294.
But maybe another alternative, addition even, would be to split the North/Lake exit ramp from 290 and the entrance ramp to 290 here.. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.905937,-87.9247208,157m/data=!3m1!1e3 then merge them >-- into a double lane ramp that would go under 290,
curve over or under the ramp.. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.905959,-87.9218374,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
and merge with SB 294 just south of the shield? https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9043591,-87.9207919,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
A double lane ramp to get onto SB 294? That's asking for trouble on 294 right in that section between that ramp and the ramp to WB 88. That's the worst because everyone is clueless here
Quote from: ILRoad55 on October 11, 2016, 07:39:49 AM
A double lane ramp to get onto SB 294? That's asking for trouble on 294 right in that section between that ramp and the ramp to WB 88. That's the worst because everyone is clueless here
It needs an C/D setup and down stream widening till at least I-55.
also aux lanes all the way from I-88 ramps till US-34
If you want to work with what you have without too much disturbance on 294, here's what should be done.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/88-_294-290_redo/Sk82BJHGPF
First, you have a good double exit ramp from 294 South to 290 East. Why not utilize that? So West 88 traffic would also get off at the 290 East ramp and connect this ramp to the current 290 East to 294 South ramp. 290 East to 294 South traffic would go under the new 88 ramp and then merge as is with 294 South. Before the new ramp bridge to 88, a new single lane ramp would connect 290 East to 88 West ramp.
Second, to eliminate the backups for 294 North to 290 West looped ramp, that becomes a new flyover.
And lastly, to make enough room for the flyover, the St Charles Rd interchange becomes a trumpet set of ramps north of St Charles Rd.
^^ My thoughts were more toward a DDI on St Charles Rd.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 12, 2016, 07:49:23 AM
If you want to work with what you have without too much disturbance on 294, here's what should be done.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/88-_294-290_redo/Sk82BJHGPF
First, you have a good double exit ramp from 294 South to 290 East. Why not utilize that? So West 88 traffic would also get off at the 290 East ramp and connect this ramp to the current 290 East to 294 South ramp. 290 East to 294 South traffic would go under the new 88 ramp and then merge as is with 294 South. Before the new ramp bridge to 88, a new single lane ramp would connect 290 East to 88 West ramp.
Second, to eliminate the backups for 294 North to 290 West looped ramp, that becomes a new flyover.
And lastly, to make enough room for the flyover, the St Charles Rd interchange becomes a trumpet set of ramps north of St Charles Rd.
I have some ideas
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10031.0
I still think there should be some ramps on and off of St Charles for the SB Tri-State. 294 just lacks a lot of exits and that future Frontage Road exit won't do enough.
Quote from: ILRoad55 on October 11, 2016, 07:39:49 AM
A double lane ramp to get onto SB 294? That's asking for trouble on 294 right in that section between that ramp and the ramp to WB 88. That's the worst because everyone is clueless here
Theres probably TEN problems with the Strangler. But the main problem is the backup on three-lane EB 290 south of North/Lake caused by a single lane to 294. A double lane exit shouldnt cause a problem for W 88 as its still a 1000 ft away. Nobody should be "clueless" at that point.
Getting a lot of that onto four-lane SB 294 ASAP with this.. Another alternative, addition even, would be to split the North/Lake exit ramp from 290 and the entrance ramp to 290 here.. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.905937,-87.9247208,157m/data=!3m1!1e3 then merge them >-- into a double lane ramp that would go under 290,
curve over or under the ramp.. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.905959,-87.9218374,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
and merge with SB 294 just south of the shield? https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9043591,-87.9207919,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
Certainly a flyover of 294 from NB 294 & 88 etal would be a great #2.
But yet another is the missing concurrency of US 12 & 20, and yes I-90.
It may be the most difficult problem in the region, even country to solve.
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 14, 2016, 12:30:07 AM
Quote from: ILRoad55 on October 11, 2016, 07:39:49 AM
A double lane ramp to get onto SB 294? That's asking for trouble on 294 right in that section between that ramp and the ramp to WB 88. That's the worst because everyone is clueless here
But yet another is the missing concurrency of US 12 & 20, and yes I-90.
You had a decent proposal, until you threw this shit back in :rolleyes:
Is there anything that could "theoretically" be done to improve the Hillside Strangler? Or is potentially improving it a lost cause (too little space, too much potential opposition)?
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 14, 2016, 12:30:07 AM
Quote from: ILRoad55 on October 11, 2016, 07:39:49 AM
A double lane ramp to get onto SB 294? That's asking for trouble on 294 right in that section between that ramp and the ramp to WB 88. That's the worst because everyone is clueless here
Theres probably TEN problems with the Strangler. But the main problem is the backup on three-lane EB 290 south of North/Lake caused by a single lane to 294. A double lane exit shouldnt cause a problem for W 88 as its still a 1000 ft away. Nobody should be "clueless" at that point.
Getting a lot of that onto four-lane SB 294 ASAP with this.. Another alternative, addition even, would be to split the North/Lake exit ramp from 290 and the entrance ramp to 290 here.. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.905937,-87.9247208,157m/data=!3m1!1e3 then merge them >-- into a double lane ramp that would go under 290,
curve over or under the ramp.. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.905959,-87.9218374,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
and merge with SB 294 just south of the shield? https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9043591,-87.9207919,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
Certainly a flyover of 294 from NB 294 & 88 etal would be a great #2.
as long as they don't add an toll or say that people can ride I-294 for free and re exit to I-290
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 14, 2016, 05:09:54 PM
Is there anything that could "theoretically" be done to improve the Hillside Strangler? Or is potentially improving it a lost cause (too little space, too much potential opposition)?
Idot's finishing up a study on widening the eisenhower to 8 lanes and moving the oak park interchanges to the right.
There's also a possibility of extending the blue line to mannheim in the same study or another study as well.
I think a combination of those two could fix the hillside strangler quite nicely. More people on public transit with 1 more lane is sorely needed and would be extremely beneficial to traffic.
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 14, 2016, 12:30:07 AM
Quote from: ILRoad55 on October 11, 2016, 07:39:49 AM
A double lane ramp to get onto SB 294? That's asking for trouble on 294 right in that section between that ramp and the ramp to WB 88. That's the worst because everyone is clueless here
Theres probably TEN problems with the Strangler. But the main problem is the backup on three-lane EB 290 south of North/Lake caused by a single lane to 294. A double lane exit shouldnt cause a problem for W 88 as its still a 1000 ft away. Nobody should be "clueless" at that point.
Getting a lot of that onto four-lane SB 294 ASAP with this.. Another alternative, addition even, would be to split the North/Lake exit ramp from 290 and the entrance ramp to 290 here.. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.905937,-87.9247208,157m/data=!3m1!1e3 then merge them >-- into a double lane ramp that would go under 290,
curve over or under the ramp.. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.905959,-87.9218374,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
and merge with SB 294 just south of the shield? https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9043591,-87.9207919,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
Certainly a flyover of 294 from NB 294 & 88 etal would be a great #2.
But yet another is the missing concurrency of US 12 & 20, and yes I-90.
It may be the most difficult problem in the region, even country to solve.
The biggest issue with the 290 East to 294 South ramp is that the merging to South 294 traffic is fighting with the 294 South to 88 West traffic. I know this very well as I drive it nearly daily for my job. By moving the 88 exit traffic, you eliminate that fight. So yes a single lane ramp would work once the 88 traffic is elsewhere.
Your proposal without moving the 88 ramp does not fix the issue.
And bringing up your hypo I-90 idea, again, is just asking for trouble.
Quote from: Brandon on October 12, 2016, 01:22:07 PM
^^ My thoughts were more toward a DDI on St Charles Rd.
I thought about that as well as a folded diamond. The DDI would have the problem of the flyover ramp from 294 North leaving a small merge/exit area.
Quote from: ILRoad55 on October 12, 2016, 06:12:08 PM
I still think there should be some ramps on and off of St Charles for the SB Tri-State. 294 just lacks a lot of exits and that future Frontage Road exit won't do enough.
Well there is a reason why the 290 West exit signs say To US 20 & Ill 64. Simply not enough room for full blown interchanges for both interstates. And with the proposed flyover ramp, you could easily put in a sign that says To St Charles Rd.
"And bringing up your hypo I-90 idea, again, is just asking for trouble."
Sometimes (this being one) things have to get worse and a lot of money and time spent to cure/solve a fifty/hundred year old problem. Trouble is deluding ourselves that "everything" (all these major transport and transit problems) will magically disappear someday (with more road sign rearranging?) without having to do a gd thing.
Ok, dzlsabe, you keep bringing up your hypotenuse, and this thread seems to be the most relevant to the question that I'm sure many of us are wondering:
How do you propose tying your hypotenuse into the existing Strangler?
Quote from: pianocello on October 22, 2016, 08:14:02 PM
Ok, dzlsabe, you keep bringing up your hypotenuse, and this thread seems to be the most relevant to the question that I'm sure many of us are wondering:
How do you propose tying your hypotenuse into the existing Strangler?
Don't bother, I asked for maps of his hypo project with ramps and lanes and he only gave maps of where the hypo will run through.
Quote from: pianocello on October 22, 2016, 08:14:02 PM
Ok, dzlsabe, you keep bringing up your hypotenuse, and this thread seems to be the most relevant to the question that I'm sure many of us are wondering:
How do you propose tying your hypotenuse into the existing Strangler?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8773203,-87.9153258,1260m/data=!3m1!1e3
On the WB 290 side, many have suggested the EB 88 and NB 294 ramps flyover (eliminating the oval) of 294 and the SB 294 ramp to land just south of Electric Av at the 15E on the map. Thats a fine idea. Add a lane from the WB Hypo there as well. This would be coming from near the 290 shield and RR line. An exit from Hypo would merge to NB 294.
On the EB 290 an exit over the RR line at the 290 shield. SB 294 has already merged with 290.
Ramps to/from 88 and NB 294 would happen in between the 17 and Darmstadt.
Quote from: pianocello on October 22, 2016, 08:14:02 PM
Ok, dzlsabe, you keep bringing up your hypotenuse, and this thread seems to be the most relevant to the question that I'm sure many of us are wondering:
How do you propose tying your hypotenuse into the existing Strangler?
Oh Godt. Here we go again.
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 23, 2016, 12:04:20 AM
Quote from: pianocello on October 22, 2016, 08:14:02 PM
Ok, dzlsabe, you keep bringing up your hypotenuse, and this thread seems to be the most relevant to the question that I'm sure many of us are wondering:
How do you propose tying your hypotenuse into the existing Strangler?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8773203,-87.9153258,1260m/data=!3m1!1e3
On the WB 290 side, many have suggested the EB 88 and NB 294 ramps flyover (eliminating the oval) of 294 and the SB 294 ramp to land just south of Electric Av at the 15E on the map. Thats a fine idea. Add a lane from the WB Hypo there as well. This would be coming from near the 290 shield and RR line. An exit from Hypo would merge to NB 294.
On the EB 290 an exit over the RR line at the 290 shield. SB 294 has already merged with 290.
Ramps to/from 88 and NB 294 would happen in between the 17 and Darmstadt.
Don't you mean the WB 88 ramp? There is no EB 88 ramp from 290 WB.
Here's the other thing. Draw it on a map please. Having just a description of trying to figure out your idea does not help. Here is a good site to use to do that.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/
And if you don't know how to use it, ask. MAPS YOU DRAW ARE A MUST when you are making proposals if you want any credibility. Don't just give an image of the current area.
I tried to visualize his layout. All i understood was the EB88/NB294 Flyover ramp to WB290. The rest I just kind of guessed because I had no idea what he was referring to. I don't support this idea, but it truly bothered me that the person who is considering this project does not give us maps of how the interchanges will look.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fcl6Yteh.png&hash=9cd5c10c006945c13459e7ecb993ef07add03c2c)
By the way, some parts seem rather difficult to deal with such as the section right when SB294 enters onto EB290 and then you have a ramp going onto this Hypo. That'll just be the new SB294 + EB290 ramp + WB88 Ramp section. The ramps on/off the Hypo at 88 seem kind of deadly.
Also a side note, why the hell would you want to live right in the middle of 3 Major Interstates intersecting with each other?
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 23, 2016, 06:03:06 PM
Quote from: pianocello on October 22, 2016, 08:14:02 PM
Ok, dzlsabe, you keep bringing up your hypotenuse, and this thread seems to be the most relevant to the question that I'm sure many of us are wondering:
How do you propose tying your hypotenuse into the existing Strangler?
Oh Godt. Here we go again.
Hey now. I don't recall anyone actually asking this, and I wanted to know if he had thought of this part.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 23, 2016, 06:07:15 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 23, 2016, 12:04:20 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8773203,-87.9153258,1260m/data=!3m1!1e3
On the WB 290 side, many have suggested the EB 88 and NB 294 ramps flyover (eliminating the oval) of 294 and the SB 294 ramp to land just south of Electric Av at the 15E on the map. Thats a fine idea. Add a lane from the WB Hypo there as well. This would be coming from near the 290 shield and RR line. An exit from Hypo would merge to NB 294.
On the EB 290 an exit over the RR line at the 290 shield. SB 294 has already merged with 290.
Ramps to/from 88 and NB 294 would happen in between the 17 and Darmstadt.
Don't you mean the WB 88 ramp? There is no EB 88 ramp from 290 WB.
If I'm getting this correctly, he's referring to the NB-NWB loop ramp, which is the only movement between EB 88 and WB 290.
Quote
Here's the other thing. Draw it on a map please. Having just a description of trying to figure out your idea does not help. Here is a good site to use to do that.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/
And if you don't know how to use it, ask. MAPS YOU DRAW ARE A MUST when you are making proposals if you want any credibility. Don't just give an image of the current area.
My crude rendition (hope link works): https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/HypoStrangler/03hPZCR6fN
Edit: ILRoad55 posted his rendition first. I like his version better, even though I don't like the whole Hypo idea in the first place. No matter how this is done, there's going to be a metric butt-ton of weaving. And
Quote from: ILRoad55 on October 23, 2016, 09:37:18 PM
I tried to visualize his layout. All i understood was the EB88/NB294 Flyover ramp to WB290. The rest I just kind of guessed because I had no idea what he was referring to. I don't support this idea, but it truly bothered me that the person who is considering this project does not give us maps of how the interchanges will look.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fcl6Yteh.png&hash=9cd5c10c006945c13459e7ecb993ef07add03c2c)
By the way, some parts seem rather difficult to deal with such as the section right when SB294 enters onto EB290 and then you have a ramp going onto this Hypo. That'll just be the new SB294 + EB290 ramp + WB88 Ramp section. The ramps on/off the Hypo at 88 seem kind of deadly.
Also a side note, why the hell would you want to live right in the middle of 3 Major Interstates intersecting with each other?
Thats pretty close. Double lane/combine the flyover(s) 294. No need for the horseshoes at 17/Darmstadt. Any of those crazy movements get handled by Mannheim. Only thing missing is the WB Hypo to 88. Ill have a map up to snuff soon, but this is basically it.
I mean in no way is this actually going to fix the Strangler. What needs to be done is to somehow 4-lane 290 in this area. Or even at least 3 lane it (on the EB side) when it splits for a C&D ramp for Mannheim.
Pull back the SB294 ramp onto EB290, maybe reconfigure St. Charles to incorporate a SB294 to EB290 ramp and remove the current one. This would allow room for the EB290 ramp onto SB294.
And don't make I-88 one lane as it approaches I-290, that is bad. Perhaps make Mannheim a better interchange too like a SPUI or a DDI to allow more lanes to go underneath.
If Hypo takes a fifth, even quarter load off Congress Ike, maybe nothing needs be done. If anything needs 8 lanes its X Ike up to North Av.
Quote from: ILRoad55 on October 23, 2016, 11:12:41 PM
I mean in no way is this actually going to fix the Strangler. What needs to be done is to somehow 4-lane 290 in this area. Or even at least 3 lane it (on the EB side) when it splits for a C&D ramp for Mannheim.
Pull back the SB294 ramp onto EB290, maybe reconfigure St. Charles to incorporate a SB294 to EB290 ramp and remove the current one. This would allow room for the EB290 ramp onto SB294.
And don't make I-88 one lane as it approaches I-290, that is bad. Perhaps make Mannheim a better interchange too like a SPUI or a DDI to allow more lanes to go underneath.
under Mannheim EB is 3 with room for 1 more + 2 with aux.
Now WB can use an C/D setup or maybe getting rid of the loop ramp.
The crush at the railroad is the big choke point. Maybe making the frontages one way or even part of an C/D setup and removing the loop ramps at 25 can help on the cheap.
Now going the other way on I-88 it needs to be 4 lanes till the i-pass / cash split point or
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1367.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr781%2FJoe_Blasi%2FIL38I-88alt_zps8099020e.png&hash=2c07cf4796791e139a4a48441dc0fdd6c2e51f4a)
from https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.0
Is is possible to make this ramp work (the one with the green arrow that links 294N to 290W)?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F6steld.jpg&hash=f2c015a72ce6bf3b2b426dae164b937c54a9ee4f)
What I'm wondering is if there's enough space for the ramp to cross over 290 and then sink down under 294. The bridge there is actually fairly high, and there may not be enough room for the descent.
I was imagining it to go above both 290 and 294.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 29, 2016, 11:55:19 PM
Is is possible to make this ramp work (the one with the green arrow that links 294N to 290W)?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F6steld.jpg&hash=f2c015a72ce6bf3b2b426dae164b937c54a9ee4f)
What I'm wondering is if there's enough space for the ramp to cross over 290 and then sink down under 294. The bridge there is actually fairly high, and there may not be enough room for the descent.
In my idea for the flyover NB 294 to WB 290 ramp, the ramp would be 15 feet higher than 294. when It merges with 290, yes it would be a bit of a steep grade if the St Charles Rd interchange doesn't change hence why I changed that too.
No need for two flyovers. Combine them and both land by Electric Av. And kill the horseshoes.
Getting the WB onto 88 here will not be that easy. https://www.google.com/maps/dir///@41.8728253,-87.9082749,79m/data=!3m1!1e3
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIDPPzpp.png&hash=686a83da9c779b61f9a4514a9707f9b2af211fc5)
Thats four lanes about sixty feet wide.
(https://i.imgur.com/beQjHuD.png)
Why lose Harrison and Indian Joe, trying to cram more lanes through there? How much traffic is really headed to around Cicero and/or Midway? Or Indiana and points east. If maybe 25% less traffic was NOT headed down the Ike, the "problem" would not exist
I was just looking at some maps, and I came up with an idea, but it would require losing Harrison and Indian Joe Rd. under the tracks just to the west of 25th. Not sure how that would play with the locals.
Quote from: inkyatari on November 11, 2016, 03:31:01 PM
I was just looking at some maps, and I came up with an idea, but it would require losing Harrison and Indian Joe Rd. under the tracks just to the west of 25th. Not sure how that would play with the locals.
It's tricky. What do you have in mind?
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 11, 2016, 05:22:19 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 11, 2016, 03:31:01 PM
I was just looking at some maps, and I came up with an idea, but it would require losing Harrison and Indian Joe Rd. under the tracks just to the west of 25th. Not sure how that would play with the locals.
It's tricky. What do you have in mind?
It involves a couple of local exit lanes from the 294 / 290 / 88 all the way to just past 25th, and replacing US 45 and 25th st with SPUIs. I still need to hash the idea out fully, however. Might not be enough room.
At 290 and 355, why are there THREE lanes going to Joliet, only two to Chicago, then at the Strangler, only a single lane going to 294?
Quote from: dzlsabe on March 23, 2017, 11:22:56 PM
At 290 and 355, why are there THREE lanes going to Joliet, only two to Chicago, then at the Strangler, only a single lane going to 294?
I-294 needs a C/D setup to be able to add more ramp lanes.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 24, 2017, 10:49:25 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on March 23, 2017, 11:22:56 PM
At 290 and 355, why are there THREE lanes going to Joliet, only two to Chicago, then at the Strangler, only a single lane going to 294?
I-294 needs a C/D setup to be able to add more ramp lanes.
I continuously advocate a double lane from I-290 to SB 294, along with widening the stretch from 355 to (and probably from) the Strangler. Its barely sufficient now and SAH aint gonna be in the future. And certainly an eventual flyover from 290 to W 90 needs to be in the mix. I often wonder if IDOT and ISTHA are on the same page, maybe not even the same book.
Quote from: dzlsabe on March 25, 2017, 01:27:24 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on March 24, 2017, 10:49:25 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on March 23, 2017, 11:22:56 PM
At 290 and 355, why are there THREE lanes going to Joliet, only two to Chicago, then at the Strangler, only a single lane going to 294?
I-294 needs a C/D setup to be able to add more ramp lanes.
I continuously advocate a double lane from I-290 to SB 294, along with widening the stretch from 355 to (and probably from) the Strangler. Its barely sufficient now and SAH aint gonna be in the future. And certainly an eventual flyover from 290 to W 90 needs to be in the mix. I often wonder if IDOT and ISTHA are on the same page, maybe not even the same book.
I hope the 2020-2022 work fixes that!