Illiana Corridor progress

[theline]

NIMBYs. 

[silverback1065]

What makes more sense to me is to extend Illiana to the northeast from I-65 to hook up with 30, probably at SR-49. I'm pretty sure this was discussed upthread. That would permit trucks coming from points east on 30, 80/90, 94, and even US-6 to bypass the whole area when headed to points south on 55 or 57. I'm afraid I'm wandering into the fictional, since INDOT hasn't even studied the idea, AFAIK.

Not as fictional as you think.  The original INDOT proposal had the Illiana ending at IN-49.  It was axed after opposition from people around Valpo.

gotta love the NIMBYs

[theline]

Now I will go totally fictional: skip Valpo and take the road to Plymouth. Truckers can hook up with 30 there, or go north on the new US 31 freeway to US-6, the ITR or I-94. Problem solved.

[Indyroads]

I'm not a trucker, but have driven 30 on both sides of 65 with some frequency. I'd guess that truckers are loathe to take 30 because of the heavy traffic and concentration of stoplights. The exception of course are the truckers who must travel it to reach businesses along 30.

I'm not sure what kind of upgrade you propose, but anything that would benefit truckers would have to include eliminating most stoplights. The cost of that would be prohibitive. Grade separations and interchanges would require displacement of lots of businesses. It's a no-go.

Something needs to be done to address the traffic issues along US-30 in NWI, even if it cannot be upgraded to freeway. but why cant we do a superstreet or some other sort of traffic enhancemnet project.. Even an ITS corridor with signal synchronization would be an excellent idea to address congestion. Building the Illiana Corridor so far to the south will not truly address all of the congestion issues along the US-30.

[Brandon]

I'm not a trucker, but have driven 30 on both sides of 65 with some frequency. I'd guess that truckers are loathe to take 30 because of the heavy traffic and concentration of stoplights. The exception of course are the truckers who must travel it to reach businesses along 30.

I'm not sure what kind of upgrade you propose, but anything that would benefit truckers would have to include eliminating most stoplights. The cost of that would be prohibitive. Grade separations and interchanges would require displacement of lots of businesses. It's a no-go.

Something needs to be done to address the traffic issues along US-30 in NWI, even if it cannot be upgraded to freeway. but why cant we do a superstreet or some other sort of traffic enhancemnet project.. Even an ITS corridor with signal synchronization would be an excellent idea to address congestion. Building the Illiana Corridor so far to the south will not truly address all of the congestion issues along the US-30.

However, it will help with the congestion along I-80.  The west end ties into two very large and growing intermodal yards (BNSF and UP) with a third smaller one being built currently (CN).  The BNSF auto facility will be moving south to the Lorenzo Road exit, and that yard will double in size.  The UP yard will be adding truck-to-train-to-barge capability as well.  These trucks will have to go somewhere, and the current I-80 and the current two-laners will not cut it.

[ARMOURERERIC]

If the current operators of the ITR became the operators of the Illiana, would that make an easterly extension more likely?

[theline]

^^ I like your thinking. Throw 'em a bone. That might just work.

[Joe The Dragon]

If the current operators of the ITR became the operators of the Illiana, would that make an easterly extension more likely?

They better have an new road have gate free high speed toll lanes.

[theline]

That's the only thing that makes sense in new toll road construction. Is anyone building new ones with anything but high speed collection?

[Brandon]

Indiana planning group signs off on Illiana Corridor

The board of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, made up of over 50 local officials, voted to include the Illiana in their comprehensive plan.

The decision mirrors one made in Illinois by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning's Policy Committee on Oct. 17. That panel approved the controversial Illiana proposal by an 11-8 vote.

The Illiana is only controversial to Cook County politicians who are afraid (rightly) that Will County will take some of their power and money away.

[Henry]

So the first dirt will be turned over in a few years, of course barring future opposition, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

[silverback1065]

more people against this http://www.urbanophile.com/2014/02/13/chicago-is-the-illiana-expressway-a-boondoggle-in-the-making/

[Revive 755]

That's the only thing that makes sense in new toll road construction. Is anyone building new ones with anything but high speed collection?

It doesn't quite qualify since it would be tolling of existing ramps to an existing toll road, but the currently free entrance ramps to EB I-90 from Barrington and Roselle Road will be receiving toll plazas with cash lanes in a couple years.

more people against this http://www.urbanophile.com/2014/02/13/chicago-is-the-illiana-expressway-a-boondoggle-in-the-making/

A few comments on the blog article:

1) I could say something regarding initial lack of the Illiana in the Goto 2040 Plan being a sign of how useful CMAP's planning is.

2) The current competition of the Illiana is a mostly free I-80.  ISTHA only has one small section that would directly compete against the Illiana.  Overall the Illiana is more of a route for those willing to pay to have a reliable route around most of Chicagoland

3) I'm curious on the 4x the existing toll rates for ISTHA - is it four times the general 75 cent rate or four times the $1.90 rate for the southern half of I-355?

[mukade]

more people against this http://www.urbanophile.com/2014/02/13/chicago-is-the-illiana-expressway-a-boondoggle-in-the-making/

The author says "Northwest Indiana has been foursquare behind it, and why wouldn't they be?", but I don't think the majority of people there are. AFAIK, its primary support is on the Illinois south suburbs side. While Lake County, Indiana and Chicago's far southern suburbs could use a good bypass thanks to the mess US 30 is, the Illiana route really would be too far south for commuter traffic (at least in NWI), and there is a high risk it will not get the necessary volume of traffic. Look at map, and you will see this cuts way south of the built up area.

[ET21]

more people against this http://www.urbanophile.com/2014/02/13/chicago-is-the-illiana-expressway-a-boondoggle-in-the-making/

The author says "Northwest Indiana has been foursquare behind it, and why wouldn't they be?", but I don't think the majority of people there are. AFAIK, its primary support is on the Illinois south suburbs side. While Lake County, Indiana and Chicago's far southern suburbs could use a good bypass thanks to the mess US 30 is, the Illiana route really would be too far south for commuter traffic (at least in NWI), and there is a high risk it will not get the necessary volume of traffic. Look at map, and you will see this cuts way south of the built up area.

I was kinda ehhhh with the route location. I'm sure it's buried somewhere in this thread, but was there a reason why it wasn't connected with I-355s southern terminus? (Probably the routing had something to do with the Prairie Parkway proposal, but I could be completely wrong)

[Brandon]

more people against this http://www.urbanophile.com/2014/02/13/chicago-is-the-illiana-expressway-a-boondoggle-in-the-making/

The author says "Northwest Indiana has been foursquare behind it, and why wouldn't they be?", but I don't think the majority of people there are. AFAIK, its primary support is on the Illinois south suburbs side. While Lake County, Indiana and Chicago's far southern suburbs could use a good bypass thanks to the mess US 30 is, the Illiana route really would be too far south for commuter traffic (at least in NWI), and there is a high risk it will not get the necessary volume of traffic. Look at map, and you will see this cuts way south of the built up area.

Boondoggle my ass.  The Urbanophile blog owner has been against things like this from the start.  Mr. Renn was also against the I-355 extension, also calling it a boondoggle.  His record of calling things boondoggles is 0 for 1 in that regard.

The major reason for building the Illiana is not passenger car traffic.  It is truck traffic.  The western end is only a few miles from two very large intermodal yards, something the detractors consistently and conveniently forget.

It isn't connected with I-355 as there are now subdivisions in the way.

[silverback1065]

more people against this http://www.urbanophile.com/2014/02/13/chicago-is-the-illiana-expressway-a-boondoggle-in-the-making/

The author says "Northwest Indiana has been foursquare behind it, and why wouldn't they be?", but I don't think the majority of people there are. AFAIK, its primary support is on the Illinois south suburbs side. While Lake County, Indiana and Chicago's far southern suburbs could use a good bypass thanks to the mess US 30 is, the Illiana route really would be too far south for commuter traffic (at least in NWI), and there is a high risk it will not get the necessary volume of traffic. Look at map, and you will see this cuts way south of the built up area.

Boondoggle my ass.  The Urbanophile blog owner has been against things like this from the start.  Mr. Renn was also against the I-355 extension, also calling it a boondoggle.  His record of calling things boondoggles is 0 for 1 in that regard.

The major reason for building the Illiana is not passenger car traffic.  It is truck traffic.  The western end is only a few miles from two very large intermodal yards, something the detractors consistently and conveniently forget.

It isn't connected with I-355 as there are now subdivisions in the way.

i feel he's (renn) against pretty much every new highway in existence.

[Brandon]

^^ Aaron Renn used to be on mtr years ago, and yes, he was fairly anti-highway and very much pro-transit.  Why one cannot see that both go hand-in-hand blows my mind.

I want the Illiana and the Prairie Parkway built.  I also want extensions of the Metra Heritage Corridor to Braidwood and the Rock Island Line to Morris (Channahon if Grundy County doesn't want the RTA) as well as the STAR Line built (all the way east through Joliet to the South Suburbs).  If it helps my county (Will), all the better, even if it hurts Cook County.

[tdindy88]

I swore I read something a while back from Aaron that stated that he was in favor of the Indiana Commerce Connector to be built...eventually, when the traffic warrants it, so there's one new-terrain route that he would favor. And I think he is in favor of the new East End Bridge, he's just not a fan of how's it being funded and like many of us here hates the interference from rich people in Kentucky that had risen the cost. And when the I-69/I-465 interchange was nixed he was distraught about it much like most of us would, believing that it is one highway project that should be done. On the transit front for Indianapolis, while many like-minded people continue to argue that we should be building light rail through our city, he had been one of the few voices to declare that it is a bad idea, stating that it is not worth it for Indy and that improving the bus system (which is what the state government is probably going to do at this point) is the more worthy course of action, pissing off some of those pro-transit people who want nothing else but trains. In terms of Indy, though Chicago is obviously much different, he has stated that the car is going to remain the dominant form of transportation, again pissing off those who want us Naptowners to do nothing but walk and ride our bikes around and use transit. To me at least, he seems more reasonable than others in the same choir.

As for the Illiana, if it helps the trucks and they are willing to pay the extra toll, then good for them. The only thing I would like however is to at least see it extended to I-80, and to the Prairie Parkway to help form an outer-loop for the city, then I think the project could get that extra traffic to help justify it. 

[mukade]

The major reason for building the Illiana is not passenger car traffic.  It is truck traffic.  The western end is only a few miles from two very large intermodal yards, something the detractors consistently and conveniently forget.

From a Will County POV, I can see it. As an Indiana taxpayer who would be on the hook if there is not enough traffic, I don't like the risk. If the highway carried commuters, i could see it, but it would carry very few. I think that concern was brought up when one of the Chicago planning agencies did not approve it.

Except to avoid some traffic jams, I don't see why I would ever drive it with free alternatives with better connections.

I want the Illiana and the Prairie Parkway built.  I also want extensions of the Metra Heritage Corridor to Braidwood and the Rock Island Line to Morris (Channahon if Grundy County doesn't want the RTA) as well as the STAR Line built (all the way east through Joliet to the South Suburbs).  If it helps my county (Will), all the better, even if it hurts Cook County.

I guess that is an IMBY attitude.

I swore I read something a while back from Aaron that stated that he was in favor of the Indiana Commerce Connector to be built...eventually, when the traffic warrants it, so there's one new-terrain route that he would favor. And I think he is in favor of the new East End Bridge...

Yes, I think he favors most highway projects in metro areas. He also liked Accelerate465 and Super70 projects. He didn't like the I-69 extension because how many urbanophiles would want to travel down to Evansville?  I think I had a battle with him about I-69 in MTR.

I do like reading some of his material even though I certainly disagree with a lot of it.

[Revive 755]

I want the Illiana and the Prairie Parkway built.

Unfortunately, even if there weren't any wetland hurdles between the Illiana and a revived Prairie Parkway, it looks like development west of I-55 will doom any future connection.

[US 41]

I think a diamond interchange at US 41 is a dumb move. Then businesses will build on US 41 and create traffic issues. I'm aware this idea would be more expensive but 2 trumpet interchanges (with toll boths between the 2 trumpets would be a better option. Then INDOT could say we're leaving up the fences and frontage roads must be built along Hyw. 41 or businesses have to build on side streets.

[silverback1065]

I think a diamond interchange at US 41 is a dumb move. Then businesses will build on US 41 and create traffic issues. I'm aware this idea would be more expensive but 2 trumpet interchanges (with toll boths between the 2 trumpets would be a better option. Then INDOT could say we're leaving up the fences and frontage roads must be built along Hyw. 41 or businesses have to build on side streets.

Indot doesn't do frontage roads often for some reason, also they probably assume most traffic is on 65 anyway.

[US 41]

I think a diamond interchange at US 41 is a dumb move. Then businesses will build on US 41 and create traffic issues. I'm aware this idea would be more expensive but 2 trumpet interchanges (with toll boths between the 2 trumpets would be a better option. Then INDOT could say we're leaving up the fences and frontage roads must be built along Hyw. 41 or businesses have to build on side streets.

Indot doesn't do frontage roads often for some reason, also they probably assume most traffic is on 65 anyway.

Then they end up with huge traffic problems in Kokomo, southern Terre Haute, St. Johns area, and other places. Then they have to go back and spend millions to build a new interstate quality bypass (US 31 Eastern Kokomo Bypass, SR 641) to make sure the problem doesn't happen again. If they limited the access points in the first place and just built the frontage roads, it might save INDOT a lot of money.

[silverback1065]

I think a diamond interchange at US 41 is a dumb move. Then businesses will build on US 41 and create traffic issues. I'm aware this idea would be more expensive but 2 trumpet interchanges (with toll boths between the 2 trumpets would be a better option. Then INDOT could say we're leaving up the fences and frontage roads must be built along Hyw. 41 or businesses have to build on side streets.

Indot doesn't do frontage roads often for some reason, also they probably assume most traffic is on 65 anyway.

Then they end up with huge traffic problems in Kokomo, southern Terre Haute, St. Johns area, and other places. Then they have to go back and spend millions to build a new interstate quality bypass (US 31 Eastern Kokomo Bypass, SR 641) to make sure the problem doesn't happen again. If they limited the access points in the first place and just built the frontage roads, it might save INDOT a lot of money.

It's insane that they don't do this, sr 37 in noblesville should have frontage roads