I-80/94 between I-294 and I-65

[tribar]

If they would take the toll off the Skyway and improve that corridor then you would see a lot less traffic on the Borman than you do now. I think anyway that it's a lot of shunpikers using the Borman to avoid the toll on the Skyway. Or make the Borman just like the Dan Ryan from the Tri-State all the way to Lake Station.

Yup. Either the Skyway/Toll Road needs to be price competitive with the Borman, either via waived tolls on 90 or via tolls placed on 80/94, or a Dan Ryan or NJ Turnpike Dual-Freeway style roadway needs built, which would typically mean more ROW, and without it, would be very expensive, building either Elevated or Underground Express Lanes. Like, expensive to the point it would probably make sense for IDOT and INDOT to pay the Skyway and Toll Road companies the toll money for "waived"  tolls at peak times to make 80/94 safer

They have you so trapped on the Skyway to pay that toll too. I don't understand why there are any toll roads around Chicago anyway because it's in a part of the country where there generally aren't any toll roads other than the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike. Chicago already has enough traffic problems and they just add to it by making you stop to pay a toll because not every car is going to have I-Pass. Like I-294 would be a great bypass of the city of Chicago if it wasn't a toll road. I'm to the point where I don't get why we should even have toll roads period in today's age.

You don't have to stop to pay a toll anymore on I-294. Heck, you don't even have that option anymore and probably won't in the future.

Strict enforcement of the truck prohibition from the (two) left lane(s) would improve safety on the road.

As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.

[ilpt4u]

As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.

Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line

Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Joe The Dragon]

If they would take the toll off the Skyway and improve that corridor then you would see a lot less traffic on the Borman than you do now. I think anyway that it's a lot of shunpikers using the Borman to avoid the toll on the Skyway. Or make the Borman just like the Dan Ryan from the Tri-State all the way to Lake Station.

Yup. Either the Skyway/Toll Road needs to be price competitive with the Borman, either via waived tolls on 90 or via tolls placed on 80/94, or a Dan Ryan or NJ Turnpike Dual-Freeway style roadway needs built, which would typically mean more ROW, and without it, would be very expensive, building either Elevated or Underground Express Lanes. Like, expensive to the point it would probably make sense for IDOT and INDOT to pay the Skyway and Toll Road companies the toll money for "waived"  tolls at peak times to make 80/94 safer

They have you so trapped on the Skyway to pay that toll too. I don't understand why there are any toll roads around Chicago anyway because it's in a part of the country where there generally aren't any toll roads other than the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike. Chicago already has enough traffic problems and they just add to it by making you stop to pay a toll because not every car is going to have I-Pass. Like I-294 would be a great bypass of the city of Chicago if it wasn't a toll road. I'm to the point where I don't get why we should even have toll roads period in today's age.

You don't have to stop to pay a toll anymore on I-294. Heck, you don't even have that option anymore and probably won't in the future.

They need to add more toll points like the EOE and balance out the rates a bit better when they go ECT only.

[tribar]

As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.

Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line

Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My mistake. I didn't realize they had changed the restriction to the left two lanes.

[sprjus4]

As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.

Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line

Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My mistake. I didn't realize they had changed the restriction to the left two lanes.

Seems like a recent change, Street View from 2018 shows only for the left most lane.

Clearly, it's not enforced or obeyed judging by Street View imagery showing trucks in all 4 lanes.

[ilpt4u]

I'm pretty sure IDOT suspends the Truck Lane restriction pretty quickly once in IL, so Trucks can Lane Select for either I-94 (or IL 394) on the right or I-80/294 on the left

Then the Left Lane(s) restrictions come back on 80/294 and on 94 after the 80/94 split

[NWI_Irish96]

As for the original question of accidents in that stretch of highway, its an issue of geography more or less.

Lake Michigan forces a few east-west highways to converge, exchange traffic and then diverge again. And because of the location of Chicago, several north-south routes converge as well.

On the face of it and not looking strictly at metrics, its a somewhat unique situation.

The convergence of so many routes exchanging traffic, along with so many full interchanges, any traffic issue on *any* of the converging routes will always create a condition in the one place where they share a common path.

One possible solution is to "pre-sort" your traffic so they don't all share lanes as part of a convergence. This cuts down on lane changes and helps abate sudden stops due to an accident on either the main path or one of its feeders.

This would not be cheap however. 

It would mean pre-sorting traffic going west for the Bishop Ford and Tri-State as far back as Indiana, which may not be practical, especially for traffic coming on and off at Calumet Ave (Indiana) and Torrence (Illinois).

Pre-sort traffic going east where 294 and 80 merge and decide there which east bound route they want. 90, 94 or 80.

Planners have wanted to help trans-con traffic (read: trucks) avoid this convergence by building more capacity to the south (Illiana) but this has not been approved.  And many believe that transcons would rather take their chances on the Kingery then be forced to drive some 30-40 miles out of the way just to reach I-80 near Morris.

Indiana planners have been historically loathe to provide additional east-west capacity as far back as Elkhart because it would promote shunpiking of the Indiana Toll Road.  Now that Indiana has "shun the turnpike" themselves, perhaps they would be more willing to increase capacity using the US-20/US-31 bypass. The fact they never built any capacity between this route and I-90 east of the South Bend/Elkhart metro is a perfect example.

With Kingsbury, Indiana becoming a major perishables hub for Chicago now, I would think new capacity that takes traffic out of the convergence zone starting east of Elkhart would soften the additional miles to reach I-80 in Morris.

East of Lake Station where I-90 and I-94 cross, and I-80 hops between the two, there really aren't capacity problems. No need to do anything all the way to Elkhart.

[NWI_Irish96]

As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.

Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line

Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My mistake. I didn't realize they had changed the restriction to the left two lanes.

Seems like a recent change, Street View from 2018 shows only for the left most lane.

Clearly, it's not enforced or obeyed judging by Street View imagery showing trucks in all 4 lanes.

My travels on the road are rarely at rush hour, but I hardly ever see trucks in the far left lane, though they're constantly in the 2nd lane.

[captkirk_4]

If I am not driving late in the evening when traffic is reduced I avoid that section by taking Illinois Route 17 at Kankakee to IL Rt. 114 at Mommence which becomes IN Rt. 10 into Roselawn where it intersects with I-65. A cheaper solution would just be to extend the divided highway with at grade intersections that the westernmost portion of this route is all the way to I-65. It could avoid Mommence by going south around the city, do know that I frequently see a cop on the west side of Mommence checking speed on traffic on 17 heading into the city.

[02 Park Ave]

As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.

Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line

Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My mistake. I didn't realize they had changed the restriction to the left two lanes.

Seems like a recent change, Street View from 2018 shows only for the left most lane.

Clearly, it's not enforced or obeyed judging by Street View imagery showing trucks in all 4 lanes.

My travels on the road are rarely at rush hour, but I hardly ever see trucks in the far left lane, though they're constantly in the 2nd lane.

The restriction applies to the left lane in Illinois but to the two left lanes in Indiana.

[StogieGuy7]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway"  capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65

The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton.  Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.

There needs to be another east-west option.  Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working.  It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown.  Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).

All very true.  And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway.  If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better.  Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too.  Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential.  If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway.  But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.

The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway.  And one that's not too far south to be useful. 

[I-39]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway"  capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65

The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton.  Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.

There needs to be another east-west option.  Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working.  It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown.  Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).

All very true.  And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway.  If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better.  Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too.  Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential.  If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway.  But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.

The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway.  And one that's not too far south to be useful.

Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.

[StogieGuy7]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway"  capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65

The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton.  Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.

There needs to be another east-west option.  Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working.  It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown.  Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).

All very true.  And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway.  If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better.  Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too.  Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential.  If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway.  But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.

The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway.  And one that's not too far south to be useful.

Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.

Yes, that would help a lot! It would have the effect of attracting a solid percentage of the semi traffic between I-80 (west of Joliet) and I-65, as the new route would be less congested and more direct to I-65 and points southeast. Even traffic from the Chicago suburbs and points north could use this routing to avoid the Borman on their way to I-65 (which about half of that traffic transits on to).  The Illiana proposals that I have seen have it too far south and not well enough connected to the expressway/tollway system to be useful for anyone who's coming from much farther north than I-80.  Your suggestion would solve that issue. 

[I-39]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway"  capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65

The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton.  Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.

There needs to be another east-west option.  Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working.  It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown.  Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).

All very true.  And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway.  If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better.  Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too.  Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential.  If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway.  But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.

The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway.  And one that's not too far south to be useful.

Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.

Yes, that would help a lot! It would have the effect of attracting a solid percentage of the semi traffic between I-80 (west of Joliet) and I-65, as the new route would be less congested and more direct to I-65 and points southeast. Even traffic from the Chicago suburbs and points north could use this routing to avoid the Borman on their way to I-65 (which about half of that traffic transits on to).  The Illiana proposals that I have seen have it too far south and not well enough connected to the expressway/tollway system to be useful for anyone who's coming from much farther north than I-80.  Your suggestion would solve that issue.

I-355 is an unfinished corridor that had it been extended in both directions (some of the IL-53 extension documents referred to the corridor as an I-355 north extension), it would have relieved a lot of congestion on I-94/294/80 corridor between IL-120 in Gurnee and I-65 in Indiana. It really is a shame it further extensions weren't built. Instead, the tollway making a futile effort to rebuild and widen the central Tri-State to relieve congestion, which isn't going to solve anything. 

[StogieGuy7]

I-355 is an unfinished corridor that had it been extended in both directions (some of the IL-53 extension documents referred to the corridor as an I-355 north extension), it would have relieved a lot of congestion on I-94/294/80 corridor between IL-120 in Gurnee and I-65 in Indiana. It really is a shame it further extensions weren't built. Instead, the tollway making a futile effort to rebuild and widen the central Tri-State to relieve congestion, which isn't going to solve anything.

This would have been huge for those of us in Lake County and beyond because the IL-120 -> IL-53 ->355 routing would connect the likes of Waukegan/Gurnee/Kenosha with the western suburbs, such as Schaumburg, Naperville, etc.  As it stands now, getting to the NW and W suburbs from my area involves an overland route on surface streets that takes forever because nearly all freeways lead to Chicago or outward in a radial pattern (aside from the Tri State and 355).  Sadly, the idiots first neutered then finally killed the 53 extension concept. 

[skluth]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway"  capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65

The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton.  Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.

There needs to be another east-west option.  Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working.  It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown.  Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).

All very true.  And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway.  If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better.  Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too.  Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential.  If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway.  But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.

The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway.  And one that's not too far south to be useful.

Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.

I imagine the reason it was never extended was precisely why you want it. Opponents of the Illiana would know such an extension would increase the demand that the Illiana be built.

I was very happy once I-39 was completed to Bloomington. My career was in St Louis and my family is from Green Bay. I-39 to I-43 from Bloomington to Beloit to Milwaukee was a great Chicago bypass for me. I was using it from the time the Abe Lincoln Bridge over the Illinois River was built.

[I-39]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway"  capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65

The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton.  Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.

There needs to be another east-west option.  Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working.  It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown.  Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).

All very true.  And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway.  If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better.  Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too.  Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential.  If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway.  But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.

The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway.  And one that's not too far south to be useful.

Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.

I imagine the reason it was never extended was precisely why you want it. Opponents of the Illiana would know such an extension would increase the demand that the Illiana be built.

I was very happy once I-39 was completed to Bloomington. My career was in St Louis and my family is from Green Bay. I-39 to I-43 from Bloomington to Beloit to Milwaukee was a great Chicago bypass for me. I was using it from the time the Abe Lincoln Bridge over the Illinois River was built.

Yes, I-39 was a godsend, maybe the most important freeway built in Illinois in the last 40 years. I'm very glad they convinced the Governor to go full Interstate between the Lincoln bridge and Bloomington/Normal, it was very close to being an at-grade expressway similar to what was built between Bloomington and Decatur.

Back to the topic at hand, the tollway is technically still authorized to build the I-355 extension to I-57, but it would be difficult at this point thanks to development.

[ilpt4u]

Back to the topic at hand, the tollway is technically still authorized to build the I-355 extension to I-57, but it would be difficult at this point thanks to development.

Is there a source on that authorization?

If that is even remotely true, ISTHA should be buying all the undeveloped land near I-80 and Gouger Rd, the only place where *maybe* I-355 could break off to the Southeast toward Peotone. Pretty sure some of the already developed land would be needed, also. Maybe just the church and the warehouses could go and the subdivisions could be spared. Maybe.

I've always thought the Peotone airport project and a potential I-355 to I-57 Extension would be joined at the hip

[I-39]

Back to the topic at hand, the tollway is technically still authorized to build the I-355 extension to I-57, but it would be difficult at this point thanks to development.

Is there a source on that authorization?

If that is even remotely true, ISTHA should be buying all the undeveloped land near I-80 and Gouger Rd, the only place where *maybe* I-355 could break off to the Southeast toward Peotone. Pretty sure some of the already developed land would be needed, also. Maybe just the church and the warehouses could go and the subdivisions could be spared. Maybe.

I've always thought the Peotone airport project and a potential I-355 to I-57 Extension would be joined at the hip

https://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/20184/86265/Series+2019A+Official+Statement/ab68ec75-48b0-4864-b308-d617f75e240d?version=1.1 (see page 28)

The tollway was authorized in 1993 to extend I-355 to I-80 and even further to I-57. Additionally, they were authorized to build the IL-53 extension to I-94 and the western leg to US 12 in Richmond. I-355 to I-80 was built, IL-53 to Grayslake/I-94 was seriously studied and would've been built if it weren't for some vocal minority hijacking the process, but the extension to I-57 as well as the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension were never seriously looked at.

Here is a good article from 1994 explaining the resolution.

https://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/ii940227.html

[ilpt4u]

Good clarification. ISTHA is authorized, but really has little/no interest in pursuing I-355 to I-57

[Brandon]

Good clarification. ISTHA is authorized, but really has little/no interest in pursuing I-355 to I-57

If they could, there still is the issue of the subdivision built at the south end of I-355.

[ilpt4u]

Good clarification. ISTHA is authorized, but really has little/no interest in pursuing I-355 to I-57

If they could, there still is the issue of the subdivision built at the south end of I-355.

I don't have the source, but I remember reading something, years ago, in either the Tribune or on ISTHA's website, that if a further south extension were to happen, because of that subdivision that was being built at the time, 355 would jog south and west along I-80 either as a Duplex a la 80/294 or as parallel roadways a la 88/355 and 290/294 before departing towards I-57 and Peotone. How far and long was never really specificed, that I recall. I even remember a bit about the 80/355 Interchange was redesigned away from 355 continuing due south from the interchange to its current design

I have slept since then, so I could easily be mistaken

[I-39]

Good clarification. ISTHA is authorized, but really has little/no interest in pursuing I-355 to I-57

If they could, there still is the issue of the subdivision built at the south end of I-355.

I don't have the source, but I remember reading something, years ago, in either the Tribune or on ISTHA's website, that if a further south extension were to happen, because of that subdivision that was being built at the time, 355 would jog south and west along I-80 either as a Duplex a la 80/294 or as parallel roadways a la 88/355 and 290/294 before departing towards I-57 and Peotone. How far and long was never really specificed, that I recall. I even remember a bit about the 80/355 Interchange was redesigned away from 355 continuing due south from the interchange to its current design

I have slept since then, so I could easily be mistaken

No, I remember seeing it as well somewhere. But multiplexing it with I-80 would be dumb, you'd create yet another bottleneck. They should have mapped the ROW back before the development went it south of I-80. Huge missed opportunity if you ask me.

[Rick Powell]

Regarding the I-355 extension to a potential Illiana, there was a planning corridor through New Lenox that lasted until the early 2010s, but the village capitulated to development pressures and started letting building happen within it. IIRC it was in the Gougar Road area near where a new Lincoln-Way high school was built about a decade ago.

[I-39]

Regarding the I-355 extension to a potential Illiana, there was a planning corridor through New Lenox that lasted until the early 2010s, but the village capitulated to development pressures and started letting building happen within it. IIRC it was in the Gougar Road area near where a new Lincoln-Way high school was built about a decade ago.

You are right, that's where it came out. See 2.14 in this Richmond bypass study that shows the CATS 2030 plan that shows potential new corridors.

http://docplayer.net/61043652-Richmond-us-12-bypass-feasibility-study.html

That area is still relatively open though, so it still could in theory be pursued. The powers that be won't do it though.