News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......

Started by I-39, June 03, 2015, 04:53:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

dzlsabe

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?
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:


Revive 755

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.

Joe The Dragon

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.

dzlsabe

#78
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
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

dzlsabe

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
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

ILRoad55

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

Joe The Dragon

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

hobsini2

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 knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Brandon

^^ My thoughts were more toward a DDI on St Charles Rd.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Joe The Dragon

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

ILRoad55

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.

dzlsabe

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. 
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

ET21

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:
The local weatherman, trust me I can be 99.9% right!
"Show where you're going, without forgetting where you're from"

Clinched:
IL: I-88, I-180, I-190, I-290, I-294, I-355, IL-390
IN: I-80, I-94
SD: I-190
WI: I-90, I-94
MI: I-94, I-196
MN: I-90

The Ghostbuster

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)?

Joe The Dragon

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

johndoe780

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.

hobsini2

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.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

hobsini2

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.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

hobsini2

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.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

dzlsabe

#94
"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.
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

pianocello

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?
Davenport, IA -> Valparaiso, IN -> Ames, IA -> Orlando, FL -> Gainesville, FL -> Evansville, IN

ILRoad55

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.

dzlsabe

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.
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

hobsini2

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.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

hobsini2

#99
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 knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.