Many of you may have read about the Great Lakes Basin Transportation Rail Line, a concept from founder Frank Patton designed to take pressure off of the Chicago Metro rail system and funnel freight train traffic further south of this area. However, multiple news sites (mainly the NWI Times and the Post Tribune) posted articles regarding an even grander plan as part of this rail system - a privately funded toll road.
Dubbed by Patton as the Daniel Burnham Expressway, this newly proposed roadway is wider in scope than the stalled Illiana Expressway; where the Illiana was designed to connect I-65 in Indiana to I-57 in Illinois (in the last design before hiatus), the new concept is reportedly designed to start (per the Times) at the Indiana Toll Road near Michigan City and push all the way out to Interstate 80 near Morris, IL (well west of Joliet and I-55). For now, the proposed route would be approximately 125 miles and would include 18 interchanges with major highways.
Patton says this tollway is included as part of his $8 billion rail line proposal, and will be submitted to the Surface Transportation Board by Monday. If approved, more specific routes will be introduced in the future.
Of course, the NIMBYs will be out in force, but what do you guys think about this plan? Please discuss.
Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-glbt-road-plan-st-0502-20170501-story.html
Map: http://www.nwitimes.com/great-lakes-basin-transportation-map/pdf_a4094eaa-762d-5343-8c98-79a02bb05c3f.html
Personally, I think it's too ambitious, given the Illiana's fate. However, I think that any relief of 80/94 would be appreciated for cross-country traffic and this is probably the closest thing to it.
In reality, it's probably just going to be another infrastructure project that southern Lake County residents put signs up in their yards against.
Is the rail portion of this in any relation to the "Chicago rail bypass" that a certain area forum member has been railing against?
Regarding the expressway proposal, my first two observations:
- Based on the map, there's a stretch of it that is either parallel to or concurrent with I-57.
- Until I realized that this is a private toll road proposal (which, given construction costs, I doubt they'd recoup), I'd have thought it would make sense to tie the expressway into Valparaiso and upgrade IN 49 (which is already limited-access) north of there.
Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2017, 08:22:57 AM
Is the rail portion of this in any relation to the "Chicago rail bypass" that a certain area forum member has been railing against?
I assume the pun was intended there?
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on May 05, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
Of course, the NIMBYs will be out in force, but what do you guys think about this plan? Please discuss.
There's already a lot of 'no Great Lakes Basin Railroad' (or whatever the exact name is) yard signs posted near the I-39 corridor.
EDIT: From looking at the map with the NW Times articles, some of the sections of the proposed railroad appear redundant with already existing railroads:
* Rockford area to Rochelle area (BNSF)
* near Dwight eastward to almost near Kankakee (NS)
I also wonder if the I-55 to I-80 portion managed to get built if there would be renewed interest in the Prairie Parkway.
Quote from: pianocello
Personally, I think it's too ambitious, given the Illiana's fate.
Last I heard Indiana was quietly working to update some of the environmental documents for the Illiana - which might benefit this proposal given how it overlaps the Illiana's proposed route between I-65 and the Illinois border.
Here is the official railroad map. Around Rockford they want to bypass the little towns of which the existing rails go directly into town.
http://www.greatlakesbasin.net/our-route
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 06, 2017, 09:52:46 AM
Quote from: pianocello
Personally, I think it's too ambitious, given the Illiana's fate.
Last I heard Indiana was quietly working to update some of the environmental documents for the Illiana - which might benefit this proposal given how it overlaps the Illiana's proposed route between I-65 and the Illinois border.
Fair point. Although I don't think Indiana is the problem when it comes to the Illiana.
In looking over the route on the NWI Times, I actually would go as far as to say that starting it at I-39 in Illinois (I know the plan is to start it at I-80 for now) and going to either the Toll Road or even I-94 in Indiana would actually make it a feasible Chicago bypass route, combined with existing I-39, if coming from WI. The issue with the original Illiana was that it was too short to make it worthwhile. This would actually make a bypass people could use. People would pay to use it and save the headache. Just my thoughts. I would just want to make sure the taxpayers are not on the hook if it doesn't work out as planned.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 07, 2017, 09:29:07 AM
The issue with the original Illiana was that it was too short to make it worthwhile. This would actually make a bypass people could use.
An issue for some perhaps. I though would be happy to at least have the I-57 to I-65 portion of the Illiana built. It would provide a bypass for the Borman to get to I-65, and would provide much better access to the US 41 expressway.
Was I-355 not worthwhile until the section south of I-55 was built? Or is the whole I-355/I-290/IL 53 corridor not worthwhile as well since the connection to I-94 in Lake County has not been built?
Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2017, 08:22:57 AM
Is the rail portion of this in any relation to the "Chicago rail bypass" that a certain area forum member has been railing against?
Regarding the expressway proposal, my first two observations:
- Based on the map, there's a stretch of it that is either parallel to or concurrent with I-57.
- Until I realized that this is a private toll road proposal (which, given construction costs, I doubt they'd recoup), I'd have thought it would make sense to tie the expressway into Valparaiso and upgrade IN 49 (which is already limited-access) north of there.
It's only limited access between US 30 and CR 500N, and CR 600N to US 6. There's quite a bit of work that would need to be done in the gaps with traffic lights and intersections (which could be bridged over, although an interchange would likely be needed at CR 500N for access to the newish hospital), and there's almost no way to retrofit a limited access highway between US 6 and I-94 due to limited ROW due to development. But yes, back in the days of the Illiana, <fictional>it would have made sense to follow IN-2/8 to Kouts and up IN-49 to Chesterton.</fictional>
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 07, 2017, 11:36:19 AM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 07, 2017, 09:29:07 AM
The issue with the original Illiana was that it was too short to make it worthwhile. This would actually make a bypass people could use.
An issue for some perhaps. I though would be happy to at least have the I-57 to I-65 portion of the Illiana built. It would provide a bypass for the Borman to get to I-65, and would provide much better access to the US 41 expressway.
Was I-355 not worthwhile until the section south of I-55 was built? Or is the whole I-355/I-290/IL 53 corridor not worthwhile as well since the connection to I-94 in Lake County has not been built?
Revive 755, you make a great point. Obviously, I guess it's a matter of perspective for different people. For me, I'm looking at it from a whole regional perspective. On the whole, I felt there were too many missing links. One could have said for I-355 before the I-55 to I-80 portion was opened, and really, for a long time, it seemed like a very important link was missing. Actually, today I made good use of that newer portion, and without it, I wouldn't have used that way and would have used the much more congested I-294. I kind of look at the older Illiana proposal and this newer one as being the same sorta thing to where I feel having the whole route would make it much more utilized.
^^ Limited-access, by standard definition, includes public at-grade intersections (and traffic signals). What it means is no private driveways/access roads.
As someone who lives just outside the area this is supposed to go through, I'm against it. If this is a private project, then eminent domain should not be used to procure the land this project will require.
I'm fully with the anti-LGB Railroad group.
Quote from: inkyatari on May 08, 2017, 09:31:13 AM
As someone who lives just outside the area this is supposed to go through, I'm against it. If this is a private project, then eminent domain should not be used to procure the land this project will require.
I'm fully with the anti-LGB Railroad group.
I thought this forum didn't have NIMBYs.
Just when you thought the Illiana was dead...the phoenix rises from the ashes!
Is this new project more likely to be built than The Illiana? I would say it's even less likely.
Quote from: inkyatari on May 08, 2017, 09:31:13 AM
As someone who lives just outside the area this is supposed to go through, I'm against it. If this is a private project, then eminent domain should not be used to procure the land this project will require.
I'm fully with the anti-LGB Railroad group.
and they should have 0 state power in enforce tolls or traffic tickets.
Quote from: cwm1276 on May 06, 2017, 10:32:53 AM
Here is the official railroad map. Around Rockford they want to bypass the little towns of which the existing rails go directly into town.
http://www.greatlakesbasin.net/our-route
On the Wisconsin end, it does not tie into any of the major mainline railroads, which are all significantly farther north. The southernmost mainline is CP's ex MILW mainline, which roughly follows WI 16 across the state and is the routing of Amtrak's Empire Builder (7/8).
Now, if they could go just a smidgen farther north to cross WI 26 and then feed into and take over UP's ex CNW Marshline near Fort Atkinson....
Note - the Marshline ran between Janesville and Fond du Lac and has been 'trailed' south of Fort Atkinson and north of Clyman Junction (UP's ex CNW Adams Line mainline between Watertown and Juneau). This is still well short of CN's ex SOO Chicago-western Canada mainline at Fond du Lac.
Mike
Quote from: inkyatari on May 08, 2017, 09:31:13 AM
As someone who lives just outside the area this is supposed to go through, I'm against it. If this is a private project, then eminent domain should not be used to procure the land this project will require.
I'm fully with the anti-LGB Railroad group.
Where would we be now had NIMBYism been the rule a century+ ago?
:hmmm:
Mike
I think if we have repeated proposals for a new east-west expressway south of I-80, government agencies might finally figure out that we really do need something down there. I always hoped the Illiana would have continued west to I-80 about 1 mile east of IL47 at Morris--this might be a chance to make that a reality. In addition to the usage by tons of trucks trying to reach the intermodal freight terminals, traffic from points westward would use the roadway as a bypass to I-65 south toward Indianapolis (though for wider-range trips, traffic from Iowa would use I-74 instead).
This is a rough sketch of what I imagined: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3760505,-88.3549901,11z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s11vFjGCD_GlfnNQx28mph9eGI2P4
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 09, 2017, 10:36:13 AM
This is a rough sketch of what I imagined: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3760505,-88.3549901,11z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s11vFjGCD_GlfnNQx28mph9eGI2P4
There's no way that would go through there. That rough routing would go right through Goose Lake Prairie State Natural Area. This whole area is environmentally an issue, and also take into account the nuclear power plant, high level radioactive fuel storage facility, and the Dresden dam, and there's also national security issues as well. I don't see any sort of highway being built in the area bounded by 47 on the west, I- 80 on the north, I-55 on the east and 113 on the south.
Kinda makes me wonder why the Illiana was to end in that area. Makes little sense.
As for NIMBYism, I'm not so much against a southern road - the area needed one 30 years ago. I'm more against eminent domain being used to give property to private entities.
Quote from: inkyatari on May 09, 2017, 12:42:23 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 09, 2017, 10:36:13 AM
This is a rough sketch of what I imagined: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3760505,-88.3549901,11z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s11vFjGCD_GlfnNQx28mph9eGI2P4
There's no way that would go through there. That rough routing would go right through Goose Lake Prairie State Natural Area. This whole area is environmentally an issue, and also take into account the nuclear power plant, high level radioactive fuel storage facility, and the Dresden dam, and there's also national security issues as well. I don't see any sort of highway being built in the area bounded by 47 on the west, I- 80 on the north, I-55 on the east and 113 on the south.
Kinda makes me wonder why the Illiana was to end in that area. Makes little sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. This is just south of the two very large intermodal yards (BNSF & UPRR) in that area. Given that it would meet I-55 at MP 238, I-80 meets I-55 at MP 250, and the exit for Arsenal Road is at MP 244, the main interchange for the two yards is exactly halfway between the Illiana and I-80.
Personally, I'm all for building this.
Quote from: Brandon on May 09, 2017, 12:58:42 PM
Quote
Kinda makes me wonder why the Illiana was to end in that area. Makes little sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. This is just south of the two very large intermodal yards (BNSF & UPRR) in that area. Given that it would meet I-55 at MP 238, I-80 meets I-55 at MP 250, and the exit for Arsenal Road is at MP 244, the main interchange for the two yards is exactly halfway between the Illiana and I-80.
Personally, I'm all for building this.
I agree, from the point of distance from the logistics centers around, there it's a good routing. I was meaning in the sense that, should they want to extend the Illiana to I-80 at some point, the chance of getting a highway through there will be an expensive, drawn out issue for the reasons I mentioned.
As for the Burnham parkway, I like the routing, but I have this thing about using eminent domain to give property to private enterprises.
Quote from: froggie on May 07, 2017, 11:11:19 PM
^^ Limited-access, by standard definition, includes public at-grade intersections (and traffic signals). What it means is no private driveways/access roads.
While my brain saw "controlled access" while you indeed said "limited-access", it doesn't change my overall views. Any freeway/expressway idea that ties into IN-49 would almost certainly need to use new right-of-way north of US 6 (which is where this thread is intriguing). I'd love to see IN-49 as part of any bypass that feeds into I-94, but IN-49 north of the Toll Road right now is nowhere near free-flowing enough to be worthwhile (especially the truck backups from having the slope for the bridge over I-94 begin right at the traffic light with Indian Bound(a)ry Road).
Quote from: spell4yr on May 11, 2017, 10:50:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 07, 2017, 11:11:19 PM
^^ Limited-access, by standard definition, includes public at-grade intersections (and traffic signals). What it means is no private driveways/access roads.
While my brain saw "controlled access" while you indeed said "limited-access", it doesn't change my overall views. Any freeway/expressway idea that ties into IN-49 would almost certainly need to use new right-of-way north of US 6 (which is where this thread is intriguing). I'd love to see IN-49 as part of any bypass that feeds into I-94, but IN-49 north of the Toll Road right now is nowhere near free-flowing enough to be worthwhile (especially the truck backups from having the slope for the bridge over I-94 begin right at the traffic light with Indian Bound(a)ry Road).
IN 49 north of the Toll Road wouldn't have the cross country truck traffic (minimal at best for trucks going to Michigan) that would require wholesale new ROW to I-94. And north of I-94, it would be just a feeder into the Indiana Dunes anyway. Here's how I would redo Indiana 49 to make it a freeway between I-94 and US 30.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/api/maps/images/450/450/IND49EXPY.png
Light blue is Indiana 49 and existing exit ramps.
Green is new underpass.
Dark blue is new overpass.
All other existing bridges do not change.
Red is road closure.
Gold is new ramps and roads.
Purple is Indiana 49 as a regular 4 lane divided road with no access restrictions.
Green box is a new toll plaza for the Indiana Toll Road.
Blue box is a new Park n Ride lot.
Red box is the old Park n Ride lot to be closed.
Gold circle is a stoplight on the ramp. Note that the Indiana Toll Road interchange with Indiana 49 has one. This is due to the tightness on the east side of 49 but it is just for the ramps for NB 49 to Toll Rd and Toll Rd to NB 49 traffic. 49 and the Toll Rd traffic is still free flow.
There are now interchanges at (starting on the north)(existing are *):
Tremont Rd / Oak Hill Rd (Chesterton)
* I-94
Indian Boundary Rd (Chesterton)
Porter Ave (Chesterton)
Voyager Blvd TO Village Point (Chesterton)
I-80/90 Indiana Toll Rd
* US 6 (Portage - South Haven - Westville)
600 North Rd TO Calumet Ave (Valparaiso - Walkerton)
SB OFF - NB ON ONLY* Vale Park Rd (Valparaiso)
* Indiana 2 LaPorte Ave (Valparaiso - Westville - LaPorte)
* US 30 Morthland Dr (Merrillville - Valparaiso - Plymouth - Ft Wayne)
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 13, 2017, 11:04:14 AM
IN 49 north of the Toll Road wouldn't have the cross country truck traffic (minimal at best for trucks going to Michigan) that would require wholesale new ROW to I-94. And north of I-94, it would be just a feeder into the Indiana Dunes anyway. Here's how I would redo Indiana 49 to make it a freeway between I-94 and US 30.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/api/maps/images/450/450/IND49EXPY.png
Light blue is Indiana 49 and existing exit ramps.
Green is new underpass.
Dark blue is new overpass.
All other existing bridges do not change.
Red is road closure.
Gold is new ramps and roads.
Purple is Indiana 49 as a regular 4 lane divided road with no access restrictions.
Green box is a new toll plaza for the Indiana Toll Road.
Blue box is a new Park n Ride lot.
Red box is the old Park n Ride lot to be closed.
Gold circle is a stoplight on the ramp. Note that the Indiana Toll Road interchange with Indiana 49 has one. This is due to the tightness on the east side of 49 but it is just for the ramps for NB 49 to Toll Rd and Toll Rd to NB 49 traffic. 49 and the Toll Rd traffic is still free flow.
There are now interchanges at (starting on the north)(existing are *):
Tremont Rd / Oak Hill Rd (Chesterton)
* I-94
Indian Boundary Rd (Chesterton)
Porter Ave (Chesterton)
Voyager Blvd TO Village Point (Chesterton)
I-80/90 Indiana Toll Rd
* US 6 (Portage - South Haven - Westville)
600 North Rd TO Calumet Ave (Valparaiso - Walkerton) SB OFF - NB ON ONLY
* Vale Park Rd (Valparaiso)
* Indiana 2 LaPorte Ave (Valparaiso - Westville - LaPorte)
* US 30 Morthland Dr (Merrillville - Valparaiso - Plymouth - Ft Wayne)
:poke: You should link to a more visible source. I'm curious to see what you have for interchange geometry and stuff like that. Partly because I know the area pretty well, but also because I had a similar thought (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17591.msg2131600#msg2131600) last year.
I hate to be the dissenting voice, but I don't think putting the expressway along the length of Indiana 49 would be a great idea. Not only is there a lot of development along the length on the divided portion, but that may potentially turn off a lot of regulars who'd use this route to go from Chesterton to Valparaiso (and beyond) on a daily basis. Then, the surrounding highways would see an influx of traffic looking to use local roads to avoid paying tolls. Also, I'd feel it would defeat the purpose of this road (bypassing the metro areas of Northwest Indiana and Chicagoland).
I think it would be ideal to bow the road northbound and toward the Toll Road east of Wanatah. I would have the interchange somewhere between US 421 and US 35. It's close to Michigan City, traffic is quite sparse at that point, and there is considerably more open space to pull off the trumpet interchange.
Quote from: pianocello on May 13, 2017, 12:40:45 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 13, 2017, 11:04:14 AM
IN 49 north of the Toll Road wouldn't have the cross country truck traffic (minimal at best for trucks going to Michigan) that would require wholesale new ROW to I-94. And north of I-94, it would be just a feeder into the Indiana Dunes anyway. Here's how I would redo Indiana 49 to make it a freeway between I-94 and US 30.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/api/maps/images/450/450/IND49EXPY.png
Light blue is Indiana 49 and existing exit ramps.
Green is new underpass.
Dark blue is new overpass.
All other existing bridges do not change.
Red is road closure.
Gold is new ramps and roads.
Purple is Indiana 49 as a regular 4 lane divided road with no access restrictions.
Green box is a new toll plaza for the Indiana Toll Road.
Blue box is a new Park n Ride lot.
Red box is the old Park n Ride lot to be closed.
Gold circle is a stoplight on the ramp. Note that the Indiana Toll Road interchange with Indiana 49 has one. This is due to the tightness on the east side of 49 but it is just for the ramps for NB 49 to Toll Rd and Toll Rd to NB 49 traffic. 49 and the Toll Rd traffic is still free flow.
There are now interchanges at (starting on the north)(existing are *):
Tremont Rd / Oak Hill Rd (Chesterton)
* I-94
Indian Boundary Rd (Chesterton)
Porter Ave (Chesterton)
Voyager Blvd TO Village Point (Chesterton)
I-80/90 Indiana Toll Rd
* US 6 (Portage - South Haven - Westville)
600 North Rd TO Calumet Ave (Valparaiso - Walkerton) SB OFF - NB ON ONLY
* Vale Park Rd (Valparaiso)
* Indiana 2 LaPorte Ave (Valparaiso - Westville - LaPorte)
* US 30 Morthland Dr (Merrillville - Valparaiso - Plymouth - Ft Wayne)
:poke: You should link to a more visible source. I'm curious to see what you have for interchange geometry and stuff like that. Partly because I know the area pretty well, but also because I had a similar thought (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17591.msg2131600#msg2131600) last year.
Agreed on the visible source, especially at Indian Boundary Road. The only way I can see an interchange working there is if the state were to acquire part of the old Kmart property northbound, but everything seems way too tight southbound to be feasible without significant, relatively pointless eminent domain.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on May 07, 2017, 09:29:07 AM
Was I-355 not worthwhile until the section south of I-55 was built?
There was opposition against the road way and the tollway authority actually threatened to build the tollway with no interchanges unless the suburbs through which the new extension ran contributed $20 million for construction of the interchanges.
Quote from: pianocello on May 13, 2017, 12:40:45 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 13, 2017, 11:04:14 AM
IN 49 north of the Toll Road wouldn't have the cross country truck traffic (minimal at best for trucks going to Michigan) that would require wholesale new ROW to I-94. And north of I-94, it would be just a feeder into the Indiana Dunes anyway. Here's how I would redo Indiana 49 to make it a freeway between I-94 and US 30.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/api/maps/images/450/450/IND49EXPY.png
Light blue is Indiana 49 and existing exit ramps.
Green is new underpass.
Dark blue is new overpass.
All other existing bridges do not change.
Red is road closure.
Gold is new ramps and roads.
Purple is Indiana 49 as a regular 4 lane divided road with no access restrictions.
Green box is a new toll plaza for the Indiana Toll Road.
Blue box is a new Park n Ride lot.
Red box is the old Park n Ride lot to be closed.
Gold circle is a stoplight on the ramp. Note that the Indiana Toll Road interchange with Indiana 49 has one. This is due to the tightness on the east side of 49 but it is just for the ramps for NB 49 to Toll Rd and Toll Rd to NB 49 traffic. 49 and the Toll Rd traffic is still free flow.
There are now interchanges at (starting on the north)(existing are *):
Tremont Rd / Oak Hill Rd (Chesterton)
* I-94
Indian Boundary Rd (Chesterton)
Porter Ave (Chesterton)
Voyager Blvd TO Village Point (Chesterton)
I-80/90 Indiana Toll Rd
* US 6 (Portage - South Haven - Westville)
600 North Rd TO Calumet Ave (Valparaiso - Walkerton) SB OFF - NB ON ONLY
* Vale Park Rd (Valparaiso)
* Indiana 2 LaPorte Ave (Valparaiso - Westville - LaPorte)
* US 30 Morthland Dr (Merrillville - Valparaiso - Plymouth - Ft Wayne)
:poke: You should link to a more visible source. I'm curious to see what you have for interchange geometry and stuff like that. Partly because I know the area pretty well, but also because I had a similar thought (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17591.msg2131600#msg2131600) last year.
Unfortunately, for some reason I can't get back into the source code for the map. So this is the cut and paste I was able to do for each interchange that changes. Green is underpass. Blue is overpass.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg569%2Fhobsini2%2FIND49frwy_zpsnpyjfq5z.png&hash=080b05dd623d90ba821da45cc63ef4e66b8eaa4a) (http://s1244.photobucket.com/user/hobsini2/media/IND49frwy_zpsnpyjfq5z.png.html)
Indiana 2, Vale Park Rd, US 6 and I-94 interchanges do not change.
New underpasses with no interchanges:
Burlington Beach Rd
950 North - Calumet Ave
1050 North Rd
1100 North Rd
If they are going to take it so far south where it meets I-55 maybe it would be easier to build it through Kankakee County near Mommence and Roselawn Indiana than Will county and Lowell. Lowell is quite a bit more built up already than the area along IN 10 and IL 17. Wasn't Will county the hotbead of the anti Illiana ferver?
Quote from: captkirk_4 on May 20, 2017, 06:56:54 PM
If they are going to take it so far south where it meets I-55 maybe it would be easier to build it through Kankakee County near Mommence and Roselawn Indiana than Will county and Lowell. Lowell is quite a bit more built up already than the area along IN 10 and IL 17. Wasn't Will county the hotbead of the anti Illiana ferver?
Just a few twits near Wilmington and in the eastern part of the county. Those of us in north Will County were all for it.
As I stated elsewhere, had the state, ISTHA, or Willco been smart, they would have built the Illiana along the Laraway Rd. corridor. The road would have been much more useful there.
I seriously doubt this expressway will ever be built. Does anyone agree with me?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2017, 05:45:00 PM
I seriously doubt this expressway will ever be built. Does anyone agree with me?
I do
Quote from: inkyatari on May 22, 2017, 09:02:05 AM
As I stated elsewhere, had the state, ISTHA, or Willco been smart, they would have built the Illiana along the Laraway Rd. corridor. The road would have been much more useful there.
Agreed.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 22, 2017, 07:42:48 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on May 22, 2017, 09:02:05 AM
As I stated elsewhere, had the state, ISTHA, or Willco been smart, they would have built the Illiana along the Laraway Rd. corridor. The road would have been much more useful there.
Agreed.
Will County does have a long range plan to turn Laraway into a 4-lane arterial, and it would continue on to the east in Cook County as the already 4-lane Sauk Trail, but I am not aware of any plans to connect Laraway west to I-55. The proposed Houbolt Road-Des Plaines river bridge connector would indirectly link Laraway with I-55.
^ But only as an arterial with conventional intersections. I know this is due to funding, but it would still be nice to see someone try to replicate the expressway sections of IL 83 and start Laraway off the bat with interchanges at the major cross routes (IL 53, US 52, US 45, and a few others) or higher capacity at-grade designs (CFI's and/or Michigan lefts) rather than let it become another clogged arterial that does not draw anyone from I-80.