Crosstown Expressway, Chicago

[Henry]

I remember hearing about the Crosstown Expressway that was to join both ends of the I-90/I-94 concurrency in Chicago via the South and West Sides, carrying the I-494 designation. In fact, it was cancelled in 1979, presumably because the costs were too high, and also because of opposition from the communities in its path. However, it's seemed to have returned to planners' maps (2007, I believe). Any further news about this on-again, off-again project since?

[3467]

http://www.chicago-l.org/articles/mid-city02.html
Its the Midcitytransitway

The 50 foot ROW for busses and Trucks could be converted to cars. It would not be interstate standars but looking at google I really think you could fit in 4 11 foot anes at minimum and the wider spots 4 12 foot lanes and shoulders. You could avoid crowding with a high toll
Hope it helps Henry. BTW it is in the 2040 plan. I would sure like to see the study. Maybe someone here can find it

[NE2]

Eh, freight should be using rail anyway. http://www.createprogram.org/

[Revive 755]

Nah, should build a toll Crosstown so traffic coming into Chicagoland from I-55 can get to areas like Evanston without dealing with the loop area.

And maybe instead of wasting money on Create, the railroads should be encouraged to spread their traffic out more, not see how much they can funnel through one town.  Plenty of lightly used tracks downstate they could be using.

[NE2]

And maybe instead of wasting money on Create, the railroads should be encouraged to spread their traffic out more, not see how much they can funnel through one town.  Plenty of lightly used tracks downstate they could be using.

I don't think you understand the economies of scale of railroads. On flat track, one locomotive can haul a large number of cars. It makes sense to have a single hub that all the regional traffic funnels through, so cars can all arrive at the hub and then be sorted based on destination. Splitting that traffic among a number of different routes means that more sorting has to be done on both ends and either fewer cars are pulled by each locomotive or cars spend more time waiting in yards.

[mightyace]

^^^

And, ever since rails reached Chicago it's been a major rail hub quickly becoming, as it is today, the largest in the country.  So, even with the deficiencies that exists, there is more infrastructure in Chicago than elsewhere.

And, one thing that railroads do today is that most intermodal containers going between the Eastern (CSX, NS), Western (BNSF, UP) and Canadian (CN/IC, CP/Soo) are put on Chicago's roads because it's faster.  If CREATE is ever finished, those trucks will be gone from the roads.  Also, a big part of the project is removing grade crossing which will also help the average motorist.

And, there is some spreading out of exchange, but there are only a few places where freight can be exchanged between east and west.

They are:
Chicago
St. Louis
Kansas City
Memphis
New Orleans
The "Meridian Speedway" Shreveport, LA - Vicksburg, MS - Meridian, MS

Anywhere else, the rail may connect but there's no support infrastructure there.  And since, with the exception of projects like CREATE, railroads must pay for infrastructure out of their own pockets.

[Brandon]

Nah, should build a toll Crosstown so traffic coming into Chicagoland from I-55 can get to areas like Evanston without dealing with the loop area.

And maybe instead of wasting money on Create, the railroads should be encouraged to spread their traffic out more, not see how much they can funnel through one town.  Plenty of lightly used tracks downstate they could be using.

CREATE is absolutely necessary due to the fact that most of the RR infrastructure is located in areas around Chicagoland.  Part of this has been to spread out these terminals around the area, but it's still a ton of rail traffic any way you slice it.  The rails in Chicago are as the freeways are in LA, ten fold.  This is the terminus for the two western Class I RRs (BNSF & UP) and the two eastern Class I RRs (NS & CSX), and used by both Canadian ones (CP & CN).  There are a lot of transfers between the RRs here.  A container will come in on a BNSF and be transferred to a CSX for shipment east, and vice versa.  Nowhere else in the country do this many Class I RRs come together.  Nowhere.

[3467]

The biggest problem for higher speed rail in Illinois is congestion . Clearing that up could put Galesburg in commuting range of the western burbs which would be huge.

But since the crosstown corridor is there I would sell the bonds for the Bussway/Truckway and then if the revenues were not enough well oh gee we have to add some cars. There was also a corridor between the IKE and Stevenson near western avenue.which was in the 2010 plan but disappeared. I wonder if the rail line still turned out to be needed. It looks like it is on google.
Its ridculous unlike route 53 there are NO environmental issues with this corridor It is only NIMBY at its worst

[Revive 755]

CREATE is absolutely necessary due to the fact that most of the RR infrastructure is located in areas around Chicagoland.  Part of this has been to spread out these terminals around the area, but it's still a ton of rail traffic any way you slice it.  The rails in Chicago are as the freeways are in LA, ten fold.  This is the terminus for the two western Class I RRs (BNSF & UP) and the two eastern Class I RRs (NS & CSX), and used by both Canadian ones (CP & CN).  There are a lot of transfers between the RRs here.  A container will come in on a BNSF and be transferred to a CSX for shipment east, and vice versa.  Nowhere else in the country do this many Class I RRs come together.  Nowhere.

Technicality:  According to most lists I've seen, Kansas City Southern is a Class 1 Railroad, but it does not reach Chicago.  It might be the smallest Class 1 railroad, but it seems to have the best ties with Mexican railroads.  So if one lists Class 1 railroads per city
Chicago:  BNSF, CN, CP, CSX, NS, UP
St. Louis:  BNSF, CN, CSX, KCS, NS, UP

I don't think you understand the economies of scale of railroads. On flat track, one locomotive can haul a large number of cars. It makes sense to have a single hub that all the regional traffic funnels through, so cars can all arrive at the hub and then be sorted based on destination. Splitting that traffic among a number of different routes means that more sorting has to be done on both ends and either fewer cars are pulled by each locomotive or cars spend more time waiting in yards.

Maybe I don't, but it seems to me that funneling shipments northward to Chicago is not the way to compete with trucks that can take a more direct route eastward.  And it seems the railroads have been overzealous with abandoning lines that could have been used for secondary exchange points.  Springfield, IL, could have been a good one, with CN, CSX, KCS, NS and UP, but CSX had to abandon their line west of Decatur.  There's also been a lot of abandonment around St. Louis, including many yards and even a couple river bridges.  Used to be a bridge at Alton, but it got abandoned and came down with the old dam - an old brochure for the dam area did show the bridge being changed from a swing span to a vertical lift design as an option as part of the dam replacement though.  Rail service was also ended on the McKinley Bridge, although rumor has it the Terminal Railroad took ownership of the ROW on the Illinois side where the old approach trestle was.

Its ridculous unlike route 53 there are NO environmental issues with this corridor It is only NIMBY at its worst

Looks like there are a few old industrial sites along the railroad corridor; could be some waste site issues.

[Henry]

The 50 foot ROW for busses and Trucks could be converted to cars. It would not be interstate standars but looking at google I really think you could fit in 4 11 foot anes at minimum and the wider spots 4 12 foot lanes and shoulders. You could avoid crowding with a high toll

Nah, should build a toll Crosstown so traffic coming into Chicagoland from I-55 can get to areas like Evanston without dealing with the loop area.

I like that idea! To this day, I feel that it should've been built when the opportunity was still there.

[Alps]

As requested, rail discussion has been moved to Off-Topic.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4107.0

[cubssoxfan]

Looking at how wide the Crosstown alignment was, no wonder it was never built.  It appears that it would have been wider than the Dan Ryan and really destroyed some nice neighborhoods.  Perhaps a skinnier alignment like they are now proposing is more appropriate.