IDOT wants feedback on future plans for the Ike. One plan includes expanding from 3 to 4 lanes between Austin and Mannheim, while another has the Blue Line extended to Mannheim.
Link to the story:
http://wgntv.com/2013/10/07/idot-wants-feedback-on-eisenhower-expansion-plans/ (http://wgntv.com/2013/10/07/idot-wants-feedback-on-eisenhower-expansion-plans/)
1. The Blue Line should be extended west to Mannheim.
2. The Ike should be four lanes each way between the Tri-State and Austin. You cannot squeeze 6 lanes into 3
3. Remove the left exit/entrances at Harlem and Austin. Place them on the right. These cause most of the backups.
4. Remove a few of the ramps in the Avenues.
They also should do some work to I-294 / I-290 / I-88 area ramps.
From Mannheim to I-88 / I-290 split needs 1 more lane for the main lanes each way or maybe just outbound or add an C/D system for outbound.
For I-294 / I-290 / I-88 ideas hear.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.0
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 10, 2013, 01:12:02 PM
They also should do some work to I-294 / I-290 / I-88 area ramps.
From Mannheim to I-88 / I-290 split needs 1 more lane for the main lanes each way or maybe just outbound or add an C/D system for outbound.
For I-294 / I-290 / I-88 ideas hear.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.0
This. On my usual trip between Wisconsin and Michigan, the EBD I-290-> EBD I-294 ramp is the one choke point I reliably encounter on every single trip. That alone must account for a gigantic chunk of the congestion issues on this stretch of I-290.
News on a Village of Oak Park meeting earlier this week for the I-290 Ike expansion.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-eisenhower-austin-tl-1008-20150930-story.html
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 11, 2013, 12:59:20 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 10, 2013, 01:12:02 PM
They also should do some work to I-294 / I-290 / I-88 area ramps.
From Mannheim to I-88 / I-290 split needs 1 more lane for the main lanes each way or maybe just outbound or add an C/D system for outbound.
For I-294 / I-290 / I-88 ideas hear.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.0
This. On my usual trip between Wisconsin and Michigan, the EBD I-290-> EBD I-294 ramp is the one choke point I reliably encounter on every single trip. That alone must account for a gigantic chunk of the congestion issues on this stretch of I-290.
you can say on I-90 till I-294 or wait for west bypass to be build
Quote from: Brandon on October 09, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
1. The Blue Line should be extended west to Mannheim.
2. The Ike should be four lanes each way between the Tri-State and Austin. You cannot squeeze 6 lanes into 3
3. Remove the left exit/entrances at Harlem and Austin. Place them on the right. These cause most of the backups.
4. Remove a few of the ramps in the Avenues.
Express lanes are a must.
Needs to be eight lanes (minimum) from I-88 split off to Austin Blvd. Also, the Tollway should widen I-88 between York Road and the start of the Eisenhower when this project gets going.
Of course, given the state's budget woes, don't expect to see these improvements anytime soon.
Where exactly would one put express lanes on that section of I-290?
Fitting 8 lanes looks to be a challenge.
I do recall plans to relocate the left exit/entrances at Harlem and Austin to the right - they would then curve back up and over the mainline and the Metra tracks and meet up at the cross street in a SPUI.
I like the idea of dropping some ramps in the Avenues, too.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 01, 2015, 10:26:53 PM
Where exactly would one put express lanes on that section of I-290?
Fitting 8 lanes looks to be a challenge.
I do recall plans to relocate the left exit/entrances at Harlem and Austin to the right - they would then curve back up and over the mainline and the Metra tracks and meet up at the cross street in a SPUI.
I like the idea of dropping some ramps in the Avenues, too.
3 lanes express, 2 lanes local. No psuedo-express lanes like the Kennedy. Real, dedicated express lanes. Most people driving on the Ike aren't going to Oark Park, they're going downtown.
Quote from: Rick Powell on October 01, 2015, 12:27:16 AM
News on a Village of Oak Park meeting earlier this week for the I-290 Ike expansion.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-eisenhower-austin-tl-1008-20150930-story.html
I saved the article on Archive.is https://archive.is/QZ7QV and here the website for I-290 http://www.eisenhowerexpressway.com/video/ For Laramie and Cicero Avenues, it include some free-flow turnaround in TXDOT style.
Quote from: johndoe780 on October 01, 2015, 11:49:48 PM
3 lanes express, 2 lanes local. No psuedo-express lanes like the Kennedy. Real, dedicated express lanes. Most people driving on the Ike aren't going to Oark Park, they're going downtown.
Fair enough. Still wondering how to cram 5 lanes in where currently only 3 exist.
The signal phasing shown in the video for the 1st Avenue interchange is out of character for IDOT D-1; should be NB+SB lefts, NB+SB thru movements, then EB+WB lefts (video has NB+SB thru movements, NB+SB lefts, then EB+WB lefts).
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 03, 2015, 11:12:57 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on October 01, 2015, 11:49:48 PM
3 lanes express, 2 lanes local. No psuedo-express lanes like the Kennedy. Real, dedicated express lanes. Most people driving on the Ike aren't going to Oark Park, they're going downtown.
Fair enough. Still wondering how to cram 5 lanes in where currently only 3 exist.
Bury the L?
Quote from: I-39 on October 01, 2015, 10:21:45 PM
Of course, given the state's budget woes, don't expect to see these improvements anytime soon.
They could always revisit having ISTHA take over I-290 for rebuilding and widening.
Quote from: Brandon on October 03, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 03, 2015, 11:12:57 AM
Fair enough. Still wondering how to cram 5 lanes in where currently only 3 exist.
Bury the L?
Possibly combined with cantilevering Garfield Street over the railroads that parallel the L tracks?
?
Quote from: Brandon on October 03, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 03, 2015, 11:12:57 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on October 01, 2015, 11:49:48 PM
3 lanes express, 2 lanes local. No psuedo-express lanes like the Kennedy. Real, dedicated express lanes. Most people driving on the Ike aren't going to Oark Park, they're going downtown.
Fair enough. Still wondering how to cram 5 lanes in where currently only 3 exist.
Bury the L?
I can see that. Subway from Forest Park to whatever the last subway stop on the Near Northwest side is (I think Grand/Milwaukee)
Quote from: ET21 on October 05, 2015, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 03, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 03, 2015, 11:12:57 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on October 01, 2015, 11:49:48 PM
3 lanes express, 2 lanes local. No psuedo-express lanes like the Kennedy. Real, dedicated express lanes. Most people driving on the Ike aren't going to Oark Park, they're going downtown.
Fair enough. Still wondering how to cram 5 lanes in where currently only 3 exist.
Bury the L?
I can see that. Subway from Forest Park to whatever the last subway stop on the Near Northwest side is (I think Grand/Milwaukee)
It'd be cheaper to leave the L where it is and widen the Ike than it would be to build a new subway tunnel from Forest Park to somewhere between the UIC-Halsted and Clinton stops on the Blue Line.
I like the idea of burying the existing railway and using it to widen Interstate 290. Of course, such a proposal would only go forward in a Fictional Highways world. Also, wouldn't it be very expensive to bury the railway?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 01, 2015, 10:01:55 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 11, 2013, 12:59:20 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 10, 2013, 01:12:02 PM
They also should do some work to I-294 / I-290 / I-88 area ramps.
From Mannheim to I-88 / I-290 split needs 1 more lane for the main lanes each way or maybe just outbound or add an C/D system for outbound.
For I-294 / I-290 / I-88 ideas hear.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.0
This. On my usual trip between Wisconsin and Michigan, the EBD I-290-> EBD I-294 ramp is the one choke point I reliably encounter on every single trip. That alone must account for a gigantic chunk of the congestion issues on this stretch of I-290.
you can say on I-90 till I-294 or wait for west bypass to be build
I have all sorts of options to get around this choke point. Does it make fixing it any less necessary?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 07, 2015, 03:05:50 PM
Also, wouldn't it be very expensive to bury the railway?
Undoubtedly. New heavy rail tunnels are obscenely expensive. Maybe cheaper if you bury it under the current alignment, since you don't have to buy new land and you've solved the problem of how to connect it to the current subway portal, but that does nothing to solve the concerns that the current Blue Line is in the middle of an expressway instead of the middle of a neighborhood.
Or dont do anything to the IKE. Spend the money on a new tollway that will actually help all Chicago X-way problems. Finish (desiamese) the missing link in I90. Now, from the Strangler in Hillside (A) thru downtown (C) to the Skyway (B) is 22 miles. A to B straight line is 16 miles, and could be built over existing railyards and ROWs. That saves six miles...but the beauty is Schaumburg and Gary magically become a fifty mile trip, instead of sixty. Construction techniques like those on I-70 Glenwood Canyon (see you tube) would be needed. No more 90/94. You can see it from space. Hypotenuse, as plain as the nose on your face.
There is no "missing link" in I-90.
I-90 today goes nowhere near Hillside..
How much traffic is going from Schaumburg to Gary to make this a worthwhile endeavor? How does it help anyone else in the Metro area?
None of that helps the I-290/I-294/I-88 area. Nor does it do anything for the bottleneck on I-290 heading into or out of downtown.
It would take loads of interstate traffic off of our overcrowded freeways and put it on a shorter, faster tollway thru town. The "Strangler" would be a major beneficiary of this relief valve, as would the Ike, Kennedy, and the Ryan. Its time I-90 moved out, off of I-94. Nowhere except Atlanta (16? lanes wide) are two interstates bundled together thru a major metro area like here. Nothing else I see will end the "Groundhog" day, week, decades long traffic problems around here.
I still don't think it would help as much as you think it might, but I'm willing to hear you out.
Keep going. Flesh it out a bit more, please. Starting where on the north/west end, exactly? Ending where on the south/east end? What's the path? How many lanes?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8337329,-87.7319639,11z Follow CN ROW from "strangler" exiting 290 or going to 290 & 294, to Cicero, turning south, crossing San/Ship canal, Pulaski, BNSF Corwith, east on 49th, south along Western and CSX to 59th, then east to Halsted, then SE, crossing Ryan, connecting to Skyway. Or see new topic in Fictional, heres a map... http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx
Do you mean the black line here or the red line?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2Fkao3ko.png&hash=e814d01fd52f55e86ce7a7d667f608c0186829c3)
The black one follows your routing more closely, but the red one is more like a hypotenuse.
Youre getting it, but no right angles. A big curve over Cicero Av, over the SanShipCanal, over Pulaski, adjacent and over BNSF Corwith curving onto 49th ROW, curving south over Western, over CSX railyard, then adjacent to 59th (not 63rd as shown). Yes theres some zig-zags to avoid undue neighborhood disruption. Again 16 miles instead of 22...And a 4 mile bonus because this is the straightest route/line between Schaumburg and Gary, making a current 60+mile drive, FIFTY!
HTF does that even follow traffic patterns!?! That crosses traffic, not helps traffic!
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 24, 2015, 07:50:34 PM
Youre getting it, but no right angles. A big curve over Cicero Av, over the SanShipCanal, over Pulaski, adjacent and over BNSF Corwith curving onto 49th ROW, curving south over Western, over CSX railyard, then adjacent to 59th (not 63rd as shown). Yes theres some zig-zags to avoid undue neighborhood disruption. Again 16 miles instead of 22...And a 4 mile bonus because this is the straightest route/line between Schaumburg and Gary, making a current 60+mile drive, FIFTY!
1) Much greater odds of the Crosstown coming back as a tollway than seeing a brand new Eisenhower-Skyway Cutoff corridor like this coming about.
2) I doubt that much traffic would be willing to pay the currently $4.50 toll for the Skyway after paying for this new tollway, which would probably have a $5+ toll. One can take two trips on I-294 between I-290 and the I-94/IL 394 interchange for the cost of one trip on the Skyway.
5) The Eisenhower-Skyway Cutoff would exacerbate congestion at the I-90/I-290/IL 53 cloverleaf and on I-290 between IL 390 and I-355.
4) It would probably be cheaper to build both the Illiana and Prairire Parkway as 8 lane facilities and 10-lane I-80 and I-55 between the two than building the Eisenhower-Skyway Cutoff.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mukwonagoweather.com%2F2596263.jpg&hash=05ecee66e9ab5bfffcf84c0edc07df25b357e7e0)
HYPOTENUSE.
1)The problem with the Crosstown (I-494) is that it would basically parallel 90/94, not saving any distance and be an engineering nightmare. Huge neighborhood disruption.
2)Time and distance and diesel saved would make it viable.
3)Double lane the cloverleaf? Add a lane if necs to I-290.
4)Im thinking around $4B. Public-private partnership? CREATE? ILTollway? Other tollway funders? Contractors? Maybe a railline or two? Getting all kinds of traffic thru Chicagoland in less than an hour, instead of the status quo? $4B over ten years? should not be that big a deal. Need I remind you of projects pulled off in Boston (Big Dig $22B) New SFBay Bridge ($6B) many others?
HYFingPOTENUSE. No more 90/94.
Quote from: dzlsabe
1)The problem with the Crosstown (I-494) is that it would basically parallel 90/94, not saving any distance and be an engineering nightmare. Huge neighborhood disruption.
And somehow there would be no neighborhood disruption for a different freeway corridor that angles across the street grid? Tying another freeway into the Hillside area would not be a nightmare in itself? And building a bridge at an angle across a railyard? It's bad enough just trying to replace some of the existing bridges across railroads in Chicagoland.
Quote from: dzlsabe2)Time and distance and diesel saved would make it viable.
The amount of traffic using the Skyway would argue against this being a highly used facility.
Quote from: dzlsabe4)Im thinking around $4B. Public-private partnership? CREATE? ILTollway? Other tollway funders? Contractors? Maybe a railline or two? Getting all kinds of traffic thru Chicagoland in less than an hour, instead of the status quo? $4B over ten years? should not be that big a deal. Need I remind you of projects pulled off in Boston (Big Dig $22B) New SFBay Bridge ($6B) many others?
A region that cannot even get new freeways built across rural terrain on the fringes is suddenly going to pony up for a multibillion corridor in the inner lands?
This proposal needs to be relocated to the fictional section.
1) Minimal neighboorhood disruption. Its going over existing railyards and ROWs using construction techniques similar to those used in I-70 Glenwood Canyon(see vids on utube). At the strangler, three westbound ramps to Is 290, 294 & 88, eastbound only 290 & 88 (294 already merged into 290)
2)This would "complete" the Skyway somewhat, making it a more attractive option. Perfect for "congestion pricing".
4)If your talking about Illiana, theres no shame in calling BS on that turkey. Folks that build and finance tollways couldnt even get lukewarm. And to risk precious District 1 funds on a very fringe, downstate project was rightly cancelled.
Projects like this happen frequently in other states and around the world. Around here, the insanity is thinking that, after fifty-plus years of pretty much daily congestion to gridlock, that will somehow disappear if we do nothing or just build a magic bike path. Before America becomes great again, Chicago must. And Ill spit if godawful Houston becomes #3, while we do nothing to improve the quality of transport and life in the whole region.
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 25, 2015, 02:50:50 PM
1) Minimal neighboorhood disruption. Its going over existing railyards and ROWs using construction techniques similar to those used in I-70 Glenwood Canyon(see vids on utube). At the strangler, three westbound ramps to Is 290, 294 & 88, eastbound only 290 & 88 (294 already merged into 290)
2)This would "complete" the Skyway somewhat, making it a more attractive option. Perfect for "congestion pricing".
Dude, put the bong down. No one would use the Skyway due to the cost. They don't use it now, they still won't use it.
It would cause a huge amount of disruption for zero benefit to traffic flow. The traffic patterns in that area follow the Stevenson, Ogden, and Archer. As for crossing rail yards on bridges, that's very, very expensive, provided you can even get the railroad to sign off on it at all.
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 24, 2015, 07:50:34 PM
Youre getting it, but no right angles. A big curve over Cicero Av, over the SanShipCanal, over Pulaski, adjacent and over BNSF Corwith curving onto 49th ROW, curving south over Western, over CSX railyard, then adjacent to 59th (not 63rd as shown). Yes theres some zig-zags to avoid undue neighborhood disruption. Again 16 miles instead of 22...And a 4 mile bonus because this is the straightest route/line between Schaumburg and Gary, making a current 60+mile drive, FIFTY!
I want the drugs you're using. You're talking a multi billion dollar project, going through multiple suburbs and neighborhoods of Chicago, in a direction that doesn't make any sense.
There is no "missing" link as you've essentially stated in 3 other threads including this one
Why was the IKE and its extension to Schaumburg called I-90 until 1978?
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 28, 2015, 12:51:17 AM
Why was the IKE and its extension to Schaumburg called I-90 until 1978?
Seems like it was the carrier until it was moved to the Kennedy to replace the IL-194 number. By the sound of it, the Kennedy and NW tollway was probably being built.
Does it mean it should go back to that like you're cheering for? No
should been I-90 all the way to madison wi up IL-53 / IL-120 / US-12 route.
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 24, 2015, 05:11:51 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8337329,-87.7319639,11z Follow CN ROW from "strangler" exiting 290 or going to 290 & 294, to Cicero, turning south, crossing San/Ship canal, Pulaski, BNSF Corwith, east on 49th, south along Western and CSX to 59th, then east to Halsted, then SE, crossing Ryan, connecting to Skyway.
This idea probably belongs in Fictional Highways.
Even though it seems far fetched, I could say that it is based on the real world plans of the 1970's Crosstown Expressway that was designed to connect the Skyway to the Edens Junction by way of (primarily) railroad corridors. This would have been a huge help.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstown_Expressway_(Chicago)
Story on local forums that explain where the potential noise walls will go along I-290 between Mannheim Road and Racine Avenue if the reconstruction project moves forward. Local residents who would benefit from the walls will be allowed to vote on whether they want them or not.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/10/28/oak-park-residents-near-eisenhower-expressway-expansion-to-vote-on-sound-barriers/
Instead of noise walls, how bout "suspended structures"...basically a tent or dome over the highway, cutting down noise, and making the road impervious to weather and blinding sunlight.
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 29, 2015, 03:44:06 PM
Instead of noise walls, how bout "suspended structures"...basically a tent or dome over the highway, cutting down noise, and making the road impervious to weather and blinding sunlight.
And the snow still sneaks in from the sides. Of course, there are cost considerations, especially for structural support and maintenance. Not to mention that if you make it fully enclosed, you still have to vent the thing.
So this is a good idea then?
Not in any of the half-dozen threads it now exists in, no.
From what I have read, the Skyway was built when Indiana moved the end of the IN Toll Road from the Borman/Tri-State up to Indianapolis Blvd & 106th. They did so because their planners found that only 15% of the traffic heading west was going to go past or beyond Chicago, while 85% was going to go INTO Chicago. Commercial traffic was banned from Lake Shore Drive, so that connection wasn't happening. Neither was the planned Stony Island Expressway. State Street was the main N-S route at the time, so the Skyway was built from State St east to the IN Toll Road. It was later extended west to connect to the newly opened Dan Ryan. There were never plans to have it go any farther northwest that I am aware of; the only bypass of the city at the time was the Tri-State.
I'm waiting to see the Eisenhower in I, Robot be built.
There appears to be a double decked expressway with 4 general purpose lanes in each direction, no inner shoulder, and the ramps merge onto the outer shoulder and allow shoulder riding and robot bus use and stopping on the outer shoulder in each direction (this is for what we can see for the upper deck).
Why its elevated but not much wider than it is now, I'm assuming its a double-decker.
I don't see the El. Maybe the El still exists below on the lower deck?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ascentstage.com%2Fimages%2Fchicago%25202035%2520332.jpg&hash=52a893ec0424a2c9f73bb8d1a3a9d703f0459236)
larger view
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ascentstage/3175972/in/album-79656/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ascentstage/3175972/in/album-79656/)
Quote from: dietermoreno on October 31, 2015, 01:12:03 AM
I'm waiting to see the Eisenhower in I, Robot be built.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ascentstage.com%2Fimages%2Fchicago%25202035%2520332.jpg&hash=52a893ec0424a2c9f73bb8d1a3a9d703f0459236)
It only needs 8 lanes because the vehicles are driven by computers and not dumb humans. ;)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 31, 2015, 01:03:31 PM
Quote from: dietermoreno on October 31, 2015, 01:12:03 AM
I'm waiting to see the Eisenhower in I, Robot be built.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ascentstage.com%2Fimages%2Fchicago%25202035%2520332.jpg&hash=52a893ec0424a2c9f73bb8d1a3a9d703f0459236)
It only needs 8 lanes because the vehicles are driven by computers and not dumb humans FIBs. ;)
You're a Cheesehead, you should know. :-)
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2015, 04:15:59 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on October 29, 2015, 03:44:06 PM
Instead of noise walls, how bout "suspended structures"...basically a tent or dome over the highway, cutting down noise, and making the road impervious to weather and blinding sunlight.
And the snow still sneaks in from the sides. Of course, there are cost considerations, especially for structural support and maintenance. Not to mention that if you make it fully enclosed, you still have to vent the thing.
So THIS is a good idea then? Id bet any costs associated with a dome would easily offset the decrease in road degradation from weather, esp. winter and salts costs
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 31, 2015, 12:30:43 AM
Not in any of the half-dozen threads it now exists in, no.
From what I have read, the Skyway was built when Indiana moved the end of the IN Toll Road from the Borman/Tri-State up to Indianapolis Blvd & 106th. They did so because their planners found that only 15% of the traffic heading west was going to go past or beyond Chicago, while 85% was going to go INTO Chicago. Commercial traffic was banned from Lake Shore Drive, so that connection wasn't happening. Neither was the planned Stony Island Expressway. State Street was the main N-S route at the time, so the Skyway was built from State St east to the IN Toll Road. It was later extended west to connect to the newly opened Dan Ryan. There were never plans to have it go any farther northwest that I am aware of; the only bypass of the city at the time was the Tri-State.
So after FIFTYplus years, this might need a relook?
I'm all for ideas that make sense to me. Sorry to say this one doesn't.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 04, 2015, 11:09:50 PM
I'm all for ideas that make sense to me. Sorry to say this one doesn't.
Its NOT about ideas that make sense to YOU, your highness wherever your from. Its about ideas that make sense for the millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 04, 2015, 11:09:50 PM
I'm all for ideas that make sense to me. Sorry to say this one doesn't.
Its NOT about ideas that make sense to YOU, your highness wherever your from. Its about ideas that make sense for the millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit.
But your hypotenuse doesn't make any sense what-so-ever unless you're in a hot butt hurry to get from Elgin to Gary. It does not follow traffic patterns.
Quote from: Brandon on November 05, 2015, 12:04:35 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 04, 2015, 11:09:50 PM
I'm all for ideas that make sense to me. Sorry to say this one doesn't.
Its NOT about ideas that make sense to YOU, your highness wherever your from. Its about ideas that make sense for the millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit.
But your hypotenuse doesn't make any sense what-so-ever unless you're in a hot butt hurry to get from Elgin to Gary. It does not follow traffic patterns.
It does very little for Joliet. Its not supposed to "follow" traffic patterns. It gives an option to five or six known traffic debacles and compliments the existing tollway system.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 04, 2015, 11:09:50 PM
I'm all for ideas that make sense to me. Sorry to say this one doesn't.
Its NOT about ideas that make sense to YOU, your highness wherever your from. Its about ideas that make sense for the millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit.
The millions that live here will also think it's stupid
Nobody that lives here says theyre from "Chicagoland". I said "millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit". So which one is stupid? Any and every project that dosent involve where you drive?
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 06:05:06 PM
Nobody that lives here says theyre from "Chicagoland".
I do. And I'm not alone. Makes it easier for some people to visualize and understand in relation to other places. So you are wrong with your assumption.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 06:05:06 PM
And why 23yo Huskie?
And what in the Wide Wide World of Sports does ET21's age or college affiliation have to do with anything? Or are you just reaching for straws to berate those that don't agree with your plan?
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 12:15:33 PM
It does very little for Joliet. Its not supposed to "follow" traffic patterns. It gives an option to five or six known traffic debacles and compliments the existing tollway system.
OK - so apparently those "millions" that live around here don't include those that live in Joliet (including those that live NORTH of I-80, too?) Where do you stop giving fucks about where people are served by your plan? Draw it on a map so we can understand.
What are those 5 or 6 "known traffic debacles" that this will solve again?
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 04, 2015, 11:09:50 PM
I'm all for ideas that make sense to me. Sorry to say this one doesn't.
Its NOT about ideas that make sense to YOU, your highness wherever your from. Its about ideas that make sense for the millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit.
No need to call me "highness." "Sir" will do just fine.
Perhaps you are simply doing a poor job of explaining to us how your plan makes sense to the millions that live around here - when you've already admitted that it doesn't. Or, more correctly, you've insinuated that anyone in Joliet or south of I-80 "doesn't count."
In my view - and it's just MY view, you don't have to accept it or even like it - your plan is overly expensive and destructive and carries little benefit except to a very narrow section of the traffic that might use it.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 05, 2015, 11:59:55 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 06:05:06 PM
Nobody that lives here says theyre from "Chicagoland".
I do. And I'm not alone. Makes it easier for some people to visualize and understand in relation to other places. So you are wrong with your assumption.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 06:05:06 PM
And why 23yo Huskie?
And what in the Wide Wide World of Sports does ET21's age or college affiliation have to do with anything? Or are you just reaching for straws to berate those that don't agree with your plan?
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 12:15:33 PM
It does very little for Joliet. Its not supposed to "follow" traffic patterns. It gives an option to five or six known traffic debacles and compliments the existing tollway system.
OK - so apparently those "millions" that live around here don't include those that live in Joliet (including those that live NORTH of I-80, too?) Where do you stop giving fucks about where people are served by your plan? Draw it on a map so we can understand.
What are those 5 or 6 "known traffic debacles" that this will solve again?
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 04, 2015, 11:09:50 PM
I'm all for ideas that make sense to me. Sorry to say this one doesn't.
Its NOT about ideas that make sense to YOU, your highness wherever your from. Its about ideas that make sense for the millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit.
No need to call me "highness." "Sir" will do just fine.
Perhaps you are simply doing a poor job of explaining to us how your plan makes sense to the millions that live around here - when you've already admitted that it doesn't. Or, more correctly, you've insinuated that anyone in Joliet or south of I-80 "doesn't count."
In my view - and it's just MY view, you don't have to accept it or even like it - your plan is overly expensive and destructive and carries little benefit except to a very narrow section of the traffic that might use it.
Chicagoland is a VERY diverse place. It could mean your moms basement.
No doubt Im doing a poor job. We (all the folks more computer savvy than me) cant figure out how to upload PDFs to "attachments and other options". Then you could look at maps and articles that IDOT, CMAP, the newspapers and numerous congressmen have/or not received over the years.
The last list of "traffic debacles" was the Tribune, Aug 26.
And Ill start a new thread ASAP.
And I certainly never insinuated (or meant to) that ANYONE doesnt count.
"Overly expensive and destructive"..?
I bake to differ.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 06:05:06 PM
Nobody that lives here says theyre from "Chicagoland". I said "millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit". So which one is stupid? Any and every project that dosent involve you south of I-80 folks? And why 23yo Huskie?
I say I'm from Chicagoland, because while I live in one place I travel all over the region. Plus its the Internet, so I can list whatever location I damn well please.
I am not south of I-80, but besides that, why all the hate?
Why are you so concerned with my age and my avatar picture? It's my alma mater that I graduated and proud of being associated with, something that I don't think you'll ever attain if you keep this selfish attitude up.
I love how this person has started this same argument in 3 threads (possibly 4?), including this one. Since obviously he is starting to pull this discussion away from the original title and purpose :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: ET21 on November 06, 2015, 01:55:26 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 06:05:06 PM
Nobody that lives here says theyre from "Chicagoland". I said "millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit". So which one is stupid? Any and every project that dosent involve you south of I-80 folks? And why 23yo Huskie?
I say I'm from Chicagoland, because while I live in one place I travel all over the region. Plus its the Internet, so I can list whatever location I damn well please.
I am not south of I-80, but besides that, why all the hate?
Why are you so concerned with my age and my avatar picture? It's my alma mater that I graduated and proud of being associated with, something that I don't think you'll ever attain if you keep this selfish attitude up.
I love how this person has started this same argument in 3 threads (possibly 4?), including this one. Since obviously he is starting to pull this discussion away from the original title and purpose :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 06, 2015, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: ET21 on November 06, 2015, 01:55:26 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 06:05:06 PM
Nobody that lives here says theyre from "Chicagoland". I said "millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit". So which one is stupid? Any and every project that dosent involve you south of I-80 folks? And why 23yo Huskie?
I say I'm from Chicagoland, because while I live in one place I travel all over the region. Plus its the Internet, so I can list whatever location I damn well please.
I am not south of I-80, but besides that, why all the hate?
Why are you so concerned with my age and my avatar picture? It's my alma mater that I graduated and proud of being associated with, something that I don't think you'll ever attain if you keep this selfish attitude up.
I love how this person has started this same argument in 3 threads (possibly 4?), including this one. Since obviously he is starting to pull this discussion away from the original title and purpose :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775
Traffic in Chicago sucks. Tell us something we don't know. Nothing there says that the "Hypotenuse" will fix anything.
Fictional...
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 06, 2015, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: ET21 on November 06, 2015, 01:55:26 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 05, 2015, 06:05:06 PM
Nobody that lives here says theyre from "Chicagoland". I said "millions that live around here, be it highway, rail, or transit". So which one is stupid? Any and every project that dosent involve you south of I-80 folks? And why 23yo Huskie?
I say I'm from Chicagoland, because while I live in one place I travel all over the region. Plus its the Internet, so I can list whatever location I damn well please.
I am not south of I-80, but besides that, why all the hate?
Why are you so concerned with my age and my avatar picture? It's my alma mater that I graduated and proud of being associated with, something that I don't think you'll ever attain if you keep this selfish attitude up.
I love how this person has started this same argument in 3 threads (possibly 4?), including this one. Since obviously he is starting to pull this discussion away from the original title and purpose :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775
Your scribble isn't gonna help FYI, like everyone has been telling you in all these threads.
Good, new ideas often face adversity. "Everyone" is apparently happy with the status quo. I am NOT.
It would be fantastic if you would start your own thread in Fictional Highways with your Hypotenuse Tollway plan instead of hijacking 4 or 5 existing threads and trying to have discussions in each of them. That pisses me off more than the flaws in your concept do.
And, while you may consider that every response to your plan is negative, then you are missing the picture. Some of us are asking questions to better understand what you are trying to do, and where you are getting your numbers from. Perhaps some of the responses might be beneficial to identify flaws or incorrect assumptions in your original plan.
You are right - it starts with a concept. But don't get pissed when you get feedback and it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Not every plan goes through on the first try.
Done. Well started anyway.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 07, 2015, 07:43:31 PM
Done. Well started anyway.
Just as a future note, just start anything fictional in its own thread under the fictional board. That way, instead of spamming the same message over 5 different threads, where honestly it doesn't belong, it's kept in one thread where everything can be condensed. :nod:
Quote from: ET21 on November 07, 2015, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 07, 2015, 07:43:31 PM
Done. Well started anyway.
Just as a future note, just start anything fictional in its own thread under the fictional board. That way, instead of spamming the same message over 5 different threads, where honestly it doesn't belong, it's kept in one thread where everything can be condensed. :nod:
This does affect real plans like "I-290 rebuild/expansion feedback" in a very profound way. And it affects the others as well.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 07, 2015, 11:38:23 PM
Quote from: ET21 on November 07, 2015, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 07, 2015, 07:43:31 PM
Done. Well started anyway.
Just as a future note, just start anything fictional in its own thread under the fictional board. That way, instead of spamming the same message over 5 different threads, where honestly it doesn't belong, it's kept in one thread where everything can be condensed. :nod:
This does affect real plans like "I-290 rebuild/expansion feedback" in a very profound way. And it affects the others as well.
No it doesn't, other than affecting your apparent need to be right.
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 08, 2015, 12:12:36 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 07, 2015, 11:38:23 PM
Quote from: ET21 on November 07, 2015, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 07, 2015, 07:43:31 PM
Done. Well started anyway.
Just as a future note, just start anything fictional in its own thread under the fictional board. That way, instead of spamming the same message over 5 different threads, where honestly it doesn't belong, it's kept in one thread where everything can be condensed. :nod:
This does affect real plans like "I-290 rebuild/expansion feedback" in a very profound way. And it affects the others as well.
No it doesn't, other than affecting your apparent need to be right.
If I die tomorrow, the concept/project will STILL be worthy of more scrutiny, so NO its not about me.
Except that you're insistence that it's right doesn't make it so.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 08, 2015, 12:27:48 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on November 08, 2015, 12:12:36 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 07, 2015, 11:38:23 PM
Quote from: ET21 on November 07, 2015, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 07, 2015, 07:43:31 PM
Done. Well started anyway.
Just as a future note, just start anything fictional in its own thread under the fictional board. That way, instead of spamming the same message over 5 different threads, where honestly it doesn't belong, it's kept in one thread where everything can be condensed. :nod:
This does affect real plans like "I-290 rebuild/expansion feedback" in a very profound way. And it affects the others as well.
No it doesn't, other than affecting your apparent need to be right.
If I die tomorrow, the concept/project will STILL be right, so NO its not about me.
No, that does sound like it's about you. Obviously by your age you still have some growing up to do.
Today, there are FOUR Interstate highways that feed the Strangler (Is 290, N & S 294, 88), then Mannheim (US 12, 20 & 45) adds and the Ike(ONE) becomes the mess it usually is. The Ryan (Is 94, 57, 90, 55) also has FOUR Is feeding it (into ONE) and they ALL meet up at Byrnecircle, now undergoing a long needed upgrade. If there were a way to give all EIGHT (most usually very congested) Is another option,(therefore TWO ways like the 16-mile Hypotenuse) connecting the bottlenecked Strangler and the Skyway, instead of the ONE way as it basically is now? Wouldnt that be a good (no GREAT) thing? Id think most roadgeeks would be all over it.
I just dont see anymore widening or bypassing as the answer. Weve been trying that for FIFTY+ years, and its not working. Im tired of "Groundhog" day, month, decade, half-century. Tired of seeing other places get funding for virtually anything, while we get our lunch eaten. Tired of Chicago being the "poster child" and media whipping-boy of poverty, gun violence, decades of fiscal ineptitude. Some think more austerity or doing nothing or "just move" is the answer.
I dont. If you think theres other, better ideas out there, bring em' on....Im all eyes.
BTW new thread started in fictional.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 08, 2015, 12:24:57 PM
BTW new thread started in fictional.
Lead by example then, start posting this in that thread and not here :nod:
I know you wish you could wind back the clock to the "good ole days" of #19 on 9 Oct. And certainly the "rebuild/expansion feedback" was more than your two year old thread anticipated. But really, how would any widening or anything be accomplished without turning the Ike into MORE of the daily mess it already is? Any lane closures would make it a parking lot.
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 08, 2015, 02:07:27 PM
I know you wish you could wind back the clock to the "good ole days" of #19 on 9 Oct. And certainly the "rebuild/expansion feedback" was more than your two year old thread anticipated.
That has nothing to do with my previous comment, but ok :rolleyes:
Did you read reply #70?
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 12, 2015, 01:54:57 AM
Quote from: ET21 on November 11, 2015, 12:17:33 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on November 10, 2015, 12:43:02 AM
Did you read reply #70?
What?
Its a simple question.
"Did you read reply" That is not a simple question. Now if you said "Did you read and reply to #70" that'd make more sense. For an answer, no I call TL-DR because it's the same shit you always say.
Done now?
Did you get a BS in obfuscation?
And this has anything to do with road discussion how?
If only there was a way to vote someone off the island...
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 01, 2015, 10:26:53 PM
Where exactly would one put express lanes on that section of I-290?
Fitting 8 lanes looks to be a challenge.
I do recall plans to relocate the left exit/entrances at Harlem and Austin to the right - they would then curve back up and over the mainline and the Metra tracks and meet up at the cross street in a SPUI.
I like the idea of dropping some ramps in the Avenues, too.
OK, lets go back to Moribund Island. Ah, gee yes "fitting 8 lanes looks to be a challenge". Lets spend millions we dont have and rip up the IKE, relocate this, drop that, build some nice noise walls (was thinking maybe just a "dome", suspended structure) and after all that we will have accomplished jacksquat. Oh but it will look nicer and we will teach people to NEVER go down the Ike again. Thats OK, Ive always hated Chicago anyway. I take the Tri-state all the time when Im going back and forth from Wherethefami, WI. :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Might want to eat a Snickers - you get a little moody when replying to a post over 40 days ago.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 13, 2015, 11:52:11 PM
Might want to eat a Snickers - you get a little moody when replying to a post over 40 days ago.
No doubt. Ya think a Snickers will do it? You sense moodiness? Its probably from the snarky, inane blather I sense. :sleep:
No, but I try to be optimistic.
Me too. Went down Ike today WB 3 pm. Wonderful, as ever, cant imagine what 4-7 pm was like. Oak Park is a tough nut, around East Av? What about temporarily upgrading/using right shoulder as a lane during peak, looks like theres room to build some breakdown shoulders between bridges? Also a constant merge/exit lane? There may be room for that, esp. west of OP?
Does anyone have links to the specific plans for this corridor? Like graphics that show the proposed improvements? I can't find them on the website.
Also, when will they decide on a final alternative?
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf)
I think this is what you are looking for, not sure though. Final planning for this is expected summer 2016.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com)
Where I got it from BTW ^^^
I like the idea of adding HOT Lanes to 290. Would it be possible to ultimately build HOT Lanes along the entire length of 290?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 28, 2016, 04:10:22 PM
I like the idea of adding HOT Lanes to 290. Would it be possible to ultimately build HOT Lanes along the entire length of 290?
Not likely near I-355 and EOE ramps. maybe a full toll on IL-53 past Il-62.
Quote from: quickshade on March 28, 2016, 02:50:38 PM
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf)
I think this is what you are looking for, not sure though. Final planning for this is expected summer 2016.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com)
Where I got it from BTW ^^^
Thanks for the info, but what I was really looking for artist renditions of the proposed improvements. Do they have any pdf's of designs of the proposed improvements over satellite imagery? Do you know what I mean?
Quote from: I-39 on March 28, 2016, 08:52:23 PM
Quote from: quickshade on March 28, 2016, 02:50:38 PM
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf)
I think this is what you are looking for, not sure though. Final planning for this is expected summer 2016.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com)
Where I got it from BTW ^^^
Thanks for the info, but what I was really looking for artist renditions of the proposed improvements. Do they have any pdf's of designs of the proposed improvements over satellite imagery? Do you know what I mean?
Yes, I do not see anything like that out on here, maybe once we get a finalized plan this summer?
Luv that I-294 flyover idea, with 88 & N294 going to WB290 (gotta jump that S294 ramp too), eliminating the slow oval. Actually EB290 needs a flyover too. Oh well.
Is this necessary?
www.greatlakesbasin.net
Click and zoom in on map.
Makes this 71 page ? need a lot more study.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
And this...
http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx
NO doubt youll hate this....
Alpha++ world cities: London, New York
Alpha+ world cities: Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo, Shanghai, Dubai, Sydney, Beijing
Alpha world cities: Milan, Toronto, Sao Paulo, Madrid, CHICAGO :clap:, Mumbai, Los Angeles, Moscow, Frankfurt, Mexico City, Amsterdam, Kuala Lumpur, Brussels
Alpha− world cities: Miami, Seoul, Dublin, Jakarta, Melbourne, Buenos Aires, Zurich, New Delhi, Munich, Boston, Warsaw, Vienna, Atlanta, Barcelona, Bangkok, Istanbul, Taipei, Johannesberg, Washington, San Francisco, Stockholm, Prague
Beta+ world cities: Düsseldorf, Dallas, Montreal, Rome, Hamburg, Manila, Houston, Berlin, Athens, Tel Aviv, Bangalore, Copenhagen, Caïro, Budapest, Bucharest, Guangzhou, Lima, Cape Town, Kiev, Luxembourg, Santiago, Lisbon, Philadelphia, Beirut
Beta world cities: Caracas, Bogota, Ho Chi Minh City, Auckland, Oslo, Chennai, Manchester, Karachi, Riyadh, Montevideo, Vancouver, Brisbane, Helsinki, Doha, Casablanca, Stuttgart, Rio de Janeiro, Geneva
Beta− world cities: Abu Dhabi, Nicosia, Lyon, Birmingham (UK), San Jose (CR), Minneapolis, Tunis, Nairobi, Calcutta, Detroit, Hanoi, Denver, Monterrey, Bratislava, Riga, Seattle, Port Louis, Manama, Sofia, Amman, Antwerp, Panama City, San Diego, Quito, Rotterdam, Belgrade, Almaty, Lagos, Perth, Shenzhen, Hyderabad, Kuwait City, Edinburgh, Cleveland, Calgary, Guatemala City
Gamma+ world cities: Bristol, St. Petersburg, Charlotte, Lahore, Baltimore, Jeddah, Zagreb, Adelaide, Durban, Santo Domingo, San Salvador, St Louis, Islamabad, Guayaquil, Cologne, Phoenix, Georgetown (CI), Osaka, Tampa
Gamma world cities: Valencia (SP), Glasgow, San Jose (US), San Juan, Marseille, Cincinnatti, Guadalajara, Leeds, Baku, Tallinn, Vilnius, Colombo, Raleigh, Ankara, Belfast, Milwaukee, Muscat, Ljubljana
Gamma− world cities: Nantes, Tianjin, Accra, Algiers, Gothenburg, Porto, Columbus, Utrecht, ORLANDO :confused: :sleep:, Ahmedabad, Asuncion, Kansas City, Seville, Turin, Dar Es Salaam, Portland, Krakow, Managua, Pune, Leipzig, Malmö, La Paz
I dont make this shit up.
So what happens now?
Whatever study they do finishes up later this summer, then what?
We have a bit more federal funding coming in- $100 million a year from the FAST act and $75 million from other previous federal allocations that were never used.
They also have a study about adding another lane to the Kennedy from Cumberland to Harlem, what then?
Quote from: johndoe780 on April 07, 2016, 12:25:39 AM
So what happens now?
Whatever study they do finishes up later this summer, then what?
We have a bit more federal funding coming in- $100 million a year from the FAST act and $75 million from other previous federal allocations that were never used.
They also have a study about adding another lane to the Kennedy from Cumberland to Harlem, what then?
they need to add at least aux lanes on the rest of it to I-94
Article on potential partial covering of the Ike in Oak Park.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-eisenhower-decking-tl-0714-20160408-story.html
Quote from: Rick Powell on April 09, 2016, 02:50:01 AM
Article on potential partial covering of the Ike in Oak Park.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-eisenhower-decking-tl-0714-20160408-story.html
They did this in Dallas and it was a big draw for the community.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-eisenhower-staging-tl-0414-20160412-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-eisenhower-staging-tl-0414-20160412-story.html)
Plans for arterial road expansions before the supposed 4 year project. One proposal includes toll lanes between I-355 and I-90/94 on I-55
Quote from: ET21 on April 13, 2016, 10:02:58 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-eisenhower-staging-tl-0414-20160412-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-eisenhower-staging-tl-0414-20160412-story.html)
Plans for arterial road expansions before the supposed 4 year project. One proposal includes toll lanes between I-355 and I-90/94 on I-55
This plan for the toll lanes on I-55 has been proposed for some time. It would probably make sense to do that first since there is, for the most part, the ROW needed to make that happen.
Read this numerous times....
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
And it gets worse every time.
Imagine doing this and NOTHING gets better? In ten years. Kinda like the Mannheim project.
To NOT reanalyze the "study area" on pg. 41(46) is asinine.
Mr. Secretary, have you seen THIS?... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FE6RD2Co.png&hash=b9be63dc8d90dcd6a793c99a2d67b0654e90adbb)
Express lane tolls proposed: http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/ (http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/)
Quote from: ET21 on November 28, 2016, 11:52:31 PM
Express lane tolls proposed: http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/ (http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/)
express lanes through what? 25th ave to austin?
They're not allowed to toll existing lanes. If they're going to add a "toll lane" from 25th ave to austin, that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
if they add an additional 4th lane and 5th lane and toll the 5th lane, I'm ok with that.
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 29, 2016, 12:15:06 AM
Quote from: ET21 on November 28, 2016, 11:52:31 PM
Express lane tolls proposed: http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/ (http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/)
express lanes through what? 25th ave to austin?
They're not allowed to toll existing lanes. If they're going to add a "toll lane" from 25th ave to austin, that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
if they add an additional 4th lane and 5th lane and toll the 5th lane, I'm ok with that.
There is a provision in the federal law that allows a state to first convert a general purpose lane to an HOV lane, then convert it to a tolled lane as long as "free" HOV use is maintained in that lane. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/tolling_pricing/section_166.aspx
Quote from: Rick Powell on November 29, 2016, 10:37:47 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 29, 2016, 12:15:06 AM
Quote from: ET21 on November 28, 2016, 11:52:31 PM
Express lane tolls proposed: http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/ (http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/)
express lanes through what? 25th ave to austin?
They're not allowed to toll existing lanes. If they're going to add a "toll lane" from 25th ave to austin, that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
if they add an additional 4th lane and 5th lane and toll the 5th lane, I'm ok with that.
There is a provision in the federal law that allows a state to first convert a general purpose lane to an HOV lane, then convert it to a tolled lane as long as "free" HOV use is maintained in that lane.
Still won't fix the problems with the Ike. IDOT needs to understand that one cannot merge 5 lanes down to 3 without causing a major backup. You have 2 lanes from I-88 east, 2 lanes from I-290 east, and 1 from I-294 north at that point. The additional lane is needed so that 5 lanes merges down to 4, as well as proper rebuild in the area that eliminates the cloverleaf at 25th Avenue and the left exits in Oak Park (for the record, I'm fine with closing off access to Oak Park from the Ike).
The problem is IDOT doesn't have the funding to do this. They are so behind on normal road upkeep and bridge repair that future improvements like this aren't feasible right now. Illinois current budget situation (we are broke) doesn't bode well for these kind of major projects. I did read an article that they also had plans to possibly sell it in the near future if the I55 deal worked out. So it could be that the tollway purchases it and dumps money into it.
Quote from: quickshade on November 29, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
The problem is IDOT doesn't have the funding to do this. They are so behind on normal road upkeep and bridge repair that future improvements like this aren't feasible right now. Illinois current budget situation (we are broke) doesn't bode well for these kind of major projects. I did read an article that they also had plans to possibly sell it in the near future if the I55 deal worked out. So it could be that the tollway purchases it and dumps money into it.
The roads constitutional amendment was passed. What's their excuse now? No one's siphoning money from their end anymore and the FAST act provided IDOT with $130 million dollars more annually.
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 29, 2016, 12:30:06 PM
Quote from: quickshade on November 29, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
The problem is IDOT doesn't have the funding to do this. They are so behind on normal road upkeep and bridge repair that future improvements like this aren't feasible right now. Illinois current budget situation (we are broke) doesn't bode well for these kind of major projects. I did read an article that they also had plans to possibly sell it in the near future if the I55 deal worked out. So it could be that the tollway purchases it and dumps money into it.
The roads constitutional amendment was passed. What's their excuse now? No one's siphoning money from their end anymore and the FAST act provided IDOT with $130 million dollars more annually.
They are years behind on general improvements, road upkeep and upcoming projects that have been put off for years. So yes the finances from here on out are a little better but that doesn't change the 10 or so years that the funds were mismanaged.
Quote from: quickshade on November 29, 2016, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 29, 2016, 12:30:06 PM
Quote from: quickshade on November 29, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
The problem is IDOT doesn't have the funding to do this. They are so behind on normal road upkeep and bridge repair that future improvements like this aren't feasible right now. Illinois current budget situation (we are broke) doesn't bode well for these kind of major projects. I did read an article that they also had plans to possibly sell it in the near future if the I55 deal worked out. So it could be that the tollway purchases it and dumps money into it.
The roads constitutional amendment was passed. What's their excuse now? No one's siphoning money from their end anymore and the FAST act provided IDOT with $130 million dollars more annually.
They are years behind on general improvements, road upkeep and upcoming projects that have been put off for years. So yes the finances from here on out are a little better but that doesn't change the 10 or so years that the funds were mismanaged.
Poor accounting. How much did IDOT save from last year's mild winter? How much will IDOT save this year from low salt prices and most probable less snow again this year?
Naperville itself saved $1 million last year from last winter than it budgeted for.
Maybe if IDOT stopped hiring crappy contractors who lay down poorly paved asphalt and started using portland concrete roads (especially since most of the IDOT highways get used by 18 wheelers more than anything) and move onto LED lighting like its sister agency-ITHSA, it wouldn't complain it's broke all the time.
IDOT can't keep complaining its not getting its money now that it's guaranteed that every penny that goes into license plate fees, drivers licences, and gas tax goes 100% into their highway fund. License plate fees have been raised $25 and drivers license renewals upped $20 since 2009.
Gas tax inflation, ok I'd give you that. I would be OK with a 5 cent gas tax increase. Nothing too dramatic, maybe even a 10 cent increase, but anything past that is pushing it. Even revolve it around gas prices. Say if gas prices is <$2.00/gallon have a 10 cent increase, but >$2.00/gallon, have a 5 cent increase or so.
That's all great, but if someone steals money from you for 10 years and then all of a sudden you make it impossible to steal that doesn't change the fact that for 10 years you got robbed of money and couldn't complete all the projects you had on your TODO list. Saving a couple million here and a couple million there from mild winters is nothing when you need to invest a couple billion into major infrastructure improvement projects throughout the state. Again I agree that IDOT is mismanaged but blaming it all on them when they had their hands tied in some aspects isn't fair.
If IDOT had gotten the funding they needed for the past 10 years we might not be as bad off as we currently are.
Somewhere between this stupidity... http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/il-transport-secretary-considering-toll-booths-on-the-ike/1629568/ which would be funded by who, IDOT? They are going into the tollway business? And Fup the Ike even more than it is for the better part of a decade? :no: With absolutely no clue or study to analyze if this will even solve the "problem".
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
This is the biggest slab of salami Ive ever seen thrown at a wall to see if it sticks. It WILL NOT.
And on the other side of the stupidity coin, a trans Lake Michigan bridge or tunnel? :no:
A solution lies in between or on the edge.
Toll booths? Why can't they collect the tolls electronically? Toll booths are so 20th-century.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2016, 06:55:34 PM
Toll booths? Why can't they collect the tolls electronically? Toll booths are so 20th-century.
There are a lot of story lede writers who will use a euphemism like "toll booths" as a story heading even when there is no intent to actually have a toll plaza anywhere. Any new tolling project in the Chicago area, as well as all new ISTHA interchanges, will likely be ETC only.
That makes complete sense. Thank you Rick Powell!
oh good Godt DZ. Your Hypo I-90 idea thread was killed. Why in Godt's name would you start up with that bullshit again? Don't answer. We know. It's your bloody ego. Please do not ruin this thread with your idea.
Killed by whom? Two dozen "road geeks"? Highway planners that apparently can not read a road map? Its simple physics. If you want to put the ball in the cup, or make that hard shot in the corner pocket, you HAVE to hit the ball in the exact right spot. Close is NOT "good enough".
The "problem" with the Ike (or Strangler) is NOT because of the Ike. Downtown Chicago is not at the south end of the lake. That is where the "pinch point" is (ie Indiana). No amount of widening the Ike, Ryan or Tri state is going to change that.
*mic drop*
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 03, 2016, 07:14:58 AM
Killed by whom? Two dozen "road geeks"? Highway planners that apparently can not read a road map? Its simple physics. If you want to put the ball in the cup, or make that hard shot in the corner pocket, you HAVE to hit the ball in the exact right spot. Close is NOT "good enough".
The "problem" with the Ike (or Strangler) is NOT because of the Ike. Downtown Chicago is not at the south end of the lake. That is where the "pinch point" is (ie Indiana). No amount of widening the Ike, Ryan or Tri state is going to change that.
*mic drop*
You're right. It hasn't been killed, because it's never been taken seriously.
*mic drop*
Just rebuild/expand the highway to five lanes in each direction, four general travel lanes and one HOV toll lane. Enough of this debating.
Little less conversation, little more action please!
Quote from: I-39 on December 03, 2016, 05:31:51 PM
Just rebuild/expand the highway to five lanes in each direction, four general travel lanes and one HOV toll lane. Enough of this debating.
Little less conversation, little more action please!
or change the law and make it full toll.
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 03, 2016, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 03, 2016, 07:14:58 AM
Killed by whom? Two dozen "road geeks"? Highway planners that apparently can not read a road map? Its simple physics. If you want to put the ball in the cup, or make that hard shot in the corner pocket, you HAVE to hit the ball in the exact right spot. Close is NOT "good enough".
The "problem" with the Ike (or Strangler) is NOT because of the Ike. Downtown Chicago is not at the south end of the lake. That is where the "pinch point" is (ie Indiana). No amount of widening the Ike, Ryan or Tri state is going to change that.
*mic drop*
You're right. It hasn't been killed, because it's never been taken seriously.
*mic drop*
You dont know that, neither do I. Are you not the least bit curious as to what "C11 OTHER" on page 26 of the EIS contains? IDOT has had this map hand delivered to them numerous times and they have heard it at CMAP as well.
And I will sure bet I-90 Hypo would carry more traffic in a day than that slacker hypo I-43 does. Maybe in a week? How did THAT ever get taken seriously? GEEK :fight:
After making increased capital funding commitments to Metra in the 1990's, and reworking the Strangler, IDOT said they were going to "sleep" on the Ike for at least 25 years to allow the transit side to grow. Time to "wake up". (Metra has grown really well since)
Having driven it mega times in my life, my thoughts on any Ike expansion has alot of issues to make it work and many are pretty expensive.
Some of the largest limitations are the Forest Home Cemetery in Forest Park, many graves were relocated when the Ike was originally built and it caused some lawsuits even back then.
The other issue is a real estate bottleneck between Austin and Harlem in Oak Park. The road is below grade here and shares ROW with the CTA and CSXT/BR. Something would have to give.
So here is my take, recover some of the real estate that was set aside by IDOT back in the 1950's for the long defunct CA&E interurban to run along side the CTA to reach their Wells Street Station. CA&E couldn't afford to pay for the elevation at Racine that took them to the old elevated down Van Buren and to Wells. That is why there is so much unused space in the CTA ROW here. For the trivia minded, a vestige of the CA&E Wells Street Station still stands at 331 Franklin, the CTA uses it to store trucks and shoes. This defunct ROW is also why there is an unused tunnel under the eastbound Ike between Central and Laramie. (The IDOT yard at Flournoy and Laramie used to be the CA&E "turnabout" when they lost access to the Loop during Ike construction)
Another trivia about the Ike. The land the Ike uses from 1st Ave to 25th in Maywood originally belonged the CA&E. They were acquiring ROW along here to move their trains out of the residential sections of Maywood. When the CA&E lost their access to the Loop, they ended up selling the land to IDOT so the Ike could continue west.
That will help as far out as Keeler. The other bottleneck will be at Lexington where the Indiana Harbor Belt crosses over. Lexington Street would have to be removed completely along with a complete replacement of the IHB overpass.
From Central west, the only realistic option is to steal ROW from the CSXT and elevate it so the the Ike can expand underneath.
It's either this or create a multi deck structure where reversible/HOV rides on a top deck which permits eastbound in the AM and changes to westbound for evening rush.
Either way you look at it, it will be a lot of $$$.
Why does the Reagan (I-88) split in two and make the big jog north to reach I-290? Because Mayor Butler of the new town of Oakbrook didn't want the ROW to split his (very wealthy) town in two when it reached the Tri-State. I-88 was originally supposed to terminate just south of Cermak and I-295.
But this is what caused the Strangler to form. Then Mayor Richard Daley (first) furious that the Toll Authority had moved the ROW north and gave west suburbanites easier access to what was called the Congress Expressway at the time, they built the connector to I-290 with only 1 lane. Even after the Reagan was expanded to 3 lanes each side, that silly connector stayed at 1 lane. Old Mayor Daley wanted the expressway to end at Central and go no further. (it did so for a few years). Daley's control over not just Chicago, but Cook County politics was that tough. (the connector crosses over the DuPage/Cook County lines) Fortunately its better than it used to be.
The story to get the Ike built is just as tough as the story it will be to get it upgraded.
Quote from: I-39 on December 03, 2016, 05:31:51 PM
Just rebuild/expand the highway to five lanes in each direction, four general travel lanes and one HOV toll lane. Enough of this debating.
Little less conversation, little more action please!
and create a ROW in the median for future, if ever, blue line extension.
"JUST rebuild/expand the highway to five lanes". There is NO just here. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Thats the problem. And to SHUT DOWN the ONLY EW interstate through the area is ________.
Or JUST BYPASS the Ike completely with a new 8 MILE road to the Stevenson. :cheers: EIGHT MILES
Just READ this hoax of an EIS...there are no engineering or cost estimates for any of the various schemes or their impacts afaik. Has there been an update to this since April of 2013. If ya want a good laugh, find the errors on Figure 1-4, page 7. My fav is I-88 the N-S road on the west border.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
See map on page 12 of this... http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/27214/CMAP-FreightReportFULL-07-11-12.pdf/622f29bf-572c-4b79-afff-110d880091a8 :-D :-D :-D Careful, its TL; so DR if you CR
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 04, 2016, 09:46:01 AM
"JUST rebuild/expand the highway to five lanes". There is NO just here. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Thats the problem.
Or JUST BYPASS the Ike completely with a new 8 MILE road to the Stevenson. :cheers: EIGHT MILES
No
Quote from: johndoe780 on December 04, 2016, 12:31:29 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 03, 2016, 05:31:51 PM
Just rebuild/expand the highway to five lanes in each direction, four general travel lanes and one HOV toll lane. Enough of this debating.
Little less conversation, little more action please!
and create a ROW in the median for future, if ever, blue line extension.
One could only hope, least we have some CTA expansion with the Red Line going southward more
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 04, 2016, 09:46:01 AM
"JUST rebuild/expand the highway to five lanes". There is NO just here. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Thats the problem. And to SHUT DOWN the ONLY EW interstate through the area is ________.
Or JUST BYPASS the Ike completely with a new 8 MILE road to the Stevenson. :cheers: EIGHT MILES
Just READ this hoax of an EIS...there are no engineering or cost estimates for any of the various schemes or their impacts afaik. Has there been an update to this since April of 2013. If ya want a good laugh, find the errors on Figure 1-4, page 7. My fav is I-88 the N-S road on the west border.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
Good luck trying to get environmental approval for your Hypotenuse.
Now, back to the adult discussion................
Imagine the disappointment and future regret when none of these schemes mentioned in this...
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
turn out to do jachzhit. BTW this has not gotten any environmental approval. And it will shut down the IKE for how long to build any of these boondoggles?
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/27214/CMAP-FreightReportFULL-07-11-12.pdf/622f29bf-572c-4b79-afff-110d880091a8
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 03, 2016, 07:14:58 AM
Killed by whom? Two dozen "road geeks"? Highway planners that apparently can not read a road map? Its simple physics. If you want to put the ball in the cup, or make that hard shot in the corner pocket, you HAVE to hit the ball in the exact right spot. Close is NOT "good enough".
The "problem" with the Ike (or Strangler) is NOT because of the Ike. Downtown Chicago is not at the south end of the lake. That is where the "pinch point" is (ie Indiana). No amount of widening the Ike, Ryan or Tri state is going to change that.
*mic drop*
I see reading is difficult for you DZ. I said "Your Hypo I-90 idea
THREAD was killed."
Which it was. Hence why it was locked up by an admin.
We have discussed this idea AT LENGTH. You are the only one who is in support of it. 1>12? I don't think so. Time to move along if you didn't get the hint by having YOUR THREAD locked up by the admins.
Why does the staff continue to allow this? Nearly every Chicagoland thread is clogged up with this hypotenuse bullshit.
Quote from: tribar on December 07, 2016, 09:14:47 PM
Why does the staff continue to allow this? Nearly every Chicagoland thread is clogged up with this hypotenuse bullshit.
Agreed. I see something about hypotenuse when it comes to every highway.
Its about I-290 rebuild/expansion feedback. All I see is this...
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf from 2013, nearly four years ago.
Surely by now there is something more forthcoming from IDOT. A drill down on what is actually proposed and how it relates to this...
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/27214/CMAP-FreightReportFULL-07-11-12.pdf/622f29bf-572c-4b79-afff-110d880091a8
If there is something else out there I/we have missed, feel free to volunteer that.
Otherwise, I see nothing that has been "discussed".
Then why are you talking then? If you're so concerned about timetables then email IDOT (which I'm sure you have many times)
Its your topic that hibernated for nearly two years. But OK.
IF theres a way to cram two or four lanes into the Ike (the only EW xway) without (basically) shutting it down, adding more traffic to already stressed North, Lake, Roosevelt, Cermak, Cicero, Harlem, Pulaski, Mannheim etal., bring it.
Yous (and IDOT) are the ones who all gung-ho on this. Maybe you can convince me this will actually do what you all think it will do in a decade? The geometry, civil engineering, factorials/contingencies just do not do it for me, but I am a "moron" (and idle hobbyist). :-D :-D :-D
"Show where youre(sic) going, without forgetting where youre(sic) from". Thanx for that. Im reminded daily.
Obviously no one likes this idea here. No one! Maybe you should think about going elsewhere to propose your idea because it's surely not any good on here. See what other negative responses you will get. I suggest you post your idea on the Chicago Reddit, they will laugh at you. And what will your response be when you get more negative responses? Tell everyone they are stupid for not wanting another expressway?
And then signing the Hypothenuse as I-90 will do any help
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 08, 2016, 11:21:38 PM
Its your topic that hibernated for nearly two years. But OK.
IF theres a way to cram two or four lanes into the Ike (the only EW xway) without (basically) shutting it down, adding more traffic to already stressed North, Lake, Roosevelt, Cermak, Cicero, Harlem, Pulaski, Mannheim etal., bring it.
Yous (and IDOT) are the ones who all gung-ho on this. Maybe you can convince me this will actually do what you all think it will do in a decade? The geometry, civil engineering, factorials/contingencies just do not do it for me, but I am a "moron" (and idle hobbyist). :-D :-D :-D
"Show where youre(sic) going, without forgetting where youre(sic) from". Thanx for that. Im reminded daily.
I shared a news story about the topic, rather than making a brand new thread about it. It's called internet etiquette, something you clearly don't get since you try and make fun of a part of my public profile pretty much after every contradiction from myself. It's called a forum signature numbnuts, I'm reminded every time you post about your "ILS mantra"
IDOT is unresponsive...So I will contact the officials in...
http://www.westchester-il.org/
http://broadview-il.gov/common.php?id=30
http://www.northriverside-il.org/
http://www.berwyn-il.gov/
http://www.thetownofcicero.com/
and see if they think this is a great, well thought out plan...basically shutting down the IKE (the ONLY EW interstate connection we have) for who knows how long? Forcing that traffic onto Rooosevelt, Cermak etal.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
OR this...https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0 allowing a relief from/for the Strangler, Ike, xIKE and creating an eight mile, almost parallel (with I-55) for the traffic, the 1 in 6 vehicles, heavy trucks rolling through the area, who knows how many cars?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FE6RD2Co.png&hash=b9be63dc8d90dcd6a793c99a2d67b0654e90adbb)
that may be a better solution for them and the entire region. Either one will cost $Bs. Which will give more BANG for the buck, with less disruption and resolve the most problems?
https://youtu.be/AjUmULa0R-8
K let's see you out try a try make it happen. It's going to be like a Crosstown, no one wants a highway to split their towns.
And if you sign that as I-90, then what does that stretch from Woodfield to Edens become? I-190 can no longer be signed 190 because it would no longer touch 90 and that would apply to the future 490. There will be a ton of interstate signing issues then.
Anyways why does the CTA have more ROW at sections like Western to Racine while the Kennedy leaves little space for the Blue line. Did they plan on express rails or is it just for safety reasons on the Ike?
dzlsabe, your posts seem more like pie in the sky cojecture than based on actual facts, so perhaps this belongs more on a fictional highways discussion?
Make you a deal. If they tell you that the (fictional, BTW) "hypo" is a great, well thought out plan, you can come back and talk about it all you want. However, if they brush you off, you never mention it again. Mmkay?
Quote from: US71 on December 10, 2016, 11:18:46 AM
dzlsabe, your posts seem more like pie in the sky cojecture than based on actual facts, so perhaps this belongs more on a fictional highways discussion?
It already has been, and it's been locked.
dzlsabe = troll
Quote from: ILRoad55 on December 10, 2016, 11:07:57 AM
Anyways why does the CTA have more ROW at sections like Western to Racine while the Kennedy leaves little space for the Blue line. Did they plan on express rails or is it just for safety reasons on the Ike?
Along the Ike, there was extra space that was going to be allotted to express service, possibly with the old Chicago, Aurora and Elgin interurban that used to run on the old Garfield branch of the CTA into the Loop, but with its abandonment in the late 50's. and the closing of many intermediary stations on the branch reducing the need for express service, the CTA no longer has plans to utilize the space. The CTA is performing a study in parallel with IDOT's I-290 study on what is needed to revitalize the Forest Park branch.
http://www.transitchicago.com/blueweststudy/
Quote from: US71 on December 10, 2016, 11:18:46 AM
dzlsabe, your posts seem more like pie in the sky cojecture than based on actual facts, so perhaps this belongs more on a fictional highways discussion?
Just trying to drill down to find out what IDOT has in mind in this EIS under "alternatives" (Table 4-1 pg 25 & 26) C11 "Other"??..
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
Seems this has not been considered http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/27214/CMAP-FreightReportFULL-07-11-12.pdf/622f29bf-572c-4b79-afff-110d880091a8 pages 12 & 18
If the plan is to rip up almost SIX miles of the Ike to cram two or four more lanes into it, turn the chaos it is now into anarchy for how many years?, then an eight mile, new road to I-55 from the Strangler to "bypass" (one of the favorite words around here) the Ike and the "problem" completely, starts looking better by comparison. And if that is NOT on IDOTs C11, why not? and what is?
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 10, 2016, 11:20:42 AM
Make you a deal. If they tell you that the (fictional, BTW) "hypo" is a great, well thought out plan, you can come back and talk about it all you want. However, if they brush you off, you never mention it again. Mmkay?
DEAL! lol
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 10, 2016, 01:19:04 PM
Quote from: ILRoad55 on December 10, 2016, 11:07:57 AM
Anyways why does the CTA have more ROW at sections like Western to Racine while the Kennedy leaves little space for the Blue line. Did they plan on express rails or is it just for safety reasons on the Ike?
Along the Ike, there was extra space that was going to be allotted to express service, possibly with the old Chicago, Aurora and Elgin interurban that used to run on the old Garfield branch of the CTA into the Loop, but with its abandonment in the late 50's. and the closing of many intermediary stations on the branch reducing the need for express service, the CTA no longer has plans to utilize the space. The CTA is performing a study in parallel with IDOT's I-290 study on what is needed to revitalize the Forest Park branch.
http://www.transitchicago.com/blueweststudy/
The extra space also was due to defunct L lines especially east of Illinois Medical Center District.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD-O_moffQAhUKzmMKHb0eCesQqQIIGigAMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chicagotribune.com%2Fsuburbs%2Foak-park%2Fnews%2Fct-oak-interstate-290-tl-1222-20161215-story.html&usg=AFQjCNHSSs8p0M3c_7dPL6QKFoCPARex5Q&bvm=bv.141536425,d.cGc
What kind of bullshit is this. IDOT isn't allowed to toll the existing 4th lane from Austin to 90/94.
Backwards study. Create a 4th and 5th lane and make that 5th lane a HOT lane. How exactly is adding a toll lane going to help with congestion?
or at least toll the stupid inner shoulder lane.
"The idea is to set a toll rate so you have a 45 mile-per-hour speed through there, minimum, so that is then a reliable trip. As we know, there's days when the Eisenhower is quite unreliable." :banghead: :pan: Like EVERYDAY!
"This is analysis that needs to be done," Harmet said. "With an 8-year construction schedule, that infrastructure is the last thing that's going to be built so there is some time to think about that." :confused:
"We're not going to wipe out congestion as we know it on the Eisenhower, but we're going to provide a reliable trip," Harmet said. :rofl: Mr Harmet does not sound that confident this will do jachzhit, me neither.
So why build it? Why not analyze a NEW, nearly parallel (BYPASS) road that WILL wipe out congestion as we know it on the Ike (and Strangler) AND provide that reliable trip? :cheers: And get a good portion of the 1/6 of traffic (heavy trucks, and who knows how many cars) OFF the Ike/Strangler headed towards the rail and truck terminals OR EAST to Indiana. Finish the I-90 corridor once and for all.
IDOT wants to put toll lanes on Eisenhower Expressway (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-interstate-290-tl-1222-20161215-story.html)
QuoteA plan to add one car pool and express toll lanes to Interstate 290 has been identified as the Illinois Department of Transportation's preferred option for the roadway, officials announced.
During an advisory group meeting Wednesday at the Carleton Hotel in Oak Park, IDOT officials provided an update on their proposed reconstruction of the Eisenhower Expressway.
According to the proposal, IDOT hopes to add a fourth lane to I-290 in each direction between Mannheim Road and Austin Boulevard, which would bring the entire expressway to four lanes in each direction between Interstate 88 and Interstate 90/94.
IDOT would then convert the two center lanes, between I-88 and Racine Avenue, to a "Hot 3+" lane, which would allow car pool vehicles and buses to ride for free. Other commuters could also use the lane but would be charged a toll. Three traffic lanes in each direction would remain free for drivers.
Nutty idea, IMHO. Would be better just to sell it to ISTHA and get IDOT out of the expressway business (which they're crap at anyway).
Quote from: Brandon on December 16, 2016, 11:04:01 AM
IDOT wants to put toll lanes on Eisenhower Expressway (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-interstate-290-tl-1222-20161215-story.html)
QuoteA plan to add one car pool and express toll lanes to Interstate 290 has been identified as the Illinois Department of Transportation's preferred option for the roadway, officials announced.
During an advisory group meeting Wednesday at the Carleton Hotel in Oak Park, IDOT officials provided an update on their proposed reconstruction of the Eisenhower Expressway.
According to the proposal, IDOT hopes to add a fourth lane to I-290 in each direction between Mannheim Road and Austin Boulevard, which would bring the entire expressway to four lanes in each direction between Interstate 88 and Interstate 90/94.
IDOT would then convert the two center lanes, between I-88 and Racine Avenue, to a "Hot 3+" lane, which would allow car pool vehicles and buses to ride for free. Other commuters could also use the lane but would be charged a toll. Three traffic lanes in each direction would remain free for drivers.
Nutty idea, IMHO. Would be better just to sell it to ISTHA and get IDOT out of the expressway business (which they're crap at anyway).
I'm not a civil engineer, but someone explain to me how this plan has the capability of increasing the capacity of the Ike.
Quote from: johndoe780 on December 16, 2016, 04:18:23 PM
I'm not a civil engineer, but someone explain to me how this plan has the capability of increasing the capacity of the Ike.
The primary factor is getting four consistent through lanes in each direction from Mannheim to the Jane Byrne and eliminating the bottleneck from 25th to Austin.
Two secondary factors are -
The HOT lane...if it can attract enough HOV and transit vehicles along with toll-paying SOVs, it can have as much or more throughput as a general purpose lane.
Modernizing and getting better access to the CTA Blue Line - if it can attract more riders, it also helps the throughput of the entire corridor, and lessens the demand on 290 for the trips where it can be competitive with autos.
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 16, 2016, 07:43:58 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on December 16, 2016, 04:18:23 PM
I'm not a civil engineer, but someone explain to me how this plan has the capability of increasing the capacity of the Ike.
The primary factor is getting four consistent through lanes in each direction from Mannheim to the Jane Byrne and eliminating the bottleneck from 25th to Austin.
Two secondary factors are -
The HOT lane...if it can attract enough HOV and transit vehicles along with toll-paying SOVs, it can have as much or more throughput as a general purpose lane.
Modernizing and getting better access to the CTA Blue Line - if it can attract more riders, it also helps the throughput of the entire corridor, and lessens the demand on 290 for the trips where it can be competitive with autos.
But you're also taking 4 lanes of toll free lanes into 3 lanes of toll free lanes + 1 tolled lane from Austin to 90/94. I don't understand how that will smooth out traffic. If I don't use the tolled lane, using the above logic, won't my commute be hurt? The only way my commute time will lessen is if I pay money for the tolled lane, otherwise my commute in the toll free lane will be immensely hurt as you're taking cramming 4 lanes into 3 lanes.
Yes I agree that 4 laning from 25th to Austin will "smooth out" but that's only if you use the tolled lanes. Unless you pony up $$$ for the tolls, you still have 290 and 88 merging into 3 lanes. I would even argue that 4 lanes of IKE is still heavily overcapacity. IKE needs to be at least 5 lanes.
Not sure where you're getting the blue line correlation from. How is this going to improve access to the blue line? IDOT mentioned no claim of extending the blue line, meaning I still have to drive on 290 and get off 1st ave to even use the blue line. At that point, might as well just drive downtown if I have to get off 1st ave.
Trib today...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-interstate-290-tl-1222-20161215-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-create-75thstreet-12-15-20161215-story.html
Funny that just south of this locomotive shot at 63rd St, they actually left an opening for you know what?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-tollway-budget-20161215-story.html
Probably only to me are ALL these stories related in two pages of the Tribune today.
@ Brandon.... "Nutty idea, IMHO. Would be better just to sell it to ISTHA and get IDOT out of the expressway business (which they're crap at anyway)." (Which? ISTHA is not in the URBAN tollway business AFAIK. And IDOT is...overwhelmed?)
and @johndoe... "I'm not a civil engineer, but someone explain to me how this plan has the capability of increasing the capacity of the Ike."...both raise points I would luv to hear the answers to.
.
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 17, 2016, 02:19:13 AM
Trib today...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-interstate-290-tl-1222-20161215-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-interstate-290-tl-1222-20161215-story.html)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-create-75thstreet-12-15-20161215-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-create-75thstreet-12-15-20161215-story.html)
Funny that just south of this locomotive shot at 63rd St, they actually left an opening for you know what?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-tollway-budget-20161215-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-tollway-budget-20161215-story.html)
Probably only to me are ALL these stories related in two pages of the Tribune today.
@ Brandon.... "Nutty idea, IMHO. Would be better just to sell it to ISTHA and get IDOT out of the expressway business (which they're crap at anyway)." (Which? ISTHA is not in the URBAN tollway business AFAIK. And IDOT is...overwhelmed?Incompitent!)
and @johndoe... "I'm not a civil engineer, but someone explain to me how this plan has the capability of increasing the capacity of the Ike."...both raise points I would luv to hear the answers to.
.
FTFY :sombrero: :sombrero:
Just because there's a gap there does not mean the Railways re allowing an expressway to run through. It's just like how the Elgin Ohare project is fighting with the Canadian Pacific because the tollway is taking the CP'a property.
Quote from: ILRoad55 on December 17, 2016, 02:43:06 PM
Just because there's a gap there does not mean the Railways re allowing an expressway to run through. It's just like how the Elgin Ohare project is fighting with the Canadian Pacific because the tollway is taking the CP'a property.
Exactly. Like I've said, you think it is hard to get ROW for the O'Hare West Bypass? The Hypotenuse would be 1000000000000x harder (and that's being generous). I could only imagine the court fights.
Can someone either lock this thread or ban dzlsabe from this forum. I'm tired of hearing about this............
Can this be about Alanland yet?
^ Only if the new HOT-3 lanes proposed for I-290 get an 85 mph speed limit :spin:
Quote from: I-39 on December 17, 2016, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: ILRoad55 on December 17, 2016, 02:43:06 PM
Just because there's a gap there does not mean the Railways re allowing an expressway to run through. It's just like how the Elgin Ohare project is fighting with the Canadian Pacific because the tollway is taking the CP'a property.
Exactly. Like I've said, you think it is hard to get ROW for the O'Hare West Bypass? The Hypotenuse would be 1000000000000x harder (and that's being generous). I could only imagine the court fights.
Can someone either lock this thread or ban dzlsabe from this forum. I'm tired of hearing about this............
First, How did the NINE mile, $4B?, EOWA boondoogle get this far with CPRR not "onboard"?
Second, how did you come up with "Hypo a TRILLION times harder"? Asleep at the switch? You think CNRR and the residents of the adjacent towns would not want the RR to be finally. completely grade-separated after 160 years?
If you are tired, take a NAP.
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 18, 2016, 11:20:24 AM
One question that was also posted in the appropriate thread, then more off topic chatter complete with unnecessary insults.
FIFY
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 18, 2016, 12:40:56 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 18, 2016, 11:20:24 AM
One question that was also posted in the appropriate thread, then more off topic chatter complete with unnecessary insults.
FIFY
No such "quote" ever made. Thats you making shit up...yet again.
I swear to fucking Godt, enough with the Hypo 90 idea. Jesus fucking Christ! YOUR thread was locked because of your own stupidity. Doing this to other's threads is not civilized nor wanted.
Quote from: kphoger on December 17, 2016, 08:19:12 PM
Can this be about Alanland yet?
YES! But you have to pay the $83 toll to DZ just for him to go away.
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 20, 2016, 07:15:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 17, 2016, 08:19:12 PM
Can this be about Alanland yet?
YES! But you have to pay the $83 toll to DZ just for him to go away.
If he wants to talk about his fantasies, most doctors charge over $100/hour
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 20, 2016, 07:15:07 PM
I swear to fucking Godt, enough with the Hypo 90 idea. Jesus fucking Christ! YOUR thread was locked because of your own stupidity. Doing this to other's threads is not civilized nor wanted.
Yes you DO swear, voltaire. Inquiring minds just want to know what we are missing with "Alternatives C11 OTHER" (pg 25, 26) in this robust BS EIS... http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf BEFORE WE/IDOT destroy the IKE (ONLY critical EW freeway available) for five to eight years? And the very real possibility it will not do JACHZHIT. (Initial disappointment and future regret of $Bs and time spent)
Pretty sure you spelled Jackshit wrong.
Anyways people are pretty accepting on the way the Eisenhower currently is. Even with construction they will still drive through it. It's unlikely they will shut the entire expressway down. If it takes 5-8 years I think they will do it in segments rather than tear up the entire Expy like the tollway does (88 and 90 in mind. Sections like Mannheim to 1st Ave, then when they finish, move on to 1st Ave to Harlem.
But in no way will they build an Expy from Hillside to Skyway to help the Ike. People work in the city you know, that won't help them. And we have Alts for those passing through to get to Indiana or whatever, Veterans, Tri-State, even Kingery Hwy. And if you are really coming from far out I-39 to I-80 or I-88.
Serious hypothetical question :poke:, would extending the Blue Line out to Naperville or so maybe help the traffic on 290?
Everybody I talk to about the Ike has words that in NO way would be considered "pretty accepting". And when and IF they start to attempt to cram more lanes in the problem nearly SIX miles, not only will the Ike become even more of a mess, so will adjacent roads.
Yes people work in the city. They also work, transport goods, travel to/from railyards, truck terminals, MDW etc. in and around Cicero/I-55. CMAP estimates one in six vehicles are trucks going to those places. Right now that means Ike and Mannheim, Harlem, Central, Cicero, Laramie etal. Removing that would free up those roads, many others. And yes, we have "alternatives", we just dont have the DIRECT route that goes in the direction XIke and the Skyway do. A near parallel alternative to Congress Ike seems like something to consider BEFORE ripping up and spending $Bs on something that after all is said and done, MAY NOT DO JACKSHIT. Capiche?
Hence, my curiosity on C11 on the EIS. And if there is NO study on this, WE just wont know, will we?
Quote from: mvak36 on December 21, 2016, 11:37:47 AM
Serious hypothetical question :poke:, would extending the Blue Line out to Naperville or so maybe help the traffic on 290?
No. There are already BNSF trains to Naperville. Maybe better connections/transfers like a NS Mid-City Transitway... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-City_Transitway would help.
Funny though, cuz I thought the other day, maybe extend/tunnel the Blue Line west from the other end, Ohare, along EOWA?
Would it be possible to add new lanes (toll or free) to Interstate 290 by placing them over the existing railroad tracks that parallel the Interstate?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 21, 2016, 06:23:08 PM
Would it be possible to add new lanes (toll or free) to Interstate 290 by placing them over the existing railroad tracks that parallel the Interstate?
Possible, but they'd have to be express only since those lanes would have to cross over multiple bridges.
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 21, 2016, 11:43:55 AM
Everybody I talk to about the Ike has words that in NO way would be considered "pretty accepting". And when and IF they start to attempt to cram more lanes in the problem nearly SIX miles, not only will the Ike become even more of a mess, so will adjacent roads.
Yes people work in the city. They also work, transport goods, travel to/from railyards, truck terminals, MDW etc. in and around Cicero/I-55. CMAP estimates one in six vehicles are trucks going to those places. Right now that means Ike and Mannheim, Harlem, Central, Cicero, Laramie etal. Removing that would free up those roads, many others. And yes, we have "alternatives", we just dont have the DIRECT route that goes in the direction XIke and the Skyway do. A near parallel alternative to Congress Ike seems like something to consider BEFORE ripping up and spending $Bs on something that after all is said and done, MAY NOT DO JACKSHIT. Capiche?
Hence, my curiosity on C11 on the EIS. And if there is NO study on this, WE just wont know, will we?
Why don't you conduct a study since you're so knowledgeable?
SM-G930V
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 21, 2016, 06:23:08 PM
Would it be possible to add new lanes (toll or free) to Interstate 290 by placing them over the existing railroad tracks that parallel the Interstate?
Gee, thats exactly what Im suggesting, just not over I-290 (but basically parallel), and definitely NOT free. :clap: Before we shoot ourselves in the foot yet again with more needless concrete that does not resolve anything. BRING THE "C11 OTHER" STUDY.
MODS. MODS WHERE ARE YOU
For real though, I think that a 4th lane in each direction of the Eisenhower east of I-294 will upgrade the expressway from dismally congested...to dismally congested. It would improve things, but probably not enough; the current bottlenecks would just be moved to different locations. The Hillside Strangler would still be just as much of a nightmare. In my opinion, we need to think on a bigger scale. No matter what, newcomers to the Chicago commute from the western suburbs will find themselves utterly appalled at the amount of traffic...whereas those experienced with that commute know to AVOID COMMUTING BY CAR AT ALL COSTS TAKE THE METRA FOR THE LOVE OF GOD lol
inb4 people call me a Metra shill lol but seriously it's the only option when I-290 is this miserably inadequate
I won't call you any names, however we better invest at least a billion dollars into Metra rail service and move it into the 21st century. Most cars still lack charging options for devices, WiFi is still horrible. Debit card system is lackluster and the service and on time arrival leaves a lot to be desired. I agree with you that a good rail choice that has 21st century capabilities would be excellent alternative to our roadways, but unless we invest actual money into it I don't see it happening.
Rail is a 19th and 20th century. And forget about comparing America and its rail system with rail systems overseas. American cities are farther apart than cities in Europe (the entire land mass of Europe is roughly the same as the land mass of the United States). Japan is a jam-packed island nation. And China and India are developing countries, so any comparisons would not add up.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
Rail is a 19th and 20th century. And forget about comparing America and its rail system with rail systems overseas. American cities are farther apart than cities in Europe (the entire land mass of Europe is roughly the same as the land mass of the United States). Japan is a jam-packed island nation. And China and India are developing countries, so any comparisons would not add up.
Thats because we lack the ability to invest in rail options. The "L" in Chicago is decent, but if we were to invest in it properly and make it faster, nicer and more efficient I can bet a lot more people would use it. The number one reason people hate public transportation is reliability.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 23, 2016, 12:09:39 PM
those experienced with that commute know to AVOID COMMUTING BY CAR AT ALL COSTS TAKE THE METRA FOR THE LOVE OF GOD lol
inb4 people call me a Metra shill lol but seriously it's the only option when I-290 is this miserably inadequate
Having relied on public transit in the western suburbs for several years in the past... I hear you. I only had my own car there for a brief period, but I sometimes had my car-owning girlfriend (now my wife) along.
On several occasions, I've successfully shaved time off a commute by simply avoiding the highways altogether. Even at rush hour, if you know the right roads to be on, it's better than 88 to 290. I once reversed down the Naperville Road onramp on my way to play in a concert near Harlem and North Ave, because inbound 88 was a sea of brake lights on a Friday evening. I ended up taking Route 53 to St Charles Road to 1st Ave to Chicago Ave. Made it in plenty of time. I also remember once taking a roommate to O'Hare at the evening rush hour, and making it in less time by taking surface streets (Route 53 to St Charles Road to Route 83 to Irving Park Road).
I never had a problem with Metra. It would occasionally run more than a few minutes late, but not often. Easy connection from the UP-W to the green line made things a cinch. Coming from Naperville, though, there's not as easy a connection to the L, and for me usually involved going all the way to Union Station and then walking to the Clinton subway station under the Ike. Most services run hourly, which is good. But weekend trips are less frequent, especially Sundays, and those big holes in the weekend timetable really make driving more appealing. Most people I knew were fine with taking Metra, and it doesn't have the same stigma as taking a local bus or even the L. But, in order to rely on Metra regularly for your morning commute, you have to either live close to a station or live near (and know about) a feeder bus line (many of which, at least in those days, were contracted out to yellow school buses, and which had
very limited hours of operation)–or else you have to pay for a parking spot (limited) at the nearest station (meaning you're
still committed to owning and maintaining a car just so you can drive to said station).
The outer suburbs are simply very difficult to conquer on public transit. Trust me, I've done it. I wasn't like most people, being willing to rely daily on a combination of means that sometimes included walking more than a mile, waiting for more than an hour, and even urban hitchhiking. The system works great for some people, but they are the minority. Most people do not live by a Metra station. Most people don't have a work schedule that lines up neatly with feeder bus schedules. Most people don't want to walk to wait for a bus at 6 AM in February so they can connect to a train so they can connect to another train or bus so they can then walk again to reach their place of employment–only to do the reverse several hours later. Most people aren't
both willing and able to own and maintain a reliable car (practically necessary for day-to-day life in the suburbs)
and pay for a train station parking space and rail pass. Most people, instead, suffer through the drive every day.
Quote from: quickshade on December 23, 2016, 04:47:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
Rail is a 19th and 20th century. And forget about comparing America and its rail system with rail systems overseas. American cities are farther apart than cities in Europe (the entire land mass of Europe is roughly the same as the land mass of the United States). Japan is a jam-packed island nation. And China and India are developing countries, so any comparisons would not add up.
Thats because we lack the ability to invest in rail options. The "L" in Chicago is decent, but if we were to invest in it properly and make it faster, nicer and more efficient I can bet a lot more people would use it. The number one reason people hate public transportation is reliability.
What's unreliable about the L?
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2016, 06:40:28 PM
What's unreliable about the L?
I find the L to be one of the most reliable systems out there, in and of itself. There are parking problems at many L stations. especially downtown and on the north side, for those wanting to do a park and ride trip. And there are the usual issues with security on a big-city public transit system.
As far as Metra, I am one of its regular exurban customers (as I am with the CTA) several times a month. It is a convenient service for me, saving time, aggravation and money vs. a car-only downtown trip. You need to be on time to catch the train due to its 90%+ on time record, and any hiccup on the car trip in may cause you to miss your train (congestion on I-80 has cost me more than a few misses, or having to chase the train to meet it several stops ahead). I will say that the fare has inflated over 40% in the last seven years, with another small increase due in 2017, but still worth it. The UP-W has more parking issues than the BNSF for park-n-riders, while the RI service has ample parking at nearly all suburban stops.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 23, 2016, 12:09:39 PM
MODS. MODS WHERE ARE YOU
For real though, I think that a 4th lane in each direction of the Eisenhower east of I-294 will upgrade the expressway from DISMALLY CONGESTED...to DISMALLY CONGESTED. It would improve things, but probably not enough; the current bottlenecks would just be moved to different locations. The Hillside Strangler would still be just as much of a nightmare. In my opinion, we need to think on a bigger scale. No matter what, newcomers to the Chicago commute from the western suburbs will find themselves utterly appalled at the amount of traffic...whereas those experienced with that commute know to AVOID COMMUTING BY CAR AT ALL COSTS TAKE THE METRA FOR THE LOVE OF GOD lol
inb4 people call me a Metra shill lol but seriously it's the only option when I-290 is this miserably inadequate
Could not agree more. Yes WE need to THINK on a bigger scale. Yes Dupageco, soon with three, even four? TOLLWAYS with NO serious thought to getting rail transit to do what it needs to do. BTW sorry to wreck your post.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
Rail is a 19th and 20th century. And forget about comparing America and its rail system with rail systems overseas. American cities are farther apart than cities in Europe (the entire land mass of Europe is roughly the same as the land mass of the United States). Japan is a jam-packed island nation. And China and India are developing countries, so any comparisons would not add up.
There are certain cities in America that are farther apart. But there's a whole bunch of them that are plenty close enough to link together with modern high-speed rail. But it's not (yet) politically expedient to do so. A lot of it is knee-jerk "We're America! We're different than Europe!" hogwash.
A whole bunch of people find car ownership more burdensome than useful, and aren't keen on sitting in gridlock two hours each way on their daily commute just to have the illusion of freedom. Many of them would gladly take the train and use the commuting time for more productive things. I'd much rather have that then people half-assing driving because their phone makes a more compelling claim for their attention.
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 23, 2016, 08:05:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2016, 06:40:28 PM
What's unreliable about the L?
I find the L to be one of the most reliable systems out there, in and of itself. There are parking problems at many L stations. especially downtown and on the north side, for those wanting to do a park and ride trip. And there are the usual issues with security on a big-city public transit system.
As far as Metra, I am one of its regular exurban customers (as I am with the CTA) several times a month. It is a convenient service for me, saving time, aggravation and money vs. a car-only downtown trip. You need to be on time to catch the train due to its 90%+ on time record, and any hiccup on the car trip in may cause you to miss your train (congestion on I-80 has cost me more than a few misses, or having to chase the train to meet it several stops ahead). I will say that the fare has inflated over 40% in the last seven years, with another small increase due in 2017, but still worth it. The UP-W has more parking issues than the BNSF for park-n-riders, while the RI service has ample parking at nearly all suburban stops.
Honestly, I wish they would invest more in expanding the L. For instance, during bad weather, it often is the on system and network in the city that doesn't totally shut down. If you live in the city, it IS the way to go. If they expanded the blue line to at least Oak Brook, it would be a very wise investment. Yes, they need to expand I-290, and I, for one, am not even totally opposed to the HOT idea, but it would work much better if supplemented with a blue line extension.
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 23, 2016, 08:05:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2016, 06:40:28 PM
What's unreliable about the L?
I find the L to be one of the most reliable systems out there, in and of itself. There are parking problems at many L stations. especially downtown and on the north side, for those wanting to do a park and ride trip. And there are the usual issues with security on a big-city public transit system.
As far as Metra, I am one of its regular exurban customers (as I am with the CTA) several times a month. It is a convenient service for me, saving time, aggravation and money vs. a car-only downtown trip. You need to be on time to catch the train due to its 90%+ on time record, and any hiccup on the car trip in may cause you to miss your train (congestion on I-80 has cost me more than a few misses, or having to chase the train to meet it several stops ahead). I will say that the fare has inflated over 40% in the last seven years, with another small increase due in 2017, but still worth it. The UP-W has more parking issues than the BNSF for park-n-riders, while the RI service has ample parking at nearly all suburban stops.
Metra is "fairly" reliable. The freight owned metra lines are definitely more reliable than metra's own line. Not sure who actually drives to the loop if they live within a metra station.
However, if you're not going downtown, then metra is not a viable alternative. If I'm going to uptown or hyde park, metra just doesn't work. AFAIK, the 290 study includes a ROW for CTA to expand the blue line to Mannheim. I do agree that a blue line extension to mannheim will certainly help knock down traffic. At the current blue line end point in forest park, it's currently unusable. Why would I go through the hillside strangler and then as soon as I get through that choke hold then finally decide to blue line it?
Honestly, the number 1 improvement Metra can use right now is a flyover near the western year that separates the UP-W trains from the MDW, MDN trains.
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 23, 2016, 10:56:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
Rail is a 19th and 20th century. And forget about comparing America and its rail system with rail systems overseas. American cities are farther apart than cities in Europe (the entire land mass of Europe is roughly the same as the land mass of the United States). Japan is a jam-packed island nation. And China and India are developing countries, so any comparisons would not add up.
There are certain cities in America that are farther apart. But there's a whole bunch of them that are plenty close enough to link together with modern high-speed rail. But it's not (yet) politically expedient to do so. A lot of it is knee-jerk "We're America! We're different than Europe!" hogwash.
A whole bunch of people find car ownership more burdensome than useful, and aren't keen on sitting in gridlock two hours each way on their daily commute just to have the illusion of freedom. Many of them would gladly take the train and use the commuting time for more productive things. I'd much rather have that then people half-assing driving because their phone makes a more compelling claim for their attention.
Which is kinda funny coming from WI residents in Janesville and Madison that actually used to have a passenger rail to Chicago. And are exactly one 300 ft crossover from having a rail service to ORD or downtown again. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16794.0 Yes I know, totally off-topic, but I did not bring it.
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2016, 06:40:28 PM
On several occasions, I've successfully shaved time off a commute by simply avoiding the highways altogether.
I do this too when I was commuting to school last quarter. It's a heck of a lot better than sitting in stop and go traffic on the freeway.
The I-290 DEIS is now online.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 30, 2016, 11:33:17 AM
The I-290 DEIS is now online.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/
Interesting. It looks like they realize that an extra lane is needed no matter what. Also, I am glad they realize that the blue line needs to be extended to at least Manheim, though it would be really awesome if they ever did extend it to Oak Brook (just like it's NW section should go to Schaumburg). I'm going to be honest, but I'm not totally against tolling the whole thing... as long as that means the ISTHA takes it over. I think they'd do a much better job rebuilding and widening I-290 than I would trust IDOT to do it, but that's just my opinion. The extra general purpose lane is the ideal solution, but I get the feeling IDOT can't afford it.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on January 01, 2017, 09:51:14 AM
Oak Brook
Pace bus route #322 has departures every 20 minutes from the Pink Line to Oakbrook, and even every 30 minutes on the weekend (Sunday included). I'd say the passenger traffic is definitely there, considering the beefy bus schedule. But if the bus is doing fine, then maybe there's no need to extend the L that far.
Pace bus route #301 has departures every 30 minutes from the Blue Line to Oakbrook Monday through Saturday. I used to use this line (back when it was #747 and the Pink Line was blue), from Wheaton all the way to Forest Park on a somewhat regular basis. It was my impression back then that the traffic volume was substantially less than on #322, but I'm not sure why.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on January 01, 2017, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 30, 2016, 11:33:17 AM
The I-290 DEIS is now online.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/
Interesting. The extra general purpose lane is the ideal solution, but I get the feeling IDOT can't afford it.
Just dont see how this, even if it could be pulled off in FIVE minimum years, will help, while turning the IKE into WAY bigger mess than it is. Still have not seen #s on what this fiasco will cost.
The IKE is basically a six mile near-gut rehab, the Hypo is NEW construction. Ask any contractor what they would rather do?
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 08, 2017, 10:43:00 PM
Ask any contractor what they would rather do?
They would say they'd rather do a project that isn't based on crazy, which would eliminate the crazy, fictional "hypo" from the list.
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 08, 2017, 10:43:00 PM
Ask any contractor what they would rather do?
Unless you have a billion dollars lying around, I'm going to guess they will go with whatever project IDOT/ISTHA/etc., will tell them to do. If you want them to build your project, I'd suggest you try to get IDOT/ISTHA to sign off on it. We are but humble roadgeeks who have no power over this stuff (unless it's in Fictional Highways, of course).
So this project is moving forward, but where exactly will they get the funding for this? Will construction on this start within the next decade, or will this be yet another IDOT project stuck in Phase I because of no money.
Also, any word if the Tollway will expand I-88 to eight lanes between the York Road Toll Plaza and the Tri-State to coincide with this? I see the reconstruction of that segment is planned for 2018-2019, but will they allow for future widening when they reconstruct the road?
Added on that if they do expand I-88 in that segment, but would Roosevelt Road get some sort of a concide upgrade between the Tri-State and Kingery Highway? I'd assume those ramps might need to be moved around
Quote from: ET21 on January 10, 2017, 07:01:04 PM
Added on that if they do expand I-88 in that segment, but would Roosevelt Road get some sort of a concide upgrade between the Tri-State and Kingery Highway? I'd assume those ramps might need to be moved around
Doubt IDOT would do it, but yes, some of those ramps would need to be moved around.
Quote from: I-39 on January 10, 2017, 05:40:44 PM
So this project is moving forward, but where exactly will they get the funding for this? Will construction on this start within the next decade, or will this be yet another IDOT project stuck in Phase I because of no money.
Also, any word if the Tollway will expand I-88 to eight lanes between the York Road Toll Plaza and the Tri-State to coincide with this? I see the reconstruction of that segment is planned for 2018-2019, but will they allow for future widening when they reconstruct the road?
Work will be needed for the 2020-2022? central tri state rebuild
some ideas
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.msg236033#msg236033
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 10, 2017, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 08, 2017, 10:43:00 PM
Ask any contractor what they would rather do?
They would say they'd rather do a project that isn't based on crazy, which would eliminate the crazy, fictional "hypo" from the list.
Actually based on geometry and a missing 16 mile road/rail corridor through a large, dense urban area.
Now crazy would be that lazy 60 mile slab of I-43 to Beloit. If WI wants a tollway...
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 12, 2017, 12:07:23 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 10, 2017, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 08, 2017, 10:43:00 PM
Ask any contractor what they would rather do?
They would say they'd rather do a project that isn't based on crazy, which would eliminate the crazy, fictional "hypo" from the list.
Actually based on geometry and a missing 16 mile road/rail corridor through a large, dense urban area.
Now crazy would be that lazy 60 mile slab of I-43 to Beloit. If WI wants a tollway...
US 12 can be made into one. + Richmond bypass and fap 420 with IL-53
Oh good Godt. Will he ever just stop?
This is not your thread to post such bullshit DZ. And the more you post about something that has been panned by everyone who has heard it ad nauseam, the more it will continue to get panned for the bad idea it is especially when your estimate of how many homes and businesses that would be displaced and or affected is incredibly low for the reality.
Now bugger off Jackwagon.
Twenty "roadgeeks" is not "panned by everyone". What is "C11 OTHER"? Even if the Hypo # was a hundred homes, bizs, parks, HS etc, that is not insurmountable for a project of this size and scope (~$4B?). Just do not see what ripping up the IKE (~$4B??), cramming two (or four?) lanes in, is going to accomplish ultimately. Its dismally congested most always (this photo around noon? looking at the shadows, is hardly the norm) and will remain that way if any of this boondoggle is actually built.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.cdn.pagesuite.com%2Farticles%2Fdailyherald%2F2017-01-12_620170112015712002.jpg&hash=d06c5cc31d19e124c452837b0ff94360591c8c62)
I said "panned by everyone WHO HEARD IT". Leaving that part out just to fit your silly narrative is dishonest and does not make your argument any more credible.
And you still don't get after I laid out what it takes to put in a 6 (3 each way) lane interstate for ROW that it is going to be thousands of home and businesses affected. Your estimate was so low in a very densely populated area that it is laughable.
And as it has been said to you 83 times before, it's not a ripping up and closure of the Ike while it is being constructed. You do realize that when a highway that is multilane gets a full reconstruction that traffic still remains on that highway through shifts in alignment, right? They did that with the reconstruction and widen of I-88 and I-294 in recent years. If you don't see what that can accomplish, that's on you. You have been told over and over again.
Now, for the last time, take your Hypo I-90 idea back to fantasy land to get panned again.
Quote from: hobsini2 on January 14, 2017, 09:06:10 AM
And you still don't get after I laid out what it takes to put in a 6 (3 each way) lane interstate for ROW that it is going to be thousands of home and businesses affected. Your estimate was so low in a very densely populated area that it is laughable.
I still count a hundred. Thirty or so in the city, maybe seventy north of the Sanship river. Even IF it were two? Where or what sat photos are you looking at that the number of houses/businesses would ever get to "thousands"? Many thousand trees (which would be replaced), for sure.
Just grade-separating the CNRR at Harlem and Cermak/1st Av initially is probably more of a priority.
2) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8713313,-87.9007344,630m/data=!3m1!1e3
3) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8677681,-87.888761,630m/data=!3m1!1e3
4) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8641966,-87.8760903,630m/data=!3m1!1e3
As much as Id like to see an EB enter/WB exit at Mannheim, its just too hectic. This, just down Roosevelt is better.
5) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8633542,-87.8751224,157m/data=!3m1!1e3
6) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8610398,-87.8674362,313m/data=!3m1!1e3
7) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8592098,-87.8612101,314m/data=!3m1!1e3
8) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8573656,-87.8542139,315m/data=!3m1!1e3
9) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.855415,-87.847962,315m/data=!3m1!1e3
10) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8540016,-87.8434213,315m/data=!3m1!1e3
11) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8523856,-87.83723,315m/data=!3m1!1e3
12) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8501752,-87.8306218,316m/data=!3m1!1e3
EB enter/WB exit at 1st Av
13) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8481445,-87.8238875,315m/data=!3m1!1e3
14) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8465412,-87.8175661,316m/data=!3m1!1e3
15) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8450713,-87.8133391,316m/data=!3m1!1e3
16) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8443877,-87.8105824,316m/data=!3m1!1e3
17) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8424005,-87.8041335,316m/data=!3m1!1e3
18) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8405348,-87.7981629,317m/data=!3m1!1e3
19) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8389075,-87.7916414,316m/data=!3m1!1e3
Where to configure an EB enter/WB exit at Harlem in North Riverside?
20) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8368156,-87.7847035,317m/data=!3m1!1e3
21) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8348902,-87.7781431,317m/data=!3m1!1e3
22) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8335073,-87.7716179,317m/data=!3m1!1e3
23) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8322645,-87.76536,317m/data=!3m1!1e3
24) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8315413,-87.7589071,317m/data=!3m1!1e3
25) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8316142,-87.7526817,318m/data=!3m1!1e3
26) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8320726,-87.7459726,317m/data=!3m1!1e3
27) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.83268,-87.7656852,315m/data=!3m1!1e3
28) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8324202,-87.7603476,315m/data=!3m1!1e3
As far as what SHOULD be done to the IKE immediately...
Get the right shoulders up to lanes, build new shoulders/breakdown lanes in the numerous places they can be. Its going to have to be done anyway.
If we are talking tolled lanes on the Ike (big pia), why not just build a NEW tollway bypassing the IKE? Also including tolled lanes on XIke.
There goes Mr. Hypotenuse running his mouth again...I don't see any possible way that they could widen I-290 beyond its configuration, and it looks as crowded as it is. I-90 is more than adequate running out of the northwestern suburbs.
Quote from: Henry on January 24, 2017, 10:07:37 AM
There goes Mr. Hypotenuse running his mouth again...I don't see any possible way that they could widen I-290 beyond its configuration, and it looks as crowded as it is. I-90 is more than adequate running out of the northwestern suburbs.
"I don't see any possible way that they could widen I-290 beyond its configuration, and it looks as crowded as it is. I-90 is more than adequate running out of the northwestern suburbs."
And I agree completely. So WHY do it? Cookco needs TWO complete tollways.
Hence the call to connect the dots at the Strangler and the Skyway and bypass the Ike, putting a tollway where one needs to be put. Its hard to find a RR ROW that does not have a parallel road. This would be one, through a critical place in the regions, even Americas road/RR infrastructure. If not now, when? Another twenty, fifty years from now?
What IS "C11 OTHER"?.
The call? You are the only one calling for it.
Well it's called deal with it, don't try a build another highway that doesn't even take you into downtown just to be a bypass around the Eisenhower.
And why worry about C11 anyways.
Why? Cuz spending 2-3$B to cram two tolled lanes (the current preferred alternative is HOT 3+, with an estimated 56% :confused: time savings in those 2 lanes and a measly 25% improvement in the 6 free lanes) into Congress Ike is a pretty big slab of salami to throw at the wall to see if it sticks. After going to the recent IDOT meetings and talking to some of the engineers/consultants, I get the feeling they are not completely confident this will solve the "problem" either. How the H is that going to get configured between Mannheim and the Strangler? :wow: My crystal ball says not well and ask again later.
"WE'RE NOT GOING TO WIPE OUT CONGESTION AS WE KNOW IT ON THE EISENHOWER, but we're going to provide a RELIABLE trip," Pete Harmet (IDOT) said.
Well, Im looking for a lot more bang for the $Bs. Why NOT wipe out congestion on the Ike (and some on 90/94) as we know it? A plan for "C11 Other" in the following EIS has been submitted (yet again).
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-570d6185%2Fturbine%2Fct-tl-ct-oak-eisenhower-staging-tl-ng-jpg-20160412&hash=a93de684e94f8e29e9f897d8e71ff853bb845300)
A priority should be getting these trucks (and a bunch of cars) OFF this road, heading more directly to where they are going. IKE widening will not accomplish that...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feisenhowerexpressway.com%2Fgallery%2Fphotos%2Fi-290_centerline_looking_east_from_oak_park_ave.jpg&hash=eb467dc4369e983f6a790ae09043028f391ec629)
Jumping the Strangler, building a/the missing link in Americas longest tollway (giving another way for places as far flung as WI & MN another way to get around the lake and head east), accessing downtown from the south (via I-55) as well, bypassing the Congress Ike completely, and getting tons of mostly truck traffic headed to the numerous rail and truck terminals around I-55 off the Ike and arterials Cicero, Pulaski, Harlem, 1st, Roosevelt, Cermak, etal, grade separating one of the original RRs here, would be a major accomplishment to get things moving all over the area.
Keep Congress Ike free. Its just not worth the hoops that will have to be jumped through to accommodate two HOV lanes.
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 27, 2017, 01:42:04 PM
building a/the missing link
Stop. The only "missing link" is a fictional highway.
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 31, 2017, 12:41:15 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 27, 2017, 01:42:04 PM
building a/the missing link
Stop. The only "missing link" is a fictional highway.
Actually, it has moved up a notch to a formal submission for "C11 Other".
Dont you have some more inspirational WI notes to post? Must be a slow news day up there in Wherethefami,WI..
Kind of the opposite of that fictional highway called "I-43" to Beloit.
Are there ANY WI "fictional highways"? I think they have ALL been built.
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 31, 2017, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 31, 2017, 12:41:15 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 27, 2017, 01:42:04 PM
building a/the missing link
Stop. The only "missing link" is a fictional highway.
Kinda the opposite of that fictional highway called "I-43" to Beloit.
Please STFU.
I doubt even that will kill dzlsabe's Hypotenuse. It should have long ago gone to Fictional Highways.
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 31, 2017, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 31, 2017, 12:41:15 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 27, 2017, 01:42:04 PM
building a/the missing link
Stop. The only "missing link" is a fictional highway.
Kinda the opposite of that fictional highway called "I-43" to Beloit.
What does that even mean? Jesus, man. Take your meds.
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 31, 2017, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 31, 2017, 12:41:15 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 27, 2017, 01:42:04 PM
building a/the missing link
Stop. The only "missing link" is a fictional highway.
Dont you have some more inspirational WI notes to post?
Kinda the opposite of that fictional highway called "I-43" to Beloit.
Can you please stay on topic dipshit?
DZ, your idea that "cross country trucks" are the ones clogging up the Ike is not accurate.
1) Most cross country trucks that are going through town to somewhere else use the 290 Extension to the Tri-State or the Tri-State itself.
2) Those other cross country trucks are using the Ike because, OH MY GODT, their destination is along the Ike corridor.
3) Only the idiots who can't read a fucking map would use the Ike to go from say Rockford to South Bend and beyond.
So your whole premise for the need of your Hypo vs what the state has proposed is wrong and loony.
^^Exactly. Trucks don't clog up the Ike, they're mostly on the Stevenson, heading to/from the intermodal yards near Joliet.
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 01, 2017, 08:19:29 PM
DZ, your idea that "cross country trucks" are the ones clogging up the Ike is not accurate.
1) Most cross country trucks that are going through town to somewhere else use the 290 Extension to the Tri-State or the Tri-State itself.
2) Those other cross country trucks are using the Ike because, OH MY GODT, their destination is along the Ike corridor.
3) Only the idiots who can't read a fucking map would use the Ike to go from say Rockford to South Bend and beyond.
So your whole premise for the need of your Hypo vs what the state has proposed is wrong and loony.
1)I NEVER said cross country trucks are using the IKE. Some may be. I would figure most are going to/fro rail/truck terminals within five miles of Cicero for local or interstate trips.
2) Doubt there is many along an IKE corridor as per 1).
3) Not sure who you are talking about, but by idiots, I would guess you mean that it is IDOT, ISHTA and RRs, etal that can not see the "problem" from SPACE. And as IDOT has stated, HOVing (for $3B and eight? years) the IKE WILL NOT solve the "problem".
We have plenty of WI residents spouting here. What would WI do? They have built every "fictional" highway for their 6M pop state. They can go every which way but EAST.
@Brandon-CMAP estimates 1/6 of the traffic on the IKE is trucks headed NOT to Fing Joliet.
$3B would go a long way to completing a 16 mile tollway link in a thousand mile tollway...with non-IDOT funding.
Happy to be the "fly in this ointment". HOV Ike may be dummer than Illiana.
Yes, DZ, your Hypo is dumber than anything actually.
Anyone ever notice how he goes back and edits his posts days later? It's like his meds finally kick in and he realizes that he posted some really stupid stuff, so he cleans it up. Then they wear off, and he comes back and writes things that get progressively crazier.
It's kind of fun watching him top his own crazy crap with even crazier crap! :-D
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 02, 2017, 11:39:21 AM
Anyone ever notice how he goes back and edits his posts days later? It's like his meds finally kick in and he realizes that he posted some really stupid stuff, so he cleans it up. Then they wear off, and he comes back and writes things that get progressively crazier.
It's kind of fun watching him top his own crazy crap with even crazier crap! :-D
I'm curious if he actually believes this is a good idea or if he's just trolling.
Quote from: tribar on February 02, 2017, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on February 02, 2017, 11:39:21 AM
Anyone ever notice how he goes back and edits his posts days later? It's like his meds finally kick in and he realizes that he posted some really stupid stuff, so he cleans it up. Then they wear off, and he comes back and writes things that get progressively crazier.
It's kind of fun watching him top his own crazy crap with even crazier crap! :-D
I'm curious if he actually believes this is a good idea or if he's just trolling.
I don't think he's clever enough to troll. Some other social issues? Perhaps.
Please don't feed the troll! :-D
Quote from: dcharlie on February 02, 2017, 02:20:17 PM
Please don't feed the troll! :-D
We try, he then decides to resurrect the thread months later with the same crap.
DZ, don't lie. You edited it out 3 hours after my last post.
*Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 23:02:34 by dzlsabe*
You did say Cross Country Trucks.
At least if you didn't mean that, own up to it being a mistake. By editing and then saying you never said that, you lose what little credibility you had.
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 31, 2017, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on January 31, 2017, 12:41:15 PM
Quote from: dzlsabe on January 27, 2017, 01:42:04 PM
building a/the missing link
Stop. The only "missing link" is a fictional highway.
Actually, it has moved up a notch to a formal submission for "C11 Other".
Dont you have some more inspirational WI notes to post? Must be a slow news day up there in Wherethefami,WI..
Kind of the opposite of that fictional highway called "I-43" to Beloit.
Are there ANY WI "fictional highways"? I think they have ALL been built.
Quote from: dzlsabe on February 01, 2017, 10:59:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 01, 2017, 08:19:29 PM
DZ, your idea that "cross country trucks" are the ones clogging up the Ike is not accurate.
1) Most cross country trucks that are going through town to somewhere else use the 290 Extension to the Tri-State or the Tri-State itself.
2) Those other cross country trucks are using the Ike because, OH MY GODT, their destination is along the Ike corridor.
3) Only the idiots who can't read a fucking map would use the Ike to go from say Rockford to South Bend and beyond.
So your whole premise for the need of your Hypo vs what the state has proposed is wrong and loony.
1)I NEVER said cross country trucks are using the IKE. Some may be. I would figure most are going to/fro rail/truck terminals within five miles of Cicero for local or interstate trips.
2) Doubt there is many along an IKE corridor as per 1).
3) Not sure who you are talking about, but by idiots, I would guess you mean that it is IDOT, ISHTA and RRs, etal that can not see the "problem" from SPACE. And as IDOT has stated, HOVing (for $3B and eight? years) the IKE WILL NOT solve the "problem".
We have plenty of WI residents spouting here. What would WI do? They have built every "fictional" highway for their 6M pop state. They can go every which way but EAST.
@Brandon-CMAP estimates 1/6 of the traffic on the IKE is trucks headed NOT to Fing Joliet.
$3B would go a long way to completing a 16 mile tollway link in a thousand mile tollway...with non-IDOT funding.
Happy to be the "fly in this ointment". HOV Ike may be dummer than Illiana.
The idiots, beside yourself, that I was referring to are the cross country truckers who are driving thru that would use the Ike instead of 294 or 80.
You aren't a fly in the ointment. You're just a self righteous Orwellian radiator who can't figure out context in statements as demonstrated by your question of who the idiots are. But that's not why you called.
Oh and BTW, the Wisconsin residents that are commenting here at least have demonstrated that they can understand how stupid you are.
What do I have to "lie" about exactly?
There are three NS roadways (94, 294, 355, even 39 if ya want a fourth) that dump into I-80 to go east. The only access to I-90 (Skyway/ITR etal) is the Kennedy/Ryan or going through Ike/Strangler, both of which are major CFs. Who wants to spend money on NW Tollway or Skyway/ITR when you HAVE to face that? We have tried bypassing, widening, rearranging road signs. And now we are planning to widen and HOV/toll the Ike in another desperate attempt to "fix the problem". Even IDOT admits it will not "wipe out congestion on the Ike as we know it".
I have been pretty steadfast in pointing out that only one thing will SOLVE the problem. A second complete tollway through Cookco. Its not local. Its GLOBAL. Getting the south (even west?) side/NWIN up to snuff is a win-win.