Did they ever officially cancel the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension? I still see it in some long range planning documents, but nothing concrete.
It's frankly an atrocity that this (along with the regular IL-53 extension) was never built.
That number is going to peg everyone's prank detector
Quote from: kurumi on April 10, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
That number is going to peg everyone's prank detector
Yet, that's the actual IDOT number for it. Unfortunately, it is FAP (double entendre) and 420 (does this really need explanation?).
And if you keep an eagle eye out for it, there are even signs indicating FAP 420 on the area roads.
Quote from: sipes23 on April 10, 2015, 05:39:33 PM
And if you keep an eagle eye out for it, there are even signs indicating FAP 420 on the area roads.
Where?
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1428710991251!6m8!1m7!1saeucBpxpoe-9c7Mu-w07WQ!2m2!1d42.169564!2d-88.023708!3f269.167369826505!4f-7.0800188589990825!5f1.9587109090973311" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0"></iframe>
Oops. I think it says FAP 342 ROW, so it's Long Grove and not Richmond. My bad.
Quote from: sipes23 on April 10, 2015, 08:11:51 PM
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1428710991251!6m8!1m7!1saeucBpxpoe-9c7Mu-w07WQ!2m2!1d42.169564!2d-88.023708!3f269.167369826505!4f-7.0800188589990825!5f1.9587109090973311" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0"></iframe>
Oops. I think it says FAP 342 ROW, so it's Long Grove and not Richmond. My bad.
Yeah, I'm talking about the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension that was to connect to the US 12 freeway in Genoa City, WI. It has been largely dormant since the early 90s, but it still continues to appear in some planning documents.
http://www.richmondbypass.com/default.aspx
There has been nothing on this site since 2013 The ROW is still owned by IDOT but a recall there was some surprise issue that cancelled it . The legislature has given the tollway authority permission to build it maybe our person who knows them can tell us what happened? I know its not in Mc Henrys or Lakes 2040 plans
In looking at both the Richmond Bypass project and the IL-53/IL-120 Project, there's a big chunk missing between Volo and Richmond that isn't really addressed by either.
The Richmond Bypass ends around US-12 and Solon Rd in SE Richmond. The IL-120 Project would end near Fish Lake Rd, east of US-12/IL-59 in Volo.
There's about 12-13 miles of US-12 running through the Chain O' Lakes area between those two points.
Quote from: 3467 on April 11, 2015, 08:27:44 PM
http://www.richmondbypass.com/default.aspx
There has been nothing on this site since 2013 The ROW is still owned by IDOT but a recall there was some surprise issue that cancelled it . The legislature has given the tollway authority permission to build it maybe our person who knows them can tell us what happened? I know its not in Mc Henrys or Lakes 2040 plans
They are not allowing IDOT to build north of IL-173, there are some wetlands just south of the partial interchange in Genoa City. So in other words, it's not really a bypass.
The ENTIRE FAP 420 corridor should have been built regardless of whether it impacts a lot of wetlands or not. This is the suburbs of Chicago, not a national park or anything. We need to move people, not be protecting every single wetland. Congestion in Lake County is gosh awful, and this corridor would have provided a major relief route for I-90 and I-94.
I don't understand how Wisconsin can build their portion of the US 12 freeway (and are willing to continue it to Madison) as well as the Rock Freeway (I-43) and yet, Illinois cannot build a six lane highway between Lake Cook and the state line. Surely just across the border in Wisconsin, it has similar terrain to Lake County?
This whole thing about protecting wetlands............ so what if it impacts them? Again, it's not like they are all going to be destroyed. They can either be replaced or bypassed via an elevated freeway or something like that. I didn't see anyone complaining about impacting wetlands when all the housing developments in Lake County were built. For the environmentalists to deny IDOT a permit to build the portion of the Richmond bypass north of IL-173 is stupid. This is where the state legislature or Congress needs to step in and grant a waiver to this project (waive some of the strict environmental restrictions) so it can be built.
It's a flat out atrocity that FAP 420 (and the IL-53 extension) was never built and likely won't ever be.
I hope a user here changes their username to FAP420.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 12, 2015, 02:44:15 PM
The ENTIRE FAP 420 corridor should have been built regardless of whether it impacts a lot of wetlands or not. This is the suburbs of Chicago, not a national park or anything. We need to move people, not be protecting every single wetland. Congestion in Lake County is gosh awful, and this corridor would have provided a major relief route for I-90 and I-94.
I don't understand how Wisconsin can build their portion of the US 12 freeway (and are willing to continue it to Madison) as well as the Rock Freeway (I-43) and yet, Illinois cannot build a six lane highway between Lake Cook and the state line. Surely just across the border in Wisconsin, it has similar terrain to Lake County?
This whole thing about protecting wetlands............ so what if it impacts them? Again, it's not like they are all going to be destroyed. They can either be replaced or bypassed via an elevated freeway or something like that. I didn't see anyone complaining about impacting wetlands when all the housing developments in Lake County were built. For the environmentalists to deny IDOT a permit to build the portion of the Richmond bypass north of IL-173 is stupid. This is where the state legislature or Congress needs to step in and grant a waiver to this project (waive some of the strict environmental restrictions) so it can be built.
It's a flat out atrocity that FAP 420 (and the IL-53 extension) was never built and likely won't ever be.
When everyone decides that "we can destroy this one wetland; it's not like we are destroying them all", then all the wetlands will be destroyed.
I get your frustration. My take is simply this - if the traffic needs aren't there to support it, then the need to build it really isn't there.
This from someone that has made frequent trips through that area. As much as I'd like to get to Lake Geneva or Madison or the Dells just a few more minutes faster, it's not just about me.
Put yourself in the path of your highway. Are you cool with the state buying your land? Are you cool with the state TAKING your land when you opt not to sell?
Between that and the environment, it's a wonder we built any roads at all. ;)
Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 12, 2015, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 12, 2015, 02:44:15 PM
The ENTIRE FAP 420 corridor should have been built regardless of whether it impacts a lot of wetlands or not. This is the suburbs of Chicago, not a national park or anything. We need to move people, not be protecting every single wetland. Congestion in Lake County is gosh awful, and this corridor would have provided a major relief route for I-90 and I-94.
I don't understand how Wisconsin can build their portion of the US 12 freeway (and are willing to continue it to Madison) as well as the Rock Freeway (I-43) and yet, Illinois cannot build a six lane highway between Lake Cook and the state line. Surely just across the border in Wisconsin, it has similar terrain to Lake County?
This whole thing about protecting wetlands............ so what if it impacts them? Again, it's not like they are all going to be destroyed. They can either be replaced or bypassed via an elevated freeway or something like that. I didn't see anyone complaining about impacting wetlands when all the housing developments in Lake County were built. For the environmentalists to deny IDOT a permit to build the portion of the Richmond bypass north of IL-173 is stupid. This is where the state legislature or Congress needs to step in and grant a waiver to this project (waive some of the strict environmental restrictions) so it can be built.
It's a flat out atrocity that FAP 420 (and the IL-53 extension) was never built and likely won't ever be.
When everyone decides that "we can destroy this one wetland; it's not like we are destroying them all", then all the wetlands will be destroyed.
I get your frustration. My take is simply this - if the traffic needs aren't there to support it, then the need to build it really isn't there.
This from someone that has made frequent trips through that area. As much as I'd like to get to Lake Geneva or Madison or the Dells just a few more minutes faster, it's not just about me.
Put yourself in the path of your highway. Are you cool with the state buying your land? Are you cool with the state TAKING your land when you opt not to sell?
Between that and the environment, it's a wonder we built any roads at all. ;)
1. First of all, this is the only major highway that would likely be built, so it's not like all the wetlands will be destroyed because 3-4 highways will be built. A lot of Lake County has been developed, you can't tell me that they built a lot of it over wetlands, so why would building a highway be any different?
2. The state already owns most of the ROW for the road
3. I can't believe you're saying it's not needed. Traffic in Lake County is horrendous (especially on US 12) and as I stated, this would be a reliever route for I-90 and I-94. It would not just be serving people getting to Lake Geneva, it would help move people throughout the suburbs and people trying to bypass I-90 and I-94 getting to Wisconsin.
At this point, I would settle for it being a super 2 just to get the ball rolling. US 12 is not fun especially from Fox Lake to Richmond.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 13, 2015, 12:52:48 PM
1. First of all, this is the only major highway that would likely be built, so it's not like all the wetlands will be destroyed because 3-4 highways will be built. A lot of Lake County has been developed, you can't tell me that they built a lot of it over wetlands, so why would building a highway be any different?
I'm no transportation engineer or lawyer, but if things there that easy it would have been done by now. Don't shoot the messenger when you don't like the message.
Take a look at new subdivision developers - they also have to play the environmental game. If they are going to take xx acres of wetlands, they need to replace it with yy acres of replacement habitat.
How things were done in the past aren't always acceptable in the now.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 13, 2015, 12:52:48 PM
2. The state already owns most of the ROW for the road
Except for the parts they don't - and that becomes a sticking point. Down in Dupage and Kane county, IDOT owned a large swatch of ROW from Wheaton west to Aurora along IL-56/Butterfield Road - and had owned it since the 70's at least. It was only last year when construction to multi-lane IL-56 was completed, and only 2-3 years before it was started - a project well over 40 years in the making.
Until they own all the required ROW - and at this point, they've not even made final decisions on anything that's not already owned - nothing's getting built. No need to build a multi-lane facility just to have it dump into a 2-lane local road.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 13, 2015, 12:52:48 PM
3. I can't believe you're saying it's not needed. Traffic in Lake County is horrendous (especially on US 12) and as I stated, this would be a reliever route for I-90 and I-94. It would not just be serving people getting to Lake Geneva, it would help move people throughout the suburbs and people trying to bypass I-90 and I-94 getting to Wisconsin.
I'm not saying it's not needed - I'm questioning the need - particularly in the Richmond area. What are the traffic counts in the area? Do they meet required criteria?
Not sure the need to bypass I-90 and I-94 to get to Wisconsin - doesn't that all depend on WHERE in Wisconsin you are headed?
I'm looking at traffic as reported on Google Maps at 5:20pm CT...lots of green. Red and orange where I'd expect it - and hardly any in Richmond except for US-12 & IL-173. I'll check again in a bit - just trying to see what you are saying.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 13, 2015, 06:21:48 PM
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 13, 2015, 12:52:48 PM
1. First of all, this is the only major highway that would likely be built, so it's not like all the wetlands will be destroyed because 3-4 highways will be built. A lot of Lake County has been developed, you can't tell me that they built a lot of it over wetlands, so why would building a highway be any different?
I'm no transportation engineer or lawyer, but if things there that easy it would have been done by now. Don't shoot the messenger when you don't like the message.
Take a look at new subdivision developers - they also have to play the environmental game. If they are going to take xx acres of wetlands, they need to replace it with yy acres of replacement habitat.
How things were done in the past aren't always acceptable in the now.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 13, 2015, 12:52:48 PM
2. The state already owns most of the ROW for the road
Except for the parts they don't - and that becomes a sticking point. Down in Dupage and Kane county, IDOT owned a large swatch of ROW from Wheaton west to Aurora along IL-56/Butterfield Road - and had owned it since the 70's at least. It was only last year when construction to multi-lane IL-56 was completed, and only 2-3 years before it was started - a project well over 40 years in the making.
Until they own all the required ROW - and at this point, they've not even made final decisions on anything that's not already owned - nothing's getting built. No need to build a multi-lane facility just to have it dump into a 2-lane local road.
Quote from: adamlanfort on April 13, 2015, 12:52:48 PM
3. I can't believe you're saying it's not needed. Traffic in Lake County is horrendous (especially on US 12) and as I stated, this would be a reliever route for I-90 and I-94. It would not just be serving people getting to Lake Geneva, it would help move people throughout the suburbs and people trying to bypass I-90 and I-94 getting to Wisconsin.
I'm not saying it's not needed - I'm questioning the need - particularly in the Richmond area. What are the traffic counts in the area? Do they meet required criteria?
Not sure the need to bypass I-90 and I-94 to get to Wisconsin - doesn't that all depend on WHERE in Wisconsin you are headed?
I'm looking at traffic as reported on Google Maps at 5:20pm CT...lots of green. Red and orange where I'd expect it - and hardly any in Richmond except for US-12 & IL-173. I'll check again in a bit - just trying to see what you are saying.
I apologize if I came across as belligerent towards you, I was not intending that.
The point I'm trying to make is is that traffic in Lake County is horrendous (I am looking at Google Maps now and I see a lot of red in key areas along the proposed IL-53 extension as well as the Richmond-Waukegan Expressway: FAP 420). This entire project would have helped, and the fact that it has not been built absolutely baffles me (especially when other projects, such as I-355 were built even after major environmental concerns). Are there really that many wetlands along the corridor that are that sensitive? I mean, by this standard, I-94 should not have even been built.
Richmond may be the only area along the corridor where traffic flows the smoothest (It's the last rural outpost before getting into the suburbs). Getting through Fox Lake on US 12 on the other hand? Oh geez, it's a nightmare (as I type this, I see on the Google Maps several "red zones" in downtown Fox Lake as well as to the north and south, and even some congestion at IL-31/US 12 in Richmond.
Since this corridor likely would have become an Interstate highway (had it been built), this would have taken some of the traffic off of I-90 for traffic getting to Wisconsin, and improve Chicagoland traffic flow in general, particularly for the north and south suburbs (All of Lake County, Schaumburg, Woodale, Bolingbrook, etc). For example, coming from Madison, if you are heading to, let's say, Arlington Heights or Schaumberg, I believe it would be faster to head down the US 12/IL-53 corridor (if it were built to Interstate standards) rather than heading on I-39/90 down to Rockford and turning east on I-90. You would avoid all the truck traffic trying to bypass Chicago on I-39.
If this had been built,
maybe I-90 would not have needed widening west of IL-47.
may funding? I-90 was build as toll and this free? now to built it Needs to be toll to pay for it.
I-39 - thanks for going in deeper on your point.
Again, the environmental concerns back in the day with I-90 and I-94 were originally built are not the same as those today. "Because we did it in the past" isn't a good enough excuse for many.
I did some "planning" some years back - and I wish I could find the graphic I made - but I actually had the Prairie Parkway heading north from I-90 and a bit NE to hook up with US-12 north of Richmond. (I also had it going south from I-80 and then SE to link up with the Illiana, and then E-NE to hook back up with the IN Toll Road - east of South Bend, if I recall.)
It's going to take some creative planning and thinking to pull some of these long dormant plans forward and make them happen. The more I look, the more I see than any Richmond bypass is going to have to happen well west of the city.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 14, 2015, 08:40:04 PM
I-39 - thanks for going in deeper on your point.
Again, the environmental concerns back in the day with I-90 and I-94 were originally built are not the same as those today. "Because we did it in the past" isn't a good enough excuse for many.
I did some "planning" some years back - and I wish I could find the graphic I made - but I actually had the Prairie Parkway heading north from I-90 and a bit NE to hook up with US-12 north of Richmond. (I also had it going south from I-80 and then SE to link up with the Illiana, and then E-NE to hook back up with the IN Toll Road - east of South Bend, if I recall.)
It's going to take some creative planning and thinking to pull some of these long dormant plans forward and make them happen. The more I look, the more I see than any Richmond bypass is going to have to happen well west of the city.
The more I think about it now, the US 12 connector would have been better hook up point for the Fox Valley Freeway (which is also an atrocity that it was never built. Unlike the IL-53 and FAP 420 corridor, there are not as many environmental impacts, if built west of the Fox River). The IL-53 extension would serve better as a suburb to suburb connector rather than a regional connector (combined with I-355, it would connect the north and south suburbs from New Lenox to Grayslake). Route the regional traffic onto the Fox Valley Freeway as sort of an outer loop.
However, a better idea would have been to build an alignment that was just west of Randall Road (which I don't think was ever seriously considered), rather than along IL-59. Of course, it is too late to do this now, since the Randall Road corridor is too built up. The Prairie Parkway won't do, because it is too far west and does not connect to I-90 and ultimately US 12.
IMO, WisDOT should have either waited to build the US 12 freeway from Genoa City to Elkhorn until construction actually started in Illinois, or moved the southern end further west closer to IL-47.
I am surprised of the amount of freeways and divided highways that were built in southeastern Wisconsin (roughly the area from I-90 on the west to I-94 on the east and Madison-Milwaukee segment of I-94 to the north) despite having a similar terrain to Lake County.
Just goes to show that you can plan quite a bit, but sometimes things change.
IL-59's corridor was set to be a "Fox Valley Freeway" - there's no way you could even think about doing that today.
Randall is indeed built-up, but at least it's a decent multi-lane facility. It does back up as most major arterials do, but overall it moves pretty well.
IL-47 looks to be getting upgraded more than expected with the death of the Prairie Parkway.
Your next corridor west might be IL-23. Further than that and you're at I-39.
Randall From I-90 to crystal lake seems to have room to upgrade even and if needed they can chop down some parking lot space.
Il-47 from I-90 to Huntley is about the same with room to push a bypass.
Randall from I-90 to I-88 maybe with some RIRO parts / some off line bypasses.
IL-53 TO IL-120 is needed with IL-120 upgrade from US-12 to I-94 US-41 O'Plaine Road needs go under or over IL-120.
or replace IL-53 with US-12 upgrade
Quote from: I-39 on April 10, 2015, 03:57:39 PM
Did they ever officially cancel the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension? I still see it in some long range planning documents, but nothing concrete.
It's frankly an atrocity that this (along with the regular IL-53 extension) was never built.
My understanding is that the highway (FAP 420) from Volo to US 12 at the WI border hasn't been cancelled, but it's on the back burner until the Rte 53/120 extension gets built to around Volo. If/When Rte 53/120 gets built, then perhaps FAP 420 will get some serious consideration.
I don't have any links for this, but I could have sworn I read this explanation on this website a while ago.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 11, 2015, 08:54:43 PM
In looking at both the Richmond Bypass project and the IL-53/IL-120 Project, there's a big chunk missing between Volo and Richmond that isn't really addressed by either.
The Richmond Bypass ends around US-12 and Solon Rd in SE Richmond. The IL-120 Project would end near Fish Lake Rd, east of US-12/IL-59 in Volo.
There's about 12-13 miles of US-12 running through the Chain O' Lakes area between those two points.
From the IL-120 proposed bypass end point near Fish Lake Road, I believe FAP 420 would continue almost due west across US 12, across the Fox River, and just past Rte 31 in McHenry. From there, the road would somewhat follow the Rte 31 path north to Richmond.
If you look on Google Maps, you can see vacant ROW land from the Fox River to just west of Rte 31 in McHenry. I have no idea how much ROW exists east of the Fox River up to the proposed end of the Rte 120 bypass.
Quote from: Quimby on April 23, 2015, 03:24:04 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 11, 2015, 08:54:43 PM
In looking at both the Richmond Bypass project and the IL-53/IL-120 Project, there's a big chunk missing between Volo and Richmond that isn't really addressed by either.
The Richmond Bypass ends around US-12 and Solon Rd in SE Richmond. The IL-120 Project would end near Fish Lake Rd, east of US-12/IL-59 in Volo.
There's about 12-13 miles of US-12 running through the Chain O' Lakes area between those two points.
From the IL-120 proposed bypass end point near Fish Lake Road, I believe FAP 420 would continue almost due west across US 12, across the Fox River, and just past Rte 31 in McHenry. From there, the road would somewhat follow the Rte 31 path north to Richmond.
If you look on Google Maps, you can see vacant ROW land from the Fox River to just west of Rte 31 in McHenry. I have no idea how much ROW exists east of the Fox River up to the proposed end of the Rte 120 bypass.
In the image https://goo.gl/maps/DUw6C there appears to me to be clear ROW along the south edge of that subdivision that is just east of US 12 and south of Sullivan Lake Rd. It could also then continue west-northwestward to cross the Volo Marsh area along Sullivan Lake Rd with the least wetland impacts and any such impacts should be mitigatable. At that point, it would be pointing directly towards the clear ROW for the McHenry bypass.
Mike
^ Does not appear to be ROW per the Lake County GIS map. (http://maps.lakecountyil.gov/mapsonline/) On map, the boundary lines along US 12 just south of Brandenburg Road do seem to resemble the outline of a cloverleaf, along with a few other parcels that IDOT owns in a disconnected corridor.
From the McHenry County GIS maps, (http://www.mchenrycountygis.org/Athena/) it appears IDOT had gotten more ROW for the corridor to Richmond in McHenry County.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 23, 2015, 04:04:36 PM
Quote from: Quimby on April 23, 2015, 03:24:04 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 11, 2015, 08:54:43 PM
In looking at both the Richmond Bypass project and the IL-53/IL-120 Project, there's a big chunk missing between Volo and Richmond that isn't really addressed by either.
The Richmond Bypass ends around US-12 and Solon Rd in SE Richmond. The IL-120 Project would end near Fish Lake Rd, east of US-12/IL-59 in Volo.
There's about 12-13 miles of US-12 running through the Chain O' Lakes area between those two points.
From the IL-120 proposed bypass end point near Fish Lake Road, I believe FAP 420 would continue almost due west across US 12, across the Fox River, and just past Rte 31 in McHenry. From there, the road would somewhat follow the Rte 31 path north to Richmond.
If you look on Google Maps, you can see vacant ROW land from the Fox River to just west of Rte 31 in McHenry. I have no idea how much ROW exists east of the Fox River up to the proposed end of the Rte 120 bypass.
In the image https://goo.gl/maps/DUw6C there appears to me to be clear ROW along the south edge of that subdivision that is just east of US 12 and south of Sullivan Lake Rd. It could also then continue west-northwestward to cross the Volo Marsh area along Sullivan Lake Rd with the least wetland impacts and any such impacts should be mitigatable. At that point, it would be pointing directly towards the clear ROW for the McHenry bypass.
Mike
Actually, depending on where you're talking about along Sullivan Lake Road, and within the Volo Bog, wetland impacts may not be "mitigatable". The Volo Bog is one of only two or three tamarack bogs in Illinois. It is a State Natural Area and an extremely rare resource. Impacts to the bog's periphery could reduce water quality, or impact coldwater source areas that sustain the bog, and justifiably the project would not receive an easy environmental review.
As much as I would like to see a 4-lane corridor extended to US 12 at Genoa City and ultimately to I-39/90 near Madison someday, the corridor routing north of Route 120 presents some challenges on several levels.
So...in the interest of wetland mitigation...what about ideas going WEST of Richmond?
Let's say they are able to get something with IL-120 pushed through/around McHenry with little trouble. And then let's also say that the Prairie Parkway gets resurrected.
I'm thinking something from Genoa City, WI southwest, crossing IL-47 south of Hebron, and then heading south past Hampshire and down to meet I-88 northeast of Kaneland. Then use the "B5" routing of the Prairie Parkway down to I-80.
And since we're dreaming, go from there to where the Illiana Tollway would start, and on to I-65.
Sign it as I-43, and make the section from Janesville to Elkhorn I-143 or extend WI-81 on it.
It looks like the only alternatives remaining for the Richmond bypass end at IL 173, with Rt 12 continuing to intersect with Rt 173 at the existing intersection, due to environmentalist opposition from bird habbitats on FAP 420 north of IL 173 for a FAP 420 bypass and state owned nature preserve land for a far east bypass.
It looks like the Keystone Rd alternative will likely not be considered due to residential property aquisitions required.
It looks like the far east bypass alternative near Solon Mills will likely not be considered due to business opposition from traffic being able to completely bypass Richmond (actually a half bypass) rather than visiting the establishments downtown.
It looks like an alternative connecting FAP 420 to Tyron Grove Road is the only alternative remaining likely to be considered, due to: process of elimination, traffic still has to stop at the intersection of Tyron Grove Rd - IL 31 - US 12 where development can occur, traffic can easily choose to turn north on Main St (existing US 12) at the stop light rather than use the bypass, and parcels to the west of existing US 12 are larger than parcels to the east of existing US 12 allowing more development.
All original alternatives: http://www.richmondbypass.com/uploads/Exhibits/070421-constraints_020909_aerials_sm.pdf (http://www.richmondbypass.com/uploads/Exhibits/070421-constraints_020909_aerials_sm.pdf)
Remaining alternatives: http://www.richmondbypass.com/uploads/Exhibits/PublicMeeting2/Exhibit%2012_Alternatives%20to%20Be%20Carried%20Forward.pdf (http://www.richmondbypass.com/uploads/Exhibits/PublicMeeting2/Exhibit%2012_Alternatives%20to%20Be%20Carried%20Forward.pdf)
Reasoning on which alternatives that haven't yet been eliminated should be eliminated : http://www.richmondbypass.com/uploads/Minutes/TAG4/min-011513-TAG-DCJ.pdf (http://www.richmondbypass.com/uploads/Minutes/TAG4/min-011513-TAG-DCJ.pdf)
I think the McHenry bypass should not be built until the Richmond bypass is built, because induced demand from the McHenry bypass being built would make weekend traffic going through Richmond on Rt 12 even worse.
One of the comments in the meeting minutes did seem to recommend a Super-2 to reduce costs.
Originally, the website said that the road is recommended to be built as a 4 lane freeway from Wisconsin until transitioning to a 4 lane parkway south of Nippersink creek. Then transitioning to an arterial as the intersection of IL 31 and Tyron Grove Rd is reached.
It appears that an interchange, roundabout, or traditional traffic light is being considered at the intersection of IL 31 and Tyron Grove Rd.
http://www.richmondbypass.com/aboutproject/projectdesc.aspx (http://www.richmondbypass.com/aboutproject/projectdesc.aspx)
The intersection of IL Rt 31 and IL Rt 120 is now the most congested intersection in McHenry county with the IL Rt 32 and IL Rt 62 intersection no longer being the most congested intersection with the construction of the Western Algonquin Bypass. A bypass of McHenry continues to appear in documents planning for a Metra station at Prairie Grove, that include an interchange with the existing IL Rt 31 alignment and the proposed west McHenry bypass alignment to the north of Gracy Road.[6https://www.prairiegrove.org/documents/TownCenterandTODPlanFINAL06-15-10.pdf (https://www.prairiegrove.org/documents/TownCenterandTODPlanFINAL06-15-10.pdf)]
The west McHenry bypass was originally planned to travel over undeveloped farm lands from north of IL 31 and Gracy Road to IL 120 and Ringwood Road. The corridor was planned to be protected from development in the mid 1990s, but due to lack of funding the corridor was never protected from development. [7http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-08-08/news/9508080285_1_bypass-congestion-algonquin-road (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-08-08/news/9508080285_1_bypass-congestion-algonquin-road) ]
Unfortunately, the corridor has since been developed on. [8https://www.google.com/maps/place/US-12,+Richmond,+IL/@42.3261109,-88.3000768,2508m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x532d51bd11daa02f:0x846740bd8224416c (https://www.google.com/maps/place/US-12,+Richmond,+IL/@42.3261109,-88.3000768,2508m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x532d51bd11daa02f:0x846740bd8224416c)]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Route_31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Route_31)
(I wrote the future section in the Wikipedia article.)
So, it looks like the McHenry bypass might never happen, unless there isn't too much community opposition from buying land through the middle of new subdivisions, which is actually what ended up happening with the Milburn bypass of US Rt 45.
The alternative that required buying land through the middle of new subdivisions actually was chosen over building on a farm field for the Milburn bypass.
http://www.route45project.com/pdf/US45MillburnBypassPreferredAlternativeStatement.pdf (http://www.route45project.com/pdf/US45MillburnBypassPreferredAlternativeStatement.pdf)
The Milburn bypass has received a federal approval to move on to Phase II.
http://www.route45project.com/ (http://www.route45project.com/)
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 23, 2015, 09:59:19 PM
^ Does not appear to be ROW per the Lake County GIS map. (http://maps.lakecountyil.gov/mapsonline/) On map, the boundary lines along US 12 just south of Brandenburg Road do seem to resemble the outline of a cloverleaf, along with a few other parcels that IDOT owns in a disconnected corridor.
From the McHenry County GIS maps, (http://www.mchenrycountygis.org/Athena/) it appears IDOT had gotten more ROW for the corridor to Richmond in McHenry County.
Great links! Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to see which parcels are owned by IDOT. If the project were truly cancelled, these parcels would have been sold is my guess.
Once Rte 53/120 gets built, then I can see this project getting more attention. Right now, the focus is 53 traffic dumping out onto Lake Cook Rd and the continuing growth of central Lake County. If they extend 53/120, then there will be issues with the tollway ending and dumping out traffic at its western terminus in the Volo area plus ongoing population growth in McHenry.
Building the freeway/tollway along the entire corridor from I-80 to Wisconsin seems to take about 15-20 years per segment.
- Dundee Rd to Army Trail Rd: completed around 1970
- Army Trail to I-55 plus Dundee to Lake Cook: nearly 20 years later (1989)
- I-55 to I-80: 17 years later (2007)
By the time Rte 53/120 to I-94 and the Volo area opens (IF it ever gets built), perhaps another 15 years will have passed. At that rate, maybe we'll see the final link from Volo to Genoa City built around 2035 or 2040. About 70 years after the first segment opened by Schaumburg...an entire lifetime!
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on April 24, 2015, 04:49:07 PM
Actually, depending on where you're talking about along Sullivan Lake Road, and within the Volo Bog, wetland impacts may not be "mitigatable". The Volo Bog is one of only two or three tamarack bogs in Illinois. It is a State Natural Area and an extremely rare resource. Impacts to the bog's periphery could reduce water quality, or impact coldwater source areas that sustain the bog, and justifiably the project would not receive an easy environmental review.
As much as I would like to see a 4-lane corridor extended to US 12 at Genoa City and ultimately to I-39/90 near Madison someday, the corridor routing north of Route 120 presents some challenges on several levels.
I agree. I would love to see this corridor built from Lake Cook all the way to US 12 in Genoa City, but not at the expense of rare resources like Volo Bog. From the Lake Co GIS map link above, it looks like the original ROW would have sent the highway right through the middle of Volo Bog. That obviously is not going to happen - nor should it happen. Hopefully there is a viable alternative that will bypass to the north or south of this nature area and avoid damage to it.
The FAP 420 corridor also has potential issues at Glacial State Park, but at least there appears to be undeveloped land in that area where a highway could be built without cutting through the park.
Then, of course, there's the issue with the Nippersink Creek area north of Rte 173 up to the existing freeway in Wisconsin that has been discussed on this forum. Perhaps there are ways to mitigate impacts in that area or to bypass it while maintaining a continuous limited access roadway. The proposed 53/120 extension is supposed to include a number of efforts to mitigate impact on wetlands. If that's ever built, maybe some of the practices from that road could be applied to areas along FAP 420.
Quote from: Quimby on April 29, 2015, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on April 24, 2015, 04:49:07 PM
Actually, depending on where you're talking about along Sullivan Lake Road, and within the Volo Bog, wetland impacts may not be "mitigatable". The Volo Bog is one of only two or three tamarack bogs in Illinois. It is a State Natural Area and an extremely rare resource. Impacts to the bog's periphery could reduce water quality, or impact coldwater source areas that sustain the bog, and justifiably the project would not receive an easy environmental review.
As much as I would like to see a 4-lane corridor extended to US 12 at Genoa City and ultimately to I-39/90 near Madison someday, the corridor routing north of Route 120 presents some challenges on several levels.
I agree. I would love to see this corridor built from Lake Cook all the way to US 12 in Genoa City, but not at the expense of rare resources like Volo Bog. From the Lake Co GIS map link above, it looks like the original ROW would have send the highway right through the middle of Volo Bog. That obviously is not going to happen - nor should it happen. Hopefully there is a viable alternative that will bypass to the north or south of this nature area and avoid damage to it.
The FAP 420 corridor also has potential issues at Glacial State Park, but at least there appears to be undeveloped land in that area where a highway could be built without cutting through the park.
Then, of course, there's the issue with the Nippersink Creek area north of Rte 173 up to the existing freeway in Wisconsin that has been discussed on this forum. Perhaps there are ways to mitigate impacts in that area or to bypass it while maintaining a continuous limited access roadway. The proposed 53/120 extension is supposed to include a number of efforts to mitigate impact on wetlands. If that's ever built, maybe some of the practices from that road could be applied to areas along FAP 420.
I forget which forvm I posted this musing in, but I'm curious about whether or not something on the lines of the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline could work both there and in the Volo area.
Mike
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 14, 2015, 09:57:24 AM
may funding? I-90 was build as toll and this free? now to built it Needs to be toll to pay for it.
Doesn't ether taking fap 420 (to us 12 freeway soon to whitewater and Madison) or I-90/I-39 depend on where in Wisconsin you are going? Otherwise I agree with that