Randy Blankenhorn has finally admitted that IDOT is planning for "yesterday's transportation system" and needs to become more innovative.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-idot-outdated-transportation-blankenhorn-met-0903-20150902-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-idot-outdated-transportation-blankenhorn-met-0903-20150902-story.html)
Well it's about darn time you figured this out!
They're only about 50 years behind at this point.
/sarc
Seriously though, IDOT has a "not invented here" affliction. I'm shocked they even are trying a DDI, and have a few modern SPUIs.
is this in a format that's not behind a paywall?
Well like most things in Illinois all these problems are tied to the political system which never seems to straighten out long enough for us to get caught up.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 03, 2015, 09:00:40 AM
is this in a format that's not behind a paywall?
Illinois planning for 'yesterday's transportation system,' IDOT chief warns
QuoteThe state's transportation chief on Wednesday delivered a tough assessment of his agency's ability to solve problems ranging from traffic congestion to the sluggish movement of freight across Illinois, saying, "I'm afraid that we're planning for yesterday's transportation system.''
Randy Blankenhorn, a veteran transportation expert who has been secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation for seven months, provided numerous examples during a speech in downtown Chicago about how IDOT has suffered from tunnel vision that obsessed over the condition of state roads and bridges but failed to focus on the big picture of moving people and goods more efficiently.
"Do we continue to build overhead message signs (on expressways) that tell me how late I am, or do we do a better job of getting the right information (to the public)?'' he said.
He said government officials need to follow the lead of private-sector innovators and technology companies and "think about transportation in a completely new and different way.'' A stronger public-private partnership is the key, he said.
"IDOT is not going to come up with the solution. It is going to be you,'' Blankenhorn told a City Club of Chicago audience, consisting mostly of professionals in the transportation industry.
During a statewide "listening tour'' earlier this year aimed at generating public input on specific transportation problems and possible solutions, Blankenhorn said he heard from a company executive who said he basically uses highways and intermodal truck-to-train facilities as warehouses because freight traffic moves so slowly.
And he was told about 4-year-old kids who spend an hour on the bus each way going to and from their preschool.
"That's a transportation system that is not working,'' said Blankenhorn, who was executive director of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning since its inception in 2006 until January, when Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner appointed him to head IDOT. Blankenhorn worked at IDOT from 1984-2006 in planning and policy roles.
"We haven't thought broadly enough as an agency. ... It's not about this highway or that bus or that transit line or that waterway. It's about what are we doing to make sure the system works every day for people who are moving goods, for the public and the strength of our communities,'' he said.
"We have cars that communicate with each other. Cars that share information through the cloud (computing and data storage). This is the future that we are not used to in the transportation industry, and we certainly are not used to at the Illinois Department of Transportation,'' Blankenhorn said.
"I want to stop talking and start doing,'' he said, but he also acknowledged very little progress is likely until Rauner and the Democrats who control the General Assembly end a political impasse that has delayed passage of a state budget. Once an operating budget is approved, Rauner told IDOT that he supports spending "billions of dollars'' on transportation projects, Blankenhorn said.
Blankenhorn was asked by a member of the audience whether he supports creation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Chicago-area expressways. HOV lanes, long common in many large urban areas, are restricted for use during peak travel hours by drivers carrying at least one passenger.
"HOV lanes are not where the future lies," the IDOT secretary responded. Instead, he advocated implementation of express toll lanes, perhaps starting on the Eisenhower (I-290) or Stevenson (I-55) expressways if new lanes were added to those highways.
Under the express toll lane concept, the amount of the toll would vary depending on the time of day and traffic congestion. Drivers would have the option of paying to use the tolled express lanes or staying on the regular lanes where the number of vehicles and the travel times presumably would be higher.
jhilkevitch@tribpub.com
Twitter @jhilkevitch
IDOT's problems start, IMHO, with a very cookie-cutter approach to everything, and an unwillingness to try anything new that's been well-proven to work out-of-state. I think Blankenhorn should resign and recommend his successor be from out-of-state, preferably a state where they understand transportation issues, like Michigan, Wisconsin, or even California.
We tried that before for Metra and we all know how that worked out.
Is it any wonder everyone here (or at least Brandon) calls it "IDiOT"? :D
What are some other reasons why this statement is true (what the DOT person said) for those that are familiar with the area?
Years of mismanagement, poor planning and lack of funds. Some of that plays into the economy downturn, some of it is the massive expansion of the suburbs that ballooned in population and IDOT just couldn't keep up and some of it has to do with just political bickering which holds back projects for years.
Quote from: quickshade on September 03, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Years of mismanagement, poor planning and lack of funds. Some of that plays into the economy downturn, some of it is the massive expansion of the suburbs that ballooned in population and IDOT just couldn't keep up and some of it has to do with just political bickering which holds back projects for years.
That, and my comments that IDOT is full of people who tend to use the same solutions for everything and seem to view everything as a nail to be hammered. I have an entire of laundry list of things IDOT could do, but has never even tried to implement anywhere, especially in District 1.
1. A lack of signal coordination. It seems as though IDOT wants you to stop at every signal.
2. The lack of Michigan Lefts on roads that could easily benefit from it: IL-59, North Avenue.
3. A reluctance to use anything other than a cloverleaf or diamond interchange until recently.
4. A reluctance to tell the Canadian National Railway that they will accept more commuter trains or else.
5. A reluctance to buck politics and powerful local politicians such as King Richard II, or even that dipshit from Hawthorn Woods.
6. A reluctance to use new ideas such as the FYA (in District 1) and to allow signals with protected-only on one side and protected/permissive on the other (again, District 1).
7. A reluctance to use better paving materials and specify them in the original bids, instead, allowing slipshod work from contractors that falls apart within 10 years.
I can go on and on.
I don't know a lot about the Chicago area mentality, but in all other areas of the state "the we did it 50 years ago and it didn't work" or the "we've never needed to try it before, why do it now" mentality. I like the fact the director is thinking forward but not sure he'll get enough support to see it through.
I think it sounds like IDOT's problem is that they are stuck in the past and haven't innovated with new types of traffic features (FYA, double reverse, roundabouts, SPUI, etc) they sound like a dinosaur of a DOT.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 03, 2015, 02:57:07 PM
I think it sounds like IDOT's problem is that they are stuck in the past and haven't innovated with new types of traffic features (FYA, double reverse, roundabouts, SPUI, etc) they sound like a dinosaur of a DOT.
They make dinosaurs look modern. I can count the number of modern SPUIs here on one hand, and FYA is only experimented with in District 4 (Peoria) and District 6 (Springfield). Oh, and they're planning a roundabout on IL-47 in Kane County. Big news for IDOT. If this were WisDOT, it'd be commonplace.
politics seems to have completely ruined IDOT. Politicians know nothing about infrastructure, I wish they'd just fund it and let the engineers work their magic.
Quote4. A reluctance to tell the Canadian National Railway that they will accept more commuter trains or else.
Regarding this one, as nice as more Metra trains would be, Federal railroad law tends to side with the railroads on this. IDOT has no leverage besides whatever the host railroad agreed upon in the contract, in which case the best the state could do is sue the railroad for breach of contract. But if it isn't in the contract, the state has no leverage.
The Metra board was just as bad as IDOT, with corruption pretty much on the same level. IDK about any of you but when I see conductors walking around with easily 1000 dollars cash just in his hands I wonder what kind of Robbery prevention plan they have in place, if somebody did that in the retail world like that, you can bet your ass LP would be on site to ask some questions.
IDOT suffers from having to many people who think they know what the problems and solutions are and not enough people who do the research into the actual problems. Hence you get band-aid solutions to problems that require more than that. The bad news is that even though they actually have realized the problem they are already so far behind they might never catch up, mix in the fact that we politically can't get anything done as a state and were broke and we don't have a budget and you get the sense of where this is heading.
Quote from: Brandon on September 03, 2015, 12:18:24 PM
6. A reluctance to use new ideas such as the FYA (in District 1) and to allow signals with protected-only on one side and protected/permissive on the other (again, District 1).
I don't recall having heard any proposals for using FYAs in Districts 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Additionally, many of the local agencies who have signals in Chicagoland certainly seem content to use whatever signal type District 1 is using.
And where are there signals in Illinois that have a protective-permissive left opposing a protected-only left? The only one I can think of in Illinois is US 14/Northwest Highway at Arlington Heights Road (Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0830388,-87.9806354,3a,75y,162.07h,81.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syjwdjMbQA7sIfQYQfPqWww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))
Quote from: Brandon on September 03, 2015, 03:03:54 PM
Oh, and they're planning a roundabout on IL-47 in Kane County. Big news for IDOT. If this were WisDOT, it'd be commonplace.
Per the signature block on the cover sheets for the plans for that project (link to plans (http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/091815/056-63779/PLANS/PL-63779-056.pdf)), Kane County is the lead agency on the IL 47 roundabout. The most likely candidate for first State-led roundabout in District 1, US 20 at Harmony Road, was sidetracked due to public opposition. There were others under consideration such as IL 176 at Haligus Road and US 20 at Marengo and Beck Roads, but they seem to have gone dormant for the time, while a number of roundabouts on IL 47 through Woodstock are still under study.
I could rant on about IDOT for a while, but I won't. But one of my problems with IDOT is they don't have any money to build new freeways. In the Chicagoland area, we are becoming too reliant on the Tollway to build new limited access highways because IDOT has no money.
A great example is IL-390 (Elgin-O'Hare). That road should not be a tollway, it should be free. The original portion was paid for with taxpayer dollars and it's not fair for suburban drivers to have only tollways going into the Airport. Plus, since it's going to be electronic toll only, that limits the drivers that can use it (particularly out of town travelers). It wasn't really pressing for ISTHA to take over the Elgin-O'Hare and extend it, it could have waited. The IL-53 extension is needed more right now.
So...IDOT is screwed I guess? Just go to Wisconsin and take money from them. Now it's their problem (sarcasm).
Sometimes "innovation" is not all it's cracked up to be. Back in my IDOT tenure, we built the Abraham Lincoln bridge across the Illinois River on I-39. The contractors came up with an innovative idea of using pre-cast concrete planks as forms to be left in place after the concrete bridge deck was poured, saving about $2 million in construction costs from the traditional wooden forms that would otherwise have to be custom installed and stripped after construction. Most people thought it was a great idea and it was approved, and the bridge was built for about $40 million. Fast forward about 18 years later...it turns out that the planks had rotted out in several locations, and the poured concrete above started developing big cracks that eventually led to some see-through holes in the bridge deck, resulting in some emergency repairs. In short order, the bridge deck had to be completely replaced in the conventional manner, at a cost of about $32 million. Disclaimer: I was not in on the original design or decision (I was mostly working part time at IDOT and going to college at the time) but I did oversee the repair plans.
That being said, I do agree that concepts such as SPUI interchanges, roundabouts, etc. sometimes were resisted by the old guard at IDOT. On the other hand, IDOT jumped into a few things eagerly like adopting the metric system (another "innovation", LOL) which many state DOTs resisted, only to be burned by added costs of bidding metric items and trying to design and specify structures with metric-sized reinforcement bars which were difficult to obtain, and finally switching back to US Customary (English) units when the Federal Highway Administration finally gave up its quixotic mandate that few other states followed as eagerly as Illinois.
Back in the infancy of the interstate system, IDOT was in the forefront of pavement design and standards with its participation in the AASHO test road, which was the basis for nationwide pavement design for many years. The University of Illinois ARTEL facility is a world-class transportation research facility, from which IDOT and other DOTs have reaped much useful technology.
So I think it's a mixed bag based on what I saw while I was there. Sometimes IDOT was very innovative, sometimes IDOT tried to be innovative with less than desirable results, and sometimes IDOT resisted good ideas that had worked elsewhere.
BTW, I think Randy Blankenhorn will prove to be a good IDOT Secretary when all is said and done.
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 08, 2015, 12:27:41 AM
Sometimes "innovation" is not all it's cracked up to be. Back in my IDOT tenure, we built the Abraham Lincoln bridge across the Illinois River on I-39. The contractors came up with an innovative idea of using pre-cast concrete planks as forms to be left in place after the concrete bridge deck was poured, saving about $2 million in construction costs from the traditional wooden forms that would otherwise have to be custom installed and stripped after construction. Most people thought it was a great idea and it was approved, and the bridge was built for about $40 million. Fast forward about 18 years later...it turns out that the planks had rotted out in several locations, and the poured concrete above started developing big cracks that eventually led to some see-through holes in the bridge deck, resulting in some emergency repairs. In short order, the bridge deck had to be completely replaced in the conventional manner, at a cost of about $32 million. Disclaimer: I was not in on the original design or decision (I was mostly working part time at IDOT and going to college at the time) but I did oversee the repair plans.
That being said, I do agree that concepts such as SPUI interchanges, roundabouts, etc. sometimes were resisted by the old guard at IDOT. On the other hand, IDOT jumped into a few things eagerly like adopting the metric system (another "innovation", LOL) which many state DOTs resisted, only to be burned by added costs of bidding metric items and trying to design and specify structures with metric-sized reinforcement bars which were difficult to obtain, and finally switching back to US Customary (English) units when the Federal Highway Administration finally gave up its quixotic mandate that few other states followed as eagerly as Illinois.
Back in the infancy of the interstate system, IDOT was in the forefront of pavement design and standards with its participation in the AASHO test road, which was the basis for nationwide pavement design for many years. The University of Illinois ARTEL facility is a world-class transportation research facility, from which IDOT and other DOTs have reaped much useful technology.
So I think it's a mixed bag based on what I saw while I was there. Sometimes IDOT was very innovative, sometimes IDOT tried to be innovative with less than desirable results, and sometimes IDOT resisted good ideas that had worked elsewhere.
BTW, I think Randy Blankenhorn will prove to be a good IDOT Secretary when all is said and done.
Completely agree with this last sentence.
Believe it or not, more toll roads are coming, whether we like it or not. Gas tax ain't bringing in what it used to and with electric cars/hybrids flooding the market in the next decade, infrastructure fund is going to go dry.
If you think IDOT roads are shit, you've never been to NJ or NY. Those roads are shit and tolled. IDOT's not utterly terrible outside of district 1. District 1 has many problems, lack of funding is one of them, but the majority of the problems I would like to say are those in your face NIMBY'ers. When it's all said and done, these NIMBY'ers cost us a ton more when it comes to building highways. Another problem is Illinois gets a large amount of truck traffic due to various reasons, more than neighboring states, which puts a huge dent in our highways.
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 08, 2015, 12:27:41 AM
Sometimes "innovation" is not all it's cracked up to be. Back in my IDOT tenure, we built the Abraham Lincoln bridge across the Illinois River on I-39. The contractors came up with an innovative idea of using pre-cast concrete planks as forms to be left in place after the concrete bridge deck was poured, saving about $2 million in construction costs from the traditional wooden forms that would otherwise have to be custom installed and stripped after construction. Most people thought it was a great idea and it was approved, and the bridge was built for about $40 million. Fast forward about 18 years later...it turns out that the planks had rotted out in several locations, and the poured concrete above started developing big cracks that eventually led to some see-through holes in the bridge deck, resulting in some emergency repairs. In short order, the bridge deck had to be completely replaced in the conventional manner, at a cost of about $32 million. Disclaimer: I was not in on the original design or decision (I was mostly working part time at IDOT and going to college at the time) but I did oversee the repair plans.
That being said, I do agree that concepts such as SPUI interchanges, roundabouts, etc. sometimes were resisted by the old guard at IDOT. On the other hand, IDOT jumped into a few things eagerly like adopting the metric system (another "innovation", LOL) which many state DOTs resisted, only to be burned by added costs of bidding metric items and trying to design and specify structures with metric-sized reinforcement bars which were difficult to obtain, and finally switching back to US Customary (English) units when the Federal Highway Administration finally gave up its quixotic mandate that few other states followed as eagerly as Illinois.
Back in the infancy of the interstate system, IDOT was in the forefront of pavement design and standards with its participation in the AASHO test road, which was the basis for nationwide pavement design for many years. The University of Illinois ARTEL facility is a world-class transportation research facility, from which IDOT and other DOTs have reaped much useful technology.
So I think it's a mixed bag based on what I saw while I was there. Sometimes IDOT was very innovative, sometimes IDOT tried to be innovative with less than desirable results, and sometimes IDOT resisted good ideas that had worked elsewhere.
BTW, I think Randy Blankenhorn will prove to be a good IDOT Secretary when all is said and done.
Completely agree with this last sentence.
Believe it or not, more toll roads are coming, whether we like it or not. Gas tax ain't bringing in what it used to and with electric cars/hybrids flooding the market in the next decade, infrastructure fund is going to go dry.
If you think IDOT roads are shit, you've never been to NJ or NY. Those roads are shit and tolled. IDOT's not utterly terrible outside of district 1. District 1 has many problems, lack of funding is one of them, but the majority of the problems I would like to say are those in your face NIMBY'ers. When it's all said and done, these NIMBY'ers cost us a ton more when it comes to building highways. Another problem is Illinois gets a large amount of truck traffic due to various reasons, more than neighboring states, which puts a huge dent in our highways.
The fact that IDOT is finally admitting it is behind is a start. One thing, though, that might be a good start is to re-visit the District 1 vs. District 2, etc. concept. Yes, I know most state highway systems function this way, but IDOT might be the one system where a single district does things so much different than the rest of the state (I even created a thread pointing out some of the differences). The fact also is that the Tollway, despite a very checkered past, is probably the most reliable way to go with building a highway in Illinois at this point. Honestly, I'm not too sure I'd want IDOT building a new highway at this time... at least until they figure a few things out. Probably what it will be is the Tollway builds the new major highways and IDOT fixes what they have (the ones they don't ultimately hand over to the Tollway).
Quote from: ChiMilNet on September 08, 2015, 09:55:07 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 08, 2015, 12:27:41 AM
Sometimes "innovation" is not all it's cracked up to be. Back in my IDOT tenure, we built the Abraham Lincoln bridge across the Illinois River on I-39. The contractors came up with an innovative idea of using pre-cast concrete planks as forms to be left in place after the concrete bridge deck was poured, saving about $2 million in construction costs from the traditional wooden forms that would otherwise have to be custom installed and stripped after construction. Most people thought it was a great idea and it was approved, and the bridge was built for about $40 million. Fast forward about 18 years later...it turns out that the planks had rotted out in several locations, and the poured concrete above started developing big cracks that eventually led to some see-through holes in the bridge deck, resulting in some emergency repairs. In short order, the bridge deck had to be completely replaced in the conventional manner, at a cost of about $32 million. Disclaimer: I was not in on the original design or decision (I was mostly working part time at IDOT and going to college at the time) but I did oversee the repair plans.
That being said, I do agree that concepts such as SPUI interchanges, roundabouts, etc. sometimes were resisted by the old guard at IDOT. On the other hand, IDOT jumped into a few things eagerly like adopting the metric system (another "innovation", LOL) which many state DOTs resisted, only to be burned by added costs of bidding metric items and trying to design and specify structures with metric-sized reinforcement bars which were difficult to obtain, and finally switching back to US Customary (English) units when the Federal Highway Administration finally gave up its quixotic mandate that few other states followed as eagerly as Illinois.
Back in the infancy of the interstate system, IDOT was in the forefront of pavement design and standards with its participation in the AASHO test road, which was the basis for nationwide pavement design for many years. The University of Illinois ARTEL facility is a world-class transportation research facility, from which IDOT and other DOTs have reaped much useful technology.
So I think it's a mixed bag based on what I saw while I was there. Sometimes IDOT was very innovative, sometimes IDOT tried to be innovative with less than desirable results, and sometimes IDOT resisted good ideas that had worked elsewhere.
BTW, I think Randy Blankenhorn will prove to be a good IDOT Secretary when all is said and done.
Completely agree with this last sentence.
Believe it or not, more toll roads are coming, whether we like it or not. Gas tax ain't bringing in what it used to and with electric cars/hybrids flooding the market in the next decade, infrastructure fund is going to go dry.
If you think IDOT roads are shit, you've never been to NJ or NY. Those roads are shit and tolled. IDOT's not utterly terrible outside of district 1. District 1 has many problems, lack of funding is one of them, but the majority of the problems I would like to say are those in your face NIMBY'ers. When it's all said and done, these NIMBY'ers cost us a ton more when it comes to building highways. Another problem is Illinois gets a large amount of truck traffic due to various reasons, more than neighboring states, which puts a huge dent in our highways.
The fact that IDOT is finally admitting it is behind is a start. One thing, though, that might be a good start is to re-visit the District 1 vs. District 2, etc. concept. Yes, I know most state highway systems function this way, but IDOT might be the one system where a single district does things so much different than the rest of the state (I even created a thread pointing out some of the differences). The fact also is that the Tollway, despite a very checkered past, is probably the most reliable way to go with building a highway in Illinois at this point. Honestly, I'm not too sure I'd want IDOT building a new highway at this time... at least until they figure a few things out. Probably what it will be is the Tollway builds the new major highways and IDOT fixes what they have (the ones they don't ultimately hand over to the Tollway).
Honestly, the entire district 1 vs district 2 concept is primarily due to public transportation and those NIMBY'ers who love population dense lifestyles and living on top of each other with no yard. Those NIMBY'ers would rather have district 1 invest in public trans rather than our highways.
Our roads in district 1 are shit because a good chunk of the money gets diverted towards adding bus lanes, bike lanes, beautification projects, etc. rather than building overpasses, flyovers, adding additional lanes, etc.
However luckily Illinois isn't as terrain challenged as other states. Think mountains, rivers, bridges, tunnels, etc. Those cost insane $$$$
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 10:53:17 PM
Our roads in district 1 are shit because a good chunk of the money gets diverted towards adding bus lanes, bike lanes, beautification projects, etc. rather than building overpasses, flyovers, adding additional lanes, etc.
Overpasses and flyovers are much more expensive than the other types of projects listed. I'd imagine you'd have to add an absurd number of bus lanes (beautification projects are probably done with TAP funds, anyway) to come up with the same cost of all your desired overpasses and flyovers.
It's not a general shortage of money that's the only problem; DOTs also have to deal with color of money and the different eligibilities for every color. That's definitely coming into play with the decisions IDOT is making.
Quote from: Rothman on September 09, 2015, 08:43:15 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 10:53:17 PM
Our roads in district 1 are shit because a good chunk of the money gets diverted towards adding bus lanes, bike lanes, beautification projects, etc. rather than building overpasses, flyovers, adding additional lanes, etc.
Overpasses and flyovers are much more expensive than the other types of projects listed. I'd imagine you'd have to add an absurd number of bus lanes (beautification projects are probably done with TAP funds, anyway) to come up with the same cost of all your desired overpasses and flyovers.
It's not a general shortage of money that's the only problem; DOTs also have to deal with color of money and the different eligibilities for every color. That's definitely coming into play with the decisions IDOT is making.
I was somewhat exaggerating. Bus lanes are cheap, but adding new public transportation options are very expensive. But the larger problem is IDOT fighting within its own pot of money. It wasn't too long ago that IDOT had to choose between the crosstown expressway or expand the orange line to midway and the blue line to o'hare. Now we have IDOT wanting to expand the blue line to schaumburg on one end and to Oak brook on the other end, while at the same time there's going to be a future rebuild of the Ike. Common sense would be to rebuild the Ike with space available for a future blue line down the median. At the same time you have those crazy NIMBY'ers in Oak Park fighting the widening of the Ike.
A small pot of money isn't necessarily IDOT's fault. A good portion of that blame still is faulted towards incompetence in DC for not funding a long term transportation plan.
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 10:53:17 PM
However luckily Illinois isn't as terrain challenged as other states. Think mountains, rivers, bridges, tunnels, etc. Those cost insane $$$$
Maybe not the extremely large bridges to be found near the coasts, but there are enough waterways on the borders and within the state to require a decent amount of funding.
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 09, 2015, 10:59:53 AM
Now we have IDOT wanting to expand the blue line to schaumburg on one end and to Oak brook on the other end, while at the same time there's going to be a future rebuild of the Ike. Common sense would be to rebuild the Ike with space available for a future blue line down the median. At the same time you have those crazy NIMBY'ers in Oak Park fighting the widening of the Ike.
The Blue Line expansions on both ends will be a CTA project, not IDOT, although there'd be a ton of coordination. It is not a priority of CTA to do either expansion right now; they are mostly concentrating on the Red Line extension on the south end. The 290 median is being designed for a future transit expansion that could either be BRT or rail to at least Mannheim Road. Latest info on the Ike expansion is at www.eisenhowerexpressway.com, check the presentations of the Community Advisory Group there.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/info_center/meeting_materials.aspx
There is also a parallel study being done by CTA.
http://www.transitchicago.com/blueweststudy/
Quote from: Brandon on September 03, 2015, 03:03:54 PM
I can count the number of modern SPUIs here on one hand
At least Illinois warrants the use of a hand. I can count the number of SPUIs in Connecticut on one finger. Sounds like both state DOTs have a similar resistance to trying anything new.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 09, 2015, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 10:53:17 PM
However luckily Illinois isn't as terrain challenged as other states. Think mountains, rivers, bridges, tunnels, etc. Those cost insane $$$$
Maybe not the extremely large bridges to be found near the coasts, but there are enough waterways on the borders and within the state to require a decent amount of funding.
That's true, but it's nothing like the NY/NJ border where there are literally 2 overpriced toll bridges/tunnels to get across: George washington bridge and lincoln tunnel.
I was mainly referring to cutting through mountains and hilly terrain. I imagine tunnels are a bit cheaper than bridges.
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 09, 2015, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 09, 2015, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 10:53:17 PM
However luckily Illinois isn't as terrain challenged as other states. Think mountains, rivers, bridges, tunnels, etc. Those cost insane $$$$
Maybe not the extremely large bridges to be found near the coasts, but there are enough waterways on the borders and within the state to require a decent amount of funding.
That's true, but it's nothing like the NY/NJ border where there are literally 2 overpriced toll bridges/tunnels to get across: George washington bridge and lincoln tunnel.
I was mainly referring to cutting through mountains and hilly terrain. I imagine tunnels are a bit more expensive to build than bridges.
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 09, 2015, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 09, 2015, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 10:53:17 PM
However luckily Illinois isn't as terrain challenged as other states. Think mountains, rivers, bridges, tunnels, etc. Those cost insane $$$$
Maybe not the extremely large bridges to be found near the coasts, but there are enough waterways on the borders and within the state to require a decent amount of funding.
That's true, but it's nothing like the NY/NJ border where there are literally 2 overpriced toll bridges/tunnels to get across: George washington bridge and lincoln tunnel.
I was mainly referring to cutting through mountains and hilly terrain. I imagine tunnels are a bit cheaper than bridges.
They closed the Holland Tunnel? ;-)
Additionally, there's the PATH tunnel into lower Manhattan (ex Hudson & Manhattan) and the Amtrak/NJ Transit tunnel (ex PRR) into midtown. Plus the ferries. Plenty of ways to get from Jersey into the city. It's silly, I think, to look at the Hudson River crossings only in terms of total road lanes.
Addendum: There's also the NJ-Staten Island-Long Island approach via Goethals and then Verrazano-Narrows.
Why is IDOT in charge of transit in the chicago area? shouldn't that be a local issue?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 09, 2015, 11:59:53 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 09, 2015, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 09, 2015, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 08, 2015, 10:53:17 PM
However luckily Illinois isn't as terrain challenged as other states. Think mountains, rivers, bridges, tunnels, etc. Those cost insane $$$$
Maybe not the extremely large bridges to be found near the coasts, but there are enough waterways on the borders and within the state to require a decent amount of funding.
That's true, but it's nothing like the NY/NJ border where there are literally 2 overpriced toll bridges/tunnels to get across: George washington bridge and lincoln tunnel.
I was mainly referring to cutting through mountains and hilly terrain. I imagine tunnels are a bit cheaper than bridges.
They closed the Holland Tunnel? ;-)
Additionally, there's the PATH tunnel into lower Manhattan (ex Hudson & Manhattan) and the Amtrak/NJ Transit tunnel (ex PRR) into midtown. Plus the ferries. Plenty of ways to get from Jersey into the city. It's silly, I think, to look at the Hudson River crossings only in terms of total road lanes.
Addendum: There's also the NJ-Staten Island-Long Island approach via Goethals and then Verrazano-Narrows.
A bit off topic from IDOT, but I'm under the impression that railroad freight can't enter NYC. They have to unload in NJ and bring it in via semi-trucks mostly on the GW bridge. Semi trucks beat the crap out of NYC local roads that were primarily designed for horses. Here in the Chicago area, the extensive rail system helps cut down the amount of semis who beat up the highways and local roads.
When you talk about freight entering NYC, I presume you mean from the mainland. Technically LIRR has a freight subsidiary which operates on the island and in theory could enter to the city, but I don't think they move much tonnage.
Only rail accesses into the city from the mainland are via Bronx on the old NY Central and PRR routes. Both of those are passenger lines, so any freight would be minimal. Plus they don't have the yards needed in Manhattan to unload the stuff.
Also, Chicago is more of a railroad hub than it is a terminal rail destination. In other words, most goods coming on rail into Chicago aren't intended to get offloaded into the Chicago area, but rather continue on to other destinations. So if the rail lines weren't going through Chicago, it's not so much that trucks would take their place, but rather that other rail lines, like through St. Louis, would be used instead.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 10, 2015, 12:27:09 PM
Also, Chicago is more of a railroad hub than it is a terminal rail destination. In other words, most goods coming on rail into Chicago aren't intended to get offloaded into the Chicago area, but rather continue on to other destinations. So if the rail lines weren't going through Chicago, it's not so much that trucks would take their place, but rather that other rail lines, like through St. Louis, would be used instead.
I'll give you that, but regardless of where the freight is actually moving, I'd rather the freight be on the rail rather than on the highways, especially some of these outdated highways that were never designed to move freight traffic.
Quote from: johndoe780 on September 10, 2015, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 10, 2015, 12:27:09 PM
Also, Chicago is more of a railroad hub than it is a terminal rail destination. In other words, most goods coming on rail into Chicago aren't intended to get offloaded into the Chicago area, but rather continue on to other destinations. So if the rail lines weren't going through Chicago, it's not so much that trucks would take their place, but rather that other rail lines, like through St. Louis, would be used instead.
I'll give you that, but regardless of where the freight is actually moving, I'd rather the freight be on the rail rather than on the highways, especially some of these outdated highways that were never designed to move freight traffic.
No need to worry - shippers already put as much as they can on rail. It's simply cheaper per ton-mile to do so, if your product allows.
Non-perishable commodities are (almost?) always shipped by rail. Coal doesn't go bad, for example. It can wait for days to clear the Chicago yards (which it often does)
Trucks are the least efficient because of how small the trucks are. Consider labor costs. A single shipping container by truck requires a single driver for it. On rail, a single shipping container takes up half a gondola railcar. And there can be dozens and dozens of these gondola railcars double-stacking the shipping containers. And the train is run by a two-man crew. Granted rail has a much higher overhead, but those are fixed costs.
Trucks have advantage when it comes to perishable products, although refrigerator railcars exist (CSX's Tropicana juice train is a sight to see here in the East), or to go to places without rail access.
If you thought IDOT was behind in Chicagoland, get down towards District 8/9. They're making I-57 6 lanes yet there are critical routes through the Metro East that get ignored. Locals were bitter over their handling of the canal bridge project on I-270. The lane closures on I-64 last month near I-55 drew major heat from the locals. Some of their 1980's-1990s projects were epic fails, namely the interchange of I-64 and I-255. And if you live in the Metro East, this agency is still bold enough to pull off 24/7 lane closures even on the major highways - that includes last year double lane closure on 255 north of 55/70. (MoDOT very rarely attempts that behavior, with the project on I-44 near I-270 being the rare exception.)
Quote from: kharvey10 on September 10, 2015, 07:33:54 PM
If you thought IDOT was behind in Chicagoland, get down towards District 8/9. They're making I-57 6 lanes yet there are critical routes through the Metro East that get ignored. Locals were bitter over their handling of the canal bridge project on I-270. The lane closures on I-64 last month near I-55 drew major heat from the locals. Some of their 1980's-1990s projects were epic fails, namely the interchange of I-64 and I-255. And if you live in the Metro East, this agency is still bold enough to pull off 24/7 lane closures even on the major highways - that includes last year double lane closure on 255 north of 55/70. (MoDOT very rarely attempts that behavior, with the project on I-44 near I-270 being the rare exception.)
To be fair, the 10 mile widening of I-57 between Johnson city and Marion was cheap at $10.6 million
You want an epic fail? Read this
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20150910/news/150919881/
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 10, 2015, 07:27:54 AM
Why is IDOT in charge of transit in the chicago area? shouldn't that be a local issue?
IDOT is not in charge of transit in the Chicago area. The three transit service agencies (CTA, Pace and Metra) are funded by the RTA sales tax, fares and other federal and state aid, and have their own management and boards of directors. RTA is an umbrella agency that mainly serves as a tax collector and distributor, although they do some joint agency planning. IDOT does have a Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation, but its main function is to provide funding and studies, not to run things.
The only thing IDOT has a say in around Chicago is the freeways - specifically non-tolled Interstates.
EDIT: And some of the signed urban arterials outside the city proper.
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 11, 2015, 10:54:19 PM
The only thing IDOT has a say in around Chicago is the freeways - specifically non-tolled Interstates.
EDIT: And some of the signed urban arterials outside the city proper.
Not necessarily true. IDOT provided half the funds (the other half from UP) to third rail UP-W from West Chicago to Geneva.
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 11, 2015, 10:54:19 PM
The only thing IDOT has a say in around Chicago is the freeways - specifically non-tolled Interstates.
EDIT: And some of the signed urban arterials outside the city proper.
IDOT gets a partial say on any state routes inside Chicago, but Chicago frequently ignores them. IIRC there were a few newspaper articles regarding this when IDOT was for a time blocking protected bike lanes on state routes inside Chicago.
IDOT also gets a partial say in projects funded with either federal or state gas tax dollars - this is why IDOT details show up in non-IDOT projects such as this Lake County resurfacing project (78 MB pdf) (http://apps01.lakecountyil.gov/SPdot/bids/data/B-01039a$Grass_Lake_Road_Resurfacing_Full_Plan_Set.pdf)
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 12, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 11, 2015, 10:54:19 PM
The only thing IDOT has a say in around Chicago is the freeways - specifically non-tolled Interstates.
EDIT: And some of the signed urban arterials outside the city proper.
IDOT gets a partial say on any state routes inside Chicago, but Chicago frequently ignores them. IIRC there were a few newspaper articles regarding this when IDOT was for a time blocking protected bike lanes on state routes inside Chicago.
IDOT also gets a partial say in projects funded with either federal or state gas tax dollars - this is why IDOT details show up in non-IDOT projects such as this Lake County resurfacing project (78 MB pdf) (http://apps01.lakecountyil.gov/SPdot/bids/data/B-01039a$Grass_Lake_Road_Resurfacing_Full_Plan_Set.pdf)
Technically, IDOT gets a "partial say" in any local road project in the state for which Motor Fuel Tax monies are spent. In practice, MFT funds can be used for anything theoc agency desires, as long as the project conforms to state Local Road standards and the money is not diverted illegally for non MFT purposes. In its local road role, IDOT is basically an auditor.
Fixed quote -sso
Not so much on the I-57 widening, it was actually packaged in with bridge replacement and other improvements that were done during that same time in Marion.