AARoads Forum

Why was the IKE and its extension called I-90 until 1978??

The short answer seems to be that "federal regulations" changed.

I believe a map with a big red line going from the Skyway, turning a right angle at Circle, going west on the Ike and ultimately to Schaumburg, made transport officials uneasy with TWO honkin' right angles. Right angles just beg the hypotenuse question. The big kahuna being a line from the Skyway to the Strangler. Somebody suggested it. Eyes rolled at the craziness. In 1975 or so, it may not have been necessary, an expensive extravagance. Cheapest, easiest way to eliminate the problem...route I-90 on the Kennedy. Just change the signs. Brilliant. :cheers: Problem solved. No right angles on that map. Regulations changed.

Today I read were #1 at something. The Kennedy is the most congested. Im thinking draft pick. So current I-90 (and 94) needs to be LESS congested?

But with major bottlenecks on the Ryan, Byrnecircle, Ike and Strangler everyday, the Hypotenuse needs another look. See topic in fictional.

The Crosstown plan started to get the south section (I-55 and Cicero to Skyway) close, but going north adjacent to Cicero Av. to Edens rightly killed it. Several times.

OR?

Heres the MAP  http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx OR this even?   http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave:


The major traffic problems weve faced in Chicago and Cook County for the past FIFTY+ years dont seem to be getting resolved anytime soon. I believe a HUGE part of that is the lack of "Hypotenuse", a sixteen mile, what surely will have to be a Tollway now, between the  #1 clusterF in the country, the Hillside Strangler and the Skyway split in Englewood. The only route at present, is going down the Ike, through Byrnecircle, then down the north part of the Ryan. A 22-mile trek that, while "free", is hardly that when the sun is up anyway. So building the Hypo would cut six miles off that trip. But, theres a FOUR mile FREE bonus!! It would shorten a drive from Schaumburg to Gary, presently 60+ miles, to FIFTY because it eliminates the "curvature" of the Kennedy or the Tri-state. amazingly making Indianapolis and Madison ten miles closer, even Seattle and Boston. Interstate traffic would appreciate an option to Chicagos forever crowded "freeways". :spin: THE Hypo is more like five or six. The Ike and N Ryan is one. US 12 & 20 is another. I-55 & Cicero to the Skyway split, too. Any surface street within a mile or two really. And an improved rail corridor?

The "problem" actually started in the 1850s, with the explosion of Chicagos population from a dot on the map to one of the fastest growing cities on the planet for decades and the numerous RRs terminating/originating here, mostly on the southside. Then the Civil War, that FIRE, two world wars, Chicagos illustrious history. How could planning ever be properly done? South Chicago Ave and present day Skyway and old IC (now CN) and NS RRs started to get the SE-NW thing going, but there was never really any plan to continue on that vector. Maybe the ill-fated Crosstown (I-494)? The south part made some sense, NO way the north. Ideally, US 12 & 20 should have taken a diagonal through town instead of the long, present-day EW-NS path.


Of course, youve read the Kennedy (Is 90/94) is the #1 Interstate mess in the country. Its time for I-90 to move out. Its been eating the groceries and not paying the rent for 38? years now. And before that, it was on the Ike. You can see it from space, its as plain as the nose on your face. No more 90/94.

Heres some distance calculations and shots of what it might look like.

https://imgur.com/CwPU7Ox                             https://imgur.com/IAt9KVf 

        https://imgur.com/gallery/ulBjx/new   


Texas A&M Transport Institute estimates congestion costs us over $7B per year around here in lost productivity and "diminished quality of life". Yeah? Add increased pollution, lack of business creation and retention, smaller tax base, underfunded schools, no jobs, crime and gun violence, then becoming the media "poster-child" for all of that...$7B sounds low. :eyebrow:

Whats missing??

     https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8337329,-87.7319639,11z

Have some fun. Click above, go to satellite, zoom in and follow the route. From the Strangler, follow CN rail SE to Berwyn, over Cicero Av. crossing the SanShip Canal, I-55, and Pulaski, along BNSFs Corwith railyard, then east along 49th. Over Western, turning south along CSXs railyard. Then a turn east at the ROW north of 59th. Follow from Damen to Halsted, then turn SE follow till ya cross the Ryan, adjacent to the NS tracks and merge into the Skyway. Thats it!  :hmmm:


Connecting ramps/work zone
At Strangler: WB to 290 (or the "new" I-90), N294, 88. Really liking the flyover I-294 idea, that would include a ramp from E88 & N294 and get rid of the slow oval ramp. EB from 290 & 88 (294 already merged). Work Zone  1
Mannheim: WB exit, EB enter. Zone 2
Harlem: WB exit, EB enter. Zone 2
Cicero: WB enter & exit EB exit. Zone 2
I-55: from N55 to EB, from S55 to WB maybe. Zone 3
Archer, Western & 49th: Probably WB exit to Archer, EB enter. Maybe a free frontage to/from Western with WB enter, EB exit. Zone 4
59th & Western: WB exit, EB enter. Zone 5
At Ryan: WB enter from State St. EB exit at Yale cross 63rd to SB Ryan. Zone 6
Cross Ryan, merge with Skyway. Zone 6

Sixteen miles, MINIMAL neighborhood disruption. Only two areas that have any residential.

59th around Englewood? The high school is yards away from four NS tracks, so some of that would need to be rebuilt, maybe in the parking lot, and the parking lot could move under the new highway. Theres twenty homes that would probably have to go, and twenty more that would be close, but then its just two junkyards, two strip malls, a few commercials that could probably all stay.

Berwyn to Westchester has minimal residential destruction. Mostly its "AIMBY" already a major railroad yards away from my garage or backyard. Probably twenty of those. So the property wouldnt need to be destroyed, but theres a monstrosity there now. If ya' couldnt handle it, find a new home. It would be bought for you and somebody would like the old one. After that just a bunch of parking lots and truck yards.

New grade-separations along CN rails in this area would include Riverside Dr., Harlem (IL43), 26th St., Veterans Dr., Hainesworth , DesPlaines Av, Cermak, First Av.(IL171), 17th Av., Oak Ridge Av., Harrison St., and Wolf Rd.

Heres a recent Tribune article describing an $8B rail bypass plan??  www.greatlakesbasin.net
   
   http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-illinois-rail-line-0322-biz-20160318-story.html

Why not just build the few miles of rails needed between CN & BNSF in Cicero and CSX and NSX in Englewood?

As six of seven Class 1 RRs, numerous short lines, METRA and AMTRAK collide here everyday, grade-separated rail lines along the same Hypo route would enable the RRs to get thru town in an hour, instead of days. The old IC (now CN) RR line can be seen briefly at the Strangler. Thats the vector.

Whats an alternative?? Widen the IKE?
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

It could take TEN years and cost $4B? Not insurmountable for a region that has a $550B a YEAR GDP. In NYC thats pocket change. A public-private partner-ship (PPP) would be needed to fund a project like this which would have to include IDOT, ISTHA, CMAP, Federal & CMAQ funds, CREATE (www.createprogram.org/proj_map2.htm), state, county, city, the RRs, construction contractors, tollway funders...even the bastards that stole (then sold for 50% profit?) the Skyway rights. :spin: Yes it would be like nailing jello to a wall. This is like a chess game, jigsaw puzzle, and crossword rolled into one.

As always, I maintain that federal fuel taxes need a modest increase, as they havent been raised since 1993, havent even kept up with inflation. Maybe a small tax (pennies per gallon) on railroad or off-road diesel to help finance more CREATE type projects. Everyone agrees that more infrastructure spending is a great idea...why are our legislators unable to get this done? It looks like very cheap fuel for the next TEN YEARS? :poke:

We also need to take a look at the give/get in the FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND. Illinois is one of many industrial states that dont get what they put in. In IL its like 97%. And then Springfield only gives IDOT D1 (six county metro area, 65% population & 75% GDP) 45% of those funds, the rest of the state gets 55%?? So does that mean for every dollar D1 gives, we get 43 cents? :pan: I still dont know how the numbers pan out and CMAP isnt sure either.

The GDP of the SEVEN Chicagoland counties is equal to Ohios OR almost New Jersey. By comparison, the rest of IL is about Kentucky on a good year.

Heres this years version of "Chicago traffic woes" story...Note the maps on page two.


http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775

Maybe if it gets worse, well get some kind of "draft pick"? Hypotenuse would relieve, maybe eliminate those FIVE, and maybe help a few others. Think about it. At the Strangler, FOUR major Interstates (Is 290, N&S 294 & 88 with six lanes) merge into ONE four-lane. With IL 38, 56, 64, US 12, 20, 45 all giving a boost. The Ryan has ultimately FOUR into ONE as well(Is 57, 94, then 90 & 55), all finally meeting up at Byrnecircle. If we could connect or give options to these EIGHT routes with one sixteen mile $4B Tollway, that would be a major triumph in ten years. Kill five zombie pteradactyls with one gigantic, 16-mile hunk of concrete and steel FOREVER.

Construction techniques for the "last link" in I-70 finished 25 years ago that may be useful for building Hypotenuse, the "last link" in I-90. But NO mountain canyon, just boring railyards and ROWs, a half-mile of some pretty sparse Chicago neighborhood. Still would be beautiful. I watched Glenwood Canyon construction in the eighties. :wave:

https://youtu.be/LNqcNH7ez4k


Answers price list:
Answers............................................. $1.00
Answers (requiring thought)................... $2.00
Answers (correct)................................ $3.00
Dumb looks .................................STILL FREE!

Because that was the original routing of I-90.

The Ike was built as I-90 between 1955 and 1960, and extended from the Tri-State to Schaumburg by 1972.

Prior to the extension, I-90 was routed onto the Tri-State between the Ike and the Rosemont interchange with the NW Tollway.

I-90's original routing was on the Eisenhower, the Dan Ryan, the Calumet (Bishop Ford), and Kingery Expressways. It was later swapped with I-94 onto to the Skyway and IN Toll Road after 1962.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 30, 2015, 11:57:55 PM
Because that was the original routing of I-90.

The Ike was built as I-90 between 1955 and 1960, and extended from the Tri-State to Schaumburg by 1972.

Prior to the extension, I-90 was routed onto the Tri-State between the Ike and the Rosemont interchange with the NW Tollway.

I-90's original routing was on the Eisenhower, the Dan Ryan, the Calumet (Bishop Ford), and Kingery Expressways

Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I-90 at the time switched from the Toll Road to the Borman, then to the Calumet, merged smoothly onto the Ryan, but went through one lane at the Circle to the Ike, then again to the Tri-State, then onto the Northwest Tollway.  Then, later, it was sent through a loop in Schaumburg!  Toll Road -> Skyway -> Ryan -> Kennedy -> Northwest Tollway is a smooth and easy transition befitting a major interstate.

Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2015, 01:10:06 AM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 30, 2015, 11:57:55 PM
Because that was the original routing of I-90.

The Ike was built as I-90 between 1955 and 1960, and extended from the Tri-State to Schaumburg by 1972.

Prior to the extension, I-90 was routed onto the Tri-State between the Ike and the Rosemont interchange with the NW Tollway.

I-90's original routing was on the Eisenhower, the Dan Ryan, the Calumet (Bishop Ford), and Kingery Expressways

Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I-90 at the time switched from the Toll Road to the Borman, then to the Calumet, merged smoothly onto the Ryan, but went through one lane at the Circle to the Ike, then again to the Tri-State, then onto the Northwest Tollway.  Then, later, it was sent through a loop in Schaumburg!  Toll Road -> Skyway -> Ryan -> Kennedy -> Northwest Tollway is a smooth and easy transition befitting a major interstate.

Thats the point! We have been finding ways to conjoin I-90 with what ever is convenient, instead of taking a serious look at the map. The version of the Ike I-90 making a right angle onto the Ryan just begs the hypotenuse question.

I think I-90 was signed onto whatever was built at the time in Illinois to get it across the country as planned - and once the rest of the roads were done, straightened out to where it's signed today.

As noted in another thread, back in the early days of planning this all out, everything was Chicago-centric. Seems like no real thought was given to vehicle traffic looking to bypass Chicago at that time until the Tri-State. That's your reason for no hypotenuse - the Tri-State was the solution.

Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2015, 01:10:06 AM
Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I would not rule out that there was a dream of switching I-90 from the NW Tollway to the US 12-IL 53 corridor had the latter been completed.  Alternatively (and more speculatively), many maps before 1970 had the Elgin O'Hare tying into the current I-290 interchange with I-355.  There could have been a long-range dream of taking the Elgin O'Hare west and eventually reconnecting with the NW Tollway, and rerouting I-90 onto that new corridor.

Quote from: Revive 755 on October 31, 2015, 07:18:49 PM

Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2015, 01:10:06 AM
Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I would not rule out that there was a dream of switching I-90 from the NW Tollway to the US 12-IL 53 corridor had the latter been completed.  Alternatively (and more speculatively), many maps before 1970 had the Elgin O'Hare tying into the current I-290 interchange with I-355.  There could have been a long-range dream of taking the Elgin O'Hare west and eventually reconnecting with the NW Tollway, and rerouting I-90 onto that new corridor.

I believe that was the plan to run I-90 up what is now known as the FAP 342 and FAP 420 corridors (the IL-53 extension) through Lake and McHenry to the US 12 freeway in Wisconsin, but it was rejected as they didn't want a free route duplicating a toll road.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 31, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I think I-90 was signed onto whatever was built at the time in Illinois to get it across the country as planned - and once the rest of the roads were done, straightened out to where it's signed today.

As noted in another thread, back in the early days of planning this all out, everything was Chicago-centric. Seems like no real thought was given to vehicle traffic looking to bypass Chicago at that time until the Tri-State. That's your reason for no hypotenuse - the Tri-State was the solution.

Exactly. We can rearrange the signs forever. Bottom line...we are still a bit short of some critical concrete and steel and our five or six major bottlenecks are the proof. And no amount of widening or bypassing seems to have any effect other than more exurban sprawl. So its back to the drawing board.

I always found it weird that Chicago has a recently added State Highway 390 and a State Highway 394, as well as former State Highways 190, 194, and 594, with no original intentions of making any of them Interstates.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2015, 04:46:04 PM
I always found it weird that Chicago has a recently added State Highway 390 and a State Highway 394, as well as former State Highways 190, 194, and 594, with no original intentions of making any of them Interstates.

IL-390 may become one or change to Toll IL-390

IL-394 called I-394 on signs in error maybe come one if they build the 3rd airport.

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 01, 2015, 12:28:53 PM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 31, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I think I-90 was signed onto whatever was built at the time in Illinois to get it across the country as planned - and once the rest of the roads were done, straightened out to where it's signed today.

As noted in another thread, back in the early days of planning this all out, everything was Chicago-centric. Seems like no real thought was given to vehicle traffic looking to bypass Chicago at that time until the Tri-State. That's your reason for no hypotenuse - the Tri-State was the solution.

Exactly. We can rearrange the signs forever. Bottom line...we are still a bit short of some critical concrete and steel and our five or six major bottlenecks are the proof. And no amount of widening or bypassing seems to have any effect other than more exurban sprawl. So its back to the drawing board.

My point was that the signage wasn't changed to eliminate bottlenecks or backups - that wasn't the intent.

One can easily see why and where certain areas are bottlenecks - and it's usually a matter of a design that worked well at one point in time that no longer does because the amount of traffic has increased.

The Eisenhower backs up where capacity drops from 4 lanes down to 3, and it eases up when capacity increases again from 3 to 4 lanes.

The NB Dan Ryan to WB Eisenhower backs up because of a severe lack of capacity (in this case, a single lane to handle ALL the traffic) further constrained by the physical area the capacity must fit into.

The NB Tri-State to WB Eisenhower also backs up because of a severe lack of capacity (again, ONE lane) and a constrained space to work with.

Identifying the problem is pretty easy. Coming up with an acceptable solution that all involved parties can agree on and that can be paid for? Not so much.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2015, 04:46:04 PM
I always found it weird that Chicago has a recently added State Highway 390 and a State Highway 394, as well as former State Highways 190, 194, and 594, with no original intentions of making any of them Interstates.

IL-394 wasn't recently added - it's been around since 1964.

None of those routes really NEEDED to be an Interstate, since they primarily served intrastate traffic.

I said IL-390 was recently added, not IL-394.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 03, 2015, 03:48:51 PM
I said IL-390 was recently added, not IL-394.

Actually, what you said was "I always found it weird that Chicago has a recently added State Highway 390 and a State Highway 394" - the "and" making it appear to me that you said BOTH 390 and 394 were added.

"I always found it weird that Chicago has IL-394, and now the recently added IL-390..."

Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 02, 2015, 10:49:43 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 01, 2015, 12:28:53 PM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 31, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I think I-90 was signed onto whatever was built at the time in Illinois to get it across the country as planned - and once the rest of the roads were done, straightened out to where it's signed today.

As noted in another thread, back in the early days of planning this all out, everything was Chicago-centric. Seems like no real thought was given to vehicle traffic looking to bypass Chicago at that time until the Tri-State. That's your reason for no hypotenuse - the Tri-State was the solution.

Exactly. We can rearrange the signs forever. Bottom line...we are still a bit short of some critical concrete and steel and our five or six major bottlenecks are the proof. And no amount of widening or bypassing seems to have any effect other than more exurban sprawl. So its back to the drawing board.

My point was that the signage wasn't changed to eliminate bottlenecks or backups - that wasn't the intent.

One can easily see why and where certain areas are bottlenecks - and it's usually a matter of a design that worked well at one point in time that no longer does because the amount of traffic has increased.

The Eisenhower backs up where capacity drops from 4 lanes down to 3, and it eases up when capacity increases again from 3 to 4 lanes.

The NB Dan Ryan to WB Eisenhower backs up because of a severe lack of capacity (in this case, a single lane to handle ALL the traffic) further constrained by the physical area the capacity must fit into.

The NB Tri-State to WB Eisenhower also backs up because of a severe lack of capacity (again, ONE lane) and a constrained space to work with.

Identifying the problem is pretty easy. Coming up with an acceptable solution that all involved parties can agree on and that can be paid for? Not so much.

I think weve identified the problem. And an acceptable solution that can be paid for. All parties involved? Not so much.

what is going on here

Quote from: NE2 on November 22, 2015, 04:07:11 PM
what is going on here

chaos sir

Quote from: NE2 on November 22, 2015, 04:07:11 PM
what is going on here

We got a kook.  Read the other, similar threads for your amusement.  :biggrin:

Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2015, 01:10:06 AM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 30, 2015, 11:57:55 PM
Because that was the original routing of I-90.

The Ike was built as I-90 between 1955 and 1960, and extended from the Tri-State to Schaumburg by 1972.

Prior to the extension, I-90 was routed onto the Tri-State between the Ike and the Rosemont interchange with the NW Tollway.

I-90's original routing was on the Eisenhower, the Dan Ryan, the Calumet (Bishop Ford), and Kingery Expressways

Never understood what possessed the Illinois Department of Public Works (predecessor to IDOT) to route I-90 that way.  The current routing makes a lot more sense with fewer changes between freeways/tollways.

I-90 at the time switched from the Toll Road to the Borman, then to the Calumet, merged smoothly onto the Ryan, but went through one lane at the Circle to the Ike, then again to the Tri-State, then onto the Northwest Tollway.  Then, later, it was sent through a loop in Schaumburg!  Toll Road -> Skyway -> Ryan -> Kennedy -> Northwest Tollway is a smooth and easy transition befitting a major interstate.

I assume the logic of the original numbering scheme was to have I-90 and 94 conform to the national numbering grid by having I-94 north of I-90.  As illogical as that routing and connections at interchanges may have been, I routinely follow the original I-90 routing from Schaumburg to South Holland to Lake Station many times to avoid the tolls. 

Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 24, 2015, 01:52:43 AM
Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

This might just be a me vs. you thing, but I think it makes mores sense to route a route highway along the route path that is the most direct and has the fewest "slow" ramps, or the longest free-flowing stretch, no matter how congested that route path may be. This way, if traffic was free-flowing (I've heard it happens every once in a while on the Kennedy), the route highway would be routed along the fastest possible route path. Of course in this case, traffic isn't free-flowing on the Kennedy most of the time, and it turns out some of the time the fastest route path is along the Eisenhower. Still, I like to idealize situations when it comes to route numbering.

I realize this is your main argument for why 90 should be rerouted along the Eisenhower in hopes of taking some of the congestion off of the Kennedy. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

Side note: upon rereading this, I realize I used the word "route" too much and in three different contexts. I hope I made myself a bit clearer.

I dont think I-90 should be rerouted to the Ike. That wont accomplish a thing. I said, that until 1978 it WAS routed on the Ike. But that path had two right angles, one at Schaumburg and the BIG, HONKIN one at the Byrnecircle. Right angles just beg the hypotenuse question. (See Hypotenuse in fictional) But the easiest, cheapest thing to do back then was to just MAKE A BUNCH OF NEW ROAD SIGNS and reroute I-90 to the Kennedy. There. PROBLEM SOLVED! Or NOT.  :cheers: :rofl:

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775

In the mid-'70s, the Crosstown was looked at over and over. While I believe they were on the right track (no pun intended) on the south part from I-55 and Cicero Av to the Skyway, going north along Cicero and paralleling the Kennedy just wasnt cuttin' it on many levels. So they blew the whole thing off. Now FIFTY plus years later, the Ryan, Ike and Kennedy are usually a daily mess, widening and bypasses arent doing it. So whats left? The south section of the Crosstown along a straighter alignment to the Skyway. And going NW to jump the Strangler. Then I-90 has the best, shortest, fastest way thru the area, taking pressure off the bottlenecks. 

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 scope and size of the "study area" on pg. 41(46) is asinine.

yawn

Christ, you bumped this after five months just to create another place to vouch for your plan?

Of course. He loves the attention. Not only that, it's a duplicate post.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 23, 2016, 05:18:38 PM
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 scope and size of the "study area" on pg. 41(46) is asinine.

First, its not "my" plan and I dont go by Christ. This is IDOTs EIS for their IKE widening proposal. Which I question on its face whether it will accomplish anything after years of disruption and expense. Then, if one reads the study (careful, its 71 pages), the "alternatives" have glaring omissions because the study area is a bit shy, neglecting at least two other known study areas that would/could seriously affect the conclusions reached on this project.

The width of Cermak to North Av is not sufficient. Avoiding the Strangler is myopic. And this...

http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co    :rofl:

Many of the EIS maps show I-88 paralleling Mannheim. While Im sure its just a typo, should be I-294, its a BIG Fing typo that shows a general lack of attention to detail. :pan:

Any "attention" from out-of-state, mouth-breathing, know-it-alls, whose only mission seems to be to obfuscate (and some to jack their post #s with blather) this huge local issue that does not affect them whatsoever is not welcome or encouraged.

Why are you quoting yourself?

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 24, 2015, 01:52:43 AM
Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

You could move both highways to different routes and it would have negligible, if any, difference in traffic.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 24, 2016, 03:38:58 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 24, 2015, 01:52:43 AM
Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

You could move both highways to different routes and it would have negligible, if any, difference in traffic.

http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx OR   http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co  :cheers:

You did read I want to move I-90 to this right?   :hmmm: Lookin' for a few notches above and beyond negligible.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 24, 2016, 12:30:13 PM

Any "attention" from out-of-state, mouth-breathing, know-it-alls, whose only mission seems to be to obfuscate (and jack their post #s) this huge local issue that does not affect them whatsoever is not welcome or encouraged.

Fortunately you're the only one who thinks it's not welcome or encouraged, so it doesn't really matter. And, unlike you, I couldn't care less about my post count (unlike some who try to jack it by posting the exact same reply in two completely dead threads). But thanks for finally admitting that I know it all. It's about time.

As for it being a local issue, so what? I use the roads too. So move on.

Cheers!

yawn

Isnt it time to roll up those sidewalks in Wherethefami WI? Wait, do they have sidewalks?

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 24, 2016, 06:40:42 PM
yawn

Get that post count up! :-D

Anyway, moving on to more important things...

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 24, 2016, 05:40:55 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 24, 2016, 03:38:58 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 24, 2015, 01:52:43 AM
Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

You could move both highways to different routes and it would have negligible, if any, difference in traffic.

http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx
You did read I want to move I-90 to this right? Lookin' for a few notches beyond negligible.

LOL...sure.  But its completely unfeasible.  Might as well invest the $$ you need to build that into inventing flying cars.

Personally I think the Eisenhower Expressway should have been Interstate 290 to begin with. Or was the former state highway 194 not up to Interstate Standards before then?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2016, 02:08:40 PM
Personally I think the Eisenhower Expressway should have been Interstate 290 to begin with. Or was the former state highway 194 not up to Interstate Standards before then?

I don't think much changed on either the Kennedy Expressway or the Northwest Tollway between 1958 and 1979.  The oddball routing of I-90 is still a mystery to me, and makes no sense.  Why route a major interstate through the ramps at the Circle Interchange when the current route is far more direct?  It's the same with the early routings of I-90 and I-94 in the south suburbs and NW Indiana.  Why have both I-90 and I-94 switch places at the Burns Harbor Interchange?

I-90 on the Ike was a holdover from the original idea for the Interstates in which the feds wanted to avoid toll roads as much as possible.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 24, 2016, 08:13:19 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 24, 2016, 05:40:55 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 24, 2016, 03:38:58 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on November 24, 2015, 01:52:43 AM
Read today that the Kennedy is THE most congested US I. I-90? I-94? Who can tell? No more I-90/94. Time to break up. This isnt working. Its not me, its you.

You could move both highways to different routes and it would have negligible, if any, difference in traffic.

http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx
You did read I want to move I-90 to this right? Lookin' for a few notches beyond negligible.

LOL...sure.  But its completely unfeasible.  Might as well invest the $$ you need to build that into inventing flying cars.

Alright George Jetson, lets try and keep it in perspective.

Two new tunnels under the Hudson...$20B...I dont have a problem, shoulda been started long ago.

New Hackensack Bridge? $1B...Is this shovel-ready?

Carplanes? You guys in WI have plenty of open road and the govcadet that might be able to pull off that prototype. Await a cost/feasibility estimate. Id think a new (old) passenger rail line from MSP-EUC-MSN-ORD would be a better choice, but WTF do I know?

Hypotenuse (the NOT well studied 16-mile) road/rail corridor? http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co  :wave:

Probably $4B? minimum in 10 years (more like 20 at OUR rate). Add another B to get a good start on MidCity Transitway. What ELSE is gonna turn Cinderella Chicago around? Add GDP and population points to the city/MSA/region. And resolve a ton of road & rail problems. Maybe even the WHOLE Fing COUNTRY gets a boost someday. The worst zip codes in the region are within a mile or two of I-90 from Gary to Cicero.

The IKE widening EIS gets crazier every time I read it. What IF (big if) we do whats proposed, spend the time, disruption, expense...and NOTHING gets better? If anything, Id rather see a dome over that hole in the ground from OP to 25th?...quieter, weather-proof, way less maintenance....

Half a runway at MDW? A $1B?

Dont think ANY of this is outrageous or insurmountable.

 

Considering they haven't even released exact plans yet i'd say its a bit early to be this worried.

I know this is veering toward Fictional, but I think they should go ahead and extend I-88 east from where it meets I-290 and I-294 east to the Circle Interchange. The part north of there can remain I-290, so why not?

Quote from: Henry on April 26, 2016, 10:40:58 AM
I know this is veering toward Fictional, but I think they should go ahead and extend I-88 east from where it meets I-290 and I-294 east to the Circle Interchange. The part north of there can remain I-290, so why not?

why not route I-290 over the EOE? and extend I-355 to lake cook / IL-120?

I have never quite understood the continued existence of I-290. I agree it should be decommissioned and replaced with I-88 between Hillside and the Circle and I-355 between Itasca and I-90 (and then I-355 could get extended up to Grayslake/I-94 if the Tollway gets some sense knocked into them and they build the 53 extension as a six lane Interstate). Then the "Eisenhower extension" gets renumbered as I-288.

The only reason this is not so is because I-88 and I-355 didn't exist in the late 1970's when the I-90 relocation took place.

Quote from: Brandon on April 25, 2016, 02:22:28 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2016, 02:08:40 PM
Personally I think the Eisenhower Expressway should have been Interstate 290 to begin with. Or was the former state highway 194 not up to Interstate Standards before then?

I don't think much changed on either the Kennedy Expressway or the Northwest Tollway between 1958 and 1979.  The oddball routing of I-90 is still a mystery to me, and makes no sense.  Why route a major interstate through the ramps at the Circle Interchange when the current route is far more direct?  It's the same with the early routings of I-90 and I-94 in the south suburbs and NW Indiana.  Why have both I-90 and I-94 switch places at the Burns Harbor Interchange?

If I had to guess, they routed I-90 along the skyway and I-94 along the Kingery/Borman because it was more direct from the angles they were coming. Since the I-90/94 interchange in Burns Harbor is not direct, maybe they thought it would be less confusing? I don't know..........

Quote from: Henry on April 26, 2016, 10:40:58 AM
I know this is veering toward Fictional, but I think they should go ahead and extend I-88 east from where it meets I-290 and I-294 east to the Circle Interchange. The part north of there can remain I-290, so why not?

Like this? :hmmm:  http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx

OR even better?   http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co   :cheers:

The north part of Hypotenuse plan and I-55 would basically parallel the Ike and give an option into South Loop as well as the major target, the Skyway split..

     

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 26, 2016, 03:33:22 PM

Quote from: Henry on April 26, 2016, 10:40:58 AM
I know this is veering toward Fictional

Like this? :hmmm:  http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx

     

No. That is totally fictional. And beaten to death at this point.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 26, 2016, 03:33:22 PM

Quote from: Henry on April 26, 2016, 10:40:58 AM
I know this is veering toward Fictional, but I think they should go ahead and extend I-88 east from where it meets I-290 and I-294 east to the Circle Interchange. The part north of there can remain I-290, so why not?

Like this? :hmmm:  http://imgur.com/u9L0fFx

   

Enough with the Hypotenuse......... it is a stupid idea and it will never happen. It's more likely I-39 gets extended into southern Illinois before the Hypotenuse would ever happen. Even if they wanted to build it, you can't just use RR ROW, that is protected by Federal Interstate commerce laws. Look at what is happening with the EOWA, Canadian Pacific is fighting ISTHA over the West Bypass ROW. Imagine the legal fights with the railroads here.

Please someone lock this thread. 

Although I am not an administrator, I agree the hypotenuse will only be constructed in Fictional Highways.

Quote from: quickshade on April 26, 2016, 10:29:20 AM
Considering they haven't even released exact plans yet i'd say its a bit early to be this worried.

"They" really haven't released EXACT new plans for FIFTY+fn years. When would be a good time?
Havent had a good, full speed iceberg ramming for a century, but this is close.

Because Illinois requested it and AASHTO approved it.  :nod:

END OF THREAD!

Want to shift traffic away from the crowded center of the city? Remove the tolls from I-294 and put them up through town. The amount of through traffic that HAS to be there will stay. Those looking for the cheaper route will bypass around the suburbs as much as possible.

I know when I drive through Chicago, I've gone straight through every time rather than I-294 unless I was hitting downtown at near rush hour.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 28, 2016, 05:09:55 AM
Want to shift traffic away from the crowded center of the city? Remove the tolls from I-294 and put them up through town. The amount of through traffic that HAS to be there will stay. Those looking for the cheaper route will bypass around the suburbs as much as possible.

I know when I drive through Chicago, I've gone straight through every time rather than I-294 unless I was hitting downtown at near rush hour.

I think that will only have a marginal impact.  My feeling is that most people who go through downtown are doing so because they have to go there.  With an IPass, you are only talking about $6.10 in tolls for the entire Tri State Tollway.  I don't think that is enough to deter people to take toll-less routes.

If there should be any tolls on 90/94 through Chicago, they should be on the express lanes.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 29, 2016, 05:09:07 PM
If there should be any tolls on 90/94 through Chicago, they should be on the express lanes.

First, why 90/94, one road, TWO #s? Is it economics? Cheapness? Stupidity?
Tolls? Express lanes? How would THAT be accomplished? I guess we could just I-pass everywhere. Why not just raise the gas tax? Second, WTF does this have anything to do with IKE?

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
First, why 90/94?

Because it carries a large amount of traffic between downtown and O'Hare Airport?

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Tolls? Express lanes? How would THAT be accomplished? I guess we could just I-pass everywhere.

Yes, tolls. Yes, express lanes. And yes, I-Pass. It's quite efficient.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Why not just raise the gas tax?

Because the politicians wouldn't dream of doing it for fear of the backlash from the people - especially in an election year. (Not that I'm against it - the state gas tax hasn't been increased since 1993.)

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Second, WTF does this have anything to do with IKE?

F'n nothing. But it's following the previous discussion.

Here - I'll help get it back on track - why not toll the Ike, too?

Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 30, 2016, 12:18:44 AM

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
First, why 90/94?

Because it carries a large amount of traffic between downtown and O'Hare Airport?

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Tolls? Express lanes? How would THAT be accomplished? I guess we could just I-pass everywhere.

Yes, tolls. Yes, express lanes. And yes, I-Pass. It's quite efficient.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Why not just raise the gas tax?

Because the politicians wouldn't dream of doing it for fear of the backlash from the people - especially in an election year. (Not that I'm against it - the state gas tax hasn't been increased since 1993.)

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Second, WTF does this have anything to do with IKE?

F'n nothing. But it's following the previous discussion.

Here - I'll help get it back on track - why not toll the Ike, too?

Where is the split between Nside~Sside? Madison? The IKE? The ONLY natural barrier is our beautiful  river, the SanShip Canal. Another bridge is due.

What more do you need to see?

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775

http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

WWW.greatlakesbasin.net

www.createprogram.org/proj_map2.htm

http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave:

We can go N~S, E~W...dont have that NW~SE thing figured just yet.

In b4 hypotenuse mention... Oh wait

Why not just raise the gas tax?

"Because the politicians wouldn't dream of doing it for fear of the backlash from the people - especially in an election year". (Not that I'm against it - the state gas tax hasn't been increased since 1993.)

Actually its the federal fuel tax of 18 cents gas / 24 diesel that has not been increased since 1993. And urban, industrial states dont get back what they "contribute". That needs some review.

ILs fuel tax is really not out of line comparatively. (http://www.illinoisgasprices.com/tax_info.aspx)
It just gets stolen to fund other state budget problems. No doubt that needs review as well.

Spineless legislators need to realize that good, even great roads (and other transport systems) everywhere are what everyone counts on government for and the couple bucks a week for most just dosent matter anymore.

I-Pass shouldnt be more efficient than road use fees collected at the pump.

Fine. You go to Congress and lobby to get the gas tax raised. See what kind of reception you get.

And give those that drive ultra-efficient and gas-less cars a free/reduced cost ride - that seems fair, right?

So dzlsabe, you've been pushing this "hypotenuse tollway" for the last decade or so?



http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/08/metra-and-pace-vote-for-transit-crushing-illiana-tollway-in-advisory-meeting/ (http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/08/metra-and-pace-vote-for-transit-crushing-illiana-tollway-in-advisory-meeting/) (go down to the comments section)

Give it up, it's not happening.

Edited to remove personal information

Lol!

Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 30, 2016, 06:56:51 PM
And give those that drive ultra-efficient and gas-less cars a free/reduced cost ride - that seems fair, right?

Who is that directed at/to? Ive certainly never advocated that. The easiest way to charge fuel-less or battery vehicles for road use would be a mileage inspection, but seeing as I-Pass is so fn efficient Ive read, lets just I-Pass everybody, all the time, everywhere??? Is that where we are headed?

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 30, 2016, 10:38:21 PM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 30, 2016, 06:56:51 PM
And give those that drive ultra-efficient and gas-less cars a free/reduced cost ride - that seems fair, right?

Is this directed at/to me? Ive never advocated that.

Never said you did.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 30, 2016, 10:38:21 PM
The easiest way to charge fuel-less or battery vehicles for road use would be a mileage inspection,

Then why not have a mileage inspection for ALL vehicles?

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 30, 2016, 10:38:21 PM
but seeing as I-Pass is so fn efficient Ive read, lets just I-Pass everybody, all the time, everywhere???

Now, did you really read that, or are you simply taking my statement from earlier out of context?

I-Pass is efficient at collecting tolls. Tolls are not a fuel tax or a mileage tax.

And, to paraphrase you, what in the Wide Wide World Of Sports does any of this have to do with the Ike?

Semantics. Tolls/I-Pass, fuel tax, mileage/road use fee? How do we collect the most funds efficiently and distribute them fairly to the projects that need be funded? The FHTF stagecoach gets hijacked in Washington and Springfield, then Cookco and Chicago??Yikes! Guess that makes I-Pass more "efficient"?

OR lets just STARE at this for a few more years...
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

And this....http://imgur.com/olL7LcU

Check the maps under "Coo"? Did that area get studied?

Quote from: dzlsabe on May 01, 2016, 01:00:07 AM
Semantics. Tolls/I-Pass, fuel tax, mileage/road use fee?

Your post was too long I didn't bother quoting the entire thing. But seriously please stop repeating the same thing over and over. Just ignore it because there's no easy way for the Eisenhower to get any better. You aren't even really helping this situation.

And your hypotenuse isn't happening either, Crosstown didn't make it. Residents will oppose it because you may be going along some train route or something, but surrounding neighborhoods will be annoyed by traffic in the area, more noise pollution and possible demolition to make more room.

I think the Eisnhower needs to be something like I-64 in St. Louis if it needs the be bigger. 

Don't bother, he's just a broken record. Keeps replaying those same 10 seconds of the song titled "Hypotenuse"

"Your post was too long"?  :rofl:

"Just ignore it because there's no easy way for the Eisenhower to get any better". Thats the POINT, simply. There is NO "easy" way. We are stuck between the proverbial ROCK (the inability to widen the IKE without major demolition and rail moves) and two hard places. The Strangler and the necessity to maintain the current lanes.

"You aren't even really helping this situation".  :no: Who is? I contend the current Ike EIS is seriously flawed. Hell, the whole scheme is. What if, by some miracle, another lane is crammed in somehow in five or ten years and nothing gets better? Thats a pretty big boner hangin' out there, isn't it IDOT? Kinda happened before with the expansion around Mannheim. Best case is six lanes into four. We know how that works. Just look at Kennedy & Edens. :clap:

"And your hypotenuse isn't happening either, Crosstown didn't make it".

Really? Crosstown didn't make it because there was/is a MAJOR problem with the route/direction. The destruction entailed. A question of whether it would have done jack squat. And there was rightly HUGE opposition for those reasons.  :ded:

The Hypo proposals are quite different, but unstudied. A clean sheet of paper. No ripping up the IKE, all lanes that are absolutely critical. But its WAY too long and complicated for you, so just ignore it. TL;DR.  :pan: "Mom, MAKE me a sandwich!"   :rofl:

What do YOU see here? I see nothing.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8087536,-87.7727645,19435m/data=!3m1!1e3

"Residents will oppose it because you may be going along some train route or something, but surrounding neighborhoods will be annoyed by traffic in the area, more noise pollution and possible demolition to make more room".

No shit? I fully expect them to. But, there really arent that many "residents", maybe a hundred properties. Its mostly industrial, abandoned, or RR ROW and it would be traffic OVER the area, not in. Perhaps a paid-off house in a nicer neighborhood, not next to a friggin' RR would be enticing? Its a damn $4B+ PPP project probably equivalent to building another Willisears Tower or two. Think another, better- designed Skyway.

"Noise pollution" is pretty much inevitable, another word for it would be "money".
I prefer mine with traffic moving consistently as opposed to....
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775
.
"I think the Eisnhower needs to be something like I-64 in St. Louis if it needs the be bigger".
Double-deck the IKE? Brilliant. That would annoy...everybody. :-D Good luck gettin' that on the next EIS. STILL wouldnt fix the Strangler.

Ill stick with this http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave:

Speaking of broken records, I used to LIKE Blackhawks hockey.  :verymad:

Maybe they could build toll lanes elevated over the train tracks, and although the right-of-way is quite narrow, it would be better than trying to expand outward or inward.

Quote from: dzlsabe on May 02, 2016, 12:19:04 AM
The Hypo proposals are quite different, but unstudied. A clean sheet of paper. No ripping up the IKE, all lanes that are absolutely critical. But its WAY too long and complicated for you, so just ignore it. 

Ill stick with this http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co

So what was the response from IDOT/ISHTA and community leaders to your plan?

You DID send your plan in for them to evaluate it, didn't you?

Quote from: Stratuscaster on May 03, 2016, 11:23:55 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on May 02, 2016, 12:19:04 AM
The Hypo proposals are quite different, but unstudied. A clean sheet of paper. No ripping up the IKE, all lanes that are absolutely critical. But its WAY too long and complicated for you, so just ignore it. 

Ill stick with this http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co

So what was the response from IDOT/ISHTA and community leaders to your plan?

You DID send your plan in for them to evaluate it, didn't you?

Whos "them"?

First, its not really "A" plan...its evolved into several plans over the past few months/years. And its a slippery slope and a pandoras box. Look at any one plan and it begs the question for another. Its got to be cut up into baby bite-sized pieces cuz mention a BILLION around here and eyes roll.

Actually, copies were hand-delivered to all relevant congressmens offices, IDOT, ISTHA, actually discussed at CMAP years ago. Sent to newspapers as well. Not published afaik. Most likely being "evaluated" in folders in file cabinets somewhere, or were "evaluated" and shredded/disposed of long ago. Realize this is the bureaucratic way. Think about it. If you want to keep your job/career, ya SAS dont go rockin' the boat proposing things like this.

Some things that have changed or seen the light of day over the recent past?

The only natural barrier between the north & south side is the river or SanShip. Big bridges over it include Ryan at 16 lanes, 15 miles away, the Tristate 8, Mannheim 6? and ...etc. Would it be too much to "ask" for another  six-lane bridge every oh...FIFTY Years?

Eisenhower widening EIS...
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

Whether by chance or design, the "study area" on this EIS has blinders on it, a width of Cermak to North Av, so a comprehensive accounting of alternatives is not possible. See maps on EIS pages 6 and 46. If the north border of the study area is North Av, by rights the south should be in Cicero and 26th say. Numerous areas within the "study area" are not studied, as well as areas just beyond, that surely should. Really no mention of the Strangler and impacts (or lack of) this project would have. One of my favs...page 26 (31) "C11 Other (Assume this would be some other road improvement)...."Deferred to subsequent round". Subsequently seems locked in April 2013. Anything near Cicero Av & I-55??? By all means DO NOT OPEN THAT CAN OF WORMS. Thats ALMOST the south part of the well-studied, old "Crosstown" idea. Bring that up and your CAREER could end. So KISS.

Even IF the Ike was widened to four lanes, is there even a bit of doubt that things might not improve? Ala the Mannheim project. Still remains to be seen if the Byrnecircle flyover will be a success. We know what happens when six lanes squeeze to four, like the Kennedy/Edens.

Then, came the always unpopular around here...
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775 

Then the rail plans from CREATE, followed by the lunacy of the greatlakesbasin, a 278-mile $8B, Rockford to IN rail bypass plan. Which begs the question...Why not build grade-separation from Westchester to Berwyn on THE existing, 170 year-old IC (now CN) rail ROW from Rockford to Cicero? Cross the "river" and a few miles more to NSX?

The Midcity Transitway, a CTA rail line, initially from Midway to JeffPark is sure to make an appearance sometime, too.

Then COMBINE ALL the plans, and MAYBE theres some clarity? A PPP that might get some traction and get ALL this shit built? For less than $8B?. I dont know. Sure should be thoroughly STUDIED anyway.

Three $200M bridges, one over the Strangler, over SanShip, over Ryan. That would be a good start.

What? I see nothing. Exactly.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8087536,-87.7727645,19435m/data=!3m1!1e3

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2016, 04:05:05 PM
Maybe they could build toll lanes elevated over the train tracks, and although the right-of-way is quite narrow, it would be better than trying to expand outward or inward.

Brilliant.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 06, 2016, 03:21:52 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2016, 04:05:05 PM
Maybe they could build toll lanes elevated over the train tracks, and although the right-of-way is quite narrow, it would be better than trying to expand outward or inward.

Brilliant.

You just posted in a thread where the two most recent posts were both you two months ago, without any new information.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 30, 2016, 01:10:32 AM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 30, 2016, 12:18:44 AM

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
First, why 90/94?

Because it carries a large amount of traffic between downtown and O'Hare Airport?

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Tolls? Express lanes? How would THAT be accomplished? I guess we could just I-pass everywhere.

Yes, tolls. Yes, express lanes. And yes, I-Pass. It's quite efficient.

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Why not just raise the gas tax?

Because the politicians wouldn't dream of doing it for fear of the backlash from the people - especially in an election year. (Not that I'm against it - the state gas tax hasn't been increased since 1993.)

Quote from: dzlsabe on April 29, 2016, 11:12:19 PM
Second, WTF does this have anything to do with IKE?

F'n nothing. But it's following the previous discussion.

Here - I'll help get it back on track - why not toll the Ike, too?

Where is the split between Nside~Sside? Madison? The IKE? The ONLY natural barrier is our beautiful  river, the SanShip Canal. Another bridge is due.

What more do you need to see?

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/359519/2015-08-26-Chicago-traffic-among-worst-Chicago-Tribune.pdf/5338ec11-819c-4dda-a25e-a24593238775

http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

WWW.greatlakesbasin.net

www.createprogram.org/proj_map2.htm

http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave:

We can go N~S, E~W...dont have that NW~SE thing figured just yet.

The postal split is Madison. The realistic split IS the Eisenhower Expy/Congress Pkwy.

As for a way to relieve traffic on the Ike and Kennedy, we could always double deck them like the I-880 freeway in Oakland but that would be very expensive. That's still more reasonable than your "hypo" route.

"The postal split is Madison. The realistic split IS the Eisenhower Expy/Congress Pkwy."

The natural split is the river or SanShip Canal.

"As for a way to relieve traffic on the Ike and Kennedy, we could always double deck them like the I-880 freeway in Oakland but that would be very expensive."

No, you could not ALWAYS. And yes, THAT would be VERY expensive. The way to "fix" something is to relieve pressure on it, then repair it. Double-decking anything would be like trying to repair a nuclear reactor while at full power, or fixing your faucet with the water on....its MUCH more difficult.

"That's still more reasonable than your "hypo" route."

No it isnt. Certainly thats the mantra around here. Obviously me and Pythagoras disagree. Ill continue to push for a study that shows the map does not lie and MAYBE its not that unreasonable after all. Shorten I-90 ten miles and give its own road? TWO complete tollways through Chicago and Cookco? A new rail BYPASS...THROUGH the city?  $4B financed by multiple agencies and RRs (PPP).I think we are worthy.  http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave: Do this and maybe the Ike and Kennedy would be fine, the Strangler unstrangled.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 06, 2016, 07:18:28 PM
The natural split is the river or SanShip Canal.

The northern-most mention of "South Side" on Google Maps is south of 47th St. But some consider Bridgeport to also be part of the south side.

So one could use I-55/Stevenson as the split.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 06, 2016, 07:18:28 PM
"As for a way to relieve traffic on the Ike and Kennedy, we could always double deck them like the I-880 freeway in Oakland but that would be very expensive."

No, you could not ALWAYS. And yes, THAT would be VERY expensive. The way to "fix" something is to relieve pressure on it, then repair it. Double-decking anything would be like trying to repair a nuclear reactor while at full power, or fixing your faucet with the water on....its MUCH more difficult.

But somehow double-decking a highway over a railroad ROW isn't just as difficult or expensive?

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 06, 2016, 07:18:28 PM
"That's still more reasonable than your "hypo" route."

No it isnt. Certainly thats the mantra around here. Obviously me and Pythagoras disagree. Ill continue to push for a study that shows the map does not lie and MAYBE its not that unreasonable after all. Shorten I-90 ten miles and give its own road? TWO complete tollways through Chicago and Cookco? A new rail BYPASS...THROUGH the city?  $4B financed by multiple agencies and RRs (PPP).I think we are worthy.  http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave: Do this and maybe the Ike and Kennedy would be fine, the Strangler unstrangled.

I've still yet to figure out how most of your points actually benefit the travelling public at large.

Giving I-90 "it's own road" will do what, exactly, to unclog the Kennedy or the Ike? It would only directly service those moving towards Indiana via the Skyway or those going from the Skyway to the current I-290/I-294/I-88 area. I do not see that it would take enough traffic off the Ike or the Kennedy to warrant the costs.

Having "two complete tollways" in and of itself doesn't mean much either in the realm of taking traffic off the Ike and Kennedy.

Seems to me the only way to unstrangle the Strangler is to figure out how to get that dropped lane back in that section of the Ike.

By moving I-90 to the Hypo and then (presumably) onto the Ike Extension and up to Schaumburg now means that there is no longer a 2di that takes one to O'Hare. Those folks will still go up and over on the Ryan/Kennedy, or over & up on the Hypo/Ike/Tri-State. Or if they follow I-90 would end up well west of ORD and have to backtrack back east.

Yes it can be double decked DZ. Just because YOU don't agree with that idea doesn't make it as much a possibility as your hypo route that would take up tons of new ROW. This hypo idea you have would cost more on that alone.

Imagine the relief the Ike would get from having not just another highway with 6 lanes east and 6 lanes west if it was double decked.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 06, 2016, 11:16:26 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 06, 2016, 07:18:28 PM
The natural split is the river or SanShip Canal.

The northern-most mention of "South Side" on Google Maps is south of 47th St. But some consider Bridgeport to also be part of the south side.

"So one could use I-55/Stevenson as the split." That is the road a stones throw away.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 06, 2016, 07:18:28 PM
"As for a way to relieve traffic on the Ike and Kennedy, we could always double deck them like the I-880 freeway in Oakland but that would be very expensive."

No, you could not ALWAYS. And yes, THAT would be VERY expensive. The way to "fix" something is to relieve pressure on it, then repair it. Double-decking anything would be like trying to repair a nuclear reactor while at full power, or fixing your faucet with the water on....its MUCH more difficult.

"But somehow double-decking a highway over a railroad ROW isn't just as difficult or expensive?"

Its a clean sheet. Im not sure about double-decking the Hypo. Maybe four lanes would suffice from the Strangler to Cicero, for sure six to the Skyway? Grade-separate the rails and build an Xway over that? Yes difficult and expensive. $4B easy. But we would not be doing that over a critical Ike.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 06, 2016, 07:18:28 PM
"That's still more reasonable than your "hypo" route."

No it isnt. Certainly thats the mantra around here. Obviously me and Pythagoras disagree. Ill continue to push for a study that shows the map does not lie and MAYBE its not that unreasonable after all. Shorten I-90 ten miles and give its own road? TWO complete tollways through Chicago and Cookco? A new rail BYPASS...THROUGH the city?  $4B financed by multiple agencies and RRs (PPP).I think we are worthy.  http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave: Do this and maybe the Ike and Kennedy would be fine, the Strangler unstrangled.

"I've still yet to figure out how most of your points actually benefit the travelling public at large."

Best answer is it gives options we dont have right now. For travelers sure. If even 20% got off the Ike and Ryan/Kennedy, that would be good, right? And for the areas from the Strangler to Gary even. All the sudden those adjacent zip codes look a lot better.

"Giving I-90 "it's own road" will do what, exactly, to unclog the Kennedy or the Ike? It would only directly service those moving towards Indiana via the Skyway or those going from the Skyway to the current I-290/I-294/I-88 area. I do not see that it would take enough traffic off the Ike or the Kennedy to warrant the costs."

This is a twenty year scheme. Skyway to Strangler area? Its hard to count the rail junctions, railyards, intermodals, warehouses, truck terminals, oh and that airport nearby. Lets plan on the MSA getting through this 1% growth thing weve got goin. Bulls-eye straight down the middle. The Kennedy/Ryan and the Tri-state get fifteen miles apart. And the Ike and Strangler aint cuttin it and need help. 

Having "two complete tollways" in and of itself doesn't mean much either in the realm of taking traffic off the Ike and Kennedy."

No doubt a lot more study is required to see how MUCH.

"Seems to me the only way to unstrangle the Strangler is to figure out how to get that dropped lane back in that section of the Ike."

"Dropped lane"? How bout dropped road. Making Strangler 4 into 2 would be a big improvement.

By moving I-90 to the Hypo and then (presumably) onto the Ike Extension and up to Schaumburg now means that there is no longer a 2di that takes one to O'Hare. Those folks will still go up and over on the Ryan/Kennedy, or over & up on the Hypo/Ike/Tri-State. Or if they follow I-90 would end up well west of ORD and have to backtrack back east.

No 2DI? OK. Ill make one. Call the Kennedy from the Kenedens split to Schaumburg I-92. That would be the easiest part of the project. "Hypo/Ike/Tri-state"? It would just be Hypo/Tri-state to Ohare someday. No destruction, no backtracking.

Anyone else lost on wtf DZ is saying? *throws hands up like I just don't care*

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 08, 2016, 05:35:01 PM
Anyone else lost on wtf DZ is saying? *throws hands up like I just don't care*

I gave up quite some time ago.  He's nuts as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Brandon on July 08, 2016, 05:40:22 PM

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 08, 2016, 05:35:01 PM
Anyone else lost on wtf DZ is saying? *throws hands up like I just don't care*

I gave up quite some time ago.  He's nuts as far as I'm concerned.

^lol

I don't even see a reason to create this hypo. "No destruction." Uh yeah, you can't just build an expressway without clearing land and having to reconfigure things that could get in the way. He's stated it won't cause noise pollution, sure it will, it's cutting right through people's backyards. It doesn't matter if it runs on a train line.

Create an I-92? What the... seriously? Honestly if he wants an actual answer to I-90. It's because they wanted to make this interstate that goes coast to coast to be the an easy route to take, this means they wanted to give it the least amount of switching highways, taking ramps and shit. These major interstates are meant to be direct, not winding and jumping highway to highway. I know he will come back at me with something and then make a small note of his Hypo.

DZ, can you send us an in-depth map plan with ramps, interchanges, lanes, and not just a line that says the train lines?

To the OP
https://youtu.be/ADF6gX0KgLU

Quote from: ILRoad55 on July 08, 2016, 05:52:24 PM
^lol

I don't even see a reason to create this hypo. "No destruction." Uh yeah, you can't just build an expressway without clearing land and having to reconfigure things that could get in the way. He's stated it won't cause noise pollution, sure it will, it's cutting right through people's backyards. It doesn't matter if it runs on a train line.

Create an I-92? What the... seriously? Honestly if he wants an actual answer to I-90. It's because they wanted to make this interstate that goes coast to coast to be the an easy route to take, this means they wanted to give it the least amount of switching highways, taking ramps and shit. These major interstates are meant to be direct, not winding and jumping highway to highway. I know he will come back at me with something and then make a small note of his Hypo.

DZ, can you send us an in-depth map plan with ramps, interchanges, lanes, and not just a line that says the train lines?

Will this do?  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0

Dont believe I ever stated "will not cause noise pollution". It will move some. It will reduce even more because traffic (vehicle and rail) might actually be moving at a consistent clip instead of stop and go. CMAQ, its a thing.

By "no destruction" I mean of the super-critical IKE. Double-decking is not being "carried forward" on the EIS...and even if IDOT decides to do "something" to the IKE, I just dont see it being enough. The Strangler will still be a mess, put under even more pressure with the added lanes around EOE and I-490.

http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

No mention of "other options" for that matter. See "concept categories" pg 25,6 above. Everything is "deferred to subsequent rounds".

"Honestly if he wants an actual answer to I-90. It's because they wanted to make this interstate that goes coast to coast to be the an easy route to take, this means they wanted to give it the least amount of switching highways, taking ramps and shit. These major interstates are meant to be direct, not winding and jumping highway to highway."

I-90 at present "jumps" from the Skyway to the Ryan freeway where it is conjoined with I-94 (only one other urban example of this is Atlanta, but 75 & 85 are like 16 lanes for just a few miles), along the Kennedy for fourteen miles, then another six miles of HELL :banghead: west of the Kenedens split and finally to the NW Adams Tollway.

I-90 in Hypo future would continue NW from the Skyway, jump the Strangler connecting to the IKE extension and then to the NW Tollway. Would be a six~ten mile shorter option. Would complete the tollway that runs from Boston to Beloit. It dosent get any more DIRECT.

   http://imgur.com/E6RD2Co :wave:

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 30, 2016, 04:10:38 PM
Fine. You go to Congress and lobby to get the gas tax raised. See what kind of reception you get.

Maybe another possibility is to repatriate the TRILLIONS offshore (My finance buddy thinks it may be $40T). Tax as is fair. And maybe make buying treasuries part of the solution?

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 09, 2016, 11:50:04 PM
The Strangler will still be a mess, put under even more pressure with the added lanes around EOE and I-490.

What and where exactly do you consider "The Strangler" to be?

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 10, 2016, 09:47:25 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 09, 2016, 11:50:04 PM
The Strangler will still be a mess, put under even more pressure with the added lanes around EOE and I-490.

What and where exactly do you consider "The Strangler" to be?

Here? https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8741112,-87.91329,2519m/data=!3m1!1e3

The Ryan and Kennedy are clogged mostly due to local traffic.  Most through traffic from Indiana to the Northwest Tollway takes the Tri-State, and perhaps the Ike, up to the Schaumburg area.  Relocated I-90 to this hypotenuse isn't going to relieve traffic on the Kennedy.  It is going to provide relief to the southern portion of the Tri-State, which usually isn't very busy anyway.

Quote from: NE2
yawn

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 10, 2016, 09:47:25 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 09, 2016, 11:50:04 PM
The Strangler will still be a mess, put under even more pressure with the added lanes around EOE and I-490.

What and where exactly do you consider "The Strangler" to be?

The Strangler is the nickname for the interchange at the eastern terminus of I-88 in Hillside.  It's called that because eastbound I-88 and the on ramps from NB I-294 and Roosevelt all merge together, then it all merges down to a single lane before joining I-290.  Traffic gets "strangled."

Quote from: Super Mateo on July 11, 2016, 04:50:54 PM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 10, 2016, 09:47:25 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 09, 2016, 11:50:04 PM
The Strangler will still be a mess, put under even more pressure with the added lanes around EOE and I-490.

What and where exactly do you consider "The Strangler" to be?

The Strangler is the nickname for the interchange at the eastern terminus of I-88 in Hillside.  It's called that because eastbound I-88 and the on ramps from NB I-294 and Roosevelt all merge together, then it all merges down to a single lane before joining I-290.  Traffic gets "strangled."

But new road work moved the strangled point to just past Mannheim road. But that area has other issues like the ramps to / from I-290 to I-294. Exit 15A can stack traffic up all the to north or past it and it does not help the people dive bomb in right at the end.

That hole area needs more C/D lanes and at least removing at least 1 loop ramp.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2016, 11:15:07 AM
The Ryan and Kennedy are clogged mostly due to local traffic.  Most through traffic from Indiana to the Northwest Tollway takes the Tri-State, and perhaps the Ike, up to the Schaumburg area.  Relocated I-90 to this hypotenuse isn't going to relieve traffic on the Kennedy.  It is going to provide relief to the southern portion of the Tri-State, which usually isn't very busy anyway.

Mostly, most? It needs to be quantified. What is it 70%? 80%? 90% "local traffic"? That leaves quite a bit as the remainder thats not local. "Relocated I-90 ....not going to relieve Kennedy". Or the IKE? We dont know that for sure. All I know is the freeways and the Strangler are at their limits most days, with more headed, there is NO room for additional lanes or the disruption that would cause, no room for future growth...and the tollway that goes from Boston to Beloit has a missing gap that can be seen from space. Just dont see any easy solutions and if we ever want to see this MSA get out of it less than 1% growth "funk", what else?

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 06:08:53 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2016, 11:15:07 AM
The Ryan and Kennedy are clogged mostly due to local traffic.  Most through traffic from Indiana to the Northwest Tollway takes the Tri-State, and perhaps the Ike, up to the Schaumburg area.  Relocated I-90 to this hypotenuse isn't going to relieve traffic on the Kennedy.  It is going to provide relief to the southern portion of the Tri-State, which usually isn't very busy anyway.

a missing gap that can be seen from space

By definition, gaps can't be seen.

Quote from: ILRoad55 on July 08, 2016, 05:52:24 PM
^lol
DZ, can you send us an in-depth map plan with ramps, interchanges, lanes, and not just a line that says the train lines?

And can you do it in Fictional Highways where it (once again) belongs?

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 06:08:53 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2016, 11:15:07 AM
The Ryan and Kennedy are clogged mostly due to local traffic.  Most through traffic from Indiana to the Northwest Tollway takes the Tri-State, and perhaps the Ike, up to the Schaumburg area.  Relocated I-90 to this hypotenuse isn't going to relieve traffic on the Kennedy.  It is going to provide relief to the southern portion of the Tri-State, which usually isn't very busy anyway.

Mostly, most? It needs to be quantified. What is it 70%? 80%? 90% "local traffic"? That leaves quite a bit as the remainder thats not local. "Relocated I-90 ....not going to relieve Kennedy". Or the IKE? We dont know that for sure.

So you are hammering away at this idea of yours to the point of obnoxiousness and you will admit that you don't know if it would help?

OK...

Quote from: 1 on July 11, 2016, 06:16:39 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 06:08:53 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2016, 11:15:07 AM
The Ryan and Kennedy are clogged mostly due to local traffic.  Most through traffic from Indiana to the Northwest Tollway takes the Tri-State, and perhaps the Ike, up to the Schaumburg area.  Relocated I-90 to this hypotenuse isn't going to relieve traffic on the Kennedy.  It is going to provide relief to the southern portion of the Tri-State, which usually isn't very busy anyway.

a missing gap that can be seen from space

By definition, gaps can't be seen.

Youre right it cant be seen.  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8337329,-87.7319639,11z

But the rail surveyors and builders in the 1850's saw "something" and built the IC (now CN) rail line out to Rockford and Id bet it hasnt had a day off since. Crosstown was trying to get "something" going several times between Cicero Av and the Skyway split area as well.

Quote from: GeekJedi on July 11, 2016, 07:47:52 PM

Quote from: ILRoad55 on July 08, 2016, 05:52:24 PM
^lol
DZ, can you send us an in-depth map plan with ramps, interchanges, lanes, and not just a line that says the train lines?

And can you do it in Fictional Highways where it (once again) belongs?

No problem. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0

Big problem. Its locked.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 09:46:22 PM

Quote from: GeekJedi on July 11, 2016, 07:47:52 PM

Quote from: ILRoad55 on July 08, 2016, 05:52:24 PM
^lol
DZ, can you send us an in-depth map plan with ramps, interchanges, lanes, and not just a line that says the train lines?

And can you do it in Fictional Highways where it (once again) belongs?

No problem. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0

Big problem. Its locked.

Not really. Start a new one. You've done it enough times here (where it isn't appropriate).

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2016, 09:29:50 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 06:08:53 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2016, 11:15:07 AM
The Ryan and Kennedy are clogged mostly due to local traffic.  Most through traffic from Indiana to the Northwest Tollway takes the Tri-State, and perhaps the Ike, up to the Schaumburg area.  Relocated I-90 to this hypotenuse isn't going to relieve traffic on the Kennedy.  It is going to provide relief to the southern portion of the Tri-State, which usually isn't very busy anyway.

Mostly, most? It needs to be quantified. What is it 70%? 80%? 90% "local traffic"? That leaves quite a bit as the remainder thats not local. "Relocated I-90 ....not going to relieve Kennedy". Or the IKE? We dont know that for sure.

So you are hammering away at this idea of yours to the point of obnoxiousness and you will admit that you don't know if it would help?

OK...

I have TOTAL confidence it would solve (or help resolve) a lot of road and rail bottlenecks. But its a FOUR BILLION dollar (my rough estimate at $250M a mile) 20-year project. YEAH a lot of studies, EISs need to be done at a minimum. What else? Double-deck the IKE or widen the Kennedy or Ryan, AGAIN? C'mon. And that still will do nothing for the Strangler, the biggest 4+ into 1 clusterF in the country.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 09:53:07 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2016, 09:29:50 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 06:08:53 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 11, 2016, 11:15:07 AM
The Ryan and Kennedy are clogged mostly due to local traffic.  Most through traffic from Indiana to the Northwest Tollway takes the Tri-State, and perhaps the Ike, up to the Schaumburg area.  Relocated I-90 to this hypotenuse isn't going to relieve traffic on the Kennedy.  It is going to provide relief to the southern portion of the Tri-State, which usually isn't very busy anyway.

Mostly, most? It needs to be quantified. What is it 70%? 80%? 90% "local traffic"? That leaves quite a bit as the remainder thats not local. "Relocated I-90 ....not going to relieve Kennedy". Or the IKE? We dont know that for sure.

So you are hammering away at this idea of yours to the point of obnoxiousness and you will admit that you don't know if it would help?

OK...

I have TOTAL confidence it would solve (or help resolve) a lot of road and rail bottlenecks. But its a FOUR BILLION dollar (my rough estimate at $250M a mile) 20-year project. YEAH a lot of studies, EISs need to be done at a minimum. What else? Double-deck the IKE or widen the Kennedy or Ryan, AGAIN? C'mon. And that still will do nothing for the Strangler, the biggest 4+ into 1 clusterF in the country.

Confidence is not a real factor in reality. Do you know much about logistics?

"Confidence is not a real factor in reality. Do you know much about logistics?"

Todays reality? Or twehty years from now? Do you mean "the detailed coordination of a complex operation involving many people, facilities, or supplies?" I know about BAD logistics. Everybody that lives around here probably has a clue. And Ive been to places with GOOD logistics. Does that answer your question?

Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2016, 05:45:00 PM

Quote from: Brandon on July 08, 2016, 05:40:22 PM

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 08, 2016, 05:35:01 PM
Anyone else lost on wtf DZ is saying? *throws hands up like I just don't care*

I gave up quite some time ago.  He's nuts as far as I'm concerned.

WHAT in the good name of BUTTON COPY is dzlsabe talking about? How does this help the traveling public of the US, Chicagoland, or even Chicago itself?

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 09:46:22 PM

Quote from: GeekJedi on July 11, 2016, 07:47:52 PM

Quote from: ILRoad55 on July 08, 2016, 05:52:24 PM
^lol
DZ, can you send us an in-depth map plan with ramps, interchanges, lanes, and not just a line that says the train lines?

And can you do it in Fictional Highways where it (once again) belongs?

No problem. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0

Big problem. Its locked.

Gee I wonder why  :spin:

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 04:08:40 AM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 10, 2016, 09:47:25 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 09, 2016, 11:50:04 PM
The Strangler will still be a mess, put under even more pressure with the added lanes around EOE and I-490.

What and where exactly do you consider "The Strangler" to be?

Here? https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8741112,-87.91329,2519m/data=!3m1!1e3

Partially, you are correct.

Prior to 2001, the "Hillside Strangler" was the result of two issues. The first was when I-290 went from 3 lanes to 2 and I-88 went from 3 lanes to 1 - with those remaining 3 lanes merging just before Mannheim. Today, much of that has been mitigated with the building of the Mannheim "local lane/exit" that now carries the truck traffic from I-88 and Mannheim exit traffic off I-290. It's still a 2+1 merge, but a lot of the traffic is on the local/exit lanes at that point.

Phase two is still in planning - and that's where they are trying to address the lack of a fourth traffic lane along with several left-hand exits & entrances between Mannheim & Austin. East of Austin, the Ike is 4 lanes wide.

The "4+ into 1" clusterfuck is a bit hyperbole. The backups from EB 290 to SB 294 and NB 294 to WB 290 are not really "Strangler" related - they are their own set of problems.

Traffic from IL-390 and I-490 won't necessarily be MORE traffic, more like REDISTRIBUTED traffic. And not all of it is headed to the Ike.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 06:08:53 PM
and the tollway that goes from Boston to Beloit has a missing gap that can be seen from space.

Yeah - that gap is hard to miss. https://goo.gl/maps/jH6soyB9ZJP2

It's also not a single tollway for it's length, but let's not get bogged down in details.


I'm still trying to figure out how your Hypo is going to somehow get around your "Strangler" and not add more issues. Are you providing connections from the Hypo to the Tri-State, Ike, and Reagan (and if not, WHY not?)

BTW DZ, You say to it will be a continuous tollway between Beloit and Boston.
WRONG!

I-90 from west of Cleveland to the PA/NY Line is a freeway. I-90 is also a freeway in the Buffalo and Albany areas.
And if you meant that it is a connected toll road, you still would be WRONG. Connecticut and Rhode Island are all freeways.

DOH!

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 12, 2016, 06:04:06 PM
BTW DZ, You say to it will be a continuous tollway between Beloit and Boston.
WRONG!

I-90 from west of Cleveland to the PA/NY Line is a freeway. I-90 is also a freeway in the Buffalo and Albany areas.
And if you meant that it is a connected toll road, you still would be WRONG. Connecticut and Rhode Island are all freeways.

DOH!

Thats a (one of many) POINT! The ROAD is there. Interstaters get a brief break for a few miles here and there. But it still a continuous road/route.

In Chicago, its NOT. It conjoins with the Ryan and Kennedy (already 94), a road that just happens to be there, not the shortest, straightest, fastest way, but going the general direction the route should take. I-90 had been on the Ike and its extension till '78. Then a "better", sexier way was found. Just stick it on the Kennedy. Looks much better, problem solved. Or NOT.

The best way (shortest, straightest, fastest) would be continuing NW 16 miles from Skyway to I-55 and ALL those rail connections, yards and truck terminals/warehouses, then jumping the Strangler (did I mention Americas #1 Fdup junction?) and giving the IKE extension what it once had (I-90), and deserves again....2DIhood. Its OWN road. Actually shorter by 6 to 10 miles, depending on parameters. No more renting.

Where did I say or made you think I-90 (MassPike) went through CT or RI?

@SC-

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8741112,-87.91329,2519m/data=!3m1!1e3

"I'm still trying to figure out how your Hypo is going to somehow get around your "Strangler" and not add more issues. Are you providing connections from the Hypo to the Tri-State, Ike, and Reagan?"

Of course.

Starting with WB, ultimately two-lane flyover the Tristate starting around the "290 shield" on the map and landing/merging at 15A. Slow oval would be removed with a combined ramp from NB 294 and 88 merging to the south lane above where the oval merges with 290 presently. Also an exit ramp to NB 294 from the north lane. At 17, an exit to WB 88.

EB would be a single exit lane just before the "290 shield", quickly splitting to two lanes by 15B. An entrance ramp from EB 88 & NB 294 merging just north of the D on Darmstadt.

So four lanes total between Darmstadt and IKE over the CN (old IC) track. I would think four lanes would suffice following the CN ROW until Mannheim. Then with a WB exit and EB entrance at Mannheim maybe up to six lanes? Not sure. Maybe four would suffice all the way to Cicero.


 

We really need to move this section of this thread into fictional. It has very much strayed into that territory.

DZ still hasn't provided any justification for why he thinks this hypo is going to take traffic off the Kennedy.  Through traffic is not the problem on the Kennedy.  Local, commuting traffic is the problem.

You run any directions map (Google, Bing, iPhone) from Cleveland to Madison, and the preferred route is going to take you onto the Borman, the Tri-State and the Eisenhower up to the Northwest Tollway.  Relative to the Ryan and the Kennedy, not terribly crowded.

So the Hypo is going to take traffic off a route that doesn't have excessive traffic issues.  All at a huge cost as you tear up a bunch of neighborhoods.

Bad idea.  Not worth the cost.  Ultimately doesn't solve the Strangler problem.  Ultimately doesn't solve the Ryan/Kennedy problem.

Please don't feed the trolls.  Also please leave the fictional on the appropriate board.  This is not the appropriate board.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 12, 2016, 12:42:59 AM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 04:08:40 AM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 10, 2016, 09:47:25 PM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 09, 2016, 11:50:04 PM
The Strangler will still be a mess, put under even more pressure with the added lanes around EOE and I-490.

What and where exactly do you consider "The Strangler" to be?

Here? https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8741112,-87.91329,2519m/data=!3m1!1e3

"Partially, you are correct."

"Prior to 2001, the "Hillside Strangler" was the result of two issues. The first was when I-290 went from 3 lanes to 2 and I-88 went from 3 lanes to 1 - with those remaining 3 lanes merging just before Mannheim. Today, much of that has been mitigated with the building of the Mannheim "local lane/exit" that now carries the truck traffic from I-88 and Mannheim exit traffic off I-290. It's still a 2+1 merge, but a lot of the traffic is on the local/exit lanes at that point."

"Phase two is still in planning - and that's where they are trying to address the lack of a fourth traffic lane along with several left-hand exits & entrances between Mannheim & Austin. East of Austin, the Ike is 4 lanes wide."

"The "4+ into 1" clusterfuck is a bit hyperbole. The backups from EB 290 to SB 294 and NB 294 to WB 290 are not really "Strangler" related - they are their own set of problems."

Dont see a BIT of hyperbole. If anything its MORE than four if you count Roosevelt IL 38 & 56 (EB ramp closed early afternoon), even North Av and Lake St add.

"Traffic from IL-390 and I-490 won't necessarily be MORE traffic, more like REDISTRIBUTED traffic. And not all of it is headed to the Ike."

It looks like more, more, more. And MOST of that will be headed or from the IKE and Strangler/Tri-state.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 11, 2016, 06:08:53 PM
and the tollway that goes from Boston to Beloit has a missing gap that can be seen from space.

"Yeah - that gap is hard to miss. https://goo.gl/maps/jH6soyB9ZJP2 ".

"It's also not a single tollway for it's length, but let's not get bogged down in details."

No its not a single tollway, but it is a single road until it hits Chicago. Why not get bogged down in the details?...its what some early risers live for on this pos forum. Like the following...jeek.

The tranquil eastern suburbs of Cleveland or Buffalo & Albany are not really comparable to the hell of Chicago and Cookco are they?

http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

No mention of "other options" for that matter. See "concept categories" pg 25,6 above. Double-decking in C8 is "not carried forward". C11 is "deferred to subsequent rounds", so it looks like there is still a lot of WTF is IDOT planning/gonna do?

"I'm still trying to figure out how your Hypo is going to somehow get around your "Strangler" and not add more issues. Are you providing connections from the Hypo to the Tri-State, Ike, and Reagan (and if not, WHY not?)"

Get around? How bout "flyover"?

Does anybody see a "football"? One end is in Schaumburg, the other in Gary. And the ONLY bisection is the IKE (and Strangler). Is it time to think about/STUDY even another "bisection", get I-90 which SHOULD be a tollway, OFF of I-94, paying the rent?

Recent annual GDP #s...Chicagoland $630B (in an area of 2 CTs), OH $627B, NJ $587B. Imagine what Chicago, the MSA, the region, the country COULD look like in ten or twenty years if road and rail flew through town?

Did you not see SSOWorld's post right above yours?

How is fiction or non or reality discerned from this EIS...         http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf
when the "study area" excludes at a minimum the mile west of Mannheim known as the "Strangler", probably the #1 mess in the country, as well as the implications of the Byrne flyover on the east? Or anything south of Cermak? Still many blanks to be filled and dots to connect.

What IS the point of "I-290"? Maybe the Ike and extension need to revert to I-90. It may clarify the view not only of this EIS, but any future thought on extending the NW Tollway a few lanes from Schaumburg to I-355 or beyond.

Your "Strangler" involves I-88 and I-294, which are not IDOT but ISTHA.

The Byrne isn't involved, likely because it's part of it's own project that ends at Racine on the west.

Not sure why Cermak needs to be involved. Looking at the study, the only arterials in the study were Madison and Roosevelt.

The "point" of I-290 is the same as when it was I-90 - an access route to/from the Western Suburbs and ultimately a bypass away from the Edens and O'Hare.

Renaming it "I-90" doesn't magically bring clarity to the study.

The Adams Spur? Why only to I-355? Why not all the way to the Byrne/Circle? Looking at the study, the HOT & TOLL options were better performing than others.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 17, 2016, 03:25:52 PM
"Your "Strangler" involves I-88 and I-294, which are not IDOT but ISTHA."

Hence the need for them to get on the same page. Who IS in charge of the "Strangler"? :confused: Dumb looks are still free. Good place to start would be extending the Ike EIS study area west a mile.

"The Byrne isn't involved, likely because it's part of it's own project that ends at Racine on the west."

Still has major implications for this EIS

"Not sure why Cermak needs to be involved. Looking at the study, the only arterials in the study were Madison and Roosevelt."

Cermak or places south, like Cicero absolutely DONT NEED to be involved. Unless they DO? Its two miles away from Ike. So is North Av, which somehow made it to the "study area". Where are those mostly trucks on the  "C-KC"  highway going? Downtown for lunch?

"The "point" of I-290 is the same as when it was I-90 - an access route to/from the Western Suburbs and ultimately a bypass away from the Edens and O'Hare."

So rerename it "I-90". It should go west of Ohare, not north. Intersecting with EOE and I-490 (are they the same?) Quit saying "bypass". Its NOT. It was a bonafide 2DI and should be again.

"Renaming it "I-90" doesn't magically bring clarity to the study."

As the holder of a Boy Scout "Pathfinder" merit badge, I agree it would not magically.

"The Adams Spur? Why only to I-355? Why not all the way to the Byrne/Circle? Looking at the study, the HOT & TOLL options were better performing than others."

"Better performing"? HOT & TOLLs on Ike (Congress)? How does that get configured, again?

I-355 would be a start. Four tolled lanes from Ikea to 355 possible? And NO spur. Already have ONE of those, which needs to be KILLED within five years. Lets keep this in a twenty year time frame.

I-355 needs 4 lanes from I-290 to I-88 or at least AUX lanes

Quote from: Joe The Dragon on July 19, 2016, 01:56:50 PM
I-355 needs 4 lanes from I-290 to I-88 or at least AUX lanes

Someday that may be needed. But Dupageco has two complete tollways. Cookco? Doesnt.

The priority is doing what can be easily or relatively, done on the Strangler. The center of the region and also the major contributor to a lot of problems. The hub of the hub.

Double-laning the ramp between EB I-290 and SB 294 would be an easy start. Building a double-lane, triple flyover, eliminating the slow oval at NB 294/88 to 290 would take years, but sure needs to be done. Even two more lanes on Ikext between Strangler and North? ISTHA has the means. Trying to cram two more lanes into Congress Ike (a stressed IDOT only project at present?), the only bisector of the "football", would wreck that road for years.

Now the hypotenuse and the Edens thing are both gone the obsession continues in another part of Chicagoland!

Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2016, 10:07:00 AM
Now the hypotenuse and the Edens thing are both gone the obsession continues in another part of Chicagoland!

"Now the hypotenuse and the Edens thing are both gone"?...I bake to differ.

Then this shows up.

http://www.connectingcookcounty.com/pdf/CookCounty_LRTP_Full_V16.pdf

Bunch of good maps. Pg 22, 2.10 & 11, among others. Ouite a few great pages, too. Still a lot of dots to be connected.

Every DAY is a winding road, not EVERY road. Straighten, shorten, make new roads (OR just ramps and spurs) and railroads. YOU (we all should) get used to that.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 20, 2016, 10:12:38 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2016, 10:07:00 AM
Now the hypotenuse and the Edens thing are both gone the obsession continues in another part of Chicagoland!

"Now the hypotenuse and the Edens thing are both gone"?...I bake to differ.

Then this shows up.

http://www.connectingcookcounty.com/pdf/CookCounty_LRTP_Full_V16.pdf

Bunch of good maps. Ouite a few great pages. Still a lot of dots to be connected.

Every DAY is a winding road, not EVERY road. Straighten, shorten, make new roads and railroads. YOU get used to that.

I think you mean beg to differ :)

NO "begging".  I mean bake. Saw it on the side of a bread truck a thousand times. Get THE recipe, procure the ingredients, knead the loaf, BAKE. Other than that, Mrs L....

Perhaps if you wrote in English rather than making veiled cryptic references to things involving other people's forum signatures people could understand you.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
Hence the need for them to get on the same page. Who IS in charge of the "Strangler"? :confused: Dumb looks are still free. Good place to start would be extending the Ike EIS study area west a mile.

Or understanding that "The Strangler" today isn't what you think it is.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
Still has major implications for this EIS

Doesn't matter - the Eisenhower Study doesn't go east past Racine. And the Byrne Project doesn't go west of Racine. The Eisenhower Study will need to take into account how the Byrne Project will be configured east of Racine.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
Cermak or places south, like Cicero absolutely DONT NEED to be involved. Unless they DO? Its two miles away from Ike. So is North Av, which somehow made it to the "study area". Where are those mostly trucks on the  "C-KC"  highway going? Downtown for lunch?

Much like Lake-Cook and Willow and Deerfield and such around the Edens Spur, Cermak is a local arterial. It's not designed for mainline interstate/intrastate traffic. Madison & Roosevelt are tied into the study because they are closer to the Ike and would be more likely to serve as alternate routes.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
So rerename it "I-90". It should go west of Ohare, not north. Intersecting with EOE and I-490 (are they the same?) Quit saying "bypass". Its NOT. It was a bonafide 2DI and should be again.

No, the EOE (IL-390, and it's now a tollway) and I-490 are NOT the same.

It IS a bypass of the northern part of the city and the airport. Whether YOU like it or not.

Today it's a bonafide 3DI loop. There's nothing wrong with the number. What's the control city for WB I-90 today? Rockford. What's the control city for WB I-290 today? Rockford.

Still not seeing any valid reason to renumber a road that's been that way for almost 40 years - it serves no purpose other than to confuse the motoring public.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
"Better performing"? HOT & TOLLs on Ike (Congress)? How does that get configured, again?

Look at the study - it shows and explains how the lanes would be added and configured and which ones performed better.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
I-355 would be a start. Four tolled lanes from Ikea to 355 possible? And NO spur. Already have ONE of those, which needs to be KILLED within five years. Lets keep this in a twenty year time frame.

Are you not clear on what a "spur" is?

Tolling current I-290 from I-90 to I-355 - all 7 miles of it - isn't worth the hassle and cost. Toll it at least to I-294 - about 17 miles - and now maybe you have something worth doing.

Tolling I-290 as they did with IL-390 - no gates or booths, all I-PASS or Pay-By-Mail - wouldn't take 20 years to do. Realistically, it could be done in less than 5, possibly less than 2.

North Ave made it in to the study area because for it's entire length in DuPage Co except east of Rt 83, it is a 6 lane highway that runs great. It remains a 4 lane road all the way to at least Cicero Ave if I recall. North Ave also has a direct interchange with 290. So yeah it makes sense to include it.

Cermak on the other hand is not a good alt once you get into Cicero.

The new tolling on 390 took less than 2 years on the mainline itself. The biggest time eater was the new reconfigured interchange with 290.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 21, 2016, 12:28:26 AM

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
Hence the need for them to get on the same page. Who IS in charge of the "Strangler"? :confused: Dumb looks are still free. Good place to start would be extending the Ike EIS study area west a mile.

"Or understanding that "The Strangler" today isn't what you think it is."

I understand that the Strangler is the #1 mess in the region, maybe the country. What do YOU think I think it is?

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
Still has major implications for this EIS

"Doesn't matter - the Eisenhower Study doesn't go east past Racine. And the Byrne Project doesn't go west of Racine. The Eisenhower Study will need to take into account how the Byrne Project will be configured east of Racine."

It DOES matter and thats why traffic from/to a newly improved project needs to be considered.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
Cermak or places south, like Cicero absolutely DONT NEED to be involved. Unless they DO? Its two miles away from Ike. So is North Av, which somehow made it to the "study area". Where are those mostly trucks on the  "C-KC"  highway going? Downtown for lunch?

"Much like Lake-Cook and Willow and Deerfield and such around the Edens Spur, Cermak is a local arterial. It's not designed for mainline interstate/intrastate traffic. Madison & Roosevelt are tied into the study because they are closer to the Ike and would be more likely to serve as alternate routes."

Huh? "MUCH LIKE"? No, nothing like. But thanx for bringing up some "veiled cryptic reference".

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
So rerename it "I-90". It should go west of Ohare, not north. Intersecting with EOE and I-490 (are they the same?) Quit saying "bypass". Its NOT. It was a bonafide 2DI and should be again.

"No, the EOE (IL-390, and it's now a tollway) and I-490 are NOT the same."
"It IS a bypass of the northern part of the city and the airport. Whether YOU like it or not."

I know what it IS. The point of this topic is "WHY did it change"?

"Today it's a bonafide 3DI loop. There's nothing wrong with the number. What's the control city for WB I-90 today? Rockford. What's the control city for WB I-290 today? Rockford."

What does that have to do with anything. The short way is this way...   https://imgur.com/IAt9KVf 

"Still not seeing any valid reason to renumber a road that's been that way for almost 40 years - it serves no purpose other than to confuse the motoring public."

NO, having 90/94 "confuses the motoring public". Count how many 90 & 94 signs you see within a mile of the "road" from 63rd to Montrose. Just eliminating the duplicate signage would save millions.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
"Better performing"? HOT & TOLLs on Ike (Congress)? How does that get configured, again?

"Look at the study - it shows and explains how the lanes would be added and configured and which ones performed better."

It shows a bunch of hallucination and explains nothing.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
I-355 would be a start. Four tolled lanes from Ikea to 355 possible? And NO spur. Already have ONE of those, which needs to be KILLED within five years. Lets keep this in a twenty year time frame.

"Are you not clear on what a "spur" is?"

A "spur" is like what goes and comes from Ohare. Which is nothing like the Eden's one.

No need for more spurs around here. Go to Texas.

"Tolling current I-290 from I-90 to I-355 - all 7 miles of it - isn't worth the hassle and cost. Toll it at least to I-294 - about 17 miles - and now maybe you have something worth doing."

So you would just amazingly pull it it off in ONE fell swoop? How would you do that?

"Tolling I-290 as they did with IL-390 - no gates or booths, all I-PASS or Pay-By-Mail - wouldn't take 20 years to do. Realistically, it could be done in less than 5, possibly less than 2."

Whats going to take twenty years?

If the I-90 of dzlsabe's dreams becomes reality, what would the number of the Kennedy between the Junction and the Tri-State become?

ixnay

I was wondering how a thread can last so long with its OP asking a simple question that can just get a simple quick answer, then I seen how many times the ten year old (now n/a) posted here, and now I know why.

Quote from: ixnay on July 23, 2016, 07:20:37 AM
If the I-90 of dzlsabe's dreams becomes reality, what would the number of the Kennedy between the Junction and the Tri-State become?

ixnay

I-92

Stop arguing with this user. He's a troll.

Can this thread be locked?

I was going to address the counterpoints, but I grow weary of wasting my time trying to have a discussion with someone that clearly does not with to engage in one and would rather be an ignorant smartass.

Instead, I'll answer the question as best I can and be done here.

Quote from: dzlsabe on July 19, 2016, 01:14:45 AM
The point of this topic is "WHY did it change"?

QUESTION: Eisenhower Expressway was I-90 in '77. Why did it change?

ANSWER: To make I-294 connect with I-94 on both ends, and to provide a more direct link between the Skyway and the Jane Addams Memorial (nee Northwest) Tollway.

DETAILS (cribbed from http://forgottenchicago.com/articles/to-90-or-290/ )

QuoteThe Eisenhower was signed as I-90 from its beginning. In order to link it with the Northwest tollway, I-90 was routed north along I-294, the Tri-State tollway, from the Hillside interchange until the Rosemont interchange, where the Northwest tollway begins. Counterintuitive at worst, right? This is where it gets confusing. The two in I-294 indicates that it is a beltway, ideally, that it deviates from I-94 and reconnects with it at another point beyond the inner city. The Calumet expressway, which ran south from the city beginning at 103rd and Stony Island, was signed as I-90. It connected with I-294 and I-80 in Lansing where it went east along I-80. West of the Calumet, I-294 ran along I-80 until it broke off and became the Tri-State tollway. At no point does I-294 actually merge back with I-94. It merges with I-80 and I-90, runs east signed I-80/90 and eventually meets up with I-94 in Gary.

This confusion may be attributed to the fact that there were no interstate routes running through the city, linking all of these routes properly. However, even after the Kennedy and Dan Ryan expressways were built, incongruity was furthered. The Dan Ryan was signed as I-90/94, as it is currently. The Skyway was signed as I-94, and the Calumet as I-90 — today they are reversed. The Northwest expressway, which was soon renamed for the late President Kennedy, was signed as I-94 until the Edens expressway which carries I-94 north. After this split, the Kennedy was signed IL-194 for the short period until the Rosemont interchange, with IL-194 continuing as a spur into O'Hare.

Essentially, the routing of I-90 was the source of confusion. This changed when the interstates were re-signed with their current alignments. The Kennedy became I-90/94, the O'Hare spur became I-190, the Calumet expressway and Skyway were switched, finally connecting I-94 with I-294. The Eisenhower became I-290.

You grow "weary of wasting your time"? You poor thing. Take some time off. Your magnificent intellect needs to recharge.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 23, 2016, 07:41:37 PM
quote author=dzlsabe link=topic=16744.msg2160032#msg2160032 date=1468905285]
The point of this topic is "WHY did it change"?

QUESTION: Eisenhower Expressway was I-90 in '77. Why did it change?

ANSWER: "To make I-294 connect with I-94 on both ends, and to provide a more direct link between the Skyway and the Jane Addams Memorial (nee Northwest) Tollway."

Huh? The more direct link is more like the way it was in '77.   https://imgur.com/IAt9KVf  Not cramming it on the Kennedy.

DETAILS (cribbed from http://forgottenchicago.com/articles/to-90-or-290/ )

QuoteThe Eisenhower was signed as I-90 from its beginning. In order to link it with the Northwest tollway, I-90 was routed north along I-294, the Tri-State tollway, from the Hillside interchange until the Rosemont interchange, where the Northwest tollway begins. Counterintuitive at worst, right? This is where it gets confusing. The two in I-294 indicates that it is a beltway, ideally, that it deviates from I-94 and reconnects with it at another point beyond the inner city. The Calumet expressway, which ran south from the city beginning at 103rd and Stony Island, was signed as I-90. It connected with I-294 and I-80 in Lansing where it went east along I-80. West of the Calumet, I-294 ran along I-80 until it broke off and became the Tri-State tollway. At no point does I-294 actually merge back with I-94. It merges with I-80 and I-90, runs east signed I-80/90 and eventually meets up with I-94 in Gary.

This confusion may be attributed to the fact that there were no interstate routes running through the city, linking all of these routes properly. However, even after the Kennedy and Dan Ryan expressways were built, incongruity was furthered. The Dan Ryan was signed as I-90/94, as it is currently. The Skyway was signed as I-94, and the Calumet as I-90 — today they are reversed. The Northwest expressway, which was soon renamed for the late President Kennedy, was signed as I-94 until the Edens expressway which carries I-94 north. After this split, the Kennedy was signed IL-194 for the short period until the Rosemont interchange, with IL-194 continuing as a spur into O'Hare.

Essentially, the routing of I-90 was the source of confusion. This changed when the interstates were re-signed with their current alignments. The Kennedy became I-90/94, the O'Hare spur became I-190, the Calumet expressway and Skyway were switched, finally connecting I-94 with I-294. The Eisenhower became I-290.

[/quote]

Everybody gets I-94, I-294, I-80, even parts of I-90.

And yes, "the routing of I-90 was (OR IS) the source of confusion." "This changed when the interstates were re-signed with their current alignments." OR its as bad or worse than it ever was. Playing "musical exway re-signing" is/ or was NOT the cure.

Alright, This thread's done.