I live roughly 450ft from this segment of interstate (thank god for sound barriers--they're worth every penny). There are almost daily crashes on this segment, sometimes more than one per day. The vast majority of the crashes are semi vs car. I've figured out the primary reasons why and I'd like some group brainstorming on a solution.
Causes:
1. I don't know if/where such data exists, but there seems to be a higher volume of semi traffic, as a percentage of overall traffic, than any other interstate I've driven.
2. The posted speed limit is 55, but there is almost nonexistent traffic enforcement, so semis are mostly doing 60-70 and cars are doing 65+, but you have a percentage of cars that believe in going the speed limit, which leads to a lot of semis passing cars in addition to each other.
3. Distracted driving. A lot of crashes are where there is a significant slowdown and a driver doesn't notice it until too late.
Is there a fix for this that doesn't require acquiring more ROW?
From my perspective, it's just kind of a shit piece of highway. Way too much traffic (both car and truck) for it to handle. The only real "fix" in my eyes is another highway constructed further south.
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
1. I don't know if/where such data exists, but there seems to be a higher volume of semi traffic, as a percentage of overall traffic, than any other interstate I've driven.
Mentioned last year (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13715.msg2433760#msg2433760) in another thread. Overall daily traffic is in the 160-200K range, while daily truck traffic is in the 35-45K range. So the truck percentage is generally in the 20-25% range. Not the highest (segments of I-65 KY and I-81 VA reach over 40%), but not exactly light either.
QuoteIs there a fix for this that doesn't require acquiring more ROW?
Short of drastically increasing enforcement (which is unlikely given the current political/social climate), doubtful. They used up the vast majority of the available ROW when they did the (relatively) recent widening.
Does most of the truck traffic get off at I-65?
Quote from: I-39 on July 23, 2020, 10:25:34 AM
Does most of the truck traffic get off at I-65?
Anytime I'm driving east on 80/94 it appears that at least half of the semi traffic is getting off on 65.
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
2. The posted speed limit is 55, but there is almost nonexistent traffic enforcement, so semis are mostly doing 60-70 and cars are doing 65+, but you have a percentage of cars that believe in going the speed limit, which leads to a lot of semis passing cars in addition to each other.
Unless there's a good amount of geometry, substandard ramps, etc. that would present hazards, it seems like the solution would be to increase the speed limit to 65 mph to at least bring the speed limit closer to reality, reducing the differential between those obeying the speed limit and those driving at a reasonable speed. If doing 55 mph in the right lane results in the majority of traffic weaving around you, cutting you off, etc, then the speed limit is almost dangerously posted low.
More enforcement could be an option, but it seems in this scenario the speed limit is pure artificial. Perhaps enhanced enforcement with a reasonable speed limit (e.g. 65 mph) to target and ticket the more severe offenders (reckless driving e.g. 85+ mph, tailgating, weaving in and out of lanes, etc.).
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
3. Distracted driving. A lot of crashes are where there is a significant slowdown and a driver doesn't notice it until too late.
Perhaps technology (VMS signage, etc.) on the road to alert users of slow traffic ahead, variable speed limits, etc. if it doesn't already exist.
Quote from: I-39 on July 23, 2020, 10:25:34 AM
Does most of the truck traffic get off at I-65?
Roughly half.
There has been an unusual change in traffic pattern in the afternoon what is left at rush hour. The overall tollway is now steady on truck volumes but only at 64% on cars. I know there is some construction but it's the only route I see regular daily backups from the 80 merge going into Indiana.
Most of the rest of the backups on the the other freeways and arterials seem just to be accident related.
Wondered if anyone knew why . I suspect some people are working at home from their summer homes.
It will be interesting to see the long term effects of covid and work at home.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 23, 2020, 10:32:12 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
2. The posted speed limit is 55, but there is almost nonexistent traffic enforcement, so semis are mostly doing 60-70 and cars are doing 65+, but you have a percentage of cars that believe in going the speed limit, which leads to a lot of semis passing cars in addition to each other.
Unless there's a good amount of geometry, substandard ramps, etc. that would present hazards, it seems like the solution would be to increase the speed limit to 65 mph to at least bring the speed limit closer to reality, reducing the differential between those obeying the speed limit and those driving at a reasonable speed. If doing 55 mph in the right lane results in the majority of traffic weaving around you, cutting you off, etc, then the speed limit is almost dangerously posted low.
More enforcement could be an option, but it seems in this scenario the speed limit is pure artificial. Perhaps enhanced enforcement with a reasonable speed limit (e.g. 65 mph) to target and ticket the more severe offenders (reckless driving e.g. 85+ mph, tailgating, weaving in and out of lanes, etc.).
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
3. Distracted driving. A lot of crashes are where there is a significant slowdown and a driver doesn't notice it until too late.
Perhaps technology (VMS signage, etc.) on the road to alert users of slow traffic ahead, variable speed limits, etc. if it doesn't already exist.
I do think bumping the speed limit up to 65 would help, perhaps having a truck speed limit of 60. I also think that an increase in VMS signage would help.
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
Is there a fix for this that doesn't require acquiring more ROW?
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
So how does one more effectively load balance the two? Congestion pricing tolls on 80/94 that make the Skyway/Toll Road worth paying the tolls on 90 instead of 80/94
Another option would be "free rides" on 90 during peak times, but I don't see the Skyway or Toll Road owner going for that, unless they are getting payment from IDOT/INDOT to do it, as it allows the state agencies to NOT have to build another solution
If they would take the toll off the Skyway and improve that corridor then you would see a lot less traffic on the Borman than you do now. I think anyway that it's a lot of shunpikers using the Borman to avoid the toll on the Skyway. Or make the Borman just like the Dan Ryan from the Tri-State all the way to Lake Station.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 23, 2020, 12:27:52 PM
If they would take the toll off the Skyway and improve that corridor then you would see a lot less traffic on the Borman than you do now. I think anyway that it's a lot of shunpikers using the Borman to avoid the toll on the Skyway. Or make the Borman just like the Dan Ryan from the Tri-State all the way to Lake Station.
Yup. Either the Skyway/Toll Road needs to be price competitive with the Borman, either via waived tolls on 90 or via tolls placed on 80/94, or a Dan Ryan or NJ Turnpike Dual-Freeway style roadway needs built, which would typically mean more ROW, and without it, would be very expensive, building either Elevated or Underground Express Lanes. Like, expensive to the point it would probably make sense for IDOT and INDOT to pay the Skyway and Toll Road companies the toll money for "waived" tolls at peak times to make 80/94 safer
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 12:33:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 23, 2020, 12:27:52 PM
If they would take the toll off the Skyway and improve that corridor then you would see a lot less traffic on the Borman than you do now. I think anyway that it's a lot of shunpikers using the Borman to avoid the toll on the Skyway. Or make the Borman just like the Dan Ryan from the Tri-State all the way to Lake Station.
Yup. Either the Skyway/Toll Road needs to be price competitive with the Borman, either via waived tolls on 90 or via tolls placed on 80/94, or a Dan Ryan or NJ Turnpike Dual-Freeway style roadway needs built, which would typically mean more ROW, and without it, would be very expensive, building either Elevated or Underground Express Lanes. Like, expensive to the point it would probably make sense for IDOT and INDOT to pay the Skyway and Toll Road companies the toll money for "waived" tolls at peak times to make 80/94 safer
They have you so trapped on the Skyway to pay that toll too. I don't understand why there are any toll roads around Chicago anyway because it's in a part of the country where there generally aren't any toll roads other than the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike. Chicago already has enough traffic problems and they just add to it by making you stop to pay a toll because not every car is going to have I-Pass. Like I-294 would be a great bypass of the city of Chicago if it wasn't a toll road. I'm to the point where I don't get why we should even have toll roads period in today's age.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 23, 2020, 01:21:32 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 12:33:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 23, 2020, 12:27:52 PM
If they would take the toll off the Skyway and improve that corridor then you would see a lot less traffic on the Borman than you do now. I think anyway that it's a lot of shunpikers using the Borman to avoid the toll on the Skyway. Or make the Borman just like the Dan Ryan from the Tri-State all the way to Lake Station.
Yup. Either the Skyway/Toll Road needs to be price competitive with the Borman, either via waived tolls on 90 or via tolls placed on 80/94, or a Dan Ryan or NJ Turnpike Dual-Freeway style roadway needs built, which would typically mean more ROW, and without it, would be very expensive, building either Elevated or Underground Express Lanes. Like, expensive to the point it would probably make sense for IDOT and INDOT to pay the Skyway and Toll Road companies the toll money for "waived" tolls at peak times to make 80/94 safer
They have you so trapped on the Skyway to pay that toll too. I don't understand why there are any toll roads around Chicago anyway because it's in a part of the country where there generally aren't any toll roads other than the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike. Chicago already has enough traffic problems and they just add to it by making you stop to pay a toll because not every car is going to have I-Pass. Like I-294 would be a great bypass of the city of Chicago if it wasn't a toll road. I'm to the point where I don't get why we should even have toll roads period in today's age.
We have toll roads because people keep demanding lower and lower taxes, and roads are one thing for which the government can find a pay-per-use alternative.
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
Is there a fix for this that doesn't require acquiring more ROW?
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
So how does one more effectively load balance the two? Congestion pricing tolls on 80/94 that make the Skyway/Toll Road worth paying the tolls on 90 instead of 80/94
Another option would be "free rides" on 90 during peak times, but I don't see the Skyway or Toll Road owner going for that, unless they are getting payment from IDOT/INDOT to do it, as it allows the state agencies to NOT have to build another solution
I don't know enough about the trucking industry to know the answer to this question, but is there some level of congestion pricing on 80/94 that would shift a noticeable percentage of the truck traffic to off-peak times? If so, then it's worth considering.
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 01:31:20 PM
I don't know enough about the trucking industry to know the answer to this question, but is there some level of congestion pricing on 80/94 that would shift a noticeable percentage of the truck traffic to off-peak times? If so, then it's worth considering.
I'm not an expert on road pricing affecting travel conditions, but I assume a tolling study would need done to see what different toll rates and toll periods would do to the Borman at peak and off-peak times
That said, tolls obviously affect travel plans, otherwise there would not be the traffic dispartity that we see today between the Borman and the Skyway/Toll Road
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 01:37:18 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 01:31:20 PM
I don't know enough about the trucking industry to know the answer to this question, but is there some level of congestion pricing on 80/94 that would shift a noticeable percentage of the truck traffic to off-peak times? If so, then it's worth considering.
I'm not an expert on road pricing affecting travel conditions, but I assume a tolling study would need done to see what different toll rates and toll periods would do to the Borman at peak and off-peak times
That said, tolls obviously affect travel plans, otherwise there would not be the traffic dispartity that we see today between the Borman and the Skyway/Toll Road
Yes, obviously tolls (especially as high as the Skyway) vs no tolls on two different roads is going to affect what road people travel on, but what I'd like to know is will tolls vs no tolls on the same road at different times going to affect when people travel.
Precisely why a Tolling Study would need to be commissioned, if INDOT and/or IDOT wanted to seriously consider Congestion Pricing for 80/94
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 23, 2020, 09:49:36 AM
From my perspective, it's just kind of a shit piece of highway. Way too much traffic (both car and truck) for it to handle. The only real "fix" in my eyes is another highway constructed further south.
Illiana Tollway *cough*
And make it right. not just I-55 to I-65. That's a nice start but it should also connect to I-80 in the west near Morris and I-94 near Michigan City. And don't sell the rights to a private firm like the ITR. That's one of the reasons why we can't have that southern bypass or US 30 being a freeway across Indiana.
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 23, 2020, 04:15:43 PM
Illiana Tollway *cough*
And make it right. not just I-55 to I-65. That's a nice start but it should also connect to I-80 in the west near Morris and I-94 near Michigan City. And don't sell the rights to a private firm like the ITR. That's one of the reasons why we can't have that southern bypass or US 30 being a freeway across Indiana.
Even a I-80 (west of Joliet) to I-65 connection would do a lot to load-balance incoming truck traffic, as long as you also had connections to I-355, I-57, I-55, and IL-394. They would need to keep pricing reasonable to encourage truck traffic to take it (or, alternatively, convert I-80/94 to a toll highway).
Currently, it costs about the same for me to follow the Indiana Toll Road and Chicago Skyway through Chicago as it does to take the Tri-State Tollway around it. So, as long as traffic isn't snarled through downtown, I'll take the Toll Road. That's of limited usefulness during rush hour periods, though.
If INDOT/IDOT enacted tolling in any significant manner on I-80/94, however, that would encourage through traffic to divert to the Skyway and into downtown, which does NOT need any more traffic. There's no feasible way to build a road north of I-80/94 that could split off through traffic - either take an enormous amount of property or do a Big Dig style tunnel.
The Illiana Tollway is going to be the most feasible relief option, if INDOT and ISTHA could figure out a way to do it that doesn't hemorrhage money.
The issue with connecting I-355 to a potential Illiana, is there is no protected N-S corridor south of I-80 for another southern extension. That area of Will County grew up quite a bit in the 2000s and 2010s, so there is not nearly as much available land as there used to be
At one point there was a proposal to run 355 south to I-57 near the proposed Peotone airport and even to I-65. If memory serves, it did involve a short 80 Multiplex or 355-80 dual roadway section (similar to 355/88 or 290/294) west of the existing 355 termination, to exit south closer to the US 30/New Lenox exit. I think that plan morphed into the Illiana plan, when it became harder and harder to build a new Freeway/Tollway N-S between 80 and 57, but a more E-W route is still in the realm of possibilities
Straying into Fictional territory now:
Looking at the Google Satellite map, it *might* be possible to squeeze it in near Gougar Rd and I-80. Key word is *might*. Looks like a close subdivision, a warehouse, and a church but otherwise many developable lots heading in the SE direction. The jog to the west on I-80 is a bit out of the way, but that section is also partially N-S, so its not a horrible out of the way jog
Whether it would be worth it, when it is not that far out of the way to use 57 to 80 to 355 is debatable. With an Illiana, 57 would need increased capacity improvements between the Illiana/Peotone and at least I-80, if not to I-294
In some ways, this whole thread could really be moved to "Fictional" unless IDOT/INDOT/ISTHA have any plans or proposals to actually try to improve the 80/94 situation, either with improvements on 80/94 or any other corridors, existing or new
Strict enforcement of the truck prohibition from the (two) left lane(s) would improve safety on the road.
The only two expressway tollway proposals that exist in the CMAP plan are a crosstown and the Illiana. The Tollway gave up on a 355 connection a long time ago. Indiana said only to 65 . The dropped it totally Illinois left it a distant possibility.
Once again the only major back up wasn't in Indiana it was on the eastbound Tri State portion.
As for the original question of accidents in that stretch of highway, its an issue of geography more or less.
Lake Michigan forces a few east-west highways to converge, exchange traffic and then diverge again. And because of the location of Chicago, several north-south routes converge as well.
On the face of it and not looking strictly at metrics, its a somewhat unique situation.
The convergence of so many routes exchanging traffic, along with so many full interchanges, any traffic issue on *any* of the converging routes will always create a condition in the one place where they share a common path.
One possible solution is to "pre-sort" your traffic so they don't all share lanes as part of a convergence. This cuts down on lane changes and helps abate sudden stops due to an accident on either the main path or one of its feeders.
This would not be cheap however.
It would mean pre-sorting traffic going west for the Bishop Ford and Tri-State as far back as Indiana, which may not be practical, especially for traffic coming on and off at Calumet Ave (Indiana) and Torrence (Illinois).
Pre-sort traffic going east where 294 and 80 merge and decide there which east bound route they want. 90, 94 or 80.
Planners have wanted to help trans-con traffic (read: trucks) avoid this convergence by building more capacity to the south (Illiana) but this has not been approved. And many believe that transcons would rather take their chances on the Kingery then be forced to drive some 30-40 miles out of the way just to reach I-80 near Morris.
Indiana planners have been historically loathe to provide additional east-west capacity as far back as Elkhart because it would promote shunpiking of the Indiana Toll Road. Now that Indiana has "shun the turnpike" themselves, perhaps they would be more willing to increase capacity using the US-20/US-31 bypass. The fact they never built any capacity between this route and I-90 east of the South Bend/Elkhart metro is a perfect example.
With Kingsbury, Indiana becoming a major perishables hub for Chicago now, I would think new capacity that takes traffic out of the convergence zone starting east of Elkhart would soften the additional miles to reach I-80 in Morris.
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:50:23 AM
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton. Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.
There needs to be another east-west option. Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working. It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown. Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 23, 2020, 01:21:32 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 12:33:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 23, 2020, 12:27:52 PM
If they would take the toll off the Skyway and improve that corridor then you would see a lot less traffic on the Borman than you do now. I think anyway that it's a lot of shunpikers using the Borman to avoid the toll on the Skyway. Or make the Borman just like the Dan Ryan from the Tri-State all the way to Lake Station.
Yup. Either the Skyway/Toll Road needs to be price competitive with the Borman, either via waived tolls on 90 or via tolls placed on 80/94, or a Dan Ryan or NJ Turnpike Dual-Freeway style roadway needs built, which would typically mean more ROW, and without it, would be very expensive, building either Elevated or Underground Express Lanes. Like, expensive to the point it would probably make sense for IDOT and INDOT to pay the Skyway and Toll Road companies the toll money for "waived" tolls at peak times to make 80/94 safer
They have you so trapped on the Skyway to pay that toll too. I don't understand why there are any toll roads around Chicago anyway because it's in a part of the country where there generally aren't any toll roads other than the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike. Chicago already has enough traffic problems and they just add to it by making you stop to pay a toll because not every car is going to have I-Pass. Like I-294 would be a great bypass of the city of Chicago if it wasn't a toll road. I'm to the point where I don't get why we should even have toll roads period in today's age.
You don't have to stop to pay a toll anymore on I-294. Heck, you don't even have that option anymore and probably won't in the future.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 23, 2020, 07:24:32 PM
Strict enforcement of the truck prohibition from the (two) left lane(s) would improve safety on the road.
As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.
Quote from: tribar on July 23, 2020, 11:36:01 PM
As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.
Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line
Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: tribar on July 23, 2020, 11:36:01 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 23, 2020, 01:21:32 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 12:33:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 23, 2020, 12:27:52 PM
If they would take the toll off the Skyway and improve that corridor then you would see a lot less traffic on the Borman than you do now. I think anyway that it's a lot of shunpikers using the Borman to avoid the toll on the Skyway. Or make the Borman just like the Dan Ryan from the Tri-State all the way to Lake Station.
Yup. Either the Skyway/Toll Road needs to be price competitive with the Borman, either via waived tolls on 90 or via tolls placed on 80/94, or a Dan Ryan or NJ Turnpike Dual-Freeway style roadway needs built, which would typically mean more ROW, and without it, would be very expensive, building either Elevated or Underground Express Lanes. Like, expensive to the point it would probably make sense for IDOT and INDOT to pay the Skyway and Toll Road companies the toll money for "waived" tolls at peak times to make 80/94 safer
They have you so trapped on the Skyway to pay that toll too. I don't understand why there are any toll roads around Chicago anyway because it's in a part of the country where there generally aren't any toll roads other than the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike. Chicago already has enough traffic problems and they just add to it by making you stop to pay a toll because not every car is going to have I-Pass. Like I-294 would be a great bypass of the city of Chicago if it wasn't a toll road. I'm to the point where I don't get why we should even have toll roads period in today's age.
You don't have to stop to pay a toll anymore on I-294. Heck, you don't even have that option anymore and probably won't in the future.
They need to add more toll points like the EOE and balance out the rates a bit better when they go ECT only.
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: tribar on July 23, 2020, 11:36:01 PM
As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.
Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line
Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
My mistake. I didn't realize they had changed the restriction to the left two lanes.
Quote from: tribar on July 24, 2020, 01:06:09 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: tribar on July 23, 2020, 11:36:01 PM
As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.
Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line
Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
My mistake. I didn't realize they had changed the restriction to the left two lanes.
Seems like a recent change, Street View from 2018 shows only for the left most lane.
Clearly, it's not enforced or obeyed judging by Street View imagery showing trucks in all 4 lanes.
I'm pretty sure IDOT suspends the Truck Lane restriction pretty quickly once in IL, so Trucks can Lane Select for either I-94 (or IL 394) on the right or I-80/294 on the left
Then the Left Lane(s) restrictions come back on 80/294 and on 94 after the 80/94 split
Quote from: edwaleni on July 23, 2020, 10:57:27 PM
As for the original question of accidents in that stretch of highway, its an issue of geography more or less.
Lake Michigan forces a few east-west highways to converge, exchange traffic and then diverge again. And because of the location of Chicago, several north-south routes converge as well.
On the face of it and not looking strictly at metrics, its a somewhat unique situation.
The convergence of so many routes exchanging traffic, along with so many full interchanges, any traffic issue on *any* of the converging routes will always create a condition in the one place where they share a common path.
One possible solution is to "pre-sort" your traffic so they don't all share lanes as part of a convergence. This cuts down on lane changes and helps abate sudden stops due to an accident on either the main path or one of its feeders.
This would not be cheap however.
It would mean pre-sorting traffic going west for the Bishop Ford and Tri-State as far back as Indiana, which may not be practical, especially for traffic coming on and off at Calumet Ave (Indiana) and Torrence (Illinois).
Pre-sort traffic going east where 294 and 80 merge and decide there which east bound route they want. 90, 94 or 80.
Planners have wanted to help trans-con traffic (read: trucks) avoid this convergence by building more capacity to the south (Illiana) but this has not been approved. And many believe that transcons would rather take their chances on the Kingery then be forced to drive some 30-40 miles out of the way just to reach I-80 near Morris.
Indiana planners have been historically loathe to provide additional east-west capacity as far back as Elkhart because it would promote shunpiking of the Indiana Toll Road. Now that Indiana has "shun the turnpike" themselves, perhaps they would be more willing to increase capacity using the US-20/US-31 bypass. The fact they never built any capacity between this route and I-90 east of the South Bend/Elkhart metro is a perfect example.
With Kingsbury, Indiana becoming a major perishables hub for Chicago now, I would think new capacity that takes traffic out of the convergence zone starting east of Elkhart would soften the additional miles to reach I-80 in Morris.
East of Lake Station where I-90 and I-94 cross, and I-80 hops between the two, there really aren't capacity problems. No need to do anything all the way to Elkhart.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 24, 2020, 01:07:29 AM
Quote from: tribar on July 24, 2020, 01:06:09 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: tribar on July 23, 2020, 11:36:01 PM
As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.
Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line
Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
My mistake. I didn't realize they had changed the restriction to the left two lanes.
Seems like a recent change, Street View from 2018 shows only for the left most lane.
Clearly, it's not enforced or obeyed judging by Street View imagery showing trucks in all 4 lanes.
My travels on the road are rarely at rush hour, but I hardly ever see trucks in the far left lane, though they're constantly in the 2nd lane.
If I am not driving late in the evening when traffic is reduced I avoid that section by taking Illinois Route 17 at Kankakee to IL Rt. 114 at Mommence which becomes IN Rt. 10 into Roselawn where it intersects with I-65. A cheaper solution would just be to extend the divided highway with at grade intersections that the westernmost portion of this route is all the way to I-65. It could avoid Mommence by going south around the city, do know that I frequently see a cop on the west side of Mommence checking speed on traffic on 17 heading into the city.
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 24, 2020, 07:58:25 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 24, 2020, 01:07:29 AM
Quote from: tribar on July 24, 2020, 01:06:09 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: tribar on July 23, 2020, 11:36:01 PM
As it stands right now, trucks are only prohibited in the left lane on the Borman.
Not on the 8-lane segment between I-65 and the IL/IN state line
Clearly signed "No Trucks Left 2 Lanes"
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5676528,-87.3423413,3a,29.6y,230.54h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_tz1aV0SoqPjLNpM9dYBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
My mistake. I didn't realize they had changed the restriction to the left two lanes.
Seems like a recent change, Street View from 2018 shows only for the left most lane.
Clearly, it's not enforced or obeyed judging by Street View imagery showing trucks in all 4 lanes.
My travels on the road are rarely at rush hour, but I hardly ever see trucks in the far left lane, though they're constantly in the 2nd lane.
The restriction applies to the left lane in Illinois but to the two left lanes in Indiana.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 23, 2020, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:50:23 AM
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton. Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.
There needs to be another east-west option. Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working. It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown. Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).
All very true. And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway. If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better. Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too. Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential. If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway. But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.
The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway. And one that's not too far south to be useful.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 30, 2020, 01:07:16 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 23, 2020, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:50:23 AM
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton. Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.
There needs to be another east-west option. Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working. It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown. Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).
All very true. And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway. If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better. Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too. Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential. If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway. But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.
The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway. And one that's not too far south to be useful.
Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.
Quote from: I-39 on July 30, 2020, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 30, 2020, 01:07:16 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 23, 2020, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:50:23 AM
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton. Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.
There needs to be another east-west option. Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working. It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown. Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).
All very true. And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway. If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better. Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too. Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential. If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway. But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.
The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway. And one that's not too far south to be useful.
Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.
Yes, that would help a lot! It would have the effect of attracting a solid percentage of the semi traffic between I-80 (west of Joliet) and I-65, as the new route would be less congested and more direct to I-65 and points southeast. Even traffic from the Chicago suburbs and points north could use this routing to avoid the Borman on their way to I-65 (which about half of that traffic transits on to). The Illiana proposals that I have seen have it too far south and not well enough connected to the expressway/tollway system to be useful for anyone who's coming from much farther north than I-80. Your suggestion would solve that issue.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 30, 2020, 01:41:46 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 30, 2020, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 30, 2020, 01:07:16 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 23, 2020, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:50:23 AM
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton. Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.
There needs to be another east-west option. Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working. It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown. Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).
All very true. And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway. If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better. Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too. Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential. If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway. But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.
The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway. And one that's not too far south to be useful.
Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.
Yes, that would help a lot! It would have the effect of attracting a solid percentage of the semi traffic between I-80 (west of Joliet) and I-65, as the new route would be less congested and more direct to I-65 and points southeast. Even traffic from the Chicago suburbs and points north could use this routing to avoid the Borman on their way to I-65 (which about half of that traffic transits on to). The Illiana proposals that I have seen have it too far south and not well enough connected to the expressway/tollway system to be useful for anyone who's coming from much farther north than I-80. Your suggestion would solve that issue.
I-355 is an unfinished corridor that had it been extended in both directions (some of the IL-53 extension documents referred to the corridor as an I-355 north extension), it would have relieved a lot of congestion on I-94/294/80 corridor between IL-120 in Gurnee and I-65 in Indiana. It really is a shame it further extensions weren't built. Instead, the tollway making a futile effort to rebuild and widen the central Tri-State to relieve congestion, which isn't going to solve anything.
Quote from: I-39 on July 30, 2020, 03:14:04 PM
I-355 is an unfinished corridor that had it been extended in both directions (some of the IL-53 extension documents referred to the corridor as an I-355 north extension), it would have relieved a lot of congestion on I-94/294/80 corridor between IL-120 in Gurnee and I-65 in Indiana. It really is a shame it further extensions weren't built. Instead, the tollway making a futile effort to rebuild and widen the central Tri-State to relieve congestion, which isn't going to solve anything.
This would have been huge for those of us in Lake County and beyond because the IL-120 -> IL-53 ->355 routing would connect the likes of Waukegan/Gurnee/Kenosha with the western suburbs, such as Schaumburg, Naperville, etc. As it stands now, getting to the NW and W suburbs from my area involves an overland route on surface streets that takes forever because nearly all freeways lead to Chicago or outward in a radial pattern (aside from the Tri State and 355). Sadly, the idiots first neutered then finally killed the 53 extension concept.
Quote from: I-39 on July 30, 2020, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 30, 2020, 01:07:16 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 23, 2020, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:50:23 AM
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton. Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.
There needs to be another east-west option. Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working. It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown. Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).
All very true. And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway. If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better. Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too. Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential. If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway. But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.
The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway. And one that's not too far south to be useful.
Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.
I imagine the reason it was never extended was precisely why you want it. Opponents of the Illiana would know such an extension would increase the demand that the Illiana be built.
I was very happy once I-39 was completed to Bloomington. My career was in St Louis and my family is from Green Bay. I-39 to I-43 from Bloomington to Beloit to Milwaukee was a great Chicago bypass for me. I was using it from the time the Abe Lincoln Bridge over the Illinois River was built.
Quote from: skluth on July 30, 2020, 09:22:11 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 30, 2020, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 30, 2020, 01:07:16 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 23, 2020, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 23, 2020, 11:50:23 AM
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but there is more "freeway" capacity on this basic corridor via the Skyway and Toll Road from the City to I-65
The Skyway is not a viable option for those coming the western suburbs such as Naperville and Wheaton. Certainly not after all the time lost just trying to get to the Dan Ryan via an overloaded I-290.
There needs to be another east-west option. Trying to funnel traffic through on I-80 and the Borman is not working. It is certainly not going to work well if the quarry section of the Tri-State fails or another type of catastrophe occurs that results in a long-term shutdown. Ideally build the Illiana, but at least get a higher type arterial similar to IL 83 north of Oakbrook that doens't have any slow stretches through a business district (such as those on US 231 and IN 2).
All very true. And something lost in this discussion is the hellacious traffic that you are forced into (or through) if you take the Skyway as an alternative. I live well north of Chicago and to head east, I have 2 lousy choices: take the Tri-State all the way to the Borman (the 80/294 and 80/94 segments of this really suck) or, follow I-94 (as the Tri-State, Edens, Kennedy and Dan Ryan) all the way to the Skyway. If I can leave my house no later than 4:30 am, this option is far better. Anything later and you end up in traffic hell - potentially stuck for hours on any given weekday and during many hours of the weekend too. Frankly, I don't care about the cost differential. If I could take the Skyway, not run into traffic, and save time, I'd pay $10 to take the Skyway. But it's not at all the case with Chicago traffic being what it is.
The only real alternative to the NW Indiana hellscape of traffic is an alternate east-west freeway. And one that's not too far south to be useful.
Never really understood why a further extension of I-355 to I-57 was never seriously considered, with the Illiana continuing eastward to I-65. If that had been built along with the IL-53 extension, we'd have a legit alternative to the I-294/I-80/94 congested cluster.
I imagine the reason it was never extended was precisely why you want it. Opponents of the Illiana would know such an extension would increase the demand that the Illiana be built.
I was very happy once I-39 was completed to Bloomington. My career was in St Louis and my family is from Green Bay. I-39 to I-43 from Bloomington to Beloit to Milwaukee was a great Chicago bypass for me. I was using it from the time the Abe Lincoln Bridge over the Illinois River was built.
Yes, I-39 was a godsend, maybe the most important freeway built in Illinois in the last 40 years. I'm very glad they convinced the Governor to go full Interstate between the Lincoln bridge and Bloomington/Normal, it was very close to being an at-grade expressway similar to what was built between Bloomington and Decatur.
Back to the topic at hand, the tollway is technically still authorized to build the I-355 extension to I-57, but it would be difficult at this point thanks to development.
Quote from: I-39 on July 31, 2020, 01:35:45 PM
Back to the topic at hand, the tollway is technically still authorized to build the I-355 extension to I-57, but it would be difficult at this point thanks to development.
Is there a source on that authorization?
If that is even remotely true, ISTHA should be buying all the undeveloped land near I-80 and Gouger Rd, the only place where *maybe* I-355 could break off to the Southeast toward Peotone. Pretty sure some of the already developed land would be needed, also. Maybe just the church and the warehouses could go and the subdivisions could be spared. Maybe.
I've always thought the Peotone airport project and a potential I-355 to I-57 Extension would be joined at the hip
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 31, 2020, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: I-39 on July 31, 2020, 01:35:45 PM
Back to the topic at hand, the tollway is technically still authorized to build the I-355 extension to I-57, but it would be difficult at this point thanks to development.
Is there a source on that authorization?
If that is even remotely true, ISTHA should be buying all the undeveloped land near I-80 and Gouger Rd, the only place where *maybe* I-355 could break off to the Southeast toward Peotone. Pretty sure some of the already developed land would be needed, also. Maybe just the church and the warehouses could go and the subdivisions could be spared. Maybe.
I've always thought the Peotone airport project and a potential I-355 to I-57 Extension would be joined at the hip
https://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/20184/86265/Series+2019A+Official+Statement/ab68ec75-48b0-4864-b308-d617f75e240d?version=1.1 (https://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/20184/86265/Series+2019A+Official+Statement/ab68ec75-48b0-4864-b308-d617f75e240d?version=1.1) (see page 28)
The tollway was authorized in 1993 to extend I-355 to I-80 and even further to I-57. Additionally, they were authorized to build the IL-53 extension to I-94 and the western leg to US 12 in Richmond. I-355 to I-80 was built, IL-53 to Grayslake/I-94 was seriously studied and would've been built if it weren't for some vocal minority hijacking the process, but the extension to I-57 as well as the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension were never seriously looked at.
Here is a good article from 1994 explaining the resolution.
https://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/ii940227.html (https://www.lib.niu.edu/1994/ii940227.html)
Good clarification. ISTHA is authorized, but really has little/no interest in pursuing I-355 to I-57
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 31, 2020, 03:11:19 PM
Good clarification. ISTHA is authorized, but really has little/no interest in pursuing I-355 to I-57
If they could, there still is the issue of the subdivision built at the south end of I-355.
Quote from: Brandon on July 31, 2020, 04:00:41 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 31, 2020, 03:11:19 PM
Good clarification. ISTHA is authorized, but really has little/no interest in pursuing I-355 to I-57
If they could, there still is the issue of the subdivision built at the south end of I-355.
I don't have the source, but I remember reading something, years ago, in either the Tribune or on ISTHA's website, that if a further south extension were to happen, because of that subdivision that was being built at the time, 355 would jog south and west along I-80 either as a Duplex a la 80/294 or as parallel roadways a la 88/355 and 290/294 before departing towards I-57 and Peotone. How far and long was never really specificed, that I recall. I even remember a bit about the 80/355 Interchange was redesigned away from 355 continuing due south from the interchange to its current design
I have slept since then, so I could easily be mistaken
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 31, 2020, 04:00:41 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 31, 2020, 03:11:19 PM
Good clarification. ISTHA is authorized, but really has little/no interest in pursuing I-355 to I-57
If they could, there still is the issue of the subdivision built at the south end of I-355.
I don't have the source, but I remember reading something, years ago, in either the Tribune or on ISTHA's website, that if a further south extension were to happen, because of that subdivision that was being built at the time, 355 would jog south and west along I-80 either as a Duplex a la 80/294 or as parallel roadways a la 88/355 and 290/294 before departing towards I-57 and Peotone. How far and long was never really specificed, that I recall. I even remember a bit about the 80/355 Interchange was redesigned away from 355 continuing due south from the interchange to its current design
I have slept since then, so I could easily be mistaken
No, I remember seeing it as well somewhere. But multiplexing it with I-80 would be dumb, you'd create yet another bottleneck. They should have mapped the ROW back before the development went it south of I-80. Huge missed opportunity if you ask me.
Regarding the I-355 extension to a potential Illiana, there was a planning corridor through New Lenox that lasted until the early 2010s, but the village capitulated to development pressures and started letting building happen within it. IIRC it was in the Gougar Road area near where a new Lincoln-Way high school was built about a decade ago.
Quote from: Rick Powell on August 01, 2020, 12:18:41 PM
Regarding the I-355 extension to a potential Illiana, there was a planning corridor through New Lenox that lasted until the early 2010s, but the village capitulated to development pressures and started letting building happen within it. IIRC it was in the Gougar Road area near where a new Lincoln-Way high school was built about a decade ago.
You are right, that's where it came out. See 2.14 in this Richmond bypass study that shows the CATS 2030 plan that shows potential new corridors.
http://docplayer.net/61043652-Richmond-us-12-bypass-feasibility-study.html (http://docplayer.net/61043652-Richmond-us-12-bypass-feasibility-study.html)
That area is still relatively open though, so it still could in theory be pursued. The powers that be won't do it though.
After suffering the I-80/I-94 corridor today, I think it really needs more message boards and other ITS components, similar to the equipment added to I-90 between Barrington Road and the Tri-State. It could also use one or more signed emergency detour/incident bypass routes.
Another way to get the Toll Road prior to Cline would also be nice - perhaps add a half interchange (EB entrance/WB exit) on the Toll Road at Indianapolis Boulevard.
The pavement on I-80/I-94 is also not holding up, despite the amount of construction.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 01, 2020, 10:46:12 PM
After suffering the I-80/I-94 corridor today, I think it really needs more message boards and other ITS components, similar to the equipment added to I-90 between Barrington Road and the Tri-State. It could also use one or more signed emergency detour/incident bypass routes.
Another way to get the Toll Road prior to Cline would also be nice - perhaps add a half interchange (EB entrance/WB exit) on the Toll Road at Indianapolis Boulevard.
The pavement on I-80/I-94 is also not holding up, despite the amount of construction.
Have you looked at what is at the Toll Road and Indianapolis Blvd?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6129128,-87.483617,1729m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Plus, having that rail line right up against the highway is a problem. You would need to shift the road or the railway before even thinking of an EB entrance ramp. WB exit is not much more doable because of the river and the businesses on Roxana Dr.
There's a reason why Calumet Ave/141st St is the full interchange west of Cline. Now if they could figure out a way to extend Cline Ave west to the Bishop Ford, that would help take some traffic.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 01, 2020, 10:46:12 PM
After suffering the I-80/I-94 corridor today, I think it really needs more message boards and other ITS components, similar to the equipment added to I-90 between Barrington Road and the Tri-State. It could also use one or more signed emergency detour/incident bypass routes.
Another way to get the Toll Road prior to Cline would also be nice - perhaps add a half interchange (EB entrance/WB exit) on the Toll Road at Indianapolis Boulevard.
The pavement on I-80/I-94 is also not holding up, despite the amount of construction.
IMO, the tollway did a really poor job on I-80/294. They didn't rebuild the crossroad bridges and they seemed to cut corners in a lot of places (i.e, narrow shoulders). Should have gone for 5 lanes in each direction IMO.
Quote from: I-39 on August 02, 2020, 04:01:59 PM
IMO, the tollway did a really poor job on I-80/294. They didn't rebuild the crossroad bridges and they seemed to cut corners in a lot of places (i.e, narrow shoulders). Should have gone for 5 lanes in each direction IMO.
Considering the Thornton Quarry, I would imagine that creates an engineering concern to expand 80/294 in this stretch
And without corresponding capacity increases on 80/94 by IDOT and INDOT, it wouldn't prove a whole lot, either
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 02, 2020, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 01, 2020, 10:46:12 PM
After suffering the I-80/I-94 corridor today, I think it really needs more message boards and other ITS components, similar to the equipment added to I-90 between Barrington Road and the Tri-State. It could also use one or more signed emergency detour/incident bypass routes.
Another way to get the Toll Road prior to Cline would also be nice - perhaps add a half interchange (EB entrance/WB exit) on the Toll Road at Indianapolis Boulevard.
The pavement on I-80/I-94 is also not holding up, despite the amount of construction.
Have you looked at what is at the Toll Road and Indianapolis Blvd?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6129128,-87.483617,1729m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Plus, having that rail line right up against the highway is a problem. You would need to shift the road or the railway before even thinking of an EB entrance ramp. WB exit is not much more doable because of the river and the businesses on Roxana Dr.
There's a reason why Calumet Ave/141st St is the full interchange west of Cline. Now if they could figure out a way to extend Cline Ave west to the Bishop Ford, that would help take some traffic.
Between the Defense Logistics Facility and Wolf Lake, there's zero chance of extending Cline. The only thing that comes even close to possible is along or above the railway from where the Toll Road crosses Columbia, along Hudson St in Hammond, though the Forest Preserve in Burnham, and along 142nd St in Dolton to the Bishop Ford.
But even that is far closer to fictional territory than realistic.
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 02, 2020, 05:18:14 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 02, 2020, 04:01:59 PM
IMO, the tollway did a really poor job on I-80/294. They didn't rebuild the crossroad bridges and they seemed to cut corners in a lot of places (i.e, narrow shoulders). Should have gone for 5 lanes in each direction IMO.
Considering the Thornton Quarry, I would imaged that creates an engineering concern to expand 80/294 in this stretch
And without corresponding capacity increases on 80/94 by IDOT and INDOT, it wouldn't prove a whole lot, either
Traffic backups are most often east of where 294 ends as you get the traffic from 94 added into the traffic from 80.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 02, 2020, 05:33:24 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 02, 2020, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 01, 2020, 10:46:12 PM
After suffering the I-80/I-94 corridor today, I think it really needs more message boards and other ITS components, similar to the equipment added to I-90 between Barrington Road and the Tri-State. It could also use one or more signed emergency detour/incident bypass routes.
Another way to get the Toll Road prior to Cline would also be nice - perhaps add a half interchange (EB entrance/WB exit) on the Toll Road at Indianapolis Boulevard.
The pavement on I-80/I-94 is also not holding up, despite the amount of construction.
Have you looked at what is at the Toll Road and Indianapolis Blvd?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6129128,-87.483617,1729m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Plus, having that rail line right up against the highway is a problem. You would need to shift the road or the railway before even thinking of an EB entrance ramp. WB exit is not much more doable because of the river and the businesses on Roxana Dr.
There's a reason why Calumet Ave/141st St is the full interchange west of Cline. Now if they could figure out a way to extend Cline Ave west to the Bishop Ford, that would help take some traffic.
Between the Defense Logistics Facility and Wolf Lake, there's zero chance of extending Cline. The only thing that comes even close to possible is along or above the railway from where the Toll Road crosses Columbia, along Hudson St in Hammond, though the Forest Preserve in Burnham, and along 142nd St in Dolton to the Bishop Ford.
But even that is far closer to fictional territory than realistic.
Oh I agree. Extending Cline is far fetched. Hence why I said "If you could figure out a way". Honestly, I would like to tie it into the 130th St interchange instead of down by Dolton but that's problematic too.
New ground build outs of expressways in the Chicago metro are pretty much dead. No more.
You may see expansions and reconstructions, but no more new builds.
Outside of Chicago is different.
Quote from: edwaleni on August 05, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
New ground build outs of expressways in the Chicago metro are pretty much dead. No more.
You may see expansions and reconstructions, but no more new builds.
Outside of Chicago is different.
There might be rare exceptions, built as toll roads. Like the one now being built west side of the airport? A "new route" for sure.
Quote from: Rick Powell on August 08, 2020, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 05, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
New ground build outs of expressways in the Chicago metro are pretty much dead. No more.
You may see expansions and reconstructions, but no more new builds.
Outside of Chicago is different.
There might be rare exceptions, built as toll roads. Like the one now being built west side of the airport? A "new route" for sure.
Which I now believe is a big waste of money, considering it will be 10-15+ years before a true passenger western access facility will be built at O'Hare.
Quote from: I-39 on August 08, 2020, 02:36:58 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on August 08, 2020, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 05, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
New ground build outs of expressways in the Chicago metro are pretty much dead. No more.
You may see expansions and reconstructions, but no more new builds.
Outside of Chicago is different.
There might be rare exceptions, built as toll roads. Like the one now being built west side of the airport? A "new route" for sure.
Which I now believe is a big waste of money, considering it will be 10-15+ years before a true passenger western access facility will be built at O'Hare.
NO it links up the EOE / the cargo area / elk grove / cuts the corner for I-294 to I-90 traffic.
Quote from: I-39 on August 08, 2020, 02:36:58 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on August 08, 2020, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 05, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
New ground build outs of expressways in the Chicago metro are pretty much dead. No more.
You may see expansions and reconstructions, but no more new builds.
Outside of Chicago is different.
There might be rare exceptions, built as toll roads. Like the one now being built west side of the airport? A "new route" for sure.
Which I now believe is a big waste of money, considering it will be 10-15+ years before a true passenger western access facility will be built at O'Hare.
Trust me as a chauffeur when I tell you that having that to link into the Elgin-O'Hare will make trips between O'Hare and say Streamwood and St Charles so much more quicker than the old days. In the old days, if you were going to St Charles (Rt 64 & Kirk let's say), the most efficient way was 90 West to 59 South to 20 West to 25 South to Dunham Rd.
Quote from: I-39 on August 08, 2020, 02:36:58 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on August 08, 2020, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 05, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
New ground build outs of expressways in the Chicago metro are pretty much dead. No more.
You may see expansions and reconstructions, but no more new builds.
Outside of Chicago is different.
There might be rare exceptions, built as toll roads. Like the one now being built west side of the airport? A "new route" for sure.
Which I now believe is a big waste of money, considering it will be 10-15+ years before a true passenger western access facility will be built at O'Hare.
Western passenger access terminal is dead. Removed from the O'Hare plan by then Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Essentially breaking a promise made as part of the O'Hare Expansion Plan. (that allowed the tollways to be built)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chicago-airport/chicago-ohare-8-5-billion-expansion-plan-approved-by-city-council-idUSKBN1H43EZ (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chicago-airport/chicago-ohare-8-5-billion-expansion-plan-approved-by-city-council-idUSKBN1H43EZ)
The various media made up lots of reasons, like 9-11, terrorism, having transit tunnels under runways, no airlines wanted to pay for it, la de da.
Ultimately, Chicago Department of Aviation wants everyone coming and going passenger wise through the front door and no other. A western passenger terminal would reside in a different jurisdiction and while it would be in "Chicago" city limits, it would also be in DuPage County. Different taxing, harder to control the patronage and a diversion of tax revenue away from Cook County.
Basically it will never happen.
Several suburbs have offered to pay for a transit system to a future western terminal since the 70's and Chicago has rebuffed them every single time.
In fact even the Elgin-O'Hare (now I-390) was designed to support transit down the median to O'Hare in anticipation. The tollway removed it when they took over. Now Chicago cancels their part.
It's Chicago-Illinois politics at its worst.
Doing the "right" thing is about revenue strategy and control of it, not about what is best for the flying public.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 08, 2020, 07:05:19 PMNO it links up the EOE / the cargo area / elk grove / cuts the corner for I-294 to I-90 traffic.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 08, 2020, 07:34:41 PMTrust me as a chauffeur when I tell you that having that to link into the Elgin-O'Hare will make trips between O'Hare and say Streamwood and St Charles so much more quicker than the old days. In the old days, if you were going to St Charles (Rt 64 & Kirk let's say), the most efficient way was 90 West to 59 South to 20 West to 25 South to Dunham Rd.
I-490 is not really needed, most of the people coming in from the west can use Elmhurst/York Road and IL-19 (for I-294 users). It's not really that bad. As for cutting the corner from I-294 NB to I-90 WB, you can save yourself some tolls by using I-290, especially after the interchange is reconfigured. Really it is a waste of resources the more I think about it.
As for extending IL-390, I agree with that part, but it should have been kept a freeway and not handed over to ISTHA. And even then, until there is a western passenger dropoff area (which is a long way off), neither one is needed at the moment.
Quote from: edwaleni on August 08, 2020, 07:38:25 PMWestern passenger access terminal is dead. Removed from the O'Hare plan by then Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Essentially breaking a promise made as part of the O'Hare Expansion Plan. (that allowed the tollways to be built)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chicago-airport/chicago-ohare-8-5-billion-expansion-plan-approved-by-city-council-idUSKBN1H43EZ (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chicago-airport/chicago-ohare-8-5-billion-expansion-plan-approved-by-city-council-idUSKBN1H43EZ)
The various media made up lots of reasons, like 9-11, terrorism, having transit tunnels under runways, no airlines wanted to pay for it, la de da.
Ultimately, Chicago Department of Aviation wants everyone coming and going passenger wise through the front door and no other. A western passenger terminal would reside in a different jurisdiction and while it would be in "Chicago" city limits, it would also be in DuPage County. Different taxing, harder to control the patronage and a diversion of tax revenue away from Cook County.
Basically it will never happen.
Several suburbs have offered to pay for a transit system to a future western terminal since the 70's and Chicago has rebuffed them every single time.
In fact even the Elgin-O'Hare (now I-390) was designed to support transit down the median to O'Hare in anticipation. The tollway removed it when they took over. Now Chicago cancels their part.
It's Chicago-Illinois politics at its worst.
Doing the "right" thing is about revenue strategy and control of it, not about what is best for the flying public.
It's not dead, it's just going to look much different than it did before. Basically, the plan is the O'Hare core terminal area (T1, T2, T3) will gradually be reconfigured into an Hartsfield/Atlanta Airport layout over time (a series of linear concourses with an underground tunnel/APM). The western facility will not be a full blown terminal, but a simply a check in/security screening/drop off/pickup facility for passengers who don't need to check or claim bags. The facility was going to be built as part of a Phase 2 to the O'Hare 21 project when the airport hit 100,000,000 pax a year, but since it looks like the first phase of the project will be put on hold due to the pandemic, who knows when or even if that will ever be built.
https://oharenoise.org/resources/presentations/general-meeting-presentations/2018-7/635-o-hare-21-terminal-area-plan/file (https://oharenoise.org/resources/presentations/general-meeting-presentations/2018-7/635-o-hare-21-terminal-area-plan/file) (see slide 7 for the future layout)
While IMHO the Illiana should have been higher priority, I-490 will still be useful whenever there is another bridge project on I-290 in Schaumburg or the I-90/I-290/IL 53 interchange finally gets rebuilt. At the very least it will bring a much needed NB exit/SB entrance for the Tri-State between IL 64 and Balmoral.
IL 390 already makes a nice alternate route over to IL 83 when there's an incident on I-290 between I-355 and IL 83.
Also straying from the original topic: Anyone know what project is generating the need for so many 'no construction traffic past this point' type signs along side roads going north from County Line Road (on the Will-Kankakee County border); side roads going east from IL 50; and one for each direction of County line road somewhere I cannot recall exactly between IL 50 and IL 1?
Quote from: edwaleni on August 08, 2020, 07:38:25 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 08, 2020, 02:36:58 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on August 08, 2020, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 05, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
New ground build outs of expressways in the Chicago metro are pretty much dead. No more.
You may see expansions and reconstructions, but no more new builds.
Outside of Chicago is different.
There might be rare exceptions, built as toll roads. Like the one now being built west side of the airport? A "new route" for sure.
Which I now believe is a big waste of money, considering it will be 10-15+ years before a true passenger western access facility will be built at O'Hare.
Western passenger access terminal is dead. Removed from the O'Hare plan by then Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Essentially breaking a promise made as part of the O'Hare Expansion Plan. (that allowed the tollways to be built)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chicago-airport/chicago-ohare-8-5-billion-expansion-plan-approved-by-city-council-idUSKBN1H43EZ (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chicago-airport/chicago-ohare-8-5-billion-expansion-plan-approved-by-city-council-idUSKBN1H43EZ)
The various media made up lots of reasons, like 9-11, terrorism, having transit tunnels under runways, no airlines wanted to pay for it, la de da.
Ultimately, Chicago Department of Aviation wants everyone coming and going passenger wise through the front door and no other. A western passenger terminal would reside in a different jurisdiction and while it would be in "Chicago" city limits, it would also be in DuPage County. Different taxing, harder to control the patronage and a diversion of tax revenue away from Cook County.
Basically it will never happen.
Several suburbs have offered to pay for a transit system to a future western terminal since the 70's and Chicago has rebuffed them every single time.
In fact even the Elgin-O'Hare (now I-390) was designed to support transit down the median to O'Hare in anticipation. The tollway removed it when they took over. Now Chicago cancels their part.
It's Chicago-Illinois politics at its worst.
Doing the "right" thing is about revenue strategy and control of it, not about what is best for the flying public.
Terminal 2 is going to be having a major overhaul and become the "World Terminal". There are plans for 3 concourses sim to Concourse C that will be built on the western part of the airport.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 08, 2020, 10:43:19 PM
While IMHO the Illiana should have been higher priority, I-490 will still be useful whenever there is another bridge project on I-290 in Schaumburg or the I-90/I-290/IL 53 interchange finally gets rebuilt. At the very least it will bring a much needed NB exit/SB entrance for the Tri-State between IL 64 and Balmoral.
IL 390 already makes a nice alternate route over to IL 83 when there's an incident on I-290 between I-355 and IL 83.
Also straying from the original topic: Anyone know what project is generating the need for so many 'no construction traffic past this point' type signs along side roads going north from County Line Road (on the Will-Kankakee County border); side roads going east from IL 50; and one for each direction of County line road somewhere I cannot recall exactly between IL 50 and IL 1?
They could've reconfigured the IL-19 interchange into full access and saved themselves a ton of money.
The Route 53 extension and rebuilding the I-290/IL-53 interchange with I-90 should've been priority over the EOE project. I'll bet IL-53 north could've been built if they had committed money to the corridor right off the bat rather than just funding some vague studies. It seems most of the opposition in the last year or two of the study was more over cost.
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 23, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
I live roughly 450ft from this segment of interstate (thank god for sound barriers--they're worth every penny). There are almost daily crashes on this segment, sometimes more than one per day. The vast majority of the crashes are semi vs car. I've figured out the primary reasons why and I'd like some group brainstorming on a solution.
Causes:
1. I don't know if/where such data exists, but there seems to be a higher volume of semi traffic, as a percentage of overall traffic, than any other interstate I've driven.
2. The posted speed limit is 55, but there is almost nonexistent traffic enforcement, so semis are mostly doing 60-70 and cars are doing 65+, but you have a percentage of cars that believe in going the speed limit, which leads to a lot of semis passing cars in addition to each other.
3. Distracted driving. A lot of crashes are where there is a significant slowdown and a driver doesn't notice it until too late.
Is there a fix for this that doesn't require acquiring more ROW?
OMG, that speed limit on the Kingery/Borman is the biggest offender in all of the Chicago area and potentially the whole Midwest. It should be at least 65. I57 from 294 to 30 is another one.