The white word "TOLLWAY" is starting to be replaced on the BGS on I-355. Saw that earlier this week. Banners on the markers on U.S. 34 also now yellow vs the former blue & white.
Saw this for the first time in person and it looks horrible imo.
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on June 19, 2013, 03:19:57 PM
Saw this for the first time in person and it looks horrible imo.
There are two ways they are done in Illinois. They way ISTHA does them (which I like) and the way IDOT does them (which I want to kill with fire).
ISTHA:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2138.jpg&hash=328e3ba651e526475d205672e33d8cdb344f2b3a) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2138.jpg.html)
IDOT:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2263.jpg&hash=4677d043c57cbad4eb0cb62f56d09be466ef4c1d) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2263.jpg.html)
Other than the second one being a waste of space, they both look fine.
Quote from: NE2 on June 19, 2013, 04:48:56 PM
Other than the second one being a waste of space, they both look fine.
Hence why I find it a bit on the ugly side. There's nothing wrong with it error-wise, but it is damned ugly on the road, IMHO compared to the first one.
Except it looks like ISHTA is using Clearview in the improper contrast and the IDOT one is using FHWA font properly.
Do they still add the expressway names underneath the direction as they used to add "Tollway"? Didn't really pay attention.
the TOLL banner isn't bad.
the compressed "355" on the IDOT sign is bad.
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on June 19, 2013, 05:35:12 PM
Do they still add the expressway names underneath the direction as they used to add "Tollway"? Didn't really pay attention.
Yes, they do.
Quote from: Big John on June 19, 2013, 05:32:33 PM
Except it looks like ISHTA is using Clearview in the improper contrast and the IDOT one is using FHWA font properly.
The ISTHA sign is older, before FHWA clarified the usage of Clearview. The newer ones use it as the IDOT sign below, but use the format in the first sign.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2013, 05:40:42 PM
the compressed "355" on the IDOT sign is bad.
I happen to like the narrower font versus the "standard" one on the ISHTA sign. But that's me.
Here's another IDOT sample from I-90 westbound, transitioning from the Kennedy to the Jane Addams Tollway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modernmopars.com%2Froadgeek.info%2F90w-exit78.jpg&hash=6d9f2b36ae5b1539651c4dbd25f21fb1b687cb6b)
I liked the original "Tollway" format simply because it was unique, but still functional.
I'm still trying to figure out how I-355 goes to Rockford, as pictured above.
Guess I-355 to I-290 to I-90 is too long to spell, and "Western Suburbs" is too dated to use.
:-D
That's IDOT signage - consistently inconsistent.
Quote from: DevalDragon on June 27, 2013, 02:02:53 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how I-355 goes to Rockford, as pictured above.
Guess I-355 to I-290 to I-90 is too long to spell, and "Western Suburbs" is too dated to use.
:-D
I was questioning that too, would that sign be on the eastbound side on I-80?
Quote from: ET21 on June 28, 2013, 12:57:18 AM
Quote from: DevalDragon on June 27, 2013, 02:02:53 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how I-355 goes to Rockford, as pictured above.
Guess I-355 to I-290 to I-90 is too long to spell, and "Western Suburbs" is too dated to use.
:-D
I was questioning that too, would that sign be on the eastbound side on I-80?
It's for both eastbound and westbound I-80 at I-355. "Rockford" makes zero sense here, but it is what IDOT put up when replacing the signage (that wasn't all that old). The original signs were put up by ISTHA and had "West Suburbs" as the control. Personally, I'd use "Schaumburg" for the control city. That's where the road meets I-90 and encounters a major commercial and business hub in the region.
It could be worse. It could have no control city until you get close to the interchange as I-55 has currently at I-355. There's greenout over the original control of "Suburbs". Wonderfully descriptive.
I would guess the logic goes "well, it ends at I-290, and I-290 is signed for Rockford because I-90 goes there, so let's just sign it that way even though hardly anyone heading westbound on I-80 would consider I-355 as any kind of shortcut to Rockford, and anyone going eastbound on I-80 heading for Rockford probably realized they made a mistake several miles back when they didn't exit on I-39."
^ I was going to say that I-355 could be faster than fighting either the Circle and WB I-290 at Austin or the loop ramp from NB I-294 to WB I-290, but Google indicates that it would still be shorter mileage wise to use I-294 all the way to I-90.
Maybe Aurora should be used as the NB control for I-355 south of I-88 (although Google has I-355 to I-88 being three miles longer than I-294 to I-88).
Any indirectness of using it as a bypass to reach Rockford is also true of Schaumburg. Why would you use I-355 to reach Schaumburg when you can go 294-290? I'd use Aurora, being the control city for I-88 west (and only 2 miles longer than via 294).
[edit]Yeah, what 755 said.
Quote from: NE2 on June 29, 2013, 07:29:37 PM
Any indirectness of using it as a bypass to reach Rockford is also true of Schaumburg. Why would you use I-355 to reach Schaumburg when you can go 294-290? I'd use Aurora, being the control city for I-88 west (and only 2 miles longer than via 294).
[edit]Yeah, what 755 said.
Why not the Tri-State (294) to the Ike Extension (290)? There's a very tight 20 mph loop ramp between the two that says it's a very, very bad idea to use that route. You can waste anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes on that ramp alone depending on time of day.
Quote from: Brandon on June 29, 2013, 07:44:40 PM
Why not the Tri-State (294) to the Ike Extension (290)? There's a very tight 20 mph loop ramp between the two that says it's a very, very bad idea to use that route. You can waste anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes on that ramp alone depending on time of day.
How about 294-88-355?
By the time you see that "Rockford" sign on I-80 W, you've passed 294. From that point, the most direct routes are 355-290-90 (if you wish to follow the "Rockford" signage - of course, there is no "Rockford" signage once you get on 355 N until you get to 290 W), or 355-88-39. Taking 80-39 adds about 30 minutes/30 miles, according to Google Maps, but it's also toll free.
Joliet/Schaumburg makes more sense to me - Joliet/Aurora/Schaumburg even more, but 3 control cities is a bit much.
Lately I've been taking I-39 -> I-88 -> I-294 to travel between Rockford and the Indiana line, thanks to the insanely long, slow construction zone this summer on I-90. If there's a time difference in doing so, it's not significant, certainly not right now.
I'm generally traveling well before or after rush hours, so the SBD I-290 -> I-294 movement in Elmhurst isn't usually backed up badly. But it's certainly underpowered and really tight, not to mention short-spaced to the St. Charles Rd interchange.
Quote from: NE2 on June 29, 2013, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 29, 2013, 07:44:40 PM
Why not the Tri-State (294) to the Ike Extension (290)? There's a very tight 20 mph loop ramp between the two that says it's a very, very bad idea to use that route. You can waste anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes on that ramp alone depending on time of day.
How about 294-88-355?
That's easier, but requires some geographic backtracking. I-88 goes slightly south between I-294 and I-355.
However, that said, I suggested (in the fictional thread a while back) that Schaumburg and Bolingbrook make more sense due to end points and major freeway crossings as well as major retail/business destinations.
For I-80 and probably every exit, they could have done a generic "Northwest Suburbs" control like on the 88 ramps (NW burbs and Joliet for controls)
Joliet can still be a south control, but I think 'Southwest Suburbs" is being used more often southbound. It's amazing how much the southern portion is being used today compared to when it first opened :-o
Quote from: NE2 on June 29, 2013, 07:29:37 PM
Any indirectness of using it as a bypass to reach Rockford is also true of Schaumburg. Why would you use I-355 to reach Schaumburg when you can go 294-290? I'd use Aurora, being the control city for I-88 west (and only 2 miles longer than via 294).
I would use 355 to get to Schaumburg if I were coming on I-80 from Tinley Park or Mokena.
The 'I-355 North Rockford' control is a bit strange, but it's not completely off-base. It is a viable alternative to bypass the city of Chicago if just passing through, instead of using I-90. However, Schaumburg is probably the best option as the control city.
Coincidentally, when I travel to Ohio to visit family I end up leaving Rockford and traveling down I-39 south to I-88 east to I-355 south to I-80 east. (And vice versa on the return trip). I usually hit the Indiana border in just under 2 hours.....less traffic, little congestion, higher rates of speed.
I prefer this route to I-90 through the city or I-290/I-294 through the inner-ring suburbs.
Quote from: ET21 on July 01, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
For I-80 and probably every exit, they could have done a generic "Northwest Suburbs" control like on the 88 ramps (NW burbs and Joliet for controls)
Joliet can still be a south control, but I think 'Southwest Suburbs" is being used more often southbound. It's amazing how much the southern portion is being used today compared to when it first opened :-o
"Southwest Suburbs" is a better control city for the 290-355 interchange south of Biesterfield Road (a.k.a. Exit 7) where I-355 has its northern terminus. It's all encompassing so to speak. "Joliet" makes more sense (for those heading south) at the 55-355 interchange in Bolingbrook.