Illinois 53 Extension

[I-39]

IF the Illinois 53 extension is built as this "21st century urban tolled parkway" with a 45 mph speed limit, it is going to create a huge hazard for people coming off the high speed IL-53 south of Lake Cook Road. People are going to have to slam on the breaks. There will be accidents, I guarantee it.

I hope the new Tollway board members have some sense in them and make this committee go back and revise it to a six lane conventional tollway before it's too late.

[Stratuscaster]

I don't envision folks passing Lake-Cook Road and then slamming on their brakes - that seems a bit silly. That's like saying that people traveling east on I-88 are slamming on their brakes when they pass Orchard Road, where the limit drops from 65 to 55. They aren't.

On just about any class of road there are advance warning signs of the speed limit drop. If you as a driver are slamming on your brakes at that point - you should be paying more attention.

[I-39]

I was saying that mostly figuratively, but I there may be some accidents regardless.

However, one thing's for sure is there WILL be significant backups, since the road will only be 4 lanes.

[ajlynch91]

Charge high enough tolls and that won't be the case, Lake County can have its own Highway 407! At what point does the road as it is designed become obsolete I wonder? Given that I drive route 83 relatively quickly between 53 and 60 on a daily basis (and much faster than 45 mph), if it isn't going to be built to freeway standards, I don't see it being worth building in my humble opinion.

[hobsini2]

Charge high enough tolls and that won't be the case, Lake County can have its own Highway 407! At what point does the road as it is designed become obsolete I wonder? Given that I drive route 83 relatively quickly between 53 and 60 on a daily basis (and much faster than 45 mph), if it isn't going to be built to freeway standards, I don't see it being worth building in my humble opinion.

Charging high tolls is not the point of the extension though. The extension is supposed to help the local road congestion. Not burden it.

[ajlynch91]

Precisely my point. The facility that's currently proposed (the four lane parkway) Won't be able to fulfill its goal because it likely won't be able to handle the volume, pricey tolls reduce congestion but then do little if anything for the roads around it...

[hobsini2]

So you do want the problem in Lake County to remain in place? Even if the extension is built as a 45 mph parkway with ORT lanes, the flow of traffic would be better on the Tollway regardless of how small the toll is. But if you make the toll quite expensive, you don't fix anything of the current problems.

[dietermoreno]

Remember that 4 lanes with no stop lights from Lake Cook Rd to Peterson Rd in rush hour - or even 2 lanes - is better than 4 lanes with stop lights.  Imagine if Rt 12 was built to freeway standards from Lake Cook to 120, that's the improved travel.

[I-39]

http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/48743/2012-06_FinalCouncilSummaryReport_web.pdf

I was re-reading the report today and I noticed how little of difference cost-wise it is to building this parkway (option C) and building it as a six lane expressway (third lane would be managed transit) (option E).

It's not perfect, but if this is going to be built, option E is the only one that makes sense. It's the closest thing to an Interstate that it will get.

[The Ghostbuster]

The question I have is, will it ever be constructed?

[ET21]

The question I have is, will it ever be constructed?

Not with the current regime in Illinois

[dietermoreno]

I'm not sure if it means anything, but the document graphics seem to imply that alternatives C through E all use the same ROW.

It appears from the graphics that additional pavement would be taking away from the grassy median, down to alternative E would have a jersey barrier.

So hypothetically alternative C could be upgraded to alternatives D or E just by widening within the grassy median.

Does anyone know what is the difference between "managed transit lane" and Pace bus on shoulders program?

I assumed it meant an HOV lane shared with buses when capacity is available to allow cars to use the bus lane, but perhaps not?

What would be the point of building alternative E over building alternative D if the buses could just use the inner shoulder?

I think we need an alternative F: 6 general purpose lanes and Pace bus on shoulders program.

The cost and environmental impact of alternatives D and E are almost the same so it makes sense to just build at least alternative E, or even better send this plan back to the brac and make them come up with an alternative F.


The same argument could be made for the Eisenhower rebuild and widen: transit lanes and HOV lanes would help the environment the most, however an additional general purpose lane in each direction would help the most people, at least that is from a traffic volume perspective, ignoring air pollution, assuming that induced demand would even occur.

The converse argument could be: the most environmentally friendly road is to build no road, however, if we take into account air pollution from vehicles stuck in congestion, it could actually be more environmentally friendly to build the road from an air pollution stand point.

[Henry]

The question I have is, will it ever be constructed?

Not with the current regime in Illinois

Which is why I'm glad I moved away! The way they run things is an absolute joke, especially when dealing with Chicago.

[I-39]

I'm not sure if it means anything, but the document graphics seem to imply that alternatives C through E all use the same ROW.

It appears from the graphics that additional pavement would be taking away from the grassy median, down to alternative E would have a jersey barrier.

So hypothetically alternative C could be upgraded to alternatives D or E just by widening within the grassy median.

Does anyone know what is the difference between "managed transit lane" and Pace bus on shoulders program?

I assumed it meant an HOV lane shared with buses when capacity is available to allow cars to use the bus lane, but perhaps not?

What would be the point of building alternative E over building alternative D if the buses could just use the inner shoulder?

I think we need an alternative F: 6 general purpose lanes and Pace bus on shoulders program.

The cost and environmental impact of alternatives D and E are almost the same so it makes sense to just build at least alternative E, or even better send this plan back to the brac and make them come up with an alternative F.


The same argument could be made for the Eisenhower rebuild and widen: transit lanes and HOV lanes would help the environment the most, however an additional general purpose lane in each direction would help the most people, at least that is from a traffic volume perspective, ignoring air pollution, assuming that induced demand would even occur.

The converse argument could be: the most environmentally friendly road is to build no road, however, if we take into account air pollution from vehicles stuck in congestion, it could actually be more environmentally friendly to build the road from an air pollution stand point.

I'm not sure if the third lane on option E would be available for cars or not. But frankly, it needs to be built with six general lanes and wide shoulders for transit, just as I-90 was rebuilt between Rockford and Elgin. Then sign it as a northern extension of I-355.

If the NIMBYS don't like it, TOO BAD! This is a desperately needed link for the region.

[ajlynch91]

That would make sense. End I-290 at 355 and have the road from I-80 to Lake Cook signed as I-355, then make the Parkway IL-355 and move IL-53 back to Hicks Rd.

[Joe The Dragon]

That would make sense. End I-290 at 355 and have the road from I-80 to Lake Cook signed as I-355, then make the Parkway IL-355 and move IL-53 back to Hicks Rd.

The parkway or what ever needs to be I-355 or I-xxx. if not an interstate why not TOLL US-12? with the IL-120 part being Toll IL-120/

over lap I-290 to where it is now or route it over the EOE.

[Stratuscaster]

Then I-290 wouldn't meet it's parent at both ends.

The parkway doesn't NEED to be an Interstate, and with the low speed limit shouldn't be either, IMHO.

IL-53 would be fine, as it is today.

[Joe The Dragon]

Then I-290 wouldn't meet it's parent at both ends.

The parkway doesn't NEED to be an Interstate, and with the low speed limit shouldn't be either, IMHO.

IL-53 would be fine, as it is today.

The parkway likey will not be build with that low of an limit when other near by roads have higher limits even roads in more build up areas. Also like the other toll roads no one will be going that slow. Also to have it toll don't that they have to have to a free named route with the same number.

as for I-290 build the EOE to Elgin bypass and then some kind of link back.

[GeekJedi]

The parkway likey will not be build with that low of an limit when other near by roads have higher limits even roads in more build up areas. Also like the other toll roads no one will be going that slow. Also to have it toll don't that they have to have to a free named route with the same number.

as for I-290 build the EOE to Elgin bypass and then some kind of link back.

The speeds of other nearby roads is pretty much irrelevant when setting speed limits. Design speed and (to a decent extent) local politics plays a big part. In Wisconsin, US-12 from Middleton to Sauk City is 55, even though it could easily be signed 65, and I-39/90/94 nearby is 70. The reason for the 55 speed limit is because that's what the local politicians and "special interest" groups demanded.

And no, you do not have to have a nearby "free" route with the same number. That's an old, outdated rule.

[johndoe780]

The parkway likey will not be build with that low of an limit when other near by roads have higher limits even roads in more build up areas. Also like the other toll roads no one will be going that slow. Also to have it toll don't that they have to have to a free named route with the same number.

as for I-290 build the EOE to Elgin bypass and then some kind of link back.

The speeds of other nearby roads is pretty much irrelevant when setting speed limits. Design speed and (to a decent extent) local politics plays a big part. In Wisconsin, US-12 from Middleton to Sauk City is 55, even though it could easily be signed 65, and I-39/90/94 nearby is 70. The reason for the 55 speed limit is because that's what the local politicians and "special interest" groups demanded.

And no, you do not have to have a nearby "free" route with the same number. That's an old, outdated rule.

You could say the "special interest" groups *cough cough* insurance companies *cough cough*

[dietermoreno]

The parkway or what ever needs to be I-355 or I-xxx. if not an interstate why not TOLL US-12? with the IL-120 part being Toll IL-120/

over lap I-290 to where it is now or route it over the EOE.

You can't toll federal highways, and the EOE would need to connect to its parent I-90 west of Elgin to be signed as I-290.

Also, it could confuse drivers unnecessarily having EOE signed as IL-390 east of I-355 and signed as I-290 west of IL-390.  That would additionally require multiplexing I-355 and I-290 together between the Eisenhower Extenstion and the EOE.

Also, moving IL-53 back to Hicks Road but then having signs saying "Toll IL-53" north of Lake Cook Road would confuse drivers.

IL-53 is fine signed as is.  Its the IL-53 extension, not the I-355 north extension. Maybe in the future if the Elgin bypass is extended as interstate standards from the EOE to I-90, but let's not get our hopes up that that will happen soon.  There is a reason to extend the Elgin bypass east to meet the EOE, but there isn't really any reason to extend the Elgin bypass west to meet I-90.  There are no commuters (at least a significant enough toll revenue) west of Randall Road that would use an extension of the Elgin bypass west to I-90.  U.S. 20 is fast in rush hour west of Randall Road even at only 2 lanes so there is no need to upgrade to interstate standards.


It would make slightly more sense perhaps to copy the I-295 beltway in Jacksonville, FL, and keep the state roads as hidden unsigned numbers once the roads get approval to become interstates, and then sign as I-294 WEST BELTWAY from IL-120 and I-94 to IL-53 and IL-120 to IL-290 and EOE to EOE and I-294.  Then sign the existing I-294 as I-294 EAST BELTWAY.

However, there is a problem with this idea: I-94 is east of the existing I-294. The solution is for I-94 and I-294 to swap numbers so we can have a west beltway and an east beltway with I-94 in the middle on the existing I-294.  That really makes the most sense for out of state drivers trying to bypass Chicago that just stay on the same I-94 from Gary to Kenosha.

There is precedent in Chicago for a faster state road tollway and a slower interstate highway running through the city to swap numbers and add a two to the original interstate number, with the Eisenhower and the Northwest Tollway / Kennedy (not sure if the Kennedy even was ever signed east of the Northwest Tollway terminus before the number swap) swapping numbers.

[Stratuscaster]

IMHO, this "east/west beltway" thing would just create confusion.

The primary focus for this extension is for local area traffic, not necessarily as any kind of interstate or bypass.

[Joe The Dragon]

The parkway or what ever needs to be I-355 or I-xxx. if not an interstate why not TOLL US-12? with the IL-120 part being Toll IL-120/

over lap I-290 to where it is now or route it over the EOE.

Also, it could confuse drivers unnecessarily having EOE signed as IL-390 east of I-355 and signed as I-290 west of IL-390.  That would additionally require multiplexing I-355 and I-290 together between the Eisenhower Extenstion and the EOE.

multiplexing for 1 exit

[I-39]

The main Elgin-O'Hare (IL-390) will never become I-390 because it does not tie into I-90 anywhere. The existing Elgin Bypass freeway would need significant upgrades to make it an Interstate-standard freeway. Plus, IDOT has stated the section of US 20 between the Elgin Bypass and the EOWA (when it is extended to North Ave) will not become a fully access controlled freeway.

IF the new Tollway board has ANY sense in them and revises the IL-53 extension back to a proper six lane tollway, then it should be signed as a northern extension of I-355 and I-290 should end in Itasca at the I-355 junction. Frankly, the I-355 designation should run up to I-90 now because the through lanes at the I-290/I-355 junction are a direct continuation of the I-355 corridor (you have to exit I-355 NB/SB to get onto I-290 EB). I understand I-290 existed before I-355, so that is why it is the way it is, but if what I described above happens, that should change.

A three digit does not have to meet it's parent at both ends. There are plenty of examples where this is not the case. 

[Revive 755]

The main Elgin-O'Hare (IL-390) will never become I-390 because it does not tie into I-90 anywhere.

Didn't stop I-370 (MD), I-380 (CA), I-580 (NY), I-980 (CA), and I-990 (NY) from getting interstate numbers.  Of course, this being Illinois and given IDOT's willingness to make up silly rules . . .

Maybe the EOE should have been an IL x94.  There will probably be enough trailblazers along the Western Bypass from I-294 to the point of almost having a useless multiplex, similar to how EB I-290 has trailblazers for I-355 at all but the Biesterfield Road interchange.