Your favorite/least favorite state DOT?

[Ned Weasel]

IDOT also needs to start getting rid of the Interstate-to-Interstate Cloverleaves. I-55@I-80 and I-290/IL 53@I-90 (with ISTHA cooperation) are at the top of the list that could use Full Stack upgrades, or another Flyover configuration

Both would be fine with C-D lanes.  Oh wait, the second one already has them, and the C-D roadways on I-290 have three lanes in each direction.  I've taken the loop ramp from WB I-290 to WB I-90 several times and never encountered a problem.  I don't even think there's enough space for a full stack at that location.  I don't know how you'd fit it into the existing footprint, and I certainly don't see a way for flyover runways to be fit into the northwest corner.  You could maybe squeeze in one or two tight-curve flyover/fly-under ramps, but frankly, they did such a nice job with the C-D roadways, I don't see it being worthwhile to redo that interchange.

[ilpt4u]

IDOT also needs to start getting rid of the Interstate-to-Interstate Cloverleaves. I-55@I-80 and I-290/IL 53@I-90 (with ISTHA cooperation) are at the top of the list that could use Full Stack upgrades, or another Flyover configuration

Both would be fine with C-D lanes.  Oh wait, the second one already has them, and the C-D roadways on I-290 have three lanes in each direction.  I've taken the loop ramp from WB I-290 to WB I-90 several times and never encountered a problem.  I don't even think there's enough space for a full stack at that location.  I don't know how you'd fit it into the existing footprint, and I certainly don't see a way for flyover runways to be fit into the northwest corner.  You could maybe squeeze in one or two tight-curve flyover/fly-under ramps, but frankly, they did such a nice job with the C-D roadways, I don't see it being worthwhile to redo that interchange.

As someone who previously used that Interchange commuting, I can tell you it is a mess at Rush Hour

[Ned Weasel]

As someone who previously used that Interchange commuting, I can tell you it is a mess at Rush Hour

Is it as bad as NB I-294 to WB I-290?  That's one where I encountered multiple delays.

[kphoger]

Where in Chicago ISN'T a mess at rush hour?

[ilpt4u]

Where in Chicago ISN'T a mess at rush hour?

The Skyway

[kphoger]

Where in Chicago ISN'T a mess at rush hour?

The Skyway

Now that I think of it, add Lake Shore Drive to that too.

[ilpt4u]

As someone who previously used that Interchange commuting, I can tell you it is a mess at Rush Hour

Is it as bad as NB I-294 to WB I-290?  That's one where I encountered multiple delays.

ISTHA is going to basically rebuild that whole area as part of the Central Tri-State rebuild/widen program. There was some discussion and animation videos of ISTHA's solution to the 88/290/294 mess, at least for 294 traffic

The animations are on page 38 of the Illinois Tollway Notes thread on the Great Lakes board https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17650.925

[kphoger]

solution to the 88/290/294 mess

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.  How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?

[hotdogPi]

solution to the 88/290/294 mess

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.  How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?

Decades? His first post was in 2015, and his last was in 2017.

[ChiMilNet]

IDOT also needs to start getting rid of the Interstate-to-Interstate Cloverleaves. I-55@I-80 and I-290/IL 53@I-90 (with ISTHA cooperation) are at the top of the list that could use Full Stack upgrades, or another Flyover configuration

Both would be fine with C-D lanes.  Oh wait, the second one already has them, and the C-D roadways on I-290 have three lanes in each direction.  I've taken the loop ramp from WB I-290 to WB I-90 several times and never encountered a problem.  I don't even think there's enough space for a full stack at that location.  I don't know how you'd fit it into the existing footprint, and I certainly don't see a way for flyover runways to be fit into the northwest corner.  You could maybe squeeze in one or two tight-curve flyover/fly-under ramps, but frankly, they did such a nice job with the C-D roadways, I don't see it being worthwhile to redo that interchange.

As someone who previously used that Interchange commuting, I can tell you it is a mess at Rush Hour

55/80 had a halfhearted rebuild about 15 years ago... basically turned a very narrow cloverleaf into at least full size cloverleaf. I've heard rumors that they are looking to add one flyover, but only from 55 South to 80 East. Really, 80 East to 55 North is where it is needed the most.

As for 53/290/90, I've been through there plenty of rush hours, and I will tell you that it is in desperate need of a redo, 53 South to 90 East should have a flyover, and 290 West/53 North to 90 West also needs one. In addition, the C/D lane system there on 290/53 needs to have similar treatment to what was done on 90, eliminate one of the C/D lanes but add an extra through lane (note that this would mean widen 53 North to probably at least Euclid or even NW Highway).

[ChiMilNet]

solution to the 88/290/294 mess

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.  How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?

If you look, it basically focuses on fixing the backups that affect 294. Portions of 290 and 88 do benefit, but one of the main issues would remain (the merging of lanes on 290 inbound). Until 290 between Hillside and Chicago's West Side is widened (and those ridiculous left hand exits removed), the issues there for inbound 290 traffic will not be fully alleviated. That is an IDOT fix that would have to happen, and this fix proposed is being led and financed by the tollway. It does look like it may fix the backups that 294 experiences there, though.

[kphoger]

solution to the 88/290/294 mess

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.  How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?

Decades? His first post was in 2015, and his last was in 2017.

No, I mean the agencies have been talking about "fixing" it for decades.  And it still isn't "fixed".

[Ned Weasel]

As for 53/290/90, I've been through there plenty of rush hours, and I will tell you that it is in desperate need of a redo, 53 South to 90 East should have a flyover, and 290 West/53 North to 90 West also needs one. In addition, the C/D lane system there on 290/53 needs to have similar treatment to what was done on 90, eliminate one of the C/D lanes but add an extra through lane (note that this would mean widen 53 North to probably at least Euclid or even NW Highway).

The most important question is: How?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2509388#msg2509388

[ChiMilNet]

As for 53/290/90, I've been through there plenty of rush hours, and I will tell you that it is in desperate need of a redo, 53 South to 90 East should have a flyover, and 290 West/53 North to 90 West also needs one. In addition, the C/D lane system there on 290/53 needs to have similar treatment to what was done on 90, eliminate one of the C/D lanes but add an extra through lane (note that this would mean widen 53 North to probably at least Euclid or even NW Highway).

The most important question is: How?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2509388#msg2509388

Very high flyover on 290 North to 90 West is the only way I can think at least for that direction. I know that would require relocation of some high-tension wires, so it would be quite the undertaking to do. At the very least, the C/D idea for 290/53 (plus widening of 53 a ways North of there) would help somewhat.

[Ned Weasel]

As for 53/290/90, I've been through there plenty of rush hours, and I will tell you that it is in desperate need of a redo, 53 South to 90 East should have a flyover, and 290 West/53 North to 90 West also needs one. In addition, the C/D lane system there on 290/53 needs to have similar treatment to what was done on 90, eliminate one of the C/D lanes but add an extra through lane (note that this would mean widen 53 North to probably at least Euclid or even NW Highway).

The most important question is: How?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2509388#msg2509388

Very high flyover on 290 North to 90 West is the only way I can think at least for that direction. I know that would require relocation of some high-tension wires, so it would be quite the undertaking to do. At the very least, the C/D idea for 290/53 (plus widening of 53 a ways North of there) would help somewhat.

My second concept in the Fictional Highways post would be less expensive and would remove the cloverleaf weaving.

My problem with a flyover from WB to WB is, how do you get it onto WB I-90?  The area is so densely built-up, and there are big and important buildings so close to the north side of I-90, that I just don't see it being reasonable, even if it is the most efficient way to make that WB to WB movement.  I think you have to sacrifice speed to fit the context here.

[STLmapboy]

solution to the 88/290/294 mess

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.  How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?

It's lipstick on a pig at this point.

[Revive 755]

My problem with a flyover from WB to WB is, how do you get it onto WB I-90?  The area is so densely built-up, and there are big and important buildings so close to the north side of I-90, that I just don't see it being reasonable, even if it is the most efficient way to make that WB to WB movement.  I think you have to sacrifice speed to fit the context here.

There's more than enough space for a WB I-290 to WB I-90 flyover - this old report had one fitting in.

Where in Chicago ISN'T a mess at rush hour?

The Skyway

Now that I think of it, add Lake Shore Drive to that too.

And the Amstutz, plus most of IL 390.

[Ned Weasel]

My problem with a flyover from WB to WB is, how do you get it onto WB I-90?  The area is so densely built-up, and there are big and important buildings so close to the north side of I-90, that I just don't see it being reasonable, even if it is the most efficient way to make that WB to WB movement.  I think you have to sacrifice speed to fit the context here.

There's more than enough space for a WB I-290 to WB I-90 flyover - this old report had one fitting in.

Except there isn't, and it doesn't.

That drawing shows demolishing three apartment buildings and half each of two others.  Where are they going to provide housing for those displaced residents?  What is the full design here?  Sure, it's much better CAD work than I've been trained to do, but it's not a complete design.  Show me how you would build the displaced housing units.  Show me how you would make this work for everyone involved.  Show me how you would redo the Renaissance parking lot (that ought to be the easy part).

At least with my concept, even though it's just a few MS Paint lines, if I wanted to spend more time on it, I could show you a couple of ideas to re-build the affected portion of the IKEA parking lot if I spent enough time on drawings/graphics.

Does anyone even spend the time to think through the whole problem and solution, or is it just "Here's where I want my road, and who cares about the rest?"  We have to do better than that if we want to be taken seriously.

[kphoger]

the Amstutz

Huh.  That's the first time I'd ever heard of the Amstutz.

[paulthemapguy]

solution to the 88/290/294 mess

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.  How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?

It's lipstick on a pig at this point.

You can't fix it unless you make the Eisenhower 10 lanes or more, and that isn't going to happen.  "Lipstick on a pig" is a great simile, because the pig is the Eisenhower, and anything you do to the Hillside Strangler is going to be as devoid of function as lipstick (a fashion item).

In general, I was going to say "inb4 all of the people with limited scope deeming their home DOT the worst and whine about the little insular corner of Earth in which they live."  But I wouldn't have chimed in b4 it already happened.

[jmacswimmer]

solution to the 88/290/294 mess

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.  How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?

It's lipstick on a pig at this point.

You can't fix it unless you make the Eisenhower 10 lanes or more, and that isn't going to happen.  "Lipstick on a pig" is a great simile, because the pig is the Eisenhower, and anything you do to the Hillside Strangler is going to be as devoid of function as lipstick (a fashion item).

In general, I was going to say "inb4 all of the people with limited scope deeming their home DOT the worst and whine about the little insular corner of Earth in which they live."  But I wouldn't have chimed in b4 it already happened.

I have to agree...with a freeway as borked as the Eisenhower, any congestion-relief project is just going to push the bottleneck somewhere else (as already seen with that C-D roadway ending just past exit 17). Even if the Eisenhower was hypothetically expanded to 10+ lanes all the way to the Circle, then that just becomes an even bigger chokepoint as the now-not-held-up (and thus not metered) eastbound traffic still has to funnel into the Kennedy/Dan Ryan ramps or back up trying to enter the Loop on Congress Parkway/Ida B. Wells Drive.

Extending 8 lanes from Austin to the Strangler and doing something about the 2 left-interchanges would be better than nothing, however.

[kphoger]

Cross-posting from other threads for the sake of posterity...

The "fix" to the Hillside Strangler (I-290, I-294, I-88 merge).  The backup used to be west of Mannheim (US-12/20/45).  Now it's merely east of Mannheim.

Sounds a lot like the Crosstown Commons fix on MN 62. The major headache in the old interchange began with the eastbound drop to one lane at Lyndale. The rebuild moved the lane drop east of 35W to Portland Avenue instead. What really changes?

The OP appears to be looking for new problems that cropped up from a given road project.  Both the Crosstown Commons and Hillside Strangler references are cases where a problem remains, but isn't as large a problem as it was before.  I'm not aware of any "new" problems that have cropped up with the Crosstown Commons.

I'll beg to differ with you on the Hillside Strangler.  The problem remains, and is just as big as it was before the "fix".

The "fix" to the Hillside Strangler (I-290, I-294, I-88 merge).  The backup used to be west of Mannheim (US-12/20/45).  Now it's merely east of Mannheim.

I'll beg to differ with you on the Hillside Strangler.  The problem remains, and is just as big as it was before the "fix".

So which is it?

There's no contradiction there. The backup moved from one location to another without getting smaller.

Does the Hillside Strangler count here?

I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread.  IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.

This is the first thing that came to mind.  I-15 at SR-92 was the second, and that was also covered upthread.  So good job guys lol

Moving the traffic jam on I-290 farther east might have been advantageous just because it took some of the jamming out of the interchange with I-294/88.  People going from EB I-88 to NB I-294, for example, may have to suffer less as a result.  You knew IDOT/ISTHA knew they were just relocating the traffic jam.  But maybe doing that could be a helpful thing for people other than those going from I-88 EB to I-290 EB.

IMHO, I think getting rid of the side by side 294 / 290 for the two or so miles is key to solving this problem.

Actually, that might make it worse.  Instead of keeping the two traffic streams separate as they are now (and are at I-88 and I-355), you would introduce a massive amount of merging.  And with the way the locals love to lane jockey, it would be a nightmare.

Don't cross the streams.

Never... EVER.... cross those streams. It's bad enough as is, but if these merges occurred that section would be gridlock 12 hours a day

[STLmapboy]

OK, I never thought I'd say this, but...I actually kind of like LADODT now.

I went to see a family member and got a chance to ride on a newly-widened section of I-12: https://www.google.pl/maps/@30.4678367,-90.8792648,3a,75y,86.84h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXhLGBG0Z4ENZO0j3C3CPdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The pavement was great, the road was smooth, the signage was consistent...it was way better than I expected.

[Scott5114]

- OKDOT - Poorly maintained highways, inadequate system (US 69 should have been upgraded decades ago), less than stellar scenery in many spots

Blaming the DOT for scenery is a new one.

I don't want to see what sort of hellscape ODOT would put together if they were in charge of scenery.

[index]

OK, I never thought I'd say this, but...I actually kind of like LADODT now.

I went to see a family member and got a chance to ride on a newly-widened section of I-12: https://www.google.pl/maps/@30.4678367,-90.8792648,3a,75y,86.84h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXhLGBG0Z4ENZO0j3C3CPdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The pavement was great, the road was smooth, the signage was consistent...it was way better than I expected.

From my years of looking at places on GSV they definitely seem to have improved. I'm also very fond of their RRPM overuse. Seeing that stuff light up at night is beyond satisfying.