AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......  (Read 25953 times)

ILRoad55

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 106
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Chicago Suburbs
  • Last Login: October 13, 2017, 03:38:19 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #100 on: October 23, 2016, 09:37:18 PM »

I tried to visualize his layout. All i understood was the EB88/NB294 Flyover ramp to WB290. The rest I just kind of guessed because I had no idea what he was referring to. I don't support this idea, but it truly bothered me that the person who is considering this project does not give us maps of how the interchanges will look.



By the way, some parts seem rather difficult to deal with such as the section right when SB294 enters onto EB290 and then you have a ramp going onto this Hypo. That'll just be the new SB294 + EB290 ramp + WB88 Ramp section. The ramps on/off the Hypo at 88 seem kind of deadly.

Also a side note, why the hell would you want to live right in the middle of 3 Major Interstates intersecting with each other?
Logged
Just a person who loves Roads, construction, maps and anything similar.

Hope to live in NYC someday.

pianocello

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 952
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Davenport/Ames, IA
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 01:13:13 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #101 on: October 23, 2016, 09:46:17 PM »

Ok, dzlsabe, you keep bringing up your hypotenuse, and this thread seems to be the most relevant to the question that I'm sure many of us are wondering:

How do you propose tying your hypotenuse into the existing Strangler?
Oh Godt. Here we go again.

Hey now. I don't recall anyone actually asking this, and I wanted to know if he had thought of this part.



https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8773203,-87.9153258,1260m/data=!3m1!1e3

On the WB 290 side, many have suggested the EB 88 and NB 294 ramps flyover (eliminating the oval) of 294 and the SB 294 ramp to land just south of Electric Av at the 15E on the map. Thats a fine idea. Add a lane from the WB Hypo there as well. This would be coming from near the 290 shield and RR line. An exit from Hypo would merge to NB 294.

On the EB 290 an exit over the RR line at the 290 shield. SB 294 has already merged with 290.

Ramps to/from 88 and NB 294 would happen in between the 17 and Darmstadt.

Don't you mean the WB 88 ramp? There is no EB 88 ramp from 290 WB.

If I'm getting this correctly, he's referring to the NB-NWB loop ramp, which is the only movement between EB 88 and WB 290.

Quote
Here's the other thing. Draw it on a map please. Having just a description of trying to figure out your idea does not help. Here is a good site to use to do that.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/
And if you don't know how to use it, ask. MAPS YOU DRAW ARE A MUST when you are making proposals if you want any credibility. Don't just give an image of the current area.

My crude rendition (hope link works): https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/HypoStrangler/03hPZCR6fN

Edit: ILRoad55 posted his rendition first. I like his version better, even though I don't like the whole Hypo idea in the first place. No matter how this is done, there's going to be a metric butt-ton of weaving. And
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 09:50:00 PM by pianocello »
Logged

dzlsabe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 827
  • More concrete, less guns.

  • Location: SHIKAAKWA
  • Last Login: August 08, 2017, 10:57:14 AM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #102 on: October 23, 2016, 10:43:00 PM »

I tried to visualize his layout. All i understood was the EB88/NB294 Flyover ramp to WB290. The rest I just kind of guessed because I had no idea what he was referring to. I don't support this idea, but it truly bothered me that the person who is considering this project does not give us maps of how the interchanges will look.



By the way, some parts seem rather difficult to deal with such as the section right when SB294 enters onto EB290 and then you have a ramp going onto this Hypo. That'll just be the new SB294 + EB290 ramp + WB88 Ramp section. The ramps on/off the Hypo at 88 seem kind of deadly.

Also a side note, why the hell would you want to live right in the middle of 3 Major Interstates intersecting with each other?

Thats pretty close. Double lane/combine the flyover(s) 294. No need for the horseshoes at 17/Darmstadt. Any of those crazy movements get handled by Mannheim. Only thing missing is the WB Hypo to 88. Ill have a map up to snuff soon, but this is basically it.
Logged
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

ILRoad55

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 106
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Chicago Suburbs
  • Last Login: October 13, 2017, 03:38:19 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #103 on: October 23, 2016, 11:12:41 PM »

I mean in no way is this actually going to fix the Strangler. What needs to be done is to somehow 4-lane 290 in this area. Or even at least 3 lane it (on the EB side) when it splits for a C&D ramp for Mannheim.

Pull back the SB294 ramp onto EB290, maybe reconfigure St. Charles to incorporate a SB294 to EB290 ramp and remove the current one. This would allow room for the EB290 ramp onto SB294.

And don't make I-88 one lane as it approaches I-290, that is bad. Perhaps make Mannheim a better interchange too like a SPUI or a DDI to allow more lanes to go underneath.
Logged
Just a person who loves Roads, construction, maps and anything similar.

Hope to live in NYC someday.

dzlsabe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 827
  • More concrete, less guns.

  • Location: SHIKAAKWA
  • Last Login: August 08, 2017, 10:57:14 AM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #104 on: October 23, 2016, 11:32:55 PM »

If Hypo takes a fifth, even quarter load off Congress Ike, maybe nothing needs be done. If anything needs 8 lanes its X Ike up to North Av.
Logged
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

Joe The Dragon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 634
  • Location: 60016
  • Last Login: Today at 02:50:17 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #105 on: October 24, 2016, 11:33:39 AM »

I mean in no way is this actually going to fix the Strangler. What needs to be done is to somehow 4-lane 290 in this area. Or even at least 3 lane it (on the EB side) when it splits for a C&D ramp for Mannheim.

Pull back the SB294 ramp onto EB290, maybe reconfigure St. Charles to incorporate a SB294 to EB290 ramp and remove the current one. This would allow room for the EB290 ramp onto SB294.

And don't make I-88 one lane as it approaches I-290, that is bad. Perhaps make Mannheim a better interchange too like a SPUI or a DDI to allow more lanes to go underneath.
under Mannheim EB is 3 with room for 1 more + 2 with aux.

Now WB can use an C/D setup or maybe getting rid of the loop ramp.

The crush at the railroad is the big choke point. Maybe making the frontages one way or even part of an C/D setup and removing the loop ramps at 25 can help on the cheap.

Now going the other way on I-88 it needs to be 4 lanes till the i-pass / cash split point or



from http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10015.0
« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 11:42:16 AM by Joe The Dragon »
Logged

CtrlAltDel

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 448
  • Location: East Tennessee
  • Last Login: Today at 04:30:16 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #106 on: October 29, 2016, 11:55:19 PM »

Is is possible to make this ramp work (the one with the green arrow that links 294N to 290W)?



What I'm wondering is if there's enough space for the ramp to cross over 290 and then sink down under 294. The bridge there is actually fairly high, and there may not be enough room for the descent.
Logged
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465, 640

ILRoad55

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 106
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Chicago Suburbs
  • Last Login: October 13, 2017, 03:38:19 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #107 on: October 30, 2016, 09:00:10 AM »

I was imagining it to go above both 290 and 294.
Logged
Just a person who loves Roads, construction, maps and anything similar.

Hope to live in NYC someday.

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2079
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: September 17, 2017, 08:07:03 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #108 on: October 30, 2016, 09:45:22 AM »

Is is possible to make this ramp work (the one with the green arrow that links 294N to 290W)?



What I'm wondering is if there's enough space for the ramp to cross over 290 and then sink down under 294. The bridge there is actually fairly high, and there may not be enough room for the descent.
In my idea for the flyover NB 294 to WB 290 ramp, the ramp would be 15 feet higher than 294. when It merges with 290, yes it would be a bit of a steep grade if the St Charles Rd interchange doesn't change hence why I changed that too.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

dzlsabe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 827
  • More concrete, less guns.

  • Location: SHIKAAKWA
  • Last Login: August 08, 2017, 10:57:14 AM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #109 on: November 09, 2016, 01:00:43 AM »

No need for two flyovers. Combine them and both land by Electric Av. And kill the horseshoes.

Getting the WB onto 88 here will not be that easy.    https://www.google.com/maps/dir///@41.8728253,-87.9082749,79m/data=!3m1!1e3



Thats four lanes about sixty feet wide.

 

Why lose Harrison and Indian Joe, trying to cram more lanes through there? How much traffic is really headed to around Cicero and/or Midway? Or Indiana and points east. If maybe 25% less traffic was NOT headed down the Ike, the "problem" would not exist
« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 01:19:45 AM by dzlsabe »
Logged
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 633
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 02:46:13 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #110 on: November 11, 2016, 03:31:01 PM »

I was just looking at some maps, and I came up with an idea, but it would require losing Harrison and Indian Joe Rd. under the tracks just to the west of 25th.  Not sure how that would play with the locals.
Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2079
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: September 17, 2017, 08:07:03 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #111 on: November 11, 2016, 05:22:19 PM »

I was just looking at some maps, and I came up with an idea, but it would require losing Harrison and Indian Joe Rd. under the tracks just to the west of 25th.  Not sure how that would play with the locals.
It's tricky. What do you have in mind?
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 633
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 02:46:13 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #112 on: November 12, 2016, 02:23:54 PM »

I was just looking at some maps, and I came up with an idea, but it would require losing Harrison and Indian Joe Rd. under the tracks just to the west of 25th.  Not sure how that would play with the locals.
It's tricky. What do you have in mind?

It involves a couple of local exit lanes from the 294 / 290 / 88 all the way to just past 25th, and replacing US 45 and 25th st with SPUIs. I still need to hash the idea out fully, however. Might not be enough room.
Logged

dzlsabe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 827
  • More concrete, less guns.

  • Location: SHIKAAKWA
  • Last Login: August 08, 2017, 10:57:14 AM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #113 on: March 23, 2017, 11:22:56 PM »

At 290 and 355, why are there THREE lanes going to Joliet, only two to Chicago, then at the Strangler, only a single lane going to 294?
Logged
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

Joe The Dragon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 634
  • Location: 60016
  • Last Login: Today at 02:50:17 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #114 on: March 24, 2017, 10:49:25 AM »

At 290 and 355, why are there THREE lanes going to Joliet, only two to Chicago, then at the Strangler, only a single lane going to 294?
I-294 needs a C/D setup to be able to add more ramp lanes.
Logged

dzlsabe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 827
  • More concrete, less guns.

  • Location: SHIKAAKWA
  • Last Login: August 08, 2017, 10:57:14 AM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #115 on: March 25, 2017, 01:27:24 AM »

At 290 and 355, why are there THREE lanes going to Joliet, only two to Chicago, then at the Strangler, only a single lane going to 294?
I-294 needs a C/D setup to be able to add more ramp lanes.
I continuously advocate a double lane from I-290 to SB 294, along with widening the stretch from 355 to (and probably from) the Strangler. Its barely sufficient now and SAH aint gonna be in the future. And certainly an eventual flyover from 290 to W 90 needs to be in the mix. I often wonder if IDOT and ISTHA are on the same page, maybe not even the same book.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 01:41:04 AM by dzlsabe »
Logged
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

Joe The Dragon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 634
  • Location: 60016
  • Last Login: Today at 02:50:17 PM
Re: The main problem with the Hillside Strangler is.......
« Reply #116 on: March 25, 2017, 06:16:13 PM »

At 290 and 355, why are there THREE lanes going to Joliet, only two to Chicago, then at the Strangler, only a single lane going to 294?
I-294 needs a C/D setup to be able to add more ramp lanes.
I continuously advocate a double lane from I-290 to SB 294, along with widening the stretch from 355 to (and probably from) the Strangler. Its barely sufficient now and SAH aint gonna be in the future. And certainly an eventual flyover from 290 to W 90 needs to be in the mix. I often wonder if IDOT and ISTHA are on the same page, maybe not even the same book.
I hope the 2020-2022 work fixes that!
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.