AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn  (Read 10118 times)

quickshade

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 158
  • Location: Northern Illinois
  • Last Login: October 21, 2017, 02:09:06 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2015, 11:12:35 AM »

The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.
Logged

Mrt90

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 72
  • Location: Kenosha County, WI / Lake County, IL
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 02:20:18 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2015, 01:43:31 PM »

The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.
Do you know what route is planned for the Richmond bypass?  That part of the state (Richmond/Spring Grove/Johnsburg) seems to be booming right now, so I hope they don't wait too long until more subdivisions get put in and then those people don't want a highway near their homes.  Because that seems to happen all too often in northeastern Illinois.
Logged

Joe The Dragon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: 60016
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:21 AM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2015, 01:57:08 PM »

The bypass for Richmond will be built at some point, and while the question will always remain as "when" I have to say that it has to be high on the list for IDOT, the city of Richmond and McHenry County. Richmond becomes a traffic jam on the weekends in the summer and if anyone has tried to travel that road during Country Thunder weekend know you mind as well just walk to your destination. Rauner has stated he wants to put money into our roads program, and with 53/120 being one of the thing that the Illinois Tollway will take up next after the I90 rebuild is done in 2016 and the 390/290 interchange being completed in 2017 I would have to believe that they can at least secure funding for another phase of this project. I know it's Illinois we are talking here but it's not a matter of if more of when.
they can toll the Richmond bypass and find a way to tie it into the IL-120 / IL-53 work.
Logged

quickshade

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 158
  • Location: Northern Illinois
  • Last Login: October 21, 2017, 02:09:06 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #28 on: September 03, 2015, 05:47:06 PM »

I know the state owns a whole bunch of land in McHenry county, and I believe that the FAP 420 route was the most favorable option as that was the one that had the least impact on environment and cost. This was the ROW that the state got to build 53 in the first place many years ago. However where it goes after it connects back into the 12/31 intersection is anyones guess. If 53 does get extended to 120 you have to question what they would do next. I know the state had land set aside 20 years ago but I can't see how they would build it now considering the buildup the area has gone through in the past 20 years. I know there are plans around on 31 bypasses, 120 bypasses and such but I have a feeling until 53 is set in stone (construction started) none of these plans will be dusted off.

Logged

GeekJedi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 47
  • Location: I-43 & WI 83
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:47 AM
    • The Geek Jedi
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2015, 06:05:10 PM »

Last I heard, there wasn't going to be a Richmond Bypass. At least not one in the traditional sense. It got shot down pretty quickly at the city and county levels.
Logged
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

Joe The Dragon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: 60016
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:21 AM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2015, 03:07:37 PM »

I know the state owns a whole bunch of land in McHenry county, and I believe that the FAP 420 route was the most favorable option as that was the one that had the least impact on environment and cost. This was the ROW that the state got to build 53 in the first place many years ago. However where it goes after it connects back into the 12/31 intersection is anyones guess. If 53 does get extended to 120 you have to question what they would do next. I know the state had land set aside 20 years ago but I can't see how they would build it now considering the buildup the area has gone through in the past 20 years. I know there are plans around on 31 bypasses, 120 bypasses and such but I have a feeling until 53 is set in stone (construction started) none of these plans will be dusted off.
some where near mccullom lake road??

really no way to bypass fox lake with a  big / long bridge so more of a near IL-120 till McHenry route. Maybe can do a solon mills bypass / 4 laning of US12 up to it.

also 31 needs 4 lanes from mchenry to richmound and McHenry to crystal lake. randall rd / james rakow road maybe 3 lanes each way from 31 to I-90 with wided I-90 bridge.

randall rd should have been a interstate / toll road. Near Il-47 huntley still has some room to punch something though. Long term maybe some there linked to US-12 freeway in WI all the way down to I-80 with an eoe link along us 20
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1052
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: October 09, 2017, 10:02:34 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2015, 03:44:09 PM »

The EPA (or some environmental group) is not allowing the Richmond Bypass to link directly into the US 12 interchange in Genoa City because there are some wetlands just south of it. It's kind of ridiculous :rolleyes:

As for the rest of the FAP 420 right-of-way, nothing will ever be built along it because it routes through Glacial Park and Volo Blog, two extremely sensitive conservation areas. And they can't really route around it at this point without destroying a ton of development. So in short, the Richmond-Waukegan Expressway will never be built.

As such, WisDOT does not need to continue the Interstate-grade freeway along the US 12 corridor between Elkhorn and Whitewater. An expressway or upgrading the existing route will do.
Logged

Joe The Dragon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Location: 60016
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:21 AM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2015, 09:52:56 PM »

The EPA (or some environmental group) is not allowing the Richmond Bypass to link directly into the US 12 interchange in Genoa City because there are some wetlands just south of it. It's kind of ridiculous :rolleyes:

As for the rest of the FAP 420 right-of-way, nothing will ever be built along it because it routes through Glacial Park and Volo Blog, two extremely sensitive conservation areas. And they can't really route around it at this point without destroying a ton of development. So in short, the Richmond-Waukegan Expressway will never be built.

As such, WisDOT does not need to continue the Interstate-grade freeway along the US 12 corridor between Elkhorn and Whitewater. An expressway or upgrading the existing route will do.

we can vote trump and he can make it so the states have more control over this EPA stuff. Also the found a way to build the I-355 ext in some environmental areas.

also why not double desk some roads / pull an EOE and trun an old free road in to a toll road + some frontage roads?
Logged

iBallasticwolf2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 951
  • :/

  • Location: Kenton County, KY
  • Last Login: October 21, 2017, 08:59:29 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2015, 10:09:07 PM »

we can vote trump
Here comes the politics.
Logged
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2751
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: October 22, 2017, 08:49:37 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2015, 11:55:39 PM »

As I mentioned in another thread, how possible would it be to do something like the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline (US 12/18) in those places?

Mike
Logged

GeekJedi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 47
  • Location: I-43 & WI 83
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:47 AM
    • The Geek Jedi
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2015, 10:02:40 AM »

we can vote trump and he can make it so the states have more control over this EPA stuff.

That won't make a bit of difference. It won't be like people will all of a sudden be willing to tear up wetlands because they can.
Logged
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

GeekJedi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 432
  • Age: 47
  • Location: I-43 & WI 83
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:47 AM
    • The Geek Jedi
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2015, 10:05:04 AM »

As I mentioned in another thread, how possible would it be to do something like the Yahara Marsh bridge on the Madison, WI Beltline (US 12/18) in those places?

Mike

Guessing pretty difficult. The Yahara marsh bridging was done in a much different time. Something like that would be difficult to pull off today, unless it was an absolutely critical project. I don't see US-12 as being that important.
Logged
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

quickshade

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 158
  • Location: Northern Illinois
  • Last Login: October 21, 2017, 02:09:06 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2015, 12:29:31 PM »

See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.

Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.

Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.

31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.

To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 12:35:12 PM by quickshade »
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1052
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: October 09, 2017, 10:02:34 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2015, 01:34:00 PM »

See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.

Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.

Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.

31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.

To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?

I do not disagree that the FAP 420 corridor should have been built, but I am saying now it would be almost impossible for it to be built, because the mapped ROW crosses two state conservation areas and there is no way they could get a permit to build through those areas. At this point, it is too late to build around the conservation areas because there's too much development.

FAP 420 is dead, forever. We'll just have to live with it.
Logged

I-90

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 83
  • way to Chicago I-90 or I-290

  • Age: 60
  • Location: Streamwood IL
  • Last Login: October 07, 2017, 01:50:00 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2017, 08:04:23 AM »

See it was that thought and reasoning why 53 never got fully built in the first place. Then things developed, and now it's more needed then ever. It's the IDOT way but hopefully we can change that. Just some info on the McHenry County area for those who are interested.

Volo/Lakemoor: both plan on having a 10-15% growth in the next 20 years, including an entire retail area at the corner of 12 and 120, last I had heard about this (so correct me if i'm wrong) but they were looking at a commons area much like the other 2 done along Randall Road. Now include the future 53/120 expansion in that and you increase traffic that much more.

Huntley area has ranked among top 10 for housing permits since 2010 and with the recent I90 interchange I can only see business increasing in that area.

31 is now 4 lanes from Lake in the Hills to Crystal Lake and I know the Crystal Lake to McHenry area is on the planning board for the next 5 years to at least get plans developed, with the intersection of Bull Valley road, Miller Road and 31 going to be finished this year to 4 lanes and Miller Road 4 lanes from 31 east across the Fox River and room to expand it to 4 lanes all the way to 120.

To me your going to have the traffic flow, the question is where do you direct it? Your going to have increase in expansion, increase in population and increase in area shopping and at some point are we going to be sitting here in this forum 20 years from now complaining about the Route 12 bypass much like we did with 53 for all those years?

I do not disagree that the FAP 420 corridor should have been built, but I am saying now it would be almost impossible for it to be built, because the mapped ROW crosses two state conservation areas and there is no way they could get a permit to build through those areas. At this point, it is too late to build around the conservation areas because there's too much development.

FAP 420 is dead, forever. We'll just have to live with it.
Maybe maybe not if it were dead all of the row for the corridor would be covered with houseing developments
« Last Edit: April 13, 2017, 05:46:48 PM by I-90 »
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

Quote from someone

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Oakville, MO
  • Last Login: October 17, 2017, 11:07:02 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #40 on: April 15, 2017, 06:05:45 PM »

Are the wetlands in question just the small area straddling the state border? If so, that area can be easily avoided. It would require some inventive interchange design. But it could be done.
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3167
  • Last Login: October 22, 2017, 12:43:43 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #41 on: April 15, 2017, 07:33:32 PM »

Maybe maybe not if it were dead all of the row for the corridor would be covered with houseing developments

I second this - it's not completely dead until IDOT sells all of the ROW.

Are the wetlands in question just the small area straddling the state border? If so, that area can be easily avoided. It would require some inventive interchange design. But it could be done.

Based on a previous thread on this topic (with nonfunctional links), it appears the wetlands were not going to be easy to get around.
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2751
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: October 22, 2017, 08:49:37 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #42 on: April 15, 2017, 11:13:49 PM »

Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?

Also, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings.  Would that be possible?

Mike
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3167
  • Last Login: October 22, 2017, 12:43:43 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2017, 03:17:31 PM »

Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?

IIRC there were a couple alternatives to the east of Richmond, but there were still enough wetlands to the east to be a problem.

Also, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings.  Would that be possible?

Mike

There would still be the impacts during construction, but I think the main issue would be with the permitting agencies.
Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2079
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: September 17, 2017, 08:07:03 PM
Re: U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2017, 05:44:29 PM »

Could a Richmond bypass be routed around the city's east side and then directly fed into the east-west part of US 12 SE of Richmond?

IIRC there were a couple alternatives to the east of Richmond, but there were still enough wetlands to the east to be a problem.

Also, I posited upthread the idea of duplicating the Madison, WI Beltline's Yahara Marsh bridge for these US 12 marsh crossings.  Would that be possible?

Mike

There would still be the impacts during construction, but I think the main issue would be with the permitting agencies.

Yes the east ideas would be a bigger problem due to Elizabeth Lake and the Elizabeth Lake Nature Preserve east of town.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4710843,-88.3117106,10461m/data=!3m1!1e3

The west wetlands area in question are between the end of the freeway and Ill 173 and west to Keystone Rd. I believe that creek is the Nippersink Creek which connects Powers Lake with the Chain of Lakes area by Fox Lake.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

 


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.