Illinois Tollway Notes

[SSOWorld]

Lighter side: Hillside strangler strangling more than traffic.

[mgk920]

"Tollway didn't talk to us...but they cited two provisions to us.."

Agencies don't terminate contracts lightly.  It'd be great if journalists would wait to get the filed response to the plaintiff's complaint to report on such lawsuits to avoid one-sided articles like this due to legal advice to not talk about lawsuits...

So journalists shouldn't report on a lawsuit until the other side files a response? That's not really a great standard.

Sure it is.  It's called not printing a biased story.

Over a century ago, newspapers were at WAR against each other.  What you see now in the media is totally mild compared to then.

Mike

[GeekJedi]

"Tollway didn't talk to us...but they cited two provisions to us.."

Agencies don't terminate contracts lightly.  It'd be great if journalists would wait to get the filed response to the plaintiff's complaint to report on such lawsuits to avoid one-sided articles like this due to legal advice to not talk about lawsuits...

So journalists shouldn't report on a lawsuit until the other side files a response? That's not really a great standard.

Sure it is.  It's called not printing a biased story.

Interesting. So if something of note happens, I can keep it silent by not telling one side of the story? Sounds legit.

[Rothman]

"Tollway didn't talk to us...but they cited two provisions to us.."

Agencies don't terminate contracts lightly.  It'd be great if journalists would wait to get the filed response to the plaintiff's complaint to report on such lawsuits to avoid one-sided articles like this due to legal advice to not talk about lawsuits...

So journalists shouldn't report on a lawsuit until the other side files a response? That's not really a great standard.

Sure it is.  It's called not printing a biased story.

Interesting. So if something of note happens, I can keep it silent by not telling one side of the story? Sounds legit.

You can keep it silent until you're ready to report a balanced story.

[SEWIGuy]

"Tollway didn't talk to us...but they cited two provisions to us.."

Agencies don't terminate contracts lightly.  It'd be great if journalists would wait to get the filed response to the plaintiff's complaint to report on such lawsuits to avoid one-sided articles like this due to legal advice to not talk about lawsuits...

So journalists shouldn't report on a lawsuit until the other side files a response? That's not really a great standard.

Sure it is.  It's called not printing a biased story.

"Printing" was actually happens isn't bias.  The fact that the other side doesn't respond isn't the fault of the publisher.

[Rothman]

"Tollway didn't talk to us...but they cited two provisions to us.."

Agencies don't terminate contracts lightly.  It'd be great if journalists would wait to get the filed response to the plaintiff's complaint to report on such lawsuits to avoid one-sided articles like this due to legal advice to not talk about lawsuits...

So journalists shouldn't report on a lawsuit until the other side files a response? That's not really a great standard.

Sure it is.  It's called not printing a biased story.

"Printing" was actually happens isn't bias.  The fact that the other side doesn't respond isn't the fault of the publisher.

Pfft.  By law, the party must respond to the official complaint.  Journalists know this and choosing to print the story prior to the response is just wanting to run a biased story.

[SEWIGuy]

"Tollway didn't talk to us...but they cited two provisions to us.."

Agencies don't terminate contracts lightly.  It'd be great if journalists would wait to get the filed response to the plaintiff's complaint to report on such lawsuits to avoid one-sided articles like this due to legal advice to not talk about lawsuits...

So journalists shouldn't report on a lawsuit until the other side files a response? That's not really a great standard.

Sure it is.  It's called not printing a biased story.

"Printing" was actually happens isn't bias.  The fact that the other side doesn't respond isn't the fault of the publisher.

Pfft.  By law, the party must respond to the official complaint.  Journalists know this and choosing to print the story prior to the response is just wanting to run a biased story.

I can't really have a discussion any longer with someone who doesn't understand what "bias" means or how journalism works.

[Rothman]

"Tollway didn't talk to us...but they cited two provisions to us.."

Agencies don't terminate contracts lightly.  It'd be great if journalists would wait to get the filed response to the plaintiff's complaint to report on such lawsuits to avoid one-sided articles like this due to legal advice to not talk about lawsuits...

So journalists shouldn't report on a lawsuit until the other side files a response? That's not really a great standard.

Sure it is.  It's called not printing a biased story.

"Printing" was actually happens isn't bias.  The fact that the other side doesn't respond isn't the fault of the publisher.

Pfft.  By law, the party must respond to the official complaint.  Journalists know this and choosing to print the story prior to the response is just wanting to run a biased story.

I can't really have a discussion any longer with someone who doesn't understand what "bias" means or how journalism works.

Ditto.

[SSOWorld]

[hobsini2]

"Tollway didn't talk to us...but they cited two provisions to us.."

Agencies don't terminate contracts lightly.  It'd be great if journalists would wait to get the filed response to the plaintiff's complaint to report on such lawsuits to avoid one-sided articles like this due to legal advice to not talk about lawsuits...

So journalists shouldn't report on a lawsuit until the other side files a response? That's not really a great standard.

Sure it is.  It's called not printing a biased story.

Interesting. So if something of note happens, I can keep it silent by not telling one side of the story? Sounds legit.

You can keep it silent until you're ready to report a balanced story.

Or you can be like Fox News and show bias but call it "Fair and balanced". But that's not why you called.

[J N Winkler]

Folks, take care--this is verging on becoming a political discussion.

[ET21]

On a more on track update, all the steel beams are up over 294 for the 490 ramp. On a side note, construction progress has finally begun to happen south of the I-90/490 interchange. Also a I-490 sign is currently turned backwards at what will be the future on ramp from EB I-90.

[paulthemapguy]

Lighter side: Hillside strangler strangling more than traffic.

Strangling counts as "lighter side" content???

(obviously I took this out of context)

[ET21]

SB 294 has added a new overhead signage ahead of the new I-290/88 interchange. They also have shifted SB 294 to the left between Ogden and 55th while the west side is completely dug up. The dreaded center bridge pier split has returned SB at BNSF/47th Street

[midwesternroadguy]

Is there any planning or design work on the Woodfield I-290/Jane Addams interchange? I suspect that's on the back burner until I-490 and the I-290/294 improvements are done. 

[ET21]

The express lanes on NB 294 between Roosevelt and North Ave were shifted a bit. The two left lanes have been extended past St Charles to just before North Ave and shifted onto new pavement between 290 and North Ave.

Work has also begun on the EB lanes of 290 for the new ramps. Everyone has been shifted left with 3 lanes now on the EB 290/SB 294 ramp and the two right lanes of SB 294.

[JoePCool14]

The dreaded center bridge pier split has returned SB at BNSF/47th Street.

Still amazed that they get away with that. Seems like a hazard if someone's trying to change lanes and just misses the the fact there's a pier coming up. Then again, as someone who's been tasked with coming up with staging operations and maintenance of traffic, it's not easy.

[ET21]

The dreaded center bridge pier split has returned SB at BNSF/47th Street.

Still amazed that they get away with that. Seems like a hazard if someone's trying to change lanes and just misses the the fact there's a pier coming up. Then again, as someone who's been tasked with coming up with staging operations and maintenance of traffic, it's not easy.

An interesting new twist is now its only 3 lanes on SB 294 from the I-88 ramp to just past 47th St with that bridge split now. I think we might be seeing a new "express" lane with the new pattern change.

[SSOWorld]

The dreaded center bridge pier split has returned SB at BNSF/47th Street.

Still amazed that they get away with that. Seems like a hazard if someone's trying to change lanes and just misses the the fact there's a pier coming up. Then again, as someone who's been tasked with coming up with staging operations and maintenance of traffic, it's not easy.

An interesting new twist is now its only 3 lanes on SB 294 from the I-88 ramp to just past 47th St with that bridge split now. I think we might be seeing a new "express" lane with the new pattern change.

if they're even working on that - recall, ISTHA shit-canned the contractor.

[I-39]

Is there any planning or design work on the Woodfield I-290/Jane Addams interchange? I suspect that's on the back burner until I-490 and the I-290/294 improvements are done. 

This was probably more necessary than the whole IL-390/I-490 project IMO.

[Brandon]

Is there any planning or design work on the Woodfield I-290/Jane Addams interchange? I suspect that's on the back burner until I-490 and the I-290/294 improvements are done. 

This was probably more necessary than the whole IL-390/I-490 project IMO.

The problem has been, and always has been, is getting IDOT onboard with it.  IDOT, thus far, seems unwilling to address the issue.

It wouldn't be the first time ISTHA had issues with IDOT.  They had trouble with the I-88/290/294 interchange as well until they took the proverbial bull by the horns and did it themselves.  That forced IDOT's hand.

[Rick Powell]

The problem has been, and always has been, is getting IDOT onboard with it.  IDOT, thus far, seems unwilling to address the issue.

It wouldn't be the first time ISTHA had issues with IDOT.  They had trouble with the I-88/290/294 interchange as well until they took the proverbial bull by the horns and did it themselves.  That forced IDOT's hand.

A re-do of a system interchange that doesn't add any new movements or connections (unlike I-57/294) is not usually a money-maker either, so not a whole lot of incentive for ISTHA to "take the bull by the horns" in this instance. A single flyover from NB IL 53 to WB I-90 and eliminating the NE loop ramp (similar to what is being built at I-80/I-55 by IDOT) would be better than nothing.

[ET21]

Is there any planning or design work on the Woodfield I-290/Jane Addams interchange? I suspect that's on the back burner until I-490 and the I-290/294 improvements are done. 

This was probably more necessary than the whole IL-390/I-490 project IMO.

I'd argue no just because I don't think we'll realize how much traffic volume will be abated between Grand Ave and I-90 on 294 until once this is done. This is gonna help funnel a lot of traffic that normally gets stuck and starts the daily backup we always see in that section of 294.

However I do agree that 290/53/90 needs a modern overhaul, was kinda mad we didn't get that at all with the 90 rebuild. Plus ISTHA deciding to knock down a lane in the tollbooth from EB 90 to EB 290/SB 53 when the cash boxes were eliminated was asinine and just creates even more of a backup.

[lstone19]

However I do agree that 290/53/90 needs a modern overhaul, was kinda mad we didn't get that at all with the 90 rebuild. Plus ISTHA deciding to knock down a lane in the tollbooth from EB 90 to EB 290/SB 53 when the cash boxes were eliminated was asinine and just creates even more of a backup.

No it doesn't as that's not the chokepoint. It's the single lane leading to the C/D roadway and then the weaving with people trying to get off at Woodfield Rd. As a former resident of the area, if I was coming south on 53 and needed to exit to Higgins Rd. and go west, I'd try to use the Woodfield Rd. ramp to give me more room for the weave on the frontage road even though that made the weave between the I-90 ramp and the Woodfield Rd. ramp worse. That whole interchange is ten pounds in the proverbial five pounds and right now, all you can do is move the chokepoints.

[ET21]

SB 294 has a single new express lane from Cermak to just past 47th St. 3 local lanes serve the Ogden Ave interchange. Two right/two left lanes then split at the bridge median still.