Illinois 53 Extension

[dietermoreno]

Stupid question, but couldn't the ISTHA just buy more land on each side of the existing IDOT ROW to have the parkway environmental features while having an interstate standard 6 lane tollway with wide inner shoulders for Pace-bus-on-shoulder?

I don't see how sprawling subdivisions are any more environmentally friendly than a 6 lane interstate.  Hawthorn Woods doesn't understand this.

[I-39]

Stupid question, but couldn't the ISTHA just buy more land on each side of the existing IDOT ROW to have the parkway environmental features while having an interstate standard 6 lane tollway with wide inner shoulders for Pace-bus-on-shoulder?

I don't see how sprawling subdivisions are any more environmentally friendly than a 6 lane interstate.  Hawthorn Woods doesn't understand this.

I believe most of the existing ROW could support six lanes with wide shoulders for buses, just like I-90 between Rockford and Elgin. Perhaps they'd need wider ROW through some of the Mundelein subdivisions, but I'm not sure exactly how much right of way is owned.

Amen to your second point. Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods are being complete hypocrites when they cry about destroying wetlands and open space with the IL-53 extension, yet, they went ahead and built MANY developments over wetlands and open space over the years.

[I-39]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html


The drama continues...........................

[tribar]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html


The drama continues...........................

I think you have to be a subscriber in order to read this. 

[WarrenWallace]

Google "highway 53 lake zurich" then click on the news tab

[WarrenWallace]

I don't have a dog in this fight.  But I don't like the idea of a roadway being forced down people's throats if the residents of those 4 towns down want it.  For all we know, a big chunk of them moved there cause they didn't want high development and higher capacity roadways.

[tribar]

I don't have a dog in this fight.  But I don't like the idea of a roadway being forced down people's throats if the residents of those 4 towns down want it.  For all we know, a big chunk of them moved there cause they didn't want high development and higher capacity roadways.

They aren't demolishing any houses for it though.  I don't even think it goes near that many houses.  This roadway is desperately needed in Lake County.  Sometimes you have to take one for the team.   

[Brandon]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-zurich/news/ct-lzc-route-53-hawthorn-woods-tl-0827-20150818-story.html


The drama continues...........................

Joe "Hypocrite" Mancino is a major asshole.

I don't have a dog in this fight.  But I don't like the idea of a roadway being forced down people's throats if the residents of those 4 towns down want it.  For all we know, a big chunk of them moved there cause they didn't want high development and higher capacity roadways.

The area is already highly developed.  Anyone telling you it will cause high development obviously hasn't seen the sprawl, or is in total denial of the sprawl that is Hawthorn Woods and the other municipalities up there.

Anyway, the corridor has no development in it, and it's already protected, ready for the building, and has been for decades!

[tribar]

This whole thing is a bunch of bullshit.  We live in America which means we use democracy to solve our problems.  So why despite the fact that a majority of communities that are along this route are for the highway, is the whole thing allowed to be held up by two or three towns? 

[Stratuscaster]

Because we live in America, which gives people the right to partake in legal shenanigans to block or at least delay something they don't like just long enough for them to die and not have to worry about it anymore.

I don't travel in that area enough to really take a side. I do what I've always done - Lake-Cook to Hicks to 83 and continue north.

[Mrt90]

I don't have a dog in this fight.  But I don't like the idea of a roadway being forced down people's throats if the residents of those 4 towns down want it.  For all we know, a big chunk of them moved there cause they didn't want high development and higher capacity roadways.

The extension of route 53 has been discussed for years.  Almost everyone that lives anywhere near the proposed route bought their homes knowing that it was near the proposed route.  If you look at a map of the proposed corridor, you can see the path that has already been set aside.  Now the argument seems to have turned to the path across the wetlands.

[slorydn1]

Mrt90 is right. It was being discussed way back in 1990 when I left the area.

[I-39]

By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?

Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.

[tribar]

By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?

Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.

Where would it hook up to I 94?  Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?

[I-39]

By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?

Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.

Where would it hook up to I 94?  Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?

It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.

[mrsman]

By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?

Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.

Where would it hook up to I 94?  Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?

It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.

Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.

[skluth]

This whole thing is a bunch of bullshit.  We live in America which means we use democracy to solve our problems.  So why despite the fact that a majority of communities that are along this route are for the highway, is the whole thing allowed to be held up by two or three towns?

So who gets to vote in your democracy? The towns where you want the highway built say no. The entire state of Illinois which can't afford it would probably say no. You can't say the majority want it when it's a handpicked majority.

[I-39]

By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?

Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.

Where would it hook up to I 94?  Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?

It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.

Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.

Fair point, but then IDOT would need to re-designate I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 turnoff as I-355, and I don't think they want to do that (they'd probably argue I-290 won't meet it's parent at both ends, which is stupid). Honestly, that should be done anyway, since the through lanes are for I-355 at the I-290/355 interchange in Itasca.

[Stratuscaster]

It already IS a "known designation". Longtime locals call it "53/355", back from when the freeway WAS IL-53 all the way down to Army Trail.

Even when IL-53 got pushed off to Rohlwing Road, locals and traffic reports STILL referred to the freeway as "53" - just like the "Post Office" hasn't been the "Post Office" for decades, but it's still called the "Post Office."

(Although, for whatever reason, traffic reporters really seem to be pushing the "Byrne Interchange" over "The Circle.")

FWIW, I have no issue with I-355 being signed up to I-90 as an assist to non-locals.

[Henry]

By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?

Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.

Where would it hook up to I 94?  Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?

It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.

Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.

Fair point, but then IDOT would need to re-designate I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 turnoff as I-355, and I don't think they want to do that (they'd probably argue I-290 won't meet it's parent at both ends, which is stupid). Honestly, that should be done anyway, since the through lanes are for I-355 at the I-290/355 interchange in Itasca.

Well, they can do what they did with I-294's concurrency with I-80 and create one for I-290 and I-355. That way, I-290 can still have both ends at its parent, while I-355 continues further north.

[I-39]

By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?

Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.

Where would it hook up to I 94?  Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?

It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.

Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.

Fair point, but then IDOT would need to re-designate I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 turnoff as I-355, and I don't think they want to do that (they'd probably argue I-290 won't meet it's parent at both ends, which is stupid). Honestly, that should be done anyway, since the through lanes are for I-355 at the I-290/355 interchange in Itasca.

Well, they can do what they did with I-294's concurrency with I-80 and create one for I-290 and I-355. That way, I-290 can still have both ends at its parent, while I-355 continues further north.

Or just end the I-290 designation in Itasca. There is no reason for I-290 to head back up to I-90, the only reason it does is I-355 didn't exist yet when it was signed in the late 1970's.

[Brandon]

By the way, I've heard and seen various rumors that the IL-53 extension was (at one point) to become Interstate 594 if ever constructed (this was back when it was being considered as a six lane expressway/Interstate). Was there any truth to this, or was this just speculation?

Come to think of it, I-594 would be a better designation for the corridor as opposed to making it a northern extension of I-355.

Where would it hook up to I 94?  Would I-594 take over I 290 and run all the way to the Circle Interchange?

It would hook up with I-94 at the existing IL-120 interchange. The through lanes on the extension would curve east at IL-120 in Grayslake and head east towards the interchange with I-94, the western portion of the IL-120 portion (towards US 12) would essentially be a spur of the mainline.

Even if it does hook up with I-94 eventually, it makes more sense for the corridor to be I-355, to keep a known designation for the N-S freeway in the western suburbs.

Fair point, but then IDOT would need to re-designate I-290 between I-90 and the I-355 turnoff as I-355, and I don't think they want to do that (they'd probably argue I-290 won't meet it's parent at both ends, which is stupid). Honestly, that should be done anyway, since the through lanes are for I-355 at the I-290/355 interchange in Itasca.

Well, they can do what they did with I-294's concurrency with I-80 and create one for I-290 and I-355. That way, I-290 can still have both ends at its parent, while I-355 continues further north.

Or just end the I-290 designation in Itasca. There is no reason for I-290 to head back up to I-90, the only reason it does is I-355 didn't exist yet when it was signed in the late 1970's.

Or just eliminate it all together.  I-88 goes to the Circle, I-355 goes to Lake-Cook Road, and I-188 takes up the remnant 8 miles from Itasca to Hillside.  It actually makes more sense when one looks at the "through" movements at both the I-290/355 and I-88/290 interchanges.

[ajlynch91]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In my opinion, just because a road doesn't meet it's parent at both ends doesn't mean it doesn't function as a bypass. I-290 is a perfect example of this as it's logical endpoint is between Addison and Itasca at I-355. 355 should continue all the way up to Lake Cook. For that matter, I-294 should end at I-80. There's no point in having useless concurrences in my opinion.

[Stratuscaster]

I don't see a reason to eliminate the existing signage for I-290 or I-294 (or I-88) - it's not broken.

In the case of I-294 over I-80 - remove the I-294 shields and you likely end up replacing them with "TO I-94 / TO I-294" shields. You gained nothing.

[I-39]

Even if it were built as a six lane expressway, they'd probably just leave this corridor as IL-53.