Yellow Toll Banners in IL

[rmsandw]

The white word "TOLLWAY" is starting to be replaced on the BGS on I-355.  Saw that earlier this week.  Banners on the markers on U.S. 34 also now yellow vs the former blue & white.

[UptownRoadGeek]

Saw this for the first time in person and it looks horrible imo.

[Brandon]

Saw this for the first time in person and it looks horrible imo.

There are two ways they are done in Illinois.  They way ISTHA does them (which I like) and the way IDOT does them (which I want to kill with fire).

ISTHA:


IDOT:

[NE2]

Other than the second one being a waste of space, they both look fine.

[Brandon]

Other than the second one being a waste of space, they both look fine.

Hence why I find it a bit on the ugly side.  There's nothing wrong with it error-wise, but it is damned ugly on the road, IMHO compared to the first one.

[Big John]

Except it looks like ISHTA is using Clearview in the improper contrast and the IDOT one is using FHWA font properly.

[UptownRoadGeek]

Do they still add the expressway names underneath the direction as they used to add "Tollway"? Didn't really pay attention.

[agentsteel53]

the TOLL banner isn't bad.

the compressed "355" on the IDOT sign is bad.

[Brandon]

Do they still add the expressway names underneath the direction as they used to add "Tollway"? Didn't really pay attention.

Yes, they do.

Except it looks like ISHTA is using Clearview in the improper contrast and the IDOT one is using FHWA font properly.

The ISTHA sign is older, before FHWA clarified the usage of Clearview.  The newer ones use it as the IDOT sign below, but use the format in the first sign.

[Stratuscaster]

the compressed "355" on the IDOT sign is bad.

I happen to like the narrower font versus the "standard" one on the ISHTA sign. But that's me.

[Stratuscaster]

Here's another IDOT sample from I-90 westbound, transitioning from the Kennedy to the Jane Addams Tollway:

[UptownRoadGeek]

I liked the original "Tollway" format simply because it was unique, but still functional.

[DevalDragon]

I'm still trying to figure out how I-355 goes to Rockford, as pictured above.

Guess I-355 to I-290 to I-90 is too long to spell, and "Western Suburbs" is too dated to use.

[Stratuscaster]

That's IDOT signage - consistently inconsistent.

[ET21]

I'm still trying to figure out how I-355 goes to Rockford, as pictured above.

Guess I-355 to I-290 to I-90 is too long to spell, and "Western Suburbs" is too dated to use.

I was questioning that too, would that sign be on the eastbound side on I-80?

[Brandon]

I'm still trying to figure out how I-355 goes to Rockford, as pictured above.

Guess I-355 to I-290 to I-90 is too long to spell, and "Western Suburbs" is too dated to use.

I was questioning that too, would that sign be on the eastbound side on I-80?

It's for both eastbound and westbound I-80 at I-355.  "Rockford" makes zero sense here, but it is what IDOT put up when replacing the signage (that wasn't all that old).  The original signs were put up by ISTHA and had "West Suburbs" as the control.  Personally, I'd use "Schaumburg" for the control city.  That's where the road meets I-90 and encounters a major commercial and business hub in the region.

It could be worse.  It could have no control city until you get close to the interchange as I-55 has currently at I-355.  There's greenout over the original control of "Suburbs".  Wonderfully descriptive.

[Stratuscaster]

I would guess the logic goes "well, it ends at I-290, and I-290 is signed for Rockford because I-90 goes there, so let's just sign it that way even though hardly anyone heading westbound on I-80 would consider I-355 as any kind of shortcut to Rockford, and anyone going eastbound on I-80 heading for Rockford probably realized they made a mistake several miles back when they didn't exit on I-39."

[Revive 755]

^ I was going to say that I-355 could be faster than fighting either the Circle and WB I-290 at Austin or the loop ramp from NB I-294 to WB I-290, but Google indicates that it would still be shorter mileage wise to use I-294 all the way to I-90.

Maybe Aurora should be used as the NB control for I-355 south of I-88 (although Google has I-355 to I-88 being three miles longer than I-294 to I-88).

[NE2]

Any indirectness of using it as a bypass to reach Rockford is also true of Schaumburg. Why would you use I-355 to reach Schaumburg when you can go 294-290? I'd use Aurora, being the control city for I-88 west (and only 2 miles longer than via 294).

[edit]Yeah, what 755 said.

[Brandon]

Any indirectness of using it as a bypass to reach Rockford is also true of Schaumburg. Why would you use I-355 to reach Schaumburg when you can go 294-290? I'd use Aurora, being the control city for I-88 west (and only 2 miles longer than via 294).

[edit]Yeah, what 755 said.

Why not the Tri-State (294) to the Ike Extension (290)?  There's a very tight 20 mph loop ramp between the two that says it's a very, very bad idea to use that route.  You can waste anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes on that ramp alone depending on time of day.

[NE2]

Why not the Tri-State (294) to the Ike Extension (290)?  There's a very tight 20 mph loop ramp between the two that says it's a very, very bad idea to use that route.  You can waste anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes on that ramp alone depending on time of day.

How about 294-88-355?

[Stratuscaster]

By the time you see that "Rockford" sign on I-80 W, you've passed 294. From that point, the most direct routes are 355-290-90 (if you wish to follow the "Rockford" signage - of course, there is no "Rockford" signage once you get on 355 N until you get to 290 W), or 355-88-39. Taking 80-39 adds about 30 minutes/30 miles, according to Google Maps, but it's also toll free.

Joliet/Schaumburg makes more sense to me - Joliet/Aurora/Schaumburg even more, but 3 control cities is a bit much.

[JREwing78]

Lately I've been taking I-39 -> I-88 -> I-294 to travel between Rockford and the Indiana line, thanks to the insanely long, slow construction zone this summer on I-90. If there's a time difference in doing so, it's not significant, certainly not right now.

I'm generally traveling well before or after rush hours, so the SBD I-290 -> I-294 movement in Elmhurst isn't usually backed up badly. But it's certainly underpowered and really tight, not to mention short-spaced to the St. Charles Rd interchange.

[Brandon]

Why not the Tri-State (294) to the Ike Extension (290)?  There's a very tight 20 mph loop ramp between the two that says it's a very, very bad idea to use that route.  You can waste anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes on that ramp alone depending on time of day.

How about 294-88-355?

That's easier, but requires some geographic backtracking.  I-88 goes slightly south between I-294 and I-355.

However, that said, I suggested (in the fictional thread a while back) that Schaumburg and Bolingbrook make more sense due to end points and major freeway crossings as well as major retail/business destinations.

[ET21]

For I-80 and probably every exit, they could have done a generic "Northwest Suburbs" control like on the 88 ramps (NW burbs and Joliet for controls)

Joliet can still be a south control, but I think 'Southwest Suburbs" is being used more often southbound. It's amazing how much the southern portion is being used today compared to when it first opened