AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Another (yet seemingly less obvious) problem with Illinois Rt 53/120 Extension  (Read 6850 times)

paleocon121171

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 20
  • Location: Chicago, IL-Northwest Suburbs
  • Last Login: September 18, 2013, 03:19:14 AM

The numbering/re-routing system would be a disaster. Take for example back in 1989 when that short stretch of un-numbered/un-named road was constructed between Dundee and Lake-Cook Road. Motorists traveling north on IL-53 (Control City: Northwest Suburbs) absentmindedly believed that this spur of IL-53 (or better yet, a mile-long on-ramp) was a portion of IL-53 that extended to Lake-Cook but was also routed off the highway onto Dundee (heading west toward US-12 Rand Road), making it a road with three termini. Signage on Lake-Cook Road near the "on-ramp" confuse motorists even more with two signs within 500 feet of each other: one saying "To South Illinois 53" and the other "South Illinois 53". Honestly, I believe that they should have re-routed IL-53 onto Lake-Cook Road (heading east) from US-12 and onto this 24-year-old piece of pavement. This would have cut Dundee completely out of the picture and in my opinion made much more sense.

While this problem is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it would be much more apparent with an extension of "53" from Lake-Cook Road to IL-120. The northern terminus could no longer be IL-83 and the state route's concurrency with Hicks Road, US-12 Rand Road, and IL-68 Dundee Road would have to cease to exist. IL-53 would, however, exist on a highway from I-355 near DuPage County all the way to northern Lake County. Although this re-routing/re-numbering seems simple enough, I wouldn't even be mentioning this potential issue if I-DOT (among others) were competent enough to make an even simpler move of re-routing 53 back in the late-1980's in the way I spoke about above.

Just some food for thought. Let me know what you all think.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10965
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:45 PM

I'm too confused to even try and figure it out.

Can you explain in twenty words or less what the problem is, removing a concurrency with Hicks Rd, US-12, and IL-68 (??) and having IL-53 exist from 355 to northern Lake County?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3737
  • Last Login: December 04, 2019, 11:29:23 PM

I'm not seeing the problem with the proposed extension beyond Lake Cook Road.  If the extension is constructed, and IL 53 is moved onto the new facility and the existing unnumbered section between IL 68 and Lake Cook Road, Hicks Road between US 12 and IL 83 would likely just become another of the many unnumbered state highways around Chicagoland.
Logged

paleocon121171

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 20
  • Location: Chicago, IL-Northwest Suburbs
  • Last Login: September 18, 2013, 03:19:14 AM

I'm too confused to even try and figure it out.

Can you explain in twenty words or less what the problem is, removing a concurrency with Hicks Rd, US-12, and IL-68 (??) and having IL-53 exist from 355 to northern Lake County?

The problem is the lack of organization in and capacity of IDOT to make the simple, yet important, process of re-routing and re-numbering I-53 north of IL-68/Dundee Road and off of US-12 and Hicks. Their failure to do so with the 1-mile "spur" road between Dundee and Lake-Cook in '89 shows their incompetence and inconsistency. How can they be expected to correctly re-number and re-route 53 in a timely manner? Or will they just leave even large portions of road un-numbered and/or un-named?

Post Merge: July 03, 2013, 08:22:49 PM
I'm not seeing the problem with the proposed extension beyond Lake Cook Road.  If the extension is constructed, and IL 53 is moved onto the new facility and the existing unnumbered section between IL 68 and Lake Cook Road, Hicks Road between US 12 and IL 83 would likely just become another of the many unnumbered state highways around Chicagoland.

It seems simple enough, but unfortunately with the IDOT, such concepts are easier said than done. The un-numbered section between Dundee and Lake-Cook could have been added to IL-53 with a basic re-routing from southbound Hicks onto eastbound Lake-Cook (and, in turn, onto the southbound ramp heading toward IL-68). I take this route about 4-5 times per week. The lack of consistent signage is ridiculous. Car-fitted GPS systems are more accurate.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 08:22:49 PM by Steve »
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10965
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:45 PM

Sorry, you lost me again at...

The problem is the lack of organization in and capacity of IDOT to make the simple, yet important, process of

Are you just wondering if IDOT is going to put the right signs up and take the right signs down?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Joe The Dragon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 811
  • Location: 60016
  • Last Login: Today at 01:19:21 PM

The numbering/re-routing system would be a disaster. Take for example back in 1989 when that short stretch of un-numbered/un-named road was constructed between Dundee and Lake-Cook Road. Motorists traveling north on IL-53 (Control City: Northwest Suburbs) absentmindedly believed that this spur of IL-53 (or better yet, a mile-long on-ramp) was a portion of IL-53 that extended to Lake-Cook but was also routed off the highway onto Dundee (heading west toward US-12 Rand Road), making it a road with three termini. Signage on Lake-Cook Road near the "on-ramp" confuse motorists even more with two signs within 500 feet of each other: one saying "To South Illinois 53" and the other "South Illinois 53". Honestly, I believe that they should have re-routed IL-53 onto Lake-Cook Road (heading east) from US-12 and onto this 24-year-old piece of pavement. This would have cut Dundee completely out of the picture and in my opinion made much more sense.

While this problem is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it would be much more apparent with an extension of "53" from Lake-Cook Road to IL-120. The northern terminus could no longer be IL-83 and the state route's concurrency with Hicks Road, US-12 Rand Road, and IL-68 Dundee Road would have to cease to exist. IL-53 would, however, exist on a highway from I-355 near DuPage County all the way to northern Lake County. Although this re-routing/re-numbering seems simple enough, I wouldn't even be mentioning this potential issue if I-DOT (among others) were competent enough to make an even simpler move of re-routing 53 back in the late-1980's in the way I spoke about above.

Just some food for thought. Let me know what you all think.

But Thinking about I-355 is the main flow of the road has IL-53 I-290 I-355 (listed as an exit at the I-290 split off)  so the full road if build to IL-120 and US-12 / I-94.

can have any numbing system. If non toll (IL 53 / 120 part) more likely to use US12 (with old 12 becoming alt or business or IL-53 maybe even both IL-53 and US12) US12 also fits in to the linking up to the US 12 in WI freeway.

As well Toll just make the full road I-355 and maybe put I-290 (so I-290 only has a short overlap with I-355) on to the EOE that down the road can link to US 20 bypass with a link back to I-90. Il-120 part can be IL-120 (no likely if toll) or I-X94 US-12 part from IL-120 to US 12 WI can be US12 or I-X94 or I-X90 I-X90 I-X43 likely will need a full freeway all the way to madison WI for I-X90. But filling the gap to US 12 WI can make it I-X43
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10965
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:45 PM

My kingdom for coherent sentences!
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12855
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:35:45 PM
    • Alps' Roads

My kingdom for coherent sentences!
This is one of those threads that you just let the participants debate, while you step out to other threads.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10965
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:45 PM

Yeah the thing is but since having lived near IL-53 IL-38 Roosevelt North I-355 tollway and take for example that some of those are state routes and other streets are not highways or even signed with IDOT (and back in when they were builded some roads they really should have if I-355 was going to be extended could have numbered it IL-53 from Wisconsin and then) I keep thinking they might actually say something I want to be interested but then they always let me down just like back when IL-59 was having road work done back in the 1970s but IDOT didn't ask me my opinion about how they should sign the through route highway number for most people going that way since I hadn't been born yet and ended up with IL-56 also cutting across to the south of me later after I'd been born (but after they couldn't even find their way out of a paper bag with the way they do road things that I don't but) and made everything a toll road but call them expressways and that adds to the confusion if you've ever tried taking the Borman Freeway there's no signs for that but sometimes they have numbers on signs and sometimes it's green and this is how I feel every time I try to read the posts on here but nobody asked for a copy editor and IDOT probably wouldn't pay for it anyway because they can't do anything the way I think I should just stop typing.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

The High Plains Traveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: Just an old prairie dog

  • Location: Pueblo West CO
  • Last Login: November 30, 2019, 06:12:56 PM
    • Unofficial Minnesota and New Mexico Highway Pages

My kingdom for coherent sentences!
This is one of those threads that you just let the participants debate, while you step out to other threads.
Is that your implementation of a numbing system?
Logged
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12855
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:35:45 PM
    • Alps' Roads

Yeah the thing is but since having lived near IL-53 IL-38 Roosevelt North I-355 tollway and take for example that some of those are state routes and other streets are not highways or even signed with IDOT (and back in when they were builded some roads they really should have if I-355 was going to be extended could have numbered it IL-53 from Wisconsin and then) I keep thinking they might actually say something I want to be interested but then they always let me down just like back when IL-59 was having road work done back in the 1970s but IDOT didn't ask me my opinion about how they should sign the through route highway number for most people going that way since I hadn't been born yet and ended up with IL-56 also cutting across to the south of me later after I'd been born (but after they couldn't even find their way out of a paper bag with the way they do road things that I don't but) and made everything a toll road but call them expressways and that adds to the confusion if you've ever tried taking the Borman Freeway there's no signs for that but sometimes they have numbers on signs and sometimes it's green and this is how I feel every time I try to read the posts on here but nobody asked for a copy editor and IDOT probably wouldn't pay for it anyway because they can't do anything the way I think I should just stop typing.
yawn


what


poo

Stratuscaster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 558
  • Last Login: April 05, 2019, 11:19:30 AM

At one point, that extension WAS signed as IL-53 between Lake-Cook Rd and IL-68/Dundee Rd. IL-53 then went west on Lake-Cook Road to Hicks Rd, then turned north and continued on it's way to end at IL-83.

At some point - when exactly escapes me, as does why - they reverted back to the previous setup - IL-53 exits at IL-68/Dundee Rd, rides along with IL-68 west to US-12/Rand Rd, then rides with US-12 north to Hicks Rd, and continues on. The signs on Lake-Cook Rd for SOUTH IL-53 were amended with "TO".

Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2173
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: August 18, 2019, 12:44:17 PM

This should not be so bloody difficult. Here is the simple solution:

Route 53 gets routed on to US 12 Rand Rd from the current Route 53 freeway to Hicks Rd then turns north on Hicks Rd to end at Route 83 at its current terminus.  This eliminates the need for the route being on Dundee Rd/Route 68 altogether while keeping Hicks Rd on the "state route" system.

I-355 gets extended north from the current end at I-290 to Lake-Cook Rd on the current I-290/Route 53 freeway.

When the new "parkway" is built, sign it as Illinois Route 355 from Lake-Cook Rd to the new parkway along Route 120 until the route is Interstate standard.  There is precedence within Illinois for doing this, ie I-255/Illinois 255.

The only question then that remains is what to number the Route 120 Parkway. Either as a new Route 120 or a new number like Route 320 while keeping Route 120 on Belvidere Rd.

Simple enough, no? :)
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

StogieGuy7

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 256
  • Location: Kenosha area, WI
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 11:33:48 AM

My God, this is so simple: it's called the Route 53 Extension.  That means that IL-53 will be rerouted onto the new road and the old state highway will be something else. 

IL 53 isn't going onto Rand Road, Lake Cook Road, Santa Monica Boulevard or Madison Avenue and i'm not sure why we'd even waste time with that concept.  And it won't be an interstate either.  If and when the new "parkway" (talk about concepts doomed to fail!) is completed to IL-120, it will be signed as IL-53.   
Logged

paleocon121171

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 20
  • Location: Chicago, IL-Northwest Suburbs
  • Last Login: September 18, 2013, 03:19:14 AM

At one point, that extension WAS signed as IL-53 between Lake-Cook Rd and IL-68/Dundee Rd. IL-53 then went west on Lake-Cook Road to Hicks Rd, then turned north and continued on it's way to end at IL-83.

At some point - when exactly escapes me, as does why - they reverted back to the previous setup - IL-53 exits at IL-68/Dundee Rd, rides along with IL-68 west to US-12/Rand Rd, then rides with US-12 north to Hicks Rd, and continues on. The signs on Lake-Cook Rd for SOUTH IL-53 were amended with "TO".



I did not know that. As I said before, it makes more sense, and it would save time should this extension ever be built.

As far as the signs go along Lake-Cook Road: there are about 3 signs located eastbound on Lake-Cook prior to the IL-53 "spur" interchange. 2 say "South 53" and 1 says "To South 53". If what you said was correct, I'm assuming that those 2 signs were left over from that short period when 53 was actually extended to and routed onto Lake-Cook.
Logged

paleocon121171

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 20
  • Location: Chicago, IL-Northwest Suburbs
  • Last Login: September 18, 2013, 03:19:14 AM

Yeah the thing is but since having lived near IL-53 IL-38 Roosevelt North I-355 tollway and take for example that some of those are state routes and other streets are not highways or even signed with IDOT (and back in when they were builded some roads they really should have if I-355 was going to be extended could have numbered it IL-53 from Wisconsin and then) I keep thinking they might actually say something I want to be interested but then they always let me down just like back when IL-59 was having road work done back in the 1970s but IDOT didn't ask me my opinion about how they should sign the through route highway number for most people going that way since I hadn't been born yet and ended up with IL-56 also cutting across to the south of me later after I'd been born (but after they couldn't even find their way out of a paper bag with the way they do road things that I don't but) and made everything a toll road but call them expressways and that adds to the confusion if you've ever tried taking the Borman Freeway there's no signs for that but sometimes they have numbers on signs and sometimes it's green and this is how I feel every time I try to read the posts on here but nobody asked for a copy editor and IDOT probably wouldn't pay for it anyway because they can't do anything the way I think I should just stop typing.

Assuming that I'm understanding you correctly, I would not even bother trying to deal with the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway. Every proposed extension/modification seem like a complete waste of time and resources. Connecting it back to I-90 would be ridiculous in my opinion considering that its eastern terminus at I-290 is only about 5 miles from the Schaumburg interchange with I-90. I feel that one of these days, it is more likely that the EOE will be extended "eastward" down Thorndale Avenue toward O'Hare.

But in order for 290 to remain a bypass, it would obviously have to begin and end at 90. It's fine where it is now from my perspective. For your plan to work, I-355 would have to begin at Biesterfield Road (where IL-53 was re-routed from Army Trail Road after 355 was built in 1989). It would be concurrent with 290 for 2 miles until the Exit 7 interchange where 355 goes south and 290 goes east. That isn't difficult to work out. It's the westward extension of the EOE to 90 which I just don't see happening any time soon.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10965
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:45 PM

Yeah the thing is but since having lived near IL-53 IL-38 Roosevelt North I-355 tollway and take for example that some of those are state routes and other streets are not highways or even signed with IDOT (and back in when they were builded some roads they really should have if I-355 was going to be extended could have numbered it IL-53 from Wisconsin and then) I keep thinking they might actually say something I want to be interested but then they always let me down just like back when IL-59 was having road work done back in the 1970s but IDOT didn't ask me my opinion about how they should sign the through route highway number for most people going that way since I hadn't been born yet and ended up with IL-56 also cutting across to the south of me later after I'd been born (but after they couldn't even find their way out of a paper bag with the way they do road things that I don't but) and made everything a toll road but call them expressways and that adds to the confusion if you've ever tried taking the Borman Freeway there's no signs for that but sometimes they have numbers on signs and sometimes it's green and this is how I feel every time I try to read the posts on here but nobody asked for a copy editor and IDOT probably wouldn't pay for it anyway because they can't do anything the way I think I should just stop typing.

Assuming that I'm understanding you correctly, I would not even bother trying to deal with the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway. Every proposed extension/modification seem like a complete waste of time and resources. Connecting it back to I-90 would be ridiculous in my opinion considering that its eastern terminus at I-290 is only about 5 miles from the Schaumburg interchange with I-90. I feel that one of these days, it is more likely that the EOE will be extended "eastward" down Thorndale Avenue toward O'Hare.

But in order for 290 to remain a bypass, it would obviously have to begin and end at 90. It's fine where it is now from my perspective. For your plan to work, I-355 would have to begin at Biesterfield Road (where IL-53 was re-routed from Army Trail Road after 355 was built in 1989). It would be concurrent with 290 for 2 miles until the Exit 7 interchange where 355 goes south and 290 goes east. That isn't difficult to work out. It's the westward extension of the EOE to 90 which I just don't see happening any time soon.

That was either...

(1) ZING! for me, or

(2) WHOOSH! for you.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10494
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 02:29:58 PM

I'm still trying to make heads or tails of these posts.

The IL-53 Extension will just be IL-53.  Hicks Road may either become an unnumbered state route (not uncommon around Chicagoland) or turned back to the counties (Cook and Lake).  IL-120 is likely to be moved to the new route with the same (unnumbered state route or turned back) to the old road.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Free HK.  F the PRC.

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2173
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: August 18, 2019, 12:44:17 PM

Guys, you need to look at this in the big picture long run. Do any of you honestly believe that when the 53 extension comes in that it would not get an upgrade to an Interstate eventually? Say 5 to 10 years after completion?

Illinois has done that in the recent past with Route 336 becoming I-172 and Route 121 becoming I-155.  Both of those were not supposed to be full blown freeways from jump but rather exactly what the Toll Authority is wanting to do with 53 as a "Parkway". 

I easily can see 53 Parkway becoming a full blown freeway style tollway once they realize that traffic volumes would need it and screw the NIMBYs that built their houses next to the ROW.  That's why I suggested they call it Route 355 in the mean time. That way you can still have the current Route 53 end where it does logically at Route 83.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10494
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 02:29:58 PM

Guys, you need to look at this in the big picture long run. Do any of you honestly believe that when the 53 extension comes in that it would not get an upgrade to an Interstate eventually? Say 5 to 10 years after completion?

Illinois has done that in the recent past with Route 336 becoming I-172 and Route 121 becoming I-155.  Both of those were not supposed to be full blown freeways from jump but rather exactly what the Toll Authority is wanting to do with 53 as a "Parkway". 

I easily can see 53 Parkway becoming a full blown freeway style tollway once they realize that traffic volumes would need it and screw the NIMBYs that built their houses next to the ROW.  That's why I suggested they call it Route 355 in the mean time. That way you can still have the current Route 53 end where it does logically at Route 83.

That's also very likely given Illinois's past history with assigning interstate numbers.  However, I strongly suspect, if that is to be the case, I-355 extended north, then IL-53 will be truncated at Biesterfield Road and I-290.  There's no logical reason for it to go north to IL-83.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Free HK.  F the PRC.

 


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.