The Ike: good news and bad news

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

On Feb. 21, I attended the Corridor Advisory Group and Task Force Meeting. IDOT presented for our review its criteria for selecting combinations of roadway and railway solutions to the Eisenhower Corridor upgrade. Four options that rated highest under their selection process are to be studied further under the next selection of criteria.

The good news is that IDOT added to the review two options that keep the Ike at six lanes instead of eight, at the request of community leaders. The bad news is that the highest-rated option for six lanes did not make the cut because of the limited selection of criteria and the arbitrariness of the cut-off point.

The IDOT's top-rated four out of 12 options, all including an increase to eight lanes, were highly rated for modal connections (between different transportation options), safety, access to employment, and regional and local travel issues. Not yet included are environmental impact, impact on community institutions and quality of life for affected citizens. These unexamined values are the very ones that would have down-graded the selected four and favored the six-lane option.

The arbitrary cut-off at four options includes one unacceptable solution — charging tolls on all Eisenhower lanes. No reasonable answers are likely to be found to questions like: would cash toll booths be required at every exit and what would they displace? If not, how would low-income commuters without credit cards pay for tolls if they don't have transponders? Would a trip of two miles cost the same as a trip of 12 miles? Not only is this solution non-viable, it clearly disadvantages lower-income residents through whose community the Ike now runs. Many may not have credit cards to pay for transponder charges. The increased daily cost of commuting to work would force many onto arterial roads, which is considered a negative factor in IDOT studies.

IDOT should re-weight the options by deleting the one with tolling on all lanes (ranked #4). This would raise a six-lane solution to #5 out of 11, well within a reasonable group of selections. It should rank all remaining options for all criteria as it proceeds to the next step, including evaluating the impact on the environment, protection of community resources and quality of life, which includes consideration of the transportation circumstances of low-income citizens.

Andrea Green

President, Friends of the Oak Park Conservatory

 

Reader Comments

43 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

Dave Coulter  

Posted: April 28th, 2013 4:13 PM

I think all that live near I-290 share the same sorts of issues of those who live near O'Hare - another noisy, pollution-generating regional transport link: we're bearing the impact of drivers from all over the country. I simply avoid the road. CTA/Metra could actually be more useful if they'd build north-south connectors and ring-routes.

Ready to Move Forward from Oak Park  

Posted: April 28th, 2013 1:31 PM

Wow. So when confronted with his very own IDOT reference (the one he tried so hard keep obscure) Just Sayin' now claims that it doesn't say what it says it says. One gets the impression that if IDOT says the sky is blue the obstructionists would say it was green, along with a barrage of petulant name calling. Your credibility is shot Mr. Sayin'. Do your side a favor by accepting defeat with dignity.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 28th, 2013 8:50 AM

According to IDOT the sun will rise, children will get older, and populations will increase. How about an apology to all you misled?

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 27th, 2013 4:20 PM

Agreed - should stick to facts, not rhetoric. The fact is, according to IDOT's analysis, that even if IDOT complete's its desired project: 1. I-290 study area congestion will increase. 2. I-290 travel times will increase. 3. Local arterial congested vehicle miles traveled will increase. No misleading narrative, no emotion, no judgements. Just Sayin'

Chris from OP  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 9:35 PM

JS - Insulting people solves nothing. Making incorrect general assumptions isn't much better. The study (which probably cost way too much to arrive at the obvious conclusion) proves that a multifaceted approach is best. It never cease to amaze me how Oak Parkers can think the world centers around them.

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 9:05 PM

Wow, you MOOP and your other pen name are truly inept. Let me lend u a dime so that u can go buy a clue: The modeling results say *exactly* what I've stated. If u r naive enough to blindly trust IDOT's narrative summary, u r much less than the sharpest tool in the shed, but a tool nonetheless. Do u also believe crashes at Mannheim going westbound are caused by ramps in Oak Park? The data says no, though IDOT's interpretation says they are. C'mon, show sum capacity for critical thought.

Ready to Move Forward from Oak Park  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 5:18 PM

Quotes below taken from page 15 from the report located at MikeO's link below. No wonder Just Sayin' was so adamant about not linking to the report. Thanks Mike for bypassing Just Sayin's intentional obfuscation for all of us.

Ready to Move Forward from Oak Park  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 5:12 PM

pg 15: ?" Adding a lane generally results in improved travel times... on I-290 as well as the arterial system. ?" Adding a lane on I-290 generally results in an increase in expressway travel ... and a decrease in arterial travel (VMT). --The alternatives that did not include an additional lane on I-290, even in combination with (transit expansion) performed relatively poorly. ?" The lack of an additional lane... causes a significant shift of travel to an already congested arterial system.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 4:38 PM

Ok, JS. You win. Here's a link that should satisfy you. http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/i290%20alternatives%20evaluation%20summary2013apr02.pdf

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 3:31 PM

Ok, I'll type this just one last time: http://www.eisenhowerexpressway.com If u r unable to locate, read, or interpret information there, I suggest you complain to IDOT about their effort to make their findings transparent and accessible to the general public. It is that way by design, unfortunately. Facts r the facts, though - I've related them while u have simply spewed unsubstantiated rhetoric, MOOP (MOOP2). I guess that's all you've got.

Ready to Move Forward from Oak Park  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 3:09 PM

Wow. A veritable school of red herrings from Just Sayin' but still incapable of producing reference for his original claims. I guess the obstructionists have nothing more to lose at thing point... including credibility,

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 8:48 AM

Pretty much what I thought - more rhetoric, no facts. Maybe one study to demonstrate the benefits of increasing highway capacity at the margin? I guess not. As previously indicated, u have the link below for IDOT findings. U just have to read them, and it is clear u have not done so.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 26th, 2013 7:19 AM

JS, thanks for all the gibberish: transit sheds, ashland bus routes, traffic patterns during recessions, (extrapolate much?). Can you show me where in the added lanes- IDOT proposal there is mention that arterial and expressway congestion will not be relieved? ps. Do you live anywhere near the Eisenhower?

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 8:54 PM

OK, MOOP and MOOP2 (RTMOFOP). You've got some IDOT studies to actually review and just a few other things to consider that were easily encountered in just an hour of Internet browsing. How about you provide something other than rhetoric in support of what a great project IDOT has proposed. What are the benefits of trying to improve highway performance at the extreme margin through a demonstrated worthless add-a-lane/take-away-a-lane. Just sayin' the ball's in your court...

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 8:47 PM

Well, whattaya know! Property prices in transit sheds are more resilient to market perturbation than areas without transit. Ida never guessed. http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=220462

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 8:43 PM

IDOT says sprawl will continue unabated well into the future and parades their "market-based" projections to prove it. Yes, they say, sprawl is king and we must build more road capacity to serve it, or we will fail - that is what the market demands. What does "the market" actually say? Oops, IDOT...you're out on thin limb. http://www.cnt.org/repository/The_New_Real_Estate_Mantra.pdf

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 8:40 PM

Hey, maybe Inrix (which serves the trucking industry) is all wet and IDOT is right. Why does USDOT data tell the same story, then - that driving is continuing a downward spiral since 2005? http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/indicators/miles-driven.html?miles-driven-adjusted-and-gasoline-prices.gif

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 8:37 PM

Hmmmm, IDOT says congestion is growing in the Chicago area and will continue to grow, which is why we need more lanes to keep up our losing battle (per their data) of ever-expanding road capacity battling ever-increasing congestion. Why does Inrix ?" using a rich dataset based on actual travel rather than modeled estimates -- say congestion is actually decreasing in the Chicago area? http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130424/chicago/chicagos-traffic-congestion-improving-study-says

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 8:33 PM

Hey, wait a minute. IDOT's analysis says that a major transit investment in the I-290 corridor will reduce transit ridership - yes, reduce it! How can that be when a new bus rapid transit service on Ashland (not as high quality as what IDOT says they tested) is projected to cause a 40% *increase* in ridership -such a large increase that one travel lane can be taken away? http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/brt/PR_CDMSmith_AM_October_Boards_FINALlowres_20101015.pdf

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 8:28 PM

Hot off the presses: "If you live in Cook County, the air you breathe may put your health at risk." Why did IDOT avoid examining air quality implications of competing alternatives before trying to narrow the list to only those options involving putting more cars and trucks on I-290? They could use their money and power to support and encourage mode shift, instead. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/states/illinois/cook-17031.html

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 7:24 PM

RTMOFOP, perhaps MOOP can point you in the right direction. MOOP presumably read it all. Alternatively, you might try reading the materials yourself - that is the price for informed participation. The link is down below. No cliff notes, friend. Just sayin' ...

Ready to Move Forward from Oak Park  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 5:32 PM

Seems to be a the mootest of moot points, since none of the remaining options include the obstructionist plan. But since you are so insistent: which report specifically? If a link is too difficult for you, then a title and page number. If it's on the website, what's so hard about that? Either prove your meaningless point with a more specific reference or admit to intentional obfuscation. Just sayin'....

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 4:55 PM

The reports and their projections are on their study website, http://www.eisenhowerexpressway.com, but one would think that you have already reviewed them. It is worth restating: We cannot solve the problems we have today with the same thinking we used when we created them. Just sayin' . . .

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 3:39 PM

You lost me. Can you help me find those citations you mention or the specific reports?

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 1:14 PM

I should add . . . the comments below summarize what happens no matter what IDOT does. To be clear, my 1:10 p.m. comments are what happens even if IDOT does their proposed add-a-lane.

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 1:10 PM

Sorry, MOOP, but you are misleading folks -- you are plainly wrong. Fact is, IDOT analysis indicates: 1. I-290 study area congestion will increase. 2. I-290 travel times will increase. 3. Local arterial congested vehicle miles traveled will increase, with the best case scenario being things get worse by 219,684 congested arterial VMT. That is what the reports say...just sayin'

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 25th, 2013 7:18 AM

I looked at the reports and you're wrong. Look at arterial flow with the additional lanes configuration. Again, do you live anywhere near the Eisenhower?

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 24th, 2013 4:47 PM

MOOP: And let me restate my question in the unlikely event that you may have overlooked it: How do you propose to get traffic off of side streets in the context of an I-290 add-a-lane project? IDOT's own projections indicate the project will not do that - it will not even solve I-290 congestion, let alone side streets. Look at the reports.

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 24th, 2013 4:44 PM

MOOP: What, specifically, do you challenge in what I've written? Adding a special access lane between Harlem and Austin while also taking a lane away between Austin and Racine to leave only 3 general purpose lanes throughout the corridor is not going to increase I-290 capacity 33%, or eliminate congestion - according to IDOT. R U 4 real? We can't fix the problems of today with the thinking that created them.

Speedway from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 5:39 PM

Does anyone know at this point if homes near the Eisenhower exp. will be effected and if so where? Any sites that have any info on this?

Ready to Move Forward from Oak Park  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 4:45 PM

According to Ms. Green's letter, it's sounding like 8 lanes is a done deal (thankfully) - quibbling and grumbling notwithstanding. @JS: I meant the main enviromental impact occurred in the 50s, not the transportation impact. The population of DuPage county has increased 700% since then. We addressed the hypocracy of the obstructionists, now let's address their willful ignorance.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 4:02 PM

Just Saying, where do you live? Are you anywhere within 6 blocks of the Eisenhower? Do you drive? Are you just prattling? The reason I ask is that every thing you've stated seems ill informed and, well fluffy. No offense.

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 16th, 2013 1:30 PM

Yes, use pricing to encourage people to use the train. As for the add-a-lane, there are too few benefits for too much cost. As RTMFOP noted, the IKE made its impact when it was built and no changes to it since that date have been worthwhile or beneficial - the last "improvement" was labeled a Top 10 Illinois Transportation Blunder by the Trib. It fell far short of its claimed benefits, as will the next IDOT "solution."

Ready to Move Forward from Oak Park  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 5:29 PM

Bruce, thanks for making my point. A user charge for roads seems in line your stated goal of incenting more folks to take the CTA. Ever drive the Skyway? Perpetually devoid of traffic, it's an obstructionist's dream! To quibble about a toll system seems to be hypocritical endgame desperation. And let's face it, the Ike made its impact when it was built nearly 60 years ago. Any differences in environmental impact or quality of life issues between the options will be incremental at best.

just sayin' 2  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 3:04 PM

What does being the president of the Friends of the Oak Park Conservatory have anything to do with the article?

Just Sayin'  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 1:52 PM

MichaelO: How do you propose to get traffic off of side streets in the context of an I-290 add-a-lane project? IDOT's own projections indicate the project will not do that - it wioll not even solve I-290 congestion, let alone side streets. Look at the reports.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 15th, 2013 1:10 PM

Concerned, the issue for Oak Park shouldn't be Eisenhower travel times, it should be getting the traffic that overflows the Eisenhower the hell off of our neighborhood streets. I am amazed that so many miss that. Especially the Village Clerk.

Concerned Oak Parker (again) from Oak Park  

Posted: April 14th, 2013 8:59 PM

Theresa Powell, Village Clerk, made a good point when she asked the question: How much time will really be saved by creating new lanes? The answer: not much!!! We have to realize that this project will take months and months, during which time we may not have easy access to the village south of the Ike, we may lack access to the Blue Line and we may lack access to using the Ike itself! Am I wrong?

Concerned Oak Parker from Oak Park  

Posted: April 14th, 2013 8:57 PM

I attended this meeting as an observer. I was appalled at the criteria for the various options. The criteria was weighted in favor of IDOT's priorities, not us, the citizens. They are leaving environmental impact and quality of life issues until later. Why? These should have been in the original guidelines for the studies, but now it's too late. What a travesty these hearings are! IDOT is probably beholden to the concrete interests.

Violet Aura  

Posted: April 13th, 2013 1:34 PM

I think it should be expanded--perhaps in a SW direction because one can take the 309/313 and Metra to go directly west right now. It would be great to reach Westchester, Oak Brook, and Hinsdale. There is no Ogden bus line in that area. You have to either go to Cermak or Roosevelt, which is quite far from Ogden.

Blowhard McGee  

Posted: April 13th, 2013 12:51 PM

Stop living in fantasy land, Samuels. Extending the Blue Line to Maywood, etc. is not going to help and people in Oak Brook are not going to use it. Too much money is already being wasted on wages to construction workers, CTA employees, and the bureaucrats running the CTA and wages given that the Blue Line is never clean, always reeks of piss from the sleeping bums and still has too many slow spots despite seemingly always being under construction every other month for "upgrading."

Bruce Samuels from Oak Park  

Posted: April 13th, 2013 11:51 AM

The second most populous county in the country should have a top notch public transportation system that is inviting, safe and comfortable. If we put the money into upgrading the blue line instead of expansion then enough folks would be diverted and "Ready", whoever he or she is, and others would have less traffic on the Ike.

Ready to Move Forward from Oak Park  

Posted: April 11th, 2013 2:46 PM

Well it's no surprise the 6 lane options were not optimal, what is a surprise is the change of tune from the obstructionists. Last time they were all about getting people onto trains and buses in lieu of expansion. Well, economic disincentives like tolls do that. Just who did you think you'd be trundling onto those buses and trains, Oak Brookers and Hinsdalites? But it seems like the obstructionists are willing to throw the buses under the bus in desperation to prolong the lane debate.

Hire Local for FREE!

Post help wanted ads for FREE on the our local online job board.

Click here to place your ad

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassified
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Latest Comments