Chicago Skyway no longer an Interstate
Rich Carlson
Chicago Skyway both ways from the Dan Ryan to the Indiana E-W Toll Road.
On ALL the I-90 signs on the Skyway EB they added a blue "TO" banner above
the East I-90 signs, and all the WB signs are now "TO West I-90 I-94" with
the "TO" banner above the "WEST" and the 2 Interstate shields. There were
no indications of any changes either on the Ryan approach or the IN
Tollroad approach. There were no "End I-90" signs anywhere.
My guess is that they have relinquished the Interstate designation for
this route for one or more reasons. Possibly the road does not meet with
Interstate guidelines, or there was too much paperwork needed to keep up
with regulations. I am expecting a new 1999-2000 Illinois Highway Map
this week, and maybe that will shed some light on this.
For now, at least, the Chicago Skyway is not part of I-90, and I would
consider I-90 a 2 part route, with a 10 mile gap from the IN line to the
Dan Ryan.
--
Rich Carlson, N9JIG n9...@theramp.net
Illinois Highways Page: http://www.theramp.net/n9jig/home.html
Scott M. Kozel
>
> While on a brief excursion to the Northern Indiana area today I drove the
> Chicago Skyway both ways from the Dan Ryan to the Indiana E-W Toll Road.
> On ALL the I-90 signs on the Skyway EB they added a blue "TO" banner above
> the East I-90 signs, and all the WB signs are now "TO West I-90 I-94" with
> the "TO" banner above the "WEST" and the 2 Interstate shields. There were
> no indications of any changes either on the Ryan approach or the IN
> Tollroad approach. There were no "End I-90" signs anywhere.
I'm surprised, since the Skyway is basically urban Interstate standard,
or at least as close to it as many other Interstate-signed expressways.
If the Skyway should be de-designated, then these should too - the
Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Schuylkill Expressway, the Brooklyn-Queens
Expressway, the Van Wyck Expressway, just to name a few.
> My guess is that they have relinquished the Interstate designation for
> this route for one or more reasons. Possibly the road does not meet with
> Interstate guidelines, or there was too much paperwork needed to keep up
> with regulations. I am expecting a new 1999-2000 Illinois Highway Map
> this week, and maybe that will shed some light on this.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
Omari Norman
Rich Carlson <n9...@theramp.net> wrote in message
news:n9jig-17089...@k56-ip-235.theramp.net...
> While on a brief excursion to the Northern Indiana area today I drove the
> Chicago Skyway both ways from the Dan Ryan to the Indiana E-W Toll Road.
> On ALL the I-90 signs on the Skyway EB they added a blue "TO" banner above
> the East I-90 signs, and all the WB signs are now "TO West I-90 I-94" with
> the "TO" banner above the "WEST" and the 2 Interstate shields. There were
> no indications of any changes either on the Ryan approach or the IN
> Tollroad approach. There were no "End I-90" signs anywhere.
It's very interesting that you noticed that, because I realized the same
phenomenon as I traveled back and forth between Gary, Indiana and Chicago
several weeks ago. It does seem like Interstate 90 ends at the Dan Ryan and
picks up again at the Indiana Toll Road. In the meantime, I guess I-90 is in
a twilight zone of sorts.
> My guess is that they have relinquished the Interstate designation for
> this route for one or more reasons. Possibly the road does not meet with
> Interstate guidelines, or there was too much paperwork needed to keep up
> with regulations. I am expecting a new 1999-2000 Illinois Highway Map
> this week, and maybe that will shed some light on this.
My first thought on this is that the city of Chicago owns and maintains the
Skyway. Typically states, not cities, maintain Interstate highways. As far
as guidelines are concerned, the Skyway does not have breakdown lanes
(shoulders.) There are three traffic lanes in each direction, but no
shoulders.
Happy Trails...
Rich Carlson
>>> Rich Carlson <n9...@theramp.net> 08/18/99 12:13AM >>>
I travelled the Chicago Skyway today and noticed that they added "TO"
I-90 (EB) and I-90/94 (WB) banners above the reassurance route markers
along the route. Did you remove the Skyway from the Interstate System?
I have a web page (http://www.theramp.net/n9jig/home.html) regarding
route numbers in Illinoius, and this would be an interesting tidbit.
Thanks!
Rich Carlson
http://www.theramp.net/n9jig/home.html
And I received this response:
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:13:07 -0500
From: Frank BRINSKELLE <PW0...@CI.CHI.IL.US>
To: cw...@CI.CHI.IL.US, n9...@theramp.net
Subject: Re: Chicago Skyway/I-90
Mr. Carlson,
The Chicago Skyway Toll Bridge System was never incorporated into the
Interstate System and was incorrectly marked as interstate 90. This point
was recently researched and no documentation was found. This was recently
corrected by properly adding the "to " designation over the route marker.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Brinskelle
Skyway Capital Improvements Manager
First, I was suprised at the fast and fortwith response of Mr. Brinskelle.
Second, this is verrryy interesting...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:13:07 -0500
> From: Frank BRINSKELLE <PW0...@CI.CHI.IL.US>
> To: cw...@CI.CHI.IL.US, n9...@theramp.net
> Subject: Re: Chicago Skyway/I-90
>
> Mr. Carlson,
>
> The Chicago Skyway Toll Bridge System was never incorporated into the
> Interstate System and was incorrectly marked as interstate 90. This point
> was recently researched and no documentation was found. This was recently
> corrected by properly adding the "to " designation over the route marker.
>
> Sincerely,
> Frank J. Brinskelle
> Skyway Capital Improvements Manager
They could easily incorporate it into the Interstate system. Could you
e-mail him and ask them if they might do that?
Larry Stone
n9...@theramp.net (Rich Carlson) wrote:
> And I received this response:
...
> The Chicago Skyway Toll Bridge System was never incorporated into the
> Interstate System and was incorrectly marked as interstate 90. This point
> was recently researched and no documentation was found. This was recently
> corrected by properly adding the "to " designation over the route marker.
Only a government bureaucrat could come up with a reason like this. John
Q. Public doesn't give a rat's ass about whether it was properly
incorporated into the Interstate system but he sure does care about route
continuity. I-90 is supposed to be a transcontintal interstate - not a
Boston to Gary road with a separate Chicago to Seattle highway.
--
-- Larry Stone --- lst...@enteract.com
http://www.enteract.com/~lstone/
Roselle, IL, USA
I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them
Aaron M. Renn
>They could easily incorporate it into the Interstate system. Could you
>e-mail him and ask them if they might do that?
Why would Chicago want the Skyway incorporated into the interstate system?
The only thing I'm aware of that it gets you is FHWA red tape.
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
SPUI
to I-94, and the Skyway wouldn't get money from thru traffic following I-90.
--
Daniel Moraseski
http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/spui/index.html - FL and NJ roads, and also a
list of all (well, most) SPUIs
King of irrelevant info
Editor of
http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Industries/Transportation/Turnpikes,_Highways_a
nd_Interchanges/
in Orlando, FL; originally from Manalapan, NJ
Aaron M. Renn wrote in message ...
Aaron M. Renn
>Actually it might be beneficial - otherwise INDOT and IDOT could move I-90
>to I-94, and the Skyway wouldn't get money from thru traffic following I-90.
What makes you think anyone cares about whether the Skyway is signed
as I-90 when driving it? Any diversion of traffic would also hurt the
Indiana border crossing toll as well.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >They could easily incorporate it into the Interstate system. Could you
> >e-mail him and ask them if they might do that?
>
> Why would Chicago want the Skyway incorporated into the interstate system?
> The only thing I'm aware of that it gets you is FHWA red tape.
Well, I guess for the same reason why it was posted as I-90 before, and
for the same reason why 2,500 other miles of pre-Interstate expressways
were incorporated into the interstate system; route continuity for
national mainline Interstate highways, and for local connections to the
Interstate system. If this is now going to be a missing gap in I-90,
then logically I-90 should be shifted to another completed route (I-94
Calumet and Kingery?).
The Dan Ryan Expressway carries I-90, and the Indiana Toll Road carries
it to the Illinois border. The Skyway provides a 6-lane expressway
direct link in the current I-90 corridor. Even though it is a tollroad,
Interstate status could possibly qualify it for future federal highway
funding. Whether or not the Skyway is signed as I-90, IMO it functions
as a segment of I-90.
SPUI
would get lost on I-95 north of Trenton.
--
Daniel Moraseski
http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/spui/index.html - FL and NJ roads, and also a
list of all (well, most) SPUIs
King of irrelevant info
Editor of
http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Industries/Transportation/Turnpikes,_Highways_a
nd_Interchanges/
in Orlando, FL; originally from Manalapan, NJ
Aaron M. Renn wrote in message ...
Rich Carlson
I-90 as it is. The banner signs would be ignored by most motorists.
I think this allows Chicago to avoid the red tape of Interstate status,
and the vast majority of people won't notice.
The fact that the roadway is City owned instead of State owned probably
excluded it from Interstate status, and they just took the easy way out
with $100.00 worth of small banner signs.
Omari Norman
> Actually it might be beneficial - otherwise INDOT and IDOT could move I-90
> to I-94, and the Skyway wouldn't get money from thru traffic following I-90.
Why would Indiana do this? Interstate 80/94 is already jam packed between
Gary and the Tri-State Tollway in Illinois. They're doing considerable
work on the highway, upgrading interchanges and such. If anything,
Indiana would shift I-94 to I-90 to shift some traffic to the Indiana
Toll Road, which has excess capacity.
Not that I would want that. Paying a few bucks for the Toll Road and the
Skyway gets you a much quicker route to Chicago.
Happy Trails...
Ralph Herman
I don't think so... interstate routes and/or toll crossings in some
jurisdictions are "city owned"... or at least not owned by a state DOT.
Also might mention the quirky NYC ownership... IIRC, most Interstate routes
are "owned" by NYC, but all federal aid construction and rehabilitation
projects in NYC are administered through the NYSDOT (or NYSDPW). Once the
NYSDOT (or NYSDPW) projects are/were completed, routine maintenance is
turned over to NYCDOT. IIRC, this scenario (NYC projects through NYSDOT) is
necessary because federal aid projects must be administered through state
DOT's.
And many Interstate sections of NYC routes were completed before there were
interstate highways... in fact were constructed by NYC (many were Moses
projects).
So IMHO, me thinks the Chicago Skyway was not included in the interstate
system because the Chicago city officials don't want IDOT (or the Feds)
looking into where their toll revenues were being spent. Youz want federal
aid, youz must play by their rules....
Ralph
bigtv...@hotmail.com
> ...
> > The Chicago Skyway Toll Bridge System was never incorporated into
the
> > Interstate System and was incorrectly marked as interstate 90.
This point
> > was recently researched and no documentation was found. This was
recently
> > corrected by properly adding the "to " designation over the route
marker.
>
> Only a government bureaucrat could come up with a reason like this.
I suspect the bureaucrat is trying to milk the feds for the money to
fix up the road and still keep the toll income. Time was, no federal
aid went to an agency when a toll was collected on the road- the
increased traffic and the resulting toll revenues was reward enough for
inclusion in the interstate system.
Now, toll roads get 50-50 funding-
Chicago wants its share of the bonanza, which it was probably denied
when it went asking, because the Skyway was never officially
incorporated into the system as I-90. But somewhere in the recesses of
my mind I think it was once I-94, and I-90 paired up with I-80 on the
Borman. There was a flip flop of the route numbers, and perchance the
new status of I-90 ws not properly recorded.
Whatever the reasons given, I'm sure money is the real cause.
--
Tom Ketchum
Bronson, MI
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jon Enslin
>The Chicago Skyway Toll Bridge System was never
incorporated into the
>Interstate System and was incorrectly marked as interstate
90. This point
>was recently researched and no documentation was found.
This was recently
>corrected by properly adding the "to " designation over the
route marker.
>
OK, we all agree that this is a more beaurocratic response
than anything, but what does this mean for the future of
Skyway repairs? The freeway does need some work. Was the
Skyway ever an NHS road? Will it still receive federal
funding?
I love the "this point was recently researched and no
documentation was found line." As if some rouge IDOT
officials decided to post I-90 markers on the Skyway.
Jon
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dyche Anderson
Skyway. If you look at the on-line FHWA maps of the National Highway System
(www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/data/maps/il.pdf), it clearly shows the Skyway as part of
Interstate 90.
Dyche Anderson
Dennis McClendon
>what does this mean for the future of
> Skyway repairs? The freeway does need some work. Was the
> Skyway ever an NHS road? Will it still receive federal
> funding?
The Skyway never received any Federal funding before, and is unlikely to
receive any now. The project was built by the city with revenue bonds,
but with the completion of I-94 shortly after the Skyway opened traffic
projections proved overoptimistic and for decades the city could not
make bond interest payments. The bondholders forced several rounds of
fare increases through the 1970s and 1980s.
The facility became self-supporting in 1989, and the city has long since
refinanced and retired the original bonds. A major rehabilitation
project has been underway for the last few years.
>As if some rouge IDOT
> officials decided to post I-90 markers on the Skyway.
No IDOT officials--rogue or rouge or even bleu--would have ever been at
work on the Skyway.
Jon Enslin
<dmccl...@21stcentury.net> wrote:
>The Skyway never received any Federal funding before, and
is unlikely to
>receive any now.
I'm still puzzled by the city's motivation for this change.
Are they trying to force the state/feds to come up with
some money for repairs by routing I-90 traffic onto the
already crowded I-80/94 freeway? (As if that could get any
worse.) And just because Chicago won't sign the Skyway as
I-90, that doesn't mean Indiana and Illinois will go along
with that.
>>As if some rouge IDOT
>> officials decided to post I-90 markers on the Skyway.
>
>No IDOT officials--rogue or rouge or even bleu--would have
ever been at
>work on the Skyway.
Shut-up. :-)
Aaron M. Renn
>The facility became self-supporting in 1989, and the city has long since
>refinanced and retired the original bonds. A major rehabilitation
>project has been underway for the last few years.
It is important to note that the "refinanced" bonds were at pennies on the
dollar for the original bondholders. This was a de facto bankruptcy
settlement. Miraculously, once the city wiped out the original bondholders,
it invested some serious money into the Skyway to make it more attractive
to drivers and traffic volumes are way up. (The NW Indiana casinos are
a nice windfall for the Skyway too).
Rich Carlson
<jenslin...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> In article <37C328...@21stcentury.net>, Dennis McClendon
> <dmccl...@21stcentury.net> wrote:
>
> >The Skyway never received any Federal funding before, and
> is unlikely to
> >receive any now.
>
> I'm still puzzled by the city's motivation for this change.
> Are they trying to force the state/feds to come up with
> some money for repairs by routing I-90 traffic onto the
> already crowded I-80/94 freeway? (As if that could get any
> worse.) And just because Chicago won't sign the Skyway as
> I-90, that doesn't mean Indiana and Illinois will go along
> with that.
>
>
> >>As if some rouge IDOT
> >> officials decided to post I-90 markers on the Skyway.
> >
> >No IDOT officials--rogue or rouge or even bleu--would have
> ever been at
> >work on the Skyway.
>
>
> Shut-up. :-)
>
> Jon
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
O don't think they are going to reroute I-90 at all. I believe they will
just leave I-90 on the IN Toll Road as it is, leave the Skyway as
un-numbered to avoid federal interference with City of Chicago plans, and
let I-90 pick up again on the Dan Ryan.
If the States of IN and IL want to show the Skyway as I-90 so be it. The
only ones that will know the differfence are too small in numbers to do
anything about it or don't really care. The vast majority of drivers
won't notice or care, as long as the road is in decent condition as it is
now. The Public's only complaints will be the amount of the toll, and the
wait at the toll booth.
Jon Enslin
n9...@theramp.net (Rich Carlson) wrote:
>
>O don't think they are going to reroute I-90 at all. I
believe they will
>just leave I-90 on the IN Toll Road as it is, leave the
Skyway as
>un-numbered to avoid federal interference with City of
Chicago plans, and
>let I-90 pick up again on the Dan Ryan.
So then, the important question for us roadgeeks becomes, is
I-90 a complete interstate or is it now a two part
interstate. My opinion is that the City of Chicago does not
have the authority to remove such a designation unilateraly
and therefore the designation stands despite the signage.
Warren
>
> So then, the important question for us roadgeeks becomes, is
> I-90 a complete interstate or is it now a two part
> interstate. My opinion is that the City of Chicago does not
> have the authority to remove such a designation unilateraly
> and therefore the designation stands despite the signage.
>
But was it ever officially I-90?
From what I've read here, it may have been included on an official (?-
or perhaps just a promotional) map published by the Feds, but was there
ever language drafted and adopted including this segment?
Without the proper authority of law, if we're going to be geeky-
technical, it doesn't matter what maps (erroneously) labeled it as I-
90, or who put up signs saying it was I-90 -- it wasn't I-90, and the
City of Chicago did nothing unilatterally execpt correct the signage.
From a practial standpoint, who's rule is it that navigational routing
signs have to match any statuatory highway designations? Which also
leads to the question of why is it important to add the "To" banner.
I wouldn't consider I-90 to be a two-part Interstate either way. I
would consider it the same way I consider the same way I considered so
many Interstates in the 60s and 70s: Incomplete.
BTW--It's been a long time since I've looked at a map, but how do they
route I-90 from the highway along the lake in Cleveland down to the
Turnpike for the remainder of it's trip through Ohio?
Warren
Paul S. Wolf
>
> BTW--It's been a long time since I've looked at a map, but how do they
> route I-90 from the highway along the lake in Cleveland down to the
> Turnpike for the remainder of it's trip through Ohio?
>
In from the east along the lake, then through downtown to the start of
I-71, then west along a freeway through the west side of Cleveland and
the western suburbs to an interchange with the turnpike near Elyria.
--
Paul S. Wolf, PE mailto:paul...@cuyctyengineers.org
Traffic Engineer, Cuyahoga County Engineer's Office - Cleveland, Ohio
Jon Enslin
>Jon Enslin <jenslin...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>> So then, the important question for us roadgeeks becomes,
is
>> I-90 a complete interstate or is it now a two part
>> interstate. My opinion is that the City of Chicago does
not
>> have the authority to remove such a designation
unilateraly
>> and therefore the designation stands despite the signage.
>>
>
>But was it ever officially I-90?
>
>From what I've read here, it may have been included on an
official (?-
>or perhaps just a promotional) map published by the Feds,
but was there
>ever language drafted and adopted including this segment?
>
>Without the proper authority of law, if we're going to be
geeky-
>technical, it doesn't matter what maps (erroneously)
labeled it as I-
>90, or who put up signs saying it was I-90 -- it wasn't
I-90, and the
>City of Chicago did nothing unilatterally execpt correct
the signage.
Are interstate designations adopted by law? No. They are
mostly adopted by AASHTO right? If Chicago unilaterally
labeled the Skyway as I-90, neither Illinois nor Indiana
seemed to mind.
Not to mention the fact that the Skyway was once I-94
(switched with I-90 in the early 1970s). So did that
paperwork get lost too?
>
>From a practial standpoint, who's rule is it that
navigational routing
>signs have to match any statuatory highway designations?
They don't but I don't think the city of Chicago has a right
to unilaterally remove interstate designations. IMO, it is
a restriction of interstate commerce.
Marc Fannin
> Warren wrote:
>
> > BTW--It's been a long time since I've looked at a map, but how do
> > they route I-90 from the highway along the lake in Cleveland down
> > to the Turnpike for the remainder of it's trip through Ohio?
>
> In from the east along the lake, then through downtown to the start of
> I-71, then west along a freeway through the west side of Cleveland and
> the western suburbs to an interchange with the turnpike near Elyria.
Paul, I know it's not your county, but do you know if the I-90
transitional highway between I-80/Turnpike and Ohio 2 is maintained by
ODOT or the Turnpike Commission? The few signs between the toll booth
and 2 seem to be OTC's (the differences between modern ODOT and OTC
signage are minimal but noticeable after a while, take it from me ;)
).
Two bits of trivia:
1. This connector was built considerably later than the highways to
which it connects (Ohio Hwys site says c. 1976). Apparently I-90
traffic was originally shuttled between the two highways on Ohio 57,
which appears to have been improved slightly to let this happen, but
the temporary designation probably didn't really matter, since I-90 on
the west side of Cleveland didn't open until after the Turnpike/Ohio 2
connector opened.
2. Where the connector merges into Ohio 2, the lane configuration is
conspicuously designed for Ohio 2 to be the through route, not I-90.
[BTW, completely off the subject, by throwning a link to an old page of
mine, a link to a new page of mine, and a link to a page that's not
mine together, I created the _Michiana Roads_ page,
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~musxf579/michroad.html ]
--
Marc Fannin musx...@kent.edu
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~musxf579/home.html
"If '[Weird] Al' didn't exist, we'd have to invent him."
-- Doug Feiger of the Knack
Paul S. Wolf
>
> Paul S. Wolf <Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org> wrote:
>
> > Warren wrote:
> >
> > > BTW--It's been a long time since I've looked at a map, but how do
> > > they route I-90 from the highway along the lake in Cleveland down
> > > to the Turnpike for the remainder of it's trip through Ohio?
> >
> > In from the east along the lake, then through downtown to the start
> > of I-71, then west along a freeway through the west side of
> > Cleveland and the western suburbs to an interchange with the
> > turnpike near Elyria.
>
> Paul, I know it's not your county, but do you know if the I-90
> transitional highway between I-80/Turnpike and Ohio 2 is maintained by
> ODOT or the Turnpike Commission? The few signs between the toll booth
> and 2 seem to be OTC's (the differences between modern ODOT and OTC
> signage are minimal but noticeable after a while, take it from me ;)
> ).
I would assume it's OTC's roadway, since it's really a ramp leading to
the toll booth.
--
Paul S. Wolf, PE mailto:paul...@cuyctyengineers.org
Traffic Engineer, Cuyahoga County Engineer's Office, Cleveland, Ohio
Jon Enslin
vandy...@yahoo.com (Omari Norman) wrote:
>In article <000b8d9b...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com>,
>jenslin...@ameritech.net says...
>> They don't but I don't think the city of Chicago has a
right
>> to unilaterally remove interstate designations. IMO, it
is
>> a restriction of interstate commerce.
>
Yes, they removed the I-90 designation from the Skyway.
There
still are
>plenty of signs on the Skyway as well as the Dan Ryan which
bear the I-90
>marker. The only difference is that the signs now simply
say "To." Most
>people will probably not notice the triviality. Those that
do will say,
>"Oh," and drive down the Skyway--that is, unless they want
to take I
>80/94 and avoid the Skyway's rather exorbitant toll.
>
>This certainly won't have any impact on interstate
commerce, considering
>that there are still plenty of I-90 markers on the Skyway.
This will do
>nothing to confuse motorists or truckers. Chicago removed
nothing--they
>only added "To" signs.
>
>Of course, why bother adding something that few will notice
anyway? Good
>question. It seems they just wanted the signs to be
technically
>correct. But it will have no impact on Skyway traffic.
>
Then why do it. It's at best petty and at worst stupid.
Aaron M. Renn
>What other Interstate-posted roads or bridges are solely owned by cities
>(not just that the city helped build it originally)?
To the best of my knowledge, the Skyway was the only one.
Ralph Herman
Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote in message
news:slrn7sd8g9...@shell-1.enteract.com...
I e-mailed NYSDOT to find out who "owns" the controlled access NYC
expressways and parkways... If they answer, I will post.
Ralph