IL: Eisenhower Expwy

[norheim]

New poster here, but a veteran from the old CHM site. Did a search on the site and didn't see anything about this, so here goes:

The eastern end of the Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago is not clinchable.  The portion east of the Circle Interchange with the Dan Ryan (I-90/94) is not part of I-290 like the rest of the Ike.  But it is an important and even historical freeway. It's not just a glorified exit ramp like the Ohio/Ontario ramps off of the Kennedy. Plus it goes through the Post Office!  Could it go in usasf?

[Highway63]

The name of it would be Congress Parkway (ConPkwy) and would be about half a mile long. I don't know if it meets the conditions for a special route though.

[michih]

I guess we don't wanna add it, do we? Marking solved?

[compdude787]

I guess we don't wanna add it, do we? Marking solved?

It seems that this is not something we want to add. Marking as solved...

[SSOWorld]

3 mile rule.

[mapcat]

3 mile rule.

There is no 3 mile rule.

[Markkos1992]

After the recent discussion involving the Inner Loop that led to its addition in usasf, I have unmarked this one.

[SSOWorld]

The name of it would be Congress Parkway (ConPkwy) and would be about half a mile long. I don't know if it meets the conditions for a special route though.

Ida B. Wells Drive is the name now.  Of course, that might go the route of Willis Tower (unrecognized by the locals)

[Highway63]

I'm confused. Now there's a drive to include this in there? I'm not sold on the value of adding 7 blocks of an unsigned, non-state-maintained(?) route between the Circle Interchange and Wells.

IL does not have any other "select" freeways so it would be sticking out funny.

[Duke87]

Per IDOT GIS it is under state jurisdiction... all the way to Michigan Ave, actually.

Regardless, I'm fine with the original decision to exclude and don't see anything that was done regarding the Inner Loop in NY as having any particular bearing on this.

[Markkos1992]

I'm confused. Now there's a drive to include this in there? I'm not sold on the value of adding 7 blocks of an unsigned, non-state-maintained(?) route between the Circle Interchange and Wells.

IL does not have any other "select" freeways so it would be sticking out funny.

I would not say there is "a drive" to include it.  I think it was worth further discussion.

I personally do not really have a side on this.  I would be more leaning on including it if the freeway extended to US 41 or ended at another major route. (see the Central Scranton Expressway)

[Jim]

Google has an IL 110 shield on the stretch in question.  I know it is probably erroneous as is so often the case with Google, but if in fact 110 extends past I-90, that solves the issue here.

[vdeane]

Google has an IL 110 shield on the stretch in question.  I know it is probably erroneous as is so often the case with Google, but if in fact 110 extends past I-90, that solves the issue here.

I don't recall seeing any route signage on street view, so if it does, it probably just brings this into the unsigned state route debate.

Wikipedia shows it as ending at I-90/I-94 in any case.  Actually, is IL 110 even signed there?  It doesn't look like it.

[Jim]

Wherever the TM threshold is for inclusion in usasf, I think the Northway stub is more worthy, given that it connects at US 20.  To be clear, I am not necessarily advocating for the Northway stub, but that the stretch in question here is further from the threshold for inclusion in my opinion.

[SSOWorld]

Google has an IL 110 shield on the stretch in question.  I know it is probably erroneous as is so often the case with Google, but if in fact 110 extends past I-90, that solves the issue here.

I don't recall seeing any route signage on street view, so if it does, it probably just brings this into the unsigned state route debate.

Wikipedia shows it as ending at I-90/I-94 in any case.  Actually, is IL 110 even signed there?  It doesn't look like it.

Not on the section that should be called Congress Pkwy.  West of the Circle, yes.