CHICAGO IL:U-ways: Broad Shouldered Plan for Gov Ryan

(1) Marquette U-way – under Marquette Rd from the I-94/Chicago Skyway IC 10km (6mi) to Midway Airport with a ‘hook’ connection northward to the Stevenson Exwy (I-55)

(2) Grand Avenue U-way – under Grand Avenue 22km (14mi) as a new radial route from the downtown Loop to O’Hare Airport relieving local streets as well as the Kennedy Exwy (I-90) to the north and the Eisenhower Exwy (I-290) to the south. It could continue westward as already planned along the southern boundary of the airport to the Egin-O’Hare Exwy with a spur up to the Northwest Tollway (I-90).

(3) Cicero U-way –under Cicero Av (IL-50) from the I-94/I-90 split south 32km (20mi) picking up I-290 and I-55 and Midway Airport and ending at I-294, providing a whole new north-south artery, taking pressure off local streets and the Kennedy/Dan Ryan (I-90/94) and the Tri-State Tollway (I-294)

(4) County Line U-way would extend the Tristate I-94 spur in Northbrook westward 11km (7mi) to I-290 offering another alternate route and adding to the area expressway grid.

This U-way system would total 75km (46mi) of 2x2-lane tunnel-tollway. Managed with a variable toll to avoid overloading and stop-&-go flows, it could transform mobility in the established built areas of Chicago, notably in Cook County, and address the criticism that too much infrastructure investment is going to the outskirts, encouraging unnecessary ‘sprawl.’ It would also provide alternative rapid routes from many points to the modern hubs of commerce, the two major airports, the downtown Loop, and the many warehousing and intermodal terminals of the southside of Chicago. It would take pressure off the most heavily congested expressways, especially the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Dan Ryan (I-90/94). It could also reduce the need to widen the Tristate Tollway (I-294).

Tunneling techniques have improved rapidly and today’s cleaner vehicles are less demanding on ventilation systems. At c$80m/km ($130m/mi) the costs of the underground portions would be of the order of $6b plus another $1b say for surface connections or $7b. About the same as the Tollway’s existing capital plan over the next 20 years. Only manageable with tolls of course, and with tolls that would have to be allowed to go quite high in peak hours. Worth study by those serious about improving the viability of the established area?