Talk:Interstate 90 in Illinois

Tackling The Junction List

The junction list for this road is already listed in its respective tollway parts. Should this info be copied, or should those toll segments be linked to instead of having a junction list in this article?

Patrick McDougle (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing exit numbers get placed along the Rockford/Roscoe section of the Toll road. Southbound only as of 3/21.  — master son^{T - C} 23:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tollway merger

I would like to propose merging Jane Addams Memorial Tollway into this article. All of the tollway is part of I-90, so it doesn't make any sense here to have two articles to cover the same stretch of road. –Fredddie™ 05:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I support this.  VC  06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Support merger –TCN7JM 06:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done –Fredddie™ 16:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Lane configuration

This was moved out of the article. It should be rewritten as prose and then inserted back into the route description. –Fredddie™ 16:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Interstate 90 runs through downtown Chicago, resulting in some odd lane configurations when compared to downtown arteries like the Schuylkill Expressway in Philadelphia:

From north to south:

• Wisconsin state line to Rockton Road (2.7 miles) -- 4 lanes (2 lanes in each direction)
• Rockton Road to Interstate 39 split (14.5 miles) -- 6 lanes (3 lanes in each direction with a 4th on approach to I-39)
• Interstate 39 split to Randall Road (35 miles) -- 4 lanes (2 lanes in each direction)
• Randall Road to Tri-State Tollway (I-294) (25.7 miles) -- 6 lanes (3 lanes in each direction plus a variable 1-2 collector/distributor lanes near Elgin toll plaza, the I-290/IL-53 interchange, and the I-294/I-190 interchange)
• Tri-State Tollway to Edens Expressway (I-94) (6.8 miles) -- 6 lanes (3 lanes each way)
• Edens Junction to Ohio Street (7 miles) -- 10 lanes (2 reversible, 4 westbound, 4 eastbound)
• Ohio Street to Eisenhower Expressway (Interstate 290) (1.1 miles) -- 10 lanes (5 westbound, 5 eastbound)
• At the Eisenhower Expressway (0.4 miles) -- 6 lanes (3 westbound, 3 eastbound)
• From the Eisenhower Expressway to the Stevenson Expressway (Interstate 55) (1.8 miles) -- 10 lanes (5 eastbound, 5 westbound)
• From the Stevenson Expressway to the 47th Street Slip (3 miles) -- 14 lanes (express: 4 lanes each way, local: 3 lanes each way)
• Between the 47th Street and 51st Street Slip Ramps (0.5 miles) -- 14 lanes (express: 3 lanes each way, local: 4 lanes each way)
• 51st Street to the Chicago Skyway (Interstate 90) (2 miles) -- 14 (same configuration as north of 47th, although one eastbound express lane transitions into the Skyway slip).
• Entire stretch of Chicago Skyway to Indiana (7.2 miles) -- 6 lanes (3 lanes each way)

When returned, the first bullet is 6 lanes now  — master son^{T - C} 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Skyway now officially part of I-90?

On a recent trip on the Chicago Skyway, I noticed the "TO" signs had been removed. The road is now signed only as I-90. I also noticed new mile marker and exit number signs, measured correctly from the Wisconsin state line at Beloit. (e.g. The exit sign for Stony Island now reads "Exit 103".) I have been searching for some reference of this change, and I've come up with nothing so far. I didn't want to make this a change in the main article until I found some confirming reference. What has happened? Did the city drop its silly argument about it not being officially I-90? Did AASHTO make some ruling? Anybody? RogerD (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess so. Cilabsuhsk (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 90 in Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618053821/http://chicagobase.lib.uic.edu/website/Atlas%20Overview/atlas_4.htm to http://chicagobase.lib.uic.edu/website/Atlas%20Overview/atlas_4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201131240/http://www.illinoistollway.com/ to http://illinoistollway.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent removals

Some basic notes:

• The identities of the organizations that maintain a roadway is an important deal, and probably important enough to have up in the lead.
• Yes, the route description section needs expansion. For a highway of this length, it should have 50–100% more content. Ideally, there should be subsections for the Jane Addams Tollway, the free section and the Skyway. The lengths of each subsection should be proportional to the lengths of highway segments discussed.
• The tolls section should remain, per WP:USRD/STDS. If tolls are collected along a highway, it's only common sense that an article about that highway should discuss how those tolls are collected and assessed. If other highways in Illinois lack such sections, those articles should have them added. For precedent, see Kansas Turnpike (a FA), Chickasaw Turnpike (another FA) and Creek Turnpike (another FA).
• The history of why the Skyway is built as it is isn't a trivial detail that should be removed.
• Minor details:
  • The "US" in "US$" is redundant on an article about a roadway in the United States.
  • State-level highways in Illinois are consistently abbreviated "IL #", not "IL-#", and a link there wasn't inappropriate.
  • I'm unsure why it's problematic to merge the two bullet points in the related routes section into a cohesive paragraph with an introductory sentence.

As for these three minor points, the only explanation I can fathom is that perhaps anything useful I did in carefully and partially reverting the removals of content and applying some clean up was just thrown out wholesale. If so, a word of caution is in order in the future, because I was attempting to integrate positive changes, not discard them. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: To your points.....

• No, it can be included in the route description or history section and it is adequate. If the entire road was maintained by either IDOT, ISTHA, etc, then it is important for the top, but otherwise, the description section is fine.
• According to which Wikipedia policy? WP:NOTEVERYTHING would say otherwise. Information is to be condensed and to the point, this is an encyclopedia, not a road enthusiast site. Also, the information does not currently meet WP:V.
• A fair amount of this section comes very close to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, particularly the specific toll rate information. Specific information on how tolls are collected could be incorporated into the route description, but the rates probably should stay out.
• I realized that and in my last edit, and I put it back in.
• To your minor points, I agree and I did not realize I had reverted those. My apologies.

With all due respect, please be careful not to treat road articles like WP:OWN. I've noticed a pattern in your editing behavior that would seem to indicate that. I know you have a passion here, but don't just mass revert edits because you don't like them. I am trying to help here, because this article needed some TLC. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, one should continue the discussion to a conclusion before making big changes that are controversial (in the sense that there is a disagreement over them). To do otherwise, or to unilaterally impose organizational restrictions on future edits in an edit summary also looks like WP:OWN. Imzadi 1979 → 01:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I see no one objecting but you. You treat these articles like they are your own, and feel as if you have the right to police them essentially. Do you care to respond with some substance to the points I made? I'm sorry, but you are not the boss here. Blissfield101 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Blissfield101 looking at your talk page, you have a history of doing things WP:BOLDly, which isn't bad in itself, but when someone objects (see the Revert and Discuss sections on WP:BRD), you seem to give the same canned answers. If I were you, I would read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because I think it describes how your points are coming across. Moreover, telling a 10+ year editor who's written 25+ Featured Articles about roads that he doesn't understand core policies is baffling. Imzadi1979 is here to write an encyclopedia as well and suggestions that he makes, since he's presented so many road articles at FAC, are generally what the community expects a decent article about a road to contain. –Fredddie™ 01:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Some replies:

• I disagree about the agency names in the lead, but this is really minor. It needs to be mentioned someplace, and on first mention, the abbreviations need to be present because they're used elsewhere in the article. (Look at the infobox and consider that not everyone will be able to hover a cursor over those links to get the tooltip that expands the link to the full name.) A good RD expansion will likely cover the transition from ISTHA to IDOT to SCC maintenance at the transition points, and the names should/are in the history, so its just nicer to state and then reuse the abbreviations.
• Speaking of the transition points, the RD probably should be organized along the named segments so that Jane Addams Tollway can redirect to the RD subsection. Ditto Chicago Skyway redirecting to its RD subsection. These are normal editing and linking techniques across the thousands of US highway articles.
• The typical method, as noted above, is to collect the tolling information into its own section. Could some of the information fit better elsewhere, probably, but ISTHA and SCC's toll collection information fits better in a single paragraph or two put together instead of dispersed. Like it or not, readers do use our articles in researching travel plans, and tolling is an important subtopic on its own.
  • If this were a road enthusiast site, I guarantee you that a lot more pedantic and esoteric information would be included. It's typically a best practice to give some generalized indication of the toll rates.
  • By reading the current revision, how does a reader know where and how ISTHA collects tolls along their segment of I-90? Answer: they don't because that information was removed.
  • By generalized, we should our readers a summary of how the tolls are assessed. Some articles give a rough dollar amount for the full cost to drive the full highway, an average price per mile or something, but that's not always needed.
  • Some other editors put exact gantry toll amounts or exit/entrance ramp toll amounts in the exit list. I remove those whenever possible, which is basically always. We aren't a price catalog, but see above for how a generalized impression of cost is beneficial.
• Another important detail that keeps getting lost from the lead is the previous "Northwest Tollway" name. Alternate names should appear in bold in the lead, especially when it is a redirect to the article. It is bad form to bury that alternate name in the body someplace and then not bold it.

So moving forward, per WP:BRD, it really would be best to keep discussing, hammer out areas where we agree (and we probably really agree more than you think), and then implement changes. Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Something not mentioned before, but the one photo really should be in the subsection and not above per MOS:ACCESS. It keeps getting moved back, yet this is something I picked up over the years in doing FACs. The reason pertains to how screen readers process articles when reading them to blind consumers of our content. Imzadi 1979 → 02:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)