Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RJL6000

West Division - Changes & Restructuring

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, MetroShadow said:

 

Neither idea works. 230 is one of those connector routes whose sole purpose to connecting mount prospect with DP and Rosemont; 250/Pulse D can make connections at DP without going out of the way back to Rosemont.

That's what I figured about the 230, just wanted to spitball an idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, artthouwill said:

With the 330 change,  it might make sense to run the 332 via 25th Ave to completely cover the discontinued 326.  I guess I will check it out next month. 

I like this a lot. Can vehicles left turn onto Mannheim from Irving Park?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I like this a lot. Can vehicles left turn onto Mannheim from Irving Park?

This proposal to reroute 332 would bypass the stop at Mannheim/Montrose, which would result in a longer and more dangerous walk for the workers who use that stop. Potential passengers along 25th would at least have a sidewalk to get to the stop at Lawrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

This proposal to reroute 332 would bypass the stop at Mannheim/Montrose, which would result in a longer and more dangerous walk for the workers who use that stop. Potential passengers along 25th would at least have a sidewalk to get to the stop at Lawrence.

Ah, gotcha. I'm never in this area, so sidewalks were my main concern cause I figured there probably wouldn't be any. However, if the 330 would now be serving Rosemont, would it be necessary to have the 332 continue that way?. Forgot about the York Rd section

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally construction on the bridge on St Charles Rd just west of Rt 83 has begun.  The bridge has had a weight restriction for the past 2 years, which forced Pace to reroute the 313 via Rt 83, Roosevelt and Meyers.  This "temporary " reroute has eliminated access for workers trying to get to Walmart on Rt 83 since there is no place to stop along Rt 83.  I have heard that area residents along Villa and Washington wanted the route gone because they didn't want these workers walking through their neighborhood.  So the question will be what happens when the construction is done?  Will the bridge maintain a weight restriction?  If not, will Pace reinstate the old routing through Villa Park?  Will the residents and the village object to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, west towns said:

why cant it stop on il 83 ?  routes 223 and 757 makes stops on Il 83 in Elk Grove and Bensenville

Serving that Walmart would require a full-on detour into the parking lot, since there is a barrier btwn the service road that has access to the walmart and Kingery Hwy. Also no where to really stop, there isn't a full-size shoulder or sidewalk or grass or anything like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, west towns said:

why cant it stop on il 83 ?  routes 223 and 757 makes stops on Il 83 in Elk Grove and Bensenville

 

4 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Serving that Walmart would require a full-on detour into the parking lot, since there is a barrier btwn the service road that has access to the walmart and Kingery Hwy. Also no where to really stop, there isn't a full-size shoulder or sidewalk or grass or anything like that

Bus stop standards won’t allow it, ADA requirements won’t allow it. Walkability isn’t allowed either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 4:41 PM, artthouwill said:

Will the bridge maintain a weight restriction?

No, because the restriction was caused by deterioration of the bridge, and a new bridge that can’t handle more weight would go against construction standards. It is possible the road may maintain a weight limit if Villa Park wishes to restrict through truck traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 5:09 PM, Pace831 said:

No, because the restriction was caused by deterioration of the bridge, and a new bridge that can’t handle more weight would go against construction standards. It is possible the road may maintain a weight limit if Villa Park wishes to restrict through truck traffic.

That's what I meant.  Would Villa Park retain the weight limit once construction is completed?  This restriction has eliminated thru truck traffic (and Pace buses but not school buses) to this point, but it has taken two years from the time Villa Park imposed the restrictions to commencement of construction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 6:47 PM, artthouwill said:

That's what I meant.  Would Billa Park retain the weight limit once construction is completed?  This restriction has eliminated thru truck traffic (and Pace buses but not school buses) to this point, but it has taken two years from the time Villa Park imposed the restrictions to commencement of construction.  

You made a typo in here, it should be Villa, not Billa. I'm sorry for not responding earlier, but I just noticed that. The second time, Villa is spelled correctly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 6:47 PM, artthouwill said:

That's what I meant.  Would Billa Park retain the weight limit once construction is completed?  This restriction has eliminated thru truck traffic (and Pace buses but not school buses) to this point, but it has taken two years from the time Villa Park imposed the restrictions to commencement of construction.  

I couldn’t find the answer the first time, but I looked again and came across a quote attributed to the Elmhurst City Manager in 2017:

“It will still have the weight restrictions until the full bridge is replaced, but it’s good news in terms of traffic flow through Elmhurst and Villa Park.” (Emphasis added)

However, I’m not sure the definitive answer publicly exists yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Erin Mishkin Jr. said:

You made a typo in here, it should be Villa, not Billa. I'm sorry for not responding earlier, but I just noticed that. The second time, Villa is spelled correctly

Corrected.   Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Erin Mishkin Jr. said:

You made a typo in here, it should be Villa, not Billa. I'm sorry for not responding earlier, but I just noticed that. The second time, Villa is spelled correctly

Grammar nazi.... had to tell him twice too lol

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...