WELCOME IL 47 Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 Waubonsee Community College Wednesday, May 31, 2017
WELCOME
IL 47
Community Advisory Group Meeting #5
Waubonsee Community CollegeWednesday, May 31, 2017
MEETING PURPOSE
1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Process/Schedule 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices6. Preferred Alternative7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Process/Schedule4. Potential Evaluation Criteria5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices6. Preferred Alternative7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
CAG Binder Agenda CAG 4 Summary CAG 5 Presentation
Websitewww.sugargroveinterchange.org
RESOURCES
1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Process/Schedule4. Potential Evaluation Criteria5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices6. Preferred Alternative7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT RECAP
CAG Meeting #4November 15, 2016• Reviewed Initial Range of Alternatives• Presented Alternatives Screening Results• Presented the Alternatives To Be Carried
Forward
Public Meeting #3March 28, 2017• Presented Alternatives Screening Results• Presented the Alternatives To Be Carried
Forward• Obtained Input
INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVESCARRIED FORWARD
Alternative Carried Forward Interchange Type and Configuration
Half Diamond with Access To and From the West
I-1 Conventional Diamond with Traditional Intersections
I-2 Conventional Diamond with Roundabout Intersections
I-3 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
I-4 Partial Cloverleaf with Loop Ramp in the Northeast Quadrant
NB
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
NO BUILD
Alternative Carried Forward Alignment
No-Build Existing Roadway
M-1A Widening on Both Sides of the Road
M-1C Widening on Both Sides of the Road(with narrowing at Forest Preserve)
M-2CCenterline alignment shift to the east with
Widening on Both Sides of the Road(with narrowing at Forest Preserve)
ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
NO-BUILD
M-1A
M-1C
M-2C
I-88 Interchange Alternatives
Preferences for
Preferences for and against
IL 47 Corridor Alternatives
Preferences for
Concerns regarding Finley Road Access and U-Turn Concerns regarding traffic volumes, noise, residential impacts Concerns regarding changes to access and safely entering IL 47 from
the side streets
PUBLIC MEETING 3 FEEDBACK
NB I-1
I-2 I-3
I-4
NO-BUILD M-2C M-3(eliminated)
1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Process/Schedule4. Potential Evaluation Criteria5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices6. Preferred Alternative7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969 Compliance required for federal funding eligibility Full range of reasonable alternatives, including
the “no-build” alternative Coordination with environmental resource
agencies Comprehensive environmental review
(avoid, minimize, mitigate impacts) Environmental Assessment (EA)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS
PHASE I PROCESS
Human and Natural
Environment
Hydraulics, Drainage &
BridgeRoadway, Geometrics
& Traffic
Vehicular/Pedestrian
Safety
Data Collection
Purposeand
Need
Evaluate Alternatives
Define Alternatives
and Evaluation
Criteria
Select Preferred
Alternative
2015 2016 2017
Stakeholder Outreach
Document Findings of
Environmental Studies
PROJECT STUDY TIMELINE
2015 2016 2017
DATA COLLECTION
PURPOSE & NEED
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CAG MEETING
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION AND SCREENING PROCESS
Develop Initial Alternatives
Round 2 ScreeningLevel of Service, Right-of-Way, Environmental
Concerns, Stakeholder Input, Cost
Round 1 ScreeningLevel of Service, Right-of-Way, Environmental
Concerns, Stakeholder Input
Purpose & Need Screening
Eliminated Alternatives
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternatives Carried Forward
1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Process/Schedule4. Potential Evaluation Criteria5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices6. Preferred Alternative7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
Access Economic Development Land Use Property
Traffic Safety Drainage Environment
Bicycle and Pedestrian Cost Funding Schedule
POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
GENERAL CATEGORIES FROM THE CAG AT THE SECOND MEETING
Ease of Access to I-88
Connectivity of the Roadway
System
Access to IL 47 Adjacent to the
Interchange
Accessibility To IL 47 from
Adjacent Land Uses
ACCESS
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Tools and Examples Medians Intersection Spacing Right-In/Right-Out (RI/RO)
Entrance Relocation Access Consolidation ¾ Access
¼ MILE MINIMUM SIGNAL OR FULL ACCESS SPACING ON SRA
RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
¾ ACCESSRIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
AND LEFT-IN
COLLECTOR ROADS GIVEN TOP PRIORITY
ACCESS MANAGEMENT APPLIED
From Kane County 2040 Transportation PlanFigure 3-2Roadway Functional Classification
Project Location
MAIN ST
SEAVEY RD
EXISTING ACCESS SPACINGC
OLL
EGE
DR
OA
KLE
AF
DR
NO
TTIN
GH
AM
DR
OLD
MID
LOTH
IAN
RDI-88 EB
EXIT RAMPI-88 WB
ENTRANCE RAMP
CROSS STREET FUNCTIONAL CLASS
EXPRESSWAY
LOCAL
COLLECTOR
0.1 miles
0.1 miles
0.4 miles
0.09 miles
0.23 miles
0.1 miles
0.1 miles
0.27 miles
0.1 miles
0.15 miles
ACCESS ADJACENT TO INTERCHANGE
1050’ ACCESS CONTROL LIMITS
1050’ ACCESS CONTROL LIMITS
FIN
LEY
RD
ILLINOIS TOLLWAY INTERCHANGE AND ROADWAY COST SHARING POLICY
CROSS STREET ACCESS
1050 FEET
CR
OSS
RO
AD
TOLL
WAY
RA
MP
Sufficient Storage for Cross Road Vehicles to Safely Enter IL 47
Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection
FINLEY ROAD OPERATION ISSUE
450 FEET
FIN
LEY
RO
AD
TOLL
WAY
RA
MP
Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection
Insufficient Storage for Finley Road
Vehicles to Safely Enter IL 47
Blocks Southbound Traffic:
SAFETY ISSUECONFLICT POINTS
CROSSINGMERGING
PROPOSED FINLEY ROAD ACCESS
450 FEET
FIN
LEY
RO
AD
TOLL
WAY
RA
MP
Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection
No Left Out Permitted
Proposed ¾ Access
MITIGATE FINLEY ROAD ACCESS
APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET
FIN
LEY
RO
AD
Proposed U - TURN
Proposed ¾ Access
CONFLICT POINTSCROSSINGMERGING
NOTTINGHAM WOODS ACCESSO
AK
LEA
F D
R
NO
TTIN
GH
AM
DR
OLD
MID
LOTH
IAN
RD
OA
KLE
AF
DR
NO
TTIN
GH
AM
DR
OLD
MID
LOTH
IAN
RD
GR
EEN
RD
GR
EEN
RD
210
250
240
455
125
120
0.3 miles
0.27 miles
0.1 miles
0.1 miles
0.27 miles
0.1 miles
EXISTING PROPOSED
ADT
ACCESS MANAGEMENT APPLIEDC
OLL
EGE
DR
PROPOSED ACCESS TYPEFULL ACCESS
OA
KLE
AF
DR
NO
TTIN
GH
AM
DR
OLD
MID
LOTH
IAN
RD
RIGHT-IN/ RIGHT-OUTU-TURN
0.4 miles 0.15
miles
0.55 miles
0.3 miles
0.23 miles
I-88 EB EXIT RAMP
I-88 WB ENTRANCE
RAMP
0.27 miles
¾ ACCESS
DISTANCES FROM FULL TO FULL ACCESS
Economic Development
Property Value Impacts
Land Use Impacts
Property Impacts
Interchange Design
MinimizationDisplacements
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,LAND USE AND PROPERTY
Economic Development All of the Interchange and IL 47 Build
Alternatives Accommodate the Proposed Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan is a tool utilized by Sugar Grove Economic Development Corporation (SGEDC) to further their goals
Full Access Interchange Connects NHS Routes (important to economy, defense, and mobility)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,LAND USE AND PROPERTY
Property Value Impacts In Phase II, which includes land
acquisition, fair market value for property is offered.
Independent appraisals are performed.
Damage to the remainder of property not acquired is taken into consideration during the appraisal process.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,LAND USE AND PROPERTY
$$$
0.9
0.1
5.2
0.70.7
0
7.2
0.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4
LAND USE AND PROPERTYIMPACTS
I-3 DDI had the largest
farmland and ROW impacts
I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4
LEGEND
ROW IMPACTS (ACRES)FARMLAND IMPACTS (ACRES)
5.8 5.87.3
11.4 10.912
0
5
10
15
20
M-1A M-1C M-2C
LAND USE AND PROPERTYIMPACTS
LEGEND
ROW IMPACTS (ACRES)
FARMLAND IMPACTS (ACRES)
M-1A M-1C M-2C
Widening Towards the East had the most farmland and ROW Impacts
DISPLACEMENTS
Widening on Both Sides had six (6)potential residential displacements
M-1A
M-1C
M-2C Widening Towards the East resulted in no (0) potential residential displacements
Traffic Volumes on IL 47 Truck Volumes Impacts of Traffic
on Local Roads
Bicycle and Pedestrian
AccommodationsCapacity and Operations
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
The Population of Sugar Grove and Elburn is projected to triple from 2010 to 2040 Sugar Grove – 10,000 to 30,000 Elburn – 6,000 to 18,000
Traffic Volumes Increase on IL 47 in the Build and No Build Conditions and are generally the same within the study limits
All Build Alternatives have the same traffic projections
Traffic Volumes on IL 47
Part of Purpose and Need is to Improve Connectivity of Truck Routes(Improve System Linkage)
Just like overall traffic volumes, Truck Volumes will increase with population growth without any improvements
TRAFFIC
Truck Volumes
TRAFFIC
Impacts of Traffic on Local Roads
Build Traffic Decreases from No Build Increased access to I-88 and IL 47
makes shorter and faster trips than circuitous local routes, which removes traffic from local routes
Build Traffic Increases from No Build College Drive – More use of
northern WCC entrance due to new route with increased access at I-88
Scott Road – Marginal increase in traffic
All Build Alternatives have the same
traffic projections on Local Roads
MERRILL RD
FINLEY RD
SEAVEY ROAD
GREEN RD
SCOTT RD
COLLEGEDR
Less Cut-Through Traffic on Local
Roads
Facilities on Both Sides Narrower facilities on west side to
Reduce Residential Impacts
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS
All Build Alternatives accommodate separated(off-street) facilities for bicycles and pedestrians on IL-47 over I-88 at the interchange
80%
20%
Path Costs
5 foot Sidewalk
Looking North
10 foot Multi-Use Path
No Build Segment Level of Service (LOS) = D to E Build Segment LOS = A to B
CAPACITY AND OPERATIONS
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
Potential Operational Issue – Back to Back Left Turn Lanes
Potential Operational Issue – Lack of Availability to Flush Ramps
No Operational Issues Anticipated
No Operational Issues Anticipated
All Build Alternatives Operate an Acceptable LOS
Traffic SafetyEmergency
Vehicle Response and
Transport
SAFETY
TRAFFIC SAFETY
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
# of Conflict Points
Conflict Points The Conventional Diamond has the most
conflict points
I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4
TRAFFIC SAFETY
Median / Left Turn Channelization None in the No Build Condition All Build Alternatives have a Median
with Left Turn Channelization
MedianLeft Turn Lane Channelization
Medians Provide Separation from Opposing Traffic and
Reduce Crashes
Left Turn Lanes Provide Separation from Thru Traffic
and Reduce Rear-End Crashes
Vehicular Conflict Points The existing access
configuration results in over 100 vehicular conflict points
The proposed access configuration for all the build alternatives will result in a 22% reduction in vehicular conflict points
TRAFFIC SAFETY
All Build Alternatives will provide two lanes in each direction and wide paved outside shoulders
Provides more refuge for vehicles to slow down and pull over for Emergency Service Providers
EMERGENCY VEHICLE RESPONSE AND TRANSPORT
All Build Alternatives will eliminate circuitous travel routes for Emergency Vehicle Response and Transport
Impact on Storm Water and Drainage
Avoidance of Pollutants in Blackberry
Creek
Storm Water Volume Impacts
on Blackberry Creek (Flooding)
DRAINAGE
What are BMPs? Improves Overall Water Quality Minimizes Soil Erosion Controls storm water runoff by
capturing soil sediment and roadway pollutants
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
Select Preferred
Alternative
Complete Drainage Study and
Identify BMPs
Present Drainage Study at Public
Hearing
Further Design and
Detail In Phase II
Permits from
Regulatory Agencies
in Phase II
BMP DESIGN PROCESS
Air Quality Noise Lighting
Forest Forest Preserve Floodplains
Waters of the US Wetlands
ENVIRONMENT
What is a Noise Receptor? Noise Analysis Process
1. Identify Noise Receptor Locations2. Determine Traffic Noise Level
o Modelingo Validated by Field Monitoring
3. Traffic Noise Impact Identification4. Traffic Noise Abatement Analysis
NOISE ANALYSIS
FEASIBILITY AND REASONABLENESS POLICY FEASIBILITY Abatement must achieve at least 5dB(A)
traffic noise reduction Abatement must be feasible to construct
REASONABLENESS Generally, noise abatement cost must be
<$30,000* per benefitted receptor Must achieve at least an 8 dB(A) noise
reduction at a benefited receptor
NOISE ANALYSIS
* Adjustment factors can increase the allowable cost per benefited receptor
NOISE ANALYSIS
Example Letter and Voting Form (May Occur During Next Phase)
LIGHT
Interchange Lighting for Safety No High Mast Lighting All Ramps will have Light Poles IL 47 will have Lighting at Interchange IL 47 will have Transition Lighting from
Interchange - Generally From Finley to Seavey
Lighting Is A Local Cost Item Adjacent Rural Sections Do Not Have Lighting No Lighting Is Currently Planned on IL 47
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4
Forest, Floodplain, WOUS, and Wetland Impacts
Forest (acres)
Wetlands (acres)
Waters of the US (acres)
Floodplains (acres)
ENVIRONMENTAL
The DDI had the most impacts
I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4
The Roundabout Alternative had
the Second Highest Impacts
0
2
4
6
8
M-1A M-1C M-2C
Forest Preserve , Floodplain, WOUS, and Wetland Impacts
Wetlands (acres)
WOUS (acres)
Floodplain (acres)
Forest Preserve (acres)
ENVIRONMENTAL
M-1A had the largest impacts
M-1A M-1C M-2C
Funding Schedule
Construction Cost
Maximize Bridge Improvement Investment
COST, FUNDING AND SCHEDULE
15.6 15.4
23.6
19.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
Conceptual Cost in 2016 Dollars ($ millions)
Construction Cost
CONSTRUCTION COST
The DDI has the highest
construction cost
$$$
I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4
16.7 16.718.5
02468
101214161820
Conceptual Cost in 2016 Dollars ($ millions)
Construction Cost
CONSTRUCTION COST
M-2C had the largest
cost
$$$
M-1A M-1C M-2C
BRIDGE IMPACTS
I-1 1311 Square Feet of Bridge Widening
631 Square Feet of Bridge Widening
Additional Bridge - 14,640 Square Feet
No Bridge Widening
I-2
I-3
I-4
1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Process/Schedule4. Potential Evaluation Criteria5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices6. Preferred Alternative7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
Category I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4
Access to IL 47 Adjacent to Interchange
Farmland Impacts
ROW Impacts
Capacity and Operations
Vehicular Conflict Points
Forest Impacts
Floodplain Impacts
WOUS Impacts
Wetland Impacts
Bridge Widening
Estimated Cost
INTERCHANGE EVALUATION
I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4
INSERT PICTURE OF EVALUATION MATRIX
IL 47 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Category
Farmland Impacts
ROW Impacts
Displacements
Forest Preserve Impacts
Floodplain Impacts
WOUS Impacts
Wetland Impacts
Estimated Cost
M-1A M-1C M-2C
1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Process/Schedule4. Potential Evaluation Criteria5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices6. Preferred Alternative7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
Review Detailed Strip Map of Preferred Alternative
CAG Provide Input on Preferred Alternatives for Further Refinement
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
M-2CI-4
1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Process/Schedule4. Potential Evaluation Criteria5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices6. Preferred Alternative7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
Preferred Interchange AlternativePreferred IL 47
Alternative
TASKS COMPLETED
NEXT PHASE I STEPS
Refine Preferred
Alternative
Environmental Assessment Document
Public Hearing
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU!