WELCOME IL 47 Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 Waubonsee - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

WELCOME

IL 47

Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 Waubonsee Community College Wednesday, May 31, 2017

MEETING PURPOSE

• 1. Welcome/Introduction
• 2. Review Previous Public Involvement
• 3. Process/Schedule
• 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria
• 5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices
• 6. Preferred Alternative
• 7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

MEETING AGENDA

• 1. Welcome/Introduction
• 2. Review Previous Public Involvement
• 3. Process/Schedule
• 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria
• 5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices
• 6. Preferred Alternative
• 7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

MEETING AGENDA

CAG Binder

• Agenda
• CAG 4 Summary
• CAG 5 Presentation

Website www.sugargroveinterchange.org

RESOURCES

• 1. Welcome/Introduction
• 2. Review Previous Public Involvement
• 3. Process/Schedule
• 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria
• 5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices
• 6. Preferred Alternative
• 7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

MEETING AGENDA

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT RECAP

CAG Meeting #4

November 15, 2016

• Reviewed Initial Range of Alternatives
• Presented Alternatives Screening Results
• Presented the Alternatives To Be Carried

Forward

Public Meeting #3

March 28, 2017

• Presented Alternatives Screening Results
• Presented the Alternatives To Be Carried

Forward

• Obtained Input

INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD

Alt lternative C Car arried F Forwar ard Interchange ge Type an and C Configu guration 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

Alt lternative C Car arried Fo Forward Align lignment 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-2C Centerline 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 Inter erchange A e Alter ernati tives es

• Preferences for
• Preferences for and against

IL 47 Corri ridor r Altern rnat atives

• 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/Introduction
• 2. Review Previous Public Involvement
• 3. Process/Schedule
• 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria
• 5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices
• 6. Preferred Alternative
• 7. 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 & Bridge Roadway, Geometrics & Traffic Vehicular/ Pedestrian Safety

Data Collection Purpose and Need Evaluate Alternatives Define Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria Select Preferred Alternative

20 2015 15 201 016 2017 17

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 Screening

Level of Service, Right-of-Way, Environmental Concerns, Stakeholder Input, Cost

Round 1 Screening

Level of Service, Right-of-Way, Environmental Concerns, Stakeholder Input

Purpose & Need Screening Eliminated Alternatives PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternatives Carried Forward

• 1. Welcome/Introduction
• 2. Review Previous Public Involvement
• 3. Process/Schedule
• 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria
• 5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices
• 6. Preferred Alternative
• 7. 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 ACCESS RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT AND LEFT-IN

COLLECTOR ROADS GIVEN TOP PRIORITY

ACCESS MANAGEMENT APPLIED

From Kane County 2040 Transportation Plan Figure 3-2 Roadway Functional Classification Project Location

MAIN ST SEAVEY RD

EXISTING ACCESS SPACING

COLLEGEDR OAKLEAF DR NOTTINGHAM DR OLD MIDLOTHIAN RD

I-88 EB EXIT RAMP I-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

FINLEY RD

ILLINOIS TOLLWAY INTERCHANGE AND ROADWAY COST SHARING POLICY

CROSS STREET ACCESS

1050 FEET

CROSS ROAD TOLLWAY RAMP

Sufficient Storage for Cross Road Vehicles to Safely Enter IL 47 Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection

FINLEY ROAD OPERATION ISSUE

450 FEET

FINLEY ROAD TOLLWAY RAMP

Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection Insufficient Storage for Finley Road Vehicles to Safely Enter IL 47 Blocks Southbound Traffic: SAFETY ISSUE CONFLICT POINTS CROSSING MERGING

PROPOSED FINLEY ROAD ACCESS

450 FEET

FINLEY ROAD TOLLWAY RAMP

Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection No Left Out Permitted Proposed ¾ Access

MITIGATE FINLEY ROAD ACCESS

APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET

FINLEY ROAD

Proposed U - TURN Proposed ¾ Access CONFLICT POINTS CROSSING MERGING

NOTTINGHAM WOODS ACCESS

OAKLEAF DR NOTTINGHAM DR OLD MIDLOTHIAN RD OAKLEAF DR NOTTINGHAM DR OLD MIDLOTHIAN RD GREEN RD GREEN RD

2 1 2 5 2 4 4 5 5 1 2 5 1 2 0.3 miles 0.27 miles 0.1 miles 0.1 miles 0.27 miles 0.1 miles EXISTING PROPOSED A D T

ACCESS MANAGEMENT APPLIED

COLLEGEDR

PROPOSED ACCESS TYPE

FULL ACCESS OAKLEAF DR NOTTINGHAM DR OLD MIDLOTHIAN RD RIGHT-IN/ RIGHT-OUT U-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 Minimization Displacements

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 0.7 0.7 7.2 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4

LAND USE AND PROPERTY IMPACTS

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 5.8 7.3 11.4 10.9 12 5 10 15 20 M-1A M-1C M-2C

LAND USE AND PROPERTY IMPACTS

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

• n IL 47

Truck Volumes Impacts of Traffic

• n Local Roads

Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations Capacity 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

• n 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

• n 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

• Col
• llege

ge D Drive – More use of northern WCC entrance due to new route with increased access at I-88

• Sco

cott R tt Roa

• ad – 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

Pot

• tential

ial Operat ation ional I al Issue – Lack o k of Avail ilability t to F Flu lush R Ramp mps

No Operational Issues Anticipated No Operational Issues Anticipated

All Build Alternatives Operate an Acceptable LOS

Traffic Safety Emergency Vehicle Response and Transport

SAFETY

TRAFFIC SAFETY

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

Median Left 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

• n 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 Locations 2. Determine Traffic Noise Level

• Modeling
• Validated by Field Monitoring

3. Traffic Noise Impact Identification 4. 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

0.5 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

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 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 16.7 18.5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 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/Introduction
• 2. Review Previous Public Involvement
• 3. Process/Schedule
• 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria
• 5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices
• 6. Preferred Alternative
• 7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

MEETING AGENDA

Catego gory 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

Catego gory

Farmland Impacts ROW Impacts Displacements Forest Preserve Impacts Floodplain Impacts WOUS Impacts Wetland Impacts Estimated Cost

M-1A M-1C M-2C

• 1. Welcome/Introduction
• 2. Review Previous Public Involvement
• 3. Process/Schedule
• 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria
• 5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices
• 6. Preferred Alternative
• 7. 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-2C

I-4

• 1. Welcome/Introduction
• 2. Review Previous Public Involvement
• 3. Process/Schedule
• 4. Potential Evaluation Criteria
• 5. Final Alternative Evaluation Matrices
• 6. Preferred Alternative
• 7. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

MEETING AGENDA

Preferred Interchange Alternative Preferred IL 47 Alternative

TASKS COMPLETED

NEXT PHASE I STEPS

Refine Preferred Alternative Environmental Assessment Document Public Hearing

QUESTIONS? THANK YOU!