WELCOME IL 47. Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 Waubonsee Community College Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Transcription

1 WELCOME IL 47 Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 Waubonsee Community College Wednesday, May 31, 2017

2 MEETING PURPOSE

3 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

4 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

5 RESOURCES CAG Binder Agenda CAG 4 Summary CAG 5 Presentation Website

6 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

7 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

8 INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD Alternative Carried Forward Interchange Type and Configuration NB NO BUILD 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

9 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD Alternative Carried Forward Alignment NO-BUILD 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)

10 PUBLIC MEETING 3 FEEDBACK I-88 Interchange Alternatives Preferences for NB I-1 I-4 Preferences for and against I-2 I-3 IL 47 Corridor Alternatives Preferences for NO-BUILD M-2C M-3 (eliminated) 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

11 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

12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS 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)

13 PHASE I PROCESS Roadway, Geometrics & Traffic Vehicular/ Pedestrian Safety Hydraulics, Drainage & Bridge Human and Natural Environment Data Collection Document Purpose and Need Define Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Stakeholder Outreach Findings of Environmental Studies

14 PROJECT STUDY TIMELINE DATA COLLECTION PURPOSE & NEED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING CAG MEETING PUBLIC HEARING

15 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION AND SCREENING PROCESS Develop Initial Alternatives Purpose & Need Screening Round 1 Screening Level of Service, Right-of-Way, Environmental Concerns, Stakeholder Input Round 2 Screening Level of Service, Right-of-Way, Environmental Concerns, Stakeholder Input, Cost Eliminated Alternatives Alternatives Carried Forward PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

16 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

17 POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA GENERAL CATEGORIES FROM THE CAG AT THE SECOND MEETING Access Economic Development Land Use Property Traffic Safety Drainage Environment Bicycle and Pedestrian Cost Funding Schedule

18 ACCESS 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

19 ACCESS MANAGEMENT Tools and Examples Medians Intersection Spacing Right-In/Right-Out (RI/RO) Entrance Relocation Access Consolidation ¾ Access RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ¾ ACCESS RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT AND LEFT-IN ¼ MILE MINIMUM SIGNAL OR FULL ACCESS SPACING ON SRA

20 ACCESS MANAGEMENT APPLIED COLLECTOR ROADS GIVEN TOP PRIORITY MAIN ST SEAVEY RD Project Location From Kane County 2040 Transportation Plan Figure 3-2 Roadway Functional Classification

21 EXISTING ACCESS SPACING CROSS STREET FUNCTIONAL CLASS EXPRESSWAY COLLECTOR LOCAL I-88 EB EXIT RAMP I-88 WB ENTRANCE RAMP 0.27 miles OAKLEAF DR NOTTINGHAM DR OLD MIDLOTHIAN RD COLLEGE DR 0.4 miles 0.1 miles 0.15 miles 0.1 miles 0.09 miles 0.23 miles 0.1 miles 0.1 miles 0.1 miles

22 ACCESS ADJACENT TO INTERCHANGE ILLINOIS TOLLWAY INTERCHANGE AND ROADWAY COST SHARING POLICY FINLEY RD 1050 ACCESS CONTROL LIMITS 1050 ACCESS CONTROL LIMITS

23 CROSS STREET ACCESS CROSS ROAD Sufficient Storage for Cross Road Vehicles to Safely Enter IL 47 Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection TOLLWAY RAMP 1050 FEET

24 FINLEY ROAD OPERATION ISSUE CONFLICT POINTS CROSSING MERGING FINLEY ROAD Blocks Southbound Traffic: SAFETY ISSUE TOLLWAY RAMP 450 FEET Insufficient Storage for Finley Road Vehicles to Safely Enter IL 47 Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection

25 PROPOSED FINLEY ROAD ACCESS No Left Out Permitted FINLEY ROAD Traffic Queued at Interchange Intersection TOLLWAY RAMP Proposed ¾ Access 450 FEET

26 MITIGATE FINLEY ROAD ACCESS CONFLICT POINTS CROSSING MERGING Proposed U - TURN FINLEY ROAD Proposed ¾ Access APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET

27 NOTTINGHAM WOODS ACCESS A D T 0.27 miles OAKLEAF DR 0.1 miles miles NOTTINGHAM DR miles EXISTING OLD MIDLOTHIAN RD GREEN RD 0.27 miles OAKLEAF DR NOTTINGHAM DR miles OLD MIDLOTHIAN RD PROPOSED GREEN RD

28 ACCESS MANAGEMENT APPLIED PROPOSED ACCESS TYPE FULL ACCESS ¾ ACCESS RIGHT-IN/ RIGHT-OUT U-TURN I-88 EB EXIT RAMP I-88 WB ENTRANCE RAMP 0.27 miles OAKLEAF DR NOTTINGHAM DR OLD MIDLOTHIAN RD 0.55 miles 0.23 miles 0.3 miles COLLEGE DR 0.4 miles 0.15 miles DISTANCES FROM FULL TO FULL ACCESS

29 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, LAND USE AND PROPERTY Economic Development Property Value Impacts Land Use Impacts Property Impacts Interchange Design Minimization Displacements

30 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)

31 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. $$$

32 LAND USE AND PROPERTY IMPACTS LEGEND FARMLAND IMPACTS (ACRES) ROW IMPACTS (ACRES) I-3 DDI had the largest farmland and ROW impacts I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4

33 LAND USE AND PROPERTY IMPACTS LEGEND FARMLAND IMPACTS (ACRES) ROW IMPACTS (ACRES) Widening Towards the East had the most farmland and ROW Impacts M-1A M-1C M-2C M-1A M-1C M-2C

34 DISPLACEMENTS M-1A Widening on Both Sides had six (6) potential residential displacements M-1C M-2C Widening Towards the East resulted in no (0) potential residential displacements

35 TRAFFIC Traffic Volumes on IL 47 Truck Volumes Impacts of Traffic on Local Roads Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations Capacity and Operations

36 TRAFFIC Traffic Volumes on IL 47 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

37 TRAFFIC Truck Volumes 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

38 TRAFFIC Impacts of Traffic on Local Roads Less Cut-Through Traffic on Local Roads All Build Alternatives have the same traffic projections on Local Roads Build Traffic Decreases from No Build GREEN RD SEAVEY ROAD FINLEY RD MERRILL RD COLLEGE DR 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 SCOTT RD College Drive More use of northern WCC entrance due to new route with increased access at I-88 Scott Road Marginal increase in traffic

39 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS Facilities on Both Sides Narrower facilities on west side to Reduce Residential Impacts Path Costs 20% 5 foot Sidewalk 10 foot Multi-Use Path 80% Looking North All Build Alternatives accommodate separated (off-street) facilities for bicycles and pedestrians on IL-47 over I-88 at the interchange

40 CAPACITY AND OPERATIONS No Build Segment Level of Service (LOS) = D to E Build Segment LOS = A to B All Build Alternatives Operate an Acceptable LOS I-1 Potential Operational Issue Back to Back Left Turn Lanes I-2 Potential Operational Issue Lack of Availability to Flush Ramps I-3 No Operational Issues Anticipated I-4 No Operational Issues Anticipated

41 SAFETY Traffic Safety Emergency Vehicle Response and Transport

42 TRAFFIC SAFETY Conflict Points The Conventional Diamond has the most conflict points # of Conflict Points I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4

43 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

44 TRAFFIC SAFETY 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

45 EMERGENCY VEHICLE RESPONSE AND TRANSPORT 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 All Build Alternatives will eliminate circuitous travel routes for Emergency Vehicle Response and Transport

46 DRAINAGE Impact on Storm Water and Drainage Avoidance of Pollutants in Blackberry Creek Storm Water Volume Impacts on Blackberry Creek (Flooding)

47 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) What are BMPs? Improves Overall Water Quality Minimizes Soil Erosion Controls storm water runoff by capturing soil sediment and roadway pollutants BMP DESIGN PROCESS 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

48 ENVIRONMENT Air Quality Noise Lighting Forest Forest Preserve Floodplains Waters of the US Wetlands

49 NOISE ANALYSIS What is a Noise Receptor? Noise Analysis Process 1. Identify Noise Receptor Locations 2. Determine Traffic Noise Level o Modeling o Validated by Field Monitoring 3. Traffic Noise Impact Identification 4. Traffic Noise Abatement Analysis

50 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 * Adjustment factors can increase the allowable cost per benefited receptor

51 NOISE ANALYSIS Example Letter and Voting Form (May Occur During Next Phase)

52 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

53 ENVIRONMENTAL Forest, Floodplain, WOUS, and Wetland Impacts The Roundabout Alternative had the Second Highest Impacts The DDI had the most impacts Forest (acres) Wetlands (acres) Waters of the US (acres) Floodplains (acres) 0 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4

54 ENVIRONMENTAL M-1A had the largest impacts Forest Preserve, Floodplain, WOUS, and Wetland Impacts Wetlands (acres) WOUS (acres) Floodplain (acres) Forest Preserve (acres) 0 M-1A M-1C M-2C

55 COST, FUNDING AND SCHEDULE Funding Schedule Construction Cost Maximize Bridge Improvement Investment

56 CONSTRUCTION COST 25 Construction Cost 23.6 The DDI has the highest construction cost Conceptual Cost in 2016 Dollars ($ millions) I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 $$$

57 CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Cost Conceptual Cost in 2016 Dollars ($ millions) M-1A M-1C M-2C M-2C had the largest cost $$$

58 BRIDGE IMPACTS I Square Feet of Bridge Widening I Square Feet of Bridge Widening I-3 Additional Bridge - 14,640 Square Feet I-4 No Bridge Widening

59 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

60 INTERCHANGE EVALUATION 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

61 IL 47 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION M-1A M-1C M-2C Category INSERT PICTURE OF EVALUATION MATRIX Farmland Impacts ROW Impacts Displacements Forest Preserve Impacts Floodplain Impacts WOUS Impacts Wetland Impacts Estimated Cost

62 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

63 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Review Detailed Strip Map of Preferred Alternative I-4 M-2C CAG Provide Input on Preferred Alternatives for Further Refinement

64 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

65 TASKS COMPLETED Preferred Interchange Alternative Preferred IL 47 Alternative

66 NEXT PHASE I STEPS Refine Preferred Alternative Environmental Assessment Document Public Hearing

67 QUESTIONS? THANK YOU!