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!