Welcome IL 47 Community Advisory Group Meeting #1 Waubonsee - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Welcome IL 47 Community Advisory Group Meeting #1 Waubonsee Community College Tuesday, September 1, 2015

MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Overview 3. The Planning Process 4. Public Meeting #1 Review 5. Group Exercise – Issues and Concerns 6. Problem Statement Exercise 7. Purpose and Need Statement 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

THE PROJECT STUDY GROUP (PSG) Tony Speciale Public Works Director Jennifer Becker Division of Transportation Chief of Planning & Programming

THE PROJECT STUDY GROUP (PSG) Steve Schilke Major Projects Unit Head John Baldauf Project Manager Kyle Bochte Project Engineer Niki Nutter Project Manager – Transportation Planning

THE PROJECT STUDY GROUP (PSG) Peter Johnston Project Questions Project Manager and Comments Ryan Sikes Project Engineer Tice Cole CSS/Public Involvement Coordinator

CAG INTRODUCTIONS  Residents (Nottingham Woods, Willow Creek)  Property Owners  Sugar Grove Community Development Staff  Sugar Grove Fire Protection District

RESOURCES CAG Binder  Contact Information  Meeting Materials  Stakeholder Involvement Plan Website  www.sugargroveinterchange.org

PROJECT LOCATION Maple Park Geneva Elburn Batavia Project Location Kaneville North Aurora Sugar Grove Aurora

PROJECT LIMITS  Old Oaks Road / College Drive  Green Road  ½ mile east of IL 47  ½ mile west of IL 47

PROJECT OVERVIEW  No access to and from the east at the IL 47 at I-88 interchange  Existing access to and from the west serves approximately 3000 vehicles per day (vpd)  IL 47 generally has a 2-lane section but has a 4-lane section at the interchange  Existing IL 47 traffic ranges from approximately 7500 to 11,000 vpd

PROJECT OVERVIEW  The population of Sugar Grove and Elburn is expected to triple between now and 2040  Rear-end, turning, fixed object, and animal collision types are the most predominant  Existing land uses are agriculture, residential, open space  Proposed land uses are corporate campus, commercial, residential, open space

PROJECT PHASES Phase Phase II Phase I III • Preliminary • Contract Plan Engineering Preparation Construction • Environmental • Land Studies Acquisition

PHASE I STUDY ELEMENTS Hydraulics, Vehicular/ Drainage & Pedestrian Human and Roadway, Bridge Safety Natural Geometrics Environment & Traffic Define Purpose Alternatives Select Data Evaluate and and Preferred Collection Alternatives Need Evaluation Alternative Criteria 20 2015 15 201 016 2017 17 Stakeholder Outreach

PURPOSE AND NEED Transportation Needs Problem Statement Community Concerns Purpose and Need Traffic Analysis Technical Evaluation Safety Analysis

PROJECT STATUS  Data Collection Environmental Survey Request   Traffic Counts  Traffic Projections Topographic Survey   Stakeholder Involvement Plan  Initial Stakeholder Meetings  Public Information Meeting #1

SCHEDULE

NEPA PROCESS National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969  Compliance required for federal funding eligibility  Full range of reasonable alternatives, including “no-build” alternative, must be considered  Comprehensive environmental review (avoid, minimize, mitigate impacts)  Public involvement  Formal documentation/disclosure NEPA/404 Merger Meetings at Key Milestones

CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS  Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) involves stakeholders in the project development process  CSS reflects the project surroundings – its “context”  CSS addresses all aspects of a project: Safety and mobility   Community  Environment Usability   Multimodalism

CSS GOALS  Understand stakeholders’ key issues and concerns Involve stakeholders  in the decision making process  Apply flexibility in design to address stakeholder concerns  Achieve a general understanding of agreement among the stakeholders

GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF AGREEMENT A general understanding of agreement is defined as: “When a majority of stakeholders agree on a particular issue, while the remainder of stakeholders agree its input has been heard and duly considered and the process as a whole was fair.”

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN  Framework for stakeholder involvement  Identifies roles and responsibilities of participants  Establishes timing of stakeholder activities  Continuously evolving document  On website and in CAG binder

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

ROLES AND RESPONBILITIES Pr Proj oject t Stu tudy y Gr Grou oup Community Adv dvisor sory Group (PSG) G) (CAG AG) Municipal alities es Vill Village age o of Su Sugar gar Grove Emerge gency R Responders Kan ane C County Resid idents Illinois T Tollway Busin iness O Owners ID IDOT Property O Owners FHW FHWA Advoca ocacy cy G Groups ps Consu sultant T Team Local al O Official als Provides the technical Defines community interests engineering, financial feasibility, related to the project and evaluates and environmental screening alternatives based on how they services to support the may influence land use, transportation, socio-economic, selection of a preferred transportation alternative(s). and environmental resources.

GROUND RULES  Input on the project from all stakeholders is duly considered in order to yield the best solutions.  Input from all participants is valued and considered.  List of CAG members and stakeholders is subject to revision at any time as events warrant.

GROUND RULES  All participants must come to the process with an open mind and participate openly and honestly, and treat one another with respect and dignity.  The role of the CAG is to advise the PSG. A general understanding from CAG members on project choices is sought, but ultimate decisions remain with the PSG.  All participants should work collaboratively and cooperatively to seek a general understanding.

GROUND RULES  The project must progress at a reasonable pace, based on the project schedule, and all participants must understand that once a general understanding of agreement is reached on a topic, it will not be readdressed.  Members of the media are welcome in all stakeholder meetings, but must remain in the role of an observer, not participants in the process.

Questions?  Planning Process  Stakeholder Involvement Plan  CAG Ground Rules

MEETING HIGHLIGHTS  Distributed brochure that summarizes project  Received comments and  Attended by 103 people concerns on aerial images  Presented an overview of  Provided comment forms, the study process community context audit  Introduced key data on surveys, and CAG exhibit boards membership applications

GENERAL COMMENTS  Stormwater runoff from the roadways and protecting the water quality of the watershed  Consider prairie plantings to eliminate or minimize mowing maintenance  Concerns about village land use plan for commercial on their existing agriculture/homestead property  Concerns about commercial zoning of southwest quadrant of interchange  Consider limiting commercial at northwest quadrant of interchange to very light industrial; limit truck bays

INTERCHANGE/I-88 COMMENTS  Full interchange needed for community development  Opposed to eastbound access  Investigate cloverleaf interchange type  Consider an emergency turnaround near Bliss Road

IL 47 COMMENTS  Safety Finley Road intersection proximity to interchange   Safer access to residential areas  Straightening horizontal curve of IL 47 Errant vehicles into yards and houses   Sight distance at intersection of Scott Road  Replace narrow aggregate shoulders with wide paved shoulders  Access Reroute Finley Road   Don’t remove Finley Road access

IL 47 COMMENTS Capacity  Widen from 2-lane to 4-lane highway  Finley Road intersection delay due to proximity to interchange   Sidestreet delay, finding gaps in traffic  Add channelization to intersections  Add traffic signals to intersections  Noise  Noise abatement for residential areas Alignment   Move IL 47 to the east away from the residential areas