powerpoint presentation€¦ · cag 4 presentation website . resources. 1. welcome/introduction 2....

WELCOME

IL 47

Community Advisory Group Meeting #4

Waubonsee Community CollegeTuesday, November 15, 2016

1. Welcome/Introduction2. Review Previous Public Involvement3. Range of Alternatives4. IL 47 Analysis and Screening5. I-88 Interchange Analysis and Screening6. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

MEETING AGENDA

CAG Binder Agenda CAG 3 Summary CAG 4 Presentation

Website www.sugargroveinterchange.org

RESOURCES


MEETING AGENDA

CAG MEETING #3 REVIEW

March 10, 2016 Reviewed the Purpose and Need Presented a Tool Box on Highways and Interchanges Developed Initial Range of Alternatives

PUBLIC MEETING #2 REVIEW

May 3, 2016 Reviewed Purpose and Need Presented the Initial Range of Alternatives Obtained Input


MEETING AGENDA

Where does IL 47 go?

What does IL 47 look like?

IL 47 ALTERNATIVES

Typical Sections

Alignment

Existing Alignment

SymmetricalAsymmetrical

Widening East

New Alignment

EastWest

{Forest Preserve Avoidance}

IL 47 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES

M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4

SECTION 4(f) The Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966

includes a special provision - Section 4(f) - which stipulates that FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply: There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the

use of land; and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use;

OR The Administration determines that the use of the property

will have a de minimis impact.

FOREST PRESERVE AVOIDANCE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE

West{Forest

Preserve Avoidance}

Alternative M-3

Alternative M-4

Alternative M-1 Alternative M-2Symmetrical

Asymmetrical Widening

East

East

West{Forest Preserve

Avoidance}

M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

IL 47 TYPICAL SECTION ALTERNATIVES

RURAL TYPICAL SRA SECTION – 50’ MEDIAN

OUTSIDE DITCH

SHARED USE PATHOR SIDEWALK

OUTSIDE SHOULDER

DITCH MEDIAN

INSIDE SHOULDER

TRAVEL LANES

50 FEET


SUBURBAN TYPICAL SRA SECTION – 30’ MEDIAN

SHARED USE PATHOR SIDEWALK

OUTSIDE DITCH

OUTSIDESHOULDER

RAISED MEDIANTURF OR PAVED CURB AND GUTTER

AND STORM SEWER

TRAVEL LANES

30 FEET

11


MODIFIED TYPICAL SRA SECTION – 6’ MEDIAN

TRAVEL LANES

OUTSIDE SHOULDER

OUTSIDE DITCH

CURB AND GUTTER AND

STORM SEWER

SHARED USE PATH

OR SIDEWALK

RAISED CURB

MEDIAN

6 FEETMINIMIZE FOREST

PRESERVE 4(f) IMPACTS

ACCESS

Access Management Medians Intersection Spacing Right-In/Right-Out (RI/RO)

Entrance Relocation Access Consolidation ¾ Access

¼ MILE MINIMUM SIGNAL OR FULL ACCESS SPACING

RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT

¾ ACCESSRIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT

AND LEFT-IN

ACCESS MANAGEMENTC

OLL

EGE

DR

PROPOSED ACCESS TYPEFULL ACCESS

OAK

LEAF

DR

NO

TTIN

GH

AM D

R

OLD

MID

LOTH

IAN

RDI-88 EB

EXIT RAMP

I-88 WB ENTRANCE RAMP

PARTIAL ACCESS(RIGHT-IN/ RIGHT-OUT)U-TURN

Alternative Alignment Typical Section

M-1A Existing AlignmentSymmetrical Widening 30’ Median

M-1B Existing AlignmentSymmetrical Widening 50’ Median

M-1C Existing AlignmentSymmetrical Widening

30’ Median with 6’ Median in Forest Preserve {4(f)} Areas

M-2A Existing AlignmentAsymmetrical Widening to East 30’ Median

M-2B Existing AlignmentAsymmetrical Widening to East 50’ Median

M-2CExisting Alignment

Asymmetrical Widening to East; Except symmetrical at Forest Preserve

30’ Median with 6’ Median in Forest Preserve {4(f)} Areas

M-3 New Alignment East 50’ Median

M-4 New Alignment West{Forest Preserve Avoidance Alternative} 30’ Median

IL 47 ALTERNATIVE COMBINATIONS

QUESTIONS?

Range of Alternatives

Analyzed Interchanges1. Conventional Diamond2. Conventional Diamond

with Roundabouts3. Diverging Diamond 4. Partial Cloverleaf NE Quad

5. Partial Cloverleaf NE and SW Quadrant

6. Partial Cloverleaf SW Quad7. Partial Cloverleaf – Loop

Ramp terminating at Finley Road

INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES

QUESTIONS?

Range of Interchange Alternatives


MEETING AGENDA

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION AND SCREENING PROCESS

Develop Initial Alternatives

Round 2 ScreeningLevel of Service, Right-of-Way, Environmental

Concerns, Stakeholder Input, Cost

Fatal Flaw Screening

Round 1 ScreeningLevel of Service, Right-of-Way, Environmental

Concerns, Stakeholder Input

Purpose & Need Screening

Eliminated Alternatives

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Alternatives Carried Forward

Alt ResidentialDisplacements

ROW(acres)

NWIWetlands

(acres)

Flood-plains (acres)

Forest (acres)

Farmland (acres)

Forest Preserve

4(f) (acres)

No-Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

M-1A 7 11.1 0.2 3.5 1.1 5.8 0.8

M-1B 11 15.1 0.3 4.2 1.6 6.5 1.2

M-1C 7 10.6 0.2 2.8 0.6 5.8 0.3

M-2A 1 12.7 0.2 3.5 1.6 7.4 1.1

M-2B 1 15.1 0.4 4.2 2.7 8.6 1.6

M-2C 0 11.7 0.3 2.6 1.2 7.3 0.3

M-3 1 37.5 1.2 5.1 6.7 25.9 1.2

M-4 11 40.7 2.5 9.2 5.2 17.2 0

IL 47 ROUND 1 SCREENING

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Potential Residential Displacements ROW (acres)

Property Impacts

M-1A M-1B M-1C M-2A M-2B M-2C M-3 M-4


Existing Alignment Symmetrical and New

Alignment to West had the most displacements

New Alignments had the most ROW impactExisting Alignment

Symmetrical (50’ Median) and New Alignment to West

had the most potential displacements

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NWI Wetlands (acres) Floodplains (acres)

Water Resource Impacts

M-1A M-1B M-1C M-2A M-2B M-2C M-3 M-4


New Alignments had the largest wetland impacts

New Alignments had the most

floodplain impacts

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Forest (acres) Forest Preserve 4(f) (acres)

Forest Related Impacts

M-1A M-1B M-1C M-2A M-2B M-2C M-3 M-4


New Alignments had the largest forest impacts Existing Alignment Asymmetrical

Widening to the East with 50’ Median had the most Forest

Preserve 4(f) impacts

AltRes.

Displac-ement

ROW(acres)

NWIWetlands

(acres)


Forest (acres)

Farmland (acres)

Forest Preserve

4(f) (acres)

CarryForward

No-Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes

M-1A 7 11.1 0.2 3.5 1.1 5.8 0.8 Yes

M-1B 11 15.1 0.3 4.2 1.6 6.5 1.2 Yes

M-1C 7 10.6 0.2 2.8 0.6 5.8 0.3 Yes

M-2A 1 12.7 0.2 3.5 1.6 7.4 1.1 Yes

M-2B 1 15.1 0.4 4.2 2.7 8.6 1.6 Yes

M-2C 0 11.7 0.3 2.6 1.2 7.3 0.3 Yes

M-3 1 37.5 1.2 5.1 6.7 25.9 1.2 No

M-4 11 40.7 2.5 9.2 5.2 17.2 0 No


Alt

PotentialResidentialDisplace-

ments

Concep-tual Cost

($mil-lions)

ROW(acres)

INHS Wetlands

(acres)


Farm-land (acres)

Forest Preserve (acres)

No-Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

M-1A 7 16.5 11.1 1.9 3.5 5.8 0.8

M-1B 11 17.2 15.1 2.2 4.2 6.5 1.2

M-1C 7 16.5 10.6 1.3 2.8 5.8 0.3

M-2A 1 18.3 12.7 2.1 3.5 7.4 1.1

M-2B 1 18.8 15.1 2.5 4.2 8.6 1.6

M-2C 0 18.3 11.7 1.3 2.6 7.3 0.3


All Build Alternatives Operate Acceptably and have the same approximate WOUS impact

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Potential Residential Displacements ROW (acres)

Property Impacts

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

IL 47 ROUND 2 SCREENINGExisting Alignment

Symmetrical with 50’ median had the most

displacements

50’ Medians had the most ROW impact

50’ Medians had the most ROW impact

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

Conceptual Cost in 2016 Dollars ($ millions)

Construction Cost


IL 47 ROUND 2 SCREENINGExisting Alignment with

Asymmetrical Widening to the East had the largest cost

$$$

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Wetlands (acres)

Wetland Impacts



50’ medians had the largest wetland impacts


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Floodplains (acres)

Floodplain Impacts




50’ medians had the largest floodplain impacts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Farmland (acres)

Farmland Impacts



Asymmetrical Widening to the east had the largest

farmland impacts

Alt

PotentialResidentialDisplace-

ments

Con-ceptual

Cost($mil-lions)

ROW(acres)

INHSWetlands

(acres)


Farm-land

(acres)

Forest Preserve (acres)

Carry Forward

No-Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes

M-1A 7 16.5 11.1 1.9 3.5 5.8 0.8 Yes

M-1B 11 17.2 15.1 2.2 4.2 6.5 1.2 No

M-1C 7 16.5 10.6 1.3 2.8 5.8 0.3 Yes

M-2A 1 18.3 12.7 2.1 3.5 7.4 1.1 No

M-2B 1 18.8 15.1 2.5 4.2 8.6 1.6 No

M-2C 0 18.3 11.7 1.3 2.6 7.3 0.3 Yes


QUESTIONS?

AlternativesCarried Forward


MEETING AGENDA

INTERCHANGE SCREENING

# Alternative ROW(acres)

Conceptual Cost

($millions)

Bridge Impacts (square

feet)

Wet-lands

(acres)

WOUS(linear feet)


Forest (acres)

Farm-land

(acres)

NB No-Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I-1 Conventional Diamond 0.7 16.2 2622 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0.9

I-2 Conv. Diamondw/Roundabout 0 15.9 1261 <0.5 10 0 <0.1 <0.1

I-3 DDI 0 15.8 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0

I-4 Parclo NE 0.7 19.8 2606 <0.1 0 0.1 0 0.8

I-5 Parclo NE SW 2.9 21.7 3218 <0.6 <100 0.1 0.2 3.3

I-6 Parclo SW 2.3 20.3 2608 <0.6 <100 0 0.2 2.5

I-7 Parclo to Finley 7.5 20.2 2608 <0.1 <1000 0 2.4 6.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

ROW (acres)

Property Impacts

Conv. Diamond Roundabout DDI Parclo NE Parclo NE SW Parclo SW Parclo to Finley


Parclo to Finley had the highest

ROW impact

0

5

10

15

20

25

Conceptual Cost in 2016 Dollars ($ millions)

Construction Cost



The Parclo’s had the highest cost

$$$

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Area of Impact (square feet)

IL 47 Bridge over I-88 Impacts



The Roundabout and DDI had the

least bridge impacts

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Wetlands (acres)

Wetland Impacts



The Roundabout and Parclo SW had the highest wetland impacts

The Roundabout and Parclo SW had the highest wetland impacts

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

WOUS (linear feet)

Waters of the United States (WOUS) Impacts


INTERCHANGE SCREENINGParclo to Finley had significantly more impacts to

WOUS

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Floodplains (acres)

Floodplain Impacts



Parclos in the NE were the only alternatives

with potential floodplain impacts.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Forest (acres)

Forest Impacts



The Parclo to Finley had high forested impacts.


# Alternative ROW(acres)

Conceptual Cost

($millions)

Bridge Impacts (square

feet)

Wet-lands

(acres)

WOUS(lineal feet)


Forest (acres)

Farm-land

(acres)

NB No-Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I-1 Conventional Diamond 0.7 16.2 2622 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0.9

I-2 Conv. Diamondw/Roundabout 0 15.9 1261 <0.5 10 0 <0.1 <0.1

I-3 DDI 0 15.8 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0

I-4 Parclo NE 0.7 19.8 2606 <0.1 0 0.1 0 0.8

I-5 Parclo NE SW 2.9 21.7 3218 <0.6 <100 0.1 0.2 3.3

I-6 Parclo SW 2.3 20.3 2608 <0.6 <100 0 0.2 2.5

I-7 Parclo to Finley 7.5 20.2 2608 <0.1 <1000 0 2.4 6.1


# Interchange Alternative Carried Forward

NB No-Build Yes

I-1 Conventional Diamond Yes

I-2 Conv. Diamond w/Roundabout Yes

I-3 DDI Yes

I-4 Parclo NE Yes

I-5 Parclo NE SW No

I-6 Parclo SW No

I-7 Parclo to Finley No

QUESTIONS?

Interchange AlternativesCarried Forward


MEETING AGENDA

PHASE I STUDY ELEMENTS

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

Reviewed AlternativesAlternative ScreeningAlternatives Carried

Forward

TASKS COMPLETED

Public Meeting #3 – Tentative Spring 2017 Present Alternatives Screening Results Present Alternatives Carried Forward Present Alternative Evaluation Solicit InputCAG Meeting #5 – Tentative Spring 2017 Evaluate Alternatives Identify CAG Preferred Alternative

NEXT STEPS

PROJECT STUDY TIMELINE

QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU!

powerpoint presentation€¦ · cag 4 presentation website . resources. 1. welcome/introduction 2....

Documents