|
Public Meeting #7 |
|
Click below for Public Involvement Links: |
|
The seventh Public Information Meeting for the East Side Highway Corridor Study was held Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at the Normal Community High School Auditorium The purpose of the meeting was to update the public on the status of the project and present analysis of the corridor alternatives. The PowerPoint presentation given at the meeting can be found by clicking here. The range of preliminary alternatives that was developed by the Citizen’s Advisory Group (CAG) and the Project Study Group (PSG) has been analyzed through a three step process. The corridors are broken into north (N), middle (M) and south (S) segments. The core segment of a corridor is the M segment and each M segment has various combinations of N and S segments that connect to either I-55 or I-74. The first step in the analysis was to look at each segment for “fatal flaws.” The fatal flaws criterion can be seen here. If a segment met a fatal flaw criterion, it was not studied further. Segments S3 and S9 were eliminated based on fatal flaw analysis. |
|
The second step in the analysis was to evaluate the segments ability to meet the Purpose & Need of the project. The Purpose and Need was developed from the Project Purpose. The Project Purpose was developed by the stakeholders at Public Meeting No. 5. The measures used to evaluate the accommodation of planned growth and to address future mobility concerns can be accessed in the table to the right. |
|
The chart uses circles to compare the corridors to each other. The circles are not weighted, but are a graphical of examining how a corridor is performing relative to the other corridors. If a corridor is consistent with the goals of the Purpose & Need, it received a solid circle; a corridor that is less consistent received an open circle. A corridor received a circle with a dot in the center if it was neutral or partially consistent. Data to support the measures was complied using socio-economic modeling and traffic modeling among other data. To address future planned growth, future land use, population and employment projections, changes in accessibility were modeled between Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). The composite of the changes in accessibility show that corridors that contain segment M1 or M2 are more supportive of the future land use. The exhibit from the meeting can be viewed here. Travel demand models were developed forecasting a 2035 No-Build scenario, and a scenario for four of the corridor alternatives. A chart comparing the 2035 No-Build traffic volumes with the results of the travel demand model runs can be seen here. Corridor M1 was modeled as a six-lane, access controlled roadway with stop lights at major intersections and stop signs at minor intersections. Corridors M2, M3, and an M3 Alternate were modeled as a four-lane roadway with stop lights at major intersections and stop signs with minor intersections. Input from the public was strongly considered in determining the type of roadway to model. Click on the thumbnails below to view the results of the models. |
|
Corridor M4 and its associated north and south segments were eliminated from further consideration because it is not compatible with future land use plans and it does not improve mobility in the project study area. A map of the remaining corridors being further studied is to the right. The elimination was a consensus of CAG and PSG members. Comments on the analysis from the CAG are summarized and available on the Citizen’s Advisory Group page. |
|
The third step in the analysis was to look at the impacts of each corridor. The criterion for the evaluation of the corridors was discussed at Public Meeting #5. Charts summarizing the data for corridor can be found below. A second chart shows a graphical comparison of how the corridor impacts compare to one another. The solid circles represent corridors with the least impact relative to the others and the empty circles have the most impacts. The ranges for assigning the circles are on the right side of the chart. At this time, no additional corridors have been eliminated. |
|
Additional public comment was sought after the meeting. Comments were taken until August 12, 2008. The comment sheet provided at the meeting can be found here and can be returned to the project team by mail for inclusion in the project record. After August 12, the public comments will be compiled and submitted to the PSG for review and discussion. The PSG will use this information and the analysis preformed to date to continue the process of corridor elimination and eventually reach consensus on a single feasible corridor. A handout of frequently asked questions was distributed at the meeting. To access a pdf file of the FAQ, click here. To view the questions and comments, click here. Post-Meeting Follow-up: The PSG met in late August 2008 to continue the elimination process. A presentation was given to the Joint Councils on September, 29, 2008. For a meeting summary and presentation, click here. |
|
2035 Volume to Capacity Ratios |
|
M1 |
|
M2 |
|
M3 |
|
M3 Alt |
|
2035 Average Daily Volumes |
|
M1 |
|
M2 |
|
M3 |
|
M3 Alt |
