• Introduction
• Overview of Technical Advisory Group Meeting #3
• Purpose and Need
• Alternatives Development Process
• Preliminary Alternative Components
• Comments
• Upcoming Activities

David Lutyens welcomed representatives to the meeting and provided an overview of the meeting agenda and the day’s activities. He provided an overview of the last Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meeting, including a discussion of the key findings from the Transportation System Performance Report.

Larry Martin/CH2M HILL explained the purpose and need for the project, and the four key needs for the project. These are (1) improve north-south travel capacity and efficiency; (2) improve regional and local route options; (3) improve safety; and (4) improve the effectiveness of modal choices. He explained how the needs were developed from the results of the Transportation System Performance Report, and then discussed how each of these need statements played a role in development of the alternatives.

Next, Larry described how the transportation improvements for Lake County were being developed for this project. He explained that an alternative would be comprised of roadway, rail, bus and transportation management strategies. The improvements will first be developed separately for each mode. He explained that today’s presentation would focus on the roadway and transit improvements that have been identified.

Larry described the roadway components that have been developed for this project. He explained that the roadway components were developed from one of five starting points: I-94; IL 83/US 45; IL 53; IL 120 and US 12. He then described the 9 roadway alternative components that were developed from these starting points and their associated congestion relief.

Larry then reviewed the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process, noting that the project team is at the Alternatives Development stage right now. Larry explained that there were four fundamental elements considered prior to developing/modeling alternatives. These included (1) baseline improvements; (2) project baseline (no-action) forecasts; (3) the benchmark level of performance desired; and (4) evaluation criteria. Each of these was explained.

Larry indicated that the five starting points were selected because they are regional in character, embrace the areas with the most congestion, and are roadways with continuity through the project area. He used I-94 as an example for showing how the modeling process was used to develop the roadway improvements, and how routes were selected to form a roadway component alternative. It was also demonstrated how each roadway contributed to achieving the 2020 RTP benchmark (using systemwide delay and average speed).

Joanne Schroeder/Vlecides-Schroeder Associates then explained the process for development of potential transit enhancements. The transit development process was described, including inventorying the existing system, and coordinating with service providers. Transit components were developed by reviewing the existing transit system and the current program, and then identifying additional potential improvements. She then discussed a series of rail and bus transit slides which illustrated the existing transit system; the improvements identified in the project baseline; and other potential improvements including bus corridors with opportunities for intermodal connections. Joanne then described the next steps for the transit components.

The floor was opened for comments. Following is a summary of the comments received.

IL 176 is a very congested route. Why isn’t it identified in any of the alternatives?

Is the 38,000 hours of delay identified during the presentation a regional or countywide value?

It was noted that the illustration of the EJ&E improvements on the transit graphics may be misleading. The first 50-mile segment (shown in solid on the map) was the only portion tested as part of the CATS 2020 Conformity Analysis because of financial constraints. However, the Phase I Feasibility Study addressed the entire route, and it did not specify a portion of the route as being primary or secondary. Therefore the graphic should be altered to show the entire route as a solid line.

What are the overall impacts of the routes identified on the various roadway graphics?

Why have financial considerations been left out of the equation at this point; that is, why choose a package if there is no money to implement it?

Is the computer model used to develop alternatives a CH2M HILL product?

How did you arrive at the 8-9 options?

Will the cumulative effects, which will occur when the transit and roadway components are combined, cause you to remodel?

How will the project team factor in the competing opinions, those that differ from the results of this study.

How will a community be able to judge and compare the effects of the various alternatives?

What is the difference between current conditions and the conditions of the benchmark? For example, today there are 595,000 people living in the county and one-third of our network has gridlock. Without any transportation improvement we will have 750,000 residents in 2020, and two-thirds congestion. If the total package of improvements is implemented, what can we assume about the level of congestion in the county?

How will the evaluation criteria be weighed?

This is the most comprehensive analysis I have seen in my 20 years of experience. How will safety issues be considered?

Some communities will be more significantly impacted by construction than others will. The selection of some alternative roadway corridors may evoke less of an impact than others.

The benchmark value seems arbitrary—a lower value could have been chosen, and then future traffic would be less congested.

Will we be better or worse off with the roadway options that have been identified?

What are the expected future travel conditions? For example if it takes fifteen minutes to make a certain trip now, what could reasonably be expected for that same trip in the future.

It was noted that the IL 120 roadway component on bypass alignment was duplicated in the TAG members handout package, and the IL 120 roadway component on existing alignment was excluded. A revised exhibit map will be generated and distributed to the Technical Advisory Group members.

David Lutyens explained the questionnaire that had been developed for TAG members on the alternative development process. He requested that TAG members complete the questionnaires and return them by July 15, 1999 to the LCTIP office.

David Lutyens noted that in early July there would be a series of meetings with Municipal Group representatives. Following these meetings will be a series of public informational meetings, scheduled for late summer.

The meeting concluded at 12:00 p.m.