Meeting Documentation

Date:	November 4, 2003	Time:	6:30 pm
Location:	IDOT District 8, Collinsville
Purpose:	Meeting with Stop 158 group

Participant	E-mail	Participant	E-mail
Bob Ramsey	bramsey@firstcomortgage.com	Ruth Smith	rsmith@apci.net
Manny Arzavala	hwcollectn@aol.com	Ron Trimmer	trimmer@charter.net
Richard Ellerbrake	richarde@charter.net	Barbara Hertenstein	bhertenstein@post-dispatch.com
Marie Herndon	mherndon@netbox.com	Ken Aud	kaud@hotmail.com
Marty Ganz	marty.ganz@fbol.com	Dean Pruitt	mammoth@htc.net
Jack Norman	jmnorman@htc.net	Susan Wightman	jimsuemeans@aol.com
Richard Skillings		Jim Means
Esther Skillings
Cindy Stafford	staffordcj@nt.dot.state.il.us	Candace Sauermann	sauermannca@nt.dot.state.il.us
Todd Halfman	halfmantj@nt.dot.state.il.us	Ray Steege	rmsteege@mactec.com
Jeff Strickland	jbstrickland@mactec.com

Cindy Stafford provided introductory remarks. She welcomed the meeting participants and thanked everyone for coming. All present introduced themselves.

A meeting agenda was distributed and reviewed by Ray Steege. Ray said that since the team’s previous meeting with the group (September 22, 2003), we have looked into the concerns they raised.

Ray provided a review of the study area. The study area does not represent the corridor that will be recorded. Mr. Ellerbrake pointed out that the group understands the concept of the study area and that alternatives will be developed within the study area. Discussion followed regarding an inaccurate description of the study area on the group’s website. The text in question stated that “the refined (narrowed) study corridor will vary from one to two miles in width. ...”; the group agreed to remove “refined (narrowed)” in order to more accurately describe the study area.

Ray stated that following the September 22 meeting, the team had the impression that there was an expectation among the group that an alternative would follow Troy-O’Fallon Road north to US Route 40. Mr. Ellerbrake said this was not the case.

At the upcoming public meeting, alternative corridors will be presented for public review and comment. The alternatives will also indicate “bubbles” where potential interchanges could be located. However, the current study won’t specify what type of facility will go in the corridor. The “bubbles” are meant to illustrate a “worst case” for footprints of connections between the corridor and existing roadways.

The Phase I study was discussed. Ray pointed out that the corridor identified in the current study could be shifted during Phase I as a result of more detailed data acquisition - the purpose of this study is to identify a corridor before development limits where it could be placed. Mr. Norman stated he was glad to hear that the corridor could move in the future.

Funding for Phase I and the state legislature’s role were discussed at length. The Phase I study is not funded. The legislature takes the initiative in securing funding for studies. Although IDOT’s individual districts tell Springfield what their needs are, the legislature decides which projects receive funding. Each district identifies improvements each June/July for the rolling 5-year improvement program; a district may deem particular projects as important but Springfield ultimately decides what gets funded. Large projects are usually supported politically and by regional groups such as Metro and East-West Gateway. The bottom line is that District 8 does not know when Phase I will get funded. The group, and any interested citizens, should make their concerns known to their local and state officials. District 8 listens to community feedback when it makes its list of improvement priorities.

Questions related to the above discussion included the following:

Q: Do you listen to community concerns when you prioritize your list? And should we make our concerns known to our local and state officials?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you re-prioritize if the state or US economy goes bad?

A: In addition to the “wish list” we do a pavement survey. The existing system has to be maintained but it’s a balance with new construction.

Q: What gets sent to Springfield?

A: It can be as simple as a project name and a dollar amount. The ultimate decision gets made at a very high level; we are far removed from the process but can try to find some answers on how it is done.

Q: How long has this study been on the “wish list”?

A: It was submitted in 2002. We don’t know who submitted it, although Rep. Holbrook said he got it funded. We have no reason to dispute this.

Q: How can we get input on the “wish list”?

A: Contact Mary Lamie. Correspondence is better than a phone call. The United Congregations group has had several discussions with Mary.

There was discussion on the federal transportation bill. About $60 billion of federal funding goes to the states for new construction. Although US congressmen may fight for more federal money for the state, how it is spent is decided at a state level. State congressmen have influence over how the money gets prioritized. The current bill expired in September 2003 and was extended five months. It is not known when Congress will approve a new bill.

Illinois Route 4 was discussed. Since the September 22 meeting, the team has done some traffic analysis and found that if the GatewayConnector study was shifted to Route 4, Troy-O’Fallon and Scott-Troy roads would still need to be improved in the future. Using Route 4 would result in a longer and more expensive facility. Mid-America airport has told us they have expansion plans which would impact Route 4. The team obtained traffic modeling and methodology from East-West Gateway. These models are land use based, we looked at and validated the data. It is important to look at how much traffic will use a facility based on land use. Ms. Scott said that she thought using Route 4 would be less desirable for the region.

There was discussion of growth trends in the region. The study team is looking at all development in the region, which is happening without the corridor. IDOT can’t close its eyes to this issue until safety and capacity become critical problems. IDOT understands the concerns about urban sprawl and revitalization of core communities, however roadway funds can’t be spent on revitalization. Members of the group and other citizens concerned about sprawl can be effective by talking to their local officials.

IDOT property acquisition policies were discussed. IDOT will work with people who have been unable to sell their property or have had an offer withdrawn after the buyer learns of the corridor. Property is appraised by looking at comparable property in the area. IDOT’s land acquisition manual is available on the IDOT website and shows land acquisition policies and procedures. The statute containing language about proximity of ROW to a structure was discussed. The language in question - referred to as the “10 foot rule” - means that a structure can be no less than ten feet from the right-of-way line, not ten feet from the edge of pavement. Todd Halfman will provide Mr. Ellerbrake with more information on relevant statutes.

The group’s website was discussed. Regarding the group’s observation that adding turn lanes to some existing facilities would be sufficient, Candace said that such improvements could help current conditions but will not be enough for future needs. The team’s responsibility is to look at what will be the best long-term improvement in a given location. The Phase I study will look at this in greater detail, and will examine safety and accident data.