Disclaimer

This web site has a number of downloads available in the Adobe Acrobat Reader (PDF) format.  Click on the logo below to download the Reader software directly from the Acrobat website.

Click here to view an Adobe Acrobat Reader version of this document

 

Implementation of the 2020 Transportation Plan will require significant cooperation and coordination from the various implementing agencies and will involve a combination of planning, engineering, and construction activities. While construction of some of the recommended projects is critical in the near future, construction of other projects will be needed closer to the 2020 horizon year of the plan. In either case, it should be recognized that new highway or transit projects require a considerable expenditure of time and money to prepare the required project documents and plans. Land acquisition alone typically takes a minimum of two years to accomplish, and if eminent domain proceedings are initiated, a five-year process is not unusual.

Table 19 and Table 20 summarize the recommended plan roadway projects, their approximate limits, the type of improvements, and the estimated total cost and cost by roadway jurisdiction. It should be noted that for purposes of developing the long-range plan, planning-based cost estimates were used, and therefore actual project costs may vary from these figures once a project proceeds to the preliminary engineering stage.

Project Staging Strategy

The transportation plan staging strategy assumes that the requisite planning studies and engineering plans will occur in the early years to ensure that the proposed projects are incorporated into new development. The strategy also assumes that corridor plans for those regional roadways and transit improvements that are proposed to be improved will continue to be performed, such as the plans that have been developed for the I-80 corridor, Strategic Regional Arterials, Metra commuter rail major investment studies (MIS), and others. These corridor plans would integrate transportation and land use recommendations, and whenever possible, these improvements would be included in the regional road and transit construction projects.

The projects recommended in the transportation plan must have a level of priority identified in order to focus on the most immediate needs to be implemented first. To select projects for the first stage of implementation, the various individual characteristics of each improvement have been evaluated with regard to several alternative strategies.

A strategy singles out or gives emphasis to one objective. Each project is evaluated as to whether it would mostly satisfy that objective. For example, providing more traffic capacity on highly congested facilities could be the emphasis of a strategy. Projects that significantly increase traffic capacity would be ranked high and possibly included in the earlier stages of the overall program.

Using this process, five alternative strategies are suggested that define a priority by which roadway projects are evaluated for staging purposes. The strategies are:

1. Encourage development in specific, established areas, as guided by the Land Resource Management Plan, including the west edges of Bolingbrook and Romeoville, western Joliet, Des Plaines River Valley, Frankfort/Mokena/New Lenox area, and western University Park (I-57 corridor).
2. Eliminate peak-hour traffic capacity deficiencies and bottlenecks on congested facilities by making selected capacity improvements.
3. Avoid land use disruptions and property takings, whenever possible, as traffic capacity is added in developed areas, particularly downtowns.
4. Protect right-of-way opportunities and fill in the arterial street system.
5. Support new development in the extended I-355 corridor (I-80 to Indiana state line), including land uses that would benefit from the proximity of freeway access such as distribution/warehousing facilities and highway-oriented commercial uses.

Project Evaluations

Each project listed in Tables 19 and 20 was evaluated with respect to the five strategies cited above. A four-scale ranking system was used in the evaluation process:

1. Indicates project substantially achieves the strategy.
2. Indicates some or modest achievement.
3. Indicates only small or little achievement.
4. Indicates no achievement.

The intent of the evaluation is to identify those projects that tend to support all strategies. These would satisfy any priority and should be highly ranked projects.

All projects will not perform equally well for all strategies. The propensity for a project to rank high (i.e., how many "1s" or "2s" for the five strategies) was considered in developing the staging program. The result of this approach is the identification of a high-priority project listing for facilities under state, county, and local jurisdiction.

High-Priority Projects

High-priority projects have been identified for roadway facilities under state, county, and local jurisdiction. These projects satisfy the five strategies to a large extent and were determined to be needed in the near term to mitigate existing traffic congestion.

State Roadway Facilities

IL 59 (SRA) widening

U.S. Route 30 (SRA) widening

U.S. Route 30 widening (I-80 to Kane County line)

IL 53 widening (Boughton Road to Lily Cache Lane)

IL 53 widening (I-55 to Ruby Street)

IL 171 widening

159th Street widening (Farrel Road to Cedar Road)

New Des Plaines River bridge at Caton Farm Road with connection to Bruce Road

New I-80 interchange at Wolf Road

New I-57 interchange at Stuenkel Road with Stuenkel Road widening (IL 43 to Steger-Monee Road)

Upgraded I-55 interchange at IL 126

County Roadway Facilities

Boughton Road (SRA) widening

Bell Road (SRA) widening

191st Street widening (80th Avenue to IL 43)

Weber Road (SRA) realignment at Naperville Road

Plainfield-Naperville Road widening (95th Street to 111th Street)

Caton Farm Road (SRA) widening

Local Roadway Facilities

143rd Street extension (IL 59 to IL 126) and widening (IL 59 to U.S. Route 30)

88th Avenue extension (U.S. Route 30 to St. Francis Road)

North Avenue extension (84th Avenue to 88th Avenue extension)

95th Street extension (Plainfield-Naperville Road to Boughton Road)

Kings Road extension (Boughton Road to Ferguson Road)

191st Street widening (Wolf Road to U.S. Route 45)

135th Street (Romeoville Road) widening

Further study should be completed to develop a more detailed staging program, with projects separated into a near-term, mid-range, and long-range timeline based on the estimated financial resources available. This staging program must consider the goals and objectives of the plan, transportation needs to be served, and a realistic time frame for implementation of the major roadway improvements. The staging program in this plan is simply an attempt to match transportation infrastructure needs to the available funding at the state, county, and local levels, and identify the higher priority projects for near-term implementation so that appropriate engineering feasibility and environmental studies can be initiated. Considerable public opposition may significantly delay a project, result in legal action, or even remove it from future consideration. This aspect of a project can be difficult to estimate.

Financial Resources and Roadway Capital Costs

A critical requirement for the long-range transportation plan is that it must be financially attainable. For this reason, possible financial resources have been inventoried to identify the order of magnitude of funds that might be used to support an improvement program. In addition, existing state, county, and local funding levels have been projected into the future and compared with the estimated costs needed to finance the roadway elements of the transportation plan. This study has not attempted to estimate funding for the transit elements of the plan associated with long-range plans and programmatic improvements proposed by Metra and Pace. Costs associated with non-motorized travel paths and trails have also not been estimated in this plan, as these projects are seen as more locally developed initiatives.

Possible Funding Sources

Funding for major roadway or transit improvements comes from a wide variety of sources. Potential sources are listed below in alphabetical order.

Bridge Tax. Real estate tax providing funds for county highway bridges.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. Funding authorized by the federal government to improve air quality through congestion mitigation using traffic signal optimization and other roadway improvements. This funding applies to projects in air quality nonattainment areas that reduce transportation-related emissions and improve a metropolitan area's ability to reach National Ambient Air Quality standards.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Authorized through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

FTA Formula Funds. Funding awarded by the Federal Transit Authority for urban public transit capital improvement projects and operational assistance (Section 5307); programs include fixed guideway modernization, discretionary bus projects, and capital costs of new starts (Section 5309), and the purchase of specially equipped vehicles to transport elderly or mobility-limited persons.

Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee (GCM) Corridor Program. Funding provided to implement intelligent transportation system (ITS) projects in the corridor.

General Obligation Bonds (GOB). Bonds authorized through general purpose units of government for capital improvements.

Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (Bridge Funds). Funding authorized through the U.S. Department of Transportation and TEA-21 for bridge improvements. Bridge funds are allocated to the states on a formula basis.

Discretionary Bridge Funds. Funding provided for bridge projects that are not specifically allocated to the states.

Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). Funds authorized for railroad crossing improvements.

Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA). Funding for improvements to I-355 and other toll highways under the jurisdiction of ISTHA.

Impact Fees. Funds derived from private new development based on a formula relating trip generation to road needs.

Interstate Maintenance Program. Funding provided for the rehabilitation of the interstate highway system. Funds cannot be used to expand the capacity of the highway; however, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and auxiliary lane projects are eligible.

Interstate Discretionary Program. Funds for interstate projects that are not distributed on a formula basis to the states.

Local. Funding from unspecified local funding sources, usually from the jurisdiction's general fund; also includes Township Road and Bridge Funds and other special funds of local origin.

Matching Tax. Real estate based tax providing funds for transportation improvements.

Motor Fuel Tax (MFT). Taxes on gasoline and fuel oil to be used by the state or local governments for roadway improvements. This is also the source for State Bridge Funds.

MFT/County Option. An additional per gallon fuel tax authorized by a county. Will County has not legislated the county option MFT as other area counties have, such as McHenry County (an additional two cents per gallon tax).

National Highway System (NHS). A special category of federal funding authorized through TEA-21 for improvements to the interstate and Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) systems.

Operation GreenLight. State funds aimed at ameliorating congestion on the Strategic Regional Arterial network. Operation GreenLight transit funds finance transit-related congestion mitigation programs, including traffic signal preemption, improved commuter rail station parking and access, and rail grade crossing improvements.

Private. Funding committed toward a project from a private landowner or developer.

Property Tax. Locally authorized property tax revenues.

Special Assessment (SA). Special property taxes, assessed and assigned for a specific improvement.

State. Funding from the general funds of the State of Illinois.

Special Purpose Authority. Authorized bonding for improvements.

Surface Transportation Program (STP). Funding authorized through TEA-21 and administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. STP funds can be used for all classifications of roadways (except local and rural minor collectors), bridge projects on public roads, and transit capital projects.

STP High-Priority Projects. STP funds allocated for specific projects that provide congestion relief, enhance urban access and mobility, or demonstrate innovation in highway construction or financing techniques.

STP-Enhancement. STP funds earmarked for qualified projects that enhance the beauty of a roadway project, improve non-motorized transportation opportunities, mitigate the adverse impacts of more traditional roadway projects, or for other qualified projects.

STP Safety Funds. STP funds allocated specifically for qualified projects that improve safety.

STP-Rural. STP funds allocated to counties for rural highways.

STP-State. STP funds allocated to the State of Illinois for use on state marked or unmarked routes or other qualified projects at the state's discretion.

STP-Urban. STP funds allocated for use on qualified projects at the discretion of the metropolitan planning organization (MPO).

Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Special bonding authority for designated TIF areas/projects.

Projected Funding Levels

The county currently has four sources of revenue available for the maintenance and construction of highway improvements. These sources were at the following approximate levels in 1998.

 

Revenue	Source	1998 Amount
Motor Fuel Tax (MFT)	County's Share of State Gas Tax	$5,800,000
Matching Fund	County Real Estate Tax	4,000,000
Bridge Tax	County Real Estate Tax	3,000,000
Highway Tax	County Real Estate Tax	4,700,000
Total		$17,500,000

 

From these sources, 100 percent of the highway tax and approximately 40 percent of the motor fuel tax are allocated to Highway Department overhead costs. Approximately 40 percent of the remaining funds must then be allocated to rehabilitation, safety, and operational projects in order to properly maintain the existing infrastructure on the county highway system. This leaves an annual budget of approximately $6.3 million for new roadway construction.

The revenues available to the county are assumed to increase over time. Motor fuel tax revenues are assumed to increase at an annual rate of three percent, and real estate tax revenues are assumed to increase annually at a rate of three percent. Using these growth rates, the total funding available to the county during the 20-year period (2000 to 2020) would be as follows:

Revenue	Source	2000-2020 Estimated Total
Motor Fuel Tax (MFT)	County's Share of State Gas Tax	$166,300,000
Matching Tax	County Real Estate Tax	121,700,000
Bridge Tax	County Real Estate Tax	91,300,000
Highway Tax	County Real Estate Tax	143,000,000
	Gross Total	522,300,000
Highway Dept Overhead	(100% of highway tax, 40% MFT)	(209,520,000)
	Subtotal	312,780,000
Safety/Rehab/Operations	(40% of subtotal)	(125,110,000)
	Net Total Available	$187,670,000

These funds would be applied to the county's share of the total transportation improvement program. Additional highway funding for the state, tollway, and municipal shares of the program would originate from other sources. Federal transit funds, state motor fuel tax (Operation GreenLight) and RTA sales tax are used by the RTA and its service boards (Pace, Metra, CTA) and the IDOT Division of Public Transportation to fund public transportation services in northeastern Illinois. Other grant-style federal programs exist, such as the STP enhancement program, and are tailored to a specific type of improvement.

Capital Costs for Roadway Elements

For the roadway projects included in the plan, the estimated capital cost is approximately $1.03 billion without improvements by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA). If the tollway improvements, including the I-355 extension from I-80 to I-57, are added, the total cost rises to $1.9 billion. If a third regional airport is developed in the Peotone area, additional roadway projects that would need to be implemented to support the airport would increase the capital cost for the plan to $1.26 billion, without the ISTHA tollway improvements, and $2.5 billion with the tollway extended farther east to IL 394.

The plan recommends several roadway and intersection realignments that would extend into Cook, Kendall, and Kankakee Counties and Lake County in Indiana. Because the cost of these projects would be funded at least partially by these respective counties or other agencies, for planning purposes, these project costs were not included in Table 19 and Table 20.

Agency Funding of Plan

Many of the recommended improvements projects will have cost participation by more than one agency. For planning purposes, the project costs were assumed to be borne by the agency that has jurisdiction over the facility. As indicated in Tables 19 and 20, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) would share the burden of funding, with approximately $642 million (63 percent, excluding ISTHA projects) ($835 million with the third airport) worth of improvements. While the county has little control over the level of IDOT funding in Will County, a review of IDOT's previous programs has indicated an investment of approximately $26 million per year (including rehabilitation funding), or $520 million over the proposed 20-year planning period. As can be seen, while the program is within reach, the cost of rehabilitation funding will result in a shortfall for new construction projects.

The $218 billion, six-year TEA-21 federal transportation legislation and $12 billion, five-year Illinois FIRST state public works program will provide more funds for transportation projects than were available in the past. The five-year transportation budget for IDOT represents a 50 percent increase over existing programming capacity. Although the transportation plan for the state highway system in Will County may still be unfundable in its entirety, it can serve as a preferred needs list as to where state and federal level investment dollars could be directed in Will County.

As mentioned previously, it is estimated that the county will have available approximately $188 million for capacity improvements over the next 20 years. With the county's estimated share totaling $197 million (19 percent, excluding ISTHA projects), the proposed county highway portion of the program would be potentially attainable, if, recognizing the rapid growth occurring in the county, a larger allocation of the state MFT were allocated to Will County and other (possible new) funding sources were developed.

If a third regional airport is developed in the county, the county's share is estimated to cost $255 million. Reductions in the estimated cost of some projects, elimination of four or five projects that may not be as high a priority if new development is focused more on the eastern end of the county, or an increase in federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds could result in a "balanced" program. Therefore, the county's program over the next 20 years appears financially feasible, provided that funding continues at the levels estimated above or increases.

Approximately 9 percent of the total program ($92.8 million) has been allocated to local funding. This share could also be reduced by increased developer participation, or through an effort by the Will County Governmental League to fund some of these projects. Municipalities presently have the authority to negotiate and levy impact fees that can be used to defray the high cost of infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Will County Governmental League is currently allocated approximately $1.7 million per year in federal (STP) funding. Therefore, over the 20-year planning period, approximately $34 million could be available for county- and municipal-funded projects if STP funding remains at its present level.

Similarly, funding for the transportation planning initiatives could also be secured through regional and federal grant programs. The estimated cost of these initiatives would be rather small when compared to roadway construction costs. Because the scope of these planning studies has not been determined, a cost estimate has not been developed.

Recommended New Funding Sources for County Roadway Improvements

Beyond the funding sources that have recently been used to support infrastructure improvements in Will County, growth projections indicate a clear need for increased transportation funding at the federal, state, and local levels. Potential new or increased funding could come from the following sources:

1. STP High Priority Projects. This federal program provides funding for projects that relieve congestion, enhance urban access and mobility, and demonstrate innovative techniques in highway construction or financing.
2. County Option Motor Fuel Tax. The county potentially has the legislative authority to enact a local gas tax that would provide additional funds for roadway projects. DuPage, Kane, Cook, and McHenry counties have all authorized this additional gas tax. McHenry County, as an example, has authorized an additional two-cent per gallon fuel tax, with legislative authority to increase the tax up to four cents per gallon. Will county must either first convince state lawmakers to grant it the authority to do so, or county residents must vote to approve home rule authority, which would give the County Board authority to implement a gas tax on its own. Will County and Lake County are presently the only counties in the NIPC six-county region that have not been given state authority to levy a gas tax.
3. Transportation Impact Fees. The county currently has the legislative authority, which requires a population of 400,000 more, to collect impact fees as Lake County currently does. The county would assess impact fees on private developments to provide roadway improvements based on a developed formula that could potentially consider the traffic impact of the proposed land use, capacity of impacted facilities, road improvement costs, and tax credits. The county would first need to develop an impact fee ordinance to govern the fees.
4. Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Local municipalities can authorize TIF districts to channel tax revenues directly back into infrastructure redevelopment within their communities.

Funding for public transportation improvements would come primarily from federal transit funds (Federal Operating Assistance Fund and Operation GreenLight Fund) and RTA sales tax receipts and would then be distributed to Metra and Pace. Additional state subsidies are available through the IDOT Department of Public Transportation (Public Transportation Fund). It is anticipated that proposals for new commuter rail stations, increased service, and commuter rail extensions would be developed as part of the RTA's overall long-range planning process.

Additional multimodal improvements that are part of a roadway project (such as park-n-ride lots, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, bicycle lanes, etc.) would also be funded through federal programs targeted to support such measures, or added to the roadway cost as part of an individual project.

Federal STP enhancement funding could be used in the future for bikeway/pedestrian projects if the enhancement program is reauthorized by Congress.

Implementation Process

Transportation improvements are implemented on various levels in northeastern Illinois:

1. Regional level. Federal funds for transportation projects are distributed and administered through several Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) programs through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) process. The MPO for Will County is the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS), which programs improvements for the six northeastern Illinois counties through the development and adoption of a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). CATS carefully considers input from local governments and long-range plans such as this one. Proposed improvements that will be implemented in the next year and within the next three years are developed by the Work Program Committee and the Policy Committee of the MPO. Will County is represented on these committees. Proper notices are made advising the public of the proposed TIP, and required public hearings are held to obtain citizen input. The TIP is published as a separate document by CATS. It is updated and republished each year.
2. Additional regional transit improvements are implemented directly through the Regional Transit Authority and its service boards (Metra, Pace, CTA). RTA and service board funding comes from federal, state, and local sources, as well as through direct farebox revenues.
3. County level. In Will County, the Will County Highway Department is responsible for the maintenance and new construction of county roadways and bridges. Projects identified by the highway department are submitted to the County Board Public Works Committee for review and eventual incorporation into the annual Capital Improvement Plan for Will County, which is adopted by the full county board. County projects are funded primarily by state and county revenue sources.
4. Local level. Local projects include those funded by the municipal governments and townships through local real estate taxes and motor fuel tax revenues. These projects are approved and funds appropriated by city councils, village boards of trustees, or township trustees on the recommendations of the resident engineer representing the local community.

Conclusion

From a planning standpoint, the recommended plan appears to be financially attainable for the county highway system and can be implemented in the next 20 years, with some project construction extending beyond this time frame. Detailed funding estimates were prepared for county funding, while the estimate of state funding was based on historical levels. In both cases, new revenue sources or increased funding for transportation improvements will be critical if the transportation infrastructure is to keep pace with rapid development growth and associated travel demand projected for Will County's roadway system. The burden of the local share of improvements can be attained through successful cooperation with the development community and the use of outside funding, such as STP funds distributed through the Will County Governmental League.

The plan has also identified higher-priority projects. In this way, the various roadway agencies could assess the relative importance of the projects and schedule their planning, engineering, and construction as growth takes place and the need for the facility is warranted. It would also establish a prioritization of the projects to be included in the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

New roadway construction, however, is becoming increasingly difficult to accomplish. Even the simplest projects are often met with extremely vocal opposition from local residents. Land acquisition can take up to five years, and most environmental studies for new facilities take at least one year. Therefore, major roadway expansion projects such as IL 59 have a realistic timeline of 10 years. Today, new roadway projects require environmental, historical, archaeological, air quality, and cost-analysis studies before even proceeding to the engineering stage. While the public may not feel that this is an acceptable time frame to accomplish these improvements, it is a realistic one within the current regulatory structure. In order to condense this time frame further, legislative action on the state and federal levels will be necessary to help streamline the process.

This plan develops the county strategy to guide future development. It serves as the overall plan of the county and its municipalities. The plan summarizes most of the plans and documents previously developed by the MPO, IDOT, county, and municipal governments. As new updated plans are developed, their findings and recommendations should be incorporated into this document.

The plan is one step in a continuous ongoing process. The policies and strategies outlined in this document will be continually refined and improved over time. The efforts of all people and leaders in the MPO and county are required to further improve the region and the various elements of the transportation system.

Click here to view Table 19 and Table 20