Deny or approve with conditions the Special use Permit submitted by Galaxy
Deny or approve with conditions the Special use Permit submitted by Galaxy
The Issue
IDOT
As you know, the citizens of South Pointe Subdivision located in Naperville, IL., and the surrounding communities have a grave concern for the safety of the intersection located at Route 59 & Champion. Given the size, traffic volume, and speed at which cars travel through this intersection, we feel strongly that a traffic signal should be warranted at this location. As a result, we are petitioning IDOT to reconsider installing a traffic signal at this location based on the points made in the analysis below, and the large number of petitioners who have elected to be part of this petition.
In the past few years, IDOT has conducted several studies at this intersection to determine if a traffic light is warranted, and in each of these studies the intersection fails the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Warrant 1 Condition A & B because of insufficient traffic volumes on Champion Drive. We respect the results of these studies, but feel that if IDOT had more information about this intersection from a community perspective, they may question if their traffic study results are accurate.
First, we would like to address the right turn reduction formula being used in these studies that significantly reduces the traffic volume on Champion. In both the 2010 and 2014 signal studies, IDOT reduced the total right turns on Champion by 60% according to the condition formula (R>3T) in the Pagones Theorem table, where a minor street would have an exclusive left, and shared through/right approach. Based on the traffic volume counts on Champion including left turns, right turns, and through traffic, it is clear that the number of right turns was greater than 3 times the “through” traffic, and that is why the 60% reduction in right turns was applied, but if the intersection was deemed safer to cross by the community, the “through” traffic volume on Champion would be significantly higher. This is important because if the “through” traffic were higher on Champion, the right turn reduction percentage to be applied would decrease, and the total traffic volume on Champion would increase.
We can say with a high degree of certainty that the “through” traffic would be higher on Champion if the intersection were deemed safer because South Pointe children are required to attend Freedom Elementary school, located in the Champion Creek subdivision (neighborhood directly west of South Pointe). To help validate this point, we would like to make you aware of the school bus routes traveling to Freedom Elementary from the South Pointe subdivision. The school district has determined that it is too hazardous to allow school buses to cross through or take a left turn on Route 59 from Champion Drive. The elementary school bus is required to take an alternate 3.0 mile route that includes the bus taking a right turn (heading North) on Route 59 from Champion (see route highlighted in red below), instead of a more direct ¼ mile route that would allow the bus to travel directly through Route 59 (see route highlighted in yellow below). The Freedom Elementary buses are also not allowed to turn left on Route 59, so the shorter alternate route (see route in red dashed below) is also not feasible. The bus pick up time is pushed earlier each year as the traffic on Route 59 increases, and it takes longer for the buses to complete the right turn onto Route 59, and a subsequent left turn onto 111th. The children at the first stop to be picked up in the morning sit on the bus for more than 30 minutes each day before arriving to school.
On an equally important note, both the middle school (Heritage Grove) and high school (Plainfield North) children from South Pointe are required to attend Plainfield schools, located south of 119th, and west of Route 59. Obviously, the logical routes for buses traveling to these destinations would be to take a left (heading south on 59) out of South Pointe, but these buses also take right turns (heading North 59) and circuitous routes to their destinations to avoid the danger of taking a left turn at this intersection. To verify these bus routes, and understand the school district’s concerns for Route 59 and Champion, please see attached letter from Ellen Theobald, Plainfield School District 202 Director of Transportation.1
Many residents of South Pointe also take right turns out of South Pointe to avoid the dangers of taking a left turn on Route 59 (Northbound), with the intention of doing a U-TURN at 111th to eventually head south. As this traffic maneuver is routinely performed, it significantly cuts down on left turns being made out of South Pointe, and that could potentially skew Champion total traffic counts downward during traffic signal control studies.
While Route 59 and Champion may never meet the traffic volume criteria to meet Warrant 1 Condition A, we believe the intersection does meet Warrant 1 Condition B. As you know, Warrant 1 Condition B is the “Interruption of Continuous Traffic” and is intended to evaluate an intersection where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. This definition of Warrant 1 Condition B clearly defines the problem at Route 59 & Champion.
It appears from the 2010 traffic control signal study that the engineers took into consideration Condition B more closely by applying mainline congestion factors to adjust downward the right turn reduction percentage. In the recent 2014 control signal study, we did not observe any such adjustment. We also noticed that in the 2014 study, the surveyors documented the speed limit on Route 59 to be 40 mph, when in fact it is 45 mph. This appears to be a significant error because according to Condition B, when the speed limit exceeds 40 mph on the major-street, the 70% traffic volume numbers should be used to evaluate if an intersection warrants a light. If the 70% traffic volume numbers were used and the proper mainline congestion factors were applied to reduce right turn reductions, Route 59 and Champion would likely meet the criteria for Warrant 1 Condition B during several time periods throughout the day. We also would like to point out that the mainline congestion factors that were applied in the 2010 study did not seem correct based on
the average volume of traffic on Route 59. For example, both the 2010 and 2014 study showed Route 59 having a significant amount of traffic volume per hour, ranging from 1,713-2,623, which according to the mainline congestion factors published in the 2010 study, right hand turn reductions should have been reduced by 25%-50%. If these types of congestion factors would have been applied to the 2014 study, Route 59 and Champion would have easily met the criteria for a traffic light, according to Warrant 1 Condition B.
In IDOT’s last communication to South Pointe HOA, it was indicated that Warrant 7 (Crash Experience) of the MUTCD was considered because there were 25 reported accidents on file at Route 59 & Champion from 2008 through 2013, but the warrant was not fulfilled because Champion did not meet the stringent Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) criteria of 80 vehicles per hour for eight separate hours. IDOT also informed us that more stringent criteria are used to warrant a light on SRAs to ensure efficient traffic progression for high volumes of traffic, but using these strict criteria in light of the high crash frequency at Route 59 & Champion should be challenged since installing a traffic signal at Champion (1/2 mile in between 111th & 119th) would not interrupt traffic progression on Route 59.
We believe the installation of a traffic light at Champion would not interrupt traffic progression on Route 59 because the SRADCR report states that new signals should be spaced no less than 1,320 feet on the urban and suburban routes, therefore installing a light at Champion (exactly ½ mile from 111th and 119th) will not impact traffic signal spacing criteria. It was also stated in a Strategic Regional Arterial System Advisory Panel Meeting that “signals are recommended at the ½ mile spacing for traffic progression. In undeveloped areas the logical place for a potential future signal is at the ½ mile point from the existing arterials.”2 At the time this meeting took place, South Pointe subdivision was completely undeveloped, therefore it is logical to think that the Route 59 and Champion intersection should already have a traffic light installed because it is exactly ½ mile between 111th and 119th (arterials).
Aside from the traffic signal criteria published in the MUTCD discussed above, we would like to point IDOT to a few traffic signal guidelines that were published in the Strategic Regional Arterial Design Concept Report, the Strategic Regional Arterial Illinois Route 59 (Vol. II), and some statements that were published in the SRA Spotlight Newsletter. As you may recall, the SRA Spotlight Newsletter was published by IDOT and was created to inform members (i.e. county board members, mayors, presidents) about the progress of the SRA Route 59 study, and to respond to questions and comments.
Based on research into the documents mentioned above, Champion Drive is a Collector street. By definition, a collector street according to IDOT is a street that directs traffic from local streets to arterials or local destinations such as shopping, schools, and offices. Champion clearly meets a collector street description because it leads traffic to Route 59 (SRA), and it should be used as a direct route to access Freedom Elementary School, and the South Pointe Swim Club. This is significant because according to the Strategic Regional Arterial Design Concept Report, it states in Table 5.1 on page 30 that desirable cross street intersections located on an SRA (i.e. -Route 59) involving Collector streets or arterials should have traffic signals and new local roads should have a right-in/right-out only setup.
To demonstrate more clearly why we believe Champion Drive should be considered a collector street, please compare and contrast images 1 and 2 below. Image 1 is taken from a SRA Spotlight Newsletter, No. 1, August, 1990, and image 2 is a current Google Earth snapshot of Route 59 & Champion Drive.
Image 1 - taken from SRA Spotlight Newsletter,
No. 1, August, 1990
Imagine 1 –Google Map Snapshot of Route 59 & Champion Drive
A
B
C
South Pointe Local Streets
Champion Creek
Local Streets
Champion Drive
Champion Drive
In one of the SRA Spotlight Newsletters, IDOT commented on standards for future mid-mile collector routes by stating that “the one half mile is the maximum for optimal traffic signal interconnection.” This leads one to believe that if a traffic signal was installed at the intersection of Route 59 & Champion, it would optimally interconnect the traffic signals located at 111th & 119th.3
In a Strategic Regional Arterial System Advisory Panel Meeting, it was stated that “signals are recommended at the ½ mile spacing for traffic progression. In undeveloped areas the logical place for a potential future signal is at the ½ mile point from the existing arterials.” At the time this meeting took place, South Pointe subdivision was completely undeveloped, therefore it is logical to think that Champion Drive should have been designated as a collector street because it is exactly ½ mile between 111th and 119th (arterials), and should already have a traffic signal installed.2
The above Route 59 & Champion intersection analysis may not reflect all the important viewpoints about why this location needs a traffic signal, so please be sure to read the commentary by the petitioners.
In closing, we would like IDOT to know that we understand the engineering complexity that goes into installing a traffic signal on an SRA, but we also know that the Route 59 & Champion intersection is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The South Pointe subdivision is wonderful place to live, and we do not want to see anyone get seriously hurt or killed, so we appreciate your diligence at evaluating this petition and your continued consideration to install a traffic signal at this location. We look forward to hearing your response to each of the inquiries made within this analysis, and a formal reply to this petition.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gairani
South Pointe HOA Director
5623 Rosinweed Lane
Naperville, IL. 60564
Cell: 217-836-9549
References:
-
Letter from Ellen Theobald, Plainfield School District 202 Director of Transportation
2. (Reference - Harland Bartholomew and Associates Planning Engineering Firm Meeting Minutes, November 9, 1990, Warrenville City Hall. To a review these meeting minutes and to understand why the above information was discussed, please click on the below link and scroll down to page 14 to see the meeting minutes. Strategic Regional Arterial Illinois Route 59 (Vol. II) dated May 1993
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Reports/SRA/100/106-V2.pdf
3. (Reference – SRA Spotlight Newsletter, No. 4, March 1991 (page 4 Q & A). To view this newsletter, please click on the following link: Strategic Regional Arterial Illinois Route 59 (Vol. II) dated May 1993
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Reports/SRA/100/106-V2.pdf
The Issue
IDOT
As you know, the citizens of South Pointe Subdivision located in Naperville, IL., and the surrounding communities have a grave concern for the safety of the intersection located at Route 59 & Champion. Given the size, traffic volume, and speed at which cars travel through this intersection, we feel strongly that a traffic signal should be warranted at this location. As a result, we are petitioning IDOT to reconsider installing a traffic signal at this location based on the points made in the analysis below, and the large number of petitioners who have elected to be part of this petition.
In the past few years, IDOT has conducted several studies at this intersection to determine if a traffic light is warranted, and in each of these studies the intersection fails the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Warrant 1 Condition A & B because of insufficient traffic volumes on Champion Drive. We respect the results of these studies, but feel that if IDOT had more information about this intersection from a community perspective, they may question if their traffic study results are accurate.
First, we would like to address the right turn reduction formula being used in these studies that significantly reduces the traffic volume on Champion. In both the 2010 and 2014 signal studies, IDOT reduced the total right turns on Champion by 60% according to the condition formula (R>3T) in the Pagones Theorem table, where a minor street would have an exclusive left, and shared through/right approach. Based on the traffic volume counts on Champion including left turns, right turns, and through traffic, it is clear that the number of right turns was greater than 3 times the “through” traffic, and that is why the 60% reduction in right turns was applied, but if the intersection was deemed safer to cross by the community, the “through” traffic volume on Champion would be significantly higher. This is important because if the “through” traffic were higher on Champion, the right turn reduction percentage to be applied would decrease, and the total traffic volume on Champion would increase.
We can say with a high degree of certainty that the “through” traffic would be higher on Champion if the intersection were deemed safer because South Pointe children are required to attend Freedom Elementary school, located in the Champion Creek subdivision (neighborhood directly west of South Pointe). To help validate this point, we would like to make you aware of the school bus routes traveling to Freedom Elementary from the South Pointe subdivision. The school district has determined that it is too hazardous to allow school buses to cross through or take a left turn on Route 59 from Champion Drive. The elementary school bus is required to take an alternate 3.0 mile route that includes the bus taking a right turn (heading North) on Route 59 from Champion (see route highlighted in red below), instead of a more direct ¼ mile route that would allow the bus to travel directly through Route 59 (see route highlighted in yellow below). The Freedom Elementary buses are also not allowed to turn left on Route 59, so the shorter alternate route (see route in red dashed below) is also not feasible. The bus pick up time is pushed earlier each year as the traffic on Route 59 increases, and it takes longer for the buses to complete the right turn onto Route 59, and a subsequent left turn onto 111th. The children at the first stop to be picked up in the morning sit on the bus for more than 30 minutes each day before arriving to school.
On an equally important note, both the middle school (Heritage Grove) and high school (Plainfield North) children from South Pointe are required to attend Plainfield schools, located south of 119th, and west of Route 59. Obviously, the logical routes for buses traveling to these destinations would be to take a left (heading south on 59) out of South Pointe, but these buses also take right turns (heading North 59) and circuitous routes to their destinations to avoid the danger of taking a left turn at this intersection. To verify these bus routes, and understand the school district’s concerns for Route 59 and Champion, please see attached letter from Ellen Theobald, Plainfield School District 202 Director of Transportation.1
Many residents of South Pointe also take right turns out of South Pointe to avoid the dangers of taking a left turn on Route 59 (Northbound), with the intention of doing a U-TURN at 111th to eventually head south. As this traffic maneuver is routinely performed, it significantly cuts down on left turns being made out of South Pointe, and that could potentially skew Champion total traffic counts downward during traffic signal control studies.
While Route 59 and Champion may never meet the traffic volume criteria to meet Warrant 1 Condition A, we believe the intersection does meet Warrant 1 Condition B. As you know, Warrant 1 Condition B is the “Interruption of Continuous Traffic” and is intended to evaluate an intersection where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. This definition of Warrant 1 Condition B clearly defines the problem at Route 59 & Champion.
It appears from the 2010 traffic control signal study that the engineers took into consideration Condition B more closely by applying mainline congestion factors to adjust downward the right turn reduction percentage. In the recent 2014 control signal study, we did not observe any such adjustment. We also noticed that in the 2014 study, the surveyors documented the speed limit on Route 59 to be 40 mph, when in fact it is 45 mph. This appears to be a significant error because according to Condition B, when the speed limit exceeds 40 mph on the major-street, the 70% traffic volume numbers should be used to evaluate if an intersection warrants a light. If the 70% traffic volume numbers were used and the proper mainline congestion factors were applied to reduce right turn reductions, Route 59 and Champion would likely meet the criteria for Warrant 1 Condition B during several time periods throughout the day. We also would like to point out that the mainline congestion factors that were applied in the 2010 study did not seem correct based on
the average volume of traffic on Route 59. For example, both the 2010 and 2014 study showed Route 59 having a significant amount of traffic volume per hour, ranging from 1,713-2,623, which according to the mainline congestion factors published in the 2010 study, right hand turn reductions should have been reduced by 25%-50%. If these types of congestion factors would have been applied to the 2014 study, Route 59 and Champion would have easily met the criteria for a traffic light, according to Warrant 1 Condition B.
In IDOT’s last communication to South Pointe HOA, it was indicated that Warrant 7 (Crash Experience) of the MUTCD was considered because there were 25 reported accidents on file at Route 59 & Champion from 2008 through 2013, but the warrant was not fulfilled because Champion did not meet the stringent Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) criteria of 80 vehicles per hour for eight separate hours. IDOT also informed us that more stringent criteria are used to warrant a light on SRAs to ensure efficient traffic progression for high volumes of traffic, but using these strict criteria in light of the high crash frequency at Route 59 & Champion should be challenged since installing a traffic signal at Champion (1/2 mile in between 111th & 119th) would not interrupt traffic progression on Route 59.
We believe the installation of a traffic light at Champion would not interrupt traffic progression on Route 59 because the SRADCR report states that new signals should be spaced no less than 1,320 feet on the urban and suburban routes, therefore installing a light at Champion (exactly ½ mile from 111th and 119th) will not impact traffic signal spacing criteria. It was also stated in a Strategic Regional Arterial System Advisory Panel Meeting that “signals are recommended at the ½ mile spacing for traffic progression. In undeveloped areas the logical place for a potential future signal is at the ½ mile point from the existing arterials.”2 At the time this meeting took place, South Pointe subdivision was completely undeveloped, therefore it is logical to think that the Route 59 and Champion intersection should already have a traffic light installed because it is exactly ½ mile between 111th and 119th (arterials).
Aside from the traffic signal criteria published in the MUTCD discussed above, we would like to point IDOT to a few traffic signal guidelines that were published in the Strategic Regional Arterial Design Concept Report, the Strategic Regional Arterial Illinois Route 59 (Vol. II), and some statements that were published in the SRA Spotlight Newsletter. As you may recall, the SRA Spotlight Newsletter was published by IDOT and was created to inform members (i.e. county board members, mayors, presidents) about the progress of the SRA Route 59 study, and to respond to questions and comments.
Based on research into the documents mentioned above, Champion Drive is a Collector street. By definition, a collector street according to IDOT is a street that directs traffic from local streets to arterials or local destinations such as shopping, schools, and offices. Champion clearly meets a collector street description because it leads traffic to Route 59 (SRA), and it should be used as a direct route to access Freedom Elementary School, and the South Pointe Swim Club. This is significant because according to the Strategic Regional Arterial Design Concept Report, it states in Table 5.1 on page 30 that desirable cross street intersections located on an SRA (i.e. -Route 59) involving Collector streets or arterials should have traffic signals and new local roads should have a right-in/right-out only setup.
To demonstrate more clearly why we believe Champion Drive should be considered a collector street, please compare and contrast images 1 and 2 below. Image 1 is taken from a SRA Spotlight Newsletter, No. 1, August, 1990, and image 2 is a current Google Earth snapshot of Route 59 & Champion Drive.
Image 1 - taken from SRA Spotlight Newsletter,
No. 1, August, 1990
Imagine 1 –Google Map Snapshot of Route 59 & Champion Drive
A
B
C
South Pointe Local Streets
Champion Creek
Local Streets
Champion Drive
Champion Drive
In one of the SRA Spotlight Newsletters, IDOT commented on standards for future mid-mile collector routes by stating that “the one half mile is the maximum for optimal traffic signal interconnection.” This leads one to believe that if a traffic signal was installed at the intersection of Route 59 & Champion, it would optimally interconnect the traffic signals located at 111th & 119th.3
In a Strategic Regional Arterial System Advisory Panel Meeting, it was stated that “signals are recommended at the ½ mile spacing for traffic progression. In undeveloped areas the logical place for a potential future signal is at the ½ mile point from the existing arterials.” At the time this meeting took place, South Pointe subdivision was completely undeveloped, therefore it is logical to think that Champion Drive should have been designated as a collector street because it is exactly ½ mile between 111th and 119th (arterials), and should already have a traffic signal installed.2
The above Route 59 & Champion intersection analysis may not reflect all the important viewpoints about why this location needs a traffic signal, so please be sure to read the commentary by the petitioners.
In closing, we would like IDOT to know that we understand the engineering complexity that goes into installing a traffic signal on an SRA, but we also know that the Route 59 & Champion intersection is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The South Pointe subdivision is wonderful place to live, and we do not want to see anyone get seriously hurt or killed, so we appreciate your diligence at evaluating this petition and your continued consideration to install a traffic signal at this location. We look forward to hearing your response to each of the inquiries made within this analysis, and a formal reply to this petition.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gairani
South Pointe HOA Director
5623 Rosinweed Lane
Naperville, IL. 60564
Cell: 217-836-9549
References:
-
Letter from Ellen Theobald, Plainfield School District 202 Director of Transportation
2. (Reference - Harland Bartholomew and Associates Planning Engineering Firm Meeting Minutes, November 9, 1990, Warrenville City Hall. To a review these meeting minutes and to understand why the above information was discussed, please click on the below link and scroll down to page 14 to see the meeting minutes. Strategic Regional Arterial Illinois Route 59 (Vol. II) dated May 1993
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Reports/SRA/100/106-V2.pdf
3. (Reference – SRA Spotlight Newsletter, No. 4, March 1991 (page 4 Q & A). To view this newsletter, please click on the following link: Strategic Regional Arterial Illinois Route 59 (Vol. II) dated May 1993
http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Reports/SRA/100/106-V2.pdf
Petition Closed
Share this petition
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on February 27, 2013