Area officials say 30-day extension still too rushed
By Dave Parro
STAFF WRITER
Even with the state extending the public comment period on the proposed Prairie Parkway by 30 days, highway opponents
still feel transportation officials are rushing a project that should be more carefully planned and considered.
News this week that the Illinois Department of Transportation will extend its deadline for public comment until
Feb. 10 came as little surprise after Kane and Kendall county officials asked for an extension to the initial 30-day
period. The extra time has done little, however, to ease the fears of opponents who think the state has already
made up its mind on plotting a path for the 33-mile freeway connecting interstates 88 and 80.
"(The extra) 30 days ó it's something," Kane County Board Chairman Mike McCoy said. McCoy had been pushing
for an additional 90 days for comment.
"I still feel that, on a billion-dollar project, 120 days was a really reasonable request. Obviously, they're
on the fast-track to site a centerline."
The 30-day extension was what the Kendall County Board had requested last week.
IDOT and Secretary of Transportation Kirk Brown decided to extend the comment period after receiving input from
residents, county officials and legislators. Chris Schwarberg, IDOT information and public assistance bureau chief
in Springfield, said there has been no discussion of another extension beyond the extra 30 days, although he would
not rule it out.
Gregg Mounts, program development engineer for IDOT's Ottawa district, said he does not anticipate another extension
of the comment period. He said he hopes the 60-day period will give people enough time to give their opinions.
Jan Strasma, organizer of the anti-highway group Citizens Against the Sprawlway, said the month-long extension
is a "token effort" that proves the state does not want to truly listen to what residents have to say.
He said the process itself ó presenting a proposal during the holidays before conducting studies ó shows that IDOT
officials have made up their minds.
"This is a big project that's years away," Strasma, who had asked for a 120-day period, said. "I
don't understand what the hurry is."
The opposition group contends that IDOT has not thought the project through and does not have data to back up the
necessity of a north-south highway. The state should consider other transportation options, as well, such as modifying
the existing system, Strasma said.
Some of the comments received have criticized the process of presenting a proposal before conducting traffic and
engineering studies, Mounts said. IDOT came with the proposal first because officials want to preserve land for
a possible highway now. The needed studies would take five to six years, and development could eliminate a corridor
during that time, he said.
IDOT is looking for input on whether the general corridor protection plan is a good idea, Mounts said, not on specific
details of the plan such as interchanges and drainage. He said those details would be worked out during the traffic
study and engineering phases.
"We're hoping that people will comment on (the corridor protection plan)," Mounts said. "Do they
feel this is an appropriate step? And, if they do, do they agree with what was presented on Dec. 11?"
IDOT presented its corridor proposal in Yorkville earlier this month, and more than 850 people viewed the plans
for the 400-foot-wide belt through Kane, Kendall and Grundy counties. Mounts said he does not know how many comments
have been received, but the ones read so far have been balanced between opposition and support.
In seeking general comments about corridor protection, IDOT officials said they have not yet decided on any particular
alignment. Mounts said the two alternative corridors originally studied, one to the east and the other to the west,
are still options if comments heavily favor a different corridor.
"It is important for those persons commenting to understand that no specific alignment for a road has been
proposed," James Jereb, IDOT district engineer in Ottawa, said.
McCoy said he hopes the alternative corridors are back on the table, because the one presented is the "least
desirable" for Kane County. He said he wants the county to hold a public hearing for residents, the transcript
of which would be sent to Springfield as official public comment.