143 Street Extension
Feasibility Study
Ron Kazmar submitted questions to Village of Plainfield on July 30, 1999
pertaining to the 143rd St Feasibility Study
and got these answers (A:) from the Village on August 17, 1999
1. Page 10. Many of the reasons or issues for rejecting 135th as an alternative truck route also apply to 143rd St., i.e. flood plain constraints, wetlands, residences, etc. Why are these issues not considered a 'fatal flaw" for 143rd St.?
A: There are additional reasons contained on that page for rejecting 135th Street. These include existing land use, the connection to the interchange
and a failure to meet the project goals.
2. Page 14. Why was the Plainfield Township Board, which represents many of the homeowners affected by this road, not consulted with respect to this study?
A: I do not know why the Plainfield Township Board was not contacted directly. The Road Commissioner was as well as the County who has actual jurisdiction for 143rd Street presently.
A: This is a feasibility study and not a design report so no analysis was made. This would be considered during Phase I.
4. Page 24. The bridge or "structure", as it is referred to in the study, will be what height (vertical alignment) over the DuPage flood plain?
A: Again, that is a matter of design and not feasibility.
5. Page 39. A cost of $1,500,000 for one mile of road is assumed in the discounted cash flow analysis. On page 40, the cost of the project is estimated at $12-12.5 million. Why the difference? Does the $1,500,000 represent the cost to be borne by the Village?
A: I cannot answer that and will have to wait for the consultant's response.
6. Why is the cost used in Table TIT assume only one mile of roadway when on page 40 the length of the road is 12,000 lineal feet which is equivalent to 2-1/4 miles?
A: See #5 above.
7. Figure 16. It appears that one of the areas considered to be a potential area of new development is St. Mary's cemetery. Is this possible?
A: This is an error. No redevelopment of the cemetery will be permitted.
8. Page 39 Table III. The project cost of $1,500,000 is based on the Transportation Plan which was published in 1995. For every increase in project cost of just $100,000 the recovery period increases by 2 years. Does the $1,500,000 represent a realistic cost assumption ? Also, assuming the extension is 2-1/4 miles, the project cost based on $1,500,000 per mile, increases to approximately $3,375,000 which increases the recovery period well beyond 25 years. Is this considered an acceptable economic pay back?
A: Payback "acceptability" is a political decision and a function of the study's assumptions. It was not the purpose of the study to justify the interconnection through economic redevelopment. Such development is merely a by-product.
9. Why were the minutes of the Sept. 24, 1998 public hearing not included as part of the published study?
A: The September 24,1998 meeting was an informational session for the Mayor and Board and not a Public Hearing per se. However, I will see that such minutes are included.
10. The study does not address or even mention the impact of the extension, in terms of noise, property value degradation, pollution, etc., to adjacent property owners. Why?
A: The Feasibility Study's purpose was not to do an environmental assessment. That is a function of the Phase I Engineering subsequent to this study.
11. Is an analysis of truck traffic using cameras, as described on page 2 of the minutes of the meeting with IDOT on 4/28/98, going to be done as suggested by IDOT?
A: The Village did not have the funds to do the traffic study as mentioned at the IDOT meeting of April 28,1998. Such an "Origin and Destination" Study is highly recommended for early Phase I Engineering.
12. Will a two lane minor arterial road, such as the proposed extension be adequate to handle the anticipated traffic? What is the expected traffic volume and how was it determined?
A: I cannot project traffic volumes presently, but assume 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles in the year 2020.
13. Why does IDOT want 143rd St. to be designed as a collector road as opposed to a minor arterial road? What impact does this have on the capacity of the road?
A: The semantic difference between minor arterial and collector refers to design strengths and traffic volume. A collector street is of a higher order than minor arterial.
14. If the Village decides to proceed with this project, how will the $550,000 cost of the Phase I Engineering study be financed?
A: The Village has received a grant of $150,000 towards the Phase I Engineering and will secure additional grants to close the gap. Any local funds will have to be generated by Village of Plainfield taxpayers.
15. Will the September 8 th meeting be held at Plainfield High School?
A: Yes, the September 8 meeting will be held at the high school at 7pm.
