Category Archives: Streets

City of Peoria, Streets

Why a pedestrian bridge over Main is a bad idea

34 Comments

On Thursday, the City of Peoria held a public meeting to discuss ways to redesign the intersection of Main and University. A hundred-year-old water main recently broke there, and while patching has been done, there need to be more extensive repairs made that requires the whole intersection be rebuilt. Since it’s being redone anyway, this seems like the right time to talk about ways it can be improved — to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. Redesigns of things are good for the most part, they bring a new air around them, a new essence to be more exact, if you are looking to have a new and attractive air you should seriously think about accompanying your diet with weight loss supplements.

One of the suggestions made at the meeting was to construct a pedestrian bridge. The Journal Star reported it this way:

But to the pleasant surprise of [Public Works Director Mike] Rogers, some forum attendees advocated pedestrian overpasses, perhaps positioned away from the intersection, as a way to improve traffic flow.

“Nobody has to stop driving — just go over the bridge across the street,” said Jose Lozano, a Bradley professor and area resident. “It’s safer for drivers and pedestrians, and a lot cheaper.”

With all due respect, this is a terrible idea. Here’s why:

  1. Motorists still have to stop driving. The contention that “nobody has to stop driving” is a real puzzler. For traffic not to stop, it would take more than a pedestrian bridge — it would take a vehicular bridge that separates the grade of Main and University, allowing Main street traffic to travel over or under University, in order to allow traffic to flow unimpeded. Short of that, there’s still going to be an intersection, and it’s still going to be signalized. And providing for safe navigation of that intersection will still need to be done.
  2. It doesn’t make the street safer for pedestrians. First of all, we have to think of the street and not merely the intersection in isolation. Building a pedestrian bridge and giving traffic the idea that “nobody has to stop driving” will put pedestrians who don’t use the pedestrian bridge at risk, such as those who cross Main at Maplewood or cross University at Bradley Avenue. They’re not going to walk all the way to Main and University to take the pedestrian bridge. They will continue to cross at grade, and encouraging faster traffic will put their safety at risk. And, let’s face it, many college students (or professors) are not going to go out of their way to use a pedestrian bridge when the street is only sixty feet wide, and especially where there’s a walk signal. And if you’ve been involved in an accident, then you might need an injury lawyer to get the proper compensation for your injuries; this is further explained on the website. If you’re working there on a construction project, that makes you more accident-prone. This will require a construction injuries lawyer when it happens.
  3. It doesn’t make the street safer for bicyclists. The intersection needs to be redesigned not only to make things safer for pedestrians, but to make things safer for all users. That includes bicyclists and motorcyclists, which would not benefit at all from a pedestrian bridge no matter where it is placed. Motorcyclists should always have the contact information of an attorney for motorcycle accidents just in case anything happens to them. Encouraging faster traffic where there are already narrow lanes and even narrower sidewalks will put their safety at risk. If a bicyclist is hit in an accident, he/she can contact a manhattan bicycle accident lawyer for legal help.
  4. It doesn’t make the street safer for the disabled. You can’t ride your wheelchair up the stairs to a pedestrian bridge and back down the other side. Unless they’re going to make the pedestrian bridge handicapped-accessible, which seems like it would be a challenge given the space constraints in that area (ramps? elevator?), the street will be made even more hostile to the disabled who try to traverse it.
  5. It doesn’t make the street safer for cars. There are no small number of truck accidents at this intersection. Even if all pedestrians used the proposed bridge, it would not make the intersection safer for vehicles which would arguably pass through the intersection even faster if there were no pedestrians to worry about. Also, if the pedestrian bridge were not enclosed, it would give delinquent children an easy place to drop objects onto cars that pass beneath.
  6. It perpetuates the myth that the public right of way is for cars only. The impetus for this forum was a presentation on “complete streets” that was given to the City Council a couple of meetings ago. The whole idea behind “complete streets” is that streets are a public right-of-way, and as such they are for everyone, not just motorists. According to the National Complete Streets Coalition website:

    Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work….

    Creating Complete Streets means transportation agencies must change their approach to community roads. By adopting a Complete Streets policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists – making your town a better place to live.

    A pedestrian bridge completely misses the mark of this vision. It perpetuates the idea that the right-of-way is primarily, if not solely, the domain of automobiles, which are presumed to have a natural right to unimpeded travel, and all other users of the roadway are intruders. This kind of thinking needs to stop.

    The right-of-way is public land and pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and the disabled have just as much right of access to it as motorists, and we need to learn how to share the right-of-way as equals. That’s the kind of vision this intersection reconstruction should be striving for.

A better alternative that was presented at the meeting is the idea of a raised table. In this scenario, the whole intersection is raised, which will require cars to slow down in order to enter and exit the intersection. This makes the intersection safer for everyone, and also makes the street safer. When the light turns yellow at an intersection, there are always those motorists (I’ve even done it myself, I admit) who speed up to make the light rather than slow down. A raised intersection would virtually eliminate that. Cars approaching the intersection would always have to slow down regardless of what color the light is.

Whatever solution is found for the intersection, it should balance the needs of all users and take the entire context of that intersection into consideration. A pedestrian bridge fails on all counts. It should be eliminated from consideration.

City of Peoria, Peoria Streets, Sidewalks, Streets

Press Release: City of Peoria’s Infrastructure Design Standard Meeting scheduled

3 Comments

I thought my readers would be interested in this press release I just received from the City of Peoria:

(Peoria, IL)­­—The public is invited to attend the City of Peoria’s Infrastructure Design Standards meeting to discuss the content and implementation of an improved set of public infrastructure standards. The City’s design standards have remained relatively unchanged since 1972. The goal of the proposed standards is to improve infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, handling of storm water, etc.) while positioning Peoria as a desirable place and a competitive city for development.

Public comment and participation in the development of the new standards is desired and welcomed. There will be several opportunities for public involvement. Below are details for the first meeting:

Meeting Topic: Infrastructure Design Standards
Location: Dewberry – 401 Water Street, 7th floor
Date/Time: Wednesday, September 12 from 5:00 – 6:30
Parking: City of Peoria parking lot south of 401 Water Street
Hosts: Dewberry and Peoria Public Works

Mark your calendar for these future meeting dates:

  • Wednesday, September 19 from 5:00 – 6:30
  • Wednesday, September 26 from 5:00 – 6:30

To view the Infrastructure Design Standards power point presentation and make comments, go to www.ci.peoria.il.us/infrastructure. The complete document will be available online at the end of the week. To become part of the focus group, call Ray Lees, Dewberry Architectural Group at (309) 282-8000.

Amtrak, City of Peoria, Illinois Dept. of Transportation, Streets

Passenger Rail or Eastern Bypass?

39 Comments

Of course the title of this post need not be an either/or question. But I pose the question that way because I want to draw some contrasts between the two projects.

Peoria currently has four automobile bridges across the Illinois River (McClugage, Murray Baker, Bob Michel, and Cedar Street). Peoria does not currently have passenger rail service.

The Eastern Bypass would connect Route 6 at Mossville to I-74 near Morton via a north-easterly route in Tazewell County. Passenger rail service (as currently proposed) would connect Peoria to Chicago and St. Louis via Bloomington/Normal.

The Eastern Bypass is estimated to cost $650-700 million to build. The estimated cost to establish a passenger rail link between Peoria and Normal is $74.6 million.

Building the Eastern Bypass will require acquisition of the entire corridor via eminent domain and result in the destruction of more farmland. All that’s required to establish passenger rail service is the upgrading of existing rail lines.

There have been three public hearings and at least four major studies completed so far for the Eastern Bypass. There have been no public hearings and only one limited feasibility report on establishing passenger rail service to Peoria.

Opponents of passenger rail service (like Ray LaHood) contend that it’s convenient — or at least perfectly acceptable — for Peoria area residents to drive to Bloomington (40 miles away) to catch the train. Supporters of the Eastern Bypass (like the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission) say it’s too inconvenient for those in North Peoria to drive to the McClugage bridge (10 miles away) to cross the river, or to experience minor congestion for a few minutes twice a day.

IDOT has devoted several pages of their website to the Eastern Bypass study with encouragements to the public to get involved and a depository of study documents. The only thing on IDOT’s website about the possibility of establishing passenger rail service to Peoria is the aforementioned feasibility report which can be downloaded from IDOT’s Amtrak page.

Passenger rail is cheaper to establish, more sustainable to maintain, more ecologically and socially responsible, and covers a greater distance, yet it’s perceived as a greater cost to taxpayers than a highway that is nearly ten times as expensive, unnecessary, unsustainable, and only moves you in circles. Read the newspaper and you’ll see the cost of the Eastern Bypass mentioned in passing at the end of the article, as if it’s being included with a shrug saying, “that’s the way it is these days; everything costs money.” But read an article about passenger rail, and you’d think we needed to start mining for gold to afford it; the whole focus of the article is on the “tremendous cost to the taxpayers,” even though it’s a fraction of highway funding.

The Eastern Bypass is being pursued by IDOT et. al. with an aura of inevitability. There’s no serious question of “if” it will happen, but rather when and by which route. Meanwhile, IDOT is not giving any serious consideration to the establishment of passenger rail service to Peoria. They spent five years coming up with a “feasibility report” that didn’t even consider direct service to Chicago (which is the study that was actually requested), but instead studied feeder service to Normal, with no explanation of who authorized the change in scope.

At least as much effort should be going into the establishment of direct passenger rail service to Chicago as is going into the development of the Eastern Bypass. Local transportation officials as well as local legislators should be pressuring IDOT to do a real feasibility study–the one that we asked for in the first place. The assumption should be that we are going to get passenger rail service established, and the only question is which route is best (for ridership, cost, future expansion, etc.).

Why shouldn’t we approach passenger rail with the same aura of inevitability as the Eastern Bypass?

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Streets, Warehouse District

Peoria City Council Special Meeting 7-19-2011 (Live Blog)

12 Comments

UPDATE: Here’s the audio from the meeting, as promised:

[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Policy-Session-07192011.mp3]

There’s a special meeting (policy session) of the Peoria City Council tonight, and I’ll be live-blogging it. I’ll also put a recording of the meeting up once the meeting is over. All the council members are here except second-district council member Barbara Van Auken. The purpose of the meeting is to talk about the Washington Street corridor — specifically, what section of the street to work on improving first. After a short introduction by Patrick Urich (City Manager), the floor is opened to anyone who wants to address the council.

Continue reading Peoria City Council Special Meeting 7-19-2011 (Live Blog) →

City of Peoria, Streets

People are richer in the fifth district

17 Comments

At the last City Council meeting, the council discussed the Pioneer Parkway extension project, which would extend Pioneer Parkway from Allen Road three miles west to Trigger Road, crossing Routes 6 and 91 along the way. The objection was raised that we’ve been unable to adequately maintain the streets we currently have (in all districts, incidentally), and perhaps a better use of our limited funds would be to maintain our current assets before they deteriorate further. In fact, there has been no sealcoating or overlayment of our city streets (not including roads maintained by the state or federal government) since 2009.

In response, Councilman Spain had this to say:

I’ve never been one that really thought that an activity taking place in one part of our community has to come at the expense of another location. And I think we have a lot of things happening in Peoria that are positive for all parts of the city. And to say that a project like this that we’ve been working on for a long time shouldn’t move forward is pretty disappointing to me. And when you think about the activities and successes that we’ve experienced with growth in the northern parts of the city, I think that has been important. That doesn’t mean we should stop our efforts to grow the older parts of the city.

But the reality of our current tax base is that the real estate taxes paid in Councilman Irving’s district are about equal to all the real estate taxes paid in all four other districts combined. And so I think it’s important that we acknowledge that, and I appreciate your leadership on this issue, Councilman, and I think this will be another project that is important for the city and something that’s used to sustain services throughout the city so that we can continue investing in all parts of the community.

I first wanted to find out if it’s true that the fifth district generates 50% of the City’s real estate tax revenue, so I went looking for some sort of report that breaks down real estate tax receipts (or at least equalized assessed valuation information) by city council district. I checked with the Finance Department, the County Assessor, the City’s Planning & Growth and Economic Development departments, and even the Heartland Partnership — none of them had such a report. So I asked Mr. Spain how he came up with his figures, and he was kind enough to provide me with a detailed explanation:

My comments are based on preliminary work we have been doing with available EAV [equalized assessed valuation, or property value] information. The current EAV in the City is more than $2B. The D150 [Peoria Public Schools District 150] EAV is about $1.4B, about 70% of the total City. In Peoria, council districts 1-4 are almost exclusively within D150 (The exception to that is a small part of the 4th in Limestone). So at a maximum, the total real estate taxes of districts 1-4 is 70% of the City total. But we also know that there are large areas of the 5th district that are also in D150. Neighborhoods like WeaverRidge, High Point, Hawley Hills, Edgewild, Lynnhurst, Huntington, Oak Crest, and Charter Oak. I’ve attached a map that overlays our current council districts with Peoria County school districts -its a pretty good sized area of the 5th district that is still part of D150. We think there is enough property included in both the 5th district and D150 to represent about 20% of total City EAV.

Plausible, but I don’t know that I’d put it on the record as a fact without qualification the way Spain did at the last meeting. His analysis is based on some big assumptions. And, ultimately, it won’t matter much once the district boundaries are redrawn in a few months.

The bigger question is, what difference does it make? The issue at hand was whether we should use our limited funds to build a new road or maintain our existing roads. Existing roads are in poor condition all over the city — including the wealthy fifth district. I’m unclear as to what the relative wealth of the fifth district had to do with the item under consideration.

Mr. Spain, who lives in the fifth district himself, says he doesn’t think “an activity taking place in one part of our community has to come at the expense of another location.” True, but nobody said it does. Money given to one project, however, does indeed come at the expense of another project. Money spent on new city logos can’t be spent on police or fire protection. Assets given away for the downtown museum and hiking/biking trails cannot be used to generate tax revenue. And money spent on a study to extend Pioneer Parkway can’t be used to sealcoat existing streets.

Mr. Spain was no doubt trying to make the point that this proposed new road would open up more land for development, which would generate more tax revenues, which could then be used to benefit the whole city. And he probably was trying to say that finishing the study puts the city in a position to take advantage of state and federal grants for road construction (i.e., it makes the project “shovel-ready”). Those are reasonable, if not persuasive, arguments.

Unfortunately, what Mr. Spain actually said was, “the real estate taxes paid in [the fifth] district are about equal to all the real estate taxes paid in all four other districts combined” and that “it’s important that we acknowledge that,” which sounds like class discrimination, pure and simple. I don’t think he meant it that way (at least, I hope not), but I do think it was a poor choice of words.

In his e-mail to me, Mr. Spain also said one other thing in his defense, so I’ll give him the last word in this post: “Since it was not mentioned in your live blogging, I want to reiterate my position that investment in older parts of the City is just as important as investment in growth areas. I’ve really worked hard to find dollars for the older areas of the City -I was disappointed you didn’t acknowledge that.”

City Council, City of Peoria, Streets

Can’t maintain the roads we have. Let’s build more!

42 Comments

On the City Council agenda Tuesday night is a request to spend another $87,369 toward the Pioneer Parkway Extension project.

The extension of Pioneer Parkway is a planned, new, major arterial roadway that will support projected development of the area identified for coordinated, beneficial growth management by the City of Peoria, Peoria County, and the Greater Peoria Sanitary District. The proposed roadway extension will begin at the intersection of Allen Road and Pioneer Parkway and continue west to intersect Trigger Road.

The project has been in the planning stages since 2001, and over $2 million has already been spent ($1 million of that came from a federal grant secured by Ray LaHood). The $87,369 is to cover more “bridge, intersection and environmental engineering studies” to complete the Design Report.

While we continue to pursue building a “new, major arterial roadway,” our existing roads continue to deteriorate as they are starved for maintenance funds. According to the City’s website, Peoria has 450 miles of City streets, and “the majority of these streets have a chip sealed surface.” They go on to say Peoria has “approximately 63 miles of asphalt surface, 36 miles of concrete pavement, and 5 miles of brick streets.”

If you do the math on those numbers, that comes out to 346 miles of roads that have a “chip sealed,” also known as “sealcoat,” surface. Yet the City has not done any sealcoating of residential streets or any overlay of arterial streets since 2009. Any road work you’ve seen here lately is for state routes or interstate highways which are not maintained by the City. The reason we haven’t been doing sealcoating or overlays? Budget. The 2010 budget has a big “0” for this maintenance. The 2011 budget has $750,000 in it for “arterial streets overlay,” but still no sealcoating of residential streets. I honestly think they need to start utilizing project management tools.

Keep in mind that sealcoating itself is a cost-saving measure, since it’s cheaper than doing an asphalt overlay of all residential streets and is considered “preventative maintenance.” The Federal Highway Administration finds that $1 of preventative maintenance when roads are in good to fair condition “will cost $4.00 to $5.00 or more for rehabilitation … to get the same pavement condition from [preventative maintenance]” when roads are in poor to failing condition.

In 2007, the City sealcoated 65 miles of streets. In 2008, they sealcoated 66 miles. And in 2009, 59 miles. That’s an average for 63 miles a year. That means Peoria is about 63 miles behind on their sealcoat plan after skipping 2010. And after putting off preventative maintenance this year, too, the City will be 126 miles behind. How much money will we really have saved once we have to rehabilitate poor and failing roads as a result of this neglect?

But, you may object, we simply don’t have the money to budget for it. As necessary as sealcoating is for preventative maintenance, if we can’t afford it, we just can’t do it.

And that brings us back to the Pioneer Parkway extension. If our budget is so tight that we have to neglect necessary maintenance of our existing streets, what is the warrant for spending any money on planning or building a new arterial road? How many streets would $87,369 sealcoat? If we have that money in the budget, we should put it toward maintaining streets, not building new ones.

An extended Pioneer Parkway would be nice. It might cut five minutes off a drive from Allen Road to Route 91. But it’s a want, not a need. It’s been estimated that this new road will cost $50 million to complete. Is your driving convenience worth $10 million a minute? Is it worth keeping the rest of the City’s streets (maybe even yours) in a perpetual state of disrepair?

When funds are tight, the Council needs to make “tough decisions,” as councilman Eric Turner reminded us frequently during the campaign. I hope he and the other council members make the “tough decision” to vote “no” on the Pioneer Parkway extension, and put that money instead toward maintaining our existing streets.

City of Peoria, Streets

Straight talk on roundabouts

10 Comments

There was a lot of discussion about roundabouts at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, and most of the information came from a report written by the City’s Public Works department. I acquired a copy of the report, and found it well-written and persuasive:

Allen Road and Hickory Grove Road Intersection Improvement

Construction Costs
Farnsworth Group, as a consultant for the Dunlap School Board, was asked to develop a cost estimate for the Allen Road and Hickory Grove Road Intersection improvement to compare the costs of a roundabout with a traditional four-way stop intersection. They responded with a concept cost estimate for the intersection. The design costs for the roundabout were slightly higher because of the complexity of the intersection and the desire to have an outside firm, Ourston Roundabout Engineering Inc., perform an independent review. The construction cost for the traditional intersection was slightly higher because of the need for turn lanes at the intersection. The overall design and construction cost for the two concepts were approximately equal, at about 1.2 million dollars each.

Future Costs
The traffic study performed by Farnsworth Group shows that in the construction year, 2012, the intersection does not meet warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. However, the traffic study shows that within 10 years this intersection will warrant traffic signals, which will be necessary to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow for the school. The design and construction of a traffic signal would cost between $250,000 and $300,000 and may include additional right-of-way. A single lane roundabout will be adequate to handle the increase of traffic at this intersection long past the point that traffic signals are warranted, even past the 20 year design done by the consultants, so no future construction costs are foreseen with this design.

Maintenance and Operating Cost
The maintenance and operating cost of a roundabout and a traditional four-way stop intersection would be approximately the same. Both would require lighting and periodic paint striping. The landscaping maintenance for a roundabout may be slightly higher, but staff would suggest that the central island of the roundabout be established with low maintenance landscaping when constructed. Once traffic signals are installed at this intersection the City can expect and average operating and maintenance obligation of approximately $2500 per year for this intersection. No future increase in maintenance and operating cost would be required for the roundabout design.

Other Roundabout Considerations

Vehicle Safety
Roundabouts have been shown to be safer than traditional intersections. A roundabout has decreased conflict points for traffic, only 8, as compared to 32 in a traditional intersection. With a large central island all traffic must enter to the right, which virtually eliminates severe head-on and right angle crashes. According to a blog post from Regan Zambri Long, all traffic in the roundabout travels slowly in one direction, which reduces speeds, which further reduces crash severity of truck accidents. Studies have shown that roundabouts decrease total crashes by nearly 40%, injury crashes by nearly 80% and fatal crashes by nearly 90% over a traditional style intersection. There are also plenty of semi-truck accident attorneys that can help make a case for you if you find yourself in an accident involving one.

Pedestrian Safety
The design of a roundabout includes splitter islands, which separate entering and exiting traffic. These slow traffic entering the roundabout. The splitter islands also serve to provide pedestrians and bicyclists a refuge when crossing the roadway. Pedestrian only have to watch for traffic in one direction at a time. Often, when a traditional intersection has dedicated turn lanes, a single lane roundabout design will have shorter pedestrian crossing distances and reduced vehicle/pedestrian conflict points.

Traffic Capacity
A single lane roundabout will accommodate traffic that exceeds warrants for traffic signals. This will eliminate the need for intersection upgrades for the foreseeable future.

Traffic Delay
Studies have shown that roundabouts reduce intersection delay by nearly 70% compared to four-way stop or signalized intersections. Using the traffic study figures for the Allen Road and Hickory Grove Road Intersection, staff has estimated a 10 second per vehicle delay reduction. For the construction year this results in an estimated annual savings of over 320 days of lost time by the drivers using the intersection. Putting a modest value of $10 per hour for this time, a cost of over $76,000 per year in lost time is seen for drivers. This amount will increase as traffic volumes increase.

Fuel Consumption
Reducing traffic delay has the added benefit of reducing fuel consumption at the intersection. A small decrease in delay can lead to a surprisingly large reduction in fuel. At a rate of fuel consumption of 1.2 gallon per hour of idling, nearly 10,000 gallons of fuel could be saved at Allen Road and Hickory Grove Road with the installation of a roundabout, instead of a four-way stop. With gas nearing $4 a gallon, this leads to a savings of nearly $40,000 for drivers. This figure increases with traffic volume, with of over 13,000 gallons of fuel savings per year estimated over a four-way stop at this intersection in 2022.

Emissions Reduction
A reduction in traffic delay can also be beneficial in reducing harmful vehicle emissions. This is especially important because the Peoria area is nearing the threshold of the EPA’s air attainment levels. Additionally, the EPA is considering lowering this threshold. Studies have shown an emissions reduction of 20-30% for a roundabout over a traditional intersection. Staff research gave us an estimate of 19 lbs of CO2 produced per gallon of gas consumed. By saving 10,000 gallons of fuel annually, a roundabout at Allen Road and Hickory Grove Road will reduce the CO2 emissions by 95 tons per year at this intersection. Other types of emissions are also reduced, but are not as easily calculated.

Public Opinion:
Studies have shown that in places that do not have roundabouts that initial public opinion is often negative. This is generally because they are new concepts to local drivers. The public sometimes confuses them for other types of intersections, such as rotaries, neighborhood traffic circles or town centers, (like in Washington Illinois), or they feel that local drivers will not understand them. Studies have also shown that after a roundabout is constructed that the opinions turn positive. One study staff researched showed poll results from before and after the installation of a roundabout. The before results where 68% negative or very negative and the after results were 73% positive or very positive. This shows an almost complete reversal of opinion once the roundabout was constructed.

4/11/11 nas

Streets, Traffic

Quote of the Day

7 Comments

[Motorists] only perceive congestion as a problem they face rather than a problem they cause, and they cannot imagine changing their own travel patterns to benefit others.

–Todd Litman, Planetizen

When I read this, I immediately thought of all the angry reaction from motorists when Peoria restriped Main Street earlier this year. Litman’s article is called “The Selfish Automobile,” and he goes on to say after the above quote, “If motorists were generous and rational they would say things such as: ‘Let’s create a transportation system that serves everybody.’ ‘Automobile travel does require a lot of road space, so it makes sense to favor more space efficient modes under congested conditions.’ ‘I support bike and bus lane development. Even if I do not use these facilities now, I benefit if other travelers shift to these modes, and I may want to use them sometime in the future.'”

City of Peoria, State of Illinois, Streets

Orange Prairie Road extension: State-funded sprawl

11 Comments

On Thursday night (7/15), the City of Peoria hosted an open house for the Orange Prairie Road Extension project. They distributed a handout which you can see by clicking here (PDF).

The first question to ask is: Why are we building a new road in the middle of a cornfield on the northwest end of town? The handout states that the “primary purpose of this project is to facilitate … development along the Orange Prairie Road corridor….” In other words, they want to incentivize the conversion of more farmland to primarily residential subdivisions, plus a little commercial development.

The next question is: How can Peoria afford this given our current budget woes? The answer is that it’s being funded by the State of Illinois to the tune of $17.5 million. Once the road is complete, the plan is to move the Route 91 designation from its current alignment to the new road. The old Route 91 would become the responsibility of the City. Thus, even though the state is picking up the capital outlay of building a new road, the City picks up the ongoing maintenance expense of the old road. We’re not getting a new road for free.

The conventional wisdom is that Peoria will come out ahead because the land will be developed, which will lead to property and sales tax increases. But the City hasn’t done a cost-benefit analysis to substantiate that belief. The City’s future use plan calls for this area to be primarily residential. Modern residential development means low-density development. That is, houses are pretty far away from each other, connected by meandering streets that all terminate in cul-de-sacs. This increases the costs of maintaining the streets while not raising enough in property taxes to cover the costs of increased services. And land that is developed by non-profit organizations will mean no additional property taxes to the City.

This extension has been touted as sustainable in at least one local magazine. An article in InterBusiness Issues said:

When complete and operational, [the Orange Prairie Roadway extension project] will encourage and support further development in the Greater Grand Prairie area, but in a carefully and thoughtfully planned manner. And, it may serve as a model for how such suburban and exurban developments can be greener and more sustainable. Using the State of Illinois’s new I-LAST (Livable and Sustainable Transportation) rating system, Orange Prairie designers are currently considering such items as protected bicycle and pedestrian pathways along the route, sustainable stormwater detention and wetland creation, introduction of street trees and landscape buffer zones, and energy-efficient street lighting. In addition, efforts will be made to maximize the use of local and recycled materials while minimizing the earthmoving operations in the entire project area.

It will provide a bike lane and sidewalk, which is good. So you can now purchase your Trek road bike online to save gas. Given the low density of development, the area will be unable to sustain public transportation. But these and any other critical issues get little or no discussion in City Council meetings, especially when the State is waving $17.5 million under their noses. We’ll just build it and pay the consequences later.