Kane County Chronicle
May 11, 2005
By KELLEY CASINO
SUGAR GROVE -- Residents of Kane and surrounding counties were divided Tuesday night on the merits of the Prairie
Parkway alternatives presented by the Illinois Department of Transportation.
The alternatives either showed IDOT's commitment to finding the best north-south transportation corridor, were
considered just as negative as the Prairie Parkway or were branded a waste of time.
With public input, IDOT representatives said they hope to have the list of alternatives down to a few by June or
July.
"They should just pick one," said Wasco resident Ron Petrucci, adding he appreciated IDOT's effort to
involve the community. "It's not an easy choice, but make one and be done with it."
The search for alternatives is required by the federal government as part of an $18 million IDOT study of the Prairie
Parkway, a proposed 35-mile route between Interstate 88 and Interstate 80. The six-year study of the parkway, which
would cut from near Kaneville to near Minooka, began in 2003.
Officials said that although the study is named after the recommended protected corridor, they are equally considering
each of the alternatives. In 2002, the state identified the path for the parkway and placed restrictions to prevent
development within the corridor.
"We are looking at the full range of alternatives," said project consultant Ron Shimizu, deputy project
manager with consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff. "We did wipe the slate clean to consider the full range."
A public information meeting held Tuesday night at Kaneland John Shield's Elementary School in Sugar Grove was
attended by nearly 150 people. Shimizu said officials hoped to hear from attendees what they liked or didn't like
and what was important to them -- widen current arterials or build a new freeway? Build farther to the east or
to the west?
Many people submitted questions about traffic, environmental impacts, public transportation alternatives and smart
growth.
St. Charles resident Militsa Samardzija said that by practicing more compact development, density and the availability
of public transportation would increase and a freeway like the proposed Prairie Parkway would not be needed.
"There's no farm land like this in the country, and we're paving it over," she said. "It's killing
me to see this farm land pillaged like this."
Sierra Club member Craig Zabel said he gets the feeling from many club members that the widening of existing roadways
should be an IDOT priority instead of constructing a freeway at this stage. He said, however, that they would like
to find a way to bypass the transportation problem as much as possible in the future.
"We'd like to address the root causes and structure our cities so mass transit is feasible," he said.
"That's part of what my committee's about -- smart growth."
Several residents said a new north-south corridor should be constructed as far east as possible to address current
transportation problems.
Arterial alternatives presented Tuesday included the widening of Route 47, Orchard Road, West County Line Road
and the Wikaduke Trail, among others.
"Most people when I listen to their comments are worried about existing congestion," said North Aurora
resident James Svoboda. "The next step in this natural progression is Route 47, and in 10 years, the next
step will be to the west."
Some in attendance Tuesday night were convinced that the proposed Prairie Parkway was the best way to go.
Sandwich Alderman Bill McMahon said he believes the everyone will benefit from the proposed freeway over any of
the proposed alternatives.
"You've got to do it soon," he said. "They have the land protected, so you've got to jump in and
do it."