POB 5012 Vernon Hills, IL 60061 April 14, 2003
	Sierra Club Woods & Wetlands Group

Summary

Comments on Draft Lake County Framework Plan

Chapter 7: Transportation

The Sierra Club includes over 2,000 Lake County members who share a strong concern for protection of our wildlife, and the quality of our air and water. We agree with those who view traffic congestion as a top problem, and feel that the sacrifice of our region's environment to sprawl is just as great a problem, and the root cause. Our concerns are shared by the community at large, as reflected by the votes and comments of hundreds attending NIPC's "Common Ground" regional forums. They put environmental preservation with transportation among the top four concerns. There is wide consensus that transportation solutions be sought that: have minimized direct environmental impacts, help reduce pollution from our transportation system as a whole, and help redirect growth to break the vicious circle of road expansion, sprawl and congestion.

Chapter 7 of the draft framework plan recognizes that poor land use decisions lead to traffic congestion, and that enabling alternatives to automobile dependence is the key to reducing present problems while preparing for future growth. We appreciate this, as well as the survey of improvement opportunities that it provides, and many of the goals and policies which it includes.

However, we are concerned that the chapter reflects undue influence by the Tollway’s LCTIP, and, other than the reference to the notoriously flawed draft EIS in the LCTIP, neglects the severe environmental impacts of its transportation plans. The resulting draft goals and policies lack concrete measures to achieve balanced transportation choices for Lake County’s maturing communities.

We would like to remind the County that the Lake County Transportation Project (LCTIP) was sponsored in part by the Tollway, that they hired a publicity firm to promote the Rt. 53 extension, and that one of their early objectives and persistent functions was to marginalize the environmental community. This manifested in what we judge were poor alternatives from which to choose, and ultimately, poor choices for Lake County. This chapter’s stated intent to build upon LCTIP without bias for 53 is therefore undermined by the bias of the LCTIP itself.

Without cost to the County or the State, the environmental community has provided two highly professional Crossroads transportation studies. We would like to see these studies referenced, and their lessons reflected in this chapter. The Crossroads studies revealed that a system of improved arterial roads coupled with mass transit alternatives will lead to less sprawl and less road congestion without the Rt. 53 extension than with it. They showed that this was largely because of the 20,000 to 60,000 new residents that the Rt. 53 extension would precipitate in the rural western part of Lake County. That part of the county is dominated by water and lands characterized as high or medium priority open space by this draft Framework Plan. Including a major new highway in this chapter without considering these consequences undermines the goals of the rest of the plan, as well as the attention to land use declared in this chapter. This Plan needs a mechanism and a policy to check this.

Considering the insolvency of the Tollway however, it is more likely that the state will instead pursue its alternative proposal. Because of the compromised selection process of the state's presently chosen alternative, Lake County should undertake value pricing studies to test whether the arterial improvements necessary to support the poor alternative plan components conceived by LCTIP compete successfully with other opportunities. Again, these studies should place a high value on minimizing environmental impacts, creating a more efficient transportation system, and redirecting growth to areas serviceable by transit alternatives.

We encourage Lake County to pursue expanded transportation alternatives as aggressively as arterial road improvements. This draft's willingness to allow new mass transit lines to languish as further studies, rather than recommending implementation, reflects a lack of resolve or capability. This should be addressed to support the intent of this Framework Plan and "Expanded and extended mass transit" should be added to this chapter as a supported Opportunity.

Finally, Lake County should adopt policies that fully recognize bicycles as vehicles in our transportation system and integrate their facilities, acceptance and use with other transportation modes. This should include: strong support of bicycle safety training for cyclists and motorists, wide curb lanes on roadways, and mass transit feeder paths with four-season maintenance. As this draft referenced, people will walk about a half a mile to take transit. If adequately supported, people will bicycle up to three miles to reach destinations in mixed-use development. If transit is one of those destinations these facilities can augment the reach of transit as well.

Please review and accept these recommendations.

Evan L. Craig  Chair
Explore, Enjoy and Protect the Planet