Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsThursday, September 6, 2007 2:21 PM CDT
Comments Comments (6) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Group makes a statement on east-side highway
By Mary Ann Ford
mford@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

NORMAL — The citizens advisory group that will study possible locations for and alternatives to a proposed east-side highway now has a project purpose statement.

The Clark-Dietz engineering firm also has a long list of criteria by which to measure each option.

But that doesn’t mean the 30 or so people who approved the statement during a public meeting Wednesday night support building an east-side highway. From the comments thrown out during the meeting at Normal Community High School, it appeared it’s just the opposite.

About 10 people opposed the statement.

One man in the audience called the proposal “irresponsible.” Another questioned whether the citizens advisory group and Clark-Dietz even paid attention to what residents said at the five public meetings that have taken place.

“This is just another policy being crammed down our throat,” yelled one woman.

“It’s not supported by the people,” said a man in the audience of about 50 people.

Jerry Payonk from Clark-Dietz, the company hired by McLean County to conduct a $1.1 million study of whether a highway should be built on the east side and if so, where, assured the crowd that their comments have been heard and included in the list of criteria the advisory group and his firm will consider when evaluating options.

While the project statement is purposely vague — “To provide transportation infrastructure on the east side of Bloomington-Normal as defined by the project study map that will accommodate managed growth and address current and future mobility needs” — the list of criteria isn’t.

The criteria include: economic impacts, noise, cost, land-use compatibility, travel patterns, right of way, displacement and relocation of existing residents, water quality, woodland and tree loss, historical and archeological sites, community cohesion, flexibility in staging improvements, types of farm ownership, safety, and wildlife.

In small group discussions before the project statement was adopted, Scott Clement, a farmer in rural Normal, said, “The problem I have with the statement is that it doesn’t say anything about respecting current land uses.

“None of us are represented by the purpose statement. A lot don’t want growth in prime agriculture land,” he said.

Clement said he would like to see the statement include “with as little disruption as possible.”

Al Staron of Clark-Dietz said projects would be evaluated on the current use of the land, not the use project in 2035. The company is using projected traffic counts for the year 2035 to help determine what kind of roads will be needed to move traffic efficiently.

The first phase of the study, which includes five public meetings and work by a citizens advisory group to recommend an alternative, started in January and was initially expected to take about a year. Payonk said Wednesday the process is behind schedule.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 6 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

to Isn't,, wrote on Sep 6, 2007 1:09 PM:

" If we came up with an alternative to oil that wasn't Ethanol, we wouldn't need so much agricultural space. "

Isn't,, wrote on Sep 6, 2007 12:49 PM:

" there already a I-55/I74 connection. Why take land out of ag production for a bunch of cube dwelling folks so they can save a few minutes. "

I was there wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:01 AM:

" I would strongly disagree with the vocal few who say the engineers haven't paid attention. Their purpose statement was developed DIRECTLY from statements the public have made the previous four meetings. The dissenters made the point clear that they don't care how well the project is studied or how involved the public will be; if ANY type of highway is proposed they will conclude that the engineers did a bad job. Shame on the community for trying to plan ahead! "

East sider wrote on Sep 6, 2007 8:44 AM:

" I'm all for an east side bypass. Put it within 3 miles of Towanda Barnes and I'll be an extremely happy camper. "

To the NIMBYs wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:48 AM:

" At minimum, B/N needs the interchange connections to I-55 and I-74 NOW. Deal with it. "

catlbyer16 wrote on Sep 6, 2007 5:22 AM:

" why don't they just move it to the Leroy-Lexington Road and be done with-it. "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy