Randall Road Traffic Counts at Algonquin Road

Below is a graphic taken from the official website of the Illinois Department of Transportation showing the daily traffic counts on each leg of the Randall/Algonquin Intersection.

Illinois Department of Transportation traffic counts for over a decade at Randall and Algonquin Roads.

Illinois Department of Transportation traffic counts for over a decade at Randall and Algonquin Roads.

Just in case this is difficult to read, here are the figures:

Randall traffic graphic 7-31-16

From 2005 through 2013, traffic on three of the four legs declined. Only traffic west of Randall on Algonquin increased. Net, traffic was down 1,800 vehicles per day.

From 2009 through 2013, traffic increased on two legs and decreased on the other two, for a net loss of 600 vehicles per day.


Randall Road Traffic Counts at Algonquin Road — 14 Comments

  1. Went through that area yesterday at 09:00 a.m.

    Did not even have to stop while driving southbound on Randall and turning left on Algonquin.

    We have some County Board members being controlled by Local 150 and selfish municipal politicians in the s.e. corner of the County.

    Those County Board members need to hear from the voters: VOTE THEM OUT!

    We got rid of Miller – next primary get rid of Kurtz amd Kopsell.

  2. It’s 2016, where are the most recent numbers?

    McDOT should have a more up to date traffic count considering that this is a hot issue.

  3. See Donna Kurtz defense of Randall project :
    Views in NW Herald 7-28-16.

  4. Good grief, this is like playing
    Whack-a-mole !

    We get rid of one BIG SPENDER (Miller)
    & another one sticks their head up.

    Someone jump in & tell us when Kurtz
    Is up for reelection.

    Cal, DO remind us about Kurtz when
    It’s time, although I don’t think I’ll forget

    This, it’s a biggy.

  5. “Build it and they will come”, right?!

    Huntley is growing like crazy after the I-90 interchange, right? (no).

    The Algonquin Rd bypass has generated a lot of extra construction, right? (no).

    Oh, and all these “improvements” have caused our taxes to go down, right? (no).

    Now the county board wants to spend $10 Million + to bulldoze the health dept building in front of the courthouse and renovate the building at 666 Russell ct to expand it to increase capacity for social services that we already can’t afford?!

    What is going on?!?!

  6. Yep, the proposed infrastructure project
    For the county buildings is WAY TOO BIG

    People need to go to the board meetings
    & speak out when these two projects are
    On the agenda !

    SAY NO to more BIG SPENDING !

  7. The most recent (2015) traffic counts are here:

    As I wrote last October,

    “traffic counts show volumes are increasing but, generally, still remain below the levels eight years ago before the wheels fell off the national economy. Particularly at the Randall/Algonquin roads intersection.”

  8. Record number of empty storefronts in Algonquin Commons.

    The community can’t support all those stores.

    They’re not going to be able to support expansion of this unneeded project.

    I SAIL thru that intersection all the time, all different times, only having to stop at the light during the busiest time/during the busiest day. It’s called rush hour.

    Deal with it.

    Conservative Voter said it correctly.

    County Board members, you can’t keep spending!

  9. Perhaps if Rt.47 were to be widened (long overdue anyhow) to 4 lanes
    north from Algonquin Rd. to Rt.14
    it would help to relieve some of the congestion on Randle Rd.?

  10. There’s no doubt that at certain times of the day, and especially at certain times on Saturday, the Randall/Algonquin intersection is congested.

    The questions to ask are

    (a) how congested is the intersection, and

    (b) is there an economical solution?

    Emphasis on the word “economical”: there’s always a solution, but if it’s too expensive, then it’s better to live with congestion.

    The first question can be answered only if we know the amount of traffic going through the intersection, hour by hour and day by day, breaking out the number going straight, turning left, and turning right.

    Only with these facts can we determine the scope of the problem.

    If several hours a day people are being forced to wait several minutes to get through the intersection, we have a serious problem.

    But if the intersection is congested for only a few hours a week and/or if people are forced to wait for only one or two lights, then we have a minor problem.

    When we have these facts, then we can determine the cheapest configuration that solves the problem and compare the cost with the benefit.

    Now, having said that, there are some facts that should give us pause and should make us wonder if the solution being promoted is the best.

    First, there are NO other intersections that have triple left turn lanes on Randall Road, not even at I-90.

    In fact, I only know of one triple left turn lane in all of Illinois, and that’s on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago.

    So I’d want definitive proof that Randall/Algonquin needs a super-sized intersection.

    Second, the average cost to build a lane-mile of highway in the urban areas of Illinois is about $2 million (source:

    Highway Construction Costs, How Does Illinois Compare, Illinois Economic Policy Institute, May 2014).

    So if we added one additional lane for half a mile in each direction and re-striped in order to create dual left turn lanes, that would be a total of two lane-miles, which should cost around $4 million.

    Let’s assume for some reason this is a much more difficult project and bump that by 100%: $8 million.

    That’s a fraction of what’s being proposed.

    So, for a second reason, I’d want definitive proof that there’s not a cheaper solution AND, FOR THE PROPOSED SOLUTION, PROOF THAT THE BENEFIT OUTWEIGHS THE COST, i.e., that the solution doesn’t cost $1 a turn to save two minutes per left-turning driver or some such number.

  11. Pete, please translate.

    62 and Randall is what I am looking for and having trouble finding it.

    Old eyes

  12. Say what you will about Donna Kurtz.

    But, she’s the smartest person on that county board… Just ask her!

    And we should all thank her for leading the effort to end county board pensions too!

    Just because Gasser and others were publicly railing against those pensions for a year, while she criticized their effort and spoke of how she deserved hers…

    Doesn’t stop her from Trekking find to the NWH of how she lead the effort to end them.

  13. Re: “See Donna Kurtz defense of Randall project :
    Views in NW Herald 7-28-16.”

    Is it true that she was working closely with McHenry County staff in the production of her post in the NWH?

    If so, would a FOIA of emails be in order?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *