McHenry County Blog

A press release from State Rep. Mike Tryon:

More than $18 Million in Transportation Improvements Coming to District 66

SPRINGFIELD….. State Representative Mike Tryon (R-Crystal Lake) announced Wednesday that more than $18 million in state and federal funding is headed to District 66 for road improvement projects through 2019.

The comprehensive program, unveiled by Governor Pat Quinn at a press conference at the Capitol, calls for $12.62 billion to be spent from 2014-2019 on transportation improvements throughout Illinois. The statewide plan calls for the improvement of 2,142 miles of highway, the replacement or improvement of 517 bridges, and significant investments into the public transit system.

According to Tryon, state highway improvements that will take place within District 66 include:

• $9.1 million for improvements in on Route 47 and Route 176 between Route 14 and Reed Road in McHenry County
• $5 million for a bridge replacement on Route 47 at the Kishwaukee River in McHenry County
• $1.12 million for improvements to Route 68 between Prairie Lakes Road to Algonquin Road in Kane County
• $800,000 for a resurfacing project on Route 68 between Route 72 and the Cook County Line in Kane County
• $1.65 million for a resurfacing project on Route 72 between Route 20 and I-90 in Kane County
• $469,000 for a resurfacing project on Route 72 from Village Quarter Road to east of 3rd Street in Kane County

“Every one of these projects will improve congestion and safety on some of District 66’s most traveled roads,” said Tryon. “The area will also benefit from much-needed construction jobs during that construction phase, and permanent improvements that will benefit the people of McHenry and Kane Counties for years to come.”

Funding for the statewide program includes $7.2 billion in anticipated federal funds and $1.9 billion in state funds, with the remaining money coming from local and other sources.

The Illinois Department of Transportation will hold a hearing on Wednesday at the Crystal Lake Holiday Inn, 800 S. Route 31, Crystal Lake (just south of Route 14) to find out what area residents state road priorities are.

Maybe some folks will point out to IDOT representatives the two-lane Route 31 that will have four lanes on its north and south.

The Chicago Tribune ran a long articleabout a deal that had been cut with the Village of Northfield and the Illinois Department of Transportation to finally widen Willow Road to four lanes.

It bought back memories of the horse trading for support among legislators for Governor George Ryan’s infrastructure bill.

He called it Illinois FIRST and, yes, the letters stood for something.

I remember my price was too high.

I asked for four-lanes on Route 47 from the Tollway Reed Road and four lanes on Algonquin Road from Route 31 to Route 47.

In addition, I requested that the State take over Algonquin Road from Route 31 to 47.

I pointed out that every other east-west State road in McHenry and Kane County went west to at least Route 47, except Route 62.

Ryan’s Transportation Secretary would not agree to that.

So I voted against the bill. which it turned out, pretty much screwed the six-county area.

Our percentage of highway money from 43-44% (which Lake Villa’s Bob Churchill negotiated in 1989 when he sponsored a gas tax hike) spent down to 40%.

The six county area has about 56% of the vehicles and about 55% of the lane miles, so 40% is manifestly too low.

But, back to Willow Road.

The State Rep. that represented the area asked if she could make sure a project was not built if she voted “Yes.”

Folks were pretty much stunned at the request. I imagine no one had ever heard one like it before.

“I’ll vote to tax my constituents, if you will spend the money in your districts.”

That was the message I heard.

Now she is no longer in the General Assembly and the road is being widened.

The first state highway roundabout in McHenry County is being planned by the Illinois Department of Transportation where Mt. Tabor Road and Haligus Road join Route 176 in a dangerous, dangerous dogleg intersection.

Unlike the improvement at less badly aligned intersection of Briarwood Road and Route 176, wholly in Crystal Lake and initiated by Crystal Lake, the improvement farther west on the state route has been initiated by IDOT, apparently without local knowledge.

At least I would assume that Crystal Lake had no knowledge because when I filed a Freedom of Information request for “documents pertaining to efforts to improve the intersection of Mt. Thabor Road, Haligus Road and Route 176,” I received a response indicated that no such documents had been found.

Likewise the Village of Lakewood had no knowledge until the most recent IDOT highway plan was released.

Here’s an update from Bradford W. Meador, Manager, Property Management, Great Lakes Facilities Service Office, on what’s happening with the disagreement between the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Postal System about the taking of parking spaces from the Algonquin Post Office to construct the Route 31 Bypass around Downtown Algonquin:

“The issues discussed in my last email still remain unresolved.

“The recent meeting a couple weeks ago between

• the U S Postal Service officials,
• IDOT officials and
• staff members of Senator Durbin’s and Kirk’s offices

did not resolve anything.

“I am advised that the issue has been elevated to the Post Master General (PMG) of the Postal Service for further discussion between the Senators’ offices and the PMG.

“The Postal Service has been advising IDOT since 1995 that their plan doesn’t work for the Algonquin, IL MPO site but to no avail.

“IDOT has moved ahead with their concept to provide the bypass as it accommodates their design.

“My observation is that in light of the many issues currently being presented to Congress for the future of the Postal Service there may be some compromises to accommodate many agendas.”

In answer to a question, Meador added,

“Algonquin and the surrounding area will continue to grow.

“The need for land area to add parking for the postal vehicles and the employees’ cars is needed.

“IDOT is taking land area that would preclude that ability.

“The current parking needs can be met with some design changes but it is the long term concern that is an issue for the postal service in addition to ingress/egress on Route 62.”

= = = = =
The other report on IDOT’s problems obtaining right-of-way can be found here.

A press release from the Woodstock Police Department:

FATAL ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION

Woodstock, IL – On Monday August 22, 2011 at 8:34 AM the Woodstock Police Department and the Woodstock Fire/Rescue District responded to the area just West of Route 47 on Route 14 in reference to an I.D.O.T. maintenance employee being struck by a vehicle.

Upon arrival officers found that the I.D.O.T. employee, identified as Ryan J. Nichols from Kenosha, WI had been struck by a vehicle in traffic which resulted with fatal injuries.

Preliminary investigation determined that a Mercury Grand Marquis driven by 67 year old James J. Berles of Woodstock had been traveling West bound on Route 14, when in the area just west of Route 47, struck Ryan M. Nichols.

Due to the injuries Mr. Nichols sustained he was transported to the Woodstock Centegra Hospital by the Woodstock Fire Rescue District where he was subsequently pronounced deceased.

The Woodstock Police Department is continuing with the investigation and charges are pending.

Christmas Eve, McHenry County Blog ran the first part of the December 15, 2010, transcript of a Rockford hearing before Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney.

December 25th, the second part was published with the third installment published Sunday. Part 4 went up Monday, Part 5 Tuesday, Part 6 Wednesday, Part 7 Thursday and Part 8 Friday.

Now it is New Year’s Eve Day and time for Part 9. Most discussion is about who gets to be deposed for how long, plus production of a traffic ticket data base which includes voided tickets.

Having finished up arranging for Jill Tutt’s deposition, the Judge tried to wrap up the hearing.

THE COURT (continued): What else you want? When are you going to get all this done by? January 31st? Can you get this all done by January 31st?

MR. HORWITZ: Let me just tell you what else, Judge.

MR. SOTOS: Judge, I could be done tomorrow.

THE COURT: All right. All right.

MR. SOTOS: I’ve been done –

MR. HORWITZ: That’s fine. Okay. I stipulate to him being done tomorrow, no further discovery.

THE COURT: Well, but you can’t be done tomorrow, either.

MR. HORWITZ: Well, that’s different.

THE COURT: Can you get all this done by January 31st, counsel on behalf of the plaintiff?

MR. HORWITZ: Can I just tell you what else there is before I say that?

THE COURT: Aren’t you done?

MR. HORWITZ: No.

THE COURT: What else you got?

MR. HORWITZ: All right. The deposition of Ms. Weech, Janet Weech.

THE COURT: I gave you 30 minutes.

MR. HORWITZ: In her deposition she said that there is a complete — remember I’ve been sort of ranting and raving about not having a complete database?

THE COURT: I’ve never associated you with ranting or raving.

MR. HORWITZ: I lodged some pretty serious allegations attributable to that, sent e-mails to defense counsel, and let’s just say I was commenting about it in a zealous way.

So, in that regard she said, “Oh, by the way, there is a full database,” and no, it is not what defense counsel gave us. So, for example, if you talk about the 140 that you saw relative to Bruketta, Judge, it could be 200. It could be 250.

I don’t know. But I have notified defense counsel over and over and over again that the information they gave us is not correct.

So, what Janet Weech said is yeah, there is a full and complete database for the years you’ve indicated. What his associate said in the deposition is “Mr. Horwitz, I will get that to you,” and she said she would get it to me on Monday, and I understand they had a trial going on, and they’ve been busy.

So, maybe it’s in the mail today by Federal Express. I do not know. But she said she would try to do it Tuesday. Memorialize all this by e-mails and whatnot, and what would be really great to have is that information. Now, to be clear, when –

THE COURT: Well, they say they sent it to you on the 8th.

MR. HORWITZ: No, it’s not been sent to us, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HORWITZ: And to be clear — so, we want that information. And just so you know, Sieth, who’s a defendant in this case, relied upon a portion of this data and not the database that I received from counsel, not that data, but this data that hasn’t yet been tendered to me, she relied upon that.

Okay? I can explain in great detail, if you want, but she relied upon it in order to determine that there was no racial profiling that took place. So, anyways, I would love to get that data and work with it and then –

THE COURT: What other depositions do you have?

MR. HORWITZ: The other deposition is completing Sieth’s deposition. She produced herself for deposition in my office and then –

MR. SOTOS: My office.

MR. HORWITZ: No, it was my office. Jim, trust me on it. I remember seeing her in my office.

MR. SOTOS: First time. All right.

MR. HORWITZ: Yes. And so, I don’t care where it follows up, that’s fine. I enjoy going to Jim’s office. They’re very hospitable.

Anyways, after I receive the updated database, the actual correct database from the years two thousand — I think

it’s five to 2008, then I would like to take her deposition and talk to her about the actual correct data this time.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HORWITZ: So, her deposition wasn’t completed.

THE COURT: All right. What about the database?

MR. SOTOS: Last time I was here, I wasn’t in a position to respond. Now I am. They requested in discovery all data concerning racial profiling statistics — by the way, over 9 a year and a half ago — and we gave them what we provided to IDOT, which was the database with all the tickets.

What wasn’t in there was information about voided tickets because for a variety of reasons, deputies sometimes don’t fill out the racial profiling data. When they don’t, the department doesn’t include that in what they send to IDOT. So, we provided them what they asked for a year and a half ago, which was all the information we provided to IDOT, and he’s correct. That’s what Kathleen Sieth relied on when she did her racial profiling investigation.

Now, he took Jan Weech’s deposition, who said — he 20 asked about what about the voided tickets. She explained the situation and says yes, we do have a database that if we wanted to get information about voided tickets, we can. So, we told him, “We’ll get it for you.”

But, you know, the idea that he can stand here and say like we gave them inaccurate information, false information, it’s entirely untrue. We provided them a year and a half ago with exactly what they asked for and exactly what we relied on.

Now we get towards — you know, after all these final discovery extensions, now I want to take depositions based on this other thing that I’m looking into now, voided tickets –

MR. HORWITZ: Jim, I’m sorry.

THE COURT: Now, wait. Wait.

MR. HORWITZ: Okay. I’ll wait. More than happy to wait.

MR. SOTOS: So, we said during Weech’s deposition we’ll see if we can create a spreadsheet. We don’t have a spreadsheet for that because that’s not the information that we provided to IDOT, which is what we create the spreadsheet for. See if we can create one and get that to you. And I don’t know what the status of that was. Her deposition was just a couple of days
ago. With respect to Ms. Sieth –

THE COURT: Well, let’s back up a minute.

MR. SOTOS: Still on the database.

THE COURT: On the database, when do you expect to produce the database as far as voided tickets?

MR. SOTOS: If we can do that, and I’m sure we can, I would hope within seven days or so, maybe less. As soon as we can get it, we’ll give it to him.

THE COURT: All right. So, he should have it by the end of the year.

MR. SOTOS: Oh, definitely before the end of the year. If we can do it, we’ll get it to him before the end of the year.

MR. HORWITZ: I would like it before I take another dep because if it’s 250 or whatever relative to Bruketta –

THE COURT: All right. You’re going to have it before the end of the year. Now, what other depositions do you need?

MR. SOTOS: He said Ms. Sieth.

THE COURT: He says Sieth.

MR. SOTOS: Who he wants to take again.

MR. HORWITZ: No, no, no.

MR. SOTOS: Just so you know, she was at my office last week for her deposition, and she was there all day, but we didn’t get to that because he didn’t get to the office ’til 10:30.

THE COURT: You want Sieth. You want Cundiff, too?

MR. HORWITZ: Yes. I guess I don’t need to address Cundiff’s. I mean, you’re already ordering it. So, I don’t need to.

THE COURT: How long do you want for Sieth?

MR. HORWITZ: Two hours.

THE COURT: Counsel, your input.

MR. HORWITZ: She’s a party.

THE COURT: Counsel, your input.

MR. SOTOS: She’s already been deposed once. She was at my office last week all day for her deposition. The depositions — there were three. They were supposed to go at 9:00, 12:00, and 3:00. He didn’t get there ’til 10:30, didn’t get the system set up –

THE COURT: 10:45 until he got ready.

MR. SOTOS: Right.

THE COURT: I read it.

MR. SOTOS: So, I think that he’s had his opportunity for Ms. Sieth.

THE COURT: You can have an hour.

MR. HORWITZ: Judge, may I on this?

THE COURT: Cundiff.

MR. HORWITZ: That’s the only one I want to push, Judge. I’m sorry. I’m not retaking her deposition. Her deposition never completed. She had to leave when she was at –

THE COURT: You’ve got an hour. Do you want Cundiff or not?

MR. HORWITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: How long?

MR. HORWITZ: He’s a party. What you’ve allowed for parties. I think it’s six hours.

MR. SOTOS: You know, Judge, I understand that you allow six hours for parties. I keep saying the same thing.

We’re over two years into the case, and there’s no reason he couldn’t have taken Cundiff’s deposition.

THE COURT: You can have two hours on Cundiff.

All right. What do you want as a fact discovery cutoff date?

MR. HORWITZ: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: What would you like as a fact –

MR. HORWITZ: Could I possibly talk to you about the amount of time?

THE COURT: On Cundiff?

MR. HORWITZ: On both.

THE COURT: No, you can’t on Sieth. Yes, you can on Cundiff.

MR. HORWITZ: All right. Judge –

THE COURT: I was more arbitrary on Cundiff.

MR. HORWITZ: Judge, I’m sorry.

MR. SOTOS: Judge, I’ll agree to three if it will just –

THE COURT: Three good on Cundiff? Do you want it?

MR. HORWITZ: Judge, he’s a captain. He’s –

THE COURT: Counsel, we’re at the end. Why are we taking all these depositions on an ’08 case with ten minutes left to go?

MR. HORWITZ: The answer is –

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. HORWITZ: Well, I’ll tell you one meaningful thing that occurred. I actually split with my partner during the middle of this. I just want you to know.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HORWITZ: So, that was a very meaningful business activity that occurred.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HORWITZ: And, secondly, we have received, just so you know, thousands and thousands and thousands from the defendants –

THE COURT: How much time –

MR. HORWITZ: — and we analyze them before we take deps.

THE COURT: How much time do you want on Cundiff?

MR. HORWITZ: Okay. I would like the amount of time you provided. Just so you know, Judge, these depositions are not easy, meaning that they’re recalcitrant witnesses. They don’t testify as to what actually takes place. There’s a lot of objections. We’ve done depositions where there’s up to three to 400 objections lodged by defense counsel and other parties. So, I would like –

THE COURT: All right. When are you going to be done, counsel? When are you going to be done with fact discovery?

MR. HORWITZ: Do I get to get back to Sieth? I would really like to address the Sieth issue. It’s very important, Judge. She was –

THE COURT: You already took this one.

MR. HORWITZ: Judge, no, no. I didn’t already take her. I was never given the six hours for Sieth.

THE COURT: How much time –

MR. HORWITZ: I think she came to my office for three hours, Judge.

THE COURT: How long of that did you get?

MR. HORWITZ: Three hours. She left. “I have to go,” her words were. “I’ve got to go right now.” It was either a personal matter or whatever. She was in my office for three hours.

THE COURT: How many hours are you asking on Sieth?

MR. HORWITZ: I think whatever your order provided.

Just so you — Judge, just so you understand, I was never given the data that she relied upon. I told defense counsels over and over and over again –

THE COURT: So, you’re asking for an additional three hours on Sieth. You’re asking for six hours on Cundiff.

MR. HORWITZ: Just the correct amount of time I’m supposed to have for Sieth. In other words, I never asked for her to leave. She left. So, I would like the full amount of time so that I can get into the basis of her opinions.

MR. SOTOS: It was 7:00 o’clock in the evening, Judge.

THE COURT: I understand. What is the date you’re going to be done with discovery, counsel? When are you going to be done?

MR. HORWITZ: Okay. Now we’re moving on to the next question. I would recommend February 15th.

THE COURT: Any objections to that?

MR. SOTOS: Yes, we object, Judge. We think discovery — there’s been three final extensions, and discovery should be closed. I don’t see any reason why this work can’t be done in 30 days, 45 at the outset, but this thing just keeps going on and on, and what’s going to happen is –

THE COURT: I’d agree, but I got the holiday period in here, counsel. I mean, that’s really only 45 days of discovery, if you look at it.

MR. SOTOS: You know, Judge, every time we get into a new discovery period –

THE COURT: Listen. There’s no sense you and I arguing. February 15th is the fact discovery cutoff date. March 15th, 2011, is the dispositive motion due date. You get an hour and a half on Sieth. You get three hours on Cundiff.

That’s it. Anything else?

MR. HORWITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: I don’t think so.

MR. HORWITZ: Well, are you asking a question, or are you withdrawing your question? Because there actually are other things.

THE COURT: Like what?

MR. HORWITZ: All right. Let me gather my notes.

MR. SOTOS: Is that a final deadline, Judge?

THE COURT: I’m not — barring health issues, somebody 2 gets sick –

MR. SOTOS: I understand that.

THE COURT: — somebody gets sick, somebody becomes ill –

MR. SOTOS: I understand.

THE COURT: — I got that. But other than that, I’m not extending it.

More tomorrow.

On Thursday, September 16, 2010, Crystal Lake Police and Illinois State Police Zone 1 conducted Alcohol Compliance Enforcement (ACE) checks on establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages within the City limits. During these A.C.E. details, undercover officers and cooperating underage minors visited 20 restaurants who serve alcoholic beverages, in an effort to determine if the licensees were in compliance.

Only two of the businesses conducted sales of alcoholic beverages to the minors during the operation. The businesses found in violation were

• Chili’s Grill & Bar located at 5620 Northwest Highway and
• Williams Street Tap located at 80 N. Williams Street.

The businesses found to be in compliance were

• Applebee’s (5690 Northwest Highway),
• Buffalo Wild Wings (5755 Northwest Highway),
• Chuck E. Cheese (5725 Northwest Highway),
• Outback Steakhouse (4751 Northwest Highway),
• Hooters (4812 Northwest Highway),
• Nick’s Pizza and Pub (856 Pyott Road),
• Coleman’s (7608 S. Virginia Road), Porter’s (446 Virginia Street),
• Rock’s 394 Virginia Street, Georgio’s Pizza (75 Woodstock Street),
• Finn McCool’s (72 N. Williams Street),
• Williams Street Public House (83 Williams Street),
• Brink Street Restaurant & Bar (85 Brink Street),
• Metro Bowl (77 Brink Street), The Cottage (6 E. Crystal Lake Avenue),
• Matt’s Tavern (92 Railroad Street),
• Duke’s (110 N. Main Street) and
• Labemi’s Tavern (109 N. Main Street).

With accidents as the leading cause of death among adolescent Americans, coupled with alcohol as the leading causative factor, the Crystal Lake Police Department strives to develop a partnership with local merchants to help them achieve the goal of zero sales to minors.

These Alcohol Compliance Enforcement checks are done randomly several times throughout the year with the assistance of the Illinois State Police. This detail is funded by a grant through the Illinois Department of Transportation.

The following press release from the Crystal Lake Police explains the extra police presence in Crystal Lake the first night of the Labor Day Weekend:

During the late evening hours of Friday, September 3rd to the early morning hours of Saturday, September 4, 2010, a roadside safety check was conducted in the City of Crystal Lake.

In this joint effort, officers from the

• Crystal Lake Police Department,
• Crystal Lake Park District Police, and
• the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department

stopped predetermined groups of vehicles traveling north on Illinois Route 31 near Rakow Road, checking for impaired or dangerous drivers.

A total of forty-eight (48) citations/complaints were generated during the five hour operation.

Of the citations/arrests made;

• four (4) subjects were arrested for Driving While under the Influence of Alcohol,
• three (3) for No Valid Driver’s License,
• one (1) for Driving While License Revoked, and
• Fifteen (15) for Operation of an Uninsured Motor Vehicle.

In addition,

• four (4) complaints were drafted for Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and
• two (2) for Unlawful Possession of Cannabis.

Events such as these prove to highlight the overwhelming need to remain vigilant with regard to traffic enforcement, in an effort to ensure the safety of the motoring public. The Crystal Lake Police Department is committed to promoting safe driving habits, and the apprehension of impaired or dangerous drivers.

Roadside safety checks, saturation patrols, and cooperative efforts such as this event further that endeavor, and will be repeated year-round.

This roadside safety check was paid for with a grant from the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Over 40 years ago I noticed a lot–hundreds of acres–of land changing hands west of Richmond. I was McHenry County Treasurer and my office changed the addresses on the Address-o-Graph plates. We got the deed transfers which had the new addresses to which the tax bills should be sent.  All the deeds went to secret land trusts.

Rumor was that Arlington Park Racetrack owner Marge Everett was buying up land for a new racetrack. It would be where not-yet-built roads would converge between Milwaukee, Madison and Chicago.

Wisconsin built roads that went—just coincidentally, of course—to Richmond.

And, in Illinois the Illinois Department of Transportation bought the land to build a four-lane highway to Richmond. No money to build the highway, of course.

The desire was so great from the people who want to turn McHenry County into DuPage County that McHenry County Republican Party Chairman Al Jourdan got the highway (FAP 420) included in the list of highways to be taken over by the Illinois Tollway in the late 1990′s.

None of us representing McHenry County in the Illinois House knew anything about the effort. All of us voted against the proposal, as did State Senator Dick Klemm.  The result is that the highway is on the Tollway to-do list, but not very high up.

In any event, Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at Memorial Hall, 10308 Main St Richmond, 3:00 PM – 7:00 PM, the plan will be presented to the public.

No formal presentation, but I would imagine that engineers will be present to answer questions.

Here’s the background information on the Richmond Bypass web site, which is very much a work in progress, not even having an easy to find map yet under the “map” button.

Page 1 of mailing recently sent to Richmond residents. Click to enlarge.

US 12 is a part of a regional transportation route that connects suburban northeastern Illinois with travel destinations in southern Wisconsin.

Over three decades ago IDOT, recognizing roadway capacity deficiencies of US 12 and regional transportation needs, purchased significant portions of the right-of-way from the Wisconsin state line south and east to Lake County.

It is now designated as FAP 420. In 1999, traffic volumes on US 12 through Richmond prompted a study to widen the existing two-lane roadway to three lanes. Given the physical constraints of the existing right-of-way and short term nature of that option, it was determined that another solution was needed.

Page 2 of recent mailing. Click to enlarge.

The strong preference throughout Richmond was for a Richmond Bypass that would address existing system capacity demands, local transportation needs, regional travel patterns and system linkages. At the same time, it was determined to be extremely important to include efforts to preserve the economic vitality of the downtown area and promote Richmond as a visitor destination.

Here’s more history and a pitch for the project:

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) acquired right of way for a future north-south expressway west of Richmond in the 1960s.

The future expressway was planned to be an extension of IL 53. The future roadway plans also included an east-west expressway from Richmond to Waukegan.

The north-south expressway west of Richmond was planned to intersect with US 12 in Wisconsin.

In the 1970s, Wisconsin upgraded US 12 to a 4-lane divided expressway – essentially their portion of the planned north-south expressway improvement.

This north-south corridor was identified in the first Chicago area regional transportation plan in 1962.

Although the entire length of right of way was not purchased, IDOT did purchase a portion of the corridor west of Richmond between Glacial Park and the Wisconsin state line. [Originally FAP 420 right of-way ran through the McHenry County Conservation District, but the legislative delegation convinced IDOT to move it away from the kames.]

In 1999, IDOT evaluated widening US 12 to a 3-lane roadway (one through lane in each direction separated by a two-way left turn lane) from the intersection of IL 31 to the Wisconsin state line. Due to concerns raised by the community and local officials, the widening plans were rejected.

To provide limited congestion relief, improvements to the US 12 intersections at Tryon Grove Road and IL 31 were studied and implemented.

In August 2002, the Village of Richmond and the Urban Land Institute hosted a two day panel discussion regarding future land development in the context of a new bypass. The panel acknowledged the need for a bypass to alleviate traffic congestion. Concerns were raised about the long-term economic stability of the downtown area and the potential impacts to farmlands and environmentally sensitive areas associated with the bypass.

Residents and local officials supported completion of an engineering study to evaluate a bypass and its potential benefits and impacts. An important goal of the study was to identify alternative alignments that balance the anticipated rapid growth of Richmond against the need to accommodate existing, interim, and design year traffic.

In 2003, the Village of Richmond, McHenry County and IDOT conducted the US 12 Bypass Feasibility Study, which included extensive public input. The majority of local residents favored a bypass to reduce congestion and delays, remove through truck traffic from downtown, and preserve the historic downtown area.

The study concluded in 2007 with a recommendation for a bypass to the west of Richmond, along the route FAP 420 for much of its length.

Purpose of the Improvement

Map sent to Richmond residents along with letter of invitation to the presentation. Click to enlarge.

The purpose of this project is improve the operation of north-south traffic along US 12 from the intersection with IL 31, through the town of Richmond, and north to the Wisconsin state line and preserve the small town character of Richmond, including downtown pedestrian accessibility, and supporting the area’s economic development initiatives and land use plans.

The 3.5-mile section of US 12 covered by this study is located in northern McHenry County. The study termini are logical from a roadway network and traffic operations standpoint because the southern terminus is at IL 31, a major at-grade intersection with US 12 that accommodates high turning volumes, and the northern terminus is at the state line, beyond which US 12 is a 4-lane divided highway.

The benefits provided by the proposed action can be achieved without any requirements for additional roadway improvements elsewhere within the study area.

Need for the Improvement

System Linkage and Continuity

US 12 is a vital link in the overall regional transportation system.  Richmond is relatively far from the Interstate highway network.  McHenry County has only 8.5 miles of interstate highway (I-90) located in the southwestern corner of the county. However, IDOT has designated 9 routes within McHenry County as Strategic Regional Arterials, which serve as the backbone of the county’s roadway system. Therefore, motorists rely heavily on these arterials which include US 12, IL 31, and IL 173 in the vicinity of Richmond.

US 12 is a primary corridor for commercial traffic originating in northeastern Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin, and for vacationers from the Chicago area en route to destinations in Wisconsin.  US 12 also serves commuter traffic in the northwest suburbs of Chicago.

Historically, US 12 served long distance trips between Chicago and Madison, Wisconsin and beyond.  These longer-distance trips are now served by the interstate system. The majority of US 12 within in the project area consists of 2 lanes, but widens at intersections to accommodate separate turn lanes.

In Lake County, about 6.5 miles southeast of Richmond, US 12 consists of 4 lanes with more restriction on direct access to the roadway. From this point south though Lake County, US 12 remains 4 lanes or wider.  North of the Wisconsin state line, US 12 is a 4-lane divided highway.