kane county transportation planning area...

Kane CountyTransportationPlanningArea Study

Existing TransportationConditions and Forecastsof Future Travel Demand

May 2001May 2001

Kane CountyTransportationPlanningArea Study

Existing TransportationConditions and Forecastsof Future Travel Demand

R e p o r t

Description of ExistingTransportation Conditions and

Forecasts of Future Travel Demand

Prepared for

Kane County

May 2001

8501 W. Higgins Road, Suite 300Chicago, IL 60631-2801

R e p o r t

Description of ExistingTransportation Conditions and

Forecasts of Future Travel Demand

Submitted to

Kane County

May 2001

II

ContentsIntroduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1

Regional Setting.................................................................................................................................... 1

Existing Transportation System ......................................................................................................... 1Highways .................................................................................................................................. 1Public Transportation................................................................................................................ 4Non-Motorized Travel .............................................................................................................. 9Rustic Roads ............................................................................................................................. 9Existing Traffic Demand........................................................................................................... 9

Existing Travel Desires ...................................................................................................................... 11

Performance Measures ...................................................................................................................... 15Traffic Service Measures ........................................................................................................ 15Congestion Measures .............................................................................................................. 16Traffic Safety Measures .......................................................................................................... 16

Existing Traffic Performance Analysis ............................................................................................ 17Existing Traffic Service Measures .......................................................................................... 17Existing Congestion Measures................................................................................................ 17Existing Safety Measures........................................................................................................ 19Existing Public Transportation System Performance.............................................................. 22

Future Transportation System.......................................................................................................... 24Highways ................................................................................................................................ 24Public Transportation.............................................................................................................. 25Non-Motorized Travel ............................................................................................................ 27

Future Travel Demand ...................................................................................................................... 29

Future Travel Desires ........................................................................................................................ 29

Future Travel Performance .............................................................................................................. 35Future Traffic Service Measures............................................................................................. 35Future Congestion Measures................................................................................................... 35

Conclusions and Comparisons .......................................................................................................... 37Existing and Committed Highway System ............................................................................. 37Public Transit and Non-Motorized Travel .............................................................................. 39Planning Areas ........................................................................................................................ 41

Appendixes

A Existing Transportation SummaryB Locations Where Actual Crash Frequency Exceed Expected Crash FrequencyC Future Transportation Summary

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS OF FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND

III

Tables

1 Mileage of all Highways in Kane County by Jurisdiction Classification ................................. 12 Mileage of All Highways in Kane County by Functional Class ............................................... 43 Mileage of Kane County Highways by Functional Class ......................................................... 44 Existing Traffic Performance.................................................................................................. 195 Existing Congestion ................................................................................................................ 216 Change in Weekday Boardings from 1989 to 1999 in Kane County...................................... 247 Fixed Route Service ................................................................................................................ 248 Committed Highway Improvements ....................................................................................... 259 Mileage of Existing Plus Committed Highways in Kane County by Jurisdiction .................. 2510 Mileage of All Existing Plus committed Highways in Kane County by Functional Class..... 2511 Mileage of Existing Plus Committed Kane County Highways by Functional Class .............. 2512 Summary of Rail Improvements ............................................................................................. 2713 1999 Station Parking and Projected Future Parking Space Needs on

Metra Rail Lines................................................................................................................. 2814 Planned Improvements for Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes in Kane County .......................... 2815 Future Traffic Performance..................................................................................................... 3516 Future Congestion ................................................................................................................... 3717 Comparison of Traffic Performance ....................................................................................... 3818 Comparison of Congestion...................................................................................................... 3819 Future Performance of Planning Partnership Areas................................................................ 41

Figures

1 Location Map ............................................................................................................................ 22 Jurisdictional Classification of Highways, 2001....................................................................... 33 Functional Classification of Highways, 2001 ........................................................................... 54 Strategic Regional Arterials ...................................................................................................... 65 Existing Metra Rail Service ...................................................................................................... 76 Existing Pace Bus Service Areas .............................................................................................. 87 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails ................................................................................... 108 1997 Range of Average Daily Traffic By Roadway Segment ................................................ 129 Percent Heavy Commercial Vehicles on U.S. and Sate Highways and Tollways - 1996....... 1310 1996 Travel Desires ................................................................................................................ 1411 1997 Congested Roadway Segments ...................................................................................... 1812 1996 Travel Speed By Roadway Segment.............................................................................. 2013 Location Where Actual Exceeds Expected Crash Frequency, 1997 - 2020............................ 2314 Proposed Metra Rail Service Improvements........................................................................... 2615 Population Growth, 1990 - 2020............................................................................................. 3016 Employment Growth, 1990 - 2020.......................................................................................... 3117 Projected 2020 Range of Average Daily Traffic by Roadway Segment................................. 3218 Change in Average Daily Traffic, 1997 – 2020 by Roadway Segment .................................. 3319 Future Travel Growth Desires Bands, 1996 - 2020 ................................................................ 3420 Projected 2020 Congested Roadway Segments ...................................................................... 3621 Change in Travel Speed, 1996 – 2020 by Roadway Segment ................................................ 4022 Planning Partnership Areas ..................................................................................................... 42

1

IntroductionAn important prerequisite to transportation planning is an understanding of the components andperformance of the existing transportation system along with the implications of future growth. Thisreport brings together the background data and forecasts that will guide development of transportationrecommendations in Kane County. Included are discussions on existing and future travel demand, traveldesire patterns, and performance measures. Performance is measured in terms of traffic service,congestion and safety. The report concludes with a comparison between the base year and future yeartravel performance and a discussion of the travel characteristics of Planning Partnership Areas.

Regional SettingKane County is one of the six collar counties surrounding the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Located inthe far west suburbs of Chicago, the county has a land area of 522 square miles. With its unique blendof agricultural lands to the west and the more urbanized areas located adjacent to the Fox River to theeast, Kane County exists as a desirable place to live, work and enjoy the recreational optionsthroughout the County. Figure 1 shows the location of Kane County and surrounding areas.

The county measures approximately 30 miles north to south and 18 miles east to west with 16townships and 27 municipalities. In 1990, the population of Kane County was 317,430, and therewere 174,420 persons employed in the county. Kane County is divided into three principal land useareas with a north/south orientation, the urban corridor in the east, critical growth area in the centerand agricultural/village area in the west.

Kane County is within commuting distance of Chicago and other regional employment centers suchas Rockford, Schaumburg, and Oak Brook. O’HareInternational Airport lies 18 miles to the east.

Existing Transportation System

HighwaysMajor highways serving Kane County include theNorthwest Tollway (I-90) and the East-West Tollway(I-88), both radiating from Chicago. Three U.S.highways and 11 state highways also serve the county.

There are roughly 550 miles of highway (excludinglocal roads) in Kane County. Figure 2 is a map of theexisting highway system by jurisdictionalclassification; Interstate (including Illinois StateTollways), U.S. Highway, Illinois State Highway, or Kane County Highway. Table 1 summarizes themileage of existing highway in each jurisdictional classification.

TABLE 1Mileage of all Highways in Kane County byJurisdiction Classification

Jurisdiction Route Miles Lane Miles

Interstates 47 187

U.S. Highways 34 76

State Highways 165 432

County Highways 307 683

Total 553 1,378

Kane County Transportation Planning Area StudyFigure 1

Location Map

.-,88

.-,90

.-,55

.-,90

"!23

"!47

"!38

"!64

"!72

"!47

"!176

"!59

"!64

"!23

"!19

"!72

"!62

"!53

"!126

"!71

"!72

"!38

"!31

"!25

(/34

(/30

(/20

(/20

(/14

(/14

(/20

(/34(/30

Sandwich

Aurora

Newark

De Kalb

Sycamore

Marengo

Crystal Lake

West Chicago

Hoffman Estates

Hanover Park

Plano

Huntley

Barrington Hills

Elgin

Glen Ellyn

Elburn

Maple Park

Burlington

HampshireGenoa

Naperville

Joliet

Crest Hill

Sugar Grove

Plainfield

BataviaGeneva

St. Charles

Pingree Grove

Carpentersville

Palatine

Waterman

Yorkville

KANE

DEKALB

MCHENRYBOONE

LASALLEKENDALL

DUPAGE

COOK

WILL

LAKE

N

Miles

0 2 4 6

StreamsCounty Boundary

Interstate RoutesState RoutesUS Expressways

Legend

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

N

Kane County Transportation Planning Area Study

Jurisdictional Classification of Highways, 2001

0 2 4

Miles

Kane County RoadsInterstateUS HighwayState HighwayCounty RoadsOther

LEGEND

Figure 2


4

Highways in Kane County are classified as tothe function each performs. Functionalclassifications extend from Divided PrincipalArterial (primarily traffic service) toCollector (primarily service to abutting landuses). Figure 3 depicts the functionalclassification of highways in Kane County,and Table 2 shows the existing mileage ofhighways in each classification. Countyhighways make up 307 route miles, or 27percent of the existing highway system.Functional class of just the Kane Countyhighways is shown in Table 3.

The Chicago Area Transportation Study(CATS) 2010 Transportation DevelopmentPlan includes a Strategic Regional Arterial(SRA) system that is integrated with thecounty highway system. The SRA system hasbeen developed to serve as a second tier tothe freeway system with a focus onthroughput capacity. The system is plannedto be a comprehensive transportation networkthat can handle long distance regional traffic.There are 1,340 designated miles of SRAroutes in the Chicago metropolitan area ofwhich 91 miles are located in Kane County (Figure 4). Parts of the county highway system that arealso designated as an SRA are as follows:

• Orchard Road/Randall Road• Fabyan Parkway• Kirk/Dunham Road

Public TransportationIn Kane County, public transportation service is provided by Metra and Pace, operating divisions ofthe Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). Metra operates commuter rail service throughout theregion; three of its lines—the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) Line, the Union Pacific (UP)West Line, and the Milwaukee District (MD) West Line—serve Kane County. Pace, RTA’s suburbanbus division, operates a family of services including fixed route bus service, express bus service, dial-a-ride paratransit service, and vanpool/subscription bus service. These transportation services are partof one of the largest transit systems in the country. Figure 5 and 6 shows the locations of publictransportation routes and stations in Kane County.

The Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Line extends nearly 38 miles west from Chicago’s Union Stationto Aurora. This is the most heavily used line in the system, handling more than 53,000 passengers onan average weekday with over 80 percent of the trips made on peak hour/peak direction trains. Thereis one station on this line in Kane County – Aurora.

TABLE 2Mileage of All Highways in Kane County by Functional Class

Functional Class Route Miles Lane Miles

Freeways, Expresswaysand Ramps

61 232

Principal Arterials 268 734

Minor Arterials 261 561

Collector 542 1,076

Total 1,132 2,603

TABLE 3Mileage of Kane County Highways by Functional Class


Principal Arterials 52 173

Minor Arterials 182 365

Collector 73 146

Total 307 684

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


Functional Classification of Highways, 2001

0 2 4

Miles

Functional ClassFreeway/ExpresswayDivided Principal ArterialUndivided Principal ArterialWide Minor ArterialNarrow Minor ArterialCollector

LEGEND

Figure 3

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

N


Strategic Regional Arterials

0 2 4

Miles

Strategic Regional Arterial

LEGEND

Figure 4

N

0 2 4

Miles

Æb

ÆbÆb

Æb

Æb

National St

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

Hampshire

Pingree Grove

Gilberts

Big Timber

Elgin

South Elgin

St. Charles

Geneva

Sugar Grove Aurora

MCHENRY COUNTY

DEKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DEKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DUPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

Fox R

iver

DISTRICT WEST

UNION PACIFIC WEST

BURLINGTON

NORTHERN/ SANTE FE

MILWAUKEE

Legend

Existing Metra StationsRailroad

Existing Rail Service LinesÆb


Existing Metra Rail Service

N

0 2 4

Miles

Existing Pace Bus Service Areas


Wayne

Elburn

Batavia

Geneva

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

MCHENRY COUNTY

DEKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DEKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DUPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

Hampshire

Pingree Grove

Gilberts

Sleepy Hollow

AuroraSugar Grove

Carpentersville

LegendExisting Kane County Pace Bus ServiceBus Service Areas


9

The UP West Line extends nearly 36 miles west from Chicago’s Ogilvie Transportation Center(OTC) to Geneva. Trains run from Chicago, west through Cook County, the center of DuPage, andinto eastern Kane County. The line carries approximately 26,000 passengers on a typical weekday,with over 80 percent of the trips made on peak hour/peak direction trains. Currently there is onestation on this line in Kane County - Geneva.

The Milwaukee District West Line extends nearly 40 miles west-northwesterly from Chicago’s UnionStation to Big Timber Road in Elgin. The line carries approximately 23,000 passengers on a typicalweekday with just fewer than 80 percent of the trips made on peak hour/peak direction trains. Thereare three stations in Kane County – Big Timber Road, Elgin, and National Street.

Pace’s fixed route bus service in Kane County is primarily provided by routes located in the cities ofElgin and Aurora. In total, 33 routes service Kane County. Dial-a-ride service provides curb-to-curbtransportation to the general public, with special emphasis on the limited mobility population. Atpresent, this service is offered in many parts of Kane County, including the townships of Aurora,Dundee, Burlington, Hampshire, Plato, Rutland, St. Charles, and Geneva, and the cities of Bataviaand Elgin. Other special services are provided exclusively for persons with severe mobilitydisabilities as required by ADA regulations. These special transportation services are provided inportions of Aurora, Batavia, Dundee, Elgin, St. Charles, and the Sugar Grove Township.

Non-Motorized TravelAnother transportation option available to commuters in Kane County is bicycle and pedestrian paths.These paths provide commuters with an alternative to the automobile. Furthermore, when pathsconnect to rail and bus stations, public transportation becomes more easily accessible and ridershipincreases. Currently, Kane County offers a variety of bicycle and pedestrian paths, and many of thesepaths connect to rail stations and bus stops.

There are six trails in Kane County that provide opportunities for Kane County residents to completea variety of tasks; however, they are used predominately for recreation. In addition, bicycle andpedestrian accommodations have been observed along some of the county-maintained roads. Theseaccommodations are comprised of 10 feet or wider, off-road, paved paths that parallel the road.Figure 7 illustrates current bicycle and pedestrian routes in Kane County.

Rustic RoadsThe Kane County 2020 Land Resource Management Plan proposes development of a Rustic RoadsProgram to preserve some of the County’s rural roads and scenic vistas. The transportation plan to bedeveloped by this project should be compatible with the requirements of such a program.

Existing Traffic Demand

The existing traffic model used in Kane County was developed and calibrated in 2000 using theTRANPLAN suite of programs by the Kane County Division of Transportation with assistance fromCH2M HILL. The model development and calibration process is described in detail in Development

Great Western Trail

Fox R

iver T

rail

Virgil Gilman Trail

IL Prairie Path-Geneva Spur

River BendTrail

IL Prairie Path-

Aurora Branch.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

MCHENRY COUNTY

DEKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DEKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DUPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

IL Prairie Path-Elgin Branch

0 2 4

Miles

N

LegendExisting Bicycle andPedestrian TrailsRailroad

Figure 7

Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails



11

Figure 8 shows ranges of existing (1997) average daily traffic (ADT) on highways in Kane County.The 1997 ADT values were based on maps published by the Illinois Department of TransportationOffice of Programming and Planning. The 1997 Illinois State ADT data was supplemented with 1994to 2000 counts provided by the county as well as 1996 traffic model volumes, as required. Highervolume highways are located predominantly in the easternmost portion of the county in the UrbanCorridor. The heaviest traveled routes and areas include the I-90 and I-88, Randall Rd., theCarpentersville/Dundee/North Elgin area and Tri-cities area.

Commercial vehicle (truck) traffic is also an important consideration in the analysis of currenttransportation facilities and in developing future plans. The Illinois Department of Transportation(IDOT) provided data regarding the 1996 daily volume of heavy commercial vehicle traffic on stateand federal routes in Kane County. Figure 9 shows the proportion of heavy commercial vehicles (inranges) on these highways. As would be expected, the Tollways carry a high share of commercialtraffic, but truck traffic was also heavy on portions of IL 47 and IL 64.

Existing Travel DesiresExamination of travel desires is especially useful in planning transportation facilities. This analysistechnique considers the travel desires of motorists regardless of the underlying traffic network. Byassigning traffic to a network resembling a spiderweb that is unconstrained in terms of capacity, thetrips follow a direct path from origin to destination. The travel desires are shown as bands with thewidth of the band proportional to the traffic volume on that link.

The Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) developed a traffic zone system as part of the KaneCounty Sub-Area Study, July 1996. The zone system consisted of 1,379 traffic analysis zones (TAZs)representing the Chicago metropolitan area. Of these, 780 TAZs were located within Kane County. Inorder to portray travel desires, the CATS traffic zones were aggregated into 15 larger zones. The triptable also was compressed to conform to the modified zone structure. A spiderweb network wascreated by connecting the centroids of adjacent zones. A graphic portrayal of travel desires wasproduced by assigning the base year (1996) daily vehicular trips to the spiderweb network (Figure10).

The prominent travel desire is in the north/south direction in the eastern part of the county throughurbanized areas along the Fox River, which coincides with the largest concentration of development inthe County. The travel demand is largest in the northern and southern portions of this corridor with aslight decrease in demand between St. Charles and Elgin. The north-south travel desires appear to be acombination of trips originating in and destined to locations in the urban corridor, as well as regionaltrips traveling through the County (Figure 10). In general, travel demand in Kane County drops offconsiderably toward the western parts of the County. Another trend is the travel desire pattern betweenKane and surrounding counties. The following list highlights these travel desires.

and Calibration of Kane County Transportation Systems Planning Model prepared for the Division ofTransportation in May 2000 by CH2M HILL. The work closely followed earlier CATS modeldevelopment reported in the Kane County Sub-Area Study, July 1996. The system-planning modeldeveloped for this project was determined to meet or exceed the accepted criteria forvalidation/calibration of a tool of this type.

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


1997 Range of Average Daily TrafficBy Roadway Segment

0 2 4

Miles

1997 ADT0 - 1000010000 - 2000020000 - 4000040000 - 60000> 60000

LEGEND

Figure 8

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


Percent Heavy Commercial Vehicles on U.S. and State Highways and Tollways - 1996

0 2 4

Miles

Percent Heavy Commercial Trucks0 - 33 - 67 - 1011 - 20> 20

LEGENDNOTE: Includes 6-tire and 3-axle single unit trucks, buses and all multiple-unit trucks

Figure 9

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

N


1996 Travel Desires

0 2 4

Miles

1996 Trips

LEGEND

104,000 vpd

57,000 vpd

Volume of Trips (Two-Way)

Figure 10Kane County Transportation Planning Area Study


15

• Northwest-southeast direction in the northern portion of the county between Kane County andMcHenry and Cook Counties.

• East-west direction in the central portion of Kane County along the eastern border between Kaneand DuPage Counties.

• Northeast and southwest direction in the southern portion of the county between Kane Countyand Kendall and DuPage Counties.

This set of travel desires indicates the importance of examining travel demand in relationship to thesurrounding Counties. Notably, the existing travel desires in the northeast portion of the Countyappear to be heaviest. The roadway system is in place to accommodate the above listed travel desireswith the following roadways:

• The Northwest Tollway and US 20 support northwest-southeast directional movement in thenorthern portion of the county.

• IL 64, IL 38, and Fabyan Pkwy support the east-west directional movement in the central portionof the county.

• I-88/IL 56/US 30 and IL59/US 34 support the northeast-southwest directional movement in thesouthern portions of the county.

Performance MeasuresPerformance measures were established to assess the ability of the transportation system and itscomponents in meeting set performance goals. This type of technical evaluation was used to evaluatesystem conditions in the study base year and for the year 2020. Three categories of performance wereused to analyze performance:

• Traffic service measures• Congestion measures• Traffic safety measures

The basic tool used in calculating the performance measurements for both the existing and futuretransportation networks was the travel demand model.

Traffic Service MeasuresTraffic service measures match a calculated performance value such as speed or travel time to acorresponding level of congestion. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is a facility-based measure indicatingsystem usage. It is the product of traffic volume over a specified length of highway. Vehicle hours oftravel (VHT) is a user-based measure indicating the travel time spent from origin to destination.Summing the travel times of vehicles using a segment of highway produces VHT. Another trafficservice measure is vehicle hours of delay (VHD). The delay function (VHD) can be calculated for eachlink by comparing the travel time produced at desirable speed for a particular roadway as defined by itsfunctional classification to the congested time that results from the traffic assignment. VHD is a productof traffic volume multiplied by the change in travel time. The system-wide delay can be calculated bysumming the delays for all links. Separate summaries may be produced by functional class or byindividual route.


16

Another measure used to evaluate traffic performance is travel speed. Travel speed is a measure thatevaluates the operating characteristics of a facility. The travel speed measure can be determined bycomparing the VMT and VHT by roadway segment.

Congestion MeasuresCongestion is generally measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS) and volume/capacity ratio (v/c).Average delay and speed, discussed above, enter into the LOS determination along with other factors.LOS measures the level of congestion. It may be determined for each roadway segment on the basisof delay or congested speed by functional class. The various levels of service are defined as follows:1

• LOS A describes primarily free flow operation at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percentof the free-flow speed for the arterial classification.

• LOS B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification.

• LOS C represents stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in mid-blocklocations may be more restricted than at LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination,or both, may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free-flow speed for the arterial classification.

• LOS D borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases indelay, and hence decreases in arterial speed. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free-flow speeds. LOS D is often used as a limiting criterion for design purposes.

• LOS E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of one-third of the free-flow speed or less. LOS E is sometimes accepted as a limiting criterion for design when restrictedconditions make it impractical to consider a higher LOS.

• LOS F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds, below one-third to one-fourth of thefree-flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations with high delaysand extensive queuing. LOS F is never used as a design standard. It represents a condition that isintolerable to most motorists.

LOS is determined by the ratio of volume to capacity (v/c) on each facility segment:

Level of Service Max V/CA 0.28B 0.47C 0.66D 0.79E 1.00Source: Highway Capacity Manual Table 7-1

Traffic Safety MeasuresAmong transportation performance criteria, traffic safety is most universally accepted. A quantitativeindex or measure of safety performance is appropriate, therefore, as one of the basic performancemeasures for the Kane County transportation system.

1Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,D.C., 1994, p 11-4.


17

Safety is often discussed only in general or qualitative terms. To include safety as a more usefulperformance measure, it is desirable to quantify safety in readily understandable terms. Of course, anyeffort to quantify safety must be fully supportable. Highway safety can best be characterized by thenumber of highway crashes and the resulting injuries and fatalities that might occur or be expected tooccur over a given time period. Developing a highway safety performance measure thus becomes anexercise in relating basic transportation system features and attributes to an expected number ofhighway crashes. There are a number of basic, well-established principles relating highway safety toelements of the highway. These include 1) the relationship of vehicular traffic volume to crashfrequency and 2) differences in the safety performance of different highway types.

Existing Traffic Performance AnalysisThe traffic performance analysis of the existing Kane County highway system relied on data relatedto travel demand and existing facilities, as well as, measures of effectiveness derived from thecounty’s travel demand model. See Appendix A for the 1996 model output.

Existing Traffic Service MeasuresThe traffic service measures of VMT, VHT, and VHD on all highways stratified by functionalclassification, as well as, county roads only are summarized in Table 4. In examining the trafficperformance of all highways, principal arterials, which account for only 28 percent of the lane mileswithin the county, were found to carry the bulk of traffic (approximately 50 percent of VMT) andexperience approximately 55 percent of VHD. The same trend is increased by 50 percent whenlooking exclusively at the county roadway network. For county highways alone, principal arterialswere only 25 percent of the system, but carried approximately 70 percent of traffic and experienced90 percent of the VHD.

Existing Congestion MeasuresCongestion on all highways for 1997 based on daily traffic is illustrated in Figure 11. Only roadwaysegments that were found to be operating at LOS D, E, or F are shown. The congestion level has beendesignated in three categories related to levels of service as follows:

• Moderate Congestion (LOS D)• Severe Congestion (LOS E)• Extreme Congestion (LOS F)

When considering all highways in Kane County, only 14 percent of route miles and 16 percent of lanemiles were classified as congested. For just county roads, only 9 percent of route miles and 11 percentof lane miles were deemed to be congested. Only 6 percent to 7 percent of the county highways werecongested with a concentration of these roadways in Carpentersville/Dundee/Elgin, St.Charles/Geneva, and Aurora.

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


1997 Congested Roadway Segments

0 2 4

Miles

Level of CongestionModerate Congestion (LOS D)Severe Congestion (LOS E)Extreme Congestion (LOS F)

LEGEND

Figure 11


19

TABLE 4Existing Traffic Performance

VMT VHT VHD

Functional Class Miles % Hours % Hours %

1996 All Highways

Freeways and Expressways 2,149,377 27.8 38,328 18.3 1,089 24.5

Principal Arterials 3,862,914 49.9 113,205 54.1 2,460 55.3

Minor Arterials 931,721 12.0 29,898 14.3 481 10.8

Collectors 801,087 10.3 27,924 13.3 420 9.4

Totals 7,745,099 100 209,355 100 4,450 100

1996 County Highways

Principal Arterials 1,022,577 72.8 30,138 72.7 446 93.7

Minor Arterials 325,420 23.2 9,698 23.4 29 6.2

Collectors 55,456 4.0 1,604 3.9 1 0.1

Totals 1,403,453 100 41,440 100 476 100

Table 5 shows the length and percentage of route miles and lane miles at each level of service for allhighways and for county highways only.

Figure 12 shows travel speeds produced by the 1996 model. Analogous to congestion, modeled travelspeeds that fall in the range of 25 –35 mph are found in the eastern portion of the county along theFox River.

Existing Safety MeasuresCH2M HILL used geographic information system (GIS) and current safety modeling techniques forsafety analysis of county highways. To identify locations in Kane County with safety concerns, amodeled expected frequency was compared to the actual frequency over a three-year period. GIStools were used to geocode accident records based on street and cross street. Buffer zones werecreated around intersections to identify those accidents associated with each intersection. Similarly,GIS was used to calculate historic crash frequency for county highway segments. A total of 405intersections and 425 segments encompassing all county roads were analyzed.

The expected number of crashes at a location was calculated using models from recent research. Thisexpected frequency then was compared to actual frequency of crashes at each location. The currentresearch suggest that using an actual frequency to expected frequency relationship is more accurate inidentifying high accident locations than the more well known methods of calculating and rankinglocations by a flat rate. The reasons for this are as follows.

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


1996 Travel SpeedBy Roadway Segment

0 2 4

Miles

Travel Speed (mph)25 - 3535 - 45> 45

LEGEND

Figure 12


21

TABLE 5Existing Congestion

Route Miles Lane Miles

Level of Service Miles % Hours %

1996 All Highways

A 262 47 581 42

B 117 21 278 20

C 100 18 305 22

D 33 6 101 7

E 28 5 82 6

F 14 3 37 3

Total 554 100 1,384 100

Total Congested* 75 14 220 16


A 207 67 420 62

B 46 15 99 14

C 27 9 89 13

D 12 4 36 5

E 12 4 34 5

F 3 1 5 1

Total 307 100 683 100

Total Congested* 27 9 75 11

*LOS D, E and F

• Flat rates assume the relationship between crash frequency and volume is linear. However, eventhough frequencies may increase with volume, the true relationship is not linear. With the linearassumption for rates, the intersections listed as “high” typically are the locations with the highervolumes. The method using flat rates may not identify low volume facilities as hazardous evenwhen there are more crashes than one would expect for that facility type. The flat rate methodmay not identify such a location as problematic.

• In flat rate calculations volume is the only measure of exposure. In the expected frequencymodels, variables such as control type and geometric configurations are considered. This resultsin a more accurate reflection of exposure to a crash.

• The comparison of actual and expected frequency allows for a statistically based “cut-off” point.The ranked flat rates usually have an arbitrary “cut-off” point. When ranked rates are used anarbitrary decision is made to select the top number of locations with the highest rate. This “cut-off” is chosen regardless of the rate magnitude. An improvement to this approach would be to


22

compare the actual rate to a statewide average rate. However, this may still only designate highvolume locations as hazardous and potentially ignore hazardous low volume facilities.

Locations were classified into four categories based on a percent difference between actual andexpected.

1. “Actual Greatly Exceeds Expected”--percent difference of actual above expected crash frequencyexceeding two standard deviations;

2. “Actual Moderately Exceeds Expected”--percent difference of actual above expected crashfrequency exceeding one standard deviation;

3. “Actual Exceeds Expected”--actual greater than expected crash frequency; and

4. Actual less than or equal to expected crash frequency

Fifteen intersections and 15 out of 307 miles of county roads were classified in the “actual greatlyexceeds expected” category. Thirty-two intersections and 28 out of 307 miles of county road wereclassified in the “actual moderately exceeds expected” category. Locations in the top three categoriescan be seen in Figure 13. A clustering of locations with relatively high crashes compared to the rest ofKane County frequencies can be seen in some locations. Areas where clustering occurs are thewestern Elgin area encompassing Randall Road from US 20 to the Northwest Tollway, Geneva andNorthern Batavia highlighting Randall Rd. from Main St. to IL 64 and Fabyan Parkway from IL 25 tothe county line, the intersections in Burlington township area, the area surrounding Corron Rd. andBowes Rd, and intersections and segments along Jericho Rd.

Existing Public Transportation System PerformanceIn 1990, approximately 2.8 percent of the total work trips made by Kane County residents were madeusing rail or bus. Other means of transportation (taxicab, bicycle, etc.) constituted 0.8 percent of totalwork trips. Between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of work trips made by rail or bus declined byabout 1 percent, while the proportion of work trips made by other means of transportation remainedthe same.

Although the proportion of trips made by rail and bus use declined between 1989 and 1999, theoverall number of transit riders increased by over 29,000. As another example, in Kane County,Metra ridership increased 49.3 percent from 1989 to 1999. Table 6 shows the overall change inweekday boardings for each station in Kane County from 1989 to 1999.

The ability of commuter rail lines to serve residential areas is often limited by the number of availableparking spaces. Parking for autos is available at all Metra stations in the county, and many stationsoffer bicycle storage. Metra considers parking capacity to be exhausted when utilization exceeds 85percent. In the county, Aurora, Geneva, and Elgin all exceed 85 percent of parking capacity.

Pace, the RTA’s suburban bus division had annual ridership of over 38 million riders in 2000. Itprovides commuter and local services within Kane County. Services include fixed route and dial-a-ride, as well as paratransit.

ÊÚ

ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ

rrÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ rÊÚÊÚ rÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ

rÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ rÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ

rÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚÊÚrÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚ ÊÚrÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ r ÊÚrÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ rÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ rÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚr r

ÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚ r

ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ r

ÊÚÊÚ

rrrÊÚrÊÚÊÚ rrrr

ÊÚrr

ÊÚ

ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚrrÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚÊÚrÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


Locations Where Actual ExceedsExpected Crash Frequency, 1997 - 2000

0 2 4

Miles

Actual GreatlyExceeds Expected

SignalizedIntersections

Segments

Actual ModeratelyExceeds Expected

ActualExceeds Expected

rrr

ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚStop Controlled Intersections

Figure 13


24

TABLE 6Change in Weekday Boardings from 1989 to 1999 in Kane County

Station 1989 1999 Percent Change

Aurora 1056 1467 +38.9%

Geneva 1290 1642 +27.3%

National Street 255 618 +142.4%

Elgin 465 419 -9.9%

Big Timber Road 33 482 +1360.6%

Total 3099 4628 +49.3%

Source: Commuter Rail System Station Boarding/Alighting Count, Summary Results Fall 1999

The 1996 Pace Comprehensive Operating Plan identifies a long-range business plan for the deliveryof bus transit service in northeastern Illinois. As a rule, a combined density of 4,000 persons(employed and/or residing) per square mile is a criterion for a successful fixed route operation. Feederbus services for commuter rail lines need a density of2,500 persons per square mile. Only the Aurora andElgin areas meet these thresholds in Kane County.

The average weekday ridership for the Pace system is9,205 in Kane County. Thirty-three fixed route servicesoperate in the county, 16 in the Aurora area and 17 inthe Elgin area (Table 7). This transit service providesboth intracommunity service and links betweenneighborhoods and Metra rail stations.

Future Transportation System

HighwaysThe future transportation system assumed for this project includes the existing system augmented bycommitted improvement projects. Committed highway improvements would increase the lane milesof roadway in Kane County from 1,378 miles to 1,419 miles, or by 3 percent. A listing of thecommitted highway improvement projects is given in Table 8, and a listing of route and lanes milesby jurisdictional classification of the existing plus committed system is presented in Table 9.

The lane miles of County highways will increase by 17 miles from the base year to future year. Table10 shows the future mileage of all highways in each classification. Functional class of Kane Countyhighways only is shown in Table 11.

TABLE 7Fixed Route Service

AreaNumber of

RoutesAverage Weekday

Riders

Elgin 17 4601

Aurora 16 4604

Total 33 9205

Source: Pace Ridership Data, January 2001


25

TABLE 8Committed Highway Improvements

Roadway Limits of Improvement Scope of Project

I-90 (Northwest Tollway) IL 59 to Randall Toll Plaza Add Lanes

I-90 (Northwest Tollway) Randall Toll Plaza Full Interchange

I-88 (East-West Tollway) IL 59 to Aurora Toll Plaza Add Lanes

I-88 (East-West Tollway) Aurora Toll Plaza Full Interchange

US 30 East of BNRR/Briarcliff over Fox River Add Lanes

Orchard Road I-88 to South County Line Add Lanes

Randall Rd IL 72 to North County Line Add Lanes

Public Transportation

Commuter RailKane County is committed to several proposedcommuter rail improvements. Theseimprovements are part of the region’sTransportation Improvement Program (TIP)maintained by the Chicago Area TransportationStudy (CATS). The TIP is northeastern Illinois’six-year agenda (2001-2006) for surfacetransportation projects. The TIP lists regionallysignificant projects for which federal money issought, as well as, non-federally funded projectsplanned for implementation in the next six years(Figure 14). The committed commuter railsystem improvements planned for Kane Countyare summarized in Table 12.

TABLE 11Mileage of Existing Plus Committed Kane CountyHighways by Functional Classification


Principal Arterials 51.7 190

Minor Arterials 182.3 365

Collector 72.8 146

Total 306.8 701

TABLE 9Mileage of Existing Plus Committed Highways in KaneCounty by Jurisdictional Classification

Jurisdiction Route Miles Lane Miles

Interstates 46.9 211

U.S. Highways 33.7 76

State Highways 165.0 432

County Highways 306.7 700

Total 552.4 1,419

TABLE 10Mileage of All Existing Plus committed Highways in KaneCounty by Functional Classification


Freeways, Expresswaysand Ramps

61.0 256

Principal Arterials 267.6 751

Minor Arterials 261.0 561

Collector 542.0 1,087

Total 1,131.6 2,655

N

0 2 4

Miles

Æb

ÆbÆb

Æb

Æb

ÆbÆb

Big Timber

Elgin

Geneva

Aurora

La Fox Road

Geneva to Elburn

National St

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

DISTRICT WEST

UNION PACIFIC WEST

BURLINGTON

NORTHERN/ SANTE FE

MCHENRY COUNTY

DEKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DEKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DUPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

MILWAUKEE

Elburn

Proposed Commuter Rail (Committed)

Existing Rail LinesLegend

Existing Metra StationÆb

Proposed Metra StationÆb

Parking Improvements or Additions Kane County Transportation Planning Area Study

Figure 14

Proposed Metra Rail Improvements


27

TABLE 12Summary of Rail Improvements

Rail Line Type of Improvement Location

Additional parking Aurora Station

Hill yard upgrade Aurora

Underground cable Chicago to Aurora

Rehabilitation of retaining walls Chicago to Aurora

Burlington Northern

Switches & switch heater Chicago to Aurora

Rail line extension Geneva to Elburn (stations at Elburn and La Fox)

Parking maintenance Geneva Station at 3rd Street

Union Pacific West

Railroad grade separation Peck Road at Keslinger Road in Geneva

Rehabilitate bridge ElginMilwaukee DistrictWest

Grade crossing renewal McLean Boulevard and Raymond Street in Elgin

Bus SystemThe planned improvements for bus services in Kane County consist of a Park’n’Ride TransferFacility at I-90 and additional storage capacity in North Aurora. These improvements are part of theTIP plan. Other long-term improvements suggested by Kane County’s 2020 Transportation Planinclude additions to both the fixed route and express bus services, but these are not yet committedimprovements.

ParkingIn 1999, Metra identified the need for new parking spaces at commuter rail stations as part of itscomprehensive planning efforts. The figures in Table 13 were developed based on forecast growth inhouseholds and were derived assuming current patterns of station access along the line. The forecastprovides a reasonable picture of future activity in the county.

Non-Motorized TravelThe Kane County 2020 Transportation Plan identifies 166 miles of new bicycle and pedestrianfacilities to provide better connections within and between communities. Kane County also hasestablished an action plan that has led to the routine accommodation of cyclists and pedestriansduring new country road construction projects and the paving of shoulders during reconstructionprojects. New development review procedures also incorporate considerations for bicycle andpedestrian facilities. In 2000, Kane County received $25,000 in planning funds to update its bicycleand pedestrian plan, develop a capital program, convene corridor meetings, assist local planning andeducation efforts, produce and distribute a facilities map, and initiate a coordinated signage program.In addition to the planning of routes and facilities in Kane County, another proposal identified theaddition of bicycle racks to Pace buses on two routes that operate between Elgin and Aurora. Theracks will enable riders to bring along their bicycles for the trip. Table 14 summarizes the TIP’splanned bicycle and pedestrian route improvements for Kane County.


28

TABLE 131999 Station Parking and Projected Future Parking Space Needs on Metra Rail Lines

Rail Line/StationStation Parking (Effective Use) a

Total Number ofParking Spaces

Percent ofEffective Use

Future ParkingNeeds

PercentIncrease

BNSF: Aurora 827 828 99.9% +280 33.8%

UP West: Geneva 813 813 100.0% +540 66.4%

UP West: La Fox b N/A N/A N/A +300 N/A

UP West: Elburn b N/A N/A N/A +150 N/A

MD West: National St. 309 410 75.4% 0 c 0%

MD West: Elgin 141 142 99.3% 0 0%

MD West: Big Timber Rd. 342 473 72.3% +205 57.7%

Total 2432 2666 91.2% +1475 55.3%

Source: Metra 1999 Station Parking Statisticsa Effective parking use includes permits that are sold and are assumed as used, up to the capacity of the lotb 1999 information is not available because it is a proposed new stationc No new parking spaces were added, but 150 parking spaces were improved at this station

TABLE 14Planned Improvements for Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes in Kane County

Type of Improvement Location of Improvement

Tunnel under Randall Road Randall Road at (Geneva) south of Keslinger Road

Bike trail, Feasibility Study Timber Trails from Dean Street/Great Western Trail (St. Charles) toRandall Road (St. Charles) then north to Timber Trails

Bike/pedestrian overpass Mid C at Randall Road at Silver Glen (St. Charles)

Bike trail and pedestrian bridge includingfencing, culverts, drainage, landscaping

Virgil Gilman Trail bridge over IL 56 and Blackberry Creek nearGolf View Road

Bikeway, median cable, pedestrianunderpass, utility adjustment

Fox River Trail from Virgil Gilman Trail (Aurora) to New York Street(Aurora)

Bike facility McLean Boulevard (South Elgin) from Bowes Road (South Elgin) toIL 31 (St. Charles Township); South terminus = River Bend Trail

Pedestrian tunnel including signs South Street Trail extension at (Geneva) along South Street fromKaneville Road to and under Randall Road

Landscaping, bus shelter, sidewalks,irrigation system, fencing

Third St. from Crescent Place (Geneva) to Hamilton Street

Pedestrian route 1st Street over the Fox River (Batavia) to Webster Street; betweenWater Street and Washington Street

Pedestrian route Anderson Road over the UP West Line (Elburn) between IL 38 andKeslinger Road

Source: CATS, Transportation Improvement Program, FY 01-06


29

Future Travel DemandThe Kane County transportation 2020 model was updated to reflect the Northeastern Illinois PlanningCommission (NIPC) data. The NIPC data has been furnished for two separate scenarios: oneassuming expansion of O’Hare airport; and another assuming development of the south suburbanairport. The O’Hare expansion scenario was applied in updating the Kane County model. The NIPCdata, which was developed by quarter sections, also was aggregated into traffic analysis zones (TAZs)for use in the Kane County model update. Once the O’Hare scenario data was aggregated into TAZs,the household, population, and employment data were entered into the trip generation equations. Thesame trip rates and factors developed for the existing travel model were used to create 2020 tripproductions and attractions. The production and attractions along with the original friction factorswere then applied in the gravity model to create person trips. These person trips were subsequentlyconverted to internal auto trips and were added to external trips in order to create the 2020 vehicle triptable. Traffic assignments were then made using the new trip table.

The NIPC data calls for an overall increase in county population from approximately 317,000 in 1990 to552,000 in 2020. Households would increase from 107,000 to 199,000 and employment would increasefrom 174,000 to 211,000 over the same time period. Figures 15 and 16 show the range of populationand employment growth by TAZ in Kane County. The largest growth in population would occur in theGilberts and Huntley areas. To a lesser degree population growth would take place along the borderbetween the urban corridor and critical growth area. Another area of growth would be to the west ofBatavia and Aurora.

Large growth in employment would occur in northern Kane County, mainly concentrated in the areassurrounding US 20 and I-90. Employment growth would be greatest in the Huntley area. Pockets ofrelatively high employment growth would also occur throughout the Urban Corridor. Moderateemployment growth has been projected for the Sugar Grove area.

To determine the 2020 ADT on the highway system, a growth factor was calculated for each linkusing modeled volumes in the base year and in 2020. This growth factor was then applied to the 1997ADT counts to arrive at the projected 2020 ADT. Figure 17 shows the factored 2020 ADT. Figure 18illustrates the change in ADT between the 1997 and 2020. The areas with the largest change in ADTare Sugar Grove, West Geneva/West Batavia, Elgin, and the Gilberts/Huntley area.

Future Travel DesiresDesire bands provide an excellent depiction of the pattern of travel growth Kane County. Figure 19shows a combination of 1996 and 2020 desire bands. Travel growth is represented by the differencesin bandwidth. The pattern of travel growth magnifies existing travel desires as shown in 1996. Again,the most significant travel desire is found in the north/south direction in the eastern portion along theFox River from Aurora to the Carpentersville/Dundee Area. Other areas of traffic growth occurthroughout the county. One of the largest growth areas would occur in Northern Kane County in theUpper Fox and Greater Elgin Areas. To a lesser extent, traffic growth would occur in the centerportion of Kane County from Sugar Grove through Elburn and north to Lily Lake.

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

N


Population Growth, 1990 - 2020

0 2 4

Miles

Population Growth-200 - 500500 - 1,0001,000 - 5,000> 5000

LEGEND

Figure 15

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


Employment Growth, 1990 to 2020

0 2 4

Miles

Employment Growth< 5050 - 100100 - 500500 - 1000> 1000

LEGEND

Figure 16

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

N


Projected 2020 Range of Average Daily TrafficBy Roadway Segment

0 2 4

Miles

Figure 17

2020 ADT0 - 1000010000 - 2000020000 - 4000040000 - 6000060000 - 100000

> 100000

Legend

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


Change in Average Daily Traffic, 1997 - 2000By Roadway Segment

0 2 4

Miles

Change in ADT0 - 20,00020,000 - 40,00040,000 - 60,000> 60,000

LEGEND

Figure 18

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

Figure 19

1996 Trips

2020 Trips

LEGEND

104,000 vpd

57,000 vpd

Volume of Trips (Two-Way)

0 2 4

Miles

Future Travel Growth Desires Bands1996 - 2020


N


35

Future Travel PerformanceThe traffic performance analysis of the future Kane County highway system relied on data describedabove related to future travel demand and existing plus committed facilities, as well as, measures ofeffectiveness derived from the county’s travel demand model.

Future Traffic Service MeasuresThe traffic service measures of VMT, VHT, and VHD for all highways and for county roads alone,stratified by functional classification, are summarized in Table 15. As found earlier for existing trafficconditions, principal arterials would carry a large share of the traffic burden (approximately 47percent of the VMT) and would experience 53 percent of VHD, but would constitute only 28 percentof the lane miles. This trait would remain the same for county roads. County roads that are classifiedas principal arterials would carry about two-thirds of the travel demand and would experience 87percent of the VHD, but would represent only 27 percent of the county road lane miles.

TABLE 15Future Traffic Performance

VMT VHT VHD

Functional Class Miles % Hours % Hours %

2020 All Highways



Minor Arterials 1,970,676 13.2 67,289 15.7 6064 16.1

Collectors 1,896,045 12.7 68,564 16.0 6,050 16.0

Totals 14,942,249 100 429,456 100 37,747 100



Minor Arterials 905,977 29.4 27,631 28.3 978 12.7

Collectors 132,586 4.3 3,878 4.0 55 0.7

Totals 3,079,936 100 97,494 100 7,713 100

Future Congestion MeasuresForecast 2020 levels of congestion on existing and committed highways based on daily traffic areshown in Figure 20. For the entire system, 56 percent of route miles and 61 percent of lane-mileswould be congested (Table 16). For county roads alone, 41 percent of route miles and 47 percent oflane miles would be congested. The areas found to be congested in 1996 would remain so in 2020,and in some locations would worsen as a result of the increase in travel demand. In addition,congestion would spread west into the critical growth areas of West Elgin, Sugar Grove, and west ofTri-Cities to Elburn.

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

N


Projected 2020 Congested Roadway Segments

0 2 4

Miles

Level of CongestionModerate Congestion (LOS D)Severe Congestion (LOS E)Extreme Congestion (LOS F)

LEGEND

Figure 20


37

Conclusions and Comparisons

Existing and Committed Highway SystemTable 17 shows the change in VMT, VHT, and VHD between 1996 and 2020 stratified by functionalclassification. For all roads, the VMT and the VHT would approximately double between 1996 and2020. In addition, the VHD would increase by more than seven times as a result of increasedcongestion. For county highways, the VMT and VHT would more than double and the VHD wouldincrease 15 fold. This dramatic deterioration of traffic performance indicates that the existing andcommitted facilities, alone, would not adequately handle future travel demand.

The number of route miles and lane miles at each range of LOS would shift. In 1996, most roadwayswere found to operate at LOS C or better. By 2020, most roadways would operate at LOS D or worse.Table 18 illustrates the projected change in route miles and lane miles for the different classificationsof LOS. For the entire highway system, congested lane miles would increase four fold. While onlyone-quarter of Kane County experienced congestion in 1996, congestion would expand to coverthree-quarters of the county in 2020.

TABLE 16Future Congestion

Route Miles Lane MilesLevel of Service Miles % Miles %

2020 All Highways

A 114 21 228 16

B 72 13 171 12

C 54 10 151 11

D 48 8 143 10

E 89 16 247 17

F 176 32 485 34

Total 554 100 1,425 100

Total Congested 313 56 875 61


A 114 37 228 33

B 49 16 105 15

C 19 6 38 5

D 14 4 40 6

E 25 8 65 9

F 85 29 224 32

Total 307 100 701 100



38

TABLE 17Comparison of Traffic Performance

VMT VHT VHD

Functional Class ∆ Miles ∆ % ∆ Hours ∆ % ∆ Hours ∆ %

1996-2020 All Highways



Minor Arterials 1,038,955 11‘1.5 37,391 125.1 5,583 1160.7

Collectors 1,094,958 136.7 40,640 145.5 5,630 1340.5

Totals 7,197,150 92.9 220,101 105.1 33,297 748.2

1996-2020 County Highways


Minor Arterials 580,557 178.4 17,933 184.9 949 3272.4

Collectors 77,130 139.1 2274 141.8 54 5400.0

Totals 1,676,483 119.4 56,054 135.3 7,237 1520.4

TABLE 18Comparison of Congestion

Route Miles Lane Miles

Level of Service ∆ Miles ∆ % ∆ Miles ∆ %

1996-2020 All Highways

A -148 -56 -353 -61

B -45 -38 -107 -38

C -46 -46 -154 -50

D 15 45 42 42

E 61 218 165 201

F 162 1157 448 1211


1996-2020 County Highways

A -93 -45 -192 -46

B 3 6 6 6

C -8 -30 -51 -57

D 2 17 4 11

E 13 108 31 91

F 82 2733 219 4380



39

Figure 21 depicts the change in modeled average travel speed on Kane County highways between1996 and 2020. The largest changes in travel speed would occur on IL 47 between Burlington Rd. andPlank Road; the Northwest Tollway; Randall Road between US 20 and Bowes Road; and IL 25between Dunham Road and US 20. Areas that would experience the greatest reduction in travel speedwould include the Elgin/South Elgin area; the areas surrounding IL 47 between Lily Lake andHuntley; and the St. Charles/Geneva area.

Public Transit and Non-Motorized TravelThe following is a summary of the findings and conclusions related to existing rail and bus transit andbicycle/pedestrian route usage in Kane County. The summary is grouped into topical areas that bestcharacterize the transit findings. Forecasts have not been developed for public transit demand orridership.

For access to Rail Stations, auto is the preferred mode of accessing the rail system. Currently, three ofthe five stations considered as a part of this analysis have parking usage amounting to nearly 100percent of capacity. Metra uses 85 percent occupancy of parking spaces as a threshold for needingadditional parking capacity. Since parking is reaching capacity at nearly all of the stations consideredin this analysis, the need for additional parking is evident. Demand for parking will continue to growwith the forecast growth in population and employment. Experience has shown that parking supply isutilized almost as quickly as it is provided. Presently, parking limitations at rail stations represent oneof largest constraints affecting rail usage in the county.

Bus UsageBus service in the county offers a variety of fixed route, as well as other transit options including dial-a-ride, ADA paratransit, and vanpool service. Fixed route bus service is proximate to a largepercentage of the county’s population centers and currently has an average weekday ridership ofapproximately 9,205 persons. The other transit options (e.g., dial-a-ride and vanpools) have a muchsmaller patronage. Typically, suburban settlement patterns tend to adversely effect the use of busservice. Scattered origins and destinations make it difficult to effectively structure bus service to meetthe variety of needs. Typically, many suburban trips (excluding work trips) are chained, that iscombining a number of trip purposes and errands together. This trip characteristic tends to favor theautomobile. However, specialty bus service is finding a niche in the county market. Installing servicesthat link bus and rail service will foster increases in bus ridership.

Other Modes of TransportationBicycle and pedestrian facilities are recognized as an effective transportation mode in northeasternIllinois. Bicycle and pedestrian modes can reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption, and airpollution. Overall, when connections to rail and bus facilities are available by bicycle and pedestrianroutes, there is an increased use of rail and bus services, which results in the decreased use of theautomobile.

.-,88

"!38

"!47

"!72

.-,90

"!31

"!64

.-,90

.-,88

"!38

"!64

(/30

"!56

"!72

(/20

(/20

"!25

"!47

"!47

"!56

"!25

"!31

"!31

"!25

(/30

McHENRY COUNTY

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

DeKA

LB C

OUNT

Y

KENDALL COUNTY

DuPA

GE C

OUNT

Y

COOK

COU

NTY

N


Change in Travel Speed, 1996 - 2020by Roadway Segment

0 2 4

Miles

Change in Travel Speedmore than 6 mph decrease3 - 6 mph decrease0 - 3 mph decreaseIncrease

LEGEND

Figure 21


41

Planning AreasBased on the analyses described above, the next step would be to identify and prioritize planningareas. Kane County has been separated into eight Planning Partnership Areas (PPA). Figure 22illustrates the boundaries of these areas. The figure also shows graphically a comparison of sometravel performance measures aggregated by PPA. Each performance measure has been displayed inone of three categories that describe improvement priority:

• Immediate Need• Near-Term Need• Long-Term Need

VMT per lane mile and VHT per lane mile are performance measures that describe system usage. Theother performance measures --VHD per lane mile, change in speed from 1996 to 2020, andpercentage of roadways that are congested -- show the levels of congestion and performance of eachPPA. The Upper Fox PPA and Greater Elgin PPA, both located in northeast Kane County, areforecast to have highest system usage. Only one PPA, Greater Elgin, falls into the immediate needcategory with regard to both VHD per lane mile and change in speed from 1996 to 2020. Three of thePPAs --Upper Fox, Greater Elgin, and Tri-cities – all located in the Fox River Valley, would be in theimmediate need, or highest category with regard to percentage of congested lane miles. Overall,Greater Elgin is the only PPA in the immediate need category for all performance measures. Table 19summarizes the 2020 performance measures for each Planning Partnership Areas.

TABLE 19Future Performance of Planning Partnership Areas

PPAVMT/Lane

MileVHT/Lane

MileVHD/Lane

MilePercent Change is

SpeedPercent at LOS D, E,

and F

Upper Fox 12562 335 33 6.83 90.2

Greater Elgin 14517 408 53 9.87 92.6

Tri-Cities 8852 284 23 6.26 82.3

Aurora Area 11253 271 15 0.53 58.4

Campton Hills 4247 121 9 5.58 47.5

Northwest 4673 96 2 7.61 40.6

West Central 4500 89 2 4.80 16.3

Southeast 3275 74 1 0.58 21.7

N


Planning Partnership Areas

Northwest

Southwest

Tri-Cities

West Central

Upper Fox

Aurora Area

Campton Hills

Greater Elgin

Northwest

Southwest

Tri-Cities

West Central

Upper Fox

Aurora Area

Campton Hills

Greater Elgin

Northwest

Southwest

Tri-Cities

West Central

Upper Fox

Aurora Area

Campton Hills

Greater Elgin

Northwest

Southwest

Tri-Cities

West Central

Upper Fox

Aurora Area

Campton Hills

Greater Elgin

Northwest

Southwest

Tri-Cities

West Central

Upper Fox

Aurora Area

Campton Hills

Greater Elgin

Northwest

Southwest

Tri-Cities

West Central

Upper Fox

Aurora Area

Campton Hills

Greater Elgin

Planning AreaBoundaries

2020VHT/Lane Mile

Change in Speed1996 - 2020

2020VMT/Lane Mile

2020VHD/Lane Mile

2020 Percent Congested

by Lane MileLOS D, E, and F

2020 VMT/Lane Miles>10,000 VMT/Lane Mile>5,000 VMT/Lane Mile<5,000 VMT/Lane Mile

Legend

2020 VHT/Lane Miles>300 VHT/Lane Mile>150 VHT/Lane Mile<150 VHT/Lane Mile

Legend

2020 VHD/Lane Miles>40 VHD/Lane Mile>20 VHD/Lane Mile<20 VHD/Lane Mile

Legend

% Congested>80% LOS D, E, and F>40% LOS D, E, and F<40% LOS D, E, and F

Legend

Percent Change in Speed>8% Change in Speed from 1996>4% Change in Speed from 1996<4% Change in Speed from 1996

Legend

Figure 22

Appendix AExisting Transportation Summary

Fu

nctio

nal C

lass Su

mm

ary

05/08/2001 11:12:04 AM

(Su

mm

ary of A

LL

links)

1996 Base Y

ear

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Collector

1,073.327,924

420536.7

1,076801,087

47.7%47.7%

41.3%10.3%

13.3%9.4%

Expressw

ays and Principal A

rterials535.2

113,2052,460

267.6734

3,862,91423.8%

23.8%28.2%

49.9%54.1%

55.3%

Freew

ays and Ram

ps121.9

38,3281,089

61.0232

2,149,3775.4%

5.4%8.9%

27.8%18.3%

24.5%

Minor A

rterials522.0

29,898481

261.0561

931,72123.2%

23.2%21.5%

12.0%14.3%

10.8%

2,252.41,126.2

2,603.27,745,099.1

209,355.14,450.4

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Co

un

ty Ro

ad F

un

ction

al Class S

um

mary

05/08/2001 11:16:01 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte C

od

e < 110)

1996 Base Y

ear

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Collector

145.61,604

172.8

14655,456

23.7%23.7%

21.3%4.0%

3.9%0.1%

Expressw

ays and Principal A

rterials103.4

30,138446

51.7173

1,022,57716.8%

16.8%25.4%

72.9%72.7%

93.7%

Minor A

rterials364.5

9,69829

182.3365

325,42059.4%

59.4%53.3%

23.2%23.4%

6.2%

613.5306.7

683.41,403,453.5

41,440.3475.6

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Co

un

ty Ro

ad L

OS

Su

mm

ary

05/08/2001 11:26:12 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte C

od

e < 110)

1996 Base Y

ear

LOS

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

A415.5

7,4875

207.7420

258,14367.7%

67.7%61.5%

18.4%18.1%

1.0%

B91.8

5,19423

45.999

190,72815.0%

15.0%14.5%

13.6%12.5%

4.9%

C53.1

14,052131

26.689

475,7488.7%

8.7%13.0%

33.9%33.9%

27.5%

D23.1

5,32620

11.636

182,7813.8%

3.8%5.3%

13.0%12.9%

4.1%

E24.5

7,660205

12.334

241,6534.0%

4.0%4.9%

17.2%18.5%

43.2%

F5.5

1,72092

2.75

54,4010.9%

0.9%0.8%

3.9%4.2%

19.3%

613.5306.7

683.41,403,453.5

41,440.3475.6

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Jurisd

iction

Su

mm

ary

05/08/2001 11:26:27 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte C

od

e)

1996 Base Y

ear

JurisdictionD

istance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Interstate93.7

33,122874

46.9187

1,901,6008.5%

8.5%13.6%

32.4%22.6%

29.7%

US

Highw

ay67.4

6,34142

33.776

268,1506.1%

6.1%5.5%

4.6%4.3%

1.4%

State H

ighway

330.165,898

1,556165.0

4322,287,711

29.9%29.9%

31.3%39.0%

44.9%52.8%

County

613.541,440

476306.7

6831,403,454

55.5%55.5%

49.6%23.9%

28.2%16.1%

1,104.7552.4

1,378.55,860,914.0

146,801.22,947.2

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Su

mm

ary by L

evel of S

ervice

05/08/2001 11:26:44 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte S

eg C

od

es)

1996 Base Y

ear

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

A523.0

18,44515

261.5581

848,214

B233.3

25,282252

116.7278

954,625

C200.7

51,495793

100.4305

2,100,141

D66.8

21,206708

33.4101

831,804

E55.8

18,829602

27.982

646,178

F27.8

12,254576

13.937

517,552

1,107.5553.7

1,384.05,898,514.7

147,511.22,947.2

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Ro

ute S

um

mary

05/08/2001 11:26:58 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

a rou

te cod

e > 0)

1996 Base Y

ear

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Average S

peed(m

ph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

119.3

590.0

9.619.3

2,07335.0

Burlington R

d.2

23.4958

0.011.7

23.431,910

33.3

Allen R

d.3

5.4150

0.02.7

5.45,251

34.9

Perry R

d.4

17.7249

0.08.8

17.78,706

35.0

Silver G

len R.

516.0

4812.0

8.016.0

14,47530.1

Galligan R

d.6

6.254

0.03.1

6.21,906

35.0

Dam

isch7

4.035

0.02.0

4.01,213

34.4

Fabyan P

kwy.

815.1

2,5009.0

7.622.9

89,16735.7

Main S

t.10

26.8559

0.013.4

26.821,876

39.1

Peplow

Rd.

1117.7

1180.0

8.817.7

3,96533.6

Meredith R

d.14

10.674

0.05.3

10.62,577

35.0

Healy R

d./Tanner R

d.15

8.597

0.04.2

8.53,196

33.0

Bunker R

d.16

5.154

0.02.6

5.11,906

35.1

Bow

es Rd.

1710.8

2070.0

5.410.8

6,22330.0

McLean R

d.18

1.5251

3.30.7

1.57,437

29.6

Durham

194.2

1,39170.7

2.14.2

43,59931.3

Arm

y Trail R

d.20

2.9240

0.01.4

2.97,193

30.0

Big T

imber R

d.21

23.6336

0.011.8

23.611,748

35.0

Plank R

d.22

17.9294

0.09.0

17.910,060

34.2

Thatcher R

d23

13.2152

0.06.6

13.25,336

35.0

Jericho Rd.

2426.3

9610.0

13.126.3

33,61235.0

Hughes R

d.26

9.9128

0.05.0

9.94,313

33.7

Sauber R

d./Lees Rd.

273.7

120.0

1.83.7

43035.0

McG

ough Rd.

2811.6

750.0

5.811.6

2,63034.9

Montgom

ery Rd.

295.5

6825.5

2.85.5

20,29829.8

Huntley R

d.30

9.61,014

16.74.8

9.634,903

34.4

Plato R

d.32

8.6133

0.04.3

8.64,487

33.8

Russell R

d.33

7.2293

0.03.6

7.29,915

33.8

Randall R

d.34

50.717,016

277.425.3

93.0579,104

34.0

Granart R

d.35

7.9365

0.04.0

7.912,790

35.0

State S

t.36

9.097

0.04.5

9.03,135

32.2

Page 2-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Average S

peed(m

ph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Stearns R

d.37

2.9398

1.51.5

2.913,474

33.8

Plank R

d.38

5.763

0.02.9

5.72,191

35.0

Penny R

d.40

1.034

0.00.5

1.01,006

30.0

Keslinger R

d.41

27.0327

0.013.5

27.012,887

39.4

Davis R

d.44

9.448

0.04.7

9.41,671

35.0

Allen R

d.45

6.026

0.03.0

6.0911

35.1

Burlington R

d./Walker R

d.46

8.8108

0.04.4

8.83,573

33.0

Highland R

d.47

8.0176

0.04.0

8.06,167

35.0

Scott R

d.48

8.565

0.04.2

8.52,279

35.0

Ellithorpe

499.4

850.0

4.79.4

2,98135.0

Dittm

an Rd.

516.8

570.0

3.46.8

1,72230.0

Manning R

d.52

1.312

0.00.6

1.3431

34.9

Ram

m R

d.56

11.659

0.05.8

11.62,079

35.0

Tyrrell R

d.59

4.392

0.02.1

4.33,225

35.1

West B

artlett Rd.

612.2

2611.2

1.12.2

7,79129.9

Dauberm

an Rd.

6216.0

1220.0

8.016.0

4,26835.0

Em

pire Rd.

696.7

1080.0

3.36.7

3,23030.0

Mooseheart R

d.71

2.0203

0.61.0

2.06,081

29.9

Kirk R

d.77

19.36,824

81.89.7

34.3225,341

33.0

Bliss R

d78

10.2230

0.05.1

10.29,190

39.9

Corron R

d.80

8.0130

0.04.0

8.04,159

32.1

LaFox R

d.81

9.9133

0.04.9

9.94,199

31.5

Orchard R

d.83

14.92,209

5.17.5

19.878,423

35.5

Kaneville R

d/Peck R

d.84

5.7187

0.02.8

5.76,109

32.6

Galena R

d.101

3.5221

0.61.8

3.57,713

35.0

Lake Cook R

d.102

4.2176

0.02.1

4.25,270

30.0

Haegers B

end Rd.

1030.4

480.0

0.20.4

1,65134.1

Interstate 88188

57.316,514

503.628.6

114.6935,702

56.7

Interstate 90190

36.516,608

370.518.2

72.9965,898

58.2

US

20220

36.33,607

0.718.2

46.3172,108

47.7

US

30230

31.82,810

4.715.9

33.1114,542

40.8

US

34234

2.1634

36.51.1

2.119,101

30.1

IL 19319

1.2285

0.00.6

2.49,407

33.0

IL 25325

63.719,402

655.231.8

79.9636,545

32.8

Page 2-2

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Average S

peed(m

ph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

IL 31331

64.720,882

675.232.4

101.8676,240

32.4

IL 38338

36.84,991

43.918.4

46.5179,962

36.1

IL 47347

56.45,281

0.028.2

68.0222,825

42.2

IL 56356

14.61,859

0.07.3

22.398,335

52.9

IL 58358

1.1212

0.00.5

2.17,017

33.1

IL 62362

5.41,588

51.52.7

6.250,419

31.8

IL 64364

39.85,593

76.319.9

50.6191,263

34.2

IL 68368

6.31,143

5.83.2

6.338,546

33.7

IL 72372

40.14,661

47.820.1

45.4177,151

38.0

Page 2-3

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Ro

ute-S

egm

ent S

um

mary

05/08/2001 11:27:15 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

a rou

te cod

e > 0)

1996 Base Y

ear

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

14.1

50.0

2.04.1

175M

ain St. (C

H 10) to P

erry Rd. (C

H 4)

0.08A

34.9

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

14.0

70.0

2.04.0

248P

erry Rd. (C

H 4) to K

eslinger Rd. (C

H 41)

0.07A

35.1

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

12.7

40.0

1.42.7

128K

eslinger Rd. (C

H 41) to IL 38

0.13A

35.0

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

18.5

430.0

4.38.5

1,522T

hatcher Rd. (C

H 23) to IL 64

0.11A

35.0

Burlington R

d.2

8.2180

0.04.1

8.25,914

Peplow

Rd. (C

H 11) to E

llithorpe Rd. (C

H 49)

0.14A

32.8

Burlington R

d.2

3.886

0.01.9

3.82,998

Ellithorpe R

d. (CH

49) to IL 470.14

A35.0

Burlington R

d.2

4.6191

0.02.3

4.66,682

IL 47 to Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5)

0.19A

35.0

Burlington R

d.2

4.0300

0.02.0

4.09,272

Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5) to LaF

ox Rd. (C

H 81)

0.37B

30.9

Burlington R

d.2

2.7201

0.01.4

2.77,044

LaFox R

d. (CH

81) to IL 640.57

C35.0

Allen R

d.3

5.4150

0.02.7

5.45,251

State S

t. (CH

36) to US

200.19

A34.9

Perry R

d.4

8.020

0.04.0

8.0688

W. C

ounty Line Rd. (C

H 1) to M

ain St. (C

H 10)

0.07A

34.8

Harter R

d.4

7.4168

0.03.7

7.45,892

Main S

t. (CH

10) to Scott R

d. (CH

48)0.17

A35.0

Harter R

d.4

2.361

0.01.1

2.32,125

Scott R

d. (CH

48) to IL 470.18

A35.0

Silver G

len R.

54.5

380.0

2.34.5

1,235IL 47 to B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2)

0.07A

32.4

Silver G

len R.

53.0

440.0

1.53.0

1,319B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2) to C

orron Rd. (C

H 80)

0.09A

30.0

Silver G

len R.

57.6

2660.6

3.87.6

7,956C

orron Rd. (C

H 80) to R

andall Rd. (C

H 34)

0.22A

29.9

Silver G

len R.

50.9

1341.4

0.50.9

3,964R

andall Rd. (C

H 34) to IL 31

0.20A

29.7

Galligan R

d.6

6.254

0.03.1

6.21,906

IL 72 to Huntly R

d. (CH

30)0.23

A35.0

Dam

isch7

1.711

0.00.8

1.7378

US

20 to Highland A

ve. ( CH

47)0.13

A33.3

Dam

isch7

2.324

0.01.2

2.3835

Highland A

ve. (CH

47) to Big T

imber R

d. (CH

210.13

A34.9

Fabyan P

kwy.

84.2

2480.0

2.14.2

8,182M

ain St. (C

H 10) to K

aneville Rd. (C

H 84)

0.43B

33.0

Fabyan P

kwy.

83.2

1130.0

1.63.2

3,823K

aneville Rd. (C

H 84) to R

andall Rd. (C

H 34)

0.50C

33.9

Fabyan P

kwy.

82.8

5460.0

1.45.6

18,007R

andall Rd. (C

H 34) to IL 31

0.53C

33.0

Fabyan P

kwy.

83.6

1,1113.9

1.87.2

37,603IL 31 to K

irk Rd. (C

H 77)

0.56C

33.8

Fabyan P

kwy.

81.4

4825.1

0.72.8

21,552K

irk Rd. (C

H 77) to C

ounty Line0.32

B44.7

Main S

t.10

2.04

0.01.0

2.0129

W. C

ounty Line Rd. (C

H 1) to S

wan R

d. (CH

44)0.05

A35.1

Main S

t.10

5.962

0.03.0

5.92,248

Sw

an Rd. (C

H 44) to H

arter Rd. (C

H 4)

0.08A

36.3

Main S

t.10

5.778

0.02.8

5.73,128

Harter R

d. (CH

4) to IL 470.13

A40.0

Main S

t.10

6.9247

0.03.4

6.99,660

IL 47 to Fabyan P

kwy (C

H 8)

0.40B

39.1

Main S

t.10

6.3168

0.03.2

6.36,711

Fabyan P

kwy (C

H 8) to R

andall Rd (C

H 34)

0.39B

40.0

Peplow

Rd.

113.3

140.0

1.63.3

475IL 64 to R

amm

Rd. (C

H 56)

0.03A

35.0

Page 3-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

Peplow

Rd.

114.0

200.0

2.04.0

709R

amm

Rd. (C

H 56) to E

llithorpe Rd (C

H 49)

0.03A

35.0

Peplow

Rd.

113.5

170.0

1.83.5

581E

llithorpe Rd. (C

H 49) to M

cGough R

d. (CH

28)0.04

A35.0

Peplow

Rd.

112.2

90.0

1.12.2

269M

cGough R

d. (Ch 28) to B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2)

0.08A

30.0

French R

d.11

4.758

0.02.4

4.71,931

Burlington R

d. (CH

46) to IL 720.13

A33.0

Meredith R

d.14

2.115

0.01.1

2.1510

Keslinger R

d. (CH

41) to IL 380.11

A34.9

Meredith R

d.14

4.224

0.02.1

4.2840

IL 38 to Beith R

d. (CH

23)0.06

A35.0

Meredith R

d.14

4.335

0.02.1

4.31,227

Beith R

d. (CH

23) to I.C. T

rail (CH

27)0.06

A35.0

Healy R

d./Tanner R

d.15

6.260

0.03.1

6.22,098

Bliss R

d. (CH

78) to Orchard R

d. (CH

83)0.16

A34.9

Oak S

t.15

2.337

0.01.1

2.31,098

Orchard R

d. (CH

83) to Randall R

d (CH

83)0.26

A30.0

Bunker R

d.16

2.434

0.01.2

2.41,200

Main S

t. (CH

10) to Hughes R

d. (CH

26)0.15

A35.1

Bunker R

d.16

2.720

0.01.4

2.7706

Hughes R

d. (CH

26) to Keslinger (C

H 41)

0.16A

35.0

Bow

es Rd.

172.2

120.0

1.12.2

351M

uirhead Rd. (C

H 32) to C

orron Rd. (C

h 80)0.20

A30.0

Bow

es Rd.

176.4

890.0

3.26.4

2,672C

orron Rd. (C

H 80) to R

andall Rd. (C

H 34)

0.30B

30.0

Bow

es Rd.

172.1

1070.0

1.12.1

3,200R

andall Rd. (C

H 34) to M

cLean Rd. (C

H 18)

0.44B

30.0

McLean R

d.18

1.5251

3.30.7

1.57,437

Hopps R

d./Spring S

t. to Bow

es Rd. (C

H 17)

1.30F

29.6

Durham

194.2

1,39170.7

2.14.2

43,599A

rmy T

rail Rd. (C

H 20) to IL 25

0.55C

31.3

Arm

y Trail R

d.20

2.9240

0.01.4

2.97,193

Durham

Rd. (C

H 19) to C

ounty Line0.52

C30.0

Big T

imber R

d.21

5.929

0.03.0

5.91,004

Harm

ony Rd. (C

H 36) to U

S 20

0.05A

35.0

Big T

imber R

d.21

5.640

0.02.8

5.61,406

US

20 to IL 470.11

A35.1

Big T

imber R

d.21

3.753

0.01.9

3.71,866

IL 47 to IL 720.15

A34.9

Big T

imber R

d.21

6.2154

0.03.1

6.25,365

IL 72 to Tyrell R

d. (CH

59)0.24

A34.9

Big T

imber R

d.21

2.160

0.01.1

2.12,107

Tyrell R

d. (CH

59) to Randall R

d. (CH

34)0.46

B35.1

Plank R

d.22

8.7110

0.04.4

8.73,611

Burlington R

d. (CH

46) to IL 470.37

B32.8

Plank R

d.22

9.2184

0.04.6

9.26,450

IL 47 to US

200.35

B35.0

Thatcher R

d23

7.061

0.03.5

7.02,133

County Line to M

eredith Rd. (C

H 14)

0.04A

35.0

Beith R

d.23

6.192

0.03.1

6.13,203

Meredith R

d. (CH

14) to IL 470.05

A35.0

Jericho Rd.

247.8

410.0

3.97.8

1,436U

S 30 to G

ranart Rd. (C

H 35)

0.11A

35.0

Jericho Rd.

2411.0

3570.0

5.511.0

12,505G

ranart Rd. (C

H 35) to U

S 30/IL 47

0.15A

35.0

Jericho Rd.

247.5

5630.0

3.77.5

19,671U

S 30/IL 47 to O

rchard Rd. (C

H 83)

0.20A

35.0

Hughes R

d.26

6.6101

0.03.3

6.63,381

IL 47 to Bunker R

d. (CH

16)0.16

A33.4

Hughes R

d.26

3.327

0.01.7

3.3932

Bunker R

d. (CH

16) to Fabyan P

kwy. (C

H 8)

0.15A

35.0

Sauber R

d./Lees Rd.

273.7

120.0

1.83.7

430IL 64 to IL 47

0.04A

35.0

McG

ough Rd.

281.8

120.0

0.91.8

404IL 64 to R

amm

Rd. (C

H 56)

0.12A

35.0

McG

ough Rd.

284.2

350.0

2.14.2

1,240R

amm

Rd. (C

H 56) to E

llithorpe Rd (C

H 49)

0.03A

35.0

Page 3-2

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

McG

ough Rd.

285.6

280.0

2.85.6

986E

llithorpe Rd. (C

H 49) to P

eplow R

d. (CH

11)0.02

A34.8

Montgom

ery Rd.

295.5

6825.5

2.85.5

20,298IL 25 to H

ill Ave.

0.83E

29.8

Huntley R

d.30

1.771

0.00.9

1.72,503

County Line to G

alligan Rd. (C

H 6)

0.29B

35.0

Huntley R

d.30

5.3415

0.02.6

5.314,533

Galligan R

d. (CH

6) to Randall R

d. (CH

34)0.42

B35.0

Huntley R

d.30

2.6527

16.71.3

2.617,868

Randall R

d. (CH

34) to Sleepy H

ollow R

d.0.80

E33.9

Plato R

d.32

3.321

0.01.6

3.3719

Burlington R

d. (CH

2) to IL 470.15

A34.9

Plato R

d.32

3.597

0.01.7

3.53,330

IL 47 to Rippburger R

d. (CH

33)0.18

A34.2

Plato R

d.32

1.915

0.00.9

1.9439

Rippburger R

d. (CH

33) to Bow

es Rd. (C

H 17)

0.17A

30.0

Russell R

d.33

7.2293

0.03.6

7.29,915

Plato R

d. (Ch 32) to P

lank Rd. (C

H 22)

0.22A

33.8

Randall R

d.34

4.21,136

16.82.1

7.044,623

Sullivan R

d. to Orchard R

d. (CH

83)0.41

B39.3

Randall R

d.34

4.01,648

21.82.0

8.064,941

Orchard R

d. (CH

83) to Main S

t. (CH

10)0.55

C39.4

Randall R

d.34

5.02,460

69.42.5

10.076,587

Main S

t. (CH

10) to Keslinger R

d. (CH

41)0.92

E31.1

Randall R

d.34

4.11,918

49.92.0

8.259,699

Keslinger R

d. (CH

41) to IL 640.90

E31.1

Randall R

d.34

7.92,408

1.93.9

15.781,746

IL 64 to Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5)

0.53C

34.0

Randall R

d.34

5.11,392

0.02.6

10.346,978

Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5) to B

owes R

d. (CH

17)0.53

C33.7

Randall R

d.34

3.1785

0.01.5

6.226,102

Bow

es Rd. (C

H 17) to U

S 20

0.74D

33.3

Randall R

d.34

5.01,445

7.02.5

10.150,423

US

20 to Big T

imber R

d. (CH

21)0.70

D34.9

Randall R

d.34

2.5719

0.01.3

5.025,201

Big T

imber R

d. (CH

21) to I 900.51

C35.0

Randall R

d.34

2.8784

0.01.4

5.727,488

I 90 to IL 720.39

B35.1

Randall R

d.34

3.0853

22.21.5

3.028,352

IL 72 to Huntley R

d. (CH

30)0.98

E33.2

Randall R

d.34

4.01,469

88.52.0

4.046,964

Huntley R

d. (CH

30) to County Line

1.17F

32.0

Granart R

d.35

4.7274

0.02.3

4.79,585

Galena R

d. to Jericho Rd. (C

H 24)

0.20A

35.0

Rhodes S

t.35

3.291

0.01.6

3.23,205

Jericho Rd. (C

H 24) to U

S 30

0.19A

35.0

State S

t.36

2.628

0.01.3

2.6690

IL 72 to Allen R

d. (CH

45)0.35

B25.0

Harm

ony Rd.

364.0

360.0

2.04.0

1,255A

llen Rd. (C

H 45) to B

ig Tim

ber Rd. (C

H 21)

0.09A

35.1

Harm

ony Rd.

362.4

340.0

1.22.4

1,190B

ig Tim

ber Rd. (C

H 21) to C

ounty Line0.09

A35.0

Stearns R

d.37

2.9398

1.51.5

2.913,474

Durham

Rd. (C

H 19) to C

ounty Line0.27

A33.8

Plank R

d.38

5.763

0.02.9

5.72,191

County Line to B

urlington Rd. (C

H 46)

0.27A

35.0

Penny R

d.40

1.034

0.00.5

1.01,006

IL 68 to County Line

0.17A

30.0

Keslinger R

d.41

6.712

0.03.4

6.7482

W. C

ounty Line Rd. (C

H 1) to M

eredith Rd. (C

H

0.13A

39.9

Keslinger R

d.41

6.655

0.03.3

6.62,176

Meredith R

d. (CH

14) to IL 470.19

A39.9

Keslinger R

d.41

6.579

0.03.3

6.52,961

IL 47 to LaFox R

d. (CH

81)0.23

A37.6

Keslinger R

d.41

5.194

0.02.6

5.13,763

LaFox R

d. (CH

81) to Kaneville R

d. (CH

84)0.31

B39.9

Keslinger R

d.41

2.088

0.01.0

2.03,505

Kaneville R

d. (CH

84) to Randall R

d. (CH

34)0.43

B40.0

Page 3-3

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

Davis R

d.44

3.516

0.01.8

3.5546

US

30 to Scott R

d. (CH

48)0.04

A35.0

Sw

an Rd.

445.9

320.0

3.05.9

1,126S

cott Rd. (C

H 48) to M

ain St. (C

H 10)

0.03A

35.0

Allen R

d.45

1.91

0.01.0

1.925

County Line to W

alker Rd. (C

H 46)

0.04A

35.0

Allen R

d.45

4.025

0.02.0

4.0886

Walker R

d. (CH

46) to State S

t. (CH

36)0.09

A35.1

Burlington R

d./Walker

465.7

680.0

2.95.7

2,183P

lank Rd. (C

H 38) to IL 72)

0.14A

31.9

Walker R

d.46

3.040

0.01.5

3.01,389

IL 72 to Allen R

d. (CH

45)0.05

A34.9

Highland R

d.47

8.0176

0.04.0

8.06,167

Dam

isch Rd. (C

H 7) to R

andall Rd. (C

H 34)

0.19A

35.0

Scott R

d.48

2.713

0.01.4

2.7461

Davis R

d. (CH

44) to Dauberm

an Rd. (C

H 62)

0.02A

35.0

Scott R

d.48

5.752

0.02.9

5.71,818

Dauberm

an Rd. (C

H 62) to H

arter Rd. (C

H 4)

0.04A

35.0

Ellithorpe

493.4

260.0

1.73.4

917M

cGough R

d. (CH

28) to Peplow

Rd. (C

H 11)

0.03A

35.0

Ellithorpe

496.0

590.0

3.06.0

2,064P

eplow R

d. (CH

11) to Burlington R

d. (CH

2)0.04

A35.0

Dittm

an Rd.

516.8

570.0

3.46.8

1,722B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2) to P

lato Rd. (C

H 32)

0.04A

30.0

Manning R

d.52

1.312

0.00.6

1.3431

Big T

imber R

d. (CH

21) to IL 470.06

A34.9

Ram

m R

d.56

4.517

0.02.3

4.5585

McG

ough Rd. (C

H 28) to P

eplow R

d. (CH

11)0.09

A35.0

Ram

m R

d.56

7.143

0.03.5

7.11,494

Peplow

Rd. (C

H 11) to IL 47

0.09A

35.0

Tyrrell R

d.59

4.392

0.02.1

4.33,225

Big T

imber R

d. (CH

21) to IL 720.37

B35.1

West B

artlett Rd.

612.2

2611.2

1.12.2

7,791IL 25 to C

ounty Line0.36

B29.9

Dauberm

an Rd.

624.0

410.0

2.04.0

1,450U

S 30 to S

cott Rd. (C

H 48)

0.06A

35.0

Dauberm

an Rd.

626.4

520.0

3.26.4

1,827S

cott Rd. (C

H 48) to H

arter Rd. (C

H 4)

0.07A

35.0

Dauberm

an Rd.

625.6

280.0

2.85.6

991H

arter Rd. (C

H 4) to K

eslinger Rd. (C

H 41)

0.11A

35.0

Em

pire Rd.

696.7

1080.0

3.46.7

3,230IL 47 to B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2)

0.13A

30.0

Mooseheart R

d.71

2.0203

0.61.0

2.06,081

Randall R

d. (CH

34) to IL 310.28

A29.9

Kirk R

d.77

7.73,294

32.83.8

15.4107,614

IL 56 to Fabyan P

kwy. (C

H 8)

0.65C

32.7

Kirk R

d.77

2.4813

0.01.2

4.826,730

Fabyan P

kwy. (C

H 8) to IL 38

0.63C

32.9

Kirk R

d.77

4.91,496

7.42.4

9.852,147

IL 38 to IL 640.66

D34.9

Kirk R

d.77

4.31,220

41.72.2

4.338,850

IL 64 to Arm

y Trail R

d. (CH

20)0.87

E31.8

Bliss R

d78

4.797

0.02.4

4.73,863

IL 47 to Healy R

d. (CH

15)0.32

B39.8

Bliss R

d78

5.5133

0.02.7

5.55,327

Healy R

d. (CH

15) to Main S

t. (CH

10)0.33

B39.9

Corron R

d.80

2.630

0.01.3

2.6897

Burlington R

d. (CH

10) to Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5)

0.19A

30.0

Corron R

d.80

5.4100

0.02.7

5.43,261

Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5) to B

owes R

d. (CH

17)0.03

A32.7

LaFox R

d.81

3.415

0.01.7

3.4522

Keslinger R

d. (CH

41) to IL 380.14

A35.0

LaFox R

d.81

4.499

0.02.2

4.43,113

IL 38 to IL 640.22

A31.3

LaFox R

d.81

2.119

0.01.0

2.1563

IL 64 to Burlington R

d. (CH

2)0.13

A30.0

Orchard R

d.83

2.9316

0.01.5

2.910,772

US

30 to Jericho Rd. (C

H 24)

0.70D

34.0

Page 3-4

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

Orchard R

d.83

7.21,284

5.13.6

7.243,336

Jericho Rd. (C

H 24) to I 88

0.71D

33.7

Orchard R

d.83

4.8608

0.02.4

9.724,315

I 88 to Randall R

d.0.15

A40.0

Kaneville R

d/Peck R

d.84

2.9134

0.01.5

2.94,332

Fabyan P

kwy. (C

H 8) to K

eslinger Rd. (C

H 41)

0.10A

32.4

Peck R

d.84

2.754

0.01.4

2.71,776

Keslinger R

d. (CH

41) to IL 380.23

A33.1

Galena R

d.101

3.5221

0.61.8

3.57,713

Granart R

d. (CH

35) to Jones Rd.

0.19A

35.0

Lake Cook R

d.102

4.2176

0.02.1

4.25,270


0.57C

30.0

Haegers B

end Rd.

1030.4

480.0

0.20.4

1,651IL 25/IL 62 to C

ounty Line0.23

A34.1

Interstate 88188

29.44,213

0.014.7

58.9271,999

County Line to IL 47

0.27A

64.6

Interstate 88188

8.31,151

0.04.2

16.671,274

IL 47 to IL 560.22

A61.9

Interstate 88188

2.5793

0.01.3

5.043,734

IL 56 to Orchard R

d.0.39

B55.1

Interstate 88188

4.41,448

3.12.2

8.879,447

Orchard R

d. to IL 310.49

C54.9

Interstate 88188

4.62,094

17.82.3

9.2114,148

IL 31 to Farnsw

orth Ave.

0.66C

54.5

Interstate 88188

8.16,815

482.74.0

16.1355,100

Farnsw

orth Ave. to C

ounty Line0.66

D52.1

Interstate 90190

4.11,001

0.02.0

8.165,023

County Line to U

S 20

0.51C

65.0

Interstate 90190

9.02,688

3.24.5

18.1174,616

US

20 to IL 470.51

C65.0

Interstate 90190

10.44,600

41.05.2

20.7282,786

IL 47 to Randall R

d.0.65

C61.5

Interstate 90190

5.32,382

12.72.6

10.5131,360

Randall R

d. to IL 310.80

E55.2

Interstate 90190

3.52,424

91.81.8

7.1130,361

IL 31 to IL 251.04

F53.8

Interstate 90190

4.23,514

221.82.1

8.4181,751


1.04F

51.7

US

20220

0.987

0.00.4

0.93,949

County Line to Interstate 90

0.37B

45.3

US

20220

4.7169

0.02.4

4.77,588

Interstate 90 to Big T

imber R

d.0.23

A45.0

US

20220

6.3265

0.03.1

6.311,921

Big T

imber R

d to IL 470.29

B45.0

US

20220

0.990

0.00.4

1.84,030

IL 47 to to IL 720.29

B44.7

US

20220

5.5132

0.02.8

5.55,405

IL 72 to Reinking R

d.0.39

B41.1

US

20220

5.0149

0.02.5

5.06,095

Reinking R

d. to Plank R

d.0.42

B40.8

US

20220

4.2541

0.72.1

4.418,243

Plank R

d. to Randall R

d.0.91

E33.7

US

20220

2.8412

0.01.4

5.621,664

Randall R

d. to McLean B

lvd.0.47

B52.5

US

20220

2.7710

0.01.4

5.537,601

McLean B

lvd. to IL 310.47

C53.0

US

20220

1.6501

0.00.8

3.326,510

IL 31 to IL 250.56

C52.9

US

20220

1.7551

0.00.8

3.429,102


0.49C

52.8

US

30230

5.2106

0.02.6

5.24,790

County Line to D

avis Rd.

0.25A

45.0

US

30230

2.5112

0.01.3

2.55,060

Davis R

d. to Dauberm

an Rd.

0.29B

45.1

US

30230

8.6786

1.14.3

8.635,333

Dauberm

an Rd. to IL 56

0.47C

44.9

US

30230

5.6537

0.02.8

6.918,538

IL 56 to Base Line R

d.0.56

C34.5

Page 3-5

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

US

30230

7.1714

0.03.6

7.132,116

Base Line R

d. to Orchard R

d.0.62

C45.0

US

30230

2.7554

3.61.4

2.718,704

Orchard R

d. to IL 310.69

D33.8

US

34234

2.1634

36.51.1

2.119,101

County Line to C

ounty Line1.42

F30.1

IL 19319

1.2285

0.00.6

2.49,407


0.38B

33.0

IL 25325

5.71,436

38.72.8

6.045,144

County Line to G

alena Blvd

0.41B

31.4

IL 25325

7.51,852

60.33.8

9.659,785

Galena B

lvd to IL 560.50

C32.3

IL 25325

8.41,500

10.84.2

8.447,926

IL 56 to Fabyan P

kwy.

0.57C

32.0

IL 25325

2.9834

38.51.5

2.925,539

Fabyan P

kwy to IL 38

0.75D

30.6

IL 25325

4.01,047

34.12.0

4.032,710

IL 38 to IL 641.36

F31.2

IL 25325

10.82,634

44.25.4

10.887,354

Il 64 to Dunham

Rd.

0.45B

33.2

IL 25325

5.41,977

170.32.7

5.458,701

Dunham

Rd. to U

S 20

0.62C

29.7

IL 25325

3.91,333

78.51.9

3.941,388

US

20 to IL 580.66

D31.0

IL 25325

3.01,481

80.71.5

4.845,219

IL 58 to Interstate 900.91

E30.5

IL 25325

4.11,535

15.32.1

8.352,734

Interstate 90 to IL 720.58

C34.4

IL 25325

1.5771

13.30.8

3.030,294

IL 72 to IL 680.65

C39.3

IL 25325

6.53,002

70.43.2

12.9109,752

IL 68 to IL 620.36

B36.6

IL 31331

5.51,057

1.82.8

10.433,590

County Iine to G

alena Blvd.

0.44B

31.8

IL 31331

5.32,349

60.52.7

10.677,497

Galena B

lvd. to Interstate 880.64

C33.0

IL 31331

9.82,837

64.04.9

19.390,019

Interstate 88 to Fabyan P

kwy.

0.61C

31.7

IL 31331

3.5480

0.81.7

5.815,358

Fabyan P

kwy. to IL 38

0.57C

32.0

IL 31331

3.7953

47.01.9

3.728,290

IL 38 to IL 640.66

C29.7

IL 31331

7.92,103

10.53.9

13.268,347

IL 64 to Silver G

len Rd.

0.27A

32.5

IL 31331

9.32,713

112.34.7

9.388,220

Silver G

len Rd. to U

S 20

0.58C

32.5

IL 31331

2.71,028

113.01.4

2.729,606

US

20 to Kim

ball St.

0.91E

28.8

IL 31331

3.72,044

105.81.9

7.463,999

Kim

ball St. to Interstate 90

0.84E

31.3

IL 31331

4.72,402

59.32.3

9.382,085


D34.2

IL 31331

8.52,915

100.24.3

10.099,228


1.18F

34.0

IL 38338

6.8261

0.03.4

6.811,724

Countly Line R

d. to Meredith R

d.0.23

A45.0

IL 38338

6.8323

0.03.4

6.814,533

Meredith R

d. to IL 470.28

B45.0

IL 38338

6.5424

0.03.3

6.517,990

IL 47 to La Fox R

d.0.38

B42.4

IL 38338

5.2539

0.02.6

5.224,242

La Fox R

d. to Peck R

d.0.48

C45.0

IL 38338

1.9283

2.21.0

1.912,678

Peck R

d. to Randall R

d.0.48

C44.8

IL 38338

4.3953

0.02.1

8.529,415

Randall R

d. to IL 310.68

D30.9

IL 38338

2.91,305

30.11.5

5.840,034

IL 31 to Kirk R

d.0.89

E30.7

Page 3-6

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

IL 38338

2.5903

11.71.3

5.029,346

Kirk R

d. to County Line

0.71D

32.5

IL 47347

2.1150

0.01.1

4.25,174

US

30 to Bliss R

d.0.40

B34.5

IL 47347

2.7153

0.01.4

5.46,896

Bliss R

d. to Harter R

d.0.38

B45.0

IL 47347

3.8189

0.01.9

6.18,516

Harter R

d. to Interstate 880.27

A45.1

IL 47347

3.3263

0.01.6

3.310,502

Interstate 88 to Main S

t.0.34

B40.0

IL 47347

5.8478

0.02.9

5.816,239

Main S

t. to Keslinger R

d.0.37

B33.9

IL 47347

3.0332

0.01.5

3.010,602

Keslinger R

d. to IL 380.53

C31.9

IL 47347

3.2249

0.01.6

3.211,182

IL 38 to Beith R

d.0.33

B44.9

IL 47347

2.0226

0.01.0

2.09,256

Beith R

d. to IL 640.29

B41.0

IL 47347

7.0653

0.03.5

7.028,053


d.0.28

A43.0

IL 47347

4.7500

0.02.4

4.722,498

Burlington R

d. to Plato R

d.0.31

B45.0

IL 47347

4.9474

0.02.5

4.921,306

Plato R

d. to Plank R

d.0.30

B45.0

IL 47347

3.9388

0.02.0

3.917,438

Plank R

d. to US

200.28

B44.9

IL 47347

5.4411

0.02.7

5.418,453

US

20 to Interstate 900.33

B44.9

IL 47347

4.6815

0.02.3

9.136,708

Interstate 90 to County Line

0.31B

45.0

IL 56356

3.4546

0.01.7

6.935,430

US

30 to Galena B

lvd.0.17

A64.9

IL 56356

4.3588

0.02.1

8.638,237

Galena B


A65.0

IL 56356

0.690

0.00.3

0.63,080

IL 31 to IL 250.71

D34.3

IL 56356

4.3407

0.02.2

4.313,812

IL 25 to Kirk R

d.0.64

C33.9

IL 56356

1.9228

0.00.9

1.97,776

Kirk R

d. to County Line

0.61C

34.0

IL 58358

1.1212

0.00.5

2.17,017


0.45B

33.1

IL 62362

0.8377

10.60.4

1.612,729


0.87E

33.8

IL 62362

4.61,211

40.92.3

4.637,691


0.88E

31.1

IL 64364

6.0168

0.03.0

6.07,557

Countly Line R

d. to Peplow

Rd.

0.22A

44.9

IL 64364

7.4248

0.03.7

7.411,141

Peplow

Rd. to IL 47

0.21A

45.0

IL 64364

8.2273

0.04.1

8.29,482

IL 47 to La Fox R

d.0.29

B34.7

IL 64364

7.5883

2.13.7

7.530,383

La Fox R

d. to Randall R

d.0.76

D34.4

IL 64364

2.5508

0.01.3

5.115,748

Randall R

d. to IL 310.84

E31.0

IL 64364

4.31,941

42.22.2

8.663,055

IL 31 to Kirk R

d.0.47

B32.5

IL 64364

3.91,572

32.02.0

7.853,896

Kirk R

d. to County Line

0.41B

34.3

IL 68368

1.6260

0.00.8

1.68,680

IL 72 to IL 250.60

C33.3

IL 68368

4.7883

5.82.3

4.729,866


0.62C

33.8

IL 72372

3.489

0.01.7

3.43,992

County Line to W

alker Rd.

0.22A

45.0

IL 72372

4.0156

0.02.0

4.07,042

Walker R

d. to State S

t.0.21

A45.0

Page 3-7

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

IL 72372

7.8454

0.03.9

7.820,422

State S

t. to US

200.36

B45.0

IL 72372

5.9319

0.03.0

5.914,380

US

20 to Big T

imber R

d.0.22

A45.1

IL 72372

4.4327

0.02.2

4.414,744

Big T

imber R

d. to Tyrrell R

d.0.32

B45.0

IL 72372

2.5211

0.01.3

2.59,476

Tyrrell R

d. to Randall R

d.0.53

C44.9

IL 72372

5.0431

0.02.5

5.014,662

Randall R

d. to IL 310.70

D34.0

IL 72372

1.6680

12.10.8

3.219,322

IL 31 to IL 680.74

D28.4

IL 72372

1.5293

2.10.8

1.59,896

IL 68 to IL 250.95

E33.7

IL 72372

4.01,700

33.62.0

7.763,215


0.59C

37.2

Page 3-8

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

Su

mm

ary by P

lann

ing

Partn

ership

Area (P

PA

)

05/08/2001 11:27:28 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte S

eg C

od

es)

1996 Base Y

ear

PP

AD

istance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Speed

Weighted

VC

LOS

Upper F

ox115.5

24,818482

57.7152

996,84540.17

0.68D

Greater E

lgin95.5

30,1391,058

47.8147

1,188,92739.45

0.77D

Tri-C

ities192.9

40,582603

96.5272

1,348,82433.24

0.61C

Aurora A

rea96.4

26,235799

48.2138

1,096,73741.80

0.60C

Cam

pton Hills

83.83,146

041.9

84116,762

37.120.30

B

Northw

est172.5

7,4923

86.3186

395,69852.82

0.41B

West C

entral207.6

9,8630

103.8245

521,13852.84

0.27A

Southw

est143.2

5,2362

71.6159

233,58344.61

0.28B

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\96e\YE

AR

96.txt

B-1

APPENDIX B

Locations Where Actual Crash FrequencyExceed Expected Crash Frequency

The following is a list of fifteen intersections with the percent difference between actual and expectedfrequency of crashes greater than two standard deviations above the mean.

Boyer Rd. and Huntley Rd.Burlington Rd. and Railroad St.Corron Rd. and Silver Glen Rd.E. Fabyan Pky and Kingsland Dr.E. Fabyan Pky. and Surrey Rd.Harter Rd. and Seavey Rd.Jericho Rd. and Jetter Rd.Lafox Rd. and Bridal Creek Dr.

Main St. and Green St.Marshall Rd. and Plank Rd.Mill St. and N. Randall Rd.Perry Rd. and W. County Line Rd.Plank Rd. and Lawrence Rd.Russell Rd. and Verona Dr.S. Randall Rd. and US 20 ramp/Weld Rd.

The following is a list of thirty-two intersections with the percent difference between actual andexpected frequency of crashes greater than one standard deviation above the mean.

Bowes Rd. and Corron Rd.Bowes Rd. and Hogan Hill.Coombs Rd. and Highland Ave.Corron Rd. and Sturbridge Rd.E. Main St. and Kirk Rd.E. Plank Rd. and Main St.Empire Rd. and Kings Wood Dr.Fargo Blvd. and Randall Rd.Gleneagle Dr. and S. Randall Rd.Harmony Rd. and Melms Rd.Huntley Rd. and Galligan Rd.Illinois Route 25 and Dunham Rd.Illinois Route 47 and Big Timber Rd.Jericho Rd. and Nelson Rd.Keslinger Rd. and Dauberman Rd.Keslinger Rd. and Meredith Rd.

Keslinger Rd. and Randall Rd.Main St. and W. Plank Rd.Main St. and S. Randall Rd.McDonald Rd. and Dittman Rd.Meredith Rd. and Winters Rd.Middleton Rd. and Peplow Rd.Montgomery Rd. and Douglans Ave.Montgomery Rd. and Hill Ave.Plato Rd. and Tower Rd.Randall Rd. and Illinois Route 72Romke Rd. and Burlington Rd.S. Randall Rd. and Illinois Route 38S. Randall Rd and W. Fabyan PkyUS 20 and Plank Rd.W. County Line Rd. and Illinois Route 38W. Main St. and Randall Rd.

The following is a list of sixteen segments representing 15 out of 307miles of the county highwaysystem with the percent difference between actual and expected frequency of crashes greater than twostandard deviations above the mean.

LOCATIONS WHERE ACTUAL CRASH FREQUENCY EXCEED EXPECTED CRASH FREQUENCY)

B-2

Name of Roadway Segment From To

Bartlett Rd Illinois Route 25 County Line

Bowes Rd Heatherington Pl Corron Rd

Bowes Rd Plato Rd Crawford Rd

Corron Rd Whispering Springs Rd Oak Tree Ln

Corron Rd Sturbridge Rd McDonald Rd

Corron Rd McDonald Rd Silver Glen Rd

Dittman Rd McDonald Rd Burlington Rd

E Fabyan Pky Surrey Rd Crissey Ave

E Fabyan Pky N Raddant Rd Surrey Rd

E Fabyan Pky S Kirk Rd Kingsland Dr

Jericho Rd Raymond Rd Jetter Rd

Jericho Rd Dugan Rd Raymond Rd

Keslinger Rd Dauberman Rd Meredith Rd

Lafox Rd Bridle Creek Dr Campton Hills Dr

Lees Rd N Main St I.C. Trl

Main Street Rd Swan Rd W County Line Rd

Montgomery Rd Hill Ave S Union St

Montgomery Rd S Union St 5th St

Plato Rd N Main St Pease Rd

Plato Rd Tower Rd Burlington Rd

Plato Rd Plato Rd & Pease Rd Tower Rd

Silver Glen Rd Randall Rd IL 31

Silver Glen Rd Weybridge Dr Briarwood Dr

The following is a list of 32 segments representing 28 out of 307 miles of the county highway systemwith the percent difference between actual and expected frequency of crashes greater than onestandard deviation above the mean.

LOCATIONS WHERE ACTUAL CRASH FREQUENCY EXCEED EXPECTED CRASH FREQUENCY)

B-3

Name of Roadway Segment From To

Allen Rd Walker Rd Harmony Rd

Allen Rd Ketchum Rd Widmayer Rd

Big Timber Rd Widmayer Rd Gast Rd

Big Timber Rd Ketchum Rd United States Highway 20

Big Timber Rd Manning Rd Powers Rd

Big Timber Rd Powers Rd Illinois Route 72

Bliss Rd Ke-de-Ka Rd Illinois Route 47

Bowes Rd Koshare Trl Hogan Hill

Bowes Rd S Water Rd Arrowmaker Pass

Burlington Rd Corron Rd Brown Rd

Corron Rd Silver Glen Rd Burlington Rd

E Fabyan Pky Kingsland Dr N Raddant Rd

E Fabyan Pky Paramount Pky County Line

E Plank Rd North St Main St

Harmony Rd Stoxen Rd Higgins Rd

Harmony Rd Stoxen Rd Stoxen Rd

Highland Ave McCornack Rd Coombs Rd

Hughes Rd Fabyan Pky Herrington Dr

Huntley Rd Huntley Rd County Line

Jericho Rd Mighell Rd Illinois Route 47

Jericho Rd Clark Rd Jones Rd

Jericho Rd Granart Rd Jones Rd

Jericho Rd Nelson Rd Price Rd

Main Street Rd Harter Rd Dauberman Rd

McGough Rd Middleton Rd Ramm Rd

Montgomery Rd 5th St Douglas Ave

N Kirk Rd Hubbard Ave N Kirk Rd

Peplow Rd Ellithorpe Rd Middleton Rd

Peplow Rd Middleton Rd Ramm Rd

Plank Rd Switzer Rd Russell Rd

Plank Rd Engel Rd Lawrence Rd

Plank Rd Engel Rd County Line

Plank Rd Waughon Rd Lawrence Rd

Randall Rd Illinois Route 72 Joy Ln

Randall Rd Dean St W Main St

S Randall Rd W Fabyan Pky Mill St

Swan Rd Lasher Rd Scott Rd

W Highland Ave Coombs Rd Stonehaven Dr

W Highland Ave Tina Ter Hilltop Rd

W Plank Rd Main St Waughon Rd

Appendix CFuture Transportation Summary

Fu

nctio

nal C

lass Su

mm

ary

05/08/2001 11:04:24 AM

(Su

mm

ary of A

LL

links)

Year 2020 M

od

el (VC

usin

g facto

red A

DT

values)

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Collector

1,084.068,564

6,050542.0

1,0871,896,045

47.9%47.9%

40.9%12.7%

16.0%16.0%

Expressw

ays and Principal A

rterials535.2

217,84219,878

267.6751

7,028,97423.6%

23.6%28.3%

47.0%50.7%

52.7%

Freew

ays and Ram

ps121.9

75,7615,755

61.0256

4,046,5545.4%

5.4%9.7%

27.1%17.6%

15.2%

Minor A

rterials522.0

67,2896,064

261.0561

1,970,67623.1%

23.1%21.1%

13.2%15.7%

16.1%

2,263.21,131.6

2,654.714,942,249.0

429,455.937,747.1

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Co

un

ty Ro

ad F

un

ction

al Class S

um

mary

05/08/2001 11:05:02 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte C

od

e < 110)

Year 2020 M

od

el (VC

usin

g facto

red A

DT

values)

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Collector

145.63,878

5572.8

146132,586

23.7%23.7%

20.8%4.3%

4.0%0.7%

Expressw

ays and Principal A

rterials103.4

65,9856,680

51.7190

2,041,37316.8%

16.8%27.2%

66.3%67.7%

86.6%

Minor A

rterials364.5

27,631978

182.3365

905,97759.4%

59.4%52.0%

29.4%28.3%

12.7%

613.5306.7

700.53,079,936.5

97,494.07,713.3

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Co

un

ty Ro

ad L

OS

Su

mm

ary

05/08/2001 11:05:27 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte C

od

e < 110)

Year 2020 M

od

el (VC

usin

g facto

red A

DT

values)

LOS

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

A228.5

3,6625

114.2228

125,43737.2%

37.2%32.6%

4.1%3.8%

0.1%

B98.5

7,99980

49.2105

285,31016.0%

16.0%14.9%

9.3%8.2%

1.0%

C37.9

1,72537

18.938

57,3966.2%

6.2%5.4%

1.9%1.8%

0.5%

D27.4

8,953673

13.740

289,3824.5%

4.5%5.8%

9.4%9.2%

8.7%

E50.8

11,413465

25.465

387,9448.3%

8.3%9.3%

12.6%11.7%

6.0%

F170.5

63,7436,452

85.2224

1,934,46627.8%

27.8%32.0%

62.8%65.4%

83.7%

613.5306.7

700.53,079,936.5

97,494.07,713.3

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Jurisd

iction

Su

mm

ary

05/08/2001 11:05:50 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte C

od

e)

Year 2020 M

od

el (VC

usin

g facto

red A

DT

values)

JurisdictionD

istance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Interstate93.7

64,6464,550

46.9211

3,545,8698.5%

8.5%14.9%

31.4%21.6%

18.9%

US

Highw

ay67.4

14,653690

33.776

593,1616.1%

6.1%5.4%

5.3%4.9%

2.9%

State H

ighway

330.1122,368

11,170165.0

4324,074,954

29.9%29.9%

30.4%36.1%

40.9%46.3%

County

613.597,494

7,713306.7

7003,079,936

55.5%55.5%

49.4%27.3%

32.6%32.0%

1,104.7552.4

1,419.311,293,919.9

299,161.024,123.7

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Su

mm

ary by L

evel of S

ervice

05/08/2001 11:06:21 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte S

eg C

od

es)

Year 2020 M

od

el (VC

usin

g facto

red A

DT

values)

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

A228.5

3,6625

114.2228

125,437

B143.1

17,680292

71.6171

754,951

C107.9

19,587483

53.9151

935,782

D97.1

40,5022,960

48.5143

1,515,367

E178.5

64,1254,649

89.3247

2,410,912

F352.4

154,99115,749

176.2485

5,624,053

1,107.4553.7

1,424.811,366,503.2

300,546.924,138.2

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Ro

ute S

um

mary

05/08/2001 11:29:47 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

a rou

te cod

e > 0)

Year 2020 M

od

el (VC

usin

g facto

red A

DT

values)

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Average S

peed(m

ph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

119.3

1040.0

9.619.3

3,65835.0

Burlington R

d.2

23.42,549

76.211.7

23.482,400

32.3

Allen R

d.3

5.4301

0.02.7

5.410,528

34.9

Perry R

d.4

17.7543

0.08.8

17.719,023

35.0

Silver G

len R.

516.0

1,17541.0

8.016.0

34,22729.1

Galligan R

d.6

6.2665

2.03.1

6.223,222

34.9

Dam

isch7

4.085

0.02.0

4.02,908

34.4

Fabyan P

kwy.

815.1

4,96891.3

7.622.9

171,80134.6

Main S

t.10

26.81,268

6.313.4

26.849,813

39.3

Peplow

Rd.

1117.7

3510.0

8.817.7

11,76533.5

Meredith R

d.14

10.6186

0.05.3

10.66,521

35.0

Healy R

d./Tanner R

d.15

8.5463

0.94.2

8.515,449

33.4

Bunker R

d.16

5.1309

0.02.6

5.110,840

35.0

Bow

es Rd.

1710.8

94811.5

5.410.8

28,10529.6

McLean R

d.18

1.5490

53.40.7

1.513,099

26.7

Durham

194.2

2,211423.4

2.14.2

58,99926.7

Arm

y Trail R

d.20

2.9631

20.21.4

2.918,330

29.0

Big T

imber R

d.21

23.63,094

90.411.8

23.6105,051

34.0

Plank R

d.22

17.9408

0.09.0

17.914,061

34.5

Thatcher R

d23

13.2223

0.06.6

13.27,795

35.0

Jericho Rd.

2426.3

1,7586.4

13.126.3

61,29134.9

Hughes R

d.26

9.9347

0.05.0

9.911,762

33.9

Sauber R

d./Lees Rd.

273.7

270.0

1.83.7

92935.0

McG

ough Rd.

2811.6

1680.0

5.811.6

5,83934.8

Montgom

ery Rd.

295.5

96625.2

2.85.5

28,22629.2

Huntley R

d.30

9.63,267

485.34.8

9.697,386

29.8

Plato R

d.32

8.6234

0.04.3

8.67,844

33.5

Russell R

d.33

7.2506

0.03.6

7.217,123

33.9

Randall R

d.34

50.742,657

5,411.125.3

100.01,284,729

30.1

Granart R

d.35

7.9696

2.04.0

7.924,302

34.9

State S

t.36

9.0182

0.04.5

9.05,854

32.2

Page 2-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Average S

peed(m

ph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Stearns R

d.37

2.9930

37.31.5

2.930,315

32.6

Plank R

d.38

5.774

0.02.9

5.72,589

34.9

Penny R

d.40

1.088

0.00.5

1.02,649

30.0

Keslinger R

d.41

27.01,047

2.813.5

27.041,179

39.3

Davis R

d.44

9.461

0.04.7

9.42,152

35.0

Allen R

d.45

6.034

0.03.0

6.01,195

35.1

Burlington R

d./Walker R

d.46

8.8161

0.04.4

8.85,297

32.9

Highland R

d.47

8.0931

42.04.0

8.031,075

33.4

Scott R

d.48

8.5138

0.04.2

8.54,848

35.0

Ellithorpe

499.4

860.0

4.79.4

3,00735.0

Dittm

an Rd.

516.8

800.0

3.46.8

2,38630.0

Manning R

d.52

1.375

0.00.6

1.32,605

34.9

Ram

m R

d.56

11.6107

0.05.8

11.63,763

35.0

Tyrrell R

d.59

4.3530

7.92.1

4.318,306

34.6

West B

artlett Rd.

612.2

69777.8

1.12.2

18,58526.7

Dauberm

an Rd.

6216.0

2340.0

8.016.0

8,17935.0

Em

pire Rd.

696.7

1330.0

3.36.7

3,99530.0

Mooseheart R

d.71

2.0545

38.11.0

2.015,199

27.9

Kirk R

d.77

19.311,325

716.29.7

34.3354,499

31.3

Bliss R

d78

10.21,122

5.35.1

10.244,572

39.7

Corron R

d.80

8.0434

0.04.0

8.014,086

32.5

LaFox R

d.81

9.9538

0.04.9

9.917,007

31.6

Orchard R

d.83

14.94,642

22.17.5

29.9165,118

35.6

Kaneville R

d/Peck R

d.84

5.7912

11.12.8

5.729,118

31.9

Galena R

d.101

3.5319

5.31.8

3.511,005

34.5

Lake Cook R

d.102

4.2398

1.02.1

4.211,918

29.9

Haegers B

end Rd.

1030.4

710.0

0.20.4

2,40834.1

Interstate 88188

57.329,807

1,122.028.6

125.31,680,553

56.4

Interstate 90190

36.534,839

3,428.118.2

85.91,865,316

53.5

US

20220

36.39,744

313.818.2

46.3433,420

44.5

US

30230

31.85,094

99.615.9

33.1203,239

39.9

US

34234

2.11,200

291.01.1

2.129,085

24.2

IL 19319

1.2517

4.60.6

2.416,890

32.7

IL 25325

63.730,170

3,732.231.8

79.9898,039

29.8

Page 2-2

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Average S

peed(m

ph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

IL 31331

64.731,447

2,914.632.4

101.8953,278

30.3

IL 38338

36.810,047

565.318.4

46.5351,849

35.0

IL 47347

56.418,827

1,494.528.2

68.0735,488

39.1

IL 56356

14.64,114

46.07.3

22.3217,496

52.9

IL 58358

1.1376

3.90.5

2.112,321

32.8

IL 62362

5.42,291

229.02.7

6.267,677

29.5

IL 64364

39.810,757

925.419.9

50.6340,791

31.7

IL 68368

6.31,737

55.73.2

6.356,906

32.8

IL 72372

40.112,084

1,199.320.1

45.4424,220

35.1

Page 2-3

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Ro

ute-S

egm

ent S

um

mary

05/08/2001 11:30:10 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

a rou

te cod

e > 0)

Year 2020 M

od

el (VC

usin

g facto

red A

DT

values)

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

14.1

70.0

2.04.1

255M

ain St. (C

H 10) to P

erry Rd. (C

H 4)

0.11A

35.0

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

14.0

90.0

2.04.0

329P

erry Rd. (C

H 4) to K

eslinger Rd. (C

H 41)

0.09A

35.0

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

12.7

50.0

1.42.7

174K

eslinger Rd. (C

H 41) to IL 38

0.17A

35.1

W. C

ounty Line Rd.

18.5

830.0

4.38.5

2,900T

hatcher Rd. (C

H 23) to IL 64

0.21A

35.0

Burlington R

d.2

8.2284

0.04.1

8.29,361

Peplow

Rd. (C

H 11) to E

llithorpe Rd. (C

H 49)

0.21A

33.0

Burlington R

d.2

3.8139

0.01.9

3.84,867

Ellithorpe R

d. (CH

49) to IL 470.23

A35.0

Burlington R

d.2

4.6701

8.12.3

4.624,207

IL 47 to Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5)

0.69D

34.6

Burlington R

d.2

4.0872

29.42.0

4.025,938

Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5) to LaF

ox Rd. (C

H 81)

1.02F

29.7

Burlington R

d.2

2.7554

38.81.4

2.718,026

LaFox R

d. (CH

81) to IL 641.52

F32.6

Allen R

d.3

5.4301

0.02.7

5.410,528

State S

t. (CH

36) to US

200.40

B34.9

Perry R

d.4

8.040

0.04.0

8.01,395

W. C

ounty Line Rd. (C

H 1) to M

ain St. (C

H 10)

0.15A

34.8

Harter R

d.4

7.4359

0.03.7

7.412,583

Main S

t. (CH

10) to Scott R

d. (CH

48)0.36

B35.0

Harter R

d.4

2.3144

0.01.1

2.35,045

Scott R

d. (CH

48) to IL 470.42

B35.0

Silver G

len R.

54.5

790.0

2.34.5

2,573IL 47 to B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2)

0.15A

32.8

Silver G

len R.

53.0

750.0

1.53.0

2,243B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2) to C

orron Rd. (C

H 80)

0.15A

30.0

Silver G

len R.

56.7

5486.4

3.46.7

16,237C

orron Rd. (C

H 80) to R

andall Rd. (C

H 34)

1.12F

29.6

Silver G

len R.

51.8

47434.5

0.91.8

13,174R

andall Rd. (C

H 34) to IL 31

0.39B

27.8

Galligan R

d.6

6.2665

2.03.1

6.223,222

IL 72 to Huntly R

d. (CH

30)3.04

F34.9

Dam

isch7

1.722

0.00.8

1.7716

US

20 to Highland A

ve. ( CH

47)0.25

A32.8

Dam

isch7

2.363

0.01.2

2.32,193

Highland A

ve. (CH

47) to Big T

imber R

d. (CH

210.35

B34.9

Fabyan P

kwy.

84.2

82021.5

2.14.2

26,496M

ain St. (C

H 10) to K

aneville Rd. (C

H 84)

1.42F

32.3

Fabyan P

kwy.

83.2

4700.0

1.63.2

15,908K

aneville Rd. (C

H 84) to R

andall Rd. (C

H 34)

1.95F

33.9

Fabyan P

kwy.

82.8

9580.0

1.45.6

31,584R

andall Rd. (C

H 34) to IL 31

0.94E

33.0

Fabyan P

kwy.

83.6

2,00647.5

1.87.2

66,588IL 31 to K

irk Rd. (C

H 77)

0.98E

33.2

Fabyan P

kwy.

81.4

71422.3

0.72.8

31,225K

irk Rd. (C

H 77) to C

ounty Line0.47

B43.8

Main S

t.10

2.06

0.01.0

2.0193

W. C

ounty Line Rd. (C

H 1) to S

wan R

d. (CH

44)0.08

A35.1

Main S

t.10

5.979

0.03.0

5.92,869

Sw

an Rd. (C

H 44) to H

arter Rd. (C

H 4)

0.12A

36.5

Main S

t.10

5.7108

0.02.8

5.74,332

Harter R

d. (CH

4) to IL 470.19

A40.0

Main S

t.10

6.9492

2.53.4

6.919,260

IL 47 to Fabyan P

kwy (C

H 8)

0.88E

39.1

Main S

t.10

6.3583

3.73.2

6.323,159

Fabyan P

kwy (C

H 8) to R

andall Rd (C

H 34)

1.44F

39.7

Peplow

Rd.

113.3

310.0

1.63.3

1,089IL 64 to R

amm

Rd. (C

H 56)

0.07A

35.0

Page 3-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

Peplow

Rd.

114.0

440.0

2.04.0

1,551R

amm

Rd. (C

H 56) to E

llithorpe Rd (C

H 49)

0.08A

35.0

Peplow

Rd.

113.5

420.0

1.83.5

1,481E

llithorpe Rd. (C

H 49) to M

cGough R

d. (CH

28)0.11

A35.0

Peplow

Rd.

112.2

230.0

1.12.2

685M

cGough R

d. (Ch 28) to B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2)

0.19A

30.0

French R

d.11

4.7211

0.02.4

4.76,959

Burlington R

d. (CH

46) to IL 720.46

B33.0

Meredith R

d.14

2.130

0.01.1

2.11,031

Keslinger R

d. (CH

41) to IL 380.22

A35.0

Meredith R

d.14

4.237

0.02.1

4.21,305

IL 38 to Beith R

d. (CH

23)0.10

A35.0

Meredith R

d.14

4.3120

0.02.1

4.34,184

Beith R

d. (CH

23) to I.C. T

rail (CH

27)0.22

A35.0

Healy R

d./Tanner R

d.15

6.2325

0.93.1

6.211,313

Bliss R

d. (CH

78) to Orchard R

d. (CH

83)0.82

E34.8

Oak S

t.15

2.3138

0.01.1

2.34,136

Orchard R

d. (CH

83) to Randall R

d (CH

83)0.97

E30.0

Bunker R

d.16

2.4167

0.01.2

2.45,848

Main S

t. (CH

10) to Hughes R

d. (CH

26)0.72

D35.1

Bunker R

d.16

2.7143

0.01.4

2.74,993

Hughes R

d. (CH

26) to Keslinger (C

H 41)

1.14F

35.0

Bow

es Rd.

172.2

620.0

1.12.2

1,852M

uirhead Rd. (C

H 32) to C

orron Rd. (C

h 80)1.08

F30.0

Bow

es Rd.

176.4

4601.4

3.26.4

13,757C

orron Rd. (C

H 80) to R

andall Rd. (C

H 34)

1.86F

29.9

Bow

es Rd.

172.1

42710.1

1.12.1

12,495R

andall Rd. (C

H 34) to M

cLean Rd. (C

H 18)

1.79F

29.3

McLean R

d.18

1.5490

53.40.7

1.513,099

Hopps R

d./Spring S

t. to Bow

es Rd. (C

H 17)

2.30F

26.7

Durham

194.2

2,211423.4

2.14.2

58,999A

rmy T

rail Rd. (C

H 20) to IL 25

0.76D

26.7

Arm

y Trail R

d.20

2.9631

20.21.4

2.918,330

Durham

Rd. (C

H 19) to C

ounty Line1.33

F29.0

Big T

imber R

d.21

5.9110

0.03.0

5.93,859

Harm

ony Rd. (C

H 36) to U

S 20

0.19A

35.0

Big T

imber R

d.21

5.6748

32.22.8

5.625,083

US

20 to IL 472.90

F33.5

Big T

imber R

d.21

3.7790

29.01.9

3.726,610

IL 47 to IL 721.88

F33.7

Big T

imber R

d.21

6.21,087

25.33.1

6.237,075

IL 72 to Tyrell R

d. (CH

59)1.75

F34.1

Big T

imber R

d.21

2.1358

3.91.1

2.112,425

Tyrell R

d. (CH

59) to Randall R

d. (CH

34)2.73

F34.7

Plank R

d.22

8.7147

0.04.4

8.74,900

Burlington R

d. (CH

46) to IL 470.59

C33.4

Plank R

d.22

9.2261

0.04.6

9.29,161

IL 47 to US

200.53

C35.1

Thatcher R

d23

7.0132

0.03.5

7.04,608

County Line to M

eredith Rd. (C

H 14)

0.08A

35.0

Beith R

d.23

6.191

0.03.1

6.13,187

Meredith R

d. (CH

14) to IL 470.06

A35.0

Jericho Rd.

247.8

1130.0

3.97.8

3,969U

S 30 to G

ranart Rd. (C

H 35)

0.29B

35.0

Jericho Rd.

2411.0

7031.8

5.511.0

24,547G

ranart Rd. (C

H 35) to U

S 30/IL 47

0.32B

34.9

Jericho Rd.

247.5

9424.6

3.77.5

32,775U

S 30/IL 47 to O

rchard Rd. (C

H 83)

0.33B

34.8

Hughes R

d.26

6.6271

0.03.3

6.69,096

IL 47 to Bunker R

d. (CH

16)0.44

B33.6

Hughes R

d.26

3.376

0.01.7

3.32,665

Bunker R

d. (CH

16) to Fabyan P

kwy. (C

H 8)

0.42B

35.0

Sauber R

d./Lees Rd.

273.7

270.0

1.83.7

929IL 64 to IL 47

0.09A

35.0

McG

ough Rd.

281.8

170.0

0.91.8

582IL 64 to R

amm

Rd. (C

H 56)

0.18A

35.0

McG

ough Rd.

284.2

700.0

2.14.2

2,453R

amm

Rd. (C

H 56) to E

llithorpe Rd (C

H 49)

0.05A

35.0

Page 3-2

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

McG

ough Rd.

285.6

810.0

2.85.6

2,804E

llithorpe Rd. (C

H 49) to P

eplow R

d. (CH

11)0.06

A34.6

Montgom

ery Rd.

295.5

96625.2

2.85.5

28,226IL 25 to H

ill Ave.

1.16F

29.2

Huntley R

d.30

1.7363

11.80.9

1.712,290

County Line to G

alligan Rd. (C

H 6)

1.43F

33.9

Huntley R

d.30

5.31,883

284.62.6

5.355,918

Galligan R

d. (CH

6) to Randall R

d. (CH

34)1.63

F29.7

Huntley R

d.30

2.61,022

189.01.3

2.629,178

Randall R

d. (CH

34) to Sleepy H

ollow R

d.1.32

F28.5

Plato R

d.32

3.333

0.01.6

3.31,164

Burlington R

d. (CH

2) to IL 470.24

A35.0

Plato R

d.32

3.5159

0.01.7

3.55,427

IL 47 to Rippburger R

d. (CH

33)0.30

B34.2

Plato R

d.32

1.942

0.00.9

1.91,253

Rippburger R

d. (CH

33) to Bow

es Rd. (C

H 17)

0.47C

30.0

Russell R

d.33

7.2506

0.03.6

7.217,123

Plato R

d. (Ch 32) to P

lank Rd. (C

H 22)

0.40B

33.9

Randall R

d.34

4.22,085

189.32.1

7.075,578

Sullivan R

d. to Orchard R

d. (CH

83)0.68

D36.3

Randall R

d.34

4.02,914

241.42.0

8.0106,721

Orchard R

d. (CH

83) to Main S

t. (CH

10)0.91

E36.6

Randall R

d.34

5.04,532

723.52.5

10.0122,054

Main S

t. (CH

10) to Keslinger R

d. (CH

41)1.47

F26.9

Randall R

d.34

4.13,942

783.12.0

8.2100,959

Keslinger R

d. (CH

41) to IL 641.55

F25.6

Randall R

d.34

7.96,628

601.33.9

15.7204,779

IL 64 to Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5)

1.33F

30.9

Randall R

d.34

5.15,379

827.22.6

10.3153,572

Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5) to B

owes R

d. (CH

17)1.76

F28.6

Randall R

d.34

3.13,805

825.91.5

6.299,045

Bow

es Rd. (C

H 17) to U

S 20

2.83F

26.0

Randall R

d.34

5.04,978

745.22.5

10.1148,478

US

20 to Big T

imber R

d. (CH

21)2.09

F29.8

Randall R

d.34

2.51,853

137.41.3

5.060,113

Big T

imber R

d. (CH

21) to I 901.22

F32.4

Randall R

d.34

2.82,211

169.51.4

5.771,583

I 90 to IL 721.01

F32.4

Randall R

d.34

3.02,104

114.51.5

6.067,886

IL 72 to Huntley R

d. (CH

30)1.18

F32.3

Randall R

d.34

4.02,227

52.72.0

8.073,962

Huntley R

d. (CH

30) to County Line

0.92E

33.2

Granart R

d.35

4.7537

2.02.3

4.718,713

Galena R

d. to Jericho Rd. (C

H 24)

0.41B

34.9

Rhodes S

t.35

3.2159

0.01.6

3.25,589

Jericho Rd. (C

H 24) to U

S 30

0.35B

35.0

State S

t.36

2.651

0.01.3

2.61,286

IL 72 to Allen R

d. (CH

45)0.66

C25.0

Harm

ony Rd.

364.0

780.0

2.04.0

2,734A

llen Rd. (C

H 45) to B

ig Tim

ber Rd. (C

H 21)

0.21A

35.1

Harm

ony Rd.

362.4

520.0

1.22.4

1,835B

ig Tim

ber Rd. (C

H 21) to C

ounty Line0.15

A35.0

Stearns R

d.37

2.9930

37.31.5

2.930,315

Durham

Rd. (C

H 19) to C

ounty Line0.61

C32.6

Plank R

d.38

5.774

0.02.9

5.72,589

County Line to B

urlington Rd. (C

H 46)

0.43B

34.9

Penny R

d.40

1.088

0.00.5

1.02,649


0.46B

30.0

Keslinger R

d.41

6.718

0.03.4

6.7710

W. C

ounty Line Rd. (C

H 1) to M

eredith Rd. (C

H

0.19A

39.9

Keslinger R

d.41

6.6140

0.03.3

6.65,592

Meredith R

d. (CH

14) to IL 470.54

C39.9

Keslinger R

d.41

6.5298

0.03.3

6.511,356

IL 47 to LaFox R

d. (CH

81)0.91

E38.2

Keslinger R

d.41

5.1328

0.02.6

5.113,104

LaFox R

d. (CH

81) to Kaneville R

d. (CH

84)1.12

F39.9

Keslinger R

d.41

2.0263

2.81.0

2.010,417

Kaneville R

d. (CH

84) to Randall R

d. (CH

34)1.31

F39.6

Page 3-3

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

Davis R

d.44

3.520

0.01.8

3.5697

US

30 to Scott R

d. (CH

48)0.05

A35.0

Sw

an Rd.

445.9

420.0

3.05.9

1,455S

cott Rd. (C

H 48) to M

ain St. (C

H 10)

0.04A

35.0

Allen R

d.45

1.92

0.01.0

1.956

County Line to W

alker Rd. (C

H 46)

0.11A

34.9

Allen R

d.45

4.032

0.02.0

4.01,139

Walker R

d. (CH

46) to State S

t. (CH

36)0.13

A35.1

Burlington R

d./Walker

465.7

1060.0

2.95.7

3,390P

lank Rd. (C

H 38) to IL 72)

0.27A

31.9

Walker R

d.46

3.055

0.01.5

3.01,908

IL 72 to Allen R

d. (CH

45)0.08

A34.9

Highland R

d.47

8.0931

42.04.0

8.031,075

Dam

isch Rd. (C

H 7) to R

andall Rd. (C

H 34)

0.86E

33.4

Scott R

d.48

2.732

0.01.4

2.71,114

Davis R

d. (CH

44) to Dauberm

an Rd. (C

H 62)

0.05A

35.0

Scott R

d.48

5.7107

0.02.9

5.73,734

Dauberm

an Rd. (C

H 62) to H

arter Rd. (C

H 4)

0.07A

35.0

Ellithorpe

493.4

190.0

1.73.4

666M

cGough R

d. (CH

28) to Peplow

Rd. (C

H 11)

0.02A

35.0

Ellithorpe

496.0

670.0

3.06.0

2,341P

eplow R

d. (CH

11) to Burlington R

d. (CH

2)0.04

A35.0

Dittm

an Rd.

516.8

800.0

3.46.8

2,386B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2) to P

lato Rd. (C

H 32)

0.06A

30.0

Manning R

d.52

1.375

0.00.6

1.32,605

Big T

imber R

d. (CH

21) to IL 470.38

B34.9

Ram

m R

d.56

4.530

0.02.3

4.51,042

McG

ough Rd. (C

H 28) to P

eplow R

d. (CH

11)0.16

A35.1

Ram

m R

d.56

7.178

0.03.5

7.12,721

Peplow

Rd. (C

H 11) to IL 47

0.15A

35.0

Tyrrell R

d.59

4.3530

7.92.1

4.318,306

Big T

imber R

d. (CH

21) to IL 722.10

F34.6

West B

artlett Rd.

612.2

69777.8

1.12.2

18,585IL 25 to C

ounty Line0.87

E26.7

Dauberm

an Rd.

624.0

810.0

2.04.0

2,833U

S 30 to S

cott Rd. (C

H 48)

0.12A

35.0

Dauberm

an Rd.

626.4

1060.0

3.26.4

3,717S

cott Rd. (C

H 48) to H

arter Rd. (C

H 4)

0.14A

35.0

Dauberm

an Rd.

625.6

470.0

2.85.6

1,630H

arter Rd. (C

H 4) to K

eslinger Rd. (C

H 41)

0.19A

35.0

Em

pire Rd.

696.7

1330.0

3.46.7

3,995IL 47 to B

urlington Rd. (C

H 2)

0.17A

30.0

Mooseheart R

d.71

2.0545

38.11.0

2.015,199

Randall R

d. (CH

34) to IL 310.72

D27.9

Kirk R

d.77

7.75,567

348.03.8

15.4172,206

IL 56 to Fabyan P

kwy. (C

H 8)

1.03F

30.9

Kirk R

d.77

2.41,495

55.91.2

4.847,296

Fabyan P

kwy. (C

H 8) to IL 38

1.11F

31.6

Kirk R

d.77

4.92,371

77.02.4

9.880,342

IL 38 to IL 641.01

F33.9

Kirk R

d.77

4.31,893

235.32.2

4.354,655

IL 64 to Arm

y Trail R

d. (CH

20)1.22

F28.9

Bliss R

d78

4.7453

1.42.4

4.718,030

IL 47 to Healy R

d. (CH

15)1.58

F39.8

Bliss R

d78

5.5669

3.92.7

5.526,542

Healy R

d. (CH

15) to Main S

t. (CH

10)1.64

F39.7

Corron R

d.80

2.696

0.01.3

2.62,875

Burlington R

d. (CH

10) to Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5)

0.60C

30.0

Corron R

d.80

5.4338

0.02.7

5.411,211

Silver G

len Rd. (C

H 5) to B

owes R

d. (CH

17)0.11

A33.2

LaFox R

d.81

3.458

0.01.7

3.42,013

Keslinger R

d. (CH

41) to IL 380.55

C35.0

LaFox R

d.81

4.4427

0.02.2

4.413,364

IL 38 to IL 640.96

E31.3

LaFox R

d.81

2.154

0.01.0

2.11,630


d. (CH

2)0.38

B30.0

Orchard R

d.83

0.9202

0.00.5

1.86,901

US

30 to Jericho Rd. (C

H 24)

0.68D

34.2

Page 3-4

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

Orchard R

d.83

9.23,043

14.34.6

18.4102,650

Jericho Rd. (C

H 24) to I 88

0.72D

33.7

Orchard R

d.83

4.81,397

7.82.4

9.755,567

I 88 to Randall R

d.0.38

B39.8

Kaneville R

d/Peck R

d.84

2.9509

7.41.5

2.916,251

Fabyan P

kwy. (C

H 8) to K

eslinger Rd. (C

H 41)

0.37B

31.9

Peck R

d.84

2.7403

3.81.4

2.712,867

Keslinger R

d. (CH

41) to IL 384.65

F31.9

Galena R

d.101

3.5319

5.31.8

3.511,005

Granart R

d. (CH

35) to Jones Rd.

0.27A

34.5

Lake Cook R

d.102

4.2398

1.02.1

4.211,918


1.29F

29.9

Haegers B

end Rd.

1030.4

710.0

0.20.4

2,408IL 25/IL 62 to C

ounty Line0.33

B34.1

Interstate 88188

29.48,100

14.814.7

58.9521,987


0.51C

64.4

Interstate 88188

8.32,206

2.74.2

16.6136,446

IL 47 to IL 560.43

B61.9

Interstate 88188

2.51,709

54.81.3

5.091,237

IL 56 to Orchard R

d.0.81

E53.4

Interstate 88188

4.43,406

163.02.2

8.8178,280

Orchard R

d. to IL 311.09

F52.3

Interstate 88188

4.64,268

212.62.3

11.8222,962

IL 31 to Farnsw

orth Ave.

1.05F

52.2

Interstate 88188

8.110,118

674.14.0

24.2529,641

Farnsw

orth Ave. to C

ounty Line0.66

D52.3

Interstate 90190

4.11,711

13.82.0

8.1110,246

County Line to U

S 20

0.87E

64.4

Interstate 90190

9.04,567

91.24.5

18.1291,112

US

20 to IL 470.85

E63.7

Interstate 90190

10.411,685

1,984.55.2

20.7601,731

IL 47 to Randall R

d.1.38

F51.5

Interstate 90190

5.35,536

211.32.6

15.8295,236

Randall R

d. to IL 311.20

F53.3

Interstate 90190

3.54,918

441.51.8

10.6250,274

IL 31 to IL 251.33

F50.9

Interstate 90190

4.26,421

685.92.1

12.5316,716


1.21F

49.3

US

20220

0.9159

2.80.4

0.97,086

County Line to Interstate 90

0.67D

44.5

US

20220

4.7767

2.52.4

4.734,385

Interstate 90 to Big T

imber R

d.1.11

F44.9

US

20220

6.31,116

14.53.1

6.349,588

Big T

imber R

d to IL 471.22

F44.5

US

20220

0.9411

6.80.4

1.818,070

IL 47 to to IL 721.32

F44.0

US

20220

5.5694

0.02.8

5.528,538

IL 72 to Reinking R

d.2.06

F41.1

US

20220

5.0650

1.82.5

5.026,297

Reinking R

d. to Plank R

d.1.83

F40.5

US

20220

4.21,809

252.92.1

4.452,534

Plank R

d. to Randall R

d.2.63

F29.0

US

20220

2.81,182

7.11.4

5.661,915

Randall R

d. to McLean B

lvd.1.33

F52.4

US

20220

2.71,386

14.51.4

5.572,583

McLean B

lvd. to IL 310.91

E52.4

US

20220

1.6881

10.90.8

3.346,006

IL 31 to IL 250.98

E52.2

US

20220

1.7690

0.00.8

3.436,419


0.61C

52.8

US

30230

5.2225

0.02.6

5.210,114

County Line to D

avis Rd.

0.51C

45.0

US

30230

2.5203

0.01.3

2.59,133

Davis R

d. to Dauberm

an Rd.

0.53C

45.1

US

30230

8.61,653

68.14.3

8.671,305

Dauberm

an Rd. to IL 56

0.99E

43.1

US

30230

5.61,256

12.42.8

6.942,563

IL 56 to Base Line R

d.1.30

F33.9

Page 3-5

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

US

30230

7.11,006

2.23.6

7.145,140

Base Line R

d. to Orchard R

d.0.88

E44.9

US

30230

2.7752

17.01.4

2.724,983

Orchard R

d. to IL 310.92

E33.2

US

34234

2.11,200

291.01.1

2.129,085

County Line to C

ounty Line2.16

F24.2

IL 19319

1.2517

4.60.6

2.416,890


0.69D

32.7

IL 25325

5.71,756

94.12.8

6.053,671

County Line to G

alena Blvd

0.49C

30.6

IL 25325

7.52,686

198.03.8

9.683,033

Galena B

lvd to IL 560.73

D30.9

IL 25325

8.42,331

110.84.2

8.471,425

IL 56 to Fabyan P

kwy.

0.86E

30.6

IL 25325

2.91,226

163.01.5

2.934,129

Fabyan P

kwy to IL 38

0.99E

27.8

IL 25325

4.01,758

274.72.0

4.047,930

IL 38 to IL 642.02

F27.3

IL 25325

10.84,319

363.45.4

10.8133,446

Il 64 to Dunham

Rd.

0.68D

30.9

IL 25325

5.44,118

1,370.02.7

5.489,325

Dunham

Rd. to U

S 20

0.94E

21.7

IL 25325

3.91,938

282.61.9

3.954,605

US

20 to IL 580.88

E28.2

IL 25325

3.02,189

330.41.5

4.860,012

IL 58 to Interstate 901.22

F27.4

IL 25325

4.12,404

124.32.1

8.379,415


E33.0

IL 25325

1.51,147

92.50.8

3.042,184

IL 72 to IL 680.91

E36.8

IL 25325

6.54,297

328.33.2

12.9148,863

IL 68 to IL 620.48

C34.6

IL 31331

5.51,377

8.52.8

10.443,589

County Iine to G

alena Blvd.

0.57C

31.7

IL 31331

5.32,781

124.72.7

10.690,516

Galena B


D32.5

IL 31331

9.84,820

259.84.9

19.3148,153

Interstate 88 to Fabyan P

kwy.

0.98E

30.7

IL 31331

3.5942

7.71.7

5.829,923

Fabyan P

kwy. to IL 38

1.04F

31.8

IL 31331

3.71,148

77.41.9

3.733,448

IL 38 to IL 640.79

D29.1

IL 31331

7.93,833

192.23.9

13.2119,031

IL 64 to Silver G

len Rd.

0.45B

31.1

IL 31331

9.34,428

614.14.7

9.3129,392

Silver G

len Rd. to U

S 20

0.80E

29.2

IL 31331

2.71,477

388.61.4

2.735,234

US

20 to Kim

ball St.

1.11F

23.9

IL 31331

3.73,633

748.21.9

7.495,259

Kim

ball St. to Interstate 90

1.26F

26.2

IL 31331

4.73,299

236.02.3

9.3107,287


E32.5

IL 31331

8.53,708

257.44.3

10.0121,448


1.41F

32.8

IL 38338

6.8562

0.03.4

6.825,295

Countly Line R

d. to Meredith R

d.0.50

C45.0

IL 38338

6.8652

0.03.4

6.829,316

Meredith R

d. to IL 470.57

C45.0

IL 38338

6.51,099

12.73.3

6.546,403

IL 47 to La Fox R

d.0.98

E42.2

IL 38338

5.21,143

23.12.6

5.250,377

La Fox R

d. to Peck R

d.0.99

E44.1

IL 38338

1.9734

80.31.0

1.929,479

Peck R

d. to Randall R

d.1.14

F40.2

IL 38338

4.32,275

113.72.1

8.567,248

Randall R

d. to IL 311.49

F29.6

IL 38338

2.92,321

298.31.5

5.863,489

IL 31 to Kirk R

d.1.41

F27.4

Page 3-6

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

IL 38338

2.51,261

37.21.3

5.040,241

Kirk R

d. to County Line

0.98E

31.9

IL 47347

2.1590

7.21.1

4.220,197

US

30 to Bliss R

d.1.57

F34.2

IL 47347

2.7570

0.01.4

5.425,655

Bliss R

d. to Harter R

d.1.41

F45.0

IL 47347

3.8704

9.31.9

6.131,345

Harter R

d. to Interstate 880.91

E44.5

IL 47347

3.3805

16.41.6

3.331,477

Interstate 88 to Main S

t.1.03

F39.1

IL 47347

5.81,467

26.02.9

5.848,931

Main S

t. to Keslinger R

d.1.11

F33.3

IL 47347

3.01,008

75.61.5

3.029,732

Keslinger R

d. to IL 381.49

F29.5

IL 47347

3.2779

21.51.6

3.234,047

IL 38 to Beith R

d.1.00

F43.7

IL 47347

2.0627

44.21.0

2.023,876

Beith R

d. to IL 640.76

D38.1

IL 47347

7.02,328

177.23.5

7.093,109


d.0.90

E40.0

IL 47347

4.72,220

381.62.4

4.782,723

Burlington R

d. to Plato R

d.1.11

F37.3

IL 47347

4.92,137

314.92.5

4.981,903

Plato R

d. to Plank R

d.1.15

F38.3

IL 47347

3.91,615

206.22.0

3.963,294

Plank R

d. to US

201.02

F39.2

IL 47347

5.41,574

106.42.7

5.465,926

US

20 to Interstate 901.22

F41.9

IL 47347

4.62,403

107.92.3

9.1103,273

Interstate 90 to County Line

0.88E

43.0

IL 56356

3.41,243

10.11.7

6.980,024

US

30 to Galena B

lvd.0.39

B64.4

IL 56356

4.31,331

6.72.1

8.686,090

Galena B


B64.7

IL 56356

0.6186

6.90.3

0.66,156

IL 31 to IL 251.45

F33.0

IL 56356

4.3848

9.72.2

4.328,449

IL 25 to Kirk R

d.1.33

F33.5

IL 56356

1.9506

12.70.9

1.916,777

Kirk R

d. to County Line

1.32F

33.2

IL 58358

1.1376

3.90.5

2.112,321


0.80E

32.8

IL 62362

0.8516

38.10.4

1.616,627


1.14F

32.2

IL 62362

4.61,775

190.92.3

4.651,049


1.19F

28.8

IL 64364

6.0243

0.03.0

6.010,913

Countly Line R

d. to Peplow

Rd.

0.32B

44.9

IL 64364

7.4404

0.03.7

7.418,179

Peplow

Rd. to IL 47

0.34B

45.0

IL 64364

8.2698

0.04.1

8.224,408

IL 47 to La Fox R

d.0.73

D35.0

IL 64364

7.51,971

123.43.7

7.563,898

La Fox R

d. to Randall R

d.1.63

F32.4

IL 64364

2.5912

12.31.3

5.127,975

Randall R

d. to IL 311.50

F30.7

IL 64364

4.33,519

453.82.2

8.6101,806

IL 31 to Kirk R

d.0.75

D28.9

IL 64364

3.93,010

335.92.0

7.893,611

Kirk R

d. to County Line

0.73D

31.1

IL 68368

1.6507

21.10.8

1.616,192

IL 72 to IL 251.13

F31.9

IL 68368

4.71,230

34.62.3

4.740,713


0.85E

33.1

IL 72372

3.4130

0.01.7

3.45,839

County Line to W

alker Rd.

0.33B

45.0

IL 72372

4.0292

0.02.0

4.013,120

Walker R

d. to State S

t.0.40

B45.0

Page 3-7

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Route

Distance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

TA

vg Speed

(mph)

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Wgted V

/CS

egment D

escriptionLO

S

IL 72372

7.8939

0.03.9

7.842,233

State S

t. to US

200.75

D45.0

IL 72372

5.91,028

8.13.0

5.945,990

US

20 to Big T

imber R

d.0.71

D44.7

IL 72372

4.41,553

147.22.2

4.463,327

Big T

imber R

d. to Tyrrell R

d.1.33

F40.8

IL 72372

2.5930

95.11.3

2.537,505

Tyrrell R

d. to Randall R

d.2.09

F40.3

IL 72372

5.01,852

117.02.5

5.059,054

Randall R

d. to IL 312.76

F31.9

IL 72372

1.61,921

522.80.8

3.240,441

IL 31 to IL 681.55

F21.1

IL 72372

1.5647

56.40.8

1.520,057

IL 68 to IL 251.92

F31.0

IL 72372

4.02,793

252.82.0

7.796,654


0.90E

34.6

Page 3-8

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

Su

mm

ary by P

lann

ing

Partn

ership

Area (P

PA

)

05/08/2001 11:07:42 AM

(Su

mm

ary of lin

ks with

Rte S

eg C

od

es)

Year 2020 M

od

el (VC

usin

g facto

red A

DT

values)

PP

AD

istance(m

iles)Lane M

iles(m

iles)S

um of

VM

TS

um of

VH

DS

um of

VH

T

Approxim

ate R

oute Miles

(miles)

Speed

Weighted

VC

LOS

Upper F

ox115.5

53,2095,277

57.7159

1,995,40737.50

1.29F

Greater E

lgin95.5

65,2808,534

47.8160

2,321,05335.56

1.34F

Tri-C

ities192.9

77,3886,280

96.5272

2,411,16931.16

1.09F

Aurora A

rea96.4

42,9412,315

48.2159

1,785,57841.58

0.83E

Cam

pton Hills

83.810,151

79341.9

84355,760

35.050.99

E

Northw

est172.5

17,859432

86.3186

871,46548.80

0.96E

West C

entral207.6

21,956381

103.8245

1,104,40350.30

0.62C

Southw

est143.2

11,763126

71.6159

521,66944.35

0.71D

Page 1-1

J:\161525-KaneC

ounty\20e\growth\G

RO

W96_B

AS

E.txt

kane county transportation planning area...

Documents