TRAFFIC VOLUME WATCH....June 2007......Valley View 19,9100 down 800 vehicles per day from Oct 2006 .....North Avenue to Roosevelt  14,300 to 16,900 .....No appreciable Change

Comments from surveys and feedback

These are comments that have been submitted to 53 Neighbors United through our feedback form or survey.  They are presented in order from newest to oldest.  The only changes made have been to remove names from the comments to preserve anonymity.

Thank you for all your hard work regarding this important issue.

You should put what answers the ""board recommends"" for some of these questions - i.e. the way they do for Annual Proxy voting.

I am on the board for the Baker Hill Townhomes and we are very concerned about this potential expansion since Rt. 53 border on a significant portion of our property.

It is difficult to answer your survey questions not having seen a three lane layout of the project. Especially becuase as it stands we are potentially going to lose our house to this project. Please keep us infprmed of your progress.

Here we go again. We are in the path of whatever will be done. If IDOT has decided that the road is to be expanded, buy me out and get it over with. I am tired of sitting here with no information, no decision, a leaky roof, a chunky driveway and I would be an idiot to spend more money on the house if I were to lose it. Just get these self important beaurocrats to make a decision!!! Been through this with NIFTI and all the other people for going on 4 years!! and nothing at all. I would love to participate in the program but I am on the road most of the time for work. Thanks,

All we need is a couple of left turn lanes put in on Rt. 53 between Butterfield and Roosevelt. A bike path would be wonderful. If the three or five-lane solution goes through for our section in the future, does that mean houses on Churchill and Stratford would be demolished?? Why don't we pave the shoulder and put in the turn lanes at Glen Park and other roads that cause nuisance ""left turners""(who don't just turn at 22nd St. at the signal) at rush hour? I am very willing to volunteer my time and energy to fight five lanes! thank you

Does IDOT really think they need a five lane road for four hours of heavy traffic?

I am STRONGLY against the expansion. Route 53 is NOT pedestrian friendly or bicycle friendly the way it is now. I cannot imagine what it would be like if it had 5 lanes. We cannot let this happen. Thank you

My son was rear-ended on a two lane stretch of Rte 53 just north of Roosevelt Road while stopped behind a car that was waiting to turn left. His car was totalled but by the grace of God he was not seriously injured. Should there be at least three lanes? ABSOLUTELY and it should have been done when the project was first attempted without the interference of outside entities.

I now drive Rte 53 from Buitterfield West to St Charles every day and almost every day I curse the fools who have delayed the construction of a four or five lane throughfare. The denial of left-turn authorization has helped (for the people who bother to obey the law) but any place there is a merge, or a driveway, there is an accident waiting to happen.

The only people who are benefited by the delay or cancellation of this project are the landowners who are immediately adjacent to the existing Right of Way who should have known when they bought the houses that expansion would come. They are now asking all of us to suffer for their short-sightedness. These people are NIMBY's of the worst kind.

I withdrew all funding of our homeowners association because of their alliance with the forces opposing Rt 53 expansion.

In short . . . I believe that IDOT has the right idea. Plan for the future. Put in a five lane throughfare NOW so more money won't have to be spent 10 years from now fighting the same fight. Traffic was reduced by the construction of I-355, but the volume has come roaring back and needs to be accomodated in as safe a manner as possible. If you want a pleasing appearance while at the same time controlling traffic and turns, take a look a boulevard with a planted median. Two lanes in each direction, a fifth lane for a planted area and turn-lanes at appropriate locations.

I don't want ANY widening of Rt 53. We were promised 53 to be left alone and to soften as per traffic due to the addition of 355. Rt 53 is in my backyard and never appeaars to be crowded. Widen it and it will be more crowded, dangerous, and (not important to IDOT, but my property value will decrease along with many others). Why mess with success when there are so few dollars to go around on improvements and as I mentioned traffic seems to move quite nicely at all hours.

Safety is most important - However aesthetics are also important to keep our property value at a reasonable level.

This area continues to grow with new developmnet between Rte 52 and Cimmarron, and bettween Cimmarron and I-355, therefore, serious consideration should be given to the entrance and exists of this expanded community.  Especially, since these newer development may or will include many children.

I strongly believe we need no more than 3 lanes on Rt. 53.  We already have 355.  Neither has excess traffic except during rush hour.  Rt. 53 traffic counts cannot be excessive.  I can waslk across the street at any given time and not have to wait long.

We prefer that the median on 53 be a turning lane rather than a grassy divider as living on Glenwood Lane would trap us from going north.  this is a very serious consequence.

My concern is that the increas in truck traffic will increase the noise level even more.  Perhaps a truck load limit can be set.

I am still unsatisfied with IDOT's non-response to why we need a highway next to a tollway. 

One last comment, I am very concerned for the residents that have their homes close to 53 already - I would not want trucks whizzing past their homes at all hours of the night at excessive speeds if the state widens the road to 5 lanes.

Thank you for continuing our fight.  I continue to write to our representatives on this issue too.

Leave the bridge as is making it 3 lane with center lane a turn lane only.  Sight lines would not matter then and bridge would not have to be replaced.

I feel strongly only putting 3 lanes on Rt 53.  If 5 lanes are put in the people will only drive faster than they are suppose to be. By putting 5 lanes only makes cars & truck use 53 instead of using 355.  We have children waiting for buses and nowhere for them to wait, if a car goes of the road at least a curb will slow it down ore than without curbs, and 3 lanes will hopefully keep the speeding to a minimum.

Makin a Blvd is nice but it would block me from turning left and/or right depending of side of street you are on.  so this is nice but somewhat inconvenient.

Ditch - so if a car runs off the road it has some to go and not end up in my front yard or worst my house.

Putting a four lane divided highway in means having the highway so close to our home seems so unsafe to me.  I f you put a divided highway in and we have to make u-turns to go in the other direction, how safe can that be?

Needs to be Safe for all the children in the neighborhood.

Do a complete and thorough job.

I would like to be able to access my drive from either direction with a middle turn lane and lower speed limit.

I'd like to be able to pull into my Driveway from either direction rather than having a Botanical Garden in the middle of the Street.

If you will make IL. 53 a 5 lane hiway, make the speed limit 15 MPH, for safety purposes and provide both the sidewalk and lighting.

We would like to se Rt 53 left alone other than  reducing speed limit.

We are against any raised median.  A painted/striped median is sufficient and needs/requires no maintenance.

Some kind of sound or privacy barrier for overpass north from Woodland Ave.

Send mail to webmaster@cssforum.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 06/10/07