One voice not enough on Eastern Bypass

On Aug. 20 at 3 p.m. at Countryside Banquet Facility in Washington, the Illinois Department of Transportation will hold a meeting to showcase the draft corridors that resulted from the meetings of the Community Advisory Group.

These draft corridors are just for discussion at this time and are not in any way final projections of where the eventual corridor will be.

At the same time, I do think it is important that these corridors are reviewed and generate conversation of the benefits and objections that could result from these suggestions.
Here is the link to IDOT’s Eastern Bypass Web site:  www.easternbypass.com.

During the last election, this was one of the issues that was discussed. When asked by the Journal Star for a position on this issue, here is what my position was:

“In concept, I understand the reasoning to have such a loop completed. With that said, I have a serious concern with how much prime farmland could be removed for this road. A large portion of the land being reviewed to the north and east of Washington is not only prime agricultural land; it is the best agricultural land in the world.

“I am encouraged by IDOT’s statement at the open house meeting they held in Washington that they are reconsidering everything, including whether the road should be open or restricted access. Open access, an example of which would be Bypass 24 in Washington or Route 51 between Bloomington and Decatur, would hold vastly superior choices in quantity and quality than restricted access, which would be similar to I-74 and I-474.

“Again, I cannot at this time state a judgment one way or another until we get something to discuss, but in theory, I would be against any route that takes up a vast amount of prime agricultural land and would be too far removed from the cities of Washington, East Peoria and Morton. I would strongly suggest that if it is built it would be that of an open access route.”

After seeing the corridors that have been presented by the CAG, I feel it is important to restate my position that the Eastern Bypass Corridor need to be as close to the communities of Washington, East Peoria and Morton as possible.

I am concerned that several of the suggestions place the corridor on the far Eastern edge of Tazewell County.

The land in this part of the county is by far too rich of quality of agricultural land to be placed under concrete.

I also question whether placing the corridor this far away from the municipalities would accomplish the stated goal of the corridor to provide a north-south passage for traffic.

I believe that this would lead to spot zoning and that development in this area would adversely affect the agricultural businesses in Northern Tazewell County.

Now that these suggested corridors by the CAG are available, we need to have a serious discussion concerning the corridor suggestions that simply will not be acceptable and of the ones that warrant further consideration.

Please note that this is not an endorsement of any corridor that is to the west of the eastern edge of Washington, but merely a position that I can not and will not support any corridor to the east of the eastern edge of Washington but would consider possible corridors to the west and would support further studies to locate these routes.

With that being said, one voice is not enough on a subject like this. I encourage each and every one of you to attend the meeting on the 20th and review the options presented by the CAG.

John C. Ackerman
Tazewell County Board member
Washington