As a Glen Ellyn resident, homeowner, taxpayer and father of four small children, I am deeply concerned about District 87 administration’s decision to pursue field lighting at Memorial Field. The district’s key selling point when proposing to install field turf was student safety. Well, it appears the district has achieved the exact opposite of its intended purpose, and is on a clear path to making it much worse, not only for its students, but for surrounding residents and non-residents alike.

In February 2010, the village of Glen Ellyn hired Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. at a cost of $44,000 to conduct a detailed safety and traffic study specific to the area of Crescent Boulevard that runs between Glenbard West High School and Memorial Field. The village hoped to use the study to secure federal funding to improve the condition and roadway safety of Crescent Boulevard. The study had been commissioned before the field turf was installed, but it was not completed and delivered until August 2010, about the time the turf project was finished. 

In December 2010, the federal funding request made by our village was denied by the DuPage County Mayor and Managers. Neither our village or District 87 has the necessary funds to remediate Crescent Boulevard.

It does not appear the Burns & McDonnell study takes into account the increased usage of the field at night or by groups outside the District 87 community with less familiarity to the local neighborhoods. However, it is clear that the study concluded the area is already quite unsafe and in need of remediation.

What I find extremely troublesome is despite knowing that a safety and traffic study had been commissioned by our village before the installation of the turf, the district chose not to wait for its results and began installation in June 2010. Why? It seems like a backwards way to do it, one that will cost more money in the end and perhaps limit the number of better solutions to some of the problem issues raised.

The Burns & McDonnell study is chock-full of safety issues, at the core of which lie roadway geometry, configuration, proximity to the railroad tracks and vehicular artery feeds. These safety issues require a solution before any lighting of the field be allowed to take place as lighting will only make these concerns worse. 

Something that the district fails to talk about is crash statistics. The Burns & McDonnell study states between 2004 and 2008, there were 53 crashes on Crescent Boulevard between Park Boulevard and Riford Road involving side swipes, pedestrians, pedal cyclists, rear ends, turning and hitting fixed objects.

Village records show six crashes in 2009 and almost double that in 2010, including one of our own Glenbard West students being struck by a car. More than half of the 2010 crashes occurred within two months after the installation of field turf (Sept. 20 through Nov. 20). Needless to say, that within these two short months, we had as many crashes as the entire year of 2009.

Since 2008, the district has continued to state it does not expect an increase in spectators. Common sense dictates that when you start increasing seating capacity to 250 at the field, as the district is planning, and you start renting the field out to non-resident groups until 10 p.m., you are talking a crowd, which means more people, more dangerous pedestrian and traffic situations in the dark.

But the question remains, why does the administration continue to state they do not expect any additional spectators? In my opinion, it is because they are not prepared to remediate any of the burdens the lights will create upon our village and its residents.

If there is a cost to addressing all of these issues, then the entire cost must be factored into the decision to go ahead with the lights and other projects undertaken by the school, not after the fact. Add the financial impact on District 87 and our village of adding lights and improving these roadways and parking lots, along with the added traffic and noise concerns over expanded hours, and, there are many serious, unaddressed needs and questions surrounding this project. 

Given the district has only opened this up to public discussion beginning Jan. 20, I find it incomprehensible that the administration plans to urge the board to take a vote on whether to pursue this plan on Feb. 22. 

Sincerely,

Thomas Koprowski

Our Field, Our Town