WELCOME. Stakeholder Involvement Group Meeting #2 Round Lake Public Works October 24, 2018

Transcription

1 WELCOME Stakeholder Involvement Group Meeting #2 Round Lake Public Works October 24, 2018

2 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Progress Update 3. Problem Statement 4. Technical Analysis 5. Purpose and Need Statement 6. Feasibility Study Synopsis 7. Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

3 THE PROJECT STUDY GROUP (PSG) Kevin Carrier Director of Planning & Programming Chuck Gleason Project Manager Tice Cole Project Manager Jeff Sedig Project Engineer Kelly Farley Project Advisor

4 SIG INTRODUCTIONS

5 RESOURCES SIG Binder Contact Information Meeting Materials Stakeholder Involvement Plan Website

6 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Progress Update 3. Problem Statement 4. Technical Analysis 5. Purpose and Need Statement 6. Feasibility Study Synopsis 7. Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

7 PHASE I STUDY ELEMENTS Roadway, Geometrics & Traffic Vehicular/ Pedestrian Safety Hydraulics, Drainage & Bridge Human and Natural Environment Data Collection Purpose and Need Define Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Stakeholder Outreach

8 PURPOSE AND NEED Transportation Needs Community Concerns Traffic Analysis Safety Analysis Problem Statement Technical Evaluation Purpose and Need

9 PROJECT STATUS Data Collection Traffic Counts Traffic Projections Topographic Survey Wetland Delineations Environmental Survey Request Existing Drainage Conditions Problem Statement Public Meeting #1 SIG Meeting #1 Community Context Audit Technical Evaluation Safety Capacity Operations Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Purpose and Need

10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SCHEDULE Data Collection Purpose & Need Alternative Development Analysis & Screening Preferred Alternative WE ARE HERE Public Meeting SIG Meeting Public Hearing

11 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Progress Update 3. Problem Statement 4. Technical Analysis 5. Purpose and Need Statement 6. Feasibility Study Synopsis 7. Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

12 PROBLEM STATEMENT DEFINITION What is a Problem Statement? Summarizes the issues and concerns within the project area States the important aspects of the project area Provides focus in developing the more detailed Purpose & Need Statement!

13 SIG MEETING 1 EXERCISE ISSUES AND CONCERNS Group A Amount of Traffic / Size of Road Inability to Develop Downtown Preserve Opportunity for Community Gathering Place Impacts to Environment Oak Savannah Impacts to Train / Train Station Desire Multimodal Access Desire a unique feature e.g. roundabout Group B Something Needs To Be Done Impact on Downtown Business Property and Accessibility Knowledge of Plan Alternatives Need to Understand Issues Property with Certain Impacts / Loss Safe Transition and Ease of Access to Downtown Group C Aspect (Type) of Road through Round Lake Comfortable to Cross and Walkable Handling of Eminent Domain Metrics Level of Service

14 COMMUNITY CONTEXT AUDIT TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 11% 10% 16% 42% Safety and Sight Distance Traffic Congestion/Travel Times Noise - Traffic or Train Access Issues Poor Roadway Conditions 21%

15 COMMUNITY CONTEXT AUDIT TRANSPORTATION FEATURES 100% Transportation-Related Features and % of Respondents Saying They Are Important or Most Important 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 75% 75% 75% 67% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 10% 0% Sidewalks Lighting Pedestrian Crossings Greenways Bicycle Lanes, Paths or Facilities Most Important or Important On-Street Parking Landscaping Transit Connections Transit Shelters or Stations

16 COMMUNITY CONTEXT AUDIT RESOURCE FEATURES 100% Resource Features and % of Respondents Saying The Features are Most Important or Important 90% 80% 75% 75% 75% 75% 70% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

17 PROBLEM STATEMENT The transportation problems on Cedar Lake Road between Nippersink Road and Hart Road to be evaluated by this project are: traffic backups at IL 134 and the rail crossing, safety issues with parking maneuvers in central business district, access/safety issues (geometry) at Cedar Lake Road and Nippersink Road, poor roadway conditions at brick crosswalks on Cedar Lake Road, sight distance issues at Goodnow/ IL 134 and Nippersink/ Lakewood, and train noise.

18 PROBLEM STATEMENT - continued The delay in the transportation improvement is an issue because it prevents the ability to develop downtown. The study should provide information and understanding of the impacts and issues with each of the alternatives. The stakeholders are concerned with the impacts to: the Metra train and Round Lake Station, property (including the downtown), accessibility of the downtown, and the environment (including the oak savannah).

19 PROBLEM STATEMENT - continued The stakeholders are also concerned with the metrics of the transportation studies and how level of service is determined for all people, not just vehicles. The stakeholders have identified goals of: safe transition and ease of access to downtown, preserving the opportunity for a community gathering place, achieving multimodal access, making the Round Lake station attractive, making the area walkable (including the crossing of Cedar Lake Road), and incorporating a unique feature, like a roundabout.

20 QUESTIONS? Problem Statement

21 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Progress Update 3. Problem Statement 4. Technical Analysis 5. Purpose and Need Statement 6. Feasibility Study Synopsis 7. Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

22 CRASH ANALYSIS EXISTING VS EXPECTED Legend Park Ave Cedar Lake Rd Avilon Ave Goodnow Blvd Hart Rd Sunset Drive Crashes Below Average Crashes Near Average Crashes Above Average Lincoln Ave

23 CRASH ANALYSIS PROBLEM AREA COLLISION TYPES Other, 9% Pedestrian, 2% Fixed Object, 5% Sideswipe, 7% Parked Motor Vehicle, 26% Turning, 25% Rear End, 26%

24 CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR Legend A Free Flow Little Delay Park Ave Cedar Lake Rd A B C B Avilon Ave B Goodnow Blvd B Hart Rd B C D E Preferred Performance for Design Minimum Acceptable Performance Congestion Lincoln Ave B B B B C C D F Gridlock

25 CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR Legend A Free Flow Little Delay Park Ave Cedar Lake Rd B B C B Avilon Ave B Goodnow Blvd B Hart Rd B C D E Preferred Performance for Design Minimum Acceptable Performance Congestion Lincoln Ave B B B B D D D F Gridlock

26 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS From Year 2017 to 2040 Legend Park Ave Cedar Lake Rd Avilon Ave Goodnow Blvd Hart Rd Sunset Drive Low Increase or Decrease Moderate Increase High Increase Lincoln Ave

27 CAPACITY ANALYSIS NO BUILD 2040 AM PEAK HOUR Legend A Free Flow Little Delay Park Ave Cedar Lake Rd F F F F Avilon Ave C Goodnow Blvd F Hart Rd B C D E Preferred Performance for Design Minimum Acceptable Performance Congestion Lincoln Ave F D C D F F F F Gridlock If Signalized: E If Signalized: F

28 CAPACITY ANALYSIS NO BUILD 2040 PM PEAK HOUR Legend A Free Flow Little Delay Park Ave Cedar Lake Rd D E F F Avilon Ave C Goodnow Blvd F Hart Rd B C D E Preferred Performance for Design Minimum Acceptable Performance Congestion Lincoln Ave F C C F F F F F Gridlock If Signalized: E If Signalized: F

29 TRAVEL TIMES CEDAR LAKE ROAD Minutes Northbound AM Southbound AM Northbound PM Southbound PM Existing No Build with Signals Park Avenue to Hart Road

30 AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEED CEDAR LAKE ROAD Average Miles Per Hour Northbound AM Southbound AM Northbound PM Southbound PM Existing No Build with Signals Park Avenue to Hart Road

31 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Proximity of Platform to Cedar Lake Rd doubles the amount of time the crossing gates interrupt Cedar Lake Rd Metra Driveway in close proximity to Cedar Lake Rd crossing of MD-N Proximity of IL 134 to Railroad is a safety issue for vehicles queuing onto railroad tracks; less than 75 feet 24 Some vehicles must stop at railroad crossings (buses). Those vehicles can block all northbound traffic due to a single northbound thru lane. Metra commuters have to cross Cedar Lake Road to get from platform to parking Pedestrian facilities don t align with Cedar Lake Rd crosswalk; encourages uncontrolled crossings Emergency vehicles are blocked by queues at stop controlled intersection

32 OPERATIONS - CONFLICT POINTS AT RAILROAD CROSSING Legend Vehicle Path Pedestrian Path Train Path Conflict Point - Vehicle at Train Conflict Point Pedestrian at Train Conflict Point Pedestrian at Vehicle Conflict Point Vehicle at Vehicle Parking Lot RAILROAD AVE

33 OPERATIONS - CONFLICT POINTS AT RAILROAD CROSSING Conflict Points at Highway and At-Grade Railroad Crossing Existing/No Build Build and Relocated Train vs Vehicle Train vs Pedestrian Vehicle vs Pedestrian Vehicle vs Vehicle 70% Reduction in Conflict Points by Separating Station from Road Crossing

34 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY A Cedar Lake Rd Avilon Ave 1 Hart Rd Sunset Drive Legend Shared Use Path Park Ave Old Alley Shared Use Path Goodnow Blvd 2 D Sidewalks Bike Lanes EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN Lincoln Ave B C No Bike/Ped Facilities

35 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Progress Update 3. Problem Statement 4. Technical Analysis 5. Purpose and Need Statement 6. Feasibility Study Synopsis 7. Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

36 PURPOSE AND NEED DEFINED The fundamental building block of the approval process A concise statement Provides information and facts describing the transportation needs Explains the problem(s) to be addressed in general terms Establishes a framework by which alternatives can be measured What is to be accomplished and why is it necessary?

37 PURPOSE AND NEED Transportation Needs Community Concerns Traffic Analysis Safety Analysis Problem Statement Technical Evaluation Purpose and Need

38 PURPOSE AND NEED Safety Capacity Operations Connectivity The purpose of the project is to: Improve safety of Cedar Lake Road between Nippersink Road and Hart Road Improve capacity by reducing travel times between Nippersink Road and Hart Road Improve operations at Cedar Lake Road and the crossing of the Metra Milwaukee District North Line Improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the study area

39 PURPOSE AND NEED (continued) The need for the project is based upon: Safety Capacity Operations Connectivity Higher than average crash frequencies on Cedar Lake Road between Nippersink Road and Lakewood Terrace The corridor operating at the minimum acceptable capacity level of service and it is expected to fail in the future based upon traffic projections The nexus of Cedar Lake Road, the Milwaukee District North Line railroad, multiple Metra parking facilities, a Metra Parking entrance, and pedestrians creates many operational issues The following shared use path facilities and destinations lack connectivity: a shared use path at the south end of the study area, the downtown, the Metra station, and the school at the north end of the study area Travel times are higher than desired for the highway Residential areas adjacent to downtown lack pedestrian connectivity to downtown

40 OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS Issues and Concerns identified that are not part of the Purpose and Need could be used in the process as part of the alternative development and evaluation. This could include: Economic Development Compatibility Accessibility of Downtown Property Impacts Displacements Environmental Impacts Emergency Vehicle Response and Transport

41 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and capacity between Nippersink Road and Hart Road, improve operations at Cedar Lake Road and the crossing of the Metra Milwaukee District North Line, and to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the study area. The need for the project is based upon crash rates, level of service, complex operations and poor bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Crash rates are higher than average between Nippersink Road and Lakewood Terrace. The corridor is operating at the minimum acceptable capacity level of service and it is expected to fail in the future based upon traffic projections. The nexus of Cedar Lake Road, the Milwaukee District North Line railroad, multiple Metra parking facilities, a Metra Parking entrance, and pedestrians creates many operational issues. Bicycle and pedestrian features do not connect within the study area. Furthermore, significant bicycle and pedestrian generating land uses lack bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Purpose & Need

42 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Progress Update 3. Problem Statement 4. Technical Analysis 5. Purpose and Need Statement 6. Feasibility Study Synopsis 7. Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

43 FEASIBILITY STUDY SYNOPSIS Performed by Lake County DOT with Input from Village of Round Lake Purpose: Is realignment project still feasible? Focused on roadway alignments, traffic and human environment impacts Did not focus on metra station or pedestrian accommodations Was not a comprehensive environmental review (required for federal funds) Results gave a magnitude of cost and impacts Facilitated pursuit of further engineering studies

44 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA Property and Business Impacts 1. Residential and Commercial Properties 2. Village s Municipal Buildings 3. Village s Water Facility (Pump Station) 4. Magee Middle School Campus Economic Development Impacts 5. Developable Land 6. Earthwork Fill on Adjacent Properties for Development Transportation Network Impacts 7. Goodnow Boulevard Connectivity 8. Avilon Avenue Connectivity 9. Old Cedar Lake Road Connectivity 10. Magee Middle School Entrance 11. IL Route 134 (Railroad Avenue) 12. Emergency Vehicle Response Cost 13. Planning Level Cost of Improvements

45 FEASIBILITY STUDY ALIGNMENT FINDINGS Show the Graphic with all four alternatives on it

46 FEASIBILITY STUDY UNDERPASS RETAINING WALLS

47 UNDERPASS - EXAMPLE

48 UNDERPASS - EXAMPLE

49 FEASIBILITY STUDY OVERPASS RETAINING WALLS

50 OVERPASS - EXAMPLE

51 FEASIBILITY STUDY ALIGNMENT FINDINGS

52 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Progress Update 3. Problem Statement 4. Technical Analysis 5. Purpose and Need Statement 6. Feasibility Study Synopsis 7. Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

53 PROPOSED EVALUATION CRITERIA All Alternatives Must Address the Purpose and Need and will be evaluated on those factors: Safety Capacity Operations Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations All alternatives addressing the Purpose and Need will also be evaluated based upon these additional environmental issues and concerns: Human Environment Metra Station Economic Development Compatibility Accessibility of Downtown Property Impacts Displacements Emergency Vehicle Response and Transport Natural Environment Environmental Impacts (Wetlands, Trees, Special Waste, Historic, Others TBD) Drainage Noise and air quality analysis will be performed for the preferred alternative

54 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Are there any other alignment alternatives the Project Study Group should develop and evaluate?

55 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Study Progress Update 3. Problem Statement 4. Technical Analysis 5. Purpose and Need Statement 6. Feasibility Study Synopsis 7. Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria 8. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

56 NEXT STEPS Refine Draft Alignments with Conceptual Engineering Identify Alternative Benefits, Costs, and Impacts SIG Meeting #3 Early 2019 Present Alternatives and Findings Public Meeting #2 Following SIG#3, Present Alternatives and Findings The Alternatives may be refined further after SIG #3 based upon SIG input

57 QUESTIONS? THANK YOU!