1. Welcome

2. Introductions

3. Agenda Welcome Introductions Design Phase Overview Stakeholder Interview Findings Design Options Next Steps

4. Public Engagement Approach To provide stakeholders opportunities to give input and participate in the decision-making process for Olympian Drive Extension Design Phase

5. Public Engagement Approach Stakeholder Engagement – re-group affected community members before preliminary engineering work Outreach Activities – bring project team and public together to exchange information and address issues and concerns Communication – keep the public informed about the project and its progress

6. Stakeholder Roundtable Meeting Stakeholders invited to roundtable discussions on: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 Business Representatives at 12:00 p.m. Property Owners and Residents at 5:00 p.m. Thursday, July 29, 2010 Area officials at 3:00 p.m. Elected officials at 7:00 p.m.

7. Stakeholder Roundtable Meeting Purpose Review what we heard during stakeholder interviews Seek other issues that need to be addressed Discuss ways to mitigate identified concerns

8. Design Phase Overview

9. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? How did it Start? 4.62 is the height for the images Not on existing Olympian Wider Floodplain Crossing Intersection on curve Not on existing Olympian Intersection on curve Curved Bridge Limits Airport Curved Farm Severance Longer Bridge Residential Impacts Commercial Impacts IDOT 1989 IDOT 1989 Wider Floodplain Crossing Intersection on curve

10. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? How did it Start? 4.62 is the height for the images Longer Bridge Wider Floodplain Residential Impacts Farm Severances

11. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? How did it Start? 4.62 is the height for the images Displacements Wider Floodplain Longer Bridge More Public Support

12. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? How did it Start? 4.62 is the height for the images Recommended Alternative

13. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? How has development occurred? 5.00 is the height for the images 1940 1967 1982 1993 2002 2008

14. Olympian Drive Overview What is the timeline?

15. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? What does it look like now?

16. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? How does it fit into the regional road plan?

17. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? What is the land planning? 5.00 is the height for the images

18. Olympian Drive Overview What is the Olympian Drive extension? What are the limits of the design? Project A Project B Project C

19. Olympian Drive Overview What is the design phase? Public engagement to aid in Olympian Drive design Limited update of Location Study, including: Review approved alternative’s environmental effects Review pedestrian and bicycle accommodations Design intersections for interim two-lane construction Review typical sections and construction staging Preparation of construction plans

20. Olympian Drive Overview Who is conducting the Design Phase? Hanson Professional Services Inc. (Springfield, IL) – Prime Design Consultant Vector Communications (St. Louis, MO) – Public Engagement Berns, Clancy and Associates (Urbana, IL) - Topographic Survey, Right-of-Way Survey and Right-of-Way plats (when necessary) Clark Dietz (Champaign, IL) - Traffic Signals and Lighting Midwest Engineering and Testing, Inc. (Champaign, IL) – Geotechnical Engineering Whitsitt & Associates, Inc. (Champaign, IL) – Land Appraisals (when necessary) James H. Webster and Associates, Ltd. (Urbana, IL) – Land Appraisal Review (when necessary)

21. Olympian Drive Overview Why is the Design Phase necessary? Location Study only identified roadway’s location Provide public opportunities to give input and participate in design decision- making process Review environmental effects of approved alternative verifying it is still valid Gives the opportunity to include enhancements to the project based on public input Prepare detailed designs needed to construct roadway Allows for the use of federal funds for construction

22. Olympian Drive Overview What is the process?

23. Stakeholder Findings

24. Stakeholder Engagement Interviews conducted with Urbana, Champaign and Champaign County representatives Elected officials (9) Area officials (3) Business community (7) Impacted property owners (4)

25. Stakeholder Interviews More than 20 stakeholder interviews Eight respectfully declined Elected officials (3) and Property Owners (5) Average interview lasted 50 minutes

26. What are your expectations of the project and/or project team?

27. The project will be successful if _________________. (fill in the blank)

28. What concerns do you have?

29. What other community issues, developments or planning activities should the team consider?

30. Design Options

31. Olympian Drive Design Typical Section Options 2.92 is the height for the images

32. Olympian Drive Design Typical Section Options 2.92 is the height for the images

33. Olympian Drive Design Typical Section Options Typical SectionAdvantagesDisadvantages Open Large Median Safer design Higher design speed for more capacity Controls access Allows for larger future facility expansion Requires more ROW Higher operating speeds Higher cost than closed median with outside shoulder Closed Smaller Median Requires less ROW Lower speeds for safer design Controls access Landscaping in median Lower cost than open median (outside shoulder) Lower design speed for less capacity Smaller future facility expansion Higher cost than open median (C&G on both sides due to storm sewer costs) Smallest Median Requires least amount of ROW Least cost option with outside shoulders Costs more for left turn lanes in the future No greenspace between roadways No accommodations for future facility expansion Traffic very close together which is less safe than the open and closed medians What are your thoughts about the use of the grassed median, raised curb median or small median for Olympian Drive?

34. Olympian Drive Design Construction Staging Options 2.92 is the height for the images Existing land use would remain Property would still be acquired for corridor protection Land could be rented back to former property owners

35. Olympian Drive Design Construction Staging Options Typical SectionAdvantagesDisadvantages Construct all Embankment Takes advantage of current prices and project available Federal funding Removes ground from existing land use for future lanes Construct only what is necessary for the first two lanes Limits current impact on existing land use Will cost more in the future to build additional embankment What are your thoughts on building the additional embankment at this time or preserving the adjacent land use?

36. Olympian Drive Design Bicycle Accommodation Options

37. 2.92 is the height for the images

38. Olympian Drive Design Bicycle Accommodation Options Bicycle Accommodation AdvantagesDisadvantages Separate Combined Use Path Safest method to provide accommodations Would also include pedestrian accommodations, negating need for separate sidewalks Requires additional ROW Adds additional costs to project Adds bridge costs to railroad and stream crossing May not get used until development occurs Widened Shoulders Adds no additional cost to project Adds no additional ROW to project Bicycle traffic close to vehicular traffic None at this time In line with the original study Doesn’t take advantage of current prices and project available federal funds What are your thoughts on the needs for bicycle accommodations for Olympian Drive?

39. Olympian Drive Design Pedestrian Accommodation Options 2.92 is the height for the images

40. Olympian Drive Design Pedestrian Accommodation Options Pedestrian Accommodation AdvantagesDisadvantages Located on back side of ditch Safest method of providing accommodations Requires additional ROW Adds additional costs to the project Adds bridge costs to railroad and stream crossing May not get used until development occurs Located behind curb and gutter Requires additional ROW Adds additional costs to the project Adds bridge costs to railroad and stream crossing May not get used until development occurs None at this time In line with the original study Doesn’t take advantage of current prices and federal funds available for project What are your thoughts on the needs for sidewalks for Olympian Drive?

41. Olympian Drive Design North Lincoln Avenue North Lincoln Alternatives and Recommended Alternative (approved in 1999) 5.66 is the height for the images

42. Olympian Drive Overview Recently Publicized Alternatives Challenges: Does not support purpose and need (both) Not approved by IDOT/FHWA (both) Road crosses at super-elevated angle at widest portion of rail yard (Oct. 2009) Does not meet IDOT criteria for roadway curvature, based on Location Study (both) Not geometrically feasible (June 2010) Suggests use of Leverett Road/Ford Harris for east-west connection (both) Limits development potential along rail line (both) Cost over twice as much more with local funds with no study and built as-is A combination of approved plans can achieve the same goal

43. Olympian Drive Design North Lincoln Avenue (Project X) How does North Lincoln fit in? Between projects A, B, C and X, what order do you feel is best for providing access and economic development opportunity for this region? Project AProject B Project C Project X

44. Olympian Drive Design Other Design Elements Location Study Detention Areas Designed for future development needs Excavation used for roadway embankment Requires larger ROW (100 ft) Detention not required for first construction stage Willow Lincoln

45. Olympian Drive Design Other Design Elements Wetland Creation vs. Detention What are your thoughts about the construction of wetlands or detention ponds and their implementation right now? Advantages: More aesthetically pleasing Creates additional wildlife habitat Better at improving water quality Disadvantages: Costs more than detention Not necessary for project Ongoing maintenance

46. Olympian Drive Design Other Design Elements Roundabout Intersection Advantages: Fewer conflict points Reduce start/stops, less fuel used No signalization costs or maintenance Slower speeds Landscaping enhancements Safety Disadvantages: Unusual for Central Illinois Possible higher initial costs Possible more ROW Slower speeds Yield at roundabout Proceed through Truck Apron Landscaping in middle What are your thoughts on the use of roundabout intersections for Olympian Drive (Olympian/Lincoln)?

47. Olympian Drive Design Other Design Elements Recreation use at Saline Branch Crossing Would recreational use access be an important feature you would like to see in Olympian Drive design?

48. Olympian Drive Design Other Design Elements Landscaping What are your thoughts on the use of landscaping for Olympian Drive?

49. Olympian Drive Design Other Design Elements Tree Mitigation Mitigation Required 1:1 minimum ratio Where do you feel the best Olympian Drive tree replacement location(s) should be? WillowLincoln

50. Olympian Drive Design Other Design Elements Are there other design elements/features that we haven’t discussed that you feel would be an important part of the Olympian Drive design?

51. Next Steps

52. Questions?