DOCSLIB.ORG

MASTER/Format a Text Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Comprehensive Report prepared for Chicago Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with URS O-H Community Partners EJM Engineering MKC Associates November 2012 Preface The South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study began with an assessment of the study area’s existing travel markets, analysis of existing and projected land use and an inventory of the transit network infrastructure and operations. This information was documented in a technical report titled Existing Conditions Assessment, which was issued in November 2012. This Comprehensive Report is a final deliverable of the South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study, which began in November 2010 and was completed in November 2012. This report consists of two parts: a Summary Report on the study, which was also issued as a stand-alone report, and a detailed description of the potential projects to be considered for implementation. Acknowledgments The authors of this report wish to acknowledge the following for their guidance and input during this study: The Technical Advisory Committee Staff representatives of: • Regional Transportation Authority • City of Chicago Department of Housing and Economic Development • Chicago Transit Authority • Metra The Public Advisory Committee Aldermen representing the study area including: • Alderman Willie Cochran - Ward 20 • Alderman Pat Dowell - Ward 3 • Alderman Leslie A. Hairston - Ward 5 Representatives of the following organizations and institutions: • Apostolic Church of God • Active Transportation Alliance • Blind Services Association • Bronzeville Chamber of Commerce • Center for Neighborhood Technology • Chatham Business Association • Claretian Associates • Developing Communities Project • Friends of the Park • Illinois Institute of Technology • Metropolitan Planning Council • Quad Communities Development Corporation (QCDC) • Southsiders Organized for Unity and Liberation (S.O.U.L.) • Southeast Chicago Development Corporation (SEDCOM) • South East Chicago Commission • The Community Builders • University of Chicago • Urban Partnership Bank • Washington Park Consortium We would also like to thank the Metropolitan Planning Council for providing the facilities for the project PAC meetings. South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study Summary Report Summary Report Funded by the Regional Transportation Authority prepared for Chicago Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with MKC Associates URS Corporation O-H Community Partners, Ltd. EJM Engineering, Inc. Final November 2012 South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study Summary Report prepared for Chicago Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 with MKC Associates URS Corporation O-H Community Partners, Ltd. EJM Engineering, Inc. Final November 2012 Summary Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Approach and Scope ................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Overview of Public Involvement Approach ......................................................................... 4 1.5 Study Outcome .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Existing Transportation Infrastructure, Services, and Ridership ........................................... 7 2.1 Metra Electric District (MED) .................................................................................................. 7 2.2 CTA Rail ..................................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 CTA Bus ................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Key Findings and System Improvement Opportunities ................................................... 13 3.0 Existing Demographics and Travel Markets............................................................................. 15 3.1 Demographics.......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Trip Patterns ............................................................................................................................ 16 3.3 Current Trips on CTA ............................................................................................................ 18 3.4 Current Trips on Metra .......................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Key Findings and Market Opportunities ............................................................................ 19 4.0 Existing Land Use and Development ......................................................................................... 21 4.1 Existing Land Uses ................................................................................................................. 21 4.2 Development Projects ............................................................................................................. 23 4.3 Corridor and Node Analysis ................................................................................................. 24 4.4 Key Land Use and Development Findings ......................................................................... 27 5.0 Public Involvement in Selection of Projects ............................................................................. 29 5.1 Stakeholder Identification of Goals and Objectives ........................................................... 29 5.2 Universe of Candidate Improvements ................................................................................. 30 5.3 Public Input on Projects ......................................................................................................... 34 5.4 Potential Projects and Example Improvements .................................................................. 35 6.0 Projects Underway or In Planning .............................................................................................. 37 i Summary Report 7.0 Summary of Evaluation Findings for Example Improvements ............................................. 41 7.1 New Bus Route on 83rd Street ................................................................................................ 43 7.2 Enhanced Bus Service on King Drive ................................................................................... 43 7.3 Rail Station Enhancements .................................................................................................... 44 7.4 Cottage Grove Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) .............................................................................. 44 7.5 Cottage Grove Streetcar ......................................................................................................... 45 7.6 55th Street/Garfield Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) .................................................. 45 7.7 79th Street Enhanced Bus ........................................................................................................ 46 7.8 Gold Line .................................................................................................................................. 46 7.9 Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................. 47 8.0 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................ 49 ii Summary Report List of Tables 1. 2006 Typical Weekday Boardings and Alightings from Study Area Metra Stations ...... 9 2. Average Weekday Entering Ridership at CTA Stations ................................................... 10 3. Average Weekday Ridership on Current CTA Bus Routes ............................................. 12 4. Key Characteristics of the Population in the Study Area ................................................. 15 5. Stakeholder Identification of Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 29 6. Evaluation Screening Criteria ............................................................................................... 33 7. Candidate Projects by Category ........................................................................................... 35 8. Comparison of Example Project Improvements ................................................................ 42 List of Figures 1. Map of Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2 2. Characteristics of Work and Nonwork Trips From the Study Area ............................... 17 3. Transit Market Share ............................................................................................................. 20 4. Study Area Land Use ............................................................................................................. 22 5. Alignment of Jeffery Boulevard BRT ..................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Project Scope Why Is This Work Necessary? How Will This Benefit Red Line Riders?

    Project Scope Why Is This Work Necessary? How Will This Benefit Red Line Riders?

    Red Line South Track Renewal project Cermak-Chinatown to 95th Street Spring/Summer 2013 CTA is planning to rebuild the South Red Line from just north of Cermak-Chinatown to 95th Street. The work will benefit Red Line riders for decades to come—through faster travel times, increased reliability, and spruced-up stations with a variety of improvements. As part of the project, in Spring/Summer 2013 the Red Line will be completely closed from Roosevelt Road to 95th Street for five months. CTA will offer several alternative travel options during this closure to minimize the impact on customers as much as possible (see other side of this page). Cermak- Faster travel times Better reliability Improved stations Chinatown Project scope CTA will replace all of the ties, rails, third rails, drainage system and ballast (the stone material that holds the ties in place) in the Red Line right of way. Additionally, all nine stations along the Dan Ryan Branch will be improved, from basic enhancements like new paint and better lighting Sox-35th to additional customer amenities, like new benches and bike racks. New elevators will be installed at the Garfield, 63rd and 87th Street stations—making the entire South Red Line fully accessible. 47th Garfield Why is this work necessary? The Dan Ryan Branch was built in 1969, when Richard Nixon was in the White House, a gallon 63rd of gas cost 35 cents and Gale Sayers won the NFL rush- ing title. The original tracks are well beyond their expected Dan Ryan terminal dedication 1969 lifespan, and call for a complete replacement.
  • Directions to the Chicago Office

    Directions to the Chicago Office

    Directions to the Chicago Office 70 W. Madison St. Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 P: +1: 312.372.1121 Nearby Subways: CTA Blue train – exit at Dearborn & Monroe CTA Red train – exit at Monroe & State street CTA Green, Brown, Orange, Pink, Purple trains – exit Madison & Wabash Metra Electric, South Shore trains – exit at Millennium Station Metra Rock Island Train – exit at LaSalle street station Metra South West, Heritage Corridor, BNSF , Milwaukee West, North, North Central trains – exit at Union Station Metra Union Pacific North, Union Pacific West, Union Pacific NW trains – exit at Ogilvie Station Nearby Buses: CTA 14 Jeffrey Express, 19 United Center Express, 20 Madison, 20x Washington/Madison Express – stops in front of the building on Madison CTA 22 Clark, 24 Wentworth, 129 West Loop/South Loop ‐ stops on the corner of Clark and Madison CTA 22 Clark, 24 Wentworth, 36 Broadway, 52 Archer, 129 West Loop/South Loop‐ stops on the corner of Dearborn and Madison From O’Hare Airport – • Take I‐190 E ramp • Continue onto I‐90E (Kennedy expressway) for 13.6 miles • Exit 51H‐I (I‐290W, Eishenhower expressway) • Take exit 51I (Congress Pkwy, Chicago Loop) on the left • Continue onto W. Congress Pkwy • Take Wacker Drive (Franklin Street) exit on the right • Take Wacker Drive ramp on the left • Continue onto S Upper Wacker Drive • Turn right onto W. Monroe Street • Turn left onto S. Dearborn Street • Turn left onto W. Madison Street From Midway Airport – • Go south on IL‐50 S (S. Cicero Av) • Make a U‐turn onto IL‐50 N (S.
  • Green Line Trains Ashland and Clinton: Pink Line

    Green Line Trains Ashland and Clinton: Pink Line

    T Free connections between trains Chicago Transit Authority Monday thru Friday Green Line Trains Ashland and Clinton: Pink Line. Clark/Lake: Blue, Brown, Orange, Pink, To Harlem To Ashland/63rd – Cottage Grove Purple lines. Leave Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Arrive Adams/Wabash: Brown, Orange, Pink, Ashland/ Cottage 35th- Adams/ Harlem/ Harlem/ Clark/ 35th- Ashland/ Cottage Purple lines. 63rd Grove Garfi eld Bronzeville Wabash Pulaski Lake Lake Pulaski Lake Bronzeville Garfi eld 63rd Grove Roosevelt: Orange, Red lines. Green Line 3:50 am ----- 4:00 am 4:08 am 4:17 am 4:36 am 4:47 am 4:00 am 4:12 am 4:25 am 4:39 am 4:49 am ----- 4:55 am State/Lake: Red Line (with Farecard only). ----- 4:09 am 4:15 4:23 4:32 4:51 5:02 4:12 4:24 4:37 4:51 5:01 5:10 am ----- 4:20 ----- 4:30 4:38 4:47 5:06 5:17 4:24 4:36 4:49 5:03 5:13 ----- 5:19 ----- 4:39 4:45 4:53 5:02 5:21 5:32 4:36 4:48 5:01 5:15 5:25 5:34 ----- Bikes on Trains 4:50 ----- 5:00 5:08 5:17 5:36 5:47 4:48 5:00 5:13 5:27 5:37 ----- 5:43 Trains ----- 5:09 5:15 5:23 5:32 5:51 6:02 5:00 5:12 5:25 5:39 5:49 5:58 ----- Bicycles are permitted on trains every weekday 5:20 ----- 5:30 5:38 5:47 6:06 6:17 5:10 5:22 5:35 5:50 6:00 ----- 6:06 Effective November 8, 2020 ----- 5:39 5:45 5:53 6:02 6:21 6:32 5:20 5:32 5:45 6:00 6:10 6:19 ----- except from 7:00 a.m.
  • Metrarail.Com Transitchicago.Com Route Weekdays Saturday Sunday/Holidays Ticket Information CTA FARES and TICKETS King Drive* Save Over 30%

    Metrarail.Com Transitchicago.Com Route Weekdays Saturday Sunday/Holidays Ticket Information CTA FARES and TICKETS King Drive* Save Over 30%

    80708_Millennium 3/7/18 11:27 AM Page 1 CTa First Bus/Last Bus Times: This chart shows approximate first and last bus times between the Metra stations and downtown in the direction Metra riders are most likely to travel. Routes marked with an * extend beyond this area. Buses run every 10 to 20 minutes. All CTA buses are accessible. T metrarail.com transitchicago.com ROUTe WeekDayS SaTURDay SUnDay/HOLIDayS TICkeT InFORMaTIOn CTA FARES AND TICKETS king Drive* Save over 30%. Good for unlimited travel BASE/REGULAR FARES FULL REDUCED STUDENT Michigan/Randolph to Michigan/Chicago 5:20a.m.–12:00a.m. 5:15a.m.–11:55p.m. 6:50a.m.–11:50p.m. Monthly Pass: (deducted from Transit Value in a 3 Michigan/Superior to Michigan/Randolph 5:45a.m.–12:30a.m. 5:35a.m.–12:20a.m. 7:10a.m.–12:10a.m. between the fare zones indicated on the ticket during a calendar Ventra Transit Account) month. The Monthly Pass is valid until noon on the first business 'L' train fare $2.50* $1.25 75¢ day of the following month. The pass is for the exclusive use of Harrison* Bus fare $2.25 $1.10 75¢ Michigan/Van Buren to Harrison/Racine 5:55a.m.–9:55p.m. No Service No Service the purchaser and is not transferable. Refunds are subject to a 7 Harrison/Racine to Michigan/Van Buren 5:45a.m.–9:30p.m. $5 handling fee. Transfer 25¢ 15¢ 15¢ Up to 2 additional rides within 2 hours United Center express* For Bulls and Blackhawks games and concerts, every 15 to 20 minutes, 10-Ride Ticket: 5% savings.
  • 06 Report FINAL

    06 Report FINAL

    Federal Fiscal Year 2006 Regional Project Award and Obligation Report for Northeastern Illinois July 2008 Table of Contents Introduction Section I Summary of Investments and Plan Implementation Page Table A Generalized Highway Investments by Area 4-5 Table B Expressway System Investment 6 Table C Expressway System Development 6 Table D Strategic Regional Arterial System Investment 7 Table E Transit System Development 8 Table F Pedestrian and Bikeway Facilities Investment 9 Table G Long Range Plan and Major Project Investment 10 Map 1 Transit Initiatives 11 Map 2 Roadway Construction 12 Map 3 Land Acquisition and Engineering 13 Section II Area Project Summaries for Highway Awards Summary Table of Highway Expenditures 14 Cook County Chicago 15-16 North Shore 17 Northwest 18 North Central 19 Central 20 Southwest 21-22 South 23-24 Du Page County 25-26 Kane County 27 Kendall County 28 Lake County 29 Mc Henry County 30 Will County 31-32 Congestion Mitigation / Air Quality (CMAQ) - FTA Transfers 33 Regional Areawide Projects 34-35 Operation Green Light / Rail Crossing Improvements 36 Grade Crossing Protection Fund (GCPF) 36 Economic Development Program/ Truck Route 37 Section III RTA Service Board Project Summaries for Transit Grants Summary Table of Transit Expenditures 38 Pace - Suburban Bus Board 39 CTA - Chicago Transit Authority 40-41 Metra - Northeastern Illinois Rail Corporation 42-45 JARC (Job Access - Reverse Commute) 46 Summary Table of Service Board Grants 46 Appendix I State Funding for Local Projects 47-48 Appendix II Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Project Awards 49 Appendix III Northeastern Illinois Investments in Bikeways and Pedestrian Facilities 50 Table - A Generalized Highway Investment by Area ( All costs are in total dollars ) Illinois DOT Project Awards Project Type C/L Mi.
  • Bilevel Rail Car - Wikipedia

    Bilevel Rail Car - Wikipedia

    Bilevel rail car - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilevel_rail_car Bilevel rail car The bilevel car (American English) or double-decker train (British English and Canadian English) is a type of rail car that has two levels of passenger accommodation, as opposed to one, increasing passenger capacity (in example cases of up to 57% per car).[1] In some countries such vehicles are commonly referred to as dostos, derived from the German Doppelstockwagen. The use of double-decker carriages, where feasible, can resolve capacity problems on a railway, avoiding other options which have an associated infrastructure cost such as longer trains (which require longer station Double-deck rail car operated by Agence métropolitaine de transport platforms), more trains per hour (which the signalling or safety in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The requirements may not allow) or adding extra tracks besides the existing Lucien-L'Allier station is in the back line. ground. Bilevel trains are claimed to be more energy efficient,[2] and may have a lower operating cost per passenger.[3] A bilevel car may carry about twice as many as a normal car, without requiring double the weight to pull or material to build. However, a bilevel train may take longer to exchange passengers at each station, since more people will enter and exit from each car. The increased dwell time makes them most popular on long-distance routes which make fewer stops (and may be popular with passengers for offering a better view).[1] Bilevel cars may not be usable in countries or older railway systems with Bombardier double-deck rail cars in low loading gauges.
  • Purpose and Need Report

    Purpose and Need Report

    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix D Purpose and Need Report DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chicago Red Line Extension Project Purpose and Need Report May 25, 2016 Prepared for: Chicago Transit Authority 567 W. Lake Street Chicago, IL 60661 Prepared by: 125 S. Wacker Drive Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60606 PURPOSE & NEED REPORT Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 The Purpose of the Red Line Extension Project .................................... 2-1 Section 3 The Need for the Red Line Extension Project ........................................ 3-1 Section 4 The Red Line Extension Project Area ................................................... 4-1 Section 5 Justification of the Purpose and Need ................................................... 5-1 5.1 Long Transit Trips to Job Centers for Far South Side Residents .............................5-1 5.2 Transit-Dependent Populations Lack Direct Access to Rapid Transit Rail Service ..5-6 5.3 Isolation from Major Activity Centers and Limited Viable Transportation Options ....5-8 5.4 Underserved Transit Markets and Limited Transit Connectivity ............................. 5-13 5.5 Disinvestment and Limited Economic Development Have Affected Far South Side Communities......................................................................................................... 5-15 5.6 The Need for a Rail Car Storage Yard and Maintenance Facility .......................... 5-17
  • Early History of Junction City, Kansas : the First Generation

    Early History of Junction City, Kansas : the First Generation

    AN EARLY HISTORY OF JUNCTION CITY, KANSAS! THE FIRST GENERATION JOHN B. JEFFRIES B. A., Oklahoma State University, 1950 A MASTER'S THESIS submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS Department of History, Political Science and Philosophy KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 1963 i-V iu,i 7i j[,j TABLE OF CONTENTS C 2- Chapter Page Table of Contents ii Introduction _-----_----_-__-____ i I. Garden of Eden — — 7 II. The Founding of Junction City _ _ _ _ _ 20 III. Transportation — --- — . _ 39 IV. Communications ------------------- 77 Mail Service 77 Newspapers -------------------- 81 Telegraph __________ — — __ — _ 89 V. Government ---------------______ 90 County ---------------_______ 90 Census ---------------------- 97 U. S. Land Office 100 Politics 102 City 104 Streets and sidewalks -- _______ 107 Licensing of Saloons --------------- 108 Stray Livestock - _____ ___ _. 109 Law and Order _---------_------_ no Fire Protection 117 Finances ___ __ _ 121 City Additions _ 123 Home Guard and Militia --_ 123 U. S. Military Forces 125 ili VI. Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture - _-_ - 129 Commerce ---------------------- 130 Industry ------- — — ----- 142 Agriculture ____ — — 151 VII. Cultural and Social Growth 166 Religious Organizations --------------- 166 Episcopal Church 167 Union Church ------------------- 166 Methodist Church 169 Baptist Church 170 Presbyterian Church ---------------- 170 Catholic Church 172 Cemetery -------- — _________ — _ 172 Fraternal Organizations _-_-------_-_-- 173 Social Organizations — - — -- — -- — 176 Cultural Organizations -___ ig_ Education ---------------------- 182 Conclusion -----------------_____ 192 Bibliography - — 199 Appendix A, Firms advertising in 1860 - -- 211 Appendix B, Firms Advertising in 1870 213 Appendix C, Firms Advertising in 1880 215 INTRODUCTION The history of Junction City, Kansas, is more than merely that of an Army town, although the Junction City-Fort Riley connection has existed from the days of the first settlers.
  • PROPOSED OPERATING and CAPITAL PROGRAM and BUDGET 1

    PROPOSED OPERATING and CAPITAL PROGRAM and BUDGET 1

    PROPOSED OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROGRAM AND BUDGET 2017 metrarail.com UP-N o T ILLINOIS / WISCONSIN STATE LINE Kenosha Winthrop Harbor METRA BOARD McHENRY Antioch NCS LAKE Zion OF DIRECTORS MD-N Lake Villa UP-NW Fox Lake Harvard Ingleside Round Lake Beach Martin J. Oberman Long Lake Washington St. Waukegan Chairman McHenry Round Lake (Grayslake) Grayslake Prairie Crossing North Chicago N Chicago Prairie Crossing Great Lakes Woodstock Libertyville Lake Bluff LAKE Jack E. Partelow Mundelein MICHIGAN Lake Forest Vice Chairman Crystal Lake Cary Lake Will County Pingree Rd. Vernon Hills Forest Fort Sheridan Prairie View Highwood Fox River Grove Buffalo Grove Highland Park Deerfield Ravinia John Plante Barrington Braeside Lake Cook Wheeling Treasurer Rd. Glencoe Northbrook Hubbard Woods KANE COOK Palatine Suburban Cook County Prospect Winnetka Heights N. Glenview Indian Hill Arlington Park Kenilworth MD-W Arlington Heights Glenview Wilmette Big Timber Central St.(Evanston) Rodney S. Craig Mt. Prospect Golf Elgin Cumberland Des Plaines Davis St.(Evanston) O Dee Road Morton Grove Secretary National St. 'Ha Main St.(Evanston) re Trans Park (Elgin) Bartlett fe Ridge Edgebrook Rogers Park Hanover Park Schaumburg r Suburban Cook County Roselle Edison Park Medinah R Forest Glen Itasca ood Dale osemon Norwood Park t W Schiller Par Gladstone Park Mayfair Bensenville Jefferson Park Frankli k k Ravenswood n r Irving Par a DU PAGE k P Park Manuel Barbosa n Grayland River Grove Elmwood Park so ve. Mont Clare n Mars A d Clybourn Galewood o Healy Ha Director o n UP-W t r est Chicago e r Elmhurst t Franklin Park Villa Park Mannheim k k Berkeley r es CHICAGO W a Lombard Grand/ W Mayw Oa P Rive Fores Kane County Glen Ellyn Cicero Winfield k d College Elburn r Wheaton o a o ve.
  • Program and Budget Book

    Program and Budget Book

    2016 Program and Budget Book Revised 11/11/2015 metrarail.com UP-N o T ILLINOIS / WISCONSIN STATE LINE Kenosha Winthrop Harbor METRA BOARD McHENRY Antioch NCS LAKE Zion OF DIRECTORS MD-N Lake Villa UP-NW Fox Lake Harvard Ingleside Round Lake Beach Martin J. Oberman Long Lake Washington St. Waukegan Chairman McHenry Round Lake (Grayslake) Grayslake Prairie Crossing North Chicago N Chicago Prairie Crossing Great Lakes Woodstock Libertyville Lake Bluff LAKE Jack E. Partelow Mundelein MICHIGAN Lake Forest Vice Chairman Crystal Lake Cary Lake Will County Pingree Rd. Vernon Hills Forest Fort Sheridan Prairie View Highwood Fox River Grove Buffalo Grove Highland Park Deerfield Ravinia John Plante Barrington Braeside Lake Cook Wheeling Treasurer Rd. Glencoe Northbrook Hubbard Woods KANE COOK Palatine Suburban Cook County Prospect Winnetka Heights N. Glenview Indian Hill Arlington Park Kenilworth MD-W Arlington Heights Glenview Wilmette Big Timber Central St.(Evanston) Rodney S. Craig Mt. Prospect Golf Elgin Cumberland Des Plaines Davis St.(Evanston) O Dee Road Morton Grove Secretary National St. 'Ha Main St.(Evanston) re Trans Park (Elgin) Bartlett fe Ridge Edgebrook Rogers Park Hanover Park Schaumburg r Suburban Cook County Roselle Edison Park Medinah R Forest Glen Itasca ood Dale osemon Norwood Park t W Schiller Par Gladstone Park Mayfair Bensenville Jefferson Park Frankli k k Ravenswood n r Irving Par a DU PAGE k P Park Manuel Barbosa n Grayland River Grove Elmwood Park so ve. Mont Clare n Mars A d Clybourn Galewood o Healy Ha Director o n UP-W t r est Chicago e r Elmhurst t Franklin Park Villa Park Mannheim k k Berkeley r es CHICAGO W a Lombard Grand/ W Mayw Oa P Rive Fores Kane County Glen Ellyn Cicero Winfield k d College Elburn r Wheaton o a o ve.
  • Steve Hastalis Committee Members

    Steve Hastalis Committee Members

    1 ADA Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 14, 2014 Members Present Chairperson: Steve Hastalis Committee Members: Garland Armstrong Rhychell Barnes Dorrell Perry Doreen Bogus Mary Anne Cappelleri Bryen Yunashko Grace Kaminkowitz Excused: Maurice Fantus Tim Fischer Laura Miller Facilitator: Amy Serpe, CTA Manager, ADA Compliance Programs Steve Hastalis, Committee Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Roll Call • Members of the Committee introduced themselves. • Maurice Fantus, Tim Fischer, and Laura Miller had excused absences from the meeting. Announcement • There was an announcement that Yochai Eisenberg has resigned from the Committee. Approval of Minutes from January 13, 2014 Meeting • There were a couple of changes to the January 14, 2014 minutes. Rosemary Gerty pointed out the correct spelling of Anne LeFevre’s name. Ms. Gerty clarified that the RTA Appeals Board for Paratransit certification does not reevaluate, but rather discusses the terms of appeals in order to gain additional information. Ms. Gerty also updated the number of appeals in 2013 to 112. Ms. Kaminkowitz withdrew her motion and moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. Mr. Hastalis asked for a vote to approve the minutes as amended. The Committee unanimously approved the minutes of the Committee’s January 14, 2014 meeting. Rail Car Information • Mr. Robert Kielba, Chief Rail Equipment Engineer, stated that there are about 432, 5,000 Series rail cars in service. There are 14 cars running with the new door opening chime activated primarily on the Red, Yellow, and Purple Lines. • There are 58 cars loaded with the software at a rate of four to six cars completed in a week.
  • Transit Drives Business Decisions

    Transit Drives Business Decisions

    Metroplanning.org/transitmeansbusiness Introduction: Transit Drives Business Decisions McDonald's. Caterpillar. Motorola Solutions. These Chicago region-based companies have many things in common: Table of Contents They employ thousands, help drive our region’s economy, Introduction: Transit Drives Business and cite transit as a key factor in their location and Decisions 3 recruitment strategy. Transit Has a Net Economic Benefit 5 Talent Prefers Transit 7 Businesses throughout the region rely on and benefit from metropolitan Chicago’s transit system. Transit Delivers Talent 10 However, the critical connection between transit investments and our ability to recruit and retain business in metropolitan Chicago is not broadly understood. With Transit Means Business, the Job Creation is Accelerated Near Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) is bringing together business leaders, transit leadership and state Transit 12 and local government to advocate for stronger investments in our region’s transit system. Transit Fosters Economic Resiliency 14 The reasons to mobilize now are clear. Businesses are betting on transit, but without sufficient Transit Delivers Value to Business 15 investment the competitive advantage our system provides is eroding and will start to fail. Our metropolitan-wide research shows: Case Studies 17 - Businesses are choosing to locate near transit to access larger labor pools; End Notes & Acknowledgements 47 - Locations near transit offer businesses increased resiliency; - Transit-accessible locations outperform the regional average on job growth, especially near rail. This report dives into the data to reveal how transit supports businesses, and profiles companies who are making transit-based decisions that benefit their bottom line. A growing and thriving transit system means a growing and thriving economy.