Final Report Submitted to
Regional Transportation Authority
REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION PLAN: LOCATION STUDY
prepared by BOOZ·ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.
in association with WELSH PLANNING
July 2001
This report is confidential and intended solely for the use and information of the company to whom it is addressed Table of Contents
Disclaimer Page...... 1
Section 1 – Project Summary...... 2
Section 2 – Study Purpose ...... 5
Section 3 – Background...... 7 3.1 Introduction ...... 7 3.2 Assessment of Transit Coordination ...... 8 3.2.1 Physical Coordination...... 9 3.2.2 Service Coordination ...... 10 3.2.3 Fare Coordination ...... 10 3.2.4 Information Coordination...... 11 3.2.5 Other Themes and Issues...... 13 3.3 Analysis of Regional Travel ...... 16 3.3.1 Travel Demand Projections ...... 16 3.3.2 Geographic Analysis...... 17
Section 4 – Characterization of Transfer Locations...... 24 4.1 Existing Transfer Locations ...... 24 4.1.1 Locations with Two Service Types...... 25 4.1.2 Locations with Three Service Types...... 30 4.1.3 Locations with Four Service Types ...... 31 4.2 Potential Transfer Locations ...... 31
Section 5 – Analysis of Transfer Activity...... 38 5.1 Analysis of Priority Transfer Locations ...... 38 5.2 Summary of Interagency Transfers ...... 44 5.2.1 Interagency Transfers at Existing Locations ...... 45 5.2.2 Interagency Transfers at Potential Locations...... 53 5.3 Transfer Location Priorities...... 58 5.3.1 Assigning Priority to Existing Interagency Transfers…………….58 5.3.2 Assigning Priority to Potential Interagency Transfers……………64 5.3.3 Assigning Priority by Comparison of Zonal Travel………………64
Section 6 – Priorities for Investment at Transfer Locations ...... 68 6.1 Transfer Coordination Issues ...... 68 6.2 Transfer Coordination Costs ...... 72
Appendices (Under Separate Cover) A Description of Transfer Location Database...... 75 B Method for Estimating Interagency Transfers ...... 80 C Data Sources for Estimates of Interagency Transfers at Existing Locations..91 DISCLAIMER PAGE
This document summarizes work conducted for the Regional Transit Coordination Plan. This document was prepared by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., under contract to the Regional Transportation Authority. Preparation of this document was financed in part through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration under the Federal Transit Act, and/or the Illinois Department of Transportation. The contents do no necessarily reflect the official views of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, or the Illinois Department of Transportation.
1 SECTION 1: PROJECT SUMMARY
The objective of the Location Study is to identify locations in the six counties of Northeastern Illinois where transfer activity occurs or could occur between services operated by the three service boards of the region: the Chicago Transit Authority (operating both bus and rail services), Metra (rail services), and Pace (bus services). Booz·Allen & Hamilton Inc., in association with Welsh Planning, has worked with management and staff from the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and each of the service boards to compile data, estimate levels of interagency transfer activity and then summarize the information to chart the future direction for transit coordination in the Chicago metropolitan area.
The first stage of the study involved an assessment of transfer coordination in the Chicago metropolitan region. This assessment had two steps. First, the study team engaged stakeholders from various transit agencies, transportation planning entities, and other groups in developing a general sense of the strengths and weaknesses of transit coordination in the region. Challenges and opportunities to improve coordination were identified. Respondents related that transit system coordination is generally strongest in traditional markets where services and frequency are high and travel patterns are more established. Information and service coordination for other travel markets may warrant extra attention. Second, regional transit travel estimates were analyzed to determine general trends in transit travel affecting transit coordination. Projections of transit travel show that the spread of development outside of the traditional boundaries of Chicago's downtown, the growth in suburb to suburb travel, and the growth of reverse-commute travel from Chicago neighborhoods to suburban counties, require attention to the types of transit trips and transit connections serving those markets. Findings for both of these efforts are presented in Section 3.
The second major phase of the study involved the identification of priority transit locations. This effort involved identification of the "universe" of existing and potential transfer locations and compilation of transit service characteristics associated with those locations. These characteristics were analyzed in a preliminary screen to determine a priority list for which to estimate the number of interagency transfers. Data were collected and methodologies were developed to estimate interagency transfers. The enumeration of locations is presented in Section 4. The transfer estimates and ranking of transfer location priority are presented in Section 5.
The final piece of this study involves a summary of issues related to improving transit coordination at the priority locations identified. Issues are analyzed and generalized costs are presented in Section 6.
2 This investigation into the characteristics of interagency transfer locations, and the estimation of the levels of use of transfer locations, set the foundation for the Regional Transportation Authority and its partners to enhance and improve transit coordination throughout the region. Future initiatives to coordinate transit services can be informed by three ideas revealed in the analysis performed for this Location Study. First, most locations served by the current physical configuration of transit services can be accessed through existing interagency transfer connections. Second, the examination of regional travel and estimates of interagency transfer activity reveal several ways to prioritize future investments to improve transfer connections. Third, locations in downtown Chicago play a significant role in connecting transit services in the region. Each of these ideas are explained further below.
First, physical connections between the existing services operated by the three service boards already serve most travel markets. Bus services operated by both CTA and Pace provide robust physical connections between radially-oriented commuter rail and rapid transit services and the suburban and Chicago neighborhood locations. Given the dispersal of travel patterns throughout the region, especially in locations outside of Chicago's downtown area, these bus and rail connections will likely retain their role as the primary links in the transit system. Because CTA and Metra both operate radially-oriented rail networks that parallel one another and serve similar markets, opportunities to improve mobility by adding connections between existing rail services are limited. However, new rail services that are more oriented toward serving cross-town services (e.g., the proposed Mid-City corridor), however, would pose a significant opportunity for improving regional mobility through transit connections.
Second, investments for improving transit connections can be prioritized according to a three-tiered approach – 1) invest in locations already demonstrating high rates of interagency transfer activity, 2) invest in locations which demonstrated low transit penetration, and 3) invest in other locations which provide critical local or regional connections. The most apparent set of locations upon which to focus priority investments are those which host a significant number of transfers or that are estimated to host a significant number of transfers in the future. The estimates of interagency transfers in Section 5 present the relative intensity of interagency transfer activity and suggest where limited investment resources can achieve the most significant results. A second set of locations may warrant further consideration. The comparison of zonal travel patterns presented in Section 5.3.2 suggests travel patterns that demonstrate transit market shares below the norm. Targeted improvements to transfer locations that serve such travel patterns may prove fruitful in attracting transit patrons. Determination of how investments should be directed to the remaining interagency transfer locations will require careful consideration of the needs of local and regional connectivity. For example, priority can be given to locations which host a significant number of services and provide significant local transit connectivity, such as at Joliet Union Station.
3 Finally, major transfer locations in downtown Chicago play a significant role in regional transit mobility and host significant transfer activity. Five downtown locations which host all services demonstrate levels of interagency transfer activity among the highest in the region. In fact, all five locations – Ogilvie Transportation Center, Union Station, LaSalle Street Station, Randolph Street Station, and Van Buren Street Station – host more than 1,000 interagency transfers each typical weekday. As with suburban transfer locations, buses provide important connections from rail terminals to employment, housing, civic, and cultural locations throughout the downtown area. Sites where rail services lie in close proximity also provide important and highly utilized connections between higher speed, regionally-significant transit services.
4 SECTION 2: STUDY PURPOSE
The objective of the Location Study is to identify and prioritize locations in the six counties of Northeastern Illinois where transfer activity occurs or could occur between the three service boards of the region. Booz·Allen & Hamilton Inc., in association with Welsh Planning, has worked with management and staff from the RTA and each of the service boards – Chicago Transportation Authority (CTA), Metra, and Pace – and the City of Chicago Department of Transportation to prepare and complete the location study analysis.
The six major activities of the location study were to: • Identify the "universe" of existing transfer locations; • Identify the "universe" of potential transfer locations; • Classify transfer locations by service available and other important characteristics; • Quantify existing interagency transfer activity; • Estimate the relative demand for interagency transfer activity at existing and potential locations; and • Prioritize transfer locations by category for further study.
The analysis was completed in December 2000 and will be used to support the remaining tasks of the Regional Transit Coordination Plan. The study identifies and prioritizes transfer locations in order to help focus the coordination studies that will follow. The prioritized list of transfer locations will also inform the public involvement and focus group efforts. Exhibit 1-1 presents how the various elements of the Regional Transit Coordination Plan relate to one another.
As part of the Market Identification effort, the Location Study builds a foundation for four later studies: Physical Coordination, Service Coordination, Fare Coordination, and Information Coordination.
• The Physical Coordination Study will explore the adequacy of physical facilities for transfer activities at locations where existing routes meet and where future extensions or system expansion create new transfer possibilities.
• The Service Coordination Study will explore methods to facilitate transfers. This could be accomplished through coordination of schedules and arrival times, adjustments in service span, increases in frequency, addition of service in the opposite direction of peak travel, and expansion of service on existing routes, or new route alignments.
• The Fare Coordination Study will explore fare policies and technologies that promote seamless travel between service boards.
• The Information Coordination Study will explore how static and dynamic information systems can help passengers plan trips and clearly direct passengers from one service to another.
5 EXHIBIT 1-1 TRANSIT COORDINATION EFFORT STUDY PLAN
ManagementManagement PlanPlan RTA,RTA, CTA,CTA, Metra,Metra, PacePace
PublicPublic InvolvementInvolvement && FocusFocus GroupsGroups
MarketMarket IdentificationIdentification && SensitivitySensitivity AnalysisAnalysis
PhysicalPhysical ServiceService FareFare InformationInformation CoordinationCoordination CoordinationCoordination CoordinationCoordination CoordinationCoordination StudyStudy StudyStudy StudyStudy StudyStudy
SystemsSystems AnalysisAnalysis
PolicyPolicy RecommendationRecommendation
ImplementationImplementation Plan(s)Plan(s)
6 SECTION 3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Introduction
The Chicago region is fortunate to be served by a robust network of transit services provided by the region's three service boards — the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, and Pace. However, while these operators provide a comprehensive set of services which cover the Chicago metropolitan area, many opportunities remain to enhance transfer coordination between the three systems. Improvements in connectivity would increase the attractiveness of the transit systems to travelers in the region.
Identifying and taking advantage of these opportunities for improved system coordination becomes more important as regional transit travel patterns evolve. Much of the transit network in the Chicago region is focused upon serving radially-oriented trips to and from Chicago's downtown, the Loop. While the volume of travel to the Loop remains significant and continues to grow due to its significant employment, commercial, cultural, and recreational resources, several trends point to the need to focus more attention on coordinating transit travel among various transit services in metropolitan Chicago. First, development in Chicago's Loop is growing beyond the Loop's traditional boundaries and into areas not well connected to the existing transit route network and transit terminals. Second, the volume of trips involving travel to locations outside of Chicago's Loop is growing at a faster rate than Loop-based trips. Such trips to less intensely developed locations such as the neighborhoods of the City of Chicago, the inner suburbs, and the growing communities of Chicago's collar counties (Lake, McHenry, Kane, DuPage, and Will Counties) often require additional transfers to reach the final destination. This location study offers a unique opportunity to address this and other ongoing changes to the system- wide accessibility needs of the transit patrons of the region.
In northeastern Illinois, market studies and customer satisfaction surveys initiated by the RTA and the individual service boards have been used to develop plans for improving transit service. In some cases, these studies helped identify opportunities for increased coordination. Examples of coordinated transit planning efforts include the Waukegan Intermodal Transit Facility Study, Evanston-Davis Street Circulation Plan and Transit Oriented Development Study, and the DuPage Area Transit Plan. The RTA also assists communities with local station area planning through the Regional Technical Assistance Program (RTAP). Examples of recent station area planning projects include Olympia Fields, Orland Park, and Westmont. Inter-agency coordination is a key factor in all the station area projects. Information and service coordination is demonstrated by recent RTA's initiatives such as the Transfer Connection Protection System, the Regional Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan (RTIP), and the Active Transit Station Signs (ATSS) demonstration project (providing real-time transit information at specific locations). Other initiatives include the Travel Information Center (TIC), which utilizes a computerized Itinerary Planning System (IPS), and a web-based trip planner to disseminate transit information to RTA customers.
7 Increasingly, efforts toward coordination have become an integral part of the customer’s vision of a seamless transit system. Both the RTA Act and RTA's strategic plan call for "a financially sound, comprehensive and coordinated public transportation system for northeastern Illinois". This directive has led to the exploration, by RTA and service board staffs, of additional opportunities and approaches to cooperation and coordination.
Recent resolutions by the Illinois House of Representatives have supported the goals of the Regional Transit Coordination Plan, specifically calling for the RTA to investigate opportunities including:
• potential new locations for facilitating interchanges between Metra and CTA rail lines; • coordination of Pace services with Metra and CTA rail stations to serve employment locations; • enhancing station signs, maps and schedules to inform riders of transfer connection options; and • exploring universal fare cards to facilitate transfers.
3.2 Assessment of Transit Coordination
The Location Study is one of the first activities of a multi-year effort by the RTA to promote coordination among regional transit providers in the Chicago region. The major project tasks were divided into three components. In order to gain a clearer understanding of the opportunities for improving transit coordination at transfer locations, the study team undertook an assessment of transit coordination. This assessment focused on identification of key strengths and weaknesses of the three service boards, CTA, Metra and Pace. Identifying and analyzing strengths and weakness clarified the critical issues related to transferring and to transit coordination. These critical issues affect the various types of transfer locations in different ways. Identifying these critical issues also aids in defining the data most relevant for analyzing how coordination at transfer locations can be improved.
As part of the consultant team’s work to assess transit coordination, major stakeholders were interviewed concerning the experience of transferring between different modes. The stakeholders included:
• Center for Neighborhood Technology • Chicago Area Transportation Study • Chicago Department of Transportation • Chicago Transit Authority • Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Public Transportation • Lake-Cook Transportation Management Association •Metra • Metropolitan Planning Commission • Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission • Pace Suburban Bus
8 The meetings focused on four different areas of the transfer experience in order to understand the priority items for investments at transfer locations. Both the strengths and weaknesses of each area were discussed for the areas of:
• Physical facilities •Service • Fare policies and systems • Passenger information
During the course of the interviews, additional items arose concerning improvements to transfer coordination. These can be summarized as: the changing roles of service boards, the partnerships with additional stakeholders, and transit supportive development.
3.2.1 Physical Coordination
In the area of physical coordination, interviewees felt the most positive effects occurs when direct physical connections were included in facility design. Short walking distances and minimal elevation changes between transfer points greatly simplify transfers. Other station features are also important; enhanced security increases traveler comfort while waiting for a vehicle, especially where stations are staffed and open but also when there are passenger amenities and nearby retail locations. Adequate transfer waiting areas, especially between Pace and Metra and at downtown terminals, also increase passenger satisfaction.
The provision of adequate bays for buses at rail stations reduces delay in the transfer process. Safety is increased when there is a separation of passenger drop off and loading areas from auto areas and when there are covered drop off areas for pedestrian access to the rail service.
Some examples of successful transfer locations named were:
• Jefferson Park in Chicago, with minimal walking distances • Davis St. Station in Evanston, with maximized travel choices and few conflicts between autos, riders and pedestrians • The new Metra Oak Park and CTA Harlem /Lake stations for direct and essential facilities including disabled access and driver layover provisions
When physical facilities were considered weak, it was frequently where new service or markets meet older services or facilities. Older rail stations need rehabilitation and improvements in lighting, drainage, and weather protection for transferring passengers. Existing kiss-n-ride areas sometimes use too much space or interfere with connecting bus services. Suburban rail stations, both CTA and Metra, lack pedestrian infrastructure and amenities that successfully connect to bus service on adjacent streets or to new land uses. Older city rail stations lack effective exits or are limited by narrow streets and “L” columns. LaSalle Street Station was used as an example because it lacks exits on the south side of the facility; where street limitations and the “L” affect coordination of bus service. In addition, site layouts at some suburban locations have circulation patterns that force long wait times for buses at traffic signals.
9 3.2.2 Service Coordination
Stakeholders identified several significant key strengths related to service coordination. For example, the multiplicity of bus services at major rail terminals such as Howard and Rosemont stations was praised for enhancing the level of choice that it offered for potential patrons. The bulk of praise for existing service coordination was given to issues related to service schedules. For example, the high level of service frequency on the rail system and of bus services at major bus terminals were noted as enhancing accessibility and user- friendliness. Stakeholders acknowledged the relatively strong coordination between rail and bus services at downtown terminals with highly frequent schedules. Connections between downtown bus services are effective and the service is frequent. In addition, where routes are shared between CTA and Pace, they generally have coordinated and complementary schedules. Stakeholders cited progress in the joint effort of Pace and Metra to coordinate the schedules of bus feeder service to coincide with train arrivals.
Impressions of weaknesses in service coordination come from factors that are determined by or which affect individual operators, specifically service frequency, span of service, and service alignment. First, the instance of low frequency of individual bus and rail services was seen as a fundamental barrier to transit use, especially in lower density suburban markets. Second, the reverse connection trip from city neighborhoods outside of the loop to suburban locations is difficult. Stakeholders asserted that short spans of service and low frequencies of service in the reverse direction and outside the peak hour periods further limited or prevented transit connections. Third, some stakeholders perceived that individual bus routes are aligned to serve multiple markets with circuitous alignments, resulting in longer than ideal travel times, thus discouraging transit use.
Some specific observations related to the coordination of services from two or more service boards were also noted. The temporal coordination between service boards is also often not explicit in the service plan, preventing successful long distance regional travel using multiple services. In addition, while Metra and Pace schedules are coordinated, one stakeholder noted that building schedules based on immediate departures from a connection point could limit the ability of disabled individuals to easily transfer between such closely timed services.
3.2.3 Fare Coordination
All stakeholders cited joint fare instruments as a major strength of coordinated fare payment. The automated fare collection system shared by CTA and Pace drew the most consistent praise and was cited for promoting relatively smooth transfers. Another common fare instrument, the Link-Up Pass, also drew praise both for the ability to use common fare media for different modes but also for the discount it provided from full fare payment. Other small fare discounts such as those available upon purchase of passes and multiple trip tickets were noted as essential for attracting riders and for maintaining rider loyalty. Special fare accommodations, such as free transfers for Shuttle Bug services underwritten by employers, were also noted for encouraging more transit use. Finally, stakeholders consistently identified key aspects of the fare structure as reasonable and equitable:
10 • Flat fares on buses • Nominal fees for transfers • Distance based fares for long distance commuter rail travel • Equitable current base fare levels
Stakeholders proposed that the most significant barrier to fare integration was the multiplicity of fare policies and of fare media. Passengers are unable to use one fare medium on all modes. Separate purchasing procedures are cumbersome and confusing. Some stakeholders acknowledged that common fare instruments could function differently across modes and still be useful in the region. Wider dissemination of information on transit benefits and discounts is needed, especially on items like the Link-Up Pass.
Furthermore, several examples illustrate how inconsistencies in fare policies affect customer convenience and sometimes result in higher customer cost:
• According to stakeholder comments the automatic fare collection system shared by CTA and Pace may not be programmed to account for some of the different fare structures. For example, the purchase of a fare and a transfer on Pace with a CTA stored value card deducts a full CTA base fare in addition to the cost of a transfer, even though the Pace base fare is lower. • Acceptance of some passes is often not universal, e.g. the CTA’s 7-day pass is not accepted by Pace and Pace’s exclusive 30-day pass is not accepted by the CTA. • Passes serving similar travel patterns must be purchased separately. For example, passengers traveling between outer Chicago neighborhoods and the Loop have a choice between riding Metra (for 2 or 3 zones) or riding the CTA. To reap discounts of bulk trip purchases, however, passengers must commit to one service. Metra’s passes are not accepted on CTA and CTA's passes for rail services are not accepted for similar trips on Metra. • Different agencies apply different policies to similar fare instruments. Pace accepts Link-Up passes at all times while CTA accepts them only during weekday rush hours. • The only Metra fare instruments honored by CTA and Pace are the Link-Up Pass and the Pace Plus-Bus Pass. • Most bulk discount programs are exclusive to one mode, requiring the payment of base fare for trips on other modes.
3.2.4 Information Coordination
The stakeholders cited the centralization of information sources and cooperation among service boards as one of the major strengths in transit coordination. The RTA Travel Information Center and the RTA Map provide a common base for travel planning by transit users. Cooperation among service boards is evident when Pace and CTA provide joint signage where service overlaps or intersects. In addition, Metra and CTA stations also provide information on connecting services at major downtown terminals and transfer locations.
11 Individual treatments also gained notice as positive accommodations for information coordination. For example, train arrival lights facilitate connections with waiting buses. Communication on service delays is provided between operators, although such information is not always forwarded to the riders. These activities suggest the value in initial steps toward real-time information.
The lack of information on connecting modes and poor directional signage to connecting modes are considered the major deficiencies in information coordination. The situation is especially difficult for first time users. Directional signage is not always specific enough about the locations served by connecting services or about the location of connecting stops and stations. Physical design also plays a part; less prominent entrances and a lack of signs obscure some of the connections that do exist, such as the connections between Metra and CTA services at LaSalle Street station and at Roosevelt Road.
Stakeholders noted that critical service information was often not available where it was needed the most. For example, at many stations, signage is not prominent enough, especially in highly developed areas where buildings or other structures obscure station and stop access points. Key instances of obscure station entrances were noted at the Ogilvie Transportation Center, Metra’s LaSalle Street Station, and Clinton on the CTA’s Blue line. In addition, current schedules and route alignment information of connecting services are not available at all transfer locations, making the certainty of connections to low frequency services difficult. Finally, the lack of information at locations with multiple services makes it difficult to tell where the correct stop is for a particular service.
Some stakeholders noted opportunities to improve system-wide information coordination. First, naming conventions for stations could be made more consistent. Differences in naming conventions cause some confusion about rail stations and their locations. For example, Metra’s Clybourn station and CTA’s North and Clybourn station have similar names but are not geographically connected. Other locations that are near each other, such as the Metra's Oak Park station and CTA's Harlem/Lake station, are named differently. Second, existing system-wide information sources such as the RTA Map and information on the RTA Travel Information Center could be made more widely available. Minor improvements to the RTA Travel Information Center could include more explicit consideration of the time, mode or fare preferences of passengers and inclusion of internal pedestrian paths between and within major rail stations in the pedestrian network; currently the pedestrian network only includes the street network. Internal pedestrian tunnels and elevated pathways between stations are not included as potential links between services. Third, increasing opportunities to coordinate among the service boards and new technologies point to the opportunity to provide more real-time information. Such information was noted as vital, especially during service delays. Vehicle operators may have the information but it is not communicated to riders, especially at connecting bus stops. Furthermore, the status of transportation systems in real time could be made available more consistently through the Travel Information Center.
12 3.2.5 Other Themes and Issues
During the interview process, stakeholders commented on some additional prominent themes and critical issues that are affecting investments in transfer locations. These include: • The changing roles assigned to service boards and uncertainties over jurisdiction which require clarification. • Improvements to coordination at many transfer locations require the active participation and support of additional partners. • The impact of transit-oriented development on transfer possibilities creates an opportunity to support and enhance transfers.
Changing Roles for Service Boards Increasing travel between the City of Chicago and other portions of CTA's traditional service area and outlying suburbs is creating new opportunities to provide service between the existing service areas of CTA and Pace. The increase in the amount and dispersion of suburban employment has also led to an increase in reverse commuters. This change in the traditional travel pattern has led to a need for Metra and Pace to play a role in distributing these transit users to suburban job locations. However, as services do expand, several stakeholders noted the importance of maintaining high quality service to existing market segments already served. For example, it is important to maintain high levels of service and frequency at existing rail stations and bus stops. The provision of new services and station stops should not cause a deterioration of current services.
Some stakeholders noted that the coordination of overlapping services is informal. As roles have changed within partner agencies and as service and travel patterns have changed, the lack of formal procedures for coordination has led to confusion over the roles of the service providers. No framework exists to coordinate the services that do traverse the service areas of multiple service boards or to determine which service board should ultimately operate the service. Furthermore, the service areas of CTA and Pace become indistinct in some areas, for example in Evanston.
Coordination with Additional Partners A trend is developing in the Chicago metropolitan region in which local communities and other organizations are more involved in the planning and funding of transit facilities. Local communities are providing significant investment in the construction of new facilities, especially where Metra is expanding into new markets, such as with the establishment of the North Central Service. Additionally, they are primary partners in the rehabilitation of rail facilities and street infrastructure for bus stops. For example, the City of Chicago has taken a leadership role in funding, planning, and constructing transit infrastructure and other improvements.
At the airports, enhancement of transit coordination requires the participation of the City of Chicago’s Department of Aviation. This department controls the development of facilities and regulates the use of curb space.
13 Partnerships between local governments, event organizers and service providers have led to successful responses to special events. This cooperation can continue to facilitate appropriate service responses to large-scale increases in demand during special events.
Developers of retail and commercial projects can affect the location of service information, directional signage and station entrances. Successful transit coordination with these projects requires early and intense involvement by transit service providers in the planning processes of municipalities and developers.
Transit-Oriented Development During stakeholder interviews, a desire was indicated to increase the size of transit markets through transit oriented development patterns, site design and planning and parking policies. Transit-oriented development can play several roles in enhancing transit coordination. For example, adjacent development can introduce amenities for transferring passengers and enhance security. Furthermore, increased concentrations of development or pedestrian-oriented site designs can enhance the ability to offer frequent, connecting bus and train service.
Accommodations for transit-oriented development and its impact on transit coordination were seen as inconsistent. Different municipalities and counties have widely variable approaches to land use planning and development control. As such, approval of different types of transit-oriented development often do not reflect corridor-wide strategies for development. Additionally, some stakeholders noted the need to coordinate site planning of transit-adjacent developments with paths for pedestrian access and access to adjacent bus facilities, especially within the downtowns of smaller cities (e.g., Evanston). Some stakeholders noted that some new development projects are approved and implemented obscurely and often impede easy connections between transit services.
Priority Activities By the end of the assessment of transit coordination, stakeholder opinions brought to light the critical issues for improving how passengers move between the services in the region. Stakeholders were given a list of activities to rank in order of importance from 1 to 10, with a value of “1” as most critical or most important. An average assigned ranking was calculated for each activity in order to develop a measure of collective professional judgement (see Exhibit 3-1). This exercise served to rank the relative importance of certain activities.
In general, activities with overall rankings closer to “1” focused on aspects of a passenger’s trip as the passenger moved through the system. These activities were service coordination, use of fare media, information for planning the trip, wayfinding during the trip, and up-to-date information on the status of the system.
While it was acknowledged that fare technology allows for changes in fare structure, stakeholders noted that coordinating fare technology (e.g., the use of common media) was a more critical issue than actually alleviating the cost of the transferring between modes.
14 Strategies related to condition of the physical facilities, improving weather protection, accessibility, security and size of waiting area, were noted as less critical. Interviews revealed that physical facilities were generally adequate and widely available to most transferring passengers.
15 EXHIBIT 3-1 RELATIVE RANKING OF ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE TRANSFER LOCATIONS Type of Average Coordination Activity Rank Coordinating transfer times between different transit 2.8 Most Highly Service services Critical Fare Integrating fare technology 3.2 Providing more useful information about transfer 4.0 Information opportunities Information Provide real-time information on the operation of the system ** Improve access between services and circulation at transfer 4.2 Important Physical locations Service / Create more opportunities to transfer between services 5.5 Physical Fare Alleviating the cost of transfers 5.5 Physical Improving amenities at transfer locations ** Physical Improving weather protection 6.3 Not As Critical Physical Improving disabled accessibility* 7.5 Physical Increasing security measures 7.5 Physical Expanding the size of the waiting areas 7.8
* Many respondents indicated that improvements in disabled accessibility are mandated for any major station renovation or construction and are therefore not critical in ranking with respect to other activities ** Some strategies for improving transfer coordination were not initially included as part of the formal ranking exercise. Several stakeholders, however, suggested additional strategies and the relative importance assigned is noted.
3.3 ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL TRAVEL
3.3.1 Travel Demand Projections
In order to understand regional travel patterns and the general trends affecting transit travel and rates of transfers between different services, the study team undertook an analysis of regional travel. This analysis of regional travel used existing regional travel model outputs already performed for previous study efforts at the Regional Transportation Authority. These previously executed runs of the RTA transit travel demand model use 1995 as the base year and the year 2020 as the horizon year for projections and for testing different planning scenarios. Data from these previously executed model runs were re- organized and re-analyzed to generate insight on general travel trends. Since no new model runs were performed as a part of this study, it is important to note that the travel trends related in this report reflect trends inherent in regional travel and regional development when the model was originally calibrated in 1996. As such, the model may not capture changes in travel trends caused by recent trends in regional development, such as the acceleration of significant residential development in central Chicago and increasing clustering of employment and housing around suburban Metra stations.
16 RTA’s transit travel demand model indicates that regional travel on all modes of transportation is growing. However, increases in regional transit travel are not projected to keep pace with the projected growth in travel by modes other than transit. The RTA model does estimate that while the growth in total trips is projected to increase by close to 25 percent, transit trips will increase only by approximately 15.2%. While the share of trips made by transit is estimated to decrease by 1% from 8% of all trips in 1995 to 7% in 2020, the volume of transit travel is still estimated to experience a significant 15.2% increase. The predicted increase in travel demand and the predicted mode shares are shown in Exhibit 3-2.
EXHIBIT 3-2 TRAVEL DEMAND AND MODE SHARE CHANGES - 1995 TO 2020 Growth In Daily Person Trips For The Chicago Region 1995 2020 % Increase Transit Trips 1,400,043 1,613,215 15.2% Non Transit Trips 16,912,540 21,240,476 25.6% Total Trips 18,312,583 22,853,691 24.8%
Share Of Person Trips Using Transit In 1995 And 2020
Person Trips by Mode in 1995 Person Trips by Mode in 2020 8% 7%
92% 93%
Transit Trips NonTransit Trips Transit Trips NonTransit Trips
3.3.2 Geographic Analysis
In order to relate the broad travel trends to the physical characteristics of Chicago’s transit network, the six county region was divided into a set of 44 zones, as shown in Exhibit 3-3. Downtown Chicago is the center of the zone system, while zone boundaries were organized into spokes or radial lines and rings. The radial lines effectively mirror the historical pattern of development and transit in the Chicago area, while the rings create a symmetry to support a quick analysis of Origin/Destination and transit service connections between each area.
17 EXHIBIT 3-3 44 Zones Defined With Respect To Chicago's Radial Transit Network
37 36
38
27 28
39 29 19 18 30 9 20 10 11 21 12 6 40 31 # 1-5 22 13 7 8 23 14 15 16 41 32 24 17 25 26 33 34 42 35
43 44
0 5 10 15 Miles
Prepared by the RTA System Planning Division, March, 2001.
18 Given the layout of the Chicago transit service network, the zone boundaries were defined by Metra corridors and CTA rail corridors. The market areas of the existing radial rail lines roughly define the boundaries of the spokes. This pattern has a complicated interrelationship with the growth and development of the metropolitan area. As the distance from downtown Chicago increases the size of the zones also increases, due to the decreasing density of population and development. Exhibit 3-4 divides the 44 zones into six rings based on geography and development and on associated transit characteristics, corresponding with increasing distance from the city center. This is shown graphically in Exhibit 3-5.
EXHIBIT 3-4 EACH RING OF ZONES DESIGNATES AREAS WITHIN A PARTICULAR DISTANCE FROM DOWNTOWN CHICAGO Associated Ring Ring Description Metra Fare Number Zones Zones Comments 1 1 through 5 Downtown A Within CTA's primary service area. Services from all Chicago four service types converge in downtown Chicago. 2 6 through 8 Inner Chicago A Within CTA's primary service area Neighborhoods 3 9 through 17 Outer Chicago B Includes some communities outside of Chicago in Neighborhoods western Cook County; outer boundary of Ring 3 lies just outside of major terminals and points of transfer to CTA's rail system (Howard, Jefferson Park, Harlem / Lake, Forest Park, Midway, and 95 / Dan Ryan) 4 18 through 26 Near Suburbs C,D Includes some outer portions of the City of Chicago and outer rapid transit lines (Evanston Shuttle, Skokie Swift, Jefferson Park to O'Hare); Beginning of Pace's general service area 5 27 through 35 Intermediate E,F Served by Pace fixed route bus services. Generally Suburbs outside of the service area of CTA bus and rail services. 6 36 through 44 Outer G through K Served by Pace in clusters around satellite cities. Metropolitan Zone
19 EXHIBIT 3-5 Radial Zones Defined by Distance From Downtown Chicago
Outer Metropolitan Zone (Ring 6)
Intermediate Suburbs (Ring 5)
Near Suburbs (Ring 4)
Outer Chicago Neighborhoods (Ring 3)
Inner Chicago Neighborhoods
051015Miles
Prepared by the RTA System Planning Division, March, 2001.
20 Interesting patterns result from the comparative analysis of 1995 to 2020 trips to downtown from the six rings. Overall, the number of downtown-bound trips is expected to increase by approximately 53,600, from 1.042 million to 1.096 million trips. When the rings are looked at separately, it can be seen that travel to downtown (Ring 1) from inner Chicago neighborhoods is actually expected to decrease, as shown in Exhibit 3-6. The gain in downtown destined trips comes primarily from Chicago’s developing suburban areas.
EXHIBIT 3-6 GROWTH IN TRAVEL TO DOWNTOWN CHICAGO FROM RING ZONES (1995 TO 2020)
Total Daily Weekday Trips to Downtown Chicago
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0 Inner Chicago Outer Chicago Inner Suburbs Intermediate Outer Neighborhoods Neighborhoods (R4) Suburbs (R5) Metropolitan (R2) (R3) Zone (R6)
1995 2020
During the same time period, 1995 to 2020, the share of trips with an origin or destination in the outer suburban areas is also expected to increase, as shown graphically in the first pair of pie charts in Exhibit 3-7. Increasing transit accessibility between these outer zones and downtown Chicago and Chicago neighborhoods may pose an important opportunity. Additionally, total trips among the outer zones (from one outer zone to another) are expected to increase, representing an increase in travel market share from 67.0% to 69.5% and an increase in transit travel market share from (7.7% to 8.0%). Improved services and facilities could have a positive effect on transit’s share of those trips as well.
21 Due to this projected shift in travel patterns, the analysis also estimates that the share of transit trips between Chicago neighborhoods (both inner and outer) and outer suburban zones is increasing as a proportion of all transit trips, as shown in the second set of pie charts in Exhibit 3-7. Since these trips cannot normally be accomplished without a transfer, improving the attributes of transfer locations where different service providers meet offers the possibility of increasing this share.
EXHIBIT 3-7 TOTAL TRIP AND TRANSIT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Share Of Total Trips
1995 2020 Between Between Within Downtown Between Chicago Downtown and Between Chicago Downtown and Within Downtown 0.4% Zones and Outer Outer Zones Zones and Outer Outer Zones 0.2% Zones 2.3% Zones 2.2% Among Chicago 10.8% Among Chicago 10.2% Zones Zones Between 15.6% Between 14.7% Downtown and Downtown and Chicago Zones Chicago Zones 3.9% 3.1%
Among Outer Among Outer Zones Zones 67.0% 69.5%
Share Of Total Transit Trips 1995 2020
Within Downtown Within Downtown 1.0% 0.8% Between Between Downtown and Downtown and Outer Zones Outer Zones Among Chicago Among Chicago 19.4% 19.2% Zones Zones 31.7% 32.5%
Between Chicago Between Chicago Zones and Outer Zones and Outer Zones Zones 12.5% 12.8% Among Outer Among Outer Between Zones Between Zones Downtown and 7.7% Downtown and 8.0% Chicago Zones Chicago Zones 27.7% 26.6%
Further examination of the trends in trips between Chicago neighborhoods and the suburbs shows that outbound trips are growing faster than inbound trips during peak periods. Total trips inbound between suburban zones and Chicago neighborhoods are estimated to grow 18% from 1995 to 2020. At the same time the outbound trips are estimated to grow 27%. More significantly, inbound trips by transit from suburban zones to Chicago neighborhoods are estimated to increase by only 11%; outbound transit trips are estimated to increase by nearly 27%, as shown in Exhibit 3-8.
22 EXHIBIT 3-8 GROWTH IN TRAVEL BETWEEN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS AND SUBURBS
Trips from Chicago Neighborhoods to Trips from Suburbs and Far Metropolitan Suburbs and Far Metropolitan Area Area to Chicago Neighborhoods
1,200,000 1,165,907 1,200,000 1,173,544 968,478 1,011,172 1,000,000 1,000,000
800,000 800,000
600,000 600,000
400,000 400,000
200,000 200,000
0 0 Total Trips Total Trips
1995 2020 1995 2020
Transit Trips from Chicago Neighborhoods Transit Trips from Suburbs to Chicago to Suburbs Neighborhoods
1,200,000 1,200,000
1,000,000 1,000,000
800,000 800,000
600,000 600,000
400,000 400,000 81,105 102,695 93,617 103,825 200,000 200,000
0 0 Total Transit Trips Total Transit Trips
1995 2020 1995 2020
These projected trends in transit trip growth require greater attention. This attention needs to focus on the types of transfer connections that will facilitate transit trips. For example, additional analysis could show how improved connections between regional trunk line services and bus services could enhance and increase transit travel. Further analysis could also show that cross-town travel services can serve travel between urban areas and suburban distribution points.
23 SECTION 4 – CHARACTERIZATION OF TRANSFER LOCATIONS
4.1 Existing Transfer Locations
The first step of the analysis for the Location Study involved identifying existing interagency transfer locations - those locations are where interactions occur between two or more of the service boards. Within the Chicago region, this "universe" of locations included transfers between CTA rail or bus, Metra commuter rail, and Pace bus. Locations where only intra-agency transfers occur were not included; in other words, locations where transfers occur only within an agency (i.e., CTA bus to CTA rail, Pace bus to Pace bus transfers, Metra rail to Metra rail) were excluded from the “universe” of interagency transfer locations.
The "universe" of existing interagency transfer locations can be classified into five interactions involving the four different service types:
•CTA bus and Metra • CTA rail and Metra •CTA bus and Pace • CTA rail and Pace • Metra and Pace
The identification of interagency transfer locations involved searching for bus stops and rail stations that were estimated to be within 1/4 mile of the stops and stations operated by a different service board. For the purposes of identifying transfer locations, this study considered ¼ mile as a reasonable maximum walking distance for passengers to transfer between services. There is limited local empirical data on the distance transit patrons are willing to walk to make a transfer. Justification for this limit was provided by a 1995 Metra survey on access modes that indicated that of those who access Metra by walking, at least 60% of these patrons do so from an area within 1/2 mile of a station. A 1990 household travel survey administered by the Chicago Area Transportation Study also demonstrated that over 86% of passengers that walk to CTA rail stations do so from a distance of 1/2 mile or less.1 Therefore, a 1/4 mile or less distance was used as a "rule of thumb" for the distance that transit passengers would be willing to walk to transfer between services.
The following were counted in the tally of transfer locations: • Rail stations within ¼ mile of each other • Bus lines that travel within ¼ mile of rail stations • Street intersections where bus lines cross • Bus lines that travel within ¼ mile of other bus lines
This process identified 292 existing transfer locations. A summary of the distribution of these locations is provided in Exhibit 4-1.
1 Non-Motorized Access to Transit Study: Prepared for the Regional Transportation Authority by Wilbur Smith Associates, July 1996, pages 2-8 through 2-12. 24 EXHIBIT 4-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS BY TYPE
Share of Total Number of Number of Location Type Locations Locations
Locations with Two Services CTA Bus and Metra 43 15% CTA Bus and Pace 98 34% CTA Rail and Pace 6 2% CTA Rail and Metra - 0% Metra and Pace 107 37% Subtotal 254 87%
Locations with Three Services CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Metra 1 0% CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Pace 15 5% CTA Bus, Metra, and Pace 11 4% CTA Rail, Metra, and Pace 1 0% Subtotal 28 10%
Locations with All Services 10 3%
TOTAL 292 100%
Out of all locations, 87% or 254 involve only two types of service. Twenty-eight locations involve three of the four types of services. Finally, ten locations involve all four types of service (CTA bus, CTA rail, Metra and Pace). See also Map 1 for all the existing transfer locations categorized by the number of transit services provided.
4.1.1 Locations with Two Service Types
Of the 254 locations involving only two types of service: • 43 locations involve only CTA bus and Metra • 98 locations involve only CTA bus and Pace • 6 locations involve only CTA rail and Pace • Metra and Pace connections comprise 37% of all locations – 107 locations
There are no locations involving only CTA rail and Metra. All locations involving these two services have some additional bus service, provided by CTA, Pace, or both. Most of the 43 locations involving CTA bus and Metra (Exhibit 4-2) are on Chicago's South Side along the Metra Electric and RI corridors and on Chicago's West Side along the Milwaukee District-West Corridor. This is where the density of Metra stops is greater and where CTA rapid transit service is distant. Other locations that fall in this class are scattered along the other lines in Chicago neighborhoods outside of the loop.
25 MAP 1 Existing Transfer Locations
Existing Transfer Locations 2 Services 3 Services 4 Services Transit System Metra Lines CTA Lines CTA & Pace Bus Routes
Prepared by the RTA System Planning Division, March, 2001.
26 EXHIBIT 4-2 EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH ONLY CTA BUS AND METRA SERVICE (43)
18th (ME-ML) 103rd / Rosemoor (ME-ML) Halsted (BNSF) 23rd / McCormick Place (ME-ML) 103rd / Washington Heights (RI) Hanson Park (MD-W) 47th / Kenwood (ME-ML) 107th (ME-ML) Healy (MD-N) 53rd / Hyde Park (ME-ML) 111th / Morgan Park (RI) Kedzie (UP-W) 55th / 56th / 57th (ME-ML) 111th / Pullman (ME-ML) 115th / Kensington (ME-ML,SS) 59th / University of Chicago (ME-ML,SS) 119th (RI) Norwood Park (UP-NW) 63rd (ME-ML,SS) Bryn Mawr (ME-SC) Ravenswood (UP-N) 75th / Grand Crossing (ME-ML) 79th / Cheltenham (ME-SC) Rogers Park (UP-N) 79th / Chatham (ME-ML) Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) South Shore (ME-SC) 83rd (ME-SC) Cragin (MD-W) Stony Island (ME-SC) 87th (ME-SC) Galewood (MD-W) Western (BNSF) 87th / Woodruff (ME-ML) Gladstone Park (UP-NW) Western Avenue (MD-N) 91st / South Chicago (ME-SC) Grayland (MD-N) Windsor Park (ME-SC) 95th / Chicago State University (ME-ML) Gresham (RI) Wrightwood (SWS) 103rd / Beverly (RI)
The majority of the 98 locations for transfers between CTA bus and Pace bus service (Exhibit 4-3) occur along the edge of the City of Chicago and in Cook County suburbs where the service boundaries of each operator overlap. Additional locations lie in corridors where Pace bus service overlaps with CTA service within the City of Chicago. Most of these locations do not involve significant facilities and simply represent a few services meeting at a street intersection. Some of these locations, such as Ford City and Austin and Madison, involve CTA bus turn-around facilities.
EXHIBIT 4-3 EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH ONLY CTA BUS AND PACE SERVICE (98) (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
Archer and 63rd Halsted and 115th Naragansett and Fullerton Ashland and 95th Halsted and 119th Naragansett and North Ashland and Irving Park Halsted and 124th Narragansett and 63rd Austin and 63rd Halsted and 127th Nordica and Grand Austin and Cermak Halsted and 95th North Riverside Mall Austin and Madison Harlem and 63rd Oak Park and Cermak Austin and Roosevelt Harlem and Archer Old Orchard and Harms Brickyard Mall Harlem and Cermak Old Orchard Mall (Hibbard and Golf) Caldwell and Touhy Harlem and Fullerton Overhill and Touhy California and Howard Harlem and Irving Park Pulaski and 103rd California and Lincoln Harlem and North Pulaski and 111th California and Touhy Harlem and NW Hwy Pulaski and 115th Cicero and 31st Harlem and Touhy Pulaski and 79th Cicero and 63rd Higgins and Canfield Pulaski and 95th Cicero and 79th Indiana and 130th Ridge and Dempster Cicero and 87th Kedzie and 95th Ridgeland and Cermak
27 EXHIBIT 4-3 EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH ONLY CTA BUS AND PACE SERVICE (98) (CONTINUED)
Cicero and Foster Kedzie and Touhy Skokie and Church Cicero and Irving Park King and 103rd Skokie and Dempster Cicero and Lawrence King and 95th Skokie and Lincoln Cicero and Peterson Laramie and Cermak Skokie and Oakton Cicero and Touhy Laramie and Roosevelt Talcott and Canfield Crawford and Oakton Lehigh and Touhy Western and 103rd Cumberland and Addison Lincoln and Foster Western and 111th Cumberland and Belmont Lincoln and Oakton Western and 119th Cumberland and Irving Park Lincoln and Peterson Western and 127th Cumberland and Lawrence Lincoln and Touhy Western and 79th Dodge and Church Lincoln and Kimball Western and 87th Dodge and Dempster Madison and 5th Ave Western and 95th Ford City Marine Drive and Irving Park Western and Howard Fowler and Dempster Michigan and 111th Western and Irving Park Green Bay and Grant Michigan and 115th Western and Montrose Halsted and 103rd Michigan and 119th Western and Touhy Halsted and 111th Milwaukee and Imlay
Only six locations involve CTA rail and Pace only (Exhibit 4-4). All six lie at or near the termini of their respective rapid transit lines. Other than O'Hare airport, all of these locations lie outside the city limits of Chicago.
EXHIBIT 4-4 EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH ONLY CTA RAIL AND PACE SERVICE (6) Linden (Purple) O'Hare (Blue) Oak Park (Blue) Rosemont (Blue) Oak Park (Green) Harlem (Blue-Forest Park)
The 107 locations where only Metra and Pace meet (Exhibit 4-5) comprise a large share of existing transfer locations with only two services. All such locations lie outside the City of Chicago, primarily in outer Cook, Du Page, and Lake Counties. Pace services also meet Metra service at locations in the collar counties of McHenry, Kane and Will. Most of these locations operate only during the peak period with a few peak-hour buses serving peak- hour trains. Some locations, especially those at traditional satellite city downtowns, have significant bus terminal points with service throughout the day. Examples include: Joliet Union Station, Waukegan, Aurora, and Elgin.
28 EXHIBIT 4-5 EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH ONLY METRA AND PACE SERVICE (107)
143rd St. / Orland Park (SWS) Glen Ellyn (UP-W) Mundelein (NCS) 147th St. / Sibley Blvd. (ME-ML) Glencoe (UP-N) Naperville (BNSF) 153rd St. / Orland Park (SWS) Glenview (MD-N) National Street (MD-W) 179th St.,/ Orland Park (SWS) Golf (MD-N) North Chicago (UP-N) 211th St. / Lincoln Hwy. (ME-ML) Grayslake (MD-N) Northbrook (MD-N) Arlington Heights (UP-NW) Great Lakes (UP-N) Oak Forest (RI) Arlington Park (UP-NW) Harlem Avenue (BNSF) Oak Lawn (SWS) Aurora (BNSF) Harvard (UP-NW) Palatine (UP-NW) Bellwood (UP-W) Harvey (ME-ML) Palos Park (SWS) Belmont (BNSF) Hazel Crest (ME-ML) Prairie Blue Island (RI) Bensenville (MD-W) Highland Park (UP-N) Prospect Heights (NCS) Berwyn Avenue (BNSF) Highwood (UP-N) Ravinia (UP-N) Braeside (UP-N) Hinsdale (BNSF) Richton Park (ME-ML) Brookfield (BNSF) Homewood (ME-ML) River Forest (UP-W) Buffalo Grove (NCS) Hubbard Woods (UP-N) River Grove (MD-W) Burr Oak (ME-ML) Indian Hill (UP-N) Riverdale (ME-ML) Calumet (ME-ML) Ingleside (MD-N) Roselle (MD-W) Chicago Ridge (SWS) Itasca (MD-W) Round Lake (MD-N) Clarendon Hills (BNSF) Joliet Union Station (HC,RI) Route 59 (BNSF) Clyde (BNSF) Kenilworth (UP-N) Schaumburg (MD-W) College Avenue (UP-W) LaGrange Road (BNSF) Summit (HC) Congress Park (BNSF) Lake Cook (MD-N) Tinley Park (RI) Crystal Lake (UP-NW) Lake Forest (MD-N) University Park (ME-ML) Cumberland (UP-NW) LaVergne (BNSF) Villa Park (UP-W) Dee Road (UP-NW) Lemont (HC) Waukegan (UP-N) Deerfield (MD-N) Libertyville (MD-N) Western Springs (BNSF) Des Plaines (UP-NW) Lisle (BNSF) Westmont (BNSF) Downers Grove, Main Street (BNSF) Lockport (HC) Wheaton (UP-W) Elgin (MD-W) Lombard (UP-W) Wheeling (NCS) Elmhurst (UP-W) Mannheim (MD-W) Willow Springs (HC) Elmwood Park (MD-W) Maywood (UP-W) Wilmette (UP-N) Flossmoor (ME-ML) McHenry (UP-NW) Winnetka (UP-N) Fort Sheridan (UP-N) Melrose Park (UP-W) Wood Dale (MD-W) Fox Lake (MD-N) Midlothian (RI) Woodstock (UP-NW) Franklin Park (MD-W) Morton Grove (MD-N) Worth (SWS) Geneva (UP-W) Mount Prospect (UP-NW)
No transfers exist between CTA rail and Metra only. All locations where CTA rail and Metra meet also have bus service, operated by CTA or Pace or both.
29 4.1.2 Locations with Three Service Types
Of the 28 locations that involve service from three of the four types of services: • 1 location combines CTA bus and rail services with Metra service • 15 locations combine CTA bus and rail services with Pace service • 11 locations combine CTA bus, Metra, and Pace • Only one location, Harlem / Lake station in Oak Park, is served by CTA rail, Metra, and Pace.
The locations of these interactions are presented in Exhibit 4-6. One location involves connections among CTA bus, CTA rail, and Metra services – Main Street station in Evanston. Of the 15 locations involving connections among CTA bus, CTA rail, and Pace services, five lie at termini of CTA rail lines – Howard, Skokie, 54/Cermak, Midway and 95 / Dan Ryan. Eleven locations involve connections among CTA Bus, Metra, and Pace; most of these lie near the outer neighborhoods of the City of Chicago. The one location involving connections between CTA Rail, Metra, and Pace is the Harlem / Lake station in Oak Park. Recent facility investments at this location have enhanced the transfer connections for travelers.
EXHIBIT 4-6 EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH THREE SERVICE TYPES (28)
CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Metra (1) Main (Purple, UP-N)
CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Pace (15) 54 / Cermak (Blue) Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) Irving Park (Brown) Austin (Blue) Midway (Orange) Austin (Green) Ridgeland (Green) Cicero (Blue – 54/Cermak) Sheridan (Red) Cumberland (Blue - O'Hare) Skokie (Yellow) Forest Park (Blue)* Western (Brown) Harlem (Blue-O'Hare)
CTA Bus, Metra, and Pace (11) 95th / Beverly (RI) Hegewisch (ME-SS) 95th / Longwood (RI) Park Ridge (UP-NW) Central Street (UP-N) State Street (ME-BI) Cicero Avenue (BNSF) Vermont St. / Blue Island (ME-BI,RI) Edgebrook (MD-N) West Pullman (ME-BI) Edison Park (UP-NW)
CTA Rail, Metra, and Pace (1) Harlem / Lake (Green, UP-W) - CTA Route 17 incorporated into Pace Route 317 Schedule
30 4.1.3 Locations with Four Service Types
All four service types meet at ten locations in the Chicago region. Six locations in downtown Chicago host a variety of services, allowing the possibility of transfer between CTA local buses, CTA rapid transit rail, Pace express buses, and Metra terminals. Four of the locations that host all four services lie outside downtown Chicago. Three of these four lie along the O'Hare branch of the Blue Line: Jefferson Park, Irving Park, and Montrose (near the Mayfair Metra Station). The last location – Davis Street in Evanston - lies within suburban reaches of CTA’s rapid transit network.
EXHIBIT 4-7 EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH ALL FOUR SERVICE TYPES (10) Downtown Chicago Stations Stations Outside Downtown Chicago La Salle Street Station Davis (Purple, UP-N) Ogilvie Transportation Center Irving Park (Blue, UP-NW) Randolph Street Station Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) Roosevelt Road Station Montrose / Mayfair (Blue / MD-N) Union Station Van Buren Street Station
4.2 Potential Transfer Locations
The identification of potential transfer locations involved procedures similar to those used for the identification of existing transfer locations. The same ¼ mile transfer distance threshold was used to identify transfer locations. The "universe" of potential locations can be classified into two major categories: locations where new plans would create new transfer opportunities, and locations where existing services intersect but where passengers cannot currently transfer.
Major plans were reviewed to identify all new, major, potential transfer locations in the planned future transit network. The year 2020 was chosen as the planning horizon for the review and projects included within the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan were included in the analysis of new transfer locations. They are: • Metra, NCS Line expansion • Metra, Outer Circumferential Service (OCS) • Metra, SouthEast Service (SES) • CTA, Mid-City Line • CTA, Red Line Extension to 130th Street • CTA, Orange Line Extension to Ford City
(Two other Metra extensions are also included in the 2020 Regional Transportation plan – the Union Pacific – West extension to Elburn and the SouthWest Service Extension to Manhattan. These extensions, however, are not anticipated to result in new interagency transfer locations.)
The likely station sites (Exhibit 4-8) were determined from Feasibility Study Maps supplied by the City of Chicago, CTA, and Metra. While many stations along these existing facilities
31 currently exist, they were re-identified as potential transfer locations since new services are being introduced to those locations (e.g., the Mid-City Line at Jefferson Park and Montrose / Mayfair Stations).
EXHIBIT 4-8 POTENTIAL LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED FROM FUTURE PLANS (TO 2020) Metra and Pace (29 locations) Franklin Park (Belmont) (NCS) Oswego Road (OCS) Irving Park (NCS) I-55/US-30 (OCS) DeVal (Northwest Hwy.) (NCS,UP-NW) Weber Road (OCS) Washington Street (NCS) Joliet Union Station (OCS) BNSF Tollway Station (BNSF) Briggs St./US-52 (OCS) North Glenview (MD-N) Metra Electric at EJE (OCS) Waukegan (OCS) Western Avenue (OCS) 22nd St. / North Chicago (OCS) Halsted/UPCSX (OCS, SES) Green Bay Road (OCS) Torrence Avenue (OCS) Milwaukee Ave – IL21 (OCS) Steger Road (SES) NCS Junction / Leithton (OCS) Chicago Heights (SES) Higgins Rd. / Prairie Stone (OCS) South Thornton (SES) Butterfield Rd. / IL56 (OCS) South Holland (SES) Eola Junction (BNSF,OCS) Dolton (SES) New York Street (OCS)
CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Metra (5 locations) North (Mid-City, MD-W, NCS) 79th (Mid-City, RI) Lake (Mid-City, UP-W) 103rd / Rosemoor (Red, ME-ML) 111th / Pullman (Red, ME-ML) CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Pace (7 locations) Milwaukee (Mid-City) Western (Mid-City) Cicero (Mid-City, 54/Cermak) King Drive (Red) Midway Station (Mid-City) Ford City (Orange) Pulaski Station (Mid-City) All Modes (3 locations) Jefferson Park (Blue, Mid-City, UP-NW) Montrose / Mayfair (Blue, Mid-City, MD-N,UP-NW) 26th (Mid-City, BNSF)
The inauguration of new rail service will almost certainly lead to changes in the existing bus service alignments; however, for the purpose of the analysis bus service to future station sites was assumed to be fixed to the current network. The exception was that minor extensions were considered where existing bus line termini could be extended in a non- circuitous manner to a new station.
In addition to those interagency transfer locations generated from planned improvements to the transportation system, there is a second type of potential transfer location – locations in the existing transit network that could serve as transfer sites that enhance regional transit accessibility if new station facilities or accesses were built, hereafter called prospective locations. The existing transit network was analyzed to develop a list of prospective transfer locations. Analysis of prospective transfer locations focused on connections between the CTA rapid transit network and the Metra rail network. Such connections involve the most intensive facility investments.
32 EXHIBIT 4-9 Prospective Station Locations Based on the Existing System
7
M
i UP-N l w - N
9
UP -N W 8
Milw -W, NCS
UP-W 1 2
10 11
3 4 BNSF
Heritage Ref. No. Station 12 1 Grand (Blue, UP-N, UP-NW) 6 2 Cicero (Green, UP-W) 318th (Blue, BNSF) 4 Kedzie (Blue, BNSF)
R
5 Halsted (Green, SWS) o
th c 635/Archer (Orange, Heritage) k
I
S
s
. 7 South-Howard (Purple, UP-N) W
e 8 Addison (Brown, UP-N) S r o
h
9 Montrose/Mayfair (Blue, Milw-N) S
.
10 Union Station (Blue, 6 Metra Lines) S
,
c 11 Van Buren Station (Loop, Electric) i r th t 12 35 (Red, Green, Rock Is., SWS) 13 c e rd 5 l 13 63 (Red, Rock Is.) E
Prepared by the RTA System Planning Division, March, 2001.
33 A geographic information system was used to identify all potential new connections between rail networks. Again, locations where rail lines intersect or lie within ¼ mile of other rail lines were identified. All zones which already contained both CTA and Metra rail stations were eliminated as redundant. Remaining zones were identified as locations where potential transfer linkages could be created. For long zones of parallel tracks, the centroid as identified by the geographic information system was the potential location.
Thirteen locations were identified as prospective potential linkages for the rail services. Exhibit 4-9 shows the locations of these intersections of rail services. These locations were considered for inclusion into the universe of potential stations. Exhibit 4-10 presents each of the thirteen locations and how they were considered for inclusion. After this preliminary analysis, 7 of the locations identified were added to the universe of potential transfer locations. The others were eliminated due to operational conflicts or because the location was already being analyzed.
EXHIBIT 4-10 ANALYSIS OF PROSPECTIVE RAIL STATION TRANSFER LOCATIONS
Lines Connected Added as CTA Rapid Metra Lines New Ref. Transit Line Potential Disposition or Designated No. Station Location? Location 1 Grand Station Blue UP-N, UP-NW No Eliminated, significant operational conflicts for Metra trains 2 Green Line (near Laramie or Green UP-W Yes Cicero Station (Green) Cicero) 318th Station (Blue) Blue BNSF Yes 18th Station (Blue) 4 Kedzie Station (Blue) Blue BNSF Yes Kedzie Station (Blue) 5 Halsted and SouthWest Green SWS No Eliminated, requires new stations Service (Ashland) for two rail lines 6 Orange Line (along HC) Orange HC Yes 35th / Archer Station 7 South Boulevard to north of Purple UP-N No Eliminated, connection exists at Howard Street Main Street 8 Brown Line (along UP-N) Brown UP-N Yes Addison Station (Brown) 9 Montrose / Mayfair Blue MD-N, UP-NW No Already analyzed as part of Mid- City extension 10 Union Station Blue MD-N. MD-W, BNSF, No Already analyzed under existing HC, SWS locations database 11 Van Buren Station Loop ME No Eliminated due to significant physical constraints to new CTA station, connections already exist 12 35th Street Red, Green RI, SWS Yes 35th Street Station
13 63rd Street Red RI Yes 63rd Street Station
The seven locations included in the "universe" of potential locations are presented in Exhibit 4-11.
34 EXHIBIT 4-11 POTENTIAL LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED FROM ANALYSIS OF PROSPECTIVE LOCATIONS ON EXISTING TRANSIT NETWORK CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Metra 18th Station (Blue, BNSF) 35th / Archer Station (Orange, HC) 35th Street Station (Red, Green, RI, SWS) 63rd Station (Red, RI) Addison Station (Brown, UP-N) Cicero Station (Green, UP-W) Kedzie Station (Blue, BNSF)
Combining the two types of potential transfer locations – planned and prospective yields a total of fifty-one locations. The locations from Exhibits 4-8 and 4-11 are combined into Exhibit 4-12 to list the "universe" of potential transfer locations. See also Map 2 for universe of potential transfer locations categorized by the number of transit services provided.
35 EXHIBIT 4-12 POTENTIAL TRANSFER LOCATIONS (PLANNED AND PROSPECTIVE) - ALL MODE COMBINATIONS (51) Metra and Pace (29) Belmont (NCS) Oswego Road (OCS) Irving Park (NCS) I-55/US-30 (OCS) Northwest Hwy. (NCS) Weber Road (OCS) Washington Street (NCS) Joliet Union Station (OCS) BNSF Tollway Station (BNSF) Briggs St./US-52 (OCS) North Glenview (MD-N) Metra Electric (OCS) Waukegan (OCS) Western Avenue (OCS) 22nd St.North Chicago (OCS) Halsted/UPCSX (OCS, SES) Green Bay Road (OCS) Torrence Avenue (OCS) Milwaukee Ave – IL21 (OCS) Steger Road (SES) NCS Junction / Leithton (OCS) Chicago Heights (SES) Higgins Rd. / Prairie Stone (OCS) South Thornton (SES) Butterfield Rd. / IL56 (OCS) South Holland (SES) Eola Junction (BNSF, OCS) Dolton (SES) New York Street (OCS)
CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Metra (12) North (Mid-City, MD-W) 18th Station (Blue, BNSF) Lake (Mid-City, UP-W) 35th / Archer Station (Orange, HC) 79th (Mid-City, RI) 35th Street Station (Red, Green, RI, SWS) 103rd / Rosemoor (Red, ME-ML) 63rd Station (Red, RI) 111th / Pullman (Red, ME-ML) Addison Station (Brown, UP-N) Cicero Station (Green, UP-W) Kedzie Station (Blue, BNSF)
CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Pace (7) Milwaukee (Mid-City) Western (Mid-City) Cicero (Mid-City, 54/Cermak) King Drive (Red) Midway Station (Mid-City) Ford City (Orange) Pulaski Station (Mid-City)
All Modes (3) Jefferson Park (Blue, Mid-City, UP-NW) Montrose / Mayfair (Blue, Mid-City, MD-N, UP-NW) 26th (Mid-City, BNSF)
36 MAP 2 POTENTIAL TRANSFER LOCATIONS (PLANNED AND PROSPECTIVE)
Potential Locations 2 Services 3 Services 4 Services
Existing Transit System Metra Lines CTA Lines Pace & CTA Bus Potential Future Rail Metra Lines CTA Lines
Prepared by the RTA System Planning Division, March, 2001
37 SECTION 5 – ANALYSIS OF TRANSFER ACTIVITY
5.1 Analysis of Priority Transfer Locations
The first step in analyzing the “universe” of transfer locations was to prioritize analysis of those critical transfer locations meeting certain criteria. A preliminary screening exercise allows analysis to be focused more directly on those locations that have a high probability of demonstrating a high market potential for interagency transfers or a significant role in regional transit accessibility. To complete the preliminary screening analysis, data were collected about various services available at each location. Data were also collected for all of the services operated by CTA, Metra and Pace in the Chicago metropolitan region. To organize and prioritize transfer locations, an electronic database was constructed using descriptions of the services operated in the Chicago region. The description of this database is found in Appendix A.
Data collected on all locations included:
• service board identification, • mode, bus or rail, • average frequency of service, the number of buses or trains per hour, • average daily ridership; • presence of off-peak weekday service; • presence of weekend service; and • whether the service was included in the Strategic Regional Transit System. 2
For each transfer location identified, all the services accessible within a ¼ mile radius were identified and associated with the transfer location. Working in consultation with the RTA and the service board staffs, important characteristics for transfer locations were defined and classified. The following data were then tabulated for each location and the services associated with it:
• number of service boards; • total number of rail lines serving the location; • total ridership on all rail services passing through the location; • total number of bus lines serving the location; • total ridership on all bus lines serving the location; • total number of Strategic Regional Transit routes serving the location; • total number of lines that terminate at the location; and • ability to transfer between different service boards outside of the peak-period.
2 The 2020 Regional Transportation Plan identifies a network of Strategic Regional Transit routes. This network includes all existing and planned rail lines and bus routes with high ridership and identifies bus routes which provide critical regional connections. This information was used in the identification of important locations. 38 To narrow down the number of locations for more focused analysis, each location was screened based on several criteria from the combination of services available at that location. The criteria used to determine the list of priority locations for analysis include: thresholds of ridership, frequency of service, and designation as a Strategic Regional Transit route. These are listed in Exhibit 5-1.
There were two types of criteria. The first set of criteria, represented by the first column of criteria in Exhibit 5-1, test for thresholds or conditions that would warrant automatic inclusion in the list of priority locations for analysis. (Locations hosting all four modes were automatically included in the priority list.) The second type of criteria (listed in the second column of the criteria listing in Exhibit 5-1) test for thresholds or conditions that would warrant automatic elimination from the list of priority locations for analysis.
EXHIBIT 5-1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR TRANSFER LOCATIONS
Criteria Locations are automatically Remaining locations are included if any of the following eliminated if any of the following Services conditions are met: conditions are met: CTA Rail and Pace # of SRT routes > 3 # of bus routes < 2 total bus ridership < 2,000* peak buses per hour < 4 CTA Bus and Metra # of rail lines > 1 # of bus routes < 2 # of SRT routes > 2 # of SRT routes < 2 peak trains per hour < 3 total bus ridership < 10,000* CTA Bus and Pace # of SRT routes >2 # of SRT routes < 2 peak buses per hour < 8 # of bus routes < 3 total bus ridership < 15,000* Metra and Pace # of rail lines > 1 # of bus routes < 2 # of SRT routes > 2 # of SRT routes < 2 peak trains per hour < 3 peak buses per hour < 6 total bus ridership < 1,500* CTA Rail, CTA Bus, and Pace # of rail lines > 1 # of bus routes < 3 # of SRT routes > 2 # of SRT routes < 2 total rail ridership < 20,000* CTA Rail, CTA Bus, Metra and Pace all locations are included
* Filter criteria dependent on ridership are not applied to potential transfer locations since ridership projections for new services are not uniformly complete
The result of this screening was a reduction in the number of existing and potential transfer locations to be analyzed in greater detail. These locations should have the greatest market potential for interagency transfers. From the original 292 existing transfer locations, 45%, or 131 of the existing locations, met the criteria for further analysis. Of the 51 potential transfer locations, 57%, or 29, met the criteria (Exhibit 5-2).
39 EXHIBIT 5-2 SCREENING RESULTS OF TRANSFER LOCATIONS
Existing Transfer Locations Potential Transfer Locations # In # to Be % to Be # In # to Be % to Be Universe Analyzed Analyzed Universe Analyzed Analyzed Further Further Further Further Locations with Two Modes CTA Bus and Metra 43 22 51% - -- CTA Bus and Pace 98 35 36% - -- CTA Rail and Pace 6 3 50% - -- CTA Rail and Metra - - 0% - -- Metra and Pace 107 37 35% 29 7 24% Subtotal 254 97 38% 29 7 24%
Locations with Three Modes CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Metra 1 1 100% 12 12 100% CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Pace 15 12 80% 7 7 100% CTA Bus, Metra, and Pace 11 10 91% - -- CTA Rail, Metra, and Pace 1 1 100% - -- Subtotal 28 24 82% 19 19 100%
Locations with All Modes 10 10 100% 3 3 100%
TOTAL 292 131 45% 51 29 57%
Sixty out of 147 existing transfer locations which involved one CTA mode and one other mode passed the criteria for further analysis (Exhibit 5-3).
40 EXHIBIT 5-3 SCREENING RESULTS OF EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH ONE CTA MODE AND ONE OTHER SERVICE (60)
CTA Bus and Metra (22) 23rd / McCormick Place (ME-ML) Grayland (MD-N) 47th / Kenwood (ME-ML) Gresham (RI) 53rd / Hyde Park (ME-ML) Halsted (BNSF) 55th / 56th / 57th (ME-ML) Healy (MD-N) 59th / University of Chicago (ME-ML,SS) Kedzie (UP-W) 63rd (ME-ML,SS) Ravenswood (UP-N) 87th (ME-SC) Rogers Park (UP-N) 91st / South Chicago (ME-SC) Stony Island (ME-SC) 95th / Chicago State University (ME-ML) Western (BNSF) Bryn Mawr (ME-SC) Western Avenue (MD-N) Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) Wrightwood (SWS)
CTA Bus and Pace (35) Ashland and 95th Harlem and North Austin and Madison King and 95th Austin and Roosevelt Marine Drive and Irving Park Brickyard Mall McCormick and Kimball Cicero and 79th Michigan and 111th Cicero and 87th Michigan and 115th Cicero and Irving Park Michigan and 119th Cumberland and Belmont Naragansett and Fullerton Ford City Naragansett and North Halsted and 111th Pulaski and 111th Halsted and 115th Pulaski and 115th Halsted and 119th Pulaski and 79th Halsted and 127th Western and 79th Halsted and 95th Western and 87th Harlem and 63rd Western and 95th Harlem and Archer Western and Irving Park Harlem and Fullerton Western and Montrose Harlem and Irving Park
CTA Rail and Pace (3) O'Hare (Blue) Rosemont (Blue) Oak Park (Green)
Thirty-seven out of the 107 existing transfer locations which involved interactions between Metra and Pace passed through the first screen analysis (Exhibit 5-4).
41 EXHIBIT 5-4 SCREENING RESULTS OF EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH METRA AND PACE (37)
Arlington Heights (UP-NW) LaGrange Road (BNSF) Aurora (BNSF) Lake Cook (MD-N) Clyde (BNSF) LaVergne (BNSF) Cumberland (UP-NW) Lisle (BNSF) Dee Road (UP-NW) Lockport (HC) Des Plaines (UP-NW) Mannheim (MD-W) Elgin (MD-W) Maywood (UP-W) Elmhurst (UP-W) Melrose Park (UP-W) Elmwood Park (MD-W) Morton Grove (MD-N) Geneva (UP-W) National Street (MD-W) Glenview (MD-N) North Chicago (UP-N) Golf (MD-N) Oak Forest (RI) Great Lakes (UP-N) River Forest (UP-W) Harlem Avenue (BNSF) River Grove (MD-W) Harvey (ME-ML) Waukegan (UP-N) Hazel Crest (ME-ML) Wilmette (UP-N) Highland Park (UP-N) Winnetka (UP-N) Homewood (ME-ML) Worth (SWS) Joliet Union Station (HC,RI)
For locations where three modes exist at a transfer location, 24 out of 28 passed the screening (See Exhibit 5-5).
EXHIBIT 5-5 SCREENING RESULTS OF EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH THREE SERVICE TYPES (23) CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Metra (1) Main (Purple, UP-N) CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Pace (12) 54 / Cermak (Blue) Harlem (Blue-O'Hare) 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) Cicero (Blue – 54/Cermak) Midway (Orange) Cumberland (Blue - O'Hare) Ridgeland (Green) Forest Park (Blue) Sheridan (Red) Austin (Green) Western (Brown) CTA Bus, Metra, and Pace (10) 95th / Beverly (RI) Edison Park (UP-NW) 95th / Longwood (RI) Park Ridge (UP-NW) Central Street (UP-N) State Street (ME-BI) Cicero Avenue (BNSF) Vermont Blue Island (ME-BI,RI) Edgebrook (MD-N) West Pullman (ME-BI) CTA Rail, Metra, and Pace (1 location) Harlem / Lake (Green, UP-W)
All ten locations with all four modes also passed the screening test (Exhibit 5-6).
42 EXHIBIT 5-6 SCREENING RESULTS OF EXISTING TRANSFER LOCATIONS WITH ALL FOUR SERVICE TYPES (10)
Downtown Chicago Stations Stations Outside Downtown Chicago La Salle Street Station Davis (Purple, UP-N) Ogilvie Transportation Center Irving Park (Blue, UP-NW) Randolph Street Station Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) Roosevelt Road Station Montrose / Mayfair (Blue / UP-NW) Union Station Van Buren Street Station
Potential locations were also passed through this first screen analysis. In this screening analysis, locations were subject to the same screening criteria, except for those criteria related to thresholds of ridership. Seven out of the 29 potential transfer locations which involved interactions between Metra and Pace passed through the first screen analysis (Exhibit 5-7). Waukegan and Joliet stations on Metra appear as both existing and potential location listings because both stations are included in the proposed Outer Circumferential Service (OCS) commuter rail service. Some proposed Metra stations (such as BNSF Tollway and North Glenview) did not pass through this first screening analysis since no bus routes currently serving those locations, although Pace service is anticipated to serve those stations once they are built. Additionally, all 22 potential transfer locations involving three or four modes passed the screening criteria.
EXHIBIT 5-7 SCREENING RESULTS OF POTENTIAL TRANSFER LOCATIONS
Metra and Pace (7) 22ndSt. / North Chicago (OCS, UP-N) Northwest Hwy. (NCS) Belmont (NCS) Waukegan (OCS,UP-N) Green Bay Road (OCS) Weber Road (OCS) Joliet Union Station (HC,RI,OCS) CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Metra (12) North (Mid-City, MD-W) 18th Station (Blue, BNSF) Lake (Mid-City, UP-W) 35th / Archer Station (Orange, HC) 79th (Mid-City, SWS) 35th Street Station (Red, Green, RI, SWS) 103rd / Rosemoor (Red, ME-ML) 63rd Station (Red, RI) 111th / Pullman (Red, ME-ML) Addison Station (Brown, UP-N) Cicero Station (Green, UP-W) Kedzie Station (Blue, BNSF) CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Pace (7) Milwaukee (Mid-City) Western (Mid-City) Cicero (Mid-City, 54/Cermak) King Drive (Red) Midway Station (Mid-City) Ford City (Orange) Pulaski Station (Mid-City) All Modes (3) 26th (Mid-City, BNSF) Jefferson Park (Blue, Mid-City, UP-NW) Montrose / Mayfair (Blue, Mid-City, MD-N, UP-NW)
43 5.2 Summary of Interagency Transfers
The analysis and screening of all existing and potential transfer locations between services identified 159 locations for priority analysis – 130 existing and 29 potential. All of these locations were analyzed to determine the total number of interagency transfers passing through each location on a typical weekday. Collection of data for this phase of the analysis often yielded data for locations not identified after the first screen as priority locations for analysis. For example, comprehensive data for transfers between CTA and Pace services could be derived from records from CTA's automated fare collection (AFC) system. Because of this, some locations previously eliminated were also analyzed to determine the number of interagency transfers passing through them.
Different methods were defined and used to estimate interagency transfers at locations identified for priority analysis. 3 Estimates for existing transfer locations involved compiling and reconciling existing data on transfers from the RTA and the three service boards – CTA, Metra and Pace. These included automated fare collection system records, route ridership statistics, pass usage records, system and rider surveys, and travel survey results. Based on what data were made available, separate methodologies were determined for estimation of interagency transfers for each of the five possible service combinations – CTA Bus and Metra, CTA Bus and Pace, CTA Rail and Metra, CTA Rail and Pace, and Metra and Pace.
Estimation of interagency transfers at potential transfer locations required the development of separate estimation methods. Data available for these estimates included estimates of ridership growth by line and by station, regional travel model estimates, survey results, and existing travel patterns. The processes used to estimate interagency transfers at potential locations included linear extrapolation, ridership estimates from models, and estimation based on service elasticities and regression models.
The details for each combination of interagency services are presented in tabular form. In each table, totals are presented as a total number of transfers between two service types in one weekday.4 The total for each location includes one transfer for each direction. A round trip would be counted as two transfers. In cases where there are no transfers in one of the two directions of a round trip [for example, there are no PM trips on CTA route 33 to the Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) and Western Avenue (MD-N, MD-W, NCS) stations], only the transfers in one direction are counted. The transfer locations are listed in order of the number of transfers from highest to lowest.
3 All estimation methodologies are described in detail in Appendix B. 4 It is important to view these estimates as simple indicators of the magnitude of use at a particular transfer location. Because data availability varied among different combinations of services (and, in some cases, among locations with the same service combination), the accuracy and precision of the estimates vary among the various combinations of service. 44 5.2.1 Interagency Transfers at Existing Transfer Locations
Transfers at Locations with CTA Bus and Metra Only A small set of CTA bus and Metra connections demonstrate a high number of transfers between CTA and Metra (Exhibit 5-8), up to 649 transfers. Both Western Avenue (MD-N, MD-W, NCS) and Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) experience a high number of transfers, primarily from inbound commuter rail lines to CTA bus line 33 (which operates only in the morning peak hour) traveling to the North Michigan Avenue area. Most of these transfers only occur in one direction – from Metra to CTA. Seven transfer locations are estimated to host more than 100 transfers per day.
Five locations identified as priority locations for analysis in the first screen have negligible rates of transfers. All occur along the Metra Electric lines where multiple locations can capture trips from CTA buses.
EXHIBIT 5-8 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH CTA BUS AND METRA ONLY (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000)
CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Western Avenue (MD-N, MD-W, 649 - - - - 649 NCS) Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) 641 - - - - 641 91st / South Chicago (ME-SC) 304 - - - - 304 Rogers Park (UP-N) 136 - - - - 136 103rd / Beverly 120 - - - - 120 Healy (MD-N) 112 - - - - 112 Gresham (RI) 102 - - - - 102 Halsted (BNSF) 50 - - - - 50 Ravenswood (UP-N) 50 - - - - 50 59th / University of Chicago (ME- 48 - - - - 48 ML,SS) Grayland (MD-N) 46 - - - - 46 95th / Chicago State University (ME- 46 - - - - 46 ML) 111th / Morgan Park (RI) 44 44 Kedzie (UP-W) 41 - - - - 41 47th / Kenwood (ME-ML) 24 - - - - 24 55th / 56th / 57th (ME-ML) 24 - - - - 24 Bryn Mawr (ME-SC) 20 - - - - 20 Western (BNSF) 20 - - - - 20 Wrightwood (SWS) 16 - - - - 16 63rd (ME-ML,SS) * - - - - * Stony Island (ME-SC) * - - - - * 23rd / McCormick Place (ME-ML) * - - - - * 53rd / Hyde Park (ME-ML) * - - - - * 87th (ME-SC) * - - - - * * Negligible number of transfers Locations in bold and italic text represent additions to the list of priority locations.
45 Transfers at Locations with CTA Bus and Pace Only Many locations connecting only bus services demonstrated relatively high rates of interagency transferring (Exhibit 5-9). Many of the locations with the highest rates of transferring in this category include lines that serve opposite directions of a single arterial corridor, such as Western and 79th where CTA's Route 49 and Pace's Route 349 meet.
The availability of data from the automated fare collection system enabled the reconsideration of many locations previously eliminated from higher priority attention. Many locations not previously identified in the first screening analysis were found to have transfer rates comparable to those that were identified in the first screen. Most of these reconsidered locations occur on the extreme northern and southern edges of the City of Chicago.
The transfer locations demonstrated a wide distribution of transfer rates. Nine locations were found to have more than 200 transfers per day. Seventeen locations demonstrated interagency transfers greater than 100 transfers per day. Four stops demonstrate low or negligible rates of transferring between part-time Pace services and many CTA bus lines that feed those locations: Cicero and Irving Park, Western and Montrose, Western and Irving Park, and Marine Drive and Irving Park. These locations can likely be removed from the priority list for analysis.
EXHIBIT 5-9 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH CTA BUS AND PACE ONLY (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000) CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Western and 79th - - 556 - - 556 Harlem and Fullerton - - 460 - - 460 Harlem and North - - 398 - - 398 Ford City - - 298 - - 298 Western and Touhy - - 258 - - 258 Ashland and 95th - - 246 - - 246 Western and 95th - - 244 - - 244 King and 95th - - 234 - - 234 Harlem and Archer - - 206 - - 206 Pulaski and 95th - - 186 - - 186 Western and 87th - - 160 - - 160 California and Touhy - - 158 - - 158 Kedzie and 95th - - 144 - - 144 Halsted and 115th - - 138 - - 138 Halsted and 95th - - 136 - - 136 Austin and Madison - - 128 - - 128 Cumberland and Belmont - - 108 - - 108 Austin and Roosevelt - - 96 - - 96 Naragansett and North - - 94 - - 94 Old Orchard Mall - - 90 - - 90 Western and 103rd - - 90 - - 90
46 EXHIBIT 5-9 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH CTA BUS AND PACE ONLY (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000) (CONTINUED) CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Milwaukee and Imlay - - 86 - - 86 Halsted and 127th - - 82 - - 82 California and Howard - - 80 - - 80 Naragansett and Fullerton - - 72 - - 72 Halsted and 111th - - 70 - - 70 Halsted and 119th - - 70 - - 70 Halsted and 103rd - - 64 - - 64 Michigan and 111th - - 64 - - 64 Michigan and 119th - - 64 - - 64 Pulaski and 79th - - 64 - - 64 Western and 119th - - 64 - - 64 Cicero and 87th - - 60 - - 60 Laramie and Cermak - - 60 - - 60 Pulaski and 111th - - 50 - - 50 Cicero and 79th - - 48 - - 48 Harlem and Irving Park - - 48 - - 48 Cumberland and Irving Park - - 46 - - 46 McCormick and Kimball - - 44 - - 44 Harlem and 63rd - - 28 - - 28 Michigan and 115th - - 26 - - 26 Cicero and Irving Park - - 20 - - 20 Marine Drive and Irving Park - - * - - * Pulaski and 115th - - * - - * Western and Montrose - - * - - * Western and Irving Park - - * - - * * Negligible number of transfers Locations in bold and italic text represent additions to the list of priority locations.
Transfers at Locations with Metra and Pace Only Locations where only Pace and Metra services exist exhibit a wide range of interagency transfer demand (Exhibit 5-10). Three locations where Metra and Pace meet have interagency transfers that range from 750 to 1,300 transfers per day. These locations are: Naperville (BNSF), Lisle (BNSF), and Lake Cook (MD-N). The majority of remaining locations identified during the first screening analysis exhibited estimates of fewer than 300 per day. Nineteen locations are estimated to have transfer rates between 100 and 300 per day.
Many locations were estimated to have negligible rates of transfer. Eight locations were estimated to host less than 10 transfers per day. For some of these stations, such as National Street (MD-W) and North Chicago (UP-N), the bus lines that pass by them provide better service to other stations, such as Elgin (MD-W) and Waukegan (UP-N), respectively. Other stations, such as Lockport (HC), Mannheim (MD-W) and Worth (SWS), have service only during the peak hour, reducing the number of transfer opportunities.
47 EXHIBIT 5-10 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH METRA AND PACE ONLY (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000) CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Naperville (BNSF) - - - - 1,354 1,354 Lisle (BNSF) - - - - 1,276 1,276 Lake Cook (MD-N) - - - - 758 758 Harvey (ME-ML) - - - - 298 298 Wheaton (UP-W) - - - - 286 286 Arlington Heights (UP-NW) - - - - 266 266 Westmont (BNSF) - - - - 254 254 Mount Prospect (UP-NW) - - - - 248 248 Clarendon Hills(BNSF) - - - - 218 218 Des Plaines (UP-NW) - - - - 198 198 Waukegan (UP-N) - - - - 170 170 Route 59 (BNSF) - - - - 169 169 Elmhurst (UP-W) - - - - 150 150 Hazel Crest (ME-ML) - - - - 146 146 Wilmette (UP-N) - - - - 138 138 Cumberland (UP-NW) - - - - 135 135 Glen Ellyn (UP-W) - - - - 132 132 Homewood (ME-ML) - - - - 132 132 Elgin (MD-W) - - - - 128 128 Aurora (BNSF) - - - - 124 124 Harlem Avenue (BNSF) - - - - 117 117 Geneva (UP-W) - - - - 110 110 211th St. / Lincoln Hwy (ME-ML) - - - - 88 88 Braeside (UP-N) - - - - 80 80 River Grove (MD-W) - - - - 77 77 Flossmoor (ME-ML) - - - - 70 70 Great Lakes (UP-N) - - - - 64 64 Dee Road (UP-NW) - - - - 57 57 Glenview (MD-N) - - - - 56 56 Oak Forest (RI) - - - - 53 53 Joliet Union Station (HC,RI) - - - - 44 44 Highland Park (UP-N) - - - - 41 41 Calumet (ME-ML) - - - - 40 40 Winnetka (UP-N) - - - - 24 24 LaGrange Road (BNSF) - - - - 22 22 Maywood (UP-W) - - - - 20 20 Morton Grove (MD-N) - - - - 18 18 Melrose Park (UP-W) - - - - 17 17 LaVergne (BNSF) - - - - 16 16 Clyde (BNSF) - - - - ** Worth (SWS) - - - - ** Golf (MD-N) - - - - ** Lockport (HC) - - - - ** Mannheim (MD-W) - - - - ** National Street (MD-W) - - - - ** North Chicago (UP-N) - - - - ** River Forest (UP-W) - - - - ** * Negligible number of transfers 48 Transfers at Locations with CTA Rail and Pace Only One location, out of the priority universe of three, where only CTA rail and Pace meet demonstrate a high rate of interagency transferring (Exhibit 5-1) Eleven Pace bus routes converge at the Rosemont CTA station. There are over 4,500 daily CTA rail to Pace transfers at the Rosemont (Blue) station.
Interagency transferring at O'Hare (Blue) and Oak Park (Green) is lower. The low ridership at O'Hare (Blue) may reflect the indirect and inconvenient nature of the bus to rail connection at O'Hare Airport. Only two fixed-route public transit bus routes serve this location – Pace routes 220 and 330. Rosemont, with its direct bus to rail connection, may be picking up some of the connections being made in the vicinity of O’Hare airport. Low rates of transfer at Oak Park (Green) may reflect the fact that Pace routes 309 and 313 also serve the Harlem/Lake (Green) and Austin (Green) stations.
EXHIBIT 5-11 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH CTA RAIL AND PACE ONLY (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000)
CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Rosemont (Blue) - - - 4,562 - 4,562 O'Hare (Blue) - - - 332 - 332 Oak Park (Green) - - - 254 - 254
Transfers at Locations with CTA Bus, Metra, and Pace There are ten priority locations where CTA bus, Metra, and Pace converge (Exhibit 5-12). Transferring between all three modes does not necessarily occur at such locations. Many of the bus lines serving these locations do not terminate at the rail station. Thus, a passenger is not forced to transfer to continue or complete a trip, thereby reducing the concentration of transfers at the rail station. For example, at stations such as West Pullman (Metra Electric-Blue Island), State Street (Metra Electric-Blue Island), and 95th/Beverly (RI), CTA and Pace parallel each other allowing for multiple opportunities to transfer between the lines. In these instances the Metra station is not the primary transfer point.
49 EXHIBIT 5-12 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH CTA BUS, METRA AND PACE (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000)
CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 95th / Beverly (RI) 14 - * - 134 148 Edgebrook (MD-N) 22 - 20 - 43 85 Park Ridge (UP-NW) * - 38 - 46 84 West Pullman (ME-BI) 15 - * - 53 68 Cicero Avenue (BNSF) 2 - 38 - 22 62 Central Street (UP-N) 14 - 18 - 20 52 Vermont Blue Island (ME-BI,RI) * - 12 - 28 40 95th / Longwood (RI) 12 - * - 618 Edison Park (UP-NW) * - 16 - *16 State Street (ME-BI) 6 - * - 10 16 * Negligible number of transfers Locations in bold and italic text represent additions to the list of priority locations.
Transfers at Locations with CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Pace Significant numbers of transfers occur at the twelve priority locations where CTA bus, CTA rail and Pace meet (Exhibit 5-13). Transfers between CTA rail and Pace are generally much higher in magnitude than transfers between CTA bus and Pace. This is particularly true at the CTA rail terminals: • 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) •Midway (Orange) • Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) • Forest Park (Blue) • 54 / Cermak (Blue) • Skokie (Yellow)
High rates of interagency transferring are not as evident at locations well within the CTA service area where other choices are available. These are Western Avenue (Brown) and Sheridan (Red). Sheridan (Red) station will be eliminated from further detailed analysis because of low rates.
50 EXHIBIT 5-13 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH CTA BUS, CTA RAIL AND PACE (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000) CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) - - 882 3,964 - 4,846 Midway (Orange) - - 1,000 1,822 - 2,822 Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) - - 684 1,814 - 2,498 Forest Park (Blue) - - 20 2,350 - 2,370 54 / Cermak (Blue) - - 360 1,080 - 1,440 Skokie (Yellow) - - 122 770 - 892 Cumberland (Blue - O'Hare) - - 26 680 - 706 Harlem (Blue-O'Hare) - - 164 266 - 430 Austin (Green) 218 142 360 Cicero (Blue - 54/Cermak) - - 68 70 - 138 Western (Brown) - - 22 104 - 126 Ridgeland (Green) 22 102 124 Sheridan (Red) - - 12 - - 12 Locations in bold and italic text represent additions to the list of priority locations
Transfers at Locations with CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Metra; and Pace, CTA Rail, and Metra Only two existing transfer locations host both rail services and one bus service provider. Estimates of transfers for these two locations are presented in Exhibits 5-14 and 5-15. These stations demonstrate significantly different rates of transfers. Main station in Evanston demonstrates a low rate of interagency transfers – 20. The Harlem / Lake station5 serves as a primary connection point between the CTA rail service and services from suburban areas – Pace buses and Metra commuter rail.
5 Estimates at Harlem / Lake station were based on data reflecting conditions before the completion of recent capital investments at the station. Transfers may currently be higher due to the new transfer facilities. 51 EXHIBIT 5-14 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH CTA BUS, CTA RAIL AND METRA (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000) CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Main (Purple, UP-N) * 20 - - - 20 * Negligible number of transfers
EXHIBIT 5-15 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH PACE, CTA RAIL AND METRA (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000) CTA Bus and Metra CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Harlem / Lake (Green, UP-W) - 56 - 1,420 41 1,518
Transfers at Locations with All Services Transfer locations that currently host all services demonstrate a considerable range of interagency transfers (Exhibit 5-16) – from 75 transfers to approximately 8,200 transfers per day. At Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW), the fifth highest transfer location in the region, connections between CTA bus and Pace are the most significant. This amount of transfers is followed closely by the number of transfers between CTA Rail and Pace. Transfers from Metra to each of the three other services are roughly equivalent in number. Davis Street (Purple, UP-N) demonstrates high rates of transfer between CTA Rail and Pace. At both Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) and Davis (Purple, UP-N), transfers between rail and bus services comprise the majority of transfers at the stations. Direct connections between the rail services operated by CTA and Metra comprise a small share of total transfers. Irving Park (Blue, UP-NW) and Montrose /Mayfair (Blue/MD-N) both function as minor transfer locations compared to Jefferson Park and Davis. Fewer services converge at these two locations.
In the downtown Chicago area, transfer volumes at commuter rail terminals between Metra services and other connecting services are significant. All terminals are estimated to host more than 1,000 transfers. Transfers at the Metra terminal stations, Union Station and Ogilvie Transportation Center, to distributor buses are among the highest in the region, with high overall volumes of transfers of over 8,000 and over 5,000, respectively. The high volume of transfers between rail services at LaSalle Street Station may reflect the relatively close proximity of that rail connection to other CTA lines in the downtown.
52 EXHIBIT 5-16 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS WITH ALL SERVICES (FALL 1999 TO SPRING 2000) CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Outside downtown Chicago Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 220 146 984 1,258 124 2,732 Davis (Purple, UP-N) 32 158 96 956 235 1,477 Irving Park (Blue, UP-NW) 73 64 *** *** *** 137 Montrose / Mayfair (Blue / UP-NW) 25 50 *** *** *** 75 Downtown Chicago Union Station 7,078 1,080 * * * 8,158 Ogilvie Transportation Center 4,832 854 * * * 5,686 La Salle Street Station 972 1,496 * * * 2,468 Randolph Street Station 1,694 232 20 6 * 1,952 Van Buren Street Station 1,040 76 22 44 * 1,182 Roosevelt Road Station 88 72 8 1 * 169 * Negligible number of transfers ***No weekday transfers. Pace Route 254 operates on weekends only.
5.2.2 Interagency Transfers at Potential Locations
Summary of Interagency Transfer Estimates – Potential Locations For the universe of potential locations, estimates were created using the best available information. Estimation of transfers at potential locations used a combination of existing data sources such as regional transit model estimates, current rates of transfer between services, estimated rates of growth for bus lines in the region, and surveys revealing rates of transfer between different types of services. No new regional models were developed for this estimation exercise. Where no estimates are directly provided by existing regional model outputs, the study team developed methods to interpret already available data to derive the transfer estimates. 6 In some instances, basic data such as station ridership were unavailable or incomplete, preventing the development of an estimate.
Transfers at Potential Locations with Metra and Pace Calculation of interagency transfers at locations connecting Metra and Pace (Exhibit 5-17) is incomplete due to unavailability of data. Only two of the potential locations, Waukegan (OCS, UP-N) and Joliet Union Station (HC, RI, and OCS) generated a measurable number of transfers. These two stations already exist and transfer rates were estimated using existing ridership patterns. Model estimates for future boardings at Metra stations, however, were not available for Belmont (NCS) and Northwest Highway (NCS). Transfer rates from Metra to Pace bus at 22nd St. / North Chicago (OCS, UP-N), Green Bay Road (OCS), and Weber Road (OCS) were estimated to have less than ten transfers per day, a negligible amount.
6 Methodologies for transfer estimation are described in greater detail in Appendix B. 53 EXHIBIT 5-17 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT POTENTIAL LOCATIONS WITH METRA AND PACE (2020) CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Waukegan (OCS,UP-N) - - - - 371 371 Joliet Union Depot (HC,RI,OCS) - - - - 19 19 22ndSt.North Chicago (OCS, UP- - - - - *- N) Franklin Park (Belmont) (NCS) - - - - 44 DeVal (Northwest Hwy). (NCS) - - - - 00 Green Bay Road (OCS) - - - - *- Weber Road (OCS) - - - - *- * Negligible number of transfers
Transfers at Potential Locations with CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Pace Additional connections created by new CTA rail stations, primarily on the Orange Line extension to Ford City and on the new Mid-City Line, increase the interaction with Pace's bus system (Exhibit 5-18). Some of the connections on radial rail lines may already occur at existing rail terminals.
A new Ford City terminal for the Orange Line would likely absorb most of the interagency transfers currently directed toward the Midway station (Orange). It was estimated that the connections between CTA bus and Pace would be divided between the two stations. CTA bus and Pace connections at the existing Midway station (Mid-City, Orange) could decrease to approximately 150 if most Pace routes are terminated at Ford City (Orange). Many CTA and Pace bus connections may be eliminated and/or diverted from Midway if a second terminal at Ford City is developed.
The new King Drive station (Red Line) will absorb many of the transfers from Pace Route 353 from the south, currently terminating at the 95th/Dan Ryan station (Red Line). New stations on the proposed Mid-City line are estimated to absorb many of the transfers to cross town CTA bus corridors from Pace's bus network. The impact of these changes on existing stations will be analyzed in the future as part of the respective project-specific studies.
54 EXHIBIT 5-18 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT POTENTIAL LOCATIONS WITH CTA BUS, CTA RAIL AND PACE
CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Ford City (Orange) - - 281 2,469 - 2,750 Midway (Mid-City,Orange) - - 150 1,480 - 1,630 Western (Mid-City) * * 156 154 * 310 Cicero (Blue-54/Cermak,Mid-City) * * 103 65 * 168 130th / I-94 (Red,SS) - - 2160** 162 King Drive (Red Extension) - - 21 128 - 149 Pulaski (Mid-City) - - 568- 73 Milwaukee (Mid-City) - - *** *** - - * The number of transfers are embedded within the station boarding estimates from the RTA regional travel model. Deriving these transfer quantities requires additional data processing to extract. ** A commuter rail station not assumed at this location in model outputs provided. New South Shore Station proposed at this location. ***No weekday transfers
Transfers at Potential Locations with CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Metra Possible new connections between CTA rail and Metra demonstrated mixed results (Exhibit 5-19). Estimates for proposed connections between Metra and the Mid-City line require additional information on CTA rail travel times. Information about transit demand needs to be calculated within smaller zones. Estimates of transfers between Metra services at intersections with the proposed Mid-City line are embedded in the RTA regional travel model output which would require additional model processing to extract. This task was outside of the scope of this study.
Demand for transfers between parallel Metra and CTA routes is modest. This reflects modest demand for transit travel between Chicago neighborhoods outside of the Loop and suburban areas. The strongest potential for CTA and new Metra connections occurs at three locations: 35th /Archer (Orange, HC), Addison (Brown, UP-N), and 35th Street (Red, Green, RI, SWS). Separate determination should be made if these stations have merit as important transfer locations.
55 EXHIBIT 5-19 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT POTENTIAL LOCATIONS WITH CTA BUS, CTA RAIL AND METRA
Potential Locations From Planned Investments CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 79th (Mid-City, SWS) 70 **** - - -70 North (Mid-City,MD-W) 30 **** - - -30 103rd / Rosemoor (Red, ME-ML) 30 - - - -30 111th / Pullman (Red, ME, ML) 2 14 - - -16 Lake (Green,Mid-City,UP-W) 6 **** - - -6 ****The number of transfers are embedded within the station boarding estimates from the RTA regional travel model. Deriving these transfer quantities requires additional data processing to extract.
Potential Locations With Possible Connections Between Existing Services (Prospective Locations) CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Addison (Brown, UP-N) 64 158 - - - 222 35th / Archer (Orange,HC) 140 48 - - - 188 35th Street (Red, Green, RI,SWS) 106 16 - - - 122 18th (Blue, BNSF) 38 46 - - -84 Kedzie (Blue,BNSF) 66 4 - - -70 63rd (Red, RI) 14 36 - --50 Cicero (Green, UP-W) 6 8 - - -14
Transfers at Potential Locations with All Service Types Estimates of interagency transfers at the three potential locations of Jefferson Park (Blue, Mid-City, UP-NW, ), Montrose/Mayfair (Blue, Mid-City, MD-N, UP-NW), and 26th (Mid- City, BNSF) reflect the current roles of these stations in the existing transit network (Exhibit 5-20). The Jefferson Park station is one of the locations with the highest total number of interagency transfers. This role as a significant connection point is likely to continue. In the future, the Montrose /Mayfair station and the 26th street station are estimated to continue their minor roles in connecting transit services.
56 EXHIBIT 5-20 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSFERS AT POTENTIAL LOCATIONS WITH ALL SERVICES CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Jefferson Park (Blue,Mid-City,UP-NW) 354 149 1,014 3,820 200 5,537
Montrose / Mayfair (Blue,Mid- 17 68 *** *** *** 85 City,MD-N, UP-NW) 26th (Mid-City,BNSF) 38 **** - - - 38
***No transfers during weekdays ****The number of transfers are embedded within the station boarding estimates from the RTA regional travel model. Deriving these transfer quantities requires additional data processing to extract.
57 5.3 Transfer Location Priorities
5.3.1 Assigning Priority to Existing Interagency Transfers
Considering all the locations together allows for the development of a final list of transfer location priorities. Exhibit 5-21 presents the twenty-five locations in the Chicago metropolitan area with the highest number of total daily interagency transfers.
EXHIBIT 5-21 TWENTY-FIVE LOCATIONS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF WEEKDAY INTER-AGENCY TRANSFERS
CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 1 Union Station 7,078 1,080 - - - 8,158 2 Ogilvie Transportation Center 4,832 854 - - - 5,686 3 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) - - 882 3,964 - 4,846 4 Rosemont (Blue) - - - 4,562 - 4,562 5 Midway (Orange) - - 1,000 1,822 - 2,822 6 Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 220 146 984 1,258 124 2,732 7 Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) - - 684 1,814 - 2,498 8 La Salle Street Station 972 1,496 - - - 2,468 9 Forest Park (Blue) - - 20 2,350 - 2,370 10 Randolph Street Station 1,694 232 20 6 - 1,952 11 Harlem / Lake (Green, UP-W) - 56 - 1,420 41 1,518 12 Davis (Purple, UP-N) 32 158 96 956 235 1,477 13 54 / Cermak (Blue) - - 360 1,080 - 1,440 14 Naperville (BNSF) ----1,354 1,354 15 Lisle (BNSF) - - - - 1,276 1,276 16 Van Buren Street Station 1,040 76 22 44 - 1,182 17 Skokie (Yellow) --122 770 - 892 18 Lake Cook (MD-N) - - - - 758 758 19 Cumberland (Blue - O'Hare) - - 26 680 - 706 20 Western Avenue (MD-N, MD-W, 649 - - - - 649 NCS) 21 Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) 641 - - - - 641 22 Western and 79th - - 556 - - 556 23 Harlem and Fullerton - - 460 - - 460 24 Harlem (Blue-O'Hare) - - 164 266 - 430 25 Harlem and North - - 398 - - 398
The top twenty-five locations for inter-agency transfers demonstrate a broad range of location types. All downtown Metra terminals are included – Union Station, Ogilvie Transportation Center, La Salle Street Station, Randolph Street Station, and Van Buren. In addition, seven of the top twenty-five transfer locations are CTA rail terminals – 95 / Dan Ryan (Red), Midway (Orange), Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple), Forest Park (Blue), Harlem / Lake (Green, UP-W), 54 / Cermak (Blue), Skokie (Yellow). The remainder of the stations are other major terminals within the CTA rail network [e.g., Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) and Davis (Purple, UP-N)), Metra stations with major bus connections (e.g., Naperville (BNSF), Lisle (BNSF), and Lake Cook (MD-N)], or major connections between Metra and
58 CTA buses in the City of Chicago, but outside of the downtown area (e.g., Western Avenue (MD-N, MD-W, NCS) and Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW)). Exhibit 5-22 gives a distribution of the top twenty-five locations for weekday interagency transfers by type of service available.
EXHIBIT 5-22 TOP TWENTY-FIVE LOCATIONS FOR WEEKDAY INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS BY TYPE OF SERVICE AVAILABLE Number of Services Available Locations CTA Bus and Metra 3 CTA Rail and Metra 2 Metra and Pace 4 CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Pace 7 CTA Rail, Metra, and Pace 1 All Services 8
To expand the set of priority transfer locations, each combination of services is considered separately. For each combination of two services (e.g., CTA Bus and Metra), locations are ranked by the number of transfers for that combination of services. All locations that have estimates for transfers for that particular combination of services that are higher than the median number of transfers are considered for inclusion in the final list of priority transfer locations. Exhibits 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, and 5-27 present the locations for each combination of two service types that fall above the median number of transfers for each service type. Many of these locations already fall within the top twenty-five interagency transfer locations. (For example, all of the top locations for transfers between CTA Rail and Metra fall within the top-twenty five overall locations.)
59 EXHIBIT 5-23 LOCATIONS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF TRANSFERS BETWEEN CTA BUS AND METRA
CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 1 Union Station 7,078 1,080 - - - 8,158 2 Ogilvie Transportation Center 4,832 854 - - - 5,686 3 Randolph Street Station 1,694 232 20 6 - 1,952 4 Van Buren Street Station 1,040 76 22 44 - 1,182 5 La Salle Street Station 972 1,496 - - - 2,468 6 Western Avenue (MD-N, MD-W, 649 - - - - 649 NCS) 7Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) 641 - - - - 641 8 91st / South Chicago (ME-SC) 304 - - - - 304 9 Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 220 146 984 1,258 124 2,732 10 Rogers Park (UP-N) 136 - - - - 136 11 103rd / Beverly (RI) 120 - - - - 120 12 Healy (MD-N) 112 - - - - 112 13 Gresham (RI) 102 - - - - 102 14 Roosevelt Road Station (ME-ML) 88 72 8 1 - 169 15 Irving Park (Blue, UP-NW) 73 64 0 - - 137 16 Halsted (BNSF) 50 - - - - 50 17 Ravenswood (UP-N) 50 - - - - 50 18 59th / University of Chicago (ME- 48 - - - - 48 ML,SS) 19 Grayland (MD-N) 46 - - - - 46 20 95th / Chicago State University 46 - - - - 46 (ME-ML) 21 111th / Morgan Park (RI) 44 44 22 Kedzie (UP-W) 41 - - - - 41
EXHIBIT 5-24 LOCATIONS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF TRANSFERS BETWEEN CTA RAIL AND METRA CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 1 La Salle Street Station 972 1,496 - - - 2,468 2 Union Station 7,078 1,080 - - - 8,158 3 Ogilvie Transportation Center 4,832 854 - - - 5,686 4 Randolph Street Station 1,694 232 20 6 - 1,952 5 Davis (Purple, UP-N) 32 158 96 956 235 1,477 6 Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 220 146 984 1,258 124 2,732 7 Van Buren Street Station 1,040 76 22 44 - 1,182
60 EXHIBIT 5-25 LOCATIONS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF TRANSFERS BETWEEN CTA BUS AND PACE CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 1 Midway (Orange) - - 1,000 1,822 - 2,822 2 Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 220 146 984 1,258 124 2,732 3 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) - - 882 3,964 - 4,846 4 Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) - - 684 1,814 - 2,498 5Western and 79th --556--556 6 Harlem and Fullerton - - 460 - - 460 7 Harlem and North - - 398 - - 398 8 54 / Cermak (Blue) - - 360 1,080 - 1,440 9Ford City - - 298 - - 298 10 Western and Touhy - - 258 - - 258 11 Ashland and 95th --246--246 12 Western and 95th --244--244 13 King and 95th --234--234 14 Austin (Green) 218 142 360 15 Harlem and Archer - - 206 - - 206 16 Pulaski and 95th --186--186 17 Harlem (Blue-O'Hare) - - 164 266 - 430 18 Western and 87th --160--160 19 California and Touhy - - 158 - - 158 20 Kedzie and 95th --144--144 21 Halsted and 115th --138--138 22 Halsted and 95th --136--136 23 Austin and Madison - - 128 - - 128 24 Skokie (Yellow) - - 122 770 - 892 25 Cumberland and Belmont - - 108 - - 108 26 Austin and Roosevelt - - 96 - - 96 27 Davis (Purple, UP-N) 32 158 96 956 235 1,477 28 Naragansett and North - - 94 - - 94 29 Old Orchard Mall - - 90 - - 90 30 Western and 103rd - - 90 - - 90 31 Milwaukee and Imlay - - 86 - - 86
61 EXHIBIT 5-26 LOCATIONS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF TRANSFERS BETWEEN CTA RAIL AND PACE
CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 1 Rosemont (Blue) - - - 4,562 - 4,562 2 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) - - 882 3,964 - 4,846 3 Forest Park (Blue) - - 20 2,350 - 2,370 4 Midway (Orange) - - 1,000 1,822 - 2,822 5 Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) - - 684 1,814 - 2,498 6 Harlem / Lake (Green, UP-W) - 56 - 1,420 41 1,518 7 Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 220 146 984 1,258 124 2,732 8 54 / Cermak (Blue) - - 360 1,080 - 1,440 9 Davis (Purple, UP-N) 32 158 96 956 235 1,477 10 Skokie (Yellow) - - 122 770 - 892 11 Cumberland (Blue - O'Hare) - - 26 680 - 706 12 O'Hare (Blue) - - - 332 - 332 13 Harlem (Blue-O'Hare) - - 164 266 - 430 14 Austin (Green) 218 142 360 15 Western (Brown) - - 22 104 - 126
62 EXHIBIT 5-27 LOCATIONS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF TRANSFERS BETWEEN METRA AND PACE CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total 1 Naperville (BNSF) ----1,354 1,354 2 Lisle (BNSF) - - - - 1,276 1,276 3 Lake Cook (MD-N) - - - - 758 758 4 Harvey (ME-ML) - - - - 298 298 5Wheaton (UP-W) 286 286 6 Arlington Heights (UP-NW) - - - - 266 266 7 Westmont (BNSF) - - - - 254 254 8 Mount Prospect (UP-NW) ----248 248 9 Davis (Purple, UP-N) 32 158 96 956 235 1,477 10 Clarendon Hills(BNSF) ----218 218 11 Des Plaines (UP-NW) - - - - 198 198 12 Waukegan (UP-N) - - - - 170 170 13 Route 59 (BNSF) ----169 169 14 Elmhurst (UP-W) - - - - 150 150 15 Hazel Crest (ME-ML) - - - - 146 146 16 Wilmette (UP-N) - - - - 138 138 17 Cumberland (UP-NW) - - - - 135 135 18 95th / Beverly (RI) 14 - - - 134 148 19 Glen Ellyn (UP-W) ----132 132 20 Homewood (ME-ML) - - - - 132 132 21 Elgin (MD-W) - - - - 128 128 22 Aurora (BNSF) - - - - 124 124 23 Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 220 146 984 1,258 124 2,732 24 Harlem Avenue (BNSF) - - - - 117 117 25 Geneva (UP-W) - - - - 110 110 26 211th St. / Lincoln Hwy (ME-ML) ----88 88 27 Braeside (UP-N) ----80 80 28River Grove (MD-W)----7777 29 Flossmoor (ME-ML) ----70 70
63 5.3.2 Assigning Priority to Potential Transfer Locations
Comparing estimates of interagency transfers for potential locations to the priority existing transfer locations can help to establish priorities for potential locations. For each mode combination, the number of estimated interagency transfers is compared to the median for that of existing transfer locations. Those stations whose estimates fell above the threshold established by the median are identified in Exhibit 5-29 as priority potential transfer locations. Only four locations identified as potential new CTA rail to Metra connections may warrant further investigation – Addison (Brown, UP-N), 35th / Archer (Orange,HC), 35th Street (Red, Green, RI, SWS), Kedzie (Blue,BNSF). Only one of these – Addison (Brown, UP-N) –demonstrated an estimate of rail to rail transfers higher than the median of CTA Rail to Metra transfers for existing transfer locations.
EXHIBIT 5-28 PRIORITY LOCATIONS AMONG POTENTIAL TRANSFER LOCATIONS CTA Bus CTA Rail CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra and Location and Metra and Metra and Pace and Pace Pace Total Threshold for inclusion in 41 76 86 100 70 Priority list* Jefferson Park (Blue,Mid-City,UP- 354 149 1,014 3,820 200 5,537 NW) Ford City (Orange) - - 281 2,469 - 2,750 Midway (Mid-City,Orange) - - 150 1,480 - 1,630 Waukegan (OCS,UP-N) - - - - 371 371 Western (Mid-City) - - 156 154 - 310 Addison (Brown, UP-N) 64 158 - - - 222 35th / Archer (Orange,HC) 140 48 - - - 188 Cicero (Blue-54/Cermak,Mid-City) - - 103 65 - 168 130th / I-94 (Red) - - 2 160 - 162 King Drive (Red) - - 21 128 - 149 35th Street (Red, Green, RI,SWS) 106 16 - - - 122 79th (Mid-City) 70 N/A - - - 70 Kedzie (Blue,BNSF) 66 4 - - - 70 Potential Location Not in 2020 Regional Transportation Plan are indicated by italics. * The threshold for inclusion in the priority list is either the median of ridership estimate for existing transfer locations or 100, whichever is less.
5.3.3 Assigning Priority by Comparison of Zonal Travel
Before finalizing the list of interagency transfer locations, it is important to consider locations where enhancement of transfers may lead to higher transit use in those corridors where transit use is not as strong. The following analysis refers to the radial travel zones used to analyze regional travel trends. Using the travel zones, the extent of transit use for travel within each radial corridor is calculated to determine the number of all trips in the corridor and the number of transit trips in the corridor. These data are then used to calculated transit mode share.
64 Three types of trips are considered for this analysis: • Travel between suburban zones and Downtown Chicago • Travel between suburban zones and outer Chicago neighborhoods in the same corridor • Travel between suburban zones and inner Chicago neighborhoods in the same corridor Travel among travel zones within the City of Chicago is assumed to be served entirely by the CTA bus and rail system, thereby not requiring interagency transfers.
Travel between the Chicago metropolitan area suburbs and downtown Chicago demonstrates a high penetration of transit use. Exhibit 5-29 shows that the average transit mode share among all corridors for travel to and from downtown Chicago is 66%, a significant majority of all trips. Four of the corridors, however, demonstrate transit mode shares lower than average – those roughly defined by the Milwaukee District-West line, the Heritage Corridor, SouthWest Service/Rock Island, and the Metra Electric Lines.
EXHIBIT 5-29 TRANSIT MODE SHARE FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN SUBURBAN ZONES AND DOWNTOWN CHICAGO ZONES Suburban Downtown Percentage of Corridor Rail Lines Zones Chicago Zones Trips by Transit Union Pacific-North, Red (Howard), Purple, Brown 18,27,36 1-5 73% (Inner Portion) Milwaukee District – North, North Central Service 19,28,37 1-5 71% (Outer Portion), Brown (Outer Portion), Yellow (Skokie) Union Pacific-Northwest, North Central Service (Inner 20,29,38 1-5 69% Portion), Blue (O'Hare) Milwaukee District – West 21,30,39 1-5 63% Union Pacific-West, Green (Harlem / Lake), Blue (Forest 22,31,40 1-5 69% Park) Burlington Northern, Blue (54 / Cermak) 23,32,41 1-5 71% Heritage Corridor, Orange (Midway) 24,33,42 1-5 52% SouthWest Service, Rock Island, Red (95 / Dan Ryan), 25,34,43 1-5 65% Green (Ashland/ 63rd and E. 63 Cottage Grove) Metra Electric 26,35,44 1-5 59% Average 66%
= Below average
This suggests the need for improved coordination between Metra and Pace at transfer locations along the suburban ends of the corridors such as at Elgin (MD-W), River Grove (MD-W), Mannheim (MD-W), Joliet Union Station (HC,RI), Lockport (HC), and Calumet (ME-ML). Other locations where fewer services meet the Metra corridors might also be investigated for the possibility of additional service. Furthermore, low transit mode share on the corridor defined by the Metra Electric line might also point to the need for better transfer connectivity to downtown Chicago bus services at the downtown terminals.
Investigating travel along radial corridors to the outer Chicago neighborhoods points to some additional possibilities for improvement to transfer locations and connections.
65 Exhibit 5-30 shows that the average transit mode share between suburban areas and outer Chicago neighborhoods within the same corridor is generally very low at 8%. Corridors defined by the Milwaukee District-North, Milwaukee District-West, Union Pacific-West, Burlington Northern, and the Heritage Corridor all demonstrate lower than average transit mode shares for travel between suburban areas and outer Chicago areas. This points to opportunities to improve connections between Metra, Pace, and CTA bus and rail stations within outer Chicago and Cook County neighborhoods such as at Edgebrook (MD-N), Montrose / Mayfair (Blue / MD-N), Mont Clare (MD-W), Galewood (MD-W), Kedzie (UP- W), Harlem Avenue (BNSF), Clyde (BNSF), Cicero Avenue (BNSF), and Summit (HC). Please note that the Marion street station (UP-W)/Harlem Station (Green) in Oak Park has recently been improved as an inter-modal transfer station. The data below does not reflect this recent improvement.
EXHIBIT 5-30 TRANSIT MODE SHARE FOR TRAVEL ALONG RADIAL CORRIDORS BETWEEN SUBURBAN ZONES AND OUTER CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS Suburban Outer Chicago Percentage of Corridor Rail Lines Zones Zone Trips by Transit Union Pacific-North, Red (Howard), Purple, Brown 18,27,36 9 10.1% (Inner Portion) Milwaukee District - North, North Central Service (Outer 19,28,37 10 6.4% Portion), Brown (Outer Portion), Yellow (Skokie) Union Pacific-Northwest, North Central Service (Inner 20,29,38 11 10.3% Portion), Blue (O'Hare) Milwaukee District - West 21,30,39 12 8.1% Union Pacific-West, Green (Harlem / Lake), Blue (Forest 22,31,40 13 3.7% Park) Burlington Northern, Blue (54 / Cermak) 23,32,41 14 2.5% Heritage Corridor, Orange (Midway) 24,33,42 15 7.8% SouthWest Service, Rock Island, Red (95 / Dan Ryan), 25,34,43 16 12.2% Green (Ashland/ 63rd and E. 63 Cottage Grove) Metra Electric 26,35,44 17 12.8% Average 8.2%
= Below average
Examination of travel to inner Chicago neighborhoods reveals similar opportunities to enhance connections. Average transit mode share between suburban areas and inner Chicago neighborhoods (16.4%) is higher than those involving outer Chicago and Cook County neighborhoods (8.2%). Exhibit 5-29 shows that travel between inner Chicago neighborhoods and suburban areas is lower than average for those corridors defined by the Milwaukee District-North, North Central Service, Union Pacific – Northwest, Union Pacific – West, Burlington Northern, and Heritage Corridors services.
66 EXHIBIT 5-31 TRANSIT MODE SHARE FOR TRAVEL ALONG RADIAL CORRIDORS BETWEEN SUBURBAN ZONES AND INNER CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS
Suburban Inner Chicago Percentage of Corridor Rail Lines Zones Zones Trips by Transit Union Pacific-North, Red (Howard), Purple, Brown 18,27,36 6 21.7% (Inner Portion) Milwaukee District – North, North Central Service 19,28,37 6 10.1% (Outer Portion), Brown (Outer Portion), Yellow (Skokie) Union Pacific-Northwest, North Central Service (Inner 20,29,38 6 16.3% Portion), Blue (O'Hare) Milwaukee District – West 21,30,39 7 21.6% Union Pacific-West, Green (Harlem / Lake), Blue (Forest 22,31,40 7 14.1% Park) Burlington Northern, Blue (54 / Cermak) 23,32,41 7 11.3% Heritage Corridor, Orange (Midway) 24,33,42 8 13.2% SouthWest Service, Rock Island, Red (95 / Dan Ryan), 25,34,43 8 20.1% Green (Ashland/ 63rd and E. 63 Cottage Grove) Metra Electric 26,35,44 8 18.9% Average 16.4%
= Below average
Enhancement of bus connections to Metra stations such as Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW), Western Avenue (MD-N, MD-W, NCS), Kedzie (UP-W), Western Avenue (BNSF), and Halsted (BNSF) might help to increase transit mode share between inner Chicago neighborhoods and suburban areas.
67 SECTION 6 - PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT AT TRANSFER LOCATIONS
6.1 Transfer Coordination Issues
The previous chapter identified 84 priority transfer locations among the existing transfer locations and 13 priority transfer locations among the potential transfer locations. Exhibits 6-1 and 6-2 demonstrate how many stations demonstrate each type of service combination and how many passengers transfer between each pair of services for existing and potential locations, respectively. Among existing locations, the largest markets lie in two different combinations – CTA Bus and Metra and CTA Rail and Pace. Among potential locations the combination of CTA Rail and Pace affects the most transferring passengers.
EXHIBIT 6-1 NUMBER OF EXISTING PRIORITY TRANSFER LOCATIONS AND PASSENGERS AFFECTED BY SERVICE COMBINATION Number Number of of Transfers Service Combination Stations* Affected CTA Bus and Metra 24 18,431 CTA Rail and Metra 10 4,234 CTA Bus and Pace 41 8,924 CTA Rail and Pace 18 21,429 Metra and Pace 33 7,615 All Locations 84** 60,654 * Locations that host multiple service combinations may demonstrate high rates of transfer for one service combination and low rates of transfer for another service combination. For this reason, the total number of locations for each particular service combination in Exhibit 6-1 may exceed the number of locations listed in Exhibits 5-23 through 5-28. (For example, Davis (UP-N) and 95th / Beverly (RI) are counted among those stations with CTA bus and Metra even though they do not rank among the top transfer locations for that service combination) ** Because many locations host multiple service combinations, the total number of locations is less than the sum of locations with each individual type of location.
EXHIBIT 6-2 NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PRIORITY TRANSFER LOCATIONS AND PASSENGERS AFFECTED BY SERVICE COMBINATION Number of Number Transfers Service Combination of Stations Affected CTA Bus and Metra 6 800 CTA Rail and Metra 6 377 CTA Bus and Pace 7 1,727 CTA Rail and Pace 7 8,277 Metra and Pace 3 590 All Locations 13** 11,751 ** Because many locations host multiple service combinations, the total number of locations is less than the sum of locations with each individual type of location.
68 Each of the five service combinations requires a different approach to enhancing transfers due to the differing types of facilities, operating environments, and operational flexibility for each service type. Exhibit 6-3 lists issues associated with transfer coordination strategies for each service combination type. Transfer coordination strategies are listed in order of importance as identified by stakeholders as listed in Section 3 of this report. As the exhibit shows, some transfer coordination strategies require greater attention to global issues among all transit service boards while others require more targeted solutions to specific transfer location sites.
69 EXHIBIT 6-3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSFER COORDINATION STRATEGIES BY SERVICE COMBINATION TYPE Coordination Site-Specific Issues Type Strategy Global Issues CTA Bus and Metra CTA Rail and Metra CTA Bus and Pace CTA Rail and Pace Metra and Pace Coordinate transfer -- Transfer Connection -- Service coordination -- Less applicable for -- Low frequencies in some -- Service coordination -- Low frequencies require times between Protection system requires may require focus during combination of CTA Rail outer Chicago may require focus during coordination on the part of Service different transit real-time information from all off-peak periods (midday and Metra due to high neighborhoods require off-peak periods (midday both service boards operators and evening) CTA rail frequencies coordination on the part of and evening) services during Metra service span both service boards Integrate fare - Common fare medium technology requires common distribution network Fare - Common fare medium requires coordinated revenue sharing agreement Provide more useful - Requires coordination of - Requires coordination - Requires coordination - Requires coordination - Requires coordination - Requires coordination information about system maps, printed with shelter and station with station platform with shelter information with shelter and station with shelter and station Information transfer schedules, and signage platform information information programs and programs platform information platform information standards programs and with station with station staff training programs and with station programs and with station opportunities staff training staff training staff training Provide real-time -- Compatible information - Requires coordination - Requires coordination - Requires coordination - Requires coordination - Requires coordination information on the program requires compatible with station and shelter with station capital with shelter capital with station and shelter with station and shelter operation of the technology and parallel or joint capital improvement improvement programs improvement programs improvement programs capital improvement procurements programs programs system Information - Requires compatible technological platform - Requires development of compatible on-time performance standards Create more N/A – Connections can be - Requires analysis of N/A N/A – Connections can be N/A – Connections can be opportunities to created more transfer potential and created more created more Physical transfer between inexpensively through market analysis of new inexpensively through inexpensively through realignment of bus routes station realignment of bus routes realignment of bus routes services – Build New Station Create more -- Re-routing of bus N/A -- Requires coordination --Requires development of --Requires development of opportunities to services requires between service boards associated bus service associated bus service reconciliation of existing and local jurisdictions amenities (shelters, amenities (shelters, Service transfer between line haul needs walkways, bus turnouts, walkways, bus turnouts, services – Re- and pedestrian and pedestrian route Bus Services connections) connections)
70 EXHIBIT 6-3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSFER COORDINATION STRATEGIES BY SERVICE COMBINATION TYPE (CONTINUED)
Coordination Site-Specific Issues Type Strategy Global Issues CTA Bus and Metra CTA Rail and Metra CTA Bus and Pace CTA Rail and Pace Metra and Pace Alleviate the cost of -Requires interagency transfers agreements on the establishment of fare levels and Fare transfer charges -- Requires reconciliation with individual service board financial situations Improve amenities - Capital improvements at - Capital improvements at - Capital improvements at - Capital improvements at - Capital improvements at at transfer bus shelters require rail stations require bus shelters require bus shelters require bus shelters require Physical locations coordination with local compatible design coordination with local coordination with local coordination with local cities standards cities cities and with rail cities operator Improve disabled -- New curb cuts near bus -Requires major station -- New curb cuts near bus -- New curb cuts near bus -- New curb cuts near bus accessibility shelters require retrofit and new elevator shelters require shelters require shelters require coordination with local facilities coordination with local coordination with local coordination with local cities -- Station elevator cities cities cities Physical -- Requires coordination at installment requires -- Station elevator -- Requires coordination at grade crossings coordination with capital installment requires grade crossings improvement program coordination with capital improvement program Increase security -- Requires coordination for - Requires coordination -- Internal security - Requires coordination - Requires coordination - Requires coordination Physical measures large-scale security efforts with local police districts coordination of jurisdiction with local police districts with local police districts with local police districts and railroad police forces between stations and railroad police forces
71 6.2 Transfer Coordination Costs
Consideration of any investments in improving transfer coordination requires an assessment of fiscal impacts in order to determine an appropriate allocation of resources across a number of transfer locations. This section provides a summary of relevant capital costs for related transfer coordination investments. The unit capital costs were developed from rail and bus capital cost summaries developed for the Federal Transit Administration and as updated through related agency analyses.
While the volume of transfers at the different locations offers one way of prioritizing the transfer locations for investment, individual considerations will vary from case to case. Well-designed locations, either existing or potential, may provide excellent physical coordination and require only minor information or other type of coordination to provide smooth, efficient transfers. Other locations, particularly older ones for which use and need have changed over time, may require extensive modification to realize efficient transfer coordination. Extensive investment in such larger scale modifications is likely to be relatively more expensive and time consuming, requiring a closer examination of the cost and benefit of the end product to justify the necessary investment. These investments are typically project oriented and their costs are determined by the unique location and plan characteristics. As such, these larger projects are not the focus of this analysis. Rather, the incremental investments that can be implemented at any one of the proposed transfer locations are the focus of this cost analysis.
Investment in facilitating transfers at locations will depend upon the unique circumstances of each location, and is determined by the level of investment in the differing types of transfer coordination identified: • Physical Coordination, • Information Coordination, • Fare Coordination, and • Service Coordination.
Of these types of coordination, costs for the latter two, fare and service coordination, depend largely upon global or system-wide factors. Fare coordination depends upon fare policy and technology, determined within a service board or by agreement and investment between service boards. Service coordination can incorporate simple adjustments at selected locations, but must follow from general service approaches adopted by each individual service board.
Service coordination depends primarily upon service standards and levels of service provided on individual routes. While the frequency and span of service to a specific transfer location can be modified easily, this determination rests more upon the service design and scheduling factors such as alignment, ridership, and service standards which are external to the transfer location analysis than on service coordination issues. Service scheduling and design modifications to improve transfer opportunities include the development of modified service types such as demand response services, circulator services and guaranteed meet connections. These service design options are more oriented
72 to service planning than transfer coordination and are therefore not included in this cost estimation section. Their cost impact can only be estimated on an individual basis, not on a unit basis. However, recent advances in vehicle location and information devices have introduced systems applications for improved service coordination that are considered for transfer coordination.
Cost Estimates Several studies on fixed guideway capital costs for rail and bus transit investments were completed for the Federal Transit Administration over the past ten years. These studies and agency grant request reports were referenced to determine average project capital costs for rail and bus transfer coordination projects, broken down by elements of the project. The transfer elements of each of these capital cost categories were selected from the database and then normalized into a national average of year 2000 capital costs (Exhibit 6-4). These national average costs represent the cost average of the 34 largest urbanized areas in the US as determined in the Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Reports. The minimum, mean and maximum costs are from the database and associated data sources. The lower costs represent elements that are implemented with only limited functionality, while the maximum costs are examples of the latest systems investments with the most up-to-date technology options. The Chicago adjustment was completed using the national costs and adjusting for the Means geographic index. Chicago metropolitan costs in general are 10.9% higher than the national average; these unit costs reflect that modification from the national averages.
EXHIBIT 6-4 TRANSFER COORDINATION CAPITAL COSTS
Transfer Elements Unit Cost Year 2000 National Average Year 2000 Chicago Adjustment* Basis Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Physical Coordination Pedestrian Overpass Each $746,000 $6,930,000 $13,114,000 $827,000 $7,685,000 $14,543,000 Bus Transfer – Minor Bus Berth $42,000 $53,000 $71,000 $47,000 $59,000 $79,000 Bus Transfer - Major Bus Berth $131,000 $178,000 $220,000 $145,000 $197,000 $244,000 Information Coord. Wayfinding and Signs Station $106,000 $312,000 $741,000 $118,000 $3460,000 $872,000 Psgr. Info. – Static Display Loc. $6,000 $12,000 $24,000 $7,000 $13,000 $27,000 Psgr. Info - Dynamic. Display Loc. $18,000 $30,000 $65,000 $20,000 $33,000 $72,000 Communications Transfer Loc. $38,000 $793,000 $2,312,000 $42,000 $879,000 $2,564,000 Fare Coordination On-Board Bus Bus $10,000 $19,000 $45,000 $11,000 $21,000 $50,000 Fixed Machines Each $9,000 $21,000 $59,000 $10,000 $23,000 $65,000 Service Coordination Vehicle Location Vehicle $18,000 $65,000 $101,000 $20,000 $72,000 $112,000
Notes: National Average Adjustment based on a FTA Capital Cost Index of 3.5% per annum. Chicago adjustment based on indices from Means' Heavy Construction Costs Data.
Physical coordination is clearly location specific, with differences among locations depending upon modes of service and volumes of transfers. However, while each location is unique, requiring site-specific analysis to determine actual needs, for the purposes of cost estimation a simple estimation of possible costs can be made for location modification and improvement.
73 The costs given in Exhibit 6-4 represent new construction costs. The rehabilitation of existing locations may represent more or only a fraction of the cost, depending upon the work that needs to be done and whether the work needs to be accomplished under operational conditions.
The larger facility right-of-way costs and station area costs were not included in this summary since they would be developed as part of an initial or major rebuild investment. These larger transfer centers would be constructed as part of a heavy rail station and include bus, auto and sometimes commuter rail access facilities. Physical costs for larger scale transfer stations, including platforms, associated access facilities and systems, range from $16.4 million to $35.4 million for Year 2000 national average costs, consisting of labor, equipment, and material costs. The average is $25.9 million for these larger transfer centers. The range is developed from the extent of access facilities and systems and the grade of these facilities. These capital costs would be related to the reconstruction of some of the largest regional transfer centers.
Smaller transfer centers with reduced size, scope, access and systems components could be developed for somewhat less than the larger scale centers. These smaller centers would accomplish the same improvement in transfer coordination, just for fewer passengers and their correspondingly fewer bus and rail access needs. The costs for these smaller centers presented in Exhibit 6-4 do not include basic station features and project development costs, including design, construction management, insurance, etc.
Information coordination falls between the broad categories of global coordination and location-specific assessment. While information collection requires a system-level effort, the dissemination of information at a particular location can depend upon the unique characteristics of that station. A simple bus-to-bus transfer point may require only route and schedule posting, while more advanced locations may have real-time displays, customer kiosks, or even manned booths. Two information coordination options have been presented in the capital cost estimates — one for more static displays and one for dynamic information systems.
The cost components presented for the fare and service categories in Exhibit 6-4 are oriented toward systems investments at least at the corridor level and, most likely, at the entire network level. Typical cost information is presented for these two categories on a unit basis with the presumption that a large proportion of the network is included in the implementation. The service coordination option is for vehicle location systems at varying levels of investment and information detail to display at transfer locations. The fare coordination options are for fare collection equipment, both on-board and fixed location machines. Both of these include the latest smart card applications at the higher end of the cost range. Service and fare coordination investments at a lesser level are both more costly on a unit basis and, typically, not as cost effective overall.
74 Regional Transit Coordination Plan: Location Study Appendices
1. Appendix A - Description of Transfer Location Databases pgs. 75-79
2. Appendix B - Method for Estimating Interagency Transfers pgs. 80-90
3. Appendix C - Data Sources for Estimates of Interagency Transfers at Existing Locations pgs. 91-99 APPENDIX A – DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER LOCATION DATABASE
To organize and prioritize transfer locations, a Microsoft Access database was constructed using descriptions of the services operated in the Chicago region. Data were compiled directly from the Regional Transportation Authority, the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, and Pace, and from the Chicago Department of Transportation. The database enabled uniformity with previous RTA data compilations, provided a user-friendly interface for data entry and manipulation, and will provide a useful foundation for future work in the Regional Transit Coordination Plan development.
As described in Section 5, the database was used to conduct a two-part analysis to screen all locations for further evaluation. A location had to meet two criteria: • First, it had to have two or more service boards meet, and • Second, it had to meet the requirements for sufficient service frequency, span of service, ridership, or be part of the Strategic Regional Transit network.
Database Description
The database is composed of various tables with the relevant data for all transfer locations (see Exhibit A-1).
EXHIBIT A-1 DATABASE TABLES AND RELATIONSHIPS
75 A table called "tblRoutesatlocations" forms the core of the locations database, linking the spatial characteristics of locations with characteristics of the services at that location (see Exhibit A-2). This table contains information on which transit services pass by each transfer location: • Service Board •Mode • Route name or number • Whether a particular route terminates at that particular location
Verification of route and transfer location intersection was accomplished through use of geographic information systems and route information published by service boards.
EXHIBIT A-2 DATA DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE tblRoutesatLocations TABLE Field Name Description Values Description ID Location ID number Unique database-assigned sequential number Location Name of transfer location Assigned name, usually station name or intersection name ServiceBoard Service board which operates CTA, if Chicago Transit Authority the route Metra, if Metra Pace, if Pace Mode Mode of transportation CR, if commuter rail HR, if heavy rail MB, if motor bus Route Name of rail line or bus route Route number, for motor bus routes number Route color for heavy rail lines (e.g., Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple, Brown, Mid-City) Route initials for commuter rail lines (e.g., UP-N, UP-NW, MD-N, NCS, MD-W, UP-W, BN, HC, SWS, RI, ME, SS, SES, OCS) TerminatesAtLocati Route terminates at this 0, if no on location 1, if yes
The table called "tblRoutes" contains all information on each service board's routes (see Exhibit A-3). Route statistics were collected and assembled from summaries offered by each operator and from schedule and route information. Data on ridership, frequency, span of service, and inclusion in the Strategic Regional Transit network were incorporated to reflect the intensity and size of each route's travel market.
76 EXHIBIT A-3 DATA DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE tblRoutes TABLE Field Name Description Values Description RouteID Route ID number Unique database-assigned sequential number Route Name of rail line or bus route Route number, for motor bus routes number Route color for heavy rail lines (e.g., Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple, Brown, Mid-City) Route initials for commuter rail lines (e.g., UP-N, UP-NW, MD-N, NCS, MD-W, UP-W, BN, HC, SWS, RI, ME, SS, SES, OCS) Service Service board which operates CTA, if Chicago Transit Authority the route Metra, if Metra Pace, if Pace Mode Mode of transportation CR, if commuter rail HR, if heavy rail MB, if motor bus Ridership Average weekday boardings Number of average line or route weekday boardings PeakVPH Average vehicles per hour Number of buses or trains per hour during the AM peak SRT Route is in the Strategic 0, if no Regional Transit system 1, if yes PeakOnly Route operates during 0, if no weekday peak periods only 1, if yes OffPeak Route operates outside of 0, if no weekday peak periods 1, if yes Weekend Route operates on weekends 0, if no; 1, if yes
Database Queries
Queries were used to stratify the transfer locations by type of service available and location. Information on modes available through "tblRoutesatLocations" were used to develop lists of locations with each category of services available (e.g., CTA bus and Metra only, Pace and Metra, all modes, etc.). Filter queries applied logical expressions to each location to determine if locations deserved further analysis.
The final result of the queries was the development of the "tblLocationSummary" table (See Exhibit A-4).
77 EXHIBIT A-4 DATA DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE tblLocationSummary TABLE Field Name Description Values Description ID Location ID number Unique database-assigned sequential number Location Name of transfer location ServiceBoards Number of service boards with 2 or 3 routes at location Ctabus CTA Bus serves the location 0, if no; 1, if yes Ctarail CTA Rail serves the location 0, if no; 1, if yes (yes/no) Metra Metra serves the location (yes/no) 0, if no; 1, if yes Pace Pace serves the location (yes/no) 0, if no; 1, if yes TotalRoutes Total number of routes at the Number of routes (rail and bus) location RailLines Number of rail lines at the location Number of rail lines BusRoutes Number of bus routes at the Number of bus routes location PeakOnlyRoutes Number of bus routes at the Number of peak-hour-only bus routes location operating only during peak periods OffPeakRoutes Number of bus routes at the Number of routes operating in weekday off- location operating outside of peak peak periods periods TerminalRailLines Number of rail lines which Number of terminating rail lines terminate at the location TerminaBusRoutes Number of bus routes which Number of terminating bus routes terminate at the location SRTRoutes Number of routes at the location Number of SRT routes which are in the Strategic Regional Transit system PeakTrainsPerHour Total number of trains per hour Number of trains per hour during peak periods on lines serving the location PeakBusesPerHour Total number of buses per hour Number of buses per hour during peak periods on routes serving the location RailRidership Total rail ridership on rail lines Sum of ridership on all rail lines serving serving the location location BusRidership Total bus ridership on bus routes Sum of ridership on all bus lines serving serving the location location TotalRidership Total bus and rail ridership on Sum of ridership on all services serving the routes serving the location location
78 A final location summary table was built from two separate location summary tables to identify locations for further analysis (see Exhibit A-5).
EXHIBIT A-5 FINAL LOCATION SUMMARY TABLE
79 APPENDIX B – METHOD FOR ESTIMATING INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS
A key component of the location analysis of Section 5 was the determination of transfer volumes at the various locations identified, both existing and potential. A number of different methodologies were used to estimate interagency transfers at those locations identified for priority analysis. The estimates for existing transfer locations involved compiling and reconciling existing data on transfers from the three service boards in the Chicago region. Estimates for potential transfer locations involved a combination of several different calculation methods, including linear extrapolation, ridership estimates from models, estimation based on service elasticities, and regression models.
Due to the variety of sources of data and the differences in the degree of accuracy of each source, it is important to view these estimates as simple indicators of the relative magnitude of use of a particular transfer location.
B.1 Methodology to Estimate Interagency Transfers – Existing Locations
The various sources of date used in the estimation of transfer volumes at existing locations are identified in Exhibit B-1.
EXHIBIT B-1 EXISTING TRANSFER VOLUMES SOURCES OF DATA
Service Combination Sources of Data
2000 CTA Link-Up Pass Usage Records CTA Bus Metra 2000 CTA Bus Route Ridership Statistics 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey
2000 CTA Link-Up Pass Usage Records CTA Rail Metra 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey
2000 CTA Automated Fare Collection System CTA Bus Pace Records
2000 CTA Automated Fare Collection System CTA Rail Pace Records Metra On-Board Rider Survey Metra Pace 2000 Pace Link-Up Pass Usage Records 2000 Pace Ridership Statistics
Estimation of interagency transfers at existing locations benefited from the robust data sources provided by the service boards.
80 Estimation of Transfers between CTA (bus and rail) and Pace The automated fare collection system operated by the Chicago Transit Authority and Pace provided the basis for estimates of interagency transfers between these two service boards. The automated fare collection system on the buses and heavy rail system provides actual readings of successive trips made between CTA and Pace. At each use of a magnetic stripe fare medium, the automated fare collection system records the date and time of the transaction, the route or the station where the farecard reading occurs, and the previous route or station in which that card was processed. Data are available for any specified time period. Transactions can also be classified according to when the trip record is made (e.g., during the peak hour, outside of the peak hours, and on the weekend).
All transfers from Pace to CTA are recorded through the automated fare collection system. All passes and stored value cards are read by bus fare boxes and rail station fare gates at each boarding. Successive pass readings record the first bus route (or rail station boarding location) and the second bus route (or rail station boarding location). All transferring passengers who pay initially with cash receive a magnetic stripe transfer card with a record of the issuing route and the ability to record the next route or rail station.
Readings for Pace transfers to CTA during a representative week (April 8 through April 14, 2000) were summarized for each combination of Pace routes and CTA bus routes and each combination of Pace routes and CTA rail stations. Ridership patterns were assumed to be symmetric (i.e., transfers occur in the same locations from CTA bus to Pace and from Pace to CTA bus).
Using data from the automatic fare collection system to estimate transfers between Pace and CTA services rests on several key assumptions: • All readings of a trip from Pace to CTA involve a return trip back to Pace from CTA. • Transfers between Pace and CTA occur at the same location in both directions, unless service characteristics indicate otherwise. • The chosen week for the data summary, April 8 through April 14, 2000, represents typical ridership and interagency transfer patterns. • In cases where two different routes travel along the same alignment (arterial street) or on closely parallel paths, some of the successive farecard readings were assumed to be on successive trips and not necessarily the result of a transfer. Transfers were assumed to occur only where the two routes diverged or terminated (see Exhibit B-2).
81 EXHIBIT B-2 ASSIGNMENT OF ROUTES WITH PARALLEL OR COINCIDENT SEGMENTS Transfers assigned to points of divergence
PARALLEL SECTION -- No transfers assigned
Estimates of Transfers between Metra and Pace Estimates for transfers between Metra and Pace relied primarily on results from Metra's 1999 On-Board Rider Survey, which revealed general market shares of transit for travel to Metra for all stations outside of downtown in the Metra system. The Metra On-Board Rider Survey included questions about mode of access and mode of egress for each station. Each station's rate of bus usage to the station was multiplied by total boardings to derive the number of transfers from Pace to Metra. Each station's rate of bus usage from the station was multiplied by total alightings to derive number of transfers from Metra to Pace. For some locations, data from multiple years were analyzed to derive a composite number of transfers from Pace to Metra in order to reflect variations in survey results through the years. Data from other Metra Surveys were available for 1989, 1993, and 1995. For isolated cases, data from Pace records of Link-Up pass transactions were used to supplement Metra's 1999 On-Board Rider Survey data. Counts of Pace Link-Up pass transactions were multiplied by the ratio of total transfers (using any fare medium) to transfers using Link-Up in order to scale the estimate up to the total number of transferring riders.
Some of the interagency transfer estimates were compared to ridership on actual Pace routes to verify the reasonableness of such estimates – transfers cannot exceed ridership on Pace buses serving those transfer locations. Some estimates were also compared to information on sales of Link-Up passes by station. This information, however, was not available for all stations in the system.
82 Estimates of Transfers between Metra and CTA (bus and rail)
Similar analytical approaches were used to estimate the number of transfers between Metra and CTA services. Metra's 1999 On-Board Rider Survey results provided information on access and egress by bus and heavy rail to the Metra system. A supplementary estimate for each location was also estimated by multiplying CTA AFC data on Link-Up pass transactions (for the week of April 8 through April 14) by the ratio of total transfers (using any fare medium) to transfers using Link-Up in order to scale the estimate up to the total number of transferring riders.
In cases where Metra services connected to both Pace and CTA bus services, the number of passengers connecting to CTA buses was derived by multiplying CTA Link- Up transactions (for each line) by the ratio of total transferring passengers to Link-Up transferring passengers. The sum of all transfers between Metra and CTA bus lines was then computed in order to estimate total transfers between Metra and CTA. This total was then subtracted from the total number of passengers transferring from rail to bus in order to estimate the number of passengers transferring between Metra and Pace.
B.2 Method for Estimating Interagency Transfers – Potential Locations
Four types of transfers were analyzed in estimating interagency transfers at potential transfer locations:
• Transfers between Metra and Pace • Transfers where Pace meets both CTA bus and rail services • Transfers where Metra meets both CTA bus and rail services • Transfers where all service types meet
Different methods were used to estimate each of the types of interagency transfers at identified potential transfer locations.
Metra and Pace Connections Transfers where Metra and Pace services meet are based on estimates of travel in 2020 prepared by the RTA in 1997. The use of RTA model estimates of ridership by station assumes that the propensity to travel by transit to a particular station is a result of local conditions around each station – size and demographics of the local population, characteristics of local development patterns, configuration of the local bus transit network, and parking supply at each station. The rate of bus use to reach commuter rail stations in the future is therefore assumed to be proportional to the current rate.
The RTA model output includes an estimate of ridership at each station in the rail system. For each existing transfer location, the surveyed proportion of patrons accessing Metra services by bus was multiplied by the station's estimate of boardings. This estimate was multiplied by two to generate a daily estimate of transfers.
83 During this analysis, some of the stations previously identified as priority locations in the first screen were estimated to have a negligible amount of transfers due to currently low rates of bus access. Transfer rates for new Metra stations were not estimated.
CTA Bus and Rail and Pace Connections Locations where both CTA bus and rail services are planned to meet Pace services required two separate estimation techniques. Transfers between CTA buses and Pace buses were assumed to occur at the same rate as present. In cases where a new CTA rail line was planned to parallel an existing CTA bus line, transfers between Pace and the existing CTA bus line were subtracted from the Pace-to-CTA bus total and added to the Pace-to-CTA rail estimate.
Transfers between Pace bus and CTA rail were based on estimates of future CTA rail station boardings. At stations where CTA rail service already meets Pace service [e.g., Cicero (54/Cermak, Mid-City)], the estimate of transfers was derived by multiplying the proportion of estimated daily boardings attributable to Pace transfers by the estimate of future rail station boardings. For the special case of the pair of stations at Midway and Ford City, Pace routes were allocated between the two stations based upon how those routes would likely terminate at either station (Routes 386 and 831 to Midway, and Routes 379, 390, 382, 383, 384, and 385 at Ford City).
At locations where CTA rail stations do not currently exist, the number of transfers from Pace bus to those CTA rail stations were estimated to approximate the current number of transfers between Pace bus routes and the bus routes most closely serving the same markets as the planned rail lines.
CTA Bus and Metra Connections A regression model was used to estimate the number of transfers between CTA bus and Metra at locations where new Metra stations meet current or planned CTA bus and rail services. At most of these locations, no estimates of Metra ridership were available since they had not been previously included in regional transportation modeling efforts. Statistical tests were therefore conducted to test the significance of relationships between transfers at a specific location and the characteristics of the services that meet at that location.
Several regression models were tested to determine the strength of the relationship between transit characteristics and the total number of bus transfers, using the following variables: • Total ridership for the commuter rail line • The total number of bus lines serving a particular location • The total combined ridership of the bus lines serving the location • Number of parking spaces provided at the station • Fare zone of the station (as a proxy for distance from downtown Chicago) • Location (in the City of Chicago or outside of the City of Chicago)
84 Initial models suggested several strong relationships. Higher rates of transfer from buses occurred at: • locations within the City of Chicago • locations with lower amounts of parking • locations with a higher number of bus lines • locations with bus lines with higher ridership
Based on initial model testing, one statistically significant regression model was chosen to estimate transit ridership for connections between bus services and Metra commuter rail services. This model, which is based on bus and commuter rail transfer locations throughout the region, demonstrated strong relationships with two variables: • Total ridership on the Metra line (indicating market size) • Total number of daytime bus lines serving separate corridors
The total number of transfers for the potential locations with Metra and CTA bus and rail services was estimated using this model (Exhibit B-3).
EXHIBIT B-3 REGRESSION MODEL TO ESTIMATE TRANSFERS BETWEEN CTA BUS AND METRA
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.576592 R Square 0.332459 Adjusted R Square 0.322189 Standard Error 57.01233 Observations 133
Coefficients Intercept -25.8162 No.ofBusRoutes 13.91662 MetraRidership 0.000587
At the two potential locations with existing Metra rail stations and planned CTA rail stations (103rd / Rosemoor and 111th / Pullman on the Red Line extension), estimates of transfers from CTA bus to Metra were derived from empirical data on current travel patterns in the vicinity. Information on current Link-Up pass usage on intersecting CTA bus lines was used to estimate flows from CTA buses to Metra commuter rail.
85 CTA Rail and Metra Connections
A separate method was developed to generate estimates of transfers between CTA Rail and Metra where prospective Metra rail stations are proposed to meet existing CTA Rail stations. Since the greatest travel time benefit generated by connections between Metra commuter rail lines and CTA rail lines would be for trips within a single radial corridor between zones within the City of Chicago and zones in suburban areas, transit patrons destined to CTA rail stations in the immediate vicinity of the proposed connections would benefit the most.
CTA and Metra timetables were therefore examined to determine the travel time benefit of each proposed location. The travel time along the Metra corridor to the proposed station was determined through interpolation from the existing Metra timetables. For this calculation, travel speeds were assumed to be constant along the commuter rail segment. An estimate of travel time savings was derived by subtracting the new travel time with the proposed transfer location from the travel time of the current shortest travel path.
For each of the proposed transfer locations, CTA and Metra timetables also revealed which CTA rail stations would experience travel time benefits due to the connection to Metra and which pairs of zones would experience travel time benefits (Exhibit B-4).
86 EXHIBIT B-4: Estimation of Ridership Involves Identification of Which Pairs of Zones Benefit from the New Connection
Trip Origin
Transfer Location
Trip Destination
Prepared by the RTA System Planning Division, March, 2001.
87 For each zone within the City of Chicago, two quantities were determined: • The estimated number of transit trips to that zone from all suburban locations (Rings 4 through 6). • The estimated number of transit trips to that zone from those locations within the zone's radial corridor.
Using all of the data collected for each location, an estimate was derived for transfers from CTA rail to Metra commuter rail. Data on actual Metra Link-Up pass usage in the corridor (A) were used to determine the total weekly ridership (B) traveling from Metra lines to affected rail stations by multiplying by the ratio of the number of riders transferring from all Metra to CTA rail using any fare media to the number of riders transferring who use Link-Up fare media (3.36). Daily ridership totals (C) were derived by dividing weekly one-way totals by 5. The number of passengers traveling to and from these rail stations from within the same Metra rail corridor was calculated by multiplying the total base ridership (C) by the share of all suburban transit trips involving the specified zones in the City of Chicago that are estimated to come from within each location's radial corridor (G / F). This product gives the number of existing one-way trips that would use the proposed transfer location (H).
The percentage increase of new passengers attracted to use the transfer location due to travel time savings was calculated by multiplying the percentage change in travel time (J) by –1.03 (representing the elasticity of demand with respect to total travel time from Patronage Impacts of Changes in Transit Fares and Services, Mayworm, et al., 1980). The total number of transfers between the two rail systems (L) was derived by adding the base number of one-way transfers (H)to the incremental increase and multiplying the sum (K) by 2. The complete calculation is presented in Exhibit B-5.
88 EXHIBIT B-5 ESTIMATION PROCEDURE FOR METRA TO CTA RAIL TRANSFERS
ABCDE F G H I J K L Number Number Number of Inner Outer Zones Number of Number of Radial Daily One- Change in Percent Estimate of Estimate of of Weekly of Weekly Daily One- Zones Suburban Transit Transit Trips Way Metra- Average Trip Change in Number of Number of Link-Up One-Way Way Trips Traveling Traveling between CTA Rail Time (for trips Average Trip Daily One-Way Daily Transfers Readings Transfers Transfers between Inner Inner Zones and Trips Affected between zones Time Transfers Between CTA Zones and All Outer Radial by New E and zones D) Between CTA Rail and Metra Outer Zones (trips Zones (trips Location (min.) Rail and Metra between all between zones E suburban zones to zones D) and zones D) 18th (Blue, BN) 318 1067 213 7 23,32,41 14,586 1,164 18 -10 -32.19% 23 46 35th / Archer 146 490 98 8,15 24,33,42,43 33,779 5,758 17 -27 -44.85% 24 48 (Orange,HC) 35th Street (Red, 18 60 12 16 25,34,43,42 32,895 16,365 7 -12.5 -27.99% 8 16 Green, RI,SWS) 63rd (Red, RI) 37 124 25 16 25,34,43,42 32,895 16,365 13 -16 -42.26% 18 36 Addison (Brown, UP- 332 1114 223 10 18,27,36 11,485 3,288 64 -7 -23.26% 78 156 N) Cicero (Green, UP-W) 22 74 15 13 22,31,40 10,343 2,353 4 -2.5 -9.54% 4 8 Kedzie (Blue,BN) 17 57 11 14 23,32,41 8,683 994 2 -11 -33.32% 2 4
Calculations: A ✕ 3.36 (proportion of total users to Link-Up transfer users)= B B / 5 = C, C ✕ G / F = H, H ✕ ( 1 + e ✕ J) = K, where e is the elasticity of demand with respect to total travel time (-1.03) K ✕ 2 = L,
89 All Four Service Connections A combination of estimation techniques were used to generate the number of interagency transfers for the locations where all four service types meet, at two potential locations: • Jefferson Park (Blue, Mid-City, UP-NW) • Montrose / Mayfair (Blue, Mid-City, MD-W, UP-NW)
Flows between Metra and bus services operated by both CTA and Pace were estimated by multiplying current transfer rates by the estimate of total Metra station boardings from the RTA regional travel model.
Transfers between CTA rail and Pace bus services were estimated using the same technique with an incremental adjustment to account for Pace bus passengers transferring to the Mid-City rail corridor.
Transfers between CTA bus and Pace bus services were estimated from current rates of transferring with a reduction to account for passengers diverted to the Mid-City rail service.
Finally, transfers between CTA rail and Metra were derived from existing flows from Metra to both the CTA Blue Line and existing bus routes along the Mid-City rail corridor as revealed through CTA automatic fare collection system readings and Metra Mode of Access surveys.
-----
The results of the analysis for all existing and potential transfers were used in section 5.2.
90 APPENDIX C – DATA SOURCES FOR ESTIMATES OF INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS AT EXISTING LOCATIONS
Estimates for interagency transfers at existing locations drew from multiple data sources. While methodologies for estimating interagency transfers generally followed the description in Appendix B, adjustments at several locations were required in order to reflect specific knowledge gained from specialized studies or availability of more accurate data. The sources of data for each modal combination and each existing transfer location are presented in Exhibit C-1.
91 EXHIBIT C-1 SOURCES OF DATA FOR ESTIMATES OF EXISTING INTERAGENCY TRANSFER ACTIVITY BY SERVICE COMBINATION CTA Bus and CTA Rail and CTA Bus and CTA Rail and Metra and Pace Metra Metra Pace Pace CTA Bus and Metra Western Avenue (MD-N, MD-W, NCS) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey 91st / South Chicago (ME-SC) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Rogers Park (UP-N) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, adjusted with Metra On- Board Rider Survey Link- Up Usage Factor 103rd / Beverly 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Healy (MD-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Gresham (RI) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Halsted (BN) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data adjusted with Metra On- Board Rider Survey Link- Up Usage Factor Ravenswood (UP-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, Metra Surveys (1992,1997) 59th / University of Chicago (ME-ML,SS) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Grayland (MD-N) 1999 Metra Station Analysis 95th / Chicago State University (ME-ML) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, adjusted with Metra On- Board Rider Survey Link- Up Usage Factor 111th / Morgan Park (RI) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Kedzie (UP-W) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data adjusted with Metra On- Board Rider Survey Link- Up Usage Factor
92 CTA Bus and CTA Rail and CTA Bus and CTA Rail and Metra and Pace Metra Metra Pace Pace 47th / Kenwood (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey 55th / 56th / 57th (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Bryn Mawr (ME-SC) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Western (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Wrightwood (SWS) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey and 1989 Metra Survey 63rd (ME-ML,SS) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, 1995 Metra Survey Stony Island (ME-SC) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, adjusted with Metra On- Board Rider Survey Link- Up Usage Factor 23rd / McCormick Place 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey 53rd / Hyde Park (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey 87th (ME-SC) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey
CTA Bus and Pace Western and 79th 2000 CTA AFC Database Harlem and Fullerton 2000 CTA AFC Database Harlem and North 2000 CTA AFC Database Ford City 2000 CTA AFC Database Western and Touhy 2000 CTA AFC Database Ashland and 95th 2000 CTA AFC Database Western and 95th 2000 CTA AFC Database King and 95th 2000 CTA AFC Database Harlem and Archer 2000 CTA AFC Database Pulaski and 95th 2000 CTA AFC Database Western and 87th 2000 CTA AFC Database California and Touhy 2000 CTA AFC Database
93 CTA Bus and CTA Rail and CTA Bus and CTA Rail and Metra and Pace Metra Metra Pace Pace Kedzie and 95th 2000 CTA AFC Database Halsted and 115th 2000 CTA AFC Database Halsted and 95th 2000 CTA AFC Database Austin and Madison 2000 CTA AFC Database Cumberland and Belmont 2000 CTA AFC Database Austin and Roosevelt 2000 CTA AFC Database Naragansett and North 2000 CTA AFC Database Old Orchard Mall 2000 CTA AFC Database Western and 103rd 2000 CTA AFC Database Milwaukee and Imlay 2000 CTA AFC Database Halsted and 127th 2000 CTA AFC Database California and Howard 2000 CTA AFC Database Naragansett and Fullerton / Brickyard Mall 2000 CTA AFC Database
Halsted and 111th 2000 CTA AFC Database Halsted and 119th 2000 CTA AFC Database Halsted and 103rd 2000 CTA AFC Database Michigan and 111th 2000 CTA AFC Database Michigan and 119th 2000 CTA AFC Database Pulaski and 79th 2000 CTA AFC Database Western and 119th 2000 CTA AFC Database Cicero and 87th 2000 CTA AFC Database Laramie and Cermak 2000 CTA AFC Database Pulaski and 111th 2000 CTA AFC Database Cicero and 79th 2000 CTA AFC Database Harlem and Irving Park 2000 CTA AFC Database Cumberland and Irving Park 2000 CTA AFC Database McCormick and Kimball 2000 CTA AFC Database Harlem and 63rd 2000 CTA AFC Database Michigan and 115th 2000 CTA AFC Database Cicero and Irving Park 2000 CTA AFC Database Marine Drive and Irving Park 2000 CTA AFC Database Pulaski and 115th 2000 CTA AFC Database
94 CTA Bus and CTA Rail and CTA Bus and CTA Rail and Metra and Pace Metra Metra Pace Pace Western and Montrose 2000 CTA AFC Database Western and Irving Park 2000 CTA AFC Database
Metra and Pace Naperville (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, Metra Surveys (1989, 1995, 1998) Lisle (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Lake Cook (MD-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, 2000 Pace Ridership Statistics Harvey (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey and 1989 Metra Survey Wheaton (UP-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, 1999 Metra Station Study Arlington Heights (UP-NW) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, Metra Surveys (1995, 1998) Westmont (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Mount Prospect (UP-NW) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, Metra Surveys (1989, 1995, 1998) Clarendon Hills(BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Des Plaines (UP-NW) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Waukegan (UP-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Route 59 (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, Metra Surveys (1993, 1995) Elmhurst (UP-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Hazel Crest (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Wilmette (UP-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey
95 CTA Bus and CTA Rail and CTA Bus and CTA Rail and Metra and Pace Metra Metra Pace Pace Cumberland (UP-NW) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Glen Ellyn (UP-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Homewood (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Elgin (MD-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Aurora (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, Metra Surveys (1989, 1995) Harlem Avenue (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, 2000 Pace Link-Up Data Geneva (UP-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, Metra Surveys (1989, 1995) 211th St. / Lincoln Hwy (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Braeside (UP-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, 2000 Pace Ridership Statistics River Grove (MD-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Flossmoor (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Great Lakes (UP-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Dee Road (UP-NW) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Glenview (MD-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Oak Forest (RI) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey, Metra Surveys (1989, 1995) Joliet Union Station (HC,RI) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Highland Park (UP-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey and 1995 Metra Survey
96 CTA Bus and CTA Rail and CTA Bus and CTA Rail and Metra and Pace Metra Metra Pace Pace Calumet (ME-ML) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey and 1989 Metra Survey Winnetka (UP-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey and 1989 Metra Survey LaGrange Road (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Maywood (UP-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Morton Grove (MD-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Melrose Park (UP-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey LaVergne (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Clyde (BN) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Worth (SWS) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Golf (MD-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Lockport (HC) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Mannheim (MD-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey National Street (MD-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey North Chicago (UP-N) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey River Forest (UP-W) 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey
CTA Bus, CTA Rail, and Pace Rosemont (Blue) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data Forest Park (Blue) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data O'Hare (Blue) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data Midway (Orange) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data
97 CTA Bus and CTA Rail and CTA Bus and CTA Rail and Metra and Pace Metra Metra Pace Pace Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 54 / Cermak (Blue) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data Skokie (Yellow) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data Cumberland (Blue - O'Hare) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data Harlem (Blue-O'Hare) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data Cicero (Blue - 54/Cermak) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data Western (Brown) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data Sheridan (Red) 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data CTA Bus, Metra and Pace 95th / Beverly (RI) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Edgebrook (MD-N) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey, Metra Up usage factor Surveys (1989, 1993, 1995) Park Ridge (UP-NW) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey and 1995 Up usage factor Metra Survey West Pullman (ME-BI) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Cicero Avenue (BN) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey, 2000 Pace Up usage factor Link-Up Data Central Street (UP-N) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Vermont Blue Island (ME-BI,RI) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor 95th / Longwood (RI) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Edison Park (UP-NW) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor State Street (ME-BI) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor
98 CTA Bus, CTA Rail and Metra Main (Purple, UP-N) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, adjusted with Metra Link- adjusted with Metra Link- Up usage factor Up usage factor
CTA Rail, Pace, and Metra Harlem / Lake (Green, UP-W) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor
All Services Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Up usage factor Davis (Purple, UP-N) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 Station Ridership adjusted with Metra Link- adjusted with Metra Link- Analysis Up usage factor Up usage factor Irving Park (Blue) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Up usage factor Montrose / Mayfair (Blue / UP-NW) 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board adjusted with Metra Link- adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Up usage factor Union Station 1999 Metra On-Board 1999 Metra On-Board 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Rider Survey Rider Survey Ogilvie Transportation Center 1999 Metra On-Board 1999 Metra On-Board 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Rider Survey Rider Survey La Salle Street Station 1999 Metra On-Board 1999 Metra On-Board 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Rider Survey Rider Survey Randolph Street Station 1999 Metra On-Board 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Van Buren Street Station 1999 Metra On-Board 2000 CTA Link-Up Data, 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey adjusted with Metra Link- Rider Survey Up usage factor Roosevelt Road Station 1999 Metra On-Board 1999 Metra On-Board 2000 CTA AFC Data 2000 CTA AFC Data 1999 Metra On-Board Rider Survey Rider Survey Rider Survey
99