Regional Transportation Authority

Regional Transit Coordination Plan (RTCP) Information and Physical Coordination Study

Summary Report, June 2004

Regional Transportation Authority of Northeastern Illinois (RTA) 175 W. Jackson, Suite 1550 Chicago, IL 60604 www.rtachicago.org

Prepared by the RTA with assistance 300 Interagency Transfer from Wilbur Smith Associates Locations Identified in the RTA Region

REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION PLAN (RTCP)

INFORMATION AND PHYSICAL COORDINATION STUDY

SUMMARY REPORT

June 2004

(Study Completed February 2003)

Regional Transportation Authority 175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1550 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 913-3200

DISCLAIMER This document summarizes work for the Information and Physical Coordination Study component of the Regional Transit Coordination Plan. This document is based on a report prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates 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, through the Illinois Department of Transportation. The contents do not necessarily reflect official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation or the Illinois Department of Transportation. Unless waived by the Government, this requirement applies to all equipment, hardware, construction, reports, data, or any similar items produced under the Grant agreement. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ES-1 Existing Information ES-2 Field Visits ES-4 Concept Designs ES-7 Cost Estimates ES-8 Implementation Plan ES-8 Conclusion ES-9

A. Introduction A-1 Historical Background and Context A-2 About This Study A-2

B. Information for Transferring Passengers B-1 Focus Group Findings B-1 Context and Theory B-1 Review of Existing Information Aids B-2 Review of Printed Information B-2 Review of RTA and Service Board Web Sites B-12 Review of Existing Signage B-15 Recommendations for Existing Information Components B-17 Proposed New Information Components B-18 Summary of Information Coordination Recommendations B-20

C. Field Visits to 75 Interagency Transfer Locations C-1 Purpose of Field Visits C-1 Locations Visited C-1 Transfer Path Concept C-5 Information Gathered C-5 Process for Field Visits C-7 Data Base and Organization C-8 Categories of Transfer Locations C-10 CTA Bus / Pace Bus C-10 CTA Rapid Transit / Pace Bus C-10 Metra Commuter Rail / Pace Bus and/or CTA Bus C-13 Metra Commuter Rail / CTA Rapid Transit / Pace Bus and/or CTA Bus C-13 General Recommendations C-13

D. Concept Designs for Five Interagency Transfer Locations D-1 Purpose of Concept Designs D-1 Sites Considered for Analysis D-1 Sites Selected for Analysis D-2 Recommendations for the Concept Design Sites D-4 Joliet Union Station D-4 Cicero D-5 Roosevelt Road D-9 Oak Park Transportation Center D-14 95th and Western D-25

E. Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements E-1 Why Cost Estimates Are Needed E-1 How Cost Estimates Were Generated E-1 Summary of Estimates by Type of Improvement E-4 Cost Estimates for Concept Designs E-4

F. Proposed Implementation Programs for Improvements F-1 Current RTA Capital Program F-1 Priority Improvement Program F-2 Coordination Capital Program F-2 Capital Programs for Future Years F-5 Summary of Implementation Programs F-5 Other Improvements Not Included in Capital Program F-5 Establishing the Implementation Plan F-8

G. Conclusion G-1 Information Needs G-1 Transfer Locations G-1 Concept Designs G-2 Cost Estimates G-2 Implementation Programs G-3 Summary G-3 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

ES-1: RTCP Framework ES-1 ES-2: Transferring Challenges ES-3 ES-3: Information and Physical Coordination Study – Transfer Locations Visited ES-5 ES-4: Components of an Interagency Transfer Path ES-6

A-1: RTCP Framework A-1

B-1: Information Sought by Transit Passengers B-2 B-2: Transferring Challenges B-3 B-3: Recommended Improvements – RTA System Map B-4 B-4: Recommended Improvements – CTA Bus and Rail Map B-6 B-5: Recommended Improvements – CTA Rail Schedules B-7 B-6: Recommended Improvements – CTA Bus Route Schedules B-9 B-7: Recommended Improvements – Metra Rail Schedules B-10 B-8: Recommended Improvements – Pace Bus Route Schedules B-11 B-9: Maps in Other Cities – New York Commuter Rail Map B-13 B-10: Maps in Other Cities – Cleveland Rapid Transit Map B-13 B-11: Maps in Other Cities – Washington Metro Map B-13 B-12: Maps in Other Cities – Pittsburgh Station Area Map B-13 B-13: Examples of Potential Standard Wayfinding, Bus Stop, and Station Platform Signs B-19

C-1: Information and Physical Coordination Study: Transfer Locations Visited C-2 C-2: Physical Components of Transfer Path C-6 C-3: Data Elements of Transfer Path C-9 C-4: Bus to Bus Transfer – 95th Street and Western Avenue C-11 C-5: Rapid Transit to Bus Transfer – 95/Dan Ryan C-12 C-6: Commuter Rail to Bus Transfer – Naperville C-14 C-7: Commuter Rail, Rapid Transit, and Bus Transfer – LaSalle St. Station C-15

D-1: Joliet Union Station – Existing Situation D-6 D-2: Joliet Union Station – Proposed Physical Improvements D-7 D-3: Joliet Union Station – Proposed Information Improvements D-8 D-4: Cicero (BNSF) – Existing Situation (Aerial Photograph) D-10 D-5A: Cicero (BNSF) – Proposed Physical Improvements D-11 D-5B: Cicero (BNSF) – Proposed Physical Improvements (Detail) D-12 D-6: Cicero (BNSF) – Proposed Information Improvements D-13 D-7A: Roosevelt Road – Existing Situation (Metra station) D-15 D-7B: Roosevelt Road – Existing Situation (CTA stations) D-16 D-8A: Roosevelt Road – Proposed Physical Improvements D-17 D-8B: Roosevelt Road – Proposed Physical Improvements (Detail) D-18 D-9: Roosevelt Road – Proposed Information Improvements D-19 D-10: Oak Park Transportation Center – Existing Situation D-21 D-11A: Oak Park Transportation Center – Proposed Physical Improvements D-22 D-11B: Oak Park Transportation Center – Proposed Physical Improvements (Detail) D-23 D-12: Oak Park Transportation Center – Proposed Information Improvements D-24 D-13: 95th and Western – Existing Situation D-26 D-14A: 95th and Western – Proposed Physical Improvements D-27 D-14B: 95th and Western – Proposed Physical Improvements (Detail) D-28 D-15: 95th and Western – Proposed Information Improvements D-29

F-1: Coordination Capital Program Matrix F-4 F-2: Implementation Programs for Capital Improvements F-6 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

C-1: Interagency Transfer Sites Visited By Types of Services Available C-3, 4

E-1: Unit Costs for Decision Point Improvements E-2 E-2: Unit Costs for Segment Path Improvements E-3 E-3: Estimated Cost of Improvements at 75 Interagency Transfer Locations E-5 E-4: Estimated Cost of Improvements at Five Concept Design Locations E-6

F-1: Priority Transfer Locations Listed by Implementation Program F-7

INFORMATION AND PHYSICAL COORDINATION SUMMARY REPORT – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is part of the Regional Transit Coordination Plan (RTCP), a multi-year program of studies aimed at enhancing regional mobility by improving opportunities for interagency travel. The RTCP is a multi-year effort, led by the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), in cooperation with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Metra, Pace, the Chicago Department of Transportation and the Illinois Department of Transportation. It provides a framework (as shown in Figure ES-1) for evaluating existing conditions and suggesting possible improvements in the areas of information coordination, physical coordination, service coordination, and fare coordination.

Figure ES-1 RTCP Framework

Management Plan RTA, CTA, Metra, Pace

Public Involvement & Focus Groups

Market Identification & Sensitivity Analysis

Information Physical Service Fare Coordination Coordination Coordination Coordination Study Study Study Study

Systems Analysis

Policy Recommendations

Implementation Plan(s)

The potential ways to enhance regional mobility through transit include making services faster, more comfortable, more reliable, and more attractive; reviewing routes to better meet customers’ needs; and making the transfer process smoother and more seamless. The RTCP is concerned with coordination in general, including interagency transfers. The goal is not necessarily to increase the amount of transferring, because it is usually better to connect origins and destinations without a change of vehicles whenever feasible. Nevertheless, facilitating the transfer process for those customers whose trips involve transferring is one way to improve coordination. The first phase of the RTCP concentrated on information-gathering components, including public involvement, focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and the comprehensive identification of locations where it is possible to transfer between two or more of the region’s transit operators. The transfer location study found nearly 300

ES - 1

points throughout northeastern Illinois where such interagency transit transfers are possible. The second phase of the RTCP, which includes this study, examines the four main aspects of coordination: information coordination (finding out what services are available, and how to use these services once underway), physical coordination (reaching one service from another), service coordination (making connections at the time that customers need to travel), and fare coordination (paying for the trip). This study covers two components (information coordination and physical coordination) of the second phase of the RTCP. Since both information coordination and physical coordination would require field visits, and since passengers experience both aspects simultaneously as they make their way within (or between) transit facilities, it was decided to study these two elements together. Other studies are examining service coordination and fare coordination. The Information and Physical Coordination Study’s fundamental aim is to assess existing directional and service information (including signs, maps, and schedules), and physical connections, as customers experience these elements. To do so, this report begins with a section examining information sources currently available to transit customers and suggesting possible improvements. That section is followed by an evaluation of the findings from field visits to 75 priority interagency transfer locations (selected for their importance among the approximately 300 interagency transfer sites throughout the region), and the presentation of concept designs for five sites representing a wide range of transferring situations and combinations of service. The last two sections of the report discuss cost estimates for possible improvements and outline a planning framework for implementation. Subsequent phases of the RTCP, beyond the second phase including this study, will include a systems analysis synthesizing the findings of this and the other studies, the development of policy recommendations, and the crafting of an implementation plan.

Existing Information Although much information is available from many sources for transit passengers, these sources do not always convey their content clearly and consistently, particularly for customers who are not familiar with the transit system. Crucial to this study is a theory of customer information needs (Figure ES-2). Customers need to know, first of all, if a trip is possible by transit when they need to travel. If so, riders need to know where to catch the bus or train, where to get off, how to proceed from there to their final destination – and whether they will need to transfer. The transfer process adds to the complexity of information needs. Transferring passengers need to know, at a minimum, such things as route, schedule, and fare information, directions to platforms and stops, and the whereabouts of entrances and exits. The study assessed existing information sources, both pre-trip and en-route, in keeping with the theory of customer information needs described above. Information aids from other transit systems were also reviewed. This analysis resulted in recommendations for information coordination improvements. Maps and diagrams of individual routes on schedules are generally clear and easy to read. What can be improved is how connecting lines and routes are shown,

ES - 2

Figure ES-2 Customer Information Needs

Auto or Transit?

Originating Transfer Destination Final Origin Station Station Station Destination

Information Information Information Information Information for choosing for riding for connecting: for exiting for walking

Directions to platforms or stops, entrances and exits

Route schedule and fare confirmation or options

Local area info (maps)

Current status and arrival notification

Transit route markings

Environmental conditions

Accommodations

particularly if other operators are involved. Too often, the diagrams on schedules omit connecting services altogether, and such sources as the CTA’s Bus and Rail Map show other transit services in faint colors. With several locations served by both Metra and CTA trains, there is a need for a single, schematic map showing rail-to-rail connections. At every transfer location visited as part of this study, there is a need for more and better signs, local area maps, and schedules to guide transferring passengers. At a broader level, there is a need for consistent symbols, icons, and logos on all information products, both pre-trip and en route. By providing clear and consistent indications, these improved information products will help guide customers not only when transferring, but at all points of access to the transit system. In recognition of these needs, the RTA has initiated design work on prototype signs, and has shown preliminary examples to focus group audiences. Once designs have been further refined through on- site feedback from users, the RTA will be working with CTA, Pace, Metra, and municipalities to implement these visual information improvements.

ES - 3

Field Visits The site-specific findings of this study are largely based on a series of field visits to 75 of the approximately 300 interagency transfer locations throughout northeastern Illinois (see Figure ES-3). The purpose of the visits to these 75 priority locations was to document specific issues and opportunities for improvements. The most important factor in deciding which sites to visit was interagency transfer volume (obtained from an earlier transfer location study component of the RTCP). Other factors included geographic balance among different parts of the region, the combinations of different services available, and (for a few sites which would not have otherwise been visited) strategic geographical location or potential for more transfer activity if improvements were made. To conduct the analysis, transfer locations were analyzed in terms of nodes (boarding areas and decision points) and links connecting those nodes. Figure ES-4 shows how the node-and-link concept would work at a hypothetical transfer facility. By dividing the paths that transferring passengers follow into segments, it was possible to organize the data and avoid double-counting. The project team gathered quantitative and qualitative data about signs, physical facilities, and their condition; prepared transfer area diagrams showing facility layout; and photographed the relevant paths of passenger movement. The transfer sites visited fall into four basic categories, according to the combinations of transit modes available. Bus-to-bus transfer locations are mostly at street corners. There are few passenger amenities other than bus shelters (if these are provided), and transfer information is scarce, but these needs could be addressed without major expenditure. Rapid transit-to-bus transfer locations vary in their age and user-friendliness. Many interchange points between CTA rapid transit and Pace buses take place at stations built since the late 1960s, most of which are designed for efficient transferring and have adequate signs (although signage improvements could be made at these stations). The need for information improvements is greater at a small number of older stations which were designed more for pedestrian than for bus access. Commuter rail-to-bus transfer locations may involve Pace buses, CTA buses, or both. Metra stations in the suburbs tend to be at ground level, with few physical barriers to transferring. In the city, most Metra stations are on raised embankments. In addition to lighting, platforms, and paths not conforming to modern standards, these stations are particularly lacking in directional guidance for passengers, and this is compounded by the differences in elevation. The last type of transfer location involves commuter rail, rapid transit, and bus. These are usually the most complex transfer locations, with a combination of rail stations and bus stops. These locations tend to be of two types: downtown Metra stations (Union Station, Ogilvie Transportation Center, etc.) where rapid transit stations are located one to three blocks away, and outlying stations towards the outer end of CTA rapid transit lines (such as Davis St. in Evanston or Harlem/Lake in Oak Park) where commuter rail and rapid transit stations are situated closer to one another. The greatest need for information at these locations is where transferring requires a short walk along local streets. The study team found several concerns that were common to all types of transfer location. Lighting, platform surfaces, and transfer paths have not been designed to

ES - 4

Figure ES-3

Figure ES-4 Components of an Interagency Transfer Path

ES - 6

consistent standards, particularly at older sites, although transferring passengers enjoy higher standards of physical conditions at sites which have been built or rebuilt in recent years. At most places, the greatest challenge is not physical connections, but rather a lack of signs to guide customers from one boarding area to another. When planning and installing signs, the region’s transit carriers have sometimes paid more attention to their own services than to providing guidance for passengers transferring from one operator to another. Local area maps could also help orient passengers (transferring or not) at many sites.

Concept Designs As part of the Information and Physical Coordination Study, five examples of different types of transfer points were selected for development of concept designs to address physical and information shortcomings, and a variety of graphic design and architectural improvements were recommended. The concept designs address site-specific issues and also include universal treatments that would apply to multiple transfer locations. The transfer locations for which concept designs were prepared, and the design solutions proposed, are:

ƒ Joliet Union Station, where Pace buses converge and make timed transfers two or more blocks from the Metra station in this satellite city. The concept design proposes a new bus transfer area, with a new overhead canopy, on a street parallel to the platform where Metra Rock Island District trains stop. ƒ Cicero (BNSF), a Metra station where an automobile-dominated environment makes it difficult to reach CTA and Pace buses. There is a bus turnaround (not used by all routes) which is located two blocks from the station. The concept design envisions a new station with an adjacent bus turnaround area. ƒ Roosevelt Road, on the edge of downtown Chicago, where a Metra Electric and two CTA rail stations are within three blocks of one another. Several CTA bus routes (and a rush-hour-only Pace bus route) serve this area. A variety of urban design and streetscaping improvements are proposed for the three blocks between the CTA and Metra stations, along with a new Metra station entrance along the Roosevelt Road viaduct. ƒ Oak Park Transportation Center, where two rail stations (CTA Green Line and Metra UP West) have been recently redesigned to be integrated with one another. Connections with bus routes were found to be problematic and could be improved. The proposed design calls for rerouting some buses closer to the station and reworking a critical intersection nearby. ƒ Western Avenue and 95th Street, a Pace/CTA bus transfer location near a major shopping center where, as at most bus-to-bus transfer points, there is little passenger guidance. The solutions proposed are to consolidate bus stops to minimize the number of passengers who have to cross either street, and to install an enclosed waiting area, possibly with a small commuter-oriented retail space.

ES - 7

Cost Estimates Estimates were prepared for the costs of addressing all of the information and physical coordination needs identified through the field visits. Unit costs were estimated in 2002 dollars, based on the recent experience of Chicago’s transit operators, and can be adjusted for the future effects of inflation in the construction industry. It is estimated that the cost of addressing the lack of adequate signs at the 75 priority interagency transfer sites visited would be about $1.9 million. A modest set of general physical improvements at the same 75 priority locations would cost another $2.7 million (not including such vertical access modifications as ramps or elevators). These modest improvements would repair or enhance elements of the transfer process such as platform surfaces, walking surfaces, and lighting. The estimated costs of the major physical and other improvements recommended for the five concept design locations range from $1.7 million to $8.3 million at each site, including the costs of rail station reconstruction, where appropriate. These improvements include such items as moving buses closer to rail stations, installing bus waiting shelters, and adding other amenities, as well as installing more and better signs to facilitate interagency transferring.

Implementation Plan Finally, an implementation plan was drawn up for the information and physical improvements recommended in this study. It was suggested that improvements at 13 priority locations evaluated in this study could potentially be addressed under the current RTA Five-Year Capital Program (2003-2007) by incorporating information and physical coordination improvements into the work already programmed. The 13 locations in the current RTA Capital Program include 12 locations covered in the field visits, plus Cicero (BNSF), the only concept design site not included in the field visits. These locations include some strategic transfer points where large numbers of people now transfer (such as Union Station), and others where there is potential for growth if the physical proximity and/or scheduling of connections are improved (e.g, Cicero on Metra’s BNSF Line, or Roosevelt Road, where Metra Electric and CTA rapid transit stations are located within a few blocks of each other). There are additional locations in the current RTA Capital Program that are not strategic interagency transfer points, but nevertheless offer opportunities for improvements to facilitate transferring (e.g., 103rd – Beverly and Downers Grove Main St.). The work involved at these locations varies in scope between major and minor improvements. For the remaining locations not included in the current RTA Capital Program, it is recommended that the following courses of action be followed:

ƒ Those locations which either serve as potential models for the region, were considered as candidates for concept design analysis, or require extensive improvements and would yield substantial benefits, could be covered under a proposed Priority Improvement Program. This program would cover major improvements at ten strategic transfer points not already included in the RTA Capital Program. (Examples include Joliet Union Station, 95th and Western, and the Oak Park Transportation Center, all of which are among the concept design sites, as well as such other locations as LaSalle St. Station and Clybourn.)

ES - 8

ƒ A proposed Coordination Capital Program could fund various modest improvements to facilitate transferring, such as installing signs and lighting, providing vertical access where needed, and improving path surfaces and platform areas where these are deteriorated. This program would cover less comprehensive, yet nevertheless necessary improvements at the remaining 13 strategic transfer locations such as Cumberland on the CTA Blue Line. Included are information improvements at some high volume transfer sites such as Lake Cook, Naperville, 95/Dan Ryan, and Rosemont, where few, if any, physical improvements are needed. ƒ The remaining 40 sites, out of the locations covered in the field visits not suitable for either the Priority Improvement Program or the Coordination Capital Program, have more modest needs and are less strategic in nature. Therefore, these locations could be addressed in future five-year capital programs. Transfer locations in this category do not necessarily have pressing needs now, and can be addressed after improvements have been made at other sites which would benefit larger numbers of transferring customers. Examples include several bus-to-bus transfer points (such as Halsted and 95th, or Western and Touhy), and rail stations of less-strategic importance such as Austin on the CTA Green Line and Mt. Prospect on Metra’s UP Northwest Line.

Although funding has yet to be secured for the locations not currently included in the capital program, the RTA and the transit operators could pursue funding opportunities through such existing programs as the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), and at the state level, the Access to Transit and the Operation Green Light capital improvement programs, both administered by the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Conclusion The Information and Physical Coordination Study identifies a series of needs for transit customers making interagency transfers. Most of these needs can be met inexpensively by providing more and better information, and by making modest facility upgrades. The greatest challenge at most places is not a lack of physical connections, but rather a lack of signs to guide customers from one boarding area to another. At every transfer location visited as part of this study, there is a need for more and better signs and schedules to guide transferring passengers. Local area maps could also help orient passengers (transferring or not) at many sites. At a broader level, there is a need for consistent symbols, icons, and logos on all information products, both pre-trip and en route. By providing clear and consistent indications, these improved information products will help guide customers not only when transferring, but at all points of access to the transit system. Although extensive physical improvements are not needed at most locations, there are several interagency transfer sites which could be much improved through architectural modification. These locations have been identified from among the interagency transfer sites visited, and ways have been suggested to rework and improve rail stations and the bus connections serving them.

ES - 9

A. INTRODUCTION

This report is part of the Regional Transit Coordination Plan (RTCP), a multi-year program of studies aimed at enhancing regional mobility by improving opportunities for interagency travel. The RTCP is a multi-year effort, led by the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), in cooperation with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Metra, Pace, the Chicago Department of Transportation and the Illinois Department of Transportation. It provides a framework (as shown in Figure A-1) for evaluating existing conditions and suggesting possible improvements in the areas of information coordination, physical coordination, service coordination, and fare coordination.

Figure A-1 RTCP Framework

Management Plan RTA, CTA, Metra, Pace

Public Involvement & Focus Groups

Market Identification & Sensitivity Analysis

Information Physical Service Fare Coordination Coordination Coordination Coordination Study Study Study Study

Systems Analysis

Policy Recommendations

Implementation Plan(s)

The potential ways to enhance regional mobility through transit include making services faster, more comfortable, more reliable, and more attractive; reviewing routes to better meet customers’ needs; and making the transfer process smoother and more seamless. The RTCP is concerned with coordination in general, including interagency transfers. The goal is not necessarily to increase the amount of transferring, because it is usually better to connect origins and destinations without a change of vehicles whenever feasible. Nevertheless, facilitating the transfer process for those customers whose trips involve transferring is one way to improve coordination. The first phase of the RTCP, undertaken prior to this study, concentrated on information-gathering components, including public involvement, focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and the comprehensive identification of locations where it is possible to transfer between two or more of the region’s transit operators. The transfer location study found nearly 300 points throughout northeastern Illinois where such interagency transit transfers are possible.

A - 1

The second phase of the RTCP, which includes this study, examines the four main aspects of coordination: information coordination (finding out what services are available, and how to use these services once underway), physical coordination (reaching one service from another), service coordination (making connections at the time that customers need to travel), and fare coordination (paying for the trip). This study covers two components (information coordination and physical coordination) of the second phase of the RTCP. Other studies are examining service coordination and fare coordination.

Historical Background and Context Today’s transit system in Chicagoland is the product of a century and a half of evolution. In its reach and coverage, it has few peers. But the city’s streetcars, buses, and rapid transit lines were not brought under a single management until the CTA started operations in 1947, and the commuter railroads and suburban buses remained the responsibility of private companies for another quarter of a century. In their heyday, the various private streetcar, bus, railroad, and rapid transit companies that eventually became the CTA, Metra, and Pace competed for passengers. The positive side of this competition was that the companies made an effort to attract and retain passengers by running frequent, high-capacity transit. But at the same time, the companies had little reason to seek out connection points or otherwise facilitate transfers between operators. Some of the physical legacy of this former competition can still be seen today in the form of indifferent physical connections. Even under public management, the provision of better information has often been overshadowed by efforts to stabilize, extend, and rebuild the system. The RTCP is also being carried out against a backdrop of ongoing geographic dispersal. As homes, jobs, and other activities in northeastern Illinois spread further from Chicago, it becomes more challenging for the region’s transit carriers to serve customers effectively. Transit continues to provide excellent service to downtown Chicago, which remains a strong regional core. But due to higher rates of population and job growth in the suburbs, downtown Chicago accounts for a decreasing share of total travel. The more dispersed the region becomes, the more difficult it becomes to connect origins and destinations directly with individual bus routes or rail lines. Therefore, growing numbers of transit riders now need to transfer to reach their destinations. Although studies and inventories have been made of the services provided by the different Chicagoland transit operators, the process of transferring between operators has not previously been examined in depth. For the first time in Chicago’s long history of public transportation, the RTCP is developing a comprehensive, interconnected strategy to bring CTA, Metra, and Pace services closer together from the customer perspective.

About This Study The Information and Physical Coordination Study addresses two of the thematic elements of the RTCP. Since a study of either the information or the physical components of the transfer process would require field visits, and since customers experience both these aspects of coordination simultaneously as they make their way through or between facilities, the RTA decided it would be best to examine both elements in a single study.

A - 2

Initiated in July 2001, the Information and Physical Coordination Study has been guided by a project team consisting of the following agencies:

ƒ Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) ƒ Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) ƒ Metra (Commuter Rail Division of the RTA) ƒ Pace (Suburban Bus Division of the RTA) ƒ Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) ƒ Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)

The study’s fundamental aim is to assess existing directional and service information (including signs, maps, and schedules), and physical connections, as customers experience these elements. To do so, this report begins with a section examining information sources currently available to transit customers and suggesting possible improvements. That section is followed by an evaluation of the findings from field visits to 75 priority interagency transfer locations (selected for their importance among the approximately 300 interagency transfer sites throughout the region), and the presentation of concept designs for five sites representing a wide range of transferring situations and combinations of service. The last two sections of the report discuss cost estimates for possible improvements and outline a planning framework for implementation.

A - 3

B. INFORMATION FOR TRANSFERRING PASSENGERS

Although much information is available from many sources for transit passengers needing to make interagency transfers, the various information sources available do not always convey their content clearly, particularly to customers who are not familiar with the transit system. This section starts by considering what information customers need in order to plan and make a trip by transit, based in part on focus group findings. Then the available information (published and electronic) is examined from this customer-oriented perspective, ways are explored to make this information more effective, and some potential new information sources are proposed.

Focus Group Findings In order to obtain structured feedback from customers, focus group meetings regarding transit coordination were conducted as part of the RTCP, prior to the Information and Physical Coordination Study. Participants expressed their views about the interagency transfer process in general. The major theme that emerged was that respondents see transferring as difficult, due to such factors as:

ƒ Length of time spent waiting for connections. ƒ Infrequent service on certain routes, which complicates the transfer process. ƒ Lack of knowledge about connection points, schedules, and fares. ƒ Possibility of missing a connection, resulting in a long wait. ƒ Lack of schedule coordination among transit operators. ƒ Long walking distances between some potential connections. ƒ Lack of a universal fare card and fare policy.

Although many of these comments extend well beyond the scope of the Information and Physical Coordination Study, there is a clear sense that inadequate information is part of the problem and that more information, provided more clearly, is part of the solution.

Context and Theory Among the factors affecting passengers’ ability (or willingness) to use transit is the information available before and during travel. Even the most comprehensive transit system cannot improve mobility unless its existing and potential riders know where and when they can travel. The Information and Physical Coordination Study is premised on a results-oriented theory of customer information needs, as shown in Figures B-1 and B-2. Figure B-1 shows the information that passengers need simply in order to travel on a single bus route or rail line without transferring. The first thing a customer needs to determine is whether a trip is possible by transit, i.e., if service is available from the origin to the destination at a convenient time. If there is such service, the customer needs to know where to catch a bus or train in relation to the point of origin, and when service is available. At the end of the trip, the customer needs to know where to get off, and how to reach the final destination after leaving the transit system.

B - 1

Figure B-1 Information sought by transit passengers

Auto or Transit?

Originating Destination Final Origin Station Station Destination

Information Information Information Information for choosing for riding for exiting for walking

When a transfer is involved, it adds to the complexity of information needs, as shown in Figure B-2. In addition to the basic information needs described above, a transferring passenger also needs to know such things as:

ƒ Directions to platforms, stops, entrances, and exits. ƒ Route, schedule, and fare information. ƒ Local area information (maps, walking directions to other boarding areas). ƒ Current on-time status and notification of arrival. ƒ Transit route markings (to distinguish the desired service from other routes or lines that may be using the same boarding area).

This theory of customer information needs was used to guide both the evaluation of existing information aids and the development of recommendations to improve information coordination.

Review of Existing Information Aids In order to establish the present state of information available to customers from the standpoint of interagency travel, the study reviewed all of the pre-trip and some of the en- route information aids currently available to the traveling public. Recommendations were formulated as a result of this examination of readily-available information, and are presented here along with assessments of what information exists now.

Review of Printed Information As part of this study, the region’s printed information aids (maps and schedules) were reviewed for visual clarity and informational comprehensiveness with regard to interagency coordination. Although there are several aspects where improvements may be made, most of the proposed changes for improving existing information products should be possible on an incremental basis. Detailed below are some of the most frequently-used printed information aids, and how they might be improved from the standpoint of interagency travel.

B - 2

Figure B-2 Transferring Challenges

Auto or Transit?

Originating Transfer Destination Final Origin Station Station Station Destination

Information Information Information Information Information for choosing for riding for connecting: for exiting for walking

Directions to platforms or stops, entrances and exits

Route schedule and fare confirmation or options

Local area info (maps)

Current status and arrival notification

Transit route markings

Environmental conditions

Accommodations

RTA System Map The RTA System Map is the only printed information source that shows all CTA, Pace, and Metra services equally. Several things about the RTA system map work well. The map is easy to read, the text is legible, and the colors and route numbers for the different services are easy to follow. The three basic maps – regional, city, and downtown – allow the reader to focus in on different elements of the overall transit system. On the regional map (not shown here), Metra fare zones are shown clearly on the map by using letters corresponding to the appropriate fare zone in the small squares that the map uses to show each Metra station outside the downtown area (although there is a need for an explanation of the fare zone designations for the Metra stations). Conversely, other aspects could be improved. Figure B-3 shows a detail of the downtown enlargement, and a suggested improvement to the same detail by enlarging the Metra logo at the downtown stations to better differentiate Metra commuter rail lines from CTA rapid transit lines. Similarly, the map uses a variety of colors to indicate Pace bus routes, but only one of these colors is shown on the legend. Showing several colors in the legend would clear up this potential point of confusion.

B - 3

Figure B-3 Recommended Improvements – RTA System Map

Existing

Detail of downtown enlargement from existing map.

Proposed Improvement

The same detail with Metra logo added at Ogilvie Transportation Center and Union Station to highlight interagency connections.

B - 4

CTA Bus and Rail Map The CTA Bus and Rail Map is a widely-distributed information resource, available at rapid transit stations and displayed at bus stop shelters all over the CTA’s service area. Many aspects of this map (which resembles the city and downtown parts of the RTA System Map in its coverage and format) work well. The text on the reverse side of the map lists all CTA rapid transit lines and bus routes, along with the approximate times of the first and last buses and trains. The fare information specifies which fare instruments are valid on CTA only, and which ones are honored by other transit operators. On the downtown map, all of the Metra commuter rail terminals, as well as Van Buren Street Station, are highlighted for immediate recognition and identified by name. There are also ways that this important map can be made clearer and thus more useful for interagency travel. On the main map, Metra stations are shown in small type, with no direct indication that these are Metra stops. Figure B-4 shows a detail of the existing CTA map centering on Jefferson Park, and how it might appear with the Metra logo highlighting the opportunities for interagency travel at Jefferson Park. (Consistent implementation of this information improvement would also involve displaying the Metra logo elsewhere on this detail, at Mayfair and at Irving Park, as well as throughout the map.) The Metra logo could also be included in the legend, and on the downtown enlargement (where the Amtrak logo might also be shown at Union Station, as well as at Glenview, LaGrange Road, and Summit on the main map). The target symbol, shown here and in other figures in this chapter, is intended as an example of a possible standard symbol to indicate an interagency transfer point.

CTA Rail Maps and Schedules CTA rail maps and schedules provide good coverage of the specific lines and stations involved, but they do little to indicate what interagency travel possibilities exist, or even what other CTA services are available. The CTA distributes individual station timetables at rapid transit stations, displays them at stations, and posts them on the CTA web site. These show departure times in each direction for that station. These station timetables have schematic maps showing all the stations on the line in question, and for all lines except the Brown Line, these maps show estimated running times between major stations. In addition, CTA publishes line timetables for each rapid transit line, showing scheduled train times at those major stations that are designated as timepoints. Although these line timetables are not distributed at rapid transit stations, they are available at CTA headquarters and from Customer Service. Both types of timetable have a schematic map of the line for which times are shown. Neither the schematic maps nor the timetable information inside either type of timetable show interagency connection points as such. CTA also issues brochures about the Blue and Orange Lines, published for the benefit of visitors riding to or from O’Hare or Midway Airports. These brochures include summarized schedule information and a schematic map of the line. Figure B-5 shows a detail of the map from the CTA’s “Blue Line Trains” brochure. (The basic format of the map is comparable to those accompanying both types of rapid transit timetable.) The figure also shows how the entire Blue Line schematic map might be modified to show Metra connections. As an example, the three Metra connection points on the O’Hare portion of the Blue Line are

B - 5

Figure B-4 Recommended Improvements – CTA Bus and Rail System Map

Existing Condition

Detail of existing map showing Jefferson Park and environs.

Proposed Improvement

The same detail with the Metra logo and possible interagency transfer symbol added at Jefferson Park. A similar symbol could be added at Montrose and Irving Park.

B - 6

Figure B-5 Recommended Improvements – CTA Rail Schedules

Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

Detail of schematic map from existing Blue Line schedule folder.

The complete Blue Line schematic map with Metra logo and a possible interagency transfer symbol added at Jefferson Park, Montrose, and Irving Park. Similar symbols could be added at LaSalle/Congress and Clinton/Congress.

B - 7

shown. Additional connections (not highlighted on the modified map) are available elsewhere on the Blue Line with Metra’s LaSalle Street Station at LaSalle/Congress, and with Union Station which is two blocks from the Clinton/Congress stop. The symbol used for displaying connection points is shown as an example of possible visual display techniques, not as a definitive format.

CTA Bus Schedules CTA bus schedules are published for each route, but as with the rail brochures, most fail to show interagency connections, or even connections with CTA services other than rapid transit lines. There are a few positive exceptions, though. The schematic maps on the covers of the schedules for routes #120 through #125 show the Metra terminals they serve (Union Station and/or Ogilvie Transportation Center), even though their role as Metra stations is not specifically acknowledged. The map for route #33 is even better; it shows the whereabouts of tracks and stations, and even lists the Metra lines these stations serve. The timetable element of the schedules shows estimated times at those intersections that are designated as timepoints. Some of these may be interagency transfer points, although many are not. There is no indication in the timetable itself as to which timepoints are interagency transfer points, and this information is rarely available on the individual route maps appearing on the covers of schedule folders. Figure B-6 shows how the schematic map that appears on the cover of the schedule for the #80 Irving Park route might be modified to have the Metra logo and a transfer symbol appear at locations where Metra connections are available. Although the individual route maps on CTA bus schedules do not show connections with other bus routes (CTA or Pace), rapid transit stations are shown. It should be possible to add Metra stations without changing the basic appearance of the individual route maps. The recommended information is similar to that on the cover of the schedule for route #33, although the map for that route does not have a distinctive symbol for interagency transfers.

Metra Schedules Metra publishes schedules for each of its commuter rail lines, and schematic maps of each individual line appear on the cover of each edition, showing the sequence of stations clearly, but not providing information about connections. Figure B-7 shows the existing schematic map for the Union Pacific Northwest Line, and how this map might be modified to show the availability of connecting rapid transit service at Jefferson Park and Irving Park. (The map could be further modified to show that rapid transit connections are also available near Ogilvie Transportation Center.) It might be possible to use the timetable part of the schedule to indicate what connections are available at each station. On the left side of the first page of train times in each direction, the timetable shows such station information as parking availability, fare zone, and whether a station is accessible to customers with disabilities (although this information is not repeated on subsequent pages). There might be room to add a column indicating whether connecting Pace and CTA services are available.

B - 8

Figure B-6 Recommended Improvements – CTA Bus Route Schedules

Enlargement of #80 Irving Park bus route with Metra logo and interagency transfer symbol added.

Pace Schedules Pace publishes schedules for its bus routes that provide useful information about connections in several ways. Connections to CTA and Metra rail lines are listed on the front cover. Each schedule features a route map, which shows street names and route numbers of connecting buses (Pace and CTA), and stations and directional orientations of connecting rail lines (CTA and Metra). Figure B-8 shows the map for the #225 Oakton Street route as it now exists, and as it might be modified to highlight the CTA and Metra rail connections at Jefferson Park. As with CTA bus schedules, the timetable portion shows major timepoints without indicating whether interagency connections are available there. The maps

B - 9

Figure B-7 Recommended Improvements – Metra Rail Schedules

Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

Schematic map from the cover of the schedule folder for Metra’s Union Pacific Northwest Line

A modified version of the same map with the CTA logo and a possible interagency transfer symbol added at Irving Park and Jefferson Park.

B - 10

Figure B-8 Recommended Improvements – Pace Bus Route Schedules

Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

Detail of schematic map from the #226 Oakton Street bus route schedule folder.

Enlargement of the same detail with the Metra and CTA logos and a possible interagency transfer symbol added. The Metra logo and transfer symbol also could be added at Edgebrook.

B - 11

accompanying the schedules, however, show where connections are available with Metra commuter rail, CTA rapid transit, and CTA bus lines.

Maps in Other Cities To better assess the adequacy of Chicago area transit information, maps in other US cities were reviewed (although recommendations are not being offered for any of these information products, nor were other cities’ rail or bus schedules examined as part of this review). New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its operating agencies publish a variety of maps and schedules. Figure B-9 shows an excerpt from the MTA’s commuter rail map. This map has several desirable features, including prominent lists of connecting rail and bus services at major stations, subtle notations of connections available at other stations, and the use of color codes for the stations on each commuter rail line (using the same colors that appear on the schedules published for those lines). The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority operates three rail transit lines in addition to many bus routes. Figure B-10 shows the GCRTA’s schematic rail map, as it appears on an inset of the system map. Although the use of numbers as cross- references for individual stations may not necessarily help orient the casual user, the list of connecting bus routes available at each stop is a helpful touch for customers not certain about where to make which connections. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority publishes a well-known and widely-disseminated schematic map of its Metro (rapid transit) system, shown in Figure B-11. Transfer stations along the Metro are very clearly indicated with a large circle- within-a-circle, thus distinguishing them from non-transfer stations. Although this map is limited to just one operator and one mode, some of the graphic concepts can be adapted for other uses, such as a regionwide rail system map. Another type of map is the local station area map, sometimes found near the exits of rapid transit stations, as in Boston and Washington. Pittsburgh’s Port Authority Transit has produced station area maps for its light rail line. Figure B-12 shows the station area map for Castle Shannon, an important inner suburban stop. Helpful features include the locations of bus routes and bus stops, and other orienting features such as parking lots, the locations of such landmarks as a post office and the municipal building, and other buildings (including address numbers).

Review of RTA and Transit Operators’ Web Sites All four of northeastern Illinois’ transit agencies have an Internet presence, and their sites were reviewed to determine how well they show opportunities for interagency travel. The RTA’s web site (www.rtachicago.com), which was reviewed in 2001, was subsequently redesigned in 2002. The following aspects of the site appeared to work well:

ƒ The progression from RTA Services to Travel Information Center is straightforward. ƒ The RTA System Map is the same as the printed version, including the enlargements and legend.

B - 12

Figure B-9 Figure B-10 New York MTA Commuter Rail Map (detail) Cleveland Rapid Transit Schematic Map (detail)

Figure B-11 Figure B-12 Washington Metro Schematic Map (detail) Pittsburgh Station Area Map

B - 13

ƒ In the Travel Information Center feature, it is easy to obtain very specific travel information, tailored to individual needs, by entering a starting point, destination, date and time of travel, accessibility requirements (if any), and preferred walking distance limit. The resulting output lists all feasible options, including all service modes. ƒ The Travel Information Center output can be printed for use while traveling. The output includes station names, location of applicable bus stops, and precise walking distances to and from bus stops and rail stations. The information states clearly when it is necessary to change from one route or line to another. ƒ The detailed walking and transferring information eliminates much of the guesswork and uncertainty for new or unfamiliar riders. Knowing the process and fare in advance should increase public awareness of interagency transfer possibilities.

Other aspects of the RTA’s web site could be improved:

ƒ The Plan Your Trip Online link could be placed on the home page in an eye- catching position, perhaps using a bright color for immediate visibility. ƒ There could be a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) link under Rider Services. For example, for the question “How can I get from point A to point B?”, the answer would include a link to Plan Your Trip Online. ƒ A search window might be added on the home page for finding key words or phrases located on the site. ƒ The Travel Information Center link could be placed on the home page rather than indirectly via RTA Services. ƒ Due to the size and complexity of the RTA System Map, scrolling to find a particular section of the map is somewhat slow and cumbersome. Ways to improve the map’s navigability might be investigated.

The first four of these recommendations were addressed in the 2002 redesign of the RTA web site.

The CTA’s web site (www.transitchicago.com) was reviewed, with the following results:

ƒ The Travel Information Center feature is easy to reach for an overview of all transit services. ƒ The Brochures feature allows users to consult the RTA System Map, and to download CTA publications, including the CTA Bus and Rail Map. ƒ Nevertheless, the only mention of other transit services is through the Related Web Sites link from the home page. On the Related Web Sites page, the RTA, Metra, and Pace sites are listed, along with sites of civic and tourist interest. Aside from these links, the CTA services are shown as being self-sufficient. ƒ A search window might be added to the home page to find key words or phrases.

B - 14

At Metra’s web site (www.metrarail.com), the following items work well:

ƒ Metra’s home page has direct links to the CTA, Pace, and RTA sites under the Transit Links heading. Metra is the only one of the three operators with direct links to the other transit agencies’ web sites, without first showing an intermediate page from which specific sites may be selected. ƒ On the station pages, clicking on a station name brings up an individual page for that station. All Pace bus connections are listed on a chart.

The following aspects of Metra’s web site, on the other hand, could be improved:

ƒ Although the Pace bus connections available at any given station are listed on a chart on the page for that station, there are no comparable lists of CTA bus or rapid transit connections. ƒ The station area maps (reached from the home page via Service—Stations, and then selecting a particular line) are, aside from the downtown stations, designed for customers driving to the station, and have minimal information on other forms of public transportation. Except for the downtown stations (discussed below), the station area maps show streets and parking only. There is no information about where customers may find connecting bus routes, nor is there any indication of the nearby CTA rapid transit lines at Mayfair, Irving Park, or the Oak Park Transportation Center (this despite the inauguration in 2000 of a new direct connection between the Metra and CTA stations at the Oak Park Transportation Center). At three outlying Metra stations with direct connections to CTA rapid transit—Davis St., Evanston; Main St., Evanston; and Jefferson Park—the Metra maps show the location of the CTA tracks, yet not even these maps show where the CTA stations and station entrances are. ƒ For the downtown stations, the amount of information about connecting transit services on the station area maps is varied and might be made more fully inclusive and consistent (although the format is similar to those used on Metra’s “You Have Connections in Chicago” brochures).

The findings from the review of Pace’s web site (www.pacebus.com) are as follows:

ƒ Although the CTA, Metra, and RTA sites can only be accessed indirectly through Related Links, their logos are clearly displayed upon reaching the Related Links page. ƒ Metra and CTA services are, generally speaking, well displayed on the maps for individual bus routes. (These are the same maps that Pace uses in its published schedules.)

Review of Existing Signage The maps, schedules, and Internet sites reviewed above provide pre-trip information for customers planning transit travel; whereas signs provide information to customers while they are traveling and transferring. Signage falls into two basic categories: signs at stations (i.e., on property owned or otherwise used by the transit carriers themselves), and

B - 15

signs at bus stops (i.e., on public streets). The review conducted as part of this study established that existing signs in the region are designed largely to guide customers within the facilities of a single carrier, or to identify individual bus stops. At this time there is no standard format for indicating interagency transfers, or even transfers between different routes of the same carrier.

Signs at Stations CTA signs at rapid transit stations reflect a variety of styles from different points in recent history, and offer varying amounts of information. At such locations as Cumberland and Midway, where multiple Pace routes serve rapid transit stations designed and built since the 1980s, signs guide customers clearly between bus and rail. On the other hand, even at such recently-modernized stations at Harlem/Lake (at the Oak Park Transportation Center), there is a need for more and better signs pointing customers to the boarding areas of other carriers. Metra signs that guide transferring passengers to other forms of public transportation are limited, even where Pace buses make timed transfers with commuter trains. Signs at stations are generally adequate for directing customers to the proper track to catch their trains, but signs are not normally available for interagency transferring. Even at some locations, such as Clybourn, where there are limited signs pointing toward bus stops, these signs are not posted on the platforms themselves and thus do not guide customers towards the proper exits. The best example of good directional guidance is at the mid-block concourse at Ogilvie Transportation Center (between Washington and Randolph Streets), where signs point passengers toward CTA bus routes. At some Metra stations where interagency transferring is possible (e.g., Lisle, Naperville), connecting buses are clearly visible from station platforms during those hours when buses make timed-transfer connections. Certain Metra stations feature Pace bus boarding areas on the station grounds (Aurora, Lake Cook), with signs indicating the routes serving each stop, even though there are few signs guiding passengers from one carrier to the other. At other transfer locations, particularly where buses stop on nearby streets (Waukegan, Joliet), it is uncommon for there to be any guidance from signs. Although Pace serves many CTA and Metra rail stations, there are few Pace off- street bus transfer stations. At those Pace bus centers that are close to, but physically separate from Metra stations (Elgin and Harvey), the signs are adequate for helping customers find the right bus, but there are no signs leading passengers between the bus center and the rail station. Pace uses standard bus stop signs (discussed below) to indicate boarding locations at these bus centers.

Signs at Bus Stops Both CTA and Pace have standard formats for bus stop signs. Neither format indicates interagency transfers (or even the location of other bus stops of the same carrier), but both indicate the carrier and the bus route number. Except for certain downtown bus stops designed and installed by the City of Chicago which show just the route numbers, CTA bus stop signs normally display approximate hours of service and show a schematic map of the route as well (but the signs do not show which direction buses are traveling, which may be a point of confusion at some transfer points).

B - 16

Pace bus stop signs carry the Pace logo and show the route number, but provide no further information. Since Pace routes and service times are subject to more frequent modification than those at CTA, simplicity in bus stop signs may be prudent, but it may be possible to create signs with more detailed information for use at intersections with CTA bus connections. Local regulations vary with regard to the placement of bus stop signs. Certain municipalities that Pace serves do not allow bus stop signs on public streets, thus preventing Pace from providing consistent bus stop information on a systemwide basis. CTA and Pace normally have their own bus stop signs at those stops along streets where it is possible to transfer to and from buses and/or trains. Usually it is possible to determine where bus stops are located at an intersection, although at some stops such as 95th and Western, it is not always immediately clear where the stops are situated for which routes, and further guidance may be desirable at certain intersections. As CTA proceeds over the next several years with plans to move its bus stops to the far sides of many intersections, there may be opportunities for further informational enhancements.

Recommendations for Existing Information Components To summarize the recommendations for existing information components, the following improvements are recommended for printed information sources:

ƒ RTA System Map: Enlarge the Metra logo at downtown commuter rail stations on the downtown map; explain the meaning of the letters indicating Metra fare zones on the regional map; make it clear on the city and regional maps that several different colors are used to show Pace bus routes. ƒ CTA Bus and Rail Map: Add the Metra logo at Metra stations (downtown and city maps), and use a distinct symbol for CTA rail / Metra connection points. ƒ CTA Rail Maps and Schedules: Add the Metra logo and use a distinct symbol for CTA rail / Metra connection points. ƒ CTA Bus Schedules: Add the Metra logo and use a distinct symbol for Metra stations en route. ƒ Metra Schedules: Add the CTA logo and use a distinct symbol for Metra / CTA rail connection points. ƒ Pace Schedules: Add the CTA and/or Metra logos at rail stations.

These improvements are suggested for web sites:

ƒ RTA web site: Make the RTA System Map easier to navigate. ƒ CTA web site: Make the links to other regional transit web sites more prominent. ƒ Metra web site: List CTA as well as Pace connections on the individual station pages; make sure all rapid transit connections are shown on the downtown station maps and on the maps for non-downtown Metra stations near CTA rail stations. ƒ Pace web site: Make the links to other regional transit web sites more prominent.

All of these improvements for pre-travel information products (maps, schedules, and web sites) can be done incrementally, without major changes.

B - 17

Because signage must be physically installed and made clear for specific locations, the needs are more complex. For the most part, signs at rail stations are adequate for guiding customers to the correct platforms, but not for transferring between the boarding areas for different carriers and/or transit modes. Signs of this nature should be installed, with priority given to those interagency transfer locations where on-site information improvements would benefit the greatest numbers of transferring passengers. Bus stop signs usually convey information only about what routes serve that particular stop, but more guidance may be needed at locations where the nature of bus stop arrangements is not immediately evident.

Proposed New Information Components Customers making interagency transfers may use the various information sources evaluated above, although sometimes they must search out and decipher the information they need. The following are some possibilities for new sources that would help clarify and consolidate information:

1. Travel Information Kiosks. The RTA is now developing this promising new information source, using touch-screen technology. These would serve as automated information booths which could be placed at such locations as downtown Metra stations, airports, major transfer points, and other activity centers. 2. Rail-to-Rail Connections Map. This would be a schematic map showing CTA and Metra rail lines in diagrammatic form, not necessarily to scale. The map would emphasize those points where connections may be made between one rail line and another, regardless of operator. The RTA is working on alternative graphic formats for such a map. 3. Local Area Maps. These would show the street network and points of interest, as well as the location of nearby bus stops. The maps would relate rail stations and bus stops to the neighborhood surroundings and help orient passengers – transferring or not. 4. New and Improved Signs (see Figure B-13). Trailblazer signs would lead pedestrians between stations and nearby bus stops, providing clearly visible and consistent directions from one boarding area to another. The examples show one possible standard layout, with adaptations within the basic format depending on the operators and the services involved. Other signs, with similar formats, are proposed to provide guidance to station entrances, identify bus stops and rail stations, and provide real- time information about transit operations. The basic format and variations have yet to be determined.

Since this assessment, the RTA has initiated design work on many of these recommendations and has tested prototype designs in focus groups. Feedback from the focus group participants clearly indicated that customers want simple and consistent symbols, styles, and placement of signs. They want transfer signs posted conspicuously and comprehensively, so that they do not have to hunt for the directional signs they need. Other aspects that focus group participants sought were a single, clear, consistent format for schedules (regardless of operator), a single “one-stop” web site for transit

B - 18

Figure B-13 Examples of Potential Interagency Wayfinding, Bus Stop and Station Platform Signs

B - 19

information, and information kiosk graphics that will be consistent with other information sources.

Summary of Information Coordination Recommendations This study examined information availability and needs in the context of interagency transfers. The resulting recommendations include both modifications of existing information products and creation of some new ones. The information enhancements and products to be pursued include:

ƒ Improvements to maps, schedules, and other printed information ƒ Improvements to existing station signs ƒ Traveler information kiosks (new) ƒ Rail-to-rail connections map (new) ƒ Local area maps (new) ƒ Interagency trailblazer signs (new)

These existing and proposed information aids must be designed to function effectively in a real-world context of bus stops, rail station platforms, passageways, and sidewalks. This real-world context is explored further in subsequent sections of this report. The RTA will work with the transit operators and municipalities to have information products of these types designed, produced, installed, and maintained. Partially as a result of focus group feedback, the RTA is aware of the need for a single “brand identity” for transit as a whole, with standardized symbols, icons, and logos on all information products and sources (both pre-trip and en route). This standardization of identity and provision of more extensive information will help orient customers – not only at transfer locations, but at all points of access to the transit system.

B - 20

C. FIELD VISITS TO 75 INTERAGENCY TRANSFER LOCATIONS

The results of this study are based in part on field visits to 75 interagency transfer locations throughout the six-county RTA area, conducted between October 2001 and January 2002. This section describes the rationale for the field visits, how locations were chosen, what information was obtained, how the field visits were conducted, and the study’s principal findings for the different types of transfer locations that exist in northeastern Illinois.

Purpose of Field Visits The purpose of the field visits was to systematically document barriers and deficiencies that might affect interagency transferring at strategic transfer locations, and identify any opportunities to improve the transfer process. Existing signs, symbols, maps, and schedules conveying directional and service information, as well as the existing physical condition of the transfer connection, were assessed and documented in an inventory. All of the transfer attributes thus inventoried were entered into a comprehensive database that was used to develop order-of-magnitude cost estimates for various improvement options. The field visits were instrumental in providing the “base-line” conditions for the project team to begin to assess the challenges and opportunities for interagency transferring.

Locations Visited In 2001, the RTA’s Transfer Location Study identified approximately 300 locations throughout the RTA service area where interagency transfers are possible. From this pool of locations, the project team selected 75 interagency transfer locations for detailed assessment. The primary selection criterion was the volume of interagency transferring. As a result, the busiest interagency transfer locations were selected for analysis. The project team also wanted locations that represented all the combinations of transit modes (bus, rail) and operators (CTA, Metra, Pace), and all parts of the region. Downtown Chicago, city of Chicago neighborhoods, inner suburbs, outer suburbs, and satellite cities are all represented. A few locations were added because of their promising geography and their potential to serve as regional interagency connectors. Figure C-1 shows the locations selected for field visits. It will be noted that most of the interagency transfer sites in the suburbs are Metra / Pace transfer points. Similarly, most of the CTA / Pace transfer points are located towards the edges of the city of Chicago. Those sites where all modes of transit (bus, rapid transit, and commuter rail) are represented fall into two categories: downtown commuter rail terminals, and outlying locations such as Oak Park, Evanston, and Jefferson Park where rapid transit and commuter rail lines connect with each other, as well as with bus routes. Table C-1 lists the locations visited by the types of transfers available (operator and mode), and also shows interagency transferring volumes. (The volumes are order-of-magnitude figures and should not be used as a basis for precise decision-making.)

C - 1

Figure C-1

C - 2 Table C-1: Interagency Transfer Locations Visited

Transfer Types and Quantities Station Name CTA Bus and Metra CTA Rail and Metra CTA Bus and Pace CTA Rail and Pace Metra and Pace Total Naperville (BNSF) 1354 1354

Lisle (BNSF) 1276 1276

Lake Cook (MD-N) 758 758

Harvey (ME-EL) 298 298

Wheaton (UP-W) 286 286

Arlington Heights (UP-NW) 266 266

Westmont (BNSF) 254 254

Mount Prospect (UP-NW) 248 248

Des Plaines (UP-NW) 198 198

Waukegan (UP-N) 170 170

Route 59 (BNSF) 169 169

Elmhurst (UP-W) 150 150

Wilmette (UP-N) 138 138

Cumberland (UP-NW) 135 135

Homewood (ME-ML) 132 132

Elgin (MD-W) 128 128

Aurora (BNSF) 124 124

Harlem Avenue (BNSF) 117 117

Glenview (MD-N) 56 56

Joliet Union Station (HC, RI) 44 44

LaGrange (BNSF) 22 22

211th St/Licoln Highway N/A N/A

Bellwood (UP-W) N/A N/A

Downers Grove Main Street (BNSF) N/A N/A

Union Station 7078 1080 8158

Ogilvie Transportation Center 4832 854 5686

Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) 220 146 984 1258 124 2732

La Salle Street Station 972 1496 2468

Randolph Street Station 1694 232 20 6 1952

Davis (Purple, UP-N) 32 158 96 956 235 1477

Roosevelt Road Station 88 72 8 1 169

Irving Park (Blue, UP-NW) 73 64 137

Montrose/Mayfair (Blue/UP-NW) 25 50 75

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

Halsted and 95th 136 136

Austin and Madison 128 128 Table C-1: Interagency Transfer Locations Visited (Continued)

Transfer Types and Quantities Station Name CTA Bus and Metra CTA Rail and Metra CTA Bus and Pace CTA Rail and Pace Metra and Pace Total 95/Dan Ryan (Red) 882 3964 4846

Midway (Orange) 1000 1822 2822

Howard (Red, Yellow, Purple) 684 1814 2498

Forest Park (Blue) 20 2350 2370

Skokie (Yellow) 122 770 892

Cumberland (Blue-O'Hare) 26 680 706

Harlem (Blue-O'Hare) 164 266 430

Austin (Green) N/A N/A 360

Cicero (Blue-54/Cermak) 68 70 138

Western (Brown) 22 104 126

Harlem/Lake (Green, UP-W) 56 1420 41 1517

Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) 641 641

91st/South Chicago (ME) 304 304

Rogers Park (UP-N) 136 136

Healy (MD-N) 112 112

Gresham (RI) 102 102

Halsted (BNSF) 50 50

103rd/Beverly

Ravenswood (UP-N) 50 50

Western (BNSF) 20 20

95th/Beverly (RI) 14 134 148

Edgebrook (MD-N) 22 20 43 85

Park Ridge (UP-NW) 38 46 84

Vermont Blue Island (ME-BI, RI) 12 28 40

Metra/PACE Present

All Four Services Present

CTA Bus/PACE Present

CTA Rail/CTA Bus/PACE Present

CTA Rail/PACE/Metra Present

CTA Rail/PACE Present

Metra/CTA Bus Present

Metra/CTA Bus/PACE Present

Transfer Path Concept Transit riders (and potential customers) sometimes see transfers as challenging, especially if different operators are involved and information must be obtained from several sources before and while traveling. In order to break down the components of transferring into manageable pieces for analysis, the project team developed a theory of physical and information conditions applicable to all transfer locations, large and small.

The study’s examination of transfer locations is based on the following analytical concepts:

ƒ Customers follow transfer paths when transferring from one service to another. These paths lead from one boarding area to another, and may involve such physical features as corners, corridors, sidewalks, and changes in elevation (such as stairs, escalators, elevators, and/or ramps). For this study, transfer paths were broken down into decision points and segment paths. ƒ Decision points are where passengers have a choice of different directions to proceed (and may need signs to guide them to where they want to go). ƒ Boarding areas are decision points where passengers may get on or off buses and trains. ƒ Segment paths (or path segments) consist of links from one decision point or boarding area to the next, and a sequence of these segment paths may be combined to produce a transfer path.

By dividing transfer paths into segments, it was possible to assemble data in a modular manner and avoid double-counting. Figure C-2 shows how the various boarding areas, decision points, and segment paths fit together to form transfer paths at a hypothetical transfer location. For instance, to transfer from Metra commuter rail to CTA rapid transit, a customer would proceed from the Metra boarding area at decision point (DP) 1 to DP 2 via segment path (SP) I. There is then a choice of ways to proceed from DP 2 to DP 5, involving an elevator (SP IV), a stairway (SP V), or a ramp (SP VI). From DP 5, the customer then proceeds along SP VII to DP 6, and then turns right and walks along SP VIII to the CTA rail boarding area at DP 7.

Information Gathered The field visits were intended to accomplish the following objectives:

ƒ Document the layout of transfer facilities (through maps and photos). ƒ Document issues encountered at these facilities (using data sheets and photos). ƒ Identify possibilities for architectural improvements (through recommendations). ƒ Note passenger transfer activities and other matters of interest, as appropriate.

Based on these objectives and the transfer path concept described above, a three-person survey team consisting of RTA and consultant personnel performed the following tasks at each of the 75 priority interagency transfer locations visited in this study:

C - 5

Figure C-2 Physical Components of Transfer Path

C - 6

1. Prepared transfer area diagrams showing the general layout and the locations of all relevant data points or paths. 2. Gathered quantitative and qualitative data about signs, physical facilities, and their condition, using the definitions and indicators specified in the database structure. 3. Conducted photographic surveys of the relevant paths of transfer movement at each location, noting the locations and directions of all photographs included in the photo log.

The survey team documented existing conditions during its field visits, and later entered those observations into a comprehensive, linked database.

Process for Field Visits The field visits were conducted from October 2001 through January 2002, on weekdays between the morning and afternoon peak periods. These hours were chosen to facilitate research and minimize inconvenience to customers while taking measurements and conducting photography. Although peak period crowding levels, queuing, and conflicting pedestrian flows may be important site design considerations for possible improvements at specific sites, those factors were not incorporated into this study. Depending on the size and complexity of the transfer locations to be visited, their distances from one another and from downtown Chicago (the survey team’s base of operations), it was usually possible to visit three or four transfer locations per day.

The field visit process consisted of the following three phases:

1. Group orientation and walk-through for familiarization purposes. 2. On-site data collection. 3. Post-visit data processing (at the consultant’s offices).

A description of the three phases follows.

Phase 1 Upon arrival, the survey team would meet facility owner personnel by prearrangement to facilitate data gathering at all locations where agency policy so dictated. The team started by touring the facility to identify all relevant boarding areas and transfer paths. At this point, an initial diagram was drawn to show the facility’s basic physical characteristics. The team used this diagram to coordinate data collection responsibilities and identify important physical features such as decision points, stairs, ramps, elevators, escalators, bus stops, rail platforms, and the paths connecting decision points with one another or with bus and rail boarding areas.

Phase 2 After familiarizing themselves with the facility’s layout, team members would perform the following tasks:

C - 7

ƒ Measure dimensions and distances, and note other information for decision points and segment paths. ƒ Record data for stairs, ramps, and other characteristics, using specially-prepared data sheets. ƒ Develop a more detailed sketch of the facility’s physical layout if required, including stairs, ramps, elevators, platforms, and other physical characteristics. ƒ Systematically photograph the decision points and segment paths, noting their location and direction, and identifying each with a unique number in a photographic log.

Generally, one survey team member drew the detailed sketches and took photographs, while the other two took measurements and noted other observations for the decision points and the segment paths, respectively.

Phase 3 Upon completion of the on-site data collection, the following tasks were completed:

ƒ Observations were entered into the data base. ƒ More precise physical layout diagrams of transfer locations were made. ƒ Decision points, segment paths, and photographs were identified with numbers corresponding to the data base entries.

This three-phase process for field visits created a comprehensive set of data for each transfer location.

Data Base and Organization The study focused on physical access and information availability at transfer locations. The team gathered such information as boarding area measurements, length and width of segment paths, and the presence of signs, barriers, and lighting, and entered this information into a data base created for this purpose. The project team decided this information was needed to document existing conditions in a comprehensive manner, and to provide a basis for estimating unit costs for future improvements that may be undertaken. Figure C-3 shows how specific indicators of physical characteristics and information availability gathered during field visits fit within the data base. Although elements of accessibility were noted, this study does not attempt to assess facility compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Guiding the entire design of the data base was the need to document a wide variety of conditions at the 75 transfer locations studied. Considerations taken into account included the following:

ƒ Transferring passengers view the same path differently when moving in opposite directions. Therefore, a sign that may not be needed in one direction may be vital in the opposite direction. ƒ Transfer paths occasionally overlap; therefore, it was necessary to avoid duplication of segments in order to estimate improvement costs accurately.

C - 8

Figure C-3

Data Elements of

Transfer Path

ƒ Not all transfer paths are bi-directional, due to such elements as one-way exit gates.

The result of the data collection process is a comprehensive set of measurements, qualitative indicators, and photographs, all with links from one data element and from one decision point or segment path to another. By using the data base with the facility diagrams, it is possible to gauge transfer conditions at any of the 75 sites visited. The data base was designed to provide a comprehensive and linked set of numerical, qualitative, and photographic records, allowing it to be used to:

ƒ Reconstruct the transfer process. ƒ Reverse directions.

C - 9

ƒ Switch between quantitative and qualitative indicators, and bring up digitized photographic images. ƒ Query the database for specific concerns at single or multiple locations.

In conjunction with the location diagrams, the data base makes it possible to answer a wide variety of questions and represent a broad range of on-site conditions.

Categories of Transfer Locations There was much variety among the 75 interagency transfer sites visited. Some locations were compact in their layout and easy to comprehend; others involved longer distances, and several had a multiplicity of physical facilities located above and/or below street level. Nevertheless, each of the locations surveyed falls into one of four basic categories, according to the combinations of interagency transit modes available.

CTA Bus / Pace Bus Most CTA bus / Pace bus transfer locations are in outer neighborhoods in the city of Chicago. For instance, 95th Street and Western Avenue is an important intersection (adjacent to a major shopping center) where three CTA and two Pace bus routes meet and almost 250 interagency transfers occur daily between Pace and CTA. Figure C-4 shows the diagram for this location, with segment paths and decision points overlaid. Locations of this type usually have few passenger amenities beyond bus shelters, and transfer information is scarce, but these needs could be addressed with signs, maps, and other improvements as appropriate. Although most of these bus-to-bus transfer points are located on street corners, occasionally bus-to-bus transfers take place off the street, as at 79th Street and Western Avenue. One Pace and three CTA bus routes meet there, and about 550 interagency transfers occur daily. Moving busy bus-to-bus transfer locations off the street would create opportunities to provide better waiting areas for passengers, although these benefits would have to be weighed against the increase in running times that would be required to serve off-street facilities.

CTA Rapid Transit / Pace Bus Most locations where passengers may transfer between CTA rapid transit and Pace buses are at or near the outer ends of rapid transit lines. (Many, though not all of these locations also permit transfers between CTA bus and rapid transit, but this study included only those rapid transit stations served by a transit operator other than the CTA.) Figure C-5 shows 95th/Dan Ryan, a terminal of the Red Line rapid transit (and one of Chicago’s busiest rapid transit stations) where six Pace and nine CTA bus routes converge. There are nearly 4,000 daily transfers between CTA rapid transit and Pace bus routes, and almost another 900 between CTA buses and Pace buses. Although guidance can be improved for customers unfamiliar with the specific whereabouts of stops for different bus routes, 95/Dan Ryan and several other busy interagency transfer stations are designed for efficient transferring, with the bus boarding areas located off the street. Transfers are also possible with Pace buses at certain CTA stations where the buses are on the street (such as Cicero on the 54/Cermak branch of the Blue Line). Typically, there is more passenger guidance where transfers take place

C - 10

within stations. Where the buses operate on city streets, there is a greater need to add signs to assist customers.

Metra Commuter Rail / Pace Bus and/or CTA Bus Most commuter rail to bus transfer stations that were included in the field visits are located in the suburbs and are served by Pace buses. CTA bus routes serve many Metra stations in the city of Chicago, and some of these transfer locations were included in the field visits. Figure C-6 shows the layout at Naperville, which is on Metra’s busiest line, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, and is one of the busiest stations on the Metra system. There are few physical barriers to transferring at Naperville, where 14 Pace bus routes serve the station and there are over 1,300 daily bus/rail transfers. Located near many of the corporate offices along the East-West Tollway corridor, Naperville could be a major reverse commute transfer point if there were more comprehensive bus connections to employment sites. Ground-level stations like Naperville, where there are few barriers to transferring from the train to nearby bus stops, are typical in suburban settings. Most Metra stations in Chicago are on filled-earth embankments (e.g., Western Avenue on the Milwaukee District), where there is a change of elevation between the railroad platforms and street- level bus stops. Some stations in the suburbs are also located above street level (e.g. Joliet, Harvey). At both city and suburban stations, there are opportunities to provide signs and local area maps to guide passengers to other carriers, and to display schedules for all connecting services. The need for guidance is greatest at locations where there is a change of elevation between modes, and at ground-level stations where the location of bus stops is not intuitive and a walk is required.

Metra Commuter Rail / CTA Rapid Transit / Pace Bus and/or CTA Bus Transfer locations where riders may change between commuter trains, rapid transit, and buses fall into one of two subtypes: downtown commuter rail stations such as LaSalle Street Station, shown in Figure C-7, and stations in outer city neighborhoods such as Jefferson Park or in adjacent suburbs such as Harlem/Lake (Oak Park) and Davis St. (Evanston). Although these locations offer many transfer opportunities (including with CTA and/or Pace buses), there are few signs or local area maps to guide passengers between the boarding areas of different operators, especially when bus connections require a short walk along local streets, as is the case at Harlem/Lake (Oak Park). The total daily levels of interagency transferring range from 2,000 to 8,000 at downtown commuter rail terminals, and from 1,400 to 2,700 at major outlying transfer locations where all three modes are present.

General Recommendations The study team found several concerns that were common to all types of transfer location. This analysis, which draws on the examination of information aids (as described in Section B of this report) as well as the field visits, suggests that:

C - 13

ƒ At many locations, physical connections are not so much a challenge as informational guidance. There is a particular need for signs to guide customers from one boarding area to another – even at those locations which are well designed from the physical standpoint. Furthermore, even where signs exist, they may be of little value to customers because they are inconspicuous in their appearance or hidden within the urban environment. ƒ Local area maps, such as those found at rapid transit stations in Boston and Washington, would help orient customers, both for connecting services and for nearby destinations. With several locations served by both CTA rapid transit and Metra commuter trains, there is a need for a single schematic map showing connections between the rail systems. The London and Boston schematic maps are well known beyond their respective systems, and Philadelphia also has a similar map. If properly designed and marketed, an interagency rail map could become not just an informational aid for transit passengers, but perhaps a civic icon as well. ƒ There is a need for a standardized indication for transfer points on maps, schedules, and even on signs at transfer locations. Users not already familiar with the system may otherwise overlook those transfer possibilities not made evident by existing information products or physical proximity. This standard symbol should be the same for all information media, including the RTA System Map, the CTA Bus and Rail Map, all CTA, Pace, and Metra schedules, and signs at transfer locations. ƒ Informational standards should be established for on-site signs at transfer locations. These signs would include the transfer point symbol, the logos of the transit carriers involved, and information about which services are available. The signs also need to make it clear which direction services are traveling when there is a choice, especially at the boarding areas for trains and buses going to downtown Chicago.

Although there is no immediate action plan in place for physical improvements, the next section of this report suggests how some improvements might be implemented at specific transfer sites.

C - 16

D. CONCEPT DESIGNS FOR FIVE INTERAGENCY TRANSFER LOCATIONS

As a follow-up to the field visits at 75 priority interagency transfer sites, concept designs were prepared for five locations, representing a variety of different types of modal combinations. This section of the report discusses which locations were selected, and what design improvements were recommended for these sites.

Purpose of Concept Designs Although the field visits identified the need for information improvements at almost all the locations visited, the RTA and the other members of the project team believed that there were physical as well as information barriers to transferring at some sites. Thus, it was decided from the outset to prepare preliminary concept designs for five interagency transfer locations. The idea was that the coordinated addition of physical and information improvements would make a significant difference in the ease of transferring at certain locations, and this would be an opportunity to explore what might be accomplished. The concept designs are just that – preliminary designs to show what sorts of improvements might be made by integrating physical and information upgrades to minimize physical barriers and walking distances, offer a more pleasant waiting environment, and guide passengers clearly between transit services with better and more consistent signs.

Sites Considered for Analysis Sixteen interagency transfer locations were originally considered for concept designs, and these are listed below. Also listed for each of the candidate locations are the major interagency transfer issues noted during the field inventory.

1. Joliet Union Station – Joliet represents a satellite city with a local Pace bus network. This location provides an opportunity to reduce transfer walking distances by integrating the downtown pulse point with the commuter rail station, creating the opportunity to transfer seamlessly between bus and rail. 2. Cicero (BNSF) – There is an opportunity at this inner suburban location to re- route both CTA and Pace buses to better serve a proposed new station house, and provide better access to users from Cicero Avenue. 3. Clybourn (UP-N, UP-NW) – This junction and transfer point offers an opportunity to improve Metra to CTA bus transfers and provide a more attractive platform/station house environment for Metra. 4. 95th and Western – This busy street corner transfer location offers an opportunity to explore ways of creating an interagency bus-to-bus transfer center in conjunction with private large-scale commercial development at Evergreen Plaza. It also represents an opportunity to improve CTA local and express bus (X49) and Pace bus connections. 5. LaSalle Street Station – There is an opportunity at this downtown commuter rail terminal to provide direct access between rail platforms (elevated, subway, and commuter rail) at various levels, and integrate improvements with future plans for a bus transfer center adjacent to the Metra station.

D - 1

6. Union Station – Improved connections and signage are needed between Metra trains and CTA buses at this major downtown commuter rail terminal. 7. Oak Park Transportation Center (Harlem/Lake Green Line Station and Oak Park Metra Station) – The recent completion of an enclosed walkway between Metra and CTA rail stations serving this inner suburb has created a much-improved transferring environment. Improvements for passengers transferring between Pace bus routes and the rail lines could make this transfer point a model for a regional transportation center at an outlying CTA rail terminal. 8. Bellwood (UP-W) – There is an opportunity at this inner suburban Metra station to establish possible connection between the Metra station and Pace buses on Mannheim Road and St. Charles Road. 9. Elgin (MD-W) – Redevelopment plans at this satellite city location create an opportunity to improve connections between Metra commuter trains and local Pace bus services. 10. Montrose/Mayfair (Blue, MD-N) – This complex transfer location in a city neighborhood provides an opportunity to improve the condition of and access to Metra platforms, and to improve interagency signage guiding passengers between the Metra Mayfair station and the CTA Montrose station. 11. Roosevelt Road – There is an opportunity to integrate access to Metra platforms with a potential new Metra station house, improve connections to CTA buses on Roosevelt Road and Michigan Avenue, and enhance pedestrian connections to the Metra station from the CTA elevated and subway stations at State Street. 12. Jefferson Park (Blue, UP-NW) – There is an opportunity to improve access to Metra platforms from the CTA station at this busy transfer point in a city neighborhood. 13. Vermont/Blue Island (ME-BI, RI) – This inner suburban location offers an opportunity to establish clear and safe pedestrian and bus connections around three boarding areas for two adjacent Metra stations. 14. Harlem and Fullerton – There is an opportunity at this city neighborhood / inner suburban location to establish new transfer connections with the nearby Metra Mont Clare station, with improved pedestrian connections and bus routing. 15. Ogilvie Transportation Center – There is an opportunity to improve connections between Metra platforms, the CTA elevated station (Clinton-Green Line), and CTA buses at this major downtown commuter rail terminal. 16. Randolph Street Station – There is a similar opportunity at this downtown commuter rail terminal to improve connections between Metra platforms, CTA stations (Randolph elevated station and Washington subway station), and CTA buses.

Sites Selected for Analysis Since it was not possible to prepare concept designs for all of these sites, the project team selected five representative transfer locations to test and demonstrate ideas about information and physical coordination in a variety of environments. The need to represent the full range of service combinations was the key factor in choosing the five sites.

D - 2

ƒ Joliet Union Station: Metra and Pace serve this location. This location represents a satellite city with a local bus network. The focus of the concept design is to use Joliet Union Station as the bus “pulse” point, encouraging rail-to-bus transfers by bringing buses closer to the station. ƒ Cicero (BNSF): Metra, CTA bus, and Pace bus serve this location. Although situated in an inner suburb, Cicero presents all the design challenges of an interagency transfer location in a city neighborhood, and offers an opportunity to integrate bus service at this location. The concept design focuses on the replacement of the Metra station. The intent is to improve the passenger transfer environment by making CTA and Pace bus connections safer and more convenient through relocating and consolidating existing bus stops at the Metra station. ƒ Roosevelt Road: Metra, CTA rail, CTA bus, and (to a lesser degree) Pace serve this location. The Roosevelt Road location represents a downtown location with multiple opportunities for transit connections at adjacent rail stations and bus routes. It represents an opportunity to influence the replacement of the current Metra station, as well as improve access to the Museum Campus area. ƒ Oak Park Transportation Center: CTA rail, Metra rail, and Pace bus serve this location. The focus for the concept design is to improve the transfer environment between Pace bus routes and the two rail lines (CTA Green Line and Metra UP West Line), complementing the recently-completed rail to rail connection. ƒ 95th/Western: CTA provides both express and local bus service at this location. Pace also provides bus service on 95th Street and Western Avenue. This location represents an opportunity to improve bus to bus interagency transfers, including transfers between local Pace routes and CTA express bus routes. The focus of the concept design is to rationalize the bus stops, minimize transfer-walking distances, and improve passenger amenities.

Although specific improvements are suggested at the sites that would facilitate intermodal transfers, no attempt was made to determine what specific streets buses would have to use in order to reach some of the bus boarding areas being proposed, or what traffic engineering improvements would be needed at intersections or at railroad viaducts. These issues will have to be resolved among the transit operators, local governments, and other stakeholders if and when the designs proceed. The purpose of the concept designs is to show what physical and information improvements might be made at individual transfer points, rather than to devise operating plans for modifying the bus routes involved. It is crucial that the concept designs be executed in such a way that the physical and information improvements reinforce one another. The architectural improvements, although specific to each transfer location, are generally intended to reduce walking distances (if these distances have not already been minimized), remove any physical barriers that may impede pedestrian movement between transit services, eliminate any unsafe pedestrian movements, highlight pedestrian access routes where appropriate, and improve amenities for customers and operators. The information improvements, which may be more readily generalized to other locations than the architectural recommendations, are intended to facilitate transferring by clearly directing passengers

D - 3

between services, and to increase comprehension by making signs consistent between transit providers.

Recommendations for the Concept Design Sites The ideas and design elements in the concept designs were developed through conversations among the RTA, members of the project team, local community representatives, and other stakeholders. Initial design programs established a project- oriented framework for what should be accomplished at each location. The stakeholders were then consulted to obtain their input, including urban design, graphics, and transit operations perspectives. The concept designs are the outcome of this process. A summary of the issues, goals, and recommendations for transit facilities at each of the five sites follows a brief description of each location.

Joliet Union Station As a railroad station, Joliet Union Station is the outer terminal for Metra’s Rock Island District and the rush-hour-only Heritage Corridor (and also sees Amtrak service). As a transfer location, the site includes not just the railroad station but also several bus stops one to three blocks away on nearby Jefferson Street, where Pace’s Joliet routes (# 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, and 507) converge to serve downtown Joliet and allow transfers. Two other Pace routes (#831 and 834), which travel beyond the immediate Joliet area, serve Joliet Union Station directly.

The study team noted the following issues at Joliet Union Station:

ƒ Currently, there is a long and indirect transfer path between the Pace pulse point along Jefferson Street and the Metra trains at Joliet Union Station. This is especially apparent for the buses at the west end of the bus stop area along Jefferson Street. ƒ There is little or no passenger guidance between the Pace and Metra boarding areas. ƒ Heavy truck traffic on Washington Street (a designated state truck route) and the closure of Chicago Street between Washington and Jefferson Streets have resulted in an unsafe pedestrian transfer environment. ƒ There are minimal accommodations for customers waiting for buses.

In order to make the transfer process more straightforward for passengers, the study team formulated these goals:

ƒ Use Joliet Union Station as an anchor for an intermodal transfer facility. ƒ Move the downtown Pace bus pulse point closer to Joliet Union Station. ƒ Provide improved amenities for Metra and Pace customers alike.

Several improvements are recommended in order to achieve these goals:

ƒ Relocate the Pace bus stops to Washington Street immediately adjacent to Joliet Union Station, where there is stair and elevator access to the Metra platforms.

D - 4

ƒ Install new signs that tell passengers clearly how they may transfer between Metra and Pace. ƒ Reopen Chicago Street to trucks between Washington and Jefferson Streets. ƒ Widen Washington Street to accommodate buses and automobiles. ƒ Provide a two-level canopy to cover both the Metra Rock Island District platform above and the bus boarding area along Washington Street below. ƒ Consider a new parking garage to replace the open parking lot between Jefferson, Scott, Washington, and Chicago Streets.

Figure D-1 is a schematic diagram of the existing situation at Joliet Union Station. Figures D-2 and D-3 show the proposed physical and information improvements, respectively.

Cicero The interagency transfer location in Cicero is the site of two transit facilities serving modes which would better meet the needs of reverse commuters and other travel markets if they were more seamlessly connected. One facility is a commuter rail station on the west side of Cicero Avenue, just south of 26th Street, on Metra’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe line. The other facility is a CTA bus turnaround on the west side of Cicero Avenue between 24th Place and 25th Street, where CTA’s #54 and #60 bus routes terminate (CTA’s #54B and Pace’s #312 bus routes travel along Cicero Avenue without using the turnaround). A highway interchange along the west side of Cicero between 25th and 26th Streets complicates matters and precludes a safe and direct pedestrian route between the two facilities (or between the Metra station and bus stops along Cicero Avenue).

The study team noted the following issues at Cicero:

ƒ There is currently a long, indirect, and unmarked pedestrian transfer path between the Metra station and CTA/Pace bus turnaround area and bus stops along Cicero Avenue, with a potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflict. ƒ There is little clear information on how to proceed between different transit services (or even that connections are available). ƒ There are few passenger amenities at existing facilities for bus and commuter rail passengers alike, highlighted by the poor condition of the Metra station.

In order to make the transfer process more straightforward for passengers, the study team formulated these goals:

ƒ Investigate the use of Illinois Department of Transportation land left over from road construction for transit improvements (for operational upgrades and/or passenger amenities). ƒ Find a safe and efficient way to bring the bus stops close to the Metra station. ƒ Provide a new station house for bus and commuter rail customers, upgrade the platforms, and provide better shelter. ƒ Provide full pedestrian access to the Metra platforms from Cicero Avenue.

D - 5

Several improvements are recommended in order to achieve these goals:

ƒ Design and build a new shared station house for Metra, CTA, and Pace customers, a new bus circulation and stopping area adjacent to the station house, new access between the station house and the Metra platforms, and potential new parking and/or Transit-Oriented Development north of 26th Street to support the new station. ƒ Investigate the possibility of providing for left-hand bus movements from Cicero Avenue northbound onto 25th Street westbound. ƒ Rebuild Metra platforms to complement the new station house. ƒ Install a new parking lot at the west end of site to meet Metra’s parking needs.

Since this location was not included in the field visits because roadway construction was taking place at the time, no schematic diagram is available for Cicero. However, Figure D-4 shows an aerial view of the existing site. Figures D-5A and D-5B show proposed physical improvements for the Cicero location. Figure D-6 shows the proposed information improvements.

Roosevelt Road The interagency transfer location at Roosevelt Road consists of three rail stations (two CTA stations and one Metra station) overlaid by a network of bus routes. This is an important corridor for transit passengers and other pedestrians because of its location adjacent to the Museum Campus. The main transfer path is east-west along Roosevelt Road. At the west end of the transfer area are two CTA rapid transit stations: the Red Line subway station under State Street, and adjacent to it (now linked by an underground passageway within the fare-paid area) the elevated station located mid-block between State Street and Wabash Avenue, serving the Green and Orange Lines. At the east end of the transfer area is the Metra Electric station in Grant Park (reached by a footbridge to the north and east of the corner of Roosevelt Road and Michigan Avenue). The Chicago Park District and Metra are working on plans to replace the existing, outmoded station. There are CTA bus routes along Roosevelt Road (#12), State Street (#29, 62, and 129 inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon), Michigan Avenue (#1, 3, 4, and 129 outbound in the morning and inbound in the afternoon), and, to the east of the Metra station, along Columbus Drive (# 2, 6, 10, 14, 127, 130, and 146).

The study team noted the following issues at Roosevelt Road:

ƒ There is a long and unmarked transfer path between the CTA rapid transit stations at State Street (subway and elevated), the Metra station, and the Museum Campus. ƒ The access to and condition of the Metra station are poor (although the planned station rebuilding and associated improvements in Grant Park may improve matters).

D - 9

ƒ There is a lack of clear, coherent guidance between CTA rapid transit stations, the Metra station, and bus stops.

In order to make the transfer process more straightforward for passengers, the study team formulated these goals:

ƒ Make this transfer corridor and its many bus, rapid transit, and commuter rail services easier to understand and navigate. ƒ Improve amenities at the Metra station. ƒ Improve access to Roosevelt Road from the Metra station. ƒ Make bus stops more visible and their relationship to the rail stations (and to the Museum Campus) more apparent.

Several improvements are recommended in order to achieve these goals:

ƒ Using urban design and streetscaping techniques, provide signs and street architecture to define a clear path of movement from one end of the transfer corridor to the other. Techniques might include pavement patterns, street lighting, wayfinding signs guiding customers between different transit services and the Museum Campus, encouragement of building awnings, and an architecturally distinctive Metra station entry point and bus stop area along the north side of Roosevelt Road at the Metra tracks. Other bus stops could be architecturally highlighted, and their relationship to other features indicated with wayfinding signs. ƒ Rebuild the Metra station to modernize it, orient it towards Roosevelt Road, provide direct pedestrian access to the Museum Campus, and shorten the transfer walking distance to buses on Roosevelt Road, Michigan Avenue, and State Street where possible.

Figures D-7A and D-7B are schematic diagrams of the existing situation at the Roosevelt Road Metra and CTA stations, respectively. Figures D-8A and D-8B show the proposed physical improvements for the location overall and for the Metra station, respectively. Figure D-9 shows the proposed information improvements.

Oak Park Transportation Center The Oak Park Transportation Center consists of two formerly separate rail stations: the CTA Green Line terminus at Harlem/Lake, and the Metra Union Pacific West Line station at Oak Park (Marion Street). Both CTA and Metra continue to use the historic names for their individual facilities. Nevertheless, the completion of a new pedestrian concourse under both sets of tracks between Harlem Avenue and Marion Street, and the construction of enclosed pedestrian ramps from the concourse to the Metra station in 2000 has brought the two stations together into a single complex. Recognizing this situation, the Information and Physical Coordination Study refers to the overall location (which includes the two rail stations) as the Oak Park Transportation Center.

D - 14

Several Pace bus routes run north-south (#305, 307, 318, and 757) and east-west (westbound #309 and 313) on the periphery of the transportation center, but the stops are not conveniently located in relation to the transportation center. Only two east-west Pace routes (eastbound #309 and 313) serve the pedestrian concourse of the transportation center directly, and even then do so in the eastbound direction only.

The study team noted the following issues at the Oak Park Transportation Center:

ƒ Bus routes and stops are not integrated into the design of the Oak Park Transportation Center. ƒ A long and indirect transfer path, and an absence of wayfinding signs between the transportation center and westbound Pace routes #309 and 313, create confusion for transferring passengers. (The eastbound #309 and 313, by contrast, serve the transportation center directly.) ƒ The intersection at Harlem Avenue and South Boulevard is not pedestrian- friendly for passengers transferring between the rail lines and Pace buses. ƒ Inadequate turning radii at intersections and low overhead clearances under Metra and CTA tracks may hinder rerouting of Pace buses to better serve the transportation center.

In order to make the transfer process more straightforward for passengers, the study team formulated these goals:

ƒ Provide better amenities and directions for passengers transferring to and from buses. ƒ Minimize walking distances for passengers transferring between rail services and Pace bus routes. ƒ Improve the intersection of Harlem Avenue and South Boulevard for the benefit of pedestrians and turning buses.

Several improvements are recommended in order to achieve these goals:

ƒ Reroute westbound Pace bus routes #309 and 313 via South Boulevard, comparable to their existing eastbound routes along North Boulevard, to serve the transportation center in both directions. ƒ Explore possible physical solutions to low vertical clearances and constrained turning radii in order to bring Pace buses onto South Boulevard. ƒ Realign the intersection of Harlem Avenue and South Boulevard to make it safer for pedestrians and to allow right-hand bus turns onto Harlem Avenue.

Figure D-10 is a schematic diagram of the existing situation in Oak Park. Figures D-11A and D-11B show the proposed physical improvements for the overall site and the two rail stations, respectively. Figure D-12 shows the proposed information improvements.

D - 20

95th and Western The intersection of 95th Street and Western Avenue is the only location included in the site designs that is solely a bus-to-bus transfer point. This is a busy street corner adjacent to a large regional shopping center. Two CTA bus routes (#X49 and 95W) terminate at the mall and serve it directly. These routes also serve the intersection southbound on Western Ave. shortly before arriving at the mall, and serve the intersection eastbound on 95th St. upon departure from the mall. One other CTA bus route (#49A along Western Ave.) and two Pace bus routes (#349 along Western Ave. and #381 along 95th St.) traverse the intersection without terminating.

The study team noted the following issues at 95th and Western:

ƒ There is little indication where to board which route(s). ƒ Waiting facilities for passengers are inadequate. ƒ There is little sense of connection between the street corner and the shopping center.

In order to make the transfer process more straightforward for passengers, the study team formulated these goals:

ƒ Consolidate / rationalize bus stops so as to minimize customer confusion. ƒ Eliminate unnecessary boarding areas and/or unused waiting shelters in order to simplify transit operations. ƒ Improve passenger amenities and provide a layover facility for bus drivers. ƒ Establish a clear physical and architectural connection with nearby commercial development.

Several improvements are recommended in order to achieve these goals:

ƒ Consolidate the eastbound stops along 95th Street and the southbound stops along Western Avenue so that they are both along the southwest quadrant of the intersection. This will make it possible for passengers to make transfers with no more than one pedestrian crossing of the intersection. ƒ Install an enclosed waiting area or sheltered waiting areas at the southwest quadrant of the intersection, with an Active Transit Station Sign to inform passengers of approaching buses on all routes in all directions. The facility should include layover facilities for bus drivers and perhaps a transit-oriented retail space for a newspaper or coffee stand. ƒ Use an architectural style that compliments the existing commercial buildings and is sensitive to the surroundings.

Figure D-13 is a schematic diagram of the existing situation at 95th and Western. Figures D-14A and D-14B show the proposed physical improvements for the site overall and for the immediate vicinity of the intersection, respectively. Figure D-15 shows the proposed information improvements.

D - 25

E. COST ESTIMATES FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

Having explored the range of information and physical improvements targeted to enhance coordination between transit operators, this report now examines the levels of investment associated with such improvements. Although the cost estimates provided here are only for the 75 interagency transfer sites visited as part of this study and the five concept design sites (four of which were among the 75 interagency transfer sites), the estimates should be generally applicable to all of the approximately 300 locations where it is possible to transfer between transit carriers in northeastern Illinois. This section offers order-of-magnitude cost estimates at the program level, outlines the unit costs used to generate these figures, and reports the cost analysis in a form that may be used to help make decisions about implementation.

Why Cost Estimates Are Needed An understanding of the relationship between investment levels and benefits is vital to aid decision-making, resource allocation, and prioritization of transfer improvements. The order-of-magnitude data about transfer volumes provide a general measure of the benefits of improvements at specific locations; and the cost estimates offered in this section provide a comparable measure of the costs of proposed improvements. It is important to note that these estimates are based on 2002 data and will have to be adjusted for subsequent changes in the costs of inputs (building materials, labor, etc.), before making any recommendations or decisions.

How Cost Estimates Were Generated The estimates presented in this section are a result of the location-specific issues identified through field visits to the 75 priority transfer locations. By querying the data base created in this study, it was possible to identify particular needs at individual locations (physical barriers, missing signs, etc.) which could be remedied through specific improvements. Standardized unit costs were assigned to various types of improvements, based on recent experience with Chicago area transit carriers, adjusted to 2002 values by using the R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data, a standard reference tool for estimating the unit costs of construction. Tables E-1 and E-2 show the unit costs used to compute cost estimates for decision points (including boarding areas) and segment paths, respectively. These unit costs were then applied to the needs identified through the field visits. The result is an estimate of what work is needed to remedy significant deficiencies at interagency transfer locations, along with order-of-magnitude cost estimates for making the improvements being recommended.

E - 1

Table E-1: Unit Costs for Decision Point Improvements (Sources: DLK work on transit operators’ projects and R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data.)

LIGHTING ISSUES Light Needing Installation, Unit costs: $300 for a surface interior light, $500 for a surface exterior light, $1,500 for Repair, or a pole-mounted light. Replacement SIGN ISSUES – ALL DECISION POINTS (Cost source from Task A/B)

Sign Illegible, 1 new trailblazing sign = $200 each. This reflects the assumption that any sign Obstructed, needing repair would be replaced with a new sign. Instances where graffiti is noted Missing, or would, depending on the situation, normally involve maintenance rather than Otherwise replacement. Unclear Accessible Path 1 new trailblazing sign = $200 each. Includes instances where accessible transfer path Directional Sign directional signage is needed at a decision point. Costs could be reduced when Needed incorporated with standard path directional signage. Standard Path 1 new trailblazing sign = $200 each. Includes instances where standard transfer path Directional Sign directional signage is needed at a decision point. Costs could be reduced when Needed incorporated with accessible path directional signage. SIGN ISSUES – BOARDING AREAS ONLY Sign With Facility Unit cost = $1200 each Name Needed Schedule Sign Unit cost = $250 each Needed Route Sign Needed Unit cost = $250 each Location Map Unit cost = $4000 each Needed PLATFORM ISSUES Not all boarding areas are accessible to passengers with disabilities for such reasons No Access as vertical access, path conditions, and curb cuts. No specific cost is associated with this issue as each location requires in-depth engineering and cost analysis. Assumption is that any given boarding area requires at least one bench. Unit cost of Bench Needed bench is $1300. Assumption is that any given boarding area requires at least one standard shelter; unit cost $5000 each (based on standard CTA-Pace shelter providing 72 square feet of Shelter Needed covered area). Unit cost of a heated, enclosed shelter measuring 144 square feet, at $200/square foot =$28,800.

E - 2

Table E-2 : Unit Costs for Segment Path Improvements (Sources: DLK work on transit operators’ projects and R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data.) LIGHTING ISSUES Light Needing Unit costs: $300 for a surface-mounted interior light, $500 for a surface-mounted Installation, Repair, or exterior light, $1500 for a pole-mounted light. The assumption is one light needed Replacement for every 20’ of segment path. ACCESSIBLE TRANSFER PATH ISSUES Vertical Access This is for information only; no specific cost is associated with this issue as each Needed? location requires in-depth engineering and cost analysis. Width < 32" No cost available. Doorway < 36" Door required; $700 each Threshold > 3/4" No threshold modifications required at sites visited Slope Assume $15,000 per location where path slope issues need to be addressed Headroom < 80" No headroom modifications required at sites visited Curb Cut Repair Cost of curb cut repair = $1,500 Needed New Curb Cut Cost of new curb cut = $1,800; with replacement of existing sidewalk = $2,500 Needed PATH CONDITIONS (includes Stairs and Ramps) Segment/Stair/Ramp Significant crack jeopardizing path integrity = 1 unit = $250/unit. Crack Length Segment/Stair/Ramp Gap Area: at least 3 square feet = 1 unit = $24 /unit. Replacement of one 5x5 foot Gap Area sidewalk square = $150. Segment/Stair/Ramp Path grinding required for pavement vertical difference of no more than ½”: 1 Path Leveling square foot = 1 unit = $10/unit. Any vertical difference over ½” should be replaced. Stair Issues

Tread height > 6" Rise > 72" Tread depth < 11" Where any of these stair issues were indicated in the database, it was assumed No handrails that a new staircase would be needed. New staircase cost = $20,000 No landings > 24 risers

Ramp Issues

No handrails Where any of these issues were indicated in the database, it was assumed that a Width < 36" new ramp would be needed. Assuming length of ramp to be 50 feet – concrete at No landings grade , 5’ width, with handrails, cost = $20,000 overall (at $400/foot) Slope > 1:12

E - 3

The following considerations should be kept in mind when examining the cost estimates:

ƒ The cost estimates are standardized, rather than estimated for particular locations. Owing to localized conditions at specific locations, as well as other factors such as project timing and the extent to which economies of scale are possible, the costs of similar improvements at different locations may differ. ƒ These estimates are subject to inflation, and should be updated using appropriate construction industry cost indices before attempting to compute the approximate costs of any proposed improvement program. ƒ For all improvements, a 15% cost contingency factor is recommended, after the factors noted above have been taken into account.

Summary of Estimates by Type of Improvement Table E-3 summarizes the issues noted through the field visits at 75 interagency transfer locations and the costs associated with addressing these matters. Elevator and ramp costs were not included in these estimates, because the costs of these vertical access improvements are influenced by characteristics that are specific to the sites involved. These costs cannot simply be estimated on a unit basis and must be determined through the engineering process.

Cost Estimates for Concept Designs Although many of the physical and information improvements can be readily quantified using the unit costs and the catalogue of needs assembled through the field visits, arriving at cost estimates for the concept designs requires a different approach. The concept designs were intended to explore possible new physical configurations in order to facilitate transferring as a way to increase mobility. It should be noted that some of the elements recommended in the concept designs are not included in the list of unit costs. Examples of the more far-reaching measures called for in the concept designs include canopies, new enclosed station structures, landscaping, bus shelters, intersection and roadway improvements, new bus turnaround areas, new landscaped parking, and Transit Oriented Development. Table E-4 shows cost estimates for the five concept design sites: Joliet Union Station, Cicero (BNSF), Roosevelt Road, Oak Park Transportation Center, and 95th and Western, respectively. The estimated cost for implementing the physical and other improvements recommended at these five concept design locations ranges from $1.7 million at 95th and Western to $8.3 million (including rail station rebuilding) at Cicero. With the benefit of the information shown in the tables in this section, it is possible to gauge the costs of various different improvement strategies. The next section discusses possible plans for implementing these improvements.

E - 4

Table E-3: Estimated Cost of Improvements at 75 Interagency Transfer Locations

Cost Estimates for Improvements at 75 Interagency Transfer Locations ($000s)

Decision Points Segment Paths Issue Item $000s Issue Item $000s Lighting Repair Pole$ 38 Lighting Repair Pole$ 3 Surface Exterior$ 3 Surface Exterior$ - Surface Interior$ 3 Surface Interior$ - Subtotal$ 44 Subtotal$ 3 Replace/ Pole$ 270 Replace/ Pole$ 94 Install Surface Exterior$ 3 Install Surface Exterior$ 6 Surface Interior$ - Surface Interior$ - Subtotal$ 273 Subtotal$ 100 Total Lighting$ 317 Total Lighting$ 103 Signage Decision Point Graffiti$ 7 Path Accessible Transfer Widen Path <$1 Illegible$ 11 Condition Door$ 15 Ambiguous$ 10 Threshold$ - Obstructed$ 19 Slope$ 30 Missing$ 78 Headroom$ - Accessible Path $ 98 Subtotal$ 45 Standard Path$ 134 Curb Cuts Repair$ 53 Subtotal$ 357 New$ 42 Boarding Area Facility Name$ 137 Subtotal$ 95 Schedule$ 65 Segment Grades$ 11 Route$ 35 Gaps$ 1 Map$ 1,320 Leveling <$1 Subtotal$ 1,557 Subtotal$ 12 Total Signage$ 1,914 Stairs Grades$ - Platform Access 58 locations* Gaps$ - Bench$ 475 Leveling$ - Shelter$ 1,160 Repair Existing$ 300 Total Platform$ 1,635 Subtotal$ 300 Total Decision Points$ 3,866 Ramps Grades <$1 *Access costs were not estimated and are Gaps <$1 not included in total. Leveling$ - Repair Existing$ 160 Subtotal$ 160 Total Path Condition$ 612 Total Segment Paths$ 715

E - 5

Table E-4: Estimated Cost of Improvements at Five Concept Design Locations

Cost Estimates for Concept Design Programs ($000s) Joliet Union Cicero Roosevelt Oak Park 95th/ Location Station (BNSF) Road Transportation Western Center Transit Services HC,RI BNSF MED,Green UPW,Green CTA Bus Pace Bus CTA Bus Orange, Red Pace Bus Pace Bus Pace Bus CTA Bus Physical Improvements$ 1,700 $ 7,140 $ 3,840 $ 2,640 $ 1,425 Design/Engineering$ 255 $ 1,071 $ 576 $ 396 $ 214 Subtotal$ 1,955 $ 8,211 $ 4,416 $ 3,036 $ 1,639 Information Improvements$ 88 $ 51 $ 147 $ 133 $ 46 Design/Engineering$ 30 $ 22 $ 40 $ 25 $ 10 Subtotal$ 118 $ 73 $ 187 $ 158 $ 56 Total $ 2,073 $ 8,284 $ 4,603 $ 3,194 $ 1,695

E - 6

F. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS FOR IMPROVEMENTS

The final step in the Information and Physical Coordination Study is to develop a plan for implementing the improvements being recommended. An implementation plan is needed to suggest how the region’s transit agencies can introduce signage improvements and other measures designed to make travel more seamless at interagency transfer locations. Enhancing mobility through better information and physical coordination requires a coherent, coordinated series of efforts, carried out with all three transit operators, based on a shared vision and an agreed-upon set of standards. Most of the improvements recommended as a result of the field visits are specific to particular locations. However, the RTA and the transit operators may want to make various types of improvements on a regionwide basis. For instance, the RTA is currently installing Active Transit Station Signs at several locations. Although this information improvement is separate from the Information and Physical Coordination Study, it has regional value as a way to facilitate the transfer process by providing customers with real- time arrival information. This and other improvements may be considered for more widespread implementation, particularly where economies of scale suggest that lower production and installation costs would result from making a particular improvement on a regionwide basis. In order to develop a logical and effective plan for implementation, the project team considered these important concerns:

ƒ Opportunities for completion: when can improvements be made? ƒ Magnitude of issues: how great are the improvements indicated? ƒ Impact of improvements: will making improvements enhance the transfer process? ƒ Modal combinations: what types of interagency transfers would see the most improvements? ƒ Transfer passenger volume: where would the largest numbers of customers benefit?

As a result, three implementation packages (one existing program and two new ones) are proposed to facilitate these improvements. These are:

1. The current RTA Five-Year Capital Program (2003-2007). 2. A proposed Priority Improvement Program. 3. A proposed Coordination Capital Program.

All locations not addressed in these programs can be dealt with through future capital programs.

Current RTA Capital Program The current RTA Five-Year Capital Program outlines planned improvements for transit facilities throughout the region. The Information and Physical Coordination Study recommends improvements that may fit within already programmed projects. The

F - 1

benefits of implementing information and physical coordination upgrades in conjunction with improvements already programmed may include lower construction costs, a shorter overall period of disruption, and opportunities to make improvements as soon as possible. Two of the concept design locations examined in Section D are included in the current RTA Capital Program: Cicero (which was not included in the 75 transfer locations examined in detail due to construction under way there at the time of the site visits), and Roosevelt Road (which was included in the site visits). Other interagency transfer locations in the current RTA Capital Program that were among the 75 sites visited are 103rd/Beverly (RI), Cicero (Blue Line – 54/Cermak), Cumberland (UP-NW), Downers Grove, Harlem Avenue (BNSF), Howard, Montrose – Mayfair, Ogilvie Transportation Center, Randolph Street Station, Union Station, and Western Avenue (MD, NCS).

Priority Improvement Program The current RTA Capital Program only accounts for 12 of the 75 interagency transfer sites studied. If the overall transferring environment is to be improved at other sites, it is necessary to find ways to help fund improvements at locations not included in the current capital program. Several interagency transfer locations have been identified as models for regionwide improvements, and others have been noted as being candidates for various improvements on a more modest scale. In order to differentiate those locations in greatest need of improvements from others where fewer changes are needed (or where improvements would benefit fewer customers), a Priority Improvement Program for coordination is recommended. This program would be aimed at those locations with above-average need for capital improvements and above-average potential for enhancing mobility by facilitating the transfer process. In order to be part of the Priority Improvement Program, a transfer location should meet one or more of the following requirements:

ƒ Serve as a model for future improvements throughout the region. ƒ Be among the candidate locations for the concept design process, as listed above in Section D of this report. ƒ Require more significant physical and/or information improvements, and yield significantly higher transferring benefits, compared to most locations.

The three concept design sites not already included in the current RTA Capital Program – the Oak Park Transportation Center (Harlem/Lake), Joliet Union Station, and 95th and Western – are all recommended for the Priority Improvement Program. Other transfer locations in this category include Clybourn and LaSalle Street Station. A total of ten locations are recommended for inclusion in the Priority Improvement Program.

Coordination Capital Program A Coordination Capital Program is suggested for various modest improvements to facilitate transferring. Compared to the Priority Improvement Plan sites, candidate sites for the Coordination Capital Program would be of similar importance as interagency transfer locations, but would not be in need of major work. Examples include Aurora,

F - 2

Forest Park, Lake Cook Road, Naperville, and Rosemont. A Coordination Capital Program might address particular issues at various transfer sites, such as signs, lighting, path surfaces, vertical access, and platform areas. It is proposed that the Coordination Capital Program include 13 interagency transfer locations. The transfer path analysis suggests a framework for allocating responsibility for these matters among the different transit operators. As Section C of this report discusses, all issues at transfer locations fall into one of three basic categories: boarding areas, decision points, and segment paths. This makes it possible to allocate improvements to two broad categories: boarding area improvements and transfer path improvements. Boarding area improvements address issues that take place where a transit operator is present, and would therefore be assigned to the relevant operator. Transfer path improvements are those that facilitate movement along segment paths or at decision points not identified with a specific operator. In cases where the responsibility cannot clearly be defined, these might be more suitable for the RTA to address. Figure F-1 summarizes the elements that a Coordination Capital Program could address. The columns represent transfer path and boarding area issues. The rows show particular types of improvements. At the intersection of rows and columns, specific issues are assigned to transfer paths and/or to boarding areas. Where there is no relationship between an issue and a portion of the transfer location, the cells read “Not Applicable”. (For instance, there are no path issues for boarding areas, since paths link boarding areas and decision points with other boarding areas and decision points.) The circled elements on the matrix in Figure F-1 are shown as examples of hypothetical implementation programs. For instance, Option 1, the dashed oval encompassing the signage row, represents a program to address all signage issues, both along transfer paths and at boarding areas. This program would include the following improvements at one or more transfer location:

ƒ Directional signs at decision points, including transfer path, accessible transfer path, and transit operator trailblazer signs. ƒ Boarding area signs, including system maps, schedules, routes, facility name, accessible transfer path, and transit operator directional signs.

Similarly, the matrix could be used to address all issues at a transfer location related to path conditions, vertical access, lighting, or boarding areas. Option 2, the dotted oval along the transfer path column, addresses transfer path issues for passengers changing from one service provider to another (and includes all items in the transfer path column). This program would include:

ƒ Directional signs at decision points. ƒ Improvements along the path, such as path length, accessibility, path barriers, and path condition (such as leveling, cracks, and gaps in the sidewalk). ƒ Vertical access issues (such as stairs, ramps, elevators, and curb cuts). ƒ Lighting along the transfer path.

F - 3

Figure F-1: Coordination Capital Program Matrix

(Note: The diagram has been annotated to describe examples of various implementation packages which are discussed in the text.)

Transfer Path (TP) Boarding Area (BA) {Segment Paths + Non-BA Decision Points} {Decision Points with designated operators}

System Maps Directional Schedules Signage Standard Transfer Path Routes Accessible Transfer Path Facility Name Transit Operator Directional ADA Transit Operator

Path Length Path Access Path Width 1 Vertical Access Curb Cuts Path Path Barriers NOT APPLICABLE Escalators Stairs Tracks Pedestrian Crossing Conditions Leveling Cracks Gaps 2

Vertical Stairs NOT APPLICABLE Access Elevators Ramps 3 Curb Cuts

Pole / Surface Exterior / Pole / Surface Exterior / Lighting Surface Interior Surface Interior Repair Repair Replace Replace New New

Access issues Platform-Only Platform Length Issues Platform Width NOT APPLICABLE Platform Markings Platform Condition Shelters Benches

F - 4

Similarly, there could also be a program to address all boarding area issues at an interagency transfer location. Option 3 (shown with a solid oval) is at the intersection of the boarding area column and the lighting row. This is an example of a specific type of improvement that might be made at specific transfer locations. In this example, lighting improvements may include repair, replacement, or new lighting, depending on the needs. For each of these examples, the data base compiled through the field visits may be queried to assess the scope of needs for any given type of improvement program, whether for individual transfer sites or for all of the 75 sites visited. This allows for a more informed decision-making process when determining what transfer improvement needs are most pressing and which are likely to yield the greatest benefits.

Capital Programs For Future Years The programs described above cover those interagency transfer locations already included in current capital programs and those that are otherwise of regional importance. It is suggested that those less strategic transfer locations neither covered through the current RTA Capital Program nor suitable for the proposed Priority Improvement Program or Coordination Capital Program should be included in future five-year capital programs. Examples of sites in this category include such bus-to-bus transfer points as Halsted and 95th, and Western and Touhy, as well as such rail stations as Des Plaines, Linden, and Wheaton. Of the 75 sites visited, 40 are recommended for inclusion in capital programs for future years.

Summary of Implementation Programs Figure F-2 shows the logic by which various interagency transfer locations are assigned to different proposed programs for capital improvements. As the diagram shows, the current RTA Five-Year Capital Program (shown with a dashed line on the matrix) includes transfer locations with varying degrees of strategic importance, and with differing amounts of capital need. Partially overlapping the current RTA Capital Program are the two proposed capital programs and a representation of future RTA Five-Year Capital Programs, all of which are shown with solid lines. The Coordination Capital Program, in the upper left- hand quadrant, includes those transfer locations that are of high strategic importance but have relatively modest capital needs. In the upper right-hand quadrant, the Priority Improvement Program incorporates transfer sites that are of considerable strategic importance and have the greatest need for physical upgrades. The remaining transfer locations are less strategic, regardless of the need for improvements, and occupy the lower two quadrants. These locations can be covered in future five-year capital programs. Table F-1 shows which interagency transfer locations are recommended for assignment to which implementation programs, existing and proposed.

Other Improvements Not Included in Capital Programs Although many of the information and physical measures this study recommends to improve the interagency transfer process are location-specific, other improvements

F - 5 Figure F- 2 Implementation Programs for Capital Improvements

More Strategic Locations

Coordination Capital Program Priority Improvement Program (New program category) (New program category)

Less Greater Capital $ Capital $

Current RTA Five Year Capital Program

Future RTA Five Year Capital Programs

Less Strategic Locations

Table F-1: Priority Transfer Locations Listed by Implementation Program

RTA 2003-2007 Priority Improvement Coordination Capital RTA Capital Capital Program Program Program Program for 2008 and Beyond 103rd / Beverly (RI) 95th and Western * 95 / Dan Ryan (Red) 93rd / South Chicago (ME- Cicero (BNSF) * Bellwood (UP-W) ** Aurora (BNSF) SC) Cicero (Blue – 54/Cermak) Clybourn (UP-N, Cumberland (Blue – 95th / Beverly (RI) Cumberland (UP-NW) UP-NW) ** O’Hare) 211th St./Lincoln Hwy Downers Grove Main St. Elgin (MD-W) ** Davis (Purple, UP-N) (ME-ML) (BNSF) Harlem and Fullerton ** Forest Park (Blue) Arlington Heights Harlem Avenue (BNSF) Harlem/Lake (Green, Jefferson Park ** (UP-NW) Howard (Red, Yellow, UP-W) * Lake Cook (MD-N) Ashland and 95th Purple) Joliet Union Station (RI, Lisle (BNSF) Austin (Green) Montrose / Mayfair (Blue, HC) * Midway (Orange) Austin and Madison MD-N) ** LaSalle Street Station ** Naperville (BNSF) Des Plaines (UP-NW) Ogilvie Transportation Vermont – Blue Island (RI, O’Hare (Blue) Edgebrook (MD-N) Center ** ME-BI) ** Rosemont (Blue) Elmhurst (UP-NW) Randolph Street Station ** Waukegan (UP-N) Skokie (Yellow) Ford City Roosevelt Road Station Glenview (MD-N) (Red, Green, Orange, Gresham (RI) ME) * Halsted (BNSF) Union Station ** Halsted and 95th Western Avenue (MD, Harlem (Blue – O’Hare) NCS) Harlem and Archer Harlem and North Harvey (ME-ML) Healy (MD-N) Homewood (ME-ML) Irving Park (Blue, UP-NW) King and 95th LaGrange Road (BNSF) Linden (Purple) Mount Prospect (UP-NW) Oak Park (Green) Park Ridge (UP-NW) Pulaski and 95th Ravenswood (UP-N) Rogers Park (UP-N) Route 59 (BNSF) Western Avenue (BNSF) Western (Brown) Western and 79th Western and 87th Western and Touhy Westmont (BNSF) Wheaton (UP-W) Wilmette (UP-N) Total 13 locations Total 10 locations Total 13 locations Total 40 locations including Cicero (BNSF)

Grand Total: 76 locations, including 75 site visit locations

* - Indicates concept design site. Cicero (BNSF) is a concept design site, but was not included in the 75 site visits due to construction.

** - Indicates site considered for inclusion in the concept designs.

F - 7

involving information are more general in nature. These can and should be pursued without waiting for those improvements that are necessarily part of capital programming. The RTA has the opportunity to lead this effort through improvements to its own System Map, web site, and other information components. New maps that could be developed include a map showing rail-to-rail connections, and local area maps such as those displayed at all of the downtown Metra stations. Other types of improvements related to customer information are part of the broad category of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Basically, ITS uses information technology to improve transportation operations. Two transit ITS technologies – Active Transit Station Signs and Regional Traveler Information Kiosks – have the potential to help with information coordination. Active Transit Station Signs (ATSS) are providing real time information about the arrival of the next train at certain stations, as part of an RTA demonstration program. The CTA is gathering information from its automatic train monitoring system and transmitting estimated times until the next train to station entrances, walkways, and platforms at Cumberland, Davis, O’Hare, and Midway (all of which are among the 75 interagency transfer sites visited as part of this study). The RTA and the transit operators are working to develop Regional Traveler Information Kiosks to provide map and schedule information, using touch screen technology. This interactive source of customer information is now available at the RTA’s customer service center, and is envisioned for eventual demonstration at such locations as airports, downtown Metra terminals, and other major transfer points.

Establishing the Implementation Plan The site-specific improvements discussed in this report are all eligible for traditional transit capital funding. In addition, there are other federal and state funding sources that promote coordination between different forms of transit. At the federal level, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds various surface transportation improvements in areas where attainment of air quality goals is an issue. Improvements to transit service and to transit facilities (including transfer locations) are eligible for CMAQ funding. At the state level, the Illinois Department of Transportation has two programs which might be used to help fund information and physical coordination improvements. One is the Access to Transit Capital Improvement Program, which seeks to improve vehicle and pedestrian access to mass transit. The other is the Operation Green Light Capital Improvement Program, which has bond funding for Illinois fiscal years 2000- 2004. This program is intended to improve or expand the transit system and its infrastructure, and to enhance the flow of people and vehicles within transit facilities. All of these programs, federal and state, are highly competitive, and funding is at the discretion of the U.S. and Illinois Departments of Transportation. It should also be noted that continuation of the CMAQ program, and/or other programs like it, beyond the expiration of the TEA-21 legislation in September 2003 are dependent on reauthorization of a new federal surface transportation bill. State funding is based on annual appropriations. Aside from the general benefit to the region of a program of information and physical coordination improvements, it may be advantageous to develop packages of

F - 8

transit coordination capital projects to help leverage funds. Economies of scale can be achieved when items are purchased in quantity, and it can be more cost-effective to administer a program of similar projects at several locations than to administer numerous stand-alone projects. Coordination improvements involving different transit operators, the RTA, and/or other partners will require interagency agreements or other understandings. Roles for developing, implementing, managing, and maintaining improvements and other coordination activities will need to be defined in terms of:

ƒ Establishing an overall management framework. ƒ Determining forums for interagency coordination – policy, design, and operations. ƒ Reaching formal interagency agreements among the RTA, the transit operators, and local and state agencies as required. ƒ Defining agency responsibilities for development, implementation, management, and maintenance.

For instance, the concept design phase of this study recommended specific improvements at Roosevelt Road. These improvements would involve the CTA at its two rapid transit stations (Red Line and Orange/Green Lines), Metra (at the Metra Electric station), and the Chicago Department of Transportation (along Roosevelt Road between the CTA and Metra stations). Implementing these improvements at Roosevelt Road will require ongoing institutional arrangements among all three partners.

F - 9

G. CONCLUSION

The Information and Physical Coordination Study has examined the conditions that transit customers experience when making interagency transfers in northeastern Illinois, and has considered what can be done to better guide passengers (both before and during travel) when transferring from one operator to another. For the most part, the needs can be met by providing more and better information, and by making modest physical improvements at the transfer locations. The study is premised on two main theories. The first theory is about customer information needs, and the second theory is about the physical arrangement of transfer locations. Taken together, these theories were of much assistance in analyzing signs, maps, and physical arrangements at transfer locations.

Information Needs The theory of customer information needs is based on a sequence of things that customers need to know when planning (and making) a trip by transit. Customers first need to be able to find out if there is transit service between their origin and destination when they need to travel. If so, customers need or may need information on getting to the initial boarding point, when services operate, whether any transfers are needed (and if so, to what rail line or bus route), where to alight, and where to go from the alighting point. In the event that transferring is necessary, customers need to know not only where to transfer to which service, but also such things as directions to platforms and bus stops, route and schedule information, and current bus/train status and arrival information. This theory of customer information needs was valuable for assessing the effectiveness of different products for communicating information to transit passengers. A review of pre-trip information sources now available found that published material and web sites offer much information on interagency transfer possibilities, although this information could be enhanced in some cases and is not always shown on the schedules for individual bus routes and rail lines. Several incremental improvements are suggested for existing information products, and a few new products, such as a rail- to-rail connections map, are recommended.

Transfer Locations The second theory has to do with the physical layout of transfer locations. The theory is that all transfer locations can be analyzed in terms of decision points and path segments traversed from any given boarding area to any other. This allows the components of various transfer paths to be analyzed in manageable pieces and without duplication of effort. This theory of transfer paths guided the next step in the study, which was to make field visits to 75 of the region’s busiest and most strategically promising locations where it is possible to transfer between transit operators. A survey team documented specific conditions and assessed needs by examining decision points, boarding areas, and the links connecting the different decision points and boarding areas with each other. A data base developed for this phase of the study allows such information to be queried for specific

G - 1

sites or the entire data set. The process used for the field visits and the resulting data should be valuable for future investigations and implementation of improvements. The transfer locations assessed through the field visits vary widely in their size and complexity, but they can be divided into four basic categories according to the types of services available.

1. The most straightforward from the physical standpoint are CTA bus / Pace bus transfer locations. Almost all of these locations are at street intersections, where there is little information aside from individual bus stop signs and the maps posted at CTA bus shelters. 2. CTA rapid transit / Pace bus transfers take place at several CTA rapid transit stations, usually located at or near the outer ends of rapid transit lines. At these locations, passenger guidance tends to be better where buses enter rapid transit stations than where buses board on the street. Many, though not all of these transfer locations involve a change of elevation between bus and rail boarding areas. 3. Comparable in their overall physical situation are those Metra stations where connections are available with Pace and/or CTA buses. There are usually few signs guiding passengers at these stations, although at several stations where the rail and bus boarding areas are both located at street level, the physical transfer arrangements are relatively straightforward. 4. Finally, the most complex situations occur at those locations where connections are available between Metra commuter rail, CTA rapid transit, and Pace and/or CTA buses. There is much opportunity to improve passenger guidance at these locations.

For all four categories, the lighting and walkways at many locations could benefit from targeted improvements. At most transfer sites, however, the greatest challenge is not the ability to make physical connections, but rather a lack of signs to guide customers clearly from one boarding area to another. More and better signs can eliminate much of the potential confusion at transfer locations.

Concept Designs The next step in the study was to investigate more substantial improvements which might be necessary at selected transfer locations of regional significance. This phase focused on architectural changes and the relocation of certain bus routes to feed rail stations more directly. Five sites were chosen for concept designs, selected to represent the variety of different types of service available at different transfer locations. Although major physical improvements are not needed at most locations, these and several other interagency transfer sites could be much improved through the selective use of architectural enhancements.

Cost Estimates Cost estimates suggest that significant improvements can be made at an affordable price. The study’s results indicate that signage improvements at the 75 priority locations where transfer conditions were documented through field visits would cost about $1.9 million in

G - 2

2002 dollars. Modest physical improvements at the same 75 sites, such as repairs or renewal of platforms, walkways, and lighting, would cost another $2.7 million (excluding such larger investments as ramps or elevators). The more substantial improvements proposed for the five concept design sites range from $1.7 million to $8.3 million (including the costs of rail station rebuilding, where warranted).

Implementation Programs The study also recommends several implementation programs. Information and other improvements should be undertaken at interagency transfer locations included in the current RTA Capital Program, in order to have as much work done concurrently as possible. At locations not included in the current capital program, the highest priority should be given to making improvements that benefit the greatest numbers of transferring passengers, and/or where the need for information improvements and the potential impact is the greatest.

Summary To summarize, these are the most important points from the Information and Physical Coordination Study:

ƒ There is a need for more and better information about interagency transfer opportunities for the region’s transit customers. ƒ Some of these needs can be met through incremental improvements to published information products and web sites. ƒ At most of the 75 interagency transfer locations visited, much benefit may be gained from installing more and better signs, and making incremental improvements to the physical plant. ƒ At several of the region’s busiest interagency transfer locations, more intensive architectural enhancements and associated improvements in passenger guidance can be particularly effective in reaching large numbers of transit customers. ƒ Most of the proposed improvements can be made at a very reasonable cost, especially for signs and modest physical upgrades. ƒ The proposed improvements can and should be implemented in conjunction with capital improvements already programmed at several interagency transfer sites. ƒ At other locations, improvements should be prioritized in such a way as to maximize benefits to the greatest numbers of transferring passengers.

More and better information, along with selected improvements to boarding areas and physical links, will help make the interagency transfer process smoother and more seamless for those transit customers whose trips require them to transfer.

G - 3