DOCSLIB.ORG

Main Street TOD Plan and Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Main Street TOD Plan and Study Table of Contents List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 4 Acronyms Used in this Document .................................................................................. 6 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 7 ES.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7 ES.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 8 ES.3 Public Involvement ................................................................................................ 11 ES.4 Recommended Improvements ............................................................................. 11 ES.5 Potential Revenue and Financing Techniques ................................................... 22 ES.6 Transit Oriented Development Potential ........................................................... 23 ES.7 Project Recommendations .................................................................................... 26 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 36 1.1 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 38 1.2 Previous Plans and Studies .................................................................................. 38 1.3 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................. 39 1.4 Public Involvement Approach ............................................................................. 40 2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................................... 42 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 42 2.2 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 42 2.3 Socioeconomic Characteristics ............................................................................. 44 2.4 Existing Zoning ...................................................................................................... 47 2.5 Market Assessment ................................................................................................ 54 2.6 Ridership Assessment ........................................................................................... 62 3.0 PROPOSED STATION AND STUDY AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS .................. 65 3.1 CTA and Metra Main Street Station .................................................................... 65 3.2 Traffic Impact Assessment.................................................................................... 75 4.0 STUDY AREA IMPROVEMENT RECOMMEDATIONS ..................................... 80 4.1 Main Street Streetscape Plan ................................................................................ 81 4.2 Chicago Avenue Streetscape Plan ....................................................................... 82 4.3 Custer Street Improvements ................................................................................. 84 4.4 Saint Paul Park Improvements ............................................................................ 85 4.5 Multi‐Use Trail – Greenleaf Street to South Boulevard .................................... 86 Main Street Station Executive Summary TOD Plan and Study 2 Final Report 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 89 5.1 Potential Revenue and Financing Techniques ................................................... 89 5.2 Applicability of Funding Recommendations ..................................................... 96 5.3 Transit Oriented Development Potential ........................................................... 97 5.4 Transit Oriented Development Implementation Strategy ............................. 101 5.5 Project Recommendations .................................................................................. 102 APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT ................................................ 112 APPENDIX B: STATION OPTION COST ESTIMATE REPORT .......................... 113 APPENDIX C: MARKET ASSESSMENT REPORT .................................................. 114 APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT .......................................................... 115 APPENDIX E: RIDERSHIP METHODOLOGY REPORT ....................................... 116 APPENDIX F: STATION AND STUDY AREA CONCEPT PLANS ..................... 117 List of Tables Table ES.1. Activity Centers within and near the Study Area ............................................... 9 Table ES.2. Main Street Station Cost Estimate (2013 $M) ..................................................... 21 Table ES.3 Potential Applicability of Funding Recommendations to Project Phases ....... 22 Table ES.4. Total Acreage of Redeveloped Land for TOD ................................................... 26 Table ES.5. CTA Main Street Station Existing Condition Assessment ............................... 29 Table ES.6. Metra Main Street Station Existing Condition Assessment ............................. 29 Table 1.1. Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................... 39 Table 2.1. Activity Centers within and near the Study Area ............................................... 42 Table 2.2. Population, Households and Employment .......................................................... 44 Table 2.3. Employment by Occupation in the Study Area ................................................... 45 Table 2.4. Existing Zoning in the Study Area ......................................................................... 47 Table 2.5. Evanston and Skokie Office Vacancy Rates .......................................................... 56 Table 2.6. North Suburbs & Total Suburban Retail Market 2009‐2013 ............................... 58 Table 2.7. Retail Demand Summary Comparison for Zip Code 60202 ............................... 60 Table 2.8. Average Weekday and Annual Ridership Results by Scenario ......................... 64 Table 2.9. Estimated CTA and Metra Ridership Results by Scenario ................................. 64 Table 3.1. Main Street Station Cost Estimate (2013 $M) ....................................................... 74 Table 3.2. Recommended Pedestrian Signal Intervals .......................................................... 76 Table 4.1. Study Area Capital Costs Summary (2013 $M) .................................................... 80 Table 4.2. Main Street Streetscape Cost Estimate (2013 $M) ................................................ 81 Main Street Station Executive Summary TOD Plan and Study 3 Final Report Table 4.3. Chicago Avenue Existing and Proposed Sidewalk Widths ............................... 82 Table 4.4. Chicago Avenue Cost Estimate (2013 $M) ............................................................ 83 Table 4.5. Custer Street Cost Estimate (2013 $M) .................................................................. 84 Table 4.6. Saint Paul Park Cost Estimate (2013 $M) .............................................................. 85 Table 4.7. Multi‐Use Trail Cost Estimate (2013 $M) .............................................................. 87 Table 5.1. Potential Applicability of Funding Recommendations to Project Phases ........ 96 Table 5.2. Total Acreage of Redeveloped Land for TOD .................................................... 100 Table 5.3. CTA Main Street Station Existing Condition Assessment ................................ 105 Table 5.4. Metra Main Street Station Existing Condition Assessment .............................. 105 List of Figures Figure ES.1. Study Area Map ................................................................................................... 10 Figure ES.2. Public Meeting #1, Lincoln School ..................................................................... 11 Figure ES.3. Main Street Station Area Existing Site Plan ...................................................... 12 Figure ES.4. Main Street Station Area Proposed Concept Plan ........................................... 13 Figure ES.5 Main Street Station Area Proposed Concept Plan ......................................... 14 Figure ES.6. Metra Station Stair Concept Washington and Custer – Before and After .... 15 Figure ES.7. Metra Station Stair Concept Main and Custer – Before and After ................ 16 Figure ES.8. Main Street Station Area Draft Floor Plan ........................................................ 17 Figure ES.9. CTA Main Street Station West Entrance ........................................................... 18 Figure ES.10. CTA Main Street Station Chicago Avenue (East) Entrance ......................... 19 Figure ES.11. Saint Paul Park Plaza Area along Chicago Avenue ...................................... 19 Figure ES.12. Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway ...................................................................... 20 Figure ES.13. TOD Development Potential ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Station Tour October 20, 2002
    4th Annual Historic “L” Station Tour October 20, 2002 Presented By: Chicago-L.org 4th Annual Historic “L” Station Tour Guide Union Loop When the tour begins at Quincy station downtown, you will find yourself on the old Union Elevated Railroad, commonly known as "the Loop." The only man who could accomplish the difficult task of bringing a common downtown terminal to the Chicago elevated rapid transit system, which used to end at a separate terminal for each company, was Charles Tyson Yerkes. He had enough political deftness and power to convince store owners to sign consent forms allowing construction of the overhead structures on their streets (although alley routes were briefly contemplated). Though it was difficult — two segments had to be obtained under the names of existing "L" companies while for the two other legs, two companies, the Union Elevated Railroad and the Union Consolidated Elevated Railroad, had to be created — Yerkes managed to coordinate it all. As can be imagined from its piecemeal The construction of the Loop through downtown, seen here look- method of obtaining of leases, the Union Loop (referred ing west at Lake and Wabash circa 1894, was a major construction to simply as "the Loop" today) opened in pieces, starting project. In spite of the disruption, the project brought innumerous benefits to the central business district. (Photo from the Krambles- in 1895, with the Lake Street "L" making the first full Peterson Archive) circuit in 1897. North Side Main Line/Ravenswood Line After leaving the Loop through Tower 18 (at Lake & Wells), once the busiest railroad junction in the world, you will be on what is today the Brown (Ravenswood) Line.
    [Show full text]
  • Steve Hastalis Committee Members
    1 ADA Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 14, 2014 Members Present Chairperson: Steve Hastalis Committee Members: Garland Armstrong Rhychell Barnes Dorrell Perry Doreen Bogus Mary Anne Cappelleri Bryen Yunashko Grace Kaminkowitz Excused: Maurice Fantus Tim Fischer Laura Miller Facilitator: Amy Serpe, CTA Manager, ADA Compliance Programs Steve Hastalis, Committee Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Roll Call • Members of the Committee introduced themselves. • Maurice Fantus, Tim Fischer, and Laura Miller had excused absences from the meeting. Announcement • There was an announcement that Yochai Eisenberg has resigned from the Committee. Approval of Minutes from January 13, 2014 Meeting • There were a couple of changes to the January 14, 2014 minutes. Rosemary Gerty pointed out the correct spelling of Anne LeFevre’s name. Ms. Gerty clarified that the RTA Appeals Board for Paratransit certification does not reevaluate, but rather discusses the terms of appeals in order to gain additional information. Ms. Gerty also updated the number of appeals in 2013 to 112. Ms. Kaminkowitz withdrew her motion and moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. Mr. Hastalis asked for a vote to approve the minutes as amended. The Committee unanimously approved the minutes of the Committee’s January 14, 2014 meeting. Rail Car Information • Mr. Robert Kielba, Chief Rail Equipment Engineer, stated that there are about 432, 5,000 Series rail cars in service. There are 14 cars running with the new door opening chime activated primarily on the Red, Yellow, and Purple Lines. • There are 58 cars loaded with the software at a rate of four to six cars completed in a week.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Ridership Report
    0 2012 Regional Ridership Report CONTENTS Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2 Regional Economic Outlook………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Regional Ridership Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………....11 CTA Ridership Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14 Metra Ridership Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………………32 Pace Ridership Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..40 Pace ADA Paratransit Ridership Results…………………………………………………………………………………..48 Fare History…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..49 1 2012 Regional Ridership Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides analysis of Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) system ridership over the five-year period between 2008 and 2012. This period was marked by a significant period of economic recession that began in 2008 and ended in mid-2009. Economic recovery since then has been modest and as of 2012, employment and job growth had yet to return to pre- recession levels. The recession negatively impacted transit operations on the RTA system and forced the Service Boards (CTA, Metra, and Pace) to consider fare increases and service cuts. CTA, Pace Suburban Service, and Pace ADA Paratransit implemented fare increases in 2009. Metra implemented fare adjustments in 2010 and a significant fare increase in 2012 to bring fares in line with inflationary cost increases. In addition, CTA and Pace both cut service in 2010, with CTA reducing service frequencies, shortening service hours, and eliminating nine express bus routes, and Pace eliminating $1.5 million worth of service. These fare increases and service cuts, together with significant job loss in the region, combined to produce negative ridership results on the RTA system in 2009 and 2010. After two years of ridership loss, the regional economy began to improve in 2011, along with ridership, and these positive trends continued into 2012. A complete history of Service Board fare increases from 2000 to 2012 is included in the final chapter of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Budget Recommendations
    MODERNIZING TRANSIT FOR THE FUTURE PRESIDENT’S 2014 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) CTA FY14 Budget Table of Contents Letter from the President ........................................................................................................................................ 1 CTA Organizational Chart ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2013 Operating Budget Performance 2012 Operating Budget Performance Summary ........................................................................................ 25 2012 Operating Budget Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 34 President’s 2014 Proposed Operating Budget President’s 2013 Proposed Operating Budget Summary ....................................................................... 35 President’s 2013 Proposed Operating Budget Schedule ......................................................................... 42 President’s 2015-2016 Proposed Operating Financial Plan President’s 2015-2016 Proposed Operating Financial Plan Summary ............................................. 43 President’s 2015-2016 Proposed Operating Financial Plan Schedule .............................................. 47 2014-2018 Capital
    [Show full text]
  • CTA: Managing Change
    CTA: Managing Change 2002 Annual Budget Department Detail and 2002-2006 Capital Plan Chicago Transit Authority he Government Finance Officers Association of the T United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the Chicago Transit Authority for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2001. In order to receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements, and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determining its eligibility for another award. LN2001033H CCHHIICCAAGGOO TTRRAANNSSIITT AAUUTTHHOORRIITTYY 2002 ANNUAL BUDGET DEPARTMENT DETAIL & 2002-2006 CAPITAL PROGRAM Merchandise Mart Plaza, P.O. Box 3555, Chicago, Illinois 60654-0555 http://www.transitchicago.com SUMMARY The purpose of this document is two-fold: to provide department budgetary detail and to delineate the five-year capital program. To best accomplish this task, this document is divided into four main sections. The first three sections comprise the three major reporting units of CTA. Each of these sections begins with a brief department description and is followed by the accompanying department detail, including both the 2002 organizational chart and budget by expense category. The final section, Capital Detail, is presented in two parts. The first section provides a description for each project in the 2002 – 2006 Capital Program. This section is followed by a forecast of expenditures for major projects or project groupings.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)
    06JN023apr 2006.qxp 6/21/2006 12:37 PM Page 1 All Aboard! Detailed Fare Information First Bus / Last Bus Times All CTA and Pace buses are accessible X to people with disabilities. This map gives detailed information about Chicago Transit # ROUTE & TERMINALS WEEKDAYS SATURDAY SUNDAY/HOL. # ROUTE & TERMINALS WEEKDAYS SATURDAY SUNDAY/HOL. # ROUTE & TERMINALS WEEKDAYS SATURDAY SUNDAY/HOL. Authority bus and elevated/subway train service, and shows Type of Fare* Full Reduced Reduced fares are for: You can use this chart to determine days, hours and frequency of service, and Fare Payment Farareboebox Topop where each route begins and ends. BROADWAY DIVISION ILLINOIS CENTER/NORTH WESTERN EXPRESS Pace suburban bus and Metra commuter train routes in the 36 70 Division/Austin east to Division/Clark 4:50a-12:40a 5:05a-12:40a 5:05a-12:40a 122 CASH FARE Accepted on buses only. $2 $1 Devon/Clark south to Polk/Clark 4:00a-12:10a 4:20a-12:00m 4:20a-12:15a Canal/Washington east to Wacker/Columbus 6:40a-9:15a & CTA service area. It is updated twice a year, and available at CTA Children 7 through 11 BUSES: CarCardsds It shows the first and last buses in each direction on each route, traveling Polk/Clark north to Devon/Clark 4:55a-1:20a 4:55a-1:05a 4:50a-1:15a Division/Clark west to Division/Austin 5:30a-1:20a 5:40a-1:20a 5:45a-1:20a 3:40p-6:10p Exact fare (both coins and bills accepted). No cash transfers available. years old.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilson Transfer Station
    Wilson Station Reconstruction Project Pre - Construction Meeting Harry S. Truman College - Cafeteria September 16, 2014 1 Your New Wilson Station Wilson station, circa 1960s New modern station with double island platforms and canopies 2 Your New Wilson Station • New safe, secure and prominent station entrance • Provide a transfer point between Red and Purple Lines 3 Your New Wilson Station • Restore the Gerber building per agreement with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 4 Your New Wilson Station • Build a new accessible entrance at Sunnyside 5 Your New Wilson Station • Improved sight lines at Broadway 6 Current Project Status • Contract awarded to Walsh / II In One Joint Venture • Contractor is in the process of obtaining the general building permit and demolition permits • The station will remain open during construction • Demolition of the CTA carpenter shop, unused freight structure, Broadway Mall and Majestic Building is expected to begin within the first two weeks in October 2014 7 Walsh / II in One Joint Venture: • Experienced contractor selected following a thorough bid process • Contract value: $153 million • Contract DBE goal 25% • Contract WIA goal 10% Project Schedule • 3 ½ year project • Station will remain open throughout project • Following pre-construction phase, there are 5 construction phases 9 Pre - Construction Stage, 2014-15 Demolition: • Carpenter shop • Freight Structure • Broadway Mall • Majestic bldg. 10 Stage I • Will start spring 2015 • Est. time – 12 months • Existing station entrances will remain open • Build new temporary entrances at north/south of Wilson Ave. • Build new temporary exit near Sunnyside • Demolition of track #1 (SB Purple Line)and build new track #1 11 Stage II • Will start spring 2016 • Est.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago Plan Commission July 15, 2009
    Near North Mid South Near West Final Recommendations Report Adopted by Chicago Plan Commission July 15, 2009 In association with: MKC ASSOCIATES DRAFT Preliminary Recommendations May 2008 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TaBLE OF CONTENTS: 1 Acknowledgements 2 Project Overview 4 Study Area Descriptions 5 Community Input 6 Planning Recommendations 6 Public Investment to Foster Re-Connection S-1 Mid South Study Area W-1 Near West Study Area N-1 Near North Study Area FIGURES: S-5 Mid South Study Area Recommendations W-5 Near West Study Area Recommendations N-5 Near North South Study Area Recommendations TABLES: S-6 Implementation Actions Mid South W-6 Implementation Actions Near West N-6 Implementation Actions Near North Please send questions or comments to: Joanna Trotter For more information visit: Project Manager, Reconnecting Neighborhoods Metropolitan Planning Council www.ReconnectingNeighborhoods.org [email protected] (312) 863-6008 RECONNECTING NEIGHBORHOODS iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Charles W. Abraham, Illinois Department of Transportation, Diane Gormely-Barnes, HNTB Corporation Division of Public and Intermodal Maria P. Hibbs, The Partnership for New Communities Andre Ashmore, Illinois Department of Commerce and Hon. Mattie Hunter, Illinois State Senate Economic Opportunity Joe Iacobucci, Chicago Transit Authority MarySue Barrett, Metropolitan Planning Council Bernita Johnson-Gabriel, Quad Communities Development Todd C. Brown (Co-Chair), ShoreBank Corp. Hon. Walter Burnett, Chicago City Council Lewis Jordan, Chicago Housing Authority William Burns, Conlon Public Strategies Inc. Catherine Kannenberg, Metra Carl Byrd, City of Chicago, Department of Housing Ileen E. Kelly, Independent Consultant Hon. Vi Daley, Chicago City Council Peter Levavi, Brinshore Development LLC Steve DeBretto, Industrial Council of Nearwest Chicago Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • N:\JOE\RTCP\Interim Progress Report\Links\Report Cover.Tif
    Final Report Submitted to Regional Transportation Authority REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION PLAN: LOCATION STUDY prepared by BOOZ·ALLEN & HAMILTON INC. in association with WELSH PLANNING July 2001 This report is confidential and intended solely for the use and information of the company to whom it is addressed Table of Contents Disclaimer Page.........................................................................................................................1 Section 1 – Project Summary...................................................................................................2 Section 2 – Study Purpose .......................................................................................................5 Section 3 – Background............................................................................................................7 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................7 3.2 Assessment of Transit Coordination ...................................................................8 3.2.1 Physical Coordination.............................................................................9 3.2.2 Service Coordination .............................................................................10 3.2.3 Fare Coordination ..................................................................................10 3.2.4 Information Coordination.....................................................................11 3.2.5 Other Themes and Issues......................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Screen 1 Yellow Line AA Comments 111008
    Chicago Transit Authority Yellow Line Alternatives Analysis Study Screen One Public Involvement * Public Comments and Questions November 2008 No. Comment/Question Received Via* Topic Area(s) 1 How do you deal with pedestrians? STK 15 2 How do you coordinate with PACE? STK 11, 14 3 Do you brief surrounding communities? Ex. Morton Grove/Glenview STK 11 4 How do you deal with parking? STK 15 5 How many employees/residential STK 18 6 My concern is parking and getting from station via walking to my destination STK 15 7 Prefer rail to bus STK 7 One of the major economic development initiatives that my office is involved in is filling 3000 hotel rooms in our service region. A major draw is access to downtown Chicago. Visitors will take CTA & Metra to our areas (Evanston, Skokie, Glenview, Wilmette, Northbrook) But usually do not transfer to buses. They 8 would very much use expanded rail. STK 7 Switching modes of transportation would seem to a much less-preferred option. The assumption would be the rail line would continue north, making it a much more 9 viable option for those utilizing the system. STK 7 10 How will pedestrians bridge to major destinations such as the mall, Holocaust Museum, or the schools? STK 15 11 The estimated cost short term and long tern should be carefully elevated and considered. STK 12 12 What are the total costs for UP railway extension vs. bus option covering the next 20 years? STK 12 13 I prefer the heavy rail transit option using the UP railroad corridor NLU 5 14 For funding a heavy rail extension to Old Orchard why not put a 1 cent/gallon gas tax on all gasoline sold in Skokie for x number of years? NLU 12 15 Will there be Yellow line service on weekends with this extension (permanently) NLU 9 16 What about a subway extension running under Gross Point Road, Skokie Blvd, and Golf Rd to Old Orchard? NLU 5, 6, 7 17 Will the buses be hybrids like in NYC? NLU 7 I went through Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Communicating the Benefits of TOD: the City of Evanston’S Transit-Oriented Redevelopment and the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Transit System
    Communicating the Benefits of TOD: The City of Evanston’s Transit-Oriented Redevelopment and the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Transit System Prepared for: Development, Community and Environment Division Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20460 Prepared by: Cali Gorewitz and Gloria Ohland Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit-Oriented Development Evanston Corridor Case Study Carrie Makarewicz, Albert Benedict, and ChaNell Marshall Center for Neighborhood Technology Hudson Bergen Light Rail Line Case Study Dr. Jan S. Wells and Martin Robins Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 2 THE CITY OF EVANSTON’S TRANSIT-ORIENTED REDEVELOPMENT ......... 3 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT..................................................................................... 3 The Players................................................................................................... 6 The Plans...................................................................................................... 7 Transit Investments....................................................................................... 8 MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT TAKES OFF IN EVANSTON ..................................... 10 Downtown Evanston Station Area............................................................... 12 Dempster Street Station Area ..................................................................... 14 Main Street Station
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Ridership Report Calendar Year 2010
    Annual Ridership Report Calendar Year 2010 Prepared by: Chicago Transit Authority Planning and Development Planning Analytics 1/24/2011 Table of Contents How to read this report...........................................................................................i Monthly notes........................................................................................................ ii Monthly Summary ......................................................................................................................1 Bus Ridership by Route........................................................................................ 2 Rail Ridership by Entrance................................................................................... 9 Average Rail Daily Boardings by Line ................................................................ 23 How to read this report Introduction This report shows how many customers used the CTA bus and rail systems in calendar year 2009. Ridership statistics are given on a system-wide and route/station-level basis, with average ridership by type of day (weekday, Saturday, and Sunday) and annual totals. Beginning January 2008, the monthly ridership reports received an all-new design and revised layout, streamlining the report generation process. The new report contains both bus and rail ridership in the same report, while previously the two were broken out into separate reports. The new report layout provides the same key ridership statistics as the old reports, ensuring continuity and comparability of
    [Show full text]