Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memorandum

November 2020

Prepared for: Lake County Division of Transportation

Prepared by: AECOM 303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60601 aecom.com

In association with: Metro Strategies, Inc. Joseph P. Schwieterman Analytics, Inc.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study ii

Table of contents

1 SOV Reduction Study Background ...... 1 1.1 SOV Reduction Measures Overview ...... 2

2 Categories of Measures ...... 3

3 SOV Reduction Measure Sources ...... 4 3.1 Peer Agency Interviews ...... 4 3.2 Literature/Web Search ...... 6 3.3 Local SOV Reduction Examples...... 8 3.4 Emerging Mobilities ...... 8 3.4.1 Automated Vehicles ...... 9 3.4.2 Connected Vehicles ...... 9 3.4.3 Transportation Network Companies and Shared Mobility ...... 10 3.4.4 Mobility as a Service ...... 10 3.4.5 Microtransit ...... 11 3.4.6 Resource pricing ...... 11 3.5 Electric-Assist Mobility ...... 12

4 SOV Reduction Measures ...... 14 4.1 Commute Options Programming ...... 14 4.1.1 Marketing / Outreach ...... 14 4.1.2 Subsidies and Incentives ...... 15 4.1.3 Alternative Work Arrangements ...... 16 4.1.4 Worksite Amenities ...... 17 4.2 Rideshare ...... 18 4.3 Transit ...... 19 4.4 Pedestrian, Bicycle, Scooter ...... 20 4.5 Non-commute/Non-employer Based Strategies ...... 21 4.6 Technology...... 22 4.7 Parking ...... 23 4.8 Roadway ...... 24 4.9 Land Use and Policy ...... 25

5 Evaluation of Measures ...... 27 5.1 Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation Factors ...... 27

6 SOV Reduction Measures Comparative Performance ...... 34

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study iii

Figures

Figure 1-1. Lake County and Region...... 1

Tables

Table 1-1. Lake County Drive Alone Work Travel over Time ...... 1 Table 3-1. Peer Interview Agencies...... 4 Table 5-1. Goals, Objectives, Evaluation Factors and Scoring ...... 29 Table 5-2. Evaluation Matrix of SOV Measures ...... 30 Table 6-1. SOV Reduction Measures by Rating ...... 35

Appendices

A Lake County SOV Reduction Peer Review B SOV Reduction Document Log C Local SOV Reduction Examples D Emerging Mobilities

E Electric-Assist Mobility

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study iv

Abbreviations / Acronyms ACS American Community Survey AV Automated Vehicles AVO Average Vehicle Occupancy CTPP Census Transportation Planning Products CMAP Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning CTA Chicago Transit Administration CTR Commuter Trip Reduction CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program CWW Compressed Work Week CV Connected Vehicles DSRC Dedicated Short-Range Communications Ebike Electric Assisted Bicycles Escooter Electric Assisted Scooters EV Electric Vehicle ETR Employee Trip Reduction FTA Federal Transit Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration GTFS General Transit Feed Specification HOT High Occupancy Toll Lanes HOV High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes ISTHA Illinois State Toll Highway Authority IBTTA International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation ITS Intelligent Transportation System LCDOT Lake County Division of Transportation LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MaaS Mobility as a Service NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administartion NTD FTA's National Transit Database PAYD Pay as You Drive Insurance RTA Regional Transportation Authority SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle SAE Society of Automotive Engineers TDM Transportation Demand Management TMA Transportation Management Association TMC Traffic Management Center TMI Transportation Management Initiative TMO Transportation Management Organization TNC Transportation Network Companies TOD Transit-Oriented Development US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study v

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

1 SOV REDUCTION STUDY BACKGROUND

Lake County is one of five collar counties of Cook County that Figure 1-1. Lake County and Region make up the metropolitan area of Chicago. Lake County is north of Chicago along Lake Michigan and forms the northern boundary with Wisconsin. The County’s development patterns include rural communities, highly developed urban centers, and tourist destinations. Lake County’s transportation network is made up of roads, railways, bridges, bike paths, and other components. Transportation providers include the State of Illinois, Lake County, 52 municipalities, 15 township road districts, Illinois Tollway, Metra commuter rail, and Pace Suburban Bus. Figure 1-1 provides a general map of Lake County and the surrounding region.

As is the case with most suburban areas of large metropolitan regions, Lake County’s dominant travel mode is the automobile. Since most miles traveled in the County are in a vehicle operated by a single person, or “single-occupancy vehicle” (SOV), the Lake County Division of Transportation (LCDOT) proposed this study to investigate potential ways to reduce SOV travel to reduce congestion and environmental impacts from vehicle emissions.

The Census Bureau collects data on the means of travel to work, which provides perspective on the level of SOV travel in . Lake County. This was obtained through a sample of the decennial Censuses up to and including the 2000 Census, and thereafter has been collected as part of the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS combines journey to work data into 5-year periods to improve the confidence of the sampling. Data can be summarized by residence geography or employment geography.

Table 1-1 summarizes the number Table 1-1. Lake County Drive Alone Work Travel over Time of workers who drive alone as the primary mode of transportation to Place of Residence Place of Work work between 1990 and 2016, Workers Workers % of all % of all subdivided by workers who reside Year who Drive who Drive Workers Workers in the County and workers Alone Alone employed in the County (note that 1990 200,994 74.4% 183,853 75.0% there is substantial overlap due to 2000 242,361 76.3% 254,995 78.2% the large share of workers who 2006-2010 260,540 76.7% 277,370 78.8% both reside and work in Lake County). 2012-2016 269,150 77.2% 292,865 80.2% 1990 vs 2016 +34% +2.8% +59% +5.2% The table indicates that Lake Source: U.S. Census, ACS summarized County residents, regardless of in Census Transportation Planning Products. work location, who drove alone grew 34 percent between 1990 and 2016. As a proportion of total work travel, the SOV share for County residents increased 2.8 percent to reach its highest level, 77.2 percent, for the most recent period. For Lake County workers, regardless of home location, SOV travel grew 59 percent from 1990, and the SOV share of all modes increased by 5.2 percent to reach 80.2 percent. This data clearly shows that SOV use for work travel is the dominant transportation mode and has increased over time—both in absolute terms, as the local economy and population grew and prospered, and proportionally.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 1

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

The study involves the following six major tasks:

1. Existing and Future Conditions 2. Identification and Evaluation of Potential SOV Reduction Measures 3. Identification of Four Sub-Regions to Study and Recommend TDM Programs 4. Grant Program for SOV Projects 5. Evaluation of Current Lake County Pilot Projects 6. Final Report

This report covers Task 2, Identification and Evaluation of Potential SOV Reduction Measures. Note that this study was initiated just prior to the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020, which has greatly impacted the level and pattern of travel in Lake County. While the presumption is that SOV reduction measures will be evaluated for the period after the pandemic ends, it is not clear that travel will be the same as before the pandemic. It is likely that the recommendations flowing from this research will be different than they might have been in a pre-COVID environment.

1.1 SOV REDUCTION MEASURES OVERVIEW This task report of the Lake County SOV Reduction Study identifies and evaluates measures that can be considered to reduce drive-alone travel in Lake County. This compendium of measures includes the following sections:

− Categories − Sources − List of Measures and Definitions − Evaluation − Recommendations

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 2

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

2 CATEGORIES OF MEASURES

Tackling the issue of SOV reduction can cover a range of strategies, for example:

• Changing travel behavior and the demand for travel • Providing alternatives to the automobile that include similar attributes • Offerring incentives to using SOV alternatives • Providing disincentives to SOV use • Changing land use to put travel generators and attractors in closer proximity to one another

In approaching the identification and vetting of measures that would have potential application to Lake County, it was decided to develop a taxonomy of strategies that would provide a framework for classification. This approach would aid in sorting out strategies that overlap, are duplicative, or are complementary. The nine categories include:

1. Commute Options Programming 2. Rideshare 3. Transit 4. Pedestrian / Bicycle / Scooter 5. Non-commute-based Strategies 6. Technology 7. Parking 8. Roadway 9. Land Use / Policy

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 3

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

3 SOV REDUCTION MEASURE SOURCES

In developing a list of SOV reduction strategies, the project team identified multiple sources for consideration that included:

• Peer agency interviews • Literature/Web search • Local SOV reduction project examples • Review of emerging technologies • Review of electric-assist mobility

3.1 PEER AGENCY INTERVIEWS The team researched agencies across the Country that were believed to have a range of innovative programs that encourage use of alternatives to SOVs. A candidate list of 26 agencies was identified, which was culled down to 10 for phone interviews based on selection factors including: population size, suburban setting, and climate. One of the ten agencies declined to participate, and Montgomery County encouraged the team to interview a local Transportation Management Association (TMA). Table 3-1 lists the agencies interviewed, along with location and their functions relevant to SOV reduction.

Table 3-1. Peer Interview Agencies

Organization Location Agency Type / Role(s) Arlington County Northern Virginia within County department managing TDM Commuter Services Arlington County and commute options programs Baltimore County Transportation planning unit providing Northeastern Maryland Government transit services and bike/ped planning Suburban county of metro County department providing transit Cobb County DOT Atlanta, Georgia services, bike/ped, TDM programs 50+ local county & municipal Regional planning organization Denver Regional Council governments near Denver, managing and coordinating Way to of Governments Colorado GO - TDM and rideshare programs Regional planning agency managing George Washington City of Fredericksburg, Virginia & the GWRideConnect TDM and Regional Commission the surrounding counties rideshare programs Regional planning and transit operator, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota - Metropolitan Council funds transportation management metropolitan area organizations Hampton Roads Regional planning agency overseeing Transportation Planning 18 counties and cities in Virginia & funding TDM program TRAFFIX Organization Suburban county of Philadelphia, County planning commission supports Montgomery County Pennsylvania local TMA and plans for bike/ped Montgomery County, One of the TMAs in the County, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania & Valley Forge provides TDM, shuttle bus and Greater Valley Forge TMA National Historic Park rideshare services Pierce County, Washington & Transit agency providing fixed route Pierce Transit parts of Seattle bus and vanpool services

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 4

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

The interviews followed an approved interview guide that was prepared to ensure consistency in the information gathered. Key points of inquiry included: • Background and role of agency • SOV reduction programs, including funding, goals, measurements, role, and partnerships • Specific SOV reduction programs • Importance of County governments in carrying out or supporting programs • Lessons learned for Lake County in embarking on similar efforts • General discussion on the impacts of COVID-19 to SOV reduction programs The full report documenting the interviews is included as Appendix A. Highlights related to lessons learned and advice to Lake County on implementing and sustaining programs are summarized as follows: Coordination • Close coordination with MPO and the state DOT is encouraged. • Share information with other TDM organizations and transit agencies. • Consider consultants who specialize in similar projects and programs. • Coordinate with economic development planners to target businesses for TDM programs. • Partner with businesses and employers to develop travel solutions. • Establish a committee of stakeholders to serve as advocates, provide funding, and play a role in being part of the solution. Funding • Seek funding from programs offered through MPO and state DOT. • Seek contributions from other governmental units. • Partner with other agencies and the private sector when applying for grants. Land Use • Link bicycle/pedestrian travel and transit to create a better commuter experience from the transit stop to the business front door. • Consider converting existing and future transfer centers into mobility hubs. • Consider leasing parking lots that have availability during the day. • Provide input to area comprehensive planning processes to ensure that the coordination of transportation-land use issues are appropriately addressed. • Push to have local jurisdictions relax parking requirements where transit is available. Implementation • Limit proposed strategies to three or four efforts. • Educate leaders and decision-makers on expectations of results; programs take time to mature. • Outreach teams working on short-term implementation can be effective in achieving longer-term plans. • Strong coordination across internal teams is encouraged so that staff understand the larger picture, and how their role supports overall goals.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 5

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

• Marketing, advertising and public education/outreach are crucial to the success of programs. • Leverage the resources of partners to assist with marketing. • Create committees based on different interests to gather local knowledge and work to address community needs.

Measurement • Assess the possibility for long-term impacts of COVID-19 and the economic downturn; and consider programs in a longer-term context. • Surveys are a good evaluation tool to help you make informed decisions. • Create and maintain a database of commuter information that includes origin-destination locations to understand how people travel in their region.

Technology • Use advanced online trip planners and a ridematching software. • Build and maintain a mobile-friendly website that incorporates transportation resources from multiple providers in one place for the public to access.

3.2 LITERATURE/WEB SEARCH The search for relevant documents and research took several forms. From trade organization resources to relevant websites and news sources, the literature search included the following: • Queries in web search engines for key words such as SOV Reduction, TMA, microtransit, and mobility, • Review of references in documents collected, • Articles in trade publications, e.g., APA Planning, Mass Transit Magazine, and METRO, • Resources of advocacy groups, e.g., Shared-Use Mobility Center, Eno Foundation, and National League of Cities, • Reports from agencies interviewed, as well as candidate agencies that were not interviewed, • Review of website and materials for the candidate peer agency programs that were not selected for phone interviews, and • Information from relevant TDM/SOV Reduction program websites. The project team compiled the documents and websites, saving them electronically as files or links. A source log of these documents includes a reference number, title, author/originator, and publish date. In addition, a checkbox was used to indicate content according to these following areas. The completed log is provided in Appendix B.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 6

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

General Topics Categories SOV Reduction 1 Commute Options Programming TDM 2 Rideshare Work Travel 3 Transit School Travel 4 Pedestrian/Bicycle/Scooter Other Trip Purpose 5 Non-commute-based Strategies Obstacles 6 Technology TMA 7 Parking Evaluation 8 Roadway Case Studies 9 Land Use/Policy Mobility COVID-19

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 7

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

3.3 LOCAL SOV REDUCTION EXAMPLES Lake County already has a number of SOV reduction programs to look to. The local examples are a key component of this study for reasons that include: they may illustrate opportunity for replication and/or expansion elsewhere in the County; they set standards for what has been successful (or not) in the past; and they help to identify entities that the County can partner with on future implementations. The local examples, which were summarized as case studies in Appendix C, are listed as follows,

• Bannockburn Last-Mile Ridehail Pilot – This program has been funded by a grant from the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and is a partnership to connect employees of the Bannockburn Lakes office complex to nearby Metra stations with Lyft ridehail service. Tenants are provided a promo code that covers 100% of the cost for qualifying rides (up to $20 per ride, 40 rides per month). Funding is split between the development (75%) and the RTA (25%). This last mile service attracted an average of 19 rides per day in February 2020.

• Transportation Management Association (TMA) of Lake-Cook - The TMA is a not-for-profit business association whose mission is to improve employees' commute to work in Cook and Lake Counties and represents over 40 members and 42,000 employees. Membership of the TMA is a mixture of corporations, developers, building management firms, and government agencies. Private sector members pay annual dues based on number of employees and public sector pay an annual flat rate. Founded in 1989, the TMA manages the successful Shuttle Bug Program, which provides area employers shuttle service on Pace buses to nearby Metra rail stations. As of the end of 2019, there were eleven routes attracting an average of 900 riders per weekday.

• Metra Lake County Reverse Commute Pilot (MetraMore) - Metra and Lake County Partners entered into a two-year Public-Private Partnership for pilot service and ancillary capital funding agreements. Local community and business leaders voiced the need for additional reverse commuter service on the Milwaukee District North Line (MD-N) between Chicago and Lake Forest. The underlying aim was to recruit and retain talented workers residing in Chicago. The pilot is branded “MetraMore,” and added service began on March 4, 2019. Metra has estimated that ridership increased by 550 trips on an average weekday during the fourth quarter of 2019.

• Pace Route 284, Schaumburg–Great America Gurnee Express - Pace provides bus service from Schaumburg and Rosemont to the Six Flags Great America Amusement Park in Gurnee. The Park is open seasonally; Pace operates Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays from June 1 through Labor Day, and then Saturdays and Sundays during most of September and October. The service was initiated in 2016. It is estimated that over 3,000 trips were made on Route 284 during Great America’s 2019 season.

• Ravinia Festival, Metra & Pace - The Ravinia Festival offers outdoor concerts and performances from June to September in Highland Park. In addition to accessing the park by driving and parking, transit can also be used in two ways: 1) Metra’s UP North trains serve the special Ravinia Park station stop, which is adjacent to the Festival’s west gate and 2) Pace operates shuttles from nearby park and ride lots.

3.4 EMERGING MOBILITIES Understanding how technology can affect SOV use today and in the future will be important in framing the range of solutions to be considered. Some emerging mobility options are available today. Others, like automated vehicles (AV), are still being piloted and developed, and have uncertain timelines for full and widespread deployment. Many trends are interrelated, and the development of new technologies may impact how others evolve, when they are adopted and by whom, and how the transportation system of the future will function. There is no question that transportation will evolve, and accurately forecasting

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 8

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum these changes is difficult because of the uncertainty around the convergence of emerging technologies, individual preferences, and business models that will change near- and long-term travel behaviors.

A technical memorandum (Appendix D) identified and defined key emerging mobility options and their anticipated future trends and qualitative impacts as they relate to SOV travel. The following is a summary of the research paper, highlighting key findings.

Six emerging mobility options were evaluated for current trends and potential impacts.

3.4.1 Automated Vehicles The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines six levels of automated vehicles (AV) from zero automation (where a fully engaged driver is always required) to full autonomy (where an automated vehicle operates independently, without a human driver).

There is still uncertainty on the timeline for the widescale availability and deployment of fully automated vehicles; probably 2050s, with full market saturation in 2070 or beyond. Shared AVs, such as self-driving taxis, may be available by the 2030s.

Currently, AV shuttles are mainly being tested in select, limited applications like airport parking lots, neighborhood circulators, or college campuses, with slow speeds and predictable conditions. AV technologies are being used for taxi services, including by Waymo.

The cost of privately-owned AVs may be a barrier to ownership. Technology costs will need to decrease to the point that privately-owned AVs become an option for most American households. Automated vehicles in shared fleets or shared vehicles may be available sooner.

Potential Impacts

• May cause people to take more or longer trips, thereby increasing SOV travel by removing the burden of driving; • Reduce household auto-ownership; • Generate zero-occupancy VMT from AVs returning home or going to pick up another household member. This can increase congestion and decrease travel speeds; • Cause mode shifts, increasing SOV travel as people choose AVs over transit or active transportation; • Shared AV fleets have the potential to lower VMT and reduce the need for parking; and • Lower operating costs for shared AV fleets due to reductions in labor costs; for transit, these savings could be used to expand service and coverage.

3.4.2 Connected Vehicles A connected vehicle (CV) is a car, truck, or bus equipped with a wireless communication device. CVs use several wireless communication protocols including vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure, and Internet connectivity.

CVs can communicate position, direction, and speed to give the driver or the vehicle the situational awareness to react to incidents, thus reducing crashes and smoothing traffic flow. CVs also can communicate with other connected devices like smartphones. CVs could allow for new ways to finance roadways by providing a mechanism for payment tied to VMT.

Potential Impacts

• CVs have the potential to increase safety and speed of vehicular travel; • Vehicle platooning (a platoon is a group of vehicles that can travel very closely together through vehicle-to-vehicle communication) could increase the convenience and ease of driving, which could make SOV travel more attractive; • Enables several other emerging mobility trends, such as microtransit and Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS); and

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 9

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

• CVs’ greatest potential for SOV trip reduction lies in combination with other trends, including AVs, MaaS, and resource pricing.

3.4.3 Transportation Network Companies and Shared Mobility Shared Mobility allows users to request a ride or vehicle in real-time using a mobile application, linking passengers with available drivers and vehicles based on trip origin and destination, identify the quickest route, and facilitate trip payment. These typically fall into four categories:

• Ridesourcing: Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) that use an online platform to connect passengers with drivers and automate reservations, payments, and customer feedback. • Ridesharing: Ridesharing involves adding passengers to a private trip in which driver and passenger, or multiple passengers, share a destination. Dynamic carpooling applications facilitate cost sharing among travelers; examples are Scoop and Waze Carpool. Examples of on-demand ridesharing include UberPool and Lyft Shared rides. • Carsharing: A service that provides members with access to an automobile for intervals of less than a day. Major carsharing business models include traditional or round-trip; one-way or free- floating; and peer-to-peer, which allows car owners rental to other carshare members. Examples operating in the Chicago region include Turo and Zipcar. • Shared Micromobility: Shared micromobility encompasses shared-use, independently operated fleets of small, fully or partially human-powered, lightweight mobility devices. Examples of shared micromobility include bikeshare and scooters. Micromobility can be docked or dockless and operate independently or integrated with ridesourcing apps, transit apps, or fare payment systems.

Potential Impacts

Ridesourcing / Ridesharing

• A reduction of private vehicle ownership; • Growth in VMT and the reduction of vehicle ownership alone does not necessarily result in reduced SOV VMT; • Ridesourcing services can take ridership away from transit; Carsharing

• Carshare users give up their personal vehicle or postpone buying or leasing a car. • Surveys indicate drivers use carsharing vehicles for long trips or multiple errands; • Carsharing will not negatively impact transit or active transportation modes; Micromobility

• Micromobility has the potential to replace short vehicle trips and is an important link for first/last mile connections to transit; and • Typically found in more urban areas with multiple transportation options, existing active transportation infrastructure, and where parking is expensive or difficult to find to maximize efficiency.

3.4.4 Mobility as a Service Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is a software platform that provides people with on-demand access to a wide range of public and private shared mobility services. Payment options can include a monthly subscription packages or pay-as-you-go. MaaS-related services include bikeshare, carshare, electric vehicle (EV) charging, smart parking, and microtransit. MaaS enables a transition from a system where vehicle ownership is required, to a system where people have access to an array of transportation services, and where access can be purchased as needed, is competitive with the private automobile, and provides more convenient, efficient, and potentially less expensive travel options.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 10

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

MaaS centers on system integration of individual systems through a single trip planning, booking, and payment system so individuals can purchase rides or services as needed. This integrates the system into seamless trip chains, with reservations and payment collectively managed for all legs of the trip. However, since public and private transportation providers often have individual payment systems and proprietary technologies, integrating these systems can be challenging. Integrated transit fare payment is one step toward overall MaaS that integrates ridesourcing, taxis, heavy rail, and even parking expenses and tolls.

Few fully developed MaaS systems exist in the U.S. with most systems still under development and for limited applications. TNCs are creating their own MaaS within their existing apps. For example, Uber and Lyft incorporate their micromobility services, such as scooters and bikeshare, and in select locations these apps can offer information about public transit.

Potential Impacts

• MaaS can be an effective way to reduce SOV travel by combining trips that are temporally and spatially similar and expanding access to a variety of flexibly available mobility options; • Benefits can include efficiency improvements, fleet downsizing, congestion reduction, energy conservation, and emissions alleviation; and • Full integration of numerous systems across modes into one centralized system has many challenges related to public policy, technology, and organizational structure.

3.4.5 Microtransit Microtransit is a shared transportation system that can offer fixed routes and schedules, as well as flexible routes and on-demand scheduling. The vehicles generally include vans and buses.

Potential Impacts

• Microtransit combines characteristics of vanpooling and ridesourcing and therefore has the potential to reduce SOV travel; • It’s possible that existing vanpools can be modified to use a microtransit model, resulting in an expanded service area; • Can expand mobility options and reduce SOV travel in areas underserved by transit for shorter, point-to-point trips or for first/last mile connections to transit; and • It can be a more convenient option than driving in areas where parking is limited or not available, creating further potential for SOV reduction.

3.4.6 Resource pricing Resource pricing Includes tolling, priced managed lanes, cordon pricing, and road user charge pricing. The following definitions are from the International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association (IBTTA).

• Tolling: Generally defined as the imposition of a per-use fee on motorists for a given highway facility. • Priced Managed Lanes: Highway facilities or lanes where operation is modified in response to changing traffic conditions. This includes high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. HOT lanes have a reduced fee if the vehicle meets certain occupancy standards (e.g., traveling with two or more passengers). • Cordon Pricing: Fees paid by motorist to drive in an area, usually a city center. Some cordon tolls only apply during peak periods. This can be done by simply requiring vehicles driven within the area to display a pass, or by tolling at each entrance to the area. • Road User Charge: Policy whereby motorists pay for use of the roadway network based on distance traveled; also known as vehicle miles traveled fee or mileage-based user fees. Commonly used to replace gas tax revenue to fund roadway improvement projects.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 11

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Potential Impacts

• Tolling has the potential to reduce SOV travel by increasing prices or adjusting for congestion and decreasing prices for shared trips; • As more CV technologies enter the marketplace, it is anticipated that road user charges, tolling systems, and cordon pricing will be easier to implement; • Most Road User pilot program studies have found that a GPS-enabled device is the easiest method of reporting and can also provide additional value-added services; • GPS-enabled devices can also benefit AV technologies and MaaS to price trips by vehicle type, fuel type, location, time of day, number of passengers, and roadway usage allowing travelers to only pay for what they use; and • If SOV travel becomes expensive compared to other travel options, tolling has the potential to further reduce SOV trips.

3.5 ELECTRIC-ASSIST MOBILITY In considering alternatives to SOV travel modes, the focus generally is on transit, rideshare, walk or bicycle. The bicycle mode includes several variations that incorporate some level of electrical power propulsion. These vehicles cannot universally be treated as bicycles, or as automobiles, and can require new designs for proper consideration in urban planning, roadway design, and in the management of recreational trails. Ebike and motorized scooter use of public roads and trail systems can also require governmental regulation. A technical memorandum was prepared covering the proliferation, use for commuting, legal issues, design options and recommendations for Lake County. The full technical memorandum is included as Appendix E. A summary follows.

The three classes of ebike have become a popular way to discuss the vehicle and regulate its use. In the U.S., ebikes are classified according to two criteria: maximum assisted speed and whether they have a throttle. Regardless of class, an ebike’s motor cannot exceed 750 watts, or one horsepower. Characteristics of ebikes by class include:

• Class 1 ebikes can be treated as bikes and are regulated the same by most federal, state, and local governments. Pedaling is required for use of the motor (pedal-assist only). These have a maximum speed of 20 mph. • Class 2 ebikes have a throttle (not pedal-assist only) and the motor is activated by a grip-twist or button. Speeds are limited to 20 mph. • Class 3 ebikes have a maximum speed of 28 mph and are equipped with a speedometer.

Growth in the use of ebikes in the U.S. has been steady, with the pandemic accelerating the trend. Some of the reasons for this popularity include making cycling easier; offering the ability to cycle longer distances; serving as an alternative to less environmentally friendly means of transport; and allowing commuters to arrive at work without sweating.

The State of Illinois enacted legislation in 2017 that addressed ebike definitions and thereby the use on paths and roadways. As with ebike legislation at the federal level, the most critical element was defining ebikes as motorized vehicles and not as motor vehicles. Not being defined as motor vehicles meant that ebikes are allowed on bike lanes or sidewalks and do not require a Vehicle Identification Number, licensing and insurance. The Illinois Vehicle Code also indicates that a person may operate a low-speed electric bicycle on any bicycle path unless the municipality, county or local authority prohibits the use of low-speed electric bicycles or a specific class of low-speed electric bicycles on that path. As such, Lake County could make more stringent regulations if desired. It also allows the County to restrict ebikes to Class 1 and 2 vehicles on trails; although it could be difficult to ascertain class of ebike, challenging local enforcement.

While it originally appeared unclear whether ebikes are prohibited on Lake County-owned bike paths, more recently LCDOT received an opinion from the Lake County State’s Attorney indicating that ebikes

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 12

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum are allowed on LCDOT bikeways as the applicable ordinance doesn’t specifically prohibit them. Lake County Forest Preserve has banned Class 2 and Class 3 ebikes.

Regarding the design facilities to accommodate e-assist bikes with the same performance and dimensions as conventional bikes, the need for new designs is low. But for the e-power bikes with greater speeds, there is benefit for separated lanes, which enable fast commuting and meandering strolls along the same route.

Recommendations for this nearly new mode of transportation include the following:

• Lake County, transportation advocates, bike planners and engineers should acknowledge and thoughtfully consider ebikes in transportation planning and design. • Consider drafting code language, using the language of the State Law to clarify whether ebikes are allowed on trails. Many jurisdictions would allow only Class 1 and 2 ebikes on the trails. Alternately, the County can simply allow all ‘low-speed electric bicycles’ and institute a speed limit for the trails. • Consider and discuss with diverse parties setting speed limits for ebikes on multi-use paths, trails and bike facilities (everywhere but the travel lanes for cars where ebikes may need additional speed). 15mph or 20mph are reasonable choices. • Develop appropriate signage for ebikes on the trails, parks and possibly for roadways. The FHWA has not yet approved a suite of ebike signage, even for interim use, so these cannot yet be found in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The County should also inventory existing signage and not allow new signage to mistakenly conflate motor vehicles and motorized vehicles. • Consider adding clarifying language to trail guides, bike guides and other materials circulated by the trail users, or bike groups. Use these materials, social media and other platforms to encourage trail etiquette.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 13

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

4 SOV REDUCTION MEASURES

This section will describe in more detail the nine categories of measures with the intent to provide a robust list of strategies that could have local applicability. Definitions for each of the measures are provided along with local examples where known. In the next phase of the study, possible SOV reduction strategies will be evaluated for each of four sub-regions to target for implementation. The measures that will be considered for sub-regional implementation will tend to be more local in nature and will generally not delve into regional applications.

4.1 COMMUTE OPTIONS PROGRAMMING Commute Options Programming is comprised of strategies that are commonly used by local/regional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) providers and/or employer organizations to support and encourage the use of non-SOV travel among commuters and employees. If a local/regional rideshare program exists and conducts outreach to employers, these are typically the strategies that a program uses to engage employers and provide as tools and resources. Other program names commonly used to describe Commute Options Programming include Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR), Employee Trip Reduction (ETR) or Worksite-based programs.

The origin of programs such as these stem from the 1980s when the US EPA adopted the concept of using local measures to promote trip reduction. Later the Clean Air Act endorsed the idea of trip reduction to increase non-automobile travel and for a period of time, employers meeting certain criteria were held to mandatory trip-reduction programs for commuting employees. Those mandates were lifted in the mid- 1990s, making it voluntary at the federal level. However, there are some states and local governments that have trip reduction ordinances in place today.

The following are measures that fall under this category and are grouped by sub-categories.

4.1.1 Marketing / Outreach Marketing and outreach efforts aim to educate commuters on the benefits of non-SOV commuting encourage trial use and permanent mode shift and provide or connect them with tools and resources to encourage that change. Outreach and marketing activities can be executed by varying entities that commonly include state government (e.g., DOT), local government (e.g., municipality, MPO, RTA), educational institutions, non-profits, large employers, private land use developers and property managers, and Transportation Management Associations (TMAs).

1-1 Local/Regional Commute Options Program

A designated resource for businesses and commuters streamlines the education, promotion and technical assistance for employers and employees to implement and use commute options. The TMA of Lake Cook and Pace Vanpool and RideShare programs are local examples. A Commute Options Program can have varying scales from primarily online resources with minimal staffing to very robust hands-on employer outreach services that provide tools and consulting services to directly influence worksite implementation of SOV reduction measures. Commute Options Programs focus on employers because they provide direct access to commuters.

1-2 Marketing/Advertising Campaign

A marketing campaign targeting the general public using designated channels like social media, email blasts, or out-of-home mass advertising can inform travelers about specific travel modes, cost savings, and additional benefits of using commute options. Campaigns can promote a general message to promote non-SOV travel options or support specific programs/initiatives (e.g., Bike to Work or Car-Free Day).

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 14

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

1-3 Promotions

Promotional events can create buzz, raise awareness and encourage non-SOV travel within communities or targeted employer locations. Examples include Commuter Challenges, Bike Month and Try Transit. Promotions would typically involve a registration or commitment and request a specific action within a defined timeframe. They are best coupled with education and encouragement events, incentives and marketing support that can further nudge commuters into trying a new commute mode. Promotional events can be deployed and promoted regionally or serve as a tool to target engagement among employees at employer locations.

1-4 Worksite Assessments/Mode Shift Surveys

Worksite assessments provide a means to recommend strategies to employers that could include infrastructure, policy and programming to support and increase non-SOV travel among employees. The assessment documents existing conditions and can include surveys to establish baseline mode split and track mode shift over time. The data can be used to evaluate additional investments or programs to launch for employees. Outside of the worksite assessment, regional mode-shift or commuter surveys are often used to determine the effectiveness of regional programs and campaigns, and shape regional goals and performance measures.

1-5 Transportation Management Associations (TMA)

A TMA is typically a not-for-profit organization with a financial dues structure that provides TDM services in a geographically defined area comprised primarily of employers, property managers and developers. The TMA of Lake-Cook is a prominent local example. A TMA may be funded fully through private dollars or could receive federal grants through local jurisdictions. In some areas an organization may also be referred to as a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) or Transportation Management Initiative (TMI).

1-6 Employer Recognition Programs

Employers providing comprehensive commuter benefits can be recognized by national programs as a “Best Workplaces for Commuters” or a “Bike Friendly Business.” Regional commuter programs can support these national efforts by assisting with application writing or subsidizing a portion or all of the application fee. A regional commuter program can also create its own local recognition program like the Champions program by the Arlington Transportation Partners in Virginia.

4.1.2 Subsidies and Incentives Non-SOV travelers can benefit from subsidies and incentives that reduce the cost of commuting. Subsidies and incentives that increase the appeal of travel options can be another motivator for commuters to try a new mode.

1-7 Pre-tax Payment for Transit/Vanpool/Parking

Qualified transportation fringe benefits through Internal Revenue Code 132(f) allow employees to pay for their transit or vanpool fare using pre-tax dollars (up to $270 per month as of 2020). The program is typically administered by a payroll or benefits administration provider (e.g., ADP, WageWorks, Edenred) often as part of a company’s overall employee benefit program and reduces payroll taxes for the employer. Note that this benefit also shelters commuter parking costs from payroll taxes, which does not encourage a reduction in SOV travel.

1-8 General Subsidies for Non-SOV Travel

In addition to implementing pre-tax benefits, employers can offer mode-specific subsidies. For example, an employer may subsidize a vanpool rider’s monthly fare to lower the out-of-pocket costs. Employers can also support local carshare and bikeshare programs by subsidizing the membership fee for their employees or negotiating a cheaper per use fee. Employers can also

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 15

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

subsidize first/last-mile TNC trips, similar to the local Bannockburn Last-Mile Ridehail Pilot project. Employer subsidies for ridesplitting services for low-wage workers is a variant that can be considered. This involves splitting both a ride and fare in a vehicle with others traveling in the same general direction.

1-9 Commuter Rewards/Gamification

Rewards and gaming strategies can be implemented at the employer level or by a regional commuter program. Through outreach services, employers are often encouraged to provide employees with a range of no to low-cost incentives (e.g., dress-down days, free meals, promotional giveaways, preferential parking) to cash-value rewards (commonly gift cards) in return for specific actions like switching to a non-SOV mode or increasing the frequency of their use of transit can encourage reduction in SOV travel. One-time incentives for switching to a commute option from driving alone or regular monthly prize drawings can encourage sustained use of travel options. Additionally, gamification can be incorporated with intrinsic rewards like badges encouraging 10,000 steps a day. Regional examples include the suite of Georgia Commute Options incentive programs and incentTrip in the metro D.C. region.

1-10 Parking Cash Out

A parking cash out program is when an employer provides employees a cash payout for not using a daily parking space. The employer may also offer a monthly transit pass when employees do not use parking. Parking cash out programs encourage commuters to use alternatives to solo driving and reduce employer’s cost to maintain and renew parking facilities.

1-11 Guaranteed Ride Home/Emergency Ride Home

Guaranteed or Emergency Ride Home (GRH/ERH) is a program that provides an emergency taxi or other ridesharing trip home for employees who commute to work using an alternative to driving alone and have an illness or emergency. Participants of Pace's vanpool program are eligible for reimbursement of up to $125/year for alternative transportation taken due to a personal emergency.

1-12 Pay-as-You-Drive Auto Insurance (PAYD)

An incentive for car owners to drive less is a PAYD auto insurance program with low daily, pay- per-mile fees. This would benefit people with short commutes, those who work remotely, and those who commute via vanpool or public transit. Examples include Milewise from Allstate and Metromile.

1-13 Pay-to-Drive Off-Peak

To reduce travel during peak periods, this strategy rewards commuters for driving before or after the peak travel periods. The rewards can be monetary or credits for future raffles or drawings. An example program is the Commute Connections Flextime Rewards Program in metro D.C.

4.1.3 Alternative Work Arrangements Traditional 9-5 work schedules create the peak travel congestion in dense employment areas. Implementing creative strategies to change the where and when people work can reduce SOV travel and relieve congested roadways. The following collection of strategies implemented by employers are often referred to collectively as Alternative Work Arrangements.

1-14 Telework/Telecommute

Telework is a business strategy that allows employees to skip the commute and work at home or a remote location closer to home. While telework has always been a good SOV reduction strategy, COVID-19 has made work-from-home a common business practice. Prior to the

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 16

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

pandemic, the Census reported that 6.8 percent of Lake County employed residents worked from home (ACS, Means of Transportation to Work, 2018). The public survey being administered as part of this study is expected provide insight on the question of telecommute rates post- pandemic.

1-15 Compressed Work Week

A compressed work week (CWW) schedule enables commuters to work longer days and reduce the total number of commuting days. Common examples are 4/10s and 9/80s – working four 10- hour days (eliminating a commuting day each week) or working 80 hours across nine days (eliminating a commuting day every other week) respectively. A CWW can benefit employers by extending service hours, encourage commuting outside of peak periods, while eliminating commute trips all together on non-workdays.

1-16 Flexible Work Hours/Flextime

Employers who offer flexible work hours allow employees to start and end their workday as needed. Oftentimes these schedules include core business hours where all employees are at work, and employees still work the same number of scheduled hours. This strategy allows commuters to better align their trips with existing transit schedules, carpool partner’s schedules, or the best temperatures or lighting to bicycle or walk to work.

1-17 Staggered Shift Times

Staggering arrivals and dismissals for employees is a strategy commonly used to reduce peak travel congestion and to better distribute the demand for parking. This measure is effective, for example, in an industrial corridor when operations and shifts may be identical causing major congestion. While staggered shifts can reduce peak hour congestion, they will not reduce SOV travel.

1-18 Commute Counted as Working Time

When employees travel on transit or in a shared ride vehicle with internet access, commuters can begin and end their working day while traveling to and from work. This benefit shortens the time out of the home, makes the use of shared rides more attractive, and can serve as a work/life balance strategy for employers.

4.1.4 Worksite Amenities Employers and property owners can influence a commuter’s dependence on a personal vehicle during the workday by providing specific amenities and facilities on-site that make using commute options more attractive and easier.

1-19 Transportation Amenities

Employers and building managers can offer transportation-specific amenities to encourage the use of commute options like bicycle storage, shared use bicycles or fleet vehicles, showers and lockers, transit shelters and even transit passes available for purchase on site.

1-20 Other On-site Amenities

Employers or property owners can make additional on-site amenities available like childcare, banking institutions, restaurants, and dry cleaners. These remove the need for a personal vehicle for mid-day travel or errands on the way to/from the workplace.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 17

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

4.2 RIDESHARE Rideshare is a broad term that is used under many different meanings. In this context, ridesharing refers to all the ways individuals might share a vehicle for commuting or other trips with the same destination. Typically rideshare modes include carpool, vanpool and transit (covered in 4.3).

2-1 Carpool

A carpool is a group of two or more people sharing one vehicle to travel from home, or a meeting spot, to work. Carpools can be formed informally, through a commuter program like Pace RideShare or through an on-demand ridematching tool that facilitates online point-to-point ridesharing arrangements on short notice. On-demand examples include Scoop and Waze Carpool.

2-2 Ridematching (Commute Tracking)

Ridematching is often administered through online and app-based platforms using home location, work location, and work hours to connect interested commuters to facilitate carpool or vanpool formation. Common ridematching platforms include RidePro, Agile Mile, RideShark and RideAmigos. Pace operates the Chicago area commuter ridematch program, Pace RideShare, which utilizes the TripSpark’s RidePro platform. Many ridematching systems also provide the added functions of tracking commute trips for the purpose of program measurement, administration of programs including incentives and Guaranteed Ride Home, and the facilitation of special promotions or challenges.

2-3 Vanpool

A vanpool is a group of commuters who share a ride to and from work in a shared 7-15 passenger vehicle. The van originates from an area near the commuters’ homes, often a park- and-ride lot or local meeting place, and travels to one or more work sites in close proximity. A member of the vanpool volunteers to drive the group. The vehicle is often provided through a third-party vendor (e.g., Commute with Enterprise) and riders split the monthly cost of the van lease inclusive of maintenance and insurance, plus the cost of tolls, fuel and parking. Vanpools are typically funded by a combination of passenger fares, CMAQ, and/or FTA funding. Vanpool ridership and usage information can then be reported to the National Transit Database (NTD) to earn additional federal dollars for the sponsoring transit agency. Pace has a robust vanpool program, Pace Vanpool.

2-4 Transportation Network Companies (TNC)

Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) use online platforms to connect passengers with drivers and automate reservations, payments, and customer feedback. Examples include Uber and Lyft. TNCs typically offer shared services, for example, Lyft Shared and UberPool. Opportunities for partnerships with public transit providers, including first/last mile services and fare integration, can also be considered. Use of TNC services to supplement transportation programs provided to elderly and handicapped riders through a public subsidy program is another option.

2-5 Slugging/Casual Carpooling

Slugging is informal carpooling that originated in Washington D.C. but follows rather organized formation processes with specific pick-up and drop-off locations (or slug lines) and rules of engagement. There are no known Lake County examples.

2-6 Carshare/Fleet Vehicles

Whether provided by a private company (e.g., ZipCar) or an employer (i.e., as shared fleet vehicles), having access to shared vehicles during the day allows employees to conduct business

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 18

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

or run errands off-site, which might otherwise require a personal vehicle. This allows employees to use non-SOV modes for the commute to and from work.

4.3 TRANSIT Public transit comprises passenger transportation services which are available for use by the general public, as opposed to modes for private use such as automobiles or vehicles for hire. Public transit services are usually funded by fares charged to passengers, with varying levels of subsidy from local or regional tax revenue. Public transit can consist of subways, light rail, commuter trains, buses, vanpool services, and para-transit services for senior citizens and people with disabilities. In terms of passenger capacity and throughput, systems progress from small to large buses, then from buses to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and from there to rail systems. Detailed information on public transit services in the County can be found at the MY Commute Lake County website posted at Existing Conditions Report.

3-1 New Public Transit Investments

Corridors that exhibit high levels of travel demand can justify new public transit services, including fixed-route bus lines or passenger rail services (e.g., commuter rail). Commuter rail service expansions can include new lines, extensions of existing lines, or new infill stations. See Existing Conditions Report for additional background.

3-2 Bus Rapid Transit

According to FTA, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast and efficient service that may include dedicated lanes, busways, traffic signal priority, off-board fare collection, elevated platforms and enhanced stations. Pace’s Pulse future rapid transit network includes several BRT corridors planned for Lake County.

3-3 Transit Service Levels and Speed

To efficiently meet commuter needs, transit service levels should match the work hours and schedules of those with potential to use the service. Additionally, a commuter service with limited stops and efficient trip times (compared to drive-alone time and speed) can position transit as an attractive travel option.

3-4 Third Shift Transit Access

Traditional transit service typically does not serve those who work overnight shifts. A limited transit service coordinated with employment centers employing overnight workers or partnership with a third-party transportation provider can increase the use of transit by late-night, third shift employees.

3-5 First/Last Mile Connections

The first- and last-mile describe how commuters interact with the start and end of a transit trip for commuting. These connections can involve bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure improvements or shared use vehicles. A good example, which may provide a useful approach for Lake County, is the Village of Bedford Park Last Mile Mobility CONNECT2WORK program. Funded by a Cook County Invest in Cook Program, this multi-step initiative included a Last Mile Mobility Study (Phase1Study), Last Mile Mobility Action Plan (MobiltyActionPlan), and the CONNECTS2WORK Pilot Program (Pilot_RFQ).

3-6 Shuttles (corporate, shared)

Smaller transit vehicles can serve as shuttles and solve multiple transportation challenges for employers. Shuttle solutions can provide a last-mile link from the nearest transit station, intercampus connections for offsite meetings, residential service from a densely populated neighborhood (or park and ride), or on-demand service for unexpected transportation needs.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 19

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

The Lake-Cook Shuttle Bug system is a local example. It is also known that several employers in the County operate or contract their own shuttles.

3-7 Microtransit

Microtransit is defined as a privately or publicly operated, technology-enabled, transit service that typically uses mini-buses or vans to provide on-demand or fixed-scheduled services with either dynamic or fixed routing. Pace’s On Demand service is an example.

3-8 Autonomous Transit Vehicles

Trains, buses or vans that are fully autonomous and do not require a driver to operate are autonomous transit vehicles. A potential benefit for the use of autonomous buses is labor cost savings, which can be applied by the operating agency to expand service. See Section 3.4 for additional information on the state of this technology.

3-9 Electric Transit Vehicles

Electric transit buses and vans are powered through battery-powered electric propulsion. The principal benefit of using this technology is to eliminate diesel exhaust emissions, particulate pollution and pollutants that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone.

3-10 Transit Amenities and Complementary Infrastructure

The transit experience by commuters can be enhanced through services like wi-fi access and outlets for charging devices. Sheltered waiting space at stops can provide seating and protection from the weather.

3-11 Discounted/Bulk Transit Pass Program

Transit providers often offer discounts on transit passes when employers or TMAs purchase passes in bulk. These can be one-time offers or monthly aimed at commuters using transit to get to work.

3-12 Free-Fare/Reduced-Fare Transit

Often targeted at elderly, students or people with disabilities, free or reduced-fare transit pass programs create equitable availability of transit ridership. Free or reduced fare programs can also be a strategy to encourage use of transit. The Village of Niles free bus is a nearby example. Fare integration/coordination between different public transit operators (i.e., Metra, Pace, and CTA) is another way to make transit a more attractive option. This could involve offering free or nominally priced transfers for connections between modes. Some examples are currently offered for every- day Metra commuters (see: Link-Up_PlusBus), but for an additional fare.

4.4 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, SCOOTER Non-motorized forms of transportation can be important SOV alternatives, either as a primary home-to- destination mode, or as a first-mile/last-mile mode with other SOV alternatives (e.g., transit).

4-1 Pedestrian Conditions/Sidewalks

The pedestrian experience can influence the use of walking as a travel mode, including the condition of pedestrian facilities, safety features at crossings, lighting, separation from adjacent roadways, and land use patterns. The standard for appropriate walkability is described in the Complete Streets design guidelines. Sidewalks are a key infrastructure element to encourage the use of walking and provide a safe area for people to walk that is separated from the roadway. Sidewalk connections to and from transit stops are the most common means for users’ access and egress. Protection infrastructure and technology at street crossings are important complements to sidewalks.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 20

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

4-2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Education

Pedestrian safety covers best practices for walkers to stay safe, but also helps motorists to be more aware of pedestrians when they are driving. Bicycle safety education, like the resources provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA), help drivers and cyclists safely share the road and encourage cyclists to use safety precautions for all bicycle trips.

4-3 Bike Infrastructure/Improvements

Enhancing the cycling experience to increase safe cycling and encourage more cyclists to use their bicycles include bike paths, protected bike lanes, and covered bike parking.

4-4 Trails

A trail is usually a hard-surface path that is wider than a sidewalk that can accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. See Lake County’s 2040 Non-Motorized Plan for additional information.

4-5 Bike Parking

Designated bike parking allows cyclists to easily and quickly secure their bikes for any duration of time. Bike parking facilities can include racks, lockers, rooms, covered areas, lids and any combination of these strategies. Bike parking facilities are common infrastructure elements at Metra stations in Lake County.

4-6 Bike Share Programs

A bike share program makes bicycles available to borrow for a small fee or free. Bike share systems can be dockless or require a docking station to lock the bike. Many bike share programs use a mobile application to show availability of bikes, conduct payments, and use technology to unlock the bikes.

4-7 Ebikes

Electric bikes are battery-powered and assist the cyclist in pedaling. This allows cyclists to easily accelerate and requires less physical exertion than a regular bicycle. This feature may make cycling more feasible as a commuting option, however some jurisdictions may limit or restrict use of ebikes. See Section 3.5 Electric-Assist Mobility for additional information.

4-8 Scooters and E-Scooters

Scooters are a form of transportation with a platform that riders stand on. A variation of this mode is a battery-powered version that provides increased acceleration for the rider. E-scooters require less physical exertion than a regular scooter.

4-9 Scooter Share Programs

Scooter share programs are similar to bike share programs allowing users to find available scooters and rent them for a duration of time. Scooter shares are often accessed via a mobile application.

4.5 NON-COMMUTE/NON-EMPLOYER BASED STRATEGIES Non-work travelers also need information to make informed decisions about how they travel for trip purposes such as school, shopping, or attend special events. Raising awareness of non-SOV modes/actions can increase their adoption and may make these modes/actions more appealing.

5-1 School-based Trip Reduction/Safe Routes to School

School travel often impacts how commuters travel to work. Education and the promotion of travel options with young school-age commuters can assist with creating sustainable travel habits in the

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 21

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

long-term. While Safe Routes to School focuses on safe walking and biking to school, general school travel outreach and education can include safe practices and how-to demonstrations making bus ridership, carpooling, and cycling more appealing to young people as they join the workforce. Apps are also available to form student carpools (e.g., SchoolPass).

5-2 Discretionary Trip Reduction–Retail and Entertainment

Focusing on trip reduction outside of the work commute can provide secondary relief on travel congestion and parking demand, while also normalizing the concept of sharing the ride or utilizing public transit. A good example would be trip reduction efforts for those visiting Six Flags Great America in Gurnee by using Pace.

5-3 Real-Time Traveler Information

Information on different travel options including price, availability, speed, or time to take a trip can reveal to commuters how using a commute option could save time, money, or help them use travel time more efficiently. Travel information could be through a third-party vendor like Transit Screen, or through other mapping and travel services like Waze or Traffic Management Center (TMC) websites. The Lake County Department of Transportation manages a TMC (LC_TMC) using the PASSAGE system. The RTA’s Travel Information website is also a useful trip planning source (see RTA_TIC).

5-4 Construction/Disruption Management

Major, planned travel disruptions provide a tremendous opportunity to influence mode change and create a new habit for commuters. Informing the public of pending roadway construction can highlight the potential negative impacts on SOV commuting. Coupling this education with more aggressive commute option messages supported by tangible tools like travel plans and incentives, can create lasting SOV reduction impacts.

5-5 Residential Outreach/Programming

Specific neighborhoods and housing developments can benefit from outreach and programming based on nearby amenities like a transit route or a park-and-ride lot. Targeted outreach can provide options based on up-coming construction/disruptions or could feature one-on-one personal travel planning activities. New developments also provide a unique opportunity to influence travel habits to residents new to a community.

5-6 Special Event Management

When event venues expect a large influx of people to an event for a single-day and multiple consecutive days generating a spike in additional travel trips, implementing trip strategies like priority parking for carpools, bicycle valet systems, regional shuttles and designated transit drop- offs gain visibility from the general public and encourage shared use and active transportation modes. The Ravinia Festival in Highland Park is a prominent local example.

5-7 Wayfinding

Multimodal wayfinding signage educates the traveling public about existing travel options and can pique interest in trying a new travel mode. Recommendations from this study should leverage results of LCDOT’s Bike Path Wayfinding and Signage Study.

4.6 TECHNOLOGY Technology and transportation are rapidly changing and can drastically affect SOV travel now and in the future. This collection of measures highlights existing technologies Lake County could leverage or implement to support an SOV reduction strategy. See Section 3.4 Emerging Mobilities for additional information.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 22

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

6-1 Mobility on Demand (MOD)

According to FTA, MOD is an innovative, user-focused approach which leverages emerging mobility services, integrated transit networks and operations, real-time data, connected travelers, and cooperative Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to allow for a more traveler-centric, transportation system-of-systems approach, providing improved mobility options to all travelers and users of the system in an efficient and safe manner.

6-2 Real-time Trip Options Data

Providing commuters with real-time bus and train locations and forecasting accurate arrival times can be a key factor in choosing public transit as a travel mode. The General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data not only gives commuters a level of visibility into their personal mobility options, it represents the power of open data, digital platforms, and public-private collaboration to enable innovations that improve transportation. A pertinent example of this is in Google Maps where commuters can use origin and destination data to toggle between driving, transit, walking, cycling, and ride hailing services.

6-3 Personal Travel Planning/Payment (MaaS)

Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is a software platform that provides people with on-demand access to a wide range of public and private shared mobility services. Payment options can include monthly subscription packages or pay-as-you-go. MaaS-related services include TNCs, bikeshare, carshare, electric vehicle (EV) charging, smart parking, and microtransit. These systems have yet to be fully deployed in the US, although the Ventra app for the Chicago region provides an integrated information and fare platform for RTA service board operators (i.e., CTA, Metra and Pace). Consideration could also be given to pursuing a program with a third-party MaaS provider. For example, moovit offers a MaaS app that already has connectivity in place for Chicago-area transit providers (moovit_MobilityApp), although fare integration would require buy- in and coordination.

4.7 PARKING Access and price of parking can impact the commuting choices of individuals. Parking strategies can be implemented by Lake County, municipalities, property owners or even tenants.

7-1 Parking Management

Parking management is a set of strategies to make ridesharing relatively more attractive than driving alone by managing available parking facilities. Parking management can range from setting aside preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, to imposing parking fees on drive- alone commuters. Parking management programs can also be applied to commuter rail station parking facilities to achieve higher levels of utilization.

7-2 Shared Parking

Shared parking allows commuter use of a parking lot that has a temporal demand outside of the normal weekday commuting timeframe (e.g., 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM). Common examples are church parking lots, when demand is primarily on Sundays, or certain shopping districts, when portions of a parking lot may be unused during commuting times. These shared facilities can support transit services.

7-3 Park and Ride

Park and ride lots can connect commuters with transit routes, carpools, vanpools and shuttle services. These lots are sometimes free to park in and encourage the use of commute options

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 23

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

other than driving alone. All of the Metra commuter rail stations in Lake County include parking facilities, and most require a fee.

7-4 Unbundled Parking

Parking is almost always included in leases of residential and commercial properties. Unbundling parking from property leases can encourage the use of non-motorized modes of travel for commuting and other trips. This strategy also reveals the true cost of parking to commuters.

7-5 Mobility Hubs

A Mobility Hub is a transportation destination that connects multiple travel modes including transit, shared-use vehicles, automobile parking, and active transportation. Mobility Hubs make it easier for commuters to get around without the use of a personal vehicle. Hubs can also be integrated into transit-oriented development projects.

7-6 Dynamic Parking Pricing

Dynamic parking pricing involves changing fees based on level of facility occupancy. As occupancy increases, prices increase, deterring additional vehicles from parking. This strategy can often increase the likelihood of travelers using shared travel options or active transportation.

4.8 ROADWAY Managing travel demand on Lake County’s roadways cannot only be addressed by building new capacity for single-occupant vehicles. Additional strategies can be applied to the physical roadways to reduce congestion and disincentivize SOV travel.

8-1 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

HOV lanes restrict travel to those vehicles with a driver and at least one other passenger. HOV lanes can be restricted to carpools, vanpools, and transit vehicles for an entire day, or the travel restrictions may only apply during peak travel times. HOV lanes can often offer more reliable trip times.

8-2 Congestion Pricing

Congestion pricing is a form of road pricing, a broader concept that includes conventional tolling and charges for vehicle miles traveled. While the principal reason that congestion pricing is often to raise revenues, it can also be a strategy to discourage SOV travel and address highway congestion. See Section 3.4.6 for additional information.

8-3 High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes

HOT lanes are managed lanes with variable pricing in response to traffic conditions. Pricing is usually determined to guarantee a speed of travel or a vehicle throughput. High occupancy vehicles of a certain threshold (like transit vehicles or vanpools) can often use the HOT lane for free.

8-4 Traffic Calming

Traffic calming is a set of strategies that work to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians by slowing down motorists. Some examples include wider sidewalks, roundabouts, and elevated medians.

8-5 Variable Toll Pricing

Variable or dynamic pricing adjusts pricing to manage the demand on congested corridors. Price increases can encourage travelers to use alternative travel options.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 24

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

4.9 LAND USE AND POLICY Land use and community design, while controlled by local communities, impact commuter’s travel decisions throughout the county. The density of people or jobs, access to travel options and other public services, and connectivity are just a few ways that land use planning can impact how a commuter chooses to travel to work.

9-1 Transit-oriented Development (TOD)

According to FTA, transit-oriented development, or TOD, includes a mix of commercial, residential, office and entertainment centered around or located near a transit station. Dense, walkable, mixed-use development near transit attracts people and adds to vibrant, connected communities. Since TOD places residents near destinations (e.g., shopping, dining, jobs), the opportunity for walking will be higher. Also, since use of transit will be convenient to residents, travel by auto will be less likely.

9-2 Complete Streets

Complete Streets roadway design considers all users of a corridor and accommodates not only motorists, but also cyclists, pedestrians, and public transit users. When road design encourages safe travel for all users, people are more likely to consider alternative travel modes.

9-3 Curb Management

The space between sidewalks and streets (i.e., curbs) has become increasingly competitive between users. Traditional users such as buses, taxis, freight deliveries, bike lanes and parking, now compete with rideshare, same-day deliveries, dockless vehicles, and other new modes and services. Curbside management focuses on creating a flexible, efficient, and safer curbside experience for all users. A thoughtful approach to curbside management will separate the interactions so that users can access residences and businesses.

9-4 Adjust Parking Requirements of New Developments

With new construction, changes in the minimum parking requirements or removing them completely can be an effective way to reduce housing costs, reduce unused parking and encourage the use of other travel modes.

9-5 Vehicle Trip Reduction Requirements on Development

Developments can be required to draft and implement a vehicle trip reduction plan with established goals to reduce a percentage of vehicles trips to and from the development. These plans are often a collection of multiple TDM strategies to support the use of all travel options other than driving alone.

9-6 Replace Parking Minimums with Mobility Subsidies

Relaxed parking minimums can be paired with mobility subsidies such as transit passes, TNC credits, or carsharing memberships.

9-7 Require Coworking Spaces in New Developments

Creating coworking spaces as part of residential developments can offer commuters a remote location to conduct business without having to travel on congested corridors.

9-8 Regional Network of Telework/Cowork Centers

When commuters have access to an approved remote work location that is closer to their home than their physical office, commuters will reduce their vehicle miles travelled and reduce the stress on the transportation system.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 25

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

9-9 Proximate Commute

For a multi-location employer, proximate commuting can reassign physical work locations for employees who are closer to their home, reducing vehicle miles traveled to work. This tactic can also be addressed as part of municipal and county land use plans, by situating higher density residential uses near employment centers.

9-10 Rideshare Regulation/Ordinance (Developer)

A TDM or rideshare ordinance for developers will often require them to include facilities for alternative travel modes like bicycle parking, shuttles to nearest transit station, and carpool preferential parking.

9-11 Rideshare Regulation/Ordinance (Employer)

A TDM or rideshare ordinance in place for employers of a specific size often requires a designated onsite coordinator, a TDM plan to be created and implemented, and regular data collection of commuter travel behaviors to evaluate the effectiveness of the trip reduction efforts.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 26

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

5 EVALUATION OF MEASURES

Section 4 includes a long list of possible SOV Reduction Measures that Lake County and its partners can consider for application to reduce solo driving. As a way of winnowing the list to those that might provide the greatest benefit, least cost, and be appropriate to Lake County, a series of goals, objectives and evaluation factors were developed for use in screening the measures.

5.1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND EVALUATION FACTORS Goals define a desired result or outcome, while objectives support a specific goal and provide details or strategies on how the goal will be achieved. Objectives are more focused than goals, and subject to being measured. Evaluation factors (also called performance measures) are tied to objectives and are used to measure achievement.

A key factor in the evaluation of SOV reduction measures will be to ensure consistency with the overall aims of Lake County. As such, the formulation of SOV reduction goals included goals from other County planning documents. In addition, regional and state-wide goals and objectives were reviewed from current plans for the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Planning documents that informed the SOV reduction goals and objectives included the following:

• Lake County Board’s Strategic Plan, Investing in People and Our Communities - In July 2019 the Lake County Board adopted its most recent strategic plan, which serves as a road map for the County and influences how resources are prioritized. The plan includes transportation-related goals and strategies that align with the objectives of this study.

• LCDOT’s 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) - The Lake County LRTP was completed in November 2014, and includes three separate documents covering: roadways, transit, and non- motorized modes of travel.

• Lake County’s Regional Framework Plan - The Framework Plan is the countywide comprehensive plan for managing land use, directing growth, and protecting the natural environment. The Plan was adopted by the Lake County Board in November 2004, and updated several times, most recently in 2014.

• CMAP’s ON TO 2050 Comprehensive Regional Plan - CMAP is responsible for comprehensive regional planning in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will counties in northeastern Illinois, and adopted its ON TO 2050 plan in October 2018. These regional goals would flow down to the County.

• IDOT’s Long Range Transportation Plan - IDOT is responsible for the State’s multi-modal transportation system and strives to create a safe and sustainable system by connecting and integrating communities and serving as an effective platform for economic growth and development. IDOT decision-making is guided by its LRTP, which was last updated in 2019.

As noted, goals represent an end state, or the transportation system serving Lake County travelers of the future. The six goals most relevant to this SOV reduction study include the following:

1. A Balanced Transportation System that Provides Options for Travelers 2. An Efficient and Safe Roadway System 3. A Modern Transportation System 4. A Transportation System that is Fiscally Responsible 5. A Transportation System that Supports Economic Prosperity 6. A Transportation System that Serves Existing and Future Land Use Development

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 27

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Table 5-1 provides a set of goals that are supported by objectives, which in turn use evaluation factors to assess the estimated degree of objective attainment by SOV reduction measures. A three-point score is used to rate measures, where three is the most favorable (e.g., high demand or low cost) and one is the least favorable (e.g., low demand or high cost).

The evaluation factors on Table 5-1 are included as column headings on Table 5-2, which forms a matrix with SOV reduction measures (row headings). The individual cells of SOV reduction measures by evaluation factors were populated using the three-point scoring (3=most favorable, 1=least favorable). The overall score for each measure is the sum of scores for all ten evaluation factors. Higher overall scores represent more favorable SOV reduction measures, while lower overall scores are less favorable measures.

It should be noted that this evaluation framework is intended to provide a broad-brush assessment of measures. Scores were assigned using professional judgement, and the project team’s understanding how individual measures perform in other settings. In addition, the evaluation factors were assumed to all have equal weight; and did not consider that some factors could be more important than others in the ultimate decisions on which to apply. Despite these qualifications, sorting the measures into three buckets of performance (most favorable, somewhat favorable, least favorable) was felt to be useful in formulating SOV reduction programs for each of the study sub-regions. It is possible that SOV reduction measures could be recommended from the least favorable category, depending on the transportation infrastructure and services, land use, stakeholders, and other circumstances present in a given sub-region.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 28

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Table 5-1. Goals, Objectives, Evaluation Factors and Scoring

Goal Objective Evaluation Factor Scores A Balanced Expand non-SOV Travel SOV Trips Reduced 3=Most SOV Trips Reduced Transportation Options (e.g., transit, 2=Some SOV Trips Reduced System that bike/ped, shared ride) 1=Least SOV Trips Reduced Provides Options for Travelers Ease of Implementation 3=Easiest to Implement 2=Somewhat Easy to Implement 1=Hardest to Implement An Efficient and Implement Cost- Reduce Roadway 3=Most Congestion Relief Safe Roadway Effective Ways to Congestion 2=Some Congestion Relief System Reduce Congestion 1=Least Congestion Relief A Modern Adapt Transportation Serve New Travel Markets 3=Maximum New Markets Served Transportation Services and Facilities 2=Some New Markets Served System to Changes in Travel 1=Least New Markets Served Demand

Adopt Feasible and Use of New or Emerging 3=Maximum Use of New Technology Cost-Effective Technology 2=Some Use of New Technology Transportation 1=No Use of New Technology Innovation & Technology A Transportation Fund the Capital & O&M Cost 3=Least Costly System that is Implementation and 2=Somewhat Costly Fiscally Operation of Initiatives 1=Most Costly Responsible Invest in Cost-Effective Cost per SOV Trip 3=Most Cost-Effective Initiatives Reduced 2=Somewhat Cost-Effective 1=Least Cost-Effective Create Partnerships to Opportunities to Partner 3=Most Likely to Partner Implement SOV 2=Somewhat Likely to Partner Reduction Measures 1=Least Likely to Partner A Transportation Use Transportation to Improve Workforce Mobility 3=Most Likely to Improve Mobility System that Attract and Retain 2=Somewhat Likely to Improve Mobility Supports Economic Workforce Talent 1=Least Likely to Improve Mobility Prosperity A Transportation Plan Transportation Opportunities for TOD 3=Strong Opportunities for TOD System that Serves Improvements that 2=Some Opportunities for TOD Existing and Future serve Transit and 1=Limited of No Opportunities for TOD Land Use Employment Oriented Development Developments

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 29

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Table 5-2. Evaluation Matrix of SOV Measures

3=most favorable, 1=least favorable

Category/ Measure SOV Reduction Measure

Reduced of Ease Implementation Reduce Congestion New Serve Markets Travel Emerging Technology Cost SOV Cost per Reduced Trip Opportunities to Partner Workforce Impr Mobility Opportunities for TOD Total Score SOV Trips 1 - 1 Local/Regional Commute Options Program 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 21 1 - 2 Marketing/Advertising Campaign 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 19 1 - 3 Promotions 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 19 1 - 4 Worksite Assessments/Mode Shift Surveys 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 19 1 - 5 Transportation Management Associations (TMA) 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 22 1 - 6 Employer Recognition Programs 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 16

1 - 7 Pre-tax Payment for Transit/Vanpool/Parking 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 1 22

1 - 8 General Subsidies for Non-SOV Travel 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 18 1 - 9 Commuter Rewards/Gamification 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 18 1 - 10 Parking Cash Out 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 16 1 - 11 Guaranteed Ride Home/Emergency Ride Home 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 19 1 - 12 Pay-as-You-Drive Auto Insurance (PAYD) 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 17

1 - 13 Pay-to-Drive Off-Peak 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 14 Commute Options Programming Options Commute 1 - 14 Telework/Telecommute 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 22 1 - 15 Compressed Work Week 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 18 1 - 16 Flexible Work Hours/Flextime 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 18 1 - 17 Staggered Shift Times 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 18 1 - 18 Commute Counted as Working Time 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 19 1 - 19 Transportation Amenities 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 16

1 - 20 Other On-site Amenities 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 13

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 30

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Category/ Measure SOV Reduction Measure

Reduced of Ease Implementation Reduce Congestion New Serve Markets Travel Emerging Technology Cost SOV Cost per Reduced Trip Opportunities to Partner Workforce Impr Mobility Opportunities for TOD Total Score SOV Trips 2 - 1 Carpool 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 22

2 - 2 Ridematching (Commute Tracking) 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 21

2 - 3 Vanpool 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 23

2 - 4 Transportation Network Companies (TNC) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 20 Rideshare 2 - 5 Slugging/Casual Carpooling 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 18 2 - 6 Carshare/Fleet Vehicles 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 15 3 - 1 New Public Transit Investments 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 19 3 - 2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 18 3 - 3 Transit Service Levels & Speed 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 20 3 - 4 Third Shift Transit Access 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 18 3 - 5 First-/Last-Mile Connections 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 22 3 - 6 Shuttles (corporate, shared) 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 22

Transit 3 - 7 Microtransit 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 20 3 - 8 Autonomous Transit Vehicles 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 18 3 - 9 Electric Transit Vehicles 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 13 3 - 10 Transit Amenities and Complementary Infrastructure 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 13 3 - 11 Discounted/Bulk Transit Pass Program 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 19 3 - 12 Free-Fare/Reduced-Fare Transit 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 19 4 - 1 Pedestrian Conditions/Sidewalks 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 20

4 - 2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Education 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 15 4 - 3 Bike Infrastructure/Improvements 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 18 Scooter 4 - 4 Trails 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 18

Pedestrian, Bicycle, Bicycle, Pedestrian, 4 - 5 Bike Parking 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 14

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 31

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Category/ Measure SOV Reduction Measure

Reduced of Ease Implementation Reduce Congestion New Serve Markets Travel Emerging Technology Cost SOV Cost per Reduced Trip Opportunities to Partner Workforce Impr Mobility Opportunities for TOD Total Score SOV Trips 4 - 6 Bike Share Programs 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 18 4 - 7 Ebikes 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 17 4 - 8 Scooters and E-Scooters 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 17 4 - 9 Scooter Share Programs 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 18 5 - 1 School-based Trip Reduction/Safe Routes to School 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 17

5 - 2 Discretionary Trip Reduction–Retail and Entertainment 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 16

Employer Employer

- 5 - 3 Real-Time Traveler Information 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 19 5 - 4 Construction/Disruption Management 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 16

Strategies 5 - 5 Residential Outreach/Programming 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 20 Commute/Non

- 5 - 6 Special Event Management 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 19

Non 5 - 7 Wayfinding 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 16 6 - 1 Mobility on Demand (MOD) 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 20 6 - 2 Real-time Trip Options Data 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 19

Technology 6 - 3 Personal Travel Planning/Payment (MaaS) 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 18 7 - 1 Parking Management 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 19

7 - 2 Shared Parking 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 19

7 - 3 Park and Ride 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 18

Parking 7 - 4 Unbundled Parking 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 16 7 - 5 Mobility Hubs 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 24 7 - 6 Dynamic Parking Pricing 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 16

8 - 1 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 18 8 - 2 Congestion Pricing 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 16

Roadway 8 - 3 High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 18

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 32

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Category/ Measure SOV Reduction Measure

Reduced of Ease Implementation Reduce Congestion New Serve Markets Travel Emerging Technology Cost SOV Cost per Reduced Trip Opportunities to Partner Workforce Impr Mobility Opportunities for TOD Total Score SOV Trips 8 - 4 Traffic Calming 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 14 8 - 5 Variable Toll Pricing 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 18 9 - 1 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 20 9 - 2 Complete Streets 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 17 9 - 3 Curb Management 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 17 9 - 4 Adjust Parking Requirements of New Developments 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 18 9 - 5 Vehicle Trip Reduction Requirements on Development 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 17 9 - 6 Replace Parking Minimums with Mobility Subsidies 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 17 9 - 7 Require Coworking Spaces in New Developments 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 13

Land Use & Policy Use & Land 9 - 8 Regional Network of Telework/Cowork Centers 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 13 9 - 9 Proximate Commute 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 18 9 - 10 Rideshare Regulation/Ordinance (Developer) 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 18 9 - 11 Rideshare Regulation/Ordinance (Employer) 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 18

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 33

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

6 SOV REDUCTION MEASURES COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE

Table 6-1 groups the 79 SOV Reduction measures into the three favorability ratings. Key drivers in the assignments were benefit and cost. For example, a measure with a comparatively lower level of benefit (e.g., SOV trips reduced) with comparatively low cost to implement could rate relatively high. Or, measures with low benefits and high costs would rate unfavorable.

As noted above, these buckets are intended to guide selection of measures for recommended programs within sub-regions. One consideration will be the ease and general timeframe to implement. For example, implementing a Pace Pulse line in the County or extending a Metra rail line (e.g., Milwaukee North Line Wadsworth-Rondout) will have a significant impact on reducing SOV travel, but given funding requirements, and the complex and protracted implementation process, these would be long-term actions. Conversely, a County-wide informational campaign to promote alternatives to SOV travel could be implemented quickly and without significant cost.

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 34

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Table 6-1. SOV Reduction Measures by Rating

Most Favorable (17 Measures) Somewhat Favorable (35 Measures) Least Favorable (27 Measures) 1-1 Local/Regional Commute Options Program 1-2 Marketing/Advertising Campaign 1-6 Employer Recognition Programs 1-5 Transportation Management Associations (TMA) 1-3 Promotions 1-10 Parking Cash Out 1-7 Pre-tax Payment for Transit/Vanpool/Parking 1-4 Worksite Assessments/Mode Shift Surveys 1-12 Pay-as-You-Drive Auto Insurance (PAYD) 1-14 Telework/Telecommute 1-8 General Subsidies for Non-SOV Travel 1-13 Pay-to-Drive Off-Peak 2-1 Carpool 1-9 Commuter Rewards/Gamification 1-19 Transportation Amenities 2-2 Ridematching (Commute Tracking) 1-11 Guaranteed Ride Home/Emergency Ride Home 1-20 Other On-site Amenities 2-3 Vanpool 1-15 Compressed Work Week 2-6 Carshare/Fleet Vehicles 2-4 Transportation Network Companies (TNC) 1-16 Flexible Work Hours/Flextime 3-9 Electric Transit Vehicles 3-3 Transit Service Levels & Speed 1-17 Staggered Shift Times 3-10 Transit Amenities & Complementary Infrastructure 3-5 First/Last Mile Connections 1-18 Commute Counted as Working Time 4-2 Pedestrian and Bicylce Safety Education 3-6 Shuttles (corporate, shared) 2-5 Slugging/Casual Carpooling 4-5 Bike Parking 3-7 Microtransit 3-1 New Public Transit Investments 4-7 Ebikes 4-1 Pedestrian Conditions/Sidewalks 3-2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 4-8 Scooters and E-Scooters 5-5 Residential Outreach/Programming 3-4 Third Shift Transit Access 5-1 School-based Trip Reduction/Safe Routes to School 6-1 Mobility on Demand (MOD) 3-8 Autonomous Transit Vehicles 5-2 Discretionary Trip Reduction–Retail & Entertainment 7-5 Mobility Hubs 3-11 Discounted/Bulk Transit Pass Program 5-4 Construction/Disruption Management 9-1 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) 3-12 Free-Fare/Reduced-Fare Transit 5-7 Wayfinding 4-3 Bike Infrastructure/Improvements 7-4 Unbundled Parking 4-4 Trails 7-6 Dynamic Parking Pricing 4-6 Bike Share Programs 8-2 Congestion Pricing 4-9 Scooter Share Programs 8-4 Traffic Calming 5-3 Real-Time Traveler Information 9-2 Complete Streets 5-6 Special Event Management 9-3 Curb Management 6-2 Real-time Trip Options Data 9-5 Vehicle Trip Reduction Requirements on Development 6-3 Personal Travel Planning/Payment (MaaS) 9-6 Replace Parking Minimums with Mobility Subsidies 7-1 Parking Management 9-7 Require Coworking Spaces in New Developments 7-2 Shared Parking 9-8 Regional Network of Telework/Cowork Centers 7-3 Park and Ride 8-1 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes 8-3 High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes 8-5 Variable Toll Pricing 9-4 Adjust Parking Requirements of New Developments 9-9 Proximate Commute 9-10 Rideshare Regulation/Ordinance (Developer) 9-11 Rideshare Regulation/Ordinance (Employer)

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 35

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

Appendices

A Lake County SOV Reduction Peer Review B SOV Reduction Document Log C Local SOV Reduction Examples D Emerging Mobilities

E Electric-Assist Mobility

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 36

APPENDIX A

Lake County SOV Reduction Peer Review

Lake County, a suburban county in the Chicago metropolitan area, has experienced growth in single occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting trips over the last two decades. The project goal is to recommend practical and implementable strategies to reduce SOV trips made by residents and workers. To develop a range of potential SOV reduction measures for implementation in Lake County, the project team has conducted research in many areas, including peer interviews. These peer reviews are intended to identify regions with SOV reductions in place with comparable socio-economic profiles. With a goal of completing a minimum of five peer interviews, the project team identified ten peer organizations and conducted nine interviews (one peer organization declined to participate). Recognizing the winter weather influence on transportation in Chicago, six of the nine agencies interviewed experience similar weather as the Chicago area. While formal interview summaries are included in the appendix, the report below provides a summary of each peer region, an overview of the most common SOV reduction strategies implemented by the peer regions, impacts to SOV reduction post-COVID-19, and the advice and lessons learned from each peer region. This information will assist Lake County Division of Transportation (DOT) in developing and implementing sustainable SOV reduction programs. General Overview of Findings The following summaries of each peer interview include descriptions of the organization, their role and approach to SOV reduction, the local and regional planning documents to guide SOV reduction strategy, funding sources, and the other organizations and jurisdictions they coordinate with on SOV reduction measures. Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) in Northern Virginia is located five miles from the nation’s capital. The program is situated within the county Environmental Services department that works to encourage the use of all travel modes including telework to reduce driving alone in the Washington, D.C. area. Their approach to SOV reduction is broad - it includes an employer outreach program called Arlington Transportation Partners, a research and communications division, and a comprehensive commuter marketing effort that capitalizes on the populations that are progressive, dense with millennials and supports the trails and biking network. The program is mostly CMAQ- funded so their motivation is congestion reduction and providing as many travel options as possible. ACCS has a TDM Plan that was developed for Fiscal Years 2018-2023, but that will likely be revised to be aligned with post-COVID-19 direction. ACCS is part of Commuter Connections, a regional network of transportation organizations working to improve commutes coordinated by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They also work closely with chambers of commerce, the economic development wing of the county and the other TDM providers throughout the region. ACCS considers themselves the leader of SOV reduction in their area. Their primary SOV reduction measures include employer outreach and the bicycle/pedestrian initiatives. Baltimore County Government’s Department of Public Works is the overarching agency of the Bureau of Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning (TETP), which provides transit services in the

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-1 APPENDIX A

region. The county’s facilities are in Townson, Maryland which is north of the City of Baltimore. The agency’s Transportation Planning unit’s mission is to optimize the transportation system for end users by monitoring transportation conditions, envisioning the future and identifying emerging issues and developing and analysing appropriate solutions in cooperation with the community-at-large and policy makers (Baltimore County Government, 2020). SOV reduction is a priority for Baltimore County due to the amount of congestion in some of the region’s highly dense areas. The county’s geography has created challenges, but that has not stopped Baltimore County from collaborating and partnering with other agencies in the region, like Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRBT) and Owings Mills (unincorporated community) to coordinate SOV reduction plans and projects. The region has a Central Maryland Transportation Plan, which is ongoing and has multiple stages, including identified issues within Baltimore County and its surrounding counties, established goals and mitigation projects and implantation plans which will include regular monitoring to determine which projects best achieve the plan’s goals. Baltimore County is reducing SOV with several key programs that include County Ride, Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning initiatives and Fixed Route Shuttle services. Cobb County Department of Transportation in Georgia is a county situated northwest of Atlanta. The Department of Transportation develops, manages and operates roads, sidewalks and trails, transit bus service and a local airport. Their approach to SOV reduction focuses on adherence to their Complete Streets policy while also focusing investments and programs in coordination with land use to support all travel modes and encourage SOV reduction. This guidance is detailed in their Comprehensive Transportation Plan which is the planning document utilized for their SOV reduction strategies. Their capital expansion efforts are funded through special-purpose local-options sales tax (SPLOST) funds and their short-term TDM effort was funded in part through CMAQ and local SPLOST planning dollars. The county’s efforts are coordinated with the two Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) and their six cities within the county. They also coordinate often with the chamber of commerce and Cobb Travel and Tourism. Their primary SOV reduction measures include transit, trails and TDM. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) serves nine counties around Denver. Their mission is to serve as the planning organization where local governments collaborate to establish guidelines, set policy and allocate funding for mobility, growth and development and the aging and disabled populations. The Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan (MVRTP) offering strategies for SOV reduction plays an important role as their region deals with population growth, congestion and air quality concerns. While the Denver area is very diverse, transportation and SOV reduction is an agreeable topic across the region and is a means to multiple civic goals shared across their government partners. The Metro Vision plan calls out specific work trip commute reduction goals of non-SOV travel at 35% by 2040 (baseline - 25.1% in 2014). The TDM outreach program, Way to Go, is CMAQ-funded while other trip reduction programs are funded through the TIP, the state and other partner Transportation Management Associations (TMAs). SOV reduction is a team effort between DRCOG, the regional air quality council, the TMAs, local governments and with the state TDM program. They centralize the efforts when it makes sense and localize as needed. George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) is in Fredericksburg, Virginia and is the Planning District Commission (PDC) for the region. The GWRC exists in the region to promote, plan and establish transportation alternatives to reduce SOV travel. SOV reduction is extremely important in the region considering that it is one of the top gridlocked areas in the nation and a 2017 study stated that the region has one of the most congested roads in the country. To expand SOV reduction goals, GWRC

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-2 APPENDIX A

is working with consultants to create a new strategic plan. GWRC is currently working to increase the number of riders for vanpools, carpools and public transit in the region. The two major SOV reduction programs are GWRideConnect and Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH). GWRideConnect is the region’s nationally recognized rideshare program that facilitates and promotes vanpooling and other transit use. There are multiple stakeholders in the region that work together to deliver and implement the region’s SOV reduction measures, such as the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO). These efforts are spread and coordinated across the above agencies. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), located in Chesapeake, Virginia, serves a total of 18 different localities ranging from cities to counties. HRTPO funds a program called TRAFFIX, which focuses on SOV reduction in the region. The agency’s mission is to connect Hampton Roads travelers with transportation solutions that are reliable, safe, efficient and sustainable. TRAFFIX advocates and provides choices for people who are currently driving alone – teleworking, vanpooling, carpooling, transit and biking – for military personnel, shipyard workers and college students. SOV reduction is very important to HRTPO primarily due to congestion, air quality, reducing anxiety for commuters and motivating employees to utilize other modes of transportation. The region had poor air quality and now meets clean air standards due to their focus on reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The region coordinates SOV reduction initiatives through the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) where HRTPO and other northern Virginia groups collaborate and partner to implement SOV reduction initiatives, such as their Commuter Rewards and Ride Matching program and Guaranteed Ride. TRAFFIX has three outreach staff members who specifically focus on establishing relationships with employers and serving as liaisons to get commuters to participate in their SOV reduction initiatives. Metropolitan Council (Met Council) is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota serving a total of seven counties. The transportation division within Metropolitan Council focuses on fostering efficient and economic growth for a prosperous region. The agency focuses on transit ridership on a variety of modes, including express and local buses, light rail, dial-a-ride service and transportation for people with disabilities. Metropolitan Council’s long-range plan focuses on reducing VMT with six major goals in mind: stewardship, safety and security, access to destinations (encompasses connectivity and mobility), healthy and equitable environment, prosperity and leveraging land use for efficient transportation investments. Metropolitan Council implements these goals by supporting and funding five Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs) in the region, such as Community Services, Commute Solutions, Move Minneapolis, Move Minnesota and Anoka County. Additionally, the agency works side-by-side with the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County to ensure a consistent visionary approach and encourage communities to implement different modes of transit, such as asking every community within the region to consider transportation issues as part of their comprehensive plans or when applying for funding. Metropolitan Council believes that collaborating and partnering with other agencies provides a holistic approach to reducing VMTs. Montgomery County sits northwest of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. The Planning Commission strives to support the quality of life by strengthening the transportation network. Their approach to SOV reduction is through adherence to their Complete Streets policy and supporting their two Transportation Management Associations working to deploy TDM strategies across the county. Montco 2040: A Shared Vision is the county plan document that guides their SOV reduction strategies

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-3 APPENDIX A

along with their bicycle and pedestrian plan. These efforts that support active transportation are important to serve residents who want multiple travel options to get to work and other popular destinations like the Valley Forge National Historic Park. Funding for SOV reduction comes from many sources including the state DOT, economic development and the Department of Natural Resources. There are grants available for transportation projects from vehicle registration fees. The county partners with the DOT, SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority), the TMAs and the townships for the SOV reduction efforts. The SOV reduction strategies implemented include transit, trails, and TDM services. The TDM services are implemented by the local TMAs, so we conducted an additional interview with the Greater Valley Forge (GVF) TMA. Their core service is planning and analysis for employers to reduce SOV commuting. Additionally, they look at congested corridors for opportunities to reduce SOV travel. These efforts are often focused on worksites and blend the context of the company culture and local travel infrastructure, with employee origin analysis to create recommendations to reduce drive alone travel. Pierce Transit is a municipal corporation operated by an elected board that serves 70% of Pierce County and small portions of King County in the state of Washington. Pierce Transit’s mission is to improve people’s quality of life by providing safe, innovative and useful transportation services that are locally based and regionally connected. The agency provides three main types of services: primarily fixed route buses, paratransit shuttles and vanpools to help riders get to jobs, schools and appointments. Pierce Transit’s planning initiatives are guided by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which is the region’s MPO. SOV reduction is extremely important to Pierce Transit and its partner agencies, like Pierce County, Downtown On The Go, Pierce Trips, Mobility On Demand (created in partnership by Sound Transit and King County Metro) and Micro Transit service providers, due to having one of the most congested corridors in the state. Also, Pierce County geographically lies between mountains where pollution is trapped resulting in poor air quality. This led the agency to invest in fleet vehicles that utilize compressed natural gas for their fixed route bus system. With efforts spread across multiple entities, Pierce Transit has seen success in their transit services and are getting ready to implement a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along a 14-mile corridor which has the agency’s highest ridership. COVID-19 Impacts The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed the first case of coronavirus in the United States on January 21, 2020, and the President declared a public health emergency by the end of the month. By March 11, the World Health Organization declared the spread of COVID-19 a pandemic and the White House and state governments began introducing social distancing guidelines and stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of the virus. While many Americans found themselves furloughed or unemployed, many essential employees still needed to travel to physical worksites. Others could continue their work using remote access and cloud-based systems to continue work by teleworking, but schools and daycare centers closed, presenting parents and caregivers with new challenges of online learning, child care responsibilities and learning to balance the demands of work and home like they never have before. The peer interviews were conducted in April and May, presenting a unique opportunity to gather observations and considerations for the current impacts of COVID-19 and how each organization may alter their SOV reduction strategies in the future.

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-4 APPENDIX A

Telework Many organizations have transitioned to promoting telework to those who can continue working from home and limit their travel into a physical office. DRCOG’s Way to Go program has always promoted telework, but they were not prepared to help companies implement programs quickly, so they have built out more resources to assist their partner companies. Arlington Transportation Partners from the ACCS interview reported that they went from 140 companies offering telework to now 800-900 companies, so they have also expanded their resource library for telework. The GVF TMA in Montgomery County said many employees who are juggling children and full-time telework are experiencing burnout and employers are struggling to find solutions. The TRAFFIX team has never promoted telework before, but they have suspended their other travel promotions and will likely continue promoting telework as stay at home orders are lifted. The Metropolitan Council is looking to deploy a survey to understand commuter perceptions of returning to work, how they will choose to travel and their interest in continuing to telework. The GWRC team is hopeful telework will stick and they are thankful they moved their operation into the cloud five years ago because their own business operations have been seamless during this time. Biking & Active Transportation Montgomery County has kept their trail networks open to encourage residents to stay active and they are seeing high usage and dealing with congestion management and etiquette concerns on the trails. Arlington County has seen a change in their bikeshare ridership data, and it appears that users are replacing transit trips with bicycle rides. On the flip side, Baltimore County halted the shared bicycle operations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Transportation & Vanpool Cobb County in Georgia is relying on guidance on transit direction from their transit operator, First Transit. Montgomery County is worried about telework disrupting transit use when workers can return to their work locations. GWRC has serious concerns about their vanpool fleets as they are privately owned and were not operating at the time of the interview. Worksites The GVF TMA discussed other considerations for the future in a post-COVID-19 world including:

• Employer sites cannot support all their employees driving alone to work because of their existing parking supply and they will need solutions; • The potential mental health impacts as employees are not using as much Paid Time Off, not taking vacations and struggling to separate work from home during this untraditional full-time telework for many; and • If unemployment levels continue to rise and we experience an economic downturn, we may also experience more traffic congestion and see changes in the traditional peak hours of travel as companies consider new work shifts to accommodate social distancing in the workplace.

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-5 APPENDIX A

SOV Strategy Reduction Themes Transit Not surprisingly, transit services and enhancements are among the most common SOV reduction measures across the peer interviewees. Cobb County provides express and local bus services so that commuters can access their place of employment and medical locations. There are multiple agencies in the region that coordinate and partner with Cobb County to create a more efficient bus system. Cobb County has partnered with the City of Marietta to enhance transit trips through transit signal prioritization. In addition, Montgomery County’s bus system targets employed residents and students who live primarily in the suburbs. Montgomery County is looking to expand their current services further out in the region to reduce traffic and provide more travel options for commuters. Furthermore, Pierce Transit’s fixed route bus system’s primary goal is to get commuters to Tacoma, smaller cities like Lakewood and a large military base serving mostly employees, students and military. Most of the fixed bus routes go through downtown Tacoma, where reduced traffic congestion has been especially effective. Over the past year, the agency has made public education and outreach efforts a priority regarding how transit can be a real benefit to the public because it is safe, comfortable and cost effective. These strategies have been working and Pierce Transit is moving towards the implementation of a new BRT system. Similarly, Baltimore County is adding fixed route shuttle services to their region. The County requested more state funding for the year 2020 to add these services. The intent is to add 12 vehicles to serve two major routes. This will provide commuters with more transit options. The County currently has a bus program called County Ride that serves mainly the elderly and persons with disabilities for mostly medical purposes. Even though Metropolitan Council is the MPO in its region, they have a program called Transit Link, which is a shared-ride public transportation system that serves areas where transit service is infrequent or unavailable, such as rural communities. While this is a very small program within Metro Transit’s regional bus and rail services, it serves an important role for people who are dependent on transit and do not have many options. Some of the challenges with encouraging transit ridership that the agencies above cited include: encouraging commuters to use the bus systems in general; motivating commuters to use bicycles to bridge the first/last mile gap to get to transit stops; and local politics more broadly. Despite these challenges, none of the agencies are giving up on expanding transit options for their communities. They all stated that it is important to work together with other agencies to encourage commuters to utilize transit services and that the systems run efficiently and effectively.

Trails & Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning The following agencies stated that bicycle/pedestrian facilities were important SOV reduction measures within their communities. One of the main reasons that individuals in Cobb, Montgomery and Baltimore Counties use the bicycle/pedestrian facilities are for recreational purposes; however, all the agencies view bicycle/pedestrian trails as an important piece of creating a well-connected transportation system. Cobb County has 84 miles of well-connected bicycle/pedestrian trails and the majority of these are near employment centers throughout the county. Even though the trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, the county prioritizes bicycle/pedestrian investments particularly for first/last mile transit needs. Additionally, the Community Improvement Districts (CIDs)

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-6 APPENDIX A

have invested in Zagster, which is a bicycle sharing program, to encourage more use of the county’s trails. Cobb County has found that since there are essentially no ongoing operating costs for trails, they are planning to establish more trails specifically as an SOV strategy. Montgomery County wants its trails to be used as a viable way for residents to commute to work. The County and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), along with local bicycle coalitions and groups, are working together to expand the programming. A major issue that the trails face is the lack of trail etiquette meaning that experienced cyclists are not interacting with other trail users appropriately. Additionally, the county is looking to enforce speed limits of e-scooters and e- bicycles on the trails. Similarly, Baltimore County is currently updating its bicycle/pedestrian plan to expand its trails and increase the number of riders. Like Cobb and Montgomery Counties, Baltimore County’s biggest challenge is increasing the use of its trails. Arlington County is also an agency that views bicycle/pedestrian programs as an important SOV reduction measure. Arlington County has seen an increase in bicycle/pedestrian use, which they attribute to innovative programming, such as their direct involvement with micro mobility options. The county has established an e-scooter ordinance and is currently working to conduct an e-bicycle pilot program in its region. The county is working on targeting millennials as well as individuals in their 40s-50s. In a recent study, it was found that people in Arlington are using bicycles to run errands during COVID-19, which has encouraged the county to work to build a strong micro mobility program.

Employer Outreach Many TDM initiatives focus on employer-based programming due to the constraints of the FHWA Program Guidance for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Three interviewees cited employer outreach as an important SOV reduction strategy in their area. DRCOG’s Way to Go outreach team targets 100+ employee worksites and measure effectiveness through the reporting metrics of the logging system including successful carpool matches, trips logged and emissions reductions, to name a few. While they lead the effort coordinated with eight TMAs in the area, they also leverage the chamber of commerce and the business/community improvement districts. The challenge with employer outreach in the Denver metro area is building meaningful relationships with the employers and developing the right resources to serve the business community. They heavily rely on the input of their outreach team to make these efforts impactful. While Arlington Transportation Partners also targets employers with over 100 employees, they conduct surveys to set employer baselines and measure program effectiveness as employers move through their Champions partner program. Arlington cites similar challenges with building relationships and keeping good contacts at the employer sites, but also the challenge of upward mobility for staff in outreach roles. Arlington County has found great success in encouraging staff conducting employer outreach to get involved in the communities they serve and be thought leaders on reducing SOV commuter travel. The GVF TMA in Montgomery County takes a different spin on employer outreach and focuses on the planning and analysis of employee origin locations, existing infrastructure, onsite amenities and the company culture to provide recommendations on how to reduce SOV commuter travel to a specific worksite. Measurement of effectiveness is like Way to Go in Denver by using the online rewards platform as well as ridership data for transit and shuttles. GVF works to identify multiple contacts within an organization to foster strong relationships but faces the challenge of transportation not being a priority for the business community. They position themselves as transportation educators

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-7 APPENDIX A

about local, regional and national trends in commuter travel to build credibility within the business community they serve. Conversely, the Cobb County employer outreach effort was a supplement to the ongoing employer outreach efforts offered through Georgia Commute Options. This CMAQ grant-funded effort was a short-term project targeting employers within the direct vicinity of the new SunTrust Park being built for the Atlanta Braves baseball team. These in-depth services provided to employers educated audiences about construction, potential congestion impacts, and offered try-it opportunities for the local transit service.

Vanpool A vanpool consists of a group of seven to 15 commuters travelling to and from work in one vehicle where each passenger leases or rents their seat monthly. The vehicle is often provided through a third-party vendor and riders split the cost of fuel, maintenance and insurance. Vanpool programs were discussed among three of the interviewed agencies. The George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC), Metropolitan Council and Pierce Transit all have vanpool programs to encourage employees to reduce SOV. Both the GWRC and Pierce Transit are satisfied with their vanpool programs due to their success with establishing strong partnerships with employers, conducting community outreach and promotion through social media and radio and providing commuters with opportunities for feedback, such as surveys. Additionally, both of their programs have existed for over 20 years and have a dedicated staff member to ensure that the programs are monitored and successful. One of the challenges that Pierce Transit is currently facing is the lack of up-to-date software to create a more efficient program, specifically in data entry and monitoring. Similarly, GWRC wants to invest in more technology such as utilizing a web-based application or mobile app for its programs. Metropolitan Council’s vanpool program was created to reduce SOVs and to meet commuting needs of employees, however they report the vanpool program is not as successful as their other programs. Metropolitan Council stated that the program could be more effective if it was better promoted and if it received more funding. Additionally, it has been challenging to operate the program due to numerous of vanpool regulations in the area and lack of staff effort. Guaranteed Ride Home Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) is a common program offering for TDM programs across the country. Most programs allow the ride home or your vehicle to be used for unexpected overtime or an unscheduled emergency. Both GWRC and TRAFFIX referenced GRH as an important SOV reduction strategy, but the implementation of each program is unique to their area.

• GWRC offers up to four free rides home a year to commuters who use a non-SOV mode at least twice a week. They pay a fee to Commuter Connections who offers the service across the D.C. region. Surveys are conducted twice a year to users with a 90% effectiveness of the program reported by respondents. The GRH can be provided in the form of a taxi, Transportation Network Company (TNC), transit trip or rental car. There have been minor abuses of the program over the years, but they have implemented new rules and guidelines to combat it.

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-8 APPENDIX A

• TRAFFIX in Virginia offers the Guaranteed Ride Program (GRP) up to six times per year targeting the military, shipyard workers and other employers. While 1,500 people are enrolled in the program, they provide about 30 rides per month. The program is not free, but the commuter pays $5 and the TRAFFIX dispatches a cab and pays the remainder of the fare. The program is good for vanpoolers who often travel about 70 miles one-way to get to work. The state may centralize this program and is considering adding Uber and Lyft as additional trip providers. Commuter Engagement Recognizing that travel behavior change in SOV travel occurs with individuals, two interviewers referred to commuter outreach and the ridematching and rewards components of their programs as strong SOV reduction strategies.

• Cobb County’s short-term TDM effort targeted employers in the vicinity of the new SunTrust Park for the Atlanta Braves to educate commuters on the county’s construction projects, available travel options including their CobbLinc bus service and hosted commuter focused promotions like Try Transit to offer free passes to try transit to get to work. They worked with 19 employers and used the ridematching rewards platform to measure effectiveness of new registrants and trips logged. The effort was successful in leveraging the county’s relationship with business to open doors for commuter education and they wish they had a dedicated person to conduct this work throughout the county. • TRAFFIX focuses on reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and they rely on Agile Mile as their commuter platform to assist with that. They target the Navy, college institutions and shipyards to encourage commuters to sign-up, find ridematches and log trips to earn rewards. The current campaign is on pause due to COVID-19 and they have shifted to supporting telework, but they are pleased with how Agile Mile has supported commuters and they are looking into corporate challenges within Agile Mile in the future.

Advice & Lessons Learned The peer interviews illustrate how different counties, transit agencies, and planning organizations implement SOV reduction strategies. As organizations working to reduce SOV travel in their regions, they have experienced challenges, identified innovative solutions, and refined their processes and approach over time using their own lessons learned. We asked all interviewees to discuss these lessons learned and potential advice for the Lake County DOT as summarized below for consideration. Coordination - DRCOG suggests good coordination with your MPO and the state DOT. - Cobb County cited sharing information with other TDM and transit-focused professionals across the Atlanta region as helpful. They also thoughtfully work with national consultants who specialize in similar projects and programs. - ACCS coordinates with the Economic Development wing of Arlington County to target businesses for TDM programs. They also suggest coordination and information sharing with

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-9 APPENDIX A

Chicago and getting involved on the national level with the Association for Commuter Transportation (ACT). - Montgomery County owns the right-of-way to impact infrastructure, so their local coordination with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and bicycle coalitions is important. - GWRC cited working with the local counties to implement solutions as successful. - The Met Council recommends that Lake County work with the business community and the local MPO and suggests those partnerships are important to connect businesses and employers with travel solutions. - The TRAFFIX team has built a sub-committee of stakeholders that act as advocates, provide funding, and play a role of being part of the solution. Funding - DRCOG coordinates with the MPO and state DOT (mentioned above) and it is beneficial because they often have funding available for SOV reduction projects. - ACCS recognizes that CMAQ funding has limitations, so they often explore grant funding opportunities to pilot innovation projects. - The counties pay into GWRC which is used for a 20 percent grant match. - Pierce Transit evaluates and channels their strong partnerships when applying for grants because grants submitted with multiple partner agencies or supporters often have a higher chance of being funded. - HRTPO works with cities, counties and other transit agencies to build partnerships and collaborate on funding opportunities. - Baltimore County suggests coordinating with the transportation planning agency for a grant component and involves the private sector in partnerships and funding opportunities. Land Use - Cobb County cites the linkage between bicycle/pedestrian travel and transit as critical. They are working with land use staff to create a better commuter experience from the transit stop to the business front door. They are also looking at the physical space and converting their existing transfer centers and future transfer centers into mobility hubs. - The GWRC can lease parking lots from local businesses that have a lot of availability during the day. - Met Council has the authority to approve every comprehensive plan in the region and can require the plans to change if they are not consistent with Met Council’s goals. Recommends using positive reinforcement and engaging with communities to meet the region’s goals. - In the denser areas of Baltimore County existing parking restrictions help control how developers build lots. The county can play a role in how many spaces are created.

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-10 APPENDIX A

Implementation - ACCS suggests picking one to three strategies, implementing them and sticking to it. Educate leaders and decision makers that results will not happen overnight. - DRCOG’s outreach team for the Way to Go program can be short-term implementers of their long-term plans and the boots on the ground staff are great for that. They also suggest strong coordination across internal teams so that staff understand the larger picture, and how their role supports overall goals. - GWRC states that advertisements and public education/outreach is crucial to the success of their programs. - HRTPO leverages partner agencies to assist with the advertisement and promotional materials being shared to multiple audiences. - Baltimore County suggests creating committees based on different interests around the county to gather local knowledge and work to address community needs. Measurement - While GVF in Montgomery County has no current SOV reduction goals, they view now as the time to think long-term after a potential COVID-19 vaccine and imminent economic downturn and suggest looking 10 years from now and thinking about the vision for your region. - DRCOG plugs surveys as a good evaluation tool to help you make informed decisions. - GWRC has a database to collect commuter information such as name, name of employer and origin and destination locations to understand how people travel in their region. - The Met Council knows it is difficult to track the benefits of transit use or whether people increase their use of the region’s transit system, so they rely on numbers they can measure like number of flyers mailed to people and the increase of ridership. Technology - GWRC utilizes an online trip planner and is looking into purchasing a ridematching software. - Pierce Transit has a mobile friendly website but is exploring a one-stop mobile application. Surrounding agencies and communities would like all transportation resources in one place for the public to access. - HRTPO utilizes Agile Mile which provides TDM software to state and local agencies.

Peer Review Participants Organization Region Served Interview Participant Role Date Participant(s)

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-11 APPENDIX A

Arlington County Northern Virginia Jim Larsen Bureau Chief 5/1/2020 Commuter Services within Arlington County

Baltimore County Northeastern Samuel Snead Lead Transportation 4/24/2020 Government portion of Maryland Planner Cobb County DOT North Central Eric Meyer Transportation 4/22/2020 portion of the State Planning Manager of Georgia

Denver Regional More than 50 local Emily Lindsey Transportation 4/24/2020 Council of county and Technology Governments municipal Strategist (DRCOG) governments near Denver, Colorado

George Washington City of Leigh Anderson Assistant Director 4/15/2020 Regional Fredericksburg, Commission (GWRC) Virginia and the surrounding counties

Metropolitan Minneapolis-Saint Amy Vennewitz Deputy Director 4/16/2020 Council Paul, Minnesota’s - Planning and county metropolitan Finance area

Metropolitan Minneapolis-Saint Cole Hiniker Multi-Modal 4/16/2020 Council Paul, Minnesota’s - Planning county metropolitan area Hampton Roads 18 counties and Emily Cass TRAFFIX Program 4/6/2020 Transportation cities in Virginia Manager Planning Organization (HRTPO) Hampton Roads 18 counties and Ron Hodges Director of 4/6/2020 Transportation cities in Virginia Communications Planning and Business Organization Development (HRTPO) Montgomery County Adjacent to Andrew Besold Transportation 4/23/2020 Washington D.C. Planner

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-12 APPENDIX A

with 35 townships and boroughs Montgomery Montgomery County Rob Henry Executive Director 4/30/2020 County, Greater and Valley Forge Valley Forge TMA National Historic Park Pierce Transit Pierce County, Penny Grellier Community 4/7/2020 Washington and Development parts of Seattle Administrator

References Baltimore County Government. (2020, May 4). Transportation. https://www.baltimorecountymd.gov

Lake County Division of Highways June 2020 Page A-13 APPENDIX B Lake County SOV Reduction Study - SOV Reduction Documents Source Bibliography (Log of Documents) general SOV Reduction Measures Categories Reference Number

Document Author/ Originator Publish Date SOV Reduction TDM Work Travel School Travel Other Trip Purpose Obstacles TMA Evaluation Case Studies Mobility Policy COVID-19 1Commute Options 2 Rideshare 3 Transit 4 Ped, Bike, Scoot 5 Technology Non-Cmtr Strgies 7 Parking 8 Roadway 9 Land Use / Policy 001 Reducing Single Occupancy Vehicle Use in Northern New England; U of Vermont Jun-14 Unlimited Access, Employee Incentives & Ridesharing (TRC 13-010) Transportation Research X X X X X X X X X X X Center 002 Modernizing Mitigation - A Demand-Centered Approach SSTI & MIP Univ of Sep-18 X X X X X X X X X X X Wisconsin 003 Research on why the commute should be counted as part of the Royal Geographical 8/30/218 X X X working day Society 004 Grand Rapids MI Align Rapid Transit Improvement Study-Presentation AECOM May-18 X X X X X X on Mobility on Demand 005 Travel Demand Management - Strategy Paper CMAP Mar-09 X X X X X X X X 006 E-Bikes Ahead of City, State Rules APA Nov-18 X X X 007 Employee Transportation Coordinator Handbook Everett, WA Apr-14 X X X X X X X X 008 Travel Demand Management Guidebook Center for Transp. Sep-13 X X X X X X Research, U of Texas 009 Effects of Commute Trip Reduction Program on Employee Non-SOV University of Washington 2018 X X X X X X X Travel Frequency - Thesis 010 Partners in Transit - a review of partnerships between TNCs and Aug-18 Chaddick Institute X X X Public Agencies 011 Reduce Within-Town Car Trips & SOV Commutes 10% by 2020 - flyer City of Santa Cruz, CA X X X X X 012 Transportation 2019-Looking Back, Looking Ahead Steven Polzin Blog Post Jan-19 X X X X 013 Northwestern University partners with Via to provide new on-demand Oct-19 Mass Transit X X X X safe ride program 014 There's No App for Getting People out of their Cars City Labs-Perspective Nov-19 X X X 015 Ridesharing links can boost transit use in the suburbs METRO Mobility Jan-20 X X 016 Partnership to bring last-mile connectivity to Metra services METRO Mobility Apr-19 X X X 017 Pace bus tests partnership with ride-hailing services Curbed Chicago Nov-19 X X 018 King County Metro ceases operations of 2 on-demand pilot programs Dec-19 METRO Mobility X X X 019 How to solve 3 common problems facing corporate commuter Jan-20 METRO Technology X X X shuttles? 020 Micromobility Needs a Shared Vocabulary The CityFix Jan-20 X X X 021 L.A. Metro extends rideshare pilot partnership with Via METRO Mobility Jan-20 X X 022 A Micromobility Experiment in Pittsburgh Aims to Get People Out of CITYLAB Oct-19 X X X X X Their Cars 023 California Commuters Continue to Choose Single Occupant Vehicles CA Center for Jobs & the Mar-16 X X X Economy 024 St Louis CMT Commuter CHOICE Program Citizens for Modern X X X Transit 025 SOV (single occupancy vehicle) - terms & definitions NW Arkansas Reg Plan X X X X Comm 026 Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) Travel Measure FHWA X X X

Page B-1 APPENDIX B Lake County SOV Reduction Study - SOV Reduction Documents Source Bibliography (Log of Documents) general SOV Reduction Measures Categories Reference Number

Document Author/ Originator Publish Date SOV Reduction TDM Work Travel School Travel Other Trip Purpose Obstacles TMA Evaluation Case Studies Mobility Policy COVID-19 1Commute Options 2 Rideshare 3 Transit 4 Ped, Bike, Scoot 5 Technology Non-Cmtr Strgies 7 Parking 8 Roadway 9 Land Use / Policy 027 E-Scooter Pilot Evaluation City of Chicago Jan-20 X X 028 First- and last-mile solutions: King County Metro to launch ride-hailing King County DOT Oct-18 X X apps for on-demand shuttle service to transit 029 Private Transit: Existing Services and Emerging Directions -- TCRP Shared-Use Mobility 2018 X X X X Report 196 Center 030 Mobility Hub Toolbox AECOM Dec-19 X X X X X X 031 Micromobility in Cities - A History and Policy Overview Jun-19 National League of Cities X X X X

032 Shared-Use Mobility Reference Guide Shared-Use Mobility Sep-15 X X X X X X X Center 033 4 questions to ask before investing in microtransit METRO Mobility Jan-20 X X X 034 On-Demand Transit Can Unlock Urban Mobility Boston Consulting Group Nov-19 X X X 035 Silicon Valley's new extreme: The 2:30 a.m. tech bus from Salida Protocol Feb-20 X X X 036 Tri-Valley Integrated Transit and Park-n-Ride Study Alameda County Transp May-17 X X X X Commission 037 Connect2Work- First/Last Mile Pilot Program RFQ Village of Bedford Park Feb-20 X X X 038 Vision Zero, Meet VMT Reductions Todd Litman blog Feb-20 X X X 039 Columbus unveils nation's first public AV shuttle for residential area Metro Mobility Feb-20 X X X X 040 Data On Demand - Case Study of LA & Puget Sound Regions Eno Center for Feb-20 X X X X X X Transportation 041 Analysis of Recent Public Transit Ridership Trends TCRP Report 209 2020 X X X X X 042 Austin Strategic Mobility Plan Austin, TX Apr-19 X X X X X X X X 043 Evaluating the effects of parking cash out: eight case studies. California Air Resources Aug-09 X X X X Board 044 Navigating Travel Behavior, Technology, and Business Model Shifts in Journal of Public 2018 X X X X a Brave New World Transportation 045 Better Integrating Travel Choices into Future Urban Mobility Systems: Journal of Public 2018 X X X X X X The Day the Highways Stood Still Transportation 046 Journal of Public 20187 X X X X Lies, Damned Lies, AVs, Shared Mobility, and Urban Transit Futures Transportation 047 Ex-regular Users of Public Transport: Their Reasons for Leaving and Journal of Public Jun-18 X Returning Transportation 048 Effect of Price Reduction and Increased Service Frequency on Public Journal of Public Feb-17 X Transport Travel Transportation 049 Effects of a Public Real-Time Multi-Modal Transportation Information Journal of Public 2017 X X X Display on Travel Behavior and Attitudes Transportation 050 Journey towards World Class Stations: An Assessment of Platform Journal of Public Mar-16 X Amenities at Allahabad Junction Transportation 051 Willingness to Use a Public Bicycle System: An Example in Nanjing Journal of Public Mar-16 X City Transportation 052 Planning for Bike Share Connectivity to Rail Transit Journal of Public Apr-16 X X X Transportation

Page B-2 APPENDIX B Lake County SOV Reduction Study - SOV Reduction Documents Source Bibliography (Log of Documents) general SOV Reduction Measures Categories Reference Number

Document Author/ Originator Publish Date SOV Reduction TDM Work Travel School Travel Other Trip Purpose Obstacles TMA Evaluation Case Studies Mobility Policy COVID-19 1Commute Options 2 Rideshare 3 Transit 4 Ped, Bike, Scoot 5 Technology Non-Cmtr Strgies 7 Parking 8 Roadway 9 Land Use / Policy 053 Influence of Socio-Demography and Operating Streetscape on Last- Journal of Public Apr-16 X X X X Mile Mode Choice Transportation 054 A Composite Index for Evaluating Transit Service Quality across Journal of Public Apr-16 X Different User Profiles Transportation 055 Modeling Transit Users Stop Choice Behavior: Do Travelers Journal of Public 2016 X X Strategize? Transportation 056 Mobility Equity Framework How to Make Transportation Work for Mar-18 The Greenlining Institute X X X X People 057 Public Parking Fees and Fines: A Survey of U.S. Cities Public Works Mang & Jul-05 X Policy: Sage Journals 058 TDM Encyclopedia - https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/index.php Victoria Transport Policy Various X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Institute 059 TMA Handbook: A Guide to Successful Transp Mang Associations Association for Commuter 2001 X X (https://www.actweb.org/files/ACT/Publications/tma_handbook_final.pdf) Transportation (ACT) 060 Integrating TDM into Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Aug-12 FHWA X X X X X Reference 061 Expanding Traveler Choices Through the Use Dec-18 FHWA X X X X X of Incentives: A Compendium of Examples 062 Forces of change: The future of mobility Deloitte.Insights X 063 Mobility Hubs SUMC X X X X X 064 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay-Transit, Shared Mobility & 2018 SUMC TCRP 24996 X X X X X X X Personal Autos 065 Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit SUMC TCRP 188 2016 X X X 066 Four Steps Towards Mobility Integration for Public Agencies - Policy SUMC X X X X Brief 067 Toward a Shared Future: Strategies to Manage Travel Demand Association of Bay Area Sep-18 X X X X X X X X X X X X Perspective Paper Governments and MTC 068 Toward a Shared Future: Strategies to Manage Travel Demand Association of Bay Area Sep-18 X X X X X X X X X X X X Appendix A-Best Practice Review, Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Trips Governments and MTC 069 Should e-bikes get a break? LA Times LA Times Feb-20 X 070 2020 Regional Mode Share Report Active Transp Alliance Feb-20 X X X X X 071 Draft Transportation Action Plan City of Minneapolis Mar-20 X X X X X X X 072 The Way a City Handles Snow Says Everything About How It Treats SLATE Metropolis Feb-20 X Pedestrians 073 Congestion Pricing in the United States Eno Foundation May-20 X X X X 074 21 Key Takeaways from Partnerships between Public Transit Chaddick Inst. & Shared Apr-20 X X X X X X X Providers & Transportation Network Companies in US Use Mobility Center 075 Transportation Policy Plan - Thrive MSP 2040 Met Council Oct-18 X X X X X X X X X X X 076 MONTCO 2040: A Shared Vision Montgomery Co., PA Jan-15 X X X X X X X X X X X X 077 How much will COVID-19 Affect Revealed Behavior? TRB, Argonne 01-Jun-20 X X X X X X 078 Santa Cruz County agency makes ‘short list’ for rail-trail transit options Santa Cruz Sentinel 04-Jun-20 X

Page B-3 APPENDIX B Lake County SOV Reduction Study - SOV Reduction Documents Source Bibliography (Log of Documents) general SOV Reduction Measures Categories Reference Number

Document Author/ Originator Publish Date SOV Reduction TDM Work Travel School Travel Other Trip Purpose Obstacles TMA Evaluation Case Studies Mobility Policy COVID-19 1Commute Options 2 Rideshare 3 Transit 4 Ped, Bike, Scoot 5 Technology Non-Cmtr Strgies 7 Parking 8 Roadway 9 Land Use / Policy 079 The Rebound: How COVID-19 Could Lead to Worse Traffic (V2) Vanderbilt Univ-Work 25-May-20 X X X Research Group 080 Fear of Public Transit Got Ahead of the Evidence The Atlantic 14-Jun-20 X X 081 Microtransit or General Public Demand Response Transit Services: TCRP Synthesis 141 2019 X X X X State of the Practice - 25414 082 Battered by Coronavirus, Micromobility May Have Route to Revival CoMotion News 12-Jun-20 X X X X 083 Establishing an Effective Commute Trip Reduction Policy in A Better City Aug-14 X X X X X X X X X X Massachusetts - Lessons Learned from Leading Programs 084 Transit and Vanpool Benefits: Implementing Commuter Benefits as US EPA Nov-05 X X X X X X X X One of the Nation’s Best Workplaces for Commuters 085 Comprehensive & integrated TDM program; Website: City of Austin current http://www.austintexas.gov/department/transportation-demand- X X X management 086 Get There ATX (commuter/employer mobility solutions) Web: City of Austin current X X X X X X X X X X X X https://www.getthereatx.com/ 087 Smart Trips Austin WEB: https://smarttripsaustin.org/ Austin & CapMetro current X X X 088 My Commute Solutions WEB: https://mycommutesolutions.com/#/ Austin Capital Area current X X X X Council of Governments 089 Capital Metro Ridesharing (vanpool program) WEB Austin Capital Metro current X https://www.capmetro.org/rideshare/ 090 Movability (works with employers in Central Texas to help make NPO Go! current connections, learn best practices, and to develop mobility plans) WEB X X X X X X X X X X X X https://movabilitytx.org/ 091 TDM Explainer Document City of Austin Jul-05 X X X X X X X X X X 092 Vanpool analysis for Nebraska DOT Center for Public Affairs Research Univ NE Omaha X

093 511 San Francisco Region WEB https://511.org/ Metro Transp Comms current 094 BayWheels Bike Share (from Lyft) WEB https://www.lyft.com/bikes/bay- lyft bikes current X wheels 095 WestCAT Transit WEB https://www.westcat.org/ WestCAT Lynx current X 096 Congestion Management Program for Contra Costa Contra Costa 2019 X X X X X 097 Connect Douglas, GA is a commuter-oriented program that operates Connect Douglas / current vanpools, provides carpool-matching, Douglas County operates fixed- Douglas Couty, GA X X route service. WEB http://www.celebratedouglascounty.com/ConnectDouglas/# 098 Fairfax County Commuter Services & tdm Prigram WEB Fairfax County, VA current X X X X X X X https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/transportation/commuter-services 099 Bike & Walk Fairfax WEB Fairfax County, VA current X https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/transportation/bike-walk 100 Comprehensive TDM Plan (2016-21) Fairfax County, VA May-15 X X X X X X X X 101 Transportation Options Brochure Seattle DOT 2019 X X X X X X X

Page B-4 APPENDIX B Lake County SOV Reduction Study - SOV Reduction Documents Source Bibliography (Log of Documents) general SOV Reduction Measures Categories Reference Number

Document Author/ Originator Publish Date SOV Reduction TDM Work Travel School Travel Other Trip Purpose Obstacles TMA Evaluation Case Studies Mobility Policy COVID-19 1Commute Options 2 Rideshare 3 Transit 4 Ped, Bike, Scoot 5 Technology Non-Cmtr Strgies 7 Parking 8 Roadway 9 Land Use / Policy 101 Transportation Options Brochure Seattle DOT 2019 X X X X X X X 102 Seattle 2017 Center City Commuter Mode Split Survey Report Seattle DOT 2017 X X X 103 Commute Trip Reduction Strategic Plan City of Seattle Aug-19 X X X X X X X X X X X 104 Bike Share Feasibility Study City od Ashville Jun-18 X 105 Commute options brochure Loudoun County, VA X X X X X X X 106 Commuter Connections (multimodal commuter services; ridesharing,) Commuter Connections current X X X X Wah DC area WEB https://www.commuterconnections.org/ 107 Transportation Demand Management Plan Loundoun County Apr-16 X X X X X X X 108 On Board Future Mobility – Summary of Recommendations Southern Neveda RTC Nov-19 X X 109 San Mateo County Annual TDM Report (2019) Commute.org 2019 X X X X X X X X 110 San Mateo County Annual TDM Work Plan FY2018-2019 Commute.org 2018 X X X X X X X 111 Triamgle TDM Annual Impact Report Triangle J Council of 2019 X X X X X X X X X Governments 112 Parking Cash Out Donald C. Shoup Jun-05 X X X X X X X 113 Recreation Conflicts Focused on Emerging E-bike Boulder Couty Parks & 19-Dec-19 X X Technology_LitReview Open Space 114 Regional Transportation Demand Mangement Strategic Action Plan SW Pennsylvania 2019 X X X X X X X X X X X Commission 115 Mobility Investment Prioirities - Transportation Management Texas A&M n/a X X X Associations Transportation Institute 116 Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I Village of Bedford Park Jul-19 X X X X X 117 Last Mile Mobility Action Plan Village of Bedford Park Jun-20 X X X X X 118 Transit Means Business Metropolitan Planning Oct-18 X X X X X X X Council

Page B-5 APPENDIX C

Local Case Studies

1. Bannockburn Last-Mile Ridehail Pilot 2. Transportation Management Association (TMA) of Lake-Cook 3. Metra Lake County Reverse Commute Pilot (MetraMore) 4. Pace Route 284 – Schaumburg–Great America Gurnee Express 5. Ravinia Festival – Metra & Pace

Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) Reduction Study Lake County Division of Transportation June 2020 Bannockburn Last-Mile Ridehail Pilot

Overview Trips by Day in February 2020 As a partnership aimed to connect employees to public transit, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), Village of Bannockburn, GlenStar Properties, and Lyft have teamed up to launch a weekday ridehail pilot to connect commuters to GlenStar’s Bannockburn Lakes office complex near Waukegan Road and Half Day Road with nearby Metra stations. Tenants are provided a promo code that covers 100% of the cost for qualifying rides (up to $20 per ride, 40 rides per month). Qualifying rides must begin and end at Bannockburn Lakes and one of four Metra Stations: Highland Park and Highwood (UP-North), Deerfield and Lake Forest (Milwaukee District North) and take place Monthly Avg Trips per Day & Unique Riders, Apr 2019 - Feb 2020 Monday-Friday, 4:00 am-10:00 pm.

Using the Nearby Transit feature, Lyft is able to connect commuters with real-time Metra transit information so riders can see routes and schedules directly in the application. This allows commuters to better plan and manage their connections to / from their destinations. The pilot program was started in April of 2019 and is expected to run for two years. Funding in Year 2 is split between Glenstar Properties (75 percent) and the RTA (25 percent) (year one split was 50/50). The pilot experience will serve as a model for other commercial properties in lower density areas to see the value as a building amenity and provide either full-costs or shared costs with the tenant users. This can also serve as a GlenStar Properties model for other employers and buildings to work directly with Lyft or other TNCs to structure a program that suit their needs.

A total of 369 trips were made in Source: Chicago Tribune. February 2020, averaging 19 per day. The benefit of these last mile ridehail trips is the use of Metra for the majority of each home-to- work journey. Without these connections, the line-haul rail trips would not be possible.

Lake County SOV Reduction Study October 2020 Transportation Management Association (TMA) of Lake-Cook

Overview Shuttle Bug Routes The TMA of Lake-Cook is a not-for-profit business Rte. Companies Station association whose mission is to improve employees' 619* Allstate, Astellas, Old World Industries Des Plaines commute to work in Cook and Lake Counties, 620* Allstate CTA Dempster representing over 40 members and 42,000 623* Allstate, CVS Health, Astellas, Old World Inds. Glen of N Glenview employees. Founded in 1989, the TMA manages the 627 Discover Lake Cook Road successful Shuttle Bug Program, which provides area 628 Wolters Kluwer, Discover, Baxter, Parkway N. Braeside employers shuttle service on Pace buses to nearby 629 Walgreens, CORPTAX, Discover, Oracle Braeside rail stations. The TMA also monitors and advocates 631 Discover, Wolters Kluwer Lake Cook Road highway construction projects, supports environmental programs for employers, and works 632 Baxter, Parkway North Lake Cook & Deerfield collaboratively with elected officials, communities 633 Walgreens Lake Cook Road and transportation agencies for better planning and 634 Oracle, Walgreens, CORPTAX Lake Cook Road increased funding for transit service and highway 635* UL, Walgreens Lake Cook Road improvements. Membership of the TMA is a mixture 640 UL, Walgreens, Baxter Braeside Station *Operates entirely in Cook County of corporations, developers, building management firms, and government agencies and municipalities. Average Weekday Riders by Month (1998-2019) Private sector members pay annual dues based on 2,000 number of employees and public sector pay an 1,800 annual flat rate. 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 At 900 shuttle bus/train trips per day, this *Cumulative Ridership Trend for all Shuttle Bug Routes (includes rides on discontinued routes) translates to over 200,000 trips per year. Without these last-mile links, many trips Average Daily Ridership by Route would be forced to use the automobile. 160 2018 140 2019 Shuttle Bug routes provide last-mile service for 120 member firm workers. The 12 Pace shuttle routes connect 5 Metra and 1 CTA station to 4 suburban 100 employment centers. Service is funded through a 80 public-private partnership between Pace/Metra and participating firms. Employers cover 50% of the cost 60 and the remaining 50% is shared equally by Pace and 40 Metra. Riders of participating firms receive a special Ventra card to allow free fare. Other riders can also 20 use the service but pay the applicable Pace fare. 0 619 620 623 627 628 629 631 632 633 634 635 640 Source: Pace. Lake County SOV Reduction Study March 2020 Metra Lake County Reverse Commute Pilot (MetraMore)

Overview Results In October 2018, Metra entered into a two-year Public- The goal for the two-year pilot was 600 additional passenger Private Partnership for pilot service and ancillary capital trips per day, and 50 percent of that goal after one year. For funding agreements with Lake County Partners, an the fourth-quarter 2019, Metra estimated that 550 trips were organization which promotes economic development in attracted based on the change in ridership for MD-N and UP- Lake County. Local community and business leaders voiced N trains targeted by the MD-N service change, nearly the need for additional reverse commuter service on the achieving the two-year mark. Milwaukee District North Line (MD-N) between Chicago and Lake Forest. The underlying aim was to recruit and retain The program is providing important information on judging talented workers residing in Chicago. The pilot is branded the reverse commute travel market in this area of the region; “MetraMore,” and added service began on March 4, 2019. which may be transferable elsewhere. The public-private partnership can serve as a model for similar SOV reduction The groups will evenly split the $1.4 million cost of initiatives. operating one new reverse-commute train in each peak period. They also will work on a agreement to divide the $4.75 million cost of installing universal crossovers near Lake Forest, with Lake County Partners contributing $2.75 Buses at Lake Forest Station for reverse commuter pick-ups. million, Metra contributing $1 million and local governments contributing $1 million. The 550 passenger trips per day translates to over 140,000 trips per year of avoided SOV trips. Also participating in the initiative are AbbVie, Horizon

Therapeutics, Trustmark Insurance, Tenneco, Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, Lake County government, City of Lake As of fall 2020, the pilot is on hold due to COVID- Forest, Lake Forest Hospital and the Village of Deerfield. 19’s significant impact on Metra ridership.

MD-N Reverse Peak Timetable with March 4, 2019 Changes (does not include Libertyville-Fox Lake)

MD-N AM Reverse Peak Outbound Service MD-N PM Reverse Peak Inbound Service 2191 2101 2103 2105 2107 2109 2140 2142 2144 2146 2148 2194 2150 Leave AM/PM MP a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. Leave AM/PM MP p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Union Station 0.0 6:25 6:33 7:01 7:24 7:40 8:35 Lake Forest 28.0 3:20 4:20 5:09 5:35 Western Ave 2.9 6:34 6:42 7:10 7:33 7:49 8:44 Deerfield 24.2 3:26 4:26 4:36 5:15 5:20 5:41 5:50 Healy 6.4 6:39 6:47 7:15 7:39 7:54 8:49 Lake-Cook 23.0 3:29 4:29 5:18 5:23 5:44 5:53 Grayland 8.2 6:42 6:50 7:18 7:57 8:52 Northbrook 21.1 3:33 4:32 5:00 5:26 5:56 Mayfair 9.0 6:44 6:52 7:20 7:43 7:59 8:54 Glen/N. Glenview 18.8 3:37 4:36 5:05 5:30 6:00 Forest Glen 10.2 6:47 6:55 7:23 8:02 8:57 Glenview 17.4 3:40 4:39 4:46 5:08 5:33 6:03 Edgebrook 11.6 6:51 6:59 7:26 7:49 8:05 9:00 Golf 16.2 3:43 4:49 5:11 5:36 6:06 Morton Grove 14.3 7:03 7:31 7:53 8:10 9:05 Morton Grove 14.3 3:46 4:52 5:15 5:39 6:09 Golf 16.2 7:06 7:35 7:57 8:14 9:08 Edgebrook 11.6 3:51 4:57 5:20 5:44 5:56 6:14 Glenview 17.4 7:10 7:38 8:00 8:17 9:11 Forest Glen 10.2 3:54 5:00 5:23 5:47 5:59 6:17 Glen/N. Glenview 18.8 7:13 7:41 8:03 8:20 9:14 Mayfair 9.0 3:57 5:03 5:26 5:50 6:02 6:20 Northbrook 21.1 7:18 7:46 8:07 8:25 9:19 Grayland 8.2 3:59 5:05 5:28 5:52 6:04 6:22 Lake-Cook 23.0 7:04 7:22 7:50 8:11 8:29 9:23 Healy 6.4 4:02 5:08 5:32 5:55 6:07 6:25 Deerfield 24.2 7:08 7:26 7:52 8:16 8:32 9:26 Western Ave 2.9 4:08 4:57 5:14 5:42 6:01 6:13 6:31 Lake Forest 28.0 7:14 7:33 7:58 8:37 9:31 Union Station 0.0 4:22 5:10 5:28 5:55 6:16 6:26 6:44

focus stations added service adjusted service MP: station milepost

Lake County SOV Reduction Study October 2020 Pace Route 284 – Schaumburg – Great America Gurnee Express

Overview Pace Route 284 provides bus boarding stops at the Route 284 Average Service Day Ridership Northwest Transportation Center (NWTC) in Schaumburg and the Rosemont CTA Terminal, 250 expressing to the Six Flags Great America

Amusement Park in Gurnee. This popular location is 200 225 open seasonally; Pace operates Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. 150 178

Service is from June 1 through Labor Day, and then 157 Saturdays and Sundays during most of September 100

and October. The service was initiated in 2016.

101

93

Average Daily Rides Daily Average 78

50 72

One round trip departs from NWTC-Schaumburg at 65

61

60 53

9:30 a.m. and Rosemont CTA Station at 9:50 a.m. 46 Return trips depart Six Flags 15 minutes after the 0 park closes. Adequate free parking is available at the Friday Saturday Sunday NWTC (1730 Kimberly Drive, Schaumburg); a parking 2016 2017 2018 2019 fee is charged at the Rosemont CTA station. A premium fare of $4.50 each way is charged adults; Source: Pace Suburban Bus. reduced fare is $2.25. Six Flags Great America is located between Chicago Map of Six Flags Great America and Milwaukee and offers 17 roller coasters, a 20- acre water park, spectacular shows and four children's themed areas with more than 30 rides. Daily capacity of the Park is 54,000. Attendance exceeded 3 million in 2017 and 2018, ranking it among the top 20 amusement parks in North America. Passenger use dipped in 2019 from previous years.

It is estimated that over 3,000 trips were made on Route 284 during Great America’s 2019 season. This would translate to a measurable reduction in vehicle miles if this travel had been made by automobile.

Lake County SOV Reduction Study March 2020 Ravinia Festival – Metra & Pace

Overview The Ravinia Festival is the oldest outdoor music festival in Ravinia Route 475 Pace Ridership by Season the United States, offering outdoor concerts and 25,000 performances from June to September. Located in Highland Park, the festival operates on the grounds of the 36-acre Ravinia Park, with a variety of outdoor and indoor 20,000 performing arts facilities. For the 2019 season, there are more than a half-million people attending 140 events. In addition to accessing the park by driving and parking, transit 15,000 can also be used in two ways.

Metra 10,000

Metra’s UP North trains serve the special Ravinia Park Trips Passenger station stop, which is adjacent to Festival’s west gate. For weekend concerts, Metra runs a “Ravinia Special,” 5,000 departing Ogilvie at 5:35 p.m. with nonstop service after Evanston Central Street for a scheduled 6:25 p.m. arrival at 0 the concert venue. In addition, all afternoon UP-N outbound Weekday Saturday Sunday trains departing Chicago make stops at the Ravinia Park Source: Pace 2016 2017 2018 2019 stop. For weekday concerts, selected regularly scheduled Suburban Bus. trains make stops at the Ravinia Park Station. The nearby Braeside Station is an easy walk to the park and provides Map of Ravinia Festival concertgoers additional arrival times. Metra offers a special $8 round-trip pass on all trains to and from Ravinia Park after 1:30 p.m. The pass can be purchased at Ogilvie or on the train. Metra Ravinia ridership data is not available, although anecdotally, it is understood that some events attract standing room crowds on trains.

Pace Ravinia Festival Express Park & Ride To supplement the Fest’s main parking lots, a free Pace service connects parking lots to the Park. Route 475 buses depart one hour before the start time of each event and make continuous non-stop trips between the park-n-ride locations to the Ravinia Fest entrance along St. Johns Riders of Metra service accessing Avenue. Return service from Ravinia Fest to the Park-n-Ride Ravinia are likely not using a locations is provided at the conclusion of the event. Pace private auto for any part of their Park-n-Ride lots are located along St. Johns Avenue at Elm trip, resulting in the maximum Place, and at the Ravinia and Braeside Metra Stations. benefit to the roadway system. Ridership for the 2016-2019 seasons is provided by service Pace 475 service, on the other day. Ridership fluctuation is the result of the type of event hand, is not reducing auto travel, rather, the shuttles relieve hosted. localized congestion near the Park. Lake County SOV Reduction Study October 2020 Appendix D

Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study

Emerging Mobility Technical Memo

August 2020 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 3 2 Technologies and Trends ...... 3 2.1 Automated Vehicles ...... 4 2.2 Connected Vehicles ...... 6 2.3 Transportation Network Companies and Shared Mobility ...... 8 2.4 Mobility as a Service ...... 11 2.5 Microtransit (Automated and Non) ...... 12 2.6 Resource Pricing ...... 13 3 Conclusion ...... 16

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-2 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020 1 Introduction Evolving technologies are rapidly enabling innovations in transportation modes and services. These technologies include ridesourcing services such as Lyft and Uber; micromobility services such as bike and scooter share; and automated vehicle technologies. These technologies are enabling new business models and mobility options that are defining a new era of transportation in cities around the world.

In some cases, the ways in which new mobility services are used or deployed complement community policies and goals; in other cases, they conflict. For example, automated vehicle (AV) technologies could dramatically change how people make their daily transportation choices about where, when, and how to travel. If individuals can perform other tasks while commuting, suddenly a long commute may no longer be as burdensome and they may choose to live farther from job centers. As AVs become more prevalent, the ways in which people and businesses choose to use new mobility options can transform not only transportation systems, but the structure of our cities, where people want to live, and how we choose to use space. This could lead to impacts on mode choice, congestion, transit ridership, land use and development patterns, and broader environmental conditions.

Some emerging mobility options are available today. Others, like AVs, are still being piloted and developed and have uncertain timelines for full and widespread deployment. Many trends are interrelated and the development of new technologies may impact how others evolve, when they are adopted and by whom, and how the transportation system of the future will function. There is no question that transportation will evolve, and accurately forecasting these changes is difficult because of the uncertainty around the convergence of emerging technologies, individual preferences, and business models that will change near- and long-term travel behaviors.

This technical memorandum will define emerging mobility options and their anticipated future trends and qualitative impacts as they relate to single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. The emerging mobility options evaluated include:

• Automated vehicles, • Connected vehicles, • Shared mobility, • Microtransit, and • Resource pricing.

In many cases the impacts are unknown and highly dependent on policy and regulatory frameworks, or the lack thereof. Lake County’s current guidance on emerging transportation technologies is mainly limited to overall goals to improve infrastructure, modernize the transportation system, and promote Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). These goals are generally aligned with emerging mobility trends. However, specific plans, programs, pilot projects, or policies related to emerging mobility have not yet been developed. Nearby Chicago in Cook County has some emerging mobility programs and applications and will be included when relevant. 2 Technologies and Trends The rapid acceleration of internet improvements which include wireless communication and high-speed data sharing, coupled with the Internet of Things (IoT) (i.e., system of interrelated computing devices, mechanical and digital machines provided with unique identifiers (UIDs) and the ability to transfer data over a network without requiring human-to-human or human-to-computer interaction), has enabled enormous advancement for emerging mobility service technologies such as AVs, connected vehicles (CVs), shared mobility services, and multimodal mobility platforms. The following sections provide an overview of emerging technologies, a description of the current trends, and a summary of potential impacts based on existing literature.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-3 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020

2.1 AUTOMATED VEHICLES A fully automated vehicle does not require a driver to operate and is also known as a self-driving or autonomous vehicle. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines six levels of automation from zero automation (where a fully engaged driver is always required), to full autonomy (where an automated vehicle operates independently, without a human driver). SAE definitions are as follows:

Society of Automotive Engineers Automation Levels

Most vehicle manufacturers offer some level of automation on vehicles. Examples include: automated emergency braking, lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control, and hands-free parallel parking. AVs use sensors, cameras, and GPS technology to read the surrounding environment and navigate to their destination with limited or no human assistance. Many auto manufacturers have also partnered with technology companies to develop AV technology and vehicle fleets.

Currently, fully-automated shuttles are being deployed in select locations, but there are no fully- autonomous, self-driving vehicles available for private retail purchase. United States based manufacturers, however, are performing tests in a variety of real-world conditions. Additionally, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has identified 10 sites as official designated proving grounds for automated vehicle testing in the United States to cultivate safer deployment of AVs. 2.1.1 Current Trends Even though significant advancements have been made in terms of technology development, there is still uncertainty around the timeline for the widescale availability and deployment of fully autonomous vehicles. Several years ago, many automobile manufacturers anticipated reaching full level 5 automation in the early 2020s. This has proven overly ambitious due to the many unknowns regarding technology, safety, and travel conditions. Researchers at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute anticipate that some vehicles will reach level 4 automation by the 2030s or 2040s but will have high costs and limited performance and will likely still require human intervention in unexpected situations. At present, widespread level 5 autonomous vehicle availability is anticipated in the 2050s, with full market saturation in 2070 or beyond.1 Shared AVs, such as self-driving taxis, may be available by the 2030s.2

1 Todd Litman. (June 2020). Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2 Todd Litman. (June 2020). Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-4 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020

Currently, AV shuttles are mainly being tested in select, limited applications like airport parking lots, neighborhood circulators, or college campuses, with slow speeds and predictable conditions. This can be seen in Contra Costa County where slow-speed, electric shuttles are operating throughout the county to make first/last mile connections to transit.3 EazyMile, a manufacturer of AV shuttles, has deployed at over 10 U.S. locations, including college campuses like Texas Southern University and Virginia Tech, airports, and business parks.4 Another manufacturer Navya, has used their AV shuttles to move medical supplies and COVID-19 test samples from a drive-through testing site to a nearby laboratory in Jacksonville, Florida.5

In addition to shuttle applications, AV technologies are being used for taxi services. Waymo has been testing self-driving taxis in Chandler, Arizona since 2016.6 The program is similar to ridesourcing and uses the Waymo One app to connect pre-screened passengers with vehicles.7 The program was first implemented with safety drivers and transitioned to no drivers and an expanded geofenced area over time.

Ridesourcing applications, such as Uber and Lyft, are also incorporating automation technology into their vehicles as this technology has the potential to tremendously reduce their driver labor costs, which account for the largest cost component of Uber’s ridesourcing service.8 For example, Uber has been testing AVs in San Francisco, Arizona, and Pittsburgh since 2016. However, one of their AVs fatally struck a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, on March 18, 2018. As a result, Uber temporarily suspended all AV testing on public roads and did not renew their test permit for self-driving vehicles until 2020.9 Another considerable barrier to widespread deployment of shared AVs is how ridesourcing companies will address the safety and liability issues.

The cost of privately-owned AVs may be a barrier to ownership. It could be several years, if not decades, for technology costs to decrease to the point that privately-owned AVs become an option for most American households. Automated vehicle rides via a shared fleet or shared vehicles, however, may be available much earlier than privately owned AVs. Shared AVs have more moderate operating costs to the consumer compared to the lifecycle costs of privately-owned AVs. 2.1.2 Potential Impacts By removing the burden of driving, AVs could change how people value in-vehicle time for private rides and could cause people to take more or longer trips, thereby increasing SOV travel. If the passenger is no longer concerned about watching the road, this frees up time usually spent driving for other activities like work, entertainment, or sleep and thus making longer trips more appealing. If there are no changes to existing travel patterns, households could reduce auto-ownership by approximately 18 percent by owning an AV; and if schedules are adjusted to stagger peak-period trips, vehicle reduction could increase to 25 percent.10 However, this could also generate a significant amount of zero-occupancy VMT from AVs returning home or going to pick up another household member. Zero- occupancy VMT can increase congestion and decrease travel speeds. The increases in VMT will most

3 http://amobility.com/portfolio-item/shared-autonomous-vehicle-pilot-program/ 4 EasyMile (2020). Retrieved from: https://easymile.com/application-map-easymile/ 5 “Navya’s Autonomous Vehicles are Transportation COVID-19 Tests” (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32051316/navya-autonomous-vehicles-coronavirus-tests/. 6 “Chandler employees to use Waymo autonomous vehicles on the job” (2019). Retrieved from: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2019/07/01/waymo-chandler-partner-autonomous-vehicle-ride-share- program/1555482001/ 7 Waymo One: https://waymo.com/waymo-one/. 8 Karen Hao. (November 2017). Uber is buying $1 billion worth of self-driving cars from Volvo. QUARTZ. Retrieved from: https://qz.com/1133802/uber-is-buying-1-billion-worth-of-self-driving-xc90-cars-from-volvo/. 9 “Uber issued permit to test self-driving vehicles on California public roads” (2020). Retried from: https://tcrn.ch/31tjkef. 10 Wenwen Zhang. (May 2018). The impacts of private autonomous vehicles on vehicle ownership and unoccupied VMT generation. Elsevier Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.03.005.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-5 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020 likely be highest for peak-period but modeled scenarios for the Atlanta Metropolitan area showed a 20 percent increase in VMT during the non-peak period from 11am to 4pm as well.11A separate study exploring modeled scenarios for the Washington, D.C. area also showed a reduction in total vehicles in the region and an increase in VMT and congestion as a result of AVs without strong policy intervention.12 The convenience of a privately-owned AV can also cause mode shift, increasing SOV travel as people choose AVs over transit or even active transportation. However, policies or regulations to discourage or prevent SOV or zero-occupancy trips could make transit the more cost-effective option and therefore encourage other travel modes and decrease SOV travel. As the cost of AV technology decreases over time, it may compete with or complement other travel modes, which is largely dependent on public policy and regulations. A shared AV fleet has the potential to lower VMT and reduce the need for parking; however, this is still dependent on zero-occupancy VMT or if passengers have migrated to shared AVs from other travel modes, like transit, biking, and walking. Some studies show that shared AVs could replace anywhere from 5 to 14 private vehicles.13 If households give up their personal vehicles and used shared AVs, SOV travel could decrease.

Shared AV fleets are anticipated to have a lower cost point compared to existing taxi, transit, and ridesourcing vehicles due to expected reductions in labor costs. In the case of transit, these savings can be reallocated to expand service and coverage, thereby making transit more appealing and encouraging travelers to shift from SOV travel to transit.

AVs have the potential to reshape the urban environment in many ways, including less infrastructure, such as traffic lights, parking lots and curbside parking, and narrower or fewer road lane miles. If combined with electric vehicles, AVs could eliminate many of the charging-infrastructure challenges by co-locating with charging stations. However, AVs could also increase sprawl and encourage residents to live farther from city centers as the perception of driving becomes less burdensome. Depending on how AVs are deployed, they have the potential to increase or decrease SOV vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and congestion. In order to reduce the negative externalities of AV technology, important policy decisions must be made at the federal, state, and local level.

2.2 CONNECTED VEHICLES A Connected Vehicle (CV) is a car, truck, or bus equipped with a wireless communication device. CVs use a number of wireless communication protocols:

• Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication with other vehicles nearby including emergency vehicles; • Vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication with roadside infrastructure such as traffic signals, parking meters, and warning systems (e.g., highway-railway grade-crossings); and • Internet connectivity which facilitates connections to digital services provided by automakers, emergency services (e.g., OnStar), passenger smartphones, or other WiFi enabled devices, and to other devices outside the vehicle such as smart home equipment.14

CVs can communicate position, direction, and speed to give the driver or the vehicle the situational awareness to react to incidents, thus reducing the number of crashes and smoothing traffic flow. CVs also can communicate with other connected devices like smartphones or wearable technology (e.g., smartwatches), further improving safety across modes and smoothing transportation system operations.

11 ibid. 12 AECOM for DC Sustainable Transportation. (2019). DC AV Study. 13 Morteza Taiebat (2018). “A Review on Energy, Environmental, and Sustainability Implications of Connected and Automated Vehicles”. Environmental Science & Technology. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.10581. 14 Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (2018). A Policymaker’s Guide to Connect Cars. Retrieved from: http://www2.itif.org/2018-policymakers-guide-connected-cars.pdf.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-6 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020

In addition, connectivity could allow for new Connected Vehicles (CV) Categories ways to finance roadways by providing a mechanism for payment tied to travel Category Examples decisions and VMT (see Section 2.6 for Diagnostics, predictive maintenance, In-Vehicle additional information). and safety applications

2.2.1 Current Trends Entertainment, navigation, personal Vehicle connectivity depends largely on the Drivers/Passengers device integration, and remove mechanisms for connection, which include the control Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC), 4G-LTE cellular communication, Third-Party In-car payment services, roadside telecommunication, and WiFi. CV technologies Services assistance, insurance, etc. are being deployed by local agencies, software companies, and automakers. Infrastructure and Crash response, adaptive traffic Other Vehicles lights, and emerging vehicle warnings The most common technology that enables communications between vehicles and Source: http://www2.itif.org/2018-policymakers-guide-connected-cars.pdf infrastructure is DSRC. DSRC is a two-way wireless communication with a corresponding set of protocols and standards. However, there are concerns that DSRC may be weak to interference from unlicensed and exploratory technologies.15 Other emerging communications include cellular-vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) and 5G. C-V2X technology is a radio communication that allows vehicles to directly connect with other systems and could eventually replace DSRC. Standards for C-V2X are currently in development. In addition, the introduction of 5G could dramatically increase the communication speed between vehicles and infrastructure, other vehicles, and smartphone applications. However, there are still many unknowns regarding the capabilities, security concerns, and applications.16

Most vehicles are equipped with in-vehicle technologies such as diagnostics, entertainment, navigation, and roadside assistance. But few vehicles can communicate with other vehicles or infrastructure. The first vehicle to be equipped with vehicle-to-vehicle communications capabilities is the Cadillac CTS, released in 2017.17 However, to date most traffic systems are not able to return communications. In 2015 the USDOT provided funding for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure pilot studies in New York City; Tampa, Florida; and Wyoming.18 These pilots are exploring CV technology and the relationship with congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and vehicle crash rates. Most likely, upgrading vehicle technology will occur prior to upgrading infrastructure as infrastructure upgrades are often dependent on local government budgets and useful life requirements.

Vehicle connectivity requires using technology that is capable across communications providers and manufacturers, which often requires standardizations and protocols. Additional challenges include data protection, liability, intellectual property, interoperability, and access to the wireless spectrum as well as updating physical infrastructure for compatibility. These challenges may impede advancement in CV development.

CV technologies are often grouped together with AV technologies; however, they are not interchangeable. It’s possible to have AVs that are not connected to either cars or infrastructure, and it is possible to have CVs that are not autonomous. It is generally agreed that AVs which are connected will

15 Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (2018). A Policymaker’s Guide to Connect Cars. Retrieved from: http://www2.itif.org/2018-policymakers-guide-connected-cars.pdf. 16 U.S. Department of Transportation. Emerging and Enabling Technologies. ITS Research Factsheet. Retried from: https://www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/pdf/PR_EmergingAndEnabling.pdf. 17 V2V Safety Technology Now Standard on Cadillac CTS Sedans (2017). Retrieved from: https://media.cadillac.com/media/us/en/cadillac/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2017/mar/0309-v2v.html. 18 U.S. DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. Retrieved from:https://www.its.dot.gov/press/2015/ngv_tech_announcement.htm.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-7 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020 have the biggest benefit on the transportation system due to improved safety, travel times, and Mobility- as-a-Service (MaaS). 2.2.2 Potential Impacts By improving traffic operations and safety, CVs have the potential to increase safety and speed of vehicular travel. Some CV applications, such as vehicle platooning, could also increase the convenience and ease of driving. This is likely to make SOV travel more attractive to many travelers which could lead to an increase in the length and number of vehicle trips and a reduction in transit usage and accompanying increase in VMT in Lake County. However, CV technology also enables several other emerging mobility trends, such as microtransit and MaaS, which could contribute to people choosing these modes or transit over SOVs. These changes will depend largely on the implementation methodology of the emerging technology. For example, CV technology could connect to smart phone apps, trip planning software, and payment systems to match transit riders with vehicles for first/last mile solutions. CV technologies’ greatest potential for SOV trip reduction lies in combination with other trends, including AVs, MaaS, and resource pricing.

2.3 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES AND SHARED MOBILITY Shared Mobility Services allow users to request a ride or vehicle in real-time using a mobile application. They link passengers with available drivers and vehicles based on trip origin and destination, identify the quickest route, and facilitate trip payment. These typically fall into four categories:

• Ridesourcing: Transportation Network Companies (TNC) that use an online platform to connect passengers with drivers and automate reservations, payments, and customer feedback. Riders can choose from a variety of service classes, including drivers who use personal, non- commercial, vehicles; traditional taxicabs dispatched via the providers’ apps, and premium services with professional drivers and vehicles. Ridesourcing services (e.g., Lyft and Uber) allow users to request rides from a hired driver and are distinct from taxis in that the only option is to be “e-hailed.” Ridesourcing is sometimes referred to as “ridehailing”.

• Ridesharing: Ridesharing involves adding passengers to a private trip in which driver and passenger, or multiple passengers, share a destination. This helps fill empty seats and provides additional transportation options for riders. Traditional forms of ridesharing include carpooling and vanpooling. Dynamic carpooling is an application-enabled service that conveniently matches drivers and passengers in real time. Dynamic carpooling applications facilitate cost sharing among travelers but prohibit drivers from making a profit. Examples of dynamic carpool services that are becoming popular are Scoop and Waze Carpool. Examples of on-demand ridesharing which utilize ridesourcing include UberPool and Lyft Shared rides (note: these services are currently suspended in response to COVID-19).

• Carsharing: A service that provides members with access to an automobile for intervals of less than a day. Major carsharing business models include traditional or round-trip, which requires users to borrow and return vehicles at the same location; one-way or free-floating, which allows users to pick up a vehicle at one location and drop it off at another; and peer-to-peer (p2p), which allows car owners to earn money at times when they are not using their vehicles by making them available for rental to other carshare members. Examples include Maven and Zipcar.

• Shared Micromobility: Shared micromobility encompasses shared-use, independently operated fleets of small, fully or partially human-powered, lightweight mobility devices. Examples of shared micromobility include bikeshare and scooters. Micromobility can be docked or dockless and operate independently or integrated with ridesourcing apps, transit apps, or fare payment systems.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-8 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020

2.3.1 Current Trends Private shared mobility services have been expanding nationwide, with carsharing in more than 400 cities, bikesharing in over 400 cities, and TNCs operating in over 600 cities as of 2020.19 The following section summarizes existing trends for shared mobility options.

Ridesourcing/Ridesharing

TNC companies are increasing visibility throughout the U.S., including Chicago and the Lake County, IL region. Since these are private companies with control over their data, one publicly accessible comprehensive data source showing how many TNC trips occur, how much vehicle travel is generated, and the associated effects on system performance are generally not available. The City of Chicago has made tremendous strides in obtaining city-wide trip data and Average Monthly TNC and Taxi Trips, in Thousands they are one of the first cities to 12,000 successfully publish TNC data online starting in 2018.20 10,000 According to this data, TNC trips (which includes pooled trips) in Chicago increased from an 8,000 average of 2 million monthly trips Taxi TNC in 2015 to 9 million in 2018. Much 6,000 8,873 of this travel occurs in the Loop 7,230 and northern areas of Chicago 4,791 where a robust public transit 4,000 21 2,369 network exists. In general, TNCs 607 tend to provide broader coverage 2,000 than taxis and are easier to hail 2,749 2,385 2,658 with the use of an app. TNC 2,084 1,828 popularity will likely continue in the - future. 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 *2018 trip data is only from the first 6 months Lyft and Uber are also expanding *Due to inconsistent data reporting, not all taxi trips were reported prioer to 2016. their services with new options for Source: City of Chicago (2019). Roadmap for the Future of Transportation and Mobility in ridesharing. Lyft offers “Shared rides” in Denver and San Jose which pairs passengers traveling in the same direction, functionally serving as an on-demand carpool and Lyft previously offered “Lyft Shuttle”, which ran on designated routes and made specific stops, similar to a bus route, in San Francisco and Chicago.22 Uber launched “Express Pool” service, which requires users to walk within a defined area of the pickup and drop-off locations before and after the ride in exchange for a reduced ride fee.23 This service was first piloted in San Francisco and Boston with plans to expand to other metropolitan areas. 24 Selecting to share a Lyft or Uber tends to lower the price without adding much time to the overall ride. This option works best in dense urban areas where many passengers are traveling in the same direction

19 Shared-Use Mobility Center (2020). Retrieved from: http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/#. 20 “Chicago first city to public data on ride-hailing trips, drivers, and vehicles” (2019). Retrieved from: https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/4/15/18311340/uber-lyft-chicago-data-fares-drivers. 21 City of Chicago (2019). Roadmap for the Future of Transportation and Mobility in Chicago. Retried from: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/PDFs/21755_37_AF_MobilityReport.pdf. 22 Andrew Hawkins (2019). Lyft’s new ‘most affordable ride’ involves a lot of extra waiting and walking”. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/21/18233440/lyft-shared-saver-carpool-cheapest-fares. 23 Josh Constine. (November 2017). Uber ‘Express POOL’ offers the cheapest fare if you’ll walk a little. Retrieved from: https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/uber-express-pool/. 24 Andrew Hawkins (2018). Uber Express Pool offers the cheapest fares in yet in exchange for a little walking”. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17020484/uber-express-pool-launch-cities

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-9 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020 or destination. As of August 2020, Lyft Shared rides and Uber Express Pool are suspended due to COVID-19.

Carsharing

While carsharing has been a viable option in many Asian and European cities since the 1970s, it didn’t appear in the U.S. until the late 90s and early 2000s. Estimates from 2016, show over 1.8 million carshare members in the U.S. with over 26,000 vehicles. About 800,000 of these trips were one-way with the remainder roundtrips.25 Station-based and round-trip carsharing options (like Zipcar or Maven) account for the majority of all fleets, while free-floating options (such as Car2Go, Gig, or DriveNow) hold a much smaller, but growing, market share.26 As of 2019, Zipcar was considered the largest carsharing company in the U.S.27 Carsharing is not currently available in Lake County, but is available in nearby Chicago via Maven and Zipcar.

Micromobility Micromobility Trips (2018) Shared micromobility devices are popular options for short trips and help facilitate first/last mile connections with transit. The first modern bikeshare system in the U.S. was launched in Denver in April 2010. Since then, bikeshare in the United States has grown from 4 systems to over 60 systems in 2018 (based on the most recently available data). Most trips are under three miles and many riders are using these services to get to/from work and connect to transit.28

In 2018, riders took a total of 84 million trips on shared micromobility, with slightly over half of those trips on bikeshare and the remainder on scooter share. Six cities account for 84 percent of all station-based bike share trips, this includes: Washington, DC; Boston; New York City; Chicago; Honolulu; and the San Francisco Bay Area. 29 Divvy Bikes is Chicago’s bikeshare program with approximately 600 stations and 6,000 bikes and over 700,000 trips taken during the last quarter of 2019.30 2.3.2 Potential Impacts Shared mobility is anticipated to decrease auto ownership, but the SOV VMT impacts are varied.

Ridesourcing/Ridesharing

Recent research conducted by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) indicates that the most direct benefit that shared mobility services can provide to the future transportation system is a reduction of private vehicle ownership.31 An economic impact study from Lyft included a passenger

25 Susan Shaheen. (2018). “Innovative Mobility: Carsharing Outlook”. Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/49j961wb. 26 Carsharing Market Analysis & Growth (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.sharedmobility.news/carsharing-market-analysis- growth-industry-analysis/. 27 Carsharing Market Analysis & Growth (2019). Retrieved from: https://movmi.net/carsharing-market-growth-2019/. 28 National Association of City Transportation Officials: Shared Micromobility in the U.S.(2018). Retried from: https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2018/ 29 ibid. 30 Divvy Data (2019). Retrieved from: https://divvy-tripdata.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html. 31 Murphy, C. (2016). Shared mobility and the transformation of public transit (No. TCRP J-11/TASK 21). Retrieved from: https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Shared-Mobility.pdf.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-10 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020 survey that found that 34 percent of Lyft users would avoid owning a car because of Lyft, 56 percent use their car less, and 22 percent use Lyft to connect to public transit.32

However, research conducted by University of California at Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) found that 49 to 61 percent of ride-hailing trips “would not have been made at all, or made by walking, biking, or transit.” The research also concluded that “ride-hailing is currently likely to contribute to growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the seven major cities represented in this study (Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco/ Bay Area, Seattle, and Washington, D.C).”33 The reduction of vehicle ownership alone does not necessarily result in reduction of SOV VMT. Ridesourcing services can take ridership away from transit. The UC Davis ITS research found that ride-hailing attracts Americans away from bus service (a 6 percent reduction) and light rail services (a 3 percent reduction).34 With more people obtaining vehicle rides as a service rather than purchasing a vehicle as a commodity, total vehicle ownership could decline. Nevertheless, this may not translate to decreases in SOV travel as ridesourcing services have the potential to shift mode choice from transit to lower occupancy vehicles.

Carsharing

A study commissioned by Zipcar and conducted online by The Harris Poll with over 2,000 U.S. adults showed that after joining Zipcar, 54 percent of respondents got rid of a personal vehicle and 48 percent postponed buying or leasing a car. The average trip length in Illinois is 43 miles, suggesting many Zipcar drivers are using the vehicle for long trips or multiple errands.35

Zipcar claims that each Zipcar replaces up to 13 privately-owned vehicles. Additionally, carshare users are driving 40 percent fewer miles than before joining a carsharing network and biking, walking, or using public transit at about the same rate or more.36 This suggests that carsharing is a competitive option for personal-vehicle travel and does not compete with transit or active transportation modes.

Mircomobility

Micromobility has the potential to replace short vehicle trips and is an important link for first/last mile connections to transit. Micromobility is typically found in more urban areas with multiple transportation options, existing active transportation infrastructure, and where parking is expensive or difficult to find such as the Chicago metropolitan area. For suburban and rural areas, like Lake County, micromobility is less prevalent and most likely not a direct competitor for SOV travel.

2.4 MOBILITY AS A SERVICE MaaS is a software platform that provides people with on-demand access to a wide range of public and private shared mobility services. Payment options can include a monthly subscription packages or pay- as-you-go. MaaS-related services include bikeshare, carshare, electric vehicle (EV) charging, smart parking, and microtransit. MaaS enables a transition from a system where vehicle ownership is required , to a system where people have access to an array of transportation services, and where access can be purchased as-needed, is competitive with the private automobile, and provides more convenient, efficient, and potentially less expensive travel options.

32 Lyft, Economic Impact Report, 2017. Retrieved from: https://take.lyft.com/economic-impact/Lyft-Drives-Economy.pdf. 33 Clewlow, R. R., & Mishra, G. S. (2017). Disruptive transportation: the adoption, utilization, and impacts of ride-hailing in the United States (Vol. 7). Research Report–UCD-ITS-RR-17. 34 ibid. 35 Zipcar Impact Report: Driving Change in 2018. Retrieved from: https://zipcar-drupal- prod.s3.amazonaws.com/sites/all/pdfs/Zipcar_impact_report_2018.pdf. 36 ibid.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-11 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020

2.4.1 Current Trends MaaS centers on system integration. Many of the individual systems already exist, such as bikeshare, carshare, and transit. MaaS integrates these services through a single trip planning, booking, and payment system so individuals can purchase rides or services as-needed. For example, many transit agencies are attempting to integrate fare payment systems across multiple transit providers, and sometimes private providers, within a geographical region. This would allow for a centralized payment system and trip planner so the user can see all available rides and services regardless of provider, and pay through a single platform via a pre-loaded card or mobile app, subscription, or single service payment. This integrates the system into seamless trip chains, with reservations and payment collectively managed for all legs of the trip.37 However, since public and private transportation providers often have individual payment systems and proprietary technologies, it can be challenging to integrate these systems into one regional system and properly allocate fares to the respective service providers. Integrated transit fare payment is one step toward overall MaaS that integrates ridesourcing, taxis, heavy rail, and even parking expenses and tolls.

Few MaaS systems exist in the United States with most systems still under development and for limited applications. There are MaaS examples in areas outside of the United States. For example, one of the more advanced deployments is Whim in Helsinki, Finland. Users can open Whim, enter their destination, and pick from several potential options and routes, including buses, trains, taxis, bikes, and cars. Planning and payment are integrated in a single app via a monthly fee (249 Euros) or per-trip basis. Whim connects the user experience with the transit ecosystem through mobility. Transit companies can focus on service and schedules, while Whim connects different legs of a trip together.38 TNCs are creating their own MaaS within their existing apps. For example, Uber and Lyft incorporate their micromobility services, such as scooters and bikeshare, and in select locations these apps can offer information about public transit. It’s important to note that TNC apps will only show options related to their services, so users often have to check multiple apps in order to see all available options.39 A goal of MaaS is to improve both the demand and supply side of transportation while increasing available options and lowering costs. 2.4.2 Potential Impacts If MaaS can integrate multiple systems across providers, it can be an effective way to reduce SOV travel by combining trips that are temporally and spatially similar and expanding access to a variety of flexibly available mobility options other than private SOVs. This can generate benefits including efficiency improvements, fleet downsizing, congestion reduction, energy conservation, and emissions alleviation.40 However, many steps are required to fully integrate the numerous systems across modes into one centralized system. It introduces numerous public policy, technology, and organizational structure challenges.

2.5 MICROTRANSIT (AUTOMATED AND NON) The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) defines microtransit as “a privately owned and operated shared transportation system that can offer fixed routes and schedules, as well as flexible

37 Dr. Maria Kamargianni (May 2015). “Feasibility Study for “Mobility as a Service” concept in London”. Retrieved from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/sites/bartlett/files/fs-maas-compress-final.pdf. 38 Patrick Sisson. (October 2016). This seamless, simple transit app wants to plan and pay for all your trips. Curbed. Retrieved from: https://www.curbed.com/2016/10/11/13243674/app-urban-transportation-mobility-whim. 39 “Why Uber and Lyft want to create walled gardens – and why it’s bad for urban mobility” (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.fastcompany.com/90261748/why-uber-and-lyft-want-to-create-walled-gardens-and-why-its-bad-for-urban-mobility 40 Morteza Taiebat (2018). “A Review on Energy, Environmental, and Sustainability Implications of Connected and Automated Vehicles”. Environmental Science & Technology. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.10581.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-12 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020 routes and on-demand scheduling. The vehicles generally include vans and buses.”Microtransit can be operated on a fixed or flexible route, and by a preset schedule or on-demand schedule.41 2.5.1 Current Trends There are multiple microtransit examples across the U.S. of both publicly and privately-operated systems. Current companies that provide non-automated microtransit service are Transdev, RideCo, and Via. Public transit agency examples that are either currently offering, or plan to offer microtransit services soon, include Sacramento Regional Transit, LA Metro, and Capital Metro (Austin Public Transit). Many of the microtransit services offered by public transit agencies are operated by the private companies mentioned above. 2.5.2 Potential Impacts Microtransit combines characteristics of vanpooling and ridesourcing and has the potential to reduce SOV travel. Pace Suburban Bus, which operates in Lake County, has one of the largest vanpool programs in the nation and became the regional ridesharing administrator for Northeastern Illinois in 2006. It’s possible that some of these services could use a microtransit model to expand the service area or make shared rides more attractive for SOV travelers. However, results from the various pilot applications to- date have been mixed. One successful pilot is the Sacramento Regional Transit where riders called in advance and were picked up at their home (versus a bus stop) in a suburban neighborhood. The program performed on par with Sacramento’s “Dial-a-Ride” services.42 In some microtransit examples metrics show that ridership was low and the costs were high, but there may be other benefits such as improved mobility and enhanced customer experience that are not fully captured in the ridership and cost metrics.43 Microtransit successes are largely dependent on how the agency defines the goals and objectives of the service. Microtransit may expand mobility options and reduce SOV travel if it can provide shared rides in areas underserved by transit for shorter, point-to-point trips or for first/last mile connections to transit. It could also be a more convenient option than driving in areas where parking is limited or not available, creating further potential for SOV reduction.

A modeling exercise conducted for New York City modeled 10-passenger-capacity connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) combined with dynamic ridesharing and found this could substantially downsize the taxi fleet. The modeling exercise demonstrated that using CAV vans could serve 98 percent of the travel demand with a mean waiting time of 2.8 minutes, while shrinking the taxi fleet to 15 percent of its present size.44 By modeling 10-passenger vans, which are similar in size to microtransit vehicles, this study shows there is potential for vehicle reductions with widescale adoption of microtransit. While this does not have direct implications for SOV travel, it does show the additional benefit when various emerging technologies are combined including ridesharing, CAVs, and vehicles similar to microtransit.

2.6 RESOURCE PRICING Resource pricing is not an emerging mode per say, but it has the potential to influence or manage SOV travel especially if combined with other emerging mobility trends. Resource pricing includes tolling, priced managed lanes, cordon pricing, and road user charge pricing. The following definitions are paraphrased from the International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association (IBTTA)45 unless otherwise indicated.

41 Eno Center for Transportation (2018). “Uprouted: Exploring Microtransit in the United States”. Retrieved from: https://www.enotrans.org/eno-resources/uprouted-exploring-microtransit-united-states/. 42 “The Story of Micro Transit” is Consistent, Dismal Failure” (2018). Retrieved from: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/06/26/the- story-of-micro-transit-is-consistent-dismal-failure/. 43 Eno Center for Transportation (2018). “Uprouted: Exploring Microtransit in the United States”. Retrieved from: https://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UpRouted-18.pdf. 44 Javier Alonso-Mora (2018). “On-Demand High-Capacity Ride-Sharing via Dynamic Trip-Vehicle Assignment”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: Retrieved from: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/3/462. 45 IBTTA. Accessed July 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.ibtta.org/resource-library/glossary.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-13 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020

• Tolling, or toll managed lanes, is generally defined as the “imposition of a per-use fee on motorists for a given highway facility. Historically, these fees have generally been flat tolls that may vary by number of axles and distance driven, but not by time of day. Their primary purpose is to generate revenue.”46 This includes toll roads, bridges, and tunnels, as well as express lanes. An express lane is a type of toll lane where the driver passes a collection point at highway speeds without stopping. In recent years, toll lanes are starting to integrate fixed schedule or dynamic pricing, which adjusts the cost of travel based on time of day and congestion, and functions like priced-managed lanes. • Priced managed lanes are “highway facilities or lanes where operation is modified in response to changing traffic conditions”. They generally operate as a “freeway-within-a-freeway” with separation from the general-purpose lanes. This includes high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. HOT lanes have a reduced fee if the vehicle meets certain occupancy standards (e.g., traveling with two or more passengers). • Cordon pricing, or cordon tolls, are “fees paid by motorist to drive in a particular area, usually a city center. Some cordon tolls only apply during peak periods, such as weekdays. This can be done by simply requiring vehicles driven within the area to display a pass, or by tolling at each entrance to the area.” • A road user charge is “a policy whereby motorists pay for use of the roadway network based on distance traveled.” This is also referred to as a “vehicle miles traveled fee” or “mileage-based user fees”. Road user charges can include toll lanes but is more commonly used to refer to local or Statewide programs that are intended to replace gas tax revenue in an effort to fund roadway improvement projects.

In the U.S., the types of agencies and associated institutional structures supporting pricing systems vary widely. Pricing systems may be operated and administered by state departments of transportation, special state tolling agencies, regional tolling authorities, local tolling agencies, transit authorities, or private entities. Furthermore, pricing system operators typically interact with numerous other state, county, and local authorities through agreements and partnerships for any number of services such as intelligent transportation system (ITS) operations, enforcement, customer service, or account management. The ultimate configuration of operators and their partners depends on the particulars of the enabling legislative environment of the state, powers afforded to municipalities/counties, and the specifics of the project. For example, the need for capital investment can have a significant impact on how a pricing project is structured, operated and governed. Capital intensive managed lanes projects involving new construction may be owned and operated by a private concessionaire, while converting a HOV facility to HOT lane may be handled by another authority. Both projects are managed lanes featuring a pricing element, but vary in legislative and administrative structures.

When infrastructure such as toll roads passes through more than one jurisdiction, an initial memorandum of understanding (MOU) is typically developed and agreed upon from the affected jurisdictions. This allows agencies to keep their separate responsibilities and authorizations while having an agreement that assigns responsibilities and distributes revenue. Additionally, rather than just having an MOU, a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) can be formed. JPAs are governed by a joint powers agreement signed by the affected public agencies wishing to cooperatively work together as a new legal entity. The primary agency typically leads a JPA with appropriate jurisdictions having a voice in the governance and distribution of revenues. The joint powers agreement establishes the competency and capabilities of the entity with the appointment of an independent board of directors, typically with the board members from cities.

46 U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tolling_and_pricing/defined/.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-14 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020

2.6.1 Current Trends Toll roads, bridges, and tunnels and managed lanes are common in the U.S. Road user fee programs are gaining popularity with numerous pilot programs and studies conducted in the last several years.

Toll Roads

In the U.S., toll roads, toll bridges, toll tunnels, and express lanes all collect revenue for the support of transportation infrastructure. Tolling in the US is a mature market with most facilities transitioning from cash collection to electronic toll collection using transponders or license plate recognition. Drivers have a choice of whether to use the toll facilities and there exists regional toll interoperability between facilities. Windshield-mounted transponders and license plate identification are primarily utilized for toll collection and occupancy identification. The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is a local example.

Cordon or corridor pricing systems charge user fees to vehicles traveling into a predetermined area (often a central business district) to control travel demand, especially during peak periods. Cordon pricing projects have been studied in the U.S., but none have been deployed to date. New York City is currently in the development of a cordon pricing program that will charge vehicles for entering Manhattan south of 60th Street. This program intends to use transponders and license plates identification to charge motorists.

Road User Charge

Over the past decade, the U.S. has seen many road user charge studies and pilot programs with some being deployed as operational programs. Completed pilot projects include:

• Oregon’s OReGO • Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Fee Test, • Colorado Road Usage Charge Pilot Program, • California Road Charge Pilot Program, and • Washington State Road Usage Charge. These pilots are intended to test different technology applications for mileage reporting and fee collection. This includes anything from self-reporting miles to installing on-board devices that track location and usage.

As of July 2020, there are currently two active road user charge programs in the U.S.: Oregon and Utah. Oregon leveraged their pilot into a permanent mileage-based revenue program for light-duty vehicles. The program was launched in 2015 and is still in operation with over 600 participants. As of July 2020, Oregon charges a flat fee of 1.8 cents per mile driven, but there are plans to conduct additional pilots that include charging by time-of-day to evaluate how travel behavior changes. Volunteers can select between two self-installed onboard devices, one with GPS and one without. These devices record the mileage driven and users log into an account manager to receive their fuel tax credit.47

Utah’s program is intended to offset the reduction in gas tax revenue due to the increase in alternative fueled vehicles. The program was launched in 2020 and the road usage charge is dependent on the type of vehicle and the vehicle’s fuel type. The program is voluntary and has approximately 1,900 participants. The program offers a choice of annual reporting using a photo of the odometer or an onboard device with an app for monitoring the account.48

The Oregon and Utah programs are both planning to expand in the coming years with Utah developing a plan to have 100 percent of registered vehicles enrolled by 2031. Washington is also developing a plan

47 Oregon Department of Transportation: OReGO. Retrieved from: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs/Pages/OReGO.aspx. 48 Utah Department of Transportation: Road User Charge Program. Retrieved form: https://roadusagecharge.utah.gov/.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-15 Emerging Mobility Technical Memo August 2020 for a full road user charge deployment ramping up over the next several years with a requirement for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles to enroll beginning in 2024.

2.6.2 Potential Impacts Tolling has the potential to reduce SOV travel by increasing prices or adjusting for congestion and decreasing prices for shared trips. As the price of solo driving increases, individuals may be more inclined to carpool and share rides. In addition, as more CV technology enters the marketplace, it is anticipated that road user charges, tolling systems, and cordon pricing will be easier to implement. New vehicles are equipped with telematics that allow collection of the actual miles driven and can categorize by time of day and location. Currently, auto manufactures have been resistant to sharing this information, but the future connectivity of vehicles may allow this information to be utilized by resource pricing programs. Jurisdictions would be able to adjust prices and collect revenue on a larger scale, further disincentivizing solo travel.

Most pilot program studies have found that while some users might be concerned about privacy, they almost always choose the GPS-enabled device as it is the easiest method of reporting and can also provide additional value-added services (e.g., account management, visual trip logs, opportunity for safe driving insurance discounts, driving scores, vehicle health monitors, find my vehicle, etc.). If vehicles automatically reported miles without the need of an additional device or account manager, it could eliminate another step in the reporting process increasing efficiency and integrating systems. This has further implications when combined with AV technologies and MaaS to price trips by vehicle type, fuel type, location, time of day, number of passengers, and roadway usage allowing travelers to only pay for what they use. If SOV trips become expensive compared to other travel options, it has potential to further reduce SOV trips. 3 Conclusion Some emerging mobility technologies and modes, such as AVs and CVs, may not change SOV travel in- and-of themselves, and the potential impacts are highly dependent on the technology deployment structure (private or shared ownership models) and presence or lack of regulatory and policy guidance (e.g., ZOV or SOV restrictions or fees). Many emerging mobility technologies such as micromobility and microtransit expand options for mobility and can complement existing transit, likely reducing SOVs. Finally, all emerging mobility technologies and modes as well as traditional vehicles can be managed by resource pricing to reduce SOV travel. The outcomes for SOV travel depend on a complex set of interrelated technologies, modes, and policy and regulatory decisions, as described in this report.

The findings of this emerging mobility research will help inform the identification and application of SOV reduction measures that can be considered for select study areas in the County. The objective will be to identify a range of applications for both the near-term and long-term.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page D-16 APPENDIX E

Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study

Electric-assist Mobility Technical Memo

September 2020 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 Table of Contents

Summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 Proliferation ...... 5 Commuting ...... 7 Legal Issues ...... 9 Design Options ...... 13 Conclusion ...... 16 References ...... 17

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-2 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 SUMMARY

Small electric vehicles have proliferated in the United States and other nations, requiring a new look at transportation planning and design. These new vehicles have one, two, or three wheels, and often have electric motors. These vehicles cannot universally be treated as bicycles, or as automobiles, without serious safety risks. These new vehicle types lie between the traditional modes of travel used in urban planning and engineering: a “Middle Mode.” As one of the most common examples of the Middle Mode, the electric bicycle (ebike) requires the development of new designs for transportation facilities and requires proper consideration in urban planning, roadway design, and in the management of recreational trails. Proliferating electric bicycles fitted into existing facilities may cause conflicts and can cause unsafe conditions. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to report on the proliferation of ebikes and the Middle Mode, ebike and micromobility legislation, and to propose a path forward to proper management of the Lake County trails, multi-use paths, and bike facilities.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-3 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 INTRODUCTION

Motorized bicycles are different from non-motorized bicycles. They have greater range, cost, and weight as well as higher average and top speeds. For this reason, powered bikes, a type of Light Electric Vehicle (LEV), require consideration by urban planners and designers. Key differences for urban planners include the larger travelsheds - the potential capture area for trips around any given destination--and higher speeds, which will affect the design of shared “bike” facilities. As of yet, the planning community has not developed specialized treatments and approaches for LEVs. Traditionally, planners consider five land-based travel and commute options or modes, including walking, biking, driving an automobile, riding a bus, and using rail-based systems. Planners and designers have been working toward and encouraging multi-modalism, in which multiple modes of travel are supported and provided for within public right of ways. This allows for greater choice and opportunity for travelers. But with the proliferation of ebikes, we must also now consider “Middle Modalism”. Without further refining contemporary transportation planning and urban design approaches, the modes in the “middle”--LEVs--may be poorly accommodated. Since LEVs are a rapidly growing choice for many commuters, this is problematic. Ebike and scooter use on public roads, trail systems, and sidewalks is rapidly increasing, which requires some regulatory and design planning for successful integration into the built environment. Without new roadway designs the growing number of new vehicle types will result in modal refugees, modes with no place to be in the current roadway network, forced into an inappropriate lane for their use. Where does a 10 mph hoverboard, Segway or kick scooter belong? Where does a fast ebike belong? How fast can these different vehicles travel? Regulating the Middle Modal vehicle types is new in the United States. Previously, some communities have addressed the use of golf carts on public roads. Many urban areas have started to address the shared kick-scooters, and many have addressed riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. These are all early efforts to better organize these various small vehicles travelling at different speeds.

But the ebike has been the one development that has caused the greatest upheaval on public roads Federal law groups an ebike with and on off-road pathways. The challenge of defining conventional bicycles when it has under an ebike, and determining where can it be ridden 750 watts of power, functional pedals, has now been addressed by many states, cities, the and a maximum speed under 20 mph. National Park Service and other agencies. Federal law allows an ebike to be regulated as a bicycle when it has under 750 watts of power, functional pedals, and a maximum speed under 20 mph. (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.; LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC BICYCLES SEC. 38.(a)). An ebike performs much like a conventional bike. Many of the early models available in the states were from Europe, and had built-in governors limiting motor-driven speeds to 20 mph. Many non-motorized bikes are pedaled at this speed for short distances. The ebike offers more range and perhaps a higher average speed than regular, non-powered bikes. Many ebikes are simply bicycles with small electric motors attached, either by the owner or by the seller.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-4 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 There are now some fast, commercially available ebikes. Many of these, such as the dual-motor Stealth ebike are intended and sold for recreational off-road use. Many more recently developed ebikes are capable of Class 3 speeds, and have throttles. The A2B ebike (Figure 1) is capable of a top speed of 28 mph; other ebikes reach 30, 35, or 40 mph while still physically resembling the slower Class 1 and 2 ebikes.

Figure 1 Unveiling the New A2B Ebike in New York. Source: (Pete, 2013)

The three classes of ebike have become a popularly used way to discuss the vehicle, and regulate its use. Class 1 ebikes can be treated as bikes and are treated the same by most federal, state, and local regulation. These ebikes have pedals, and pedaling is required for use of the motor (pedal-assist only). These have a maximum speed of 20 mph. If the ebike were to have a throttle (not pedal-assist only) it would be considered Class 2, and is treated much like bikes and Class 1 bikes.

Just above Class 2 is the threshold where contemporary roadway design standards are challenged to manage the vehicles safely. Regardless of how many wheels, the presence of pedals, or the frame type, any motorized vehicle capable of speeds above 20 mph requires special consideration. Class 3 ebikes may go as fast as 28 mph. And still other ebikes and strikes can travel faster. Some ‘roman’ scooters (mopeds) are capable of highway speeds.

PROLIFERATION

The appearance and growth of motorized scooters and other shared mobility has greatly changed commuter options in the urban area. Kick scooters and small motorcycles have been around for generations. A certain mobility exuberance in the early 20th century, contributed to many experimental vehicle types ( Figure 2). Although there are old photos and news articles about vehicles from 100 years ago, no personal vehicles rapidly proliferated and became commonplace, except for the automobile.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-5 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020

Figure 2 The U.S. Postal Service with the New Scooters in the Mid-1910s. Source: Underwood, 2019

The recent resurgence in the small motorized ‘oddities’ has occurred within one generation. Few of us had seen an ebike ten years ago, though they can be seen now across most U.S. cities. A major contributing factor is the great advances in lithium battery technology, which enables a small vehicle to have sufficient power for higher speeds and longer commutes.

As part of an Oregon Transportation Research and Education Center project, Dills and Rose studied 21 blogs, mining them for discussions of ebikes, and found that ebikes were successfully supplanting automobile trips on journeys of up to 24 km (15 miles). They also found that ebikes mitigated the adverse effects of steep grades for many commuters (Dill and Rose, 2012). A study of why people were interested in owning an ebike, produced the following results, listed in descending order of popularity: 1. To make cycling with headwind easier; 2. To be able to cycle over longer distances without (much) extra effort; 3. To make it easier to climb hills; 4. I am not very sporty but I would like to have (some) more exercise; 5. To cycle faster (less travel time) without (much) extra effort; 6. As an alternative to less environmentally friendly means of transport; 7. To get to work without sweating (Hendriksen, 2008).

The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) produced Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micro-Mobility. In it, they reported 84 million trips taken in 2018 on shared mobility devices, which are increasingly motorized. All of the shared scooter system in the US are motorized, as are many of the bike share systems (NACTO, 2019). The NACTO Guidelines provide recommendations for the contractual and system wide questions related to franchise fees, data sharing, equitable access, maintenance, etc. Very little mention is made of how to design for these vehicles in the public roadway right of way. The "infrastructure" section is largely about parking. Although the report fails to provide recommended street design improvements it does recognize the need for such. They assert that Cities should discuss how standards may need to be updated to accommodate the Middle Mode. ibid Growth in the use of ebikes in the U.S. is steady, with the pandemic accelerating the trend. Cobb reported in Streetblog Chicago that ebike sales are up 84 percent in March, 92 percent in April, and 137 percent in May. (Cobbs, 2020). She also quoted the general manager for Wheel & Sprocket in Evanston saying he doesn’t expect the increase in ebike sales to slow down anytime soon. “As more and more people find out they can replace a car and get a good workout with an ebike, we expect the popularity to continue to grow.” ibid

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-6 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 COMMUTING

According to the National Household Travel Survey, biking and walking make up 11.9 percent of all trips made in this country. (NHTS, 2010) Riding a bicycle is more ergonomically energy efficient than walking and enables the average rider to go 3.5 times as far as a pedestrian. (ibid)

For short trips, Table 1 shows mode choices in the U.S.

Table 1 Short Trips, Mode Share. Source: (NHTS, 2010)

<1 mile <2 mile <3 mile % of all trips 28 % 40 % 50 % Mode Bike 2.25% 2% 1.8% Walk 35% 26% 21% Car 60% 68% 72%

Also, according to the NHTS survey data, 59 percent of all bike trips are one mile or less and 85 percent are three miles or less. This speaks to issues of range for most bike commuters, and the ability of e-bikes to greatly change current biking trends.

The term travelshed is used to describe the area accessible in a typical commute, by different modes. Bike sheds have been found to include up to ten times as many homes from the same destination’s walk shed; and the ebike increases the number of accessible homes by a factor of 30 over walking (Parker, 1999). Ebikes promise increased travelsheds with minimal need for new infrastructure or other investments. Previous ebike travelshed research by Alan Parker yielded the following data:

Table 2 Parker's Modeled Ebike-Sheds. Source: (Parker, 1999)

Factors Mode Walk Bike Racing Bike Ebike Speed (km/h) 6.1 20 25 24 Distance (km) 0.8 2.5 3.2 7 Catchment Area (sq. km) 1.3 12.4 20 40

In the 2018 book, Bicycle Urbanism, researchers, including the author, present the results of ebike travelshed modeling completed in Portland, OR. For the purposes of this study, two ebike ‘design vehicles’ were used. The two types include: e-assist bikes, commercially available bikes with speed governors or roughly 250-watt motors; and e-power bikes, which are more frequently home-built, have longer range and often have higher average and top speeds. We can consider the e-assist to include Class 1 and 2 ebikes, where the e-power bikes would be the Class 3 vehicles capable of speeds greater than 20 mph.

With these new vehicle types, the researcher used ArcGIS Network Analyst to consider various factors including signal timing, topography, and known barriers and impedances to bike/ebike travel. The results represent the modeled five-minute travelshed for bikes, e-assist bikes, and e- power bikes. The contours display the distances that could be travelled in only five minutes. Clearly the reach of the ebikes is evident. When measured in total acreage accessed within five minutes, the three vehicle types perform as shown in Table 3 Acres Accessed by Vehicle Type within Five

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-7 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020

MinutesTable 3 Acres Accessed by Vehicle Type within Five Minutes. Source: (Berney, 2018)Table 3. The scenarios refer to the different study areas.

Table 3 Acres Accessed by Vehicle Type within Five Minutes. Source: (Berney, 2018) Scenario Bicycle E-Assist (Class 2) E-Power (Class 3) Bike Accessed Acres EBike Accessed Acres EBike Access Acres Suburban Neighborhood 1,527.8 3,043.7 5,125.7 Urban Westside 828.7 1,754.7 3,014.8 Urban Eastside 1,485.3 3,237.7 5,368.5

The scenarios tested bike travel in different urban transects, allowing for a comparison between suburban and urban areas. The original modeling was also useful in identifying barriers to bike travel. Figure 3, below, shows the three Five-Minute travelsheds centered on Portland’s Lloyd District.

Figure 3 Five-Minute Bike, E-Assist Bike, and E-Power Bike Shed. Source: (1)

It is clear from these and other studies that the ebike has numerous advantages for the user. But there are social benefits as well, making it increasingly necessary to consider these vehicles in roadway design. Studies have found that ebike trips take the place of trips made by car. For every 100 miles travelled by ebike, 73 miles would have been driven (McQueen, 2018). “Ebikes offer regions a new opportunity to effectively diminish their transportation carbon footprint” (McQueen 2018, Pete 2013).

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-8 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 LEGAL ISSUES

Researchers have found that the average speed of an ebike is 24 kmh (14.9 mph), compared with 17 kmh (10.5 mph) on a traditional bike (Hendriksen, et al. 2008). Class 3 ebikes and many home-built models are capable of cruising speeds above 20 mph and top speeds above 30 mph. Vehicles capable of such speeds can mix poorly with slower cyclists, walkers, joggers, and persons in wheelchairs or pushing baby strollers. Cyclists have expressed concern about the mixing of bikes and ebikes because of the higher speeds of ebikes (Dill & Rose, 2012). Many jurisdictions, including the State of Illinois, have adopted the three-class approach. It standardized regulations among many states, and provides clarity for users, motorists, and retailers. The advocacy organization, PeopleForBikes asserts that Class 1 and 2 bikes should be allowed where pedal bikes are allowed and Class 3 only on roadways, in vehicular travel lanes. The District of Columbia and 31 states have now defined ebikes – and differentiating them from motor vehicles. Other states, and any jurisdiction that has no definition for ebikes essentially ‘lumps’ them in with motor vehicles, thereby precluding them from use on bike facilities and recreational trails (NCSL, 2020). Illinois State Law Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed a bill in 2017, which addressed ebike definitions and thereby the use on paths and roadways. Many elements were clarified. As with ebike legislation at the federal level, the most critical element is the definition. It is important that while ebikes are motorized vehicles, they are not motor vehicles. This is very important. Years ago, many states had not considered ebikes, which were unknowingly considered motor vehicles, which are not allowed on bike lanes or sidewalks, require a Vehicle Identification Number, licensing, insurance, etc. The Illinois Vehicle Code may have inadvertently included ebikes previously, but no longer does. The new law added the following clarification to the definition of a motor vehicle: “…Every vehicle which is self-propelled …except for vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, low-speed electric bicycles, and low-speed gas bicycles.” [Emphasis added]

This section provides the language from Illinois Statutes Chapter 625. Vehicles §-1517.Low- speed electric bicycles § 11-1517. Low-speed electric bicycles.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the provisions of this Chapter that apply to bicycles also apply to low-speed electric bicycles. (b) Each low-speed electric bicycle operating in this State shall comply with equipment and manufacturing requirements adopted by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission under 16 CFR 1512. Each Class 3 low-speed electric bicycle shall be equipped with a speedometer that displays the speed the bicycle is traveling in miles per hour. (c) Beginning on or after January 1, 2018, every manufacturer and distributor of low-speed electric bicycles shall apply a label that is permanently affixed to the bicycle in a prominent location. The label shall contain, in Arial font in at least 9-point type:

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-9 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 (1) a classification number for the bicycle that corresponds with a class under Section 1-140.10 of this Code; (2) the bicycle's top assisted speed; and (3) the bicycle's motor wattage.

No person shall knowingly tamper or modify the speed capability or engagement of a low-speed electric bicycle without replacing the label required under this subsection (c). (d) A Class 2 low-speed electric bicycle shall operate in a manner so that the electric motor is disengaged or ceases to function when the brakes are applied. A Class 1 low-speed electric bicycle and a Class 3 low-speed electric bicycle shall operate in a manner so that the electric motor is disengaged or ceases to function when the rider stops pedaling. (e) A person may operate a low-speed electric bicycle upon any highway, street, or roadway authorized for use by bicycles, including, but not limited to, bicycle lanes. (f) A person may operate a low-speed electric bicycle upon any bicycle path unless the municipality, county, or local authority with jurisdiction prohibits the use of low-speed electric bicycles or a specific class of low-speed electric bicycles on that path. (g) A person may not operate a low-speed electric bicycle on a sidewalk. (h) A person may operate a Class 3 low-speed electric bicycle only if he or she is 16 years of age or older. A person who is less than 16 years of age may ride as a passenger on a Class 3 low-speed electric bicycle that is designed to accommodate passengers.

Specific Sections for Discussion § 11-1517. (c) …every manufacturer and distributor of low-speed electric bicycles shall apply a label that is permanently affixed to the bicycle in a prominent location. The label shall contain…a classification number….the bicycle's top assisted speed…and the bicycle's motor wattage. This section is somewhat problematic, as is the three-tier system of ebike classes. Few manufacturers provide these types of labels. And many performance factors, such as speed and wattage vary greatly for even a single vehicle, based on battery charge and age, gearing, the controller programming, weight of the rider, etc. A standard ebike ‘computer’ dashboard will show greatly changing wattage during a normal ride. Furthermore, home-built models and kits are very popular, and come with no such labels. And lastly, a falsified label can misrepresent the actual performance, though state law disallows doing this. A park ranger, fellow cyclist, or state trooper may see a sticker that says ‘Max. 750 watts’ but that doesn’t mean it is accurate. Anecdotally, the author has known many hobbyists to use a 750w sticker even when the vehicle is much more powerful. The author has called two bike shops in Lake County to confirm the presumed inconsistencies with wattage and speed labels. Few commercial bikes come with these labels. Neither the manufacturers nor the consumers seem overly committed to this new rule. As suspected, new ebikes are being purchased and used without these labels.

To further complicate matters, the definition on low-speed ebikes in Illinois now includes the faster Class 3 vehicles. The legislation does state that Class 3 ebikes cannot go faster than 28 mph (625 ILCS 5/1-140.10). By grouping these together, it is difficult to apply this ‘low-speed’ electric bicycle in all conditions. Within some bike facilities, a 28

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-10 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 mph ebike would be unsafe. And lastly, an ebike that is able to travel at 29 mph is what? It is not suddenly a motorcycle, requiring licenses and a VIN. There is also the chance that law-abiding people may accidentally select an ebike that does not meet the definitions. An older person, perhaps with some mobility impairment, travelling at a reasonable speed on a trail through a park should not be criminalized simply because their ebike can attain 30 mph.

§ 11-1517. (e) A person may operate a low-speed electric bicycle upon any highway, street, or roadway authorized for use by bicycles, including, but not limited to, bicycle lanes.

This section provides a much-needed clarity so the low-speed ebikes can use bike lanes.

§ 11-1517. (f) A person may operate a low-speed electric bicycle upon any bicycle path unless the municipality, county, or local authority with jurisdiction prohibits the use of low- speed electric bicycles or a specific class of low-speed electric bicycles on that path.

This is the heart of the matter for Lake County and governs its ability to make more stringent regulations. It also allows the County to allow only Class I and 2 ebikes on trails. While using the three class helps, it also causes some new confusion. How is it actionable? How would law enforcement officers know if an ebike is Class 2 or 3? What if the sticker had fallen off? How would they know the peak wattage of the motor? And can a Class 3 ebike not use a trail or bike lane at slow speeds?

Lake County Code of Ordinances

The current Lake County ordinance regulating uses of bike paths is in Chapter 96, on Recreational Vehicles On Land.

§ 96.03 PERMITTED AND RESTRICTED USES. (A) Any use of a bikeway is prohibited until it is officially opened to public use by the County Engineer. (B) Bikeways are restricted to the following uses: (1) Bicycles; (2) Pedestrians; (3) All vehicles and equipment of the Lake County Division of Transportation or its authorized agents; (4) Police and emergency vehicles; (5) Vehicles and equipment of government, or private utility companies, for the maintenance of their utilities along the bike path; and (6) Any use in accordance with the terms of a permit issued by a government having such authority and jurisdiction.

(C) All other motorized and non-motorized vehicles and means of conveyances are prohibited from using a bikeway, including but not limited to the following: (1) Motor vehicles; (2) Motorcycles; (3) Motor bikes; (4) Mini-bikes;

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-11 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 (5) Mopeds; (6) Go-carts; (7) Dirt bikes; (8) All terrain vehicles; (9) Equine; (10) Equine drawn vehicles; and (11) Snowmobiles.

At a glance, ebikes are still prohibited on Lake County owned bike paths, unless the ordinance were amended. But it could be argued that the ordinance does not list ebikes among the prohibited vehicles. An ebike is not a motor vehicle (by state or federal law), nor is it a motorcycle or mini-bike. The federal law clearly states that ebikes, certainly Class 1 and 2, are to be treated just like bikes, and would therefore be allowed on County owned trails. But clarification would be beneficial to users and the County as well.

Other Jurisdictions Vermont specifies that motor-assisted bicycles are governed as bicycles and have the same rights and duties applicable to bicyclists. Hawaii’s law does not include restrictions on where ebikes may operate. The states of Arizona, Minnesota, Utah and Washington, allow ebikes on the road and on trails (with some exceptions) but with the caveat that many carve out exceptions for localities to enact stricter regulations. Illinois also allows localities to institute more demanding regulations. (NCSL, 2020) It is important to consider and to clarify ebike usage on lands under the management of various jurisdictions. Many trails and parks include different types of federal and/or state lands. Generally, in the U.S., federal land managers have considered ebikes to be motor vehicles and thereby disallowed on trail systems. But that has been changing, concurrent with the changes in many states. Much of that changed about one year ago. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed Order No. 3376 “intended to increase recreational opportunities for all Americans, especially those with physical limitations, and to encourage the enjoyment of lands and waters managed by the Department of the Interior.” (Forest Service, 2020). The order instructed the Forest Service and National Park Service to develop rules, though they had to be permissive: “Sec. 4 Policy. Consistent with governing laws and regulations: b) Ebikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed…” ibid. This has essentially ended the ebike ban on federal land.

Figure 4 City of Boulder, Trail Specialist Topher Downham on an etrike. Source: Chris Lawlor, provided to The Colorado Sun

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-12 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 DESIGN OPTIONS

For e-assist bikes with the same performance and dimensions as conventional bikes, the need for new designs is low. But for the e-power bikes with greater speeds, there is a need for separated facilities, which enable fast commuting, and meandering strolls along the same route. The following design treatments have been provided for their suitability to ebikes. Note – the author is currently conducting research and developing cross-sections with a special lane for Middle Modal vehicles in the urban area. Bike Passing Lane Bike passing lanes allow two speeds of cyclists to co-exist without conflict. These designs were originally conceived to simply help faster cyclists separate themselves from slower cyclists. This can help break up bike platoons and reduce frustration among the faster cyclists. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) design guidance for a passing lane includes a width of 5 feet adjacent to a 5‐feet bike lane and a 4‐inch wide skip stripe separating the lanes. (Figure 5)

Figure 5 Passing Lane. Source: bikeportland.org

Separate Users Ideally, fast and slow users of a facility should be separated. The modes can be separated, which previously was most easily communicated and enforced, or the speeds can be separated. If there is sufficient space, more modes are accommodated by three or four lanes, allowing a greater range of speeds. For separated lanes, PBOT’s guidance shared the following design details from the Dutch, Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering (CROW). • Ideally, pedestrians and bicyclists should be separated • Bike & ped traffic can be combined if < 200 peds/hr/meter of profile width • Full combination – 100 peds/hr/meter of profile width • Visual separation (simple marking) – up to 160 peds per hr per meter of width • “Soft separation”‐ separate bicycle travel path using different paving material 160‐200 peds/hr/meter of width

Similar approaches have been taken to separate recreational users by speed. See Figure 6 and 7.

Figure 6 Speed Differentiation Signage, NYC. Source: Author

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-13 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020

Figure 7 Separated users in Vancouver, BC’s Stanley Park. (Source: Author)

The City of Portland suggests a minimum path of 12 ft (4 m) and a standard width of 16 ft (5 m). The PBOT preferred width for a shared‐use pathway is a 16 ft bike lane, centered in the right of way, with pedestrian paths on each side (6 ft min, 8 ft standard width) (PBOT, 2010).

Bike Storage Adequacy of bike storage at key destinations is very important for on-street use of ebikes, used for commuting. Trail usage does not require robust storage options, since nearly all riders arrive with, and leave with, their bike or ebike. But, to make use of the mode-shift and carbon-reduction benefits of widespread ebike use, more storage options are very helpful. The higher costs of ebikes increases the need for safe storage. Many of these vehicles retail for $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or more. Riders are reluctant to simply put a lock on such an expensive item, hoping to secure it to an outdoor bicycle rack. Instead, bike storage lockers, bike stations, and indoor bike hubs provide safe, weather-protected storage. And some have charging ports. See figures.

Figure 8 Bike Station Opening, Washington DC. Source: BikeStation

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-14 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020

Figure 9 Bike Lockers in Portland, OR. Source: Author

Figure 10 Indoor Bike Hub, Portland OR. Source: Author

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-15 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 CONCLUSION

The ebike constitutes a nearly new mode of transportation, a mode between other modes. Planning and facility design that recognizes the growth in ebikes and other small electric vehicles is called Middle Modalism. City leaders, transportation advocates, bike planners and engineers need to acknowledge and thoughtfully consider Middle Modalism in transportation planning and design.

Middle Modalism demands the development of new approaches, new planning techniques, and new designs for transportation facilities of various types and speeds. Failure to properly plan for the proliferation of ebikes will result in conflicts among users, unsafe conditions, and may result in the banning of ebikes - despite how well ebikes are aligned with widely adopted goals for mobility, active transportation, and climate change.

Lake County staff should continue to consider proper planning, design, and regulation for ebikes. Consider taking local decision-makers on a short ebike trip. It will be informative and fun. Consider taking leaders that would not otherwise ride a bicycle. It will not take much time for riders to understand not only the benefits of ebikes, but also the ill-fitting use of it on trails, in bike lanes, and in travel lanes.

Draft code language could be developed by the County, using the language of the State Law, to clarify whether ebikes are allowed on trails. Many jurisdictions would allow only Class 1 and 2s on the trails. Alternately, the County can simply allow all ‘low-speed electric bicycles’ and institute a speed limit for the parks or the trails. This approach has merit, since it is very possible, even without any ebikes, to have an athlete travelling above 20 mph on the same trail as young children on their first mountain bike adventure.

Consider and discuss with diverse parties setting speed limits for ebikes, for bike facilities, multi- use paths, trails, everywhere but the travel lanes for cars where ebikes may need additional speed. 15mph or 20mph are reasonable choices. The County should also develop appropriate signage for ebikes on the trails, parks, and possibly for roadways. The Federal Highway Administration has not yet approved a suite of ebike signage, even for interim use, so these cannot yet be found in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devises. In Section 2G, the MUTCD provides some guidance on how to design, stripe, and sign Preferential and Managed Lanes. The subsection addressing high-occupancy and other special purpose lanes provides some useful guidance. The MUTCD allows these preferential lanes to be barrier or buffer separated or separated merely with striping. The County should also inventory existing signage and not allow new signage to mistakenly conflate motor vehicles and motorized vehicles.

Consider adding clarifying language to trail guides, bike guides, and other materials circulated by the trail users, or bike groups. And lastly, use these materials, social media and other platforms to encourage trail etiquette. The Rails to Trails Conservancy recommends:

• Maintain safe speeds. Heed all posted speed limits. • Keep right, pass left and call out as you do. • Yield to pedestrians, equestrian users and other slower trail users. (Rail To Trail, 2020)

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-16 APPENDIX E Electric-assist Mobility September 2020 REFERENCES

Berney R. Bicycle Urbanism: Reimagining Bicycle Friendly Cities. Chapter 6. Middle Modalism: The Proliferation Of Ebikes And Implications For Planning And Urban Design, by Derek Chisholm. Taylor and Francis. 2018

Cobbs, C. The Pandemic Has Inspired More Chicagoans To Buy Ebikes. STREETSBLOG CHICAGO. Sep 2, 2020

Dill, J. and G. Rose. “Ebikes and Transportation Policy: Insights from Early Adopters.” Submitted for presentation and publication to the 91th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board). January 22-26, 2012

Forest Service. Ebikes on Public Lands. Accessed at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/visit/ebikes. 2020

Hendriksen, I., L. Engbers, J. Schrijver, R. van Gijlswijk, J. Weltevreden, J. Wilting. Electric Cycling: Market Research And Exploration Of Prospects. (TNO Kwaliteit van Leven). 2008

NACTO. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micro-Mobility. Version 2. 2019

NHTS, Highlights the 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Federal Highway Administration Office of Policy. 2010.

Mason S and Mahoney, K. NCHRP Synthesis Report 316: Design Exception Practices. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.

McQueen, M., et. al. Ebikes on Person Miles Travelled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Transportation Research And Education Center. Portland State University. 2019.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). State Electric Bicycle Laws | A Legislative Primer. Accessed at: https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-electric-bicycle-laws-a- legislative-primer.aspx. 2020.

Parker, A, A. Power Assisted Bicycles Flatten Cities. Australian Cyclist. February - March 1999, Pg. 60-63.

Pete. The New A2B Electric Bikes from HERO Eco!. Electric Bike Report, retrieved from http://electricbikereport.com/the-new-a2b-electric-bikes-from-hero-eco/ on May 17, 2013. Portland Bureau of Transportation. Bikeway Facility Design. Survey of Best Practices. City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2010.

Rails To Trails. Management Guide/ ebikes. Accessed at: https://www.railstotrails.org/build- trails/trail-building-toolbox/management-and-maintenance/ebikes/. 2020.

Underwood Archives Photography. Accessed at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/motorized-scooter-boom-hit-century-dockless- scooters-180971989/. Found in The Motorized Scooter Boom That Hit a Century Before Dockless Scooters. Mansky, J. April 18, 2019.

AECOM Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study Page E-17 SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 37

SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum

AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study 38