Combined Design Report SEPTEMBER 2013

VOLUME 1 OF 3

Circle (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Circle Interchange project is located within the City of , Cook County, . The project study area is along /94 (I-90/94) from south of (on the south) to north of (on the north), along Interstate 290 (I-290) from Loomis Street (on the west) to the Circle Interchange; and along Congress Parkway from the Circle Interchange to Canal Street/Old Post Office (on the east). The distance along each expressway is approximately 1.5 miles for I-90/94 and approximately 1.2 miles for Congress Parkway/I-290, for a total length of 2.7 miles along study area routes. Refer to Appendix A for a location map. The Circle Interchange is a system interchange which connects I-90/94 with I-290/Congress Parkway. It directly connects three expressways and a major arterial: the Expressway (I-90/94 north of the interchange), the (I-90/94 south of the interchange), the Eisenhower Expressway (I-290 west of the interchange), and Congress Parkway (east of the interchange). Congress Parkway provides a direct link into the Chicago Central Business District (CBD). Other nearby expressways feed towards the Circle Interchange, including the Edens Expressway (I-94, eight miles north of the Circle Interchange), the Stevenson Expressway (I-55, one mile south), the Chicago Skyway (I-90, seven miles south), the Bishop Ford Freeway (I-94, 11 miles south), I-57 (11 miles south) and the Regan Memorial Tollway (I-88, merges with I-290 approximately 13 miles west). The Circle Interchange is situated among diverse land uses. The four quadrants around the interchange include Greektown/West Loop to the northwest, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and the Illinois Medical District to the southwest, an industrial setting to the southeast and a mix of residential, retail and office spaces adjacent to the Loop (central business district) to the northeast.

Purpose and Need

The Circle Interchange was built in the late 1950s and early 1960s as part of the Interstate Highway System. The Circle Interchange is one of the worst bottlenecks in the country for traffic congestion. The interchange experiences breakdown conditions for many hours of the day, causing substantial back-ups in every direction. As a result, it was ranked as the No. 1 bottleneck in the country based on a study completed by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Freight Management and Operations. The study monitored 250 highway locations. The Circle Interchange had “the highest congestion index (and therefore has the highest level of congestion that significantly impacts trucking”.1 Based on a free flow speed of 55 miles per hour (mph), the study determined the average speed for the interchange was 29 mph, with a peak average speed of 22 mph and a non-peak average speed of 32 mph.2 The purpose of the project is to provide an improved transportation facility at the Circle Interchange by addressing the existing and 2040 transportation needs. This will be accomplished by improving safety, mobility, and facility deficiencies of the mainline and interchange. A review of the crash history showed a total of 2,819 crashes occurred within the study area from 2006 through 2008. Of the 2,819 crashes from 2006 through 2008, 286 crashes or 10 percent resulted in injuries. During this period there were four Type K (fatality) crashes, 33 Type A (incapacitating injury) crashes, 142 Type B (non-incapacitating injury), and 107 Type C (reported, injury not evident) crashes. The most common type of crash was rear-end, accounting for 56.8 percent of the total crashes from 2006 through 2008. The next most common crash types were

1 Source: ATRI web page at http://atri-online.org/2011/10/01/fpm-congestion-monitoring-at-250-freight-significant-highway- locations 2 Ibid September 2013 i

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report sideswipe same direction and fixed object for an additional 40.4 percent of the total crashes in 2006 through 2008. Refer to the Crash Analysis of Existing Conditions report for the full analysis, under separate cover, available at the IDOT District 1 office. The Circle Interchange serves over 400,000 vehicles per day, about 33,000 of which are trucks, with a total vehicle peak hour flow of nearly 24,000 vehicles per hour. The interchange experiences breakdown conditions for many hours of the day, causing substantial congestion in all directions. Unlike many expressway systems that show sharp peaks in traffic during weekday AM and PM rush hours, the Circle Interchange experiences heavy congestion throughout the day and into the evening. Traffic volumes peak sharply around 7:00 AM and remain relatively high throughout the afternoon and evening until about 9:00 PM. This trend is evident for both weekdays and weekends. Operations of the interchange are influenced by both geometrics and facility condition. Multiple geometric elements are deficient at certain locations within the Circle Interchange. These include steep grades, sharp curves, narrow lane and shoulder widths, substandard bridge clearances, entrance and exit ramp tapers, and triple convergences and divergences. There have been no major improvements made to the Circle Interchange since its construction in the 1950s.

Alternatives Considered

The Circle Interchange project study team considered multiple alternatives, including the No-Build alternative, a transportation system management alternative and 30 Build alternatives. The Build alternatives represented a wide array of improvement ideas ranging from minor modifications to the existing interchange to fully directional interchanges.

The alternative evaluation process involved technical evaluation by the project study team and collaboration with the FHWA and the Department in a series of geometric workshops. The process to evaluate alternatives began at a broad level to identify fatal flaws and then added more detail with each successive round. Throughout this process, alternatives were compared relative to other alternatives and to specific criteria. Each round removed alternatives that performed poorly and, in some cases, introduced new or refined alternatives. This process concluded with a Recommended Alternative, which was then refined into the Preferred Alternative. The Alternative Histogram in Appendix L diagrams how each alternative moved through this process. The evaluation process included five rounds:

1. Fatal Flaw Evaluation 2. Purpose and Need Evaluation 3. Performance Evaluation 4. Specific Issues Evaluation 5. Final Evaluation

Preferred Alternative

Following an extensive evaluation process, Alternative A-7.1c was recommended as the Preferred Alternative. It best meets the Purpose and Need of the project by improving safety, mobility, operational deficiencies and facility condition as described in Section 5.2. It accomplishes other goals of the project by requiring a minimal amount of land acquisition, requiring no permanent acquisition of CTA property in the median of I-290, being compatible with future expansion along I-90/94, and being constructible.

Alternative A-7.1c provides four lanes per direction along I-90/94, correcting a lane balance issue that resulted in a traffic bottleneck, as well as ramp improvements. The key ramp improvements include, but are not limited to, the following:

September 2013 ii

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

 Ramp NW widened to two lanes and placed on a flyover with smoother horizontal alignment and vertical profiles, improving safety and mobility.  Ramp EN widened to two lanes and placed on improved alignments to increase safety and mobility.  A new northbound C-D (collector-distributor) road that allows northbound downtown-bound traffic to bypass the Ramp EN merge onto northbound I-90/94. This addresses the existing weaving condition along northbound I-90/94 between traffic exiting to downtown and merging Ramp EN traffic. Note that this northbound C-D road is different than the existing Ramp NE/Ramp NW C-D road.  A new southbound C-D road that accommodates traffic headed to Adams Street, Jackson Boulevard, eastbound Congress Parkway, westbound I-290 and Taylor Street.

Project Benefits

The Preferred Alternative addresses the Purpose and Need of the project in improving safety, mobility and facility condition. The prominent benefits in improving the Circle Interchange include the following:

 Reduction of up to five million hours annually of drivers sitting in congested traffic  Savings of $185 million annually in lost production from delayed travelers  Reduction in idle time resulting in nearly 1.6 million gallons annually  Reducing the predicted number of severe crashes by up to 25% Refer to Appendix H for calculations of benefits.

Coordination Activities

Coordination has been made with the following agencies and copies of the coordination documents and minutes of the one-on-one meetings are contained in the Circle Interchange Combined Design Report, Volume 3, which is a separate document available at IDOT, District 1 Office in Schaumburg, Illinois.  U.S. Army Corp of Engineers  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  U.S Fish and Wildlife Service  Illinois Department of Agriculture  Illinois Department of Natural Resources  Illinois Environmental Protection Agency  Illinois Historic Preservation Agency  Illinois Natural History Survey  Illinois State Geological Survey  Cook County  City of Chicago  Chicago Department of Transportation  Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning  Chicago Transit Authority  University of Illinois at Chicago Coordination efforts have occurred with several resource agencies regarding clearances for biological resources (threatened and endangered species), wetlands, and cultural resources. In addition, fourteen FHWA/IDOT Coordination Meetings have been held. Minutes of these meetings and copies of the clearances are included in Volume 3.

September 2013 iii

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Coordination was also held with first responders. These responders include the Illinois State Police, IDOT Emergency Traffic Patrol and the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications. Public Officials have also received regular updates on the project. The public officials include Alderman Fioretti (2nd Ward), Alderman Burnett (27th Ward) and Alderman Solis (25th Ward), and State Senator Patricia Van Pelt (5th Legislative District).

Public Involvement

Public outreach has been accomplished by holding public meetings, establishing a Project Working Group (PWG) and hosting a website. The following events have been held as part of this project:

 PWG Meeting #1 (8/16/2012)  Public Informational Meeting (8/30/2012)  PWG Meeting #2 (10/26/2012)  PWG Meeting #3 (12/11/2012)  PWG Design Charrette (1/22/2013)  PWG Meeting #4 (3/1/2013)  Public Hearing #1 (4/3/2013)  Public Hearing #2 (6/27/2013)

Implementation

Implementation of the Circle Interchange reconstruction is anticipated to be a single effort, split into six main phases. The first three phases of construction include reconstruction of northbound I-90/94 from Roosevelt Road to the Circle Interchange, the replacement of several cross street bridges and construction of the new Ramp NW flyover structure which will connect northbound I-90/94 to westbound I-290. These bridges include the two Harrison Street Bridges over I-90/94, the Peoria Street Bridge, and the Bridge over I-290. The fourth phase of construction will include reconstruction of eastbound and westbound I-290/Congress Parkway from the old Chicago Post Office to just west of Loomis Street along with the reconstruction of two system interchange ramps, Ramp ES, a portion of Ramp SW, and Ramp NE.

The fifth phase of construction will include the replacement of the Van Buren Street Bridge, the Jackson Boulevard Bridge, the Adams Street Bridge and the Monroe Street Bridge over I-90/94 and reconstruction of I-90/94 from the Circle Interchange to Lake Street. This phase will also include construction of the new northbound I-90/94 C-D road along with reconstruction of the I-90/94 exit/entrance ramps and three system interchange ramps, the completion of Ramp SW, Ramp EN and Ramp WN. The sixth and final phase of construction will include construction of the new southbound bypass ramp to Taylor Street along with the final two system interchange ramps, Ramp SE and Ramp WS.

Expressed in year-of-expenditure dollars, the opinion of probable costs of the Preferred Alternative is $535.5M. This includes engineering and construction costs.

September 2013 iv

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Description and Location of Project ...... 1 1.2. History of Project ...... 1 1.3. Design Criteria ...... 2 2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT ...... 3 2.1. Purpose ...... 3 2.2. Safety ...... 3 2.3. Mobility ...... 7 2.4. Facility Deficiencies ...... 8 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 11 3.1. Description of Project Area ...... 11 3.2. Logical Termini ...... 11 3.3. Land Use ...... 11 3.4. Conditions on the Existing Highway Network ...... 15 3.5. Existing Drainage ...... 18 3.6. Existing Utilities ...... 20 3.7. Existing Environmental Resources ...... 20 4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED...... 22 4.1. No-Build Alternative ...... 22 4.2. Transportation System Management (Congestion Management Process) Alternative ...... 22 4.3. Build Alternatives ...... 23 4.4. Alternative Evaluation ...... 29 5. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STUDIED IN DETAIL ...... 38 5.1. General Description ...... 38 5.2. Attainment of Purpose and Need ...... 39 5.3. Traffic Service to Region ...... 47 5.4. Engineering Considerations and Aesthetics ...... 47 5.5. Proposed Structures ...... 50 5.6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...... 50 5.7. CTA Blue Line Station Improvements ...... 51 5.8. Drainage Improvements ...... 51 5.9. Utility Accommodation ...... 52

September 2013 v

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

5.10. Social, Economic and Environmental Effects ...... 54 5.11. Discussion of Benefits and Costs ...... 54 5.12. Project Implementation ...... 55 6. COORDINATION ACTIVITIES ...... 57 6.1. Agency Coordination ...... 57 6.2. Stakeholder Coordination ...... 57 6.3. Utility Coordination ...... 58 7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 59 7.1. Project Working Group ...... 59 7.2. Vibration Workshop ...... 61 7.3. Public Informational Meeting ...... 61 7.4. Public Hearing #1 ...... 62 7.5. Public Hearing #2 ...... 63 7.6. Project Website ...... 64 8. COMMITMENTS AND SPECIAL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...... 65 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 68 9.1. Preferred Design Alternative ...... 68 9.2. Attainment of Purpose and Need ...... 68 9.3. Design Exceptions ...... 68 9.4. Project Implementation ...... 69

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Original Circle Interchange Construction ...... 2 Figure 2.1 Crashes by Hour of Day (2006-2008) ...... 5 Figure 2.2 Crash Rates at Circle Interchange System Ramps ...... 6 Figure 2.3 Typical Northbound Congestion in the PM Peak Approaching the Circle Interchange ...... 7 Figure 2.4 Typical Southbound Congestion in the PM Peak Approaching the Circle ...... 8 Figure 3.1 Existing Circle Interchange ...... 11 Figure 3.2 Chicagoland Expressway System ...... 12 Figure 3.3 ...... 13 Figure 3.4 Greek Monument ...... 13 Figure 3.5 University of Illinois at Chicago East Campus ...... 14 Figure 3.6 Medical Center ...... 14

September 2013 vi

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Figure 3.7 Cermak Pump Station ...... 14 Figure 3.8 Market ...... 15 Figure 3.9 Van Buren Street approaching Jefferson Street ...... 15 Figure 3.10 CTA Blue Line in I-290 Median ...... 17 Figure 3.11 UIC-Halsted Street Station ...... 17 Figure 3.12 CTA Blue Line Tunnels below Congress Parkway ...... 17 Figure 3.13 CTA Bus Facility (SE Quadrant) ...... 18 Figure 3.14 Cermak Pump Station ...... 18 Figure 3.15 IDOT Pump Station No. 5 ...... 18 Figure 3.16 Haberdasher Square Lofts ...... 18 Figure 5.1 Rendering of Preferred Alternative...... 38 Figure 5.2 Ramp NW/Ramp NE C-D Road Safety Issue ...... 39 Figure 5.3 Westbound Triple Convergence Safety Issue ...... 40 Figure 5.4 Eastbound Triple Divergence Safety Issue ...... 41 Figure 5.5 Northbound Convergence Safety Issue ...... 41 Figure 5.6 Artistic Rendering of Jackson Blvd...... 49 Figure 5.7 Artistic Rendering of Peoria Street ...... 49 Figure 5.8 Artistic Rendering of Halsted Street ...... 49 Figure 5.9 Artistic Rendering of Des Plaines St...... 49 Figure 7.1 PWG Meeting #1 ...... 59 Figure 7.2 PWG Meeting #2 ...... 60 Figure 7.3 PWG Meeting #3 ...... 60 Figure 7.4 PWG Design Charrette ...... 61 Figure 7.5 Public Informational Meeting #1 ...... 62 Figure 7.6 Project Website Home Page ...... 64

September 2013 vii

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Total Crashes by Injury Severity (2006-2008) ...... 3 Table 2.2 Total Crashes by Collision Type (2006-2008) ...... 4 Table 2.3 Total Crashes by Roadway Condition (2006-2008) ...... 5 Table 2.4 Total Crashes by Lighting Conditions (2006-2008) ...... 5 Table 3.1 Existing Structure Sufficiency Ratings...... 16 Table 3.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations (Existing Conditions) ...... 16 Table 4.1 Fatal Flaw Evaluation ...... 30 Table 4.2 Purpose and Need Evaluation ...... 31 Table 4.3 Performance Evaluation ...... 33 Table 4.4 Specific Issue Evaluation ...... 34 Table 4.5 Alternatives Evaluation Memo ...... 36 Table 5.1 I-90/94 Peak Hour Volumes (2040 Build) and Theoretical Capacity ...... 42 Table 5.2 Mobility on Ramp NW ...... 42 Table 5.3 Mobility on Ramp EN ...... 43 Table 5.4 Northbound Decision Points ...... 44 Table 5.5 Southbound Decision Points ...... 44 Table 5.6 Eastbound Decision Points ...... 45 Table 5.7 Westbound Decision Points ...... 45 Table 5.8 Ramp Design Speeds ...... 46 Table 5.9 Weaving Areas ...... 46 Table 5.10 Travel Time Comparison ...... 47 Table 5.11 Eliminated Movements and Alternative Routes ...... 47 Table 5.12 Cross Street Enhancements ...... 48 Table 5.13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations (Preferred Alternative) ...... 51

September 2013 viii

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

APPENDICIES – 8.5” x 11” Appendix A Location Map Appendix B Environmental Clearances Appendix C Master Structure Reports Appendix D Utility Coordination Appendix E Alternatives Evaluation Memorandum Appendix F FHWA Routes Requiring 16’-0” Clearance Letter (2006) Appendix G Cost Estimate Review Close-Out Presentation Appendix H Technical Memorandums i. Traffic Modeling Results ii. Comparison of Alternatives A-7.1C and A-15.4 iii. Design Speed iv. Predictive Safety Analysis v. Ramp Northbound to Westbound (NW) Analysis vi. Bicycle Checklist vii. Sustainability Practices Appendix I Approvals i. Level One Design Exceptions ii. Exception to Compliance with the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule iii. Transportation Management Plan iv. IDOT District One Geometric Studies Unit Approval v. Access Justification Report vi. Environmental Assessment Signature Sheet vii. Finding of No Significant Impact Signature Sheet

September 2013 ix

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

VOLUME 2 OF 3 APPENDICIES – 11”x17” Appendix J Constraints of Existing Conditions Aerial Appendix K Traffic Volumes Appendix L Alternative Histogram Appendix M Build Alternatives Considered Appendix N Cross Street Exhibits Appendix O Existing Typical Sections Appendix P Proposed Typical Sections Appendix Q Preferred Alternative Appendix R Preliminary Right-of-Way Requirements Appendix S Design Exceptions Appendix T Intersection Design Studies Appendix U Aesthetics

September 2013 x

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

VOLUME 3 OF 3

Coordination Documents (tabbed as follows): Volume 3A  FHWA Meetings  Agency Coordination  Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning  University of Illinois at Chicago  Stakeholder Correspondence  Elected Officials  Media Coverage Volume 3B  Stakeholder Involvement Plan (SIP)  Public Informational Meeting  Public Hearing #1  Public Hearing #2  Project Working Group Workshop #1  Project Working Group Workshop #2  Project Working Group Workshop #3  Project Working Group Workshop #4  Project Working Group Design Charrette  Vibration Workshop  Public Comments and Responses

September 2013 xi

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

REPORTS UNDER SEPARATE COVER Access Justification Report (2013) Bridge Condition Reports (2013)  I-290 EB over I-90/94 (016-1029)  I-90/94 SB to Taylor Street (016-2354)  I-290 WB over I-90/94 (016-1030)  Taylor Street (016-1165)  Congress Parkway (016-0461)  Harrison Street – East (016-1088)  Ramp NE (016-2451)  Harrison Street – West (016-1087)  Ramp NW (016-2449)  Van Buren Street (016-2055)  Ramp SW (016-2452)  Jackson Boulevard (016-0588)  Ramp EN (016-2448)  Adams Street (016-0589)  Ramp WN (016-2453)  Lake Street (016-2052)  Ramp WS (016-2450)  Peoria Street (016-2082)  Taylor Street to NB I-90/94 (016-2535)  Halsted Street (016-2081) Crash Analysis of Existing Conditions (2012) Environmental Assessment (2013) Hydraulic Report, Pump Stations No. 5 & 26 (2013) Hydraulic Report, Pump Station No. 22 (2013) Location Drainage Study (2013) Noise Analysis Study (2013) Pavement Flooding Report (2013) Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (2012) Scoping Report (2011) Transportation Management Plan (2013)

September 2013 xii

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Description and Location of Project The Circle Interchange project is located within the City of Chicago, Cook County. The project study area is along Interstate 90/94 (I-90/94) from south of Roosevelt Road (on the south) to north of Lake Street (on the north), along Interstate 290 (I-290) from Loomis Street (on the west) to the Circle Interchange; and along Congress Parkway from the Circle Interchange to Canal Street/Old Post Office (on the east). The distance along each expressway is approximately 1.5 miles for I-90/94 and approximately 1.2 miles for Congress Parkway/I-290, for a total length of 2.7 miles along study area routes. Locally, the north leg is known as the , the south leg as the Dan Ryan Expressway and the west leg as the Eisenhower Expressway. Refer to Appendix A for a location map. I-90/94 and I-290 are fully access-controlled facilities and serve local, regional and interstate traffic. They are vital links in the transportation network for the Chicago Metropolitan Area. I-90/94 and I-290 are also part of the National Highway System and the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET), which is a network of interstate and other major routes. The STRAHNET designation is given to roads that provide “defense access, continuity, and emergency capabilities for movements of personnel and equipment in both peace and war.”3 Within the study area, there are several cross street bridges over I-90/94 and I-290. Along I-90/94, from south to north, the cross street overpasses include Roosevelt Road, Taylor Street, Harrison Street, Van Buren Street, Jackson Boulevard, Adams Street, Monroe Street, , Street, , and Lake Street. Along I-290, from west to east, the cross streets overpasses include Loomis Street, Racine Avenue, Morgan Street, Peoria Street, and Halsted Street. Peoria Street allows only pedestrian traffic. Congress Parkway is elevated above the cross street system and passes above Des Plaines Street, Jefferson Street, Clinton Street and Canal Street. Full and partial interchanges surround the Circle Interchanges that serve the cross streets. Along I-90/94, these include Roosevelt Road, Taylor Street, Jackson Boulevard, Adams Street, Monroe Street, Madison Street, Washington Boulevard, Randolph Street, and Lake Street. Along I-290/Congress Parkway, these include Racine Avenue, Morgan Street and Canal Street. Within this report, the system ramps within the Circle Interchange are designated with a two-letter description. For instance, Ramp NW refers to the ramp that connects northbound I-90/94 and westbound I-290; Ramp ES refers to the ramp that connects eastbound I-290 with southbound I-90/94.

1.2. History of Project The Circle Interchange was built in the late 1950s and early 1960s (Figure 1.1) as part of the Interstate Highway System. It is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Since its construction, the Circle Interchange has become one of the worst bottlenecks in the country for traffic congestion. Over 400,000 vehicles per day (vpd) travel through the interchange daily, including 259,700 vpd on the north leg, 257,800 vpd on the south leg, 189,700 vpd on the west leg and 86,800 vpd on the east leg. The interchange experiences breakdown conditions for many hours of the day, causing substantial queuing in every direction. As a result, it was ranked as the No. 1 freight bottleneck in the country based on a study completed by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Freight Management and Operations. The study monitored 250 highway locations. The Circle Interchange had “the highest congestion index (and therefore

3 Source: DOD web page at https://www.tea.army.mil/pubs/res/dod/pmd/STRAHNET.htm. September 2013 1

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

has the highest level of congestion that significantly impacts trucking”.4 Based on a free flow speed of 55 miles per hour (mph), the study determined the average speed for the interchange was 29 mph, with a peak average speed of 22 mph and a non-peak average speed of 32 mph.5

Figure 1.1 Original Circle Interchange Construction Looking north along Halsted Street, circa late 1950s

1.3. Design Criteria The design criteria for this project generally emanates from the 2010 IDOT Bureau of Design and Environment (BDE) Manual for the expressways and ramps, and the 2005 IDOT Bureau of Local Roads and Streets (BLRS) Manual. Specific attention is drawn to these chapters:  BDE Manual Chapter 37 (Interchanges)  BDE Manual Chapter 44 (New Construction/Reconstruction of Freeways)  BLRS Manual Chapter 34 (Intersections)  BLRS Manual Chapter 32 (Geometric Design Tables [New Construction or Reconstruction]) The functional classification of roadways are as follows6:  Interstate: I-90/94 and I-290  Other Arterial: Congress Parkway, Roosevelt Road, Des Plaines Street, Jefferson Street  Minor Arterial: Monroe Street, Madison Street, Washington Street, Randolph Street, Halsted Street  Major Collector: Taylor Street, Harrison Street, Van Buren Street, Jackson Boulevard, Adams Street, Lake Street, Racine Avenue, Clinton Street, Canal Street  Local Road: All other streets

At the February 6, 2013 FHWA/IDOT Coordination meeting, the FHWA and IDOT Central Office concurred that the appropriate vertical clearance is 15’-0”. This follows a 2006 FHWA letter outlining the routes in Illinois that require a 16’-0” clearance (Appendix F). The Circle Interchange was not among those routes.

4 Source: ATRI web page at http://atri-online.org/2011/10/01/fpm-congestion-monitoring-at-250-freight-significant-highway- locations 5 Source: ATRI web page at http://atri-online.org/2011/10/01/fpm-congestion-monitoring-at-250-freight-significant-highway- locations 6 Source: IDOT web page at http://www.dot.il.gov/maps/fiveyear September 2013 2

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT 2.1. Purpose The purpose of the project is to provide an improved transportation facility at the interchange of Interstate 90/94 and Interstate 290/Congress Parkway, known as the Circle Interchange, by addressing the existing and 2040 transportation needs. This will be accomplished by improving safety, mobility, and facility condition and deficiencies of the mainline and interchange. This project is aligned with the priorities within the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) Go To 2040 plan. The project was adopted into the plan at the March 13, 2013 CMAP Board meeting.

2.2. Safety A review of the crash history within the study limits was completed for the three-year study period from 2006 through 2008. Refer to the Crash Analysis of Existing Conditions report for the full analysis. The report can be found under separate cover and is available at the Illinois Department of Transportation (Department) District 1 Office in Schaumburg, Illinois. Crashes have been tabulated by year, crash type, injury type, and roadway conditions to ascertain overall trends and determine if any particular statistical overrepresentation exists that would warrant special countermeasure considerations. Crash report data and associated Traffic Crash Reports from the state and local police were obtained from the Department’s Division of Traffic Safety. In addition, site visits, field observations, and a meeting was conducted in July 2012 with first responders and emergency service providers. A total of 2,819 crashes occurred within the study area from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2008, the most recent years of unrestricted operation. From 2009 to present, major construction projects have been undertaken near the Circle Interchange, including reconstruction of and the bridge carrying Congress Parkway over the . There were 1,912 crashes along I-90/94, 615 crashes along I-290/Congress Parkway, 208 crashes on the Circle System Ramps, and 84 crashes on the nearby Service Ramps. See Table 2.1 for a breakdown of the crash experience totals.

Table 2.1 Total Crashes by Injury Severity (2006-2008)

Location Crashes by Year Maximum Injury Sustained Per Crash 2006 2007 2008 Total K A B C None Total I-90/94 590 677 645 1,912 1 18 90 66 1,737 1,912 I-290/Congress Parkway 204 220 191 615 1 9 36 30 539 615 Circle System Ramps 55 65 88 208 2 6 12 11 177 208 Nearby Service Ramps 17 34 33 84 0 0 4 0 80 84 Total 866 996 957 2,819 4 33 142 107 2,533 2,819

Of the 2,819 crashes from 2006 through 2008, 286 crashes or 10 percent resulted in injuries. During the 2006 through 2008 period there were four Type K (fatality) crashes, 33 Type A (incapacitating injury) crashes, 142 Type B (non-incapacitating injury), and 107 Type C (reported, injury not evident) crashes. The highest percentage of severe crashes (KAB) occurred on the Circle System Ramps. The four fatal (Type K) crashes resulted in eight total fatalities. The crash reports cited the primary contributing causes of the crash were 2-driving skill/knowledge/experience, 1-erratic/reckless operation of

September 2013 3

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

vehicle, and 1-driving on the wrong side/wrong way. Two of the crashes involved motorcycles. The crash conditions were 4-clear weather and dry pavement, 3-on lighted roadways during hours of darkness, and 1- during daylight hours. Blood alcohol content tests were not performed at the scene except for one crash, where the report indicated that the driver’s blood did not contain alcohol. The most common type of crash was rear end, accounting for 56.8 percent of the total crashes from 2006 through 2008. The next most common crash type was sideswipe same direction and fixed object for an additional 40.4 percent of the total crashes in 2006 through 2008. These are summarized in Table 2.2. The predominant crash types are indicative of a roadway facility that needs improvements to its capacity; its geometrics as it relates to merge/diverge maneuvers and decisions points; and its physical condition and design as it relates to horizontal and vertical clearances.

Table 2.2 Total Crashes by Collision Type (2006-2008)

I-290/ Circle Service Crash Type I-90/94 Total Percentage Congress Ramps Ramps Rear-end 1,101 370 82 48 1,601 56.8% Sideswipe – Same 684 176 63 18 941 33.4% Fixed Object 87 48 49 14 198 7.0% Other, Non-Collision 7 5 4 0 16 0.6% Angle 10 3 1 2 15 0.5% Other Object 7 5 3 0 15 0.5% Overturned 3 3 5 1 12 0.4% Parked Motor Vehicle 6 2 0 1 9 0.3% Sideswipe – Opposite 3 1 0 0 4 0.1% Pedestrian 3 0 0 0 3 0.1% Turning 1 0 1 1 3 0.1% Head-On 0 2 0 0 2 0.1% Total 1,912 615 208 84 2,819 100.0%

Review of the roadway surface condition from 2006 through 2008 found that over 84.5 percent of all crashes occurred on a dry roadway surface, with 13.6 percent of crashes occurring on wet, snowy, or icy pavement conditions. These are summarized in Table 2.3. The analysis suggests that wet pavement was not a major cause for crashes within the study area. Similarly, a review of the roadway lighting conditions for that same period showed 66.7 percent of the crashes occurred in daylight conditions, 29.8 percent of the crashes occurred during night hours in lighted conditions, and two percent occurred during night hours in unlighted conditions. These are summarized in Table 2.4.

September 2013 4

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Table 2.3 Total Crashes by Roadway Condition (2006-2008)

I-290/ Circle Service Roadway Conditions I-90/94 Total Percentage Congress Ramps Ramps Dry 1,636 508 167 70 2,381 84.5% Wet 205 76 32 7 320 11.4% Unknown 35 14 3 2 54 1.9% Snow or Slush 26 12 3 2 43 1.5% Ice 10 5 3 3 21 0.7% Total 1,912 615 208 84 2,819 100.0%

Table 2.4 Total Crashes by Lighting Conditions (2006-2008)

I-290/ Circle Service Lighting Conditions I-90/94 Total Percentage Congress Ramps Ramps Daylight 1,330 383 111 57 1,881 66.7% Darkness, Lighted 514 214 86 25 839 29.8% Darkness 37 9 7 2 55 2.0% Dusk 19 4 1 0 24 0.9% Dawn 8 2 3 0 13 0.5% Unknown 4 3 0 0 7 0.2% TOTALS 1,912 615 208 84 2,819 100.0%

Figure 2.1 Crashes by Hour of Day (2006-2008)

180 160 140 2008)

‐ 120 100 (2006

80 60 40 Crashes 20 0 PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM

1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 12:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 10:00 11:00

I‐90/94 I‐290/ Circle Service Congress Ramps Ramps

September 2013 5

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

The time of day and day of week analysis showed that the number of crashes increased proportionately with the increase in traffic volumes. Although the number of crashes increased steadily as the day progressed, the peak was highest during the period between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. This is illustrated in Figure 2.1. A review of crashes along the eight Interchange System Ramps showed that 208 crashes occurred on the ramps. Nearly half the crashes (100) occurred on Ramp NW (northbound to westbound) and one-quarter (45) of the crashes occurred on Ramp ES (eastbound to southbound). The system ramps crashes are illustrated on Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Crash Rates at Circle Interchange System Ramps

12.0 10.5 10.0

2008) 8.0 ‐

6.0 5.4 5.0 (2006

4.0 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.1 Crashes 2.0 0.4 0.0 Ramp NE Ramp NW Ramp SE Ramp SW Ramp EN Ramp ES Ramp WN Ramp WS (w/C‐D)* (w/C‐D)*

Crash Frequency expressed in crashes per 1,000,000 vehicle miles per year * C-D denotes a collector-distributor roadway

From the review of the crash data and patterns collectively, the Circle Interchange exhibits a need for improvement to the existing facility. The predominant crash types of rear-end and sideswipe crashes are consistent with congested traffic conditions and substandard facility geometrics. This supports the need for improvement to merges and weaves, longer distances between decision points, and additional capacity. The crash history on the system ramps shows a need to improve capacity on the ramps and upgrade the ramp geometry to meet current design standards, especially for Ramp NW (northbound to westbound) and Ramp NE (northbound to eastbound). The interaction between Ramp NW and Ramp NE traffic on the C-D road is a major cause of the crashes. Ramp NW AADT is about 32,500 vpd, over ten times more than the 3,000 vpd using Ramp NE. According to the Illinois State Police and field observations, as traffic congestion builds on Ramp NW, Ramp NW traffic often uses the right lane for Ramp NE to bypass queues in the left lane for Ramp NW. This traffic then attempts to merge left at the divergence between the two ramps, elevating the likelihood for rear end and sideswipe collisions on Ramp NE. Six of the eight total crashes along Ramp NE were associated with stopped or slowed traffic on the C-D road. Refer to the Crash Analysis of Existing Conditions report for the full analysis, under separate cover, available at the IDOT District 1 office.

September 2013 6

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

2.3. Mobility According to CMAP, the region’s congestion levels are among the highest in the nation. Projected increases in population, jobs and freight traffic will only add to the pressure on the infrastructure. CMAP sees this as one of the greatest threats to the region’s future prosperity.7 The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along the Circle Interchange routes are as follows:  I-90/94 (Kennedy Expressway) to the north – 259,700 ADT  I-90/94 (Dan Ryan Expressway) to the south – 257,800 ADT  I-290 (Eisenhower Expressway) to the west – 189,700 ADT  Congress Parkway to the east – 86,800 ADT The Circle Interchange serves over 400,000 vehicles per day, about 33,000 of which are trucks, with a total vehicle peak hour flow of nearly 24,000 vehicles per hour. The interchange experiences breakdown conditions for many hours of the day, causing substantial congestion in all directions. Unlike many expressway systems that show sharp peaks in traffic during weekday AM and PM rush hours, the Circle Interchange experiences heavy congestion throughout the day and into the evening. Traffic volumes peak sharply around 7:00 AM and remain relatively high throughout the afternoon and evening until about 9:00 PM. This trend is evident for both weekdays and over the weekend. The traffic congestion at the Circle Interchange can best be described in terms of traffic queuing and travel time. Traffic congestion occurs in the northbound, southbound and eastbound directions approaching the interchange. In the northbound direction (along the Dan Ryan Expressway), traffic queues approaching the Circle Interchange typically extend over 2.5 miles to 26th Street at most times during the day. During the PM peak, this queue often extends further south to 31st Street. The queue appears to be caused by the reduction to three northbound lanes on I-90/94 at the Circle Interchange as well as insufficient capacity on the northbound-to-westbound ramp. Throughout much of the day, a trip from 31st Street to the Circle Interchange takes eight to ten minutes; a distance of about three miles. During the PM peak, this same trip will take approximately 26 minutes. In free flow conditions at 55 mph, this trip would take just over three minutes. Refer to Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 Typical Northbound Congestion in the PM Peak Approaching the Circle Interchange

7 Source: Go to 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2010, pg. 42 September 2013 7

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

In the southbound direction (along the Kennedy Expressway), traffic queues approaching the Circle Interchange typically extend over a mile to . The queue appears to be caused by the reduction to three southbound lanes on I-90/94 at the Circle Interchange. In free flow conditions, a trip from to the Circle Interchange, a distance of 1.75 miles, should take just over two minutes at 45 mph (the posted ). During the PM peak hour, this same trip takes approximately 10 minutes. Additionally, the southbound-to-westbound one lane ramp movement hovers near capacity with approximately 1,800 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour. Refer to Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 Typical Southbound Congestion in the PM Peak Approaching the Circle

In the eastbound direction (along the Eisenhower Expressway), traffic queues build from the divergence to the I-90/94 ramps (near Peoria Street) westward to Ashland Avenue; a distance of about 4,600 feet. This congestion appears to be caused by a saturated eastbound-to-northbound one lane ramp. This ramp carries approximately 1,400 vehicles per hour in the AM peak on a tight curvilinear alignment. The queue from this ramp suggests that the traffic demand is much higher than 1,400 vehicles per hour. Congestion on this ramp also impacts access to the eastbound-to-southbound two-lane ramp, which carries approximately 2,100 vehicles per hour in the AM peak.

Based on the traffic observations and the existing traffic volumes, the Circle Interchange is operating under supersaturated conditions as evident from the long traffic queues and travel times. These conditions support the need to improve mobility for the Circle Interchange. Traffic volumes and truck percentages are available in Appendix K.

2.4. Facility Deficiencies According to Go To 2040, the region’s infrastructure is aging, and in some cases deteriorating. The Circle Interchange originally constructed in the 1950s, is an example of aging infrastructure. It has deficiencies that impact the operation of the interchange. Operational deficiencies are best analyzed by identifying geometric elements that do not meet current design criteria, as well as taking an inventory of the facility condition.

September 2013 8

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Geometric Deficiencies Multiple geometric elements are deficient at certain locations within the Circle Interchange. These include steep grades, sharp curves, narrow lane and shoulder widths, vertical bridge clearances, entrance and exit ramp tapers, and triple divergences. A divergence is a point where traffic splits. Ideally, a divergence would have only two splits requiring the driver to make only one decision of which way to proceed. Additionally, the basic number of through lanes before, through, and after the interchange is not consistent. Along I-90/94, traveling from south to north, the basic number of through lanes changes from five lanes in each direction, to three lanes in each direction through the Circle Interchange, back to five lanes in each direction. Along I-290/Congress Parkway, traveling from east to west, the basic number of through lanes changes from four lanes in each direction, to three lanes in each direction through the interchange, back to four lanes in each direction. Having an “unbalanced” number of lanes along the project routes contributes to the facility deficiencies and function. Ideally, the number of lanes should be balanced and consistent along the project routes and through the interchange. The proposed mainline design speed of I-90/94 and I-290/Congress Parkway is 60 mph. Therefore based on the Department design guidelines, the initial ramp curves coming from the mainline should use a design speed of 45 mph. The ramps that do not meet this criterion include Ramp NE (30 mph), Ramp NW (30 mph), Ramp EN (30 mph), Ramp ES (40 mph) and Ramp WS (30 mph). Note that Ramp NE and Ramp NW originate from a northbound C-D (collector-distributor) road that operates in a similar manner to the northbound mainline. The System Ramps contain several deficiencies related to steep grades and sharp curves. The maximum criterion for ramp slopes is 4.00 percent and desirably a 25 mph design speed for curves. Six ramps within the interchange are deficient and do not meet either or both the slope and the curve speed criteria. The desired travel lane width is 12 feet. Certain lane widths are less than this width, specifically eastbound and westbound Congress Parkway approaching the Old Post Office, where lanes are approximately 9.5 feet wide. Similarly, mainline shoulder widths should be 12 feet. However, there are several locations throughout the project area which do not meet current design standards. Along northbound and southbound I-90/94, the existing shoulder widths vary between four and five feet. Along eastbound and southbound I-290/Congress Parkway, the deficient shoulder widths are as narrow as two feet. For the system ramps the Department design guideline criteria is six feet for left shoulders and eight feet for right shoulders. The eight system ramps generally provide four-foot wide left and right shoulders. The Circle Interchange project includes a number of crossroad bridges over the interstate. The minimum allowable vertical clearance is 15’-0”. According to field measurements, several of these bridges fall below this criterion. The most deficient location is at Jackson Street, which has a measured vertical clearance of 13’-10½”. As for taper lengths, there are several locations that do not meet the design guidelines for entrance and exit tapers. These include nine locations which do not meet the entrance taper length requirement and nine other locations which do not meet the exit taper length requirements. A triple divergence (decision point) exists at two locations that lack appropriate decision sight distance. Design guidelines recommend that two successive decisions shall be separated by 800 feet (BDE Figure 37-2.D) within a system interchange. The physical separation involving eastbound I-290 and the ramps to southbound and northbound I-90/94 is separated from the successive decision point involving the southbound and northbound ramps by only 280 feet. The gore separating westbound I-290 and Ramps WS/WN is 340 feet upstream from the gore separating Ramps WS and Ramp WN. Based on signing, there is virtually no separation within these two groups of decision points.

September 2013 9

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

An Accident Investigation Site (AIS) is located immediately south of the Circle Interchange, in the median between northbound and southbound I-90/94. The AIS is separated from mainline traffic by barrier wall. Breaks in the barrier wall provide ingress and egress to the AIS. Other than shoulders, there are no acceleration or deceleration areas serving the AIS, which represent a deficiency.

Facility Condition There have been no major improvements made to the Circle Interchange since its construction in the 1950s. Maintenance and repairs have been made to extend the service life of the interchange roadway pavement and ramp bridge decks and structures. Improvements and repairs have been made to several of the cross street bridges over I-90/94 (Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways) as part of major reconstruction projects along both expressways during the mid to late 1990s. However, many of the bridge decks are nearing the end of their service life and need replacement. Other past improvements include the following:  1988, I-290 Resurfacing from Central to the Circle Interchange  1985, I-90/94 Reconstruction, Northbound Mainline from 28th Place to Maxwell Street  1985, I-90/94 Reconstruction, CD Roads and Ramps from Maxwell Street to I-290  1975, I-290 Resurfacing from Sacramento through the Circle Interchange More recently, as part of the Master Plan Study of I-290/90/94 from Western Street to and Polk Street to (2009, by others) a contract was let in November 2011 to implement some of the proposed elements of the plan. The proposed improvements included construction of barrier walls, signing, drainage, and some landscaping. The existing geometric deficiencies and the aging condition of the facility substantiates the need to address the deficiencies and improve the condition of the Circle Interchange to better serve the motoring public now and into the future.

September 2013 10

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1. Description of Project Area The Circle Interchange project is located within the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois (Figure 3.1). The project study area is along Interstate 90/94 (I-90/94) from south of Roosevelt Road (on the south) to north of Lake Street (on the north), along Interstate 290 (I-290) from Loomis Street (on the west) to the Circle Interchange; and along Congress Parkway from the Circle Interchange to Canal Street/Old Post Office (on the east). The distance along each expressway is approximately 1.5 miles for I-90/94 and approximately 1.2 miles for Congress Parkway/I-290, for a total length of 2.7 miles along study area routes. Refer to Appendix A for a location map. The Circle Interchange is a system interchange which connects I-90/94 with I-290/Congress Parkway. It directly connects three expressways and a major arterial: the Kennedy Expressway (I-90/94 north of the interchange), the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94 south of the interchange), the Eisenhower Expressway (I- 290 west of the interchange), and Congress Parkway (east of the interchange). Congress Parkway provides a direct link into the Chicago Central Business District (CBD). Other nearby expressways feed towards the Circle Interchange, including the Edens Expressway (I-94, eight miles north of the Circle Interchange), the Stevenson Expressway (I-55, one mile south), the Chicago Skyway (I-90, seven miles south), the Bishop Ford Freeway (I-94, 11 miles south), I-57 (11 miles south) and the Regan Memorial Tollway (I-88, merges with I-290 approximately 13 miles west). Please refer to Figure 3.2. The Circle Interchange provides connections between I-90/94 and Congress Parkway in a four-block urban area bordered by Van Buren Street to the north, Harrison Street to the south, Halsted Street to the west and Des Plaines Street to the east. Its circular configuration, uniquely suited to squeeze into this area, inspires the Circle Interchange name.

Figure 3.1 Existing Circle Interchange From the Observation Deck, looking southwest

3.2. Logical Termini The logical termini of this project extend outward from the Circle Interchange to incorporate the influence of all ramp movements. These limits are Lake Street to the north, Loomis Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Canal Street/Old Post Office to the east.

3.3. Land Use Land use varies between the four quadrants of the Circle Interchange. The four quadrants include Greektown and West Loop to the northwest, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and the Illinois Medical Center to the southwest, an industrial setting to the southeast and a mix of residential, retail and office spaces adjacent to the Loop (central business district) to the northeast.

September 2013 11

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Figure 3.2 Chicagoland Expressway System

EDENS EXPY

KENNEDY EXPY

CIRCLE INTERCHANGE

EISENHOWER EXPY CONGRESS PKWY

REAGAN TOLLWAY STEVENSON EXPY

DAN RYAN EXPY

CHICAGO SKYWAY

BISHOP FORD FWY

Greektown, located in the northwest quadrant of the interchange, celebrates the Greek heritage in Chicago dating back to the 1840s. It is home to restaurants, retail, the National Hellenic Museum (Figure 3.3) and an annual Greek Independence Day Parade. Modern-day Greektown is located along Halsted Street, generally between Jackson Boulevard and Monroe Street. A Greek monument is located at each of these

September 2013 12

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

intersections to greet visitors to the area (Figure 3.4). This modern location lays a few blocks north of the original Greektown, which was displaced by the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and the Eisenhower Expressway in the 1960s.8

Figure 3.3 National Hellenic Museum NE corner of Halsted Street and Van Buren Street

Figure 3.4 Greek Monument SE corner of Halsted Street and Van Buren Street

UIC resides primarily in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. The campus, which accommodates 28,000 students, is currently divided into three major areas. The East Campus is located nearest the interchange, generally bounded by Harrison Street, Halsted Street, Taylor Street and Racine Avenue (Figure 3.5). This campus was originally known as the Circle Campus, taking its name from the interchange. It accommodates the majority of undergraduate coursework. The South Campus is the newest edition to UIC, bounded by Roosevelt Road, Halsted Street, 14th Place and Morgan Street and contains student housing. The Health Sciences & Medical Center Campus is located further west, bounded by Polk Street, Ashland Avenue, Roosevelt Road and Damen Avenue. The medical school at UIC is the largest in the nation9. It is part of an area known as the Illinois Medical District that also includes Rush University Medical Center (Figure 3.6) and John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County. With the combination of on-campus housing and commuting, all aspects of transportation are important to UIC. This includes pedestrian links across the expressway system to neighboring parts of the city, pedestrian access to the CTA Blue Line and vehicular access from the expressway system. UIC developed a Campus Master Plan in 2010 that included an enhanced gateway pedestrian access across Peoria Street.

8 Source: Greektown web page at http://www.greektownchicago.org/ 9 Source: UIC web page at http://www.uic.edu September 2013 13

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Figure 3.5 University of Illinois at Chicago East Campus

Figure 3.6 Rush University Medical Center

The Cermak Pump Station, a Chicago Department of Water Management facility, is located along Harrison Street between the northbound and southbound lanes of I-90/94 (Figure 3.7). It was constructed in 1935 before the expressway was built in the late 1950s. The pump station is one of two potable water pumping stations providing drinking water to downtown and the West Loop areas. Water is gravity fed from the Jardine Water Treatment Facility on Lake near Navy Pier, conveyed in a large tunnel approximately 150 feet deep in bedrock. Vehicles access the pump station from Harrison Street.

Figure 3.7 Cermak Pump Station

The southeast quadrant of the intersection strikes an industrial tone, consisting of warehouses, public storage facilities and power substations. Closer to Congress Parkway, this quadrant also includes residential properties and a Greyhound intercity bus station. The bus station is located along the north side of Harrison Street between Des Plaines Street and Jefferson Street. The CTA has a bus transfer facility located on the northwest corner of Des Plaines Street and Harrison Street (see Section 3.4). The southeast quadrant is also home to the Maxwell Street Market (Figure 3.8). This open-air market is held every Sunday from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM year-round on Des Plaines Street between Roosevelt Road

September 2013 14

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

and Harrison Street.10 During the market hours, Des Plaines Street is temporarily closed to vehicle traffic as vendors and live entertainment is set up on the street (Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.8 Maxwell Street Market Along Des Plaines Street

The northeast quadrant, adjacent to the Loop, contains residential, retail and office space land uses. The diversity of this quadrant is shown in Figure 3.9. Looking eastward on Van Buren Street, the photo shows a residential loft in the foreground left and office spaces in the background, which is typical in this quadrant. IDOT also has a pump station located in this quadrant at the southwest corner of Des Plaines Street and Van Buren Street (see Section 3.4).

Figure 3.9 Van Buren Street approaching Jefferson Street Looking east

3.4. Conditions on the Existing Highway Network As described in Section 2.4, the Circle Interchange has not received a major upgrade since its original construction in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Much of the pavement and structures are in need of rehabilitation. The existing horizontal alignments, vertical alignments, and cross section geometry do not adequately serve modern day traffic needs. Existing typical sections are provided in Appendix O. The Circle Interchange project area contains numerous structures that will be affected by the project. Table 3.1 outlines those structures, the facility carried, the feature crossed and the sufficiency rating. Complete Master Structure Reports may be found in Appendix C, which provide more detail on each individual structure.

10 Source: Explore Chicago web page at http://www.explorechicago.org September 2013 15

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Table 3.1 Existing Structure Sufficiency Ratings

Structure Number Facility Carried Feature Crossed Sufficiency Rating (Year) 016-2451 Ramp NE Ramp EN 76.0 (2012) 016-2449 Ramp NW I-90/94 56.3 (2013) 016-2452 Ramp SE I-290 & I-90/94 96.0 (2012) 016-2453 Ramp EN I-90/94 60.7 (2012) 016-2448 Ramp WN Des Plaines 80.4 (2012) 016-2450 Ramp WS I-90/94 74.8 (2012) 016-2535 NB Ent. from Taylor St Ramp NE/NW C-D Road 100.0 (2011) 016-2534 SB Exit to Taylor St Ramp ES 95.0 (2012) 016-1029 I-290 EB I-90/94 92.9 (2012) 016-1030 I-290 WB I-90/94 89.2 (2012) 016-0461 I-290 EB/WB Canal St to Des Plaines St 65.0 (2012) 016-1165 Taylor St I-90/94 94.6 (2012) 016-1087 Harrison St I-90/94 SB 69.0 (2012) 016-1088 Harrison St I-90/94 NB 79.0 (2012) 016-2055 Van Buren St I-90/94 81.0 (2012) 016-0588 Jackson Blvd I-90/94 77.0 (2012) 016-0589 Adams St I-90/94 73.9 (2012) 016-2054 Monroe St I-90/94 77.0 (2012) 016-2082 Peoria St I-290 77.0 (2013) 016-2081 Halsted St I-290 76.0 (2013) Pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited from using the expressway system. However, pedestrians and bicycles are accommodated on the cross streets surrounding the Circle Interchange. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of all cross street crossings within the project limits. Existing marked bicycle lanes or shared lanes are provided on select cross street crossings of the expressway system. Table 3.2 shows the existing sidewalk widths and bicycle accommodations for cross street crossings that will be impacted by the project: Table 3.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations (Existing Conditions)

Cross street Pedestrian Accommodations Bicycle Accommodations Taylor Street over I-90/94 Sidewalk (12’ on both sides) none Harrison Street over I-90/94 Sidewalk (7’ on both sides) none Van Buren Street over I-90/94 Sidewalk (12’ on both sides) none Jackson Boulevard over I-90/94 Sidewalk (11’ north, 8’ south) none Adams Street over I-90/94 Sidewalk (12’ on both sides) none Monroe Street over I-290 Sidewalk (11’ on both sides) none Peoria Street over I-290 Pedestrian-only bridge Bicycles permitted Halsted Street over I-290 Sidewalk (10’ west, 8’ east) Bike lane (NB), shared lane (SB)

September 2013 16

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Other bicycle accommodations near the project limits include, bike lanes in both directions on Roosevelt Road over I-90/94, and an eastbound bike lane on Washington Street over I-90/94. Bike lanes also pass below Congress Parkway on Des Plaines Street (southbound), Clinton Street (southbound), and Canal Street (northbound). In addition to the facility and geometric deficiencies, a number of physical constraints dot the Circle Interchange project area as shown in Appendix J. The most prominent facility is the CTA Blue Line. It is located above ground in the I-290 median, approaching to the west to tunnel bulkheads located just east of Halsted Street within the Circle Interchange. From the bulkheads eastward, the Blue Line runs below ground as a subway. Within the project vicinity, there are two above ground stations and one subway station. The above ground stations include the Racine Station, accessible from Loomis Street and Racine Avenue, and the UIC-Halsted Street Station, accessible from Morgan Street, Peoria Street and Halsted Street. A below ground station at Clinton Street is also located within the project limits. Only the UIC- Halsted Street station is impacted by the improvements. Since the late 1950s, the CTA has envisioned the addition of two tracks to the north of the existing two tracks. The open space within the median continues to be reserved for this purpose with no permanent impact from the Circle Interchange improvement. The Blue Line and other constraints are shown in Figure 3.10 through Figure 3.16.

Figure 3.10 CTA Blue Line in I-290 Median According to the CTA, planning is currently underway for the future of the Blue Line in the I-290 median. Refer to Volume 3 for coordination with the CTA. The photo at left looks west along I-290 from Morgan Street.

Figure 3.11 UIC-Halsted Street Station The UIC-Halsted Street Station is accessible from Halsted Street via a ramp, Peoria Street via a stairway and Morgan Street via a ramp. It serves as the key access point for UIC students and faculty to the Blue Line. The street-level waiting foyer of the Peoria Street station house is shown at left.

Figure 3.12 CTA Blue Line Tunnels below Congress Parkway The Blue Line descends below the Circle Interchange in two tunnels below Congress Parkway that extend eastward into the Loop. At its bulkhead within the Circle Interchange, the tunnel system contains four portals. The two northern portals are for future expansion of the CTA system. The two southern portals serve westbound and eastbound Blue Line trains. The eastbound portal is obscured from view in the photo at left, which is looking east towards downtown Chicago from Peoria Street.

September 2013 17

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Figure 3.13 CTA Bus Facility (SE Quadrant) The CTA has a bus facility in the southeast quadrant of the interchange, at the northwest corner of Harrison Street and Des Plaines Street. It is a staging area for buses as well as a bus stop. The photo at left looks north from Harrison Street to the facility.

Figure 3.14 Cermak Pump Station As described in Section 3.3, the Cermak Pump Station is situated between the northbound and southbound lanes of I-90/94, on the south side of Harrison Street. This Chicago Department of Water Management (CDWM) facility pumps drinking water. Coordination with the CDWM is included in Volume 3. The photo at left looks south from Harrison Street.

Figure 3.15 IDOT Pump Station No. 5 IDOT maintains Pump Station No. 5 that serves the I-290 main drain storm sewer system. This pump station is located in the northeast quadrant of the interchange, at the southwest corner of Van Buren Street and Des Plaines Street. The photo at left looks south from Van Buren Street.

Figure 3.16 Haberdasher Square Lofts This 14-story residential building predates the expressway system. When the expressway corridor was established, the Haberdasher Square Lofts building remained in place. It protrudes about 70 feet into the expressway corridor. Haberdasher Square Lofts are located between Jackson Boulevard and Adams Street, along the east side of I-90/94. The photo at left looks north along I-90/94.

3.5. Existing Drainage In order to describe the drainage characteristics within the Circle Interchange project area, the study team prepared four reports: a location drainage study that summarized existing conditions and proposed improvements, a hydraulic report covering Pump Station Nos. 5 & 26, a hydraulic report covering Pump Station No. 22 and a pavement flooding report.

September 2013 18

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

3.5.1. Location Drainage Study The Circle Interchange Location Drainage Study, under separate cover and available at the IDOT District 1 office in Schaumburg, Illinois, comprehensively describes the drainage within the project area. For the existing conditions, the report summarizes 15 locations with flooding concerns, described main drain sewer televising along both I-90/94 and I-290, and shows that the project area lies outside of any floodplain. It also provides overviews of three IDOT pump stations (#5, #22 and #26). The Location Drainage Study also discusses proposed improvements, which are summarized in this report in Section 5.8.

3.5.2. Hydraulic Report, Pump Stations Nos. 5 & 26 The Circle Interchange Hydraulic Report documents an analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic system of Pump Station No. 5 under existing and proposed conditions. Pump Station No. 5 serves I-290 from Central Avenue to Des Plaines Street. While this report focuses on Pump Station No. 5, references are also made to Pump Station No. 26 as it plays an integral role in the combined modeling of the two pump stations. Pump Station No. 26 serves I-90/94 from Monroe Street to Roosevelt Road. Pump Station No. 5 is located at the southwest corner of Des Plaines Street and Van Buren Street. It houses five main pumps, including one designated as a standby pump, with a nominal capacity of 7,000 gallons per minute each, and a low-flow pump with a capacity of 3,000 gallons per minute. This pump station discharges to an outfall structure at the South Branch of the Chicago River. Pump Station No. 26 is located in the northwest corner of Roosevelt Road and Union Avenue. It houses six main pumps with a nominal capacity of 10,000 gallons per minute each, and a low-flow pump with a nominal capacity of 3,200 gallons per minute. This pump station discharges to a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) outlet sewer along Union Avenue, and eventually to the South Branch of the Chicago River at Halsted Street. Further details may be reviewed in the Circle Interchange Hydraulic Report under separate cover, available at the IDOT District 1 office.

3.5.3. Hydraulic Report, Pump Station No. 22 Pump Station No. 22 is located on the east side of I-90/94 near Fulton Street. Most of its tributary area is located outside of the project limits. Based on XP SWMM hydraulic modeling, the larger main drain sewers are sized adequately to drain the 50-year storm event. However, some of the smaller pipes (24 inch to 36 inch in diameter) located between Monroe Street and Fulton Street will need to be upsized as part of future reconstruction. This change should eliminate any pavement flooding resulting from backwater impacts from Pump Station No. 22. Based on the pavement flooding investigation reports, it was determined that the existing catch basin spacing and lateral sizes do not have adequate capacity to convey the 50-year storm event, which has resulted in pavement flooding within the Hubbard’s Cave area. Per coordination with IDOT Hydraulics, it was determined that the existing 6’-4” x 8’-0” main drain sewer located under Hubbard’s Cave may have been lined with a one foot-thick liner.

September 2013 19

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

3.5.4. Pavement Flooding Report The Circle Interchange Existing Drainage System Report, Appendix D of the Location Drainage Study, identifies existing drainage problems using a combination of pavement incident reports, pump station and main drain trunk line modeling via XP SWMM, and Hydraflow analysis of minor collector sewers, pipe laterals and inlet spacing. Most drainage problems appear to occur at the entrance and exit ramp low elevation locations, where there is a large amount of runoff flowing down the ramps and roadway. In addition, there is greater potential for trash build-up at these sag locations. Further details may be obtained in the Circle Interchange Location Drainage Study, under separate cover, available at the IDOT District 1 office.

3.6. Existing Utilities A utility review was performed by the Chicago Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Department (IDOT) for the Circle Interchange Project. Through an Office of Underground Coordination Member Response, member utilities identified facilities within or near the Circle Interchange project area and provided atlas and record drawing information for reference. The following utilities have been identified within the project area, in addition to IDOT facilities:  Chicago Department of Water Management – Water Supply  Chicago Department of Water Management – Inactive/Abandoned Water Supply Tunnels  Chicago Department of Water Management – Sewer Section  Chicago Department of Transportation  City of Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Coordination  Chicago Transit Authority  Chicago Transit Authority – Abandoned Water Supply Tunnels  Chicago Freight Tunnels  Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago  Commonwealth Edison  Peoples Gas  AT&T Illinois/SBC  Miscellaneous Communications Companies The majority of these utilities provided information to the project team. During Phase II design, the location of utilities will be refined through use of this information and subsurface utility engineering (SUE) services, per construction contract. Coordination with these utilities is included in Appendix D.

3.7. Existing Environmental Resources The project was inventoried for environmental resources. Resources found and identified within the project are discussed in the Circle Interchange Environmental Assessment (EA), under separate cover and available at the IDOT District 1 office. The EA discusses involvement with these topics in relation to the Circle Interchange project. Other typical EA topics not listed are not impacted by the project.  Community Characteristics and Cohesion  Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities  Title VI and Environmental Justice  Historic Buildings  Public Facilities and Services  Air Quality  Changes in Travel Patterns and Access  Noise and Vibration  Economic Impacts

September 2013 20

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

September 2013 21

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Circle Interchange project study team developed 30 alternatives and sub-alternatives for the Circle Interchange aiming to address the project Purpose and Need. The high traffic volumes and the constrained, urbanized project area calls for a unique solution that departs from traditional interchange designs. The alternative development process began with a brainstorming effort that considered both the interchange as a whole as well as key movements and sections along the project routes. Concept alternatives were designated either as A-, B-, C- and D-Series. A-Series encompassed the entire interchange; B-Series included those that focused on Ramp NW (northbound to westbound); C-Series focused on the eastbound triple divergence of eastbound I-290, Ramp EN and Ramp ES; and D-Series focused on the north leg of the interchange along the Kennedy Expressway. During the alternative development process, leading aspects of B-, C-, and D-Series alternatives were used to create additional A-Series alternatives. The genesis of the various alternatives and sub-alternatives is diagramed in the Alternative Histogram in Appendix L. Schematics and concept plans of the alternatives and sub-alternatives are included as Appendix M.

4.1. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative represents a base condition in which no improvements are NB made to the Circle Interchange other than routine maintenance. This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need of the project because it does not address the safety, mobility and facility deficiencies. It will not provide the additional capacity improvements to meet future 2040 traffic volume needs. Northbound and southbound I-90/94, Ramp NW and Ramp EN continue to have insufficient capacity. The safety issues associated with the northbound C-D road serving Ramp NW and Ramp NE, the merge of westbound Congress Parkway, Ramp NW and Ramp SW, and the triple divergence of eastbound Congress Parkway, Ramp EN and Ramp ES remain. Lastly, the No-Build Alternative does not provide any improvements to address the aging roadway facility and update the roadway condition to current design standards and requirements. Consequences resulting from the No-Build Alternative include:  Increased crash potential as traffic volumes increase without safety, capacity and operational improvements.  Increased congestion and delays resulting in increased energy consumption and increased vehicle emissions from idling and accelerating vehicles.  Increased maintenance costs as pavement and bridge structures further deteriorate. The Circle Interchange and the routes feeding into it are classified as a full access control interstate to interstate facility. It is an important link in the local and regional transportation network. The No-Build Alternative will not provide the necessary improvements to provide the safety and mobility needs, nor address the facility deficiencies of the interchange. The No-Build Alternative does not address the safety, mobility, and facility condition needs of the Circle Interchange. It is not consistent with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program and the GO TO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan (CRP) which are both endorsed by CMAP. It does not satisfy the purpose and need for the improvement.

4.2. Transportation System Management (Congestion Management Process) Alternative The of 23 CFR 450.320 place restrictions on the use of federal funds for projects in TSM Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) designated as non-attainment for carbon monoxide and/or ozone. In these areas, federal funds may not be programmed for

September 2013 22

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

any project that will significantly increase capacity for single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) unless the project is addressed through a Congestion Management Process (CMP). The CMP is required to provide an appropriate analysis of alternatives to the proposal for adding SOV capacity, including all reasonable congestion management strategies. If the analysis demonstrates that other alternatives and/or congestion management strategies cannot fully satisfy the need for additional capacity and that, therefore, the additional SOV capacity is warranted, the CMP must identify all reasonable strategies that will maintain the functional integrity of the additional lanes. All identified reasonable strategies must be incorporated into the project. The CMP for each affected TMA is addressed in materials available from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for the area. Individual projects involving additional SOV capacity were evaluated, selected, and prioritized in the course of developing the Fiscal Year 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program and the long-range GO TO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan for Northeastern Illinois. The Northeastern Illinois CMP is documented via various materials that are available through the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). The following are examples:  Congestion Mitigation Handbook, September 1998  Congestion Management System for Northeastern Illinois, July, 2006 Annual Status Report  Congestion Reduction Demonstration for Northeastern Illinois: A Proposal for Direct Highway Pricing, Transit, Technology, and Supporting Strategies, December 31, 2007  Arterials and Streets Infrastructure and Operations for Mobility, Access, and Community in Metropolitan Chicago, January 2009  Travel Demand Management, Strategy Paper, March 2009  GO TO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan for Northeastern Illinois, October 2010 The development process for the TIP and GO TO 2040 Plan constitutes the CMP for Northeastern Illinois. This process documents the warranted projects for adding SOV capacity and, as applicable, also documents that regional and/or project-specific alternatives (e.g., Transportation Demand Management measures, High-Occupancy vehicle measures, Transit Capital Improvements, Congestion Pricing, Growth Management, and Incident Management) would not obviate the need for adding SOV capacity. Planned projects resulting from the CMP are documented in the annual CMP status report referenced above. The Circle Interchange project is included in the 2010-2015 TIP under No. 01-12-0019 and was adopted into the Go To 2040 Plan at the March 13, 2013 CMAP Board meeting.

4.3. Build Alternatives

Alternative A-1.1 Alternative A-1.1 generally maintains the existing Circle interchange layout while A‐1.1 increasing capacity on I-90/94 and key ramps. The alternative provides four lanes in each direction along I-90/94 through the interchange to address lane balance issues. It also provides two lanes on Ramp NW, but on a similar horizontal alignment and vertical profile as the existing ramp maintaining the current deficiencies. Ramp NE is completely separated from Ramp NW with its own divergence downstream on I-90/94. This alternative also provides two lanes on Ramp EN, but it is also on a similar horizontal alignment and vertical profile as the existing ramp maintaining the current deficiencies. While the eastbound I-290 triple divergence and westbound I-290 triple convergence are addressed with improved geometrics, the northbound I-90/94 triple convergence is not addressed at all under this alternative. In addition, the westbound Morgan Street exit ramp is completely removed. This

September 2013 23

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

alternative is identical to the Circle Interchange Scoping Report Long Term Improvement “A”. The report is a separate document, available at the IDOT, District 1 Office in Schaumburg, Illinois.

Alternative A-1.2 Alternative A-1.2 is the same as Alternative A-1.1, except that Ramp SE is also A‐1.2 removed. The removal of Ramp SE creates space within the interchange to develop improved geometry on the remaining System Ramps, however, this alternative results in an interchange that does not provide for all system movements.

Alternative A-2 This alternative mirrors Alternative A-1.1, except that Ramp NW is provided on a A‐2 flyover. The flyover provides an improved horizontal alignment and vertical profile as it passes above Harrison Street and Halsted Street. This alternative is identical to the Circle Interchange Scoping Report Long Term Improvement “B”.

Alternative A-3 Alternative A-3 provides a four-level, fully directional and symmetric interchange with A‐3 high speed ramps. Although the performance of the interchange would be improved compared to the existing interchange, it would impact adjacent buildings and properties. This early alternative was developed to demonstrate these impacts. The interface with adjacent roadways was not considered in detail as part of this alternative due to its impacts.

Alternative A-4 Alternative A-4 is similar to Alternative A-3, except that the footprint of the interchange A‐4 is reduced. This results in slightly lower design speeds for the ramps, but the compact directional interchange does not eliminate the impacts to adjacent buildings and properties.

Alternative A-5 Alternative A-5 introduces the concept of realigning both directions of I-290/Congress A‐5 Parkway outward, allowing for ramps to be centrally located within the interchange further reducing the footprint of the directional interchange. Ramp NW is on a flyover similar to previous alternatives, but enters on the left side of westbound I-290. Both the Ramp NW flyover and westbound I-290 pass above Halsted Street. Ramp EN diverges from eastbound I-290 on the left side, passes above I-90/94 and beneath westbound I-290 and Van Buren Street. It is force-merged with northbound I-90/94. Ramp SW passes below Halsted Street, westbound I-290 and Ramp NW to emerge on the left side of the westbound I-290 corridor, encroaching on the CTA property.

Alternative A-6 Alternative A-6 proposes a T-system interchange, with directional ramps A‐6 accommodating movements between I-290 and I-90/94. Non-directional ramps serve Congress Parkway. The prominent feature of Alternative A-6 is a Ramp EN flyover

September 2013 24

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

that passes above Van Buren Street, Jackson Boulevard and Adams Street before passing below Monroe Street. This is geometrically infeasible because it would require a 40-foot elevation downgrade in approximately 450 feet, which is severely substandard. Eastbound I-290 and Ramp EN pass above Halsted Street. It also provides a Ramp NW flyover similar to previous alternatives.

Alternative A-7.1a Alternative A-7.1a maintains generally maintains a circular interchange with key A‐7.1a improvements from the existing interchange. Ramp NW is provided on a flyover that exits on the right side of northbound I-90/94. It provides an improved horizontal alignment and vertical profile as it passes above Harrison Street and Halsted Street. Ramp NW also has exclusive access to Morgan Street. Ramp EN is also widened to two lanes on an improved horizontal alignment and vertical profile. Taylor Street access from southbound I-90/94 is provided north of the interchange, while access from Ramp ES is removed. This alternative addresses the eastbound I-290 triple divergence and the westbound I-290 triple convergence. However, the northbound I-90/94 triple convergence is not addressed.

Alternative A-7.1b Alternative A-7.1b is similar to Alternative A-7.1a, except for key northbound A‐7.1b improvements. The Ramp NW flyover diverges on the right side of northbound I-90/94 and a northbound C-D road is provided to serve downtown exits. In this alternative, the northbound C-D road diverges at the same location as the Ramp NE divergence, and merges at the same location as the Ramp EN merge on northbound I-90/94. This geometry removes a weaving movement from the northbound I-90/94 triple convergence point

Alternative A-7.1c Alternative A-7.1c, ultimately selected as the Recommended Alternative and refined A‐7.1c into the Preferred Alternative, is a variation of Alternative A-7.1b. Key improvements over its predecessor include providing the northbound C-D road with its own divergence from northbound I-90/94 by having Ramp NW and Ramp NE share a separate C-D road (similar to existing conditions, except that Ramp NW has two lanes to alleviate existing safety concerns). The northbound C-D road also serves all downtown exits before merging into northbound I-90/94 near Lake Street.

Alternative A-7.2a Alternative A-7.2a is similar to Alternative A-7.1a with the left divergence of Ramp NW A‐7.2a from northbound I-90/94. It is also similar to Alternative A-7.1b with the northbound C- D road shared divergence and merge points. This alternative differentiates itself by placing Ramp EN in a trench below I-90/94. This trench adds another vertical level to the interchange to improve vertical profiles. However, after consultation with IDOT-Hydraulics, the trench poses drainage concerns that renders it fatally flawed. The trench would be below the water table, be difficult to drain and could present life-safety issues in the event of a heavy storm event.

September 2013 25

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Alternative A-7.2b Alternative A-7.2b is similar to Alternative A-7.2a, except that the Ramp NW A‐7.2b divergence is on the right side of northbound I-90/94. Ramp EN is also placed in a trench below I-90/94 with the same drainage concerns as noted in Alternative A-7.2a.

Alternative A-7.2c Alternative A-7.2c is the same as Alternative A-7.2b except that the southbound A‐7.2c I-90/94 to Taylor Street ramp is provided south of the interchange, similar to existing conditions. The drainage concerns with a Ramp EN trench below I-90/94 also apply to this alternative.

Alternative A-7.3 Alternative A-7.3 is similar to Alternative A-7.1a, except for the position of the Ramp A‐7.3 EN and Ramp ES from eastbound I-290. In this alternative, the Ramp EN divergence is to the right of Ramp ES that provides a minimal improvement to its horizontal alignment. Ramp EN passes above Ramp ES in a tight vertical profile envelope between Halsted Street and Harrison Street.

Alternative A-7.4a Alternative A-7.4a provides a Ramp NW flyover on an improved curvilinear horizontal A‐7.4a alignment that shadows the existing ramp. It passes above Harrison Street and below Halsted Street. This alignment requires Van Buren Street to be bubbled outward towards the north and includes a lengthy curved horizontal alignment coupled with a steep vertical profile. A northbound C-D road is provided, but it merges onto northbound I-90/94 just downstream from the Ramp EN merge. Taylor Street access from southbound I-90/94 is maintained near its existing location, but access is removed for Ramp ES and Ramp WS. Ramp WS is routed above I-290, below Ramp EN and below Harrison Street with a steep profile.

Alternative A-7.4b Alternative A-7.4b addresses the steep profile on Ramp WS by placing Ramp EN in a A‐7.4b trench. Ramp WS is then routed above I-290 and Ramp EN and below Harrison Street with a steep profile. Otherwise, it is the same as Alternative A-7.4a. Placing Ramp EN in a trench presents the same drainage concerns noted with previous alternatives.

Alternative A-8 The distinctive features of Alternative A-8 are a flatter Ramp NW flyover of Harrison A‐8 Street and Hasted Street that has a left-side divergence from northbound I-90/94, as well as a left-side to left-side Ramp WS. Ramp EN passes below I-90/94 in a trench with the same drainage concerns noted in previous alternatives. In general, a number of ramps are clustered in the southern half of the interchange area. This alternative also merges Ramp ES into southbound I-90/94 upstream of a Taylor Street exit ramp, resulting in a new weaving area. The alternative does not provide a northbound C-D road.

September 2013 26

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Alternative A-9 Alternative A-9 takes an opposite approach compared to Alternative A-8. The Ramp A‐9 NW flyover exits northbound I-90/94 on the right side and merges on the left side of westbound I-290. Both of these roadways pass above Halsted Street, similar to Alternative A-5. Ramp SE merges with eastbound Congress Parkway on the left side. In general, a number of ramps are clustered in the northern half of the interchange area. Ramp EN passes below I-90/94 in a trench with the same drainage concerns noted in previous alternatives. The alternative does not provide a northbound C-D road.

Alternative A-10 Alternative A-10 is similar to Alternative A-7.1b, with some exceptions. It does not A‐10 provide a northbound C-D road. It does place Ramp EN below I-90/94 in a trench with the same drainage concerns noted in previous alternatives. Since Taylor Street access is not provided for Ramp ES, the alternative provides a new ramp from southbound I-90/94 to Roosevelt Road. However, this adds a new weaving area to southbound I-90/94.

Alternative A-11 Alternative A-11 provides a flatter Ramp NW flyover somewhat similar to Alternative A A‐11 8. Ramp WS exits on the left side of westbound I-290, but joins with a Taylor Street ramp from southbound I-90/94 before merging with southbound I-90/94 at virtually the same point as the Ramp ES merge. Ramp SE is provided on a wider curvilinear alignment that is atop a Ramp EN trench below I-90/94. This causes the same trench concerns noted in previous alternatives, as well as clustered geometrics in the southwest corner of the interchange area. No northbound C-D road is provided.

Alternative A-12 Alternative A-12 provides a directional interchange with focus on a C-D system north A‐12 of the interchange. It includes a Ramp NW flyover from the right side of the northbound I-90/94 to the center of westbound I-290. This alternative provides improved geometry of Ramp EN, which passes above I-90/94. Ramp EN becomes a northbound C-D road, with Ramp WN merging on the left side and a northbound local bypass merging on the right side. A southbound I-90/94 C-D road along I-90/94 is also provided. This alternative requires substantial reconstruction of the Kennedy Expressway from the Circle Interchange to Hubbard’s Cave.

Alternative A-13 Alternative A-13 features a flatter Ramp NW flyover from the right side of northbound A‐13 I-90/94 to the center of westbound I-290. It also replaces the Morgan Street ramp with a ramp at Aberdeen Street. Ramp EN passes below I-90/94 in a trench with the same concerns noted in previous alternatives. Ramp WN merges into northbound I-90/94 just upstream of the Ramp EN merge. No northbound C-D road is provided.

September 2013 27

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Alternative A-13.1 Alternative A-13.1 is the same as Alternative A-13, except that Ramp WS and Ramp A‐13.1 SE are replaced with 20 mph loop ramps, resulting in a short weaving area on southbound I-90/94. The Ramp SE loop overlaps the Ramp EN trench.

Alternative A-14 Alternate A-14 distinctively locates Ramp NW in a trench, eliminating the need for A‐14 flyovers, but introducing the same drainage concerns as noted in previous trenched alternatives. It also may be infeasible to construct due to its proximity to existing Ramp NW and Pump Station No. 5 utilities. This alternative also shows a concept connecting the cross roadways. The frontage road would be located between and above northbound and southbound I-90/94.

Alternative A-14.1 Alternative A-14.1 is the same as Alternative A-14, except that the Ramp NW trench is A‐14.1 located partially below the Van Buren Street structure. This alternative has the same drainage and construction concerns as Alternative A-14.

Alternative A-15.1 Alternative A-15.1 realigns both directions of I-290/Congress Parkway outward so that A‐15.1 Ramp NW can be centrally located. The Ramp NW flyover begins on the right side of northbound I-90/94, over Harrison Street before passing below Halsted Street and merging on the left side of westbound I-290. Ramp EN exits on the left side of eastbound I-290 with an improved horizontal alignment and vertical profile.

Alternative A-15.2 Alternative A-15.2 is essentially the same as Alternative A-15.1, except that Ramp SE A‐15.2 is removed. While this may reduce the complication of the interchange geometrics, it would no longer provide a full access interchange, for all system movements.

Alternative A-15.3 Alternative A-15.3 is a refinement of Alternative A-15.1. The outward realignment of A‐15.3 I-290/Congress Parkway is less pronounced. Ramp EN exits on the right side of eastbound I-290 and passes below I-90/94 in a trench, with the same drainage concerns as previous trenched alternatives. This alternative also includes a northbound C-D road, which shares a divergence point with Ramp NE. It does not require a flyover of Halsted Street or the west side of Harrison Street.

September 2013 28

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Alternative A-15.4 Alternative A-15.4 is a variation of Alternative A-15.3, except that Ramp EN crosses A‐15.4 above I-90/94. This requires Ramp WS to pass above the west side of Harrison Street. This alternative also includes a direct exit to Ramp NE from Ramp NW.

Alternative A-15.5 Alternative A-15.5 is a refinement of Alternative A-15.4 in tightening the Ramp EN A‐15.5 alignment. This allows Ramp WS to slip below the west side of Harrison Street.

4.4. Alternative Evaluation The alternative evaluation process involved technical evaluation by the project study team and collaboration with the FHWA and the Department in a series of geometric workshops. The process to evaluate alternatives began at a broad level to identify fatal flaws and then added more detail with each successive round. Throughout this process, alternatives were compared relative to other alternatives and to specific criteria. Each round removed alternatives that performed poorly and, in some cases, introduced new or refined alternatives. This process concluded with a Recommended Alternative, which was then refined into the Preferred Alternative. The Alternative Histogram in Appendix L diagrams how each alternative moved through this process. The evaluation process included five rounds: 1. Fatal Flaw Evaluation 2. Purpose and Need Evaluation 3. Performance Evaluation 4. Specific Issues Evaluation 5. Final Evaluation

4.4.1. Fatal Flaw Evaluation This evaluation round identified whether or not an alternative would be infeasible or impractical to implement. Each of the original six alternatives was subjectively evaluated at a broad level based on conceptual drawings and aerial photography based on discussions at the first geometric workshop. These were the four fatal flaws in this evaluation:  Requiring all but very minimal right-of-way (ROW) acquisition without major impacts to buildings and structures requiring relocations  Requiring the use of CTA property located in the median of I-290. The CTA ROW is dedicated solely to CTA use. Per the CTA, any alternative which requires use or conversion of their transportation corridor ROW will be detrimental to their operations and future expansion plans, i.e. Blue Line expansion and modernization  Non-compatibility with future projects along I-90/94. This includes alternatives which are inconsistent with the Department’s future transportation goals of the project corridors or alternatives which may cause the implementing or retrofitting of future transportation solutions to become cost prohibitive, (i.e. managed lanes)  Not being geometrically feasible Alternatives A-1, A-2 and A-5 do not contain any fatal flaws, as defined above, and were carried forward. Alternatives A-3 and A-4 were found to have multiple flaws. As fully directional, four-level interchanges, these latter alternatives require substantial right-of-way, impact buildings, impact the CTA property and may be geometrically infeasible given the surrounding roadway network.

September 2013 29

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Alternative A-6 also has multiple flaws. In particular, this alternative includes a Ramp EN flyover located above Adams Street and below Monroe Street, which would require a geometrically infeasible vertical profile. Table 4.1 summarizes these findings.

Table 4.1 Fatal Flaw Evaluation

Alternative Result Remark A-1 Carried Forward Does not contain a fatal flaw per this evaluation A-2 Carried Forward Does not contain a fatal flaw per this evaluation A-3 Dropped Contains multiple fatal flaws (ROW impacts, CTA property impacts, geometrically infeasible) A-4 Dropped Contains multiple fatal flaws (ROW impacts, CTA property impacts, geometrically infeasible) A-5 Carried Forward Does not contain a fatal flaw per this evaluation A-6 Dropped Contains multiple fatal flaws (CTA property impacts, geometrically infeasible)

4.4.2. Purpose and Need Evaluation For the next evaluation round, alternatives were evaluated based on how well each met the Purpose and Need of the project based on discussion at the second geometric workshop. This evaluation included 13 alternatives, three carried forward from the previous evaluation (A-1, A-2 and A-5), plus 10 additional alternatives. The ten additional alternatives were a result of coordination and input from the Project Working Group (PWG) and from the Project Study Team design workshops. Part XIII of this report provides additional detail on the PWG meetings. An alternative was deemed to have passed the Purpose and Need Evaluation if it substantially met the following conditions:  Improve Safety o Addressed Ramp NW/Ramp NE C-D lane usage issue o Improved the triple convergence of westbound I-290, Ramp NW and Ramp SW o Improved the triple divergence along eastbound I-290 (with Ramp EN and Ramp ES) o Improved the triple convergence of northbound I-90/94, Ramp EN and Ramp WN  Improve Mobility o Improved the lane balance throughout the interchange area along I-90/94 o Improved mobility and ramp geometry of Ramp NW o Improved the mobility and ramp geometry of Ramp EN  Improve Operational Deficiencies o Maintained or reduced overall decision points o Improved the design speed of the system ramps o Improved the overall weaving situation throughout the interchange area  Improve Facility Condition o Replaced aging infrastructure Alternatives A-1, A-2, A-7, A-9 and A-11 were carried forward for further evaluation. Alternatives A-7, A-9 and A-11 substantially meet the project Purpose and Need. Alternatives A-1 and A-2, which essentially maintain most of the existing geometry, were carried forward only as minimal improvement alternatives (considered as No-Build Plus alternatives). This allowed further evaluation of these minimal improvement alternatives even though neither substantially met the Purpose and Need. September 2013 30

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Other alternatives did not adequately meet the Purpose and Need. Alternative A-5 modifies, but does not improve, the eastbound triple divergence. It simply relocates the Ramp EN divergence from the right side of eastbound I-290 to the left side, in addition to containing complex vertical geometry including a westbound I-290 flyover of Halsted Street. Alternative A 8 does not improve the northbound I-90/94 weave between Ramps EN/WN and the Madison Street exit. It also introduces a new weave on southbound I-90/94 between Ramp ES and a new Taylor Street exit ramp. A new Roosevelt Road exit ramp would be located immediately downstream of the weave. Alternative A-10 contains a weave on westbound I-290 between Ramp ES and the Morgan Street exit ramp. It also introduces a new weave on southbound I-90/94 between Ramp ES and a new Roosevelt Road exit ramp. Other alternatives, which were created following the Fatal Flaw Evaluation, contained fatal flaws upon additional analyses. Alternatives A-12 and A-13 call for four levels of roadways between Halsted Street and Peoria Street, which is geometrically infeasible. Alternative A-13.1 includes two loop ramps along southbound I-90/94 (Ramp WS and Ramp SE). These ramps are geometrically infeasible, especially since Ramp SE overlaps Ramp EN. Alternatives A-14 and A-14.1 each contain a Ramp NW tunnel below I-90/94, which is geometrically infeasible due to impacts on the Van Buren structure above and hydraulic impacts (high water table) below. Table 4.2 summarizes these findings.

Table 4.2 Purpose and Need Evaluation

Alternative Result Remark A-1 Carried forward Carried forward for further evaluation as a minimal improvement alternative A-2 Carried forward Carried forward for further evaluation as a minimal improvement alternative A-5 Dropped Does not adequately meet the Purpose and Need (does not improve the eastbound triple divergence) A-7 Carried forward Meets the Purpose and Need A-8 Dropped Does not adequately meet the Purpose and Need (does not improve the deficient northbound weave between Ramps EN/WN and Madison St.) A-9 Carried forward Meets the Purpose and Need A-10 Dropped Does not adequately meet the Purpose and Need (does not improve the deficient westbound weave between Ramps NW/SW and Morgan Street, adds southbound weave Ramp ES and new Roosevelt Road exit ramp.) A-11 Carried forward Meets the Purpose and Need A-12 Dropped Developed after Fatal Flaw Evaluation, but is fatally flawed (four levels of roadway at Halsted Street, including a trench of Ramp SW that is hydraulically infeasible) A-13 Dropped Developed after Fatal Flaw Evaluation, but is fatally flawed (four levels of roadway at Halsted Street, including a trench of Ramp SW that is hydraulically infeasible) A-13.1 Dropped Developed after Fatal Flaw Evaluation, but is fatally flawed (four levels of roadway at Halsted Street, including a trench of Ramp SW that is hydraulically infeasible; loop ramps along southbound I-90/94 have operational and safety flaws) A-14 Dropped Developed after Fatal Flaw Evaluation, but is fatally flawed (due to Ramp NW tunnel below I-90/94 impacts the Van Buren structure above and has hydraulic impacts (high water table) below) A-14.1 Dropped Developed after Fatal Flaw Evaluation, but is fatally flawed (due to Ramp NW tunnel below I-90/94 impacts the Van Buren structure above and has hydraulic impacts (high water table) below)

September 2013 31

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

4.4.3. Performance Evaluation The Performance Evaluation focused on evaluating alternatives based on their subjective performance beyond the Purpose and Need, as discussed at the third geometric workshop. It included 10 alternatives, three carried forward from the previous evaluation (A-2, A-9 and A-11), two alternatives developed from A-1 (A-1.1 and A-1.2) three alternatives developed from A-7 (A-7.1, A-7.2 and A-7.3), plus two additional alternatives (A-15.1 and A-15.2). The development of sub-alternatives and new alternatives reflected new ideas brought forward during project coordination and tested during the alternative evaluation process. In this evaluation, an alternative was deemed to have good performance if it met a majority of the following conditions:  Improves Safety o Likely to require a limited amount of Level One design exceptions Level One design exceptions include the controlling design criteria established by FHWA and the disabled accessibility criteria. These criteria are judged to be those design elements that are the most critical indicators of a highway’s safety and its overall serviceability, and will require documented justification for approval. o Contains well-spaced geometrics (no clustering of ramps in a particular area)  Improves Mobility o Allows Ramp NW access to Morgan Street or equivalent ramp along westbound I- 290 (Note: Traffic studies indicate that most Morgan Street ramp users originate on Ramp NW)  Constructability o Reasonable to construct o Requires no (or minimal) ramp closures to construct  Compatibility o Compatible with drainage and utility facilities o Compatible with cross street network by maintaining or improving access Alternatives A-7.1, A-7.2, A-15.1 and A-15.2 met the above Performance Criteria and were carried forward for further evaluation. Other alternatives were dropped from consideration for not meeting the performance criteria. Alternatives A-1.1, A-1.2 (same as A-1.1 except that Ramp SE is removed) and A-2 maintain much of the existing deficient geometry, requiring design exceptions along several ramps in terms of maintaining tight horizontal geometry and steep vertical profile grades. These alternatives also raise constructability issues because proposed ramps would be constructed in the same location as existing ramps, which would require full closure of the existing ramps. Due to the amount of traffic in this interchange, it is important to maintain the interstate-to-interstate movements during construction. Alternative A-7.3 introduces the concept of crisscrossing Ramp EN and Ramp ES to increase the radius of Ramp EN, which would introduce constructability issues in maintaining those existing movements during construction. Alternative A-9 clusters several ramps in a tight location at the northwest quadrant of the interchange, including a westbound I-290 flyover of Halsted Street. Alternative A-11 clusters several ramps in a tight location at the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Table 4.3 summarizes these findings.

September 2013 32

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Table 4.3 Performance Evaluation

Alternative Result Remark A-1.1 Dropped Does not meet the performance criteria (likely requires many design exceptions due to maintaining existing deficient ramp alignments, which also results in constructability issues) A-1.2 Dropped Does not meet the performance criteria (likely requires many design exceptions due to maintaining existing deficient ramp alignments, which also results in constructability issues) A-2 Dropped Does not meet the performance criteria (likely requires many design exceptions due to maintaining existing deficient ramp alignments, which also results in constructability issues) A-7.1 Carried forward Meets the majority of performance criteria A-7.2 Carried forward Meets the majority of performance criteria A-7.3 Dropped Does not meet the performance criteria (constructability issues due to Ramp ES and Ramp EN crisscross design, which may not be geometrically feasible) A-9 Dropped Does not meet the performance criteria (clusters several ramps in a tight location at the northwest quadrant of the interchange) A-11 Dropped Does not meet the performance criteria (clusters ramps in a tight location at the southwest quadrant of the interchange) A-15.1 Carried forward Meets the majority of performance criteria A-15.2 Carried forward Meets the majority of performance criteria

4.4.4. Specific Issue Evaluation The Specific Issue Evaluation included 13 alternatives: two carried forward from the previous evaluation (A-15.1, A-15.2), three alternatives developed from A-7.1 (A-7.1a, A-7.1b and A-7.1c), three alternatives developed from A-7.2 (A-7.2a, A-7.2b and A-7.2c), and five new alternatives. As in the previous evaluation, development of sub-alternatives and new alternatives reflected new ideas brought forward during project coordination among the FHWA, Department and the Project Study Team at the fourth geometric workshop. An alternative was deemed to pass this evaluation if the following criteria were met:  Includes Ramp NW from the right side of northbound I-90/94 to the right side of westbound I-290. Traffic analysis shows that a right-handed Ramp NW operates more favorably than a left- handed Ramp NW. A right-handed exit ramp also meets driver expectations.  Provides a northbound C-D road to serve downtown exits. The northbound C-D road reduces weaving between northbound I-90/94 traffic that exits to Madison Street and Washington Street by positioning it to the right of Ramp EN traffic that merges with northbound I-90/94. This is accomplished with a one-lane bypass ramp that exits below Harrison Street.  Contains no or a subtle outward realignment of I-290/Congress Parkway above I-90/94. Among the concepts, there are two general treatments of Congress Parkway above I-90/94, generally maintaining the existing alignment or an outward realignment to centrally locate system ramps. Outward realignment was deemed not to be feasible since several existing system ramps would have to be closed for an extended period of time to construct the new I 290/Congress Parkway alignments and system ramps. Maintaining interstate-to-interstate movements during construction, such as along Ramp NW (32,500 vehicles per day) and Ramp EN (26,600 vehicles per day), is an important construction consideration.

September 2013 33

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

 Ramp NE exits directly from a two-lane Ramp NW, simplifying the geometrics with the proposed northbound C-D road. With the addition of the northbound C-D road, it became apparent that Ramp NE should share a C-D road with Ramp NW, similar to the existing conditions. This simplifies the geometry along northbound I-90/94 because the northbound C-D road and Ramp NE would not divert at the same location. Furthermore, unlike the existing conditions, a two-lane Ramp NW would eliminate the need for abrupt lane changes at the Ramp NW/Ramp NE divergence.

Alternatives A-7.1b, A-7.1c, A-7.2b, A-7.2c, A-7.4a, A-7.4b, A-15.3, A-15.4 and A-15.5 met the majority of Specific Issue Evaluation and were carried forward for further evaluation. Other alternatives were dropped from consideration during this evaluation. Alternatives A-7.1a and A-7.2a locate Ramp NW on the left side of northbound I-90/94. Alternatives A-15.1 and A-15.2 realign eastbound and westbound I-290 outward from their existing alignments such that the ability to use existing ramps during construction staging becomes an issue. Table 4.4 summarizes this evaluation.

Table 4.4 Specific Issue Evaluation

Alternative Result Remark A-7.1a Dropped Does not meet criteria (Ramp NW on left side of NB I-90/94) A-7.1b Carried forward Meets majority of the specific issue criteria (Ramp NW on the right side; provides NB C-D; no outward realignment of I-290/Congress) A-7.1c Carried forward Meets all of the specific issue criteria A-7.2a Dropped Does not meet criteria (Ramp NW on left side of NB I-90/94) A-7.2b Carried forward Meets majority of the specific issue criteria (Ramp NW on the right side; provides NB C-D; no outward realignment of I-290/Congress) A-7.2c Carried forward Meets all of the specific issue criteria A-7.4a Carried forward Meets all of the specific issue criteria A-7.4b Carried forward Meets all of the specific issue criteria A-15.1 Dropped Does not meet criteria (outward realignment of EB and WB I-290) A-15.2 Dropped Does not meet criteria (outward realignment of EB and WB I-290) A-15.3 Carried forward Meets majority of the specific issue criteria (Ramp NW on the right side; provides NB C-D; Ramp NE exits from Ramp NW) A-15.4 Carried forward Meets majority of specific issue criteria A-15.5 Carried forward Meets majority of specific issue criteria

4.4.5. Final Evaluation The Final Evaluation examined the nine remaining alternatives from the Specific Issue Evaluation. The evaluation details and results are included in the Circle Interchange Alternatives Evaluation Memorandum, which is available in Appendix E. The paragraphs below summarize the four-step evaluation process and results described in the Memorandum:

Step 1: Ramp EN must go over I-90/94 Originally in the alternative development process, placing Ramp EN beneath I-90/94 in a trench was desirable to provide flatter vertical ascending and descending grades. It would also accommodate Ramp WS beneath Harrison Street with more favorable vertical

September 2013 34

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

grades, thus eliminating a third-level flyover. However, this configuration would require drainage of the trench via a pump station. In considering of the drainage options, the Department determined that a trench of Ramp EN would have too many flooding risks, including life-safety risks (the possibility that people could become trapped in the flooded tunnel). As the study progressed, the design of a Ramp EN overpass of I-90/94 was improved to provide vertical upgrades and downgrades closer to the design criteria of four percent and six percent, respectively. Thus, the geometric advantage of a Ramp EN trench was reduced. Based on the flooding and life-safety risk concerns, and the reduced geometric advantage, alternatives with a Ramp EN trench were dropped from consideration. These included Alternatives A-7.2b, A-7.2c, A-7.4b and A-15.3.

Step 2: Ramp WS must not be compromised Variations of two alternatives provide a Ramp EN overpass of I-90/94 with a Ramp WS underpass of Harrison Street. Alternatives A-7.4a and A-15.5 accommodate the Ramp WS underpass with downgrades of 10 percent and eight percent, respectively. Each exceeds the design criteria maximum downgrade of six percent. In addition, these steeper downgrades are located on a reverse horizontal curvature with a left-sided merge onto Ramp ES. Given the substandard geometry of Ramp WS, Alternatives A-7.4a and A-15.5 were dropped from consideration.

Step 3: Compare Alternative A-7.1b with A-7.1c Alternatives A-7.1b and A-7.1c are very similar, except that A-7.1c was developed to enhance the geometrics of Ramp EN and Ramp NE. It increased the design speed of Ramp EN to 35 mph from 30 mph and reduced the maximum grade on Ramp NE from 9.0 percent to 2.8 percent. Thus, Alternative A-7.1b was dropped from consideration.

Step 4: Compare Alternative A-7.1c with A-15.4 Alternative A-7.1c includes a flyover of Halsted Street, which was a concern raised at the PWG meetings. Specifically, PWG members were concerned that the flyover would have a tunneling effect similar to the Congress Parkway over Des Plaines Street. The Project Team explained that the flyover would only be two lanes instead of eight lanes, thus not having a tunneling effect. Alternative A-15.4 does not include a flyover of Halsted Street, but has more complex geometry that includes an outward realignment of Congress Parkway over I-90/94. An outward realignment reduces the design speed and horizontal sight distance, which is a safety concern. Based on this comparison, the project study team identified Alternative A-7.1c as the Recommended Alternative. A complete analysis of Alternative A-7.1c with A-15.4 is available in Appendix H.

Table 4.5 provides a summary of the Alternatives Evaluation Memo (Appendix E) results.

September 2013 35

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Table 4.5 Alternatives Evaluation Memo

Alternative Result Remark A-7.1b Dropped Dropped in Step 3; outperformed by A-7.1c A-7.1c Preferred Recommended Alternative (now the Preferred Alternative) A-7.2b Dropped Dropped in Step 1; contains trench under I-90/94 A-7.2c Dropped Dropped in Step 1; contains trench under I-90/94 A-7.4a Dropped Dropped in Step 2; contains steep grades on Ramp WS A-7.4b Dropped Dropped in Step 1; contains trench under I-90/94 A-15.3 Dropped Dropped in Step 1; contains trench under I-90/94 A-15.4 Dropped Dropped in Step 4; outperformed by A-7.1c A-15.5 Dropped Dropped in Step 2; contains steep grades on Ramp WS

4.4.6. Further Evaluation Subsequent to the selection of the Preferred Alternative in December 2012, additional requirements were added to the project. These included 1) providing a wider inside shoulder to accommodate a future managed lane along all three expressways and 2) physically separating the allowed movement from Ramp NW to exit at Morgan Street from the Ramp SW and westbound I-290 movements, which will not be allowed to exit at Morgan Street.

The Preferred Alternative was presented at the April 3, 2013 Public Hearing. Based on public input received at the hearing, the Department reviewed all the alternatives previously considered and re-evaluated the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 15.4 in more detail. Input was received from the residents of Green Street Lofts, located at 400 S. Green Street, adjacent to the north side of I-290. Concerns were expressed about the proximity of the proposed Ramp NW to the southeast corner of the building. They requested that Alternative 15.4 be reconsidered as it proposed Ramp NW to connect to I-290 along the inside lane rather than the outside lane as shown in the Preferred Alternative.

After the Public Hearing, the two changes to the Preferred Alternative listed above were also applied to Alternative 15.4 because it had not been modified since December 2012, when Alternative 7.1.c became the recommended alternative. This allowed for an equal comparison to the Preferred Alternative (7.1.c). The results of these revisions to Alternative 15.4 are as follows:  For Alternative 15.4, the “footprint” adjacent to the Green Street Lofts building became wider to accommodate the wider inside shoulder for the future managed lane and the separation of the Ramp NW exit movement to Morgan Street. Consequently, the horizontal distance from the back of the retaining wall on the north edge of the roadway to the southeast building corner of the Green Street Lofts would be approximately 20 feet, similar to the Preferred Alternative.  Initial findings of the updated geometry for Alternative 15.4 indicate that based upon span lengths and superstructure depths of the ramp structures, numerous ramp movements will incur extremely steep grades in excess of eight percent which are a major safety concern and potential geometric fatal flaws in the proposed design.  The pavement edge closest to the building in Alternative 15.4 would be approximately 17.9 feet below ground level.

September 2013 36

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

 Alternative 15.4 required lowering the Kennedy Expressway over three feet in a flood prone section. This would require the construction of a new pump station and a new storm sewer outlet to the Chicago River.  Overall, the horizontal location of mainline and ramps between the two alternatives is relatively the same, but there is a vertical difference.

Based on these finding, the selection of Alternative 7.1.c as the Preferred Alternative was still valid. Further refinements were made to the Preferred Alternative to maximize the separation between the building at 400 S. Green Street and Ramp NW based on input from the Green Street Lofts Homeowners Association board representatives. The final Preferred Alternative is available in Appendix Q.

September 2013 37

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

5. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STUDIED IN DETAIL 5.1. General Description The Preferred Alternative, as shown in Appendix Q, Figure 5.1meets the Purpose and Need of the project by improving safety, mobility, operational deficiencies and facility condition as described in Section 5.2. It accomplishes other goals of the project by requiring a very minimal amount of land acquisition, requiring no permanent acquisition of CTA property in the median of I-290, being compatible with future expansion on I- 90/94, and is constructible. A Proposed Improvement Plan depicting the preferred alternative is available in the Access Justification Report (AJR).

Figure 5.1 Rendering of Preferred Alternative From the perspective of the Willis Tower, looking southwest

The most notable aspect of the Preferred Alternative is the Ramp NW flyover. This two-lane flyover solves multiple issues on the project. It eliminates a lane usage issue along the Ramp NE/Ramp NW C-D road; it increases capacity with a two-lane cross section; it replaces an existing ramp with tight horizontal and vertical geometry with simpler, more gradual geometry; and it eliminates a weaving area with Morgan Street. An improved two-lane Ramp EN solves similar issues. It reduces the likelihood for queue backup onto eastbound I-290; it provides improved horizontal alignment and vertical profiles; and it eliminates a short merge area with Ramp WN. The lane balance along I-90/94 will be improved. Currently, only three lanes in each direction pass through the interchange. The Preferred Alternative provides four lanes, increasing capacity and also reducing the need for lane changes. Five through lanes are provided in each direction up and downstream of the interchange. All eight system movements are maintained as part of the Preferred Alternative. However, the Preferred Alternative geometrics necessitate the removal of five secondary accesses. These are detailed in Section 5.3. The northbound C-D road improves northbound I-90/94 access to the downtown ramps, which include Madison Street, Washington Street, Randolph Street and Lake Street. This northbound C-D road reduces weaving by keeping this traffic flow independent of the Ramp EN merge with northbound I-90/94. Ramp EN has a slip ramp to the northbound C-D road to allow its traffic to access the downtown ramps. The northern end of the northbound C-D road has a slip ramp that allows traffic to return to northbound I-90/94. The Preferred Alternative maintains much of the existing Circle Interchange appearance from a plan view. However, it adds an additional level of ramps above the cross streets to achieve improved horizontal and vertical geometry: Ramp NW/Ramp NE over Harrison Street; Ramp NW over Halsted Street and Ramp WS/Taylor exit ramp over Harrison Street. The additional interchange level, along with new mainline, ramp and cross street structures, and new retaining walls, provide an aesthetic enhancement opportunity. Aesthetic treatments for this project are discussed in Section 5.4.3.

September 2013 38

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Typical sections for the Preferred Alternative are in Appendix P. The Circle Interchange Access Justification Report (AJR), including an Interchange Design Study (IDS), has been prepared under separate cover. It is available at the IDOT District 1 office in Schaumburg, Illinois. The AJR and IDS provide greater geometric and operational details above what is described in this section of the CDR. The AJR also provides a signing plan for the entire project area.

5.2. Attainment of Purpose and Need The Purpose and Need for the project is detailed in Section 2 of this report. This section briefly summarizes each need and explains how the Preferred Alternative addresses those needs. It is organized using the points expressed in the Purpose and Need Evaluation for alternatives (Section 4.4.2).

5.2.1. Improve Safety With 2,819 crashes during the three-year crash study period of 2006-2008, improving safety at the Circle Interchange is important. Four areas of the existing interchange were targeted as safety issues. These include improving the following deficiencies: 1) Ramp NW/Ramp NE C-D lane usage; 2) triple convergence of westbound I-290, Ramp NW and Ramp SW; 3) triple divergence along eastbound I-290, with Ramp EN and Ramp ES; and 4) triple convergence of northbound I-90/94, Ramp EN and Ramp WN. The safety benefits of the Preferred Alternative are analyzed in the Predictive Safety Analysis in Appendix H.

Ramp NW/Ramp NE C-D Road In the existing condition, the left lane of the Ramp NW/Ramp NE C-D road exclusively serves Ramp NE, while the right lane exclusively serves Ramp NW. The travel demand for Ramp NW is over eight times greater than for Ramp NE. This tempts motorists to bypass queues in the right lane before merging into the left lane at the last opportunity, increasing the likelihood of rear-end and sideswipe collisions. By adding a second lane to Ramp NW in the Preferred Alternative (Figure 5.2), both the left and right lane may be used to directly access Ramp NW. Ramp NE is served by a standard exit terminal from the right lane. This reduces the likelihood of rear-end and sideswipe collisions.

Figure 5.2 Ramp NW/Ramp NE C-D Road Safety Issue

September 2013 39

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Westbound Triple Convergence The westbound triple convergence includes westbound I-290, Ramp NW and Ramp SW. Ramp SW enters the right side of the convergence as a single 400-foot weave lane with the Morgan Street exit ramp; Ramp NW enters the convergence as a single lane ramp between Ramp SW and westbound I- 290 at comparatively slow speeds due to its geometrics; and three lanes of westbound I-290 enters on the left side at relatively high speed. Access to Morgan Street is prohibited from westbound I-290. These factors increase the likelihood of rear-end and sideswipe collisions. The Preferred Alternative separates Ramp NW from the Ramp SW merge with westbound I-290 (Figure 5.3). The Ramp NW merge with westbound I-290 is located about 600 feet downstream of the Ramp SW merge. Only traffic on Ramp NW can access Morgan Street. All of these ramp entrances are add lane situations, meaning that no immediate merges are required. This reduces the likelihood of crashes.

Figure 5.3 Westbound Triple Convergence Safety Issue

Eastbound Triple Divergence The existing eastbound I-290, Ramp EN and Ramp ES divergence often becomes congested due to a lack of capacity on Ramp EN. Ramp EN has a single lane cross section with tight horizontal alignment and vertical profiles. Traffic often uses other lanes before making abrupt lane changes to bypass congestion, increasing the likelihood of rear-end and sideswipe collisions. The Preferred Alternative corrects this condition by widening the eastbound I-290 cross section approaching the divergence to six lanes. It also increases the Ramp EN cross section to two lanes and improving its geometry (Figure 5.4). It achieves lane balance by reducing the eastbound I-290 cross section to two lanes. Ramp ES remains two lanes to meet its capacity needs. Thus, the leftmost two lanes of the eastbound I-290 cross section serve eastbound Congress Parkway, the center two lanes serve Ramp EN and the rightmost two lanes serve Ramp ES. These steps reduce the likelihood of rear-end and sideswipe collisions.

September 2013 40

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Figure 5.4 Eastbound Triple Divergence Safety Issue

Northbound Triple Convergence In the existing conditions, Ramp EN and Ramp WN have a short merge just upstream from a merge with northbound I-90/94. Traffic on northbound I-90/94 exiting to downtown weaves with the Ramp EN and Ramp WN traffic. This increases the likelihood of rear-end and sideswipe collisions. The Preferred Alternative addresses these concerns by providing a new northbound C-D road and separating the Ramp EN and Ramp WN merge to northbound I-90/94 (Figure 5.5). The more lightly traveled Ramp WN enters northbound I-90/94 on a short merge. Ramp EN enters northbound I-90/94 as two add lanes, with lane drops occurring further north. Additionally, the northbound C-D road allows northbound I-90/94 traffic to access the downtown exits without the need to weave across Ramp EN and Ramp WN traffic. Separating the Ramp EN and Ramp WN merge eliminates the abrupt merge between the two ramps. A slip ramp allows Ramp EN traffic to access the downtown ramps. The horizontal and vertical geometry along Ramp EN is also improved.

Figure 5.5 Northbound Convergence Safety Issue

September 2013 41

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

5.2.2. Improve Mobility Improving mobility through the Circle Interchange involves three key steps: 1) improve the lane balance along I-90/94; 2) improve the mobility on Ramp NW; and 3) improve the mobility on Ramp EN.

Improve Lane Balance along I-90/94 In either direction, the existing lane configuration along I-90/94 is five lanes upstream of the interchange, three lanes within the interchange, and five lanes downstream of the interchange. Because, in each direction, the two right lanes are mandatory exit lanes, traffic is required to merge left in order to continue heading on I-90/94. Downstream of the interchange in both directions, entrance ramps add additional lanes. By adding a fourth lane in each direction through the interchange, the number of necessary lane changes is reduced, thus decreasing turbulence and increasing mobility. The projected 2040 Build condition design hourly volumes through the interchange is 5,520 vph-AM and 5,010 vph-PM in the northbound direction, and 6,650 vph-AM and 7,240 vph-PM in the southbound direction. These volumes can be accommodated by a four lane section, which has a capacity on the order of 8,400 vph in each direction (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 I-90/94 Peak Hour Volumes (2040 Build) and Theoretical Capacity11

Direction 2040 Build 2040 Build Theoretical Capacity Theoretical Capacity AM PHV PM PHV for Three Lanes for Four Lanes NB 5,520 vph 5,010 vph 6,300 vph 9,000 vph SB 6,650 vph 7,240 vph 6,300 vph 9,000 vph

Improve Mobility on Ramp NW The one lane cross section and tight horizontal and vertical geometrics on existing Ramp NW impacts its mobility. Congestion on this ramp impacts the C-D road it shares with Ramp NE, and ultimately operations on northbound I-90/94. Other than the one lane cross section, the most limiting aspect of the ramp is its vertical geometry, which provides less than a 20 mph stopping sight distance (SSD) speed. The horizontal alignment is limited to a 25 mph SSD speed. The Preferred Alternative improves mobility by providing two lanes on Ramp NW on a new flyover alignment. The horizontal alignment provides a 35 mph SSD speed and the vertical alignment provides a 50 mph SSD speed (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Mobility on Ramp NW

Cross Section Horizontal SSD Speed Vertical SSD Speed Existing Conditions One Lane 25 mph < 20 mph Preferred Alternative Two Lanes 35 mph 50 mph

11 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Exhibit 11-2 for 55 mph at 45 pc/mi/ln relates to a flow rate of 2,250 pc/h/ln September 2013 42

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Improve Mobility on Ramp EN Existing Ramp EN also has a one lane cross section and tight horizontal and vertical geometrics that impact its mobility. Congestion on this ramp impacts the operations on eastbound I-290 and Ramp ES. Other than the one lane cross section, the most limiting aspect of the ramp is its vertical geometry. The vertical geometry is appropriate for a 20 mph SSD speed, and the horizontal geometry is appropriate for a 25 mph SSD speed. The Preferred Alternative improves mobility by providing two lanes on Ramp EN on a revised alignment. The vertical design speed provides a 35 mph SSD speed and the horizontal alignment provides a 30 mph SSD speed (Table 5.2).

Table 5.3 Mobility on Ramp EN

Cross Section Horizontal SSD Speed Vertical SSD Speed Existing Conditions One Lane 25 mph 20 mph Preferred Alternative Two Lanes 30 mph 35 mph

5.2.3. Improve Operational Deficiencies The Purpose and Need Evaluation for alternatives outlines three leading aspects for operational deficiencies: 1) maintaining or reducing overall decision points; 2) improving the design speed of system ramps; and 3) improving the overall weaving situation throughout the interchange area. This section also compares VISSIM results for the Preferred Alternative versus existing conditions.

Decision Points Decision points are locations where a driver must make a choice in which direction to go. Examples of a decision point range from typical ramp divergences to major divergences between expressways. Ideally, the number of decision points would be maintained or even reduced from the existing conditions to the Preferred Alternative. However, adding geometric enhancements, such as collector-distributor roadways, increase decision points for some movements while reducing decision points for other movements. The northbound C-D road accommodates traffic exiting downtown, but adds an additional decision point. However, it eliminates three decision points for traffic continuing northbound through Hubbard’s Cave (Table 5.4). The southbound direction moves the Taylor Street exit decision to north of the Circle Interchange, increasing the number of decision points for traffic exiting to Canal Street, eastbound Congress Parkway and Taylor Street. However, it reduces the number of decisions for traffic continuing southbound on I-90/94. Also, southbound I-90/94 will no longer be able to exit at Morgan Street, which reduces the number of decisions traffic encounters on its way to westbound I-290 (Table 5.5).

September 2013 43

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Table 5.4 Northbound Decision Points

Destination Decision Points Decision Points Change in (Existing) (Preferred) Decision Points Origin: NB I-90/94 at Liberty Street (NB I-90/94 and Ramp NW/Ramp NE C-D Road split) Morgan Street via WB I-290 3 3 0 WB I-290 past Morgan Street 3 3 0 Canal Street via EB Congress Parkway 3 3 0 EB Congress Pkwy past Old Post Office 3 3 0 Madison Street via NB I-90/94 2 3 +1 Washington Street via NB I-90/94 3 4 +1 Randolph Street via NB I-90/94 4 5 +1 Lake Street via NB I-90/94 5 6 +1 NB I-90/94 past Hubbard’s Cave 5 2 -3

Table 5.5 Southbound Decision Points

Destination Decision Points Decision Points Change in (Existing) (Preferred) Decision Points Origin: SB I-90/94 at Hubbard’s Cave Adams Street via SB I-90/94 5 5 0 Jackson Street via SB I-90/94 5 5 0 Morgan Street via WB I-290 8 Not Accessible x WB I-290 past Racine Avenue 8 7 -1 Canal Street via EB Congress Parkway 8 9 +1 EB Congress Pkwy past Old Post Office 8 9 +1 Taylor Street via SB I-90/94 7 9 +2 SB I-90/94 past Taylor Street 7 6 -1

The eastbound direction reflects the impact of the northbound C-D road in the Preferred Alternative. The number of decision points for traffic exiting downtown is increased by one, due to the addition of a slip ramp from Ramp EN to the northbound C-D road. However, it reduces three decision points for traffic continuing on northbound I-90/94 through Hubbard’s Cave. Also, it reduces one decision point for traffic continuing on southbound I-90/94 due to the removal of Taylor Street access (Table 5.6). Access to downtown ramps is eliminated in the westbound direction due to redundancy with Congress Parkway. This substantially reduces decision points for traffic continuing on northbound I-90/94 (Table 5.7).

September 2013 44

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Table 5.6 Eastbound Decision Points

Destination Decision Points Decision Points Change in (Existing) (Preferred) Decision Points Origin: EB I-290 at Morgan Street Madison Street via NB I-90/94 2 3 +1 Washington Street via NB I-90/94 3 4 +1 Randolph Street via NB I-90/94 4 5 +1 Lake Street via NB I-90/94 5 6 +1 NB I-90/94 past Hubbard’s Cave 5 2 -3 Taylor Street via SB I-90/94 2 Not Accessible x SB I-90/94 past Roosevelt Road 2 1 -1 Canal Street via EB Congress Parkway 2 2 0 EB Congress Pkwy past Old Post Office 2 2 0

Table 5.7 Westbound Decision Points

Destination Decision Points Decision Points Change in (Existing) (Preferred) Decision Points Origin: WB Congress Parkway at Old Post Office Monroe Street via NB I-90/94 Not Provided Not Provided x Madison Street via NB I-90/94 2 Not Accessible x Washington Street via NB I-90/94 3 Not Accessible x Randolph Street via NB I-90/94 4 Not Accessible x Lake Street via NB I-90/94 5 Not Accessible x NB I-90/94 past Hubbard’s Cave 5 0 -5 Taylor Street via SB I-90/94 2 2 0 SB I-90/94 past Roosevelt Road 2 2 0 Morgan Street via WB I-290 Prohibited Not Accessible x WB I-290 past Morgan Street 1 1 0

Ramp Design Speeds Section 5.2.2 included the horizontal and vertical design speeds for Ramp NW and Ramp EN. The data in Table 5.8 provides the design speed for each of the eight system ramps. The design speed is based on horizontal radius. Table 5.8 shows that the Preferred Alternative is a notable improvement over existing conditions.

September 2013 45

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Table 5.8 Ramp Design Speeds

Ramp Existing Design Speed Proposed Design Speed Ramp NE < 20 mph 35 mph Ramp NW < 20 mph 40 mph Ramp SE < 20 mph 25 mph Ramp SW 20 mph 40 mph Ramp EN < 20 mph 35 mph Ramp ES 20 mph 45 mph Ramp WN 20 mph 35 mph Ramp WS < 20 mph 30 mph

Weaving Areas Weaving areas can have a profound effect on operations. A weaving area exists where a merge occurs 2,500 feet or less upstream from a divergence. The existing conditions include five weaving areas of varying lengths. In the Preferred Alternative, three of these weaves are eliminated, one is reduced in length and another is maintained. The Preferred Alternative also introduces three additional weaving areas (Table 5.9), for a total of five weaving areas. Please refer to the Access Justification Report under separate cover and available at the IDOT District 1 office for a traffic analysis of these weaving areas.

Table 5.9 Weaving Areas

Weaving Area Length Preferred Alternative Length NB I-90/94 (Ramp EN/WN to Madison Exit) 800’ Eliminated - Ramp ES (Ramp WS to Taylor Exit) 840’ Eliminated - EB Congress Pkwy (Ramp SE to Canal Exit) 400’ Maintained 400’ WB Congress Pkwy (Canal Entrance to Ramp WN) 350’ Reduced distance 250’ WB I-290 (Ramp SW to Morgan Street) 400’ Eliminated - NB I-90/94 (Taylor Entrance to NB Bypass Exit) n/a Added in Preferred Alternative 270’ Ramp WS (between intra-ramp gores) n/a Added in Preferred Alternative 1,150’

VISSIM Analysis A VISSIM analysis was performed for three scenarios. These include the existing conditions with 2012 traffic, the No-Build condition with 2040 traffic and the Build condition (Preferred Alternative) with 2040 traffic. If no improvements were completed, travel times would increase compared to existing conditions. The Preferred Improvement, on the other hand, reduces key travel times (Table 5.10). A more complete detailing of the VISSIM analysis is provided in the Traffic Modeling Results Memorandum in Appendix H.

September 2013 46

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Table 5.10 Travel Time Comparison

Location Limits Existing 2040 2040 Time Savings Travel No-Build Build (2040 No-Build Time Travel Time Travel Time versus Build) Northbound 31st Street AM 9 minutes 13 minutes 5 minutes 8 minutes I-90/94 to the Circle PM 30 minutes 40 minutes 25 minutes 15 minutes Southbound Street AM 3 minutes 3 minutes 2 minutes 1 minute I-90/94 to the Circle PM 9 minutes 11 minutes 2 minutes 9 minutes Ramp NW 31st Street to AM 10 minutes 14 minutes 6 minutes 8 minutes Loomis Ave. PM 26 minutes 37 minutes 19 minutes 18 minutes Eastbound Loomis Ave. AM 1 minute 3 minutes 2 minutes 1 minute I-290 to Post Off. PM 3 minutes 3 minute 2 minutes 1 minute

5.2.4. Improve Facility Condition The Preferred Alternative reconstructs the entirety of the Circle Interchange, thereby improving its condition compared to the existing conditions. It also reconstructs seven cross street structures over I-90/94: Taylor Street, Harrison Street (each over northbound I-90/94 and southbound I-90/94), Van Buren Street, Jackson Street, Adams Street and Monroe Street; and two cross street structures over I-290: Peoria Street and Halsted Street. The Preferred Alternative also enhances the aesthetics of the interchange area, as described in Section 5.4.3.

5.3. Traffic Service to Region The Preferred Alternative maintains all eight system movements. However, in order to provide additional capacity to key movements and to eliminate weaving areas, it is necessary to eliminate some movements from the interchange area. These are outlined in Table 5.11, along with the most direct alternative route. Given the existing roadway grid system in Chicago, other alternative routes are available in addition to those listed.

Table 5.11 Eliminated Movements and Alternative Routes

Movement Alternative Route SB I-90/94 to Morgan Street SB I-90/94 to Adams Street; Adams Street west to Morgan Street WB Congress to Madison St. WB Congress Parkway to Dearborn Street; Dearborn Street north to Madison Street WB Congress to Washington WB Congress Parkway to Dearborn Street; Dearborn Street north to Washington St. WB Congress to Randolph St. WB Congress Parkway to Dearborn Street; Dearborn Street north to Randolph St.

5.4. Engineering Considerations and Aesthetics The Preferred Alternative factors in an array of engineering considerations, including aesthetics. Basic considerations, such as geometrics and the state of the existing infrastructure, are discussed throughout the report. This section analyzes other considerations, such as wayfinding, cross streets, aesthetics and constructability.

September 2013 47

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

5.4.1. Wayfinding (Signing) The Preferred Alternative signing plan maintains the general layout of the existing signing plan, with modifications to accommodate the Preferred Alternative. It also updates signs to meet the current FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Illinois Supplemental MUTCD standards. This includes the new up-arrow design for major divergences. The existing signing plan accommodates 21 decision points within the 2.7-mile combined project length (1.5 miles on I-90/94 and 1.2 miles on I-290). A complete signing plan is included in the Circle Interchange Access Justification Report, under separate cover and available at the IDOT District 1 office.

5.4.2. Cross streets The Preferred Alternative reconstructs many cross street bridges crossing the expressway system, allowing for improvements to the bridge cross sections. Each cross street has a unique set of improvements depending on the existing cross section and use of the bridge (Table 5.12). For instance, the improvements on Halsted Street include widening sidewalks to improve walkability, adding bike lanes and bus lanes. It also includes adding pedestrian signals and a canopy to better serve pedestrians accessing the CTA UIC-Halsted Blue Line station. Further discussion on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation is provided in Section 5.5. Appendix N provides drawings depicting the cross street improvements.

Table 5.12 Cross Street Enhancements

Preferred Alternative Enhancements Taylor Street over I-90/94 Maintain four lanes (two per direction), widen sidewalks Harrison Street over I-90/94 Reduce from four lanes to two lanes, add bike lanes, widen sidewalks Van Buren Street over I-90/94 Maintain one lane EB and two lanes WB, maintain sidewalks Jackson Boulevard over I-90/94 Maintain three lanes, restripe to add bike lane, widen sidewalks Adams Street over I-90/94 Maintain two lanes, add bike lane, widen sidewalks Monroe Street over I-90/94 Maintain four lanes (two per direction), maintain sidewalks Peoria Street over I-290 Maintain as pedestrian bridge Halsted Street over I-290 Reduce from four lanes to two lanes, add bus lanes, add bike lanes, widen sidewalk, add pedestrian signals and canopy at CTA station

5.4.3. Aesthetics The reconstruction of the Circle Interchange provides an opportunity for aesthetic improvement. Aesthetics were an important component of the Project Working Group (PWG) Meetings and Design Charrette (Section 7.1.4). Figure 5.6 through Figure 5.9 displays artistic renderings of what Jackson Boulevard, Peoria Street, Halsted Street and Des Plaines Street may look like. More information about the proposed aesthetics is available in Appendix U.

September 2013 48

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Figure 5.6 Artistic Rendering of Jackson Blvd. Face East

Figure 5.7 Artistic Rendering of Peoria Street Face North

Figure 5.8 Artistic Rendering of Halsted Street Face South

Figure 5.9 Artistic Rendering of Des Plaines St. Face South

5.4.4. Constructability Despite its constructability advantages, closing the entire Circle Interchange during construction would have a detrimental effect on the region. Thus, a staging plan for the Preferred Alternative was developed that keeps mainlines and key ramps open during construction, which is described further Section 5.12. The Circle Interchange Traffic Management Plan, under separate cover, available at the IDOT District 1 office, provides comprehensive details on staging and potential detour routes.

5.4.5. Right-of-Way Due to the heavily urbanized nature of the area surrounding the Circle Interchange, minimization of right-of-way (ROW) acquisition was one of the primary constraints considered during the design. Construction of the Preferred Alternative will require approximately 0.1 acres of right-of-way, 0.3 acres of permanent easements, and 1.5 acres of temporary easements. The proposed right-of-way is primarily needed for the construction of the southbound Jackson Street exit ramp and the eastbound Taylor Street exit ramp. Permanent easements are primarily required for the relocation of a Chicago

September 2013 49

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Department of Water Management water main near the UIC tennis courts. Temporary construction easements are required for grading, driveway reconstruction, site restoration, and landscaping. There are no residential or business relocations involved in this project. Any and all acquisitions will comply with all requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, as amended, and the IDOT Land Acquisition Procedure Manual. Exhibits showing the preliminary ROW requirements are available in Appendix R.

5.4.6. Lighting Interchange lighting will be upgraded to current standards. On the cross streets, decorative light poles will be included to match the existing theme of the area. Any cost participation is to be coordinated with the City of Chicago or other entities as may be appropriate.

5.5. Proposed Structures The Circle Interchange includes the construction of 20 bridge structures, 50 retaining walls, and up to six potential noise barriers that are pending input from stakeholders. The project team has prepared Bridge Condition Reports (BCRs) for the existing bridge structures to be reconstructed. In general, the reconstructed bridges fall into two categories. The first category includes the bridges carrying I-290 over I-90/94 and Congress Parkway from Des Plaines Street to Canal Street. The second category of bridges includes ramp widening and reconstruction: Ramp NE, Ramp NW, Ramp SE, Ramp EN, Ramp WN, Ramp WS and the Taylor Street to NB I-90/94 ramp. It also includes the so- called southbound Taylor Bypass, which is the ramp from SB I-90/94 and over I-290, Ramp EN, Ramp ES and Harrison Street. The third category is cross street structures, which may or may not include integrated ramp bridge reconstruction. The bridges in this category with integrated ramp bridges include Jackson Street, Adams Street and Monroe Street. The other bridges in this category include Taylor Street (its ramp bridges are counted separately), Harrison Street, Peoria Street and Halsted Street. These BCRs are under separate cover and available at the IDOT District 1 office in Schaumburg, Illinois. The Preferred Alternative includes generally widening the cross section of the highways while maintaining the same general corridor. This requires the construction of new retaining walls throughout the project in order to implement the Preferred Alternative. A total of 50 retaining walls are proposed for the project, ranging from about five feet to 20 feet in height, and from about 30 feet to 1,400 feet in length. The Preferred Alternative also has the potential for six noise barriers that are pending input from noise barriers. These noise walls are generally located along the north side of I-290 between Loomis Street and Racine Avenue, at the foot of Sangamon Avenue and between Peoria Street and Halsted Street; along the west side of I-90/94 between Jackson Boulevard and Van Buren Street and south of Harrison Street; and on the east side of I-90/94 between Adams Street and Monroe Street.

5.6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The Preferred Alternative enhances pedestrian and bicycle accessibility within the project limits. As shown in Table 5.13, improvements will be made to widen sidewalk widths and include bicycle accommodations in several locations.

September 2013 50

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Independent of this project, future bicycle accommodations are planned for Taylor Street, Harrison Street, Jackson Boulevard, Adams Street, Madison Street and Racine Avenue12.

Table 5.13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations (Preferred Alternative)

Cross street Pedestrian Accommodations Bicycle Accommodations Taylor Street over I-90/94 Sidewalk (16’ on both sides) None Harrison Street over I-90/94 Sidewalk (10’ on both sides) Bike lanes (both sides) Van Buren Street over I-90/94 Sidewalk (12’ on both sides) None Jackson Boulevard over I-90/94 Sidewalk (11’ north, 10’ south) Bike lane (EB) Adams Street over I-90/94 Sidewalk (15’ north, 12’ south) Bike lane (WB) Peoria Street over I-290 Pedestrian-only bridge Bicycles permitted Halsted Street over I-290 Sidewalk (10’ on both sides) Bike lanes (both sides) Des Plaines Street below Congress Sidewalk (14’ on both sides) Bike lane (SB)

Bold represents an improvement over existing conditions shown in Table 3.2 The IDOT Bicycle Checklist form is available in Appendix H.

5.7. CTA Blue Line Station Improvements The Preferred Alternative improves the CTA Blue Line station atop the Peoria Street pedestrian bridge. The existing CTA station brick building located on the bridge proper is removed. Equipment for CTA operations is moved to the adjacent glass building that overhangs the CTA tracks on the west façade of the bridge. The glass building undergoes rehabilitation including the installation of a new elevator between the glass building and the platform below, improving ADA access. The Preferred Alternative improves the CTA Blue Line station along Halsted Street. The improvements at this location include a midblock crossing with pedestrian signals and a canopy.

5.8. Drainage Improvements The Circle Interchange Location Drainage Study (LDS), under separate cover, available at the IDOT District 1 office in Schaumburg, Illinois, provides comprehensive details of the drainage improvements. The improvements are described in the LDS in terms of four segments: west, north, south and east. The west segment along I-290 drains into Pump Station No. 5 and sometimes into Pump Station No. 26 during surcharge events. The existing main drain (approximately seven feet by eight feet) will be supplemented by a proposed parallel 78-inch diameter pipe from Racine Street to a new connection structure with the existing main drain. This pipe would be located below the westbound I-290 lanes. Thus, connections to inlets in the eastbound lanes would be made below the CTA Blue Line property. The design will attempt to limit the number of jacked crossings below the CTA. The north segment south of Monroe Street drains into Pump Station No. 5 as well. The existing 36-inch main drain will be replaced by a new main drain varying diameter between 21 inches at the north end to 48

12 Source: City of Chicago web page at http://www.cityofchicago.org/cityinfo/cdot/bikemap/keymap.html September 2013 51

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

inches at the south end. North of Monroe Street, the existing drainage system will be maintained. Existing inlets and lateral pipes associated with reconstructed ramps will be replaced. The south segment drains into Pump Station No. 26 via a main drain measuring approximately six feet by six feet, which will be maintained. In this segment, a 4.67 acre-foot storage tank will be installed below the existing Accident Investigation Site in the median of I-90/94 south of Harrison Street. The east segment, along Congress Parkway, will have a new scupper system that drains into the City of Chicago combined sewers.

5.9. Utility Accommodation During the study phase, the project team identified major utility concerns that would pose difficult to relocate prior to or during construction. Information provided by utilities through the Office of Underground Coordination (OUC) process and during initial subsurface utility engineering (SUE) deliverables. In most cases, adjustments were made to proposed bridge foundations to avoid impacts to existing utilities, including water mains and electrical and telephone facilities. Otherwise, the I-290 mainline, I-90/94 mainline and ramp geometrics were reviewed against utility crossings and any refinements made to avoid or minimize the utility relocation. Phase II design will strive to avoid utilities as part of the proposed improvements. There are a number of locations where utilities crossing the mainlines and ramps that will include bridge or retaining wall foundations spaced specifically to avoid the utility that can remain in place. Most impacts are unavoidable, including all cross road bridges that require reconstruction. Mainline and ramp improvements that extend well beyond the existing edges of pavement also are locations where the proposed roadway and retaining walls impact the existing utilities. The following is a summary of major utilities that have been identified:  Chicago Department of Water Management – Water Supply o Two feeder water mains exiting Cermak Pumping Station below SB I-90/94 o Three feeder water mains exiting Cermak Pumping Station below NB I-90/94 o Feeder/Distribution water mains along Harrison Street o 16” water main crossing I-290 at Green Street o 16” water main crossing I-90/94 at Jackson Boulevard o Water mains along Des Plaines Street, Jefferson Street, Clinton Street and Canal Street below Congress Parkway o Miscellaneous water mains within cross road improvements o 13” Des Plaines Tunnel 130’ +/- deep within Harrison Street and Des Plaines Street  Chicago Department of Water Management – Inactive/Abandoned Water Supply Tunnels o 7’ Tunnel along Harrison Street o 10’ Tunnel connecting 7’ Tunnel into Cermak Pumping Station o 6’ Tunnel crossing project area from northeast to southwest (Congress Parkway, Harrison Street, NB I-90/94 and SB I-90/94) o 8’ Tunnel along Halsted Street o 10’ Tunnel along Van Buren Street o 10’ Tunnel along Jefferson Street  Chicago Department of Water Management – Sewer Section o Three pipe siphon with junction chambers below I-290 at Peoria Street o One pipe siphon with junction chambers below I-90/94 at Van Buren Street o Three large diameter pipe siphon with junction chambers below I-90/94 at Monroe Street

September 2013 52

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

o 60” sewer along Harrison Street and SB I-90/94 between Harrison Street and Roosevelt Road o 60” sewer adjacent to SB I-90/94 between Madison Street and Adams Street o Sewers along Jefferson Street, Clinton Street and Canal Street o Miscellaneous sewers within cross road improvements  Chicago Department of Transportation o Roadway lighting along all cross roads and cross road bridges o Miscellaneous Department of Electrical Operations facilities o City of Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Coordination o Various copper and fiber optic utilities within cross street and cross street bridge improvements  Chicago Transit Authority o Drainage and utility services to station entrances at Morgan Street, Peoria Street and Halsted Street o CTA power, signaling and communications within the CTA right-of-way inside the median of I-290 o Various facilities within subway section below Congress Parkway to the east of Halsted Street o Chicago Transit Authority – Abandoned Water Supply Tunnels o Abandoned 5’ water tunnel along WB I-290 and across I-90/94  Chicago Freight Tunnels o Filled and abandoned tunnels below I-90/94 between Jackson Street and Quincy Street o Tunnel along Quincy Street bulkheaded and filled below I-90/94 to a point east of existing retaining wall o Tunnel along Jackson Street bulkheaded and filled below I-90/94 to a point east of existing bridge abutment  Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago o 15’ West Side Intercepting Sewer along Jefferson Street  Commonwealth Edison o Distribution/Transmission lines crossing every cross road bridge o 48 duct package crossing I-90/94 north of Harrison Street o Various connections crossing I-290 to CTA o Transmission lines crossing I-90/94 near Cabrini Street  Peoples Gas o Connection to Cermak Pumping Station crossing NB I-90/94 o 20” gas main crossing I-290 at Green Street o 24” gas main crossing I-90/94 at Jackson Street  AT&T Illinois/SBC o 48 duct package crossing I-90/94 north of Harrison Street o 15 duct package crossing I-290 west of Halsted Street o Copper and fiber optic lines crossing some cross road bridges  Miscellaneous Communications Companies o Varies As individual contract plans are developed, the Phase II design will identify exact impacts with a combination of atlas information, survey data, SUE findings and coordination with the utilities. Meeting with utilities will result in clearly identifying the true impact of the proposed improvements, possible modifications to the improvement to minimize or avoid the impact and to coordinate relocation efforts. Relocations will be performed by the utility or by the IDOT contractors as part of the roadway, bridge and

September 2013 53

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

retaining wall improvements. In some cases, IDOT may desire to perform utility/sewer relocations as part of advance construction contracts.

5.10. Social, Economic and Environmental Effects The Circle Interchange Environmental Assessment (EA), under separate cover and available at the IDOT District 1 office in Schaumburg, Illinois, outlines the social, economic and environmental effects for the project. The EA notes that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is anticipated for the project due to the disturbance of more than an acre of soil. It also outlines environmental commitments in regard to construction noise and construction vibration. The EA outlines an environmental commitment to air quality monitoring. There are approximately 600 trees in the project area, which are a combination of landscaping trees and opportunity trees within the infields of the existing interchange and along the corridor. Any required tree replacement will be based on the IDOT D&E – 18 Policy “Preservation and Replacement of Trees”. The policy requires the replacement of isolated trees or small groups of trees within the project right-of-way to the extent practical. A landscaping plan will be prepared under the direction of the Department’s Landscape Architect and the plan will comply with the Policy. The Department will continue to coordinate with the City of Chicago, UIC, and the Illinois Medical District regarding potential locations for the replacement trees.

5.11. Discussion of Benefits and Costs 5.11.1. Benefits The Preferred Alternative addresses the Purpose and Need of the project in improving safety, mobility and facility condition. The prominent benefits in improving the Circle Interchange include the following:

 Reduction of up to five million hours annually of divers sitting in congested traffic  Savings of $185 million annually in lost production from delayed travelers  Reduction in idle time resulting in nearly 1.6 million gallons annually  Reducing the predicted number of severe crashes by up to 25% Refer to Appendix H for calculations of benefits.

5.11.2. Costs The FHWA conducted a Cost Estimate Review (CER) for the Circle Interchange project. The purpose of the CER is to conduct an unbiased risk-based review to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of a contingency-based cost estimate and project schedule, and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents the project’s current stage of design. This process resulted in a project cost, including engineering and construction, totaling $535.5M (in year-of-expenditure dollars). Please refer to Appendix G for the CER close-out presentation for further details. A Circle Interchange Financial Plan has been prepared under separate cover, available at the IDOT District 1 office. This financial plan provides additional background on costs.

September 2013 54

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

5.12. Project Implementation The Circle Interchange Transportation Management Plan (TMP) identifies and addresses the strategies required to efficiently construct the interchange while ensuring the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Since this is a very complex project and involves many stakeholders, this TMP should be considered a living document which provides a basis that can be modified to address the unique project challenges during the design phase. This project involves two major expressways and an entrance into and an exit out of a major city which all come together at one point. Each component of the Circle Interchange was examined for construction staging, work zone traffic control, public information initiatives, and transportation operations and management.

The suggested construction staging consists of seven major stages.

 The first stage of construction includes the replacement of the Harrison Street Bridge over southbound I-90/94 and the Halsted Street Bridge over I-290.  The second stage of construction includes the replacement of the Harrison Street Bridge over northbound I-90/94 and the Peoria Street Bridge over I-290.  The third stage of construction includes construction of the new Ramp NW flyover structure which will connect northbound I-90/94 to westbound I-290, the removal of existing Ramp NE, and replacement of the Taylor Street Bridge over I-90/94.  The fourth stage of construction includes replacement of the I-290 Bridges from I-90/94 to just east of Des Plaines Street, replacement of the existing Congress Parkway bridge deck from just east of Des Plaines Street to the old Chicago Post Office, and reconstruction of I-290 from the I-290 Bridges over I-90/94 to just west of Loomis Street. The fifth stage of construction will also include construction of Ramp NE along with a portion of Ramp EN and Ramp SE and reconstruction of Ramp ES along with a portion of Ramp SW. The existing Ramp WS, Ramp WN, Ramp NW and southbound I-90/94 exit ramp to Taylor Street will be removed during this stage.  The fifth stage of construction is broken into two separate sub-stages. Stage 5A will include the replacement of the Van Buren Street Bridge and Monroe Street Bridge over I-90/94 and reconstruction of I 90/94 from Roosevelt Road to Van Buren Street along with the remaining portion of Ramp EN. Stage 5B will include the replacement of the Jackson Boulevard Bridge and Adams Street Bridge over I-90/94, reconstruction of I-90/94 from Van Buren Street to Lake Street. This stage also includes construction of the new northbound I-90/94 C-D Road, construction of the I-90/94 local exit/entrance ramps and Ramp WN, and reconstruction of the remaining portion of Ramp SW.  The sixth and final stage of construction will include construction of the new southbound I-90/94 bypass exit ramp to Taylor Street, construction of Ramp WS, and reconstruction of the remaining portion of Ramp SE.

This project allows for only one work zone traffic control option due to the heavy traffic volumes and tight urban corridor. The objective of the work zone traffic control is to maintain an acceptable level of service and delay during construction. A minimum of four lanes shall be maintained whenever possible during construction along eastbound I-290 from the western project limit to the I-290/Ramp EN/Ramp ES divergence and westbound I-290 from the I-290/Ramp NW/Ramp SW convergence to the western project limit. Only one eastbound and westbound lane will be maintained along the I-290 bridges over I-90/94 and the Congress Parkway Bridge during replacement of the existing bridges and bridge deck, respectively. A minimum of three lanes shall be maintained whenever possible during construction along I-90/94 in each direction. An additional lane should be provided for local street and system interchange ramp exit/entrance ramps whenever possible. Detours will be utilized throughout the project when complete closures of cross street bridges and expressway ramps are necessary.

September 2013 55

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

The Circle Interchange Project will have an impact on the local communities, businesses, daily commuters, freight traffic and travelers. It is imperative that everyone who may be affected by this project be provided the best, most current information on a continual basis. This report outlines how media, the internet, and on-site message signs can be used to provide motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users with current construction activities, detour routes, traffic flow data, and alternate routes, among other information.

The last vital component of the Circle Interchange Project is the operation and management of traffic. This report suggests potential strategies to alleviate commuter traffic through work zones, reducing congestion along detour routes, and coordination with other projects in the vicinity which may be taking place concurrently. This report also suggests potential strategies for maintaining and enforcing a safe work zone, public awareness of work zone conditions, emergency responses to work zone incidents, and the constant monitoring and evaluation of work zone and traffic conditions.

September 2013 56

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

6. COORDINATION ACTIVITIES 6.1. Agency Coordination Coordination has been made with the following agencies and copies of the coordination documents and minutes of the one-on-one meetings are contained in the Circle Interchange Combined Design Report, Volume 3, which is a separate document available at IDOT, District 1 Office in Schaumburg, Illinois.  U.S. Army Corp of Engineers  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  U.S Fish and Wildlife Service  Illinois Department of Agriculture  Illinois Department of Natural Resources  Illinois Environmental Protection Agency  Illinois Historic Preservation Agency  Illinois Natural History Survey  Illinois State Geological Survey  Cook County  City of Chicago  Chicago Department of Transportation  Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning  Chicago Transit Authority  University of Illinois at Chicago Coordination efforts have occurred with several resource agencies regarding clearances for biological resources (threatened and endangered species), wetlands, and cultural resources. In addition, twelve FHWA/IDOT Coordination Meetings have been held. Minutes of these meetings and copies of the clearances are included in Volume 3. As described in Section 2.2, coordination was also held with first responders. These responders include the Illinois State Police, IDOT Emergency Traffic Patrol and the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications. Public Officials have also received regular updates on the project. The public officials include Alderman Fioretti (2nd Ward), Alderman Burnett (27th Ward) and Alderman Solis (25th Ward), and State Senator Patricia Van Pelt (5th Legislative District).

6.2. Stakeholder Coordination Additional stakeholder coordination was held with members of the community surrounding the Circle Interchange. These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, the following:  700 S. Des Plaines Street  Hellenic Museum  770 W. Lofts  Rice Building  Greektown  Sangamon Lofts  Green Street Lofts  St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church  Haberdasher Square Lofts  United Parcel Service (UPS)

September 2013 57

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Green Street Lofts and Sangamon Lofts Meetings Green Street Lofts and Sangamon Lofts Meeting #1 The first meeting with the Green Street Lofts and Sangamon Lofts was held on April 19, 2013. It included a presentation that began by acknowledging these issues: the close proximity of Ramp NW to the buildings, concerns over foundations and vibrations, safety, noise, air quality and light pollution from headlights. The presentation also reviewed Alternatives A-7.1c and A-15.4, including the December 2012 versions and the versions shown at Public Hearing #1 and why the versions are different. The presentation then described the on-going refinements to Alternative A-7.1c in response to the residents’ concerns. The meeting concluded with a detailed question-and-answer session. The meeting was attended by five representatives from Green Street Lofts, two representatives from Sangamon Lofts, a representative each from Dearborn Engineering, Alderman Fioretti’s office, and the West Loop Community Association.

Green Street Lofts and Sangamon Lofts Meeting #2 The second meeting with Green Street Lofts and Sangamon Lofts was held on May 3, 2013. It included a presentation with an alternatives development update, a discussion on foundation and retaining walls, vibration monitoring, noise, and aesthetic treatments. A detailed question-and-answer session was held with the attendees. The attendees included five representatives from Green Street Lofts and three representatives from Sangamon Lofts. One representative each attended from Alderman Fioretti’s office and Alderman Solis’s office.

Green Street Lofts Meeting #3 The third meeting with representatives of Green Street Lofts was held on June 20, 2013. It included a presentation summarizing the comments received from the residents, an updates on alternatives developed, foundations and retaining walls, vibration monitoring, noise, and project benefits. A detailed question-and- answer session was held with the attendees. The meeting was attended by approximately thirty five residents of Green Street Lofts.

Sangamon Lofts Meeting # 3 The third meeting with representatives from Sangamon Lofts was held on July 8, 2013. It included a presentation summarizing the project schedule, an updates on alternatives developed, foundations and retaining walls, vibration monitoring, noise, and project benefits. A detailed question-and-answer session was held with the attendees. The meeting was attended by 17 residents of Sangamon Lofts.

Further details on these meetings, including meeting summaries, may be found in Volume 3.

6.3. Utility Coordination Utility coordination was initiated through the Chicago Department of Transportation, Office of Underground Coordination. The results of the coordination are presented in Appendix D.

September 2013 58

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES The Circle Interchange project includes a Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) public involvement process, including holding public meetings/hearing, formation of a Project Working Group (PWG) and meeting one-on-one with public agencies and other stakeholders. A Stakeholders Involvement Plan (SIP) was created to guide the public involvement process.

7.1. Project Working Group To assist in the development of the engineering studies for the Circle Interchange project, the Department establishment of a PWG. The PWG group consisted of community leaders, community organizations, participants from the previous Circle Interchange Aesthetics Master Plan Study, transit agencies, environmental agencies, elected officials, city, county and state representatives, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, emergency services, economic development agencies, chambers of commerce, the tourism industry, as well as those directly affected by the study. The responsibilities of this group included providing input on the purpose and need statement, participation in the development of alternatives, and providing a recommendation on the final preferred alternative to be presented at the public hearing.

7.1.1. PWG Meeting #1 The first PWG meeting was held the morning of August 16, 2012 (Figure 7.1). The meeting included a presentation on the study process, schedule, public outreach program, PWG roles and responsibilities, and two workshops. During the workshop portions of the meeting, attendees were asked to identify transportation issues and concerns in the study area, potential interchange concepts and alternatives evaluation criteria. Further details on the first PWG meeting may be found in Volume 3.

Figure 7.1 PWG Meeting #1

7.1.2. PWG Meeting #2 The second PWG meeting was held on the morning of October 26, 2012 (Figure 7.2). The meeting included an overview of PWG #1 and the public meeting, outlined data collection efforts, described the alternatives development and evaluation process, and an overview of the seven alternatives carried forward for consideration. The meeting concluded with a question and answer session, followed by an opportunity for PWG participants to view and discuss all of the alternatives considered with project study team members. Further details on this public meeting may be found in Volume 3.

September 2013 59

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Figure 7.2 PWG Meeting #2

7.1.3. PWG Meeting #3 The third PWG meeting was held on the morning of December 11, 2012 (Figure 7.3). The meeting included an overview of PWG Meeting #2 and highlighted conceptual local street modifications and aesthetic enhancements. The presentation was followed by a group workshop that encouraged participants to identify corridor themes and streetscape elements that are desirable in each neighborhood. After a break, the project study team presented an analysis of the remaining interchange alternatives (A-7.1c and A-15.4) and identified Alternative A-7.1c as the Recommend Alternative. PWG members had the opportunity to discuss aesthetic enhancements of the overall interchange along with the proposed Ramp NW flyover that is included in the Recommended Alternative. Further details on this public meeting may be found in Volume 3.

Figure 7.3 PWG Meeting #3

7.1.4. PWG Design Charrette The PWG Design Charrette was held on the morning of January 22, 2013 (Figure 7.4). The Charrette focused on establishing detailed visions for key areas for the Circle Interchange study area. Four stations were established to discuss specific elements: 1) the interchange area, including the landscaping and Accident Investigation Site; 2) Peoria Street; 3) Halsted Street and Harrison Street; and 4) the other cross streets including Taylor Street, Van Buren Street, Jackson Boulevard, Adams Street, Des Plaines Street and the four corners atop the “box” of the interchange.

September 2013 60

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Figure 7.4 PWG Design Charrette

Each PWG member received a Ratings Booklet, which included images of standard IDOT treatments, existing streetscape styles in the Chicago area, and proposed aesthetic themes including form liner options for piers, retaining walls and potential noise walls. PWG members also received a Design Charrette Booklet with images of existing conditions in key interchange areas, as well as renderings highlighting proposed improvements to be complete as part of the Circle Interchange study. Further details may be found in Volume 3.

7.1.5. PWG Meeting #4 The fourth PWG meeting was held on March 1, 2013 and included a presentation and general discussion. The presentation included an overview of PWG Meeting #3, a detailed summary of the Preferred Alternative, aesthetic elements, noise analysis, anticipated construction sequencing and next steps. The presentation was followed by a wide-ranging group discussion that touched on several topics regarding the Preferred Alternative: increase in overall green space, changes in traffic flow along northbound I-90/94, separation of the northbound C-D road, travel times, southbound I- 90/94 access, Peoria Street, city street cross sections, aesthetics, potential noise walls and construction sequencing. Further details may be found in Volume 3.

7.2. Vibration Workshop A vibration workshop was held on May 17, 2013 with representatives from buildings adjacent to the Circle Interchange project area. Several of the buildings are over a century old and have existing foundation concerns. The purpose of the meeting was to acknowledge the concern of construction vibration, introduce a vibration monitoring program and to seek input from the representatives. Next steps were identified during the presentation. These include obtaining building information, performing building condition surveys, installing monitors, incorporating the Construction Monitoring Plan into contract documents, conducting pre-construction surveys and implementing the Construction Monitoring Plan. The Vibration Workshop was attended by 41 representatives.

7.3. Public Informational Meeting The Public Informational Meeting (PIM) was held during the evening of August 30, 2012 (Figure 7.5). The meeting was an open house format with a continuous audio-visual presentation, exhibit boards for review, concept maps for stakeholders to sketch ideas and an opportunity to participate in a transportation survey. Five representative concept alternatives were presented at the meeting, including the following:  Preliminary Concept #1 – Based on Alternative A-1 (refined into A-1.1 and A-1.2)

September 2013 61

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

 Preliminary Concept #2 – Based on Alternative A-2  Preliminary Concept #3 – Based on Alternative A-8  Preliminary Concept #4 – Based on Alternative A-11  Preliminary Concept #5 – Based on Alternative A-7, which was refined into several A-7 series alternatives including the Preferred Alternative (A-7.1c). Prior to the PIM, display ads were published in five local newspapers to announce the meeting and provide details, as follows:  Chicago Sun Times (August 23rd and August 26th)  The Chicago Journal (August 16th)  The Greek Star (August 16th and August 23rd)  The Chicago Reader (August 23rd)  UIC News (August 29th) Other meeting outreach efforts included a postcard invitation to over 2,600 identified stakeholders, an e- blast invitation to stakeholders, a newsletter to stakeholders, and a press release issued by the Department. The meeting was also announced on local websites, including the Greektown Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic American Construction Industry Association, Special Service Area #16, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Medical District and the University Village Association. A media briefing was held prior to the PIM that included a presentation and a question-and-answer session with the Project Team. The meeting sign-in sheet included 59 people in attendance. Ten comment forms were received and 13 people participated in the survey. A number of groups sent representatives to this Public Informational Meeting, and a number of private engineering and construction firms attended as well. The media was also invited to attend the public meeting, including a pre-meeting question and answer session with IDOT staff. The comment period ending date was September 13, 2012 with 10 comment forms, two letters and 16 web inquires submitted. Comments were also posted directly on the preliminary concept exhibits. Given the preliminary nature of the information presented at the PIM, comments touched on a wide range of subjects. These included specific issues pertaining to the preliminary concepts, general statements on project needs, and inquiries on further public involvement, among others. Further details on this public informational meeting may be found in Volume 3.

Figure 7.5 Public Informational Meeting #1

7.4. Public Hearing #1 The Preferred Alternative was presented to the public at Public Hearing #1 (PH #1) on April 3, 2013. PH #1 was conducted in an open house format, with interested persons able to visit anytime between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM. Attendees had the opportunity to view an audio-visual presentation, participate in a question and answer session, review exhibits and provide comments on the Preferred Alternative including aesthetic enhancements to the Circle Interchange itself and the surrounding city streets. Attendees were

September 2013 62

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

also able to examine results of technical studies, and meet with the Department and study team representatives on a one-on-one basis. Prior to PH #1, display ads were published in five local newspapers to announce the meeting and provide details, as follows:  Chicago Sun Times (March 21st)  The Greek Star (March 21st and March 28th)  UIC News (March 30th) Other meeting outreach efforts included electronic advertisement on the Chicago Sun Times website from March 21st through August 3rd, a postcard invitation to over 4,500 identified stakeholders, an e-blast invitation to stakeholders, a newsletter to stakeholders, and a press release issued by the Department. The meeting was also announced on local websites, including the Greektown Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic American Construction Industry Association, Special Service Area #16, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Medical District and the University Village Association. A media briefing was held prior to PH #1 that included a presentation and a question-and-answer session with the Project Team. PH #1 was attended by 173 people. Eleven comment forms were submitted during the hearing. Thirty-five question and answer forms were filled out, read aloud, and responded to in the Question & Answer sessions. Sixteen comments were provided to the court reporter in the exhibit room. Additional comments were received via the website, mail and phone calls during the comment period, which ended April 17, 2013. In all, 127 comments were received. The major topics covered include the following:  Building impacts (24 comments)  Noise impacts (23 comments)  Support for the Project (16 comments)  Public involvement (13 comments)  Property value concerns (12 comments)  Recommend another alternative (10 comments)  Other comments discussed safety, pollution, implementation, visual impacts, pedestrian and bicycle concerns. Residents from the Green Street Lofts building (400 S. Green Street) took a more prominent role at the hearing, expressing concern over the proposed location of Ramp NW in proximity to their building. The residents discussed these concerns with the Department and project team staff in the question/answer sessions as well as the open house portion of the hearing. The Department increased coordination with Green Street Lofts in the wake of the hearing. The Department also revised the alignment of Ramp NW to increase the distance between it and the loft building. Further details on the public hearing may be found in Volume 3.

7.5. Public Hearing #2 Revisions to the Preferred Alternative were presented to the public at Public Hearing #2 (PH #2) on June 27, 2013. PH #2 was conducted in an open house format, with interested persons able to visit between 5:00 PM and 8:00 PM. Attendees had the opportunity to view an audio-visual presentation, participate in a public forum and to view exhibits. PH #2 also provided several ways for the public to comment on the project, including the public forum, court reporters, comment forms and on the website. Comments received by July 12, 2013 became part of the PH #2 record. Attendees were also able to review technical reports and speak to study team representatives on a one-on-one basis.

September 2013 63

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Prior to PH #2, display ads announcing the meeting and providing details were published in the following local newspapers: . Chicago Tribune June 12, 2013 . UIC News June 19, 2013 . The Greek Star June 13, 2013 Other meeting outreach efforts included electronic advertisement on the Daily Herald Newspaper website from June 13, 2013 to June 27, 2013; a postcard invitation to 4,807 identified stakeholders; over 7,000 flyers passed out in the neighborhood; an e-blast invitation to stakeholders; a newsletter to stakeholders and a press release issued by the Department. The display ad and press release were emailed to over 20 different agencies, community groups and industry organizations for inclusion on their website home page, board meeting agendas and local newsletters. A media briefing was offered prior to the public hearing but no media attended. However, media representatives did attend the public hearing proper. Those attending included the Chicago Sun Times, CBS 2 and NBC 5, among others. PH #2 was attended by 196 people. Twenty-eight comment forms were submitted by the public at the meeting. Twenty-four forum participation cards were also submitted, which allowed each participant two minutes to speak during the public forum, which was transcribed by a court reporter. Additional comments were received via the website, mail and phone calls during the comment period, which ended July 12, 2013. In all, 91 comments were received. The most prominent comment themes include support for the project, concern about the Ramp NW flyover, effects of the project on the surrounding neighborhood, and environmental concerns (i.e. increased noise, air quality, and light pollution). Copies of the PH #2 comments received are available in Volume 3 of this Combined Design Report. Further details on the public hearing may be found in Volume 3.

7.6. Project Website 7.6.1. Description The project study team launched a website (www.circleinterchange.org) at the beginning of the study. The purpose of the website is to provide key information, update the public on project progress, notify the public of upcoming meetings, encourage involvement and provide an opportunity to comment. The website is periodically updated as the project progresses. The website home page is shown in Figure 7.6.

Figure 7.6 Project Website Home Page

September 2013 64

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

8. COMMITMENTS AND SPECIAL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Commitments and special design considerations were identified during the course of project coordination, and are outlined below: 8.1.1. Commitments 1) Environmental Assessment (EA): Construction noise and construction vibration shall follow the environmental commitment outlined in the EA. 2) Environmental Assessment (EA): Provisions for the Air Quality Monitoring Program shall follow the environmental commitment outlined in the EA and Errata. 8.1.2. Special Design/Construction Considerations 1) Transportation Management Plan (TMP): During construction, it is proposed that piles will be drilled rather than driven to reduce construction noise and vibration. 2) TMP: Generally, a minimum of four lanes will be maintained during construction along eastbound I-290 from the western project limit to the I-290/Ramp EN/Ramp ES divergence. A minimum of two lanes will be maintained along eastbound Congress Parkway; however, traffic will be reduced to one lane within specific substages during replacement of the Congress Parkway Bridge over I- 90/94 and rehabilitation of the Congress Parkway Bridge east of I-90/94. This duration will be minimized to the extent possible. Generally, a minimum of three lanes will be provided during construction along westbound I-290 from the I-290/Ramp NW/Ramp SW convergence to the western project limit. A minimum of two lanes will be maintained along westbound Congress Parkway; however, traffic will be reduced to one lane within specific substages during replacement of the Congress Parkway Bridge over I- 90/94 and rehabilitation of the Congress Parkway Bridge east of I-90/94. This duration will be minimized to the extent possible. 3) TMP: Generally, a minimum of three lanes shall be maintained per direction along I-90/94. 4) TMP: Generally, Ramp NW, Ramp SW and Ramp ES will remain open throughout construction. 5) TMP: Generally, Ramp EN will remain open for a majority of construction. A ninety day closure is planned, starting in April of 2016. During this time Ramp EN will be detoured. 6) TMP: Halsted Street Bridge is proposed to be constructed in stages to allow one lane of traffic with pedestrian accommodations. Constructing this bridge in stages allows for CTA bus operations to continue during construction. 7) TMP: During construction of the adjacent cross street bridges of Halsted, Peoria, and Morgan Streets, at least two of the three UIC-Halsted CTA Blue Line stations’ entrances for pedestrians are proposed to remain open during construction. The Halsted entrance is proposed to remain open throughout construction for ADA access. 8) TMP: Various media should be utilized to keep the public informed of construction activities. This includes a project website (www.circleinterchange.org); the Travel Midwest website (www.travelmidwest.com) which provides regional travel information, and traditional means such as press releases, flyers, direct mailings and informative meetings. Message boards should also be posted at key locations throughout the region urging drivers to consider alternative routes. 9) TMP: The Transportation Management Plan will be monitored during construction. The Resident Engineer or their designee (RE) will serve the role as the TMP Implementation Task Leader during construction while IDOT District 1 Bureau of Traffic will conduct independent periodic reviews of the traffic control. The RE will be responsible for confirming that conditions comply with current

September 2013 65

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

work zone policies, ensuring that motorist and worker safety is not violated or compromised, and evaluating the need to revise traffic control strategies during construction. These revisions will be coordinated with the Supervising Field Engineer. Weekly and monthly coordination meetings with the Phase III construction services consultant, contractors for each project, City of Chicago, and the Department are needed to monitor the impacts on traffic during construction, specifically when detours are introduced during replacement of the cross street bridges and construction/reconstruction of the system interchange ramps and local exit/entrance ramps. It may be necessary to revise the detour based on field monitoring of traffic to determine the optimal detour route. 10) TMP: Phase II design personnel should give consideration to implementing the use of smart work zone technology to monitor traffic conditions and to provide real time information on a series of Portable Changeable Message Signs (PCMSs) upstream of the respective work zones for respective construction stages. Consideration should also be given to incorporating Speed Indicator Signs within respective work zones. 11) TMP: The Bureau of Safety Engineering, Work Zone Safety Engineer is to be involved in monthly meetings with the District regarding discussions relative to potential revisions to the TMP. The District should prepare a summary of strategies implemented for each phase of construction, identifying deviations from the July 2013 TMP and modifications to the strategies originally proposed. The Bureau of Safety Engineering shall be provided with information regarding deviations, modification, and changes to the TMP. 12) TMP: The TMP will be updated during Phase II for each letting. Further, Phase II design personnel are to make recommendations on potential plan revisions, coordinated with the District Bureau of Traffic, if revisions are deemed necessary. 13) TMP: During construction independent periodic reviews of the traffic control will be performed. Weekly and monthly coordination meetings will be held with the Phase 3 construction services consultants, contractors, the City of Chicago’s appropriate agencies, and District 1 to monitor the project’s impacts on traffic, with the recognition that detour routes or other transportation management factors may need to be adjusted. Preconstruction traffic control meetings will be held for each contract or staging change to coordinate a smooth transition from one work zone to the next. 14) TMP: An incident/emergency management communications plan to respond to crashes/incidents within the work zone will be developed prior to mainline interstate construction. This will include the Department’s Emergency Traffic Patrol (the Minutemen), who will patrol the wok zone in an effort reduce delays caused by traffic incidents. 15) TMP: An increased law enforcement presence should be coordinated to promote and enforce work zone speed limits to reduce violations, making the work zone safer. 16) Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT): Permeable pavers should not be considered by the study team (11/14/12 meeting minutes). 17) Chicago Department of Water Management (CDWM): Any water distribution line work would need to be conducted outside of the summer season; in the fall or spring (9/17/12 meeting minutes) unless otherwise coordinated with CDWM. 18) CDWM: Any existing concrete feeder main pipes, within the project limits, would need to be encased. (9/17/12 meeting minutes). 19) CDWM: Procedures to fill and bulkhead abandoned tunnels within the project limits would need to be followed. (9/17/2012) meeting minutes)

September 2013 66

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

20) IDOT: Main drain storm sewers should televised before and after construction (CDWM 2/11/13 meeting minutes). 21) IDOT: Aesthetic efforts described in Appendix U and sustainable practices discussed in the Sustainability Practices Technical Memorandum should be coordinated with the Bureau of Maintenance, Roadside Development Unit and the Chicago Gateway Green organization. 22) IDOT: Any future parking leases will be coordinated through the Bureau of Land Acquisition. 23) IDOT: A Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (PESA) has been completed for this project. It is the responsibility of Phase II to determine if any of the sites with Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) or right-of-way adjacent with RECs will be impacted with the proposed work and/or if any right-of-way will be required at any of the REC locations. Any acquisition shall be discussed with the Bureau of Land Acquisition prior to responding to the PESA to request further studies. 24) Chicago Transit Authority (CTA): A pullout area will be installed along westbound I-290 allowing gated vehicular access to the CTA Blue Line right-of-way in the median of I-290.

September 2013 67

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1. Preferred Design Alternative After a thorough evaluation of 30 alternatives (Section 4.4), Alternative A-7.1c was identified as the alternative that best addressed the project Purpose and Need. This alternative was refined into the Preferred Alternative described in Section 5 of this report. The Preferred Alternative includes these main geometric elements:  Additional through lane (four total) per direction along I-90/94 through the interchange  Wider inside shoulder to accommodate a future additional lane  Two lanes each for Ramp NW and Ramp EN (currently one lane each)  Northbound C-D road for traffic exiting downtown  Improved horizontal alignment and vertical profiles throughout the interchange

9.2. Attainment of Purpose and Need The Preferred Alternative addresses the project Purpose and Need, as described in Section 5.2.  It improves safety by resolving the lane usage issue on the Ramp NW/Ramp NE C-D Road; by eliminating the westbound triple convergence involving westbound I-290, Ramp NW, Ramp SW and the Morgan Street exit ramp; decreasing the likelihood of queues at the eastbound triple divergence by adding capacity to Ramp EN; and improving the northbound triple convergence by providing separating the merges of Ramp WN and Ramp EN onto northbound I-90/94. The northbound-to-downtown traffic is also brought to the right of these ramps via the northbound C-D road, removing a weaving issue.  It improves mobility on the project by providing an additional lane in each direction on I-90/94. This improves mobility due to fewer lane changes to continue as through traffic. Mobility on Ramp NW and Ramp EN are each improved with an additional travel lane and improved horizontal and vertical geometry. Operations at the interchange are improved by reducing decision points for several movements, increasing the ramp design speeds and eliminating many weaving areas.  In calling for a reconstructed interchange, the Preferred Alternative resolves the facility condition due to age.

9.3. Design Exceptions Accommodating the Purpose and Need of the Circle Interchange project within the same footprint of the existing interchange requires design exceptions. The Department groups design exceptions into two categories: Level One Design Exceptions include the controlling design criteria established by the FHWA and the disabled accessibility criteria. Level Two Design Exceptions are not as critical as Level One Design Exceptions, but still need to be identified over the course of the project.

The table in Appendix S outlines the Level One and Level Two Design Exceptions. The general nature of the Level One Design Exceptions is as follows:

 Design Speed (Mainline) – The design speed on mainlines should be 60 MPH per BDE Figure 44-5.A. However, only 45 MPH to 50 MPH is provided on mainlines based on sight distance, horizontal alignment and vertical profile. More information on the proposed design speeds is available in Appendix H.

September 2013 68

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

 Lane Width (Mainline) – BDE Figure 44-5.A stipulates a 12-foot wide lane width. However, 11- foot lane widths are provided to accommodate additional lanes, provide additional separation from Green Street Lofts and to meet existing lane widths within Hubbard’s Cave. Lane widths of 9.5 feet are provided to meet existing lane widths within the Old Post Office.  Through Lane Cross Slopes – BDE Manual 34-2.01(b) provides varying cross slopes depending on the lane. These have been modified in select locations in order to minimize potential drainage issues within the corridor.  Shoulder Widths (Inside and Outside Mainline) – BDE Figure 44-5.A stipulates 10-foot wide inside and outside shoulders. In some areas, lesser shoulder widths are provided in order to meet the desired number of lanes.  Stopping Sight Distance at Sag Vertical Curves (Level SSD for Passenger Cars) – BDE Figure 33-4.E requires a K-value of 49 for 35 MPH and a K-value of 64 for 40 MPH In certain locations shown in the exhibit, lesser K-values are provided to meet vertical clearance under the proposed Halsted Street Bridge.

The Department’s Geometric Studies Unit approved all Design Exceptions for the project on July 10, 2013. 9.4. Project Implementation As described in detail within Section 5.12, this project is implemented over the course of six stages. The stages are generally described below:  Stage 1: Harrison Street, I-90/94 from Roosevelt Road to the Circle Interchange  Stage 2: Halsted Street, Peoria Street  Stage 3: Ramp NW  Stage 4: I-290, Congress Parkway, Ramp ES, Ramp NE, Taylor Street  Stage 5: I-90/94, Ramp EN, Ramp SW, Ramp WN, partial ramps, northbound C-D Road, Van Buren Street, Jackson Boulevard, Adams Street  Stage 6: Ramp SE, Ramp WS The cost to implement this project is anticipated to be $535.5M in year-of-expenditure dollars, including engineering and construction.

September 2013 69

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report

Consultant Information

Job No. P-91-259-12

Project: Circle Interchange Location: Interstate 90/94 and Interstate 290

Consultant: TranSystems Corporation Project Manager: Charles J. Stenzel, PE Phone Number: (847) 605-9600

Consultant: AECOM Project Manager: Mark M. Lucas, PE Phone Number: (312) 373-7700

Subconsultant: Regina Webster & Associates, Inc. Project Manager: Kathy M. Meyerkord, PE, PTOE Phone Number: (773) 283-2600

Subconsultant: Images, Inc. Project Manager: Cathy Valente Phone Number: (630) 510-3944

Subconsultant: HBM Project Manager: John Saraceno, PE Phone Number: (708) 236-0900

Subconsultant: Site Design Project Manager: Robert K. Sit, AIA Phone Number: (312) 427-7240

IDOT Project Management Consultant: Stanley Consultants, Inc. Project Manager: Paul A. Schneider, PE Phone Number: (847) 705-4678

September 2013 70

Appendix A Location Map

OHIO STREET

LAKE STREET

PAULINA ST - ASHLAND AVE

LOOMIS STREET OLD POST OFFICE

ROOSEVELT ROAD

INTERSTATE 55

LEGEND

PROJECT AREA COOK CO.

PROJECT NEAREST FULL INTERCHANGE LOCATION

ILLINOIS

LOCATION MAP APPENDIX A

JUNE 24, 2013

Appendix B Environmental Clearances

To: John Fortmann Attn: Pete Harmet From: John Baranzelli By: Brad Koldehoff Subject: Cultural Resource Clearance Date: March 18, 2013

Cook County Chicago I-90/94 at I-290 (Circle Interchange) Interchange Reconstruction Structure # 016-1165, 016-1087, 016-1088, 016-2081, 016-2082, 016-2113, 016-2055, 016-0588, 016-0589, 016-2054 Job # P-91-259-12 IDOT Seq. # 17268 & 17268A

Attached is a letter supporting a finding for “No Adverse Effect” from the Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer indicating that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings” and that they concur in a finding of no adverse effect pursuant to 36 CFR 800.

Based on the current plans, the SHPO has determined that the work will not negatively affect any of the three significant historical resources within/near the project area and that the ten bridges to be replaced as part of the project are not historic.

Attachment

BK:ee

APPENDIX B (1) APPENDIX B (2)

To: Brad H. Koldehoff From: Emilie M. Eggemeyer Subject: Bridge Replacement Project - No Historic Property Affected Date: March 15, 2013

Cook County Chicago I-90/94 at I-290 (Circle Interchange) Bridges over I-90/94 Structure # 016-1165, 016-1087, 016-1088, 016-2081, 016-2082, 016-2113, 016-2055, 016-0588, 016-0589, 016-2054 IDOT Sequence # 17268A

The above referenced project involves the replacement of ten structures that cross I-90/94 near I- 290, which is part of the Circle Interchange improvement project:

 S.N. 016-1165 carries W. Taylor St. (built in 1960)  S.N. 016-1087 carries W. Harrison St. (built in 1960)  S.N. 016-1088 carries W. Harrison St. (built in 1960)  S.N. 016-2081 carries N. Halsted St. (built in 1950)  S.N. 016-2082 carries S. Peoria St. (built in 1950)  S.N. 016-2113 carries S. Morgan St. (built in 1951)  S.N. 016-2055 carries W. Van Buren St. (built in 1958)  S.N. 016-0588 carries W. Jackson Blvd. (built in 1955)  S.N. 016-0589 carries W. Adams St. (built in 1955)  S.N. 016-2054 carries W. Monroe St. (built in 1955)

All of these bridges are classified as type 402, or Steel Continuous Multi Beam bridges. These structures are not listed on IDOT’s Historic Bridge List (there are fifteen bridges of this type listed on the Historic Bridge List).

APPENDIX B (3)

This bridge type is a common style still being constructed today. The earliest examples were built in the late 1880s and over four thousand bridges of this type can be found throughout the state. All of the bridges have undergone numerous alterations in order to bring them up to acceptable standards. The new interchange project necessitates the structures’ replacement.

Therefore, it is my recommendation that these bridges are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places because they do not retain their historical integrity and are not structurally significant.

Emilie M. Eggemeyer Cultural Resources Unit Bureau of Design and Environment

APPENDIX B (4) APPENDIX B (5) APPENDIX B (6) APPENDIX B (7) APPENDIX B (8) APPENDIX B (9) APPENDIX B (10) APPENDIX B (11) APPENDIX B (12) APPENDIX B (13) APPENDIX B (14) APPENDIX B (15)

Appendix C Master Structure Reports

Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2451 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I- 94 NB TO I-290 EB Bridge Name: CIRCLE RAMP N TO E Sufficiency Rating: 76.0 Structure Length: 180.0 Feature Crossed: I-290 EB TO I-94 NB Location: 0.4 M N ROOSEVELT RD HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1710 Length of Long Span: 60.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 11/1997 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 25.3 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 26.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 29.0 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: 2453 Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 3 STEEL / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 3 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 154000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 1Steel Plate Beam / 1 Steel Plate Beam Inventory Rating: 1.665(59) Load Rating Date: 04/06/2012 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.750(99) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 28.34 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 41.14 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.5 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.1200 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.2800 Appurtenances Ramp 26550 Segment: Ramp 26150 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 16800 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2002 / 22600 Functional Class: 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 2 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 1 Max Rdwy Width: 12.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way Horizontal: 16.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 49.2 0.0 Bypass Length: 15 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 17304 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 23278 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: NONE Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: No *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (1) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2451 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 04/11/2012 Inspection Temperature: 46Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: C LAT MOD CON OVERLAY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Total Deck Thick: 9.1 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-94 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.6-1P Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0943001051 Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (2) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2449 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I- 90,94 NB TO 290WB Bridge Name: CIRCLE RAMP N TO W Sufficiency Rating: 56.3 Structure Length: 455.6 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 Location: 0.4 M N ROOSVLT RD HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: THIS STRU,IS COVED AND IS PART OF THE CIRCLE CHANGE 44AN1RN ISSPAN3 Replaced By: 016-1705 Length of Long Span: 84.0 (PIER75/74)S Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 25.8 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 25.8 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 29.0 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 7 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 1 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: 1 CONCRETE / 01 SLAB Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 900000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 1Steel Plate Beam / 1 Steel Plate Beam Inventory Rating: 0.920(33) Load Rating Date: 04/09/2012 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.535(55) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 33.42 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 41.28 S Design Load: 04 H20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.1500 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.3700 Appurtenances Ramp 27260 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2011 / 29600 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 191300 Functional Class: 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 7 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 2 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 8 Max Rdwy Width: 25.8 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 27.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 2 50.0 50.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 35132 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 197657 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (3) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2449 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 04/01/2013 Inspection Temperature: 36Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: C LAT MOD CON OVERLAY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 5 BETTER THAN ADEQUATE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: J NONE Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Total Deck Thick: 8.5 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-94 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.6-1P Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0943001051 Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (4) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2452 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I- 94 SB TO I-290 EB Bridge Name: CIRLE RAMP S TO E Sufficiency Rating: 96.0 Structure Length: 786.0 Feature Crossed: I-290 & I-90,94 Location: 0.1 M S JACKSON HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: THERE ARE 14 SPAMS 2 ARE SMALL TEE,BEEM SPAMS.IN THE MIDDLE OF THE Replaced By: 016-1714 Length of Long Span: 87.7 STRU,THIS ST Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 11/1997 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 26.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 26.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 29.0 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 3 STEEL / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 14 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 10000000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 2 ALLOWABLE STRESS Guardrail Type L/R: 1Steel Plate Beam / 1 Steel Plate Beam Inventory Rating: 1.120(40) Load Rating Date: 03/26/2009 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.905(68) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 30.64 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 46.87 S Design Load: 01 HS20+MOD Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.5 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.2100 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 27.4400 Appurtenances Ramp 26210 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 4600 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 253900 Functional Class: 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 5 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 1 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 6 Max Rdwy Width: 26.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 98.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 27.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 98.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 1 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 8146 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2021 / 106380 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (5) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2452 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 04/17/2012 Inspection Temperature: 51Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: C LAT MOD CON OVERLAY Last Paint Type: E Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE LD FLD PRM AL FNL Deck Geometry: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Deck Protection: J NONE Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Total Deck Thick: 9.1 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 11/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 333 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-94 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.6-1P Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0943001051 Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (6) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2453 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I-290 EB TO I90,94NB Bridge Name: CIRLE RAMP E TO N Sufficiency Rating: 60.7 Structure Length: 429.0 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 Location: 0.5 M E RACINE AVE HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1712 Length of Long Span: 73.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 11/1997 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 25.8 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 25.8 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 29.0 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 8 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 1 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: 1 CONCRETE / 01 SLAB Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 900000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 1Steel Plate Beam / 1 Steel Plate Beam Inventory Rating: 1.270(45) Load Rating Date: 04/06/2012 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.120(76) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 28.8 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 40.18 S Design Load: 01 HS20+MOD Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: Deck Structure Thickness: 0 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.2300 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.5000 Appurtenances Ramp 26150 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2002 / 22600 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 181800 Functional Class: 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 8 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 2 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 10 Max Rdwy Width: 24.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 24.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 2 62.0 50.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 23278 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 179220 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (7) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2453 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 07/09/2012 Inspection Temperature: 80Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: C LAT MOD CON OVERLAY Last Paint Type: UC Structural Evaluation: 5 BETTER THAN ADEQUATE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: J NONE Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Total Deck Thick: 9.1 LD SHP GRN&AL FNL Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 332 Acceptable Acceptable Not Acceptable Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-94 Sta: 13+17,639 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.6-1P Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0943001051 Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (8) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2448 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I-290 WB TO I-94 NB Bridge Name: CIRCLE RAMP W TO N Sufficiency Rating: 80.4 Structure Length: 287.0 Feature Crossed: DES PLAINES AVE Location: 0.1 M W CANAL HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: - Length of Long Span: 68.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 24.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 26.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 27.0 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 5 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 0 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 1Steel Plate Beam / 1 Steel Plate Beam Inventory Rating: 1.605(57) Load Rating Date: 04/10/2012 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.675(96) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 33.18 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 38.73 S Design Load: 01 HS20+MOD Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.0500 FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY 0386 Station: 1.0900 Appurtenances Ramp 26190 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2000 / 9400 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 5000 Functional Class: 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 3 OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Est Truck Percentage: 10 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 2 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 4 Max Rdwy Width: 0.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 24.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 1 73.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 9691 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 5150 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: NONE Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 1 Mainline 8 Other Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (9) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2448 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 03/19/2012 Inspection Temperature: 77Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: E PLAS DENSE CON OVLY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: J NONE Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Total Deck Thick: 8.5 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 333 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-94 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.6-1P Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0943001051 Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (10) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2450 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I-290 WB TO I90,94S Bridge Name: CIRLE RAMP W TO S Sufficiency Rating: 74.8 Structure Length: 1324.8 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 Location: 0.9 M W STATE HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1715 Length of Long Span: 88.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 25.8 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 26.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 29.0 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 24 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 2000000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 0.710(25) Load Rating Date: 09/21/2012 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.180(42) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 12 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 24 S Design Load: 04 H20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.5 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.1100 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.3800 Appurtenances Ramp 26780 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2011 / 3150 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 191300 Functional Class: 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 7 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 1 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 8 Max Rdwy Width: 25.8 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 27.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 1 50.0 50.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 10918 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 197657 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (11) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2450 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 04/26/2012 Inspection Temperature: 53Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: E PLAS DENSE CON OVLY Last Paint Type: FU Structural Evaluation: 5 BETTER THAN ADEQUATE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Membrane: F NONE LD FLD GRN&AL FNL Deck Geometry: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Total Deck Thick: 9.5 FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 113 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Acceptable Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAIRT1 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 2424.28B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I-01-4(66) Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (12) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2535 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: TAYLOR ST TO NB I-94 Bridge Name: RAMP TAYLR ST TO NB Sufficiency Rating: 100.0 Structure Length: 428.2 Feature Crossed: CD TO NB I-94&I-290 Location: 0.01 M N TAYLOR ST HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: NO KEY ROUTE UNDER Replaced By: - Length of Long Span: 118.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 06/1996 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 22.0 Status Remarks: BRIDGE OPENED AUTOMATICALLY BY KEY ROUTE ON UPDATE TRANSACTION Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 22.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 25.2 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 1 HIGHWAY 9 / OTHER Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 5 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 444500 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.165(41) Load Rating Date: 05/01/1991 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.945(70) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 11.17 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 39.91 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.5 SD: N FO: N RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.0100 Station: Appurtenances Ramp 26680 Segment: Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y Linked: Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Natl. Hwy System: Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2002 / 9900 Curr AADT Yr/Count: / Functional Class: 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 Est Truck Percentage: ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 1 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: Max Rdwy Width: 0.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way One Or Two Way: Horizontal: 24.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 Bypass Length: Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 10197 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: / Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway Route #2: 1 Mainline Route #3: 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (13) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2535 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 11/19/2011 Inspection Temperature: 49Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: A BARE DECK NO OVRLAY Last Paint Type: GZ Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE SHP ZINC & VINYL Deck Geometry: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: N NOT APPLICABLE Total Deck Thick: 7.5 FIELD O Z E&P Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 09/2009 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1988 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: I-94 Sta: 12+54.45 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 1985-080R Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: 80063 Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: IDR94-3(268)52 Built By: 1 I.D.O.T.

APPENDIX C (14) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2534 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I- 94 SB T TAYLOR ST Bridge Name: RAMP SB RYAN TO TAYL Sufficiency Rating: 95.0 Structure Length: 428.2 Feature Crossed: CD RMP TO SB I-94 Location: 0.11 M N TAYLOR ST HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: NO KEY ROUTE UNDER Replaced By: - Length of Long Span: 118.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 12/1995 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 22.0 Status Remarks: BRIDGE OPENED AUTOMATICALLY BY KEY ROUTE ON UPDATE TRANSACTION Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 60.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 25.2 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 1 HIGHWAY 9 / OTHER Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 4 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 444500 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.415(50) Load Rating Date: 05/10/1991 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.360(84) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 17.8 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 43.65 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.5 SD: N FO: N RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 0.1200 Station: Appurtenances Ramp 26570 Segment: Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y Linked: Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Natl. Hwy System: Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2011 / 6400 Curr AADT Yr/Count: / Functional Class: 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 0 Est Truck Percentage: ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 1 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: Max Rdwy Width: 0.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way One Or Two Way: Horizontal: 22.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 Bypass Length: Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 4644 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: / Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway Route #2: 1 Mainline Route #3: 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (15) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2534 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 07/11/2012 Inspection Temperature: 85Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: A BARE DECK NO OVRLAY Last Paint Type: G Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE SHP ZINC & VINYL Deck Geometry: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: N NOT APPLICABLE Total Deck Thick: 7.5 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/1988 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: NNN N/A N/A N/A Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1988 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: I-90,94 Sta: 19+28.36 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 1985-080R Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: 80063 Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: 1DR94-3(268)52 Built By: 1 I.D.O.T.

APPENDIX C (16) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1029 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I-290 EB IKE (CONG) Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 92.9 Structure Length: 502.0 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 DAN RYAN Location: 0.5 M W CHGO RIVER HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1704 Length of Long Span: 84.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 11/1997 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 50.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 50.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: Right Deck Width: 57.5 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 5.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 6 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 1 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: 1 CONCRETE / 04 TEE BEAM Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 1164000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 0.860(30) Load Rating Date: 04/10/2012 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.435(51) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 32.44 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 42.25 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY 0389 Station: 0.0100 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.4200 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 66600 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 191300 Functional Class: 3 OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Est Truck Percentage: 3 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 7 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 3 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 10 Max Rdwy Width: 60.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 66.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 73.7 63.7 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 39758 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 197554 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: Yes Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (17) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1029 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 04/10/2012 Inspection Temperature: 50Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: C LAT MOD CON OVERLAY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Protection: J NONE Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 3 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR CORRECTION Total Deck Thick: 8.6 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 332 Acceptable Acceptable Not Acceptable Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1958 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FA-131 Sta: 356+00 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 2424.23-B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: VI 2610037000 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (18) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1030 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I-290 WB IKE (CONG) Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 89.2 Structure Length: 502.0 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 DAN RYAN Location: 0.5 M W CHGO RIVER HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1703 Length of Long Span: 84.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 11/1997 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 50.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 50.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: Left Deck Width: 57.5 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 5.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 6 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 1 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: 1 CONCRETE / 04 TEE BEAM Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 1164000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 0.735(26) Load Rating Date: 04/10/2012 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.225(44) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 32.4 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 41.56 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7 SD: N FO: N RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY 0389 Station: 0.0200 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.4100 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 66600 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 191300 Functional Class: 3 OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Est Truck Percentage: 3 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 7 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 3 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 10 Max Rdwy Width: 60.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 66.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 76.4 66.8 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 39758 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 197554 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: Yes Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (19) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1030 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 04/10/2012 Inspection Temperature: 50Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: C LAT MOD CON OVERLAY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 5 BETTER THAN ADEQUATE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Protection: J NONE Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 5 BETTER THAN ADEQUATE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Total Deck Thick: 8.6 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 332 Acceptable Acceptable Not Acceptable Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1953 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FA-131 Sta: 356+00 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 2424.23B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: VI 2610037000 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (20) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-0461 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: I-290 IKE Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 65.0 Structure Length: 1300.0 Feature Crossed: CANAL ST THRU DESPL Location: 0.2 M E I-90&94 HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: MAX.= 49.0 Replaced By: - Length of Long Span: 92.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 11/1997 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 77.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 77.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 103.0 Maint Responsibility: 01 I.D.O.T. (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 3.0 Service On/Under: 1 HIGHWAY 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 3.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 22 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 9064000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 2 Ft. / 5 Guardrail Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 2 ALLOWABLE STRESS Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.065(38) Load Rating Date: 10/23/1998 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.715(61) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 32.41 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 17.49 S Design Load: 99 UNKNOWN Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 2 Both Sides Not Separate RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY 0389 Station: 0.3300 FEDERAL-AID URBAN 2885 Station: 0.7200 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 66600 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 10800 Functional Class: 3 OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Est Truck Percentage: 1 5 MAJOR COLLECTOR Est Truck Percentage: 13 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 8 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 5 Max Rdwy Width: 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 55.3 55.3 Bypass Length: 0 62.3 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 25956 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 11124 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: NONE Lateral: Special Systems: Yes Special Systems: No *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 8 Other Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (21) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-0461 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 07/26/2012 Inspection Temperature: 75Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: C LAT MOD CON OVERLAY Last Paint Type: UC Structural Evaluation: 5 BETTER THAN ADEQUATE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Total Deck Thick: 9.1 LD SHP GRN&AL FNL Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: No Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1952 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FA 131 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 2424.3&.4 Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: 00000000000000 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (22) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1165 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: TAYLOR ST Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 94.6 Structure Length: 229.0 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 RYAN Location: 0.4 M N OF I-290 HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1717 Length of Long Span: 93.6 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 56.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 52.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 80.0 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 11.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 11.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 3 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 526000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.280(46) Load Rating Date: 08/04/1999 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.585(57) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 10.88 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 41.14 S Design Load: 01 HS20+MOD Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.5 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID URBAN 1438 Station: 0.0100 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.8300 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2006 / 8800 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 211700 Functional Class: 5 MAJOR COLLECTOR Est Truck Percentage: 10 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 7 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 4 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 8 Max Rdwy Width: 56.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 78.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 1 77.5 58.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 9064 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 101507 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (23) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1165 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 07/18/2012 Inspection Temperature: 86Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: A BARE DECK NO OVRLAY Last Paint Type: F Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE LD FLD GRN&AL FNL Deck Geometry: 5 BETTER THAN ADEQUATE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 3 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR CORRECTION Total Deck Thick: 7.5 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/1988 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-94 Sta: 199+44 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: S-2626.2-3B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0943036051 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (24) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1087 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: HARRISON ST Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 69.0 Structure Length: 231.3 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 SB DAN RYAN Location: 0.1 M S I-290 HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: SPAN 1 HAS CONCRETE T BEAMS T.S.SCARIF..375 Replaced By: 016-1713 Length of Long Span: 74.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 51.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 02/08/2013 Appr Roadway Width: 51.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 68.3 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 8.7 Service On/Under: 1 HIGHWAY 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: R Right Sidewalk Width Left: 8.7 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 24 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 3 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 1 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: 1 CONCRETE / 04 TEE BEAM Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 756000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 2 ALLOWABLE STRESS Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.305(46) Load Rating Date: 05/10/1991 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.110(75) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 27.58 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 44.47 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.1 SD: N FO: N RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID URBAN 1429 Station: 4.0400 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.5100 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 16800 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 181800 Functional Class: 5 MAJOR COLLECTOR Est Truck Percentage: 6 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 8 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 4 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 6 Max Rdwy Width: 59.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way 36.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way Horizontal: 74.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 63.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 17304 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2030 / 100000 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (25) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1087 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 01/10/2012 Inspection Temperature: 50Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: B AD CN OVLY NT SP MX Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 5 BETTER THAN ADEQUATE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 4 MINIMUM ADEQUACY TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 4 MINIMUM ADEQUACY TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Total Deck Thick: 9.1 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-4 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: S-2626.2-1B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0048091000 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (26) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1088 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: HARRISON ST Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 79.0 Structure Length: 152.1 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 NB DAN RYAN Location: 0.1 M S I-290 HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: APPROACH SPAN BETWEEN1087&1088 Replaced By: 016-1711 Length of Long Span: 64.8 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 51.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 51.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 68.3 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 7.3 Service On/Under: 1 HIGHWAY 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: L Left Sidewalk Width Left: 7.3 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 7 D 40 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 3 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 1 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: 1 CONCRETE / 04 TEE BEAM Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 756000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.360(48) Load Rating Date: 05/10/1991 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.280(82) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 27.63 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 40.74 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.5 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID URBAN 1429 Station: 4.0900 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.5200 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 16800 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 181800 Functional Class: 5 MAJOR COLLECTOR Est Truck Percentage: 6 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 8 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 4 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 5 Max Rdwy Width: 51.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way Horizontal: 68.3 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 50.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 17304 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2030 / 97000 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (27) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-1088 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 03/15/2012 Inspection Temperature: 78Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: A BARE DECK NO OVRLAY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 4 MINIMUM ADEQUACY TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 3 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR CORRECTION Total Deck Thick: 7.5 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1960 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-4 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: S-2626.2-1B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0048091000 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (28) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2055 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: VAN BUREN ST Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 81.0 Structure Length: 513.9 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 JFK Location: 0.1 M N I-290 HBP Eligible: No AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1707 Length of Long Span: 76.3 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 12/2000 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 33.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 34.9 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 60.2 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 7.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: L Left Sidewalk Width Left: 7.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 36 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 9 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 900000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.440(51) Load Rating Date: 07/19/2007 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.400(86) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 36.12 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 43.58 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID URBAN 1423 Station: 1.1500 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.2600 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 4550 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 191300 Functional Class: 5 MAJOR COLLECTOR Est Truck Percentage: 8 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 7 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 3 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 10 Max Rdwy Width: 44.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 46.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 41.0 65.4 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 4687 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 197657 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (29) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2055 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 11/07/2012 Inspection Temperature: 45Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: A BARE DECK NO OVRLAY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Total Deck Thick: 7.7 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2000 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: NNN N/A N/A N/A Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1958 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-2 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.2-1B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: I 0022049000 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (30) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-0588 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: JACKSON BLVD Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 77.0 Structure Length: 199.7 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 JFK Location: 0.1 M N I-290 HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1702 Length of Long Span: 84.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 12/2003 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 47.9 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 47.9 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 68.0 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 9.3 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 9.3 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 3 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 620000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.660(59) Load Rating Date: 03/28/2005 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.750(99) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 40.62 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 45.74 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID URBAN 1422 Station: 6.6800 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.1400 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 9800 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 224900 Functional Class: 5 MAJOR COLLECTOR Est Truck Percentage: 8 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 6 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 5 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 8 Max Rdwy Width: 48.0 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 51.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 71.0 80.6 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 10094 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 141574 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (31) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-0588 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 11/16/2012 Inspection Temperature: 42Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: A BARE DECK NO OVRLAY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 7 BETTER THAN PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Total Deck Thick: 7.7 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 10/2003 Approach Roadway Align: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1955 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FA-173 Sta: 22+92 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.2-2B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: VI 2654000000 Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (32) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-0589 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: ADAMS ST Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 73.9 Structure Length: 282.4 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 JFK Location: 0.2 M N I-290 HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1701 Length of Long Span: 99.8 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 42.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 01/09/2013 Appr Roadway Width: 42.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 69.8 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 19.9 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 11.9 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 4 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 900000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 2 ALLOWABLE STRESS Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 0.815(29) Load Rating Date: 06/13/1996 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.405(50) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 45.23 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 43.87 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7.7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID URBAN 1421 Station: 1.0900 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 26.0400 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 8900 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 250900 Functional Class: 5 MAJOR COLLECTOR Est Truck Percentage: 10 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 5 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 4 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 8 Max Rdwy Width: 44.6 One Or Two Way: 1 One-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 47.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 91.0 97.0 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 9167 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 138587 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (33) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-0589 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 11/16/2012 Inspection Temperature: 42Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: A BARE DECK NO OVRLAY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 4 MINIMUM ADEQUACY TO BE LEFT IN PLACE Total Deck Thick: 7.5 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 05/1999 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: NNN N/A N/A N/A Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1955 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FA-173 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.2-3B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: VI 2650005000 Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (34) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2054 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: MONROE ST Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 77.0 Structure Length: 282.0 Feature Crossed: I- 90,94 JFK Location: 0.3 M N I-290 HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1700 Length of Long Span: 101.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 01/2007 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 44.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 44.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 62.0 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 8.0 Service On/Under: 5 SECOND LEVEL INTERCHANGE 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 8.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 4 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 1080000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 1 LOAD FACTOR Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.420(51) Load Rating Date: 10/12/2006 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.370(85) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 49.84 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 44.73 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: Deck Structure Thickness: 0 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID URBAN 1420 Station: 0.1200 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0094 Station: 25.9600 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 11300 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 245300 Functional Class: 4 MINOR ARTERIAL Est Truck Percentage: 9 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 5 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 4 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 16 Max Rdwy Width: 44.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 46.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 97.5 97.5 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 11639 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 284177 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 090 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 094 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (35) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2054 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 07/19/2012 Inspection Temperature: 87Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: A BARE DECK NO OVRLAY Last Paint Type: CU Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE LD SHP GRN&AL FNL Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Total Deck Thick: 7.5 FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 09/2006 Approach Roadway Align: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 2 Doesn't Meet Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1955 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FA-173 Sta: Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 0101.2-4B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: UI 2656000000 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (36) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2082 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: PEORIA ST Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 77.0 Structure Length: 219.6 Feature Crossed: I-290 IKE & CTA Location: 0.2 M W I-94 HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1708 Length of Long Span: 82.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 38.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 07/05/2012 Appr Roadway Width: 58.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 56.3 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 0.0 Service On/Under: 1 HIGHWAY 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 0.0 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 3 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 600000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 2 ALLOWABLE STRESS Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.640(59) Load Rating Date: 08/04/1999 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 2.750(99) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 34.25 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 58.17 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: MUNICIPAL STREET 2090 Station: 0.9700 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0290 Station: 20.2300 Appurtenances Main Route 01051 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 750 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 111500 Functional Class: 7 LOCAL Est Truck Percentage: 9 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 8 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 4 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 10 Max Rdwy Width: 58.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 76.3 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 64.5 64.5 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 773 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 199614 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 5 Municipal Streets 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 290 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 3 State Highway 110 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (37) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2082 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 04/18/2013 Inspection Temperature: 53Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 7 GOOD CONDITION - SOME MINOR PROBLEMS Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: E PLAS DENSE CON OVLY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 2 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR REPLACEMENT Deck Protection: A EPOXY COATED REINF Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 3 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR CORRECTION Total Deck Thick: 9.0 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 09/2001 Approach Roadway Align: 8 EQUAL TO PRESENT DESIRABLE CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1950 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FAI-290 Sta: 345+78.38 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 2525.1-1B-BR (80)2525.1-B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: UI 2610029000 Built By: 0 UNKNOWN

APPENDIX C (38) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 1 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2081 District: 1 Inventory Data Facility Carried: HALSTED ST Bridge Name: Sufficiency Rating: 76.0 Structure Length: 435.0 Feature Crossed: I-290 IKE & CTA Location: .1M W I-90,94 HBP Eligible: Yes AASHTO Bridge Length: 99.9 Bridge Remarks: Replaced By: 016-1716 Length of Long Span: 82.0 Bridge Status: 1 OPEN - NO RESTRICT Status Date: 04/1988 Replaces: - Bridge Roadway Width: 50.0 Status Remarks: Last Update Date: 02/08/2013 Appr Roadway Width: 50.0 Maint County: 016 COOK Maint Township: 86 WEST CHICAGO Parallel Structure: None Deck Width: 63.3 Maint Responsibility: 14 I.D.O.T. MUNICIPALITY (CHICAGO) Multi-Level Structure Nbr: Sidewalk Width Right: 7.5 Service On/Under: 1 HIGHWAY 1 / HIGHWAY Skew Direction: N None Sidewalk Width Left: 7.5 Reporting Agency: 1 I.D.O.T. - BUREAU OF MAINTENANCE Skew Angle: 0 D 0 M 0 S Navigation Control: N N/A Main Span Matl/Type: 4 STEEL CONTINUOUS / 02 STRINGER/MULTI-BEAM/GIRDER Structure Flared: No Navigation Horiz Clear: 0 Nbr Of Main Spans: 7 Nbr Of Approach Spans: 0 Historical Significance: No Navigation Vert Clear: 0 ***Approaches*** Border Bridge State: Culvert Fill Depth: 0.0 Near #1 Matl/Type: / Bdr State SN: Number Culvert Cells: 0 Near #2 Matl/Type: / Bdr State % Responsibility: 0 Culvert Opening Area: 0.0 Far #1 Matl/Type: / Structural Steel Wt 1418000 Culvert Cell Height: 0.00 Far #2 Matl/Type: / Substructure Material: Culvert Cell Width: 0.00 Median Width/Type: 0 Ft. / 0 None Rated By: 2 IDOT Rate Method: 2 ALLOWABLE STRESS Guardrail Type L/R: 0None / 0 None Inventory Rating: 1.220(43) Load Rating Date: 08/04/1999 Railroad Crossing Info Toll Facility Indicator: 0 No Toll Operating Rating: 1.890(68) Crossing 1 Nbr: Latitude: 41 D 52 M 32.81 S Longitude: 87 D 38 M 49.78 S Design Load: 02 HS20 Crossing 1 Nbr: Deck Structure Type: A CIP CON NRMLLY FORM Deck Structure Thickness: 7 SD: N FO: Y RR Lateral Underclear: 0.0 Sidewalks Under Structure: 0 None RR Vertical Underclear: 0 Ft 0 In Key Route On Data Key Route Under Data Key Route Nbr: FEDERAL-AID URBAN 3730 Station: 5.4300 FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE 0290 Station: 20.3500 Appurtenances Main Route 00000 Segment: Main Route 00000 Segment: Inventory County: 016 COOK Linked: Y 016 Linked: Y Township/Road Dist 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: Not on NHS 86 WEST CHICAGO (CHICAGO) Natl. Hwy System: On NHS Municipality 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: 1051 CHICAGO Inventory Direction: Urban Area: 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2010 / 21000 1051 1051 Curr AADT Yr/Count: 2012 / 52700 Functional Class: 4 MINOR ARTERIAL Est Truck Percentage: 4 1 INTERSTATE Est Truck Percentage: 15 ** CLEARANCES ** South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 4 South/East North/West Number Of Lanes: 13 Max Rdwy Width: 50.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way 0.0 One Or Two Way: 2 Two-Way Horizontal: 65.0 0.0 Bypass Length: 0 64.5 64.5 Bypass Length: 0 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 21630 Future AADT Yr/Cnt: 2032 / 92185 Designated Truck Rte: NONE Designated Truck Rte: CLASS I Lateral: Special Systems: No Special Systems: Yes *** Marked Route On Data *** *** Marked Route Under Data *** Designation Kind Number Designation Kind Number Route #1: 1 Mainline 8 Other 1 Mainline 1 Interstate Highway 290 Route #2: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline 3 State Highway 110 Route #3: 1 Mainline 1 Mainline APPENDIX C (39) Illinois Department of Transportation Date: 06/25/2013 Structures Information Management System Page: 2 Structure Summary Report

Structure Number: 016-2081 District: 1 Data Related to Inspection Information *** Inspection Intervals *** *** Maximum Allowable Posting Limits *** Bridge Posting Level: Routine NBIS: 24 MOS Underwater: 0 MOS One Truck At A Time: 0 Combination Type 3S-1: Tons 5 No Posting Required Special: N Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Combination Type 3S-2 Tons Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: 03/06/2013 Inspection Temperature: 32Deg. F ** Actual Posted Limits ** Deck: 5 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR SECTION LOSS, CRACKS Single Unit Vehicles: Tons Superstructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-1: Tons Substructure: 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - MINOR DETERIORATION Combination Type 3S-2: Tons Culvert: N NOT APPLICABLE One Truck At A Time: 0 Channel and Protection: N NOT APPLICABLE Deck Wearing Surf: E PLAS DENSE CON OVLY Last Paint Type: U Structural Evaluation: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Deck Membrane: F NONE FLD AL EPY & ACRLC Deck Geometry: 3 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR CORRECTION Deck Protection: J NONE Underclearance-Vert/Lat.: 3 INTOLERABLE - HIGH PRIORITY FOR CORRECTION Total Deck Thick: 7.5 Waterway Adequacy: N NOT APPLICABLE Last Paint Date: 09/2001 Approach Roadway Align: 6 EQUAL TO PRESENT MINIMUM CRITERIA Bridge Railing Appraisal: 3 Meets Standards Approach Guardrail: 111 Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Pier Navig Protection: N N/A Underwater Inspection/Appraisal Information Inspection Date: Inspection Category: Temperature: Inspection Method: Appraisal Rating:

Scour Critical Information Miscellaneous Rating: Evaluation Method: Analysis Date: Microfilm Data Recorded: Yes Construction Information Waterway Information Year: 1950 Original Reconstructed Flood Design Frequency: YRS Drainage Area: Acre Route: FA-131 Sta: 352+15 Sta: Flood Design Q (CFS): Section Nbr: 2525.1-2B Flood Design Nat H W E: Flood Base Q (CFS): Contract Nbr: Flood Des Open Prop: SF Flood Base Nat H W E: Fed Aid Pr#: UI261(30) Built By: 4 CITY

APPENDIX C (40) Appendix D Utility Coordination

Transmittal & Review 59440I Page 5 of 8

City of Chicago Department of Transportation Office of Underground Coordination 30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 310, Chicago, IL 60602 Phone# (312) 744-4828 Fax# (312) 742-3138

Transmittal & Review Form

Status: Initial Review Completed OUC File #: 2012-52870 Client Query #: 59440I Process Date: 6/4/2012 PIN Number: v5ZtXTsJ Response Required Date: 7/11/2012

Author: Submitting Agency: Name: Tim Whalen Name: Steven Schilke Company: AECOM Submitting Agency: Illinois Department of Transportation Address 1: 303 E. Wacker Drive Address 1: 201 West Center Court Address 2: Suite 600 Address 2: City: Chicago City: Schaumburg State: IL State: IL Zip: 60601 Zip: 60196 Phone: 312-373-6736 Phone: 847-705-4125 Phone Extension: Phone Extension: Fax: 312-373-6834 Fax: 847-705-4159 Mobile: Mobile: Author Email: [email protected] Submitting Agency Email: [email protected]

Project Information: Project Description: Utility Search for Circle Interchange: I-90/94 and I-290/Congress Parkway

Are manhole/handhole installations planned in the public way? Yes No

Project No.: P-91-259-12 Construction Date: 3/2/2015

Project Location: Address 1: Area bounded by and including: S. Racine Ave, W Jackson Blvd., S. Halsted St and W. Vernon Park Place

Address 2:

Additional Location Description:

Project Coordinator 1: Tim Whalen Phone: 312-373-6736 Ext: Project Coordinator 2: Mike Eichten Phone: 312-373-6567 Ext:

Purpose of Review

APPENDIX D (1) file://C:\Users\rpjacox\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Cont... 5/23/2013 Transmittal & Review 59440I Page 6 of 8

Vacation/Dedication/Subdivision Information Retrieval Existing Facility Protection Vacation/Dedication/Subdivision Information Retrieval Existing Facility Protection

Office of Underground Coordination Member Response (Hide Comments)

No Existing Existing Facility Existing Facility Responded By Date Faciltiies (Plans Attached) (Narrative Attached)

Joseph Osowski 01-CTA - Traffic 06/12/2012  312-681-4180 Comments: CTA operates bus service in the project area. Please inform CTA two weeks in advance if there is any lane or street closure that could impact bus service.

Luyang Yang 01-CDOT-Project 06/12/2012 Development  (312) 744-8065

Roy Franceschina 01-Comcast 06/12/2012  773-394-8621

Leslie Paschal 01-ComEd - 06/12/2012 Transmission  630-437-4767 Comments: ComEd underground transmission drawing and note to follow,Please use note if near transmission lines.

Jim Todd 01-MCI 06/12/2012  708-458-6410 Comments: Copy of drawings attached

Greg Prahl 01-Digital Realty Trust (Lakeside 06/14/2012  Technology Center) 312-604-1904

Grazyna Lewandowska CTR - CDWM Water 06/14/2012   Section Consultant 312-742-1327 Comments: Dimensions as shown on this drawing are approximate. Actual locations of water mains should be obtained from test holes. If test holes are desired, contact Bureau of Engineering Services - Water Section for an estimate of cost.

Water tunnel involvement.

Donald Lavelle AT&T-Illinois/SBC 06/14/2012  (630) 573-5463

Jim Todd 01-MCI 06/14/2012  708-458-6410 Comments: Correct drawings now attached

Frank Duffy 01-MDE/Thermal 06/19/2012 Chicago Corporation  312-447-1600

Amanullah Shaikh M.W.R.D. 06/22/2012 

APPENDIX D (2) file://C:\Users\rpjacox\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Cont... 5/23/2013 Transmittal & Review 59440I Page 7 of 8

Russ King Peoples Gas 06/26/2012  920-433-1472

Israel Perez Department of Watermanagement - 06/28/2012  Sewer Section 312-742-7103

Mohammed Ahmed 01-CDOT - Division of 07/05/2012 Electrical Operations  312-746-8157 Comments: ALL DETAILS SHOWN IN ATTACHED DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY NOT BE UP TO DATE AND MUST BE VERIFIED IN FIELD.

William McIntyre 01-CDOT Engineering 07/06/2012  312-744-4189

Stanislaw Zemaitaitis CTA- Engineering 07/09/2012  312-681-3948 Comments: Hard copies to follow.

Quiana Carter 01-JC Decaux 07/09/2012  312-456-2977

Vasudeva Vadali 01-Chicago Park 07/09/2012 District  (312) 742-4678

Nicholas Vanderzwan 01-CDOT-Red Light Cameras Reviewed 07/10/2012 By Redflex Traffic  Systems, Inc. 773-895-4206

Peter Norbot 01-Abovenet 07/10/2012 Communications, Inc.  (630)203-8006

James Martin 01-Level 3 Communications / 07/10/2012  LGN 708-410-1684

Larry Hanzelin 01-ComEd - 07/11/2012 Distribution  630-576-7176

Barbara Howard Bureau of Forestry 07/11/2012  312-746-5254 Comments: The Bureau of Forestry is not involved at this time. The applicant should include a drawing(s) indicating existing trees as well as proposed landscaping for the project area on the proposed project drawings for the “Existing Facility Protection” phase of OUC review. The drawing(s) must indicate tree size in diameter measured at 4.5' above the ground and tree species. Any existing parkway tree proposed for removal must be clearly identified on the drawings. Forestry will further review for involvement at that time.

Bobby Akhter 01-AT&T Local 07/12/2012 

APPENDIX D (3) file://C:\Users\rpjacox\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Cont... 5/23/2013 Transmittal & Review 59440I Page 8 of 8

Network Services (630) 719-1483 Comments: AT&T LNS has cable in duct owned and maintained by at&t (previously ameritech) on Halsted Street.

Chris Huff RCN Metro Optical 07/12/2012 Networks - Chicago  312-955-2428

OUC Project Manager Comments

Comments: File is completed. NOTE: ANY work in the public way and/or any excavation/penetration 12ft. or grater in private property REQUIRES an OUC Existing Facility protection (EFP) Review. Please visit our website for submittal details.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/prodrs/officeofundergroundcoordination.html

Project Manager: LaShanda Cokley Date: 7/23/2012

End of Transmittal & Review Form

APPENDIX D (4) file://C:\Users\rpjacox\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Cont... 5/23/2013 Appendix E Alternatives Evaluation Memo

APPENDIX F (1) APPENDIX F (2) APPENDIX F (3) APPENDIX F (4) APPENDIX F (5)

Appendix F FHWA Vertical Clearance Letter

APPENDIX F (1) APPENDIX F (2) APPENDIX F (3) APPENDIX F (4) APPENDIX F (5)

Appendix G CER Close‐Out Presentation

Chicago, IL

FHWA Cost Estimate Review Closing Presentation June 7, 2013

1

APPENDIX G (1) Cost Estimate Review Objective

Conduct an unbiased risk-based review to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the current total cost estimate and project schedule to complete the • Circle Interchange and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents the project’s current stage of design.

2

APPENDIX G (2) Basic Major Project Process

NO Federally Funded Not Applicable

PLANNING YES NO Potential Not a cost ≥ $500 M or TIFIA Major Project * *Unless of Special Interest

Planning Level Cost Est.

NEPA APPROVAL NEPA Process CER Draft PMP (ROD, FONSI)

Final PMP

Authorization of Updates to CER Initial FP PMP Update Federal funds FP, PMP, & Cost for Construction Verifications

3

APPENDIX G (3) Review Agenda June 4-7, 2013 Illinois DOT, Division of Highways/ Region 1/ District 1 Bureau of Programming, 201 West Center Court Schaumburg, Illinois 60196

TUESDAY (6/4) Programming Conference Room (4th flr) 8:30 a.m. – CER Introduction by FHWA 9:00 a.m. – Project Overview by Study Team (Stenzel/Schneider) 9:30 a.m. – Overview State Estimation Process (Dominguez/Smith/Ross) 10:00 a.m. – Market Conditions (Dominguez/Carlson) 10:30 a.m. – Soft Costs (Administrative, inflation, allowances) (Dominguez/Carlson) 11:00 a.m. – Contingency/Risk Register Items (Smith/Ross) 1:00 p.m. – Structures and Retaining Walls (Vimavala/Ozimok/Liu) 4:30 p.m. – Adjourn

4

APPENDIX G (4) Review Agenda (cont.)

WEDNESDAY (6/5) Land Acquisition Conference Room (3rd flr) 8:00 a.m. – Roadway and Pavement (Eichton) 10:00 a.m. – Drainage and Erosion Control (Yousif) 1:00 p.m. – Right of way (Eichten) 1:30 p.m. – Utilities (Eichten/Rosato) 2:30 p.m. – Environmental, Special Waste and Sound Barriers (Dysico/Smith/Mead) 3:30 p.m. – Lighting, Traffic Control, Signing and Signals, ITS (Shermer/Smith/Vourenmaa) 4:30 p.m. – Adjourn

THURSDAY (6/6) Land Acquisition Conference Room (3rd flr) 8:00 a.m. – Revisit estimate items, i.e. soft costs – as necessary (Stenzel/Lucas) 10:00 a.m. – Finalize risk register details, including descriptions (Smith/Ross) 1:00 a.m. – Findings and Report Preparation 4:30 p.m. – Adjourn

FRIDAY (6/7) Executive Conference Room (4th flr) 8:00 a.m. – Presentation Dry Run 10:00 a.m. – Noon – Closeout Presentation

5

APPENDIX G (5) Review Participants

. FHWA • Division Office - IL • Resource Center CPM Team . Illinois DOT . Consultants

6

APPENDIX G (6) Documentation Provided

. Project Cost Estimate . Project Schedule . Project Report (pre- NEPA Documents) . Project Web Site Link . Draft Financial Plan

7

APPENDIX G (7) Basis of Review

. Review based on estimates provided by the Team in advance with revisions made during the review . Review to determine the reasonableness of assumptions used in the estimate . Not an independent FHWA estimate – Did not verify quantities and unit prices – Goal is to verify accuracy and reasonableness of estimate

Risk‐based Probabilistic Approach

8

APPENDIX G (8) Review Methodology

• Major cost elements • Allowances/contingencies Verify • Adjust estimate as necessary

• Base variability • Market conditions and inflation • Risk events (cost, schedule, probability, impact, relationships) Model • Monte Carlo simulation

• Closeout Presentation • Final report • Issuance of NEPA Decision Document Communicate • Approval of finance plan

9

APPENDIX G (9) Review Baseline

Total Cost (2013): $493.3 million Total Cost (YOE): $546.2 million*

Project Completion Date: Mar 2018

*Assumes Inflation Rate 4.0%

10

APPENDIX G (10) CER Estimate Adjustments

. Added $12.3 million of estimate adjustments :

. Increase CEI from 10% to 13%: $10.3 . Increase temp. pavement for MOT: $ 5.1 . Add bridge aesthetics for surface streets: $ 2.5 . Add lead abatement for bridge painting: $ 1.2 . Increase for I-290 WB sewer: $ .8 . Add for vibration monitoring $ .4 SUBTOTAL ADDS $20.3

• Segment 8 shoulder pavement adjustment ($8.0) SUBTOTAL CHANGES $12.3

11

APPENDIX G (11) CER Analysis

IDOT Estimate (2013 dollars) $493.3 million* Net Estimate Adjustments $ 12.3 million

Subtotal $505.6 million* Contingencies ($ 85.8 million)

Base Cost for Risk Analysis $419.8 million*

*Includes $7.4 million for prior costs

12

APPENDIX G (12) Review Findings

. Appropriate estimate for level of design . Relevant unit prices from IDOT experience and project complexity . Minimal land acquisition required; primarily easements . Construction in confined space and tight schedule . Challenging Maintenance of existing Traffic

13

APPENDIX G (13) Review Findings

. Work zone includes significant underground utilities . High Potential for schedule delay . Potential for scope growth . Project is priority for the Current Administration

14

APPENDIX G (14) Base Variability

• Construction / ROW & Utilities – Modeled at +/- 10% –Basis • Current level of design of 30% • Well-defined scope of work and prices

15

APPENDIX G (15) CER Grouping of Contracts

Group 1: Initial 5 Bridge Contracts (including N-W Flyover)

Group 2: Eisenhower (I-290) / Congress Parkway Projects

Group 3: Dan Ryan / Kennedy (I-90 / I-94)

16

APPENDIX G (16) Market Conditions – Group 1 Early Bridges

Base Better Worse Estimate Than Planned Than Planned (As-Planned) 5% Probability 25% Probability 70% Probability

-2% +5%

Magnitude of Impact

17

APPENDIX G (17) Market Conditions – Groups 2 & 3 I-290/Congress & I-90/I-94

Base Better Worse Estimate Than Planned Than Planned (As-Planned) 10% Probability 25% Probability 65% Probability

-5% +10%

Magnitude of Impact 18

APPENDIX G (18) Inflation

• Model assumes 4% annual inflation for construction •Basis – Data from industry indices – IDOT estimator experience

19

APPENDIX G (19) Example Risk Analysis

Potential of higher cost to dispose of excavated material – Threat

Current estimate includes $20/CY to excavate and remove material from site. There is a potential that this material could classify as “Non-Special” or other designations and have to be disposed of at a higher cost in the range of $120/CY . Likelihood of Occurrence – 90% . Cost Risk Impact – Minimum: $2.4 million – Most Likely: $2.6 million – Maximum: $2.9 million

20

APPENDIX G (20) Example Risk Analysis (cont.)

Likelihood of 90% Occurrence 90% 10%

Impact of Occurrence Triangular Distribution Most Likely: $2.6 M Minimum: $2.4 M Maximum: $2.9 M

21

APPENDIX G (21) Cost Risks

Threats . Design Development Changes / Clarity . Likelihood – 90% . Most Likely – $27 million

. Increased Construction Costs in Winter . Likelihood – 50% . Most Likely – $10 million

. Construction Claims . Likelihood – 70% . Most Likely – $8.1 million

22

APPENDIX G (22) Cost Risks

Threats (continued) . Non-Special Waste . Likelihood – 90% . Most Likely – $2.6 million

. Coordination if project split into addl. contracts . Likelihood – 70% . Most Likely – $3.5 million

. N-W Flyover Risks . Likelihood – 25% . Most Likely – $3 million

23

APPENDIX G (23) Cost Risks

Opportunities . Advanced contract for closure and removal of I-290 SE Ramp and WB-SB Ramp . Likelihood – 90% . Most Likely – $3.5 million

. Change in limits on surface streets could reduce Traffic Signals . Likelihood – 80% . Most Likely – $1.8 million

24

APPENDIX G (24) Schedule Risks

Threats . Extended Duration for Group 1 Early Bridges . Likelihood – 90% . Most Likely – 7 months . Extended Duration for Group 2 I-290/Congress . Likelihood – 90% . Most Likely – 1.5 months . Extended Duration for Group 3 I-90/I-94 . Likelihood – 90% . Most Likely – 6 months

25

APPENDIX G (25) 26 Total Project Cost (YOE dollars)

70% = $535.5 M

*Submitted Pre CER YOE estimate = $546.2 million

APPENDIX G (26) Total Project Cost (YOE) Percentile Ranking

Percentile Forecast values 0% $416,776,859 10% $489,030,517 20% $500,399,268 30% $508,110,141 40% $515,409,108 50% $521,823,459 60% $528,451,047 70% $535,481,224 80% $543,619,703 90% $554,549,634 100% $610,761,859 27

APPENDIX G (27) 28 Project Completion Date

70% = 5/1/2019

*Submitted IDOT Completion Date: March 2018

APPENDIX G (28) Recommendations

. Focus on major Risks identified during study . Strategize contracting approach . Management of scope growth . Management of schedule . Consider opportunity to close S-E & W-S ramps early . Continue to evaluate the potential impact of market conditions on the project costs . Update estimate as decisions are made, market conditions change, or other threats or opportunities are avoided, mitigated or realized 29

APPENDIX G (29) Recommendations

. Continue implementing risk management procedures . Continue documenting and managing risks in the risk register . Continue updating estimate based on risk management . Ensure that the project management plan addresses risk response strategies for risks identified

30

APPENDIX G (30) CER Next Steps

. FHWA will prepare a final report documenting review findings. . Draft report for review within 30 days . Draft report will be e-mailed to Division Office . Division Office will review the draft and forward it to the Project Team . Final report issued within 30 days after receipt of comments . Final report forwarded to the Division Office for distribution to the Project Team . FHWA uses the results as the official cost estimate for the project (NEPA, IFP, reporting) . Estimate review is a snapshot of the current estimate

31

APPENDIX G (31) Questions?

32

APPENDIX G (32) Appendix H Technical Memorandums

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Traffic Modeling Results - FINAL

To: IDOT From: AECOM Date: January 22, 2013 (UPDATED MARCH 20, 2013)

I. EXHIBITS AND TABLES x TABLE A. TRAVEL TIME / AVERAGE SPEED / DELAY FOR AM PEAK MODELS x TABLE B. TRAVEL TIME / AVERAGE SPEED / DELAY FOR PM PEAK MODELS x TABLE C. COMPARISON OF 2012 EXISTING VS. 2040 NO BUILD SCENARIOS x TABLE D. COMPARISON OF 2012 EXISTING VS. 2017 BUILD SCENARIOS x TABLE E. COMPARISON OF 2040 NO BUILD VS. 2040 BUILD SCENARIOS x TABLE F. DENSITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE x TABLE G. SUMMARY OF DELAY AND COST SAVINGS

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Circle Interchange Preferred Alternative is expected to offer significant benefits in alleviating traffic congestion, reducing conflicts between vehicles and improving overall safety. An extensive traffic microsimulation modeling analysis was conducted to evaluate the proposed improvement and quantify the anticipated benefit. The key benefits of the Preferred Alternative for traffic operations shown on simulations of project conditions are summarized as follows: x Major Reductions in Travel Time After Construction (Existing 2012 vs. Build 2017) o Northbound I-90/94 from 31st to Ohio ƒ AM trip reduced by 5.3 minutes (48%) ƒ PM trip reduced by 17.8 minutes (53%) o Southbound I-90/94 from Ohio to 31st ƒ AM trip reduced by 1 minute (16%) ƒ PM trip reduced by 7.4 minutes (58%) o Eastbound I-290 from Loomis to the Post Office ƒ PM trip reduced by 1.6 minutes (57%) o Northbound I-90/94 from 31st to Westbound I-290 (Ramp NW) ƒ AM trip reduced by 5 minutes (53%) ƒ PM trip reduced by 17.8 minutes (71%) o Eastbound I-290 from Loomis to Northbound I-90/94 (Ramp EN) ƒ AM travel time reduced by 30 seconds (24%) ƒ PM travel time reduced by 1.1 minutes (24.2%)

x Significant Reductions in Travel Time in the Future (No Build compared to Build 2040) o Northbound I-90/94 from 31st to Ohio ƒ AM Build trip less than No Build by 8.3 minutes (55%) ƒ PM Build trip less than No Build by 14.5 minutes by 32.6 minutes (33%)

Page 1 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

o Southbound I-90/94 from Ohio to 31st ƒ AM Build trip less than No Build by 30 seconds (8%) ƒ PM Build trip less than No Build by 8.6 minutes (60%) o Eastbound I-290 from Loomis to the Post Office ƒ PM Build trip less than No Build by 1.3 minutes (46%) o Northbound I-90/94 from 31st to Westbound I-290 (Ramp NW) ƒ AM Build trip less than No Build by 8.3 minutes (63%) ƒ PM Build trip less than No Build by 19.5 minutes (54%) o Eastbound I-290 from Loomis to Northbound I-90/94 (Ramp EN) ƒ AM travel time reduced by 40 seconds (32%) x Reductions in Traffic Congestion o Northbound I-90/94 Dan Ryan ƒ AM and PM congestion significantly reduced o Northbound I-90/94 to Westbound I-290 (Ramp NW) ƒ Backups from Ramp NW significantly reduced o Eastbound I-290 ƒ Backups from I-90/94 departure gore significantly reduced x Percent Reduction in Delay 2017 Build vs. Existing = 62% o Reducted Overall Delay (cumulative for all vehicles) ƒ Daily Delay SAVINGS = 13,500 hours ƒ Annual Delay SAVINGS = 4 million hours o Reduced Average DAILY Delay per Vehicle = 2 minutes o Reduced Cost of Delay from Lost Production ƒ Daily Cost SAVINGS = $483,800 ƒ Annual Cost SAVINGS = $143 million o Reduced Fuel Consumption due to greater efficiency ƒ Daily Fuel SAVINGS = 6,800 gallons ƒ Annual Fuel SAVINGS = 2 million gallons x Percent Reduction in Delay 2040 Build vs. No Build = 50% o Reduced Overall Delay (cumulative for all vehicles) ƒ Daily Delay SAVINGS = 17,800 hours ƒ Annual Delay SAVINGS = 5.3 million hours o Reduced Average DAILY Delay per Vehicle = 2.6 minutes o Reduced Cost of Delay from Lost Production ƒ Daily Cost SAVINGS = $623,800 ƒ Annual Cost SAVINGS = $185 million o Reduced Fuel Consumption due to greater efficiency ƒ Daily Fuel SAVINGS = 5,550 gallons ƒ Annual Fuel SAVINGS = 1.65 million gallons

Page 2 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

These benefits are achieved primarily due to the additional capacity the Preferred Alternative offers in conveying traffic flow.

x The most significant issue contributing to traffic congestion at the Circle Interchange is overall north-south capacity through the Circle Interchange. At least one travel lane to northbound and southbound movement will be added through the interchange. This expands capacity for each direction of traffic by up to 2300 vehicles per hour. x The additional travel lane also reduces the need for entering traffic from I-55 to weave over, reducing the degree of this conflict which plays a major role for congestion on the Dan Ryan. x Congestion on and leading to Ramp EN (Eastbound I-290 Eisenhower to Northbound I-90/94 Kennedy) and Ramp NW (Northbound I-90/94 Dan Ryan to Westbound I-290 Eisenhower) is another major problem area for the Circle. Both of these ramps will be widened to two lanes and redesigned for higher speeds, which should double capacity on these movements. Other elements of the design reduce conflicts or pull them away from the prevailing traffic streams, such as: x A complete collector-distributor roadway on the northbound Kennedy Expressway to accept entering traffic and distribute exiting traffic, allowing mainline traffic to flow more freely x Slip ramp from Ramp EN to the northbound collector-distributor roadway to maintain access to all downtown exit ramps while eliminating existing weaving movements on the mainline. When considering these benefits, please note that while the gains to operational efficiency are significant, Level of Service (LOS)1 grade is ultimately not anticipated to change much. Initially, a major improvement is anticipated when the construction on the interchange is completed and the Circle is re- opened to traffic, in particular during the AM peak where northbound Dan Ryan LOS is expected to improve to LOS D/E where it previously was at F. Nonetheless, many of the failing movements on the interchange will continue to fail, albeit at a lessened severity. Furthermore, the interchange is anticipated to be similarly congested again by 2040 because the proposed improvements are expected to attract and serve more traffic. The alternative to improving the interchange is to do nothing, and the No Build models developed as part of this analysis foresee large increases to already extensive delays in the future. By 2040 if no improvements are completed on the Circle Interchange: x Northbound travel times from 31st Street to are anticipated to increase by almost 4 minutes in the AM (34%) and almost 11 minutes in the PM (32%). x Southbound travel times from Ohio Street to 31st Street are anticipated to increase by almost 2 minutes in the PM (14%). This updated analysis of the Preferred Alternative incorporates revisions to the northbound tie-in point, which now provides a collector-distributor roadway for all northbound ramps with a release back onto the Kennedy Expressway. While this tie-in optimizes traffic operations within the given constraints of the project within the established limits, operational issues are still anticipated under future 2040 traffic loadings at the northbound and southbound tie-in points. Without adjacent improvements to increase overall capacity at Hubbard’s Cave (north of the project limits) and on the Dan Ryan “High Bridge” (south of the project limits), these operational issues are expected to continue to cause congestion problems in the future.

1 As defined by the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Page 3 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

III. DETAILED DISCUSSION

A. Analysis Procedure The traffic analysis used VISSIM microsimulation software to compare the performance of the Preferred Alternative to the No Build scenario in 2040. As traffic congestion related to the Circle Interchange routinely extends for miles beyond the project improvement limits, the VISSIM models were developed to cover I-90/94 from north of the Ohio Street Interchange to south of I-55, and along I-290 from Ashland Avenue to Canal Street.

STUDY AREA VISSIM Model Study Area (Interstate System and Ramps Only) A total of 8 complete VISSIM Models of the Circle Interchange expressway system and ramps (excluding the local road network) were assessed for the analysis. 1. 2012 AM Existing Base 2. 2012 PM Existing Base 3. 2040 AM No Build 4. 2040 PM No Build 5. Preferred Alternative with 2017 AM Traffic 6. Preferred Alternative with 2017 PM Traffic 7. Preferred Alternative with 2040 AM Build Traffic 8. Preferred Alternative with 2040 PM Build Traffic The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) provided traffic projections for 2040 No Build as well as two Build scenarios. The CMAP projections showed increases to traffic volumes to represent additional trips drawn to the Circle due to its improved performance and reduced congestion resulting from the Build improvements. Models 5 and 6 represent the immediate benefit the improvement will provide once it is completed and fully opened to traffic. Models 7 and 8 depict anticipated future conditions with additional new traffic that will be drawn to use the Circle and take advantage of capacity improvements.

Page 4 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

B. Traffic Analysis Inputs Inputs into the models included: x IDOT Traffic Systems Center detection station counts x Projected 2040 traffic volumes provided by CMAP, including projections for the No Build scenario as well as two improvement scenarios (CMAP’s “Build 1” projections directly relate to the current Preferred Alternative) x Rapid-sequence aerial photography with computer assisted tracing (from Skycomp) x Field travel time and speed studies (floating car study) x Other field observations Traffic volumes used for the analysis were provided by automatic detectors managed by the IDOT Traffic Systems Center (TSC). After a review of multiple days of data spanning previous years and seasons, the data from July 25-26, 2012 was used for the analysis since it represented a typical summer weekday: x Where adverse weather conditions would not be as much of a factor x Where no major traffic-altering events in the City were scheduled x Where traffic data from the TSC would be mostly available and the instance of non-functional count stations minimized x To coincide with an extensive floating car field study to collect companion data to supplement the counts While the TSC counts defined the total number of vehicles crossing various points within the network, alone they did not provide enough information to properly assess travel patterns and factors contributing to congestion such as lane change needs and weaving. To supplement the counts, an origin-destination study involving rapid-sequence aerial photography was performed during AM and PM peak periods to record the movement of vehicles through the roadway network surrounding the Circle Interchange. In this study, high-resolution cameras on a helicopter several thousand feet above the roadway took a photograph every second. Through a “computer-assisted manual tracing” process, the route of an individual vehicle driving through the network could be determined by following the progression of the vehicle sequentially from photo to photo. Nearly 6000 vehicles were traced in this manner to define desired traffic patterns and movement between access ramps and expressways. TSC counts also did not provide classification of vehicles, so the aerial reconnaissance study was used to break down single unit, multiple unit, and bus vehicle percentages for interchange movements.

C. Traffic Model Development Traffic models are based on AM and PM peak hours, defined through analysis of daily traffic patterns to be the periods of 7:00 to 8:00AM and 5:00 to 6:00PM. For each model developed, three to four 15- minute “seeding” periods were initiated prior to the analysis period to populate the model with vehicles, allowing congestion to build to the extent that modeled queuing matches queuing observed in the field right at the start of the analysis period. 2012 AM & PM Existing Base Models were developed to calibrate model conditions as closely as possible to conditions observed in the field. Model parameters such as those listed below were continually adjusted until modeled speed profiles, queue lengths, and flow rates matched that which was collected in the field.

Page 5 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

x Vehicle Composition: cars vs. single unit trucks vs. multiple unit trucks x Volume Composition: seeding intervals, peak hour distribution, unrealized demand x Driver Behavior: acceleration/deceleration rates, following distance, headway time x Link Behavior Types: merge areas, diverge areas, weaving areas, oversaturated areas x Traffic Routing: origin/destination, lane change distance x Travel Speeds: mainline segments, ramp entering/exiting speeds, reduced speed areas, speeds by vehicle type (Single Unit/Multiple Unit trucks) Since TSC traffic data is only capable of recording the volume of vehicles physically passing over each detector, a value that can be metered by congestion restricting the flow of vehicles, during the calibration process the insertion of additional vehicles beyond the TSC recorded volume was required to accurately represent congestion witnessed in the field. These additional vehicles represent the actual traffic demand, or the total number of motorists who are attempting to use the expressway and will be delayed and queued beyond the analysis period rather than a count of vehicles that have actually passed through it. These additional vehicles were populated into the model beginning with the seeding periods from the outer limits of the model, which helped build modeled congestion in a similar manner as what was witnessed in the field. The calibration procedure was an iterative process involving several hundred revisions and tests. Speed profiles from various segments measured in the field during the floating car study were compared to modeled segments, with calibration adjustments made until speed profiles and back of queue locations closely matched. When the results were close, modeled flow rates compiled from an average of multiple simulation runs conducted across varying random number seeds on over 70 distinct links in the model were compared to known existing target volumes with a GEH statistical test. The GEH statistic is an empirical formula similar to a Chi-Squared test that is commonly used to compare and validate modeled link volumes vs. known link volumes from the source data. According to guidelines from both the and Oregon Departments of Transportation, data sets with a GEH < 5 are considered to be a good fit, and GEH > 10 is considered to be a poor fit. A modeled network can be considered “valid” with 85% of links showing a GEH <5. In the course of our calibration process, our AM model achieved 91% of links with GEH < 5, and our PM model achieved 95%. Furthermore, the calibrated models perform well when compared to criteria defined by the FHWA Traffic Analysis Toolbox2 for acceptable calibration targets, as presented in the following tables.

2012 AM Calibration Results FHWA Total No. In % Criteria Count Compliance Compliant Met? Within 15%, for 700 veh/h < Flow < 2700 veh/h > 85% of cases Within 100 veh/h, for Flow < 700 veh/h > 85% of cases 77 69 90.00% ¥ Within 100 veh/h, for Flow > 2700 veh/h > 85% of cases GEH Statistic < 5 for Individual Link Flows > 85% of cases 75 67 91.00% ¥ Journey Times on Freeway > 85% of cases 4 4 100.00% ¥ Modeled Observed GEH GEH Statistic for Sum of Entering and Exiting Link Flows < 4 66,853 65,887 3.8 ¥

2 Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software (FHWA HRT-04-040). U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. July 2004.

Page 6 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

2012 PM Calibration Results FHWA Total No. In % Criteria Count Compliance Compliant Met? Within 15%, for 700 veh/h < Flow < 2700 veh/h > 85% of cases Within 100 veh/h, for Flow < 700 veh/h > 85% of cases 76 72 95.00% ¥ Within 100 veh/h, for Flow > 2700 veh/h > 85% of cases GEH Statistic < 5 for Individual Link Flows > 85% of cases 75 70 95.00% ¥ Journey Times on Freeway > 85% of cases 4 4 100.00% ¥ Modeled Observed GEH GEH Statistic for Sum of Entering and Exiting Link Flows < 4 64,759 65,704 3.7 ¥

After completing calibration on AM and PM existing base models, the same network parameters were applied to subsequently developed models.

D. Estimation of Delay and Cost of Delay The values of delay, cost of delay, and gasoline consumption were computed based on VISSIM model outputs for delay during peak hours, projected across the day and over the year. These values are difficult to quantify, highly sensitive to the general assumptions made in calculating them, and impossible to validate; but they provide a good means of comparing different scenarios. QUANTIFYING PEAK HOUR DELAY Defining what constitutes as delay for a vehicle can be subject to opinion, especially in the stop-and-go conditions of heavily congested traffic. For this study, delay was defined as the difference between the travel time experienced and the travel time that would be theoretically achievable for a vehicle traveling at free-flow speed. Although the speed limit within the project limits is 45 mph, free-flow speed was observed to be about 60mph and easily measured from the westbound movement, which typically operates unconstrained. Average travel times were derived from the traffic models and delay values computed for peak hours using this method. PROJECTING DAILY DELAY FROM PEAK HOUR DELAY Peak hour delay only represents 2 hours of a typical day when delays are at their worst. In-lieu of developing 24-hour traffic models for analysis (an impractical method given the needs of this project) and without benefit of comprehensive speed deriving a projection of daily delay requires several assumptions. The day was broken into 7 time periods: x 12AM to 6AM x 6AM to 9AM x 9AM to 2PM x 2PM to 4PM x 4PM to 6PM x 9PM to 12AM

Page 7 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

The prevailing traffic volume for each approach was estimated and compared against the peak volume to identify a ratio against the peak. This ratio was applied to the delay experienced during the peak to derive off-peak delay. The time periods of 12AM to 6AM and 9PM to 12AM were assumed to incur zero delay based on the sharp drop in traffic volumes, and delay for the 6-9PM period was assumed to be 50% of the PM peak delay as a volume ratio for comparison to PM peak is invalid due to the large difference between measured volumes and actual demand during that period. This method was compared to a parallel effort to estimate delay by time period looking into partial data available for the Kennedy Expressway on average speeds available from the Lake Michigan Interstate Gateway Alliance3, which produced a similar result. From these calculations an aggregate delay was computed to represent the entire day. PROJECTING AND ADJUSTING DAILY DELAY TO DERIVE ANNUAL DELAY From there, several adjustment factors were applied to the aggregate delay to account for conditions not experienced during the analysis period, which represented a weekday summer day with ideal weather conditions and no special events or circumstances. These adjustment factors were based on travel trends documented by the Lake Michigan Interstate Gateway Alliance4. x Day of Week Adjustments o Typical Weekday (Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday) vs. Friday o Typical Weekday vs. Monday o Typical Weekday vs. Saturday o Typical Weekday vs. Sunday x Seasonal Adjustments o Summer to Spring o Summer to Fall o Summer to Winter x Weather Conditions Adjustment, based on precipitation days in Chicago ESTIMATING COST OF DELAY The cost to road users from delay was calculated per the methodology defined by the FHWA for Work Zone Road User Costs5, and supplemented with data from the 2011 Urban Mobility Report6. The calculation splits out the following elements to determine costs of delay/value of time: x Value of time for personal vs. business use of passenger car occupants x Value of time for local vs. intercity travel of passenger car occupants x Value of time for commercial vehicle occupants x Time-related vehicle depreciation x Cost of freight inventory delay x Cost of wasted fuel

3 Lake Michigan Interstate Gateway Alliance, formerly GCM Travel at http://www.travelmidweststats.com 4 Lake Michigan Interstate Gateway Alliance, formerly GCM Travel at http://www.travelmidweststats.com 5 Work Zone Road User Costs - Concepts and Applications (FHWA-HOP-12-005). USDOT, Federal Highway Adminstration. December, 2011 6 2011 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, September 2011

Page 8 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

E. Existing Traffic Assessment In this section, existing deficiencies and the underlying cause behind them are reviewed with focus on the specific problem areas impacting the flow of traffic at the interchange.

NORTHBOUND I-90/94 DAN RYAN EXPRESSWAY The segment of the northbound I-90/94 Dan Ryan Expressway between the I-290 (Circle) and I-55 interchanges is one of the most severely congested stretches of roadway in the Chicagoland area. In the AM Peak, queues routinely extend over 2.5 miles from the Circle Interchange to 26th Street. In the PM, the queue can extend beyond 31st Street. Due to congestion, travel times to approach and pass through the Circle from the south can be extreme. Through much of the day, a trip from 31st Street to the Circle will take 8 to 10 minutes; a distance of about 3 miles. During the PM Peak, the same trip will take 26 minutes or more. The queue of I-90/94 appears to originate from the oversaturated 3-lane section for northbound lanes passing through the Circle Interchange, which is apparent further south of the interchange where I- 90/94 is wider and the inside three lanes leading directly to the 3-lane section experience heavier congestion than the outer two lanes. Weaving movements from I-55 are also a major contributor. A strong desire for I-55 traffic to immediately merge over to the left while entering northbound I-90/94 traffic was apparent through numerous field observations. With the current lane configuration, all entering I-55 traffic on both lanes must merge over one or two lanes to the left to stay on northbound I- 90/94 since the exit to I-290 westbound is fed by the right two lanes. As shown below, traffic is biased towards using the inside three lanes which lead through the Circle Interchange rather than the outer two lanes which lead to the I-290 divergence.

Northbound I-90/94 Dan Ryan at Canalport, PM Peak Northbound I-90/94 Dan Ryan south of Roosevelt, PM Peak

The entrance of I-55 is separated by the divergence to I-290 by only 3800 feet, where entering I-55 traffic destined to continue north beyond the Circle Interchange must weave across traffic from I-90/94 headed to I-290 and ultimately merge into the three heavily used inside lanes of I-90/94. In field observations, motorists entering from I-55 were noticeably pressured to merge into the inside three lanes of I-90/94 traffic as quickly as possible. Overhead signing clearly designates the inside three lanes for I-90/94 and the outer two lanes for I-290. Drivers from I-55 considering the signage while seeing the amount of congestion within the inside three lanes clearly demonstrate urgency to merge, often blocking their travel lane to do so. These weaving movements all must occur within 3800’, less than a mile in distance. The weaving movements exacerbate the issue of overall northbound traffic demand exceeding capacity and contribute to excessive delays experienced by drivers of the roadway

Page 9 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

throughout the day. The exhibit below summarizes issues with the weaving movements in this segment. The size of arrowheads is approximately proportional to the total volume of traffic making the movement. As shown in the exhibit, 72% of the entire I-55 entering movement must weave over a lane to merge within I-90/94 northbound traffic. In the process of doing so, this traffic crosses over I-90/94 traffic destined to I-290 and local exits, which represents 30% of the total volume of I-90/94 south of the I-55 Interchange.

Northbound I-90/94 Dan Ryan Weaving Movements by Percentage (weaving data from Skycomp Aerial Reconnaissance Survey)

Page 10 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

The exhibit below provides a more detailed breakdown of weaving traffic volumes experienced on northbound I-90/94. Traffic volumes noted with an asterisk were recorded under oversaturated conditions, with traffic demand expected to be higher than the volume noted. Problem movements contributing to traffic congestion are highlighted in red.

Northbound I-90/94 Dan Ryan Weaving Movements by Volume (weaving data from Skycomp Aerial Reconnaissance Survey) Another significant contributor to traffic congestion is the single lane ramp from northbound I-90/94 to westbound I-290 (Ramp NW). At Roosevelt Road, the two lanes destined to westbound I-290 and eastbound Congress Parkway are barrier separated from the mainline expressway, and heavy congestion builds 2300’ from the Circle Interchange all the way back to Roosevelt during the weekday AM peak and throughout the weekend from the split to individual westbound and eastbound ramps. Typically, congestion is seen mostly in the left lane of this two-lane approach to the I-290/Congress ramps, which serves the north-to-west movement. The right lane destined for eastbound Congress Parkway stays open, where aggressive motorists will try to bypass congestion and cut in to the north-to-

Page 11 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

west ramp before the split. The volume of traffic conveyed by Ramp NW is limited by its single-lane capacity and tight geometry.

SOUTHBOUND I-90/94 KENNEDY EXPRESSWAY

Approaching the Circle Interchange from the north, queues during the AM and PM peaks routinely extend back to Grand Avenue, over a mile away. The 3-lane section through the interchange appears to be the constricting factor as the upstream inner three lanes show heavier congestion than the outer two lanes, which are destined to I-290 and tend to flow more freely. The following picture shows typical southbound congestion experienced immediately north of the Circle Interchange during the PM peak.

Southbound I-90/94 Kennedy, PM Peak

Travel speeds slow to around 35mph in the AM and below 10mph during the PM. During the PM peak, southbound vehicles can expect the southbound trip from Chicago Avenue to the Circle Interchange to take over 10 minutes for a distance of only 1-3/4 miles. The southbound I-90/94 to westbound I-290 ramp (Ramp SW) is a particularly heavy movement that hovers near capacity with counted volumes at nearly 1800 vehicles per hour during the AM peak, though instances of congestion on that ramp have not been observed because Ramp SW releases onto free-flow conditions on I-290.

EASTBOUND I-290 EISENHOWER EXPRESSWAY Approaching the Circle Interchange from the west, congestion builds from the exits to I-90/94 near Peoria Street back to Ashland Avenue 4600’ away. Field observations suggest that the bulk of this congestion stems from the eastbound I-290 to northbound I-90/94 ramp (Ramp EN), which is unable to adequately convey traffic demand. Backups from cars trying to reach this ramp block access to the eastbound I-290 to southbound I-90/94 ramp (Ramp ES), which is also a heavy movement that uses two travel lanes.

On the eastbound approach to the Circle, traffic in all lanes generally slows near Ashland Avenue as cars weave into position for accessing the I-90/94 ramps. Closer to the interchange near Morgan Street, congestion in the right two lanes destined for I-90/94 increases while the left two lanes destined for Congress Parkway tend to open back up to highway speeds, which can be seen in the picture below.

Page 12 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

Eastbound I-290 Eisenhower, PM Peak

Speed profiles from test vehicles show a wide range of recorded travel speeds during AM and PM peaks, which are characteristic of the stop-and-go nature of traffic on the eastbound approach. The divergence gore to I-90/94 and the capacity of Ramp EN are at the root of the problem. With only a single lane and tight geometry, Ramp EN cannot convey all the traffic that is flowing towards it; congestion from this ramp impacts access to Ramp ES which carries over 2100 vehicles per hour in the AM and 1800 vehicles per hour in the PM over two lanes.

F. 2040 No Build Assessment The 2040 traffic projections provided by CMAP suggest that the volume of traffic will continue growing in the future. Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic was escalated to 2040 by applying the anticipated growth rates supplied by CMAP. Since the burden on the system will increase and the No Build scenario does not offer any improvements to address the issues, the extent of congestion problems from existing deficiencies will be increased. So while future traffic growth is anticipated to be modest in percentage, large increases in delay will occur because the system is already overcapacity.

Percent Growth of Daily Traffic (Existing to 2040)

Page 13 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

G. Preferred Alternative Design Components The design of the Preferred Alternative sought to specifically address and alleviate the existing deficiencies described within the physical constraints of the project area and scope. Some of the major improvements offered by the alternative that will significantly improve capacity include: x Additional Northbound and Southbound Through Lanes for I-90/94 at the Circle Interchange The number of I-90/94 through lanes at the Circle will increase to four through lanes. The ability to add and transition more lanes beyond four is still being evaluated, but the proposed improvement will increase by a minimum of one travel lane in each direction. Each additional expressway travel lane adds up to 2,300 vehicles per hour of theoretical capacity. The additional northbound lane also improves the weaving issue of the I-55 entrance south of the interchange. Entering traffic from the left lane of the two-lane I-55 entrance will no longer need to merge across a lane and can remain in their lane to reach the Kennedy Expressway.

Northbound I-90/94 Dan Ryan Weaving Movements by Volume (2012) for the Preferred Alternative (weaving data from Skycomp Aerial Reconnaissance Survey)

Page 14 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

x Widening of Ramp NW to Two Lanes with Improved Geometry The added lane should double the capacity of this ramp, and the wider curve radius of the ramp will allow for increased travel speeds. This improvement adds over 1,600 vehicles per hour of theoretical capacity. x Widening of Ramp EN to Two Lanes with Improved Geometry The added lane should double the capacity of this ramp, and the wider curve radius of the ramp will allow for increased travel speeds. This improvement adds over 1,600 vehicles per hour of theoretical capacity. These three improvements will greatly increase the capacity of the Circle Interchange for moving traffic, enough that the increased flow of traffic and release of congestion from these improvements was suspected to generate new conflict zones and areas of congestion that previously were not issues. With location-specific traffic analyses and small scale modeling efforts to screen preliminary geometric concepts, additional key solutions were incorporated into the Preferred Alternative. x Lane Reduction on I-290/Congress Parkway east of the Circle Existing observations and traffic models showed that existing eastbound and westbound lanes through the Circle Interchange currently operate well below capacity. Traffic on these roadways was observed to easily reach free-flow speed at all times during the day. CMAP projections confirmed that traffic on these links are not anticipated to grow substantially. The design of Preferred Alternative reduces eastbound through lanes over the Circle from three lanes to two to improve alignment and the divergence of vehicles to ramps destined to northbound and southbound I-90/94. A similar reduction in lanes also makes the convergence between westbound I-290 and Ramps NW and SW more straightforward. All traffic models have shown these lane reductions to operate satisfactorily. x Northbound “Bypass” for I-90/94 Traffic Exiting to the Loop Preliminary analyses and modeling suggested that the release of northbound traffic congestion through the Circle with the additional travel lane in concert with the sizeable increase to throughput of Ramp EN could result in issues at the merge point of Ramp EN when these bottlenecks are released. Further study of origin-destination patterns for traffic exiting I-90/94 confirmed that concern, showing that the majority of exiting traffic to downtown exit ramps at Madison, Washington, Randolph, and Lake originates from the I-90/94 Dan Ryan Expressway. Currently, Ramps EN and WN (westbound Congress Parkway to northbound I-90/94) merge onto I-90/94 upstream of these exit ramps and exiting traffic from the Dan Ryan has to weave across that traffic. In the existing condition, traffic from Ramps EN and the three northbound lanes through the Circle are slowed by congestion, effectively being “metered” in advance of arriving at the conflict point. The metering currently prevents vehicles from arriving at this conflict point in volumes that could cause congestion. The graphic on the following page illustrates the weaving issues present on this link. Note that in the AM peak over 1500 vehicles per hour seek to weave across the 1355 vehicles per hour of entering traffic from Ramps EN and WN to exit the expressway, which is a large enough conflict to potentially generate significant congestion.

Page 15 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

Northbound I-90/94 Kennedy Weaving Movements by Volume (2012) (weaving data from Skycomp Aerial Reconnaissance Survey)

The Northbound Bypass has been designed to pull away Dan Ryan traffic to downtown exits south of the Circle to bring them into the downstream and to the right of the Ramp EN and WN merge points. This design separates out these weaving movements and greatly reduces the conflict. x Northbound Collector-Distributor Roadway for Entering and Exiting Traffic VISSIM models of the initial northbound tie-in showed congestion problems at the entrance of Ramp EN onto the Kennedy Expressway, and an inability of traffic from Jackson and Adams Street to enter the system. The initial merge design of Ramp EN proved to be too abrupt to convey the amount of demand, which created backups on Ramps EN and WN. The combined

Page 16 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

volume of Jackson and Adams Street entrance ramps is anticipated to reach 1500 vehicles per hour in 2040, and in our traffic models this volume was unable to completely enter the network. To correct these issues, additional study of geometrics was initiated to improve on the solution. The result was the elimination of the connecting bridge between Jackson and Adams entrance ramps which are now provided with individual entrances, a Collector-Distributor (C-D) roadway system from the Northbound Bypass to Lake Street, and a slip ramp from Ramp EN. The revised geometry completely separates conflicting and weaving ramp movements from the mainline, isolating them on the C-D roadway.

H. Preferred Alternative Assessment The result of the modeling efforts show that with the Preferred Alternative, overall congestion will initially be substantially reduced until the available capacity is filled in by new traffic that will be more inclined to use the Circle Interchange after the improvements are completed. The Preferred Alternative does show several areas of concern that will require further study, particularly where proposed improvements tie into existing facilities. These include: x Southern Project Limits at Roosevelt Road for Southbound Lanes The current condition has the two lanes from Ramp ES merging into a three-lane section of I- 90/94 with their own lanes. The Preferred Alternative involves adding another southbound travel lane with Ramp ES remaining two lanes wide. As the proposed improvement must transition to the existing section of five travel lanes, Ramp ES must utilize a forced-merge for its inner lane with the outer lane of I-90/94. This forced merge involving high volumes from Ramp ES are exacerbated by the southbound Roosevelt Road entrance ramp immediately downstream, which is heavily used in the PM peak. An alternate configuration was investigated, allowing Ramp ES to merge into their own lanes and continuing six lanes beneath the Roosevelt Road bridge; but this option proved to have more operational deficiencies than the configuration pursued for the Preferred Alternative since the heavy amount of traffic from Roosevelt Road would then have to enter in a forced-merge situation rather than into the auxiliary lane they are provided today. In the proposed models this shows up as a new potential area of congestion, which can only be addressed if improvement were continued to the south. This issue should be addressed along with any planned improvements for the I-90/94 Dan Ryan “High Bridge”. x Northern Project Limits with Tie-In for Northbound Lanes The design of the Preferred Alternative was developed to be compatible with an ultimate reconstruction of the section of the I-90/94 Kennedy Expressway between the Circle Interchange and Hubbard’s Cave involving an outside C-D roadway to separate out conflicting weaving movements from traffic exiting the roadway and entering from I-290. The additional northbound through lane provides the majority of benefit in reducing delay, but also releases some of the large buildup of congestion south of Roosevelt, allowing it to flood into the area through the Circle and into the Kennedy Expressway south of Hubbard’s Cave. With only five lanes in each direction, Hubbard’s Cave will become the next constriction point as congestion will be pushed through the Circle and onto the Kennedy Expressway. Still, overall delay will be reduced and travel times will improve especially for the northbound and

Page 17 of 18

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

southbound directions. Ramp EN and WN will likely see some queuing during the heaviest congested conditions in the PM peak with Hubbard’s Cave unable to convey the large amount of traffic flow and the congestion on the Kennedy Expressway slowing the release of volumes on these ramps. One strategy that showed benefits on proposed models in keeping Ramp EN and WN queues manageable and off I-290 was the use of ramp metering on downtown ramps entering the Kennedy Expressway. Ramp meter signals are currently in place on the existing Adams, Madison, and Randolph northbound entrance ramps. The existing Jackson entrance ramp does not have meter signals, most likely because this ramp currently enters into its own lane on the Kennedy and does not have a need for one. Metering traffic from entering the Kennedy helps manage the flow of vehicles towards Hubbard’s Cave, limiting the impact these vehicles can have on contributing to congestion and allowing more gaps in Kennedy traffic to form and accept EN and WN traffic. The proposed 2017 PM Build model showed some queuing on EN and WN that was eliminated by activating modest ramp meter cycles of 2 seconds on the Jackson and Adams entrance ramps. VISSIM allows for a distribution of ramp meter compliance to be programmed into the model to more closely represent real-world conditions where not all drivers will obey the ramp meter signal. The distribution of motorist behavior was conservatively set to assume 90% of drivers would obey the signal, 5% would slow down for the signal but not completely stop, and 5% would disregard completely. The proposed 2040 PM Build model also showed queuing on EN and WN. Introducing ramp meter cycles of 3 seconds on the Jackson, Adams, Madison, and Randolph entrance ramps allowed queues on Ramp EN and WN have minimal to no impact on I- 290. As the preferred alternative is constructed, the use of ramp meters can be an effective tool in managing congestion on the expressway system. As the project is implemented these signals will need to be monitored and adjusted continually per the prevailing traffic conditions. While improved from its previous iterations, the current design remains an interim solution that will likely see significant traffic congestion until overall capacity is expanded through Hubbard’s Cave to the north.

Page 18 of 18

TABLE A: TRAVEL TIME, AVERAGE SPEED, AND DELAY FOR AM PEAK MODELS

SOUTH LEG: Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94)

NORTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 193.3 138.7 276.7 102.2 102.5 Circle to Roosevelt 36.0 35.7 35.5 33.0 33.3 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 303.8 342.0 424.5 103.7 140.6 Roosevelt to 31st Street 176.1 179.5 180.9 179.6 182.5 North of Roosevelt to Circle 76.0 74.7 83.9 39.0 50.8 SUBTOTAL 212.1 215.2 216.4 212.6 215.8 SUBTOTAL 573.1 555.4 785.1 244.9 293.9

NORTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative SOUTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 At I-55 Entrance 18.4 30.0 19.5 42.0 41.9 At I-55 Exit 54 52 51.6 52.2 51.9 At I-290 C-D Entrance 17.6 23.6 22.1 46.1 39.6 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 55.8 52.3 52.0 52.5 51.5 North of Roosevelt to Circle 31.7 26.6 23.2 40.5 34.5

NORTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative SOUTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 115.0 60.4 198.4 23.9 24.2 Circle to Roosevelt 6.6 6.3 6.1 3.6 3.9 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 225.7 263.9 346.4 25.6 62.5 Roosevelt to 31st Street 20.9 24.3 25.6 24.4 27.2 North of Roosevelt to Circle 46.6 45.3 54.5 9.6 21.4 SUBTOTAL 27.5 30.5 31.7 27.9 31.1 SUBTOTAL 387.3 369.6 599.3 59.1 108.1

NORTH LEG: Kennedy Expressway (I-90/94)

SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative NORTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 91.4 88.7 103.1 58.0 92.0 Circle to Ohio St 118.5 116.3 117.6 108.6 109.1 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 62.6 80.2 80.2 53.6 60.1 SUBTOTAL 154.0 168.9 183.3 111.6 152.1

SOUTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative NORTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 At Ohio St Exit 33.4 40.0 36.1 55.0 43.4 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 47.8 47.9 48.1 48.8 48.5 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 28.2 35.7 32.6 49.6 35.4 At the Circle 43.2 47.7 47.7 54.9 54.7

SOUTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative NORTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 47.2 44.5 58.9 13.8 47.8 Circle to Ohio St 33.6 31.4 32.7 23.7 24.2 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 20.6 38.2 38.2 11.6 18.1 SUBTOTAL 67.8 82.7 97.1 25.4 65.9

WEST LEG: Eisenhower Expressway (I-290)

EASTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative WESTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Loomis to Racine 19 17.9 18.4 17.2 17.4 West of Circle 53.3 53.5 53.5 53.2 53.4 Racine to Circle 32.5 33.7 34.0 32.7 32.9 SUBTOTAL 51.5 51.6 52.4 49.9 50.3

EASTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative WESTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 At Racine 52.5 53.9 53.9 53.1 52.5 At Circle 56.0 55.9 55.9 58.1 58.0 At the circle 56.0 57.8 57.7 56.8 56.7

EASTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative WESTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Loomis to Racine 4.3 3.2 3.7 2.5 2.7 West of Circle 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 Racine to Circle 1.8 3.0 3.3 2.0 2.2 SUBTOTAL 6.2 6.3 7.1 4.6 5.0

EAST LEG: Eisenhower Expressway (I-290)/Congress Parkway

WESTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative EASTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Post Office to Circle 17.5 25.8 25.8 25.1 25.1 Circle to Post Office 18.5 25.2 25.3 25.1 25.2

WESTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative EASTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 At Canal Street Entrance 40.0 49.2 49.2 49.4 49.4 At Canal Street Exit 48.3 55.5 55.5 55.4 55.4

WESTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative EASTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Post Office to Circle 0.5 8.8 8.8 8.1 8.1 Circle to Post Office 1.0 7.7 7.8 7.6 7.7

Northbound Dan Ryan (I-90/94) to Westbound Eisenhower (I-290): Ramp NW Eastbound Eisenhower (I-290) to Northbound Kennedy (I-90/94): Ramp EN

TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Model 2040 2017 2040 Model 2040 2017 2040 I-90/94: 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 138.7 276.7 102.2 102.5 I-290: Loomis to Racine 17.9 18.4 17.2 17.4 I-90/94: I-55 Entrance to I-290 C-D 252.0 334.9 93.2 115.8 I-290: Racine to I-90/94 Gore 28.5 29.4 25.9 25.9 C-D entrance to Ramp NW 111.2 110.8 28.6 29.1 Ramp EN to I-90/94 Convergence 70.1 84.2 45.5 45.9 Ramp NW to I-290 Convergence 63.7 63.7 41.7 42.4 SUBTOTAL 116.5 132.0 88.6 89.2 SUBTOTAL 565.6 786.1 265.7 289.8

AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Model 2040 2017 2040 Model 2040 2017 2040 At I-55 Entrance 30.0 19.5 47.0 39.7 I-290: At Racine 53.9 53.9 54.7 54.6 At I-290 C-D Entrance 23.6 22.1 40.6 31.2 I-290: At I-90/94 Gore 54.8 51.9 56.7 56.6 On Ramp NW 25.0 25.0 37.0 36.0 On Ramp EN 23.5 19.7 29.0 28.0 At I-290 Convergence 44.8 43.7 49.5 49.6 I-90/94: At Ramp EN Convergence 27.8 24.8 48.7 44.6 At Racine 50.3 50.2 49.4 49.2 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 47.1 47.3 47.9 47.7

TRIP TOTALS (AM PEAK)

2012 No Build Preferred Concept Travel Time in Minutes Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Northbound (31st to Ohio) 11.5 11.2 15.0 5.9 6.7

Southbound (Ohio to 31st) 6.1 6.4 6.7 5.4 6.1

Eastbound (Loomis to Post Office) 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

Westbound (Post Office to Loomis) 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 TABLE B: TRAVEL TIME, AVERAGE SPEED, AND DELAY FOR PM PEAK MODELS

SOUTH LEG: Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94)

NORTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 647.5 670.2 1129.8 99.0 515.9 Circle to Roosevelt 73.0 37.9 37.8 34.0 37.3 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 1118.0 898.4 1014.4 363 765.4 Roosevelt to 31st Street 265.2 199.7 204.9 185.9 201.1 North of Roosevelt to Circle 202.8 230.9 278.8 241.8 251.5 SUBTOTAL 338.2 237.6 242.7 219.9 238.4 SUBTOTAL 1968.3 1799.5 2423.0 703.8 1532.8

NORTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative SOUTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 At I-55 Entrance 4.5 7.1 6.0 43.7 21.8 At I-55 Exit 41.7 47.6 47.2 49.6 46.5 At I-290 C-D Entrance 9.3 14.8 9.3 37.8 13.7 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 40.0 41.5 41.0 51.4 47.1 North of Roosevelt to Circle 11.7 10.5 9.5 10.8 11.2

NORTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative SOUTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 569.2 591.9 1051.5 20.7 437.6 Circle to Roosevelt 43.6 8.5 8.4 4.6 7.9 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 1039.9 820.3 936.3 284.9 687.3 Roosevelt to 31st Street 110.0 44.5 49.7 30.7 45.9 North of Roosevelt to Circle 173.4 201.5 249.4 212.4 222.1 SUBTOTAL 153.6 53.0 58.0 35.3 53.8 SUBTOTAL 1782.5 1613.7 2237.2 518.0 1347.0

NORTH LEG: Kennedy Expressway (I-90/94)

SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative NORTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 265.3 333.5 373.3 47.7 57.6 Circle to Hubbard's Cave 195.6 225.6 251.2 255.8 268.9 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 166 189.3 251.9 49.1 55.7 SUBTOTAL 431.3 522.8 625.2 96.8 113.3

SOUTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative NORTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 At Ohio St Exit 35 18.7 13.5 58.5 48.7 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 28.8 43.1 42.8 37.6 35.8 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 10 14.8 14.1 54.4 45.5 At the Circle 30 44.9 45 50 45.5

SOUTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative NORTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 221.1 289.3 329.1 3.5 13.4 Circle to Hubbard's Cave 110.7 140.7 166.3 170.9 184.0 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 124.0 147.3 209.9 7.1 13.7 SUBTOTAL 345.1 436.6 539.0 10.6 27.1

WEST LEG: Eisenhower Expressway (I-290)

EASTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative WESTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Loomis to Racine 72.0 62.0 56.5 16 19.1 West of Circle 47.0 58 57.6 56.3 58.7 Racine to Circle 65.0 79.8 78.1 32.6 38.6 SUBTOTAL 137.0 141.8 134.6 48.6 57.7

EASTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative WESTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 At Racine 15.0 17.8 18.3 56.6 48.1 At Circle 55.0 48.7 48.8 56.3 47.1 At the circle 50.0 49.6 49.4 55.7 46.1

EASTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative WESTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Loomis to Racine 57.3 47.3 41.8 1.3 4.4 West of Circle 1.0 12.0 11.6 10.3 12.7 Racine to Circle 34.3 49.1 47.4 1.9 7.9 SUBTOTAL 91.7 96.5 89.3 3.3 12.4

EAST LEG: Eisenhower Expressway (I-290)/Congress Parkway

WESTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative EASTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Post Office to Circle 20.0 28.5 28.5 25.5 29.5 Circle to Post Office 17.0 29.4 29.5 25.5 30.2

WESTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative EASTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 At Canal Street Entrance 55.0 48.7 48.8 46.9 37.4 At Canal Street Exit 40.0 49.6 49.8 55.4 49.5

WESTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative EASTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Post Office to Circle 3.0 11.5 11.5 8.5 12.5 Circle to Post Office 0.0 11.9 12.0 8.0 12.7

Northbound Dan Ryan (I-90/94) to Westbound Eisenhower (I-290): Ramp NW Eastbound Eisenhower (I-290) to Northbound Kennedy (I-90/94): Ramp EN

TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative TRAVEL TIME (s) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Model 2040 2017 2040 Model 2040 2017 2040 I-90/94: 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 670.2 1129.8 99.0 515.9 I-290: Loomis to Racine 62.0 56.5 15.4 18.3 I-90/94: I-55 Entrance to I-290 C-D 735.0 926.0 269.2 400.0 I-290: Racine to I-90/94 Gore 95.1 88.7 27.4 33.8 C-D entrance to Ramp NW 34.5 34.0 28.2 28.7 Ramp EN to I-90/94 Convergence 107.7 109.2 158.0 185.4 Ramp NW to I-290 Convergence 63.7 63.7 40.0 40.4 SUBTOTAL 264.8 254.4 200.8 237.5 SUBTOTAL 1503.4 2153.5 436.4 985.0

AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 No Build Preferred Alternative Model 2040 2017 2040 Model 2040 2017 2040 At I-55 Entrance 7.1 6.0 30.6 8.4 I-290: At Racine 14.9 16.3 54.6 54.6 At I-290 C-D Entrance 14.8 9.3 11.2 9.7 I-290: At I-90/94 Gore 17.6 18.1 56.6 56.6 On Ramp NW 25.0 25.0 38.0 38.0 On Ramp EN 20.0 21.2 15.0 9.0 At I-290 Convergence 46.5 47.5 50.2 46.1 I-90/94: At Ramp EN Convergence 18.7 13.0 44.0 44.6 At Racine 46.6 47.2 50.4 46.7 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 27.3 27.4 47.7 47.7

TRIP TOTALS (PM PEAK)

2012 No Build Preferred Concept Travel Time in Minutes Field Model 2040 2017 2040 Northbound (31st to Ohio) 36.1 33.8 44.6 17.2 43.0

Southbound (Ohio to 31st) 12.8 12.7 14.5 5.3 4.9

Eastbound (Loomis to Post Office) 2.6 2.9 2.7 1.2 1.5

Westbound (Post Office to Loomis) 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 2.0 TABLE C SUMMARY OF VISSIM TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATION MODELING RESULTS: EXISTING (2012) VS. NO-BUILD (2040) SCENARIOS

NORTHBOUND I-90/94 from 31st Street to Ohio Street SOUTHBOUND I-90/94 from Ohio Street to 31st Street AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 138.7 276.7 670.2 1129.8 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 88.7 103.1 333.5 373.3 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 342.0 424.5 898.4 1014.4 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 80.2 80.2 189.3 251.9 North of Roosevelt to Circle 74.7 83.9 230.9 278.8 Circle to Roosevelt 35.7 35.5 37.9 37.8 Circle to Ohio St 116.3 117.6 225.6 251.2 Roosevelt to 31st Street 179.5 180.9 199.7 204.9 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 11.2 15.0 33.8 44.6 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 6.4 6.7 12.7 14.5 TRAVEL TIME INCREASE (in minutes) 3.9 10.8 TRAVEL TIME INCREASE (in minutes) 0.3 1.8 PERCENT INCREASE 34% 32% PERCENT INCREASE 4% 14%

AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2040 2012 2040 SOUTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2040 2012 2040 Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build At I-55 Entrance 30.0 19.5 7.1 6.0 At Ohio St Exit 40.0 36.1 18.7 13.5 At I-290 C-D Entrance 23.6 22.1 14.8 9.3 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 35.7 32.6 14.8 14.1 North of Roosevelt to Circle 26.6 23.2 10.5 9.5 Circle to Roosevelt 52.0 51.6 47.6 47.2 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 47.9 48.1 43.1 42.8 Roosevelt to 31st Street 52.3 52.0 41.5 41.0

AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 SOUTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 60.4 198.4 591.9 1051.5 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 44.5 58.9 289.3 329.1 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 263.9 346.4 820.3 936.3 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 38.2 38.2 147.3 209.9 North of Roosevelt to Circle 45.3 54.5 201.5 249.4 Circle to Roosevelt 6.3 6.1 8.5 8.4 Circle to Ohio St 31.4 32.7 140.7 166.3 Roosevelt to 31st Street 24.3 25.6 44.5 49.7 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 6.7 10.5 29.2 40.1 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.9 2.1 8.2 10.0 DELAY INCREASE (in minutes) 3.9 10.8 DELAY INCREASE (in minutes) 0.3 1.8 PERCENT INCREASE 58% 37% PERCENT INCREASE 14% 22%

EASTBOUND I-290 from Loomis to the Post Office WESTBOUND I-290 from the Post Office to Loomis AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 WESTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Loomis to Racine 17.9 18.4 62.0 56.5 Post Office to Circle 25.8 25.8 28.5 28.5 Racine to Circle 33.7 34.0 79.8 78.1 Circle to Loomis 53.5 53.5 58.0 57.6 Circle to Post Office 25.2 25.3 29.4 29.5 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.3 1.3 2.9 3.0 TRAVEL TIME INCREASE (in minutes) 0.0 0.0 TRAVEL TIME INCREASE (in minutes) 0.0 0.1 PERCENT INCREASE -- -- PERCENT INCREASE -- 5.1%

AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2040 2012 2040 WESTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2040 2012 2040 Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build At Racine 53.9 53.9 17.8 18.3 At Canal Street Entrance 49.2 49.2 48.7 48.8 At the Circle 57.8 57.7 49.6 49.4 At Circle 55.9 55.9 48.7 48.8 At Canal Street Exit 55.5 55.5 49.6 49.8

AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 WESTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Loomis to Racine 3.2 3.7 47.3 41.8 Post Office to Circle 8.8 8.8 11.5 11.5 Racine to Circle 3.0 3.3 49.1 47.4 Circle to Loomis 7.5 7.5 12.0 11.6 Circle to Post Office 7.7 7.8 11.9 12.0 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.7 DELAY INCREASE (in minutes) 0.0 0.0 DELAY INCREASE (in minutes) 0.0 -0.1 PERCENT INCREASE -- -- PERCENT INCREASE -- -6.6%

RAMP NW: Northbound I-90/94 to Westbound I-290 RAMP EN: Eastbound I-290 to Northbound I-90/94 AM PM AM PM TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2040 2012 2040 Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build I-90/94: 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 138.7 276.7 670.2 1129.8 I-290: Loomis to Racine 17.9 18.4 62.0 56.5 I-90/94: I-55 Entrance to I-290 C-D 252.0 334.9 735.0 926.0 I-290: Racine to I-90/94 Gore 28.5 29.4 95.1 88.7 C-D entrance to Ramp NW 111.2 110.8 34.5 34.0 Ramp EN to I-90/94 Convergence 70.1 84.2 107.7 109.2 Ramp NW to I-290 Convergence 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.9 2.2 4.4 4.2 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 9.4 13.1 25.1 35.9 TRAVEL TIME INCREASE (in minutes) 0.3 -0.2 TRAVEL TIME INCREASE (in minutes) 3.7 10.8 PERCENT INCREASE 13.3% -3.9% PERCENT INCREASE 39% 43%

AM PM AM PM AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2040 2012 2040 AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2040 2012 2040 Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build Existing No Build I-90/94: 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 30.0 19.5 7.1 6.0 I-290: At Racine 53.9 53.9 14.9 16.3 I-90/94: I-55 Entrance to I-290 C-D 23.6 22.1 14.8 9.3 I-290: At I-90/94 Gore 54.8 51.9 17.6 18.1 C-D entrance to Ramp NW 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 On Ramp EN 23.5 19.7 20.0 21.2 Ramp NW to I-290 Convergence 44.8 43.7 46.5 47.5 TABLE D SUMMARY OF VISSIM TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATION MODELING RESULTS: EXISTING (2012) VS. POST-CONSTRUCTION (2017) SCENARIOS

NORTHBOUND I-90/94 from 31st Street to Ohio Street SOUTHBOUND I-90/94 from Ohio Street to 31st Street AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 138.7 102.2 670.2 99.0 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 88.7 58 333.5 47.7 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 342.0 103.7 898.4 363.0 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 80.2 53.6 189.3 49.1 North of Roosevelt to Circle 74.7 39.0 230.9 241.8 Circle to Roosevelt 35.7 33.0 37.9 34.0 Circle to Ohio St 116.3 108.6 225.6 255.8 Roosevelt to 31st Street 179.5 179.6 199.7 185.9 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 11.2 5.9 33.8 16.0 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 6.4 5.4 12.7 5.3 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 5.3 17.8 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 1.0 7.4 PERCENT REDUCTION 47% 53% PERCENT REDUCTION 16% 58%

AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2017 2012 2017 SOUTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2017 2012 2017 Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build At I-55 Entrance 30.0 42.0 7.1 43.7 At Ohio St Exit 40.0 55 18.7 58.5 At I-290 C-D Entrance 23.6 46.1 14.8 37.8 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 35.7 49.6 14.8 54.4 North of Roosevelt to Circle 26.6 40.5 10.5 10.8 Circle to Roosevelt 52.0 52.2 47.6 49.6 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 47.9 48.8 43.1 37.6 Roosevelt to 31st Street 52.3 52.5 41.5 51.4

AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 SOUTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 60.4 23.9 591.9 20.7 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 44.5 13.8 289.3 3.5 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 263.9 25.6 820.3 284.9 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 38.2 11.6 147.3 7.1 North of Roosevelt to Circle 45.3 9.6 201.5 212.4 Circle to Roosevelt 6.3 3.6 8.5 4.6 Circle to Ohio St 31.4 23.7 140.7 170.9 Roosevelt to 31st Street 24.3 24.4 44.5 30.7 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 6.7 1.4 29.2 11.5 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.9 0.9 8.2 0.8 DELAY SAVINGS (in minutes) 5.3 17.8 DELAY SAVINGS (in minutes) 1.0 7.4 PERCENT REDUCTION 79% 61% PERCENT REDUCTION 53% 91%

EASTBOUND I-290 from Loomis to the Post Office WESTBOUND I-290 from the Post Office to Loomis AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 WESTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Loomis to Racine 17.9 17.2 62.0 16.0 Post Office to Circle 25.8 25.1 28.5 25.5 Racine to Circle 33.7 32.7 79.8 32.6 Circle to Loomis 53.5 53.2 58.0 56.3 Circle to Post Office 25.2 25.1 29.4 25.5 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.3 1.3 2.9 1.2 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.0 0.1 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.0 1.6 PERCENT REDUCTION -- 5% PERCENT REDUCTION -- 57%

AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2017 2012 2017 WESTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2017 2012 2017 Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build At Racine 53.9 53.1 17.8 56.6 At Canal Street Entrance 49.2 49.4 48.7 46.9 At the Circle 57.8 56.8 49.6 55.7 At Circle 55.9 58.1 48.7 56.3 At Canal Street Exit 55.5 55.4 49.6 55.4

AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 WESTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Loomis to Racine 3.2 2.5 47.3 1.3 Post Office to Circle 8.8 8.1 11.5 8.5 Racine to Circle 3.0 2.0 49.1 1.9 Circle to Loomis 7.5 7.2 12.0 10.3 Circle to Post Office 7.7 7.6 11.9 8.0 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.2 DELAY SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.0 0.1 DELAY SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.0 1.6 PERCENT REDUCTION -- 20% PERCENT REDUCTION -- 90%

RAMP NW: Northbound I-90/94 to Westbound I-290 RAMP EN: Eastbound I-290 to Northbound I-90/94 AM PM AM PM TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2012 2017 2012 2017 Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build I-90/94: 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 138.7 102.2 670.2 99.0 I-290: Loomis to Racine 17.9 17.2 62.0 15.4 I-90/94: I-55 Entrance to I-290 C-D 252.0 93.2 735.0 269.2 I-290: Racine to I-90/94 Gore 28.5 25.9 95.1 27.4 C-D entrance to Ramp NW 111.2 28.6 34.5 28.2 Ramp EN to I-90/94 Convergence 70.1 45.5 107.7 158.0 Ramp NW to I-290 Convergence 63.7 41.7 63.7 40.0 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.9 1.5 4.4 3.3 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 9.4 4.4 25.1 7.3 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.5 1.1 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 5.0 17.8 PERCENT REDUCTION 24% 24% PERCENT REDUCTION 53% 71%

AM PM AM PM AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2017 2012 2017 AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2012 2017 2012 2017 Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build I-90/94: 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 30.0 47.0 7.1 30.6 I-290: At Racine 53.9 54.7 14.9 54.6 I-90/94: I-55 Entrance to I-290 C-D 23.6 40.6 14.8 11.2 I-290: At I-90/94 Gore 54.8 56.7 17.6 56.6 C-D entrance to Ramp NW 25.0 37.0 25.0 38.0 On Ramp EN 23.5 29.0 20.0 15.0 Ramp NW to I-290 Convergence 44.8 49.5 46.5 50.2 TABLE E SUMMARY OF VISSIM TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATION MODELING RESULTS: FUTURE NO BUILD (2040) VS. BUILD (2040) SCENARIOS

NORTHBOUND I-90/94 from 31st Street to Ohio Street SOUTHBOUND I-90/94 from Ohio Street to 31st Street AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 276.7 102.5 1129.8 515.9 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 103.1 92 373.3 57.6 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 424.5 140.6 1014.4 765.4 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 80.2 60.1 251.9 55.7 North of Roosevelt to Circle 83.9 50.8 278.8 251.5 Circle to Roosevelt 35.5 33.3 37.8 37.3 Circle to Ohio St 117.6 109.1 251.2 268.9 Roosevelt to 31st Street 180.9 182.5 204.9 201.1 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 15.0 6.7 44.6 30.0 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 6.7 6.1 14.5 5.9 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 8.3 14.5 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.5 8.6 PERCENT REDUCTION 55% 33% PERCENT REDUCTION 8% 59%

AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2040 2040 2040 2040 SOUTHBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2040 2040 2040 2040 No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build At I-55 Entrance 19.5 41.9 6.0 21.8 At Ohio St Exit 36.1 43.4 13.5 48.7 At I-290 C-D Entrance 22.1 39.6 9.3 13.7 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 32.6 35.4 14.1 45.5 North of Roosevelt to Circle 23.2 34.5 9.5 11.2 Circle to Roosevelt 51.6 51.9 47.2 46.5 At Entrance to Hubbard's Cave 48.1 48.5 42.8 35.8 Roosevelt to 31st Street 52.0 51.5 41.0 47.1

AM PM AM PM NORTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 SOUTHBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 198.4 24.2 1051.5 437.6 Ohio Street to Hubbard's Cave 58.9 47.8 329.1 13.4 Between I-55 Entrance and I-290 C-D 346.4 62.5 936.3 687.3 Hubbard's Cave to Circle 38.2 18.1 209.9 13.7 North of Roosevelt to Circle 54.5 21.4 249.4 222.1 Circle to Roosevelt 6.1 3.9 8.4 7.9 Circle to Ohio St 32.7 24.2 166.3 184.0 Roosevelt to 31st Street 25.6 27.2 49.7 45.9 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 10.5 2.2 40.1 25.5 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 2.1 1.6 10.0 1.3 DELAY SAVINGS (in minutes) 8.3 14.5 DELAY SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.5 8.6 PERCENT REDUCTION 79% 36% PERCENT REDUCTION 25% 86%

EASTBOUND I-290 from Loomis to the Post Office WESTBOUND I-290 from the Post Office to Loomis AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 WESTBOUND TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build Loomis to Racine 18.4 17.4 56.5 19.1 Post Office to Circle 25.8 25.1 28.5 29.5 Racine to Circle 34 32.9 78.1 38.6 Circle to Loomis 53.5 53.4 57.6 58.7 Circle to Post Office 25.3 25.2 29.5 30.2 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 1.3 1.3 2.7 1.5 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.0 0.0 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.0 1.3 PERCENT REDUCTION -- -- PERCENT REDUCTION -- 46%

AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2040 2040 2040 2040 WESTBOUND AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2040 2040 2040 2040 No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build At Racine 53.9 52.5 18.3 48.1 At Canal Street Entrance 49.2 49.4 48.8 37.4 At the Circle 57.7 56.7 49.4 46.1 At Circle 55.9 58 48.8 47.1 At Canal Street Exit 55.5 55.4 49.8 49.5

AM PM AM PM EASTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 WESTBOUND DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build Loomis to Racine 3.7 2.7 41.8 4.4 Post Office to Circle 8.8 8.1 11.5 12.5 Racine to Circle 3.3 2.2 47.4 7.9 Circle to Loomis 7.5 7.4 11.6 12.7 Circle to Post Office 7.8 7.7 12.0 12.7 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 0.2 0.2 1.7 0.4 DELAY SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.0 0.0 DELAY SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.0 1.3 PERCENT REDUCTION -- -- PERCENT REDUCTION -- 75%

RAMP NW: Northbound I-90/94 to Westbound I-290 RAMP EN: Eastbound I-290 to Northbound I-90/94 AM PM AM PM TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 TRAVEL TIME (sec) 2040 2040 2040 2040 No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build I-90/94: 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 276.7 102.5 1129.8 515.9 I-290: Loomis to Racine 18.4 17.4 56.5 18.3 I-90/94: I-55 Entrance to I-290 C-D 334.9 115.8 926.0 400.0 I-290: Racine to I-90/94 Gore 29.4 25.9 88.7 33.8 C-D entrance to Ramp NW 110.8 29.1 34.0 28.7 Ramp EN to I-90/94 Convergence 84.2 45.9 109.2 185.4 Ramp NW to I-290 Convergence 63.7 42.4 63.7 40.4 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 2.2 1.5 4.2 4.0 SUBTOTAL (in minutes) 13.1 4.8 35.9 16.4 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 0.7 0.3 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS (in minutes) 8.3 19.5 PERCENT REDUCTION 32% 7% PERCENT REDUCTION 63% 54%

AM PM AM PM AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2040 2040 2040 2040 AVERAGE SPEED (mph) 2040 2040 2040 2040 No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build I-90/94: 31st Street to I-55 Entrance 19.5 39.7 6.0 8.4 I-290: At Racine 53.9 54.6 16.3 54.6 I-90/94: I-55 Entrance to I-290 C-D 22.1 31.2 9.3 9.7 I-290: At I-90/94 Gore 51.9 56.6 18.1 56.6 C-D entrance to Ramp NW 25.0 36.0 25.0 38.0 On Ramp EN 19.7 28.0 21.2 9.0 Ramp NW to I-290 Convergence 43.7 49.6 47.5 46.1 TABLE F: DENSITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE

Preferred Concept AM PEAK Existing 2012 No Build 2040 2017 Build 2040 Build Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Northbound Dan Ryan north of I-55 merge 81 F 87 F 32 D 51 F Northbound Dan Ryan south of I-290 divergence 75 F 80 F 37 E 55 F Northbound Kennedy north of I-290 convergence 52 F 54 F 19 C 20 C Southbound Kennedy north of I-290 divergence 44 E 51 F 48 F 56 F Southbound Dan Ryan south of I-90/94 convergence 29 D 30 D 24 C 29 D Eastbound Eisenhower west of I-90/94 divergence 23 C 25 C 18 C 19 C Eastbound Congress east of Circle 12 B 13 B 12 B 12 B Westbound Congress east of Circle 7 A 8 A 9 A 9 A Westbound Eisenhower west of I-90/94 convergence 24 C 25 C 21 C 22 C

Preferred Concept PM PEAK Existing 2012 No Build 2040 2017 Build 2040 Build Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Northbound Dan Ryan north of I-55 merge 179 F 191 F 107 F 190 F Northbound Dan Ryan south of I-290 divergence 186 F 190 F 102 F 147 F Northbound Kennedy north of I-290 convergence 81 F 104 F 128 F 167 F Southbound Kennedy north of I-290 divergence 78 F 82 F 28 D 31 D Southbound Dan Ryan south of I-90/94 convergence 31 D 32 D 26 C 30 D Eastbound Eisenhower west of I-90/94 divergence 53 F 55 F 15 B 18 C Eastbound Congress east of Circle 9 A 9 A 9 A 10 A Westbound Congress east of Circle 12 B 13 B 14 B 90 F Westbound Eisenhower west of I-90/94 convergence 20 C 17 B 16 B 17 B

Note: All densities in vehicle per mile per lane TABLE G. SUMMARY OF DELAY AND COST SAVINGS

Total Daily Delay (in hours) DELAY COMPARISON (in hours) 2012 Field 22595 DAILY ANNUAL 2012 Modeled 21962 2012 Modeled vs. 2040 No Build 13,452 3,995,379 2040 No Build 35414 2012 Modeled vs. 2017 Build -13,581 -4,033,578 2017 Build 8381 2040 No Build vs. 2040 Build -17,837 -5,297,612 2040 Build 17577 2012 Modeled vs. 2040 Build -5,017 -1,490,092 Negative numbers in GREEN indicate savings Total Annual Delay (in hours) 2012 Field 6710585 GASOLINE CONSUMPTION COMPARISON (in gallons) 2012 Modeled 6522727 DAILY ANNUAL 2040 No Build 10518106 2012 Modeled vs. 2040 No Build 6,751 2,005,140 2017 Build 2489149 2012 Modeled vs. 2017 Build -6,816 -2,024,311 2040 Build 5220494 2040 No Build vs. 2040 Build -5,551 -1,648,764 2012 Modeled vs. 2040 Build -2,447 -726,890 Negative numbers in GREEN indicate savings

Average Daily Delay Per Vehicle (in min) COST COMPARISON (in 2012 dollars) 2012 Field 3.28 DAILY ANNUAL 2012 Modeled 3.19 2012 Modeled vs. 2040 No Build $479,200 $142,322,495 2040 No Build 5.06 2012 Modeled vs. 2017 Build -$483,782 -$143,683,222 2017 Build 1.20 2040 No Build vs. 2040 Build -$623,793 -$185,266,536 2040 Build 2.46 2012 Modeled vs. 2040 Build -$178,479 -$53,008,323 Negative numbers in GREEN indicate savings Average Daily Delay Per Person (in min) 2012 Field 1.97 2012 Modeled 1.91 2040 No Build 3.03 2017 Build 0.72 2040 Build 1.47

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

DRAFT MEMORANDUM Summary of Alternatives 7.1.C and 15.4

To: IDOT From: AECOM/TranSystems Date: April 9, 2013

The following is a summary of the comparison of Alternatives 7.1.C and 15.4. These alternatives were presented to the Project Working Group (PWG) at our December 11, 2012 meeting.

• Comparison of Alternatives 7.1.C and 15.4 o Even though these were the last two alternatives presented, they are not “the last two standing” and are not equal comparisons. o The “15” series of alternatives were developed in response to some PWG members who did not like a flyover ramp going over Halsted Street and wanted the Department to see if the flyover could go under Halsted Street. o In November 2012, several alternatives were prepared to see if taking Ramp NW under Halsted Street was feasible. o Alternatives 15.1 and 15.2 were immediately dismissed because they were not constructable. o Alternatives 15.3 and 15.4 were developed to address fatal flaws in 15.1 and 15.2. They overcame some of the flaws in 15.1 and 15.2, but they still included design features that are not appropriate for Interstates and system-to-system interchanges because of serious safety concerns: . The horizontal alignment for I-290/Congress Parkway through the interchange bows out with curves based on 40 miles per hour design speed but with adequate sight distance for only a 35 miles per hour design speed. Unexpected speed reductions from 55 mph to 35 mph within the interchange would potentially result in serious crashes from either hitting the parapet wall or rear ending slowed vehicles. . The vertical alignment for eastbound I-290/Congress parkway through the interchange has a rollercoaster effect with very short vertical curves that limit the sight distance to 30 miles per hour. A vehicle traveling at a faster rate may not have time to stop or avoid hitting a stalled vehicle or person changing a flat tire. . Ramp NW in this alternative would be fully banked (superelevated) on a horizontal curve and on a 6 percent downgrade, which will increase the occurrence of losing control especially in wet and icy conditions, leading to more crashes. o Alternative 15.4 was developed as an improvement over Alternatives 15.1 and 15.2, but it was never considered feasible to move forward because of the serious design flaws outlined above. o By December 2012, Alternative 7.1.C was selected by the Department as the Recommended Plan because it was clearly superior to Alternative 15.4.

Page 1 of 2

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

Originally, Alternative 7.1.C placed Ramp NW approximately 7.5 feet from the southeast corner of the Green Street Lofts building located at 400 South Green Street. The Department revised the ramp geometry to increase the offset. At the suggestion of the Green Street Lofts’ letter, the Department also reviewed Alternative 15.4 which places Ramp NW on the opposite side of the outbound Eisenhower Expressway adjacent to the median and the CTA tracks and under Halsted Street. During this process, modifications were made to Alternative 15.4 to bring this alternative up to the current project criteria and allow an apples-to-apples comparison. Changes to Alternative 7.1.C were also completed to try to shift the ramp away from the building. The following is a summary of the findings:

• Recent plan modifications o For Alternative 7.1.C, the horizontal alignment has been refined to shift Ramp NW farther away from Green Street Lofts. The ramp is now located approximately 20 feet away from the southeast building corner compared to 7.5 feet away under the original design. o For Alternative 7.1.C, the vertical alignment is under study to lower the ramp. Initial findings indicate a lowering of up to 5 feet at the southeast building corner if the profile grade is increased to 8% (design standards state that the steepest maximum ramp downgrade is 6% which is used in the original design). o Alternative 15.4 was last modified in December 2012 when Alternative 7.1.C became the recommended plan. Since that time, other project requirements have been added including providing a wider inside shoulder to accommodate a future managed lane along all three expressways and physically separating the one movement allowed to exit at Morgan Street from the other two movements. The result of these modifications is that the “footprint” of Alternative 15.4 at the Green Street Lofts would be wider today than it was in December 2012. Accordingly, the horizontal distance from the back of the retaining wall on the north edge of the roadway to the southeast building corner would be approximately 20 feet, similar to Alternative 7.1.C o The plan for Alternative 15.4 has been updated accordingly to reflect added project elements. As a result, the horizontal distance from the back of the retaining wall on the north edge of the roadway to the southeast building corner would be approximately 20 feet. o The pavement edge closest to the building in Alternative 15.4 would be approximately 17.9 feet below ground level. o Overall, the horizontal location of mainline and ramps between the two alternatives is relatively the same, but there is a vertical difference. o Initial findings of the updated geometry for Alternative 15.4 indicate that based upon span lengths and superstructure depths of the ramp structures, numerous ramp movements will provide extremely steep grades in excess of 8% which is a major safety concern and potentially fatal flaws in the proposed design.

Page 2 of 2

4' MANAGED FUTURE LANE 12' WB I-290 12' 400 GREENSTREET-EASTFRONT 12' 2.07' SW RAMP ALTERNATE 7.1C 16' ELEV. 575.90 7.16'

P R . R E T A I N I N G WA L L 7.69' EXISTING EDGEOFPAVEMENTTOBUILDING PROPOSED NW RAMP PROPOSED NOISEWALL PROP. ELEV.594.61 PROP. ELEV.616.3 12.01' 12.01' 58.01' 4' P R . R E T A I N I N G WA L L LANDSCAPED 19.89' 25.9' AREA

E X . F E N C E 5 1 4 ELEV. 594.28 . ' E D G E O F E X . B U I L D I N G ELEV. 599.6_ ELEV. 611.4_ ELEV. 624.9_ EAST FRONTOFBUILDING AT 400GREENSTREET EXISTING GROUNDSIDEWALK + + + APRIL 11,2013 4' MANAGED FUTURE LANE 12' WB I-290 12' 400 GREENSTREET-WESTBACK 12' SW RAMP 16.07' ELEV. 576.40 ALTERNATE 7.1C 6.44' 6.46' P R . R E T A I N I N G WA L L PROP. ELEV.588.08 PROPOSED NOISEWALL PROPOSED EXISTING EDGEOFPAVEMENT TOEDGEOFBUILDING 12.01' NW RAMP PROP. ELEV.616.3 12.01' 61.25' 4'

S H O U L D E R P R . R E T A I N I N G WA L L 30.12' LANDSCAPED 24.12' AREA

E X . F E N C E E X . B U I L D I N G

1 1 . 6 6 ' ELEV. 594.98 ELEV. 599.6_ ELEV. 611.4_ ELEV. 624.9_

6 9 3 WEST BACKOFBUILDING . ' AT 400GREENSTREET + + EXISTING GROUND + APRIL 11,2013

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Circle Interchange Design Criteria and Design Speed

To: Illinois Department of Transportation From: AECOM/TranSystems/PB Date: March 11, 2013

Interstate/Freeway – Design Criteria/Design Speed FAI-90/94 (Dan Ryan/Kennedy Expressway) and FAI-290 (Eisenhower Expressway) Functional Classification –Principal Arterial System/Interstate (NHS) Design Criteria – Interstate/Freeway Reconstruction (Urban) Design speed 60 mph (Urban) Existing Posted Speed Limit 45 mph

Congress Parkway – Design Criteria/Design Speed Functional Classification – Principal Arterial System/Other Principal Arterial Congress Parkway from the Circle interchange to Wacker Drive Ramps is a fully accessed control facility. Congress Parkway serves as a transition segment between FAI-290 and the /Central Business District.

EB/WB Congress Parkway from Des Plaines Street east to Old Post Office • Scope of Work: Rehabilitation • Design Criteria: 3R • Posted Speed Limit: 35 -45 mph • Design Speed: 50 mph

EB Congress Parkway from I-290 ramps to Des Plaines Avenue and WB Congress Parkway from Des Plaines Street to I-90/94 ramps • Scope of Work: Reconstruction • Design Criteria: Expressway Reconstruction (Urban) • Posted Speed Limit: 45 mph • Design Speed: 50 mph

Page 1 of 2

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

Collector-Distributor Roadways – Design Criteria and Design Speed The design speed of a C-D roadway usually ranges from 40 to 50 mph. North of the Circle interchange collector-distributor roadway design speeds will be 40 mph which meets BDE/AASHTO criteria, i.e. not greater than 20 mph less than mainline design speed. A significant number of ramps will either enter or exit from collector-distributor roadways which will eliminate closely spaced ramps along I-90/94. Reducing the number of closely spaced ramps/access points along mainline will significantly improve mainline safety and operations.

Ramps – Design Criteria/Design Speed • Initial ramp curves at terminals adjacent to mainline will make every effort to achieve a minimum 45 mph design speed. Those not meeting the 45 mph criteria will be identified for discussion purposes. • Ramp proper’s design speed vary significantly, however for interstate-to-interstate ramp design speeds will meet 35 to 40 mph criteria which generally meets AASHTO/BDE ramp middle range speeds, 35 - 40 mph. • Ramp reverse curve superelevation transition distances may require increasing the gradient and/or varying the percentage of superelevation on tangent and curve. Those not meeting criteria will be presented and justified per BDE/FHWA requirements. • At several locations, ramps will not meet BDE standard exit and entrance ramp terminal designs due to constraints. However, exit ramps will strive to meet AASHTO diverge angles and deceleration distance and entrance ramps AASHTO/BDE taper rates and acceleration distances. Those not meeting criteria will be presented and justified per BDE/FHWA requirements. • Ramp policy grades of +4% to -6% will be provided where feasible, however due to the compact project footprint and vertical clearance requirements, several ramps will exceed maximum grade requirements. Those not meeting criteria will be presented and justified per FHWA/BDE requirements.

Page 2 of 2

T E C H N I C A L MEMORANDUM

Predictive Safety Analyses Circle Interchange

PREPARED FOR: John Baczek/IDOT

COPY TO: Paul Schneider/IDOT

PREPARED BY: Srikanth Panguluri/CH2MHILL

DATE: May 10, 2013

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the anticipated safety benefits of the recommended alternative within the framework of providing a relative comparison to the no-build condition. Predictive safety analyses were conducted for the no-build condition and the recommended alternative (see Appendix A). These two alternatives have several distinct geometric and operational features, (please refer to the draft Categorical Exclusion document for complete descriptions). Below are the some of the key differences between the two alternatives used in the safety analyses:  I-90 Corridor: The number of through lanes in the section of the study area under the I-290 bridge is increased from 6-lanes to 8-lanes in the recommended alternative  I-290 Corridor: The number of through lanes in the section of the study area under the I-90 bridge is reduced from 6-lanes to 4-lanes in the recommended alternative  The system ramp geometric configurations are significantly different between the no-build condition and the recommended alternative. Several ramp configurations are modified including the number of travel lanes on the ramp in the recommended alternative.  Two existing left hand entrances onto the northbound interstate 90/94 (from Jackson Boulevard and Adams Boulevard) are eliminated in the recommended alternative.  A new northbound collector-distributor road on Interstate 90/94 reduces the number of mainline access points. Tools Used and Definitions Enhanced Interchange Safety Analyses Tool (ISATe), a spreadsheet based tool was used to conduct freeway and interchange safety analyses. The tool is the product of NCHRP Project 17-45, which is intended to become part of the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual. The tool models crash frequency and severity on freeway mainlines and ramps based on roadway alignment, cross section and traffic volumes. Best practices in safety analysis focus on Crash Frequency. It is defined as the number of crashes occurring within a specific roadway segment or project, over a period of time (typically one year). For the ISATe analyses, the crash frequency was evaluated on the I-90/I- 94 and I-290 mainlines, the ramps, and C-D roadways for the year 2040. Crash frequencies were modeled for the no-build condition and recommend alternative with Design Year (2040) Average Daily Traffic volume. Crash severity expresses the outcome of a crash in terms of the occurrence of injuries or fatalities to the drivers and occupants. ISATe models the severity of crashes using the ‘KABCO’ scale, which represents best practices in safety data analysis. Table 1 provides descriptions of the type of severity crashes.

The ISATe models predict different crash types (multivehicle, single vehicle) for the different freeway and ramp design elements. The models incorporate speed prediction capabilities as a function of traffic volume. Both crash frequency and crash severity vary by segment and volume.

TBG043013184106CHI 1 PREDICTIVE SAFETY ANALYSES - CIRCLE INTERCHANGE

TABLE 1 Crash Severity Descriptions Severity Description Fatal (K) A traffic crash in which at least one person dies within 30 days of the crash. Type A Any injury, other than fatal, that prevents the injured person from walking, driving, (Incapacitating injury) or normally continuing the activities he/she was capable of performing before the injury occurred. Inclusions: severe lacerations, broken/distorted limbs, skull injuries, chest injuries and abdominal injuries. Type B Any injury, other than a fatal or incapacitating injury, that is evident to observers (Non-incapacitating injury) at the scene of the crash. Inclusions: lumps on the head, abrasions, bruises, and minor lacerations. Type C Any injury reported or claimed that is not listed above. Inclusions: momentary (Reported, injury not unconsciousness, claims of injuries not evident, limping, complaints of pain, evident) nausea. Property Damage Only No injuries or fatalities, but damage is caused to either vehicle.

Work Approach Analyses were conducted for the no-build and the recommended alternative for the design year 2040 conditions using the available current geometric and traffic data to determine the predicted average crash frequency. ISATe incorporates various geometric and operational features of the interstate facility and the ramps including the basic number of through lanes, roadway alignment and cross section data, ramp access data with entrances, exits and weaving data; and the average annual daily traffic data. In summary, these models incorporate several if not all the geometric and operational features of the freeway and ramp facilities. The 2040 traffic data used in both the alternatives was similar to provide data consistency for the purposes of relative comparison. The study limits cover the entire project improvement areas with the exception of any potential improvements at the ramp terminals at the cross street network. The area of study includes Interstate 90 (I-90) from south of Roosevelt Road to Lake Street, Interstate 290 (I-290)/Congress Parkway corridor from west of Racine Avenue to Canal Street, all the system interchange ramps and the service interchange ramps within the study corridor. Caveats ISATe, similar to all AASHTO Highway Safety Manual methods, require Calibration factors to allow for full understanding of safety effects. The term Calibration refers to the adjustment of modeled crash frequency and severity to reflect differences in crash reporting thresholds, driver demographics, climate, terrain and other considerations in the state (Illinois) compared to the database from which the ISATe models were developed (, Maine, Washington). NCHRP 17-42 has just recently become available for use. IDOT’s Bureau of Safety Engineering is calibrating other AASHTO HSM models and intends to calibrate ISATe, but as of this work effort calibration factors are not available. Experience in the use of safety prediction models suggests that the greatest variation across states can be expected for the less severe crashes, and in particular, property damage only crashes. More severe crash frequencies (KAB) will vary less across states. Use of any crash prediction tool in an uncalibrated manner can still yield meaningful results by comparing across alternatives, as is the case here. Indeed, note that IDOT policy regarding safety planning and decision making focuses on the more severe crashes (KAB). Results The analysis confirms that the recommended alternative should produce meaningful reductions in overall crash frequency and severity. The total predictive average crash frequency for the design year 2040 is approximately 12% less for the recommended alternative as compared to the no-build condition. Fatal and Serious injury crashes (KAB) are predicted to be 26% less in the recommended alternative as compared to the no-build condition.

2 TBG043013184106CHI PREDICTIVE SAFETY ANALYSES - CIRCLE INTERCHANGE

In general, the safety benefits for the recommended alternative are noticed in the areas where greater geometric and operational improvements are proposed. The safety performance in the recommended alternative has appreciably improved for the I-90/94 corridor and the system ramps. The summary of the results are presented in Table 2, and the worksheets are presented in the Appendices. Table 2 data summarizes the computed predictive average crash frequency of the freeway segments within the study limits, and the segments of ramps including the system and service interchange ramps, and the collector-distributor roads within the area. Interpretation of Results A direct comparison of the historical crash experience on this facility to the predictive crash frequency is inappropriate given the lack of calibration. For example, note that the draft Access Justification Report, documented 940 crashes/year during the study period (2006-08) in this area while the predictive crashes computed are 351 crashes/year for the no-build condition year 2040. Part of this is attributable to the lower crash reporting thresholds in Illinois during that time period. Indeed, the actual crash frequency for 2006 – 2008 included many more ‘O’ (property damage only) and ‘C’ crashes (92.7%) than the ISATe models predicted for the no-build (89%). This finding is consistent with the unique nature of the Circle Interchange, which is among the most congested in the nation. During most time periods of the day speeds are much lower than typical for other urban freeways and interchanges, a fact which reduces the severity of crashes in general. If one focuses only on the predictions of the more severe KAB crashes, which should vary much less when calibrated, a better indication of the potential benefits of the recommended alternative emerges. Table 3 shows an approximation of the difference between the alternatives over a 30-year project life (the table assumes the same design year traffic volume over all 30 years, which is a slight overstatement. If desired, CH2M HILL can develop a more precise number assuming straight-line traffic growth from opening year to design year). ISATe suggests a savings on the order of 12 fatal crashes, 44 disabling injury crashes, and 251 evident injury crashes would be reduced over 30 years. Finally, crash savings can be translated to economic benefits. Table 7-1 of the 2010 Highway Safety Manual shows valuations of the societal costs of crashes by severity, based on research conducted by FHWA. When these are applied to the approximated differences in Table 2, they suggest an aggregated Crash Costs savings of over $100 Million over the 30-year service life of the project.

TABLE 2 Summary of Predictive Average Crash Frequency for Design Year Traffic (2040) Summary of ISATe Results Segments/Crash Frequency by Severity K A B C PDO TOTAL Freeway Segments (I-90/94, I-290/Congress Parkway) No build 0.8 2.2 14.9 56.0 182.4 256.2 Build Condition 0.8 2.1 14.3 53.3 172.9 243.3

Ramp Segment No build 1.0 3.0 16.8 38.0 36.0 94.8 Build Condition 0.6 1.7 9.0 20.9 32.7 64.9

Total No build 1.8 5.2 31.7 94.0 218.4 351.0 Recommended Alternate 1.4 3.8 23.3 74.2 205.6 308.2

TBG043013184106CHI 3

PREDICTIVE SAFETY ANALYSES - CIRCLE INTERCHANGE

TABLE 3 Summary of Predictive Average Crash Frequency - Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes for Design Year Traffic (2040) Summary of ISATe Results K A B Preferred 1.77 5.23 31.67 No-Build 1.36 3.76 23.30

Difference 0.4 1 1.4 7 8.37

Difference over 30-year Life* 12 44 251

Conclusion In conclusion, the recommended alternative provides meaningful safety benefits in comparison to the no-build condition. The application of the ISATe tool was adequate to help compare and provide additional input into the selection of the recommended alternative, and could be used in making future refinements to the recommended alternative design.

4 TBG043013184106CHI

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Ramp NW Northbound I-90/94 to Westbound I-290

To: IDOT From: AECOM/TranSystems Date: March 10, 2013

The Circle Interchange carries over 400,000 vehicles and trucks daily through the interchange and experiences breakdown conditions for many hours of the day, causing substantial queuing in every direction. There are numerous existing deficiencies ranging from mainline lanes and system ramps which are over capacity, short merges, short weaving distances and numerous decision points which all contribute to the congestion and safety issues within the interchange and adjacent corridors. One of the primary factors that contributes to the overall congestion and safety issues of the interchange involves Ramp NW which carries northbound I-90/94 (Dan Ryan Expressway) traffic onto westbound I-290 (Eisenhower Expressway). The following observations of the operational and safety deficiencies of existing Ramp NW include:

Existing Ramp NW: NB I-90/94 to WB I-290 o Single Lane Ramp Over Capacity: 32,500 vpd with high truck percentage (7%) o Safety Issues: . Nearly half of all crashes on the ramps within the interchange are on Ramp NW (100 crashes out of a total of 208 crashes from 2006 to 2008). . Majority of crashes are rear-end and sideswipe which is consistent with congested conditions and substandard geometry. . Ramp NW originates from a northbound C-D road that provides one lane to Ramp NW on the left and one lane to Ramp NE on the right. With travel demand on Ramp NW nearly 8 times greater than Ramp NE, many drivers are tempted to bypass or cheat the long queue in the right lane before merging into the left lane at the last opportunity, increasing the opportunity for rear-end and sideswipe collisions. . Triple Convergence of WB I-290, Ramp NW and Ramp SW – Ramp SW enters the right side of the convergence as a single 400-foot weave lane with the Morgan Street exit ramp; Ramp NW enters the convergence as a single ramp between Ramp SW and WB I- 290 at comparatively slow speeds due to its geometry; and the three lanes of WB I-290 enter on the left side at relatively high speeds. The numerous decision points, short merge and weave distances and the differences in speeds increases the likelihood of crashes.

Page 1 of 3

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

o Substandard Geometry: . Tight horizontal reverse curves combined with steep grades contribute to the slow traffic speeds and congestion on the ramp. The long queues on the Ramp NW C-D road often extend well south of Roosevelt Road contributing to the congestion along the NB I-90/94 mainline lanes. . Tight Horizontal Curves: 250’ radius with design speed of 30 mph and sight distance of 158’ with design speed of 25 mph. . Steep Vertical Alignment: 6.5% upgrade and 7.4% downgrade (BDE Policy is 4% upgrade and 6% downgrade) and limited sight distance of 98’ with design speed of less than 20 mph. . Through the public involvement process, numerous individuals commented that during periods of snow, they often see vehicles stalled on Ramp NW who cannot make it up the steep ramps. . Minimum vertical clearance of 13’-11” below the Halsted Street Bridge. o Facility Condition: There have been no major improvements made to the Circle Interchange since its construction in the 1950s, and future deck replacement and substructure repairs will be necessary to extend its service life. o The existing pier locations restrict future widening of mainline I-90/94 which is a major source of the congestion within the interchange.

The existing geometric deficiencies and the aging condition of the facility substantiates the need to address the deficiencies and improve the condition of the Circle Interchange to better serve the motoring public now and into the future.

Proposed Ramp NW: NB I-90/94 to WB I-290 o The proposed improvements include reconstructing Ramp NW as a two-lane ramp with 10’ shoulders along each side that flies over the entire interchange including Harrison Street and Halsted Street. o The two lane ramp will double the ramp’s capacity and eliminate vehicles from queuing back onto NB mainline I-90/94. o Addresses Safety Issues: . Eliminating the tight curves, steep grades and limited sight distance will greatly improve safety along the ramp. . The two lane ramp addresses the congestion issues and eliminates the potential for “cheaters” to attempt to bypass the queue which is a source of numerous crashes. . The triple convergence issue has been eliminated – Ramp SW will enter alongside the two WB I-290 lanes into its own lane, and Ramp NW merges into WB I-290 west of Morgan Street providing a greater separation between ramp entrances; Ramp NW will be the only ramp to have access to the Morgan Street exit which eliminates the weave issue.

Page 2 of 3

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

o Geometric Improvements:

Existing Proposed Ramp NW Configuration Improvements

Number of Lanes 1 2

Lane width (ft) 22' 2 @ 12'

Shoulder width (Inside/Outside) (ft) 1.5' 1.5' 10' 10' Minimum Vertical Clearance (ft) 13'-11" 15'-0" Min.

Horizontal Alignment

Minimum Radius/Design Speed (ft/mph) 249' 30 548' 40 SSD/Design Speed (ft/mph) 158' 25 265' 35

Superelevation (%) 4.00% 5.40%

Vertical Alignment Maximum Upgrade (%) 6.54% 3.52%

Maximum Downgrade (%) 7.21% 6.00%

SSD/Design Speed (ft/mph) 98' < 20 353' 40

Traffic Operations Benefits:

• Reduction of AM northbound Dan Ryan travel time by 4% • Reduction of AM travel time for Ramp NW movement by 14%

• 400+ hours of delay saved daily • 120,000+ hours of delay saved annually

• 200+ gallons of gasoline saved daily • 60,000+ gallons saved annually

• $14,500 in delay cost saved daily • $4,300,000 saved annually

The purpose of the project is to provide an improved transportation facility at the Circle Interchange by addressing the existing and 2040 transportation needs. This will be accomplished by improving safety, mobility, and facility deficiencies of the mainline and interchange. The proposed improvements along Ramp NW comply with the project’s purpose and need and significantly improves safety and congestion, and addresses the numerous deficiencies on this existing ramp.

Page 3 of 3

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Bicycle Checklist

To: IDOT From: Circle Interchange Study Team Date: August 28, 2013

Attached are checklists and other information documenting bicycle travel and its effect on the Circle Interchange Study. These checklists include: • List of bicycle travel generators in project vicinity • Organizations coordinated with regarding bicycle travel • Assessment of project’s impact on bicycle travel • Map of the project area.

G:\CH11\0103\ProjectMgmt\Memos\2013-08-28 Bike Checklist\BikeChecklistMemo.docx Page 1 of 1

Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Bicycle Checklist

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Bicycle Checklist

FAI 90/94/290 2013-0008R Cook

Bicyclists will cross the project on the numerous local streets that cross the freeway in the project area.

Bicyclists can ride parallel to the project on the adjacent local streets. Non-motorized traffic is not allowed on Interstate Highways

The primary barrier in the project area are the interstate highways being reconstructed by the project. The project maintains or improves the already robust access across this barrier via the local street network.

No bicycle routes will be negatively affected by this project, either by severance, increased traffic, or roadway widening.

No.

Non-motorized traffic is not allowed on interstate highways. Five of the local cross streets have been designated as bike routes on Chicago’s 2020 Streets for Cycling plan. All five are planned to have improved bicycle accommodations.

Yes, on the adjacent cross streets. 0 750 1500 LAKE STREET SCALE IN FEET

LOOMIS STREET

CANAL STREET & OLD POST OFFICE PROJECT AREA

ROOSEVELT ROAD

MIXED RESIDENTIAL/RETAIL

EDUCATIONAL/INSTITUTIONAL

MEDICAL DISTRICT LOCATION MAP AND PROJECT AREA PROJECT LIMITS

TRANSIT STATION

AUGUST 23, 2013

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

Sustainability Practices Technical Memorandum

The Circle Interchange project is located within the City of Chicago, Cook County. The project study area is along Interstate 90/94 (I-90/94) from south of Roosevelt Road (on the south) to north of Lake Street (on the north), along Interstate 290 (I-290) from Loomis Street (on the west) to the Circle Interchange; and along Congress Parkway from the Circle Interchange to Canal Street/Old Post Office (on the east). The Circle Interchange is a system interchange which connects I-90/94 with I-290/Congress Parkway. The Circle Interchange was recently ranked as the No. 1 bottleneck in the country based on a study completed by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Freight Management and Operations. The purpose of the project is to provide an improved transportation facility at the Circle Interchange by addressing the existing and 2040 transportation needs.

In addition to addressing the transportation needs of the Circle Interchange, this project provides an opportunity to institute sustainable design elements that will enhance the environmental and aesthetic characteristics of the area. In 2010 the Joint Sustainability Group developed the Illinois Livable and Sustainable Transportation (I-Last) Rating System and Guide, a sustainability performance metric system. It is purely advisory in nature, intended to ascertain and document sustainable practices proposed for inclusion on state highway projects. The approach of sustainability and I-Last is to incorporate a broader range of issues into the development and completion of state highway projects. The I-Last rating method provides a simple and efficient method of evaluating transportation projects with respect to livability, sustainability, and effect on the natural environment (see attached). The I-LAST scorecard will be reviewed as the project moves through Phase II so that the Design Team can determine which of the applicable Items were included in the project plans and update the evaluation accordingly.

Sustainable design concepts for the Circle Interchange project are wide reaching and include consideration for both construction and maintenance. The most noticeable improvement for the motoring public and communities that surround the Circle Interchange is the complete redesign of the area within the interchange itself. The area inside the interchange is currently comprised of asphalt access paths, sparsely spread deciduous trees and grass. The redesign will incorporate bioswales, rain gardens, dense tree plantings, native Illinois plants and limestone outcroppings to help break up the monotonous views typically associated with the area. As part of the design, limestone pavers located in the interchange will be reused as well as using relocated limestone boulders from the Stevenson Expressway (I-55). The Department will try to use excess fill from excavations within the project limits by building berms in the interchange and flattening out areas behind retaining walls.

Less noticeable to the general public will be the maintenance cost savings and air quality improvements that the project will provide. For instance, the cross street bridges will use galvanized steel beams. This is a long lasting material that requires less maintenance than conventional painted steel beams and can also be recycled at the end of its life cycle. Replacing the grass in the interchange with native plants will reduce the mowing costs in the area which include not only the monetary expense of mowing but also the air and noise impacts associated with mowing. These environmental improvements are all stacked upon the air quality and fuel usage improvements that the Circle Interchange project will provide including saving 1.6 million gallons annually by reducing idling time.

The environmental conditions of the area may be monitored during construction to insure not only a safe working environment, but a safe environment for the surrounding communities. Air and noise quality will be controlled by retrofitting vehicles with filters and monitoring their idling time. Dust suppression

Page 1 of 6

Circle Interchange Study – Sustainability Practices

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

techniques will be incorporated into the construction specifications to minimize disruption to surrounding communities. Material removed from the site as part of demolition of construction will be recycled when possible. For instance, crushed concrete can be used as a roadway base aggregate supplement and recycled asphalt can be incorporated into HMA mixes elsewhere in the state. Although the material may not be used within the Circle Interchange project, it will have a positive impact on other construction projects in Illinois.

Improvements within the Circle Interchange

Rain Gardens Stormwater from the ramp bridges within the Circle Interchange currently drains through downspouts that connect directly to the storm sewer system. This method provides no benefit to the water quality and results in an aesthetically displeasing look of the structures. The proposed concept is to have stormwater drain through scuppers placed along the bridges and into catch basins where it will be stored and released into rain gardens and limestone riffles. The treatment of the stormwater starts immediately as it enters the catch basin where enough time will pass for particles to settle to the bottom. Once it is released from the catch basin, the stormwater may cascade over limestone riffles which will allow the stormwater to aerate and dispel dissolved gases. The stormwater may also flow into the rain gardens to be filtered and transpired by vegetation. The rain gardens would be filled with a mixture of compost, sand and soil that enhances filtration. The vegetation selected for the rain gardens will include native Illinois plants that are acclimated to the environment and have a low susceptibility to damage from pollutants.

Trees and Native Plants The proposed design for the Circle Interchange ultimately opens up the area and allows more natural light to strike the ground. Both the space and the natural light will allow for trees and native plants to grow within the interchange. Trees and native plants represent three major environmental functions for this project. The first is the reduction in the Heat Island Effect that is associated with urban environments that contain a great deal of pavement. The trees will increase the amount of natural shade that is provided in the interchange. The second benefit is the reduction in grass area which leads to a reduced mowing cost of the area. The mowing cost can be split into a monetary cost as well as an air and noise quality cost, both will be reduced. The final environmental benefit is the trees natural ability to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. The new trees will help clean the air in the interchange by absorbing a portion of the carbon dioxide produced by the vehicles. The trees will also provide aesthetically pleasing screening for the traffic within the interchange and will have a calming effect on drivers.

Native plants provide many environmental benefits when compared to turf grasses. Once established, the native plants will not need pesticides or fertilizers due to their adaptation to the local conditions. The water quality of the area and at the eventual outfall will be improved due to the absence of pesticides and fertilizers. Native plantings do not need to be watered and only need to be mowed periodically. These factors will result in maintenance cost savings as well as environmental benefits. The native plantings need to be mowed periodically to simulate the natural cycle of the prairie.

Limestone Outcroppings Reuse of limestone from within the interchange itself as well as from the Stevenson Expressway (I-55) will be used to construct aeration structures that help aerate the water as well as provide an aesthetically appealing look inside the interchange by creating outcroppings. The limestone outcroppings have been inspired by the prairie style Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool in Lincoln Park, Chicago.

Page 2 of 6

Circle Interchange Study – Sustainability Practices

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

Tree Replacement Plan As part of the Circle Interchange project, the Department is developing a tree replacement plan. Tree replacement will occur on the expressway right-of-way, City of Chicago right-of-way and the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) property. The expanded tree replacement area is required because there will not be sufficient space in the expressway right-of-way to replace the trees removed.

Approximately 1,500 trees will be planted. Tree planting will be done in several annual contracts. Locations and species of trees to be planted beyond the expressway right-of-way will be determined by annual meetings with personnel from the Chicago Department of Transportation Greenstreets Program, Chicago Bureau of Forestry and University of Illinois at Chicago Tree Care Committee. Tree planting work will include removing existing dead or diseased trees, including ash trees impacted by the emerald ash borer, and creating new sidewalk cutouts. UIC will identify locations on their campus for trees.

Maintenance Savings

Durable Materials The cross street bridges that are being reconstructed will all utilize galvanized or metalized steel beams as opposed to concrete beams or painted steel beams. The galvanized steel beams provide benefits over the concrete beams in the form of overall project savings, maintenance costs, and recyclability. Steel beams can be smaller than concrete beams while still providing the same structural capacity. This results in a reduced project cost because the mainline profiles will not have to be adjusted to meet minimum vertical clearances. The galvanized steel beams do not need to be maintained as rigorously as the concrete beams since the steel beam does not experience the same type of deterioration that the concrete beams do. The galvanized steel beams also provide a greater opportunity for recycling compared to the concrete beams. Concrete can be recycled but it ends up mainly being used as a sub base or base material for roadways. The galvanized steel beam can be recycled in its entirety to produce new steel, thus saving natural resources and time.

The galvanized/metalized steel beams also provide benefits over painted steel beams. The galvanization/metalization of the steel beam is a lifetime prevention for rust while the paint is only a temporary prevention. Maintenance crews would need to keep painting the steel beams to keep rust from forming. This would result in maintenance costs as well as lane shut downs within the interchange. In addition, maintaining the paint on the steel beams results in only the exposed area being painted. This undermines the rust prevention method as rust can develop in areas where maintenance crews cannot reach. Aesthetically, having a uniform coating on all of the bridge beams within the project area will look superior to having a mix of beams with a fresh coat of paint and beams that have an old coat of paint.

Long Term Pavement A thirty year pavement design has recently been approved for use in the Circle Interchange project. Using a 30 year pavement design, compared to a 20 year design, will result in cost savings over the lifespan of the pavement due to the reduced frequency of maintenance. This reduction is caused by the pavement thickness as well as the durability of the aggregate used. Not only is there a direct cost savings by having to perform maintenance less frequently, there are also delay savings that can be attributed to using a 30 year pavement design life. The Circle Interchange sees nearly 400,000 vehicles traveling through it per day. The increase in delay due to lane closures will be costly for the motoring public and is contrary to the goals of the Circle Interchange project.

Page 3 of 6

Circle Interchange Study – Sustainability Practices

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

Reduction in Mowing Area As noted in other sections, there will be a reduced area that needs to be mowed in the proposed conditions when compared to the existing conditions. This will result in both maintenance cost reductions and environmental benefits. With a smaller area to mow, the maintenance team will be able to complete the task quicker while using less gas. The environmental benefits are related to the reduced area as well. Gas powered mowers are notorious for producing excessive emissions from burning gasoline as well as air toxics and particulate matter. Reducing the amount of mowing that needs to be completed will reduce the amount of emissions produced within the Circle Interchange. In addition to emissions, mowers produce a great deal of noise. The less mowing that needs to be completed, the less noise that will be generated.

Slurry Trucks Chicago is located in an area that experiences yearly temperatures drops which coincide with snow and ice. The conventional method of removing the snow and ice from the roadway is to use salt dispensing trucks to lower the freezing point of the water on the ground. The goal of road salting is to form a brine of liquid water and salt on the surface of the pavement to keep snow and ice from forming on the surface. Slurry trucks eliminate a step in this process by mixing the brine directly on the truck which saves time and money. The time that the brine takes to form on the surface of the road is removed and the road can be brought back to safe conditions at a faster pace.

It saves money by reducing the amount of salt that needs to be used on the roadway. When dry salt is dispensed from the truck it hits the ground and will be spread unevenly across the roadway. This leads to repeat coats which ultimately waste more salt. The brine is evenly distributed across the roadway which eliminates the need for repeat coats. This also reduces the amount of salt needed to cover a given area of road and reduces the environmental impact of salt runoff.

A slurry truck is the preferred solution to deicing than permanent fixtures on the cross street structures and system ramps as well. Both systems need to be maintained but the slurry trucks can be taken to a facility that can accommodate them. The permanent fixtures need to stay in place when maintenance occurs which can lead to unsafe working conditions.

Construction Specifications

Air and Noise Quality Specifications will be included in the contract that requires contractors to retrofit equipment with air filters that will capture pollutants from the machines. In addition there will be specifications that limit the idling time of the construction equipment. This will provide a benefit to the local air and noise quality, and will allow for cost savings realized through gas savings. Proper staging of the project will allow for loud operations to take place at the same time in an effort to reduce the amount of noise pollution generated.

Dust Suppression Dust suppression specifications will be included in the contract plans. These typically are realized by wetting the dust generating area down with water. The water makes it more difficult for dust to form and become air borne. This will benefit the construction crews that are working in the interchange as well as keep the local streets and buildings from being covered in dust during heavy construction operations.

Page 4 of 6

Circle Interchange Study – Sustainability Practices

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

Recycling Specifications will be included in the contract that will encourage contractors to recycle material that is taken off-site. Concrete, steel, and asphalt can all be collected at an off-site location and recycled into aggregate, new steel and reclaimed asphalt pavement. Although these materials may not be used in the construction of the Circle Interchange, they can be used in other projects that include specifications for recycled material. Trees that are removed during the project can be used to make mulch that can be used in the landscaped areas in the Circle Interchange or be moved off-site to be used in another project.

Air Quality Monitoring Program The Department will be implementing an air quality monitoring program to monitor the air quality in and around construction activities throughout the duration of the reconstruction project. All applicable standard specifications and special provisions for air quality matters will be included in contract documents as appropriate.

Project Benefits

Fuel Savings The reconstruction of the Circle Interchange results in a savings of five million hours annually of delay caused by congestion, this correlates to an annual savings of 1.6 million gallons of gas or $185 million in gas expenses.

Green Spaces As part of the community outreach completed by the Department, it was determined that there was a strong desire for green spaces at the local street level.

Meetings with UIC have led to the discussions of green spaces at the intersection of Halsted Street and Harrison Street. Similar meetings have been held with Greektown, 770 Lofts, Platinum Tower, The Edge Lofts, Haberdasher Square Lofts, and Green Street Lofts. Coordination with the entities listed will continue through the end of Phase I and into the beginning of Phase II to determine locations that they are interested in maintaining and developing maintenance agreements and permits. The Department will construct the green spaces during the construction of the Circle Interchange Project.

In many cases these green spaces will replace pavement that currently exists. This will help with the reduction of the heat island. It will also allow for water to infiltrate into the soil without having to travel through the storm sewer system. In addition to both of these benefits, installing a well designed green space will remove costs associated with mowing areas and will attract birds, butterflies, and insects. These areas will become more aesthetically pleasing and draw more pedestrian traffic to the area.

Increased Access to Alternate Forms of Transportation The reconstruction of the Circle Interchange will facilitate an expansion to the existing bicycle facilities in the City of Chicago. New bike lanes will be installed on Jackson Boulevard, Adams Street, and Harrison Street as well as converting a shared bike lane to a dedicated bike lane on Halsted Street. These new bike lanes will allow for a safer trip for bikers in the area. In addition to the new bike lanes, sidewalks on the local streets will be widened. Widening the sidewalk on Taylor Street, Harrison Street, Jackson Boulevard, Adams Street, and Halsted Street will allow for a larger amount of pedestrian traffic to move safely through the area as well as accommodate bikers if a dedicated or shared lane doesn’t exist.

Page 5 of 6

Circle Interchange Study – Sustainability Practices

Circle Interchange Phase I Study

A new signalized mid block crossing will be installed on Halsted Street to provide better access to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Blue Line Station. This crossing eliminates safety concerns of transit riders crossing Halsted Street unprotected in the hopes of meeting a train or a bus. The bus stops at the mid block crossing will be covered allowing for transit riders to stay dry in the rain.

In addition to improving transit access on Halsted Street, the Department will also be making improvements on Peoria Street. The Peoria Street Bridge is a pedestrian-only connector to the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) campus on both sides of I-290. Bicycles are also allowed on the bridge, but no vehicular traffic. This location accommodates a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) entrance to the Blue Line UIC-Halsted Station. The existing Peoria Street Bridge is 53-feet wide. The CTA station brick head house sits on top of the deck and narrows the walkway to approximately 13 feet. The turnstiles and ticketing agent are housed in the brick head house. The glass station to the west is empty and the roof leaks. The proposed design utilizes the entire bridge width for pedestrians and bicyclists by not replacing the head house on the bridge. Instead, the existing glass station would house the turnstiles and ticket agent. An elevator will be installed in the glass station house.

S:\WP\p&es\CONSULT\Projects - Active\I-90_94 at I-290 (Circle Interchange)\Environmental\I-LAST Sustainability\Sustainability Memo

Page 6 of 6

Circle Interchange Study – Sustainability Practices

I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

P-1a Identify Stakeholders and develop Stakeholders Involvement Plan Yes 2 2

Engage Stakeholders to conduct Context Audit and develop P-1b Yes 2 2 P-1 Context project purpose Sensitive Solutions P-1c Involve Stakeholders to develop and evaluate alternatives Yes 2 2

Employ Stakeholder involvement techniques to achieve P-1d Yes 2 2 consensus for Preferred Project Alternative

Promote reduction in vehicle trips by accommodating increased P-2a No 2 0 use of public transit

Accommodate multi-modal transportation uses (e.g. transit riders, P-2b Yes 2 2 pedestrians, and bicyclists) Planning Increase transportation efficiencies for moving freight through P-2c N/A 0 0 P-2 Land Use/ features such as dedicated rail or intermodal facilities Community Planning Partnerships that provide environmental or technological P-2d Yes 2 2 advancements while promoting environmental stewardship

Project is consistent with regional plans and local managed growth- P-2e Yes 2 2 based Master or Comprehensive Plans

P-2f Project is compatible with local efforts for Transit Oriented Design Yes 1 1

Planning Subtotal 17 15

D-1a Avoid impacts to high quality undeveloped lands

D-1a-1Avoid all impacts N/A 00 D-1a-2Avoid significant impacts N/A

Provide buffer between highway and high quality wetlands/water D-1b resources

D-1 Alignment D-1b-1Provide 100 foot buffer to resources N/A Selection Design 0 0 D-1b-2Avoid resource with less than 100 foot buffer N/A

Avoid impacts to environmental resources, such as INAI sites and D-1c sites with threatened or endangered species

D-1c-1Avoid all impacts N/A 00 D-1c-2Avoid significant impacts N/A I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

D-1d Avoid impacts to socioeconomic resources

D-1d-1Avoid all impacts No 21 D-1d-2Avoid significant impacts Yes D-1 Alignment Selection Cross section minimizes overall construction "footprint" to D-1e Yes 2 2 eliminate R.O.W. takes

Minimize total earthwork by matching proposed vertical alignments D-1f Yes 1 1 as closely as possible to existing grades

D-1g Utilize brownfield locations N/A 0 0

D-2a Adjust highway features using design flexibility Yes 2 2

D-2b Incorporate locally produced or native materials Design

D-2b-1Over 95% of materials sourced in US Yes 22 D-2b-2Over 60% of materials sourced in metro area Yes D-2 Context Sensitive Design D-2c Visual enhancements N/A 0 0

D-2d Items fit context of surroundings Yes 1 1

D-2e Bridge aesthetics Yes 1 1

D-2f Reduce urban “heat island” effect Yes 1 1

Design Subtotal 12 11 I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

E-1a Avoid habitat fragmentation N/A 0 0

E-1b Minimize habitat fragmentation N/A 0 0 E-1 Protect, Enhance or Restore E-1c Mitigate habitat fragmentation N/A 0 0 Wildlife and its Habitat Environmental E-1d Wetland restoration/mitigation N/A 0 0

E-1e Provide nesting locations N/A 0 0

E-1f Provide wildlife crossings N/A 0 0

E-1g Provide fish passage N/A 0 0

E-1 Protect, E-1h Provide mussel relocation prior to construction N/A 0 0 Enhance or Restore Wildlife and its E-1i Provide right-of-way wildlife barriers N/A 0 0 Habitat

E-1j Provide mowing markers N/A 0 0

E-1k Schedule construction to avoid wildlife disruption N/A 0 0

Avoidance/protection of individual and contiguous stands of E-2a specimen trees and localized areas of established, desirable N/A 0 0 vegetation

Designs which demonstrate an anticipated ultimate net increase in E-2b tree species

Increase tree species through preservation and new E-2b-1 Yes planting

Coordination with local stakeholders to create a plant E-2b-2 Yes 0 4 palette in context with community

Environmental E-2b-3Historic native plantings are re-established N/A

E-2 Trees and Re-establish/expand native vegetation in reclaimed work areas or Plant E-2c Yes 2 2 abandoned old alignments Communities Use of plant material in lieu of or enhance structural such as living E-2d Yes 1 1 snow fences, sight screens (viburnum, dogwood, etc.)

Use of native species for plugs, seed mixes, perennial and other E-2e Yes 2 2 plantings

Planting trees, shrubs and/or native plant material in highway right- E-2f Yes 2 2 of-way

E-2g Tree replacement ratios at greater than 1:1 No 2 0 I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

Minimize potential salt splash impacts through use of berms or E-2h No 2 0 vegetative screening

E-2i Removal of undesirable plant species, removal of invasive species Yes 1 1 E-2 Trees and Plant Communities E-2j Topsoil preservation Yes 2 2

E-3a Construction of noise barriers

E-3a-1Specialized noise barrier construction No 21 E-3a-2Typical noise barrier Yes

Incorporate traffic system management techniques to reduce E-3b No 2 0 existing noise levels E-3 Noise Abatement E-3c Provide a buffer zone for adjacent receptors No 2 0

Environmental Provide sound insulation to public or non-profit institutional E-3d No 1 0 structures

E-3e Tining of pavement to reduce noise levels Yes 1 1

Provide plantings or sight screen to separate receptors from E-3f Yes 1 1 roadway

Environmental Subtotal 23 17 I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

W-1a Use of ditches Yes 2 2

W-1b Replacement of paved median No 2 0

W-1 Reduce impervious W-1c Reduction of paved shoulder areas No 2 0 area

W-1d Shoulders constructed of permeable pavement No 2 0

Replacement of paved bike paths with permeable pavement or W-1e N/A 0 0 permeable material

W-2a Use of bioretention cells No 2 0 Water Quality W-2b Use of constructed wetlands N/A 0 0

W-2c Use of bioswales N/A 0 0 W-2 Stormwater treatment W-2d Use of mechanical stormwater treatment systems No 2 0

W-2e Use of catch basins Yes 1 1

W-2f Use of infiltration trenches N/A 0 0

W-2g Use of rain gardens Yes 1 1

W-2h Use of sand filters No 1 0 W-2 Stormwater treatment W-2i Use of ditch checks N/A 0 0

W-2j Use of sediment traps and forebays No 1 0

W-3a Analysis of pollutants in stormwater N/A 0 0

W-3b Streambank restoration N/A 0 0

W-3 W-3c Practices to protect highly erodible soils Construction practices to protect water Special provisions for soil erosion control at stream W-3c-1 No quality crossings 2 1 Water Quality W-3c-2Meet NPDES requirements Yes

W-3d Implementation of erosion control practices Yes 1 1 I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

W-3e Staging construction to minimize soil exposure No 1 0

W-3 W-3f Provide stormwater detention Yes 1 1 Construction practices to protect water W-3g Reduce use of fertilizers and herbicides Yes 1 1 quality

Protection from materials entering waterway on bridge demolition W-3h N/A 0 0 and construction

Water Quality Subtotal 22 8

T-1a Special use lane: High Occupancy Vehicle, reversible No 2 0

T-1b Innovative intersection/interchange design No 2 0

T-1 Traffic Expansion of or connection to a Traffic Management Center T-1c Yes 2 2 Operations (TMC)

Transportation T-1d Installation of coordinated signal system

T-1d-1Installation of closed-loop system No 1 0

Timing plans developed for weekend or special T-1d-2 No 1 0 events

T-1d-3Advanced logic system such as adaptive control No 1 0

T-1 Traffic T-1d-4Inclusion of transit vehicle priority No 1 0 Operations

T-1e Limiting or consolidating access points along highway No 1 0

T-1f Bus turnouts Yes 1 1 I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

T-2a Provide new Park-and-Ride lots

Evaluate demand and effectiveness of potential Park- T-2a-1 No and-Ride lots 10 T-2a-2Construction of Park-and-Ride lots No

T-2b Operational improvements of an existing Park-and-Ride lot N/A 0 0

Provide bike accommodations at Park-and-Ride lots & transit T-2 Transit T-2c N/A 0 0 stations

Transportation T-2d Improved shading through vegetation at Park-and-Ride lots N/A 0 0

T-2e Provide new multi-modal connections Yes 1 1

T-2f Include bus stops with shelters or pads and pedestrian access Yes 1 1

T-2g Installation of a transit express system No 3 0

Assess Conditions –Perform bicycle and pedestrian Level of T-3a No 1 0 Service analysis within the roadway corridor

T-3b Improved intersection designs for pedestrians Yes-2 2 2 T-3 Improve Bicycle & T-3c Provide new or rehabilitate existing sidewalks or bikeways Pedestrian Facilities

T-3c-1Provide new sidewalks or bikeways Yes 22 T-3c-2Rehabilitate sidewalks or bikeways Yes I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

T-3d Sidewalk or bikeway widening

T-3d-1Widen sidewalk or bikeway Yes 11 T-3d-2Provide parkway separation No

T-3e Designated space for cyclists (shared lanes) No 1 0

T-3f Striped bike lanes within roadway Yes 2 2 T-3 Improve Bicycle & T-3g Restore or pave shoulders for bicycling No 2 0 Pedestrian Facilities

T-3h Create parallel bike routes No 1 0 Transportation

Align the roadway to facilitate the development of future multi-use T-3i No 1 0 paths and facilities

Provide new grade-separated (bridge or underpass) T-3j Yes 3 3 bike/pedestrian crossing structure

T-3k Install bikeway signs No 1 0

T-3l Install bicycle racks Yes 1 1

Transportation Subtotal 36 16 I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points Use of alternative energy source to power street lighting, warning L-1a signs, and remote Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) No 2 0 components

L-1b Retrofit existing street lighting with high efficiency types N/A 0 0

L-1c Replace signs with retro reflective signs to eliminate sign lighting Yes 2 2

L-1 Reduced Electrical L-1d Retrofit existing sign lighting with high efficiency types N/A 0 0 Consumption Lighting

L-1e Use of high efficiency street lighting on new installations Yes 2 2

L-1f Use of alternative energy source for bus stops No 2 0

L-1g Use of high efficiency (such as LED) traffic signals Yes 1 1

Retrofit existing roadway lighting fixtures using cut off or full cut off L-2a N/A 2 0 fixtures L-2 Stray Light Reduction L-2b New roadway lighting using cut off or full cut off fixtures N/A 0 0 Lighting

Lighting Subtotal 11 5 I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points

M-1a Reuse of top soil No 1 0

M-1b Balance cuts and fills

M-1b-1Balance cuts and fills for the project No 1 0 M-1b-2Balance cuts and fills per stage No

Reuse spoils within project corridor to minimize material in and out M-1c Yes 2 2 of site

M-1d Allow rubblization of concrete shoulder and concrete pavements N/A 0 0

Allow flexibility in design with the use of recycled or salvaged non- M-1e hazardous material

Allow the processing of demolished concrete to M-1e-1 Yes 1 1 reclaim scrap metals to create useable aggregate.

Allow the use of milled HMA pavements for capping M-1 Materials M-1e-2 Yes 1 1 stone.

Materials Allow the use of recycled crushed pavements for M-1e-3temporary aggregate for areas like driveways or Yes 1 1 access roads

Allow the use of recycled crushed pavements for M-1e-4 N/A 0 0 shoulder stone

Allow the use of recycled crushed pavements as M-1e-5 Yes 1 1 aggregate for subgrade, subbase, or base lifts

M-1e-6Allow reclaiming subbase granular material Yes 1 1

Provide for optional reuse of reclaimed scrap M-1e-7 N/A 0 0 materials for various items (sheeting, guard rail, etc.) I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points Allow locally produced byproducts to be reused in the construction M-1f of embankments, hot mix asphalt and Portland cement concrete mixtures Allow the use of fly ash, ground granulated blast M-1f-1furnace slag cement, and microsilica in concrete N/A 0 0 mixtures Allow the use of ternary concrete mixtures in the M-1f-2construction of concrete pavements, shoulders and N/A 0 0 various structural items Allow the use of foundry sand or bottom ash as part M-1f-3 N/A 0 0 of a material in the construction of embankments

Allow the use of slag aggregate in the production of M-1f-4 N/A 0 0 HMA mixtures (SMA Designs and “F” Mix).

Allow the use of Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) in M-1f-5the production of Stone Matrix Asphalt Mixtures N/A 0 0 (SMA) Obtain and implement a project specific use for the M-1f-6innovative reuse of waste materials other than the N/A 0 0 ones listed above.

Allow the use of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) in the M-1g construction of new hot mix asphalt pavements

Allow the use of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) in M-1g-1 Yes hot mix asphalt (HMA) 11 Allow the use of fractionated recycled asphalt M-1g-2pavement (FRAP) at a higher percentage in the Yes manufacturing of hot mix asphalt. I-Last Environmental Sustainability Rating System Scorecard Project: Circle Interchange Project Manager: Steve Schilke Criteria Available Project CATEGORYID DESCRIPTION Met? Points Points Allow inclusion of environmentally acceptable and permitted sites M-1h in the contract documents for the disposal of surplus excavated No 2 0 material to an off-site location

M-1i Allow the salvage / moving of buildings N/A 0 0

M-1 Materials M-1j Soil stabilization with geosynthetics No 1 0

Materials M-1k Soil stabilization with cementitious and recycled materials No 2 0

Consider locally available materials (such as local seed stock and M-1l Yes 1 1 plants) in developing specifications for the project

M-1m Extended pavement life; design and rehabilitation strategies

M-1m-1Specify the use of perpetual HMA pavement design N/A 0 0

Specify the use of 30 year design life concrete M-1m-2 Yes 2 2 pavement

Specify the use of 40 year design life concrete M-1m-3 N/A 0 0 pavement

Specify the use of pulverization of HMA pavement M-1m-4 No 1 0 for a base

Specify the use of various pavement preservation M-1m-5processes such as chip seal, seal coat, micro No 1 0 resurfacing, etc

Selecting hot-in-place or cold-in-place recycling of M-1m M-1m-6 No 2 0 hot mix asphalt

Materials Subtotal 22 11

Use of Experimental Feature(s) to improve the sustainability of a I-1 Innovation I-1a No 3 0 project

Innovation Innovation Subtotal 30

PROJECT TOTAL 57% 146 83 Appendix I Approvals

U.S.Department '-'ofTransportation Memorandum Federal Highway Administration

Subject: ACTION; Illinois, Access Justification Date: August 29, 2013 Repc^5ircls.Interchange, Cook County From* ^J§^^^^^a^ mReply Refer To: factor HIPA-20

To: Catherine Batey Division Administrator Springfield, Illinois

We have reviewed the AccessJustification Report (AJR)submittedon July 24 for the proposed modification ofthe Circle Interchange (1-90/94 at 1-290) in downtown Chicago. Proposed modifications include the reconstruction ofall freeway-to-freeway ramps, construction ofadditional capacity on 1-90/94, and construction ofcollector-distributor roads along both directions of1-90/94 north ofthe Circle interchange. These proposed modifications will improve the safety and flow oftraffic on 1-90/94,1-290, and the adjoining local street network. Based onour review, the proposed modifications are acceptable. An Environmental Assessment is currently being conducted for this project and is anticipated to be completed by fall 2013. Final approval may be given provided that the scope and design ofthis proposed project is consistent with the design that is included inthe July 24 AJR and the approved environmental document. This approval is subject to reevaluation ifsignificant changes occur inthe final design orif the construction isdelayed (as specified in23 CFR 771.129). Should you have any questions, please contact Michael Matzke at(202) 366-4658.