Integrating Livability Principles Into Transit Planning: An Assessment of Bus Rapid Transit Opportunities in Chicago August 2011 TECHNICAL REPORT Page 1 of 189 ABSTRACT This study by the Metropolitan Planning Council assessed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) opportunities in Chicago and demonstrated the concept of livability could be quantitatively integrated into the transportation planning process. The scope of the study was limited to the 2009 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus network. Routes incompatible with BRT were eliminated, as were streets that did not meet basic constructability and Complete Streets standards. The remaining contiguous sections of streets were scored based on the performance of 14 quantitative proxies for the Livability Principles, such as access to existing employment, parks, and schools. Top‐ scoring streets were further refined by connectivity considerations to produce 10 routes, which were organized into a basic BRT network to complement the existing rapid transit system. Travel demand, modeled by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), projected a modest increase in transit trips. The study was the first step in establishing a BRT system, which can be further refined and analyzed. The potential benefits of coordinating transit investment with other initiatives to increase population and employment density could maximize the impact of a BRT system. Page 2 of 189 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Metropolitan Planning Council Project Principals: Josh Ellis, Project Manager; and Joshua Anderson, Lead Researcher and Technical Study Lead Author Metropolitan Planning Council Research Contributors: Jackie Diaz, Josh Elli, Kevin Garcia, Thomas Jasek, Dan McDonnel, Michael Piskur, Patricia Ritsman and Douglas Sharp Chicago Transit Authority Technical Assistance: Peter Fahrenwald, Steve Hands, Karl Peet, and Scott Wainwright Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Demand Model Assistance: Claire Bozic and Kermit Weis Special Thanks: Kristen Andersen Metra, Lindsay Banks Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Albert Benedict Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), Catherine Cox Blair Reconnecting America, The Chicago Civic Consulting Alliance, David Clarke CMAP, Elizabeth Donahue Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Nadine Fogarty Strategic Economics, Richard Hazlett Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), Jennifer Henry Natural Resource Defense Council, John Karnuth City of Chicago Department of Community Development, Chrissy Mancini‐ Nichols MPC, the Metropolitan Planning Council Regional Planning and Investment Committee, Taylor McKinley CNT, Stephanie Morse CNT, John Paquet CTA, Ellen Partridge CTA Retired, Malihe Samadi CDOT, Kate Sargent Sam Schwartz Engineering, Stefanie Shull CNT, Heather Tabbert Regional Transportation Authority, Maria Choca Urban CNT, Jeff Wood Reconnecting America, and Linda Young CNT Page 3 of 189 INTRODUCTION This study was undertaken to identify routes and a preliminary network for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service in Chicago, which can be further refined and analyzed by transit agencies, planning organizations, and other relevant entities pursuing improved transit service in the Northeastern Illinois region. BRT is defined by four main components: 1) dedicated bus lanes, 2) at‐grade boarding, 3) pay‐before‐you‐board stations, and 4) signal‐prioritized intersections. BRT has been gaining popularity in the United States and abroad as a cost‐effective solution to meet public transit demand. The goals of this study included: Quantitatively integrating the jointly created Livability Principles of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) into the transportation planning process. Using innovative approaches for screening transit routes to reduce the burdens of transportation modeling. Designing a simple study that could be carried out with limited financial resources. In 2007, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sponsored Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) published the Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide (TCRP Report 118). TCRP Report 118 recommends three “types of analyses for assessing Transit Project Development” essential to transportation planning, in general, and to FTA funding programs. The planning phases include 1) Screening Alternatives/Systems Planning, 2) Alternatives Analysis, and 3) Preliminary Engineering. This study was intended to fulfill the Screening Alternatives/Systems Planning process. The function of that process as worded by TRCP Report 118 is “Identification and Screening of Broadly Defined System Package Concepts for Refinement and Analysis.”i The assessment of BRT suitability went beyond ridership and general constructability issues by attempting to capture the intent of the Livability Principles. The six Livability Principles, their definitions, and a discussion of how the study was designed to fit the principles can be found in the STUDY STRUCTURE section of this report. This study was divided into four phases as shown in Table 1. Page 4 of 189 Table 1: Study Phases Phase Phase Name Level of Analysis I Preliminary Route Screening Existing CTA Bus Routes II Segment Analysis Street Segments III Route Analysis Routes IV Travel Demand Analysis Selected Routes PHASE I‐PRELIMINARY ROUTE SCREENING eliminated routes not relevant to the study and consolidated routes with significant service area overlap. PHASE II‐SEGMENT ANALYSIS was divided into two parts that established potential routes for BRT. PART 1‐RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTABILITY evaluated the existing street network to determine if street right‐of‐way was sufficient for BRT. PART 2‐ LIVABILITY ANALYSIS was comprised of 14 criteria that attempted to broadly assess existing transit demand and complementary land uses in the surrounding areas. The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS was not exclusive to evaluating BRT. The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS could be used for analyzing other types of fixed or non‐fixed guideway transit. It provides a non‐prioritized set of routes that may be suitable for transit investment. The main intent of PHASE III‐ROUTE ANALYSIS was to improve the overall transit connectivity of the routes that met PHASE II criteria and finalize the routes identified by this study. PHASE III was assessed in three parts. PART 1‐TRANSIT REDUNDANCY removed potential routes that were already served by rail transit. PART 2‐NETWORK INTEGRATION evaluated the integration of each route with the existing rail network. PART 3‐ROUTE REVISION reintroduced or modified potential routes using considerations not included in the previous phases or parts of the study – namely transit connectivity. PHASE IV‐TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS applied a travel demand model to the routes that passed PHASE III to help illustrate the impacts of the BRT system. The purpose of this section was to lend support to the selection process of the previous three phases. Because it was computationally burdensome to model all potential routes, the narrowed list of routes produced by the phase I, II, and III analyses allowed demand modeling to be included in the study. Through the succession of each of the first three phases, a percentage of vetted routes/segments/potential BRT routes were passed into the subsequent phase until a list of routes demonstrating suitability for a first phase of a BRT transit system were identified. Each phase represents a finer level of analysis. The Livability Principles were most extensively Page 5 of 189 incorporated into the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS in PHASE II. Each criterion of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS was directly related to one or more of the six Livability Principles and was used to measure the potential for community development benefits via a BRT system. The initial focus of this study was the 2009 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus system and service area located in Chicago, Illinois and adjacent suburbs. The system was chosen because it has a demonstrated demand for public transit. The final alignment of these BRT routes will undoubtedly differ from the 2009 bus system and the routes selected in this report. A map of the 2009 CTA bus routes is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Map of 2009 CTA Bus Routes Page 6 of 189 Given different general constructability constraints and service parameters for the demand model, this study could be used to evaluate other modes of transit. For example, a streetcar‐type system, which shares many similarities to BRT, could easily be evaluated using a similar process. Although this study had the ability to identify a single route as most suitable for BRT based on the criteria and weighting selected, such a selection would not have been beneficial. Each phase identified a grouping of routes that had sufficient merit to warrant inclusion in the subsequent phase. The results of the final phase were no different. A small grouping of routes scored strongly for the first phase of BRT implementation. Although great effort was made in capturing the constraints and maximizing the potential benefits of a BRT system, this study, like any model, needs to be practically demonstrated. The final grouping of routes recommended in this study will require further consideration that is beyond the scope of this study. As recommended by TRCP Report 118, a full alternatives analysis will ultimately decide the ideal route from the list produced by this study. Page 7 of 189 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of the Literature Review was to identify existing methodologies for screening potential BRT