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:

ƒ 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.

ƒ Using innovative approaches for screening transit routes to reduce the burdens of transportation modeling.

ƒ 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 routes in the United States and Canada. Although there are many examples in the United States with Arterial Rapid Transit and systems with elements of BRT, there are relatively few BRT systems with the four elements discussed in the INTRODUCTION section. BRT systems were screened for their applicability to a Chicago BRT system based on two criteria: 1) the similarity to a true BRT system and 2) a system installed on an existing street network (i.e. not on a highway or former rail line). A list of BRT systems considered to have relevance to this study is included in Table 2.

Table 2: Relevant North American BRT Systems

City System

Cleveland, Ohio Healthline

Eugene, Oregon Emerald Express Green Line

Kansas City, Missouri MAX

Las Vegas, Nevada MAX

Los Angeles, California Orange Line

Miami‐Dade, Florida Miami‐Dade Busway*

New York, New York Select Bus Service

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania East Busway

Toronto, Canada Viva

* Moderate relevancy to a potential Chicago system, but has one of the few developed and available methodologies

Many cities have purportedly gone through a screening process, but defined methodologies were largely unavailable or insufficiently descriptive. Efforts to reach out to many U.S. cities with BRT systems were unsuccessful. Of the 10 cities shown in Table 2, only New York and Miami‐Dade had reasonably well‐documented methodologies, and only New York had a published study.

Page 8 of 189

Although not formal studies, TRCP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit; Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines, TRCP Report 118 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide; and the Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide were indispensable resources for this report. TRCP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines contains a variety of information on planning for BRT including traffic engineering, intelligent transportation systems, operational, and finance considerations. TRCP Report 118 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide is a comprehensive guide to BRT containing discussions on planning, travel demand modeling, cost estimation, system integration, and development guidelines. The Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide published by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy is similar to TRCP Report 118. It discusses the variety of challenges and solutions for implementing BRT. The guide draws on the experiences of domestic and international BRT systems.

The purpose of Bus Rapid Transit in New York City: Route Evaluation and Screening, a study by McNamara et al., was to select routes for implementing BRT in New York City. The focus of this study was the existing Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) bus transit system. Although some qualitative and public input concerns were included, the McNamara et al. study predominately relied on traditional transportation planning metrics.

McNamara et al. used a phased evaluation process. In the “Selection of Initial Candidate Routes” phase, the researchers eliminated all routes that had existing ridership levels below 15,000 passengers per day. In the “Evaluation of 80 Candidate Routes” phase, the researchers further reduced routes by seven transportation “parameters” based on minimum existing bus service thresholds similar those used in the first phase. These parameters included existing ridership, stop service type, peak headway, base headway, speed ratio (the ratio of peak to off‐ peak speed), central business district service, and ridership history.

In the final phase, “Evaluation of 36 Candidate Routes,” the researchers narrowed 36 routes to 15 routes using two main considerations: 1) potential benefits of BRT implementation and 2) BRT compatibility. Existing ridership, frequency of service, projected travel time savings, and projected ridership were used as metrics for BRT benefits. Parking challenges, enforcement, constructability, and traffic impacts were used as measures of compatibility. The study determined the top 15 routes through a prioritization process with an equal weighting of benefits and compatibility rankings.ii

Overview of Bus Rapid Transit Opportunities as Part of an Integrated Multi‐Modal Strategy to Alleviate Traffic Congestion in Miami Dade is a study that measured the potential success of BRT on routes previously identified for transit improvement in other Miami‐Dade planning documents.

Page 9 of 189

The authors of the study (the Center for Urban Transportation Research, Bus Rapid Transit Institute, and University of Florida College of Engineering) used four main criteria to quantify the propensity for successful BRT implementation: 1) total average weekday existing bus ridership normalized by mile, 2) population and employment within 0.5 miles of each route normalized by mile, 3) households with zero automobile ownership, and 4) households below $15,000 in annual income.

The study scored each route using the “percentage of best” method (each route is scored relative to all other routes for each criterion). An overall score for each potential route was determined by taking the unweighted average of the four criteria. Finally, routes were grouped into three tiers of prioritization for implementation based on the overall score.iii

Page 10 of 189

LIVABILITY DEFINITION This study’s definition of “livability” is drawn from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s (CMAP) GO TO 2040 Plan, the Chicago metropolitan region’s long‐range plan. The GO TO 2040 Plan’s discussion of livability is well aligned with the intent of this study and with DOT/EPA/HUD’s Livability Principles.

“Livability” is defined in the GO TO 2040 Plan in terms of “livable communities.” According to the GO TO 2040 Plan:

Livable communities provide safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices and promote equitable and affordable housing to increase mobility and lower the combined costs of housing and transportation. Through better access to jobs, schools, markets, and recreation, livable communities make the region more economically competitive.iv

The GO TO 2040 Plan shares many similarities with the Livability Principles developed by DOT, HUD, and the EPA. The central message of both the GO TO 2040 Plan and the Livability Principles is that livability should play a central role in the decision making process for states, regions, and communities across the United States. The Livability Principles and concept of livability were used as a guide to the methodological decisions made throughout each phase of this study.

Page 11 of 189

STUDY STRUCTURE There were two purposes to this section of the study: 1) to provide a broad overview of the phases and parts of the study and 2) to discuss how the Livability Principles were integrated into the study structure. More detailed information can be found in METHODOLOGY section of the report.

PHASE I – PRELIMINARY ROUTE SCREENING

PHASE I‐PRELIMINARY ROUTE SCREENING removed Lake Shore Drive segments of some bus routes, circulators, special routes, and discontinued routes. Routes with significant service overlap were consolidated. The purpose of PHASE I was to remove routes that were either unfeasible or would provide the least potential benefit for a BRT system.

Lake Shore Drive route segments were removed from the analysis. Lake Shore Drive is a north‐south eight‐lane expressway that parallels the Chicago lakefront. This study did not deny the potential for enhanced transit along Lake Shore Drive; however, the purpose of this study was to identify a small number of arterial routes providing maximum community benefit, not the robust system of supporting routes that a highway would require.

Most circulators are routes that provide service within and directly adjacent to downtown Chicago; these routes were eliminated. Downtown congestion and transit potential have been identified and addressed in other studies and proposals. The unique challenges of providing a downtown circulator system are outside the scope of this study.

Special routes are identified as seasonal routes, temporary routes, short‐run feeder routes, or routes that provide service for a limited customer base (e.g. providing circulator service for a university); these routes were eliminated. This study only examined core routes in the CTA service area.

PHASE II – SEGMENT ANALYSIS

The routes that passed PHASE I varied not only in the physical structure of the roadways but also in surrounding land uses and population densities. Evaluating the entire length of a route would have misrepresented the sections most suitable for BRT; therefore, the study reduced routes into smaller geographical units – street segments. The extent of a street segment is defined by intersections with other streets and are typically 300 to 600 feet in length. An example of street segments is shown in Figure 2.

Page 12 of 189

Figure 2: Map of Street Segments Example

The purpose of PHASE II was to establish new routes based on continuous lengths of segments that consistently showed the greatest potential for BRT. Each street segment was scored through a two‐part process: RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTABILITY and performance on the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS.

Page 13 of 189

PHASE II PART 1‐ RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (ROW) CONSTRUCTABILITY

The segments were analyzed in the ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS to assess if roadway width was sufficient to accommodate dedicated BRT lanes. Each street segment has an ROW width value attributed to its extents. Acceptable ROW width for BRT was evaluated under a bi‐ directional setup only (i.e. BRT operating with two dedicated lanes per street). A unidirectional scenario (i.e. either with BRT running on one dedicated lane on each of two parallel streets or with BRT running one way in the direction of peak flow) was not considered for this study.

If a segment had insufficient ROW width, it was eliminated from the BRT analysis, with one exception. The exception to elimination was contingent on the segment with insufficient ROW width being within a contiguous series of segments with sufficient ROW widths. An example is shown in Figure 3.

Page 14 of 189

Figure 3: Map of Exception to Elimination for Insufficient ROW

PHASE II PART 2 ‐ LIVABILITY ANALYSIS

After the ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS, the remaining segments were analyzed in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS. The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS, which most extensively integrated the Livability Principles, was not BRT specific and can be used for other types of transportation investments. The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS used 14 quantitative proxies for the Livability Principles to score each street segment. Table 3 outlines the rationale, metric, and corresponding main Livability Principle for each criterion.

Page 15 of 189

Table 3: Livability Analysis Criteria

Criterion Rationale for Selection Study Measure Main Corresponding Livability Principles

1) Connectivity to Community Services People need transit access to vital community Number of community 3) Enhance Economic services such as day care, vocational rehabilitation destinations within 0.5 miles of Competiveness centers, and services for the elderly. street segments. 6) Value Communities and Neighborhoods

2) Connectivity to Educational People of all ages need transit access to educational Number of educational 3) Enhance Economic Institutions opportunities such as high schools, community institutions within 0.5 miles of Competiveness colleges, and libraries. street segments. 6) Value Communities and Neighborhoods

3) Connectivity to Entertainment Transit access to cultural, entertainment and social Number of entertainment 6) Value Communities Venues destinations such as movie theaters and museums is a destinations within 0.5 miles of and Neighborhoods major quality‐of‐life benefit for many people. street segments.

4) Connectivity to Food Stores People need transit access to fresh food at grocery Total annual sales of food stores 6) Value Communities stores, produce markets, and other types of food within 0.5 miles of street and Neighborhoods stores. segments.

5) Connectivity to Major Medical Care Patients and visitors need transit access to critical Number of hospitals within 0.5 3) Enhance Economic medical care at major hospitals. miles of street segments. Competiveness

6) Value Communities and Neighborhoods

Page 16 of 189

Criterion Rationale for Selection Study Measure Main Corresponding Livability Principles

6) Connectivity to Major Open Space Transit access to recreational destinations can Number of community level 6) Value Communities improve usage rates and health. parks (over 25 acres) and forest and Neighborhoods preserves within 0.5 miles of street segments.

7) Connectivity to Retail People need transit access to retail opportunities to Total annual retail sales at 3) Enhance Economic meet their shopping and socializing needs. pedestrian‐oriented businesses Competiveness within 0.5 miles of street segments. Automobile related 6) Value Communities businesses such as gas stations and Neighborhoods and auto dealers were omitted.

8) Employment/Job Access Employees working in close proximity to BRT lines are Total employment at all 3) Enhance Economic a major group of potential riders, and BRT would businesses within 0.5 miles of Competiveness increase their ability to live near work or live and work street segments. near transit. 9) Existing Transit Ridership Bus ridership demonstrates existing demand for Average passenger flow by street 1) Provide more transit along the study routes. segment (controlling for Transportation Choices direction) during the AM peak period.

10) Existing Transit Travel Time Travel time reduction for passengers is a main Average passenger speed by 1) Provide more function of BRT. It is important to identify routes street segment (controlling for Transportation Choices where this benefit will be maximized. direction) during the AM peak period.

Page 17 of 189

Criterion Rationale for Selection Study Measure Main Corresponding Livability Principles

11) Infill Development Potential BRT is a major public investment that can potentially Area of properties with potential 4) Support Existing help spur or reinforce infill development, thus helping for redevelopment (defined by Communities to maximize city services, reduce the environmental the Chicago Metropolitan impact of human development, and encourage Agency for Planning) and vacant walkable communities. properties within 0.5 miles of street segments.

12) Population Residents living in close proximity to BRT lines are a Total residential population 1) Provide more major group of potential riders. BRT would increase within a 0.5 miles of street Transportation Choices their ability to live near work or live and work near segments. transit. 4) Support Existing Communities

13) Population not within 0.5 miles of Residents not currently well served by rail transit have Residential population within 0.5 1) Provide more Rail a particular and pressing need for rapid transit service miles of street segments who Transportation Choices within walking distance of their homes. also live beyond a 0.5‐mile radius and of fixed guideway transit (CTA and/or Metra rail). 2) Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing

14) Transportation Costs BRT can help make overall housing costs more Average household 2) Promote Equitable, affordable by reducing the transportation costs transportation costs as a Affordable Housing associated with housing location. percentage of household income within 0.5 miles of street segments. Data from the Center for Neighborhood and Technology’s H+T Index.

Page 18 of 189

RANKING THE LIVABILITY ANALYSIS CRITERIA

Unlike the CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS, which eliminated segments with insufficient ROW width, the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS used a scoring methodology to identify segments performing strongly on the 14 criteria. Each criterion in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS was scored using the following percent‐rank function:

The development of an overall score for each street segment required that criterion of different units (e.g. annual retail sales, population, etc.) be converted to a comparable value. The percent‐rank equation was a simple method to accomplish that requirement. The ranking method is illustrated in Table 4, which presents a hypothetical list of segments and the corresponding surrounding population. Segment A has the highest surrounding population and a corresponding percentage rank of 100 percent. Segment T with the lowest surrounding population received a percentage rank of zero.

Table 4: Ranking Method Example

Segment Surrounding Population Absolute Rank Percent‐rank

A 33,821 1 100.00%

B 23,404 2 94.73%

C 22,539 3 89.47%

D 22,099 4 84.21%

E 22,063 5 78.94%

F 21,931 6 73.68%

G 21,471 7 68.42%

H 21,171 8 63.15%

I 18,736 9 57.89%

J 17,174 10 52.63%

K 16,423 11 47.36%

L 16,195 12 42.10%

Page 19 of 189

Segment Surrounding Population Absolute Rank Percent‐rank

M 14,564 13 36.84%

N 14,387 14 31.57%

O 13,192 15 26.31%

P 12,226 16 21.05%

Q 10,837 17 15.78%

R 9,985 18 10.52%

S 7,086 19 5.26%

T 5,267 20 0.00%

Next an overall score was developed for each segment based on the results of the individual scores from each criterion of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS. The overall score, expressed as a percentage, was determined by the summation of each weighted individual criterion score. The weighting of each criterion was assigned to reflect a balance of equity, transit performance, access, and infill development factors.

Street segments that did not score at or above the median overall score of all remaining segments were identified as being “weak scoring” street segments. “Weak scoring” street segments were not automatically removed. Like the ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS, exceptions were made for segments that scored poorly, but were adjacent to a continuous series of segments that scored well.

The remaining segments demonstrating strong performance in both the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS and the ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS were used to establish the routes for analysis in PHASE III. Routes were established from strong performing and contiguous groups of 3‐miles or more. Short isolated segments were removed from the study.

There is merit to examining all street segments, regardless of ROW, to evaluate the need for additional transit enhancements. The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS can be used at a later date to plan appropriate transit investments along other high‐priority routes that are insufficiently wide.

The major drawback of analyzing at a segment level was the absence of consideration given to transit connectivity; however, it was necessary to first establish a set of routes on

Page 20 of 189

which to assess opportunities to improve transit connections. Maximizing transit connectivity was one of the main purposes of PHASE III.

Page 21 of 189

PHASE III – ROUTE ANALYSIS

PHASE III was divided into three parts: TRANSIT REDUNDANCY, NETWORK INTEGRATION, and ROUTE REVISION. The purpose of these parts was to provide refinement and reinforce the network identified in PHASE II.

Depending on the weighting scenarios, it was possible that routes replicating existing rail transit service passed PHASE II. The purpose of TRANSIT REDUNDANCY was to remove any routes that overlapped existing rail transit service.

NETWORK INTEGRATION evaluated the connectivity of each study route to existing rail transit and supports the ‘Promote More Transportation Choices’ Livability Principle. This criterion counted stations within 330 feet (half a standard Chicago city block) from the proposed BRT route. Routes that did not establish connections to existing rail transit were removed from the analysis (i.e. potential routes were required to connect to the CTA ‘L’ or commuter rail stations regardless of performance in PHASE II).

ROUTE REFINEMENT reintroduced routes that enhanced the overall transit connectivity of the remaining potential routes (i.e. routes that passed PHASE II and PART I and PART II of PHASE III). With few exceptions, the reintroduced routes were still required to meet constructability requirements.

The intent of ROUTE REFINEMENT was not to circumvent the selections made in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS; instead, transit connectivity was designed to address considerations that could not have been assessed in PHASE II. Transit connectivity is a route‐level assessment and essential to the overall functionality of the transit network. Before anything could be assessed at the route level, the routes had to be established through the SEGMENT ANALYSIS. It follows that some segments removed in PHASE II had to be reintroduced in ROUTE REFINEMENT to ensure maximum connectivity from the BRT network.

Page 22 of 189

PHASE IV – TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS

The purpose of the PHASE IV analysis was to assess the system performance of the remaining routes that passed PHASE III. This study used the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s (the Northeastern Illinois Region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization) travel demand model to evaluate the impacts on total person trips, transit person trips, transit mode share, and the road system. The results of the demand model were determined for discussion purposes only.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES AND STUDY STRUCTURE Provide more transportation choices.

Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health.

Adherence to this principle is a function of BRT. BRT provides similar advantages to other types of fixed guideway transit, including pay‐before‐you‐board stations, dedicated right‐ of‐way, and signal prioritization, which facilitate a faster and more reliable transit alternative and increase the accessibility of destinations throughout the street grid. The metrics of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS attempted to maximize the benefit of BRT by prioritizing segments in areas of high community destinations, population, employment, and retail activity.

The CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES, CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT VENUES, CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITIES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE, and CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL criteria were used to score street segments that provided the highest connectivity and access to important community destinations.

Similarly, the EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS criterion highlighted street segments that had the highest surrounding number of employment opportunities. Street segments that served community destinations and employment centers best provided users with a lower cost and lower environmental impact transit alternative.

The INFILL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL criterion scored street segments by the highest development potential. BRT can potentially spur infill development in these areas and can

Page 23 of 189

promote improved public health and environmental sustainability through dense, walkable communities.

The EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME criterion coarsely measured which street segments had the highest potential for travel time reduction, which translates into a reduction in transportation costs. The EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP criterion measured which street segments had the highest transit passenger flows, helping to maximize the potential ridership of a BRT system and the intent of this Livability Principle.

NETWORK INTEGRATION ranked study routes by measuring integration with the existing transit system, ensuring greater mobility for potential users of a BRT system. Increased mobility was further encouraged by ROUTE REVISION considerations in which routes were reintroduced or modified to ensure maximum transit connectivity of a potential BRT network.

The POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL criterion scored segments higher if areas did not have many transportation alternatives. Additionally, the TRANSPORTATION COSTS criterion measured which segments had the highest transportation costs. POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL and TRANSPORTATION COSTS criteria maximized street segments that had poor transportation choices.

Promote equitable, affordable housing.

Expand location‐ and energy‐efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation.

Again, NETWORK INTEGRATION assessed the ability of a study route to integrate with the existing fixed guideway transit system (and potentially a BRT network in the future) translating into higher mobility and reduced transportation costs for all potential users of the system.

The POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL criterion measured populations of the city that did not have walkable access to a fixed guideway transit station. Providing BRT in these areas offers the possibility for increasing mobility and providing an efficient alternative to existing modes of travel.

The TRANSPORTATION COSTS criterion provided a measure of BRT’s potential for reducing the cost of transportation, helping to reduce a household's total expenditures. Reducing transportation costs can also be components of CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES, CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT, CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL CARE, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE, CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL, and EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS criteria. Improved access to these destinations via transit can help reduce automobile related transportation costs.

Page 24 of 189

Enhance economic competitiveness.

Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs of workers as well as providing expanded business access to markets.

CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES, CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT, CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITIES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE, CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL, and EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS criteria ranked street segments based on the highest potential access to each respective metric focus. A BRT system can provide an economic boost to the focus areas of these measures by reducing the need for parking and providing employees, students, customers with an efficient alternative for accessing these destinations.

The POPULATION criterion gave higher ranks to street segments that had the highest adjacent population, thus maximizing the number of people who can access and patronize destinations along the system.

Moreover, the INFILL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL criterion points to segments with a greater preponderance of infill sites. The addition of proximate BRT service may provide an additional increase in land values and can potentially catalyze redevelopment, and increase density and job creation. By identifying BRT routes and, in a later studies, station sites, it is possible to identify appropriate sites for targeted investment in affordable housing, which would help offset displacement effects from increases in land value (see the Coordinate Policies and Leverage Investment Livability Principle).

EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME identifies routes with poor reliability and long travel time that constrains system users. NETWORK INTEGRATION helps improve timely access to destinations by better connecting transit alternatives.

Page 25 of 189

Support existing communities.

Target federal funding toward existing communities – through such strategies as transit‐ oriented, mixed‐use development and land recycling – to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works investments, and safeguard rural landscapes.

The POPULATION and EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS criteria will target the BRT transit investment into areas with dense population and employment, respectively. Further, the POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL criterion will target and reinforce employment opportunities in existing communities that do not have rail transit service.

The CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES, CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT, CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITIES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE, and CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL criteria were represented by existing community destinations. A BRT system can help reinforce these locations by providing improved access to potential users.

The INFILL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL criterion identified vacant and underutilized properties where BRT can potentially encourage development. Beyond the focus of this study, land use planning, zoning, and incentives in areas around BRT stations will ultimately determine the impact of BRT. From a broader perspective, the existing CTA bus service area (the study focus area) was confined to established communities rather than greenfield sites. BRT can potentially encourage new development and increase quality of life in these existing communities. Station areas, in particular, will serve existing dense nodes of mixed‐use activity and potentially spur the densification of new nodes. Having identified the likely property value effects from transit expansion, subsequent planning will be necessary to ensure that low‐income and working individuals and families – often those most dependent on transit access – are not displaced by rising property values.

Coordinate policies and leverage investment.

Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy.

This principle was outside the scope of this screening study; however, federal funding is an incentive that can encourage better coordination of different departments, agencies, and levels of government. A follow‐up analysis to determine the relationship between priority BRT routes and existing federal, state, or local investment would demonstrate:

Page 26 of 189

ƒ the ability of BRT to enhance the value or performance of past investments from spurring market reactivation of EPA‐funded brownfield sites to better connecting a ready workforce with both training and employment opportunities.

ƒ the ability of BRT to provide a connective framework to be used for coordinated investment in the future. For example, future housing investments should align with a newly planned BRT route to maximize livability benefits and minimize resident displacement due to increasing property values.

Once routes are established, and travel demand and travel time estimated, it will be possible to assess the environmental impacts of specific BRT investments. Carbon emissions, fuel savings, urban heat island effects, and other environmental indicators can be accurately measured once priority routes are established. Additionally, future investments in streetscaping, tree planting, stormwater management, and green infrastructure can be made to address those impacts, further leveraging the environmental benefits of BRT.

Value communities and neighborhoods.

Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods – rural, urban, or suburban.

CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES, CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT VENUES, CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITIES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE, CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL, POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS, and INFILL DEVELOPMENT criteria assigned the highest rank to street segments that had a high density of community destinations, potential for infill development, residents and employees, and retail. BRT, coupled with transit‐oriented development, can reinforce and increase high population densities, which promote walkable neighborhoods.

This study demonstrates that the Livability Principles can be quantitatively and substantively included in making transit investment decisions. Traditional travel time savings metrics are still included in the analysis; however, these metrics are augmented by considerations to the Livability Principles as recommended by DOT, EPA, and HUD. The result is a list of routes that maximize both the transportation benefits of transit enhancement and the “livability benefits” expressed in the metrics of this study.

Page 27 of 189

STUDY HIERARCHY

Indicates the reduction of routes between phases of the analysis

Page 28 of 189

Methodology

Phase I: Preliminary Screening

The purpose of PHASE I was to screen routes for inclusion or exclusion from the Segment Analysis. All CTA bus routes in service in October 2009, 155 routes, and an additional 8 pre‐ 2009 routes (for data consistency reasons) were analyzed through a two‐part analysis – elimination and consolidation.

The flow and speed data attributable to the 155 CTA 2009 bus routes removed through elimination or consolidation were still used for the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS in PHASE II. For example, the flow of a removed circulator route was included in the total flow of a segment – a segment being developed from the routes that passed PHASE I. Further explanation on developing segments and the purpose of the flow and speed data will be discussed in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS section.

PART I: ELIMINATION Four types of routes were eliminated from further analysis – Lake Shore Drive segments of some routes, downtown circulators, special routes, and discontinued routes. Although qualitative, the removal of any route was executed with a very conservative approach.

The Lake Shore Drive route segments were removed from the analysis (Note the portion of the routes not using Lake Shore Drive remained in the analysis). This study did not deny the potential for enhanced transit along Lake Shore Drive; however, the purpose of this study was to identify a small number of arterial routes providing maximum community benefit rather than the robust system of supporting routes that a highway would require.

Most circulators are routes that provide service within and directly adjacent to downtown Chicago. Downtown congestion and transit potential has been identified and addressed in other studies and proposals. The unique challenges of providing a downtown circulator system are outside the scope of this study. Other circulators were small routes that provided limited service to transit stations or major destinations.

Special routes are identified as seasonal routes, temporary routes, short‐run feeder routes, or routes that provide service for a limited customer base (e.g. providing circulator service for a university). This study only examined established routes predominately used by the general public.

Page 29 of 189

Finally, routes discontinued prior to 2009 were included as a separate exclusion category to ensure consistency across different types of data sources (i.e. some older GIS files and databases included these routes, thus they needed to be identified and removed from the analysis).

Page 30 of 189

PART II: CONSOLIDATION

The purpose of PART II was to spatially consolidate overlapping route alignments. Two or more routes with only very small deviations in alignment were consolidated into a single route.

The routes passing PHASE I were segmented in PHASE II to create a large network on which potential BRT routes could be assessed. Even if two route alignments were identical, no duplicate segments were created (i.e. every segment is unique regardless of how many routes traversed the extents of the segment). For this study, identical route alignments were included in the consolidation process to more easily facilitate the creation of segments (i.e. fewer routes had to be segmented and then combined into the entire system of segmented routes). Further rationale behind this decision is included in the following section.

Page 31 of 189

PHASE II: SEGMENT ANALYSIS The purpose of the segment analysis was to establish routes based on right‐of‐way (ROW) constructability (PART 1) and access, transit performance, transit equity, and infill development potential (PART 2). The study analyzed the benefits and ROW constructability at a street segment level. The extents of a street segment are defined by intersections with other streets (e.g. Michigan Avenue from Madison Street to Monroe Street in Chicago is one segment).

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) provided the GIS files for street segments inside and outside the city of Chicago boundaries, respectively. The CTA provided CTA bus route GIS files in which each bus route was defined as a single polyline. Using the CTA bus routes that passed PHASE I as a base framework, a new layer comprised only of street segments was developed from the CDOT and IDOT GIS files. Regardless of the number of bus routes that crossed a segment, that segment was only expressed once (i.e. no duplicate segments).

The next step was converting the street segments from a linear to an area spatial unit (herein “street segment areas”). The best performing street segments under PHASE II would be selected to form larger routes, which were analyzed in PHASE III. A study segment area was developed by establishing a 0.5‐mile buffer around each study segment. A 0.5‐mile distance was considered a reasonable walking distance from a BRT route.

Page 32 of 189

PART 1: RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS

The purpose of the ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS was to evaluate if sufficient public ROW width for a bidirectional BRT system existed along the street segments passing PHASE I. There were five steps to the ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS, which are listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Steps of ROW Constructability Analysis

Step Description

1 Establish Absolute Minimum ROW Width

2 Assign ROW Width to Each Street Segment

3 Designate Street Segments to be Removed

4 Establish Minimum Route Length

5 Remove Unsuitable Segments

Page 33 of 189

STEP 1: ESTABLISH ABSOLUTE MINIMUM ROW WIDTH The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and Congress for New Urbanism’s (CNU) ITE Recommended Practice – Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach and Transportation Research Cooperative Program’s TRCP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines were used to establish minimum ROW widths.v,vi ITE Recommended Practice – Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach is a street design guideline resource recommended by the National Complete Streets Coalition.

The ITE/CNU and TRCP recommended minimum ROW widths for frontage zones, pedestrian travel ways, edge and furnishing strips, through lanes, parking lanes, medians, bike lanes, BRT lanes, and BRT stations are shown in Table 6.

Page 34 of 189

Table 6: ITE/CNU and TRCP Recommended Minimum Dimensions

Type Minimum Dimensions Number Per Street Total Minimum Width Source Dimensions

Frontage Zone* 1 foot (Residential) 2 10 – 16 feet ITE/CNU

2 feet (Commercial)

Pedestrian Travel Way* 5 feet (Residential) 2 10 – 12 feet ITE/CNU

6 feet (Commercial)

Edge and Furnishing Strip* 3 feet (Residential) 2 6 – 8 feet ITE/CNU

4 feet (Commercial)

Through Lanes 10 – 11 feet 2 – 4 20 – 44 feet ITE/CNU

Parking Lanes 7 – 8 feet 0 – 2 0 – 16 feet ITE/CNU

Medians 4 – 18 feet 0 – 1 0 – 18 feet ITE/CNU

Bike Lanes 5 – 6 feet 0 – 2 0 – 12 feet ITE/CNU

BRT Lanes 11 feet 2 22 feet ITE/CNU TRCP

Page 35 of 189

Type Minimum Dimensions Number Per Street Total Minimum Width Source Dimensions

BRT Station 0 feet (No station) 0 (No station) 0 – 25 feet TRCP

10 – 12 feet (Curbside or 2 (Curbside platforms) Busway Side Platform) 2 (Busway side platforms in 20 – 25 feet (Median same lane) platform) 1 (Median platform)

Recommended Minimum Dimensions: 68 – 173 feet

* Widths Under Constrained Conditions

Sidewalks, parkways (edge and frontage strip), parking, bikeways, flow lanes, and BRT lanes were considered essential elements to a best‐practice BRT system and complemented Complete Streets policy. Using the ITE/CNU and TRCP recommended minimum dimensions, two BRT standard minimum dimension options were selected for this study – a street segment with a BRT station and a street segment without a BRT station. A street segment with a BRT station was determined to need a minimum ROW width of 97 feet (see Figure 4). A street segment without a BRT station was determined to need a minimum ROW width of 86 feet (see Figure 5). Specific allocations of ROW width to a use (e.g. frontage, flow lanes, etc.) are shown in Table 7.

Page 36 of 189

Figure 4: Street Segment with Bidirectional BRT Lanes and BRT Station

Figure 5: Street Segment with Bidirectional BRT Lanes

Note that these dimensions are used as absolute minimums. The dimensions do not represent final recommendations or lane configurations.

Page 37 of 189

Table 7: Study Minimum ROW Dimensions

Type Minimum Dimensions Number Per Street Total Minimum Width Dimensions

Frontage Zone 1 foot 2 2 feet

Pedestrian Travel Way 5 feet 2 10 feet

Edge and Furnishing Strip 3 feet 2 6 feet

Through Lanes 10 feet 2 20 feet

Parking Lanes* 8 feet 2 16 feet

Medians 11 feet 0 – 1 (street segments 0 – 11 feet

with stations)

Bike Lanes* 5 feet 2 10 feet

BRT Lanes 11 feet 2 22 feet

BRT Station 11 feet (Busway Side Platform) 2 (in same lane) 11 feet

Minimum Dimensions for Street Segments without BRT Stations: 86 feet

Minimum Dimensions for Street Segments with BRT Stations: 97 feet

* For combined parking and bike lane, minimum ITE/CNU recommended width is 13 feet (7 feet parking and 6 feet bike lane or 8 feet parking and 5 feet bike lane)

Page 38 of 189

STEP 2: ASSIGN ROW WIDTH TO EACH STREET SEGMENT Each street segment provided by CDOT came coded with four types of ROW width information – “ROW LBD, STWIDTH LBD, ROW Calcd, and C C Calcd.” “ROW LBD” and “C C Calcd” are ROW widths perpendicular to each street segment. CDOT’s GIS metadata notes that “ROW LBD” and “C C Calcd” were derived using separate methods and “ROW LBD” should be used when available. “STWIDTH LBD” and “C C Calcd” are curb‐to‐curb ROW widths. These widths were not used for this study.

Despite CDOT’s recommendation to use “ROW LBD” when available, the “ROW Calcd” method was found to be more accurate in many instances. “ROW Calcd” was defined in the metadata as ROW width calculated by the sum of the right and left perpendicular distance from each street segment centerline to the nearest property line.

“ROW Calcd” could not be substituted for “ROW LBD” in all instances. For example, the centerlines of streets abutting Midway Airport in Chicago followed the airport’s property line (i.e. half the street was within the airport property line and the other half was in the public ROW). In this instance the “ROW LBD” reported values equal to the actual roadway width, whereas “ROW Calcd” reported a ROW only half as large.

Given the constraints of each method, street segments assumed the ROW of the method that gave the larger width. With minor exceptions, this method produced a reasonably accurate representation of ROW widths for each street segment.

Street segments outside the city, provided by IDOT, did not come attributed with ROW width information; therefore, it was necessary to code these street segments manually. This was considered a more time and cost‐effective solution to determining ROW widths than pursuing ROW information from each individual municipality.

The manual coding of these street segments was carried out similarly to CDOT’s “ROW Calcd” method. Using Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) ArcGIS measuring tool, the distance between two property lines parallel to each street segment were measured and then coded in each street segment attribute. The parcel data came from the Cook County Assessor’s Office and was expressed as a digital geospatial ESRI polygon shapefile. The measuring was done with a very conservative approach. All ROW widths were rounded down to the nearest integer.

Given the large number of street segments, it was not possible to use the manual method to verify the “ROW LBD” and “ROW Calcd” methods against all street segments. Verification was done after the next step of removing routes that did not meet the ROW width minimum.

Page 39 of 189

STEP 3: DESIGNATE STREET SEGMENTS TO BE REMOVED Street segments not meeting the 86‐foot (26.2 m) minimum ROW width were considered for deletion, but were not immediately removed. In some instances, a street segment would represent a short narrowing of street ROW width such as at a railroad viaduct. These segments were not deleted if preceded and followed by at least 0.25 miles (0.4 km) of suitable ROW. TRCP Report 90 recommends station distributions from 0.25 miles (0.4 km) to 2 miles (3.2 km) apart (3). At least 0.25 miles (0.4 km) of suitable ROW flanking a narrow street segment indicated the potential for a station and warranted the inclusion of such a narrow street segment.

STEP 4: ESTABLISH MINIMUM ROUTE LENGTH A BRT route requires a series of street segments (see Figure 6) wide enough and long enough on which to operate. Although information was available on establishing maximum route lengths for BRT, there was no minimum route length based on sufficient rationale in the research. Given the limitation of the available research, establishing a minimum BRT route length compelled a decision based on professional discretion.

Page 40 of 189

Figure 6: Map of a Series of Streets Segments

What constitutes an acceptable minimum BRT route length can vary greatly depending on the context of a system – for this study, a highly urbanized area. The longer the BRT route length, the more areas that can be served. Given that this study’s objective was to identify a best‐practice pilot BRT system, there was an inherent preference for “longer” routes.

Although information was available on establishing maximum route lengths for BRT, there was no minimum ROW width with sufficient rationale found in the research. Given the limitation on available research, establishing a minimum BRT route length compelled a decision based on professional discretion. In 2008, DOT chose Chicago as a potential location for a demonstration project for bus system enhancements with elements similar to BRT. The CTA chose four routes for the system as shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Chicago Congestion Reduction Demonstration Project Proposals

Page 41 of 189

Street From To Length

79th Street State St. Ashland Ave. 2.0 miles

Chicago Ave. California Ave. Fairbanks Ct. 4.0 miles

Halsted St. Lake St. North Ave. 3.0 miles

Jeffrey Blvd. 87th St. 67th St. 2.5 miles

The rounded average length of these four proposals, 3‐miles, was used as an absolute minimum length for this study.

STEP 5: REMOVE UNSUITABLE SEGMENTS Any series of street segments not at least 3 miles in length was removed from the analysis. The remaining series of street segments needed to have an adequate distribution of 97‐foot ROW widths to accommodate stations. TRCP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines recommended that station frequency be between 0.25 miles and 2 miles apart. A conservative 0.5‐mile station frequency distribution was chosen for this study. Any series of street segments that did not have a distribution of 97‐foot ROW widths at least 0.5 miles apart were removed from the analysis. If a terminating series of street segments did not have at least one segment of 97‐foot ROW at its terminating end, the entire terminus was removed from the analysis (See Figure 7).

Page 42 of 189

Figure 7: Termini Less than 97 feet wide cannot accommodate a BRT station and other elements of Complete Streets

If the removal of any street segments caused a series of street segments to be less than 3 miles in length, the entire series was removed from the analysis. The remaining street segments were moved onto the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS.

Page 43 of 189

PART 2: LIVABILITY ANALYSIS

The purpose of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS was to provide a holistic approach to the transit screening process by including land use and transportation concerns. BRT can potentially improve access to community destinations and centers of employment, reduce travel times, spur infill develop, and provide investment in underserved communities. Using the following 14 criteria, this analysis created a score for every street segment in the study area allowing for a segment‐by segment analysis (see RANKING THE LIVABILITY ANALYSIS CRITERIA earlier in the report). The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria are listed on page XXX.

Page 44 of 189

UNDERSTANDING THE MEASURES OF THE LIVABILITY ANALYSIS

The measures of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS can be easily misinterpreted. It is important to note what the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS did and did not do. The criteria were roughly defined by the following four categories:

• Access to important trip generators (Criteria 1 through 8 and 12)

• Existing transit performance metrics (Criteria 9 and 10)

• Infill development potential (Criterion 11)

• Transit access equity (Criteria 13 and 14)

The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS did not measure the number of trip generators (i.e. community services, educational institution, entertainment, food store, major medical care, major open space, retail, employment, and residential destinations) that will definitively be served by a BRT line. Station locations will ultimately dictate which destinations are served and which are not.

The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS did not measure the amount of infill development resulting from the construction of a BRT system. Infill development is also dictated in part by station location. More importantly, infill development will be most influenced by the zoning and land use policies that should accompany the implementation of a BRT system.

The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS did not determine how many existing bus riders will shift to a BRT line or how much travel time will be saved. PHASE IV provided the projections for ridership and travel time savings. Before ridership and travel time savings could be projected, routes had to be established, hence the purpose of PHASE I, PHASE II, and PHASE III.

The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS did not determine if populations not served by rail or populations with high transit costs would benefit from the BRT system. That ultimately depends on station location and whether the BRT system will provide access to the desired destinations of the population.

The LIVABILITY ANALYSIS measured the existing benefits along potential street segments that could host a BRT system. The purpose of this method was to ensure a BRT system had the greatest potential to provide spatial connectivity to important trip generators, spur infill development, increase reliability, reduce travel time to existing riders, and provide an alternative mode of transit to populations with an existing transit deficiency.

Page 45 of 189

STREET SEGMENT AREAS

The PHASE II street segments, in aggregate, formed the potential BRT routes analyzed in PHASE III and PHASE IV. To maintain the corridor approach of the study, the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria were assessed using an area of analysis around each street segment. Each street segment area became a smaller piece of a larger route/service area. Spatial activities falling within each street segment area of analysis were used to score the 14 criteria of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS.

A 0.5 ‐mile buffer was used as the area of analysis around each street segment except for EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP and EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME. A 0.5‐mile buffer was considered a reasonable walking distance from a BRT line and an appropriate service area. The phrasing “walkable distance” should be considered interchangeable with a 0.5‐mile distance in this study.

A more conservative 0.25‐mile buffer was used for the Existing Transit Ridership criterion at the request of the CTA. More information can be found in the EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP criterion methodology.

A 0.125‐mile buffer was used for the EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME criterion. Existing bus speed, which was used as the metric for this criterion, was generally considered to be street specific. The 0.125‐mile buffer encompassed existing bus speed activity within one‐block of each street segment. More information can be found in the EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME criterion methodology.

The assigned street segment area for each respective LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria is shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Area of Analysis for Each Livability Analysis Criteria

Criterion # Criterion Name Street Segment Area (miles)

1 CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES 0.5

2 CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 0.5

3 CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT 0.5

Page 46 of 189

Criterion # Criterion Name Street Segment Area (miles)

4 CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES 0.5

5 CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL CARE 0.5

6 CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE 0.5

7 CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL 0.5

8 EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS 0.5

9 EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 0.25

10 EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME 0.125

11 INFILL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 0.5

12 POPULATION 0.5

13 POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL 0.5

14 TRANSPORTATION COSTS 0.5

Page 47 of 189

CRITERION 1: CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES BRT has the potential to improve access to Community Services, which are designated as services intended to improve the health and well‐being of residents. Community Services include the four digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes of 6232 (Residential Mental Retardation Facilities, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Facilities), 6233 (Community Care Facilities for the Elderly), 6239 (Other Residential Care Facilities), 6241 (Individual and Family Services), 6242 (Community Food and Housing, and Emergency and Other Relief Services), 6243 (Vocational Rehabilitation Services), and 6244 (Child Day Care Services). Subcategories of these codes are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: NAICS 5‐Digit Subcategories of NAICS 6232, 6233, 6239, 6241, 6242, 6243, and 6244

NAICS Code Description

62321 Residential and Mental Retardation Facilities

62322 Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities

62331 Community Care Facilities for the Elderly

62399 Other Residential Care Facilities

62411 Child and Youth Services

62412 Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities

62419 Other Individual and Family Services

62421 Community Food Services

62422 Community Housing Services

62423 Emergency and Other Relief Services

62431 Vocational Rehabilitation Services

62441 Child Day Care Services

The data for the COMMUNITY SERVICES criterion came from Easy Analytic Software, Inc. (EASI) 2008 demographic estimates by block group. EASI’s data contained a tally of each type of service located in a block group. EASI’s data were joined to the 2000 Census block group

Page 48 of 189

centroids, a digital geospatial ESRI point shapefile, by a shared block group number attribute. Centroids were used instead of polygons to control for Census block groups that only partially fell within a street segment area. A map of 2000 block group centroids in Cook County is shown in Figure 8.

The street segment areas (0.5‐mile buffer around each street segment) were then spatially joined to the appended 2000 Census block group centroids, summing the number of unique community services for each street segment. The study segments were scored from the highest number of community destinations to the lowest number of community destinations within each study segment area.

Figure 8: Map of 2000 U.S. Census Block Group Centroids in Cook County, Illinois

Page 49 of 189

CRITERION 2: CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS A BRT system can provide an alternative mode of travel for employees and students to educational institutions. In this study, educational institutions included high schools, 2‐year community colleges, 4‐year universities/colleges, graduate schools, technical schools, and libraries. Libraries did not include academic or medical libraries, which were already accounted for under higher education facilities and in the MAJOR MEDICAL CARE criterion.

Elementary and junior high/middle schools (grades K – 8) were not included in this analysis because it was considered unlikely that students at those grade levels would travel to school unsupervised. Data for educational uses came from CMAP, which received the data from various sources. High school information was provided by the Illinois State Board of Education, higher education information came from the Illinois Board of Higher Education, and public library data came from the Illinois State Library. The data, expressed as digital geospatial ESRI point shapefiles, were up to date as of the writing of this study.

In some instances, schools served students at K‐12 grade levels or some other combination of grades that included some or all of the traditional four high school grades (i.e. grades 9‐12). These institutions were included only if they met the average four‐year Chicago high school (public and private) enrollment of 856 students. The average four‐year Chicago high school enrollment was based on data provided by CMAP. The distribution of high schools, higher education institutions, and libraries is shown in Figure 9.

A tally of educational institutions within 0.5 miles of a study segment were determined by spatially joining the street segment area to the geocoded educational institution points, summing for each unique instance of an educational institution within a 0.5 miles of each study segment. Next, the percent rank function was used to score each street segment based on the number of unique educational institutions within walking distance. The more educational institutions within 0.5 miles of each study segment, the higher the score.

Page 50 of 189

Figure 9: Map of Libraries, High Schools, and Higher Education Institutions in Cook County

Page 51 of 189

CRITERION 3: CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT The metric of this criterion was a measure of the number of entertainment destinations within walking distance of a street segment. A BRT system can potentially connect residents and tourist to major entertainment destinations.

Entertainment destinations included cinemas, convention centers, landmarks, museums, performing arts centers, stadiums, and zoos (see Figure 10). Performing arts centers are defined as cultural centers, concert halls, and stage theaters that have at least a 250 person capacity. Cinemas include all movie theaters that have at least a 200 person capacity.vii Data for this criterion came from NAVTEQ’s NAVSTREETS data courtesy of IDOT and were expressed as digital geospatial ESRI point shapefiles.

Each street segment area was spatially joined to each entertainment destination, summing for each unique instance of an entertainment destination within 0.5 miles of each street segment. Each street segment was then scored using the percent‐rank function. The higher the number of entertainment destinations within 0.5 miles of a street segment, the higher the score for the street segment.

Page 52 of 189

Figure 10: Map of Entertainment Destinations in Cook County, Illinois

Page 53 of 189

CRITERION 4: CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES This criterion measured the total annual sales of food stores within walking distance of a street segment. BRT can potentially improve access and provide an alternative mode of travel to food stores.

The data for this metric came from NAVTEQ’s NAVSTREETS 2007 POI GIS files, courtesy of IDOT, as a unique digital geospatial ESRI point shapefile for each retail store in Cook County, Illinois. Food stores were extracted from the retail store shapefile based on their respective NAICS codes. Food stores were defined as Grocery Stores (NAICS 44511) and Specialty Food Stores (NAICS 4452). The NAICS 5‐digit subcategories of Specialty Food Stores are included in Table 11. Convenience Stores (NAICS 44512) and Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores (NAICS 4453) were included in the RETAIL CONNECTIVITY criterion. The distribution of food stores across Cook County, Illinois is shown in Figure 11.

Table 11: NAICS 5‐Digit Subcategories of Specialty Food Stores

NAICS Code Description

44521 Meat Markets

44522 Fish and Seafood Markets

44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets

44529 Other Special Food Stores (Baked Goods Stores, Confectionary and Nut Stores, and All Other Specialty Food Stores)

Page 54 of 189

Figure 11: Map of Food Store in Cook County, Illinois

Each street segment area was spatially joined to each food store point, summing the average annual sales for each food store for each street segment. The sum of the average annual sales for each street segment was used as a proxy for existing size and activity of all food stores in walking distance to each street segment. Each street segment was then scored using the percent‐rank function. The higher the total average annual sales within 0.5 miles of a street segment, the higher the score for the street segment.

Page 55 of 189

CRITERION 5: CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL CARE Only major medical facilities were included in the analysis because of the ubiquity of minor medical facilities and the lack of available data to differentiate their typical patient loads. BRT can potentially help facilitate the movement of employees, patients, and visitors to hospitals in the Chicago area.

The 2007 data for this metric came from NAVTEQ’s NAVSTREETS, courtesy of IDOT, separate from their POI file. Each major hospital in Cook County, Illinois was spatially expressed as a digital geospatial ESRI ArcGIS point shapefile. The distribution of hospitals in Cook County, Illinois is shown in Figure 12.

Each street segment area was spatially joined to each hospital point, summing for each unique instance of a hospital within 0.5 miles of each street segment. Each street segment was then scored using the percent‐rank function. The higher the number of hospitals within 0.5 miles of a street segment, the higher the score for the street segment.

Page 56 of 189

Figure 12: Map of Major Hospitals in Cook County, Illinois

Page 57 of 189

CRITERION 6: CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE BRT can potentially help connect residents and tourists with major open spaces (community level parks and forest preserves) in the Chicago area. Community level parks are defined by the National Recreation and Park Association as having a minimum area of 25 acres.viii

Unlike the other metrics of this study, which were spatially expressed as points, major open space was expressed as polygons. An area spatial expression was preferred over a point expression because, unlike a food store or high school, a major open space has multiple points of access across a large area.

Data for this metric came from CMAP’s 2005 Land Use Inventory and was expressed as a digital geospatial ESRI GIS polygon shapefile. Golf courses, including those in forest preserves, were not included in this analysis because they were considered a separate type of recreational open space amenity. The three categories of open space land uses included in the analysis as defined by CMAP’s 2005 Lane Use Inventory were “Linear Open‐Space Routes;” “Open Space, Primarily Conservation, including Forest Preserves and Nature Preserves;” and “Open Space, Primarily Recreation.” Distribution of major open space in Cook County, Illinois is shown in Figure 13.

Each street segment area was spatially joined to each major open space polygon, summing for each unique instance of a major open space area intersecting each street segment area. Each street segment was then scored using the percent‐rank function. The higher the number of unique major open spaces destinations within 0.5 miles of a street segment, the higher the score for the street segment.

Page 58 of 189

Figure 13: Map of Major Open Space in Cook County

Page 59 of 189

CRITERION 7: CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL The purpose of this metric was to measure retail activity along the street segments. BRT has the potential to improve access of employees and customers to retail locations along the extents of the system.

The data for this metric came from NAVTEQ’s NAVSTREETS 2007 POI GIS files, courtesy of IDOT, as digital geospatial ESRI GIS point shapefiles. Each retail location in Cook County, Illinois was individually attributed in the shapefile. Retail locations were defined by the 2007 NAICS code definitions shown in Table 12.

Table 12: NAICS Retail Subcategories

NAICS Code Description

441 Motor Vehicles and Parts Dealers

442 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores

443 Electronics and Appliance Stores

444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers

445 Food and Beverage Stores

446 Health and Personal Care Stores

447 Gasoline Stations

448 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores

451 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores

452 General Merchandise Stores

453 Miscellaneous Store Retailers

454 Nonstore Retailers

NAICS retail subcategories Motor Vehicles and Parts Dealers (441), Gasoline Stations (447), and Nonstore Retailers (454) were removed from the analysis. Motor Vehicles and Parts Dealers and Gasoline Stations were removed because they were auto‐centric. Nonstore Retailers are businesses such as online shopping, mail‐order houses, vending machines, and fuel (e.g. heating oil) dealers. Neither the auto‐centric group nor the nonstore retailers group provides goods compatible with BRT.

Page 60 of 189

Next, NAICS retail subcategories 44511 (Grocery Stores) and 4452 (Specialty Food Stores) were removed from the analysis. These retail subcategories were included in the CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES criterion. A distribution of retail points in Cook County, Illinois is shown in Figure 14.

Following the previous steps, each street segment was spatially joined to the retail points, summing the attributes of each individual retail business. The result of this step was a summation of the retail annual sales within walkable distance of each street segment. Like CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES, the total of annual sales within each street segment area was used as a proxy for retail activity.

Finally, the street segments were scored using the percent rank method by total annual sales. Street segments that had higher annual sales within walking distance were scored highest.

Page 61 of 189

Figure 14: Map of Retail Locations in Cook County, Illinois

Page 62 of 189

CRITERION 8: EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS This metric measured the number of employees within the street segment area. BRT has the potential to improve employee access to places of employment.

Employment data were obtained from the 2008 EASI Demographic estimates and expressed at the 2000 Census block group level. The 2000 Census block group digital geospatial ESRI GIS points (as centroids) were taken from the U.S. Census Bureau. EASI’s employment data were joined to the 2000 Census block group centroids by the shared block group number attribute.

Next, each street segment area was spatially joined to the Census block group centroids, summing for the number of employees by block group that were within walking distance of each street segment. Finally, the study routes were scored using the percent rank function. The street segments areas having the highest number of employees received the highest scores.

Page 63 of 189

CRITERION 9: EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP BRT has the potential to provide an efficient transit alternative for existing bus riders. This criterion was assessed using 2009 CTA bus ridership flow at the bus‐stop level during the AM peak period. Ridership flow is the number of passengers who are on a bus as the bus departs a stop. This criterion was a coarse measure of existing ridership demand. There was no assumption on the location of BRT stations or what percentage of existing bus riders would shift from local and/or express bus routes to a BRT system.

The segment approach necessitated the use of ridership flow over absolute ridership, which is specific to individual bus routes. Ridership flow enabled each street segment to be attributed with the flows of all bus routes directly on or adjacent to each segment (including those removed in PHASE I and in the ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS).

Unlike the previous LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria, a more conservative 0.25‐mile buffer was used for analyzing the area around each street segment. All bus stops within 0.25 miles of each street segment moving in the same direction were used to provide an average flow for each individual street segment. It was preferable to include ridership flow from bus routes that were adjacent because no route was considered in isolation. Two routes running in close parallel proximity were considered to operate on the same route.

The overall method for this criterion is best illustrated in Figure 15, which presents an east‐west street segment with a 0.25‐mile buffer representing the area of analysis. All bus stops presented on this map are attributed with ridership flow information. The highlighted street segment services movements in the east‐west direction; therefore, the street segment separately attributed with the average eastbound and average westbound flow. All bus stops that service movements in the east‐west directions and fall within the 0.25‐mile radius of the street segment are used to provide an average ridership flow for the given street segment. Although bus stops that service north‐south movements also fall within the 0.25‐mile buffer, they are not included in determining the average flow of the east‐west street segment.

Page 64 of 189

Figure 15: Map of Example of Bus Stops Included in Average Flow Calculation

The CTA provided ridership flow as a weekday AM peak average from Autumn 2007, Autumn 2008, and October 2009 (complete Autumn 2009 data were not yet available, but the month of October was considered to be representative of the fall period) for each bus stop in the city in service as of 2009 (see Figure 16). The data were further broken down by route and by direction of movement (i.e. northbound, southbound, etc.). CTA typically uses Autumn data for its analyses; therefore, that data analysis standard was replicated for this study.

Page 65 of 189

Figure 16: Map of Bus Stops Attributed with Flow

First, flow was averaged for each route and direction by bus stop across the three‐year period to control for abnormal years (e.g. flow for the northbound movement of Route X at Stop 1 was averaged for 2007, 2008, and 2009). Next, the flow for each route was summed for each direction by bus stop (e.g. flow for the northbound movement of Route X, Y, and Z at Stop 1 was summed).

The flow for each movement (by bus stop) was then joined to a CTA bus stop digital geospatial ESRI GIS point shapefile based on two common attributes: 1) the intersection at which the bus stops and 2) the direction served by the stop. The CTA bus stop GIS files were provided by the CTA.

Page 66 of 189

Each street segment was then assigned its direction of service (i.e. eastbound and westbound buses operate on an east‐west street). The purpose of assigning directions to the segments was to ensure each street segment was only assigned flow for which it was capable of moving.

Each street segment area was then spatially joined to each CTA bus stop, averaging the flow for each bus stop and direction of movement within 0.25 miles of each street segment. Using the results of this process, each street segment was assigned an average flow for the two directions it served. For example, an east‐west street segment would have the average flow moving in the eastbound and westbound directions.

Only average flow for one direction was needed for each street segment. Although it is logical to assume the average flows for the two directions supported could be summed, not all street segments served both directions (e.g. unidirectional routes). Summing the flows of both directions would have overweighted street segments providing bi‐directional service. To resolve this issue, the larger of the two flows was used to score each street segment. For example, if the eastbound direction of an east‐west street segment had higher flow than the westbound direction, then the flow of the eastbound direction was used to score the street segment.

One final issue required resolution before the street segments could be scored—in rare instances, the closest bus stop was outside the 0.25‐mile buffer distance. If this occurred, the flow was interpolated by taking the average flows of the street segments on either side of the street segment that lay outside the 0.25‐mile buffer. If the street segment outside the 0.25‐mile buffer was as the terminus of a series of street segments, then the street segment outside the 0.25‐mile buffer assumed the flow of the closest adjoining street segment.

Finally, the study segments were scored from the highest total flow to the lowest total flow.

Page 67 of 189

CRITERION 10: EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME BRT can provide travel time savings over traditional buses because of dedicated lanes, fewer stops, signal prioritized intersections, and fixed‐station boarding. For this criterion, the average speed of existing bus transit during the AM peak period was used to score each street segment. The average speed of a bus directly correlates with the travel time of a transit rider. Low average speeds, particularly during peak periods, can indicate congestion and longer travel times.

Like the EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP criterion, a more conservative buffer was used for analyzing the area around each street segment. A 0.125‐mile buffer, one city block, was selected for this criterion because existing bus speeds are considered to be street specific. All bus stops within 0.125 miles of each street segment moving in the same direction were used to provide an average speed for each individual street segment.

Speed data were provided by the CTA as a weekday average during the weekday AM peak period from October 2009 at a bus stop level (See Figure 17). Unfortunately, 3‐year speed data were unavailable at the time of this study. The data were further broken down by route and direction.

Page 68 of 189

Figure 17: Map of Bus Stops Attributed with Speed

The speed data could not be summed by route like the flow data. Instead, the minimum speed for each CTA bus stop was used as the speed to represent that bus stop. For example, if two bus routes served a CTA bus stop, the slower of the two average speeds of the routes was used for the analysis.

Each bus stop was attributed by CTA with an identification number. Although this number was not a shared identifier with the attributes of the CTA bus stop digital geospatial ESRI GIS point shapefile, it was shared with CTA flow data described in the EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP criterion. The corresponding intersection location of each bus stop was determined using the shared stop identification number.

Page 69 of 189

The speed data for each bus stop were then joined to the CTA bus stop shapefile based on the common attributes: intersection and direction served by the bus stop. Any bus stops not attributed with speed data were removed from the analysis.

Similar to the EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP criterion, each street segment area was then spatially joined to each CTA bus stop, averaging the speed for each bus stop and direction of movement within 0.125 miles of each street segment. Given the two directions for each street segment, the slower of the two speeds was used for scoring.

Speed was interpolated for segments outside the 0.125‐mile buffer by taking the average speeds of the street segments on either side of the street segment outside the 0.125‐ mile buffer. If the street segment outside the 0.125‐mile buffer was at the terminus of a series of street segments, then the street segment outside the 0.125‐mile buffer assumed the speed of the closest adjoining street segment.

The study segments were then ranked from the fastest average speed to the slowest average speed.

Page 70 of 189

CRITERION 11: INFILL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL In 1997, a report to the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), The Effect of CTA and Metra Stations on Residential Property Values, found a relationship between property values and the distance to CTA ‘L’ and Metra stations.ix The study’s authors found a 25.80% price difference between houses within 500 feet of a station and houses 5,000 feet away from the station. As distance from the station increased, the housing value decreased. The results of this study have appeared in the 2009 report, Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment, a study prepared for the American Public Transportation Association, and the 2004 report, Transit‐Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects (TRCP Report 102).x,xi

The Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment report defines the property value benefit as follows: “the increase in property values near a public transportation station essentially represents a capitalization of the access cost savings and travel time savings associated with those locations.” In the Chicago region, time cost of congestion is continuing to rise as congestion increases; therefore, there is additional benefit for residences and businesses to be located in proximity to public transit.

The discussion in Chapter 6 of the Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide (TCRP Report 118) agreed that positive impact on land value was likely. More important than the assumption that positive impact on land value will take place, was the assumption that the BRT system would be developed in conjunction with transit oriented development principles. The BRT system combined with transit‐oriented development around the station areas will yield positive land value impacts.xii

It was not the intent of this study to determine what property value benefits would result from the implementation of a BRT system. As indicated by TRCP Report 118, accompanying land use policies will help influence development along any potential routes. The purpose of this criterion was to identify the infill redevelopment potential around each street segment.

In 2008, CMAP released its Infill Regional Snapshot Report. xiii The report was part of CMAP’s GO TO 2040 long‐range planning effort. The purpose of the report was to identify parcels in the Chicago region that were ideal for infill redevelopment. CMAP identified two types of land that were suitable for infill redevelopment: 1) vacant parcels and 2) underutilized properties.

Page 71 of 189

CMAP identified vacant properties by using 2007 tax assessor data (including Cook County, Illinois in which this study’s focus area lies) and exempt, but vacant city‐owned‐ properties data provided by the city of Chicago.

CMAP identified underutilized properties by using the improvement to land value ratio (I/L ratio). A property’s potential for redevelopment is based on its failure to exceed I/L ratio thresholds. These thresholds, established by CMAP, can be found in Table 13. For example, a multifamily property that does not exceed an I/L ratio of 1.5 has the potential for redevelopment.

Table 13: CMAP I/L Ratio Thresholds by Land Use Type

Land Use Type I/L Ratio Cutoff

Single‐Family 1.0

Multifamily 1.5

Mixed Commercial/Residential Parcels 1.5

Commercial 0.5

Industrial 0.5

CMAP provided the data results of its Infill Regional Snapshot report for this study (i.e. which parcels had potential for infill redevelopment). Although CMAP’s data were from 2007, they were consistent with other data used for this analysis. The concern that the infill potential of parcels identified in that study had dramatically changed from 2007 to 2010 was valid. It was argued that the economic recession from 2007 to the writing of this study maintained much of the infill potential.

CMAP’s data included vacant properties identified by the Cook County Assessor’s Office, but were unable to provide a list of exempt and vacant city‐owned parcels. These data were obtained from City of Chicago Department of Community Development and were up to date as of 2010.

CMAP provided its data as centroids of Cook County parcels that were identified as having infill development potential (not satisfying the thresholds of Table 13). The metric for this criterion was expressed as land area; however, CMAP’s data did not include this information. To ameliorate this issue, CMAP’s data were joined to a separate digital geospatial ESRI GIS polygon shapefile expressing each parcel in Cook County based on shared property PIN

Page 72 of 189

numbers. The 2007 Cook County parcel polygon shapefile was provided by the Cook County Assessor’s Office. Cook County’s parcel polygon shapefile was already coded with the land area of each parcel.

A database of exempt and vacant city‐owned properties was provided by the City of Chicago Department of Community Development. Similar to the data provided by CMAP, this database was joined to Cook County’s parcel polygon shapefile based on each parcels unique PIN number. The final result of this procedure was a polygon shapefile that included CMAP’s list of infill development parcels, the City of Chicago Department of Community Development’s list of vacant parcels, and the area of each parcel. The polygon shapefile was converted to centroids using ESRI’s ArcGIS polygons to points tool.

Next, the street segment area was spatially joined to the parcel centroid shapefile, summing for the area of each potential property in square feet. The Effect of CTA and Metra Stations on Residential Property Values study identified 5,000 feet as the extent of the land value benefit of CTA ‘L’ and Metra stations. It was decided that this study would use a more conservative 0.5‐mile buffer to remain consistent with the size of the street segment areas.

Unfortunately, no assumption could be made on any BRT‐induced redevelopment benefit. If BRT produces a benefit, some parcels that were previously stable, would shift to the infill potential category (i.e. holding improvement value constant, the increased land value would lower the I/L ratio, potentially past a threshold level). Once studies on the land value impact of BRT become more available and robust, that step can be included in this criterion.

This metric only quantified existing infill potential for each of the street segments. The assumption of increased land value resulting from the proximity to BRT service was not intended to reveal any new infill potential, but to give greater rationale for developing the existing infill potential. This metric was scored by the highest number of infill parcels to the lowest number of infill parcels intersecting a study segment area.

Page 73 of 189

CRITERION 12: POPULATION This criterion measured the number residents living in walking distance of a street segment. BRT has the potential to benefit all residents within a study segment area. It would be erroneous to assume that all residents living within walking distance of a BRT line would use the system, but there is potential for some portion of those residents to use the line.

Population data were obtained from the 2008 EASI Demographic estimates and expressed at the 2000 Census block group level. The 2000 Census block group digital geospatial ESRI GIS points (as centroids) came from the U.S. Census Bureau. EASI’s population data were joined to the 2000 Census block group centroids by the shared block group number attribute.

Next, each street segment area was spatially joined to the Census block group centroids, summing for the number of people by block group that were within walking distance of each street segment. Finally, the study routes were scored using the percent rank method. The street segments areas having the highest population received the highest scores.

Page 74 of 189

CRITERION 13: POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL Population not within 0.5 miles of Rail was defined as population not currently within walking distance of a CTA ‘L’ station or commuter rail station. The metric was assessed by summing the population for each street segment who resided outside the 0.5‐mile service areas of the existing fixed guideway transit services.

Population data were obtained from the 2008 EASI Demographic estimates and expressed at the 2000 Census block group level. The 2000 Census block group digital geospatial ESRI GIS points (as centroids) came from the U.S. Census Bureau. EASI’s population data were joined to the 2000 Census block group centroids by the shared block group number attribute.

Following that step, 0.5‐mile buffers were placed around all CTA ‘L’ and commuter rail stations. CTA ‘L’ and commuter rail station were expressed as digital geospatial ESRI GIS points, which were provided by the CTA and Metra, respectively. All block group centroids that fell within 0.5 miles of commuter rail and CTA ‘L’ stations were deleted. The distribution of block group centroids not served by rail can are shown in Figure 18.

The remaining centroids represented Census block groups and populations outside the established walking distance to rail. Next, each street segment area was spatially joined to the remaining Census block group centroids, summing for the number of people by block group that were within walking distance of each street segment.

Like the POPULATION criterion, the study routes were scored using the percent rank method. The street segments areas having the highest population received the highest scores.

Page 75 of 189

Figure 18: Map of U.S. Census Block Groups Not Served by Rail

Page 76 of 189

CRITERION 14: TRANSPORTATION COSTS The purpose of this criterion was to score street segments on transportation costs. BRT has the potential to reduce household transportation costs by providing an alternative mode of transit with potentially faster travel times.

Household transportation costs data come from the Housing and Transportation Affordability Index (H+T Index), developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and the Center for Transportation Oriented Development in 2006. As defined by CNT:

The Housing + Transportation Affordability Index is an innovative tool that measures the true affordability of housing by calculating the transportation costs associated with a home’s location. Planners, lenders, and most consumers traditionally measure housing affordability as 30% or less of income. The H+TSM Index, in contrast, suggests that 45% of income is a conservative estimate for combined housing and transportation expenditures, and a reasonable goal that helps insure adequate funds remain for other household necessities.xiv

The H+T Index is both housing and transportation costs as a percentage of household income. Only the transportation costs as a percentage of household income was used for this study because BRT’s primary impact would be on transportation costs.

The H+T Index data was provided by CNT at the block group level in a database format. The 2000 Census block group digital geospatial ESRI GIS points (as centroids) came from the U.S. Census Bureau. Similar to other criterion, the H+T Index data was joined to the block group centroid shapefiles based on the block group identifier, a common attribute between the database and the shapefile.

Next, the street segment area was spatially joined to block group centroids, averaging the transportation costs as a percentage of household income for each street segment area. Each street segment was then scored on the average transportation costs as a percentage of household income. The higher the average transportation costs as a percentage of household income, the higher the score of each street segment.

Page 77 of 189

OVERALL SCORING

Upon completion of the individual scoring of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria, the next step was developing an overall score for each street segment. The overall score, expressed as a percentage, was a composite of the weighted individual scores of each criterion.

The weighting of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria was a subjective but necessary step in developing the overall score of each street segment. Weighting assigned importance to a criterion relative to all other criteria. The drawback of being subjective is easily offset by the benefit of expressing qualitative public policy goals and initiatives. Ultimately, some exceptions to the scoring process were made in PHASE III to address overall functionality concerns of the system.

The entities that could undertake a transit screening analysis (i.e. non‐profits, private companies, government agencies, etc.) have different priorities and goals for a variety of reasons. The flexibility of weighting enables these entities to tailor the study to their specific needs.

This study used the Metropolitan Planning Council’s existing professional resources and 76 years of policy development, promotion, and implementation in the Chicago region to assist in appropriately weighting each criterion. A large number of weighting scenarios were tested. The final scenario was considered to have a reasonable weighting balance between the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria. Each criterion was classified by four general scoring groups – 1) access to important trip generators, 2) transit performance, 3) transit equity, and 4) infill development potential. The only purpose of the scoring groups was to ensure criteria with similar characteristics received similar weighting.

The “Access to important trip generators” scoring group included CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES, CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT, CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL CARE, CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE, CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL, EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS, and POPULATION criteria. Consideration was given to including the EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS and POPULATION criteria into a separate scoring group (i.e. given higher weights). This method added little benefit to areas of high population and employment, but did have moderately negative consequences for the other criteria; therefore, the decision to group these criteria with the “connectivity” measures was considered appropriate.

The EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP and EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME criteria represented the “transit performance” group. Given the relative importance of existing transit service to a BRT system, it was considered reasonable to give the EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP and EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME criteria among the highest weightings.

Page 78 of 189

“Transit equity” was comprised of the POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL and TRANSPORTATION COSTS criteria. It was important to emphasize the ability of a BRT system to provide service to areas that did not have existing rail transit service and areas that have high transportation cost as a percentage of household income. A BRT system can help reduce these pockets of underinvestment in the existing transit network. The POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL and TRANSPORTATION COSTS criteria shared the highest scoring with the transit performance measures.

“Infill development potential” was represented only by its namesake criterion because it could not be reasonably categorized into the other scoring groups. The “infill development potential” scoring group made up 3.00% of the overall score of each street segment. Higher weighting of the INFILL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL criterion will be contingent on data collected from the effects of the Chicago regions first BRT route. Existing research on the effect of BRT on property values was limited and arguably not applicable to the Chicago region.

The remaining 97.00% of the overall score of the street segments was divided between the three remaining scoring groups (i.e. each group received 32.33% of the score. Within each scoring group, criteria were weighted equally. The individual weight for each criterion is summarized in Table 14.

Table 14: Individual Weights of Each Criterion

Criterion Weight (%)

1) Connectivity to Community Services 3.59

2) Connectivity to Educational Institutions 3.59

3) Connectivity to Entertainment 3.59

4) Connectivity to Food Stores 3.59

5) Connectivity to Major Medical Care 3.59

6) Connectivity to Major Open Space 3.59

7) Connectivity to Retail 3.59

8) Employment/Job Access 3.59

9) Existing Transit Ridership 16.17

Page 79 of 189

Criterion Weight (%)

10) Existing Transit Travel Time 16.17

11) Infill Development Potential 3.00

12) Population 3.59

13) Population not within 0.5 miles of Rail 16.17

14) Transportation Costs 16.17

After completing the overall score of each street segment, the street segments were divided into “weak scoring” and “strong scoring” categories. For this study, the division between “weak scoring” and “strong scoring” was the median value of the overall score. Establishing the scoring division is a qualitative judgment generally dependent on the number of street segments passing the constructability phase and how many routes are desired for PHASE III.

All street segments in the “weak scoring” category were removed from the analysis unless those street segments were flanked by an equal length of “strong scoring routes.” The remaining routes were passed into PHASE III.

Page 80 of 189

PHASE III: ROUTE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the ROUTE ANALYSIS was to reduce the number of routes under consideration and reinforce the preference for the best possible routes for BRT. The ROUTE ANALYSIS was divided into three parts. PART 1, TRANSIT REDUNDANCY, removed routes that replicated existing rail transit service. PART 2, NETWORK INTEGRATION, removed routes that did not have the potential to make connections to existing fixed guideway transit. PART 3, ROUTE REVISION, reintroduced corridors into the study that had benefits not captured by the previous stages of the study.

PART 1: TRANSIT REDUNDANCY The purpose of this section was to remove potential BRT routes that replicate existing rail transit service. For example, a BRT route aligned on Milwaukee Avenue (from Diversey Avenue southeast to Lake Street) would be duplicating the CTA ‘L’ Blue Line service. The POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL criterion penalized segments that were already well served by rail; however, it was possible based on the performance of the other LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria that these routes could have passed the SEGMENT ANALYSIs. Any route that replicated existing service was removed from the analysis.

PART 2: NETWORK INTEGRATION Ensuring BRT connected to the rail transit system greatly improves both the mobility of future BRT users and existing transit users. NETWORK INTEGRATION removed any route that did not connect to existing rail transit. If the methodology of this study is used to identify additional BRT routes in the future, connectivity to existing BRT routes should also be included.

CTA ‘L’ and commuter rail station GIS files (as station centroids) were provided by the CTA and Metra, respectively. The commuter rail GIS files included the 35th Street Metra Station on the Rock Island Line, which was under construction as of the writing of this study. Station centroids did not accurately represent access to stations. Station entrance files for CTA ‘L’ and commuter rail were not available at the writing of this study. Instead a 660 foot (one Chicago block and 0.125‐mile) buffer was placed around station centroids to represent station areas. The 660 foot area was assumed to be a reasonable distance for encompassing station entrances.

To be considered connected with existing transit, the BRT routes had to come within 330 feet (a standard city half block) of a CTA ‘L’ or commuter rail station area. The 330 foot buffer was considered to be a reasonable uncontrolled transfer distance between two fixed guideway transit lines.

Page 81 of 189

PART 3: ROUTE REVISION The purpose of this section was to reintroduce or modify potential BRT routes based on factors not captured by the other phases and parts of the study. The assessment of reintroducing or modifying routes was a qualitative approach driven by increasing transit connectivity to existing transit and to the first phase of BRT routes recommended by this report. Specific rationale behind the inclusion or exclusion of specific routes is described more fully in the RESULTS section. The routes passing this part of PHASE III were recommended to be considered for further analysis outside this study and in PHASE IV, the final phase of the analysis.

Page 82 of 189

Phase IV: Travel Demand Analysis The purpose of this phase was to examine the potential transit impact of the proposed BRT system. This phase did not alter the selection of BRT routes finalized at the end of PHASE III.

The potential BRT routes were modeled using CMAP’s “trip‐based” travel demand model. CMAP’s travel demand model was stored and manipulated using INRO’s Emme 3 forecasting software. The assumptions used in the model, but not the methodology behind the model (i.e. CMAP’s manipulation of input data provided by the authors of this study) will be discussed in this section.

MODELING OUTPUTS

CMAP modeling outputs included person trips, transit trips, transit mode shift, vehicle impacts, trip time frequencies, and comparative route performance. Comparative route performance included daily boardings, daily passenger miles, boardings per mile, and daily passenger hours for each of the potential BRT routes identified in PHASE III. Daily boardings, daily passenger miles, boardings per mile, and daily passenger hours were expressed as indices, not as absolute numbers. CMAP calculated each index by dividing the individual line performance by the average value of all lines.

CMAP provided modeling outputs for three scenarios – a no build scenario, a reduced local bus scenario, and an eliminated local bus scenario. The reduced local bus scenario was expressed as a 50% reduction in local bus service and was calculated by doubling the headways of the local bus. For both the reduced local bus scenario and the eliminated local bus scenario, two lanes (one in each direction) of existing travel lanes were removed for use as BRT only lanes.

MODELING INPUTS

CMAP’s model relies on four main inputs – behavioral data, socioeconomic data, roadway data, and transit service data. The most recent behavioral data comes from CMAP’s Travel Tracker Survey. The Travel Tracker Survey was a travel and activity survey conducted between January 2007 and February 2008 with the involvement of 10,552 households in the Northeastern Illinois region.

Like behavioral data, socioeconomic data are developed internally by CMAP for present and future years. The socioeconomic data contain information such as households, income, number of workers, and other similar variables.

Page 83 of 189

Roadway data include physical and operational attributes to the roadways of Northeastern Illinois. These include data such as the number of lanes, lane width, signal interconnect, tolls, and many others. For roadways hosting the BRT system, the number of lanes was reduced by two to reflect the addition of a BRT‐only lane in each direction.

Transit data attributes include information such as speed, stopping patterns, and headways. The transit attributes needed to be altered to reflect the addition of a BRT system to the 2010 transit network.

Assumptions on the average speed and headway of the BRT system were also derived from TRCP Report 90 and TRCP Report 118. Average speed was assumed to be 15 mph, accounting for a 30‐second dwell time at each stop. The 15 mph assumption was considered to be a conservative estimate of BRT performance. The headway was set at 5 minutes based on a preference for high performance of the system during the peak period.

The BRT stopping pattern was based on spacing recommendations from TRCP Report 90 and TRCP Report 118. Stops were established approximately every 0.5 mile, generally stopping at the major arterials in Chicago. Stops were also established at every potential CTA ‘L’ and commuter rail transit station regardless of whether this created a stopping frequency of less than 0.5 mile. Stopping patterns based on the results of PHASE III can be found in Appendix V. A summary of the service assumptions can be found in Table 15.

Table 15: Service Assumptions for Travel Demand Modeling

Service Factor Assumptions

Average Speed 15 mph for 30‐second dwell time

Headway 5 minutes during the peak period

Station Spacing ≈2 stations per mile

Sources: TRCP Report 90 ‐ Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines (2003) and TRCP Report 118 ‐ Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide (2007)

Like the existing ridership flow and average bus speed metrics used in PHASE II, the CMAP model used the AM peak period for its modeling timeframe. Due to time and staffing constraints, the results of the modeling were determined for current conditions only. There

Page 84 of 189

were no projections of how the BRT system would perform in the future (e.g. after the system built up ridership).

Altering existing local bus service can have an important impact on automobile flow and BRT ridership. In addition to a no‐build scenario, two local bus service scenarios were tested for this study: 1) no local bus service overlap with BRT and 2) 50% reduction in local bus service. The 50% reduction was expressed by doubling local bus service headways.

Transit links were established between the BRT system and CTA rail and Metra rail stations where applicable. Additional links were not established between the BRT system and the local bus network. Connections to the local bus network only occurred where BRT stations and the local bus system overlapped.

Finally, two additional assumptions were needed to provide trip time frequencies. First, automobile non‐work trips were modeled during the mid‐day period. Automobile work trips, transit work trips, and transit non‐work trips were still modeled during the AM peak period. Lastly, CMAP assumed that trips within a zone were 50% of the travel time to the next closest zone.

Page 85 of 189

Results

PHASE I: PRELIMINARY ROUTE SCREENING

PART I: ELIMINATION The Lake Shore Drive segments were removed from 14 routes. These routes are listed in Table 16.

Table 16: Type 1 Exclusions – Routes with Lake Shore Drive Segments Removed

Route # Route Name Route # Route Name

2 Hyde Park Express 143 Stockton/Michigan Express

6 Jackson Park Express 144 Marine/Michigan Express

14 Jeffery Express 145 Wilson/Michigan Express

26 South Shore Express 146 Inner Drive/Michigan Express

134 Stockton/LaSalle Express 147 Outer Drive Express

135 Clarendon/LaSalle Express 148 Clarendon/Michigan Express

136 Sheridan/LaSalle Express X28 Stony Island Express

There were 41 routes eliminated from Part 1. Of the total number of eliminated routes, 10 were circulators (see Table 17: Type 2 Exclusions – Circulators), 22 were special routes (see Table 18: Type 3 Exclusions – Special Routes), and 9 were discontinued routes (See Table 19: Type 4 Exclusions – Discontinued Routes (Prior to 2009).

Table 17: Type 2 Exclusions – Downtown Circulators

Route # Route Name Route # Route Name

33 Magnificent Mile Express 124 Navy Pier Express

120 NW/Wacker Express 125 Water Tower Express

Page 86 of 189

121 Union/Wacker Express 127 Madison/Roosevelt Circulator

122 Illinois Center/NW Express 129 West Loop/South Loop

123 Illinois Center/Union Express 157 Streeterville

Table 18: Type 3 Exclusions ‐ Special Routes

Route # Route Name Route # Route Name

5 South Shore Night Bus 169 69th/UPS Express

10 Museum of Science and Industry 170 University of Chicago – Midway

17 Westchester 171 University of Chicago – Hyde Park

19 United Center Express 172 University of Chicago – Kenwood

64 Foster/Canfield 173 University of Chicago – Lake View Express

69 Cumberland/East River 174 University of Chicago – Garfield

128 Soldier Field Express 192 University of Chicago Hospitals Express

130 Grant Park Treasures 200 Main Shuttle

132 Goose Island Express 206 Evanston Circulator

154 Wrigley field Express 290 Touhy Supplement

168 UIC/Pilsen Express X98 Avon Express

Page 87 of 189

Table 19: Type 4 Exclusions ‐ Discontinued Routes (Prior to October 2009)

Route # Route Name Route # Route Name

27 South Deering 203 Ridge/Grant

25W Cermak 204 Dodge

37 Sedgwick X21 Cermak Express

38 Ogden/Taylor X99 Chicago Manufacturing Campus Express

202 Main‐Emerson

Page 88 of 189

PART II: ROUTE CONSOLIDATION Of the remaining 112 routes, two pairs of routes were consolidated. The two pairs, 55N 55th/Narragansett & 55th/Austin, and 63W West 63rd & 165 West 65th were local routes with similar alignments. Historically, CTA evaluated those pairs together under the 55N 55th/Narragansett and 63W West 63rd spatial alignments. That data analysis standard was used for this study. See Table 20: Consolidated Routes, below, for more information.

Table 20: Consolidated Routes

Route Route # Route Name

1 55N 55th/Narragansett

55A 55th/Austin

2 63W West 63rd

165 West 65th

There were 120 routes that passed PHASE I. The complete list of routes passing that Phase I can be found in Table 21.

Table 21: Phase I Passing Routes

Route # Route Name Route # Route Name

1 Indiana/Hyde Park 63 63rd Street

2 Hyde Park Express* 63W West 63rd

3 King Dr 65 Grand

X3 King Dr Express 66 Chicago

4 Cottage Grove 67 67th/69th/71st

X4 Cottage Grove Express 68 Northwest Hwy

6 Jackson Park Express* 70 Division

7 Harrison 71 71st

Page 89 of 189

Route # Route Name Route # Route Name

8 Halsted 72 North

8A South Halsted 73 Armitage

9 Ashland 74 Fullerton

X9 Ashland Express 75 74th/75th

11 Lincoln 76 Diversey

12 Roosevelt 77 Belmont

14 Jeffrey Express* 78 Montrose

15 Jeffrey Local 79 79th

18 16th/18th 80 Irving Park

20 Madison X80 Irving Park Express

X20 Washington/Madison Express 81 Lawrence

21 Cermak 81W West Lawrence

22 Clark 82 Kimball/Homan

24 Wentworth 84 Peterson

26 South Shore Express* 85 Central

28 Stony Island 85A North Central

X28 Stony Island Express* 86 Narragansett/Ridgeland

29 State 87 87th

30 South Chicago 88 Higgins

34 South Michigan 90 Harlem

35 35th 90N North Harlem

36 Broadway 91 Austin

39 Pershing 92 Foster

43 43rd 93 North California

Page 90 of 189

Route # Route Name Route # Route Name

44 Wallace/Racine 94 South California

47 47th 95E 93rd/95th

48 South Damen 95W 95th

49 Western 96 Lunt

X49 Western Express 97 Skokie

49A South Western 100 Jeffery Manor Express

49B North Western 103 West 103rd

50 Damen 106 East 103rd

51 51st 108 Halsted/95th

52 Kedzie/California 111 Pullman/111/115

52A South Kedzie 112 Vincennes/111th

53 Pulaski 119 Michigan/119th

53A South Pulaski 126 Jackson

53AL South Pulaski Limited 134 Stockton/LaSalle Express*

54 Cicero 135 Clarendon/LaSalle Express*

X54 Cicero Express 136 Sheridan/LaSalle Express*

54A North Cicero/Skokie Blvd 143 Stockton/Michigan Express*

54B South Cicero 144 Marine/Michigan Express*

55 Garfield 145 Wilson/Michigan Express*

X55 Garfield Express 146 Inner Drive/Michigan Express*

55N 55th/Narragansett 147 Outer Drive Express*

56 Milwaukee 148 Clarendon/Michigan Express*

56A North Milwaukee 151 Sheridan

57 Laramie 152 Addison

Page 91 of 189

Route # Route Name Route # Route Name

59 59th/61st 155 Devon

60 Blue Island/26th 156 LaSalle

62 Archer 201 Central/Sherman

62H Archer/Harlem 205 Chicago / Golf

*Non‐Lake Shore Drive Segments Only

Page 92 of 189

PHASE II: SEGMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

The routes passing PHASE I were converted into 11,891 street segments used in the various parts of the SEGMENT ANALYSIS. A map of the street segments is shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Maps of Phase II Initial Street Segments

Page 93 of 189

PART 1: ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS There were 3,755 street segments that satisfied the 86‐foot minimum or exception. See Figure 20.

Figure 20: Map of Streets Segments Satisfying 86‐foot Minimum or Exception

There were 2,152 street segments and 24 series of street segments that satisfied the 3‐mile length minimum. See Figure 21.

Page 94 of 189

Figure 21: Map of Series of Street Segments Satisfying 3‐Mile Length Minimum

There were 2,084 street segments and 23 series of street segments that satisfied the station requirements. These street segments were used in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS. See Figure 22.

Page 95 of 189

Figure 22: Map of Street Segments Satisfying Station Requirements

PART 2: LIVABILITY ANALYSIS

The results of each of the 14 LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criterion are included in the subsequent sections. Note that these results were not illustrative of existing system performance. The score of each street segment was relative only to those street segments passing PHASE I and the ROW CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS.

Page 96 of 189

CRITERION 1: CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES

The results of the CONNECTIVITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES criterion are shown in Figure 23. Street segments with the highest number of community services within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 23: Map of Connectivity to Community Services Scoring

Page 97 of 189

CRITERION 2: CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

The results of the CONNECTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS criterion are shown in Figure 24. Street segments with the highest number of educational institutions within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 24: Map of Connectivity to Educational Institutions Scoring

Page 98 of 189

CRITERION 3: CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT

The results of the CONNECTIVITY TO ENTERTAINMENT criterion are shown in Figure 25. Street segments with the highest number of entertainment venues within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 25: Map of Connectivity to Entertainment Scoring

Page 99 of 189

CRITERION 4: CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES

The results of the CONNECTIVITY TO FOOD STORES criterion are shown in Figure 26. Street segments with the highest number of food stores within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 26: Map of Connectivity to Food Stores Scoring

Page 100 of 189

CRITERION 5: CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL CARE

The results of the CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL CARE criterion are shown in Figure 27. Street segments with the highest number of major medical facilities within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 27: Map of Connectivity to Major Medical Care Scoring

Page 101 of 189

CRITERION 6: CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE

The results of the CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR OPEN SPACE criterion are shown in Figure 28. Street segments with the highest number of major open spaces within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 28: Map of Connectivity to Major Open Space

Page 102 of 189

CRITERION 7: CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL

The results of the CONNECTIVITY TO RETAIL criterion are shown in Figure 29. Street segments with the highest number of retail stores within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 29: Map of Connectivity to Retail Scoring

Page 103 of 189

CRITERION 8: EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS

The results of the EMPLOYMENT/JOB ACCESS criterion are shown in Figure 30. Street segments with the highest number of employees within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 30: Map of Employment/Job Access Scoring

Page 104 of 189

CRITERION 9: EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP

The results of the EXISTING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP criterion are shown in Figure 31. Street segments with the highest existing bus ridership flow within 0.25 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 31: Map of Existing Transit Ridership Scoring

Page 105 of 189

CRITERION 10: EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME

The results of the EXISTING TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME criterion are shown in Figure 32. Street segments with the slowest existing bus travel speed within 0.125 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 32: Map of Existing Transit Travel Time Scoring

Page 106 of 189

CRITERION 11: INFILL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

The results of the INFILL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL criterion are shown in Figure 33. Street segments with the largest area of potential infill development within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 33: Map of Infill Development Potential Scoring

Page 107 of 189

CRITERION 12: POPULATION

The results of the POPULATION criterion are shown in Figure 34. Street segments with the highest population within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 34: Map of Population Scoring

Page 108 of 189

CRITERION 13: POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL

The results of the POPULATION NOT WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF RAIL criterion are shown in Figure 35, below. Street segments with the highest Population not within 0.5 miles of Rail within 0.25 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 35: Map of Population not within 0.5 miles of Rail Scoring

Page 109 of 189

CRITERION 14: TRANSPORTATION COSTS

The results of the TRANSPORTATION COSTS criterion are found in Figure 36. Street segments with the highest average transportation costs as a percentage of household income within 0.5 miles received the highest scores.

Figure 36: Map of Transportation Costs Scoring

Page 110 of 189

OVERALL SCORING

The results of the overall score of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS for each criterion are shown in Figure 37. Street segments below the median score were “weak scoring.” Street segments above the median score were “strong scoring.”

Figure 37: Map of Phase II Livability Analysis Overall Scoring

The 10 routes that passed PHASE II are shown in Table 22 and Figure 38.

Page 111 of 189

Table 22: Routes Passing Phase II

# Street Name(s) Orientation From (North or West) To (South or East)

1 Ashland Ave. North‐South W. Irving Park Rd. W. 74th St.

2 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. North‐South E. McCormick Sq. E. 51st St.

3 Fullerton Ave. East‐West N. Normandy Ave. N. Western Ave.

4 Halsted St. North‐South W. 94th St. W. Vermont Ave.

5 Irving Park Rd. East‐West N. Austin Ave. N. Ashland Ave.

6 North Ave. East‐West N. Meade Ave. N. Western Ave.

7 Peterson Ave. East‐West N. Karlov Ave. N. Ridge Ave.

8 Pulaski Rd. and Crawford Ave. North‐South I‐55 W. 99th St.

9 Stony Island Ave. North‐South E. 65th St. E. 103rd St.

10 Western Ave. North‐South Howard St. W. 99th St.

Page 112 of 189

Figure 38: Map of Routes Passing Phase II

PHASE III: ROUTE ANALYSIS RESULTS

PART 1: TRANSIT REDUNDANCY There were no routes that duplicated existing transit service. All potential routes had been removed in previous stages of the study.

Page 113 of 189

PART 2: NETWORK INTEGRATION Two potential routes were removed in this section of the study – North Avenue and Peterson Avenue. These routes did not make connections to existing transit. The remaining routes are shown in Figure 39.

Figure 39: Map of Routes Passing Network Integration

PART 3: ROUTE REVISION

In this part of PHASE III, seven routes were reintroduced or altered from their previous alignments – Fullerton, Garfield, 95th, Cicero, Ashland, Halsted, and Martin Luther King/Cottage Grove/South Chicago/Stony Island (herein King/Stony Island). A description of the changes is included

Page 114 of 189

below. These routes were joined by Western, Irving Park, and Pulaski/Crawford, which did not change from the first two parts of PHASE III.

The Fullerton/Grand route, which had previously terminated at N. Normandy Avenue, was extended approximately 1.25 miles west to N. 75th Ct. in Elmwood Park, IL. The extension provided connectivity to the Elmwood Park Metra Station, which is served by the Metra Milwaukee West commuter rail line. The extended section had not been included in the earlier phases of the study because it was outside of the CTA’s service area.

The street segments comprising the Garfield route had been removed in Phase II because the series of street segments were just short of the 3‐mile length minimum. Garfield Avenue was reintroduced from S. Western Avenue east to S. Cottage Grove Avenue. At S. Martin Luther King Drive and Garfield Avenue (Washington Park), the Garfield route merges into Morgan Drive. Eastbound movements would continue down Morgan Drive, turning onto E. 57th Street, which intersects S. Cottage Grove Avenue. Westbound movements, starting from S. Cottage Grove Avenue, would travel west on Rainey Drive until merging with Morgan Drive.

The reintroduction of Garfield Avenue as a route had several advantages. First, the Garfield route connects the Garfield station of the Red and Green CTA ‘L’ lines. Second, the route provides access to Washington Park (a major open space), the University of Chicago (an educational institution), and the University of Chicago Medical Center (a major medical care facility). These connections exemplify the intent of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria. Finally, the Garfield Avenue route could connect to the Western, Ashland, and King/Stony Island potential BRT routes.

The street segments comprising the 95th route had several strong pockets surrounded by poorly performing segments relative to the other segments analyzed in PHASE II. Regardless of these drawbacks, the 95th route had strong strategic importance for a potential BRT network. The 95th route runs from S. Cicero Avenue in Oak Lawn east to S. Jeffery Avenue in Chicago. The alignment between S. Cicero Avenue and S. Kedzie Avenue was not previously included in the analysis because it was outside the CTA’s service area, but it does meet all the constructability requirements.

This potential alignment would enable the 95th route to connect six potential BRT routes – Cicero, Pulaski/Crawford, Western, Ashland, Halsted, and King/Stony Island. Four existing transit lines would also be linked with the 95th route alignment – Metra Rock Island Branch, Metra Rock Island Main, Metra Electric, and the CTA ‘L’ Red Line. Given this potential connectivity, a potential route on 95th Street warranted study in PHASE IV.

The Cicero route was reintroduced into the study to provide connectivity to Midway Airport and connect the western most termini of the Pink and Orange CTA ‘L’ lines. The segments comprising the Cicero Avenue route had previously terminated at W. 31st Street because of constructability reasons. To accommodate the connection to the CTA ‘L’ Pink line, it was necessary to extend the Cicero Avenue route north to W. 21st Place in Cicero through street segments that did not satisfy the constructability requirements. It would be possible to build dedicated lanes along these stretches if other elements are

Page 115 of 189

removed. The loss of parking or bike elements north of W. 31st Street on Cicero Avenue was considered a reasonable trade off to accommodate the connectivity to the CTA ‘L’ Pink Line.

The Cicero route was also extended south from W. 79th Street to W. 95th Street in Oak Lawn. The purpose of this extension was to provide connection to five potential BRT routes and four existing transit stations (three Metra and one CTA ‘L’ station) via the potential 95th route. Cicero Avenue south of W. 79th Street was not previously considered in the analysis because it was outside the CTA’s existing service area. This section of Cicero Avenue met all the constructability requirements.

The Ashland route previously terminated at W. 74th Street. Like the Cicero Avenue route, the Ashland route was extended south to W. 95th Street to provide connection to five potential BRT routes and four existing transit station via the potential 95th route.

The Halsted route was extended north from W. 94th Street to the Metra Gresham Station at S. Vincennes Avenue, which serves the Metra Rock Island commuter line. The Halsted route also would connect to the potential 95th route. The section of Halsted Street between W. 94th Street and Vincennes Avenue had not passed the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS in PHASE II, but this drawback was outweighed by the benefit of better transit connectivity.

The King/Stony Island route was a combination of routes that did and did not pass the previous phases and parts of the study. As with the other modifications, the purpose of these reintroductions and modifications was to maximize transit connectivity and the functionality of the potential BRT system. The King/Stony Island route provides access to the McCormick Place Convention Center, Washington Park, and the University of Chicago. The route also provides transit connectivity to the CTA ‘L’ Red and Green lines and the Metra electric line in two locations.

The route begins at the Cermak‐Chinatown CTA ‘L’ Red Line station on W. Cermak Road. The route then heads east where it merges with S. Martin Luther King Drive at the McCormick Place Convention Center. Here the route turns south where it follows the alignment along S. Martin Luther King Drive (identified in PHASE II and the first parts of PHASE III of the study) until it intersects E. Pershing Road.

The King/Stony Island route turns onto E. Pershing Road, heading east until the route turns south again on S. Cottage Grove Avenue. The 0.5‐mile stretch of E. Pershing Road does not meet the constructability requirements identified in PHASE II; however, like S. Cicero Avenue north of W. 31st Street, other street elements could be reduced to accommodate the dedicated BRT lanes. No other alignment in this area provided suitable ROW width. E. Pershing Road was chosen over other alignments to maximize the length of street segments on S. Martin Luther King Drive and S. Cottage Grove Avenue that performed well in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS.

The route follows an alignment along S. Cottage Grove until it merges with S. South Chicago Avenue. The route travels southeast along S. South Chicago Avenue until it intersects S. Stony Island Avenue. Although S. Cottage Grove and S. South Chicago were removed in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS, those avenues were determined to provide important connectivity between S. Martin Luther King Drive and S.

Page 116 of 189

Stony Island Avenue. The route then travels south down the section of S. Stony Island Avenue in PHASE II and the first parts of PHASE III. The King/Stony Island route terminates at E. 95th Street.

The routes passing PHASE III are summarized in Table 23 and Figure 40. The metrics of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria, with the exception of passenger flow and speed along the entirety of each route, are included for comparison purposes in APPENDIX II of this study. A summary of the transit connections made by the routes passing PHASE III are shown in APPENDIX III.

Table 23: Routes Passing Phase III

# Route Street(s) Orientation From (North or To (South or Length West) East) (Miles)

1 95th St. East‐West S. Cicero Ave. S. Jeffery Ave. 8.6

Oak Lawn, IL

2 Ashland Ave. North‐South W. Irving Park Rd. W. 95th St. 16.1

3 Cicero Ave. North‐South W. 21st Pl. W. 95th St. 9.1

Cicero, IL Oak Lawn, IL

4 Fullerton Ave./Grand Ave. East‐West N. 75th Ct. N. Western Ave. 6.6

Elmwood Park, IL

5 Garfield Blvd. East‐West S. Western Ave. S. Cottage Grove 4.7 Ave.

6 Halsted Ave. North‐South S. Vincennes Ave. W. 127th St. 5.1

7 Irving Park Rd. East‐West N. Austin Ave. N. Ashland Ave. 5.6

th 8 King/Stony Island North‐South W. Cermak Rd. E. 95 St. 10.6

9 Pulaski Rd./Crawford Ave. North‐South I‐55 W. 99th St. 7.6

Evergreen Park, IL

10 Western Ave. North‐South Howard St. W. 95th St. 20.6

Page 117 of 189

Figure 40: Map of Routes Passing Phase III

Page 118 of 189

PHASE IV: TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS RESULTS CMAP staff produced six important modeling outputs for the potential BRT Routes passing PHASE III: 1) impact on total person trips, 2) impact on transit person trips, 3) impact on transit mode share, 4) impact on the roadway system, 5) trip frequency information, and 6) comparative route performance.

PERSON TRIPS

Total person trips describes travel within the Northeastern Illinois region across automobile and transit modes of travel. The modeled 2010 total person trips are shown in Table 24, Table 25, and Table 26 for the No Build Scenario, the BRT with Reduction of Local Bus Service Scenario (herein “BRT/Reduced Local Scenario”), and the BRT with Local Bus Routes Removed Scenario (herein “BRT/Removed Local Scenario”), respectively. The tables are presented in an origin/destination format. The “BRT Corridor” geographic area was comprised of traffic analysis zones adjacent to the 10 BRT routes. The Chicago Central Business District (CBD), also a geographic area provided by CMAP’s analysis, is bound by Lake Michigan on the east, Roosevelt Road on the south, Halsted Avenue on the West, and Chicago and Division avenues on the north connected via LaSalle Avenue.

There were approximately 2,423,000 daily person trips beginning and ending within the BRT Corridor modeled in the No Build Scenario. This number represents almost 10% of the approximately 24,327,000 daily person trips throughout the Chicago region. The BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios had higher results within the BRT Corridor at 2,456,000 person trips and 2,457,000 person trips, respectively.

Table 24: No Build Scenario ‐ 2010 Total Person Trips (in 1,000s of trips; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT 2,423 543 659 1,019 89 1 ‐ 31 ‐ 12 4,777 Corridor

CBD 288 68 124 34 3 ‐‐1 ‐ ‐ 518

Other 623 203 526 484 26 ‐ ‐ 18 ‐ 4 1,883 Chicago

Suburban 389 369 163 5,046 578 47 ‐ 287 11 156 7,046 Cook

DuPage 18 12 9 313 2,409 108 11 1 ‐ 81 3,052

Kane 5 49 3 115 206 1,050 35 7 55 12 1,537

Page 119 of 189

Kendall 1 12 1 1 40 85 130 ‐ ‐ 32 303

Lake 6 50 3 182 1 2 ‐ 1,998 52 ‐ 2,294

McHenry 3 42 1 54 2 46 ‐ 94 722 ‐ 963

Will 20 122 11 204 234 17 30 ‐‐ 1,317 1,954

Total 3,777 1,558 1,499 7,452 3,589 1,356 206 2,436 841 1,614 24,327

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Table 25: BRT with Reduction of Local Bus Service Scenario ‐ 2010 Total Person Trips (in 1,000s of trips; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT 2,456 542 646 997 87 1 ‐ 33 ‐ 12 4,774 Corridor

CBD 285 70 125 34 3 ‐‐1 ‐ ‐ 518

Other 608 209 538 477 25 ‐ ‐ 19 ‐ 4 1,882 Chicago

Suburban 372 366 165 5,075 581 46 ‐ 284 11 154 7,054 Cook

DuPage 18 102 9 312 2,411 107 10 1 ‐ 81 3,052

Kane 5 50 3 109 205 1,055 34 5 57 12 1,536

Kendall 1 13 1 1 40 83 132 ‐ ‐ 30 303

Lake 8 49 3 186 2 2 ‐ 1,994 50 ‐ 2,293

McHenry 5 38 2 57 2 45 ‐ 97 717 ‐ 963

Will 18 124 10 204 231 17 29 ‐‐ 1,322 1,955

Total 3,776 1,564 1,500 7,453 3,588 1,355 206 2,435 837 1,615 24,328

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Table 26: BRT with Local Bus Routes Removed Scenario ‐ Total Person Trips (in 1,000s of trips; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

Page 120 of 189

BRT Corridor 2,457 544 646 955 88 1 ‐ 31 ‐ 12 4,775

CBD 284 70 125 34 3 ‐‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 518

Other 610 209 537 477 25 ‐ ‐ 19 ‐ 4 1,881 Chicago

Suburban 369 369 164 5,078 581 45 ‐ 286 11 153 7,056 Cook

DuPage 17 103 9 312 2,411 107 10 1 ‐ 81 3,051

Kane 5 51 3 109 206 1,056 34 6 57 12 1,537

Kendall 1 13 1 1 40 83 134 ‐ ‐ 30 303

Lake 7 49 3 185 1 2 ‐ 1,995 50 ‐2,293

McHenry 5 39 2 58 2 45 ‐ 97 715 ‐ 963

Will 18 123 9 204 231 17 29 ‐ ‐ 1,324 1,955

Total 3,775 1,569 1,499 7,453 3,588 1,356 206 2,436 834 1,616 24,332

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

As shown in Table 27, the difference between the No Build Scenario and the BRT/Reduced Local Scenario for trips beginning and ending within the BRT Corridor was 33,000 person trips. This was the largest increase in person trips between the two scenarios. The increase of 33,000 person trips beginning and ending within the BRT Corridor under the BRT/Reduced Local Scenario translated to a change of 1.3% over the No Build Scenario. Percent changes between the No Build Scenario and the BRT/Reduced Local Scenario are shown in Table 28. With loses elsewhere in the region, the BRT/Reduced Local Scenario produced a net 1,000 person trips for the Northeastern Illinois Region. The largest decrease at 22,000 person trips was found in trips originating in the BRT Corridor and ending in Suburban Cook.

Table 27: No Build Scenario Versus BRT with Reduction of Local Bus Service Scenario ‐ 2010 Change in Total Person Trips (in 1,000s of trips; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT 33 (1) (13) (22) (2) ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ (3) Corridor

CBD (3) 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other (14) 6 12 (6) (1) ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ (2) Chicago

Page 121 of 189

Suburban (17) (1) 2 28 3 (1) ‐ (3) ‐ (2) 8 Cook

DuPage (1) ‐ ‐ (1) 2 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1)

Kane ‐ 2 ‐ (6) (1) 5 (1) (1) 2 ‐ ‐

Kendall ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ (2) 3 ‐ ‐ (2) ‐

Lake 1 (1) ‐ 4 ‐‐‐(4) (1) ‐ (1)

McHenry 3 (4) ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 (5) ‐ (1)

Will (2) 3 (1) ‐ (3) ‐ (2) ‐‐ 5 ‐

Total (1) 6 1 1 (1) ‐ ‐ (1) (4) 1 1

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Table 28: No Build Versus BRT with Reduction of Local Bus Service Scenario ‐ Percent Change in Total Person Trips

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT 1.3% ‐0.2% ‐2.0% ‐2.1% ‐2.1% ‐8.2% ‐14.0% 5.5% 27.0% ‐1.6% ‐0.1% Corridor

CBD ‐1.1% 2.8% 0.5% 0.0% 14.0% ‐33.3% ‐100.0% 33.7% 21.2% ‐8.1% 0.0%

Other ‐2.3% 3.0% 2.4% ‐1.3% ‐4.3% ‐19.3% ‐52.9% 6.9% 8.8% 1.0% ‐0.1% Chicago

Suburban ‐4.5% ‐0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.5% ‐2.6% 19.0% ‐1.0% 0.9% ‐1.4% 0.1% Cook

DuPage ‐3.9% 0.2% ‐2.8% ‐0.2% 0.1% ‐0.9% ‐2.7% 5.0% ‐0.5% ‐0.2% 0.0%

Kane ‐1.0% 3.6 ‐2.6% ‐5.3% ‐0.3% 0.5% ‐2.8% ‐20.0% 4.0% ‐0.9% 0.0%

Kendall 3.8% 9.1% ‐17.5% 19.0% 0.0% ‐2.3% 2.0% ‐69.2% ‐8.3% ‐5.9% 0.0%

Lake 22.7% ‐2.4% 3.2% 2.2% 3.2% ‐12.8% ‐‐0.2% ‐2.3% 0.0% 0.0%

McHenry 97.1% ‐9.9% 17.3% 5.4% 3.3% ‐0.6% 0.0% 3.4% ‐0.7% 0.0% ‐0.1%

Will ‐9.1% 2.2% ‐10.0% ‐0.1% ‐1.2% ‐1.0% ‐5.5% 10.8% ‐33.3% 0.4% 0.0%

Total 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐0.1% 0.1% ‐0.5% 0.1% 0.0%

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Page 122 of 189

The results comparing the No Build Scenario to the BRT/Removed Local Scenario were very similar to the comparison with the BRT/Reduced Local Scenario. Person trips beginning and ending within the BRT corridor increased by 33,000 person trips (1.4%) over the No Build Scenario. The Northeastern Illinois Region had an overall 4,000 person trip increase. The largest decrease between the two scenarios was 23,000 fewer person trips (‐2.4%) originating in the BRT Corridor and ending in Suburban Cook. The absolute change and percent change between the No Build Scenario and the BRT/Removed for all geographic areas can be found in Table 29 and Table 30.

Table 29: No Build Scenario Versus BRT with Local Bus Routes Removed Scenario ‐ Change in Total Person Trips (in 1,000s of trips; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 33 1 (12) (23) (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (3)

CBD (4) 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐

Other (12) 6 11 (7) (1) ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ (3) Chicago

Suburban (20) 1 2 31 3 (2) ‐ (1) ‐ (3) 11 Cook

DuPage (1) 1 ‐ (1) 2 (1) (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ (1)

Kane ‐ 2 ‐ (6) ‐ 6 (1) (1) 2 ‐‐

Kendall ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ (1) (2) 4 ‐ ‐ (2) ‐

Lake 1 (1) ‐ 3 ‐‐‐(3) (1) ‐‐

McHenry 3 (3) ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 (7) ‐ ‐

Will (2) 1 (2) ‐ (2) ‐ (2) ‐ ‐ 7 1

Total (2) 12 (1) 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (6) 1 4

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Table 30: No Build Scenario Versus BRT with Local Bus Routes Removed Scenario ‐ Percent Change in Total Person Trips

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 1.4% 0.2% ‐1.9% ‐2.4% ‐1.0% ‐6.5% 0.0% 0.4% 10.8% ‐3.2% ‐0.1%

Page 123 of 189

CBD ‐1.3% 2.7% 0.9% 0.2% 13.1% ‐45.7% ‐ 9.1% 17.5% ‐4.4% 0.0%

Other ‐2.0% 2.9% 2.1% ‐1.5% ‐2.7% ‐16.4% ‐125.0% 6.1% 4.9% ‐2.3% ‐0.1% Chicago

Suburban ‐5.4% 0.3% 1.0% 0.6% 0.5% ‐3.8% 10.9% ‐0.4% 0.4% ‐1.9% 0.2% Cook

DuPage ‐5.1% 0.8% ‐4.7% ‐0.2% 0.1% ‐0.8% ‐5.2% 2.4% 12.7% ‐0.5% 0.0%

Kane ‐3.3% 4.3% ‐2.8% ‐5.8% ‐0.1% 0.5% ‐4.0% ‐22.3% 3.0% ‐2.0% 0.0%

Kendall 2.8% 9.1% ‐47.4% 15.8% ‐1.5% ‐2.5% 2.8% 50.0% ‐9.7% ‐6.8% 0.0%

Lake 15.2% ‐1.1% 3.9% 1.8% ‐0.9% ‐14.1% 0.0% ‐0.1% ‐2.7% 0.0% 0.0%

McHenry 48.8% ‐8.5% 12.1% 6.7% 1.4% ‐0.9% 50.0% 3.7% ‐1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Will ‐10.2% 1.1% ‐17.3% ‐0.1% ‐1.1% 0.6% ‐5.9% 9.8% 100.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Total ‐0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐0.8% 0.1% 0.0%

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

TRANSIT TRIPS

There were approximately 290,000 transit trips beginning and ending in the BRT Corridor in the No Build Scenario as shown in Table 31, below. The BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios had 331,000 and 330,000 transit trips beginning and ending in the BRT Corridor, respectively. Table 32 and Table 33 show the total number of modeled transit trips for all Northeastern Illinois sub‐geographies in the BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios, respectively.

Table 31: No Build Scenario – 2010 Transit Trips (in 1,000’s of trips; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 290 304 83 65 5 ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ 752

CBD 40 32 19 3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐ ‐94

Other 63 111 80 27 1 ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 286 Chicago

Suburban 36 232 18 259 16 ‐‐ 10 1 2 574 Cook

Page 124 of 189

DuPage 4 67 2 3 108 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 186

Kane 1 36 1 1 3 42 ‐‐ ‐ ‐85

Kendall ‐ 10 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 15

Lake 2 36 1 3 ‐‐‐101 ‐ ‐ 142

McHenry 1 35 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 31 ‐ 71

Will 4 91 4 3 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44 149

Total 441 953 208 367 137 45 4 119 32 47 2,353

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Table 32: No Build Scenario Versus BRT with Reduction of Local Bus Service Scenario ‐ 2010 Transit Trips (in 1,000’s of trip; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 331 309 85 68 5 ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ 803

CBD 42 32 20 3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐ ‐98

Other 66 115 83 28 1 ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 296 Chicago

Suburban 37 231 18 262 16 ‐‐ 10 1 1 576 Cook

DuPage 3 67 2 3 108 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 186

Kane 1 37 1 1 3 42 ‐‐ ‐ ‐86

Kendall ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 16

Lake 2 34 1 3 ‐‐‐100 ‐ ‐ 140

McHenry 3 31 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 31 ‐ 70

Will 3 94 3 2 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44 150

Total 490 962 214 373 137 45 4 118 33 47 2,422

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Page 125 of 189

Table 33: BRT with Local Bus Routes Removed Scenario ‐ 2010 Transit Trips (in 1,000’s of trip; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 330 311 84 68 5 ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ 803

CBD 41 32 21 4 ‐‐‐‐ ‐ ‐98

Other 66 115 83 28 1 ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 296 Chicago

Suburban 37 233 18 261 16 ‐‐ 10 1 2 578 Cook

DuPage 3 68 2 3 109 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 187

Kane 1 38 1 1 4 42 ‐‐ ‐ ‐87

Kendall ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 16

Lake 2 35 1 3 ‐‐‐99 ‐ ‐ 141

McHenry 3 32 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 31 ‐ 70

Will 4 93 3 2 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44 149

Total 488 968 214 373 137 45 4 118 32 46 2,424

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

For transit trips beginning and ending within the BRT Corridor, the BRT/Reduced Local Scenario had an increase of 41,000 transit trips over the No Build Scenario as shown in Table 34. This equates to a 14.3% increase over the No Build Scenario as shown in Table 35. Overall transit trips in the region increased by 69,000 trips over the No Build Scenario. The largest decrease in transit trips was 4,000 trips originating in McHenry County and ending in the CBD. The total number of transit trips originating in the BRT Corridor increased by 51,000 trips (6.7%). The total number of transit trips ending in the BRT Corridor increased by 49,000 trips (11.1%).

Table 34: No Build Scenario Versus BRT with Reduction of Local Bus Service Scenario ‐ Change in 2010 Transit Trips (in 1,000’s of trip; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 41 5 2 3 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51

CBD 2 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐4

Other 3 4 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10

Page 126 of 189

Chicago

Suburban 1 (1) ‐ 2 ‐‐‐‐ ‐ ‐2 Cook

DuPage ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

Kane ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

Kendall ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

Lake ‐ (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1) ‐ ‐ (2)

McHenry 2 (4) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1)

Will ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

Total 49 9 6 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ (1) ‐ ‐ 69

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Table 35: No Build Scenario Versus BRT with Reduction of Local Bus Service Scenario ‐ Percent Change in 2010 Transit Trips

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 14.3% 1.6% 2.6% 4.3% ‐10.3% 37.8% ‐ ‐3.2% ‐6.7% 3.9% 6.7%

CBD 5.5% 2.4% 5.3% 5.5% ‐3.2% ‐85.7% ‐ 46.0% ‐100.0% 63.6% 4.4%

Other 4.4% 3.9% 3.3% 1.3% ‐23.1% ‐57.1% ‐ 6.2% ‐21.2% 8.2% 3.5% Chicago

Suburban 2.8% ‐0.5% 1.2% 0.9% ‐0.8% 8.7% ‐‐2.3% 7.8% ‐11.8% 0.4% Cook

DuPage ‐5.1% 0.1% 1.6% 0.6% 0.8% 3.2% ‐33.3% ‐ ‐ ‐4.9% 0.4%

Kane 5.8% 3.7% ‐0.8% 2.7% 5.5% ‐0.9% 10.0% 100.0% 20.0% ‐ 1.4%

Kendall 5.0% 9.4% ‐21.4% ‐16.7% ‐11.3% 1.8% 10.3% ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.8% 100.0%

Lake 29.8% ‐4.1% 0.2% 7.6% ‐100.0% ‐‐ ‐0.9% ‐8.6% ‐ ‐1.2%

McHenry 144.4% ‐ 11.4% 16.2% ‐ ‐28.6% ‐ 3.1% 0.8% ‐ ‐2.1% 10.5%

Will ‐9.6% 3.3% ‐10.3% ‐9.8% ‐7.3% ‐12.0% 0.0% ‐ ‐ ‐0.1% 1.2% 100.0%

Total 11.1% 0.9% 2.7% 1.7% ‐0.2% ‐0.7% 10.0% ‐0.9% 0.7% ‐0.5% 2.9%

Page 127 of 189

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Table 36 and Table 37 provides the absolute and relative change, respectively, between the BRT/Removed Local and No Build scenarios. There were 40,000 (13.8%) more transit trips beginning and ending within the BRT Corridor than in the No Build Scenario. Overall number of transit trips within the Northeastern Illinois region increase by 71,000 transit trips (3.0%). Similar to the BRT/Reduced Local Scenario, the largest decrease in transit trips was 3,000 trips originating in McHenry County and ending in the CBD. The total number transit trips originating in the BRT Corridor increased by 51,000 trips (6.8%). The total number of transit trips ending in the BRT Corridor increased by 47,000 trips (10.6%).

Table 36: No Build Scenario Versus BRT with Local Bus Routes Removed Scenario ‐ Change in 2010 Transit Trips (in 1,000’s of trip; “‐“ indicates less than 500 trips)

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 40 7 2 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51

CBD 2 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐4

Other 2 4 3 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 Chicago

Suburban 1 1 ‐ 2 ‐‐‐‐ ‐ ‐4 Cook

DuPage ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

Kane ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

Kendall ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

Lake ‐ (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1) ‐ ‐ (1)

McHenry 2 (3) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1)

Will ‐ 2 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐

Total 47 15 5 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ (2) ‐ ‐ 71

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Page 128 of 189

Table 37: No Build Scenario Versus BRT with Local Bus Routes Removed Scenario ‐ Percent Change in 2010 Transit Trips

BRT CBD Other Suburban DuPage Kane Kendall Lake McHenry Will Total Corridor Chicago Cook

BRT Corridor 13.8% 2.4% 2.1% 4.0% ‐5.9% 16.2% ‐ ‐6.6% 18.3% 2.0% 6.8%

CBD 4.9% 2.5% 6.% 8.7% ‐1.6% ‐ ‐ 0.0% 150.0% 72.7% 4.5% 100.0%

Other 3.9% 3.9% 3.5% 2.2% ‐31.4% ‐28.6% ‐ ‐2.5% ‐27.3% ‐24.5% 3.4% Chicago

Suburban 1.6% 0.6% 1.0% 0.8% ‐1.7% 4.9% ‐‐0.8% 5.1% ‐7.0% 0.7% Cook

DuPage ‐6.8% 0.9% ‐1.0% 3.5% 0.9% 0.4% ‐57.1% ‐ ‐ ‐1.3% 0.8%

Kane 5.4% 4.5% 4.4% ‐4.7% 8.7% ‐0.7% 10.0% ‐33.3% ‐80.0% ‐ 2.0%

Kendall 6.9% 10.7% ‐52.4% 33.3% ‐4.1% ‐8.1% 11.7% ‐ ‐ 0.0% 7.6%

Lake 30.0% ‐2.2% 9.9% 5.6% ‐40.0% ‐‐ ‐1.1% 2.2% ‐‐0.8%

McHenry 147.3% ‐7.8% 14.0% 20.8% ‐ ‐28.6% ‐ 3.3% ‐1.0% ‐ ‐1.4%

Will ‐8.7% 1.7% ‐20.0% ‐3.3% ‐4.0% 12.0% 0.0% ‐ ‐ ‐0.6% 0.0% 100.0%

Total 10.6% 1.6% 2.4% 1.7% 0.1% ‐0.7% 11.2% ‐1.3% ‐0.8% ‐0.9% 3.0%

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

TRANSIT MODE SHARE

CMAP did not differentiate between the BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios when comparing transit mode share because of similar results. Transit mode share increased from 12.0% to 13.5% for trips beginning and ending within the BRT Corridor. Transit mode share increased from 14.7% to 15.8% for trips that either began or ended within the BRT Corridor. Finally, CMAP found an increase from 9.7% to 10.0% in regional transit mode share.

VEHICLE IMPACTS

Like mode share, CMAP did not differentiate between the BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios when comparing vehicle impacts. Vehicles miles traveled within the BRT Corridor decreased by 468 miles, a 2% decreased. Congested vehicle miles traveled increased by 953 miles, a 16% increase. Vehicle hours traveled within the BRT Corridor also increased by 62 hours, a 4% increase. Average vehicle speed within the BRT Corridor decreased

Page 129 of 189

by 1 mph to 16 mph. The summary of vehicle impacts within the BRT Corridor is shown in Table 38.

Table 38: Vehicle Impacts in Corridor

Vehicle Miles Congested Percent Vehicle Average Traveled Vehicle Miles Congested Hours Vehicle Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled Speed (mph) Traveled No‐Build 26,891 5,924 22% 1,575 17 BRT 26,423 6,877 26% 1,637 16 Change (468) 953 62 (1) %Change ‐2% 16% 4%

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

Vehicle miles traveled within the Northeastern Illinois region increased by 1,117 miles, a 0.5% increase. Congested vehicle miles traveled increased by 67 miles, a 0.4% increase. Vehicle hours traveled also increased by 41 hours, a 0.5% increase. Average vehicle speed remained constant at 31 mph. A summary of regional vehicle impacts is shown in Table 39.

Table 39: Vehicle Impacts in Region (Excluding Corridor)

Vehicle Miles Congested Percent Vehicle Average Traveled Vehicle Miles Congested Hours Vehicle Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled Speed Traveled No‐Build 242,145 16,797 7% 7,749 31 BRT 243,262 16,864 7% 7,790 31 Change 1,117 67 41 (0) %Change 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 02/25/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Model Results

TRIP TIME FREQUENCIES

CMAP provided trip time frequencies for the entire Northeastern Illinois Region. Table 40 provides the average trip time for automobile work trips, automobile non‐work trips, transit work trips, and transit non‐work trips. Both the BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios had average automobile trip times 0.3 minutes longer than the No Build Scenario.

Page 130 of 189

Average non‐work automobile trip times increased by 0.2 minutes from the No Build Scenario to both the BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios.

Work transit trip time decreased by 0.3 minutes between the No Build Scenario and the BRT/Reduced Local Scenario. Similarly, work transit trip time decreased by 0.4 minutes between the No Build Scenario and the BRT/Removed Local Scenario. Non‐work transit trip times decrease by 0.8 minutes and 0.7 minutes from the No Build Scenario to the BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios, respectively.

Table 40: Regional Average Trip Times by Purpose and Mode

Trip Frequency Type No Build BRT/Reduced Local BRT/Removed Local (minutes) (minutes) (minutes)

Work/Auto 30.9 31.2 31.2

Non‐work/Auto 17.8 18.0 18.0

Work/Transit 41.2 40.9 40.8

Non‐work/Transit 27.1 26.3 26.4

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 03/16/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Shifts in Trip times and Comparative Volumes

Table 41 presents the number of automobile trips for work and non‐work, organized by time duration of trip. Trips in the 0‐10 minute, 10‐20 minute, and 20‐30 minute ranges all had reduction from the No Build Scenario to both the BRT/Reduce Local and BRT/Removed local scenarios. For all other time ranges up to 120 minutes, both the BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed local had an increase in the number of trips.

The greatest decrease in automobile trips occurred during the 10‐20 minute range for both scenarios. The BRT/Reduced Local Scenario had a decrease of 117,474 trips and the BRT/Removed Local Scenario had a decrease of 108,523 trips.

Table 41: Trip Time Frequency ‐ Northeastern Illinois Automobile Trips

Difference from Base

Time No Build BRT/Reduced BRT/Removed BRT/Reduced BRT/Removed (Minutes) Local Local Local Local

0­10 6,753,591 6,679,112 6,637,691 ‐74,479 ‐115,900

Page 131 of 189

10­20 10,097,095 9,979,621 9,988,572 ‐117,474 ‐108,523

20­30 6,205,860 6,136,440 6,154,080 ‐69,420 ‐51,780

30­40 2,957,751 3,052,227 3,068,136 94,476 110,385

40­50 1,320,439 1,390,091 1,380,903 69,652 60,464

50­60 561,495 563,499 578,306 2,004 16,811

60­70 322,343 330,444 332,341 8,101 9,998

70­80 183,866 189,588 187,956 5,722 4,090

80­90 99,978 111,430 109,812 11,452 9,834

90­100 57,520 66,757 65,076 9,237 7,556

100­110 29,051 30,739 29,261 1,688 210

110­120 12,343 12,466 12,425 123 82

Total 28,601,332 28,542,414 28,544,559 ‐58,918 ‐56,773

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 03/16/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Shifts in Trip times and Comparative Volumes

Table 42 shows the number of work and non‐work transit trips for the Northeastern Illinois region broken down by time categories. Both the BRT/Reduced Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios had increases in the number of trips in the ranges from 0 to 40 minutes compared to the No Build Scenario. The ranges comprising the 40‐ to 90‐minute time range had decreases in the number of transit trips, again, for both scenarios.

The BRT/Reduced Local Scenario had a decrease of 1,352 trips, a decrease of 316 trips, and an increase of 7 trips for the 90‐100 minute, 100‐110 minute, and 110‐120 minute time ranges, respectively. For the same time ranges, the BRT/Removed Local Scenario had an increase of 163 trips, an increase of 198 trips, and a decrease of 31 trips, respectively.

The highest increase in transit trips occurred in the 20‐ to 30‐minute range for both scenarios. The BRT/Reduced Local Scenario had a 37,755 trip increase and the BRT/Removed Local Scenario had a 35,769 trip increase.

Page 132 of 189

Table 42: Trip Time Frequency ‐ Northeastern Illinois Transit Daily Trips

Difference from Base

Time No Build BRT/Reduced BRT/Removed BRT/Reduced BRT/Removed (Minutes) Local Local Local Local

0­10 190,505 200,944 201,578 10,439 11,073

10­20 336,759 353,315 354,145 16,556 17,386

20­30 413,438 451,193 449,207 37,755 35,769

30­40 366,738 372,796 374,056 6,058 7,318

40­50 257,779 250,173 250,897 ‐7,606 ‐6,882

50­60 149,262 147,971 145,948 ‐1,291 ‐3,314

60­70 106,707 112,000 112,390 5,293 5,683

70­80 54,465 50,891 48,520 ‐3,574 ‐5,945

80­90 31,601 27,087 27,088 ‐4,514 ‐4,513

90­100 17,801 16,449 17,964 ‐1,352 163

100­110 1,076 760 1,274 ‐316 198

110­120 81 88 50 7 ‐31

Total 1,926,212 1,983,667 1,983,117 57,455 56,905

Note: totals do not match earlier trip table summaries because intra­ zone trips are not included

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 03/16/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Shifts in Trip times and Comparative Volumes

COMPARATIVE ROUTE PERFORMANCE

The comparative route performance results in Table 43 shows the number of daily boardings, daily passenger miles, boardings/mile, and daily passenger hours as indices for the 10 potential BRT routes under the BRT/Reduce Local and BRT/Removed Local scenarios.

Page 133 of 189

The Western BRT route performed best across all categories and scenarios except for Boardings/Mile under the BRT/Removed Local Scenario; it performed third best in that scenario.

Table 43: Comparative Route Performance

BRT/Reduced Local Scenario BRT/Removed Local Scenario

Potential BRT Route Daily Daily Boardings/ Daily Daily Daily Boardings/ Daily Boardings Passenger Mile Passenger Boardings Passenger Mile Passenger Miles Hours Miles Hours

Western 3.07 4.49 1.40 4.49 2.76 4.03 1.26 4.03

Ashland 1.89 1.87 1.10 1.87 2.37 2.54 1.38 2.54

95th 1.27 1.03 1.40 1.03 1.17 0.94 1.29 0.94

Cicero 1.26 1.02 1.31 1.01 1.21 0.95 1.26 0.95

Pulaski 1.03 0.60 1.29 0.60 1.06 0.61 1.32 0.61

Fullerton 0.46 0.30 0.65 0.30 0.43 0.28 0.61 0.28

King/Stony Island 0.37 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.35 0.28 0.31 0.28

Garfield 0.24 0.16 0.56 0.16 0.22 0.14 0.52 0.14

Irving Park 0.20 0.13 0.35 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.33 0.13

Halsted 0.20 0.09 0.36 0.09 0.21 0.10 0.39 0.10

Source: Claire Bozic (CMAP) 03/16/2011 Memorandum to Kermit Weis (CMAP) Regarding MPC BRT System Shifts in Trip times and Comparative Volumes

Page 134 of 189

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The ten routes emerging from PHASE III ‐ 95th, Ashland, Cicero, Fullerton/Grand, Garfield, Halsted, Irving Park, King/Stony Island, Pulaski/Crawford, and Western ‐ have a wide distribution across the city of Chicago and serve areas not currently served by fixed transit. These routes were selected through a three‐phase process that primarily examined where these routes 1) were practical, 2) best augmented existing land uses, and 3) would improve current transit conditions. In a fourth phase, these routes were modeled with the help of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. This section of the report provides a limited discussion of the steps in the study and provide recommendations for the next steps in BRT implementation.

PHASE I – PRELIMINARY SCREENING DISCUSSION

PHASE I, PRELIMINARY SCREENING, was a comparatively short, but important part of identifying the network on which the BRT routes would eventually emerge. When designing this section, there were questions on how large of an area to analyze and what level of streets (i.e. local, arterial, etc.) should be included in the study.

The existing CTA bus network was chosen primarily because it had a demonstrated demand for public transit, and its routes already ran on the major streets of the immediate Chicago area. Focusing the study area on major arterials instead of the CTA bus network would have made little difference to the end product of the report because the arterials were already included in the CTA bus network.

This study was largely limited to the immediate Chicago city proper because this area had a built environment suitable to an arterial BRT system. Transit works best in areas where people can be independent of the need for an automobile, and the densities of Chicago provide that built environment. This does not imply that BRT cannot work elsewhere. The 10 routes selected in this study are intended to be the first implementations of BRT in the Northeastern Illinois Region. Depending on how successful these routes are, research identifying other routes in the region may be warranted.

PHASE II – SEGMENT ANALYSIS DISCUSSION

The RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS in PHASE II identified where a BRT route could potentially be constructed given the selected ROW constraints. Streets removed in this part of the analysis could possibly accommodate BRT if other street components (i.e. bike lanes, parkways, etc.) were removed or reduced in width. The decision was made to recognize Complete Streets ideologies and require that streets include sufficient ROW not only for the BRT system but also for other users of the public space (e.g. bicyclist and pedestrians). Exceptions to ROW requirements were made for the Cicero and King/Stony BRT routes for network integration purposes. In these instances, the benefit of better transit connections was considered to outweigh the loss of other ROW uses.

The number of street segments that did not meet the constructability requirements was somewhat surprising. More street segments had to be removed than was anticipated, thus significantly reducing the pool of potential streets under consideration in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS. Given the extent of the

Page 135 of 189

potential routes removed, the RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS had the most significant weight in determining the final routes.

The results of the RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS did not imply that these are the best routes for improved transit in the city of Chicago; however, these were the only routes where BRT could be built given the ROW requirements outlined by this study. Opportunities for BRT and express bus service enhancements may exist on many other CTA bus routes. Those opportunities should be explored in a separate study – a study that can potentially benefit from the use of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS.

The 14 criteria of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS were selected because they were believed to be good metrics for describing the intent of the Livability Principles. The criteria were also dependent on data availability. Like most studies, acquiring data and converting it to a form that is useful was the most time‐ consuming part of this study. Future studies are encouraged to explore additional metrics or remove metrics as considered necessary. For example, this study included existing transit flows and existing average travel speeds as metrics of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS. A non‐transportation study would not need to include those metrics.

The portion of the study that lends itself to the most criticism was the weighting of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria. The weighting of the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS criteria was unavoidable because, simply put, some criteria were not as important as other in selecting BRT routes. For example, the success of a BRT route was considered to be affected more by existing transit travel time than by proximity of educational institutions to the BRT line. The preferred weighting scenario reflected this preference.

A large number of other weighting scenarios were used for this study. Despite the different weightings, most iterations produced the same top performing routes; this added confidence to the final selection of routes. This finding may be partially explained by the results of the RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS. Since so many potential routes were removed during that part of the study, the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS had less significance overall. It can be concluded that this outcome was appropriate given that this study was the first attempt to include livability considerations in a transportation study. Hopefully, further research will replicate and refine the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS method.

The importance of the RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS does not undermine the intent of this paper to substantively integrate the Livability Principles into the transportation planning process. The purpose of the study was to include the Livability Principles in selecting the final routes, not to use the Livability Principles as the only consideration in selecting the final routes. The Livability Principles and land use considerations are intended to improve the transportation planning process, not to replace traditional transportation planning measures.

PHASE III – ROUTE ANALYSIS DISCUSSION

Two potential routes that performed particularly well in the LIVABILITY ANALYSIS and passed PHASE II were North Avenue west of Western Avenue, and Peterson Avenue between Cicero and Ashland avenues. These routes were removed in the NETWORK INTEGRATION section because they did not connect to any existing transit. If any legs of the proposed BRT network that intersect these routes are built, North Avenue and Peterson Avenue should be reconsidered for BRT implementation.

Page 136 of 189

PHASE IV – TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS DISCUSSION

In the early designs of this study, PHASE IV, TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS, had been included as a step to prioritize the remaining BRT routes based on their ridership and travel time‐saving performance. Prioritization was decided against in the final phase of the study primarily because of the limitations in the demand‐modeling process. Prioritization of the routes was considered more appropriate for an alternatives analysis or cost/benefit study.

Despite the above statement, the potential Western BRT route performed better than its peers in the modeling results based on the comparative route performance discussed in PHASE IV. This is appropriate because the CTA has already invested in signal prioritization technologies along the existing Western 49 local route. As of the writing of this report, the CTA had also secured funding for further study along the Western Avenue corridor for potential BRT application. The results of this study support that work.

It is important to note the similarity of the results of the BRT/Reduced and BRT/Removed Scenarios in the PHASE IV section of the study. CMAP attributed the similarity in the demand model results to a lack of detail in the coded zone and roadway systems. Specifically, the model does not reflect every local level bus stop; therefore, the coding of the local bus stops and the BRT bus stops tended to be similar if not exactly the same in many cases. Further research is needed to determine the impact of reducing the local bus service compared with the impact of removing the local bus service entirely on vehicle lanes adjacent to BRT lanes.

Although the modeling results of the 10 potential BRT routes may appear to be relatively small on first impression, three key considerations should be given to the results. First, CMAP’s demand model was not designed for the purpose of assessing a BRT system. Although the model had been modified, it was still very limited. Second, the BRT model results reflected ridership as it would be in 2010. It did not consider the ability of the routes to build ridership over time. Finally, the model results did not describe ridership on the BRT routes themselves, but rather overall ridership within the BRT corridor. It is unknown how many existing transit riders would be able to shift their trips from existing transit to the BRT system. It is recommended that each BRT route be modeled separately to provide a basis for prioritizing their implementation. Different BRT network configurations may also indicate the need to remove additional routes from the 10 routes selected by this study.

The worst impact of the BRT system was a 16% increase in congested vehicle miles traveled within the BRT corridor. This was actually a surprisingly small increase considering that two lanes of travel (one in each direction) were removed from the streets hosting the BRT routes. Those impacts are also localized to the BRT corridors. The impacts on vehicle miles traveled and congested vehicles miles traveled in the Northeastern Illinois Region were minimal. Although both BRT routes were modeled to increase the duration of automobile trips across the region, the duration of transit trips decreased. A more detailed modeling exercise may be warranted to better understand the costs and benefits of implementing a BRT system.

Page 137 of 189

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated that the Livability Principles can be quantitatively and substantively integrated into the transportation planning process. The study was innovative in that it went beyond traditional transportation metrics to attempt to screen the existing CTA bus network for the best first implementation of a BRT network in the Northeastern Illinois Region. The study was done with limited financial resources, although the modeling was almost entirely the result of the generosity of CMAP.

The Chicago region is one of the world’s most important metropolitan areas. It has a strong legacy of transit innovation and is one of the few American cities that can boast such a robust transit network; however, there are holes in that network and opportunities for improvement. Many Chicago area communities suffer from long travel times and heavy automobile congestion. Given the need for better transit and the financial constraints of governments at all levels, BRT offers a potentially cost‐effective mode of transportation. It is hoped that decision makers at the CTA and elsewhere in the Northeastern Illinois region will further analyze and further refine the 10 BRT routes identified in this study.

Page 138 of 189

APPENDICES

Page 139 of 189

APPENDIX I: STUDY VARIABLES AND SOURCES Table 44: Study Variables and Sources

Data Data Type Metric(s) Source Date of Source

Chicago 2009 Bus Routes GIS Polyline All Chicago Transit Authority 2009

2000 Census Block Groups GIS Polygon Connectivity to U.S. Census 2000 Community Services

Employment/Job Access

Population

Population not within 0.5 miles of Rail

Transportation Costs

Residential and Mental Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 Retardation Facilities (62321) by Community Services Estimates Block Group

Residential Mental Health and Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 Substance Abuse Facilities Community Services Estimates (62322) by Block Group

Community Care Facilities for the Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 Elderly (62331) by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Page 140 of 189

Data Data Type Metric(s) Source Date of Source

Other Residential Care Facilities Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 (62399) by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Child and Youth Services (62411) Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Services for the Elderly and Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 Persons with Disabilities (62412) Community Services Estimates by Block Group

Other Individual and Family Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 Services (62419) by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Community Food Services Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 (62421) by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Community Housing Services Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 (62422) by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Emergency and Other Relief Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 Services (62423) by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Vocational Rehabilitation Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 Services (62431) by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Child Day Care Services (62441) Database Connectivity to Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2007 by Block Group Community Services Estimates

Page 141 of 189

Data Data Type Metric(s) Source Date of Source

High Schools GIS Point Connectivity to Illinois Board of Education Courtesy of Chicago 2010 Educational Metropolitan Agency for Planning Institutions

Higher Education Institutions GIS Point Connectivity to Illinois Board of Higher Education Courtesy of Chicago 2010 Educational Metropolitan Agency for Planning Institutions

Libraries GIS Point Connectivity to Illinois Board of Higher Education Courtesy of Chicago 2010 Educational Metropolitan Agency for Planning Institutions

Employment by Block Group Database Employment/Job Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2008 Access Estimates

Concert Venues GIS Point Connectivity to NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Entertainment Department of Transportation

Landmarks GIS Point Connectivity to NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Entertainment Department of Transportation

Movie Theaters GIS Point Connectivity to NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Entertainment Department of Transportation

Museums GIS Point Connectivity to NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Entertainment Department of Transportation

Page 142 of 189

Data Data Type Metric(s) Source Date of Source

Stadiums GIS Point Connectivity to NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Entertainment Department of Transportation

State Theaters GIS Point Connectivity to NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Entertainment Department of Transportation

Zoos GIS Point Connectivity to NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Entertainment Department of Transportation

Existing Bus Stops GIS Point Existing Transit Chicago Transit Authority 2009 Ridership

Existing Transit Travel Time

Existing Transit Ridership Flow by Database Existing Transit Chicago Transit Authority 2009 Bus Stop Ridership

Existing Transit Travel Speed by Database Existing Transit Travel Chicago Transit Authority 2009 Bus Stop Time

Supermarkets and Grocery Stores GIS Point Connectivity to Food NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 (NAICS 44511) Stores Department of Transportation

Specialty Food Stores (NAICS GIS Point Connectivity to Food NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 4452) Stores Department of Transportation

City of Chicago Owned Vacant Database Infill Development City of Chicago Department of Community 2010 Properties Potential Development

Page 143 of 189

Data Data Type Metric(s) Source Date of Source

Properties with Potential for Infill GIS Point Infill Development Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2008 Development Potential

Cook County Parcels GIS Polygon Infill Development Cook County Assessor 2007 Potential

Major Hospitals GIS Point Connectivity to Major NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Medical Care Department of Transportation

Cook County Forest Preserve GIS Polygon Connectivity to Major Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2005 Open Space

Community Level Parks (25 or GIS Polygon Connectivity to Major Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2005 more acres defined by National Open Space Recreation and Park Association)

Metra Stations GIS Point Network Integration Metra 2010

Population not within 0.5 miles of Rail

Chicago Transit Authority Rail GIS Point Network Integration Chicago Transit Authority 2010 Stations Population not within 0.5 miles of Rail

Page 144 of 189

Data Data Type Metric(s) Source Date of Source

Population by Block Group Database Population Easy Analytic Software Inc. 2008 Demographic 2008 Estimates Population not within 0.5 miles of Rail

Projected BRT Travel Times Database Projected BRT Travel Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Travel 2010 Savings Time Savings Demand Model

Projected BRT Ridership Database Projected BRT Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Travel 2010 Ridership Demand Model

Furniture and Home Furnishing GIS Point Connectivity to Retail NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Stores (NAICS 442) Department of Transportation

Electronics and Appliance Stores GIS Point Connectivity to Retail NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 (NAICS 443) Department of Transportation

Building Material and Garden GIS Point Connectivity to Retail NAVTEQ NAVSTREETS Courtesy of the Illinois 2007 Equipment Supply Dealers (NAICS Department of Transportation 444