DOCSLIB.ORG

Circle-Cdr- Vol-2-Of-3.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Circle-Cdr- Vol-2-Of-3.Pdf Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report Combined Design Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.10. Social, Economic and Environmental Effects ............................................................................................. 54 VOLUME 1 OF 3 5.11. Discussion of Benefits and Costs ............................................................................................................... 54 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 5.12. Project Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 55 1.1. Description and Location of Project .............................................................................................................. 1 6. COORDINATION ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 57 1.2. History of Project .......................................................................................................................................... 1 6.1. Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................................. 57 1.3. Design Criteria .............................................................................................................................................. 2 6.2. Stakeholder Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 57 2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................................. 3 6.3. Utility Coordination ..................................................................................................................................... 58 2.1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................ 59 2.2. Safety ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 7.1. Project Working Group ............................................................................................................................... 59 2.3. Mobility ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 7.2. Vibration Workshop .................................................................................................................................... 61 2.4. Facility Deficiencies ...................................................................................................................................... 8 7.3. Public Informational Meeting ...................................................................................................................... 61 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 11 7.4. Public Hearing #1 ....................................................................................................................................... 62 3.1. Description of Project Area ......................................................................................................................... 11 7.5. Public Hearing #2 ....................................................................................................................................... 63 3.2. Logical Termini ........................................................................................................................................... 11 7.6. Project Website .......................................................................................................................................... 64 3.3. Land Use .................................................................................................................................................... 11 8. COMMITMENTS AND SPECIAL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................... 65 3.4. Conditions on the Existing Highway Network ............................................................................................. 15 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 68 3.5. Existing Drainage ....................................................................................................................................... 18 9.1. Preferred Design Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 68 3.6. Existing Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 20 9.2. Attainment of Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................ 68 3.7. Existing Environmental Resources ............................................................................................................. 20 9.3. Design Exceptions ...................................................................................................................................... 68 4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED......................................................................................................................... 22 9.4. Project Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 69 4.1. No-Build Alternative .................................................................................................................................... 22 4.2. Transportation System Management (Congestion Management Process) Alternative .............................. 22 4.3. Build Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................ 23 LIST OF FIGURES 4.4. Alternative Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 1.1 Original Circle Interchange Construction ..................................................................................................... 2 5. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STUDIED IN DETAIL ............................... 38 Figure 2.1 Crashes by Hour of Day (2006-2008) .......................................................................................................... 5 5.1. General Description .................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 2.2 Crash Rates at Circle Interchange System Ramps ...................................................................................... 6 5.2. Attainment of Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 2.3 Typical Northbound Congestion in the PM Peak Approaching the Circle Interchange ................................ 7 5.3. Traffic Service to Region ............................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 2.4 Typical Southbound Congestion in the PM Peak Approaching the Circle .................................................... 8 5.4. Engineering Considerations and Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 47 Figure 3.1 Existing Circle Interchange ........................................................................................................................ 11 5.5. Proposed Structures ................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 3.2 Chicagoland Expressway System .............................................................................................................. 12 5.6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 3.3 National Hellenic Museum ......................................................................................................................... 13 5.7. CTA Blue Line Station Improvements ......................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3.4 Greek Monument ....................................................................................................................................... 13 5.8. Drainage Improvements ............................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 3.5 University of Illinois at Chicago East Campus ............................................................................................ 14 5.9. Utility Accommodation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UIC School of Architecture
    UIC School of Architecture Graduate Student Handbook 2016-2017 survival section policy & procedure School and Studio Culture 1 Student Survival Section 3 Academic Policies & Procedures 13 finance matters Finance Matters 23 SoA Facilities 29 SoA Floor Maps 30–35 facilities UIC Resources 43 UIC East Campus Map 48–49 UIC resources In the City 51 Architectural Resources 58–59 Curriculum Worksheets 61 in the city worksheets This student handbook is provided as a quick reference for students in the UIC School of Architecture. Students are reminded that university policies are also published in other locations (e.g., through the Graduate College and University Timetable). All information in this handbook is consistent with other university publications as of January 1, 2016; in the future, if conflicts arise, the information printed in these other UIC publications prevails. School and Studio Culture Revolving around an intensive design and studio culture, the School of Architecture is energized by an environment that enjoys animated polemics and debate characterized by extreme rigor, frequent irreverence, contagious curiosity, and calculated optimism. All spaces within the A+D Studios, designed by Walter Netsch in 1967, operate in support of the School’s mission to serve as a platform for discussion and debate. The School understands the design studio as the central site for curricular synthesis and one of the most valuable contributions to educational models in general, providing the best context from which students can learn from a diversity of colleagues. The School relies on its studio environment to instigate a culture of curiosity, rigor, enthusiasm, and ambition. It insists on a secure and respectful space that can sponsor risk-taking, good-humored competition, and intensive collaboration.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Clearances & Sign Offs
    PROJECT CLEARANCES & SIGN OFFS To: John Fortmann Attn: Pete Harmet From: John Baranzelli By: Brad Koldehoff Subject: Cultural Resource Clearance Date: March 18, 2013 Cook County Chicago I-90/94 at I-290 (Circle Interchange) Interchange Reconstruction Structure # 016-1165, 016-1087, 016-1088, 016-2081, 016-2082, 016-2113, 016-2055, 016-0588, 016-0589, 016-2054 Job # P-91-259-12 IDOT Seq. # 17268 & 17268A Attached is a letter supporting a finding for “No Adverse Effect” from the Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer indicating that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings” and that they concur in a finding of no adverse effect pursuant to 36 CFR 800. Based on the current plans, the SHPO has determined that the work will not negatively affect any of the three significant historical resources within/near the project area and that the ten bridges to be replaced as part of the project are not historic. Attachment BK:ee To: Brad H. Koldehoff From: Emilie M. Eggemeyer Subject: Bridge Replacement Project - No Historic Property Affected Date: March 15, 2013 Cook County Chicago I-90/94 at I-290 (Circle Interchange) Bridges over I-90/94 Structure # 016-1165, 016-1087, 016-1088, 016-2081, 016-2082, 016-2113, 016-2055, 016-0588, 016-0589, 016-2054 IDOT Sequence # 17268A The above referenced project involves the replacement of ten structures that cross I-90/94 near I- 290, which is part of the Circle Interchange improvement project: S.N. 016-1165 carries W.
    [Show full text]
  • UIC School of Architecture
    UIC School of Architecture Undergraduate Student Handbook 2014-2015 survival section policy & procedure finance matters facilities UIC resources in the city worksheets School and Studio Culture 1 Student Survival Section 3 Academic Policies & Procedures 13 Finance Matters 23 SoA Facilities 29 SoA Floor Maps 30–35 UIC Resources 43 UIC East Campus Map 48–49 In the City 51 Architectural Resources 58–59 Curriculum Worksheets 61 This student handbook is provided as a quick reference for students in the UIC School of Architecture. Students are reminded that university policies are also published in other locations (e.g., through the UIC Undergraduate Catalog and University Timetable). All information in this handbook is consistent with other university publications as of January 1, 2013; in the future, if conflicts arise, the information printed in these other UIC publications prevails. School and Studio Culture Revolving around an intensive design and studio culture, the School of Architecture is energized by an environment that enjoys animated polemics and debate characterized by extreme rigor, frequent irreverence, contagious curiosity, and calculated optimism. All spaces within the A+A Building, designed by Walter Netsch in 1967, operate in support of the School’s mission to serve as a platform for discussion and debate. The School understands the design studio as the central site for curricular synthesis and one of the most valuable contributions to educational models in general, providing the best context from which students can learn from a diversity of colleagues. The School relies on its studio environment to instigate a culture of curiosity, rigor, enthusiasm, and ambition.
    [Show full text]
  • Metra's 2002 Program and Budget Has Been Reformatted for The
    Metra’s 2002 Program and Budget has been reformatted for the Web 547 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60661-5717 Phone (312) 322-6900 Web http://www.metrarail.com CREATING CAPACITY FOR GROWTH FINAL 2002 PROGRAM AND BUDGET NOVEMBER 2001 Board of Directors Jeffrey R. Ladd, Chairman Appointing Authority: County Board Chairmen, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties Lowell E. Anderson, Treasurer Appointing Authority: Suburban Members, Cook County Board Larry A. Huggins, Director Appointing Authority: City of Chicago W. Warren Nugent, Secretary Appointing Authority: Suburban Members, Cook County Board Gerald L. Porter, Vice-Chairman Appointing Authority: County Board Chairman, DuPage County Joseph A. Tecson, Director Appointing Authority: Suburban Members, Cook County Board Donald A. Udstuen, Director Appointing Authority: County Board Chairmen, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties Philip A. Pagano, Executive Director TO FRIENDS OF COMMUTER RAIL: Chairman’s Welcome to Metra’s 2002 Program and Budget. It Message describes good news such as further ridership growth, steady progress on our three New Start projects, and ongoing capital improvements including orders for badly needed new cars and locomotives. Meanwhile, the costs of providing safe, reliable, convenient and comfortable commuter rail service have steadily increased. Thus, our proposed 2002 operating budget envisions our first fare increase in six years, 5%, which will likely take effect June 1. I think it’s important to note that this will be only the fourth fare increase in the 18 years of Metra’s management of the Northeast Illinois commuter rail system. And it will be only the third one for operations. A fare hike that took effect in 1989 was dedicated solely to capital projects, namely the physical improvements that preserve and improve our serv- ice — and in turn reduce operating costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Transportation Center 2002-2003 Annual Report Director
    Urban Transportation Center 2002-2003 Annual Report Director: Sue McNeil Associate Director: Piyushimita (Vonu) Thakuriah Introduction and Highlights This year was characterized by hard work and accomplishments consistent with the outstanding effort, originality, deep knowledge and willingness to address challenging problems on the part of the faculty, staff and students. The base of projects, and the faculty and staff working with the center have remained relatively stable. This means that we have been able to concentrate on our research and educational mission while building on the strong links to local, regional and state agencies and establishing national level project. We have also welcomed a new dean and encourage him to help us define our role in the college, as well as interact with other units. UTC faculty, staff and students have been active participants in the college strategic planning process. Over the course of the year the center faculty staff and students have significant accomplishments, including: 10 papers published or scheduled for publication in refereed journals 13 paper published in refereed conference proceedings 35 other presentations 16 masters students graduated 8 student awards 23 new proposals were submitted during 2002-2003, 15 contracts were awarded (two of which were proposal submitted during the preceding year). The successful proposals totaled almost $2.3 million. We have now made the beginning of fall semester picnic, the extensive new student orientation, the fall symposium, the alumni reception during the Transportation Research Board Annual meeting, and the UTC retreat a tradition by repeating these successful events. They provide us with an opportunity to expose students, faculty and staff to new ideas, get to know each other better, and build on our base of skills for analyzing and synthesizing transportation problems, and to work better as a team.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Issue
    THE WILSON QUARRTERL Own one of these leather-bound books for only $4.95...the price of a paperback! THE 100 GREATEST BOOKS EVER WRITTEN The finest edition you can find of Moby beautiful and important books. That's what Superior craftsmanship and materials go Dick is the great Easton Press leather- a great library is all about ... books so mag- into each Easton Press edition. Premium- bound edition. Now you can have this nificcnl lliat-they are your pride and joy ... quality leather. Acid-neutral paper. Gilded luxurious book (a wonderful value at its a slaleinent about you. And a library of page ends. Satin ribbon page markers. regular price of $38.00) for the price leather-bound books is the best of all. Moire fabric endsheets. Superb illustra- tions. Hubbed spines accented with pre- of a paperback-only $4.95-with no cious 22kt gold. obligation to buy any other book. You can keep Moby Dick for $4.95 forever! Each book bound in At just $4.95 you have nothing to lose! Own Moby Dick for $4.95. For the price of a Why is The Easton Press making this. genuine leather paperback, own this luxurious edition out- dare we say it, whale of a deal? Because we right. Then, whether you buy anything fur- think you'll be delighted and astonished with accents of ther is entirely up to you. Obviously, you get when you see Hie quality of your first Eas- 22kt gold. this book for a fraction of what it costs us to ton Press leather-bound edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Water Quality Within the Calumet Water System During 1989, MWRD, Report Number 99-8, March
    Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT NO. 99-8 BIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE CALUMET WATERWAY SYSTEM DURING 1989 S.G. Dennison W.G. Schmeelk 1. Polls P. O'Brien S.J. Sedita P. Tata C. Lue-Hing March 1999 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago BIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE CALUMET RIVER SYSTEM DURING 1989 By Samuel G. Dennison Biologist II William G. Schmeelk Microbiologist III (Retired) Irwin Polls Biologist III Parnell O'Brien Research Scientist II (Retired) Salvador J. Sedita Microbiologist IV Prakasam Tata Research and Technical Services Manager Cecil Lue-Hing Director of Research and Development search and Development Department March 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii DISCLAIMER viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix Calumet River Water Quality ix Bacteria ix Benthic Invertebrates ix Fish xi Periphyton xii Little Calumet River Water Quality xii Bacteria xii Benthic Invertebrates xiii Fish xiii Periphyton xiv Cal-Sag Channel Water Quality xiv Bacteria xiv Benthic Invertebrates xv Fish xv Periphyton xvi INTRODUCTION 1 Study Area 3 Biological Samples 6 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Bacteria 6 Benthic Invertebrates 7 Fish 8 Periphyton 8 METHODS AND MATERIALS 10 Bacteria 10 Benthic Invertebrates 11 Fish 11 Periphyton 11 RESULTS 14 Bacteria 14 Calumet River 14 Little Calumet River 16 Cal-Sag Channel 17 Benthic Invertebrates 18 Fish 18 Periphyton 18 Calumet River 18 Little Calumet River 20 Cal-Sag
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-0002.01 Issued for Bid Cta – 18Th Street Substation 2017-02-17 Dc Switchgear Rehabilitation Rev
    2017-0002.01 ISSUED FOR BID CTA – 18TH STREET SUBSTATION 2017-02-17 DC SWITCHGEAR REHABILITATION REV. 0 SECTION 00 01 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY 18TH STREET SUBSTATION DC SWITCHGEAR REHABILITATION 18TH SUBSTATION 1714 S. WABASH AVENEUE CHICAGO, IL 60616 PAGES VOLUME 1 of 1 - BIDDING, CONTRACT & GENERAL REQUIREMENTS BIDDING AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 00 01 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 10 LIST OF DRAWINGS DIVISION 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK 1-8 01 18 00 PROJECT UTILITY COORDINATION 1-2 01 21 16 OWNER’S CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE 1-3 01 29 10 APPLICATIONS AND CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT 1-6 01 31 00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION 1-5 01 31 19 PROJECT MEETINGS 1-4 01 31 23 PROJECT WEBSITE 1-3 01 32 50 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1-12 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES 1-9 01 35 00 SPECIAL PROCEDURES SPECIAL PROCEDURES ATTACHMENTS 01 35 23 OWNER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 1-28 01 42 10 REFERENCE STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS 1-6 01 43 00 QUALITY ASSURANCE 1-2 01 45 00 QUALITY CONTROL 1-6 01 45 23 TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICE 1-4 01 50 00 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS 1-10 01 55 00 TRAFFIC REGULATION 1-4 01 60 00 PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS 1-4 01 63 00 PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES 1-3 01 73 29 CUTTING AND PATCHING 1-5 01 63 00 PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES 1-3 01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA 1-7 01 77 00 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ASSET INFORMATION 1-2 Table of Contents 00 01 10-1 2017-0002.01 ISSUED FOR BID CTA – 18TH STREET SUBSTATION 2017-02-17 DC SWITCHGEAR REHABILITATION REV.
    [Show full text]
  • Multimodal Transportation Plan Existing Conditions Report
    1 Multimodal Transportation Plan Existing Conditions Report DRAFT - February 2014 The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is the region’s official comprehensive planning organization. Its GO TO 2040 planning campaign is helping the region’s seven counties and 284 communities to implement strategies that address transportation, housing, economic development, open space, the environment, and other quality-of-life issues. This project was supported through CMAP’s Local Technical Assistance (LTA) program, which is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and the Chicago Community Trust. The UIC Office of Sustainability and CMAP would like to thank these funders for their support for this project. See www.cmap.illinois.gov for more information. iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Regional Context 5 3. Previous Plans, Studies, and Reports 13 4. Community Outreach 23 5. Demographics 31 6. UIC’s Transportation Network 35 7. Commuting and Mobility Patterns 57 8. Land Use and Development 65 9. Looking Forward 75 iv UIC Multimodal Transportation Plan - Existing Conditions SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Section 1 Introduction One of the GO TO 2040 plan’s central goals is to create livable communities. Livability is primarily created at the local level, through planning and development decisions made by communities, developers, and individuals. Purpose of the Existing Conditions Report The existing conditions report is a critical first step in any planning process – laying the groundwork from which recommendations will ultimately be made. To properly address the transportation needs and challenges for the campus, it is important to understand what is happening on the ground and what the ideal goals for transportation are.
    [Show full text]
  • Combined Design Report SEPTEMBER 2013
    Combined Design Report SEPTEMBER 2013 VOLUME 1 OF 3 Circle Interchange (P-91-259-12) Combined Design Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Circle Interchange project is located within the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. The project study area is along Interstate 90/94 (I-90/94) from south of Roosevelt Road (on the south) to north of Lake Street (on the north), along Interstate 290 (I-290) from Loomis Street (on the west) to the Circle Interchange; and along Congress Parkway from the Circle Interchange to Canal Street/Old Post Office (on the east). The distance along each expressway is approximately 1.5 miles for I-90/94 and approximately 1.2 miles for Congress Parkway/I-290, for a total length of 2.7 miles along study area routes. Refer to Appendix A for a location map. The Circle Interchange is a system interchange which connects I-90/94 with I-290/Congress Parkway. It directly connects three expressways and a major arterial: the Kennedy Expressway (I-90/94 north of the interchange), the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94 south of the interchange), the Eisenhower Expressway (I-290 west of the interchange), and Congress Parkway (east of the interchange). Congress Parkway provides a direct link into the Chicago Central Business District (CBD). Other nearby expressways feed towards the Circle Interchange, including the Edens Expressway (I-94, eight miles north of the Circle Interchange), the Stevenson Expressway (I-55, one mile south), the Chicago Skyway (I-90, seven miles south), the Bishop Ford Freeway (I-94, 11 miles south), I-57 (11 miles south) and the Regan Memorial Tollway (I-88, merges with I-290 approximately 13 miles west).
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago in Seven Days Lake Michigan
    DAYS LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 9ff,731 D84ch I.H.S. ~j Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/chicagoinsevendaOOdrur CHICAGO IN SEVEN DAYS LAKE MICHIGAN CHICAGO RIVER THE GENERAL LAY OF CHICAGO To readily find one's way about Chicago, the first thing to do is to fix clearly in mind the divisions of the city and their relation to the Loop or central business district. CHICAGO IN SEVEN DAYS by JOHN DRURY AUTHOB OP "ARCLIGHT DUSKS' With Five Sectional Maps NEW YORK ROBERT M. McBRIDE & COMPANY 1928 COPYRIGHT, 1928, BY ROBERT M. McBRIDE & COMPANY Published, May, 1928 CHICAGO IN SEVEN DAYS PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO M. B. N. NOTE The reader's attention is called to the fact that the complexion of Chicago's face is constantly chang- ing. The city is growing by leaps and bounds. New buildings and institutions are rising every day out of what were once ancient, and oftentimes his- toric, structures. And so, the author has done his best to capture the Chicago of the present day, indi- cating wherever possible any proposed changes. The author also wishes to thank the editors of the Chicago Daily News for permission to embody in this book the main points of his series of descrip- tive articles, entitled "Byways of the City," which appeared in the Midweek Feature Section of that newspaper. Furthermore, notice is hereby given that the names of shops, restaurants, and other commercial establishments represent the author's personal pref- erence only.
    [Show full text]
  • The Project Will Provide a Transportation Facility That Will Provide Improved Safety, Capacity, and Facility Conditions
    The project will provide a transportation facility that will provide improved safety, capacity, and facility conditions. It meets the project’s purpose and need. SECTION IV: IMPACTS, DOCUMENTATION AND MITIGATION General The project area was inventoried for environmental resources. The Environmental Resources Map, Exhibit 5, identifies all sensitive cultural, natural, physical, and socio-economic resources, in the study area. Resources potentially impacted by the proposed action or that require discussion pursuant to applicable laws and regulations are addressed in this Section. The affected resources and the mitigation proposed are discussed by environmental discipline. Evaluation of the project area determined that the following environmental issues and resources are not involved: agricultural, natural resources, water resources and aquatic habitats, groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, special lands, and Section 4(f) lands and are therefore not discussed further in this report. Part I. Socio-economic 1. Community Characteristics and Cohesion Community Characteristics and Cohesion The project study team reviewed U.S. Bureau of the Census data from 2000 and 2011 estimates to determine community characteristics. In most cases, critical information and data from the 2011 estimates were used. However, in some cases, 2000 Census data was referenced to draw a comparison to the 2011 estimates. The data is divided into four geographic groups: the State of Illinois, Cook County, the City of Chicago and the project area. The project area is represented by the eight census tracts that are located in whole or in part of the project limits. Thus, the project area for census purposes is larger than the project limits described in the Purpose and Need.
    [Show full text]